Sep 3rd 2007

From Economist.com

A surprise visit by George Bush

Reuters

Get article background

AS A piece of political theatre, one could not help admiring it. Without any warning George Bush popped up in Iraq on Monday September 3rd, accompanied by his defence secretary, Robert Gates, his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, as well as the commander of America’s forces in Iraq, for a meeting with the country'st prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki.

The choice of venue was significant. It took place in an American airbase some 120 miles (around 180km) west of Baghdad, in the heart of Anbar province. Until a few months ago such a trip would have been extremely risky if not impossible: Anbar was the crucible of the Sunni uprising against America’s presence in Iraq, and as dangerous a spot as you could find anywhere in the country. Mr Bush’s trip was designed to emphasise his claims that the “surge” of some 30,000 extra troops into Iraq—the reinforcements were directed at Baghdad, its periphery and at Anbar—is finally starting to show results.

The visit is part of the fuss that surrounds a report on the progress of the surge that the American commander, General David Petraeus, is expected to deliver to Congress next week, probably on September 11th, the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC. Ostensibly, the purpose of the meetings was to allow Mr Bush a final chance to assess the evidence before deciding, once the report is issued, what the direction of American policy should be thereafter. In reality he has said so often that he has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq that any substantial change of policy looks highly unlikely. Rather, the trip is aimed more at wavering Republicans, and even a few wavering Democrats, in the hope that they may moderate demands for an early American exit.

Anbar is worth some celebration. Partly because of growing revulsion at atrocities committed by al-Qaeda against “collaborators”—sometimes including children—and partly because of a more robust American presence, Sunni leaders there have turned against al-Qaeda's mainly non-Iraqi fighters. The level of attacks, both against American troops and against Iraqi civilians, has dropped substantially. That said, it was still impossible for Mr Bush to venture outside the vast and mightily-guarded desert airbase, just as he could not have visited any part of Baghdad outside the protected Green Zone. Even though the number of attacks in Baghdad has fallen off sharply, it remains a horribly dangerous place by any standards other than Iraq’s own.

Another reason for the visit lies in the luring of Mr Maliki, who leads a Shia-dominated government, to visit Sunni Anbar. While General Petraeus will have a certain amount of good news to report on the military front, he will not be talking to Congress alone next week. Also testifying will be Ryan Crocker, America’s ambassador to Iraq. He will have to admit that there has been extremely limited progress on the political front. Hopes of seeing an Iraqi government that brings together Shia and Sunni have consistently been frustrated.

Mr Bush and his team have tried everything they can, including both cajoling and insulting Mr Maliki, to get him to form a more representative government, and the meeting in the desert doubtless saw another push in that direction. But the prime minister heads a fractious coalition which opposes making the sort of concessions, particularly on government structures and the division of oil revenues, that the Sunnis would want to see before agreeing to join in. Mr Bush's flying visit will have made headlines, but is unlikely to alter anyone’s views.

Aug 9th 2007

From The Economist print edition

Probably—but not in the way many foreigners (and some Americans) hope

Getty Images

FOR George Bush, the presidency is becoming a tragic tale of unintended consequences. In foreign policy, the man who sought to transform Iraq, the Middle East and America's reputation has indeed had revolutionary effects, though not the ones he was aiming for. Now something similar seems to be happening in domestic politics. The most conservative president in recent history, a man who sought to turn his victories of 2000 and 2004 into a Republican hegemony, may well end up driving the Western world's most impressive political machine off a cliff.

That machine has put Republicans in the White House in seven of the past ten contests. At times it has seemed as if the Democrats (oddly, given their status as the less Godly party) have had to rely on divine intervention to get elected. Watergate helped Jimmy Carter in 1976, just as the end of the cold war and Ross Perot's disruptive third-party campaign helped Bill Clinton in 1992. Better organised and more intellectually inventive than their “liberal” rivals, American conservatives have controlled the agenda even when they have lost: Mr Clinton is best remembered for balancing the budget and passing welfare reform, both conservative achievements. In a country where one in three people see themselves as conservatives (against one in five as liberals) and where the South and West have grown far more quickly than the liberal north-east, it is easy to see why Mr Bush and his strategist, Karl Rove, dreamed of banishing Democrats from power for a generation.

Now they would settle for a lot less. Having recaptured Congress last year, the Democrats are on course to retake the presidency in 2008. Only one Republican, Rudy Giuliani, looks competitive in the polls, and his campaign is less slick than those of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Voters now favour generic Democratic candidates over Republican ones by wide margins. Democrats are more trusted even on traditional conservative issues, such as national security, and they have opened up a wide gap among the young, among independents and among Latinos (see article).

The easy scapegoat is Mr Bush himself. During his presidency, the words Katrina, Rumsfeld, Abramoff, Guantánamo and Libby have become shorthand for incompetence, cronyism or extremism. Indeed, the failings of Mr Bush's coterie are oddly reassuring for some conservatives: once he has gone, they can regroup, as they did after his father was ousted in 1992.

Yet this President Bush is not a good scapegoat. Rather than betraying the right, he has given it virtually everything it craved, from humongous tax cuts to conservative judges. Many of the worst errors were championed by conservative constituencies. Some of the arrogance in foreign policy stems from the armchair warriors of neoconservatism; the ill-fated attempt to “save” the life of the severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo was driven by the Christian right. Even Mr Bush's apparently oxymoronic trust in “big-government conservatism” is shared in practice by most Republicans in Congress.

From this perspective, the worrying parallel for the right is not 1992 but the liberal overreach of the 1960s. By embracing leftish causes that were too extreme for the American mainstream—from unfettered abortion to affirmative action—the Democrats cast themselves into the political wilderness. Now the American people seem to be reacting to conservative over-reach by turning left. More want universal health insurance; more distrust force as a way to bring about peace; more like greenery; ever more dislike intolerance on social issues.

So some sort of shift seems to be under way. Would it be a change for the better? The Economist has never made any secret of its preference for the Republican Party's individualistic “western” wing rather than the moralistic “southern” one that Mr Bush has come to typify. It is hard to imagine Ronald Reagan sponsoring a federal amendment banning gay marriage or limiting federal funding for stem-cell research. Yet Mr Bush's departure hardly guarantees a move back to the centre. Social liberals like Mr Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger are in a minority on the right. On the one issue where Mr Bush fought the intolerant wing of his party, immigration, the nativists won—and perhaps lost the Latino vote for a generation.

In terms of foreign policy, America's allies, especially in Europe, would also be unwise to start celebrating, for two reasons. First, some of the changes that would stem from a more Democratic America would be unwelcome. The Democrats are moving to the left not just on health care, but also on trade; and a more protectionist America would soon make the world's poor regret Mr Bush's passing. Similarly, many Europeans may yearn for a less interventionist America; but an isolationist superpower could be much more frightening.

Second, America, even if it shifts to the left, will still be a conservative force on the international stage. Mrs Clinton might be portrayed as a communist on talk radio in Kansas, but set her alongside France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany's Angela Merkel, Britain's David Cameron or any other supposed European conservative, and on virtually every significant issue Mrs Clinton is the more right-wing. She also mentions God more often than the average European bishop. As for foreign policy, the main Democratic candidates are equally staunch in their support of Israel; none of them has ruled out attacking Iran; Mr Obama might take a shot at Pakistan; and few of them want to cede power to multilateral organisations.

One finding that stands out in the polls is that most Americans distrust government strongly. Forty years ago they turned against a leftish elite trying to boss them around; now they have had to endure a right-wing version. In democracies political revolutions usually become obvious only in retrospect. In 1968, with America stuck in another bruising war, few liberals saw Richard Nixon's southern strategy as part of a long-term turn to the right. All that was clear then was that most Americans urgently wanted a change of direction. That is also true today.

Jul 19th 2007

From The Economist print edition

Iran's leaders think a nuclear weapon could rejuvenate their tired revolution. How can they be stopped?

Getty Images

Get article background

“THE Iranian regime is basically a messianic apocalyptic cult.” So says Israel's once and perhaps future prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. If he is right the world is teetering on the edge of a terrifying crisis.

While the world has been distracted by Iraq, Afghanistan and much else, Iran has been moving relentlessly closer to the point where it could build an atomic bomb. It has converted yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride gas. Now it is spinning the gas through thousands of centrifuges it has installed at the underground enrichment plant it built secretly in Natanz, south of Tehran. A common guess is that if it can run 3,000 centrifuges at high speed for a year, it will end up with enough fuel for its first bomb.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, Iran could have 3,000 centrifuges hooked up by the end of this month. The Iranians say their next aim is to scale up to 54,000 centrifuges. Figuring out how to put the fuel into a usable weapon will also take time—perhaps a year or more. But for would-be bomb-builders, making the fuel is by far the hardest part. The upshot, say Israel and some American experts, is that Iran may have a bomb by the end of 2009. Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA's director-general, is more cautious. But even he says that if Iran really wants a bomb it could now build one within three to eight years.

What Iran is doing at Natanz is entirely illegal. It has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and says its nuclear aims are peaceful. But having spent decades deceiving nuclear inspectors, it is disbelieved even by its friends. A year ago this month Russia and China therefore joined the rest of the UN Security Council in ordering Iran to stop. It carried on regardless. The Security Council followed up with two resolutions, in December 2006 and March this year, repeating its demands and applying sanctions. The centrifuges spin defiantly on.

So what next? This story could have at least three unhappy endings. In one, Iran ends up with nuclear weapons, bringing new instability and a hair-trigger face-off with nuclear Israel into one of the world's least-safe neighbourhoods. In another, America or Israel take pre-emptive military action and manage to stop it, even though such an attack would almost certainly have very dangerous consequences of its own. In the third ending, Iran is attacked, and enraged, and retaliates—and still ends up with a bomb anyway.

It is vital to understand that this third finale is not a nightmare dreamt up by editorial writers. After the false intelligence that led America into Iraq, and the mayhem that followed, it may seem hard to believe that America or Israel are pondering an attack on a much bigger Muslim country. But they are—and they are not mad. This time, after all, there is no question of false intelligence: the world's fears are based on capabilities that Iran itself boasts about openly. Nor would there be another invasion: this would be an attack from the air, aimed at disabling or destroying Iran's nuclear sites. From a technical point of view, launching such an attack is well within America's capabilities (America has lately reinforced its carrier fleet in the Persian Gulf) and perhaps within Israel's, too.

Yet such an attack would nonetheless be a huge gamble. Even if it delayed or stopped Iran's nuclear programme, it would knock new holes in America's relations with the Muslim world. And if only for the sake of their domestic political survival, Iran's leaders would almost certainly hit back. Iran could fire hundreds of missiles at Israel, attack American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, organise terrorist attacks in the West or choke off tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the world's oil windpipe. How could any Western leader in his right mind risk initiating such a sequence of events?

The succinct answer of Senator John McCain is that although attacking Iran would be bad, an Iran with nuclear weapons would be worse. He is not alone: most of America's presidential candidates would consider military force.

If Iran really is no more than the “messianic cult” of Mr Netanyahu's imagination, it would be worth running almost any risk to stop it acquiring nuclear weapons. But as our special report argues, Iran is not that easy to read.

Iran is a self-proclaimed theocracy. Yet it has conducted foreign relations since the revolution of 1979 in a way that seems perfectly rational even if it is not pleasant. Its president, the Holocaust-questioning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is widely reported to have threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”. But in fact he may never have uttered those precise words, and there is both ambiguity and calculation behind the bluster. Look closer and Mr Ahmadinejad is vague about whether he means that Iran should destroy Israel or just that he hopes for Israel's disappearance. Knowing that a nuclear attack on Israel or America would result in its own prompt annihilation, Iran could probably be deterred, just as other nuclear powers have been. Didn't Nikita Khrushchev promise to “bury” the West?

Since Israel has memories of a real Holocaust, it may not set much store by that “probably”. This newspaper continues to believe that even for Israel containment of a nuclear Iran would be less awful than a risky pre-emptive attack that would probably cause mayhem, strengthen the regime and merely delay the day Iran gets a bomb. Yet the whole world still has a huge interest in preventing that day from coming. Even if Iran never used its bomb, mere possession of it might encourage it to adopt a more aggressive foreign policy than the one it is already pursuing in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. And once Iran went nuclear other countries in the region—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and perhaps Turkey—would probably feel compelled to follow suit, thereby entangling the Middle East in a cat's cradle of nuclear tripwires.

Is there a way to avoid all of the unhappy endings by finding a peaceful way to stop Iran going nuclear? The Europeans hoped they had stumbled on such a solution last year, when they at last talked Russia and China into imposing sanctions and George Bush into dangling the prospect of normal relations with Iran once enrichment stopped. But the mild sanctions imposed so far are not working, and now the technological clock in Natanz is outrunning the diplomatic clock at the United Nations. Iran may soon work out how to spin its centrifuges at full speed for long periods; and once it learns how to do that the odds of stopping it from building a bomb will rapidly lengthen. This suggests that a third sanctions resolution, with sharper teeth, needs to be enacted without delay.

Iran is obstinate, paranoid and ambitious. But it is also vulnerable. A young population with no memory of the revolution is desperate for jobs its leaders have failed to provide. Sanctions that cut off equipment for its decrepit oilfields or struck hard at the financial interests of the regime and its protectors in the Revolutionary Guards would have an immediate impact on its own assessment of the cost of its nuclear programme. That on its own is unlikely to change the regime's mind. If at the same time Iran was offered a dignified ladder to climb down—above all a credible promise of an historic reconciliation with the United States—the troubled leadership of a tired revolution might just grab it. But time is short.

By HEATHER TIMMONS
NEW DELHI, March 6 — The five-day slide in Asian stock markets halted today, as investors took advantage of low prices and started buying again, sparking relief in the region.

Equity markets in Asia started the morning strong and were still showing 1 to 2 percent gains by their close, boosting early trading in Europe. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng closed up 2.1 percent at 19,058.56, more than halving Monday’s losses.

Japan’s Nikkei gained 1.22 percent to 16,844.50. India’s Sensex was the biggest gainer of the region’s main indices, and traded up as much as 2.78 percent in the afternoon before closing at 12,760.10. In London, the FTSE 100 index was up by nearly 1 percent in late morning trading at 6,111.80. The Frankfurt and Paris stock markets were also higher.

The upturn allayed fears that panicked overseas investors might flee riskier Asian markets over the long term, and gave credence to the theory held by many economists that recent market drops were just corrections, and not the start of a longer decline.

The underlying economies of most countries in Asia, and in fact of most important world markets, are sound, many economists believe, and they say that growth will continue.

Still, strategists reiterated today that Asian markets over the next few weeks could still be a roller coaster.

“There is no fundamental reason pointing to a sustained meltdown, but volatility will remain with us for a while” as investors remain nervous, said Yipang Huang, head of economic and market analysis for Citigroup Global Markets Asia.

Various economic statistics due out in coming days could trigger other drops, he said. “The sentiment is very unstable,” he added.

Strong performers on Monday included Sony, which gained more than 4 percent, Japan’s Kobe Steel, which gained more than 7 percent, and Australian miner BHP Billiton, up 2.73 percent. Commodities including oil were hard hit on Monday, but oil stabilized in today’s trading in Asia.

The dollar rebounded against the yen after hitting three-month lows on Monday, a sign that investors were no longer unwinding the popular “carry trade” that uses low interest yen loans to invest in riskier Asian markets.

The yen hit 116.47 against the dollar, versus 115.53 on Monday.

Analysts increasingly blame the severity of the latest slide in Asia’s markets on the activity of hedge funds and the relatively risky nature of the trades that many hedge funds make.

Hedge funds have been active participants in the carry trade, borrowing yen in Japan, where interest rates are still less than 1 percent, to buy stocks and bonds in emerging markets where the rates of return have been in double digits.

Many of these same funds, analysts say, are also likely to have invested in the U.S. market for sub-prime mortgage debt, meaning losses there can put pressure on them to reduce their exposure to emerging markets in Asia and elsewhere.

But selling securities bought with borrowed yen comes with its own set of problems that can hasten market declines.

During the recent market falls, carry traders who sold emerging market positions tended to pay off their yen-denominated debts, helping to push the yen higher. This trend then prompted even more furious selling by carry traders, as the rising yen raised the cost of their loans and they rushed to cut their losses as their holdings in emerging markets fell.

The five-day Asian stock slide was begun last Tuesday, when China’s main index dropped about 9 percent, unnerving investors in the region and dragging down European and American markets as well.

Investors in European and United States markets may need to brace themselves for more of the same, some analysts think. The drop “is the first time that China has had a material impact on the financial markets outside Asia,” Citigroup analysts said in a report, “and it probably will not be the last time.”

Wayne Arnold contributed reporting from Singapore.

Einen Tag vor dem Prolog zur 93. Tour de France in Strassburg wurden Jan Ullrich und Ivan Basso von ihren Teams suspendiert. Die Teilnahme des dritten Favoriten Alexander Winokurow ist wieder fraglich. Am Samstag um 12.50 Uhr rollt in Strassburg der erste Fahrer von der Rampe und eröffnet damit ein Rennen, das acht Jahre nach dem Festina-Skandal von einer noch grösseren Affäre durchgeschüttelt wird. Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich, Francisco Mancebo, Oscar Sevilla, Alberto Contador, Joseba Beloki, Isidro Nozal, Allan Davis und Sergio Paulinho werden wegen ihrer Verwicklung in den Dopingskandal um die spanischen Ärzte Eufemiano Fuentes und José Luis Merino nicht zur Tour de France antreten können. Im Auszug des Untersuchungsberichts der Guardia Civil tauchen weitere Namen auf, die von der UCI allerdings noch nicht bestätigt worden sind. Dabei handelt es sich unter anderen um Jörg Jaksche, Angel Vicioso sowie die zurückgetretenen oder gesperrten Tyler Hamilton, Roberto Heras, Santiago Perez, Igor Gonzalez Galdeano und Angel Casero. Vom aktuellen Kader des Phonak-Teams sind Santiago Botero sowie die Brüder José Enrique und Ignacio Gutierrez betroffen. Botero und José Enrique Gutierrez, der im Giro d'Italia hinter Ivan Basso aus dem Nichts den 2. Platz belegt hatte, waren in spanischen Medien schon Ende Mai mit dem Skandal in Verbindung gebracht und von Phonak Anfang Juni aus dem Rennbetrieb genommen worden. Alexander Winokurow steht bisher auf keiner Liste und wäre deshalb theoretisch zum Start zugelassen. Doch weil von seinem Team Astana-Würth gleich fünf Fahrer (Contador, Beloki, Nozal, Davis und Paulinho) aus dem Tour-Aufgebot von der Affäre betroffen sind, stünden Winokurow nur noch drei Helfer zur Verfügung. Und das Reglement schreibt vor, dass eine Mannschaft aus mindestens sechs Fahrern bestehen muss. Astana-Würth war schon am Montag zum Verzicht aufgefordert worden und hatte sich darauf die Starterlaubnis vor dem Internationalen Sportgerichtshof (CAS) erstritten. Dass die Teams keine andere Wahl hatten, als die Fahrer streichen zu lassen, liegt am Ethik-Code der ProTour. Der Code sieht vor, dass keine Rennen fahren darf, wer in einem laufenden Doping-Verfahren steckt. Die Manager der 21 Tour-Mannschaften entschieden am Freitagmorgen auch, dass keine Fahrer ersetzt werden dürfen. Mit diesem Entscheid könnte das CAS-Urteil im Fall Astana-Würth elegant umschifft worden sein. Dopingskandal -- Liste Die Zeitung El Mundo hat am Freitag eine Liste mit 37 Radprofis veröffentlicht, die in den spanischen Dopingskandal verwickelt sind. Die Zeitung beruft sich auf den Untersuchungsbericht der Guardia Civil. In einem Communiqué des Internationalen Radsportverbandes UCI wurden die neun involvierten Fahrer genannt, die für die Tour de France vorgesehen gewesen waren. Neben sechs Fahrern, die auch in der Liste von El Mundo erscheinen, nannte die UCI auch das Astana-Würth-Trio Alberto Contador, Allan Davis und Sergio Paulinho. Die von der Zeitung El Mundo genannten Fahrer. Astana-Würth: Michele Scarponi (It), Marcos Antonio Serrano (Sp), David Etxebarria (Sp), Joseba Beloki (Sp), Angel Vicioso (Sp), Isidro Nozal (Sp), Unai Osa (Sp), Jörg Jaksche (De), Giampaolo Caruso (It). -- CSC: Ivan Basso (It). -- Caisse d?Epargne-Iles Balears: Constantino Zaballa (Sp). -- Saunier Duval: Carlos Zarate (Sp). -- AG2R: Francisco Mancebo (Sp). -- T-Mobile: Jan Ullrich (De), Oscar Sevilla (Sp). -- Phonak: José Enrique Gutierrez (Sp), José Ignacio Gutierrez (Sp). -- Comunidad Valenciana: Vicente Ballester (Sp), David Bernabeu (Sp), David Rodriguez (Sp), José Adrian Bonilla (Sp), Juan Gomis Lopez (Sp), Eladio Jimenez Sanchez (Sp), David Latasa (Sp), Ruben Plaza (Sp), José Luis Martinez (Sp), Manuel Llorent (Sp), Antonio Olmo (Sp), David Munoz (Sp), Javier Cherro (Sp). -- Unibet.com: Carlos Garcia Quesada (Sp). -- Gesperrte und zurückgetretene Fahrer: Javier Pascual (Sp), Roberto Heras (Sp), Angel Casero (Sp), Santiago Perez (Sp), Tyler Hamilton (USA), Igor Gonzalez Galdeano (Sp). Die von der UCI genannten Fahrer. Astana-Würth: Alberto Contador (Sp), Allan Davis (Au), Sergio Paulinho (Por), Nozal, Beloki. -- AG2R: Mancebo. -- CSC: Basso. -- T-Mobile: Ullrich, Sevilla.

Das Leben in der Schweiz hat sich im Juni verteuert. Innert Jahresfrist betrug die Teuerung 1,6 Prozent, verglichen mit 1,4 Prozent im Mai. Besonders für Früchte und Gemüse musste tiefer in die Tasche gegriffen werden. [sda] - Verteuert haben sich auch Pauschalreisen, Pflanzen sowie Sport und Freizeitaktivitäten, wie das Bundesamt für Statistik (BFS) mitteilte. Auch die Preise von Speiseeis und Süssgetränken legten zu. Der Landesindex der Konsumentenpreise blieb im Juni mit 101,0 Punkten gegenüber dem Vormonat praktisch unverändert. Das BFS begründet den Anstieg der Jahresteuerung trotz stabilem Index mit dem so genannten statistischen Basiseffekt. Die Veränderung zum Vorjahr betrug -0,2 Prozent. Günstiger wurden neben Nahrungsmittel und alkoholfreie Getränke auch Treibstoff- und Heizölpreise. Die Treibstoffpreise sanken im Vergleich zum Vormonat um 0,8 Prozent, die Heizölpreise um 1,9 Prozent. Beide lagen aber weiterhin deutlich über dem Vorjahresstand. Preise für Telekomgeräte sowie sinkende Tarife bei den Bergbahnen sorgten ebenfalls für tiefere Indexziffern. Gelohnt haben sich auch die Anschaffung von grossen elektrischen Haushaltsgeräten und Möbel für Schlafzimmer. Nur vereinzelte Preisänderungen wurden für inländischen Rot- und Weisswein sowie für Bier registriert. Auch für Haushaltsgüter wie Kehrichtsäcke oder Wegwerfreinigungstücher wurden kaum Preisbewegungen festgestellt. Wie das BFS weiter mitteilte, blieb das Preisniveau im Vergleich zum Vormonat bei den Inlandgütern stabil, während es sich bei den Importgütern um 0,2 Prozent verbilligte. Innert Jahresfrist kletterten die Inlandgüter jedoch durchschnittlich um 0,9 Prozent, die Importprodukte um 3,6 Prozent.

Die Treibjagd mit Hunden auf Füchse und andere Wildtiere bleibt in Grossbritannien verboten. Mit dieser Entscheidung ging ein Verfahren vor dem Obersten Berufungsgericht in London zu Ende. Befürworter der Fuchsjagd hatten gegen ein 2004 erlassenes Verbot der Hatz mit Hunden geklagt. Der Dachverband der britischen Jäger "Countryside Alliance" hatte sich dabei auf die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention und auf EU-Gewerbeverordnungen berufen, gegen die das Hetzjagdverbot verstossen würde. Drei Berufungsrichter erklärten nun jedoch, dass die Bestimmungen des Jagdgesetzes von 2004 "legitim und angemessen" seien. Nach dem Gesetz ist die Jagd auf Füchse, Hirsche oder Hasen keineswegs generell verboten. Die Beutetiere dürfen aber nicht mehr durch Hundemeuten zu Tode gehetzt oder in schwere Todesängste versetzt werden, da dies nach Überzeugung des Gesetzgebers Tierquälerei bedeuten würde. Die Kläger hatten argumentiert, dass durch solche Auflagen die traditionelle Form der Fuchsjagd beeinträchtigt und damit tausende Arbeitsplätze in ländlichen Gebieten verloren gehen würden. Während der letzten Fuchsjagdsaison Ende 2005 hatte die britische "Liga gegen Grausamkeit im Sport" beklagt, dass bei mehr als 40 Prozent der insgesamt rund 250 Jagden illegale Tötungsmethoden angewandt worden seien.

US-Präsident George W. Bush hat bei seinem eintägigen in Budapest den ungarischen Aufstand vor 50 Jahren gewürdigt. Bush bezeichnete den Freiheitswillen der Ungarn als Vorbild für Iraks schwierigen Weg zur Demokratie. [sda] - Mit dem von der damaligen Sowjetunion niedergeschlagenen Aufstand von 1956 sei Ungarn die erste kommunistische Nation in Europa gewesen, die sich zur Freiheit bekannt habe, sagte Bush in in einer Rede auf dem Budapester Gellert-Hügel über der Donau. Auch beim Zusammenbruch des Kommunismus 1989 seien die Ungarn die ersten gewesen. Im Irak hätten die ungarischen Truppen bei der Versorgung der multinationalen Kräfte eine "entscheidende Rolle" gespielt. Ungarn könne sich der Unterstützung der USA sicher sein. In seiner Rede spannte Bush den historischen Bogen bis hin zur Lage im Irak nach dem Sturz Saddam Husseins. Treibende Kraft der politischen Erneuerung sei immer das "demokratische Ideal" gewesen, das die Ungarn 1956 und 1989 ebenso inspiriert habe wie heute die neue irakische Führung. Neben Ungarn und den USA werde der Irak eines Tages seinen Platz als "Leuchtfeuer der Freiheit" einnehmen. Die Kernaussage in Bushs Botschaft war, dass sich Ungarns Erfolgsgeschichte auch auf andere Länder übertragen lasse. Die Geschichte zeige, dass sich der Wille zur Freiheit nicht durch Gewalt brechen lasse. Bush war am Mittwochabend nach Abschluss des EU-USA-Gipfels in Wien zu dem Kurzbesuch in Budapest eingetroffen. Auch auf dieser zweiten Station seiner Europa-Reise wurde er mit Kritik an seinen Methoden im Anti-Terror-Kampf konfrontiert. Bei einem Treffen in Budapest mahnte der ungarische Präsident László Sólyom seinen Gast, der Kampf gegen den Terrorismus könne nur dann erfolgreich sein, wenn jeder Schritt und jede Massnahme im Einklang mit internationalem Recht stehe.

Der weltgrösste Reisekonzern TUI streicht jede fünfte Stelle in seinem Heimatmarkt Deutschland. Bis zu 400 Arbeitsplätze würden bis 2009 abgebaut, sagte TUI Deutschland-Chef Volker Böttcher in Hannover. [sda] - Der Jobabbau solle weitgehend sozialverträglich erfolgen, etwa mit Abfindungen und freiwilligen Aufhebungsverträgen. Über 10 Mio. Euro (15 Mio. Fr.) seien dafür eingestellt. Betriebsbedingte Kündigungen seien aber nicht völlig ausgeschlossen. Vor allem das Management und die mittlere Führungsebene seien zunächst betroffen. TUI wolle "deutlich schneller auf Marktveränderungen reagieren und den Markt noch gezielter bedienen", sagte Böttcher. Dazu werden vier Gesellschaften auf dem deutschen Markt miteinander verschmolzen. Insgesamt will die TUI in Deutschland bis 2008 rund 50 Millionen Euro Kosten sparen. Allein bei TUI Deutschland werden 170 Beschäftigte noch in diesem Jahr ausscheiden, sagte Böttcher. Davon seien 100 Führungskräfte. Unter anderem werde die Geschäftsführung von TUI Deutschland von sechs auf drei Köpfe reduziert. Bei den vier Gesellschaften mit insgesamt 2000 Beschäftigten sollen von elf Geschäftsführern noch drei im Amt bleiben. Künftig sollen im Heimatmarkt des Konzerns vier bisher voneinander unabhängige Konzerntöchter miteinander unter dem Dach der TUI Deutschland verschmolzen werden. Dazu kommen die Preiswertmarke 1-2- Fly, die Edelmarke Airtours und die Reisebüro-Verwaltung TUI Leisure Travel Management. Vorerst unberührt von der Umstrukturierung bleiben die Flugtöchter und die Spezialveranstalter.