±«Óãtv

Ritula Shah was in New York this week. She writes:

We normally look to history to see the ebb and flow of power. Wars, treaties, disputes and unions -- we allow some time to lapse and then analyse who gained and who lost.

In the last century, it was the postwar settlement that saw the creation of the United Nations and determined who should hold the reins of power and who should be relegated to the passenger seat. The make up of the UN Security Council, the structure of the IMF and eventually the emergence (as it was then) of the G7, reflected western economic and diplomatic power as the Second World War drew to a close.

This week, when President Obama addressed the UN General Assembly, he spoke passionately about the need for the world to move in a new direction - one of mutual interests and trust. And he stressed that solving the world's problems wasn't simply up to the US but a global endeavour.

I was at the UN to hear him speak, and on Wednesday evening's programme (click here to listen to it again) we discussed whether President Obama's multilateralism reflected US strength or an acknowledgement that the rise of nations like China, India and Brazil, meant power had to be more widely spread.

The most significant aspect of the discussion for me was the unanimous view of everyone on our panel of US commentators - regardless of their political convictions - that although some power may have tilted away from the West, America's role as world leader remained unchallenged.

Listening to today's news about the G20 made me think about all this again. The proposed reform of the IMF, giving China a bigger say in line with its growing economic clout, would probably mean a loss of permanent seats for France and Britain. There have been suggestions that a solution to that might be for Europe to agree to representation as a unit, so preserving its influence within the IMF.

There are obvious political difficulties about that which I'm sure will be much discussed but what that may indicate is that the rise of China is sapping power and influence from Europe rather than America.

Similarly, India's long standing demand for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, which we touched on in Wednesday's programme, might also mean Britain and France giving up one of their permanent seats - possibly in favour of a single European one, if it were to go ahead. Some might argue if Washington is really serious about more global cooperation then this is absolutely what should happen, but others might recall the Kissinger quote, "Who do I call if I want to call Europe?" Agreeing a line on foreign policy has never been one of the Union's stronger points.

But that may become a moot point if Europe is no longer the place to call - instead it's Beijing or New Delhi that Washington wants to get up on the other end of the line.

So why does any of this matter? The other news of today makes it all too plain -- the revelation of the existence of second nuclear enrichment plant in Iran. Whoever holds power, most analysts agree, the world needs to cooperate more than ever

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So which of this week's various summits would you like me to write about? You can choose from the climate change or Middle East summits on Tuesday; the UN General Assembly summit on Wednesday; the nuclear disarmament summit yesterday; or the G20 summit today ...

You know what? I'll deal with them all, simultaneously, just as if I were a world leader.

Because the thing about summits, so we're told, is that they concentrate leaders' minds; they establish deadlines - after all, which world leader worth his or her salt wants to stand up before the world's TV cameras and say: "Er, sorry, I don't think I've got much to offer on this ..."?

No. What they do - or rather what their officials and advisers do - is spend months ahead of the summit preparing positions, discreetly sounding out friends and allies, drawing up a strategy which they hope will work as well in PR terms as it does politically.

I've written before, I think, that I tend to regard these events as worth rather less than the participants would have us believe. But even I will accept that when you get all the world's most important leaders in the same place at the same time, talking about more or less the same things, that is bound to be both interesting and important.

So what did we get? Well, on climate change, President Hu Jintao of China seemed to create the most excitement - after all, it's his country that now pumps out more carbon gas into the atmosphere than anyone else, and it's his country's economy that is growing faster than anyone else's. So when he says China will reduce its carbon emissions as a proportion of economic output "by a notable margin", that's seen as a big step forward. But how "notable" is "notable"? For now, no one knows ...

On the Middle East, President Obama insisted that Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority turned up to meet him, a bit like errant schoolboys summoned to the head teacher's office. He wagged his finger at them, told them they need to do better, and sent them home again.

At the UN General Assembly, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran both did pretty much what was expected of them, apparently revelling in their reputation as Bad Boys of the International Leaders Club. Colonel Gaddafi attacked the UN Security Council as a "terror council" and spoke for more than one and a half hours, rather than the 15 minutes each leader was allotted. (Mind you, President Obama spoke for nearly 40 minutes, so Gaddafi wasn't the only one who ignored the clock.)

President Ahmadinejad said nothing about Iran's nuclear programme, attacked Jews as "a small minority [who] dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world", and accused foreign forces in Iraq and Afghanistan of spreading "war, bloodshed, aggression, terror and intimidation".

Which brings us to Thursday and nuclear disarmament. Well, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution drafted by the US which sets out a path towards what President Obama describes as "a world without nuclear weapons". Gordon Brown proposed doing without one of Britain's nuclear-armed submarines as a way of signalling his government's support, although I've seen some analysts suggest that his announcement may not contain a huge amount of substance.

And as for the G20, well, they're still at it in Pittsburgh as I write, but I somehow doubt that their final communique will have you dancing in the aisles. The consensus seems to be the worst of the economic crisis is over, we seem to have prevented a slide into the abyss, but we're going to need to remain vigilant. Oh, and we really don't think banks should be paying out million-dollar bonuses to some of their top people - but we won't say so too loudly because neither the Americans nor the Brits think it's right for governments to decide how much people should be paid.

So, all in all, a good week's work? Ask me in five years' time.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Last month, I chatted to a couple of people from the York Astronomical Society, as they gathered to admire the annual Perseids meteor shower. And they put together a rather nice video/photo version of it, which I thought you might enjoy. Click to watch it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Washington Post has a copy of NATO and US commander General Stanley McChrystal's assessment of the way forward in Afghanistan. You can read the unclassified version .

Extracts:

"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

"The insurgents control or contest a significant portion of the country, although it is difficult to assess precisely how much due to a lack of ISAF presence. . . .

"Eliminating insurgent access to narco-profits -- even if possible, and while disruptive -- would not destroy their ability to operate so long as other funding sources remained intact."

"A perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents."

"Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us -- physically and psychologically -- from the people we seek to protect. . . . The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves ... ISAF does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, power-brokers, and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

You may have noticed: Afghanistan is not yet a stable, functioning, multi-party democracy.

The recent elections were, shall we say, less than perfect. The military campaign against the Taliban is, how can we put it, still some way short of a declaration of total victory.

So here's a thought: if encouraging change through the ballot box doesn't work - and if waging war doesn't work - what about trying some heavy-duty bribery?

The American military and security analyst , of Slate.com, wrote a couple of days ago: "[Bribery] does tend to work, at least in the short run. In the spring and summer of 2003, during the early days of the Iraq occupation, this was how Gen. David Petraeus, then commander of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, pacified much of northern Iraq." (It was also also quite useful, incidentally, when General Petraeus was encouraging Iraqi Sunni militiamen to turn against al-Qaeda.)

And the foreign affairs commentator wrote in the Washington Post: "The central problem in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns, who make up 45 percent of the population and almost 100 percent of the Taliban, do not feel empowered. We need to start talking to them, whether they are nominally Taliban or not. Buying, renting or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan."

Does the idea offend you? Do you find it distasteful, even immoral, to use tax-payers' money to bribe local officials and politicians who, all too often, are already corrupt?

, who worked in Kabul from 2003 to 2009 first for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and then as a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group, thinks bribery is a terrible idea. She wrote for Foreign Policy online: "Rented allies are not reliable allies. Simply buying or bribing more commanders of whatever ilk will mean more instability in an environment where entrenched interests in a war economy are already playing the international community -- not the other way around. Money is leverage and the populations of both Afghanistan and the U.S. need to be involved in debating how it is spent, rather than grubby backhanders."

But suppose you agree that the current strategy isn't working. Here are your options: you could send in more troops to try to secure more land and create more space in which the Afghan government and security forces can operate. Or you could just pull out and leave them to it. Or you could try something new.

Option One may well be what the US and UK are about to try. I have no way of knowing whether it will make much difference. Option Two involves a real risk of the Taliban returning to power in Kabul, although that doesn't necessarily mean they'll immediately invite Osama bin Laden back. (It probably does mean, however, that they'll be able to create more mayhem in Pakistan.)

Which brings us to Option Three. Money talks, they say, and it was certainly helpful in Afghanistan back in late 2001, when the US-led anti-Taliban coalition was being assembled. So might it be helpful again now?

Could cash encourage rival politicians to put aside their differences? Could cash encourage militia leaders, insurgents and warlords to switch sides? Could cash encourage local police chiefs to arrest a few more drugs dealers and poppy growers?

I should make it clear: I'm not advocating the use of bribery. I'm simply asking the question: do you think it's worth trying? If you don't, what would you prefer?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

OK, so maybe you're wondering what to make of President Obama's announcement that he's abandoning (sorry, "putting on ice") the Bush administration's plans for anti-missile defence sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.

What you make of it will depend very largely, I suspect, on how you look at the art of diplomacy. Do you see it mainly as the projection of national strength, in order to keep your citizens safe, or rather as the defusing of tensions, and the building of alliances with like-minded states, in order to achieve the same end result?

So: do you worry that by shelving the Bush plans, President Obama will make the US look weak in the face of Russian anger? Or are you encouraged that he seems prepared to hold out an olive branch - both to Moscow and, indirectly perhaps, also to Tehran?

Mind you, the way the decision has been explained has little overtly to do with being nice to Moscow. Not even President Obama wants to portray himself as someone whose main priority is to make new friends.

What he has said is that his military and security advisers have come to the conclusion that there are better ways to protect the US and its allies from a potential Iranian or North Korean long-range missile threat (which, in any case, his experts say, is rather further into the future than the Bush team believed). And he has gone out of his way to try to reassure the Czechs and the Poles that he's not about to abandon them.

So let's look at some of the likely repercussions. Moscow says it's encouraged - but we'll have to wait to see if there's a reciprocal Russian gesture. Will President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin now move more rapidly towards a new nuclear arms reduction agreement?

Will they agree to tighter sanctions against Iran? Will they engage more positively in the carbon emission reduction negotiations in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit in December? Was there an implicit, if not an explicit, understanding between Washington and Moscow that a move by one will lead to a move by the other?

And what about the Iranians? Will they see the decision as a sign of weakness, or as an opportunity to engage more fruitfully with Washington, even on the issue of their nuclear enrichment programme?

As for the Poles and the Czechs, they're feeling a bit sore at the moment. The governments in Warsaw and Prague have expended valuable political capital in backing the original Bush administration plans, often against substantial public opposition. So they'll need a lot of stroking in the coming months.

And what you would make of it all if you were a Georgian, or a Ukrainian? Would you worry that Washington might look weak, and that Moscow might be tempted to throw its weight around even more than it has been doing? Or would you breathe a sigh of relief that at least one source of tension has been removed?

If the Obama decision was a calculated gamble, it'll take a few months at least before we can begin to assess whether the gamble has paid off. But it was certainly a significant gesture, if not an entirely unexpected one.

We do live in interesting times., don't we?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Suppose you were President of the United States of America. You walked into the Oval Office this morning, and here's what you found in your in-tray, marked "For the President's urgent decision":

1. Afghanistan: the election was a fiasco. President Karzai's credibility has vanished. General McChrystal wants more troops. Britain, France and Germany want an urgent international conference to decide what to do next. Yes or no?

2. Iran: their latest nuclear proposals add up to zilch, according to our guys. (The Russians take a different view, but they would, wouldn't they?) The says our intelligence agencies have concluded that Tehran has created enough nuclear fuel "to make a rapid, if risky, sprint for a nuclear weapon". The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seems to have been conducting some mysterious in Moscow, apparently connected somehow to Iran's nuclear programme. Mr President: you need to decide what to do.

3. Israel/Palestine: Everyone is waiting for you to unveil a dramatic new peace initiative. All we've got so far is the two sides agreeing to talk. Sir, it's not enough, and Mr Netanyahu is speeding up settlement building even as he hints he's ready for a "suspension" of new permits. We need something in time for the UN General Assembly in 10 days ... your thoughts, please.

4. Health care: your speech on Wednesday seems to have gone down well. But it wasn't enough, as you knew it wouldn't be. You still need to do more to get some of our own people on the Hill on side, and Senator (Republican, Maine) needs a touch more sweet-talking. We think you'll get something through, but we need to know how much further you're prepared to go to buy off the unconvinced. When will you abandon the "public option" idea of a government-funded health insurance scheme to run side by side with the private schemes?

I don't know about you, but if I were President, I think I'd find any one of these decisions daunting enough, let alone all of them together. But I guess no one runs for President thinking he's in for a quiet life.

So Barack Obama is where he is, and soon he'll be marking the first anniversary of his election as President. An increaasing number of American voters are asking what he's managed to achieve so far ... his economic stimulus package may have saved or created a million jobs, as the White House is claiming, but many more jobs have been lost.

Power and authority work in strange ways, so if the President gets it right on just one of the issues listed above, he'll then be more likely to make headway on the others. Success breeds success, just as failure breeds failure. Trouble is: where will the first success come from?

Mr Obama sometimes gave the impression during his campaign that just by electing him, American voters could make the world a better place. But a ballot paper is not a magic wand, and the world's problems didn't melt away as soon as Barack Obama won last November.

And remember the brutal US electoral calendar ... in November of next year, it'll be time for mid-term Congressional elections, which means there are already plenty of Democrats in Congress more anxious to do what they think will please their voters than to do what will please their President.

So, suppose you were President ... on issues 1 to 4 above, what would you do?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Are you still puzzled about why the UK and Scottish governments seemed
so keen to find a way to keep Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi happy?

Do you sometimes wonder what kind of life you'd have if you had no
access to oil or gas?

In which case, I recommend this piece by of the Financial Times.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I've posted some pictures from my Japan trip on The World Tonight's Flickr site .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

TOKYO-LONDON -- Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, I'm writing this 31,000 feet above ground level, somewhere over Siberia, on the plane back from Tokyo in that limbo time zone where it seems to be neither day nor night.

And I'm pondering the meaning of Japan's population statistics, which make chilling reading for the newly-elected government after last Sunday's earthquake election.

Imagine a country that knows it is shrinking. A country that knows it is ageing more rapidly than any other major industrialised nation on earth. Which has the highest proportion in the world of people over the age of 65, and the lowest ratio of under 15s. That country is Japan.

As I reported on Wednesday, on current trends, the population of Japan will have halved by the end of the century.

It is, literally, a country that is slowly dying.

According to one United Nations estimate, it'll need to import 17 million foreign workers over the next 40 years, just to keep its economy afloat and provide enough carers to look after the elderly. (By 2050, there will be more than a million Japanese over the age of 100.)

I'm no social psychologist, so I wouldn't dare to come up with an explanation for why Japanese couples aren't having enough babies. But one theory is that Japanese women are increasingly reluctant to marry, because they think Japanese men have shown themselves unable to adapt to the needs of a new, more flexible society - and have retreated into a fantasy world of comics, video games and animated pornography where they feel less threatened.

The Japanese internet search engine Goo Japan reckons 70 per cent of Japanese men are still unmarried when they reach their 30th birthday. (Mind you, marriage rates in Italy, Norway, France and Ireland are even lower.)

So I found myself thinking at one point of the film "Children of Men", about what would happen in a world where all women are infertile and the human race is dying out. Not that Japan is descending into anarchy - quite the opposite, in fact. It is still the most orderly place I know, where no one is impatient at traffic lights, and even the hungry and homeless wait in long neat lines for their food hand-outs.

On the one hand, it is the nation of Toyota, Hitachi, Panasonic and Mitsubishi, global leaders and still very much a force to be reckoned with. On the other, it is the nation of manga comics and young women who dress up as French maids to pander to the fantasies of lonely men.

In the current economic climate, the newly-elected government will have no shortage of competing priorities. But it's already committed to increasing the children's allowance to £170 per child per month, in the hope that a cash incentive will encourage more Japanese couples to have more babies.

After all, what could be more important for the country's future?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I've been doing a lot of dashing about during my time in Japan - but one real moment of peace came when I paid a visit to the in Niigata, on the coast of the Sea of Japan.

It's an extraordinary undertaking: more than 350 art works scattered over an area of more than 750 square kilometres of breath-taking countryside. And the moment of peace - typically Japanese, you might think - was when we stumbled across some hand-painted wind chimes, strung between trees along a footpath. The tinkling sound in the quiet of the woods was exceedingly good for the soul. (You'll be able to hear them for yourself, I hope, on Thursday's programme.)

There is a serious point to the Echigo-Tsumari exercise which goes beyond the art itself. Niigata is an area renowned for its agriculture and its skiing. But these days the farmers are dying out, and each winter there's less and less snow. So they have to find some other way to keep the local economy afloat.

This year's Triennial is the third since it started 10 years ago, and the organisers are hoping for half a million visitors by the time it closes later this month. Not only do the visitors bring cash to the region; the hope is that by encouraging urbanites to venture out into the countryside, they may be tempted to re-engage with rural life and keep the region going.

Niigata is littered with abandoned, empty buildings. In one echoing school, I found photographs pinned to a noticeboard in a corridor, showing year by year, an ever-diminishing number of pupils.

But in the school hall, a young artist called has installed a work made up of 170,000 pins, threaded together in an undulating mat that covers the floor, with a giant pin cobweb hovering above it. It took her - with the help of women from the village - three months to complete, and during that time, she lived among the villagers, in a deliberate attempt to build a connecting bridge between her urban life and their imperilled existence.

Did it work? Yuko thinks it did. She now has a greater understanding of the village women - and she thinks they began to understand what she was trying to do. It won't save the countryside, but perhaps it's a start.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?