Tag: DIPLOMACY

  • Obama’s State of the Union and 2011 decisions..

    Obama’s State of the Union and 2011 decisions..

    .OBAMA STATE OF THE UNION1
    President Obama focused on domestic issues in his State of the Union Address last night – as did the Republicans in their response.Glossing over the elephant in the room (two wars and an escalating Iran situation) may be a good move politically. But with troop withdrawals scheduled for Iraq and Afghanistan this year, and a likely power void for Iran to fill, America’s global situation will call for some tough decisions in 2011.

    Obama Calls for Bipartisan Effort to

    Fight for U.S. Jobs

    Doug Mills/The New York TimesPresident Obama focused attention on preparing the United States to thrive against global competition.

    By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
    Published: January 25, 2011



    WASHINGTON — President Obama challenged Americans on Tuesday night to unleash their creative spirit, set aside their partisan differences and come together around a common goal of outcompeting other nations in a rapidly shifting global economy.

    Multimedia

    Interactive Feature

    Who Sat Where: The State of the Union Seating Chart


    Interactive Feature

    Patterns of Speech: 75 Years of the State of the Union Addresses

    Related

    • News Analysis: Obama Sets Stage for Clash of Governing Ideals (January 26, 2011)
    • Obama Counters G.O.P. With Plan to Extend Spending Freeze (January 26, 2011)
    • New Seating Chart, but Same Divides (January 26, 2011)
    • Two G.O.P. Responses Point to Potential Fault Lines (January 26, 2011)
    • Political Times: After Detour, a Map of America’s Journey (January 26, 2011)
    • Some Difficulties Unnoted, And Some Facts Shaded (January 26, 2011)
    • Remarks That Touch Not Just One City (January 26, 2011)
    • Nanotechnology Gets Star Turn at Speech (January 26, 2011)
    • Times Topic: State of the Union

    Related in Opinion

    • Editorial: The State of the Union (January 26, 2011)

    Enlarge This Image

    Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

    26obama cnd2 articleInline v2

    Michelle Obama with Dallas Green, brother of Christina-Taylor Green, the 9-year-old girl killed in Tucson. He was accompanied by his parents, John and Roxanna.

    In a State of the Union address to a newly divided Congress, Mr. Obama outlined what he called a plan to “win the future” — a blueprint for spending in critical areas like education, high-speed rail, clean-energy technology and high-speed Internet to help the United States weather the unsettling impact of globalization and the challenge from emerging powers like China and India.

    “The rules have changed,” he said.

    But at the same time he proposed budget-cutting measures, including a five-year freeze in spending on some domestic programs that he said would reduce the deficit by $400 billion over 10 years.

    Drawing a stark contrast between himself and Republicans, who are advocating immediate and deep cuts in spending, Mr. Obama laid out a philosophy of a government that could be more efficient but would still be necessary if the nation was to address fundamental challenges at home and abroad.

    “We need to out-innovate, outeducate and outbuild the rest of the world,” he said. “We have to make America the best place on earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit and reform our government. That’s how our people will prosper.”

    Just weeks after the shooting in Tucson that claimed six lives and left Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, gravely injured, Mr. Obama received a reception that was muted and civil.

    There were no boos or a shout of “You lie!” as in speeches past. Many Republicans and Democrats sat side by side — the first time anyone here can remember such mixing — and nearly all wore black-and-white lapel ribbons in honor of the dead and injured. Ms. Giffords’s colleagues held a seat open for her.

    The president’s speech, lasting slightly more than an hour, lacked the loft of the inspirational address he delivered in Tucson days after the shooting. But it seemed intended to elevate his presidency above the bare-knuckled legislative gamesmanship that has defined the first two years of his term.

    Reaching out to Republicans who have vowed to end the pet projects known as “earmarks,” Mr. Obama pledged to veto any bill that contained them. He tried to defuse partisan anger over his health care measure with humor, saying he had “heard rumors” of concerns over the bill, and he reiterated his pledge to fix a tax provision in the measure that both parties regard as burdensome to businesses.

    He drew sustained applause when he declared that colleges should open their doors to military recruiters and R.O.T.C. programs now that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the policy barring gay men and lesbians from serving openly, has been repealed.

    And he tried to charm Republicans by weaving the new House speaker, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, into his narrative about American greatness, citing Mr. Boehner’s rise from “someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father’s Cincinnati bar” as an example of “a country where anything is possible.”

    Still, the good will lasted only so long. Moments after Mr. Obama finished speaking, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, delivered the official Republican response, in which he criticized Mr. Obama as doing too little to attack the deficit.

    And Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who delivered her own Republican critique with the backing of the Tea Party wing, complained that instead of creating “a leaner, smarter government,” Mr. Obama had created “a bureaucracy that tells us which light bulbs to buy.”

    The president sought to use Tuesday night’s address to shed the tag of big-government liberal that Republicans have placed on him, and to reclaim the mantle of a pragmatic, postpartisan leader that he used to ride to the presidency in 2008.

    With one eye toward his 2012 re-election campaign, Mr. Obama offered a rosy economic vision. The president who once emphasized the problems he had inherited from his predecessor was instead looking forward and making the case that the nation had at long last emerged from economic crisis.

    “Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back,” Mr. Obama said. “Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.”

    The speech was light on new policy proposals, reflecting both political and fiscal restraints on the administration after two years in which it achieved substantial legislative victories but lost the midterm elections, failed to bring the unemployment rate below 9 percent and watched the budget deficit rise sharply.

    Mr. Obama did not address gun control, a hotly debated topic after the shooting in Tucson.

    He did not lay out any specific plans for addressing the long-term costs of Social Security and Medicare, the biggest fiscal challenges ahead. He backed an overhaul of corporate taxes but spoke only in passing about the need to simplify the tax code for individuals. He called for legislation to address illegal immigration but provided no details.

    He called for an end to subsidies for oil companies and set a goal of reducing dependence on polluting fuels over the next quarter-century, but without any mechanism to enforce it. And in a speech largely devoted to economic issues, he talked only generally about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    As he drew a contrast between the United States and other nations, Mr. Obama gave a nod to the nation’s high unemployment rate, arguing that “the world has changed” and that it was no longer as easy as it once was for Americans to find a good and secure job.

    Government itself, he said, needs to be updated for the information age. “We can’t win the future with a government of the past,” he said.

    He packaged his message in optimistic, almost nationalistic phrasing, saying the country had always risen to challenges.

    “So yes, the world has changed,” Mr. Obama said. “The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember, for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world.”

    He continued: “No workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventers and entrepreneurs. We are home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any other place on earth.”

    Mr. Obama outlined initiatives in five areas: innovation; education; infrastructure; deficit reduction; and a more efficient federal bureaucracy. He pledged to increase the nation’s spending on research and development, as a share of the total economy, to the highest levels since John F. Kennedy was president, and vowed to prepare an additional 100,000 science and math teachers over the next 10 years.

    He proposed new efforts on high-speed rail, road and airport construction and a “national wireless initiative” that, administration officials said, would extend the next generation of wireless coverage to 98 percent of the population.

    “Our infrastructure used to be the best, but our lead has slipped,” Mr. Obama said. “South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports.”

    Saying it was imperative for the nation to tackle its deficit, Mr. Obama reiterated his support for $78 billion in cuts to the Pentagon’s budget over five years, in addition to the five-year partial freeze on domestic spending. But he did not adopt any of the recommendations of the bipartisan fiscal commission he appointed to figure out ways to bring the deficit under control.

    Mr. Obama headed into the speech in surprisingly good political shape, given the drubbing Democrats took in the November elections. His job approval ratings are up — in some polls, higher than 50 percent. The public is feeling more optimistic about the economy, voters are giving Mr. Obama credit for reaching out to Republicans in a bipartisan way, and the president won high marks for his speech in Tucson after the shooting.

    “There’s a reason the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause,” Mr. Obama said Tuesday night. “Amid all the noise and passions and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater — something more consequential than party or political preference.”

    A version of this article appeared in print on January 26, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition.

  • Turkey’s ascent as a regional superpower

    Turkey’s ascent as a regional superpower

    Lebanon Shows Shift of Influence in Mideast

    By ANTHONY SHADID

    BEIRUT, Lebanon — In Lebanon’s worst crisis in years, whose resolution may determine whether Hezbollah controls a government allied with the United States, American diplomacy has become the butt of jokes here. Once a decisive player here, Saudi Arabia has all but given up. In their stead is Turkey, which has sought to mediate a crisis that, given events on Tuesday in Beirut’s streets, threatens to turn violent before it is resolved.

    The confrontation here is the latest sign of a shifting map of the Middle East, where longtime stalwarts like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have further receded in influence, and emerging powers like Turkey, Iran and even the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar have decisively emerged in just a matter of a few years. It is yet another episode in which the United States has watched — seemingly helplessly — as events in places like Tunisia, Lebanon and even Iraq unfold unexpectedly and beyond its ability to control.

    The jockeying might be a glimpse of a post-American Middle East, where the United States’ allies and foes, brought together in the interests of stability, plot foreign policies that intersect in initiatives the United States must grudgingly accept.

    “There is a sense that the regional players have gone up as the United States has gone down in terms of its presence, its viability, its role,” said a high-ranking Lebanese official allied with the American-backed side in the crisis, which erupted last week.

    In a series of stalemates — from the Arab-Israeli conflict to Lebanon — Turkey has proved the most dynamic, projecting an increasingly assertive and independent foreign policy in an Arab world bereft of any country that matches its stature. Its success is a subtle critique of America’s longstanding policy in the Middle East of trying to isolate and ostracize its enemies. From Hezbollah here to the followers of a populist, anti-American cleric in Iraq, Turkey has managed to forge dialogue with America’s enemies and allies alike.

    “Turkey has become, I think, until the contrary is proven, an indispensable state in the reorganizing of this region,” said Sarkis Naoum, an analyst and prominent columnist in Beirut.

    So far, the interventions of Turkey and others in the Lebanese crisis are mostly symbolic, ventures into a maddeningly complex political landscape that hews to a formula of “no victor, no vanquished.” But in contrast to past crises, when Turkey was virtually irrelevant, the new effort signals the country’s ascent as a regional superpower.

    “Our region could not cope with Lebanon entering a new atmosphere of uncertainty,” Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said Monday before he left for Syria, where he met the leaders of Qatar and Syria. (Over the weekend, he talked with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.) “We want to discuss what we can do to overcome this crisis and what other countries in the region must do for Lebanon’s stability.”

    Lebanon’s renewed crisis, cutting across questions of sectarian tension in the Middle East, conflict with Israel and Hezbollah’s power in the country, pits the movement against its foes in a stalemate over an international tribunal investigating the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a billionaire and a former prime minister, in February 2005.

    The tribunal issued indictments on Monday, and, though the charges remained sealed, Hezbollah has acknowledged that members of the Shiite Muslim movement will be named in the investigation, which it has denounced as an American-Israeli tool. For months, it has sought to undermine the tribunal, questioning its witnesses and evidence, and demanding that the government end its cooperation and denounce the charges. The government led by Mr. Hariri’s son, Saad, refused, and in protest, Hezbollah and its allies withdrew from it, forcing its collapse after a 14-month tenure.

    Deadlock has ensued. Many believe that a negotiated solution will eventually end it, but the urgency to find a deal may not come before more strife. In what many saw as a signal by Hezbollah on Tuesday, scores of men dressed in black gathered in various neighborhoods in the capital after dawn. Organized and disciplined, they seemed to move toward Beirut’s downtown and airport, but dispersed within an hour.

    “What happened today was just a small message,” said Rafic Nasrallah, an analyst and director of the International Center for Media and Research in Beirut. “The other side should read it very carefully. Until now, the opposition is giving a chance to mediation.”

    “But,” he asked, “how long should it wait?”

    After the summit meeting in Damascus on Monday, the foreign ministers of Qatar and Turkey visited Beirut on Tuesday, seeing all the parties to the conflict. The trip itself seemed to signal a more intense regional effort that has filled a vacuum left by what some officials describe as an incoherent Saudi policy and an unfocused American approach.

    “I wouldn’t call it an aggressive role,” Mohammed Chattah, a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Hariri, said of the American effort here. “I wouldn’t even call it a central role, certainly not at this stage. The regional players are much more visible.”

    Even for American allies, like Mr. Hariri, the United States has become such a contentious player, loathed so deeply by one side in the crisis, that a more visible role would only harm its friends. In an embarrassing episode, its ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Ministry for interfering in Lebanon’s affairs after a visit to a minor lawmaker. The meeting was soon skewered by television stations across the spectrum.

    Saudi Arabia, long the main Arab backer of Mr. Hariri, has receded since it failed to find a compromise with Syria last week.

    Turkey’s entry into the fray follows a pattern of initiatives in the region that do not always line up with American wishes. In May 2008, American officials were taken aback at the announcement of indirect talks, mediated by Turkey, between Syria and Israel. That year, Qatar mediated a deal between Lebanon’s factions that left American officials divided. In both cases, its officials were left in the dark, diplomats say, so as not to undermine a deal.

    In Lebanon on Tuesday, Turkey found the rarest of circumstances when Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu arrived here: a welcome from both sides.

    “They’re well placed more than any other country in the region,” said Mr. Chattah, the foreign policy adviser to Mr. Hariri.

    Ali Hamdan, an aide to Nabih Berri, the Parliament speaker and an ally of Hezbollah, called Turkey “helpful.” He added, “Their international relations will help market any deal they can reach.”

    Nada Bakri and Hwaida Saad contributed reporting.

    www.nytimes.com, January 18, 2011

  • Turkish-US strategic partnership

    Turkish-US strategic partnership

    NAMIK TAN2

    Font Size: Larger|Smaller

    Wednesday, January 12, 2011
    NAMIK TAN
    During the long decades of the Cold War, Turkey was primarily known for its military-strategic contribution to NATO in the defense of freedom. Now, we are increasingly known for our regional ties, economic dynamism and secular democracy and Turkish diplomacy has become an active force in projecting peace and stability in a wider geography spanning the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and Asia.
    However, conflicts and disputes in our immediate and further neighborhood and beyond are far from resolved. Indeed, the Iranian nuclear issue remains elusive; Iraq is yet to be secured from sources of instability; efforts to ameliorate the Arab-Israeli conflict have not produced the desired outcome; Turkish-Israeli relations are passing through difficult times; the Caucasus continues to witness ongoing conflicts; efforts to ensure stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina face challenges; despite positive developments, international efforts in Afghanistan still confront difficulties; and in Cyprus the ongoing isolation of the Turkish Cypriots continues despite attempts to achieve a lasting settlement. Turkey plays an important and frequently central role on each of these issues, all of which remain high on the United States’ foreign policy agenda.
    It is in this wider context that the relationship between Turkey and the U.S. is one of the most important dimensions of our foreign policy. Turkish-U.S. relations have been characterized for decades by close cooperation, solidarity and strong bonds of friendship. They are based on common values of democracy, respect for human rights, rule of law and free markets. We have acted together in various conflicts ranging from Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo to Afghanistan. We stand together in the fight against terrorism.
    The positive change in the nature of our bilateral relationship was crowned by the visit of President Obama in April 2009. During his first bilateral overseas trip to Turkey, President Obama chose to use the term “model partnership” in describing Turkish-U.S. relations.
    This vision requires deepening and widening bilateral relations in fields other than military and strategic initiatives, notably in economic, commercial and cultural spheres. Indeed, the depth of our relations in economic and commercial fields is not yet reflecting the nature of model partnership.
    To address this gap, in line with the vision of model partnership, Turkey and the U.S. took a crucial step establishing the “Framework for Strategic Economic and Commercial Cooperation,” or FSECC, in December, 2009. The first meeting of the FSECC was recently held in Washington, D.C., with the participation of four Cabinet-level dignitaries from the two countries. This essential forum will bridge the gap between our private sectors and policy makers, allowing them to address mutual issues and opportunities.
    It is unfortunate that two recent incidents have complicated these efforts to elevate our relationship to the level of a model partnership. The Turkish “no vote” on sanctions against Iran in the U.N. Security Council on June 9, 2010, and the Israeli raid on the Gaza aid convoy on May 31, 2010, triggered a surge of commentaries in the United States suggesting a shift of axis in Turkish foreign policy and questioning Turkey’s allegiance to the Western world.
    Beneath these criticisms lies the Cold War mentality of seeing the world in opposing and exclusive terms. If there was a shift of axis, how could one explain the presence of our troops in Afghanistan? Turkey’s Western vocation is a consistent and an irreversible process. We view our goal of European Union accession as the main pillar of our commitment to democracy, freedom and free markets and our place in NATO as the backbone of our national security as well as that of regional and global security.
    Our relations with the United States and the European Union complement our presence in Eurasia and the Middle East and are not mutually exclusive. The intensification of our relations with Syria and Russia does not indicate a shift of axis. Similarly, Turkey’s leadership roles in the United Nations Security Council, the Group of 20 Nations, the Organization of Islamic Conference, the Council of Europe, the Southeast European Cooperation Process or the OECD are also complementary. This is a clear example of the strength of Turkish diplomacy and the ability of Turkey to establish meaningful relations with different cultures and geographies.
    Turkey is not immune from the consequences of conflicts in her region. The war in Iraq, the conflict in Palestine, disputes in Lebanon, hostilities between Russia and Georgia, the situation in Bosnia, the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia and the Iranian nuclear issue have all had a direct or indirect impact on Turkey. It has been severely affected by the wars in Iraq, and our economy was disrupted by the dispute between Russia and Georgia. Most likely, the Turkish economy will be hit worse than any other country by further sanctions against Iran. Therefore, we cannot observe events as an idle bystander. It is with this understanding that Turkey makes serious efforts to reconcile disputing parties in our region and beyond.
    Viewing this multi-faceted active foreign policy as a shift of axis is not only inaccurate but also does an injustice to our sincere efforts to achieve peace and stability, to engage in more trade, to increase interdependency and to solve conflicts through peaceful means.
    Turkey’s “zero problems with neighbors” policy is inclusive and not based on religion or ideology. We have accomplished positive changes in our relations with all 12 of our direct and indirect neighbors, only four of which are Muslim-majority countries.
    The Israeli raid against the Gaza humanitarian aid convoy in May and subsequent developments fed the negative caricature of a supposed change in Turkey’s foreign policy direction. Turkey was the first Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel and the second of all nations to do so after the United States. Our cooperation has continued uninterrupted for more than six decades. The relationship between the Turks and the Jews took root long before that, extending through five centuries. Turkish-Israeli relations have long been a positive factor in a world where we witness violent conflicts based on religion and faith.
    Despite all the anger and resentment among the Turkish public in the wake of the Gaza aid convoy attack, Turkey was ready to address this profound crisis with Israel in a manner befitting two friends. We held the view that, as a friend, Israel should accept her wrongdoing, apologize to the Turkish people for the killings and compensate the losses incurred by the families of the victims and those who were injured. This is still where we stand.
    The second issue that gave rise to criticisms of Turkish foreign policy is related to Iran’s nuclear program. Turkey is against Iran’s development of nuclear weapons capability. Iran’s development of a nuclear arsenal would gravely threaten peace, security and stability in our region by triggering a nuclear arms race.
    Having said that, I must also emphasize that Iran, as any other country that is party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, has the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Therefore, in order to achieve our goals with respect to Iran, engagement is the only path to follow. This position does not undermine that of the U.S. On the contrary, we are encouraging Iran to be more transparent about its nuclear plans and to address the concerns of the international community.
    To be sure, the Tehran Declaration of May 17 does not solve all the problems. However, we believe it offers an important opportunity for the peaceful resolution of the problem. It is with this understanding that we voted against new sanctions at the U.N. Security Council resolution in June. We still believe that diplomacy offers effective avenues to address this issue without further heightening the tension in the region.
    Our effort to portray a more accurate picture of Turkey in the United States and broaden bilateral relationship is one of the most important aspects of our partnership. The narrow-minded efforts of certain single-agenda ethnic lobbies are all too evident. In particular, the ill-conceived efforts of segments of the Armenian diaspora do not serve the higher and long-term interests of the United States or even of Armenia. We must work together to prevent them from harming U.S.-Turkish relations.
    Turkish-U.S. relations have withstood the test of time. We overcame one of the biggest challenges to the relationship in 2003 when the Turkish Parliament voted against allowing the U.S. military to enter Iraq through Turkey. In a relatively short period of time Turkey and the U.S. revitalized their strategic partnership, in large part because of its strong foundation. Methodological differences on certain issues do not undermine our shared principles.
    Our determination to further enhance the strategic partnership between our countries that will lead us to a brighter future remains unshaken. Turkey and the United States complement each other. We cannot and should not accept failure, as failure is not an option.
    *Namık Tan is the ambassador of Turkey to the United States. This piece is an abbreviated version of an article that originally appeared in Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ), available at www.turkishpolicy.com.
    __._,_.___

  • How to Stay Friends With China

    How to Stay Friends With China

    Between Two Ages Brzezinski 1970By ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI

    Washington
    THE visit by President Hu Jintao of China to Washington this month will be the most important top-level United States-Chinese encounter since Deng Xiaoping’s historic trip more than 30 years ago. It should therefore yield more than the usual boilerplate professions of mutual esteem. It should aim for a definition of the relationship between the two countries that does justice to the global promise of constructive cooperation between them.
    I remember Deng’s visit well, as I was national security adviser at the time. It took place in an era of Soviet expansionism, and crystallized United States-Chinese efforts to oppose it. It also marked the beginning of China’s three-decades-long economic transformation — one facilitated by its new diplomatic ties to the United States.
    President Hu’s visit takes place in a different climate. There are growing uncertainties regarding the state of the bilateral relationship, as well as concerns in Asia over China’s longer-range geopolitical aspirations. These uncertainties are casting a shadow over the upcoming meeting.
    In recent months there has been a steady increase in polemics in the United States and China, with each side accusing the other of pursuing economic policies that run contrary to accepted international rules. Each has described the other as selfish. Longstanding differences between the American and the Chinese notions of human rights were accentuated by the awarding of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese dissident.
    Moreover, each side has unintentionally intensified the suspicions of the other. Washington’s decisions to help India with nuclear energy have stimulated China’s unease, prompting increased Chinese support for Pakistan’s desire to expand its own nuclear energy potential. China’s seeming lack of concern over North Korea’s violent skirmishes with South Korea has given rise to apprehension about China’s policy on the Korean peninsula. And just as America’s unilateralism has in recent years needlessly antagonized some of its friends, so China should note that some of its recent stands have worried its neighbors.
    The worst outcome for Asia’s long-term stability as well as for the American-Chinese relationship would be a drift into escalating reciprocal demonization. What’s more, the temptations to follow such a course are likely to grow as both countries face difficulties at home.
    The pressures are real. The United States’ need for comprehensive domestic renewal, for instance, is in many respects the price of having shouldered the burdens of waging the 40-year cold war, and it is in part the price of having neglected for the last 20 years mounting evidence of its own domestic obsolescence. Our weakening infrastructure is merely a symptom of the country’s slide backward into the 20th century.
    China, meanwhile, is struggling to manage an overheated economy within an inflexible political system. Some pronouncements by Chinese commentators smack of premature triumphalism regarding both China’s domestic transformation and its global role. (Those Chinese leaders who still take Marxist classics seriously might do well to re-read Stalin’s message of 1930 to the party cadres titled “Dizzy With Success,” which warned against “a spirit of vanity and conceit.”)
    Thirty years after their collaborative relationship started, the United States and China should not flinch from a forthright discussion of their differences — but they should undertake it with the knowledge that each needs the other. A failure to consolidate and widen their cooperation would damage not just both nations but the world as a whole. Neither side should delude itself that it can avoid the harm caused by an increased mutual antagonism; both should understand that a crisis in one country can hurt the other.
    For the visit to be more than symbolic, Presidents Obama and Hu should make a serious effort to codify in a joint declaration the historic potential of productive American-Chinese cooperation. They should outline the principles that should guide it. They should declare their commitment to the concept that the American-Chinese partnership should have a wider mission than national self-interest. That partnership should be guided by the moral imperatives of the 21st century’s unprecedented global interdependence.
    The declaration should set in motion a process for defining common political, economic and social goals. It should acknowledge frankly the reality of some disagreements as well as register a shared determination to seek ways of narrowing the ranges of such disagreements. It should also take note of potential threats to security in areas of mutual concern, and commit both sides to enhanced consultations and collaboration in coping with them.
    Such a joint charter should, in effect, provide the framework not only for avoiding what under some circumstances could become a hostile rivalry but also for expanding a realistic collaboration between the United States and China. This would do justice to a vital relationship between two great nations of strikingly different histories, identities and cultures — yet both endowed with a historically important global role.
    Zbigniew Brzezinski was the national security adviser in the Carter administration.

    January 2, 2011

  • Angry UK students protest ahead of controversial vote

    Angry UK students protest ahead of controversial vote

    By Paul Armstrong, CNN
    December 9, 2010 12:11 p.m. EST
    Click to play
    Police injured in UK student protests
    STORY HIGHLIGHTS
    • Thousands of students in London for protests against plan to raise tuition fees
    • NEW: Minor scuffles break out as police prevent protesters getting near parliament
    • UK lawmakers set to vote on controversial plans as government tries to cut deficit
    • Earlier this month police arrested a total of 153 people following another protest

    London, England (CNN) — Thousands of angry students took to the streets of London Thursday for another protest, as British lawmakers prepared to vote on controversial plans to raise tuition fees.

    But despite pleas from organizers for protests to remain peaceful, many students attempted to push through the long lines of police in fluorescent jackets trying to prevent them from accessing Parliament Square.

    In one incident a flare was thrown at police officers, while a number of scuffles erupted.

    Hundreds of police officers were deployed, many with riot gear, as the authorities looked to avoid a repeat of the disturbances last month when hundreds of protesters stormed the Conservative Party headquarters in the city. The Conservatives are the senior partner in a ruling coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

    bttn close
    t1larg.protest.scuffles.gi

    t1larg.protest.scuffles.giUK students protest tuition hike

    bttn close

    UK students plan ‘Day X’ protests

    bttn close

    Police injured in UK student protests

    bttn close
    stacks.london.protests.map

    stacks.london.protests.mapMap: Students head for Parliament

    RELATED TOPICS
    • United Kingdom
    • Protests and Demonstrations

    One final-year student, standing in front of police lines outside Parliament told CNN he was there out of solidarity for students who may be priced out of a place at university. “We’re all here because we’re passionate about this. We feel betrayed,” he said.

    The National Union of Students (NUS) said ahead of the march it expected tens of thousands of students from across the UK.

    IReport: Are you there? Send your pics, video

    Earlier this month police arrested a total of 153 people following another protest at Trafalgar Square. As many attempted to head towards parliament police stopped them a block away and hemmed them in, sparking scattered incidents of violence. Students then damaged a police van, spray painted and smashed windows at nearby government buildings, and set small fires.

    Three of the arrests happened after students filled Whitehall, the street that runs from Trafalgar Square past the prime minister’s residence toward Parliament. Police penned the protesters in at either end to try to limit criminal damage, and a line of police in fluorescent yellow vests kept the students from reaching Parliament Square.

    “We’re kettled, we’re freezing, everyone needs the toilet, but we’re having fun,” protester Clare Solomon told CNN, using a local term for being penned in.

    The protesters are angry at government plans to remove the current annual cap of £3,000 (about $4,700) on university tuition and allow schools to charge as much as £9,000 (about $14,200).

    The change is part of the government’s plan to cut its massive budget deficit.

    Defenders of the plan say universities will not necessarily charge the maximum they’re allowed to, and the government has said students will not need to pay back the fees until they earn at least £21,000 (about $32,600) a year. That threshold is currently £15,000 (about $23,300) a year.

    Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, urged lawmakers on the NUS website to “do the honorable thing and vote down these damaging proposals.

    “Students are now descending on Westminster to ensure that promises to voters are kept and they are not sold down the river.”