The events now unfolding in the Middle East, which have been set in motion by Hezbullah’s takeover last week of much of Beirut, do not bode well for American or Israeli interests, warns one of France’s leading historians and journalists, Alexandre Adler.
Writing for France’s Le Figaro newspaper, Adler writes that Iranian President Ahmadinidjad, hemmed in by opponents at home and abroad, has turned to one of the last cards he holds in his hand: the Lebanese Hezbullah:
“Let us first turn to Iran, which is in a fever and where the most decisive threats originate. Iran’s President and his trusted accomplices - and a pro-Iranian faction of al-Qaeda - hope to recreate unity among all people of Muslim faith for a renewed jihad against America and Israel. Voices have been heard, notably among the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, who hope for such an outcome and support Iran’s nuclear program, which many Islamists - not only in Cairo - regard as a liberating force that should be immediately employed against Israel, whatever the risks.”
“Israel cannot tolerate a military victory for Hezbullah over its [pro-West] Lebanese opponents - any more than it can allow Ahmadinejad to pursue nuclear blackmail, especially in this very strange context: There is the probability that a Democratic candidate - indeed an Obama election victory - could bring to the White House a supporter of negotiations at all costs. … Clearly, this is a distressing 60th anniversary for Israel.”
This is a seminal article about what the United States now confronts, and it should be read by anyone interested in understanding this very important and hard-to-penetrate topic. Read the rest of this entry »
‘Retribution, swift vengeance, eternal malice were in her whole aspect, and spite of all mortal men could do - the said solid white buttress of her forehead smite the ship’s starboard bow.’
(apologies to Moby Dick)
It seems that a global consensus against Senator Hillary Clinton is forming, after her razor-thin victory in Indiana and significant defeat in North Carolina.
This editorial from Lebanon’s Daily Star not only lambastes Hillary for pandering - pointedly in regard to her threat to ‘obliterate’ Iran - but it uses her bad example as a way of pointing out a glaring deficiency in Democratic government as it is presently conducted.
“Whatever she does in the future, nothing will erase her demonstration of the worst aspects of American politics - particularly her recent statement that she would ‘obliterate’ Iran if it ever threatened Israel with nuclear weapons … The context of her threatening statement is telling, in that it exposes the weak link in America’s democratic system - or any democratic system: the inclination of candidates running for public office to pander to the basest prejudices, sentiments and fears of the voting public.”
“The United States and Iran may disagree about many things; but for one to use threats of obliteration as a policy toward the other strikes us as a rather crude and offensive strategy, especially for a world power.”
One interesting question to ponder is whether Hezbullah’s takeover on Friday of much of Beirut, will also put an end the the independence of the pro-West Daily Star.
EDITORIAL
May 8, 2008
Lebanon - The Daily Star - Original Article (English)
In the coming days or weeks, Hillary Clinton’s fate as a presidential hopeful will be decided. But whatever she does in the future, nothing will erase her demonstration of the worst aspects of American politics - particularly her recent statement that she would “obliterate” Iran if it ever threatened Israel with nuclear weapons. The substance of the New York senator’s words are hard to evaluate due to the hypothetical nature of the damage she threatens to impose. Were she ever to become president and order such an attack, many other Americans would have to agree with the decision in order for it to be implemented, particularly the top military brass.
The context of her threatening statement is telling, in that it exposes the weak link in America’s democratic system - or any democratic system: the inclination of candidates running for public office to pander to the basest prejudices, sentiments and fears of the voting public. Clinton has been a particularly dynamic panderer this year, jumping on every opportunity to make her appear to be a woman of the people, whether drinking shots of whisky or calling for gas-tax holidays. In this case, she chose to play on widespread American opposition to Iran, which is in turn a function of several factors. In American politics these days, Iran is the bad guy par excellence, whether for its role in Iraq, its strategic ambitions in the Middle East, its nuclear policy, its rhetorical threats against Israel, or to its a general assertion of Islamist identity and politics. Americans also remain angry at Iranians for overthrowing the Shah in 1979 and then taking and holding Americans hostages for many months.
In his book, Schecter makes the case for why, although he supported McCain in his run in 2000, McCain no longer deserves support and in fact, his candidacy should be fought actively, without hesitation and on all fronts. Schecter outlines his reasons for these sentiments and fills in those reasons with more details than you may be able to absorb. Schecter draws a portrait of both McCain’s political trajectory and the parallel trajectory of how his political choices since 2001 are a thumbing of his nose at the very people who got him to the presidential precipice in the first place.
A couple of disclosures before I offer you my phone interview with Cliff: I’ve never been a McCain supporter. And I haven’t known of Schecter that long either - here’s the first post I ever wrote about Schecter. However, it was fascinating talking to someone with a seemingly vast knowledge base about someone whom I’ve never really studied.
JMZ: You argue on behalf of former McCain supporters who should be able to realize that McCain isn’t what he once was. Who, then, is the alternative and why?
CS: Well. There’s always, “What we have versus what we’d like to have.” I’m an Obama supporter and he has a lot of appeal to Independents. But he hasn’t done it the way McCain did it – by attacking his own party in big speeches. Obama has done it by standing up, not by splitting. Obama talks about rising above partisanship and reaching out to all people on all sides and getting past the muck where politics has gotten so nasty. Obama says, I’m going to talk to you like an adult. And that’s what McCain had called “straight talk” – but he hasn’t given us much of that [this election cycle.] Read the rest of this entry »
While at WORLDMEETS.US, we have seen a good deal of support for John McCain in the Portuguese-speaking countries ofBrazil and Portugal, chiefly due to McCain’s promise to include Brazil in the G8 and his relatively liberal trade policies, this op-ed from Portugal’s Jornal de Negicios is decidedly concerned about what might happen under a McCain presidency.
After examining some of the specifics of McCain’s foreign policy plans, including his plans to create a “League of Democracies,” “expand NATO to include all democratic states,” exclude Russia from the G-8 and include Brazil and India, João Carlos Barradas writes for Jornal de Negocios:
“McCain’s plans are frightening in their incoherence, total lack of realism and underestimation of economic and financial constraints. … Even before Beijing or Moscow put the heat on the eventual Republican president, the apprehension of allies in Berlin, Tokyo and Riyadh would be such that either McCain will have to change course or he will condemn the United States to a proactive interventionism capable of bringing even greater misfortune.
There is angst on North Africa - otherwise known as the Maghreb - over the second-class treatment meted out to the region by the Bush Administration.
And since this is where the Pentagon intends to headquarter its new African Command - and since it hosts a blossoming al-Qaeda presence - this is not an inconsequential matter.
In the latest in a series of articles WORLDMEETS.US has translated that one might call “we can’t get no repect,” Read the rest of this entry »
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!”
The presidential election was held in Zimbabwe more than three weeks ago. While it’s widely rumored that strongman Robert Mugabe was ousted by voters, we don’t know for sure. That’s because his government has refused to reveal the results.
Mugabe apparently intends to cling to power, continuing to exercise his reign of terror (and error), thuggishly intimidating opposition, and killing off the Zimbabwean economy, while claiming that all the bad stuff in his country is Britain’s fault.
How is Mugabe holding on?
He has help, first from the South African government which, in spite of pious protestations to the contrary, has been Mugabe’s most stalwart backer.
Next, he gets help from the government in China.
A few days ago, dockworkers in South Africa refused to allow a shipment of arms they feared, rightly I think, will be used on Zimbabwean dissidents. (Read: Ordinary citizens who want their country to be a functioning democracy.) The shipment comes from China, whose government will do anything to feed the economic engine of their country, all designed to placate the Chinese populace while maintaining its own iron fisted hegemony on power.
Has the CIA infiltrated the Ecuadorian intelligence services - and is Ecuadorian intelligence feeding information to the Colombian government? These charges have been leveled by Ecuador’s President Correa against his own intelligence services - and there are some in Ecuador who are demanding he provide evidence.
Carlos Freile writes for Ecuador’s La Hora, “We Ecuadorians also have the right to demand, respectfully but with vigor, that President Correa clarify his accusations that our own intelligence services have been working at the behest of the CIA.”
“If he does not provide evidence of this elephantine accusation, Ecuadorians will have every justification to think that it was an impetuous charge made without sufficient proof, demonstrating either a lack of prudence and moderation, or that the tale of a link was invented to provoke turmoil in the military high command. In both cases, his conduct and honor will have been badly compromised.”
By Carlos Freile
Translated By Miguel Guttierez
April 19, 2008
Ecuador - La Hora - Home Page (Spanish)
We have every reason to ask President [Rafael Correa] to demand that Colombia provide evidence of the alleged links between our national government and the FARC. We Ecuadorians await that evidence, although critics have aired some well-founded doubts: Why such eagerness to impede the investigation into the alleged financing of the FARC by the PAIS Alliance? [The ruling party]. What were the most recent statements by [Hugo] Chavez on this subject? Why not meticulously question the Mexican student [Andrea Lucía Morret] about his contacts in Ecuador and how he got to the [FARC] guerrilla camp - and other critical issues?
[Editor’s Note: President Correa on April 5, accused the CIA of controlling many of his country’s spy agencies and said it had shared Ecuadorian intelligence with Colombia during last month’s regional crisis . On March 1, there was a Colombian bombing raid of a FARC camp in Ecuadorian territory. The raid killed 25 people including FARC commander Raul Reyes and the four Mexican students . One of them, Andrea Lucía Morret, survived. The author would like to know why Morret isn’t being questioned about Colombian allegations of a link between Ecuador and the FARC. The FARC, shorthand for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army, is a left-wing guerilla group that now controls about 40 percent of Colombian territory [see map on right].
We Ecuadorians also have the right to demand, respectfully but with vigor, that President Correa clarify his accusations that our own intelligence services have been working at the behest of the CIA. As he made this accusation in public, it is his moral obligation to provide us with details about this tremendous charge that, if shown to be true, would demonstrate ruinous conduct, to say the least.
If he does not provide evidence of this elephantine accusation, Ecuadorians will have every justification to think that it was an impetuous charge made without sufficient proof, demonstrating either a lack of prudence and moderation, or that the tale of a link was invented to provoke turmoil in the military high command. In both cases, his conduct and honor will have been badly compromised.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of U.S. toes to Latin America.
This week the President of Iran was strutting around his nation’s main uranium enrichment facility, claiming installation of 6,000 new centrifuges in addition to the existing 3,000 there–an ill-advised nose-thumbing gesture in the direction of the US and Israel.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a chronic sufferer from the need for attention on the world stage, who has been in remission since his visit to the UN last fall. With this latest turn for the TV cameras, he is showing symptoms of an acute and, for his regime, possibly life-threatening new outbreak.
Dick Cheney immediately made the diagnosis on right-wing talk radio. The Iranian President, he told Sean Hannity, is “a very dangerous man” who “has repeatedly stated that he wants to destroy Israel” and believes that “the highest honor that can befall a man is that he should die a martyr in facilitating the return of the 12th Imam. It’s a radical, radical point of view.”
The nation’s elected lawmakers of both parties have just spent two days pleading with two bureaucrats to give them some idea of when our young people will stop being killed and maimed thousands of miles from home.
Who empowered David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker to make the judgement that progress in Iraq was “fragile and reversible” and that consideration of any new withdrawals of American troops be delayed until the fall?
If George W. Bush has delegated these powers to two unelected employees of the US government, he is in dereliction of his duty as President…
April 9th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
His Holiness the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is no ordinary Tibetan monk. His upcoming visit to the USA, the first outside his home in exile in India, can be considered as ‘historic’. There are speculations that the Karmapa, 22-year-old Buddhist monk, may emerge as the successor to the Dalai Lama in case the latter decides to step down, especially in view of the growing hostility shown towards him by Beijing in recent times.
More importantly, the Karmapa is the only major monk reincarnate recognised by both the Dalai Lama and China.
According to a recent BBC report: “India has allowed the Tibetan monk, the Karmapa Lama, who fled China and sought asylum in India eight years ago, to travel to the United States next month. The Tibetan monk arrives in New York City on 15 May, and then travels to Woodstock, New York; Boulder, Colorado; and Seattle, Washington, ending his US tour in the first week of June.”
The website mentions about birth and early years of the 17th Karmapa. “Prior to the birth of the first Karmapa, the arrival of a Buddhist master who would be known as the Karmapa had been prophesied by the historic Buddha Shakyamuni and the great tantric master of India, Guru Padmasambhava. Throughout the centuries, Karmapas have been the central figure in the continuation of the vajrayana lineage in general and Kagyu lineage in particular, and have played a very important role in the preservation of the study and practice lineages of Buddhism.
“In 1985 a male infant was born into a nomad family in the Lhatok region of Eastern Tibet. In the months prior to his birth, his mother had wonderful dreams during her pregnancy. On the day of his birth, a cuckoo landed on the tent in which he was born, and a mysterious conch-like sound was heard by many throughout the valley in which the family of the infant lived. In Tibet, such events are considered auspicious portents of the birth of an enlightened teacher.”
Although the BBC says that “the move is certain to enrage Beijing, which has put pressure on India to stamp out any political activity by Tibetan exiles,” I am not so sure. There is a flurry of diplomatic activity following dramatic protests wherever the Olympic flame passes through in the world…First there was a visit of Nancy Pelosi to meet the Dalai Lama in India…Then the US president spoke to his counterpart in China on the phone…And the wellknown stand of the French and German heads of state that they may boycott the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony…And so on.
China has not reacted so far although the news of the Karmapa’s visit has been in the air for some time now. The Karmapa’s US schedule does not in any way indicate that he would be doing much else than talking about Buddhism to the audience. But then this is no ordinary visit…And especially the timing of it…
At the abode of the Dalai Lama in India, the spokesman for the Central Tibetan administration said the Tibetan government in exile was “really appreciative” of India’s decision to allow the Karmapa visit. And with China maintaining a discreet silence, would the US (and others) be doing some behind the scene work to bring about some improvement in Tibet…And for the Beijing Olympics to be held without too much protest?
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 »
April 9th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
In an earlier post Shaun Mullen suggests that what General David Petraeus says ultimately reflects the policy of the C-in-C, President George W. Bush. While agreeing with Shaun, I would like to add a few points.
First let’s jog our memory. I had written in an earlier post: “The Iraq mess is not of his making nor can he achieve a miracle on his own. But Petraeus is now familiar with the ground realities. The US troops can withdraw only when there is an international intervention strategy to save Iraq from another bloodbath. And the time begins now!!!”
I realize that in realpolitik any country that would like to give a shoulder to sort this bloody mess may also like to have its pound of flesh. But at the moment it looks unlikely that the Bush administration would seek international intervention in Iraq (maybe in the form of stationing UN forces in Iraq for a period of time once the US troops withdraw).
The other choice, and the US may just discover sooner than later that this is the only alternative, is to leave Iraq to its fate and just get out. But oh dear, I forgot about the oil!!! Stupid of me…to think that it is because of the safety of the Iraqi people that US forces continue to be there, and not for oil!!!
How time flies! Twelve months ago I wrote this post about General Petraeus. It appears to me as if I wrote it only yesterday. “Isn’t this a contradiction - on the one hand I oppose the continued occupation of Iraq by US forces, while on the other I praise this General? There are many reasons. Also, his recent interview with PBS News Hour has cleared any doubts about his professional standing.
“Here is a General, given a thankless task of trying to salvage whatever he can from the debris, explaining the ground reality without bringing into disrepute his Commander-in-Chief.”
Now let’s come to the present…with the General at the Capitol Hill. Even now Petraeus has not minced words…”We haven’t turned any corners, we haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.” Read between the lines and the message is clear …“WE ARE GLORIOUSLY STUCK IN IRAQ”.More here…
Moureen Dowd writes at NYT: “The guardians of Iraq offer more of the same — a post-Surge Pause or consolidation and evaluation, as the general generically puts it — and no answers about how we can stop our ward from aligning with our enemy.” But why corner the “hands” of the US administration when we know that the “hands” move on the orders of the “head”. Ironically, no one wishes to put into dock the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department. So why blame the “hands”?
While expert/intellectual discussions are welcome, there are two options before General Petraeus. Either to resign or, in keeping with the highest tradition of a man in uniform, obey the orders of the C-in-C sitting the White House. There is little else the General can do other than “stick to the script” agreed to by the High Command.
I concluded my last year’s post by these quotations: “War is too important a matter to be left to the military.” - Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929) French statesman and journalist.
“Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.” - Albert Einstein
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” - Albert Einstein
“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.”
Iraqi forces head to Basra on an American C-130, April 3. But will they battle their feuding Shiite brethren after they arrive?
In light of the recent Shiite-on-Shiite battles raging in Iraq’s most important port city, Basra, what do the words ‘patriotism,’ ‘freedom,’ and ‘sovereignty‘ mean to Iraqis? After being occupied by the United States and others for the past five years, according to this op-ed from Iraq, their definitions of these terms bear little resemblance to our own.
Fatih Abdulsalam writes for Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper, “In Iraq, everything is relative. What the official political parties see as lawlessness, others inside and outside Iraq see as the most legitimate activity under the law, linked as they are to spiritual and humanitarian beliefs … and patriotism.”
Writing about patriotism and freedom and alluding to Iran and the United States, Abdulsalam reflects the anger an frustration of Iraqis. “The word patriotism is just a relic from a prior age or Saddam’s toppled regime. Being a collaborator with a foreign power is accepted as the surest way to achieve strategic advantage. Freedom means simply being able to stand in Baghdad’s Liberation Square under the Memorial to the Unknown Soldier cursing and accusing all other Arab capitals of treason against the Iraqi nation for refusing to show respect to our own lame politicians - who are nothing but influence peddlers, mercenaries, thieves and charlatans who rely on F16s to maintain their power and legitimacy over the people.” Read the rest of this entry »
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 »
We just posted at WORLDMEETS.US something that anyone interested in global affairs simply must watch.
Nearly every year at the annual Arab Summit, Libyan despot Muammar Qadhafi gives a speech to the collected rulers of the Arab world who in stony-faced silence, sit and listen to him. Invariably - it is absolutely priceless.
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 »
[First, I apologize for my long absence (well, a few days). I covered a conference called Women, Action & the Media at MIT last weekend and am still catching up.]
![[La Tribune, Honduras]](http://worldmeets.us/images/popepedofile_latribunahn.gif)
Iraqi forces head to Basra on an American C-130, April 3. But will they battle their feuding Shiite brethren after they arrive?
