´óÏó´«Ã½

BERLIN - On the European election trail, my travels bring me to this city which I first visited 20 years ago.

I count myself very lucky that I was able to see first hand the looking glass world of the German Democratic Republic (GDR, or East Germany) before the Wall fell.

It was the only city in the world where you cleared passport and customs control at the exits of underground railway stations.

Today there are quite a few commemorative exhibits marking the - the protest movement increased in pitch during the course of 1989.

But watching some teenagers go around the open air display in Alexandersplatz it was striking how quickly memories fade.

They were from the Karl Bosch upper school in former East Berlin and their teachers told me the kids had absolutely no understanding of what life in the GDR had been like.

A recent poll across all of Germany revealed that more than half the population did not realise the GDR had been a one party state.

The photos in the exhibition show dissidents - greens, Christian groups, and human rights protestors. I am reminded of their bravery and wonder what they would make of this remarkable .

Germany, under the spectre of recession, is seeing a drift to the extremes. Both "browns" of the extreme right like the BVU and NPD and reformed socialists of the Linke (or left) PDS are expected to do well in the and September's national polls.

In some former areas of the GDR the extreme right and left parties combined are expected to get anything up to one third of the vote.

I met up with , a senior figure in the Linke PDS, and onetime leading GDR film maker.

Although prominent in East German society, he was not a party member back then. He explains, that, "we have learned from our history". Mr Bisky is talking about the failures of the East German communist state.

Although some old "" will clearly vote for his party because they are nostalgic, the Linke PDS is doing well in the polls (with an expected vote of around 10% nationally) because of widespread concern about the failure of free market economics.

Although Mr Bisky is sure that nobody wants to recreate the GDR, he does not appear quite so certain that Germany has learnt from its earlier history.

He voiced great concern about the growth in support for the "browns" of far right as Germany's unemployment climbs.

Most people here believe that the effects of recession are just starting to make themselves felt - that the "tsunami" of unemployment will come later this year or in 2010.

At that point many expect an even more polarised debate here, with a diminished centre, and new battle lines drawn on the far right and left.

UPDATE - 16 JUNE 2009

continentalman - thanks for those insights about the state of play in the former East. I agree with you that the current importance of the "browns" should not be over-played.

hdrafael - thanks for that information about SED membership. I had been told otherwise, but I'm glad you've put the record straight.

North Korea is once more trying to mug the international community - by using nuclear weapons as an "or else" in its attempts to get more cash.

The country has such poorly developed ties with other countries that it might be argued the best response is to ignore the latest atomic test and complete the isolation of 's regime.

The timing of a ballistic missile test in April and may be connected with the arrival of a new US president. Certainly the Pyongyang government has jettisoned nuclear understandings before - having apparently agreed to renounce nuclear weapons projects under former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush.

Could it be that with each new White House incumbent, the North Korean leadership wants to see if it can get a better deal? appears to be to get more financial or aid compensation for halting the nuclear programme.

One thing you can say for Kim's people is that they seem to be improving their technology. The latest blast, the country's second known test, was assessed by Russian defence officials to have been caused by a Hiroshima-sized atomic bomb of up to 20 kilotons, whereas the first went off with a force of only around 1kt.

Missile technology has come on too - with April's launch being described as a satellite launch vehicle - a significant technological hurdle (although Western experts believe the rocket failed).

These latest provocations have . China - the only country with any real leverage over North Korea voted for the resolution and criticised Kim's government outside the council too. Some commentators suggest that the council will be too divided to vote for additional sanctions against North Korea.

This case though is not like those other perennially difficult bits of Security Council business - such as Iran, Zimbabwe and Sudan - where Chinese or Russian backing for a regime not to America's liking paralyses collective action.

The North Korean economy is in such desperate straights - with millions on the brink of starvation - that nobody is enthusiastic for further sanctions. Even the kind of "smart sanctions" tried against leadership figures or banks would have little effect on North Korea - their leaders hardly travel, and their banks do no international business to speak of.

There's another respect in which the North Korean diplomatic equation is different. China was a central party in the Six Nation agreement to de-nuclearise North Korea that Kim is now flouting.

This makes it harder for anyone to driver a wedge between China, the US and other countries but also effectively puts China in the driving seat over what should be done next.

WASHINGTON - Much of the US media on Tuesday morning flagged up President Barack Obama's statement in talks with Israeli Prime Minister that he would as to whether Iran was negotiating in good faith about its .

Some have flagged this up as the kind of "deadline" that his Israeli visitor, Mr Netanyahu, would have liked.

However Monday's statement from the president seems designed more to address those in this country and others who have suggested that his policy of dialogue with Iran is interpreted in that country as a sign of irresolution, something that buys them additional time to work flat out on their military nuclear capability.

Mr Obama indeed bridled when one of the Israeli journalists marched into the Oval Office yesterday and accused him explicitly of weakness in this regard.

The best way to read the president's remarks on Iran is not so much that he is giving Iran a deadline of the "or else" variety.

He has refrained from statements of the "military option remains on the table" kind, speaking instead only vaguely of a "range of steps" open to the US if Iran does not respond favourably by the end of the year. Instead he is saying that his patience is limited.

When it came to timetables it became obvious in Monday's public remarks by president and prime minister that Mr Obama sees 2009 unfolding quite differently to his Israeli visitor.

Whereas Mr Netanyahu wants Iran dealt with before meaningful peace talks with the Palestinians, Mr Obama told him, in front of the cameras, that he wants things the other way around.

The president's Middle East plan for 2009 might therefore go something like this: early June, outreach to the Arab world during visit to Cairo; then await the result of the Iranian presidential elections to calibrate a new diplomatic overture to Tehran; convene a Middle East peace conference some time in late summer or autumn; finally, having gained agreement between Israel and various Sunni Arab regimes to pursue regional peace efforts, increase the pressure on Iran to place their nuclear programme under tight international supervision.

In Monday's meeting it became quite clear that Mr Obama has little patience for Mr Netanyahu's stalling tactics. The president's call for a halt to Jewish settlement activity in the was pointed, as was his reminder to his Israeli visitor that a Palestinian state must emerge from any peace process.

Since previous Israeli governments signed up to these principles (for example, at the ), Mr Netanyahu's attempts to step back on those pledges violates the long standing principle that Israeli governments will honour their predecessors' agreements.

So while Monday's meeting was not quite a train wreck, it certainly marked a public dressing down for the Israeli prime minister. It also showed us quite clearly that Mr Obama's patience will be limited - not just with Iran, but with countries that obstruct his geo-political vision for the Middle East, including Israel.

WASHINGTON - The road to Middle East peace always travels through the White House - even when, as in 1993, it was who made it all possible!

attempt to create a new peace process effectively with Israeli Prime Minister visit.

In the coming days the president will greet the Egyptian and Palestinian leaders and on 4 June make a speech in Cairo aimed at winning over the Arab world.

Nobody is quite sure about the timings but at some stage before, during, or after the Cairo visit, Mr Obama is expected to call for a Middle East peace conference.

Strong-arm tactics

It will mark a significant shift in diplomatic emphasis - putting the search for solutions onto the wider level, involving countries like Jordan, Syria and Egypt, instead of just leaving it to the Israelis and Palestinians as the last administration often did.

This "comprehensive" approach to regional peace is not a new idea, but you have to look back to the Madrid peace conference of 1991 to find the last time it was really given a try.

Back then George Bush Snr's administration strong-armed a right wing Israeli government to the table by withholding US loans. The , by the way, was not a great success, but it did set the scene for the between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Quite a few observers feel that history may repeat itself, not just in diplomats taking the search for peace to a regional level but also in producing a bust up between the US and Israel.

Mr Netanyahu came to power earlier this year on a wave of right wing, nationalistic, support following his country's fight with in Gaza. Many in his party and wider coalition have set their faces against any concessions to the Palestinians.

Urgent duty

Mr Obama on the other hand is a man proud of the fact he spent part of his childhood living in a Muslim-majority country (), and who believes he has an urgent political duty to reach out to the peoples of the Middle East.

has warned recently that time is short for the new president to convince the Arab public that he is ready to overturn former President George W Bush's pro-Israeli policies.

So will we see fireworks today at the White House? A newly empowered president telling a wily Israeli political maneouvrer that the rules of the game have been changed?

It probably won't happen today, but many think it is coming.

It is in Mr Obama's interest to signal soon and publicly the new realities of the US/Israeli relationship. How else will he convince the Arab world?

Equally it may be in Mr Netanyahu's interest to show his coalition partners that he is being pressured into attending a Middle East peace conference, where Israel can expect the condemnation of serried ranks of its neighbours.

Flak from the right

The Israelis have already been deploying delaying tactics prior to this meeting. They insist its main purpose is to discuss what the two countries should do about the Iranian nuclear issue.

They have also implied that Mr Netanyahu cannot go the whole way in conceding full Palestinian statehood.

Mr Obama will underline his commitment to finding a solution to the that would prevent the use of force.

But as to Mr Netanyahu's reluctance to embrace the two state solution, we can expect the US president to.

The acceptance of previous Israeli governments of this principle will make it hard for the prime minister to hold out for too long, and it appears that Mr Netanyahu, mindful of the flak it may earn him from the right, is trying to do no more than buy himself time.

General David McKiernan's fall from grace is a salutary reminder of what's at stake for the US in Afghanistan.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates dismissed him with some modern management speak about the need for, "new thinking and new approaches", but his departure after less than one year in the job has more of a feel of World War I or II about it, when generals were routinely "broken" or "came unstuck" in the febrile atmosphere of total war.

Gen McKiernan was widely respected for his intellect. Having interviewed him shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq (the ground element of which he masterminded) I can attest to his soft spoken, cerebral presence.

But it also became clear, when my questions about the wisdom or otherwise of disbanding the Iraqi army visibly nettled him, that he was a man uncomfortable with press scrutiny.

Last year, someone who had seen the general in action in Kabul told me, "he doesn't get on well with Afghans". His downbeat pronouncements about the progress of the military campaign had annoyed people in Washington too, where some regarded him as verging on the defeatist.

Gen McKiernan did not look or sound like a man of the "Yes We Can" school. His fall reminds us that in the modern age people who cannot get on with foreign leaders or get their media message across are simply unsuited to high command.

The US will now send General Stanley McChrystal to take over the command of its war in Afghanistan. Gen McChrystal manages to combine the unlikely attributes of a smooth media operator (having been a Pentagon spokesman), with the fearsome battlefield reputation of being a key player in the secret world of special operations, turning the tide in Iraq.

Those who worked with Gen McChrystal as commander of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), running America's elite counter-terrorist forces such as Delta Force, say he was like a soldier monk, taking just 10 days off a year and often accompanying his operators on "door kicking" raids in the worst parts of Iraq.

In 2005-6, when even many of the generals running the US war there seemed to be giving up hope, Gen McChrystal increased the pressure on al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Iranian-backed Special Groups.

Will Gen McChrystal apply his relentless, aggressive, approach to Afghanistan? We will be watching out for the signs of any change in strategy or message. The "Af-Pak battlespace" is of course quite different to Iraq.

Gen McChrystal will already be calibrating just how different.

US officials regard Wednesday's meeting between President Barack Obama and the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan as an important diplomatic landmark.

The emphasis on combating militancy is a key part of Mr Obama's foreign policy - some indeed would say it is the central issue of it. The Washington meeting though has brought to the surface all kinds of tensions about the Obama approach.

A defiant, bellicose upland people have already made their anger felt - I'm referring to the US Congress. During, Richard Holbrooke, the administration's "Af-Pak" envoy, came under fire from Congress men and women who believe America's aid to Pakistan looks too much like a blank cheque.

They want "conditionality", linking the flow of dollars to Pakistani co-operation on everything from fighting the Taleban, to reining in the ISI (the country's military intelligence organisation), securing nuclear weapons and gaining access to , the scientist accused of proliferating nuclear technology to several countries.

The US gives Pakistan around $2bn each year in military aid and is now increasing its civilian aid package to $1.5bn annually. Over the next five years US aid could total $17.5bn, and help from international financial institutions another $14bn.

During Mr Holbrooke's session he came under fire both from congressmen like , who expressed broad doubts about the wisdom of the new US strategy, to others like Robert Wexler, who are closer to White House thinking, but want guarantees about the spending of US funds.

Mr Holbrooke said the administration did not believe in conditionality but accepted that benchmarks are required to measure Pakistan's performance. Whether or not the US aid is linked to specific yardsticks, many Pakistani officials find the approach patronising.

Since those who believe in co-operating with the US are already characterised by the opposition as foreign hirelings, the conditionality policy might offer further political ammunition to the militants.

If Congress is reluctant to bankroll Pakistan unconditionally, their decision stems in part from the experience of the past five years. Despite billions invested, the Pakistani army remains inept at counter-insurgency operations, causing large civilian loss of life and suffering high casualties of its own.

As for other issues, even Mr Holbrooke described the refusal of the last Pakistani government to let US agents interview AQ Khan as "inexplicable".

From the Pakistani side, the government was nettled at being called "fragile" by Mr Obama. It feels also it must reflect public anger about US airstrikes in the tribal areas - although Pakistan actually facilitates these attacks in various ways - and it regards US pressure to confront the militants militarily as unwarranted.

At a US State Department session with on Wednesday, Pakistan's placed great emphasis on the democratic values shared by Pakistan, the US and Afghanistan.

And in truth democracy and sovereignty may provide Pakistan's best counterweight to those Americans who call for conditionality of aid.

Talking to the Taleban and attempting local truces are after all policies that the dominant political party in the tribal areas ran on during last year's elections. US pressure for military responses in these places, it can be argued by Mr Zardari, flies in the face of the people's will.

Watch Mark Urban's full report on the Obama administration's 'Af-Pak' strategy on Newsnight at 10.30pm on ´óÏó´«Ã½ Two.