Oil Sheen Seen Near Damaged Platform in Gulf of Mexico

The mile-long sheen was spotted hours after an explosion on the offshore oil platform on Thursday, the Coast Guard said.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Pakistan's Butt, Asif, Aamer suspended by ICC (AFP)

AFP - * The International Cricket Council said Thursday it has provisionally suspended the three Pakistan players *accused of involvement in a betting scam.

Afghanistan assures bank customers amid graft fears (Reuters)

Reuters - Afghanistan's government sought to avert a run on the country's top private bank by nervous investors after directors at Kabulbank resigned, ostensibly to meet new rules but also amid media allegations of graft.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Hurricane threatens US east coast

Tens of thousands of people evacuated as catergory three storm closes in on US Atlantic coast.
Read more [Al Jazeera]

UN: Blackberry worries legitimate

UN technology chief says RIM, the company behind Blackberry phones, should give governments access to customers' data.
Read more [Al Jazeera]

Middle East peace talks: 17 years after Oslo Clinton takes on challenge

'It's time to get to work,' says US secretary of state with the knowledge that expectations are low as negotiations begin

It is clear Israelis and Palestinians face a tough slog if the negotiations launched in Washington today are to get anywhere near the agreement Barack Obama hopes to reach within a year.

Low expectations were reflected in the opening statements, but it was the US that sounded most determined to keep hopes alive in the face of profound scepticism in the Middle East and beyond. Hillary Clinton's most significant comment was her promise to be an "active and sustained partner" – noting that an agreement was "in the national security interests of the US".

But her clear warning that the US "cannot and will not impose a solution" will alarm those who believe that only thus will Israelis and Palestinians be able to wriggle out of what she called "the shackles of history" to make peace.

Clinton's appeal to "those who criticise and stand on the sidelines" was unlikely to impress Hamas. The Islamist movement that controls Gaza prefers resistance (including the killing on Tuesday of four Israeli settlers) to negotiations, and excoriates Mahmoud Abbas as a traitor.Wider Arab support for this re-launched process is limited to two close US allies — President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan, who both already have (domestically unpopular) peace treaties with Israel. Saudi Arabia and Syria, which attended the ill-fated Annapolis talks in 2007, were conspicuously absent.

Crucially, neither side signalled any readiness for concessions that could create forward movement in the talks, though it would have been surprising if they had at this stage.

Binyamin Netanyahu's familiar script reflected his dual need not to alienate the Americans or his rightwing coalition allies at home. So he hailed Abbas as a "partner" while stressing the importance of security, and repeated his insistence on explicit recognition of Israel as "a Jewish state" – a demand taken by many as a way of blocking the right of return of Palestinians who lost their homes in 1948 and 1967.

Netanyahu's pointed references to "Iran and its proxies" and the emergence of "missile warfare in the region" in recent years were reminders of the threats he and many of his compatriots worry about far more than the Palestinians these days. It may be true that "a lasting peace will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides," but there was no sign that he is willing – or politically able – to extend his grudging moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank when it expires later this month. The Palestinians have warned they will break off talks if he does not.

Netanyahu's solemn invocation of the biblical Isaac and Ishmael — burying the Patriach Abraham "the father or our two peoples... in a moment of pain and mutual respect" seemed unlikely to win many Palestinian hearts or minds.

Abbas, speaking in Arabic through an interpreter after Netanyahu's fluent American English, was less florid, warning of "the magnitude of the obstacles facing us" and calling again on Israel to freeze settlements and end the siege of the Gaza Strip. Reference back to an agreement signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat (pictured below, with Bill Clinton) after Oslo in 1993 was a reminder of a more hopeful era.

But Abbas – often criticised by Hamas as a "collaborator" – sounded anxious to prove his good intentions when he revealed that Palestinian security forces were already on the track of the gunmen – Hillary Clinton's "enemies of peace" – who struck with grim predictability near Hebron on Tuesday night. "We cannot tolerate any actions that will undermine your security or ours," Abbas said.

Clinton, ending the public part of proceedings with an affectionate pat on the back and a handshake for each leader in turn, had the best line: "Now it's time to get to work," she concluded. And very hard work it is going to be.

• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Hillary Clinton
• Middle East
• United States
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Obama administration
• US politics
• US foreign policy

Middle East talks set to continue

Israeli and Palestinian leaders agree to meet in the region on September 14-15, and again every two weeks thereafter.
Read more [Al Jazeera]

Sudan referendum body agrees post to end deadlock (Reuters)

Reuters - Sudan's referendum commission agreed on a key post on Thursday, ending a deadlock which has stalled plans for the January 9 southern vote on independence from the north against which it has fought decades of civil war.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Hamas among intractable issues in Mideast talks (AP)

AP - To relaunch Middle East peace talks on Thursday, the Israeli and Palestinian leaders and their American mediators quietly agreed to push aside the question of Hamas — the Islamic militant group that controls one of the two Palestinian territories and rejects negotiations.

Middle East peace talks: the history

The summit in Washington between Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas follows several previous attempts at peace

Camp David I Israel signed the Camp David accords in 1978 and a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 and returned the Sinai peninsula in return for full relations with its former enemy. But talks on Palestinian autonomy went nowhere.

Madrid The mother of all Israeli-Arab peace conferences was at Madrid in 1991, when Israel and all its immediate Arab enemies came to the negotiating table for the first time. Israel refused to deal directly with the PLO, so the Palestinians formed part of a joint delegation with Jordan. Talks eventually petered out but the principle of "land for peace" has remained the basis for all subsequent negotiations.

Oslo This summit in 1993 was the big breakthrough, leading to the famous handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn. Israel and the PLO recognised each other. Rabin's assassination in 1995 marked a sharp decline. Israel came to regret the Oslo deal, while many Palestinians saw it as a trap to perpetuate occupation.

Camp David II Subsequent smaller-scale agreements, at Taba, Wye Plantation and Sharm el-Sheikh were followed by Bill Clinton's final attempt to broker a deal at Camp David in 2000. Agreement seemed close even on the toughest issues – Jerusalem borders and settlements – but in the end talks collapsed. Each side blamed the other for the breakdown, which was followed by the second Palestinian uprising.

Annapolis In 2007, a belated attempt by George Bush to show his concern for Israel-Palestinian peace after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. It was widely dismissed as little more than a photo-opportunity.

• Middle East
• Israel
• Palestinian territories

Middle East peace talks aim for 'a future that will end conflict'

Israeli prime minister gives positive message to 'partner for peace' Mahmoud Abbas

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, launched peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians today with a call for courageous, bold leadership and an appeal to stay the course even when a resolution seemed elusive.

Clinton noted that all of the key participants – Binyamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas and herself – had been there before in one role or another.

"Those of you here today, especially the veterans who are here today, you have returned because you have seen the cost of continued conflict," she said. "The core issues at the centre of the negotiations – territory, security, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and others – will get no easier if we wait, nor will they resolve themselves."

For many diplomats, though, the great unanswered question at the talks was which Netanyahu would be at the table: 14 years ago the same Israeli prime minister seemed determined to kill any peace deal at talks with Yasser Arafat overseen by the US secretary of state's husband, the then president Bill Clinton.

Yesterday Netanyahu's language was of historic compromises and went further than many expected, repeatedly calling the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, his "partner for peace".

Diplomats had expected the Israeli prime minister to pay lip service to a peace deal and even to make some significant concessions. What they had not expected were the repeated pledges to peace that poured forth after Netanyahu's meeting with Barack Obama yesterday and again today before the talks.

"Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides … from my side and from your side," he said. "The people of Israel, and I as their prime minister, are prepared to walk this road and to go a long way in a short time to achieve a genuine peace that will bring our people security, prosperity and good neighbours."

Clinton suggested that maybe the experience of the years of missed opportunities and violence had tempered the Israeli leader as well as the Palestinians.

Netanyahu and Abbas both said they recognised the point. The Palestinian leader said that the issues were not new, and that was a reason for optimism.

"We're not starting from scratch because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government," he said.

Netanyahu reiterated his assertion he would make historic compromises. However, the Israeli prime minister said that there were two issues he regarded as central to any agreement – "legitimacy and security".

"Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I think this mutual recognition between us is indispensable to clarifying to our two peoples that the conflict between us is over.

"I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel … new forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take into account security arrangements against these real threats.

"President Abbas, I'm fully aware and I respect your people's desire for sovereignty. I'm convinced it's possible to reconcile that desire with Israel's security."

Abbas noted that his Palestine Liberation Organisation recognised Israel's legitimacy in earlier accords going back to 1993, although they do not mention it explicitly as a Jewish state.

The Palestinian leader called for an end to all Jewish settlement construction in the occupied territories, an issue likely to be an open sore at the talks. Netanyahu has declined to commit himself to extending a partial freeze on building in the settlements in the West Bank, although not occupied East Jerusalem, when it expires this month. The Palestinians see the issue as a litmus test of his intent.

The difficulties of agreeing that compromise were highlighted after Netanyahu's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said the day before the talks that Israel could meet a Palestinian demand to divide Jerusalem so that the mainly Arab east of the city could become a Palestinian capital. "The Arab neighbourhoods in which close to a quarter of a million Palestinians live will be theirs," Barak told Haaretz newspaper.

One of Netanyahu's aides immediately contradicted Barak, saying the prime minister's position at the talks will be that the city must remain fully under Israeli control.

"Our position is that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel," the aide said.

• Israel
• Middle East
• Palestinian territories
• Hillary Clinton
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Binyamin Netanyahu

More on the UN | Michael Tomasky

Stupid me, I should have remember to go to undispatch.com and check their archives on this. As usual, the intrepid Mark Leon Goldberg has been on the story of the Human Rights Council and the universal periodic reviews.

In the comment thread to my earlier post on this matter of the State Department and the Arizona immigration law and the UN, I wrote, in response to left halfback, who thought that the US shouldn't be reporting to the UN period end of story:

LHB: The point of participating in such a regime is not to expose ourselves to the UN; it is to set the example of participation so that other countries with less exemplary records may feel forced to do the same. Do we want Egypt and Syria and China and lots of other places to improve their human rights records? Of course we do. Pressuring them to participate in this UN regime seems like a way to help that process along.

No it won't change things overnight. Nothing does. But I rather like the idea of three countries with decent human rights records having the chance to comment on what I presume would be a phony and self-serving and false report by an Egypt or what have you. It can't hurt, and it strikes me as an improvement over the old way.

But the US will have no leverage over the Egypts if we don't participate ourselves. And so the moral of the story: It feels cathartic to tell the UN to f--- off and it proves Uncle Sam doesn't kowtow to anyone. But it also reduces our moral authority to criticize other nations. This is something they don't think much about over on Fox.

Back in February, Goldberg wrote the following tale about how the UPR process had actually made a bit of a difference:

Still, the ultimate measure of the effectiveness of the Universal Periodic Review is the extent to which it can inspire a country to alter its internal human rights practices. With countries that are generally rejectionist of this sort of external interference (say, Iran and North Korea) there is an obvious limit to what the council can practically accomplish. On the other hand, countries that have troubling human rights records, but are not completely rejectionist, have been inspired to improve their human rights records based on the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review. For example, Human Rights Watch notes that following Saudi Arabia's first review last year, the Saudi government pledged a number of reforms on women's rights, ending the juvenile death penalty, and expanding its labor laws to include protection for domestic workers.

So there you are. This process yielded tangible gains in a country with a pretty dismal record. Here's a section from the Human Rights Watch write-up Goldberg linked to:

Saudi Arabia accepted a recommendation put forward by UN member states in February to take steps to end the system of male guardianship over women, to give full legal identity to Saudi women, and prohibit gender discrimination. The government also clarified that the Shari'a concept of male guardianship over women is not a legal requirement, and that "Islam guarantees a woman's right to conduct her affairs and enjoy her legal capacity."

Like any big process, it's far from perfect. But a little bit at a time. And in 10, 20 years, the UPR process might have a string of important successes to its credit.

But it couldn't work without the US's participation. Without the United States taking part, countries could and would just blow the process off. If you want to debate the political wisdom of including the Arizona thing, because it's fodder for the right, fine. But that's a political question, not a substantive one. On substance, I think these last two posts have made it abundantly clear that there are benefits to the US and the world to UPR participation.

It must always be remembered, when confronted with one of these new right-wing memes. Remember to tell yourself whenever you hear one that in all likelihood, there's some minuscule grain of truth to it, but you can be virtually certain that they are twisting it out of shape and omitting context that puts matters in a very different light. Do not panic like the Democrats too often do. Seek out facts. It took me half an hour to find this stuff out. Even allowing for the fact that you're not journalists with Barbara Crossette articles miraculously landing in your in-boxes, you could do it, too.

And, as several of you wisely said in the earlier thread, everything the Democrats do is potential fodder. Let Us Not Go Into Tizzies and Deliver Us From Distortion. Here endeth the lesson.

• Obama administration
• United Nations

Afghans Pull Money From Weakened Bank

One of the principal owners of the bank predicted a “revolution” in the financial system without help from the Afghan government and the United States.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

For Mexican cartels, marijuana is still gold (McClatchy Newspapers)

McClatchy Newspapers - CORRE COYOTE, Mexico — Times are good for the dope growers of the western Sierra Madre mountains. The army eradication squads that once hacked at the illicit marijuana fields have been diverted by the drug war that's raging elsewhere in Mexico.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Cove star stages protest over Japanese dolphin hunt

Ric O'Barry, who appeared in the Oscar-winning film, delivers petition signed by 1.7 million people to US embassy in Tokyo

The star of an Oscar-winning film about dolphin hunting in Japan delivered a petition to the country's US embassy calling for an end to the practice.

Ric O'Barry, 70 – who appeared in The Cove and trained dolphins for 1960s TV show Flipper – was flanked by police and dozens of supporters carrying banners. The petition was signed by 1.7 million people from 151 countries.

O'Barry had hoped to deliver it to the Japanese fisheries agency but cancelled the plan after threats from a nationalist group with a history of violence. The Cove, which won this year's Oscar for best documentary, shows fishermen from the town of Taiji who scare dolphins into a cove before killing them slowly by piercing them repeatedly.

O'Barry said: "I'm not losing hope. Our voice is being heard in Taiji."

The annual hunt in the town began on Wednesday, but boats came back empty. The government allows the hunting of around 20,000 dolphins a year and argues that killing them is no different from breeding cows and pigs for slaughter. Most Japanese have never eaten dolphin meat and, even in Taiji, it is not consumed regularly.

• United States
• Japan
• Wildlife
• Marine life

IMF raises Pakistan funding

Finance for flood-ravaged nation from IMF reaches $450m as aid workers warn of "second wave of death".
Read more [Al Jazeera]

Thaksin Shinawatra resurfaces in South Africa

In attempt to scotch rumours of ill health, fugitive Thai prime minister has photo released of him 'visiting Nelson Mandela'

Emerging from weeks of silence, the former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has appeared in Africa, where he said he was dealing in diamonds and visiting Nobel laureate Nelson Mandela.

A photograph of his meeting with the former South African president was released in Thailand by his lawyer in an apparent move to quash rumours that the fugitive was ill – and to advertise that he was rubbing shoulders with VIPs abroad.

"I travel all the time. Currently, I'm in Africa for diamond mining," Thaksin told the Thai Rath newspaper, adding that rumours of his failing health were lies. He said the photograph of him with Mandela was taken last Friday.

A spokesman for the Nelson Mandela Foundation in Johannesburg did not return several calls seeking comment.

Thaksin, who was ousted in a military coup in 2006, has been accused of funding the anti-government Red Shirt protests in April and May. Protesters occupied Bangkok's main shopping district, forcing the closure of shopping malls and hotels , in an attempt to unseat the government and possibly bring Thaksin back to power. Sporadic violence and a crackdown by the military left 91 people dead and 1,400 wounded.

The tycoon-turned-politician, who remains popular among his rural poor power base, was convicted on conflict of interest charges in 2008 and fled the country. Thailand revoked his passports but Thaksin has acquired at least two new ones from Nicaragua and Montenegro.

He is believed to be living in Dubai. He has spent much of the past four years roaming the globe in search of business deals. He visited South Africa previously to inspect diamond mines and has travelled to Liberia, Uganda and Swaziland for investments in diamonds and gold. He has posted photographs of meetings with leaders on trips to Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea and the Maldives.

Normally active on Twitter, Thaksin's last posts came on 25 July, the day before his 61st birthday, when he called for political reconciliation in Thailand. Since then he has kept a low profile.

In the interview with Thai Rath, he complained about a Thai supreme court ruling in February that approved the seizure of $1.4bn (£910m) of his assets over his abuse of power while in office.

"More than half of my assets have been robbed from me, so I have to earn them back again to look after my kids," he said of his three adult children. In a list of Thailand's wealthiest people published this week, Forbes magazine put Thaksin at 23 with a net worth of $390m.

• Thailand
• South Africa
• Nelson Mandela

Oil rig explodes in Gulf of Mexico

Explosion off Louisiana raises pollution fears after BP oil spill, with mile-long slick reported in the area

Fresh fears about drilling in the Gulf of Mexico were raised today when fire forced workers to abandon an oil and gas platform, just six months after the BP explosion that created an environmental disaster in the region.

The coastguard reported an oil slick a mile long and 30 metres wide near the site of the fire, undercutting a claim by the oil company that there was no pollution.

It is not known yet whether the oil might have come from the platform or, more worryingly, from a well below the surface. The prospect alarmed the White House, environmentalists, fishermen and others on the Gulf Coast, still coping with the pollution from the BP oil spill.

The company, Mariner Energy, said none of the 13 workers, who fled the platform and took to the sea in immersion suits and aboard a raft, were injured. The coastguard said they were taken by ship to a nearby platform and from there to hospital in Houma, Louisiana to be checked.

A coastguard spokesman said the platform was still on fire and that ships, helicopters and planes had been sent from Houston, New Orleans and Mobile.

The fire is a setback for the oil industry, which has been arguing that drilling in the Gulf is safe and that the BP explosion was a rare event. It came only 24 hours after companies including Mariner had staged a rally in Houston against a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf. About 5,000 employees had been bussed in for the rally.

A spokesman for Mariner, Patrick Cassidy, said he did not anticipate any pollution as the platform had not been drilling and there had been no blowout. "There is no hydrocarbon spill," he said.

The fire had broken out on a facility above the water, at some distance from the wells, he added.

Dave Reed, an oil worker on a platform about 14 miles away, told CNN he could see the smoke and that a call had gone out for ships, helicopters and planes in the region to divert to the area. "It took an hour for the helicopters to get here and all 13 were taken from the water," Reed said.

The alarm was raised by a commercial helicopter flying over the platform. A coastguard spokesman, Chief Petty John Edwards, said: "We were able to confirm that all people were accounted for."

At the rally in Houston on Tuesday against the moratorium, Barbara Dianne Hagood, a spokesman for Mariner Energy, told the Financial Times: "I have been in the oil and gas industry for 40 years, and this [the Obama] administration is trying to break us. The moratorium they imposed is going to be a financial disaster for the Gulf Coast, Gulf Coast employees and Gulf Coast residents."

The fire broke out on the platform Vermilion Oil Rig 380, about 90 miles south of the Louisiana Coast and west of the earlier BP explosion that had killed 11 workers.

Both the White House and the coastguard said they did not anticipate any pollution but that ships equipped with facilities to help clean up spills had been sent to the area as a precaution.

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said: "We obviously have response assets ready for deployment should we receive reports of pollution in the water." The White House stressed that, unlike the BP rig, the platform was not a deepwater facility and was only working to a depth of 340ft.

BP's attempts to cap its well, which saw hundreds of millions of gallons of oil spill into the Gulf, were bedevilled by the depth at which they had been drilling. They finally capped the well in July.

Mariner is a small company in the process of being taken over by the Apache oil company in a deal worth an estimated $3.9 billion (£2.5bn). The deal has not yet been completed. Shares in both companies fell after news of the fire.

• United States
• Oil
• Oil
• Oil and gas companies
• BP oil spill

Oil rig explodes in Gulf of Mexico

Explosion off Louisiana raises pollution fears after BP oil spill, with mile-long slick reported in the area

Fresh fears about drilling in the Gulf of Mexico were raised today when fire forced workers to abandon an oil and gas platform, just six months after the BP explosion that created an environmental disaster in the region.

The coastguard reported an oil slick a mile long and 30 metres wide near the site of the fire, undercutting a claim by the oil company that there was no pollution.

It is not known yet whether the oil might have come from the platform or, more worryingly, from a well below the surface. The prospect alarmed the White House, environmentalists, fishermen and others on the Gulf Coast, still coping with the pollution from the BP oil spill.

The company, Mariner Energy, said none of the 13 workers, who fled the platform and took to the sea in immersion suits and aboard a raft, were injured. The coastguard said they were taken by ship to a nearby platform and from there to hospital in Houma, Louisiana to be checked.

A coastguard spokesman said the platform was still on fire and that ships, helicopters and planes had been sent from Houston, New Orleans and Mobile.

The fire is a setback for the oil industry, which has been arguing that drilling in the Gulf is safe and that the BP explosion was a rare event. It came only 24 hours after companies including Mariner had staged a rally in Houston against a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf. About 5,000 employees had been bussed in for the rally.

A spokesman for Mariner, Patrick Cassidy, said he did not anticipate any pollution as the platform had not been drilling and there had been no blowout. "There is no hydrocarbon spill," he said.

The fire had broken out on a facility above the water, at some distance from the wells, he added.

Dave Reed, an oil worker on a platform about 14 miles away, told CNN he could see the smoke and that a call had gone out for ships, helicopters and planes in the region to divert to the area. "It took an hour for the helicopters to get here and all 13 were taken from the water," Reed said.

The alarm was raised by a commercial helicopter flying over the platform. A coastguard spokesman, Chief Petty John Edwards, said: "We were able to confirm that all people were accounted for."

At the rally in Houston on Tuesday against the moratorium, Barbara Dianne Hagood, a spokesman for Mariner Energy, told the Financial Times: "I have been in the oil and gas industry for 40 years, and this [the Obama] administration is trying to break us. The moratorium they imposed is going to be a financial disaster for the Gulf Coast, Gulf Coast employees and Gulf Coast residents."

The fire broke out on the platform Vermilion Oil Rig 380, about 90 miles south of the Louisiana Coast and west of the earlier BP explosion that had killed 11 workers.

Both the White House and the coastguard said they did not anticipate any pollution but that ships equipped with facilities to help clean up spills had been sent to the area as a precaution.

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said: "We obviously have response assets ready for deployment should we receive reports of pollution in the water." The White House stressed that, unlike the BP rig, the platform was not a deepwater facility and was only working to a depth of 340ft.

BP's attempts to cap its well, which saw hundreds of millions of gallons of oil spill into the Gulf, were bedevilled by the depth at which they had been drilling. They finally capped the well in July.

Mariner is a small company in the process of being taken over by the Apache oil company in a deal worth an estimated $3.9 billion (£2.5bn). The deal has not yet been completed. Shares in both companies fell after news of the fire.

• United States
• Oil
• Oil
• Oil and gas companies
• BP oil spill

Read more [Guardian America]

Middle East peace 'in a year'

Israeli and Palestinian leaders begin framework talks on a peace deal which could encompass borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, met for the first day of direct talks in Washington today and agreed that a peace deal could be achieved within a year.

George Mitchell, the White House envoy who joined the negotiations, said the two leaders decided to begin putting together a framework agreement on all major issues – such as borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security – that will "establish the fundamental compromises necessary" to flesh out a comprehensive peace deal.

Mitchell said Netanyahu and Abbas agreed to meet again in a fortnight in the Middle East and every two weeks after that. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and Mitchell will attend the first of those meetings on 14 September.

Mitchell declined to disclose the detail of the discussions, although he said some of the major issues were touched on. Netanyahu and Abbas met American officials and then on their own. Mitchell described the two men's relationship at the talks as "cordial".

Before the talks opened, Netanyahu said two key demands – recognition of his country as a Jewish state and arrangements to ensure it does not come under attack from within a Palestinian state – were a prerequisite to a wider agreement.

Netanyahu again called Abbas his "partner in peace" and said he was prepared to make "painful concessions" to reach a deal. But the Israeli prime minister said that what he called the "two pillars to peace" must be resolved.

Clinton launched the negotiations by calling for the two leaders to show themselves as bold and courageous statesmen and reach an comprehensive peace agreement within the one year deadline set by Barack Obama. "We understand the suspicion and scepticism that so many feel born out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes," she said. "But by being here today you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change."

Netanyahu said Israel was prepared to make sacrifices to reach an agreement. "Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides … from my side and from your side," he said.

The Israeli prime minister said central to any agreement were legitimacy and security. "Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel … new forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take into account security arrangements against these real threats."

Abbas said he believed a deal was possible. "We're not starting from scratch, because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government."

Comment, page 33

• Middle East
• United States
• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Barack Obama
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Mahmoud Abbas

Middle East peace 'in a year'

Israeli and Palestinian leaders begin framework talks on a peace deal which could encompass borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, met for the first day of direct talks in Washington today and agreed that a peace deal could be achieved within a year.

George Mitchell, the White House envoy who joined the negotiations, said the two leaders decided to begin putting together a framework agreement on all major issues – such as borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security – that will "establish the fundamental compromises necessary" to flesh out a comprehensive peace deal.

Mitchell said Netanyahu and Abbas agreed to meet again in a fortnight in the Middle East and every two weeks after that. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and Mitchell will attend the first of those meetings on 14 September.

Mitchell declined to disclose the detail of the discussions, although he said some of the major issues were touched on. Netanyahu and Abbas met American officials and then on their own. Mitchell described the two men's relationship at the talks as "cordial".

Before the talks opened, Netanyahu said two key demands – recognition of his country as a Jewish state and arrangements to ensure it does not come under attack from within a Palestinian state – were a prerequisite to a wider agreement.

Netanyahu again called Abbas his "partner in peace" and said he was prepared to make "painful concessions" to reach a deal. But the Israeli prime minister said that what he called the "two pillars to peace" must be resolved.

Clinton launched the negotiations by calling for the two leaders to show themselves as bold and courageous statesmen and reach an comprehensive peace agreement within the one year deadline set by Barack Obama. "We understand the suspicion and scepticism that so many feel born out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes," she said. "But by being here today you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change."

Netanyahu said Israel was prepared to make sacrifices to reach an agreement. "Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides … from my side and from your side," he said.

The Israeli prime minister said central to any agreement were legitimacy and security. "Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel … new forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take into account security arrangements against these real threats."

Abbas said he believed a deal was possible. "We're not starting from scratch, because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government."

Comment, page 33

• Middle East
• United States
• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Barack Obama
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Mahmoud Abbas

Read more [Guardian America]

Correction: Colombia Rebel Haven (AP)

AP - In stories Aug. 7 and Aug. 8 about Colombian government efforts to cement control over a longtime rebel stronghold, The Associated Press, quoting a former deputy defense minister, Sergio Jaramillo, erroneously reported that 30 percent of the world's cocaine had come from the area. The correct figure is 13 percent of the world's cocaine.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Though Condemned, German Author Opens Debate

Thilo Sarrazin, a German banker and former government official who has been criticized as espousing racist views, has sparked new discussion about the country’s immigration policy.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Michael White's political briefing | Sex, lies and Fleet Street headlines

Gay Tory MPs are adamant that the foreign secretary is not, as Lady Thatcher used to say, 'one of us', but it doesn't end there

Reporters who remember William Hague's byelection win in Richmond in 1989 affectionately recall one odd aspect of the campaign. Whatever they asked a Conservative press officer about their precocious bachelor candidate's views on great issues of the day, the jittery answer would usually be: "Did you know, his girlfriend's arriving tomorrow?" Yet gay Tory MPs are adamant that the foreign secretary is not, as Lady Thatcher used to say, "one of us".

Attitudes on sexuality have become much more relaxed since the days of section 28, to the point where having gay MPs is mandatory and David Cameron promises to curb homophobic bullying in the playground. As the "gay spy" narrative falsely imposed on murdered M16 staffer Gareth Williams showed yet again last week, Downing Street is yet to promise similar curbs in Fleet Street.

The media's reluctance to abandon a good sex story, let alone admit error, means it has been chipping away at Hague ever since. Far from being discouraged by his marriage to Ffion Jenkins, a member of his staff, shortly after becoming Tory leader in 1997, the pack took it as a challenge. "No smoke without fire" is a familiar justification for sexual gossip, straight or gay. From John Profumo to David Laws via Cecil Parkinson and David Mellor it is sometimes even true.

In most circumstances Hague's denial, accompanied by distressing revelations of miscarriages, should be regarded as watertight. He used the word "never" in respect of any gay relationships. But people lie about money and sex. So Tory hopes that the Sunday papers will take his word for it may be premature. Meanwhile the justification for stoking fresh headlines has shifted to one of Hague's "judgment".

It is marginally less humbug than the "national security" concerns spuriously invoked in the Profumo affair. Was Hague, 49, right to share a hotel room with a young aide (of either sex) or to appoint a talented friend to a special adviser's post for which his qualifications were not obvious? MPs were divided today. Brilliant but naive, an "intensely private" loner who does not consult enough, was the kinder verdict. Naive but arrogant was the sceptics' take.

Trickier by far was whether it was wise of the Foreign Office to issue an inadequate statement on Tuesday, which led to Hague's self-lacerating second effort 24 hours later. The worldly publicity pimp, Max Clifford, was adamant that Hague's statement was a major error, one which gave TV networks the green light to pursue what had only been a blog-driven tabloid tale.

"Only when it appears on TV does a story become serious with voters," scandal-ravaged MPs tell new colleagues. "Until that happens it is best to say nothing."

But Hague made clear yesterday that he and his wife felt they had endured enough gossip and wanted to take a stand. Honest, but naive was Westminster's prevailing verdict, it will not buttress his wonky reputation for wise judgement in the day job.

The Hagues' reward today was pages of gossipy coverage, mock sympathy over their miscarriages and suggestions he may quit politics. He was making a reported £1m a year before David Cameron lured him back. Downing Street dismisses such talk, but some sympathetic Tory MPs, still nursing bruises from the expenses scandal, do not. If Hague were to retire hurt after David Laws's departure the coalition cabinet's average IQ would be seriously depleted, though not necessarily its stock of common sense.

• William Hague
• Conservatives
• Gay rights
• Newspapers & magazines

Summary Box: Pernod Ricard earnings (AP)

AP - COMPANY: Pernod Ricard SA, Paris-based drink maker known for its anise-flavored aperitifs as well as Beefeater gin and recently acquired Absolut vodka reported its full-year earnings Thursday.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Gulf platform explodes off US coast

Blast on oil and gas facility set structure on fire and threw workers into the water.
Read more [Al Jazeera]

News Analysis: France’s G-20 Agenda May Be a Tough Sell

On Nov. 12, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, will take over the presidency of the Group of 20, but it may be difficult to initiate ambitious change.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Afghan leader condemns air strike as Gates arrives (Reuters)

Reuters - Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned on Thursday an air strike by NATO-led forces which he said killed 10 election campaign workers, although U.S. officials maintained it was aimed at an Islamist leader.

Hurricane Earl warning puts east coast on alert

Warning extended to include Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts

Hurricane Earl blew towards North Carolina today with winds of up to 125mph (200kph), putting the east coast on alert. Federal emergency management agency (Fema) administrator Craig Fugate said there was no longer time to wait on the next forecast to see how close the eye of the storm might get to shore.

A hurricane warning for the tip of Massachusetts, including Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, joined earlier warnings and watches for hurricanes or tropical storms that stretch from North Carolina up to near the Canadian border.

"They really need to focus today on what they're going to do before the storm gets there," Fugate said. "Implement your plans and be ready to heed evacuation orders."

Earl was a dangerous category 3 storm and the hurricane force winds were beginning to spread farther from the eye as the centre of the storm underwent a change, the National Hurricane Centre in Miami said.

The centre's director, Bill Read, said hurricane winds were spread 90 miles from the eye and widening. The eye of the storm was predicted to remain about 30 to 75 miles east of the Outer Banks, meaning that, at the closest point of approach, the western edge of the eyewall could impact Cape Hatteras, with huge waves, beach erosion and maybe some property damage from the waves.

"They're going to have a full impact of a major hurricane," Read said.

There will be a similar close approach for the eastern tip of Long Island, Rhode Island, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket. "They'll be facing a similar scenario that North Carolina is facing today," Read said. "And it will be bigger. The storm won't be as strong but they spread out as they go north and the rain will be spreading from New England."

That will mean strong, gusty winds much like a nor'easter, and because leaves are still on the trees, there could be fallen trees or limbs and downed power lines. "This is the strongest hurricane to threaten the northeast and New England since Hurricane Bob in 1991," said Dennis Feltgen, a meteorologist and spokesman for the National Hurricane Centre. "They don't get storms this powerful very often."

The North Carolina National Guard is deploying 80 troops to help, and president Barack Obama declared an emergency in the state. The declaration authorises the Department of Homeland Security and Fema to coordinate all disaster relief efforts.

• Natural disasters and extreme weather
• United States

Hurricane Earl warning puts east coast on alert

Warning extended to include Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts

Hurricane Earl blew towards North Carolina today with winds of up to 125mph (200kph), putting the east coast on alert. Federal emergency management agency (Fema) administrator Craig Fugate said there was no longer time to wait on the next forecast to see how close the eye of the storm might get to shore.

A hurricane warning for the tip of Massachusetts, including Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, joined earlier warnings and watches for hurricanes or tropical storms that stretch from North Carolina up to near the Canadian border.

"They really need to focus today on what they're going to do before the storm gets there," Fugate said. "Implement your plans and be ready to heed evacuation orders."

Earl was a dangerous category 3 storm and the hurricane force winds were beginning to spread farther from the eye as the centre of the storm underwent a change, the National Hurricane Centre in Miami said.

The centre's director, Bill Read, said hurricane winds were spread 90 miles from the eye and widening. The eye of the storm was predicted to remain about 30 to 75 miles east of the Outer Banks, meaning that, at the closest point of approach, the western edge of the eyewall could impact Cape Hatteras, with huge waves, beach erosion and maybe some property damage from the waves.

"They're going to have a full impact of a major hurricane," Read said.

There will be a similar close approach for the eastern tip of Long Island, Rhode Island, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket. "They'll be facing a similar scenario that North Carolina is facing today," Read said. "And it will be bigger. The storm won't be as strong but they spread out as they go north and the rain will be spreading from New England."

That will mean strong, gusty winds much like a nor'easter, and because leaves are still on the trees, there could be fallen trees or limbs and downed power lines. "This is the strongest hurricane to threaten the northeast and New England since Hurricane Bob in 1991," said Dennis Feltgen, a meteorologist and spokesman for the National Hurricane Centre. "They don't get storms this powerful very often."

The North Carolina National Guard is deploying 80 troops to help, and president Barack Obama declared an emergency in the state. The declaration authorises the Department of Homeland Security and Fema to coordinate all disaster relief efforts.

• Natural disasters and extreme weather
• United States

Read more [Guardian America]

Sex parties, bloody duels and blackmail: life at court of last German emperor

Historian suggests Princess Charlotte, sister of Kaiser Wilhelm II, may have hosted orgy to entrap aristocratic rivals

Its public image was one of prudery and Prussian punctiliousness, but a historical investigation into the sexual habits of the court of the last German emperor has revealed a previously unknown predilection for swinger-style parties and late-night orgies.

Using police files uncovered from the Prussian Secret State Archives in Berlin, historians have been able to reconstruct the erotic goings-on of a group of aristocrats and court officials, which started off as a sex party and ended in a series of bloody duels.

According to the Berlin historian Wolfgang Wippermann, a select group of Prussia's blue-bloods first met at the invitation of Princess Charlotte, the older sister of Kaiser Wilhelm II, at Jagdschloss Grunewald, a hunting lodge in the woods of western Berlin, in 1891.

The partygoers included the brother-in-law of the kaiser, his master of ceremonies, Leberecht von Kotze, a host of aristocrats and a foreign ministry state secretary.

The parties, details of which are revealed in Spiegel magazine, consisted of unbridled sex sessions, in which the participants drank and danced, as well as experimenting with a variety of different sexual positions.

Wippermann's research, which has culminated in the book Scandal in Hunting Lodge Grunewald, due to be published later this month, led him to a total of 246 letters, in which the experiments are outlined in detail.

The gatherings might have remained anonymous but for one of the partygoers, whose identity remains unknown – but who Wippermann suspects to be Charlotte herself – who the day after one of the escapades sent participants blackmail letters.

The letters included illustrations and descriptions of the events of the previous night, and threatened to reveal the identities of the participants.

Wippermann has no concrete proof, but believes that Charlotte, a chain-smoking lover of scandal who died after lengthy psychiatric treatment in 1919, may have even hosted the events with the sole purpose of entrapping her unwitting guests.

The attempts at blackmail exploded into a scandal of huge political proportions when news of the orgies reached high-ranking representatives of the Prussian court, as well as the emperor himself.

A heated debate in the Reichstag followed.

In the correspondence the whistle-blower, who graphologists say was certainly a woman, repeatedly takes a swipe at the Duchess of Hohenau, describing her as a "randy tart".

A celebrated horse rider, the duchess was married to the openly gay aristocrat Friedrich von Hohenau. Her love life was legendary and included liaisons with the future reichs chancellor Max von Baden, as well as Herbert von Bismarck, a state secretary in the foreign ministry.

The letter writer also unleashes her anger on Alide von Schrader, the wife of a master of ceremonies who enjoyed lesbian affairs, and Prince Aribert von Anhalt, an official for the first Olympic games, who is accused of having sex with other men.

After discovering his own master of ceremonies, Kotze, was deeply entangled in the affair, Kaiser Wilhelm had him imprisoned.

But Kotze was soon released because no arrest warrant had been issued and in his thirst for revenge began to search for the partygoers who had revealed his identity.

A series of duels between Kotze and other male partygoers followed. He was injured in one duel, receiving an Easter egg from the Kaiser as a get-well gesture, and then subsequently killed in another, when a bullet penetrated his intestine.

"I'm almost certain that Charlotte was responsible for this cabal," Tobias Bringmann, who has researched the case, told Spiegel. "What is needed now is to get a graphologist to compare her correspondence with that of the blackmailer."

• Germany
• Sex

Karzai: Afghan govt will back Kabul Bank (AP)

AP - Afghan President Hamid Karzai reassured nervous customers at the troubled Kabul Bank on Thursday, saying every penny of their deposits would be guaranteed by the government.

I write a nasty book. And they want a girly cover on it | Lionel Shriver

Publishing's notion of what women want is dated and patronising. In my case it's like trying to stuff a rottweiler in a dress

The latest literary dust-up in the United States concerns the outsize critical admiration of Jonathan Franzen's new novel Freedom, the follow-up to his 2001 National Book Award winner The Corrections. Freedom secured two worshipful reviews from the New York Times in one week, the Book Review's lengthy cover essay drooling with such jaw-dropped awe that it was hard to read for the saliva stains. Franzen himself appears on the cover of Time, and Freedom sits in President Obama's stack of holiday reading.

Fellow novelist Jodi Picoult ignited online fireworks last week by claiming that female writers never attract the same reverence as "white male literary darlings" like Franzen. Naturally Picoult risks the appearance of plain old envy. Though a skilful craftsman, Picoult may also lack the literary standing to make such a charge. Myself, I've yet to read Freedom, embargoed until this Wednesday, but it does sound like an excellent book, one I'm looking forward to.

Nevertheless, Picoult has a point. A female novelist would never enjoy a Franzen-scale frenzy of adulation in America, which maintains two distinct tiers in fiction. The heavy hitters – cultural icons who often produce great doorstop novels that no one ever argues are under-edited – are exclusively male. Rising literati like Rick Moody and Jonathan Franzen efficiently assume the spots left unoccupied by John Updike and Norman Mailer, like a rigged game of musical chairs. Then there's everybody else – including a raft of female writers who keep the publishing industry afloat by selling to its primary consumers: women.

Elaine Showalter did a bang-up job in the Guardian Review last spring explaining why American women are never credited with writing the Great American Novel while identifying female writers who deserve more acclaim. So in preference to singing yet more praises of the gifted Annie Proulx, I'll share an inside glimpse of how publishers are complicit in ghettoising not only women writers but women readers into this implicitly lesser cultural tier.

With merciful exceptions, my publishers constantly send prospective covers for my books that play to what "women readers" supposedly want. Take the American reissue of my fourth novel Game Control – a wicked, nasty novel about a plot to kill two billion people overnight. The main character is a man, the focal subject demography. Yet what cover do I first get sent? A winsome young lass in a floppy hat, gazing soulfully to the horizon in a windblown field – soft focus, in pastels. Dismayed, I emailed back: "Did your designers read any of this book?" When I proposed a cover photo by Peter Beard of sagging elephant carcasses – perfectly apt – the sales department was horrified. Women would be repelled by dead animals. We settled on live elephants, but it was pulling teeth to get girls off that paperback.

Or take the amicable difference of opinion I am having with my German publisher, since apparently this problem is also European. My latest novel, So Much for That, is told from two male points of view. Its subject matter – illness, mortality, and the fiscal depredations of American healthcare – is unisex, its tone furious. Yet what's on the cover? A woman, looking stricken. Male readers wouldn't be caught dead reading a book with that cover on the Strassenbahn.

The titling of that novel also came up against stereotypes of my ostensibly all-female audience. The US sales department vetoed the original title, Time is Money, for "sounding like nonfiction", though fiction appropriating and subverting nonfiction titles is commonplace (nobody mistook Alison Lurie's Foreign Affairs for an international policy journal). It took me a while to discern the real problem: Time is Money was too direct, too aggressive, too in your face; it would frighten the girls away. This suspicion was confirmed when I suggested the Germans, with no equivalent of "so much for that", simply use my original title. Uh-uh. Zeit ist Geld is "too male and harsh". I admired my publisher's candour, if not his neutral substitute: The Better Part of Life.

Publishing's notion of what "women want" is dated and condescending. In the era of Venus Williams, girliness and goo isn't the way to every woman's heart. Yet publishers presume that women only buy a book that looks soft and that appears to be all about women, even if it isn't. Yet women, unlike men, buy books by and about both sexes.

Granted, the marketing logic seems unassailable: in the US, Britain and Germany, 80% of fiction readers are women. (Which mysteriously makes women look bad: those layabout ladies have nothing better to do than loll around and read. Yet if 80% of fiction readers were men, we'd assume that men are still far more cultured and better informed, while women squander their free time on mopping the floor.) Why appeal to the meagre male 20%?

Simple: smart female authors who twig that their careers depend on writing solely for their own gender will instinctively narrow their subject matter. Meanwhile, gauzy covers with shy titles signal that the literary establishment needn't take this work seriously. Little wonder, then, that the language of extravagant regard in that New York Times Book Review write-up of Jonathan Franzen – "Like all great novels," Freedom "illuminates, through the steady radiance of its author's profound moral intelligence" – is rarely lavished on female novelists. Little wonder that admiration of Franzen's focus on "family as microcosm or micro-history" would invert to disdain should a woman choose the same subject: look, just another bint stuck in her tiny domestic world.

When my novels are packaged as exclusively for women, I'm not only cut off from a vital portion of my audience but clearly labelled as an author the literary establishment is free to dismiss. By stereotyping my work's audience as self-involved and prissy, women-only packaging also insults my readers, who could all testify that trussing up my novels as sweet, girly and soft is like stuffing a rottweiler in a dress.

Lionel Shriver won the 2005 Orange prize for fiction with We Need to Talk About Kevin

• Publishing
• Gender
• Marketing & PR

France 24: 'medieval court' where rivalry with the Saxons fades as chiefs slug it out

Sackings, strike threats and a bitter battle for supremacy engulfs French TV channel

When launched four years ago France 24 was billed as a "CNN à la française": a television news channel that would counter the influence of Anglo Saxon media and make the voice of France heard around the world.

In recent days, however, that voice has sounded rather more anguished than authoritative.

Engulfed in rivalries and recriminations, the newsroom has been plunged into crisis, with one union threatening a  strike and another planning a vote of no- confidence. Journalists mutter about a "battle of the bosses" fuelling dissent. One even likened the atmosphere to the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre: vicious, unrelenting and very, very, bloody.

Since last week, when rumours of sackings and suspensions at the highest level of editorial started flying round the newsroom, tensions that had long been bubbling under the surface have burst forth in spectacular fashion.

At the heart of the latest troubles are the channel's two chiefs: Alain de Pouzilhac, the chief executive known to staff as "Poupou", and his second-in-command, Christine Ockrent, one of France's best-known journalists whose imperious persona and brusque leadership have earned her the nickname "the Queen".

Target

Married to the foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, the formidable former news anchor Ockrent is no stranger to conflict: sources say that, during last year's surge of "bossnappings", she was terrified of being taken hostage by marauding journalists.

According to Paris's media pundits, she and Pouzilhac are now engaged in a battle for influence over the state-funded television channel, which broadcasts in French, English and Arabic.

While they slug it out the staff are becoming increasingly restless. "Editorial is falling victim to the battle of the bosses," one journalist told the daily newspaper Libération this week.

Last Wednesday the knock-on effect of this rivalry, and the tensions it prompted, became clear when Albert Ripamonti, an editor popular among France 24 reporters and seen as a favourite of Pouzilhac, was rumoured to have been fired by Ockrent.

The rumour turned out to be false; in fact, it was Vincent Giret, Ockrent's righthand man, who was reportedly suspended by the CEO. The reasons are unclear, and the management has refused to comment. The move by "Poupou", who took up his new position in July, has been greeted in media circles as a sign that the former adman is preparing to make his influence felt on the company.

Without providing figures to back up their claims, union leaders say the channel saw a drop in viewing figures in the first half of this year. They also predict a budget deficit of between €5-€10m.

Seeking to explain why the CEO targeted Giret and not Ockrent, some pundits suggested political reasons for his reticence, claiming that, as long as Kouchner was at the Quai d'Orsay, his wife would remain at France 24.

One leading commentator, Emmanuel Berretta, evoked the subject on his Twitter page this week, alluding to expectations that Kouchner would be ousted by Nicolas Sarkozy in a November cabinet shake-up. "Hypothesis: does C Ockrent's disgrace herald the fact that Kouchner is going to be kicked out of government at the reshuffle?"

While the open conflict between the bosses has emerged only recently, the dissent among France 24's staff is nothing new. Unions have complained for months that "malaise" at the heart of the editorial division has left journalists overworked, underpaid and badly treated.

Sweatshop

This week the CFDT union asked members to go on strike from Monday, while another, the CGT, has asked for a vote of no-confidence in the management. The CFDT said it was "worried" about the firm's circumstances, and denounced "the arbitrary and clannish management".

Among employees, current and former, complaints about the treatment of France 24's staff are legion. Last year, during a change in the business structure, around 30 people applied to leave.

"It's like we were pawns, like we weren't treated as human beings but like mechanical parts of a sausage factory," one former journalist said. "France 24 is like a medieval king's court. People have patrons: you're so and so's guy or you're so and so's. It's all about alliances."

Another former freelancer on the English language side said that "the sweatshop atmosphere" of the channel meant that journalists at Radio France International, part of the same public media group led by Pouzilhac and Ockrent, felt better off. "Journalists who have worked at both RFI and France24 consistently prefer the former to the latter, despite poorer pay," she said.

• France
• Television
• Television industry

Iranian journalists' website puts Ahmadinejad spin on Barack Obama

Website barackobama.ir promises 'an Iranian viewpoint on Barack Obama's opinions'

A group of Iranian journalists sympathetic to the world view of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has launched barackobama.ir, a website set up to address "an Iranian viewpoint on Barack Obama's opinions".

The news of its creation first appeared this week in a series of government-sponsored websites and news agencies, which endorsed it as an independent source of information about the life of Obama, his administration and issues such as 9/11, Israel and Iran's nuclear programme.

The website has attracted nearly 100,000 visitors in its first week. It introduces itself as a group "that believes that Barack Obama isn't only a name but a political phenomenon".

It depicts the American president as someone "who insists on the Arabic-Islamic part of his name: Hussein" and adds: "He is educated, lawyer, friendly, who observes the niceties of etiquette showing real oriental feeling in his innocent eyes that are the heritage of the occidental government's cruelty to the Negroes." But it adds that, by electing him as president, "the United States confessed to the increasing power of Islam".

Among articles published on his life is one headlined: "Is he the first Jewish president?"

Ahmadinejad sees the internet as a platform used for "psychological war against Iran" and has repeatedly asked its supporters to attack the "enemies" in the virtual society.

Since the disputed presidential election last summer, when Iranian protesters exploited Twitter and Facebook to spread their voice, the number of government-supported websites and blogs has increased significantly, while access to almost all opposition websites has been blocked.

An Iranian journalist who asked not to be identified said: "In Iran, all blogs and websites need to register with the government, especially those holding .ir domains, and the fact that barackobama.ir is set up without problem and is welcomed by governmental news agencies shows that it is backed by officials within the Iranian regime."

• Iran
• Barack Obama
• United States
• Internet