Saturday, February 15, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 12:08 PM
Taking The Streets
Old Europe (and the whole world) is not happy with the war
I love a quote from a recent Woody Allen movie:
- “There is a word, you know, for people that think the whole world is conspiring against them”.
- “Yes, I know: perceptive”.
This is exactly the attitude taken by the US administration and many Americans when confronted with the increasing hostility against an attack on Iraq.
Today there are millions of people in the streets around the world demonstrating against the war: check the UK, Italy, Spain, just to mention three countries which are supporting the US. Polls all around the world show that between 60% and 80% of the population is opposed to a war without a second UN resolution.
There are many reasons for this hostility. One is the traditional anti-Americanism of some fringes of the left but that is true of only a small minority of the millions demonstrating today. A more relevant issue is the uncanny ability of this Administration to piss off allies and friends, and push undecided people in the “against” camp. I call it the Rumsfeld’s Doctrine, after the US Defense Secretary’s marvellous displays of diplomacy. I mean, would you send this guy to sell anything to anyone? No wonder that even some who are traditionally pro-Americans are turning the other way.
President Bush, right after the terrible events of 9-11, said that the war against terrorism was not only about killing enemies, but a war for the hearts and minds of people. I agreed with him then and I still agree with him now. I am afraid, if that is the scoring system, the US is not winning at the moment.
Thursday, February 13, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 7:30 PM
Dealing With Madmen
With the World's attention focused on Iraq, Kim is getting increasingly dangerous
Iraq is dominating the headlines but, in an escalation of madness, it is N. Korea that seems the main conender for the title of roguest State of all.
With an economic crisis that is starving its population, allies (like China) that are starting to look the other way and the successful example of the other half of Korea within shouting distance, it's no surprise that Kim is upping his menaces. As any dictators knows very well, the best way to distract you people is inventing a nice war against a bad foreigner.
What is really scary is that Kim is no Saddam. Despite the recent US rethoric, Saddy has shown a remarkable will to survive and, while often living on the edge, has always kept within the boundaries of political survival. Saddam is not a madman, far from it. Kim, on the other hand, for the little we know of him, appears to have a few loose screws up there. Having a nasty crazy guy with a few nukes in his hand is not a nice thought. No wonder Japan seems ready to wage war. If I were not living on the opposite side of the globe I would probably feel the same way.
The question is, how do you deal with a guy like Kim? I wish I had the answer. Diplomacy, given his nuclear arms, is the only way to avoid the worse. More pressure can and should be applied to China, still N. Korea main sponsor, to lean on Kim and maybe guide him in the direction of the commu-capitalist development already happening in China.
I just hope that, while Rummy and company are all busy fighting in Iraq, we will not find ourselves in a mess ten times bigger in Korea.
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 2:12 PM
War Attitude
Why US and Europe have such different attitudes about war
A good phrase from Martin Wolf’s analysis (subscription only, I am afraid) on today’s FT: “For many Americans, wars are fought for a just cause, to a glorious conclusion, somewhere else. For most Europeans, the launching of a war is believed to be catastrophic, immoral, or both.”
I particularly like the “somewhere else” bit, I think it explains a lot of things.
posted by Mooraq at 2:07 PM
Lessons From Europe
The US could learn a thing or two from good “Old Europe”
While US critics – Rumsfeld first of all – are railing against chicken old Europe, the Europeans are doing much more than the US in the real war against terrorism.
As opposed to the war on Iraq, which has many valid motives but fighting terrorism is not one of them, Europe is doing a rather good job in investigating, arresting and gathering information on the real agents of Bin Laden. Comparing the numbers of arrests and prosecutions made in Europe after 9-11 against those made in the US, one would think that the attack had been carried against Europe. Despite paying lip service to improving local anti-terrorism measures the US has not done really much to avoid a future Al-Quaeda attack. That is probably due (as the Economist suggests) to the limited experience the US has in fighting terrorism at home. Nevertheless US censors should scream less against old Europe and do a little more homework on the things they could learn if they want to win this war (and try avoiding terrible terrorists acts like 9-11).
Another subject in which old Europe could give some lessons is the new world order. This piece on the IHT explains very well a point I tried to make many times on this blog: that the US approach to world politics smacks very much of old unilateral super-powerism while the EU’s softer and diplomacy-driven behaviour is not only about making a virtue of its poor military capabilities, but more appropriate to an asymmetrical threat like terrorism.
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 2:33 PM
Different Views On The War On Iraq
Criticism of the war is not a European-only thing anymore
I found it funny that the less some US citizens trust the their Government in all matters pertaining to their taxes, health or education services, the more they trust it when it wants to declare a war on somebody else.
One thing notably absent in recent US history has been a frank and honest assessment of the present Administration's actions in the war against terrorism. I haven’t heard any serious voice raised to question the legal limbo of the Guantanamo Bay’s prisoners, for instance. The same goes for the war on Iraq. It seems to me that a clear analysis of the pros and cons of such a war has not been done in the US, at least publicly. Regardless of my personal position on the issue, I find it extremely important that in any democracy there should be a public and transparent debate on important matters as this one. Things are beginning to improve, I am happy to say. Despite the acceleration towards a military solution of the Saddam problem, I am increasingly reading some good analysis on the whys and the consequences of a war.
Check in particular these two, one from the Krugman in the NYT and the other from Foreign Policy. Both might also help to shed some light on the behaviour of those bloody “old European” and their resistance to war.
Monday, February 10, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 5:11 PM
2003 in History
A long term perspective on what really matters
1787 was an interesting year. Prussia invaded the Netherlands. Russia started a war with Turkey, which was going to last 5 years and end eventually with the Russian claiming sovranity over the Crimean peninsula. Mozart was putting the finishing touches to Don Giovanni, which was premiered on October 29 in Prague. Gibbon published the last volume of “The decline and fall of the Roman Empire”. More than 2 centuries later, what do we remember that year for? Because it was when the US Constitution was signed.
What will people remember in two centuries? It might well be the signing of the EU Constitution. So, if you want a piece of history, take a good read at it. On many issues it could be as revolutionary as the US Constitution was 2 hundred years ago. It is the first Constitution for a Union of sovereign countries, which renounce some of their powers in a democratic way to a supra-national institution. Possibly a model for the future?
posted by Carla Passino at 10:01 AM
My War Gone By, I Don't Miss It At All
Why Europe is instinctively opposed to war on Iraq
It is rare to find insightful writing on Italian regional newspapers, but Antonio Romagnino’s piece on the Unione Sarda commemorating the Allied’s bombing of Sardinia in February 1943 is the exception which confirms the rule.
While giving a chilling account of the worst days of the second world war, Romagnino explains in a couple of sentences the profound, instinctive reasons why many Europeans oppose waging war against Iraq – Italians, as well as Germans, French as well as English, because this kind of deep-seated pacifism goes beyond governments’ allegiances and political manouvres and, despite what many Americans believe, has very little to do with anti-Americanism.
I am not a pacifist myself but I think that translating Romagnino’s reasoning may help non-Europeans understand what goes on in the Old Continent today.
“[In seeing the ruins caused by the bombing] that prisoner of war who, coming back home in 1945, walked through his own town, following a donkey cart…felt even more deeply the sorrow which the war has shielded him from. He went on caressing the rubble which was still piled up on the streets, but he was partly comforted by the fresh memories of what America [where he has been imprisoned] had taught him.
He returned from the most American of the States, those he felt were closer to the spirit of the Founding Fathers … such as Texas, Missouri, Wyoming and Nebraska. A chorus had greeted the Statue of Liberty when he had reached New York with other prisoners [from North Africa]…For all of us there started our re-education to democracy...
From that experience of over half a century ago too come the complete condemnation of war and celebration of peace which we have kept in our soul. Even if it means that the pupils may have to take the place and do better than those who were our teachers.”
 |
|