The failing Euro sparks "questions"

Palestinians mark Nakba

Iraq shias "offered" to aid army

~~~~~~~

You're being offered help to protect the city, with no cost, and you deny it?

Why not just accept the small militia into the main Iraqi army, and protect the city as it should be protected?

These just seem like political games to me, to deny a standing army's help, that is known for protecting the people.

The Listening Post - UK's election drama

Second Video here

Growing outcry over Facebook privacy changes

US to fund installation of Israeli rocket defence system

Israel plans to deploy the rocket defence system this year

Barack Obama is to ask the US Congress for an extra $200m in military aid to help Israel get a short-range rocket defence system in place.

The system is designed to shoot down mortars and rockets from Gaza or Southern Lebanon with guided missiles.

The system, called Iron Dome, has gone through testing and installation will start later this year.

According to US State Department figures, direct military aid to Israel was $2.55bn in 2009.

This is set to increase to $3.15bn in 2018.

Easing tensions

A White House spokesman reaffirmed what he called the administration's "unshakeable commitment" to Israel's security - adding that Mr Obama recognised the threat posed by missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iron Dome was conceived and developed in Israel following the Lebanon war of 2006, during which Hezbollah launched about 4,000 rockets into northern Israel.

Southern Israel has also come under fire, with thousands of rockets and mortars fired by Palestinian militants.

Israel completed tests on the system in January. Officials say the next phase in its development is its integration into the Israeli army.

A BBC correspondent in Washington, Steve Kingstone, says Washington may be acting now to ease the recent tensions in its relations with Israel.

In March a diplomatic row erupted when approval was granted for new homes for Jews in occupied east Jerusalem. The decision came during a visit to the city by the US Vice-President Joe Biden.

The announcement on US funding for Iron Dome coincides with the resumption of indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Source

Support the Fair Elections Now Act: Fix Congress to Restore Trust in Our Democracy

TYT May Roundup

Elena Kagan: Bad Pick By Obama for Supreme Court?

Facebook Privacy And Security Issues

Obama Open To Change Miranda Rule

Lawrence Lessig: The Case For Elena Kagan

The Liberal Democrat surrender

Posted by Mehdi Hasan - 12 May 2010 14:37

This is the great betrayal. There is no other way to put it.

Prime Minister David Cameron (R) and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg hold their first joint press conference in the Downing Street garden. Photograph: Getty Images.

Did anyone see TweedleCam and TweedleClegg on the doorstep of Downing Street? I'm glad I didn't have breakfast this morning. Otherwise, I think I'd have been sick by now. (Will their private secretaries, by the way, be able to tell them apart?)

Nick Clegg - the former aide to Tory Eurocrat Leon Brittan and former member of the Cambridge University Conservative Association - is now the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK. David Laws - the former investment banker and Orange Book supporter of an insurance-backed health service who was once suspected by Paddy Ashdown of being a Conservative mole and was once invited by George Osborne to join the Tory Shadow Cabinet - is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Osborne's number two. Vince Cable - another former Orange Booker and one-time supporter of "light-touch regulation" who, as I noted in a critical NS profile of him in September 2009, first touted the possibility of a Tory-Lib Dem alliance back in 2005 - is the Business Secretary. It will be interesting to document Cable's verbal and intellectual contortions in the coming days, as he defends the impending Tory "austerity" measures - like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, he spent much of the election campaign condemning Cameron and Osborne's economic illiteracy and, in particular, their Hooverite enthusiasm for spending cuts this year (opposed, incidentally, by the IMF, the OECD and 67 leading economists in a letter to the Financial Times). So here comes the double-dip recession - courtesy of Cameron and Clegg, Osborne and Cable (oh, and those self-destructive Labour tribalists, on left and right, who preferred to luxuriate in opposition than contemplate a power-sharing deal with the Lib Dems).

The truth is that in countless seats seats across the land, thousands of people voted Lib Dem in order to keep Cameron out of Downing Street. They did not want, or expect, the Liberal Democrats to become Tory enablers in a hung parliament. In an interview with me on the eve of the election, the arch-tribalist Ed Balls called on Labour voters to back the Lib Dem candidate (and sitting MP) Norman Lamb in the Tory-Lib Dem seat of Norfolk North, in order to keep the Conservatives out. The result? The third-placed Labour vote fell 3 per cent and Lib Dem Lamb held onto his seat with an increased majority over the second-placed Conservatives. In my view, Lamb now owes those tactical Labour voters in his constituency an apology. So do all those Lib Dem MPs who were elected in three-way marginals.

Clegg has betrayed progressives across the length and breadth of Britain. He had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to repair the century-old rift on the centre-left and forge a radical and progressive alliance in favour of electoral and constitutional reform. I suspect Labour will now sit on its hands in any future referendum and the Lib Dems might be on their own campaiging for a "yes" vote. Their new partners in government have already stated their plans to oppose any change to our dysfunctional first-past-the-post system.

Clegg has also betrayed the longer-term strategic interests of his party, for crude and short-term tactical gains. Thanks to his bravura performance in the first TV debate, we had seemed to be on the verge of breaking our stale duopoly and introducing genuine three-party politics to the UK for the first time. But the next general election, whether it is sooner or later (and the bookies have 50:50 odds on another election within the year!), will see the Lib Dems horribly squeezed by the two main parties. It will be a straight Conservative-Labour battle once more. And what, after all, would be the point of voting Lib Dem? In fact, I'm sure the Labour pamphlets have already been printed: "Vote Clegg, Get Cameron". It has a ring to it. It also has the virtue of being true.

Clegg's decision to join hands with Cameron's Conservatives is, in the words of Alastair Campbell on Newsnight yesterday, "a strategic error of gigantic and historic proportions". Reports have already emerged of the Labour Party website crashing under the pressure of new membership applications. One Cabinet minister expects hundreds of defections from the Lib Dems to Labour in his own constituency. "I even know the names of one or two Lib Dem councillors thinking of jumping ship. They are distraught," he tells me.

Labour now remains the only truly progressive, centre-left, anti-Conservative mainstream party in this country. Bring on the next election. The Liberal Democrats will be punished. Clegg and co will regret their foolish betrayal.

Update: Oh, and the biggest policy betrayal by the Lib Dems was Clegg's decision to swap his effective amnesty for illegal immigrants for (what he once called) the Tories' "arbitary cap" on immigration. How can Lib Dems like Simon Hughes and Charles Kennedy vote for such an immoral and unworkable proposal?

Source

The revealing journey between Hong Kong and China

Hong Kong was a British colony between 1847 and 1997

By Michael Bristow BBC News, Hong Kong

The world has many great journeys, trips which are more than just travel between two points - they reveal something about the land.

There are epic car drives, train rides across continents and walks that retrace the steps of pilgrims.

But rarely do these journeys extend for just a few hundred metres.

The Lo Wu border crossing that separates Shenzhen, in mainland China, from Hong Kong is an exception.

If it were not for the passport and security checks, the whole trip would take just a few minutes to complete on foot.

Hong Kong is different and that is the result of its unique history

It is not even a scenic journey.

The checkpoints on either side of the divide are housed in ugly, squat concrete buildings.

The walk between them is across a covered bridge which spans a murky river.

But this is still a great journey because of what it reveals about the two sides.

Flourishing trade

As many as 300,000 people pass through this border every day.

Betty Hong works on the Hong Kong side. She oversees this human tide.

In Shenzhen, the newspapers on sale mostly repeat the propaganda dictated by officials in Beijing

For some, the job would be dull and monotonous but not for her.

She told me that she prides herself on making sure nearly everyone gets through in less than 30 minutes.

In some respects, Lo Wu looks like many other checkpoints across the world. There is the trade in goods, for one.

On the mainland side, young men dart to and fro on bicycles fitted with a square piece of plywood on the back.

Goods are piled high on these small platforms - products that have just been brought over the boundary line or are destined for Hong Kong.

And on both sides of this crossing point there are shops selling last-minute gifts and souvenirs.

But it does not take a keen eye to notice that there is also something very different about the two sides of this border, something that shows they are governed not just by different rules, but also by different ideas.

'Out-of-step'

In Shenzhen, the newspapers on sale mostly repeat the propaganda dictated by officials in Beijing.

But just a short distance to the south, in Hong Kong, a reader can get access to a far greater wealth of news, information that is free from government censorship.

Newspapers like the UK's Financial Times are readily available.

It is also immediately clear that Hong Kong is more connected to the outside world.

On that side of the border, there is a branch of the convenience store 7-Eleven.

And weary travellers can pause for a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

The language is different too.

Border guards in Shenzhen speak Mandarin, a northern language that is used by Beijing as a tool to unify China's vast territory.

But in Hong Kong, officials still speak the local Chinese dialect, Cantonese - an expression of their own, separate identity.

These may be fragmented images but they suggest Hong Kong is out of step with the rest of China.

And that is true. Hong Kong is different and that is the result of its unique history.

'More international'

Until it was handed back to China in 1997, it was a British colony, ruled by a governor despatched from London.

Many Chinese cross to Hong Kong every day for work

A mix of Chinese hard work and British order allowed the colony to grow rich and successful.

That formula was preserved after the handover, using the principal of "one country, two systems".

China got rid of the British but Hong Kong got to keep its own rules.

That is why it is still more open, more international and freer than the mainland.

A visitor returning to Hong Kong today after a 20-year absence would not really notice many differences.

Of course some things have changed in the decade or so since the handover.

There are now more mainlanders crossing the border.

I met two of them in one of the crowded restaurants on the Shenzhen side. These two women had just come back from a five-day shopping trip in Hong Kong.

I shared their table as they happily bolted down a meal of roast duck on rice, before dashing off to catch a plane.

One of them was clutching a new Louis Vuitton bag.

"We just love Hong Kong," said the one with the designer accessory.

The break, she said, had given the two childhood friends valuable shopping time together before they headed back to their government desk jobs.

Restricted rights

But it is the lack of change which I think is more interesting.

When I first visited Hong Kong two decades ago, I did not think much about the differences.

After all, Hong Kong was still British. It was handed back to China just as the country's opening up to the outside world was gathering pace.

Many thought - or hoped - that China would become more like Hong Kong, with its freedoms, its tolerance and its rule of law.

But the rights of mainland Chinese are in many respects as restricted today as they have ever been.

So Hong Kong and Shenzhen still offer two sharply contrasting views of how to organise society.

And a short walk across the Lo Wu border point makes all that abundantly clear.

Source

Gates to slash Pentagon bureaucracy costs

Robert Gates said the cuts would include the number of top officers

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a far-reaching review of administration costs at the Pentagon.

Mr Gates said 40% of his department's budget went on bureaucracy, and that he wanted to save more than $10bn that would be spent on combat operations.

He compared US defence spending to an oil gusher that had to be turned off.

Mr Gates described one example of waste, where requests for dog-handlers in Afghanistan had to be approved by no fewer than five Pentagon departments.

The current defence budget, not counting the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, is $535bn. Mr Gates wants $549bn for 2011.

'Root-and-branch changes'

In a speech at the Eisenhower Presidential Library in Abilene, Kansas, Mr Gates said the Department of Defense had to "take a hard look at every aspect of how it is organised, staffed and operated - indeed, every aspect of how it does business".

Simply taking a few percent off the top of everything on a one-time basis will not do US Defence Secretary Robert Gates

He said he had recently come to the conclusion that in the wake of "difficult economic circumstances and parlous fiscal condition" of the US, the Pentagon would be required to make major savings.

"The gusher has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time," he added.

Noting that long-term savings of $330bn had already been made last year by cutting several dozen weapons programmes, Mr Gates said his new goal was to cut "overhead" in the Pentagon's budget by between two and three percent, or $10bn to $15bn per year.

The savings would allow the Pentagon to sustain current force levels and free up funds for modernisation programmes, he added.

"Simply taking a few percent off the top of everything on a one-time basis will not do," he said. "These savings must stem from root-and-branch changes that can be sustained and added to over time."

Mr Gates said the cuts would include the number of top officers.

"During the 1990s, the military saw deep cuts in overall force structure - the Army by nearly 40%. But the reduction in flag officers - generals and admirals - was about half that."

"The department's management layers - civilian and military - and numbers of senior executives outside the services grew during that same period," he added.

Source

Searching for 'normal life' in old Baghdad

Diners can choose their own carp for dinner at Baghdad's al-Wiyah club

By Gabriel Gatehouse BBC News, Baghdad

Baghdad is much less violent than it was five years ago, but today's version of "normality" bears no comparison to the city's heyday in the 60s and 70s, before Saddam Hussein took power.

The first thing most people ask me when I tell them I live and work in Baghdad is: "What's it like?"

A perfectly natural question, for sure, but one I find difficult to answer.

The litany of Iraq's current problems is too long to list, but it starts with virtually non-existent basic services like electricity supply, and ends with the continuing violence which claims the lives of hundreds of Iraqis every month.

"But isn't life getting back to normal?" they ask. "Aren't things getting better?"

That is true, they are. Or at least, things are not nearly as bad as they were two or three years ago.

But is Baghdad a city where one can now lead what might conceivably be termed a "normal life"?

Well, there is one small corner of the capital where they are trying very hard.

Old Baghdad

If you climb up on top of the blast walls that surround the BBC compound and negotiate your way past the guards armed with Kalashnikov rifles and around the coils of barbed wire, you will come to a little wooden stepladder.

At the bottom is a warren of narrow concrete alleyways, and yet more blast walls.

And behind one of those walls, a short walk away, there lies hidden a small oasis of the old Baghdad, a place where things are, more or less, the way they used to be.

Barbed wire, guards and blast walls are part of everyday life

This is the al-Wiyah club.

The other night some Iraqi friends and I went to the club for dinner. We sat at a table towards the back of the large garden.

Children played on the well-watered lawn, families and groups of friends sat on plastic chairs or swing-benches, the men and women together, smoking nargileh (hookah pipes with fruit-scented tobacco) and drinking tea, or even something stronger.

The first thing to do was to select our carp. Right at the back there was a roaring charcoal fire, and next to it a tank full of enormous fish.

No, these had not been caught in the sewage-filled Tigris, a man in a turban assured me, they were farmed.

He scooped our chosen carp out with his hands and, with a broad grin gave its gaping mouth a kiss of death, before whacking it over the head with his large knife, and slicing it open length-ways.

Halcyon days

While we waited for our dinner, the Baghdad speciality mazgouf, we sat down with a drink and a nargileh.

Mustafa, an engineer in his 40s, had brought along some old footage, reels of family film taken in the late 60s and he 70s.

Life back then seemed to have consisted of an endless series of birthday parties, weekend excursions and holidays abroad.

Men and women, smartly dressed in the latest European and American fashions, were joking, singing, dancing together, heads uncovered, and women's skirts firmly above the knee.

This was Iraq in its heyday, a country that was relatively liberal, prosperous and well-educated. It looked like a carefree existence. Life, Mustafa said, was quite literally a picnic.

People come here to drink and to eat - to forget what's outside these walls, the bombs and the killings Al-Wiyah club manager

Everyone round the table agreed that three historical events had killed off what now seems a charmed way of life.

The first was the rise to power of Saddam Hussein and the outbreak of war with Iran in 1980.

The second was the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the crippling economic sanctions that followed.

But by far the biggest and most shattering change came in 2003, with the American and British invasion, which plunged the country into unspeakable violence.

At least under Saddam Hussein, Mustafa said, Iraq was the safest country on earth.

As we waited for our food, the garden suddenly went dark, briefly, as the city's power-supply gave out, and the rumble of a dozen generators kicked in.

Just then a pair of American helicopters hovered overhead - a sound that provides the quintessential accompaniment to life in Baghdad today.

The carp arrived, and we all tucked in, using our hands to scoop up the salty warm fish in big chunks of flatbread.

'Losing hope'

Then the manager stopped by for a chat. He told me that the club had been open continuously for more than 85 years.

"But since 2003, we're all scared," he said. "People come here to drink and to eat - to forget what's outside these walls, the bombs and the killings."

"So is this normal life?" I asked him. He shrugged. Another friend chipped in.

"The problem is," he said, "people have lost hope that things will change. So we are all trying to get used to the way things are now."

We turned back to Mustafa's old film.

Grainy footage showed a young girl sitting on a dining table surrounded by beaming friends and family.

There was a birthday cake with three candles, and the girl was trying, and failing, to blow them out, much to the amusement of the onlookers. Suddenly, the screen went dark.

Mustafa roared with laughter. "Even back then there were power cuts," he said.

Some things, at least, really have not changed.

Source

History of Harrods department store / Mohammed Al Fayed sells Harrods store to Qatar Holdings

History of Harrods department store

London department store Harrods has been sold by its owner Mohammed Al Fayed to the Qatari royal family for £1.5bn.

The Knightsbridge store was rebuilt to its current design after a fire in 1880

Recognised for its celebrity-endorsed sales, food hall and signature green bags, Harrods is one of the world's largest and most famous department stores.

With more than a million square feet (90,000 sq m) of space, Harrods sells luxury items across seven floors and 330 departments.

Its motto is Omnia Omnibus Ubique - All Things for All People, Everywhere - and the store attracts 15 million customers each year.

The Knightsbridge store was established in 1849 by Charles Henry Harrod. Beginning in a single room and employing two assistants and a messenger boy, it mainly sold tea and groceries.

Harrods steadily expanded, and by 1880 was a thriving department store, offering everything from medicines and perfumes to clothing and food and attracted wealthy customers.

Its expansion suffered a knock in 1883 when a fire destroyed the store. This did not halt the owners, however, who duly rebuilt the store, with the help of architect Charles William Stephens, into what it is today.

Known for its grandeur, when the store reopened it had a palatial style, featuring a frontage clad in terracotta tiles adorned with cherubs, swirling Art Nouveau windows and was topped with a baroque-style dome.

Harrods became a public company in 1889 and by the 1890s it had established a bank and estate agency.

It featured one of the world's first escalators in 1898.

During World War II, the store transformed itself from selling luxury goods to making uniforms, parachutes and parts for Lancaster bombers.

In 1959, High Street department store group House of Fraser bought Harrods.

Bitter feud

In 1985 the store returned to private ownership when Egypt-born Mr Al Fayed and his brother Ali bought House of Fraser for £615m, snatching it from mining conglomerate Lonrho.

Mr Al Fayed bought Harrods with his brother in 1985

The takeover bid was bitterly fought as Mr Al Fayed had previously served on Lonrho's board but left nine months later after a disagreement.

Lonrho's director, the late Tiny Rowland, took his campaign against the takeover to the Department of Trade who duly held an inquiry.

The subsequent report, issued in 1990, concluded that the Al Fayeds had lied about their background and their wealth.

"We are satisfied that the image they created between November 1984 and March 1985 of their wealthy Egyptian ancestors was completely bogus."

The public feud between the businessmen appeared to reach reconciliation in 1993 however Mr Rowland later accused Mr Al Fayed of breaking into a safety deposit box held at the store.

This dispute was later settled with Mr Rowland's wife after his death.

Dress code

Harrods has twice experienced bomb attacks by the IRA. In 1983, six people were killed and 75 injured after a car exploded in an adjacent street while in 1993, four were injured when a bomb was placed in a litter bin outside.

The store controversially introduced a dress code in 1989 which included a ban on wearing high-cut, Bermuda or beach shorts; swimwear; cycling shorts and flip flops or thong sandals. Bare midriffs as well as dirty or unkempt clothing are also not allowed.

In 1994, the Al Fayed brothers let go of the other House of Fraser businesses in a stock market flotation, keeping only Harrods.

By 2000, the Harrods empire had expanded to take in outlets at airports and on the QE2 cruise ship.

Mr Al Fayed also added his own personal touches to the store, such as the Egyptian Room, which is adorned with several busts of himself.

Following the death of his son, Dodi, and Diana, Princess of Wales, in a car crash in August 1997, Mr Al Fayed created a memorial to the couple in the store.

He also made a series of allegations about the circumstances of the death and the British Royal family.

In 2000, Mr Al Fayed decided to not renew his royal warrants, saying that since neither the Queen, nor Prince Charles had shopped in Harrods for several years, continuing to display the Royal Crescent would be "totally misleading and hypocritical".

Harrods now employs about 4,000 staff. The sale includes all parts of the group, including Harrods Estates and the charter aircraft service Air Harrods.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mohammed Al Fayed sells Harrods store to Qatar Holdings

Mohammed Al Fayed is expected to continue at Harrods in some capacity

Mohammed Al Fayed has sold London department store Harrods to the Qatari royal family's investment company for a reported £1.5bn ($2.3bn).

The Egypt-born tycoon acquired the business in Knightsbridge following a £615m takeover in 1985.

Ken Costa, an adviser to the deal with Qatar Holdings, said Mr Al Fayed was retiring "to spend more time with his children and grandchildren".

He will continue to promote the store in the role of honorary chairman.

But Mr Al Fayed will not be involved in running the company on a day-to-day basis.

HARRODS The store has over one million square feet (90,000 sq m) of selling space and 330 departments The Harrods motto is Omnia Omnibus Ubique - All Things for All People, Everywhere It was established in 1849 15 million people shop there each year History of Harrods department store

The sale, signed in the early hours of 8 May, will include all parts of the Harrods group, including Harrods Estates and a charter aircraft service.

Qatar Holdings is the investment arm of the emirate's sovereign wealth fund, Qatar Investment Authority.

Although it failed in bid for Sainsbury's in 2007, it is the third-largest shareholder in car-maker VW and has stake in Porsche.

Its chairman, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, who is also Qatar's prime minister, said Harrods would add "much value" to its portfolio of investments and generate "good and stable returns as a business".

He added: "It's a historical place. I know it's important, not only for the British people but it is important for the tourism."

His vice-chairman, Dr Hussain Ali Al-Abdulla, said the acquisition was a "landmark transaction".

The pair were given a tour of the store by Mr Al Fayed before a news conference in the fourth floor Georgian Restaurant.

Mr Costa, chairman of asset managers Lazard International, who advised the Al Fayed family trust on the sale, said Qatar Holding had been "specifically chosen" by Mr Al Fayed because he believed it had the "vision and financial capacity" to support the long-term growth of the store.

"In reaching the decision to retire, he wished to ensure that the legacy and traditions that he has built up in Harrods would be continued, and that the team that he has built up would be encouraged to develop the foundations that he has laid," Mr Costa added.

Reports in March had suggested that the Gulf-based investor, which works on behalf of the royal family in the Arab emirate of Qatar, had approached Mr Al Fayed about a possible deal.

However, staff were assured at the time that the store was not for sale.

Repeatedly refused

Mr Al Fayed's UK business interests include the Premiership football club Fulham FC and a recent rich list put his fortune at £650m.

QATAR HOLDING Investment arm of the emirate's sovereign wealth fund, Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) Parent company's estimated assets more than £40.5bn Sold around £1.4bn of shares in Barclays bank last October Failed in bid for Sainsbury's in 2007 Third-largest shareholder in car-maker VW and has stake in Porsche

During the 1980s, a battle for control of the store formed part of a long-running feud between Mr Al Fayed and the late businessman Tiny Rowland.

Mr Rowland later accused his business rival of breaking into a safety deposit box stored at Harrods.

Egyptian-born Mr Al Fayed waged a 10-year campaign in an attempt to prove that Princess Diana and his son Dodi, who died in a Paris car crash in 1997, were murdered in a conspiracy.

Despite living in Britain for decades, the multi-millionaire businessman has repeatedly been refused a UK passport.

Source

Why the US Supreme Court nominee matters

President Barack Obama has nominated a new judge to sit on the US Supreme Court - one of nine who have tenure for life, together exercising the highest legal power in the land. The BBC's Philippa Thomas in Washington reflects on the institution and its impact.

The nine US Supreme Court justices are appointed for life

It is a choice some US presidents never have a chance to make. Now Barack Obama has his second opportunity.

Last May he named Sonia Sotomayor to serve as the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice. Now he has nominated another woman - Solicitor-General Elena Kagan - who would become only the fourth female judge in the court's 220-year history.

The US Supreme Court operates in relative quiet and privacy. Its grand marble facade might face directly on to the US Capitol but its atmosphere is a world away from the political sound and fury of Congress.

Nonetheless, it wields immense power. This is the legal body which can decide who goes to the White House - as it did in 2000, with Bush v Gore.

This is the court which can fundamentally change the rules of the game - as in this January's judgement giving corporations more freedom to fund political campaigns.

Nominations scrutinised

And this is the court which has, in recent decades, changed the very contours of American society. Think of Roe v Wade, legalising abortion, or Brown versus the Board of Education, effectively desegregating schools.

It is both above politics and intensely politicised. Each nomination is heavily scrutinised, each presidential "pick" facing intense and sometimes hostile scrutiny from the Senate opposition. Mr Obama's new choice may relish life on the bench - but first comes a summer in the firing line.

Supreme Court analyst Nina Totenberg on the importance of the nomination

What is at stake? The very nature of the court. In the past five years, under Chief Justice John Roberts, it has shifted to the right. On that, liberal and conservative alike can agree. Ask whether this is good for America, and the argument begins.

Asked to sum up the shift in outlook, Washington's best known court-watcher, Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio (NPR), described today's court as "quite far right in its interpretation of the constitution and the law".

"We have now by a narrow five to four majority, a dramatically more conservative court than we have seen in, I would say, more than 60 years," she said.

Take January's campaign finance decision. It clearly offended Mr Obama, to the extent that a week later, he lashed out in the most high profile of settings - his annual State of the Union speech.

Here's how he put it: "Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates to special interests to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests."

John Roberts has been chief justice for the past five years

The president's decision to go public in that way clearly offended at least one justice - the conservative Samuel Alito - who was caught on camera, while sitting in the audience, shaking his head, mouthing "that's not true".

And there are potentially more battles to come between Supreme Court and White House.

What if the judges decide to take on Mr Obama's key policy initiative? NPR's Totenberg believes they could vote to invalidate key provisions of the new health bill. That would be a battle royal fought out in the court - and the watching media.

So what's the thinking behind Mr Obama's latest nomination? He knows he cannot significantly shift the court's political outlook. He is seeking, after all, to replace a liberal, in retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

But Mr Obama can influence the panel's judicial outlook. And that is where his opponents are gearing up for a fight, concerned at the prospect of an "activist" judge.

Asked what that means, influential Republican Senator Orrin Hatch told me he wants jurists "who respect the constitution, abide by the constitution, and do not substitute their own personal views for the constitution".

SUPREME COURT LINE-UP Sonia Sotomayor - nominated by Barack Obama 2009 Samuel Alito - George W Bush 2006 John G Roberts (Chief Justice) - George W Bush 2005 Stephen Breyer - Bill Clinton 1994 Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Bill Clinton 1993 Clarence Thomas - George H W Bush 1991 Anthony Kennedy - Ronald Reagan 1988 Antonin Scalia - Ronald Reagan 1986 John Paul Stevens (retiring) - Gerald Ford 1975

And that is the long-running struggle that lies behind this week's headlines.

To put it rather simplistically, conservatives are satisfied that the court's recent trend to the right is essentially a rebalancing act that better reflects the outlook of the nation, after the "culture wars" of the 1960s and beyond.

Liberals believe the court should do more to reflect society's evolving views, as it has done in recent decades on race relations, sexual equality and matters of religion and state.

And on similar lines, how far do you go in arguing that the individual justices should reflect today's society?

Historically, they have been white, male and mainly Protestant - fine legal minds of course, but drawn narrowly from America's educated Eastern elite.

Today, the panel includes one African-American and one Hispanic judge. There are two women and may soon be three.

What about religion? Currently, there are six Catholics, two Jews and only one Protestant - the retiring Justice Stevens. And even geography? With only one westerner on the bench, is there enough attention paid to issues like water rights and Indian affairs that loom so large in the West?

I think that since the country owns the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ought to open itself up a little more Tom Goldstein ScotusBlog

And as Americans consider whether the Supreme Court can fairly be said to speak for the nation, the question arises: should the voters have the chance to hear - and see - that speech for themselves?

Today, if voters want to witness the legal arguments, they have to come to Washington to queue for limited seating. In the nation which brought us Court TV, is it time to fling wide the doors of this historic institution?

Lawyer Tom Goldstein, publisher of the influential ScotusBlog, says yes.

"That's the next step, for the justices to let America see them in action. I think that since the country owns the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ought to open itself up a little more."

Source

Inside China's hybrid capitalism model

Reporter Mukul Devichand was given a tour of ZTE's factory.

By Mukul Devichand Presenter, Tiger v Dragon, BBC Radio 4

High up in the skyscraper that houses the ZTE company's headquarters in Shenzhen, southern China, I was treated to a rare "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" moment.

ZTE was founded in 1985 by a branch of China's aerospace ministry

Although it is not yet well known in the West, ZTE is one of China's new multinationals.

What confuses outsiders is that, like many Chinese firms, it has a background as a "state-owned enterprise": a uniquely Chinese mix of the Communist government and the market.

These firms are part of China's hybrid model of "state capitalism", which some fear is too unaccountable. They are under pressure to be more transparent, but I hadn't realised how literally they would take that at ZTE.

"Would you like to see the production line?" asked my tour guide Andy as we made our way through the display on corporate history.

I nodded, and he signalled to his colleague. Suddenly a golf cart pulled up next to us and I was told to get in.

An experience reminiscent of Roald Dahl's famous children's book, in which Willy Wonka leads a fantastical guided tour of the inner workings of his chocolate factory, was about to begin.

We drove off, straight over the posh office floor panels. We sped through a mysterious doorway and emerged, blinking, into a brightly lit room that held a specially constructed mini factory.

State roots

Instead of chocolate, of course, we saw microchips. A prim army of showcase workers in green overalls barely noticed us zip by as they assembled the microchips that go into mobile phones.

But the instant immersion in a film-set factory environment, just seconds after being in a corporate boardroom, was, in its way, as magical and bizarre as the children's tour.

I was told this fully operational product line had been moved into the office tower for "convenience," designed so that visitors would not even have to leave the building.

We think ZTE is like a private company Senior executive David Dai Shun

In its way, ZTE is like a Chinese version of Finland's Nokia or South Korea's Samsung in years gone by: you may not have heard of it today, but it could be a household name tomorrow.

The technology designed and manufactured by the Zhong xing Telecommunication Equipment company, to give it its full name, now sells in 140 countries.

Revenues jumped 36% this year, despite the recession.

And although the company is now publicly listed, it was started by a branch of the Communist state.

Back in 1985, its founder Hou Weigui was working as an engineer in a factory run by China's aerospace ministry in Shaanxi province.

The factory and other state-owned enterprises wanted to profit from the boom being unleashed by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms, which began in southern China.

So they assigned Mr Hou to set up a small factory. The rest is history.

Speed

ZTE is at pains to emphasize that it has moved on from its state background.

"We want to be transparent, we want to be listed," explained senior ZTE executive Mr David Dai Shun. "We think ZTE is like a private company."

The firm is now also listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, which means the market too has a say in what it does.

China's unique mix of the state and capitalism is, for many onlookers, one of the reasons it has grown so fast.

LISTEN TO THE PROGRAMME Tiger v Dragon, BBC Radio 4, Monday 10 May and 17 May at 2000 BST Or listen again via the BBC iPlayer

At the Boao Forum for Asia in tropical Hainan Island last month, business leaders and politicians gathered behind closed doors for a high-powered discussion of the country's future direction.

The state-owned enterprises and their future were hotly debated.

Outsiders praised some of what they do.

"China is faster in the execution," said N Chandrasekharan, chief executive of Tata Consultancy Services, neighbouring India's biggest software firm.

"If they get an idea they just go after it immediately, because it's state driven."

State capitalism is one reason China has been able to build so rapidly 30,000 miles of expressways and an infrastructure that dwarves that of other developing countries.

"The state-owned enterprises have dominated the building of infrastructure," explained Xiang Bing, Dean of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing.

Pressure

The profits made by state companies can be rapidly ploughed into big government building projects.

The firms also contribute heavily to China's high savings rate which has helped the Beijing government to bail out Western countries in the financial crisis.

ZTE was founded in 1985 by a branch of China's aerospace ministry

"But they do have a disadvantage," said Professor Xiang. The curious mix of officialdom and business gives plenty of room for inefficiency, he said.

"You have this misallocation of resources, time and money.

"Maintaining a good relationship with the government may be more important for your success."

This is one reason there is now so much pressure for these firms to be more transparent.

Another is the sheer power of China's growing economy. China's state-owned enterprises are now among world's largest companies, and foreign trading partners want to be reassured about what they represent.

These reassurances are definitely forthcoming from ZTE. The firm has been praised as a cutting edge example of how Chinese business is following international norms.

It was not just the golf-cart and the Willie Wonka-style magical mystery tour. After the drive was over, Mr David handed me reams of publicly available financial data.

"We will do everything the stock market requires, and that will make ZTE more transparent in its public image," he says.

Source

Meeting Millenium Development Goals

Meeting Millenium Development Goals

Asma knows no other way of life, says Unicef spokesman Syeedul Milky

As part of a series assessing whether Bangladesh is on track to meet the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015, the BBC's Alastair Lawson visits a safety pin factory in the capital, Dhaka, which employs children.

The electricity supply in the sweatshop in the crowded part of old Dhaka where Asma, 10, makes safety pins for a living is so dangerous that the foreman can only turn on the lights using a broomstick.

"If I use my hands I may get an electric shock," he explains.

Asma is one of about 10 workers in the dingy factory - in the heart of the crowded and maze-like alleyways of this part of the city - who are under 14.

Sitting on a bench alongside her co-workers, Asma operates a powerful cutting device in the poorly-lit premises for up to 12 hours a day.

The safety pins are thinly cut and the machine she operates is cumbersome, heavy and dangerous.

Despite being blessed with nimble fingers and remarkable manual dexterity, if Asma makes one mistake she could easily lose a finger to the gigantic metal puncher she handles so professionally.

Isolated

There is no first aid in the factory and no lunch break. None of the children know what happens to the pins one they have been made and none knows exactly who is employing them.

Like many other child workers in Bangladesh, she does not complain of her plight, remaining resolutely cheerful throughout the morning I spent with her.

THE EIGHT MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS Eradicate extreme hunger and poverty Achieve universal primary education Promote gender equality and empower women Reduce child mortality Improve maternal health Combat HIV/Aids, malaria and other diseases Ensure environmental sustainability Develop a global partnership for development

Asma usually arrives at work at eight in the morning and leaves at eight in the evening. She often works six days a week and is paid about $2 a day.

"I used to study in school then all of a sudden my mum took me out and put me into work. I want to go to school but my mum said I would go again after Eid [the Muslim religious festival].

"So far that has not happened."

Asma explains that as one of six children in her family she and her siblings have no choice but to work. Her father is a bicycle rickshaw puller and does not earn enough money to feed his family. Her mother runs the family's home.

"I was not forced to work here," she says shyly. "The trouble is that if I didn't my family would not have enough money to buy vegetables and we cannot live only on rice."

Asma is one of thousands of Bangladeshi children who work in the informal sector - which includes factories, workshops, home-based businesses and domestic employment.

She and others like her are are mostly outside the reach of labour controls, being isolated in the factories and households where they work.

This isolation, combined with the child's dependency on their employer, lays the ground for abuse and exploitation for which they are so poorly protected.

To make matters even more complicated, many children in this sector do not have birth certificates, making it harder to validate their ages.

'Unending problem'

UN children's fund spokesman Syeedul Milky says that Asma is part of the 1.3 million children in Bangladesh who work full-time to support their family.

Asma daily risks her fingers in poorly lit hazardous conditions

"For her work is just a way of living - she doesn't know any other kind of life," he said.

"I don't think she understands the safety part of her work - neither she nor her workmates wear any safety gear and she seems totally unaware of the hazards.

"It's very saddening to see her working in such terrible conditions, it's also sad that she doesn't know of any alternative life. She has now spent at least a quarter of her life doing this."

The government of Bangladesh and Unicef are at pains to point out that 90% of children of primary school age in the country are in education even though 1.5 million have never enrolled in school.

They say 66,000 poor urban children are now attending a basic education programme run jointly by the two agencies.

Yet Mr Milky concedes that the numbers of children working in the country still remains so large that the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education for all is unlikely to be reached by 2015.

"The problem is that employers like to take on children because they can pay them less. The parents like children to work because their earnings can help pay household bills. It's a vicious cycle from which it's very hard for children to be extricated."

The UN says that the most common reason for a child not to be enrolled in school is an inability to bear educational expenses. The second most commonly cited reason is the child's participation in household economic activities.

"Until this problem is dealt with, child labour in this country is never going away," Mr Milky says.

Source