Now that Russian diplomats appear to have lost their bid to prevent the stationing of America’s anti-missile shield in Europe, what should the Kremlin do next?
“Washington’s initial readiness to discuss American missile defense plans with Moscow was perceived around the world as a sign of the “post-Cold War era.” Back then, talks were held - at summits, ministerial meetings, including 2+2 events [defense and foreign ministers], and at special consultations with the participation of diplomats and military experts. And the longer the talking went on, the more watered-down the pledges of the Americans became.”
“If an agreement is signed for the stationing of this anti-missile base, Moscow will have to reflect on the usefulness of further consultations. It’s no secret that diplomatic efforts like these have enabled Bush to obscure the policies he has pursued for the past six years, which included the liquidation of agreements on disarmament and arms control. In so doing, the White House has managed to secure Moscow’s support for American policies on a variety of issues. Such help should only be provided on the basis of reciprocity. … now is the time for the Kremlin to reveal to the world and to the Russian public its ‘asymmetrical answer’ to the threat posed by America’s third missile-deployment area.”
“History - both recent and distant - weighs on Poland’s decision on whether to allow the installation of the anti-missile shield. … Whether these threats are realistic or not - from the point of view of Polish history it’s reasonable to act with caution. … Read the rest of this entry »
Poland’s decision on July 4 to reject Washington’s latest offer to allow the stationing of elements of an anti-missile shield in that country is not only another European slap in the face for President Bush - it has triggered a political flap in Poland, with the opposition charging the government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk of taking orders from Moscow. According to Polish Prime Minister Tusk, U.S. security guarantees - especially a lack of permanently-stationed Patriot Missile batteries - render Washington’s offer ‘unsatisfactory.’
Yesterday, I wrote a column comparing–contrasting–the Vietnamese refugee crisis with the present and ongoing Iraqi refugee crisis. My comments were based mostly on personal experiences and on personal views on the issue. Most of the experiences came from a stint of military duty in 1975 at one of the Vietnamese refugee camps as a Senior Refugee Liaison Officer–a tour of duty that turned out to be one of the most fascinating and rewarding aspects of my entire Air Force career.
Coincidentally, and fortunately, today’s Los Angeles Times carried a column, “The shortchanging of Iraqi refugees,” written by Morton Abramowitz, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and a board member of the International Rescue Committee. He also was the U.S. ambassador to Thailand (1978-81) and Turkey (1989-91). I say “fortunately” because while, as I said, my piece was based mostly on personal experience, Abramowitz column is steeped in professional knowledge and experience at the highest multinational levels in the areas of human rights, international rescue, refugees and crisis prevention missions and activities. Where else to go to both fact-check and complement my original article in such rapid succession?
Ambassador Abramowitz first provides a historic perspective on present and past refugee crises by pointing out that, “Since World War II, American actions have unintentionally created three huge refugee crises: the Indochinese in Southeast Asia, the Kurds of northern Iraq and now a third: the Iraqis displaced by today’s war.”
He then describes the professional, humanitarian and compassionate way in which the U.S. handled the Indochinese refugee crisis–“an extraordinary act“– and how the Kurdish refugee crisis was resolved.
With respect to the present Iraqi refugee crisis, the Ambassador has this to say:
Our war has displaced 4 million Iraqis since 2003, including 2 million now living beyond its borders in tough conditions. Yet we have allowed this vast, potentially destabilizing refugee burden to be borne mostly by Syria and Jordan. We have provided some aid to host countries but none to Syria, and we have allowed only a trickle of Iraqis (fewer than 10,000 so far) to resettle in the U.S. — far fewer than have been taken in by Sweden.
And,
For five years, the U.S. has failed to make Iraq’s refugee exodus a focus of national or international attention. The U.S. has allowed the crisis to be managed by concerned but second-tier American officials, and it has been slow to provide financial assistance. This year’s aid, the most generous so far, will surpass $200 million — but it is still only a quarter of what is needed, relief agencies say. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees complained last month that he would run out of funds in August.
Abramowitz then goes on to explain the differing responses to the three crises and offers some reflections. Included in the explanations are:
* The fact that White House leadership provided by Presidents Carter and George H.W. Bush was good and the fact that “This time around, there has been little presidential involvement.”
* The facts that “guilt was an underlying factor in previous crises,” and that “The current Bush White House, by contrast, appears to be without guilt or remorse.”
* The fact that the media have been generally uninterested in the story of the refugees this time. “Partly because, unlike, say, Darfur, where overcrowded, grim refugee camps can be graphically portrayed, Iraqi refugees generally live in crowded quarters in the cities of Syria and Jordan, surviving on inadequate international handouts, illegal labor or declining savings — but without much visual squalor to stir sympathy.”
* The fact–as I mentioned in my story–that “9/11 changed our national consciousness as well. We became less welcoming of outsiders in general and more suspicious of Arabs and Muslims in particular.”
In his conclusion, the Ambassador addresses a couple of my rhetorical questions and issues:
The stark reality is that no U.S. government, Republican or Democrat, is going to resettle hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees in the U.S. Nor is that the best solution. The best solution — as is almost always the case — is for most of the refugees to return home. They need to rebuild their lives and their country. After five years of war, violence is down and the situation offers hope for mass return, but that day has not yet come (despite the Iraq government’s recent promise to provide $195 million for returnees).
Until that time comes, they need plenty of help. In its waning days, the administration can at least provide the refugees greater financial assistance and can pressure Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to provide more than a pittance to them and to the states sheltering them.
Finally, I am pleased that the Ambassador agrees with me that “the U.S. should take in more refugees — particularly those who will simply never return to Iraq or whose savings have run out. Our values and our interests in the Middle East demand a better response.”
If I might quote myself, “Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children anxiously await our answers–answers that will reflect and perhaps redefine ‘the character of a nation.’”
Author’s wife (center) with a family of South Vietnamese refugees at the Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, refugee camp in 1975
The New York Times periodically publishes an “Op-Chart” that graphically depicts the progress, or lack thereof, that we are making in Iraq. The latest Op-Chart published today (Sunday, June 22), (”The State of Iraq: An Update”) does indeed reflect progress on several fronts, including the all-important political and military fronts.
The Op-Chart analysts, however, do offer some words of caution: “Iraq remains a violent country plagued by high unemployment, raw wounds from sectarian conflict, extremist militias aided by Iran, more than four million people still displaced by violence, and very limited government capacity to meet the country’s core needs.“
It is the “more than four million people still displaced by violence” that I would like to address. These “more than four million people” include approximately 2.7 million Iraqis who have been “internally“ displaced by the raging sectarian fighting since the war began, and who now live in squalid conditions and in virtual imprisonment in their own country. The number also includes approximately two million Iraqis who have fled the carnage in Iraq, mostly to Syria and Jordan and whose plight is not much better. Up to very recently, thousands of Iraqis were fleeing their war-ravaged country every month, making this the largest diaspora in the Middle East since 1948.
While the plight of all of these human beings is horrific and needs to be addressed, it is the situation–I call it a crisis–of the Iraqi refugees abroad that affects me most deeply, because it evokes poignant memories of a muggy May morning 33 years ago at a makeshift refugee camp at a sprawling military base in Florida.
Military personnel like me and others were there to welcome South Vietnamese refugees to the United States. An article I wrote at the time describing my experience said: “The character of a nation is reflected in the faces of these volunteers. Some have flowers in their hands, some have tears in their eyes, and all have compassion in their hearts”
The “volunteers” (social workers, housewives, college students, etc.) were watching a small, fragile old woman break down in tears as she stepped off the bus that brought her and the others to the camp. Next, an exhausted young mother holding a tiny baby was followed off the bus by six more small children–the father conspicuously missing. And so it went on. Last, a young helicopter pilot stepped off with just the clothes on his back, happy to be alive. These refugees and hundreds of others like them would be placed in our care for the next six months.
That morning in 1975 was only a few weeks after the fall of Saigon, an event that precipitated a chaotic helicopter evacuation out of Vietnam. The U.S. military airlifted 6,000 desperate South Vietnamese along with about 1,000 Americans to aircraft carriers offshore. The images of crying Vietnamese women, babies in their arms, desperately reaching out to dangerously overloaded helicopters are still with us. Over the next eight months, more than 125,000 Vietnamese were warmly greeted at several “Operation New Arrivals” camps like the one in Florida.
America and Americans opened up their hearts and arms to this “first wave” of Vietnamese refugees. (Hundreds of thousands of additional Vietnamese would be given refuge in our country during the next 10 years.) Within a few months the refugees were resettled in communities throughout the U.S. Thousands were graciously welcomed by Americans into their own homes; thousands more were “sponsored” by social and welfare organizations and provided with jobs. The vast majority would become hard-working, productive, loyal and grateful residents of our country.
What does Vietnam have to do with the ongoing Iraqi refugee crisis? A great deal, I believe. But, sadly, only by way of contrast.
While our government and our nation acted so nobly at the end of the Vietnam War, our government has been singularly blasé, ambivalent and slow in responding to the Iraqi refugee crisis. While many believe that the U.S. has the moral responsibility to seriously and meaningfully tackle the Iraqi humanitarian crisis, President Bush lacks the political will and does little more than make promises and provide money for refugee assistance–a “whopping” $208 million, according to USA Today “barely one-tenth of the $2 billion that members of the International Rescue Committee‘s board believe is needed annually for up to four years.”.
Since the war in Iraq started more than five years ago, the United States has admitted fewer than 6,000 Iraqi refugees. (Small Sweden has taken in more than 9,000 Iraqi refugees since the war began.) Last year, under pressure from the United Nations and other organizations, the U.S. State Department promised to allow 7,000 Iraqi refugees to enter the United States. Only 1608 were resettled. Since October 2007, only about 4,700 Iraqi refugees have been allowed to enter the United States.
Murtaja Kamal Aldeen is one of those 4,700 fortunate Iraqis. This Sunday’s New York Times tells how the 26-year-old Baghdad University dentistry graduate left everything back home to “escape a nightmare” that included death threats because he had worked for an American organization.
As in Vietnam, there are thousands of other not-as-fortunate Iraqi men and women who risked their lives by working with U.S. military and government officials, who believed our promises, and who now find themselves the targets of terrorists, insurgents and militia groups.
At least, there are small quotas for these Iraqis–whether they will be filled is another matter. The administration has allocated 12,000 slots for such Iraqi refugees this year–and is very slow in filling them.
But how about the two-million-plus Iraqis who are languishing in Syria, Jordan and elsewhere? Will we welcome hundreds of thousands of them as we welcomed the South Vietnamese? Doesn’t the U.S. as an invading and occupying nation bear some responsibility for the crisis? Or, do we agree with former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton’s position that “our obligation was to give [Iraqis] new institutions and provide security…” and that we don’t “have an obligation to compensate [Iraqis] for the hardships of war.”?
How have Sept. 11 and the war on terror changed our attitudes towards Arabs and Muslims? What are our security concerns when it comes to such refugees? The administration claims, and perhaps rightly so, that it has to be careful to weed out potential terrorists when processing the refugees. They also claim that admitting large numbers of Iraqis would just make their return to Iraq more difficult when Iraq is finally “liberated.”
More than 4,100 of our troops have sacrificed their lives to, as we are told, give Iraqis some measure of security, liberty and democracy. But, are these very same Iraqis not “good enough” to be let into our country?
Americans must address these questions and issues soberly and pragmatically, but hopefully also with some compassion. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children anxiously await our answers–answers that will reflect and perhaps redefine “the character of a nation.”
(The author served as a Senior Refugee Liaison Officer at the Eglin Air Force Base Vietnamese Refugee Center during “Operation New Arrivals” in 1975, and was responsible for the reception, processing, housing, health and welfare and assistance with the resettlement of over 600 South Vietnamese refugees)
Those wacky government contractors. Will we ever tire of of their sportive tricks?
I’ll never understand why more Republicans in Congress — who worry obsessively about taxes and who used to get teary-eyed about the troops whenever a Dem used the phrase ‘withdrawal deadline’ or ‘exit strategy’ — aren’t apoplectic over the amounts of tax dollars being flushed down the latrine in Iraq, not to mention the rampant war profiteering at the expense of our American soldiers.
For example: During the first two years of the Iraq war, Charles M. Smith was in charge of overseeing a ‘multibillion dollar contract with KBR in Iraq. After army auditors determined that KBR didn’t have credible records to justify more than $1 billion in spending, he refused to pay them.(NYT) Specifically, the auditors said that the claims were ‘noncredible.’ (After all, you wouldn’t want the government to pay out the tax dollars formerly known as ‘yours’ and ‘mine’ without verifying that the recipients delivered the goods, would you?) I mean: $1 billion in insufficiently documented costs? That’s a whole lot of missing invoices.
On top of all the other Iraq-related news — including the book by Scott McClellan — last week, the leader of Iraq’s Parliamentary majority rejected the one piece of legislation Washington wants the most: a convention codifying America’s long-term presence in that nation.
“Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, the leader of the majority in Council of Representatives, said in a statement that ‘there is a national consensus on rejecting many of the points raised by the American side in this convention, because they would compromise the national sovereignty of Iraq. … From the beginning we stressed and continue to stress the importance that any agreement not violate our national sovereignty and the need for a commitment to transparency with regard to these matters; the people of Iraq must be well-informed about this, since these matters concern their lives today and in the future.”
The article also includes coverage of the latest protests conducted by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s faction, which decries the convention for ‘expropriating’ Iraqi sovereignty and warns neighboring countries that if such a treaty is agreed to in Iraq - the same fate waits them as well.
Translated By James Jacobson
May 31, 2008
Iraq - Sotal Iraq - Original Article (Arabic)
Baghdad: Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim , the leader of the majority in Council of Representatives [Parliament], announced that the Iraqi and American sides have failed to reach an agreement on a “long-term convention” between Baghdad and Washington.
The United Iraqi Alliance issued a statement yesterday [May 30] that Al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, the central party in the United Iraqi Alliance bloc, confirmed that “there is a national consensus on rejecting many of the points raised by the American side in this convention, because they would compromise the national sovereignty of Iraq.”
The statement added that, “From the beginning we stressed and continue to stress the importance that any agreement not violate our national sovereignty and the need for a commitment to transparency with regard to these matters; the people of Iraq must be well-informed about this, since these matters concern their lives today and in the future.”
“When it comes to interests and purpose, he [McGee] is decidedly White. …White America is now so confident of the Whiteness of its Blacks that color is no longer an issue. Color is no longer a perspective. Look at Obama - he could be White America’s next President, and be far better at pushing her agenda than George W. Bush!” Read the rest of this entry »
As President Bush visits an Israel celebrating its 60th anniversary, Arabs and Palestinians commemorate the “Nakba,” which in Arabic means “the catastrophe.”
For a sampling of what all nations in the region outside of Israel think of the events and President Bush’s visit, a good place to start would be this editorial from Jordan’s Jordan Times.
“U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday arrived in Israel to cheer that country’s independence and celebrate Israeli democracy. … Bush hailed Israel as an example to the region. One wonders which example Bush was referring to. How to get rid of a pesky native population? How to create a democracy for 80 percent of its people, based on their ethno-religious backgrounds, and present itself as a haven for progressive values? Or could it have been how it has occupied a neighboring territory and people and blame the victims for their oppression?” Read the rest of this entry »
“The American president could hardly have envisaged a more unfavorable climate for his Middle East tour. Expected this morning in Jerusalem to participate in celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, George W. Bush will have few other reasons to rejoice during a tour that will also take him to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and which is likely to illustrate the failure of his policies in the region. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is on the brink of collapse. In Lebanon, the pro-Western government of Fouad Siniora is suffering a Hezbullah onslaught, while the Shiite movement is supported by the two black beasts of U.S. policy in the region, Iran and Syria.”
By Patrick Saint-Paul, correspondent in Jerusalem
Translated By Sandrine Agoerges
May 13, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
The American president arrives in Israel in midst of political uncertainty and with the peace process is at a standstill.
The American president could hardly have envisaged a more unfavorable climate for his Middle East tour. Expected this morning in Jerusalem to participate in celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, George W. Bush will have few other reasons to rejoice during a tour that will also take him to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and which is likely to illustrate the failure of his policies in the region. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is on the brink of collapse. In Lebanon, the pro-Western government of Fouad Siniora is suffering a Hezbullah onslaught, while the Shiite movement is supported by the two black beasts of U.S. policy in the region, Iran and Syria.
For his second visit to Jerusalem since last January, Bush will be forced to note that since he undertook to revive peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians at Annapolis in late 2007, no progress has been made. “Unless he has a rabbit in his hat, this will be the third time in the past half year that the U.S. president shows the Palestinians and the entire Arab world that they are wasting their time by trying to end the occupation by peaceful means.” says Akiva Eldar in an editorial entitled Bush should stay home .
The hope of the American President to see an agreement before the end of the year seems illusory. According to his entourage, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, told Bush during his visit to Washington last month that upon discovering the positions of Israeli negotiators, he thought it was a joke - so far where they from the parameters set by Bill Clinton at the time of the previous talks.
According to the Palestinians, Israeli negotiators sought to retain, in addition to large areas with Jewish settlements, the Jordan Valley up to the outskirts of Nablus - amounting to about 10 percent more territory. In Jerusalem, there would be no question of splitting the old city - home to the sacred sites, nor the restoration of the Arab districts that border it. Israel merely proposed Palestinian control over an “Esplanade of Mosques” and some of the suburbs surrounding East Jerusalem. The talks were jeopardized by programs to enlarge Israeli settlements in the West Bank and violence in Gaza strip, where missiles launched by Hamas activists have led to an Israeli military response.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign press coverage of President Bush’s trip to the Middle East.
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 »
Even under ordinary conditions, if you are the newly-elected president of a small Central American nation like Guatemala, coming to Washington to meet the U.S. president is a singularly important and daunting event.
Unfortunately for Guatemala, President Alvaro Colom’s visit comes during an election year in which the idea of legalizing the undocumented is the political kiss of death. According to this editorial from Guatemala’s Prensa Libre, the trip also proved a lesson in the global pecking order:
“Meetings between Guatemalan officials and their Washington colleagues stand out, due to a failure to comprehend how the complicated American political system works Read the rest of this entry »
The more things change the more they stay the same, and that’s downright scary when it comes to Blackwater Worldwide.
If you’re under the impression that this most right-wing of defense contractors has been laying low since its goons mowed down 17 Iraqis last September, you would be wrong.
Despite the outcry, Condoleezza Rice’s State Department dutifully renewed Blackwater’s contract to guard diplomats in the war zone and the North Carolina-based company has been hard at work burnishing its stateside credentials.
Erik Prince, Blackwater’s chairman, former Navy SEAL and messianic right-winger with close White House and Pentagon ties, has been tight lipped about his company’s plans, but they obviously include expanding its already major presence as a trainer of military personnel and private contractors on the U.S.-Mexico border in Southern California.
Blackwater last month received a permit for a training facility for Navy personnel in south San Diego after abandoning its controversial proposal to build a larger one elsewhere in the area. The site will have a shooting range, a simulated Navy ship and classrooms, but the city’s Development Services Department granted the permit without public hearings so the project is on hold.
An argument can be made that firms like Blackwater are needed in this day and age, but as has been the case in so many other areas, the Bush administration has taken the involvement of private contractors in the business of war to extremes.
Blackwater alone has billed taxpayers over $1 billion for its work in Iraq and much of what it does was once and should still be the domain of Military Police units. (Think about all those M*A*S*H episodes when Hawkeye and Trapper were pounced on by MPs.).
The bigger problem with Blackwater is that it’s nefarious. It lies and misleads and when caught out asserts that it is not merely above the law but is a law unto itself. As it is, Blackwater went out of its way to hide its identity in the case of the San Diego facility by filing for a permit under the name of a subcontractor.
Okay, so Blackwater doesn’t rent out pony rides for kids’ birthday parties. A reasonable amount of circumspection and secrecy comes with its territory. But there is a cottage industry of sane people, along with some wingnuts, who believe that Blackwater is in cahoots with Uncle Sam to train local security forces should martial law ever be declared, as well as other nefarious activities.
“Mrs. Pelosi has gotten her way. With her repeated rejection of the Free Trade Agreement, congressional Democrats are favoring the economic interests of a few U.S. unions and are sacrificing the general interests of Colombia under the pretext of protecting a union minority - the alleged victims of a State that has abandoned them. Read the rest of this entry »
April 9th, 2008 by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
There isn’t much to it, but it isn’t going away. I wrote about it a couple of weeks ago, thinking that that would, for the time being, be that, but, well, that wasn’t that.
Here’s what we know: Condi went to Grover Norquist’s weekly morning gathering for right-wing crackpots and wowed the head crackpot himself. Over the weekend, pro-Condi flack-hack Dan Senor told George Stephanopoulos that “Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” a campaign that has included cozying up to the Norquist crowd. In response to Senor, Foggy Bottom mouthpiece Sean McCormack said that “if she’s actively seeking the vice presidency, then she’s the last one to know about it,” a too-cute evasion by far.
For his part, Norquist seems now to be pro-Condi himself: “If her goal was to convince everyone she would be a good president and, therefore, a good vice president — she hit it out of the ballpark,” he told WaPo’s Sleuth. “Is she campaigning for it? I don’t know. But if she is, she’s doing it the right way.” Not quite a full-out endorsement, as the misleading headline suggests, but not too shabby.
And what does Condi think: “Let me just say, first of all, that Senator McCain is an extraordinary American, a really outstanding leader, and obviously a great patriot. That said, I’m going back to Stanford or back to California, west of the Mississippi. I very much look forward to watching this campaign and voting as a voter.”
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.
March 25th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
As President Prevez Musharraf was swearing in newly-elected Yousaf Raza Gilani as Pakistan’s Prime Minister on Tuesday, there came trooping in at Islamabad the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, and Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Richard Boucher, who straightaway began talks with former premier Nawaz Sharif. Later, they visited Musharraf at the presidential palace. The U.S. Embassy declined to say who else the envoys would meet.
Perhaps sending a clear message to all and sundry as to who calls the shots in Pakistan!!! Zaffar Abbas, an editor with Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper, said the visit was badly timed. “Their presence on the day when the new prime minister was inducted would signal to both Islamic extremists and moderates that ‘here are the Americans, right here in Islamabad, meeting with senior politicians in the new government, trying to dictate terms’,” Abbas said. 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.
As of this morning, it appears that it’s not only Barack Obama’s passport file that has been poked through but also those of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
March 20th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
A big story is now breaking on MSNBC: Democratic Senator Barack Obama’s passport file was accessed and two State Department contract employees have been fired:
See UPDATES below.
Two contract employees of the State Department were fired and a third person was disciplined for accessing passport records of Sen. Barack Obama “without a need to do so,” State Department officials confirmed to NBC News.
The three people who had access to Obama’s passport records were contract employees of the department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, NBC News has learned. The unauthorized activity concerning Obama’s passport information occurred in January.
“A monitoring system was tripped when an employee accessed the records of a high-profile individual,” a department official told NBC News. “When the monitoring system is tripped, we immediately seek an explanation for the records access. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the supervisor is notified.”
Newsweek’s Howard Fineman noted on MSNBC that candidate Bill Clinton’s passport file was accessed by the first George Bush administration.
Explaining why the contractors had access to the files, the official said: “The State Department uses cleared contractors to design, build and maintain our systems and cleared contract employees provide support to government employees and several steps of passport processing including data entry, file searches, customer service and quality control.
“Each time an employee logs on, he or she acknowledges the records are protected by the privacy act and that they are only available on a need-to-know basis,” the official added.
We’ll have more details later, but this promises to be a big national story for several reasons due to some questions:
–Who accessed the file?
–Was it done out of mere curiosity or at the behest of someone in the government or for political gain?
–According to the discussion on MSNBC, this actually took place a few months ago. Why did it take so long for Obama’s office to be informed?
None of this has emerged yet — and as of this writing it has NOT been confirmed by Fineman, or NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that this was a political act. Look for lots of specific questions from reporters.
![[El Espectador, Colombia]](http://worldmeets.us/images/markpennclintonstlc_elespectador.gif)
![[Kommersant, Russia]](http://worldmeets.us/images/gatesputinrice_kommersant.gif)
