Peter Mandelson
11/23/2009
Europe’s strength will be determined by how well it competes economically with the rest of the world, and for this reason Mandelson says the distribution of the big economic portfolios in the next European Commission are critically important. The choices of José Manuel Barroso, the Commission president, will carry much weight in defining the direction of EU policy. The new commissioners will have to be much more than quiet consensus-builders because there is little to recommend European consensus for its own sake.
Lord Mandelson is secretary of state for business.
Link to full text in primary source.
Opinion summaries provided by Opinion Source, an organization with which Safe Democracy is associated
Regarding the United States’ international relations and their importance in the Afghan war, the author says it is a mistake for America to align itself too closely with Pakistan. Zakaria notes that, unlike Pakistan’s objectives, India’s (notably the desire to defeat the Taliban) are compatible with the those of the United States. Critics of a closer relationship between the Obama administration and India say that India is too close to China, a country to which Obama has been accused of “kowtowing”. Yet India’s influence in Pakistan is significant, and in a region teeming with failed states, India is notable for its stable democracy and expanding economy. The United States should look to a relationship with India as the true “prize” in its relations with Asia.
President Obama will likely decide on a combination of proposed strategies in Afghanistan, says Dionne. The president can change nothing about the difficulty of the situation, and the fiscal burden of continuing the war is undeniable. Should he enact a surtax to pay for the war effort, Obama will alienate some of his allies who disagree with the war, as well as his potential for a working relationship with those who support the war but oppose higher taxes. The situation in Afghanistan does not present many opportunities for centrist strategies, but that is the sort of thinking that Obama promised Americans last year, and he would do well to exercise it regarding Afghanistan.
The real strategic challenge for the Western allies lies not in Afghanistan but in Pakistan. Pakistan is the prime example of a country where the potentially deadly dangers of nuclear weapons cross with the rising influence of jihadism. The West propped up General Pervez Musharaff’s regime with $12bn of military aid over ten years only to see the extremists running about out of control while the Pakistani army remains fixated with India. The problems of the whole central and south Asia region will remain unresolved while Pakistan’s world view remains India-centric.
Far from being an aberrant choice, Obama was the ideal one, “Scandinavianally” speaking. Most of the prize winners draw from the obscure ranks of those who believe all conflict stems from avoidable misunderstanding and that the world’s evils spring from everything but the hearts of men, where love abides. Stephens concludes that what Obama’s award portends for the kind of peace and security bequeathed to us by the exertions of such non-Nobelists as Truman, Eisenhower, Thatcher, and Reagan is another question.
Gender inequality in the working world is something that is lamentably deeply rooted in our societies. The global economic crisis is making it worse.
From the latest independent reports regarding human rights emerge the cases of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with a serious failure to ensure them, and Spain (like other liberal democracies) with specific cases of failure to ensure them.
It is impossible to understand or act on the intense collapse of the American and global economy without taking the ethical failures into consideration.
Why can’t the hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims in the world organize a protest against Al Qaeda, against Osama Bin Laden, against what is today in India being falsely carried out in the name of Islam?
