On Ariel Sharon interrupted:
Coming from a corner of the world ruled almost entirely by kings, emirs, ayatollahs, mullahs, presidents-for-life and assorted tin-horn despots, the political brawl in Israel – less than three weeks before elections – is welcome spectacle. If only Israel’s Arab neighbors could bring themselves to take a look, they could learn valuable pointers about that exotic process known as “democracy.” Not two weeks ago it seemed as if Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his Likud Party would easily retain power. … Now Likud has dropped so much in the polls the election is turning into a real horse race. … As the Palestinian uprising for independence enters its third year, the upcoming elections have become a national referendum on Israel’s response: either to stick with Sharon’s military solutions or try Mitzna’s proposal to resume peace talks unconditionally. …
Now comes fantasy time. Imagine an independent Palestinian newspaper launching an investigation of Yasser Arafat that leaves him tottering as voters swing to his opponent. (But wait, what opponent?) Or a Syrian judge pulling the plug on a televised speech by President Bashar al-Assad. (Oops, it’s a military regime.) Or Saudi king Fahd ibn Abdul-Aziz going on TV to answer charges. (Me, answer?)
It’s all fantasy, that Arab countries could learn something from the Israel they loathe so much. But it’s fun to dream.
On North Korea:
… North Korea’s “Great Leader,” Kim Il Sung, believes the best way to negotiate with the rest of the world is through escalation of threats. …
Kim is enigmatic, isolated, and paranoid but he is not dumb. His timing has been impeccable.
He created the current crisis when the Bush administration was focusing on a possible war with Iraq. He exploited the anti-American attitude of the new South Korean president. And he is playing off the United States against the probable reactions of China and Russia. …
Nuclear power is the only real poker chip Kim has. It is his leverage in dealing with the most powerful country in the world. And as demonic and irrational as Saddam sometimes appears, Kim is even more dangerous.
The United States cannot fix this problem alone. But it must provide leadership by working with the United Nations, and especially with neighboring South Korea, Japan, China and Russia, in order to defuse this crisis and, most importantly, develop programs to bring North Korea out of its Stalinist isolation and into the world community.
On commercials linking SUV’s to terrorism:
Americans’ uncertainty about how to contribute to a war on terrorism and their wish to maintain a love affair with sport utility vehicles have found an unlikely collision point in new TV ads that many local stations are refusing to run. The commercials link SUVs to terrorism and mimic anti-drug spots that suggest profits from illegal drugs go to terrorists. …
It clearly is hyperbole to allege that people who follow the law and contribute to their communities side with terrorists because they chauffeur their kids in a Lincoln Navigator. Yet this conflict called a war has perplexed Americans from the start. In World War II, the government asked citizens to sacrifice. No victory gardens or rationing this time; we’re told to “live our lives.” In 1943, it not only would have been selfish to drive an SUV; it would have been nearly impossible. …
The delivery may be controversial, but the issue is legitimate, and the entertainment value of the spots is reason enough to see them. …
On Iraq:
Europeans are saying no. No to a war against Iraq, as things stand now. … Neither Tony Blair nor Jacques Chirac – whose armed forces would likely participate in an operation – can flout the polls taken day after day. Nearly 60 percent of Britons and more than 70 percent of French people say war against Iraq would not be justified – with or without a green light from the UN. …
Europe is not convinced of Saddam Hussein’s dangerousness. … It is up to (Bush) to establish the existence and the dangerousness of Iraq’s arsenal before making a decision as drastic as war.
If the proof is indeed crystal clear, as Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair say, why hasn’t it already been produced? …
If Washington finds it possible to ‘contain’ Pyongyang with diplomacy, isn’t it conceivable to do the same with Baghdad? If the United States stigmatizes – quite rightly – a regime as cruel as Saddam Hussein’s, why do they treat the criminal tyranny of Kim Jong-il with kid gloves?
On Cabinet minister Clare Short:
Not for the first time, (Cabinet minister) Clare Short has spoken with admirable clarity. She is quite right to strip the Prime Minister’s recent statements of their evasions and say that “the logic of the position” is that, if the United States decides to take unilateral military action against Iraq, the British government should not support it.
The problem is that Mr. Blair has never set out the conditions under which British forces should go to war. We know a lot about what a terrible man Saddam Hussein is, and how he has defied U.N. resolutions in the past. But we do not know what has to happen to make the use of military force necessary in Mr Blair’s eyes. All we know is that sticking with the U.S. was an article of faith with him, and that he does not regard a single country’s veto on the U.N. Security Council as a bar to action.On organ donation:
Organ donation remains a touchy, highly personal matter to this day. Most people, bar those with overt cultural taboos and religious leanings, affect a fetching altruism when asked if they would pledge to have vital organs removed upon death. But of course, they would. Transplant techniques have made amazing strides. The act of giving a kidney or a liver saves lives. All true.
The letdown comes, as is usually the case, in the unspoken ‘You first’ reflex. Taken down the chain, it would mean that precious little would ever get done in the way of giving express consents. Singapore has had an opt-in organ donation law – the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act – for 31 years now. Only 30,451 persons had given consent as of 1999, out of the 2.3 million people eligible.
Is this indifference, or does it show that squeamishness remains a barrier? It would seem the latter. Public education is going to be key to the success of the ministry’s campaign.
Straits Times, Singapore