After six years at Guantanamo Bay prison, the only journalist yet to be incarcerated there, Sami Al-Hadj, was released last week. The case of Mr. Al-Hadj, who was a cameraman for Al-Jazeera, has sparked renewed outrage around the world.

It’s not easy reading for an American, but a good sampling of the emotion in the Arab world over the case can be found in this article from Algeria’s French-language Le Quotidien d’Oran.

K. Selim writes for Le Quotidien d’Oran in part:

“The United States is indeed a democracy: Within its own borders, the rule of law is enshrined. But beyond its walls, only the law of the jungle prevails. Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

When one of Brazil’s leading columnists, William Waack, visited the Nimitz-class USS George Washington this week, what he came away with might surprise American readers.

Among some of the interesting observations Waack made were these:

“The George Washington has 85 combat aircraft, including the Super Hornet, the most powerful carrier-based aircraft. On a single aircraft carrier of this class (the Nimitz) there are more late-generation fighter aircraft flying than the total number available to the entire Brazilian Air Force. … American pilots and technicians probably fly more hours per week in conditions similar to the real thing (45 percent of flights, for example, are nocturnal) than their Brazilian and Argentine colleagues do in a year.” Read the rest of this entry »

The repercussions of a recent New York Times article about how the Pentagon manipulated the American media have begun to be felt in the foreign press.

Serge Truffaut writes for Montreal’s Le Devoir,

“The old adage that “the first casualty of war is truth” is one to which the Pentagon has stuck to with unheard of will, strength, and consistency. Thanks to the Benedictine work a journalist from The New York Times - and there is no better word to describe it- we now know that the U.S. executive has applied itself to building a propaganda machine so powerful, that it highlights the disdain that Bush and company feed on with respect Read the rest of this entry »

Have you been convicted of armed robbery, arson or burglary and are having trouble making ends meet, let alone getting three square meals a day? Worry not, my fellow American, the United States Army and Marines want you.

In yet another consequence of the Forever War, the Army and Marine Corps recruited significantly more felons into their ranks in 2007 than in 2006.

The number of waivers issued to active-duty Army recruits with felony convictions jumped to 511 in 2007, from 249 in 2006, while Marine recruits with felony convictions rose to 350 from 208.

The numbers represent less than 1 percent of the 115,000 new enlistments last year in the active-duty Army and Marines, but coupled with sharp increases in the number of waivers for recruits with misdemeanors, the numbers are downright shocking:

From Sept. 30, 2006, to Sept. 30, 2007, the Army granted so-called conduct waivers for felonies and misdemeanors to 18 percent of its new recruits, a 3 percent increase from the previous year. So far, in just the first six months of this fiscal year, the Army has granted waivers to 13 percent of its recruits.

While it may be presumed that most criminals — petty or otherwise — serve honorably, that is not always the case as rapist-murderer Stephen Green proved. Besides which, The Dirty Dozen was a great idea for a movie. It should be kept that way.

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

It will doubtless come as no surprise to readers of the Moderate Voice that people around the world have been outraged by the Bush Administration’s conduct of the Iraq War. But the passing of the fifth anniversary of the war has triggered a particularly strong upwelling of anger, which one can get a sense of by reading this article by Reinaldo Spitaletta of Colombia’s El Espectador.

Spitaletta writes, “Is it worth killing over 450,000 people, mostly civilians? Yes. And destroying a culture thousands of years old? Yes. And as if the matter was of little consequence, torturing prisoners in a jail? Yes, indeed. That’s how the president of the United States, George W. Bush, sees it, now five years after invasion of Iraq.”

As for the Iraqis, Spitaletta writes, “Perhaps it never occurred to the Gringos that their bombers, their infantry, their paraphernalia - yes- of mass destruction, would be unable to overcome an entire people … the Iraqi people, who today are suffering through the most unspeakable criminal invasion, know that never in their history has any foreign occupier triumphed. Neither the Romans nor the British. Today, without jobs, without social security, without tranquility but with the living hope of expelling the invader, they continue their resistance. And for those who have been displaced and mutilated - for the humiliated Iraqis of today - it will all be worth it to reverse the situation and defeat the troops of the superpower.”

By Reinaldo Spitaletta

Translated By Douglas Myles Rasmussen

March 25, 2008

Colombia - El Espectador - Original Article (Spanish)

Is it worth killing over 450,000 people, mostly civilians? Yes. And destroying a culture thousands of years old? Yes. And as if the matter was of little consequence, torturing prisoners in a jail? Yes, 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 »

With Russia angry about America’s proposed missile shield and NATO in need of the Kremlin’s help in Afghanistan, will the NATO Alliance agree to admit the Ukraine and Georgia at the annual NATO Summit this week? According to Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza, NATO membership for these former Russian satellites depends on how hard President Bush wants to push the reluctant nations of old Europe, who question the wisdom of angering President Putin at this moment of global high-tension.

Jacek Pawlicki writes for Gazeta, “Diplomatic sources told Gazeta yesterday that U.S. pressure had been so strong that Germany had begun to hesitate. It’s possible Berlin will make its final position conditional on France’s stance. If Paris doesn’t say no, neither will Berlin.”

By Jacek Pawlicki

Translated By Marcin Wawrzy?czak

April 1, 2008

Poland - Gazeta Wyborcza - Original Article (Polish)

The chance that NATO will open its door to Ukraine and Georgia remains, although the door is unlikely to be opened as wide as Poland would like. At least not just yet.

What NATO offers Ukraine and Georgia at its Bucharest summit, which begins tomorrow, will be decided by the Alliance’s leaders at the last moment. As Gazeta has learned, in the communiqué now being prepared, the section concerning NATO’s future relationship with Kiev and Tbilisi has been left blank. Read the rest of this entry »

Munitions merchants are not what they used to be. A century ago, in “Major Barbara,” George Bernard Shaw gave us Andrew Undershaft, an intellectual who philosophized about war and poverty. Today we have 22-year-old Efraim Diveroli, who peddles useless used weaponry and keeps getting arrested for domestic violence.

After “repeated inquiries” by the New York Times, the Army this week finally suspended his company, AEY inc., from future federal contracts, after learning Diveroli had sold them Chinese ammunition that he claimed to be Hungarian.

The company, which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach with a licensed masseur as Vice President, had supplied $300 million of munitions to Afghanistan’s army and police forces, much of which turned out to be more than 40 years old…

MORE.

Although it at first may seem like a strange way to look at the latest round of bloodshed in Iraq, it’s all about Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki casting the first vote in that country’s much anticipated provincial elections.

The result is a troubling new chapter in the Forever War: Basra city and parts of Baghdad are under siege, the seven-month ceasefire called by Moqtada al-Sadr is history and Iraq has entered a perilous new phase that no amount of bribing by General Petraeus’s paymasters or speechifying by George Bush can change as U.S. troops get sucked into a maw that the White House and Pentagon were instrumental in creating in giving the prime minister no-strings-attached support.

Al-Maliki’s stalled offensive, which would have collapsed without U.S. air and ground intervention and eventually will, is all about politics, not national reconciliation. For Bush to call it “a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq” on top of the Pentagon’s contention that it is a “byproduct of the success of the Surge” is laughable in an Orwellian sort of way.

Here’s the real deal:

Provincial elections, one of the few Bush administration benchmarks for measuring Iraqi progress that have not been discarded as utterly unrealistic, are to be held on October 1.

The Madhi Army of Al-Sadr, the anti-America Shiite cleric, holds the keys to Basra and has since the British Army ceded its role as American helpmate because the number of casualties it was taking had become a public-relations nightmare for the Labor government back in London.

Al-Maliki desperately needs Basra, the oil-rich province on the porous border with Iraq, but the British are cowering in their barracks and there is no American military presence, hence the botched offensive on Basra city, the second largest in Iraq, where the 30,000-man Iraqi army and security forces find themselves surrounded by the Madhi Army, which has set up checkpoints and is now controlling access to the city.

Al-Sadr’s gunmen are thugs, but so are the gunmen belonging to the Badr Organization, the militia affiliated with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which is joined at the hip with the prime minister.

Iran not only has a dog in this race, it has all the dogs in the form of close ties with Al-Maliki, Al-Sadr and ISCI, which makes Washington’s breast beating over the meddlesome Tehran regime so tiresome.

Read the rest of this entry »

The seven-month ceasefire brokered by anti-American radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is, for all an intents and purposes, off. Times Online reports that neighborhood after neighborhood in Baghdad is being taken by militia gunmen, some with heavy fighting and others without a shot being fired.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports that U.S. troops have taken the lead in fighting in the capital.

One, two or three years (pick one) after the Iraqi army was ready to stand up so that U.S. troops could stand down, Shiite milita gunmen with comparatively meager weaponry and far fewer logistical resources still have the upper hand after three days of ferocious fighting in the key southeastern city of Basra.

Napoleon, as Daniel reminds us, famously remarked that “If you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna!”

Methinks there are three reasons why Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s gamble is backfiring:

* White House and Pentagon claims that the Iraqi army has finally gotten its act together as usual have no basis in reality.

* As Fester notes here, even with tactical air support from the U.S. and U.K., the Iraqi force seems to be a little on the thin side.

* And most importantly, the militamen are fighting for their very existence while Iraqi boots are fighting their own countrymen, in many cases members of their own religious sect, for the political gain of the unpopular Al-Maliki.

Then there is Iran’s machinations in all of this, which range from big and evil to paltry and passive depending upon your view of the Tehran regime.

Mine is that the ayatollahs find themselves in the difficult position of having to both support and rein in Al-Sadr. who is the key player in this drama, not the prime minister and certainly not George Bush, who for all his bloviating has essentially tied his own hands because of years of wrongheaded policy making that determinedly put politics ahead of more practical concerns.

As it was, the president packed an extraordinary number of misstatements into his speech yesterday before yet another “safe” audience, chief among them that it “makes no sense” to divert troops from Iraq for the real War on Terror.

The question of the hour is what happens next. The answer is nobody knows, but here are a few scenarios:

* All hell breaks loose as U.S. ground troops are further drawn into the fighting, which has already taken out one of Iraq’s two major oil pipelines as it has spread from Basra and Baghdad to several other cities. As it is, they are now battling militants in and around the Sadr City slum in Baghdad.

* All hell breaks loose as Al-Sadr, who enjoys far more popularity than the prime minister among Shiites, calls for an end to the seven-month ceasefire against U.S. troops.

* All hell breaks loose as Al-Maliki’s already tenuous political situation is further undermined by the escalating violence and his ineffectual army and security forces.

My guess is that none of the above will happen in the short term because it may be in the best interests of Al-Sadr and Al-Maliki, who has extended by 10 days the deadline for militias to take bribes in return for turning in their weapons, to negotiate some sort of truce.

That, however, would only delay the day of reckoning that was bound to come after the prime minister failed to even make an effort to fulfill his end of the Surge bargain.

Now that the fog around the battle for Basra and upturn in violence elsewhere in Iraq is lifting a bit, we can conclude that:

* The Pentagon’s spin that the bloodshed is a consequence of the “success” of the Surge would seem to be silly on its face, but it isn’t.

* This is because the violence is the result of a carefully planned Al-Maliki government offensive to destroy the prime minister’s Shiite opponents in the advance of provincial elections in October.

This is especially important in Basra, the major city in oil-rich southeastern Iraq where government-militia clashes (photo) are in their third day, because it has been controlled by loyalists of radical anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr since the British cut and run.

Since Tuesday, clashes in Basra and throughout Iraq’s Shiite heartland have left more than 100 dead and many wounded in Basra, Baghdad, Hilla, Kut, Karbala and Diwaniya.

This state of affairs yet again puts the Bush administration in the position of backing the wrong horse, as Eric Martin puts it, but I don’t think there are any “right” horses because political fault lines, even within sectarian interest groups, run so deep.

And while the militiamen are lightly armed, they are highly motivated. There would be no amount of Pentagon spin to explain away an end to Al-Sadr’s seven-month-old ceasefire against U.S. troops since the Surge was supposed to give Al-Maliki the breathing room to bring warring parties together, not an opportunity to crush his opponents with U.S. troops and air support.

Then there is a biggest reason why there will be a major American presence in Iraq indefinitely: Oil.

Saboteurs blew up one of Iraq’s two main oil pipelines near Basra today, severely reducing exports and pushing the price of crude up by more than a dollar a barrel.

In another by-product of the success of the Surge, the Iraqi government spokesman for the Baghdad security plan has been kidnapped and his three bodyguards killed.

There are an especially pernicious pair of bloggers who delight at bashing The Moderate Voice who shall remain nameless.

One of them accused me of “joyfully claiming vindiction” in my post yesterday on the upsurge in violence.

This is a libel on two counts:

First, there was nothing joyful in my noting I had predicted weeks ago that Iraq was a hiccup away from sliding back into cyclical violence because Al-Maliki has had no interest in using the military success of the Surge as intended.

Second, I am a Vietnam War veteran who bleeds for the men and women fighting their hearts out in this never ending war. Yes, it is possible to support the troops and not the war, something that this blogger is unable to comprehend because he is so determinedly small minded.

I invite skeptics to read my 18-installment series on the Triangle of Death abductions as well as many other deeply personal and joy-free posts on U.S. troops.

Has President Bush decided to send weapons to the newly-independent nation of Kosovo to keep NATO’s hands clean, as Albanians in the former Serbian province ‘cleanse’ Kosovo of Serbs? Tamara Zamyatina of Russia’s Novosti writes, ‘Arming the Kosovars is a kind of legalization of future action by the Albanian side to oust the Serb minority … In other words, to give the Kosovars a chance to complete what NATO started: To clear the non-Albanian population out of the province, but to have the job done by Albanians, so as not to cast a shadow on the NATO peacekeepers of KFOR - not to mention the United States.’

By Global Affairs Commentator Tamara Zamyatina

Translated By Igor Medvedev

March 25, 2008

Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)

MOSCOW: Things the experts warned about even before Kosovo’s illegal declaration of independence are coming true - the territory seized from Serbia is gradually accruing all the attributes of a giant military base of NATO and the United States.

As far as the “basic accessories” required for the task, George W. Bush has ordered the flow of arms shipments to Kosovo to begin - something that Moscow is sure to focus on at an emergency session of the NATO-Russia Council - to be held in Brussels on March 28.

Incidentally, Bush issued this order two days after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Moscow to urge the Kremlin to strengthen cooperation, expand consultation and generally display more openness.

The haste with which the Pentagon is seeking to take the fledgling Kosovo under its wing says only one thing - that there is uncertainty in the West that peace will come to the Balkans after Kosovo’s cessation. But it was precisely this rhetoric - that there is an urgent need to end the Yugoslav crisis - that the West used to justify its support for the Kosovo separatists. As far as peace is concerned, there can be none when one side is being armed against the other. This is like taking a raging fire and pouring more fuel on top …

The Serbs have already gotten the message. In the town of Kosovska Mitrovica (in northern Kosovo), they began a doomed rush to defend their last refuge - the courthouse - where Serbian justice once ruled but which now is occupied by international lawyers planning to turn it over to their Albanian colleagues [Kosovo is largely Albanian]. Blood was spilled there during clashes with [NATO] peacekeepers - and Belgrade [capital of Serbia] continues to seethe with rallies in support of Kosovo’s Serbian minority.

The city [Kosovska Mitrovica], divided by the Ibar River into Albanian and Serbian halves, will long be a bone of contention between the two sided. Belgrade has already officially appealled to the U.N. demanding that Kosovo’s northern region adjacent to Kosovska Mitrovica, which contains a Serbian population of 100,000, be returned to Serbia. These people require basic physical protection, but this is unlikely to move advocates of Kosovo’s independence at the United Nations.

In the first half of the 1990s, Western countries closed their eyes to the expulsion of 300,000 Serbs from Croatia, so they’re unlikely to bother over a mere hundred thousand today. “If 300,000 birds suddenly leave a place, the world would be alarmed, but the tragedy of the Serbs, mankind hardly notices” - so they say in Belgrade.

America’s intention to begin arms shipments to Kosovo is not only due to a desire to hold on to Kosovska Mitrovica - this strategically important but recalcitrant Serbian city. There is a more important reason - to give the Kosovars carte-blanche to suppress the protest in Serb enclaves throughout the province [actually - it’s now a nation]. So says Yelena Guskova, director of the Balkans Crisis Center at the Russian Institute of Slavic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Arming the Kosovars - is a kind of legalization of future action by the Albanian side to oust the Serb minority from the province. In other words, to give the Kosovars a chance to complete what NATO started: To clear the non-Albanian population out of the province, but to have the job done by Albanians, so as not to cast a shadow on the NATO peacekeepers of KFOR - not to mention the United States.

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

A good sampling of the consternation felt in various parts of the world over the unapologetic stance of the Bush Administration on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War can be found in this op-ed from Germany’s Frankfurter Rundschau. Karl Grobe writes, ‘The war isn’t over - not by a long shot. It has been transformed into a struggle of all against all - and it’s the Iraqi population that is paying the price: Over 700,000 civilian dead and four million refugees and displaced persons; the shattering of a once highly-developed health and education system; the collapse of basic services and the division of Baghdad’s millions into small, feuding, ethnically-segregated districts, behind walls and barricades.’

By Karl Grobe

Translated By Ulf Behncke

March 19, 2008

Germany - Frankfurter Rundschau - Original Article (German)

Earlier this week, Richard Cheney remarked on the “phenomenal” progress of the security situation in occupied Iraq. Meanwhile, a female suicide bomber killed over 40 people in Karbala and two U.S. soldiers died in an attack north of Baghdad - the most recent two of the nearly 4000 who have died since the beginning of the invasion five years ago today. And dead Iraqis are hardly even counted by the side represented by the vice president of the United States. Read the rest of this entry »

While every sneeze of Obama/Clinton/McCain attracts reams and reams of media/blog coverage, Iraq seems to have become a violent theatre of death and destruction in some other planet in the universe. The recent AP story underscores this irony in the grim milestone reached on Sunday when four US soldiers were killed in Baghdad.

“The overall U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 4,000 after four soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad, a grim milestone that is likely to fuel calls for the withdrawal of American forces as the war enters its sixth year.

“The Associated Press count of 4,000 deaths is based on U.S. military reports and includes eight civilians who worked for the Department of Defense. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians also have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion on March 20, 2003, although estimates of a specific figure vary widely due to the difficulty in collecting accurate information. One widely respected tally by Iraq Body Count, which collects figures based mostly on media reports, estimates that 82,349 to 89,867 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in the conflict.

“The American deaths occurred Sunday, the same day rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

“Navy Lt. Patrick Evans, a military spokesman, said: ‘There have been some significant gains. However, this enemy is resilient and will not give up, nor will we. There’s still a lot of work to be done’.

“President Bush has insisted the decline in violence shows his strategy is working and needs more time, a position taken by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.”

With Tibet and Iraq providing the background, President Bush would have lot of things in common to discuss with his counterpart in China when he goes to attend the opening of the Beijing Olympics in a few months!!! More here….

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.

With the arrival of the five-year anniversary of the Iraq War, what do Iraqis have to say about it? In addition to pondering what President Bush means when he says that the situation is ‘fragile,’ the continuing activities of Iran are also foremost in peoples’ minds. Fatih Abdulsalam writes for Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper, ‘It seems that although American talks with Iran have been suspended, the two sides persist in pursuing their respective goals … This makes a joke of Iraqi ‘national sovereignty.’ … As far as what Bush means by the his recent comment that the situation in Iraq is ‘fragile,’ Abdulsalam goes on to say, ‘Perhaps we’ll have to wait for Bush to be ‘free’ of the White House before he tells us what he intended. That moment will not be long in coming.’

By Fatih Abdulsalam

Translated By James Jacobson and Nicolas Dagher

March 12, 2008
As we approach the completion of five years of the Iraqi War, a Pentagon report [Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq ] has been released that reinforces the words of President George Bush - that “all that has been achieved in Iraq is fragile and could be lost.” This is a concern that has been addressed in this column repeatedly over the past three years. As the snowballing of strategic mistakes sped our plunge into the abyss of bloodshed, it was inevitable that the “will” of America (and I don’t mean its administration) would be subject to the whims of Iraqi political parties who echo the voice of Iran, which appears and then disappears depending on the maneuvering of the Americans and Iranians on Iraqi land.

[Editor’s Note: The last sentence included a play on words: “iraada” means will and “idaara” means administration. The author is trying to say that the issue is out of the Bush Administration’s hands].

The recognition that all is not well is no innocent one. The sudden appearance of the voice of “truth” came riding in on important changes that the Bush Administration appears determined to make, especially after the resignation of American commander William Fallon was announced. Fallon was responsible for the Iraq and Afghanistan war dossiers - and his departure comes at a moment when talks in Baghdad to conclude an American strategic agreement with the Al-Maliki government are taking place.

Without exaggerating the case, it seems that although American negotiations with Iran have been suspended, the two sides persist in pursuing their respective goals … particularly in Iraq. This makes a joke of Iraqi “national sovereignty,” to whose defense rose Jassem Al-Kharafi - a Deputy of Kuwait’s Parliament, at a recent conference of Arab Parliaments in Arbil [Northern Iraq]. Al-Kharafi was joined in his “extremist” denial of Iraq’s occupation by the Vice President of Iraq’s Parliament.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with much more foreign press coverage from around the world on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War.

Would the nations of Latin America be better off replacing the Organization of American States with a new grouping that leaves out the U.S.? After the success of last week’s Group of Rio Summit - which the U.S. did not attend - in defusing a military-diplomatic crisis involving Colombia and a number of its neighbors, there are many people south of the United States that seem to think so. Ángel Guerra Cabrera for Mexico’s La Jornada writes in part, ‘Seemingly intractable antagonisms and ideological crisis can be overcome as long as they are addressed without the presence of the United States … Looking back at history, the OAS has never condemned a single Yankee misdeed against our America, nor has it defended any of our just causes.’ In terms of the attack against Ecuador by Colombia, Cabrera expresses the suspicions of many Latin Americans, when he writes, ‘the roots of the Ecuador incident, momentarily defused by the Rio Group, remain unchanged: the Colombian conflict, the fruit of a very unfair and devastating social and political reality which has been encouraged by “Plan Colombia,” is the nucleus of a feverish U.S. plot of subversion and military interference in South America, aimed at overthrowing the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, and closely related to the fierce onslaught against Cuba.’

By Ángel Guerra Cabrera

Translated By Fernando Uribe

March 13, 2008

Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)

The Group of Rio Summit’s resounding rejection of military aggression against Ecuador and the consequent defusing of the diplomatic crisis that it sparked, has once again forced Bush - who longed for fire in the Andes region - to experience the bitter taste of defeat WATCH . In this reversal, he had to swallow the clear and vibrant desire for unity, cooperation, and peace in Latin America and the Caribbean, which was so forcefully displayed at Santo Domingo’s capital, Quisqueya.

[Editor’s Note: The “Group of Rio” was founded in 1986, and includes nineteen Caribbean states: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. The 35-nation OAS (Organization of American States) has been the dominant regional decision-making body for many years. The earliest forerunner of the OAS first convened in Washington in 1890, and consisted of 18 nations].

The great lesson of the summit is the enormous capacity for dialogue and understanding that the governments of our region possess, with which seemingly intractable antagonisms and ideological crisis can be overcome as long as they are addressed without the presence of the United States.

The best evidence of this came days earlier at OAS headquarters in Washington. Due solely to Yankee pressure - even though for the first time all present clearly condemned all U.S.-inspired interventions, it was impossible to translate this into a collective statement.

On the other hand, despite the fact that Yankee pressure increased on the eve of the meeting in the Dominican Republic (as President Rafael Correa briefed several of his counterparts) U.S. intentions ended up crashing against a determined majority. So there was more than enough reason, in light of this experience, for Ecuador to assert the necessity of creating an organization of Latin American states without the Empire. Looking back at history, the OAS has never condemned a single Yankee misdeed against our America, nor has it defended any of our just causes.

The success of the Rio Summit was also made possible by other decisive factors. The most important was [Ecuadorian President] Correa’s unwavering defense of Ecuadorian sovereignty and demands for its violation to be condemned - and the unanimous disapproval of this ominous precedent. This included the resolute attitude of heavyweights like Brazil and Argentina not to accept under any circumstances, violations of the territorial integrity of another State, which left Uribe isolated.

The only positive attitude towards the Latin American peoples, once assured censorship of the summit to the armed attack against Ecuador, was not insist on the large differences in approach for the sake of opposing defuse the climate of war created.

The skilful and transparent conduct of the meeting by Dominican President Leonel Fernandez created the climate for the bright and balanced involvement of Hugo Chavez who took the lead, supported by [Nicaraguan President] Daniel Ortega and [Bolivian President] Evo Morales. This was the turning point that kept away the shadow of a fratricidal war and led to the unexpected conclusion. This singular attitude favored by the people of Latin America not only assured the summit’s censure of the armed attack against Ecuador, it made certain in the interests of not extending the warlike atmosphere, that little would be made of the vast differences in approach suggested by individual states.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing coverage of the United States from the Latin American press.

Coming months/years would be spent in assessing whether the US administration’s strategy/decisions were worth it. It will be a tough task. Two leading economists seem to have set the agenda for future debate in their book that has attracted media attention. There are lot of questions that arise and deserve convincing, not emotional/ideological, answers.

The Three Trillion Dollar War has been written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winner in economics, and Linda Bilmes, a budget and public finance expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

The Economist reviews it: “The book mixes the patience of an auditor with the passion of a polemicist; it combines forensic intelligence with prosecutorial zeal. This reviewer responded more to its quieter virtues. As the authors say, the book is not just about the big number on the cover. More importantly, ‘by examining the costs, we come to understand better the implications of the war’.” More here…

The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict
By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes; Norton; 311 pages; $22.95. Allen Lane; £20 amazon.com