SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (3503)9/11/2003 9:54:46 AM
From: Ron  Respond to of 20773
 
Gen. Clark Reportedly Is Asked to Join Dean

By Jim VandeHei and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 11, 2003; Page A01

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has asked retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark to join his campaign, if the former NATO commander does not jump into the race himself next week, and the two men discussed the vice presidency at a weekend meeting in California, sources familiar with the discussions said.

Clark, in a telephone interview yesterday, said he did not want to comment about the private meeting. Asked about reports that the two men had discussed a wide range of issues, including endorsing Dean, joining the campaign, possible roles in a Dean administration and the vice presidency, he said only, "It was a complete tour of the horizon."

Later, an adviser quoted Clark as saying, "I have only one decision to make: Will I seek the presidency?"

It was the fourth time Dean and Clark have met face-to-face to discuss the campaign. No decisions were made at the California meeting because Clark is still considering a run for president. Clark is scheduled to make a speech Sept.19 at the University of Iowa, when many political insiders expect him to announce his intentions.

"Most of our conversations have been around my getting advice on defense, and sometime he asks me about domestic issues," Dean said in an interview yesterday. "This is a guy I like a lot. I think he's certainly going to be on everybody's list if he's not the presidential nominee himself." Dean declined to discuss their private conversations.

While it would represent a gamble for both men to team up so early in the campaign, such a move would rattle an already unpredictable nomination campaign. Dean and Clark have two things in common that if combined could prove formidable among Democratic voters: They both opposed the war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with grass-roots activists.

But a Dean-Clark alliance would also underscore the relative inexperience that both men have in national campaigns. Clark has never run for political office, and Dean has created controversy for his off-the-cuff remarks last week on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Last week, Dean said the United States should not "take sides" in the Middle East conflict and said that an "enormous" number of Israeli settlements would have to be dismantled as part of a peace agreement. Yesterday, Dean shifted course, saying the settlements should be left to negotiators.

The governor's original comments angered a number of Jewish leaders and drew rebukes from two rivals, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). Dean came under fire yesterday from a group of House Democrats for his comments on the Middle East. "This is not a time to be sending mixed messages," the Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), wrote to Dean.

Dean has increasingly talked up Clark as a possible running mate or as a presidential candidate, pointing to the general's 33-year military record, which included a victory in Kosovo as commander of NATO forces in Europe. Dean's laudatory comments have fueled speculation among top Democrats that the two men might join forces soon on a Dean-Clark 2004 campaign.

Dean's campaign played down the significance of the talks. "I am certain along the way we have made it clear we would welcome General Clark's support in the campaign, but I am assuming other Democratic campaigns have done the same," said Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager. Trippi refused to discuss the meeting in California.

Other Democratic candidates have reached out to Clark, too, with Kerry talking to him by phone during the last week. But none apparently has courted the general as aggressively as Dean, a Clark adviser said. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he has not talked to Clark in weeks and would welcome him into the race. "I never worry about who's in the race," Gephardt said.

Clark has been making the rounds of Democratic donors and Washington insiders for months as part of his exploration of a presidential campaign. More recently, he has been meeting with Democratic strategists who have expertise in managing presidential campaigns. Among those to whom he has reached out are Mark Fabiani, who ran the communications operation for Al Gore's 2000 campaign and worked in the Clinton White House.

If Clark joins the presidential race, which some prominent Democrats predict he will do, he would become the 10th candidate. Still other Democrats think Clark will not run, partly because he would enter well behind Dean in both fundraising and grass-roots support. Clark has sent mixed signals in recent days, leaving some Democrats he has talked to with the impression that he is in, others with a suspicion that he is out.

Recent polls show nearly two-thirds of voters cannot name even one of the nine candidates, so there is room for a new candidate to move, some strategists think. But recent polls show Clark is not widely known and would enter near the back of the pack.

He would not enter empty-handed. DraftWesleyClark.com officials said they have generated pledges of more than $1 million for a Clark campaign. Dean's campaign has said it will raise at least $10 million this quarter and other campaign strategists expect that number to be significantly higher.

The Draft Clark organization has begun running 60-second commercial spots in Iowa, New Hampshire and Clark's home state of Arkansas, prodding Clark to run. Another Clark organization reports having grass-roots groups in numerous states.

washingtonpost.com



To: epicure who wrote (3503)9/11/2003 10:32:17 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20773
 
Foreign Views of U.S. Darken Since Sept. 11
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

BERLIN, Sept. 10 — In the two years since Sept. 11, 2001, the view of the United States as a victim of terrorism that deserved the world's sympathy and support has given way to a widespread vision of America as an imperial power that has defied world opinion through unjustified and unilateral use of military force.

"A lot of people had sympathy for Americans around the time of 9/11, but that's changed," said Cathy Hearn, 31, a flight attendant from South Africa, expressing a view commonly heard in many countries. "They act like the big guy riding roughshod over everyone else."

In interviews by Times correspondents from Africa to Europe to Southeast Asia, one point emerged clearly: The war in Iraq has had a major impact on public opinion, which has moved generally from post-9/11 sympathy to post-Iraq antipathy, or at least to disappointment over what is seen as the sole superpower's inclination to act pre-emptively, without either persuasive reasons or United Nations approval.

To some degree, the resentment is centered on the person of President Bush, who is seen by many of those interviewed, at best, as an ineffective spokesman for American interests and, at worst, as a gunslinging cowboy knocking over international treaties and bent on controlling the world's oil, if not the entire world.

Foreign policy experts point to slowly developing fissures, born at the end of the cold war, that exploded into view in the debate leading up to the Iraq war. "I think the turnaround was last summer, when American policy moved ever more decisively toward war against Iraq," said Josef Joffe, co-editor of the German weekly Die Zeit. "That's what triggered the counteralliance of France and Germany and the enormous wave of hatred against the United States."

The subject of America in the world is of course complicated, and the nation's battered international image could improve quickly in response to events. The Bush administration's recent turn to the United Nations for help in postwar Iraq may represent such an event.

Even at this low point, millions of people still see the United States as a beacon and support its policies, including the war in Iraq, and would, given the chance, be happy to become Americans themselves.

Some regions, especially Europe, are split in their view of America's role: The governments and, to a lesser extent, the public in former Soviet-bloc countries are much more favorably disposed to American power than the governments and the public in Western Europe, notably France and Germany.

In Japan, a strong American ally that feels insecure in the face of a hostile, nuclear-armed North Korea, there may be doubts about the wisdom of the American war on Iraq. But there seem to be far fewer doubts about the importance of American power generally to global stability.

In China, while many ordinary people express doubts about the war in Iraq, anti-American feeling has diminished since Sept. 11, 2001, and there seems to be greater understanding and less instinctive criticism of the United States by government officials and intellectuals. The Chinese leadership has largely embraced America's "war on terror."

Still, a widespread and fashionable view is that the United States is a classically imperialist power bent on controlling global oil supplies and on military domination.

That mood has been expressed in different ways by different people, from the hockey fans in Montreal who boo the American national anthem to the high school students in Switzerland who do not want to go to the United States as exchange students because America is not "in." Even among young people, it is not difficult to hear strong denunciations of American policy and sharp questioning of American motives.

"America has taken power over the world," said Dmitri Ostalsky, 25, a literary crtic and writer in Moscow. "It's a wonderful country, but it seized power. It's ruling the world. America's attempts to rebuild all the world in the image of liberalism and capitalism are fraught with the same dangers as the Nazis taking over the world."

(Page 2 of 4)

A Frenchman, Jean-Charles Pogram, 45, a computer technician, said: "Everyone agrees on the principles of democracy and freedom, but the problem is that we don't agree with the means to achieve those ends. The United States can't see beyond the axiom that force can solve everything, but Europe, because of two world wars, knows the price of blood."

Lydia Adhiamba, a 20-year-old student at the Institute of Advanced Technology in Nairobi, Kenya, said the United States "wants to rule the whole world, and that's why there's so much animosity to the U.S."

The major English language daily newspaper in Indonesia, The Jakarta Post, recently ran a prominent article titled, "Why moderate Muslims are annoyed with America," by Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo, a prominent figure during the Suharto years.

"If America wants to become a hegemonic power, it is rather difficult for other nations to prevent that," he wrote. "However, if America wants to be a hegemonic power that has the respect and trust of other nations, it must be a benign one, and not one that causes a reaction of hate or fear among other nations."

Bush as Salesman

Crucial to global opinion has been the failure of the Bush administration to persuade large segments of the public of its justification for going to war in Iraq.

In striking contrast to opinion in the United States, where polls show a majority believe there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terrorists, the rest of the world remains skeptical.

That explains the enormous difference in international opinion toward American military action in Afghanistan in the months after Sept. 11, which seemed to have tacit approval as legitimate self-defense, and toward American military action in Iraq, which is seen as the arbitrary act of an overbearing power.

Perhaps the strongest effect on public opinion has been in Arab and Muslim countries. Even in relatively moderate Muslim countries like Indonesia and Turkey, or countries with large Muslim populations, like Nigeria, both polls and interviews show sharp drops in approval of the United States.

In unabashedly pro-American countries like Poland, perhaps the staunchest American ally on Iraq after Britain, polls show 60 percent of the people oppose the government's decision to send 2,500 troops to Iraq.

For many people, the issue is not so much the United States as it is the Bush administration, and what is seen as its arrogance. In this view, a different set of policies and a different set of public statements from Washington could have resulted in a different set of attitudes.

"The point I would make is that with the best will in the world, President Bush is a very poor salesman for the United States, and I say that as someone who has no animus against him or the United States," said Philip Gawaith, a financial communications consultant in London. "Whether it's Al Qaeda or Afghanistan, people have just felt that he's a silly man, and therefore they are not obliged to think any harder about his position."

Trying to Define 'Threat'

But while the public statements of the Bush administration have not played well in much of the world, many analysts see deeper causes for the rift that has opened. In their view, the Iraq war has not so much caused a new divergence as it has highlighted and widened one that existed since the end of the cold war. Put bluntly, Europe needs America less now that it feels less threatened.

Indeed, while the United States probably feels more threatened now than in 1989, when the cold war ended, Europe is broadly unconvinced of any imminent threat.

"There were deep structural forces before 9/11 that were pushing us apart," said John J. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and the author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics." "In the absence of the Soviet threat or of an equivalent threat, there was no way that ties between us and Europe wouldn't be loosened.

"So, when the Bush Administration came to power, the question was whether it would make things better or worse, and I'd argue that it made them worse."

(Page 3 of 4)

"In the cold war you could argue that American unilateralism had no cost," Professor Mearsheimer continued. "But as we're finding out with regard to Iraq, Iran and North Korea, we need the Europeans and we need institutions like the U.N. The fact is that the United States can't run the world by itself, and the problem is, we've done a lot of damage in our relations with allies, and people are not terribly enthusiastic about helping us now."

Recent findings of international surveys illustrate those divergences.

A poll of 8,000 people in Europe and the United States conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and Compagnia di São Paolo of Italy found Americans and Europeans agreeing on the nature of global threats but disagreeing sharply on how they should be dealt with.

Most striking was a difference over the use of military force, with 84 percent of Americans but only 48 percent of Europeans supporting force as a means of imposing international justice.

In Europe overall, the proportion of people who want the United States to maintain a strong global presence fell 19 points since a similar poll last year, from 64 percent to 45 percent, while 50 percent of respondents in Germany, France and Italy express opposition to American leadership.

Many of the difficulties predated Sept. 11, of course. Eberhard Sandschneider, director of the German Council on Foreign Relations, listed some in a recent paper: "Economic disputes relating to steel and farm subsidies; limits on legal cooperation because of the death penalty in the United States; repeated charges of U.S. `unilateralism' over actions in Afghanistan; and the U.S. decisions on the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court and the Biological Weapons Protocol."

"One could conclude that there is today a serious question as to whether Europe and the United States are parting ways," Mr. Sandschneider writes.

From this point of view, as he and others have said, the divergence will not be a temporary phenomenon but permanent.

A recent survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project showed a growth of anti-American sentiment in many non-European parts of the world. It found, for example, that only 15 percent of Indonesians have a favorable impression of the United States, down from 61 percent a year ago.

Indonesia may be especially troubling to American policy makers, who have hoped that, as a country with an easy-going attitude toward religion, it would emerge as a kind of pro-American Islamic model.

But since Sept. 11, a virulent group of extremists known as Jemaah Islamiyah has gained strength, attacking in Bali and Jakarta and making the country so insecure that President Bush may skip it during an Asian trip planned for next month.

One well-known mainstream Indonesian Muslim leader, Din Syamsuddin, an American-educated vice president of a Islamic organization that claims 30 million members, calls the United States the "king of the terrorists" and refers to President Bush as a "drunken horse."

This turn for the worse has occurred despite a $10 million program by the State Department in which speakers and short films showing Muslim life in the United States were sent last fall to Muslim countries, including Indonesia.

A Residue of Good Will

Still, broad sympathy for the United States exists in many areas. Students from around the world clamor to be educated in America. The United States as a land of opportunity remains magnetic.

Some analysts point out that the German Marshall Fund study actually showed a great deal of common ground across the Atlantic.

"Americans and Europeans still basically like each other, although such warmth has slipped in the wake of the Iraq war," Ronald Asmus, Philip P. Everts and Pierangelo Isernia, analysts from the United States, the Netherlands and Italy, respectively, wrote in an article explaining the findings. "Americans and Europeans do not live on different planets when it comes to viewing the threats around them."



Agence France-Presse
Washington once hoped to develop closer relations with Indonesia, the most populous predominantly Muslim country, but respect for the United States among Indonesians has plummeted. Protesters gathered last month with signs saying, "America go to hell" and "Don't mess with Islam."
















(Page 4 of 4)

But there is little doubt that the planets have moved apart. Gone are the days, two years ago, when 200,000 Germans marched in Berlin to show solidarity with their American allies, or when Le Monde, the most prestigious French newspaper, could publish a large headline, "We Are All Americans."

More recently, Jean Daniel, the editor of the weekly Nouvel Observateur, published an editorial entitled, "We Are Not All Americans."

For governments in Eastern Europe, Sept. 11 has forced a kind of test of loyalties. Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Poland have felt themselves caught between the United States and the European Union, which they will soon be joining.

Here, too, the war in Iraq seems to have been the defining event, the division of Europe into "new" and "old" halves, defined by their willingness to support the American-led war.

Most Eastern European countries side with the European Union majority on such questions as the International Criminal Court, which is opposed by the Bush administration, while helping in various ways with the Iraq war. Poland and Romania have sent troops and Hungary has permitted training of Iraqis at a military base there.

But even if the overall mood in the former Soviet Bloc remains largely pro-American, recent polls have shown some slippage in feelings of admiration.

"We would love to see America as a self-limiting superpower," said Janusz Onyszkiewicz, a former Polish defense minister.

Perhaps the administration's decision to turn to the United Nations to seek a mandate for an international force in Iraq reflects a new readiness to exercise such restraint. The administration appears to have learned that using its power in isolation can get very expensive very quickly.

But the road to recovering global support is likely to be a long one for a country whose very power — political, economic, cultural, military — makes it a natural target of criticism and envy.

Even in Japan, where support for America remains strong, the view of the United States as a bully has entered the popular culture. A recent cartoon showed a character looking like President Bush in a Stars and Stripes vest pushing Japanese fishermen away from a favorite spot, saying, "I can fish better."

Contributing to this report were James Brooke, Frank Bruni, Alan Cowell, Ian Fisher, Joseph Kahn, Clifford Krauss, Marc Lacey, Jane Perlez, Craig S. Smith and Michael Wines.



To: epicure who wrote (3503)9/11/2003 12:16:23 PM
From: E. T.  Respond to of 20773
 
A Message to the Kith and Kin of the Victims of Sept. 11
Ibtissam Al-Bassam, Special to Arab News

PARIS — On the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on Washington and New York, religious services will be held in different cities and different languages around the world. Worshipers will gather in mosques, churches, synagogues and temples to remember the victims of a horrific act of terrorism. The attacks were a universal tragedy. The victims belonged to many religions, many cultures and many countries. Many of us lost friends and family members in the attack. Many suffered painful injuries, some of which were permanent.

The perpetrators of the attack do not represent Muslims or Islam and the attack is not a form jihad. Nowhere in the Qu’ran does Allah instruct Muslims to kill, to promote hatred or to cause destruction. Contrary to all that is said and written about Islam in the West, jihad does not promote terrorism. It is a noble activity in which we all engage. The origin of the word “jihad” is found in the word “juhd”, which means effort or struggle. Jihad is a struggle to preserve the purity of the soul and to promote peace, prosperity, honesty, cooperation and justice in the world. Work is jihad, supporting one’s family is jihad, helping and defending the weak and the needy is jihad, keeping away from sins and sinning is the highest form of jihad. Military jihad is permissible only when waged in self-defense. Killing is an unforgivable sin.

The events of the last two years have clearly shown that terror cannot be fought with terror. Therefore, the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks should be an occasion for deep reflection and soul-searching. We should seize this somber opportunity to assess our past and present actions, to resolve our differences, to correct our mistakes, to resuscitate fading friendships and to promote and support an effective international strategy to fight terrorism in every corner of the world.

The international community and the Arab world are determined to fight terrorism in all its forms. Most of us are eager and ready to participate in the ongoing war on terrorism. We are sick and tired of the incessant bloodshed in the Middle East and elsewhere.

It is therefore vital that we have a common vocabulary, a single, shared vision and unified, clear, agreed-upon objectives.

We need to know where we stand and where we are heading. We need to have clear definitions of words which we are using with great flexibility and little accuracy. Precise, internationally accepted definitions of words such as “terrorists”, “freedom fighters”, “terrorism”, “state terrorism”, “extremism”, “fanaticism”, “liberation” and “occupation” will help us identify and defeat our common enemies — visible and invisible. The policy of arresting suspects and filling prisons with innocent men, women and children will always backfire. It will breed hatred, create divisions and alienate many peace-lovers. It will destroy international unity and play into the hands of terrorists and terrorism.

Sept. 11, 2003 should be an occasion for all nations and world citizens to pledge loyalty and allegiance to justice, peace, prosperity, international cooperation and the welfare of all humanity. If the blood shed in the Middle East could be preserved and recycled, blood banks would have reached saturation levels long ago. When we remember the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, we should also remember the men, women and children who lost their lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Chechnya, Kashmir, Liberia, Algeria, the Sudan and in many other war-ravaged countries.

We live in the modern world. We have found cures to most illnesses. Can’t we find an effective cure for the hatred and bloodshed that have engulfed our world? Can’t the international community end the vicious cycle of provocation, assassination and revenge in the Middle East? Can’t we place equal values on the victims of our wars and our folly? Our hearts bleed for Americans, Britons, Iraqis, Palestinians, Israelis who are daily killed in the unending battles in the Middle East. We mourn them with the same fervor and the same grief and we remember them with equal pain and equal sorrow. They leave behind orphaned children, heart-broken parents, siblings and widows or widowers, who deserve our sympathy and need our support and prayers.

As we prepare to remember the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, we should stop leveling unfounded accusations against each other. The somber event is our opportunity to rebuild our mutual confidence and to break the ice that has accumulated between us over the last two years.

As we search for information on world events in libraries and as we follow the news in the media, we should be careful not to fall victims to manipulation and indoctrination.

Objectivity is a virtue that is rarely observed in the presentation of world events. It is a sad truth that the reporting of many journalists is influenced by biases, prejudices, likes and dislikes. Journalists and cameramen are mortals (as the events in Iraq sadly proved). They have their weaknesses and their strength.

It is a pity that many interesting books are written by authors who are either eager to prejudice us against each other or are keen to line their pockets with hard currency. Such books are fraught with inaccuracies and falsehood.

On the second anniversary of the attacks on Washington and New York, we will meet in mosques, churches, synagogues and temples to remember the victims of a universal tragedy that touched every heart and affected every life. May our unity be ever lasting. May wisdom guide our future steps. May patience, love, tolerance and forgiveness fill our hearts.

— Dr. Ibtissam Al-Bassam is academic adviser to the assistant director-general for education, UNESCO (Paris). The views expressed are her own.


arabnews.com