Avuncular American

Behind The Smarm - La Visite Britannique de Sarkozy

Focus on the frill

Try as he might, French President Nicolas Sarkozy still manages to attract the wrong kind of attention.  Despite much talk of "re-présidentialisation" and "déblingblingation" (l'Académie Francaise must have to work overtime on travesties done to the purity of the French language since his coming to power) after his party's chastisement at the recent municipal polls, it's so hard to get the press to focus on the serious stuff.

Much of the pre-visit coverage in France and in Britain centered on the importance of royal protocol, especially etiquette in the presence of the Queen.  Speak only when spoken to by Her Majesty, and by all means, don't go touching Her, even if it the President's natural tendency to slap male and female heads of state on the back, or at least apply an affectionate rub.  My wife swears she's going to write a letter to Madame Sarkozy (mommy), who might be the only hope of getting him to sit still and behave (the previous link describes his fidgety behavior as "Tigger-like").  At least she accompanied him (as did his wife and new mother-in-law) as chaperon on the visit.

Now that the state visit is more than halfway finished, today's consensus is that no major faux pas were committed.   That may be so, but then the French public was spared - in what is either a return to some of the old self-censorship or fear of more Presidential lawsuits - the spectacle of The First Lady's photo (wonderfully captioned "Mrs. Starker-zy") au naturel in yesterday's "The Sun," that newspaper of records ("Bloke To Be a Mum") of the London tabloid press.  This being a G-rated blog, you'll have to find that link yourselves.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather focus on the substance of the visit.  Like Sarkozy's address to Parliament on Wednesday, covered brilliantly by The Guardian's Simon Hoggart in "One Is Not Amused. But The Rest Are Wowed"

He loves us. He adores us. He reveres us! Listening to Nicolas Sarkozy address Parliament yesterday was like being underneath a torrent of crème Chantilly sprayed from a high-pressure hose.

I believe I detect a pattern, and I'm not the only one.  Just as he did in his state visit to Washington last November, Sarkozy has a tendency to "flirt" with the hosts (his speech to Congress evoked many of the same button-pushing themes of gratitude for American interventions in World Wars I and II, saving France and Europe from German domination).  Again, Simon Hoggart:

He actually said "thank you" for the liberation! Previous French presidents have implied that events in Normandy were mere skirmishes while the French got on with the job of throwing off the German yoke.

But Mr Sarkozy could not thank us enough. Grateful? It was surprising that he didn't grab the Speaker round his legs to thank him personally for everything his forebears had done. France would never forget - never! She would never forget the English blood, Scottish blood, Welsh blood, not forgetting the Irish blood. They would never forget the welcome given in London to General de Gaulle (something which seemed to slip the General's own mind quite quickly). "France will never forget because it has no right to forget!"

Meanwhile, Stealth Defense Reintegration

Which leads me - finally - to the serious stuff.  Just as Sarkozy underlines British and American sacrifices for France, he also stresses the importance of France in matters of defense, especially in international interventions.  The Anglo-French connection is especially important in matters of defense, as Sarkozy will continue to stress as France approaches its European Union Presidency in a few months.

Sarkozy used the London visit to announce his intention to send additional French troops to Afghanistan.  This, from the BBC's website:

He did not say how many soldiers he was thinking of sending - according to Nato figures, France currently has 1,515 soldiers in Afghanistan.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus, says there have always been suspicions in London and Washington that France wants to undermine Nato and the trans-Atlantic partnership, but, he says, President Sarkozy is in the process of changing that impression.

Changing impressions not only in Washington and London, but in France itself.  Last week's "Envoye Special," French TV's flagship documentary program, carried a segment on French combat troops fighting alongside American forces in Afghanistan.   Many French, if questioned on France and NATO, would have no idea that France in fact never left the organization.  Such was the impact of De Gaulle's withdrawal from NATO's military command in 1967, and the consequent move of the alliance's headquarters to Brussels, that most French began to believe that NATO = U.S., therefore not anything to do with France.

This process of bringing the French public along on reintegration into the West's defense structures is of necessity one of gentle nudging, accompanied by occasional bold leaps forward.  At the same time as France reminds Washington and London of its contributions, present and future, the Sarkozy/Fillon government is also looking at budgetary and personnel cuts in the French military, still Europe's largest.  If Sarkozy can triangulate this renewed French defense activism with plans to streamline France's somewhat overpopulated armed forces and find economies of scale through joint Franco-British armaments programs, he may be able to pull it off with the French public.

But he has to stay serious.  And consider taking Ritalin.

Global Deadbeat Donor Pledge Watch

Major donors failing Afghanistan due to $10bn aid shortfall

Forty per cent of aid spending returns to rich countries in corporate profits and consultant costs

The prospects for peace in Afghanistan are being undermined because Western countries are failing to deliver on their promises of aid to the tune of $10bn and because aid going to the country is used ineffectively, according to a new report written by ACBAR, an alliance international aid agencies working in Afghanistan.

Read the report - Falling short: Aid effectiveness in Afghanistan

The international community has pledged $25bn to Afghanistan since 2001 but has only delivered $15bn. The US is the biggest donor to Afghanistan but also has one of the biggest shortfalls - according to the Afghan government between 2002 and 2008 the US only delivered half of its $10.4bn commitment.

Press release from Oxfam GB March 25, 2008

Yesterday's Oxfam/ACBAR report gives us a precisely focused look at a phenomenon that I have long suspected: just like TV viewers who are caught up in the enthusiasm of a telethon and pledge $50 to a worthy cause, but then renege on their promises when the donation envelope arrives, I have often wondered who keeps track of all those billions announced at summits, colloquiums, concerts, etc.  In the case of Afghanistan, we have our answer.

I heard former USAID Director Andrew Natsios comment on the Oxfam/ACBAR report, explaining that much of the gap is due to Afghanistan's limited absorptive capacity, which is admittedly a problem.  Natsios also rightly points out that aid workers have been targeted by the Taliban, inhibiting operations.  Also true.  But both have been a problem dating back to 2001, when the US-led international effort started in Afghanistan.  Time to come up with new excuses?

So while there may be particular excuses in the Afghanistan situation, surely the billions pledged at the annual G8 summits (check the list going back to 1975 thanks to the University of Toronto's "G8 Information Centre") don't all falter because "the Taliban ate my homework."  It's worth paging through this list and clicking randomly on the venue of choice ("Tokyo III" in 1993, "Gleneagles" Scotland in 2005) and check the archived speeches and communiques.  Reacquaint yourself with the grandiose initiatives relegated to the political graveyard, along with their late authors.

"If I had a penny for every..."  If the cause of international development had received an actual dollar (maybe a Euro, just for safety's sake) for every dollar pledged in all the summits since 1975, I daresay that many problems would long ago have been solved.  But then how could our leaders justify their annual "retreats" if all the problems were settled?  I understand the weather is lovely in July on Hokkaido.

Wright, Wrong, Religion, Race - But What Are God's Politics?

Now that Senator Barack Obama has spoken to Americans as adults, addressing the nexus of religion and race, two of the most serious - yet "third rail" for their lethal potential - subjects on the American political scene, has he succeeded in raising the bar for Election 2008 discourse?  Only if you appreciate being spoken to like a grownup.

If you prefer baby talk, then keep staying tuned to Radio Bush.  I'm not entirely sure who actually listens on their car radios (what stations carry it, anyway?) to The President's Weekly Radio Address, but anyone hearing yesterday's Easter Weekend message (here on mp3, text here) might be forgiven if they confused it with one of the many Christian radio preachers out there in the Homeland.  But Ye would have been only partly wrong: it was indeed the Right's Reverend George W. Bush, who has a way of confusing lots of things, but especially the traditional American distinction between church and state.  If there had been "Onward Christian Soldiers" playing in the background, no one would have been surprised.

Religion and War usually don't make a happy combination (see jihad, the Crusades, the India-Pakistan Partition, the list goes on), but preaching in church - captured on video, in his US Army lieutenant general's uniform - about how "my God is bigger than his" (referring to a Somali warlord) didn't result in William G. Boykin's dismissal from Rumsfeld's Pentagon back in 2003.

With Religion and Politics, things are more complicated, but similar.  Boykin, you see, might have been deemed a bit loony in some quarters ("because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christians. ... And the enemy is a guy named Satan"), but that kind of talk is what millions of people hear from their pulpits.  They are not all Presidential candidates, of course, but they certainly don't think of walking out or changing churches because the preacher went overboard last Sunday.

One major difference between the gospel of "Reverends" Boykin and Bush and the controversy over Barack Obama's reaction to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermons is this: drag religion into politics and war wrapped in the American flag and you can do no wrong.  But be caught in the same church as someone who dares criticize America's record on race from the pulpit and your patriotism is besmirched.  And - shame on him - the latest besmircher was Bill Clinton, who probably shouldn't be casting any stones on moral issues, let alone matters of patriotism.  Clinton's outburst was the latest example of what Timothy Egan in Saturday's New York Times called "Donner Party Democrats," a wonderfully biting (sorry) satire of the Democratic Party's unfortunate cannibalistic tendencies.

The other difference is race.  Remember, Obama's speech in Philadelphia, "A More Perfect Union," was largely about race in America, and how he - half white, half black - relates to his country and the world.  He felt the need to propound on this weighty (and weighted) topic in the wake of criticism over his fidelity to Reverend Wright, which has not wavered, though Obama did condemn the "incendiary language..." of his "former pastor."  Is it, as comedian/commentator Bill Maher has put it (paraphrased by Adam Howard in AlterNet), in a sports analogy to baseball great Jackie Robinison

because just like Robinson was when he broke the color barrier in baseball, Obama is held up to such a higher standard. He must appear flawless in a way that no white candidate would be expected to be. Would Obama's experience or patriotism be as obsessively attacked as it is if he weren't Black? I don't think so.

If you doubt that there's a racial component in these wars of religion, how come you have to go to the blogosphere to get intelligent comment on John McCain's relations with (white) preachers John Hagee, Jerry Falwell, and Rod Parsley, respectively Catholo-phobic, homophobic, and Islamophobic?

I'm sure it's scant consolation to Senator Obama, but I do see a silver lining in the entire Reverend Wright episode: with repeated video loop screenings of Obama (TV's helpful spotlighting of him in the congregation reinforces the halo effect) in a church (not a mosque), listening to a minister (not an imam), clapping to a gospel choir (and not responding to the muezzin's call to prayer) - no one should entertain any more spurious talk of Obama-as-Muslim.  Surely you can't be accused of subscribing to firebrand Bible-thumping Christianity and "why do they hate us" fundamentalist Islam concurrently?  Or do I underestimate the gullibility of parts of the populace?

A Film To Watch On World Water Day

Whether you're marking World Water Day today, or if you already "celebrated" it on March 20, I recommend watching a clip from the Rima Essa + Peter Snowdon film "Drying Up Palestine."  As I wrote in an earlier post, "It should be essential viewing for all Middle East Peace Processors, because without water, there cannot be life, let alone a two state solution."

In honor of World Water Day, Peter Snowdon has decided to "serialize" the film, and it's now on three places on the web:

• "Drying Up Palestine, the film's website
• Through "Blip.tv" and Gourna films
• And on "The Hub" (be sure to look for screening dates in Chicago, New Orleans, and London)

As you watch the film, consider the remarks of Gareth Thomas, the UK International Development minister, quoted in today's Independent:

"If we do not act, the reality is that water supplies may become the subject of international conflict in the years ahead," said Mr Thomas. "We need to invest now to prevent us having to pay that price in the future."

How about taking the Minister's notion of investment to the next American administration, which may be amenable to the notion of "preemptive investment," to attack problems at their core?  Happy Water Day, and Happy Easter.

Contacts With The Opposition - Essential Diplomacy

Just Because They Run The Government Doesn't Mean They're In Charge

Astute readers will place me chronologically if I say that I joined the US Foreign Service around the time that the Shah's rule in Iran was giving way to the Islamic Revolution.  That traumatic change, when the prime US client regime in the Middle East was replaced by its polar opposite, was the cause of much soul-searching afterwards in American diplomatic circles.  How could the United States, with its pervasive presence in Iran (not just diplomatic, with consulates throughout the country, but military training facilities, oil companies, etc.) miss what later was shown to be a popular movement of massive proportions?

A few years later, at the diplomatic training center called the Foreign Service Institute, the "tradecraft" course for diplomats going off to political reporting assignments included a segment entitled "Contacts With the Opposition," and featured Ryszard Kapuscinski's "Shah Of Shahs," a must-read on the origins of the Iranian Revolution.  In discussions among young diplomats, it was clear that one of the key lessons of Iran was to avoid the trap of only talking to the people in charge, in the capital.  Unless you wanted to wind up like the US Embassy Tehran hostages - again, some of them contemporaries of mine.

In the early nineties, I found myself the interlocutor for the US Embassy in Algiers with the rising Islamist opposition, the Islamic Salvation Front or FIS.  At the time, the FIS was on a winning streak: fresh from victories in local and regional elections, they were in the city halls as mayors and councilors all across Algeria.  Their biggest victory - the first round of parliamentary elections in December 1991 - was their last: the army stepped in and canceled the second round, arresting elected officials, and resulting in more than a decade of bloodshed.  But all that was still in the future.

In the process of doing my job, I used to attend political party press conferences.  Most of the time the parties were minuscule groupings of government stooges, set up to drain support from the populist (and popular) FIS.  The FIS and its public meetings were not to be missed.  One evening after one such press conference, still at the Embassy drafting my report back to Washington, I checked the telex ticker downstairs and stopped cold at the APS ("Algerie Presse Service," government-controlled) wire service story entitled something like "The Diplomat and the Sheikh."  In which a completely bogus story was planted in the Algerian dailies that I was a conduit for American money funding the FIS election campaign.  Luckily, the Ambassador was also still around, and his letter to the editor(s), in which he protested against the lies about secret funding, but defended diplomats' duties to maintain contact with all legitimate political parties, was printed in a timely manner.

Just Because They Disagree Doesn't Mean You Shouldn't Talk With Them

Therefore it came as no surprise to me that in the Algeria of March 2008, US Ambassador Robert Ford has had to defend his right to meet "political party representatives and members of civil society," after charges of American interference in Algeria's internal affairs, coming from none other than the Prime Minister, Abdelaziz Belkhadem.  Despite all the cosmetic changes since the army's overthrow of elected officials in 1992, Algeria's "nomenklatura" is still in charge, and doesn't appreciate foreign governments taking the opposition seriously.

So if it's silly, defensive, and ultimately counterproductive to expect the United States and other countries to cut off contact with opposition parties in Algeria, why do some people in the US get antsy about presidential candidates who propose essentially the same thing vis a vis America's "opposition" abroad?  Senator Barack Obama's proposition is that, if elected President, he would engage the leaders of Cuba and Iran in discussions about longstanding differences with the United States.  What is so wrong with that?  Is the simple act of talking itself a "concession," to be withheld indefinitely?

If such were always the case, Anwar Sadat would never have spoken to the Knesset, and Egypt would still be at war with Israel.  And Libya's Muammar Khadafi would still be persona non grata in the international community, and carrying on who knows what nefarious activities.  Yes, you can talk to your sworn enemies - just ask General David Petraeus, who now swears by the Sunnis, formerly of the anti-US insurgency.

Contacts with the opposition at the field level, and "talking with foes and friends," as Obama puts it, at the Presidential level, are essential tools of diplomacy.  But it's not easy: sometimes the local hosts get upset, and sometimes the home team won't understand that it is in their best interests.

Water - Wastewater - Everywhere...

Clean Farming, Clean Water

World Water Day, whether you mark it today March 20 or on Saturday March 22, has sanitation as its theme this year.  Among readers in the developed world, I can hear the yawns already.  You take a shower, and the water flows down the drain.  You flush the toilet, and the sewers take the effluent to that round concrete plant in some forgotten part of town.  Out of sight, out of mind.

But even for those of us fortunate enough to live in places with such infrastructure and plentiful water supplies, today should be a day to pause and reflect on how safe our water really is.  And at what cost.

Today's "Ouest-France" (France's largest regional newspaper, read by rural and small town people in Brittany, which we're currently visiting) carries an article in its Agriculture section that I hope lots of farmers (and politicians) will read.  "How the Germans Are Getting Their Pure Water Back," by Anne-Francoise Roger, recounts how the introduction of organic farming techniques in a part of Bavaria in 1991 has led to dramatic improvements in water quality for the city of Munich.  Not only are nitrate and pesticide pollution down by significant levels (the former by some 43%), but the cost to the city of Munich - which purchases the organic produce for use in its city administration and school cafeterias - is a fraction of what French towns must pay to rid their water of nitrates.  Water costs have risen so much after years of privatization that recent electoral gains by Socialists (notably in Paris) have led to calls for returning to municipally-owned public utilities.

Brittany, with its rolling green countryside, also has a smelly underside: with its intensive industrial poultry and porcine production, its water is among France's (and Europe's) most polluted.  This time of year, liquid manure is sprayed over fields in huge quantities - I swear we smelled it as we were driving into Brittany yesterday.  What settles on the fields is absorbed by the crops, and the excess flows into the streams, and to the sea.  Finistere's wonderful coastline, rocky and rugged with miles-wide beaches appreciated by tourists, is at risk from the slimy green algae that thrives in the nitrate-rich waters.  And whatever treatment those sewage and water plants perform, you still want to reach for bottled mineral water during mealtime.

War & Peace and Water

With their plentiful rain, Bretons may be excused if they are not as conscious as they should be of the quality of their water.  Not the case with Israelis and Palestinians, whose populations crowd into a seemingly arid corner of the world.  Peter Snowdon, a documentary film maker friend whose "Drying Up Palestine" should be World Water Day essential viewing, sent me a recent article about a German hydro geologist active in Israel-Palestine water issues, Clemens Messerschmid.  Amira Hass' article in Haaretz is worth reading for this factoid alone:

In Berlin and Paris, he notes, annual rainfall is less than in Jerusalem and Ramallah, respectively: 550 millimeters in Berlin compared to 564 millimeters in Jerusalem. Paris gets an average of 630 millimeters, while the yearly average in Ramallah was 689.6 millimeters.

But Messerschmid documents how wasteful practices (using sprinklers for agriculture, allowing wastewater to flow into the sea, "making Israel one of the biggest polluters of the Mediterranean") negate these natural advantages.  And then you add the political aspect:

"Wherever Israel is located downriver, it uses military force to ensure that most of the water that flows in that river will reach Israel. It takes over the Golan, it threatens wars, and in the West Bank it uses military orders to prohibit the drilling of wells. What's going on here is not cooperation, but the dictation of an unequal division. Just imagine if Holland were to force Germany not to use the waters of the Rhine."

On World Water Day, which this year coincides with Easter Weekend, let's consider the importance of water - how it's safeguarded and who controls it - as one of the most crucial war & peace issues of this century.  What better place to get it right than in the crucible of "The Holy Land," where equitable access to water will make all the difference to Palestinian and Israeli peaceful (or not) coexistence.

Honorable Dissent: The Resignation of Ann Wright

There will be a flood of "commemorations" tomorrow, the eve of the fifth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, and we will be on the road (and will miss Brussels' "Literary Wake").

So this would have been my March 19 entry, marking the fifth anniversary of the resignation of American diplomat Mary Ann Wright.  Her resignation letter is on the web in its entirety on "Government Executive.com," but here are key excerpts:

I strongly believe the probable response of many Arabs of the region and Moslems of the world if the US enters Iraq without UNSC agreement will result in actions extraordinarily dangerous to America and Americans. Military action now without UNSC agreement is much more dangerous for America and the world than allowing the UN weapons inspections to proceed and subsequently taking UNSC authorized action if warranted.

I strongly disagree with the use of a "preemptive attack" against Iraq and believe that this preemptive attack policy will be used against us and provide justification for individuals and groups to "preemptively attack" America and American citizens.

We should give the weapons inspectors time to do their job. We should not give extremist Moslems/Arabs a further cause to hate America, or give moderate Moslems a reason to join the extremists. Additionally, we must reevaluate keeping our military forces in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Their presence on the Islamic "holy soil" of Saudi Arabia will be an anti-American rally cry for Moslems as long as the US military remains and a strong reason, in their opinion, for actions against the US government and American citizens.

Reading this five years on, I think you might agree that Ann Wright knew her stuff: after all, she had served in Sierra Leone (where she was decorated for heroism), Micronesia, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Grenada, Panama, and Nicaragua.  Not exactly a list of soft assignments.

I have written about the other two Foreign Service Officers who resigned over the US invasion of Iraq, Brady Kiesling and John Brown.  Ann (as she is known) Wright's case is different, in that she resigned on the very eve of the invasion, while serving as the Deputy Chief of Mission (no. 2 person after the ambassador) at the US Embassy in Mongolia.  Ann Wright was also a Colonel in the US Army Reserve, and had spent a combined total of almost thirty years in active duty and the reserves.  When she wrote her letter, she was leaving a lot.

Ann Wright has become well known in activist circles, and has penned a book "Dissent: Voices of Conscience: Government Insiders Speak Out Against the War in Iraq" with co-author Susan Dixon.  Folksy, articulate, and extremely well-informed, Ann Wright can be seen discussing the book here on "Fora.tv" with fellow dissenter Daniel Ellsberg (of "Pentagon Papers" fame during the Vietnam War), who has written the foreword to her book.  The Ellsberg/Wright duo speak of those American (and British) civil servants and soldiers who risked their careers (and risked imprisonment) to challenge their government's actions in bringing the US and UK to war.

Ann Wright is obviously an authoritative source when it comes to dissenting government insiders.  For those who wish to register their principled opposition but yet not go as far as she, Brown, and Kiesling did, the State Department does have the "Dissent Channel," one of the Secretary's "Open Forum" means of presenting alternate policy views.  It was instituted in the wake of Foreign Service resignations over the bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War.  Now that the US is again mired in a seemingly interminable foreign war, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) is trying to get the State Department to breathe life into these internal dissent mechanisms.

Mideast Medical Tourism Guide

From "Welcoming The World's Ills" by Ronny Linder-Ganz, Haaretz, 14 February 2008:

Israel is emerging as a popular destination for medical tourists. In recent years, many thousands of visitors have come to Israel to undergo medical procedures.  "It's a branch of tourism in its own right, and a trigger for bringing many more tourists, because a person who travels to Israel for surgery and is treated warmly and meets nice, helpful Israelis goes back home and becomes an ambassador for Israel," says Nir Crystal, head of marketing at the Herzliya Medical Center.

Meanwhile, today's BBC on the latest ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) report on Iraq:

Millions of Iraqis have little or no access to clean water, sanitation and healthcare, five years after the US-led invasion, according to the Red Cross.  The Swiss-based agency says Iraq's humanitarian situation is "among the most critical in the world".  Some families spend a third of their average monthly wage of $150 just buying clean water. (italics added)

The entire 15-page report is available here.

Finally, from Saturday's BBC World Service radio program "From Our Own Correspondent," where reporter Aleem Maqbool visits 21 year old Nael al Kurdi, terminally ill cancer patient, a week before he died:

I went to talk about his case with a spokesman for the Israeli government who pointed out that the border closures were for security reasons.

And when we got on to the subject of seriously ill patients being allowed out of Gaza for treatment, he told me that, while some patients had been let out, it was his view that terminally ill ones posed a potential danger to Israel.

They had nothing to live for, he suggested, so they might blow themselves up and become suicide bombers.

No medical "tourism" for dying Gazans.

---------------------------------------------

I don't begrudge Israel's desire to show off its shining hospitals and earn hard currency from wealthy foreigners.  The Haaretz article speaks of the Indian example, which has set a national target of $1.2 billion annually by 2012.  I do think that Israel - ever concerned about its image and desire for medical "goodwill ambassadors" - might consider the PR value of treating (or at least allowing to escape the "open air prison" of Gaza) some sick Palestinians.  And the propaganda cost of denying treatment.

But my outraged citizen ire is more directed at the situation in my native country - perhaps no surprise to regular readers.  Ever alert to irony, here's one from the Haaretz article:

"Then there are the Americans [says Amitai Rotem, director of marketing at Hadassah], who come here because they can get first-rate health care for a fraction of what it would cost them in the U.S. For example, an American with no health insurance would pay $120,000 for bypass surgery in the U.S. At Hadassah the procedure costs $35,000, and that includes all the necessary arrangements, such as airfare, accommodations and food for both patient and family. This means that ultimately, even with all the added expenses, the patient pays less than one-third of what the same operation would cost in the U.S."

"An American with no health insurance... ."  Presumably this means wealthy Americans without health insurance, probably an oxymoron and certainly a tiny minority.  Okay, let me get this right: the United States, which has no national health insurance program and which allows millions of Americans to languish without health coverage, become paupers, and die -  subsidizes Israel to the tune of $100 billion over the last 40 years and permits Israel to develop its own world-class health system - which in turn allows "Americans with no health insurance..."  I give up.

The National Health Insurance Law (in effect since January 1995) provides a standardized basket of medical services, including hospitalization, for all residents of Israel.

Of course, "all residents of Israel" gets into that thorny question of definitions: who is a resident? what is "Israel?" where are the boundaries?  It's all so complicated - but very simple when it comes to Nael al Kurdi.

And then there's Iraq.  I guess some of the two million Iraqis who have fled their country after the US invasion might be considered "medical tourists," in the sense that their country's medical infrastructure has largely vanished.  Says Pascal Olle, the ICRC's health coordinator for Iraq: "In the 70's, the country offered one of the best health services in the region."

Medical "tourism."  What a concept.  Great - if you can afford it.  Or if your country doesn't offer it at home.

(Images: Emblems of Magen David Adom, Red Cross, and Red Crescent)

Overseas Democrats: Brand America On Their Minds

It's still going on (Sunday is platform day), but I'll give my impressions from my "local volunteer" participation yesterday at this weekend's "Europe, Middle East, Africa" (EMEA) Democrats Abroad Caucus in Brussels.  The caucus was a little different from those that we've seen on TV, in that the task was not to vote directly for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton by people-clumping in corners of the room.  Rather, it was to choose delegates to go to Vancouver's Democrats Abroad Global Convention, and thence to Denver for the Democratic Party Convention.  But voting there was, and (delegate) candidate speeches.

The one "voting with your feet" moment came early on, when people were asked to divide themselves into Obama and Clinton camps, to proceed with the voting process for delegates, based on February's Global Presidential Primary results.  Out of the several hundred Democrats gathered in the hotel's ballroom, maybe three dozen got up and caucused in the Clinton room (they were treated to something the Obama people didn't hear, a presentation by Clinton supporter and former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who was in town for the Brussels Forum, a wonk talk-fest).

I missed Holbrooke's talk (apparently he said that whatever happened, party unity will be essential), but did listen to a few of the Clinton delegate hopefuls expound on their candidate.   Unless I missed a ranter or two in my shuttling between Obama and Clinton supporters, none of the trash talk that Democrats are coming to associate with the primary campaign was evident among these overseas Democrats.  Each camp seemed to observe their mothers' rules: "if you don't have anything good to say about someone... ."

The Clinton camp, perhaps because of its smaller numbers, were a generally disciplined, quiet group, but did present a rather white, older, uniformity.  In contrast, the Obama camp was presented with a list of delegate-candidates that genuinely "looks like America," and would have no trouble ensuring gender, racial, age (there were student candidates, and those whose political activism started with the Adlai Stevenson campaign), and sexual orientation diversity.

The common denominator in the speeches was a passionately-held conviction that America needed to "repair, restore" itself after the deterioration on all fronts during the Bush years.  Given their expatriate lifestyle, these overseas Democrats were more conscious than most of the need to revamp Brand America through actions, not just talk.  Some, who might be characterized as more exile than expatriate,  explained that the Obama campaign inspired them to get involved in resurrecting a country of which they had begun to despair.

My overall impression: the Democratic caucus process is messy, confusing, inefficient, but also scrupulously fair and inclusive.  As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Europe's First President: Charisma vs. Competence?

Another Blair Project? (After Number 10, Middle East Quartet, JP Morgan...)

Parts of the Anglophone press have it already summed up: "European leaders need a president, not a nonentity," says Philip Stevens in yesterday's Financial Times.  After gently trashing a few very competent, but lesser known (at least in the English-speaking world) continentals, and recounting the virtues of a certain former British prime minister still prominent on the world scene, he concludes:

A new president, even one of substance, will struggle to forge a common European foreign policy. Collisions of historical experience, geography, instinct and, often, national interests are still significant. But if Europe wants a say in shaping a new world order it has to acquire the habit sometime. This is not the moment for faceless competence.

That former PM is, of course, Tony Blair, whose name is often brought forward as a potential candidate for "President of Europe," or, to be more precise, the yet-to-be-ratified Lisbon Treaty's to-be-defined position of President of the European Council.

"President," in French, is the title of Nicolas Sarkozy, who is the top dog in France.  But it is also how people around a conference table refer to the person presiding, i.e., "chairman" in English.  And that is the key to the question of who gets to fill this job.  The (as-yet-unratified) Treaty of Lisbon says very little about the role of the future president, other than "presiding" over and "preparation" for meetings, and "reporting" to the European Parliament - all of which reads like a job for a high-powered... chairman.

Except for this - again, undefined - aspect: "The President of the European Council will represent the European Union in matters of foreign and security policy."  Sounds very impressive, but it is immediately caveatted by mention of another new position, that of the "High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy," or, in shorthand parlance, the future EU "Foreign Minister."  The President is to represent the EU abroad, but "without prejudicing" the authority of the Foreign Minister.  So poor Henry Kissinger - "If I want to call Europe, who do I call?" - will still be confronted with a multiplicity of phone numbers.

"E!Sharp," the bimonthly magazine of Brussels think tank "The Centre," has a piece by Anand Menon of the University of Birmingham, where again the conclusion is that Tony Blair is The Man:

Thus our leaders must eschew petty internal squabbles and opt for a candidate who has authority, is widely recognised (if not universally respected), and, crucially, is too proud and too ambitious to hang around for long in a post deprived of any real authority by national capitals.  All of which points to the rational solution of appointing Tony Blair.

Pride and ambition he apparently has, but are such attributes enough to override what Menon and Stevens dismiss as "European theology?"

• that a European Council President should hail from the Eurozone (Blair's UK still has its Pound Sterling);
• that the first president should hail from a committed EU country, not one that prides itself on Euro-skepticism;
• that Blair, with his "Bush Poodle" reputation after Iraq, is more Transatlantic than Cross-Channel?

Brits who live on the European continent tend to see these objections to a Blair candidacy, despite initial enthusiasm by backers such as France's Sarkozy, as the kiss of death for his pretensions to fill the post.  So who might have a serious crack at being the first Mr. Europe?

Mr. Eurozone, From the Economic Heart of Europe?

Though he comes from one of the EU's smallest countries, Luxembourg's Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker is often cited as a serious "candidate" (though he's nothing of the sort at present, since he's busy running his government as both Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, as well as presiding over the Eurozone group).  Luxembourg - no longer the EU's smallest country now that Malta is a member - is actually the birthplace of the Union, and Luxembourg is a founding member (as is the case for its membership in NATO) and host to key EU institutions.

Juncker is a somewhat self-effacing, no-nonsense (he has a biting sense of humor), multilingual (fluent German, French, and English) leader.  At thirteen years in power, he is the longest-serving head of government in the European Union.  He is widely respected in international circles, and though a Christian Democrat, he has headed coalitions with Socialists as well as Liberals.  Some continental socialists feel more in common with Juncker than their ostensible ideological New Labour cousin Blair.

Now that we've established that Juncker is by no means "faceless" nor a "nonentity," we can return to the thorny item of the European Council President's job description.  Will 27 hard-charging, elected-by-their-citizenry, prime ministers and heads of state want a "proud and ambitious" Blair (or anyone else from Europe's "Big Three") at the head of the table?  Who is looking at his watch wondering when the Quartet is going to beckon, or looking at his payslip and thinking that he could do better back at JP Morgan? (UPDATE: See the 16 March Observer for Andrew Rawnsley's excellent "global butterfly" Blair analysis).  Will Blair accept a job that could very well be a glorified chairman, gaveling meetings to order and preparing the Minutes for the EU Parliament?

Those who argue that a high profile, charismatic first president might quickly transform the job into Europe's point man with world leaders are not factoring in who is in charge.   The European Council is the EU's forum for national leaders, and the Sarkozies, the Browns, and the Merkels of Europe may in fact feel more relaxed with a chair (President, sorry) from a small country like Luxembourg who nevertheless brings extensive European experience to the table.

Juncker's economic expertise, at this crucial juncture for the Euro, the Dollar, and the world economy, may be his trump card.  Whatever the outcome of the US presidential elections, the United States will need a no-nonsense interlocutor in Europe, if the West is to pull itself out of the current dangerous impasse.  Who better than a seasoned consensus builder, who - not about to outshine anyone in terms of star power - can labor away at compromises that have to include an ever widening circle?

Europe's choices are not limited to Blair and Juncker, but my money is on the Chairman of Europe.