* The jury’s out on the future of Europe The financial crisis is likely to create fundamental changes in the EU.

* EU warns Netanyahu on hawkish government The EU urged PM-designate Netanyahu to craft a government that embraces the long-standing goal of an independent Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.

* Iran should stay out of Arab disputes Iran’s top diplomat made a surprise visit to Saudi Arabia attempting to improve relations amid rising tensions between the Islamic Republic and the Arab world.

* G20 summit critical for economy The upcoming G20 meeting is critical if the world wishes to avoid the economic turbulence seen in the 1930s.

* Israelis think Gaza op ended too early Two-thirds of Israelis believe that Operation Cast Lead against Hamas terrorists in Gaza finished too early, according to a new poll.

* Khatami reportedly withdraws presidential bid Former Iranian president Muhammad Khatami announced his withdrawal from the country’s presidential elections.

* Likud and Israel Beiteinu sign deal Likud signed its first coalition deal with Avigdor Lieberman’s Israel Beiteinu.

* Iraqis more upbeat about future Violence and insecurity are no longer the main concern of most Iraqis, for the first time since the 2003 US-led invasion.

* Sudan to expel all aid groups Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir says he wants all international aid groups out of the country within a year.

* Egypt concerned about future Israeli govt Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmad Abul Gheit voiced concern for Middle East peace hopes after an ultra-nationalist party signed up to be part of Israel’s new government.

* Obama: I’ll forge new ties with Muslims In phone conversations with the leaders of Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines on Friday, US President Barack Obama discussed his commitment to forging a new relationship with Islamic countries.

* Likud-Kadima coalition talks resumed The secret talks between the Likud and Kadima parties have been resumed recently in a bid to form a joint coalition.

* Bin Laden: Gaza offensive a ‘holocaust’ Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called Israel’s operation in Gaza a “holocaust”.

* Obama aide: Talk to Hamas Economic Recovery Adviser Paul A. Volcker and nine former senior American officials have urged President Barack Obama to engage in dialogue with Hamas leaders.

* ‘Ahmadinejad to attend Sharm summit’ There will soon be a “real positive change” in ties between Arab countries and Iran.

* Rabbis after pope meeting: Crisis over “The Jewish people, who were chosen as the elected people, communicate to the whole human family knowledge of and fidelity to the one, unique and true God.”

* Palestinian unity negotiations near collapse Hamas and Fatah negotiators said on Thursday they are having difficulty reaching an agreement over the makeup and political program of a Palestinian unity government.

* Nasrallah vows to never recognize Israel In a recorded speech aired Friday evening in Beirut in honor of Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly rejected a preliminary US condition for talks.

* ANALYSIS / Fatah-Hamas unity would pose major dilemma for Israel If the understandings reached on Thursday in Cairo between Fatah and Hamas remain valid even after the representatives from both sides return home, they are likely to expedite the release of Gilad Shalit.

* ‘Outside interference’ in Lisbon treaty campaign, Irish minister says Irish Europe minister Dick Roche has said there was “serious external interference” in the run-up to the country’s referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

By: Maya Spitzer – The Jerusalem Post

The Islamic states circulated a new resolution at the current session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Wednesday that would criminalize defamation of Islam as a human rights violation and encourage the imposition of Shari’a.

According to the nonbinding governmental resolution, titled “Combating Defamation of Religions,” anything deemed insulting to Islamic sensitivities would be banned as a “serious affront to human dignity” and a blatant violation of religious freedom.

The resolution would attempt to influence “local, national, regional and international levels” to incorporate such guarantees of this perceived freedom in their “legal and constitutional systems.”

“It is a covert package coordinated by Pakistan against the West,” said Leon Saltiel, director of communications at the Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch, on Thursday. “They think there is too much liberty and freedom of expression in the Western world, which therefore defames religion.”

This resolution is part of the ongoing campaign of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a powerful bloc of 56 states at the UN, which began to introduce annual resolutions in 1999 to ban the “defamation of Islam.”

Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, said during an address to Radio Free Europe in December that “Islamic states pursued the diplomatic battle with a vengeance” because of the post-9/11 war on terror and the controversy ignited by the cartoon of their prophet published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.

“The resolutions pose a major threat to the premises and principles of international human rights law and harm Muslims as much as non-Muslims. International law already protects victims of religious discrimination,” for instance via the 1984 Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, declared Neuer.

The resolutions fail to address human rights violations of Muslim countries, notably Iran’s persecution of Baha’is, Saudi Arabia’s banning of all religious practice aside from Islam, and the persecution of Christian communities in Egypt, Pakistan and Iraq.

The latest resolution is “not really trying to protect individuals from harm,” but rather attempting “to shield a set of beliefs from question or debate and to ban any discussion of Islam that may challenge state orthodoxies or offend Islamic sensibilities,” Neuer said.

Wednesday’s resolution would immediately target moderate Muslims from the countries sponsoring the resolution with “state-sanctioned blasphemy laws,” UN Watch said in a statement. It would also target the Western media, which the resolution accuses of “deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.”

Although similar resolutions have been passed for the past couple of years, this resolution is of particular importance because “the ideas of the resolution will be incorporated into Durban texts,” said Saltiel, referring to the UN Durban Review Conference on Racism to be held in Geneva next month.

“If the resolution is passed enough times, it becomes an international legal norm,” Saltiel said.

“Tragically, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a foregone conclusion,” UN Watch said.

The “Combating Defamation of Religions” resolution will be voted on March 26-27, giving organizations in Geneva such as UN Watch two weeks to mobilize international opposition to it, Saltiel said.

In December, Neuer declared that “the most dire threat is coming from Geneva, where an Algerian-chaired subcommittee of the UN’s upcoming Durban II racism conference has this week been seeking to amend international human rights treaty law to ban ‘defamation of religion,’ especially Islam.

“Eleanor Roosevelt, whose universal declaration we celebrate this month on its 60th anniversary, must be turning in her grave,” he said.

Since December, Algeria has drafted an international protocol on that theme, due to be brought before the UN General Assembly in September.

By: Oliver Guitta – The Jerusalem Post

Pakistan recently gave in to the pressure of Islamist militants. Indeed to buy off peace, Pakistani authorities allowed the imposition of Shari’a (Islamic law) in the Swat Valley.

How long the cease-fire will last is anyone’s guess. But in any case, Pakistan has allowed a precedent that could extend to other provinces; in fact the Swat Valley is only about 160 kilometers from Islamabad, the capital. But Shari’a is not making inroads only in Pakistan – it is creeping into the West.

One area particularly touched by this phenomenon is the judicial system in Europe. Two recent cases in Italy and France are particularly troublesome.

In Italy, three members of a Brescia-based Maghrebi family (father, mother and eldest son) were accused of beating and sequestering their daughter/sister Fatima because she had wanted to live a “Western” life.

In the first trial, the three were sentenced for sequestration and abuse. The court acknowledged that the teenager had been “brutally beaten up” for having “dated” a non-Muslim and, in general, for “living a life not conforming with the culture” of her family. But on appeal, the family was acquitted because the court deemed that the young woman had been beaten for “her own good.”

The Bologna public prosecutor’s office then disputed the acquittal of the three accused parties, but the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed it and ruled in favor of the charged parties.

Interestingly, two Italian political leaders on opposite sides of the political spectrum – Isabella Bertolini, vice president of the MPs of the right-wing party Forza Italia, and Barbara Pollastrini, a post-communist former minister – condemned the Supreme Court decision, calling it “one of the darkest pages in the history of the law in our country.” Bertolini was upset that the court had “allied itself with radical Islam.” Pollastrini is now pushing for parliament to pass a law condemning violence against women. “Now more than ever, it is urgent to defend the rights of a large number of immigrant women victims of an intolerable patriarchal culture,” she says.

Muslim women were quick to denounce the Supreme Court’s decision. Among them was Souad Sbai, president of the Organization of Moroccan Women in Italy. She said, “It is a shame, this verdict is worthy of an Arab country where the Shari’a is vigorously enforced. In the name of multiculturalism and respect for traditions, the judges apply two kinds of rules: one for the Italians and one for the immigrants. A Catholic father who had acted this way would have been severely sentenced.”

According to her organization, at least nine Muslim women have recently been killed in Italy by close relatives. The number of young girls forced to wear the hijab “as early as eight or 12” is on the rise, as is the number of female teenagers fleeing home, and “lots of them are looking to flee to France.” But France might not be the panacea either. Indeed, in one widely publicized case last June, a French judge ruled in favor of a Muslim man who wanted the annulment of his marriage because his wife had turned out not to be a virgin. What this decision amounted to was an endorsement of the repudiation concept.

This decision triggered a huge outcry from politicians and various organizations. In November, a French appeals court overturned the decision. Interestingly, a large majority of French Muslims, about 80 percent, are very secular and totally reject any kind of Shari’a law being implemented in France the “homeland” of human rights.

But the United Kingdom is a different story; indeed, close to 40% of young Muslims there are in favor of Shari’a law being implemented. The idea also seems to be making headway among non-Muslims. Last year, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said the legal recognition of Muslim religious courts “seems unavoidable.” He added that the UK had to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens did not relate to the British legal system.

Williams argued that adopting parts of Shari’a law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Shari’a court.

But contrary to what Williams advanced, Sadiq Khan, a British Muslim MP, said Shari’a courts would discourage Muslims from developing links with other cultural and ethnic groups. He feared also that women would be “abused” by such courts, which may give unequal bargaining power to the sexes.

In Switzerland, Christian Giordano, an anthropology professor at Fribourg University, echoed Williams by writing that a special jurisdiction for Muslims could be envisioned there. He added that including elements of Islamic law could allow the multiculturalism issue to be better managed.

Other occurrences of Shari’a law taking precedence over the law of the country have been reported. For example, in Denmark, some imams have allegedly sentenced delinquent Muslims, hence bypassing the country’s judicial system.

So Islamists, much to the detriment of the majority of Muslims in Europe, seem to be making headway in pushing Shari’a law into the continent’s judicial systems.

By: Mark N. Katz – Middle East Times

U.S./NATO supply lines through Pakistan to Afghanistan have come under increasing attack. Russia has responded to this by allowing the United States to increase the amount of ‘non-lethal’ supplies they ship through Russia to Central Asia and Afghanistan. This, of course, helps the American-led effort in Afghanistan.

POWER POLITICS — The great powers each need to acknowledge that the others have legitimate interests in Central Asia, and thus none should be excluded from it. The picture shows workers at the Tengiz-Black Sea oil pipeline which runs from the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk. (ITAR-TASS Photo via Newscom)

But fearing the growth of U.S. influence in Central Asia, Moscow has for years been urging Kyrgyzstan to expel American forces from the Manas air base, which the United States has been using in support of operations in Afghanistan. The Kyrgyz government has now ordered American forces to leave Manas – a move that hurts the American-led effort in Afghanistan.

Moscow’s pursuit of policies that simultaneously help and hurt the U.S./NATO campaign in Afghanistan is a reminder that the geopolitics of Central Asia is highly complex. Petroleum and pipeline routes, the potential for Islamic extremism, and the possibility of democratization are each issues that contribute to this complexity.

What is especially interesting to observe is that the geopolitics of these three issues is different.

America, Russia, and China are competing against one another with regard to petroleum and pipeline routes from Central Asia. The Europeans have been divided over whether to support pipeline routes from Central Asia through Russia or a route under the Caspian and across the southern Caucasus that avoids Russia that the U.S. favors.

The recent Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis has made the Europeans more wary of relying on Russia, and hence more in favor of a non-Russian route. The Europeans, though, are far more willing to contemplate a pipeline route via Iran than the United States is (at present anyway). In short: Cooperation among the four great powers is at a minimum with regard to petroleum and pipeline routes from Central Asia.

By contrast, America, Russia, China, and Europe are all united in opposing the rise of Islamic extremism in Central Asia. In that Russia and China border Central Asia, the rise of Islamic extremism there would have extremely negative consequences for both of them.

With supply routes through Pakistan to Afghanistan increasingly under attack, the rise of Islamic extremism in Central Asia has only worsened the considerable difficulties America and its European allies already face in their struggle against similar forces in Afghanistan. And of course, the rise of Islamic extremism in Central Asia would greatly limit or even eliminate the possibility of exploiting the region’s petroleum reserves.

With regard to the possibility of democratization in Central Asia: Russia and China oppose this, while America and Europe either support it or would welcome its occurrence. Russia and China prefer the existing authoritarian regimes in Central Asia because they see them as more willing to ally and cooperate with Moscow and Beijing than democratic governments there would. America and Europe, for their part, anticipate that democratic Central Asian governments would align themselves more with them.

The great powers, then, have both competing interests and common interests in Central Asia. Because much is at stake for them all, they would be well advised not to pursue their competing interests so aggressively that they harm their common interests. Each needs to acknowledge that the others have legitimate interests in the region, and thus none should be excluded from it.

Central Asian petroleum can be exported to several markets by different routes. Just as the authoritarian governments that Russia and China prefer have worked with America and Europe, democratic governments (should they ever arise in the region) would undoubtedly seek to work with Russia and China as well as the West. Beijing would probably realize and adjust to this quickly — even if Moscow did not.

Whether authoritarian or democratic, however, Central Asia is likely to be vulnerable to Islamic extremism. Russia’s acting to deprive America of access to military facilities in Central Asia which support U.S./NATO operations in Afghanistan only increases this vulnerability. Moscow’s success in this will not benefit Russia, but the Islamic extremists instead.

By: Claude Salhani – Middle East Times

Is the Arab-Israeli peace process salvageable? That question was raised Tuesday at a luncheon discussion hosted by the Nixon Center in Washington. The speaker was Aaron David Miller, a man who has advised six U.S. secretaries of state and a former Arab-Israeli peace negotiator.

A young Jewish settler girl dressed as a princess and holding a wand stands before an Israeli guard tower during the Jewish holiday of Purim in the divided West Bank town of Hebron on March 10. The festival of Purim commemorates the rescue of Jews from genocide in ancient Persia. (Sipa Photo via Newscom)

Indeed, the situation in the Middle East today renders that question, posed in that way, no longer pertinent. Rather the question should be framed in the following manner: “Is there still an Arab-Israeli peace process? Or perhaps that process should be renamed ‘the broader Middle East peace process,’ assuming peace talks involving all the new actors in the extended conflict ever gets back on track.

Why? Because what used to be known as the Arab-Israeli dispute has now morphed into the Arab-Israeli-Persian dispute.

What used to be a relatively straightforward conflict over real estate has become a complicated war of religion, natural resources, and of course real estate – but with one more explosive ingredient, if you will excuse the pun: nuclear weapons.

Until now Israel was the only country in the region armed with nuclear bombs and the technology and capability to deliver those bombs. No one, including American presidents, liked to talk about Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Enter Iran into the fold, a non-Arab country and one that does not border on Israel; a country that has no contention with Israel, no land dispute, and no bad history. Until now.

Until now because the crisis in the Middle East has split into multiple crises, like regenerating cells, each forming a new crisis. Today we can no longer talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict, rather we need to differentiate between the Israeli-Palestinian disputes – plural. The one between Israel and the West Bankers; the Israeli-Hamas dispute, the Israeli-Hezbollah dispute, the Israeli-Syrian dispute, and maybe even an internal Israeli-Israeli conflict.

“Rarely have I seen a situation more dysfunctional and complex,” said Miller, now a senior fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center and author of “The Much Too Promised Land.”

The ever-expanding complexity of the Middle East crisis is making it all the more difficult to resolve. One of the difficulties lies in the fact that all these emerging sub-conflicts are interrelated, making the solution of one unrealistic without the solution of the others.

“In Palestine you have Humpty Dumpty that has fallen off the wall,” said Miller. “You have two polities, two sets of how to approach the problem with Israel. Unity between the Palestinians is unlikely. That in turn renders peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians unlikely.

Then, as Miller pointed out, “You have Syria with one foot inside the peacemaking tent and one foot inside the trouble-making tent.”

And Israel, says the former adviser, is undergoing a transition. But at the same time, the country is more dysfunctional than it ever was in its history, with a “weak and non-authoritative government.”

And if that were not enough, the Iranian element is added to the mix. As Miller pointed out, “There will be no Israeli-Syrian agreement until the Iranian nuclear dossier is solved.”

But just how do you solve that dossier?

There are two ways out of the Iranian nuclear impasse. And neither is very likely to lead to a conclusive peace agreement in the Middle East.

The first is if Iran voluntarily reneges on its nuclear aspirations. The chances of that happening are about as good as an ayatollah becoming pope.

The second option is if Israel destroys some of Iran’s nuclear making capability. That would only amplify the crisis and augment the level of animosity between Iran and Israel.

But oh yes, there is a third alternative: accept a nuclear powered Iran. This would not only make Israel very nervous, but many Arab nations too, and it could kick off a nuclear proliferation race in the Middle East.

Only two weeks ago Iran stated that Bahrain, the smallest Arab country, belonged to Tehran. A problem which began at one end of the broader Middle East, in the Gulf, has suddenly reached the other end of the region with Morocco breaking off diplomatic relations with the Islamic republic over its statements regarding Bahrain.

Why is that worth a mention? Because the last time a leader in the same region (Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein) claimed a smaller neighbor (Kuwait) as his, it led to a major war.

There are no indications that Iran is about to invade Bahrain, home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet, but as Miller pointed out, “If you ignore the past, the past becomes a cruel and unforgivable teacher.”

* Turkey says willing to continue Syria mediation “In the neighborhood we live in – Israel could not find a better friend than Turkey,” Turkish Ambassador to Israel, Namik Tan, said on Thursday evening.

* Ashkenazi to focus on Iran in US visit Iran will be the focus of talks IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi is to hold in Washington this weekend.

* Chairman of Joint Chiefs: Iran Can Develop Nukes Iran is at the point where it can develop nuclear weapons said Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

* Islamic states: Criminalize defamation of Islam The Islamic states circulated a new resolution at the current session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

* Shari’a making inroads in the West Pakistan recently gave in to the pressure of Islamist militants.

* Israel-Turkey ties critical to region, says Ankara The relationship between Israel and Turkey is of “regional and global importance,” according to Turkish Ambassador to Israel Namik Tan.

* PA unity negotiations near collapse Hamas and Fatah negotiators said on Thursday they are having difficulty reaching an agreement over the makeup and political program of a Palestinian unity government.

* China ‘can boost stimulus plan’ China is ready to introduce new economic stimulus measures “at any time”, Premier Wen Jiabao has said.

* Swiss action sparks talk of ‘currency war’ The Swiss National Bank moved to weaken the Swiss franc on Thursday.

* Friedmann praises Ne’eman appointment Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann issued a statement Friday congratulating Prof. Yaacov Ne’eman on his appointment as the new government’s justice minister.

* Egypt urges Palestinian unity agreement Egyptian moderators want a power-sharing agreement between the various Palestinian factions by Saturday.

* Arab leaders ‘clear the air’ in Riyadh Saudi Arabia hosted the leaders of Egypt and Syria on Wednesday, in an effort to persuade Damascus to move away from Iran.

* Has the Arab-Israeli Conflict Morphed into the Arab-Israeli-Persian Conflict? Is the Arab-Israeli peace process salvageable? That question was raised Tuesday at a luncheon discussion hosted by the Nixon Center in Washington.

* ‘PA gov’t must take Quartet benchmarks’ A Palestinian unity government that does not recognize Israel, renounce terrorism or accept previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements is one the US will not be able to accept.

* Artificial life ‘could be created within five years’ Prof David Deamer, from California University, said although building a new lifeform from scratch is a daunting task he is confident it can happen in five to 10 years.

* Gates: More preemptive strikes unlikely Any future US president will likely be more cautious about launching a preemptive strike against another country following the failure to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

* Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated” Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated.

* Central Asia’s Complex Geopolitics U.S./NATO supply lines through Pakistan to Afghanistan have come under increasing attack.

* Sarkozy announces France’s return to NATO French president Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday (11 March) announced the return of his country to the military structures of NATO.

* China demands end of US Navy surveillance China’s Defense Ministry has demanded that the US Navy end surveillance missions off the country’s southern coast.

* Russia Reconsidering Missile Deal With Iran Russia may not deliver the S-300 air defence systems to Iran, according to Russian news agency Interfax.

* Mubarak and Assad will seek to repair rift at Saudi summit In another effort at inter-Arab reconciliation, the leaders of Egypt and Syria will visit Saudi Arabia on Wednesday to meet with King Abdullah.

* Saudis and Syrians cement detente Saudi Arabia says King Abdullah is to hold talks with the Syrian leader in Riyadh on Wednesday.

* UN demands answers on Iran arms ship Iran and Syria have until next week to explain to a United Nations sanctions committee how they were involved with a ship detained off Cyprus in January found to be loaded with explosives believed to be bound for Gaza.

* Stem cell go-ahead puts Obama at odds with pope President Barack Obama’s lifting of restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research puts him at odds with Pope Benedict and the American Roman Catholic Church.

* ‘It will be difficult to stop Iran’ It would be difficult to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and hard to tell which combination of carrots and sticks might convince Iran’s leaders to abandon that goal.

* As U.S. weighs Taliban negotiations, Afghans are already talking Even as President Barack Obama floated the idea of negotiating with moderate elements of the Taliban, Afghan and foreign officials here said that preliminary discussions with the Taliban leadership were already under way.

* Egyptian cleric blasts Starbucks for ‘Queen Esther’ logo As Jews around the world are celebrating Purim, one Egyptian cleric has used the holiday to launch an attack against Starbucks.

* 40,000 Israelis expected to attend papal mass Some 40,000 people are expected to attend the mass the pope will lead on his scheduled visit to Israel in May.

By: Dan Perry – Associated Press

MOSCOW – In some of his strongest criticism of his successors, Mikhail Gorbachev on Thursday likened Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party to the worst of the communists he once led and helped bring down, and said Russia is today a country where the parliament and the judiciary are not fully free.

In an interview with The Associated Press some 20 years after the Soviet empire started its rapid collapse on his tumultuous watch, Gorbachev also said the global economic crisis showed capitalism should be tempered with elements of the socialist system he played such a critical role in sweeping away.

The last Soviet leader was interviewed in the offices of his Gorbachev Foundation, a think tank founded in 1992 to promote “democratic values and moral, humanistic principles” — as well as, some say, Gorbachev himself. A little aged and more heavyset perhaps, Gorbachev, 78, seemed feisty, friendly and often reminiscent of the man who once ruled one of two superpowers on Earth.

Gorbachev is a paradoxical figure even after all these years — widely credited around the world with a historic convulsion he admits he did not intend. He sought to fix communism, not destroy it, and in the interview said that while he was willing to let Eastern Europe go its own way he very much hoped the republics that formed the Soviet Union would stay united.

“I was a resolute opponent of the breakup of the union,” said Gorbachev, who was forced to step down on Dec. 25, 1991, as the country he led ceased to exist.

He still holds out hope that one day Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus will join with Russia in forming a new union.

He seemed to view the global meltdown as partly the result of years of Western hubris and excess.

“The American media trumpeted … about the victory in the Cold War, that socialism is down. This disease of extreme self-confidence led to it — the (belief) that things would always go on this way. And it did last long … I think that now everyone is learning a hard lesson.”

“It is necessary to overcome these mistakes of super-consumerism, of super-profits.” he said. “We have to think about finding — through the G20 or other institutions — new models of development (and) cooperation.”

The world should look for a composite system, he said, which incorporates “the past experience of all that the capitalist system brings, like competitiveness, and what socialism gives — especially a social safety net.”

Gorbachev also said the moment was right for improved U.S.-Russia relations, expressed skepticism about the wisdom of Ukraine joining NATO, and called on the world community to head off the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon not with confrontation but rather “a maximal dialogue.”

“Let (Iran) integrate itself into the global community, build normal relations,” he said.

Gorbachev had harsh words for the current Russian leadership, singling out United Russia, the party Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has built into a political juggernaut at the center of a tremendously centralized — albeit popular — power structure.

“I criticize United Russia a lot, and I do it directly,” the last Soviet leader said. “It is a party of bureaucrats and the worst version of the CPSU” — the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. “Regarding our parliament, I cannot say that it is independent (and) also our judiciary does not fully comply with the provisions of the constitution.”

Is the world waiting for such advice? If there are takers, most will be outside Russia, where he has become a rather marginal political figure: For every Russian who appreciates his role in ending communism there are certainly many more inclined to blame him for the privations of the process he unleashed: the impoverishment many suffered in the 1990s, the vastly unequal distribution of wealth that bedevils society even today, the failings of Russian democracy — and the humiliating loss of the once-vast empire ruled from the Kremlin.

Asked about the fateful Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, Gorbachev said that he never contemplated force to stop the process that within months saw most of the Warsaw Pact break free. He said it was inevitable that the states of that region would be free to do as they wished.

Yet even in Eastern Europe, as the region gears up to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of communism, Gorbachev gets only the rarest of mentions and he is forced to share credit for the revolution with a slew of others — Poland’s Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Ronald Reagan and the late Pope John Paul II.

“We live more freely now than in the communist era because of what he did and achieved,” said Peter Nagy, a 37-year-old public employee in Budapest. “However, he was still the leader of a dictatorial system, not a democrat. I would not accept him today as a leader.”

Havel, the former Czech president, in his memoirs “To the Castle and Back” described Gorbachev as both a special and tragic case and said the collapse of communism would have been much more violent without him.

In Warsaw, former anti-communist dissident Adam Michnik said he feels “great gratitude” toward Gorbachev. “I don’t have the slightest doubt that it was Gorbachev and his policy of glasnost and perestroika that opened the gates for the great changes that first took place in our country and then in this part of the continent,” Michnik said.

In the interview, Gorbachev was philosophical about his declining political fortunes.

“Personally, as a politician, I lost. But the idea that I conveyed and the project that I carried out, it played a huge role in the world and the country. But now the situation is such that more and more people are starting to understand what Gorbachev did …

“But anyway, we have gone far, and there’s no return.”

Gorbachev laughed when asked whether his recent appearance in Louis Vuitton ads might not cheapen such a momentous legacy, saying his foundation needed the money. He noted that he had also once appeared in Pizza Hut ads, and asked if any other offers might be forthcoming.