´óÏó´«Ã½

Archives for June 2009

On the road in Mexico: Day 2

Post categories: ,Ìý,Ìý

Robin Lustig | 13:32 UK time, Tuesday, 30 June 2009

Comments

cancun.jpg

CANCUN - In the good times, they like to call Cancun's tourism hot-spots "paradise". With its palm-fringed beaches, stunning blue seas, and enough night-life to keep the most energetic of holidaymakers happy, why not?

But these are not good times. I arrived here to find the beaches half empty, and the stall-holders with their piles of unsold bead bracelets and Mexican hats staring mournfully at the occasional passer-by.

In the good times, two-thirds of the visitors who come here are from the US. It is a favourite destination for graduating high-school kids. But take a nasty economic recession, and add to it screaming headlines about an epidemic of swine flu, and suddenly the tourists aren't coming any more.

There are 28,000 hotel beds in Cancun. In April, 80 per cent of them were empty. It's better now, but still nowhere near what it used to be. And if you're trying to entice the tourists back, the last thing you want is the US government issuing warnings about the risk of violent crime.

But when I left the glitzy hotel area and headed into what is known as "Mexican Cancun", I found local people worried about the rise in drugs-related crime. Just two weeks ago, three bodies were found in an abandoned car, blindfolded, hands and feet bound. The car turned out to belong to a senior police official.

Paradise? Not exactly. But at least there's a major international conference in Cancun this week. It's the Global Flu Summit.


The Swedish PM on the "Turkish question"

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 22:30 UK time, Monday, 29 June 2009

Comments

Ritula Shah writes:

Sweden takes over the Presidency of the EU from the Czechs on Wednesday. We've been speaking to the Swedish PM Fredrik Reinfeldt about his government's priorities for the next six months. Sweden is known to be in favour of pushing ahead with Turkey's application to join the European club. But in our interview, the Swedish Prime minister made it clear that whatever the position of his country, the opposition of other key EU states (Germany and France being the obvious ones) to Turkey's membership, meant they believed there's little hope of making progress on this issue.

When President Obama visited Ankara in April, he gave clear US backing to Turkey's membership of the Union but the Turkish question is one of the most controversial and divisive for the EU. The champions of enlargement (Britain is one of them) argue that Turkey's strategic importance - as the bridge between east and west - make it vital to include the country in the Union. Its opponents point to Turkey's failure to keep up the pace of reform and say this poor predominantly muslim nation, isn't a good fit with Europe's broadly "Christian" character. The success of right wing parties, which oppose Turkish membership in this month's European elections suggest public enthusiasm may be limited too.

So, judging from our interview with the Prime minister, this is how Sweden has weighed up the issue too. But if the Swedes won't champion Turkey's accession during their time at the helm, the government in Ankara may be feeling rather pessimistic about its chances.

You can hear our interview by clicking below.













(broadcast on The World Tonight, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio 4, 29 June 2009)

On the road in Mexico: Day 1

Post categories: ,Ìý,Ìý

Robin Lustig | 11:35 UK time, Monday, 29 June 2009

Comments

jungapeo.jpg

I am in Mexico to report on how a country with a population of 110 million people is facing up to a three-fold challenge: economic recession, a surge in drugs-related violence, and swine flu.

According to a recent US government security analysis, Mexico ranks up there with Pakistan as being at risk of becoming a failed state. So today I've been talking to people in a small town in central Mexico about how the recession across the border in the US is hitting them hard.

Everyone in the town of Jungapeo has a son, brother or husband who's working, illegally, in the US. Or rather, who was working. Now, they are either not working, or working much less. Remittances from the US are down nearly 20 per cent ... and in a town like Jungapeo, that means less money to spend, more belts tightened.

But every young man I spoke to says he still wants to find a way across that border. "It might be bad there," one said, "but it's still much worse here."

Less work and more poverty means more power to the drugs cartels. So tomorrow, I'm heading for the Gulf resort of Cancun, where the combination of growing drugs-related violence and swine flu has scared thousands of tourists away.

Of sex, money and politics

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 10:23 UK time, Friday, 26 June 2009

Comments

Suppose you could choose: which would you prefer? Money scandals, or sex scandals?

You can have both, of course, and if you put money and sex together, you can create an exceedingly potent brew.

Which brings me to Silvio Berlusconi, the Prime Minister of Italy and shortly to be the host of a G8 summit. He is a man determined to make the most of his moment in the global media spotlight, but who finds himself currently embroiled in lurid tales of, yes, you guessed, sex and money.

There are snatched pictures of parties in his private villa, attended by half-dressed young women and an apparently totally undressed former Czech Prime Minister. There are allegations that someone paid young women to attend his parties. And, most damaging, there is a specific allegation that he spent a night with one of those women, who is now happy to tell all.

She apparently has video recordings made in his bedroom, which she has described in some detail. Mr Berlusconi himself denies any impropriety, says he has never had to pay for sex, and alleges that the young woman at the centre of the allegations has been paid to create trouble for him.

In Britain, we've been obsessed with MPs' duck houses, moat cleaners and house flipping. (Oh yes, and now, there are the curtailed family holidays, gifts of Krug champagne and celebration dinners claimed by top ´óÏó´«Ã½ executives.) In Italy, the talk is of a 72-year-old Prime Minister, whose wife is divorcing him, and who's at the centre of a steamy story that makes him sound like an Italian version of Hugh "Playboy" Hefner.

I lived in Italy for a time, and I like to think of it as my second home (not literally, I don't actually have a second home). I reported on Silvio Berlusconi's first election victory in 1994, and again on his most recent victory last year. I admire a great deal about the country, yet I confess I am puzzled both by him and by Italian voters' reaction to him.

He is hugely rich, controls a vast media empire, has seen off countless attempts to prosecute him for corruption, and is the most successful politician Italy has known in modern times. He is brash, unapologetic, and treats women as if he had never heard of the word "equality". So why is he apparently still so popular?

A friend who has lived in Italy for much longer than she cares to remember recently: "Most Italians wouldn't recognise an ethical principle if they tripped over it." Another commentator, Edmondo Berselli, talks of the country's "moral amnesia".

But suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Mr Berlusconi did have sex with a prostitute. Would that automatically make him unfit for office? Would it make a difference if he didn't pay? Or if she wasn't a prostitute?

Would his moral culpability be greater or less than that of a politician who avoided taxes or fraudulently inflated his expenses claims? Or of a head of state who had consensual extra-marital sex in his place of work? Or of a Prime Minister (British) who earlier in his career had a four-year extra-marital affair with another MP who went on to become a government minister?

The Italian equivalent of the chattering classes are horrified by Mr Berlusconi, but he still seems to do well enough at election times. Many Italian voters seem to take a similar attitude to the one I found when I asked American voters what they thought of President Clinton at the height of the Monica Lewinsky saga. "He's a man, ain't he?"

But Mr Berlusconi does need to keep an eye on what his political allies are saying. The Catholic church does not like this kind of thing being widely written about in public, and there are signs that some of his coalition allies are also beginning to feel queasy.

The Prime Minister has never hidden his love of money, or of attractive young women. What he is now discovering is that in politics, when you put them together, you risk an explosion.

I shall be in Mexico next week, to report from a country hit by a triple whammy of economic crisis, spiralling drug-war violence and swine flu. Listen out for my reports on Thursday and Friday.

Remembering three Palestinian victims

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 14:55 UK time, Thursday, 25 June 2009

Comments

You may remember that in February we broadcast a moving interview with a Palestinian doctor and peace campaigner from Gaza, Isseldine Abuelaish, who lost three daughters and a niece in an Israel tank attack on his home.

He has now launched a in his daughters' memory.

Michael Mates on the Iraq inquiry

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 09:58 UK time, Thursday, 25 June 2009

Comments

There are some interviews that it is worth listening to very carefully. This is one of them: former minister Michael Mates on why some of the material that he saw during the Butler inquiry into the use of Iraq intelligence material will "make people's eyes water" if and when it is disclosed during the forthcoming Chilcot inquiry.

Listen especially closely to what he says about the full legal advice given to Ministers (which he has seen) in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.














(broadcast on The World Tonight, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio 4, 24 June 2009)

Shadowing at sea

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 22:27 UK time, Monday, 22 June 2009

Comments

I suggested on this blog three weeks ago that you should keep an eye on the Proliferation Security Initiative.

is why. The John S McCain (it's a US warship, not the former Presidential candidate) is shadowing a North Korean cargo vessel believed to be carrying arms to Burma.

I thought you'd want to know.

Iran: when will the shark make his move?

Post categories: ,Ìý

Robin Lustig | 12:43 UK time, Friday, 19 June 2009

Comments

You've seen the vast crowds, you've heard the angry chants. But do you have any idea what Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is up to?

Iran's political crisis remains on a knife-edge, a week after a presidential election that plunged the country into its deepest turmoil since the revolution 30 years ago. And a great deal depends on how it all ends.

Which is why I would so dearly like to know what Mr Rafsanjani is up to. (You'd easily recognise him: he's the one major Iranian political leader who doesn't have a beard. And if you've ever looked at the picture at the top of this blog, you'll understand why I notice these things.)

Hashemi Rafsanjani is widely regarded as the second most powerful man in the country, after the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And to many analysts, the titanic struggle now under way on the streets of Tehran and many other major cities is not so much between supporters of the two rival presidential candidates, but a much more significant battle between Khamenei and Rafsanjani.

Here's what you need to know about him. He was President from 1989 to 1997, ran again in 2005, but was defeated by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ayatollah Khamenei made no secret of his preference for Rafsanjani's rival, so there's what you might call a history between them.

(UPDATE, 1345: According to the , in his Friday prayer sermon, Khamenei "criticized Ahmadinejad for accusing Rafsanjani of corruption, defending him as a pillar of the establishment. But he ultimately took Ahmadinejad's side in an ongoing dispute between the two men, who ran against each other in the 2005 presidential elections.

"Since 2005 there has been a difference of opinion between these two men on foreign affairs, social, cultural and economic issues," he said. "Ahmadinejad's opinions are closer to mine.")

Now, however, Rafsanjani holds two immensely powerful positions at the heart of Iranian politics: he's chairman of the Assembly of Experts, which has the power to appoint and dismiss the Supreme Leader, and he's chairman of the Expediency Council, which arbitrates between the parliament and the Council of Guardians, which approves all political candidates and is meant to ensure that the country's constitution is respected. (He's also very rich, with extensive business interests, which has led many critics to accuse him of corruption.)

He has a reputation as a consummate wheeler-dealer, and was a key influence behind the scenes during the campaign of the reformist presidential candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi. For years, whenever a political crisis has loomed, Iranians have asked: What is Rafsanjani up to now?

Well, whatever he's been up to over the past week, he's been keeping very quiet about it. As far as I know, there hasn't been a single public word from him since the election results were declared.

If the hope of the conservative elite was that the protests would die down after a few days, it looks as if they may have been wrong. I'm told that during yesterday's silent protests, it took the marchers two hours walking 15-abreast to pass by ... one estimate was that there were 750,000 people out on the streets of Tehran alone.

With every passing day, the pro-Mousavi protesters seem to be gaining in confidence. They know from the pictures they pass on to each other on the internet and on their mobile phones that they are far from alone. And they know from the uncertain response from the authorities that the power structure is confused.

Take a look at a map: on one side of Iran is Iraq, and on the other is Afghanistan. In both those countries, as well as in Lebanon, Syria and Israel, and further afield, governments are waiting anxiously to see what happens next in Tehran.

The irony is that the presidential challenger, Mr Mousavi, is no radical - far from it, in fact: he was until very recently a fully paid-up member of the ruling conservative elite. But now he has been cast into the role of opposition leader, a role he seems to have adopted, to the surprise of many, with some alacrity.

Nevertheless, I'm still waiting for the next move by the man they call "the shark", Hashemi Rafsanjani. If he decides openly to challenge Ayatollah Khamenei, then, to use a phrase quite unfitting for a Muslim nation, all bets are off. And many Iranian analysts fear that this crisis could become a lot more serious before it's over.

Twitter power - or people power?

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 23:18 UK time, Wednesday, 17 June 2009

Comments

You'll have seen the suggestions, I suspect, that the remarkable scenes in Tehran and other major Iranian cities are a manifestation of a new phenomenon known as "Twitter power".

(Twitter, m'lud, is a method of communicating short messages via mobile phone or online, popular, apparently, among the urban young in Iran.)

I try to remain open-minded about new forms of communication (why else, after all, would I be blogging or on Facebook?), but I hope I am allowed by ´óÏó´«Ã½ impartiality rules to be mildly sceptical.

Where was Twitter when millions of people took to the streets of Manila in 1986, to put pressure on Ferdinand Marcos to quit?

Where was Twitter in central and eastern Europe 20 years ago to nudge Communist rule into the history books? Or in Tiananmen Square? Or more recently, in Kiev, or Tbilisi?

Of course, it's true that it is much easier now to spread a message than it was before the days of mobile phones or the internet. And I think the video footage taken on ordinary Iranians' mobile phones has genuinely added to our understanding of what is happening there.

But I am yet to be convinced that Twitter has done the same. Richard Sambrook, the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s director of global news, has written a useful piece about the pros and cons -- and there's more useful background, plus links, on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News website .

Saeed Barzin of ´óÏó´«Ã½ Monitoring and Persian TV gave Ritula Shah his thoughts on tonight's programme. Click below to hear the interview.














Mideast baby steps

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 13:41 UK time, Monday, 15 June 2009

Comments

Half full, or half empty? Yes, Benjamin Netanyahu uttered the words "Palestinian state". But no, he didn't say anything about meeting the US demand to halt the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The best way to understand the speech made by the Israeli prime minister last night is to read the full text. (You'll find it .)

But if you don't have the time (or, perhaps, the inclination), here are what I regard as the two essential points:

First, the context: Netanyahu made clear at the outset that he regards dealing with the Palestinian issue as only the third most important challenge he faces. Top of the list comes Iran, and second comes the financial crisis.

Second, look at the exact words he used: "In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighbourly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbour's security and existence ...

"Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarised, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza ... We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarised. This is crucial to the existence of Israel -- we must provide for our security needs."

One commentator in the left-of-centre newspaper described this passage as "like a rotten tooth pulled from its socket without anaesthesia".

President Shimon Peres, who won a Nobel Peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat for his role in negotating the Oslo peace accords in 1993, called the speech "brave and real".

The veteran Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said: "The peace process has been moving at the speed of a tortoise. Tonight, Netanyahu has flipped it over on its back."

In Washington, the White House repeated that President Obama believes that a two-state solution "can and must ensure both Israel's security and the fulfilment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state, and he welcomes Prime Minister Netanyahu's endorsement of that goal."

Diplomacy rarely moves in great leaps. As we saw in northern Ireland, progress is usually made in a series of small, carefully calibrated steps. There can be long pauses, and steps backwards, but sometimes, over a period of years, a dispute can be ended.

Was Mr Netanyahu's speech one of those small steps that can lead to something much bigger? In Washington, I suspect they'll be pleased to see that pressure from the White House can have an effect. Until now, the Israeli prime minister has refused to accept the notion of a Palestinian state, even a demilitarised one.

As for the next step: well, you probably didn't notice, but yesterday, a rocket fired from the Gaza Strip landed on the beach near the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon. No one was hurt, but it was a reminder that both Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza still feel themselves to be under attack.

Iran: a disputed election

Post categories: ,Ìý

Robin Lustig | 15:52 UK time, Sunday, 14 June 2009

Comments

Last December, I made some predictions for 2009. Number 9 was: "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will win the presidential election in Iran, but only after seeing off a serious challenge and amid allegations of widespread vote-fixing."

And so, it seems, it came to pass. I'm not in Tehran, so I can't judge how seriously to take the allegations from his apparently defeated rival, Mir Hussein Mousavi, that he is the victim of electoral fraud. But I do remember when I was there for parliamentary elections nine years ago (when the reformists won 65 per cent of the vote) that certainly in Tehran - and certainly among the young - there was a passionate desire for change. Then, as now, the demand was simple: We want freedom.

It's far more difficult to judge sentiment outside the big cities, where people are poorer and much less likely to talk openly to foreign reporters. But if you want an idea of what Iran's many bloggers and Twitterers are saying, you'll find a selection, plus video clips, .

And the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s world affairs editor, John Simpson, who is in Iran, adds his thoughts .

Zimbabwe: the next step?

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 10:29 UK time, Friday, 12 June 2009

Comments

Do you think it might be time to start being nice to Zimbabwe again?

Yes, President Mugabe is still in power. And yes, as you'll know if you've heard any of Mike Thomson's reports on the programme this week, the place is still in an appalling mess.

But Morgan Tsvangirai, opposition leader turned Prime Minister, is currently on a six-nation tour trying to drum up some financial support for a government which, on paper at least, he now leads. He's meeting President Obama today; he'll be in London next week - and his message is simple enough: if you don't help out my government now, it'll collapse, and the alternative, in his words, "is too ghastly to contemplate".

But here's the problem: Western governments aren't yet convinced that Mr Tsvangirai is really the man in charge. President Mugabe retains control of security, his cronies are still where they were - and crucially, the much-criticised governor of the central bank, Gideon Gono, is still in place.

Western governments want to make sure that if they do start handing over cash again, it won't be siphoned off into sundry off-shore bank accounts. It might be possible to transfer money directly to, for example, the Health Ministry, which is controlled by Mr Tsvangirai's MDC - but the risk is that that would free up other cash to be misused elsewhere.

Not a big risk, according to Teddy Brett of the Institute of Development Studies at the LSE, whom we spoke to on Wednsday's programme - simply because nothing is currently being spent on health. (Click below to hear the interview.)














Another option would be for donor governments to channel more cash through the international relief agencies. But Mr Tsvangirai isn't keen on that because he wants to be able to show Zimbabwean voters that the MDC in government can make a difference.

The scale of suffering in Zimbabwe defies the imagination. It was once a model for sub-Saharan Africa; it is now a basket case. Millions of Zimbabweans have fled into neighbouring countries, mainly South Africa, to find work and food. No one denies that its people desperately need to be helped.

But the current position in Washington and the EU is that the unity government must do more to convince the outside world that it isn't just a fig-leaf to cover the continuing brutality of President Mugabe's ZANU-PF party. Mike Thomson's interview with a senior MDC minister who says she and her colleagues still get daily phone calls threatening assassination is a stark reminder of political reality.

Bolstering just one party in a fragile coalition government is tricky, but that's what donor nations seem to want to do. If Mr Tsvangirai can go back to Harare and tell his colleagues: "We'll get more help, but only if ZANU-PF backs off", then maybe there's a chance of progress.

But if he goes home with the message: "I failed; I've come back empty-handed", the MDC will look to its supporters as if it has failed in the one thing it promised them ... the chance of a better life.

A planet-friendly diet for cows?

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 14:36 UK time, Sunday, 7 June 2009

Comments


Thanks to the New York Times for about how a new diet for cattle could help reduce the impact of climate change.

Burp less, save the planet?

The Tiananmen Square tank man: full video

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 14:33 UK time, Sunday, 7 June 2009

Comments

If you haven't seen , I strongly recommend it. It shows the man who famously stood in front of the tanks during the army crack-down on the Tiananmen Square protests 20 years ago -- and who, it emerges, did a great deal more than stand in front of them.

That was the week ...

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 21:39 UK time, Friday, 5 June 2009

Comments

GDANSK -- There are some weeks when I'm not sure what to write about, because nothing very interesting seems to have happened.

This was not one of those weeks.

President Obama's speech in Cairo about relations between the US and the Muslim world? Fascinating and significant, certainly worth a newsletter.

Events in Westminster, the apparent public disintegration of the government? Not without interest.

The 20th anniversary of the beginning of the end of Communism in Europe, the reason I'm here in Poland? Definitely worth reflecting upon.

As, of course, is the 20th anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen Square, when Communist leaders in Beijing refused to do what their Polish counterparts were doing: accept that it was time to look for a new political model.

I'll leave the Obama speech for another day ... but it did seem to me, having read the text of it, that there was plenty there to encourage the hope that Washington is ready to try a new approach.

As for Westminster, events are now moving so fast that between the time I write these words in my Gdansk hotel room and you read them, who knows what'll have happened? (If you heard the programme last night, you'll appreciate how quickly we sometimes have to adapt to new developments.)

So here are just a couple of thoughts about Poland and China. Why did 4 June 1989 mark the end of Communism here in Poland but not in China? Well, for one thing, the Polish democracy movement had been fighting for nearly a decade by the time the end finally came ... remember, the Solidarity independent trade union movement had been established back in 1980, and had survived both the imposition of martial law and the imprisonment of its leaders.

In China, on the other hand, the protests in Tiananmen Square and elsewhere lasted barely seven weeks. True, there had been a fledgling pro-democracy movement, but with nothing like the depth of support that Solidarity had been able to build on in Poland.

And if you believe in the power of individuals to change history, reflect on the roles of two men: Pope John Paul II, the Polish pope, Karol Wojtyla, and the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachov. Here in Poland, the influence of both was enormous. (Even today, in a survey asking Poles who was the most influential man of recent times, the Pope came top.) The Pope came to Poland in 1979 and told Poles they need not be afraid and that they had the power to change their homeland.

Mikhail Gorbachov told them that it was up to them how they chose to be governed, in other words that there would be no Soviet tanks rolling through their streets, as there had been in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. And in China too, his pro-reform stance encouraged pro-democracy campaigners to believe that, as in the Soviet Union, it was possible for a Communist party to adapt.

In some ways, it already seems a long time ago. Walk through the streets of Warsaw or Gdansk, and it's hard to imagine that just two decades ago, this country was "behind the Iron Curtain" (what a strange sound those words have now!).

But I remember those days so clearly, going on air night after night, reporting the end of Communist rule first here in Poland, then in Hungary, and East Germany, and Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria and Romania. No more Iron Curtain, no more Berlin Wall.

I'll write about Gordon Brown another day.

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.