Argentina's Cristina Fernandez begins second term of presidency

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Argentine President Cristina Fernandez took the oath of office for the second time Saturday, the only female leader in Latin America to ever be re-elected, in an inauguration marked by a tearful tribute to her late husband and political partner.

Fernandez, 58, held back tears as she pledged before Congress and a gathering of foreign dignitaries to honor the constitution and the memory of the late President Nestor Kirchner.

"I swear to God, the country and the blessed saints to carry out the office of the president and to honor ... the Argentine constitution," said Fernandez, who wore a black dress with a wide belt and sleeves of transparent lace — mourning garb of the kind she has used since Kirchner's death in October 2010.

"If I don't, then let God, the country and him take me to task for it," the president added, her voice cracking with emotion as she referred to Kirchner.

After accepting the wooden presidential baton decorated with a gold-and-silver version of Argentina's national shield, Fernandez remarked, "This is not an easy day. ...

The president entered the House of Deputies accompanied by her children, Maximo and Florencia, and received the baton from Florencia.

Fernandez summarized a litany of accomplishments during her first term, including policies that have led to the resumption of trials for former officials accused of rights violations during the country's last military dictatorship, which lasted from 1976 to 1983.

The bulk of her support comes from the working classes, who have received pay and pension increases as well as more public aid under her government.

She's also continued evoking the legacy of her late husband, whose death sparked enormous public sympathy at a time when her presidency had been losing support.

At the same time, Argentina's 40 million people are facing economic uncertainty, and the big question for Fernandez is whether to continue the government spending and price controls that worked so well in her first term.

Cutting public spending to prepare Argentina for a dicier economic climate could bring political harm, so the president is expected to try to strengthen the economy without cutting social programs dear to her base.

Fernandez and outgoing Economy Minister Amado Boudou, who assumed the office of vice president, took their oaths before outgoing Vice President Julio Cobos, who has distanced himself from Fernandez over the past two years.

Foreign dignitaries attending the inauguration included female Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff; the presidents of Bolivia, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay and Uruguay; U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and President Barack Obama's senior adviser on Latin America, Daniel Restrepo.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had planned to attend, but canceled at the last minute, citing the need to attend to the needs of citizens in his own country who had been affected by heavy rains that led to flooding and mudslides and claimed the lives of at least eight people.

The 57-year-old president had a cancerous tumor removed from his pelvic region in June and underwent four rounds of chemotherapy. He has said that he is now cancer-free. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro attended the inauguration in his place.

Gingrich assailed by rivals, fires back at Romney

Attacked as a lifelong Washington insider, newly minted Republican front-runner Newt Gingrich parried criticism from Mitt Romney in campaign debate Saturday night, telling the former Massachusetts governor, "The only reason you didn't become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994."

Gingrich also defended against attacks from Texas Rep. Michele Bachmann in the first debate since he soared to the lead in polls nationally and in Iowa. Caucuses on Jan. 3 in this state will kick off the competition for Republican National Convention delegates who will pick an opponent to President Barack Obama.

Under questioning from Paul, Gingrich said he had never lobbied for Freddie Mac, a quasi-government agency that paid him at least $1.6 million to provide strategic advice. Paul shot back, "It's the taxpayers' money, though. We were bailing them out."

The tone was respectful, at least in the early moments of the debate, the stakes ever higher as six rivals met on a stage in the Iowa capital city. The debate was the 12th since the long campaign began, and the first since Herman Cain's candidacy imploded after allegations of sexual harassment and an extra-marital affair.

Romney, Gingrich and Paul said they favored it. Bachmann, Texas Gov., Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said they opposed the measure.

Whatever the impact of their differences on the presidential race, the internal disagreement could well portend difficulties for legislation that Obama has proposed and Republican leaders in Congress view as essential if the party is to avoid being tagged for raising taxes.


Paul has been airing television commercials in Iowa attacking the former House speaker, and Romney's campaign has become increasingly critical of him, bolstered by a multimillion-dollar television ad campaign that is financed by allies.

Bachmann criticized Gingrich for first supporting a requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance in 1993. She folded Romney into her attack, saying he had pushed successfully for a state health care law as Massachusetts governor that contained an individual mandate.


Gingrich's decision to invoke Kennedy, the late senator from Massachusetts, served as a dual reminder — that Romney has been running for office since the mid-1990s and also that he lost to the man whose politics conservatives detested above all others.

As for the question of whether he would have become a career politician if he'd beaten Kennedy, Romney replied with a smile that if he'd been good enough to play in the National Football League, as he had hoped, "I would have been a football star all my life, too."

He then tried to turn the tables, saying his defeat in 1994 "was probably the best thing I could have done for preparing me for the job I am seeking, because it put me back in the private sector."

Kolkata: 73 dead in AMRI Hospital fire, owners surrender

Kolkata: The owners of AMRI Hospital, RS Goenka and SK Todi, have surrendered before the Kolkata police at Lal Bazar Police Headquarters on Friday after a major fire at the hospital in South Kolkata left 73 dead. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee claimed that at least 73 people are dead in the major fire that broke out at AMRI Hospital in Dhakuria in south Kolkata on Friday.

Out of the 73 dead, 70 were patients and 3 were the hospital staff. Reports said that the hospital authorities fled from the spot. Meanwhile, the registration of the hospital has also been cancelled the West Bengal government.

As angry relatives gathered at the hospital to look for their loved ones, they vent their ire at the lack of relief and rescue efforts by the hospital authorities by damaging AMRI's properties.

AMRI Hospital is jointly promoted by the RS Goenka-led Emami Group and the SK Todi-led Shrachi Group of companies. Emami shares were down by 1.71 per cent when the news last came in on Friday ( Sensex fell by 1.8 per cent).

Mamata rushed to the spot on Friday morning to take stock of the situation and also ordered an FIR against the hospital authorities.

West Bengal Health Minister Sudip Bandhyopadhyay said that the West Bengal Government was shocked to know that the fire safety measures were not in place in the hospital.


The angry relatives of the patients who died alleged that the hospital staff abandoned patients and did not help them rush out. They said that this resulted in suffocation, and therefore, deaths of the patients.


"Isn't it strange that in such a fire only patients lose their lives and not a single casualty from the hospital. They left the patients to choke to death," said an angry relative of a patient.


Upset and angry relatives destroyed hospital property shouting slogans against authorities for not having enough fire safety measures. The fire had also engulfed the ICU and relatives claim that they were the ones who rescued most patients and that help arrived much later. A few of them also heckled officials at the spot
.

Reports said many bodies were moved to SSKM hospital. The identification of bodies was on but sources said some of the bodies may not be identified as they were charred.


"The fire engulfed four floors of one of the buildings of the AMRI hospital in Dhakuria," an officer manning the city police control room told IANS over phone.


The 161-bed hospital is located in Dhakuria in Kolkata.
Firemen using ladders smashed window panes in the facade to rescue patients trapped inside the ICU, ICCU, ITU and Critical Care units.



The hospital also did not have proper fire-fighting equipment, he said.

Fire brigade sources said that firemen were trying to locate oxygen cylinders stocked on the floors, as the fire could make them explode.

Osborne says EU treaty veto helps protect UK interests

services and manufacturers had been protected from "eurozone integration spilling over" and affecting non-euro members.

He said the government was not prepared to allow the "full force" of European institutions to undermine UK interests.

The prime minister blocked changes to the EU's Lisbon Treaty at an EU summit that ended in Brussels on Friday.

It now looks likely that all 26 other members of the European Union will agree to a new "accord" setting out tougher budget rules.

Labour said the UK would be left out of key European Union decisioChancellor George Osborne says David Cameron's decision to veto changes to the European Union treaty has "helped protect Britain's economic interests".

He said Britain's financial ns affecting the country's future.

But Mr Osborne told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Mr Cameron made a tough decision that was "the right one for Britain".

"We have protected Britain's financial services, and manufacturing companies that need to be able to trade their businesses, their products, into Europe. We've protected all these industries from the development of eurozone integration spilling over and affecting the non-euro members of the European Union."
Continue reading the main story
Analysis
image of Robin Brant Robin Brant Political Correspondent, BBC News

Andrew Rosindell, who was one of the 30 or so whom he invited for dinner at his official country home on Friday night, described the prime minister as "very relaxed, very happy and very confident". The event had been arranged last week, apparently.

It was a mixture of people in attendance. All Tory MPs, but not all of the Eurosceptic persuasion. Mr Rosindell, who earlier in the week had urged Mr Cameron to show some "bulldog spirit", described the event on his phone just as he was leaving. "We had a wonderful evening," he said, adding "the mood was extremely positive".

He refused to say if there had been any backslapping or cheering for the prime minister, or any jokes or jeers at the expense of the French president.

Mr Osborne said Mr Cameron's veto was not "some sort of secret negotiating position" and that he had done "exactly what he said he was going to do".

"If we had signed this treaty - if David Cameron had broken his word to parliament and the public, gone there and caved in without getting the safeguards he was looking for - then we would have found the full force of the European treaties, the European court, the European Commission, all these institutions enforcing those treaties, using that opportunity to undermine Britain's interests, undermine the single market.

Mr Cameron is facing intense scrutiny over his veto, with some Lib Dem critics saying he is appeasing the Tory right.

However, Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes denied any rift between his party and the Conservatives, telling the BBC News Channel that the coalition had agreed on the negotiating position.

He said he "regretted" that an agreement had not been reached that would allow all 27 EU countries "to be together on all issues", but he "accepted" Mr Cameron's judgement that the offer was not acceptable.

"It's always a matter of judgement as to whether we would be able to make a deal or not - and the PM formed the judgement that the offer was not acceptable.

"So, yes, I accept that, but I don't agree it puts us outside of the European Union. We're clearly absolutely there."

Michael Fallon, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, said Britain did not want its tax and spending decisions to be made in Brussels and it wanted to stay out of decisions on the euro currency.

He said the UK would "still play a full part at all the major EU meetings that look at the internal market, and how the market works for business - that's important for British jobs".

'Floating into Atlantic'

Former Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Heseltine earlier told the Today programme that the political situation meant it would have been impossible for Mr Cameron to have agreed to treaty changes.

"He didn't sign and he couldn't have signed because he hasn't got a parliamentary majority today to take us down that road," he said.

But the Conservative peer, one of his party's most pro-European figures, said Mr Cameron's move had not safeguarded the City, which was his stated priority.

"They (the Europeans) could theoretically create rules for the eurozone which would make it difficult to trade outside it in financial service activities and that's the fear," Lord Heseltine said.

"In saying that he wanted to protect the interests of the City he was agreeing that there were interests to protect, and there's no way you can protect those interests by floating off into the Atlantic."

Labour leader Ed Miliband said the UK would now be excluded from key economic decisions and UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said the outcome was "the worst of all worlds" for the UK, leaving the country in Europe but without power.

Mr Cameron met about 30 Conservative backbenchers at his official country residence on Friday night.

One Eurosceptic MP - Andrew Rosindell - said the mood had been "extremely positive".

UK alone as EU agrees fiscal deal

David Cameron has defended his decision to block an EU-wide treaty change to tackle the eurozone crisis, despite warnings it will leave the UK isolated.

It looks likely that all 26 other members of the European Union will instead agree to a new "accord" setting out tougher budget rules.

Labour said the UK would be left out of key decisions affecting its future.

But the PM said the UK remained a "full and very influential member" of Europe on the issues that mattered to it.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she "regretted" that the UK was "not able to go along the same path" as the rest of Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Mr Cameron had made "unacceptable" demands for exemptions from EU financial regulation for the City of London.

National budgets

Having failed to reach an agreement of all 27 EU members, the 17 eurozone countries and the other EU states apart from the UK are expected to sign up to the new deal, which includes:
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

    a commitment to "balanced budgets" for eurozone countries - defined as a structural deficit no greater than 0.5% of gross domestic product - to be written into national constitutions
    automatic sanctions for any eurozone country whose deficit exceeds 3% of GDP
    a requirement to submit their national budgets to the European Commission, which will have the power to request that they be revised
    eurozone and other EU countries to consider, within the next 10 days, providing up to 200bn euros to the International Monetary Fund to help debt-stricken eurozone members

Mr Cameron said the abandoned treaty change involving all 27 members had been in danger of "distorting the single market".

"I think I did the right thing for Britain," he said. "We were offered a treaty that didn't have proper safeguards for Britain and I decided it was not right to sign that treaty."

'Powerful player'


He added: "This does represent a change in our relationship with Europe, but the core of our relationship - the single market, the trade, the investment, the growth, the jobs that we want to see - that remains as it was."

He said the UK was a leading European player in Nato and an important member of the single market - but was not in the eurozone or the Schengen agreement on open borders.

"I think it's right for Britain to say: 'Well, which bits of Europe most benefit us as a nation?' and to focus on those things and I'm not frightened of the fact sometimes you might not be included in some things."

He said on the "key decisions" that mattered - such as the single market and trade, Britain remained a "full and very influential member" of Europe.

The decision was welcomed by some of Mr Cameron's MPs. Mark Reckless said the PM had been "as good as his word" while Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson said Mr Cameron had "played a blinder".

But Labour leader Ed Miliband said the prime minister had "mishandled these negotiations spectacularly".

"It's a terrible outcome for Britain because we are going to be now excluded from key economic decisions that will affect our country in the future," he said.

Mr Miliband said Mr Cameron had not "put in the hard yards of negotiation" that were necessary to build alliances and strengthen his position.

"What I find incredible is that he simply ended the negotiations yesterday and said that was it. He could have carried on negotiating today to get a better outcome for Britain."

'Tough rules'

Mr Sarkozy said Mr Cameron's insistence on a protocol allowing London to opt out of proposed changes to the rules governing financial services was "unacceptable", because a lack of regulation was behind much of the debt crisis.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote


German Chancellor Mrs Merkel said: "I didn't think David Cameron sat with us at the table.

"We had to get some sort of agreement and we couldn't make compromises, we had to meet tough rules."

UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said the outcome was "the worst of all worlds" for the UK, leaving the country in Europe but without power.

'Absolutely nothing'

Labour and UKIP both warned that Mr Cameron had actually secured no new safeguards for the City of London - despite stating that that was a priority.

Mr Farage said: "We finish this summit with Cameron having gained absolutely nothing, with the prospect of us repatriating powers having disappeared completely and with the City of London, that he sought to protect, now more vulnerable than it has ever been."
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

    I think any eurosceptic who might be rubbing their hands in glee about the outcome of the summit last night should be careful what they wish for”

Foreign Secretary William Hague said earlier that signing up to the amended EU treaty would have led to the UK handing over more national sovereignty to Brussels.

But German MEP Elmar Brok said the rules would have had "no impact" on Britain because they only applied to eurozone countries and said Britain was now "isolated and marginalised".

UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg - whose Liberal Democrat party is more pro-European than their coalition partners - said he regretted the failure to reach an agreement with all 27 EU states but said Mr Cameron had simply been seeking a "level playing field" across Europe.

But he warned eurosceptics against "rubbing their hands in glee": "Clearly there is potentially an increased risk of a two-speed Europe in which Britain's position becomes more marginalised, and in the long-run that would be bad for growth and jobs in this country."

He said Britain would now "redouble our efforts" to ensure the single market was "properly guaranteed".

However others in his party were more critical. Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott said: "It is a black day for Britain and Europe. We are now in the waiting room while critical decisions are being taken."

Wary US uncertain of Israel’s Iran plans

WASHINGTON: The Obama administration does not know Israel’s intentions regarding potential military action against Iran, and the uncertainty is stoking concern in Washington, where the preferred course for now is sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
Although Israel remains one of the United States’ closest allies and the two countries’ officials are in regular contact, US officials have a “sense of opacity” regarding what might prompt an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear sites, and about when such an attack might occur, according to a senior US national security official.

Two key US senators acknowledged on Tuesday that there are gaps in US knowledge about Israeli leaders’ thinking and intentions.

“I don’t think the administration knows what Israel is going to do. I’m not sure Israel knows what Israel is going to do…That’s why they want to keep the other guys guessing. Keep the bad guys guessing,” said Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator John McCain, the senior Republican on the committee, echoed Levin’s view: “I’m sure (administration officials) don’t know what the Israelis are going to do. They didn’t know when the Israelis hit the reactor in Syria. But the Israelis usually know what we’re going to do.”

In one way, the ambiguity is an advantage for the United States, because Washington could claim it had no foreknowledge of any Israeli attack, which would almost certainly increase anti-American sentiment among many Muslims in the Middle East.

Israeli leaders have not suggested an attack on Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons sites is imminent. But neither have they — or US President Barack Obama, for that matter — ruled it out.
Israel, widely believed to have the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, says a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten its existence. Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and denies Western accusations it is seeking an atomic bomb.

‘Unintended consequences’

The uncertainty comes amid extraordinarily sharp public warnings in the last few weeks by US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta about the potential “unintended consequences” of military action against Iran.
Panetta told a forum in Washington last week that an attack on Iran would risk “an escalation” that could “consume the Middle East in confrontation and conflict that we would regret.”

It could disrupt the fragile economies of the United States and Europe, spark a popular backlash in Iran bolstering its rulers and put US forces in the region in the firing line, he said. “The United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases,” Panetta said.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Reuters in an interview he did not know whether the Jewish state would give the United States notice ahead of time if it decided to act.
An Israeli government official said, “Israel and the United States are in close and continuous communication on the threat posed to world security by the Iranian nuclear program. We appreciate President Obama’s determination to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” The official declined to comment further.
At the same time, however, Obama’s relations with Israeli leaders have not been particularly warm. He has not visited the country as president.

A former US government official said: “There are plenty of instances when the Israelis have undertaken action without informing the United States first. So not always should we assume a level of coordination (between Washington and Israel) in advance on all issues.”

Repeat performance?

Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA expert on the Middle East who has advised Obama, said, “Israel has a long history of conducting military operations from Baghdad to Tunis without giving Washington advance notice.”

Riedel said the White House wants to send Israel a strong message that the United States does not expect to be blindsided by its ally. “Obama wants Bibi to understand unequivocally he does not want a repeat performance in Iran,” he said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his nickname.
The Obama administration suspects that Israeli leaders have marked out for themselves certain “red lines” related to Iranian nuclear progress which could trigger Israeli military action if they are crossed, one US official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But Obama administration policymakers are plagued by a “sense of opacity” in their understanding of where the Israeli red lines are drawn, the official added.
 
Two other US officials, also speaking on condition they not be named, said Washington is deeply concerned Israel, unconvinced sanctions and diplomatic pressure will halt Iran’s nuclear program, could eventually decide to take action on its own.

By the same token, one of the US officials said, speeches and statements by Israeli leaders, like an address by Netanyahu on Sunday in which he talked about making “the right decision at the right moment” even if allies object, could be politically motivated.

Under this interpretation, Netanyahu and other Israeli officials may be playing to domestic audiences or trying to put pressure on the international community to do more on Iran.

Afghan victims buried as fingers point to Pakistan

Investigators are poring over who was behind the coordinated attacks in the Afghan capital Kabul and northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif that the Taliban, the main faction leading a 10-year insurgency, have denied carrying out.

An Afghan official claimed Wednesday that the bomber who attacked a shrine in Kabul was a Pakistani, affiliated to the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi group, which has been blamed for killing thousands of Pakistani Shias.

Experts suggest that if Lashkar-i-Jhangvi or indeed any other Pakistani militants orchestrated the attacks, then elements in the Afghan Taliban may have played some part, possibly in facilitating the strikes.

The twin blasts have prompted fears of a slide into sectarian violence in Afghanistan, which until now has avoided the kind of attacks that have pitched Shia against Sunni Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan.

The victims were buried Wednesday in emotional scenes. Several hundred people marched through west Kabul with two of the bodies on the way to a burial ground, an AFP photographer said.

The US embassy confirmed that an American citizen was among the 55 people killed in the Kabul attack but gave no further details.

President Hamid Karzai scrapped a planned trip to Britain, flying back to Afghanistan for an emergency meeting with security chiefs after attending Monday’s Bonn conference on his country’s future.

Lutfullah Mashal, a spokesman for Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security intelligence agency, confirmed that an investigation into the tragedy was now under way.

Sediq Sediqqi, a spokesman for the Afghan interior ministry, said the attack was the work of “the Taliban and their associates”, adding no-one else carried out such suicide attacks in Afghanistan.

An Afghan security official speaking on condition of anonymity said the bomber was from the Kurram agency in Pakistan’s border region and was connected to Sipah-i-Sahaba, a Lashkar-i-Jhangvi offshoot.

Lashkar-i-Jhangvi was one of the groups involved in the kidnap and beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002.

The Afghan source added the attack aimed to “inflame sectarian violence in Afghanistan” but did not provide any evidence to back up his claims.

The official added: “This is not the work of the Taliban or if there is any Taliban involvement, it is very minimal.”

A Western security official speaking anonymously also suggested Pakistani involvement though stressed it was not clear whether this was “institutional”.

There are reported links between Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and Pakistani intelligence.

“We’re particularly looking at TTP (Tehreek-i-Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban) although at the moment we don’t have any proof,” he said. The source added he believed the attack “aimed to weaken Afghan society”.

A Pakistani security official speaking anonymously said Lashkar-i-Jhangvi was closely associated with the Pakistani Taliban.

But he added: “This group is on the run and doesn’t have the capacity to carry out attacks inside Afghanistan, particularly in Kabul.”

Pakistani security analyst Hasan Askari emphasised that there was no clear evidence at this stage of Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s involvement.

“Lashkar people have ideological affinity with other militant groups operating in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, and they support each other but they (Lashkar) have to establish that their strength is increasing,” he said.

Some analysts have raised fears of more sectarian violence in Afghanistan following the attacks but Shia leaders have urged calm in the aftermath

Suicide bomber strikes near Turk embassy in Mogadishu

MOGADISHU (Reuters) - A car bomb exploded yards from the Turkish embassy in the Somali capital Tuesday, the latest in a wave of deadly attacks in the coastal city, and a health official said three people were killed.

The suicide attack piles yet more pressure on a Western-backed government that relies on African Union troops to prop it up and fight an insurgency by Islamist militants who control virtually all of the country outside the capital Mogadishu.

Ali Muse, coordinator of ambulance services in Mogadishu, said three civilians were killed and eight wounded by the blast. Witnesses reported seeing smoke rising near an old cinema between the Turkish embassy and the Kilometre 4 (K4) junction, a busy intersection in Mogadishu's administrative district.


"The troops tried to question the driver and take photographs when the suicide bomber detonated his bomb," Abdiweli Elmi, a policeman on patrol at the junction said.

He said there were numerous casualties. "I saw the bodies of two policemen and one civilian," Elmi said.


The al Shabaab rebel group, which has fought to topple the government since 2007, has intensified the frequency of suicide attacks in Mogadishu since its withdrawal from most of their bases in the capital in August.

A Reuters witness said human body parts could be seen around the ripped-apart car and security forces fired into the air to disperse the crowds.

Turkey's Anatolian state news agency said a vehicle laden with a bomb exploded 50 meters away from the embassy, which re-opened last month. Anatolian said no embassy staff were wounded or killed.

A Turkish government official said the target of the attack was unknown.

Turkey was the first state from outside the immediate region to open an embassy in Mogadishu.

Its interests have been the target of violent incidents since Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan visited Mogadishu in August. Erdogan was the first leader from outside Africa to visit the capital for nearly two decades.

In September, AU peacekeepers foiled a bomb plot targeting Turkish aid workers in a Mogadishu camp.

The following month more than 70 people were killed when a suicide car bombing, claimed by the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab, exploded near a building where Somali students had gathered to register for Turkish scholarships.

Last week a hand grenade was lobbed at a Turkish health care center in Mogadishu, killing one security guard.

The Islamist militants, who control large swathes of Somalia, are also fighting against Somali government and Kenyan troops in the rebel-controlled southern and central parts of the country. Ethiopian forces have also crossed into Somalia.

Clinton demands Belarus free political prisoners

"We know that every day thecontinue to face economic sanctions and travel bans on members of the government of President Alexander Lukashenko.

"We recognize that this has been a brutally difficult year for the people of Belarus," Clinton told seven Belarusian activists she met in neighboring Lithuaniare's a new arrest or a new restrictive law or further harassment against civil society and the media," she said. "We continue to demand the unconditional release of all political prisoners."

Clinton said that by U.S. count there are still about 50 people in prison or under some form of restricted release.

Belarus authorities cracked down on opposition activists after mass street rallies erupted against Lukashenko last year, following his re-election for a fourth term after a vote criticized by his opponents as rigged.

Two opposition leaders are still in jail for their part in those protests.

In a speech after the meeting, Clinton said it was necessary "to make it unequivocally clear to the Lukashenko government that their behavior is unacceptable and they have to begin to reflect and respect the aspirations of the people of Belarus".

"It is absolutely inconceivable that in Europe today, that in December 2011, the Lukashenko regime is behaving as it is behaving," she added.

"We will continue, along with our partners in the European union and other democracies, to take actions against the Lukashenko regime, including sanctions and travel bans."

Russians vote for new parliament

Russians head to the polls for parliamentary elections amid allegations of violations of election law ahead of the vote.