Category: Rubrique

{{Thirty Saudi women have taken seats in Saudi Arabia’s Shura Council, for the first time in the conservative kingdom’s history, as they were sworn in before King Abdullah at his palace in the capital, Riyadh.}}

The women took their seats in the same room with their 130 male colleagues and were sworn in collectively, state television said on Tuesday.

“The development we are working at must be gradual,” King Abdullah said in a brief statement broadcast on state television.

He recommended that the council, an advisory body, show “realism” in its discussions and allow “reason to prevail in issues it has to deal” with.

On January 11, the king appointed the women, which include university graduates, human rights activists and two princesses, to the body, also known as the Saudi Consultative Council.

His decree marked a breakthrough in a kingdom that imposes stringent restrictions on women, with females banned from driving and denied the right to travel without the consent of a male guardian.

The monarch took the decisions following consultations with religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, which applies a strict version of Islamic law.

Abdullah has been carefully treading towards change, introducing municipal elections for the first time in 2005.

In 2011, he granted women the right to vote and run as candidates in the next local election, set for 2015, saying “we refuse to marginalise women’s role in Saudi society”.

Aljazeera

{{Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he is ready to have direct talks with United States if the West stops pressuring his country.}}

His Sunday statements to a rally marking the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution come after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has final say on all key decisions, effectively closed the door on direct talks with Washington as long as sanctions and other pressures remain.

“You pull away the gun from the face of the Iranian nation, I myself will enter the talks with you,” Ahmadinejad said. The declaration appears part of Ahmadinejad’s attempt to retain the appearance of political relevance going into his final months of office.

The West suspects Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons and has imposed sanctions. Iran denies the charge.

Agencies

{{Australia faces a possible fourth straight year of political instability after opposition leader Tony Abbott, on track to win power in a September election, threatened a second poll if a hostile upper house rejects his plan to scrap a tax on carbon.}}

One day after Prime Minister Julia Gillard surprised voters by announcing a September 14 election, Abbott on Thursday promised to scrap a carbon tax if he wins office, but added he would call a second election if a hostile Senate rejected his plans.

“If it takes a double dissolution to do it, I won’t hesitate to have one,” conservative leader Abbott told the National Press Club in Canberra, referring to the dissolution of both houses of parliament which would mean another election.

Even if Abbott wins a September election, the Greens and Labor will control a majority in the Senate until at least July 2014, and possibly until 2017.

A second election of both houses in 2014 could give him the Senate numbers to abolish the carbon tax, or to ensure a joint sitting of both houses to repeal it.

Australia has endured three years of political instability with Gillard’s minority Labor government relying on a handful of independents and Greens to command a one-seat majority and pass legislation.

“Most Australians perceive that it’s been a difficult few years and the prospect of dragging this (political instability) on beyond September this year would be unfortunate,” said Hans Kunnen, chief economist at St. George Bank.

“One would wish for more stability, but it’s not a deal killer. Business has to go on and you live with the environment that you have.”

With the next election eight months away, opinion polls show Abbott is on track for an easy victory, with Gillard’s Labor set to lose up to 18 seats. Abbott only needs to win two government-held seats to win power.

But Abbott has one big problem, a seemingly entrenched disapproval rating, which was at 58 percent in January. Gillard is also disliked by voters, with a disapproval rating of 49%, but Gillard leads Abbott as preferred prime minister.

Australia’s mandatory voting system will mean both will have to convince disillusioned voters of not only their policies, but that they are also the best person to lead the nation.

Reuters

{{Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard set national elections for September 14, stunning voters on Wednesday with eight months notice of the vote in a bold move designed to end political uncertainty surrounding her struggling minority government.}}

The election date means Gillard’s government will serve a full three-year term, although analysts said the early notice meant she had started an eight-month campaign and lost her ability catch opposition leader Tony Abbott by surprise with a snap early poll.

“She’s going for the strategy than an incumbent can wear out a fragile, or potentially fragile, opponent with a long campaign. The idea is for them to punch themselves out,” analyst Paul Williams from Griffith University told Reuters.

“In this case, Tony Abbott and the opposition are so well entrenched it will backfire.”

Opinion polls show Abbott’s opposition Liberal-National party is well ahead of the government and Gillard would be swept from office, losing up to 18 seats, if an election were held now.

The government could lose power if it loses just one seat.

The election will decide whether Australia keeps its controversial carbon tax, and a 30 percent tax on coal and iron ore mining profits, which Abbott has promised to scrap it if he wins power.

{Reuters}

{{Benjamin Netanyahu seems poised for re-election as Israel’s prime minister in Tuesday’s voting, the result of the failure of his opponents to unite behind a viable candidate against him — and the fact that most Israelis no longer seem to believe it’s possible to reach a peace settlement with the Palestinians.}}

The widely held assumption of a victory by Netanyahu comes despite his grim record: there is no peace process, there is growing diplomatic isolation and a slowing economy, and his main ally has been forced to step down as foreign minister because of corruption allegations.

Even so, Netanyahu has managed to convince many Israelis that he offers a respectable choice by projecting experience, toughness and great powers of communication in both native Hebrew and flawless American English.

He was also handed a gift by the opposition. Persistent squabbling among an array of parties in the moderate camp has made this the first election in decades without two clear opposing candidates for prime minister. Even Netanyahu’s opponents have suggested his victory is inevitable.

“His rivals are fragmented,” said Yossi Sarid, a dovish former Cabinet minister who now writes a column for the Haaretz newspaper. “He benefits by default,” he told The Associated Press in an interview.

The confusion and hopelessness that now characterize the issue of peace with the Palestinians has cost the moderates their historical campaign focus.

Many Israelis are disillusioned with the bitter experience of Israel’s unilateral pullout from the Gaza Strip in 2005 that led to years of violence.

Others believe Israel’s best possible offers have been made and rejected already, concluding that they cannot meet the Palestinians’ minimal demands.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said that in 2008 he offered the Palestinians roughly 95 percent of the West Bank, and additional territory from Israel in a “land swap.”

He also said he offered shared control of Jerusalem, including its holy sites.

The Palestinians have disputed some of Olmert’s account and suggested they could not close a deal with a leader who was by then a lame duck.

“There can’t be peace because we’ve tried everything already. All the options have been exhausted.

They apparently don’t want to make peace, said Eli Tzarfati, a 51-year-old resident of the northern town of Migdal Haemek. “It doesn’t matter what you give them — it won’t be enough.”

Tzarfati expressed what seems to be a common sentiment.

A poll conducted last week in Israel by the New Wave Polling Research Institute found that 52 percent of respondents support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel as part of a peace agreement.

Yet 62 percent said they do not believe the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is a partner for peace — and an identical number said it is not possible to reach a peace agreement.

The survey questioned 576 people and had a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points.

In the absence of peace talks, those who wanted to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands used to speak of a unilateral pullout from at least some of the territories.

But that idea has been mostly removed from the table because of the Gaza pullout, which led to the territory’s takeover by Hamas militants and years of rocket fire into Israel.

This situation leaves many Israelis at a loss over what to do next.

Since most of the Palestinians are now living in autonomous zones inside the West Bank and prevented from entering Israel, and violence has largely subsided, the most attractive option to Israelis seems to be ignoring the issue.

That is what the main opposition party chose to do in this campaign. Labor Party leader Shelly Yachimovich has mostly focused on a populist social message in hopes of attracting working-class citizens who might otherwise vote for the hard-liners. In the past, Labor has been the leader of Israel’s peace camp.

Another member of the moderate camp, former TV personality Yair Lapid, argues primarily for ending the costly government subsidies and draft exemptions granted to Israel’s ultra-Orthodox minority.

Only one party with national leadership ambitions, the new “Movement” formed by former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, has made Mideast peace the centerpiece of its campaign. Polls show the party gaining little traction.

Sarid dismissed current public opinion as a “weather vane” that can easily shift.

“Israel has gone to war seven, eight times. It never despaired of going to war,” he said. “If after seven attempts at war you don’t despair, and after the first attempt at peace you do, that seems strange, no?”

Whatever the results for individual parties, the operative question is whether all the right-wing parties together can secure at least 61 seats of the 120 in parliament, the minimum for a majority coalition.

Although all polls predict they will, several major polls last Friday showed the right with only 63 seats, versus 57 for the parties of the center-left.

Though the trend has been constant, the gap falls close to the margin of error of the polls, and they have been wrong in the past.

Should the right wing and religious parties fail to muster a majority, there will be a mad scramble on the center-left to try to form a coalition on their own.

Under such a shocking result, the prime minister could end up being Yachimovich, a former radio journalist who admitted once backing Israel’s Communist party.

Netanyahu has maintained a lead with a message that the country needs a tough-minded and experienced leader to face down dangers including the Iranian nuclear program, potentially loose chemical weapons in Syria and the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Egypt and other countries in the Arab Spring.

By comparison, the Palestinian issue seems less important to many Israelis.

Netanyahu’s Likud-Yisrael Beitenu alliance is dominated by lawmakers who say the conflict can be managed, but not resolved. The surging pro-settler Jewish Home party has gone even further. It advocates annexation of large chunks of the West Bank, the heartland of any future Palestinian state.

Critics warn that Israelis are ignoring the issue at their peril. First, there are increasing signs that the current lull in violence may be temporary — both because the Palestinian street is getting frustrated and because Abbas’ Palestinian Authority may cease the security cooperation which even Israeli officials have credited with the halt in violence.

Beyond that, there is a persistent chorus warning that the status quo is ultimately self-defeating for Israel because the default outcome is a single entity in the Holy Land — comprising Israel and all the areas it seized in the 1967 war.

Based on current birthrates, most experts believe that Arabs would soon be the majority.

Palestinian officials say that Abbas has repeatedly warned Israeli visitors in recent months that Israel could end up like an “apartheid-style” state with a Jewish minority ruling over a disenfranchised Arab majority.

At that point, the Arabs would turn their struggle away from independence and instead seek equality in a single state.

“Sooner or later the Israeli public should come to the realization that the longevity, security and legitimacy of their state are dependent on their treatment of the Palestinian people and their commitment to peace and justice, not to the subjugation of a whole nation,” Hanan Ashrawi, a senior official in the Palestine Liberation Organization, wrote in Haaretz.

Many Israelis on the left agree with Ashrawi but have concluded a loss on Tuesday is inevitable, and they have grown increasingly apocalyptic in their warnings about what lies ahead.

Calling the occupation of the West Bank “a cancer,” columnist and songwriter Yonatan Gefen argued that even a future civil war among Israelis is not out of the question.

“Either we put an end to our enslavement to the territories peacefully,” he also wrote in Haaretz,” or we will find ourselves … fighting each other in order to save the people from themselves.”

{{Coming off a convincing re-election victory and currently enjoying healthy job approval ratings (around 52 percent), US President Barack Obama has many reasons to feel confident as he prepares to kick off his second term.}}

{{But there is also cause for caution.}}

A tumultuous first four years, filled with bruising battles against the conservative opposition, brought the once wildly popular first African-American president (his approval ratings in early 2009 were at 70 percent) down from his pedestal, giving him a few grey hairs and more than a few enemies in Congress.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives appears determined to continue thwarting the majority of Obama’s legislative priorities.

And the president’s efforts to assemble his second-term cabinet have been hindered by controversy – over Susan Rice, his first pick for Secretary of State (the job ended up going to the safer candidate, John Kerry), Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel, and a shortage of racial and gender diversity among his appointments.

Nevertheless, White House insiders have indicated that the president will press ahead with a wide-ranging slate of reforms. Here’s a sneak peek at the major issues Obama will likely tackle – either by choice or out of necessity — over the next four years.

{{Budget, debt and spending}}

This is the perennial conflict that pits Democrats – who want to continue funding programmes, many of which help those hit hardest by the economic crisis – against conservatives, who want to rein in government spending.

Republicans in the House of Representatives originally said they would only raise the federal borrowing limit (known as the “debt ceiling”) if Democrats agreed to immediate spending cuts.

But in a favourable turn of events for Obama, they backed off that stance last week, agreeing to raise the debt ceiling for three months – with the stipulation that both Congressional chambers approve a budget in that time to pave the way for talks on long-term deficit reduction.

Obama is set to send Congress a budget blueprint in February, detailing tax and spending proposals for his second term. Faced with House Republicans determined to curb domestic programmes while boosting military spending, he may have a tough fight ahead of him.

{{Gun control}}

The Connecticut school massacre sent gun control directly to the top of Obama’s list of legislative priorities. Following the recommendations of a task force headed by Vice President Joe Biden, Obama has urged Congress to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

He has also pushed them to ban high-capacity (holding more than 10 bullets) magazines and toughen background checks and gun-trafficking laws. Aware that getting his way on guns may be mission impossible, Obama also issued 23 executive orders meant to strengthen and enrich existing laws.

Recent polls show Americans are in favour of tougher gun control laws, and the president plans to use shifting public opinion to pressure pro-gun Republicans – and potent gun lobby NRA — into compromising.

Immigration

The president’s initial attempt to get immigration reform through Congress failed, but after Latinos turned out in record numbers to keep Obama in the White House (71 percent voted for him), he is said to be more determined than ever to get it done.

After ordering a halt to the deportation of young undocumented immigrants brought to the US as minors, and allowing them to apply for working permits, Obama may urge Congress to pass the DREAM Act (tabled in 2010), which would offer those immigrants permanent residency.

In the meantime, the president plans to press Congress to approve a comprehensive overhaul of the system, including a path to citizenship – along with fines or tax penalties — for many of the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country.

Obama’s reform would increase the number of visas offered to highly skilled immigrants, create a program to attract low-wage immigrant workers, and introduce mandatory immigration status checks on new foreign employees.

Though Republicans have argued for passing more incremental immigration reform, they may be tempted to compromise in an effort to appeal to the fast-growing Latino electorate. If they don’t start attracting some of those voters, many analysts say their chances of winning back the White House in 2016 are slim.

“The president has been clear that tackling climate change and enhancing energy security will be among his top priorities in his second term,” a White House spokesman noted recently.

Under pressure from activists who say that Obama did not advance his environmental agenda sufficiently in his first term, the president will likely be pushed to be more aggressive this time.

But some of Obama’s top environmental policy advisors (including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson) are stepping down. And once again, the president will be faced with staunch conservative opposition.

Obama has said he will require companies carrying out “fracking” (the controversial drilling practice in which chemicals are injected underground to release oil and gas) on public land to release a list of chemicals used; Republican lawmakers argue that such regulations should be left to the states. Efforts to pass measures capping carbon dioxide emissions (“cap-and-trade” legislation) may also meet stiff Congressional resistance, as they did in 2010.

Foreign policy

Obama begins his second term with a tangle of foreign policy problems. He has announced plans to accelerate the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and the transferring of security operations to Afghans.

The administration’s stance on the French intervention in Mali – the US will offer logistical support, but no ground troops – suggests that Obama is wary of engaging in any further military conflicts.

Instead, he plans on continuing to try to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, strengthen ties with India, manage tense relations with Pakistan, and keep an eye on China’s rise.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Obama will face pressure to prioritise Syria, where civil war has shaken the region. Outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already indicated that the US would foster greater communication with the opposition to the Assad regime.

And it will be back to the drawing board when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which proved immune to Obama’s strategy at the start of his first term.

Complicating matters is the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom Obama has a strained relationship, is favoured to win Israeli parliamentary elections this month.