Pedro Mencari Napoleon

From The New York Times, February 25, 2007

Beware of Celebrities Bearing Gifts
By KATE ZERNIKE

FOR presidential hopefuls, the Hollywood fund-raiser used to be as smooth as an A.T.M. withdrawal: duck in at night, after the East Coast news cycles have closed. Leave in the morning with a hefty check and the soft reflected glow of a few Oscar winners.

The events did not, typically, result in headlines about the “brawl,” “throwdown,” or “rumble in the Hollywood jungle” that greeted Barack Obama’s first foray onto the scene last week.

You can’t begrudge the movie-loving public a great story line. David Geffen, an entertainment industry billionaire power broker and onetime cheerleader for Bill Clinton, not only herds big Hollywood names to a hot-ticket fund-raiser for Mr. Obama, but insults Hillary Rodham Clinton and the former president on the eve of the party. And, as though they were obliging the celebrity tabloids, the Clinton and Obama campaigns jump in the mud right after him.

It was not a happy ending for anyone. Mr. Obama’s reputation for being above politics was soiled. And Mrs. Clinton came off as quick to fight.

But, really, can anyone be surprised? Given the well-known potential downside, presidential candidates might be expected to treat Hollywood stars the way studios now treat Tom Cruise — with a bit more distance.

But for candidates, especially those competing for the Democratic nomination, Hollywood is too important to put at arm’s length.

There is the deep pockets factor. But there is another key consideration: There is no better place than Hollywood to attain that magical aura of Superstardom. Hollywood money helps encourage other sources of money, which leads to bigger campaign chests, which leads to an aura that the candidate is invincible.

The only problem: keeping big, independent-minded personalities like Mr. Geffen from putting a rip in that superstar image.

Ten years ago, the Hollywood Women’s Political Committee disbanded. The members said they were tired of being treated like cash machines and were enraged at how much money had corrupted the political process.

That group may be no more, but the Hollywood cash dance lives on. In fact, celebrities now pay political consultants to advise them on candidates.

In 2004, John Kerry took in $3.5 million from people identifying themselves as in television, movies or music, up from the $1 million that Al Gore took in when he was the Democratic nominee in 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While Republicans have traditionally done worse in Hollywood, President Bush also earned more from those donors in 2004 than he did in 2000 — $1.4 million up from about $830,000.

That money becomes a kind of early election return. “There are all sorts of invisible primaries going on here,” said Stuart Stevens, a Republican consultant working for John McCain who has also been a producer and writer for television. “One of them is for money, and one of them is for inevitability. Hillary Clinton wants to be inevitable.”

A high-profile fund-raising event for Mr. Obama seriously dents that aura of invincibility.

“This hurts her in the money primary and in the inevitability primary,” said Mr. Stevens of Mr. Obama’s reception. “The fact that they’re in love with her husband and not doing it for her is not a good sign. It gives other people permission to do the same — Wall Streeters, hedge-fund types. They figure, if the hip, cool people aren’t doing it, I don’t have to do it.”

Indeed, some believe the support for Senator Obama is probably not deep, wide or even informed.

“A lot of these Hollywood donors are measuring prospects for box office success, if you will,” said Eli Attie, a former chief speechwriter for Mr. Gore who was also a writer and producer on “The West Wing.” “It’s not that they know Obama’s record or know what he’d do as president or think he’d be better or smarter than Hillary Clinton. It’s more that he seems like he could be a tough contender. ”

Outside the Hollywood bubble, however, this conceit — that money and celebrity may be enough to crown The Nominee — can seem like, well, a conceit.

“The voters almost feel like they have a duty to reject that kind of endorsement,” said Art Torres, the chairman of the California Democratic Party and a former state senator. “They’re thinking, ‘What do I care what that movie star thinks?’ I’m going to make up my own mind.”

A CBS News poll taken this month before the Geffen remarks found the public evenly split on the question of whether celebrities should get involved in politics: 48 percent said they should stay out; 47 percent said they should get involved.

“One of the problems Democrats have had,” said Mr. Stevens, the Republican consultant, “is not being able to manage this.”

In 2004, the Democratic Party sent celebrities to swing states like Ohio to canvass voters. “People in Ohio, just like people in New Jersey, don’t want somebody from California to come tell them how to vote — ‘I’m here to save you,’ ” said Mr. Attie. “It has a negative missionary arrogance.”

Of course, some stars do add some measure of credibility. Celebrities like Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington are considered all-American enough to help any candidate.

Other stars realize that they have limitations.

“George Clooney, you don’t ever see him hit a wrong note,” Mr. Stevens says. “He understands he can help raise money, but he also understands there’s a line to cross where he’s not going to be telling people how to vote.”

Then again, some stars get involved unwillingly. Stephen Rivers, who has worked for politically active stars including Jane Fonda, recalled the 1988 Senate campaign in New Jersey, where the Republican, Pete Dawkins, was under fire for exaggerating his war record, and successfully changed the topic by invoking Ms. Fonda as the ultimate liberal antiwar bogeywoman. Mr. Dawkins’ campaign demanded that the Democrat, Frank Lautenberg, return $5,000 from a women’s group in Hollywood that the Republicans insisted was “controlled” by Ms. Fonda. Soon, Republicans warned, Mr. Lautenberg would be taking foreign policy advice from the woman whom some on the right deride as Hanoi Jane.

Not that it worked. Mr. Dawkins lost.

In any case, celebrities may not care much about their affect on a politician’s future. They may just want to act altruistically. Or, like so many donors everywhere, it might be all about them.

“People want to say, ‘Oh, just because they have all this money, who are they to act like they know what they’re talking about,’ ” said Ken Sunshine, a public relations consultant who has represented Ms. Streisand and Leonardo DiCaprio.

“But they have rights, like any citizen, to speak their minds.”

Sediakan Senjata Sebelum Perang

From The New York Times, February 23, 2007

Arab States, Wary of Iran, Add to Their Arsenals but Still Lean on the U.S.
By HASSAN M FATTAH

As fears grow over the escalating confrontation between Iran and the West, Arab states across the Persian Gulf have begun a rare show of muscle flexing, publicly advertising a shopping spree for new weapons and openly discussing their security concerns.

Typically secretive, the gulf nations have long planned upgrades to their armed forces, but now are speaking openly about them. American military officials say the countries, normally prone to squabbling, have also increased their military cooperation and opened lines of communication to the American military here.

Patriot missile batteries capable of striking down ballistic missiles have been readied in several gulf countries, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, analysts say, and increasingly, the states have sought to emphasize their unanimity against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“There has always been an acknowledgment of the threat in the region, but the volume of the debate has now risen,” said one United Arab Emirates official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject. “Now the message is there’s a dialogue going on with Iran, but that doesn’t mean I don’t intend to defend myself.”

The Persian Gulf monarchies and sheikdoms, mostly small and vulnerable, have long relied on the United States to protect them. The United States Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain; the United States Central Command is based in nearby Qatar; and the Navy has long relied on docking facilities in the United Arab Emirates, which has one of the region’s deepest water ports at Jebel Ali.

The United States, too, has begun a significant expansion of forces in the gulf, with a second United States aircraft carrier battle group led by the John C. Stennis now in the Persian Gulf and with minesweeping ships.

The expansion has helped calm fears among gulf governments that the United States could pull out of the region in the future, even as it has raised concerns about a potential American confrontation with Iran, accidental or intentional.

As tensions with Iran rise, many gulf countries have come to see themselves as the likely first targets of an Iranian attack. Some have grown more concerned that the United States may be overstretched militarily, many analysts say, while almost all the monarchies, flush with cash as a result of high oil prices, have sought to build a military deterrent of their own.

“The message is first, ‘U.S., stay involved here,’ and second, ‘Iran, we will maintain a technological edge no matter what,’ ” said Emile el-Hokayem, research fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a research center based in Washington. “They are trying to reinforce the credibility of the threat of force.”

Military officials from throughout the region descended this week on the Idex military trade fair, a semiannual event that has become the region’s largest arms market, drawing nearly 900 weapons makers from around the world. They came ready to update their military capacities and air and naval defenses. They also came armed with a veiled message of resolve.

“We believe there is a need for power to protect peace, and strong people with the capability to respond are the real protectors of peace,” said Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the president of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of the emirate of Abu Dhabi, at the exposition. “That is why we are keen to maintain the efficiency of our armed forces.”

The Persian Gulf has been a lucrative market for arms. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman spend up to 10 percent of their gross domestic product on the military, amounting to nearly $21 billion, $4 billion and $2.7 billion, respectively, estimates John Kenkel, senior director of Jane’s Strategic Advisory Services.

If they follow through on the deals announced recently, it is estimated that countries like the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia will spend up to $60 billion this year.

The biggest buyer in 2006, according to the defense industry journal Defense News, was Saudi Arabia, which has agreed to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon combat jets for $11 billion. It also has a $400 million deal to upgrade 12 Apache AH-64A helicopters to the Longbow standard. The kingdom also reportedly plans to acquire cruise missiles, attack helicopters and tanks, all for a total of $50 billion.

Kuwait reportedly bought 24 Apache Longbow helicopters, while the United Arab Emirates has continued to take delivery of 80 F-16 Block 60 fighters, with plans to buy air tankers, missile defense batteries and airborne early warning systems. Bahrain ordered nine UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters in an estimated $252 million deal, while Oman reportedly bought 30 antitank rocket launchers in a $48 million purchase and is planning a naval overhaul.

“It is a message to enemies that ‘We are taking defense seriously,’ ” Mr. Kenkel said, emphasizing that the new arms were for deterrence.

“If the U.S. ever does pull back, these countries in the gulf have realized, they may have to fend for themselves,” Mr. Kenkel said. “As the Boy Scouts say, always be prepared.”

The most marked change is in the public nature of the acquisitions, which previously would have been kept secret, many analysts here said, itself a form of deterrence.

“They have been doing these kinds of purchases since the ’90s,” said Marwan Lahoud, chief executive of the European missile maker MBDA. “What has changed is they are stating it publicly. The other side is making pronouncements so they have to as well,” he said, speaking of Iran’s recent announcements about its weapons capacity.

Senior United States military officials say gulf countries have become more nervous as Iran has conducted naval maneuvers, especially near the Straits of Hormuz, the main artery through which two-fifths of the world’s oil reaches markets.

“A year ago you could have characterized the interaction with the Iranians as professional,” said Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh, departing commander of the Fifth Fleet. “What’s different today has been the number and amount of exercises and the proximity of those exercises to the Straits of Hormuz themselves.”

The exercises were among the reasons for the expansion of Navy forces in the region, he said, but have also raised alarm about the potential for accidents to lead to an unintended war.

Admiral Walsh said that American warships remained in international waters, and that Iranian and American ships kept close watch on one another. Some critics of the Bush administration have alleged that the increased military presence in the gulf risks igniting a conflict.

Admiral Walsh said the increased American presence was aimed at o reassuring gulf states that the United States remained committed to their security, but also welcomed their efforts to build deterrence.

“We have found that we need to be physically present to prevent such armed behavior,” he said of the Iranian maneuvers. “We’re mindful we’re not giving up any water, but also being careful not to take a provocative stance.”

Petua Kebahagiaan Rumahtangga

From The New York Times, February 14, 2007

He Cooks. She Stews. It’s Love.
By KATHERINE WHEELOCK

YOLANDA EDWARDS was at a friend’s house in Brooklyn for dinner when the hostess asked her to pull out a pot for boiling pasta. Ms. Edwards froze. As her friend looked at her in disbelief, she said she was not up to the job.

“I used to think I was a good cook,” said Ms. Edwards, an editor at the parenting magazine Cookie. “But my husband’s a kitchen bully. He’s so critical, I second-guess myself now.”

If there were a clinical diagnosis for her problem, it might be called beta cook disorder. Even though Ms. Edwards blithely prepared flank steak for dinner parties when she was in college, she is now married to someone who takes charge in the kitchen: an alpha cook.

“I have no problem admitting that I’m an alpha,” said her husband, Matthew Hranek, a photographer. “Yolanda wouldn’t know a corked bottle of wine if you put it in front of her. When we met, she had four days’ worth of dishes in her sink, most of which had what looked like black bean on them. Ever since then, I’ve cooked for her.”

True, life with an alpha cook can mean sitting back and watching while someone else prepares restaurant-quality wild mushroom risotto on a quiet Tuesday night.

But it can also mean putting up with small culinary humiliations and an unending patter of condescending remarks.

When Robin Henry, an interior designer, helps make dinner with her fiancé, Andrew Goldman, a writer, she endures his constant, conspicuous scrutiny.

“I’ll be standing there, sautéing onions, and I can feel him standing over my shoulder, staring down at the pot and gnashing his teeth,” Ms. Henry said. “He’ll say things like, ‘You should really turn that down now.’ ”

Ms. Henry relayed this — along with her feeling that she is expected to greet any meal he might make on an average weeknight with the equivalent of a marching band reception — with affection.

“It’s part of his charm,” she said. Like many betas, she seems to have made peace with her lower status. The only time bitterness crept into her voice was when she talked about the tasks her fiancé assigns her when she plays sous-chef.

“He’s like, ‘Great, yes, come cook with me.’ And then he gives me the take-the-chicken-out-of-the-package-and-rinse-it job,” she said.

“I am like that,” Mr. Goldman agreed. “I wouldn’t blame Robin if she didn’t want to cook with me. I’ve caught myself. It’s not so much me telling her she’s doing something wrong. I think it’s just that she catches my glances.”

It was a nice fantasy while it lasted: rather than letting the lady of the house bear the constant burden of cooking dinner, the modern couple would share the work. Husbands would take an interest in casseroles. Wives would slap slabs of meat on the grill. They would read cookbooks and watch the Food Network together. The kitchen would be a peaceful domain equally ruled by two people.

For many couples, this never happened. Instead, wedged there in the kitchen together, they fell into a power dynamic just as unequal and emotionally fraught as the arrangement that puts the female half in a frilly apron. Instead of a partnership, some couples say that their relationship in the kitchen more closely resembles a tiny dictatorship.

This, of course, is the way it works in restaurants, where the chef’s authority is nearly absolute. It is somebody else’s job to peel the carrots. And that person is expected to peel the carrots without muttering bitterly under his breath. The top-down system helps to avoid chaos, speeds the process and enforces quality control. But at home that same system can have emotional consequences.

Suzanne Goin, the chef and owner of A.O.C. and Lucques in Los Angeles, is married to David Lentz, the chef and owner of the Hungry Cat in Hollywood. They are both alpha cooks, she said, but that has only been an issue on their nights off.

“In a professional kitchen you don’t really get your feelings hurt,” Ms. Goin said. “It’s a little different at home though. If David says, ‘Do you think this is a little salty?’ about something I made, I’ll be like: ‘No. Do you think it’s too salty? Maybe your palate’s off.’ ”

Rebecca Charles, the chef and owner of Pearl Oyster Bar in Greenwich Village and an admitted alpha, said: “Giving orders is fine in a professional environment, but at home it’s a little inappropriate. I can be a little bossy. Resentment can build, and before you know it you have a pot flying at your head and you don’t know why. Couples cooking together is probably the second leading cause of divorce next to home renovations.”

Statistical evidence does not back her up, but therapists are all too familiar with marriages that run aground in the kitchen. “If there’s a power struggle, it will come out in cooking together,” said Dr. Marion F. Solomon, a couples therapist in Los Angeles. “If a person feels that they’re not recognized for their abilities in other areas, they can start to resent the partner who takes control in the kitchen.”

But couples who embrace their culinary inequality can still find happiness, Dr. Solomon said.

A year and a half ago, before marrying, Armistead Wilson, a teacher in Nashville, went to premarital counseling with her future husband, Edwin. It was there that she realized she felt guilty about letting Mr. Wilson do all the cooking.

“The counselor said I should just let it go,” Ms. Wilson said. “I did. And I’m happier for it. The only time I get even slightly frustrated now is when I’m excited about making something and he takes it over on the sly by showing me a better chopping technique, or by demonstrating how to flip an omelet in the pan. But I’m sure many meals have been saved by this intrusion.”

Dr. Solomon said that a couple can enjoy playing student and teacher in the kitchen “if one person doesn’t feel capable and the other loves to be a mentor.”

That situation sounds dreamy, but many beta cooks say that the alphas in their lives are not the most patient tutors. Amy Sedaris, author of “I Like You: Hospitality Under the Influence,” says that whenever alphas and betas cook together, the alpha’s internal monologue goes something like this: “Stop bothering me with your questions. I don’t have time to show you how to chop an onion. If you can’t chop an onion, get out of my kitchen.”

Derek LaVallee, the wine columnist for The Hill, a Congressional newspaper, and a public relations executive in Washington, was only slightly more delicate with his wife, Vanessa. Mr. LaVallee loves to cook, and when they were first married, Ms. LaVallee thought that sharing his hobby with him might be fun. After all, before they were married the two had happily shared a tiny office in the Clinton White House.

It turned out that working in the White House was easier. “I can’t watch her cook,” Mr. LaVallee said. “I’d say things like, ‘I can’t believe you’re julienning the carrots that way!’ And then I’d think, ‘Did that really just come out of your mouth?’ ”

Ms. LaVallee, the adviser to the president of Georgetown University, now chooses to sit on the sideline with a glass of wine. The subject of cooking rarely comes up, except when the couple watch “Iron Chef.”

“She’ll say: ‘See? They work together. He delegates,’ ” Mr. LaVallee said. “And I’ll say, ‘Honey, if I had a team of professional chefs working for me I’d be happy to delegate.’ ”

There is evidence that alphas and betas are not born that way. Occasionally, somebody will live happily as a second-class kitchen citizen for years, only to emerge as a fully capable cook after the relationship ends. Lettie Teague, an editor at Food & Wine magazine, said she was content in her role as the beta in her marriage to the food writer Alan Richman. “I lived a beta cook’s life because Alan was so much the better cook,” she said. “I was the alpha cleaner. Sometimes I would clean up around him.”

Since they separated last year Ms. Teague has found herself cooking more, especially for company. And she is realizing what she might have been missing as keeper of the Palmolive. Guests don’t ask, Who got this silverware so shiny? With one hand on their belly, they praise the alpha. “There is huge ego gratification in making a good dinner,” Ms. Teague said.

If there was inequality in the Richman-Teague kitchen, it left no apparent scars. The two remain friendly. “Long-term problems are caused by money and things like that,” Mr. Richman said.

“Fights over cooking only cause loathing between couples for two to four days.” He did add, though, that when there is a male alpha in the kitchen, there’s very little anyone can do to alter the dynamic.

“Men have gotten better at cooking, and that’s all positive,” Mr. Richman said. “But men can’t share. If you can find a man who’s O.K. with a woman being in charge in the kitchen, tell any woman to marry him immediately.”

So, over time, an embattled beta will find ways to level the playing field, ways that do not involve wresting the meat thermometer from the alpha’s hand. This is the case with Ms. Edwards, who may have lost the ability to choose a pasta pot when put on the spot, but who has carved out a particular position of power of her own.

For one, she makes oatmeal and eggs that her 3-year-old daughter prefers to anything her husband cooks.

She also discovered the beta’s best weapon, and the secret to living with an alpha cook: criticism. An alpha is nothing without a beta.

“I couldn’t strive to be good without her,” said Mr. Hranek, her husband. “If she’s not happy with the food, I’m devastated.”

"Lubnan tolak campurtangan kuasa asing"

Lubnan, negara kecil di utara Palestin tidak pernah sunyi daripada konflik dan menjadi medan pertembungan kuasa-kuasa asing. Selepas kematian Rafiq al-Hariri pada 14 Februari, 2005, Lubnan terus menjunam ke dalam konflik berpanjangan tanpa sebarang tanda penyelesaian. Julai tahun lalu, Lubnan sekali lagi mendapat perhatian dunia apabila, Hizbullah, kumpulan politik paling popular negara itu bertempur dengan tentera Israel. Hari ini, usaha ke arah reformasi politik dan keamanan kelihatan masih jauh. Semalam, pada ulang tahun kedua pembunuhan Rafiq al-Hariri, rakyat Lubnan pelbagai fahaman politik berhimpun di Beirut. Ikuti wawancara dengan Ibrahim Mousawi, jurucakap Hizbullah dan editor televisyen al-Manar.

HARIS ZALKAPLI: Kekacauan yang berlaku di Lubnan dua minggu lalu disifatkan media sebagai telah melumpuhkan Lubnan. Boleh anda jelaskan apa yang telah berlaku di Lubnan sejak beberapa minggu lalu?

IBRAHIM MOUSAWI: Konflik di Lubnan masih berterusan dan menjadi semakin buruk. Ini berlaku kerana kerajaan de facto yang tidak sah itu terus mengabaikan protes rakyat, kehendak rakyat untuk melihat kerajaan campuran yang berkongsi kuasa. Masalah bermula semasa dan selepas perang dengan Israel Julai tahun lalu. Sikap kerajaan samasa itu tidak mencerminkan sikap kerajaan yang berada dalam peperangan. Ia seolah-olah hanya menjadi saluran menyampaikan ancaman Israel kepada rakyat Lubnan. Malah kerajaan menyukarkan lagi usaha untuk membantu Lubnan. Keputusan yang dibuat juga tidak mengambil kira aspirasi majoriti rakyat Lubnan, sedangkan ada keputusan yang boleh menggugat kedaulatan Lubnan pada masa akan datang. Sikap kerajaan yang tidak mengambil kira kepentingan rakyat pada masa depan dalam membuat keputusan telah mendorong ahli kabinet Hizbullah dan Amal bertindak meninggalkan kabinet.

Menurut perlembagaan Lubnan, kerajaan tidak boleh membuat keputusan yang membelakangi kumpulan-kumpulan bangsa utama negara Lubnan. Kerajaan Lubnan tidak menghiraukan kehendak rakyat kerana kerajaan dipengaruhi Amerika Syarikat. Duta AS di Lubnan, namanya Jeffrey Feltman, mempengaruhi kerajaan Lubnan dalam tindakannya setiap hari. Duta AS ini pergi ke kementerian-kementerian, berjumpa perdana menteri dan memberitahu apa yang boleh dilaksanakan dan apa yang tidak boleh dilaksanakan. Banyak inisiatif disabotaj dan dirampas. Contohnya, apabila satu usaha itu dimulakan, kerajaan akan menerima usaha itu pada satu peringkat. Tetapi selepas perkembangan seterusnya, apabila hampir kepada penyelesaian, kerajaan Lubnan akan dipengaruhi AS dan segalanya akan berakhir dan penyelesaian tidak dicapai. Inilah situasi yang kami masih hadapi dan akan berterusan pada masa depan.

Sebelum perang dengan Israel pada bulan Julai, adakah anda melihat sebarang petanda yang menunjukkan perang akan berlaku?

Tidak. Memang diketahui kerajaan berdepan masalah membuat keputusan. Perang bulan Julai itu sudah dirancang untuk menghapuskan penentangan terhadap pengaruh asing. Banyak yang perlu kami ambil kira. Selepas Syria berundur dari Lubnan, berlatarkan pembunuhan bekas Perdana Menteri Rafiq al-Hariri, wujud satu keadaan kekosongan kuasa di Lubnan. Pihak AS percaya mereka boleh mempengaruhi agar kekosongan ini diisi. Kemudian mereka memulakan apa yang digelar "cedar revolution" dan mengemukakan kumpulan lain yang didakwa mewakili Lubnan.

Sebenarnya ini hanya satu penipuan. Mereka tidak mewakili rakyat Lubnan. "Revolusi" itu direka dan dipaksakan oleh AS. Lebih daripada separuh rakyat Lubnan menentang gerakan itu. Pandangan mereka ialah, mereka turut merasai ada masalah dengan kuasa Syria di Lubnan tetapi mereka juga berterima kasih kerana bantuan Syria mengekalkan keamanan di Lubnan. Bagaimanapun, kami tidak akan menerima kedatangan pengaruh AS. Pemergian Syria memberi peluang Lubnan menubuhkan kerajaan dan negara yang bebas, bukan menerima pengaruh AS atau kuasa asing yang ingin mengambil kesempatan menegaskan pengaruh mereka.
Hari ini pihak asing masih cuba mempengaruhi Lubnan dengan cara mempengaruhi kumpulan-kumpulan yang ingin memegang kuasa dan boleh dipengaruhi. Bagaimanapun, mereka gagal melaksanakannya kerana kekuatan dan pengaruh Hizbullah yang kukuh.

Cara ketenteraan kemudian digunakan untuk menangani Hizbullah. Rancangan untuk menyerang Hizbullah sebenarnya dirancang untuk diadakan pada bulan September. Tetapi Hizbullah bertindak awal dengan menahan dua orang tentera Israel untuk merundingkan pembebasan tahanan Lubnan. Israel mengambil kesempatan menyerang Hizbullah. Inilah sebenarnya apa yang berlaku.

Bagaimana pula dengan negara-negara Arab, terutama Arab Saudi. Apakah kepentingan mereka di Lubnan?

Lubnan tidak pernah menjadi negara yang merdeka dan berdaulat dalam ertikata sebenar. Ini disebabkan pengaruh negara lain di Lubnan. Pada satu masa, Mesir pernah mempengaruhi Lubnan, ketika itu Mesir menguasai rantau Arab. Kemudian Syria menguasai Lubnan dan bermula 1982, Israel menguasai Lubnan dan berjaya mempengaruhi kepimpinan Lubnan. Arab Saudi sentiasa mempunyai pengaruh ke atas Lubnan. Pengaruh ini semakin berkembang akibat banyak perubahan politik di Lubnan. Oleh kerana itu, negara-negara Arab menyokong rancangan AS di wilayah itu. Terutama Arab Saudi, Mesir dan Jordan.

Apa sebenarnya satu masalah utama pentadbiran Perdana Menteri Fouad Siniora, sehingga mendapat tentangan Hizbullah dan rakyat Lubnan? Apa, pada pandangan anda, perlu diubah?

Siniora tidak melakukan banyak program untuk Lubnan. Selepas dua tahun, kerajaan belum membentangkan belanjawan kepada parlimen. Masalahnya juga bukan hanya melibatkan Siniora. Lubnan memerlukan satu reformasi politik dan ekonomi yang mendalam. Kerajaan tidak melakukan perubahan yang diperlukan ini.

Baru-baru ini, Shimon Peres dalam wawancara dengan al-Jazeera mendakwa Hizbullah ingin menjatuhkan kerajaan pimpinan Perdana Menteri Fouad Siniora. Apa respons anda?

Itu bukan apa yang kami mahukan. Sejak awal kami telah menawarkan perpaduan nasional yang berkongsi kuasa. Kami mahu kumpulan-kumpulan utama dalam politik Lubnan mempunyai suara dalam kerajaan. Dengan ini apabila sesuatu keputusan diambil, keputusan itu berdasarkan persetujuan semua.

Apa pula pandangan Hizbullah mengenai persidangan bantuan untuk Lubnan yang diadakan di Paris, Perancis baru-baru ini, yang dikatakan bermatlamat membina semula Lubnan yang telah musnah akibat peperangan?

Persidangan itu bukan untuk mmbantu rakyat Lubnan tetapi untuk membantu sebahagian kerajaan Lubnan kerana program ini dipengaruhi AS. Kadang-kala hal ini sukar difahami. Presiden AS membuat kenyataan hampir setiap hari mengenai Lubnan, sebuah negara kecil berpopulasi empat juta, negara kecil yang sukar untuk dikenalpasti di peta. Kenapa presiden AS menganggap Lubnan penting? AS sentiasa membuat kenyataan menyokong kerajaan yang menyebelahi kepentingan mereka di Lubnan. Ini kerana kerajaan Lubnan melaksanakan dasar yang memelihara kepentingan AS. Dalam hal bantuan kepada Lubnan, kami ingin mewujudkan hubungan baik dengan negara-negara lain dan menerima bantuan tetapi kami tidak mahu dikenakan syarat-syarat yang bersifat politik. Kita semua tahu negara yang memberi bantuan bukan organisasi kebajikan. Mereka melakukannya untuk kepentingan politik. Inilah yang kami bimbangkan, mereka memberi bantuan untuk mencapai agenda politik.

Bagaimana dengan pengaruh Iran ke atas Lubnan? Apakah bentuk hubungan Hizbullah dengan Iran?

Apa pun tuduhan yang dilemparkan berhubung hubungan Lubnan dengan Iran, hakikatnya AS yang paling mempengaruhi Lubnan. Duta AS di Lubnan bekerja keras untuk mempengaruhi keputusan kerajaan Lubnan. Hizbullah dikatakan pro-Iran dan pro-Syria, menjadi proksi Syria dan Iran. Tetapi mereka tidak mengemukakan bukti. Apa keputusan atau dasar Hizbullah yang mewakili kepentingan Iran dan Syria tetapi membelakangi kepentingan rakyat Lubnan? Memang adakalanya keputusan yang diambil boleh memberi manfaat kepada pihak lain, contohnya, penentangan Hizbullah terhadap Israel di selatan Lubnan boleh memberi manfaat kepada Syria tetapi kami bukan melakukannya untuk Syria. Kami diserang dan kami ingin membebaskan wilayah kami. AS sediri telah menyerang Iraq dan menjatuhkan Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein ialah musuh kepada Iran. Tetapi adakah AS melakukannya untuk Iran? Tidak mungkin. Iran dan Syria mendapat sokongan daripada pihak di Lubnan yang menentang rancangan AS. Mereka juga musuh penaklukan Israel. Kami mempunyai matlamat moral yang sama iaitu tidak mahu melihat Israel menjajah Lubnan dan Palestin tetapi ini tidak bermakna kami ingin Iran atau Syria memerintah Lubnan.

Dalam hal hubungan Hizbullah dengan Iran, Hizbullah percaya dengan wilayah al-faqih. Selepas kewafatan Rasulallah, akan ada pemimpin yang meneruskan kepimpinan umat Muslim. Isu ini ialah satu konsep intelektual. Hari ini, pemimpin yang kami rujuk berada di Iran. Dalam masyarakat Kristian Katolik, mereka menganggap Pope sebagai pemimpin agama mereka. Tiada siapa bertanya kenapa pergi kepada Pope. Tetapi semua orang bertanya Hizbullah tentang hubungan dengan Iran. Memang ada hubungan Hizbullah dengan Iran tetapi Iran tidak menentukan dasar Hizbullah. Dasar Hizbullah berdasarkan politik domestik Lubnan. Sekarang hubungan ini berada dalam dimensi politik kerana matlamat bersama menentang hegemoni AS dan penaklukan Israel.

Iran juga sedang membantu orang miskin di India, tetapi ini tifak menjadi isu. Hubungan dengan Iran hanya timbul apabila berhubung kait dengan kepentingan Israel. Iran juga membantu Hamas, walaupun Hamas bukan berfahaman Syiah kerana tanggungjawab moral membantu sesama Muslim. Inilah bentuk hubungan agama dan politik Hizbullah dengan Iran. Kami berbangga dengan hubungan ini.

Apa sebenarnya rancangan Hizbullah untuk Lubnan sekarang ini, terutama yang berkaitan dengan politik?

Kami tidak mempunyai rancangan spesifik untuk Lubnan. Kami wujud bersama 17 kumpulan lain dalam politik Lubnan. Semua kumpulan ini perlu diambilkira dalam membuat keputusan untuk Lubnan. Hizbullah tidak mahu memaksimakan kuasa dalam politik. Semasa berunding dengan Siniora, kami menegaskan kami mahu kerajaan perpaduan nasional tetapi kami tidak mahu wakil Hizbullah dilantik sebagai menteri tetapi kami mahu pastikan keputusan dibuat dengan persetujuan majoriti, bukan dengan pengaruhi AS atau Israel.

Adakah Hizbullah telah mendorong pencapaian perubahan baru dalam merefomasikan politik Lubnan?

Kami sedang berusaha ke arah itu. Contohnya, sekiranya reformasi handak dijalankan, apa yang penting ialah, antaranya, sistem kehakiman yang berfungsi dengan baik. Begitu juga sistem parlimen, ini juga perlu berfungsi dengan berkesan. Rakyat berbilang agama dan kaum juga perlu diwakili. Kami sedang menggesa sistem perwakilan proportional, agar semua boleh diwakili. Kami juga sedang berunding dengan kumpulan lain. Sekarang kami sedang mencapai persetujuan dengan kumpulan pergerakan pembebasan yang mewakili 70% Kristian. Hizbullah dan sekutu mewakili 90% Syiah di Lubnan, manakala 30% Sunni bersama kami. Kami sedang berunding dengan pelbagai kumpulan untuk mencapai reformasi di Lubnan. Kami harap dengan reformasi sistem kehakiman dan undang-undang pilihan raya, perubahan yang bermakna akan dicapai.

Ada yang melihat perang bulan Julai lalu dijalankan untuk mengukur kemampuan ketenteraan Hizbullah, sebagai persediaan kemungkinan tindakan ketenteraan terhadap Iran yang turut akan melibatkan Israel?

Hizbullah sudah menewaskan mereka, jadi mereka sudah mendapat jawapan untuk itu. Dulu Israel sangat angkuh dan mendakwa untuk menawan Lubnan mereka hanya perlu menghantar kumpulan muzik tentera Israel dan bukan tentera sebenar. Hari ini dengan segala senjata canggih dan dengan AS di belakang mereka, mereka tidak dapat mara seinci pun ke dalam kubu kuat kumpula penentang penaklukan di Lubnan. Tentera Israel juga, dengan 50,000 tentera dan senjata berteknologi tinggi dari AS, yang banyak daripadanya senjata yang diharamkan, hanya berdepan dengan beberapa ratus pejuang.

Hizbullah dikatakan mempunyai pengaruh yang agak kuat di Palestin, sehingga ada yang mendakwa konflik Hamas dengan Fatah disebabkan oleh Hizbullah. Apa pandangan anda tentang dakwaan ini?

Ini sama sekali tidak benar. Konflik antara mereka tidak ada kena mengena dengan Hizbullah. Hizbullah pernah dituduh cuba membantu pihak Palestin kerana mahu berpengaruh di Palestin. Tetapi Hizbullah menegaskan membantu rakyat palestin bukan kerana kepentingan politik tetapi tanggungjawab moral dan agama. Tanggungjawab kami membantu mereka yang menentang Israel tanpa mengira fahaman. Kami akan membantu sesiapa sahaja, termasuk komunis sekiranya mereka menentang Israel. Kami mahu semua Muslim bersatu, tanpa mengira fahaman politik. Konflik antara kumpulan dalam masyarakat Muslim hanya akan merugikan.

Berhubung dasar dan tindakan pentadbiran presiden AS, George W Bush di Iraq, bagaimana anda melihat perkembangan terbaru di sana. Apakah kesan peningkatan anggota tentera AS seperti yang dirancang Bush?

Beliau akan menyebabkan lebih banyak kematian tentera AS di Iraq. Penentangan oleh rakyat Iraq akan meningkat dan mengorbankan lebih banyak tentera AS.

Situasi keganasan di Iraq disifatkan sebagai perang saudara antara Sunni dan Syiah, terutama oleh media Barat. Anda bersetuju dengan pandangan ini?

Tidak, apa yang berlaku bukan perang saudara sunni dengan syiah kerana syiah turut terlibat dengan penentangan terhadap AS. Pembahagian yang dibuat adalah berdasarkan perkiraan politik, antara yang menyebelahi AS dengan yang menentang. Biar saya jelaskan sesuatu. Dari mana AS melancarkan serangan ketika menyerang Iraq? Qatar, Arab Saudi dan Kuwait. Tetapi tidak disebut sunni menentang sunni. Perpecahan antara syiah dengan sunni ini tidak sepatutnya berlaku dan hanya akan memberi manfaat kepada AS dan sekutunya. Tidak ada perbezaan antara syiah dengan sunni. Pihak AS memperbesarkan perbezaan ini, seperti yang berlaku di Iraq untuk menimbulkan sentimen yang boleh membawa kepada perpecahan di kalangan ummah. Ummah Muslim sepatutnya bersatu, mendengar pandangan satu sama lain dan tidak mendengar pandangan daripada Amerika Syarikat.

Rancangan AS meningkatkan bilangan tentera di Iraq dan peningkatan kuasa ketenteraan, seperti kapal perang berhampiran Iran memberikan petanda menunjukkan perang dengan Iran hampir berlaku. Apa pandangan anda?

Ya, peningkatan tentera di kawasan sekitar Iran menunjukkan kemungkinan AS akan memulakan tendakan ketenteraan ke atas Iran. Memang kita tidak dapat nyatakan dengan pasti tetapi memang ada kemungkinan akan berlaku peperangan.

The Truth About Everybody

From PopMatters today



People Substitutes
By META WAGNER



"I have similar passionate feelings for TiVO. The television set in my bedroom—the one connected to TiVO—broke a couple of weeks ago, and I can’t function without it. I’m forced to choose between favorite programs: Gilmore Girls or American Idol? Grey’s Anatomy or The O.C.? What kind of cruel fate would force such a dilemma upon me? But, it’s more than that. I miss searching for movies starring Catherine Deneuve or Dustin Hoffman. I miss having TiVO choose programs it thinks I want to watch (even though it’s almost always wrong). I even miss the thwump sound TiVO makes to let you know you’ve done something wrong. Just a mild alert; no sharp, buzzing, shaming sound that other gadgets produce when you’ve screwed up. TiVO would never be so judgmental."



Click here for full article

Kadang-Kadang Tak Jadi

Menjelang pilihan raya, ahli politik bersedia belajar cara kelihatan mesra di media.

Satu strategi lama ialah mendekati kanak-kanak untuk menunjukkan imej keibuan/kebapaan atau pelindung yang penyayang.

Tetapi, kadang-kala strategi ini tidak menjadi. Presiden George W Bush pernah gagal apabila bayi yang didukung menangis.

Presiden Vladimir Putin pula melakukan sesuatu yang lebih teruk: meniup perut seorang kanak-kanak yang usianya tidak lagi dalam kategori kanak-kanak yang akan ketawa besar bila ditiup perut.

Strategi mendekati kanak-kanak mungkin yang paling berkesan untuk mempamerkan imej mesra kepada pengundi, tetapi respons tidak boleh dijangka.

Iran Hari Ini

Gadis-gadis cool Iran yang bakal sengsara sekiranya Iran diserang.

What Did I Tell You

Presiden Rusia, Vladimir Putin terus membuktikan keunggulan Rusia di persada antarabangsa. Tokoh paling berkuasa tahun lalu ini meneruskan perjalanan kuasa tahun ini dengan sangat dramatik.

Selepas mengkritik Amerika Syarikat, Putin melawat negara-negara sekutu AS di Timur Tengah, termasuk Arab Saudi. Sebelum itu, beliau menimbulkan sekali lagi cadangan "OPEC untuk gas" dengan negara musuh Washington, Iran.

Link: Ucapan Putin di persidangan Munich.

Kemenangan Ini Kami Tujukan Kepada Bush...

Dixie Chicks tiba di puncak ketika populariti Bush menjunam. Masa yang sangat sesuai bagi kumpulan ini, terutama penyanyi utamanya Natalie Maines yang dikecam hebat dunia muzik country yang konservatif menunjukkan jari kepada pengecam.

Seperti juga Anugerah Academy tahun lalu yang menyaksikan filem politik menguasai, Grammy tahun ini juga menyaksikan lagu bermesej politik berleluasa, termasuk daripada John Mayer, Bob Dylan, Neil Young dan The Flaming Lips.

Jelas kepada siapa kritikan ditujukan. Antara isu utama ialah antiperang dan Dylan melagukan isu taufan Katrina.

The More Things Change?

Perancis menerima calon presiden terbaru, Segolene Royal yang berdasarkan ucapan baru-baru ini, sangat berhaluan kiri, dalam dasar dalam dan luar negara.

Royal menjanjikan gaji minumum yang lebih tinggi dan usaha mendapatkan pekerjaan untuk lepasan universiti.

Dalam ucapan kepada rakyat Perancis, Royal juga melemparkan sedikit kritikan kepada Amerika Syarikat, walaupun jauh lebih lembut berbanding kritikan presiden Rusia, Vladimir Putin.

"I don't want a Europe that is just a free-trade area attached to NATO," katanya. "Even less do I want a Europe where it's everyone against everyone and social and fiscal dumping replaces solidarity."

Royal kini menjadi calon paling menarik untuk ditonjolkan di media. Malah sejak awal lagi media sudah pun bertanya, "Inikah wajah baru Perancis?" Dalam era televisyen hari ini, imej beliau sendiri menjadi penyumbang besar prestasi dalam pilihan raya nanti.

Berdasarkan ucapannya, Royal kelihatan sangat berpotensi menggerakkan Perancis, terutama dalam hal pekerja, lebih kiri lagi.Tapi, orang Perancis sendiri yang berkata "Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.”

Keadilan Untuk Rusia

Der Spiegel interview with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov

"Everyone Ought to Stop Demonizing Russia"

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, 56, discusses threats to security in Europe, the dispute over Russian natural gas and oil and America's unilateral approach in the Middle East.

Jerman Menghadapi Cabaran Globalisasi

From The New York Times, February 6, 2007

Germany Agonizes Over a Brain Drain

By MARK LANDLER

Benedikt Thoma recalls the moment he began to think seriously about leaving Germany. It was in 2004, at a New Year’s Day reception in nearby Frankfurt, and the guest speaker, a prominent politician, was lamenting the fact that every year thousands of educated Germans turn their backs on their homeland.

“That struck me like a bolt of lightning,” said Mr. Thoma, 44, an engineer then running his family’s elevator company. “I asked myself, ‘Why should I stay here when the future is brighter someplace else?’ ”

In December, as his work with the company became an intolerable grind because of labor disputes, Mr. Thoma quit and made plans to move to Canada. In its wide-open spaces he hopes to find the future that he says is dwindling at home. As soon as he lands a job, Mr. Thoma, his wife, Petra, and their two teenage sons will join the ranks of Germany’s emigrants.

There has been a steady exodus over the years, but it has recently become Topic A in a land already saddled with one of the most rapidly aging and shrinking populations of any Western nation. With evidence that more professionals are leaving now than in past years, politicians and business executives warn about the loss of their country’s best and brightest.

Among the more popular programs on German television is “Goodbye Deutschland!: The Emigrants,” a 12-part series chronicling several families who have forsaken Germany for South Africa or southern Spain.

The trigger for this latest bout of angst was the release last fall of new government statistics showing that 144,800 Germans emigrated in 2005, up from 109,500 in 2001. At the same time, only 128,100 Germans returned, a decline of nearly 50,000 from the year before. That made it the first year in nearly four decades that more people left than came home.

Demographic experts also say the nature of the emigrants is changing. These are not just young unskilled workers like those who fled the economically blighted eastern part of Germany after the country was reunified in 1990 to work in restaurants in Austria or Switzerland.

They are doctors, engineers, architects and scientists — just the sort of highly educated professionals that Germany needs to compete with economic up-and-comers like China and India.

“It’s not a problem of numbers as much as brain drain,” said Reiner Klingholz, the director of the Berlin Institute for Population and Development. “What we desperately need in the near future are talented and qualified people to replace those who will retire in 15 to 20 years.”

Other experts contend, though, that such fears are overblown. Germany has long sent its scientists and engineers to work or study abroad, they say, with the number of returnees historically balancing out those who leave. The latest statistics merely reflect an acceleration of that trend, as German academia and industry adjust to an increasingly global economy.

“Whenever the subject of migration comes up, Germans get very nervous,” said Claudia Diehl, a sociologist at the University of Göttingen who has studied migration patterns. “First they were nervous about people coming; now they are worried about people leaving.”

The numbers, she said, may also overstate the incidence of brain drain, because they do not distinguish between native and naturalized Germans. For example, Turkish guest workers who adopt German citizenship and later go home are classified as German emigrants.

Germany is not the only European country losing people. Nicolas Sarkozy, the conservative presidential candidate in France, recently held a rally in London, home to 300,000 French citizens living in Britain, urging them to return and “make France a great nation.”

The number of French citizens living in Britain jumped 8.4 percent in 2005, according to government statistics. But the total number of French people living outside the country grew only 1.2 percent, or 15,300 people, roughly equivalent to Germany’s net loss of about 16,700 citizens.

Caveats aside, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that Germany has become less attractive for people in fields like medicine, academic research and engineering. Those who leave cite chronic unemployment, a rigid labor market, stifling bureaucracy, high taxes and the plodding economy — which, though better recently, still lags behind that of the United States.

As Dr. Friedrich Boettner, a German orthopedic surgeon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, puts it: “I make more money. I’ve got more opportunity. New York was the chance of my lifetime.”

German salaries, he said, are not competitive with those in the United States or Britain, and the hierarchical structure of some professions in Germany discourages ambitious young people from staying. The medical field, in which advancement is controlled by powerful chief doctors, has been hit particularly hard, with 2,300 doctors leaving in 2005 alone.

“In Germany, it is nearly impossible to make a medical career unless you go into a pipeline and wait for your time,” said Helmut Schwarz, vice president of the German Research Foundation. “You’ve got little time to pursue research, and you’re under the thumb of your director.”

In Mr. Thoma’s view, the root of the problem is deeper. Germany, he said, has a “blockage” in its society.

“Germans are so complacent,” he said, sitting at the dining table in his neat-as-a-pin home here. “They don’t want to change anything. Everything is discussed endlessly without ever reaching a solution.”

As an example he cites the stalemate between his family’s firm and its 89 employees. After the firm became unionized, he said, the two sides began bickering over wages and working conditions.

With much of his 80-hour workweeks eaten up by those disputes, Mr. Thoma said he had developed high blood pressure and other ailments. He told his brothers he was burned out and ready to leave.

With an engineering degree and a nest egg from his stake in the family firm, he should have no problem leaving. While the European Union's expansion has given Germans more options, their two favorite destinations are outside it: Switzerland and the United States.

Surveying the map, Mr. Thoma settled on Canada, which his family had visited six years ago and loved. They were drawn to the natural beauty and the sense of possibility. They also viewed it as a compromise between the social model of Europe and the market orientation of the United States.

Mr. Thoma confessed to doubts about how many jobs Canada had for someone with his specialty. He has sent out his résumé and will go to Toronto this month to scout for work. “My problem is that I’m not a truck driver,” he said with a shrug. “Canada has a shortage of truck drivers.”

Despite the trauma of starting over, Mr. Thoma and his wife said they were sure their children would have a better future in Canada. When pressed, the couple could come up with only two things they would miss about home: German television and driving on the autobahn.

The government of Chancellor Angela Merkel is trying to improve Germany’s attractiveness with several initiatives, including a plan to create more competitive universities to lure back expatriate researchers.

But while the country’s economy regained traction in 2006, Mrs. Merkel has made little progress in loosening the labor market. A campaign to scale down health care spending was tied up by politics, resulting in a modification that critics say hardly deserves the name reform.

The health care debate drove 20,000 physicians into the streets last year to demonstrate for higher wages and better working conditions. Many are not waiting around to see if things improve.

Dr. Nina Lenhoff, 31, from Münster, moved to London for training in psychiatry because she thought it would be nice to live in another country. “But once I got here, I was just amazed,” she said.

Her salary is nearly double what she earned in Germany, and when she had a baby 18 months ago she was able to work part time — something she said would not have been possible in Germany.

The same is true for Dr. Boettner, 35, who studied orthopedics in Münster and got a taste of New York when he trained for a year in arthroplasty, or joint replacement, at the Hospital for Special Surgery.

Back home in 2001, Dr. Boettner found that Germany did not appreciate that specialty. He also dreaded the formality of the medical system, rooted in a society where people still address their superiors with formal titles like “Herr Professor Doktor.”

When the Hospital for Special Surgery offered Dr. Boettner his own practice last year — at a starting salary three times what he would be earning at home — it was not a tough call. Now ensconced on Manhattan’s Upper East Side with his wife and two daughters, he said he could not imagine going home. He knows other German expatriates who feel the same.

“If you ask me about doctors, lawyers or engineers who are in their 30s and have made it in Germany,” he said, “I don’t know of anyone.”

Ariane Bernard contributed reporting from Paris.