Corriere della Sera — on the situation in Afghanistan
MILAN, Italy Once it rapidly completed military operations (in Afghanistan) ... the Bush administration, engaged in preparations for the war in Iraq, devoted little attention to the management of the country and its political and economic reconstruction. Then, political responsibilities for the future of Afghanistan were gradually given to the Europeans, while military responsibilities, even more gradually, (were given) to NATO. Today, the NATO contingent is made up of 300,000 troops. Commanders on the field and NATO's (top officials) keep asking the members of the organization for a greater commitment. But it does not seem that these requests can be satisfied, for at least three reasons. First, because all the major countries already have troops engaged in other areas, from Kosovo to Lebanon. Second, because state budgets have other priorities. Third, because European public opinions oppose the second Afghan war. The three reasons hold particularly well for Italy, which is in Afghanistan with 2,500 troops, but does not take part — as well as other countries — in combat operations, and for this reason is continuously under U.S. pressures.
On the Net: http://www.corriere.it/
Aftenposten — on the United Nations
OSLO, Norway There should be no doubt about the usefulness of the UN as an international meeting place. While the formal debate often follows a well-known and predictable pattern, world leaders use the chance to meet face to face on issues of mutual interest. It is useful to stop by the UN, quite simply, because "everyone" is there. ... It is very positive that respect for the UN has grown in recent years. That is partly because of the organization's reform efforts, but just as much because efforts outside the UN had met little success. The United States painful experiences in Iraq show that even a superpower needs the international community to cover its back, After Iraq, it will undoubtedly (be) harder to ignore the UN. China and Russia show new self confidence, and can be the next challenge. As the old saying goes, the UN can never be more than its member countries make it. Put more clearly: The UN can never do more than the veto powers in the Security Council permit. The council reflects the division of power after World War II in 1945, and during the Cold War was often paralyzed by the two-way split in world politics. Today, China and Russia combine economic strength with clear authoritarian aspects of rule. That could be the source of serious conflict within the UN.
On the Net: http://www.aftenposten.no
Svenska Dagbladet — on dictatorships
STOCKHOLM, Sweden Mass demonstrations have spurred hope that Myanmar will again become Burma. Democratic and flourishing. Because that is the way life could be, instead of being the tragic example of dictatorship it is now... In Burma, it was a shock hike of fuel prices, by up to 500 percent, that led the Buddhist monks into the streets — while those in power secretly live in extravagance, as they do in Harare and in Pyongyang... In Burma, dictator and general Than Shwe dreams of becoming a Buddhist king and turns to the stars for advice on how to do it.... Iran is among those with most oppressive ideological machinery. When President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lectured at Columbia University, he revealed himself as a living example of how lies and denial of reality can only survive where freedom does not exist... The world has become a better place since the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism. Globally, recent decades have witnessed great democratic steps. But there are always countries where time has stood still, or developments have gone backward. Unfortunately, this is the case for Putin's Russia, where democracy, in practice, has been abolished and where support for dictatorships and authoritarian leaders is used to influence world politics... And in China, the long march toward political reform has barely been started... In his speech to the U.N. general assembly, President George W. Bush encouraged the world to embark on a mission of freedom... (against) nations that only celebrate the freedom to oppress.
On the Net: http://www.dagbladet.no
The Observer — on sanctions against Zimbabwe
LONDON Robert Mugabe is a tyrant who has crippled Zimbabwe. He has oppressed its people, degraded its constitution and vandalised its economy. Millions of Zimbabweans face famine; their basic freedoms are denied; 80 per cent are unemployed; life expectancy is 37. Mr. Mugabe's continued rule over the wreckage of the country is a brake on economic development and an affront to hopes for a democratic renaissance in sub-Saharan Africa. He has committed crimes against his nation and so forfeited his right to represent it on the international stage. That is why Britain is right to be leading moves to exclude Mr. Mugabe from an EU-Africa summit in Portugal in December. The Prime Minister has said he will not attend if the Zimbabwean President is there. Britain has tried to lead diplomatic moves against Mr. Mugabe before and they have proved either ineffective or downright counterproductive. That is because, as a former imperial power, Britain's claim to moral authority is vulnerable to attacks of hypocrisy. ... Given the sensitive history of colonization and exploitation, European leaders must be wary of appearing arrogant in their prescriptions for Africa. But African leaders must also be wary of confusing past solidarity with present-day criminal collusion. Britain does not seek to reassert its hegemony over Zimbabwe — it seeks the empowerment of Zimbabwe's own people. This is not a replay of the old independence struggle, it is a new struggle for political freedom within Africa. That should not be seen through the prism of race. ...
On the Net: http://observer.guardian.co.uk
The Santa Fe New Mexican — on dying languages
Perhaps 7,000 different languages are left in the world, but scholars estimate that one dies out every couple of weeks. So often, society's loss can be subtle: In Oklahoma, or in Australia, a tribal elder dies — and with that death goes a language only he or she still spoke. Perhaps 7,000 different languages are left in the world but scholars estimate that one dies out every couple of weeks. This year, 25, last year 25, next year another 25; at that rate, only the words of the major tongues would be left before we know it. And that's a sadness: Language is what gives depth, breadth and color to life — and to the culture left behind when we die. However subtle the differences in dialects, however great the differences in language, loss of one leaves the world that much bleaker. ... Why aren't youngsters picking up their people's once-traditional language? Because today they speak one or more of their land's dominant ones. Sometimes the old languages are seen as backward, economically burdensome, or just plain old-fashioned. Those attitudes are only a few of the challenges facing language-preservation groups — including Santa Fe's Indigenous Language Institute. ... Among the pueblos of Northern New Mexico, there are many long-standing programs aimed at heading off the crises facing some of our nation's moribund languages. These are efforts well worth public and private support. We're encouraged to see National Geographic lend its high prestige to the cause, and we wish the defenders of dying tongues well with their difficult task.
On the Net: http://www.santafenewmexican.com
Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald — on Columbia University hosting Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The first thing to remember is that Columbia University says "no" all the time. It says "no" in its admissions decisions, hiring decisions, tenure decisions — and, more to the point, its decisions on who'll be invited to speak. It should have said no to inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, too. Because like studying at Columbia or teaching at the university, speaking in front of a university assembly is a valuable and prestigious thing. Ahmadinejad is president of a regime that took over the American embassy in Iran, held Americans hostage there for more than a year, poses a direct threat to Israel's existence and is arming America's enemies in Iraq. He didn't deserve the platform. And the university should not have extended it. Columbia dressed up its invitation in high-minded talk about dialogue, the academic community and free speech. But again, the college is very selective when it uses that rhetoric and when it does not. For example, Columbia Law School won't let employers on campus to recruit — read, "speak" — unless they conform to the school's nondiscrimination policy, which bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ... By inviting Ahmadinejad to speak, Columbia honored him in blatant disregard of his government's actions in Iraq. True, hearing him speak was a valuable educational experience, a Columbia undergraduate said. But did that student and Columbia's self-interest outweigh the raw violence Iran abets against American service members? ...
On the Net: http://www.grandforksherald.com/
|