Monday, January 27, 2003
Colin Powell building bridges
Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the World Economic Forum in a bridge building speech.
His arguments for the Bush/Blair position is quite convincing. Main line of argument:
The 1441 resolution demanded from Iraq the surrender of his arms of mass destruction. The Iraqi´s are not complying, but hampering the inspectors on the ground. What is known as fact is that he had certain chemical agents and missiles and they are gone. He is not leading the inspectors to those weapons and therefore the whole Iraqi attitude is one of non- cooperation.
The only answer to this attitude is that the International community has to act and disarm him or otherwise pay the price later. His time is up.
His convincing speech can be viewed on a webcast. If you are a sceptic, please do run it!
+ Remarks from Colin Powell, US Secretary of State
+ Annual Meeting 2003 Webcasts
Anti- Americanism / Anti- Europeanism
Is there a widening gap between the US and the Europeans?
Oh yes, eloquently written down by to writers, just from the opposite US angle.
I think that a lot of Euro skepticism can be brushed away by Bush himself next Tuesday at the State of the Union if he draws a picture of US commitment and US/Euro cooperation in restructuring the Middle East. In making the region a prosperous/democratic and peaceful neighbour who supplies both with oil as long as it lasts and finds ways for itself to integrate its economy in that of the western Asiatic sphere and if he shows concern with the global climate problem. He must also adres these realities and not only the Conservative American ones.
If he does not, he isn´t a political realist.
This probably sounds soft to Americans. But the reality is that if the US wants European consent on a violent solution, a picture of a nice future must be drawn.
Americans must not only show their angry face, but also their caring attitude.
Anti-Europeanism in America
By Timothy Garton Ash New York Review of Books
USA Oui! Bush Non!
by ERIC ALTERMAN The Nation
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Exit polls suggest a win for ruling Christian Democrats
Labour in second place
Amsterdam, 22 January 2003
The first exit polls suggest that the Christian Democrats will win the election with a very narrow margin over the up coming Labour Party with their dynamic young leader Wouter Bos
Late voters at voting station in
the Jordaan district Amsterdam
22/1/03
CDA 43 Christian Democrats
PvdA 42 Labour Party
VVD 25 Conservative Liberals
SP 11 Socialist Party
GroenLinks 9 Green Left
LPF 8 List Pim Fortuyn
D66 6 Democrats 66 Social Liberals
CU 4 Christian Union
SGP 2 Reformed protestant Party
LN 0 Liveble Netherlands
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Quality newspaper NRC- Handelsblad in English on Wednesday election
From time tot time publishes the quality Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad an analysis in English. To explain Dutch politics to English readers they write about the next election.
Social Democrats in neck-and-neck race with Christian Democrats
Monday, January 20, 2003
What is Europe's influence on war with Iraq?
Despite the British scepticism on Europe, a newspaper journalist like Ian Black writes consistently about the Brussels policies and Europe's foreign relations.
Recently:
Patten's wider point is about multiculturalism - the need for America and Europe to work together. "Axis of evil" spats have faded recently and the US has belatedly realised the need for engagement with North Korea. But it will be interesting to watch when the EU starts talks with Iran.
Fingers crossed, British officials have been arguing that doubters from Athens to Berlin will look foolish if a short, sharp war does reveal Iraq's hidden chemical and biological arsenal. Viewed from Brussels and other capitals, that sounds dangerously like wishful thinking.
Inside Europe Guardian
EU Commissioner Patten is warning the US that the EU is unwilling to pay for reconstruction if the US does it all without UN resolution.
Patten warns US over aid for Iraq
Guardian
Benelux rejects Franco- German plans
Today the Benelux countries published their reaction to the Franco- German initiative in creating two presidents of the Union.
In a statement in French, they reject the plans for two presidents and new institutions as a Congress.
They say that the Commission is the guardian of the common interest of the Union and the motor of unification. The Commission should get a strong role as executive and as guardian of the Stability Pact.
In their proposal, the European Parliament elects the President of the Commission, thereby strengthening the legitimacy of the Commission.
As for the Council, they want to maintain the rotating Presidency.
The Franco- German initiative is send to the Convention. It will be difficult for the Convention to disregard this heavy weight proposal.
Prise de position Benelux
Prise de position des Premiers Ministres et des Ministres des Affaires étrangères du Benelux suite à la Contribution franco-allemande à la Convention européenne sur l'architecture institutionnelle de l'Union
Can Europe bridge the economic gap with the US?
International economic annalist Hans Labohm sketches the EU economic history and comes to the conclusion that the Rhineland model of social relations (welfare state) is hampering Europe in catching up the US in economic terms.
Eliminating 'Eurosclerosis' TCS
Democrats : "We should vote directly for Prime- minister"
Democrat 66 (D66) leader Thom de Graaf proposed today to introduce the direct vote for Prime- minister. In the next parliament he wants to introduce a law necessary to change the voting system. He wants everybody to have two votes. One for Prime- minister and one for a party in parliament. A similar system exists in Israel.
The way this election is developing urges de Graaf to re- introduce this old plan. D66 has always been a supporter of the direct vote for Prime- minister.
Thom de Graaf: "Kies de Minister-President!"
Election campaign becomes presidential race
Labour candidate Cohen holds his tongue
After the appointment of Cohen as the desired prime minister for Labour if the party wins the election next wednesday the election campaign has become a presidential race.
The Dutch voters can make a clear choice between a center - right government with present prime minister Balkenende (Christian democrats) and a center- left government with Cohen as prime minister and Labour leader Wouter Bos reforming his party within parliament.
The polls indicate a Labour victory, but a quarter of the electorate is still undecided. So the vote can still swing to either side.
The reception of the public of the unexpected Labour move will make all the difference. Will they welcome Cohen as a stable and reliable candidate, or will they see this move as an example of the old fashioned imperious politics.
Isn't it strange that Cohen will hold his tongue in the campaign, refusing a debate with the other two candidates, thereby withholding the public his political views?
The last two days of the campaign Wouter Bos will be asked constantly about the qualities and political vision of Cohen. His vision as party leader will evaporate, because he made his person and views irrellevant.
And what will happen after the elections? If Cohen becomes prime minister of a center left government, with Balkenende and Bos as parliamentary leaders of there party. Will it be a stable government with Labour restructuring itself?
Dutch politics breaks taboo on talking about immigration IHT
Wouter Bos: No Guts, No Glory
Labour Leader Bos appoints Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen as candidate for Prime minister in Dutch election
Amsterdam- 19 January 2003
Labour Party (PvdA) leader Wouter Bos appointed the Mayor of Amsterdam Job Cohen to be his candidate to become prime minister if Labour wins the election next wednesday.
A previous promise of Bos, to reform the party as party chairman in parliament, in his race to become party leader brought him into difficulty now that Labour has the chance to become the biggest in parliament.
It is a custom that the biggist party has predominance in forming a coalition and delivering the prime minister.
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
World political tensions eroded press freedom in 2002
The number of arrests, physical attacks and threats against journalists soared last year, even though fewer were killed and the number of censorship cases increased only slightly. Arrests (692) went up by more than 40 per cent and twice as many (1,420) were attacked or threatened. More and more journalists are being thrown in prison - there are now 118. If media assistants (3) and cyber-dissidents (at least 42) are added, the figure comes to 163 people jailed for trying to inform the public.
Read more at: Reporters without borders; annual roundup
Monday, January 13, 2003
Is a war against Iraq necessary?
Eminent political scientists John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt argue against a war. Saddam Hussein can be contained. They argue against Kenneth Pollacks argument that we are past containment, that a secure middle east needs the removal of Saddam Hussein.
An Unnecessary War Foreign Policy
Historian and writer Ignatieff argues that a war against Iraq will be an act of Empire building and if the Bush administration decides to do so it will have to answer a whole range of problems in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question.
Very long, but interesting essay.
The Burden
By MICHAEL IGNATIEFF The New York Times
Friedman addresses anti- Americanism in Egypt and the fallacies it is built upon. It is a reality the US must deal with. A proverb is always helpful as this one from an Egyptian writer: `The drunk is in the care of the sober.' You are the sober. Don't forget that.
Sealing the Well
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Global Media: Are big media barrons dominating world media?
A rough sketch of present forces in world media by statements like:
"The Internet Has Leveled the Playing Field"
Yes. Or more accurately, it's helping to level the terrain because it is a relatively low-cost conduit for all content providers. As the old adage goes, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." Make no mistake: an activist with a dial-up Internet connection and 10 megabytes of Web server space cannot easily challenge Disney for audiences. But an individual or a small group can reach the whole world and, with a little work and less money, can actually find an audience.
Worldwide, an estimated 581 million people were online by 2002, more than one third of whom lived outside North America and Europe. Yet the Internet is in its infancy. The number of users is still growing and will continue to expand to the literate population as access costs decrease.
Global Media Foreign Policy
History: The Forming of the Brittish Empire
Niall Ferguson's Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World reviewed in two distinctive newspapers.
Toeing the Empire line The Guardian
Errol Flynn's empire The Times
Recent essay reviews
Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton wrote an essay on the relations between Islam and the West after 9/11 and he takes position in the Huntington debate, are we in a clash of civilizations?
Why the West?
by Roger Kimball The New Criterion
Rushdie nonfiction from 1992 on collected and reviewed.
Rushdie to judgment: weighing the '90s, Islam, 9/11, and more
By Eric Weinberger
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Common sense from a Social- Democrat: Tony Blair for EU President!
A realistic and responsible view from Social- democrat and prime minister Blair.
Some quotes from his new year speech to the British ambassadors:
What does all this mean? It means that the world today has one overriding common interest: to make progress with order; to ensure that change is accompanied by stability. The common threat is chaos. That threat can come from terrorism, producing a train of events that pits nations against each other. It can come through irresponsible and repressive states gaining access to WMD. It can come through the world splitting into rival poles of power; the US in one corner; anti-US forces in another. It can come from pent-up feelings of injustice and alienation, from the divisions between the world's richer and its poorer nations. The threat is not change. The world and many countries in it need to change. It is change through disorder, because then the consequences of change cannot be managed.
Stating our aims is relatively easy and they would be shared by many other countries: security from terrorism and WMD; elimination of regional conflicts that can afflict us; a stable world economy; free trade; action against climate change; aid and development. Jack set them out clearly yesterday. The question is: how as a matter of diplomacy do we achieve them? What are the principles of foreign policy that should guide us?
First, we should remain the closest ally of the US, and as allies influence them to continue broadening their agenda.
Second, Britain must be at the centre of Europe.
Thirdly, we should engage with the countries who by dint of land size and population are bound to be ever greater economic and political powers, in order to seek common ground.
Fourthly, our history is a strength, provided we lose any lingering traces of imperial arrogance and recognise countries will only work with us as equals.
Fifth, there can be no new consensus, no new order, no stability, without tackling the appalling poverty that afflicts nearly a half of the world's population.
Sixth, we need to construct a better framework within which the international institutions, like the IMF and World Bank help countries deal with their difficulties and make progress.
Seventh, we must reach out to the Muslim world.
This is about three things. It is about even-handedness. The reason there is opposition over our stance on Iraq has less to do with any love of Saddam, but over a sense of double standards. The MEPP remains essential to any understanding with the Muslim and Arab world. The terrorism inflicted upon innocent Israeli citizens is wicked and murderous and undoubtedly will bring strong action from the Israeli Government. No democratic Government could do otherwise. That is not the point. The point is that unless there is real energy put into crafting a process that can lead to lasting peace, neither the carnage of innocent Israelis nor the appalling suffering of the Palestinians will cease. At the moment the future of the innocent is held hostage by the terrorists.
But reaching out to the Muslim world also means engaging with how those countries move towards greater democratic stability, liberty and human rights. It means building pathways of understanding between Islam and other religious faiths. This seems an odd thing for a politician to say - but then I am used to clerics offering me advice. But we need to engage with mainstream Islam at a theological as well as political level. Inter-faith dialogue is one important part of greater understanding. The fanatics who abuse true Islam have to be challenged by ideas and values as much as by security and arms. They will recruit new volunteers as fast or faster as we imprison or destroy the old ones, unless we are helping those within the faith of Islam who are speaking out in favour of moderation, tolerance and sense.
My conclusion: Blair for EU President!
The New Year speech
Monday, January 06, 2003
Just War or Just Oil?
Is the present conflict in the gulf region just about oil? And makes that conclusion a conflict unjustified?
Yes, oil is an important reason to oppose a cruel dictator like Saddam Hussein. If he is able to develop weapons of mass destruction he will be able to dominate the flow of oil and therewith he can dominate the world economy. And this has been his goal for the last decades.
Oil is such a vital product in the modern world economy that letting the flow be controlled by a dubious dictator will be a disaster for the world economy.
The least the Western Alliance should do is contain him and the most that is desirable is that he is ousted from power and replaced by a leader who has the interest of his country and people in mind in the context of a peaceful world environment.
So in the interest of the world economy a regime change in Baghdad is highly desirable.
What is equally desirable is a reduction of the use of oil in the western economies. This is desirable because of the climate change and the shortage of oil in the next decades. Especially the US consumption of oil should go down sharply. The problem with the US is that it seems to be addicted to large oil consumption. Reducing the dependence on oil will reduce the political importance of the middle east and its potential for conflict and is good for a stable climate.
The US should be pushed toward a more moderate oil consumption. Europe is the one power to do it.
The European Union countries should formulate this as a condition of support for a war against Saddam Hussein.
So no full support for a war against Saddam Hussein if there is no prospect of the US government introducing large scale measures to reduce oil consumption domestically.
+ Yes, a war partly over oil - Thomas L. Friedman IHT jan. 6 ,2003
+ Multilateralism according to Kagan by DD, Apilog post of Dec. 9, 2002
Is a preventive war against Iraq a just war?
In the continuing debate on the question if a preventive war against Iraq is a just war Robert Kagan counted on the opinion of Michael Walzer.
Walzer was in favor of a "preventive" war in 1998, but he changed his mind at this moment.
According to Kagan real life hasn't changed, only the political color of the President.
+ Real international life isn't nice - Robert Kagan
+ THE HARD QUESTIONS: LONE RANGER - By Michael Walzer The New Republic April 27, 1998
+ CAMBRIDGE DIARIST: SANE BOMBERS - By Martin Peretz The New Republic March 23, 1998
+
Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument - By Michael Walzer
On the question of political desirability of a war, Brian Urqhart reviews The Threatening Storm by Kenneth M. Pollack in the New York Review of Books.
+ The Prospect of War - By Brian Urquhart
Op dit werk is een Creative Commons Licentie van toepassing.