Should (Could) America and Pakistan’s Bond Be Broken?

Within days of the American raid deep inside Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, Pakistani officials travelled to Beijing and asked their “Chinese brothers” to operate a strategic port on the Arabian Sea. They also said the two countries were planning oil pipelines, railroads and even military bases in Pakistan for the Chinese Navy.

The Pakistani officials had already advised their neighbors in Afghanistan — where Americans have committed billions of dollars and lost more than 1,500 lives since 2001 — that Afghanistan would be better off placing long-term bets on an ascendant China, rather than a declining United States.

With the tortured marriage clearly in trouble, Islamabad has sent signals that it is ready to start seeing other people. Can Washington afford to do the same? And just how far could Pakistan get by playing the field?

With Bin Laden dead and the White House determined to get the bulk of American troops out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, some in Washington make the case that the ties that bind the United States to Pakistan are no longer so strong, and that the allegiances that have entangled them over the past decade could be rearranged.

There are new dynamics now at play, noticed by analysts who liken this era to the years immediately after the cold war. For decades, fears of Soviet expansion had brought the United States and Pakistan into a tight embrace, but those ties weakened and ultimately broke once that threat had passed. Similarly, an American withdrawal from Afghanistan could put greater distance between the two nations and allow ties between Washington and New Delhi to grow.

“As we begin to rely on Pakistan less to get supplies into Afghanistan, America’s axis with India will continue to strengthen,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. official now at the Brookings Institution. If this happened, he said, it would only be natural for Islamabad to try to grow even closer to China and Saudi Arabia, two longtime allies and trading partners.

But even then, there would be limits on how much America might suffer. Some experts say that a network of new regional relationships with Pakistan actually might help America pursue its deepest interests in the region.

Don’t expect an open break tomorrow, of course. For the moment, the United States and Pakistan remain bound to each other. As long as war rages in Afghanistan, the United States will rely on routes in Pakistan to ferry in military supplies, and to keep pressure on militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas. And the Pakistani government still needs the billions that come each year from Washington to, among other things, keep pace in its arms race with India.

Once the war in Afghanistan winds down, though, the relationship could change. Some analysts foresee a new Great Game for dominance in the region, with stakes like billions of dollars in mineral wealth in Afghanistan, access to vital shipping lanes, and a need to monitor the longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan.

Some experts say that a bit of breathing room in the American-Pakistani relationship — managed responsibly — might be just the right therapy for the partnership. In the 10 years since Sept. 11, 2001, both the Bush and Obama administrations have made dozens of official visits to Islamabad to implore, lecture or demand that Pakistan sever ties to militant groups, even attaching strings (without ever really pulling them) to billions of dollars in annual aid. Pakistan’s reaction seems to have been little more than resentment of its dependency on Washington, and a determination to pursue an independent course, whether by hiding some of its intelligence agency’s activities or by openly hinting at taking another partner, like China.

One question, however, is whether China sees such a partnership quite the same way.

View the original article here

Should (Could) America and Pakistan’s Bond Be Broken?

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。

Within days of the American raid deep inside Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, Pakistani officials travelled to Beijing and asked their “Chinese brothers” to operate a strategic port on the Arabian Sea. They also said the two countries were planning oil pipelines, railroads and even military bases in Pakistan for the Chinese Navy.

The Pakistani officials had already advised their neighbors in Afghanistan — where Americans have committed billions of dollars and lost more than 1,500 lives since 2001 — that Afghanistan would be better off placing long-term bets on an ascendant China, rather than a declining United States.

With the tortured marriage clearly in trouble, Islamabad has sent signals that it is ready to start seeing other people. Can Washington afford to do the same? And just how far could Pakistan get by playing the field?

With Bin Laden dead and the White House determined to get the bulk of American troops out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, some in Washington make the case that the ties that bind the United States to Pakistan are no longer so strong, and that the allegiances that have entangled them over the past decade could be rearranged.

There are new dynamics now at play, noticed by analysts who liken this era to the years immediately after the cold war. For decades, fears of Soviet expansion had brought the United States and Pakistan into a tight embrace, but those ties weakened and ultimately broke once that threat had passed. Similarly, an American withdrawal from Afghanistan could put greater distance between the two nations and allow ties between Washington and New Delhi to grow.

“As we begin to rely on Pakistan less to get supplies into Afghanistan, America’s axis with India will continue to strengthen,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. official now at the Brookings Institution. If this happened, he said, it would only be natural for Islamabad to try to grow even closer to China and Saudi Arabia, two longtime allies and trading partners.

But even then, there would be limits on how much America might suffer. Some experts say that a network of new regional relationships with Pakistan actually might help America pursue its deepest interests in the region.

Don’t expect an open break tomorrow, of course. For the moment, the United States and Pakistan remain bound to each other. As long as war rages in Afghanistan, the United States will rely on routes in Pakistan to ferry in military supplies, and to keep pressure on militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas. And the Pakistani government still needs the billions that come each year from Washington to, among other things, keep pace in its arms race with India.

Once the war in Afghanistan winds down, though, the relationship could change. Some analysts foresee a new Great Game for dominance in the region, with stakes like billions of dollars in mineral wealth in Afghanistan, access to vital shipping lanes, and a need to monitor the longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan.

Some experts say that a bit of breathing room in the American-Pakistani relationship — managed responsibly — might be just the right therapy for the partnership. In the 10 years since Sept. 11, 2001, both the Bush and Obama administrations have made dozens of official visits to Islamabad to implore, lecture or demand that Pakistan sever ties to militant groups, even attaching strings (without ever really pulling them) to billions of dollars in annual aid. Pakistan’s reaction seems to have been little more than resentment of its dependency on Washington, and a determination to pursue an independent course, whether by hiding some of its intelligence agency’s activities or by openly hinting at taking another partner, like China.

One question, however, is whether China sees such a partnership quite the same way.

View the original article here

As China Invests, U.S. Could Lose

Now, China is poised to return the investment favor. The question is whether the United States will be willing and able to fully participate, according to a new study to be released Thursday.

Flush with capital from its enormous trade surpluses and armed with the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves, China has begun spreading its newfound riches to every corner of the world — whether copper mines in Africa, iron ore facilities in Australia or even a gas shale project in the heart of Texas.

The study, commissioned by the Asia Society in New York and the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, forecasts that over the next decade China could invest as much as $2 trillion in overseas companies, plants or property, money that could help reinvigorate growth in the United States and Europe.

But the report, to be released at a Washington news conference that Commerce Secretary Gary Locke plans to attend, also warns that the United States risks missing out on a large share of the Chinese investment boom because of politics, a growing rivalry between the two nations and deep-seated perceptions that Chinese investments are unwelcome in America.

“If political interference is not tempered,” the study warns, some of the benefits of Chinese investment — “such as job creation, consumer welfare and even contributions to U.S. infrastructure renewal — risk being diverted to our competitors.” While Wall Street banks have lobbied for more Chinese investments in the United States, hoping that will bring bigger deals for the banks, Washington has remained wary — even though the Obama administration says it welcomes Chinese money.

But anti-China rhetoric is hot in Washington and among many state and local officials. One frequently cited worry is that Chinese companies, many of them owned partly or entirely by the government, will use their purchases to gain military secrets. Another concern is that Chinese companies will buy American companies with manufacturing operations in the United States, close those factories and move production to China.

China, of course, is already a force in global markets. Over the last few years, it has made multibillion-dollar loans to developing nations and let its state-owned companies acquire minority stakes in global powerhouses like Rio Tinto, Morgan Stanley and the Blackstone Group.

China is also a major player in the global debt markets, holding about $1.6 trillion in United States Treasury bonds, an investment that helps keep American interest rates low and finances America’s enormous debt.

But China is still a relatively small player in overseas direct investments, which include purchases of large, voting stakes in foreign companies and plants. That also includes investments in new construction projects on previously undeveloped land — so-called greenfield facilities.

Last year, China’s overseas direct investments amounted to about $59 billion. By comparison, the United States’ figure was over $300 billion.

But with Beijing pushing its big companies to go overseas and invest in resources and technology, China’s investments could soon reach $100 billion to $200 billion a year, according to the Asia Society study.

The potential problem for Beijing is that Chinese companies are not always welcomed overseas — not only because China wields enormous economic clout but because state-owned giants are believed to be subsidized by the state and possibly working in the interest of the government.

Congressional critics of China’s investment aspirations include Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island. “Many of these companies are so closely intertwined with the government of China that it is hard to see where the company stops and the country begins, and vice versa,” Mr. Reed recently told Reuters.

A series of proposed Chinese deals in the United States have been blocked by regulators or attacked by local politicians, who say they are worried China could gain access to sensitive military technology or take control of valuable natural resources.

In 2005, one of China’s giant oil companies, Cnooc, dropped its bid to acquire the American oil giant Unocal after a Congressional investigation into the purchase. And in recent years, the Chinese telecommunications giant, Huawei, has repeatedly been rebuffed from making deals in the United States, over national security concerns.

Keith Bradsher contributed reporting from Hong Kong.

 

Syria Crackdown Could Signal Brutal New Phase

。

The Syrian Army stormed the restive city of Dara’a with tanks and soldiers and helped detain dozens nationwide Monday in an escalation of the counter offensive against Syria’s five-week-old uprising, according to residents and human rights activists. They said at least 25 people had been killed in Dara’a, with reports of bodies strewn in the streets.

Such was the alarm in the West about developments in Syria, a critical regional player adjacent to Israel and a close ally of Iran, that the United States State Department urged American citizens not to visit the country and said Americans already there should leave immediately.

An official travel advisory late Monday said the State Department had instructed the evacuation of diplomats’ families and some personnel not essential to the functioning of the American embassy in Damascus — measures similar to those taken in Egypt as the uprising there unfolded earlier this year. Britain also urged its citizens with “no pressing need” to remain in Syria to leave.

The British foreign secretary, William Hague, said on Tuesday that moves were underway at the United Nations Security Council. the European Union and among some Arab countries to send a “strong signal” to the Damascus authorities. “This violent repression must stop,” he said in a statement. But he did not specify what measures might be taken to restrain the Syrian military and security services.

Earlier, the United States called the violence “completely deplorable.” Tommy Vietor, a National Security Council spokesman, said the Obama administration was considering sanctions against Syrian officials to “make clear that this behavior is unacceptable.”

At the United Nations, European and American officials circulated a draft Security Council statement condemning the crackdown and calling on the government to respect human rights and freedom of expression. The draft endorses a call by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, released last Friday, urging an independent investigation into the mounting death toll.

Until Monday, the Syrian government had been hewing to a mix of concessions and brute force, but its latest actions indicate that it has chosen the latter, seeking to crush a wave of dissent in virtually every province that has shaken the once uncontested rule of President Bashar al-Assad, 45.

“The government has decided to choose the path of violence and repression,” said a Syrian analyst in Beirut, who asked to remain anonymous for his safety. “How far can they go in this repression? That is the question.”

As in 1982, when it crushed an Islamist revolt and killed at least 10,000 people in Hama, the military again showed its willingness to use force to repress its own people. Though there were rumors of discord among soldiers, the leadership is still dominated by Mr. Assad’s minority sect, and its deployment to Dara’a illustrated that a crucial bastion of government support remained loyal — in stark contrast with Egypt, where the military’s refusal to fire on protesters proved decisive in President Hosni Mubarak’s fall.

The official Syrian news agency said Monday night that the military had entered the town at the request of citizens to hunt what it called “extremist terrorist groups.”

Dara’a, a town of low-slung buildings with 75,000 inhabitants, has become almost synonymous with the popular revolt that has posed the greatest challenge to four decades of rule by the Assad family. Protests erupted there in March after security forces arrested high school students accused of scrawling anti-government graffiti on a wall, galvanizing demonstrations that have spread from the Mediterranean coast and eastern regions dominated by Kurds to the steppe of southern Syria, where Dara’a is located.

Residents said at least eight tanks drove into the town before dawn, with 4,000 to 6,000 troops, though some estimates put the numbers far lower, in the hundreds. Water, electricity and phone lines were cut, making firsthand accounts difficult and the numbers impossible to verify, and nearby border crossings with Jordan were reported sealed. Snipers took positions on the roofs of mosques, residents said, and a mix of soldiers and armed irregular forces went house to house to search for protesters.

“There are bodies in the streets we can’t reach; anyone who walks outside is getting shot at,” said a resident of Dara’a who gave his name as Abdullah, reached by satellite phone. “They want to teach Syria a lesson by teaching Dara’a a lesson.”

A handful of videos posted on the Internet, along with residents’ accounts, gave a picture of a city under broad military assault, in what appeared to mark a new phase in the government crackdown. Tanks had not previously been used against protesters, and the force of the assault suggested that the military planned some sort of occupation of the town.

“It’s an attempt to occupy Dara’a,” Abdullah said.

He said soldiers had taken three mosques, but had yet to capture the Omari Mosque, where he said thousands had sought refuge. Since the beginning of the uprising last month, it has served as a headquarters of sorts for demonstrators. He quoted people there as shouting, “We swear you will not enter but over our dead bodies.”

He said residents had also tried to block roads with cement blocks and cars. “We didn’t pay such a high price to quit now,” he said.

For weeks, organizers have managed to circumvent the government’s attempt to black out news from Dara’a and cities like Homs. But it appeared to have more success Monday.

Hwaida Saad contributed reporting from Beirut, employees of The New York Times from Beirut and Damascus, Syria, and Alan Cowell from London.

 

Libya Could Become Stalemate, Top U.S. Military Officer Says

The officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that a month of airstrikes had destroyed 30 percent to 40 percent of the capabilities of the military forces loyal to Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, but had not yet drastically tilted the conflict with opposition militias one way or another. He cited shifts in tactics by Libyan forces that made it difficult for NATO warplanes to distinguish them from the rebel fighters and civilians.

“So it’s become a much more difficult fight, much more difficult targets,” Admiral Mullen said in Baghdad, where he visited American troops involved in another American war. “As I have observed in recent days, essentially it’s very much stalemate-like in the vicinity of Ajdabiya and Brega,” two contested cities east of the capital, Tripoli.

His remarks were echoed by those of the most prominent American yet to visit the rebel strongholds in Libya: Senator John McCain. Appearing on Friday in Benghazi, he, too, used the word stalemate as he called on the United States to intensify its attacks on pro-Qaddafi forces, using aircraft like A-10 jets and AC-130 gunships that the White House and Pentagon have pulled from the fight, citing the threat from portable missiles on the ground and saying allied warplanes should take the lead.

Mr. McCain, a strong advocate of intervention in Libya, called for the United States to recognize the rebels’ governing council as the country’s legitimate government, as France, Italy and Qatar have done, and provide it with money and arms on a scale similar to what the United States did in support of those who fought the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

“I have met these brave fighters, and they are not Al Qaeda,” said Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona. “They are Libyan patriots who want to liberate their nation.” His comments came after a brief visit that included meetings with the members of the Transitional National Council, led by a former justice minister, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, and a former interior minister, Abdul Fateh Younes, who both defected when the uprising began in February.

Mr. McCain’s visit, though coordinated with the White House and the State Department, nonetheless underscored a mounting sense of frustration among critics and even some supporters of the Obama administration that it was not acting aggressively enough to help the rebels overthrow Colonel Qaddafi.

Although this week President Obama authorized the use of armed drones in Libya and a $25 million contribution of nonlethal military surplus for the rebel forces, the administration resists deepening the American military involvement. Asked on Thursday whether American soldiers or advisers should be sent to help improve the effectiveness of the rebel forces, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Mr. Obama had explicitly ruled that out. “And there is no wiggle room in that,” he said.

Instead, administration officials have pleaded for patience. They said that while it could take weeks or months for the rebels to mature as fighters, they asserted that the operation continued to weaken Colonel Qaddafi’s military and that sanctions and an arms embargo allowed the United States “quite aggressively, both unilaterally and multilaterally, to put the squeeze on Qaddafi,” as the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, put it on Friday.

“I think it’s important to remember that Qaddafi’s resources are limited,” Mr. Carney told reporters returning with the president to Washington from California. “And the arms embargo and the sanctions that have been put in place will, as each day goes by, make it harder and harder for him to function and for his regime to function.”

Military officials said the greatest shortcoming among the ragtag rebel militias was not weapons but training, communications systems and a sensible command structure. The supplies the United States is sending — including uniforms, body armor and nonclassified communications gear — are suited to building a more effective fighting force. With the anticipated arrival in Libya of liaison officers from France, Italy and Britain, officials expressed hope that the rebels would become better organized and coordinate their battlefield movements more effectively.

Even so, Admiral Mullen and other NATO officials acknowledged that an evolving tactic adopted by pro-Qaddafi forces — hiding among the population and moving about the battlefield in civilian vehicles — had vastly complicated NATO’s attempts to locate, identify and attack government troops, armor and artillery.

The use of armed Predator drones is intended to counter that. Those drones, though, will operate only on the frontlines separating the rebels and the government forces, with the justification of protecting civilians in besieged cities like Misurata. As of late Friday, no Predators had yet attacked Libyan government forces, officials said.

A senior administration official acknowledged that the fierce fighting in Misurata in particular called into question whether the NATO campaign was succeeding in protecting civilians. “There are constraints on doing that because of the stated desire to avoid civilian casualties, the technical limits of air power and even the weather,” the official said.

Overall, though, the NATO campaign was never intended, by itself, to overthrow Colonel Qaddafi. The measure of success, the official added, is “not whether the rebels are marching on Tripoli.”

The fighting in Misurata seesawed Friday.

The rebels there said they had driven Colonel Qaddafi’s men from buildings along Tripoli Avenue, a central artery, where snipers had been shooting at anyone who dared venture out. Shooting resumed later, though, near the main hospital, not far from Tripoli Avenue, according to a foreign journalist at the hospital, suggesting that whatever success the rebels had enjoyed was probably short-lived. The Libyan flag, which had been taken down the day before, was once again flying over the city’s tallest building.

Libya’s deputy foreign minister, Khaled Kaim, said the army might stop fighting in Misurata because of NATO airstrikes, Reuters reported. Instead, he said, local tribes will try to negotiate with the rebels, and if that fails, the tribes will fight the rebels, the news agency reported.

In Benghazi, the rebels seemed buoyed by the news from the front and from Mr. McCain’s visit. He stopped briefly at the courthouse that has been the headquarters of the uprising’s leaders. Only a few dozen Libyans were there, and they chanted pro-American and anti-Qaddafi slogans.

“This,” Mr. McCain said, “was one of the most exciting and inspiring days of my life.”

Rod Nordland reported from Benghazi, and Steven Lee Myers from Washington. Reporting was contributed by C. J. Chivers from Benghazi, Michael S. Schmidt from Baghdad, Thom Shanker from Washington, Alan Cowell from London and J. David Goodman from New York.

 

Populist Advance in Finland Could Endanger Bailouts

That day came on Sunday, when Finnish voters awarded 19 percent of their ballots to the nationalist and populist True Finn Party, which is highly skeptical of bailouts for countries like Greece, Ireland and, most pertinently, Portugal. The results made the True Finns the odds-on favorites to become coalition partners in a future government.

“Sunday’s results are a clear warning shot to those who had thought that European politics would not be overly affected by the crisis in the periphery,” Frank Engels and Fran?ois Cabou, analysts for Barclays Capital, wrote Monday in a research note. A bailout for as much as $115 billion for Portugal was thrown into doubt by the vote, since the rescue requires unanimous approval by the euro zone’s 17 members.

The True Finns raised their share of seats in the 200-member Parliament to 39 from the 5 they had won in the 2007 election, sharply changing the balance of power in Finnish politics.

While leaders of the other Finnish parties began to discuss ways to mitigate the damage, European politicians reacted with dismay at the election results and sought to distance themselves from the True Finns.

Wilfried Martens, a Belgian politician who is president of the largest grouping of European parties from the center-right, the European People’s Party, said it was “disheartening to see a populist party rise to third place in Finland.”

In Berlin, officials played down fears that Finland would undermine efforts to help Portugal, also citing its traditionally pro-European stance.

“Finland had always worked toward the success of Europe, regardless of what government was in power,” said Christoph Steegmans, the deputy government spokesman in Germany. “Any agreements were always kept, and we are betting that that way will continue.”

The True Finns ran on a platform that was hostile to the recent financial bailouts of Ireland, Greece and the agreement reached this month to aid Portugal. Those bailouts were meant to put an end to a sovereign debt crisis that has threatened the future of the single currency zone and raised questions about whether the disparate economies in Europe could ever be successfully integrated.

“Of course there will have to be changes,” the True Finns leader, Timo Soini, said Monday about the Portugal package, Reuters reported.

The True Finns were also critical of immigration policy, and their election gains came in the wake of advances by populist parties on the right across the European Union, including in the Netherlands, France and Sweden.

In Brussels, European Union officials on Monday rejected suggestions that their strategy for the euro zone was failing.

The vote in Finland, protests against austerity across Europe and continued volatility in financial markets should not obscure how the union had taken “measures which will enable us to get the economy on a sustainable track,” Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, said in Brussels.

She also said the commission was “fully confident” that Finland would continue to honor its commitment to participate in contributing to the European Financial Stability Facility, set up last year to provide financial assistance to euro zone members in difficulty.

The pro-Europe National Coalition in Finland, led by Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen, has strongly supported efforts to remedy problems in the euro zone. He still could lead a future government, while Mr. Soini of the True Finns could agree to a compromise on participating in bailouts in exchange for posts in the next government.

If Finland were to balk at helping Portugal, that would force other countries to make up the balance of the loan guarantees, potentially raising hackles in Germany and other countries, where the cost of the bailouts has also become a source of political tension.

James Kanter reported from Brussels, and Matthew Saltmarsh from Paris.

 

Populist Advance in Finland Could Endanger Bailouts

That day came on Sunday, when Finnish voters awarded 19 percent of their ballots to the nationalist and populist True Finn Party, which is highly skeptical of bailouts for countries like Greece, Ireland and, most pertinently, Portugal. The results made the True Finns the odds-on favorites to become coalition partners in a future government.

“Sunday’s results are a clear warning shot to those who had thought that European politics would not be overly affected by the crisis in the periphery,” Frank Engels and Fran?ois Cabou, analysts for Barclays Capital, wrote Monday in a research note. A bailout for as much as $115 billion for Portugal was thrown into doubt by the vote, since the rescue requires unanimous approval by the euro zone’s 17 members.

The True Finns raised their share of seats in the 200-member Parliament to 39 from the 5 they had won in the 2007 election, sharply changing the balance of power in Finnish politics.

While leaders of the other Finnish parties began to discuss ways to mitigate the damage, European politicians reacted with dismay at the election results and sought to distance themselves from the True Finns.

Wilfried Martens, a Belgian politician who is president of the largest grouping of European parties from the center-right, the European People’s Party, said it was “disheartening to see a populist party rise to third place in Finland.”

In Berlin, officials played down fears that Finland would undermine efforts to help Portugal, also citing its traditionally pro-European stance.

“Finland had always worked toward the success of Europe, regardless of what government was in power,” said Christoph Steegmans, the deputy government spokesman in Germany. “Any agreements were always kept, and we are betting that that way will continue.”

The True Finns ran on a platform that was hostile to the recent financial bailouts of Ireland, Greece and the agreement reached this month to aid Portugal. Those bailouts were meant to put an end to a sovereign debt crisis that has threatened the future of the single currency zone and raised questions about whether the disparate economies in Europe could ever be successfully integrated.

“Of course there will have to be changes,” the True Finns leader, Timo Soini, said Monday about the Portugal package, Reuters reported.

The True Finns were also critical of immigration policy, and their election gains came in the wake of advances by populist parties on the right across the European Union, including in the Netherlands, France and Sweden.

In Brussels, European Union officials on Monday rejected suggestions that their strategy for the euro zone was failing.

The vote in Finland, protests against austerity across Europe and continued volatility in financial markets should not obscure how the union had taken “measures which will enable us to get the economy on a sustainable track,” Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, said in Brussels.

She also said the commission was “fully confident” that Finland would continue to honor its commitment to participate in contributing to the European Financial Stability Facility, set up last year to provide financial assistance to euro zone members in difficulty.

The pro-Europe National Coalition in Finland, led by Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen, has strongly supported efforts to remedy problems in the euro zone. He still could lead a future government, while Mr. Soini of the True Finns could agree to a compromise on participating in bailouts in exchange for posts in the next government.

If Finland were to balk at helping Portugal, that would force other countries to make up the balance of the loan guarantees, potentially raising hackles in Germany and other countries, where the cost of the bailouts has also become a source of political tension.

James Kanter reported from Brussels, and Matthew Saltmarsh from Paris.

 

Could a marathon ever be run in under two hours?

 11 April 2011 Last updated at 08:17 ET  As thousands prepare for the London Marathon, the very best among them face perhaps the most awe-inspiring barrier in sporting endeavour - the sub two-hour marathon. But can anyone break it, asks Chris Dennis.

A marathon of 26.2 miles (42.2km) in 120 minutes - the very thought takes my breath away.

Expert opinion on whether it is possible is intriguingly divided.

For some it is the next great sporting barrier to be broken, for others it will always remain beyond the limit of endurance. Could it happen at the 2012 Olympics?

Continue reading the main story The Sub 2-Hour Marathon: Sport's Holy Grail, presented by reporter and runner Chris Dennis, is broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 2000 BST on Monday 11 April. The current world record holder, Ethiopian Haile Gebrselassie, who ran the 2008 Berlin Marathon in 2:03:59, has no doubt it could be done, but not in the next few years, ruling out the next Games.

The 38-year-old tells me: "No question. The first sub two-hour marathon will need 20 to 25 years, but it will definitely happen."

Britain's top woman runner and world women's record holder Paula Radcliffe agrees.

"Records are there to be broken and people are going to be shooting for it, but someone is going to have to run really hard to beat this one. That's the kind of mindset it will take."

Even the thought that it could be broken within a generation causes excitement.

"I'm 60. If I've got my figures right, I'll live at least 20 years, so I believe in the next 20 years we will see the first sub two-hour marathon," London Marathon race director Dave Bedford says.

But the reigning Olympic men's champion, 24-year-old Kenyan Sammy Wanjiru, who ran the distance in 2:06:32 in Beijing, believes it is beyond his own abilities.

"For me it's impossible to run two hours, but two hours two minutes, it's possible. Maybe the new generation... you could get strong people. But in this generation, you cannot talk about two hours."

Another sceptic is Glenn Latimer, one of the leading authorities on marathon running in the US. He doesn't believe it can happen in his lifetime. "Maybe that's because I'm old, but I don't see it happening in a long, long time.

"You watch these great athletes up close, an athlete as great as Haile Gebrselassie... and you could see the strain, he looks magnificent through 20, 21, 22 miles and then it starts, and then the body starts to break itself down and maintaining pace is hard enough," he said.

They both believe the record will come down to two hours and two minutes, at which point it will plateau.

Then again, 60 years ago people were saying the same thing about the four-minute mile, before Roger Bannister came along.

The science of endurance running is highly complex, but physiologically, there are three main factors which determine how quickly someone can run:

their maximal rate of oxygen consumption, known as VO2 maxtheir running efficiency - how quickly they can cover the groundtheir endurance capability - what percentage of their VO2 max they can sustain

Opinion among sports scientists varies on exactly where the limit of human endeavour lies. For some, Haile Gebrselassie's current record is already pretty close, for others, there is still a way to go.

Looking at the progression of the marathon world record is fascinating.

Reducing it from 2:16 to 2:12 took seven years, 2:12 to 2:08 took 19 years, and cutting it from 2:08 to the current mark of 2:03:59 took 24 years.

By analysing actual performances and extrapolating, Francois Peronnet, a professor at the University of Montreal, calculates that the first sub two-hour marathon will be run in the year 2028.

Whenever it happens, it would mean running each mile at a four minute 35 second pace. By comparison, a decent club runner might run at a seven-minute mile pace, and a casual runner at nine or 10 minutes.

I have experienced first-hand what it would feel like to run at sub two-hour marathon pace. For just a fraction of the marathon distance.

Hooked up to a state of the art treadmill at the English Institute for Sport at Loughborough University, Leicestershire, under the guidance of two of the country's top physiologists, I ran at a 4:35 pace for 10 seconds.

It was tough - and the thought of doing it over 26.2 miles for up to 120 minutes was simply mind-boggling.

'Perfect mix'

Where most experts agree is that the first sub two-hour marathon will need several factors to come together on one day in the perfect mix.

Continue reading the main story 

You're not even thinking - you're just running... it's all just second nature”

End Quote Paula Radcliffe Women's world record holder "If on the day of competition you miss one thing, you miss everything," Gebrselassie says.

First, it will need an elite athlete in tip-top condition, probably one from east Africa.

Second, it will need to be on a fast, flat course such as Berlin, London or Rotterdam. Berlin is known as one of the quickest and has produced four world records in the last 10 years.

Third, perfect weather conditions. No wind and temperatures of around 10-15C.

Fourth, decent pace-makers to lead the race and take the elite round at the right speed.

Finally, money.

As the marathon gets closer to the magic mark, race directors will dangle huge financial carrots to incentivise runners to break it. The first person to dip under two hours will run into the record books a very rich person.

Radcliffe knows what it feels like to experience a perfect mix. Back in London in 2003 she blew the women's world record (which she had set the year previously) out of the water by setting a new mark of 2:15:25.

"The fact that you feel like everything was flowing. It wasn't forced. Nothing hurt. You're not even thinking - you're just running. It's just second nature, you've trained so hard for it and race day feels easier than the training that you've done," she explains, describing the feeling of being "in the zone".

By common consent in running circles, the first two-hour marathon will be run by someone from Ethiopia, Eritrea or Kenya. But why?

I spent a few days in Ethiopia with some of the country's top runners and coaches.

Ethiopia may be one of the poorest countries in the world, but it has a formidable track record.

The likes of Abebe Bikila, Mamo Wolde, Miruts Yifter, Kenenisa Bekele, and the man they call the Little Emperor, Haile Gebrselassie, have all rolled off the country's running conveyor belt over the years.

Most of them started running soon after they could walk. Those born in the countryside, such as Gebrselassie, would run 10km (6.2 miles) or more to school and back every day. There was no other way of getting there.

Add to that the altitude (capital Addis Ababa is 2500m (8202ft) above sea level), a simple diet of mainly organic food, good weather and an extraordinary work ethic, and you see why the country's runners are so successful.

Training with Ethiopia's elite youth runners proved they had the determination and dedication needed

For Ethiopia's elite athletes life is almost monastic - run, eat, sleep. Then run, eat, sleep. There is very little time for anything else.

I was lucky enough to join one group for a training session at sunrise on the outskirts of Addis. Just one 5km (3.1 mile) loop at moderate pace left me gulping for air, but for the elite runners, that was merely a warm-up.

I also met youngsters from Ethiopia's next generation of marathon runners - could one of them be the next Haile Gebrselassie and possibly the world's first sub two-hour marathon runner?

Their dedication and self-discipline are both humbling and awe-inspiring. Many of them feel it is their national duty to maintain Ethiopia's position as the top distance-running country in the world.

If in 20 years the marathon record is reset at 1:59:59, do not be surprised if it is done by an Ethiopian.

 

Could Beams of Electricity Put Out Fires?

Researchers have shown that they can put out a fire by zapping it with electricity -- pointing an electrical wand at a flame and applying a current.

But it's too early to replace a firefighter's hose or an office sprinkler system with a zapping wand.

"It's still very much premature to say how this could affect firefighters in the field," said Ludovico Cademartiri of George Whitesides's research group at Harvard University, who presented his findings this week at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Anaheim, Calif.

Previous experiments have shown that applying a constant electric field created small effects on flames, but Cademartiri's work used an oscillating electric field to greater effect.

"When you start using oscillating fields there are new mechanisms that come into play and these mechanisms lead to much stronger effects on flames -- effects that are so strong as to have been shown to suppress fires," Cademartiri said.

The team reported that when they placed an insulated wire at the base of a thin, 19-inch flame and applied about 600 watts of power -- similar to a medium -- sized microwave oven, the flame went out.

Why this happened is still a bit of a mystery. Cademartiri emphasized the complexity of flames, saying no single principle could explain why the flame goes out. However, one key principle may be that the electric field moves charged particles inside the flame in such a way that the flame sort of blows itself out from within.

"This is quite different from blowing air on the flame," Cademartiri said. "When you blow on the flame, you generate flow outside the flame and you push air into this flame. In our case, we generate this flow within the flame."

This flow may be strong enough to separate the flame from its fuel source, which may be why the flame goes out. During experiments, the researchers found that the smokier the fire, the bigger the effect.

One application of key interest is extinguishing cockpit fires, he said. Fires in enclosed spaces like cockpits or ships are a key interest of DARPA, who funded the research as part of a search for new technologies to suppress or control fires. Small cockpit fires may also be better suited to this technology than larger fires. Cademartiri notes that a fire spread over a pool of oil, for example, would probably not be a good candidate for extinguishing with the new approach.

View the original article here

Could New High-Speed Wireless Internet Threaten GPS?

A new, ultra-fast wireless Internet network is threatening to overpower GPS signals across the U.S. and interfere with everything from airplanes to police cars to consumer navigation devices.

The problem stems from a recent government decision to let a Virginia company called LightSquared build a nationwide broadband network using airwaves next to those used for GPS. Manufacturers of GPS equipment warn that strong signals from the planned network could jam existing navigation systems.

A technical fix could be expensive — billions of dollars by one estimate — and there's no agreement on who should pay. Government officials pledge to block LightSquared from turning on its network as scheduled this year unless they receive assurances that GPS systems will still work.

The stakes are high not only for the GPS industry and its users, but also for those who would use LightSquared's network. In approving it, the Federal Communications Commission seeks to boost wireless competition and bring faster and cheaper Internet connections to all Americans — even in remote corners of the country.

LightSquared and the FCC both insist the new network can co-exist with GPS systems. But device makers fear GPS signals will suffer the way a radio station can get drowned out by a stronger broadcast in a nearby channel.

The problem, they say, is that sensitive satellite receivers — designed to pick up relatively weak signals coming from space — could be overwhelmed when LightSquared starts sending high-power signals from as many as 40,000 transmitters on the ground using the airwaves next door.

"The potential impact of GPS interference is so vast, it's hard to get your head around," said Jim Kirkland, vice president and general counsel of Trimble Navigation Ltd., which makes GPS systems. "Think 40,000 GPS dead spots covering millions of square miles in cities and towns throughout the U.S."

One of the biggest risks is to the GPS navigation systems used by about 40 percent of commercial and private planes. Backup systems that rely on ground-based radio signals are not as accurate and have coverage gaps. Some older private planes have no backup at all.

View the original article here