The debate continues about whether immigrants or host governments should try harder to achieve better integration.

Should immigrants do more to fit into their new countries? Or should host countries do more to make immigrants feel welcomed?

Nadim Baba of Al Jazeera English reports from Dresden, Germany.

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

Jonah Hull of Worldfocus partner Al Jazeera English reports on Ireland’s approval of the historic Lisbon treaty and explains how a political superstar is waiting in the wings for a return to power.

Niall Stanage, an Irish journalist who covers business and politics from New York, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the reasons why Irish voters originally rejected the Lisbon Treaty and their recent reversal in course.

He also discusses the role that a future EU presidency might take, how the rest of Europe is reacting to Ireland’s decision and the implications for the U.S.

Headline from an English-language Russian news site.

Worldfocus producer Christine Kiernan writes about the reaction to the recently-released report on the Russia-Georgia war.

This week, the European Union released its long-awaited report on the five-day-war that broke out between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. The conclusions — the result of a ten-month-long mission to investigate the conflict’s origins led by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini — were mixed. The report cites as the immediate cause “the shelling by Georgian forces of the capital of the secessionist province of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, on Aug. 7.”

However, it also acknowledges that Russia had made preparations for armed hostilities by moving paramilitary forces into the Russian-backed republic, and that the shelling was only the “culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations, and incidents.” The report concludes that all sides violated international humanitarian and human rights laws and warns that the conflict in Georgia continues to threaten peace in the region.

Not surprisingly, both Russia and Georgia seemed to interpret the report’s findings in their own favor. Russian officialdom and media expressed satisfaction, more or less, over the commission’s findings, highlighting as the main conclusion the fact that Georgia started the war. The Russian press secretary said “we can only welcome the said conclusion.”

A headline in the “Gazeta” newspaper read: “The Russian Kremlin and Ministry of Defense welcomed the EU commission’s conclusion that Georgia began the war in South Ossetia.” The article noted that Russia’s ambassador to the European Commission, Vladimir Chizhov, deemed the report  “Pro-Russian.” Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said it was about time the truth came out; the Echo Moscow radio station quoted him as saying Western politicians owed Russia an apology.

You can read an official reaction on the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs’ Web site. There is little mention of the finding of Russian responsibility for ethnic cleansing and of disproportionate use of force by the Russian side, or the report’s refusal to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent entities.

My ability to interpret Georgian reaction is limited. But I did come across an English-language version of an official statement issued by the Georgian government. The Georgian government’s takeaway: “Almost all of the facts in the report confirm the Georgian version of events.” The government’s statement failed to mention that the EU mission put responsibility for the immediate commencement of shelling on Georgia. Instead, it stressed the report’s finding that Georgian civilians and peacekeepers were under attack, on Georgian soil, before August 7, and cited the “most important fact documented by the Commission [...] that regular armed Russian forces and mercenaries illegally crossed into Georgia before August 8, 2009.”

Will the report’s release change anything? Probably not. Both Russia and Georgia will continue to adhere to their own version of events and blame the other side. My main takeaway comes from an editorial written by mission-head Tagliavini and published in Wednesday’s New York Times. In it, she focuses not on “whodunit;” instead, she raises the question of what responsibility the international community bears for failing to prevent the conflict. Are there actions Georgia’s and Russia’s neighbors could have taken to avoid the escalation of tensions? Did the involvement of outside powers harden positions, as Tagliavini claims, rather than build common ground? What is the role of the international community at large in deterring conflicts that arise between nation-states? Perhaps it is questions like these that merit further investigation.

- Christine Kiernan

Missile defense during the Bush administration was so contingent as to be faith-based — if Iran builds long-range missiles, if they choose to commit a suicidal act by launching one, if the system can be made to work…if, if, if.  Of course, we need to plan for long-term and unknown threats, but not at the expense of protecting against more immediate and known threats. This shift also opens up more potential for cooperation with Russia on Iranian nuclear ambitions, by removing an irritant in the relationship but, more importantly, by showing just how serious we are about the threat from Tehran. Another victory for rational defense policies.  Go Gates.

- Nina Hachigian

They look at President Barack Obama’s reversal on a missile defense plan for Europe, the battle against Islamic militants and this week’s United Nations report on the war in Gaza — including charges that conduct by Israel and the Palestinian militants amounted to war crimes.

On Thursday, Obama announced that he is dropping that plan for eastern Europe. Instead, he said, the U.S. will develop an alternative plan to counter what is now perceived as the more immediate threat of short- and medium-range missiles from Iran.

Heather Conley, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former assistant secretary of state, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the motivations behind Obama’s decision and how it will be received in Europe.

But despite a turnaround for those countries, much of Europe is still mired in recession.

Roben Farzad, a senior writer for BusinessWeek, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how fast the world economy is rebounding and to analyze what it will mean for the United States.

John Authers, the investment editor for The Financial Times, joins Martin Savidge to discuss what European countries are doing to combat the recession, new regulations that may be proposed at the summit and where the markets may be headed.

For more on the summit, read Worldfocus blogger Nina Hachigian’s take: The three-ring G-8 summit

But despite an agreement to reduce their nuclear arsenals with a new treaty, the president admitted that on issues that divide the countries there won’t be “a meeting of the minds anytime soon.” One of those issues is the American plan to deploy a missile defense system near Russia, in eastern Europe. Russia’s foreign minister warned that such a system could jeopardize progress on arms control.

Angela Stent, the director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, joins Martin Savidge to discuss what was accomplished in the summit and what lies ahead.

Read analysis from Worldfocus blogger Nina Hachigian: From Russia — not with love, but with results.

Michael Novacek, the provost of science at the American Museum of Natural History, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the significance of the fossil in understanding evolution.

Marcus Mabry, the international business editor of The New York Times, joins Martin Savidge to analyze the deepening economic downturn and provide a look at what comes next in the European recession.

They discuss the continuing threat of piracy from Somalia’s failed state, the terror threat in Britain and Europe and the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.

The president says he is “very confident” the plan would help to ease credit. The plan was greeted with enthusiasm on Wall Street, where the Dow and Nasdaq were up sharply, and major markets made big gains in Asia and Europe.

Peter Coy, economics editor of BusinessWeek magazine, joins Martin Savidge to discuss world stock markets, how Western European banks will be impacted by the plan and foreign banks being bailed out by U.S. taxpayers.

The U.S. has witnessed frustration over the government’s huge bailout of American International Group (AIG) — whereas France saw a wave of protests and strikes aimed at getting the government to do more to ease the deepening crisis.

John Authers, the investment editor of the Financial Times, joins Martin Savidge to discuss growing anger, next month’s G-20 talks and if the European Union will be able to come up with a unified position.

Russian flexed its military muscles with Georgia in 2008. Photo: Onnik Krikorian under a Creative Commons license.

Russia announced a broad plan to rearm and modernize its army and navy on Tuesday.

While Russia and the U.S. have been taking some first steps toward improving relations under President Obama, the prospects of an expanding NATO and a possible U.S. missile defense system have the Russians on edge.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said his country would improve the combat readiness of its forces beginning two years from now — first and foremost its long-range nuclear weapons — adding that despite the economic crisis, Russia has the resources to modernize its military.

The “Proliferation Press” blog points to several varying media reactions to the announcment, concluding that the meaning of Russia’s decision will become more clear but that the U.S. should tread carefully:

The NYTimes portrays it as a mix of diplomatic posturing for Medvedev’s meeting with Obama and the response to Russian military weaknesses shown in the recent Georgia-Russian war. The Guardian heralds the new arms race, putting blame squarely on America’s maximalist foreign policy. And Canda.com views the announcement as geared more towards the Russian public.

In short, the move is not welcome news—but it’s not entirely unexpected. And its meaning will take form over this year. Medvedev has drawn various lines in the sand: moves towards having airbases in Cuba, setting up bases in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, helping rid of an American base in Kyrgyzstan, and now a rearmament announcement. Keep in mind, Russia has for years protested expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe–and drew a bloodly red line in Georgia.

And let’s not ignore another possible cause of this announcement: the economic crisis. Russia may be signaling that current economic woes will not change their strategic objectives.

But one thing is clear: The US-Russian relationship is entering a critical phase, and the Obama administration must tread carefully.

Welsh blogger Alan Davies argues that the move will provoke a response from the West and lead to further conflict:

This is in response to what is seen as NATO expansionism and also to a poor ground force performance in Georgia. Whatever the reason, it is potentially destabilising as there will no doubt be a counter response from the West. Then instead of focusing the power of East and West on addressing fundamentalism we will face a new arms race which will fail to address the greatest threat to the globe at the moment.

The “Totalitarianism Today” blog downplays the level of threat, giving several reasons why Russia might have made the decision to rearm:

Russian rearmament needn’t be perceived solely with the Cold War interpretive lens. In fact, there are many possible reasons for Russian rearmament which should be entertained in the current multipolar world, as Russia’s perception of security threats has expanded to include more than “capitalist encirclement”. A few considerations which might also have played into the decision to rearm:

> Rearmament has been traditionally used to deal with economic slumps by governments who subscribe to supply-side theories of economics. The US under Reagan and Bush is a classic example.

> A generalized declaration of rearmament provides Russia with leverage vis-a-vis the United States and other allies on smaller matters, like the question of Viktor Bout’s extradition and the issue of the Nabucco oil plans which challenge Russia’s own South Steam plans.

> Russia is working on establishing a career military which will make national service appealing and honorable to its citizens. Increasing military spending could be associated with such an endeavor, especially given the Russian forthrightness about modernizing its military.

> The Russian government seems to be attempting to forge a more cohesive, powerful national history narrative which minimizes the negative effects of historically powerful leaders like Stalin. Such an attempt is consistent with an effort to increase national identity and solidarity in a multipolar world.

> The EU’s recent actions undermine a Russian bid for great power status, so the Russian government feels the need to continuously reassert its relevance vis-a-vis European states and its neighbors.

> The Russian government is aware of American desire to build a stronger relationship, so it can afford to rearm without immediate economic or military consequences. The fear of a “slide into hostility” animates the Obama administration’s Russia policy.

The next few weeks will provide a richer context in which to understand the Russian decisions to rearm. In the meantime, everyone should sit back, take a few deep breaths.

Georgia announced on Wednesday that it will pull out of the contest after refusing to choose a different song or change the lyrics of its entry, the disco-funk song “We don’t wanna put in.”

Considered a swipe at Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin over the five-day war between Russia and Georgia last August, the tune ran into trouble because of rules against political lyrics and was disqualified.

Watch a video of the song from YouTube user EurovisionPL:

Blogger “Anna Ershova,” a Russian student at Yale University, weighs in on Georgia’s pop protest:

I can see why the Georgians are so tongue-in-cheek regarding their behemoth neighbor, but that’s a petty way to deliver a protest, isn’t it? Georgia, if you are still mad over Abkhazia and Ossetia, go to a court of law, not the performance stage.

Russia’s own entrant to the contest has created a separate debate. Ukrainian singer Anastasia Prikhodko was selected on Tuesday to represent Russia after she had been disqualified from Ukraine’s contest.

Andy Young blogs at “Siberian Light” about her song, “Mamo,” and the uproar it is causing:

The controversy?  Well, Prikhodko is Ukrainian, and Mamo is sung partly in Russian and partly in - gasp - Ukrainian. Oh yes, and Prikhodko only entered the Russian qualification contest after she’d been kicked out of the Ukrainian qualification contest.The biggest complaints about Prikhodko’s victory came, not too surprisingly, from Yusif Prigozhin the husband of the singer who finished second. “It’s a disgrace… A song performed in Ukrainian can’t have anything to do with Russia.”

Finally, singer Mira Awad will be the first Arab to represent Israel in the song contest. She is slated to perform a duet in Arabic, Hebrew and English with Israeli Jewish singer Achinoam Nini.

The news has been criticized by Arab artists in the wake of the Gaza conflict, and the Palestinian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel has called on Awad to refuse to participate in the contest:

To represent Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest will serve to polish the international image of an aggressive occupying state that has long been engaged in ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. It will communicate to the rest of the world that Israel’s war crimes and violations of international law are acceptable to us as Palestinians! [...] You may feel that it is important for you to represent Israel to demonstrate the full spectrum of Israeli society, which includes Palestinians living in Israel. This is utterly misguided. Until Palestinians living within Israel have full rights and do not suffer systemic discrimination and violation of their human and political rights, Israel has no right to portray itself as a healthy, multicultural society.

European leaders are working towards economic cooperation.

As the financial crisis has spread throughout the globe, leaders in Asia and Europe have increased efforts to band together, coordinating economic action.  

Over the past few weeks, several regional meetings have taken place, bringing together leaders from a number of countries with vastly different economic systems. Ten member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as well as China, Japan and Korea agreed to work together to maintain stable currency values. In Europe, several leaders agreed to double the resources of the International Monetary Fund to $500 billion.

These multilateral agreements come ahead of the scheduled G20 summit in April, featuring both advanced and developing economies.

Peter A. Petri is a senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu and former dean of the International Business School at Brandeis University. He writes at the “East Asia Forum” blog that this level of global cooperation is unprecedented, and will change the face of the world’s economic order. 

Global response to economy in works

What do Berlin, Germany and Hua Hin, Thailand, have in common? Not winter weather, for sure. But this week, briefly, both offer a little sunshine for the world economy. European and Asian leaders meeting in these cities are pledging hundreds of billions of dollars for international financial rescue plans.

The bad news is that their actions reflect a rapidly deepening global crisis. The “other shoe dropping” in the downturn could be collapsing currencies and bankruptcy in several countries. This happened in Iceland, and it could happen soon in Hungary, the Baltic countries, Pakistan and others.

The good news is that leaders are beginning to fashion a global response to the crisis. This still faces many obstacles, but a “yes, we can” attitude is starting to emerge. It could bring benefits not just in stemming the meltdown, but also on other global decisions, like trade and climate change.

In Berlin, European leaders agreed to double the lending capacity of the International Monetary Fund to $500 billion. In Hua Hin this weekend, Asian leaders agreed to improve the structure of the Chiang Mai Initiative, the region’s emergency lending pool, and increase its size to $120 billion.

This is a sea change. A year ago, the IMF looked headed for extinction. Turkey was its only client and one-quarter of its staff opted for early retirement. The CMI, created after the 1997-98 Asian crisis, had never lent any money, and stood instead as a silent reminder of the difficulties of Asian cooperation. Now both are springing back to life.

It’s high time for global cooperation — but it has been hard to find a leader. The world’s economies need to work together to stop the “adverse feedback loop” that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke highlighted in his Senate testimony on Tuesday. Every economy in recession buys less from others, and every bank that collapses puts others at greater risk.

China was one of the first countries to act, with a stimulus package of nearly $600 billion. The U.S. has now joined with its $800 billion package, and other countries are moving, too.

But most countries have stimulus packages well below 2 percent of GDP, much smaller than those of China and the U.S. Many still hope a world recovery will save them. Unless they act together, it won’t.

[...]In the ashes of the old economic order, a new one is taking shape. It will be based on a coalition of countries perhaps led, but not dominated, by the United States. It will require joint policies inconceivable in simpler times. With luck — and time — these could help to turn the global economy around and lead to more effective ways to govern our incredibly complex world.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user viZZZual.com under a Creative Commons license.

The head of Europe’s Central Bank called for a world financial makeover. Germany is considering a law to allow forced nationalizations of its banks as it loses faith in the free market to reverse their fortunes.

Roben Farzad, a senior writer and columnist for BusinessWeek magazine, joins Martin Savidge to discuss what is fueling the steady decline, if governments have lost the ability to control the economic crisis and whether or not there is a silver lining to the bleak economic situation.

Marcus Mabry, international business editor at The New York Times, speaks with Martin Savidge about parallels between struggling U.S. industries and those in Europe and Asia, how foreign automakers are coping and the future of real estate markets abroad.

Europe may harness Saharan sunlight.

Several years ago, scientists determined that a small section of the Sahara desert, amounting to just over 1 percent of its total area, could provide as much electricity as all of the world’s power plants combined.

Now, Europe is looking to harness the heat of the African desert for solar energy, since about 0.3 percent of the light falling on the Sahara could power the whole of Europe. European Union members have considered implementing a long-term program over the next several decades.

Masimba Biriwasha is a citizen journalist from Zimbabwe who writes at OhMyNews to discuss what Europe’s plans would mean for Africa and argue that any initiative should benefit both Europe and Africa.

Europe seeks to harvest African sun

According to a news report recently published in the United Kingdom’s Guardian, European nations are planning to harvest the sun in the Sahara desert in Africa to “provide clean electricity for the whole of Europe” but there is no mention of how such a development will also benefit Africa.

“Vast farms of solar panels in the Sahara desert could provide clean electricity for the whole of Europe, according to EU scientists working on a plan to pool the region’s renewable energy,” reports the newspaper.

As the world continues to investigate energy sources that are environmentally friendly, there is a need for developed countries to promote the transfer of both technology and skills to poorer nations. The fact is that the problem of climate change is a sum of its parts. If one part of the world lacks appropriate solutions, the problem will still come back to haunt even those countries that have access to perceived technological solutions.

The report states that 0.3 percent of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle Eastern deserts can potentially provide all of Europe’s energy needs because the sunlight in this area is more intense. Therefore, solar photovoltaic (PV) panels in that area could generate up to three times the electricity compared with similar panels in northern Europe.

“Harnessing the power of the desert sun is at the centre of an ambitious scheme to build a … European supergrid that would allow countries across the continent to share electricity from abundant green sources such as wind energy in the UK and Denmark and geothermal energy from Iceland and Italy,” reports the Guardian newspaper, which notes that the project will cost 45 billion euros (35.7 billion pounds).

While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the move to provide cleaner energy, it is essential that such an ambitious initiative is sustainable and beneficial to both Europe and Africa.

To harvest solar power in Africa without ensuring that the continent also has access to such energies is not a sufficient solution to the energy problem facing the world.

“Assuming it’s cost-effective, a large scale renewable energy grid is just the kind of innovation we need if we’re going to beat climate change. Europe needs to become a zero-carbon society as soon as possible, and that will only happen with bold new ideas like this one. Tinkering with 20th-century technologies like coal and nuclear simply isn’t going to get us there,” the newspaper quoted Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, as welcoming the proposals.

Indeed Europe needs to become a zero-carbon society but so does Africa, and given Europe’s self-interested historical intervention in Africa, it has a responsibility to assist the continent.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user jorge.delprado under a Creative Commons license.