Thursday, May 12, 2005
Uday's Oil-for-News Program
From the May 16, 2005 issue: Was Al Jazeera on the take?
by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross & Eric Stakelbeck 05/16/2005, Volume 010, Issue 33
On January 6, 2005, the U.S.-funded Arabic satellite network Al Hurra broadcast an explosive exposé detailing the financial links between Saddam Hussein's regime and the Arab press. Al Hurra's documentary--so far overlooked in the West--aired previously unseen video footage, recorded by Saddam Hussein's regime during its murderous heyday, of Saddam's son Uday meeting with several Arab media figures and referring to the bribes they had received.
Recipients of this Baathist largesse appeared to include a former managing director of the influential Qatar-based government-subsidized satellite network Al Jazeera, Mohammed Jassem al-Ali. The videotaped meeting between Uday and al-Ali occurred on March 13, 2000, when al-Ali still worked as Al Jazeera's managing director. Their conversation makes clear that this was not their first meeting, but that they had met on prior occasions--and that Al Jazeera had put into effect the directives that Uday had proffered in those previous meetings.
Referring to how his advice had affected changes in Al Jazeera's personnel, Uday states, "During your last visit here along with your colleagues we talked about a number of issues, and it does appear that you indeed were listening to what I was saying since changes took place and new faces came on board such as that lad, Mansour."
This "lad" is Ahmed Mansour, an Al Jazeera journalist who has been criticized for his pro-insurgency reporting. In particular, Mansour came under fire in early 2004 for his coverage of the U.S. attack on Falluja, which pointedly emphasized civilian casualties.
Uday goes on in his videotaped conversation with al-Ali to mention that some people have relayed to him al-Ali's comment that Al Jazeera is the station of Iraq's Baathist regime "both literally and figuratively." Thus, Uday says, "It is important that I share with you my observations about the station."
In response, al-Ali never denies saying that Al Jazeera was Saddam's station. Instead, his cloying remarks provide Uday every reason to believe that this is so. Al-Ali gives Uday his "unequivocal thanks for the precious trust that you put in me so that I was able to play a role at Al Jazeera; indeed I can even say that without your kind cooperation with us and your support my mission would have failed." Al-Ali also tells Uday that, in his mission at Al Jazeera to serve Iraq, "the lion's share of the credit goes to you personally sir, yet we would be remiss not to mention our colleagues here who constantly strive to implement your directive."
Al Jazeera isn't the only Arab media outlet implicated in the Al Hurra tapes. It was recently discovered that Hamida Naanaa, a Syrian writer based in France who was known for her pro-Saddam slant, had received coupons under the Oil-for-Food program in exchange for her favorable coverage. Al Hurra alleges that Saddam's regime would hand out two types of oil coupons to Arab media figures: silver coupons that entitled their holders to a maximum of 9 million barrels of oil, and gold coupons that were good for even more. Naanaa had received a gold coupon.
Bribery evidently yields its privileges; in its exposé, Al Hurra showed new footage of a meeting between Naanaa and Uday that reveals her obsequiousness and sycophancy toward the dictator's son. After Uday greets Naanaa, she gushes, "Hello to you, the dear son of the dear and the precious son of the precious. Hello, is kissing allowed?" Kissing was indeed allowed.
During their conversation, Naanaa refers to a "beautiful and sweet letter" that Uday had written to her, telling him, "I was so always looking forward to seeing you." Naanaa also expresses concern about the 1996 assassination attempt on Uday, saying, "We got worried about you, you know. . . . I just lost it when I heard the news."
Al Hurra was launched on February 14, 2004, and is a part of the Bush administration's effort to improve public diplomacy throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Today, it reaches 120 million people in 22 countries. The chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors Middle East Committee, Norman Pattiz, has estimated that the network may have 20 million regular weekly viewers.
Mouafac Harb, Al Hurra's director of network news and executive vice president, explained in an interview that, for security reasons, he couldn't say who had provided Al Hurra with the footage of Uday's meetings. However, Harb made clear that the network had received the footage from an Iraqi source, not from the U.S. government. With the hubris characteristic of dictators, Saddam and his sons made it a practice to videotape their meetings.
While Al Jazeera initially alleged that the tapes were part of a conspiracy against it, it has not mounted a challenge to their authenticity. In fact, Al Jazeera may have attempted to preempt the issue altogether by firing al-Ali shortly after the Baathist regime collapsed--without providing any reason for his termination. Yet despite al-Ali's sacking, there was no marked shift in Al Jazeera's coverage of Iraq. What had been pro-Saddam reporting before the U.S. invasion soon became pro-insurgency. Notes Walid Phares, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and one of Al Hurra's "review experts" for the January documentary, "Al Jazeera cooperated with the regime, which was the target of the international coalition. Even after the regime was gone, they continued to support the jihadists."
Given the continuing anti-U.S. slant to Al Jazeera's coverage, Phares believes the exposure of the kind of backroom dealings in which the network has been engaged ought to mark a "watershed" in understanding behind-the-scenes corruption at the network. The tapes might also prompt reflection on the representations of the "Arab street" seen on Al Jazeera and other media in the region. We now know that the same network that assured us Arab opinion uniformly opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq also apparently served as a paid shill for Saddam's regime.
Moreover, Phares intimates that the dealings captured by the Al Hurra tapes may be only the tip of the iceberg. "How many other regimes have been paying these media?" he asks. Harb agrees, noting that it is a "widespread practice" for Arab leaders to intimidate or bribe leaders of media outlets, or even individual journalists.
This kind of corruption confirms the need for unbiased media in the Arab world. Some writers--including Reuel Marc Gerecht in these pages--have called for the creation of an Arab or Iraqi C-SPAN, a station that would broadcast unfiltered political debate of interest to the Arab world, and so serve as a means of education about the democratic process. Harb, on the other hand, thinks U.S. efforts should concentrate on creating a more vibrant media market in the Middle East. It is the lack of a viable independent media industry in the region, he notes, that leaves Arabic networks dependent on governments and opens management and journalists up to alternative revenue streams--like bribery.
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is an international terrorism consultant and an attorney with Boies, Schiller & Flexner. Eric Stakelbeck is vice president of the Center for Freedom in the Middle East in Washington, D.C.
From the May 16, 2005 issue: Was Al Jazeera on the take?
by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross & Eric Stakelbeck 05/16/2005, Volume 010, Issue 33
On January 6, 2005, the U.S.-funded Arabic satellite network Al Hurra broadcast an explosive exposé detailing the financial links between Saddam Hussein's regime and the Arab press. Al Hurra's documentary--so far overlooked in the West--aired previously unseen video footage, recorded by Saddam Hussein's regime during its murderous heyday, of Saddam's son Uday meeting with several Arab media figures and referring to the bribes they had received.
Recipients of this Baathist largesse appeared to include a former managing director of the influential Qatar-based government-subsidized satellite network Al Jazeera, Mohammed Jassem al-Ali. The videotaped meeting between Uday and al-Ali occurred on March 13, 2000, when al-Ali still worked as Al Jazeera's managing director. Their conversation makes clear that this was not their first meeting, but that they had met on prior occasions--and that Al Jazeera had put into effect the directives that Uday had proffered in those previous meetings.
Referring to how his advice had affected changes in Al Jazeera's personnel, Uday states, "During your last visit here along with your colleagues we talked about a number of issues, and it does appear that you indeed were listening to what I was saying since changes took place and new faces came on board such as that lad, Mansour."
This "lad" is Ahmed Mansour, an Al Jazeera journalist who has been criticized for his pro-insurgency reporting. In particular, Mansour came under fire in early 2004 for his coverage of the U.S. attack on Falluja, which pointedly emphasized civilian casualties.
Uday goes on in his videotaped conversation with al-Ali to mention that some people have relayed to him al-Ali's comment that Al Jazeera is the station of Iraq's Baathist regime "both literally and figuratively." Thus, Uday says, "It is important that I share with you my observations about the station."
In response, al-Ali never denies saying that Al Jazeera was Saddam's station. Instead, his cloying remarks provide Uday every reason to believe that this is so. Al-Ali gives Uday his "unequivocal thanks for the precious trust that you put in me so that I was able to play a role at Al Jazeera; indeed I can even say that without your kind cooperation with us and your support my mission would have failed." Al-Ali also tells Uday that, in his mission at Al Jazeera to serve Iraq, "the lion's share of the credit goes to you personally sir, yet we would be remiss not to mention our colleagues here who constantly strive to implement your directive."
Al Jazeera isn't the only Arab media outlet implicated in the Al Hurra tapes. It was recently discovered that Hamida Naanaa, a Syrian writer based in France who was known for her pro-Saddam slant, had received coupons under the Oil-for-Food program in exchange for her favorable coverage. Al Hurra alleges that Saddam's regime would hand out two types of oil coupons to Arab media figures: silver coupons that entitled their holders to a maximum of 9 million barrels of oil, and gold coupons that were good for even more. Naanaa had received a gold coupon.
Bribery evidently yields its privileges; in its exposé, Al Hurra showed new footage of a meeting between Naanaa and Uday that reveals her obsequiousness and sycophancy toward the dictator's son. After Uday greets Naanaa, she gushes, "Hello to you, the dear son of the dear and the precious son of the precious. Hello, is kissing allowed?" Kissing was indeed allowed.
During their conversation, Naanaa refers to a "beautiful and sweet letter" that Uday had written to her, telling him, "I was so always looking forward to seeing you." Naanaa also expresses concern about the 1996 assassination attempt on Uday, saying, "We got worried about you, you know. . . . I just lost it when I heard the news."
Al Hurra was launched on February 14, 2004, and is a part of the Bush administration's effort to improve public diplomacy throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Today, it reaches 120 million people in 22 countries. The chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors Middle East Committee, Norman Pattiz, has estimated that the network may have 20 million regular weekly viewers.
Mouafac Harb, Al Hurra's director of network news and executive vice president, explained in an interview that, for security reasons, he couldn't say who had provided Al Hurra with the footage of Uday's meetings. However, Harb made clear that the network had received the footage from an Iraqi source, not from the U.S. government. With the hubris characteristic of dictators, Saddam and his sons made it a practice to videotape their meetings.
While Al Jazeera initially alleged that the tapes were part of a conspiracy against it, it has not mounted a challenge to their authenticity. In fact, Al Jazeera may have attempted to preempt the issue altogether by firing al-Ali shortly after the Baathist regime collapsed--without providing any reason for his termination. Yet despite al-Ali's sacking, there was no marked shift in Al Jazeera's coverage of Iraq. What had been pro-Saddam reporting before the U.S. invasion soon became pro-insurgency. Notes Walid Phares, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and one of Al Hurra's "review experts" for the January documentary, "Al Jazeera cooperated with the regime, which was the target of the international coalition. Even after the regime was gone, they continued to support the jihadists."
Given the continuing anti-U.S. slant to Al Jazeera's coverage, Phares believes the exposure of the kind of backroom dealings in which the network has been engaged ought to mark a "watershed" in understanding behind-the-scenes corruption at the network. The tapes might also prompt reflection on the representations of the "Arab street" seen on Al Jazeera and other media in the region. We now know that the same network that assured us Arab opinion uniformly opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq also apparently served as a paid shill for Saddam's regime.
Moreover, Phares intimates that the dealings captured by the Al Hurra tapes may be only the tip of the iceberg. "How many other regimes have been paying these media?" he asks. Harb agrees, noting that it is a "widespread practice" for Arab leaders to intimidate or bribe leaders of media outlets, or even individual journalists.
This kind of corruption confirms the need for unbiased media in the Arab world. Some writers--including Reuel Marc Gerecht in these pages--have called for the creation of an Arab or Iraqi C-SPAN, a station that would broadcast unfiltered political debate of interest to the Arab world, and so serve as a means of education about the democratic process. Harb, on the other hand, thinks U.S. efforts should concentrate on creating a more vibrant media market in the Middle East. It is the lack of a viable independent media industry in the region, he notes, that leaves Arabic networks dependent on governments and opens management and journalists up to alternative revenue streams--like bribery.
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is an international terrorism consultant and an attorney with Boies, Schiller & Flexner. Eric Stakelbeck is vice president of the Center for Freedom in the Middle East in Washington, D.C.
So why is it we need to spend time, money and energy on the South Koreans?
Despite U.S. Attempts, N. Korea Anything but Isolated
Country's Regional Trade Boom Hints At Split Between Administration, E. Asia
By Anthony Faiola Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, May 12, 2005; A18
SEOUL -- Some people may be worrying about a possible North Korean nuclear test, but Lee Ju Hong, a well-coiffed retail manager for South Korea's largest department store, is preoccupied with his latest sales event -- a North Korean kitchenware fair.
North Korean housewares are the rage these days. The Lotte department store sold out its first shipment of North Korean pots and pans last December and followed up with a bigger sale in January, when another 7,000 pieces of cookware were carted off by eager shoppers. Lee, 39, is now working on the store's largest North Korean venture yet: New lines of cutlery and frying pans go on sale within the next two weeks.
The cookware is manufactured at the new Kaesong Industrial Park just north of the heavily mined border by South Korean companies backed by a multimillion-dollar government investment, some of which has been used to employ 2,000 North Korean workers. South Korean officials hope the growing economic development across the border will promote political and social reforms in the North. But the burgeoning business relationship has also become a symbol of the divide between South Korea and the United States on how to handle North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il.
"We want to help our brothers in North Korea," Lee said. "We will continue to do so unless the government tells us to stop selling these goods. Right now, we don't expect that to happen."
The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to isolate North Korea since late 2002, when the latest crisis over the North's nuclear weapons program developed. At that time, the Pyongyang government expelled international weapons inspectors and declared that it had begun reprocessing spent fuel rods into material that can be used for weapons. Now, U.S. officials and arms control specialists, citing intelligence reports and satellite imagery, are concerned about a possible North Korean underground nuclear test.
Despite U.S. efforts to persuade allies to limit economic ties with North Korea, it is enjoying booming trade abroad.
South Korea, China and Russia have increased their trade with the North, boosting its tattered economy. Fueled by imports of energy and manufactured goods, and exports of minerals, seafood and agricultural products, North Korea's foreign trade increased 22 percent in two years, from $2.9 billion in 2002 to $3.55 billion in 2004; these levels are the highest since 1991, according to KOTRA, a South Korean government organization that monitors North Korean trade.
Flourishing business between North Korea and its neighbors has strained attempts to build a consensus among the six nations involved in talks on disarming the North. Without the support of North Korea's two largest trading partners, China and South Korea, any attempt by the Bush administration to impose economic sanctions would have little effect.
Analysts say North Korea may be calculating that if the United States increases pressure, Pyongyang's other benefactors in Asia may be willing to mend fences, even after a nuclear test.
As recently as Tuesday, China rejected economic sanctions and said it hoped for a negotiated settlement on North Korea's nuclear program.
"The fact is, South Korea and China are providing North Korea with a considerable amount of unconditioned economic support," said Marcus Noland, a Korea expert at the Institute for International Economics in Washington. "As long as that support is forthcoming, North Korea will not feel as much of a need to address the nuclear issue, and attempts to isolate the North economically will have less and less credibility and effect."
South Korean trade with the North increased by 58 percent in the first three months of this year to $170 million, compared to the same period last year, according to South Korea's Unification Ministry. Economic relations with the North are also driven by a policy of detente and hopes for long-term reunification.
The boom largely stemmed from increased North-South cooperation at Kaesong, where three South Korean companies have begun operation during the past six months. Twelve other companies are scheduled to start up by the end of the year. South Korea, which is North Korea's second-largest trading partner, is also pressing ahead with agreements for new road and rail links to help boost trade over the heavily fortified border.
North Korea's economic ties are particularly hot with China, its largest trading partner and long-time political benefactor. Bilateral trade nearly doubled between 2002 and 2004 to $1.39 billion, according to KOTRA.
North Korea's trade with Russia grew faster over the same period, from $80.7 million to $218.4 million. Among North Korea's top trading partners, only Japan, siding with the United States, has scaled back economic ties.
Supporters of engagement with North Korea argue that the Bush administration might have avoided the growing political crisis had it been willing to compromise with the Pyongyang government, either by providing more explicit security guarantees or by outlining more fully what the United States is prepared to offer the North in exchange for disarmament.
Nevertheless, East Asian diplomats who favor closer ties with North Korea say it would be difficult to defend trade and business investment in North Korea if Kim decided to conduct a nuclear test.
South Korea and China have not said how they would react to a North Korean nuclear test.
North Korea's neighbors -- with the exception of Japan -- share a vital strategic interest not shared with the United States. The Bush administration would welcome tough economic sanctions that led to Kim's fall. But a sudden collapse of the government in North Korea is considered potentially catastrophic to its neighbors because millions of destitute North Korean refugees might flood across the borders.
While South Korean military analysts say North Korea's 1-million member army is still the most serious threat, most South Koreans no longer view the North as a dangerous enemy. A public opinion survey in January by Research & Research, one of South Korea's largest pollsters, asked this question: "Which country is the most threatening to South Korea?"
Of the 800 respondents, 39 percent named the United States, which maintains 37,000 troops here. North Korea came in second, at 33 percent.
"We have lots of reasons for wanting to do business in North Korea; the labor costs are lower than in South Korea or China and a North Korean worker pretty much does what he is told," said Oh Jung Min, executive director of El Canto, a shoemaker that became one of the first South Korean companies to cross the border when it invested in a Pyongyang factory in 1997.
"But stronger relations with North Korea is also good for South Korea's future," he said. "The last thing we want is for them to be our enemies."
Meanwhile, North Korea said Wednesday that it had completed the removal of another batch of spent fuel rods from its main Yongbyon nuclear complex in a key step toward building more nuclear weapons.
North Korea's official KCNA news agency quoted a Foreign Ministry official as saying the country had "successfully completed" removal of 8,000 fuel rods from the five-megawatt reactor at the center of its Yongbyon complex, which is located about 60 miles north of Pyongyang.
If cooled for several weeks, the rods can be reprocessed into weapons-grade plutonium -- the step North Korea is believed to have taken with a similar batch of spent fuel rods in 2003. The announcement suggested that the country is prepared to do so again.
Intelligence officials in Washington and Seoul had noted that North Korea's main nuclear facility at Yongbyon had been shut down since last month, raising concerns that the North was extracting the rods.
Despite U.S. Attempts, N. Korea Anything but Isolated
Country's Regional Trade Boom Hints At Split Between Administration, E. Asia
By Anthony Faiola Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, May 12, 2005; A18
SEOUL -- Some people may be worrying about a possible North Korean nuclear test, but Lee Ju Hong, a well-coiffed retail manager for South Korea's largest department store, is preoccupied with his latest sales event -- a North Korean kitchenware fair.
North Korean housewares are the rage these days. The Lotte department store sold out its first shipment of North Korean pots and pans last December and followed up with a bigger sale in January, when another 7,000 pieces of cookware were carted off by eager shoppers. Lee, 39, is now working on the store's largest North Korean venture yet: New lines of cutlery and frying pans go on sale within the next two weeks.
The cookware is manufactured at the new Kaesong Industrial Park just north of the heavily mined border by South Korean companies backed by a multimillion-dollar government investment, some of which has been used to employ 2,000 North Korean workers. South Korean officials hope the growing economic development across the border will promote political and social reforms in the North. But the burgeoning business relationship has also become a symbol of the divide between South Korea and the United States on how to handle North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il.
"We want to help our brothers in North Korea," Lee said. "We will continue to do so unless the government tells us to stop selling these goods. Right now, we don't expect that to happen."
The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to isolate North Korea since late 2002, when the latest crisis over the North's nuclear weapons program developed. At that time, the Pyongyang government expelled international weapons inspectors and declared that it had begun reprocessing spent fuel rods into material that can be used for weapons. Now, U.S. officials and arms control specialists, citing intelligence reports and satellite imagery, are concerned about a possible North Korean underground nuclear test.
Despite U.S. efforts to persuade allies to limit economic ties with North Korea, it is enjoying booming trade abroad.
South Korea, China and Russia have increased their trade with the North, boosting its tattered economy. Fueled by imports of energy and manufactured goods, and exports of minerals, seafood and agricultural products, North Korea's foreign trade increased 22 percent in two years, from $2.9 billion in 2002 to $3.55 billion in 2004; these levels are the highest since 1991, according to KOTRA, a South Korean government organization that monitors North Korean trade.
Flourishing business between North Korea and its neighbors has strained attempts to build a consensus among the six nations involved in talks on disarming the North. Without the support of North Korea's two largest trading partners, China and South Korea, any attempt by the Bush administration to impose economic sanctions would have little effect.
Analysts say North Korea may be calculating that if the United States increases pressure, Pyongyang's other benefactors in Asia may be willing to mend fences, even after a nuclear test.
As recently as Tuesday, China rejected economic sanctions and said it hoped for a negotiated settlement on North Korea's nuclear program.
"The fact is, South Korea and China are providing North Korea with a considerable amount of unconditioned economic support," said Marcus Noland, a Korea expert at the Institute for International Economics in Washington. "As long as that support is forthcoming, North Korea will not feel as much of a need to address the nuclear issue, and attempts to isolate the North economically will have less and less credibility and effect."
South Korean trade with the North increased by 58 percent in the first three months of this year to $170 million, compared to the same period last year, according to South Korea's Unification Ministry. Economic relations with the North are also driven by a policy of detente and hopes for long-term reunification.
The boom largely stemmed from increased North-South cooperation at Kaesong, where three South Korean companies have begun operation during the past six months. Twelve other companies are scheduled to start up by the end of the year. South Korea, which is North Korea's second-largest trading partner, is also pressing ahead with agreements for new road and rail links to help boost trade over the heavily fortified border.
North Korea's economic ties are particularly hot with China, its largest trading partner and long-time political benefactor. Bilateral trade nearly doubled between 2002 and 2004 to $1.39 billion, according to KOTRA.
North Korea's trade with Russia grew faster over the same period, from $80.7 million to $218.4 million. Among North Korea's top trading partners, only Japan, siding with the United States, has scaled back economic ties.
Supporters of engagement with North Korea argue that the Bush administration might have avoided the growing political crisis had it been willing to compromise with the Pyongyang government, either by providing more explicit security guarantees or by outlining more fully what the United States is prepared to offer the North in exchange for disarmament.
Nevertheless, East Asian diplomats who favor closer ties with North Korea say it would be difficult to defend trade and business investment in North Korea if Kim decided to conduct a nuclear test.
South Korea and China have not said how they would react to a North Korean nuclear test.
North Korea's neighbors -- with the exception of Japan -- share a vital strategic interest not shared with the United States. The Bush administration would welcome tough economic sanctions that led to Kim's fall. But a sudden collapse of the government in North Korea is considered potentially catastrophic to its neighbors because millions of destitute North Korean refugees might flood across the borders.
While South Korean military analysts say North Korea's 1-million member army is still the most serious threat, most South Koreans no longer view the North as a dangerous enemy. A public opinion survey in January by Research & Research, one of South Korea's largest pollsters, asked this question: "Which country is the most threatening to South Korea?"
Of the 800 respondents, 39 percent named the United States, which maintains 37,000 troops here. North Korea came in second, at 33 percent.
"We have lots of reasons for wanting to do business in North Korea; the labor costs are lower than in South Korea or China and a North Korean worker pretty much does what he is told," said Oh Jung Min, executive director of El Canto, a shoemaker that became one of the first South Korean companies to cross the border when it invested in a Pyongyang factory in 1997.
"But stronger relations with North Korea is also good for South Korea's future," he said. "The last thing we want is for them to be our enemies."
Meanwhile, North Korea said Wednesday that it had completed the removal of another batch of spent fuel rods from its main Yongbyon nuclear complex in a key step toward building more nuclear weapons.
North Korea's official KCNA news agency quoted a Foreign Ministry official as saying the country had "successfully completed" removal of 8,000 fuel rods from the five-megawatt reactor at the center of its Yongbyon complex, which is located about 60 miles north of Pyongyang.
If cooled for several weeks, the rods can be reprocessed into weapons-grade plutonium -- the step North Korea is believed to have taken with a similar batch of spent fuel rods in 2003. The announcement suggested that the country is prepared to do so again.
Intelligence officials in Washington and Seoul had noted that North Korea's main nuclear facility at Yongbyon had been shut down since last month, raising concerns that the North was extracting the rods.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Brussels Sprouts
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
In his book "The Ideas That Conquered the World," Michael Mandelbaum tells a story about a young girl who is eating dinner at a friend's house and her friend's mother asks her if she likes brussels sprouts. "Yes, of course," the girl says. "I like brussels sprouts." After dinner, though, the mother notices that the girl hasn't eaten a single sprout. "I thought you liked brussels sprouts," the mother said. "I do," answered the girl, "but not enough to actually eat them."
Mr. Mandelbaum, who teaches foreign policy at Johns Hopkins, related that story to me during a conversation about the two greatest nuclear proliferation threats we face today: North Korea and Iran. Readers of this column know that I rarely write about nuclear proliferation. It is not because I am not interested. I am. It is not because I think it isn't a grave danger. It is. The reason I don't write about it much is because the solution is so ridiculously obvious there isn't much to say. Here's what I mean:
North Korea's nuclear program could be stopped tomorrow by the country that provides roughly half of North Korea's energy and one-third of its food supplies - and that is China.
All China has to say to Kim Jong Il is: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors under international inspection, or we will turn off your lights, cut off your heat and put your whole country on a diet. Have we made ourselves clear?" One thing we know about China - it knows how to play hardball when it wants to, and if China played hardball that way with North Korea, the proliferation threat from Pyongyang would be over.
Ditto Europe vis-à-vis Iran. If the European Union said to the Iranians: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors and related facilities under international inspection or you will face a total economic boycott from Europe. Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" Trust me, that is the kind of explicit threat that would get Tehran's attention. Short of that, the Iranians will dicker over their nuclear carpets forever.
So why haven't China and the E.U. said these things? "Like that girl with the brussels sprouts," Mr. Mandelbaum said, "the Chinese and the Europeans are all for combating nuclear proliferation - just not enough actually to do something about it."
At the end of the day, the Chinese would rather live with a nuclear North Korea than risk a collapsed nonnuclear North Korea, and the Europeans would rather live with a nuclear Iran - that Europe can make all kinds of money off of - rather than risk losing Iran's business to prevent it from going nuclear. The Chinese and the Europeans "each assume that in the end, the U.S. will deter both the North Koreans and the Iranians anyway, so why worry," Mr. Mandelbaum said.
Are the Europeans and Chinese behaving cynically? Of course, these are the very countries constantly complaining about U.S. "hegemony," and calling for a "multipolar world." Yet the only thing they are really interested in being a pole for is to oppose the U.S. - not to actually do something hard themselves to stabilize the global system.
The prevailing assumption in Washington is that if something really big is going wrong - like North Korea and Iran going nuclear - it must be because America messed up. Yes, the Bush nonproliferation policy has been pretty dysfunctional, but the real problem is that those parties with the leverage to make a diplomatic difference refuse to use it. (We have already largely isolated Iran and North Korea. There is nothing much more America can threaten, short of using force.)
This is not a joke. If North Korea and Iran both go nuclear, that step may trigger a major realignment of geopolitics - the likes of which has not been seen since the end of the cold war. If North Korea sets off a nuclear test, how long will Japan continue relying on the U.S. for its nuclear shield? And what will South Korea and Taiwan do? And if Japan or South Korea goes nuclear, how may an anxious China react? And if Shiite Iran becomes a nuclear power - in tandem with Iraq's being run by Shiites - the Sunni Arab world will go nuts, not to mention the Israelis. Will Saudi Arabia then feel compelled to acquire a nuclear deterrent? Will Egypt?
We're talking nuclear dominoes.
So there you have it - my annual nonproliferation column. Unless China and Europe get serious about the problem, it's not going to get fixed. And for now, neither one seems to be ready or willing to eat its brussels sprouts.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
In his book "The Ideas That Conquered the World," Michael Mandelbaum tells a story about a young girl who is eating dinner at a friend's house and her friend's mother asks her if she likes brussels sprouts. "Yes, of course," the girl says. "I like brussels sprouts." After dinner, though, the mother notices that the girl hasn't eaten a single sprout. "I thought you liked brussels sprouts," the mother said. "I do," answered the girl, "but not enough to actually eat them."
Mr. Mandelbaum, who teaches foreign policy at Johns Hopkins, related that story to me during a conversation about the two greatest nuclear proliferation threats we face today: North Korea and Iran. Readers of this column know that I rarely write about nuclear proliferation. It is not because I am not interested. I am. It is not because I think it isn't a grave danger. It is. The reason I don't write about it much is because the solution is so ridiculously obvious there isn't much to say. Here's what I mean:
North Korea's nuclear program could be stopped tomorrow by the country that provides roughly half of North Korea's energy and one-third of its food supplies - and that is China.
All China has to say to Kim Jong Il is: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors under international inspection, or we will turn off your lights, cut off your heat and put your whole country on a diet. Have we made ourselves clear?" One thing we know about China - it knows how to play hardball when it wants to, and if China played hardball that way with North Korea, the proliferation threat from Pyongyang would be over.
Ditto Europe vis-à-vis Iran. If the European Union said to the Iranians: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors and related facilities under international inspection or you will face a total economic boycott from Europe. Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" Trust me, that is the kind of explicit threat that would get Tehran's attention. Short of that, the Iranians will dicker over their nuclear carpets forever.
So why haven't China and the E.U. said these things? "Like that girl with the brussels sprouts," Mr. Mandelbaum said, "the Chinese and the Europeans are all for combating nuclear proliferation - just not enough actually to do something about it."
At the end of the day, the Chinese would rather live with a nuclear North Korea than risk a collapsed nonnuclear North Korea, and the Europeans would rather live with a nuclear Iran - that Europe can make all kinds of money off of - rather than risk losing Iran's business to prevent it from going nuclear. The Chinese and the Europeans "each assume that in the end, the U.S. will deter both the North Koreans and the Iranians anyway, so why worry," Mr. Mandelbaum said.
Are the Europeans and Chinese behaving cynically? Of course, these are the very countries constantly complaining about U.S. "hegemony," and calling for a "multipolar world." Yet the only thing they are really interested in being a pole for is to oppose the U.S. - not to actually do something hard themselves to stabilize the global system.
The prevailing assumption in Washington is that if something really big is going wrong - like North Korea and Iran going nuclear - it must be because America messed up. Yes, the Bush nonproliferation policy has been pretty dysfunctional, but the real problem is that those parties with the leverage to make a diplomatic difference refuse to use it. (We have already largely isolated Iran and North Korea. There is nothing much more America can threaten, short of using force.)
This is not a joke. If North Korea and Iran both go nuclear, that step may trigger a major realignment of geopolitics - the likes of which has not been seen since the end of the cold war. If North Korea sets off a nuclear test, how long will Japan continue relying on the U.S. for its nuclear shield? And what will South Korea and Taiwan do? And if Japan or South Korea goes nuclear, how may an anxious China react? And if Shiite Iran becomes a nuclear power - in tandem with Iraq's being run by Shiites - the Sunni Arab world will go nuts, not to mention the Israelis. Will Saudi Arabia then feel compelled to acquire a nuclear deterrent? Will Egypt?
We're talking nuclear dominoes.
So there you have it - my annual nonproliferation column. Unless China and Europe get serious about the problem, it's not going to get fixed. And for now, neither one seems to be ready or willing to eat its brussels sprouts.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Abu Ghraib Isn't Guernica
But here's why the Spanish Civil War analogy is worth exploring.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, May 9, 2005, at 8:43 AM PT
Ian McEwan observed recently that there were, in effect, two kinds of people: those who could have used or recognized the words "Abu Ghraib" a few years ago, and those to whom it became a new term only last year. And what a resonant name it has indeed become. Now the Colombian painter Fernando Botero has produced a sequence of lurid and haunting pictures, based on the photographs taken by American war criminals, with which he hopes to draw attention to the horrors inflicted there. But his true ambition, he says, is to do for Abu Ghraib what Picasso did for Guernica.
The first of these ambitions is probably otiose: Where in the world are the images of Abu Ghraib not already notorious? (One of the cleansers of Darfur, only recently, employed them as a tu quoque to pre-empt any American condemnation of his activities.)
The second ambition is a bit dubious. It's also a bit stale: An article by Jonathan Steele in Britain's Guardian has already employed the Guernica comparison—this time to compare it to the U.S. Marine Corps' re-taking of Fallujah.
Guernica did have a certain reputation, as a town, before it was immortalized by Pablo Picasso. It was the historic capital of the Basques of Spain, and its famous oak tree was the spot where Spanish monarchs took an oath to protect Basque liberties. Its destruction from the air by German aircraft allied with Gen. Franco was considered not just an atrocity in itself, but a warning of a future Nazi blitzkrieg against Europe, and this is the potency that the painting still possesses, even if you agree with the Marxist and Third-Worldist art critic John Berger, in his The Success and Failure of Picasso, that it was one of the master's crudest works.
Abu Ghraib was by no means celebrated as an ancestral civic and cultural center before the year 2004. To the Iraqis, it was a name to be mentioned in whispers, if at all, as "the house of the end." It was a Dachau. Numberless people were consigned there and were never heard of again. Its execution shed worked overtime, as did its torturers, and we are still trying to discover how many Iraqis and Kurds died in its precincts. At one point, when it suffered even more than usual from chronic overcrowding, Saddam and his sons decided to execute a proportion of the inmates at random, just to cull the population. The warders then fanned out at night to visit the families of the prisoners, asking how much it would be worth to keep their son or brother or father off the list. The hands of prisoners were cut off, and the proceedings recorded on video for the delight of others. I myself became certain that Saddam had reached his fin de régime, or his Ceau?escu moment, when he celebrated his 100-percent win in the "referendum" of 2003 by releasing all the nonpolitical prisoners (the rapists and thieves and murderers who were his natural constituency) from Abu Ghraib. This sudden flood of ex-cons was a large factor in the horrific looting and mayhem that accompanied the fall of Baghdad.
I visited the jail a few months later, and I can tell you about everything but the stench, which you would have to smell for yourself. Layers of excrement and filth were being shoveled out; cells obviously designed for the vilest treatment of human beings made one recoil. In the huge, dank, cement gallery where the executions took place, a series of hooks and rings hung over a gruesome pit. Efforts were being made to repaint and disinfect the joint, and many of the new inmates were being held in encampments in the yard while this was being done, but I distinctly remember thinking that there was really no salvaging such a place and that it should either be torn down and ploughed over or turned into a museum.
Instead, it became an improvised center for anyone caught in the dragnet of the "insurgency" and was filled up with suspects as well as armed supporters of Baathism and Bin Ladenism. There's no need to restate what everyone now knows about what happened as a consequence. But I am not an apologist if I point out that there are no more hangings, random or systematic. The outrages committed by Pvt. England and her delightful boyfriend were first uncovered by their superiors. And seven of Saddam's amputees—those whose mutilations were filmed and distributed as a warning—have been flown to Houston, Texas—Texas, capital of redneck barbarism!—to be fitted with new prosthetic hands. A film about this latter episode, titled A Show of Hands, has been made by Don North and was, I believe, shown on the Al Hurra network. But I don't think that 1-in-100,000,000 people has seen it; certainly nobody in comparison with the universal dissemination of photographs of recreational sadism. Sr. Botero, who usually works with flab, has done some leaner and meaner paintings in this case. But they resemble less the metaphors of Picasso than the starkly literal efforts of Goya to represent the crumpled and twisted bodies of the second of May. And that is somehow appropriate, since Goya was divided in his own mind between Spanish patriotism and a covert sympathy for the Napoleonic forces, which, even at second hand, were bringing the principles of 1789 to his own benighted state.
The superficially clever thing to say today is that Lynddie England represents all of us, or at any rate all her superiors, and that the liberation of Iraq is thereby discredited. One odd effect of this smug view is to find her and her scummy friends—the actual inflicters of pain and humiliation—somehow innocent, while those senior officers who arrested them and put them on trial are somehow guilty. There is something faintly masochistic and indecent about that conclusion.
There's also something indecent about any comparison of this with the struggle of the Spanish Republic. If Fallujah is "Guernica," then the U.S. Marines are Herman Goering's Condor Legion. If Abu Ghraib is "Guernica," then the U.S. Army is a part of the original "Axis" between Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. I wonder if any sympathizer of this view would accept its apparent corollary: that the executions and tortures inflicted by the Spanish Communists—crimes now denied by nobody, though Picasso excused them at the time—axiomatically discredit the anti-fascist cause? And this distortion of the record is all the more extraordinary, since a much more natural analogy is close at hand. Gen. Franco's assault on the Spanish Republic—an assault that claimed to be, and was, a rebel "insurgency" against the elected government—consisted of an alliance of fascist parties, religious extremists, and Muslim fighters. It was led by the frightened former oligarchy, and its cause was preached from the pulpit, and its foot-soldiers were Moorish levies from North Africa and "volunteers" from Germany and Italy. How shady it is that our modern leftists and peaceniks can detect fascism absolutely everywhere except when it is actually staring them in the face. The next thing, of course, if we complete the historic analogy, would be for them to sign a pact with it. And this, some of them have already done.
But here's why the Spanish Civil War analogy is worth exploring.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, May 9, 2005, at 8:43 AM PT
Ian McEwan observed recently that there were, in effect, two kinds of people: those who could have used or recognized the words "Abu Ghraib" a few years ago, and those to whom it became a new term only last year. And what a resonant name it has indeed become. Now the Colombian painter Fernando Botero has produced a sequence of lurid and haunting pictures, based on the photographs taken by American war criminals, with which he hopes to draw attention to the horrors inflicted there. But his true ambition, he says, is to do for Abu Ghraib what Picasso did for Guernica.
The first of these ambitions is probably otiose: Where in the world are the images of Abu Ghraib not already notorious? (One of the cleansers of Darfur, only recently, employed them as a tu quoque to pre-empt any American condemnation of his activities.)
The second ambition is a bit dubious. It's also a bit stale: An article by Jonathan Steele in Britain's Guardian has already employed the Guernica comparison—this time to compare it to the U.S. Marine Corps' re-taking of Fallujah.
Guernica did have a certain reputation, as a town, before it was immortalized by Pablo Picasso. It was the historic capital of the Basques of Spain, and its famous oak tree was the spot where Spanish monarchs took an oath to protect Basque liberties. Its destruction from the air by German aircraft allied with Gen. Franco was considered not just an atrocity in itself, but a warning of a future Nazi blitzkrieg against Europe, and this is the potency that the painting still possesses, even if you agree with the Marxist and Third-Worldist art critic John Berger, in his The Success and Failure of Picasso, that it was one of the master's crudest works.
Abu Ghraib was by no means celebrated as an ancestral civic and cultural center before the year 2004. To the Iraqis, it was a name to be mentioned in whispers, if at all, as "the house of the end." It was a Dachau. Numberless people were consigned there and were never heard of again. Its execution shed worked overtime, as did its torturers, and we are still trying to discover how many Iraqis and Kurds died in its precincts. At one point, when it suffered even more than usual from chronic overcrowding, Saddam and his sons decided to execute a proportion of the inmates at random, just to cull the population. The warders then fanned out at night to visit the families of the prisoners, asking how much it would be worth to keep their son or brother or father off the list. The hands of prisoners were cut off, and the proceedings recorded on video for the delight of others. I myself became certain that Saddam had reached his fin de régime, or his Ceau?escu moment, when he celebrated his 100-percent win in the "referendum" of 2003 by releasing all the nonpolitical prisoners (the rapists and thieves and murderers who were his natural constituency) from Abu Ghraib. This sudden flood of ex-cons was a large factor in the horrific looting and mayhem that accompanied the fall of Baghdad.
I visited the jail a few months later, and I can tell you about everything but the stench, which you would have to smell for yourself. Layers of excrement and filth were being shoveled out; cells obviously designed for the vilest treatment of human beings made one recoil. In the huge, dank, cement gallery where the executions took place, a series of hooks and rings hung over a gruesome pit. Efforts were being made to repaint and disinfect the joint, and many of the new inmates were being held in encampments in the yard while this was being done, but I distinctly remember thinking that there was really no salvaging such a place and that it should either be torn down and ploughed over or turned into a museum.
Instead, it became an improvised center for anyone caught in the dragnet of the "insurgency" and was filled up with suspects as well as armed supporters of Baathism and Bin Ladenism. There's no need to restate what everyone now knows about what happened as a consequence. But I am not an apologist if I point out that there are no more hangings, random or systematic. The outrages committed by Pvt. England and her delightful boyfriend were first uncovered by their superiors. And seven of Saddam's amputees—those whose mutilations were filmed and distributed as a warning—have been flown to Houston, Texas—Texas, capital of redneck barbarism!—to be fitted with new prosthetic hands. A film about this latter episode, titled A Show of Hands, has been made by Don North and was, I believe, shown on the Al Hurra network. But I don't think that 1-in-100,000,000 people has seen it; certainly nobody in comparison with the universal dissemination of photographs of recreational sadism. Sr. Botero, who usually works with flab, has done some leaner and meaner paintings in this case. But they resemble less the metaphors of Picasso than the starkly literal efforts of Goya to represent the crumpled and twisted bodies of the second of May. And that is somehow appropriate, since Goya was divided in his own mind between Spanish patriotism and a covert sympathy for the Napoleonic forces, which, even at second hand, were bringing the principles of 1789 to his own benighted state.
The superficially clever thing to say today is that Lynddie England represents all of us, or at any rate all her superiors, and that the liberation of Iraq is thereby discredited. One odd effect of this smug view is to find her and her scummy friends—the actual inflicters of pain and humiliation—somehow innocent, while those senior officers who arrested them and put them on trial are somehow guilty. There is something faintly masochistic and indecent about that conclusion.
There's also something indecent about any comparison of this with the struggle of the Spanish Republic. If Fallujah is "Guernica," then the U.S. Marines are Herman Goering's Condor Legion. If Abu Ghraib is "Guernica," then the U.S. Army is a part of the original "Axis" between Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. I wonder if any sympathizer of this view would accept its apparent corollary: that the executions and tortures inflicted by the Spanish Communists—crimes now denied by nobody, though Picasso excused them at the time—axiomatically discredit the anti-fascist cause? And this distortion of the record is all the more extraordinary, since a much more natural analogy is close at hand. Gen. Franco's assault on the Spanish Republic—an assault that claimed to be, and was, a rebel "insurgency" against the elected government—consisted of an alliance of fascist parties, religious extremists, and Muslim fighters. It was led by the frightened former oligarchy, and its cause was preached from the pulpit, and its foot-soldiers were Moorish levies from North Africa and "volunteers" from Germany and Italy. How shady it is that our modern leftists and peaceniks can detect fascism absolutely everywhere except when it is actually staring them in the face. The next thing, of course, if we complete the historic analogy, would be for them to sign a pact with it. And this, some of them have already done.
Central/Eastern Europe Thank the President of the United States (for this):
President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Latvia
The Small Guild Hall
Riga, Latvia
5:09 P.M. (Local)
PRESIDENT BUSH: Sveiki Draugi. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the warm welcome. Madam President, Laura and I thank you for your kind words of introduction, we thank you for your principled leadership, and I thank you for your friendship, and we thank you for the hospitality that you and Dr. Freibergs have shown us.
I want to thank the people of the Republic of Latvia for being such gracious hosts for my visit here. And I want to also thank the Prime Minister for joining us, and members of the government. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. Laura and I are so pleased to make this second journey to the Baltic States, and our first visit to the great land of Latvia. We're honored, as well, to be in the company of President Ruutel of Estonia, and President Adamkus of Lithuania -- thank you both for coming. These are good friends to Latvia, and good friends to America.
The Baltic countries have seen one of the most dramatic transformations in modern history, from captive nations to NATO allies and EU members in little more than a decade. The Latvian, Estonian, and Lithuanian people showed that the love of liberty is stronger than the will of an empire. And today you're standing for liberty beyond your borders, so that others do not suffer the injustices you have known. The American people admire your moral courage in the cause of freedom.
This week, nations on both sides of the Atlantic observe the 60th anniversary of Hitler's defeat. The evil that seized power in Germany brought war to all of Europe, and waged war against morality, itself. What began as a movement of thugs became a government without conscience, and then an empire of bottomless cruelty. The Third Reich exalted the strong over the weak, overran and humiliated peaceful countries, undertook a mad quest for racial purity, coldly planned and carried out the murder of millions, and defined evil for the ages. Brave men and women of many countries faced that evil, and fought through dark and desperate years for their families and their homelands. In the end, a dictator who worshiped power was confined to four walls of a bunker, and the fall of his squalid tyranny is a day to remember and to celebrate.
Causes can be judged by the monuments they leave behind. The Nazi terror is remembered today in places like Auschwitz, Dachau, Rumbula Forest, where we still hear the cries of the innocent, and pledge to God and history: Never again. The alliance that won the war is remembered today in carefully tended cemeteries in Normandy, Margraten, St. Petersburg, and other places across Europe, where we recall brief lives of great honor, and we offer this pledge: We will always be grateful.
The Baltic states had no role in starting World War II. The battle came here because of a secret pact between dictators. And when the war came, many in this region showed their courage. After a puppet government ordered the Latvian fleet to return to port, sailors on eight freighters chose to remain at sea under the flag of free Latvia, assisting the United States Merchant Marine in carrying supplies across the Atlantic. A newspaper in the state of South Carolina described the Latvian crew this way: "They all have beards and dressed so differently... They are ... exhausted, but full of fighting spirit."
By the end of the war, six of the Latvian ships had been sunk, and more than half the sailors had been lost. Nearly all of the survivors settled in America, and became citizens we were proud to call our own. One American town renamed a street Ciltvaira -- to honor a sunken ship that sailed under a free Latvian flag. My country has always been thankful for Latvia's friendship, and Latvia will always have the friendship of America.
As we mark a victory of six days ago -- six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox. For much of Germany, defeat led to freedom. For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E Day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end oppression. The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history.
The end of World War II raised unavoidable questions for my country: Had we fought and sacrificed only to achieve the permanent division of Europe into armed camps? Or did the cause of freedom and the rights of nations require more of us? Eventually, America and our strong allies made a decision: We would not be content with the liberation of half of Europe -- and we would not forget our friends behind an Iron Curtain. We defended the freedom of Greece and Turkey, and airlifted supplies to Berlin, and broadcast the message of liberty by radio. We spoke up for dissenters, and challenged an empire to tear down a hated wall. Eventually, communism began to collapse under external pressure, and under the weight of its own contradictions. And we set the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace -- so dictators could no longer rise up and feed ancient grievances, and conflict would not be repeated again and again.
In these decades of struggle and purpose, the Baltic peoples kept a long vigil of suffering and hope. Though you lived in isolation, you were not alone. The United States refused to recognize your occupation by an empire. The flags of free Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania -- illegal at home -- flew proudly over diplomatic missions in the United States. And when you joined hands in protest and the empire fell away, the legacy of Yalta was finally buried, once and for all. The security and freedom of the Baltic nations is now more than a noble aspiration; it is the binding pledge of the alliance we share. The defense of your freedom -- in defense of your freedom you will never stand alone.
From the vantage point of this new century, we recognize the end of the Cold War as part of an even broader movement in our world. From Germany and Japan after World War II, to Latin America, to Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe, and now to the broader Middle East, the advance of freedom is the great story of our age. And in this history, there are important lessons. We have learned that free nations grow stronger with time, because they rise on the creativity and enterprise of their people. We have learned that governments accountable to citizens are peaceful, while dictatorships stir resentments and hatred to cover their own failings. We have learned that the skeptics and pessimists are often wrong, because men and women in every culture, when given the chance, will choose liberty. We have learned that even after a long wait in the darkness of tyranny, freedom can arrive suddenly, like the break of day. And we have learned that the demand for self-government is often driven and sustained by patriotism, by the traditions and heroes and language of a native land.
Yet we've also learned that sovereignty and majority rule are only the beginnings of freedom. The promise of democracy starts with national pride, and independence, and elections. But it does not end there. The promise of democracy is fulfilled by minority rights, and equal justice under the rule of law, and an inclusive society in which every person belongs. A country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward, and risks sliding back into tyranny. A country that unites all its people behind common ideals will multiply in strength and confidence. The successful democracies of the 21st century will not be defined by blood and soil. Successful democracies will be defined by a broader ideal of citizenship -- based on shared principles, shared responsibilities, and respect for all. For my own country, the process of becoming a mature, multi-ethnic democracy was lengthy and violent. Our journey from national independence to equal injustice [sic] included the enslavement of millions, and a four-year civil war. Even after slavery ended, a century passed before an oppressed minority was guaranteed equal rights. Americans found that racial division almost destroyed us, and the false doctrine of "separate but equal" was no basis for a strong and unified country. The only way we found to rise above the injustices of our history was to reject segregation, to move beyond mere tolerance, and to affirm the brotherhood of everyone in our land.
Latvia is facing the challenges that come with ethnic diversity, and it's addressing these challenges in a uniformly peaceful way. Whatever the historical causes, yours is now a multi-ethnic society -- as I have seen on my visit. No wrongs of the past should ever be allowed to divide you, or to slow your remarkable progress. While keeping your Latvian identity and language, you have a responsibility to reach out to all who share the future of Latvia. A welcoming and tolerant spirit will assure the unity and strength of your country. Minorities here have a responsibility as well -- to be citizens who seek the good of the country in which they live. As inclusive, peaceful societies, all of the Baltic nations can be models to every nation that follows the path of freedom and democracy.
In recent months, the Baltic governments gave assistance during the election in Ukraine, and the people of that country chose a wise and visionary leader. As President Yushchenko works to strengthen the rule of law and open Ukraine's economy, the United States will help that nation join the institutions that bind our democracies. Later on this trip I'll travel to Georgia, another country that is taking a democratic path and deserves support on its journey. My country will stand by Georgian leaders who respect minority rights and work to peacefully unify their country, and grow closer to the free nations in Europe. We're also committed to democratic progress in Moldova, where leaders have pledged to expand freedom of the press, to protect minority rights, and to make government institutions more accountable.
All of us are committed to the advance of freedom in Belarus. The people of that country live under Europe's last dictatorship, and they deserve better. The governments of Latvia and Lithuania have worked to build support for democracy in Belarus, and to deliver truthful information by radio and newspapers. Together we have set a firm and confident standard: Repression has no place on this continent. The people of Minsk deserve the same freedom you have in Tallinn, and Vilnius, and Riga.
All the nations that border Russia will benefit from the spread of democratic values -- and so will Russia, itself. Stable, prosperous democracies are good neighbors, trading in freedom, and posing no threat to anyone. The United States has free and peaceful nations to the north and south of us. We do not consider ourselves to be encircled; we consider ourselves to be blessed. No good purpose is served by stirring up fears and exploiting old rivalries in this region. The interests of Russia and all nations are served by the growth of freedom that leads to prosperity and peace. Inside Russia, leaders have made great progress over the last 15 years. President Putin recently stated that Russia's future lies within Europe -- and America agrees. He also stated that Russia's democratic future will not be determined by outsiders -- and America agrees, as well. That nation will follow its own course, according to its own history. Yet all free and successful countries have some common characteristics: freedom of worship, freedom of the press, economic liberty, the rule of law, and the limitation of power through checks and balances. In the long run, it is the strength of Russian democracy that will determine the greatness of Russia. And I believe the Russian people value their freedom, and will settle for nothing less.
For all the problems that remain, it is a miracle of history that this young century finds us speaking about the consolidation of freedom throughout Europe. And the stunning democratic gains of the last several decades are only the beginning. Freedom is not tired. The ideal of human dignity is not weary. And the next stage of the world democratic movement is already unfolding in the broader Middle East.
We seek democracy in that region for the same reasons we spent decades working for democracy in Europe -- because freedom is the only reliable path to peace. If the Middle East continues to simmer in anger and resentment and hopelessness, caught in a cycle of repression and radicalism, it will produce terrorism of even greater audacity and destructive power. But if the peoples of that region gain the right of self-government, and find hopes to replace their hatreds, then the security of all free nations will be strengthened. We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability. We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others. And so, with confidence and resolve, we will stand for freedom across the broader Middle East.
In this great objective, we need a realism that understands the difficulties. But we must turn away from a pessimism that abandons the goal and consigns millions to endless tyranny. And we have reason for optimism. When the people of Afghanistan were finally given the vote, they chose humane rulers and a future of freedom. When the people of the Palestinian Territories went to the polls, they chose a leader committed to negotiation instead of violence. When Iraqi voters turned out by the millions, they repudiated the killers who hate and attack their liberty. There's much work ahead, but the direction of events is clear in the broader Middle East: Freedom is on the march.
Recent elections have brought a tremendous catalyst for change, and more are on the way. Elections are set to start at the end of this month in Lebanon, and those elections must go forward with no outside interference. The people of Lebanon now have the opportunity to bridge old divides and build an independent government. Egypt will hold a presidential election this fall. That election should proceed with international monitors, and with rules that allow for a real campaign.
As in other parts of the world, the work of democracy is larger than holding a fair election; it requires building the structures that sustain freedom. Selective liberalization -- the easing of oppressive laws - is progress, but it is not enough. Successful democracies that effectively protect individual rights require viable political parties, an independent judiciary, a diverse media, and limits on executive power. There is no modernization without democracy. Ultimately, human rights and human development depend on human liberty.
As in other parts of the world, successful democracies in the broader Middle East must also bridge old racial and religious divides -- and democracy is the only force capable of doing so. In Iraq, the new Cabinet includes members of all of Iraq's leading ethnic and religious groups, who, despite their differences, share a commitment to democracy, freedom, and the rule of law. The new President of Iraq is a member of a minority group that was attacked with poison gas by the former regime. Democracy is fostering internal peace by protecting individual rights, while giving every minority a role in the nation's future. Iraq's free government is showing the way for others, and is winning the respect of a watching world.
In the Middle East, we are seeing the rule of law -- the rule of fear give way to the hope of change. And brave reformers in that region deserve more than our praise. The established democracies have a duty to help emerging democracies of the broader Middle East. They need our help, because freedom has deadly enemies in that region -- men who celebrate murder, incite suicide, and thirst for absolute power. By aiding democratic transitions, we will isolate the forces of hatred and terror and defeat them before violence spreads.
The Baltic states are members of a global coalition, and each is making essential contributions every day. Lithuania is preparing to deploy a reconstruction team to western Afghanistan, and has troops in Iraq conducting patrols and aiding in reconstruction. Estonians are serving in Afghanistan, they're detecting and removing explosives, and Estonian troops serve side-by-side with Americans in Baghdad. Latvia has a team in Kabul, Afghanistan, clearing mines, and soldiers in Iraq providing convoy security and patrols. Your commitment to freedom has brought sacrifice. We remember Lieutenant Olafs Baumanis, who was killed in Iraq. We ask for God's blessings for his family, and we're honored that his wife, Vita, is here with us today.
It's no surprise that Afghanistan and Iraq find strong allies in the Baltic nations. Because you've recently known tyranny, you are offended by the oppression of others. The men and women under my command are proud to serve with you. Today I'm honored to deliver the thanks of the American people.
Sixty years ago, on the 7th of May, the world reacted with joy and relief at the defeat of fascism in Europe. The next day, General Dwight D. Eisenhower announced that "history's mightiest machine of conquest has been utterly destroyed." Yet the great democracies soon found that a new mission had come to us -- not merely to defeat a single dictator, but to defeat the idea of dictatorship on this continent. Through the decades of that struggle, some endured the rule of tyrants; all lived in the frightening shadow of war. Yet because we lifted our sights and held firm to our principles, freedom prevailed.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, the freedom of Europe, won by courage, must be secured by effort and goodwill. In our time, as well, we must raise our sights. In the distance we can see another great goal -- not merely the absence of tyranny on this continent, but the end of tyranny in our world. Once again, we're asked to hold firm to our principles, and to value the liberty of others. And once again, if we do our part, freedom will prevail.
Thank you, and God bless. (Applause.)
President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Latvia
The Small Guild Hall
Riga, Latvia
5:09 P.M. (Local)
PRESIDENT BUSH: Sveiki Draugi. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the warm welcome. Madam President, Laura and I thank you for your kind words of introduction, we thank you for your principled leadership, and I thank you for your friendship, and we thank you for the hospitality that you and Dr. Freibergs have shown us.
I want to thank the people of the Republic of Latvia for being such gracious hosts for my visit here. And I want to also thank the Prime Minister for joining us, and members of the government. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. Laura and I are so pleased to make this second journey to the Baltic States, and our first visit to the great land of Latvia. We're honored, as well, to be in the company of President Ruutel of Estonia, and President Adamkus of Lithuania -- thank you both for coming. These are good friends to Latvia, and good friends to America.
The Baltic countries have seen one of the most dramatic transformations in modern history, from captive nations to NATO allies and EU members in little more than a decade. The Latvian, Estonian, and Lithuanian people showed that the love of liberty is stronger than the will of an empire. And today you're standing for liberty beyond your borders, so that others do not suffer the injustices you have known. The American people admire your moral courage in the cause of freedom.
This week, nations on both sides of the Atlantic observe the 60th anniversary of Hitler's defeat. The evil that seized power in Germany brought war to all of Europe, and waged war against morality, itself. What began as a movement of thugs became a government without conscience, and then an empire of bottomless cruelty. The Third Reich exalted the strong over the weak, overran and humiliated peaceful countries, undertook a mad quest for racial purity, coldly planned and carried out the murder of millions, and defined evil for the ages. Brave men and women of many countries faced that evil, and fought through dark and desperate years for their families and their homelands. In the end, a dictator who worshiped power was confined to four walls of a bunker, and the fall of his squalid tyranny is a day to remember and to celebrate.
Causes can be judged by the monuments they leave behind. The Nazi terror is remembered today in places like Auschwitz, Dachau, Rumbula Forest, where we still hear the cries of the innocent, and pledge to God and history: Never again. The alliance that won the war is remembered today in carefully tended cemeteries in Normandy, Margraten, St. Petersburg, and other places across Europe, where we recall brief lives of great honor, and we offer this pledge: We will always be grateful.
The Baltic states had no role in starting World War II. The battle came here because of a secret pact between dictators. And when the war came, many in this region showed their courage. After a puppet government ordered the Latvian fleet to return to port, sailors on eight freighters chose to remain at sea under the flag of free Latvia, assisting the United States Merchant Marine in carrying supplies across the Atlantic. A newspaper in the state of South Carolina described the Latvian crew this way: "They all have beards and dressed so differently... They are ... exhausted, but full of fighting spirit."
By the end of the war, six of the Latvian ships had been sunk, and more than half the sailors had been lost. Nearly all of the survivors settled in America, and became citizens we were proud to call our own. One American town renamed a street Ciltvaira -- to honor a sunken ship that sailed under a free Latvian flag. My country has always been thankful for Latvia's friendship, and Latvia will always have the friendship of America.
As we mark a victory of six days ago -- six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox. For much of Germany, defeat led to freedom. For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E Day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end oppression. The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history.
The end of World War II raised unavoidable questions for my country: Had we fought and sacrificed only to achieve the permanent division of Europe into armed camps? Or did the cause of freedom and the rights of nations require more of us? Eventually, America and our strong allies made a decision: We would not be content with the liberation of half of Europe -- and we would not forget our friends behind an Iron Curtain. We defended the freedom of Greece and Turkey, and airlifted supplies to Berlin, and broadcast the message of liberty by radio. We spoke up for dissenters, and challenged an empire to tear down a hated wall. Eventually, communism began to collapse under external pressure, and under the weight of its own contradictions. And we set the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace -- so dictators could no longer rise up and feed ancient grievances, and conflict would not be repeated again and again.
In these decades of struggle and purpose, the Baltic peoples kept a long vigil of suffering and hope. Though you lived in isolation, you were not alone. The United States refused to recognize your occupation by an empire. The flags of free Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania -- illegal at home -- flew proudly over diplomatic missions in the United States. And when you joined hands in protest and the empire fell away, the legacy of Yalta was finally buried, once and for all. The security and freedom of the Baltic nations is now more than a noble aspiration; it is the binding pledge of the alliance we share. The defense of your freedom -- in defense of your freedom you will never stand alone.
From the vantage point of this new century, we recognize the end of the Cold War as part of an even broader movement in our world. From Germany and Japan after World War II, to Latin America, to Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe, and now to the broader Middle East, the advance of freedom is the great story of our age. And in this history, there are important lessons. We have learned that free nations grow stronger with time, because they rise on the creativity and enterprise of their people. We have learned that governments accountable to citizens are peaceful, while dictatorships stir resentments and hatred to cover their own failings. We have learned that the skeptics and pessimists are often wrong, because men and women in every culture, when given the chance, will choose liberty. We have learned that even after a long wait in the darkness of tyranny, freedom can arrive suddenly, like the break of day. And we have learned that the demand for self-government is often driven and sustained by patriotism, by the traditions and heroes and language of a native land.
Yet we've also learned that sovereignty and majority rule are only the beginnings of freedom. The promise of democracy starts with national pride, and independence, and elections. But it does not end there. The promise of democracy is fulfilled by minority rights, and equal justice under the rule of law, and an inclusive society in which every person belongs. A country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward, and risks sliding back into tyranny. A country that unites all its people behind common ideals will multiply in strength and confidence. The successful democracies of the 21st century will not be defined by blood and soil. Successful democracies will be defined by a broader ideal of citizenship -- based on shared principles, shared responsibilities, and respect for all. For my own country, the process of becoming a mature, multi-ethnic democracy was lengthy and violent. Our journey from national independence to equal injustice [sic] included the enslavement of millions, and a four-year civil war. Even after slavery ended, a century passed before an oppressed minority was guaranteed equal rights. Americans found that racial division almost destroyed us, and the false doctrine of "separate but equal" was no basis for a strong and unified country. The only way we found to rise above the injustices of our history was to reject segregation, to move beyond mere tolerance, and to affirm the brotherhood of everyone in our land.
Latvia is facing the challenges that come with ethnic diversity, and it's addressing these challenges in a uniformly peaceful way. Whatever the historical causes, yours is now a multi-ethnic society -- as I have seen on my visit. No wrongs of the past should ever be allowed to divide you, or to slow your remarkable progress. While keeping your Latvian identity and language, you have a responsibility to reach out to all who share the future of Latvia. A welcoming and tolerant spirit will assure the unity and strength of your country. Minorities here have a responsibility as well -- to be citizens who seek the good of the country in which they live. As inclusive, peaceful societies, all of the Baltic nations can be models to every nation that follows the path of freedom and democracy.
In recent months, the Baltic governments gave assistance during the election in Ukraine, and the people of that country chose a wise and visionary leader. As President Yushchenko works to strengthen the rule of law and open Ukraine's economy, the United States will help that nation join the institutions that bind our democracies. Later on this trip I'll travel to Georgia, another country that is taking a democratic path and deserves support on its journey. My country will stand by Georgian leaders who respect minority rights and work to peacefully unify their country, and grow closer to the free nations in Europe. We're also committed to democratic progress in Moldova, where leaders have pledged to expand freedom of the press, to protect minority rights, and to make government institutions more accountable.
All of us are committed to the advance of freedom in Belarus. The people of that country live under Europe's last dictatorship, and they deserve better. The governments of Latvia and Lithuania have worked to build support for democracy in Belarus, and to deliver truthful information by radio and newspapers. Together we have set a firm and confident standard: Repression has no place on this continent. The people of Minsk deserve the same freedom you have in Tallinn, and Vilnius, and Riga.
All the nations that border Russia will benefit from the spread of democratic values -- and so will Russia, itself. Stable, prosperous democracies are good neighbors, trading in freedom, and posing no threat to anyone. The United States has free and peaceful nations to the north and south of us. We do not consider ourselves to be encircled; we consider ourselves to be blessed. No good purpose is served by stirring up fears and exploiting old rivalries in this region. The interests of Russia and all nations are served by the growth of freedom that leads to prosperity and peace. Inside Russia, leaders have made great progress over the last 15 years. President Putin recently stated that Russia's future lies within Europe -- and America agrees. He also stated that Russia's democratic future will not be determined by outsiders -- and America agrees, as well. That nation will follow its own course, according to its own history. Yet all free and successful countries have some common characteristics: freedom of worship, freedom of the press, economic liberty, the rule of law, and the limitation of power through checks and balances. In the long run, it is the strength of Russian democracy that will determine the greatness of Russia. And I believe the Russian people value their freedom, and will settle for nothing less.
For all the problems that remain, it is a miracle of history that this young century finds us speaking about the consolidation of freedom throughout Europe. And the stunning democratic gains of the last several decades are only the beginning. Freedom is not tired. The ideal of human dignity is not weary. And the next stage of the world democratic movement is already unfolding in the broader Middle East.
We seek democracy in that region for the same reasons we spent decades working for democracy in Europe -- because freedom is the only reliable path to peace. If the Middle East continues to simmer in anger and resentment and hopelessness, caught in a cycle of repression and radicalism, it will produce terrorism of even greater audacity and destructive power. But if the peoples of that region gain the right of self-government, and find hopes to replace their hatreds, then the security of all free nations will be strengthened. We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability. We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others. And so, with confidence and resolve, we will stand for freedom across the broader Middle East.
In this great objective, we need a realism that understands the difficulties. But we must turn away from a pessimism that abandons the goal and consigns millions to endless tyranny. And we have reason for optimism. When the people of Afghanistan were finally given the vote, they chose humane rulers and a future of freedom. When the people of the Palestinian Territories went to the polls, they chose a leader committed to negotiation instead of violence. When Iraqi voters turned out by the millions, they repudiated the killers who hate and attack their liberty. There's much work ahead, but the direction of events is clear in the broader Middle East: Freedom is on the march.
Recent elections have brought a tremendous catalyst for change, and more are on the way. Elections are set to start at the end of this month in Lebanon, and those elections must go forward with no outside interference. The people of Lebanon now have the opportunity to bridge old divides and build an independent government. Egypt will hold a presidential election this fall. That election should proceed with international monitors, and with rules that allow for a real campaign.
As in other parts of the world, the work of democracy is larger than holding a fair election; it requires building the structures that sustain freedom. Selective liberalization -- the easing of oppressive laws - is progress, but it is not enough. Successful democracies that effectively protect individual rights require viable political parties, an independent judiciary, a diverse media, and limits on executive power. There is no modernization without democracy. Ultimately, human rights and human development depend on human liberty.
As in other parts of the world, successful democracies in the broader Middle East must also bridge old racial and religious divides -- and democracy is the only force capable of doing so. In Iraq, the new Cabinet includes members of all of Iraq's leading ethnic and religious groups, who, despite their differences, share a commitment to democracy, freedom, and the rule of law. The new President of Iraq is a member of a minority group that was attacked with poison gas by the former regime. Democracy is fostering internal peace by protecting individual rights, while giving every minority a role in the nation's future. Iraq's free government is showing the way for others, and is winning the respect of a watching world.
In the Middle East, we are seeing the rule of law -- the rule of fear give way to the hope of change. And brave reformers in that region deserve more than our praise. The established democracies have a duty to help emerging democracies of the broader Middle East. They need our help, because freedom has deadly enemies in that region -- men who celebrate murder, incite suicide, and thirst for absolute power. By aiding democratic transitions, we will isolate the forces of hatred and terror and defeat them before violence spreads.
The Baltic states are members of a global coalition, and each is making essential contributions every day. Lithuania is preparing to deploy a reconstruction team to western Afghanistan, and has troops in Iraq conducting patrols and aiding in reconstruction. Estonians are serving in Afghanistan, they're detecting and removing explosives, and Estonian troops serve side-by-side with Americans in Baghdad. Latvia has a team in Kabul, Afghanistan, clearing mines, and soldiers in Iraq providing convoy security and patrols. Your commitment to freedom has brought sacrifice. We remember Lieutenant Olafs Baumanis, who was killed in Iraq. We ask for God's blessings for his family, and we're honored that his wife, Vita, is here with us today.
It's no surprise that Afghanistan and Iraq find strong allies in the Baltic nations. Because you've recently known tyranny, you are offended by the oppression of others. The men and women under my command are proud to serve with you. Today I'm honored to deliver the thanks of the American people.
Sixty years ago, on the 7th of May, the world reacted with joy and relief at the defeat of fascism in Europe. The next day, General Dwight D. Eisenhower announced that "history's mightiest machine of conquest has been utterly destroyed." Yet the great democracies soon found that a new mission had come to us -- not merely to defeat a single dictator, but to defeat the idea of dictatorship on this continent. Through the decades of that struggle, some endured the rule of tyrants; all lived in the frightening shadow of war. Yet because we lifted our sights and held firm to our principles, freedom prevailed.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, the freedom of Europe, won by courage, must be secured by effort and goodwill. In our time, as well, we must raise our sights. In the distance we can see another great goal -- not merely the absence of tyranny on this continent, but the end of tyranny in our world. Once again, we're asked to hold firm to our principles, and to value the liberty of others. And once again, if we do our part, freedom will prevail.
Thank you, and God bless. (Applause.)
"The fight against Anglo-Saxon Liberalism" goes on!!!
Chirac invokes revolutionary spirit to get a 'yes' for EU constitution
From Adam Sage in Paris
THE European constitution enshrines the values of the French Revolution, President Chirac said last night as he sought to drive home his message that a “no” vote in the referendum on May 29 would be an own-goal in the fight against Anglo-Saxon liberalism.
Buoyed by polls showing increased support for the constitution, M Chirac endeavoured, in a live television interview, to present it as a triumph for Gallic diplomacy. “My belief is that this constitution is essentially of French inspiration,” he said, arguing that its origins could be traced back to the fall of the Bastille. “It is the daughter of 1789 through its ambition and through its respect for human rights and democracy.”
With the “yes” camp holding a slender lead in the polls for the first time since March, the head of state set out to counter opponents who say that the constitution would dismantle France’s centralised State and undermine its public services.
Claiming that France was the only EU country not to have made a single significant concession during the negotiations, he said: “The constitution is the best possible one for us.”
The 72-year-old President was making his second television appearance of the knife-edge campaign. He has tried to reassure Eurosceptics concerned that the constitution would undermine French sovereignty. The treaty laid to rest the idea of the United States of Europe, he said, claiming that it promoted instead an “organisation that enables us to work together when that is most efficient but where each state, each nation preserves its identity, and therefore its culture and its interests”.
But the President’s main target was the Socialist voters who threaten to tip the balance towards the “no” camp. He repeatedly insisted that the constitution would protect the “French social model” and act as a barrier against Anglo-Saxon liberalism. “This is a decisive step towards a better social situation,” he said. “We fought for recognition of public services — and at one time we were alone — and we have won.”
M Chirac said a victory for the “no” camp would “interrupt 50 years of European construction, and mean returning to existing treaties, which everyone says are insufficient”.
Turning his opponents’ arguments on their head, he added that a French rejection of the constitution would “leave the road clear for those who want Europe to be a free-trade zone and not a social organisation”.
In a clear message to wavering Socialists, he said: “I respect people who are against Europe for personal beliefs, but you can’t vote ‘no’ and say you are in favour of Europe.”A “no” vote would be a failure for France, would leave the country isolated and weaken its voice, not only in Europe but internationally, he said.
M Chirac also wanted to dismiss suggestions that the EU had a fallback if the “no” camp prevailed. “There is naturally no Plan B,” he said, implying that the result would be chaos.
The French President is hoping to surf on a wave of support that has come after public calls in favour of the constitution from Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, Jacques Delors, the former European Union President, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French President, and Lionel Jospin, the former French Prime Minister. At a ceremony at the Elysée Palace for European celebrities on Monday, the President also won precious backing from Johnny Hallyday, the iconic French rock star, who said: “We French cannot stay outside Europe.”
The successful launch last week of the A380 Airbus super-jumbo was also portrayed as evidence that Europe can offer France la grandeur it used to enjoy on its own.
Another factor in the turnaround in the polls may be the €400 million (£270 million) spent by the French Government to appease a variety of lobbies: civil servants have been given a 1.8 per cent pay rise, farmers have been offered paid holidays, wine producers more subsidies and hospital doctors a budget increase.
With discontent still rife and M Chirac’s centre-right Government deeply unpopular, the referendum’s outcome is uncertain. M Chirac says that he will not resign if there is a “no” vote and has hinted that he will dismiss his lame-duck Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, even if it is approved.
Chirac invokes revolutionary spirit to get a 'yes' for EU constitution
From Adam Sage in Paris
THE European constitution enshrines the values of the French Revolution, President Chirac said last night as he sought to drive home his message that a “no” vote in the referendum on May 29 would be an own-goal in the fight against Anglo-Saxon liberalism.
Buoyed by polls showing increased support for the constitution, M Chirac endeavoured, in a live television interview, to present it as a triumph for Gallic diplomacy. “My belief is that this constitution is essentially of French inspiration,” he said, arguing that its origins could be traced back to the fall of the Bastille. “It is the daughter of 1789 through its ambition and through its respect for human rights and democracy.”
With the “yes” camp holding a slender lead in the polls for the first time since March, the head of state set out to counter opponents who say that the constitution would dismantle France’s centralised State and undermine its public services.
Claiming that France was the only EU country not to have made a single significant concession during the negotiations, he said: “The constitution is the best possible one for us.”
The 72-year-old President was making his second television appearance of the knife-edge campaign. He has tried to reassure Eurosceptics concerned that the constitution would undermine French sovereignty. The treaty laid to rest the idea of the United States of Europe, he said, claiming that it promoted instead an “organisation that enables us to work together when that is most efficient but where each state, each nation preserves its identity, and therefore its culture and its interests”.
But the President’s main target was the Socialist voters who threaten to tip the balance towards the “no” camp. He repeatedly insisted that the constitution would protect the “French social model” and act as a barrier against Anglo-Saxon liberalism. “This is a decisive step towards a better social situation,” he said. “We fought for recognition of public services — and at one time we were alone — and we have won.”
M Chirac said a victory for the “no” camp would “interrupt 50 years of European construction, and mean returning to existing treaties, which everyone says are insufficient”.
Turning his opponents’ arguments on their head, he added that a French rejection of the constitution would “leave the road clear for those who want Europe to be a free-trade zone and not a social organisation”.
In a clear message to wavering Socialists, he said: “I respect people who are against Europe for personal beliefs, but you can’t vote ‘no’ and say you are in favour of Europe.”A “no” vote would be a failure for France, would leave the country isolated and weaken its voice, not only in Europe but internationally, he said.
M Chirac also wanted to dismiss suggestions that the EU had a fallback if the “no” camp prevailed. “There is naturally no Plan B,” he said, implying that the result would be chaos.
The French President is hoping to surf on a wave of support that has come after public calls in favour of the constitution from Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, Jacques Delors, the former European Union President, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French President, and Lionel Jospin, the former French Prime Minister. At a ceremony at the Elysée Palace for European celebrities on Monday, the President also won precious backing from Johnny Hallyday, the iconic French rock star, who said: “We French cannot stay outside Europe.”
The successful launch last week of the A380 Airbus super-jumbo was also portrayed as evidence that Europe can offer France la grandeur it used to enjoy on its own.
Another factor in the turnaround in the polls may be the €400 million (£270 million) spent by the French Government to appease a variety of lobbies: civil servants have been given a 1.8 per cent pay rise, farmers have been offered paid holidays, wine producers more subsidies and hospital doctors a budget increase.
With discontent still rife and M Chirac’s centre-right Government deeply unpopular, the referendum’s outcome is uncertain. M Chirac says that he will not resign if there is a “no” vote and has hinted that he will dismiss his lame-duck Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, even if it is approved.
Say what?
Friday prayers and the future elections.
I have noticed lately that many announcements are being posted on the walls in Sunni mosques encouraging people to participate in the coming elections-that are planned to be in January 2006-and to not miss the chance like last time.I think the Sunni trend had made up its mind about this subject after the latest dispute inside the "association of Muslim scholars" after which it became obvious the decreasing influence of Al-Dhari's trend (who's out of the country right now along with his son) and the increasing influence of the moderate trend that favors being part of the political process.I have pointed this out earlier and I expect the near future to bring up the results of this development in the form of less violence in the usual hot spots.It's also become clear that the association has taken a firm decision not to take active part in the political process and had joined the "committee of national reconciliation" as a supervisor only and there's a frank invitation for the association to limit its role to religious advisory and preaching (as it should be).For the fourth week in a line, the "department of Sunni property" which is an official entity that takes care of Sunni mosques and Sunni heritage has been distributing inquiry forms to the people who attend the Friday prayers as such prayers are usually attended by more people than other week days.The inquiry (or poll) includes four questions:1-would you like to have a role in drafting the constitution?2-would you like to participate in the next round of elections?3-would you prefer to see a unified committee for the Sunni?4-Are you with the call for joining the Iraqi army and police?*You can submit any suggestions you have.The results I could take a look at in Baghdad were as follows:In "Ghaffar Al-Thunoob" mosque in A'adhamiyah, 273 people filled the forms and 96% of them answered the 4 questions with "yes".In "Al-Yakeen" mosque in Al-Sha'ab quarter I wasn't able to get the exact number of the people who took the poll but the percentage of those who answered the 4 questions with "yes" was 92%.In "Haj Ahmed Ra'oof" mosque in Al-Baladiyat quarter south east of Baghdad, 95% of those who took the poll answered all the questions with "yes".No doubt these results suggest that a high percentage of the Sunni people will most likely vote in the coming elections especially considering that these answers come from committed Sunni Muslims who regularly attend mosques.The 2006 election will obviously witness a very hot competition and we're going to see a lot of action, i.e. the more players, the better the game will be while those who put their bucks on the failure of the change in Iraq would better forget about their winning.
Mohammed.- posted by Omar
Friday prayers and the future elections.
I have noticed lately that many announcements are being posted on the walls in Sunni mosques encouraging people to participate in the coming elections-that are planned to be in January 2006-and to not miss the chance like last time.I think the Sunni trend had made up its mind about this subject after the latest dispute inside the "association of Muslim scholars" after which it became obvious the decreasing influence of Al-Dhari's trend (who's out of the country right now along with his son) and the increasing influence of the moderate trend that favors being part of the political process.I have pointed this out earlier and I expect the near future to bring up the results of this development in the form of less violence in the usual hot spots.It's also become clear that the association has taken a firm decision not to take active part in the political process and had joined the "committee of national reconciliation" as a supervisor only and there's a frank invitation for the association to limit its role to religious advisory and preaching (as it should be).For the fourth week in a line, the "department of Sunni property" which is an official entity that takes care of Sunni mosques and Sunni heritage has been distributing inquiry forms to the people who attend the Friday prayers as such prayers are usually attended by more people than other week days.The inquiry (or poll) includes four questions:1-would you like to have a role in drafting the constitution?2-would you like to participate in the next round of elections?3-would you prefer to see a unified committee for the Sunni?4-Are you with the call for joining the Iraqi army and police?*You can submit any suggestions you have.The results I could take a look at in Baghdad were as follows:In "Ghaffar Al-Thunoob" mosque in A'adhamiyah, 273 people filled the forms and 96% of them answered the 4 questions with "yes".In "Al-Yakeen" mosque in Al-Sha'ab quarter I wasn't able to get the exact number of the people who took the poll but the percentage of those who answered the 4 questions with "yes" was 92%.In "Haj Ahmed Ra'oof" mosque in Al-Baladiyat quarter south east of Baghdad, 95% of those who took the poll answered all the questions with "yes".No doubt these results suggest that a high percentage of the Sunni people will most likely vote in the coming elections especially considering that these answers come from committed Sunni Muslims who regularly attend mosques.The 2006 election will obviously witness a very hot competition and we're going to see a lot of action, i.e. the more players, the better the game will be while those who put their bucks on the failure of the change in Iraq would better forget about their winning.
Mohammed.- posted by Omar
