The Iraq war gave us Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi information minister who, while American troops patrolled nearby streets, held a defiant news conference to proclaim that there were no U.S. forces in the city. Baghdad Bob, whose real name is Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, earned a place among the ranks of colorful propagandists such as Hanoi Hannah and Tokyo Rose. Now, the genocidal Sudanese government has an entry in this category. Let's call him Khartoum Karl.
Karl -- a.k.a. John Ukec Lueth Ukec, the Sudanese ambassador to Washington -- held a news conference at the National Press Club yesterday to respond to President Bush's new sanctions against his regime. In his hour-long presentation, he described a situation in his land that bore no relation to reality.
Genocide in the Darfur region? "The United States is the only country saying that what is happening in Darfur is a genocide," Ukec shouted, gesticulating wildly and perspiring from his bald crown. "I think this is a pretext." Ah. So what about the more than 400,000 dead? "See how many people are dying in Darfur: None," he said.
And the 2 million displaced? "I am not a statistician."
Khartoum Karl went on to say that, all evidence to the contrary, his government does not support the murderous Janjaweed militia. "It cannot happen," he said, "so rule it out." As for the Sudanese regime itself: "We are the agents of peace, people like me, my colleagues who are in the central government of Sudan."
What's more, the good and peaceful leaders of Sudan were prepared to retaliate massively: They would cut off shipments of the emulsifier gum arabic, thereby depriving the world of cola.
"I want you to know that the gum arabic which runs all the soft drinks all over the world, including the United States, mainly 80 percent is imported from my country," the ambassador said after raising a bottle of Coca-Cola. A reporter asked if Sudan was threatening to "stop the export of gum arabic and bring down the Western world."
"I can stop that gum arabic and all of us will have lost this," Khartoum Karl warned anew, beckoning to the Coke bottle. "But I don't want to go that way."
As diplomatic threats go, that one gets high points for creativity: Try to stop the killings in Darfur, and we'll take away your Coca-Cola.
But then, Ukec is a very creative man. While millions in Darfur go hungry, he suggested that the U.S. sanctions would limit "the sugar the Darfurians need seriously." He explained: "The people of Darfur, they need a lot of sugar and they are used to it." The gems kept tumbling from his lips. "Sudan is the breadbasket of the world," he boasted, and it is setting up "the best democracy in the world." Further, "we have opened our arms to the rest of the world." All this genocide talk "is just a concocted idea." After all, "Darfur is a very small spot," he argued, and "we are not warmongers."
Khartoum Karl paid about $600 for a small room at the press club and a spread of Coca-Cola products. A dozen reporters, and a similar number of Sudanese Embassy officials, watched the ambassador for an hour as he shouted into the microphone and delivered a circular and rambling complaint about the injustice of U.S. sanctions. His fingers, fists and arms flew through the air, exposing the flashy gold watch on his wrist. Growing less lucid as the hour progressed, Ukec blamed a Darfur lobby "that has taken control of the Democratic Party," which in turn pressured Bush to take action against Sudan. "The Democrats do not want Bush to go through with the success he has made in Sudan," the ambassador reasoned.
Whenever he found himself in a rhetorical jam, which was frequently, Ukec had an all-purpose answer: Iraq. Justifying the killings in Darfur that he had just denied, he asked: "How many times have we seen on the TV civilians in Iraq have been killed? And they are said to be collateral. Why does it apply to United States and it doesn't apply to the army of Sudan?"
The ambassador's perspiration became more profuse as he answered questions about the killings. "It's Darfurians fighting among themselves," he ventured. "It's just you and your cousin fighting with you."
Undoubtedly, Khartoum Karl is under a great deal of stress these days, and, toward the end, he revealed the personal nature of his complaint. "You are failing me in particular," he said. "The people of Sudan sent me here because they know I have good relationship with you guys. . . . And I come and I've been slammed with the sanctions."
It was, perhaps, the only honest thing the ambassador said all day. "I am the man with the toughest job in the world," he asserted. With Baghdad Bob out of business, that just may be the truth.
Yesterday, the Kremlin seemed to put another nail in the coffin of U.S.-Russian relations by testing a new intercontinental ballistic missile supposedly capable of penetrating any missile-defense system. Any missile-defense system? More like our missile-defense system.
In reality, the new Russian RS-24 long-range missile test is about a lot more than the advent of U.S. missile-defense systems. A lot more . . .
For starters, the missile's real targets include the domestic audience. Putin longs for Russia's heady superpower days - and so does much of his public. The once-proud Russian military, especially its strategic forces, have weakened from neglect; advanced U.S. missile defenses make it feel even more effete. A new ICBM is a real shot in the arm. Demonstrations of renewed military might not only please his generals, but also distract from problems such as the retreat of democracy, corruption and rollbacks on media freedoms.
And the RS-24 isn't really an answer to the missile-defense sites that the United States plans to build in the Czech Republic and Poland, as Russia has implied. That system isn't a shield against Russia, but against Iran, whose runaway nuclear program might start pumping out bombs within the next two to three years. More, it's meant to protect our European friends and allies as well as America. That's why NATO (which has been skeptical of missile defense) has expressed approval.
The Russkies point out that Iranian missiles can't reach Europe yet - or the United States. But "yet" is the operative term from our perspective: You can't just build a missile-defense base overnight.
And Russia's public complaints about the shield are plainly absurd - growling that the deployments are "destabilizing," and could turn Eastern Europe into a "powder keg." In fact, the European missile-defense site doesn't affect Russia's strategic deterrent. Russia would launch its ICBMs at the United States over the North Pole, not Poland. The Russians know this - we've sent numerous high-level officials over to explain until they're blue in the gills.
Truth is, the Kremlin just doesn't like NATO's expansion into the old Soviet empire. It's a reminder of how far Russia has fallen - and a complicating factor in exerting influence in its old stomping grounds. It certainly doesn't want to see any more former Soviet satellites in its "near abroad" join NATO - but Ukraine and Georgia just might. Consider all the saber-rattling as push-back.
Russia's supposed "anger" and "fear" over the issue also serve as a fine red herring. In February, it announced it was withdrawing from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, saying European missile defense was the cause. Then, when Russia put a moratorium on the 1990 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) accord last month, Western experts put it down as the same story.
In fact, Putin most likely wants out of the CFE so he can both build up Russian conventional forces and retain Moscow's power base in the Caucasus. Russia now has troops in both Moldova and Georgia, ostensibly to protect ethnic Russians who stayed after the Soviet Union fell - but really to keep the Kremlin's influence strong.
And he probably wants out of the INF because that accord limits the missiles Russia can deploy. The Kremlin is understandably nervous about the spread of nuclear and ballistic missile capability among its neighbors, including China, Pakistan, India, North Korea - and even Iran. (Ironically, Russia bears considerable blame for the proliferation; it's been selling technology and other know-how for years.)
In the end, the missile launch and all the other Russian chest-beating are about almost everything besides U.S. missile defense. We're just a good excuse for Russian "arms-racing" - the Kremlin has its eye on other potential competitors in its own weight class.
President Bush should keep this in mind when he meets with Putin in July in Kennebunkport, Maine - ensuring that our missile-defense efforts against the likes of Iran and North Korea remain robust and on track.
Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Peter Brookes is a former deputy assistant secretary of Defense.
#1
Both Russia & ChiComs are flush with cash these days. They are re-arming in Russia and spending like a drunken sailor on new capabilities in China. Until money tap is shut down, look for a lot more of this from both of them.
#3
Russia has long vacillated between desperately wanting to be like westerners and rejecting everything western at all. It reflects their personality, half European and half Asian.
It has been said that they pine for the bistros of Paris, but when they visit them, they ache to be riding on horseback in Siberia, and visa versa.
But as the saying goes, when a Russian acts like a European, he is lying and intends to betray. Only when he acts like an Asian can you trust him.
#4
So it's back to the old cold war, huh? At least we got some great spy novels out of it. Aren't the Russians supposed to be havink another election soon?
#5
The Kremlin is understandably nervous about the spread of nuclear and ballistic missile capability among its neighbors, including China, Pakistan, India, North Korea - and even Iran. (Ironically, Russia bears considerable blame for the proliferation; it's been selling technology and other know-how for years.)
In other words: Putin is whingeing because Russia's actions have come back to bite them on the ass. If these fascist morons hadn't proliferated everything but the kitchen sink, maybe we wouldn't need to be building the Missile Defense System in Europe.
#6
The most important unintended consequence of what is primarily a domestic PR move is that it drives the recently elected Merkel and Sarkozy more strongly back to the US. Pootie is going to have a much more skeptical partners for long term energy deals. Maybe he can trading oil for food from his Chinese friends.
If you've heard the celebratory noises coming out of European capitals of late, you could be forgiven for thinking that, as with Mark Twain's prematurely recorded demise, reports of Europe's death may have been greatly exaggerated. For a continent in the supposed grip of demographic implosion, economic stagnation, political paralysis and existential anomie, the news has been oddly cheerful recently. . . .
All this could not have come at a more opportune moment. The European Union's leaders are in the midst of lengthy celebrations to mark the 50th anniversary of the founding of the European Communities. At the same time, the gloom that enveloped the EU after the French and Dutch rejected its beloved constitutional treaty two years ago has been replaced by a restrained optimism that the show might just be put back on the road this summer.
Is it possible, then, that the writers who have spent the past few years predicting Europe's collapse could be wrong? The short answer is: no. Even a corpse has been known to twitch once or twice before the rigor mortis sets in. The longer answer is provided by Walter Laqueur in "The Last Days of Europe," one of the more persuasive in a long line of volumes by authors on both sides of the Atlantic chronicling Europe's decline and foretelling its collapse. . . .
Go read it all.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/31/2007 06:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think most of us here would agree and not look forward to the collapse of Western Europe. It will send shockwaves around the world. 500 years of Western thought, liberalism (the good kind, like women's rights) and social freedoms will be in danger of coming to an end. We might see a dark age in our children's lifetimes if the US decides to commit cultural suicide like Europe.
#2
The Palestinian strategy is to purposely target and kill Israeli civilians. Then, when Israel goes after those launching the attacks, Palestinians claim to be the victims. If Palestinian civilians arent hurt in the Israeli attacks, they stage injuries and deaths.
Too often, they garner sympathy and support from a gullible or anti-Semitic media in the international community.
Israelis, themselves, are often incapable of facing the damage they inflict in self-defense. Knowing this, Islamic extremists are using their own populations as human shields.
He gets it
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2007 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No kidding he gets it and he knows that this written word is going to be there for the Tim Russerts of the world to refer to. That means that he is going to have to repeat it, say that he believes it and say that anyone who doesn't either has their head in the sand, is just plain dumb or is working for the other side.
This is not mealy mouth. This is plain-spoken english that the common man is going to understand and appreciate. He is going to be able to reach that common man in a way that will go right around the media. Go Fred. Be the man, the leader, we so desperately need.
#4
jeez, I hope wxjames doesn't question his authenticity
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2007 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I detect Reaganism: absolute pre-conditions before negotiating peace. And Reaganism ended the Soviet empire, and pushed Castro out of Latin America.
Israel has been under intense US pressure to restrain an effective response to terrorism against civilians. The thinking is that if democracy works in the Middle East, then majorities will start liking Israel. Fred T doesn't buy that.
As for his acting, Thompson has mostly been seen playing authority figures, even on Rosanne. However, he played a con-man on the "Wise Guy" series, and was great.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
