Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: William Pfaff, The New York Times, 11 febbraio 2003

 «Attenzione, questo č importante. Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar sono tutti
sostenitori del Presidente Bush sulla guerra all’Iraq. Ma non lo sono i
popoli che essi governano. I popoli possono sempre eleggere altri Primi
ministri. Ma i Primi ministri non possono eleggersi altri popoli».
William Pfaff, The New York Times, 11 febbraio 2003
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://usenet.libero.it

 ministri. Ma i Primi ministri non possono eleggersi altri popoli».
Perfetto: poi esiste la democrazia che fa sě che, se il primo ministro si č
comportato male, al piů entro 4-5 anni se ne torni a casa.
--
Bet Dalet Gimel
     «Odi profanum vulgus et arceo»

 popoli che essi governano.
E Pfaff in base a che cosa sostiene che i popoli che Aznar, Blair e
Berlusconi governano siano contrari alla guerra? Su quali stime? Su quali
statistiche? Su quali REFERENDUM?

statistiche? Su quali REFERENDUM?
Forse aveva presente la descrizione descritta in questo articolo di
giornale, che ri-posto:
Politicians With Guts
by Robert Kagan (Washington Post - January 31, 2003)
To appreciate fully the unparalleled political and moral courage of
Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar and the other six European leaders who
called for solidarity with the United States in a statement published
in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, you really have to live in Europe
and feel the mood out here. Never mind that Blair, Aznar, Silvio
Berlusconi, et al. planted themselves at the side of President Bush in
the coming confrontation with Iraq -- at a time when polls in Britain,
Spain, Italy and elsewhere around Europe show opposition to American
policy running at 70 percent or higher. And never mind that they
insisted America's war on terrorism must be Europe's war, too -- at a
time when, as EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana recently conceded,
most Europeans do not feel the slightest bit threatened by
international terrorism and, indeed, fear Bush more than they fear
Osama bin Laden. 
This was nothing compared with the unabashed pro-Americanism of their
declaration. The eight European leaders actually wrote of "American
bravery, generosity and farsightedness" in setting Europe free from
Nazism and communism in the last century and in keeping the peace in
Europe for the past six decades. By using the word "generosity," they
even implied that Europeans might now owe the United States a little
generosity in return. Such sentiments are pure heresy these days in
Europe, where anti-Americanism has reached a fevered intensity. I live
in Brussels, famed "capital of Europe," and have traveled across the
continent over the past year, speaking with intellectuals,
journalists, foreign policy analysts and government officials at the
endless merry-go-round of highbrow European conferences. The settings
couldn't be nicer; the food and wine couldn't be better; the
conversations couldn't be more polite. And the suspicion, fear and
loathing of the United States couldn't be thicker. In London, where
Tony Blair has to go to work every day, one finds Britain's finest
minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge
accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the
"neoconservative" (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy.
Britain's most gifted scholars sift through American writings about
Europe searching for signs of derogatory "sexual imagery." In Paris,
all the talk is of oil and "imperialism" (and Jews). In Madrid, it's
oil, imperialism, past American support for Franco (and Jews). At a
conference I recently attended in Barcelona, an esteemed Spanish
intellectual earnestly asked why, if the United States wants to topple
vicious dictatorships that manufacture weapons of mass destruction, it
is not also invading Israel. 
Yes, I know, there are Americans who ask such questions, too. We have
our Buchanans and our Gore Vidals. But here's what Americans need to
understand: In Europe, this paranoid, conspiratorial anti-Americanism
is not a far-left or far-right phenomenon. It's the mainstream view.
When Gerhard Schroeder campaigns on an anti-American platform in
Germany, he's not just "mobilizing his base" or reaching out to fringe
Greens and Socialists. He's talking to the man and woman on the
street, left, right and center. When Jacques Chirac and Dominique de
Villepin publicly humiliate Colin Powell, they're playing to the
gallery. The "European street" is more anti-American than ever before.
Even in the 1960s at the height of the anti-Vietnam War protests or in
the early 1980s at the height of the "nuclear freeze" movement,
European anti-Americanism was always more than counterbalanced by
European anti-communism. Most Europeans believed the real problem was
the Red Army and Soviet totalitarianism, not Nixon or Reagan, and the
United States, whatever its flaws, was defending them from those twin
evils. When Helmut Kohl, Margaret Thatcher and even Francois
Mitterrand stood with Reagan in the waning years of the Cold War,
theirs was a courageous and vitally important but not a politically
risky stand. 
Not so today for Messrs. Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi or for Anders
Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister. For leaders in Western
Europe, more so than for their Central and Eastern European
colleagues, standing with Bush in the present Iraq crisis is political
poison, at least in the short run. With the Soviet and communist
threats safely behind them and the Balkan crises settled, most Western
Europeans either don't remember, don't choose to remember or perhaps
even resent America's long record of strategic "generosity" toward
them. Certainly they do not feel a scintilla of generosity toward the
United States. Instead, as keen observers such as Christopher Caldwell
have noted, anti-Americanism has become the organizing theme for all
European grievances about their world. And just as Arab leaders
channel domestic unhappiness with their rule into anti-Americanism as
a kind of safety valve for discontent, so, in perhaps more subtle
ways, do European leaders. Schroeder surely hopes his impoverished
constituents in the former East Germany can be encouraged to vent
their anger at Bush and not at their own chancellor. French anxieties
about France's growing Muslim population are channeled into hostility
toward Israel and the Bush administration's Middle East policies. 
History offers few examples of democratic political leaders willing to
sail head-on into such gale-force winds. That is why Blair and his
colleagues deserve so much admiration, even more than Thatcher and
hers. While Chirac and Schroeder simultaneously feed and feed on
anti-Americanism, Blair, Aznar and their colleagues have taken the
much harder and much lonelier road. Appealing to what Lincoln called
"the better angels of our nature," they ask Europeans to rise above
pettiness and insecurity. In the long run, political courage may have
a political payoff. In a few months, Blair and his colleagues may come
out of this stronger for having the guts to take an unpopular stand
now. Let's just pray they survive the effort. 
--------------------------------------------------------
La libertà è libertà di dire che due più due fa quattro.
Concessa questa libertà, tutte le altre ne seguono.
George Orwell, 1984

giornale, che ri-posto:
E quell'articolo risponde alle domande che sono state poste? :))
*ROTFL*
-Stefano

 «Attenzione, questo è importante. Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar sono tutti

l'articolo originario non è del NYT, ma del IHT...
http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=86241&owner=(IHT)&date=20030211122940
forse quelli dell'unità dovrebbero essere piu' attenti a citare le fonti ;)
e anche a virgolettare gli articoli...



Probabilmente indicava come almeno un giornalista USA si renda conto
dell'atteggiamento di parte dell'opinione pubblica europea. Non è il
risultato di un referendum, ma una percezione. In che misura
giustificata, non lo so.



wrote:

Grazie della precisazione. Io ho letto la notizia da una newsletter.


Il politico ha il compito di fare il politico, il popolo può permettersi di
sognare e non ha nessuna responsabilità.
Ricordiamoci che gli unici 2 interventi in guerra con il consenso del popolo
finirono mooooooolto male!
Detto questo io non sono un politico ma faccio parte del popolo, di
conseguenza non ho responsabilità, e per cui continuo a sognare.

Zadi Kof Resh wrote:

hai ancora bisogno della risposta per caso?

Bet Dalet Gimel wrote:

questo non significa che puo' decidere impunemente di fare guerra a 
chiunque.

 Bet Dalet Gimel wrote:


infatti lo decide il parlamento.
paolino
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it