Euromedia

Iraq and EU-US relations one year later

This is a survey published on the front page of The Los Angeles Times in the anniversary of the war on Iraq. It is an example of how the US media coverage of Europe is evolving. The terrorist attacks in Madrid seem to have somehow increased the attention of US media on the European Union. Will it last?

IRAQ: ONE YEAR LATER
Strained U.S.-European Relations Turn Pragmatic
By Jeffrey Fleishman
Times Staff Writer

March 19, 2004

He's as ubiquitous as the Big Mac.

Europe can't shake the bowlegged cowboy peeking out from a too-big Stetson, arms bent and ready to draw. This political caricature of President Bush endures, even as transatlantic relations have improved from the derision and backbiting that one year ago marked the beginning of the Iraq war.

A lot has happened in that year. While the U.S. has been preoccupied with securing Iraq, Europe, in many ways, has set its own course. Perhaps more than the U.S. itself, Europe understands that the Sept. 11 attacks changed U.S. priorities and that Washington's old friends are often overshadowed by new strategic alliances.

The terrorist bombings in Madrid last week — possibly orchestrated by Islamic extremists to punish Spain for supporting the Iraq war — are forcing some European nations to reevaluate their partnerships with the U.S. The leader of the newly elected Socialist Workers Party in Spain has vowed to withdraw the nation's 1,300 troops from Iraq, a prospect that would undermine U.S. efforts to build an international coalition.

The specter of terrorism and differences over world security are turning the Cold War-era transatlantic friendship into steely pragmatism. The continent has a two-dimensional view of the U.S. Although most people in London, Paris, Berlin and other capitals feel an affinity for Americans, that closeness does not extend to a White House seen as rash and militaristic at a time when globalization needs patience and diplomacy.

"The last four years have been hell," said Francois Heisbourg, a foreign policy expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. "The Bush administration's view of things is, 'You're either a poodle or an enemy.' The Bushies don't tend to forget."

Such widespread attitudes are softened by nostalgia many Europeans have for U.S. forces who liberated them more than half a century ago.

"If you go to the American cemetery in Cassino or the cemetery in nearby Anzio," said Italian waiter Dario Di Tiello, 40, speaking of his nation's World War II battlefields, "you can see how many Americans are buried there, how many came to save us from hell. We always forget these things. For me, the American people were a great people, they still are a great people."

The spate of across-the-pond name calling — Euroweenies versus cultural bimbos — has largely subsided. But Europeans have been reminded that they are more different from Americans than they once thought. Attitudes toward gay marriage, capital punishment and other social issues reveal the chasm between a liberal-leaning Europe and a conservative-tilting America.

And the Bush administration's weaving of religion through politics — especially when the president invoked God as he was going to war — unnerves European secularism.

"There's an extraordinary element of fundamentalist type of religion in American life," said Roger Duclaud-Williams, a political science professor at the University of Warwick in Britain, adding that he was bemused that Janet Jackson's flashed breast at the Super Bowl caused so much hand-wringing. "It's a kind of Christian-based Puritanism for which our educated governing class doesn't have much sympathy."

Europeans have tried to move beyond rancor when discussing Washington. Conversation is as dignified and proper as a tea party on the Thames. There are the occasional snide asides about Europe's moral authority and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been unearthed in Iraq. But when the brandy is poured in the anterooms, or pints are hoisted in pubs, Europeans swoon and giggle over John Kerry, the continent's new poster boy.

"Kerry has Europe's Vote," said a headline in the Economist.

The Financial Times Germany has written of Kerry: "His first cousin is a French mayor. His father was a diplomat. He spent school years in Switzerland. He thinks the death penalty is bad and thinks the Kyoto Protocol, intended to protect the global climate, is good. If the Europeans were allowed to vote for the U.S. president this coming November, a triumph for the Democratic challenger John Kerry would be assured. Never has a U.S. president been so disliked in Europe as George W. Bush."

Some Europeans are quick to add that Kerry would be a pleasant change of personality, but that terrorism and shifting world hotspots would prevent him from significantly altering U.S. foreign policy.

The Madrid bombings have given Europe a keener understanding of acting within one's own interests and have raised challenging questions: Does supporting the U.S. mean bringing Islamic terrorism to European cities? If Spain withdraws troops from Iraq, what domestic pressures will Britain, Italy and Poland face to do the same?

"It comes down to fundamental differences in our societies," said Bernhard May, an analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations. "American society seems to be more inspired, a society with a mission. But Europe doesn't want to go around the world telling people how to live.

"What really is going on now between Europe and America is a working out of a relationship for the post-Cold War era. We should have had this discussion back in the 1990s, but we didn't. The fundamental question is, what kind of world order do we want?"

The iconic images of a gunslinger Texan helped change the political dynamics of the continent.

Antiwar fervor strengthened the Berlin-Paris axis. But it created animosity with countries that supported the war, such as Spain and Poland, and has strained the atmosphere as the European Union prepares to expand from 15 to 25 nations this year. Despite the EU's goal of cohesion, the continent is increasingly discovering that it can be compared less to a chorus than to a jazz ensemble, with each player fighting for his own solo.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair — whose backing of Bush cost him in the polls — these days wants to be known as a statesman "at the heart of Europe." Many in Blair's liberal-leaning Labor Party believe that staying cozy with Washington is political peril.

"We need to get George Bush out of the White House," Anthony Giddens, an unofficial Blair advisor, told a recent Labor Party gathering. Even members of the conservative Tories, who bonded so well with Ronald Reagan, see Bush as an impediment to transatlantic relations.

"Some of it's jealousy, the frustration that after [Bill] Clinton we thought we'd have our own guy in the White House and then it didn't turn out that way," said George Osborne, a Tory member of Parliament who supports Bush. "But the Bush frontier-style talk just doesn't go down well among Tories."

Europe's own problems often eclipse its worry about U.S. relations. The French and German economies are struggling. Health and social reforms are triggering voter anger. Immigration problems are roiling governments. Many wonder what will happen to the EU — once a privileged Western club — when it admits the Czech Republic and other former Soviet Bloc countries in May.

"The relations with the United States should not be our priority today," said Jean-Luc Turcouin, a French retiree. "We have to deal with our own national problems, the elections, the euro, the unemployment, the terrorism. This is what we should worry about."

But the U.S. is the new hyper-power, and Europeans acknowledge that the harsh rhetoric against Bush's military policies should not jeopardize the transatlantic alliance. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, for example, has declined French President Jacques Chirac's suggestion that Europe form a counterbalance to Washington. Analysts say the U.S. and Europe need each other, especially in the Middle East and in fighting terrorism.

For all the recent nastiness, Europe and the U.S. often complement each other. European diplomacy backed by a veiled threat of U.S. military prowess helped defuse the Iranian nuclear crisis and prompted Libya to renounce its chemical weapons programs. The continent and Washington are cooperating on a new role for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as strategic interests move eastward. And Paris — the major European capital most estranged from Washington — is working with the Bush administration in Haiti.

"We have come to the conclusion that we went too far in the divorce," said Dominique Moisi, an analyst at the French Institute for International Relations.

It may never be a love fest. Europe and America have had more than 200 years of skirmishes and spats. America has been cast as the ambitious upstart less concerned with high culture than with making a buck, Europe as a bit of a relic that speaks eloquently but is skittish when it comes to action. The Cold War put a veneer over the rifts as Europe and the U.S. faced a common enemy. Now there are more mercurial foes — as the recent Madrid bombing reaffirmed — and the bonds of friendship are being recast.

Moisi said Europe and the U.S. might grow closer in coming years through an ironic twist. Under Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, Moscow is growing autocratic and restive as Europe integrates and becomes more of an economic power. This trend concerns European officials, some of whom believe Cold War ghosts are stirring.

"You suddenly start to be worried," Moisi said, "and you start to want a blend of U.S. and European cooperation."

*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writers Janet Stobart in London and Achrene Sicakyuz in Paris, and special correspondents Nancy Meiman in Rome and Bruce Wallace in London contributed to this report.

Minarets Rise in Germany

A surge in the building of mosques is another sign of the transforming power of immigration. But the Islamic centers of faith also prompt fear.
By Jeffrey Fleishman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 17, 2004
(Interesting story dealing with Turkey, immigration, and the impact
of Islam on national identities)

BERLIN — The chink and scrape of stonecutters echo through the gray-domed mosque that rises like a glimmer of misplaced architecture in a city where the Muslim call to prayer is a widening whisper.

Dusted in marble, workmen scurry in the muted glow of stained glass. Some paint Koranic verses on the walls; others make last-minute alterations to golden-tipped minarets pricking a drizzly skyline. Anxious Berliners sometimes peek into the courtyard, where Ali Gulcek, a husky, nimble man, assures them his religion is not a threat.

"I need to enlighten the Germans so their prejudice of Islam will go away," said Gulcek, whose Islamic organization is building the mosque. "Our mosque will be completed in May. We've wanted a legitimate mosque for so long. For years, we've been meeting in backyards and basements. We don't want to hide anymore."

Gulcek's mosque is part of the surge in Islamic construction sweeping Germany. The number of traditional mosques with their distinctive minarets nearly doubled in Germany from 77 in 2002 to 141 in 2003, according to Islam Archive, a Muslim research group in the city of Soest. An additional 154 mosques and cultural centers are planned, many of them in the countryside, where vistas are dotted with symbols of crescent moons and crosses.

Like the cultural battles over allowing Muslim women to wear headscarves in European schools, mosques are an indication that immigration is transforming social, religious and aesthetic landscapes. Staccato Turkish and throaty Arabic syllables whirl amid European vernaculars, and where once there was a German bakery there is now a Moroccan kebab stand. In some bookshops, the Koran is as prominent as the Bible, and Islamic worry beads sometimes rattle alongside rosaries.

Mosques are landmarks of faith. But in Europe they are also symbols of change that can instigate fear, especially as congregations at Christian churches steadily decline on a continent with the fastest-aging population in the world. A mosque often means a neighborhood is no longer what it was. Skin hues are darker, customs different, and society's failure at integration is laid bare.

For many Europeans since Sept. 11, mosques are perceived — unlike churches or synagogues — as caldrons of radicalism instead of places of worship. That sentiment is likely to endure if Islamic militants were involved last week's train bombings in Madrid that killed 201 people and wounded 1,500 others.

"Building a mosque won't create integration," said Werner Mueller, a pharmacist in a Berlin neighborhood where proposals for two mosques are encountering opposition from government agencies. "These new mosques will make Islam more visible, and jobless and angry Muslim men will go to them. They can become places infiltrated by political Islam."

Such sensitivity stems from the Al Quds mosque's link to Sept. 11: Mohamed Atta and other hijackers had regularly worshipped at the warren of rooms above a gym with smudged windows in Hamburg before they moved to the United States. Thousands of nondescript mosques, some tucked in alleys, others half-hidden in old factories, are scattered across Europe. There are nearly 2,400 in Germany alone, according to the Islam Archive.

The Berlin government is seeking more control over blueprints for larger mosques. The city's planning office wants veto power on all building projects that may impinge upon a borough's character. The veto proposal is expected to take effect this year and could complicate plans for four mosques in the city boroughs of Kreuzberg and Neukoelln. The government says it is not singling out mosques, but trying to bring uniformity to the skyline.

"Berlin has a large Turkish population," said Petra Reetz, a spokeswoman for the planning office. "That always has to be a consideration. But we are still a Central European town and we'd like to keep the face of a Central European town, not a Turkish town."

Such sentiments have made Mehmet Bayram a patient architect. The projects he treasures most, including mosques and Islamic cultural centers, are yet to be built, tangled in negotiations with government agencies. Bayram splices architecture, folding Islamic nuances into European designs to make Muslim edifices more palatable to the German eye. What could be considered minarets on the facade of one of his proposed cultural centers, for example, are instead spiraling stairwells.

Bayram described one project like this: "The main entrance gate has a European style, and on the third floor you will find Gothic arches. That is Christian architecture. The dome has a Turkish-Seldshuk form, and the little arches at the upper minarets are of Indian style…. It is my intent that the building's street level invites visitors to overcome their fears" about Islam.

Gulcek's mosque is being built south of the city center by the Turkish Islamic Union, one of several Islamic organizations in Germany overseeing construction plans for such projects. Most of Germany's 3 million Turks — the nation's largest minority — belong to the lineage of guest workers who began arriving here in the 1950s to fuel post-World War II reconstruction. This history has made the Turks more entrenched and better organized to finance and build mosques than newly arrived Muslims in other European nations.

Gulcek, a German citizen, moved to Berlin with his parents 24 years ago from the Turkish city of Kayseri. One recent day, as rain fell and the stonecutters sipped tea, Gulcek walked through the courtyard of the new mosque, where a cemetery faced Mecca and the hum of traffic drifted over the surrounding brick wall.

"It's taken 13 years to build," said Gulcek, a smiling, yet exasperated, diplomat of sorts between cultures. "The biggest problem was raising money from Berlin Muslims. Then we found out our minarets were too high, and we had to raise more money for a $100,000 fine from the borough. Why? It came down to a misunderstanding. We didn't know about German law, and the borough didn't tell us.

"It was difficult to explain our idea of the mosque to the Germans. We should have explained it better," he said. "If you communicate, there are fewer problems, but there always seems to be a lace curtain between Germans and Muslims. Europeans have a prejudice and a fear of change."

Communication often seems impossible. Mosque proposals throughout the continent have met with opposition petition drives and street protests. Many mosques and their Islamic clergy exist in parallel, almost sequestered spheres from the larger European community.

"The main problem with integrating mosques into German society is that many mullahs and imams are coming from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries," said Lydia Nofal, manager of Inssan, a multicultural organization battling with government agencies to build a 65,000-square-foot mosque and community center in Berlin. "One of our main goals is to get Islamic leaders from Germany so they know the language and the culture."

Navigating the sensitivities of race and religion can be difficult. On Sunday mornings, church bells peal throughout Europe's towns and cities. But in many mosques, the Muslim call to prayer, which in the Middle East crackles over loudspeakers atop minarets, is almost hushed. The devout check their watches for prayer times, and quietly kneel.

The mosque building boom, mirroring the growth of an Islamic population in Europe that has doubled over the last decade to between 13 million and 15 million, may be most pronounced in Germany. But France, home to Europe's largest Islamic community, has 49 traditional mosques, including nine large ones in Paris. The estimated number of mosques in Britain — most of them converted buildings, apartments or prayer rooms with no minarets — has jumped from 613 in 1996 to about 1,000 today.

In Berlin's Kreuzberg borough, on a street scented with skewered lamb and spices and flecked with women wearing head scarves, Heidemarie Weigand and her husband, Hans-Juergen, were having a going-out-of-business sale at their toy train store. Heidemarie said her old customers had died or moved away and few newcomers were buying engines and cabooses these days.

"There's so many Turkish faces. There are hardly any Germans here, and the foreigners have no use for trains," said Heidemarie, her graying hair brushed back over a mauve sweater. "Many Germans aren't happy about the mosques. I don't think Turkey would like it if we went there and built a bunch of Christian churches."

A few doors down, Burhan Kesici, a soft-spoken man with a round face and a thin beard, sat in a green leather chair and spoke of the mosques his Islamic Federation in Berlin hoped to build. He believes in integration, he said, and even went against the wishes of his Turkish parents and wife by becoming a German citizen. Kesici understands the sensitivities that arise as Islamic culture deepens its imprint on Europe.

"There are a lot of new Islamic projects in the Kreuzberg-Neukoelln area," Kesici said. "The Germans may be saying, 'This is dangerous for us. There's too much of a concentration of religion in a small area.' But we Muslims have to be seen as normal. The mosques will allow us to show ourselves off better to society. We can help with the crime and social problems in these neighborhoods."

The Islamic Federation represents 26 Islamic organizations and 12 of Berlin's 75 mosques — only three of which have minarets. The federation, Kesici said, is in the midst of tedious negotiations with Kreuzberg borough on the design of a $4.9-million mosque and community center project. The government wants the federation to shrink the mosque by 40% so it will not overwhelm the neighborhood.

"The world is changing," said Kesici, who has a political science degree from the Free University of Berlin. "The European Union is expanding, and people are living with different cultures. I am a German and a Muslim. But the head scarf and mosque issues are showing us they don't want to accept our values. They're saying, 'You can be German, but a second-class German.' "

Kesici's dream mosque, designed by architect Bayram, may remain a blueprint for several more years. Gulcek's mosque is stone and steel and colored-glass reality. It will open in two months. Christians and Jews and even secularists will be invited.

"Fifty years ago when the Turks first came," Gulcek said, "they went from their dormitory to the job and back to their dormitory. They would never have imagined that one day a mosque would be built here. And now Turkish businessmen have German employees. So I can imagine that in another 50 years names like Ahmed and Mehmet may sound natural to the German ear and one day may be even sitting in Parliament."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writers Petra Falkenberg in Berlin and Achrene Sicakyuz in Paris and special correspondent Bruce Wallace in London contributed to this report.

Spain and the blame game

This report basically says that the Spaniards eased up on anti-terrorism efforts in the weeks leading up to the bombings.

This is inevitable - while Zapatero and others suggests that Bush and Blair reflect on the mistakes of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism and what precipitated this recent attack - the Spanish and all of Europe must look at how this happened and examine its own practices - as individual countries and a union.

Meanwhile, Schroder said the creation of a European Union CIA should take a backseat to better communication and cooperation between intelligence agencies now. But there are still complaints that intelligence sharing is still inefficient, which is becoming a familiar echo.

The Guardian - Spain accused of easing up on terror watch

Spain accused of easing up on terror watch

Signs emerge of serious intelligence and security failures before bombings

Giles Tremlett in Madrid, Owen Bowcott in Casablanca, Ian Black in Brussels and Sophie Arie in Milan
Wednesday March 17, 2004
The Guardian

Spain cut the number of police units responsible for watching radical Islamists in the months before last week's Madrid bombings, reducing numbers by up to a half in some cities and sending them back to ordinary police work, it was claimed yesterday.

A report in the newspaper El Mundo emerged amid numerous signs of serious police and intelligence failures in the run-up to the attacks that killed 201 commuters.

They include allegations that:

· Spanish police possessed phone taps linking a prime suspect in the bombings, the Moroccan Jamal Zougam, with Mohamed Fizazi, a jailed leader of the May bombings in Casablanca, Morocco;

· Arguments between Morocco and Spain over the island of Perejil, fishing rights and immigration had seriously hampered coordination on shared terrorism threats;

· Paperwork that should have allowed police to trace the sale in Spain of the explosives used in the attacks has reportedly gone missing; and

· Spanish police knew that Mr Zougam was closely connected to Salaheddine Benyaiche, another north African Islamist also imprisoned in Morocco for the Casablanca attacks.

It has also been revealed that of six other people now being hunted by Spanish police in connection with the blasts, the majority were already well-known for radical Islamist connections.

Last night, a Spanish interior ministry spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the reported reduction in the number of police devoted to watching Islamists.

But observers believe that a picture of missed intelligence opportunities and a failure to keep tabs on key figures is now emerging in the aftermath of the bombings.

The connection with Fizazi was revealed yesterday by a French lawyer, Jean-Charles Brisard, representing September 11 victims, who has access to Spanish police records.

In a phone call with a suspected leader of a Madrid-based al-Qaida cell that Spanish police monitored in August 2001, Mr Zougam said he had met Fizazi.

"On Friday, I went to see Fizazi and I told him that if he needed money we could help him with our brothers," Mr Zougam says, according to Mr Brisard.

Fizazi was one of 87 people sentenced in Morocco last August for their part in the Casablanca bombings last May which killed 45 people, including 12 suicide bombers.

He was ordered to serve 30 years in prison. He previously preached at a mosque in Hamburg frequented by some of the September 11 hijackers.

Mr Zougam's connections to militant Islamists were well known to both Spanish and French police and to intelligence services in Morocco. His Madrid apartment had been searched in 2001, turning up a videotape that included an interview with Osama bin Laden.

His half-brother Mohamed Chaoui, who has also been arrested, also features on Spanish police wiretaps of the suspected Madrid cell, according to Mr Brisard.

So far police have arrested three Moroccans, including Mr Zougam and Mr Chaoui, and two Indians in their search for the bombers.

Last night, police in the Basque city of San Sebastian said they had detained an Algerian man who allegedly talked about a terrorist attack in Madrid two months before it happened.

Another Algerian named Said Arel is also reportedly wanted by police, along with five other Moroccans, all of whom are well known to Spanish police but have disappeared from Madrid in recent days.

Police sources said no international arrest warrants had been issued, despite reports that many of the bombers may have fled the country. Another avenue for investigating the bombings - tracing the route followed by the Spanish-made Goma 2 explosives used between the factory door and the Madrid train bombs - has reportedly been hampered because the paper trail it should have left behind is incomplete.

The 100 to 150 kilos of explosives used in the bombs may have been exported to Saudi Arabia, Syria or Mauritania before being smuggled back into the country via Morocco across the Strait of Gibraltar, police sources said.

Another area of failure appears, according to Aboubakr Jamai, editor of the Casablanca-based Le Journal, to be political rows that have prevented Morocco and Spain coordinating anti-terrorism efforts properly.

"There was little cooperation between the Moroccan and Spanish authorities because of political disputes between the two countries over Perejil island and fishing rights," he said.

In an effort to regain the initiative in the fight against Islamist terror groups, anti-terrorism chiefs from around Europe will travel to Madrid this week to study implications of the bombings.

The German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, played down talk of creating a "European CIA" yesterday, saying the priority was to boost cooperation between existing intelligence services. Belgium, Austria and the Netherlands have all called for the creation of some kind of EU intelligence body.

The French president, Jacques Chirac, claimed the major intelligence agencies in Europe had over the past 18 months set aside previous reluctance to work together in the face of the new threat.

But one Italian terrorism expert yesterday warned that coordination between European countries was far from efficient, with important information sometimes failing to make it from one European police force to another.

guardian.co.uk/spain

Wounds still raw

Even before the Madrid attacks, and despite hints that US-EU relations were starting to thaw, global public opinion voiced increasing distrust of the United States.

According to a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in association with the International Herald Tribune, nearly a third of respondents in Turkey thought that suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq was justifiable.

Support for the U.S. since the "end" of Iraq war continues to drop in Britain, France and Germany and nearly 60 percent of Brits responded that they had mistrust for Uncle Sam.

Americans, however, still think that they are merely viewed as misunderstood crusaders for good, and 70 percent believe the U.S. considers other countries' interests. American opinion of the French and Germans have even improved slightly since the end of the war.

But with Rodriguez Zapatero's strong stand and move back toward Europe the unilateral approach the Bush administration took seems to be pretty cold. The survey found that the majority of respondents in Britain, Germany and France (in, as can be expected, ascending order) believe Europe should be more independent.

These sentiments have led to increasing support, it appears, to make the EU as powerful as the U.S., and perhaps, the establishment of its constitution.

International Herald Tribune - European distrust of U.S. role sharpens

European distrust of U.S. role sharpens

Meg Bortin/IHT IHT
Wednesday, March 17, 2004

'No healing of the wounds' a year after Iraq war, global survey finds
 
PARIS One year after the war in Iraq, European distrust of the United States has intensified, with sharp doubts among America's closest allies of the Bush administration's motives in the war on terror, a global opinion survey has found.

The poll of more than 7,500 people in nine countries, conducted in late February and early March by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, before the bombings in Spain, showed that anger toward America is still fierce in Muslim countries, too, 12 months after the war began.

Resentment is so strong that majorities in three Muslim countries surveyed - Jordan, Pakistan and Morocco - feel that suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable.

The poll, carried out in association with the International Herald Tribune, found that even in Turkey, an American partner in NATO, 31 percent felt such attacks were justifiable.

Still more worrisome perhaps for Washington in an election year, however, the trans-Atlantic confidence gap has deepened since a Pew survey carried out in the immediate aftermath of the war, when public ire over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was still hot in Europe.

"There has been no healing of the wounds," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center in Washington.

Unfavorable opinion of the United States, which skyrocketed in the run-up to the war, has become still more negative in France, Germany and Britain since President George W. Bush declared hostilities over in May, the survey found.

British views in particular are more critical, with a 12 percent slide in favorable opinion of the United States. The decrease, from 70 percent last May to 58 percent now, "reflects dropping support for the war" in Britain, Kohut said.

In France, favorable views dropped to 37 percent from 43 percent in May; in Germany positive opinion fell to 38 percent from 45 percent 10 months ago.

Majorities in the three countries - historically Washington's closest NATO partners - also said that as a consequence of the war they had less confidence that the United States is trustworthy. Mistrust was expressed by 82 percent in Germany, 78 percent in France and 58 percent in Britain.

According to François Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, alienation is increasing in Europe "because there's been no give on the Bush side."

"There is a widespread perception in Europe that we have the choice of being treated as a vassal - a poodle in the case of Britain - or being treated as an antagonist," Heisbourg said.

As grounds for resentment, he cited continuing American neglect of European sentiment on issues ranging from the Kyoto Protocol on the environment to the treatment of prisoners at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In France, he noted, anger flared anew recently when the State Department came out against the banning of the Islamic head scarf in French schools.

The survey results also indicate that there has been no rebound among America's allies of post-Sept. 11 sympathy for the United States, which dissipated in the glare of European disapproval during the build-up to war.

Quite the contrary: Majorities in France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Morocco said they thought the U.S.-led war on terrorism was not sincere. Instead, most said it was an effort "to control Mideast oil" or "to dominate the world." Even in Britain only the slimmest majority - 51 percent - viewed the war on terror as sincere.

In fact, people in many countries were dismissive of U.S. attitudes toward the threat of international terrorism.

While fully 84 percent of Americans questioned said the United States was right to be concerned, majorities in France and the four Muslim countries in the survey - Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Morocco - said America was overreacting.

Kohut said the survey results might have differed had the question been asked after the March 11 carnage in Spain.

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard and a strong supporter of the war on terrorism, said the Madrid attacks "could even widen the rift."

Kristol cited remarks this week by Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, that the U.S. approach to fighting terrorism had failed, and added: "If that's going to be the European conclusion of the past two and a half years, I think Americans, and not just Bush, are going to reject that."

In foreign policy in general, the view that the United States acts unilaterally is more widespread now than at the war's end, the survey found.

In France, 84 percent said they felt the United States did not take their country's interests into account in international policy decisions, up from 76 percent last May. Similar strong feelings were expressed in Turkey (79 percent), Jordan (77 percent), Russia (73 percent), and Germany (69 percent).

In contrast, 70 percent of Americans surveyed felt that the United States takes other countries' interests into account.

"Americans think we're cooperative and popular," Kohut said of the perception gap. "Americans think, 'We're the ones on the white horse who do good things for the planet, like dealing with terrorism and evil dictators, and we're misunderstood.'"

The trans-Atlantic chasm in thinking translated into desire in Europe for looser ties with the United States in security and diplomatic affairs, the survey found. Majorities in France (75 percent), Germany (63 percent), Turkey (60 percent) and Britain (56 percent) said Europe should be more independent.

Majorities in the five European countries in the survey - Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Turkey - said it would be a good thing if the European Union became as powerful as the United States. In France, 90 percent expressed this view.

European dislike of President George W. Bush, too, has not diminished. Majorities in every country surveyed expressed unfavorable views, with negative opinion of Bush in France and Germany - 85 percent - higher than in Muslim countries like Pakistan and Turkey.

"I think what has hurt Bush the most, both in Europe and the United States, is his failure to explain why no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq," Kristol said. "We're paying a real price for that."

Most people questioned in the survey said they felt that Bush and Tony Blair, the British prime minister, had lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to have a pretext for war.

Only in the United States and Britain did a majority say their leaders had been misinformed by bad intelligence, and even there sizable minorities said the two leaders had lied: 31 percent in the United States and 41 percent in Britain.

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is still viewed as a hero in parts of the Muslim world. Sixty-five percent in Pakistan and 55 percent in Jordan expressed favorable views of the Qaeda leader. In Turkey, however, 75 percent expressed unfavorable views.

As for American attitudes, the anger felt toward the "coalition of the unwilling" - notably France and Germany - has subsided slightly since the war's end, but is still strong.

Thirty-three percent in the United States now express favorable views of France, up from 29 percent in May; 50 percent hold positive views of Germany, up from 44 percent. Enthusiasm for Britain is declining, however, with 73 percent now holding favorable views, down from 82 percent in May.

Given the intense media coverage of the Iraq war and the resulting tensions between the United States and Europe, another surprising finding is that 7 percent of Americans surveyed have never heard of the European Union. That figure, however, is an improvement since early September 2001, when one-fifth of Americans surveyed - 20 percent - said they had never heard of the allied bloc across the Atlantic.

International Herald Tribune

Copyright © 2003 The International Herald Tribune

EU considers regulations on corporate book cookers

The EU Internal Market commission has unveiled a new potential regulations for coporations following the book-cooking ways of Italian coporation Parmalat. The multinational dairy corporation collapsed in December after several employees were arrested for fraudulent bankruptcy and criminal association.

These regulations have been inspired by Enron and other U.S. corporate scandals. They have been something that has made the EU more mindful in detection, at least that's what this EU business article says.

This is another way that business exchange is happening between the US and EU.
Brussels unveils auditing clampdown in wake of Parmalat
http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040316132355.uif12pga

Brussels unveils auditing clampdown in wake of Parmalat
http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040316132355.uif12pga

16 March 2004

Stung into action by the Parmalat scandal, the European Union executive on Tuesday unveiled a raft of proposals to beef up corporate auditing and stop crooks "cooking the books".

The European Commission called on EU member states to adopt the proposals quickly in a bid to prevent accounting skullduggery of the type alleged to have brought down the Italian food group.

Among the headline proposals are a requirement for EU companies to set up audit committees staffed by independent directors, and to switch their auditing partner periodically.

"Auditors are our major line of defence against crooks who want to cook the books. Parmalat was a reminder of what happens when that defence fails," EU Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said.

"No one is naive enough to think any directive will stop accounting fraud at a stroke. But what we are proposing would inject more rigour and a stronger dose of ethics into the audit process," he said.

Parmalat collapsed in December amid allegations of spectacular fraud to rival the downfall in 2001 of US energy giant Enron, another case that has inspired the EU commission's review.

Auditors Grant Thornton were responsible for checking the Parmalat group's accounts until 1999 and were succeeded as group accountants by Deloitte and Touche, although Grant Thornton remained responsible for auditing some offshore accounts.

Parmalat was declared insolvent on December 27 after money believed to have been in offshore accounts was found to have been missing.

Under the commission proposals, EU governments would require a company to change the person responsible for doing its auditing every five years, while staying with the same accounting firm.

Or, they could require the audit firm itself to be rotated every seven years. The aim is to stop the accountancy giants building too close a relationship with the companies under audit.

The proposals also lay down guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest for an accountancy company, which currently make most of their money from management consultancy and tag auditing work on as a cheap extra.

External directors would ensure the quality of the audit work and prevent untoward pressure being brought to bear on the audit firm by the company's board.

And the commission proposed to enshrine international cooperation with other corporate regulators, notably with the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).

That is recognition of the opaque financial structures favoured by some companies which make it harder for regulators and auditors to detect cross-border wrongdoing.

The commission said it hoped the European Parliament and EU member states would adopt the proposals by mid-2005, underlining the issue should be a priority for the bloc.

Islamic lesson for US students

This is my last finding... just in time. It seems to have a lot to do with our trip. We can probably discuss it in class, before we leave.

"Lecon d'Islam pour etudiants americains", Charles Dexert-Ward, France-echo.com
www.france-echos.com/actualite.php?cle=600

Spain's recent history

An interesting and useful account of recent Spain's history and its evolution from facism to a mature democracy.

Salon - Rebirth of a Nation

Rebirth of a nation
In the aftermath of the Madrid bombings, the election in Spain changed the European dynamic in the war on terror.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Norman Birnbaum

March 16, 2004 | The shattering defeat of the conservative Spanish government by the Socialist Party, with its promise to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq and end Spanish support for the Bush doctrine, was a striking sequel to the terrible act of terror that struck Madrid. What happened at the polls on Sunday in Spain, however, can only be understood by retracing a half-century of Spanish history.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco, victor in the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War (with a great deal of help from his allies Hitler and Mussolini), was a survivor. He abandoned his German and Italian friends as the fortunes of war turned against them, and he lived on as head of an authoritarian regime until his death in 1975. His regime was near collapse in 1959, but was saved by cash and support from the Eisenhower administration. The generalissimo may have garroted and jailed the opposition, clubbed strikers and kept women in medieval legal bondage, but he was, after all, reliably anticommunist. He offered the U.S. airports and ports to defend the Christian West.

By the time Franco died, Spain had dramatically changed. For its younger citizens, Che Guevara and Robert F. Kennedy were heroes. The young women who earlier were confined to convent schools went to universities in miniskirts. The aging dictator was seen as an unlovable patriarch whose time had come and gone. The church, meanwhile, was led by the great Vatican II cardinal, Tarracon. After one of Franco's speeches about increases in prosperity the cardinal said, "Spain has produced more of everything except justice." I asked a Spanish friend what it was like in 1975 as Franco lay dying. He said, "All you need to know is that in the entire country, there was not a bottle of champagne to be had in the stores."

The transition to parliamentary democracy was remarkably quick. The younger and middle-aged elites of the old regime recognized that Spain could not be deemed European unless and until it cast off fascism. In February of 1981, the irreducible fascists in the army seized Parliament and attempted a coup. After initial hesitation, the king put himself at the head of the nation and ordered the generals back to their armories. The coup was denounced at once by the European governments. (English Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was especially firm.) The U.S. secretary of state, Alexander Haig, said that it was an internal Spanish matter on which he would not comment. U.S. forces in Spain had been confined to their bases that day, before the seizure of Parliament. Many Spaniards wondered on which side the U.S. had been so neutral.

Democratization continued. Many exiles had returned, and Spanish culture marvelously came to life (think of the films of Pedro Almodóvar and the novels of Manuel Vazquez Montalbán). The country achieved in a decade what took the Western Europeans a generation. They learned to live on the edge of the modern age. In 1982, the great party of the Spanish Republic, the Socialists, won the election under Felipe Gonzalez. The Socialists instituted a Spanish welfare state like the other European countries, but their main achievement was to consolidate the cultural Europeanization and democratic ethos that make Spain a vital modern nation. There were plenty of problems: A segment of the Basque movement that had been so active against Franco demanded total independence, and used terror. The Socialists employed repellent methods against them, death squads, which eventually came to light to undermine the Socialists' moral credentials. There was, too, corruption among Socialist officials, and a series of very public scandals. It is to Spain's credit that the scandals were public, but they certainly dampened the exaltation of the first decade of freedom.

In 1996, Jose Maria Aznar became prime minister as head of the Popular Party. The party was, as most modern parties are, a coalition. It included older elements distinctly nostalgic for the black-and-white (mostly black) days of Franco, liberal Christian Democrats and followers of Opus Dei (the half-secret conservative Catholic movement), high finance, entrepreneurs and technocrats. Its voters were drawn from the vastly enlarged urban middle class. Educated thanks to the Socialist expansion of higher education, their aging parents taken care of by the new social security system, they forsook the party that had made their prosperity possible. The Popular Party was very much in the tradition of the Spanish right; it insisted on a centralized Spain, sought to limit the federalism written into the constitution, and refused any negotiation at all with the Basque movement. Indeed, it treated the moderate Basque Party as no better than the independence movement -- and so undercut the chance for a peaceful compromise. Economically, the Popular Party launched a speculative boom visible in ever more housing construction at ever higher prices -- and a stock market surge.

The Socialists in 2000 warned that the government's failure to make long-term social investments -- in education, health services and research -- would cost Spain dearly. They were right, but their own project floundered. Their internal conflicts, serial changes in the leadership, and inability to find a suitable successor for Gonzalez led to a loss of energy and support among the unions, the young and the educated. Their electorate gradually receded to the groups most in need of social protection: the elderly and the poor. The continuing support of the critical intelligentsia hardly made up for losses in the larger cities.

Aznar won again, and with an absolute majority, which went to his head. He became increasingly contemptuous of the opposition, of his critics in the media, and of civil society. When in 2002 the oil tanker Prestige foundered off the Atlantic Coast in a gigantic ecological disaster, the government refused to accept responsibility for its incompetent management. Aznar's policies in education (a return to obligatory religious instruction, at the limits of constitutional legality), immigration (grudging where not xenophobic), and the economy (systematic deregulation) moved from liberal Christian democracy toward a fundamentalism of the right. He shocked many Spanish sensibilities by using L'Escorial, Phillip the Second's monument to himself, to stage the wedding of his daughter (complete with his friend, the Italian prime minister and conservative vulgarian Silvio Berlusconi in striped pants and a visibly pained royal family as guests.) Spain is a country of old social distinctions with a sense that these ancient inhibitions have outlived their usefulness. Many in the public thought they detected in their prime minister the soul of a parvenu.

Certainly there was something frenetic about Aznar's enlistment of Spain in the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq. He had a major role in obtaining the signatures of Tony Blair and Berlusconi for the letter of loyalty to the U.S. drafted by an obliging CIA agent -- a letter that enraged French Prime Minister Chirac and German Chancellor Schroeder and marked a large success for the Bush White House. Europe had been split.

Aznar refused parliamentary debates on the veracity of the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, denounced his critics as disloyal to the West and to Spain. His U.N. ambassador and his foreign minister read from a Bush script with dogmatic certainty. When on Feb. 15 last year over a million citizens took to Madrid's streets to join the worldwide protest, there was one episode of violence. As the police encircled the protagonists, they were instructed by the Interior Ministry to let them go -- they were, obviously, provocateurs. Aznar's visits to the Bush ranch and the White House, his speech before the Congress (or rather, before congressional staff), meanwhile increased his sense of self-importance. Aznar believed that he had made Spain, through the Bush connection, a major world power. The fact is, he separated his nation from its erstwhile European allies and evoked the suspicions of the Latin American nations. He also threw away, with astonishing casualness, Spain's legacy of close relations with the Muslim nations.

Aznar is, clearly, not devoid of a political sixth sense. Something told him not to run again, and he turned over the party to the more conciliatory figure of Mariano Rajoy. But the arrogance of Aznar and some of his ministers disfigured the campaign. The state TV channel was about as objective as Fox News: The journalists working there made their discontent known.

The Socialist campaign was doggedly consistent. Party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero stuck to three themes. Spanish troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and the nation returned to a European foreign policy with a renewal of its close ties to France and Germany. Eleven percent unemployment and underinvestment in the future would be attacked by a comprehensive program of social investment. An open style of governance would be his method of conducting public business. Zapatero was intelligent, conciliatory and focused.

Like many others, I wondered if he had the necessary aggression to be a leader. Zapatero, the youngest member of Parliament when elected at age 26, was the protégé of Felipe Gonzalez. Clearly, the old master knew what he had. Zapatero dismayed many of his own partisans and the entire left when he said he would not claim the prime ministership if he did not attain more votes than the government's candidate.

By the middle of last week, the game seemed over. The polls suggested that the government would lose its absolute majority, but still win the election (the figures gave it around 41 percent and the Socialists 36 or 37 percent). Aznar, too, knew what he had when he named the gentlemanly Rajoy his successor: He was distinctly less threatening and irritating than Aznar himself. The Socialists (I talked with a number of persons who will now be ministers) were resigning themselves to another four years of opposition. The government's left and liberal critics in the media were hopeful that Rajoy would change the atmosphere, which they found detestable under Aznar. His hints and his own turns of phrase even led to hope that he would deemphasize the Bush alliance and move again toward Europe.

Then the catastrophe intervened, early in the morning of Thursday, March 11. Commuter trains filled with ordinary persons -- those who, in fact, had no cars with which to drive to work, namely immigrants, workers and students -- were blown up. As Madrid fell into chaos, the government announced that the culprits were the Basque separatist group ETA. Aznar himself telephoned the major newspapers to insist that the government knew this for a fact -- twice he called El Pais, the nation's most prestigious paper and one rather critical of him. The foreign minister instructed the ambassadors to tell foreign governments that this was what the government knew.

However, a vigilant citizen near one of the stations from which the trains had come noticed a van parked by men who were wearing ski masks on a mild March day. It was in the van that the police found detonators as well as a Quranic tape. A telephone in a backpack that contained unexploded bombs provided more clues. As millions took to the streets to protest on Friday, the intelligence agencies were already closing in on Islamist suspects. The government repeated the ETA story -- despite an ETA denial. The public officials involved spoke to Cadena Ser, the radio station owned by the El Pais group. Cadena Ser broke the story, evoking a great deal of abuse from the official media and the sobriquet "wretched" ("miserables") from the interior minister. The minister spent much of Friday and all of Saturday repudiating his earlier pronouncements.

Saturday, the day before the election, is by law a day of reflection -- without campaigning of any kind. Mobilizing by cellular phone, thousands gathered in front of the Popular Party's offices. The first hundreds who came were told by the police to leave and were asked for their identity cards. The crowd grew and the police formed a cordon around the building and did nothing. The crowd's slogans were clear: "We will not vote until we know the truth" and, more to the point, "Your war, our deaths." This was the taunt directed at both Aznar and Rajoy when they voted in Madrid the next morning. There were demonstrations of the same kind in front of the PP's offices in every major city. In the election, participation was 8 percent greater than four years ago. The additional voters were first-time voters and former Socialist voters who had abstained in recent elections or had moved to the Popular Party.

In the final tally, the Socialists increased their share of the vote from 34 percent in 2000 to 42 percent in 2004; the Popular Party decreased from 44 to 37. The Socialists gained 39 seats, and are 12 short of an absolute majority; the Popular Party lost 35. The Socialists actually gained 3 million votes, the Popular Party lost 700,000. Zapatero has the authority of the largest vote total ever recorded in democratic Spain.

Clearly, the Popular Party rightly feared that attention to an Islamist attack would remind the public of its responsibility for war on the side of the United States. Its subsequent attempts at deception were politically suicidal -- the work of leaders in the grip of panic. It enraged many in the public, recalled the government's arrogance in the recent past, and offended a populace that had good reason in familial memory to take democracy seriously. The distrust of the Popular Party, heightened by its response to the bombing, also reminded the citizens of their other grievances, economic and social. Zapatero's straightforwardness, originally depicted as boring, now became attractive.

Zapatero will be dependent upon votes from the smaller formations for his parliamentary majorities, but there is little doubt that he will obtain these. In his first press conference, he declared that the Spanish troops would indeed leave Iraq unless the provisional authority was replaced by a U.N. authority and Iraqi self-rule. He declared that Spanish foreign policy will now have three central points. One is to be a revival of the European connection, strengthening of the European Union and the European social model. The second is Spain's special relationship to Latin America, where the president of Argentina has already expressed his delight at the Socialist victory. The third is the United Nations as a framework for relations between the developed and impoverished worlds. (Presumably, Spain's U.N. ambassador, who was on Fox TV on Sunday evening pronouncing the election a triumph for terrorism, will be moving on. I rather like the old gentleman: He reminds me in dress and manner of an oblivious actor successfully playing the part of an official of the Franco regime, who hasn't been told Franco has died.)

The obstacles in the Socialists' path are many. The presumed responsibility of the Islamists for the attack may increase tensions, which are already considerable, between the Spanish population and the large numbers of Muslims living legally and illegally in Spain. Zapatero's break with the "coalition of the willing" is sure to excite Bush's retaliation, direct and indirect, open and covert. Nevertheless, Zapatero has had the courage to proclaim the break. At his press conference, he remarked that Blair and Bush were wrong about Iraq and he invited them to engage in self-criticism. His courage and determination align him with France and Germany and leave Berlusconi, already in serious difficulty on many fronts, exposed to still more domestic criticism.

George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice and their servants in the American media have shown a curious view of democracy, never ceasing to praise the "courage" of foreign leaders who obey not their own electorates but the White House. Perhaps this display of Spanish independence will contribute to the education of the American public, which has been told to believe that other nations are to be taken seriously only when they are appendages of Bush's policies. In his campaign, Zapatero openly expressed the belief that the world would be better off with a President Kerry in office. Clearly, U.S. interference in the affairs of other nations has now generated the sort of reciprocity that Americans will have to learn to live with.

Back to Spain. William Faulkner remarked that in his native South the past wasn't over: "In fact, it isn't even past." Spain, too, is a society with an enormous amount of historical memory. The Popular Party is not a gang of fascists. However, its hypernationalist ideology, its authoritarianism, and its self-righteous lying were nonetheless unpleasant reminders of the past. People were reminded that Aznar's grandfather had a very successful career under Franco. Zapatero's was an officer in the Republican army, executed after being taken prisoner. When the crowds gathered in Madrid on Friday, there were two main chants. One was "Spain, united, will never be defeated." The other was, "The people, united, will never be defeated." The two Spains of 1936 seem still to be there.

Zapatero has said that he wants to be prime minister for all, and in a gracious concession speech, Rajoy promised to work with him in the national interest. Perhaps it has taken the impact of terror to open this as a possibility. But the election has already changed Spain and the dynamic in Europe, and given Americans reason to reflect on their possibilities.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Norman Birnbaum is professor emeritus at the Georgetown University Law Center. His most recent book, "After Progress, American Social Reform and European Socialism in The Twentieth Century," is an Oxford University Press paperback. He has just returned from Spain.

Sound Off
Send us a Letter to the Editor

In Europe, the tone is changing

According to this article published in Le Monde, the impact of Aznar's defeat is much wider than the loss of an ally for Bush.

A new European Security policy?

11-M could have an important impact on a European security policy. Some elements mentioned in this article are:

US editorial pages react to PM elect Zapatero

But the reaction of Spain, and Europe, to this massive and shocking attack on its soil is crucial -- as is its response to the continuing challenge in Iraq. The two are inextricably linked: Whatever the prewar situation, al Qaeda's tactics now have made explicit the connection between the continuing fight in Iraq and the overall war on terrorism.

I'm sorry, but wasn't it the Bush Administration that has tried (but failed) to make the connection explicit? The Washington Post must be confused. Assuming Madrid was attacked for the reasons stated on the tape, would the terrorists have attacked Spain if the US had not invaded Iraq with their Coalition of the Willing? I think this is what Spanish voters responded too, plus a sense that it was time for change, especially if that government ignored overwhelming public opinion and went to war.

Also, I notice that the Spanish troops are being called peacekeepers but they have not international mandate. The new Spanish administration is simply challenging this.

To me, it seems the Post is confirming the exact opposite of the Bush administration line, that the War on Terror is making the world safer.

The New York Times had a different take, surprisingly. They don't accuse Spain of appeasement, and conclude that Spain is still a member of the Coalition of the Willing against Terrorism. The editorial has its flaws, including the fact that they don't comment on any connections between the War on Terror and Iraq and the issue of an international plan to combat terrorism.

Washington Post

New York Times

[b]Washington Post: The Spanish Response /b]

Tuesday, March 16, 2004; Page A20

SPANISH VOTERS no doubt wished to rebuke the ruling Popular Party for its wrong-footed reaction to last week's terrorist bombing in Madrid, and its support for the United States in Iraq. Fair enough -- but it's hard not to be concerned about how the message was likely received outside the country, by the leaders of al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Before the bombing, the Popular Party was favored to win comfortably; after the devastating attack, and an al Qaeda statement saying its intent was to punish Spain for its role in Iraq, the election was swept by the opposition -- and its leader immediately pledged to withdraw Spanish troops and cool relations with Washington. The rash response by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's prime minister-elect, will probably convince the extremists that their attempt to sway Spanish policy with mass murder succeeded brilliantly.

The outgoing prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, lived by entirely different principles. An ardent opponent of terrorism, he became one of President Bush's most steadfast allies after Sept. 11, 2001, and courageously supported the Iraq war even when polls showed the Spanish public was overwhelmingly against it. Until last week, it appeared that Mr. Aznar's toughness would prevail; even though he had decided to leave office, his chosen successor appeared likely to win. His government's mistake may have been to blame the Basque terrorist organization ETA for last Thursday's train bombings until evidence of involvement by al Qaeda or other Arab extremists seemed overwhelming. The miscue apparently angered some voters while confirming others in their belief that Mr. Aznar was wrong to send 1,300 Spanish troops to Iraq. The beneficiary was Mr. Zapatero, who had promised even before the bombing to withdraw the troops on June 30 unless the force was sanctioned by the United Nations.

Mr. Zapatero could not be expected to alter his view that the original decision to invade Iraq was wrong. But the reaction of Spain, and Europe, to this massive and shocking attack on its soil is crucial -- as is its response to the continuing challenge in Iraq. The two are inextricably linked: Whatever the prewar situation, al Qaeda's tactics now have made explicit the connection between the continuing fight in Iraq and the overall war on terrorism. Mr. Zapatero said his first priority would be to fight terrorism. Yet rather than declare that the terrorists would not achieve their stated aim in slaughtering 200 Spanish civilians, he reiterated his intention to pull out from Iraq in less equivocal terms than before the election.

The incoming prime minister declared the Iraq occupation "a disaster" -- yet he didn't explain how withdrawing troops would improve the situation. Spain's participation on the ground in Iraq is small, but a Spanish withdrawal will make it harder for other nations, such as Poland and Italy, to stay the course. The danger is that Europe's reaction to a war that has now reached its soil will be retreat and appeasement rather than strengthened resolve. "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," European Commission President Romano Prodi said yesterday. Should such sentiments prevail, the next U.S. administration -- whether led by President Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry -- may have no alternative to unilateralism.

[b]New York Times: Change in Spain[/b]

The terrorist bombings in Madrid last week were undoubtedly the main factor in Sunday's upset of the incumbent Popular Party, which supported the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. The victorious Socialists, like most Spaniards, did not. If Al Qaeda organized the bombings, as now seems to be the case, the outcome may be seen by some as a win for the terrorists. We disagree.

Certainly, the events in Madrid have been a major blow to the Bush administration's strategy of inducing democratic governments to endorse its military operations even in the teeth of overwhelming opposition from their own people. But the war on terror will go on, perhaps stronger than ever.

The Popular Party expected that its impressive economic achievements would cause the Spanish people to overlook Prime Minister José María Aznar's unpopular decision to support the invasion of Iraq and send a symbolic detachment of Spanish troops to aid in the effort. Thursday's terrorist strike — Western Europe's worst in more than half a century, with 200 dead and 1,500 wounded — scrambled the political calculus. Sunday's vote became an expression of national pride and mourning. Spaniards who might not otherwise have voted turned out in large numbers and voted against a government that they opposed before the bombs went off. Others may have turned against the government over its early emphatic insistence that the bombings had been the work of Basque, rather than Islamic, terrorists. Either way, it was an exercise in healthy democracy, in which a change of government is simply that, and not a change of national character.

It is possible to support the battle against terrorism wholeheartedly and still oppose a political party that embraces the same cause. The Spanish people, who have suffered under the violence of Basque terrorists for years, undoubtedly feel a redoubled commitment to fight on and avenge the innocents who died in Madrid. That did not make them obliged to keep Prime Minister Aznar's party in power. Here in the United States, as much as the White House would like the elections to be about fear and national insecurity, they are a choice between two men and two political philosophies — not a referendum on terrorism.

The Socialists, under José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, ran on a platform of withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq unless a United Nations-led force takes charge after June 30. Mr. Zapatero now has an opportunity to use his new mandate to pressure Washington to seek U.N. help. The Bush administration has already learned it needs the United Nations. That, like the defeat of Mr. Bush's allies in Spain, should help the president to realize what it really takes to win a permanent international war against violent outlaws like Al Qaeda. The peaceful nations of the world are all in this together, and they must work as partners.

Mr. Zapatero, for his part, cannot view his victory as a mandate for isolationism, an option that is simply not available to any member of the European Union. It is instead a summons to join Europe and the United States in the kind of intense and broadly based cooperation that can provide the most sustained and effective answer to the tragedy of Madrid.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

Spain turns to Europe

This is a fascinating reaction to the M11 bombings in that instead of bringing EU-US relations together, it could possibly create a wider chasm.

It could very well be a hair-trigger reaction to the bombings by a new Spanish government, and, in the long run, Britain and the US will make efforts to assuage Spain's anger and hurt.

But in essence it charges the U.S. with some culpability for these attacks, if not complicity -- the U.S. precipitated these bombings in its role as aggressive "liberator" and Spain, as a member of the "Coalition of the Willing," has paid the price.

Of course, the U.S., British and perhaps other members of the coalition of the willing will see the removal of Spanish troops as appeasement — a dirty word in Europe as it is a reminder of British PM Neville Chamberlain's policy toward Mussolini and Hitler's march through Ethiopia and Czechoslavakia, respectively, in the mid to late 1930s.

At a time when U.S.-EU relations appeared to be brightening ever so slightly, it will be interesting to see how the mood of Europe will be swayed, and if the Summit will be fractious.

BBC - Spain to re-join 'Old Europe'

Spain to re-join 'Old Europe'
By William Horsley
BBC European Affairs correspondent

The winner of the Spanish general election, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has promised to end Spain's close alliance with the US over Iraq and to revive its traditional ties with France and Germany.

The political landscape of Europe may again be split in two.

Within hours of the election result, Mr Zapatero condemned the Iraq war and its US-led occupation as "disasters".

He said President George Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair should engage in "self-criticism" for their mistakes.

He promised to bring home Spain's 1300-strong contingent of peacekeeping troops in Iraq.

He is to announce the date after his inauguration, in a few weeks.

Valuable ally

These outbursts may reflect Mr Zapatero's political inexperience, or his strong convictions.

Either way, they point to a re-heating of a cauldron of old arguments within Europe and across the Atlantic.

Under Jose Maria Aznar, Spain became - along with Britain - a pillar of the pro-American group of nations in western Europe.

Its main contributions were:

internationally, giving diplomatic support to the US and UK over the use of military force in Iraq

in Iraq, deploying highly-skilled peacekeepers to help with the physical and political re-building of the country

in the European Union, standing up for Nato and the vital importance of Europe's relations with America.

Along with Spain, the closest European allies of the US over Iraq and its strategy against terrorism are Britain, Denmark, Italy, Poland and most of the other eastern European countries which will join the European Union in May.

On the other side, France leads another group of European states which opposed the US-led war in Iraq and which still refuse to contribute directly to the coalition's work in Iraq.

Germany and Belgium are in this group. Spain may now join them.

For 18 months, from August 2002 up to last month, efforts to forge a credible common foreign policy for the EU were stymied as these two rival camps clashed in a series of public wrangles.

The divide helped to poison the atmosphere as leaders from 25 governments in Western and Eastern Europe struggled last year to agree on the text of a new EU constitution, which was meant to demonstrate the unity and common purpose of Europe as a whole.

'Appeasement of terror'

Instead, the talks on a constitution collapsed at an EU summit meeting in Brussels last December.

Mr Zapatero has promised to revive Spain's traditional "pro-European" foreign policy.

Its main points are:

to compromise over Spain's defence of its national interests - especially over its relative voting strength - for the sake of early agreement on the EU constitution

to bring back Spanish troops from Iraq to show the new government's disapproval of a "unjustified" war

to call for a new "international alliance" against terrorism, based on the authority of the United Nations, not "unilateral actions" by the US and UK.

This set of proposals has been welcomed by France, but brought a cool response from the British government.

The European Commission President Romano Prodi, a champion of a stronger Europe, told the Italian newspaper La Stampa that the US strategy had failed, as it had led to international terrorism growing "infinitely more powerful".

But a long-standing friend of the US, the German Christian Democrat Freidbert Pflueger, told BBC Radio that the new Spanish government was engaged in "appeasement" of terrorism.

Al-Qaeda appeared to have succeeded in changing the government of one European country through terror.

"That must never happen again," he said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3513898.stm

Published: 2004/03/15 17:15:49 GMT

© BBC MMIV

Emergency EU talks on terrorism

Is this the unfortunate spark that will push the EU toward its common defense policy and a Constitution? That with the urgency and support of various countries, this will push through the Constitution, much the same way the USA Patriot Act was pushed through after 9/11?

With Spain already talking about removing troops from Iraq instead of pushing forward with immediate retaliation, will Spain, and with it Europe in a collective approach, avoid anti-European reaction in the Muslim world and defuse potential anti-Islamic sentiment in its home country?

BBC - EU calls emergency terror talks

EU calls emergency terror talks

European Union ministers have been called to emergency talks on Friday in response to last week's Madrid attacks.

Germany and France had led calls for a meeting of the EU interior ministers.

One idea - proposed by the European Commission president - is for a special commissioner to be appointed to combat the terror threat.

A routine EU summit next week is set to be dominated by security issues, amid growing signs that the Madrid attacks were the work of Islamic extremists.

European Commission president Romano Prodi said: "We have to discuss thoroughly the entire (security) strategy and we will do it at the summit next week."

"The anti-terrorism commissioner could be a piece of that strategy."

'Schengen stays'

BBC correspondents say the decision to hold the crisis talks reflects the view that the Madrid attacks have security implications well beyond Spanish borders.

European intelligence agencies are said to increasingly believe the attackers were linked to the global Islamist cause rather than Basque separatism.

German Interior Minister Otto Schily said that if it were confirmed that the Madrid bombings had an "Islamic background" then it would mean a new level of threat in Europe.

The Madrid bombings have prompted fierce debate in Germany about security measures, with the opposition calling for airport-style security to be introduced at railway stations across the country.

The German government rejects this as impractical, and says it has beefed up security in other ways.

It has also insisted that the Schengen Agreement, which allows travel between many EU members without border checks, should remain in place.

London alert

Elsewhere in Europe, security is being tightened.

Undercover anti-terrorist police are patrolling the public transport system in London for the first time.

Passengers using underground trains in London now face random checks and searches.

Posters have been put up in the city's transport terminals, urging the public to report anything suspicious.

Police said the measures - announced on Monday - had been planned for some time and were not triggered by the Spain attacks.

Spanish reversal

Spain's new leader-in-waiting, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has also asserted his commitment to fighting terror - though observers say his approach will differ markedly from that of the outgoing government.

Spain's conservative rulers were voted out of office on Sunday amid public anger at their handling of the Madrid bombings.

Mr Zapatero has already said he may withdraw Spanish troops serving in Iraq unless the United Nations is put in charge there.

Mr Zapatero said President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair needed to "engage in some self-criticism" over their decision to invade Iraq.

Al-Qaeda angle

Spanish police are holding three Moroccans and two Indians in connection with the attacks.

The three Moroccans being held have been named as Jamal Zougam, 30, Mohamed Bekkali, 31, and Mohamed Chaoui, 34.

The two Indians arrested were named as Vinay Kohly and Suresh Kumar.

Spain's El Pais newspaper reported that investigators had found links between Jamal Zougam and the Salafia Jihadia group held responsible for attacks in Casablanca last May in which more than 40 people died.

Reports also linked Jamal Zougam to a Spanish cell of al-Qaeda which was headed by Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, also known as "Abu Dahdah".

Abu Dahdah has been indicted by the Spanish anti-terrorist prosecutor Baltasar Garzon on charges relating to the preparation of the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States.

El Pais said Jamal Zougam was cited at two points in judge Garzon's indictment, but was not charged.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3510968.stm

Published: 2004/03/15 19:13:49 GMT

© BBC MMIV

11-M will change Europe (and its relation with the US)

In the same way as 9/11 has changed the US, 11-M (March 11th) will change Europe (and its relation with the US.) Our class must pay very close attention to this event and its consequences.

First, there are signs that it may contribute to bring people closer on an emotional basis. "Nobody thinks that it's Spain that has been attacked," a Parisian friend told me over the phone.

Several European head of government took part in the gigantic march held in Madrid's street to denounce terrorism. Romano Prodi, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Silvio Berlusconi, José Manuel Durão Barroso were there, as were prominent members from several governments, Joschka Fischer among others. Denis MacShane, British Secretary of State for European Affairs declared to El País: "It's the first time I have seen all Europe united, left and right, in an expression of total solidarity in front of the third historic totalitarism after Communism and Fascism."

In front of the attack, many Europeans turn to Europe and 11-M might contribute to the emergence of a more tightly woven European identity. If ETA was to be recognized as the perpetrator, it might be seen as a horrendous local Spanish affair. But an attack by Al Qaeda is seen as an attack against Europe. Germany has already called for an urgent reassessment of European security in front of what is seen as a "terrorist threat against Europe."

Second, this attack will affect the US-EU relationships. On one hand, Europeans should become more sensitive to Washington's call to fight terrorism world wide. On the other, it is significant that Spanish voters dismissed the government that brought Spanish soldiers into Iraq. After Schroeder's victory in Germany last year on the basis of his opposition to the war, it is the second government elected by Europeans opposed to Bush's policy.

Finally Bin Laden has just proven that he holds the capacity to affect the course of elections in major democratic countries. It has happened in Spain. It could happen in the United States.

"Given what is known from the strikes that continue to be mounted in other parts of the world, it seems likely that al Qaeda and its affiliates still command the resources and manpower necessary for conducting a major attack in the United States," wrote John Arquilla (who will come and visit us on April 20th) in an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle on February 1st.

Will Al Qaeda do it? Asked Arquilla and his answer was: "The outcome of the November election hinges on the answer."

San Francisco Chronicle – Will Osama rock the vote?

Enlargement, as seen by the NYT

March 11, 2004
Union, but Not Unanimity, as Europe's East Joins West
By JOHN DARNTON

This article in the New York Times deals with an issue that we have discussed in our last class: the enormous amount of "homework" that the Eastern countries have had to do in order to be accepted in the EU, and how this has considerably reduced their enthusiasm. It is also a useful reading to try to understand what kind of stories can be "sold" to a large American newspaper on this subject.

PARIS — When the European Union expands eastward this spring, it will end the 65-year divide caused by the 20th century's hot and cold wars and shift the union from a plush club of 15 like-minded nations into a street bazaar of countries differing in wealth, stature and outlook.
What is today a tight configuration huddled around France and Germany that seeks to offset American power will on May 1 become an amalgam of 25 highly diverse states, including eight strongly pro-American former Soviet satellites.
Therein lies a paradox. The new European Union, stretching from the rocky shores of Ireland to Poland's forest border with Ukraine, will be in a better position than ever to serve as a counterweight to the United States. Yet the incoming members look more to Washington than to Berlin and Paris.
"In historical terms it's an extraordinary moment," noted Timothy Garton Ash, an Oxford specialist in European studies. "It's been said that Europe has had a name for 2,500 years but is still in the design stage.
"France and Germany have led European integration for 40 years, and now that's clearly over. We have to wrestle with the question of who is going to set the agenda for this huge, sprawling entity of 25 states and 455 million people."
Scarred by their postwar existence in the shadow of the Soviet Union, most of the new members bring a different mentality and different habits. They are apt to be suspicious of distant bureaucracy in Brussels, as they were of Moscow, but eager to receive European Union handouts.
They tend to be idealistic, wanting to spread freedom and oppose totalitarianism, but also cynical about politicians and accustomed to corruption in everyday life.
"When we say Europe in Eastern Europe," said Andrei Plesu, a former Romanian foreign minister, "we usually think about something in the past, something we lost and have to regain.
"It's something in an old, faded photograph, the world between the two World Wars, a nostalgia, a longing. In the West, Europe is a project. In the East, it's a memory."
For both groups it is a bit of a chore.
In Eastern Europe, the once paradisiacal vision of "rejoining Europe" has lost its sheen, whittled down by years of slightly humiliating negotiations to join the union and new fears of being swamped by the powerful West.
In Western Europe, support for the enlargement is tempered by concerns that the Eastern countries will drain away wealth and jobs, complicating problems of economic stagnation and tensions over illegal immigration. The door is being opened reluctantly, with a shoulder-shrugging sense of noblesse oblige.
"We're not in a very good mood right now," said Olivier Duhamel, a professor at the École des Sciences Politiques in Paris. "We're worried about unemployment, immigration and the French identity, and when you put all that together, you fear enlargement. The only people talking about a bigger Europe these days are those talking against it."
In the formerly Communist East, the sense of anticlimax is almost palpable. "Entering the E.U. was always a dream," said Maciej Karpinski, a film producer with Polish Television, "but now that it's here it just doesn't feel substantial."
Few people in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and other new member countries would go so far as to try to slam the door closed. Many still see the advantages — especially the young, who will now be able to travel to the West more easily — no passport required, just a quick flash of a national ID card — and to join student exchange programs.
But those of working age are particularly bitter that almost all of the 15 current Western members are imposing restrictions to keep out Eastern workers for several years. Others worry that Western products will push their own off the shelves or raise prices or push small-scale local farmers into oblivion.
As a result, May 1 — a day for workers observed under Communism with mandatory parades and lackluster banner-waving — is not likely to see a spontaneous outpouring of celebration. Even some dramatic official plans have fizzled, like one in Warsaw that would have wrapped the skyscraper called the Palace of Culture, infamous as Stalin's gift to postwar Poland, in gold.
Europeans have waked up to the fears and palpable differences that arise when borders come down, as seen in the unification of East and West Germany, where after more than a decade, disparities in wealth and spirit persist.
Up to now the belief in Europe was that as in Germany, most economic transformation would flow largely in one direction, from west to east. The unstated assumption was that the 380 million Westerners would be at the helm and that the 75 million Easterners would be lucky enough to be on board.
But now West Europeans worry that too many Easterners may sink the boat. They envision poor immigrants coming the other way, flooding their cities and burdening their bountiful welfare systems.
At the same time, the West is apprehensive about the combative mentality displayed by battle-hardened anti-Communist dissidents in many East European elites, and both sides worry about the political schizophrenia of "old Europe" and "new Europe" that emerged over the war in Iraq.
Poland, with a history of rebellion and its strong pro-American feelings, made plain at a failed summit conference in December that it does not expect to be treated as a second-class state.
"We can't put up with an E.U. in which France and Germany have the final say," said Adam Michnik, the former Polish dissident who now runs Gazeta Wyborcza, the major daily. "And we don't want an anti-American E.U."
That position springs, he and many others insist, not from blind lockstep obedience to Washington, but rather from a distinct East European sensibility.
Petr Pithart, president of the Senate in the Czech Republic, described it this way: "Why do we care about solidarity between Europe and the United States? It's the experience of two totalitarian regimes — the Nazis and the Communists. We're conscious of the fragility of democracy. That sense doesn't exist in Western Europe."
In Western Europe, said Jiri Pehe, director of New York University's Prague center, "it's anti-intellectual to think in a simplistic way about good and evil. Here, we say we know what's good and evil — it is simple. We've lived under it. We have a less foggy view of the basics."
It is of course unclear how long Eastern Europeans will cling to their cold war vision of the United States as the gravitational center of the West.
As long as they do, the scales of loyalty are likely to tip toward the Atlantic alliance so fundamental to British governments of the last 50 years. Yet most believe that those differences will eventually melt away, much as they have as Western Europe knits itself ever closer together.
"Geography will triumph over history," declared Tony Judt, a Europe specialist at New York University. "It will eventually matter more to the Eastern Europeans to be in the favor of Brussels, because day to day they will need Brussels."
Dennis MacShane, Britain's minister for Europe, observed: "The great fallacy is that as Europe gets bigger, somehow it gets more disintegrated. The evidence is that every new previous enlargement has been followed by the need for more sharing of sovereignty and someone to set the rules in Brussels."
Over time, too, the union's voluminous codification of laws and standards, some 80,000 pages long, may wear down Eastern Europe's rough edges, fostering political stability and reducing ingrained corruption.
An unknown factor here is the United States foreign policy. Officially and historically, Washington is on record as favoring a strong and united Europe, but what if the Continent becomes a monolithic competitor in economics and foreign policy?
Already there are divisions over the delicate question of whether the union should admit Turkey, a country of 70 million. Washington is pressing for admission on the ground that Turkey is a NATO member and a secular democracy that needs to find stability in the arms of Europe.
Europeans are deeply split over the question. Some say it would be impossible to conceive of a governing structure that could accommodate, say, Turkey and Germany, countries with comparable size of population but hugely different levels of development.
Others say opening the door to millions of Islamic immigrants — in addition to the millions of Muslims that Europe is already struggling to absorb — is asking for trouble because it will set off religious and ethnic feuding and provide fodder for far-right movements.
For some the question boils down to an often fruitless attempt to fix Europe's natural boundaries. For others it becomes an effort to define what it means to be a European.
Quickly, such conversations turn to intangibles, to talk of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and definitions offered centuries earlier by Dante and Voltaire. Some talk of a feeling of belonging that overcomes them in a Central European coffeehouse or of alienation when they visit the United States.
"It's paradoxical," Mr. Pehe said. "Here I'm a Czech. But when I go to the U.S., I'm looked at as a European, and then I feel I'm a European. It's one of those concepts that you see better from the outside."

A global generation gap

This makes me wonder about the role of youth in European politics and also how social, or value issues are communicated between generations. Something to think about when reporting on issues like the veil in France and identity. It seems though that across the world, older people tend to be conservative and jingoistic, while younger generations are not. Does this generalization apply in Europe?

Excerpt from research study:

Generational differences fuel much of current social and political tension in Western Europe and the United States over globalization, nationalism and immigration, according to an in-depth analysis of results from the Pew Global Attitudes surveys. Older Americans and Western Europeans are more likely than their grandchildren to have reservations about growing global interconnectedness, to worry that their way of life is threatened, to feel that their culture is superior to others and to support restrictions on immigration.

A Global Generation Gap, Pew Research Center for the People & Press

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

A Global Generation Gap
Adapting to a New World

Released: February 24, 2004

Generational differences fuel much of current social and political tension in Western Europe and the United States over globalization, nationalism and immigration, according to an in-depth analysis of results from the Pew Global Attitudes surveys. Older Americans and Western Europeans are more likely than their grandchildren to have reservations about growing global interconnectedness, to worry that their way of life is threatened, to feel that their culture is superior to others and to support restrictions on immigration. This generation gap is less pronounced in Eastern Europe and is virtually nonexistent in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Nevertheless, Americans and Western Europeans of all ages are less likely than people in other parts of the world to tout their own cultural superiority and are less wary of foreign influence. These findings are based on the Pew Global Attitudes Project's surveys conducted during 2002 and 2003 among more than 66,000 people in 49 nations plus the Palestinian Authority.

Throughout the world, there is a tension in opinion brought on by the push and pull of globalization. Strong majorities in all regions believe that increased global interconnectedness is a good thing. But globalization is more popular among the youth of the world. Everywhere but Latin America, young people are more likely than their elders to see advantages in increased global trade and communication, and they are more likely to embrace "globalization" per se1. This hesitation among some older citizens to embrace the movement toward globalization may be due in part to latent nationalism. Trend data from the World Values Survey2, in successive surveys over the past 20 years, show that for the last two decades older people in the U.S. and throughout Western Europe have consistently expressed more national pride than a generation of older citizens.

Whose Culture is Best?

The Global Attitudes survey shows that people all over the world and of all ages are proud of their cultures. Yet it is only in the West (North America and Western Europe) where that pride is markedly stronger among the older generations, while younger people tend to be less wedded to their cultural identities.

In the U.S., 68% of those ages 65 and older agree with the statement "our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior," while only 49% of those ages 18-29 agree. The generation gap in Western Europe is similar. More than half of older Western Europeans (53%) are culturally chauvinistic, compared with only one-in-three (32%) of their younger counterparts. The difference between generations is particularly apparent in France, where only 21% of those under age 30 support the notion of cultural superiority while 56% of those aged 65 and older say French culture is superior.

Eastern Europeans overall are more likely than their Western counterparts to say that their culture is superior. However, generational differences are not as sharp or as consistent as those seen in the US and Western Europe. In Bulgaria, Russia and Ukraine, citizens of all ages agree about the superiority of their respective cultures. In the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovak Republic, there are differences in perspective across age groups.

In Africa and Latin America, strong majorities, cutting across almost all ages, believe their culture is superior. In Asia, feelings of cultural superiority are even more intense. There are no major generation gaps in the region, except in Japan, where 84% of older people think that their culture is superior, compared with only 56% of those under age 30 who hold that view.


Protecting "Our Way of Life"

Despite the general attraction of globalization and possibly, as a reflection of their sense of cultural superiority, solid majorities everywhere think that their way of life needs to be protected against foreign influence. In most parts of the world, that desire cuts across all age groups. However, in the U.S., Western Europe and parts of Eastern Europe, older people are much more worried than the young about defending their country's way of life.

In the U.S., seven-in-ten (71%) people ages 65 and older want to shield their way of life from foreign influence, while just over half (55%) of those ages 18 to 29 agree. This generation gap is even greater in France, Germany and Britain, where older people are twice as likely as young people to be worried about erosion of their way of life. Generational differences are less consistent in Eastern Europe. Concern is greatest among older people in Russia and Ukraine, while young Czechs are more worried than their elders about foreign influence.

Africans, Asians, Latin Americans and people living in the Middle East are generally even more worried than Americans and Europeans about a pernicious foreign influence on their way of life, but that concern is broadly shared across generations, with little significant difference between age groups.


Putting the Brakes on Immigration

Skepticism about foreign influence is evident in widespread, intense antipathy toward immigration. Majorities in nearly every country surveyed support tougher restrictions on people entering their countries. Immigrants are particularly unpopular across Europe, especially among the older generation, where half of those surveyed completely agree with the need for additional immigration controls. The anti-immigrant generation gap is widest in France, where more than half (53%) of those ages 65 and older completely agree that immigration should be restricted. Only a quarter (24%) of younger French men and women shared such strong views.

Anti-immigrant sentiment also runs high in the United States, especially among older Americans. Half (50%) of those ages 65 and older strongly support new controls on entry of people into the country. Only four-in-ten (40%) young people share that intensity of sentiment.

Support for greater immigration controls also is widespread in Africa, Asia and Latin America, without the generational differences seen in Europe and the United States. The principal exception is Japan, where older people are much more vehement than younger people that foreigners should face restrictions for entering their country. Fully 64% of Japanese ages 65 and older say there should be more control over foreign immigration. Only 12% of those ages 18-29 agree.


Most Agree English is Important

While most citizens of the world long to preserve their own national identities and to protect their cultures from foreign influence, majorities everywhere agree on the importance of children learning English or, in the case of the U.S. and Britain, on the necessity for children to learn a foreign language.

Generational differences on language training suggest that, while older Americans and Western Europeans are quite worried about foreign threats to their way of life, they still place great value on developing the language skills necessary to cope with the broader world. Fully 42% of US senior citizens completely agree that children need to learn a foreign language. Only 29% of those under the age of 30 feel that strongly about language training. In France, 68% of those ages 65 and older completely agree that kids need to learn English to succeed in the world today. Only 44% of those ages 18-29 feel that strongly. The age gap is equally wide in Britain and less pronounced in Germany and Italy.

In Eastern Europe, the generational difference on this issue runs in the opposite direction. Young people are much more strongly committed to the idea of learning English than the older generation. Overall, 53% of Eastern Europeans under the age of 30 completely agree that children need to learn English to succeed in the world today. Only 29% of those ages 65 and older feel the same way.

In Latin America, overwhelming majorities of all ages agree about the importance of learning English. Only in Mexico do young people place much greater value on language training than do their elders. In Asia, there is similarly widespread agreement among all age groups about the need to learn English. The lone exception is Japan, where 75% of those ages 65 and older completely agree that it is important for kids to learn English, while only 45% of those ages 18-29 completely agree.

1 This also is true in the Asian countries surveyed by the Global Attitudes Project but not aggregated for the accompanying table or for this analysis.
2 The World Values Survey, run out of University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, can be found online at www.worldvaluessurvey.org.

Neocons' anger in foreign policy

This “old” review of the book "An end to evil" (February 8, 2004), might be an interesting insight into neocons’ foreign policies and strategies, for those of us who will report on the topic in Paris.
Besides the book review, and the comments on their "angry style" and "muscular idealism", Zakaria's article underscores the fact that - despite accusing the Clinton administration - neoconservatives during the 1990's were totally silent about Al Qaeda.
The article also shows how critic and confrontational is the neocons attitude, not only towards Europe, but in general toward a "world that is full of hypocrites and scofflaws". Finally, it says that "with all its strengths, neoconservatism is ultimately not a serious guide to foreign policy".

"Showing them who's boss", The New York Times Book Review, by Fareed Zakaria.

Brain drain

Just to complete our overview of the French crisis and protests about the lack of resources for the research, her is an article that - once more - describes the well known brain drain's’ problem.
In view of our trip, I was wandering if this could be another useful link to Rujin’s story.
The phenomenon is another interesting key to look at the relationship and exchange between EU and the US (note that the research crisis is not confined to French borders, it is a neverending issue in Italy, and one of the main common problems throughout Europe).

Le Monde - Un cerveau en fuite... temporaire

Le Monde, 3/10/04 "Un cerveau en fuite... temporaire"
Directeur de recherche à l'Inserm, j'y dirige depuis 1996 l'unité de recherche 446 consacrée à la cardiologie cellulaire et moléculaire et installée dans les locaux de l'université Paris-Sud (Châtenay-Malabry, Hauts-de-Seine). Mais c'est des Etats-Unis, où je séjourne depuis huit mois, que je vous écris. Je suis un cerveau en fuite... temporaire. Je profite d'un séjour sabbatique d'un an à l'université Emory d'Atlanta (Georgie) pour renouer avec les joies de la recherche, loin des impératifs matériels et administratifs qui sont le lot quotidien d'un directeur d'unité.

Dans cette université Coca-Cola, où l'argent coule à flots - plus de 300 millions de dollars de financement public du NIH (l'équivalent américain de l'Inserm) pour cette seule université cette année, soit près de la moitié du budget de l'Inserm ! -, je redécouvre qu'on peut faire de la recherche sans se préoccuper constamment de ce qu'elle coûte. Mais la perspective de mon prochain retour en France, dans un climat délétère et peu propice à la découverte scientifique, fait poindre à l'horizon une sourde inquiétude.

Et pourtant j'ai toutes les raisons d'être heureux, au regard de la situation de nombreux collègues directeurs d'unité ou responsables d'équipe. Notre unité fait sans doute partie des laboratoires les mieux dotés en France, aussi bien en postes qu'en moyens financiers. Trois jeunes chercheurs et une enseignante-chercheuse, âgés de 31 à 33 ans, ont été recrutés sur concours nationaux à l'Inserm, au CNRS et à l'université Paris-Sud, et ont rejoint notre unité au cours des cinq dernières années. Un budget de fonctionnement de 200 000 euros a été attribué par l'Inserm à notre unité cette année. Pour une unité de 30 personnes (12 chercheurs et enseignants-chercheurs, 6 personnels techniques, 12 étudiants et postdoctorants), cela représente 2 à 3 fois le budget d'un laboratoire CNRS et 5 à 10 fois celui d'un laboratoire universitaire de taille équivalente. Alors, me direz-vous, où est mon problème ?

Mon problème, c'est que je n'aurais jamais dû venir aux Etats-Unis ! Ici, 200 000 euros, c'est le budget de fonctionnement d'une équipe de 10 personnes dans ma discipline. Ramené par équivalent temps plein (ETP)-chercheur (une notion très usitée à l'Inserm qui permet de distinguer le chercheur Inserm, CNRS ou postdoctorant consacrant 100 % de son temps à la recherche de l'enseignant-chercheur ou de l'étudiant en DEA qui n'y consacre que 50 à 70 %, et du technicien ou ingénieur qui compte pour du beurre...), le budget de notre unité Inserm est d'environ 12 000 euros par ETP.

Avec cette somme, le chercheur doit couvrir les dépenses de consommables nécessaires à ses expériences, la maintenance et le renouvellement des équipements qu'il utilise, ses frais de participation à des congrès, ses frais de publication et l'achat de nouveaux appareillages pour monter de nouveaux projets. Lorsqu'on sait que le moindre équipement de laboratoire coûte entre 5 000 et 10 000 euros, on se demande comment on peut encore lancer de nouveaux projets de recherche dans nos laboratoires ! Et - je le rappelle - nous faisons partie des plus riches laboratoires en France...

Alors que des voix s'élèvent pour dénoncer l'inefficacité du système français de fonctionnariat des chercheurs en le comparant à l'efficacité du système américain reposant sur un principe de précarité d'emploi, on devrait au contraire reconnaître le grand mérite du chercheur français de ne pas faire au final si mauvaise figure dans la compétition internationale, compte tenu des moyens dont il dispose. Avec un budget public en recherche médicale 20 fois plus faible qu'aux Etats-Unis, alors que la population et le PIB de la France ne sont que 5 fois plus bas que ceux des Etats-Unis, la part de la recherche française parmi les publications scientifiques mondiales est d'environ 6 %, alors que celle des Etats-unis est de 30 %. On voit que le chercheur français fait preuve d'ingéniosité, et que chaque centime qu'il dépense est mieux dépensé et plus rentable en France qu'ici. Imaginez un peu ce qu'il pourrait faire si son budget de fonctionnement venait à doubler ou à tripler !

Autre différence majeure avec les Etats-Unis : l'aide apportée aux jeunes chercheurs. Ici, un jeune chercheur nouvellement recruté reçoit de sa structure d'accueil une dotation d'installation qui se monte au minimum à 250 000 dollars ! Cette dotation est de 400 000 dollars dans le département où je travaille, et certaines universités vont jusqu'à offrir 1 million de dollars au candidat retenu ! Et je ne vous parle pas des salaires... Dans notre unité Inserm, aucun des chercheurs récemment recrutés (et ils sont pourtant recrutés "à vie") n'a obtenu de crédits d'installation, que ce soit de l'Inserm, du CNRS ou de l'Université.

Difficile de rester productif et compétitif lorsque, à peine recruté, on doit passer tout son temps et son énergie à quémander des bouts de financement à gauche et à droite pour monter le projet pour lequel on a obtenu le poste. On est vite tenté d'abandonner les projets ambitieux et de choisir des projets moins originaux, mais réalisables avec les moyens déjà disponibles au laboratoire...

Cette lente asphyxie des laboratoires de recherche a un coût induit colossal, qui est, paradoxalement, passé sous silence. Tout d'abord en termes d'efficacité et d'énergie dépensée stérilement en tracasseries administratives, dans la course aux financements, de temps perdu à travailler avec des bouts de ficelle. Mais surtout en termes financiers, car on stérilise ainsi 80 % du potentiel de recherche que représentent les salaires (bien bas cependant !) des personnels de la recherche en leur refusant les moyens de travailler. De plus, le coût de la formation des jeunes chercheurs dans les universités françaises (environ 9 500 euros par an en moyenne), dont l'excellence est reconnue partout dans le monde, est mis au service des universités américaines, qui se félicitent de drainer chez elles la force de travail et le talent de nos jeunes diplômés. Quatre-vingts pour cent des postdoctorants aux Etats-Unis, les forces vives de la recherche, sont étrangers. A Atlanta, pour la seule université Emory, j'ai recensé 23 postdoctorants français... Combien de postdoctorants américains dans une université de taille comparable en France ?

Mais, plus grave encore, on organise la fuite des cerveaux français en ne donnant aucun espoir de retour aux jeunes chercheurs. Cette année, il y a 20 candidats par poste dans certaines disciplines au CNRS ! Quel choix leur reste-il ? Rester aux Etats-Unis ou ailleurs en attendant des jours meilleurs ?

Nous autres, directeurs de laboratoire, responsables d'équipe, avons une responsabilité à leur égard, car nous les avons formés. Ils comptent sur nous et n'ont que ce recours pour espérer pouvoir faire ce métier difficile pour lequel ils ont sacrifié souvent leur vie de famille, et leur jeunesse en France. Les pousser à la désespérance est un bien mauvais calcul dont notre pays risque de se remettre très difficilement. C'est pour eux, avant tout, que nous sommes si nombreux à avoir signé la pétition "Sauvons la recherche" et que nous menaçons de démissionner le 9 mars de nos fonctions de directeur d'unité et responsable d'équipe.

Rodolphe Fischmeister est directeur de recherche à l'inserm, directeur de l'u 446.

French scientists halt research

French scientists and researchers have launched what appears to be a very serious protest movement. More than 2,000 just quit their jobs, and this affects about 50% of some of the most important research centers. A petition has received more than 60,000 signatures. Protesters want more money for research in order to avoid the brain drain. The government needs to cut expenses to stick by its eurozone commitments.

The movement might reach many intelectual workers in the arts, among teachers, nurses, doctors etc.

THis might be a serious issue when we go there and could be an interesting topic for those who want to write on technology, research and innovation.

A few stories have been published in English (see Google.News), but you should look into the French media sites.

BBC - French Scientists Halt Research

Le Monde - Entre gouvernement et scientifiques, le conflit cache des oppositions sur les réformes structurelles

Le Monde - Plus de 2 000 chercheurs votent leur démission

Entre gouvernement et scientifiques, le conflit cache des oppositions sur les réformes structurelles

LE MONDE | 08.03.04 | 13h32
Les chercheurs se disent prêts à faire bouger les institutions, quand Matignon et l'Elysée semblent vouloir d'abord court-circuiter les grands centres tels que le CNRS, critiqué dans un rapport récent
"Sar-kozy -à-la-recherche. Sar-kozy-à-la-recherche". Absurde ? Certainement. Personne ne peut croire un instant à une telle éventualité. Mais le caractère volontairement provocateur de ce slogan de potache en dit long sur l'état d'esprit des quelque 62 000 signataires de la pétition du collectif Sauvons la recherche. Leur souci : être représentés et défendus par un "vrai" politique.

Faute de l'avoir été par "Luc Ferry qui n'existe plus" et par "Claudie Haigneré qui n'est ni une spécialiste de la recherche ni une politique", les chercheurs ont eu la surprise, vendredi 5 mars, de voir leur dossier repris par Matignon cinq jours avant que les directeurs d'unité et de laboratoire ne décident publiquement de démissionner. Le premier ministre a en effet reçu le professeur, Etienne-Emile Baulieu, président de l'Académie des sciences, et son vice-président, Edouard Brézin, pour discuter - ce qui a été apprécié du collectif - de la composition du comité chargé d'organiser des états généraux de la recherche et de l'enseignement supérieur que les chercheurs appellent depuis des semaines de leurs vœux.

Puis, Jean-Pierre Raffarin a sorti un lapin de son chapeau. Alors que son gouvernement a mis depuis des mois la recherche au régime sec et au silence, il s'est soudain engagé à ouvrir pour une période de trois ans (2005-2007) une ligne de crédit d'un milliard d'euros par an qui abonderait une future agence nationale de la science. L'annonce a d'abord surpris le collectif, puis l'a laissé de glace. "C'est une autre formulation, ont commenté ses représentants, d'une promesse ancienne -et répétée- faite par Jacques Chirac" de consacrer, en 2010, 3 % du PIB à la recherche.

Or, rappelle le porte-parole du collectif, le biologiste Alain Trautmann, "on a vu ce qu'il en était : une diminution de plus de 10 % des crédits de laboratoire en 2003". "Cette annonce n'est qu'une farce", avance un autre. "On nous répond par des miracles, constate Didier Roux, physico-chimiste à Bordeaux, alors que nos exigences sont beaucoup plus modestes : 550 postes qui coûteraient environ 20 millions d'euros". Pas de quoi amadouer les signataires du collectif qui n'oublient pas que le gouvernement refuse depuis des mois de négocier avec ses élites scientifiques. Pas de quoi non plus les rallier à la cause gouvernementale quand ils constatent que les fonds proposés concernent une agence des sciences encore à créer et pas du tout les organismes de recherche.

Ces derniers seraient-ils trop ingérables parce que "trop soviétiques"? Endogame, figé et à bout de souffle comme l'analyse le rapport sur le CNRS de la mission Guillaume publié par Les Echos dans son édition du 8 mars. Tout n'est pas faux. Les chercheurs en conviennent mais refusent la caricature et se disent prêts "à faire bouger les institutions" quand Matignon et l'Elysée semblent vouloir d'abord court-circuiter les grands centres et les grands instituts pour reprendre la main.

NI DE DROITE NI DE GAUCHE

"Bien sûr, concède un chercheur, le gouvernement actuel n'est pas coupable de tous les maux de la recherche. Bien sûr, il n'est que l'héritier maladroit de vingt ou trente ans de mauvais management de ce secteur."Mais, ajoute-t-il, les pouvoirs publics n'ont à ce jour offert comme seule porte de sortie qu'"un étranglement brutal des budgets de la recherche" assorti d'"une demande simultanée de fortes réformes". Impossible à gérer, répondent les grands noms de la science inquiets de cette ligne dure à l'heure où les Etats-Unis et le Japon investissent massivement dans leur recherche publique.

"Il serait donc idiot aujourd'hui, plaide Didier Roux, de gâcher cette chance historique de débattre et de faire s'exprimer les gens de la recherche et de l'université sur la vision qu'ils ont de l'avenir." C'est un "moment inespéré, disent-ils, pour engager des réformes" et construire une loi d'orientation globale. La recherche, répètent les chercheurs, n'est ni de droite ni de gauche. Ce ne doit pas être non plus le triomphe d'une ligne dure, voire thatchérienne, de libéraux irréductibles sur une mollesse supposée complaisante d'une gauche a priori acquise. La recherche, "c'est d'abord la France de demain".

Or, aujourd'hui, "on met la charrue avant les bœufs", constate Jacques Boulesteix, astrophysicien à Marseille, car ce n'est pas seulement "un problème de crédits". La première des priorités, "ce sont les jeunes chercheurs auxquels nous devons transmettre notre capital et notre savoir". Certes, on peut toujours mettre de l'argent pour continuer à "faire marcher le système" comme avant et "vieillir ensemble", a regretté, samedi 6 mars, sur LCI, le biologiste Axel Kahn, directeur de l'Institut Cochin de biologie moléculaire et l'un des premiers signataires du collectif. Mais, pour lui, la vision comptable qui consiste à substituer à la pensée des "mots magiques" comme "immobilisme" ou "statut de fonctionnaire" n'est certainement pas de nature à résoudre les problèmes et à ouvrir les débats.

Jean-François Augereau

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le soutien des chercheurs étrangers

Des chercheurs étrangers, parmi lesquels le Prix Nobel de médecine 1991, des membres de la Royal Society (Royaume-Uni) ou de la National Academy of Science (Etats-Unis) apportent leur soutien à leurs collègues français en mettant en garde contre le risque d'un déclin "irréversible" de la science française. Dans un texte circulant sur Internet et publié dimanche 7 mars par le Journal du dimanche, ces scientifiques de renom se disent "extrêmement préoccupés par la situation actuelle de la science en France". Les financements des laboratoires français "ont décliné, tandis que le soutien financier de la recherche fondamentale augmentait rapidement aux Etats-Unis, au Japon et plus récemment en Chine", écrivent-ils. "Parce que des augmentations budgétaires similaires n'ont pas eu lieu en France, nos collègues ont perdu leur capacité à faire face à la concurrence internationale". Evoquant les réductions de budgets et de postes, les chercheurs étrangers affirment que cela a introduit, "en plus des difficultés financières", la peur que les jeunes scientifiques "choisissent soit une autre carrière, soit un autre pays".

• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 09.03.04

Plus de 2 000 chercheurs votent leur démission

LEMONDE.FR | 09.03.04 | 09h16 • MIS A JOUR LE 09.03.04 | 16h31
"La démission n'est ni une fin en soi, ni un arrêt du mouvement, c'est un passage obligé", a lancé mardi le porte-parole du collectif Sauvons la recherche. La veille, le premier ministre, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, estimant qu'"une démission n'est jamais un succès", a affirmé ne pas souhaiter "que la renommée scientifique internationale de la France soit ainsi fragilisée". Les chercheurs en appellent au chef de l'Etat.
Plus de 2 000 chercheurs (976 directeurs d'unité et 1 110 chefs d'équipe), réunis mardi 9 mars en assemblée générale à l'Hôtel de ville de Paris, ont voté massivement pour la démission de leurs responsabilités administratives, a annoncé le porte-parole du collectif Sauvons la recherche, à l'issue d'un vote à bulletin secret. Ils ont ensuite rejoint plusieurs milliers de chercheurs, qui étaient rassemblés sur la place de l'Hôtel-de-Ville pour manifester leur soutien à leurs patrons démissionnaires, afin de marcher jusqu'au ministère de la recherche, où ils doivent remettre symboliquement leur démission.

Pour trois des plus grands organismes de recherche - CNRS, Inserm (recherche médicale) et INRA (recherche agronomique) - 50 % des directeurs d'unité ont démissionné, a annoncé M. Trautmann.

Le collectif en a appelé au président Jacques Chirac et a annoncé une "nouvelle date-butoir", le 19 mars, afin d'obtenir des moyens accrus pour la recherche publique. "Si, à la nouvelle date-butoir du 19 mars, le gouvernement et le président de la République n'ont pas répondu de façon plus satisfaisante (à nos revendications), nous organiserons une grande manifestation des chercheurs à laquelle nous appelons tous les citoyens", à deux jours du premier tour des régionales, a déclaré le porte-parole du collectif. "Nous attendons un fort soutien de l'opinion publique", a-t-il ajouté.

ÉTATS GÉNÉRAUX

En outre, les chercheurs réunis à Paris ont lancé officiellement leurs propres états généraux de la recherche. "C'est un chantier pour nous très important pour faire aboutir nos recommandations", a souligné M. Trautmann. Les détails de l'organisation de ces états généraux, l'un des points forts des revendications des chercheurs, devaient être donnés en fin d'après-midi au cours d'une conférence de presse à l'Académie des sciences. Le gouvernement avait annoncé l'organisation d'états généraux, mais n'a pu trouver un accord avec les chercheurs sur les modalités de leur organisation.

Dans une interview parue mardi dans Libération, le premier ministre, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, avait pour sa part déclaré : "Nous ne sommes pas dans un marchandage à la petite semaine mais face à la construction de l'avenir du pays". Prenant acte à l'avance de la décision des chefs de laboratoire, M. Raffarin avait estimé qu'"une démission n'est jamais un succès" : "J'aurais forcément une réaction de tristesse parce que je ne souhaite pas que la renommée scientifique internationale de la France soit ainsi fragilisée." "Quand on met 3 milliards d'euros sur la table pour la recherche [d'ici à 2007], on met beaucoup plus que ce que nous faisons pour beaucoup d'autres catégories professionnelles", insiste-t-il.

Mais le chiffre de 3 milliards d'euros, annoncé samedi par Matignon, n'a pas convaincu les chercheurs. "Si ces 3 milliards se concrétisent, on sera très contents, avait réitéré, lundi, le porte-parole du collectif Sauvons la recherche. Mais pour l'instant, il ne s'agit que d'une reformulation de la promesse faite par Jacques Chirac de consacrer 3 % du PIB à la recherche. Ce qu'il aurait fallu (...), ce sont des réponses concrètes et non pas faire une autre promesse."

Selon un sondage CSA pour La Croix, le mouvement est approuvé par plus de quatre Français sur cinq (82 %). 47 % déclarent "soutenir" le mouvement et 35 % avoir "de la sympathie", seuls 12 % exprimant de l'"indifférence" et 5 % se déclarant "opposés" ou "hostiles".

Dans l'immédiat, la décision des chefs de labo aura surtout une portée symbolique. Mais très rapidement, elle pourrait entraîner une paralysie de l'appareil de recherche : les directeurs démissionnaires ne commanderont plus de produits ou de matériel pour les laboratoires, ou ne signeront plus d'ordres de mission pour le déplacement des chercheurs.

Lemonde.fr avec AFP et Reuters

Anti-veil: Was it necessary, or is it just risky?

As you all probably know, the ban of Islamic headscarves has eventually been approved by the French Senate. After the National Assembly's vote, February 10th, the text was approved on March 3 by an overwhelming majority (276 votes in favor, 20 against). The law will be effective beginning from September 2004, at the schools' reentry.
Following various protests and demonstrations, French Minister of National Education, Pierre Raffarin, said the law was "not against Islam" but "in favor of the Republic and the free practice of every religion". Nothing new or really unexpected with that, at this point. What seems interesting to me is the second part of the article, that raises questions not only about the law's effectiveness, but about its potential counter-effects. According to the communist senator Paul Vergès, the new law paradoxically "risks to create new tensions where they don't exist" he said.
From a political point of view, it is also interesting that the law was received in a very diverse way, to extent of splitting the parties. If some leftists voted against, the majority supported the ban. (I am attaching the extended version because soon the article won't be available on free access anymore)
"L'interdiction des signes religieux "ostensible" à l'école définitivement adoptée par le Parlement", AFP.
www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_articleweb/1,13-0,36-355396,0.html?query=l%27interdiction+des+signes&query2=&booleen=et&num_page=1&auteur=&dans=dansarticle&periode=30&ordre=pertinence&G_NBARCHIVES=812534&nbpages=1&artparpage=10&nb_art=6

L'interdiction des signes religieux "ostensibles" à l'école définitivement adoptée par le Parlement
LEMONDE.FR | 04.03.04
Le texte de loi sur l'interdiction des signes religieux à l'école s'appliquera dès la prochaine rentrée scolaire, en septembre 2004.
Le Sénat a voté tard mercredi 3 mars au soir, dans les mêmes termes que l'Assemblée nationale, le projet de loi "encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics".

Ce "vote conforme", obtenu par 276 voix contre 20, vaut adoption définitive du texte par le Parlement. En effet, le texte a été voté par les sénateurs dans les mêmes termes que l'avaient fait les députés à l'Assemblée nationale le 10 février. Il s'appliquera dès la prochaine rentrée scolaire, en septembre 2004.

Le vote est intervenu après deux jours de débats, en présence du ministre de l'éducation nationale, Luc Ferry. Le premier ministre, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, est intervenu à la fin de la discussion générale pour réaffirmer qu'il ne s'agissait pas de s'en prendre aux religions mais d'"envoyer un signal fort et rapide". "Notre vision de la laïcité n'est pas contre les religions. Chacun a droit à l'expression de sa foi, à condition qu'à l'intérieur de l'école de la République, il respecte les lois de la République", a-t-il déclaré. "Nous n'avons ni le sentiment ni la prétention de croire que tout est réglé par ce texte", a-t-il ajouté, assurant à l'adresse des partisans d'un grand texte sur la laïcité : "Le travail va continuer."

Le débat, auquel auront participé une cinquantaine d'orateurs, a donné lieu sur tous les bancs à des envolées lyriques sur la laïcité, à laquelle tous les intervenants se sont déclarés profondément attachés.

"Ce projet de loi n'est naturellement pas contre l'islam, pas plus qu'il n'est contre les confessions chrétiennes ou contre le judaïsme. Il est pour la République et le libre exercice de toutes ces religions en son sein", s'est exclamé Gérard Larcher (UMP, Yvelines), vice-président du Sénat.

L'ancien premier ministre socialiste Pierre Mauroy s'est exprimé dans le même sens : "En France, nous considérons que c'est la laïcité qui crée le mieux, pour chaque individu, les conditions de sa liberté de conscience, comme celles de sa liberté de penser et d'agir, pour pratiquer la religion de son choix ou pour être athée ou agnostique."

22 AMENDEMENTS REJETÉS

Partant de là, beaucoup de sénateurs se sont interrogés sur l'utilité, voire l'efficacité d'une loi pour réaffirmer ce principe, la majorité d'entre eux se déclarant toutefois disposés à voter le texte de l'Assemblée nationale, quitte à formuler des réserves.

Sans nier les difficultés des chefs d'établissement confrontés à la question du voile islamique, André Lardeux (UMP, Maine-et-Loire) a jugé qu'il y aurait eu "moins d'inconvénients à ne pas faire de loi qu'à en faire une".

Le sénateur communiste de la Réunion Paul Vergès a mis en garde contre un texte qui "assimile sans nuance l'outremer à la métropole" et fait courir "le risque absurde de créer des tensions là où il n'en existe pas".

Il a défendu "une manière réunionnaise de vivre la laïcité" qui "démontre que celle-ci, élément essentiel de la cohésion de notre société, peut accueillir sereinement l'expression des différentes religions".

Si la présidente du groupe communiste Nicole Borvo (Paris) a annoncé qu'en raison de la "politique de régression sociale" du gouvernement, elle ne voterait pas le projet de loi, son collègue du Nord Ivan Renar a préconisé un vote positif.

Avant le vote, le Sénat a examiné 22 amendements, déposés en majorité par Gérard Delfau (RDSE - Rassemblement démocratique et social européen -, Hérault) et par Serge Lagauche (PS, Val-de-Marne), qui ont tous été repoussés ou retirés par leur auteur.

Solana to get power to switch off Galileo in security threat

The piece is very short and includes some important information of Galileo, and I think it will be helpful to people who are pursuing defense stories as well as others, as Galileo is not only an EU issue but is also connected to the EU-US relations.

It is from European Voice. By David Cronin and Dana Spinant

JAVIER Solana, the EU’s foreign policy supremo, would be given the power to switch off the Galileo satellite system if it is misused in a way that endangers the security of the European Union, under a plan due to be discussed by member states’ diplomats in the coming weeks.

According to the blueprint, seen by European Voice, the high representative for foreign affairs would issue instructions “to take any measure necessary to safeguard the security” of the EU. The concession holder of the system “shall immediately execute any instructions addressed to him”.
Solana “would be responsible for matters where the operation of the system affects the security of the Union or the member states”, “in particular as a result of an international crisis, a threat to the proper operation or actual misuse of the system”.
The plan states that all aspects of Galileo “relating to the security of the Union or of the member states are handled by the Council”. Management “of all aspects relating to the system’s safety” would be given to a supervisory authority, which has representatives from member states and the European Commission.
However, the high representative would have the power to intervene in “exceptional cases, where the urgency of the situation is such that it requires immediate action”.
A diplomat involved in the drafting of the paper said that was a proof member states “genuinely trust” Solana.
“But at the same time,” he added, “somebody must be in charge of it [Galileo], somebody that can take decisions quickly.
“It is not a responsibility you can give to the presidency – in the future maybe a collective presidency – or to the Commission.
“Like it or not, it must be Solana.”
A network of 30 satellites, Galileo is principally a civilian navigation system, designed for such tasks as locating distressed mountaineers or ships in danger of capsizing. However, defence experts have pointed out the €3.2 billion system could be used by military planners to manage troops and munitions more effectively.
In a recent study, the Paris-based European Union Institute for Strategic Studies said that “even if Galileo remains a civilian project, security issues will persist”. Because the system will have global coverage and will offer much of its services to private firms, it could have unintended users and uses, “with implications for the EU and its allies”.
The US had harboured reservations about Galileo for some time, viewing the project as a rival to its Global Positioning System (GPS).
But a deal was struck between the Commission and Washington on the project last week (25 February), under which Galileo would use the same ‘free signal’ as the GPS.
The Americans have insisted this signal would be better to avoid potential interference with the GPS military signal.
Romano Prodi, the Commission president, has been one of the strongest advocates of Galileo, which he regards as essential to strengthen the Union’s status as an economic superpower.
The system, designed by the Commission and the European Space Agency, received a major boost in September last when China agreed to contribute €203 million towards its cost.

Bombs threats in France

The French governement is facing a strange blackmail by a group calle "AZF". It threatens with putting bombs under railways in the coiming weeks, and wants some money in exchange for not doint it.

Stratfor gives a thorough account of the issue, and notes that it is not done in the style of traditional Islamist terrorists. AZF describes itself as "a pressure group with a terrorist character created in a secular brotherhood."

Stratfor.com - France and the AZF Threat: More Questions Than Answers

France and the AZF Threat: More Questions Than Answers

Summary

Very little is known about a group calling itself AZF that has threatened to detonate bombs along French railways. Although the case smacks of a classic extortion bid, several curious aspects belie an easy explanation. What is known is that Paris bungled an attempt to pay the ransom, and with the story now public it will be more difficult to pay away the problem -- meaning the risk of actual explosions along French railways in coming weeks could be substantial. The political dangers to French conservatives also are quite real.

Analysis

A previously unknown group calling itself AZF has threatened to detonate 10 bombs at various dates over the next several weeks unless the government coughs up a ransom of $4 million, plus an additional 1 million euros, the French government confirmed March 3. Eight of the bombs are said to be planted along French railways with two others placed in areas where security is low.

Paris admitted to the plot following a March 3 report in the Toulouse daily La Depeche du Midi that broke a self-imposed national news blackout on the case requested by the French government. One source told Stratfor that French media had been barraged with at least 100 faxes from the group, but that the French government had mounted an unprecedented effort to keep a lid on the story while it negotiated with AZF. The lid is now off, and negotiations apparently have stopped.

There are more questions than answers about just who AZF is and what they want -- besides cash (and that could be all they want).
Early speculation was that Islamist radicals or Chechen rebels might be behind the campaign. France has been on high alert for months over concerns that Islamist cells and Chechen rebels might attack France using sophisticated bombs or ricin.

Stratfor sources close to French intelligence, however, say Islamist extremists have been ruled out as suspects, and they are skeptical about the possibility that Chechen rebels could be behind the plot. The method of operation fits neither group.
Chechens and Islamists tend to lean toward using suicide or car bombings, rather than timed explosives. And neither group is known for warning of attacks in advance or communicating directly with targets. Also, neither group undertakes operations for fund- raising purposes (extortion); they have other more sophisticated and less risky funding methods and sources.

In contrast, various facts in the case make it seem much more like a classic extortion bid. It fits the general pattern -- warn the target, demonstrate capability and then set up for a payment.
One source, who has been working on the case and rejected the Islamist option, says the operational mode makes it look like some form of extortion, possibly by an organized crime group or radical leftists on a fund-raising campaign. Yet there are several curious aspects to the case that complicate such an explanation.

One is the mixing of standard extortion techniques with the claim that the group has some sort of political axe to grind. In one letter to the government, AZF described itself as "a pressure group with a terrorist character created in a secular brotherhood." Just what they are pressuring for has not been made clear, and the description could be a cover.

Another curiosity relates to the relative sophistication that the group has demonstrated. A tip in one of AZF's communications led French police Feb. 21 (via global positioning satellite
coordinates) to a time bomb buried under the tracks near Limoges in central France. The bomb was meant to demonstrate the group's determination and capability --and apparently did. The bomb was equipped with what has been described as a "sophisticated"
detonator that was not primed to explode. A source close to the investigation notes that the Limoges bomb would have been impossible to find with either explosives-trained dogs or a metal detector due to a protective wrapping designed to make it undetectable.

The French Interior Ministry later described the explosive as "complex, efficient and in working order." Under a controlled explosion, the bomb broke a rail, meaning detonations -- if done at the right time or left undiscovered -- could derail a train.
The government considers the threat to be very serious, and all police and counterterrorism forces are on special alert.

The bomb's alleged sophistication, the use of GPS coordinates and the ability of the group to hold Paris in its grip for several weeks demonstrate that those behind AZF are not amateurs. A source involved in the investigation agrees with the assessment that whoever AZF is, they are organized and their plans are well thought out. However, compared to the level of sophistication and the extent of the plot, the ransom -- a little more than $5 million -- is paltry, especially for something like an organized crime syndicate. Insurgents in Latin America have been known to get that much in exchange for a single corporate executive.

The name itself is a curiosity. AZF is the name of a chemical plant owned by French oil major Total that exploded in Toulouse in September 2001. Thirty people died in the blast, which investigators concluded was accidental. Current investigators have not yet made any direct connection between that blast and the current threat, but there were rumors at the time of the Toulouse blast that a ransom might have been involved, adding another layer of mystery to the case.

The French investigation is divided into two parts, a source says. One group, mainly top police officers, is investigating the organized crime angle, while another (counterterrorism and
intelligence) is focusing on other options. Among those options
are: people on the government's "black list," i.e., people angry at the government and/or seeking revenge (this could be personal); leftists, anarchists or anti-globalization militants (although they could lack experience with detonators); hostile religious sects or groups; militants (although mainstream terrorist groups like Islamists, Corsicans, Basques or far-right militants are considered unlikely by the authorities).

Missed Drops and Complications

Although little is known about AZF, press reports have made one thing clear: Paris bungled an attempt to pay the ransom, and with the story now public it will be more difficult for the government to pay away the problem.

AZF first surfaced in December with a letter to French President Jacques Chirac in which it criticized the government, the media and the French school system, and threatened unspecified attacks.
The group sent several follow-on letters to Chirac and the Interior Ministry over the next two months, including the letter that led authorities to the Limoges bomb. There has been at least one communication by telephone, with a woman speaking for AZF, while someone else was heard near her while she was calling, a source indicates.

Le Monde reported March 5 that French officials have been in touch with the organization through coded newspaper advertisements. The latest of these was published March 3 in the left-wing daily Liberation and read: "My big teddy bear: Didn't see your blue scarf. Get in touch. Suzy." The teddy bear is AZF, and Suzy is the French authorities. According to Le Monde, this is a contraction of the name of Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, meant to needle the tough-on-crime official. The message refers to a missed attempt to pay the demanded ransom.

Le Monde reported March 3 that the government twice attempted a "drop" of the ransom, first atop the Montparnasse Tower in Paris and -- after AZF changed its mind -- in a wooded area near Montargis in central France. A police helicopter dispatched March
1 to make the payment could not find the drop spot, marked by a blue tarp, in the darkness.

Two days later, the story broke and things have become much more complicated for the government. Paying the ransom will be more difficult, if not impossible, especially with front-page headlines such as "Who's blackmailing the state?" (Le Figaro) or "Blackmail on the tracks" (Liberation).

Tough-talking Sarkozy, Chirac and Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin will have a difficult time "negotiating with terrorists," especially after running in the most recent elections on a platform of being tough on crime. An inability to deal with the situation decisively could create real problems for the conservatives as they face important regional elections March
21 and 28 -- just about the time various bombs could be going off underneath French trains.

This does not leave Paris with many options. AZF reportedly warned that it would sever contact with the government for 15 days and start exploding bombs if the story went public. If the group stands by that threat -- and if it really has planted 10 other bombs and is ready to use them -- the threat to the French rail system could be substantial over the coming weeks. A source tells Stratfor that AZF claims there are eight bombs planted in a 200-kilometer-wide (124-mile) circle around Paris. France lies at the center of the European rail network, which is a vital piece of European commerce and the primary means of travel for millions of Europeans. Any explosions along French rail lines could have implications across Europe.

The government's strategy now appears to be running on two tracks. On one, it looks to be hoping to re-establish contact with AZF and continue negotiations. An aide to Sarkozy told French radio RTL on March 5: "Perhaps contact will be renewed. I hope so, but today we have no more contact."

At the same time, the government is expanding its interdiction measures. On March 4, thousands of railway workers were dispatched to inspect nearly 20,000 miles of tracks for bombs.
Nothing was found. Also, top anti-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere has been charged with investigating the case. He joins a vast group of police and intelligence personnel trying to find answers to a multitude of questions.

Blair defends (pre-emptive) Bush Doctrine

These series of articles address Prime Minister' Blair's recent speech, in which he defended pre-emptive action against Saddam Hussein.

He said, "This is not a time to err on the side of caution." Apparently, they prefer to "err" on the side of intelligence. He also mentions the cases of Afghanistan and Kosovo, and why "action" was appropriate then. Keep in mind, there was some form of international consensus in these attacks.

I can't imagine France and Germany are going to swallow this. Blair is saying, in a new world order, we are going to have to accept what is in essence the Bush Doctrine of attack by any means necessary.

At a time when unilateralists are saying that the EU should have no recognition as an international body, such as a seat on the UN, Blair's speech strikes me as undermining the EU.

If We Ignore Threats, We are in Mortal Danger, The Guardian

Text of Tony Blair's Speech

'If we ignore threats, we are in mortal danger'

PM sets out new credo and tries to draw line under war row

Sarah Hall, political correspondent
Saturday March 6, 2004
The Guardian

Tony Blair gave his most detailed defence for going to war so far yesterday, saying that Britain was in "mortal danger" of underestimating the threat of global terrorism as he urged his critics to draw a line under the issue.

In what amounted to a personal testimony of his reasons for taking the country into conflict, the prime minister said the September 11 terrorist attacks had been a "revelation" that had convinced him of the need to tackle rogue states and "religious fanatics" prepared to "bring about Armageddon".

Speaking in his Sedgefield constituency, he suggested that international law should be reformed in light of a security threat that was "of a different nature from anything the world has faced before".

For the first time he conceded that Saddam Hussein might not have acted if the allies had not taken military action, but he stressed that, against the backdrop of global terrorism and the proliferation of WMD, he could not have "erred on the side of caution".

In combative mood, he said: "It is monstrously premature to think the threat has past."

Using Churchillian language, he added: "This war is not ended. It may only be at the beginning of the end of the first phase."

Mr Blair was given a standing ovation after delivering his speech to 150 regional businesspeople. But the speech was aimed at a far wider audience: the growing body of the public questioning his justification for going to war.

As he is dogged by renewed questions about the legality of going to war and calls for him to publish the attorney general's advice, the speech was an acknowledgment that the issue is preventing him drawing attention to the domestic agenda, which he hopes to return to, with a general election possibly only 15 months away.

Describing the decision to go to war as the most divisive he had ever had to make, Mr Blair admitted that the issue could not "just be swept away".

But he suggested that the reasons for attacking Iraq needed to be debated, not to curb attacks on his integrity but to remind critics - preoccupied with the "elaborate smokescreen" of rows about the war - of the gravity of the security risk.

While giving a passionate account of his reasoning, he adopted a far more conciliatory tone towards those opposed to the war than he has used before, telling his audience: "I have never disagreed with those who disagreed with the decision ...

"There was a core of sensible people who faced with this decision would have gone the other way for sensible reasons. The argument is one I understand totally".

He suggested such people were misguided, however, in not appreciating the extent of the threat.

"We are in mortal danger of mistaking the nature of the world in which we live ... The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before."

Mr Blair went on to argue that even before September 11 the traditional justification for military action had changed, as support grew for the the notion of intervening - as in Kosovo - on humanitarian grounds.

September 11 crystallised this thinking. "September 11 was for me a revelation ... What galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage war without limit."

He referred to the growing amount of intelligence he received on terrorism and WMD, and stressed that, as prime minister, he did not "have the luxury" of not coming to a decision.

Admitting that Saddam Hussein might not have acted, he said: "Do we want to take the risk? That is judgment. And my judgment then and now is that the risk of this new global terrorism and its interaction with states or organisations or individuals proliferating WMD is one I simply am not prepared to run.

"This is not a time to err on the side of caution."

In a move backed by the Tory leader, Michael Howard, he also repeated his call for reform of the United Nations, to make its security council fit for the 21st century, and suggested a shake-up of international law so that action could be taken against tyrannical states.

"It may well be that under international law as presently constituted a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do ... This may be the law, but should it be?"

The Tory leader said it was "right that we have a serious debate about whether international law needs to be reviewed. This raises three important questions - Is reform necessary? What form should it take? Can it be delivered?"

But Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: "If the UK is to embrace a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, that will be a major departure from the foreign policy principles of successive governments since the creation of the UN."

His leader, Charles Kennedy, accused the prime minister of being "astonishingly defensive" and of deliberately mixing up the issues of global terrorism and Iraq in an attempt to construct a justification for the war.

But the veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell, an arch critic of the war, denounced the speech as "passionate, self-justifying drivel".

Possible military strategy given a nuclear Iran

This article considers the political personality of Iran and concludes that it’s further away from a democratic government than the western public has hoped – hinting darkly that the Bush administration knew more than they said when they included Iran in “the axis of evil.” What they knew, the article infers, is two-fold – first, that Iran has a secret program to enrich uranium – second, that conservative groups have the power to undermine the democratic process – as they just did on February 20th.

After doing this, the article tries to predict the EU’s reaction. This is interesting for two reasons, first – it assumes it will be uniform – second – it starts with a consideration of the United States.

If Mr. Bush has lost his “appetite for foreign conflict,” how will Iran be managed? It asks, adding, “though a nuclear Iran may not be worth fighting a war to avert, it is a danger worth averting. But how?” It then answers in a way that echoes some of the intellectuals we’ve just read – envisioning Europe acting as a non-militaristic alternative to US power – using economic influence – while giving a nod to the EU’s reliance on the US, “it does no harm for America to keep hold of a stick.”

Iran

The divine right to a bomb

Feb 26th 2004
From The Economist print edition

No case for a war. But the world would be safer without a nuclear Iran
AFP

IRAN'S election last week made it possible to see clearly something that had been fogged by ambiguity. It made it clear that the Islamic Republic founded by Ayatollah Khomeini 25 years ago has not evolved as some had hoped into a serious democracy. This is not for want of its people's trying. In a string of elections in recent years, Iranians flocked to vote for those politicians who said they were reformers. But under the constitution bequeathed by Khomeini, the decisions of a mere parliament can be struck down by the “just and pious” clergymen of the Council of Guardians, which is in turn subordinate to the faqih, the top cleric and “supreme leader”. He and they have crushed the breath out of reform by closing newspapers and striking down progressive laws. The final straw, which made the vote of February 20th a parody of an election, was the council's disqualification of more than 2,000 candidates, including 87 existing members of parliament.

Thumbs on the people, fingers on the button
In a bogus democracy, fewer people bother to vote. So the predictable outcome was the lowest turnout for a parliamentary election since the revolution, and a thumping victory for the religious conservatives. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, said that the losers were “the United States, Zionism, and the enemies of the Iranian nation”. In truth, the chief losers are Iran's own citizens, whose yearning for personal and political freedom has been thwarted again. But Mr Khamenei is right in at least one respect, which is that the result of the election is depressing not only for Iranians but for the outside world—and, yes, especially America and Israel—as well. For Iran is not just a country whose people look fated to squirm for a good while longer under the thumb of obscurantist clerics who claim a divine right to rule. These clerics also seem to want to put their finger on a nuclear button.

It has to be “seem” because Iran's leaders insist that they do not want nuclear weapons, and never have. That, they say, is why the Islamic Republic—unlike Israel—has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Over the past year, however, they have been caught out time and again failing to give the full account required by the treaty of their nuclear activities (see article). With each new leak, Iran has changed its story. It now admits to having had a secret programme to enrich uranium. Along with Libya and North Korea, it seems to have been one of the main customers of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced Pakistani who ran a global nuclear-smuggling network. Though it clings amid the confessions to the fable that all of this was for peaceful purposes, few people believe it.

How dangerous would a nuclear Iran be? And what should be done about it? Understandably, the world is in no mood to think about such questions right now. Just to pose them is to invite a sinking feeling of déjà vu. It is, after all, only two years since George Bush put Iran with Iraq and North Korea in his “axis of evil”. He still says he will not allow “the world's most dangerous regimes” to threaten America with nuclear weapons. But having invested so much political capital in the invasion of Iraq, Mr Bush no doubt feels his appetite for foreign conflict waning. He will not win re-election in November by making himself look like a serial warmonger.

The many people who were appalled by the Iraqi war may be reassured by Mr Bush's distraction. They should not be. A distracted America may give the clerics the very breathing space they need to build a nuclear arsenal. Indeed, Iran may have concluded from what happened to Saddam Hussein (and did not happen to North Korea) that the sooner you acquire a bomb the safer you are from the superpower, especially one with armies on two of your borders. Iran's recent agreement to submit to more rigorous inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency is not inconsistent with its having reached such a conclusion. Under the NPT, Iran is entitled to master the nuclear cycle. It could then give three months' notice to quit the NPT lawfully and build its bomb.

Yet that might not be calamitous. A nuclear Iran is certainly less frightening than a nuclear Saddam would have been. Even under the clerics, Iran is run by a regime with checks and balances, not by one megalomaniac. It no longer tries to export its revolution. It opposed the Taliban in Afghanistan, and has so far done less than it might to undermine America in Afghanistan or Iraq. On the other hand, it calls for eliminating Israel and helps violent organisations like Hamas, Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad to work to that end. The mere prospect of Iran acquiring a bomb has prompted Israel to ponder aloud the case for a pre-emptive strike (though that would depend on knowing exactly where all Iran's nuclear gear was concealed). If Iran got the bomb, sometime enemies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia might feel compelled to follow suit.

Europe's chance
In short, though a nuclear Iran may not be worth fighting a war to avert, it is a danger worth averting. But how? In October, Britain, France and Germany thought they had talked Iran into coming clean about its secret nuclear activities and “suspending” uranium enrichment. In return, Europe dangles the trade relations Iran's economy sorely needs. If such an approach really did persuade Iran to do without a bomb, the Europeans could boast that they had found a better way than pre-emption to stop proliferation. And this may even be what Iran wants. Just possibly, Iran has decided in the wake of the Iraq war to do its own version of a Libya, by giving up a secret bomb programme but without the shame of admitting, as Muammar Qaddafi did, that it ever existed.

The question is how to be sure. Since October, Iran has spun more tales than Scheherazade to explain away the discovery of bits and pieces of nuclear research it had neglected to mention. This does not inspire confidence. The mullahs' failure to continue along the path of democratic reform is another reason not to give Iran the benefit of the doubt. Having dangled a carrot, the Europeans ought not to hand it over until Iran has delivered its end of the bargain. In the meantime, it does no harm for America to keep hold of a stick.

Copyright © 2004 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

The Divine Right to a Bomb, The Economist

Europe, the anti-America?

Many young Europeans are not clear on how to charactize what it means to be European, according to this International Herald Tribune article, except to say that it is everything that the US is not. The lack of self-identity has to do with the long history and various cultures that make up the European Union, blurring a clear identity, which will become even more unclear as 10 more countries join the union.

I think this article is very insightful for non-Europeans in general, but especially for us, since it delves into the minds of Europeans in their 20s and 30s and shows how they view themselves and the difficulties and complexities involved. It's as if they need America to define who they are, which signifies how strong of an influence the US has had globally and supports the notion of Imperialism.

International Herald Tribune
For young Europeans, identity questions
BY Sarah Lyall

Copyright © 2003 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

For young Europeans, identity questions
Sarah Lyall/IHT
Thursday, March 4, 2004

PRAGUE As one of the new generation of European businessmen who fly around the Continent as readily as others might take the bus across town, Petr Eisler feels at home in Europe, mostly. It is only now and then, like when he arrives at the immigration desk at London's Heathrow Airport, that he is suddenly flung back into his old role as an outsider at the European party.

"They're always asking me how long I plan to stay, and do I have enough money with me," said Eisler, 39, who founded his software company in the Czech Republic more than a decade ago, speaks fluent English and recently opened an office in London. Once, he was traveling with a former industry minister of the Czech Republic and was startled to hear the same questions being asked of him, too - a sign, at least, that such Western inhospitality is nothing personal.

As the European Union prepares to open its doors to 10 new countries in May, people in their 20s and 30s interviewed here and elsewhere in Europe say that they feel part of the Continent yet separate from it. The feeling has partly to do with the way European countries have historically perceived each other, and partly to do with puzzlement about what Europe - not the physical place, but the philosophical concept - really is.

To the extent that there is an entity called Europe, with a distinguishable identity, culture and world view, many young Europeans say they are not so sure how to characterize it, except perhaps in describing what it is not. With America now the only real world power left in the post-Soviet landscape, there is a growing sense that Europe, in so far as it exists as an idea, can best be defined as the anti-America.

This appears to be true among the younger generation in Prague, part of the former communist Europe that has lately allied itself with the United States, even as Western Europe shies away from it.

"As with all identities, the easiest way to create an identity is to create it as against something else," said Adam Pulchart, 26, who is studying for a master's degree in European studies at Charles University in Prague.

"The rudimentary European identity I have is formed against the United States, against the image of America as the new imperialist superpower that regards everything that happens in the world in the context of its own national interest."

To some Czechs, American patriotism, particularly in the Bush era, is uncomfortably reminiscent of the Soviet rhetoric of old.

"I remember all of this from the Russians, the same treatment of history," said Tereza Spencerova, who writes for Mlady Svet, a weekly magazine. Spencerova said she recently heard a joke about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a hapless student who asked an uncomfortable foreign policy question and later mysteriously disappeared. She said she had heard the same joke 15 years ago, but with a Soviet official in place of Rumsfeld.

"Once Bush started the war against terrorism, he started to use strong language that was the same as what the Russians used, like 'Who's not for us is against us,'" Spencerova said. "Europeans get nervous when someone comes and says that his truth and his world view are the only acceptable ones."

If Europe is not America, then what is it? Is there such a thing as a recognizable European identity?

It depends on whom you ask.

"Unfortunately, the answer is no," said Stelios Haji-Ioannou, the 37-year-old founder of the low-cost airline EasyJet. Born in Greece, Haji-Ioannou has homes in London, Monaco, New York and Athens, and is almost always on the road. He says he feels Greek in England, English in Greece and European in America.

"I wouldn't expect that everyone should suddenly feel European," he said. "Is someone from Alaska the same as someone from Florida? I think not."

Jan Vavra, the director and co-owner of a public relations firm in Prague, agreed. "For me, integration is good when it comes to commercial contracts and common legislation, but I don't believe there will be a new European man - there are too many differences in language and tradition from country to country," Vavra said in his office in a quiet corner of Prague.

"We can cooperate and be friends; we can make businesses and art together; and we can study in different countries. But that doesn't mean we will lose our nationality."

The more one scratches the surface, the more one realizes that many stereotypes still apply, at least in people's minds. To their European neighbors, the French are regarded as supercilious, the Germans as hyper-organized, the British as repressed and the Italians as chronically late.

"The global thinking is the same, but there are small, specific differences," said Zuzana Pitrova, 28, an executive at the Czech edition of Metro, a free newspaper with editions in 16 countries.

Pitrova said she was horrified when her boss, a Swede based in London, remained in his chair with his feet propped up on the table at their first meeting. "I'm a Czech woman, and I expect that a man will at least stand up when I walk into a room," she said.

Pitrova's European acquaintances do not consider her one of them, exactly. Her husband is American, and when they run into British friends, she said, "They look at me like, 'Oh, an Eastern-bloc chick who got married to an American so she could move to America.'" (For the record, the couple plans to move to Tokyo in the autumn.)

She said that with colleagues, too, her nationality can be a handicap. "They don't consider me European," she said. "They don't think my skills are as good as theirs, being from the Czech Republic."

The more Europeans come together, it seems, the more their differences are emphasized, even under an umbrella of similarities.

David Cerny, a 36-year-old sculptor in Prague, said "exaggerating national distinctions is part of the fun" of the new Europe.

Last summer, Cerny - who learned English from Beatles records and says he feels equally at home across the Continent - described the Czech population in an interview with a local newspaper as "an unmixed, uninteresting, slightly dumplingish, untanned mass" and lampooned "this constant stroking oneself on the belly stuffed with pork, sauerkraut and dumplings."

He applies the same broad view to other countries, too, particularly Germany. "It's like someone from New York talking about Texas," Cerny said. "Except that Texas never attacked New York and killed a couple of million people."

The tendency of national pride to slide into militant nationalism and even xenophobia is the dark side of European integration.

As the countries of Europe move closer together, their differences become exaggerated, especially to those who are suspicious of outsiders and worry about permeable borders, the influx of newcomers and a loss of national identity. Anticipating May 1, most West European countries have passed laws restricting the entry of workers from the new EU member countries, a cause of dismay to the poorer eastern countries.

In the Czech Republic, the post-Communist era has been marked by an increase in racial violence, particularly against members of the Roma minority, who have long been persecuted in central Europe.

Isolated during the Soviet era, Prague is more international than ever.

Americans by the tens of thousands moved here in the 1990s. Charles University is awash in students from across Europe who spend a semester or two under the auspices of the Erasmus and the Socrates programs, EU-sponsored exchanges.

But the country as a whole has a reputation for not welcoming outsiders.

"We're afraid of foreigners," Spencerova said. "A lot of people think that five minutes after we join the EU, our villages will be full of foreigners, and our traditions and language and culture will be destroyed. This fear is real. You can feel it in street corners, in newspapers, in political discussions."

What do the new Europeans have in common? Language, to a certain extent. When they travel, they tend to speak English, which has emerged as Europe's most readily accessible common language.

"I come from a generation where everyone pretty much speaks English, or at least tries to," said Gabriela Tomsikova, 29, a Czech who works in the Prague office of a Dutch electronics company.

"It's growing bigger and bigger. Even the French are speaking English now."

There are also shared political and cultural traditions. The United States is a country created from the bottom up; European countries were created from the top down. "There's a greater sense of history here," said Lucie Konigova, 28, a research fellow in the center for European analysis at the Institute of Foreign Relations in Prague. "We don't think in terms of individual rights as much, but in terms of social and community rights."

Cecile Antoine, 25, a Belgian who lives in Paris, said she felt that "Europe has a common thread that joins everyone together," at least for the younger generation, which has been raised on that notion.

"I feel like a European, though my roots are of course Belgian," said Antoine, who says she is just as happy in Paris as back home. Years of being part of the EU have instilled in her a sense that she is "part of a greater European community."

"All the countries from the Union have something in common, and I don't feel very different from a French person," she said.

There are signs that those who are even younger - teenagers who never knew the cold war - may be even more impervious to old-world national distinctions.

"My son is 15, and his way of thinking and seeing the world is very different from my point of view," said Spencerova, the Czech journalist. "It's 14 years from the revolution and he's just learned a new way of living which is completely different from the way that we were brought up. This new generation won't have a problem with definitions, with the difference between being Czech or German or something else."

Those in countries who are about to join the Union seem hopeful that long-established borders will fall away.

"The EU is looked at with a mixture of hope and trepidation," said Zuzanna Ziomecka, 27, who returned to Warsaw three years ago after living in the United States. "There's the thought that the EU might set standards we are having trouble setting ourselves, and might offer travel."

Not only will crossing Europe be easier for Poles - "I won't have to stand in long lines at the airport," Ziomecka said - but it will open Poland up to a new group of visitors.

"We'll be getting more people coming to Poland to see what a crazy place it is," she added, and "how much good can come from chaos."

International Herald Tribune

Copyright © 2003 The International Herald Tribune

Most Turks Want to join EU

Seven out of 10 Turks support joining the Europpean Union and the country's politicians say there's never been a "broader political consensus toward EU membership." The thought in Turkey is that joining the EU would "cement Turkey's secularism and raise incomes, which now stand at about one-quarter the average level of the Union," according to the International Herald Tribune article. But doing so won't be easy as they need all 25 EU members' votes. And France may be shakey while the other "heavyweights" like Germany, Britan, Italy and Spain appear to be in favor of at least negotiations.

I think this is interesting because as Turkey and its 70 million and growing Muslim population look to boost its economy and status as a secular state, it may solicit the US's support in gaining entry to the EU. And if the EU decides against letting Turkey negotiate its entry at the December summit, the rejection could have some interesting political implications. As Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said in an interview, "all the Muslim world will once more think that, yes, there is a double standard, that there will always be a clash of civilizations."

"In Turkey, a pro-EU consensus" by Thomas Fuller
International Herald Tribune

Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

In Turkey, a pro-EU consensus
Thomas Fuller/IHT IHT
Saturday, March 6, 2004

7 out of 10 favor joining the Union

ANKARA At a time of relative gloom and uncertainty for the European Union, some of its most enthusiastic supporters live here in Asia.

In Western Europe, a creeping note of worry has accompanied the imminent expansion of the Union to 25 members. But here in Turkey, politicians say there has never been broader political consensus on the drive toward EU membership.

Joining is seen as a way to cement Turkey's secularism and raise incomes, which now stand at about one-quarter the average level of the Union.

In opinion polls, nearly 70 percent of Turks say they want to join the EU, a number whose corollary is the government's methodical passage of reform packages required for EU membership.

The government begins every weekly cabinet meeting with an hourlong discussion on the implementation of EU-related laws, according to Murat Sungar, secretary general of a special government department that coordinates Turkey's drive for membership.

Since 2001, Turkey has rewritten more than one-fifth of its constitution. It abolished the death penalty except for times of war, repealed laws that barred the Kurdish minority from assembling or publishing in their language, and passed a law that prevents the press from being forced to reveal sources, among many other changes.

Reforms scheduled for April will remove the military, seen in Turkey as secularism's guardian, from civilian posts such as the national educational council. Such a change would until recently have been considered taboo.

Remarkably, even among supporters of the sole opposition party in Parliament, the left-leaning Republican People's Party, 85 percent want Turkey to join the EU, according to Kemal Dervis, the deputy head of the party.

The momentum is leading up to the climactic day of Turkey's aspirations: a December summit meeting in Brussels where European leaders will decide whether to allow the country to begin formal negotiations for entry.

A "yes" decision will require unanimous approval by the EU's 25 countries and would be followed by about a decade of detailed negotiations.

EU leaders must contemplate a future where its second-biggest member is a predominantly Muslim nation of 70 million people - and growing fast.

If Europe dashes Turkey's hopes, then the reform process here and the relative harmony between a governing Muslim party and the traditionally secular and powerful military establishment could end.

When asked about the prospect of failure, Turkey's leaders say there will be great disappointment and a belief that Europe treats Turkey differently because of its Muslim nature.

"All the Muslim world will once more think that, yes, there is a double standard, that there will always be a clash of civilizations," Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said in an interview.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, said in an interview with Europe-based journalists that Turks "would really have a heartache" if given a negative response.

Turkish politicians believe that the current political constellation in Europe favors a "yes" decision.

But they are not leaving it to chance. The government recently convened its ambassadors posted in EU countries to discuss lobbying efforts. Turkey may also call on the United States, a longtime and overt supporter of membership, to trumpet the cause.

EU leaders have been making positive noises recently. "Turkey is on the right path," Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said during a visit in February. "Turkey can always count on Germany for support."

Visiting Ankara on Wednesday, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, praised Turkey for its "positive approach" on the reunification of Cyprus. "We look forward to a positive decision," he said, referring to the EU summit talks in December.

In the past, Turks and others suspected that what European leaders said publicly to encourage Turkey was different what they actually felt.

Today, the enthusiasm seems more anchored in actual support, EU politicians say.

Turkey's longstanding enemy, Greece, has become a cheerleader for Turkish membership.

Ties started to thaw between the two through a pair of remarkable and cooperative foreign ministers and the "seismic diplomacy" behind each country's assistance to the other after deadly earthquakes in 1999.

The reasons for Greece's support are complex. Yannos Papantoniou, the Greek defense minister, says it is better to have Turkey in the club than outside. Still, he notes that Greece still has concerns about human rights and the depth of democratic reform in Turkey.

"We simply believe that if and when it joins the European Union it will be obliged to observe these rules and values," he said. "This will by itself resolve most of our problems."

Still, Papantoniou said he believed the recent expressions of support around Europe for Turkish membership were genuine.

"I'm not quite sure about the end of this game, whether the Europeans really believe that at some point Turkey will in fact become a member," Papantoniou said in an interview. "But I think they are sincere that they want to help Turkey enter into the road leading up to eventual membership." Greece is using the prospect of membership as a lever to solve a territorial dispute with Turkey in the Aegean Sea and as a way to bring about the reunification of Cyprus.

Both those issues are prerequisites to Greek support in December, Papantoniou said.

Ultimately the decision on Turkish admittance would be taken by a future generation of politicians, he added.

The negotiation process involves absorption by Turkey of the EU's 80,000 pages of laws.

Commentators who oppose Turkey's admission have argued that it would draw massive subsidies from the EU, that it is simply too big to swallow and that as an Asian country it has no place in a European Union. But Halefoglu is confident: "If we get the big fish the others will follow." There is an emerging consensus, here and in Brussels, among diplomats and politicians, that Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain are among the EU heavyweights likely to favor offering negotiations. The position of France, where support for EU enlargement has been cooler, is less certain.

With a need for unanimity, a "yes" is far from certain. The collapse of the EU's constitutional talks in December was mainly caused by the steadfast opposition of Poland and Spain to the draft document, a demonstration of how a small minority can block a big decision.

The admission of Turkey - a huge, existential question for the EU - is also likely to be more widely debated in public as December approaches.

Ultimately Turkey will be judged by what is known in EU jargon as the Copenhagen criteria, a short and relatively basic set of principles established by the EU in 1993.

There are political criteria: "stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities." And economic criteria: "the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union." A country must also be able to "take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union." Sungar, the secretary general of Turkey's EU coordination office, says one problem for the government is that the political criteria "cannot be calculated" and are therefore open to interpretation.

The European Commission, the EU's executive, is responsible for judging whether the criteria have been fulfilled. The commission will issue a report in October that will form the basis for talks at the December summit meeting. International Herald Tribune

Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune

Coming together over conflict

Both the U.S. and British press have reported in the past week that relations are starting to improve between both the United States and Germany and the U.S. and France. After all, Schroeder, who visited the White House for the first time in two years, knows how to make Bush laugh.

The warming of relations centers around conflict, both in the Middle East and Haiti, but still comes at a time when Europe begins trade sanctions against the U.S. for the first time. The two leaders can mug for the cameras and smile to the press while sanctions appear and Bush tells Schroeder that it's out of his hands that the dollar's weak.

It seems there may be disagreement over foreign policy, but the real battlefield will continue to be economic. And the freeze-thaw cycle may continue.

International Herald Tribune - Schröder and Bush get in sync on Mideast

BBC News - Thaw in US-German relations

U.S. and France Set Aside Differences in Effort to Resolve Haiti Conflict

Schröder and Bush get in sync on Mideast

John Vinocur/IHT International Herald Tribune
Saturday, February 28, 2004

Easing prewar feud, they vow to press for regional reforms
 
WASHINGTON President George W. Bush and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, saying their damaged personal relationship had improved, pledged Friday to bring the United States and Germany together to create a new approach for the Middle East that would replace "fear and resentment with freedom and hope."

The two leaders, in a statement on what they called the Greater Middle East, said, "We will coordinate our efforts closely to respond to calls for reform in the region, and to develop specific proposals" to put before the separate summit meetings in June of NATO, the Group of Eight, and American and European Union leaders.

The statement, referring to the White House's Greater Middle East initiative and the German plan for the region proposed by Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, was meant to demonstrate a new level of German-American cooperation after the angry differences of the Iraq war.

In the runup to that conflict, Bush was widely reported to consider Schröder as a leader who had broken a promise to him in early 2002 that he would not oppose American action in Iraq.

Today, although the two men did not look exceptionally at ease, Bush said of Schröder: "The chancellor has a good sense of humor. Therefore he's able to make me laugh." And that, Bush continued, "means I've got a comfortable relationship with him." That improved comfort level was apparently reached partly by a joint agreement to look forward and not dwell on past bitterness over Iraq.

As Schröder said, "Indeed we talked about not about the past; we very much agreed on that we have to talk about the present and the future now." That did not mean, however, that Iraq was off the table. Though the two did not refer to it publicly, Schröder had been expected to make clearer a promise to forgive a substantial portion of the billions of dollars owed it by Iraq. He said before leaving Berlin that Germany was prepared to offer "substantial debt relief." Germany has also agreed to train Iraqi police, beginning in mid-March, in the United Arab Emirates.

And Bush said he was "particularly grateful" for Germany's help in Afghanistan, where he said it was playing a "constructive role in making sure that country is able to survive in a - as a free nation." There was a clear element of American election-year politics in the meeting Friday. Bush seemed determined to demonstrate that the United States' relationship with Europe had not, as some Democrats have charged, strikingly deteriorated.

"Germany is an important nation," he said. "It's essential that America have good relations with Europe." The chancellor, who sought to bolster Germany's role within the EU by showing that ties with America had been re-established at a confident level, talked to reporters after the meeting.

"A very friendly atmosphere," Schröder replied, when a reporter asked him about the quality of his personal relationship with the president. "I'm very satisfied."

A participant at the meeting said that the exchanges ranged from the Middle East to economic problems to both leaders' judgment of President Vladimir Putin of Russia and the present circumstances in the region of the former Soviet Union.

The participant said there had been no reference made to Germany's decision not to provide troops for an eventual NATO mission in Iraq, because the chancellor's viewpoint had been made sufficiently clear prior to the discussions.

The joint statement Friday, in effect, gave Germany a new kind of prominence among European nations on the Middle East.

Bush and Schröder said in a statement: "We commit our nations to an ambitious goal, rooted in our shared values and experience: to promote freedom, democracy, human dignity, the rule of law, economic opportunity, and security in the Greater Middle East. Fear and resentment must be replaced with freedom and hope."

The statement continued, "We must build a genuine partnership connecting Europe and America with the wider Middle East, aimed at cooperating with the countries and peoples of that region to achieve these just objectives and to live side by side in peace."

The participant at the meeting acknowledged that there may be some resentment from other European countries or from the EU itself about the role Germany has taken since Fischer's speech on the Middle East at a security conference in Munich this month.

EU foreign policy officials will be at the White House on Monday for talks about the EU's vision for the region.

France has expressed concerns that German and U.S. references to the role of NATO in the region as a guarantor of security would stir up old resentments and resistance within Arab nations toward Western involvement in the region.

But representatives of the United States and Europe were described by diplomats after the meeting as attempting to consult with Middle Eastern governments about the agendas of the three June meetings. Position papers were also circulating on the American, German and EU initiatives in preparation for two of those meetings, the Group of Eight summit talks at Sea Island, Georgia, and the NATO meeting in Istanbul.

Schröder further stressed in remarks to reporters that the two countries "are together" in "putting disagreements in the past." Along this line, the joint statement described the Americans and Germans as being "united in support of a free Iraq; a secure, unified, democratic and fully sovereign nation." Bush, perhaps in recognition of Germany's desire for multilateral action on the international scale, seemed to go in this direction through a sentence in the statement that said, "We welcome and support the vital and growing role of the United Nations in Iraq." The statement contained no specific reference to Schröder's complaints that the United States had to do more to stop the fall of the dollar against other currencies, and to right the trade imbalances growing out of this situation.

In Schröder's first White House visit in two years, the two leaders also discussed tensions in Korea and the global war on terrorism, they said, without providing details. The chancellor had also been expected to raise European concerns over the fall of the dollar against the euro, which has caused considerable difficulties for European exporters.

Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune

 Thaw in US-German relations
By Justin Webb
BBC correspondent in Washington

After two years of bitter animosity, Germany and the United States are once again friends.

That is the message Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and President George Bush are seeking to convey.

The Bush administration has been at pains recently to point out how grateful it is for German military help in Afghanistan and to promise that although rebuilding contracts in Iraq are to go initially to nations which helped in the war that could change in the future.

Germany for its part has been stressing common goals particularly in the war on terror.

A nasty fallout

Relations really have been quite bad between the two countries.

American leaders were questioning the political good sense of Chancellor Schroeder and suggesting that he was acting in bad faith.

The Germans said the US was acting arrogantly.

It was quite a nasty fallout, but both nations realise that they have a lot to lose if relations are soured in the long term.

Germany is, as President Bush said, a very important country.

It is one of the leaders of the European Union. It is an economic powerhouse - albeit a rather damaged powerhouse in recent years.

There's nothing wrong with friends having differences and we're both committed to putting the differences behind us
President Bush

For Germany not to be on board in the wider war on terrorism and other American policy objectives around the world would be quite a serious thing.

And both leaders realise that, which explains why they were so keen to patch up the differences they have had.

However, there is very little of substance that has changed.

From the American side, they are not yet in a position to tell the Germans that they can have their companies bid for contracts to rebuild Iraq.

From the German side, they are not yet ready to say they will send German troops to Iraq as they have to Afghanistan.

Changing mood music

The two men were asked mainly about Iraq but that subject was challenged for its place at the top of the agenda today by the more pressing question of the weakness of the dollar.

It is a weakness which has boosted American companies - with American goods much cheaper in Europe - and harmed European firms, with European goods more expensive in America.

There is still a suspicion on the German side that not enough is being done to keep the dollar at what they consider an acceptable exchange rate.

But the chancellor says he accepts President Bush's promise that he has not deliberately allowed the dollar to weaken in order to boost US manufacturers at the expense of Europeans.

On none of these things do we see agreement, but the mood music has changed with respect to the Germans and the Americans.

And mood music is important in international relations.

President Bush spoke very warmly about Chancellor Schroeder, saying that he made him laugh and has a great sense of humour.

And President Bush sets great store by his personal relationship with foreign leaders and on that subject he made it clear that things were going well.

It may well mean that some of those substantive issues might see progress in the not so distant future.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/3494744.stm

Published: 2004/02/27 21:53:44 GMT

© BBC MMIV

March 3, 2004
THE ALLIES

U.S. and France Set Aside Differences in Effort to Resolve Haiti Conflict
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

ARIS, March 2 — It took a crisis over the Caribbean country of Haiti to get French-American relations back on track.

There is nothing romantic about the reconciliation. The United States and France are motivated by their own histories, national interests and domestic politics in deciding to work together to send troops to restore order to Haiti after the departure of Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

When it comes to Iraq, by contrast, President Bush's conviction that he was right in waging war remains as fixed as President Jacques Chirac's conviction that he was right in opposing it.

But the joint diplomacy over Haiti is a dramatic example of how the longtime allies can set aside differences, find common ground, play to their strengths and even operate in an atmosphere of trust.

On Monday, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, described the departure of Mr. Aristide as a result of "perfect coordination" between France and the United States.

On Tuesday, Mr. Bush telephoned Mr. Chirac to express delight over "the excellent French-American cooperation in Haiti" and to "thank France for its action," Catherine Colonna, Mr. Chirac's spokeswoman, told reporters.

Mr. Chirac responded that he was also pleased that France and the United States had such "good diplomacy working" and that they now needed to bring peace and stability to Haiti, Ms. Colonna said in a subsequent telephone interview.

France was willing to take the lead, and the heat, in proposing the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to its French-speaking former colony, urging Mr. Aristide to step aside and helping facilitate his departure. It was only after Mr. de Villepin laid out the proposal that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell followed suit.

France, with the United States, also persuaded the Central African Republic to give Mr. Aristide temporary exile, and France is helping protect him with troops stationed in the impoverished country since a military coup there last year, two senior French officials said.

Despite initial French reluctance to send troops that might be portrayed at home to be part of an American military "invasion" of Haiti, French and American forces will work side by side, as they do in Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

By Wednesday, 350 French troops from both the Foreign Legion and the navy based in the Caribbean will be deployed in Haiti.

On Tuesday, Defense Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie acknowledged that France was involved in protecting Mr. Aristide but said he was free to leave whenever he wished.

"Today, he is protected and not imprisoned," Ms. Alliot-Marie said in an interview with Europe 1 radio.

She added that, "France is not controlling his comings and goings," but that, "this is simply a question of ensuring that his temporary stay in the Central African Republic takes place under normal conditions."

But Mr. Aristide can go nowhere unless another country gives him asylum, and Ms. Alliot-Marie did not say where or when he might be going.

However, her remarks prompted a swift denial by Col. Christian Baptiste, the spokesman for the French Armed Forces.

"She's not in the know with what is happening in regards to the security of this man," he said in a telephone interview, adding, "There was no physical or verbal contact between the French and the Aristide group."

A senior official at Élysée Palace also said French troops helped Mr. Aristide's plane to land but were not stationed anywhere near the place where he had taken refuge.

A senior Defense Ministry official defended his boss, saying that local authorities would never have agreed to accept Mr. Aristide, however temporarily, without guarantees of French protection.

During the Iraq crisis, Mr. Powell and Mr. de Villepin each felt betrayed by the other. The low point came in January 2003 when Mr. Powell felt he had been blindsided when Mr. de Villepin turned a Security Council meeting into a forum to severely criticize Washington and declare that nothing justified envisaging military action in Iraq. American officials who were with Mr. Powell that day said at the time that they had never seen him so angry.

In turn, Mr. de Villepin said he felt betrayed by Mr. Powell's assurances that the goal of American policy was not to overthrow Saddam Hussein but to disarm Iraq.

But that was then. The Haiti crisis has required Mr. Powell and Mr. de Villepin to consult regularly by phone, sometimes more than once a day.

Both nations have an interest in forestalling an influx of refugees — the Bush administration to Florida during an election year, and France to its Caribbean provinces.

About a million French citizens live in the Caribbean area.

Galileo "A nail in the coffin of an independent European Defense"?

Galileo is key to the constitution of an independent European Defense. The EU commission presents the agreement with the US as favorable (see Federico's entry). The situation might be more complex though.

This is the conclusion drawn by Strafor.com a site specialized in intelligence analisis with close ties to official military and intelligence institutions:

"The crux of the agreement is that both GPS and Galileo will share the Binary Offset Carrier (BOC) 1.1 signal -- wholly separate from the U.S. M-Code -- and have agreements in place to optimize the performance of the shared signal in the future. This is almost exactly what NATO had proposed nearly two years ago and means that Galileo will be a European commercial competitor, but GPS will remain the primary satellite navigation system used by NATO -- with Galileo likely acting as a backup system.

"The preservation of the U.S. M-Code as the military navigation frequency ensures that all European militaries -- whether they like it or not -- are inextricably linked to the U.S. Global Positioning System for the foreseeable future."

Energy chief challenges EU stance on Kyoto

One of the issues that have caused a major rift between the US and the EU is now dividing EU commission members. The FT reported that Loyola de Palacio, EU commissioner for energy and transport, suggested that the EU should back away from the Kyoto protocol and look for alternative ways to reduce green house gas emissions while maintaining competitiveness in industry. After the US and Australia indicated that they will not join, the fate of the protocol rests on Russia which has been taking a long time to make a decision. Margo Wallstrom, EU environmental commissioner and architect of the protocol that allows individuals countries to trade on emissions targets, declared that she was undermining her efforts to get Russia to ratify the protocol.

I have attached three articles that have been published in the FT and the Irish Times that indicate that there may be underlying issues such as de Palacio’s interest in how the protocol could affect Spanish industry (her home country) as well as the concern that the EU is not provided a united front on this issue.

Energy chief challenges EU stance on Kyoto, Financial Times, Feb. 26, 2004

Prodi stands by EU Kyoto policy, Financial Times, Feb. 27, 2004

Prodi rejects talk of discarding Kyoto, Irish Times, Feb. 27, 2004

Financial Times (London, England)
February 26, 2004 Thursday
SECTION: INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY;
Energy chief challenges EU stance on Kyoto
BYLINE: By TOBIAS BUCK

Loyola de Palacio, the European Union commissioner for transport and energy, has openly challenged the European Union's commitment to the Kyoto protocol, arguing that plans to implement cuts in greenhouse gas emissions pose a severe threat to European industry.

Though she said she supported the Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the EU by 8 per cent between 2008 and 2012, Ms de Palacio told the FT that the Union should explore alternative ways of meeting that goal.

In her most trenchant comments on the issue to date, Ms de Palacio asked: "Should we maintain our position or not? Maybe there are no alternatives. But I think there are alternatives.

"We should look at other ways of achieving our goal - to reduce emissions - while maintaining the competitiveness of our industry."

Ms de Palacio's latest intervention represents a provocative break with the Commission's agreed position and is certain to increase tensions between her and Margot Wallstrom, the environment commissioner.

Ms Wallstrom is the architect of the legislative package that seeks to implement the emission cuts through an emission trading scheme based on individual national reduction targets.

Ms Wallstrom has complained repeatedly that Ms de Palacio is underming her efforts to get countries such as Russia to ratify the protocol and has labelled her "disloyal". Such open criticism is extremely rare among Commissioners, who generally seek to present a united front on crucial policy issues.

But Ms de Palacio insisted that she had the right to speak her mind. "I cannot shut up when confronted with a big problem, especially one that falls into my direct responsibility. Energy is my responsibility."

Ms de Palacio's comments are also certain to infuriate environmental groups, which look to the EU as one of the last bastions of support for the Kyoto protocol. However, she is likely to be backed by many European businesses, some of which have already threatened to abandon the EU if forced to implement strict emission-reduction targets.

The US and Australia have already made clear that they will not apply the Kyoto protocol, which also does not bind emerging economies such as China and India.

The protocol can now come into effect only if Russia agrees to ratify it, and its reluctance to do so until now is one of the prime reasons for Ms de Palacio's decision.

"Unhappily, it looks as if the Russians are not going to ratify. This is something that needs to be addressed," she said. Ms de Palacio would not comment on what alternative approach she had in mind for implementing the Kyoto targets, insisting that she merely wanted to stimulate a debate.

But she pointed out that there were always two ways of achieving a goal: "You can punish and threaten or you can give incentives."

She said her calls for a rethink had won the support of a growing number of EU member states: "Several ministers from different countries, both from northern and southern Europe, have told me in private that they have great concerns.

"And this concern is growing and growing."

Financial Times (London, England)
February 27, 2004 Friday
London Edition 1
SECTION: INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY; Pg. 11
HEADLINE: Prodi stands by EU Kyoto policy
BYLINE: By TOBIAS BUCK

The European Commission sought yesterday to paper over the cracks that have emerged in its position on implementing the Kyoto protocol, after one of its members said the European Union should think about different ways to achieve its target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In a statement by Romano Prodi, Commission president, the Brussels-based executive said it "strongly rejects all calls to change its position concerning the ratification of the Kyoto protocol and its full implementation by the European Union".

The move followed comments by Loyola de Palacio, the Commission vice-president in charge of energy and transport, in an interview with the FT in which she called for a rethink on the EU approach to implementing the protocol.

Though she insisted that the EU should keep to its target of lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 8 per cent between 2008 and 2012, she called for a debate over whether there were better ways of reaching that goal.

She pointed out that Russia was unlikely to ratify the protocol, which would mean the agreement would not come into force. "This is something that needs to be addressed," Ms de Palacio said, pointing out that the reductions were likely to dent the competitiveness of European industry.

Her comments represent a challenge to EU legislation that seeks to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through an emissions trading system based on national reductions targets.

People close to Margot Wallstrom, the environment commissioner and architect of that legislation, yesterday expressed their anger at Ms de Palacio, saying the energy commissioner was "damaging the EU's standing".

"De Palacio has undermined the Commission's position," one person close to Ms Wallstrom said. "She is a commissioner and she has to stand behind Commission decisions."

However, Ms de Palacio reiterated her concerns at a press conference in Madrid yesterday. According to Reuters, she said the EU should give Russia until 2005 at the latest to ratify the protocol.

If Moscow failed to do so, the EU should reconsider its proposed emissions trading scheme, Ms de Palacio added.

The Irish Times
February 27, 2004
SECTION: CITY EDITION; BUSINESS AND FINANCE; Pg. 51
Prodi rejects talk of discarding Kyoto
BYLINE: By TIM KING

The President of the European Commission, Mr Romano Prodi, yesterday rejected "all calls" to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions. His declaration was forced by an interview given by Commission vice-president Ms Loyola de Palacio in which she suggested that the EU should find alternatives to Kyoto for fear of damaging the competitiveness of European industry.

"We cannot and we will not back down in the fight against human-induced climate change," Mr Prodi said in an attempt to re-establish the Commission's position.

The comments from his energy commissioner directly contradicted the stance long held by the Commission and the majority of EU states, but they reflect growing concern in Ms de Palacio's home country about how Spanish industry may be affected.

EU states have until the end of March to submit their national plans for allocating licences for emissions of carbon dioxide.

The Republic published its plans this week. Although Kyoto will not enter into force unless and until Russia ratifies the protocol, the European Environment Commissioner, Mrs Margot Wallstrom, maintains that the EU should press ahead with emissions trading on the terms laid down at Kyoto.

EU-US agreement gives Galileo the green light

This is a very important step forward for the European defense policy. Keep in mind that without an independent satellite system (like Galileo) the European armies are electronically "blind" and therefore guided by the US.
Date: March 1st, 2004
Source: Cordis Rtd-News.

After three years of talks, the EU and the US have finally reached agreement on the frequency to be used by Galileo, Europe's satellite navigation system, clearing the way for the operational phase of the project.
A deal on the signal structure to be used by Galileo proved problematic because of US fears that the European system could interfere with its planned M-code military signal. The agreement, reached on 25 February, will see the adoption of a common baseline signal structure for both the EU and the US open services. The future US GPS will use a BOC 1,1 signal, whereas the Galileo open service will use a fully compatible optimised version of the same signal that guarantees a high level of performance.
'This is another very important step for the Galileo project, which recognises both sides as equal partners and creates the optimal conditions for the development of the European system, fully independent and compatible [...] with the American GPS,' said Loyola de Palacio, European Commission Vice President responsible for transport and energy.
Elaborating on the EU-US agreement, she explained: 'This agreement will allow all users to use, in a complementary way, both systems with the same receiver: it creates indeed the world standard of radio navigation by satellite. I'm happy to see that we agreed not to freeze the performance of signal modulations: on the contrary, it establishes clear rules for both parties to jointly or individually continuously improve the performance of their respective systems, for the benefit of all users worldwide.'
So that both systems can be improved in the future, the agreement also allows for a degree of optimisation of the baseline signal structures, either jointly or individually, in order to further improve performance.
A few outstanding issues remain, predominantly related to legal issues and procedural aspects, which still need to be resolved, but these are not expected to delay the signing of a formal agreement, anticipated to take place in the coming weeks.
For further information on Galileo, please consult the following web addresses:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/galileo/index.htm
http://www.esa.int/export/esaNA/GGGMX650NDC_index_0.html
Category: General policy
Data Source Provider: European Commission
Document Reference: Based on IP/04/264
Programme or Service Acronym: FRAMEWORK 6C; FP6-INTEGRATING; FP6-AEROSPACE
Subject Index : Aerospace Technology; Coordination, Cooperation
RCN: 21669
CORDIS RTD-NEWS/© European Communities

Headscarves: France and Britain, two different models

Other than being a good description of the “war of the headscarves” that is currently troubling France, the article is a very complete and compelling theorization of different European approaches to ethnic diversity, in comparison to the American model, too.
In brief, the author defines a French model of multiculturalism (based on a particularly conscious integration), a British model (consisting in "not worrying" and leaving ethnic minorities alone by the state to practice their faith and culture), and the American affirmative-action style.
I think it would be very important -- for both European and non-European citizens -- to start thinking about what might be the dominant, winning model for the new Europe, and about its relation with the U.S.
I am sure the article will be a crucial foundation for our reporting in France.

"The war of headscarves", The Economist
www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2404691

Gypsies, HIV and scaring media

These are two additional articles on the immigrant workers’ issue. The first (“Britain to unveil restrictions…”) is a clear explanation of Britain’s plan of a “managed migration” that could benefit the country’s economy. The article underlines two distinct but complementary positions: acceptance of skilled workers, on one hand, and zero tolerance toward “those who aim only to exploit the nation’s welfare benefits” on the other.
But what strikes the most is the European media approach to the issue: it is clear that some Eurosceptic newspapers (mainly conservative ones) used the topic as a mean to scream scared warnings, some of which seem deeply xenophobic, especially toward the gypsy community. (This could be an interesting topic for our European reports: what is the EU attitude toward the Roma community? Why does the community raise so much racist feelings?)
According to the article, there is a real immigration panic throughout the “old Europe”, and even some metropolitan legends are finding their way in the public opinion (the idea that new immigrants could carry the HIV virus is just ridiculous!)
The second article points out that the British measures are less tough than those imposed on the eight new entries by most other existing EU members.
The most interesting part of the piece is an overview of the British Press. Although “The Sun” is certainly not the best media model, it’s one of the most popular daily papers. And the fact that arguments such as “the country would be swamped by sick immigrants from Eastern Europe, taking advantage of the free National Health Service” is just scaring.

EU Business, "Britain to unveil restrictions on immigrants from new EU nations"
href=www.eubusiness.com/afp/040222165102.2ovgof4t
EU Business, "British government defends rules on EU entrants after 'influx' claims" href=www.eubusiness.com/afp/040224113251.8ar87jez

Is it right to restrict access of new EU workers?

Here are some stories about last week’s European measures on the “freedom to work”. Nothing really new, but it’s a good summary. Also, it is interesting to see that the site proposes a poll to figure out if these measures are necessary and justified.
The question is: “Are current EU members right to restrict access of workers from new member states to their labour markets?”
What do you all think about that?

EU Business, "EU's freedom to work laws under threat".
href=www.eubusiness.com/topics/Newswire/EUNews.2004-02-27.0036

Au revoir l'Europe à deux vitesses?

Roya was right to signal Fisher's evolution (see her post just before this one). Chirac has moved in the same direction. During an official visit to Hungary on February 23rd and 24th, he has declared : "I know the questions raised by an enlarged Europe as its capacity to move forward. I am aware too of the fear that a two-speed Europe may trigger. I want to solemny declare that France wants to build a Europe of 25 countries!"

Does that mean that the two-speed Europe is dead? Not necessarily. French and German agree to be careful, that's for sure. The problems of an enlarged Europe remain and time will tell if Chirac and Fisher really meant what they said. Nevertheless, it's importante t acknowledge the fact that they felt obliged to reassure their partners.

Le Monde - Devant le Parlement hongrois, Jacques Chirac clame sa foi dans l'Europe à vingt-cinq

Devant le Parlement hongrois, Jacques Chirac clame sa foi dans l'Europe à vingt-cinq

LE MONDE | 24.02.04
Paris veut dissiper les craintes des pays de l'Est.
Budapest de notre envoyée spéciale

Jacques Chirac a mis à profit sa visite à Budapest, lundi 23 et mardi 24 février, pour tenter de lever la suspicion dont la France fait l'objet dans plusieurs des pays de l'Est qui intégreront l'Union européenne le 1er mai. Et c'est une véritable profession de foi dans l'Europe à 25 qu'il a délivrée, mardi matin, dans son discours devant le Parlement hongrois.

Le terrain était favorable : les dirigeants hongrois, qui sont considérés comme les "bons élèves" parmi les nouveaux entrants dans l'Union, ne font pas partie des francophiles déçus des pays de l'Est. Le président Ferenc Madl, qui a reçu, lundi, M. Chirac au palais Sander, sur les hauts de Buda, a abondamment remercié la France pour le soutien qu'elle a apporté à la Hongrie pendant les années de transition et pour "le rôle qu'elle a joué en faveur de l'avènement de l'Europe à 25", en affirmant, à plusieurs reprises, que le mérite en revenait "tout particulièrement au président Chirac".

Au-delà des politesses - dont il n'a pas, lui non plus, été avare -, le président français s'est efforcé, mardi, devant le Parlement hongrois, de dissiper point par point les malentendus qu'a pu susciter dans la région sa politique européenne. L'Europe nouvelle, selon Jacques Chirac, "doit être une Europe en marche et qui poursuit son intégration". "Je sais les interrogations que suscite une Europe élargie quant à sa capacité à aller de l'avant. Je perçois également la crainte, chez certains, d'une Europe à deux vitesses. Je tiens à le dire solennellement : c'est une Europe à 25 que la France veut construire !", a affirmé M. Chirac. Ni les sommets à deux, franco- allemands, ou à trois, comme celui du 18 février à Berlin avec les Britanniques, ni non plus l'idée des "groupes pionniers" pour lesquels plaide la France ne visent à imposer quoi que ce soit aux autres, a dit M. Chirac, surtout pas à réintroduire des divisions en Europe, contrairement à ce qu'ont redouté certains publiquement, notamment l'ancien président tchèque Vaclav Havel.

Les "groupes pionniers" sont appelés à ouvrir la voie pour les autres, "à défricher en éclaireurs certains domaines où l'Europe peut s'intégrer davantage", a expliqué M. Chirac, avant d'ajouter : "Il ne s'agit pas de diviser, il ne s'agit pas d'exclure (...). De tout cœur, je souhaite que la Hongrie se joigne à ce mouvement." La Hongrie le souhaite elle-même pour l'euro, dès qu'il lui sera possible de rejoindre la zone de la monnaie unique. Elle s'intéresse aussi à la défense européenne, mais avec des interrogations nées en grande partie de la crise irakienne et auxquelles le président français s'est efforcé de répondre : "N'en doutez pas. Nul ne demande à la Hongrie de choisir entre l'OTAN et la défense européenne. Les Etats-Unis sont nos alliés. Une Europe plus forte, c'est une Alliance plus forte."

Enfin, M. Chirac a essayé de démentir l'idée selon laquelle l'entrée des nouveaux pays membres dans l'Union allait s'accompagner d'un repli budgétaire avaricieux de ceux qui font déjà partie du "club". Il n'a toutefois pas promis de miracle : "Dans un cadre financier qui n'est pas extensible à loisir, a-t-il dit, la France veillera à ce que les arbitrages de l'Union soient rendus dans l'esprit de solidarité qui la fonde et que, à juste titre, vous attendez d'elle."

Claire Tréan

• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 25.02.04

Auf wiedersehen two-speed Europe

In an apparent shift away from his vision of a two-speed Europe, Germany's foreign minister Joshka Fischer is now saying the idea of a hard core Europe should be abandoned in pursuit of an integrated Europe. It seems his comments are designed to ameliorate certain EU members in order to bring about a resolution to the stalled constiutional negotiations.

It's one thing to say so publicly, but Germany and France will remain Europe's engines, so in theory an integrated Europe makes sense, but with 30 plus countries in the EU, a small core of leaders will always hold more clout and lead the EU in a certain direction.

Deutsche Welle, Fischer departs from Idea of a Core Europe

This site includes a link to the original Berliner Zeitung article in German EurActiv

I found the D-W news item first, but there's a full article in Financial Times

Fischer Departs From Idea of Core Europe