BBC: Triple Olympic champion Usain Bolt ran the fourth-fastest 200m time in history as he stormed to victory in appalling conditions at the Lausanne Grand Prix.

Bolt ran 19.59 seconds despite a strong headwind and heavy rain in Switzerland.

Olympic 400m champion Lashawn Merritt was second with Shawn Crawford fourth, while Asafa Powell won the 100m.

Asked if he would have broken the world record in better weather Bolt said: “I don’t even think of it in those terms, I was just trying to test myself.”

The 22-year-old Jamaican admitted that there was still room for improvement ahead of next month’s world championships, but was otherwise pleased with his form.

“I’m in good shape, but I’m not fully ready yet. I still need to work on a few technical things,” said the 100m and 200m world record holder. [ READ MORE ] [ IAAF WEBSITE ]

| VIDEO(S): RECORD BREAKING MOMENTS AT THE BEIJING OLYMPICS |

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

One of the most critical aspects of the Horn of Africa crisis concerns China. In fact, it has little to do with China’s merely quantitative presence in the African continent. The economic – technological presence and significance of China in Africa have already been noticed and commented, but this type of achievement, albeit important at the commercial level, has no political consequences, let alone global dimensions.

China must realize that its presence in Africa, although necessary for the country’s needs in terms of resources, exports, commercial partners, and economic penetration, has not yet reached the level of political influence, military involvement, and determinant geo-political impact.

It is essential for Beijing to understand, when it comes to China’s global presence and prevalence, that this critical affair has little to do with the volume of exports and imports and with a veto in the Security Council votes.

In Africa, China finds itself opposed to ca. 250 years of European colonialism which led to the formation of postcolonial regimes that – in order to be totally submitted to the interests, the plans, and the needs of England and France – are by nature totalitarian, racist, criminal, corrupt, and mostly inhuman.

The interaction of all these corrupt and totalitarian regimes of Africa is – in and by itself – another dimension of colonial involvement and perfidy. Below is an example:

1. England and France (plus the US, as a neophyte in the postcolonial era) are behind the support offered to the criminal state Abyssinia (that colonial English and French scholars explained to the idiotic and ignorant Amhara rulers why it should be renamed as ‘Ethiopia’ in order to contribute to the performance of 14 genocides against the subjugated Kushitic and Nilo-Saharan nations).

2. England and France (plus the US) are behind the destructive work perpetrated since 1991 against the Somali Nation that does not suit the colonial plans for Eastern Africa.

3. Last but not least, England and France (plus the US) are behind the Abyssinian invasion of part of the Somali territory (in December 2006) and behind the withdrawal of the defeated Abyssinian army.

How could China outmaneuver this complot?

Rejecting the false lenses made available by Western mass media of global disinformation is a first critical step to take. China must offer itself an accurate, holistic, balanced and fair perception of the developments throughout the African continent.

Otherwise, every evaluation will hinge on false data and prefabricated images that the perfidious, criminal powers of the Colonial West have done their ingenious best to overwhelmingly diffuse and successfully ensure that their potential challenges (China, India, Russia, Brazil, Japan, Germany, Italy, the Islamic World, African Liberation movements and fronts) never get the entire picture correctly.

China and Somalia in 1900 – Equally Targeted by Perfidious, Colonial England

Demonizing rivals and targets has always been a favorable method of the colonial powers; before 100 years, in the then targeted Somalia (1899 – 1905), Mohamed Abdullah Hassan had become just the “mad mullah“; he was not “mad” and his identity of mullah represents only a minor aspect of his great personality of intellectual, mystic, Islamic theoretician, social transformer and political leader and liberator.

Chinese can understand very well why the great visionary of the Somali Nation Mohamed Abdullah Hassan, honorably called As Sayid by all the Somalis, became a “mad mullah” for the criminal colonial gangsters of England.

Because he opposed the use of khat chewing which was greatly promoted and diffused by the English in order to engulf the local populations to social decay, political decadence, religious digression, and national decomposition.

China was equally targeted by the monstrous, inhuman and criminal gangsters, the English and the French, at those days. To colonize the Chinese, the perfidious colonial powers devised several methods one of which was the diffusion, throughout China, of opium produced in occupied India. China was constrained to defend its national integrity in successive Opium wars (1839 – 42, 1856 – 60); the evil English practice triggered the overwhelming reaction of the Chinese people as evidenced in events such as the Taiping Revolution (1850 – 64) and the Boxer Revolution (1899 – 1901).

To help Somali readership be better acquainted with the English Anti-Chinese hysteria and felony, I merely state here that the aforementioned glorious event is only conventionally called “Boxer Revolution.” In fact, the Boxers were called by themselves after the noble association that they had established, namely “Boxer Revolution” (Yihe tuan). Boxers is a pejorative term that could not have been devised but by a monstrous and criminal elite of gangsters like that of England.

Mohamed Abdullah Hassan: “Mad Mullah” or the Somali Boxer?

For both, Chinese and Somalis, to learn better the common identity of their righteous cause, I can merely say that Mohamed Abdullah Hassan (the ‘mad mullah‘ of the English colonial gangsters) was a …. Somali Boxer.

And the splendid ideals, the humanist goals, the peaceful mind, and the noble vision of the Righteous Harmony Society Movement in China were absolutely identical with those of the Saalihiya Order which was diffused among the Somalis by Mohamed Abdullah Hassan.

Mohamed Abdullah Hassan was criminally labeled “mad” by the English because he did not accept that evil and hypocritical “missionaries”, under the pretext of “help” offered to Somali orphans at Daymoole, should be allowed to attempt to diffuse – in a most immoral, shameful and camouflaged way – their Christian faith.

In the same way, the Boxers’ rightful denunciation of the disastrous work made in China by Western missionaries was labeled by the English as ‘Anti-Christian’.

For the viciously Anti-Christian, Freemasonic regime of England, which caused the greatest possible damages to Catholic Christianity (notably through their Anglican heresy), it is just ludicrous to introduce pejorative terms for other nations, parties and persons who happened to have attempted what the English did try for themselves in the first place, namely to stay apart of foreign control, foreign faith, and external influence.

This is the natural evilness of the English historiographers, intellectuals, diplomats and journalists:

If the “mad” mullah had accepted the duplicitous, concealed and criminal effort of the “missionaries” to Christianize Somalia, he would not be ….. “mad.”

Today, this “logic” threatens Somalia, China, and the entire world. It is the same inhuman attitude displayed before 100 years in both, China and Somalia; to speak frankly, it is the paranoia of the rapist who tries to appear as possibly innocent and credibly righteous.

What about today’s English regime of Inhuman Freemasonry?

Will they accept the Somali sheikhs Hassan Dahir Aweys, Hassan Turki, and Mukhtar Robow to …. leave Somalia for a while, move to England, visit the poor, unemployed and needy English, and proselytize them to Islam “that would solve all their problems”?

Just like the “missionaries” at Daymoole, Somalia, who made the local orphans say in 1897 that “they belonged to the clan of the (Christian) Fathers”, today’s impoverished English may wish to belong to the Nation of the Muslims. What about a scenario like this?

The use of the pejorative adjectives was never a matter of sparing concern among the English and the French colonials and within the circle of the world mass media that they have been customarily bribed and unreservedly corrupted.

It is certainly more convenient for them now to avoid the term “mad” and put all the stakes on adjectives and nouns like the following: “hard line”, “fanatic”, “radical”, “extremist” and “terrorist.”

China Cannot Afford Anymore the Fallacious Western Interpretations of Events

Simply, this situation cannot be afforded anymore by China. Because all the Somali “hard liners”, “fanatics”, “radicals”, “extremists” and “terrorists”, namely the sheikhs Hassan Dahir Aweys, Hassan Turki, and Mukhtar Robow, are today’s Somalia’s Righteous Harmony Society Movement.

Today’s Somalia’s Boxers Movement provides for peace, concord, serenity, national integrity, cultural authenticity, resolute commitment to Somalia’s re-edification and rehabilitation. To the full consternation of the English, French, and American colonials.

To focus on some isolated cases of literal implementation of Sharia Law in Kismayu and elsewhere is certainly purposeless.

These people suffered tremendously at the times of the Abyssinian occupation for which the evil colonial regimes of London and Washington are fully responsible.

These people saw the criminal gangster Jendayi Frazer shamelessly consider the Ogaden 2007 Genocide as an internal affair of the monstrous racist regime of Abysssinia; you cannot expect them to react like Confucius or some Greek Stoic philosophers. They view the excesses of their jurisdiction as the much needed underscoring of their opposition to the evil deeds of the Anti-Somali colonials; this is a sentimental stance, not a political approach. It will not continue for long after the so loathed AMISOM soldiers go, and the perspective of free constitutional elections comes closer.

China has many reasons – beyond a definite historical solidarity – to stretch a hand to the Somali Opposition, establish a contact with them, and thus acquire a firm basis in Eastern Africa. This I will extensively analyze in a forthcoming article.

Note: China Boxer Rebellion Mocking Card. Scarce Litho-postcard from the time of the Boxer Upraise in China, 1900. Mocking postcard depicting western soldiers, quarrelling. A Chinese smiling. Used as postcard in 1900. Faults at upper margin. Scarce. From: http://collect.at/wordpress/?p=1509

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Put him in an Olympic stadium or a shopping street in the centre of Manchester and the result is the same: total annihilation.

telegraph.co.uk: The frightening thing is that the big Jamaican, who pushed back the boundaries of possibility last summer when he won three gold medals in world record time in Beijing, insists he is still only 70 per cent fit following an interrupted winter and the loss of nine days’ training after his car crash last month.

His winning time in last Sunday’s rarely run 150 metres was an eye-popping 14.36sec, smashing the previous best-known time for the distance of Canada’s Donovan Bailey – 14.99sec run on bend against Michael Johnson in 1997.

Britain’s Marlon Devonish was a distant second in 15.07sec. He admitted Bolt was in “a league of his own.”

Bolt’s time will now be ratified by the International Association of Athletics Federations as an official ‘world best,’ though it is his 100m split-time that will send shockwaves across the world – 9.90sec on a rain-soaked track in temperatures more common to February than mid-May.

To put that into perspective, Dwain Chambers managed 10.21sec in his first 100m of the season on Saturday in the tropical heat of Puerto Rico. The Briton’s talk of ‘Project Bolt‘ looks precisely that: just talk.

Bolt must now be taken at his word when he says he is capable of improving on his 100m world record of 9.69sec this summer. “Anything is possible” is his mantra, and on this evidence it is hard to think of a better phrase to describe what lies ahead this summer.

Usain Bolt’s 100 meter 9.69 world record — At Beijing

| Click Here For Record Breaking Moments At The Beijing Olympics |

“You can expect great things from me,” said Bolt. “I always go out and try to do my best.”

His performance, which ended with his trademark ‘lighting bolt‘ celebration, was a reward for the several thousands hardy souls who shivered under umbrellas for most of the afternoon beside the temporary track erected on Manchester’s Deansgate.

But by the time Bolt took to the stage for the final the rain clouds had cleared and even the sun was starting to burst through. His Midas touch clearly extends to the elements.

By way of an hors d’oeuvre, Bahamian Debbie McKenzie Ferguson outpaced Britain’s Christine Ohuruogu to with the women’s 150m in 16.54sec, though this was all about a one-man show.

One woman in the crowd was even under the impression that the Jamaican’s dominance extended to the Bupa Great Manchester Run, held earlier in the day. She could be heard asking her neighbours: “Does anyone know how Usain Bolt got on in the 10k this morning?”

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

   Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis [ Enlarge ]
Many had assumed that the November 2008 presidential elections in America would be of great significance for Africa, and the still tyrannized African nations that have been the victims of European colonialism and American post-colonialism. These erroneous analysts had based their argumentation and hopes on the extremely unlikely hypothesis that the origins and the family background of the (then candidate) 44th president of the United States would play a considerable role in his foreign policy making, and more specifically in the US African policy.

The aforementioned hypothesis was absolutely wrong for two reasons; first, a US president’s family background and his personal origins matter little if not at all when it comes to the US foreign policy making, which remains a hermetically closed and utterly restricted area for newcomers. Behind the scenes, groups of influence, lobbying centers, and dark forces exercise an absolute control over the US foreign policy making, and can easily eliminate a bothersome president – one way (1963) or another (1976).

Second, the United States is not anymore an omnipotent superpower if it had ever been. The United States are confronted with the world’s worst financial and economic crisis of all times, and as it has been the global economy’s locomotive over the past 60 years, it will experience the forthcoming dismantlement of the capitalist system in the most adverse way.

In fact, the US cannot influence developments in other parts of the world – except through a trickery which is smartly produced and overwhelmingly diffused by the adroit US State Department propaganda machine. The trickery consists precisely in the incessant projection of the old US image of the sole superpower, as if it has continued down to our times. What has truly been left of America is its old image, namely an amalgamation of the rising economic dynamo of the 50s and the 60s, and the aura of the Cold War’s victor of the early 90s.

If one does not accept as true the deception projected by the US political Marketing machinery, one can achieve miracles in these days of real freedom of political action. This is a reality that has been detected by few thus far; with the precipitation of the economic collapse, which is practically speaking absolutely unhindered, more and more people allover the world will come to terms with the reality that the colonial restrainer has been removed. Had Saddam Hussein survived until 2009 and had he remained in power, today’s America would have been totally unable to undertake Gulf War I to remove the Baathist army from Kuwait, if that adventure had been attempted with a 19-year delay.

If the November 2008 American presidential elections are not a determinant date for Africa’s future, what are the elections that matter today for the tyrannized Ogadenis, the persecuted Berbers, the dehumanized Sidamas, the massacred Furis of Darfur, the forgotten Bejas of Eastern Sudan, and so many severely maltreated and permanently targeted African nations?

   Nigeria’s General Obasanjo and Jimmy Carter — 1970′s

Bolivia and Venezuela More Influential than the US

One has to shift focus to the South; developments that took place in Bolivia and Venezuela, and more specifically the two recent referenda held in the Latin American countries, create a new dynamics which is of vital importance for all African nations that have been the target of the colonial powers France and England, and the postcolonial superpower.

In fact, Latin America gradually becomes the center of gravitation for African liberation fronts, political parties and movements of oppressed nations whose existence has been so bothersome for the criminal colonials and their local lackeys, the shameful and unrepresentative tyrants who rule based on racist and cruel, tribal militias, like Meles Zenawi of the pseudo-Ethiopian Abyssinia, Omar al Bashir of the Sudan, Buteflika of Algeria, Kibaki of Kenya, Mohamed VI of Morocco, and many others.

Four Impotent Challengers of Colonialism in Africa: Russia, China, India and Japan

As it happens, not only is Latin America closer to Africa than any major non Western power (Russia, China, India and Japan) but also Bolivia and Venezuela come to cover a great political vacuum.

Russia has been a great colonial power in Asia and in Europe; under the coverage of Marxism – Leninism, it continued its colonial expansionism until the early 90s. But Russia had always failed in Africa; the Russian Orientalism and Africanism proved to be inconsiderate replicas of the French Orientalism and Africanism, which have been composed by the Western European colonial powers, England and France, in order to function to their profit. In other words, the Western European colonial system of interpretation cannot function to the benefit of other users. It is an inherently Western European system of fallacious interpretation adequately adjusted in order to alter the real data and transfigure the realities according to benefit of its launchers. The paranoid Soviet policy in the wider Horn of Africa area in the late 70s highlights precisely the suicidal perception of African History and Politics by Russia / Soviet Union.

India was colonized, but after it became independent, just 60 years ago, it never managed to become a fully de-colonized country and state; the Indian foreign policy, despite (or because of) the fake nationalism of several parties, bears all the insignia of an approach to world politics that perfectly reflects the colonial countries’ interests. The eternalized internal divisions testify to the prevalence of situations created by the colonial powers elsewhere. In no way did the African policy of India oppose the colonial powers’ interests in the region.

Japan was a limited circumference colonial power (East – Southeast Asia) for a relatively brief period of time; following its defeat in WW II, Japan has been politically and economically, ideologically and culturally colonized. Its presence in Africa has been complementary to that of the European colonial powers and America, thus perfectly contributing to the perpetuation of the colonial plan.

China was never colonized, only partly invaded by the Japanese militarists during the wars with Japan in the first half of the 20th century; yet, China had already been severely targeted by the colonial powers, and to this testify the famous Opium Wars (1839 – 1842) and the heroic Boxer Rebellion (1898 – 1901). However, the rise of the Communist Party as ruling power and the Maoism as political ideology proved to be a sort of late westernization of China. The reformist policies initiated Deng Xiaoping did not however reflect Chinese authenticity in Beijing’s foreign policy making. The socialist market economy helped only shape a quantitative approach to the world politics and China’s global role, despite its economic rise as the world’s second economy (GDP in terms of purchasing power parity: US $ 7.8 trillion), is still very limited and highly volatile. Worse, by allying itself with rogue dictators, Beijing has lost any chance of dynamically influencing groundbreaking developments in various parts of the world. In brief, China’s rising influence only quantitatively challenges the interests of the colonial powers. The pillars of theoretical, cultural, intellectual, academic, ideological, economic and political colonialism in Africa have been left intact by China’s presence in the Black Continent. There has never been a real, new concept of African Identity, Peace, Progress and Development to be initiated by China; as the no 1 challenge to Washington, Beijing proved to be a poor conceptual thinker, gullibly playing the colonial game – to the ultimate benefit of the colonial powers.

The Rise of the Indigenous Nations in Bolivia

Why are then the two recent referenda so important? For both, ideological and political reasons.

First took place the referendum organized by President Evo Morales Ayma of Bolivia; on January 25, 2009 more than 62% of the Bolivians ratified a New constitution for Bolivia, which is the epitome of the prevalence of Identity and Authenticity over the racist, colonial plans of mixed, altered or alien identity.

In fact, President Evo Morales Ayma of Bolivia led his country into a real re-foundation geared according to the interests of the Bolivia’s indigenous peoples who constitute the outright majority of the country and yet, they had been deprived of basic rights, considered as second class citizens, culturally oppressed, economically exploited, and politically erased.

•   Does this remind Africans of anything similar?

•   What place do the Bejas occupy in Sudan’s colonial state?

•   Can the Beja schoolchildren pursue primary and secondary education in their language?

•   What role do the Afars play in Eritrea?

•   Is there any Afar University functioning in Eritrea?

Quite exemplarily, the establishment of three universities, which will be fully functioning in the major native languages, Aymara and Queshua, has been announced in Bolivia in the aftermath of the referendum.

What position do the Sidamas have in Abyssinia (the colonial coffin that has been fallaciously re-baptized as Ethiopia)? Could one compare the electrification projects undertaken over the past 18 years in the Tigray province with those completed in the Sidama land?

What is the status of the Berbers in Algeria? How many Berberic native speakers have been elected in the two chambers of the Algerian Parliament? Can they write their official documentation in the Berberic writing which represents the African Atlas’ cultural continuity and historical authenticity?

These questions could easily be multiplied by 10 or 50, if one intended to make parallelisms, referring to all the oppressed and persecuted African nations – victims of the Anglo-French colonial conspiracy.

The solemn declaration of President Evo Morales Ayma, an Aymara Indian and the nation’s first indigenous president, are in fact the dream of every African leader of a National Liberation movement:

“The colonial state ends here. Internal colonialism and external colonialism end here. Sisters and brothers, neo-liberalism ends here too.”

This great discourse was pronounced in La Paz; but, who would not like to utter these relieving words in Ogaden, Darfur, Kordofan, Luo land, Western Sahara, and so many other African lands?

In fact, President Evo Morales’ victory in the referendum of January 25 shows what the correct meeting place is for all African National Liberation movements’ leaders.

The new charter voted by the great majority of the Bolivians establishes water as a basic right, grants the state greater control over the natural resources, and guarantees indigenous and women representation in Congress.

Even more spectacularly, it provides for the institutionalization of all of Bolivia’s 36 native languages as official! This shows that the number of languages is not a problem when the right principles are adopted without tergiversation.

In addition, the constitution offers indigenous groups the right to administer their own resources, to levy taxes and allocate funds, to promulgate their own laws, and to carry out community justice as long as national laws are not violated.

The great news from Bolivia need further focus, and I intend to expand in several forthcoming articles in order to help African readerships better understand and share the great experiment of Indigenous Identity, Historical Authenticity, and Cultural Continuity that is currently blossoming in Bolivia.

The Consolidation of President Chavez in Venezuela

To take over from the Bolivians, the Venezuelans have just consolidated President Chavez’s power in a referendum held only yesterday. The results allow the socialist leader to continue running for president in the forthcoming presidential elections. More than 54% of Venezuelans voted in favour of abolishing the existing term limits for elected officials, which represents a wider margin of victory than expected. President Chavez, a close ally of Bolivia’s Evo Morales, announced that he would stand for re-election when his current six-year term expires in January 2013. Addressing a great number of gathered followers, after the announcement of the electoral triumph, President Chavez said emotionally: “the gates to the future have been opened wide.”

Both referenda demonstrate the real dynamics of our times and throw to the dustbin of the World History the irresponsible leaders of various oppressed African nations’ liberation fronts – all those who disastrously link the destiny of their nations, as well as their own careers and personal ambitions, with the colonial trash of England and France, and the collapsing and impotent America, a nation that needs to undergo a great shock and an even greater revolution than that of 1783, before truly changing and re-adopting its original, anti-colonial Declaration of Independence.

———————————————————————————————————————————-

———————————————————————————————————————————-

EUROPE

By John Lichfield

After eight years of a Bush administration which divided, ignored or patronised Europe, EU leaders are bubbling with excitement at the prospect of a more creative, transatlantic partnership with President-elect Barack Obama.

The European Commission president, Jose-Manuel Barroso spoke of a “new deal” between the US and the EU, to shape the global agenda from trade to human rights to climate change. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, said: “At a time when we all face immense challenges, your election will inspire immense new hope in France, in Europe and in the entire world.”

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said, pointedly, that she that she looked forward to a “closer and more trusting cooperation between the United States and Europe.”

Others warned, however, that, once the gloss wore off, an Obama presidency was likely to bump against fundamental differences of interest between Europe and the US on issues ranging from trade, to climate change and how to handle a more assertive or belligerent Russia.

There was also a notable difference of tone yesterday in the reactions of those countries dismissed by the Bush administration as “Old Europe” and the reactions of some of the former Soviet bloc countries, which had aligned themselves with the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld worldview.

Obama’s triumph was received ecstatically in Germany and above all in France, where over 90 per cent of people had told pollsters that they wanted a Democratic victory. John McCain’s defeat was seen as a crushing disavowal of the conservative and neo-conservative forces which orchestrated a bullying campaign of denigration of all things French after Paris had actively opposed the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

In Poland and the Czech Republic, the reaction was more muted. The Polish foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, said that he hoped the future President Obama would ignore Democratic Party misgivings and push ahead with the Bush administration’s plans for an anti-missile defence and radar shield based in Poland and the Czech Republic. The shield — angrily opposed by Moscow – is likely to become a key litmus test of future US and European dealings with Russia.

FRANCE

By John Lichfield in Paris

In no other western country was a Barack Obama victory more anxiously awaited than in France. More than 90 per cent of French people — more than 90 per cent of the parliamentary deputies in President Nicolas Sarkozy’s centre-right party — had told pollsters that they preferred Obama to John McCain.

The Democrat’s sweeping victory was seen in France as an opportunity to create a more cooperative — and more equal — relationship between Europe and the United States, on issues ranging from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to the global financial crisis and climate change.

More than that, Obama’s triumph was seen as a crushing disavowal of the conservative and neo-conservative forces which orchestrated a bullying campaign of denigration of all things French after Paris had actively opposed the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

“Where George W. Bush pronounced, bulldozed and failed, Barack Obama will listen, cooperate and then decide,” said Alain Duhamel, one of France’s wisest political commentators.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has annoyed many French people — including some in his own camp — by ingratiating himself with the formerly frog-bashing Bush administration since his election 17 months ago. Even he, however, has scarcely hidden his preference for Obama in recent weeks.

In a glowing congratulatory letter yesterday, M. Sarkozy addressed to “Dear Barak (sic),” the president said that Mr Obama’s “brilliant victory” and “exceptional campaign” had demonstrated to the world the continuing strength of American democracy.

“At a time when we all face immense challenges, your election will inspire immense new hope in France, in Europe and in the entire world,” President Sarkozy said.

Francçis Hollande, the leader of the main opposition party, the Parti Socialiste, paid tribute to the “audacity and courage” of the American people for electing a “man of progress” despite the “colour of his skin“.

He warned, however, that President Obama would govern in what he saw to be America’s best interest. Despite the global excitement, Obama could not, and would not, be a “president of the world“.

French diplomats issued similar words of caution in private. An Obama presidency, they said, should create a more equal and more cooperative transatlantic relationship. Once the gloss wore off, they warned, American interests would reassert themselves on such potential transatlantic flash-points as trade, global warming and relations with Russia.

IRAQ

By Patrick Cockburn

It became clear during the presidential election that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain had much idea of what was happening in Iraq. During the early stages of the campaign the two men were divided over the question of an American military withdrawal.

Mr Obama was only in the race because he had opposed the invasion in 2003. Mr McCain claimed the war could still be won.

This debate is now out of date, though nobody in the US has paid much attention to this in recent months because of the economic crisis. The Iraqi government is confidently demanding that the US withdraw its combat troops from the cities at the end of June 2009 and from Iraq entirely at the end of 2011. The timing of the pullout is not very different from Mr Obama’s plan to withdraw over sixteen months.

The danger is that the new Democratic administration will be paralysed by fear that it will be accused of selling out Iraq just when victory was in sight. Mr Obama may also be tempted to appoint tired old foreign policy veterans of the Clinton administration, regardless of their previous lack of achievement in the Middle East, in a bid to reassure the powers that be in Washington that he plans no radical changes.

Iraqis, with the exception of the Kurds, will in general be overjoyed to see the back of President Bush. There is nothing new in this. Polls in Iraq have always shown that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was popular outside the Sunni community but the US military occupation was never accepted. The Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is now portraying the stalled Status

of Forces Agreement with the US as a way of ending the occupation. It will be easier for Mr Obama than Mr Bush to make the necessary concessions, many of them cosmetic, to get the measure past the Iraqi parliament.

There is another area in which an Obama administration could make vital changes in policy. The two main allies of the present Iraqi government are Washington and Tehran, yet Mr Bush deluded himself that Iranian influence in Baghdad could be minimized. From the beginning his occupation of Iraq was undermined by his foolish portrayal of the invasion of Iraq as a staging post on the way to overthrowing the Iranian and Syrian governments.

Not surprisingly they made sure the occupation never stabilized. Once this self-destructive policy of confrontation is reversed and the US talks seriously to them then one of the main sources of instability in Iraq will disappear.

MIDDLE EAST

By Donald Macintyre

Outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert yesterday warmly congratulated Barack Obama for his “historic and impressive” victory. And certainly strenuous efforts have been made by Obama allies to reassure Israelis that they will in the words this week of Martin Indyk, Bill Clinton’s one time ambassador to Tel Aviv, have a “true friend” in the new White House.

Much will depend on what you mean by friend. Given that Israel is facing an election of its own which could return the right under Benjamin Netanyahu to power, it is hard to forget Mr Obama’s own remark, during the Ohio primary, that you didn’t have to sign up to every policy of Likud–Mr Netanyahu’s party–to be a friend of Israel.

The Israeli right has –surely correctly–feared that the new President, will not be the kind of friend who can make a Knesset speech, as his predecessor did earlier this year, which utterly fails even to exhort Israel to make concessions for peace.

The left has hoped that he will be the kind of candid friend who pushes Israel towards the agreed end to the occupation which they hope he believes is in its own –and America’s–interests.

Some in the middle–and in the Israeli establishment–actually see the Obama victory as a positive on Iran despite worries about his willingness to engage with Tehran, on the grounds that he has a much better chance of building an international coalition to stop it building nuclear weapons. Their fear is rather that domestic preoccupations — notably economic — will stop him prioritising the Middle East, including a deal with Syria, which would require the US at the table.

Bush has left more of an Israeli-Palestinian process, however flawed, than Clinton did after the collapse of Camp David. It is beset with problems including the control of Gaza by Hamas, whom Obama has said he won’t talk to unless they transform their stance. And many Palestinians, their hopes raised and dashed so often before, are anyway sceptical if an Obama presidency will make much difference. But Ghassan Khatib, the moderate Palestinian intellectual and former minister said yesterday by defusing the Iran crisis Mr Obama could create a markedly better atmosphere in the region, including for progress in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Their hope will be that he will at least fulfil his promise this year to make–in stark contrast to Bush and several other presidents–to make the Middle East a first term priority.

PAKISTAN

By Andrew Buncombe

Pakistan is the crucible of south Asia whose stability is key to containing the spread of Islamic militancy. More than a year ago, Obama angered Pakistan by voicing his support for airstrikes against al-Qa’ida militants inside the country on the border with Afghanistan and even the deployment of troops if Islamabad “cannot or will not act” against them. His promise to “take out” militants in the tribal areas was not well received.

In reality, the Pakistan government would have worked with the administration of whichever candidate had won. The policies of Mr Obama and Mr McCain were little different in regard to targeting militants in the tribal areas. Both men have also stressed the importance of the military operation in Afghanistan. Mr Obama said he will send an additional 7,000 US troops.

Pakistan’s prime minister congratulated Mr Obama, saying he hoped he would promote peace and stability. “I hope that under your dynamic leadership, the United States will continue to be a source of global peace and new ideas for humanity,” said Yousuf Gilani.

While some commentators in Pakistan have pointed out that “Democrats traditionally support India while Republicans favour Pakistan,” few are expecting a radical shift in US policy. “It’s not going to make much difference,” said Dr Rasul Baksh Rais, of the Lahore University of Management Sciences. “The US will continue its policy in Afghanistan. As far as this is concerned there seems to be consensus.”

More recently the now president-elect had talked of India and Pakistan finding a solution to the Kashmir problem. He said Pakistan needed to concentrate on dealing with militants, rather than the perceived threat from India. Many thought it was commonsense, but some in India believed he was proposing a US involvement in the issue, even raising the prospect of former president Bill Clinton being dispatched as a special envoy.

Unsurprisingly, in both India and Pakistan Obama has captured the imagination of younger people. While Indian culture traditionally respects its elders – and elects leaders who might look decidedly antique almost anywhere else – in India his campaign has received celebrity-style coverage in the run-up to the election. For a part of the world that for some long lived under foreign, white, ruled, the election of a non-White president by the world’s most powerful democracy clearly has resonance.

In a message to Mr Obama, India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, said: “Your extraordinary journey to the White House will inspire people not only in your country but also around the world.”

AFRICA

By Daniel Howden in Nairobi

Barack Obama’s victory was greeted with such enthusiasm across the largest and poorest continent on earth that it seemed at times to be an African, not an American election. It is here that the people he invoked “huddled around radios in forgotten corners of the world,” are to be found.

However, Africa was almost invisible in the candidate’s position papers, with references to Sudan, Aids and aid all largely indistinguishable from those of John McCain.

He is feted as a symbol, as a communicator and as an agent of change, and many suspect his greatest impact is likely to be limited to the first of those three.

In Kenya, the land of his father’s birth, expectations and reality clash most obviously. The country already enjoys a serious aid budget and the continent’s largest US diplomatic presence, change is unlikely.

Liberia’s president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a close ally of Washington, welcomed his election but said that Africans should not expect anything dramatic, especially while the US has its own economic crisis.

Not everyone moved to dampen expectations though. South Africa’s president Kgalema Motlanthe said: “We express the hope that poverty and under-development in Africa, which remains a challenge for humanity, will indeed continue to receive a greater attention of the focus of the new administration.”

The one area likely to be addressed in some form is Sudan. Darfur, and before it the plight of Christians in South Sudan, has captured the attention of the American public and by extension its politicians.

There is a perception that Democrats have taken a softer approach to the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum.

LATIN AMERICA

By Paul Scheltus in Buenos Aires

Latin Americans are hoping for more carrot and less stick from President Obama than under his predecessor, President Bush. Immigration will be top of the agenda for most governments. Legalising the estimated 15 million illegal workers in the US and introducing a temporary worker programme, as well as secure borders are a priority for all Latin American nations, according to former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castañeda.

In Buenos Aires yesterday morning young people from several Latin American nations echoed that theme. “It was time for a change,” said 24-year old Nacho Giretti. “I hope that from now on the treatment of immigrants in the United States will be more humane.” Under President Obama, relations with Cuba are expected to change. Obama has said he will ease travel restriction and allow unlimited remittances to be sent. Those signs were welcomed by dissidents and party officials in Cuba alike.

Pending free trade agreements, drug trafficking and energy policy are just some of many regional issues that need urgent attention. All require that President Obama “extend a hand” to Latin America, as he has promised he will.

CHINA

By Clifford Coonan

Although China is not a democracy and is run as a single-party state by the Communist Party, there has been keen interest in the election among the Chinese.Beijingers enthusiastically welcomed the election of Barack Obama as a victory for an attractive young candidate who would boost US-Chinese relations and resolve the global financial crisis.

“Obama is great. This election has really changed the history of America and racism in America. Obama can handle the economy better than Bush, he is more open to new things and also he won’t start a war somewhere,” said Hu Feimin, 26, a secretary from Anhui province.

The Beijing leadership is anxious to ensure change in the world’s most powerful country does not harm the interests of China, an emerging superpower.

“America has changed colour, it’s good. Now I hope to see practical progress in future relations between China and America,” said Liu Chenbing, 32, an engineer from Shanxi province. “What I hope for most is that America can do something good for unification with Taiwan and that the American financial crisis can be dealt with quickly and effectively,” he said.

President George Bush is popular here, but state media ran resoundingly positive coverage of Obama’s win, suggesting the official view on Obama is this is a president the Chinese leadership can do business with. State broadcaster CCTV hailed his Confucian qualities of filial piety and his strong family values.

Pundits hailed the incoming president as a positive symbol of change of the US.

“In the last 30 years, the relationship between China and the USA has come a long way. I believe the new government will continue to strengthen the cooperation between China and the U.S.A.,” said Tao Wenzhao, an American Studies researcher at the influential Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Shen Tianhong, 25, who works at a property management company, was surprised by the result.

“I thought white people dominated America and the presidency. But it’s a good decision,” she said.

“This is better for the world. And Obama can handle the American financial crisis more quickly, so that is good for China,” said Ms Shen.

Zou Qinyue, manager of a Sichuan restaurant, was focused on the economic aspect.

“Black or white, he must have something special to become president. I hope the economy stabilises, because then the global economy will stablise.”

Some young people learned what they know about US politics from watching US TV shows.

“The funny thing is that in “24,” there is a black president also. A black president can do good in his presidency, just like David Palmer,” said university student Zhu Ming.