Colombia hostage rescue: the Israeli angle - July 4, 2008
Based on Yossi Melman from Haaretz

Former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, who was released after six years in captivity on Wednesday, compared her “impeccable” rescue operation to Israeli commando operations.

Perhaps she did not know it, but Israel indeed contributed to the elaborately-planned, daring rescue mission.

Betancourt, who was kidnapped in 2002 by Marxist rebels in Colombia (FARC), was rescued without a shot being fired. Colombian military agents, who had penetrated FARC’s leadership, instructed her guards to transfer her to another rebel group.
 Her captors put her on a helicopter that arrived as scheduled, little knowing that their comrades-in-arms were undercover Colombian soldiers. Betancourt and 14 other hostages who had been held in the jungle, including three Americans, were freed.

Since word of the dramatic rescue spread, speculation in the world media has attributed the success to people trained by Israeli intelligence. But an Israeli figure familiar with the military aid to Colombia said there was “no need to exaggerate” Israel’s involvement in the operation.

The Israelis involved in the operation feel it is important to accord the credit to Colombia.

The Israeli activity, involving dozens of Israeli security experts, was coordinated by Global CST, owned by former General Staff operations chief, Brigadier General (res.) Israel Ziv, and Brigadier (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser.

“It’s a Colombian Entebbe operation,” Ziv said Thursday when he returned from Bogota. “Both regarding its national and international importance. Betancourt has become a symbol of the struggle against international terror. This is an amazing operation that wouldn’t shame any army or special forces anywhere in the world.”

Asked about the Israeli involvement in it Ziv said there is “no need to exaggerate.” “We don’t want to take credit for something we didn’t do,” a company source said. “We helped them prepare themselves to fight terror. We helped them to plan operations and strategies and develop intelligence sources. That’s quite a bit, but shouldn’t be taken too far.”

Israelis may not have taken part in the rescue, but they advised and guided, sold equipment and intelligence technology. {In effect, we saw Israeli Uzzis in the hands of Colombia security - and not just in Colombia}

Melman says that the Israeli involvement began a year and a half ago, when Colombia asked Israel for help in its struggle against FARC, which had become a militia specializing in kidnapping civilians and military figures for ransom and drug trading. In effect we think it was earlier then that.

Israel has over the years sold Colombia planes, drones, weapons and intelligence systems. At the Defense Ministry’s suggestion, Global CST won the $10 million contract to work with Colombia.

Ziv and Kuperwasser did not take part in the fighting, at the Defense Ministry’s instructions.

They hired experts who had worked for the Mossad, Shin Bet security service and IDF in various capacities.

“Well, I have to say that this operation was exclusively carried out by the Colombian Army,” Colombian ambassador to Israel Juan Hurtado Cano said in an interview with Infolive TV, Jerusalem.

———–

Believe it or not, it is quite sure that even Arab states used Israeli experts as advisers for their security when it comes to keep checks on their own potential terrorists - “C’est La Vie!” Some Arab Heads of State were even saved by Israeli tips!

 from:    gcr-eletter at angelnexus.com about Green Chip Review

Independence Day Greetings from Portugal.

By Sam Hopkins

It’s no accident that I’m overseas on America’s Independence Day. And maybe it’s no surprise either that the first tones of Portugal I’ve taken in on this trip are ones of energy freedom.

So far my Brazilian-accented Portuguese has drawn some strange looks from police officers and shopkeepers as I ask for directions or coffee, but when I read this sign for the national power company’s new renewables division this morning, I only had to kick it around in my own noggin to understand.

International Companies are Dominating the Cleantech Space: Many of the world’s new energy technologies are being developed in countries outside the United States. Germany, for example, is mother to the modern solar industry. The Danes have all but cornered the wind industry with the now-famous Vestas Wind Systems. Green Chip International is taking full advantage of this phenomenon. Its latest German solar recommendation is up about 11% in under two weeks. Everyday, international renewables companies are delivering monster gains.

The new slogan for Energias de Portugal, which trades over the counter in the U.S. as EDPFY, not only exemplifies the transitional energy economy moving Europe from fossil fuels to clean power sources…

It also represents a fresh Age of Exploration in a country that was once one of the most powerful and adventurous empires in the world.

Along with Spain, Portugal is part of a 21st-century Iberian revival that mixes European Union green energy goals with the desire to stand out as individual national economies.
We’re seeing that phenomenon kick into high gear in Denmark, Germany, Norway, Scotland, and here in warmer climes too.

Spain’s Iberdrola Energy (MADRID:IBE) launched its own Iberdrola Renovables (Renewables) as a separate listing on the Madrid Stock Exchange in 2007. Most of Iberdrola’s renewable might comes from the stiff Spanish breeze. Tiny towns and big cities in Europe’s southwestern reaches are now getting electricity from wind turbines, and selling their surplus to the grid.

Energias de Portugal Renovables will be based in Spain, because Chairman Antonio Mexia knows the larger Iberian market can be cooperative and competitive at the same time, building a critical mass of companies and generation capacity that will benefit everyone.

The Lazy Investor’s Portfolio is whst this e-msail we got proposes

EDP has nearly 500 megawatts worth of new capacity in Spain planned for construction in the near term, helping it towards the goal of 10,500 MW worldwide just four years from now.

And you can tap that momentum with EDP Renewables’ forthcoming stock listing here in Lisbon, which we anticipate will be highly successful.

We’ll keep you up to date on EDP and the entire Iberian clean energy scene with Green Chip Review and Green Chip International.

Brazil reveals bioplastics plan.

BRASILIA (Kyodo) Friday, July 4, 2008. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari on Wednesday that his nation plans to develop bioplastics.

Amari, who met reporters after holding talks with Lula in the Brazilian capital, quoted him as saying that Brazil has lots of oil but wants to develop bioplastics as part of the country’s contribution to the environment.

Unlike typical plastics, which are made from petroleum, bioplastics are produced from biofuels, including ethanol derived from sugar cane.

Lula is expected to explain his country’s environment protection policies when he takes part in the Group of Eight summit in Hokkaido next week.

We Say Bravo To This Non-G8 Organically Developing Future Economic Giant. Is Not Brazil The Ideal New Addition To That Economic Club Now Called G8? 

For this year’s summit, the G8 has invited China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Mexico, Australia and South Korea to its “outreach” session on climate change.

Apart from the G8’s inability to come up with anything on global warming, some world leaders have questioned the value of the summit’s current framework.

During a meeting with Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on June 3, French President Nicolas Sarkozy vehemently argued that the G8 forum should be expanded to include such countries as China and India, according to Japanese diplomats.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown also appears to be positive about expanding the group, although he has not explicitly discussed it, they said.

Fukuda strongly disagrees, saying the G8 should remain a forum for a small number of states bearing a large responsibility for the international community.

Tokyo fears expanding the meeting would diminish Japan’s clout on the world stage.

“Japan, Germany and Italy are reluctant about expansion. They do not want to weaken the power of the G8 to send out political messages,” said a senior Foreign Ministry in charge of European affairs.

“President Sarkozy is of the opinion that the G8 was originally started as a forum for economic discussions, and talking about economic issues without the participation of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) is meaningless. He believes noneconomic issues should be discussed at the U.N. Security Council,” the official said.

But Japan, Germany and Italy are not permanent members of the Security Council and attach greater political value to the G8 forum, the official said.

Another senior Foreign Ministry official argued that expanding the G8 membership would only increase political taboos that member states can’t touch on during the closed-door summit.

For example, adding China would make it impossible to discuss human rights issues and world currency issues related to the yuan, the official said.

Despite speculation that the G8 leaders may discuss the expansion issue in Hokkaido, Japanese officials insist it will not be a formal topic.

“I guarantee that will never be on the formal agenda,” Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura said Tuesday. “None of (the foreign ministers) of the G8 has discussed the issue yet.

At least Japan has not said it wants to expand the G8.”

—–

Really, if they want relevancy, why not create first the United European Group of States Federation or whatever they want to call it, so little States like Italy are not allowed to interfere with the work of the big ones. So - EU, US, Russia, China, India, Japan, Brazil are a good start for a relevant compact G7. Candidates-in-waiting or whatever you want to call it are then - Australia, South Africa, Canada, Indonesia, Korea. 

OK, not to have another upset State - probably the inclusion of Canada could give us the new starting G8.

In any case, it seems that unless Japan gets a seat on the UN Security Council, the G8 will continue to show its irrelevancy for all to see. 

G-8 climate scorecard shows US in last. The U.S. has done the least among the world’s eight largest economies to address global warming, a study released Thursday found.
By PATRICK McGROARTY, BERLIN (AP) — The U.S. has done the least among the world’s eight largest economies to address global warming, a study released Thursday found.
The G-8 Climate Scorecards 2008, released Thursday ahead of next week’s gathering of the Group of Eight on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, also found that none of the eight countries are making improvements large enough to prevent temperature increases that scientists think would cause catastrophic climate changes. The gathering includes the heads of states of the U.S., Japan, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Russia.
Regine Guenther, director of the World Wildlife Fund Climate Change Program in Germany, told reporters in the German capital that G-8 leaders should commit to reducing emissions in their countries 40 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. “If we don’t achieve that, the world’s climate will change in ways that we can’t even imagine today,” Guenther said.

The scorecard ranked Britain as the developed nation that has done the most to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reach targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. France and Germany are close behind. Germany was praised for its investment in renewable energy.
“But all three countries are at best half as far along the road as they should be,” a statement announcing the study said.
The scorecard was compiled by Ecofys, a Dutch consulting company, and commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund and insurer Allianz SE.

Joachim Faber, an Allianz board member who helped compile the scorecards, said a global emissions trading market is important to fighting climate change, and that the EU should lead its development.
“The EU-specific trading system we have at the moment must serve as model system for one that we can found outside the EU, for the world economy,” he said.

The study criticized low energy efficiency in the U.S., but said there was hope in legislation under consideration by Congress and initiatives led by non-governmental groups.

The study also analyzed — but did not rank — five of the world’s fastest growing economies: Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. “These countries cannot be measured with the same ruler as industrialized countries,” the statement said.

Bush Makes Final Push for Global Climate Deal.
By Michael Abramowitz and Blaine Harden, WashPost, July 3, 2008.

“In his final months in office, President Bush is mounting a last-ditch effort to forge a new global deal to limit greenhouse-gas emissions but finds himself once again at odds with much of the rest of the world on how to address climate change. Bush aides said a deal might be struck when the president sits down next week in Japan with the leaders of the world’s largest industrialized nations and developing countries such as China and India. Japan is pushing for leaders at the Group of Eight summit to agree to a goal of cutting global carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2050, a proposal that the White House appears to be considering seriously. The Bush administration is also conducting negotiations with countries on including more-specific targets for each to meet by 2020 or 2025. Germany is pushing for more-significant cuts in emissions than the United States and some other countries are willing to consider, while China and India want the United States and other industrialized countries to do most of the heavy lifting for the next 10 to 15 years. Previewing his G-8 agenda yesterday in the Rose Garden, Bush emphasized the necessity of including the developing countries in any agreement struck by his administration… Environmentalists contend that Bush’s moves on global warming are too little, too late. They say even an agreement on a long-term goal would be meaningless because it would likely not bind the United States to making actual reductions. In many ways, they said, G-8 nations have begun to shift their focus to presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama, both of whom have indicated a willingness to consider steeper reductions than Bush — the kind of cuts the White House regards as unrealistic… Anything that the leaders agree to next week would have to be worked into a treaty that the United Nations hopes to conclude by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen.” 

Colombia rescues Ingrid Betancourt
and three Americans held by the FARC

From: New York based Americas Society/Council of the Americas
 cminerlegrand at as-coa.org

July 2, 2008—The Americas Society and Council of the Americas hail Colombia’s rescue of 15 captives, including Ingrid Betancourt and three Americans, held by the FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) guerilla group. The rescue is a victory not only for all the captives and their families, but also for the institutional strength of a government besieged by the FARC for over 40 years.

The rescue of Betancourt, a former Colombian presidential candidate captured in 2002, as well as of three American military contractors taken in 2003, is a decisive strike against the FARC and an important step toward the continued reassertion of the rule of law and state authority.

“Over time, President Uribe has considerably weakened the territorial control of the FARC. By rescuing four of its highest profile hostages, he has significantly reduced the FARC’s ability to bargain internationally,” said Susan Segal, President and CEO of AS/COA.

The United States must do all it can to support nations such as Colombia, which has proven itself a willing and able partner and a leader in the region. At AS/COA’s 2008 Washington Conference on the Americas, Colombia Minister of Defense Juan Manuel Santos emphasized Colombia’s transition to a model of democratic security, a transformation assisted in part through its partnership with the United States. With this historic event, Colombia has again demonstrated its determination to actively shape its future.

###
Americas Society (AS) is the premier forum dedicated to education, debate, and dialogue in the Americas. Its mission is to foster an understanding of the contemporary political, social, and economic issues confront Latin America, the Caribbean, and Canada, and to increase public awareness and appreciation of the diverse cultural heritage of the Americas and the importance of the inter-American relationship.

Council of the Americas (COA) is the premier international business organization whose members share a common commitment to economic and social development, open markets, the rule of law, and democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Council’s membership consists of leading international companies representing a broad spectrum of sectors including banking and finance, consulting services, consumer products, energy and mining, manufacturing, media, technology, and transportation.

———————-

Wednesday, July 2, 2008, a Press Release From The Council on Hemispheric Affairs - The Washington DC based COHA.

BREAKING NEWS: COLOMBIA - INGRID BETANCOURT LIBERATED FROM FARC - FREE AT LAST
FARC Must Now Begin To Think About Its End Game.

In recent weeks, COHA has issued a number of communiqués to the press that have explored various aspects of Colombia’s domestic and regional policies. This material, in addition to that which is available on its website, can be obtained by contacting COHA’s office at  coha at coha.org or calling 202-223-4975. To contact COHA director Larry Birns, please call 202-215-3473.

FARC’s Fatal Blow
In yet another blow to Colombia’s leftist guerrilla group Las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia (FARC), former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and fourteen other hostages were freed in a brilliant military operation on 2 July 2008. Betancourt was taken captive six years ago and was, for the duration of that time, the FARC’s highest profile hostage. Among the other detainees rescued are three American defense contractors and members of the Colombian security forces.

According to Colombia’s hardline Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos, whose star is very much in ascendancy in a movie-script fashion, Colombian intelligence forces managed to infiltrate the FARC’s Secretariat and intercept the transfer of key hostages from one area of the country to another. The operation, termed jaque, after the Spanish word “check,” as in “check mate,” was the culmination of a year’s worth of preparation. The rescue of the hostages represents a huge victory for the Uribe government and yet another in a series of crucial defeats for FARC forces. It may also signal the successful impact of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been pumped annually into the Colombian military by the U.S. under Plan Colombia. Such funds already have been used to persuade hundreds, if not thousands, of FARC fighters to demobilize and certainly provided a strong motivation for the murder of Ivan Ríos (for which his renegade personal bodyguard was rewarded $2.5 million).

FARC’s Precarious Future
With Betancourt’s release, the FARC has lost its highest profile hostage and now is in a very precarious position for negotiation and may have to bow to the demands of the Colombian government. Hopefully, its recent fate will be a clear signal to the FARC that Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez was correct when, on June 10 of this year, he urged “Enough of so much war, it is time to sit down and talk of peace. […] The guerrilla has passed into history.”

Recalling the abrupt decline of Peru’s Shining Path guerrilla movement after the 1992 capture of its leader Abimael Guzman, it is unlikely that FARC will be able to survive in its present form given the natural death of its leader, Manuel Marulanda, and the series of crippling blows it has experienced at the hands of the Colombian army. Undoubtedly, Colombia’s military has been assisted by the CIA and the hundreds of U.S. armed forces advisors and trainers now in the country.

Political Implications
Uribe has benefited immensely from the rapid decline in the FARC’s vitality and relevance. Only time will tell how Uribe’s military exploits and his astronomical approval rating will affect the possible de-legitimization of his 2006 run for office. It will also be interesting to see if Betancourt, immensely popular during her run for Senate and the presidency, will present a very strong challenge to the president if she decides to run for office either in a possible re-run election or the official elections slated for 2010.

It is true that Uribe’s hawkish democratic security policy has resulted in significant progress for the country. Homicide and kidnapping rates have fallen dramatically and Colombians have resumed many of their ordinary activities without fear of suffering violence caused by the conflict. His popularity is a result of these advances, however, this success may unfortunately lend credibility to those who have supported Uribe’s iron-fist approach and substantive program from the beginning: members of the Bush administration and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. The danger in attributing Uribe’s accomplishments to U.S. foreign policy achievements in Latin America is that it reaffirms strategies that are overly simplistic and ill-informed. It should not be ignored that upwards of twenty percent of Uribe’s legislature is currently under investigation for its links to paramilitary groups, who are historic human rights violators. Even Uribe himself has been accused of links to the illegally armed groups. Mindless U.S. support of a regime that tacitly allowed such groups to function should not be applauded nor should the hundreds of trade union leaders that have been murdered during the Uribe presidency be forgotten.

Additionally, cocaine’s effect on the trajectory of the conflict cannot be underestimated. In the 2008 World Drug Report, the United Nations reported that coca cultivation in Colombia increased 27% in 2007. Assistant secretary of State Thomas Shannon attributed these statistics to the growing sophistication of coca cultivators. This is certainly true for many aspects of the conflict. For every bit of progress that the Colombian government makes, various actors will try to stay one step ahead, driven by vast cocaine profits which provide an incredibly strong incentive for the continued destabilization of Colombian institutions. No matter what the ultimate fate of the FARC, it will be quite some time before Colombia can claim victory for the quality or depth of its democracy.

This analysis was prepared by Research Associates Erina Uozumi, Jessica Bryant, Elizabeth Reavey, Chris Sweeney, Michael Katz, and Aviva Elzufon.

————-

But also in the news:

Banana-gate: McCain Backer’s Firm Pleaded Guilty To Funding Anti-FARD Terrorist Group In Colombia.The co-host of a recent top-dollar fundraiser for Sen. John McCain oversaw the payment of roughly $1.7 million to a Colombian paramilitary group that is today designated a terrorist organization by the United States. Former Chiquita CEO oversaw $1.7 million payoff to right-wing paramilitary group.
Posted by Nico Pitney, Huffington Post at 8:00 AM on July 2, 2008.

Carl H. Lindner Jr., the billionaire Cincinnati businessman, was CEO of Chiquita Brands International from 1984 to 2001, and remained on the company’s board of directors until May 2002. Beginning under his tenure, Chiquita executives paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by the Spanish acronym AUC), which is described by George Washington University’s National Security Archive as an “illegal right-wing anti-guerrilla group tied to many of the country’s most notorious civilian massacres.”

Following a Justice Department indictment last year, Chiquita admitted to illegally funding the paramilitaries and agreed to pay a $25 million fine. Chiquita’s payments to the AUC began in 1997 and lasted seven years; roughly half of the funds came after the group was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department in 2001.

According to the Justice Department, the payments “were reviewed and approved by senior executives” of Chiquita, who knew by no later than September 2000 “that the AUC was a violent, paramilitary organization.”

Late last week, Lindner co-hosted a $25,000-per-person fundraiser for McCain and the Republican Party in the wealthy Indian Hills neighborhood of Cincinnati, Ohio. The event raised about $2 million; Lindner also serves on McCain’s Ohio Victory Team.

While Lindner was CEO of Chiquita, the company began sending money to the AUC through its shipping subsidiary Banadex. A report by the Organization of American States states that Banadex also engaged in arms trafficking, helping to deliver 3,000 Nicaraguan AK-47 rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition to the AUC in 2001. According to federal prosecutors, when company officials realized the arrangement was illegal, they switched to making the payments in cash.

“We believe they saved people’s lives,” a Chiquita spokesman told Time magazine last year, alleging that the company was simply trying to avoid violence against their employees.

Chiquita’s funding of violent paramilitaries does not end with the right-wing AUC. The fruit giant “had been making similar payments to the leftist FARC and ELN guerrillas” since 1989, also on Lindner’s watch. Those payments ended in 1997 as “control of the company’s banana-growing area shifted” to the AUC, according to the Associated Press.

McCain, who is currently visiting Colombia to promote free trade, has described FARC as “one of the worst” terrorist groups and accused his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, of being unwilling to support Colombian President Uribe’s anti-terrorist efforts.

That the Arizona Republican is raising funds from a man whose company once paid that very same terrorist group seems likely to sully his charge.

Aides to the Senator did not return request for comment, though they have repeatedly argued that the campaign does not have direct connections to companies represented by such fundraisers or advisers and, as such, should not be held accountable for their actions or presumed to be persuaded by their interests.

However, in the past, McCain has done favors on Lindner’s behalf. Last May, the Washington Post reported that in the late 1990s, McCain “promoted a deal in Arizona’s Tonto National Forest involving property part-owned by Great American Life Insurance, a company run by billionaire Carl H. Lindner Jr., a prolific contributor to national political parties and presidential candidates.”

Moreover, McCain’s chief political adviser, Charlie Black, lobbied for Chiquita on two separate occasions in 2001. According to records, Black was paid $80,000 to work on foreign trade issues.

Black, as the Huffington Post reported on Tuesday, has represented other controversial clients with operations in Colombia. From 2001 through 2007, his work brought his firm more than $1.6 million in lobbying fees from Occidental Petroleum, a company whose security arm was accused of bombing a Colombian village and killing 17 civilians in 1998.

[ED: The families of the victims of the paramilitary are suing Chiquita for arming the terrorists.]

World Yawns at McCain’s Coalition of Democracies.
By Melinda Brouwer, AlterNet. Posted July 2, 2008.

Creating a “League of Democracies” is a central tenet of John McCain’s foreign policy “vision,” but in other democracies, the idea’s a non-starter.

A central component of presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s foreign policy platform is the formation of a “League of Democracies.” McCain put forth this idea in a November 2007 article he authored for the academic journal Foreign Affairs that established his campaign’s overall foreign policy platform. In the article, McCain argued:

Our organizations and partnerships must be as international as the challenges we confront. Today, U.S. soldiers are serving in Afghanistan with British, Canadian, Dutch, German, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish, Spanish and Turkish soldiers from the NATO alliance. They are also serving alongside forces from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines and South Korea — all democratic allies or close partners of the United States. But these troops are not all part of a common structure. They do not work together systematically or meet regularly to develop diplomatic and economic strategies to meet the common challenges they face.

NATO has begun to fill this gap by promoting partnerships between the alliance and great democracies in Asia and elsewhere. We should go further by linking democratic nations in one common organization: a worldwide League of Democracies … like-minded nations working together for peace and liberty. The organization could act when the U.N. fails … and take other measures unattainable by existing regional or universal-membership systems. But he warned: “This League of Democracies would not supplant the U.N. or other international organizations but complement them by harnessing the political and moral advantages offered by united democratic action.”

Now, as the other Republican primary candidates have fallen by the wayside, the attention has become focused solely on McCain’s policy platform — and with it, the concept of a League of Nations. Debating, promoting and scolding the idea are academics, presidential campaign advisers (from both sides of the aisle), pundits, bloggers and columnists across America.

But there is little speak — pro or con — of McCain’s idea outside the United States. After all, the league would be a multilateral institution, comprised of other democratic nations. So, why aren’t other potential members of the league joining the debate?

One possibility is that since McCain has yet to win the votes of the American people, he has yet to formally propose the idea when it matters — as president of the United States.

Another possibility is that the idea simply does not resonate with foreign policymakers. As Thomas Carothers, democracy scholar and vocal opponent of league, puts it: “I think the basic problem (with the league) is that the world has absolutely no interest or appetite for a U.S.-led ideologically based multilateral initiative.”

At a recent debate, Carothers said he could not detect a “trace” of interest among European diplomats for establishing a league. At a European summit, one European diplomat active in democracy issues read one of his recent policy briefs and asked Carothers, “I don’t mean to be rude, but why did you waste more than five minutes on this idea, which is a complete non-starter?” and added that the subject was not worthy of serious attention.

European nations are, arguably, the strongest candidates for founding members of a League of Democracies: They are allies of the United States, pass the “democracy” test and are multilateral to the core. McCain draws attention to this very point extolling the virtues of the league to a primarily European audience via an op-ed in the Financial Times:

“Americans and Europeans share a common goal — to build an enduring peace based on freedom. Our democracies today are strong and vibrant. Together we can tackle the diverse challenges we face. … But the key word is ‘together.’ We need to renew and revitalize our democratic solidarity. We need to strengthen our transatlantic alliance as the core of a new global compact — a League of Democracies — that can harness the great power of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.”

If Europeans aren’t likely to warm to the idea, it is even harder to imagine recruiting members from regions where there is more resistance to U.S. hegemony (think Latin America). But, as Carothers sees it, the popularity of the league in some American policy circles — and its lack thereof in the exterior — is more revealing of the divergence in how the United States and its foreign counterparts interpret world politics.

Ultimately, one’s openness to the idea of forming a League of Democracies is a function of one’s satisfaction with the multilateral institutions currently in use. No doubt the United Nations — particularly its most powerful body, the U.N. Security Council — desperately needs reform. But perhaps the United States shouldn’t be too quick to throw the baby out with the bath water.

For example, Gillian Sorenson, an American former undersecretary general of the United Nations, warned during a recent lecture that while the United States has been focusing its energy on other international relationships (namely, that with Iraq), other U.N. member states have stepped in to fill what she called the resulting “leadership vacuum” at the United Nations. Sorenson points out that if democratic member states want to work together, “all they have to do is pick up the telephone and call” a meeting of the Caucus of Democracies, which already exists within the U.N. structure.

It is too soon to tell whether the League of Democracies, like the “concert” and the “community,” will turn out to be just another American foreign policy fad. Will it become apparent that the American punditsphere was thrown into a tizzy by mere campaign season rhetoric? Or will a President McCain, as he predicted in a recent speech articulating his vision of the world in 2013 (the end of his potential first term), lead the League of Democracies to stop the genocide in Darfur and end human trafficking?

In the meantime, it is worth pausing to thoroughly assess the current state of world politics. Only a 360-degree understanding of today’s international system — that is from the American, as well as its fellow democracies’ perspective — will help us determine whether a League of Democracies will flourish, or whether it will end up as “A League of Our Own.”

Melinda Brouwer, blogger for FPA’s U.S. Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy blogs, can be reached at: fpa.usdiplomacy@gmail.com.

NOAM CHOMSKY TALKS PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
By ZP Heller, Al Jazeera
Chomsky is the most cited author alive, next to Plato,
Freud, and the Bible.
 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/9007…