Look at these faces. While the rest of the world wrings its hands and waits helplessly on the sidelines, Burma’s government says it will accept aid, but that it doesn’t want the help of foreigners in getting it to the people. (BBC News) The UN is pretty sure the government’s own unaided efforts won’t be enough.
The UN says that up to 1.5 million people may have been affected by Cyclone Nargis, which devastated the Irrawaddy Delta region on Saturday. Burmese state media say 22,980 people were killed, but there are fears the figure could rise to 100,000.
Hundreds of thousands of people have no food, water or shelter. Officials say people could die because no help is getting to them.
In a statement, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged the junta to prioritise the aid effort over tomorrow’s nation-wide referendum on a widely-criticised new constitution.
It would be "prudent to focus instead on mobilising all available resources and capacity for the emergency response efforts", he said. (BBC News)
As the Bush era draws to a close, Europeans are anxious to know what about American policy will change when he’s gone - particularly if a Democratic victory occurs as planned.
“In view of the ongoing presidential campaign, the American exception seems as strong as ever. Where else but in America would a primary race go on for more than a year? Where else would candidates obtain tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? Where else would party foot soldiers have the chance to select the candidate for the highest post? … All three candidates take lyrical flight in discussing the American dream. Above all, none will hesitate to resort to force.”
“Clearly, a Democratic victory in November would undoubtedly open the door to a more left-wing America. But it would be a kind of American left, certainly not modeled on Europe. Both candidates have rejected a “single payer” system for health insurance, like the Canadian and European models. The change ahead will not mean the end of the American exception, but the end of American triumphalism.”
LEADING ARTICLE
Translated By Kate Davis
May 8, 2008
France - Challenges - Original Article (French)
All countries are exceptional. But the United States gladly considers itself exceptionally exceptional, different from all other developed countries in its social organization and its fundamental values. The State is less extensive and the distribution of wealth more unequal. The United States is also more strongly committed to what Margaret Thatcher called the “Victorian values:” individualism, voluntarism, patriotism.
Thus the Bush government, which supports conservative values domestically and demonstrates an unlimited self confidence externally, is the most “exceptional” known in recent years. But at the end of Bush’s mandate, isn’t the United States entering a new cycle, characterized by the rejection of conservatism and a convergence with Europe’s standards?
In reality, three quarters of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction and for example, vigorously support a system of universal health care. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have promised to address that. They also want to improve their image in the world. The next government will certainly initiate significant reforms, such as closing Guantanamo or adopting a more rigorous environmental policy in order to address some of the country’s more aberrant characteristics.
Yet in view of the ongoing presidential campaign, the American exception seems as strong as ever. Where else but in America would a primary race go on for more than a year? Where else would candidates obtain tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? Where else would party foot soldiers have the chance to select the candidate for the highest post? John McCain won the nomination of his party despite strong internal opposition. Barack Obama is the leader of an uprising against the Democratic old guard.
All three preach a patriotism specific to the United States. John McCain boasts of his service in Vietnam. Barack Obama claims that there is no red or blue, but only one America united by common values. The three candidates take lyrical flight in discussing the American dream. Above all, none will hesitate to resort to force. John McCain sings, “Bomb, bomb [bomb, bomb bomb] Iran.”
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.
When Nicolas Sarkozy was elected president one year ago today, the US media was full of praise for him and expected a big improvement in transatlantic relations.
Sarkozy’s pro-American rhetoric was very much appreciated, because it was a big contrast to Gerhard Schroeder’s US critical election campaigns. With Schroeder replaced by Angela Merkel and Chirac now replaced by Sarkozy, many Americans were looking forward to a new era in transatlantic relations led by a younger generation of pro-American leaders in Europe.
In the last few months, however, President Sarkozy announced some policy changes that indicate more support for US interests, so perhaps I should reconsider my position on Sarko. Gaelle Fisher has written a very balanced analysis on the question “Has Sarkozy truly improved the state of transatlantic relations and earned his reputation as the most pro-American president France has ever had?” She presents three arguments in favor and three against in a pro & con feature on Atlantic Community: Sarkozy l’ Américain? Here is a snippet:
Sarkozy has agreed to increase France’s contribution to the war effort in Afghanistan by adding 1500 to 1700 to the existing French contingent of 1600, sending combat troops to the East, and providing military arsenal. Yet the main new element of French military cooperation with the United States is Sarkozy’s commitment to reintegrating France into NATO’s military wing.
On Sarko’s first anniversary in power, the French are very critical of his domestic policies (and his style), but I wonder what Americans think of his foreign policy. Has he met your expectations? Has he repaired the damage in transatlantic relations as expected by many in the US media?
If one wanted to know the difference between being an American and being a European, this article from France’s Le Figaro newspaper would be a very good place to start.
From Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky to client number nine Eliot Spitzer and ‘Kristan,’ Europeans have looked at the effect that sex has on American politics with a collective shake of the head. Read the rest of this entry »
What’s poses the greatest danger to NATO’s effort in Afghanistan? According to Dutch Scholar Gunnar Heinsohn, the answer is clear: Afghanistan’s birth rate.
“In 2008, there are 4.5 million male Afghans within the traditional warrior age of 15 to 29 years. Out of that group come the insurgents that the approximately 35,000 NATO soldiers are now dug in to confront … and behind Read the rest of this entry »
Readers of the Moderate Voice and WORLDMEETS.US won’t be surprised to hear that people in Europe find this election to be particularly baffling. But the post-Pennsylvania death-lock that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are presently engaged in has only served to make the apparent chaos even more pronounced.
“Republican candidate John McCain must be radiating with joy. … From one state to another, millions are spent in a fratricidal struggle that will last until June. Perhaps even longer if the outcome of these primaries ultimately depends on the “super-delegates” and their obscure machinations. What a windfall for John McCain, that atypical Republican, the outsider septuagenarian who is now credibly “presidential!”
“One has to admit that from this side of the Atlantic, it’s hard to comprehend an American presidential election. The candidate (he or she) matters more than the program. Charisma is more important than political commitment. You “support” one candidate or another as if you were a “fan” of a pop singer or a football star.” Read the rest of this entry »
As the craze for Obama spreads across the French countryside, the concern of Democrats Abroad is growing, as fear that Hillary could be doing irreparable harm to the Party’s likely standard-bearer in November starts to take hold.
“She’s playing the Bush card and the politics of fear. It’s because of her that we have the shameful racial bias that has been introduced into the country! It makes me crazy!”
“This election concerns the entire planet … it’s important to us … we are attentive to the emergence of this candidate bearing hope and who is open to the world.” Read the rest of this entry »
If Hillary doesn’t win big in Pennsylvania tonight, will she have the good sense to withdraw?
Pierre Rousselin writes for France’s Le Figaro, “She needs a win that is vivid enough to reverse the course of the election … otherwise all that will remain is for her to drop out or, through reckless calculation, be dislodged against her will, which will prolong a fratricidal duel that can only undermine the chances for Democrats to return to the White House.”
Did the Pope visit the United States in part to influence the U.S. Presidential race in favor of John McCain?
That seems to be the conclusion of a large number of mainland Europeans.
This article from France’s Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien, quoting French journalist V. Jauvert, points out, “Since April 16 - his birthday - Pope Benedict XVI has been in the United States for a rather long trip (for an old person): a week. And he didn’t go there just to blow out the candles on the cake offered by Dubya … The Pope is (subliminally) campaigning for J. McCain … the official visit of a Pope during a very tight election campaign is contrary to tradition. … this trip, beyond the spiritual and political, is a pretext to support the pro life candidate.’
Jauvert goes on to say that in 2004 before his elevation to the papacy, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to American Bishops saying, “it’s not possible to defend the right to abortion and receive communion, and that therefore, those who vote for Kerry, who take communion each Sunday, “would be guilty of formal cooperation with the devil!”
Not all the global commentary about the Olympic torch relay is serious. Le Monde’s Robert Sole writes in this tongue-in-cheek op-ed, “Yes, clouds are threatening the Olympics in Beijing. But Chinese authorities have just given us some reassuring news: an arsenal is being prepared to make sure that it doesn’t rain during the opening ceremonies on August 8. Twenty-one teams are spread around the capital to watch the heavens and if necessary, launch rockets containing silver iodide into the upper atmosphere to trigger rainfall before it can reach the stadium … After all, you never know what kind of storm the anti-China “clique” might cause. Has it not already tried - by spitting - to extinguish the flame in London, Paris or San Francisco?”
Soul-searching over the passage of the Olympic Torch through France and through the West in general has reached a fever pitch, and the question on the minds of many is: As justified as the protesting in London, Paris and now San Francisco may be, what good will come of it?; and will it help those who today suffer under the iron fist of Beijing’s one-party dictatorship?
Yves Thréard writes for France’s leading newspaper, Le Figaro, “Olympism, its values and symbols were put to a bitter test yesterday in Paris. It was predictable given the opposition that the Beijing Games have encountered, especially in France. The passage of the torch looked perilous. In the end, it was more than that. In a word, it was a fiasco. … The relay by the unfortunate French athletes transformed into a way of the cross which was marked by the boos, jeers and whistles of angry crowds.”
But Thréard goes on to warn, “Beijing’s government will use the pandemonium in London and then in Paris - and soon in San Francisco - to further strengthen its ruthless dictatorship. … if we want these Games to serve the cause of the Chinese people, the best thing we can do is try to engage them once we are there. We must find a way.”
EDITORIAL By Yves Thréard
Translated By Kate Davis
July 7, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (France)
Olympism, its values and symbols were put to a bitter test yesterday in Paris. It was predictable given the opposition that the Beijing Games have encountered, especially in France. The passage of the torch looked perilous. In the end, it was more than that. In a word, it was a fiasco. Read the rest of this entry »
With the Olympic torch bound for San Francisco, what is the significance of the protesting that beset the torch’s route in Europe? Olivier Picard writes for France’s Les Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace, “It’s an absolute disaster. A symbolic defeat, politically, ’sportively,’ diplomatically and historically. During this black Monday of the Olympic adventure, everyone lost! The legend, the athletes, China, France, the government, the police, the protesters and even Tibetans. The route if the Olympic flame has become the Way of the Cross for the players and spectators of this event that was meant to be festive.”
Picard concludes, ‘It is a spectacular humiliation for the athletes which alone summarizes the spirit of the host country, which is concerned only with its own prestige. Far from being moved by the protests in the West, it will now reinforce its iron fist over a competition that from the outset, it sought to manipulate. The trap door is closing again.’
“The Bucharest summit has shown that NATO - or Europe and the West in general, is in more difficulty that it at first appeared. … The well-concealed disagreements about the participation of NATO members in operations in Afghanistan demonstrate the failure of the military Alliance, and its ambiguous position as an accessory to the American war machine.”
Now that what was billed as one of the most important NATO Summits in decades is over, what nations made out the best? Yeltsin’s former Foreign and Prime Minister, Evgeny Primakov, writes for Kommersant, “Those who ran headlong to NATO despite the likely implications have unequivocally lost. … Russia’s voice is being heard … and that can be considered a great achievement. On the other hand, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves: what happened in Bucharest did nothing to negate Georgian and Ukrainian aspirations to join NATO.”
As far as the Americans, Primakov writes, “And as paradoxical as it is, I think that among the winners was the United States. President Bush stated very firmly that he is fully behind the accession of Ukraine and Georgia, and has thus dramatically improved America’s position among the ruling elites of these countries. But now he must meet with Vladimir Putin. I dare to hope that Bush is interested in having a successful meeting.” Read the rest of this entry »
Is the United States now embarked on a path toward a more ‘Socialist’ future? Given the crisis in the credit markets and the decline in the value of the dollar, that is the inevitable conclusion of Alexandre Adler, one of France’s foremost historians and strategic thinkers - often characterized as a French ‘neocon.’
In what will be an uncomfortable read for many Americans, Adler writes for France’s Le Figaro, “Is socialism, which was banished from minds and hopes by the collapse of the Soviet system some years ago, rising again out of the spectacular transformations taking place at the center of global capitalism, the United States itself?
Adler goes on, “The outcome of the current crisis will result in such a reinforcement of the state’s freedom of action, that past nationalizations will look like nothing but small potatoes.”
In regard to the U.S. presidential election, Adler concludes, “If we assume a certain stabilization of global markets and the maintenance of the same fiscal policies, we will also see an increasingly extensive redistribution by the state, including a considerable expansion of social security benefits. … The reader will understand that this is Obama’s program, which comes at the end of an economic cycle where, according to recent statistics, salary increases for Blacks and Whites since 2001 have been less than 2.8 percent and less than 1.2 percent, respectively.”
The Chronicle of Alexandre Adler
Translated By Kate Davis
March 29, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (France)
Here’s a provocation. Not a gratuitous one, but one that has some grounding: Is socialism, which was banished from minds and hopes by the collapse of the Soviet system some years ago, rising again out of the spectacular transformations taking place at the center of global capitalism itself, the United States?
Several factors, in fact, are emerging and simultaneously coming into play to challenge the foundations of the way Americans live and produce. Remaining faithful to the theory of Marx, we will start with the infrastructure.
Pressed by the imperial necessity of saving the financial system - which hasn’t been this vulnerable since 1930 - FED chairman Ben Bernanke just took the historic decision to socialize the losses of commercial banks. Up to now and to curb panics of global dimensions, the central bank [the FED] only gave loans to banks of deposit [savings banks]. Today, the necessity of saving the entire banking system not only requires a state guarantee for the past investments of investment banks, it also requires the Federal Reserve to loan these commercial banks money for its newer and riskier operations, without which the entire machine threatens to come to a screeching halt.
It must be understood that the financial slight-of-hand now in force has created such imbalance between the equity of major financial institutions and the outstanding loans that they have already incurred, that the state must be transformed into the creditor of last resort, in defiance of the entire doctrine of the free market.
Americans, we know, are much less doctrinaire when it comes to themselves than they are toward their Latin American partners, for example. The outcome of the current crisis will result in such a reinforcement of the state’s freedom of action, that past nationalizations, like that under [former Socialist President François] Mitterand [in 1981] will look like nothing but small potatoes. In effect, under the threat of an impending catastrophe, the FED has become the owner of virtually all of the most dynamic financial institutions, mainly the investment banks, where the debt incurred by the Treasury Department is equal to the strategic equity of the banks.
And the second major turning point ahead: fiscal restraint. Even if in the months ahead, everything possible is done to permit the system to be maintained, it is finished, given the level of decline in the dollar and the mistrust of international financial markets, which is what finances the America’s external budget deficit.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign press coverage of the unfolding financial crisis.
Why the West should keep Russia close, and get a backbone as it faces China: and how one global political trend will help us do it.
There was something remarkable about the statements of Germany’s Chancellor Merkel and France’s Sarkozy, who said that they would, respectively, boycott and reserve the right to boycott the Beijing Olympics.
Such a boycott exhibits the more typically Anglo (read American and British) trait of rooting foreign policy explicitly in ethical considerations.
On their own, these statements wouldn’t signify much, but they are symptomatic of a crucially important shift in global politics that has so far gone largely un-remarked upon. The shift is the potentially powerful convergence of the developed world toward the political center.
This shift was forcefully indicated by Sarkozy’s stunning speech in Britain last week, which praised Britain thus;
Your nation has succeeded in taking up so many challenges which seemed out of reach precisely because it quite simply was convinced that its cause was right, because it had faith in itself, in its values, because in all circumstances it has demonstrated an unfailing determination and courage.
He went on to praise Britain’s contractual freedoms, the dynamism of its metropolises, its valuing of effort, encouragement of innovation, its spirit of enterprise and sense of personal responsibility
In other words, he praised all of the qualities of a healthy free-market economy – without a shade of the European socialism that has historically crippled elements of French society. Many Americans, also “Anglo”, would recognize these positive qualities in their own nation.
In one remarkable sentence, Sarkozy repositioned the politics of France - one fifth of the permanent members of the UN security council! – when he said,
“No one will ever forget that the name of Europe’s first father was Winston Churchill” –a half-American Briton, as Anglo as they come.
From a Frenchman, that’s a stunner.
The other important formerly left-ish European power is Germany. Yet, not only will Merkel be boycotting the Olympics: she is also heading up overdue free-market reforms in her country.” Both France and Germany, then, have moved from the left at least to the “free-market” center, and find themselves as politically close to the U.K. as ever.
And then there is the U.S.: with the departure of Bush, it will move leftward, which is also toward the political center. (Bear in mind that the political center in Europe could be considered somewhat center-left in the U.S.)
In other words, at of the end of ’08, the U.S., the U.K., France and Germany will be closer politically and philosophically than they perhaps have ever been. Along with Japan, a political and economic ally, this group comprises five of the seven largest economies in the world. This political closeness represents a great strength and great opportunity.
The greatest long-term geo-strategic challenges to this group of five and its allies, are China and secondarily Russia.
Right now, NATO is troubled over whether to admit Georgia and the Ukraine, two former Soviet Republics. Russia would regard their membership as a broadly hostile act. And that’s something of which we need to be very careful, because we must not create or strengthen a Sino-Russian axis.
The Chinese are coming. But although they are strong, a “centrist” developed world will have the strength to stand up to them for good if the Russians are facing West.
Right now, the developed world fails to stick to its principles if doing so would offend China. We seem so scared of China – or rather, of losing what it gives us - that only for China do we compromise ourselves so much. Our stance on Taiwan remains perhaps our hemisphere’s greatest hypocrisy, as we fail to support its right of self-determination. Moreover, we’ve failed to have an impact on freedom of speech and worship in China. And now that Tibet is raging, we cannot to act, even if (though?) we want to. China is our shame.
But like a planetary convergence, the aforementioned centrist convergence of the developed world could portend great things – if we so choose.
We make that choice by pursuing a grand vision in which Russia is our ally. Unlike China, Russia is a nation with whom NATO closely shares its modern history. Making an ally of Russia will not only eliminate one of the two greatest strategic challenges (or even threats) to the West (Russia), but will also help us in dealing with the other (China).
In other words, the West must plan to invite Russia into NATO.
With Russia as one of us and a political convergence of the developed powers toward the center, we will finally be able to stand up for ourselves, our allies and our principles - against the Chinese where necessary.
(Robin Koerner runs Watching America, which translates foreign news about the U.S. from around the world)
What’s Europe’s perception of President Bush, now that he’s appearing at his last NATO Summit? From Le Figaro, France’s largest and most pro-American newspaper, comes this editorial. Written by Pierre Rousselin, the judgment of Bush’s legacy is a harsh one. Rousselin writes, “If the American president would take a sincere accounting of his actions, he would observe that he leaves a weakened Atlantic Alliance in military difficulty in Afghanistan, politically divided in the face of a more aggressive Russia, and ever-hesitant about its missions, its scope of activity and its raison d’être in the 21st century.”
Rousselin goes on to say, “Beyond the press releases glorifying painstaking compromise, the summit, which is to be followed on Friday by an unprecedented dialog with Vladimir Putin, highlights the lack of American “leadership” in the world at the end of a period marked by the Iraq War and the transatlantic crisis that it has unleashed. It is a sad result for a presidency that at its inception placed itself under the rubric of putting the use of force at the service of a conquering ideology.”
Editorial By Pierre Rousselin
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
April 3, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (France)
The NATO summit in Bucharest is the final farewell of the allies to George W. Bush. If the American president would take a sincere accounting of his actions, he would observe that he leaves a weakened Atlantic Alliance in military difficulty in Afghanistan, politically divided in the face of a more aggressive Russia, and ever-hesitant about its missions, its scope of activity and its raison d’être in the 21st century. Read the rest of this entry »
Wonder how the NATO Summit in Bucharest is being covered in the Russian press? Russian concerns about the meeting, infighting over why President Putin isn’t being given a platform to speak at the summit, and the details of Thursday’s events are all covered in somewhat excruciating detail in this analysis from Russia’s Kommersant. Apparently, the Kremlin is upset that President Putin won’t be able to address the public at the conference, suspicious that the Alliance is trying to prevent a repeat of his Munich Speech of last year, in which Putin criticized the United States.
According to Dmitry Rogozin, Russian Ambassador to NATO, “The leadership of the Alliance is committed to curtailing most of the debate. The Russian President will be unable speak publicly on the most important questions of world politics. This is an ugly spectacle, and attempts to blame it on the rules are inappropriate.
By Mikhail Zygar and Vladimir Solovyev
Translated By Igor Medvidev
April 2, 2009
Kommersant - Russia - Original Article (Russian)
The NATO summit opens today in Bucharest, and it may be the most scandalous summit in the history of the organization. Ukraine and Georgia will attempt to obtain entry into the Alliance’s Membership Action Plan, while Russia and its key economic partners try to prevent this. The format of the Russia-NATO meetings won’t give Putin a chance to make another Munich speech. But the presidents of Georgia and Ukraine and former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov will be given a chance to speak.
[Editor’s Note: In his speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy last year, President Putin said, among other things, “One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? And of course this is extremely dangerous. The result of this is that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this no one feels safe! Because no one feels that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them!” Read the rest of this entry »
With the most significant NATO summit in decades about to begin, among other issues, the problem of what to do about Afghanistan is high on the list. Chief among European concerns in this regard is the apparent lack of a strategy beyond killing members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. For France’s Liberation, Bernard Guetta writes of British plans that France should take part in:
“The Taliban have learned from the defeat they suffered in 2001 … They now realize that they will achieve nothing if they persist with their cocktail of jihad and Sharia; they have become less fanatical, more political, and we could in a word, seek a compromise with them.” As far as the Americans are concerned, Guetta writes, “This is where the French reinforcements could play not only a military role, but a political one as well. They could permit the assertion of a Franco-British pole in Afghanistan, which would be so significant that it could encourage George Bush’s successor to endorse this strategy.”
By Bernard Guetta
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
April 1, 2008
France - Liberation - Original Article (France)
Attention! Everything seems to plead - naturally - against sending more French troops to Afghanistan. But the Atlanticism of Nicolas Sarkozy is so compulsive, his foreign policy so confused, this war in particular - so close to being completely lost - that we have no choice but to conclude that to do so is merely an intolerable, dangerous, positive gesture toward George Bush. As it is, this decision is nothing but troubling, but beware! Contrary to the Iraqi adventure, the Afghan intervention was approved by the United Nations. It’s legal. It is, above all, legitimate, since the Taliban not only protected the organizers of the September 11 attacks, but seven years later, their victory would become a tragedy for this country and would complete the destabilization of neighboring Pakistan. Even worse, it would strengthen the networks of Jihadists giving them a territorial sanctuary and more importantly, nourish their myth about the inevitable defeat of the “crusaders” before the rising masses of Islam. Read the rest of this entry »
April 2nd, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
“It is increasingly clear that much of the current wave of repression (in Tibet) is occurring not in spite of the (Beijing) Olympics but actually because of the Olympics,” says a recent Amnesty International report. The group also called on world leaders to speak out on the situation in Tibet, calling a failure to address the issue tacit ‘endorsement’ of human rights abuses.
President George W. Bush has said he plans to attend the ceremony but Germany’s Angela Merkel says she will not. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has not ruled out a boycott. An IOC team is currently in Beijing to assess its readiness for the Games.
Meanwhile Voice of America reports that two US lawmakers — Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California and Democrat Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii — plan to co-chair a caucus to help mobilize support for Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, and to bring attention to China’s rule over the Tibetan people. More here…
![[The Telegraph, U.K.]](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00322/Cartoon_322830a.jpg)
![[La Tribune, Honduras]](http://worldmeets.us/images/popepedofile_latribunahn.gif)
