On Christmas gifts are exchanged, carols sung, and peace and goodwill extended toward all humankind. Done right, Thanksgiving includes a Turducken, traditional sides, and pie. The 4th of July ends with choreographed bursts of pyrotechnic delight exploding in the warm summer sky. Whereas here in America, New Year’s Eve is a too expensive exercise in affected frenzy and anti-climax. How fitting that the Y2K scare fizzled on the biggest New Year’s Eve of our lives, a night that Prince had been singing about for 17 years. Did your night live up to the hype?

On December 31, mediocre restaurants throughout America string absurd velvet ropes outside their doors, inflate black and white balloons as decoration, and charge three times the usual price for the same old fare plus bad champagne. Is it any wonder that our elders, as they grow older and wiser, opt to stay home and turn in before midnight? America’s most iconic New Year’s Eve celebration, the one that captures the attention of the whole country, has massive crowds gathering in New York City’s most garish neighborhood, where they watch a large ball drop as C-list celebrities narrate on TV. The typical NYC dweller can’t be lured to Times Square for dinner on an ordinary evening, so I can’t imagine how pre-New Year’s conversations go for those who attend. “Would you like to stand out in the freezing cold for hours with no place to sit or use the bathroom and drunks pressed against you on all sides?”

Even more bizarre is the fact that Californians watch a tape-delayed rebroadcast of the spectacle as the clock strikes midnight on the West Coast, with whole parties pausing to gather around the television. “Hey, quiet down,” people actually say, “Ryan Seacrest is about to come on!”

We can do better, America.

We excel at nothing if not co-opting foreign traditions to enrich our own culture. Next year, I should like to attend a New Year’s Eve Party that takes the “New Year’s Eve” Wikipedia page as its lodestar. The object would be to incorporate as many world traditions as possible in the same party.

2.

Don’t worry about having to give up Auld Lange Syne. It’s borrowed from the Scottish and can be retained, though it’s hardly the best they’ve got to offer us. The custom of “first-footing” is premised on the idea that the first person to cross the threshold of a home on New Year’s Day brings good fortune for the coming year. “The first-foot usually brings several gifts, including perhaps a coin, bread, salt, coal, or a drink (usually whiskey),” Wikipedia tells us. As a minor variation, I’d suggest carrying a new keg of beer, or better yet, a vessel of whiskey punch across the threshold of a residence at 12:01 am, an event that would help avert anti-climax at any party.

3.

The most memorable New Year’s Eve of my life happened in 2004, when the holiday sneaked up on me. I’d been shivering my way through central Europe with no particular reason to consult a calendar. Why wasn’t the usual crowd sprawled out in the lounge drinking cheap hostel beer? “They’ve all got New Year’s plans,” the bartender replied. Soon enough cliques of travelers headed out into the streets, destined for pub parties that required reservations weeks in advance or discotheques demanding admittance fees far higher than anything I could then afford.

Alone on a bar stool I sipped Augustiner because it felt less awkward than sitting empty-handed. This year I’m looking forward to a quiet New Year’s Eve with my wife. In my early twenties, staying in as everyone else went out made me ache for all the imagined fun I was missing.

But that isn’t why the evening was memorable.

4.

In Wales, an annual New Year’s Eve foot race is held to celebrate the life of Guto Nyth Bran. According to legend he was so fast that he could blow out a candle and be tucked into bed before the light faded. “One such legend has him running from his home to the local town of Pontypridd and back, a total distance of some 7 miles (11 km), before his mother’s kettle had boiled,” Wikipedia avers. In the town of Mountain Ash, where the race is held, there is a statue of Bran. Imagine scaled down models of that statue carved into Duraflame logs or a generic equivalent.

Now hold that thought.

5.

Eventually a surfer dude from San Diego joined me in that Munich hostel lounge. He didn’t have plans either. We were resigned to staying in but decided after two beers that maybe we ought to wander out into the city. Surely two backpackers on a budget could find something to do.

Crowds thronged the downtown streets, everyone bundled against an impending overnight freeze. Families congregated near the ice skating rink, children gliding on its glassy surface, their parents huddled in stalls clutching steaming hot Gl

Friday’s incident happened inside Pathmark supermarket in Old Bridge, a suburb 30km from New York, officials said.

Several employees were inside the store, which was preparing to open at 6am. Two windows near the entrance to the Pathmark have been shot out, officials said.

The store was closed at the time.

New Jersey Transit closed its nearby park-and-ride lot.

The incident comes only weeks after 12 people were shot dead at a cinema in Colarado.

“The army is advancing from west to east to cut Salaheddin in half horizontally,” an official said on Wednesday on condition of anonymity, referring to the key rebel stronghold in the city.

Wassel Ayub, a commander in the rebel Free Syrian Army, said: “The regime forces advanced into Al-Malaab Street with tanks and armoured vehicles and fierce fighting is now taking place in the area.”

An Al Jazeera correspondent said “a large number of people have been killed or injured in fierce battle near Salaheddine in which advanced Russian tanks have been used by the government forces”.

Clashes have also been reported in Hanano, Tareeq Al Bab and Sha’ar in the besieged city, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said.

The observatory said that the clashes taking place in the streets of Salaheddin and in surrounding areas were the most fierce that the northern city has seen in the nearly 17-month uprising.

SOHR said neighbourhoods of Maysaloun, Sakhour and Tal Rifaat were under shelling by government forces.

The Syrian army has made progress but rebels have not abandoned Salaheddine, the Al Jazeera correspondent said, adding that the FSA has shot down a plane and destroyed five tanks in Aleppo.

The army, which has been massing its troops and armour in and around Aleppo since late last month, was moving from west to east, coming from Hamdaniyeh, a district adjacent to Salaheddine, the FSA’s Ayub said.

Al Jazeera’s Rula Amin, reporting from neighbouring Beirut, said: “It’s not just symbolic but also where most of Free Syrian Army is concentrated, and for the world it also became symbol of FSA’s major success in getting their hold on this city.”

“FSA has been bringing in its own rebels from outside Aleppo from country side e.g. Idlib, Homs because for them it’s a major battle. Salahedinne is also crucial for government, as it has been a pillar of support for the president Assad in the last 16 months,” she said.

Retired guards among Iran hostages

In other developments, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said on Wednesday that “retired” members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and army were among 48 Iranians taken hostage in Syria by rebels,” the ISNA news agency reported.

Salehi said the former military personnel were exclusively on a religious pilgrimage to Damascus when they were seized on Saturday.

- Anita McNaught reports from outside Aleppo

“A number of the [hostages] are retired members of the Guards and the army. Some others were from other ministries,” Salehi was quoted as telling reporters as he flew back from Turkey, which he asked for help in freeing the Iranians.

Another senior Iranian official visited Damascus on Tuesday where he met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Saeed Jalili, a senior aide to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told Assad that Iran will continue to back the Syrian government.

During talks with Assad, Jalili said that what was happening in Syria was “not an internal issue”.

It is “a conflict between the axis of resistance on one hand, and the regional and global enemies of this axis on the other,” Jalili said.

On Monday, while on a visit to Beirut, the Lebanese capital, Jalili issued a veiled warning to countries backing the rebels.

“Those who believe that, by developing insecurity in the countries of the region by sending arms and exporting terrorism, they are buying security for themselves are wrong,” Iran’s official IRNA news agency quoted him as telling Adnan Mansour, Lebanon’s foreign minister.

Clinton’s talks with Morsi on Saturday, part of a two-day visit, are expected to concentrate on democratic transition and economic development in Egypt.

Clinton will also meet with senior government officials, civil society, and business leaders in Cairo, as well as the country’s second city Alexandria.

Religious freedoms and minority rights are also on Clinton’s agenda.

The US has been an long-time ally of Egypt, with $1.5bn of aid being received by Cairo annually, most of which goes to the military.

Since officially taking office earlier this month, Morsi has been caught in a power struggle with the military council, which ruled the country for around 16 months following the ouster of Hosni Mubarak last year.

Tension peaked as Morsi tried to reinstate a parliament, dominated by Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood group and other Islamist allies, which had been dissolved by the judiciary and the military prior to his appointment.

Clinton is on a regional visit and will travel to Israel next where she is expected to meet with officials there.

Norwegian Major General Robert Mood told reporters in the Syrian capital Damascus on Thursday that there must be a ceasefire in order for his teams to resume their work.
Rare insights into life in Homs under daily shelling

“The escalation of violence, allow me to say, to an unprecedented level, obstructed our ability to observe, verify, report as well as assist in local dialogue,” he said.

His comments came amid reports that Homs’ neighbourhoods of Jouret al-Shayyah, al-Khalidiyeh and Karam Shamsham were being shelled with tank fire, mortars and rockets.

Hadi al-Abdallah, an activist in Homs, told Al Jazeera that “rockets were raining on Homs” and that four people have been reported dead since the morning.

“This is the 29th day since Homs is under siege. Today is the worst, however. Scores have been injured and black smoke is covering the sky of Homs,” he said.

Homs province has been the scene of large anti-government protests and several of its neighbourhoods have become a stronghold for the armed opposition.

Refugee influx

Pictures broadcast live by activists purported to show the neighbourhood of Jouret al-Shayyah under attack. Loud explosions and heavy gunfire could be heard on the broadcast.

Thursday’s violence in Homs came a day after a team of UN observers reportedly attempted to visit the province.

About 300 UN monitors were sent to Syria to provide an unbiased look at the violence, but they have been confined to their hotels since June 15 because of the bloodshed.

More than 14,000 people have been killed since the Syrian uprising began in March 2011, according to activists.

The late reports of violence came as president of Cyprus said the island nation has drawn up contingency plans to receive a possible influx of evacuees from Syria if necessary.

Dimitris Christofias said his country is ready to act as an evacuee way station as it did in 2006, when it offered shelter and food to tens of thousands of people who fled Lebanon during a month-long war between Israel and Hezbollah.

More than 200,000 Syrians have so far fled the country overland, seeking refuge in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.

History shows that world orders, including our own, are transient. They rise and fall, and the institutions they erect, the beliefs and “norms” that guide them, the economic systems they support—they rise and fall, too. The downfall of the Roman Empire brought an end not just to Roman rule but to Roman government and law and to an entire economic system stretching from Northern Europe to North Africa. Culture, the arts, even progress in science and technology, were set back for centuries.

Modern history has followed a similar pattern. After the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th century, British control of the seas and the balance of great powers on the European continent provided relative security and stability. Prosperity grew, personal freedoms expanded, and the world was knit more closely together by revolutions in commerce and communication.

With the outbreak of World War I, the age of settled peace and advancing liberalism—of European civilization approaching its pinnacle—collapsed into an age of hyper-nationalism, despotism and economic calamity. The once-promising spread of democracy and liberalism halted and then reversed course, leaving a handful of outnumbered and besieged democracies living nervously in the shadow of fascist and totalitarian neighbors. The collapse of the British and European orders in the 20th century did not produce a new dark age—though if Nazi Germany and imperial Japan had prevailed, it might have—but the horrific conflict that it produced was, in its own way, just as devastating.

If the U.S. is unable to maintain its hegemony on the high seas, would other nations fill in the gaps? On board the USS Germantown in the South China Sea, Tuesday.

Would the end of the present American-dominated order have less dire consequences? A surprising number of American intellectuals, politicians and policy makers greet the prospect with equanimity. There is a general sense that the end of the era of American pre-eminence, if and when it comes, need not mean the end of the present international order, with its widespread freedom, unprecedented global prosperity (even amid the current economic crisis) and absence of war among the great powers.

American power may diminish, the political scientist G. John Ikenberry argues, but “the underlying foundations of the liberal international order will survive and thrive.” The commentator Fareed Zakaria believes that even as the balance shifts against the U.S., rising powers like China “will continue to live within the framework of the current international system.” And there are elements across the political spectrum—Republicans who call for retrenchment, Democrats who put their faith in international law and institutions—who don’t imagine that a “post-American world” would look very different from the American world.

If all of this sounds too good to be true, it is. The present world order was largely shaped by American power and reflects American interests and preferences. If the balance of power shifts in the direction of other nations, the world order will change to suit their interests and preferences. Nor can we assume that all the great powers in a post-American world would agree on the benefits of preserving the present order, or have the capacity to preserve it, even if they wanted to.

Many of us take for granted how the world looks today. But it might look a lot different without America at the top. The Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan talks with Washington bureau chief Jerry Seib about his new book, “The World America Made,” and whether a U.S. decline is inevitable.

Take the issue of democracy. For several decades, the balance of power in the world has favored democratic governments. In a genuinely post-American world, the balance would shift toward the great-power autocracies. Both Beijing and Moscow already protect dictators like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. If they gain greater relative influence in the future, we will see fewer democratic transitions and more autocrats hanging on to power. The balance in a new, multipolar world might be more favorable to democracy if some of the rising democracies—Brazil, India, Turkey, South Africa—picked up the slack from a declining U.S. Yet not all of them have the desire or the capacity to do it.

What about the economic order of free markets and free trade? People assume that China and other rising powers that have benefited so much from the present system would have a stake in preserving it. They wouldn’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Robert Kagan’s new book, “The World America Made,” is finding an eager readership in the nation’s capital, among prominent members of both political parties.

Around the time of President Barack Obama’s Jan. 24 State of the Union Address, Washington was abuzz with reports that the president had discussed a portion of the book with a group of news anchors.

Mr. Kagan serves on the Foreign Policy Advisory Board of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but more notably, in this election season, he is a foreign policy adviser to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.

The president’s speech touched upon the debate over whether America is in decline, a central theme of Mr. Kagan’s book. “America is back,” he declared, referring to a range of recent U.S. actions on the world stage. “Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” he continued. “America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs—and as long as I’m president, I intend to keep it that way.”

Says Mr. Kagan: “No president wants to preside over American decline, and it’s good to see him repudiate the idea that his policy is built on the idea that American influence must fade.”

Unfortunately, they might not be able to help themselves. The creation and survival of a liberal economic order has depended, historically, on great powers that are both willing and able to support open trade and free markets, often with naval power. If a declining America is unable to maintain its long-standing hegemony on the high seas, would other nations take on the burdens and the expense of sustaining navies to fill in the gaps?

Even if they did, would this produce an open global commons—or rising tension? China and India are building bigger navies, but the result so far has been greater competition, not greater security. As Mohan Malik has noted in this newspaper, their “maritime rivalry could spill into the open in a decade or two,” when India deploys an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean and China deploys one in the Indian Ocean. The move from American-dominated oceans to collective policing by several great powers could be a recipe for competition and conflict rather than for a liberal economic order.

And do the Chinese really value an open economic system? The Chinese economy soon may become the largest in the world, but it will be far from the richest. Its size is a product of the country’s enormous population, but in per capita terms, China remains relatively poor. The U.S., Germany and Japan have a per capita GDP of over $40,000. China’s is a little over $4,000, putting it at the same level as Angola, Algeria and Belize. Even if optimistic forecasts are correct, China’s per capita GDP by 2030 would still only be half that of the U.S., putting it roughly where Slovenia and Greece are today.

Multipolar systems have historically been neither particularly stable nor particularly peaceful. Nearly a halfmillion combatants died in the Crimean War (depicted in “The Taking of Malakoff” by Horace Vernet, pictured here.)

As Arvind Subramanian and other economists have pointed out, this will make for a historically unique situation. In the past, the largest and most dominant economies in the world have also been the richest. Nations whose peoples are such obvious winners in a relatively unfettered economic system have less temptation to pursue protectionist measures and have more of an incentive to keep the system open.

China’s leaders, presiding over a poorer and still developing country, may prove less willing to open their economy. They have already begun closing some sectors to foreign competition and are likely to close others in the future. Even optimists like Mr. Subramanian believe that the liberal economic order will require “some insurance” against a scenario in which “China exercises its dominance by either reversing its previous policies or failing to open areas of the economy that are now highly protected.” American economic dominance has been welcomed by much of the world because, like the mobster Hyman Roth in “The Godfather,” the U.S. has always made money for its partners. Chinese economic dominance may get a different reception.

Another problem is that China’s form of capitalism is heavily dominated by the state, with the ultimate goal of preserving the rule of the Communist Party. Unlike the eras of British and American pre-eminence, when the leading economic powers were dominated largely by private individuals or companies, China’s system is more like the mercantilist arrangements of previous centuries. The government amasses wealth in order to secure its continued rule and to pay for armies and navies to compete with other great powers.

Although the Chinese have been beneficiaries of an open international economic order, they could end up undermining it simply because, as an autocratic society, their priority is to preserve the state’s control of wealth and the power that it brings. They might kill the goose that lays the golden eggs because they can’t figure out how to keep both it and themselves alive.

Finally, what about the long peace that has held among the great powers for the better part of six decades? Would it survive in a post-American world?

Most commentators who welcome this scenario imagine that American predominance would be replaced by some kind of multipolar harmony. But multipolar systems have historically been neither particularly stable nor particularly peaceful. Rough parity among powerful nations is a source of uncertainty that leads to miscalculation. Conflicts erupt as a result of fluctuations in the delicate power equation.

War among the great powers was a common, if not constant, occurrence in the long periods of multipolarity from the 16th to the 18th centuries, culminating in the series of enormously destructive Europe-wide wars that followed the French Revolution and ended with Napoleon’s defeat in 1815.

The 19th century was notable for two stretches of great-power peace of roughly four decades each, punctuated by major conflicts. The Crimean War (1853-1856) was a mini-world war involving well over a million Russian, French, British and Turkish troops, as well as forces from nine other nations; it produced almost a half-million dead combatants and many more wounded. In the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), the two nations together fielded close to two million troops, of whom nearly a half-million were killed or wounded.

The peace that followed these conflicts was characterized by increasing tension and competition, numerous war scares and massive increases in armaments on both land and sea. Its climax was World War I, the most destructive and deadly conflict that mankind had known up to that point. As the political scientist Robert W. Tucker has observed, “Such stability and moderation as the balance brought rested ultimately on the threat or use of force. War remained the essential means for maintaining the balance of power.”

There is little reason to believe that a return to multipolarity in the 21st century would bring greater peace and stability than it has in the past. The era of American predominance has shown that there is no better recipe for great-power peace than certainty about who holds the upper hand.

President Bill Clinton left office believing that the key task for America was to “create the world we would like to live in when we are no longer the world’s only superpower,” to prepare for “a time when we would have to share the stage.” It is an eminently sensible-sounding proposal. But can it be done? For particularly in matters of security, the rules and institutions of international order rarely survive the decline of the nations that erected them. They are like scaffolding around a building: They don’t hold the building up; the building holds them up.

International orderis not an evolution; it is an imposition. It will last only as long as those who favor it retain the will and capacity to defend it.

Many foreign-policy experts see the present international order as the inevitable result of human progress, a combination of advancing science and technology, an increasingly global economy, strengthening international institutions, evolving “norms” of international behavior and the gradual but inevitable triumph of liberal democracy over other forms of government—forces of change that transcend the actions of men and nations.

Americans certainly like to believe that our preferred order survives because it is right and just—not only for us but for everyone. We assume that the triumph of democracy is the triumph of a better idea, and the victory of market capitalism is the victory of a better system, and that both are irreversible. That is why Francis Fukuyama’s thesis about “the end of history” was so attractive at the end of the Cold War and retains its appeal even now, after it has been discredited by events. The idea of inevitable evolution means that there is no requirement to impose a decent order. It will merely happen.

But international order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over others—in America’s case, the domination of free-market and democratic principles, together with an international system that supports them. The present order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it.

There was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after World War II. No divine providence or unfolding Hegelian dialectic required the triumph of democracy and capitalism, and there is no guarantee that their success will outlast the powerful nations that have fought for them. Democratic progress and liberal economics have been and can be reversed and undone. The ancient democracies of Greece and the republics of Rome and Venice all fell to more powerful forces or through their own failings. The evolving liberal economic order of Europe collapsed in the 1920s and 1930s. The better idea doesn’t have to win just because it is a better idea. It requires great powers to champion it.

If and when American power declines, the institutions and norms that American power has supported will decline, too. Or more likely, if history is a guide, they may collapse altogether as we make a transition to another kind of world order, or to disorder. We may discover then that the U.S. was essential to keeping the present world order together and that the alternative to American power was not peace and harmony but chaos and catastrophe—which is what the world looked like right before the American order came into being.

A wholesale revolt against the deal, announced Thursday morning after all-night talks, still appeared unlikely: The main parties in the Greek coalition government—the socialist Pasok party and conservative New Democracy—are still behind the accord, which was approved by the cabinet Friday, and together they hold a large majority in the Parliament.

But the nationalist Laos party, the junior member of the coalition, withdrew its support Friday, saying it won’t vote for the reforms, a sign of the intense pressure facing politicians as they prepare for a parliamentary vote on the deeply unpopular austerity program as early as Sunday.

Clashes broke out in central Athens on Friday after Greece’s major unions launched a 48-hour nationwide strike to protest new austerity measures. Alkman Granitsas has details on The News Hub.

Protesters clash with riot police during a general strike in Athens on Friday.
Euro Zone Crisis Tracker

See economic, political and markets news from across Europe as governments and financial institutions deal with the continuing debt crisis.

The Laos party said four of its officials who hold posts in the cabinet of Prime Minister Lucas Papademos have offered to resign from the government.

The resignation offers came just hours after Laos party leader Giorgios Karatzaferis told a news conference: “There is no way we will vote for [the austerity measures],” and sharply criticized German leaders and Europe’s policy toward Greece saying he wouldn’t accept the further “humiliation” of the country.

Mr. Papademos has received the resignations and is considering them, officials in the prime minister’s office said. Speaking ahead of the cabinet meeting, Mr. Papademos said that those who don’t agree with the new program can’t stay in government.

“The bankruptcy of Greece is not an option we can permit,” he said.

Ahead of the cabinet meeting, clashes broke out in central Athens as Greece’s major unions launched a 48-hour nationwide strike to protest the measures demanded by the country’s creditors, adding to social tension in a country now in its fifth year of economic recession.

Hundreds of hooded youths in the main Syntagma Square in Athens attacked riot police with gasoline bombs, rocks and other projectiles, smashing objects in and around the square.

Police fired tear gas and staged running charges to scatter the youths. According to police estimates, some 18,000 demonstrators took part in the protest and there were 11 detentions, six arrests and a total of 10 injuries reported.

Euro-zone finance ministers refused to sign off on a second bailout program for Greece at their meeting Thursday night without the Greek Parliament voting to enshrine the new round of austerity into law. The ministers, deeply mistrustful of Greek political leaders after nearly two years of missed milestones, also asked for a written commitment from the main Greek political parties to support the program.

Uncertainty about the fate of the second bailout drove up government bond yields in the euro zone’s weaker economies. The euro fell almost a cent against the dollar to $1.319. With a €14.5 billion ($19.1 billion) bond repayment due March 20, time is running short for Europe and the International Monetary Fund to put together a complicated bond swap operation that is supposed to cut around €100 billion off what Greece owes its private-sector creditors.

The political parties supporting Mr. Papademos’s government backed the draft bailout program Thursday morning after all-night talks. The draft plan calls for more than €3 billion in additional cuts to the 2012 budget, as well as a deeply controversial plan to cut private-sector wages. It will slash the minimum wage in the private sector by 22%, abolish permanent jobs in state enterprises, and cut 150,000 jobs in the public sector by 2015, among other measures.

The package of cuts approved by the government cabinet Friday is scheduled to go before Parliament for a crucial vote Sunday. Finance ministers are set to meet again in Brussels on Wednesday to approve the deal, which would hand Greece an additional €130 billion in bailout loans.

The Laos party controls just 16 seats in Greece’s 300-member Parliament. Even without its support, the two main coalition partners—the Socialists and the conservative New Democracy party—have a combined 236-seat majority.

But the two main parties are facing dissent in their ranks, with several lawmakers from both parties voicing their objections to the package in the past few days.

The announcement by Mr. Karatzaferis may embolden other lawmakers to also break with party lines and comes amid rising popular opposition to the new austerity measures.

Mr. Karatzaferis has been the shakiest supporter of Mr. Papademos’s government. Since joining the coalition in November last year, Laos has seen its popularity slip in recent public opinion polls, while Greece’s left wing parties—who oppose the measures as well as the coalition—have seen their support grow. Despite saying he would vote down the measuresHe had said he would continue to support Mr. Papademos and renewed his call for a cabinet reshuffle that would replace existing Socialist ministers with technocrats.
—Andrea Thomas in Berlin contributed to this article.

Romney’s win on Saturday was his second in a row and third in the first five contests in the state-by-state Republican nominating battle.

The well-funded and organised Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, crushed rivals Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.

Romney captured 44 per cent of the vote, with about 43 per cent of precincts counted, taking about a 20-point lead over his closest rivals.

Nevada, which has a faltering economy and a big Mormon population, was considered friendly territory for Romney, a Mormon and former head of a private equity firm.
In-depth coverage of the US presidential election

He captured 51 per cent of the vote in 2008 to win the state during his failed 2008 presidential bid.

Romney had stressed his business background as a cure for the ailing economy in Nevada, which has the country’s highest state unemployment rate, 12.6 per cent in December, and the highest home foreclosure rate.

One Republican voter in Pahrump, a town near Las Vegas, told Al Jazeera, “I think the consensus is that we don’t need socialism, and that’s how we feel about Obama.”

Al Jazeera’s Rob Reynolds, reporting from Parhump, said: “With Nevada and other western swing states likely to play a crucial role in this year’s presedential election, the candidates will be paying a lot more attention to places like this.”

Romney hopes the Nevada result will launch a February winning streak that could position him for a knockout blow to his main rival, Gingrich, during the 10 “Super Tuesday” contests on March 6.

Gingrich held a news conference after the results were announced to head off any speculation that he might put an early
end to his campaign.

“I’m not going to withdraw,” Gingrich told reporters, repeating his frequent vow to continue his campaign all the way
to the nominating convention in Florida in August. “I’m actually pretty happy with where we are.”

Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri will have nominating contests on Tuesday. Maine will wrap up its weeklong caucuses next Saturday, and Arizona and Michigan hold February 28 contests.

Romney won Colorado, Minnesota, Maine and Michigan during his failed 2008 presidential bid.

He came in second in Arizona to native son and eventual nominee John McCain, an Arizona senator, and finished third in Missouri.

“It is still a race, but Romney is pulling away, for sure,” Reynolds said.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN chief, said on Sunday that the crisis between the former enemies has become a major threat to peace and security in Africa and Princeton Lyman, the US special envoy to Sudan, said both sides are acting out of desperation, taking “dramatic actions” because they fail to see prospects to reach an agreement.

Stephen Dhieu Dau, South Sudan’s minister of petroleum and mining, said his country was “committed to negotiations” but that Khartoum would have to accept their demand of a $2.4bn financial assistance package before South Sudan turns on production again.

Additionally, Sudan must withdraw troops from the disputed border region of Abyei and stop funding rebel groups in South Sudan under an internationally-guaranteed agreement, he said.

Landlocked South Sudan began halting oil production last week after accusing its northern neighbour of stealing $815m worth of its oil. Sudan detained the oil tankers loading oil from the south in Port Sudan in response.

But Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir decided on Saturday to “release the vessels detained in Port Sudan as soon as possible”, said Sayed al-Khatib, a spokesperson for Sudan’s negotiation team.

Al-Khatib also said Bashir is ready to sign an agreement with South Sudan’s president Salva Kiir “by the end of today”.

He said all parties were ready to sign a deal alongside a meeting of East African leaders in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa. “This would have meant that we could leave the crisis behind us,” he said.

The two leaders had met on Friday in Addis Ababa but the talks were unproductive. Sudan admits to taking oil from the South, but says it was to compensate for export fees and use of its refineries.

Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki, Somali leader Sharif Sheik Ahmed, and Djibouti’s Ismael Omar Guelleh also attended the talks in Addis Ababa.

‘Major threat to peace’

“The situation in Sudan and South Sudan has reached a critical point, it has become a major threat to peace and security across the region,” Ban Ki-moon said at an African Union summit meeting in the Ethiopian capital.

“The international community needs to act, and it needs to act now,” Ban added. “As long as these issues remain unresolved, tensions will only grow.”

Asked by reporters if he feared war could break out again, Ban replied: “That is also a great concern for me as Secretary General. That is why I’m meeting as many African leaders as possible.”

Both sides are acting out of desperation, taking “dramatic actions” because they fail to see prospects to reach an agreement, Princeton Lyman, the US special envoy to Sudan, told the Associated Press news agency.

Unless the two sides reach an agreement, he said, both will “suffer and suffer in not too long a period.”

Lyman said the oil crisis had pushed humanitarian issues off to the side. “It’s clear that the situation is declining very rapidly,” he said.

“Without access for the international community we see what could emerge as a major humanitarian crisis for the continent, and a preventable crisis that the African Union has to address.”

South Sudan split from Sudan in July, taking with it three-quarters of the country’s oil, which makes up more than 90 per cent of the South’s revenue.

Separately, South Sudan said on Friday it had discovered new figures that it claimed showed the north had colluded with oil companies to provide lower production figures on paper than was actually being pumped from the ground.

Stephen Dhieu Dau, the South’s oil minister, said in some cases oil production was under-reported by as much as 15 per cent.

Chinese workers captured

In a seperate development, China said on Sunday that 29 of its workers were abducted from a remote worksite in a volatile region of Sudan.

A Chinese embassy spokesperson In Khartoum said the northern branch of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement announced the workers’ capture in an attack.

The foreign ministry in Beijing said the fighters attacked on Saturday and Sudanese forces launched a rescue mission on Sunday in coordination with its embassy.

The ministry’s head of consular affairs met with the Sudanese ambassador in Beijing and “urged him to actively conduct rescue missions under the prerequisite of ensuring the safety of the Chinese personnel,” the statement said.

China has close political and economic relations with Sudan, especially in the energy sector.

Sudan has accused South Sudan of arming pro-South Sudan groups in South Kordofan.

The government of South Sudan has called the accusations a smoke screen intended to justify a future invasion of the South.

Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan was a 32-year-old Iranian father and a nuclear scientist. Earlier this month, an assassin attached a magnetic explosive device to his car in Tehran. The bomb was detonated and both Ahmadi-Roshan and his driver were killed in the explosion.

In the civilised world, the lives of scientists and other civilians are formally protected from directed inter-state violence. Numerous international norms and conventions are designed to isolate civilians from the most brutal consequences of armed conflicts. In war, the act of deliberately targeting civilians or their infrastructure is a criminal one. In the absence of war, however, the act of targeting civilians is terrorism. And assassinating civilians in order to affect political subterfuge is an especially ugly kind of terrorism.

Events unfolded predictably after Ahmadi-Roshan’s murder. The Iranian government quickly blamed the US and Israelis for perpetrating the assassination (the British were tacked on for good measure). The US and the British responded with fast and vociferous denials, while the Israelis only offered mealy mouthed non-denials.

Unsurprisingly, it has been reported that Israeli Mossad agents were responsible for killing the young scientist; the hit had all the agency’s flamboyant and theatrical hallmarks. Equally unsurprising was the extent to which the US went to distance themselves from the ill-advised Israeli decision to terrorise civilians in Tehran. After all, the two countries have vastly different interests when it comes to igniting another war in the Gulf.

US warns Iran against closing oil route

Israeli leaders are not irrational. They know what is at stake. A scenario where the US attacks Iran can only improve their relative political position vis-à-vis Iran. And with little perceived risk to themselves.

Power struggle

The most popular refrain in Israel (and Congress) today is that Iran poses an existential threat to the small Jewish-majority state. That is because Iran is apparently pursuing a nuclear weapon. Once that supposed nuclear weapon has been manufactured, Iranian mullahs will order that it be employed and await their own annihilation in rapturous, convulsive ecstasy (Israel possesses about 200 nuclear weapons).

In reality, however, the Israelis understand that Iran will not pursue anyone’s eradication – their more honest leaders say so regularly. The two countries are engaged in the kind of regional power struggle that has been the preserve of insurgent powers for centuries now. The Israelis possess a qualitative military advantage which the Iranians seek to neutralise. One very effective way of doing so has been to nurture asymmetrical guerrilla organisations such as the Lebanese Hezbollah. Another way of shrinking the Israeli advantage is by pursuing nuclear weapons.

To be sure, it is far from clear that the Iranians are pursuing a nuclear weapon. Their nuclear enrichment programme is legal under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, which they have signed and ratified. But the Iranians have no doubt taken note of two recent and relevant case studies: North Korea and Libya. Kim Jong-Il died of natural causes. Muammar Gadaffi did not.

Binyamin Netanyahu made a two-fold calculation when he ordered Ahmadi-Roshan’s murder. First, the Iranians may react – or overreact – to the assassination. That would provide the US and the Israelis with the kind of flimsy political cover they require to attack. In the anarchical world of inter-state competition, few states in the Middle East would actually object to a US attack, particularly if the Iranians could be made to appear confrontational. Indeed, the Saudi Arabian leadership would like nothing better than for the US to contain Iran, a regional rival.

Second, should the Iranians react – by closing the Strait of Hormuz, for example – the subsequent damage to the global and US economies may aid in unseating the incumbent US president.

This is a point that bears emphasising. For decades now, Israeli leaders have injected themselves into domestic US politics. Netanyahu especially has been an active lobbyist in Congress; the New York Times calls him “singularly influential”.

During President Clinton’s Democratic administration, Netanyahu worked with then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, a Republican, to antagonise the president. Now, as then, the Israeli prime minister has cultivated a poor relationship with the US president. Barack Obama is not Netanyahu’s preferred choice for the US, despite his pliancy on the question of Israeli theft of Palestinian land.

Netanyahu’s choice?

The November presidential election in the US will hinge on one issue – the strength of the economy. The latest series of leading economic indicators suggest that Obama has done a reasonably good job of forestalling the kind of economic collapse that could cost him the incumbency. But the domestic economy remains fragile and any significant shocks to global commerce could shatter the US recovery.

In other words, a confrontation with Iran could result in a Republican presidency in 2013. Netanyahu believes that Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney – both ardent Zionists – would be more receptive to his views. Recent comments issued by both men suggest that he may be right.

Barack Obama – who is a perhaps more skillful and wily politician than even Netanyahu – seems to understand the consequences of a significant conflict with Iran. He instructed his subordinates to distance the US from the Israeli assassination of the Iranian scientist and also cancelled scheduled war games in the region. He also reportedly recently communicated directly with the Iranian leadership about US interests in the Strait of Hormuz.

In an environment where bluster and vague intentions can have an outsized negative impact, Obama has sent clear signals that the United States does not seek war with Iran at the present time.
In-depth coverage of the US presidential election

The Iranians too cannot benefit from a war with the US. The destruction of Iraq – a formerly antagonistic state – has strengthened their regional position immeasurably. Today, the soft influence they exert in that country rivals even that of the US.

They also stand to increase their influence in other regional states, particularly if a nuclear weapon is successfully developed. For the Iranian regime, the status-quo is a substantial improvement over their position ten years ago, and war at this time would derail much of the progress they have made.

While the interests of Iran, the US, Israel and the Gulf states are clear enough, the behaviour of leaders in those countries remains difficult to predict. Israel does not possess the military ability to destroy Iran’s enrichment facilities on its own and the US administration has no interest in going to war.

But the Netanyahu government may still decide to strike Iran without US approval. The Israeli leader will rely heavily on his allies in Congress to engineer his rescue and Obama may have no choice but to respond to their pressure. But even in this scenario, Netanyahu will want to appear to be responding to an Iranian provocation.

The Iranians, for their part, appear to know better. They responded to Ahmadi-Roshan’s murder with a letter – hardly a pretext for war.

Cain, who ended his presidential campaign in December under the weight of sexual harassment allegations, made the endorsement at an event with Gingrich in West Palm Beach, Florida.

It is unclear how much impact it will have for Gingrich in Florida, which has been trending towards rival Mitt Romney ahead of the state’s vote on Tuesday.

“I hereby officially and enthusiastically endorse Newt Gingrich for president of the United States,” Cain said on Saturday.

Romney, already confident after strong performances in two Florida debates, is gaining ground over Gingrich for the nomination to take on Democratic President Barack Obama in the November 6 election.

Just three days ahead of the pivotal primary race that could determine who has the momentum to win the Republican state-by-state nominating battle, Gingrich and Romney spent the day travelling around Florida in a search for undecided voters.
In-depth coverage of the US presidential election

A Reuters/Ipsos online poll released on Saturday showed Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts and off-and-on Republican front-runner, with an 11 percentage point lead over Gingrich, up from 8 points a day earlier.

Romney drew support of 43 per cent of likely voters in Florida’s January 31 primary and Gingrich 32 per cent.

Gingrich, stung by what he considers unfair attacks from Romney, told reporters in Port St. Lucie that no matter the outcome on Tuesday in Florida, he will keep battling until Republicans formally nominate their candidate at a convention in Tampa in late August.

“I will go all the way to the convention. I expect to win the nomination,” he said.

Romney needs a victory on Tuesday to regain his footing after losing badly to Gingrich in the South Carolina primary
last weekend, the third nominating contest.

Gingrich, a former speaker of the US House of Representatives, needs a Florida win to solidify the front-runner mantle he took on after his South Carolina victory.

How did they do it?

That is the question many Americans are asking of Mitt and Ann Romney’s 2010 tax bill, disclosed on Monday evening. While the couple paid almost $3 million in taxes, that amounted to less than 14% of their $21.6 million income.

The Romneys’ rate was far lower than the average of 24% paid by the top 1% of U.S. earners, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The couple’s 2010 filing presents a rare glimpse into how the ultrawealthy can use the tax code to their benefit, and offers important lessons for others.

The biggest: the powerful tax benefits of capital gains, which are taxed at a top rate of just 15% if the underlying investment is held for more than a year.
Related Video

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid a 14% effective income tax rate in 2010 after making $3 million in tax-deductible charitable donations and drawing most of his income from investments. Brody Mullins discusses on Campaign Journal.

Mitt Romney is working hard to make voters dislike Newt Gingrich and President Obama. But Mr. Romney has yet to crack a tougher nut: persuading voters to like him. Neil King has details on Lunch Break.

“There’s a saying in Texas: If you don’t have an oil well, get one,” says Janet Hagy , a certified public accountant practicing in Austin, Texas. “I tell my clients, ‘If you don’t have capital gains, get some.’”

Another lesson: Get good tax help. The Romneys’ 1040 return is 203 pages long, with different “schedules” and 20 different forms attached, some of them multiple times—not the sort of work typically done by a neighborhood Joe.

Says David Kautter of the Kogod Tax Center at American University in Washington: “The only schedules missing [from the Romneys' return] are the ones for fishermen, farmers and the elderly. Maybe Mitt should get some cows so he can have a ‘full house’ of schedules.”

Some have suggested that, despite their low tax rate, the Romneys might have paid a few thousand extra dollars in tax. Among other things, they take no mortgage-interest deduction—a write-off claimed by 80% of taxpayers who itemize—or deductions for a home office, a car or travel expenses.

But given the complexity of their filings and the public scrutiny they were sure to endure, overpayments were far preferable to underpayments, experts say. The Romneys must file several separate returns for the “blind” trusts the couple set up to manage their investments, any of which could present snags. (The wealthy often do this when they are running for office, in order to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.)

Experts who have parsed the returns say the Romneys’ advisers have been tax-smart without crossing legal lines. “The trustee has clearly gotten good advice and managed to reduce the Romneys’ taxes in many perfectly legal ways,” says Tom Ochsenschlager, a former official at the American Institute of CPAs who now teaches at American University.

Former IRS Commissioner Fred T. Goldberg, who examined the filings for the Romney campaign, characterized them differently: “This return reflects a trustee who spent a lot of care and time finding investment opportunities with the potential for substantial appreciation. By their very nature, these investments generate capital gains.”

The returns don’t disclose everything about the Romneys’ finances. The couple isn’t required to report their underlying wealth, investment returns or fees as a percentage of invested assets, for example.

But the filings do lift the veil on how the wealthy can use the tax code to their advantage. Here are some lessons the experts have gleaned.

A. Avoid salary, wages and tips to the extent possible. The Romneys reported no such compensation, which is taxable at rates up to 35%. In addition, these types of pay are subject to payroll taxes: a 6.2% Social Security tax (lowered to 4.2% in 2011) and 1.45% in Medicare tax, both of which the employer matches. While the Social Security tax is capped each year at a certain income level ($110,100 for 2012), the Medicare tax isn’t.

Some experts believe “carried interest,” or profits such as those from investments that Mr. Romney received as a partner at Bain Capital, should be taxed as compensation at rates up to 35%. Currently, those profits usually count as capital gains and are taxed at a top rate of 15%.

B. Muni-bond interest isn’t the be-all and end-all. Many wealthy people turn to municipal bonds for tax-free income, but the Romneys reported only $557 of tax-free interest in 2010—and $3.3 million of taxable interest.

Kenneth Brier, an attorney at Brier & Geurden in Needham, Mass., notes that Massachusetts has a flat tax of 5.3%, making munis less attractive there than in high-tax states with graduated rates such as New York or California. And because the Romneys’ overall tax rate is so low, the after-tax difference between munis and taxable bonds might not be large enough to justify investing in munis, Mr. Ochsenschlager says.

Some of the taxable interest on the Romney’s 2010 return came from U.S. Treasurys; such interest isn’t subject to state taxes.

C.Strive for “qualified” dividends. The Romneys’ 2010 return reports $3.3 million of qualified dividends, which are taxed at a top rate of 15%. (There is another $1.6 million of nonqualified dividends, taxed like interest income.)

What makes a dividend “qualified”? In general, the dividend must be from a stock held at least two months and paid by any domestic corporation or most foreign corporations. The dividend can’t come from a stock that a brokerage firm has lent as part of a short sale, says Robert Willens, an independent tax expert in New York.

D. If you have a “Schedule C” business, think twice before claiming a home-office deduction.The Romneys didn’t take one on either of two Schedule C forms, which are for business results reported on personal returns. The Romneys used their Schedule C forms for director’s fees and speaking fees.

Not only do home-office deductions raise red flags at the IRS, but they can come back to haunt taxpayers when the home is sold: Part of the gain on the home’s sale may not be eligible for the $250,000 or $500,000 tax exclusion because taxpayers who took depreciation deductions in prior years have to reduce the exclusion by that amount.

In addition to raising taxes in many cases, this poses a record-keeping problem, Mr. Ochsenschlager says.

E. Generate income from long-term capital gains. The biggest factor in the Romneys’ super-low tax rate is their outsize income from capital gains: $12.6 million in 2010. Most of that consisted of long-term gains, which, like qualified dividends, are taxed at a top rate of 15%.

The benefits don’t end there. While the tax code gives wage earners almost no flexibility as to timing, the capital-gains rules offer unparalleled flexibility. Investors can often time when they take a gain or loss, and losses may be used to offset gains so that no tax is due. There are few restrictions: For example, a loss on land held as an investment can offset the gain from a stock.

Net capital losses can shelter up to $3,000 a year of ordinary income from tax, and losses can be carried forward indefinitely to shelter future gains. Canny investors or their advisers often “harvest” losses during market downturns, reacquire the investment after 30 days and use those losses to offset future gains, Mr. Willens says.

On Schedule D of their 2010 return, the Romneys’ original long-term capital gain of $16.8 million was reduced by $4.8 million of carried-over long-term capital losses.

F. Know the score on itemized deductions. One way the Romneys resemble many other taxpayers is that they didn’t get a medical-expenses deduction. Only expenses above 7.5% of adjusted gross income are deductible; for the Romneys, that hurdle amounted to $1.6 million, while they reported medical expenses of just $14,176.

The Romneys did make tax-wise charitable contributions. They gave away nearly $3 million, almost 14% of their adjusted gross income, about half in cash and half in other forms.

All of their contributions were fully deductible, whereas the biggest givers are subject to limits. Billionaire Warren Buffett, for example, gives away such vast sums each year that much of it can’t be deducted from his income tax (though the gifts will be out of his estate).

Making noncash gifts—such as appreciated stock or other assets—often is a smart move for people like the Romneys because they can skip paying capital-gains tax on any appreciation, while getting a full deduction.

For example, say a higher-bracket taxpayer has 100 shares of stock bought years ago for $30 a share that is worth $80 when he donates it. If he sold the stock, paid tax and gave the remaining cash to charity, it would receive $7,250 and he would have a deduction of the same amount. If he gives the stock directly to the charity, it would receive $8,000, and he could deduct the full $8,000. (Some restrictions apply.)

G. Capital gains and dividends can help trigger the AMT. Long-term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at 15% and aren’t subject to the alternative minimum tax.

The AMT takes away the value of deductions, such as the one for state taxes, when taxpayers are deemed to have too many write-offs. But a large percentage of capital gains and dividends in a taxpayer’s overall income mix can cause a taxpayer to owe AMT.

The reason: With capital gains and dividends off limits, deductions loom large relative to other income, and that triggers AMT. The Romneys paid $232,989 in AMT in 2010 and lost the value of their state tax and other deductions, according to Jay Starkman, a CPA in Atlanta. “Without that, their tax rate would have been even lower,” he says.

H. Beware of small benefits requiring large tax-prep efforts. The oddest line on the Romneys’ 2010 return is a tax credit for $1 of “General Business Credit.” Don Williamson of American University’s Kogod Tax Center says the credit could be for hiring a disadvantaged youth or qualified veteran and it flowed through from an investment partnership.

But likely it cost far more than $1 just to fill out the three-page Form 8300 for the return. Mr. Williamson says he sees this problem all the time. Often tax-prep fees are disproportionate to an investment’s tax benefit or the income it produces, he says—especially with larger investment partnerships.

One other lesson: For the wealthy, offshore investments can save onshore taxes. Robert Gordon, head of Twenty-First Securities in New York, a firm specializing in tax strategies, points out that the Romneys’ 2010 return has 17 different filings of IRS Form 8621. Each indicates an investment, perhaps a hedge or private-equity fund, held in an offshore corporation.

These are legal arrangements, Mr. Gordon stresses. They can have significant tax advantages for the wealthy who live in high-tax states—especially Massachusetts, because its flat tax allows no deductions.

Investments held offshore in what is known as a “blocker corporation” can allow U.S. taxpayers to pay less tax than if the same investment were made through an onshore entity, Mr. Gordon says.

He offers an example. Say a partnership based in the U.S. invests $100, $80 of which is borrowed. It earns $5 of profits and has $4 in interest expense, for $1 of net pretax profit. In Massachusetts there isn’t an interest deduction, so the entire $5 would be taxable.

If the investment were held in a fund based in the Cayman Islands, however, only $1 would be taxable in Massachusetts. Federal deductions subject to limits would also be preserved, Mr. Gordon says.

Write to Laura Saunders at laura.saunders@wsj.com.

Corrections & Amplifications
Part of the gain on a home’s sale may not be eligible for the $250,000 or $500,000 tax exclusion because taxpayers who took depreciation deductions for a home office in prior years have to reduce the exclusion by that amount. An earlier version of this article said the percentage of the sales price attributable to the home office wouldn’t be eligible for the exclusion.

WASHINGTON — The United States wants a greater military presence in Southeast Asia but does not seek permanent bases anywhere in the region, the chief of the Pacific Command said.

Despite impending budget cuts, the U.S. wants to reinforce its presence in the Asia-Pacific, as its involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winds down. That reflects the region’s growing economic importance and concern about China’s military capabilities and intentions.

A file photo of President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama arriving at the USS Arizona Memorial with Admiral Robert Willard and his wife Donna Willard, Dec. 29, 2011, in Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Adm. Robert Willard said U.S. forces — heavily deployed in Japan and South Korea — are now “biased” toward Northeast Asia. He said arrangements announced in recent months to station American troops in northern Australia and dock Navy vessels in Singapore would enable the U.S. to rotate forces through Southeast Asia more easily, and without the cost of sustaining bases there.

He indicated the U.S. was seeking something similar with the Philippines.

“We would welcome discussions with the Philippines along those lines but there’s no aspirations for bases in Southeast Asia,” Adm. Willard told a news conference.

In Washington on Friday, senior U.S. and Philippine diplomats and defense officials completed two days of strategic talks. They agreed to increase cooperation in areas including maritime security, defense, commerce and disaster relief, a joint statement said.

Both sides have been at pains to say re-establishing the kind of permanent American base that was closed in the Philippines 20 years ago is not on the cards. But in Manila, Foreign Secretary Albert Del Rosario said in a statement the Philippines was considering more joint military exercises with the U.S. and “a rotating and more frequent presence by them.”

The Philippines also wants more training and American military hardware: an additional U.S. Coast Guard cutter, a squadron of F-16 fighter jets and other weapons to bolster its territorial defense.

That reflects concern over China’s growing military power and assertive behavior in the resource-rich South China Sea, where the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan all have conflicting territorial claims with the Asian superpower.

The U.S. says it has a national interest in the peaceful resolution of those disputes and in freedom of navigation in waters that are home to some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. For its part, China views the U.S. strategic shift to Asia and diplomatic pronouncements on the South China Sea as an attempt to contain it.

Adm. Willard expressed concern over “area denial” capabilities in the region — a reference to China’s growing missile, air, sea and cyber war strength. He said the U.S. wants deeper military ties with China, to contribute to regional stability and prosperity.

He said in the past year they have sustained military ties at the strategic, or senior level, but China is reluctant to have tactical and operational ties with the U.S. for more familiarity between their forces.

“I’m not satisfied the military relationship is where it needs to be,” Adm. Willard said.

Mehdi Mehdizadeh said Saturday that confidence building would be the foundation of negotiations with the IAEA team, adding that Iran will restate during the talks that its activities are peaceful and civilian and the country does not seek to produce military weapons.

A high-ranking IAEA delegation is scheduled to begin a three-day trip to Iran. The team, led by the IAEA Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts and the agency’s number two Rafael Grossi, will arrive in Tehran on Sunday upon an invitation from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).

The visit is aimed at holding talks within the framework of the IAEA article of association to bolster cooperation between the two sides. The UN atomic agency’s team has no plan to inspect Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Mehdizadeh, who is a member of the Majlis (parliament) National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said while IAEA nuclear inspectors may publish information, “contrary to existing realities,” about Tehran’s nuclear activities after the talks, Iran has acted within the framework of the agency regulations.

He went to say that the issue of leaking the names of Iranian nuclear scientists will be another important topic of discussions with agency inspectors.

Iran accuses the UN nuclear supervisory body of leaking the names of nuclear scientists, making them potential targets for the secret services of the country’s enemies. Just recently Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was assassinated after meeting with IAEA inspectors.

MR/PKH/HGH

The 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, was specifically designed to take out the facilities built by Iran deep underground for its nuclear program, The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

However, initial tests showed that the earth-penetrating weapon, which is built by Boeing Co., was not capable to destroy Iran’s underground compounds, either because of their depth or because new fortifications prevent any harm to them.

The findings prompted the Pentagon to submit a clandestine request to the Congress this month, urging more fund to increase the penetrative force of the bomb into rock, concrete and steel before explosion.

American officials say the push for a more bunker buster bomb is part of the contingency planning for a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations.

The US Defense Department has spent about USD330 million so far to develop about 20 Massive Ordnance Penetrators. The Pentagon is seeking about USD82 million more to enhance the bomb’s penetration ability.

The United States, Israel, and some of their allies accuse Tehran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program. Washington and Tel Aviv have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the “option” of a military strike against its atomic facilities.

Meanwhile, the UN Security Council — under pressure from Washington and Tel Aviv — has imposed four rounds of sanctions against Iran. The United States and the European Union have also adopted unilateral measures against the Islamic Republic in an effort to deter Western investment in Iran’s energy sector.

Iran argues that as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has every right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

The IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities but has never found any evidence indicating that Tehran’s civilian nuclear program has been diverted to nuclear weapons production.

MP/HGH

Police on Saturday confirmed the attack first reported by residents, saying it took place just before 7:00pm (1800 GMT) on Friday.

Gunmen “opened fire on our men and the policemen on duty fired back leading to a shootout,” the AFP news agency cited city police spokesman Magaji Majia as saying, adding that one officer was killed.

Witnesses had earlier said two officers had been killed.

President Jonathan has called for Boko Haram to state its demands as a basis for talks

“Gunmen attacked Mandwari police station this evening. The gunfire between them and the police was really bad,” Mohammed Sorondikin, a witness, said on Friday.

“People were scrambling for safety.”

The group killed more than 500 people last year and another 250 in the first weeks of 2012 in gun and bomb attacks in the West African country, according to Human Rights Watch.

The latest clashes came after Nigerian president, Goodluck Jonathan, challenged Boko Haram to identify itself and state clearly its demands as a basis for talks.

“If they clearly identify themselves now and say this is the reason why we are resisting, this is the reason why we are confronting government or this is the reason why we destroy some innocent people and their properties … then there will be a basis for dialogue,” Jonathan said in an interview with the Reuters news agency in the capital, Abuja,on Thursday.

“We will dialogue, let us know your problems and we will solve your problem, but if they don’t identify themselves, who will you dialogue with?”

Jonathan said there was no doubt that Boko Haram had links with groups that advocate for violent jihad outside Nigeria.

Responsibility claim

Jonathan’s remarks came as the purported leader of the group issued new threats in a message posted on YouTube, while also saying that last week’s attacks in Kano were over the torture of its members.

“We were responsible,” a voice identified as that of the suspected Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau, says in audio played over a picture of him.
A voice identified to be of ‘Boko Haram leader’ Abubakar Shekau claimed responsibility for the Kano attacks [AFP]

“I ordered it and I will give that order again and again. God gave us victory.”

A purported spokesman for the group had earlier claimed responsibility for the co-ordinated bombings and shootings on January 20 in Kano, Nigeria’s second largest city, which left at least 185 people dead.

Police stations were the main targets.

The man said to be Shekau says in the message that “we attacked the security formations because our members were arrested and tortured. Our women and children have also been arrested”.

He then issues another threat: “They should know that they also have wives and children. We can also abduct them. It is not beyond our powers.

“Soldiers raided an Islamic seminary in Maiduguri and desecrated the Quran. They should bear in mind that they also have primary and secondary schools and universities, and we can also attack them.”

The authenticity of the message could not be independently verified, but the photo matched with previous ones said to be of Shekau and the voice was similar to earlier recordings.

Recent attacks

Kano state and its capital city of 10 million people have been under siege in the past few weeks by gunmen from the
militant sect, which wants to impose sharia law across Nigeria.

Boko Haram’s attacks have become more sophisticated and deadly in recent weeks in Africa’s top oil producing country.

A series of gun and bomb attacks, mostly on police stations, killed 186 people in Kano, Nigeria’s second city, last Friday.

Most of the victims were civilians shot dead by the sect, witnesses and police said.

Also in Kano, unidentified armed men abducted a German working for a construction company in the city on Thursday, police said.

Musa Majiya, a police spokesperson, said the man, an engineer, was abducted at a construction site by two armed men in a sedan who “came and handcuffed him and put him in the boot and zoomed away”.

He said that police were investigating the incident.

Landlocked South Sudan began halting oil production last week after accusing Sudan of stealing $815mn worth of the south’s oil. Sudan detained the oil tankers loading oil from the south in Port Sudan in response.

But Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir decided on Saturday to “release the vessels detained in Port Sudan as soon as possible”, said Sayed al-Khatib, a spokesman for Sudan’s negotiation team.

Al-Khatib also said Bashir is ready to sign an agreement with South Sudan’s president Salva Kiir “by the end of today”.

Al-Khatib said all parties were ready to sign a deal alongside a meeting of East African leaders in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa.

“This would have meant that we could leave the crisis behind us,” he said.

Former foes

The two leaders had met on Friday in Addis Ababa but the talks were unproductive. Sudan admits to taking oil from the South, but says it was to compensate for export fees and use of its refineries.

The South this week began to halt oil production after it ordered a complete shutdown over the dispute with Khartoum.

Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki, Somali leader Sharif Sheik Ahmed, and Djibouti’s Ismael Omar Guelleh also attended the talks in Addis Ababa.

South Sudan split from Sudan in July, taking with it three-quarters of the country’s oil, which makes up more than 90 per cent of the South’s revenue.

Separately, South Sudan said on Friday it had discovered new figures that it claimed showed the north had colluded with oil companies to provide lower production figures on paper than was actually being pumped from the ground.

Stephen Dhieu Dau, the South’s oil minister, said in some cases oil production was under-reported by as much as 15 per cent.

“There is effectively a ‘non-paper’ that was presented to the Eurogroup,” one of the sources said on Saturday, referring to reports that Germany had submitted a proposal to have the eurozone assume control over the Greek budget before it receives a new bailout.

“Greece will not discuss such a possibility,” said the source. “It is out of the question that we would accept it, these are matters of national sovereignty.”

Al Jazeera’s Andrew Simmons, reporting from Davos, said the possibility of the EU having any oversight of a member-state’s buget has huge implications for the future of the European bloc.

“This [condition] caused outrage in Greece and consternation in EU in general. Basically, the EU would be taking over the budget and telling the Greeks what they can do and they can’t do,” Simmons said.

“What their saying in Greece point blank is: you can’t do this,” he added.
In Depth

Q&A: Eurozone debt crisis
Map: Eurozone members
Profile: George Papandreou
Timeline: Greek debt crisis

Earlier, UK’s Financial Times newspaper said it had obtained a copy of the proposal showing Germany wanted a new eurozone “budget commissioner” to have the power to veto budget decisions taken by the Greek government if they were not in line with targets set by international lenders.

“Given the disappointing compliance so far, Greece has to accept shifting budgetary sovereignty to the European level for a certain period of time,” the document said.

Under the German plan, Greece would only be allowed to carry out normal state spending after servicing its debt, the Financial Times said.

“If a future [bail-out] tranche is not disbursed, Greece cannot threaten its lenders with a default, but will instead have to accept further cuts in primary expenditures as the only possible consequence of any non-disbursement,” the newspaper quoted the document as saying.

Germany’s alleged proposal comes amid discussions to finalise a second $170bn rescue package for Greece, which has repeatedly failed to meet the fiscal targets set out for it by its international lenders.

Al Jazeera’s John Psaropoulos, reporting from Athens, said the reaction of the Greek government was a dismissal of the proposal as a “non-issue”.

“The government spokesman said the execution of the [national] budget is the exclusive right of the Greek government,” Psaropoulos said.

Three top U.S. lobbyists have ended their lucrative contract representing the Egyptian government, the latest fallout from a Dec. 29 Egyptian raid on U.S and European-backed groups monitoring parliamentary elections there.

Former Reps. Bob Livingston (R-La.) and Toby Moffett (D-Conn.), as well as high-powered Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta, have terminated their lobbying contract with the Egyptian government.

The trio split a $90,000-plus per month lobbying contract to represent Egypt’s interests in Washington.

The tipping point for the high-profile lobbyists appears to have been the no-fly order instituted by Egyptian authorities that has prevented as many as 10 American and Europeans, including the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, from leaving Egypt. Other elements of the Egyptian government, not the military, appear responsible for that decision. But the end result is a real risk of damaging what has been a longstanding alliance that is important to both Egypt and the United States in the Mideast.

And the loss of powerful friends in Washington will further isolate Egypt at a sensitive point.

Livingston confirmed on Friday night that he, Podesta and Moffett — who set up the PLM Group to handle the Egyptian contract beginning in 2007 — have ended the contract, but the former lawmaker declined to offer any further details.

“We all have” Livingston said in an email when asked whether his associates also have quit.

“We hope that Egyptians continue to enjoy the deepening of democracy in their country, and that Egypt remains a strong, stable and vital ally of the United States,” the three lobbyists said in a joint statement released on Saturday.

The PLM contract with Egypt had become a source of controversy since POLITICO reported earlier this week that a Livingston Group lobbyist had circulated talking points downplaying the Dec. 29 raid. In an earlier interview, Livingston insisted that he was not defending the Egyptian action but making sure members of Congress, Hill staffers and Obama administration officials were aware of the Egyptian position on the raid, as required by his job as a registered foreign agent for the Egyptian government.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72102.html#ixzz1kmYyWCAD

Maybe that would have sounded better in 2008, when Obama put the kibosh on the Democratic outside money infrastructure — or even in 2010, when Obama led a chorus of Democrats assailing Republicans’ outside spending.

But this year, Democrats are playing the same game. Obama’s team has blessed a network of super PACs trying to raise the same seven-figure checks as Romney’s. And Obama’s allies have gone even further than Romney’s, setting up nonprofit groups that do not disclose their donors at all.

In fact, top Democrats are so adament about the need to raise unlimited — and sometimes secret — cash this year that some operatives aren’t pleased about the recent attacks. It’s a whole lot tougher to get wealthy liberals to fork over mega-checks when the politicians who’d benefit are ripping Republicans for taking the same types of contributions.

Then there are doubts about the effectiveness of such attacks, considering how they went the last time Democrats tried them in 2010. Obama and his allies spent the final weeks before Election Day complaining bitterly about GOP-allied spending groups, hinting they could be awash in illegal foreign money, only to watch Republicans notch historic gains in the House.

And, beyond that, the Obama campaign’s juggernaut fundraising makes the president an especially poor messenger for the attacks, reasoned one Democratic operative familiar with the party’s outside money operation.

“When you’ve been talking about raising $1 billion, you really shouldn’t be talking about money in the political process,” the operative said. Democrats “should talk about issues that people really care about like whether their taxes are going to get raised, whether their kid is going to get sent to Afghanistan, or whether they’re going to get blown up on a plane,” the operative said, adding “campaign finance isn’t a particularly resonate issue other than for those who are talking about it.”

But party leaders suggest the secret money attacks forecast in Obama’s ad — his first of the cycle — are part of a broader messaging strategy that seeks to cast Republicans as secretive and unethical pawns of big business who couldn’t care less about the plight of regular Americans.

“The reason that it was something we led with was that it’s part of the contrast,” said DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz when asked about why Obama’s ad began with a secret money attack rather than the gauzy positive themes that typically define inaugural ads.

The theme seems geared partly toward a potential general election that pits Obama against Romney — the GOP presidential candidate Democrats would least like to face. The former Massachusetts governor has come under heavy Democratic fire in recent days for his reluctance to detail his work at the helm of the private equity firm Bain Capital and his refusal to release his campaign bundlers or multiple years of tax returns — disclosures that Obama has made.

And, without prompting, Wasserman Schultz, a Florida congresswoman, pointed to Romney to explain the theme behind Obama’s ad. “It’s a pattern. Just look at Mitt Romney. He isn’t being frank and honest about his role in Bain Capital. He accepts hundreds of millions of dollars in shadowy special interest money that he talks out of both sides of his face about,” the Florida congresswoman told POLITICO, referring to Romney’s struggles to define his relationship with the deep-pocketed super PAC, Restore Our Future, which has buoyed his campaign with sharp ads savaging his opponents.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72104.html#ixzz1kmYPx7Qi

Below are some tips for making healthy food choices:

- Coconut is high in saturated fat, while olives are high in monounsaturated fats and calories. You should use these items sparingly to avoid getting too many calories from fat.

- When vegetable grains are cooked, saturated fat or cholesterol is often added. For example, egg yolks may be added to bread or even pasta.

- Processed, canned, or preserved vegetables may also contain added sodium. With some people, too much sodium (salt) may lead to high blood pressure. There are some food companies that are actually canning vegetables with less salt. You can look for these in the market area or choose fresh and even frozen vegetables.

- Nuts and seeds tend to be high in calories and fat, although a majority of the fat is polyunsaturated or monounsaturated. There are some varieties, macadamie nuts for example, that are also high in saturated fat.

Foods that are high in soluble fiber are a great choice as well. Examples include oat bran, oatmeal, beans, peas, rice bran, barley, and even apple pulp.

Whenever you are looking for healthy food choices, always make sure you read the nutrition label or information about the food. You can then determine what the food contains and how healthy it truly is for your body. By taking your time and making your healthy food choices wisely, you’ll have a lifetime to enjoy the foods that will take care of you.

Even though it isn’t possible to get a child to like all healthy foods, there are some ways to get your child to try and hopefully like at least a few of them. You can be as creative as you like, as getting kids to eat healthy foods can be a little harder than you may think.

- Sneak the healthy food in. Even though it would be great if your kid understood the importance of fruits and vegetables, this isn’t always possible. If you can’t get them to eat good food willingly, there are ways to sneak them in, such as making muffins out of bananas or apples, or pizza with spinach on it.

- Call fruits and vegetables by funny names. You can refer to broccoli as “trees”, making them more fun to eat. There are many different names you can call fruits and vegetables, even making up your own if you prefer. Most kids prefer to eat foods that sound fun.

- Make the foods taste better. Ranch dressing is great for broccoli, while peanut butter is a great topping for celery. There are several combinations for vegetables that can make them taste much better. You can let your child pick a topping for a vegetable, even if it’s something you wouldn’t normally like yourself.

- Dress the vegetables up. Just as much as calling them names help kids eat healthy foods, making them look funny also helps. You can do this by making funny designs on the plate, or setting them up to look like people. Although some parents don’t like their kids playing with their food, sometimes it helps to get them to eat healthier.

There are several ways to make your kids eat healthier, but to make them enjoy it also has to be fun as well. This isn’t always an easy task, because kids normally don’t like foods that are good for them. It can however, be done with a bit of creativity. Hopefully, doing this will help your child develop a love of healthy foods for the rest of their lives.

1. Never go grocery shopping on an empty stomach.

2. Select canned fruits and tuna that are packed in water, not oil or syrup.

3. Look at the labels for the words “hydrogenated” or “partially hydrogenated”. The earlier you see them appear on the list, the higher the amount of unhealthy trans fatty acids the food will contain.

4. Don’t buy turkey with the skin on it, and if you plan to buy chicken – buy a chicken breast meal.

5. When you select frozen dinners, select those that are not only low in fat, but low in sodium and cholesterol as well.

6. If you aren’t consuming enough dairy products, go with calcium fortified orange juice instead.

7. Go for whole grain breads, cereals, and rolls.

8. Give cantaloupe a try. With just 95 calories, half of the melon will provide more than a day’s supply of Vitamin C and beta carotene.

9. Don’t be tricked into buying yogurt covered by nuts or raisins, as the coating is normally made of sugar and partially hydrogenated oils.

10. Get some of the low fat treats, such as pretzels, ginger snaps, and angel food cake.

By following the above tips when grocery shopping, you’ll avoid the bad foods and get those that you need. There are many different healthy foods at the grocery store, all it takes is the will power to go past the bad foods and on to the good ones.

Grains – You should consume 6 ounces of grains per day. To do this, you can eat 3 ounces of whole grain cereals, breads, rice, crackers, or pasta. You can get an ounce of grains in a single slice of bread, or 1 cut of cereal.

Vegetables – These should be varied, as you should eat 2 1/2 cups of them each day. You should start eating more of the dark vegetables, such as broccili and spinach. Carrots and sweet potatoes are good as well. You should also eat more dry beans such as peas, pinto beans, and even kidney beans.

Fruits – Fruits are very important. You should try to eat 2 cups of them each day. Focus on eating a variety, such as fresh, frozen, canned, or even dried fruit. You can drink fruit juices as well, although you should use moderation when doing so.

Milk – Milk is your calcium rich friend. For adults, 3 cups is the ideal goal. For kids 2 – 8, 2 cups is where you want to be. When choosing milk products or yogurt, you should go for fat-free or low-fat. Those of you who don’t like milk or can’t have it, should go for lactose free products or other sources of calcium such as fortified foods and beverages.

Meat and beans – Eating 5 ounces a day is the ideal goal, as you should go lean with your protein. When eating meat, always bake it, grill it, or broil it, as this will prevent grease from adding to the equation. You should vary your protein as well, with more fish, beans, peas, and nuts.

When cooking your food, you should also limit solid fats such as butter, margarine, shortening, and lard. These foods may add flavor to your dishes, although they can also help raise your cholesterol as well. Therefore, you should try to add these foods and any foods that happen to contain them.

To help keep your saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium low, you can check the nutrition facts label. This label can be found on the food package and will tell you all the information you need to know about the food item.

By picking your foods wisely and watching what you eat, you’ll help control your lifestyle. Exercise is great as well, as it goes along perfect with a healthy eating lifestyle. No matter what your age may be, eating healthy will help you keep your active lifestyle for years and years – even help you and your health in the long run as well.

A majority of people can bring their fat intakes down to a healthy range by making a few adjustments in the way they shop, cook, and prepare the foods they eat.

Now days, it’s getting easier and easier to control the amount of fat you consume. The fat content of foods are now available through the nutrition label and through brochures distributed by food companies and even fast food restaurants.

You can use this information on nutrition to choose lower fat foods by comparing products and food brands. Once you have a rough idea of what a healthy intake of fat is, you’ll know what you can and what you can’t have.

From day to day, the amount of fat you eat will vary. Some meals and some days will be higher in fat than others. Even high fat meals can be kept in line with healthy eating as long as you balance those days accordingly. The average fat intake over the course of weeks and months is important, not the fat intake of every meal and food you consume.

Younger adults and high active adults who have higher calorie needs can probably eat a little more fat. Older adults and those that aren’t very active should aim for a lower fat intake. This way, you can control your fat intake and avoid the many problems that fat is associated with.

Breakfast is often times a victim of the morning time crunch. Even though you may be tempted to skip breakfast, you can simplify your morning routine by following these 8 tips:

1. Finish homework and pack school bags at night.

2. Decide on what your children will wear to school before you go to bed and locate lost shoes for the following day.

3. In the morning, get up 15 minutes earlier.

4. Give up computer games and morning television.

5. Have healthy foods on hand. You should also shop for breakfast foods with your kids and take into account their personal preferences.

6. Set the cereal out the night before. For younger children, fill a zippered plastic bag with her portion, then add the milk in the morning.

7. Allow your children to use the microwave often, as most breakfast foods can be prepared in under 5 minutes.

8. Allow your kids to eat in the car or on the way to school.

There are several foods that you can eat for breakfast, even leftovers from supper if they are sufficient. You can eat bagels, pizza with fruit juice, pretzels, or the normal bacon and eggs that breakfast is known for. Most foods are a snap to prepare, and won’t take you but a few minutes.

The next time you are in a hurry in the morning, remember that you are probably about to skip the most important meal of the day. If you follow the tips above, you’ll find that you have plenty of time for breakfast.

Always eat breakfast – Even though you may think you aren’t hungry, you need to eat something. Skipping breakfast makes it harder to maintain the proper blood and sugar levels during the day, so you should always eat something.

Carry a snack – Keeping some protein rich snacks in your car, office, or pocket book will help you avoid blood sugar level dips, the accompanying mood swings, and the fatigue. Trail mix, granola bars, and energy bars all have the nutrients you need.

Healthy munchies – If you like to munch when you’re stressed out, you can replace chips or other non healthy foods with carrot sticks, celery sticks, or even sunflower seeds.

Bring your lunch – Although a lot of people prefer to eat fast food for lunch, you can save a lot of money and actually eat healthier if you take a few minutes and pack a lunch at home. Even if you only do this a few times a week, you’ll see a much better improvement over eating out.

Stock your home – As important as it is to get the bad food out of your house, it’s even more important to get the good food in! The best way to do this is to plan a menu of healthy meals at snacks at the beginning of the week, list the ingedients you need, then go shop for it. This way, you’ll know what you want when you need it and you won’t have to stress over what to eat.

1. Always order salad dressings or sauces on the side, as this way you have control over how much you add to your meal.

2. When you order grilled fish or vegetables, you should ask that the food be grilled without butter or oil, or prepared with very little or either or.

3. Anytime you order pasta dishes, be on the lookout for tomato based sauces instead of the cream based sauces. Tomato based sauces are much lower in fat and calories, and tomato sauce can even be counted as a vegetable!

4. You should always try to drink water, diet soda, or tea instead of soda or beverages that contain alcohol.

5. If you order dessert, share with a friend. Half of the dessert will equal half of the calories.

6. When you choose a soup, remember that cream based soups are higher in fat and calories than other soups. A soup can be a great appetizer, as most are low in calories and you fill you up pretty fast.

7. When ordering a baked potato, ask for salsa instead of sour cream, butter, cheese, or even bacon. Salsa is very low in calories and provides a healthy alternative with plenty of flavor and spice.

8. When you are full, stop eating. Listen to your body and what it tells you.

9. If you get full, take half of your meal home. The second portion of your meal can serve as a second meal later. This way, you get two meals for the price of one.

10. If you’re looking to eat less, order two appetizers or an appetizer and a salad as your meal.

11. If you get a choice of side dishes, get a baked potato or steamed vegetables instead of french fries.

12. Always look for food on the menu that’s baked, grilled, broiled, poached, or steamed. These types of cooking use less fat in the cooking process and are usually much lower in calories.

13. Plain bread or rolls are low in both fat and calories. When you add the butter and oil, you increase the fat and calorie intake.

14. As key ingredients to your meal, choose dishes with fruits and vegetables. Both fruits and vegetables are great sources of dietary fiber as well as many vitamins and minerals.

15. Choose foods made with whole grains, such as whole wheat bread and dishes made with brown rice.

16. If you crave dessert, look for something with low fat, such as berries or fruit.

17. Always remember not to deprive yourself of the foods you truly love. All types of foods can fit into a well balanced diet.