The declaration of independence by Kosovo has provoked a worldwide debate about the merits of recognising it as a state.
Several governments with breakaway movements of their own are refusing to do so. They are anxious about setting a precedent and argue against recognition on the grounds that there was no agreement between Serbia and Kosovo and no clear UN Security Council mandate.
Others have endorsed the declaration as a unique and justified move for freedom and the inevitable outcome to Kosovo's history, in which Serb troops were forced out after Nato waged war in 1999 and the province was handed over to UN control.
The numbers matter. There needs to be a critical mass of countries recognising Kosovo to enable it to develop and prosper.
The United States, which made its own declaration of independence in 1776, and whose support for Kosovo has not been in doubt, led the way in recognising Kosovo. President Bush said: "The Kosovars are now independent."
The European Union
Several major European Union member states have also swung behind Kosovo, giving it powerful support. The EU as a whole has a key role in supervising the limited form of independence that a UN report recommended for Kosovo and which Kosovo has accepted.
Britain, France, Germany and Italy all see the Kosovo move as a one-off and as the last piece of the old Yugoslav jigsaw being slotted into its new place.
However, the EU, which has no common foreign policy except by agreement, is not unified. Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia are in the No camp. So is Spain, with its own separatist Basque movement.
Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said: "Spain is not going to recognise this unilateral declaration of independence... because it does not consider that this respects international law."
Russia
Beyond the EU, Russia is opposing independence, as it always has, again arguing that such a move should depend on there being an agreement with Serbia first.
"We are talking here of the disruption of all the basic fundamentals of international law in Europe, which is a result of years of suffering and wars and strife," said the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
|
|
"It would undermine the basics of security in Europe... It would inevitably result in a chain reaction in many parts of the world, including Europe and elsewhere."
One question is whether Russia will now more actively support the demands of two regions of Georgia for secession.
South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoyty said: "Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have more political and legal grounds for their independence than Kosovo... we can clearly see a policy of double standards."
China
China indicated its opposition, perhaps with Taiwan in mind.
"China expresses its deep concern about Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence," the Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said.
Taiwan spoke in favour of Kosovo. "Our consistent position is that we want to develop relations with any free and democratic country," spokeswoman Phoebe Yeh said.
To which the Chinese spokesman replied: "It is known to all that Taiwan, as a part of China, has no right and qualification at all to make the so-called recognition."
Israel, with negotiations for a neighbouring state of Palestine ongoing, was cautious, refusing to give an immediate position. Israel itself declared its independence in 1948.
Precedent?
Regions with aspirations of independence of their own are using the Kosovo declaration as a potential precedent for them.
"I salute the independence of Kosovo. No people can be forced to live under the rule of another," said Mehmet Ali Talat, leader of the Turkish Cypriots.
Kosovo is "a lesson in how to resolve conflicts of identity and membership, peacefully and democratically," said Miren Askarate, spokeswoman for the Basque regional government in northern Spain.
The chairman of the breakaway Transdniester region of Moldova, Yevgeny Shevchuk, said: "We believe that a new era started and a new system of international relations was formed the moment part of a country, based on a series of historical developments, decided to live independently, and this country can gain recognition."
Overlooking the Kremlin walls and the gates to Red Square, a huge campaign billboard shows President Vladimir Putin with the man he wants to succeed him as Russia's leader.
As a piece of propaganda, it would not have looked out of place in Soviet Russia.
A relaxed Mr Putin and his political protege, Dmitry Medvedev, are depicted sharing a light-hearted joke.
The message is clear - as Russians prepare to vote this Sunday, 2 March, their current president believes Mr Medvedev is the right man to run the country and its economy.
Political pressure
In many ways, the giant billboard represents the close-knit relationship between the Kremlin and big business in Russia.
As well as being Mr Putin's deputy prime minister, Mr Medvedev is the chairman of Russia's biggest state-run company, Gazprom.
But the way the billboard was put up also suggests something about the relationship between private business and political power in modern Russia.
 |
Shortly after it appeared, reports in Russian media not controlled by the Kremlin suggested that advertising executives had been pressured into replacing adverts from paying customers with campaign billboards for Mr Medvedev.
Some advertisers complained they had been coerced into handing over prime space at heavily discounted rates for fears of reprisals if they did not comply.
Mr Medvedev's campaign team denied any meddling.
Whatever the truth, in the space of a few hours large commercial billboards advertising luxury Western goods had been replaced by a single giant image of Mr Medvedev side-by-side with Mr Putin.
Economic growth
In the years since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has embraced its own form of capitalism.
Under Mr Putin, the country has witnessed soaring economic growth, based largely on its huge reserves of gas and oil.
Russia's big businesses are flourishing, and the country boasts a booming stock exchange.
But critics say that stability has come at the expense of genuine democracy and business freedom in the country.
Few Russians see anything other than flattering election coverage of Mr Medvedev on television, with all major TV stations controlled and owned by the Kremlin or Gazprom.
Many private businesses too have faced increasing levels of government interference.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once Russia's richest man, is currently serving eight years in a Siberian prison after being convicted of fraud and tax evasion. Critics say it is the result of a political campaign by the Kremlin against him.
Western oil firms, too, have been pushed to hand over many of their assets in Russia to state-run corporations such as Gazprom.
Security links
In one of his first major speeches since his nomination, Mr Medvedev called for an end to Kremlin interference in Russian boardrooms.
|
|
Russian businesses, he said, needed more economic freedom.
Many hope that Mr Medvedev will be true to his word, if, as expected, he replaces Mr Putin as president following elections on Sunday.
But several key Russian businesses remain intertwined with the Kremlin.
Mr Medvedev has no background with the country's intelligence services, but many of the men at the top of Russian business have close links with both the government and the Federal Security Service (FSB), the organisation that replaced the KGB.
Sergei Ivanov, Russia's first deputy prime minister and a former FSB director, currently heads the United Aircraft Corporation, the recently forged conglomerate tasked with reviving the country's military and commercial aviation industry.
Igor Sechin, the Kremlin deputy chief of staff, who is also thought to have close links with the security service, is currently the chairman of Russia's state-run oil giant, Rosneft.
And of course Mr Putin himself famously served as a KGB officer in Germany during the Cold War.
Mr Medvedev's pledge to encourage more economic freedom will be welcomed by many in Russia.
But the country's well-connected business and political elite is unlikely to see any change in its influence as long as the Kremlin strives to hold the reins of big business in Russia.
Sunday's poll took place under a new constitution drafted by the military, which ruled for 18 months after ousting PM Thaksin Shinawatra in a coup.
The constitution gives wider powers to the upper house - but nearly half of its members are appointed, not elected.
This may be why turnout was reportedly lower than expected, say observers.
"We are satisfied with the voter turnout although the number was lower than our target [of 70%]," said Praphan Naiyakovit, who sits on the election commission, according to the Thai News Agency.
Votes are now being tallied after the election, in which about 56% of the electorate participated.
The election may have been overshadowed by the frenzy of excitement that followed the return from exile of Mr Thaksin on Thursday, says the BBC's Jonathan Head in Bangkok.
Election fatigue?
Another reason for voter apathy could be that the real electoral drama happened over two months ago, when the party led by Mr Thaksin's allies stunned the military government by winning the contest for the lower house, our correspondent says.
In addition, this election is only for just over half the Senate - as 74 of the 150 senators had already been appointed by a committee of judges and top bureaucrats.
This provision was inserted into the new constitution by the military-appointed drafting committee last year as a kind of guarantee that there would be no repeat of the extraordinary concentration of power in the hands of an elected prime minister, as happened when Mr Thaksin was in office.
The Senate has considerable muscle - it can sack cabinet ministers and the heads of all the key political oversight bodies, and it can impeach the prime minister.
Its members are supposed to have no ties to political parties.
But under the Thaksin administration, the upper house was filled with people either allied to him or related to his ministers, and correspondents said it was ineffective in challenging his governments.
The 74 newly-appointed senators appear to be far closer to the outgoing military government than the one now headed by Mr Thaksin's party.
This could for the first time produce some genuine battles between the lower and upper houses, our correspondent says.
|
|
The treaty creates an EU president and a more powerful foreign policy chief.
The document, signed at a ceremony at the city's historic Jeronimos Monastery, also scraps veto powers in many policy areas.
It is a replacement for the EU constitution, which was abandoned following French and Dutch opposition.
EU leaders insist that the two texts are in no way equivalent.
But the Lisbon treaty incorporates some of the draft constitution's key reforms, and several governments face domestic pressure over the document.
|
KEY LISBON TREATY REFORMS
Creates new European Council president
New foreign policy supremo to increase EU profile
Commissioners reduced from 27 to 18
Removes national vetoes in around 50 policy areas
Voting weights between member states redistributed
No reference to EU symbols such as the flag and anthem
Treaty faces referendum in Ireland and must be ratified by all other EU parliaments
 |
"From this old continent, a new Europe is born," he said.
Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, said the treaty would create a more modern, efficient and democratic union.
"The world needs a stronger Europe," he said.
The leaders signed the treaty, translated into the EU's 23 official languages, using specially engraved silver fountain pens as a choir sang Beethoven's Ode to Joy.
UK signing
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed the treaty later in the day after missing the ceremony, citing a prior engagement in the British parliament.
|
|
The UK's opposition Conservatives accused Mr Brown of "not having the guts" to sign the treaty, which is politically controversial in Britain, in public.
Having started this year with a celebration of its 50th birthday, the EU hopes the signing of the Lisbon treaty will end the serious mid-life crisis brought about by the death of the constitution, the BBC's Oana Lungescu reports.
There will be a lot of relief, said a senior European diplomat, but also some apprehension about what happens next.
Ireland is the only country planning to hold a referendum, but most voters there seem either undecided or indifferent.
Parliaments in Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark are also expected to give a turbulent reception to the 250-page text.
|
The treaty is a slimmed-down version of the European constitution, with a more modest name and without any reference to EU symbols such as the flag and anthem.
It is meant to ease decision-making, by scrapping national vetoes in some 50 policy areas, including sensitive ones such as police and judicial co-operation.
There will also be a foreign policy chief, controlling a big budget and thousands of diplomats and officials, and a permanent EU president appointed for up to five years.
But some already fear that instead of giving Europe a strong single voice in the world, the new posts will only generate more rivalry, our correspondent adds.
Most people are also critical of the imposition of the state of emergency.
The poll was carried out by the US-based International Republican Institute (IRI).
Meanwhile the president's lawyers say that he will soon lift the state of emergency, but only after ensuring that he cannot be brought before a court.
Public anger
The IRI say that their field workers interviewed more than 3,500 adults across Pakistan in what was the first broad survey of public opinion since President Musharraf declared a state of emergency on 3 November.
It suggests widespread public anger about the measures taken by him.
|
|
More than 70% of those questioned said they did not support the President's re-election for another five year term.
Two-thirds said they wanted him to resign.
There was also strong opposition to the state of emergency itself - 70% of the people questioned said it should not have been declared.
A consistent majority - always more than 70% - opposed each of the main restrictions imposed by the state of emergency.
These include the suspension of the constitution, the ban on political rallies, the detention of the former Supreme Court judges and the curbs on the media.
Two-thirds of people surveyed said they thought the president's reason for the state of emergency was not to fight terrorism but to stop the Supreme Court from over-turning his re-election.
Important steps
The president does still command some support but from a minority of about a quarter to a third.
The BBC's Jill McGivering in Islamabad says that this snapshot of opinion is already slightly out of date.
|
|
The opinions were sampled in November - after the imposition of the state of emergency - but before President Musharraf took other important steps such as standing down as head of the army and confirming that elections would go ahead in January.
It was also completed before he said that would end the state of emergency on 15 December.
Conceded
In a separate development, the president has formalised arrangements made last month to alter the constitution to ensure that decisions made during his term of office will be immune from legal challenges.
The president has conceded that measures he took to purge the judiciary, imprison political opponents and restrain the media were unconstitutional.
But he argues they were necessary to prevent political chaos and give the authorities more power to act against Islamic militants.
The president is expected to ensure the immunity measures are in place before he lifts the state of emergency.