Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: La triste storia dei "partner strategici" degli USA

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200505/26/eng20050526_186953.html
To be US "strategic partner" or the partner of "US strategy"?
US President George W. Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced
after their talks held on May 23 that the United States and Afghanistan have
established "strategic partnership" formally and both sides will hold
high-level meetings regularly on the issues of common concerns in the future
in the fields of politics, security and economy according to a signed
article by Zhang Jingyu and published by People Daily.
That the United States, the only superpower in the world, offers such a
treatment of "strategic partner" to a small country like Afghanistan
generously seems to safe enough "face" for President Karzai, making his
visit seem to be a "worthwhile trip". Another coincided thing happened
almost at the same time in the same area lets people produce doubt about the
actual "gold content" of the US "strategic partner".
It is revealed by Indian media on May 22 that the US government sent a
letter to the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently, making clear its
attitude that the US will impose sanctions on India according to the "Law of
D'Amato" if India goes its own way to insist in its cooperation with Iran in
petroleum and natural gas regardless of US's opposition. India and the US
established "strategic partnership" as early as a few years ago and the US
knows very clearly that India is in the serious shortage of energy and in
the urgent need of international cooperation to ensure its power supply for
economy.
Then why does the US take so impolite attitude towards its "strategic
partner"? The key lies in the behavior of India, which does not accord with
the US control of Iran and with its pursuing western strategy of democracy
in the whole world. This overbearing conduct of the rude interference in the
normal international economic cooperation has completely revealed the true
status of "strategic partner" in the American mind. Out of its own
interests, it may turn against a friend at any time.
President Karzai's visit to the US was made under the delicate background of
the exposure of the US soldiers' profaning "the Koran" incident that
triggered off serious protests in Afghanistan as well as in many other
Islamic countries. Prior to the visit he had many complaints about the US
army's maltreatment of prisoners in Afghanistan as well as about the US
behavior in searching private residences at will, demanding all the Afghan
prisoners detained by the US troops return to Afghan government immediately.
In addition, Karzai also asks for getting more administrative power over the
US troops stationed in Afghanistan on behalf of the Afghan government,
however his demand does not receive responses from the Bush administration.
What did Afghanistan want was not obtained and "accidentally" Afghanistan
has established "the strategic partnership" with the US. For President
Karzai although there are some "lip services with unlikely realities", but
by contrast what the US has done seems to have even more "strategic
significance" than a certain commitment to solve a certain concrete problem.
But since becoming "partners", they should be equal and have consultations
whenever there is anything that crops up with mutual help and understanding;
it is not allowed to only deliberate own interests while ignoring
"partner's" feelings or even insulting the religions emotions of the Moslem
world wantonly. There is not even minimum equal treatment mutually starting
from the very beginning, how cannot such a partnership lose flavor for a
long time?
The US choice of "strategic partner" has been always conditioned. In 2002
when Bush made his visit to Peru for the first time both sides announced to
form the "strategic partnership for anti-terrorism and anti-drug drive", but
nothing was said about the cooperation in other areas. Several years ago,
the US upgraded the relations between the US and India to "the strategic
partnership", but, for no better reason than that it focused on the momentum
that India emerged rapidly. The US hoped to draw the support from India for
restraining its strategic rival in order to achieve the balance of strength
in the South Asia or even in a larger range. For this reason, the US has
repeatedly expressed its Indian friendship in recent years and showed
constantly that it is glad to see India as a new emerging powerful country
to play a role in Asia and the international arena. And when the
"partnership" conflicts with the US's own benefits, the true US intention of
being affectedly bashful in the order of importance and urgency gives away
and Washington can never sacrifice its own interests in order to look after
the so-called "partnership".
The reason for US and Afghanistan to establish "strategic partnership" is:
first for "putting out a fire" in order to put down the anger triggered off
by the US soldiers in profaning "the Koran" in Afghanistan and the Moslem
world; the second for seeking a long-term cooperation with the Afghan
government to consolidate the anti-terrorism result and prevent al Qaeda and
Taliban's remnant forces from reviving. The starting point of the wishful
thinking is for safeguarding US's own interests with the emphasis on the
global strategy of US anti-terrorism, considering nothing of the terrible
sufferings of the Afghan people.
As for the fashionable and debased "strategic partnership", what is
unforgettable is the vision and insight of a major media in India, which has
warned its government and people meaningfully: "Don't take seriously the
so-called "strategic partnership" with the US; be more careful, don't regard
the "strategic partnership" with the US as the partner of the "US's
strategy."
By People's Daily Online

 
Il solito titolo del ca**o di Namib. :)
-Stefano