World of Opinion
On helping America: It is often noted, generally with unwarranted consternation, that America is the world’s only superpower. Natural disasters, like the southeast Asian tsunami and now hurricane Katrina, can make a mockery of such labels. This one, more importantly, should remind us of how much America helps the world, and what the world owes in return.
Normally, when disaster strikes, America is expected to come running. … Now American generosity, and the spirit of responsibility that this great nation so often takes toward the world, is being directed at itself.
… These burdens do not diminish the American interest in showing support for Israel, including in the form of military and economic assistance. Such support remains integral to advancing American values and strategy, all the more so in the context of the global struggle against militant Islamism and the extraordinary risks and sacrifices Israel has just taken for peace.
In the longer term, U.S. assistance for Israel is still in America’s interest. But in the painful weeks ahead for the American people and its leadership, Israel should concentrate on offering its finest in the search and rescue field and providing disaster assistance for the refugees. Even superpowers, especially this superpower, deserve a helping hand in their hour of need.
On failed quest for UN Security Council seat:
Japan’s hopes for gaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Council have been dashed. Questions must be raised about Koizumi’s failed diplomatic policy in the absence of any solid government strategy.
Given the difficulties of this longstanding issue, the government put forward a proposal for permanent membership along with Germany, India and Brazil in what became known as the G-4, or “Group of Four” initiative.
However, there is absolutely no prospect of the G-4 proposal being adopted by the General Assembly.
The government made three miscalculations in submitting this proposal. In the first place, it could not win over the United States. Second, Koizumi continued to anger China and South Korea by visiting Yasukuni Shrine. Finally, Japan failed to come to terms with the African Union, which had 52 votes at the United Nations.
The government intends to continue seeking permanent membership to the Security Council. But it is not assured of success. Even if the African Union gives its backing to the G-4 proposal, no revisions to the U.N. Charter can take effect unless the United States and China are satisfied.
It is important for Japan to make a proper assessment of its past failures. On the basis of such an assessment, the government should then try to work out a new strategy by sorting out how much priority Japan should give to changes in the Security Council and the steps needed to achieve that target. The government should not repeat the same mistake by pursuing an incoherent diplomatic policy.
On Hurricane Katrina:
That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
These stirring words were uttered by Abraham Lincoln, the United States’ 16th president, at Gettysburg in 1863. But is America living up to this ideal?
In the wake of the death and destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina – the worst natural disaster to hit the US in recent times – many around the world are asking this question. The devastation is a sight to behold; a “humbling experience”, according to President George Bush.
But the symbolism of some of the images is even more stark. Who would have thought that over a million American citizens would become “refugees” in their own country and flay their government for its failure to come to their aid timeously?
Or that in the most advanced society in the world, which gave us ER, the badly injured would be left for dead because of a lack of assistance?
The mayor of New Orleans was shown on television pleading for help as looters rampaged in his city. The starving survivors pleaded for food and water.
Yet Washington, in a bizarre display of uncaring aloofness in their hour of need, appeared unable to respond to the crisis until days later.
On the first multi-candidate presidential elections:
Today, the people will have their say in the first-ever multi-candidate presidential elections. The candidates’ electoral campaigns have been the focus of attention for more than a month now, but yesterday the press was urging the people to go to the ballots.
However, the absence of independent monitoring of the polling stations raised controversy.
In Al-Akhbar, Ilham Abul Fath said she failed to understand why the Presidential Election Commission had refused non-governmental monitoring of the elections. “Because we are going through a great democratic experience we have to open the door for all those wishing to monitor our experience,” she argued, commenting that the commission should have stated its reasons for the refusal and that we don’t want to give the impression that we’re trying to hide something.
In the same paper, Fatma Mustafa described the elections as a turning point for Egyptian and Arab politics. Mohamed Abdel-Moneim, also of Al-Akhbar, wrote that the amendment to Article 76 of the Constitution is like ‘a kiss of life’, reinvigorating the souls of the people.
On Germany’s way forward:
The tempo in the German general election has quickened following the televised debate between the chancellor, Gerhard Schr
Joder, and his conservative challenger, Angela Merkel. He remains personally more popular than she, but he failed to deliver a killer blow during Sunday night’s exchanges, and his party still trails hers by about 11 percentage points in the opinion polls. Nevertheless, the precise outcome of the ballot on September 18 is no foregone conclusion.
About a third of the electorate remains undecided. The fortunes of three of the smaller groups, the Free Democrats (FDP), the Greens and the newly formed Left Party, each of which might form a coalition with the big two, are hovering between six and eight per cent of the vote. Mr Schr
Joder may be finished, but his Social Democrats under another leader could join a grand coalition with Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) or even team up with the Greens and the Left alliance.
Both of these results would be unsatisfactory, the first promising consensus-induced stagnation, the second threatening a reversal of even the limited economic reforms introduced under Mr Schr
Joder. During their seven years in power, the Social Democrats have twice failed to meet their campaign pledge of reducing unemployment. For that, they and their coalition partner, the Greens, deserve to be voted out, opening the way to a Christian Democrat/Free Democrat partnership with a keener appetite for liberalisation.
Mrs Merkel may not meet the wishes of her economic adviser, Paul Kirchhof, to sweep away a thicket of fiscal regulations with a flat rate income tax of 25 per cent; opposition to that radical step within the CDU’s sister party, the Bavarian Christian Social Union, is strong.
But she does intend to simplify the tax laws, reduce subsidies and lower non-wage labour costs. Germany’s manufacturers have performed heroically. It is now up to the state to lift the burden of regulations that constrains them. Mr Schr
Joder has made a start, but has been stymied by his own party. The CDU/FDP combination offers a better way forward.