Obamamania has hit Germany hard, but many here are wary of the big show the Democratic presidential candidate will put on in Berlin on Thursday, when his speech at the “Victory Column“ could attract hundreds of thousands.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told Die Zeit magazine that the “young and open” Obama was raising hopes of a renewal in transatlantic relations and for that reason he should be heeded.

But Eckart von Klaeden, a foreign policy expert for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, recalled that Germans had seen big political events like Obama’s speech before. Hundreds of thousands had turned out for Helmut Kohl and Willy Brandt during during German unification , but the message was clear: “Euphoria in politics is an invitation to disappointment.”

Obama is at least not like Bush, seen by many Germans as a war-monger, said Manfred Guellner, head of the Forsa opinion polling group. “There is a lot of hope associated with Obama. People hope he’ll be a peace, rather than a war president.” But the charismatic Democratic senator will find that if he asks Germany to get more involved militarily in Afghanistan or even Iraq, “the positive feeling towards him could change very quickly”.

Josef Joffe, editor and publisher of Die Zeit, agreed that Iraq and Afghanistan could well lead to “dissonances” with Obama. “Germany’s Obamamania has disappointment written all over it,” he wrote in his Newsweek blog.

In fact, opined one official in Merkel’s office, it would be much better for Obama to give a low-key speech at a university or think tank. That way, the risk of disappointment will be lower.

Wolfgang Rossbach, a pensioner who lives near the Victory Column where Obama will speak, was rather more upbeat, saying: “He’s black and he’s new. And he promises to change things. I think that’s good.”

Thomas Schmania, sweeping the sidewalk near the Victory column,  expected Obama to try to create a “Kennedy moment” on Thursday, harking back to former U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 speech in which he told a cheering Berlin audience: “Ich bin ein Berliner!”. “Obama won’t be able to top that. A line like that, you get that once in history,” he said.

So there you have it.  A new Kennedy moment or a disappointment waiting to happen. What do you think?

Where is green beige, 54 the same as 60, and the potato a tropical vegetable? Welcome to the Through the Looking Glass world of the World Trade Organisation.

Although the issues being discussed in Geneva this week could ultimately affect everyone on the planet in terms of their effect on the economy, prices and employment, understanding the jargon of the ‘Doha round’ is reserved for a privileged few who can decipher its twisted language and countless acronyms.

For those like me who are new to covering the WTO, my advice is don’t look for the ‘Green Room’ where ministers and ambassadors are negotiating the trade liberalisation - it’s actually beige. (You’re not allowed in anyway, so steel yourself for hours pacing the hallway downstairs).

Next: know your NAMA from your TRIPS. Almost every aspect of trade is referred to by its acronym. Why say ‘industrial goods’ when you could be talking about NAMA (Non-Agricultural Market Access)? Make sure you know the difference between an LDC (least developed country) and an SVE (small and vulnerable economy), and remember that an MFN (most favoured nation) is nothing of the sort (under WTO rules, all trading partners have to be treated equally. Having MFN status means you are the same as all the others).

Confused? I can highly recommend the European Commission’s online trade glossary.

As for potatoes, they have been considered for inclusion in a list of ‘tropical products’, alongside papaya and coffee, which could be due for a boost from extra tariff cuts. (Potatoes, after all, originated in tropical areas of the Americas, so it’s only logical …)

And when it comes to the numbers, bring a calculator and a sense of humour. When asked whether the European Union was offering to cut its import tariffs by an average of 54 percent, as previously stated, or 60 percent as proposed by European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, French Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Idrac kept a straight face and replied: “54 and 60, c’est la meme chose” (it’s the same thing).

  The capture of Radovan Karadzic
after 11 years on the run is likely
to improve Serbia’s chances of joining
the European Union and enhance the
new government’s credentials with EU
leaders. It also gives ordinary Serbs hope
of a better life, 17 years after the start of
the wars that preceded the break-up of
Yugoslavia.
    Karadzic wanted Serb areas of Bosnia to be linked to a greater
Serbia at a time when Slobodan Milosevic was fanning nationalism in
Serbia. When I first met him in November 1990, he was already
warning of civil war because of what he saw as a conspiracy against
Serbs in multi-ethnic Bosnia.
    He still has some die-hard supporters in Serbia but
otherwise there is little sympathy for the man facing genocide
charges over the deaths of about 100,000 people in the siege of
Sarajevo and 8,000 Muslims in the Bosnian town of
Srebrenica during the war.
    The U.S.-brokered Dayton peace agreement ended the war
without a clear winner, dividing the country into two
ethnic-based halves — the Muslim-Croat federation and the Serb
Republic, which have co-existed in an uneasy alliance since.
  

  Karadzic’s arrest sets the stage for a major trial at the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
created 15 years ago to prosecute war crimes committed during
the 1992-95 Bosnia war. Milosevic, his former ally, went on
trial at the ICTY on genocide charges but died in 2003 before
the end of the trial.
    Avril McDonald, an associate lecturer at Groningen
University and a specialist on the tribunal’s proceedings, says
the Office of the Prosecutor will need to deliver a speedy and
efficient trial as the tribunal faces a deadline to wrap up
proceedings within the next couple of years. “The trial
doesn’t need to last more than a year,” McDonald said.
“They will try to get a conviction quickly.” 
    During Milosevic’s four-year trial, prosecutors called
nearly 300 witnesses and the annual budget at times ran to more
than $270 million. Milosevic chose to defend himself and used
the tribunal as a platform to advance his political views and
disrupt proceedings.
    Critics fear Karadzic could do the same. Costs will be high.
    But the arrest and trial offers many individuals a chance of
some closure on a bloody chapter in their personal lives. It
also represents an opportunity for Serbia to finally move on
after a violent period of recent history.
    “They can now begin to put the past behind them and move
forward towards Europe,” said Paddy Ashdown, who for almost four
years was peace overseer in Bosnia.

 The simple answer is inflation is rocketing. But it doesn’t really answer the question analysts often ask which is: what is the actual inflation rate in Iran? To that there is more than one answer, which often seems the case in the Islamic Republic.

    The Central Bank of Iran generally cites two figures. The first is sometimes referred to as the average rate for the consumer price index, which in May hit 19.8 percent. The second is the central bank’s year-on-year rate, which was 25.3 percent in May.

    Given a choice, economists tend to prefer the latter rate, because they say it reflects what they call the point-to-point rise in prices. Put simply, what does a kilo of tomatoes cost today compared to the same point a year ago. The government, for its own reasons, tends to prefer the former.

     Some economists and analysts question both rates. As indeed will most shoppers if you ask them what they are paying each day in the supermarket or bazaar. The central bank’s explanation for consumers is that they feel prices rise faster because they are focusing on a few select items that are their daily needs, while the basket of goods on which the bank’s figures are based is broader and more representative.

   Critics however say the basket itself is skewed. Some say it includes too many items which ordinary Iranians hardly purchase. One independent assessment — based on a basket of goods drawn up by an economist who has closely followed the Iranian market — indicated inflation was running at 32 percent in May. The body behind that independent assessment say it’s higher than the central bank rate, but both are showing the same broad trend — up and fast. Some economists following Iran say even 32 percent may be conservative.

    But isn’t this just an academic debate? Maybe not, for the answer could have real implications with Iran now roughly one year away from a presidential election.

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005 pledging to spread Iran’s oil wealth more fairly. He promised other things too, but this is the one most Iranians remember. And a common refrain these days, at least if you ask city dwellers, is what he laid on their dinner tables was higher priced food.

    The worse inflation gets, say some analysts, the tougher the challenge Ahmadinejad will face if he seeks a second four-year term. (He hasn’t said so yet, but few doubt he will run again.). Ahmadinejad is quick to blame global factors for the price surge (not an unusual line from politicians in a world where commodities prices have surged). He also said price rises are the product of a conspiracy by Iran’s “enemies”, or even just hyped by the media. Come round to the corner shop near my place to buy tomatoes, they’re cheaper there, he once memorably told a grumbling parliament.

    Iran is not the only oil producer enjoying a revenue bonanza but also coping with the downsides of a flood of extra cash in the market. Across the Gulf in some oil-rich Arab states, inflation has climbed to double digits.

     But Ahmadinejad’s critics say this does not explain the speed at which prices are rising. Instead they blame what they call his profligate spending of Iran’s oil earnings — which topped $70 billion last year. The central bank should raise interest rates, they argue — as indeed the bank has indicated it wants. Ahmadinejad has talked about controlling prices while saying rates should be lowered — an argument some economists find difficult to square with orthodox economic theory.

    So higher inflation is surely bad news for the president. Yes, say the analysts, but that’s not the whole story. It never is. Firstly, much may well depend on whether Ahmadinejad retains the support Iran’s top authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has heaped praise on the president even if he has in the past gently chided the government over its economic management. And secondly, Ahmadinejad has splurged much of his cash on provincial areas and villages, which long felt neglected by central government. They may be enjoying the attention and looking forward to more, suggest the analysts.

    There’s rarely one answer in Iran but there is always plenty of (higher priced) food for thought.

Zimbabwe's ruling ZANU-PF and the opposition MDC will start talks on Tuesday aimed at thrashing out a power-sharing deal to end the country's political crisis.

President Robert Mugabe, MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai and a smaller MDC faction signed a framework for the talks in South Africa on Monday -- a deal that South African leader Thabo Mbeki said committed Zimbabwe's political rivals to an intense timetable.

But will Mugabe and Tsvangirai's first handshake in a decade be enough to set aside the rivalries and distrust between the two men in the wake of Zimbabwe's disputed elections over three months ago and the June 27 run-off which Mugabe won as the sole candidate?

Mugabe has said the agreement was to "chart a new way of political interaction" while Tsvangirai said not finding a solution is not an option.

Will two weeks of talks be enough for the rival parties to settle their differences and work out a way to set up a government of national unity, promoted by the African Union and Southern African Development Community as a solution to the crisis?

Gordon Brown has not had the best of luck since replacing Tony Blair as British prime minister a year ago. Now it seems Brown's bad luck has followed him overseas.

On a trip to Iraq and Israel this weekend, he had the misfortune to have U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama following hard on his heels -- and grabbing the lion's
share of media attention.

Obama, who has pledged to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if he wins the November election, arrived on Iraq on Monday, just two days after Brown's whirlwind tour of Baghdad and Basra. He is due to arrive in Israel just hours after Brown's plane took off on Monday to return to London.

Brown, known for his dour personality, could not compete in the charisma stakes with the senator from Illinois, the focus of intense interest as he makes his debut on the world stage with a tour of Europe, the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noting the lack of impact Brown's visit had made in Israel, sympathised with the British leader. "Visiting Israel in the same week that Obama is expected to arrive is like being the opening act for The Beatles," it said.

Obama fever has swept some of the countries he is due to visit as people there get a first close look at the politician who takes on Republican Senator John McCain in the race to succeed U.S. President George W. Bush in the White House.

Brown, on the other hand, has little novelty value because, while he is a relatively new prime minister, he spent a decade before that as finance minister and so is well known to many of the leaders and ministers he held talks with.

On the streets, though, Brown is not as well known as Blair, now an international Middle East envoy. "I knew Mr. Tony Blair before, but Brown -- I don't know what he's like," said Palestinian taxi driver Saddam Musa, 55.

The newspaper said there were other reasons for the little coverage given to Brown's visit, saying he lacked the political clout of former British leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

Brown, making his first visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories as prime minister, was granted the honour on Monday of addressing the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, the first British leader to do so. He recalled how, as a child, he had watched film of Israel,
shot by his father, a Church of Scotland minister who learned Hebrew and regularly visited Israel.

Brown promised $60 million in new aid for the Palestinians and d said a Middle East peace deal was within reach, but his call on Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion was rebuffed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Brown's message drew criticism from Israeli commentators.
"Unfortunately, he parroted conventional European Union wisdom, which assumes that the road to progress is paved only with further Israeli concessions and requires condemnation of the life-saving security barrier," The Jerusalem Post said on its website. "Nothing could be more counterproductive." The right-leaning newspaper was referring to the fence Israel has built on occupied Palestinian land which it says keeps suicide bombers out of its cities.

Haaretz said visiting leaders had developed a habit of comforting the Palestinians with financial aid while compensating the Israelis by recognising their right to live in
security and comfort. "Yesterday, it was the turn of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to contribute to this depressing ritual."

It said there was not much value in Brown's plan for an "economic road map" to boost the region's development as long as the West Bank was dissected by innumerable roadblocks.

Back in London, Brown will brief parliament on Tuesday on Britain's future role in Iraq and brace for Thursday's crucial parliamentary election in Glasgow East. Defeat in the Labour stronghold, seen as unlikely, could lead to Brown being forced to step down.

After that, he will barely have time to draw breath before Obama finally catches up with him. They are due to hold talks in London on Saturday.

    Was the meeting in Geneva filled with "meandering" small talk? Or did the discussions between world powers and Iran begin work on an intricately woven carpet, that in time, would yield an "elegant and durable" outcome?

    The two views, the first voiced by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the second by chief Iranian nuclear  negotiator Saeed Jalili, say much about how the two foes approached Saturday's meeting to resolve Iran's long-running nuclear row with the West.

    It may also indicate prospects for a deal between officials from the "Great Satan" and "Axis of Evil", who have spent so long without diplomatic ties that they have forgotten what makes the other one tick -- while trust has all but vanished.

    Perhaps the result of Saturday's meeting (Iran, it was announced, did not give a clear answer to demands by world powers) was clear before officials sat round the table.

    Those who watched the scene in Geneva saw U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns enter with a demeanour that did little to suggest a man who really wanted to be there.

    If history was on his mind, he had little reason to be encouraged. Talks to try to get Iran to halt the most sensitive part of nuclear work, uranium enrichment, have gone nowhere since Tehran tore up a previous suspension deal with the European Union in 2005. The United States saw this as a sign Tehran was bent on producing a nuclear bomb, despite Iran's insistence that it was just exercising its right to develop the technology needed to make electricity.

    The Iranians also offered little reassurance before Jalili sat down in front of the six world powers and their representative, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. Shortly before discussions began, an official told Reuters bluntly: "Any kind of suspension or freeze is out of the question."

    The only person by this late stage who showed any visible enthusiasm was a Swiss passerby, who when asked why all the cameras were crowding outside the talks venue, was told they were waiting for Brad Pitt. Out came the pocket camera ready for the Hollywood star, until a sheepish television producer admitted the real reason. The bystander trudged off.

    Everything had seemed so much more upbeat even hours earlier. A British newspaper had reported Washington would soon announce plans to open a low-level diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in almost 30 years. Iran said it would consider such an idea, and was also ready for direct flights. Days earlier, Iranian newspapers were filled with debate, involving some high-level politicians, about how Iran should respond to the nuclear, trade and other incentives offered by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Such unprecedented debate surely signalled a change of heart?

    And so we come to the bit where neither side seems able to read the other.

    What, from the U.S. side, may have been a bid to show what Iran could win from a concession, Iranians -- as subsequent newspaper editorials make clear -- saw as a pitifully small gesture for stopping a programme that is a symbol for many of them as a point of national pride and regional status.

    Likewise, the Iranian debate that became so public, and which some in the West saw as a signal of a soul-searching, perhaps indicated the fractious nature of the Iranian leadership but said less about its willingness to switch direction.

    That, say diplomats and analysts, is because it is difficult to determine whether the debate went to the heart of Iran's leadership. Ultimate decision-making may lie with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei but he tends to look for consensus, they say. Iran's multi-layered structure (including a national security body, a council to mediate between parliament and a constitutional watchdog, plus a clerical assembly that technically has the power throw out the supreme leader) means it is not always easy to determine the seriousness of any discussion when it does finally emerge in public.

    And even if debate does go deep, there are powerful checks on any change in policy when the aim is to reach a common view among such hydra-like bodies, not to mention securing the backing of a handful of powerful politicians who have helped guide the country since the 1979 revolution.

    This then helps makes sense of Jalili's comment to an Iranian reporter, cited by the daily Etemad-e Melli, as he left Saturday's talks: "Diplomacy is like a Iranian carpet that progresses by the millimetre. Diplomacy is also elegant and exquisite and, God willing, the outcome is beautiful, elegant and durable."

    Perhaps it's also understandable why Jalili's approach in Geneva did not go down well with the straight-talking U.S. administration and looked more like time wasting. As Rice put it on Monday: "I understand it was at times meandering."

    When diplomatic ties have been cut for three decades and a "wall of mistrust" has been built up -- as one moderate Iranian president once put it -- a deal may not come swiftly.

Tributes poured in on Friday as anti-apartheid struggle icon and international statesman Nelson Mandela celebrated his 90th birthday.

Mandela is revered globally for using his personal charm to promote reconciliation in a racially divided country on the verge of a racial bloodbath after his release from 27 years in apartheid jails for battling white domination. The emerging multiracial or rainbow nation he moulded is seen as his greatest legacy. 

Johannesburg's leading daily, Business Day, referred to this in its editorial: "It is no exaggeration to state that it is highly unlikely there would have been a negotiated transition from minority to majority rule in SA had it not been for Mandela's wisdom, humility, dignity under pressure and willingness to compromise in the interests of peace."

Former South African President F.W. de Klerk, the country's last white ruler,  referred to Mandela in his tribute as "the most famous South African who ever lived and is universally regarded as one of the greatest figures of the 20th century". The South African government, which Mandela headed, said in its birthday message: "Your vision has implanted in our society the seeds of social cohesion and national reconciliation to which prosperity will look back with awe and admiration."

But 14 years after the election of Mandela marked the end of apartheid, South Africa is struggling with  serious political, economic and social issues compounded by rifts and tension within the ruling African National Congress, which was the vanguard of the liberation struggle. Is Mandela's legacy under threat? Send a birthday message to Madiba and have your say on how his great legacy should be preserved.

Hezbollah literally rolled out the red carpet to welcome home five prisoners released by Israel in a U.N.-mediated exchange deal. Securing the release of the last five Lebanese held by Israel was a major triumph for the group, which in turn handed over the bodies of two Israeli soldiers captured in a 2006 raid into Israel.

Having achieved a long-held goal, Hezbollah is holding up the exchange as further evidence that its uncompromising, armed approach to dealing with Israel brings results, directly challenging the policies of Arab leaders who have engaged in negotiations or signed peace treaties with the Jewish state. The New York Times called the prisoners’ homecoming a triumph.

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, visibly delighted by the prisoner release, addressed the issue during a rare public appearance. He saluted “the true identity of the peoples of our region … the identity of resistance”.

Broadcast into homes across the Arab world by satellite stations, Nasrallah’s rhetoric resonates with viewers who have seen few results from years of talks over the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Spoken by a man widely recognised as the Arab world’s most effective orator, the rhetoric is a challenge to states such as Jordan and Egypt. Both are ruled by U.S.-allied governments that have made peace with Israel and are concerned by the rising
influence of Iran, Hezbollah’s main sponsor.

But while Hezbollah’s charismatic leader still wins admiration across the Arab world, his Shi’ite group no longer enjoys the broad respect it once did in fractious Lebanon.

Nearly two years of political conflict with other Lebanese, including the country’s main Sunni leader, have opened deep sectarian wounds. Hezbollah’s brief takeover of Beirut in May increased the concerns of Lebanese critics who were already suspicious of the group’s vast arsenal.

Hezbollah is riding high in its conflict with Israel. It is now seeking reconciliation with Lebanese adversaries to avoid more conflict at home.

 Is the United States going soft on Iran?

 In the past President George W. Bush accused Tehran of belonging to an “axis of evil”, compared negotiations with its president to appeasing Adolf Hitler, and warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would lead to World War Three.

His administration refused to join international talks on Iran’s nuclear programme, which it suspects could be used to produce a nuclear bomb, unless Tehran halted enriching uranium. It pointedly declined to rule out military action if a diplomatic solution was not found.

Now, the United States is sending one of its top diplomats – along with representatives from other major powers — to talks in Geneva on Saturday with Iran to hear its response to an offer of financial and diplomatic incentives if Iran gives up its sensitive nuclear work.

And Britain’s Guardian newspaper says Washington will announce in the next month that it plans to establish a diplomatic present in Tehran for the first time in 30 years — a move the newspaper describes as a “remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush”.

U.S. officials say the decision to send senior diplomat William Burns to the Geneva talks sends a strong signal that the United States is committed to diplomacy, adding that Washington will only join full-blown negotiations if uranium enrichment stops.

 One hawkish former U.S. administration official sees it differently. “This is, and the evidence is plain for all to see, the total intellectual collapse of the Bush administration,” former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Reuters. 

He wrote in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal: “There was a time when the Bush administration might itself have seriously considered using force, but all public signs are that such a moment has passed.”

He urges Washington to consider what cooperation it “will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran” but he doesn’t seem to think the U.S. administration is listening.

So is Washington preparing for a deal instead of war?

This might explain a flurry of regional diplomacy.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki heads for Turkey, shortly after meetings in Ankara by President George W. Bush’s National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley.
Burns will attend the Geneva meeting and then there’s the Guardian report.

Any deal has a logic that could benefit both sides. Analysts often point out overlapping regional interests. The two countries, say analysts, ultimately want a stable Iraq, share a loathing for the radical Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan and (despite Iran’s recent buddying up) are equally distrustful of Russia. (It’s no accident that Iran under the shah was Washington’s closest Middle East ally — bar Israel.)

And yet — there always seems to one of those — the wheels of this happy bandwagon could come off, and quickly.

Much hinges on what happens in Geneva when Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili sits down for talks with the European Union’s Javier Solana, the representative of world powers in Saturday’s Geneva talks. Solana will want to see signs that Iran is ready to consider suspending uranium enrichment, a process Tehran has so far refused to halt.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose opinion ultimately holds sway in Iran, spoke on Wednesday of Iran’s “red lines” — not a very promising statement on the face of it.

Overlapping interests, say analysts, may not be enough for Iran to rehabilitate ties with the “Great Satan”. Interests have overlapped for the past 30 years or so but the hostility has continued. (President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has, however, said Iran would consider any overture to open an interests section).

And then, say some Western diplomats, there’s Israel. Will it take matters into its own hands after vowing not to let Iran get The Bomb? Diplomats say it might.

So there may be a shift in Washington. Some at least have detected it. Inside Iran, there has been an unusually public debate on how to handle the nuclear file even if there have also been some fairly uncompromising comments.

But are we really close to a breakthrough? And how long is Israel ready to wait? There’s still plenty to debate.