BP out in the cold as Arctic oil deal with Russians falls apart

Bob Dudley: an embarrassing blow for the BP boss

Lucy Tobin

 BP was left humiliated today when its $16 billion (£9.8 billion) Arctic tie-up with Rosneft failed, leaving the strategy new boss Bob Dudley hoped would help it recover from the Gulf of Mexico disaster in tatters.

Rosneft had already moved on this morning, talking to new drilling partners about working together on the offshore field that experts reckon could contain more than 40 billion barrels of oil.

Insiders said Shell, Chevron and Chinese firms were being considered by the Kremlin-owned firm.

That was after BP failed to seal the Rosneft deal by its deadline of midnight last night. The oil major repeatedly tried to either buy out or sweet talk AAR, the group of oligarchs who co-own its current Russian joint venture TNK-BP, into allowing the Rosneft venture to go ahead.

But the billionaire backers, led by Mikhail Fridman, turned down a stream of offers, including BP and Rosneft buying AAR’s 50% stake in TNK-BP for $32 billion, which included $9 billion of BP shares.

Last night, having already extended its Arctic exploration deal deadline with BP by a month, Rosneft refused to do so again.

BP and AAR put out a statement claiming “talks [with Rosneft] will continue” but the state-owned firm didn’t seem interested.

The British firm also tried to paper over the cracks in its relationship with AAR, which turned sour when the oligarch backers first took BP to court over its proposed share swap and Arctic alliance with Rosneft, claiming it breached the existing TNK-BP shareholder agreement.

BP said it would “intensify efforts to ensure TNK-BP’s continued success”.

Dudley added: “BP remains committed to Russia, to working constructively with AAR in TNK-BP and to our existing good relationship with Rosneft.

“All parties have worked hard to reach an acceptable resolution, as we believe it could offer significant benefits.” That, said analysts, was underplaying the missed opportunity.

“This is putting a brave face on a disappointing episode,” said Richard Griffith at Evolution. But he added: “We believe it is better to walk away than have a bad deal.”

It’s a blow for BP, which announced the deal in January with huge fanfare.

The Rosneft tie-up had been a big part of the oil major’s strategy to help it rebuild in the Gulf of Mexico, which has so far cost it $41 billion. Today, it announced another asset sale – up to $610 million for Wytch Farm oil field – to help pay for it.

No Nation Can Do Enough To Meet American Demands–India Is Our New Bitch

Roemer: India Must Reform or Risks Slowdown

By PAUL BECKETT

NEW DELHI—The U.S. ambassador to New Delhi said Tuesday that India needs to consider whether it is delivering on its side of the new close alliance with the U.S. and do more to tackle graft and encourage foreign investment or the nation’s economic expansion risks losing steam.

Mannie Garcia/Getty Images

“India needs to be asking itself: Is it delivering on the global partnership?” Timothy Roemer said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal as he prepares to leave the post next month and return to the U.S. “The international business community that was pouring money and investment potential into India last year and the year before is now pausing and saying: ‘Where is India heading in terms of investment opportunities, the corruption challenge and inflation?’”

If this perception doesn’t change, he added, India could see downward revisions of as much as two percentage points to estimates for growth this year, considering the impact of higher oil prices and high inflation. Earlier this month, C. Rangarajan, chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, forecast Gross Domestic Product growth in the year ending March 31, 2012, of 8.5%, below the government’s forecast of 9%, as a series of interest rate rises to combat high inflation crimps growth. A spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office had no immediate comment.

Foreign direct investment in India, after rising steadily for years, totaled $18.4 billion from April 2010 to February, down 25% from a year earlier, according to Indian government data, amid a series of corruption scandals that have paralyzed the government and a lack of progress on economic reforms that would make the market more attractive for foreign firms.

Mr. Roemer’s warning comes after two years – his tenure in New Delhi — in which the U.S. and India have, in many respects, dramatically expanded their cooperation and partnership on issues ranging from counter-terrorism to environmentally-friendly technology to coordination over regional policy in Afghanistan.

For decades since India’s independence in 1947, the U.S. viewed India warily as the Indian government maintained strong ties with the former Soviet Union. But relations have warmed in the last decade, in part because the U.S. and India – the world’s richest and largest democracies, respectively – see China as both a rising market and a rising threat. And the two nations have a mutual interest in combating violent Islamist extremism in the wake of the 2001 attacks on the U.S. and the 2008 terror attack on Mumbai.

Both countries have gone to some lengths to showcase the new alliance. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was the guest for the first official state dinner of the Obama presidency in 2009. President Barack Obama addressed a joint session of the Indian parliament – and pledged support for India’s efforts to gain a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council – during a visit here in November. “We’ve made tremendous progress in elevating this to a global partnership,” Mr. Roemer said.

But several areas of friction remain. A high-profile deal on civilian nuclear technology that was years in the making was stymied by an Indian law that puts liability for nuclear accidents on equipment suppliers rather than channeling all liability to operators, which U.S. officials say is the international standard. The U.S. also has been pushing India to open its markets further in areas such as banking, insurance and retail – reforms that have long been discussed in New Delhi but never implemented.

“There’s no doubt this needs to be a two-way street,” Mr. Roemer said, adding it was “frustrating at times to be awaiting the next ‘Finance Minister Singh move’ to open up the markets as happened in 1991″ – a reference to Mr. Singh’s landmark reforms, when he served as finance minister two decades ago, to liberalize India’s economy and ditch its centrally-planned socialist model.

“These steps would help America and American business truly help India and Indian consumers,” Mr. Roemer said. “But India needs to step forward and do this not for American interests but for India and India’s interests.”

Among the biggest frustrations for the U.S. was India’s recent decision not to shortlist two U.S.-made medium-range fighter jets in the global bid process for a contract estimated at about $10 billion. Instead, India’s defense ministry selected two European-made jets as finalists. “We’re going to continue to have a strategic defense relationship with India — one deal won’t make or break it – but to not have one of the U.S. companies make it to the final two or three is puzzling,” Mr. Roemer said.

He added, however, that he expected an announcement in the next few weeks that the U.S., as reported, would win a roughly $4 billion contract for Boeing C-17 military transport aircraft, a deal that he said would support thousands of U.S. jobs. A spokesman for the Indian Air Force confirmed the deal is expected to happen soon.

Mr. Roemer, 54 years old, said he will leave the post early next month and expects his replacement to be named shortly. In his resignation statement, he said he was leaving for personal reasons. He also has been reported to be one of the candidates being considered to replace Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, who was chosen by Mr. Obama as the next ambassador to Beijing. Mr. Roemer declined to comment on that. He also noted that with two kids heading to college before long “the private sector certainly is an attractive potential path.” Mr. Roemer was formerly a Congressman from Indiana.

Write to Paul Beckett at paul.beckett@wsj.com

Bahrain Ignites Pakistan Shiite-Sunni Feud

By Aamir Latif, OnIslam Correspondent

Shiites were angry about reports on newspaper ads to recruit former soldiers to work for the Bahrain security forces and help with protests crackdown.

KARACHI – The Saudi troop deployments in Bahrain to quell Shiite-led protests against the royal family are reigniting the decades-long Sunni-Shiite tension in Pakistan.

“It is evident that cause behind ongoing tension (between Sunni and Shiite groups) is Bahrain,” Abdul Khalique Ali, a Karachi-based senior political analyst, told OnIslam.net.

“It seems if the fight for Bahrain has been shifted to Pakistan.”

Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain in March to help the royal family quell pro-democracy protests in the tiny Gulf kingdom.

But the deployments have angered Shiite Pakistanis, with protests nationwide condemning the Saudi involvement.

Shiites were also angry about reports on newspaper ads to recruit hundreds of former soldiers to work for the Bahrain security forces and help with the crackdown on protestors.

Sunni groups have also jumped into the fray with demonstrations and rallies in support of Saudi Arabia.

The Sunni protestors have accused Shiite-majority Iran of being behind the unrest in Bahrain and other Gulf states.

Reports about attacks on Pakistani immigrants in Bahrain by Shiite protestors added to the anger of Sunnis in Pakistan.

In a sign of the Shiite-Sunni tension, walls across Karachi, Lahore and other Pakistani cities are littered with slogans condemning Saudi Arabia and Iran, exacerbating the already tense atmosphere between the two sects.

“This is after decades when tension between two schools of thought has reached at this level,” said Ali, referring to deadly clashes between Sunnis and Shiites in the 1970s and 1980s.

In an escalation of tension in the country, a Saudi diplomat was killed Monday after attackers opened fire at a Consulate vehicle in Karachi.

“We have reports that some disgruntled elements are trying to take advantage of tension between Shiite and Sunni group in order to trigger sectarian riots in the country,” a senior police official told OnIslam.net.

Unknown assailants also threw hand grenades and crackers on the Saudi Consulate in the city.

The Iranian Counsel General in Karachi, Ali Abbas Abdollahi, while condemning the killing of the Saudi diplomat and attack on the Consulate, said that the common enemy of Muslims wanted to create rifts among Muslims.

“This is a calculated conspiracy by our common enemy, which wants to see Muslims fighting each other,” Abdollahi said in a statement.

Sunnis make up 85 percent of Pakistan’s 180 million, while Shiites account for 10 percent.

Downplay

Analysts, however, rule out that the Sunni-Shiite tension will turn into a large-scale sectarian conflict in Pakistan.

“Sectarian groups belonging to two schools of thoughts have come into the field to support Iran and Saudi Arabia respectively,” Ali told OnIslam.net.

“However, a majority of people are not taking part in demonstrations and counter demonstrations.

“But I agree that Pakistanis in general have great respect for Saudi Arabia because of Makkah and Madina, and Shiites too know this fact very well. That is why, I don’t think, they will prefer to take on people (Sunnis) on this issue in the streets.”

Imtiaz Chandio, another Karachi-based analyst, agrees.

“Shiites are in minority in Pakistan and they cannot afford rivalry with Sunni majority. The groups that have taken to streets too will go back to peace soon,” he said.

“They (Shiites) cannot risk their interests for the sake of Iran.”

Chandio believes that the Sunnis too will not go too far out of their respect for the Saudi king in his capacity as the Custodians of the Two Holy Mosques.

“A majority of the Pakistanis are already groaning from grinding poverty and other economic issues. They don’t have time to indulge themselves in sectarian or any other clashes.”

Saudi Counterrevolution in the Gulf

Counterrevolution in the Gulf

How the monarchies are striking back against the Arab Spring.

BY KRISTIAN COATES ULRICHSEN

While Tunisians and Egyptians are enjoying their newfound freedoms, forming political parties and holding passionate debates on their countries’ futures, across the six Arab states along the Persian Gulf, a counterrevolutionary pushback against the Arab Spring is steadily gaining steam. Autocratic rulers are clamping down hard at home, closing down political space in an attempt to isolate their citizens from the transformative pressures at work elsewhere in the Middle East. It’s safe to say that — at least for now — the Gulf region is becoming more repressive, not less, with potentially dangerous long-term consequences not only for these oil-rich monarchies but also for their Western allies.

Saudi Arabia’s announcement on April 29 of sweeping new media restrictions is just the latest effort to narrow the parameters of legitimate political debate.  Saudi King Abdullah’s decree, which amended the 2000 Press and Publications Law, prohibited the media from reporting anything that contradicts Islamic sharia law or serves “foreign interests and undermines national security.”

Such a vague — yet potentially all-encompassing — definition considerably tightens the noose of self-censorship in Saudi Arabia. It also includes provisions for closing publishers and banning writers who violate the decree from contributing to any media organization for life. With Saudi forces engaged in a highly sensitive crackdown in neighboring Bahrain, the creation of these new “red lines” sends a powerful signal that critical reporting or dissenting viewpoints will not be tolerated.

Back in March, Saudi Arabia also suppressed an effort by a group of intellectuals to establish what would have been the first political party in the kingdom: the Umma Islamic Party. Their call for peaceful political reform obviously unnerved the authorities, as five of the founders were arrested a week later. However, a spate of petitions  — including a Declaration of National Reformcalling for constitutional monarchy, as well as a “counter-reform petition” warning of creeping liberalisation — suggest that Saudi officials have not been successful in squelching domestic debate.

It’s not only Saudi Arabia that’s cracking down on dissent. Beleaguered Gulf monarchies in Bahrain and Oman have violently suppressed demonstrations, while the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait also stepped up repressive measures. But it’s not just a backlash against events in Tunisia and Egypt — the roots of the authoritarian inward turn were visible well before the outbreak of the Arab Spring.

In the final months of 2010, simmering discontent in Kuwait and Bahrain was met by unusually blunt displays of force. In Bahrain, security forces detained more than 20 prominent opposition and human rights activists ahead of the October parliamentary elections. Meanwhile in Kuwait, a string of confrontations between the ruling family and the political opposition culminated in December with the use of force by security forces to break up a demonstration, during which four MPs were beaten and injured, and the death of a Kuwaiti citizen, who was allegedly tortured in police custody, in January.

The political temperature in the Gulf was therefore rising even before the start of widespread demonstrations in the Middle East. And the case of Bahrain, the first Gulf country to experience widespread protest, shows just how deep-seated some popular grievances are. The rapid swelling of the initial pro-democracy protests into a cross-sectarian movement for substantive political reform panicked the ruling al-Khalifa regime, which “invited” Saudi and Emirati forces to restore order in March, under the guise of the region-wide Peninsula Shield Force.

12NEXT 

Will Saudi “Islamists” lead Egypt’s counter-revolution?

Will Saudi Arabia lead Egypt’s counter-revolution?

Max Strasser

Photographed by AFP

With Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule finished and much of the Arab world in a state of revolt, the time is ripe for Egypt to embark in a new, more independent direction in foreign policy. But Egypt will tread cautiously as the conservative states of the Arabian Gulf are not ready for dramatic change and will do what they can to preserve the status quo in the Middle East in a time of unprecedented uprisings. “At this point, Saudi Arabia is leading a counter-revolution,” says Salman Shaikh, the director of the Brookings Doha Center, an international nonpartisan think tank, referring to Riyadh’s interference in neighboring countries’ uprisings. The main concern is Iran.
“For Saudi Arabia, Iran is the number one, two and three issue,” says Shaikh. “It has a very myopic view.” Shortly after Mubarak left power on 11 February, Egypt’s new military government began to signal that it is ready to change relations with Iran, one of the biggest regional players and a traditional foe of Mubarak, Gulf states, Saudi Arabia and other pro-US forces in the Middle East. Egypt and Iran have not had diplomatic relations since 1979, when Cairo welcomed the deposed Iranian shah after that country’s revolution. As yet, diplomatic relations have not been restored, but rumors have circulated since February that the process is underway and Foreign Minister Nabil al-Araby announced that he will meet his Iranian counterpart in May on the sidelines of an international conference in Indonesia. 
The new Egyptian prime minister stopped by Riyadh on 24 April, presumably to explain himself and make assurances to Cairo’s traditional allies in the region. “He makes a very clear message that Egypt, when it thinks about making normal relations with Iran, will not do so instead of relations with Saudi Arabia,” says Hassan Abu Taleb, an analyst specializing in Gulf issues at Cairo’s Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. Meanwhile, the new Egyptian government seems to be exploring the possibility of modifying its relationship with Israel. Egypt was the first country to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 and has worked with Tel Aviv on a number of regional issues since. 
Araby announced on 28 April that Egypt will permanently open its border crossing with Gaza, ending its collaboration with Israel in maintaining a blockade on the Hamas-ruled territory for the last five years. The slight turn away from the US- and Gulf-led conservative coalition may already bearing fruit. On 27 April, rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah came together in Cairo to ink a reconciliation deal. A number of regional factors played a role in the sudden decision compromise, but the change in Egypt was one. The Mubarak regime, particularly under the stewardship of former intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman, had been attempting to broker such an agreement for years but with no success. This was, according to many analysts and observers, due to the regime’s bias toward Fatah, which is backed by the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the US. But even if the new Egyptian government, either under its current military leadership or its future civilian one, aims to reshape the country’s foreign policy, the change will most likely not be revolutionary. “It’s better for Egypt to ease into any change,” says Abu Taleb, who argues that foreign policy for the most part will stay the same after elections next year. “They will all be pragmatic,” he says of potential new governments. Egypt’s close ties with pro-status quo forces such as Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries means they have major pressure points they can use try to keep Egypt in check.
Egypt is in many ways economically dependent on those countries for investment and aid. Since the 25 January revolution, Gulf investors have promised billions for development projects in Egypt, while economic aid from those countries could help stabilize its new government. With the local economy in turmoil, these offers are important to Egypt. Meanwhile, Egypt relies on the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to absorb excess labor. Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians work in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, sending home billions of dollars in remittances each year. In April, rumors circulated that the United Arab Emirates was denying visas to Egyptian workers in retaliation for warming ties with Iran. Though the Emirati officials and Egypt’s Foreign Ministry denied this, the reports highlighted the importance of the relationship with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Saudi Arabia is also a leader in terms of religion in the Muslim world, exporting its conservative brand of Wahhabi Islam to Egypt and beyond. The recent rise in the Egyptian Salafi movement’s political power suggests that Saudi Arabia may be able to play that card. Saudi and Gulf money funds most Salafi television stations and internet forums, and Saudi preachers are widely respected by Salafis. “[Saudis] are trying to influence the development of the post-revolutionary ideology movement in Egypt, especially through their connections with Salafi movements,” says Ashraf El Sherif, an American University in Cairo professor who specializes in political Islamist movements. “The Salafis are trying to pressure the Muslim Brotherhood to follow the Salafi model. The Saudis already are doing this,” says El Sherif. While it may not be as big as the shifting regional balance of power, the issue of Egypt’s political Islamist movements raises another important concern for the Gulf. The success of a secular and democratic state in Egypt, the Arab world’s most populous country, would call into question the legitimacy of the conservative, religious monarchy in Riyadh. “They always presented themselves as the only valid, self-righteous version of Islamism,” says El Sherif. “Right now we can entertain different versions of Islamism that might be more democratic, more accepting than the Saudi Islamism.”

NATO Helicopters Inside N. Waziristan Wound Two Solders

NATO incursion into Pakistan wounds two troops: official

By Haji Mujtaba and Emma Graham-Harrison

MIRANSHAH, Pakistan/KABUL | Tue May 17, 2011 4:44am EDT

(Reuters) – NATO helicopters from Afghanistanintruded into northwest Pakistan on Tuesday, local intelligence officials said, wounding two soldiers and threatening to further anger a country already seething over the secret U.S. operation to kill Osama bin Laden.

A Western military official in Kabul said two NATO helicopters supporting a base in eastern Afghanistan had returned fire after being attacked fromPakistan, but declined to say whether they fired from Afghan airspace or crossed the border.

Relations between the U.S. and Pakistan have been pushed almost to the breaking point after the May 2 raid on Abbottabad that killed bin Laden, with Pakistan’s parliament condemning the operation as a violation of the nation’s sovereignty.

The latest incident comes as Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani arrives in Beijing for a visit that underlines Islamabad’s close and productive ties with another major power.

A local government official said two NATO helicopters crossed into Pakistan’s North Waziristan region and remained for about 10 minutes in the area, known to be a hub for al Qaeda-linked fighters including the Haqqani network that is leading the insurgency in eastern Afghanistan.

The helicopters retreated after Pakistani border forces opened fire in the Datta Khel area about 40 km (24 miles) west of the main town of Miranshah, a security official said.

“A shell struck a mountain nearby and two of our soldiers were wounded by the rubble,” the official said.

The Pakistani military was not immediately available for comment.

A Western military official, who asked to remain anonymous, said NATO helicopters had fired at targets inside Pakistan, but only after they were attacked from across the border.

“Our initial reports indicate that two ISAF helicopters were in the area in support of FOB (forward operating base) Tillman, as the FOB had been receiving intermittent direct and indirect fire from across the Pakistani border,” he said.

“Upon arrival the helicopter received fire from across the border but did not immediately return fire. Upon receiving fire from across the border a second time, the helicopter returned fire,” he added.

The official said the NATO-led coalition had received reports two Pakistani troops had been wounded. He declined further comment, including on whether the helicopters had entered Pakistan airspace.

TENSE US TIES

The incursion comes a day after a visit from U.S. Senator John Kerry, who was in Pakistan in an attempt to smooth relations in the wake of the bin Laden raid while also warning that Washington would not tolerate any of Pakistan’s alleged double-dealings with militant groups.

Bin Laden’s discovery in the comfortable garrison town of Abbottabad, only 50 km (30 miles) from the capital, has deeply embarrassed the military and spy agency, reviving suspicion that Pakistan knew where he was and has been playing a double game.

Pakistan has rejected that as absurd, but the United States has stepped up drone attacks against suspected militants since bin Laden’s killing despite Islamabad’s objections.

Several Pakistani helicopters took off from Waziristan’s main town of Miranshah toward the site of Tuesday’s reported incursion, a Pakistani officials said.

“After the May 2 incident, there is a high alert on the border,” a security official said. “Forces have been ordered to respond quickly if there is any attempt of intrusion.”

Separately, a Pakistani helicopter gunship destroyed a wireless communication installation established by militants in mountains near Miranshah town in an strike on Tuesday, an intelligence official in the region said.

North Waziristan is the base of the Haqqani network blamed for the insurgency in eastern Afghanistan. U.S.-led drone aircraft have targeted the area over the past year and Washington has repeatedly urged the Pakistan military to launch a ground operation.

Many militants, including foreign fighters loyal to al Qaeda, are based in Datta Khel. It is a stronghold of fighters loyal to Hafiz Gul Bahadur and has been a frequent target of U.S. drone strikes.

The reported incursion came a day after unmanned U.S. drone aircraft fired missiles in Datta Khel killing 12 militants, Pakistani officials said.

An intelligence official said that one of the dead militants, an Arab, was the son of an al Qaeda operative identified as Abu Kashif. There was no way to verify the death toll. Militants often dispute official accounts of drone attacks.

Pakistan has in the past reacted angrily to incursions by NATO aircraft

A previous incursion on September 30, 2010, killed two Pakistani troops and wounded four more when NATO helicopters crossed the border while pursing insurgents. Pakistan retaliated by shutting down the supply route for NATO troops in Afghanistan.

(Writing by Chris Allbritton; Additional reporting by Zeeshan Haider and Kamran Haider in Islamabad and Emma Graham-Harrison in Kabul; Editing by Miral Fahmy)

The Police Acted Reasonably–They Thought They Heard Flushing

High court allows warrantless search

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled yesterday against a Kentucky man who was arrested after police burst into his apartment without a search warrant because they smelled marijuana and suspected he was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

The justices, in an 8-to-1 vote, reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that threw out the evidence gathered when officers entered Hollis King’s apartment. The court said there was no violation of King’s constitutional rights because the police acted reasonably. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

Officers knocked on King’s door in Lexington and thought they heard noises indicating someone inside was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

The case concerned exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement that police need a warrant to enter a home. The issue was whether warrantless entry was justified as a reaction to the potential destruction of evidence.

© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

History clashes lay bare Ukraine’s tensions

KIEV: Unprecedented clashes during World War II commemorations in Ukraine have exposed its deep divisions and raised fears over the risks of disunity in a country completely unaccustomed to street violence.

Over a dozen people were wounded when nationalists and left-wing factions came to blows in the usually sleepy western city of Lviv during May 9’s ceremonies to mark the 66th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany.

In scenes that have shaken Ukraine, hundreds of armoured riot police failed to keep the opposing forces apart, a nationalist was shot in the leg and smoke bombs created chaos.

The riot police were plainly unable to control the competing groups, a huge embarrassment for the central authorities led by President Viktor Yanukovych in a city that is to host matches for Euro 2012 jointly hosted with Poland.

“We suffered the most shameful Victory Day of our history,” opposition MP Andriy Shevchenko told parliament.

Such violence was not seen even during the 2004 Orange Revolution, a peaceful uprising that forced a re-run of rigged presidential elections and succeeded, as Ukrainians proudly recall, without breaking a single window.

History always touches a raw nerve in Ukraine, with pro-Russian forces in the east nostalgic for Soviet rule which nationalists in the Ukrainian-speaking West regard as an occupation.

When the Nazis entered western Ukraine in 1941, some greeted them as liberators from the Soviets.

Nationalist guerrillas continued to fight Soviet forces in the mountains of western Ukraine into the 1950s and are regarded as heroes in the region to this day. The main driver within the nationalist forces in the May 9 clashes was the Svoboda (Freedom) movement of right-wing Ukrainian politician Oleg Tiagnybok, a figure gaining increasing prominence in western Ukraine.

They ripped off the black and orange ribbons that are widely worn in Russia to remember the Soviet victory and later broke through a police cordon to clash with pro-Russian leftist movements who had unfurled a 30 metre Red Flag.

“The Bolsheviks sent my mother to Siberia when she was four,” the controversial Tiagnybok told the Kommersant daily afterwards. “Why should I tolerate red Bolshevik rags in the city?” “We did not give into a provocation. We created order.”

But the Russian consul in Lviv, Oleg Astakhov, said he was unable to place a wreath at the grave of the soldiers as Svoboda youths tore it out of his hands. “It’s an insult to the dead,” he told Kommersant.

Many also say the pro-Russian factions were at least equally to blame for bringing in non-locals from the Russian speaking regions of Odessa and Crimea to attend the ceremonies in Lviv.

“The authorities provoked the violence by allowing pro-Russia extremists to come to Lviv or at least by doing nothing to prevent this,” said Viktor Chumak, director of the Ukrainian Institute of Public Politics. “This conflict has shown that a unified history does not exist for Ukrainians,” he added.

The pro-Yanukovych majority in parliament also fanned tensions by adopting a law in parliament in April allowing the Red Flag to fly from official buildings next to the Ukrainian flag on May 9.

Yanukovych has steered clear of making any major statement about the clashes and has yet to decide whether to remove the governor of the Lviv region Mykhaylo Tsimbaluk.

Bizarrely, Tsimbaluk appeared to offer his resignation this week but then said he had been forced into doing so by Svoboda activists who marched into his office.

But the violence has renewed concerns about the national unity of the country of 47 million at a crucial moment in its history as it prepares to mark in August two decades of independence.

In contrast to the events in Lviv, Victory Day in cities in the east of the country like Kharkiv were marked by open air concerts with Russian songs sung against the backdrop of the Red Flag and hammer-and-sickle.

“These two Ukraines, who have different cultures, mentalities and traditions must agree on their cultural borders where every region can mourn its dead and celebrate according to its own tradition,” said Ostap Drozdov, a prominent television anchor in Lviv. “May 9 presented every normal person with a choice — either adopt a reasonable position and co-exist with a memory of nationalists, Russians, Poles and Jews or become an extremist,” he said.

Idiot Obama–Syrian Incitement Is Bad, Tunisian, or Egyptian Incitement Is Good

[How long will the rest of the world put-up with two-faced hypocritical Western policies that ooze out of Washington's back rooms?  The delusional, slimy bastards hang-on by a thread, as they grasp the world by the throat, maintaining the illusion of sanity with these duplicitous policies of playing both sides of the same coin.  Their position is so weak, if the American majority would only realize it.  Nothing keeps the game going at this point, but the power of the lies.] 

U.S. accuses Syria of inciting Israel border clashes

(Reuters) – The White House accused the Syrian government on Monday of inciting deadly border clashes between Israeli troops and Palestinian demonstrators, saying Damascus was trying to distract attention from its own violent crackdown on protests.

White House spokesman Jay Carney expressed regret for the loss of life in confrontations on Israel’s frontiers with Syria, Lebanon and Gaza on Sunday but said the Jewish state “has the right to prevent unauthorized crossing at its borders.”

“We urge maximum restraint on all sides,” Carney told reporters on Air Force One as President Barack Obama flew to Tennessee.

Israeli troops opened fire at three separate border locations to prevent crowds of demonstrators from crossing, killing at least 13 people.

Syrian media reports said Israeli gunfire killed two people after dozens of Palestinians infiltrated the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights from Syria, along a front line that has been largely tranquil for decades.

The White House put the onus on the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the violence that broke out on the Israeli-Syrian border.

Carney said the administration was “strongly opposed to the Syrian government’s involvement in inciting yesterday’s protests in the Golan Heights.”

“Such behavior is unacceptable and does not serve as a distraction from the Syrian government’s ongoing repression of demonstrators in its own country,” he said.

“It seems apparent to us that this is an effort to distract attention from the legitimate expressions of protest by the Syrian people, and from the harsh crackdown that the Syrian government has perpetrated against its own people,” he added.

The Obama administration has tightened sanctions on senior Syrian officials to try to pressure Damascus to halt its crackdown on pro-democracy protests, but international human rights groups have criticized Washington for not taking stronger action.

(Writing by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Eric Beech)

EU Signs Development Deal With Ukraine’s Primarily Russian Crimea

[The majority of people in Crimea, an autonomous region of the Ukraine, are Russian.]

EU Signs Development Deal With Ukraine’s Crimea

May 14, 2011

BRUSSELS — The European Commission and Ukraine’s Republic of Crimea have signed a deal to boost development and improve services in the region.

On May 13, EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fuele pledged 12 million euros ($16.9 million) in technical assistance over the next two years to develop the Crimean port city of Sevastopol and the surrounding region, upgrade the area’s infrastructure, and to modernize the tourism sector.

The European Commission will also send various experts to Crimea.

It is the first time a Ukrainian region has struck a deal directly with Brussels and it is expected that other regions will follow suit.

At a press conference, Fuele added that more cooperation could follow. “I think there is a potential for an extended relationship between the EU and Crimea, between the member states and Crimea beyond the 12 million-euro program,” he said.

Crimean Prime Minister Vasyl Dzarthy, on his first visit to Brussels, expressed confidence that more deals between the EU and Crimea will follow.

“The commissioner and I agree that this agreement only can be seen as the core, the very skeleton on which we are going to grow the meat of more specific cooperation agreements,” he said.

Crimea, Ukraine’s only autonomous republic, has a population of about 2 million and is a popular tourist destination as a peninsula in the Black Sea.

Palestinians discover the greatest weapon in their arsenal, mass protests

[Palestinians discover the greatest weapon in their arsenal, mass protests.  One long general strike and Israelis would have to be their own waiters and "wood-cutters."  Shut it down and see the light.]

Palestinians test tactic of unarmed mass marches

BY KARIN LAUB

ASSOCIATED PRESS

RAMALLAH, West Bank – Palestinian activists are calling it a preview of new tactics to pressure Israel and win world support for statehood: Masses of marchers, galvanized by the Arab Spring and brought together by Facebook, descending on borders and military posts – and daring Israeli soldiers to shoot.

It could prove more problematic for Israel than the suicide bombings and other deadly violence of the past – which the current Palestinian Authority leadership feels only tainted their cause.

After attempted border breaches from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Gaza left 15 Palestinians dead Sunday, Israeli officials openly puzzled over how to handle an unfamiliar new phase.

“The Palestinians’ transition from terrorism and suicide bombings to deliberately unarmed mass demonstrations is a transition that will present us with difficult challenges,” said Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Sunday’s protests were driven by renewed hopes that Palestinian statehood – at least as an internationally approved idea within specific borders – is approaching after years of paralysis.

The optimism is fed by reconciliation efforts between the Islamic militant Hamas and the Western-backed Fatah movement after a four-year split, as well as growing international support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ plan to seek U.N. recognition of a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem in September over Israel’s objections.

Although some say U.N. recognition will change little on the ground, the pro-democracy revolts in the Arab world have instilled a new sense of possibility among Palestinians, who had been dejected after two failed uprisings against Israeli rule and fruitless peace talks over the past 20 years.

Meanwhile, the Facebook generation is increasingly taking a lead in the Palestinian arena, at times sidelining political veterans stuck to more traditional ways.

“There is a new energy, a new dynamism,” said Hanan Ashrawi, a former Palestinian negotiator. “The Palestinians feel they have put themselves on the map again.”

Sunday’s marches occurred on the day Palestinians mourn Israel’s 1948 creation, when hundreds of thousands of their people were uprooted and scattered throughout the region.

Marking the anniversary, called the “nakba,” Arabic for “catastrophe,” Palestinian organizers bused hundreds to Lebanon’s border with Israel and to the Syrian frontier in the Israeli-held Golan Heights. Surprised and overwhelmed, Israeli troops fired to keep the crowds from breaching the borders. Four Palestinians were killed in the Golan and 10 in Lebanon, while a 15th was fatally shot as dozens rushed Israel’s border wall with the Gaza Strip.

It’s unclear whether future calls for more mass marches will produce a similar turnout since Sunday’s casualties underscored the heavy risks.

However, Palestinian activists in recent months have spoken of employing such tactics throughout the West Bank, the core of a hoped-for future Palestinian state.

Some in Israel suspected that allies of arch-foe Iran, including the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, had a hand in the border breaches or that Syria helped instigate them to divert attention from its brutal crackdown on domestic unrest. In Lebanon’s border area, Hezbollah activists with walkie-talkies directed buses and handed out Palestinian flags.

However, the Palestinians say it was purely their initiative, launched on Facebook several months ago, with heavy involvement by expatriates. “No one expected it to work, and it did work,” said Hazem Abu Hilal, a Palestinian organizer.

Palestinian officials quickly embraced the campaign as a boost for their three-pronged strategy – seeking U.N. recognition, building a state from the ground up and fostering nonviolent protests.

Abbas declared a three-day mourning period for Sunday’s dead, and flags were lowered to half-staff. “You assert to everyone that … peoples’ wills are stronger than their oppressors,” he said in a televised speech, addressing the protesters.

Nabil Shaath, a Palestinian negotiator, said he believes Sunday’s marches were just a hint of what’s to come.

“These people are motivated now by the revolutions that succeeded in the Arab world, and I don’t think anybody can stop them,” said Shaath, speaking from Slovenia, where he was trying to add one more country to the list of dozens who have already recognized a Palestinian state in principle.

Although they now claim inspiration from other Arab rebellions, the Palestinians were among the first in the Arab world to launch a popular uprising. In the late 1980s, they challenged Israeli military rule with mass marches, rock-throwing protests and general strikes, laying the groundwork for negotiations that led to interim peace deals with Israel, included self-rule in parts of the occupied areas.

The second uprising, a decade later, was typified by shooting attacks and suicide bombings which killed many hundreds of Israelis. The violence eroded much of the worldwide sympathy for the Palestinians and triggered Israeli countermeasures which killed thousands of Palestinians.

“This is what put us on the contemporary map, unarmed people facing a brutal occupation,” Ashrawi said of the first uprising. “Now again, it is evident that this kind of resistance not only gets you the moral high ground, but also exposes the immorality of the occupation.”

Bold peace moves seem unlikely because both Israelis and Palestinians have set conditions that seem destined to stay unmet. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won’t deal with a Hamas-Fatah unity government until Hamas recognizes Israel; Abbas has resisted resuming talks until Israel totally freezes settlement construction.

Ex-general Yossi Peled, who commanded Israeli troops on the Lebanese and Syrian borders, said border breaches will likely be attempted again and must be stopped at any cost – regardless of the political fallout – because they pose a direct challenge to Israel’s sovereignty.

“Yesterday’s promo leaves us little time to draw the conclusions and come up with a new method of warfare where Israel will confront unarmed civilians, children and women,” he said.

Alon Liel, a veteran Israeli diplomat, said the momentum is with the Palestinians. “This is a new type of enthusiasm around Palestinian nationalism, tied to the expectations in September,” he said.

Associated Press writer Mohammed Daraghmeh in Ramallah, West Bank, contributed reporting.

Seeing Red

 Ukrainian nationalists in Lviv clash with pro-Russian groups during May 9 Victory Day celebrations on the 66th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany. Dozens of supporters of the nationalist Svoboda Party reportedly attacked a smaller group of pro-Russian activists going to a World War II memorial. Nationalists threw rocks and smoke bombs. One individual, wearing a St. George ribbon from the pro-Russian group, fired a gun with rubber bullets at the nationalists. (Pavlo Palamarchuk)

Natalia A. Feduschak

When conflicts broke out during May 9 Victory Day celebrations in Lviv, some blamed radical nationalists angered by displays of red flags steeped in Soviet symbolism.

Others saw provocations by pro-Russian supporters of President Viktor Yanukovych. What is really happening?

Many people are calling street clashes between pro-Russian and Ukrainian nationalists in Lviv on May 9 an orchestrated campaign by extremists to exacerbate the country’s ideological and geographic divide.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of Regions have called for an investigation into the clashes, which left 16 people injured, none seriously.

The incidents threaten to undermine Kyiv’s warming relationship with Moscow.

But some political analysts and administration critics blame the president’s supporters, suggesting that the conflicts are a way for Yanukovych to capitalize politically on disorder.

The motive, these critics say, is to reinvigorate Yanukovych’s traditional Russian-speaking electorate in eastern Ukraine.

Across Ukraine, polls show that Yanukovych’s popularity has plunged because of high inflation, continuing corruption and other ills.

Supporters of Ukraine nationalist parties light flares as police try to bring order after clashes in Lviv during Victory Day to commemorate the defeat of Nazi Germany. Nationalists scuffled with pro-Russian activists. (AFP)

Critics of the nationalist Svoboda Party however, say the organization and Russian extremists are two sides of the same coin.

Despite its nationalist credentials, allegations have dogged Svoboda about the sources of its financing. Some suspect people close to the pro-presidential Party of Regions of furtively backing the nationalists, charges denied by Svoboda.

However, on May 12, deputies from Lviv’s Oblast Council blamed authorities in Kyiv for the May 9 riots.

In a statement, the council said that “a cynical provocation occurred on May 9. The ruling authorities openly showed that they are working along the Kremlin scenario, written by the [Russian Federal Security Service] FSB. They are working to whet social standoffs and for the division of Ukraine.”

A furious Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadovyi seemed to concur on May 10.

Judging from those events that happened in Lviv, in Kyiv and other regions of the country, those events that occurred around the red flag, around fights that in my opinion were planned and incited and implemented by the current authorities…all this is the beginning of a project to divide the territory of Ukraine.

- Yulia Tymoshenko, former Prime Minister of Ukraine

“A crime occurred in Lviv yesterday,” Sadovyi said, questioning why police had failed to uphold a court order prohibiting the gathering of political groups on May 9.

“Why did representatives of Russian fascists yesterday raise a [Soviet] flag on the Hill of Glory? Why did the law enforcement agencies not react? Is this unprofessionalism or conscious support for the instigators?”

In a day marked by chaos as much as violence, members of Ukraine’s nationalist Svoboda Party clashed with Communist Party members and representatives of the pro-Russian ultra-nationalist Russkoye Yedinstvo, Rodina and Dozor parties.

The backdrop, of course, was the 66th anniversary of the Soviet and Allied victory over Nazi Germany.

According to various eyewitness and news accounts, over a five-hour period, Svodoba members and fans of the Karpaty soccer club blocked visitor access to Lviv’s famed Marsove Pole war cemetery.

These activists tore off commemorative orange-and-black St. George’s ribbons, a Russian and then Soviet military honor, from those who wore them, including World War II veterans. They burned confiscated Soviet-style red flags and threw rocks at pro-Russian groups.

Supporters of Ukraine’s Communist Party and pro-Russian groups, meanwhile, escalated the violence by forcing their way to Lviv’s Hill of Glory Memorial Complex under police escort.

There, they unveiled a 30-meter-long red flag despite the court order, which also banned the use of Soviet and Nazi symbols on May 9, and previous assurances they would not do so.

Raising the Soviet flag over Berlin’s Reichstag. The historic photograph was taken on May 2, 1945, by Yevgeny Khaldei, just six days before Nazi Germany’s surrender. (Ukrinform)

Demonstrators clashed with police, while residents refused to let the buses leave.

In one of the day’s most unnerving incidences, Sviatoslav Sopilnyk, reportedly a former police captain, shot at Ukrainian nationalist demonstrators, hitting one Svoboda Party member in the knee with a rubber bullet. Although he claims self-defense, a criminal case has been opened against him.

“Judging from those events that happened in Lviv, in Kyiv and other regions of the country, those events that occurred around the red flag, around fights that in my opinion were planned and incited and implemented by the current authorities…all this is the beginning of a project to divide the territory of Ukraine,” said former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

Sadovyi told reporters in his May 10 news conference he blamed law enforcement agencies for not doing their job as violence unfolded.

Like other cities in Ukraine, Lviv does not control its police forces. Rather, they are managed by the Interior Ministry based in Kyiv.

Fearing provocations, the mayor said the city had specifically gone to court to obtain an order banning the gathering of political and citizen groups.

Sadovyi said he wanted to know why pro-Russian groups were “allowed to go to the Hill of Glory by bus and why did the police [strike with batons] Lviv residents and protect [the instigators]? These were specially planned things.”

Interior Ministry spokespeople said their ministry had no idea pro-Russian groups would come to the city until the last minute.

If people can’t carry the red flag, then they shouldn’t be able to carry the Bandera flag.

- Victor Rohov, first deputy of Lviv’s branch of the Party of Regions, referring to the black-and-red standard of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, known by the UPA acronym.

Meanwhile, Viktor Ratushniak, a deputy interior minister, told reporters in Kyiv on May 11 that he was satisfied with the reaction of Lviv’s police. “Despite the fact that there were attempts to destabilize the situation, the police prevented the escalation of individual violations of public order into mass disorder,” Ratushniak said.

Ratushniak said investigators are looking into why a red flag was unveiled at the Hill of Glory. But, in his opinion, the clashes were instigated by Svoboda Party members.

Politicians and analysts say the stage for conflict was set by parliament, which voted to allow use on May 9 of the Soviet Victory Day flag – replete with star, hammer and sickle. It also honors the Soviet 150th Infantry Division and symbolizes the 1945 Soviet role in the victory over Nazi Germany.

Soviet symbols are an anathema to many residents of nationally-oriented western Ukraine, which fell under Soviet rule at the end of World War II. Many in this Ukrainian-speaking region view the Soviet period as an occupation. In contrast, pro-Russian and pro-Soviet sentiment is higher in the mostly Russian-speaking eastern and southern regions of Ukraine.

Victor Rohov, first deputy of Lviv’s branch of the Party of Regions, however, said he felt the rights of citizens who wanted to honor Soviet war dead were violated on May 9. He said that many individuals who carried red carnations, which is “the least expensive flower,” were harassed by Svoboda Party members.

As for the use of red flags, he noted a double standard existed in western Ukraine.

“If people can’t carry the red flag, then they shouldn’t be able to carry the Bandera flag,” he said, referring to the black-and-red standard of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, known by the UPA acronym, which is frequently seen in western Ukraine.

Everyone received their beneficial political dividends.

- Taras Voznyak, a political analyst and editor of Lviv’s respected “Ji” magazine.

UPA was the military wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists’ faction led by Stepan Bandera (1909-1959), who was killed by a KGB agent in Munich. OUN’s goal was the establishment of an independent Ukrainian state and violence was accepted as a political tool.

Iryna Sekh, a leading Svoboda Party member, said her group had done everything possible to avert confrontation. “These were planned provocations,” she said. “Svoboda did all that we could so this situation would not happen.”

Sekh denied that party members hurled rocks at veterans, but could not stand by as its own members were attacked by pro-Russia nationalists. “Don’t confuse soccer fans with our party members,” she said.

The clashes, meanwhile, are already testing Ukraine’s warming relationship with Russia, where politicians called for an investigation and punishment of those responsible.

They said it was insulting that the wreath Russia’s general council Oleh Astahov tried to lay at the Hill of Glory was seized by nationalists and then trampled.

“What happened in Lviv on May 9, this is a shameful sight, this is an insult to the memory of the fallen, and an undisguised outrage over the symbols of the victory,” Leonid Slutskiy, deputy head of the Russian parliament’s international relations committee, said on May 10.

Slutskiy said Moscow would react to the Lviv events with an “identical situation.”

Analysts said, the May 9 conflicts were a theatrical show that played into the hands of Ukrainian and Russian extremist groups, as well as the Kremlin, police services and the current government.

On May 11, however, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry testily responded that it expected greater tolerance from its neighbor where sensitive questions of mutual history were involved.

“Unfortunately, the reaction of the Russian side to the Lviv events show that the instruments from the arsenal of anti-Ukrainian campaigns of the past were not thrown into the scrap heap of history,” the ministry said in a statement. “We are convinced that Ukraine and Russia will demonstrate to the entire world an example of tolerance and mutual respect in such sensitive questions as historical memory and state identity.”

Ultimately, analysts said, the May 9 conflicts were a theatrical show that played into the hands of Ukrainian and Russian extremist groups, as well as the Kremlin, police services and the current government.

“Everyone received their beneficial political dividends,” said Taras Voznyak, a political analyst and editor of Lviv’s respected “Ji” magazine.

Kyiv Post staff writer Natalia A. Feduschak can be reached at feduschak@kyivpost.com.

May 9 Victory Day celebrations included public displays of the Soviet 150th Infantry Division flag, a popular symbol of the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945.

Showing the flag of the Soviet Union is unwelcome in many parts of Ukraine.

Ukraine’s national blue-and-yellow flag is the only one that many citizens want to see flying in the nation.

Many Ukrainians are upset that the Black Sea Fleet under the Russian flag will remain in Sevastopol until at least 2042

The Ribbon of St. George is a Russian medal of honor commonly worn during World War II commemorations.

Read more: http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/104286/#ixzz1MXn5rF5g