PDA

View Full Version : Mirrors for gold


Chiwas
03-13-2005, 12:00 PM
Bush will name to its friend Karen P. Hughes in a work that seems very difficult

Impossible mission, to change the bad image of USA in the world

Specially dedicated to the Arab world, the work that the political adviser of the president will execute

It is not problem of public relations, but of opposition to policies of Washington: critical

DAVID BROOKS CORRESPONDENT

New York, 12 of March. Tan, tan, tan, tan, tan, tan, tan, sounds the theme of Impossible Mission in Washington, where it is about to to name to the new one in charge "to improve" the deteriorated image of the United States in the world, particularly in the middle East.

President George W. Bush is about to to designate to his intimate friend - political and expert adviser in design of propaganda Karen P. Hughes in the position of undersecretary of State for the Public Diplomacy, with the objective of which he dedicates himself "to repair" the image of the United States in the outside.

According to he revealed the newspaper The New York Times today, Bush will name to Hughes, that has been intimate advisory policy of the president from its times of governor in Texas, and previously the one in charge, immediately after the attacks of the 11 of September of 2001, of the coordination of public relations in the days of key war and in designing the "message" from this government to the town of the United States.

Hughes will have between its tasks of being one of the main figures in publicitar the campaign of the president to promote the democracy in the middle East and to look for to repair the image of this country everywhere, but with a particular approach in the Arab world, the Times informed .

But it is not secret that the "image" of the United States in the world and specially in the Arab countries is not only damaged, but that this country is perceived like enemy, with levels of hostility and rejection registered in investigations and soundings throughout these last three years.

They are not few, including within the estadunidense government, those that have expressed that this one is not a simple problem of public relations or trade, but a subject of massive opposition to the policies of Washington.

And the news do not help to the cause of the United States in the world. The organization Human Rights Watch informed that she obtained stopped official documents of the death of two in Afghanistan because of golpizas offered by estadunidenses soldiers.

One of those soldiers, according to classified information of the army of the United States, struck a Afghan prisoner of repeated way and maintained during five days, destroying its legs and knees to such degree that if it had survived both extremities must be amputated.

The soldiers have been accused of the crime that almost happened a year before the abuses committed in the prison of Abu Ghraib, in Iraq, by the estadunidenses military.

In fact, the defendant were integral of the company To of battalion 519 of military intelligence, the same one that was transferred to Iraq, where among other tasks settled down the famous unit of interrogations in the center of halting of Abu Ghraib, whose members have been accused of committed humiliations there.

The army first announced that the prisoners had died of "natural causes", but after an investigation of the New York Times recognized that they had been homicides.

On the other hand, the army exonerated greater general Barbara Fast, ex- commander of the military intelligence in Iraq, of all responsibility in the policies and orders that culminated in the abuses in the estadunidenses centers of halting in Iraq.

The person in charge of intelligence during the commando of general Ricardo Sanchez, between July of 2003 and June of 2004, was among other things the one in charge to supervise the center of interrogations in Abu Ghraib.

Not only that, but that now the army goes it to award when naming it in the position of commander of the Center of Military intelligence of the strong Huachuca, in Arizona, qualification seat and indoctrinates of the estadunidense army for military intelligence, that is, where the military interrogators are trained, among other things.

Now it is that the military detent responsible for the death of an Italian secret agent and to hurt to just released hostage Giuliana Sgrena was part of an operative one to assure the convoy the ambassador John D. Negroponte, incident who has caused a severe diplomatic crisis with one of the nearest allies of the United States, Italy.

Exporter of irony

And all this is only one part of the news of these last days.

The endless military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the interference in the internal subjects of Lebanon, the threats against Iran and Syria, the halting of thousands of Muslim believers in Guantánamo, Iraq, the United States and by the Central Agency of Intelligence in other not known countries, the decision to desinvitar to representatives of the Sinn Fein to the official festejos of the Day of San Patricio, the aggressive tone against the government of Venezuela and so many things more, not necessarily are generating a "good image" of the United States between the towns of the world.

It is possible to add that with the appointment of John Bolton - figure that has denounced the concept of the international community, the multilateral cooperation and discarded to Nations United like excellent instance in the ambassador position before that same organization, plus the rejection of international protocols like the environmental one of Kyoto, of the Court the International of Justice around the Convention of Vienna and the isolation of the estadunidense position in the international conference on women, recently celebrated here, nourishes an image very little pleasant of the United States in the world-wide scope.

Comedian Jon Stewart commented in winch of some of these news that perhaps the mission of the United States in the world is not the export of the democracy, but of the irony. In this context, Karen P. Hughes now will assume the stellar role in the next chapter of Impossible Mission.


Translated using an engine. Link, Original source in spanish (http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/mar05/050313/023n1mun.php)

FishForLunch
03-14-2005, 12:01 AM
The Bad image the world has about US is jealously

Drbio
03-14-2005, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by: FishForLunch
The Bad image the world has about US is jealously

Exactly. No other nation is capable of the thing the US is capable of and there is an inate jealousy worldwide because of it. Who is the first person that is called in crisis? The U.S. Who is looked upon constantly for leadership on the world scene? The U.S. Who is clearly...by leaps and bounds...the greatest country i nthe world? The U.S. I appreciate others national pride and respect it, but there is just no way to dispute that U.S. envy occurs across the world.

Chiwas
03-14-2005, 12:24 PM
I think that in Mexico, and probably for the same but of course also for other reasons (like differences of the cultures and religion) in the rest of the world, the anti-US feeling is due to historic memory, not for jelously or envy, because -I have been wondering a couple of days-, jelously of what? I concur with drbio on some issues, though.

However, what counts in a relationship, if we care, is the perception of the other part, not ours.


I will use this thread to put a couple of reports from today regarding Rice and the US. Notice this time that both are not against them, but show interesting things. In the first one, very strangely -and funny- the (american made) translation engine put "curls" instead of Condi Rice in some parts, odds of life maybe; I changed the one on the title.


What Rice came to say to Mexico
enriqueta cabrera/apro

Mexico, D.F., 14 of March (apro). - Trip preceded lightning of barruntos of storm the one from Condoleezza Rice to Mexico. Bad weather began to dissipate when the Secretary of State of president George W. Bush said to recognize the important collaboration of Mexico for the security of the border, as well as what the government of Fox in the matter of drug trafficking and human rights has done.

Throughout weeks, the critics of Washington were hard, frontal, the same in the matter of security in the border that in human rights or combat to the drug trafficking.

In Mexico It curls lowered to the volume to the reports on human rights and drug trafficking emitted by the same Department of State. They are legal obligations to track problems, said to the Secretary of State and exconsejera of National Security of president Bush; and without a doubt the person most influential and near him.

Anyway the message had been received by Mexico.

Security and Border

From the 11 of September of the 2001 security in the border –que happened to comprise of the national security of the United States -- it is focal point of the bilateral relation for the most important Washington and of the cooperation between both countries. During the flight to Mexico, It curls commented the reporters who accompanied it that Washington has information that the Islamic fundamentalist organization To the Qaeda has dealed with to enter the United States by the borders of Mexico and Canada. Although the official information on the visit of Curls to Mexico did not approach the subject, Curls transmitted the message through the 16 journalists who accompanied it in the airplane.

One is a subject on which Washington notices that it is necessary to maintain the alert. Mexico must understand that after 11-S the national security for the United States has a perimeter extended that includes not only its North and South borders, but that are extended by the Mexican territory until our South border, by that journey migrantes that they look for to reach estadunidense territory.

The Secretary of State in her first trip to Mexico came to speak on the subjects that interest to him to Washington, to define the bilateral agenda, first is the security and the cooperation with Mexico in the matter, the second is the stability. The migration is not high-priority subject.

During the interviews maintained as much with president Vicente Fox like with the chancellor Ernesto Derbez, the security stayed like the subject number one, around which It curls recognized the important and necessary collaboration of Mexico in the border. It is not for less, we have a border of more than 3 thousand kilometers, with around a million daily crossings, through which it both passes the 80 percent of the commerce between countries, that way cross between 200 and 240 thousand vehicles daily.

And although the accent in the porosity of the border, most important usually is put is its intense dynamics. To the north and the south of that border there is an interdependent and integrated region more and more. The border is the microcosm and the thermometer of the bilateral relation, as well as the main source of potential conflicts. The rare thing is that there are not more problems. The border is also a permanent laboratory of plans of cooperation, many of successful them.

But also multiple conflicts occur there. Some neglected and without solutions or perspective of long term. Most important it is the undocumented migration of Mexican towards the United States, that ascends to near 400 thousand people who remain of permanent way in that country. That border is the one that interests to Washington, tie to the subject of security and cooperation between both countries.

Mexico maintains the cooperation and works jointly with the United States to obtain the intelligent border that is not nor an opened border, nor a closed border, but that tries to be a border flexible and able to guarantee security and to integrate this strong dynamics. And, of course, the cooperation between both countries will stay and grow, and that means new schemes.

During his visit, It curls it emphasized the collaboration in the matter of border security and considered that with Mexico “un is had dialogue robusto” on the subject, with a high level of collaboration that both countries have reached to maintain a safe and open border to the flow of goods and people. Mexico and the United States, were said, have an interest common in the border security.

If the subject of the drug trafficking has returned to occupy an important place in the bilateral agenda it is because Mexico is not winning that war, if is moderate it, not by the number of haltings and drug securing, but by the greater tie violence to the drug trafficking, by the power of the narcotics traffickers, even within the jails of high security, and by the continued increasing drug flow towards the United States.

Although the Derbez chancellor denied it emphatically, the coincidence is great, and the decision to authorize the Cardinal red extradition of Osiel a day before the arrival of Curls, can be interpreted like a gesture towards the White House in the matter of drug trafficking.

Migration

For Mexico, the most important subject of the bilateral relation is the migration. It was approached during the visit of Curls only laterally, without it occupied a central place in the conversations with the president and the chancellor.

Although in February of 2001, Bush and Fox -- that initiated their mandate -- they spoke of the migration and Mexico proposed a migratory agreement and a great integral reform in the matter, little or nothing has advanced. In fact, it is backed down, judging by the known project of law as Real YOU GO, approved by the House of Representatives, but still pending of being approved by the Senate. This project limits the driver's licenses to undocumented people, orders to finish the wall in the border of California, in San Diego, increases in the 10 thousand cash of border control for next the 10 years and makes difficult the asylum.

In migratory subjects it is also backed down in local legislations. In California it was prohibited to grant licenses to lead undocumented people and Arizona it took effect the Law 200 that denies services public to undocumented people and who punishes to who provides them. It is backed down when groups of racists, xenófobos, organize themselves to watch the border with Arizona to the height of Tombstone, with the purpose of “cazar” migrantes and to give them to the Border Patrol in the project known like MinuteMan Project, organized by James W. Gilchrist.

In the United States the adverse climate grows, even racist against the Mexican migrantes.

While Bush only proposes a plan of temporary work for Mexican migrantes, Mexico remains without migratory policy, lost the initiative from 11-S.

The official notice of Outer Relations says that in the migratory scope president Fox expressed his desire of which a migratory reform takes shape, as well as his rejection to Law and the 200 call “vigilantismo” in the “genera border that an unfavorable climate for the Mexican community in the American Union and aggravates problematic migratoria.”

Curl assured that the administration of president Bush will not tolerate any opposite action to the laws of the United States.

Who knows what means that, because the diffusion in Internet of the organization of “voluntarios” stays; that they will go to the border from Arizona to “cazar” migrantes, that can go armed and that surely will be antiimmigrants, racists, xenófobos, that will take the law in their hands. They see in migration one “invasión” and they will act by his own account. They have arms, discharge technology, airplanes to track migrantes. It is not perhaps a violation of the law?

To the 6 of MinuteMan March “voluntarios” had 863 already; ready to initiate “cacerÃ*a” of migrantes and to seal to the border the April l. Is not violated the law when racist armed are organized to replace the Border Patrol because president Bush is not making his work and the migratory laws in the United States are violated, according to say the lists? A trasgresión of laws already exists, unless now Arizona has become territory in which can be acted like in the Old West. The commitment of Curls, spread by the Secretariat of Outer Relations, was that they will not tolerate that laws are violated, that already are violated. With that we remained.

Stability of Mexico

Without a doubt, for Washington a crucial subject, just like historical, in the bilateral relation he is the one of the political stability of Mexico. Also this one was debated in a American legislative commission, after a report of the company that it noticed of possible political tensions in Mexico in the occasion of the elections of 2006.

Interrogated on the elections in Mexico, It curls said that the presidential election is thing of the Mexicans and that Washington is not going to take part, because Mexico has a solid democracy and strong institutions, as well as a State of right. Three elements of fundamental interest for Washington. Surely It curls has taken note from the crispation of the Mexican political atmosphere.

It cannot let be observed that the visit of Curls agreed with the announcement of the Presidency of the Republic of which no longer will speak on the violation of Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador, because it fixed his position on the matter and already it has confidence in the force of the institutions.

With less than seven hours in Mexico, Condoleezza Rice returned satisfied. It established the guideline of the foreign policy for the second mandate of Bush.

Article in spanish (http://www.proceso.com.mx/noticia.html?nid=30334&cat=0)


Jorge Santibáñez Romellón *
Our Presidency-able candidates and the US

The subject of the United States, implicitly or explicitly, always has had important presence in our electoral processes for President of the Republic. During long time, when he was unquestionable that this Presidency would be gained by the PRI, said that our neighbors at least "palomeaban" to the candidate and who a precandidate that was not well sight by them had few opportunities. By virtue of the dependency with that country, to no president in functions, that traditionally it had like one of the last important decisions, to designate to his successor, it was happened to him to do it with whom the United States did not want. In the mind of many of us it is still the image of Luis Donaldo Colosio (then secretary of Social Development), accompanying by visible, ostentosa way would say I, to Carlos Saline of Gortari in a tour to the United States, shortly before being designated candidate to the Presidency. This was perhaps the last time that followed that species of ritual nonwritten.

Paradoxicalally, to pronounce pro the United States never has been in Mexico a profitable strategy from the electoral point of view. In an end there is one that thinks that to maintain a frankly antiestadunidense speech "it gives votes". Something as well as that the antiyanquismo is test of nationalism. In the same way, by contradictory that seems, once the electoral process concludes, the winning candidate immediately looks for to approach the United States.

We approached an electoral process and turns out interesting to analyze what so close or far from the United States our candidates will position themselves and, mainly, if that will give them or it clears votes to them. The most conflicting, dependent subjects to each other, where it can have discords, well are known: migration, borders (with its subjects associated like border water, crossings, et cetera), security and drug trafficking.

Unlike which today it happens in the United States, where the voters voted by national interests such as the sovereignty or the national security, over "more individual" interests as they are the use, the health, the education or the public security, in Mexico everything seems to indicate that to the Mexican voter the great national subjects will interest to him plus these last questions that. In this logic it would have greater sense to know what thinks to make such-and-such candidate with respect to the migratory subject that the tone that uses to blame the United States of its intransigencia before this subject.

To probably it mistakes, but with staying me in a relatively moderate, worthy position, neither systematically to favor nor very against the United States, would seem that the subject does not tend to play an important role in the next electoral process, although, or it knows, it is fundamental once is government.

For that reason they surprise some of the reactions that the secretary of Interior - one of which they have been mentioned more as possible candidate has had in front of some notes appeared in newspapers of the United States and to the expressions of estadunidenses civil employees. Line is enough in extensive report, critic elementary, phrase descontextualizada, on questions that in Mexico also is criticized, sometimes in same tone and with such terms similar or even worse, so that a public answer arises, strong, out of proportion, as if it was not accepted that what we say here, is said there, that is to say, again the antiyanquismo like formula. The means also have realized this situation and, as this position not only gives votes, but that also generates rating, it seems that it was walked looking for with magnifying glass the declaration in the United States, to approach the microphone our secretary and to obtain "the note".

Of course, all we love nationalistic candidates, but I even though ask if really it is necessary to react before any qualifying one of the United States towards Mexico (since it does with respect to any other country of the world), drift of real situations, that we ourself we recognize. This position will really give so many votes? Will be able to be maintained that position during all a campaign that not yet begins?

* President of the School of the North Border

Article in spanish (http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/mar05/050314/017a1pol.php)