Watches this Honduras: Ousted President Manuel Zelaya return

We are see tis Honduras: Ousted President Manuel Zelaya return


Manuel Zelaya urged his supporters to carry out only "peaceful resistance"


Former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted from office in 2009, has returned to Honduras.

Mr Zelaya was forced into exile by the military after he failed to abide by a Supreme Court order to cancel a non-binding vote on changing the constitution.

Thousands of supporters greeted him at the airport in Tegucigalpa.

A deal signed by Mr Zelaya and current President Porfirio Lobo on Monday helped pave the way for his return.

Mr Zelaya arrived on board a private plane from Nicaragua.

Speaking to his cheering supporters in Tegucigalpa, he urged an end to "coups" in Honduras, saying that resistance should be "peaceful".

"The problem of poverty, of corruption, of the great challenges of Latin American societies won't be resolved through violence, but through more democracy," the former president said.

Earlier, he admitted that his exile had been "torture".

His wife, Xiomara Castro, said: "Today we begin the true reconciliation in Honduras."

A larger crowd of Mr Zelaya's supporters is expected in the capital later on Saturday.

Mr Zelaya's return became possible after Mr Zelaya signed an agreement with his successor, Mr Lobo, in Colombia on Monday.

The accord, negotiated by the Venezuelan and the Colombian presidents, also prepares the way for Honduras's re-entry in the Organisation of American States.

Honduras had been expelled from the regional body after Mr Zelaya's forced departure.

Coppied by http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13586991

Watches Zimbabwe PM Tsvangirai lashes out at President Mugabe

Zimbabwe PM Tsvangirai lashes out at President Mugabe


Morgan Tsvangirai (R) has shared power with President Robert Mugabe since February 2009
Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has accused President Robert Mugabe of violating the constitution and unilateral decision-making.

Mr Tsvangirai said his MDC party would not recognise any key appointments made by Mr Mugabe in the past 18 months, including governors, judges and envoys.

He also urged the international community to do the same.

Mr Tsvangirai formed a power-sharing government with bitter rival Mr Mugabe in 2009 after disputed elections.

Under their coalition deal, the two politicians agreed to draw up a new constitution followed by a referendum and then fresh elections.

'Racist agenda'
"We will refuse to recognise any of the appointments which the president has made illegally and unconstitutionally over the last 18 months," Mr Tsvangirai said at a news conference in Harare on Thursday.

He said the disputed appointments included the central bank governor, the attorney general, five judges, six ambassadors and the police commission.

Mr Tsvangirai also voiced his "disgust" over Mr Mugabe's unilateral decision to re-appoint 10 provincial governors last week.

"I have defended President Robert Mugabe at my own cost politically. But neither I nor the MDC can stand back any longer and just allow President Mugabe and the Zanu-PF to defy the law, to flaunt the constitution, and to act as if they own this country," he said.

The MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) leader also accused the president of refusing to swear in white farmer Roy Bennett, the prime minister's choice for the post of deputy agriculture minister.

Mr Bennett was tried earlier this year on charges of plotting to oust Mr Mugabe and found not guilty.
coppied by http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11498290

Watches UN hits Pakistan flood cash target

UN hits Pakistan flood cash target
The United Nations appeared to have met its target of £295 million in immediate aid for flood-stricken Pakistan, after Britain, the US and other nations dramatically upped their pledges.

The rush of promised help came after UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, addressing a hastily-called meeting of the General Assembly, urged governments and people to be even more generous than they were in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and this year's Haiti earthquake.

Mr Ban said the floods were a bigger "global disaster" with Pakistan's government now saying more than 20 million people needed shelter, food and clean water.

"This disaster is like few the world has ever seen," Mr Ban told the meeting. "It requires a response to match. Pakistan needs a flood of support."

Before the meeting, donors had given only half the sum the UN had appealed for to provide food, shelter and clean water to up to eight million flood victims over the next three months.

But Mr Ban said all the money was needed now - and much more would be needed later.

After listening to speeches by top-level representatives of around 20 countries, Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said he was assured that the £295 million goal "is going to be easily met", including "100 million dollars plus (£64m)" from Saudi Arabia.

Aid groups and UN officials had worried about a slow response to the flooding, believing donors who spent heavily on a string of huge disasters in recent years were reluctant to open their wallets yet again.

Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, told reporters before the meeting that he believed that where the tsunami and Haiti catastrophes happened suddenly, "for about 10 days people didn't realise that this wasn't just another flood".

On Thursday, after visiting flood areas with Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari, US senator John Kerry warned of extremists who might "exploit the misery of others for political or ideological purpose, and so it is important for all of us to work overtime".
coppied by http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9227977

The president is vowing not to privatize Social Security

The president is vowing not to privatize Social Security, but to resolve its enormous cash flow problems permanently, he risks angering liberals who believe a solution can wait. Keith Hennessey on his options.

A Democratic split is coming on Social Security.
On one side is the president, who said Tuesday in Ohio, “I have been adamant in saying that Social Security should not be privatized and it will not be privatized as long as I am president…The population is getting older, which means we’ve got more retirees per worker than we used to. We’re going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it… And what we’ve done is we’ve created a fiscal commission of Democrats and Republicans to come up with what would be the best combination to stabilize Social Security not just for this generation, but the next generation. I’m absolutely convinced it can be done.”
On the other side we have Paul Krugman, who wrote in The New York Times earlier this week, “The program is under attack, with some Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans joining the assault. Rumor has it that President Obama’s deficit commission may call for deep benefit cuts, in particular a sharp rise in the retirement age.”
If doing so is the only feasible legislative path to addressing this critical policy problem, will the president be willing to lead?
Krugman continues, “Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future… Instead, it’s all about ideology and posturing… To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. But [conservatives] receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.”
While Krugman names Obama fiscal commission co-chairman Alan Simpson, he also is targeting Democrats such as fiscal commission chairman Erskine Bowles and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
Let’s look at how a Social Security deal might come together, first in the president’s commission and then on Capitol Hill.
A few conservatives who say that personal accounts alone can fix Social Security will oppose any deal that includes changes to benefit spending promises or tax increases, so they’re on the outside no matter what. That group is small but could cause a little trouble by (incorrectly) promising gullible and nervous conservative members of Congress that a free lunch solution is theoretically possible.
For most Republicans, three things are important: permanently solving Social Security’s cash flow problem, not raising taxes, and allowing younger workers to voluntarily redirect some of their current payroll taxes into personal accounts. Republicans know these “carve-out” accounts are anathema to most Democrats and impossible with a Democratic president. To pick up enough Republican support to be viable, a deal must therefore significantly, if not permanently, address Social Security’s long-term cash flow problem and must not raise taxes. If a proposed deal includes tax increases, I think all but a few Republicans will walk away. To get a deal, Republicans might split evenly on carve-out accounts, but they won’t split on tax increases. The president gets a win by blocking “privatization” (carve-out personal accounts), while Republicans get a win by not raising taxes. The reduction in, if not elimination of, Social Security’s long-term financing problem would be a bipartisan win for which both sides would claim credit.
If I’m right about Republicans on personal accounts and taxes, Democrats will split. Many Democrats would naturally oppose a deal that only slows spending growth and does not raise taxes, even if that deal excludes the carve-out personal accounts they oppose.
Coppied by http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-19/obamas-social-security-challenge-anger-democrats-on-reform/?cid=bs:archive1