Western sources say they are not sure whether the supplies, needed to make the American-made missiles operational, were provided by rogue elements within the Pakistani secret service or approved at a high level.

However, the effect of rearming the Stingers could be to make Nato aircraft vulnerable at a time when Britain is carrying out the deployment of a force of almost 6,000 in southern Afghanistan.

It is believed that the battery packs had been fitted to between 18 and 20 heat-seeking Stingers which can hit targets at around 12,000 feet.

They are reported to have been handed over in the Quetta region in Pakistan, known to be used by the Taliban to launch attacks in southern Afghanistan.

US and Nato forces have carried out a series of searches along the border areas in the hunt for the missiles with one large-scale operation taking place a month ago.

No British forces were involved in the raid. It is not known whether any of the Stingers have been recovered. The Pakistan government yesterday denied accusations it was involved as "baseless".

"Pakistan has lost more security personnel in the fight against terror than any other country," a spokesman said. "We make no distinction between al-Qa'ida and the Taliban. These [allegations] are just rumours, unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo."

The Pakistan government also rejected suggestions of involvement by ISI rogue elements. "Our military and security services are disciplined forces," the spokesman said.

Reports that the batteries being fitted to the missiles began to surface at the end of last year along the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Taliban fighters have yet to successfully use anti-aircraft missiles against US and Nato forces. One American helicopter has been brought down in the conflict, but that was through the use of a rocket-propelled grenade.

However, both US and British pilots report that ground to air missiles have been fired at them. Western diplomats and military are extremely sensitive about the Stinger allegations as it comes at a time when Afghanistan and Pakistan are engaged in an escalating feud over insurgent attacks inside Afghanistan. The director of the US Defence Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Michael Maples, recently claimed that a resurgent Taliban were now at their most powerful since the official end of the war five years ago.

"We must give the CPE a chance. A CPE completed and improved to answer everyone's concerns," Villepin said following Saturday's protests in an interview with the youth magazine Citato, which will appear this week.

Meanwhile union and student leaders had given Villepin an ultimatum of Monday afternoon to withdraw the CPE, which on Saturday brought out hundreds of thousands of opponents to the streets of Paris and other cities in at times violent demonstrations.

The march through the French capital ended in several hours of evening confrontations between riot police and masked gangs, who hurled projectiles, set cars alight and smashed shop windows and telephone booths.

Police fired tear gas and made baton charges to disperse demonstrators at the Place de la Nation in the east of the city, and later in the Latin Quarter used water cannon to break up protesters trying to pull down a metal barrier blocking access to the historic Sorbonne university.

Police said they made 167 arrests in the clashes, which were the worst since tensions over the youth jobs contract erupted two weeks ago. A total of 34 police officers and 18 demonstrators were injured, though none seriously.

The disturbances marred a day that was hailed by unions as a major success in their campaign against the CPE, and on Sunday leaders vowed to step up the pressure in the days ahead if the youth jobs contract is not withdrawn.

Campaign organisers were to meet at 5:00 pm (1600 GMT) Monday to assess the government's response, with the threat of a fresh escalation via a general strike openly brandished.

"Obviously we have to maintain the mobilisation. For it to work we need an appeal from several unions for an inter-professional strike day," Jean-Claude Mailly of Workers' Force (FO) told Le Journal du Dimanche newspaper.

Bernard Thibault, head of the powerful General Labour Confederation (CGT), said that "if nothing moves we will propose preparing a day of general work stoppages in the coming days. Conditions are such that it should be a success."

An open-ended contract for under 26-year-olds that can be terminated without justification in the first two years, the CPE is meant to bring down France's chronically high youth unemployment rate by offering employers greater flexibility.

Conceived in the wake of last November's riots in high-immigration suburbs -- where fewer than one young person in two has a job -- it was approved by parliament ten days ago as part of a wider law on equal opportunities.

But the centre-right government has been stymied by a growing wave of opposition with unions, students and left-wing parties calling the CPE a charter for employer exploitation and a breach of France's hard-won labour rights.

Repeated street demonstrations have been accompanied by strikes and sit-ins at most of the country's 84 universities. The Sorbonne -- centre of the May 1968 uprising -- has been the scene of several nights of clashes with police after it was closed by the authorities.

Villepin was due to meet business leaders and youth groups Monday to discuss youth employment but has not indicated he will yield in pushing forward the CPE.

The parliamentary Speaker Jean-Louis Debre on Sunday criticised the union threat strike, saying that an ultimatum to withdraw a law voted in parliament was "an outrage to the Republic and to democracy."



European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in a French radio broadcast described the reform as "unavoidable" but said it should be achieved through "dialogue, engaging all social partners."

President Jacques Chirac has urged the two sides to open talks, but an increasingly buoyant opposition says that abandonment of the CPE is a precondition for negotiations.

The conflict over the youth jobs plan has turned into Villepin's most serious crisis since he took office 10 months ago, and commentators agreed that his political future is at stake. The prime minister has been named as a possible contender to replace Chirac in next year's presidential election.

A new opinion survey by pollsters BVA to be published Monday in the daily La Depeche du Midi said 60 percent of French people want the CPE to be withdrawn, but 63 percent believe the prime minister will stick by it.

The number opposed to the CPE rises to 68 percent in the 15 to 24 age group, according to the poll, which found that 69 percent of French people consider the anti-CPE movement totally or fairly justified.

' However, one of the documents, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated August 17, 2002, asked agents in the country to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man whose picture was attached. '

The September 29, 2002 Denver Post paraphrased Cheney, "He said the evidence presented against Iraq will be long and persuasive, including more details of a relationship between Hussein's forces and the al-Qaeda terrorist network."

Another issue is that Belarus carries a lot of strategic transit. We carry 50% of the Russian oil exports bound for Western Europe and 20% of its European-bound gas exports.

On top of that, we are the country which has a very independent foreign policy. Not many countries afford, as you know, an independent foreign policy. When I say "independent", I mean independent from Washington, Brussels or Moscow. Foreign policy decisions of Minsk are made here in Minsk, not in other places.

We also have a very strong-minded president who is a strong personality, which attracts attention worldwide. And we have probably an unusually strong economic and social record after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which also attracts important attention because we achieve it in what may be called an unorthodox way, not according to IMF recipes.

The attention you mentioned, which is international, we welcome, to the extent that it is a benign attention. When it comes to foreign financing of political processes inside the country, we, as any other country in the world, do not welcome that. We don't welcome that in the same way as the United States does not welcome it, in fact prohibits it, according to the federal laws. So we do the same. So, benign attention, again, is welcome.

Los Angeles Times:

Do you feel that there have been attempts to influence the outcome of the election by outside forces?

Sergei Martynov:

It's correct. You need not hear it in the interview, you can read an article in the "New York Times", which says a lot about that.

Los Angeles Times:

And you are referring to the activities of the National Democratic Institute?

Sergei Martynov:

And others, among others. I refer to foreign financing of political and electoral processes in Belarus, which is inadmissible by the laws of any country. In fact, it strikes me as strange that the United States institutions which are financed by the US congress and government are engaging in activities, which is prohibited in the United States proper.

Los Angeles Times:

Basically, what they say, what these countries and organizations say, when you ask them about this, they say that "we are definitely not involved in any kind of political activity. We are, you know, supporting democratic process, promoting independent media, teaching political parties how to develop and how to campaign". Is this kind of activity prohibited as well?

Sergei Martynov:

Let us make things clear. First of all, it is unfortunately not true that some of the countries you mentioned support only a "process". They indeed made public their views on particular candidates, either expressing their dislike of a particular candidate, in this case the incumbent president, or their preference for a particular candidate from the opposition, which in itself is an interference. Which is not allowed in the normal, civilized international practice.

Secondly, activities of institutions, NGOs could be different. Let me quote from the United States law which says, "A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person such as corporation, labor organization, political committee or political organization with regard to such person's federal or non-federal election-related activities". So, a very wide definition. Anything related to electoral activities is prohibited from foreign involvement and financing. This is exactly what institutions like National Democratic Endowment do, or try to do in Belarus.

And, thirdly, if an NGO, including an international NGO, engages in fully transparent, fully legal according to the Belarusian laws, and beneficial from the point of view of the country activities in Belarus, they are welcome to do so. This is the answer to your question.

Los Angeles Times:

You mentioned at the beginning of your first answer, in general, the sort of strategic assets and values that exist with Belarus that naturally merit the international interest. But, specifically, when George Bush says that he is attempting to advance the cause of democracy and freedom in countries like Belarus, former Yugoslavia, Iraq, the rest of the Arab world, do you really take him at his word that really what he is trying to do, or are there specific United States' interests at stake in a place like Belarus? Which is the true agenda behind this talk of democracy as this?

Sergei Martynov:

First of all, we, of course, respect the achievement of the United States in democracy over the 200 years of democracy building in your country, although I have to observe that this democracy is not flawless, to put it mildly.

You asked me about the real agenda behind that. I can assume that there can be some strategic issues, which are also pursued by the Unites States worldwide.

In particular, I could assume that speaking of this region, the United States may be interested in bringing countries of this region closer to Euro-Atlantic axis. It is public knowledge that those who are within the Euro-Atlantic axis are countries which are, to put it mildly, heavily influenced by the United States. So, probably, bringing these countries under such influence could be one of the elements, issues of this agenda you mentioned.

Secondly, I believe it is a declared goal of the United States not to allow or to prevent the emergence of an entity in the area of the former Soviet Union which will be in a position to challenge the United States. This is of course a strategic goal.

Belarus as well as Russia are countries which are working to have an important integration structure in this area. We are not trying to resurrect the former Soviet Union, it would have been stupid and unrealistic, but we would like a meaningful integration in this geography which will be and should be no less successful than integration in the west of Europe. And we have all the resources and abilities to achieve such a success. And, probably, countries like Belarus who are proponents or engines of such integration deserve special attention from Washington, which is the case with Belarus.

Los Angeles Times:

Speaking of that, it seems like this Russian-Belarus union has been something that has been talked about for quite a long time, and yet the practical progress in it has been quite minimal. How do you see this union progressing? What form could it achieve in the long run, including the talk of possibly having a single currency?

Sergei Martynov:

To start with the second part of the question about what form it could achieve, I would emphasize that Belarus is all in favor of tight and deep integration with Russia, as well as with other countries of the region. It is not only Russia. But independence and sovereignty of Belarus are non-negotiable. So, we are talking about integration of independent states, not about merging one state into another state. That's not the goal. It will not happen. Full stop.

You are not right that the union with Russia, between Belarus and Russia, did very small progress. To give you a very simple and, in my view, a very illustrative example, I would mention trade between Belarus and Russia. Belarus is trading partner number two for huge Russia, and it's only 10 million people. It's trading partner number two for Russia. We yield only to Germany. Our trade with Russia is larger than China's trade with Russia. It's about 18 billion dollars. None of the other countries of the former Soviet Union has such a trade with Russia. And this trade increased, I believe, five times over the last 10 years.

Los Angeles Times:

You are talking about the two-way trade, right?

Sergei Martynov:

It's a two-way trade. So this is a direct and very important result of this integration effort.

Other areas. We are very close to having a common tariff with Russia for third countries. We are about 90% of the way in forging uniform harmonized tariff regime as applied to third countries. And it's not only on paper, it works. And these 90% of tariffs do work already for third countries, which is a huge achievement in itself. Because, if you would look at another integration structure in this area, which is Eurasia Economic Community, then there you have the share of common tariffs of only 45%. So we are twice as large in this area as they are.

The movement of goods, people, finances, and services between Belarus and Russia is free. We have what is called the four freedoms, which is actually the goal of this union. We look now to try to achieve equal conditions for our economic agents, both Russian agents here in Belarus and Belarusian in Russia, to have equal conditions. That is our goal.

Of course, we are looking at full freedom of not only movement of people, but also equal access to health services, equal access to education, equal taxation, equal social services for citizens of both countries on the territories of each other. And we are making important advances in this respect. For example, about two months ago in Saint-Petersburg our two presidents signed four or five major agreements on equality of treatment between the citizens of two countries.

So, we are well advanced in this union, and not only on paper, not just in terms of treaties and agreements, but in real life terms. You get on a train in Minsk and you go to Moscow, and nobody asks for your passport, as you go between the two countries. It's an achievement also, and an indication of a real union.

We are also talking about the needs to have more integration in areas, above all like energy, transportation, military cooperation, and science and technology cooperation. These are areas which offer themselves as priorities in our building up of the union.

In terms of joint currency or single currency, this continues to be a goal, but, in our view, this should be like a roof on top of the house. We need first to build all the walls, and then we need to put the roof. So the currency will come as the roof, not as the foundation.

Los Angeles Times:

Obviously, the entire world's attention was fixed on Ukraine. They have an agreement, and he is probably going to come back and visit us again some time in the future. Belarus in the past has had serious conflicts with Russia over gas pricing, and it has recently undertaken discussions aimed at having reasonable price for gas, getting some kind of order. How do you see long-term energy pricing stability for Belarus, given that, at some point, most people believe that Russia is going to have to go to market pricing for its gas for everybody, and it's going to be a part of the world trade? And the fact that all those agreements for gas issue has been talked about. As I understand it has not been signed yet.

Sergei Martynov:

Of course this is a very important issue of, what you might call energy security of the country. You are right we are enjoying preferable prices for gas from Russia. For oil we pay world market prices to Russia. And, of course, we are not naïve. We do not expect that this will continue forever. It is obvious to everybody in Belarus that prices for gas will gradually increase, and at some point in the future Russia will come to trade in gas, including internally, at world prices.

For us, the major issue is not so much the price for gas as such, but the issue is whether we get gas at the same price as Russian economic agents (companies, firms).

As long as the price for gas in Moscow and Smolensk is the same as it is in Minsk, it is acceptable. And this is a reflection of what I mentioned to you before. We are working to have equal conditions for our enterprises in Belarus and Russia.

We understand that over time these prices will be going up, and up, and up. It's okay, our economy will be in a position to gradually accommodate that. Conceptually we are prepared towards that. We are working, of course, with Russia within the structure of our integration effort to have what we call "energy balances" up to year 2020, where we could see how much gas and oil we are going to get from Russia. This is also an element of security.

At the same time we work to decrease our dependency on supplies of energy from Russia. In particular, the government has set a goal in five years time to decrease our dependency on energy imports from Russia by 25% by investing in alternative sources of energy and local fuels.

Looking at the problem of energy security, we see it through the prism of a comprehensive set of measures, not just negotiating with Russia, but an overall set of measures.

Los Angeles Times:

Do you plan to sign the gas transit facility agreement with Russia?

Sergei Martynov:

There are ongoing negotiations on the gas transit facilities, and that's about all I can tell you.

Los Angeles Times:

In the long run, you know, I am not an economist, but while you have been enjoying this very beneficial trade relationship with Russia, a lot has been due to high energy prices and the fact that there is a lot of money in the Russian market to buy Belarusian goods. But the analysts that I have talked to say that is not a reliable thing to depend on in the future for two reasons.

Number one: at the moment Russia has so much money that they are able to look around the world as a shopper for goods, and the cheapest goods available at the closest looking.


Number two: oil prices do go down. They no longer have all this pricing. Belarus will be well advised to think about European markets. It raises the question of potential vulnerability of the Belarusian economy.

Sergei Martynov:

Basically your analysts are right, and if you would look at the trends in our trade, then you would observe that the ratio of exports going to Russia, on the one hand, and to the European Union, on the other hand, was consistently changing over time. Initially Russia was this big, and the European Union was this small. Last year the European Union accounted for 44% of our exports. And Russia accounted for about 40%. So there is already a balance between two markets.

By definition, if we sell to Europe successfully, it means our goods are competitive. So we are already in that market. And I could also add that we had aggressively tried to attack other markets like Southeast Asia, China, the Gulf countries, and even Latin America. Recently, we started selling agricultural machinery to Argentina. We, for example, provide about 50% of microchips to the Southeast Asia market.

So we are not only in Russia, we are in other places too. But we would very much like to continue to have a very solid presence in the Russian market. It is natural. And even if and when the Russians have less money, going back to the point of the analysts, it should be cheaper for them to buy in Belarus than to buy in the United States.

Los Angeles Times:

And one last question on Russia. When we were talking about international interest in the Ukrainian elections, Russia was very much criticized for having been perceived to have played too big of an interfering role in those elections. Have you sensed that Russia has taken anything like more than just a close interest in your elections?

Sergei Martynov:

I am not prepared to comment on the Russian or any other's position on a third country like Ukraine. In terms of our relationship with Russia, I can tell you that we have an excellent relationship between the two countries, between the two governments, and between the two presidents. Full stop.

Los Angeles Times:

This strays a little bit to the economic sphere, but it very much ties into what we were talking about, the nature of the Belarus' economy. It is said you have had very little progress in moving to the market economy. Is this still a goal of Belarus to move to the market economy?

Sergei Martynov:

You have to be clear about the terms. You say "very little progress". Progress, in my view, should be measures by issues like percentage of growth of GNP, percentage of growth in real incomes of the population, percentage of accessibility of schooling, health services, etc. All of this shows extremely important progress in Belarus over the last 15 years. And that has been achieved because we did not rush into what has been called shock therapy of the economy.

We are adepts of a different style of reform. Not just a slower reform, but a different type of reform. So in 15 years, we have achieved very important progress. We are the first country in the former Soviet Union to break through the 1990 GNP level, and we are now at 116% of 1990 GNP level, the pre-collapse level. For your information, Russia is at about 80 to 85%, with all the oil prices. Ukraine is probably at 60 to 65%, and Moldova is probably at 30 to 35%. This is to indicate what real progress means.

This does not mean that we are married in a deadlock, so to say, to this particular type of economy we have. Recently we had a major congress here in Belarus on discussing the views and concepts of the next 5 years of the country. At that congress the President indicated that the resources of this mode cannot continue forever. And we have to tap into the resources of small and medium entrepreneurship. And the government is working on exactly this now. But we are going to do it not in a shock therapy way, but in a gradual, level-headed manner, as we did before. We hope we are going to be as successful as we were before.

Los Angeles Times:

That is a small and medium entrepreneurship. What about big factories, oil refineries?

Sergei Martynov:

It's very simple. If the oil refineries which we are having now are bringing golden eggs to the country, why should we dispose of them to anyone else? One point.

Second point: if a small or middle enterprise grows into a gigantic enterprise, it's welcome to do so. The government will be happy to see it. This is our approach.

Los Angeles Times:

The tendency of large state-owned companies is usually not a mater of growth. They are usually not very efficiently run. And for the most part the conventional wisdom it that you cannot really grow an economy without investments. You have the issue of the young people who are talking about going out into the streets on Sunday, some of them, who say, "It's fine. My farther has a job at that factory, and his grandfather had a job at this factory, and my father's brother has a job at that factory. But the factory is now at full employment level, and I have a brother and a sister, and we have nowhere to go to work. How do you deal with this issue?

Sergei Martynov:

First of all, our big enterprises are growing at a very fast pace. For the last eight years, the GNP growth which is produced basically by these huge enterprises was each and every year anywhere between 6 and 10% annually, all the time. If we would look at industry, it would be 15 to 20% annually. This is more than impressive. If you would look at the pace in the United States or Europe, it would be 10 times lower.

Unemployment in Belarus is 1,5 per cent. And we are growing. We have too little working hands to fill the vacancies. So no trouble for young people to find jobs, and well-paid jobs in this country. In this country emigration is much smaller than immigration. People, including the youth, prefer to stay in this country. Other people come to live in this country, because this is a nice country. So, they need not worry about that. And they do not basically worry about that.

Real incomes grow at about 15% annually for people. Especially if this is a young educated professional, he or she will get much more than average salaries.

And we are speaking about involvement in the world, we are a very open economy. We trade with the whole of the world. If you check the ratio between our foreign trade volume and our GNP volume, and this is called the indicator of the openness of the economy, we are within the top 10 countries in Europe in openness of the economy.

We welcome foreign investment, but we do not welcome it at any price. If we would put up tomorrow one of our oil refineries for sale, there will be people queuing, probably, up to Paris and London to buy it, but we are not doing that, because it works fine. If they wish to invest in a new production in Belarus, they are welcome. And so far we were on our own very successful in raising investment for this country. What we achieved for 15 years, which I mentioned to you, we did probably 90% on our own investment.

We welcome foreign investment. But we are not going to crawl and beg for it.

Los Angeles Times:

Do you see Belarus eventually as a member of the European Union, or that's just another goal?

Sergei Martynov:

This is not a goal for the moment, because strategically speaking, the European Union cannot offer us now what our eastern vector offers us, in terms of oil, gas, prices, markets, etc.

We have a good constructive relationship with NATO. We don't believe NATO is a direct military threat to Belarus. We want to have good neighborliness relations with NATO, and NATO is in our boundaries. We cooperate with NATO on issues, which are of mutual interest via the partnership for this programme. So we have a constructive meaningful relationship to the extent which corresponds to their interests and our interests.

Los Angeles Times:

If there are demands from within the opposition and within some conservative circles in the United States, that if these elections are not fair, the international community should retaliate with economic sanctions and expanding visa ban for Belarusian officials….

Sergei Martynov:

First of all, in my view it is unnatural, to put it mildly, that well in advance of the elections, people in Washington and Brussels have already made their verdict on the elections. It's laughable.

On the sanctions issue, of course any country has the right to govern its own visa policies. But it's also strange that the EU and the United States try to limit travel of people from Belarus. What about the Helsinki commitments about the freedom of travel? Are they afraid about Belarusian officials traveling in Europe and the United States? We cannot understand that.

If they would adopt such a measure, most probably we will respond in kind. We are a nation which respects itself.

If we are talking about economic sanctions, then I can tell you these sanctions generally don't work, worldwide, nowhere. And it will hurt people. If the United States and Brussels want to hurt people, it's another story.

Los Angeles Times:

The top foreign policy issue in my nation's attention is, of course, Iran. It's well-known that the level of cooperation between Iran and Belarus increased, that, according to German intelligence, Belarus' scientists were actively helping Iran in enriching uranium. The United Nations is going to have to decide in the very near future how to handle the Iran issue. Can you tell me, what is Belarus' attitude to this?

Sergei Martynov:

A couple of things I would like to mention in this respect.

First of all, we have a very good relationship with Iran. Iran is a friendly country and an important market for us. We don't see why we should stop working in the Iranian market.

Secondly, Belarus never ever in its arms trade violated the United Nations sanctions. Iran is not under sanctions.

Thirdly, I cannot comment on any speculation, including German intelligence sources. They never report it to me.

Fourthly, Belarus is one of the major proponents and supporters, and, in fact, contributors to the non-proliferation regime in the world. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Belarus was the first of the Soviet Union nuclear heir to say that we don't want the nuclear arsenal that we had. And it was largely on our initiative that Lisbon protocol had evolved at the time. So Belarus is a major factor in non-proliferation in the world.

And, lastly, our position specifically on the Iran situation is very simple. Iran has the right to do anything which is allowed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Full stop.

We, of course, respect the right of any alliance to have its foreign policy, but this also remains the fact that this is a policy coming from somewhere else, not necessarily from the neighboring environment.



Another issue is that we strongly believe, and I believe this sentiment is largely shared also in all our neighboring countries, that there is an important special nature in relationship of neighbors, irrespective of differences. And of course that special relationship is dictated by geography. You don't choose your neighbors. You may choose your friends, but you don't choose your neighbors. And neighborliness presupposes a different volume of relations, which is not an abstract requirement but actually a requirement of day-to-day life of the people of neighboring countries.



And, actually, these requirements of life dictate the realities of life. And I would explain to you what I mean. With some of our neighbors, with the majority of them we have a very important trade relationship, very important for both countries. For some of these countries this relationship is even more important than it is for Belarus. For some of these countries, for example, 25 or 30 per cent of the turnover of their ports is originating from Belarus. For some of these countries 40 per cent of their railway turnover is originating in Belarus. This is a fact of life, which they cannot ignore, which their business communities cannot ignore, which their population cannot ignore. This provides jobs, profits, etc. in those countries, as well as in Belarus. So this is what you can term a "dictation of life", as it were, to continue to have important substantial good neighborly relations irrespective of ideological or other differences. And we do hope that our neighbors will all continue to be guided by those special attitudes towards requirements of life between neighbors. We very much hope that they will not play games trying to pose as a small sub-regional superpower.

Associated Press:

I like that phrase.

Sergei Martynov:

Belarus is in favor, to sum it up, of good neighborly relations with all its neighbors irrespective of whatever differences we may have on other issues.

Associated Press:

The next question sort of corresponds with I think what you were talking about some of the neighboring countries being part of alliances that may be getting their policy from elsewhere. What do you and other Belarusian diplomats tell the Western countries – the members of these alliances about their providing funding for non-governmental organizations such as pro-democracy and civil society organizations. Is Belarus content that all such funding is improper and interferes in Belarus' internal affairs or do you regard it as legitimate under certain conditions?

Sergei Martynov:

Well, actually, what we tell our partners is very simple. We tell them the Belarusian legislation on that was actually inspired if not copied from their own legislation. Legislation of any decent country prohibits foreign funding of political activities. If you would check the United States federal law on elections, you would see there a very clear-cut prohibition of any direct or indirect foreign contributions, donations or guidance related to any electoral activities at any level, or any contributions, again direct or indirect, to political parties, committees of such parties, etc. So, basically, what we have in our legislation is what the United Sates has in its legislation. It is also what coincides or is reflective of recommendations which were prepared in the Council of Europe about the funding of political parties, which also clearly prohibits foreign financing of political parties.

Now, if a non-governmental organization is having transparent activities on the territory of Belarus which fully respects the Belarusian laws and which goal and nature is acceptable to the Belarusian state, it's welcome to work. If the goals are inimical to that, then they are unwelcome guests. But this is also something which other countries including the United States have in their legislation.

Associated Press:

Well, if I may follow up on that. So it's you contention that some of the organizations in Belarus that have been receiving foreign funding are essentially acting as political parties, even if they are not political parties in name?

Sergei Martynov:

Yes. They engage in political activities, in the electoral and pre-electoral activities, which is very difficult to differentiate from activities of political parties. And, unfortunately, they are financed by foreign entities, they do publicly recognize that they are financed by foreign entities, and they are trained and guided by foreign entities, which, as I said, no decent country could agree to.

Associated Press:

Well, Belarus is a member of the OSCE, but it often appears to be at odds with the OSCE. Does Belarus intend to remain a member of the OSCE and/or try to push for changes in how the organization operates?

Sergei Martynov:

Well, there is a wrong assumption in what you stated in the beginning of your question. You said Belarus is at odds with the OSCE. Belarus cannot be at odds with the OSCE, because the OSCE is us. Belarus is a full member of the OSCE. So we can talk about certain differences within the OSCE.

Associated Press:

With other member countries.

Sergei Martynov:

With other member countries, but not between Belarus and the OSCE. And this is very important. This is not an esoteric statement, this is a very important political statement. We are OSCE.

Now, Belarus, being part of OSCE, does not plan to quit the organization, because we believe this is an important organization, which has an important mission and a unique composition and mandate. This is the only pan-European organization. So it has to continue. In our view, it has to be strengthened. We strongly believe that this organization should have its own charter, its own rules of procedures, and be a more meaningful organization than it is so far.

Now we quite often are critical of OSCE functioning as it is now. And there are several areas where we insist on OSCE reform. I would also mention that, I believe, Belarus is one of the players in OSCE with very strong views on that. And I would add our views, which we have been holding for a number of years already are more and more widely accepted within OSCE by our friendly countries, and neighboring countries, for that matter.

Now, areas where we would like OSCE to change itself.

First, OSCE needs to change geographic imbalance in its activities. Because if you would look at what OSCE does, obviously, part of its activities is concentrated almost wholly to the East of Vienna, which in our view is not right. Usually this is a mandate, which relates to political issues and human rights issues, etc. But we do believe that there are ample and important tasks in the same basket, which relate to the West of Vienna. So this has to be corrected.

The second imbalance which has to be remedied in OSCE is functional imbalance. In our view, way too important share is concentrated on issues, which I mentioned. And too little attention is devoted in OSCE to such issues of the overriding importance as economic and ecological issues, and military security issues. We do not stand for eliminating the importance of the so called "third basket", which is political issues, issues of protection of rights, etc. This is a very important basket. Our country pays a lot of importance to this basket. But there has to be a different balance in that, because economic and ecological issues relate to what is quite often termed as "new threats" in Europe. So there has to be much more balance in that.

And, finally, an important element of the OSCE everyday role is monitoring the electoral activities in different states. Right now we are hosting a very large OSCE monitoring mission in Belarus, which we have invited in an open and friendly manner. But we believe that methods which are employed in such activities are not only outdated, but they are not objective. They do not provide for an objective assessment of elections. Therefore we insist on reforming this part of OSCE activities too. We have stated a couple of years ago that without a deep reform OSCE as an organization will not have the important future we wish it to have.

Associated Press:

Could you expand on your criticism of specifically how the OSCE's election monitoring methods are outdated or not objective?

Sergei Martynov:

Well, they are not objective in many-many ways. I would give examples.

For example, forming OSCE observation missions. We never ever have in the long-term part of OSCE observation mission representatives of neighboring countries, who know our political system well, who understand it much better that representative of other countries. We deem this unnatural, strange and unacceptable.

Then, until very recently, the composition of missions, both long-term and short-term, was heavily dominated by several countries, by very few countries, which is also not right.

Now then the criteria of selection of observers. In our view, it is preposterous when selecting observers for Belarus to have as a prerequisite the knowledge of the English language. We don't speck English her in this country. We speak Belarusian and Russian. So how the criterion should be English speaking? It should be Russian or Belarusian speaking, probably.

And, then, another issue is who takes the decision which election has to be observed and which election has not to be observed? Why OSCE sends 25 monitors to the United States, where the election was heavily contested and criticized? And why OSCE sends 600 observers to Belarus, which is 50 times smaller than the United States? No answer to that. Who takes the decision on what should be the verdict on a particular election? Who discusses that? Nobody discusses that. And this is not right. So these kind of things need to be changed. We made our views known in the OSCE, and we will continue to insist on that, along with our allies.

Associated Press:

This point well taken in the United States, especially in light of the 2000 elections, when the candidate who had fewer votes won.

Sergei Martynov:

Exactly. One of the major criteria of the OSCE concerning elections is direct elections. The United States does not have direct elections, I mean presidential elections. This relates to what you have mentioned.

Associated Press:

Moving on. President Lukashenko a couple of weeks ago, when he was speaking to one of the military academies, made some statements about how Western countries are encouraging the young people of Belarus to be selfish, to value their own convenience and pleasure more than value patriotism and working for the development of Belarus. That's a criticism that is often made of Western countries from many different angles. But I wondered, do you think that there are somehow basic philosophical differences between how Western countries approach life philosophy, differences between Belarus and the West?

Sergei Martynov:

What President Lukashenko told the young audience you mentioned is actually exactly what President Kennedy once told a mass audience. He said, President Kennedy said, "Don't ask the country what it can do for you. Ask yourself what you can do for your country". That was exactly the message of President Lukashenko to young students of the military academy.

So this, in my view, reveals exactly, that there is no clash of fundamental philosophies between our two countries. There is no such thing as a "clash of civilizations" between Belarus and the West. The values, the principles are the same. Now, the application of those values and principles could be different and should be different. It ought to be different, because we are different countries and different nations. And one country should respect another country's right to apply those values in its own way.

Last year, when President Lukashenko spoke at the General Assembly of the United Nations, he proposed an initiative that the United Nations should recognize the principle of diversity of ways of progressive development. That means there is no one single recipe, which is applicable to each and every country in the world how it should evolve and develop. Every country, as long as it respects the basic United Nations Charter principles, is and should be entitled to its own particular way of progressive development, which corresponds to its history, its nature, its geography, its psychology, whatever, its economy. So our proposal is to recognize the diversity of ways of progressive development of states. And I believe this is an important element of pluralism internationally, political pluralism internationally.

Associated Press:

Regarding the Sunday's election, there has already been a great deal of criticism of the election preparations from the West. And judging by how the previous elections in CIS nations have gone over the past couple of years, there is probably going to be similar criticism after the election. What's Belarus' response to these complaints? Do you believe the West is prejudging the elections before they happen?

Sergei Martynov:

I will start with the latter part of your question. Obviously, and a matter of fact, the West prejudges the nature of elections, so to say. The election is not over yet. It is going to be held on Sunday. But the verdict is already on the red in Washington and Brussels. And this is wrong. We cannot agree to that. This is a clear prejudgment of an event.

Secondly, you mentioned that the elections in all CIS countries were not deemed as appropriate, whatever. But we believe that the instrument, the tool of measuring of those elections, as I mentioned to you in another question, is a flawed instrument so far. It has to be changed.

And, thirdly, concerning the upcoming elections, it's an open secret, and everybody knows, be it in Minsk, Washington, Brussels, Rome, that the current President, the incumbent President enjoys overwhelming support of the society in this country. And I believe one of your, at least one of your colleges in a United Kingdom newspaper put it right, when he said, "do you expect a President who increased real incomes in his country by 24 per cent in one year, who battled down inflation, who increased GNP several times over a five years, would you expect such a leader to lose an election? Never, ever, ever.

So this is the answer to the criticism.

Associated Press:

So, the 6 per cent economic growth that Belarus had last year, is certainly the envy of the United States and much of the West.

Sergei Martynov:

It was not 6, it was 9,5. And we had a consistent growth of these proportions for 8 years in a row. Belarus is the first country from among the former Soviet Union countries, which broke through the level of GNP of 1990, which is the pre-Soviet Union collapse level.

Associated Press:

Really, Belarus was the first?

Sergei Martynov:

It was the first. We are the first who went to do that. Belarus, even though we don't have oil or gas with skyrocketing prices, we have the highest pensions in CIS. We have the highest students' stipend in CIS. We have the highest GNP ratio spent for education and health services. The real income of the population grows by at least 15 per cent annually in the last five years.

So, the Government and the President work for the people. The people see that, they feel it and they appreciate it. And that's the answer to your question.

Associated Press:

My next question I think actually goes back to some extent what we were talking about earlier. The United States and some other Western countries are threatening vague unspecified punitive actions against Belarus, if the election comes under question. Does Belarus worry that such actions might leave it isolated or economically weakened, or is the importance of Belarus economically to its neighboring countries such that these punitive actions would not have much effect?

Sergei Martynov:

First of all, we strongly believe that sanctions as such and economic sanctions in particular do not solve problems. And there is ample evidence to that, worldwide.

Secondly, we don't believe that economic sanctions, which are applied for achieving political goals, have a nice kind of "smell". They don't.

Thirdly, it's a double-edge sward. I mentioned to you that neighboring countries are very closely linked with the Belarusian economy. Probably they may suffer more than we will suffer.

Also, specific business people, companies, firms, societies will also suffer losing trade with Belarus, because our trade with countries in Europe is more than 10 bln dollars. So this is 10 bln dollars, which someone is going to lose. They'll make nobody happy, neither here, nor there.

Next, of course, the European Union accounts for 44 per cent in our exports. 44 per cent. That means if sanctions come, then each and every Belarusian family will lose part of its income. Will they say "thank you" to Brussels and Washington for that? They surely will not. They will say other things about that. Are the European Union and the United States interested in that?
I don't think so. I hope they are not interested in that.

And, finally, what we sell to the European Union and to the West as a whole is things which are competitive. Otherwise they would not have been bought. So if they are competitive in Europe and in the United States, you will believe me, that they are competitive anywhere in the world.

Associated Press:

So you are saying that Belarus can seek other markets for the same goods?

Sergei Martynov:

Western Europe is a highly competitive market. If they are successful there, we can be successful anywhere. So, the logic and the road of sanctions and punitive action is a dead-end road. It's a dead alley.

Associated Press:

One last question. I have asked you enough about the elections and democracy questions. I'd be interested in knowing a broader view about what is Belarus' general foreign policy goals, and what you see as Belarus' place in the world, as you are a comparatively small country, what role do you see Belarus is playing?

Sergei Martynov:

The role we see for Belarus' foreign policy and for Belarus at large is basically same for foreign policy of any country. First and above all we have to secure through diplomatic means the security of the country.

Secondly, we have to create favorable external conditions for our trade and development. Now in looking after those goals we of course are guided by how we perceive the role of Belarus. Belarus is a medium-size European country with an important economic potential. We are a manufacturing country, and we are a country which is dependent on foreign trade. And we are a very open economy. Our ratio between the volume of foreign trade and GNP, which is an indicator of openness of an economy, is one of the top 10 ratios in Europe. We are a very open economy. Therefore we are interested in making sure that there is an unhindered access of and flow of goods throughout Europe and other countries worldwide.

We are not a country with global ambitions politically. But we are a country which would like to protect its economic interests worldwide, to be present in the world markets everywhere, in as much as we can. And we are working for that in markets not only like European market, but also in markets like China, South-East Asia, South of Africa, Latin America, and other markets. This is our goal and this is what we do. And, eventually, even though we are not a player with global ambitions, being a mid-size country we are interested in an international set-up, which will be able to protect the interests of countries like us. And that means we are interested in a multi-polar world. The unipolar world does not protect countries like ours. So in that sense we are also playing with other like-minded countries worldwide to achieve that goal of a multipolar world.

And, coming back to your first question, of course, good neighborliness is one of our top priorities in foreign policies.

His main rival Alexander Milinkevich, who is supported by the opposition, got 6 percent. The other two candidates, Liberal Democratic Party leader Sergei Gaidukevich and Social Democratic Party leader Alexander Kozulin, received 3.5 percent and 2.3 percent respectively.

The election commission put the turnout at 92.6 percent in the country, where about 7 million people were eligible to vote.

More than 1,200 international observers monitored the vote. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) sent the largest groups of election observers.

Both the OSCE and CIS observer missions are expected to announce their assessment of the Belarus vote later in the day.

Shortly after polls closed on Sunday night, thousands of opposition supporters gathered at Minsk's main square for a rally. Police stood watching nearby.

Earlier, Milinkevich had called for a peaceful gathering after voting ended despite a government ban on election-day rallies.

The European Union has asked the Belarussian authorities to ensure a free and fair vote and threatened to adopt "restrictive measures" against individuals responsible for fraudulence.

But Lukashenko played down Western pressure on Belarus. "We haveto work rather than pay attention to these babblers," he said,quoted by the official BelTA news agency, on the eve of the election.

Lukashenko, 51, was first elected in 1994, got the go-ahead torun for a third term through a constitutional referendum in 2004.His current term ends in September.

SHELKOVSKAYA, Russia -- It started just after the midafternoon recess. As they lined up to return to class, Zareta Chimiyeva saw a girl in front of her collapse and begin convulsing wildly. Only a few minutes later, Zareta was at her desk when she said she smelled "a bad smell," and started feeling ill.

She rushed out of the classroom but made it only as far as the stairs. "Darkness surrounded me, and there was darkness in my eyes, and I fell," said the 12-year-old from this small town in eastern Chechnya.

When Zareta woke up in a hospital, it took three adults to hold her down. She was thrashing and clutching her throat, unable to get a breath, screaming in terror. She wasn't alone. Thirteen other girls were in nearby hospital rooms, also claiming they were unable to breathe, with many of them shrieking and crying.

The next day, 23 students and seven teachers in a neighboring village fell ill with similar symptoms. About the same time, four dozen children in two towns a little farther away began clutching their throats, screaming and convulsing.

The suffering continues

They have yet to heal. Although the outbreak began Dec. 16, doctors and parents say the children are still suffering fits day and night. The list of victims has grown to 93, including several teachers and janitors, with a few cases reported as far away as the Chechen capital, Grozny, and Urus-Martan, 60 miles to the southwest.

With the diagnosis caught up in the suspicion, politics and fear that surround most of what happens in this fractured separatist republic, the answer to what happened to Shelkovskaya's children might never be known fully.

What is clear, officials say, is that a new generation has fallen victim to the unexpected and devastating effects of a war that began before many of them were born.

Poison is ruled out

After exhaustive chemical and radiation tests, authorities with the Moscow-backed government announced that the culprit was not poison, but a form of mass hysteria. The whole episode was triggered, most doctors now believe, by the extreme and chronic levels of stress among children who have experienced a war with Moscow that lasted more than 10 years and its devastating economic aftermath.

While public health officials are at a loss to explain why after months of treatment the children are getting worse, parents -- and some local physicians -- are not ready to accept the official diagnosis. Very few are willing to send their children back to the schools where they were first afflicted.

"The fact is that the children are getting worse. No treatment helps them," said Khazman Bachayeva, principal at School No. 2 here, where only 30 of 998 students showed up for school recently. "And as of today, nobody has given us a concrete explanation. All they say is, it's psychological stress. Well, the parents don't buy that, and I don't buy it either."

'A state of panic' is cited

Sultan Alimkhadzhiyev, Chechnya's deputy health minister, said it was difficult to explain to parents that their children had become living specimens of what it means to grow up with the constant threat of violence and chronic joblessness and poverty.

"Our children have seen bombings, artillery attacks, large-caliber bombardment. They saw houses, schools and hospitals burning. They lost parents, brothers, sisters, neighbors," he said. "And they still see tanks and armored vehicles every day in the street.

"In this case, what we have seen are not symptoms of poisoning ... but of psychosis. A state of panic. Children are feeling constant fear, a premonition of tragedy."

The ability of the human mind to convert psychological stress to genuine physical symptoms, officially known as "mass sociogenic illness" or "conversion disorder," is well documented but not completely understood. Why, for example, are chiefly girls affected? Only four of the Chechen victims were boys. And why were there families in which one girl was afflicted, but a sister who was in the same room with her showed no symptoms?

Three teachers fell ill

On Feb. 22, just when parents were beginning to feel confident enough to send their children back to School No. 2, three teachers fell ill with symptoms slightly resembling those of the original victims. The school quickly emptied again, and 11 new people showed up at a hospital with breathing difficulties.

Three were admitted.

"If it was merely stress, this case would be the starting point for a massive spread of the illness, creating a chain reaction. But it's not spreading to those outside the schools," said Ruslan Kokanayev, regional head of administration. "I think the government doesn't want to get to the bottom of this, because if they do, they know they will be facing a level of public indignation that they're not prepared to handle."

Complicating the psychology diagnosis are blood tests showing the presence in five victims -- three in Shelkovskaya, two in a neighboring village -- of ethylene glycol, a highly toxic substance used in antifreeze, glass sterilization and a variety of industrial processes.

Doctors can't explain how the children might have been exposed to the chemical. Health officials believe the traces were so small that they could not have been a factor.

The young protesters of '68 wanted to turn French society upside down. "Break the old molds" was one of their many slogans.

Their children want not revolution but status quo: the same access to pensions, jobs, prosperity and generous welfare systems their parents enjoyed. In short, a comfortable European lifestyle that many feel is under grave threat.

It's a sign of Europe's malaise that French students have trouble seeing a rosy future. While they dance, whistle and bang drums on their boisterous marches through Paris' Left Bank, idealism, hope and answers seem sadly lacking.

With nearly 1-in-4 French youths and young adults unemployed, many fret about how they will find work, make their first down payment on an apartment, afford to start a family.

They study, earn diplomas, but often are resigned to finding nothing more rewarding after graduation than unpaid internships. The most disenfranchised -- immigrant youths in depressed neighborhoods that went up in flames during riots last fall -- don't even expect those.

In '68, France was still riding the wave of fast growth and almost full employment that followed World War II, the so-called "Thirty Glorious" years until the 1973 oil crisis when the economy grew at an annualized 5 percent clip.

Those days are long gone.

This week, students turned the '68 slogan "the boss needs you, you don't need him" on its head, hollering: "Give us an indefinite job contract!"

The catalyst for all this angst was a new type of contract that loosens France's highly protective -- critics say rigid -- labor law, the hallowed "Code du Travail."

The contract will let companies fire workers under 26 years old without giving a reason during their first two years in a job. President Jacques Chirac's conservative government argues that the new degree of flexibility will prompt employers to hire thousands of youths, knowing they will be able to get rid of them if things don't work out.

For British or American workers used to more open labor markets and fewer protections, the notion that their first job might not last long -- and definitely won't last for life -- may not seem strange.

But French youths are aghast that the protections afforded to their parents -- however unaffordable in today's ultra-competitive global economy -- are slipping out of reach.

They see jobs and economic growth shifting to rising powers like China, with its legions of cheap laborers and a Communist Party that forbids them from unionizing, and wonder how they will survive. For many, globalization is a threat, not an opportunity.

Chirac's government says it is precisely because of the challenge of globalization that France must reform. But the youths -- who fear becoming as disposable as tissue paper -- aren't buying it.