1 October 2010 Last updated at 10:01 GMT

Share this page

Facebook Twitter Share Email Print

Who are the Taliban?

The Taliban are active in both Afghanistan and Pakistan

Recent years have seen the re-emergence of the hardline Islamic Taliban movement as a fighting force in Afghanistan and a major threat to its government. They are also threatening to destabilise Pakistan, where they control areas in the north-west and are blamed for a wave of suicide bombings and other attacks. The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. A predominantly Pashtun movement, the Taliban came to prominence in Afghanistan in the autumn of 1994.
Continue reading the main story

Taliban Conflict

Make-or-break year ahead Can Afghan forces step up? Pakistan's very unhappy new year Q&A: Fighting the Taliban

It is commonly believed that they first appeared in religious seminaries - mostly paid for by money from Saudi Arabia - which preached a hard line form of Sunni Islam. The Taliban's promise - in Pashtun areas straddling Pakistan and Afghanistan - was to restore peace and security and enforce their own austere version of Sharia, or Islamic law, once in power. In both countries they introduced or supported Islamic punishments - such as public executions of convicted murderers and adulterers and amputations of those found guilty of theft. Men were required to grow beards and women had to wear the all-covering burka. The Taliban showed a similar disdain for television, music and cinema and disapproved of girls aged 10 and over from going to school.
Continue reading the main story THE TALIBAN

Emerged in Afghanistan in 1994 Mainly supported by ethnic Pashtuns Toppled after US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 Fugitive leader Mullah Omar wanted, whereabouts unknown

Pakistan has repeatedly denied that it is the architect of the Taliban enterprise. But there is little doubt that many Afghans who initially joined the movement were educated in madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan. Pakistan was also one of only three countries, along with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which recognised the Taliban when they were in power in Afghanistan from the mid-1990s until 2001. It was also the last country to break diplomatic ties with the Taliban. But Pakistan has since adopted a harder line against Taliban militants carrying out attacks on its soil. The attention of the world was drawn to the Taliban in Afghanistan following the attacks on the World Trade Centre in September 2001.

The Taliban in Afghanistan were accused of providing a sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda movement who were blamed for the attacks. Soon after 9/11 the Taliban were driven from power in Afghanistan by a US-led coalition, although their leader Mullah Mohammad Omar was not captured - and neither was Osama Bin Laden.

Foreign forces have poured into Afghanistan in an effort to crush the insurgency

In recent years the Taliban have re-emerged in Afghanistan and grown far stronger in Pakistan, where observers say there is loose co-ordination between different Taliban factions and militant groups. The main Pakistani faction is led by Hakimullah Mehsud, whose Tehrik Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is blamed for dozens of suicide bombings and other attacks. Observers warn against over-stating the existence of one unified insurgency against the Pakistani state, however. The Taliban in Afghanistan are still believed to be led by Mullah Omar, a village clergyman who lost his right eye fighting the occupying forces of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Afghans, weary of the mujahideen's excesses and infighting after the Soviets were driven out, generally welcomed the Taliban when they first appeared on the scene. Their early popularity was largely due to their success in stamping out corruption, curbing lawlessness and making the roads and the areas under their control safe for commerce to flourish.

US onslaught
From south-western Afghanistan, the Taliban quickly extended their influence.

The Afghan people are weary of conflict

They captured the province of Herat, bordering Iran, in September 1995. Exactly one year later, they captured the Afghan capital, Kabul, after overthrowing the regime of President Burhanuddin Rabbani and his defence minister, Ahmed Shah Masood. By 1998, they were in control of almost 90% of Afghanistan. They were accused of various human rights and cultural abuses. One notorious example was in 2001, when the Taliban went ahead with the destruction of the famous Bamiyan Buddha statues in central Afghanistan, despite international outrage. On October 7, 2001, a US-led military coalition invaded Afghanistan and by the first week of December the Taliban regime had collapsed. Mullah Omar and his comrades have evaded capture despite one of the largest manhunts in the world Mullah Omar and most of the other senior Taliban leaders, along with Bin Laden and some of his senior al-Qaeda associates, survived the American onslaught. Mullah Omar and most of his comrades have evaded capture despite one of the largest manhunts in the world and are believed to be guiding the resurgent Taliban. Since then they have re-grouped in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, but are now under pressure in both countries, from the Pakistani army and Nato respectively. Despite ever higher numbers of foreign troops, the Taliban have steadily extended their influence, rendering vast tracts of Afghanistan insecure, and violence in the country has returned to levels not seen since 2001. Their retreat earlier this decade enabled them to limit their human and material losses and return with a vengeance.

Pakistan: Calls for revenge after US drones kill 40

Pakistan may now find it easier to put off a full-blown assault in North Waziristan Continue reading the main story

Taliban Conflict

Make-or-break year ahead Can Afghan forces step up? Who are the Taliban? Pakistan's very unhappy new year

Tribal leaders in the Pakistani region of North Waziristan have vowed revenge against the US after drones killed more than 40 people near the Afghan border. "We are a people who wait 100 years to exact revenge. We never forgive our enemy," the elders said in a statement. Thursday's attack has caused fury - most of the dead were tribal elders and police attending an open-air meeting. Observers say anger over the botched drone raid may help Pakistan delay an assault on the Taliban in Waziristan. The Pakistani military has so far resisted US pressure for such an assault. It is already fighting militants in a number of other parts of the country's north-west.

Tribal leaders described the horror of the attack in Peshawar

The BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Islamabad says Thursday's casualties will also add to pressure from Islamabad on the US to scale back drone strikes which regularly target Waziristan. The area is an al-Qaeda and Taliban stronghold and a launch pad for frequent attacks on US-led forces in Afghanistan. But the strikes are hugely unpopular in Pakistan. The latest one comes at a time of rising tension after the CIA contractor Raymond Davis was acquitted of murdering two men in Lahore.

'Just a jirga'
Thursday's drone strike is thought to have killed more civilians than any other such attack since 2006. Officials say two drones were involved. One missile was fired at a car carrying suspected militants. Three more missiles were then fired at the moving vehicle, hitting it and the nearby tribal meeting, or jirga.

At least four militants in the vehicles were killed, local officials said. Most of the rest who died were elders, local traders and members of the tribal police.

"The world should try and find out how many of the 40-odd people killed in the drone attack were members of al-Qaeda," the elders said in their statement following the attack near North Waziristan's regional capital, Miranshah. "It was just a jirga being held under local customs in which the prominent elders of Datta Khel sub-division, and common people were participating to resolve a dispute. "But the Americans did not spare our elders even. One of the elders, Malik Faridullah Wazir Khan, said he reached the scene 30 minutes after the missiles hit - four of his relatives were killed. "The area was completely covered in blood," he told the BBC. "There were no bodies, only body parts - hands, legs and eyes scattered around. I could not recognise anyone. People carried away the body parts in shopping bags and clothing or with bits of wood, whatever they could find." He said 44 people died at the scene, including 13 children - one as young as seven. On Thursday, Pakistan's army chief condemned the raid by US unmanned drones in unusually strong terms, calling it "intolerable... and in complete violation of human rights". The Pakistani military often makes statements regretting the loss of life in such incidents, but rarely criticises the attacks themselves. Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, however, said such "acts of violence" make it harder to fight terrorism.

US missions closed

Drones have killed hundreds of people in Pakistan in recent years

Drone strikes have stoked anti-US feeling in Pakistan.

The US embassy in Islamabad and consulates in Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar were all closed on Friday for security reasons following Thursday's attack and the release of Mr Davis. The US does not routinely confirm that it has launched drone operations, but analysts say only American forces have the capacity to deploy such aircraft in the region. The Pakistani authorities deny secretly supporting drone attacks. Many militants, some of them senior, have been killed in the raids, but hundreds of civilians have also died. Pakistan has troops stationed in North Waziristan but has resisted US calls for a wider operation there. The region is a stronghold of militants fighting US-led forces in Afghanistan. Many analysts believe at some point Pakistan's military will have to move in - if not for America's sake, then for Pakistan's. Militants attacking targets inside Pakistan also find sanctuary in North Waziristan.

AT&T to buy T-Mobile USA making it top US wireless firm

The combined mobile phone company would knock Verizon Wireless off the top spot in the US Continue reading the main story Related Stories

Mobiles set for 3D and dual-core

Mobile firm charges cut by Ofcom

AT&T says it will buy rival T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom AG for $39bn (24bn) making it the largest mobile phone company in the US. The deal would give AT&T about 43% market share, putting it well ahead of industry leader Verizon Wireless. T-Mobile customers will get access to AT&T's phone lineup, including the iPhone. The deal would reduce competition in the US mobile phone industry and needs approval from regulators. AT&T is looking to increase its network capacity to handle the rapidly increasing consumer demand for videos and data.

Regulatory approval
However, analysts said that the deal may prove controversial. Consumer rights group Public Knowledge said that the deal would lead to "higher prices, fewer choices, less innovation". The phone companies countered that the US market was competitive and call prices had declined in recent years as a result. AT&T said regulators may ask it to sell some assets as a condition for approval. It said it expects the deal to be completed in 12 months. AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson told reporters the company had done its 'homework' on the regulatory side of things. "This is a unique opportunity. It's rare you have transactions where the synergies are greater than the price paid," Mr Stephenson said.

iPhone advantage
Mr Stephenson took over as chief executive in 2007. The same year AT&T began selling Apple iPhones, and wireless data has since become one of its fastest growing services driving revenues up. AT&T lost its exclusive rights to carry the iphone in US this year when Verizon Wireless began selling the data-device.

T-Mobile has reported falling earnings after missing out on the iPhone and failing to build a higher-speed wireless network. The T-Mobile deal would be a way for AT&T to boost earnings by combining operations. The company is estimating that it could generate savings of more than $40bn.

Why did so many people die in Haiti's quake?

By Lucy Rodgers BBC News

The devastating earthquakes that hit China on 12 May 2008, Italy on 6 April 2009 and Haiti one month ago all measured above 6.0 and took many lives. But why was the human cost so much greater for Haiti?

When Pete Garratt, Red Cross head of disaster relief, received an alert on 12 January indicating a large quake had hit Haiti near its capital Port-au-Prince, he instantly recognised the seriousness of the emergency.

"I knew that meant deaths and injuries," he says. The reason he predicted the effects of the quake would be so grave, Mr Garratt explains, is that there are a number of critical factors, learned through years of experience, that contribute to the scale of devastation following such big shifts of the Earth's crust. One is, perhaps obviously, the size of the quake , but also how near it is to the surface, the density of the population near its epicentre, as well as whether there are any heavily urbanised areas nearby. These all indicate a higher death toll - and were all features of the Haiti quake.

But poverty also plays its role, Mr Garratt explains, as it exacerbates a country's or region's vulnerability to such disasters. In places such as Haiti, where 72.1% of the population live on less than $2 a day, and in cities like Port-au-Prince, where many are housed in poor and densely-packed shantytowns and badly-constructed buildings, the devastation is always expected to be greater. "These countries have less money to put into buildings and there is less governance ensuring building codes are followed," Mr Garratt explains. "Corruption can also be an issue and so, even when there are government structures to ensure building codes are followed, there are bribes that enable people to take short cuts. "Put simply - there are the technical elements of the earthquake and then the social elements on top of that." Therefore, the fact that the Haiti quake hit close to a poorly-constructed, large urban area was crucial in reducing people's chances of survival.

"In Italy it was one town, and a few surrounding villages - not a large urban area. And in China, although it affected a large area and big towns, it was not a city," says Mr Garratt. "In Haiti, in a big city like Port-au-Prince, with so many structures coming down, this means more rubble will kill more people." The resulting scale of destruction - of infrastructure, of government and other official organisations - also made it much more difficult to respond once the earthquake hit and had an impact on the number of people rescued from the rubble.

Haiti, unlike China and Italy, simply did not have the resources to act quickly, and it took time to get outside help in. "The Chinese government was able to mobilise a very military response. Although some parts were hard to reach initially," says Mr Garratt. "The resources they had were very impressive. "The problem in Haiti was the airport was only half-functioning and you had one road route that took a day to traverse." The dense urban environment in Port-au-Prince also made it a difficult place for rescue teams to work once they were there, he says. "You could say that the resulting congestion in large cities meant there was less room for manoeuvre. "But there were an enormous number of search and rescue teams there and considering the difficulties getting there, they did a good job." However, the statistics on rescues may not necessarily reflect the true number of victims freed in and around Port-au-Prince, he warns.

"The majority of people are pulled out of the rubble by their neighbours." Lessons learned The Red Cross, which had teams dealing with the aftermath of the China, Italy and Haiti earthquakes, believes aid agencies learn lessons from every disaster, although each - like Haiti - poses fresh questions. "We are always getting better," says Mr Garratt. "But what is a challenge is that there is always something new." One of the problems in Port-au-Prince is the lack of space, he adds, as well as a constantly shifting and mobile population. The task now for such organisations is to help the people of Haiti get back on their feet, given the inevitable crippling economic cost of such a quake.

And as the Red Cross and others admit, their success in responding to the Haiti

emergency will be judged not just on the first weeks of emergency aid, but on whether communities are left more resilient and better equipped when the next disaster strikes.

US Mexico envoy Carlos Pascual quits amid Wikileaks row

Carlos Pascual's cables provoked a strong reaction in Mexico Continue reading the main story

MEXICO'S DRUGS WAR

Agent's murder: Impact on US-Mexico ties Analysing the murder figures Q&A: Drug violence Battling the cartels

US Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual has resigned amid a row over leaked diplomatic cables in which he doubted Mexico's ability to tackle drug gangs. The dispute flared last month when Mexican President Felipe Calderon accused Mr Pascual of "ignorance".

He said the US cables, released by Wikileaks in December, had harmed ties. The US is backing Mexico's war against drug-trafficking with more than $1bn (600m) in equipment and training. The two countries have also increasingly been sharing intelligence in a bid to tackle the drug gangs as violence continues to take a heavy toll in Mexico, with more than 34,000 killed since late 2006. It emerged earlier this month that the US has been sending unarmed surveillance drones over Mexico to gather information on the major drug traffickers. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Mr Pascual had decided to step down due to "his personal desire to ensure the strong relationship between our two countries and to avert issues raised by President Calderon that could distract from the important business of advancing our bilateral interests". She said she and President Barack Obama had accepted his resignation with "great reluctance". Mr Pascual's decision to leave comes less than a fortnight since Mr Calderon held talks with President Barack Obama in Washington.

'Ill-feeling'
The Mexican president had not hidden his anger at the remarks made by Mr Pascual in the diplomatic cables, and reportedly asked for the ambassador to be removed from his post. "I do not have to tell the US ambassador how many times I meet with my Security Cabinet. It is none of his business. I will not accept or tolerate any type of intervention," Mr Calderon said in February, in an interview with Mexico's El Universal newspaper. "But that man's ignorance translates into a distortion of what is happening in Mexico , and affects things and creates ill-feeling within our own team."

President Calderon launched his crackdown on the drug gangs after taking office in December 2006

Mr Calderon also told the Washington Post that bilateral relations had suffered "serious damage" because of the US diplomatic cables. The Mexican presidency said on Saturday that ties between the two countries remained solid despite Mr Pascual's resignation. In his cables, released by Wikileaks and published by The Guardian newspaper, Mr Pascual questioned whether President Calderon could win his war on drugs, saying the various security agencies were often at odds. The Mexican security forces, he said, were slow and risk-averse. Mr Pascual, a Cuban-American expert in failed states, is a career diplomat. He recently began dating the daughter of a senior member of Mexico's main opposition party, the Institutional Revolutionary party or PRI.

17 March 2011 Last updated at 08:10 GMT

Share this page

Facebook Twitter Share Email Print

Hugo Chavez calls off Venezuela's nuclear energy plans

Mr Chavez and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed the nuclear deal last October Continue reading the main story Related Stories

Venezuela 'has Russia deal right' Russia and Venezuela sign deals

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says he is freezing plans to develop a nuclear energy programme in the light of the crisis in Japan. Venezuela signed a deal with a Russian company last year to develop a nuclear power plant over the next decade. But Mr Chavez said events in Japan showed the dangers of developing nuclear power were too great. Chile has said it still aims to sign a nuclear accord with the US next week despite the crisis in Japan. Countries around the world have been reconsidering their nuclear policies in the face of the crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear complex triggered by last week's huge earthquake and tsunami. President Chavez said he was calling off Venezuela's plans to build a nuclear plant. "It is something extremely risky and dangerous for the whole world," he said. "Despite the great technology and advances that Japan has, look at what is happening with some of its nuclear reactors."

Mr Chavez added that global concerns about the safety of nuclear power would boost demand for Venezuela's oil exports.

Chile option
In Chile, President Sebastian Pinera said he would go ahead with a nuclear cooperation deal with the US that is due to be signed during President Obama's visit next week. Mr Pinera said Chile had to keep the option of nuclear power open to fuel its growing demand for energy despite anxieties over the nuclear disaster in Japan. "Chile needs to learn about nuclear energy, and that is why we have signed accords with France and Argentina and we will sign another with the US," he said after meeting the Japanese ambassador to express his condolences. Like Japan, Chile is on the Pacific "Ring of Fire" of seismic activity and is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis.

15 October 2010 Last updated at 13:52 GMT

Share this page

Facebook Twitter Share Email Print

Russia and Venezuela sign nuclear power and oil deals

Several deals were signed in the presence of Presidents Chavez and Medvedev

Russia is to build a nuclear power plant in Venezuela as part of a series of energy deals between the nations. Russia will build two 1,200 megawatt nuclear reactors at the Venezuelan plant, said the ITAR-Tass news agency. Meanwhile Rosneft, Russia's state oil giant, will buy a 50% stake in German refinery firm Ruhr Oel from Venezuelan state-owned company PDVSA. The agreement, worth $1.6bn (1bn), was signed at the Kremlin during Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's visit. However the cost of the nuclear deal was not immediately revealed. "It could be in 10 years, it could be earlier," said Sergei Kirienko, head of the Russian state nuclear power corporation Rosatom. "Right now we have no practical activity in building nuclear power stations. "However, under the agreement signed today, that possibility has now in principle appeared."

BP assets
Continue reading the main story Start Quote

This transaction is consistent with our strategy to expand our presence with high quality assets in key international markets
End Quote Eduard Khudainatov Rosneft president

In addition to the nuclear and Rosneft deals, a shareholder in energy firm TNK-BP said that the company, which is owned by BP and Russian billionaires, would buy three of BP's assets in Venezuela by the end of the year.

Russia's energy ministry and Venezuela's oil ministry signed an agreement in Moscow to support the deal. TNK-BP shareholder, billionaire German Khan told journalists: "We will buy 16.7% of Petromanagas, 40% of Petroperija and 26.6% of Bouqeron." He did not say how much TNK-BP would pay for the stakes.

European assets
While Rosneft will become an owner of a 50% stake in Germany's Ruhr Oel, BP owns the other 50%. Ruhr Oel holds stakes in four German petrochemical and refinery plants. Rosneft said in a statement that the plants' capacity is 23.2 million tonnes per year, or about 20% of Germany's refining capacity. The Russian firm's president, Eduard Khudainatov, said: "As a result of this acquisition, 18% of Rosneft's refining capacity will be located in the heart of industrialised Europe. "This transaction is consistent with our strategy to expand our presence with high quality assets in key international markets."

EURO NEWS EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH GADDAF`S SON

With the situation in Libya still tense and, above all, highly fluid, Colonel Gaddafis son Saif alIslam Gaddafi gave euronews his personal views on the causes of the conflict. He said forces loyal to his father would have ended the rebellion in 48 hours and also repeated his allegation that Frances President Sarkozy owed his election to Libyan funding. Riad Muasses, euronews: Saif al-Islam, before these events you presented yourself as the new reformist face of Libya. What has become of your reformist projects in the face of the protests against you? Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: As you have seen over the past two weeks, what we have seen in the streets is not protesters but armed militias who kill people and frighten them and hang them. You have seen them in Albayda executing police officers, hanging people from the bridges, and in Misrata they burned a man in the public square. These people dont believe in dialogue or human rights or democracy. They are criminals and luckily they take photos and videos of what they do and publish them - so today the Libyan people have revolted and are defending their land and their country. Every day the Libyan army liberates a town and the people come out into the streets, happy to celebrate these victories. The entire Libyan people are united against these militias and terrorists, even in the army there are many volunteers who have joined up to fight. We want to make political reforms when we re-establish peace and calm in our country. We were ready to make reforms and draw up a new constitution with more freedoms before but now is the time to fight these terrorists and liberate Libya. Riad Muasses: But are you convinced that Libya needs major reforms? Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: Yes, we agree with that, but now if you speak to the man in the street about what he wants hell say peace. Right now they arent interested in construction or infrastructure projects, because Libyans have been terrorised at the hands of these militias so all our people want is the return of peace and security. Thats the priority. Reforms will come once the situation is stable in one or two weeks. Or a month. Because that will be the time for the birth of a new Libya with new laws and a new constitution. Now were seeing the birth of a modernised Libya. Riad Muasses: How can we confirm the presence of al-Qaeda or other militia groups?

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: To be clear, al-Qaeda was only present in the towns of Zawiya, Darna and Albayda. But we also saw the emergence of armed groups of murderers and criminals who were organised into armed militias, and who even recruited young people. You have seen them on the television drinking alcohol and listening to loud music, and taking drugs. So there are the two: criminal militias and extremist Islamic organisations, and both are enemies of the Libyan people. Riad Muasses: So there is no-one demonstrating against you? There are only militias and Islamic extremists? Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: The biggest thing is what has happened in Benghazi. In the next few days we are going to show the truth and the films. Firstly, there are certain businessmen who asked Arab workers in Libya to go out into the public squares. Most of the people who demonstrated were Egyptians and unemployed Palestinians. Secondly, there may be people who are against Gaddafi in Benghazi. Perhaps there are several thousand against Gaddafi but there are one and a half million inhabitants in Benghazi. There are thousands of people in Libya who dont believe in God, and not only people who dont believe in Muammar Gaddafi. Our ex Minister of Foreign Affairs is one of these nonbelievers, and he doesnt hide his atheism. It wouldnt be logical to tell you that 100% of the Libyan people are with Muammar Gaddafi. Riad Muasses: So theres no contamination from the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt? Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: Its not a question of contamination, its a sort of trend. Its very similar to what happened during the youth revolution in Europe during the 1960s. Also, we mustnt forget that there are Arab TV stations who are conducting a media war against us, full of lies and rumours. These things are now clear to our people. For example, one of these TV stations said that the Libyan army was attacking the port of Mezda, but Mezda is a town in the middle of the desert. The TV stations of our Arab brothers have sunk to a very low, humiliating level and the Libyan people make fun of them. Today these enemy Arab TV stations say that Tripoli has fallen into the hands of what they call Free Libya and that there is fighting in the streets of Tripoli. Riad Muasses: Some information suggests that your armed forces are near to Benghazi and even that they are at the Egyptian border. What are you going to do with the people who protested against you?

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: Most of them have escaped, our fighters have asked us to let them go, to let the traitors who have collaborated with the United States and Great Britain and France leave. Those who have asked for the American fleet or the return of British troops, or the intervention of NATO, theyre all running away to Egypt. We have no intention of killing them or taking revenge on these traitors who have betrayed our people. We say to them that they can run into Egypt quite safely because Libya no longer belongs to them. A lot of them have already left for Egypt. Riad Muasses: A resolution to enforce a no fly zone over Libya could be passed by the UN. How would you react to such a resolution? Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: A resolution of what against who? Its too late. In 48 hours we will have finished our military operation. We are at the gates of Benghazi. Riad Muasses: To the Arab League the Libyan regime is illegitimate. Do you intend to stay in the League or not? Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: Its ridiculous, these regimes are not democratic and do not hold elections. Their presidents are not elected and do not abide by constitutions or laws. All these regimes are illegitimate. Our real problem is with Amr Moussa (the Secretary-General of the Arab League). This man receives money from Qatar, and is preparing for a presidential campaign run in Egypt, and our Qatari brothers have asked him to play this role. We know very well whats being prepared against us. Amr Moussa is not legitimate and neither are the Arab presidents, and furthermore, these Arab regimes which were established by dictatorship, or inheritance behave like they are the European Union or the United States. We know very well that this is just theatre at the Arab League. Our priority now isnt deciding whether or not to stay in the Arab League. There will be time to take that decision. The priority now is to liberate our country and to finish our fight against the armed militias. Riad Muasses: What is your position on France and President Sarkozy? France was the first country to recognise the Provisional Council. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi:

Firstly Sarkozy must repay Libya the money he took for his election campaign. We financed his election campaign and we have all the details and we are ready to publish them. The first thing we ask of this clown Sarkozy is that he repay this money to the Libyan people. We helped him become president so that he would help the Libyan people but he has disappointed us. And very soon we will publish all the details and the documents and banking pay slips. Riad Muasses: One last question: is there a plan for power in Libya to be passed from father to son? Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: I am not going to answer that question because I have taken a decision a long time ago. Ive already spoken about it and dont want to say any more.

Copyright 2011 euronews Tags: Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, Nicolas Sarkozy, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi

The scientific community is trying to learn the lessons from Fukushima. The disaster in Japan has highlighted areas where nuclear plants might be vulnerable, especially those that have been in operation for a while. Experts want to learn how to protect future generations from disasters like this one, that put entire populations in danger. Euronews spoke to Luis Echavarri, Director-General of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Beatriz Beiras, euronews: Mr Echavarri, the IAEA has confirmed that the cores of reactors 1, 2 and 3 of the Fukushima nuclear plant run a risk of meltdown. What does that mean exactly? Luis Echavarri: That means that the temperatures reached made the rods melt and could also make the fuel melt. That means that the fuel is becoming impaired and that it is producing more fission products and as full cooling could not take place, this process has progressed. euronews: But does that have an impact on radiation? Luis Echavarri: Yes, because the higher the temperature is and the more the fuel deteriorates, the more fission products are produced. And as a result, the radioactivity given off is greater. So the continuation of this process must be avoided. That is why cooling is needed. euronews: Can it cause an explosion? Luis Echavarri: No, no, not at all. That absolutely cant happen. You must take into account that, for example, unlike the Chernobyl accident, here the safety mechanisms were activated quickly because of the earthquake. So the only heat is the remaining heat and in this situation an explosion caused by an uncontrolled reaction cannot happen. euronews: If water does not succeed in cooling the reactors, do you think that Tepco has other means of stopping this time bomb? Luis Echavarri: I think that water and other products like, for example, boric acid, are important in reducing the possible damage to the fuel. But it is difficult to find a solution apart from using water. The latest

news we have had is that they are in the process of bringing in electricity from outside the plant and if that is confirmed, it would lead to the use of a lot more cooling systems in the plant and that could help enormously in getting the site back to normal. But, fundamentally, two elements are necessary: electricity and water. euronews: Should we be worried, for example, about the arrival of a radioactive cloud in other Asian countries or even in America or Europe? Luis Echavarri: No. I think the distances involved mean that radioactivity is going to be present, because the radioactivity will be felt across the planet, especially in the northern hemisphere but at very low levels. The radiation is diluting, and the further it spreads, the more it dilutes. What is important are the areas closest to the plant. And gradually the radioactivity is decreasing. So I think that outside Japan, there is no need to worry, even if it will be experienced elsewhere because tiny quantities of radioactivity are easy to detect. euronews: You are a nuclear engineer. Briefly, as a technician, what are the lessons to be learned from this accident? Luis Echavarri: Briefly, it is difficult. I would say that, first of all, we have to analyse whether all nuclear plants are adequately prepared from a conceptual point of view to deal with bigger earthquakes or tsunamis than we had imagined and which are possible in certain places. We also have to make an in-depth analysis of the consequences of the tsunami; why it damaged so many emergency installations, if they could have been salvaged in another way, if there are extra safety systems to avoid this sort of situation. And we also have to look again at the containment units, emergency cooling systems, hydrogen explosions, fires, radiological protection, intervening in contaminated zones. They are all lessons that we are going to have to learn to apply to all the nuclear plants in the world a process which has already begun. All regulatory bodies have already begun an analytical process to apply the lessons to their own plants. Copyright 2011 euronews Tags: Japan disaster, Nuclear accidents, Nuclear Energy

Squeezing Iran: Oil and sanctions

Since the Islamic revolution in 1979 Iran's relations with the West have been rocky. Sanctions were imposed by the US after the seizure of American hostages in the aftermath of the revolution, and the 1980 Iran-Iraq war. In recent years a fresh wave of UN sanctions has attempted to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. But what effect have these measures actually had on the country and its economy? Use the graphs below to see key economic indicators and major events over the last 30 years.
Continue reading the main story

Choose a graph

Oil production | GDP growth | Foreign direct investment

Oil production

GDP growth

Foreign direct investment

JANUARY 1981

Iran releases 63 American hostages taken during the 1979 revolution. Their seizure had led to economic sanctions which included the freezing of $12bn of Iranian assets. According to US officials, most were released as part of the deal for the hostages' return. But some assets - Iran says $10 billion, US says much less remain frozen.
JANUARY 1984

Further sanctions are imposed by the US following the bombing of an American marine base in Lebanon. The State Department adds Iran to a list of nations supporting terrorism and therefore subject to strict export controls.
MARCH 1995

President Clinton issues an executive order 12957 banning US investment in Iran's energy sector in response to the country's support to terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
AUGUST 1996

The US Congress approves the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, targeting firms doing business with Iran and Libya. Under the act, all foreign companies that provide investments over US $20m for the development of petroleum resources in Iran will face penalties.
JUNE 1997

Iran elects as president reformist Mohammad Khatami. His campaign pledges include greater freedom of expression, as well as measures to tackle unemployment and boost privatisation. Despite being re-elected in 2001, many of his reformist initiatives, social and political, founder on conservative resistance.
JUNE 2005

Iran elects as president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He wins a second term in controversial circumstances in June 2009, sparking nationwide protests.
DECEMBER 2006

The UN Security Council unanimously passes a resolution (1737) imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme. The resolution orders countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology contributing to nuclear and missile programs. It freezes Iranian assets related to those programmes.
MARCH 2007

The UN Security Council imposes a second round of sanctions (resolution 1747) targeting Iran's nuclear programme.
MARCH 2008

The UN Security Council approves a third round of sanctions against Iran. Resolution 1803 tightens travel bans and extends financial sanctions to 12 new companies and 13 executives. Melli Bank, Iran's largest financial institution with many foreign branches, feels the blow particularly hard.
MARCH 2009

The UN Security Council votes to impose further sanctions on Iran (resolution 1929). The sanctions include cargo inspections, new controls on Iranian banks "to block the use of the international financial system... to fund and facilitate nuclear proliferation" and restrictions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
JUNE 2010

The European Union and US impose further sanctions which go further than recent UN measures. The EU bans investments, technical assistance and technology transfers to Iran's oil and gas industries, while the US imposes penalties on foreign companies which trade with Iran. GDP: Iran's five-year economic development plans for 2000-2015 set a target of 8% growth for the country's gross domestic production (GDP), but except for few years in this period, Iran's economy has largely under-performed. It took a sharp fall in 2008 as a result of plummeting oil prices which followed global financial meltdown. Oil and gas exports constitute some 60% of Iran's revenues. Oil Production: While showing a slow but steady increase in the past 30 years, Iran's oil production started to decline since 2005 due to lack of investment in developing current and new oil and gas fields. Iran's complicated buy-back scheme and the country's political situation have put off international oil companies from working with a country that sits on world's fourth largest oil reserves. Foreign investment: Iran's official statistics for foreign direct investment have in the past few years been contradictory. Some official figures include memoranda of understanding which were never signed into contracts. But all statistics show a decline in foreign investment since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in 2005. Unlike his reformist predecessor Mohammad Khatami who encouraged foreign investment, Mr Ahmadinejad's defiant policies have discouraged foreigners from investing in Iran.
IRAN'S TRADING HISTORY

In part the graph below reflects developments that have also affected Iran's neighbours in the Middle East and the ups and downs of the oil market. But the mark of sanctions can be seen on Iran's economy, as well as a marked pattern of Iran being forced to look to Asia to make up for lost business from the US and Europe.

In 1978, the year before the revolution, IMF data shows 80% of Iran's exports went to developed countries, with 20% of the total going to the United States. Since then the US has all but disappeared off Iran's export map. For the developed countries as a whole there is also a marked decline, though they remain major markets, and still account for more than 40% of Iran's exports. So where are Iran's exports going? Developing countries in Asia are buying a bigger share. China in particular is now Iran's biggest market of all, having bought only 1% of total exports in 1995. For the Middle East as a whole, there are similar trends, but in relation to China they are not as striking as for Iran.

So these figures are consistent with the idea of Iran being forced to some extent to look to other markets to make up for those lost due to sanctions. But the emergence of Asia meant those new markets were not so hard to find.

G8 summit: Arab uprisings set to dominate agenda

Comments (14)

Security is tight in the French seaside resort of Deauville Continue reading the main story Related Stories

Profile: G8 Mardell: Big speech fails to soar Analysis: Behind the praise

World leaders are set to gather in the French resort of Deauville for a summit of the G8 bloc of wealthy nations. A shift in global influence to emerging powers such as India and China who are not in the G8 has led to the group's relevance being questioned. But analysts say recent events such as uprisings in the Arab world and Japan's nuclear crisis have given the group a new sense of purpose. Also on the agenda is how little or how much the internet should be regulated. The global economy and climate change are also to be discussed.

US President Barack Obama is travelling to the meeting after completing a state visit to the UK. He will later continue to Poland.

'Time for leadership'

Leaders from Tunisia and Egypt and the head of the Arab League will be at Deauville, on the Normandy coast, for talks on a massive aid plan to help their transition to democracy. The long-standing presidents of Tunisia and Egypt were overthrown earlier this year in popular uprisings.
Continue reading the main story Start Quote

Even as more nations take on the responsibilities of global leadership, our alliance will remain indispensable to the goal of a century that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more just
End Quote Barack Obama

'No let up' on Gaddafi - Obama Obama UK speech in full, with analysis

The current stalemate in Libya is also expected to be one of the main talking points of the two-day summit. The crisis there may throw up divisions within the G8, with Russia openly critical of the Nato operation against the forces of Col Muammar Gaddafi. A Nato-led coalition is operating under a UN mandate to protect civilians as government forces battle rebels. Speaking in London before heading to France, US President Barack Obama rejected arguments that the rise of superpowers like China and India meant the end for American and European influence in the world. "Perhaps, the argument goes, these nations represent the future, and the time for our leadership has passed. That argument is wrong. The time for our leadership is now," he said. "It was the United States, the United Kingdom, and our democratic allies that shaped a world in which new nations could emerge and individuals could thrive." With the winding down of operations in Iraq, progress in Afghanistan and having dealt "al-Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader Osama Bin Laden", President

Obama told his London hosts it was time to enter a "new chapter in our shared history" with new challenges. But he added that leadership had to "change with the times" and the days were gone when an American president and UK prime minister could "sit in a room and solve the world's problems over a glass of brandy". The G8 is composed of the US, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada. A group of internet bosses, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Google boss Eric Schmidt, is heading to the summit to urge governments not to over-regulate the internet.

Russian entrepreneur 'jailed for not selling'

By Daniel Sandford Moscow correspondent, BBC News

Refusing to sell his dairy firm ended in legal action and jail for its owner Continue reading the main story

Doing business in Russia is notoriously difficult.

A combination of excessive bureaucracy and corrupt officials makes it a hazardous enterprise. For example, producing milk is fairly straightforward in most parts of the world. But it landed Dmitry Malov in jail. Mr Malov owns a dairy business called Agromol in Kostroma, some 300km (190 miles) from Moscow. He started out by buying a milk-packaging facility. Then he bought two old Soviet dairy farms. He poured his life savings into them, and took out a bank loan to modernise them. He soon had a thriving business.

Persuasive visitors
By 2009 it was delivering high-quality milk, butter, and other dairy produce across the region, even as far as Moscow. The first sign that his investment was going to turn sour was when he had a visit from some men who turned out to be officers from the FSB, Russia's interior security service. They tried to persuade him to sell his business at a knock-down price to an unknown buyer. Mr Malov refused. The FSB officers threatened that if he did not sell he would end up in prison. Mr Malov's wife, Tatiana, believes the officers were paid, perhaps by someone involved in property development, as the company's small factory is on a prime city-centre plot. Mr Malov went on refusing to sell the company. Then, soon afterwards, he was charged with fraud. He was accused of not using his bank loan for the purpose given in the application.

Mr Malov's children think he is on a business trip

Mr Malov fought the charge, believing right up until the day of the verdict that he would be cleared. But he was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison, just as the FSB officers had threatened.

'Fighting wrong people'

"I knew that there was a criminal investigation and that he was having to attend court," says Mrs Malov. "But I never believed it would get to this stage. They called me from the court. They handed him the phone and he said, 'I am being sent to prison'." Business Solidarity, an organisation that works to protect small businessmen, estimates that one in six Russian entrepreneurs is in jail, and that one in three prisoners in Russia is a businessman. Two of Dmitry Malov's employees were also given prison sentences, but theirs were suspended. His finance director, Diana Grishina, is one of them. She is trying to keep the business going in his absence. Ms Grishina is recovering from brain surgery for a problem that she believes was made worse by the stress.

"If law enforcement didn't keep getting in the way of small business, things would be much better," she says.

Bribery alternative
"They should be fighting terrorism, not us. We are in the business of creating things, not destroying them. And we are not harming anyone." Of course, not all businessmen end up in jail, but there is a reason for that, according to Alexander Brechalov, of the Organisation of Small and Medium Businesses. He is not happy about it, but he is realistic. "Most entrepreneurs - between 60% and 80% - are quite relaxed about the situation," he says. "They share their profits with the police and people from the tax authorities. They don't complain about the difficulties of doing business. They just pay bribes to everybody." Agromol is still trading and still employs 300 people, but the future of the company is in jeopardy without its owner and driving force. Mr Malov is being kept in the local jail in Kostroma pending the outcome of his appeal. Only a few hundred metres away at their small flat, Mrs Malov has not told their two children where their father is. They think that he is on a business trip.

How Libya's Saif al-Islam Gaddafi seduced the West

By Hugh Miles BBC Radio 4 The Report

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi's credibility as the 'acceptable' face of the Libyan regime has been damaged Continue reading the main story

Libya Crisis

'Forced to gang-rape' Misrata siege lifted No 'Plan B' Tripoli witness: Conscription

The director of the London School of Economics Sir Howard Davies has submitted his resignation after admitting an "error of judgment" in establishing links with the regime of Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi. Sir Howard visited Libya to advise the regime about financial reforms and accepted a 300,000 donation from the Libyan leader's second son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi for research at the LSE. His departure underlines just how politically toxic links with the Gaddafi regime have become ever since it began its brutal suppression of the Libyan uprising. Saif al-Islam's former friends and business associates in the west have become embarrassed to admit ever knowing him now his reputation as a liberal reformer has been scuttled. Yet just a few weeks ago Saif was socialising with the creme de la creme of British society. So how did so many respectable people get it so wrong? In part this is because Saif makes such a good impression in the media. Tall and handsome, he speaks fluent English and presented himself as the acceptable face of the Gaddafi regime. With few exceptions, he sided with the reformers in Libya and seemed prepared to go head-to-head with his father in an attempt to develop the fledgling Libyan private sector and open up the atrophied media.

'Like the Godfather'

But Saif's warm reception in influential business, academic and political circles in the West was also attributable to the eagerness in some quarters to gain access to Libya's oil wealth. "If Libya was a country without an oil producing capacity, I don't think Saif would have convinced the West," said Dr Omar Ashur, a lecturer in the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter.
Continue reading the main story The Libyan Investment Authority

A Libyan sovereign wealth fund, with one office overseas, in London's Mayfair Said to be worth 50-60bn ($80-100bn) Known as "the mother of all funds" in Arabic A partner in BP's $900m 2007 Libyan oil exploration contract Owns shares in Juventus football club, Italian oil gian Eni, and Pearson, the parent company of Penguin and the Financial Times Has had dealings with numerous Western financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and the Carlyle Group

"Because of the interests [the West had in Libya] the moral dimension was pushed aside for a while or frozen for a while. But after what happened in Libya in the last few days I don't think this can continue anymore." Like the rest of Gaddafi's children, Saif lived a life of privilege and ease, although like his father he claimed to have no official position and denied having access large funds. But now new evidence has emerged that despite his denials, Saif in fact controlled the multi-billion-pound Libyan sovereign wealth fund, the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA). "I've seen the Godfather. This is the closest thing in real life," commented a Libyan investment banker familiar with how the LIA was run. "It is as if it is his own private farm. This was almost like a mafia operation."

'Mother of all funds'

The ostensible purpose of the Libyan Investment Authority - known in Arabic as "the mother of all funds" - was to manage Libya's excess oil wealth for the benefit of future generations.

Advertisement Libyan TV, 20 February: Saif al-Islam accuses people outside Libya of provoking violence

Its assets were valued at around 50bn to 60bn ($80-100bn) and included shares in Juventus football club, Italian oil giant Eni, and Pearson, the owner of the Financial Times. Saif appointed an old college friend named Mustafa Zarti to manage the LIA on his behalf. "Zarti wasn't made deputy chairman of the LIA because of his talent in investment. It was out of his loyalty and proximity to Saif. Saif put him there to ensure he implements whatever investment policy was required of him," said the banker. The way the LIA worked was that Saif would cut opaque business deals with his super-wealthy friends at private parties, sometimes using middle men, and then Zarti would be instructed to push them through. "It was very much top down. Saif would give the deals to Mustafa. Mustafa would give them to his team. "Obviously he never would be held accountable because he never signed anything and to best of my knowledge Mustafa didn't sign anything," the banker said.

Bad deals
Continue reading the main story Start Quote

To prolong the life of the regime there was a very successful strategy to provide another face and that face was of Saif al-Islam
End Quote Omar Ashur University of Exeter

Many of the deals Saif and Mustafa tried to push through made little financial sense and were met with strong objections by the staff at the LIA. Some of these bad deals fell through, including ones with Bernie Madoff and Saif's close friend Nat Rothschild, but other bad deals were done and ended up costing the LIA millions. "The LIA was being pushed by Saif and Mustafa to invest in Rusal, a Russian aluminium company which had a lot of issues," said the banker. "The deal was fought tooth and nail by the investment committee, by the board, but in the end it was done. You could say no some of the time to Saif's deals but you can't say no all of the time." Financial corruption by the Gaddafi family and others linked to the regime has been one of the key drivers of the current Libyan uprising. The LIA's funds have now been frozen under UN sanctions and on Tuesday the Austrian foreign ministry asked Austria's Central Bank to look into freezing Mustafa Zarti's Austrian assets.
Continue reading the main story Saif al-Islam Gaddafi

Aged 38, second of nine Gaddafi children Launched the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation in 1997 MBA from Vienna University in 2000, PhD from the LSE in 2008 Counts Prince Andrew, Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and Nat Rothschild as friends The Gaddafi family tree

His future, like the future of Saif himself, remains uncertain. "The right place for many of the leading figures in this regime is the International Criminal Court. To prolong the life of the regime there was a very successful strategy to provide another face and that face was of Saif al-Islam, the LSE graduate, a reformist leading development," said Omar Ashur. "They were people who were trying to disguise themselves as doves, but in the end they were brutally repressive figures. I don't think there are doves within the Gaddafi regime - including Saif al-Islam."