Right on, Mr. Gorbachev

Mikhail Gorbachev himself in the NY Times on the crisis over Georgia. The thrust of his warning:

In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have been promising to isolate Russia. Some American politicians have threatened to expel it from the Group of 8 industrialized nations, to abolish the NATO-Russia Council and to keep Russia out of the World Trade Organization.

These are empty threats. For some time now, Russians have been wondering: If our opinion counts for nothing in those institutions, do we really need them? Just to sit at the nicely set dinner table and listen to lectures?

Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here’s the independence of Kosovo for you. Here’s the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries. Here’s the unending expansion of NATO. All of these moves have been set against the backdrop of sweet talk about partnership. Why would anyone put up with such a charade?

There is much talk now in the United States about rethinking relations with Russia. One thing that should definitely be rethought: the habit of talking to Russia in a condescending way, without regard for its positions and interests.

Our two countries could develop a serious agenda for genuine, rather than token, cooperation. Many Americans, as well as Russians, understand the need for this. But is the same true of the political leaders?

Read more...

Collapse article...

More Canadians in Kandahar II

From a Canadian Press puff-piece (via the Globe) on anecdotal accounts of the attitudes of about a half dozen Canadian soldiers (and one American Marine) in Afghanistan:

A U.S. marine making a pit stop at a Canadian base brings a totally different perspective.

“The problem with the Canadians is that they always have to be worried about what people think at home,” he says.

“When the Canadians are attacked, they worry about civilian casualties. When we're attacked, we hunt them down and kill them.”

Think what you will about the Canadian Press, the Afghanistan Mission, or this poorly-researched article, but one thing's for sure: if it is really true that the Canadian approach to the mission is to worry about civilian casualties, and the American approach is to "hunt them down and kill them," then there is a humanitarian advantage to our presence, assuming America plans to stay indefinitely.

Read more...

Collapse article...

Journalistic Whimsy

In a Canadian Press article via The Globe and Mail on the meeting of NATO defense chiefs and the future of the organization:

"I'm here to say, 'no, to NATO,' so that Canada can maintain its peaceful reputation," said Janet Hawksley.

Ms. Hawksley, 86, said she attends every anti-war protest she can, because "it's the only world we've got."

She said she wore a green leaf over her nose to protect herself naturally from the sun.

"I've got Irish skin," said Ms. Hawksley.

I understand that your typically underthought, underwritten Canadian Press article (which, by the way, will probably make it into 80% of Canada's daily print media market one way or another) needs to show itself to be "fair and balanced" by - in this case - bringing in the protesters' perspective.

A green leaf over her nose? Irish skin? Did those two lines really deserve to make it into the paper?

Read more...

Collapse article...