Forum

Britain pushes for Turkey EU talks to go ahead

Ewen MacAskill and Nicholas Watt in Brussels
Friday September 9, 2005
The Guardian
Britain and the US pressed yesterday for talks on the accession of Turkey to the EU to begin as planned on October 3 in spite of increasing opposition from France and Cyprus.
The intervention of the US will help persuade some of the waverers but could be counter-productive in France, which has emerged as one of Turkey’s main opponents.
In a speech in London, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, warned that failure to allow Turkey entry could create a serious crisis in the future. “We all have an interest in the modernisation of Turkey and of reform there,” he said. “If we make the wrong decision, we could find that we have a crisis on our own doorstep.”
The UK is the main champion of Turkish accession. Mr Straw said it would help in the fight against international terrorism by demonstrating that “western and Islamic cultures can thrive together as partners in the modern world”.
The US, which has been lobbying the EU to speed up Turkish entry since the September 11 attacks, said European leaders should stop erecting obstacles, such as a row over Turkey’s position on Cyprus.
Kurt Volker, principal deputy assistant US secretary of state, said during a visit to Brussels: “It is in the interests of the EU, it is in the interests of Turkey, it is in our interests to see accession talks begin ... I hope that some longer-term perspectives would prevail.”
The EU agreed last year that accession talks would begin on October 3 and re-confirmed this earlier this year. But the atmosphere in parts of Europe has soured, particularly since the proposed constitution was rejected by France. If Germans vote next weekend for Angela Merkel as chancellor, Turkey will have another opponent.
Britain, holding the EU presidency, is trying to ensure that the commitment is honoured. One of the other 24 members could use its veto to block the framework agreement that would initiate talks.
British officials are leading behind-the-scenes negotiations on two documents: one a response to Turkey on Cyprus and the other a framework for accession negotiations.
Cyprus remains divided after its bloody civil war. The EU accepted the entry of the Greek Cypriot republic, leaving the Turkish Cypriot part outside. Turkey angered France and other EU members when it refused to recognise the Greek Cypriot republic.
The British government is trying to find a form of words that would mean that Turkish entry would, in effect, amount to recognition of the Greek Cypriot republic.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1566103,00.html

The tip of the anti-Turkish iceberg

The angry row over Cyprus is the least of the obstacles in Turkey’s way as it struggles to fulfil its 40-year ambition to join the European mainstream, writes Ian Black

Friday September 9, 2005
It is, for the moment, an obscure diplomatic wrangle being played out largely behind closed doors in the foreign ministries of Europe and in Brussels meeting rooms. But the signs are that a serious crisis is looming over the start of Turkey’s long-awaited talks on joining the EU.
Turkey’s date with destiny, October 3 - the same day, coincidentally, that Germany was reunited in 1990 - was set last year when the then 15-member EU was finalising its historic 10-country enlargement.
Article continues

It has been a very long time coming: Turkey has been a stalwart member of Nato since 1952 and was first recognised as a potential member of the European club as long ago as 1963, only a few years after the creation of the EEC. Britain is a keen advocate of its EU membership, as is the US. Both see the secular Muslim democracy as a key regional ally, a beacon for Islamic and Arab countries and proof that a “clash of civilisations” with the west is not inevitable.
But mounting anti-Turkish feeling in several European countries and last summer’s shock rejections of the new EU constitution in France and the Netherlands - part of a wider political and economic malaise - have created grave doubts. Hence this week’s alarm call by Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary, who is now in the hot seat of the EU’s rotating presidency, that it is vital to stick to the October 3 start date even if, as is widely expected, the actual negotiations drag on for many years.
The immediate problem is the vexed question of Cyprus, one of last May’s new entrants. The hope had been that a long-standing UN drive to reunite the divided island would bear fruit before it joined. But since it did not (though more because of the Greek than the Turkish side) and because Ankara is refusing to recognise the Nicosia government (which for the EU legally represents the entire country), the launch of accession talks is in jeopardy.
Recognition is extremely difficult because without a comprehensive peace settlement it would undermine Turkey’s own 30-year military presence and the breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. But by flaunting its position at this highly delicate moment, Turkey has given ammunition to its enemies.
Chief amongst these is France, where polls show much of the anti-Turkish prejudice expressed by the former president and author of the constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, whose circumlocutions about “cultural differences” are only slightly less offensive than the cruder view of another clever Frenchman, Voltaire: the 18th-century thinker called the Turks “a reminder to Christians to atone for their sins”.
But there is an even bigger obstacle looming in Germany - assuming Angela Merkel’s centre-right CDU wins this month’s election: Ms Merkel wants Turkey - which supplied so many of the gastarbeiter who created the German economic miracle of the 1960s - to be offered only a “privileged partnership”, not the full membership that has awaited all other candidates, from Estonia to Bulgaria, at the end of their negotiations.
Another key opponent is Austria, where it sometimes seems that Ottoman janissaries are still besieging Vienna as they did back in the 17th century. Its chancellor, Wolfgang Schussel, also favours a halfway house and “open-ended” negotiations for the Turks.
The problem is that offering something different only for Turkey would appear to prove the resentful charge that the EU is a “Christian club” and risk a dangerous anti-European, and perhaps fundamentalist, backlash. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has warned that he will “walk away for good” if the talks do not go ahead on schedule.
If they do start on time, it will be a very big deal indeed: no country that has begun negotiations on joining the EU has failed eventually to make the grade.
Although actual membership could be 10 or 15 years away, by then there will be more than 80 million Turks, probably outnumbering Germans. And with voting power tied to population size, Ankara will be as important a player as Berlin, Paris and London - a key reason for the mounting opposition. Another is the fear of large numbers of poor Turkish migrant workers flooding western European labour markets, though restrictions could be imposed for a transition period.
Turkey and its supporters are understandably worried, though they have a strong case when they argue that the magnet of EU membership has already generated huge advances under Mr Erdogan’s conservative, moderate Islamist government.
The country’s old Midnight Express image has faded and torture has been banned. There are now Kurdish language broadcasts, and the grip of the powerful military, keepers of the Ataturk flame, has been weakened. The economy is in good shape after years of crisis and inflation under the generals. It is an increasingly attractive market for foreign investment.
Not everything is perfect. Implementation of some new laws has been patchy, and some worry about minority rights. Until recently there was greater openness on the ever-neuralgic question of the Armenian genocide of the first world war. That, however, has faded, and there is now embarrassment about the case of the internationally renowned novelist Orhan Pamuk, facing charges of “belittling Turkishness” over his brave comments about that dark period.
Hectic diplomacy is likely across Europe over the coming days, perhaps going down to the wire on the eve of October 3. There will be brinkmanship and haggling over the precise terms of the negotiations,and attempts to square the circle of Ankara’s non-recognition of Cyprus. Obscure and complex it may all be, but the stakes are very high. As Abdullah Gul, the Turkish foreign minister, put it: “The last 100 metres of the marathon should be run very carefully.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1566653,00.html

Turkey insists EU dream on course
Turkey has insisted its hopes for full membership of the European Union are on course, despite tension with several existing members.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told journalists he was confident that talks would start in October as planned.
Mr Gul had earlier been quoted as saying that Turkey would walk away from the EU for good if there were attempts to water down its membership.
There is continuing opposition in parts of the EU to full Turkish membership.
Suggestions for some kind of partnership status, rather than full membership, have been led by German opposition leader Angela Merkel - expected to win a general election later this month.
I can’t see any problem that will prevent the start of talks on 3 October Abdullah Gul Turkish FM
She has argued that a “privileged partnership” status should be among the options put under discussion when the talks start in Luxembourg on 3 October.
A separate row has developed over Cyprus, with Turkey signing a customs agreement with all member states but refusing to allow Cyprus to use its ports or airport.
Turkey has also renewed its refusal to recognise the Cypriot government, which in effect rules only the Greek Cypriot part of the island, while Turkish Cypriots remain under a separate breakaway administration.
Doubts about Turkish membership were strengthened when many voters in France and the Netherlands cited fears about Turkey as a contributing factor in their decision to reject the EU constitution.
Many people’s concerns focus on its large, low-income population. Others insist that the EU is essentially a club for Christian countries, or argue that much of Turkey is geographically in Asia, despite its Western-looking political leadership.
Confidence
Foreign Minister Mr Gul, speaking after meeting his EU counterparts in Wales on Friday, told Turkish journalists he remained confident.
“I can’t see any problem that will prevent the start of talks on 3 October,” he said.
He had previously warned against imposing any new conditions, or trying to shift the goalposts to a partnership status.
“Should they (the EU) propose anything short of full membership, or any new conditions, we will walk away, and this time it will be for good,” he told the Economist magazine.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said Turkey has done everything it has been asked to, in order to prepare for membership.
“Now Turkey has nothing more to give (the EU),” he said.
“We have done everything related to the Copenhagen political criteria.”
The EU is thought likely to insist that Turkey does grant access to Cypriot planes and ships, and does in time move to recognise Cyprus.
EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said full implementation of the customs pact was “clearly a red line for the EU and is not a matter of negotiation”.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/4211582.stm

Published: 2005/09/03 14:52:17 GMT

© BBC MMV

Europe needs Turkey, says Straw
Turkey should become an EU member state despite refusing to recognise Cyprus, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said.
Mr Straw believes its entry into the union would be a blow to those who say there is a “clash of civilisations” between the Muslim world and the West.
“It will prove that a secular democracy which shows respect for Islam can live comfortably in Europe,” he said.
Talks on its entry bid are to begin on 3 October but there is opposition to full membership in several EU states.
‘Working hard’
Turkey recently issued a declaration reaffirming its refusal to accept the Cypriot government, which effectively only controls the Greek part of the Mediterranean island.

By welcoming Turkey we will demonstrate that Western and Islamic cultures can thrive together Jack Straw
Mr Straw said: “Acknowledging that Turkey’s declaration raises genuine concerns - which we, as presidency, are working hard to address - does not mean that we should delay the start of Turkey’s historic accession negotiations.”
The foreign secretary went on to tell the Institute of Public Policy Research in London that Turkey’s membership of the EU was of “paramount importance” for the future of the union.
He said: “Turkey is a secular nation with a majority Muslim population.
“By welcoming Turkey we will demonstrate that Western and Islamic cultures can thrive together as partners in the modern world - the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.”
Rejection
Turkey has ongoing disputes with several EU members and senior politicians in France and Germany have voiced doubts over its entry.
These doubts were strengthened when many voters in France and the Netherlands cited fears about Turkey as a contributing factor in their decision to reject the EU constitution.
The country’s human rights record has also been called into question and Mr Straw admitted there was “still some way to go” on the implementation of measures to protect freedom of speech.
The October talks on Turkey’s entry bid will take place in Luxembourg.
The UK took over the EU’s rotating presidency for six months on 1 July.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/4227744.stm

Published: 2005/09/08 19:09:36 GMT

© BBC MMV

EU stands by Turkish entry talks
The European Commission says talks on Turkey’s membership of the EU should start on time on 3 October with accession as a “shared objective”.
The recommendation is made in a proposed framework for the talks, which member states must approve unanimously.

The commission says the talks should be open-ended, and that Turkey will not be able to join until 2014 at the soonest.

Its proposal comes as enthusiasm for enlargement wanes in the wake of French and Dutch votes on the constitution.

It must be ensured that Turkey is fully anchored in the European structures through the strongest possible bond
Enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn

Voters in both countries said they were concerned about the impact of EU enlargement on jobs, and some raised particular concerns about Turkey, a Muslim country whose population is on course to be bigger than Germany’s by 2015.
EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said the 25-member commission took its decision on the mandate after “a lengthy, argumentative and very political debate”.

He said some speakers raised the idea of agreeing a “special relationship” with Turkey rather than full membership.

Political hurdle

The BBC’s Chris Morris in Brussels says like other would-be members in the future, Turkey will also face much stricter conditions than candidates in the past.

The negotiations will be based on Turkey’s own merits and the pace will depend on Turkey’s progress in meeting the requirements for membership
European Commission negotiating mandate

It is not just about human rights and democracy, he says, but also a host of technical issues which will take years to resolve, including agricultural reform and environmental standards.
But the biggest hurdle will be a political one, our correspondent adds.

Although the current French and German leaders are in favour of Turkish membership, their successors may not be, he says.

Turkey’s progress

Before the membership talks can begin, Turkey must sign a protocol extending its customs union to the 10 new EU members, including Cyprus, a country it does not officially recognise.

“The negotiations will be based on Turkey’s own merits and the pace will depend on Turkey’s progress in meeting the requirements for membership,” the negotiating mandate says.

Mr Rehn said that if Turkey must at least be assured of a special relationship with the European Union even if it does not ultimately gain membership.

“If Turkey is not in a position to assume in full all the obligations of membership it must be ensured that Turkey is fully anchored in the European structures through the strongest possible bond,” he said.

Despite the cooling of attitudes towards enlargement since the French and Dutch referendums, a Eurobarometer study published this week suggested that the issue had not been a major factor behind voters’ rejection of the constitution.

The poll said only 6% of Dutch voters and 3% of French voters gave enlargement as the reason for their “No” vote.

Opposition to Turkish membership, in particular, was cited by 3% of Dutch “No” voters and 6% of French “No” voters as the reason for their choice.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/4632353.stm

Published: 2005/06/29 14:37:53 GMT

© BBC MMV

Deal boosts Turkish hopes on start of EU accession talks

>By Daniel Dombey in Brussels
>Published: September 12 2005 03:00 | Last updated: September 12 2005 03:00
>>
Turkey’s hopes of beginning membership talks with the European Union on time on October 3 have been boosted by an Anglo-French deal removing one of the chief obstacles.

London and Paris have provisionally agreed the EU should declare that Turkey cannot join before it recognises all of the EU’s member states and that recognition as soon as possible would be appreciated.

British diplomats hope the outline deal, which concerns Turkey’s relations with Cyprus, will speed preparations for the talks, since France is the most influential of the countries that have voiced reservations about the accession process.

A poll this week revealed that just 11 per cent of French voters approved of Turkish membership of the EU, and Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s presidential hopeful, has strongly challenged President Jacques Chirac’s backing for Turkish membership.

EU enlargement has also become a particularly sensitive issue in France after the country’s rejection of the European constitution in a referendum on May 29.

“If we reach agreement on this it would mean that we have struck a balance between the message we heard on May 29 and the commitments by the president,” said a French official.

France had earlier argued it was “inconceivable” that Turkey, which does not recognise Cyprus, begin negotiations with the 25-nation bloc without upgrading relations with Nicosia.

Diplomats said that the French electorate would not accept the sight of a potential EU member “snubbing” current EU member states.

But Britain maintained that any deadline for Turkish recognition risked undermining United Nations efforts to reunite the divided island, as well as the negotiations between Brussels and Ankara.

The UK, which holds the revolving presidency of the EU, still needs to win round Cyprus itself, which is also calling for firm commitments from Ankara to end a ban on Cypriot ships docking at Turkish ports.

“What we want to do is to link the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus with the accession process for Turkey,” said a Cypriot official.

However, some EU officials are hoping that, without continued support from France, Cyprus will agree to a common EU declaration on Turkey at an ambassadors’ meeting on Wednesday.

“It is regrettable that the self-made stalemate among member states is harming the credibility of Europe both in the EU and in Turkey,” said one official.

Consensus on the declaration would clear the way for Britain to concentrate on agreeing the direction of negotiations.

Austria is insisting that the talks should not exclusively focus on full membership, but also on a “partnership” between Ankara and the EU. Although Vienna was relatively isolated at a foreign ministers’ meeting this month, its position would be strengthened if Germany’s Christian Democrats, who oppose Turkish membership, chalk up a decisive win in next Sunday’s elections.

France could yet insist on tougher language on alternatives to membership, but so far it has not signalled that it will do so.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cdfad1f6-2329-11da-86cc-00000e2511c8.html

le vocabulaire de la correction politique rend mon intervention plus difficile, car celui-ci justement pénible de parler des différences sans trainer derrière lui de quelconques jugements moraux. Mais allons y quand même ...

Une chose m’aura frappé entre autre dans les images de la Nouvelles Orléans, frappe nourrie de mes séjours en afrique noire : les populations de blacks de cette ville sont ... des vrais noirs. L’imagerie du noir américain, c’est quasi touours un métis (c’est pas tout à fait vrai évidemment, on trouve bien quelques musiciens), que ce métissage ai eu lieu il y a ongtemps ou pas.
Les gens de la Nelles Orléans, leurs visages, leurs expressions, ne sont pas américanisées, et me ramènent plus à mes rencontres africaines qu’occidentales.

Pas facile à faire passer, mais regarder encore. Et si mes yeux ne me trompent pas, alors nous obtenons encore une autre image de cette ségrégation. Elle est impressionnante ...

Editorial The Lancet, 10 September 2005

The terrorist attacks that struck the USA on Sept 11, 4 years ago, obliterated the American people’s trust in their intelligence services. Last week, Hurricane Katrina did the same for any illusions held by the people—or indeed the government—that the country was adequately prepared to cope with a large-scale public-health emergency.

Since 2001, fears for the future safety of the US population have focused on one thing alone: the potential dangers a bioterror attack could unleash. This obsession catapulted the issue of America’s decaying public-health infrastructure from a state concern to a crisis that involved the entire nation. The worry was justified.

A damning report issued in 2002 by the Institute of Medicine claimed that governmental public-health agencies had long suffered “grave underfunding and political neglect”. It criticised the country’s “obsolete and inconsistent laws and regulations” governing public health, and derided the fragmentation of health responsibility, shared among officials at all levels of government. The uneven distribution of resources within the “increasingly fragile” health sector meant, the report claimed, that the health system would be unable to manage a large-scale emergency. Ironically, of only five cities visited by the authors during the report’s preparation, one was New Orleans.

Hurricane Katrina’s shattering intensity has ensured that concerns about the USA’s health-response capacity are circulating once again. But, this time, the critics should have had fewer justifications. Significant boosts to funding for public-health infrastructure followed 9/11, along with plans to better coordinate emergency responses and improve communication between all levels of government. Crowning these efforts was a National Response Plan purporting to provide “the means to swiftly deliver federal support in response to catastrophic incidents”. It was released in January this year, under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security and its subsidiary the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Last week marked the plan’s first real test. It failed. The sheer scale of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent floods certainly hindered relief activities. But for the response to have been so sparse and so late that thousands of people had to endure 6 parched and hungry days in the drowning city, the public-health authorities must have got things very badly wrong.

The problem with the National Response Plan is not what it contains, but what has been omitted. While the central themes of the plan strongly emphasise fighting terrorism and national leadership, three key areas of administrative difficulty have been all but ignored. The first is that federal public-health recommendations lack the force of law. Because states have most authority over matters of public health, federal agencies cannot compel state health officials to implement national policies. Thus, while federal agencies aim for national coordination on preparedness, in reality they can do little more than advise.

The second unresolved issue is the necessity for security forces to negotiate with health experts for leadership in the event of a public-health emergency, wasting time and confusing lines of command. The reason behind this bureaucratic tangle is that health responsibilities are dispersed through numerous federal departments. Key emergency health responsibilities come under the jurisdiction of the Department for Homeland Security, rather than their perhaps more natural home at the Department for Health and Human Services.

The third, and perhaps most concerning issue, is the ongoing confusion over what public-health preparedness should be preparing for. Public-health officials are divided over whether to prioritise all-hazards preparedness or specific plans to counter a bioterror attack. Bioterrorism is clearly the government’s priority, but this focus, and the funding bias that goes with it, limits states’ flexibility to choose a broader approach to protecting public health. States also claim that if priorities are set nationally, their specific vulnerabilities will be ignored and responses will be slow and unwieldy. They are probably right.

Would Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath have been less fraught had these issues been addressed? It is impossible to say. For not only did the USA shy away from a national priority list of public-health threats, it also failed to define what should constitute “prepared”. Assessment criteria to test states’ compliance with national obligations have been criticised as meaningless and impossible to measure.

A well functioning public-health system protects human life when disasters occur. Just how much the neglect of the US system hindered an effective response to Hurricane Katrina should weigh heavily on the shoulders of George W Bush, as he views images of stadia crammed with New Orleans’ many homeless and hears the final counts of the dead.

The Lancet
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605672911/fulltext

Attention, encore cette certainement fameuse Christina, qui s’invite dans vos reflexions sur Katrina…Errare humanum est…

Par Norman Birnbaum, sociologue, professeur émérite à la faculté de droit de l’université Georgetown à Washungton.

Récemment, dans une lettre à un journal européen, un Américain exprimait sa consternation devant un aspect de la situation catastrophique de la côte du golfe du Mexique. Son problème n’était ni l’indifférence du président Bush, ni l’incompétence du gouvernement américain, ni le racisme omniprésent. Mais la lenteur des gouvernements des autres nations à exprimer leurs condoléances aux Etats-Unis ...

Cette lettre reflétait le narcissisme sans borne de notre nation, la conviction que les sentiments de nos concitoyens constituent la matière primordiale de la politique mondiale. Il suffit de se rappeler le président Bush exigeant, après le 11-Septembre, que le reste du monde accepte son explication des attentats, simplifiée de manière absurde.
Aux Etats-Unis, le discours public ignore les contraintes de l’histoire, y compris la nôtre. Dans l’univers intellectuel de George W. Bush, comme dans celui de beaucoup d’Américains, institutions et intérêts ont disparu. Les sentiments sont tout ce qui importe.

Le président, après des jours de stupeur et de passivité, a fait venir son père et Bill Clinton, à la Maison Blanche, pour lancer un appel national afin de collecter des fonds en aveur des victimes du cyclone. Il n’a pas parlé des plans du gouvernement fédéral pour faire face au problème. Dans les rues de Biloxi, dans le Mississippi, il a donné ce conseil aux habitants qui avaient tout perdu : « Adressez-vous à l’Armée du salut »

Peut-être était-ce là un vote de défiance indirect à l’égard de l’Agence fédérale des secours d’urgence (FEMA), chargée de la gestion des catastrophes naturelles, accidentelles ou résultant d’une agression de tous types, y compris biochimique. George Bush a néanmoins fait l’éloge de son directeur, ridiculement incompétent. Et il n’amanifesté une grande émotion que lorsqu’il a dénoncé, comme criminels, ceux qui, mourant de faim, sont entrés dans les supermarchés fermés. Et, face aux prix à la hausse et au manque de carburant, dans une société totalement dépendante des routes, il a appelé à une limitation des déplacements. Le président est incapable d’envisager des solutions étatiques aux problèmes collectifs.

Il est difficile de savoir ou s’arrête l’aveuglement, provoqué par l’idéologie, et où commence le calcul cynique. La secrétaire d’Etat, Condoleezza Rice, nie, avec insistance, que le racisme a été la cause de l’abandon des résidents les plus pauvres de La Nouvelle-Orléans. Elle a tourné en ridicule les protestations du Black Congresional Caucus [le groupe des afro-américains au Congrès] en les qualifiant de « sentimentales».
Le porte-parole de la Chambre des représentants, Deuils Hastert, ne voit pas l’intérêt de reconstruire La Nouvelle-Orléans. Il prévoit les objections probables de son électorat blanc de l’Illinois à l’idée de payer des impôts pour aider les Noirs dans le Sud : Lincoln et les républicains, qui voulaient la reconstruction sociale du Sud, ne reconnaîtraient pas leurs descendants.

De plus, un nombre important de commentateurs a eu l’inhumanité d’accuser les victimes de ne pas avoir quitté La Nouvelle-Orléans à temps, sans se soucier de savoir si elles avaient des voitures, de l’argent pour l’essence et pour se loger, ou des infirmes dans leur famille. La télévision et la presse viennent de faire une grande découverte journalistique : les Etats-Unis sont un pays divisé en classes et en races.

Un rapport gouvernemental publié juste avant le cyclone faisait état d’une stagnation des revenus moyens et d’une augmentation de la pauvreté. Ce document est passé presque inaperçu. Si la majorité des Américains ne se rend effectivement pas compte des réalités sociales, cet aveuglement a une utilité. Dans un pays où les gens sont responsables de leur sort, il n’y a pas d’obligation de l’Etat à aider ceux qui s’effondrent ou qui échouent - la charité est entièrement volontaire ; dans une société où la compétition est acharnée, il y a un rapport entre la sentimentalité creuse du discours public et de la compassion sociale et le substrat beaucoup plus brutal de la vie américaine.
’ Cette relation a été comprise par les habitants du golfe, saisis d’angoisse devant les villes inondées et les gens fuyant la côte dévastée. Beaucoup sont blancs et les masses urbaines noires leur font peur. Ils ont sorti leurs armes à feu pour se défendre. L’autodéfense de ce type est également une forme de bénévolat, mais pas de celui qui est prôné par la plupart des Eglises.

li est vrai que beaucoup d’Américains éprouvent de la honte devant l’abandon des survivants de La Nouvelle-Orléans et de la côte. Combien de temps peut durer cette réaction de décence authentique ? Aura-t-elle des conséquences politiques ? Ces questions restent en suspens : ce serait beaucoup demander au pays d’abandonner le mythe d’une société composée essentiellement d’une classe moyenne.

On ne sait pas trop si tout un pays peut rejeter l’atomisation inhérente à son modèle social et comment il peut le faire. II sera difficile de réinventer une sphère publique résolument moderne. Mais, si aucun changement n’intervient, il nous faudra sans doute oublier Jefferson et Lincoln et se reposer uniquement sur le calviniste de la Nouvelle-Angleterre Jonathan Edwards et ses “Pécheurs entre les mains d’un Dieu en colère”. Les Américains doivent désormais décider s’ils sont citoyens d’une république ou membres d’une grande secte protestante.

Traduit de l’américain par Florence Levy-Paolini
Article paru dans LE MONDE 9|9|2005

Etant un lecteur assidu (quotidien ?) depuis plus de 4 ans, c’est avec joie que je m’acquitterai de ma dime.

Continuez !

Les annees passent, certains sites restent dans les “bookmarks”, mais ils sont rares, dedefensa en est un (le plus vieux ?).
J’apprecie d’autant plus vos commentaires, que je suis desormais expatrie aux US.

C’est dire si je navigue en plein… virtualisme ;-)

GWB II - et son entourage - ont tres bien senti cette evolution (inconsciente ?) et la “compassion - et toutes les reliogisites l accompagnant - exprimee continuellement llpar ce president aux abois (*) annonce la strategie en cours de developpement pour faire face a ce danger qui n est pas loin d etre qualifie de revolutionnaire des a present par certains (**).
En un mot la “compassion” et les goupillonneries qui l accompagnent vont etre les bastonnades - lisons recours a la Garde Nationale bet a l armee - qui sont des a present manipules avec l extreme dexterite habituelle - qui remonte au massacre d etudiants d Ohio Stae pendant la guerre du Vietnam - et qui fera face a cette oppisition dont la premiere erreur sera d etre trop bien coordonnee - et de la identifiable comme extremiste.
Tout comme Kerry, ce mouvement n a aucune chance dans ce pays submerge dans le volontarisme dogmatique (en tous genres) - dirige par les eglises, les sectes, et tout ce qui est d associatif politise.
Ce curieux melange qui est une veritable soupe de militarisme evangelistique et patriotique est d une manipulation facile pour un president si pres de Dieu.

A moins que…. Farrakhan ne s en mele.
Car au fond 70% de la population touchee - et si blessee - pourrait bien se referer a Lui.

..... mais il n en fera rien pour la seule et bonne raison qu il a tendance a reagir un peu comme les Palestiniens: pour eux, comme pour lui (***) le temps semble etre le Grand Unificateur sur lequel ils comptent.

Dans un sens j espere avoir tort ...

(*) Le “cartoon” du Baltimore Sun d aujourd hui est significatif a cete egard: il montre GWBII assis sur un banc d ecole en train de lire “GOAT STORY” - comme ce fut le cas en Floride en 2001 - histriquement celebre par le film de Michael Moore -ais accompagne cette fois - aussi sur une chaise d ecolier- par le direcetur de la FEMA, celui de Homeland Security et le Comgres - tous lisant le meme livre. La seule anomalie a relever c est la place de la FEMA avant le direceteur de Homeland Security qui lui est pourtant hierarchiquement superieur - et aurait du deja fournir sa demission.
(**) Certrains des a present qualifient de mauvais americains et de traitres a la patrie (le communisme ayant ete precedemment vaincu comme chacun sait.

(***)
.. et bien sur pour les chinois aussi. Faut il d ailleurs y ajouter les hindous des a present ?
Mais la je m engage tropsur la geo-politique !!

Bien a vous et une fois de plus mes compliments ppour vos remarquables dissertations.
Je ne peux malheureusement pas m offrir - depuis quelques annees - un abonnement a votre revue mais j espere un de ces jours vous commander tous les anciens numeros que je n ai pu vous acheter.

Nous prenons sur nous d’introduire le message suivant en supprimant les coordonnées ‘e-mail, nom) du lecteur, qui nous a demandés l’anonymat. — PhG

Voici le message

“Bonjour

”Comment peut on vous faire parvenir de l\‘argent sans engraisser les intermédiaires( pour un un chèque, Cela parait difficile, ma banque est en France).

”Merci de ne pas mettre mon nom ou mes coordonées en ligne.

”Continuez, et merci.

”Cordialement.”

For Bush, a Deepening Divide

Katrina Crisis Brings No Repeat of 9/11 Bipartisanship

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 7, 2005; A19

When terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001, Americans came together in grief and resolve, rallying behind President Bush in an extraordinary show of national unity. But when Hurricane Katrina hit last week, the opposite occurred, with Americans dividing along sharply partisan lines in their judgment of the president’s and the federal government’s response.

The starkly different verdicts on Bush’s stewardship of the two biggest crises of his presidency underscore the deepening polarization of the electorate that has occurred on his watch. This gaping divide has left the president with no reservoir of good will among his political opponents at a critical moment of national need and has touched off a fresh debate about whether he could have done anything to prevent it.

To his critics, Bush is now reaping what he has sown. Their case against him goes as follows: Facing a divided nation, the president has eschewed unity in both his governing strategy and his political blueprint. These opponents argue that he has favored confrontation over conciliation with the Democrats while favoring a set of policies aimed at deepening support among his conservative base at the expense of ideas that might produce bipartisan consensus and broader approval among the voters. His allies and advisers, while acknowledging that polarization has worsened during the past five years, say the opposition party bears the brunt of responsibility. Democrats, by this reckoning, have rebuffed Bush’s efforts at bipartisanship, put up a wall to ideas that once enjoyed some support on their side, and, even in the current crisis along the Gulf Coast, are seeking to score political points rather than joining hands with the president to speed the recovery and relief to the victims.

Wherever reality lies between these mutual recriminations, the path from post-9/11 unity to the rancor and finger-pointing in the aftermath of Katrina’s fury charts a clear deterioration in political consensus in the United States and a growing willingness to interpret events through a partisan prism. It is a problem that now appears destined to follow Bush through the final years of his presidency—a clear failure of his 2000 campaign promise to be a “uniter, not a divider.”

A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken last Friday illustrates the point vividly. Just 17 percent of Democrats said they approved of the way Bush was handling the Katrina crisis while 74 percent of Republicans said they approved. About two in three Republicans rated the federal government’s response as good or excellent, while two in three Democrats rated it not so good or poor.

“Bush is the most partisan president in modern American history,” said William Galston, a professor at the University of Maryland and previously a top domestic adviser to former President Bill Clinton. “As a result, voters in both parties are focusing on him, rather than on the specifics of the policies.”

In Galston’s view, Bush bears principal responsibility for that condition, saying that on three occasions he passed up opportunities to govern from the center and work more constructively with the Democrats and instead chose a path designed to mobilize conservatives. The first came after the disputed election of 2000, in the early days of Bush’s new administration. The second came after the Sept. 11 attacks, when Bush’s approval rating rose to 90 percent. The third came after the hard-fought and polarizing election last year.

“While White House aides can provide familiar talking points on gestures of cooperation across party lines, the fact of the matter is on all three occasions, the principal thrust of Bush’s policies was toward polarization rather than conciliation,” Galston said. “We are now living in the shadow of nearly five years in which that has been the dominant political message coming out of the White House.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman offered a vigorous rebuttal to that criticism yesterday. “They’ve got a one-way street of unity,” he said. “It’s ‘Do what we want, or you’re not a unifier.’ “

Mehlman said Bush has produced an unprecedented record of bipartisan accomplishment, citing the passage of the No Child Left Behind education act, prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, the USA Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which he said was advanced initially by Democratic Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and eventually embraced by Bush. (Democrats say Bush embraced the department only when public opinion showed it to be extremely popular.) Mehlman also said Democrats are now attempting to take advantage of the politics of Katrina and pointed specifically at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who yesterday introduced legislation calling for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be reconstituted as an independent, Cabinet-level agency, rather than a unit in the new Homeland Security Department. “You tell me who’s taking what should be a moment of national unity and trying to score politically,” he said. William Mayer, a political scientist at Northeastern University, said the public divide over Bush’s handling of the natural disaster bears considerable resemblance to divisions over Clinton’s handling of the standoff with the Branch Davidian followers of David Koresh in Waco early in his presidency, which ended in a fire that killed more than 80 people. Democrats supported Clinton did the best he could “dealing with a crazy man,” Mayer said, while Republicans “said this was a massively bungled affair.”

Mayer and Nolan McCarty, a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton said that while polarization has worsened under Bush, the president bears only some of the responsibility. McCarty said Bush could try to rise above the current criticism but noted that partisans now have jumped in. “It will polarize things worse,” he said.

Mark McKinnon, Bush’s campaign media adviser, said Bush is still dealing with divisions that came out of the election 2000 but said the current crisis presents an opportunity for the administration “to show leadership and coordination and response and compassion of a nature that could affect the political dynamics of the country.”

Galston agreed that is possible, but he said he doubted even a well-judged performance will fundamentally change Bush’s ability to work across party lines on controversial issues. The hurricane may have washed away much of the Gulf Coast, but political polarization has proved resistant to its forces.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090601687.html?referrer=email

Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Prostitutes disarm KFOR soldiers

Koha Ditore reports on the front page that several KFOR soldiers have remained naked and without weapons, after several persons took them away, ‘while the soldiers were making love to some prostitutes in a bordello in northern Mitrovica.’

Police in Mitrovica denied having any information about the alleged disarmament and theft of the uniforms of French KFOR soldiers in northern Mitrovica.

posted by KosovaReport @ 9:33 AM   19 comments  

19 Comments:
At 10:00 AM, Anonymous said…
Who’s in charge of prostitution now?

 
At 11:02 AM, Anonymous said…
That must be why UNMIKPOL vehicles can be seen standing outside the “motels” at all hours, they’re .... investigating the loss (“Wh must search for lost weapons everywhere. Up against the bed and spread ‘em, ma’am!”)

Ah sorry, they been doing that five years alrwady, guess they must be investigating something else.

 
At 11:05 AM, Anonymous said…
This is the first time that I have heard of someone “making love” to a prostitute…

 
At 11:49 AM, Anonymous said…
They are French dude. But that kind of love is criminal in Kosova and, according to standard setters, needs to be resolved to fulfill the standard on security.

 
At 11:55 AM, Anonymous said…
Northern Mitrovica has become a hotbed of criminal activity. Prostitutes from all over Eastern Europe can be found there and its awash with weapons.

 
At 12:55 PM, Anonymous said…
Not just northern Mitro, but southern mitro and the rest of Kosova is criminalized. Criminal cooperation is the only successfull interethnic activity there is there.

 
At 1:36 PM, Prince of Albania said…
Ha, ha, ha, ha….

That’s too funny. The worlds strongest military exposed. If you want to dissarm NATO jsut throw some pussy in their face!

As far as North or South Mitrovica this is not a Serb or Albanian afair I’m afraid. Criminal activity happens to be the only place where Albanians and Serbs actually work together.

Since that’s probably the only way to make money in Kosovo that should tell you a lot. If everyone had a descent job and a steady good income we could live together in peace and harmony.

Add some prostitutes to that and we’ll be in downright bliss, ha, ha.

 
At 4:39 PM, Anonymous said…
Kosovo For Absolute Beginners

Frequently Asked Questions

Recommended reading: In Yugoslavia, Rising Ethnic Strife Brings Fears of Worse Civil Conflict (DAVID BINDER, The New York Times November 1, 1987)

The New York Times of Saturday, March 27, quotes Laura Leslie, a senior from Miramonte High School, San Francisco: “I don’t want to see another thing like what happened with Hitler, with a terrible person taking over countries”. Laura reads the newspaper and listens to the news, and in her innocent way sums up the message of the propaganda war-supporting machine. She is not to be blamed for oversimplifying what is going on in Kosovo and why her country is at war again. The media and the President try to convince you that this is true and that you should support the men and women of your armed forces for the sake of your values and your children’s future. But I would like to offer you a less simplistic explanation.

To begin with, the rebellion in Kosovo is not the result of the last 10 years. Albanian separatism is the oldest nationalistic movement in what used to be Tito’s Yugoslavia, and it has started the circle of mutual mistrust, hatred and eventually war in there. At the beginning of this century, Albanians made only one third of the Kosovo population. At the beginning of the fifties, after somewhat prolonged fight with the remains of what used to be the Albanian quisling state established by Mussolini’s Italy, Tito’s regime decided to give this part of Serbia a political, cultural, economical and juridical autonomy, as well as generous subventions from the federal budget.

At the beginning of sixties, Albanian population made 2/3 of the Kosovo population. At that time the first public demand for independence was raised during the riots in 1968 and again in 1981, several months after Tito’s death. None of us had at that time heard anything about Milosevic, who was a banker with no political influence whatsoever. Their demand for independence had nothing to do with repression, for if there was any repression at that time, it could only have been an Albanian repression against the Serbs in Kosovo. The New York Times, which can hardly be said to be in favor of the Serbs, wrote at that time: “Serbs have been harassed by Albanians and have packed up and left the region. The Albanian nationalists have a two-point platform, first to establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and then to merge with Albania to form a greater Albania. Some 57.000 Serbs have left Kosovo in the last decade” (NYT, July 12, 1982). Rape, murder, threats, the destruction of property were the instruments of such a platform, and with the police and courts in Albanian hands, nobody could get protection from the state.

Milosevic rose to power and gained popular support in 1988 with the promise that he would put an end to the violence against Serbs in Kosovo. The autonomy of the region was abolished in 1990, several months before the dismembering of Yugoslavia started, just as the regional parliament declared Kosovo’s independence from Serbia. At that moment Albanians started to organize parallel state institutions, such as schools, a tax collecting system, courts and the police.
There is no doubt that during the nineties Albanians in Kosovo were exposed to repression. The police searched their houses looking for arms, arrested them without warrant and often avoided the legal procedure. However, at the same time, Serbs were exposed to the same police harassment by the same regime in Serbia.

All political forces among Albanians have publicly acknowledged that their aim was not the democratization of Kosovo, but independence, which means secession form Serbia, and joining Albania. They differ as to what means should be most appropriate for achieving this goal, but they have never made a secret that the creation of Great Albania, and not democracy in Serbia or autonomy in it, is their aim.

Refusing to take part in Serbia’s political life, especially in elections, Albanians helped Milosevic stay in power. Instead of Albanian elected political representatives, Kosovo was represented in Serbia’s parliament by representatives of the tiny Serbian population from Kosovo, who were all, needless to say, Milosevics supporters. If Albanians had decided to vote for their representatives only once, and they had a chance four times in the last ten years, Milosevic would have lost the power. The Serbian democratic opposition and independent intellectuals close to the opposition have tried to organize meetings with leading Albanian politicians several times during this period in order to convince them to vote, to take part in Serbia’s political life, which would immediately mean the fall of the Milosevic regime, the protection of Albanian political rights and the end of repression, but Albanian leaders declined any such proposal, with the answer that the only thing they were interested in would be independence for Kosovo. Thus Milosevic and Albanian leaders helped one another: he ruled Serbia by using their votes, and, on the other hand, with repression helped them radicalize the political situation in Kosovo.

KLA members (Wade Goddard for NYT)Last year the Kosovo Liberation Army emerged as an important player in Kosovo’s political game. Reading The New York Times or listening to NATO leaders, one might get the impression that the KLA is something like The Red Cross, or a group of peaceful old ladies who every day bring flowers to Serbian houses. But it is not so. It is an armed paramilitary formation which last summer had two thirds of Kosovo under its control. The KLA has ethnically pure and independent Kosovo as its only aim. It struggles for it not with political, but with violent means: attacking police patrols, Serbian civilians and their houses, forcing them to leave Kosovo, and bombing coffee-shops in which Serbian kids gather. I would like to stress the fact that what they do is ethnic cleansing as well. Killing civilians is killing civilians, and I expect your indignation to be the same in any criminal case of this sort. Not a single day has passed in the year and a half without a report that at least three people were killed by the KLA, Serbs as well as Albanians loyal to the state. It would be highly hypocritical to refer to the KLA as to “unarmed civilians”, when it calls itself an Army.

Last October a peace agreement between the Serbian authorities and the leaders of the KLA was reached. According to it, the Serbian government would withdraw all the special police and some of the military units, and the KLA would cease its operations until the final peace agreement was reached. Only the first part of this deal was fulfilled. The KLA never stopped the killings, the excuse being that it had no central command and that the local units cannot be controlled by anyone. After the Serbian police and military units withdrew from Kosovo, the K.L.A. simply walked into the empty space and gained control over a large part of Kosovo and continued the violence.

A Serbian widow packs two rifles as she leaves her home in the village of Bukos in northern Kosovo, February 23. The night before, her husband Mirko Milosevic was shot to death outside their house by ethnic Albanian rebels. (Bela Szandelszky — AFP)

As you can see, the demand for Kosovo’s independence led to the repression, the repression led to KLA and terrorism, terrorism led to Serbian military and police intervention, and it led to NATO’s assault on Yugoslavia. None of the steps I have listed was unavoidable. Nevertheless, everything eventually comes down to the question of Kosovo’s independence. As I was never tempted to support the idea of Great Serbia, I do not understand why anyone should think that Great Albania is a noble aim. This aim can be achieved only at the cost of changing borders and by ethnically cleansing Kosovo of Serbs in the first phase, and then by repeating the same procedure in Macedonia, which also has a numerous Albanian minority.

Not Milosevic, but Yugoslavia is being bombed today for the failure of its representatives to sign the document offered in Rambouillet. This document is not the result of negotiations and peace talks, and it meets all the demands of only one side in the conflict. According to it, Kosovo will stay in Serbia as a self-governed region only for the next three years, after which period it may declare its independence. The Albanian delegation has signed the document, but they have enclosed a written statement which says that they do not give up their central aim, the independence or Kosovo. The Serbian side accepts a broad autonomy, but declines both the possibility of independence, and the occupation by some 28000 NATO solders.

As the leaders of the NATO countries say, the bombing will stop the moment “Milosevic”, who has become a general name for 10 million Serbs, their state and their president, agrees with the Rambouillet document. This means that the bombing will last as long as there is anything in Serbia left. Neither Milosevic, nor anybody in Serbia can sign such a document, for it would mean signing that part of our country will become part of Albania in three years. Even though I think that Serbia would be better off without Kosovo, I wouldn’t sign it either. This is neither a matter of Serbian sentimentality, nor has it anything to do with the battle of Kosovo in 1389, as some crash-course experts would have it. It has to do with the principles and with the right of any country to protect its borders and its integrity. In spite of repeated claims that the NATO countries are not in favor of Kosovo’s independence, this is exactly what they are supporting by their military intervention. In Rambouillet Serbia was confronted with the alternatives to agree with the secession, or to be bombed and thus forced to agree with it; not much of a choice, as you see.

A seriously wounded Serb policemen clenches his fist in pain, during a clash with ethnic Albanian rebels. Five Serb policemen were wounded February 23 when KLA soldiers attacked a judge and her team that arrived in Bukos to investigate after rebels killed a Serbian villager and wounded three others the previous day. (Srdjan Ilic — AP)

If the term ethnic cleansing is to be used, it has been committed by both Albanians and Serbs over the last 20 years, but a genocide has not taken place, and the killings happen on a much smaller scale than in Algeria or Ethiopia, to name only two current crises in the world. Yugoslavia is a sovereign state and Kosovo is a part of it; Yugoslavia has not committed an aggression against any neighboring state. On the contrary: it is being threatened by Albania as a KLA base and by Macedonia as a NATO base. (Leaving the Yugoslav territory the other day U.S. diplomat William Walker said “Next time I will not need a visa to enter Yugoslavia”, a sentence which, as you might assume, does not mean that the visa regime between our countries will be suspended.) The assault on Yugoslavia is a clear case of violating the UN Charter, and no rhetoric can change this fact. If Serbia refuses to allow a province to secede, outsiders have no right to label such defense of its national borders an “aggression” and to support the rebels. Great Britain fought for the Folkland Islands, the small leftover of its colonial empire, and nobody bombed London for that.

The ongoing bombing of Serbian cities has taken its first victims. As I write this text, the number of civilian casualties among Serbs is 1000, and I invite you to compare it with the number of Albanian casualties in the village of Racak in January this year, which was 40. Among other things, NATO bombs have destroyed or damaged 50 schools, the printing facilities of Koha Ditore, the leading Albanian daily newspaper, the ice cream factory in Sombor, the 600 year old monastery Gracanica in Kosovo and the monastery Rakovica in Belgrade. Recalling high human values and morality, the NATO leaders do exactly the same thing of which they accuse the Serbs.

The bombing of Yugoslavia has produced exactly what NATO claims to have tried to prevent: more destruction, more dead bodies, more violence. While the KLA is in offensive, rightly understanding the NATO missiles and planes as its own airforce, Serbian extremists can be expected to try to take their revenge, and thus take into the conflict the parts of Kosovo spared killings and destruction so far. Contrary to the media reports I hear and read in the U.S., French intelligence sources from Kosovo do not confirm that the Serbian counter-offensive has taken place yet, which does not mean that such a possibility is improbable in the future.

A Serb trooper runs for cover behind a Yugoslav army T-55 tank after fighting erupted with the Kosovo Liberation Army outside Bukos, Kosovo. (Attila Kisbenedek — AFP)

The further result of NATO’s aggression on Yugoslavia seems to me easy to foresee. A new era of insecurity has begun, for nobody knows when the NATO leaders are going to invoke values and principles, moral imperatives and, last but not least, American geopolitical interests, as a pretext of attacking some other country without the authorization of the UN. It can be Macedonia when Albanians take arms, or Romania, with its huge Hungarian minority, or any other multi-ethnic state in the world. I am pretty sure it will not be Turkey, even if a new Kurd upsurge breaks out, and you probably do not need my help to understand why not. Second: from now on no argument can prevent Bosnian Serbs to secede stating the very same arguments the NATO leaders used in case of Kosovo, - to be able to live in their own country- and that means the end of the Dayton peace agreement. Thirdly: it doesn’t take much to predict that Yugoslavia cannot defend itself against the overwhelming power of NATO. It is only a matter of time when NATO accomplishes its goal of seceding Kosovo from Serbia. The new, greater Albania will not be a democratic and peaceful state, but aggressive and violent, and the region will be shaken with violence and conflicts even more than so far. As far as Serbia is concerned, Milosevic will emerge from this crisis even stronger than before, but no Western oriented and democratic Serb will be able to say aloud words like democracy, the rule of law, and justice. If the states usually identified with these values were able to violate international laws and the UN Charter, hypocritically recalling the values that were renounced by their deeds at the same moment, in order to help dismember Yugoslavia, then we in the opposition are left without any argument. The same applies to the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, established to investigate war crimes against the civilians committed in last ten years in the former Yugoslavia, for there is no difference between Serbian officers who planned and executed the bombing of the Croatian city of Vukovar, and people who plan and execute the bombing of Serbian cities and villages today. They can both list their reasons endlessly, and the words like “moral imperative”, “defenseless people”, “our children”, as well as the sentence “the enemy understands only the language of force” can be heard from them very often. Moreover, this will give a perfect justification for all those who during the wars in the former Yugoslavia supported or took part in assaults on civilians, and a perfect excuse for further crimes.

What are the rules in the game of dismembering the former Yugoslavia? Addressing the nation President Clinton made a hardly understandable analogy with the holocaust, which would suppose that the Jews in Germany had a Jewish Liberation Army, that they controlled part of, say, Bavaria and intended to join it with Israel. However, the real analogy with Albanians in Kosovo can be found in comparison with Serbs in Croatia. As Albanians in Kosovo, Serbs in Krajina, Croatia, were the majority. As Albanians in Kosovo, Serbs in Krajina were repressed and frightened by President Tudjman’s resurrection of Ustasa-Nazi ideology and its symbols. As Albanians were deprived of their autonomy, Serbs in Krajina were deprived of their constitutional rights. And, finally, as Albanians now, Serbs then took arms and started to fight. In August 1995 the Croatian forces attacked Krajina, bombed cities and villages and killed civilians, even fleeing refugees. In only three days 250 000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia and made to join other 200 000 who came to Serbia from other parts of Croatia, without being so far allowed to return to their homes. NATO was silent and nobody said a word about bombing Croatia. On the contrary: Warren Christopher, who was the State secretary at that time, said: Let us wait and see, maybe there is something good for us in it. Consequently, the U.S. did not cooperate in this matter with The Hague Tribunal, which investigated it as a case of large-scale ethnic cleansing, by refusing to give the satelite photos taken during the action of the Croatian army.

What were the principles and the values defended by the U.S. in 1995? The principle was that no border in the former Yugoslavia could be changed, and that no national minority had the right to form a new state on other state territories. Four years later, the principle has been changed, new values defended, and we witness the U.S. pushing Kosovo towards independence, helping Albanians change the borders within three years and form a new state on Yugoslavia’s territory. This is what happened in Rambouillet, and no high-flown rhetoric can make it look better, as no rhetoric can diminish the fact that the number of refugees, according to NATO sources, was 40 000, and six days after the assault on Yugoslavia the same sources claim almost half a million. If this is not just a belated justification for the assault like the case of the Kuwaits ambassadors daughter, who appeared in the Security Counsel during the Golf War to testify that she has been raped by the Iraqi solders in Kuwait, although she was safely in Washington all the time then somebody must be able to recognize the fact that the number of refugees increased during the assault, and that the assault produces the result NATO leaders say they want to prevent. Smart bombs fall on Albanian heads as well.

US envoy Holbrooke at his first Kosovo meeting with KLA, Junik 1998 (AP)

If the U.S. are really interested in the peace in the region, then their policy is totally counterproductive. Instead of supporting non-nationalist and democratic forces, the U.S. keep supporting one nationalistic and anti-democratic group against the other. Robert Gelbard, the U.S. diplomat and former Clinton’s special envoy to the Balkans, was the first to understand that. He publicly said that the KLA was a terrorist organization, and promised moral support for democratic forces in Serbia, thus isolating extremists on both sides and announcing the only solution for this part of Europe: Kosovo without terrorism and Serbia without autocracy. The current U.S. policy towards Yugoslavia took another turn: supporting terrorism and antagonizing even democrats among Serbs.

 
At 5:56 PM, Anonymous said…
I am here to tell you that prostitutes sure can bring peace and happiness into ones life; key is don’t get robbed. Also, it really doesn’t matter if they are from Easter Europe or if they are in Northern Mitrovica, the love prostitutes give knows no bounderies.

The article is sligtly incorrect though because the “John” does not make love to the prostitute it is the prosititute that makes love to the “John,” well unless she jacks him; in that case that sucker is screwed.

 
At 7:30 PM, Anonymous said…
This guy that is posting “for absolute beginners” is so annoying.

 
At 3:34 AM, Anonymous said…
Just ignore him, he needs to visit Northern Mitrovica with the French NATO troops…he needs some “love”

 
At 6:29 AM, Anonymous said…
French Army & Serb Prostitutes same fucking shit.If you want to know their national source the definition is:some French monkies having sex with some serb skunks.Joining these two components imagine what sort of shit this is.Stinky.Phuhhhh

 
At 10:04 AM, Anonymous said…
Criminels albanais, vous avez créé 300 bordels au Kosovo depuis l’agression de l’OTAN. Vous trafiquez les femmes, les armes et la drogue. Vous avez du culot d’incriminer les soldats français. Tous vos chefs de clans sont des proxénètes. La solution pour vous c’est un bon nettoyage ethnique. A dégager.Ca viendra demain, ne vous en faites pas… Gilles, soldat à Kosovska Mitrovica.

 
At 10:24 AM, Anonymous said…
Speak English so the whole world can understand you… :-D

 
At 10:31 AM, Anonymous said…
TRANSLATION OF THE TEXT IN FRENCH:

Albanian criminals, you created 300 brothels in Kosovo since the aggression of NATO. You adulterate the women, the weapons and drug. You have base to accuse the French soldiers. All your chiefs of clans are procurers. The solution for you it is a good ethnic cleaning. To dégager.Ca will come tomorrow, do not make any you… Gilles, soldier with Kosovska Mitrovica.
_________________________________

No sir, you belong to an army that sabotages NATO. Your country should be kicked out of NATO. Your air force dropped their bombs in the Adriatic sea because you did not want to ruin your centuries old ties with Serbs.

As far as brothels, I am sure you have visited all 300 of them. After all, you are French. Just make sure you carry your white flag around in case of emergency.

If you are a soldier and you advocate ethnic cleansing, you should be out of there. But do not worry, you will be out of there before you know it. Faggot!

________________________________

Aucun monsieur, vous appartenez à une armée cette OTAN de sabotages. Votre pays devrait être donné un coup de pied hors de l’OTAN. Votre Armée de l’Air a laissé tomber leurs bombes en mer adriatique parce que vous n’avez pas voulu ruiner vos cravates de siècles avec des Serbes. Jusque des bordels, je suis sûr que vous avez visité chacun des 300 d’entre eux. Après tout, vous êtes français. Vous assurez juste vous porter votre drapeau blanc autour en cas d’urgence. Si vous êtes un soldat et vous préconisez le nettoyage ethnique, vous devriez être hors de là. Mais ne vous inquiétez pas, vous sera hors de là avant que vous le sachiez Fagot !

 
At 10:32 AM, Anonymous said…
Voici plus au sujet de vous : “Jacques Chirac a officiellement soulevé l’alerte française de terreur” de la course “” pour se cacher “. Il y a seulement deux niveaux alertes plus élevés en France, qui sont “reddition” et “collaborez”. L’élévation a été précipitée par un incendie récent qui a détruit l’usine blanche du drapeau de la France - estropier efficacement leurs militaires.”

 
At 11:17 AM, Anonymous said…
To the French military frog:

Listen you bloody frog, go to http://www.google.com type in “french military victories” and press “I’m Feeling Lucky” button.

The result is the following (link):

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

 
At 8:08 PM, Anonymous said…
Scott Corrigan said…
Please speak the language of the world, ENGLISH, because nobody speaks French anymore. This language is a hobby only and if you wish to get by in the world you have to speak ENGLISH, mon ami.
Also, besides French being obsolete, the French army being obsolete, and in general France being obsolete, the United States of America are better than you in Soccer or Football. We are ranked 6th while you sit at 11th place on the FIFA world ranking.
You suck, no one asks the French about anything anymore. Forget about it son, France matters today about as much as Russia does.
There is a new boss in town, the US, so remember to do what we tell you and shut the fuck up!!!
Scott Corrigan.

 
At 10:46 PM, Anonymous said…
Pour le français, il y a toujours de bonnes âmes pour traduire… et de gens fins et cultivés, amateurs de grenouilles et d’escargots ainsi que de bons vins, qui parlent la belle langue de Molière. Yankees, le français n’est pas fait pour vos grouins.

Mon bon monsieur à la bouche pleine de chewing gum, the “language of the world “aujourd’hui c’est l’anti-américanisme, qui se traduit dans toutes les langues, et pas cet anglais appauvri (comme l’uranium balancé dans les Balkans et ailleurs) qui est une sous-langue que l’on trouve partout parce qu’il suffit d’en connaître quelques mots pour se débrouiller avec.

Les bouffeurs de hamburgers se croient supérieurs aux autres mais l’univers les méprise et il lui tarde de fêter la chute des sinistres bouffons Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld et avec eux celle de leur empire criminel.

Ils prétendent donner des leçons au monde mais sont en train de perdre la guerre en Irak, les pédales à la Nouvelle Orléans et la face partout. On demande le démantèlement des bases U$ en Asie centrale. Ils se font expulser du Venezuela… Le tour du continent européen viendra.

Etatsuniens, Amerloques, foutez le camp d’Europe avant qu’on ne vous vire par la peau du cul: U$ GO HOME, ça vous dit quelque chose? Libérez les indigènes et rendez-nous la Louisiane que vous avez oublié de payer à Napoléon.

Si vous ne comprenez pas, faites-vous traduire. Champagne, ça vous connaissez: entre un étatsunien et un Français il y aura toujours la même différence qu’entre le Champagne et votre Merda Cola.

Et celle-là, retenez-la bien: “Passer pour un idiot aux yeux d’un imbécile est une volonté de fin gourmet” (Courteline).Ca s’adresse collectivement à vos analphabètes. Et pour vous achever:

Vive de Gaulle & Vive de Villepin!

 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Votre conception du “soutien solidaire” me paraît très intéressante. Espérons qu’elle sera suffisamment mobilisatrice et qu’elle permettra d’assurer votre pérennité et votre indépendance.

Un Article du Salt lake Tribune au sujet de l’ organisation des Secours.
1000 Firefighter de differents Etats consignés par la FEMA à distribuer des Flyers…..

Frustrated: Fire crews to hand out fliers for FEMA
By Lisa Rosetta
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 9/06/2005 02:04 AM

Salt Lake Tribune ATLANTA - Not long after some 1,000 firefighters sat down for eight hours of training, the whispering began: “What are we doing here?”
  As New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin pleaded on national television for firefighters - his own are exhausted after working around the clock for a week - a battalion of highly trained men and women sat idle Sunday in a muggy Sheraton Hotel conference room in Atlanta.
  Many of the firefighters, assembled from Utah and throughout the United States by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, thought they were going to be deployed as emergency workers.
  Instead, they have learned they are going to be community-relations officers for FEMA, shuffled throughout the Gulf Coast region to disseminate fliers and a phone number: 1-800-621-FEMA.
  On Monday, some firefighters stuck in the staging area at the Sheraton peeled off their FEMA-issued shirts and stuffed them in backpacks, saying they refuse to represent the federal agency.
  Federal officials are unapologetic.
  “I would go back and ask the firefighter to revisit his commitment to FEMA, to firefighting and to the citizens of this country,” said FEMA spokeswoman Mary Hudak.
  The firefighters - or at least the fire chiefs who assigned them to come to Atlanta - knew what the assignment would be, Hudak said.
  “The initial call to action very specifically says we’re looking for two-person fire teams to do community relations,” she said. “So if there is a breakdown [in communication], it was likely in their own departments.”
  One fire chief from Texas agreed that the call was clear to work as community-relations officers. But he wonders why the 1,400 firefighters FEMA attracted to Atlanta aren’t being put to better use. He also questioned why the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - of which FEMA is a part - has not responded better to the disaster.
  The firefighters, several of whom are from Utah, were told to bring backpacks, sleeping bags, first-aid kits and Meals Ready to Eat. They were told to prepare for “austere conditions.” Many of them came with awkward fire gear and expected to wade in floodwaters, sift through rubble and save lives.
  “They’ve got people here who are search-and-rescue certified, paramedics, haz-mat certified,” said a Texas firefighter. “We’re sitting in here having a sexual-harassment class while there are still [victims] in Louisiana who haven’t been contacted yet.”
  The firefighter, who has encouraged his superiors back home not to send any more volunteers for now, declined to give his name because FEMA has warned them not to talk to reporters.
  On Monday, two firefighters from South Jordan and two from Layton headed for San Antonio to help hurricane evacuees there. Four firefighters from Roy awaited their marching orders, crossing their fingers that they would get to do rescue and recovery work, rather than paperwork.
  “A lot of people are bickering because there are rumors they’ll just be handing out fliers,” said Roy firefighter Logan Layne, adding that his squad hopes to be in the thick of the action. “But we’ll do anything. We’ll do whatever they need us to do.”
  While FEMA’s community-relations job may be an important one - displaced hurricane victims need basic services and a variety of resources - it may be a job best suited for someone else, say firefighters assembled at the Sheraton.
  “It’s a misallocation of resources. Completely,” said the Texas firefighter.
  “It’s just an under-utilization of very talented people,” said South Salt Lake Fire Chief Steve Foote, who sent a team of firefighters to Atlanta. “I was hoping once they saw the level of people . . . they would shift gears a little bit.”
  Foote said his crews would be better used doing the jobs they are trained to do.
  But Louis H. Botta, a coordinating officer for FEMA, said sending out firefighters on community relations makes sense. They already have had background checks and meet the qualifications to be sworn as a federal employee. They have medical training that will prove invaluable as they come across hurricane victims in the field.
  A firefighter from California said he feels ill prepared to even carry out the job FEMA has assigned him. In the field, Hurricane Katrina victims will approach him with questions about everything from insurance claims to financial assistance.
  “My only answer to them is, ‘1-800-621-FEMA,’ ” he said. “I’m not used to not being in the know.”
  Roy Fire Chief Jon Ritchie said his crews would be a “little frustrated” if they were assigned to hand out phone numbers at an evacuee center in Texas rather than find and treat victims of the disaster.
  Also of concern to some of the firefighters is the cost borne by their municipalities in the wake of their absence. Cities are picking up the tab to fill the firefighters’ vacancies while they work 30 days for the federal government.
  “There are all of these guys with all of this training and we’re sending them out to hand out a phone number,” an Oregon firefighter said. “They [the hurricane victims] are screaming for help and this day [of FEMA training] was a waste.”
  Firefighters say they want to brave the heat, the debris-littered roads, the poisonous cottonmouth snakes and fire ants and travel into pockets of Louisiana where many people have yet to receive emergency aid.
  But as specific orders began arriving to the firefighters in Atlanta, a team of 50 Monday morning quickly was ushered onto a flight headed for Louisiana. The crew’s first assignment: to stand beside President Bush as he tours devastated areas.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3004197

Changement climatique et combustibles fossiles

PAR PIERRE LAFFITTE *
[07 septembre 2005]

La pire menace pour l’humanité est le changement de climat consécutif à l’utilisation massive des combustibles fossiles : il est urgent de réagir. Dans moins de vingt ans, ouragans et typhons, canicules, feux de forêts et sécheresses suivies d’inondations, seront des phénomènes qui se répéteront tout au long de l’année. Il deviendra impossible de les considérer comme des catastrophes naturelles, imprévisibles, aux conséquences remboursées par la puissance publique ou les assurances.

Heureusement que le pétrole devient rare et cher ! Certes, dire ceci n’est pas politiquement correct. Mais comment faire prendre conscience à la population, de la gravité de notre situation d’aujourd’hui ?

J’en veux à mes collègues géologues et climatologues, qui savent, depuis vingt ans pour la plupart (à 70% au moins et depuis cinq ans à 95%), que le climat tempéré que nous vivons en Europe est une anomalie fragile. Sur terre, pendant des millions d’années, des déserts, glacés ou torrides, ont existé presque partout. Les dépôts de terrains continentaux comportent des étendues épaisses de sables et de grès stériles et de très rares niveaux montrent la présence de sols. Quelques oasis dans les déserts !

J’en veux aux décideurs politiques qui pensent trop souvent que Cassandre a tort. Ils inventent un principe de précaution destiné à des éventualités imprévisibles, mais engagent fort peu d’actions de prévention pour arrêter des dangers certains.

Dans ces conditions, que faire ?

Informer systématiquement, dès l’école primaire, des dangers réels de l’évolution climatique. Non pas en disant, dans 50 ans ou dans 100 ans, mais en disant que cela nous concerne aujourd’hui. Le changement est quotidien. Déjà, le nombre de morts liés aux ouragans, typhons, orages, inondations s’accroît et dépasse chaque année, et de loin, les morts liés aux catastrophes industrielles.

Lorsque cela se passe au Bangladesh ou au Costa Rica, on l’évoque à peine dans la presse ou sur les ondes. Cela reste pourtant très grave. Quand les ouragans et inondations touchent la vallée du Rhône ou la Bavière, ou encore la Floride ou la Louisiane, on en parle un peu plus. Mais quelle fréquence faudra-t-il attendre pour que les gouvernements prennent les mesures radicales qui s’imposent ?

La France, comme souvent, devrait montrer l’exemple.

Si l’on remplace 20% du diesel et de l’essence par des carburants d’origine biologique, la facture pétrolière sera moins lourde. Cela se fait au Brésil. Quel marché pour nos paysans ! Quelles perspectives pour les recherches en biotechnologie !

Pour activer le passage des combustibles fossiles vers les combustibles liquides bio, une mesure supprimant pour ces derniers la TIPP et doublant la TIPP pour les autres combustibles fossiles serait très efficace. Elle permettrait, de plus, de financer recherche et nouveaux transports en commun.

Pour les transports par véhicules électriques, de nouvelles batteries sont disponibles. Un système d’échange standard dans les stations-service devrait être fiscalement encouragé avant d’être rendu obligatoire sur tous les réseaux français autoroutiers. Et commençons par les poids lourds et les flottes captives de l’Etat, celles des services publics, des collectivités locales…

Dans le bâtiment, rendons obligatoire, pour toute construction nouvelle, le label de l’Ademe et du CSTB qui prônent la consommation énergétique minimale, voire le bâtiment producteur net d’énergie. Et développons pour les architectes et bureaux d’études la formation continue.

Combinons réglementation, taxation et détaxation, recherche scientifique et soutien par l’innovation.

Mais aussi et surtout, informons.

Développons chez tous une conscience énergétique. Des petits gestes, par millions, surtout aux heures de pointe, provoquent des économies d’énergie supérieures à plusieurs centrales. Et cela coûte moins cher. Aidons fortement tous ceux qui peuvent et veulent informer. Et, en priorité les écoles, l’enseignement, de la maternelle à l’enseignement supérieur.

Que chaque enseignant se sente responsable de sauver l’humanité, car c’est à terme de cela qu’il s’agit. Est-ce si difficile ? Le civisme véritable passe par là !

Que chaque chercheur se sente responsable de développer une nouvelle façon de gérer l’énergie et l’effet de serre. Ceci concerne tous les domaines depuis les informaticiens – avec les logiciels facilitant le télétravail – que les physiciens, les chimistes ou les électriciens, les sociologues, les psychologues.

Que chaque journaliste évoque cette nécessité prioritaire.

Que chaque collectivité locale, que chaque administration instaure des concours, des solutions aux multiples abus de consommation, des prix pour des innovations.

Que cette mobilisation de la France d’en bas rejoigne celle, espérée, de la France d’en haut. Il faut de l’enthousiasme pour un projet aussi important.

Le plan climat qui vise à diviser par quatre, la consommation d’énergie en France, avant 2020, a été établi. C’est une très bonne initiative qui peut apparaître comme un rêve ou une utopie. C’est au contraire possible. Et nécessaire pour tout développement durable.

Mais dès à présent, il faut agir et mettre concrètement en place les décisions, des incitations et le système d’information avec l’appui de l’Education nationale et de l’ensemble des collectivités locales et des associations et entreprises concernées.

Les projets nombreux préparés par les 67 pôles de compétitivité labellisés peuvent être mobilisés pour le plan climat. Ils se mobiliseront car ils veulent que leurs projets soient acceptés.

Et vive le pétrole à 100 dollars, ou plus, qui pourra aider à la réussite du plan climat.

J’ose annoncer avec un rien de provocation ce qui constituait il y a moins de six mois une hérésie difficile à soutenir.

* Sénateur RDSE des Alpes-Maritimes

Seconde fois que vous faites la confusion ;-)