Now that the pro-Western government in Lebanon has been “put in its place” by Hezbollah - and by extension Iran and Syria - what is Israel up against - and what narrative will the Islamists use to heal the wounds and consolidate their victory?
Explaining why Lebanon’s Pro-West Sunni government is afraid of Hezbullah and Iran, Zaatera writes:
“The people of the Umma [the Muslim Nation] and in particular the Sunnis, are as captive as they are perplexed. On the one hand, they know that what’s happening in Lebanon is an integral part of the battle that the Americans and Israelis are waging against forces of resistance and opposition in the region. Read the rest of this entry »
The events now unfolding in the Middle East, which have been set in motion by Hezbullah’s takeover last week of much of Beirut, do not bode well for American or Israeli interests, warns one of France’s leading historians and journalists, Alexandre Adler.
Writing for France’s Le Figaro newspaper, Adler writes that Iranian President Ahmadinidjad, hemmed in by opponents at home and abroad, has turned to one of the last cards he holds in his hand: the Lebanese Hezbullah:
“Let us first turn to Iran, which is in a fever and where the most decisive threats originate. Iran’s President and his trusted accomplices - and a pro-Iranian faction of al-Qaeda - hope to recreate unity among all people of Muslim faith for a renewed jihad against America and Israel. Voices have been heard, notably among the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, who hope for such an outcome and support Iran’s nuclear program, which many Islamists - not only in Cairo - regard as a liberating force that should be immediately employed against Israel, whatever the risks.”
“Israel cannot tolerate a military victory for Hezbullah over its [pro-West] Lebanese opponents - any more than it can allow Ahmadinejad to pursue nuclear blackmail, especially in this very strange context: There is the probability that a Democratic candidate - indeed an Obama election victory - could bring to the White House a supporter of negotiations at all costs. … Clearly, this is a distressing 60th anniversary for Israel.”
This is a seminal article about what the United States now confronts, and it should be read by anyone interested in understanding this very important and hard-to-penetrate topic. Read the rest of this entry »
As the grim milestones in Iraq pile up, Americans aren’t the only ones wondering how long the war will go on. Jean-Claude Kiefer writes for France’s Dernieres Nouvelles d’Alsace, ‘the United States has been discredited; Islamist terrorism is expanding; there is extreme tension throughout the Middle East; the Israeli-Palestinian crisis with Hamas has radicalized Gaza; Iran has been declared a regional power and may soon go nuclear; the regimes of the pro-Western Arab states are shaky; and the major routes of oil - which is already very expensive - are threatened … And this is not an exhaustive list!’
By Jean-Claude Kiefer
Translated By Philippe Guittard
March 23, 2008
France - Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace - Home Page (French)
Tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, millions of refugees, nearly 4,000 American soldiers killed in daily attacks, a country devastated … And, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, a bill of direct and indirect costs of $3 trillion which was paid for on credit, and which has greatly contributed to the decline in the dollar! And yet to draw up a complete accounting of five years of war in Iraq is impossible. Read the rest of this entry »
Iran’s president doesn’t appear to have had anything new to say during his visit to Iraq:
BAGHDAD - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday dismissed U.S. accusations that his country is training extremists and demanded that the Americans withdraw from Iraq.
My first reaction was that his opinion on the matter isn’t the one that counts. If it were the Iraqi government saying that the US should leave, though, that would be another situation entirely.
However, I can see a point coming soon where Iraqi and American interests will diverge, and so I have a hypothetical question:
If the Iraqi government asked us to leave right now, do you think President Bush would agree to do so? And/or if elected, would John McCain agree a year from now, if asked?
Even if, by either of their definitions, the US mission there was not complete?
February 18th, 2008 by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist
Having been eligible for the draft and an all-expenses-paid trip to Vietnam since I was 18, 1968 was the year that I turned 21 and finally was old enough to drink and vote, which I did in that order and with great enthusiasm.
I had a front-row seat for this year of great change — including antiwar protests, the King and Kennedy assassinations, and the coming of age of the civil rights and women’s movements — but nowhere were those changes manifested so powerfully than in the presidential race that year.
This presidential election year also is shaping up to be one of potentially great change, which begs the question:
Were the changes of 1968 more important than the changes of 2008 could be?
That is a difficult question because America and the world have changed (there’s that word again) in myriad ways over the last four decades, so for the purpose of trying to tease out an answer, I’ll reframe the question thusly:
Were Americans individually and the nation generally better off in 1968 than in 2008?
Thus framed, the answer to that question is a big fat “yes,” and so the answer to my initial question is that the changes of 2008 — at the very least the much anticipated end of the Age of Bush — may indeed be more important.
Since we’re looking at year versus year through the prism of presidential politics, it should be noted that there is an obvious similarity and two obvious differences.
The similarity is the looming presence of costly and unpopular wars in both 1968 and 2008.
The first difference is that unlike 1968, the U.S. today is the sole superpower, has an unprecedented global reach and is the subject of profound loathing abroad, notably among the people whose most radical elements can do the American homeland harm.
The second difference is that in 1968 most of the opposition President Johnson faced was from within his own party over his stewardship of the Vietnam War, which prompted him to opt out of running for reelection, while in 2008 President Bush has gotten a free pass from most of his prospective heirs apparent, who dutifully worship at his altar although he is extraordinarily unpopular and is the chief reason the Republican hegemony in Washington is coming to such an unceremonious end.
Since late last year, a bitter war of words has broken out between the United States and Argentina’s former first lady and first female president, Cristina Kirchner, over whether Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez helped fund her election campaign. According to this op-ed article from Argentina’s La Nacion, whatever the truth of these charges leveled by U.S. prosecutors, allowing U.S.-Argentine relations to deteriorate over the issue is not a wise course of action.
“The anti-U.S. bias that Argentina has historically shown and which is confirmed by the polls, has led the Kirchners [Nestor and Cristina Kirchner, the previous and present Presidents] to dangerously escalate a conflict that has no precedent in our constitutional government.”
By U.S. Correspondent Rosendo Fraga
Translated By Barbara Howe
January 13, 2008
Argentina - La Nacion - Home Page (Spanish)
Historian Eric Hobsbawm recalls that since 1865, the United States has had seven presidents that never finished their terms either due to death or other unforeseen events, and that such circumstances have brought significant changes to the direction of the country. But he also contends that the rails upon which power rests are so stable that no matter who drives the train, there is little risk of derailment.
It is from this premise that the Argentine government should discuss the conflict with the United States, following the trial that has begun in Miami in regard to the suitcase of Antonini Wilson. The effects of this crisis have the potential to wreak substantial changes, no matter who wins the U.S. elections in November.
History shows that the relationship between Argentina and the United States has never been easy, but Presidents Roca, Yrigoyen and Peron avoided direct confrontation with Washington. Presidents Justo and Frondizi sought closer ties, while maintaining a certain autonomy. And relations were difficult during the last military government, when Argentina broke the embargo on grain imposed on the Soviet Union for its intervention in Afghanistan, and strained again during the Malvinas War.
[Editor’s Note: The Malvinas Islands are called the Falkland Islands by the British. The author refers to the war that broke out between Britain and Argentina over possession of the islands in 1982 ].
With the restoration of democracy, bilateral relations were good, as happened under President Menem and Dela Rua, or slightly less good under Presidents Afonsin and Duhalde.
[President] Kirchner’s speech in front of President Bush at the Summit of the America’s at de Mar del Plata two years ago marked a turning point that President Christina Kirchner has now deepened.
What do the Egyptians have to say about Bush’s lightning visit to their country at the end of his Middle East tour? In addition to a number of other items from the Egyptian press, WORLDMEETS.US has translated and packaged this editorial from Cairo’s Al Gomhuria, which expresses disappointment, but not necessarily in President Bush: ‘We cannot blame the American President, since he comes merely to scatter promises. Nor can we blame [Israeli Prime Minister] Olmert, since he has inherited the genes of his predecessors who loved to shed Arab blood, be they Palestinian, Lebanese or others. But we de reproach the Arabs, who have chosen to hide behind the delusion of promises on the field of battle.’
Translated By James Jacobson
EDITORIAL
January 15, 2008
Egypt - Al Gomhuria - Home Page (Arabic)
The killers and thugs who massacred Palestinians in Gaza yesterday don’t differ from their forerunners, who committed crimes in Deir Yassin , Qabiya and Bahr Al-Baqr , and Qana - there is a long history of the Arabic struggle against the racist Zionists allied with the Western powers led by the United States.
Israel hasn’t altered its racist behavior in the region, nor have those who gave it the kiss of life taken from it the tools of oppression and tyranny. Unfortunately, those who have changed their behavior are the Arabs who have been blinded by illusions of peace. They have begun settling scores among themselves, awakening strife between sects, denominations and parties, and creating heretical tendencies.
Does the assassination of Benazir Bhutto signal the collapse of American policy in the region? According to the editorial board of the NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands, not quite …
“… the assassination of Bhutto is an unprecedented setback for the United States. If Pakistan with its fifty warheads crumbles, the entire region around the only Islamic nuclear power runs the risk of disintegrating.”
EDITORIAL
Translated By Meta Mertens
December 29, 2007
The Netherlands - NRC Handlesblad - Original Article (Dutch)
In the for the time being the only Islamic nuclear power in the world, it is situated in a chaotic region, and an assassination has been committed for which everyone in that country can be responsible. Because of the combination of nuclear bombs, geopolitics and paranoia, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is much more dangerous than previous political assassinations in Pakistan. Bhutto was no lily-white politician. A cloud of corruption and tribalism hung over her. She was not averse to bargaining, not even with her key opponent, General Musharraf. And in her administrative career - she was prime minister twice - she left little of lasting value behind her.
Nevertheless, after her return from exile in October, she was the very embodiment of opposition against Musharraf, who had been written off for the presidential polls on January 8th. What the judges and lawyers were unable to do with their demonstrations this year, she could possibly accomplish. Bhutto was the personification of a potential civil and secular government, which could bring an end to the military regime and build a barrier against Islamic fundamentalism. Moreover, she was a political safety isle for President Bush, who desperately needs new initiatives now that his foreign policy in the region appears to be coming apart.
For all of these reasons, the assassination of Bhutto (the fourth killed in her family) goes beyond the interest of the victim herself. Pakistan as a state is balanced on the edge of an abyss. The presidential elections of January 8th will be boycotted by the remaining opposition candidates [they have since changed their minds]. Regional and tribal antagonisms, fueled by religious fundamentalism and/or economic interests, will be encouraged.
There is little chance that the perpetrators behind the perpetrator will ever be found. The instigators can hide themselves in Islamic circles that reside along the Afghan-Kashmir border. They can hide within the army, where the late General Zia ul Haq (who had Bhutto’s father Ali Bhutto tried and executed) is admired by soldiers who aspire to an Islamic state. And in any event, the state security services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), is still a spider in this web.
Since the intervention of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1979, the ISI has been allowed to play a larger and increasingly notorious role. For ten years, Pakistan acted as a broker for the U.S. The service trained the Islamic resistance movement. The Taliban are the by-product of this. After 9/11, Pakistan again became a bridgehead for the United States, this time against the religious students [Taliban] in Afghanistan.
Was it Benazir Bhutto that was the primary target her assassins - or was it relations with the United States in general? According to this op-ed article from Switzerland’s 24heurs, ‘the target is democracy in Pakistan. Or more simply: the goal is to destabilize a government allied with the United-States. Allied with the wicked West.’
By Foreign Desk Editor Andrés Allemand
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
December 28, 2007
Switzerland - 24 heurs - Original Article (French)
Who profits from a crime? This is the unavoidable question in the aftermath of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Should we listen to some of her supporters who already see a Machiavellian plot by President Pervez Musharraf to dispose of his main rival in legislative elections on Jan. 8 - and why not - since this justifies his hold on power with a new “security” coup d’état? Or should we instead adhere to hear the President’s speech, which blamed the perpetual war against Islamist terrorism?
Clearly, the crime benefits the partisans of chaos. It wasn’t their first attempt. This year Pakistan broke a sad record: the number of suicide bombings. They killed nearly 800 people in the last twelve months, although most haven’t been publicized. Just yesterday, while the death of Benazir Bhutto was the central focus of the media, Nawaz Sharif - another former prime minister and a candidate in the presidential election - survived gunfire during his own election rally.
The target is democracy in Pakistan. Or more simply: the goal is to destabilize a government allied with the United-States. Allied with the wicked West. A government that resists, as much as it can, the advance of Islamic radicalism, which is no longer satisfied administering the “tribal zones” along the Afghanistan border or the thousands of madrasas - the Koranic schools which manufacture Taliban. Remember: in early July, the fundamentalists stormed the Red Mosque, in the heart of Islamabad.
Has the CIA gotten a bad rap - especially in the Arab world? According to this op-ed article from Iraq’s Kitabat newspaper, the agency has performed, ‘noble and honorable works that have always been on behalf of the entire world and for the good of civilization, security and stability. It annihilated the Nazis, the communists, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein …
“I am pleased to be the first Arab in the history of the Arabic press to write about the radiant, civilized face of CIA … The defeat of Nazism and the salvation of mankind were the first major achievements of this noble American intelligence agency.”
By Khadir Taahar
Translated By James Jacobson
December 19, 2007
Iraq - Kitabat - Original Article (Arabic)
The American Central Intelligence Agency differs from intelligence services in the Arab countries, because it defends the interests of the country and not the ruling regime. This is the radiant, humane and civilized face of the American intelligence agency. But the propaganda of the communists, nationalists and Islamists reject this achievement, which is difficult for the Arab mind to grasp, clogged as it is with demagogy, superstition and hostility toward Western civilization, in particular America. For these reasons, it’s difficult for those with such distorted thinking to see the real face of this American intelligence agency.
I am pleased to be the first Arab in the history of the Arabic press to write about the radiant, civilized face of CIA. I alone assume the moral and political responsibility for the contents of this article, which is intended to demonstrate the extent to which the CIA’s ideological opponents have distorted its record. I also intend to incite the reader to make a realistic, knowledgeable political analysis, far from the frenzy and demagogy of populist slogans and ideology.
Operating under a different name [the Office of Strategic Services ], the work of this agency began during a fierce war against the Nazi regime of Adolph Hitler. The defeat of Nazism and the salvation of mankind were the first major achievements of this noble American intelligence agency, which served humanity and saved millions of people from Hitler’s evil.
Then as the evils of communism emerged, posing a threat to freedom and civilization … the agency acquired its current name and began the noble battle against the danger of communist ideology and its repressive, dictatorial political system, which threw its people into prison, led them to the gallows and destroyed human dignity under the pretext of insane slogans which were far removed from life’s self-evident truths.
It was in the end a great victory for Western civilization, the West’s humanitarian philosophy, its scientific achievements and its social laws. These laws take human rights into account, according the individual the highest level of respect, justice, rights and social guarantees ever witnessed by humanity - and during the Cold War, the noble efforts of the Central Intelligence Agency played a major role in communism’s defeat.
Then came the era of the War on Terror, with the Agency playing a central role in crushing and toppling the regimes of the Taliban and Saddam, ridding these two nations [Afghanistan and Iraq] of such evils and granting them freedom.
The Agency continues to fight a fierce battle against the germs of terrorism carried by Islamic political parties backed by Iran and Syria.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates called for the US government to commit more money and effort to “soft power” tools, including communications, because the military alone cannot defend America’s interests around the world. The NY Times quotes Gates as saying:
“We are miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and our goals,” he said. “It is just plain embarrassing that Al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.”
Fred Kaplan asked his readers for ideas on how to improve America’s image in the world. He received 120 responses, “nearly all of them from foreigners or from Americans living abroad.” Kaplan summarizes them in an interesting article in Slate Magazine:
A few common themes emerge from these suggestions: Government-sponsored PR has its limits, mainly because people see it for what it is; the important thing is to change policy, and part of that involves aligning America’s approach to the world with the most attractive aspects of our culture (in the broadest sense of that word). One of those aspects is what the Bush administration constantly boasts about — our openness and our freedom. But those boasts ring hollow when the rest of the world sees us as closed down and locked shut. The first step, then, is to reopen the doors to the world.
Kaplan describes several suggestions from readers. Very popular are calls for expansion in the Peace Corps, in Fulbright fellowships, and, in student-exchange programs.
One readers also pointed out that “globalization has stripped pop culture of nationality.” Beyoncé, for instance, is very popular among young people, but they don’t associate her with America.” I found that interesting.
I wonder how much of the US image problem is bad policy and cannot be fixed with better public diplomacy. And how much could be fixed with better communication?
As a Fulbrighter, I instantly agree with Kaplan’s readers about the importance of personal exchanges. This is not controversial. Let’s focus on the Internet instead. Secretary Gates said that Al Qaeda is more successful on the Internet than the United States. Does that mean beheading videos are more popular with the target audience than Chocolate Rain and Evolution of Dance? Or are the West’s internet videos the problem? Perhaps it’s all Germany’s fault: Do Heidi Klum videos cause terrorism?
I wish the hugely popular Where the Hell is Matt? video would improve the image of the American tourist.
US bloggers are more authentic than PR firms. They could counter Al Qaeda’s internet propaganda. Have blogs changed the minds of Al Qaeda sympathizers? What could bloggers do better? (In addition to writing in Arabic.) Any ideas on how to reach out and win hearts and minds?
Has French President Nicolas Sarkozy accomplished his mission to ’seduce’ Americans? According to this editorial from France’s Le Figaro newspaper, ‘With his direct style, Nicolas Sarkozy worked at his message without flourishes, mobilizing all the myths of the American legend. … This is what the Americans wanted to hear.’
“The unanimous enthusiasm of Congress shows that the plan for seduction was a success. This also suggests that its effects will not be short-lived.”
EDITORIAL
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
November 8, 2007
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
Nicolas Sarkozy wanted to conquer the hearts of Americans. With his speech before Congress yesterday, he accomplished his goal WATCH .
In a country that finds it hard to believe how disliked around the world it has become, it was refreshing to hear a foreigner from the Old Continent express himself with such sincerity on the often-disparaged anthem of the American dream. In his mouth it seemed to find a new lease of life.
The repeated ovations that punctuated his remarks didn’t come from people responsible for such and such a policy, but were overall expressions of consolation felt as much by Democratic Representatives and Senators as from their Republican counterparts.
A year away from the designation of George W. Bush’s successor, France carried the day. Once the succession takes place and whatever their choice, the United States can count on us. Such was the message that he came to convey.
With his direct style, Nicolas Sarkozy worked at his message without flourishes, mobilizing all the myths of the American legend. “America and France have always stood side by side, supported one another, helped one another, fought for each other’s freedom.” This is what the Americans wanted to hear.
Beyond the broad principles and this emotionally-charged reunion, a few milestones have been set down for the future. The restored closeness has restored France’s authority to confront the United States with facing up to its responsibilities. As for protecting the environment, the call was heeded far more clearly in the already-mobilized Congress than the outgoing administration. For its part, the warning against monetary disorder has generated a more measured level of approval.
There is a certain obsession with the United States in European debates, but there also seems to be a certain obsession with France in the US. Rudy Giuliani for instance recently campaigned with:
If we are not careful and you don’t elect me, this country will be to the left of France.
We could elect Dennis Kucinich and 10 more Democratic senators and we wouldn’t get anywhere near France.
Well, perhaps France is to the right of the United States? Emmanuel responds in A Fistful of Euros to Ezra:
France is also a country where insulting the flag is a criminal offense, where the level of opposition to affirmative action would delight any card-carrying Republican, where about 20% of the student body attend religious schools (double the American percentage) and where capital income is much less heavily taxed than in the U.S.
I agree with Emmanuel’s conclusion that “any attempt to pinpoint a politician, a political party or a whole country on a foreign political axis is usually worthless.”
Unfortunately, such transatlantic comparisons are quite popular and used for scare-mongering: European politicians, pundits and journalists sometimes make negative references to the United States to score points in domestic debates. This is probably most frequent in Germany, where “Amerikanische Verhaeltnisse — “American Conditions” — is a term of disdain, meant to suggest the inhumanity of American capitalism.
Some US politicians and pundits use France in similar ways. Or “Europe” in general. Or they mean France, but say “Europe.” Interestingly enough, Germany, Italy or Spain are not as often used as points of reference as France.
Full disclosure: The last two links go to my own blog Atlantic Review, which also has a post on Transatlantic Obsessions listing the pet issues common in German media coverage of the United States as well as the complains from a French watch blog regarding the American MSM.
Is it reasonable to charge Donald Rumsfeld with torture? According to this news item from France’s Rue 89, with Rumsfeld visiting Paris this week, a coterie of human rights groups in Europe and the United States filed a complaint with Paris prosecutors. According to the article, “under French law, owing to the universal jurisdiction defined under the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture, his presence there obliges France to act unless she rejects the complaint.”
“Legally speaking, few complaints are as irrefutable as this one. Then there is the political aspect: this touches on the Bush Administration … But there should be impunity for no one.”
– Patrick Baudoin, French Lawyer Who Filed the Complaint
By Julien Martin
Translated by Andrew Levine
October 26, 2007
France - Rue89 - Original Article (French)
At three pages and with twenty-seven appendixes, the French complaint filed on Thursday by four human rights organizations against Donald Rumsfeld is detailed and damning. The former American Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2006 is accused of torture, in particular with respect to the prisoners of Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
This is the fifth complaint against the man considered one of the architects of the Iraq War. Two criminal complaints were dismissed in Germany (the second, however, will be appealed next week) and two more have been filed, one in Argentina and one in Sweden.
But for the first time, Donald Rumsfeld has been legally assaulted while in the country in which the complaint was filed. Arriving in Paris on Thursday, he gave a lecture on Friday morning, without specifying the duration of his stay. Owing to the universal jurisdiction defined under the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture and enshrined in French law ten years later, his presence here obliges France to act unless she rejects the complaint.
In the French complaint, which Rue89 has obtained a copy of, the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, the French League for the Defense of the Rights of Human and Civil Rights, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights intend, “to take all preliminary measures to ensure that this person is detained or else kept on French territory.”
Testimony from former detainees and American troops fills out the complaint, which lists the alleged interrogation methods: two-day-long periods of sleep deprivation, 20-hour interrogations, sexual humiliation, and religion-related threats, among others.
This analysis is right in as many ways as it’s wrong. It is true that that the rest of the world will enthusiastically and euphorically celebrate virtually every Democrat and pragmatically and competently thinking and acting, non-illuminated Republican for a long time to come; In contrast to all the widespread whining, the love of America is at least as widespread and deeply-rooted around the world as anti-Americanism. It isn’t only in Europe where an overwhelming majority of people are happier if there is a U.S. President they can extol and trust. It’s also true that the United States, measured by its military, political and economic influence, remains by far the leading power in the world. It is the only one capable of acting in all three of these areas and thus exert its influence around the world.
Does anti-Americanism threaten European interests? According to this op-ed article from the NRC Handlesblad of The Netherlands, America’s decline endangers European prestige, and will require EU leaders to do something they are ill-prepared for: fill the vacuum left by retreating American power.
NRC Handlesblad, The Netherlands
“As long as America is weak, European leaders will have to show leadership for the West as a whole. That is a role that decades of American supremacy have scarcely prepared them for.”
By Christoph Bertram
By Meta Mertens
August 6, 2007
The Netherlands - NRC Handlesblad - Original Article (Dutch)
By distancing themselves from the United States, European governments undermine their own influence. As long as America’s global profile declines, European leaders will have to demonstrate leadership to the Western world as a whole.
The power of America has been so great for so long that many think even George W. Bush’s presidency can do little to harm it. The incorrectness of this idea becomes clear from people like Vladimir Putin of Russia, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who are taking advantage of America’s shrunken influence and prestige.
This is no reason for schadenfreude [taking pleasure in the pain of others]. On the contrary, it’s high time that friends of the United States, especially Europe, realize that America’s weakness also undermines its own international influence.
The proof of America’s weakness is all around us. When American power was at its peak, Russia accepted the fact that apparently nothing could be done about NATO’s gradual penetration into the Soviet Union’s former sphere of influence. President Putin tolerated American bases in Central Asia which were installed to support the campaign against the Taliban, and he raised no serious objections when the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, used to defend against missile-delivered nuclear weapons. Keen on admitting Ukraine as well as Georgia into NATO, America didn’t need to spare Russia’s feelings, because it was certain that the Kremlin would accept the changes as inevitable.
That was yesterday. Today, Putin is trying to regain the influence that Russia lost over recent years. With a skillful hand, he plays on the anti-American sentiment in Europe. Meanwhile, he puts pressure on the Baltic countries - a clear signal that NATO mustn’t be expanded any further. In Ukraine, the political forces which have resisted closer ties with the West have gained ground. The Kremlin also paints an exaggerated picture of the planned construction of a modest American anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, which Moscow says would damage Russian security interests.
September 26th, 2007 by BRIJ KHINDARIA, International Columnist
With naïve carelessness, the United States is moving towards a new generational Cold War that may be the turning point in unraveling American leadership of the modern world. Pax Americana may be the shortest ever in the history of empires.
The administration, media, politicians and a large swathe of electors are working themselves into an anti-Iranian frenzy and speedily moving towards a long era of hostility to that country. The US may never bomb Iran or conduct any other military act against it, but enough fear is being created to make Teheran nervously gather all means of deterrence.
The latest episode is the insulting treatment of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during the last few days. He came to New York as the President of an ancient civilization for meetings at the United Nations. Columbia University voluntarily invited him to speak but its President Lee Bollinger repeatedly insulted him in the introductory remarks before hearing what he had to say.
Many people, including this writer, believe those insults were richly deserved and congratulate the University for upholding free speech by offering a podium. However, it is uncouth to invite a person and insult him before he has said a word. If this was Bollinger’s intention, he should not have invited Ahmadinejad in the first place. Whatever the opposition to Ahmadinejad within Iran, its people will not forget the humiliation dumped on their representative in a country with which many would like to build bridges.
Despite the trauma of 9/11 and the quagmire of Iraq, American leaders seem to think that their military and economic power confers some kind of invincibility upon them. Perhaps because of that, many feel it is okay to insult a foreign leader who sees the national interests of his people in a light they dislike.
Clearly, Ahmadinejad is despicable as regards his views on the Holocaust, but some of his worldview is not without backers in his own country and elsewhere. Today, it would be hard to find people outside America who do not agree that the way the US government tries to manage the world “leads to war, discrimination and bloodshed.â€
If the contempt of Americans for Iran is not reined in, a Cold War growing from a clash of civilisations with Islam may become inevitable. The fact is that the US is making enemies of both Sunni and Shiites. It has broken the back of Sunni power in Iraq and is backing a Shiite revival there, which is creating fear throughout the Sunni world.
At the same time, it is threatening to bomb the Shia heartland, which is Iran, thus forcing Teheran to collect all possible means of asymmetrical warfare. Iran is increasing its capabilities of fostering terrorism and insurgency in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Its goal is to ensure that any military attack against it will spread uncontrollable political instability and violence throughout the Middle East. It is also secretly developing nuclear weapons to bring vulnerability to Israel, the chief US ally in the region.
With almost naïve insouciance, the US is making enemies among the fundamentalist Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia who are far more fierce religious fanatics than the more mystical Shiites. This is happening because the US has dismantled the frontline Sunni bulwark against Shiites in Iraq. The fundamentalist Sunnis have already demonstrated on 9/11 and later that they are more willing terrorists that Shiites.
Simultaneously, the growing hostility of the American people (not just the government) towards Iran is edging towards a clash with the Shiites. Americans are pretending that Ahmadinejad is the culprit and all will be fine if he is dislodged from power. That is far from the truth. The US is creating fear in the people of Iran, not in Ahmadinejad.
Any future Iranian President will be a nationalist and will not allow his ancient people to be humiliated by Washington through threats and insults. Inevitably, any Iranian regime will amass the means of deterrence including nuclear weapons.
At the same time, both Sunni and Shia Muslims in the street will be wary of America, if not hostile. Their dictatorial rulers, including the Arab sheikhs allied to Washington, may not be able to contain the growing anti-American anger of their people. All of those are the ingredients of a prolonged Cold War.
My latest article for Pajamas Media is up. The subject of the post: recent developments in Europe (the Right has been successful and is likely be even more successful in the coming years) and the effect this will have on the American-European relationship and on how Europeans think about America and Americans in general. Furthermore I wonder whether Europe may be less anti-American than some suggest. An excerpt:
Although the American-European relationship is likely to improve in the coming years, it would be a mistake to assume that the shift to the right is caused by the anti-Americanism of the left or by the pro-Americanism of the right. Sarkozy, Wilders and Merkel did not garner support because they were close to the US: they won as many seats as they did because of domestic issues.
Sarkozy’s main talking points were France’s immigration and integration problem and the miserable state the French economy was and is in. The same can be said for Merkel, although she is not the populist Sarkozy is. Wilders – the most outspoken and blunt of all – focuses completely on the issue of integration and on the compatibility of Islam and democracy. He is probably most famous for comparing the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf and arguing that the holy book should be made illegal.
The Dutch continue to think negatively about America, George W. Bush, and Americans in general. If one has a conversation with the average Dutchman about politics, in particular Iraq and the US president, one does not have to wait long before hearing a remark like “a stupid president for a stupid people.†Although most Europeans thought highly of Bill Clinton, the image of the gun-slinging American cowboy has never disappeared from the European mind. To many, Bush confirms this image of “the typical American.†The belief that Americans care only about money, wealth and oil is alive and well, and is seldom or never refuted by media reports. For years, neither by political leaders. (Bill Clinton was not depicted as the average American, but as the exception to the rule: he was able to keep the American nature in check.)
It’s an interesting read if I may say so. To read it, please click here.
Recent developments in Europe make Don Surber conclude that all the stories about growing anti-Americanism in the world since Bush became president are based on a myth. According to Don, Sarkozy’s and Merkel’s victories show that the world really does love America.
Although I would like to be able to agree with Don, I cannot do so. His reasoning is false. The voters did not elect these people because they are (relatively) pro-America, they voted for them because they are fed up with the economical and social policies of the left. They voted for them for domestic reasons, not for reasons of foreign affairs, and especially not because they are pro-America.
Having said that, the political landscape has changed, and quite significantly so - the US should jump at the opportunity to restore ties / the relationship with Europe since its leaders are more open to it. But make no mistake about it: even these leaders do not like Bush, and European voters do not like Bush either. Bush is probably one of the most hated - if not the most hated - post-WWII American presidents. Not only, however, do Europeans greatly dislike Bush, since the view is that Americans voted him into office, resentment against the American people as a whole has grown as well.
It is nice spin, but quite easy to see through. Just because people vote someone into office who is pro-America, does not mean that those voters are pro-America as well. I respect Don, but his reasoning is in this case flawed.
The immortal words of Casey Stengel come to mind for the Bush Administration’s latest moves in the Middle East. Casey’s incompetent Mets were only losing baseball games. This bunch is playing with our country’s future.
The most recent tragi-comedy of errors is reported in today’s New York Times:
“The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to total $20 billion over the next decade at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.â€
Counterproductive is a euphemism for exporting radicals to car bomb our troops there while King Abdullah tells Arab heads of state that Americans in Iraq are “an illegal foreign occupation.â€
Next week, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates will go to Saudi Arabia to ask the Saudis, please, to “make clear to Sunnis engaged in violence in Iraq that such actions are ‘killing your future.’â€
At the same time, to allay the fears of our most reliable ally, the Bush team is promising to increase military aid to Israel to $30.4 billion over the next decade. There is nothing like a little arms race to promote stability in a trigger-happy region.
There may be some devilishly clever, subtle master strategy in all this but, based on past performance, they might do well to consider Casey Stengel’s advice for managing tough situations: “The secret is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided.â€
