Walking the Tightrope over Burnt Bridges

By Kam Zarrabi, Intellectual Discourse

Payvand.com - Suppose, just suppose, that President Obama does, in fact, understand the historical backdrop and the machinations of America's policies in the Middle East, especially as they relate to US/Iran relations. And again, suppose, just suppose, that he does intend to do everything in his power to change the course that has led the United States into the quagmire of the Middle East and has damaged America's prestige and credibility worldwide.

Finally, suppose, just suppose, that the President sees the solution to at least the most urgent or pressing difficulties we face in that area in coming to terms with the Iranian government as the most influential powerbroker in the region.

Now let us examine what options are available to the American administration to implement such a dramatic policy shift that is so diametrically counter to the general public's perceptions and, sadly, the expressed views of America's representatives in the Congress.

For thirty years now, Iran has been portrayed to the American people as not only an enemy of the United States, but also as a threat to the peace and security of the Middle East. It has now become common knowledge among most Americans that the Islamic Republic's "crazies" are trying to develop atomic weapons in order to wipe America's friend and ally, Israel, off the face of the map. The current Administration has, quite obligingly, found no "acceptable" alternative but to extend economic sanctions against Iran for another year, and to continue to portray Iran as a threat to American interests.

Responding to a faint call to realities on the ground, we hear the President indicating some flexibility in the Administration's attitude and approach regarding Iran by saying, should the Iranians unclench their fist, they would find America's hand stretched out toward them. But, sadly, all signs, we are told, indicate that Iran's hand remains stubbornly clinched.

In the meantime, the voices of dissent, although very seldom heard on the mainstream media, shall continue to do their "thing"; their raison d'�tre being nonstop criticism of the Administration's policies, regardless of who or what political party is in charge, rather than in offering sane and workable alternatives. The dissent alarmists are furious, for instance, that someone like Dennis Ross, the well-known Zionist neocon, has been chosen by the State Department to deal with the Iranian "threat". It is as though, many have remarked, we are sending the fox to care for the henhouse.

Hillary Clinton is also viewed as a hawk in dove's plumage, harboring hostile feelings toward Israel's antagonists, particularly against the Iranian regime. Her response to Israel's decision to double the number of its illegal settlements in the West bank, as well as the most recent destruction of Palestinian homes in Gaza, as simply "unhelpful" is a good example of her kowtowing to Zionist demands. Just "unhelpful", Mrs. Clinton!? Was the Holocaust also simply an "unhelpful" event in the course of international events, Mrs. Clinton?

But this shameful and cowardly behavior on the part of America's new Secretary of State, and the selection of a Zionist hawk, Dennis Ross, as the point man in dealing with Iran, as transparently counterproductive as they might seem at first glance, may prove to be the most effective way to address our concerns regarding Iran.

I would rather not repeat what I have already elaborated on several times in my previous articles. Instead, let us offer an alternative to Mr. Obama's choice of a Secretary of State, as well as the envoy to negotiate with the Iranians.

Let us have Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the former Democrat Party presidential candidate and, for a change, an outspoken voice of opposition to the former administration's hardline approach toward the Middle East, as our Secretary of State. As for the envoy to negotiate with Iran, Syria and Lebanon, let us pick the former president Jimmy Carter, who, now that he does not have to pay a political price for his honest views, has gained a new respect among Israel's designated enemies in the Middle East.

I am sure Alexander Cockburn of counterpunch.com and Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com and their respective contributors would cheer the new selections. Iranian commentators and analysts and Iran sympathizers would be equally happy to see honest brokers at work to bring about a harmonious and mutually beneficial conclusion to three decades of absolutely unnecessary rift between the two nations.

Now, let us see what the odd-man-out, Israel, is up to before our new dream-team starts its work.

Those who have cared to read beyond the front pages of our major newspapers may have come across a recent development that never received any attention by the network news organizations. According to the new Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, Iran does not have enough enriched uranium or the technology to make an atomic weapon. This confirmed the older intelligence estimate announced about a year ago that Iran was at least three years away from the capability to produce an atomic bomb, even if Iran chose to do so. Just a few weeks ago, however, announcements were made by the Pentagon and a "revised" intelligence estimate that Iran could be very close to acquiring the materials and the technology to make a bomb. The Israelis are barking already that Iran has passed the point of no return in acquiring the bomb.

It would be na�ve, if not downright stupid, to think that people such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chief of the National Intelligence Admiral Blair, or the CIA officials are not on the same page as far as the status of Iran's nuclear developments are concerned. The contradictions we see in various high-source statements must, therefore, be purely politically motivated.

It is easy to understand why the Israelis behave as though they are sure that Iran already has or is about to have the feared atomic weapon and the means of delivering a death blow to the Zionist state. They have already announced over and over again that, should it be deemed necessary, Israel would take out Iranian installations with or without the help or approval of the big daddy. They, of course, know fully well what repercussions such an action would have against America's interests in the region and worldwide.

The current Israeli military chief Gabi Ashkenazi is due in Washington to heighten the state of alert regarding the Iran threat. Meanwhile, Mr. Netanyahu, the new Prime Minister designate, is raising the alarm signaling a pending war against Iran, Hezbollah and other sources of concern for Israel.

This heightened frenzy by the Israelis and their staunch supporters here in the United States, AIPAC and its subordinate Zionist organizations, as well as the influential Jewish-dominated congressional committees overseeing America's Middle East policies (not just a coincidence, by the way!), all point to their concern over any shift in Obama administration's attitude toward possible reconciliation with Israel's designated enemies. The accounts of the recent House Financial Services Subcommittee meeting that addressed the issue of economic sanctions against Iran is a good example of how the few passionate supporters of the Likud regime steer the policies of the United States to serve Israel's objectives.

The House Subcommittee had also invited the head of National Iranian American Council (NIAC), Trita Parsi, as a guest to express his constituents' perspective on the effectiveness or the merits of economic sanctions on Iran. Even the venerable Dr. Parsi was clearly cowed into expressing accommodating statements in his report:

"In recent years, we have also seen what seems to be a specific targeting by the Iranian government of Iranian Americans. Esha Momeni, an Iranian-American student born in California, was imprisoned a few months ago while visiting Iran to write a Master's thesis on the country's vibrant women's movement. Roxana Saberi, an Iranian-American journalist with NPR and a Miss America finalist, was arrested a few weeks ago while working in Tehran and is still being detained in Evin prison. In both cases, the human rights of these young Iranian-American women were violated by initially denying them legal counsel and by holding them without revealing the charges against them. And the 2007 imprisonment of Dr. Haleh Esfandiari, Director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, is of course known to all."

"My prepared remarks today will focus on how America's objectives with Iran can best be achieved � ensuring a peaceful Iran that contributes to regional stability, that does not develop a nuclear bomb, and that ceases to support militant organizations." (My emphasis)

Was Mr. Parsi implying agreement to the accusations leveled against the Iranian regime, even though he had chosen his words rather carefully?

Had Dr. Parsi not been prepared to show this kowtowing to the prevailing propaganda lines, his own future as an occasional guest on news talk shows, as well as the future of the organization which he is so ably heading, would be in real jeopardy.

I personally feel sorry for Trita Parsi and don't envy his position. I am, however, quite confident that we are not seeing another Fuad Ajami in the making.

Another case in point: The latest effort by the hard core rightwing Israel supporters in the United States was to torpedo the nomination of Chas Freeman, as the Chair of the National Intelligence Council, which oversees the production of National Intelligence Estimates. Chas Freeman was nominated by Admiral Dennis Blair for the post, precisely because of Mr. Freeman's extensive Foreign Service background and independent voice, to ensure honest and impartial appraisal of developments that would concern America's security interests.

But the lobby doesn't want any honest and impartial appraisals of the situation that might disagree with Israel's contentions. Steven Rosen, who was indicted for espionage for Israel in 2005, was a long-term official at AIPAC, and is now involved with its satellite organization, Middle East Forum, spearheaded the campaign of defamation against Mr. Freeman. Senators Chuck Schumer and Joseph Lieberman then organized their lobbying efforts in the US Congress to stop this nomination.

Well, they succeeded. It now remains to be seen what might become of Admiral Dennis Blair who had dared to appoint an honest man who was not Israel-loving enough to a post that might have a bearing on American policy in the Middle East.

OK! Now imagine how the Israeli lobby and its supporters in our Congress and the media would react if our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had exhibited her honest reaction to Israel's announcement to double the number of illegal settlements in the West Bank or the latest atrocities committed against the Gazans. Would rumors then quickly circulate that Mrs. Clinton and North Korea's Kim Jong-il have had an illicit relationship of some sort, and that the Clinton Library was receiving a percentage of moneys from the sale of North Korean nuclear technology to Al Gha-eda?!

Now let us go back to the theoretical or, better put, theatrical postulate of having the Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the former President Carter somehow pass through the Zionist minefield and report for duty in handling our negotiations with the Iranians. The lobby and its supporters would quickly conclude that Mr. Obama might be putting America's best interests in the region ahead of Israel's agendas.

This is certainly not going to sit well with Israel's hardliners such as the Prime Minister designate Mr. Netanyahu or Avigdor Lieberman, the head of Israel's far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party. And, there are other knuckleheads who lack the diplomatic knowledge or the shrewd bargaining skills of Israel's top leaders, whose basic aim is to gain for Israel whatever perceived advantage they can at everybody else's expense if need be. Just as the biggest danger in nuclear proliferation is in portable weapons falling into the hands of isolated rogue terrorists, the danger here is in a few Israeli hardheads triggering some event in the Persian Gulf that would drag the United States and Iran into a real confrontation. Nobody wants that; this would benefit no one, not even Israel.

To avoid such an eventuality, it would be imperative to maintain the posture of accommodation to whatever Israel demands in order to appease potential troublemakers. If a confrontation with Iran is to be avoided, Israel's ultra hardliners must be satisfied that their expectations and requirements are not negotiated away in any arrangements between the United States and Iran.

Israel's demands are quite clear and have never been in doubt, ignored or unattained:

• Indefinite postponement of any land for peace agreement with the Palestinians, with the blame always on the Palestinian inflexibility. Israel is not ready, willing or even able to move out of the West Bank and dismantle its settlements anytime soon.

• Containment of both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, while keeping them as aggrandized sources of nuisance to further legitimize Israel's aggressive operations whenever they are deemed necessary.

• Remaining the recipient of the lion's share of financial, diplomatic and military aid and support from the United States.

• Remaining the unchallenged military power in the region.

By successfully portraying itself as an indispensable ally of the United States, under constant threat of annihilation by America's own enemies, and chastised by other unfriendly states around the globe, Israel has managed to create such a convincing narrative in the minds of most Americans that parallels the status of a religious faith.

Today, if one were to ask the average American if he or she could name at least one advantage America's passionate attachment to Israel has brought to our nation, the response would likely be an incredulous look of disbelief as though one had just questioned the existence of god!

In the face of the foregoing, how could the Obama Administration approach Iran in a diplomatic dialogue with any hope of success in any other way than maintaining the fa�ade of the prevailing political rhetoric while engaging in some serious horse trading in the background?

I may be too optimistic, overly Machiavellian, or really na�ve, to think that the hardline rhetoric from the White House, Hillary Clinton's non-conciliatory remarks against Iran and her appointment of the Zionist lobbyist Dennis Ross as her front man to deal with Iran are all steps necessary to engage Iran in a meaningful rapprochement, without alienating the pro-Israel forces who could torpedo the whole process.

The Iranian side, no doubt, has its own very similar dilemma in "unclenching its fist" toward the stretched hand of the United States.

Unlike their American counterparts, the Iranian people have not had the luxury of a self-delusional belief in the freedom and openness of their news media and access to honest information. It is not out of prejudice caused by propaganda or an endemic sense of paranoia that the Iranians attribute their social and economic ills, directly or indirectly, to Iran's relations with the United States: directly, as a result of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressures; and indirectly, because of the threats against the security and territorial integrity of the country, which continue to strengthen and legitimize social strangulation, postponing reforms toward normalization and true democracy.

Again, unlike their American counterparts, The Iranians view the state of Israel as an illegitimate child adopted by rich and powerful parents and nurtured to grow into an arrogant bully who pushes its weight around and, whenever necessary, throws a temper tantrum to get whatever it demands.

Iranians, therefore, blame Israel's stranglehold on America's foreign policy apparatus as the mechanism responsible for the widening rift between the two countries. They did not have to read John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt book, the Israel Lobby, to reach that conclusion.

For this reason, any reconciliation with the United States that might entail the appearance of submission or capitulation by Iran or the abandonment of Iran's legal rights in the eyes of Iran's leadership and parliamentarians would prove unattainable.

While the Iranian people who have been suffering increasing social and economic pressures are much more ready to exchange some of their ideological points of contention for pragmatic or material relief, the leadership, as is the case with their counterparts in the United States, is obligated to maintain its defiant fa�ade.

Behind all the saber rattling and chest thumping by both sides, sober negotiations could bring about a degree of understanding and mutual accommodation that would benefit all.

My hope is that the balancing act on the tightrope extended over the burnt bridges will succeed in bringing about positive results for both Iran and the United States. The alternative is too horrible for all concerned to think about.

What does The Pirate Bay ruling mean for the web?

LONDON, April 19 – Does the court ruling against The Pirate Bay mean that illegal online filesharing has been scuttled?

It has certainly fired a powerful warning shot across the bows of those who would follow the site’s lead: The Pirate Bay’s co-founders, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde, Frederik Neij and Carl Lundstrom, have been found guilty of breaking Swedish copyright law and sentenced to a year in jail.

They have also been ordered to pay damages of 30 million kronor (£2 million) to several entertainment companies named in the lawsuit, including Sony Music, Warner Bros and EMI, who accused The Pirate Bay of facilitating the illegal sharing of their copyrighted material.

Although The Pirate Bay did not itself host any of these files, it did provide links to other websites and torrent services where music and films could be illegally acquired. Nonetheless, the court ruling has fundamentally asserted the right of media companies to have their creative copyright internationally recognised and upheld, and to exploit this material as they see fit for financial benefit.

It has also clearly demonstrated that even those websites which do not host illegal material, but simply point to it, can be held responsible for subsequent copyright infringement.

It begs a number of important questions, not least how the ruling will affect search engines. Will Google, for example, fall foul of copyright laws simply for returning a search result that links to a site that does not have permission to host copyrighted material?

Mark Mulligan, an analyst with Forrester Research, said The Pirate Bay had positioned itself as a sort of 21st-century “digital Robin Hood”, stealing from “fat cat media companies” to redistribute creative wealth among the “poor consumers”.

Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, one of the defendants, called himself “captain in Sweden’s battle against corporate America”, a view that enraged the entertainment industry.

The fact remains, though, that The Pirate Bay is simply the latest in a long line of filesharing websites against whom legal action has been taken, and yet the levels of online piracy shows no signs of abating.

The prosecution of Napster almost a decade ago was supposed to nip piracy in the bud; instead, canny web users have simply found other ways to swap music and videos, be it through instant-messages or emails, or sharing hard drives and music libraries.

Given that such legal action does not appear to be producing the desired effect of stemming the tide of copyrighted material, it begs the question as to why the industry continues to fight these battles in court.

Mark Mulligan believes that the answer is quite simply because it has to be seen to be doing something.

“It’s the same reason that customs officials and police continue to fight illegal trafficking of drugs and other contraband despite doing little more than scratching the surface of the problem,” he writes on his blog. “If the music industry isn’t seeing to be taking action then it effectively turns on a green light to the illegal sector.”

While the industry’s desire for legal resolution to its woes is understandable, the music labels, in particular, are starting to realise that the best way of combating illegal filesharing is to beat the pirates at their own game – to fight free with free.

Music streaming services such as Last.fm and Spotify, which allow music-lovers to listen to millions of tracks for free, over the web, are at last providing a real alternative to torrent sites.

The music is not only 100 per cent legal, but it’s also invariably of better quality, and without the inherent risks of viruses and malware that’s usually part and parcel of using torrent services.

And free has, in some cases, proven to be a successful business model for people. Author Paulo Cohelo, for example, discovered that sharing foreign language translations of his best-seller, The Alchemist, online, actually increased sales of the hard copy novel.

And Trent Reznor from rock band the Nine Inch Nails is blazing a trail, experimenting with new ways of connecting with fans, pioneering digital technology and giving away some tracks for free while instead charging for premium content that true fans will always invest in.

It is perhaps ironic that before the Swedish courts gave their official ruling on the trial this morning, the guilty verdict had already been leaked online.

“Really, it’s a bit LOL,” said Peter Kolmisoppi, one of the team behind The Pirate Bay. “It used to be only movies (that were leaked online), now even verdicts are out before the official release”.

Perhaps the fact that Sweden’s National Museum of Science and Technology has acquired one of The Pirate Bay’s servers for its collection demonstrates that some, at least, believe online filesharing and piracy is soon to become a relic of a bygone age.

But a generation reared on the free consumption of music, film and TV shows over the internet would beg to differ.

While The Pirate Bay might have sunk, there will be many more sites just like it sailing in to view on the horizon, looking to continue what the Swedes started. – The Sunday Telegraph

First Iran, now Arabs going nuclear

By Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, Al-Jazeera

There is a renewed effort to engage with Iran about its nuclear programme. Washington has expressed a willingness to hold direct talks with Tehran, which marks a dramatic shift between the policy of Barack Obama, the US president, and his predecessor George Bush.

The emphasis on dialogue comes as North Korea signals that it is restarting a nuclear plant that produces arms-grade plutonium, and Arab nations are importing nuclear technology and assistance at an unprecedented pace.

Al Jazeera spoke to Richard Falk, the chair of the board at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, about Iran's nuclear programme, its effect on regional Arab ambitions for nuclear power, and whether the Middle East will enter a nuclear arms race.

The following are excerpts from the interview:

Al Jazeera: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, recently announced the opening of a nuclear fuel plant, and stressed Iran's ability and right to enrich uranium. But, he also welcomed constructive dialogue with the US and other powers. What motives are behind his statements?

Falk: I think it is difficult to assess the motives behind this kind of Iranian public initiative. It may be connected with domestic politics - the election campaign there - where Ahmadinejad is trying to present himself as a leader who has restored Iran's stature and that this stature is associated symbolically with a robust nuclear programme.

It may also be a signal that though Iran seems receptive to resuming some kind of negotiations about their nuclear programme ... this shouldn't be made too easily.

It could be that this is part of a bargaining strategy by indicating that they already have enrichment capabilities and if they were to curtail them they would have to be given quite a bit in exchange.

Are Arab states pursuing nuclear programmes due to growing energy demands or does the perceived threat from Iran's apparent capability to develop nuclear weapons play a role?

Often in these kinds of decisions the true motives are disguised and the public explanations are presented in the most acceptable, least provocative form.

I think that is the case here. Most of the rationale for these expanded nuclear energy programmes are almost always related to domestic factors, increasing electricity demand and the expense of importing energy.

It is hard not to believe, given the geopolitical climate in the region - not only Iran, but the Iraq war and other factors like Israel's nuclear capabilities - that the geo-strategic factors have not entered into the motives of all these countries going in that direction.

Of course, they are also imitating one another. There is a sense that if you don't move in this direction you are acknowledging you are subordinate or marginalised in the region.

There is also a prestige element at work. It is extremely hard to read the hierarchy of motives. In the background it is probably the way in which India and Pakistan evolved their nuclear programmes.

They developed over time and as a result, India began to be taken seriously as a world power when it crossed the nuclear threshhold.

Will the Middle East witness a race for nuclear technologies?

The background of all of this is the abandonment by the Arab countries of their earlier mission of seeking a nuclear-free region that are directed at weapons and combining it with regional security.

Perhaps it is an interpretation that Israel is never going to go along with the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East.

And now that Iran is at least a latent nuclear weapons state, it doesn't make any sense to proceed in that direction anymore, rather to the extent that strategic considerations are at work.

It seems that the leading Arab countries think that they need to have their own long-term security. It should be a contingency option for them.

Arab leaders have implied that Israel does not want to see Arab countries acquire nuclear technology and has thwarted their efforts to advance their programmes. Is there truth to this?

As you suggested, the evidence over the years is that Israel becomes very nervous when any of the Arab countries move in directions that could challenge its regional military superiority.

Though that is sort of a remote prospect, the manner in which Israel views its relationship with its neighbours is such that it has consistently opposed arms sales of any kind or of enhancement of their potential capabilities.

Maybe Israel would prefer to see the Arab countries energy-dependent rather than energy-independent. I think it is consistent with the kind of regional hegemonic ambition that Israel both defensively and offensively assert.

Thirty years ago you called for a total renunciation of nuclear power in exchange for other pollution-free energy sources and have been since. Obama has also pledged to create a nuclear-free world. But is it too late?

I think it is already too late. A number of elements make it too late.

The first of which is this sense that alternative energy is indispensable for dealing with the limitations on oil supply and in the face of increasing demand for oil and gas, combined with considerations for climate change and combined with the fact that there is a sufficient commitment on the part of a sufficient number of important states that it is just implausible to think that this kind of total de-nuclearisation can occur.

The only thing that might give it a renewed possibility is another Chernobyl-type accident. Or several Chernobyls which would highlight the other aspect of developing nuclear energy - what you do with the waste and a variety of related things.

Jordan wants to maintain their right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But the UAE has unilaterally given up theirs to prove their peaceful intentions to advance their programme. Should Arab countries be allowed to enrich uranium?

The US geopolitical discipline in relation to nuclear energy and weapons has faced a two-tier view of international legitimacy. Some countries are allowed to have the weapons and other countries are not.

Of the ones that are, most say that the others are not allowed to come close to the threshhold. At the same time, from the perspective of the international law regime embodied by the NPT, it was supposed to be consistent with having the complete benefits of peaceful uses, including the option to develop the nuclear fuel cycle.

You have a much stricter regime geopolitically than you do legally. The UAE is trying to conform to the geopolitical discipline or reality by assuring the world its nuclear energy programme is accepting international inspection and forgoing the option to reprocess nuclear fuel or have the enrichment capability.

I suppose the UAE is trying to make itself look like the optimal actor of how to ensure the energy security transition beyond the petroleum age. They also have the resources to pull off the kind of programme there.

Is it fair for 'nuclear weapons states' to tell others they cannot produce weapons without stripping down their own nuclear arsenals?

The fascinating fact is that they have been able to successfully for 45 years convince most of the actors in the world that they are better off going along with nonproliferation charades, rather than repudiating them.

It is based on this whole pervasive double standard that is embedded in the whole idea of nuclear nonproliferation and what I call the mind game that has been successfully played by the nuclear weapons states that makes us believe that the danger comes more from those who don't have the weapons, rather than those who have the weapons.

Nuclear weapons states have not fulfilled the Article Six pledge of nuclear disarmament. It was unanimously affirmed in the advisory opinion of the world court of the legality of nuclear weapons.

It was divided on the issues of use, but unanimous on obligation to seek in good faith and I think they have not acted in good faith and fulfilled the real bargain. Therefore non-nuclear states, from a legal point of view, would be quite entitled to say they are no longer bound either.

Is it in the interest of these states, particularly Israel and the US, to work toward military de-nuclearisation?

I would think it is in Israel's long term interest. It is particularly pertinent to the region because there are several dimensions of unresolved conflict, one important adversary posses a rather formidable nuclear weapons capability, others, particularly Iran have clearly latent potential.

So if one is thinking from the perspective of conflict avoidance or war prevention, it could seem that one is at a point where it would make a lot of sense to exert that kind of political pressure.

Israel talks a lot about attacking Iran, but that is filled with uncertainty and probably would generate a very strong backlash in the region and possibly even in the US and Europe. They stand to gain a lot by a reliable process of regional regulation, security, system of mutual non-aggression.

In that sense it exposes the unwillingness of the US to press Israel in the way it would press other countries, which is illustrative of another aspect of these double standard in nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.

Aiming for a new Americas

By Lucia Newman, Latin America editor, in Trinidad, for Al-Jazeera

Expectations for an important shift in relations between the US and its southern neighbours are high as leaders from every country in the Americas - with the exception of Cuba - gather in Trinidad and Tobago for the fifth summit of the Americas.

The summit was launched in 1994, with a clear mandate to establish a "hemispheric free trade zone" of the Americas, reaching from Alaska in the north to Tierra del Fuego in the south by 2005.

A lot has happened since then and the political map of Latin America, particularly South America, has changed radically.

A region that for more than a century took its cue from Washington, and was often ruled by US-backed military governments, is now led almost entirely by left or centre-left governments which have declared their political and economic independence.

'Equal' relationship

In a possible sign of the changing economic times, the insistence on a hemispheric free trade accord has been scrapped, replaced by an agenda that focuses on human prosperity, environmental sustainability and energy security.

And Latin American and Caribbean leaders are also interested in something else.

They are looking for a different, more equal kind of relationship with the world's biggest superpower, and for the first time, the president of the US seems to be willing to listen.

"Times have changed," said Barack Obama in an interview with a Spanish language television network.

"I think it's important for the US not to tell other countries how to ... structure their democratic practices and what should be contained in their constitutions."

US-Chavez meeting

The reference to internal politics was clearly directed at Washington's staunchest opponent in the region, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, who once compared Bush to "Satan" and Adolf Hitler.

He will come face to face for the first time with the new US president.

"The summit is an opportunity to reset Latin America's relations with the United States," says Chavez.

Nevertheless, on the eve of the summit of the Americas, the Venezuelan leader hosted a meeting of ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America) with the presidents of Nicaragua, Cuba and Bolivia, in which he said he and others would veto the US-backed final declaration of the summit, because it is "misplaced in time and space".

"Let us hope that the president of the United States goes there to listen," added Chavez.

"We are going to speak our truth."

Cuba pressure

One of those "truths" not on the official agenda but which will clearly be on the table is the absence of Cuba.

The one-party state was expelled in 1962 from the Organisation of American States (OAS) under whose auspices the summit of the Americas is held.

Every nation in Latin America and the Caribbean is calling for the US to end its 47-year economic and political embargo against Cuba, and Obama will be reminded that the rest of the region wants Cuba brought back into the fold.

On the eve of the summit, the US president did announce measures aimed at "reaching out to the Cuban people", which include lifting restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba by Cuban-Americans.

But regional leaders say that is not enough.

"I have told ... Obama that there is no academic, sociological, political, economic, ethical or moral explanation for maintaining the blockade against Cuba," Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, said in a recent interview with Al Jazeera.

Obama has responded by saying that Washington has made the first gesture and now Cuba must take the next step by moving forward on human rights issues.

"We are willing to talk about anything he wants, human rights, freedom of the press, whatever, but always on equal terms and without the slightest shade of doubt about our sovereignty," Raul Castro, president of Cuba, responded.

But the summit organisers are concerned the Cuba issue could overshadow the stated goals of the summit and the opportunity to discuss co-ordinated actions aimed at overcoming the current economic crisis.

"Yes, we welcome the discussion on Cuba. Yes, there are statements to be made, but not in any aggressive form, so as to take away from what we are truly here for," Paula Gopee-Scoon, the Trinidadian foreign minister, said on Friday.