Allies of the USA, beware

We are all observing what’s happening in Pakistan. We also know that USA is very bewildered as to how India treats USA (refusing to buy their planes, refusing to get into security pacts, refusing the sign the NPT, voting against them in the UN) and refuses to become an ally. But India knows better, being an ally of the USA is very dangerous indeed. Because with the good things, come some very bad things. Democracies tend to manage USA a bit better because the USA, ostensibly and publicly, cannot really go against the will of the people (not that it doesn't try, look at the wiki leaks papers). But for dictators who think that USA is a good ally and are accustomed to operating on the Somoza model (President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) supposedly remarked in 1939 that "Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch). So Pakistan should be very very worried and I do not find it surprising it at all that its sticking two fingers up to USA.

As the quote by Lord Palmerston, an English Statesman who died in 1865 goes, Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests. Dont ascribe human emotions to nations and foreign policy. This is why I found the Labour idea of an ethical Foreign Policy stupid. Anyway…

Here’s another relevant quote if one of the moth eaten generals of the Pakistani kind decide to take power.

Alternatively, suppose Qaddafi winds up hanging from a lamppost in his favourite party dress. If you’re a Third World dictator, what lessons would you draw? Qaddafi was the thug who came in from the cold, the one who (in the wake of Saddam’s fall) renounced his nuclear program and was supposedly rehabilitated in the chancelleries of the West. He was a strong partner in the war on terrorism, according to U.S. diplomats. And what did Washington do? They overthrew him anyway. — Mark Steyn

Same person, 2 jobs, 2 opinions - welcome to Pakistan

Now this is why I said in my post few days back.

"so what will you do if Pakistan does not do what you want them to do?"

Here's a fascinating reason why. This is a column written in one of Pakistan's main newspapers. And he talks about how the same person, Ambassador Hussein Haqqani, speaks from two sides of his mouth. I am going to quote this imaginary conversation with Hillary Clinton and US Ambassador Haqqani at length:

Haqqani: Madam Secretary, as I said to the New York Times on Nov 27, 2008: "It is unfair to blame Pakistan or Pakistanis for these acts of terrorism even before an investigation is undertaken".
Clinton: But Husain, on October 10, 2007 (not that long ago), you testified to the American people, through the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. In it you said that, "Pakistan continues to be a major centre for Islamist militancy… Radical Islamists who came from all over the world to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan went on to become allies of Pakistan's military intelligence apparatus, which used them to fight Indian control over the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir as well as to expand Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan." So it seems that it may indeed be fair to blame Pakistan, no?
Haqqani: Madame Secretary, as I said to your friend George Stephanopolous on November 30, 2008, "The important thing is, everybody in the world is now coming round to agreeing that the government of Pakistan, the state of Pakistan, the military of Pakistan and even the intelligence services are not directly involved. That's the good news."
Clinton: George used to be a friend, but that's off-topic. I remember right after the Daniel Pearl kidnapping, you wrote a marvellous op-ed in the New York Times. It was like an early Valentine's Day gift for General Musharraf, published on Feb 13, 2002, and titled "Trying to Create a New Pakistan". In it you said, that "For now, Pakistan's leaders need to acknowledge that, in the strategic struggle with India, Pakistan nurtured the formation of terrorist cells that are capable of acts like kidnapping Mr. Pearl. If Pakistan is to make a clean break with such policies, it will have to begin cooperating with India by exchanging intelligence and agreeing to extradite wanted terrorists."
Haqqani: Madame Secretary, I have been telling you and everyone else in Washington DC that the US needed to ditch the dictator Musharraf, but you and your government took too long to take action.
Clinton: Well, Musharraf's been gone for four or five months now. Has your government begun to exchange intelligence with India? Has it handed over wanted terrorists? After all this is your advice to your country. Now you have a chance to carry out that advice.
Haqqani: As I said to Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition, on Nov 30, 2008, "Pakistan has made it very clear this time around Pakistan is not going to give any quarter to any terrorist groups and we want to work with India. We will cooperate in the investigation and we'll make sure we get these guys if they have any connection to us."
Clinton: It's interesting that you mention the interview with Wolf. You see in all your written work you clearly stipulate that the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) is a product of the ISI. But when Wolf Blitzer, asked you if LeT was created by Pakistani intelligence, you said "Well, there's no way for me to know who created it."
Haqqani: Madame Secretary there isn't.
Clinton: Yes but in the Current Trends in Islamist Ideology (Volume 1, April 2005) paper you write that the LeT was, "founded in 1989 by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed (and) backed by Saudi money and protected by Pakistani intelligence services." Then in Volume 3 (Feb 2006) you write that, "Lashkar-e-Taiba is closely linked to the Saudi religious establishment, as well as to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence". Again in Volume 4 (Nov 2006) you write that, "the Pakistani military and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) supported militant Sunni Islamist groups in the northwest frontier bordering Afghanistan, as well as in Punjab and Baluchistan." And then, in your book, you write that the ISI directly pays the head of the LeT (on page 306), and that the "ISI was not too keen to offend its jihadi partners" by shutting them down (on page 303). Sounds like you do have a way of knowing who created the LeT.
Haqqani: Well, the LeT-ISI link is no more. As I keep saying, Pakistan's government, its people, its military and its intelligence agencies are all clean. We have nothing to do with these non-state actors.
Clinton: Sounds great Husain. I wish I could believe you. You see it simply boggles the mind that within a year since when you testified to the House Armed Services Committee, that Pakistan has changed dramatically. What should I tell President Obama? What has changed that has suddenly cleaned up Pakistan?

I could have answered that hypothetical question. Actually, Pakistan has not changed at all, and will not do so either. It has and will remain the epicentre of terrorism till some basics are not understood by the Americans and the wider world. Shooting missiles at them will not help. Pressurising the democratic government will not help. Writing op-ed's will not work. The problem is and continues to remain, is with the Pakistani Army (and its various appendages such as the intelligence agency and the like). It is that body which is injurious to the health of that country, its neighbours, the world and and and. If you do not believe me, see what happens hypothetically above.

But again, I am certainly not holding my breath that the Americans will change their foreign policy. The Pakistani Army will remain top of the heap and will keep on creating problems. Ah! well, will not be surprised if war does break out. After all, that is what the Pakistani Army wants, a nice full fledged war which will justify its existence and give it another reason to rule over Pakistan for more decades. In any case, read the 2 faced pronouncements of the US Ambassador and the Leader of the Pakistani Opposition saying that Pakistan is a failed state and then wonder at the imbecility of it all.

Technorati Tags: Pakistan,USA,Foreign Policy

THE NEXT CHAPTER- THE UNITED STATES AND PAKISTAN

So let me understand this clearly, Pakistan allows terrorists to run rampant on its soil who merrily attack its neighbouring countries. And what does the USA do? It publishes this pile of pap. What is extremely worrying is that this pile of pap was written by the great and good of American Foreign Policy experts belonging to the US Institute of Peace, namely:

Richard L. Armitage
Lee H. Hamilton

Kara L. Bue, Armitage International, L.C.
Lisa Curtis, The Heritage Foundation
Walter Andersen, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Stephen P. Cohen, The Brookings Institution
Xenia Dormandy, Harvard University
C. Christine Fair
John A. Gastright, Jr., DynCorp International
Robert M. Hathaway, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Dennis Kux, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Daniel Markey, Council on Foreign Relations
Polly Nayak, Independent Consultant
J Alexander Thier, United States Institute of Peace
Marvin G. Weinbaum, The Middle East Institute
Nicholas Hamisevicz, The Heritage Foundation

And what do these worthies come up with as the recommendations?

• Commissioning a new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate to form a common operating picture on militancy in Pakistan and elsewhere. Based on this report, the U.S. government should develop a comprehensive strategy to address threats in Pakistan.
• Exhibiting patience with Pakistan’s newly elected leaders in their struggle against extremist elements and working to stabilize the government through economic aid and diplomacy.
• Assisting Afghanistan and Pakistan to transform their border from a hostile frontier into an “economic gateway.”
• Assigning primary responsibility for coordinating and implementing Pakistan-Afghanistan policy to a senior U.S. official to promote better ties between the two states.
• Increasing support for democratic institutions and efforts to build transparency and rule of law.
• Implementing a robust public diplomacy program emphasizing mutual interests in combating extremism, creating prosperity and improving regional relationships.
• Calibrating aid to Pakistan based on the level of Pakistan’s use of militants in its foreign policy.
• Committing to $1.5 billion/ year in non-military aid tied to accountability and rigorous oversight.
• Working with regional powers and Pakistan’s partners such as China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to build stability and counterterrorism in Pakistan.

But the basic question which these buggers forget is, so what if the Pakistani State, Army and Politicians do exactly what they have done till now, ignore all what you say and still allow the terrorists to run riot? Let me see, it is now 7 years since that famous phone call after 9/11. And the situation is now even worse. There was NO Pakistani Taliban at that time, now you have two Taliban groups, one in Pakistan and another in Afghanistan. Nice going. You have Pakistani state backed terrorists who are attacking democratic countries around the globe. These terrorists are giving money to other terrorists and also carrying out terrorism in Iraq and other places. And just what is the USA going to do?

That's the crucial question which these senior foreign policy chaps do not address. Every time, these bloody reports come out, thinking that these recommendations will start from scratch, but nobody looks back and says, so what will you do if Pakistan does not do what you want them to do?

See what the authors say even now.

What does the United States want from Pakistan?

• A stable government enjoying the support of the Pakistani people and responsive to their needs.
• Unstinting support in the effort to track down those responsible for the 2001 attack on the United States.
• A common effort in the struggle to defeat the forces of extremism and terrorism, including in Kashmir.
• A safeguards system that makes virtually impossible the unauthorized use, transfer, or theft of Pakistan’s most dangerous weapons and technologies.
• A state that lives in peace with its neighbours, most notably India and Afghanistan.

This is what they wanted back in 2001. And sweet sod all has been done on each and every point. And they do not consider this simple point. What's worse is that these worthies are responsible for the future evolution of Foreign Policy of the USA towards Pakistan. Now, here's a prediction. Since nothing has happened in the past 7 years, even if Obama gets a second term, in 8 years time, another report will come out and nothing will have happened in those 8 years either to achieve American Foreign Policy objectives. Good heavens. Dont you guys think that trying to keep on doing the same thing over and over again expecting things to change with Pakistan is a sign of insanity? Have you tried to show some fresh thinking? Of course not. I am now very cynical about the Obama administration and any progress towards the Afghanistan War resolution unlike in Iraq.

Technorati Tags: Pakistan,Terrorism,Afghanistan,USA

Obama should take up cricket to do well in Foreign Policy

This was the funniest political commentary I have read for a long time. I am going to quote liberally from this article. Very funny specially when you think that Americans have challenges with Cricket!

Mr Obama ought to take his lead from a more complex and demanding game than baseball. When it comes to foreign policy, he should take cricket as his text. There are seven lessons about the international system that Mr Obama could learn from cricket.

1. The first lesson derives from the fact that, like foreign policy, cricket is played outside the US. It is followed by perhaps one or two billion people. Unlike baseball’s World Series, cricket’s World Cup actually involves the world. To succeed in cricket, you need to understand the different approaches of the various cricketing nations. After all, the cricketing world contains multitudes: an emerging great power, India; awkward powers such as Pakistan and rogue regimes such as Zimbabwe; fading imperial powers like the UK and regional metropoles such as South Africa. Rich countries such as Australia play cricket but so do poor countries such as Bangladesh. It is even played in Kenya, Mr Obama’s ancestral homeland. The International Cricket Council is located in the cockpit of geopolitics, the Persian Gulf. Why does all this matter? Because the US needs to get much better at understanding other countries and cultures. With bloody conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear programmes in Iran and North Korea, a cooling economy and a warming planet, America can ill afford its usual self-absorption. Mr Obama needs to be deaf to the siren songs of protectionism and isolationism and alert to the voices (both the cheers and the jeers) of the world.
2. Second, as Americans often complain, cricket is a long game. A Test match often takes five days – and ends in a draw. Things are opaque in cricket, as in life: sometimes a draw can be a win. Cricket requires patience and discipline, which are not virtues we normally associate with the US. They were, however, on display during Mr Obama’s impressive campaign and they are exactly the qualities his administration will need in order to prevail in the war in Afghanistan.
3. Third, in the game of cricket, the condition of the pitch is critical. The ball usually bounces before it reaches the batsman, which introduces extra unpredictability into the contest. The ball does not just swing in the air, it turns off the seam. It can come at your head, not just your chest. In foreign policy, too, the decision-making environment is fast and fluid. It is difficult to see the choices before you, let alone make the right ones.
4. Fourth, in foreign policy as in cricket, you cannot win a match with a single swing, regardless of the beauty of your cover drive. The invasion of Iraq demonstrated a baseball player’s mentality. Mr Bush thought he could fix all the problems of the Middle East at once: displace Saddam Hussein and the regimes around him would tumble like dominoes, tyranny would end, the Palestinians would make a deal, the price of oil would fall and the US would acquire new bases in the region. Perhaps if Mr Bush had coached a cricket team rather than owning a baseball franchise, he might have taken a different approach. He certainly would have understood that a match-winning innings is built over the course of many hours and hundreds of shots.
5. Fifth, the captain’s role is crucial. He sets the strategy and places the field. But he has to work through his players: he cannot deliver every ball and score every run. The captain is not the decider: he is first among equals. So it is with foreign policy, too. America’s allies and partners are tired of American unilateralism – but they are ready for American leadership.
6. Sixth, toughness has its place. Very few cricket matches are won through sweet reason alone. It is commendable that Mr Obama has cast aside Mr Bush’s prejudice against talking to America’s adversaries, but he needs to ensure those adversaries do not mistake his reasonableness for weakness. On the other hand, assertiveness comes in different forms – spin bowling as well as pace, forceful diplomacy as well as force.
7. Finally, the primacy of no cricket team is assured forever. Australia has dominated international cricket for the past decade through its brilliance, aggression and athleticism – but that period may now be coming to an end. The commonly heard claims of America’s decline are surely premature, yet nothing should be taken for granted. Much depends on the calibre of the new management in Washington.

Technorati Tags: Cricket,Sports,Foreign Policy,USA

And we have another silly reason for terrorism and extremism

I keep on saying that linking Palestine and British foreign policy to British extremism and terrorism in the UK is stupid. Here's my previous essay on how intellectually vacuous this argument is.

But then, I am never surprised that even ostensibly liberal Muslims fall into this frankly dangerous way of thinking. Here's another example of people's who need to go have a rethink about their basic logic circuits.

He starts off well enough, but then homes into the fact that people think that Islam is not violent. I agree. It is not violent. Then he goes and says something like this:

Most of all, British foreign policy has a direct bearing on nurturing extremism. The occupation of Iraq, the byproducts of the "war on terror", the perpetual suffering of the Palestinians are not amenable to Sufi solutions or deprogramming techniques. So we don't need neocon ex-extremists to tell us what extremism is about. They are part of the problem, not the solution. But we do need a viable politics that tackles the root cause of extremism. Whatever the joy in heaven, we cannot allow former lunatics to take over the asylum.

What exactly is the link between a British Muslim and a Palestinian? If it is only religion, then it goes to prove that the religion is violent, because if it was not, then why on earth are British Hindu's not blowing up Londoners because the United Kingdom's foreign policy is supporting the Pakistani government which is not protecting Hindu's in Pakistan? See what I mean? Totally inconsistent and incoherent. These leaders and intellectual people are, to a very large degree, themselves responsible for the rise in Islamophobia. When the Muslim leaders themselves do this.....

Do you see what I mean? People do not understand this kind of thinking and that's why people like Sardar will always be a figure of curiosity rather than a figure of intellectual challenge. It is these kinds of people who are giving support to terrorists. I quote, what i wrote. I have no reason to believe that Mr. Sardar is any different from these so called leaders.

I think that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a bad mistake. That does not mean that I express my opinion by blowing up people travelling by Tube or plane — that would simply make me a murderer.

It is regrettable that these Muslim leaders do not understand politics. Yes, protest against British policy, but write letters to editors, demonstrate in the streets, support antiwar candidates in elections and campaign in forums. I find their supine behaviour and willingness to pander to medieval feudal and autocratic thought processes totally unacceptable.

He should stick to what he does best, writing about medieval manuscripts. FHe has, very creditably, flatly rejected terrorism, but by giving credence to such silly reasons such as foreign policy, he unfortunately undermines his own credibility. And to think that he must be saying so just so that he can play to the peanut gallery. If he was not, then this excuse will not come up or will be more balanced.

Technorati Tags: terrorism,terrorism supporters,united kingdom,palestine,israel,foreign Policy

What was the point of this?

Ok, so let me understand this. My tax pounds went to fund a trip by some foreign office mandarins and associated hangers-on of Bangladeshi extraction to go to Bangladesh to extol image of United Kingdom to Bangladeshi's? The mind boggles as to why on bloody earth are my tax dollars being used for this totally insane, inane and idiotic endeavour. What was the benefit? To get students in our educational courses?

Tell me something, how on earth can one of the poorest and most corrupt countries have so many students which can pay foreign student fees of tens of thousands of pounds in the UK? and most of them will stay back in the UK. How many Bangladeshi undergraduate and postgraduate students has this kind of programme attracted? I can understand going to China or India (see the picture here which I took in Lucknow, India). And as it so happens, there were only 2 blog posts here on the entire trip and only 1 occasion to visit an existing university.

I went to the website here, and I cannot still understand what was the point of this trip? So assuming 10 people, at £3000 per business class plane ticket per head, 1 week trip, with £500 per day expenses all in and then say 10,000 per head honorarium (for 8 people), that comes to approximately £130,000. Now, on a normal investment basis, compounded every 1 week, with one additional similar trip per year, over 5 years will give me £993,576.12. That's a million quid roughly. If my back of a fag pack calculations are right, how is the FCO and Ms. Haq going to justify this jolly?

So this was funded by the Foreign Office. What Foreign Policy objectives did this fulfil? I am totally unclear about that as well, reading the blog did not enlighten me either.

Technorati Tags: Foreign Policy,Bangladesh,United Kingdom

Abkhazia, the country that doesn't exist, prepares to follow Kosovo's example

Further to my essay on the spectacularly silly decision on recognising Kosovo, here's another example of how another country wants to become independent. I quote:

Abkhazia has a president, a flag, a national anthem and even a visa system for foreign visitors but the country doesn't appear on any maps. Officially, this small piece of sub-tropical Black Sea coastline with a population today of about 170,000, is a province of Georgia.
But since a vicious war in the early 1990s, it has been functioning as an independent state and, in the aftermath of Kosovo's independence, the Abkhazians hope their statehood will be recognised by the international community.
Shortly after Kosovo declared independence, the Abkhazian parliament, located in a seafront building in the capital, Sukhumi, issued a call for international recognition.
"After the recognition of Kosovo by many Western states, the geopolitical situation has significantly changed," read the parliament's statement. "Any legal decision has a universal character... All people have the same rights to freedom and independence."
On the seafront promenade, in the shadow of war-damaged buildings, old men while away the days drinking Turkish-style coffee and playing chess and backgammon. "Why is Kosovo any better than Abkhazia?" asked one. "It's exactly the same situation. We're a small country trying to stand on our own two feet."
The local papers are awash with Kosovo headlines and accusations that the West is engaging in "double standards" by recognising Kosovo but not Abkhazia. Western countries have said that Kosovo is a unique case, voicing support for Georgia's "territorial integrity", and a resolution to the Abkhazian conflict that does not alter Georgia's official boundaries.
Abkhazia's main hope for recognition is Russia. Vladimir Putin has hinted on several occasions that if the West recognised Kosovo, Russia may recognise Abkhazia and three other "breakaway states" on former Soviet soil.

Technorati Tags: Abkhazia,Kosovo,Independence,Democracy,Foreign Policy

Gordon Brown shaking hands with a dictator

Gordon Brown has lost his mind. He is shaking hands with a dictator?? What happened to the ethical foreign policy? This General who has chucked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan into house arrest is treated as a honoured guest? What's next? a state dinner for the Burmese Generals? Doesnt he know that the legal system is the bedrock and spine which keeps a nation on the straight and narrow? And Gordon Brown is actively helping to destroy another country.

Read this open letter from the Chief Justice and weep for that poor country. And sneer at Gordon Brown for his hypocrisy (not to mention his incompetence!!!)


AN OPEN LETTER TO:

His Excellency
The President of the European Parliament,
Brussels.

His Excellency
The President of France,
Paris.

His Excellency
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,
London.

Her Excellency
Ms. Condaleeza Rice,
Secretary of State,
United States of America,
Washington D.C.

Professor Klaus Schwab,
World Economic Forum,
Geneva.

All through their respective Ambassodors, High Commissioners and representatives.


Excellency,

I am the Chief Justice of Pakistan presently detained in my residence since November 3, 2007 pursuant to some verbal, and unspecified, order passed by General Musharraf.
I have found it necessary to write to you, and others, because during his recent visits to Brussels, Paris, Davos and London General Musharraf has slandered me, and my colleagues, with impunity in press conferences and other addresses and meetings. In addition he has widely distributed, among those whom he has met, a slanderous document (hereinafter the Document) entitled: “PROFILE OF THE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN”. I might have let this go unresponded but the Document, unfortunately, is such an outrage that, with respect, it is surprising that a person claiming to be head of state should fall to such depths as to circulate such calumny against the Chief Justice of his own country.
In view of these circumstances I have no option but to join issue with General Musharraf and to put the record straight. Since he has voiced his views on several public occasions so as to reach out to the public at large, I also am constrained to address your excellencies in an Open Letter to rebut the allegations against me.
At the outset you may be wondering why I have used the words “claiming to be the head of state”. That is quite deliberate. General Musharraf’s constitutional term ended on November 15, 2007. His claim to a further term thereafter is the subject of active controversy before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It was while this claim was under adjudication before a Bench of eleven learned judges of the Supreme Court that the General arrested a majority of those judges in addition to me on November 3, 2007. He thus himself subverted the judicial process which remains frozen at that point. Besides arresting the Chief Justice and judges (can there have been a greater outrage?) he also purported to suspend the Constitution and to purge the entire judiciary (even the High Courts) of all independent judges. Now only his hand-picked and compliant judges remain willing to “validate” whatever he demands. And all this is also contrary to an express and earlier order passed by the Supreme Court on November 3, 2007.
Meantime I and my colleagues remain in illegal detention. With me are also detained my wife and three of my young children, all school-going and one a special child. Such are the conditions of our detention that we cannot even step out on to the lawn for the winter sun because that space is occupied by police pickets. Barbed wire barricades surround the residence and all phone lines are cut. Even the water connection to my residence has been periodically turned off. I am being persuaded to resign and to forego my office, which is what I am not prepared to do.
I request you to seek first hand information of the barricades and of my detention, as that of my children, from your Ambassador/High Commissioner/representative in Pakistan. You will get a report of such circumstances as have never prevailed even in medieval times. And these are conditions put in place, in the twenty-first century, by a Government that you support.
Needless to say that the Constitution of Pakistan contains no provision for its suspension, and certainly not by the Chief of Army Staff. Nor can it be amended except in accordance with Articles 238 and 239 which is by Parliament and not an executive or military order. As such all actions taken by General Musharraf on and after November 3 are illegal and ultra vires the Constitution. That is why it is no illusion when I describe myself as the Chief Justice even though I am physically and forcibly incapacitated by the state apparatus under the command of the General. I am confident that as a consequence of the brave and unrelenting struggle continued by the lawyers and the civil society, the Constitution will prevail.
However, in the meantime, General Musharraf has launched upon a vigourous initiative to defame and slander me. Failing to obtain my willing abdication he has become desperate. The eight-page Document is the latest in this feverish drive.
Before I take up the Document itself let me recall that the General first ousted me from the Supreme Court on March 9 last year while filing an indictment (in the form of a Reference under Article 209 of the Constitution) against me. According to the General the Reference had been prepared after a thorough investigation and comprehensively contained all the charges against me. I had challenged that Reference and my ouster before the Supreme Court. On July 20 a thirteen member Bench unanimously struck down the action of the General as illegal and unconstitutional. I was honourably reinstated.
The Reference was thus wholly shattered and all the charges contained therein trashed. These cannot now be regurgitated except in contempt of the Supreme Court. Any way, since the Document has been circulated by no less a person than him I am constrained to submit the following for your kind consideration in rebuttal thereof:
The Document is divided into several heads but the allegations contained in it can essentially be divided into two categories: those allegations that were contained in the Reference and those that were not.
Quite obviously, those that are a repeat from the Reference hold no water as these have already been held by the Supreme Court to not be worth the ink they were written in. In fact, the Supreme Court found that the evidence submitted against me by the Government was so obviously fabricated and incorrect, that the bench took the unprecedented step of fining the Government Rs. 100,000 (a relatively small amount in dollar terms, but an unheard of sum with respect to Court Sanction in Pakistan) for filing clearly false and malicious documents, as well as revoking the license to practice of the Advocate on Record for filing false documents. Indeed, faced with the prospect of having filed clearly falsified documents against me, the Government’s attorneys, including the Attorney General, took a most dishonorable but telling approach. Each one, in turn, stood before the Supreme Court and disowned the Government’s Reference, and stated they had not reviewed the evidence against me before filing it with Court. They then filed a formal request to the Court to withdraw the purported evidence, and tendered an unconditional apology for filing such a scandalous and false documents. So baseless and egregious were the claims made by General Musharraf that on July 20th, 2007, the full Supreme Court for the first time in Pakistan’s history, ruled unanimously against a sitting military ruler and reinstated me honorably to my post.
Despite having faced these charges in open court, must I now be slandered with those same charges by General Musharraf in world capitals, while I remain a prisoner and unable to speak in my defense?

There are, of course, a second set of charges. These were not contained in the Reference and are now being bandied around by the General at every opportunity.
I forcefully and vigorously deny every single one of them. The truth of these “new” allegations can be judged from the fact that they all ostensibly date to the period before the reference was filed against me last March, yet none of them was listed in the already bogus charge sheet.
If there were any truth to these manufactured charges, the Government should have included them in the reference against me. God knows they threw in everything including the kitchen sink into that scurrilous 450 page document, only to have it thrown out by the entire Supreme Court after a 3 month open trial.
The charges against me are so transparently baseless that General Musharraf’s regime has banned the discussion of my situation and the charges in the broadcast media. This is because the ridiculous and flimsy nature of the charges is self-evident whenever an opportunity is provided to actually refute them.
Instead, the General only likes to recite his libel list from a rostrum or in gathering where there is no opportunity for anyone to respond. Incidentally, the General maligns me in the worst possible way at every opportunity. That is the basis for the Document he has distributed. But he has not just deposed me from the Judiciary. He has also fired more than half of the Superior Judiciary of Pakistan – nearly 50 judges in all -- together with me. They have also been arrested and detained.
What are the charges against them? Why should they be fired and arrested if I am the corrupt judge? Moreover even my attorneys Aitzaz Ahsan, Munir Malik, Tariq Mahmood and Ali Ahmed Kurd were also arrested on November 3. Malik alone has been released but only because both his kidneys collapsed as a result of prison torture
Finally, as to the Document, it also contains some further allegations described as “Post-Reference Conduct” that is attributed to me under various heads. This would mean only those allegedly ‘illegal’ actions claimed to have been taken by me after March 9, 2007. These are under the heads given below and replied to as under:
“Participation in SJC (Supreme Judicial Council) Proceedings”:
(a) Retaining ‘political lawyers’: Aitzaz Ahsan and Zammurrad Khan:
It is alleged that I gave a political colour to my defence by engaging political lawyers Aitzaz Ahsan and Zamurrad Khan both Pakistan Peoples’ Party Members of the National Assembly. The answer is simple.
I sought to engage the best legal team in the country. Mr. Ahsan is of course an MNA (MP), but he is also the top lawyer in Pakistan. For that reference may be made simply to the ranking of Chambers and Partners Global. Such is his respect in Pakistan’s legal landscape that he was elected President of the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan by one of the widest margins in the Association’s history.
All high profile personalities have placed their trust in his talents. He has thus been the attorney for Prime Ministers Bhutto and Sharif, (even though he was an opponent of the latter) Presidential candidate (against Musharraf) Justice Wajihuddin, sports star and politician Imran Khan, former Speakers, Ministers, Governors, victims of political vendetta, and also the internationally acclaimed gang-rape victim Mukhtar Mai, to mention only a few.
Equally important, Barrister Ahsan is a man of integrity who is known to withstand all pressures and enticements. That is a crucial factor in enaging an attorney when one’s prosecutor is the sitting military ruler, with enourmous monetary and coercive resources at his disposal.
Mr. Zamurrad Khan is also a recognized professional lawyer, a former Secretary of the District Bar Rawalpindi, and was retained by Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan to assist him in the case. Mr. Khan has been a leading light of the Lawyers’ Movement for the restoration of the deposed judiciary and has bravely faced all threats and vilification.
Finally, surely I am entitled to my choice of lawyers and not that of the General.

(b) “Riding in Mr. Zafarullah Jamali (former Prime Minister)’s car”:
How much the Document tries to deceive is apparent from the allegation that I willingly rode in Mr. Jamali’s car for the first hearing of the case against me on March 13 (as if that alone is an offence). Actually the Government should have been ashamed of itself for creating the circumstances that forced me to take that ride.
Having been stripped of official transport on the 9th March (my vehicles were removed from my house by the use of fork lifters), I decided to walk the one-mile to the Supreme Court. Along the way I was molested and manhandled, my hair was pulled and neck craned in the full blaze of the media, by a posse of policemen under the supervision of the Inspector General of Police. (A judicial inquiry, while I was still deposed, established this fact). In order to escape the physical assault I took refuge with Mr. Jamali and went the rest of the journey on his car. Instead of taking action against the police officials for manhandling the Chief Justice it is complained that I was on the wrong!
(c) “Creating a political atmosphere”:
Never did I instigate or invite any “political atmosphere”. I never addressed the press or any political rally. I kept my lips sealed even under extreme provocation from the General and his ministers who were reviling me on a daily basis. I maintained a strict judicial silence. I petitioned the Supreme Court and won. That was my vindication.
“Country wide touring and Politicising the Issue”:
The Constitution guarantees to all citizens free movement throughout Pakistan. How can this then be a complaint?
By orders dated March 9 and 15 (both of which were found to be without lawful authority by the Court) I had been sent of “forced leave”. I could neither perform any judicial or administrative functions as the Chief Justice of Pakistan. I was prevented not only from sitting in court but also from access to my own chamber by the force of arms under orders of the General. (All my papers were removed, even private documents).
The only function as ‘a judge on forced leave’ that I could perform was to address and deliver lectures to various Bar Associations. I accepted their invitations. They are peppered all over Pakistan. I had to drive to these towns as all these are not linked by air. On the way the people of Pakistan did, indeed, turn out in their millions, often waiting from dawn to dusk or from dusk to dawn, to greet me. But I never addressed them even when they insisted that I do. I never spoke to the press. I sat quietly in my vehicle without uttering a word. All this is on the record as most journeys were covered by the media live and throughout.
I spoke only to deliver lectures on professional and constitutional issues to the Bar Associations. Transcripts of every single one of my addresses are available. Every single word uttered by me in those addresses conforms to the stature, conduct and non-political nature of the office of the Chief Justice. There was no politics in these whatsoever. I did not even mention my present status or the controversy or the proceedings before the Council or the Court, not even the Reference. Not even once.
All the persons named in the Document under this head are lawyers and were members of the reception committees in various towns and Bar Associations.
Political Leaders Calling on CJP residence:
It is alleged that I received political leaders while I was deposed. It is on the record of the Supreme Judicial Council itself that I was detained after being deposed on March 9. The only persons allowed to meet me were those cleared by the Government. One was a senior political leader. None else was allowed to see me, initially not even my lawyers. How can I be blamed for whomsoever comes to my residence?
Had I wanted to politicize the issue I would have gone to the Press or invited the media. I did not. I had recourse to the judicial process for my reinstatement and won. The General lost miserably in a fair and straight contest. That is my only fault.
“Conclusion”:
Hence the conclusion drawn by the General that charges had been proved against me ‘beyond doubt’ is absolutely contrary to the facts and wide off the mark. It is a self-serving justification of the eminently illegal action of firing and arresting judges of superior courts under the garb of an Emergency (read Martial Law) when the Constitution was ‘suspended’ and then ‘restored’ later with drastic and illegal ‘amendments’ grafted into it.
The Constitution cannot be amended except by the two Houses of Parliament and by a two-thirds majority in each House. That is the letter of the law. How can one man presume or arrogate to himself that power?
Unfortunately the General is grievously economical with the truth (I refrain from using the word ‘lies’) when he says that the charges against me were ‘investigated and verified beyond doubt’. As explained above, these had in fact been rubbished by the Full Court Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan against which judgment the government filed no application for review.

What the General has done has serious implications for Pakistan and the world. In squashing the judiciary for his own personal advantage and nothing else he has usurped the space of civil and civilized society. If civilized norms of justice will not be allowed to operate then that space will, inevitably, be occupied by those who believe in more brutal and instant justice: the extremists in the wings. Those are the very elements the world seems to be pitted against. Those are the very elements the actions of the General are making way for.
Some western governments are emphasizing the unfolding of the democratic process in Pakistan. That is welcome, if it will be fair. But, and in any case, can there be democracy if there is no independent judiciary?
Remember, independent judges and judicial processes preceded full franchise by several hundred years. Moreover, which judge in Pakistan today can be independent who has before his eyes the fate and example of his own Chief Justice: detained for three months along with his young children. What is the children’s crime, after all?
There can be no democracy without an independent judiciary, and there can be no independent judge in Pakistan until the action of November 3 is reversed. Whatever the will of some desperate men the struggle of the valiant lawyers and civil society of Pakistan will bear fruit. They are not giving up.
Let me also assure you that I would not have written this letter without the General’s unbecoming onslaught. That has compelled me to clarify although, as my past will testify, I am not given into entering into public, even private, disputes. But the allegations against me have been so wild, so wrong and so contrary to judicial record, that I have been left with no option but to put the record straight. After all, a prisoner must also have his say. And if the General’s hand-picked judges, some living next door to my prison home, have not had the courage to invoke the power of ‘habeas corpus’ these last three months, what other option do I have? Many leaders of the world and the media may choose to brush the situation under the carpet out of love of the General. But that will not be.
Nevertheless, let me also reassure you that I continue in my resolve not to preside any Bench which will be seized of matters pertaining to the personal interests of General Musharraf after the restoration of the Constitution and the judges, which, God willing, will be soon.
Finally, I leave you with the question: Is there a precedent in history, all history, of 60 judges, including three Chief Justices (of the Supreme Court and two of Pakistan’s four High Courts), being dismissed, arrested and detained at the whim of one man? I have failed to discover any such even in medieval times under any emperor, king, or sultan, or even when a dictator has had full military sway over any country in more recent times. But this incredible outrage has happened in the 21st century at the hands of an extremist General out on a ‘charm offensive’ of western capitals and one whom the west supports.
I am grateful for your attention. I have no other purpose than to clear my name and to save the country (and perhaps others as well) from the calamity that stares us in the face. We can still rescue it from all kinds of extremism: praetorian and dogmatic. After all, the edifice of an independent judicial system alone stands on the middle ground between these two extremes. If the edifice is destroyed by the one, the ground may be taken over by the other. That is what is happening in Pakistan. Practitioners of rough and brutal justice will be welcomed in spaces from where the practitioners of more refined norms of justice and balance have been made to abdicate.
I have enormous faith that the Constitution and justice will soon prevail.
Yours truly,


Iftikhar Mohammad Choudhry,
Chief Justice of Pakistan,
Presently:
imprisoned in the Chief Justice’s House,
Islamabad.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

Sarko thumbing nose to rest of Europe

I just laughed in the morning when i read this. Sarko congratulating Putin on his victory, which was despite severe electoral irregularities. That made most of the other European Leaders look po-faced. Very amusing. Just shows up the impotence of the "soft power" of European Leaders! And these very same European leaders will go whining and crawling to the Russian bear when they need oil and gas. So who is really the person who is being a hypocrite?

And guess what? UK asked for an investigation into electoral abuses. Now they have a cheek, to ask for this right during the time that we have one of the biggest party funding crisis underway. Truly, they are hypocritical

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

Awwww, the Germans are sulking! :(

I feel sorry for the Germans now and more for Angela Merkel. After all that running around, calming people down, and getting things done (like in the G8 summit), people are taking off and doing things without hearing what Germany has to say or think!, Well, if you ask me, Angela, you guys need to be a bit more pushy otherwise all the others will definitely walk all over you with hob nailed boots and to add insult to injury, will stick you with the bill for damage to the boots.


==========

DER SPIEGEL 32/2007 - August 6, 2007
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,498578,00.html
PLAYING SECOND FIDDLE
Germany Left out of Global Policy Loop

By Markus Feldenkirchen, Dirk Kurbjuweit and Alexander Szandar

Weapons for the Middle East, nuclear power for Gadhafi, nominees to head important international institutions -- and nobody even bothers to call Angela Merkel. The government in Berlin is learning a painful lesson this summer: It stands alone in its multilateralist policies and few, apparently, care what the Germans think.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel: A big player with modest influence.
REUTERS

German Chancellor Angela Merkel: A big player with modest influence.

Social Democrat Gernot Erler spent last week playing the role of stand-in for Germany's foreign policy in Berlin. With the chancellor on vacation and the foreign minister in Africa, Erler, minister of state at the Foreign Ministry, found himself shouldering more responsibilities than usual as he sat at his desk waiting for reports to roll in from around the world.

As he sat in his comfortable chair, facing a vase of flowers on his leather-covered desk, Erler wasn't exactly in a jubilant mood. The news coming in to Berlin in recent weeks was rarely good, and not just as a result of the hostage crisis in Afghanistan. Erler found himself reading about the way others pursue their global policies -- without Germany.

FROM THE MAGAZINE
Find out how you can reprint this DER SPIEGEL article in your publication.
The news was none too encouraging. The French plan to supply the Libyans with a nuclear power plant and weapons, while the Americans will be selling billions in weaponry to countries like Saudi Arabia. Erler read that a Frenchman will become the new chairman of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and former British Prime Mininster Tony Blair, as the West's new Middle East envoy, will soon be negotiating on Europe's behalf.

The worst part of this news was that Gernot Erler and the German government had to read the newspaper to learn about it. No one had asked them for their opinion or advice. In fact, no one even felt it was necessary to so much as notify Germany.

Erler is now sitting at the conference table in his office, facing another vase of fresh flowers. He takes pains to remain diplomatic as he discusses French President Nicolas Sarkozy and United States President George W. Bush. He cannot state his true feelings -- at least not publicly -- about the fact that Germany's friends and partners have taken to going it alone, without consulting Germany. His speech is peppered with expressions like "somehow misfortunate" or "would certainly have been desirable." But Erler's arms speak volumes. Locked across his chest in a defensive posture, they offer the clearest body language possible.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walther Steinmeier and Chancellor Angela Merkel: Powerless in Berlin?
DPA

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walther Steinmeier and Chancellor Angela Merkel: Powerless in Berlin?
The limits of German influence have been highlighted all too clearly in recent weeks. This has come as a shock to Berlin, especially after going through the first six months of the year basking in the warm glow of German-led multilateralism. Under German leadership, a European climate protection program and structural reforms for the European Union were developed and, at the G8 summit in the Baltic seaside resort of Heiligendamm, a climate compromise was reached to which even the stubborn US could agree.

Germany had behaved like a kindly sheepdog, gently driving the herd in one direction, keeping everyone nicely together and making sure that no one strayed too far from the herd. But now it's becoming clear that there could very well be a few wolves lurking in the herd. The US government announced its plans to sell weapons worth $60 billion to a number of countries in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia will receive $20 billion worth, Egypt another $13 billion, and even small Gulf states like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates will soon be looking forward to weapons shipments from Washington. The US is introducing massive amounts of weaponry into what is already a sensitive region.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier promptly responded with an editorial in Handelsblatt sharply critical of the move. "I do understand the legitimate security interests of the Gulf states, for example," he wrote. "But pumping new weapons into this unstable situation throughout the entire Middle East can hardly be the solution."

As right as he may be, his words are hardly likely to impress the United States. Minor concessions on climate issues are one thing, but accepting advice on matters of security policy is a different story altogether. Once again, Germany finds itself among the powerless who are kept out of the loop, even while its own security interests are also at issue.

Averting Disaster in the Middle East

One of former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's greatest concerns was that a conflagration in the Middle East could spread to Europe. He was frequently in the Middle East on diplomatic missions. Chancellor Angela Merkel also made it clear that the region would be a focal point of her foreign policy.

US Secretary of State Rice (right) with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal (left): A US defense deal for Saudi Arabia worth billions
AFP

US Secretary of State Rice (right) with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal (left): A US defense deal for Saudi Arabia worth billions
Germany wants to be a player in the Middle East and do its part to help avert disaster. This made it all the more upsetting to Berlin that President Bush named Tony Blair, his closest ally in the Iraq war, the new special envoy of the Middle East quartet, a group consisting of the United Nations, the United States, Russia and the EU. Despite the fact that Foreign Minister Steinmeier represented the EU in the quartet at the time, no one consulted him on this important decision, nor was he even notified in advance. There can hardly be a more blatant way of demonstrating the fact that the superpower doesn't perceive Germany as an important player. But despite the slap in the face, the Germans have persevered. "We emphasize political dialogue with all interested parties in the region," Foreign Minister Steinmeier said defiantly.

Steinmeier's statements notwithstanding, Germany is not fundamentally opposed to sending weapons to the fragile region. Saudi Arabia, for example, has been promised 72 Eurofighter jets. The jets will be coming from Great Britain, but German companies are responsible for 30 percent of production.

NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

A few years ago Germany supplied Israel with three of its Dolphin class submarines, which Berlin-based peace activist Otfried Nassauer believes are also capable of firing missiles armed with nuclear warheads. The same applies to the three submarines German shipbuilders plan to sell to Pakistan. Powered by state-of-the-art fuel cell engines, the vessels are difficult to locate and suitable for prolonged submersion.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's hold on power is not exactly secure, and it is conceivable that radical Islamist rulers could one day gain control over these long-range submarines -- and pose a potential threat to German national security. Even President Musharraf isn't exactly the sort of person to whom one likes to entrust long-range missiles, especially given that Pakistan is already a nuclear power. Germany's Greens doubt that Musharraf's regime can satisfy the standards for democracy and human rights to which recipients of arms in the EU and Germany are normally held. Nevertheless, Berlin also plans to provide Musharraf with 250 of its M113 armored personnel carriers.

A personal victory: Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi (right) welcomes French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
AP

A personal victory: Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi (right) welcomes French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Seen in this light, Steinmeier's outrage seems somewhat dubious from a moral standpoint. But the German government certainly cannot be faulted for wanting to help German companies earn revenues and preserve German jobs. And there is a difference between the occasional arms deal and developing an entire region into a giant battleship. By supplying arms to its allies in the Middle East, the US hopes to contain Iran, which is seeking to develop a nuclear program and which the US views as a major threat.

But the Germans have always pushed for dialogue with Tehran rather than confrontation. Their successes have not exactly been earth-shattering, but while diplomatic missions may not always bring improvement, they generally do not complicate the situation any further. The story usually changes when weapons come into play.

Germany: Powerless to Make Decisions on its Own

The United States believes that it is not obligated to consult with its allies, because it feels sufficiently confident in its own strength. This makes it easier for the Americans to take political action than the Germans. When the Americans feel that something is truly important to them, they suddenly become unilateralists. They take it upon themselves to make decisions. The Germans, on the other hand, are virtually powerless to make international decisions on their own, and perhaps this is not even their intention. This is why they are multilateralists, their decisions consistently dependent on seeking allies. Germany does want to exert its influence on world events, but its role as a medium-sized power precludes being able to assert this claim.

Mideast special envoy Tony Blair and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas: No one consulted Germany about the important decision.
Getty Images

Mideast special envoy Tony Blair and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas: No one consulted Germany about the important decision.
In theory, this should also apply to France. But the Grande Nation perceives itself as being much larger and, for this reason, occasionally has a penchant for acting alone -- especially when a new president apparently has something to prove to the world. At first Paris took its partners in Berlin by surprise when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former French finance minister, was named head of the IMF. President Sarkozy had notified various European countries of the decision ahead of time, but not Berlin. Niels Annen, a German politician and member of the Social Democratic Party, was not just speaking for himself when he called Sarkozy's move "an outrage."

Sarko's Audacity

Berlin is also annoyed by the audacity with which Sarkozy celebrated the release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian-Bulgarian doctor from death row in Libya as his personal triumph. Ironically it was Foreign Minister Steinmeier who, as president of the EU Council, spent months, together with Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's external relations commissioner, negotiating the prisoners' release.

His wife Cécilia had hardly dropped off the prisoners for a photogenic return to Bulgaria when Sarkozy flew to Tripoli to announce, standing at the side of Libyan revolutionary leader Moammar Gadhafi, France's intention to build a nuclear power plant in Libya. He also promised an extensive arms package, including "Milan" antitank missiles and military wireless equipment.

France must "subordinate its national interests to a European strategy," said Andreas Schockenhoff, the deputy leader of the conservative Christian Democratic Union's parliamentary group. His Social Democratic counterpart, deputy parliamentary leader Ulrich Kelber, even voiced the suspicion that Sarkozy had only intervened on behalf of the nurses to garner contracts for French industry. "This is really the sort of behavior one would expect from despots," Kelber said, "it makes US President George W. Bush pale by comparison."

A defense industry trade fair in Paris: German firms also want to earn revenues for weapons deals and preserve jobs.
AFP

A defense industry trade fair in Paris: German firms also want to earn revenues for weapons deals and preserve jobs.
Officials at Germany's Foreign Ministry were not as judgmental. Though somewhat offended over not having been informed, they are convinced that Sarkozy will return to Germany's side in short time. "He'll calm down soon enough," officials in the hallways of the Foreign Office could be overheard saying.

Sarkozy's predecessor, former President Jacques Chirac, also dropped a bomb -- a real one -- shortly after taking office. He had the French military test six nuclear warheads in the South Pacific in 1995, triggering worldwide protests. But to Angela Merkel's relief, Chirac later became a reasonably cooperative multilateralist.

Merkel is now being forced to realize that she is no longer the leader at Europe's helm. Sarkozy, even if he calms down, has far more elan than Chirac, who doddered toward the end of his term, The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, is no lame duck, as Tony Blair was for a prolonged period of time, but a man with great ambitions. Neither of the two men is burdened by the histories of their respective countries.

After the catastrophe of the Third Reich, the Germans were forced to practice a different way of behaving on the international stage. They learned to be modest. For a country with such a horrific past, it was unseemly to mention national interests, pursuing them even more so. The sort of unbroken national consciousness that prevails in the United States, France and Great Britain could no longer exist in Germany. But the Germans managed to turn this drawback into a virtue, building a reputation for being understanding and reserved. They developed the principle: What is good for Europe is good for Germany. In his book "Germany's Return -- an Undivided Postwar History," journalist Peter Bender pointed out that East Germany was particularly socialistic while West Germany was particularly European, because both were no longer permitted to be truly German.

A guided artillery rocket: France wants to supply high-tech weapons to Libya.
AFP

A guided artillery rocket: France wants to supply high-tech weapons to Libya.
This was the Germans' only option for being readmitted to the circle of decent people. They were polite and accommodating. If there were such a thing as a trophy for fair play in international politics, it would have gone to Germany many a time.

It was only former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who created the impression that he intended to put an end to Germany's timidity. He shifted his rhetoric in the early days of his chancellorship. German payments to the European Union were suddenly no longer the country's contribution to peace and prosperity in Europe, but money that was being "burned." He sounded like someone who wanted change and fully intended to practice a rustic form of representation of Germany's interests.

But Schröder's plans never quite materialized. A few more business executives than before accompanied him on his travels abroad, and he took a somewhat more hands-on approach internationally than his predecessors, but Schröder was both unable and unwilling to shake up the traditional view of Germany and its role in the world.

The key tenet of German foreign policy remained the ongoing search for consensus. But perhaps this is no drawback, after all.

Christoph Bertram, the former head of Germany's Foundation for Science and Politics, doubts that countries can benefit from short-term successes in the long term. "Antagonizing others doesn't do anybody any good," says Bertram, pointing out that the Americans, by going it alone in Iraq, demonstrated that unilateral reflexes do not end well. "How far have the unilateralists actually come?" Bertram asks. His answer is clear: "not far."

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan


© DER SPIEGEL 32/2007
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH

Related SPIEGEL ONLINE links:
Germany's G- 8: Protest and Politics in Heiligendamm
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,k- 7125,00.html
Arming the Middle East: The Checkered History of American Weapons Deals (08/06/2007)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,498421,00.html
Sarkozy Meets Gadhafi: France to Build Nuclear Reactor in Libya (07/26/2007)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,496711,00.html
Arms for Hostages? France Makes Weapons Deal with Libya (08/03/2007)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,498038,00.html
Sarkozy's Stolen Victories: France Goes It Alone (07/30/2007)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,497260,00.html