Friday, January 10, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 2:25 PM
Shifting Odds on the War on Iraq
The different sensibilities about the war on terrorism between Europe and the US
Two good comments on the war on Iraq (or lack of it), one from the FT (subscription required) and one from il Corriere della Sera (in Italian), the latter is written by Sergio Romano, a former Italian ambassador and Nato representative to Moscow who really knows what he is talking about. They both say similar things on how the odds are turning against a war on Iraq (UK’s foreign Secretary Jack Straw puts them a 60:40 against as of yesterday), but, more interesting, both mention the different attitude between America and its allies to this war and the whole situation in the Middle East.
Where America sees a black and white world of good guys vs. terrorists (although America’s real stance has many more nuances than its words suggest, see also: “North Korea”), Europe tends to make several distinctions on the cause, effects and ultimately how to deal with terrorism and rogue states
This is an issue covered by Romano also in his recent book on the Italian foreign policy from the WW2 to today. When talking about terrorism, he says, the US sees only one type of terrorism while Europe at least three kinds. There is the mad, fanaticism-driven terrorism of Bin Laden, whose only answer has to be of military nature. If we were sitting at a table to negotiate with Bin Laden what could we possibly find to talk about, asks Romano always the diplomat. There is the socially rooted, so-called “revolutionary”, terrorism (like the BR in Italy, the RAF in Germany). Finally there is the terrorism that has roots in real national/ethnic/religious problems (the Palestinians but also the IRA or ETA) which is best fought attacking its causes, not only the symptoms. Let’s not forget that one man’s terrorist is often another man’s patriot. Were Washington and co. courageous patriots or dangerous secessionists and terrorists? These different approaches can help explain much about the diverging opinions between the US and Europe (but we could safely say the rest of the world) on how to deal with the threats we are facing.
posted by Carla Passino at 2:18 PM
No War Without Proof
Europe tries to stay America's hand on Iraq
The EU foreign policy coordinator Javier Solana doesn't think we can wage war on Iraq without further proof that Saddam hides weapons of mass destruction (link in French).
Although UN inspectors think that Iraq has "failed to answer a great many questions" on the matter, no concrete evidence has been unveiled that the rogue country has resumed its clandestine arms programme. Therefore, says Solana, there's no ground to undertake military action against Saddam's regime.
"If war must be, it must gain international consensus. Right now the situation remains open. [Hans Blix] says that the dossier presented by saddam Hussein isn't complete, but, at the same time, he acknowledges that he hasn't got enough proof that weapons of mass destruction can be found in Iraq. A 'potential' threat doesn't justify a war. That said, Saddam Hussein has already demonstrated that he is willing and able to use weapons of mass destruction."
But, he insists, "withouth proof, it will be very difficult to wage a war. A war will be legitimate if sanctioned by the UN Council. My preference is for a second resolution to be approved by the Council."
President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi and Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis, who currently holds the rotating EU presidency, appear to agree with Solana. Even the UK, which has long been a staunch advocate of war against Saddam, believes that war will likely be delayed. British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock said that inspectors "need more time".
Although the White House's spokesman, Ari Fleischer has officially declared that "we know for a fact that there are weapons" in Iraq, Calpundit thinks a delay may suit George W Bush just fine.
Thursday, January 09, 2003
posted by Carla Passino at 2:07 PM
Israeli Election Opens Up
A corruption scandal threatens to bring down Sharon
Allegations that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon may be involved in a case of corruption could cost his party the General Election, reports Reuters.
The right-wing Likud had a vast parliamentary majority in the bag, according to voting polls, but revelations concerning a $1.5 million loan from a South African businessman have tarnished its leader's reputation. Support for the party, some of whose members have also been involved in vote-buying scandals, has dropped and analysts predict it will get between 27 and 30 seats in the 120-strong Parliament.
However, its main opponent - Amram Mitzna's Labour Party - is failing to gain the swing vote. This means Sharon may still head up the new Government, but he will be forced to form a broad and potentially weak coalition. Whether he will look for partners to his left - where he is likely to find advocates of a more conciliatory policy toward the Palestinians - or to his right remains to be seen. Worryingly, the ultra-Orthodox Shas party may be among the chief beneficiaries of the Sharongate.
posted by Mooraq at 9:32 AM
For All Latin Lovers
Gulielmus Clinton Imperatoris ultima electio
Hic libellus ab Tempi Oeconomici, magno cum risu legite. (In other words, check this article from the FT out, it’s really funny).
Wednesday, January 08, 2003
posted by Carla Passino at 6:05 PM
'Single-Hearted Unity' In the Face of Adversity?
North Korea remains defiant despite the shift in American policy
America's conciliatory openings towards North Korea clearly fell on deaf ears if this release issued by the state-controlled Korean Central News Agency is anything to go by. "The U.S. bellicose forces should clearly know that their strategy to dominate Korea is a pipe-dream," it says. "Last year they listed the DPRK as part of an "axis of evil" and as a target of their nuclear attack instead of giving up their anachronistic policy toward it, while openly calling for a "preemptive attack" in a desperate bid to increase their military pressure upon it. But the Korean people have resolutely smashed the aggressive offensive of the enemies with a revolutionary principle and reliably defended the dignity and honor of the DPRK by further augmenting the might of the single-hearted unity under the banner of the army-based policy. The U.S. is well advised not to forget the lesson drawn from the history of the DPRK-U.S. relations and the present reality but to give up its anachronistic hostile policy toward the DPRK and immediately withdraw its aggression troops from South Korea."
Beyond anything else, why is it that dictatorial regimes across the world always resort to the same, insufferably pompous prose?
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
posted by Carla Passino at 1:40 PM
Another Man on the Moon
India plans to send a manned flight to the moon by 2015
As the United States and Russia cut back on manned space exploration, developing countries take over the baton. After China, India has now joined the race to send a man on the moon.
According to the Times of India, Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan, head of the Indian Space Research Organisation, announced on Saturday that India will set foot on the moon sometime between 2005 and 2015, following the successful launch of unmanned missions.
With hundreds of thousand Indians literally dying of hunger in the streets, thousands more deprived of safe drinking water, and thousands living in emergency sanitary conditions, I wonder whether organising a manned lunar flight is the wisest way to spend public money. India should invest in technology by all means - it raises the country's profile, it retains talent, it attracts foreign investment - but surely it should pick a technology that can be put to a more practical use?
posted by Mooraq at 11:47 AM
How Not To Stop A War
Without a heavy helping hand, Israeli and Palestinians will keep on killing each other until the end of time
Another day, another massacre. Yesterday was the Palestinians’ turn of claiming their pound of flesh. This comes after a “peaceful” month during which the Israeli Army killed 50 Palestinians, many (but by no means all) of them suspected terrorists.
Extremists on either side appear more and more to drive the agenda. The forthcoming Israeli elections are likely to strengthen the Likud and extreme right parties. While on the Palestinian front, Arafat seems to have lost the little control he had of the various factions within the Palestinian Authority but he still seems loath to pursue badly needed political reforms. Neither Sharon nor Arafat seems interested in undertaking the necessary steps to move towards a realistic peace plan.
It seems clear to me that, without an external intervention, the current onslaught will continue for the foreseeable future. It’s a shame that the present US Administration is so caught with Saddam, that it’s taking a backseat on the most inflammatory issue fuelling Arab resentment against the Western world. Getting rid of Saddam is certainly important, but so is stopping the longest conflict scarring the Middle-east. I hope that, after the Iraqi war, the US will seriously get down to business on the Palestinian-Israeli front, putting hard pressure on both camps to resume peace talks and move in the right direction. The alternative is a never-ending spiral of violence whose only victor will be Bin Laden, supplied with fresh volunteers for his mad war on the world.
Monday, January 06, 2003
posted by Carla Passino at 2:28 PM
Geography Matters
A National Geographic survey shows that young American and British adults fail spectacularly at geography
A recent National Geographic survey shows that British and American adults aged 18 to 24 are next to illiterate when it comes to geography.
According to the National Geographic–Roper 2002 Survey (in PDF), which polled more than 3,000 people in nine countries, geographical literacy is very poor across the globe, and particularly so in the United States and the United Kingdom. With less than 50% of correct answers, Americans - together with Mexicans and Canadians - came at the very bottom geographical rung, while Britons fared marginally better as they managed to answer half of the questions correctly. Swedish, Germans and Italians were the top scorers with 70% correct answers.
More than half of the American respondents couldn't find India on a map - let alone picking it as one of the countries involved in the conflict over Kashmir. Worse, just 58% knew that both the Taleban and Al Qaeda were based in Afghanistan - despite it having made the news headlines day in and day out for more than a year. Nor did young Americans fare any better when it came to home: only 25% knew that the current population in the United States is between 100 and 350 million.
Meanwhile, young Britons couldn't name the two countries whose population counts more than one billion (India and China) and couldn't locate Japan or Sweden on a map. Very few Britons (28%) and even fewer Americans (17%) knew where Afghanistan is situated.
It is scary that young adults in two of the world's most powerful countries fail at basic geography. That they sail blissfully unaware through world shattering events, I find even scarier. Perhaps it is time to reinstate mandatory geography classes?
posted by Carla Passino at 6:27 AM
I don't have a drinking problem except when I can't get a drink.
(Tom Waits)
Sunday, January 05, 2003
posted by Carla Passino at 6:26 AM
- Everyone does everything just to get laid.
- Who said that? Freud?
- No, I did.
(The Big Chill)
 |
|