December 08, 2005
US-Poland Security Meeting
Gazeta Wyborcza reports on a meeting between US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsefeld and his Polish counterpart, Radek Sikorski. Poland has a substantial contingent in Iraq - 1,700 men - and has apparently agreed to say on for the medium term, albeit with some reductions and a shift from security operations to training. Sikorski insisted that this was a measure to enhance Poland's security, and not a dig for increases in US aid. Having said that, he then noted that he and Rumsfeld also discussed Poland's expecations of the US, which apparently include help in procuring advanced weapon's technology, communications equipment and smart bombs. Also a Polish priority is American cooperation in the development of the joint Polish-Ukrainian batallion, with the goal of upgrading it to a Polish-Ukrainian-American brigade. This may seem like a distant triviality to American observers, but the Polish goal is actually quite audacious - such a unit would help anchor Ukraine in the Western alliance, and bring US influence right up to the western borders of Russia.
Posted 02:46 AM | Comments (0)
December 06, 2005
The challenges of Condoleeza Rice in Europe
The discussion about the CIA flights and secret prisons is growing as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is beginning an official visit in Europe. Recent allegations about the use of German airports to transport suspected terrorists will particularly hamper her first step in Berlin.
After the designation of Angela Merkel as German Chancellor, this visit was a good opportunity to “repair the damaging rift between the countries over Iraq,” remarks the British newspaper, The Guardian.
“But the trip has been overshadowed by the growing dispute about the CIA's use of rendition,” the transport of suspects to countries where US laws do not apply. “The controversy comes at the worst possible time for Ms. Merkel, who was looking forward to a swift transatlantic rapprochement. Ms. Merkel is seen as an economic liberal, an Atlanticist and an honest broker in the mould of Helmut Kohl, her mentor,” adds the Financial Times. It is then no surprise if the German government is attempting to downplay the issue. But it will be difficult for Ms. Merkel to ignore German public opinion, which has been even more shocked with the first kidnapping of a German national in Iraq last week, reminds the FT.
Moreover, another problem threatens European governments. “If the former government were found to have known that Germany was being used as transit point for captives on their way to being tortured, it might be found to have breached international law,” says the FT.
That could also be the case for the British government. And The Guardian cites a report of the New York University Law School’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, which explains that London could face legal sanctions in the case that it allowed secret CIA flights to stop in Great Britain.
Posted 11:27 AM | Comments (0)
A new rendition
The Guardian runs a story about how the Bush Administration's much-touted European offensive appears to be faltering already a day into Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's visit.
Focusing on the legal defenses of the administration, the reporter repeatedly mentions how Rice continues to frame the debate in terms of rendition, or the transportation of alleged terrorists to clandestine sites where they are suspected of being tortured outside the bounds of any legal system.
One of the most gaping flaws in the use of rendition, according to some legal experts, is the claim that it was "necessary in instances where local governments did not have the capacity to prosecute a terror suspect, or in cases where al-Qaida members were operating in remote areas far from an operational justice system."
But the suspects were generally all obtained in dense urban, and therefore infrastructurally sound environments for legal prosecution. One, of course, can argue whether Karachi, and therefore Pakistan, is a suitable location for the due process of law to be enacted, but either way Rice's logic appears to be loosening in the wake of international criticism over such methods.
Interestingly, this and other sources in the European press appear to be unable to ascertain what Washington's (self-admittedly) unique definition of torture is.
Posted 01:38 AM | Comments (0)
December 04, 2005
Rice to address CIA on Europe trip
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will try to turn the tables on critics of U.S. terrorism policy in Europe this week, arguing that the United States acts legally and does not ship suspected terrorists around the globe to be tortured.
One of leading newspaper in Japan, Asahi, is paying attention to the travel across Europe by Secretary Rice as well, since awaiting Rice on her stops in Germany, Belgium, Romania and other destinations will be questions about alleged human rights violations supposedly engineered by Washington.
Citing human rights abuses in its handling of detainees at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba and Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq by the US and also the prison camps during the civil war of the former Yugoslavia , Asahi's Sunday editrial says "If these same countries fail to take a stern and critical look at their own actions, the so-called humanitarianism of the United States and Europe will be condemned as two-faced hypocrisy."
Secretary Rice owes the EU a clear explanation of what has taken place, followed by immediate action by Washington to rectify any wrongdoing.At the same time, the EU should conduct its own independent survey. Until the whole truth about the secret jail claims is told and the citizens of Europe are satisfied with what has been done to rectify the matter, it will be difficult to declare the Continent has truly taken to heart the sad legacy of the Holocaust.
The time has likewise come for the United States and Europe to mend the rift that has widened over the Iraq war and promote greater cross-Atlantic cooperation in rebuilding that shattered nation and on other fronts.
Vague and evasive responses to the current secret jail claims won't serve to move things in that direction.
Posted 11:39 PM | Comments (1)
December 01, 2005
Yellowcake, again
A new episode in the Yellowcake case. Today La Repubblica runs an interview with Alain Chouet, French 007 till 2002. The interview controverts the Italian government reconstruction in four essential points:
1. Rocco Martino, the fake Italian 007, did not work for the DGSE (Direction Générale de la Sécurité extérieure), as the Italian government stated.
2. CIA gets the fake documents about the Niger Yellocake in June 2002. That is, when the Italian magazine Panorama gives the fake documents to the American Embassy in Rome in August 2002, CIA already has the documents.
3. As opposed to what stated by the Italian government, the DGSE did not pass the documents to Washington. On the contrary, Washington passed the documents to the DGSE asking to verify them. The DGSE informs Washington that the documents are false since July 2002.
4. Rocco Martino gets in touch with the DGSE only in the summer of 2002, not before.
If what stated by Alain Chouet is true, as it seems to be so far, La Repubblica gets another scoop about the Yellowcake.
Posted 04:15 PM | Comments (0)
November 29, 2005
Black Sites in Eastern Europe - The EU is not amused
It has been some weeks since the revelation that the US has set up a world-wide network of secret prisons to house terror-related detainees out of the jurisdiction of US courts. Two Eastern European countries have been named as sites - Poland and Romania. Although the governments of both states deny the allegations, the White House has so far refused to confirm or deny the existence of these prisons.
Despite the Polish and Romanian denials and the silence from Washington, the EU is taking these charges very seriously and has begun discussion possible disceplinary measures against any European states housing such prisons. Both the BBC and the Guardian report that EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini, the top judicial official in the EU, announced that penalties may include the suspension of Council voting rights for Poland, an EU member. This action would be justified under EU conventions pledging to defend democracy, the rule of law and human rights. For Romania, aspiring to EU membership, the consequences could be even more severe - the head of the EU Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee has called for reopening the negotiation process, a backwards step for a country that has already signed accession agreements.
Posted 02:44 AM | Comments (0)
The Torture debate viewed from Poland
The Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza runs an article summarizing the recent torture debates in America. It reprises for Polish audiences debates that by now are familiar to most people following US news - the introduction of the McCain ammendment, the question of drawing a line for interrogation techniques, the new vulnerability of the Bush White House on this issue. A few interesting remarks are made that haven't cropped up elsewhere, however. The article notes that this is far from a new issue - the New Yorker and other higher-end news magazines have been sustaining this discussion for over a year, but it took Congress taking up the issue for it to break into the mainstream imagination.
More interesting, however, is a detail that emerges when the piece examines the effectiveness of torture in intelligence gathering. Apparently in 2002, Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, a senior Al-Qaeda operative caputured in Afghanistan, revealed under torture that Al-Qaeda had sent agents into Iraq, although he later reversed these statements. This information became part of the case for the Iraq invasion and was used to brief Colin Powell before his now infamous session at the UN.
Posted 01:25 AM | Comments (0)
November 21, 2005
US Senate criticizes Siberian exile
Poland's Gazeta Wyborcza picks up a Russia news story concerning a US Senate resolution about the imprisonment of the two former oligarchs of now-defunct Yukos, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. Having been charged and convicted of tax evasion, they are serving out their sentences in Siberia and on the Yamal Peninsula, above the Arctic Circle. This is in violation of Russian penal law, which indicates that convicts serve their sentence either in the area where they reside or where they were convicted - in the case of the Yukos chiefs, this would be Moscow. The prisons that house Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are among the most notorious in Russia. The US Senate has therefore passed a resolution calling on their transfer out of these remote penal colonies back to the Moscow area.
The Senate resolution, of course, has no authority over the Russia government, and it taken as a symbolic gesture. These resolutions are not altogether uncommon - they are seen by US senators as easy ways of placating domestic constituencies. US newspapers do not take such resolutions particularly seriously, and none have reported on this case. But this story in the flagship Polish paper is suggestive of a number of things. First, Poles care much more about the US Senate taking a hard line on Russia than Americans seem to. Second, Poland still grants the US a measure of moral authority, something unlikely in the rest of Europe. Third, it turns out that Khodorkovsky has a certain level of organization and political support in the US. And finally, perhaps this is a sign that US lawmakers are resigned to their own bad reputation concerning detainees, and rather then defending their own record prefer to point out abuses elsewhere.
Posted 11:23 PM | Comments (0)
Poland and missile defense - interview with a former ambassador
Gazeta Wyborcza publishes an interview with Przemysław Grudziński, security scholar and former Polish ambassador to Washington. There is no news to report - negotiations with the US are ongoing about basing interceptors in Poland - but Grudziński clearly spells out Poland's fairly high hopes for the initiative. He notes that previous Western and US oriented security moves - joining NATO, the purchase of US F-16 fighters, participation in the Iraq war - have yet to pay dividends, but he is optimistic that the logistical, manufacturing and infrastructure requirements of hosting bases will serve to spur economic development in Poland. He also notes that such a move would cement Poland's place among the staunchest US allies. It seems that previous disappointments with the US have only increased Poles' desire to demonstrate thier reliability and loyalty.
A final decision on base locations is expected within a few weeks. Originally, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were considered as possible host countries, but worsening relations between Prague and Washington have ruled out the Czechs. While Hungary still remains a possibility, the odds-on favorite is Poland.
Posted 11:05 PM | Comments (0)
November 13, 2005
Missile Defense Base in Poland
Gazeta Wyborcza reports that today the new right-wing government of Poland has formally announced its willingness to participate in the American ballistic missile defense program, even to the point of housing anti-missile rockets in Poland. According to the article, secret negotiations have been taking place between Washington and Warsaw for the last six months, suggesting that the former leftist government also supported this policy. It goes on to cite that Pentagon officials will make a decision in the next six months whether to take up Poland's offer of basing interceptor missiles.
Posted 11:38 PM | Comments (0)
"Black Sites" in Eastern Europe
It has been two weeks since the revelation in the Washington Post that the US holds terror-related subjects in secret prisons in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, presumably to keep them out of the jurisdiction of US law. In Poland, one of the Eastern European countries widely suspected to house one such prison, the reaction has been slow and muted. I only found one piece that dealt with the issue, and only in passing in an article on Guantanamo Bay. The article reported the existence of secret prisons in the Middle East and Asia, but questioned whether any were located in Eastern Europe. The piece cites a Polish intelligence officer denying reports of CIA prisons in Poland, but goes on to note that the Czech government has acknowledged receiving a request to set such a prison up. Czech sources insist that that request was denied.
Posted 11:28 PM | Comments (0)
A French lesson to learn
Quite surprisingly in November 11th Italian newspaper La Repubblica the Minister for Inner Affairs, Giuseppe Pisanu, warns against the risk that our city suburbs may experience the same revolt as the French “banlieues”.
Just a few days before, the same Minister had stated that Italy would not run the same risk as France. According to his analysis Italy’s main problems were: terrorism, unauthorized immigration and organized criminality (mafia, camorra, n’drangeta). Pisanu’s latest statement appears to have taken into account the recent analyses of opinion makers and psycho sociologists aimed at answering the following questions: who are the French violent young people? What do they want? How can they be handled?
Who are they? On the 8th of November “Otto e mezzo” at La7Tv has invited, besides some Italian guests, the French sociologist Catherine de Wenders and the social operator Fedela Amara to debate the subject. In spite of their different political orientations the guests all agreed: those French sons, second or third generation of immigrants, have the same look and attitude as those young violent people (Dissidents, Black Bloks and Squatters) who have demonstrated against Bush in Rio del Plata or in Genoa during the G8.
What do they want? On this point opinions diverge. Left leaning analysts insist on the youth’s request for equal rights, equal chances for employment, a better standard of life, and the end of their social marginalization. The conservatives insists on the fact that Paris’ protesting youth (the “casseurs”) like the violent youth all over the world, do not aim at anything in particular but destroying.
To strengthen this opinion Renzo Foa, political editorialist at “Il Giornale” writes on November the 9th that “nihilism” is the most appropriate word to describe the devastating vague of violence investing the French “banlieues.”
What to do? “Il Sole-24 ore”, newspaper of the Italian Industry Association, analyses under the title “Il disagio dell’altra Francia” the failure of French immigration policy. Too much statism, concludes the newspaper, has in fact inhibited those sons of immigrants any wish of integration and social growth.
According to “Il Riformista” newspaper of the Reforming Left, the model to follow would be the American one. Which means: 1) Strict respect of the law, more severe punishments for criminals. 2) Reforming the job market to increase employment. 3) Concrete opportunities for urban minorities for progressing and improving their status provided that they respect the rules of society.
This is not enough according to Giuliano Ferrara, editor of “Il Foglio”. What matters lays in the word “westernization”, i.e. to become member of our western society, the significance of a strong, but not arrogant, identity to be proud of. In other words it would be necessary to show those young people that their existence and work are based on economical and political freedom rather than on State assistance.
Posted 10:05 PM | Comments (0)
November 08, 2005
Cool Guantanamo
Poland's Gazeta Wybrocza sends Marcin Gadziński on a tour of Camp Delta, the American detainment center at Guantanamo Bay. Setting out, he admits a certain ambivalence:
What is Guantanamo? I considered this on the flight into Cuba. A sybol of American's contempt for the rule of law? Their use of force against individuals who haven't even been formally accused of anything? Or, as Amnesty International alleges, the "gulag of our time?"
But quite quickly into his trip, he reaches the exact opposite conclusion. Under a headline asking "Guantanamo: Gulag or vacation resort?" he describes seeing prisoners, well hydrated with gatorade, playing soccer (and not evening pausing their game at the call to prayer), snacking on California strawberries and Milky Way bars, and making jokes with their guards. Every effort is made to make their incarceration comfortable - prison cooks look up Afghan and Arab recipes on the internet, guards are prohbited from even touching prisoners' Korans, and during Ramadan meals are served before sunrise or after sunset - even the force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strikes only takes place at night.
Gadziński tries to explain the cause for the camps dismal and widespread reputation. The first pictures that came out - of hooded prisoners kneeling in low cages, surrounded by barbed wire - were of Camp X-Ray, a hastily-constructed temporary facility that has since been replaced with the more spacious and adequate Camp Delta. In talking with camp officials, he brings up prisoner allegations about torture. American soldiers explain that, in the early stages of the camp, with 9/11 still fresh in everyone's mind and a very living fear of fresh attacks, the now-notorious interrogation tactics of stress positions, canine intimidation and sexual humiliation were used against inmates. But these were necessary measures, camp officers insist - a lot of good information came out of those interrogations that ended up saving American lives. Since then, and after the outcry over prisoner abuse at Abu Ghreib, those techniques have been suspended and replaced with less invasive, more effective ones.
Bringing up prisoner protestations of innocence, Gadziński is referred to the "Manchester document," a section of an Al-Quaeda manual that gives advice for those caputred. It's first rule is to provide as little information as possible, it's second to always allege torture, and it's third to always protest your innocence. Spreading stories about prisoners innocence, one general tells him, just plays into the hands of Al-Quaeda.
Gadziński sees little at the camp to upset him about this "vital bastion in the war on terror." He describes a friendly staff, respect for prisoners (all of whom, we are reminded, are dangerous terrorists) and clean, spacious conditions (the article is illustrated with slides of the spartan by spic-and-span cells). It's clear that on the gulag vs. vacation resort question, he's been decisively persuaded to the resort side.
Posted 03:42 PM | Comments (0)
Map of the rios in France
THis is a map of the places where riots have taken place. It was published by Le Monde on November 7th.
Posted 01:31 PM | Comments (0)
November 07, 2005
Two Perspectives on America in the West
Two high-brow American boutique publications - Harper's magazine and the New York Times magazine - have recently published two radically different takes on the ambivalent place of the United States in the Western community of nations.
The New York Times' James Traub starts with the recent awarding of the Nobel Prize in literature to Harold Pinter, a British playwright who "views the United States as a moral monster bent on world domination." The Swedish Academy's decision, Traub argues, is emblematic of the mood in Europe, where "the anti-American left is far more intellectually respectable" even in "the highest reaches of European culture." He names names - John Le Carée, Tariq Ali, Arundhati Roy - and cites the harsh criticism of these "implacable ideologues" to US intervention in Serbia, Iraq and elsewhere as proof of "a virulent strain of anti-Americanism."
He suggests the route cause is the resentment of the European left when confronted by the "socialist debacle" at home and American power and prosperity abroad. His solution? Broadening the war of ideas being waged in the Middle East to now-hostile European territory.
William Pfaff, writing in Harper's, takes an almost opposite approach. Rather then beginning with the fact of European hostility towards the US (prevalent, at least, among the intelligentsia), he starts instead with specific parts of US policy, most significantly the use of torture in the war on terror.
Pfaff notes that there are few significant value differences between America and the other Western nations. One concerns international law - most Western nations view international organizations as legitimate and beneficial, and multilateral agreements, especially on human rights questions, as sacrosanct, while the US tends to view these things instrumentally and suspiciously, preferring to safeguard its sovereignty. Conversely, there seems to be a consensus on the human rights protected - on both sides of the Atlantic, these rights are considered to represent the highest ideals of the West. Under normal circumstances, these differences would not cause severe friction - there is more keeping the West together than pulling it apart. But, Pfaff argues, after Sept. 11 normal circumstances came to an end in the United States.
Instead, he describes a Manichean worldview held by American political leaders, pitting their country against an objectively "evil" terrorist threat. The depravity and seriousness of this threat justified anything in the effort to counter it - disregard for international law, undermining traditional institutions and alliances and, most seriously, the widespread use of torture. Pfaff's accusations are not new - he cites the existence of secret prisons abroad, the practice of extraordinary rendition and, of course, the indefinite detainment of prisoners in Guantanamo and Iraq - but his conclusions, in light of the brazenness of US authorities - are startling.
International illegality, the deliberate repudiation of international law, and torture, gratuitously employed in defiance of the moral intuitions of ordinary people, all show that the Bush Administration has chosen to place itself outside the moral community of modern Western democratic civilization.
If this is being published in Harper's, maybe Traub's war of ideas needs to be taken to the home front as well.
Posted 01:11 AM | Comments (0)
October 23, 2005
Non-Diplomatic Diplomacy
An astonishing photo appears in the weekend edition of Le Soir, Belgium’s leading French-language daily newspaper: President Bush is looking, bewildered, up at the rain from under his black umbrella—with a headline reading: ‘Absent Man in the White House’ ('L'Homme absent de la Maison Blanche')
Inside, the paper reports on the accumulating number of top Republicans and former Bush administration officials who have launched scathing criticisms of President Bush’s governing style and reliance on compliant advisers. Foremost among the new critics, it cites a talk and discussion given last week in New York City by retired U.S. colonel, Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002-2005. Wilkerson accused Rumsfeld and Cheney of “subverting the Department of State and American diplomacy with policies that have contributed to the isolation of the United States.” The newspaper cites in in particular his criticism of the conduct of the war in Iraq; alienation of our allies in South Korea and failed U.S. diplomacy with North Korea; and the administration’s long delay—to disastrous effect—in joining forces with the European Union to pressure Iran to shut down its nuclear capabilities. In his presentation at the New America Foundation in New York City, Wilkerson criticized the administration’s lack of “grace” in its conduct of foreign affairs:
"If you're unilaterally declaring Kyoto dead, if you're declaring the Geneva Conventions not operative, if you're doing a host of things that the world doesn't agree with you on and you're doing it blatantly and in their face, without grace, then you've got to pay the consequences."
Le Soir includes a comment from political analyst Jurek Kuczkiewicz, who writes that Wilkerson’s revelations suggest how deeply the Bush “cabal”—Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice—have “severed reality from their decision-making.” Referring to the powerful effect that Wilkerson’s revelations will likely have on American’s and the world’s understanding of Bush’s diplomatic failings, he writes: “His [Wilkerson’s] discourse is like a bomb…It’s the cry of a citizen, of the United States, but also of the world, who are looking for the truth from a country of such grandeur. His speech was like a bomb. But it was also, many hope, a dream.”
Posted 02:34 PM | Comments (0)
October 17, 2005
Nobel Prize Vs. George W. Bush, Part II
This year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has probably decided to show its opposition to a certain vision of the world, symbolized by Bush's administration and its allies. After giving the Nobel Prize for Peace to Mohammed El-Baradei, the Prize for Literature was given to Harold Pinter, a British playwright and one of the biggest opponents in the artistic world to George W. Bush and Tony Blair. All of the four major French daily newspapers wrote articles last week about this militant artist.
Alain Dreyfus wrote in Libération, in his article called "Pinter, militant Nobel" :
"[Harold Pinter] speaks unambiguously : According to him, Blair is "an idiot full with illusions" and Bush "a war criminal". In 2003, at the time of the London's demonstrations against the War in Iraq, he read a poem from his " War" collection, called "God bless America" : Your head rolls onto the sand / Your head is a pool in the dirt / Your head is a stain in the dust / Your eyes have gone out and your nose / Sniffs only the pong of the dead / And all the dead air is alive / With the smell of America's God."
Raphaëlle Rérolle et Brigitte Salino wrote in Le Monde an article about the tributes made after Pinter received the award. They quoted Andrew Burgin, the Stop the War Coalition spokesperson, who said :
"The award of this prize is important because it reflects that the forces that speak up for humanity and justice are the real voices that people want to hear -- not the voices of war mongers like Bush and Blair"
Marie-José Sirach wrote in L'Humanité, in her article called "Harold Pinter, a "mad" militant" :
"Harold Pinter is a great defender of the human rights. He rose against the war made by the United States to reverse the Sandinist's government in Nicaragua. Then, against both of the War in Iraq, he used his feather in the newspapers, his words on the radio. Harold Pinter is a man in anger towards the contempt and the arrogance of Messrs Blair and Bush junior, a salutary indignation which gave him the nickname of "the Mad one" in the British press."
Pierre Marcabru wrote in Le Figaro an article called, "Harold Pinter, the playwright of unrest" :
"His engagement is more moral than political and pushes him to show us Bush as the devil having fun with poor fellows."
Posted 01:09 AM | Comments (1)
October 14, 2005
DiCaprio's warning on global warming
The actor wrote a column in Le Monde last wednesday (10/12/2005) called "a dream for New Orleans". Leonardo DiCaprio is a militant of Global Green USA (the American branch of the international green Cross) and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). He signed this article together with Matt Petersen, the head of Global Green USA.
"The recent cyclones have just shown that our cities are in first line on climatic changes consequences. The most powerful democracy of the world, the USA, can show the way to the rest of the world by protecting its large cities and by protecting us, its citizens. There are more and more evidences; it is time for America and its leaders to attack global warming."wrote DiCaprio, adding that
"Because of the devastations caused by Rita on refining capacities, the United States are confronted with an oil shortage. President George W Bush encouraged the country [...] to control its consumption. Each one of us has of course a role to play. But this short-term call is not enough : the relaxation of the protection measures of the environment and the resumption of oil drilling will finally just make the situation worsen. There is of course in Washington, on both political sides, people who militate in favour of initiatives against global warming, but decisions are not taken fast enough."
Posted 07:06 AM | Comments (0)
October 12, 2005
Nobel Prize Vs George W. Bush
He was one of the bigest spine in Bush administration's shoe before the Secound Gulf War started. Mohammed El-Baradei is the new Peace Nobel Prize winner. The award was given jointly to Mr El-Baradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which he heads. Although most of the French and European press underlines the critics of the anti-nuclear movements, they all insist on the "snub" given by this award to Bush's administration.
Le Temps, a Swiss newspaper, summarizes pretty well the common point of view, as Samuel Gardaz wrote on the 8th of October :
"It is hard not to interpret the attribution of this Nobel Prize [...] like a shingling snub inflicted to the Bush administration [...] There are two approaches on the question of disarmament which were opposed and continue to be opposed : Mohamed El-Baradei wants to prove that multilateral mechanisms like UNO works. Washington, on its side, wants to have a total room to disarm the regimes which it considers a threat for the world stability, with its manner (the armed force) and according to its own criteria."
The French left wing daily L'Humanité wrote it in a more direct way :
"The United States, which had tried to prevent, a few months ago, the renewal of the mandate of El Baradei at the head of the IAEA, diplomatically congratulated the organization and its head, while adding - not kidding - that it is "a well deserved" price and that "the United States are determined to work with the IAEA to prevent the proliferation of the nuclear weapons" [...] The republican president of the Foreign Affairs of the Senate, Richard Lugar, stressed that this choice made it possible to draw "the attention of the world to the essential importance to keep the weapons and nuclear materials, biological and chemical out of the hands of the terrorists". But this was not exactly the principal motivation of the Nobel committee..."wrote Pierre Barbancey.
Libération, another French daily, traditionaly a moderate left wing newspaper, made an interview of Bruno Tertrais, a security specialist who explained that this award is "a small claw' blow against the United States. The approach of El-Baradei is not the same that the one privileged by the Bush administration."
Here are more reactions about the Nobel Prize and its links with Bush's administration, starting with La Nouvelle République du Centre Ouest, a local newspaper, the only one criticizing this choice:
"Some will see in the choice of the prize winner a lesson for the United States. The price rewards the agency which opposed Bush's administration when they wanted to justify their war in Iraq because. But is it still necessary to insist on the American "error" on the Iraqi file?"wrote Jean-Claude Arbona.
"Mr El-Baradei always supported that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of massive destruction. He was right. It is to say that if US administration had listened to him, it would have understood that the genuine target of a possible intervention should have been Iran, because the risk is real there..."wrote Patrice Chabanet in Le Journal de la Haute-Marne.
"Just like the bretzel which failed to choke him, Bush has surely much trouble to swallow the Nobel Prize's pill, bitter with his taste."wrote Nadjib Touaibia in La Marseillaise.
Posted 08:13 AM | Comments (0)
October 10, 2005
About “the nature of Anti-Americanism”
Anti-Americanism is but a part of the question of “perceptions of the U.S. in the world” that we are trying to tackle here. One of the most common views seems to be that people tend to make a distinction between the Administration, the country, the values, and the people.
A recent essay written by UC-Berkeley Professor Emeritus—Raymond K. Kent--, and published on a liberal Canadian website—Global Research-- takes a provocative position: anti-Americanism is shifting from targeting the Administration to targeting the American people, at least in the Islamic “street.”
In The Nature of Anti-Americanism is Changing, And it is Fifteen Minutes to Midnight, Prof. Kent seeks to address the two following questions:
"(a)Should the U.S. dominate the world, through a combination of Geo-politics, militarism and hard-ball diplomacy focusing, basically, on obedience to its will?(b)Can it succeed, as the "Indispensable Nation," in shaping and re-shaping other societies and their governments to "make the world safe for Democracy?"
The conclusion, which should become clear in the ensuing pages, is that, so far, the answer to both questions has been " yes." The thesis presented in the text is that our Machiavellians, who promote (without admitting) the pseudo-science of "Geo-politics," and Imperialism of "free trade," "human rights" and spread of Democracy as "rule by the people,"(demos from Greek), are actually self-defeating and suicidal, for the nation as a whole, with or without "Home Security." The immortal words of Lee Hamilton, after the 9/11 Report, "we (just) did not get it," apply equally to both questions posed. Articulated by "the street" in countries with Islam as the state religion, a silent and sullen hate is mutating in the most dangerous sense. Instead of being directed primarily at one or another U.S. Administration or individual occupants of the White House, as used to be the case not long ago, its emerging target today is the American People."
This is not necessarily what appears in some of the surveys mentioned in this blog—see this entry about Europe and the German Marshall Fund—or that one about Latin America and the Chilean social-science institute FLACSO, but it certainly deserves a good debate.
What do you think?
Posted 06:57 AM | Comments (0)
October 07, 2005
Living in 2001
From The Spiegel online:
Bush’s speech of yesterday gives the Spiegel an opportunity to talk about his political inability. With the threat of bombing in New York subway, it seemed to be a perfect moment to talk about terrorism, "but his talk was not about the nation's current challenges. He delivered a reprise of his Sept. 11 rhetoric that suggested an avoidance of today's reality that seemed downright frightening […] Yesterday, it seemed like the President was still trying to live in 2001”. It was an ideal moment for Bush to demonstrate that he was really in control of his administration: “For instance, he could have addressed the crisis facing the overstretched military due to the endless demands made by Iraq on both the Army and the beleaguered National Guard”, but he didn’t. He just used again the same rhetoric of 9/11: “The president's inability to grow beyond his big moment in 2001 is unnerving. But the fact that his handlers continue to encourage him to milk 9/11 is infuriating”.
Posted 11:50 AM | Comments (0)
September 29, 2005
More on the Transatlantic trends 2005
After a first look on the "Transatlantic trends 2005" made by the German Marshall Fund on opinions on USA in Europe and on international matters, one could find here more information. Both European and US citizens were questioned. For a quick view, see the charts.
Some key findings :
- Europeans are more likely than Americans to support democracy promotion (74% to 51%). Both Europeans and Americans strongly prefer “soft power” options to promote democracy, with only 39% of Americans and 32% of Europeans who support sending military forces.
- Republican support for democracy promotion more closely mirrors Europeans’ with 76% favorable, compared to only 43% of Democrats. Whileboth parties support soft power options, nearly twice the percentage of Republicans (57%) than Democrats (29%) support military intervention.
- As the United States and Europe look forward toward engagement with China, there is agreement on both sides that respect for human rights needs to be considered, even if this means limiting economic relations.
- Americans and Europeans show no consensus concerning options for dealing with the possibility that Iran may develop nuclear weapons, although only a small minority in both supports military intervention, 5% of Europeans
and 15% of Americans.
- More Americans than Europeans think they will be personally affected by international terrorism (71% to 53%), while more Europeans see themselves as likely to be personally affected by global warming (73% to 64%).
- Despite major diplomatic efforts to mend transatlantic relations, there has been little change in European public opinion toward the United States. When asked whether relations between the United States and Europe have improved, gotten worse, or stayed the same, in light of President Bush’s recent efforts to improve relations with Europe, 52% of Europeans felt relations have stayed the same. Americans agreed, with 50% saying relations have stayed the same. Among those who saw change, more Germans and Slovaks felt relations have improved, while more British, Italians, Dutch, and Spaniards felt relations have gotten worse.
- When asked whether relations should become closer, remain the same, or become more independent in security and diplomatic affairs, the majority of Americans (54%) felt that relations should become closer, whereas a similar percentage of Europeans (55%) felt the EU should take a more independent approach from the United States. Both sides saw a small increase of 5 percentage points from 2004 in the number of respondents who want to take a more independent approach, from 20% to 25% in the United States and from 50% to 55% in Europe. Within Europe, the largest percentages of respondents who felt relations should become closer were in Poland (48%), Spain (43%), and Slovakia (35%), whereas the largest percentages who felt relations should take a more independent approach were in France (69%), Italy (66%), and the Netherlands (62%).
- As in 2004, Turkish respondents remain the most strongly critical of President Bush’s leadership, with 63% disapproving very much of President Bush’s international policies. At the same time, Turkish support for NATO continues to be positive and essentially unchanged from past years, with 52% of respondents agreeing that NATO
is “still essential to our country’s security.”
Posted 12:30 PM | Comments (0)
September 27, 2005
A New York Times views of French sentiments
In today’s New York Times Television Review of the fall season, Alessandra Stanley writes:
"ABC is stretching credibility to the outer limits with its new White House drama. The vice president of the United States is on an official visit to France, and Parisian school children actually sing "America the Beautiful"?
We think not."
In her opinion, it results far more farfetched than a feminist independent woman on a Republican ticket!
Alessandra should have more confidence in the good work of her diplomats in Paris to have school kids behaving properly (or ask them what they did when Condy Rice visited France at the beginning of the year).
The interesting question here is how mutual perceptions feed each other.
Can we seriously study how people in the rest of the world see the U.S. if we don’t pay attention to how Americans see, paint or describe others?
I think not.
And you?
[Photo found on the Paris US Embassy website]
Posted 12:55 PM | Comments (0)
September 25, 2005
The US image is not getting any better in Europe
French newspapers missed, at the beginning of the month, a poll (In French here) published by the German Marshall Fund (you will find an English version here) on the transatlantic relationships. La libre Belgique, a newspaper from Belgium, wrote about it a short resume called "The US image is not getting any better".
1000 citizens from France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Slovakia, United Kingdom and Turkey have been questioned about their image of US political decisions.
"This investigation evaluates the impact of Bush's diplomatic offensive on Europe" starts the daily.
"The investigation reveals that in spite of the diplomatic efforts of the Bush administration since its re-election to improve the transatlantic relations, the European public opinion towards the United States remains unchanged. On a graduated thermometer from 1 to 100 which measures the intensity of the feelings of the people questioned, the perception of the United States by Europeans remains around 50 degrees. The feelings of the British towards the United States passed from 62 to 57 degrees, the feelings of the Italians from 61 to 57 degrees [...] Europeans continue to make the distinction between their negative feelings towards president Bush on one hand, and their more moderate evaluation of the American leadership in the international businesses, on the other hand. If Europeans are 72% to disapprove the international politics of the American administration, they are only 59% to dispute the leadership of the United States on a worldwide scale. In Europe, a significant percentage of Pole (48%), Spaniards (43%), Slovaks (35%) estimate that the relations between the UE and the United States should be reinforced. While the French (69%), Italians (66%) and Netherlanders (62%) think that the UE should adopt a more independent approach on security and diplomacy."
This poll also questioned American people, in order to compare their answers with the European points of view.
Posted 07:08 AM | Comments (0)
September 22, 2005
Global warming: a British perspective
“Global warming is the most severe threat we face…more serious than terrorism” declared Sir David King a year or so ago. Sir David is the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and his declaration caused some sensation in Downing Street, in London, and in other parts of the world as one can easily imagine.
“I am happy to repeat that statement” said Sir David in Berkeley where he was invited by the Journalism School, on September 16th, to give a talk on the subject.
Katrina was the subject of some of the first questions asked by Michael Pollan and Sandy Tolan who hosted the event.
For Sir David, “Katrina is a potential tipping point of our attitudes towards natural disasters.” One has to be careful though: “It is not directly related to global warming but it is an example of disasters that might come. We do know that the intensity of hurricanes depends on ocean temperature. There is a little bit of a warning here.”
Asked about American media tendency to say that human impact on global warming is not clear, Sir David answered: “I’m amazed at the power of paid lobbyists in this country.”
Some mistakes are made, he admitted, and scientists ought to challenge each other, but “The science of climate change is mature. We know there is global warming. We know what causes it. What we don’t know is the impact it is going to have country by country.”
“There is room to say we need more science,” added Sir David. But we must anticipate that coastal cities will come under increasing risks. They will be higher in the developing world.” World wide more than a 100 million people are threatened.
The British government is taking the issue seriously. Five years ago it allocated 200 millions pounds to protect its coastal population. The budget has already risen to half a billion.
Richer countries have to give the proper example, act as leaders. “I would very much like to see the US take this leadership role,” he added.
Some people in the U.S. argue that controlling carbon dioxide emissions would slow growth. The British case seems to prove the opposite: “The UK could decrease its emissions in 12% while seeing its GDP grow 38%. It can be done,” said Sir King.
One of the issues addressed by Sir David during his talk is the difficulty to grab the attention of politicians on such issues as global warming. It’s much easier with terrorism of course. And still, Prime Ministers and heads of industries have families “they have genetic worries about their children.” Is the specie at risk? “Our DNA will survive, maybe in a different form,” said Sir David with a strange kind of a smile.
[Picture found on Greenpeace.org.uk]
Posted 09:51 AM | Comments (0)
September 20, 2005
"On Guilty Knees"
Special thanks to Prof. Hammer Ferenc for bringing this to my attention:
A columnist for the Croatian daily Slobodna Dalmacija chooses to draw an interesting parallel between the issues of Katrina's devastation and its effects on the social fabric of the United States--and the issues relevant to an European audience.
"Katrina revealed what the real image of the USA is-- derision of the poor and its 2/3 African American population who did not vote for President George Bush...They are being perceived as state's excess baggage on which nobody's private interest can be made profitable."
He goes on to criticize the Bush Administration for its ideological principles in governing, rather than dwelling on what he perceives to be the requisite leadership "local leaders omitted," by using the oft-cited statistic of a 17% rise in poverty under his tenure. His argument is equal parts racial tract and class thesis.
But the insight comes in his last paragraph in which he launches a host of questions: "How much do Europeans really care for the Roma? Are the buildings in Paris filled with immigrants burning down just because they are worn out? Is everybody in Croatia running to the help of those aforementioned Roma, who live in settlements that have been without water, electricity, and sewage systems for roughly a decade?"
Posted 12:56 AM | Comments (2)
“No society is immune”
Most of the stories published about Katrina and its aftermath in the foreign media are very critical of the U.S., and in particular of President Bush and his Administration.
Some notable stories, though take a much more careful approach.
Early on, The Irish Examiner told its readers:
“The first thing worth remembering is that, in the chaos and the looting, we are seeing not just America in crisis, but the drama of humanity everywhere.
A special case can be made that New Orleans, at the best of times, is a sad and lawless place. [...]
No society is immune. Once disaster strikes, two things happen. The survival instinct gets the better of some people and they do all sorts of things to make it through alive.”
Conservative essayist Guy Sorman ran a more analytical piece in the French Le Figaro.
“Bad news for the anti-Americans: the United States are not the Atlantis and they will not be more engulfed by hurricane Katrina that they have been wiped out by the 9/11 attacks.”
The reason, he says can be found in its history and in today’s vibrant civil society and market forces.
According to Sorman, local and State authorities are as responsible as the Federal Government for the failures in Katrina’s aftermath.
Republicans, he writes, have already chosen a “minimal State”. But, with Francis Fukuyama they think that “a free society requires a strong state.”
Is this the whiff of a contradiction?
Not at all. Sorman calls for a “Security State” that leaves social, cultural and educational issues to charitable foundations, local institutions and the market. He then concludes:
“The hurricane strengthens this neoconservative vision of the State: at the center heightened security, while everything else goes to civil society and to market.”
This is one example of how perceptions of what goes on and what is said in the U.S. can be part of the political and ideological debate in Europe… and elsewhere.
Posted 12:02 AM | Comments (0)
September 19, 2005
Murdoch on Blair on the BBC on Katrina
Invited to participate in Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative Forum, Rupert Murdoch has said in a speech that Tony Blair had told him in a private conversation BBC’s coverage of Hurricane Katrina was "full of hate of America and gloating about our troubles".
Mr Blair’s office has not commented on the issue. The BBC says it has received no complain. According to a story on the BBC’s website Bill Clinton:
“said he had seen the report Mr Blair was referring to, and there was "nothing factually inaccurate" in it.
But he said it was designed "almost exclusively" to criticise the Bush administration's response to the crisis.”
The Guardian comments:
“Certainly the BBC highlighted the federal government's tardy response to the hurricane. But a claim of institutionalised loathing from the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, which owns countless newspapers and broadcasters around the world, among them the BBC's direct rival Sky News - how on earth do you prove that?”
Posted 10:09 PM | Comments (0)
Californian Democracy
“Who runs your world?” is a BBC's season examining the nature of power in the world today. The first of a series of five articles by Robin Lustig analyses democracy in California.
It focuses on Orange County, one of the richest place on the planet, and takes as example the city of Santa Ana. A third of its residents entered the US illegally, most of them across the border of Mexico. So they have no papers, no official identity and no right to vote. They are politically invisible. Yet their presence is crucial for Santa Ana. Because they are the gardeners, the nannies, the cleaners, the cooks, the waiters.
So the question asked is: “When President Bush talks of spreading democracy and freedom across the world, is Californian-style democracy what he has in mind?”.
Posted 06:54 PM | Comments (0)
September 17, 2005
The New Republic: Dutch Lessons
The New Republic (requires subscription) contrasts New Orleans with the Netherlands, a country similarly vulnerable to catastrophic flooding, with much it set on “saucer-like flood plains just like… New Orleans.” But while the US approach to flood prevention was mainly to build higher levees, the Dutch have come up with more innovative strategies:
[T]hey developed an unprecedented multi-billion-dollar concrete-and-steel dam and seawall project, which was praised in scientific journals as an engineering miracle when it was completed. In 1995, after abnormally severe river flooding necessitated a massive, unwieldy evacuation, Dutch officials didn't just reinforce existing dikes; they again set out to rethink their whole approach to flood protection. Hydraulic engineers hatched a scheme to breach levees on purpose during critical flood conditions, releasing pressure from high waters into areas where flooding would be less disastrous, like fields lying fallow. This required a major psychological switch for the Dutch, who'd had 700 years to get used to the idea that building up, not intentionally opening, levees is how to protect yourself from water.
CBS and CNN likewise praise the Netherlands’ efforts, especially the willingness of the Dutch to undertake such a spectacular financial commitment ($8 billion in an economy a fraction the size) and noting that their preparations resulted in a flood risk 40 times smaller than that of New Orleans. The New York Times (requires subscription) elaborates on the cost of upkeep and the commitment to maintenance:
The Netherlands maintains large teams of inspectors and maintenance crews that safeguard the sprawling complex, which is known as Delta Works. The annual maintenance bill is about $500 million. ''It's not cheap,'' Mr. de Haan [a senior engineer with the Dutch ministry responsible for flood control] said. ''But it's not so much in relation to the gross national product. So it's a kind of insurance.''
But differences were not limited to preparation – the New York Times noted that, during the catastrophic 1953 flood that the Dutch refer to simply as “the Disaster,” a ship captain sunk his vessel to seal a breach in a levy, a reaction far different than firing on helicopters trying to do the same thing.
Trying to explain the difference between Dutch planning and New Orleans anarchy, the New Republic’s Eve Fairbanks suggests that culture may play a role. Capturing the New Orleans mentality, she quotes New Orleans’ Times-Picayune columnist Betty Guillard: “If they know they'll be drowning soon," she said, "they'll just have a party.”
Posted 07:30 PM | Comments (0)
The World of Egoism
While President Bush continues to receive a flurry of responses after the delivery of his Gulf revitalization plan on Thursday night, the closing of the United Nations summit has Sueddeutsche Zeitung wondering about America's desire to reform a different kind of institution.
"The aversion to a multilateral policy, committee work, and alliance building so typical to the Bush Administration is reflected here," writes the Bavarian paper. Sueddeautsche specifically notes that John Bolton's tenure as ambassador to the body has already been marked by resistance to arms control and nonproliferation, and that such a course does not look to be ended anytime soon.
Instead, the US continues its steady drumbeat to the tune of terrorism, when "[t]he United Nations is union of 191 states, which pursue 191 political interests," not all of them thusly related.
The piece ends with a fairly downcast future of the world body and international government organizations in general by noting that it will take several years to revive agreements on a new security council, the definition of terrorism, a functioning human rights committee, and the principles of disarmament.
"Kofi Annan started as an eagle and now his feathers have been plucked."
Posted 01:46 AM | Comments (0)
September 16, 2005
"When one sees a rich man falling in the street, one help him to stand up !"
Ted Stanger, a US writer described as the "most Francophile" American citizen appeared on French public television yesterday, September 15, to tell how he was shocked by the French reactions after Katrina. Here is his point of view:
"Of course, I am shocked by the mistakes of Bush's administration. But what is wrong for me is the reserves made by many French people to help the USA because it's a rich country [...] This is a political reaction. One shouldn't confuse politics and solidarity. If France had had a great reaction like for the Tsunami in Indonesia, it could have been a great and subtle message to Bush's government. It could have been an opportunity to say: we are not revanchists about Iraq [...] When one sees a rich man falling in the street, one help him to stand up ! [...] The poor people suffered twice : because of the hurricane first, and then because of the reactions in France. Isn't it French people who decided the site where New-Orleans was build ?"
If you take a look on the video (go directly to the last minutes of it...), you will see that the French anchorwoman disagreed. I did.
*Ted Stanger wrote three books: "Sacrés Français", "Sacrés Américains" and "Sacrés Français, le roman".
Posted 06:06 AM | Comments (0)
September 13, 2005
Decivilisation
Timothy Garton Ash, in The Guardian, introduces the impressive word “decivilisation” for describing Katrina’s biggest lesson. The real lesson we should learn from it “is not about the incompetence of the Bush administration, the scandalous neglect of poor black people in America, or our unpreparedness for major natural disasters - though all of those apply. Katrina's big lesson is that the crust of civilisation on which we tread is always wafer thin”. If for any reason you remove the elementary staples of civilised life, you immediately go back to a war of all against all.
“Katrina tells us about the ever-present possibility of decivilisation”. Now we know what always lies below, it says. We’re going to face many man-made hurricanes, natural and political, from climate changes to terrorism. So the question is: “How civilised will we remain?”.
Posted 09:49 AM | Comments (1)
The K factor
El Pais, the most important Spanish newspaper, is continuing covering the tragedy of Katrina in an extensive manner, with several editorials and comments everyday. In the last week, it has especially focused on three big issues: economic consequences for the EU, the perception of the US as a model and comparisons on preparedness strategies.
On Friday September 9th , an editorial stressed the potential economical outcomes of Katrina in the EU pointing out oil issues. Katrina effects, it said, will exacerbate the oil race and project European economy onto a period of great uncertainty.
On Sunday September 11th, Luisa Etxenike published an article under the title “Los ojos abiertos". It emphasized the big social fracture disclosed by the hurricane. There is nothing to be surprised about, it said, poor people died like this because they always have been living like this. American system is unfair, even though mostly perceived as a model. We should develop a much more analytical perspective.
On the same day, Isabel Ferrer published an article under the title “The water lesson in Holland” taking Dutch strategies for preventing water diseases as a model. The Dutch struggle against water diseases totally amounts to 3.500 kilometres of canals and levees. Dutch people have been struggling against water since 500 a.C, when they used to build their houses upon piles of sand. Today the “Proyecto Delta” is one of the most innovative system against the force of the water.
Posted 09:25 AM | Comments (0)
September 12, 2005
A comparison with Japan
According to the French Le Monde's correspondent in Japan, the comparison between “Typhoon Number 14” and Katrina is striking. He draws part of his observation from two titles which appeared on the first page of some Japanese dailies on September 7th. “Katrina: likely 10,000 dead” said one while the other read “Typhoon in Japan: 9 dead.” Although the winds were slightly less frightening in Japan, both hurricanes were of comparable strength.
If 1995 Kobe earthquake was a disaster that overwhelmed the government, the French newspaper points to the orderly response.
“Communities self organized the distribution of food and sanitary tasks, while supermarkets asked their clients to respect a voluntary rationing. No looting, robbery or violence was to be deplored in the ruined city. Even the underworld, with the greatest Japanese crime syndicate, Yamaguchi Gumi, officially an “association”, whose headquarters is in Kobe, organized help to prove its civic sense."
Posted 11:42 PM | Comments (0)
9/11 anniversary brings about criticism for Bush
The fourth commemoration of the Sept. 11th, 2001 attacks was covered in the European media much as it was in the U.S. – inevitably linked to the recent tragedy in New Orleans.
Next to the straight coverage, many newspapers ran editorials comparing and contrasting Katrina and 9/11, not in a flattering way for Bush. Others skirted the Katrina angle and ran stories assessing what progress has been made over four years in the fight against terrorism.
In French newspaper Libération, an opinion piece titled “The Anti-9/11” argues that while Sept. 11th gave Bush the opportunity to display his leadership and gave him the political muscle to wage preventive wars, Katrina has had the exact opposite effect, discrediting him and making the pursuit of “foreign interventions” more difficult. “The political debate has suddenly been re-centered on interior problems, perhaps durably,” concludes the piece.
British historian Simon Schama ran a scathing piece in The Guardian, simply titling it “Sorry Mr President, Katrina is not 9/11”.
After comparing at length the very different responses to the two disasters, he makes a prediction. “Historians ought not to be in the prophecy business but I'll venture this one: Katrina will be seen as a watershed in the public and political life of the US, because it has put back into play the profound question of American government,” says Schama. He then criticizes the Bush administration for cutting the budgets needed to maintain flood defenses and turning FEMA into “a hiring opportunity for political hacks and cronies” which “disappeared into the lumbering behemoth of Homeland Security.”
Back in France, Le Monde ran a story titled “Since 9/11, the terrorism menace has become permanent” while Le Figaro ran the title “Despite the war against terrorism led by Washington, Al-Quaida’s power of mobilization remains intact”.
Both pieces hint that four years after having declared a war against terrorism, the Bush administration may not have much to show for it, with the Le Monde piece’s opening sentence reading: “Osama Bin Laden is still free.”
Posted 05:12 PM | Comments (0)
September 11, 2005
Baghdad, New Orleans
[If you complain again, I'll send you to New Orleans!]
Published in the Italian Il Manifesto
Posted 10:59 AM | Comments (0)
September 09, 2005
What’s at stake
Katrina, and the way it has been handled is having a profound impact on perceptions of the U.S. in the world. George Bush critics and extreme leftists are certainly having a good time (in political terms). What an opportunity this represents to say “I told you so.” But it goes much beyond that. People are genuinely flabbergasted.
Let’s take an example. El País, the most important Spanish newspaper, has covered the tragedy in an extensive manner with several pages everyday.
On Sunday September 4th, its reporters could interview two Spanish families who had escaped, and tell their story. One of them, Clara Diez said “I could never imagine that in the richest country in the world there could be so much disorganization. Nothing worked.”
An editorial published on the same day under the title "Political hurricane" went further, and addressed elements that can be found in articles of very different countries. It represents a sort of very condensed summary of some of the most common reactions.
U.S. power – After reminding that not long ago the Pentagon prepared itself to handle two simultaneous wars, El País states that “With this catastrophe serious doubts surface about its capacity to handle two important crisis--Iraq and the Mississippi delta--that require the mobilization of military personnel, and all the attention of the federal administration.”
The U.S. as a model – The U.S. has promoted its economic and social model for years, but one of the central functions of the state is to provide security to its citizens. It is written in the American Constitution. In New Orleans “the Federal State did not fulfill a primary constitutional obligation. But, on top of this, the human tragedy of the days after highlighted an intolerable social fracture in which race and class were key.”
The question - The editorial ends on a question that, again, many people are—genuinely or not—asking around the world: “at stake is the authority and prestige of the world hyperpower. It can’t warrant its own citizens’ security and it wants to organize the security of the world?”
Posted 11:34 AM | Comments (0)
September 08, 2005
History and Katrina: “A rupture comparable to Sept. 11”?
Over a week after hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, the French are still reeling from the shock of seeing the United States in the throes of such a catastrophe. The initial reactions have been much akin to that which was being heard in the U.S. and around the world, calling the disaster revelatory of America’s weaknesses (namely, racial/economic divides and President Bush’s apparent lack of leadership). Now the French media are starting to look at the potential long-term, political effects of Katrina.
One aspect of the disaster that has been of interest to the French, and which has been brought up in a number of articles – including a full article devoted to the subject in Liberation titled “At war against America” – is how America’s own media is responding to the disaster.
The article describes how, though “usually conformist and respectful of power, American TV stations became war machines against Bush and his administration,” with star reporters venting their anger over the situation, live to the American viewers.
American TV news is usually widely criticized in the French media for being out of touch with reality, so it is significant to hear a French journalist, and from a left-wing newspaper, for once praise it: “Substituting itself to the absent authorities, the American television stations have performed a work of public service. Of information and of contestation. Back to playing the role of fourth power in the face of the President and of the political class.”
Others in France are pointing out the rousing effect of Katrina, beyond the media, on its public. In a chat session analyzing the disaster for the online edition of Le Monde, Denis Lacorne, director of the CERI (Centre d’études et de recherches internationales), said: “The real change in the United States is that finally all Americans, including numerous republicans, have gotten out of the soft patriotism brought on by Sept. 11 and have recovered – a bit late – a critical mind in the face of a president who was favored by fate but who, today, will have to face a misfortune that was unpredictable but which revealed the failings of the experts.”
Lacorne also brought up the question of whether or not Katrina might spur a move away from neo-liberalism and a return to “big government” of the FDR-era, in which large-scale projects that might prevent such disasters could be undertaken.
The French, living in what they call a “providence state,” indeed are often vocal critics of privatization such as has been pushed by the Bush administration, and which is on the agenda (if much more tentatively) of some in the French right wing.
Though the French newspapers are too cautious to come outright and call Katrina the downfall of Bush and his brand of leadership, they nevertheless are raising the issue. Some point out his record-low popularity ratings, others the growing disagreement over his handling of the war in Iraq.
An editorial in Le Monde asks if spending in Iraq is not going to seem ludicrous to Americans in the face of such problems on their home soil. In the coming months, American politics will be marked by the answer given to this question, according to this newspaper. It concludes that “Katrina could mark in history a rupture comparable to Sept. 11.”
Posted 08:31 PM | Comments (0)
September 07, 2005
Intervention?
“But, what country is this? Is it far? We must intervene.”
Published in the French Le Monde on Thursday, September 8th.
Posted 05:16 PM | Comments (1)
Katrina is unfortunately opening America's eyes
After Katrina's disaster, all the major French medias, like their US colleagues, insist on the mistakes of Bush's administration, and, even more, on the blindness of America regarding poverty and inequalities.
The first daily to attack is, as usual, the left wing newspaper L'Humanité, in two long articles called "Behind Katrina lies racism" and "The neo-conservatism in the hurricane's eye". In the first one, Jean Chatain chooses a terrifying quote from Dallas police Chief David Kunkle about the black refugees coming from Louisiana:
"We are preparing for the worst, but we will take care of Dallas inhabitants security at once". And Mr Chatain to add: "this point of view can be compared to those of racists cops from deep south in Erskine Caldwell's old books".
In the second article, Jacques Coubard condemned the inefficiency of the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency - Agency of the US government tasked with Disaster Mitigation, Preparedness, Response & Recovery planning) and especially the Under secretary and head of the FEMA, Michael Brown:
"Before being chosed as the head of the federal organization responsible for the emergency helps, this lawyer was judges supervisor in horse races in Colorado. He did not have any qualification to be elected to such an important role, but he is a close relation of George Bush, and he was one of his advisers during the last campaign. He replaced Tom Connelly, a specialist that Louisiana has just called for help to manage the "ultra disaster". This choice of a “neocon” turns now as a fatal consequence of a personal choice of George Bush [...] The nomination of Brown illustrates the contempt of the government for this agency [the FEMA]. News-Orleans victims were "killed by the contempt" of these political choices, which turned the public services and the social security into a private system."The daily Libération is also very critical towards George W. Bush when Gerard Dupuy writes in an op-ed piece called "Collateral damages":
"American prestige is already one of the major victims [of Katrina]. And there is not a doubt that the first person in charge is George Bush, which did everything to confirm its more severe caricatures: Empty head and dry heart."But all US society is guilty for Gerard Dupuy:
"The victims were twice "wrong" to be at the same time poor and black. The American society however promotes the altruistic behaviours: to care is a cardinal virtue of the American spirit and charity actions are flourishing there. But they have been shorted-circuit by the extent of the disaster and the public institutions were not able to face it, partly because they were not prepared for it. Their deplorable service in New-Orleans is already presented like the implicit consequence of an ideology often praised by Bush: the privatization of solidarity itself. Bush and his close advisors did not realize the disaster and its consequences because a blind spot blocked their eyes."
"These images will remain in the collective memory, like those of the repression of the black demonstrations for the civic rights in 1963. They will remain like a symbol of the Bush presidency. They will force America to look at the poverty in another manner"adds Mark Naison, a New York university teacher in an interview called "Poverty doesn't exist for George Bush".
Posted 05:29 AM | Comments (0)
September 06, 2005
We still can’t believe it
Astonishment is probably the best definition of what most Spaniards felt watching the images of chaos, despair and disaster after the hurricane "Katrina" hit the US' southeast coast last week.
As probably most Europeans and also many, many US citizens, the Spaniards were astounded by the devastation provoked by Katrina, the chaos, disorganization and pillaging of the first days and, after the shock, they just couldn't understand the long, long time it took the Federal Government to react, as some Spaniards who were in New Orleans denounced (see this story, or that one) once they finally got back home.
The numbers -of many thousands- of dead people due to the hurricane remind Europe of figures only used before in natural disasters in Third World or developing countries, like the December 26th tsunami or the devastating earthquake in Bam, Iran, last year, but not in a country that praises itself as the most powerful on Earth.
Although the Spanish and U.S. governments have obviously grown apart since the Socialist Party took power and retired its troops from Iraq a year ago, Madrid offered immediately its condolences to the Bush administration, as well as its aid, which was finally accepted this week by Washington.
US ambassador in Madrid, Eduardo Aguirre, presented on Monday the Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos a "long list" of what is needed and that has immediately been attended by the Spanish authorities.
Aguirre, who told the media that he and his family grew up in New Orleans, also thanked the quick condolences Spain's President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero sent after de disaster, which could mark the start of a series of gestures towards a normalization of the US-Spanish relationship after the "coldness" of the past months.
All in all, the Spanish Interior Minister, José Antonio Alonso, couldn't resist the temptation and declared that his country would have had a better response towards such a catastrophe, in a way voicing the opinion of many who still cannot believe what has happened in "the" First World country "par excellence".
On the other hand, others think that the moment has not come to compare or to make strong accusations. There will be enough time for that. The most important thing now is sending help and showing solidarity. Which most Spaniards have done.
Posted 06:34 PM | Comments (0)
September 05, 2005
Who is responsible for Katrina?
One week after the so called American tsunami, left Italian media are still “riding” this catastrophe in order not only to attack President Bush, but also to express their usual, worse, awkward anti-Americanism.
On Sunday, September 4th, “L’Unità” , organ of the Left coalition leaded by Romano Prodi has a comment by Maria Novella Oppo titled “Iceberg President” in which the way President Bush has visited New Orleans is highly criticized “as if he were on the set of a catastrophist TV series”. The human approach of this President, writes the commentator, is very similar to an iceberg.
On the same first page L’Unità, while reporting an article appeared on The New York Times, underlines that even the Republicans are strongly criticizing President Bush’s behavior.
Il Manifesto, organ of the radical left, while interviewing Jeremy Rifkin on September 3rd, points out that the catastrophe was foreseen and Bush has hidden the truth.
“La Repubblica”, which is supposed to be a liberal newspaper but actually supports the Italian Left, with its today’s article signed by its founder Eugenio Scalfari notes that America was able liberate Berlin from the Soviets in 48 hours. The same America was also able to transport a huge army for the first Gulf war and it was able to do the same for the war in Iraq. But this same America is not able to bury the dead in New Orleans six days after the catastrophe. Imperialism is not compatible with Democracy, concludes the commentator.
In the past days “La Repubblica”, with its articles signed by the correspondent from the States, Vittorio Zucconi, has considered Bush’s denial to sign the Kyoto Agreement for the Environment as well as American people’s consumerism both highly responsible for New Orleans disaster.
To give an idea of the present strong political exploitation of the catastrophe, is worth remembering today’s provocative article of “Libero”, a center-right newspaper: “Would you like to be governed by those who are fans of the hurricane?” Actually some extreme left wings seem to welcome the hurricane Katrina as the most appropriate weapon against American and its president.
Posted 09:13 PM | Comments (1)
July 23, 2005
French politicians cry out against a potential American takeover of Danone
It all started with a rumor : is PepsiCo planning a hostile takeover of French dairy giant Danone? Fueled by silence from PepsiCo and a flurry of fiery comments from French politicians, this rumor has snowballed into top news over the past days. The question has quickly turned to one of national identity.
The perspective of France losing one of its emblematic companies opens the door for debate on whether or not the state should do anything in the face of globalization - and perhaps more importantly, in this case, whether it can.
French leaders have leapt to Danone’s defense, citing the impact its loss would have on French jobs and production in other sectors dependent on Danone’s large demand.
Nicolas Sarkozy, Interior Minister and chief of the right-wing UMP party, is quoted in Le Monde as saying that “the public powers [i.e. the state] will have to do everything they can” to block a hostile takeover.
On the left, ex-finance minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn predicted that the French “would react very strongly to what they’ll consider as a direct attack on their identity” and wrote to PepsiCo shareholders warning them of the reactions a takeover could ignite. Laurent Fabius asked president Jacques Chirac to “act urgently so that [Danone] can stay european- and French-based”.
Chirac himself, off on a visit to Madagascar, says he is “vigilant” and “mobilised” against such a course of events.
A few others, however, have been vocal expressing their discontent with politicians interference in the matter. Renaud Dutreil, of the ministry of small and medium-sized businesses, has stated that it is not the role of the state to “involve itself in the affairs of private companies” but that its role should rather be to protect small businesses from the practices of certain bigger ones - which, of course, include Danone. The company, which has in the past delocalised some of its activities, is indeed no newcomer when it comes to the workings of the global market. But now that it may fall its victim, what can France do to keep Danone from American takeover? According to an editorial in Le Monde, not much. But intimidating words on the part of the government aren’t completely fruitless : they’ve proved helpful in past cases, such as bringing together the companies Sanofi and Aventis in the face of a buyout from Swiss company Novartis in 2004, or discouraging Siemens from taking over Alstom in 2003.
Meanwhile, Danone’s stock is soaring. According to one analyst, Gérard Augustin-Normand, president of the Richelieu Finance, the whole rumor could well have been orchestrated by both Danone and state officials as a preemptive strike against any future takeover attempts on Danone or other major French companies. The lack of formal denial from PepsiCo, he claims, could be explained by purely legal reasons, since a statement declaring they aren’t interested in Danone would mean they would not be able to touch the company for 18 months. In an interview for French station TF1, he says that everything in the affair seems “too well orchestrated,” and that Danone and PepsiCo are also poignant symbols : one a pillar of the French economy, the other representative of “everything the French hate” : junk food and American capitalism ...
Posted 06:12 AM | Comments (0)
July 15, 2005
How Italy reacts to the terrorist threat
As the first shock for “carnage” (this term was first used by the Sun) is leaving space to reflections, it becomes clear that the relation between the war in Iraq and London bombing is a very frail one. It is true that at the G8, soon after the tragedy, Berlusconi declared “it’s our turn now” and one may therefore think that he referred to his friendship with Bush. Actually in another circumstance Berlusconi mentioned the three B (Bush, Blair, and Berlusconi) as a trilogy under attack.
Still, on the 12th of July, while presenting special safety measures for Parliament’s approval, Italy’s Minister for Inner Affairs, like commentators of the main newspapers (right, left, and center) preferred to state that the one against terrorism is a war and, as any war, it must be prevented and fought with appropriate measures and weapons. He does not intend, however, to inaugurate emergency measures (for instance like France closing its frontiers) which could limit citizen’s personal liberties.
On the same day Corriere della Sera (La Repubblica remains cautious too) maintained the low-profile policy inaugurated by its editor the day after the London bombing.
In fact on the 8th of July with his moderate, far viewing editorial Paolo Mieli preferred to analyze the social, political, economical weakness of the European Union instead of indulging himself on other analysis of whatever nature. In this path comments by Pierluigi Battista e Gianni Riotta on the 12th of July definitely silenced all those who like to see a conspiracy or a secret design (mostly by CIA or some other American Secret Service) behind all terrorist attacks.
Even the radical left by words of its leader, Fausto Bertinotti interviewed by Corriere della Sera on the July 12th seems to have abandoned the idea that this terrorism is a direct response to the war in Iraq. He insists that the war in Iraq may be one of the many causes (poverty, injustice, oppression) which feed terrorism, but he accepts that repressive measures must be taken.
Generally speaking Government and Opposition seem to have come to a more reasonable understanding. Nothing in common with some previous reactions when Bush (and his friends Blair and Berlusconi), Guantanamo and Abu Graib, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, were considered responsible for the terrorist attacks and kamikaze bombing.
To have an idea of the former analysis one may visit the following sites:
Da Londra a Baghdad, Il Manifesto
Le bombe di Blair, Il Manifesto
Posted 03:47 PM | Comments (0)
July 12, 2005
From Madrid: so close to London
Our own pain is too present yet not to shudder in front of the London terrorist attacks. Many Spaniards revived with horror last Thursday the 2004, March 11th Madrid blasts which caused almost 200 deaths and over 1.500 injured. Even days after the London bombings, most Madrilenians rode tubes and buses with uneasiness, closely looking for "suspicious" passengers or abandoned bags.
Indeed analysts have pointed out the many similarities between both terrorists acts, like the target -the public transportation system-, the "modus operandi" and, most important, the country's support to the Iraq war. As many in Spain noted after the bombings, now the countries of the "trio from the Azores", the three leaders that signed the Iraqi invasion act in the Portuguese island of Azores in March 2003, have been targeted.
Spanish terrorist expert Fernando Reinares also notes in an analysis for the Elcano Institute for Strategic Studies this week that Iraq is indeed the framework in which both attacks should be analyzed.
These past days have also shown many differences. While the Madrid attacks took most Spaniards unguarded, Britain was almost sure that it would be "next". Only the “when” and “how” were uncertain. And the London attacks didn't try to influence a change of government, as Blair has just been reelected. As many journalists have pointed out the British premier had - at the time - the public support for the invasion of Iraq, and he didn't try to hide the "Islamic link" or retain information related to the attacks, as the former Spanish president José María Aznar did.
Last but not least, while British opposition leader Michael Howard praised Blair's response to the crisis, in Spain the terrorist attacks led to a confrontation between the Socialist and the Conservative parties that hasn't finished yet.
All in all, at least it seems that Britain won't give the harsh response that the US gave after 9/11 (remember Patriot Act): Tony Blair has already assured that the government doesn't wish a "police state" with fewer individual freedoms. And though it is one of the most "eurosceptic” countries of the European Union, London is not expected to take individual defensive measures -or unilateral attacks- in response to the terrorist acts.
[Picture taken from Agonist.org]
Posted 12:22 PM | Comments (0)
July 07, 2005
London Bombing
The bombing in London has schocked the world. For ongoing coverage of what it feels like in London right now, in real time, check out the blog of The Guardian newspaper in the UK. Clic here.
Posted 06:54 AM | Comments (0)
June 28, 2005
GMO Ban Holds in Europe
GMO’s…
Responding to ongoing controversy over genetically modified food in Europe, the EU’s Council of Ministers voted to uphold a ban on engineered corn and rapeseed that has been maintained since 1997. Five countries—Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg—had banned the varieties between 1997 and 2000, and were under pressure by the European Commission to lift their bans. But the Council of Ministers voted 22-3 to uphold the ban on June 24. The move made front page news across Europe.
In Belgium, the main national daily Le Soir headlined on page 1: “GMO’s are now growing on unstable ground.” The vote carries powerful weight—as it upholds the ability of individual member states to impose national bans on gmo’s based on “public health and safety” considerations, which the Commission had wanted to restrict when it comes to gmo’s.
The vote, according to the French daily Liberation, was a “complete disavowal of the opinion of the EU’s Agency on Food Safety (AESA), which had declared in July 2004 that gmo’s presented “no risk for health or the environment.” The Council of Ministers disagreed—representing a major victory for environmental groups in Europe, which have long been lobbying against the dissemination of gmo’s in Europe.
The vote represented a major blow to U.S. efforts to obtain EU clearance for the sale of gmo seeds. The world’s major producer is Monsanto, based in St. Louis. But it was Monsanto’s actions that helped build the heavy majority against further gmo introductions across the continent, as Liberation reported.
Last month, as we posted on this site as we reported on this site, a study conducted by Monsanto scientists in Germany was leaked to the press—and suggested that a new corn seed it hoped to introduce could have toxic effects on test animals. Monsanto’s unwillingness to share the information with the public fueled skepticism as to its transparency with the public. By the time a German court forced Monsanto to reveal the results, the tide—already highly skeptical—had turned. Monsanto’s bid to introduce three other corn varieties, and an effort by the German company Bayer to put a corn and rapeseed variety on the market, was skewered.
The issue is continuing to cause discord--as these and other European bans are now subject to ongoing challenge by the United States and other nations in the Worled Trade Organization.
Posted 11:17 AM | Comments (0)
June 20, 2005
GMO Storm Coming...
News just out of Europe suggest serious obstacles ahead in the longstanding U.S. effort to pave the way for acceptance of genetically modified crops. The Independent in the UK reports that a study conducted by Monsanto itsself--the company dominates the international market in gmo's---suggests that rats fed a diet heavy in geneticaqlly engineered corn variety developed alterations in their organs--including smaller kidneys--and changes in the composition of their blood.
This report promises to have an impact that will continue to ripple across the continent and the world. Already, the U.S. government as staked a lot of political capital on fighting the European's more cautious approach to gmos. While in the US, they're officially considered no different than any other crop, in Europe they're approved on a seed by seed basis....and this latest finding leaked to the Independent builds on fears that we haven't yet known about gmo's may be dangerous.
It can't help with U.S. efforts to negotiate with the Europeans on a host of trade-releated issues, as the US already has a WTO challenge in the works to a previous generation of EU challenges to gmo's. And its become a foreign policy issue of major significance as countries around the world reject American corn exports for fear of contaminating their own food supply.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=640430
Posted 07:01 PM | Comments (0)
June 16, 2005
Jackson’s trial as an American microcosm?
News of Michael Jackson acquital were everywhere in European and Latin American media, but surprsingly few comentaries were made. French and Spanish media, in particular, ran stories on U.S. public opinion for which he remains guilty. They picked up the fact that the boy whose accusations were the grounds of the trial does not understand the verdict and is now depressed. Many published stories on declarations according to which the actor would not sleep with boys any more. A way for skeptical Europeans to underline the fact that he actually did exactly that.
The Guardian (U.K.) published an interesting comment by writer John Harris under the title: Drowned in a pervasive moral murk.
“Even if you wanted to affect an interest in the case as some crystallisation of wider social currents, there wasn't much to hang on to. According to Joan Smith in the New Statesman, Jackson is now "a symbol of the way in which a nation founded on a dream is retreating into the realm of fantasy" - which is elegantly put, but not exactly enlightening. "American society has been sliced open, not just to the bone but to entrails swollen with half-digested, rotting waste," wrote Barbara Amiel in the Sunday Telegraph (considering Jackson's possible guilt, she went on: "Child molestation of any sort is to be deplored, but ... in the absence of penetration, what actual harm has he done?" - that should get Lord Black's dinner guests in an entertaining lather).The theory of the Jackson trial as an American microcosm, however, seems like a non-starter. Whether the freakish world into which it peered says anything about Main Street USA seems doubtful. Certainly, there are no potent racial narratives à la OJ Simpson; at most, events have simply underlined the truism that dysfunction gets passed down the generations, and that money serves to inflate it.”
Posted 05:42 PM | Comments (0)
June 07, 2005
One “non” two crises
The French “non” looks very much like good news for the Francophobes. And in a sense it is.
Chirac, who made so much noise in his opposition to Bush’s war in Iraq, has been discredited. He looks dumb for losing an election that he called, and his legitimacy is now questionable. His choice of the Napoleonic Dominique de Villepin as prime minister certainly puts his most vocal mouthpiece during the war as second in command. But one doubts that Villepin’s oratorical talent will be more successful at suppressing French anger (with which he is so little connected), than it was in containing Washington.
France’s credibility in Europe will suffer. New alliances will be drawn. And if one considers that Tony Blair will act as EU President for six months starting on July 1st, the stage seems ready for a strengthening of pro-Americans and a weakening of those who made the case for a more independent Europe.