China pledges support for Pakistan

BEIJING: China pledged its support for close ally Pakistan on Tuesday, after the United States announced it would suspend $800 million worth of security aid to Islamabad.

“Pakistan is an important country in South Asia. The stability and development of Pakistan is closely connected with the peace and stability of South Asia,” foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said.

“China has always provided assistance to Pakistan, helping it improve people's livelihood and realise the sustainable development of its economy and society. China will continue to do so in the future.”

US President Barack Obama's chief of staff, William Daley, announced in a television int

erview on Sunday that the United States had decided to withhold almost a third of its annual $2.7 billion security assistance to Islamabad.

The move has plunged relations between Islamabad and Washington — already rocky after US commandos killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in May on Pakistani soil — to a new low.

But it was welcomed by India, which has long accused Pakistan of providing shelter to militant groups and has pushed the global community — the United States in particular — to censure Islamabad.

China, however, is one of Pakistan's closest allies and is also its main arms supplier — a situation that India has also expressed concern about.

zp8497586rq

Analysis: Immigration ruling carries double-edged sword

(Reuters) – A U.S. judge’s ruling blocking key parts of Arizona’s immigration law could bolster President Barack Obama’s standing among Hispanics and energize Republican foes who back the tough law.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton weighed in on the festering American debate over illegal immigration that has implications for November 2 congressional elections.

* Obama’s Democrats could get a boost from Hispanics who have been disenchanted with his inability to advance an overhaul of the U.S. immigration system. The Hispanic vote is expected to be increasingly important in the years ahead.

Negotiations between the White House and the congressional leadership have gone nowhere on the potent political issue of immigration and the issue is considered dead for the year.

Both Democrats and Republicans have tried to attract Hispanics to their parties and thus far Democrats have largely won the battle.

But Obama’s approval rating among Hispanics in a recent Gallup poll was at 52 percent, his lowest rating with them after reaching the 60s earlier this year.

* On the flip side, the ruling may well generate further enthusiasm among Republican voters who are already energized ahead of November 2 elections in which Democratic control of the U.S. Congress is at stake.

Republicans have used the Obama administration’s effort to strike the Arizona law as a rallying point. The Republicans’ conservative base is leery of any immigration legislation that could be perceived as granting amnesty to the estimated 10.8 million immigrants living illegally in the United States.

Many Americans who are weary of a 9.5 percent jobless rate back the Arizona law and could be disappointed by the judge’s ruling, which was prompted by a lawsuit filed against Arizona by Obama’s Justice Department.

A CNN/Opinion Research poll this week showed that a majority of the country back the Arizona immigration law — 55 percent of those questioned favored it compared to 40 percent against it.

* Immigration is a volatile issue in Washington. Battle lines are drawn between Democrats, who want a system of documenting illegals to allow them to work in addition to improved border security, and Republicans, who mainly want tougher border enforcement.

Obama has been challenging both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill to offer him bipartisan proposal on immigration in recognition that any overhaul would not pass without Republican votes.

Senator John McCain of Arizona is well aware of the potency of the issue. He led efforts to overhaul immigration three years ago and the issue nearly unraveled his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Defeated by Obama in 2008, McCain has been a strong backer of the Arizona law in trying to face down a primary challenge to his re-election from conservative former congressman J.D. Hayworth.

(Editing by Howard Goller)

UPDATE 7-Key parts of Arizona anti-immigration law blocked

PHOENIX, July 28 (Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Wednesday blocked key parts of Arizona’s tough new immigration law hours before it was to take effect, handing a victory to the Obama administration as it tries to take control of the issue.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said she would file an appeal to reinstate the provisions, which had popular support but were opposed by President Barack Obama and immigration and human rights groups.

“This fight is far from over,” Brewer said, adding that “at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens.”

The Republican-controlled state legislature passed the law three months ago to try to drive nearly half a million illegal immigrants out of Arizona and stem the flow of human and drug smugglers over the border from Mexico.

The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton included one that required a police officer to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested if the officer believed the person was not in the country legally.

Bolton also halted provisions requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times and making it illegal for people without proper documents to tout for work in public places.

Immigration as an issue has festered in U.S. politics for years and attempts to overhaul the system have failed, most recently in 2007 when Republicans torpedoed reforms pushed by George W. Bush, then the Republican president.

The ruling is a significant victory for Obama, who wants to break the deadlock with Republicans to pass a comprehensive immigration law tightening border security and giving millions of illegal immigrants a shot at legal status — an already difficult task before November’s congressional elections.

There are an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States, a country of more than 300 million people.

The Justice Department had argued provisions of the Arizona law, which goes into effect on Thursday, encroached on federal authority over immigration policy and enforcement.

In her 36-page decision, Bolton agreed, finding “the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm” if her court did not block the selected parts of the law.

“The number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established,” she said.

COULD GO TO SUPREME COURT

Bolton kept some parts of the law, including provisions making it illegal for drivers to pick up day laborers off the street and to transport or harbor an illegal immigrant.

Brewer said her state “will soon file an expedited appeal” with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Arizona can appeal ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, it could embroil the cash-strapped desert state in a protracted and costly legal battle.

“There are no winners here,” said Representative Ann Kirkpatrick, an Arizona Democrat who faces a tough battle for re-election in November. “No matter what the courts ultimately decide, we will still have wasted millions of dollars and our borders will still not be secure.”

John McCain and Jon Kyl, Arizona’s Republican U.S. senators, said they were “deeply disappointed” by the ruling and took aim at Obama for failing to provide resources to secure the state’s porous border with Mexico.

“Instead of wasting taxpayer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona … the Obama administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the federal government has failed,” their statement said.

McCain, a Republican moderate, faces a tough challenge in the party’s state primary election from former congressman J.D. Hayworth, a conservative who is hawkish on border issues.

About three dozen Hispanic activists at an open-air mass outside the state capitol in central Phoenix jumped up, hugged and wept as news of Bolton’s ruling broke.

“I think that our efforts have paid off,” said Dulce Matuz, a college graduate who has lived in Arizona without papers for a decade, adding activists would carry on fighting to overturn the rest of the law.

The Mexican government hailed the ruling as a “step in the right direction.” Around 100 activists cheered and chanted “Yes we can” and “No to xenophobia” as news of the ruling reached a rally outside the U.S. embassy in Mexico City.

“WIND OUT OF SAILS”

Peter Spiro, a law professor at Temple University and a former attorney in the State Department, said he was not surprised the more controversial parts of the law were halted.

“I expect those provisions will never go into effect, though this is only a preliminary order,” Spiro said.

“I also think this will take the wind out of the sails of anti-immigration efforts on the state level, though it will probably intensify such efforts at the federal level.”

Polls show the Arizona law is backed by a solid majority of Americans and 65 percent of the state’s voters. It is inspiring copycat efforts in at least 20 other states.

Obama supports allowing illegal immigrants in good standing to pay a fine, learn English and get on track to citizenship. He also has supported tightening border security and clamping down on employers that hire undocumented workers.

Opponents of the Arizona law say it will lead to harassment of Hispanic or Hispanic-looking Americans. Thousands were headed to Phoenix for protests on Thursday, when the law takes effect, and street rallies were planned across the country.

Police arrested four activists late on Wednesday, after they scaled a crane in downtown Phoenix and unfurled a banner reading “Stop the Hate.” They faced trespassing charges, a police spokesman said.

Police across Arizona, the main corridor for human and drug smugglers entering the United States from Mexico, have been preparing to implement the law. The state’s 15,000 officers have had training on how to identify people they suspect are unlawfully in Arizona without resorting to racial profiling.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his tough approach to illegal immigrants in the Phoenix area, said he would push ahead with plans for a crime and immigration sweep on Thursday regardless of limitations placed on the law.

“It’s business as usual for this sheriff’s office,” Arpaio said. “All these protesters coming here from everywhere and the local critics aren’t going to change the way Arizona or this sheriff will fight our illegal immigration problem.” (Additional reporting by Carolina Madrid in Phoenix, Jeremy Pelofsky in Washington, Caroline Stauffer and Missy Ryan in Mexico City; Editing by John O’Callaghan)

Spill puts Obama’s oil fund chief on hostile turf

Alabama (Reuters) – The man who acquired a solid gold reputation for fixing sticky situations for the U.S. government is facing one of his toughest challenges yet: running BP Plc’s $20 billion compensation fund.

Kenneth Feinberg, lawyer extraordinaire, was in charge of compensating victims’ families after the September 11, 2001 attacks and presided over executive pay at bailed-out Wall Street firms.

But the job President Barack Obama has asked him to do — deciding who will be compensated from BP’s catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico — is placing Feinberg in hostile territory where residents are still reeling from the federal government’s bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.

Many areas in Louisiana and Mississippi never recovered from the 2005 hurricane. Buildings are gutted. Broken boats lie in marshes.

Now many of the same residents who were left to fend for themselves after Katrina are seeing their fishing and tourism industries fall apart from the oil spill.

“Feinberg is full of baloney. He is a lawyer and that is how lawyers talk. I do not believe a word he says,” Delane Seaman said after attending one of Feinberg’s town hall meetings in Bayou La Batre on Sunday.

“BP is telling us we will be compensated for 100 percent loss of our oyster processing business, too. It will not happen,” Seaman said.

‘I AM YOUR LAWYER’

In Bayou La Batre, a small fishing community in south Alabama, Feinberg convened an early-morning session on Saturday to listen to residents’ concerns and answer questions on the claims process.

“I learned today the depth of frustration in people here on the coast,” a visibly-tired looking Feinberg said. “I am your lawyer. I do not work for BP. I do not work for the White House. I work and answer to the residents of the Gulf.”

Feinberg’s compensation for running the fund — which has not been disclosed — is being paid by BP.

BP’s blown-out well is capped. The energy giant had been expected to permanently stop the leak by mid-August, but a storm in the region slowed efforts.

Thousands of fishermen, oyster processors and other seafood industry workers have lost work because of the oil spill.

Feinberg must decide how much they get paid as well as how to compensate businesses related to the fishing and tourism industries and whether real estate brokers and bankers should be included.

As of mid-July $201 million was dispensed to workers and businesses in the region from the fund that so far has been run by BP. Feinberg expects to assume complete control of the fund by August 10.

He has said claims can be filed over lost wages and profits, business interruption as well as personal injuries.

Coastal tourism from Louisiana to Miami accounts for $100 billion per year, according to the New Orleans Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau. The fishing industry accounts for $2.4 billion a year in Louisiana.

If most of the waters remain closed, the fishing industry could be wiped out. Tourism losses are just as dire. One study suggests that the tourism industry in the Gulf of Mexico could lose $22.7 billion in revenues over the next three years.

DEEP ANGER

In Venice, Louisiana, home to a popular North American fishing destination, workers had little faith in the Obama administration and Feinberg.

“Look at what happened with Katrina,” said Bill Butler, co-owner of the Venice Marina, which was ravaged by the 2005 hurricane.

Butler’s marina has been rebuilt. But the oil spill has transformed it from a haven for commercial and sports fishing to a staging area for the cleanup.

In the fishing town of Lafitte, Louisiana, locals cast sideways glances at each other when asked about Feinberg and refused to comment.

Instead they talked about help they had received from BP, which residents say has hired a good bulk of the small community. “Overall there is trust in BP,” said Lafitte resident Barbara Martin. “At least they’ve done more than the federal government.”

Residents in Mississippi and Alabama were similarly dubious about the fund’s chief.

“Feinberg says he is thinking about some issues but I just want to know who is paying him. That is where the truth will be concerning the fairness of claims being paid,” said Wu Lin, an out of work fisherman from Biloxi, Mississippi.

Another Biloxi resident, Curtis Fournier, said: “Can I trust him? He is a lawyer. What do you think?”

(Younglai reported from Venice, Louisiana, editing by Chris Baltimore and Vicki Allen)

“Missing” Guantanamo returnee back at home: family

(Reuters) – An Algerian repatriated from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay was resting at home on Monday, his family said, ending a week-long search for him that prompted rights groups to say he could be suffering abuse.

Uncertainty over the whereabouts of Abdul Aziz Naji had fueled allegations from rights campaigners that U.S. President Barack Obama’s push to close Guantanamo Bay was leaving former detainees at risk of mistreatment once they were sent home.

Naji, who had been held at Guantanamo since 2002, had told his lawyers he did not want to return to Algeria under any circumstances because he feared persecution from the Algerian government and Islamist militants there.

“He is back home, tired, but he is free,” his brother Hamza told Reuters by telephone from the town of Batna, 500 km (300 miles) east of the Algerian capital.

“He did not say that he had been abused during his detention,” he said.

Earlier, Algerian justice officials said a judge on Sunday had ordered Naji’s release after a period of detention — which they said was completely lawful — following his July 18 return from Guantanamo Bay to Algeria.

“Contrary to what has been falsely reported, this person’s case has been dealt with in the most complete transparency and in respect for the law, whether in terms of procedure or the length of his detention,” the Algiers prosecutor’s office said in a statement.

COURT APPEARANCE

The statement said Naji had been held in detention in Algeria in accordance with legislation allowing terrorism suspects to be held for up to 12 days before appearing in court.

It said he was freed after appearing before a judge on Sunday who put him under judicial control — which means he has to report regularly to police pending a decision on his case.

“He is at home in Batna,” said a judicial source who did not want to be identified. “He just needs to go every week to the local police station to sign a form.”

Obama has made a pledge to close down Guantanamo Bay, which has been condemned by civil liberties advocates since it was opened by the Bush administration in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. cities.

But resettling inmates from the U.S. base on Cuba has proved difficult, and any evidence that former detainees are mistreated after being sent home could make it harder for Obama to meet his commitment.

U.S. rights groups said last week they were worried because Naji’s lawyers and family had been unable to locate him since his return. They said they believed he could be in secret detention in Algeria.

Algerian officials deny abusing prisoners. Rights groups say that before Naji’s return, 10 Algerians had been repatriated from Guantanamo Bay. Western diplomats say none of them has been mistreated since they came back.

(Writing by Christian Lowe; editing by Andrew Roche)

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Holder at the African Union Summit

KAMPALA, Uganda, July 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Excellencies, Distinguished Heads of State and Government, Honorable Ministers, Leaders of the African Union, Leaders of the African Commission, Ladies and Gentlemen. I am honored to be with you all. I am grateful for this opportunity to salute, and to help strengthen, the critical work of the African Union. And I am proud to bring greetings from President Barack Obama and the American people.

President Obama recognizes the growing importance of the African Union; he understands that a stronger Africa means a stronger America; and he appreciates the work that you are leading to strengthen political and economic cooperation across this continent.

Today, I want to extend my personal thanks to Chairperson Jean Ping and the AU leadership for helping to facilitate my visit and welcoming my participation. I was pleased to receive Chairperson Ping and his delegation in Washington a few months ago, during the first high-level U.S.-AU bilateral meetings, and I look forward to continuing our discussions.

I also want to thank President Museveni and the citizens of Kampala for welcoming me to this beautiful city and for hosting this important summit.

It is fitting that we’ve gathered here in Uganda – the nation that has been called “the pearl of Africa” – to determine how the potential of Africa and her people might be unlocked.

In the last 30 years, the people of Uganda have made progress that, once, had seemed impossible – the restoration of law and order; the reopening of schools and colleges; and the reconstruction of government, health care, and financial systems. The fact that we are here today – and that Kampala is now a center of international politics, learning, culture, and commerce – is a testament to the strength and resilience of the Ugandan people.

This strength has never been more obvious. This resilience has never been more inspiring.

I am proud to stand with the people of Uganda – and with her partners across this continent and around the world. But I am deeply sorry that we are now bound, not only by friendship and partnership, but also by a shared loss, a shared threat, and a shared grief.

Two weeks ago today, Uganda awakened to a new danger and began a new chapter in a history that, too often, has been scarred by violence. As the World Cup’s final match was being played, men, women, and children across Kampala were enjoying life’s greatest blessings – the joys of friendship and fellowship. That evening, the eyes of the world were fixed upon this continent – bearing witness to historic progress, to hard-won unity and, then suddenly, to heartbreaking tragedy.

Fourteen days after bombs ripped through the Kyandondo Rugby Club and the Ethiopian Village restaurant, we now know the statistics that have been assigned to this tragedy – 74 killed, 85 wounded. But we will never be able to measure the grief, the anger, and – above all – the compassion that followed these attacks. Al-Shabaab – a terrorist group operating in Somalia with ties to al-Qaeda – has claimed responsibility for murdering and injuring these innocent victims. And its leaders have infamously described these bombings as warranted acts of vengeance. But make no mistake: these attacks were nothing more than reprehensible acts of cowardice, inspired by a radical and corrupt ideology that systematically denies human rights, devalues women and girls, and perverts the peaceful traditions and teachings of a great religion.

America is among many nations now in mourning – grieving the loss of all of those defenseless victims, including one of our own citizens, and praying for the others who were injured. My nation is also among many working to bring the perpetrators of these vicious acts to justice. To assist Uganda in its investigation, we’ve provided a team of FBI forensic experts and offered both technical assistance and intelligence resources.

The United States also recognizes that ending the threat of al-Shabaab to the world will take more than just law enforcement. That is why we are working closely with the AU to support the African Union’s Mission in Somalia. The United States applauds the heroic contributions that are being made on a daily basis by Ugandan and Burundian troops, and we pledge to maintain our support for the AU and the AU Mission in Somalia.

As our countries work together, with the support of the international community, my hope is that we will also always remember what was irreplaceably lost here in Kampala. Individuals with families. Individuals with futures. And individuals afflicted with the most tragic of fates – dying while doing good.

To his students, Nate Henn was known as “Oteka” – The Strong One. He had traveled from the United States to help Uganda’s most vulnerable children, to provide them with an education, and to reveal to them a simple truth: that great futures await them. Tragically, Nate’s own future has been lost to the ages.

Stephen Tinka, a Ugandan journalist and radio presenter, and one of the many Ugandans who were killed, was known for his infectious personality and his distinctive voice – a voice now silenced.

Ramaraja Krishna, a Sri Lankan father of two daughters, came to Uganda two years ago to help advance this nation’s economy. Today, his body rests, once again, at home.

Marie Smith of Ireland was a missionary who spent 30 years helping Africans less fortunate than herself. But her work came to an abrupt end – not because of who she was or what she believed, but because of the seat she’d chosen on that catastrophic Sunday evening.

That is profoundly wrong. And any attempt to justify these murders of innocents is unimaginably shameful. As we struggle to make sense from the unfathomable, and as we seek justice from the ashes, we can take comfort – and find faith – in the Ugandan proverb that reminds us, “When the moon is not full, the stars shine more brightly.” Yes, it is darker out today than it was just weeks ago. But we must believe – and we must make certain – that the stars of goodwill and grace and, above all, of justice will shine brighter now than before.

In this time of new threats and unprecedented challenges, the importance of the African Union’s mission and work is brought into stark focus. Over the last eight years, you have united a diversity of nations around common goals. You’ve paved new paths for communication and cooperation, and for prosperity, peace, and healing. Together, you’ve established agreements to strengthen democratic institutions, to prevent and combat corruption, and to ensure the integrity of your elections and the strength of your justice systems. And you’ve pooled your resources and knowledge to increase Africa’s participation in the global marketplace and to provide Africa’s people with goods, services, and opportunities, as well as with leadership that honors their will and their best interests.

At the beginning of this year – your membership declared 2010 to be the “Year of Peace and Security.” Together, you ignited a “flame of peace” that was placed in the care of President Mutharika. From Malawi, this flame began a year-long journey to all 53 AU member nations.

This journey continues. This flame still burns. And this Year of Peace and Security must live on. For too much is at stake. Too much has been sacrificed. And too much is yet to be realized.

Like President Obama, I believe that the 21st century will be shaped by what happens here in Africa. Your security and prosperity, the health of your people and the strength of your civil society, will have a direct and profound impact on the world’s communities and on the advancement of human rights and human progress everywhere.

During his early days in office, President Obama traveled to Africa. In Cairo and in Accra, he described what he saw as “an extraordinary moment of promise” for this continent – a new era for international cooperation; a new beginning.

President Obama also made clear that “Africa’s future is up to Africans.” And, today, I want to reaffirm America’s commitment to ensuring that this future is not hijacked or compromised; and that the progress you’re working to achieve is not derailed or delayed.

I am proud to be counted among the African Diaspora – this continent is my ancestral home, I am of this place. Your work is of special and emotional importance to me – and not only because I am proud to serve alongside my nation’s first African-American President or proud to be its first African-American Attorney General. I also join with you, and with my fellow citizens, in celebrating Africa’s success because I recognize that the fate of my own country is intertwined with each of yours.

The future we will share depends on what we do today – on the goals we set, the relationships we forge, the commitments we make and the actions we take. And despite today’s many challenges and uncertainties, one thing is clear: As your historic efforts to promote peace, development, justice, and opportunity continue, the United States will act in partnership and in common cause to help the African Union achieve its goals and fulfill its mission.

There are four specific areas where, I believe, America’s support must continue and where I hope our partnership can be strengthened: in combating global terrorism and international crime; in promoting good governance and the rule of law; in creating the conditions and capacity for economic development; and, finally, in ensuring that Africa’s women and girls are no longer disproportionately affected by violence or denied basic rights and equal opportunities to learn, to dream, and to thrive.

In each of these areas, the United States intends to serve, not as a patron but as a partner – as a collaborator, not a monitor.

First of all, because opportunity and prosperity cannot be realized without security, the United States will continue to direct every resource and tool at our command – from diplomacy and military tactics to our courts and intelligence capabilities – to defeat the global terror network. In protecting our people and defending our allies, we will respect the sovereignty of nations, as well as the rule of law. And we will look to engage more AU member nations in this work.

Second, we will strengthen current efforts to promote good governance and to combat and prevent the costs and consequences of public corruption. Today, when the World Bank estimates that more than one trillion dollars in bribes are paid each year out of a world economy of 30 trillion dollars, this problem cannot be ignored. And this practice must never be condoned. As many here have learned – often in painful and devastating ways – corruption imperils development, stability, competition, and economic investment. It also undermines the promise of democracy.

As my nation’s Attorney General, I have made combating corruption, generally and in the United States, a top priority. And, today, I’m pleased to announce that the U.S. Department of Justice is launching a new Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative aimed at combating large-scale foreign official corruption and recovering public funds for their intended – and proper – use: for the people of our nations. We’re assembling a team of prosecutors who will focus exclusively on this work and build upon efforts already underway to deter corruption, hold offenders accountable, and protect public resources.

And although I look forward to everything this new initiative will accomplish, I also know that prosecution is not the only effective way to curb global corruption. We will continue to work with your governments to strengthen the entire judicial sector, a powerful institution in our democracy which depends on the integrity of our laws, our courts, and our judges. We must also work with business leaders to encourage, ensure, and enforce sound corporate governance. We should not, and must not settle for anything less.

Third, the United States – guided by President Obama’s international economic development plan – will work to expand current economic development efforts. Here in Africa, President Obama has signaled his commitment to foreign assistance, with the goal that such support will, over time, no longer be necessary. This goal is driving our work to help Africa develop new sources of energy, to create green jobs, to grow new crops, and to develop new education and training programs.

Finally, because we’ve seen that the global struggle for women’s equality continues – in many aspects of American life, as well as in countries across this continent and around the world – we know that our work to promote security, opportunity, and justice must include a special focus on women and girls. The unique challenges and urgent threats facing women and girls across Africa have inspired unprecedented action, collaboration, and investments by the U.S. government. In particular, I am proud of the contributions that U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors and law enforcement agents have made here in Africa, through the Women’s Justice Empowerment Initiative – a three-year, $55-million-dollar program that was developed by the U.S. Departments of Justice and State, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. In Kenya, South Africa, Zambia, and Benin, this initiative has helped to train attorneys, investigators, law enforcements officials, and medical professionals in an effort to improve prosecutions and to raise awareness about the special needs of victims.

Through this initiative, we are joining with partners across this continent to educate Africans about violence against women and girls, to build the capacity of local governments to serve and assist victims, and to strengthen the ability of Africa’s legal systems and law enforcement communities to protect women and girls. This work is making a difference. It must be a priority for all on this continent. This work is changing lives, families, and communities. And while I believe it has the power, the possibility, to transform entire cultures and countries, I am certain that its ongoing success and impact is directly linked to the engagement and commitment of you: Africa’s leaders.

I have great hope for what can be achieved through ongoing international initiatives and strong AU partnerships. But I do not pretend that the progress we all seek – and the conditions and opportunities that all African citizens deserve – will come easily or quickly.

And yet, we all can be – and should be – encouraged that the state of the African Union is strong. And we have good reason to feel hopeful that this extraordinary moment of progress is, indeed, a new beginning – the start of a journey toward greater peace and unity, toward freedom and prosperity, toward opportunity and justice for all.

And although we may take our first steps beneath dark skies, our path forward will be guided by the flame of peace – and by the bright flicker of stars. In this Year of Peace and Security, America is proud to walk at your side, privileged to count you as partners, and grateful to call you friends.

Existing Emissions Laws Could Cut U.S. Footprint Without Climate Bill

A day after the Senate pulled the plug on a comprehensive climate bill, a new report shows the U.S. could reduce greenhouse gas emissions 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 by aggressively using existing state and federal policies.

A 14 percent reduction, however, falls short of President Barack Obama’s Copenhagen commitment, as well the emissions reduction targets put forth in the most recent climate legislation that was put forth and failed over the last year. It also pales in comparison to the cuts most scientists say is needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

“The study highlights both the need to pass climate legislation and the importance of preserving existing authorities,” Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, which wrote the report, said in a statement. “The study’s findings make it very clear that current efforts by Congress to curb U.S. EPA authority will undermine U.S. competitiveness in a clean energy world economy, block control of dangerous pollutants, and put the U.S. at odds with its allies.”

As Lash alluded to, the 14 percent reduction calculated by WRI is far from assured, given recent attacks on the EPA and state laws. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), for example, tried and failed to rein in the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, while a push from Big Oil-funded organizations in California put the fate of the state’s aggressive climate change law on the November ballot. At the same time, some have backed off participation in regional emissions trading programs, such as Arizona, which distanced itself from the Western Climate Initiative because of the economic downturn.

The 14 percent reduction would require pushing existing laws and regulations to the fullest extent possible under a set of circumstances the World Resources Institute calls the “go-getter” scenario. The Obama administration and states would have to maintain “steadfast resolve” in order to achieve this upper range of emissions reductions.

The WRI study also evaluated the potential results from three other scenarios: a “lackluster” scenario with efforts in the lower range of what is technically possible; “middle-of-the-road,” based on the medium range of what is technically feasible, with moderate regulatory ambition; and a “business-as-usual” scenario.

It found that “lackluster” state and federal efforts would only push emissions to 6 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, while a “middle-of-the-road” approach would trim emissions 9 percent by 2020.

Keeping concentrations of carbon dioxide emissions below 450 parts per million, considered to be the upper range needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change (but considered by some to still be too high) would require emissions reductions of 36 percent to 48 percent by 2020.

The most effective tools in the U.S. regulatory arsenal are the Clean Air Act’s mobile source and New Source Performance Standard provisions, its Title VI authority to reduce hydrofluorocarbons, and the Department of Transportation’s vehicle fuel efficiency authority.

Additional state level action would be needed to close the gap, as well as some regulatory policies not included the report, such as transportation planning and forest lands management. Existing tools will also need to be beefed up to meet long-term emissions reduction goals.

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States Using Existing Federal Authorities and State Action

This report shows how the U.S. could reduce greenhouse gas emissions 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 by aggressively using existing state and federal policies.

A 14 percent reduction falls short of President Barack Obama’s Copenhagen commitment, as well the emissions reduction targets put forth in the most recent climate legislation that was put forth and failed over the last year. It also pales in comparison to the cuts most scientists say is needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

“The study highlights both the need to pass climate legislation and the importance of preserving existing authorities,” Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, which wrote the report, said in a statement. “The study’s findings make it very clear that current efforts by Congress to curb U.S. EPA authority will undermine U.S. competitiveness in a clean energy world economy, block control of dangerous pollutants, and put the U.S. at odds with its allies.”

The 14 percent reduction would require pushing existing laws and regulations to the fullest extent possible under a set of circumstances the World Resources Institute calls the “go-getter” scenario. The Obama administration and states would have to maintain “steadfast resolve” in order to achieve this upper range of emissions reductions.

The WRI study also evaluated the potential results from three other scenarios: a “lackluster” scenario with efforts in the lower range of what is technically possible; “middle-of-the-road,” based on the medium range of what is technically feasible, with moderate regulatory ambition; and a “business-as-usual” scenario.

Obama budget review may trim 2010 deficit forecast

WASHINGTON, July 22 (Reuters) – The Obama administration may report somewhat better fiscal news when it delivers its mid-session budget review later this week, but the United States still faces a massive deficit and rising debt.

Higher corporate taxes and Wall Street’s quick repayment of a taxpayer bailout could see the projected 2010 U.S. budget deficit fall a bit when the review is released on Friday.

However, the fiscal funding gap would still be the widest on record, highlighting the tough task faced by President Barack Obama’s Democrats as they try to placate voter anger over government spending in an election year.

Obama’s economic team will update forecasts for the deficit and debt over the next decade, while revising estimates for the pace of growth and level of unemployment.

If the economic outlook is dimmed, as some analysts expect, that would further darken a long-term U.S. fiscal picture that already projects debt climbing above 70 percent of GDP.

Investors tend to focus on the long-term outlook, although U.S. government bond yields remain low despite the country’s fiscal challenges, signaling markets so far believe Obama’s pledge to tackle the deficit and debt going forward.

On the other hand, the White House will have the benefit of some more positive short-term news to deliver on Friday.

Analysts expect the deficit for the fiscal year to Sept. 30 to decline from the record $1.56 trillion funding gap projected in Obama’s February budget.

“My guess is … that the deficit number will in fact be a little lower than it had previously been projected, maybe by $100 billion or so,” said Stan Collender, a partner at Qorvis Communications and longtime budget watcher who served on a commission during the 1990s to study budget issues.

If the 2010 deficit came in at $1.45 trillion, it would still be the widest on record, followed by the $1.41 trillion deficit in 2009.

Some observers see the scale of the short-term deficit as academic, considering the severe recession from which the country is still recovering. But they want more convincing White House efforts to phase in budget controls in the future.

DEBT COMMISSION

“We know it is going to be a huge number, over a trillion dollars. And that would be perfectly appropriate given the economic downturn … if, and only if, we had a plan to get out of this mess. And we still don’t,” said Maya MacGuineas, president for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Obama has established a fiscal commission to weigh how to tackle the deficit and debt. The 18-strong bipartisan panel is expected to recommend a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts when its report is delivered by the end of December.

Critics are skeptical it will be able to forge a genuine consensus on how to proceed that will survive the Nov. 2 midterm congressional elections. They also doubt U.S. lawmakers will be prepared to enact the politically painful measures the commission recommends when they are presented to Congress.

Obama spoke to these doubts on Tuesday when he praised the open-minded spirit maintained so far by his commissioners.

“I think it is going to be a good report. But it is still going to require some tough choices, and we’re committed to pursuing those tough choices after we get that report,” he told a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron has split ways with Obama and announced severe austerity measures to curb Britain’s own towering debts.

In the meantime, the White House may be able to argue the U.S. budget is already moving in the right direction.

Monthly updates from the Treasury show the budget deficit over the first three quarters of fiscal 2010 has accumulated to $1.004 trillion, or only two thirds of the initial projection with three quarters of the time elapsed.

Part of the boost to 2010 revenues could be higher corporate tax revenues, due to stronger profits.

But the big difference is seen coming from the lower-than-expected costs of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, created by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, to save big U.S. banks during the financial crisis.

TARP’s initial $700 billion price tag has been slashed and now stands at $105.4 billion — $11.4 billion less than at the time of Obama’s February budget — while $198.4 had been paid back to the U.S. Treasury by the end of June.

Analysts say this is positive for the short-term budget picture but is by definition providing only temporary relief.

“People are paying it back and it is a positive. … That just needs to be understood in the right context. The banks can only repay the TARP funds once,” said Alex Brill, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. (Editing by David Alexander; editing by Todd Eastham)

Obama Orders Greener Commutes for Federal Workers

U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the federal government to promote greener employee commuting habits, reduced business travel and other measures to scale back indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 13 percent by 2020.

The indirect emissions reduction target goes beyond what the President previously committed for direct sources: a 28 percent reduction by 2020, based on 2008 levels. Combined, the reduction in emissions would be equivalent to the 101 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

The U.S. government spent $24.5 billion on fuel and energy in 2008.

“Every year, the Federal Government consumes more energy than any other single organization or company in the United States,” President Obama said in a statement Wednesday. “That energy goes towards lighting and heating government buildings, fueling vehicles and powering federal projects across the country and around the world. The government has a responsibility to use that energy wisely, to reduce consumption, improve efficiency, use renewable energy, like wind and solar, and cut costs.”

Expanding bicycle commuting and using more renewable energy sources are some of the initiatives the government is adding to each agency’s annual sustainability plan. The Washington Post reported the government will also lower indirect emissions by expanding recycling programs and locating future offices near mass transit systems.

Under a House bill passed last week, agencies would appoint telework managers to develop policies that promote teleworking, which, in addition to avoided emissions, could save the government millions of dollars in lost productivity during extreme weather.

Q+A: Will BP spill taint Cameron’s U.S. visit?

(Reuters) – David Cameron is making his first trip to the United States as British prime minister on Tuesday and Wednesday, a visit expected to be overshadowed by the BP Plc oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Cameron will meet President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and congressional leaders then travel to New York for talks with business leaders and at the United Nations.

Here are some questions and answers about the visit.

WILL OBAMA AND CAMERON DISCUSS THE SPILL?

The two leaders will address a range of issues that will definitely include the oil spill, aides say.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said they would discuss issues including Afghanistan, the global economy and the Middle East, with Afghanistan “first and foremost” on the list.

The two men have discussed the spill during two of their three telephone conversations to date and it came up during their first face-to-face meeting since Cameron became prime minister in May, during the Group of Eight and Group of 20 meetings in Canada last month.

“The conversation is likely to be drawn into a larger discussion about BP on two fronts,” wrote Heather Conley and Rick Nelson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The first, they said, is ensuring BP cleans up, compensates residents and restores the Gulf Coast after the disaster while remaining financially solvent.

They also said Obama and Cameron were likely to discuss whether the British oil giant had any influence over the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, from a Scottish prison last year.

WILL THE LOCKERBIE BOMBER COME UP?

Cameron’s office has tried to play down the concern, saying the U.S. debate over how the ill Libyan convicted of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight was allowed to return home “may come up” but is not a “major issue.”

BP has confirmed it lobbied the British government in late 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya but said it was not involved in talks on the release of al-Megrahi, which was strongly opposed by the Obama administration.

“Our viewpoint on this case last year was well-known and that was we opposed the release of the Lockerbie bomber. We made that opinion known,” Gibbs said, noting that Cameron — who was not prime minister when Megrahi was sent to Libya — also opposed the release.

But Gibbs said he expected the issue would come up in some form between Obama and Cameron, who said on BBC television: “I’ve no idea what BP did. I’m not responsible for BP.”

U.S. lawmakers have demanded an investigation but Cameron’s office said it had no plans to re-examine the case. “That will be up to the British government to determine,” Gibbs said.

The four U.S. senators from New York and New Jersey who want an investigation have been invited to meet Cameron on Tuesday night.

“He understands the strengths of feelings on this issue,” Cameron’s spokesman said.

WILL BP AFFECT THE “SPECIAL” RELATIONSHIP?

Washington and London have had their differences over the BP spill since it started in late April.

Obama has sought to convince Americans he is taking a tough stance against the giant oil firm to ensure it pays for the worst oil spill in U.S. history. And Cameron has said he will stand up for BP in Washington, worried that the firm could face unreasonable compensation claims from businesses and families affected by the spill.

But the disaster is not expected to put a long-term damper on the vaunted “special relationship” between the United States and Britain — at least as long as a new cap on the well holds and the cleanup goes well.

Obama and Cameron were eager to display their closeness when they met in Canada last month. Obama gave the new prime minister a ride in his helicopter and the two held a separate bilateral meeting in Toronto, at which they exchanged beers related to a bet over World Cup soccer.

Cameron’s Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government is aware Britain needs to build other special ties to maintain its influence and help its economy bounce back from recession. But Cameron is an outspoken fan of the American way of life and is not likely to distance himself from Washington.

In developing his relationship with Obama, the Conservative prime minister is likely to seek middle ground between what was seen as former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair’s subordinate “poodle” relationship with former U.S. President George W. Bush and the businesslike tone set by Gordon Brown, the Labour prime minister who preceded Cameron, the CSIS experts said.

The tone also could be affected by the cool personal style of Obama, who is not known for warm personal relationships with other world leaders.

(Editing by Patricia Wilson and John O’Callaghan)

Obama, Cameron to hold talks clouded by BP concerns

WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron will hold talks on Tuesday overshadowed by controversy over BP Plc (BP.L)(BP.N) that could test the vaunted “special relationship” between their countries.

They are expected to discuss BP’s role in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and whether the British energy giant had influence in the release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison last year — issues that have complicated transatlantic ties. [ID:nN19218995]

Cameron’s first visit to Washington as British prime minister comes amid a U.S. backlash against BP. With an eye to British pensioners and other investors at home, he has pledged to stand up for the embattled company.

Aides to both leaders insist the talks aim to build on a personal rapport they struck up at last month’s Group of 20 summit in Canada and that the agenda will focus more on the war in Afghanistan, the global economy and the Middle East.

But BP and its role in the worst oil spill in U.S. history loom large. Differences over BP’s treatment and over approaches to economic recovery raise fresh questions about a historic Anglo-American alliance already past its heyday.

Scoffing at “endless British preoccupation with the health of the special relationship,” Cameron wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he would be “hard-headed and realistic” about U.S. ties and said both countries must also strengthen bonds with rising powers like China and India. [ID:nLDE66I0I8]

DEMANDS FOR INQUIRY

Under heavy criticism over the Gulf disaster, BP faces demands from U.S. lawmakers for an official inquiry into whether it had a hand in the release of the Libyan convicted in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland.

BP has confirmed it lobbied the British government in 2007 over a prisoner transfer deal because it was concerned a slow resolution would hurt an offshore drilling deal with Libya.

But the company said it was not involved in talks on the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, sentenced to life for the deaths of 270 people, including 189 Americans.

On the eve of Cameron’s visit, the British government reiterated that BP had no role in the decision to free Megrahi and said it had no plans to re-examine the release, which took place despite fierce U.S. objections.

Scottish authorities said they freed the intelligence officer because he was terminally ill and they believed he had only three months to live. He is still alive in Libya.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told senators she was urging Scottish and British authorities to review the case.

Cameron’s aides have sought to play down the issue. He stressed in a BBC interview that, as opposition leader at the time, he thought the release was “utterly wrong.”

His visit also comes as U.S. lawmakers consider a range of rules that could require tougher safety standards on offshore drilling or bar companies like BP from new offshore leases.

Cameron has made clear he will defend BP, saying it must remain “strong and stable” to make good on its promise to compensate oil spill victims and for the sake of employees and people with pension funds invested in the company in both countries.

Obama, whose approval ratings have been undercut by public anger over the disaster, has taken a hard line with BP, although his rhetoric has softened recently amid criticism his administration had gone too in bashing the company.

Obama and Cameron will meet amid hopes a capping test on the blown-out well, which has largely choked off the undersea flow of oil, will pave the way for a permanent fix. [ID:nLDE66I13M]

UNITED FRONT, DIFFERENCES

Against this backdrop, they will present a united front on issues like sanctions against Iran and try to strike a balance between keeping up the fight in Afghanistan while signaling to skeptical voters they are progressing on exit strategies.

Obama and Cameron are sure to pay homage to their countries’ special relationship — in keeping with predecessors since Winston Churchill coined the phrase in 1946 — when they hold a joint news conference after they meet and have lunch.

But Cameron has indicated his new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition will work together pragmatically without being too slavish to U.S. interests.

Obama has also demonstrated a desire to see relations evolve, although he has been careful to avoid offending British sensibilities as he did earlier when he returned a loaned bust of Churchill on display in the Oval Office.

Cameron has led European attempts to cut budget deficits that have ballooned in the wake of the global financial crisis, while the United States has urged caution, arguing that reducing borrowing too fast could hinder the fragile recovery.

Both sides have agreed to disagree for now.

Cameron seems unwilling to be cast as America’s “poodle” — as British media dubbed former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair to former President George W. Bush. But he has acknowledged that Britain is the “junior partner” of the United States.

With more to gain from their encounter, Cameron is also looking to benefit from sharing a stage with Obama, who is more popular in Britain and much of Europe than he is at home. (Additional reporting by Matt Falloon; Editing by John O’Callaghan)

Factbox: Afghan women after the Taliban

Critics accuse the government of squandering millions in foreign aid, but President Hamid Karzai says most waste occurs on development projects outside official control, and he wants direct access to more of the $13 billion pot.

One of the pillars of the conference is social development for women, a key issue after a rights group last week warned last week that they risked sacrificing hard-won freedoms as the government seeks peace with the hardline Islamist Taliban.

Following are some facts about women in Afghanistan:

RIGHTS AFTER THE TALIBAN

For five years under the Taliban’s Islamist regime, women were banned from education and work. Since the Taliban’s 2001 fall, women’s rights have improved.

But it is often still taboo for women and girls to go to school or work in rural areas. Forced marriage, often of young girls, is still common.

Afghan women are among the world’s worst off, and violence and rape are a “huge problem”, according to the United Nations.

A law for Afghanistan’s minority Shi’a Muslims caused international outcry because one of its articles was seen as permitting marital rape. U.S. President Barack Obama called the law “abhorant” and it was changed by President Hamid Karzai.

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Karzai’s first cabinet after his 2004 election contained three female ministers and a female vice president. The current cabinet has a woman Minister for Martyrs and the Disabled, while two others are acting in women’s’ affairs and public health roles after permanent appointments were blocked by parliament.

The Afghan parliament uses a quota system to ensure at least 25 percent of seats go to women. While affirmative action is seen as necessary by many, some have complained that in many provinces women get seats based on gender rather than voter support.

Outside urban centers like Kabul and Herat, where Afghanistan’s only female chief prosecutor works, Afghan women are poorly represented in local government. The first female city mayor was appointed in Daikundi province last year.

HEALTH

Afghanistan has the second worst maternal mortality rate in the world, after Sierra Leone. For many women becoming pregnant is akin to a potentially fatal illness, the U.N. says. For every 100,000 live births, 1,600 women die in labor.

Poverty, rugged terrain and a shortage of female medical staff have contributed to the high maternal mortality rate. In remote northeast Badakhshan province, the rate is the world’s worst with 6,500 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.

Although midwife numbers have increased over the past few years, it is still well under the 8,000 needed to help bring down the level of maternal mortality, the U.N. says.

EDUCATION

The number of girls and women in education has soared since the ousting of the Taliban in 2001, but is still poor by world standards. Just 24 percent of girls were in secondary education by 2007, with drop-outs highest among older students.

Cultural and religious practices still keep many girls from school, especially in rural areas. Even in Kabul, girls are often harassed and bullied by young men for attending school.

According to the ministry of education between January 2006 and December 2008, there were 1,153 attacks on schools, from small arms explosions to death threats. The majority of attacks, 40 percent, were against girls’ schools.

FACTBOX-Afghan women after the Taliban

July 19 (Reuters) – Afghanistan will ask for more control of billions of dollars pledged to reconstruct the war-torn country at a major international conference next week.

Critics accuse the government of squandering millions in foreign aid, but President Hamid Karzai says most waste occurs on development projects outside official control, and he wants direct access to more of the $13 billion pot.

One of the pillars of the conference is social development for women, a key issue after a rights group last week warned last week that they risked sacrificing hard-won freedoms as the government seeks peace with the hardline Islamist Taliban. [ID:nSGE66C0D9]

Following are some facts about women in Afghanistan:

RIGHTS AFTER THE TALIBAN

For five years under the Taliban’s Islamist regime, women were banned from education and work. Since the Taliban’s 2001 fall, women’s rights have improved.

But it is often still taboo for women and girls to go to school or work in rural areas. Forced marriage, often of young girls, is still common.

Afghan women are among the world’s worst off, and violence and rape are a “huge problem”, according to the United Nations.

A law for Afghanistan’s minority Shi’a Muslims caused international outcry because one of its articles was seen as permitting marital rape. U.S. President Barack Obama called the law “abhorant” and it was changed by President Hamid Karzai.

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Karzai’s first cabinet after his 2004 election contained three female ministers and a female vice president. The current cabinet has a woman Minister for Martyrs and the Disabled, while two others are acting in womens’ affairs and public health roles after permanent appointments were blocked by parliament.

The Afghan parliament uses a quota system to ensure at least 25 percent of seats go to women. While affirmative action is seen as necessary by many, some have complained that in many provinces women get seats based on gender rather than voter support.

Outside urban centres like Kabul and Herat, where Afghanistan’s only female chief prosecutor works, Afghan women are poorly represented in local government. The first female city mayor was appointed in Daikundi province last year.

HEALTH

Afghanistan has the second worst maternal mortality rate in the world, after Sierra Leone. For many women becoming pregnant is akin to a potentially fatal illness, the U.N. says. For every 100,000 live births, 1,600 women die in labour.

Poverty, rugged terrain and a shortage of female medical staff have contributed to the high maternal mortality rate. In remote northeast Badakhshan province, the rate is the world’s worst with 6,500 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Although midwife numbers have increased over the past few years, it is still well under the 8,000 needed to help bring down the level of maternal mortality, the U.N. says.

EDUCATION

The number of girls and women in education has soared since the ousting of the Taliban in 2001, but is still poor by world standards. Just 24 percent of girls were in secondary education by 2007, with drop-outs highest among older students.

Cultural and religious practices still keep many girls from school, especially in rural areas. Even in Kabul, girls are often harassed and bullied by young men for attending school.

According to the ministry of education between January 2006 and December 2008, there were 1,153 attacks on schools, from small arms explosions to death threats. The majority of attacks, 40 percent, were against girls’ schools.

(Sources: World Health Organisation, Reuters reports, UNIFEM, World Bank, Afghan Ministry of Women’s Affairs and Afghan Ministry of Education) (Reporting by Golnar Motevalli; Editing by Rob Taylor) (golnar.motevalli@reuters.com; +93 708 871 211; Reuters Messaging: golnar.motevalli.reuters.com@reuters.net) (If you have a query or comment about this story, send an email to news.feedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com)

Talk persists of Bloomberg US presidential run

BOSTON, July 18 (Reuters) – New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the richest men in America, says his views are too polarizing for him to become president of the United States.

But analysts say however much he may protest, conditions may be gelling for Bloomberg, who came close to standing for the White House in 2008, to run in 2012 as an independent.

Voter distaste for both the Democratic and Republican parties and perceptions of government incompetence on big issues, from the Iraq war to the Gulf oil spill, could herald a new chance for the three-term mayor.

“He’s got the right climate and he’s got the money. Resources are always an issue for third-party candidates, but Bloomberg has got that covered,” said Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Bloomberg, 68, is a fiscal conservative with liberal social views who is formally an independent. He combines proven political skills with business acumen and has drawn high ratings for his job running New York City.

It is two-and-a-half years before the next presidential election in November 2012. Democrat Barack Obama is expected to seek a second term but is now struggling with low polling numbers and the Republican field is wide open.

TEASING ANSWERS

At a speech in New Hampshire on Friday, Bloomberg, as he always does, dismissed suggestions that he intends to run but failed to kill the speculation.

“Only my girlfriend and my mother would support me. And I’m not sure about my mother,” he quipped. “If the press is in the back — no, I’m not running. I want to make that clear.”

Still, the comments, and the speech’s setting, did little to silence the buzz.

Bloomberg was kicking off a “presidential lecture series” (actually named for the president of Dartmouth College, who was present) in the state which traditionally holds the first primary vote in the presidential election.

White House hopefuls often visit New Hampshire to test the waters for their campaign long before the election.

Asked about a presidential bid, Bloomberg said his liberal views on issues like abortion and gay rights were out of the current American mainstream.

“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights. I’m pro-immigration, I’m pro-gun control. I believe in Darwin,” he said. These views are anathema to many in a Republican Party that is increasingly conservative and laced with fundamental Christian beliefs.

Bloomberg has said he is committed to serving as mayor until his term ends in 2013 and would then leave politics and become a full-time philanthropist.

But it did not go unnoticed that Bloomberg has employed as a political strategist Howard Wolfson, who served as a senior aide on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid.

BLOOMBERG’S WEALTH

Bloomberg is the founder of Bloomberg LP, the financial news and media company. Forbes magazine estimates his net worth at $18 billion, the eighth-highest in the United States.

“Bloomberg has a really strong competency argument. The approval rates for both parties are in the 20 to 30 percent range now, extremely low. The climate right now is perfect for someone like Bloomberg to run,” Jensen said.

A lifelong Democrat who turned Republican to run for New York mayor in 2001, Bloomberg left the Republican Party to become an independent in 2007, a move some interpreted then as preparation for a presidential run.

“A successful mayor of New York with lots of resources and lots of ambition should never be counted out,” said Charles Franklin, political science professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and co-founder of pollster.com.

Jensen compared a potential Bloomberg 2012 run to the U.S. Senate campaign of Florida Governor Charlie Crist, a Republican who decided to run as an independent after polls showed him trailing another, more conservative Republican.

The last significant third-party presidential bid was by Texas businessman Ross Perot, who received 18.9 percent of the popular vote — about 19.7 million votes — in the 1992 election won by Bill Clinton. He won 8 percent in 1996.

Unlike Perot, Bloomberg brings with him a track record of winning elections. A Quinnipiac University poll published June 30 showed him with a 57 percent to 33 percent approval rating as New York’s mayor. (Editing by Daniel Trotta and David Storey)

Biden says no hard feelings toward McChrystal

July 18 (Reuters) – U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said on Sunday it was too soon to judge if a surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan was winning the war and insisted he bore no ill will toward General Stanley McChrystal.

President Barack Obama fired McChrystal last month after a magazine interview in which members of a team led by the top U.S. general in Afghanistan belittled Biden and called Obama’s national security adviser a “clown.”

“I wasn’t the clown. I was the guy who, in fact, was their problem, they thought. I’m not their problem,” Biden told ABC News’ “This Week” program.

McChrystal’s interview with Rolling Stone magazine exposed divisions between the White House and the military on how to conduct the Afghan war.

A member of his team joked about the vice president. “Biden?” the aide was quoted as saying. “Did you say: ‘Bite me?’” Another aide called national security adviser Jim Jones a clown who was “stuck in 1985.”

“I didn’t take it personally at all. I really, honest to God, didn’t. Compared to what happens in politics, this is — that was a piece of cake,” Biden said.

But Biden said the situation left McChrystal in an untenable position and that six four-star generals had advised the vice president that he must go.

“I met with McChrystal. The president met with McChrystal. He was — he was really apologetic. He knew they had gone way beyond. But we also knew that if a sergeant did that, if a lieutenant did that — I mean no one could stay,” Biden said.

Obama replaced McChrystal by putting General David Petraeus in charge of the war in Afghanistan.

U.S. troops are encountering stiff resistance and mounting casualties from a resurgent Taliban, despite a six-month buildup in U.S. forces. But Biden said it was too early to say if the strategy was working or not.

“We knew it was going to be a tough slog. But I think it’s much too premature to make a judgment until the military said we should look at it, which is in December,” Biden said, adding that it would take until August to complete the troop surge.

(Reporting by Alister Bull; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Analysis: Obama may not see big boost from Wall Street reform

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama may struggle to reap political rewards from his big win on Wall Street reform — at least in the near term.

Passage of the most sweeping overhaul of the financial regulatory system since the Great Depression of the 1930s comes as Obama is trying to bolster his sinking poll numbers and avert an election catastrophe for his Democrats.

The financial bill could prove more helpful to Obama when he seeks re-election in 2012 than for Democratic lawmakers trying to keep their seats this November.

Wall Street reform marks the latest in a series of major legislative achievements for the president, who campaigned on a promise of change.

Americans are focused on high unemployment and ballooning budget deficits, and some worry Obama is overreaching with his agenda. That has prevented Obama from gaining a lot of traction from two other signature initiatives: health care reform and the $862 billion stimulus package.

Financial reform could fit the same pattern.

“It will have relatively little positive effect on 2010,” said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. “It’s something Obama can take to the voters in 2012.”

The complexity of the 2,300-page financial reform bill is one reason Baker says it might not help Democrats much in the November congressional elections.

“It has yet to play out and affect the lives of Americans,” Baker said. “It will be a long time before people get a sense that somehow their debit cards are better protected than they were before financial regulation reform was passed.”

BILL UNFAMILIAR

Many U.S. voters are unfamiliar with the financial overhaul, according to an Ipsos Public Affairs online poll.

The poll found 38 percent of Americans had never heard of the overhaul and 33 percent had heard of it but knew almost nothing about the legislation. Another 18 percent said they knew “a little bit” about it.

The healthcare measure is also complex, though Baker said voters might come to better appreciate both pieces of legislation by the time Obama seeks re-election in two years.

For now, the jobless rate, which stands at 9.5 percent, trumps healthcare and financial reform.

“If he can get job creation going and we start seeing a decline in unemployment, that’s really the only thing that’s going to rescue Obama and the Democrats,” said Chris Arterton, a political scientist at George Washington University.

That may be why Obama focused his weekly radio and Internet address on Saturday on his push for extensions in jobless benefits and a program to spur lending to small businesses.

The Senate scheduled a vote on the unemployment benefits on Tuesday — the day before the signing of financial reform.

The White House has openly expressed fear that Democrats could lose their dominance in the House of Representatives.

Democrats are seen as having a better chance of holding onto the Senate though they are expected to lose seats. That would make it harder for Obama to tackle other items on his agenda like energy and immigration legislation.

The White House depicts the financial reform debate as a choice: Setting responsible rules of the road for Wall Street versus allowing greed and recklessness to run rampant.

Obama has argued Wall Street must be reined in to protect consumers and prevent a repeat of the financial implosion that plunged the country into its longest recession in decades.

CREDIT CARD FINE PRINT

Senior Obama aide David Axelrod disagreed with those who see the financial bill as too complex to resonate with voters.

“I don’t think it’s complicated to tell credit card holders that they have new rights relative to their credit card companies or mortgage holders that their prepayment penalties are now limited,” Axelrod said.

“I understand that not everybody is steeped in the knowledge of derivatives and all of this kind of exotic instruments that were part of the saga of the financial crisis,” he added. “But everybody in America deals with the headache of credit card fine print and variable mortgages.”

The Wall Street measure passed almost entirely along party lines, with only three Republicans breaking ranks to back it.

One obstacle for Democrats is a dampening of liberal enthusiasm because of concerns that industry lobbyists won too many concessions and loopholes in the final bill.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, an outside adviser to Obama, was disappointed in a rule named after him to prohibit banks with federal deposit insurance from betting with their own money. Volcker felt the rule was too watered-down.

But Republicans are prepared to attack the financial bill from a different vantage point. They hope that the bill and Obama’s populist, anti-Wall Street rhetoric will reinforce an “anti-business” image they are trying to pin on him.

House of Representatives Republican leader John Boehner has called the financial legislation ill-conceived and said he wants to repeal it.

“It’s going to make credit harder for the American people to get, clearly harder for businesses to get,” Boehner said. “It’s going to punish every banker in America for the sins of a few on Wall Street.”

(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Xavier Briand)

Sikorsky sees big orders over next 12-18 months

England (Reuters) – Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), expects a significant first order this week from a Middle Eastern country for the international version of its Black Hawk helicopter.

Sikorsky President Jeff Pino declined to name the Middle Eastern customer ahead of a news conference this week at the Farnborough air show, but said the same country was also buying the company’s S-76D medium-twin helicopter.

While there was less “aggressiveness” in international military orders at the moment and a malaise in the commercial market, Pino said Sikorsky was still preparing bids for many foreign competitions.

“There’s a lot going on,” Pino told Reuters in an interview ahead of the air show, saying the company was looking forward to big orders in the next 12 to 18 months. He said orders could come from the Middle East, Europe and Latin America.

Sikorsky is due to deliver the first S-92 maritime helicopter to Canada by November, a helicopter that was delayed by several years but which is starting to attract international interest as well, Pino said.

Pino said Sikorsky was winning about 60 to 70 percent of the competitions it qualified for and was well-positioned with its Black Hawk and Sea Hawk models in particular.

President Barack Obama in January told Congress about a package of arms sales to Taiwan valued at up to $6.4 billion, including 60 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters, and Sikorsky also won a Swedish competition for 15 helicopters.

VERY VALID

Closer to home, Sikorsky plans to compete in three separate U.S. military competitions — a new presidential helicopter program valued at under $7 billion, an Air Force rescue helicopter program that could generate up to $3 billion in orders and an armed helicopter for the U.S. Army that could generate up to $8 billion in orders.

Sikorsky has teamed with Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) to bid for the presidential helicopter and Air Force programs, a teaming arrangement that Pino said felt very “natural,” given long years of the long collaboration on the H-60 helicopters.

Pino acknowledged pressure on the Pentagon to rein in defense spending and said there was some concern that the new start programs could be delayed to save money.

But he said all three helicopter programs looked like very valid requirements, given the age of the aircraft they will replace, which should ensure the programs stayed on track.

“We just want to make sure that the pendulum doesn’t go too far,” he said. “We want to make sure there’s a natural pace.”

Pino said Sikorksy’s CH-53K, a new helicopter built for the Marine Corps, was expected to face a critical design review next week after some initial technical problems, and the first aircraft should be flying in 18 to 24 months.

U.S. defense contractors were clearly facing more scrutiny than ever before, but Sikorsky was executing well on most of its programs, he said.

“It’s clear they want better performance. It’s clear they want lower cost and it’s clear that that’s how they’re going to judge and evaluate contractors,” he said.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by David Holmes)

Factbox: Key facts in U.S.-Pakistan relations

(Reuters) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Islamabad on Sunday, hoping to bolster shaky U.S. relations with a close ally in the struggle against militant insurgents in both Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan.

Here are some facts about the importance and problem areas of the relationship, what aid has been given, what Pakistan wants and what is to come:

STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE

Pakistan is of huge strategic importance and a main ally for the United States as it seeks to defeat al Qaeda and cripple the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 2001 attacks on the United States, is believed to be hiding somewhere along the lawless border with Afghanistan. The leaders of the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan are also believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

Washington is also pressing for Pakistan to step up the fight against its own homegrown Taliban militants, which U.S. officials believe were behind the attempted bombing in New York’s Times Square on May 1.

Washington needs Pakistan as it seeks to stabilize Afghanistan as U.S. President Barack Obama sends in an extra 30,000 troops in the coming months.

SECURITY COOPERATION

Much of Clinton’s meetings will focus on how to improve security cooperation, from intelligence-sharing to more equipment from the United States for its ally.

The two sides held an earlier round of talks in March and agreed to fast-track pending Pakistani requests for military equipment including helicopters, fighter jets and pilotless drones.

Washington has also pledged to deliver 1,000 laser-guided bomb kits to Pakistan and is considering more weapons sales to help Pakistan with insurgents in the Afghanistan border region.

KEY IRRITANTS

There is mistrust on a range of issues, from security cooperation to how aid is delivered. Most opinion polls show a majority of Pakistanis hold an unfavorable view of the U.S. government and are suspicious of its intentions. Pakistan’s government bristles when Washington complains it has not done enough to tackle militants in a war that has killed more than 2,000 soldiers and weighed on the economy.

Civilian deaths from drone strikes are also unpopular in Pakistan, although the civilian government is believed to privately support them.

A recent source of U.S. irritation has been delays in granting visas for U.S. officials wanting to audit how aid is spent while Pakistan complains about increased security checks for its citizens visiting the United States.

Clinton, in a visit to Pakistan in October, publicly expressed puzzlement that its government had been unable to find scores of al Qaeda leaders including Osama bin Laden who are believed to be hiding in rugged border territory that divides Pakistan and Afghanistan.

AID PROGRAMME

The United States is Pakistan’s biggest aid donor and has given about $15 billion in direct aid and military reimbursements since 2002, about two-thirds of it security related.

While Pakistan is being propped up by an $11.3 billion International Monetary Fund loan, a new U.S. aid package triples non-military assistance to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year over the next five years.

The flow of money is being held up, however, as the Obama administration changes how it distributes that aid. Instead of largely using U.S. contractors and non-governmental organizations, it wants to funnel much of the aid via the Pakistani government and domestic NGOs in the hope this will bolster local capacity.

NUCLEAR COOPERATION

Pakistan would like a civilian nuclear cooperation deal with the United States, similar to the one Washington has with India, but there were scant signs of progress on this front during the March meetings.

The United States is leery of such a deal out of concern for how it might affect ties with New Delhi.

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari recently visited China amid signs that Chinese companies were ready to move ahead with plans to build two nuclear reactors for Pakistan, which could raise concerns in both Washington and New Delhi about nuclear proliferation.

(Editing by John O’Callaghan and Chris Allbritton)

U.S. to send stern message to North Korea

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s top diplomat and defense chief head to Seoul this week to discuss ways to respond to North Korea and deter it from any future attack after the sinking of a South Korean warship.

But the high-profile visit by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates risks angering China in the process, with an expected announcement of U.S.-South Korean military exercises that have set off alarms in Beijing.

Tension between North and South Korea remain high following the March sinking of the warship, Cheonan, killing 46 South Korean sailors. Pyongyang has denied responsibility and escaped censure this month from the United Nations, which condemned the attack but, in deference to China, did not blame North Korea.

Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said the talks in Seoul were aimed at assessing the next steps with North Korea, including whether and how to resume stalled talks about Pyongyang’s nuclear program. Pyongyang said this month it was willing to return to disarmament talks, in limbo since 2007.

“The United States is considering a variety of options associated with North Korea and we will be in deep consultations,” Campbell said.

But he stressed that an essential precondition for any new talks would be that Pyongyang cease its “provocative ways” and commit to denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

Victor Cha, a former director of Asian Affairs at the White House National Security Council under the Bush administration, said he expected that re-engagement will take a back seat to the main message of deterrence during the visit to Seoul.

“Right now on this trip the focus is going to be on the deterrence part, that will be the big public message … But privately, the conversations will also deal with getting these talks back on track,” said Cha, who works for the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington.

The visit has symbolic overtones, a show of U.S.-South Korean unity 60 years after the outbreak of the 1950-1953 Korean War. Gates will meet some of the 28,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea on Tuesday.

The trip will culminate Wednesday in the first talks between the U.S. and South Korean secretaries of defense and state. U.S. officials say the top-level event, reserved for only the closest U.S. allies, shows how important Obama views relations with South Korea, Asia’s fourth-largest economy.

Clinton also plans discuss the U.S.-South Korea economic relationship, where President Barack Obama has vowed to push through a long-stalled free trade agreement, as well as South Korea’s preparations to hold the a G20 summit this year.

WAR GAMES

U.S. officials say the talks are likely to yield at least one concrete result: the announcement in Seoul of a series of joint U.S.-South Korean military drills over a period of months in both the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan.

“These are exercises that enhance our anti-submarine warfare capabilities. They will also, by extension, be a show of force to the North Koreans, and send a message — what we hope to be a very strong message — of deterrence,” said Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell.

China, North Korea’s sole ally, has voiced deep concerns about any U.S.-South Korean drills in the Yellow Sea, which separates China and the Korean peninsula, and urged regional powers to put the Cheonan incident behind them.

U.S. officials, briefing reporters ahead of the trip, dismissed those concerns, saying drills in international waters in the Yellow Sea or elsewhere were “routine.”

“This is about sending a message to (North Korea). It’s not about sending a message to the Chinese. And it should not be interpreted as such,” Morrell said.

John Park, a researcher at the United States Institute of Peace who studies Chinese-North Korean relations, said drills risked aggravating ties between the United States and China.

“As much as the (U.S.-South Korean) announcement will be focused on a sending a message to North Korea, the unintended consequence is that messages are also being sent to China,” Park said.

Beijing broke off military-to-military contacts with the United States this year after the Obama administration notified Congress of a plan to sell Taiwan up to $6.4 billion worth of arms. Underscoring its displeasure, Beijing turned down a proposed fence-mending visit by Gates to China in June.

Park said that inside China, some believe the United States and South Korea are using the Cheonan “as its own pretext to enlarge the scope of the U.S.-South Korean alliance” west toward Chinese coastal waters.

“Their question is: Will the anti-submarine warfare exercises signal an expansion of the coverage area of the U.S.-(South Korea) alliance?”

(Additional reporting by Andrew Quinn; Editing by Stacey Joyce)