The documents, published online on Sunday, give details of the Afghan war.

Mr Gates said they were potentially dangerous for US troops and allies, and an “aggressive investigation” would determine how the leaks occurred.

The Wikileaks website, which posted the documents, said they had been compiled by a variety of US units in 2004-09.

“The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world,” Mr Gates told reporters on Thursday.

He said intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics could “become known to our adversaries”.

Mr Gates added that he had called FBI director Robert Muller on Wednesday and “asked for the FBI’s assistance in our investigation as a partner”.

“It is important that we have all the resources we need to investigate and assess this breach of national security,” he said.
Casualty numbers

Wikileaks has said it had tried hard ensure that the release of the material “does not put innocents at harm”, and had held back about 15,000 reports.

One of the leaked reports, from 2007, suggests how civilian casualties could be underplayed.

This initial report makes no mention of civilian casualties as a marine convoy near Jalalabad opened fire while tearing back to base after being rammed by an explosives-filled van.

An update to the report states eight Afghan civilians were killed and 34 wounded. A later Afghan Human Rights Commission report into the incident found that 19 civilians had been killed as the marines drove down the highway firing their weapons.

Another leaked report claims members of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency had backed the Taliban in the war in Afghanistan – an accusation strongly denied by Islamabad.

In the latest turn for the worse in the strained relations between the two countries, the Venezuelan government ordered Colombian diplomats to leave by Sunday.

President Hugo Chavez said he had “no choice” after Colombia accused Venezuela of being a haven for guerrillas – a charge he denies.

He said that he was acting “out of dignity” in severing ties.

He also ordered the military to be on maximum alert on Venezuela’s border with Colombia.

President Chavez made his announcement shortly after a meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS) in Washington, at which Colombia presented videos, maps and photos to show that Marxist Farc and ELN rebels have bases in Venezuela.

The Colombian Ambassador to the OAS, Luis Alfonso Hoyos, said the material was clear evidence that some 1,500 Colombian rebels were sheltering at numerous camps inside Venezuela.

Mr Hoyos said the photographs showed that the rebels had 39 camps in Venezuela and that top guerrilla commanders were resident there.

His Venezuelan counterpart, Roy Chaderton, ridiculed the Colombian evidence, saying that the photos and videos could have been taken anywhere.

Mr Hoyos demanded that Venezuela fulfil its international obligations to fight terrorism and that it allow an international commission to visit suspect sites.

After the meeting, OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza told reporters that the regional body could not mount an inspection mission without Venezuela’s consent.

President Chavez did not respond directly to the demand but said the US was using Colombia to undermine his country’s regional integration efforts.

A US official was quoted by AFP news agency as saying Venezuela breaking ties with Colombia was not a “proper way” to raise concerns.

The issue over whether Venezuela has rebels on its territory has dogged ties between the two South American nations for the past eight years.

But the latest exchange plunges bilateral relations to a new low.

The BBC’s Jeremy McDermott in Bogota says it also leaves Juan Manuel Santos, who takes over as Colombia’s president from Alvaro Uribe in two weeks, with a very difficult situation to handle.

It will be the second meeting between the two parties since the March attack on the Cheonan, which killed 46 South Korean sailors. An international investigation blamed North Korea for the sinking.

Officers from both sides will meet in Panmunjom in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. The talks are designed to set the stage for higher-level discussions on the contentious naval incident.

The demilitarized zone was created as part of the armistice signed between North and South Korea in 1953 that halted fighting in the Korean War, but the war has never officially ended.

The United Nations and North Korea began occasional meetings between generals — “general officer talks” — at Panmunjom in 1998 in an effort to lessen tensions. There have been 17 such meetings so far.

Earlier this month, the United Nations formally condemned the sinking of the Cheonan but did not specifically name North Korea.

“The Security Council deplores the attack,” the 15-member council said in what is known as a presidential statement. It urged that “appropriate and peaceful measures be taken against those responsible for the incident aimed at the peaceful settlement of the issue.”

It also called for full adherence to the 1953 armistice agreement.

Chad’s government has said there can be no question of the Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, being arrested during his current visit to the country.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has said Mr Bashir should be detained on charges of genocide and war crimes.

Chad recognises the ICC, but a minister insisted that it was a sovereign state which did not depend on the injunctions of international organisations.

Mr Bashir, who denies the charges, is attending a meeting of a regional bloc.

It is the first time he has set foot in a country which is an ICC member since he was first indicted in 2009.

The charges relate to the conflict in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, which the UN estimates has cost the lives of 300,000 people and displaced a further 2.7 million.

The Sudanese government puts the death toll at 10,000 and says the problems in the region have been exaggerated for political reasons.
‘Opportunity for justice’

Mr Bashir was greeted warmly by President Idriss Deby on arrival in the Chadian capital, Ndjamena, on Wednesday ahead of the meeting of the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (Censad).

Speaking to reporters, Sudan’s leader seemed more focused on improvements in relations between the two neighbours, which have often clashed bitterly over Darfur, than on the possibility of his incarceration.

“Chad and Sudan had a problem in the past. Now this problem is solved. We are brothers,” he said. “We are in a new phase of the history of our two countries, in the interests of our two peoples.”

Sudan once accused Ndjamena of supporting anti-government rebels in Darfur, while Chad said Khartoum was backing rebels attempting to overthrow Mr Deby.

An ICC spokesman said Chad was obliged to implement its judges’ decisions and co-operate with the request for Mr Bashir to be arrested.

But Chad’s Interior and Security Minister, Ahmat Mahamat Bachir, insisted the president would be allowed to return home unmolested.

“What country has ever arrested a sitting head of state? Bashir won’t be arrested in Chad,” he told the AFP news agency.

“Chad is a sovereign and independent state… We are not dependent on the injunctions of international organisations.”

Sudanese government spokesman Rabie Abdel Attie said the two countries’ relations were more important than the fact Chad was a party to the ICC.

“I don’t think Chad will do anything to harm the president. There is an agreement to end hostilities,” he told the Associated Press.

Human rights organisations condemned the Chadian authorities.

“Chad risks the shameful distinction of being the first ICC member state to harbour a suspected war criminal from the court,” said Elise Keppler of Human Rights Watch.

Amnesty International also called on Chad not to shield Mr Bashir and said the visit was an opportunity for justice.

BBC East Africa correspondent Will Ross says the next decision for Mr Bashir is whether to attend this weekend’s African Union summit in Uganda.

The African Union has accused the ICC of targeting the continent and recommended its members do not co-operate, but like Chad, Uganda is a signatory of the court.

Relations between Sudan and Uganda have blown hot and cold so often that Mr Bashir may well decide not to ride his luck and instead head home, our correspondent says.

IN 1971 a group of teenagers in San Rafael, north of San Francisco, started meeting after school, at 4:20PM, to get high. The habit spread, and 420 became code for fun time among potheads worldwide. Ever since, California has remained in the vanguard of global cannabis culture. Oaksterdam University in Oakland is today unique in the world as a sort of Aristotelian lyceum for the study of all aspects—horticultural, scientific, historical—of the weed.

Legally, California has also been a pioneer, at least within America. In 1996 it was the first state to allow marijuana to be grown and consumed for medicinal purposes. Since then, 13 states and the District of Columbia have followed, and others are considering it. But this year California may set a more fundamental, and global, precedent. It may become the first jurisdiction in the world to legalise, regulate and tax the consumption, production and distribution of marijuana.

Other Western countries—from Argentina to Belgium and Portugal—have liberalised their marijuana laws in recent decades. Some places, such as the Netherlands and parts of Australia, have in effect decriminalised the use of cannabis. But no country has yet gone all the way.

Several efforts are under way in California to do exactly that. One is a bill wending its way through the state legislature that would essentially treat marijuana like alcohol, making it legal for people aged 21 and over. Sponsored by Tom Ammiano, a flamboyant gay activist and assemblyman from San Francisco, it would levy a $50 excise tax on every ounce produced and a sales tax on top, then use those funds for drug education. A rival bill would de-penalise (as opposed to legalise) marijuana, so that getting caught with it would be no worse than receiving a parking ticket.

This burst of activity may yet come to nothing, however. California has deeply conservative parts, and Proposition 19 has mobilised them. George Runner, a Republican state senator, calls legalisation a “reprehensible” idea. He fears that “once again California would be the great experiment for the rest of the world at the expense of public safety, community health and common sense.”

The more visible effort is a measure, Proposition 19, which will be put directly to voters on the November ballot. This so-called Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, sponsored by the founder of Oaksterdam University, would also legalise the growing, selling and smoking of marijuana for those older than 21, within certain limits. But it would leave the regulation and taxation entirely up to counties and cities. These could choose to ban the business or to tax it at whatever rate they pleased.

Voters, meanwhile, seem split. One poll has Proposition 19 winning narrowly, another shows a small plurality against it (see chart). To nobody’s surprise, voters in the liberal counties round San Rafael, Oaksterdam and San Francisco clamour for legalisation while those in the inland counties abhor it.

Perhaps more surprisingly, most blacks and Latinos are also against it. And yet blacks are arrested for marijuana possession at twice, three times or even four times the rate of whites in every major county of California, according to the Drug Policy Alliance, a lobby that wants to end America’s war on drugs. This seems especially unfair, because young blacks actually smoke marijuana less than young whites. Alice Huffman, the leader in California of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, America’s most influential civil-rights lobby, is for legalisation because she considers the existing laws “the latest tool for imposing Jim Crow justice on poor African-Americans”.

The debate tends to lose focus as it gains heat, because nobody quite knows what legalisation would lead to. So the RAND Corporation, a think-tank in Santa Monica, has bravely tried to project some effects.

One is that the price of marijuana is likely to decline by more than 80% upon legalisation. An ounce of standard marijuana in California now costs between $300 and $450. The retail cost to consumers would depend, in the case of Proposition 19, on the taxes applied by counties, which are unknown as yet. Even so, weed seems likely to become cheaper.

This suggests that consumption will increase, but it is unclear by how much, according to the Rand study. That is because nobody knows what effect price changes, not to mention more fundamental shifts in attitude and culture, will have on the demand for marijuana. Today, 7% of Californians report using marijuana in the past month, compared with 6% in the rest of the country. That rate might go up. Or it might not: Californians also smoke less than other Americans and do more yoga, all of which is legal.

Another big topic in a state with a $19 billion budget hole is the fiscal impact of legalisation. Some studies have estimated savings of nearly $1.9 billion as people are no longer arrested and imprisoned because of marijuana. RAND thinks these savings are probably smaller, about $300m. As for revenues, California’s government estimates that the excise and sales taxes of the Ammiano bill would bring in about $1.4 billion a year. Rand thinks the figure could be higher or lower, especially if Proposition 19 prevails, since it leaves tax rates yet to be decided.

Nothing, in short, is certain, especially because legalisation would clash against federal laws and international treaties. The Obama administration has hinted at discretion, but in theory federal prosecutors could undo any state law by continuing to prosecute individual Californians over marijuana, or by suing the state. And Congress could withhold federal money, as it did in 1984 from states that resisted raising the drinking age to 21.

But Californians and others may also decide that the issue is primarily one of individual freedom, or at least the ending of an era of cruel hypocrisy. Why burden the lives of so many adolescents, especially black men, with permanent criminal records? They only did what even past and current presidents have admitted to, whether they inhaled or not.

The US’s highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in the city of Chicago was unconstitutional.

Justices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.

The ruling could potentially change laws on gun ownership in many of the 50 US states.

Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years in the US.

The amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Two years ago, the court ruled a ban on handguns in Washington DC was unconstitutional – declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defence in the home.

But Washington is a federal city, with a unique legal standing.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago, Illinois, and its suburb of Oak Park, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years.

In Monday’s ruling on that challenge the justices said the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states”.

Correspondents say the ruling will be seen as a blow to efforts to reduce the role of firearms in American life.

The justices seen as the more liberal – Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor – voted against the latest ruling.

The case was brought by four Chicago residents as well as local firearms rights activists and the National Rifle Association.

The latest Supreme Court decision does not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, but it orders a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling – leaving little doubt that the laws will eventually be overturned.

The NRA welcomed the “landmark decision” of the court.

“The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision,” said NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent proponent of gun control, said the ruling allows cities “to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens”.

The Supreme Court’s decision follows a weekend in which 29 people in Chicago were shot, three of them fatally, according to local media.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that 54 people were shot, 10 of whom died, the previous weekend as well.

THE European press has been filled with reports of the Universal Expo in Shanghai. They make for chirpy reading. The Spanish are offering Chinese visitors tortillas at their pavilion. In the Belgian pavilion (shared with the European Union), freshly made chocolates are being handed out every 20 minutes, drawing terrific crowds. France’s efforts have included a mock mass wedding for Chinese couples, who received a “Romantic Wedding” certificate and invitations to visit France in person.

The message is clear enough. This is not Europe as a shining city on the hill, a beacon of democracy and supranational co-operation. This is Europe as a nice place to shop and go on holiday. To be fair, the EU’s (rather small) stand in Shanghai talks about climate change and human rights. But such values are absent from European press reporting: the buzz is all about luring Chinese tourists and investment to recession-hit Europe.

This marks a rapid shift. Until recently European leaders visiting China felt obliged to speak out on human rights. A decade ago, a diplomat recalls, European investment in China was routinely linked to the appointment of a foreign general manager. Now, he notes: “the Chinese are buying Volvo.” Five years ago, Euro-boosters still argued that the EU—a peaceable club with an enviable social model and a lucrative internal market—was uniquely positioned to make China a “responsible stakeholder” and an ally in a multipolar world order.

Such hubris is long gone. China has given up waiting for the EU to integrate enough to become a geopolitical rival to America. The Copenhagen climate talks showed China’s disdain for binding international rules. More broadly, the West’s authority has been undermined by the financial crisis.

Europe has “moved way beyond trying to persuade China to accept our values,” a veteran diplomat admits. The goal has changed from making China a “responsible stakeholder” to “we are not quite sure what.” Yet Chinese envoys and semi-official scholars who tour European capitals complain that a declining Europe still wants to impose its values. Europe’s ex-colonial powers are ill-placed to lecture China about its behaviour in Africa, they say. And as for governance inside China, the Communist Party rejects Europe’s individualistic view of human rights: the priority is lifting millions from poverty and ensuring stability. What is more, they conclude, ordinary Chinese share such views.

In the face of such Chinese self-confidence, the temptation is for Europeans to embrace decline, ditch their principles and engage without conditions. For one thing, Chinese leaders are right to point out that for hundreds of millions of their citizens, life is better than at any time in history.

But Europeans should resist a surrender to moral relativism. Chinese arguments amount to a boast that their model of 21st-century autocracy is proved superior by economic success. But what if China is rising despite its autocratic model, which inhibits such drivers of success as meritocracy, transparency and creativity? An alternative history of the past 30 years might be this: if you abandon some of the most economically destructive policies ever devised, the Chinese economy will stand up and grow.

It is also possible that Europe is worth listening to precisely because it has made its own mistakes, some of which have their echoes in modern Chinese policy. Europe has tried mercantilism, militarism and inculcating youths with angry nationalism. Europe knows the limits of state-directed investment. Europe extended loans to kleptocracies in Africa before concluding that it was neither in its interests nor Africa’s. Many European countries used to jail dissidents and censor bad news. And so Europeans should be sceptical when non-democratic regimes say they can self-correct without independent checks and balances.

But if China is in no mood to be lectured, is there anything the EU can do? It suffers from two handicaps. China is brilliant at playing divide and rule among individual EU countries. And unlike its member states the EU as a union is bad at realpolitik, being a slow-moving bureaucracy based on rules and legal texts.

Human rights are good for you

Charlemagne has a modest proposal. The EU should turn its slow, legalistic style into a strength. Sidestepping sterile arguments about whose values are better, the EU should offer to help China obey its own laws.

With their talk of placing stability and growth above individual rights, Communist officials sometimes make human rights sound like air conditioning, or colour television: a luxury you can afford once you acquire a certain level of wealth. But China’s human rights would improve overnight if the authorities paid more heed to their own laws: whether environmental rules, worker protections, or laws designed to safeguard against abuse by corrupt local officials. If lawyers were allowed to signal legal abuses, or police held to account for brutality, life would improve for thousands of Chinese. Local entrepreneurs as well as foreign companies would benefit from better intellectual-property protection (piracy has killed off many Chinese software firms).

Officials like to blame all ills on local corruption, claiming that central government cannot stop abuses it cannot see. Let the EU call their bluff: offering scholarships for prosecutors and defence lawyers, funding for environmental inspectors, or pressure when the central government blatantly flouts its own laws, for instance by “disappearing” a dissident without trial.

When EU officials speak to Chinese audiences, let them say that this is what they are doing: reflecting Europe’s commitment to rules-based governance by urging China to follow its laws. Handing out pralines is an easy way to make friends. But respect for the rule of law would be a far worthier European export.

Correspondents note that every major G20 country had already committed to that target before the summit.

Proposals for a global levy on banks have been dropped, Mr Harper said.

Instead, that will be left to individual countries.

Mr Harper also said government debt, as a proportion of the economy, “should be at least stabilised or on a downward trend by 2016″.

He added: “All leaders recognise that fiscal consolidation is not an end in itself. There will be a continued role for ongoing stimulus in the short term as we develop the framework for strong sustainable and balanced growth.”
Renminbi row

Speaking to reporters after the summit, US President Barack Obama said tighter regulations, including bigger capital requirements for banks, would be addressed at the next G20 summit in Seoul, South Korea, in November.

“We must do everything in our power to avoid a repeat of the recent financial crisis.”

Addressing a reporter’s question, Mr Obama said he expected China’s currency to rise in accordance with its recent commitment to let the renminbi float more freely against the dollar.

“A strong and durable recovery also requires countries not having an undue advantage. So we also discussed the need for currencies that are market-driven,” he said.

“As I told President Hu yesterday, the United States welcomes China’s decision to allow its currency to appreciate in response to market forces.”

But China resisted including a line in the summit’s final statement on its currency commitment, saying it was a sovereign matter.

David Cameron, attending his first summit since becoming UK prime minister last month, said the stalled Doha round of global trade talks may need to be broadened in order to make progress.

“I totally support the completion of Doha, but we are not making progress and we need to do things in a different way so that these eight years of negotiation can be brought to a conclusion,” said Mr Cameron.
Growth worries

The group of 20 leading and emerging nations had been split over the pace of budget cuts.

US President Barack Obama warned against fast and deep budget cuts, fearing damage to global growth.

But European members, including the UK, France, and Germany, have already led moves to slash record public deficits, despite opposition from the United States which is expected to run a $1.3tn deficit in 2010.

Emerging economies such as Argentina and Brazil had worried that budget cuts in rich countries would hurt their export-dependent economies.

“If the cuts take place in advanced countries it is worse,” said Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega.

“Because instead of stimulating growth they pay more attention to fiscal adjustments, and if they are exporters they will be reforming at our cost.”

Outside the summit venue in downtown Toronto, police and protesters clashed for a second day on Sunday.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that police fired rubber bullets at one point to disperse a crowd of about 150 protesters.

On the margins of a major march through Toronto on Saturday, some black-clad and hooded protesters smashed shop windows and set alight at least two police cars.

Police arrested more than 500 people over the weekend.

The change in the leadership of the ruling Labor Party comes just months ahead of a general election.

Correspondents say Mr Rudd did not stand in the vote, knowing he would suffer an embarrassing defeat.

The Labor Party has suffered a sharp drop in support in recent opinion polls.

Ms Gillard’s swearing in as prime minister will be a formality.

“I feel very honoured, I will be making a full statement very shortly,” she told reporters after emerging from the party vote at Parliament House in Canberra.

A party spokesman said Ms Gillard had stood unopposed at a vote of the Labor Party’s 112 members of parliament at a meeting on Thursday morning.

Mr Rudd had called a late-night news conference on Wednesday to announce the ballot after Ms Gillard said she would stand.

Commentators say she is unlikely to change Australia’s key foreign policy positions such as its troop commitment to Afghanistan.

He will be replaced by Gen David Petraeus, who led the “surge” in Iraq.

Mr Obama insisted it was “a change in personnel but not a change in policy”.

In a profile in Rolling Stone magazine, Gen McChrystal and aides were quoted as making disparaging remarks about Mr Obama and senior colleagues.

Gen McChrystal himself described the period last year when President Obama was slowly moving towards the approval of the deployment of thousands more US soldiers to Afghanistan as “painful”.

And referring to a key Oval Office meeting between Mr Obama and Gen McChrystal a year ago, an aide of Gen McChrystal said the president “didn’t seem very engaged. The boss [Gen McChrystal] was pretty disappointed”.

Others targeted included:

* Vice-President Joe Biden, who Gen McChrystal pretended not to know
* US ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry, who Gen McChrystal said he felt “betrayed” by
* National Security Adviser James Jones, who one of Gen McChrystal’s aides described as a “clown”
* US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, whose electronic communication led Gen McChrystal to say: “Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke… I don’t even want to open it”

The announcement that Gen McChrystal was standing down came after he met Mr Obama at the White House on Wednesday to discuss the damaging article.

Mr Obama said he had made the decision to replace Gen McChrystal “with considerable regret” but added that he had failed to “meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general”.

He said the article had eroded trust and “undermines the civilian control of the military that’s at the core of our democratic system”.

“I don’t make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal… nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult,” he added.

He said he welcomed debate within his team, but would not tolerate division.

“War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president.”

He urged Congress to confirm Gen Petraeus in the position swiftly. Until that happens, leadership of the Nato-led force in Afghanistan fall to a British officer, Lt Gen Nick Parker.
‘Poor judgement’

Gen McChrystal said in a statement he had resigned out of a “desire to see the mission succeed”.

“I strongly support the president’s strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people.”

The day before his dismissal, Gen McChrystal apologised for the magazine article, written by freelance journalist Michael Hastings, admitting: “It was a mistake reflecting poor judgement and should never have happened.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai had indicated he did not want Gen McChrystal replaced, describing him as the best commander in nine years of US military operations in Afghanistan.

But a spokesman for Mr Karzai said on Wednesday: “We are looking forward to working with General Petraeus, a very experienced soldier who President Karzai knows well.”

The secretary general of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the Western military alliance’s Afghan war strategy remained unchanged after Gen McChrystal’s replacement.

“The approach he helped put in place is the right one,” he added.