Clearly I’ve been reading far too much Dr. Seuss to my daughter. . . .

Post from: Undiplomatic

Iran summon[ed] the Italian Ambassador to Tehran Alberto Bradanini in protest against the violent suppression of anti-G8 protesters.  Bradanini was summoned to the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Friday to hear Tehran’s concerns about the “violent suppression of justice-seeking protesters by the Italian police.”   A Foreign Ministry statement included Iran’s “strong condemnation” of the “suppressive actions…which are clear breaches of civil freedoms and fundamentals of democracy.”

This is not to make light of the Italian response to the protests, which may have been a little over the top. But I do find a bit of irony in this quote from one of the protestors:

“We are sick of the powerful governing without consulting the people,” said Martina Vultaggio, 29, one of the [G-8] protest organisers.

No wonder the Iranians are upset.  There is only one thing worse than the “powerful governing without consulting the people.”

The powerful governing after consulting the people and then blatantly ignoring their will.

I wonder when Khatami-Ahmadinejad clique will get around to filing a protest against itself.

Post from: Undiplomatic

Post from: Undiplomatic

Part of what we’re trying to do in “Saving Freedom” is just show that where we are, we’re about where Germany was before World War II where they became a social democracy. You still had votes but the votes were just power grabs like you see in Iran, and other places in South America, like Chavez is running down in Venezuela. People become more dependent on the government so that they’re easy to manipulate. And they keep voting for more government because that’s where their security is. When our immigrants get here, they’re worried, because they see it happening here.

Others have already tackled the absurdity of DeMint comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and his failure to make a distinction between national socialism and social democracy, so I’m not gonna go there.

Instead, I want to focus on something else:  DeMint’s claim that “immigrants” Weigel:

DeMint told a room of around 100 people about a conversation he’d had with an Iranian immigrant who was panicking about the surge of government spending and control under President Obama and the Democrats. Americans should listen to immigrants like her, said DeMint.

I have a couple of problems with DeMint’s claims.  First, those who come to the United States from countries with repressive regimes tend to come here so that they can live in a country that won’t repress them.  The Iranian woman to whom DeMint spoke may be unhappy with Obama’s policies, but I would be seriously shocked to find out that she thinks the Obama Administration is as repressive as Iran.

Second, since when is DeMint a fan of immigration?  He’s the principal sponsor of the effort to get English declared the official language of the United States.  He wants a fence on the border.  He opposes effort — including those of former President Bush — to grant amnesty to some of those currently in the country illegally.   He even favors requiring some visa applicants to know English. But now, we are led to believe, he spends time talking to and learning from immigrants — or at least those convinced Obama is a dictator.

It makes you wonder whether the man is as unthinking as he is ahistorical.

Post from: Undiplomatic

[Enrique] Ortez Colindres, foreign minister to caretaker leader Roberto Micheletti who took over after Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a June 28 coup, used the term “negrito,” or “little black man,” to describe Obama on several occasions last week and again Tuesday in a radio interview.

At one point he described Obama as “this little black man who has no idea where Tegucigalpa is.”

Whoopsie.  New on the job, are we, Mr. Foreign Minister?  That’s not exactly the language they teach you at foreign policy finishing school.  I believe that the correct diplomatic term is “pissing into the wind.”

Fortunately, Ortez has made amends:

Oh wait — that’s not right.  Here it is:

“Please accept my profound apologies and my sincere expressions of friendship directed at this great nation that is the United States of America, which allows me to contribute in the best way to a happy understanding between that great country and the democracy that is the republic of Honduras,” Ortez Colindres said.

Translation:  Please please please don’t get me fired.

It will be interesting to see how long Ortez lasts.

Post from: Undiplomatic

The 2009 G8 Summit has begun. World leaders have arrived (although Chinese President Hu Jintao has already left to deal with the violence in Xinjiang), the table is ready, and the so called “family photo” of the eight official members is about to taken.

I am sitting in the Media Village with more than three thousand other journalists trying to figure out what is happening here in L’Aquila. Moments ago I walked past Bill Plante of CBS News and Chuck Todd of NBC News doing stand ups. And I saw Margaret Warner of the PBS NewsHour in a special room set aside just for the White House press corps.

(Yes, the White House press corps appears to have its own area. There are forty or so heads-of-state here, but only reporters who cover the U.S. president get this unique treatment.)

If all these reporters are here, the meeting must be important. Right?

In fact, it is important and these meetings should become even more important in the future. One storyline emerging here is about low expectations and Italian bungling of the agenda and logistics. A story in the Guardian claims (falsely, I believe) that Italy may be expelled from the G8 over mishandling of this summit. But in a larger sense, the world really needs these meetings to succeed.

The global financial crisis is far from over and a gaggle of security issues threaten the world in significant ways. All this while the traditional international organizations seem to lack the legitimacy and/or the willingness to take decisive action.

Now, the G8 and the G20 seem to be merging (informally) in both their membership and their agenda. Although they will meet in different arrangements and formats, roughly the same world leaders here in Italy will be in Pittsburgh in September for the G20. This is good because these participants make the events much more representative of the real and evolving power structure in the world. And much of the talk here is about which items from the G20 meeting last April in London can be advanced in Italy and which can be tackled later in Pennsylvania.

So if other global institutions have failed. . .and the G8 and G20 have become a movable feast of global power with a rolling agenda. . . one element still seems to be missing.

World leaders need to take the whole thing more seriously.

The tradition at G8 summits seems to be mostly about photo ops and lowest-common-denominator communiques. The presidents and prime ministers like the ego (and approval rating) boost which comes from being seen at these things. But they never seem to really sink their teeth into difficult issues and hammer out tough plans of action to solve real problems. And there is no meaningful accountability once they leave the room.

Some steps toward seriousness might include more discussions with countries outside the G8/20 to forge agreement and buy-in on the tough issues. And it should also mean serious efforts to work with appropriate international organizations on implementing decisions. And if the right agencies can’t be found, create them. My Stanley Foundation colleague David Shorr put it this way:

The Gx [meaning the G8, G20, or any other exclusive gathering of heads-of-state] will need to surround its decision-making with broad and intensive consultation with other governments and establish complementarity with more institutionalized intergovernmental organizations.

World leaders know they have to do something about nuclear proliferation, energy, Iran, North Korea, piracy, failed states, climate change, disease pandemics, and much more. If they aren’t going to make progress at the G8/20 meetings… then where?

Keith Porter is director of policy and outreach at the Stanley Foundation. But his opinions here are not necessarily those of the foundation.

Post from: Undiplomatic

Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday called for a radical rethinking of the global economy, criticizing a growing divide between rich and poor and urging the establishment of a “world political authority” to oversee the economy and work for the “common good.” . . .

More than two years in the making, “Caritas in Veritate,” or “Charity in Truth,” is Benedict’s third encyclical since he became pope in 2005. Filled with terms like “globalization,” “market economy,” “outsourcing,” “labor unions” and “alternative energy,” it is not surprising that the Italian media reported that the Vatican was having difficulty translating the 144-page document into Latin. . . .

Benedict also called for a reform of the United Nations so that there can be a unified “global political body” that allows the less powerful of the earth to have a voice, and called on rich nations to help less fortunate ones.

“In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all,” he wrote. . . .

Arguably the most environmentally-conscious pope in history, Benedict wrote that, “One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that the notion of ‘efficiency’ is not value-free.”

In line with what he calls “respecting the intrinsic value of creation,” he also decried stem cell research, abortion and euthanasia.

So let me get this straight.  Benedict thinks we need a strong world government to regulate the excesses of the economy.  And address the plight of the world’s poorest and most disadvantaged.  And fix the environment.  And outlaw abortion and stem cell research.

Just a bit of a mixed message there, your holiness.  I guess we’re talking about a nunny state rather than a nanny state.

It will be interesting to see how some conservatives react to this.  Some of those who most ardently support the Pope’s stance on abortion also view the UN as a mortal threat to American sovereignty.  Will they change their mind if, as the pope appears to imply, black helicopters were used to shut down abortion clinics?

For the past decade, the Catholic Church in the United States has had conservative leaders who threaten to excommunicate any Catholic politician who is pro-choice.  Will they now also threaten to excommunicate any Catholic politician who is anti-UN?  Or votes to cut funding for the developing world?  Or is in the pocket of Big Oil?  Or who supports the death penalty?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Post from: Undiplomatic

h/t

Post from: Undiplomatic

Post from: Undiplomatic

I can live with that.  In fact, I hope she succeeds in her goal of being an effective advocate for change from outside government for the rest of her career.

Post from: Undiplomatic