It used to be that Latin Americans viewed Europe as far more humane than the United States because of the way undocumented workers there were treated. No more …

According to this editorial from Diario Co Latino of El Salvador:

“According to news coming from the Old Continent, a law passed by the European Parliament on the 18th of this month not only permits the expulsion of undocumented immigrants, but also provides for prison terms of up to 18 months and five-year prohibition on returning to Europe. … Many believed that today’s Europe, because its past was so appallingly bloody, was more democratic and humane than the U.S. But with this newly-adopted law, it has demonstrated that it’s the equal of the United States.”

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.

Barradas concludes:

“It is a worrying state of the mind that animates McCain in his desire to reform the world.”

Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

How do the Russians view the three remaining U.S. presidential aspirants? After explaining that there isn’t a hair’s breath of difference between President Bush and John McCain on the issue of Russia, Novosti political affairs analyst Dmitry Gornostayev writes, “The Democrats think the same way as McCain. No, not on health care, abortion, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the right to carry firearms - God Forbid! - on these issues they are prepared to argue until they’re hoarse. But in regard to Russia (I dare say a marginal issue for American voters), there is a complete consensus.” Gornostayev concludes, “The words, of course, may differ - but action is always in one in the same direction. You ask what political bias is worse - Republican or Democratic? The two are equally as bad.”

By Dmitry Gornostayev

Translated By Igor Medvevev

March 27, 2008

Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)

NEW YORK: What the President keeps to himself, his nominee reveals. Of course, if John McCain is elected President of the United States, he will not repeat what he just said to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. The President of the United States is not the person to repeat that the G8 should “expel Russia,” or speak of the need to “address the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia.”

Before the 2000 election and even during the first few months of his presidency, George W. Bush also criticized Russia. He his first step in regard to Russia as head of state was to expel a large group of Russian diplomats from the United States. However, when he realized it would be necessary to meet the president of Russia, he had to reverse himself. It was then that he glanced into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and was able to “get a sense of his soul.” At least that’s what he told the world, and of course, his own voters, whom several months before he had been desperately trying to convince of the contrary.

If it is Senator McCain who will be President, he too will need to come up with a nice story about a sudden recovery of insight. But strictly speaking, this isn’t all that important. Neither does it matter if it’s McCain or one of the pair of Democrats that is elected. The Senator’s critical remarks about Russia, which incidentally were only a small part of his speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, seem to contain two fundamentally important points. The First is tactical and the second, strategic.

First, let’s address his tactics.

It’s not at all accidental that his tough criticism of Moscow coincided with a statement by Bush about his intention to travel to Russia to discuss differences over U.S.-Russian relations with outgoing President Vladimir Putin . Both or them - McCain and Bush - express the ideas of the political clan that still calls the shots in American foreign policy, the neoconservatives. Despite the different ways the two men express themselves, their philosophies on relations with Russia are essentially the same: to weaken Russia, and if that’s not possible, to deter it (incidentally, we shouldn’t be carried away by Russian pride in this regard - American policymakers are much more afraid of China).

It’s obvious that both of these statements constitute a single logical and tactical step - to assert at the highest levels the inevitability of deploying an anti-ballistic missile emplacement within Europe [in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Bush said in his speech, “I think a lot of people in Europe would have a deep sigh of relief if we’re able to reach an accord on missile defense. And hopefully we can.” By these comments, it’s clear under what conditions Bush will seek to conclude an agreement. This sounds rather nice when compared to the tenor of McCain’s remarks: “Rather than tolerate Russia’s nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make it clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization’s doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.”

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. election.

Is there any hope that the United States and Russia will be able to resolve at least some of their differences before President Bush leaves office? Fedor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the magazine Russia in Global Affairs writes for Kommersant, ‘The Bush Administration is one of the biggest lame ducks in history. Even if it wanted a historic achievement to crown its term with, it doesn’t have the political wherewithal: the world is openly preparing for the change of power in Washington.’ As far as the Russian side’s willingness to compromise, Lukyanov seems to hint at President-elect Medvedev’s lack of an electoral mandate by writing, “In terms of foreign policy, actions will be cautious, since the delicate balance between continuity and innovation must be kept. Both Russian leaders [Putin and Medvedev] will be looking to keep the other in mind as they confront the many domestic and foreign challenges.”

By Fedor Lukyanov*

Translated By Igor Medvedev

March 18, 2008

Kommersant - Russia - Original Article (Russian)

U.S.-Russian “two plus two” negotiations are always remarkable events. That’s no surprise, since it’s not every day that the ministers [and secretaries] responsible for both political and military strategy for the two nuclear superpowers get together. An awareness of the significance of these events generates high expectations, which then lead to disappointment. So it would be better for us now to identify the limits of the possible.

Can Russia and the United States make a breakthrough and resolve their differences? No they can’t, mainly because of the political situations in both countries.

The Bush Administration is one of the biggest lame ducks in history. Even if it wanted a historic achievement to crown its term with, it doesn’t have the political wherewithal: the world is openly preparing for the change of power in Washington. The ability of the United States to contribute to the stabilization of global currency and financial markets is very much in doubt.

In Moscow, there has been a de facto change in the system of power, and now the difficult process of configuring new mechanisms must begin. In terms of foreign policy, actions will be cautious, since the delicate balance between continuity and innovation must be kept. Both Russian leaders [Putin and Medvedev] will be looking to keep the other in mind as they confront the many domestic and foreign challenges. This is not conducive to revolutionary steps - and it will raise the suspicions of Russia’s partners.

The greatest challenge over the coming months will be to avoid open conflict, especially given the unfavorable situation that is now unfolding. The situation in and around Kosovo , the agenda for the upcoming NATO Summit in Bucharest , the construction of an anti-ballistic missile system in the post-Soviet countries and even in part, the situation in China in light of the tensions in Tibet – all could drastically worsen the atmosphere. As a result, new leaders “are tied” to the legacy of the previous period.

There are many disagreements between Moscow and Washington. But that’s not the main problem. In terms of generalities, no one disputes the fact that we live in a globalized world wherein all processes are interrelated, and all countries are mutually dependent. But as soon things get wrapped up in bilateral relations, globalization is forgotten and people behave as if this underlying reality no longer exists and mutual accusation becomes a goal in and of itself.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the United States.

The news is full of Albanians being ‘unanimously’ in agreement with George Bush’s War in Iraq. Really? I don’t doubt that some Albanians might agree, for Albanians are fierce; they come from ancient tribal people.

They have been in constant war or resistance since the time the Romans came to crush them. Then the Turks, then Italy and Germany. Then the Russians. Then the Serbian government murdered and tried to drive out 2 million ethnic Albanians from Kosova.

But also, because of these hundreds of years of nearly unrelieved wars, many Albanians across many generations, are peace-loving, and are tired, sometimes literally to death, of war.

Albania’s enthusiasm for Bush may be about quite different matters altogether. And Bush’s motives to come to Albania may not be ‘as advertised.’

Viz: Albania is an impoverished Eastern European country. It is smaller than Maryland. Albania badly wants to be part of the European Union. They would be the only other predominantly Muslim and economically poor country, that is, if Turkey is accepted into the EU in the next few years.

Would it really be wise for Albania to jeopardize relations with the USA, the money-granting USA? the USA on the verge of a change at the top which may bring good rather than scornful relationships with other ‘foreign countries’ already in the European Union, that Union that Albania wants to join? That Union that the USA might be able to have influence with.

The Albanians I’ve known, are salt of the earth people. One of Albania’s biggest achievements during WWII was protecting their own Jews and taking in more Jews from other countries. The Albanians were the only country to have more Jews after WWII than they started with, unlike other countries who allowed their Jewish populations to be destroyed. Thus, Albania is celebrated in Israel, noted in the Halls and Wall of The Just.

Albania has only been ‘free’ of Mother Russia, since 1991. The New York Times journalist who recently reported he couldn’t find any person in Albania who disapproved of Bush, except one man, and he happened to be out of the country and couldn’t be interviewed. Fair enough, except, there’s a far different cultural interpretation of that comment … one that far different insight into what the Albanians might really be thinking about Bush, and why Bush is really in Albania.

Read the rest of this entry »

It is being reported — by the BBC, for example — that President Bush, in advance of next week’s G8 summit in Germany, has “urged countries to agree on long-term goals for greenhouse gas emissions”. Given his, and his administration’s, appalling record on the climate crisis — I recently called him “an enabler of future genocide” and his inaction and opposition to action “the height of stupidity and irresponsibility” — this would seem to be an encouraging sign of progress. Indeed, in a speech delivered in Washington yesterday, Bush even admitted that “global climate change” is a reality. He has admitted it before, but, again, given his appalling record, not to mention the even worse record of many Republicans and conservatives, even the repetition of this admission may be taken as a positive development. And his proposal was met with approval from at least two key European leaders. Tony Blair called it “a big step forward,” while Angela Merkel found “common ground”.

But what to make of the proposal? Is there reason to be optimistic? In a word, no:

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin says Mr Bush’s speech was short on details, and White House aides have made clear Mr Bush will oppose demands for the US to cut emissions and join a global carbon trading system.

The US seems to be trying to set up a separate framework on climate change talks outside the G8, our correspondent says.

And that’s just the start of it. For an excellent assessment of Bush’s alternative “framework,” see Gristmill, where David Roberts picks apart the framework and finds it not just hollow but counter-productive:

To give credit where it’s due, there is considerable symbolic significance to the news that the U.S. is shifting from a stance of truculent foot-dragging to active engagement. Perhaps he’s desperate for a PR boost, or perhaps he’s just realized the pressure is too great to keep fighting directly, but for whatever reason, Bush’s rhetorical shift sends a welcome if long overdue signal. Unfortunately, the shift is only rhetorical.

*****

[T]his announcement from Bush is not a genuine change of heart on climate change. The U.S. still will not agree to any emission reduction targets. It will not agree that the developed countries bear primary responsibility for climate change. It will not sign on to the growing consensus among developed nations about how to tackle the problem.

This announcement is an attempt to run out the clock on the Bush administration without committing to anything but sweetheart deals for corporate backers.

Same as it ever was.

Make sure to read the entire post. Under Bush’s proposal, “[t]he meetings will be convened by the U.S. and held on U.S. territory; the U.S. will control the agenda.” And, again, these would just be “talks,” not “immediate action,” which is what Blair, Merkel, and the others really want. As well, it may be worthwhile to include countries like China and India in developing a long-term strategy to deal with the climate crisis, but they, like the U.S., will likely oppose “any binding targets”. In other words, the U.S. would include them in order to advance its own interests (and to thwart real progress).

The more the climate changes, the more Bush stays the same.