Abdullah Gul, deputy prime minister and foreign minister of Turkey (l) meets with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her office at the US State Department in Washington, DC, Feb. 6.

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah GŸl is currently on a six-day visit to the US. Issues such as a military cross-border operation, Kirkuk, and Cyprus are all on GŸl’s agenda but GŸl’s visit is mainly preoccupied with preventing the passage of a resolution in the US Congress recognizing the 1915 massacres of Armenians in Turkey as genocide. GŸl has met with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney but did not set an appointment with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is known to be a supporter of the Armenian resolution. GŸl warned that relations between the two allies may be severely damaged if Congress passes the resolution. GŸl’s visit is putting US-Turkey relations under the microscope as the unique relationship between these two long-time NATO allies is being put to the test.
Milliyet’s Sami Kohen complains Turkey could not reap any benefits from any of the Turkish meetings with US officials and characterizes this as a “dialogue between the deaf.“ He says the US has taken no concrete steps to meet Turkey’s expectations. “The Turkish side discloses its expectations, demands and complaints to the US side and the US side expresses its problems to the Turks in the same way.“ Kohen conveys some important notes from a recent meeting with US Ambassador to Turkey Ross Wilson. The Armenian resolution will not be a law but a resolution and it will have nothing to do with the Bush administration, Kohen quotes Wilson as saying. He thinks that US diplomats and officials are worried about the resolution’s passage in Congress. He informs us that even Wilson plans to go to Washington to lobby. Kohen says the US official is well aware that Turkey-US relations will be damaged if the resolution is adopted. “There are many other issues like Iraq, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Cyprus, the EU and the Middle East. We have to work on them together. We need one another more than ever,“ Kohen quotes Wilson as saying.
Star’s Mehmet Altan thinks that GŸl’s visit to the US is less than successful because he could not get appointments with some US diplomats and officials, including Pelosi. He thinks Turkish-American relations have come to an impasse because of the Iraq issue. Altan recalls that Ankara’s demands about the PKK and Kirkuk issues are not being taken care of and the Armenian resolution has won unseen support. He urges it will be very difficult for Turkey’s demands to be realized as long as Turkey and the US do not unite on common benefits. He claims the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is reliving the past fears of previous bureaucracies as it cannot form a global vision but only sees Kurds and Kirkuk in the Middle East as a threat, fails to produce a strategy that will best serve all interests and gets lost in the vacuum of missing solutions. He urges that this lack of solutions drives Turkey into conflict with the US and Kurds alike.
Cumhuriyet’s Ali Sirmen claims there has never been any strategic partnership between Turkey and the US. He points to the UK and Israel as the US’s only two strategic partners in the world. He says that lack of a strategic partnership between the US and Turkey does not necessarily mean that relations are bad though. “The US operation destabilized our neighbor Iraq, which resulted in the appearance of a government southeast of Turkey, which does not have good relations with Ankara. Undoubtedly, it will be right to talk about disagreement between Turkey and the US rather than a joint vision concerning the new entity in northern Iraq,“ Sirmen says. As for the Armenian resolution, Sirmen acknowledges that the Bush administration is trying hard to prevent passage of the resolution but thinks that Bush’s declining popularity will restrict the administration’s power in preventing the resolution.
TODAYSZAMAN.COM

Last spring, The Economist trumpeted “womanpower“ as the driving force for the world economy. But if Europe’s economy is to become more competitive and innovative, it is not enough that women enter the labor market in droves. To reap the full fruits of women’s talents, they must be in more top jobs, too, both in the public and private sector.
Women in Western Europe have long since bridged the education gap with their male peers. Women not only outnumber men at universities; they also outperform them, most notably in math, physics, and information science. But female students’ academic achievements have not increased women’s presence in top jobs. In Europe, the percent of women on corporate boards remains in single digits, as is true of the top ranks of government and academia.
While in the United States almost one out of five corporate officers are women, in mainland Europe the female to male ratio on company boards is one to 20 or worse. The situation is only slightly better in science. One of every 10 professors in Europe is a woman. In the U.S., the ratio is--once again--more favorable to women, with more than 20 percent of professors at American universities being female.
Europe cannot afford to waste valuable human capital at a time when China and India are on the rise and its own population is aging. The first baby boomers have reached retirement age, and the labor force will soon be shrinking in most parts of Europe. To cover the costs of aging and maintain its position as an economic power, Europe must increase overall labor participation considerably.
If women in Europe work more hours in better quality jobs, it will stimulate demand for service jobs like cleaning and child care, thus reducing unemployment among low-skilled workers. Moreover, the increased supply of high-quality female labor will not incur additional health care and pension costs, unlike labor immigration. Women use those benefits anyway, whether they are stay-at-home moms or perform paid work outside the home.
Obstacles to the professional advancement of educated women in Europe is rooted in corporate culture, gender biases, and stereotyping, rather than outright discrimination. Group dynamics prevent company boards that consist solely of males from including women, even if members individually would support such a decision.
Studies show that companies with more women in senior management are more profitable than those with few women at the top. Diversified management means better management. Including more women in top positions, both in the public and private sector, changes decision-making processes fundamentally, because women tend to play down the importance of formalities and communicate directly, thereby overcoming organizational blockages.
A decisive pro-women strategy would thus create new momentum for Europe, allowing it to compete with the U.S. and Asia. At the start of this year, Norway enacted legislation that requires that both sexes be represented by at least 40 percent on all corporate boards. Companies that do not meet the new gender rules, which also apply to the public sector--risk being dissolved by court order. Spain’s prime minister, Jose Zapatero, recently proposed similar standards for gender balance in business and politics.
Norway has set an excellent example--one that all of Europe should follow as the best way to transcend the culture of gender bias and stereotyping that is still prevalent in many companies and institutions. But women, too, must adjust.
The reality is that top jobs require more than two workdays a week, and they don’t coincide with school hours. Assuming the responsibilities that have long belonged to men demands that women let go of the tasks that have prevented them from advancing beyond low-ranking positions.
Heleen Mees
JAPANTIMES.CO.JP

Events in Musa Qala in Helmand province in Afghanistan over the past few days have the potential to bring forward, if not derail, the Taliban’s plans for a massive spring offensive.
In October, the British military signed a peace deal with tribal elders in Musa Qala. They promised to secure the district and keep the Taliban out if the British left the city and its environs. The British, who had controlled Musa Qala throughout the summer,had been engaged in ongoing battles with the Taliban.
Crucially, though, the elders are pro-Taliban, and last week several hundred Taliban fighters took control of the city.
Media reports say a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) strike near Musa Qala killed Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Ghafour, who led the takeover of Musa Qala. Some reports say Ghafour led the attack because NATO forces last month killed his brother, Mullah Ibrahim, in an air strike.
Soon after last year’s agreement, this correspondent interviewed a key Taliban commander of Musa Qala, Haji Naimatullah. Even though the accord had called for the Taliban’s withdrawal, many Taliban foot soldiers were openly collecting contributions and engaged in other assignments.
Indeed, all of the other ceasefire agreements signed in volatile southwestern Afghanistan similarly favor the Taliban, who use them to spread their influence, collect resources and recruit fresh blood.
The extent of the Taliban’s influence can be seen from the manner in which they derailed a reconstruction program. As a part of the ceasefire deal, the Helmand government called in Afghan auxiliary police and reconstruction teams to begin work on projects for which substantial funds had already been received from Britain.
The Taliban simply marched into Musa Qala and without firing a shot “asked“ the police to leave, which they did.
Information coming across the border suggests that much of the population of Musa Qala has left the area in fear of a NATO attack to retake the city.
Conscious of the Taliban’s planned offensive, NATO has attempted over the winter to draw them out prematurely, to no avail. For instance, during NATO operations to take Baaz Tsuka in the Zari and Panjwai districts south of Kandahar, the Taliban initially pulled back, then slowly returned to the area once the heat was off.
At this stage the Taliban simply don’t want to become involved in a serious confrontation with NATO. But even if they retreat from Musa Qala without a fight, the peace agreement will be in tatters and they will not be allowed the virtual free rein they had under the ceasefire. Further, should the Taliban resist, their peace agreements in other parts of the province will likely be scrapped.
The Taliban would therefore be forced to engage in premature battles in the southwest, and would have to shift the focus of their spring offensive to the southeast and east. This would diminish the impact of the offensive, as the Taliban’s support base is strongest in the southwest, from where they were relying on a domino effect to spread their offensive to other areas of the country.
As it stands now, Musa Qala has the potential to turn southwestern Afghanistan, including Zabul, Urzgan, Kandahar and Helmand, into a battlefield much sooner than anticipated.
Spring could come early in Afghanistan, and it could be a very bloody one.
ATIMES.com

Is the concept of nation slipping? One might think so with a UN blueprint for the future status of Kosovo. The Balkan enclave has been UN-run since 1999 when NATO freed its mainly Albanian population from Serb rule. Not granting it freedom would fit a global trend.
Last week, the UN envoy for resolving Kosovo’s legal limbo, Martti Ahtisaari, recommended to the Security Council something far short of independence for the Connecticut-size territory of 2 million people.
In doing so, the respected Finnish diplomat may be trying to prevent another war in the former Yugoslavia. A potential conflict would be driven by an ardent Serb nationalism that claims Kosovo (or parts of it) as sacred to Serbia’s identity.
Under Mr. Ahtisaari’s plan, the UN would retain key, long-term powers in Kosovo while giving most sovereignty to the Albanian majority. Neither side would win their national aspirations in a cumbersome compromise that may be hard to manage.
Sound familiar? Awkward agreements that intrude on the sovereignty of a nation or ethnic group seem to be a popular choice as the world grows smaller, as new weapons make warmaking more deadly, and as many borders drawn during colonial days are challenged.
Some decades-old deals, such as the US-run enclave of Guantanamo Bay on Cuba, often flare up in disputes. The UN’s 1953 approval for US troops in South Korea, for instance, is at the heart of the current showdown with North Korea over its nuclear weapons.
China’s push for military superiority over the US in Asia is mainly driven by a shaky international consensus over the “independent“ status of Taiwan. In 1997, China did accept a special status for Hong Kong in taking back the territory from Britain. That “one country, two systems“ formula, however, is being sabotaged by Beijing, partly out of reaction to foreign demands that it free Tibet.
Many war-torn African nations still have a strong UN role in their security. And in Somalia, the world approved as Ethiopian troops drove out Islamists and as African Union troops in Sudan try to protect Darfur.
The US has given up some sovereignty to rulings by the World Trade Organization. And it has all but given up authority over millions of illegal immigrants who live in largely unassimilated enclaves speaking a tongue most Americans don’t understand and who don’t share US civic values.
Recently, the UN endorsed the idea of intervening in sovereign states that have humanitarian crises or suffer gross human rights violations. Many governments have had to grant some autonomous powers within their nations: Canada to Quebec; England to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland; Pakistan to border tribal areas.
The Kosovo plan is the newest challenge to old notions of nationhood, or rather the long human desire for an identity that brings both safety and freedom to individuals.
CSMONITOR.COM

Dwight D. Eisenhower said of Manila that it was the second most destroyed Allied capital after Warsaw, destroyed by the Germans as thoroughly as the Japanese did to Manila. The Allies hadn’t intended it; but the Japanese made sure it would be leveled to the ground.
On Oct. 20, 1944, the Americans had landed at Leyte, and the long, hard, slog back to Manila began. By Sept. 21, 1944, the Americans had begun air raids on Japanese ships in Manila Bay and other military objectives.
By the time Americans had landed at Lingayen; Filipino guerrillas were activated to aid in the liberation of their country, just as French partisans had assisted in theirs; a grand victory parade on the model of the liberation of Paris in 1944 was drawn up.
Today we’re quite familiar with some of the highlights of that effort, most famously in “The Great Raid,“ the liberation of Allied prisoners of war in Cabanatuan.
American troops raced to Manila, on Feb. 3, 1945, they liberated the internment camp for civilians at the University of Santo Tomas. By Feb. 4, they had liberated 1,000 prisoners of war in Bilibid.
The Japanese had originally established the Manila Defense Area, composed of ten sections, defended by 23,000 Japanese troops. But by Jan. 10, 1945, troops began to be withdrawn to the Sierra Madre, and then to Baguio, where Gen. Yamashita had moved his command; so that by Jan. 25, 1945, only two Japanese detachments from this main force were left to defend Manila.
The problem was there were fanatics outside of the Manila Defense Force. This was the Manila Naval Defense Force, under the command of Rear Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi. He would defend a perimeter that stretched from Manila Bay to Novaliches, Marikina, and Laguna de Bay. He had 17,000 troops, 12,500 of which were Imperial Japanese Navy personnel, and 4,500 Army troops.
Iwabuchi divided his force into three: A Northern Force, a Central Force, and a Southern Force. The Northern force would be the most fanatical of all. It was commanded by Col. Katzuo Noguchi, and its territory north of the Pasig River, the Manila suburbs in the north and northeast, the eastern sector of Manila, and included Intramuros.
Iwabuchi himself busied himself with the southern side of the Pasig, and concentrated troops in Ermita, the government center from the Post Office to the Agriculture and Finance buildings.
The Japanese under Iwabuchi would make a last stand. They ignored orders to retreat to Baguio. They mined streets, established gun emplacements in government buildings, set up hardened positions along bridges. From Feb. 4 to 11, the Japanese fought street to street, burning neighborhoods as they pulled back. Manila would not be encircled by American troops until Feb. 12, when forces blocked at Nichols field finally broke through.
It was on Feb. 12 that the massacres in Manila began. As another account has it, “the night raged with fires... All over Manila, fires had erupted. An orange, reddish film covered the sky. In some portions of the sky, the gray smoke was thick. Manila was a raging inferno. Sadness overtook the people as they witnessed the maddening scene.“
By Feb. 23, the Americans had surrounded Intramuros, where the Japanese had dug in. It took them five days to pound the walled city into submission. Resistance continued until the last pockets of Japanese troops, holed up in the Finance Building, were “flushed out“ by heavy artillery on March 3. The last stragglers were eliminated in Intramuros on March 4.
In “The Battle for Manila“, John Plimlott, Duncan Anderson, and Richard Connaughton, quotes an artillery officer named General Beightler who had this to say about the destruction of Manila:
“We used these shells and plastered the Walled City until it was a mess. It fell to us with ease we never expected. We made a churned-up pile of dust and scrap out of the imposing, classic government buildings. Our bombers have done some pretty fine alteration work on the appearance of Berlin and Tokyo. Just the same, I wish they could see what we did with our little artillery on the Jap strongholds of Manila.“
Fire, grenades, artillery and the crossfire, took its toll on the residents of a metropolis that had a population of 1 million. Of that population, at least 100,000 died. Ten percent.
Manuel L. Quezon III
ARABNEWS.COM