May 19, 2003 5 min read

Two clear patterns have emerged in the post-Sept. 11 era: Arab countries have answered the call to help the United States track down genuine terrorists, but the Americans have been anything but appreciative. Explaining why this has been so requires more than an understanding of the familiar differences of opinion over what constitutes terror and what qualifies as legitimate resistance. The gap between the Arab world’s actions and the Americans’ responses demonstrates the former’s inability to produce governments with the standing to make their case in the latter’s terms. The United States sees nothing but rot when it looks at Arab regimes, and with good reason: Many Arabs see precisely the same thing. On British double agent:

Most readers will have been horrified by the stories circulating at the weekend about “Stakeknife,” who is said to have been a double-agent working for the British government while serving as one of the most powerful figures in the IRA. …

(I)nformers have always been an essential part of the state’s armory against terrorism. For more than 30 years, the IRA has been in a continuous state of undeclared war against our democracy. During that time, informers have saved countless innocent lives and limited the damage that terrorists on both sides of the sectarian divide have been able to do.

You can be sure that many times during those years, the authorities have reluctantly sanctioned behavior by their agents that no democratic country would willingly permit, if its citizens were not under attack. …

It is a horrible calculation, but it is one that all world powers must make when they are challenged by terrorists. …

Politics in Northern Ireland has always been beset by wild accusations – and never more so than now.

The government must take a substantial part of the blame for encouraging these accusations, by setting up its breast-beating official inquiries into British conduct over the past three decades in Northern Ireland. …

Most of the activities of informers and their handlers must necessarily be shady. It is impossible to see how anybody except the terrorists can benefit from opening them to the light.

On the Chechnya attack:

The attack in Chechnya shows that Russia is not capable of keeping law and order there despite apparent popular support in the March 23 referendum where 93 percent of Chechens voted in favor of “inalienable integration” of Chechnya territory to Russia.

The killings prove the point that a political solution is impossible, but they also expose the Russian Army _not professional, very badly paid and with little resources – (as) incapable of keeping an appearance of normality in the country. The longer time goes on the greater is the hatred and the number of deaths in a conflict which shows no sign of being resolved.

On EU stability pact:

The main problem of the European stability pact lies in that it was made by lawyers and politicians, not by economists. Legally and politically the issue is clear: When the national deficit exceeds the 3 percent limit, then Brussels puts into motion warning mechanisms, rebukes and finally fines. Economically, there is everything to be said against this. The three percent is set arbitrarily and the critical issue is not considered: whether a budget is chronically in deficit or only has a temporary problem. Some deficits, when they exist due to the combination of reform and tax cuts, are not a problem at all, just a part of the solution.

The debate about national deficit has nothing to do with the actual goal of the stability pact: limiting inflation and to protect the value of the euro. There is no sense of inflation on the horizon and the euro is bursting with strength. The tension between legal correctness and economic doubt takes its toll on the credibility of the stability pact.

Germany, and those others that will exceed this 3 percent limit, must consider this pact in its present form a necessary evil.

On the Saudi Arabia attack:

Terror of this magnitude will continue to be our time’s greatest scourge and we must act thereafter.

Much points to the fact that the onslaught was aimed at the United States and, in some circles, was a demand that the Americans pull out of the newly freed Iraq and the Middle East completely.

But those people listen too much to Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born leader of al-Qaida, whose declared goal is to drive the western military forces out of Saudi Arabia.

Instead, it is the dictatorial Arab regimes that should be driven out.

On Chinese President Hu:

Chinese President Hu Jintao will likely join the Group of Eight summit meeting at the beginning of June in Evian, France.

Although it is not a formal invitation to join the G-8 group, it will be the first time for a Chinese president to join leaders of the G-8 nations.

The upcoming meeting will attempt to patch up rifts that arose between the United States and European countries over the Iraq war. The G-8 would have trouble discussing pressing issues, such as North Korea’s nuclear weapons or the new round of World Trade Organization negotiations, without Chinese input.

China is far from being a democratic nation, and there are many more hurdles it must cross to be accepted as a full member of the group.

The G-8, however, should utilize the summit as an opportunity to encourage China to become more deeply involved in international society. We suggest the group continues to invite China to future summits in some capacity.

Japan has been proud of being the only Asian member of the G-8, and China’s presence will be a new diplomatic challenge for Japan. As fellow Asian nations sitting at the same G-8 table, it will become more important for Japan and China to develop a more trusting relationship.

Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo