Herald.com | 12/23/2005 | Sharon's Stress Level

Ariel Sharon's doctors have advised him to try to reduce the stress in his life. That's a good one.

Let's see: Not only is the Israeli prime minister starting a new political party and running a campaign for elections coming in less than 100 days, but he has the kind of job that most of us get palpitations just thinking about.

While world leaders worry about how to answer Iran's efforts to build a nuclear bomb, the 77-year-old Sharon, who just left the hospital after suffering a mild stroke, knows exactly what Iran would like to do with a bomb if it had one. Sharon knows many in the region nodded in agreement when Iran's president said Israel should be ``wiped off the map.''

Iran is just one of the many matters on Sharon's presumably sharp mind. The man who has been told to cut back on stress has to worry about another election besides his own. The Islamic group Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and whose members are champions in the competitive field of killing Israeli civilians in suicide bombings, is moving up in the Palestinian polls. When Palestinians elect a new parliament early next year, there is a real possibility that they could choose an organization whose reason for being is not just taking over what is widely known as the Occupied Territories, but bringing an end to the state of Israel.

New party
Despite the lull in news reports, Israel is still facing attempted suicide bombings on a regular basis, and Palestinian militants are repeatedly launching missiles across the border into Israeli cities. But Sharon's doctors say he should ease off the bagels and cut back on stress.

That, of course, is reason for the entire Israeli public to check its blood pressure. That's because now everyone is thinking the thought that was too frightening to contemplate just a few days ago.

What would happen if Sharon suddenly died?
Israel is a democracy. That means there are institutions and mechanisms in place to replace a sitting head of government. But Sharon has just decimated his old Likud party to form the new Kadima. The new head of what's left of Likud is Sharon's old nemesis, Benjamin Netanyahu. And the former leader of the rival Labor party, 82-year-old Shimon Peres, is now also with Kadima. The new party has no rules, no membership list, no platform. The party, let's face it, is all about Sharon.

Netanyahu hopes that a weakened, faltering, or dead Sharon would mean the prime minister's office for him. But Netanyahu's Likud is third in the polls, trailing Sharon and Labor's new leader Amir Peretz. Kadima was topping the polls before the stroke and is showing even stronger numbers now. That means that Israeli voters want what Sharon offers. It means that, in Sharon's absence, the Israeli public will look for a leader offering the two elements of Sharon's new political persona: the prospects of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the vow to reach that solution without diminishing Israel's strength.

A real chance to achieve peace with strength and security: That's what Sharon means to Israelis. And that's what Israelis want.

Two-state solution

Once upon a time, Sharon was the champion of Israeli settlers and of those unwilling to give an inch to the Palestinians. No more. Sharon knows that to survive, Israel will have to live side by side with a Palestinian state. If it holds on to the Territories, Israel will cease to be a democracy.
Acceptance of a Palestinian state used to be the province of the Israeli left. But it is now in the undisputed mainstream of Israeli politics. Israelis -- not unlike most Palestinians -- see the two-state-solution as the new Promised Land. When (not if) the two sides agree on the borders, there will be peace -- at least with some of the Arab world. In the meantime, there are Iran, Hamas, Syria, Islamic Jihad, suicide bombers, missiles and elections. Not even Moses could handle that much pressure. But maybe Sharon -- and the stressed-out Israeli voters -- can pull it off.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs.

Iran's Lectures on Tolerance

Iran’s Lectures on Tolerance
By Frida Ghitis

The new government of Iran has launched a campaign for more tolerance, open-mindedness and freedom of speech in the West. Yes, Tehran now argues that, "The Europeans should get used to hearing other opinions, even if they don't like them.” How refreshing.
Fortunately, those close-minded Europeans will have none of it.
The call for more tolerance for differing views in Europe and the United States came from Iran’s foreign ministry following the furious response from the West to claims by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust – Nazi Germany’s slaughter of six million Jews -- was a “myth.”

The Europeans called Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denials “Wholly unacceptable,” and the US declared them “Outrageous.” Iran thinks they overreacted and says its time for an “academic debate.”
Some may still wonder why the West does not want to engage in a debate about history. What are we afraid of? The answer is that we have played this game before.
Europeans heard this kind of rhetorical Jujitsu many times before; an attempt to use the West’s own values against it.
As always, the calls for open-mindedness on the Holocaust come from individuals and groups with a track record that shows little tolerance and respect for other views, not to mention other races and religions.
If it weren’t so troublesome, it would be almost be funny to hear Iran, of all countries, call for open-mindedness and tolerance. This is a regime that imprisons journalists, assassinates opposition figures and executes gay teenagers. It won’t even tolerate Western music on state radio and television stations. According to Human Rights Watch, Iran’s government has closed down more than 100 opposition newspapers just since 2000. The revolutionary regime has executed thousands of real and perceived opponents since taking power. HRW says members of President Ahmadinejad’s new cabinet, particularly the Ministers of Information and the Interior should be investigated for crimes against humanity, including the assassination of dissidents in and out of Iran.
It is no coincidence that the same regime that suppresses dissent now calls for more tolerance on its views about the events of World War II.
Iran is not alone in its efforts to deny the Holocaust. It joins a long list of racists and demagogues who have tried to say the Holocaust never happened. And Iran did not invent the strategy of calling for more openness in discussing the issue.
As Emory University’s Dr. Deborah Lipstadt has described in convincing detail, Holocaust deniers use a strategy of distorting the truth in order to further their ideological objectives. The key point to examine when one listens to their exhortations for academic freedom is that theirs is not an argument in pursuit of learning the truth. They are not seeking to enhance the world’s body of historical knowledge. Their denial that the killing of six million Jews ever happened is a key element in a political effort to distort the truth in order to achieve political goals.
Hitler’s almost successful efforts to exterminate the Jewish people have been studied and documented to such a degree that no legitimate scholar any longer questions them.
The evidence of a one of the greatest crimes in history is overwhelming, from the eye-witness testimony from victims and perpetrators, to the physical evidence from gas chambers used to kill and the ovens used to dispose of bodies, to mountains of documents from the Third Reich and bits of information about the lives of millions of people killed in Europe’s death camps during World War II. True scholars now focus not on whether it happened -- which was conclusively answered decades ago -- but why.
Deniers, however, persist. That’s because claiming the Holocaust did not happen is a useful tool when pursuing other objectives. And those objectives always involve some form of intolerance, from anti-Semitism to generic racism.
Take Iran, for example. When the country’s new rabble-rousing president called the Holocaust an “invention,” he had already called Israel a “tumor” that should be “wiped off the map.”
Iran’s president now joins a group of Holocaust deniers, many of whom, incidentally, would refuse to sit in a room with an Iranian, a Muslim, an Arab, or a Jew.
We already know about the Holocaust. The matter still open for debate is what to do about the danger Ahmadinejad and his regime pose to the world.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs. She’s the author of “The End of Revolution: a Changing World in the Age of Live Television.”

Herald.com | 12/16/2005 | Hurricane Katrina's impact on Iraq

Hurricane Katrina's impact on Iraq

BY FRIDA GHITIS

As with virtually every new political step in post-Saddam Iraq, Thursday's vote by millions of Iraqis choosing a new government brings enormous expectations. Iraq's brave and determined voters present a powerful counterattack against extremist jihadists who would turn the country into an oppressive theocracy. And then, there's that other challenging goal, the need to recover from the damages wrought by Katrina on Iraq. Yes, that Katrina.

Of all the threats the Iraqi nation has faced in the last few decades -- wars against Iran and Kuwait, an American invasion, waves of suicide bombings, an incipient civil war -- none came more unexpectedly than Hurricane Katrina. The storm that battered the U.S. Gulf Coast more than 7,000 miles away from Baghdad didn't spill a drop of water on the Iraqi desert. And yet, it broke apart the leaking levees that had precariously held back the doubts of the American public about its government policies in Iraq.

When the structures collapsed, the White House found itself drowning in a sea of plummeting approval ratings. For Iraq, this meant the enormous danger that Washington would make decisions based more on boosting ratings than on improving the chances of success for their fledgling democracy.

To be sure, support for the Iraq campaign had been on a steady slide before Katrina struck in late August. But the floor collapsed after the calamity that followed the hurricane. For millions of Americans, Katrina left a nearly indelible impression that this administration is incompetent, unreliable and duplicitous. If it couldn't be trusted in New Orleans and Mississippi, it could not be trusted in Iraq.

Support for the war crumbled along with President Bush's overall approval ratings. In the weeks after Katrina, a Gallup poll showed a jump of almost 10 percent in the number of Americans disapproving of Mr. Bush's job in Iraq. The number of people saying they believe the administration deliberately lied about the presence of weapons of mass destruction also jumped. As the mold grew on the walls of devastated New Orleans homes, pessimism about Iraq became rooted in the American psyche.

Ironically, the Iraqi people have remained extraordinarily optimistic about the prospects for their own country. A recent poll conducted by Oxford Research International on behalf of five media organizations from Japan, Germany, the United States and the UK, found more than 70 percent of Iraqis saying their lives are good or very good. That's unchanged from a similar poll last year.
Iraqis, most of whom said they personally feel secure in their own neighborhoods and in their own lives, expressed concerns for their country; but two-thirds of those polled said they believe life will improve next year.

And, with incomes up an average of 60 percent in the last 20 months, 70 percent said their economic situation was good. Not surprisingly, a majority (65 percent) of Iraqis said they oppose the U.S. presence there, but only 26 percent said they want the troops out immediately. Iraqis, like many Americans -- including many who opposed the war -- know that a departure by U.S. forces now, with only a semi-trained Iraqi army in place, would bring disaster.

Perhaps most encouraging of all were the political preferences reflected in the poll. Some 57 percent said they want a democracy, versus just 14 percent who want an Islamic state. That's a drop in support for religious regime from the last time the question was asked. A ''strong leader'' was the choice of 26 percent.
Of course, in a war situation the bullets can prevail over the wishes of the majority. If the 14 percent who want an Islamic state win on the battlefield, the 57 percent who want democracy may never vote again.

Is that likely to happen? A poll by the Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations showed two different views in America.

The survey, released a few weeks ago, showed that 64 percent of U.S. military officers believe the United States will succeed in establishing a successful democracy in Iraq. When pollsters asked journalists and academics the same question, fewer than one third of them said Iraq would become a stable democracy.

Who's right -- the Iraqi people, the military officers or the journalists and academics? That will depend, in large part, on what the United States does. In the end, it may all depend on whether Iraqi voters succeed in recovering from the effect of hurricane Katrina.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs.

The music that plays in Mexico's background

Star-Telegram | 12/04/2005 | The music that plays in Mexico's background

PUERTO ESCONDIDO, Mexico - If you travel through the villages and towns of Mexico asking people about their lives and about the idea of crossing their country's northern border, you discover that the siren song that has brought immigrants to the United States over the centuries never stops calling, its unsettling sounds inviting and threatening at the same time.

The prospect of an odyssey across the desert beckons like a mirage of opportunity and danger. Every single person I have asked, without exception, has told me about relatives who have gone to the United States.

Everyone, without exception, has talked about having at least considered going to the country where there is money to be made, but only for those willing to go through terrifying dangers to reach an unknown land.

Noe Silva, who works in this fishermen's town on Mexico's Pacific coast, told me he makes about $4,000 a year working a variety of odd jobs. He's a waiter when the tourists come, a carpenter when they leave. And he even moved to work in neighboring Chiapas for a few years. That's where the rebel Zapatista army a few years ago declared an old-fashioned leftist revolutionary war on behalf of the poorest of the poor.

Silva has considered the trek to the United States many times. But the fear of dying in the desert keeps him from trying it. Besides, he says, this is the land he knows. This is where he walks on the beach every morning, where his father took him out fishing as a child. Where he knows everyone and everyone knows him.

For the millions who make it to the United States, a life of relatively high earnings does not mean a life of comfort. Mexican migrants send so much of what they make back to their families that remittances have become the second-largest source of revenue for Mexico, second only to oil exports.

Mexico needs the cash, but the belief that America would simply stop functioning without Mexico's millions of undocumented workers is almost universal here.

The concept was most undiplomatically expressed by the country's President Vicente Fox, when he said Mexicans do the jobs that "not even blacks will do." The statement rightly enraged African-Americans, but the thought that the United States needs Mexicans is widespread.

One conspiratorially minded Mexican explained Washington's policy this way: The United States needs Mexicans, so it makes it illegal and dangerous for them to come. That way, only the most talented and strong and determined end up making it. That's how Americans want it.

The conspiracy takes it a bit far, but the view from a man who, like many Mexicans, resents and mistrusts Washington holds the key to the Darwinian secrets of immigration.

One of the reasons that the United States has become one of the most successful countries in history is that it was built by immigrants, a self-selected group that has always included some of the most determined, driven and hard-working people from around the world.

As long as the United States needs workers and Mexico has more people than jobs, as long as Mexico remains so much poorer than the United States, Mexicans will give in to the call and seek to make their fortune in America. And as long as there is no viable legal option to enter the United States, an illegal infrastructure rather than legitimate immigration authorities will control the border.

That will make the Mexico-U.S. frontier one that will open America to anyone willing to pay cash and take the risk.

Toronto Star - Europe casts wary eye on France

TheStar.com - Europe casts wary eye on France: "Europe casts wary eye on France
Nov. 18, 2005. 01:00 AM
FRIDA GHITIS


The Paris fires are turning to white smoke, doused by emergency laws but giving off enough steam to keep nerves on edge and still capable of flaring again to those furious yellow flames that shot fear through Europe's heart. Still, after weeks of rioting, many in France, including President Jacques Chirac, now recognize that much explosive fuel remains.
France and the rest of Europe face a problem that politicians will not simply solve with emergency laws and hordes of tough cops.
For a while, clever European politicians thought they had found an elegant way to dodge the continent's long-running dilemma of a shrinking 'white' population, a need for more young workers, and a not-so-secret wish to keep away immigrants from non-white countries.
The plan was to enlarge the European Union. By opening Western Europe to the less prosperous resident of the old Eastern Bloc, the new workers would flood in, blonde and blue-eyed, from countries like Poland and Hungary.
Although millions of easterners are coming, economic growth back home is limiting the exodus. Besides, there is another detail: Millions of Europeans are the children and grandchildren of immigrants. Most of the rioters may have dark skin and non-European sounding names, but they are European-born. Europe is their home and they're not going anywhere.
When the Paris suburbs exploded, Europe looked on with the creeping dread of recognition. A frightened consensus emerged that it is probably just a matter of time before the children of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa � Europe's new underclass � bring m"

Herald.com | 11/12/2005 | Attacking a Hyatt, killing Arabs

Bombing a Hyatt, Killing Muslims

BY FRIDA GHITIS

fghitis@yahoo.com


Among the scores of families who felt their hearts stop in awful foreboding at news of terrorist bombings in Amman were the relatives of an Israeli, a 40-year-old husband and father of three, who had just traveled to the Jordanian capital.

Fearing the worst, they called his cellphone. It rang and rang. He was dead.

Killing an Israeli civilian might be construed as a propaganda coup for al Qaeda. Except, the Israeli was Husam Fathi Mahajna, an Arab and a Muslim. The three suicide bombings also killed the Palestinian West Bank intelligence chief and a number of other high-ranking Palestinian figures.

Observers have rushed to describe the targets of the Amman attacks as ''Western.'' But anyone who has witnessed the joyous ululations of wedding receptions in Amman hotels knows the guests are almost all Muslim Arabs, probably Palestinians, who make up the majority of Jordan's population. The bombers who killed at least 57 people knew they were not killing scores of Americans.

The reality is that, as with most operations by al Qaeda and its affiliates, the overwhelming majority of the victims were Muslim, and that was not a fluke.

No democratic aspirations

If Islamic extremists hired a public-relations firm, the first advice they would hear is to stop slaughtering fellow Muslims. Killing other Arabs, especially Palestinians, is no way to make friends in the Muslim world. Mahajna's uncle told an Israeli journalist, ``I have no answer for such crazy people who choose to hurt innocents.''

While some have predictably rushed to blame Washington and the Iraq intervention for the terrorism, millions of Arabs are revolted by the barbarism of these attacks.

In fact, many of the same experts who explain that the bombings were directed at ''Western targets'' also said al Qaeda's action would turn people against it. What they fail to see is that al Qaeda is not waging a popularity campaign. Al Qaeda has no democratic aspirations.

If killing Muslims is such a counterproductive tactic, why do they continue to do it? And if it is so counterproductive, why is al Qaeda surviving, maybe even thriving?

Attacking an American brand such as Hyatt or Days Inn may provide some faint political cover, legitimizing the claim that the attack aimed at the American ''crusaders'' and their allies. But the real objective is to undermine and ultimately depose the secular Jordanian government of King Abdullah II.

When suicide bombers can blow up three hotels, the regime looks weak and vulnerable. The people may initially rally around their leader, but in their eyes the government loses a little luster. A major attack -- killing scores of people, as this last wave of bombings did -- inevitably brings about a massive drop in tourism and frightens potential investors. It hurts the economy and helps foment discontent. It also forces the government to crack down. Crackdowns against terrorism are usually harsh and tend to become deeply unpopular after patience with security wears off.

The Jordanian regime is one of the Arab systems that has made noticeable -- if small and slow -- moves towards democracy. Each day, Jordan steps a little farther from the ideal society envisioned by Islamic radicals. Every day it looks a little less likely to resemble the Taliban's Afghanistan, a nightmare for most who lived there, but an earthly Nirvana for advocates of a return to the 7th century Caliphate, the bizarre dream of al Qaeda's time-travel dreamers.

Ease off on beheadings

Whether or not the people of Jordan love al Qaeda is a secondary concern. More important is the strength of the existing secular government in a relatively progressive Muslim country; a government al Qaeda would like to overthrow.

That, at least, is the calculation of some in al Qaeda. It is a gamble, of course, and there are indications that some in the organization's hierarchy worry about the impact of killing Muslims. An intercepted letter, believed written by al Qaeda's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to Zarqawi in Baghdad, urged him to ease off on the beheadings and the mass murder of Muslims that were disgusting the Islamic nation. But Zarqawi has proved unstoppable.

We could conclude he is a poor tactician, but judging by the success of his efforts to undermine the Iraqi regime, he just may have it horribly right.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs

The Dutch, Too Tolerant for Their Own Good?

WASHINGTON POST --

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102802437.html

The Dutch, Too Tolerant for Their Own Good?
A Country Caught Between Tradition And Terrorism

By Frida Ghitis

Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page B04

AMSTERDAM

"Why would religious Muslims choose to come here, of all places," a city resident wondered as we discussed the tense debate over Islamic radicalism in the Netherlands. Within a few blocks of where we spoke, near the modern Opera House and the painter Rembrandt's historic home, tourists walked across quaint canal bridges into coffee shops where varieties of marijuana fill the menu, and gay couples stepped into Amsterdam's City Hall for wedding ceremonies that government officials have been conducting here for years without controversy.

Over the centuries, the Netherlands has come to see itself as the world's champion of tolerance, much as America considers itself the world headquarters of individual freedom. That proud self-image, however, has abruptly given way to an angst-filled identity crisis leaving the Dutch struggling to figure out how to deal with the very real risk of terrorism, wondering how to persuade Muslim immigrants to embrace their tradition of tolerance.

The Netherlands is a country torn between its efforts to preserve a cherished identity and the need to protect itself from murderous fanatics. That's an experience familiar to practically every democracy faced with a terrorist threat. But nowhere I've been is the tension between security and tolerance as plainly visible as it is here. What the Dutch are discovering is that protecting their way of life may require undermining some of the very values they are trying to protect.

First to fall was the taboo against criticizing other cultures. The man to smash that taboo was the iconoclastic Pim Fortuyn, whose controversial statements against Islam and immigration ended when he was murdered (by an animal rights activist) in 2002. But his argument -- that the only way to protect Dutch tolerance was to be less tolerant -- was embraced by other politicians. Fortuyn, who was gay, was incensed when he heard Muslim clerics in Holland compare homosexuals to pigs and dogs. Tolerating this kind of speech from immigrants, said Fortuyn, would eventually lead to the destruction of the society the Dutch so carefully constructed.

While the Dutch are worried about the threat to their culture, they are terrified of what they believe is an impending terrorist attack. Polls show that it's the top concern of the population. Recent events have given the Dutch reason to worry. A few weeks ago, news reports here announced that the Dutch parliament building had been sealed and that there were police activities in several cities. Anxious moments later, word got around that police raids had netted seven people suspected of plotting terrorist strikes. Just days later, authorities in Baltimore stopped all traffic for almost two hours in a major tunnel under the Baltimore Harbor, responding to a tip about a possible attack that reportedly came from a man held in custody in the Netherlands.

One of those arrested in the Dutch raids was Samir Azzouz, a baby-faced 19-year-old who had already faced Dutch justice a few months earlier. Azzouz went to trial last spring after police allegedly found he had links to theHofstad terror group. In his apartment they found explosives and maps of the Amsterdam airport, the parliament building and a nuclear power plant. But the progressive Dutch system, which does not even allow the media to reveal a convicted criminal's last name, ruled some of the evidence inadmissible and acquitted him of the terrorism charges but convicted him of illegal arms possession.

The latest wave of arrests came after authorities said they found a video of Azzouz in which he said goodbye to his friends and family and, speaking in Arabic, referred to a certain "act" he was committing. Police claim he had been trying to buy explosives, and they believe he was planning a suicide bombing.

Many here expect an attack soon, perhaps to commemorate the anniversary of the day that changed everything. The day that so thoroughly traumatized Holland, not unlike America's 9/11, was Nov. 2, 2004, when a Muslim extremist killed and nearly decapitated the filmmaker Theo van Gogh in broad daylight on an Amsterdam street.

Van Gogh's own story captures the conflict over tolerance. The talented filmmaker had made a career of stirring controversy in a country that thrived on the unconventional. He had insulted just about every segment of society, and they put up with it. But when his film "Submission" offended some Muslims, extremists decided he, along with a number of politicians, must die. The killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, turned to van Gogh's mother after his conviction and said, "I do not feel your pain." He also vowed he would kill again if he were freed.

A telling commentary on the killing comes from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born member of the Dutch parliament who made the contentious movie with van Gogh and who describes herself as a "former Muslim." She has been sharply critical not only of Islam but also of the tolerance of Dutch society for certain aspects of Islamic culture. Hirsi Ali, whose life has been repeatedly threatened, believes the Dutch have allowed Muslims, particularly extremists, to keep traditions that simply should not be tolerated in the West -- such as their oppression of women. We can call it respect for another culture, she says, but they are human rights abuses. She sees that oppression as part of a subculture that calls for enforcing one's will, often through violence, in the name of an extreme interpretation of Islam.

One response to van Gogh's killing was a display of intolerance. Dutch youths took to the streets and burned Muslim schools and mosques. Most in Holland were horrified by the violence. The attacks have ended, but there is still a sense of confusion in the country. A year later, the atmosphere is the kind that helps extremists on all sides thrive. A number of politicians are living under police protection, even as they continue to receive death threats from Islamic radicals.

The immigration minister, Rita Verdonk, "Iron Rita," is spearheading a number of reforms that strike deep into the hearts of Dutch liberals. New immigrants, particularly from Muslim countries, are being required to take courses in Dutch language and society and they will have to pass a test to show their proficiency in Dutch culture in order to immigrate to the Netherlands. The latest proposal includes banning the burqa -- the head-to-toe cover worn by some Muslim women -- in public places. And a new plan would have foreigners expelled from the Netherlands for committing even minor crimes. Some politicians, like the flamboyant Geert Wilders with his bleached blond bouffant hair, call for a complete ban on immigrants from the Muslim world. Wilders, also facing death threats and living in hiding under police protection, says Islam is simply incompatible with democracy.

Defenders of immigrant rights and other liberal groups worry that a climate of discrimination is spreading through the deceptively placid and sedate Dutch landscape. Others say the Netherlands has always had a nasty streak hidden beneath the charming facade of quaint canals, tulip gardens and its everything-goes society.

The atmosphere, as they say, is ripe for abuse by extremist politicians. The threat, however, is not a political fabrication. The danger from extremism is real, and the presence of a radicalized core of Muslim extremists requires action. There is every reason to believe that some of the actions the government takes will create more resentments and, at least to some degree, undermine the freedoms and tolerance that the Dutch have valued as the core of their national identity.

The Dutch system, say people like Hirsi Ali, assumed all sides would practice tolerance. In a world in which the ways of one culture can prove so deeply offensive to others, and in which some of those who take offense express their objections through murder, those rules simply have to change.

Author's e-mail : fghitis@yahoo.com


Frida Ghitis, a frequent visitor to the Netherlands, is the author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television" (Algora Publishing).

Herald.com | 10/28/2005 | Take Iran leader's threat seriously

So, another Muslim fanatic has just called for the destruction of Israel. Big deal. Another day, another genocidal anti-Semite. That might have been the reaction of some at news of the Iranian president's declaration on Wednesday that Israel must be ''wiped off the map.'' Look more closely, however, and this is not your everyday spewing of poisonous extremism. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has shown his cards and the world may live to regret its passivity if it fails to take him seriously.

The statement did not come from some masked teenage radical or from a fringe shadowy group. And the call to arms did not urge forcing Israel to withdraw from occupied territories or even for regime change. This was the president of a country, the man who recently represented his nation at the U.N. podium, urging his followers to obliterate another country from the face of the Earth.

As it happens, Ahmadinejad is not just the president of any country. He leads a nation that much of the world believes is actively working to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

For those who find solace in his threat to destroy only Israel, the Iranian president predicted, ``We shall soon experience a world without the United States.''

Palestinian state

The Iranian president also issued a veiled threat against the growing number of Muslim countries now seeking to improve relations with Israel, warning that nations moving to recognize Israel will ''burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.'' Now that most Arab countries demand the creation of a Palestinian state, rather than the destruction of Israel, and even the president of the Palestinian Authority speaks of two nations living side by side in peace, Iran stands with the extremist rejectionists, who would accept nothing but the annihilation of Israel. The Iranian president has become more kosher than the rabbi, to use an expression he might not appreciate.

Ahmadinejad's speech comes a couple of days after the respected Jane's Defense Weekly reported details of an agreement between the governments of Iran and Syria. According to Jane's, Iran will work with Syria to help it establish four or five facilities dedicated to the production of chemical weapons.

Iran could hardly find a more suitable partner. The Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad has just been found guilty by a U.N. investigator of plotting and carrying out the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister. While the rest of the world cheerfully speaks of something it optimistically likes to call the ''Community of Nations,'' the two repressive regimes behave like members of an international mafia, taking out contracts on troublesome politicians, deciding which countries deserve to be wiped out, building up their deadly arsenals and encouraging killers in the region.

Just a few hours after the speech, a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated himself at an outdoor food stand inside Israel, killing five people who just happened to have walked up to get something to eat.

While Iran and Syria act, the international community mostly talks.

To their credit, Western governments did react promptly (with words, of course) to diplomatically protest Ahmadinejad's statements.

The West, however, has shown little backbone in standing up to these thoroughly thuggish and extremely dangerous regimes. European leaders continue to insist on negotiating a deal to end Iran's illegal nuclear projects, even with Iran calling for the destruction of other countries and actively arming militia groups dedicated to turning its vision of doom into reality.

Last August, the chief Iranian negotiator in the nuclear talks told an audience on Iranian television: ``Thanks to the negotiations with Europe, we gained another year, in which we completed the (nuclear reprocessing plant) in Isfahan.''

For Europeans who may take comfort that Iran's vision only includes a world without Israel and the United States, Ahmadinejad had another little hint of his worldview, saying he sees relations between the two sides as part of the ''historic war'' between Islam and the West.

Iran's cards are now plainly open and on the table. The West has the next play.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs.

Star-Telegram | 10/24/2005 | Justice in Baghdad

Posted on Mon, Oct. 24, 2005

Justice in Baghdad

By FRIDA GHITIS

Special to the Star-Telegram


AMSTERDAM - In cafés throughout the Netherlands, Iraqi refugees clustered around TV sets, watching the start of Saddam Hussein's trial in Baghdad's Green Zone. In the smoky gathering places of their adopted land, they stared nervously at the shaky images and strained to make out the barely audible sound of proceedings against the man whose agents had snatched their relatives in the middle of the night, the man who turned their country into a land of dread, torture and perpetual war.

Then they heard the Western commentators argue whether Saddam would get a fair trial, or whether the proceedings should be dismissed as political theater or "victor's justice."

As survivors of the Iraqi dictator heard the commentators expound on the flaws of Iraq's efforts to try Saddam at home, prosecutors at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in The Hague, dealt with their own tribulations in the trial of another deposed president.

The day before Saddam faced his judges, the prosecutor in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav president, warned that the trial, which began in early 2002, could take another four or five years.

Milosevic, charged with 66 counts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, is believed to have orchestrated mass murders and other ethnic cleansing as Yugoslavia came apart in the 1990s. He has turned his trial into a high-level international charade.

The U.N. tribunal, presumably the model that the Iraqis should be following, has scrupulously protected his rights, and the cunning Milosevic has exploited the rules to absurdity.

Legal scholars argue that The Hague is creating a treasure of useful jurisprudence. But the endless trial is hardly one that Iraqis would wish to emulate.

Undoubtedly, the Baghdad process is highly flawed. But Iraqis had every right to resist sending Saddam to the Netherlands. No matter how flawed their trial, the Iraqi judges -- who traveled to the Netherlands, Britain and Italy to train in international law -- are trying to make this an example of justice rather than revenge.

This is no kangaroo court, and it is certainly nothing that the Arab world has ever seen. Until now, the very concept of a living "former president" was almost unheard of in the dictator-ridden Middle East.

The many regimes in the region where dictators still rule will try to discredit the proceedings, as will many in the West who deplore America's Iraq war.

Iraqi refugees watching from the Netherlands or anywhere else in the world are not the ones rushing to dismiss the importance of this trial. They are quick to remind anyone who will listen just how much they suffered under Saddam's rule, in a regime that killed so many of its citizens that it needed bulldozers to dispose of the bodies.

That was back when Abu Ghraib was a place infamous for the torture inflicted on countless thousands of Iraqis by Saddam's henchmen, before the infamy that came later, when American soldiers became the torturers.

Human Rights Watch conservatively puts the number of Iraqis in Saddam's mass graves at almost 300,000. Saddam's Iraq was a country that launched wars that killed more than a million people. It was a regime that killed 5,000 of its own with chemical weapons, long before such weapons became synonymous with bad U.S. intelligence.

When the trial resumes Nov. 28, Iraqis deserve to see the man who turned ancient Mesopotamia into a modern killing field stand to face justice. They deserve to tell the stories from a generation of sorrow to a world that will not dismiss their suffering simply because it inconveniences current political goals.

And if Iraq is ever to move forward, Iraqis of every sect and tribe should see the incontrovertible record of how each segment of their society suffered the brutality of Saddam's sadistic rule. The wounds from Saddam's rule are infecting today's conflict. They must be lanced and cleaned. And Iraqi judges, in the end, may prove better surgeons than the robed ones in The Hague.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Herald.com | 10/18/2005 | Mother Nature -- Unforgiving, devastating

If nature were a politician, would he (she?) get trounced at the polls, or would we lavish it with support, awed by its power?

Consider some highlights of its accomplishments over the past 12 months: One quarter of a million people washed away to their deaths in December's Asian Tsunami; a major American city destroyed by a hurricane; entire villages in Central America declared mass graves after mudslides; more than 30,000 people buried in an earthquake along the Pakistan-India border.

Every one of these events -- in addition to a host of other floods, famines and assorted tragedies across the globe -- destroyed countless lives beyond the actual death count. Each one brought a pain so intense to so many people that even watching the stories on television could prove unbearable. And yet, we insist on proclaiming our love for ''mother'' nature. Disaster survivors routinely credit God (nature?) for their good fortune in living through their ordeal, but we seldom hear anyone criticize it for our misfortunes.

Sure, much of what nature wreaks is made much worse by man. And often the devastation could have, should have, been eased by man. Recriminations fly freely when it comes to our own misdeeds and those of our politicians after natural disasters. The levees of New Orleans should have stood stronger. The government's response should have come faster. A tsunami warning system should have been in place. Both of these tragedies could have been much less lethal had fewer people lived along low-lying areas. Earthquakes would kill fewer people in better-built structures. And we can only fathom what hell we are unleashing as we heat up the Earth and melt the glaciers.

Yet nature has been callously slaughtering humans like so many ants under a careless giant's boot for as long as life has existed. From Noah's flood to the plagues of Egypt, we've looked to ourselves to place the blame. After all, even the most arrogant of politicians might just respond to criticism a little better than nature ever would.

The catalog of death from the whims of nature dwarfs most, though not all, of mankind's excesses (mankind scored high in its ability to kill during the 20th century.) A third of Europe's population died of bubonic plague in the Middle Ages. Smallpox, drought, cyclones, earthquakes. Nature's casual cruelty spared no continent long before SUVs revved their greenhouse-gas spewing engines. And the killing is far from over.

That strange custom of calling that most unmaternal force ''Mother Nature'' brings to mind the kind of mother that raises terminally disturbed children, condemned to a lifetime of therapy. (Perhaps that's where we learned our bad habits, from that not-so-loving mother.)

And yet we persist, claiming that we love nature and arguing that we should love it even more, no matter how many millions of lives nature destroys, no matter the warnings that a new flu pandemic will likely kill millions more.

The reality is that much of what we call human progress is a record of humankind struggling to defend itself from the indiscriminate cruelty of forces we cannot quite understand.

Floods that killed tens of thousands in the Netherlands spurred the construction of sea walls that allowed the nation first to survive and then to thrive. Science came to the rescue after centuries of plagues, flu and pestilence that devastated entire continents throughout the ages.

So, what if nature really were a politician? My guess is that it would receive enormous support from awed and frightened voters.

And there lies a lesson for environmentalists. Is it any wonder more people don't embrace the message that we should protect the environment and love nature, even as nature batters and assaults us?

The secret to their future success is to turn their message around. Instead of telling us to protect nature from man, they would gain more followers if they told us to protect ourselves from nature. It sounds less cuddly than hugging trees and showing us fluffy panda bears. But taking a page from the politically popular war on terror, they could remind us how much pain we have already endured, and how much more we will suffer if we don't take all the necessary measures -- whatever they may cost -- to protect ourselves from the madness and cruelty of nature.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs

Herald.com | 10/18/2005 | Mother Nature -- Unforgiving, devastating

Herald.com | 09/26/2005 | Pacifist dreams need international backing

Herald.com 09/26/2005 Pacifist dreams need international backing

Some of my best friends are pacifists. Some are even militant pacifists. Truly, I respect their conviction and their idealism. I must confess, however, that I am less than impressed with the results that their methods have been producing.

A few years ago, I had the unforgettable privilege of visiting two nations, Tibet and Burma, whose people have spent decades struggling for freedom by following the spiritual and political guidance of their pacifist leaders. The leaders of the quest for freedom in Tibet and Burma (renamed Myanmar by its despotic military rulers) are two of the most extraordinary human beings alive today. The Western world has recognized their cause and their integrity, honoring Tibet's Dalai Lama and Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi with the Nobel Peace Prize. They have gained worldwide fame and have brought attention to the suffering of their people. And yet, they and their followers have failed miserably in achieving their goals.

The Dalai Lama, Tibet's religious leader and the head of its government-in-exile, has spent more than four decades trying to muster diplomatic support in his quest to secure Tibet's independence from China. By now, he doesn't even ask for independence, having lowered his demand to mere autonomy for Tibet under Beijing's rule. We still call them demands but, even as he travels the world with a popularity that eclipses major rock stars, his political muscle has faded along with the bleached Tibetan flag bumper stickers on American cars left over from more optimistic days.

China represses Tibet

As China pushes ahead, quickly becoming an economic superpower, the people of Tibet endure under Beijing's repressive rule, and Tibet's culture within its traditional Himalayan highlands shrinks, making way for China's mighty economic engine. The Dalai Lama, it seems likely, will have to wait until his next incarnation before achieving his and his people's dream of a free Tibet.

The situation in Burma is even more depressing. The country was once the rice-basket of Asia. Today, after decades of despotic military rule, poverty, hunger and disease -- especially AIDS -- are rampant. The country is now one of the poorest in the world.

The remarkable woman who has led her people's determined push to break the shackles of dictatorship, Aung San Suu Kyi, is the only Nobel Peace Prize winner in the world currently under arrest. Fifteen years ago, when Burma's generals inexplicably allowed elections, Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won 80 percent of the seats in parliament. The generals immediately rejected the result and placed Suu Kyi under arrest, where she has spent most of the time since the election, as have many of her supporters.

As the Burmese people languish under a regime whose well-documented practices include forced labor, rape, torture and execution of opponents -- even for nonviolent activities -- the world has attempted a number of strategies to bring about change. After multiple special envoys, scattered sanctions and many, many speeches, the result, according to a recent State Department, is that the prospects for reform continue to decline.

Last week, two men who've had more success with nonviolence, South Africa's Desmond Tutu and the Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel, released a report urging the U.N. Security Council to take action on Burma. They argue that Burma -- a major exporter of drugs, refugees and disease -- has become a regional threat. These men of peace correctly conclude that, ``Binding Security Council intervention [is] necessary to return to democratic rule.''

Havel and Tutu are absolutely right. Nonviolence is a beautiful theory, but bumper stickers alone don't overthrow dictators.

Last January, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice listed Burma among the world's six ''outposts of tyranny,'' many Burma activists allowed themselves to believe that perhaps now the world would put some muscle behind its rhetoric. So far, however, Burma's generals have grown stronger -- and its people poorer and weaker -- because action against the regime has been inconsistent. China has helped arm Burma, while the United States, Europe and Asia each have a different policy to bring about change.

Burma has lived under military dictatorship since 1962. Beijing's soldiers entered Tibet in 1949. It would be nice if the long wait for freedom would come to an end.

Generals and despots, it appears, do not yield to nonviolent means as quickly as democratic societies do. More effective and unified international pressure is required. If there is any chance that nonviolence will help these millions of oppressed people, then supporters of freedom in Tibet and Burma urgently need to redouble their efforts and rethink their strategy.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs.

Herald.com | 09/17/2005 | Summit produced parade of missed opportunities

The parade of world leaders was enough to take your breath away. Kings, emirs, presidents and prime ministers smiled for photographs, shook hands, and rose to the podium at this week's historic United Nations summit in New York. Stirring speeches and memorable phrases loftily gave the impression that the organization and its member nations are moving with unstoppable determination to make the United Nations -- and the world -- a better place.

And yet, this week's gathering celebrating the 60th anniversary of the U.N.'s founding had already become a failure of historic proportions even before it began.

You could already smell the whiff of hypocrisy rising from midtown Manhattan as more than 170 nations' leaders began arriving for the anniversary extravaganza. Once the General Assembly agreed on the document signed at the summit, it took all the diplomatic skill of politicians and civil servants to put a positive spin on the final agreement: a monument to under-achievement.



The United Nations began with much promise and optimism at the end of World War II. Today, however, there are few who disagree that the world body is in desperate need of reform and revitalization. For a moment it seemed we got lucky. An intersection of events produced the perfect opportunity to achieve meaningful change. The anniversary summit would come only days after the Volcker Report, which not only pointed a bright spotlight at endemic corruption and mismanagement in the U.N.'s Iraq Oil for Food program, but also produced credible and specific recommendations for improvement.

On Tuesday, delegates reached a last minute compromise on a summit document, producing little, if anything, of substance. Kofi Annan, barely restraining his disappointment, said the 35-page agreement was not all bad. And U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns called it, ''a good beginning.'' But I would bet they didn't quite believe their own words and found more truth in the statement of the Amnesty International U.N. representative, who called the entire exercise, ``a squandered opportunity.''

Even Annan, the world's top diplomat, called failure to agree on the issue of disarmament, ``a real disgrace.''

Once again, the United Nations let down those most in need. Some felt most disappointed by the watered-down language on improving the lot of the poorest of the poor. ''By any stretch of the imagination,'' declared a despondent representative of the charity Oxfam, ``they failed on this point.''

The delegates could not even agree on a definition of terrorism, even though they say the problem is urgent, global, and requires international cooperation.

So, if you're one of the billion people who struggle to live on one dollar a day, the United Nations let you down. If you fear becoming a victim of terrorism, the United Nations let you down.

You won't be surprised, then, to hear that the victims of human rights abuse were also let down.

The U.N. Human Rights Commission is the rare U.N. organ that everyone agrees is a shameful travesty. The Commission became a membership magnet for the worst regimes on earth. If you are a despot, you jockey for a seat on the Commission, thus managing to protect your regime from criticism. The fox-in-the-hen-house membership usually includes regimes guilty of the whole catalog of human rights abuses. Members usually include countries such as Sudan, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sierra Leon, Zimbabwe and other such well-known ''defenders'' of human rights.

Replacing the commission with a new Human Rights Council was one item on the summit's agenda that seemed a fairly sure bet. The Council would include only countries that respect human rights, and it would sit year-round, allowing it to condemn abuses with authority and without having to wait for its annual session.

Instead of creating this new body, negotiators decided to defer the issue to the ineffectual General Assembly until some time in the future.

There is plenty of blame to share on this debacle, along with a multi-national effort to paint the meeting as a success. Once again, world leaders have failed to muster the courage and skill to turn the United Nations into an organization that would make a real difference in the lives of those who most need its help. They have failed to move resolutely in a direction that would take the organization closer to the goals its founders envisioned 60 years ago. And they have again betrayed the most urgent needs of the weak, the impoverished, and of those who want to see the nations of the world work together for the common good.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs.

09/07/2005 | In Europe, bewilderment at America's suffering

Published Wed, Sep. 07, 2005


In Europe, bewilderment at America's suffering

By FRIDA GHITIS


AMSTERDAM - The world has long seen the United States as a towering giant, a muscular nation of great wealth, efficiency and might.

To some, it stands as a generally benevolent power, using its strength in positive ways. Others maintain America is an arrogant and selfish nation.

Until now, however, all sides had seen America as largely invincible.

Then came Katrina: nature's wrath compounded by government incompetence -- and the agony of the American giant.

The suffering that came in the hurricane's wake exposed a new side of America.

Wrenching images of despair from New Orleans broke hearts the world over. But they also produced a confusing swirl of emotions among critics and admirers of the United States. The reaction from America's friends and foes everywhere shared one common element: bewilderment.

That's why so many reports about the chaos and sorrow chose to drench their narrative in irony, repeatedly reminding us they were showing America, "the world's only superpower."

The sight of America -- the efficient, the powerful, the mighty -- now anguished and overwhelmed has left the planet thoroughly perplexed.

The undeniable reality is that nature's unfathomable wrath was made infinitely worse by a combination of gov-ernment negligence, incompetence and wishful thinking.

In addition to profound sympathy for the victims, the most commonly expressed sentiment I hear in the streets of Amsterdam is disbelief.

"I ask myself," 52-year-old Hans said simply, "why?"

An avowed admirer of America, he winced, visibly pained by the suffering he saw on television and the astonishing disorganization that made it so much worse.

"I'm really disappointed," he said with a sigh.

The feeling was repeated in every conversation.

"Such a big country; so much money," said 29-year-old Hiske, shaking her head. "How could this happen?"

While many were quick to note the power of nature, others also rushed to point out the now-exposed underbelly of American society.

Europeans have long had a fascination with the more threadbare patches of America's social fabric. That fabric tore precisely in those places, and that's where the critics focused their attention: When the call for evacuation came, the government did nothing to help the poor leave.

Most of the desperate in the Superdome were impoverished African-Americans. Then came stories of armed gangs shooting, robbing and raping in the toxic waters of apocalyptic New Orleans.

Poverty, racial inequality, cities awash in weapons and a society that emphasizes self-reliance, leaving the poor and the weak to their own inade-quate devices: That is the image that America's critics like to emphasize.

And that is exactly what floated to the surface in the immediate aftermath of the Katrina catastrophe.

The joyful celebration with which al Qaeda greeted the disaster -- "answered prayers" members called it -- was not openly repeated in Europe, not even by America's sharpest critics. But some politicians rushed to score points.

In Germany, where voters are about to go to the polls, the environment minister blamed Washington's inattention to global warming even before the hurricane had moved away.

There was no shortage of comments bitterly contrasting America's readiness to go to war with its lack of readiness to prepare for this disaster.

For the millions who live below sea level in Europe, however, the New Orleans disaster brought a special unease.

Two-thirds of the Dutch population lives below sea lev-el, and reassurances from water management officials have only partially allayed fears awakened by Katrina.

Holland, which spares no expense keeping out the sea, has a long and painful history of deadly floods.

Sitting outside his home by an Amsterdam canal, Jan Eisinga, 78, remembered the 1953 Zeeland floods that killed 1,800 people. He spoke proudly of his country's state-of the-art anti-flood barriers, but warned that everywhere, in the United States and in Europe, we abuse nature, heightening all dangers.

In some quarters, the agony of America may have brought some secret joy. Here, however, the most powerful emotion, after sympathy for the victims, was the shock at seeing a once-mighty United States unprepared and overwhelmed.

Beyond that, America's vulnerability makes everyone feel a little less safe.

Venice, London and the Netherlands are rushing to check their defenses.

"If it can happen in America," mused Patrick, a muscular Dutch window washer preparing to climb his scaffold, "maybe it can happen here."

He looked at the water flowing in the canal a few feet away and confessed, "It's terrifying."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs.

From Gaza, to Baghdad, to Crawford

Comment: Compromise is an essential building block of peace
Web Posted: 08/25/2005 12:00 AM CDT

Frida Ghitis
Special to the Express-News


AMSTERDAM — The scenes played out around the world in recent days seem only vaguely related: Israeli soldiers dragging tearful Jewish settlers from their homes in Gaza; Iraqi politicians wrangling over a draft constitution; a bereaved California mother and her supporters setting up camp in front of the President's ranch in Crawford.

The events, however, have more than media coverage in common. They all show societies going through the most wrenching, dangerous and crucial moments of their political life: trying to survive disagreements.

They have something else in common: the stifling summer heat that makes conflicts even more explosive.

There is almost nothing as politically incorrect as saying that one culture is superior to another. But there is little question that societies that develop peaceful ways to disagree are more successful than the rest.

And before we get overly puffed up about America and the West's highly civilized manner of protest, let's not forget the many wars fought before disobedience, peaceful protests and the voting booth became the preferred method of expressing discontent and settling disagreements in North America, Europe and much of the rest of today's world.

In Europe, it is the fear of an emerging inability to disagree peacefully that has thrown the continent into crisis. When a Muslim extremist in Amsterdam slashed the throat of the controversial filmmaker Theo Van Gogh last November, the first reaction here was utter disbelief. Most people had long ago taken offense at some of the statements from the deliberately provocative Van Gogh. But killing someone whose ideas you opposed went against the very foundation of modern Dutch society. The terrorist attacks in London last month created just the same kind of crisis. Europeans are right to worry. Killing people because one disagrees with their views carries a cost beyond the loss of human life.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq boasted beautiful buildings and lovely parks. But challenging any aspect of the regime all but guaranteed death. The country reeked of political pathology. It was an ailing nation. If Iraq is able to find a way to establish functioning channels of constructive disagreement, it will stand a chance of building a successful society.

Societies that know how to allow their own members to settle their differences peacefully also develop ways to deal with those who refuse to play by the rules or with outsiders who threaten their existence. The right to use force is given only to one player: a legitimately chosen government.

Ariel Sharon's decision to remove settlers from their homes was met with street protests, legislative debates and, ultimately, the use of force by soldiers and police. And, before long, Sharon will also have to face the voters.

In the United States, protesters will continue to express their opposition to the war and their deep disagreements with the government. Members of Congress will ask questions and criticize the White House, even as they are critiqued and questioned. And voters will have a chance to pass judgment on their representatives' answers at the polls.

As for Iraq and Gaza, it is still too hot to know how they will turn out. Palestinian and Iraqi leaders are trying to decide what kind of nation they want to build. With both lands awash in weapons, the easy way out is to shoot your point of view across.

In Gaza, with dozens of armed militias roaming the streets, the government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has limited authority. That means that controversial but necessary decisions simply cannot be implemented. The coming months will show if Palestinians in Gaza are capable of establishing the rule of law, to be enforced only by those elected to represent the people, not by those who have strength by virtue of owning and using weapons.

Iraq, for its part, still needs to devise a system for settling what are sure to be years of disagreements, primarily between ethnic and religious groups, over the important issues that have and will continue to arise.

In the end, the essence of successful politics is making choices and managing differences without tearing society apart. America was unable to reach that point without a devastating civil war. We may soon find out what it takes for Palestinians and Iraqis.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs

Katrina mesmerized, then stuns the world | The San Diego Union-Tribune

Star-Telegram | 08/15/2005 | Eyes on the Gaza Strip

Star-Telegram | 08/15/2005 | Eyes on the Gaza Strip

Herald.com | 08/01/2005 | Optimism over post-Hussein future

Herald.com | 08/01/2005 | Optimism over post-Hussein future

No more fooling the Arabs - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune

No more fooling the Arabs - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune

Terrorism in London: The Secret Double Standard

BY FRIDA GHITIS

Philadelphia Inquirer

Miami Herald

Montreal Gazette

etc

We have all learned the ritual. First come the explosions, the grief, the unbelief. How could anyone do such a thing to innocent men and women? Then, as predictably as the sound of emergency sirens follows a terrorist blast, come the calls for Muslim leaders to condemn the bombings. When will Muslims rise up against terrorism, righteous Westerners ask on both sides of the Atlantic. This will end, we are told, only when Muslim leaders make it clear to their people that suicide bombings constitute an affront to their humanity and their God.

All true, no doubt. But there is a secret about terrorism that nobody dares to mention: Westerners themselves, for all their sound and fury, have not wholeheartedly condemned terrorism. Not really. Not with the unequivocal conviction that they now demand of Muslims.

Home-grown bombers

The secret is that until now, terrorism, in its most frequent guise -- against Israelis and Iraqis -- is analyzed and all but forgiven by Europe's mainstream. Terrorists are absolved as long as they are seen as weak or desperate, and their enemy is viewed as a cruel Goliath.

How could a young British Muslim growing up in Leeds, England, come to believe that a suicide bombing is an appropriate way to express a grievance? Very simple. He would watch the news. He would listen to the way that British thinkers respond to bombings of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists and to how terrorist attacks in Iraq are described.
In much of Europe, suicide bombings targeting Israelis do not receive anything remotely resembling the blanket condemnation demanded of Muslims after July 7.

This is not to argue that Israeli tactics must be embraced or that the objectives of Palestinians must be rejected. But if the British want to tell the world -- especially people living within their borders -- that terrorism is wrong, they have to declare without nuance and equivocation that attacks designed and executed for the deliberate purpose of murdering civilians for political goals are morally wrong and completely unacceptable -- always -- no matter who the victims, the perpetrators, or the political views of either side. That is plainly not what has happened until now.

Sympathy for Palestinians

When a wave of suicide bombings slaughtering Israelis reached its most gruesome depths in 2002, the British took to the streets -- to condemn Israel and express their sympathy for Palestinians. The terrorist bombings, by all appearances, were a huge success.

One year later, Mohammed Sadiq Khan traveled from London to Tel Aviv and helped organize a nightclub bombing that killed three Israelis. Then he returned to London and blew himself up in the July 7 attacks.

After the London bombings, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke told an emergency meeting of European ministers that the right not to be bombed to bits outweighs any other civil liberty. That's now. But in April 2002, when Israelis were going out of their minds with grief and fear, Europeans reacted with massive street demonstrations condemning Israel's admittedly Draconian efforts to stop the bloodshed and demanding that Israelis give in to Palestinian demands. Condemnation of anti-Israel terrorism was not high on the agenda.

What message would a young impressionable Muslim glean from such an event? If you feel strongly about a cause, blow yourself up. People will pay attention. They will agree with you, and your cause will benefit.

A terrorist is a terrorist

The writer Paul Berman has a theory about the demonization of Israel in the face of the terrorist slaughter. For those who believe a rational logic governs the world, he argues, the only way to make sense of such acts is to portray Israel as deserving the punishment. And so, terrorism is explained and forgiven.

The British, and much of Europe, have grown so tolerant of terrorism that they refuse to call it by its real name. The policy of the BBC and London-based news agency Reuters is not to use the word terrorist unless quoting someone else.

Even if you don't label it, bombing a train full of commuters is terrorism. And if you want to tell the world that terrorism is wrong, you have to say exactly that -- without nuance, without excuse. Otherwise, you'll find yourself wondering, how could it happen here?

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs. She is the author of The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television.

Frida Ghitis: London calling

Frida Ghitis: London calling

The New Republic Online: Maul of America

The New Republic Online: Maul of America

MySA.com: Commentary

MySA.com: Commentary

Herald.com | 06/24/2005 | Regimes use Arab-Israeli conflict as pretext to avoid reform

Herald.com | 06/24/2005 | Regimes use Arab-Israeli conflict as pretext to avoid reform

Protesters pick wrong target | ajc.com

Protesters pick wrong target | ajc.com

Herald.com | 07/05/2005 | America gets real about Iraq war

Herald.com | 07/05/2005 | America gets real about Iraq war

How America Changed (in June)

America gets real about Iraq war

Miami Herald, July 5, 2005

By Frida Ghitis

We've all had the experience. We don't see someone for a long time. Then come home and feel that awkward shock of noticing how much they aged during our absence. It's not polite to say it, but I will: America, you really changed while I was gone.

I'm shocked because I wasn't gone very long. In just five weeks, the shift in the nation's mood is clearly palpable.

Perhaps I expected to come home to a country getting its beach towels and picnic baskets ready for summer vacation. Instead, with the arrival of summer, Americans appear to have awakened and suddenly discovered that the United States is at war. In little more than a month the sentiment over the Iraq war seems filled with doubts and anxiety. I don't mean that the country is divided for and against the war. That does not seem much worse than before. But on both sides, for supporters and opponents, uncertainty and worry have seeped into what used to be more of a cold political calculation.

Maybe that's not all bad.

One of the changes that I hear is in the tone of the discussion. Before, the arguments over Iraq sounded much like the debates over Social Security, taxes or any other political issue. But now, opponents of the war sound as if they've come to realize that any political gain their side would accrue from failure in Iraq would come at too high a cost not only for America, but for much of the world. And supporters of the Iraq campaign, who once sounded defensive and dismissive of their critics, now seem to realize that there are grounds for legitimate criticism. Supporters of the war and the president are starting to discover that anyone who questions how well things are going is not automatically unpatriotic or anti-Bush.

Sure, opinions still stand divided to a large degree along party lines. But I sense that in the anxiety over Iraq there is a new element of national unity.

A country that works together to win a crucial campaign stands a better chance of success. Without suspecting ulterior political motives in every comment, there is a better chance that good ideas from all sides will be identified and implemented.

I noticed big shifts in America's mood over Iraq after other trips. After traveling for much of January and February this year, I returned to a country enjoying a mild case of euphoria. After all, the sight of Iraqis defying death threats to exercise their right to vote on Jan. 30 had stirred the hearts of Americans and inspired millions the world over. Support for the president soared then, even more than it has plunged now. The same was true after Saddam Hussein's capture in December 2003.

Sentiments will undoubtedly shift again. The carnage in Iraq clearly is cause for worry. Still, violence has not derailed a political process that has so far proved astonishingly successful. Iraqis of all ethnic and religious groups are working together to craft a new political system, even as the car bombs and the suicide bombers explode all around them. And the people who are carrying out the bombings are increasingly seen as the enemies of Iraq. That bodes well for the future.

Still, there are no guarantees in war. That's why the worries about Iraq that took hold during these last few weeks are a sign of realism. At a time of war, we should think about more than what to pack for the beach. That was the old America, the one from five weeks ago.

Fixing the Middle East - A European Panacea

By Frida Ghitis

(various papers)

(Stockholm) As Condoleezza Rice winds up her Middle Eastern tour and a much-anticipated summit meeting between the Israelis and Palestinian leaders finally materializes, Europeans are watching America’s work in the Middle East with a mixture of skepticism and reluctant approval. Hearing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice astonishingly blunt call for political reform in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Europeans question America’s intentions and wisdom in trying to democratize the region. But when they listen to America prodding Israelis and Palestinians to the bargaining table, they hear echoes of their own prescription for solving everything that ails the Middle East.

The unchallenged conventional wisdom in Europe is that the key – the indispensable prerequisite -- for solving just about every problem in the Arab and Muslim world, and perhaps even the way to end Muslim extremism and terrorism throughout the world, lies in ending the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reality, however, is much more complicated.

A new survey of Arab – rather than European -- opinion shows that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nowhere near the top of the list of reasons given by Arabs for what’s wrong with their countries.

The views of Arabs, obtained in a rare moment when propaganda efforts where temporarily set aside, marks a sharp contrast with views like that of Eric Bratberg of Sweden’s Uppsala University, who recently wrote, “If the U.S. is ever to form a more democratic Middle East, it first has to solve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” The supposedly unbreakable link has become a firmly planted figment of the European imagination and, in fact, of many on the other side of the Atlantic. If only America would do as we say, they argue, we might not have had a September 11, and young Arab men would not stand caught between the lack of economic opportunities and the temptations of religious extremism. Arabs themselves disagree with this view.

No question, the bitter dispute in the heart of the Middle East has made life for Palestinians and Israelis painful and difficult. It has certainly added to the tensions in the region and given propaganda material for extremists. But the claim that the suffering of Palestinians is the principal cause of international terrorism, Islamic extremism and Arab political instability is as false now as it was on September 12, 2001.

The real causes of extremism are political repression coupled with economic stagnation in much of the region. They create festering resentments and seething anger without legitimate outlets. Other than providing an excuse for these problems, the Arab-Israeli conflict has little connection with the larger troubles in the region.

In the Middle East, where anyone can criticize Israel and the US on a street corner, but no one can criticize the government in the public square, true public opinion emerged anonymously, via satellite, as part of a survey conducted by the Arab television network Al-Arabiya. The people said their problems come from the ruling regimes, the same governments that have received support from Europe and the United States.

When asked, “What is stalling development in the Arab World?” viewers responded unequivocally: Only eight percent blamed the Arab-Israeli conflict. More than 80 percent blamed, “Governments that are unwilling to implement change and reform.”

When asked what governments should do to improve economic conditions, more than 90 percent wanted better conditions for investment, education and health care, as well as complete freedom for the private sector. Ask Arab leaders, or their European friends the same question. They would insist the key to all progress lies somewhere in Jerusalem.

A number of regimes have used the Arab-Israeli conflict as a pretext for their unwillingness to reform. They have a perfectly simple reason for refusing to change: they want to stay in power. What is surprising is how many “experts,” particularly in Europe, have bought into their calculations.

The Arab-Israeli conflict must be solved. And efforts by the US to push the process along are excellent news. But anyone who believes solving the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians will automatically bring an end to all forms of instability, extremism and terrorism will be deeply disappointed.

To Burma -- and to Aung San Suu Kyi

June 19, 2005 marks the 60th birthday of one of the most remarkable leaders of our time: Aung San Suu Kyi, the icon of Burma's non-violent struggle for freedom. Suu Kyi remains under house arrest. And her country, and virtually all its people, continue to languish under the brutal repression of a military dictatorship that has withstood the passage of time.

This is the article I wrote half a decade ago, after returning from Burma.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
August 2000
The Woman Who Would Save a Nation

By Frida Ghitis

(Rangoon) The taxi driver was suddenly refusing to accept the fare we had agreed on. I would pay 400 Kyat to University Road, that was the deal. But, as we approached the area, I told him my exact destination: I wanted to go to Aung San Suu Kyi’s house. Visibly frightened, he looked at me in the rear view mirror, pulled over to a side street, and stopped the car. “I can’t go there,” he said, “big problem for me.” Then he pulled his umbrella from under the seat. “It’s starting to rain," He said. "Take it.” I declined, and reached over with the 400 Kyat trying to pay. “No,” he shook her head, “No pay. Please take my umbrella. You go see our leader. No charge.”

Like everyone to whom we had mentioned Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's gasping democracy movement, his face had brightened at the sound of her name. And then, also like all the others, he had looked over his shoulder, visibly frightened, making sure no one had heard. The crumbling streets of Rangoon, renamed Yangon by the military dictators of the nation of Burma (itself renamed Myanmar by the same generals)are teeming with beggars who seem to have lost even the energy to beg. And yet, there is a name that appears to electrify the despondent. It's the name of their hero: Aung San Suu Kyi.

A few weeks after my visit to Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi left her home with 14 members of her National League for Democracy (NLLD) party, headed for a meeting outside the capital. Their journey came to an abrupt stop when uniformed men blocked their way. The air was let out of her tires and a nine-day test of wills ensued. The group camped by the side of the road in sweltering heat, refusing to give up their efforts. The military finally took them back by force to Rangoon. The party leaders -- including Suu Kyi -- were taken to their homes, locked up and placed under heavy guard. NLD offices were ransacked, and what is perhaps the final crackdown on Burma’s efforts at democracy was set in motion.

For the impoverished and frightened people of Burma, and for the international community who supports them, the critical time has arrived. What strategy, if any, will allow Burma -- the once prosperous land -- to join the world in the global march to open, responsible government?

In a country where millions live in the military’s two-handed strangling grip of wretched poverty and vicious repression, Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's democracy movement, and winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize, is a figure of hope --- fading hope. She is revered by malnourished mothers sleeping under bridges with their emaciated babies, by taxi drivers eking out a living in cities with stagnant economies, and by students kept by the military from attending classes and forging a better future.

But Suu Kyi, the winner of a landslide election victory in 1990 has spent most of the time since winning the election living under house arrest or confined to such restrictions by the ruling military junta as to have virtually no possibility of affecting her country’s future. Ten years after her electoral victory, life could hardly be more painful for the people of the legendary land of towering teak forests.

The taxi, by the way, left me a few blocks from Suu Kyi’s home. I walked until I reached a military roadblock. After a low-key discussion with a soldier and an officer in plain clothes, it was made clear I would not be allowed to walk down the wide thoroughfare in front of the deserted university. No explanation given. Rangoon’s traffic is completely disrupted to keep it from passing in front of the 55 year-old-woman’s home.

After the nine-day standoff, nobody was allowed in Suu Kyi’s home. Not diplomats, not supporters, not servants. Food was passed to her over the padlocked gate, allowing for some sustenance. That’s more than can be said of the pro-democracy movement.

A leading member of the military junta has vowed to “crush” the party.

Demands by diplomats to see Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders were futile. The junta dismissed calls by Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and other world figures for their release. Officially known as the State Peace and Development Council, the ruling military conclave maintains its rule is needed to keep the peace and maintain the nation united in the face of ethnic divisions. The government accuses the NLD of planning terrorist activities, and insists the matter with Suu Kyi and her party is an internal affair. The international community, it says, should stay out of it.

Internal affairs in Burma are resolved through intimidation, incarceration and worse. The junta routinely uses the population, especially members of tribes seeking independence as slave labor for unpaid road construction and other grueling projects. People who resist the brutal forced labor are routinely shot. Gross violations of human rights are commonplace. Freedom of the press is such an alien concept in Myanmar that the local version of newspapers and television news could easily pass for comedy in the West.

The streets are filled with billboards describing what the government audaciously calls “People’s Desire,” a litany of government objectives aimed at maintaining the junta’s tight leash on society. Among the so-called People’s Desires: “Oppose those trying to jeopardize stability of the State and progress of the nation; “Crush all internal and external destructive elements as the common enemy.” It is clear that such “destructive elements” include Suu Kyi who is regularly referred to in the press as a prostitute, a stooge of the West and a number of other disparaging labels.

In 1997, the United States imposed a ban on new trade with the country. But the same year, Asian countries welcomed Yangon into the regional South East Asian association, ASEAN, sending conflicting messages to the Junta. The European Parliament has urged EU members to refrain from trading with the generals and Suu Kyi has urged foreigners to stay away from Burma; to keep their money from flowing into the coffers of the supremely corrupt military regime.

All international and domestic efforts to persuade the military to negotiate with the winners of the 1990 election have proved either useless or counter-productive. Life for the people of Myanmar has descended from purgatory to hell.

In frustration, some former allies of Suu Kyi have called for an end to the sanctions, hoping an increase in trade will bring a trickle of money for the impoverished Burmese.
And yet, it’s hard to see exactly which strategy has failed. Is it the isolation brought by countries like the US, or is it the engagement policy of Myanmar’s neighbors?

The key to the destruction of Myanmar and the survival of its military’s power may be found in Beijing and in Southeast Asia. China has supported and armed the junta, providing it with the resources to keep the people under its heel. The influence of Asia neighbors carries the moral authority of cultural understanding. According to the SPDC, all criticism of the regime is based on the colonial aspirations of the West. Incidentally, neither China nor India – the other Asian power aiming to gain ascendancy in Myanmar – made any open complaints about the junta’s recent displays of despotism.

Isolation by the West will accomplish nothing without pressure on China, the behemoth of human rights violations. Beijing may not want to relent on its atrocities against Tibet or against religious minorities in China, but it might consider interceding for a political solution in Burma, as a concession to western powers continually harping on human rights.

Whether economic sanctions are effective or not, one thing is clear. Sanctions followed by silence achieve nothing. If the United States and Europe want change in Myanmar, simple economic isolation is not sufficient. The generals urgently need hard currency to keep their country from a total economic collapse. They should know that any possibility of trade or assistance will not come without political change. Show them a carrot and remind them of the stick. The United States, with the exception of the last couple of weeks, has been much too silent on the tragedy of the Burmese people.

For the people of Myanmar, options appear to be running out. Suu Kyi’s latest effort achieved success on the international front. Major world figures chose to shine a spotlight on her plight. But within her country’s borders, the situation is now even more critical. For the people of Myanmar, the struggle may be reduced to a simple desperate gesture: not charging taxi fare to a foreigner hoping to visit Aung San Suu Kyi.


Frida Ghitis, Copyright 2000

Surviving in Burma Photo F. Ghitis

Michael Jackson: American Soft Power

(Various Papers)

By Frida Ghitis

(Amsterdam) Watching the reading of the Michael Jackson trial verdict from Europe, I found myself bracing for more of the same. After all, every time the world turns its collective eyes and stares intently at America these days, you can predict what comes next: criticism, condemnation and ridicule of the United States.
But something rare and remarkable happened this time: The world watched and, strangely, identified with the US.

Reaction across the globe looked much the same as it did in America. Many expressed relief that Jackson would not go to prison, while others wondered openly about his innocence. Jackson impersonators in full King of Pop regalia appeared on Dutch television to praise their beloved icon, and fans from Calcutta to Kuala Lumpur pondered Jackson’s eccentric ways, much the way his admirers did in Columbus or Kalamazoo.

This was a giant departure from that other side of America that consumes withering international attention. It was hard to believe that the acrimonious talk about the treatment of US prisoners in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib and the Michael Jackson story all dealt with America’s system of justice.

The reaction to the trial verdict brought to mind the ideas of Harvard’s Joseph Nye, who talks about America having two kinds of power: hard power, from its military might, and soft power, from the attraction of its culture and its ideas.

The tribulations of Jackson’s trial spawned an international wave of American Justice 101 seminars in the media. From Al Jazeera to BBC World and channels in a multitude of languages, viewers in every time zone heard scholarly explanations of how a jury trial works in the United States.

Newspapers in Pakistan, Peru and the United Arab Emirates discussed the concept of “burden of proof.” And just about everyone heard of the reaction from the defeated prosecutor, accepting his defeat. The government, the experts explained, simply did not make its case.

The talk may be about the inconsequential trial of one man, but in some places a statement like that is truly revolutionary.

In some countries, the government never loses its case.

How many millions in State Department public diplomacy funds would it take to promote the American system of justice around the globe? How much to talk about the concept of a fair trial, where both sides walk away accepting the ruling?

There were, of course, many cynics, who rightly pointed out the flaws in the system. But most of the criticism came from the US itself. Television stations across the seas carried clips from America showing man-in-the-street interviews, where some noted dismissively how in the US the rich can always buy justice. Then there were the deadpan quips, that if Michael Jackson had been black, he would have been convicted, and the one about Saddam Hussein now wanting his trial moved to Santa Maria. Those came from Leno and Letterman, respectively, both shown on Dutch television.

Newspapers around the planet devoted massive space on their front pages to the Jackson verdict. And everywhere readers complained that at a time of war, hunger and disease, paying attention to the trial of one man, even if he is Michael Jackson, is some kind of a news atrocity.

Jackson, of course disagreed. As reporters from Soweto to Berlin reported, barely containing their amusement, Jackson, judging by his website, apparently views his acquittal as a major historical milestone, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the release of Nelson Mandela from prison. So, maybe Michael thinks a little highly of himself.

This was an interlude of minor importance, albeit high public interest, during a turbulent time in history. But even Michael, who crowned himself the King, might be pleased to know that in all his 100 pound heft, for a moment at least, he was projecting the power of a nation. And it was, perhaps appropriately, America’s soft power.

Outraged!

*EXTREMISTS GET A FREE PASS TO DO AS THEY WILL - FRIDA GHITIS (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, JUNE 12): Yes, we all agree that insulting Islam is wrong. Now if we could just persuade the outraged to start respecting other people's beliefs. (Full Article from Chicago Tribune.)

*(as excerpted by USC Center on Public Diplomacy)

Slowing Down the Europe Train

Miami Herald, June 3, 2005

EUROPEANS
Losing faith in the EU
BY FRIDA GHITIS

AMSTERDAM -- Europeans had not quite come out of the weekend shock they received from France when the Dutch hopped on their bicycles and pedaled over their picturesque canal bridges to their voting places.

Wednesday was the Netherlands' turn to vote on a proposed new constitution for the European Union. And, like French voters, the Dutch sent a sharp jolt through the establishment. The Dutch refused to accept this new Basic Law for the slowly morphing entity known as Europe.

Like France, the Netherlands is one of the six original founders of the European project. The country has always supported the ideal of a unified Europe. That's why its refusal to approve the absurdly complicated -- almost 500-page -- document, comes as a second shock in three days to an establishment that can hardly believe its Utopian train came off the rails somewhere short of Nirvana.

Global competition

The message from France and the Netherlands may sound alike, but the Dutch have very different concerns from those of their neighbors to the south.

Voters in both countries offered dozens of reasons for voting against the draft constitution. In France, however, it seems that the predominant fear came down to economics. The mythical ''Polish plumber'' came to symbolize the danger of low-wage workers threatening the delightful French life of well-paid 35-hour workweeks and leisurely six-week vacations in Provence. The French, with their message of ''Stop the world; we want to get off,'' mistakenly think that they can resist global competition.

In Holland, the fears look quite different. Over recent years, the Dutch have awakened to discover that their country is not the idyllic land they believed. A series of politically inspired high-profile murders shook the nation to its core. The assassination of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by Muslim extremists filled the Dutch with confusion and anger.

A way of life

Near the top of their concerns is what to do with a wave of immigration from Muslim countries. Like many here, Lynne De Jong, a 63-year-old Amsterdam therapist, opposes the draft constitution not because of what it says, but because this government has endorsed it. The politicians told the people, she says, ''Let them (the immigrants) come in, and we'll all get along. We'll tolerate them, and they'll become like us.'' Many here believe that the political elites were wrong about this and now have no idea what to do about it. The country is suffering a profound sense of uncertainty. It no longer knows what it is or where it's going.

Jorgen, 38, said that he would vote against the constitution. When I asked him what he thought was wrong with it, he answered candidly: ''I have no idea. I don't know.'' Then he explained his vote. ``I don't trust the government.''

But the Dutch have lost trust in more than the government. They, like others in Europe, feel they are losing control of their way of life. Some say they fear the European Union will bully the Netherlands to change its liberal laws. They fear a threat to social values that calmly make room for gay marriage, legalized prostitution and legal euthanasia. The Dutch want to reclaim the country they recognized until a few years ago.

Team U.S./Europe

Unlike the French, the Dutch don't seem obsessed with turning Europe into a power center rivaling the United States, and some resent Paris' anti-Washington stance. One man told me he wants Europe and the United States to be on the same side. But he would like Europe to have more influence over what Team U.S./Europe would do in the world.

There is a common thread running through the many and confusing arguments offered by opponents of the Basic Law in the Netherlands, France and the rest of Europe. There is a sense that the world is changing, perhaps too fast and in the wrong direction. Europeans want to slow the EU train.

In reality, however, it may be the entire movement of history changing their world. Voting No in the referendum is not just a way of saying the constitution is wrong. It's a way of saying, ``Slow this train, I want to get back on my old bicycle.''

Tolerating Intolerance

Intimidated by extremists
Frida Ghitis

International Herald Tribune, published with the New York Times

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/31/news/edghitis.php

Intimidated by Extremists - One day, when historians study this first major war of the 21st century, they will scratch their heads in disbelief, wondering how it came to pass that Muslim extremists managed to intimidate moderates of every religion - including Islam - on every continent on earth.

The whole planet, it seems, twisted itself into knots trying to untangle the forces at work behind the retracted Newsweek story about desecration of the Koran. Journalistic practices came under attack, while experts on Islam tried to soothe the less erudite, not quite justifying, but more than thoroughly explaining why desecration of the Holy Book leads to mob rampage and murder in a Muslim society.

No question, insulting any religion is beyond reprehensible. It appears, however, that nothing is more reprehensible than insulting the Muslim religion. And the extremists now decide what constitutes an insult.

In Pakistan, a Muslim nation whose president Muslim extremists have twice tried to assassinate, Islamists have decided that women's sports constitute a grievous offense to Islam. Some women, it turns out, find the idea of using Islam to repress them itself quite offensive. So, when the government of President Pervez Musharraf, which lately bends to the will of extremists, placed bans on women's rights, women decided to stage a protest

A leading Pakistani human rights activist, Asma Jahangir, was brutally attacked by the police during the peaceful demonstration. Participants in the "mini-marathon," a kind of sports event/political protest, came under violent police assault. This from a key U.S. ally, a government presumably fighting to defeat Islamist extremists. A fine way to strengthen the moderates!

And speaking of moderates, and of respect for religion, consider the official sermon on Palestinian Authority television, which is financed largely by the contributions of democratic countries in the West, shown to viewers on May 13. Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris explained that "the Jews are a virus resembling AIDS." This man of God told the faithful that "the stones and the trees will want every Muslim to finish off every Jew," and he predicted that "the day will come when we (Muslims) will rule the entire world again."

With the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, on his way to the United States, the authority did not want such notions to dominate the headlines, so it took a stand against the imam. But this kind of rhetoric by religious figures goes unchallenged every day in much of the Middle East, including so-called moderate countries friendly to Washington.

Even in Africa, moderate governments behave timidly before mob-stoking Islamists. Muslim radicals in Nigeria a few years ago whipped the masses into a murderous frenzy days before the scheduled Miss World Pageant, all because a newspaper columnist speculated, tongue in cheek, that the Prophet Muhammad might have taken the winning contestant as his wife.

Frenzied Muslims killed 220 Nigerians to defend Islam from such an insult. Nigeria's moderate president accused the media of insensitivity and blamed the riots on "irresponsible" journalists. We can add the 220 to the hundreds who have died in protests against other affronts to symbols of Islam.

While Muslim moderates get swept away by the tide of extremism, unprotected by so-called moderate governments, the rest of the world frets in well-intentioned angst. Moderates everywhere now seem terrified of making missteps that might upset the extremists, while they obsess over the question, "What can we do to avoid offending Muslims?" Standing Pentagon orders instruct those touching the Koran that "clean gloves will be put on" and that "two hands will be used at all times."

Let me say it again: Disrespecting the Koran or Islam or any other religion is contemptible behavior. If American soldiers do it, it is particularly egregious because the United States self-righteously argues for more tolerance in the Muslim world. But tolerance must be demanded from all sides.

The views and life choices of moderate Muslims must be respected, as must those of people of all religions, by members of all religions. The demands fall on Muslims, too. And the requirement of standing up against intolerance falls on all governments. Only intolerance is undeserving of tolerance.