The final paragraph of the article, translated by Boyd T. DeLanzo, is worth quoting in its entirety.
Universal suffrage is only one half of democracy; the other half is education. Only if citizens are put into a condition to know and understand what they are doing, can their vote be counted as being significant and authentically democratic. Otherwise, any charlatan can come along and say anything to please the people and win their consent. Why is it that American citizens understand this when one talks about going to the doctor or deciding who is the best football player, but when one talks about choosing a leader, they prefer people like Bush? How does this demonstrate competence or ability? How is it that a critic can say that Obama is an “elitist” politician or that it is “elitist” to listen to the advice of economists, but that same critic would never get away with saying that Kobe Bryant is an “elitist” basketball player? Is it because these citizens are better educated to understand the fundamentals of basketball rather than politics?
What is elitism, exactly? According to one American dictionary,
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
I don’t hear from Obama any tax cuts for the rich – or the clever, or his friends. I don’t hear any sense of entitlement to the Presidency from Barack. It’s not like it runs in his family, now, is it? And as for the control, rule or domination by the small, formalized elite on Capitol Hill and in the White House, whatever Obama may or may not mean in the specifics, he’s the one who keeps banging the drum of change of that system.
The use of labels to avoid political debate does a disservice to voters, and always tells the truth about the labeler - as either a cheap point-scorer or too facile to articulate meaningful ideas.
Labeling as proxy for debate is a rather American folly. It happens everywhere, but not like here. “Liberal”, “Conservative”, “Neocon”, “Left” and “Right”, should probably banned, at least until Nov 08, since they refer to nothing that can be uniquely identified, have no explanatory power, and actually disable the speaker or listener from addressing an issue with an open mind and without being forced to take a side before he starts. Read the rest of this entry »
May 13th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
Recap of BBC Show, as promised to TMV readers earlier.
I was on a BBC radio show today as a blogger from The Moderate Voice.
The issue of the day there was (still), “Should Hillary Clinton quit?”
As a sign of intense international interest in the Obama-Clinton primary race, the BBC has been airing many opinion shows about the elections.
This one segment of one particular show today was just a few minutes of discussion on that topic.
There were, in those few moments on air, lots of emails flying, listener-phone callers… also, about 7 passionate bloggers on the long distance lines too at the same time… and a well-spoken BBC reporter on site at Clinton headquarters in West Virginia.
The BBC show was what I would call ‘a scattershot of opinions,’ wherein as one of the many guests, you sort of get called on by the radio host, as in school, to give your briefest .02 worth… the question itself pressuring for a yes or no response with some details of support.
There’s no time, really, ‘to question the question’… and it would have been bad form on my part, disrespectful of the host and all the planning that went into this segment… but I wanted to ask, “But, is this the right question?” or, “What is behind this question?”
I do hope that’ll be another show though that will cover such ideas. I think we need opinions. But also, like any living entity, we need routes into far larger ideas too.
Quicker vs. Deeper
I note, and certainly not just in this segment at the BBC, that radio guests cannot respond nor interact with one or two other persons, as one would in an actual conversation.
So, the talk-fest is almost like a subliminal/ fast slide-show of opinings, valuable in an instant-snapshot-of-the-culture montage way. Yet, it cannot– as a true conversation in depth would– provoke or catalyze thoughtful grasp and grappling with deeper issues… the latter, I think, adds value to listeners’ shorter-term ‘right/wrong’ and yes/ no/maybe judgments re election issues.
In such important cultural discussions, just to coin a metaphor, I wish for a flowering plant with roots. Rather than just a cutting and gathering of the roses as one may. Both beautiful forms. But, one has far more longevity.
Yet, the radio show was interesting nonetheless, and the male radio host was snappy and energetic. The woman reader of emails on-air was very expressive in tone of voice, lending a theatrical air to listener’s emails. And, the people who are this show’s producers are good-natured, smart, and gentlemanly to the bone.
Though I’ve been on radio many times over these years, at length, and as the sole guest… I’m sincerely appreciative of being asked on today… even though I’m not sure they’ll ever ask me back again… as I interposed Read the rest of this entry »
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)
April 16th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
India lives at two levels. Urban India is enthusiastically chasing a mirage that Western style consumerism holds the key to happiness. But nearly 70 per cent Indians still live in villages or small towns where contentment, and living within one’s means, is still the prevalent traditional mantra. What is best option for an average person with limited means? The debate goes on…
Many people in big “rich” Western consumeristic societies have now begun to tear their hair as the big bubble seems about to burst. Says The Times of London: “Almost 600,000 people (in Britain) will be unable to refinance their debts this year after finding their usual lines of credit cut off, forcing them to go bust or sign expensive ‘bankruptcy-lite’ agreements.
“About one million Britons are struggling with £25 billion of unsecured borrowings that they cannot repay – ‘problem debt’ averaging £25,000 each - according to a report by TDX Group, which provides detailed debt-collection information to banks. TDX said that last year 400,000 people remortgaged or applied for new credit cards or personal loans to pay off old loans.
“A further 300,000 people took more dramatic options to escape their debts, such as bankruptcy, debt management plans or individual voluntary agreements (IVAs). IVAs are called bankruptcy-lite because they involve the creditor, usually a bank, accepting a reduced sum to be paid off over a set period. Debt management plans are a higher-risk, unregulated form of IVA.”
And then there is the prospect of looming unemployment…click here…
Asks a reader of The Times: “Whilst every bankruptcy or IVA is a personal story, there is a bigger question for society to ask: What are the social implications for a society that has grown fat and complacent on unfettered consumerism?
“Could it be strikes, lawlessness and general disorder in our neighbourhoods. We have a whole generation that have never had to be content with less and able to value things by saving for them.” — Steve Marchant, Broadhempston, UK
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.”
April 6th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
The Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader in exile, said in India that protests in Tibet contradicted the Chinese “propaganda” about people there enjoying a prosperous and contented life and made it clear that the issue “can no longer be neglected”. While in London the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games torch relay was reduced to “farce and ignominy” yesterday as ugly scenes of protest disrupted this leg of the tour that was billed as a journey of harmony and peace.
The Times of London reports that more than 35 protesters were arrested in a series of clashes with the police, who had to reroute part of the procession to protect the 80 runners. “Despite nearly a year of planning and the deployment of 2,000 officers, the Metropolitan Police were unable to stop protesters breaking through the security cordon at vulnerable points.
“In West London the torch was nearly taken from Konnie Huq, a former Blue Peter presenter. Two demonstrators tried to douse the flame with a fire extinguisher near Ladbroke Grove, and the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell jumped in front of a relay bus in Oxford Street. The torch was diverted from foot to a bus at St Paul’s to avoid trouble.”
Meanwhile in India the Dalai Lama demanded a probe into the unrest in Tibet by an “independent and respected international body”. More here…
A report from Beijing says that 10 people were wounded when Chinese paramilitary police opened fire on a crowd of Tibetans protesting against limits on a prayer ceremony and demanding the return of the Dalai Lama, witnesses said. “The violence was in a remote town in western Sichuan province on Saturday, where monks at the Lingque temple had been joined by several hundred pilgrims for an annual ceremony, the Torgya, which is meant to exorcise evil elements from society.”
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 »
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 »
T.E. Lawrence and John McCain are bona fide war heroes, but when it comes to Iraq, that’s where any similarity between the two men ends.
Lawrence (top photo), one of the most astute observers of Iraq and the Middle East of any generation, knew impending disaster when he saw it and warned three years after the British occupation of Iraq commenced in 1917 (bottom photo) that it:
“Is a trap which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. The [British people] have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told . . . It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster.”
McCain, devoid of Lawrence’s nuanced insight and lacking his first-hand experience, offered a warning of another kind in a major policy speech last week:
“It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our national character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal.”
The British occupation of Iraq, which when adjusted for population then and now involved about 10 times the number of troops the U.S. deployed for the Surge, ended with a whimper after four decades.
This is because the Brits didn’t belong there in the first place and never were able to understand the Arab mindset and historic sectarian enmities. The Americans also don’t belong in Iraq, and McCain, acting for all the world like an imperialist poobah, has famously remarked that it would be fine with him if America troops stayed in Iraq for 100 years.
This despite the reality that presence would be a fraction of the troops that Britain deployed and the opposition today is far better organized – and armed — and it is long past time for the Iraqis to pick up the pieces from a disastrous American occupation and cobble together some sort of confederation.
McCain may have trouble telling Shiites from Sunnis, but he does know one thing that Lawrence didn’t and it is an important but largely unspoken element of why the presumptive Republican nominee has made staying in Iraq indefinitely the centerpiece of his presidential campaign: Oil.
March 25th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Unbelievable? It has emerged that Barack Obama is a tenth cousin, once removed, of the man whose job he wants - George W Bush. The New England Historic Genealogical Society, founded in 1845, claims that the politicians’ ancestries show they have more in common than they think. The society is the oldest and biggest non-profit genealogical organisation in the United States.
The society has established that Bush and Obama are linked by Samuel Hinkley of Cape Cod, who died in 1662, reports the BBC. Obama is also a distant cousin of the actor Brad Pitt while Hillary Clinton is related to Mr Pitt’s girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.
“The ties of the US Democratic rivals were established by a respected US genealogical organisation after three years’ investigation. Obama’s political lineage includes not just President Bush but also Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S Truman, Dick Cheney and Winston Churchill.
“Hillary Clinton’s distant cousins include the singers Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morisette, as well as the beatnik author Jack Kerouac and Prince Charles’s wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles. She and Angelina Jolie are ninth cousins, twice removed. They are both related to one Jean Cusson, who died in St Sulpice, Quebec, in 1718.”
March 24th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Out of sight…out of mind. Working on this old adage Britain intends to push the cigarettes under the counter. The Times reports: “Cigarettes are to be forced beneath shop counters with supermarkets and cornershops banned from displaying tobacco products.
“The latest assault on smokers will also see the disappearance of vending machines from pubs and restaurants in an attempt to further limit children’s access to tobacco. Both measures are to be included in a consultation to be launched later this spring. Legislation, if needed, could be introduced this autumn.”
Crimes against humanity come large now–wars, holocausts, ethnic cleansing–but sometimes a small horror rises from the past and pierces the heart. Such is the case of a man convicted last week of grave robbing–harvesting and selling body parts, including those of the most civilized man I ever knew.
For several generations of Americans, Alistair Cooke was the Englishman who loved America, writing about life here for the Manchester Guardian, doing “Letter From America” radio broadcasts that were heard around the world and finally sitting in an armchair in front of Public TV cameras as the cultivated host of “Masterpiece Theater.”
You can watch the video for yourself. Since virtually no story favorable to Hillary gets any real attention in the mainstream media, this one may sink like a stone as well. But here’s the truth.
Other issues are addressed as well. Bush’s endorsement of McCain is very funny. If only he’d pursued a career in stand-up….
[youtube][/youtube]
Zenful6219 at MyDD has a summary of some of Hillary’s other foreign policy experience.
How difficult will NATO’s upcoming annual summit be? According to this analysis from Russia’s Novosti news service, beyond the issue of getting more NATO troops to the danger zone in Afghanistan, there is the touchy subject of NATO expansion and the somewhat mysterious decision - made on March 6 - that neither Ukraine nor Georgia will be considered for admission this year. Novosti’s Andrei Fedyashin writes in part, “Germany could potentially ‘break lots of dishes’ … The U.S. and Britain have been unable to persuade Berlin to send German Army units to the south where there is a real war. … The Greeks are threatening to ruin the picture with an issue that seems extremely ridiculous … The Greeks are flatly refusing to permit Macedonia’s entry into NATO until it changes its name. Greece argues that Macedonia is part of northern Greece, is the birthplace of Alexander the Great, and that it won’t allow anyone to take that glorious name away from them!’
By Andrei Fedyashin
Translated By Igor Medvivev
March 3, 2008
Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)
MOSCOW: So, NATO foreign ministers at a working meeting in Brussels decided - for the time being - not to add Georgia and Ukraine to the Membership Action Plan. The plan represents something like a formal “road map” for NATO. By following the road signs and landmarks, potential candidates should eventually reach the gates of alliance headquarters in Brussels. But Ukraine and Georgia haven’t made it to the roadside yet. That decision was taken at a NATO meeting on March 6, which was called to discuss the upcoming NATO summit in April in Bucharest.
NATO, it must be said, hasn’t given up on plans to bring Yushchenko’s Kiev and Saakashvili’s Tbilisi into the alliance. Rather, this is a postponement. In practice it means that they won’t be any closer to NATO for at least a year, and so can’t become members for at least another four years. The arithmetic is simple: implementing the plan’s requirements usually takes a year or two, so another two years pass before candidates receive official invitations to NATO, which is usually done at the annual summit.
There are several reasons for the decision in Brussels. Although the U.S. is pressing for early admission, NATO veterans like France and Germany strongly recommended this delay, in order - to quote a German diplomat, “not to further antagonize Moscow, with which relations are bad enough due to the ‘Kosovo precedent,’ quarrels over new [U.S.] missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic and differences over conventional arms control in Europe.”
European diplomats of “old NATO” didn’t hide their views that to alienate Russia further in order to please Tbilisi and Kiev, would be a serious mistake. Especially when in Moscow a new President - Dmitry Medvedev — is taking the reins of power. For whatever reason, in Europe he is widely perceived to be pro-Western, unlike Putin. So it is thought that accession provide a “good opportunity” to revive relations with Moscow, which have greatly deteriorated over the past four years.
All of these lines of reasoning are valid. But, there’s one more issue that now seems to outweigh all other considerations. That is the forthcoming NATO summit in Bucharest in April. The allies head to the summit so heavy with differences, simply no one wanted to squeeze the ” Georgia-Ukraine trifles” onto the agenda.
The thing is that this summit simply must be a success. After all, it is slated to be the largest in the history of the alliance. Moreover, it will be attended by all 26 heads of state and government. The invited participants include all the non-NATO countries of the anti-terrorist coalition in Afghanistan, financial donors such as Japan, in addition to officials from the United Nations and the European Union. Also waiting in Budapest will be outgoing Russian President Vladimir Putin. The media are already emphasizing that this will be the first time that Russia will officially participate at a NATO summit.
