With the panels now over, it’s up to Madam Secretary to hold the floor with the students; so, some highlights from this morning:

Jacques Rupnik spoke first on the obvious enemies of Freedom such as homogeneity, nationalism, and collectivity. Today it is the less obvious enemy of the Elite; there is an unprecedented level of what Isaiah Berlin calls ‘Negative Freedom’, the lack of intrusion as opposed to the expected enemy of intrusion. He also mentioned that the legacies of Dissent are lost, yet important to Freedom and a Civil society, that only a hollow, Democratic shell of society remains.

Adam Michnik was next. This man is an amazing personality. A wonderful, humorous, breath of fresh air. He also feels as though we have an empty state, a vacuum state. Corruption is a permanent state in the structure which leads to fundamentalism and fundamentalist slogans; and, fundamentalism of any kind is a very bad thing. Monetary fundamentalism is the idea that the market should decide. Also, ‘Putenism’ = a Sovereign Democracy, which = My Democracy. And finally, with a minor trip in translation was that ‘corruption is like prostitution, it will always be there’.

Martin Bútora spoke, “Civic helplessness + Civic indifference = Civil Frigidity .” Also, he’s shocked at the lack of imagination in young people. In addition, the previous phrase ‘Prosim, Odejtete’ should be ‘Prosim, Prijdete’.

Then it was Andrei Piontkovsky’s turn at bat who said that “the best way to help Russia is to help Ukraine”. The points being: 1) Russia is too big for its britches, and 2) By creating hope and self-confidence from within smaller states like Ukraine, we help Russia to change.

Tom Stoppard consistently kicked-ass; Freedom isn’t won or lost in large dramatic events anymore, but it is being lost by a thousand tiny cuts.

Timothy Garton Ash added that corruption is poisonoing the air of Freedom. How to re-establish the rule of law? In 1989 we said that Democracy, Freedom and the Free-Market were the ideas of the day, but that we forgot to add “rule of law” to that trinity. How do we re-incorporate ‘the rule of law’?

A few common threads were ‘corruption’, ‘Putin’s Russia’, and what a joke Vaclav Klaus is. So, nothing we didn’t already know.

Re: Havel, do have any idea how hard it is to stop yourself from shaking while trying to take his picture, standing right next to him and being blocked by his bodyguard? Answer: Very Hard.

I got his signature anyway.

Life is good.

From Vaclav Havel’s Forum 2000 web site, there will be a round-table discussion and debate with students this Saturday morning and afternoon the 14th of November, 2009.

The program is scheduled to be as follows:

10:00 – 11:15 – Part I of the roundtable (Faculty of Philosophy) – in Czech

Freedom and Its Adversaries: Perspectives of Human Experience

Opening remarks:

Jan Sokol, Dean of the Faculty of Humanities CU Prague, Czech Republic

Participants:

Václav Havel, Former President, Czech Republic

André Glucksmann, Philosopher, France

Petr Pithart, Vice President of the Senate, Czech Republic

Jan Urban, Journalist, Czech Republic

Moderator:

M.C. Putna, Director of the Václav Havel Library, Czech Republic

11:15 – 11:30   Coffee Break

11:30 – 12:45 Part II of the roundtable (Faculty of Philosophy) – in English

Freedom and Its Adversaries: Perspectives of Central Europe

Opening remarks:

Madeleine Albright, Former Secretary of State, USA

Participants:

Jacques Rupnik, Historian, Director of CERI, France

Adam Michnik, Former Dissident, Editor-in-Chief, Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland

Martin Bútora, Sociologist, Writer, Diplomat, Slovak Republic

Tom Stoppard, Playwright and Screenwriter, United Kingdom

Moderator:

Timothy Garton Ash, Writer and Columnist, United Kingdom

12:45 – 14:00  Lunch (Kampa Park)

14:00 – 15:15  Debate with the students

Audience:

Students and invited observers (approximately 400 people)

Highly dexterous in symbolism, Madeleine Albright made speeches out of brooches. The bee pin was used whenever she felt talks amounted to “something like a sting”; Mandela called for a zebra trot and after Saddam Hussein’s government called her a serpent, she wore a golden snake pin.

Read My Pins: The Madeleine Albright Collection is at New York’s Museum of Arts & Design

Il “caso Abu Omar”, ossia la vicenda del rapimento, a Milano ed in pieno giorno, del predicatore integralista islamico da parte di un commando della CIA, presenta caratteristiche di simmetria e specularità con un caso ancora più clamoroso, conseguenze incluse, che appassionò il mondo ventiquattro anni fa, il sequestro della nave Achille Lauro.
Ricordiamolo per sommi capi.
Il 7 ottobre del 1985, un gruppo di palestinesi armati nascosti a bordo sequestra l’ ammiraglia della flotta turistica italiana, appena salpata da Alessandria d’Egitto, con tutto l’equipaggio e 450 passeggeri a bordo, di varie nazionalità. A quale scopo, ci si chiede subito…? Allo scopo, rispondono i sequestratori, che Israele liberi 52 detenuti palestinesi: viceversa, l’Achille Lauro salterà in aria. Figuriamoci.
Un curioso sistema, da parte di un commando terrorista ritenuto “vicino” al Fronte di Liberazione Popolare, di ottenere lo scopo: attaccando militarmente cioè, nel piroscafo (che ne fa parte integrale ai fini del diritto di navigazione) il territorio di un paese naturalmente amico della causa palestinese; e per di più allora guidato da un governo “Craxi-Andreotti” che ancor oggi il sito “liberali per Israele” designa ingiustamente come “amico dei terroristi”. Che tale non era affatto, naturalmente: ma bensì desideroso di contribuire alla pace in Medio Oriente, risolvendolo alla stregua delle risoluzioni ONU che prevedono la costituzione di uno Stato Palestinese sulle terre occupate da Israele durante l’attacco bellico del giugno 1967, Cisgiordania in primis. E in questa chiave aveva accolto in Italia, con protocollo da Capo di Stato incluso discorso in Parlamento, Yasser Arafat nel 1983.
Agli occhi di qualcuno, una colpa imperdonabile…
Bene, dopo due giorni di sequestro, e di frenetiche trattative triangolari fra Italia, Egitto, OLP di Arafat e Abu Abbas capo del FLP residente in Egitto, al quale gruppo risulta aderente l’autolesionista commando di sequestratori, gli stessi cedono: otterranno un salvacondotto per giungere in Italia ove saranno giudicati dalla giustizia italiana, perché i ponti, le cabine, la tolda di una nave italiana sono territorio nazionale a tutti gli effetti. Garanti della mediazione con il governo italiano sono il Presidente egiziano Hosni Mubarak ed il capo dell’OLP Yasser Arafat, che ne rispondono alle opinioni arabe se qualcuno tradisse il compromesso stesso.
Il 9 ottobre il commando abbandona la nave, non senza aver firmato la provocazione con un delitto gratuito ed odioso, solo apparentemente “inutile”: l’assassinio a sangue freddo, e senza giustificazione di alcun tipo, di un solo passeggero. Leon Klinghoffer, un crocerista paralitico di appartenenza ebraica, con passaporto USA.
La vicenda, fin qui solo “drammatica”, allora assume di colpo un profilo “tragico” ed emozional-mediatico che ribalta completamente quello “solo” giuridico: ai fini del quale invece, non cambia nulla; solo un altro reato, il più grave peraltro (l’omicidio in forma abbietta), si aggiunge alla lista di quelli addebitabili al commando in sede penale. E coinvolge, insieme dalla stessa parte, Stati Uniti e Israele contro l’Italia: perché il governo, ad onta dello scandalo, intende mantener dritta la barra del compromesso stipulato con garanti così autorevoli che rischierebbero grosso in caso opposto. “Bruciare” politicamente Mubarak ed Arafat agli occhi arabi – come responsabili di un accordo tradito dall’ Italia, che dovrebbe, negli intenti israelo-USA, consegnare loro i sequestratori – lo Stato italiano questo non può farlo.
A questo punto entrano in scena i “diversori” per linee interne: in primis Michael Ledeen, un personaggio dei servizi “non solo USA” coinvolto negli affari più sporchi degli ultimi trent’anni, Iran-Contras incluso; con gravi condanne a carico che gli impediscono ancor oggi di accostarsi al nostro Paese, pontificandone sui nostri media stando bene al sicuro nella sua Langley.
Allora introdottissimo presso Palazzo Chigi grazie a Claudio Martelli garante, e Giuliano Ferrara suo sodale. Questi era allora, di grande famiglia comunista-togliattana dopo nonno liberal-massone, un “neo-convertito” al craxismo: perché aveva abbandonato il PCI due anni prima, dopo avere schiaffeggiato, in consiglio comunale torinese, l’assessore-compagno alla Cultura, il filo-sionista Giorgio Balmas, perché aveva rifiutato di dedicare ai bambini massacrati a Sabra e Chatila un concerto di “Settembre Musica”.
A posteriori, un modo di “accreditarsi”: talché a raccoglierne gli umori apparentemente fumantini, furono Alberto Ronchey, “amico di famiglia” fino dai tempi di una comune residenza moscovita che gli fece ottenere “Bretelle Rosse”, rubrica politica fissa sul Corsera; ed Antonio Ghirelli, antico animatore di Radio Napoli nel 1943 per conto del PWB* inglese, che lo volle notista al TG2.
Lui e Martelli, insieme con il leader di Lotta Continua Adriano Sofri ed il capo del servizio d’ordine di quel medesimo gruppo, il sociologo sardo-trentino Luigi Manconi, editavano, coi soldi chiesti a Silvio Berlusconi, il quotidiano “Reporter”, una specie di ante-Foglio, assai pubblicizzato in TV dall’ennesimo Lottacontinuista di questa vicenda: Dagospia, allora solo Roberto d’Agostino, che lo inseriva nel suo angolino, la rubrica del look “fico” e reaganiano, inserendolo nelle tasche dei vari testimonial che si prestavano al gioco, del fortunatissimo “Quelli della notte” di Renzo Arbore, in onda giusto giusto la primavera del 1985, tre mesi prima del “caso Lauro”.
Insomma: gente di cui fidarsi ad occhi chiusi!

E invece no: perché Michael Ledeen ha recentemente rivelato che in quelle notti convulse di passioni, liti e scenate telefoniche ai due capi dell’Oceano, tra Craxi che difendeva i patti stipulati con onore, perfino difendendo coi Carabinieri schierati in pista, a Sigonella, il B737 che traduceva i banditi dall’assalto della Delta Force; e pure a Fiumicino, ove poi giunto inseguito dai caccia USA, ingiunse immediatamente, carabinieri con i mitra spianati, agli aerei stello-strisciati di “sloggiare” dalla pista di decollo… Ebbene ad attizzare i due l’un contro l’altro, perché vieppiù confliggessero – e con essi i due Paesi alleati – fino alla inevitabile soccombenza del più debole, furono le traduzioni telefoniche del Ledeen (che fa nome “Levi” in verità), sbagliate apposta per farli litigare. E pensare che Claudio Martelli lo aveva chiamato d’ urgenza apposta a Palazzo, cornetta in mano, per quella emergenza. Consigliando Bettino, da fedelissimo suo VicePresidente, di non fidarsi degli interpreti ufficiali, date le circostanze eccezionali!
Bene. Ad interfaccia dell’“agente Marte”, come viene definito dagli uffici suoi stessi, interviene Spadolini, intransigentissimo atlantista che ricopriva, abbondantemente, la poltrona di Ministro della Difesa. Un buffo panzone di taglia gigantesca ma con vocina esile e stridula da zitellina del famoso asilo di Dorsoduro a Venezia, che Forattini disegnava sempre nudo, con uno spadolino microscopico sul davanti, come fosse un eunuco… (Ha lasciato ad un erede, e pur si vede, tutte queste sue caratteristiche). Giovanni Spadolini si dimette dalla sua carica-chiave, costringendo alle inevitabili dimissioni anche il premier Bettino. Questi lo fece con un memorabile discorso alla Camera, ove rivendicò virilmente le Responsabilità di Stato, mantenute a dispetto di ogni pressione straniera (la parola data a Capi di Stato amici non si rinnega), ed a costo di dimettersi. Un discorso che commosse perfino l’allora scalfariano Giampaolo Pansa, che, su “La Repubblica”, forse perché era caduto, disse che lo aveva comunque fatto da “Hombre Vertical”.
Ecco, è questo il succo del ”caso Lauro”: le dimissioni, in Italia, di un Capo di Governo “sovranista e nazionale” contro ogni pretesa del Grande Fratello Atlantico in questioni di merito interno, seppure di emozione mondiale.
Non erano ancora i tempi dei Veltroni, che esalta la missione civilizzatrice degli eserciti USA alla conquista del mondo “per esportare la democrazia” (discorso al Circo Massimo, maggio 2007); o dei D’Alema, che nel suo discorso di insediamento a premier per la breve esperienza di Palazzo Chigi dietro ribaltone parlamentare, giurò che mai l’Italia avrebbe partecipato a guerre di aggressione, per poi levare i cacciabombardieri su Belgrado, e mobilitare 18.000 uomini, da mettere agli ordini del comando USA d Wesley Clark, per l’invasione in Kosovo…
Non erano né i tempi né gli uomini, ma quella prima caduta di Bettino Craxi fu decisiva a preparare quella successiva del 1992. Ed a determinare questi tempi e questi uomini che adesso scontiamo.

Questa premessa assolutamente indispensabile per capire quale anche è il succo del caso Abu Omar. La caduta di un Capo dei Servizi di palese appartenenza nazionale, pur nella doverosa fedeltà ai supernazionali Patti che lo costrinsero, bongré malgré, a “dare una mano” al nutrito gruppo di agenti CIA delegati al sequestro dell’“estremista islamico”. Il quale rapimento di Abu Omar fu effettuato in pieno centro ed in pieno giorno, facendo il maggiore baccano possibile, davanti a quanti più testimoni stupefatti perché ben si imprimessero in testa tutte le circostanze, a futura memoria: che inguaierà poi il solo Pollari. Costretto anch’egli a lasciare una carica, quella di Capo dei Servizi, che nelle circostanze attuali vale più di cento “premier”, che sono affatto privi di qualunque potere effettivo. Visto che l’affollatissimo gruppo di “condannati” della CIA, a partire dal caposcalo Robert Seldon “Lady” (però: chissà…), son tutti uccel di bosco, e mai sconteranno neppure un minuto, benché la sentenza, peraltro doverosa ed onorevole, che fa davvero onore al giudice Oscar Magi che l’ha emessa dopo tanto tormento, inasprirà ulteriormente i rapporti già non buoni tra Italia e USA. Che gli USA, ed altri, vogliono ad ogni costo impedire la nostra sovranità energetica quale discende dai contratti stipulati dall’ENI con Gazprom-Russia, con Nyoc-Libia, con Sonatrach-Algeria; per ovviare nei decenni a venire le necessità di energia pulita, cioè il metano di quei sottosuoli.
Pollari, dunque, è stato il solo a pagare. Se poi si vede chi è il suo successore, da dove venne nel lontano 1984 con al guinzaglio la “mina a tempo” Masino Buscetta, e per fare che cosa, forse ben si capisce tutto il senso di questa operazione, Abu Omar incluso.
Già, Abu Omar, chi era costui? Forse in “essenza” non lo sapremo mai.
Ma è interessante, come si fa con le particelle nella fisica nucleare, “tracciarne” il percorso più interamente che in quell’attimo “puntuale” del ratto, il 17 febbraio 2003, in ora di punta.
Egli giunse per la prima volta in Italia nel 1999, con intenzione di stabilirvisi nel cuore della sua comunità, libero come un fringuello, da Kosovo e da Bosnia, ove era militante dei gruppi più fanatici anti-serbi, finanziati e nutriti da chissà chi. Kosovo e Bosnia “liberate” dalla Jugoslavia e date in pasto a quell’“integralismo islamico” che proprio in quei tempi, inventato da Brzezinski nei lontani Settanta per attaccare le frontiere di Russia, saliva al potere finalmente a Kabul, nel cuore geopolitico d’EurAsia: i talebani del 1997, insediati colà dalle ISI pakistane guidate dalla CIA e dal FBI… E finanziati a pié di lista (“per estirpare il papavero”) dall’ex-deputato dalemiano (adesso dipietrista) Pino Arlacchi (il noto mafiologo de “La Repubblica”, che oggi dirige “Intelligence”), quando la Albright lo fece nominare Capo del Dipartimento ONU per la lotta alla droga. Coi risultati che si videro, già dall’inizio, era il 1997… Come si vede, poi giungendo, l’integralismo islamico da combattere con sempre più truppe, via Kosovo reso indipendente dagli “Alleati” Wesley Clark&D’Alema, fino a Montenapoleone, oltre Belgrado: al quale assedio compiuto dai turchi all’epoca di Giuseppe II Imperatore d’Asburgo, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart dedicò il suo sarcastico “rondò” (Marcia alla Turca) che incomparabilmente chiude la Sonata per piano solo K331, reso famoso dalla pubblicità televisiva…
Anche qui c’è da ridere, infatti. Perché questo Abu Omar, naturalmente uno pseudonimo di chissà chi, dopo una strana detenzione ad Aviano, viene più volte spedito e rispedito, riarrestato e rilasciato, via Cairo, avanti-indietro, fino a liberazione definitiva con tante scuse e danni da risarcire da parte del governo italiano: un milione di euro, al Cairo sei nababbo. Nel frattempo dice di aver subito orribili torture, di cui non porta alcuna traccia. Insomma, un fortunato. Anzi, un predestinato, come ci spiega Pirandello nel memorabile breviario de “Il Gioco delle Parti”, tra opposti coordinati.
A Napoli si recita così: due compari, ad un angolo di strada, iniziano furiosamente a litigare, trascinando in mezzo alla lite un passante qualunque. Con la scusa di menarsi, gliele suonano di santa ragione a lui che è imprigionato tra di loro, gli fregano l’orologio ed il portafogli, e lo lasciano pesto in terra e sanguinante, fuggendo via col bottino, in un posto sicuro per spartirselo.
E meno male che sia il governo Prodi, come quello Berlusconi, hanno opposto “Segreto di Stato” per salvaguardare il nostro Pollari dalle liti “loro”, naturalmente suscitando lo sdegno de “La Repubblica” che invece lo voleva bruciato per sempre…
Ecco, sia Pirandello col raffinato “Gioco delle Parti”, sia Napoli con quello più ruspante dei “Compari”, ci ricordano tanto sia il “caso Abu Omar” che quello “Achille Lauro”.
E soprattutto la Guerra al Terrorismo, proprio quello, portato ieri “al comando”, da quegli stessi che oggi gliela proclamano contro, soprattutto combattendola attraverso “soggetti terzi <messi in mezzo>  dai primi due”.
Come da manuale. Anche quello di Samuel Huntington, reso famoso grazie all’11 settembre, “Lo Scontro delle Civiltà”, cristiani contro islamici, come dice il proverbio. Che a ben vedere questo strombazzatissimo “The Clash” è proprio un manuale pratico, di istruzioni anche un po’ elementari.
Perché fra due litiganti c’è sempre un terzo che ogni volta ne gode. Lo dice proprio piatto e rotondo il grande tragico inglese che ben se intendeva, Christopher Marlowe**, in un suo capolavoro che analizza con preveggente acume le guerre cristiano-islamiche nel Mediterraneo di quell’epoca, ed intestato ad un signore “…di Malta”, che si chiamava Barabba, sembra un “nom de plume”.
Chissà, forse era già “Abu Omar”.
Gianni Caroli

* Psychological Warfare Branch, ufficio di alto spionaggio e propaganda delle Forze di occupazione angloamericane in Italia, in funzione ininterrottamente fino dal 9 luglio 1943 (sbarco in Sicilia, poi Salerno), con prima sede stabile in Piazza delle Borsa a Napoli

** Christopher Marlowe, Tutto il Teatro, Adelphi

Yet another publishing dream came true for me November 1^st when my debut thriller STACCATO became available at the  top independent bookstore in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Changing Hands Bookstore is currently featuring STACCATO on “The Wall” along with bestsellers, staff picks and IndieBound favorites.

I cannot begin to express the feeling I experienced when I walked into this venerable bookstore where most recently Madeleine Albright appeared, and where they are now promoting the upcoming appearance of Garrison Keillor.  Changing Hands is where virtually every bestselling author schedules for a signing in Arizona.

To think that I share a shelf with Diana Gabaldon and that the mega-bestselling author Stephanie Meyer is featured below is something I never thought would happen.

Again, this is verification that dreams really do come true. And again why I am so grateful to Second Wind Publishing for believing enough in STACCATO to see my every expectation for the novel come to fruition.

If you work hard enough, don’t settle for anything but perfection, and most of all, never give up, you too may see the novel you write displayed on your favorite bookstore shelf.

Deborah J Ledford is the author of the debut suspense thriller novel Staccato, now available from Second Wind Publishing, Amazon, Kindle, and independent book stores.

2009 has been an amazing year at the World Affairs Council. Here’s a collection of highlights from just a few of our engaging speakers, including Nicholas Kristof, Michael Pollan, and Madeleine Albright.

I was recently invited to the 2009 Public Affairs Dinner hosted annually by Austin’s own Planned Parenthood.  This fundraising event makes it possible to provide high quality health care and education to more to more than 30,000 individuals unable to afford insurance in our community each year.

The 2009 keynote speaker was Madeleine Albright, the first female U.S. Secretary of State .  She is currently touring to promote her newest book, Read My Pins.  The event was an eye opening experience of the many who contribute to a higher standard of living. Thought I should share the pins that my host and I wore to the event!  I had a fantastic time and couldn’t have been in better company.

I will update soon with photos of my outfit and my autographed book, Read My Pins!

<3,

S

The other day, I saw a Madeleine Albright quote in my Twitter timeline. I don’t know if this Time magazine interview is the original source, but this is the quote (bold):

What advice do you have for women who want respect from their male colleagues? Dana Philbin, CHICAGO

Women have to be active listeners and interrupters—but when you interrupt, you have to know what you are talking about. I also think it is important for women to help one another. I have a saying: There is a special place in hell for women who don’t.

I would guess that she didn’t mean anything by this other than to express condemnation of the bitchiness (for lack of a better term) that is sometimes reported specifically amongst women in the workplace, and that sort of thing. And maybe there was a time & place when most women really did have shared interests, simply qua women (such as suffrage). But if we’ve learned anything at all from third wave feminism, it’s that women are in many ways more diverse than they are similar (race, class, religion, etc). As such, I don’t think I really have any obligation to help my “sisters” simply because they are women, and that is what this quote prima facie suggests. So I guess I’m going to hell. The special part of it for people who think (gasp!) that moral obligations regarding who we ought to help are not straightforwardly related to coincidences of gender.

Mo 10/26: Sherri Shepherd, Alex Dryden
Tu 10/27: Alicia Silverstone, Salman Rushdie
We 10/28: Madeleine Albright, Rodrigo y Gabriela
Th 10/29: Newt Gingrich, Jessalyn Gilsig
Fr 10/30: Lauren Graham, Fruit Bats

          [READ COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE CHAIRS & WITNESSES] Senator Kerry’s Opening Statement         “Today we will discuss the future of our NATO alliance…..”

Senator Lugar’s Opening Statement         “…When discussing NATO, I start with the premise it is still a work in progress…”

Witnesses:
Panel 1:
The Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, former Secretary of State“…NATO is above all an alliance of democracies…”.
Panel 2:
General John Craddock, U.S. Army (Ret.)Former Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, U.S.Army. “…Development of the Strategic Concept must include timely and relevant input by military authorities…”
The Honorable Kurt Volker, Former Permanent Representative to NATO & Managing Director Center on Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins Univ, Washington, DC.     “…we need a renewed potlitical compact on security between Europe and North America…”
Dr. Charles A. Kupchan    Professor of International Affairs    Georgetown University    Adjunct Senior Fellow    Council on Foreign Relations    Washington, DC.”…NATO no longer enjoys the unity and solidarity that it did during the Cold War…”

via Style.com

“It’s irritating when what women are wearing becomes the story. Nobody ever says a man is wearing a gray suit.” — Madeleine Albright

I am looking forward to this year’s celebration. It will start Saturday and continue through Tuesday for most, lots of employers are giving people Monday off.

With events taking place between the 14th and the 17th, at least one will include remote greetings from President Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, the Dalai Lama and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Saturday’s concert looks like Suzanne Vega, Joan Baez, Renée Fleming and Lou Reed will be playing without Mick Jagger.

Also on Saturday will be a series of debate/discussion organized by Charles University with such figures as Madeleine Albright, Tom Stoppard, Adam Michnik and Bob Geldof in attendance. I have an invite to this one, so here’s hoping I see you there.

Yep, your eyes are working just fine … Pravda.Ru thinks “Kosovo Needs To Put up Monument to Bill Clinton Hugging Madeleine Albright.”

Seems “a monument to former US President Bill Clinton is to appear in Kosovo. The monument, erected by the Kosovo-America Friendship Association, will cost 45,000 EUR.”

Of course, there’s a twist to the thought, since Pravda writes, even the world financial crisis could not affect the decision. It may even seem that the crisis has not hit the Kosovo economy, which mostly depends on the transit of drugs to Europe. The Albanian drug dealers have apparently developed a great affection to the former US president.

So, you can kinda see where this is going, can’t you.  The article then notes that Leonid Ivashov, the President of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems, said in an interview with Pravda.Ru that there was nothing surprising about the initiative to install a monument to Bill Clinton.

“There is nothing surprising about that really. It is much more surprising that they have forgotten to immortalize Madeleine Albright. She is just as responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia as Mr. Clinton is. They would make a nice couple on that monument.

Why, should Clinton and Albright share the stageyou might ask?  Well, Mr, Ivashov says, “the Kosovars are especially grateful to Mr. Clinton, because it was virtually him, who created their gangster enclave. Thus, the leaders of Kosovo’s criminals groups, whom the US considers as terrorists, were forgiven and even given the US support.

“When Albania’s political and financial systems collapsed, Kosovo leaders plundered armories to obtain weapons for their gangs. Afterwards, they were used as the fighters for the national liberation. Now they hold power in Kosovo, which makes the situation with the monument clear,” Mr. Ivashov said.

Heck, he even tossed out the ever popular concept that “Some say that Clinton organized the war against Yugoslavia in order to distract people’s attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.“

Not happy to stop there Mr. Ivashov continues that “Of course, the story with Monica Lewinsky played an important role at this point. When clouds were gathering above Yugoslavia, I was serving as the chairman of the International Defense Cooperation Department at Russia’s Defense Ministry. I knew that Clinton was showing as much resistance as he could to the pressure that was being put on him. No one else, but England, wanted the bombing to start.

“Russia’s reaction was particularly strident. Then-President Boris Yeltsin told Clinton in plain language not to go to Yugoslavia. Clinton was not willing to aggravate his relations both with Russia and his NATO allies.

“I can say that Clinton appeared at an influential Masonic lodge of the USA shortly before the war began. They were trying to convince him to attack Yugoslavia as soon as possible. Clinton refused, and there the Lewinsky controversy started,” Ivashov said.

“Yugoslavia, a small country, was not a serious competitor to the United States, was it?

Whew!  Might want to scratch Mr. Ivashov off the mailing list of the Clinton Global Initiative.

Yesterday I came across a post by Cindy Krischer Goodman on the Miami Herald’s Web site, about a speech given by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to the Commonwealth Institute South Florida. The appearance featured tales from Albright’s recently published book, “Read My Pins,” as well as a little personal history: she was a journalist, researcher, full time (single) mom to three daughters, and later a professor… all before ever stepping foot on Capitol Hill.

Pretty amazing. So amazing you might think you’ve nothing in common with the Artist Formerly Known as Madame Secretary. But believe me, you do.

In regard to work/life balance, Albright said: ‘There are no easy choices. Every woman’s middle name is guilt.’

Told you.

Guilt. It’s truly a woman’s problem, isn’t it? Much like the need for approval, it’s almost a birthright.

And what is it good for, anyway? I mean, I’m sure Jiminy Cricket would insist it serves a certain purpose, helping that know-it-all goody two-shoes on our shoulder ensure we don’t actually beat up the idiot driver who cut us off or steal the shoes we can’t afford or get busy with the guy in the mailroom, no matter how tempted we might be. But it’s not the same as a conscience–and I think we’re quick to confuse the two.

Nor do I think there’s any doubt that guilt weighs heavily on our choices. To a certain extent, it drives them. And keeps us looking over our shoulders. And stresses us out. That wicked emotion can be downright paralyzing. We don’t want to hurt anyone, put anyone out, do the wrong thing. It hits us from both sides, too: Sometimes we make choices we don’t really want, strictly because we’d rather not deal with the guilt. And other times, we choose to go the other way–and then are left feeling guilty over it. It complicates things, loading each choice down with some additional–and not necessarily relevant–worry. In the same way that factoring others’ feelings and our own fear of being judged out of our decisions requires conscious work, so does eliminating the guilt factor. How often do we do things we don’t want to do? Say yes when we don’t mean it? And women, with our oversized To-Do lists and our underdeveloped sense of balance–well, I don’t think it’s too wild a stretch to suggest the two are related.

So, how do we get rid of it? Hell if I know. But perhaps a good place to start would be to take back our middle names and cut that Guilt Monster down to size. Are you with me?

Crickets…

We have a new champion: Steve gets four points plus a bonus for being the first to get KLM and another bonus for humour – intended or not - for his answer to 4.

Cadwallader got one right, a bonus for being first with that answer and a bonus for inventiveness for the answer to 2.

Gravedodger got three (although I think  strictly speaking ammonium carbonate is a by-product of hartshorn) and the bonus he sought for handling all those wee bales (now known as weetbix).

Rob got three right and a bonus for lateral thinking with his answer to 4, though it wasn’t right.

Andrei got two right, another point for being close with 2 and adding extra information about hart (although hartshorn is a substance from the antlers not the antlers themselves) with a bonus for being first with Madeleine Albright.

Paul gets four points and a bonus for humour for his answer to 4.

PDM got one and a bonus for humour – intended or not – for his answer to 1.

Samo also got four right and a bonus for extra information.

P.S. Because I have a problem with typso typos, I’ve accepted Bayton which was given as the answer twice instead of Baynton.

Monday’s questions were:

1. What is the oldest airline still operating under its original name?

2. What is hartshorn?

3. Who wrote Jane and the Dragon?

4. Who said, I’ve never been to New Zealand before. But one of my role models, Xena, the warrior princess, comes from there.”?

5. What is the common name for alfalfa?

The answers follow the break:

1. KLM

2. Substance from horns of hart (red deer), formerly chief source of ammonia.

3. Martin Baynton.

4. Madeleine Albright.

5. Lucerne.

One of the offshoots of the current fixation with Afghanistan, with which this space has itself been almost totally consumed, is that it tends to redirect our attention away from other crises in the world that might otherwise attract our attention, and even possibly corrective action.

The humanitarian crisis in Darfur is a case in point. The Sudanese government’s efforts to repress the insurgency in their Darfur province is slightly longer in duration than the American war in Iraq (the insurgency by the Justice and Equality Movement [JEM] and Sudanese Liberation Army/Movemnt [SLA/M] in Darfur began in February 2003, while the American invasion of Iraq occurred in March 2003). The toll in Darfur is high: estmates suggest between 2-400,000 killed in Darfur as well as upwards of 2 million internal and external displaced persons (IDPs and EDPs) or refugees. The Darfurian population, both in and outside Sudan, have been subjected to regular atrocities ever since, with the most public being the actions of the so-called Janjaweed (which translates as “evil men on horseback”), a sort of informal militia with apparent ties to the Sudanese government.

The Darfurian case is part of a broader pattern of unrest, rebellion, and atrocity in Sudan. In addition to the troubles in the western Darfur region, there has been an ongoing civil war in the southern parts of Sudan since 1962 that has periodicially raised its ugly head, been negotiated to a ceasefire, and then reemerged. What sets this conflict apart is that oil was discovered in the southern part of the country in 1978, which makes control of the area all the more important. This aspect of Sudanese violence has, over the year, resulted in as many as 2,000,000 deaths and 4 million IDPs and EDPs.

And yet the world hardly notices, and when its attention is forced back to the situation, does very little. Media coverage of Darfurian misery prompted international cries of despair, and even caused then Secretary of State Colin Powell and President George Bush to describe the campaign against the Darfurians a “genocide.” Sudanese President (since 1993) Omar al-Bashir has since been indicted in absentia for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC). These charges do not include genocide, and the United States is disadvantaged in being part of this process since it not a member of the ICC. To deal with Darfur, the UN Security Council authorized a peacekeeping force, the United Nations Mission in Darfur (or UNAMID) in July 2007 with an authorized force size of 26,000 soldiers and police to bring and maintain order in an area roughly the size of Texas. As of this month, the actual force is less than 19,000, including no American participation.

While the United States continues to debate how many troops are needed in Afghanistan, Darfurians in Sudan and contiguous countries (notably Chad and the Central African Republic) continue to suffer, with little prospect of improvement. Sudan’s civil war in the south is in abeyance as Sudan moves toward national elections next year that could provide for substantial autonomy for the south, including a division of oil revenues between Khartoum and the southerners that appafrently is acceptable to both. Despite a 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement that neither side honors, the situation is not so hopeful in Darfur.

Why has nothing been done internationally to halt this disaster. While there is no universally agreed answer to that question, let me suggest four possible elements.

1. It happened at the wrong time. The Darfur crisis, as well as the war in the south, happened at times when the international system was preoccupied with other problems. The civil war in the south began during the height of the Cold War, the same year as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and, as noted, Darfur began a month before the US invasion of Iraq. Had Darfur occurred during the 1990s, when response to humanitarian disasters was at its peak in places like the Balkans, there might have been a stronger response. But maybe not, for reason #2.

2. It happened at the wrong place to the wrong people. The Sudan is, after all, in Africa, where humanitarian responses to tragedies by the west have been, to put it politely, restrained. In the 1990s, the international system acted forcefully in the European Balkans but ignored Rwanda until it was too late. The southern civil war in Sudan pits the majority Arab Muslims of northern Sudan against a collection of Christian and animist Africans, with the Christians in the minority. In Darfur, the combatants are basically all Muslims, with sedentary farming Africans being besieged by nomadic Arabs. For better of worse, these are not conflict parameters thathave activated the outrage of the developed world.

3. The United States, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation,” was otherwise predisposed in both cases. As the world learned in the 1990s, international responses depend on a prominent American role, and we were busy with other things. UNAMID, for instance, has no American personnel, although the United States does provide some aid to the displaced.

4. Sudan has international defenders. Sudan, of course, has maintained all along that these situations are entirely internal and thus exclusively within the purview of Sudan. Their argument for non-interference is based in sovereignty, and they have one strong champion in defending this position, China. The PRC is,along with the United States, one of the staunchest defenders of national sovereignty. China is also the largest importer on Sudanese oil. Draw whatever conclusions you wish.

5. The international response is inappropriate. The IN Security Council has conceptualized the Darfur crisis as apeacekeeping operation (PKO), which it is not. You must have peace as prerequisite to keeping it, and that is clearly not the case in Darfur. Yet UNAMID is a PKO. Why? Because it is what the UN can afford and what the international community is willing to support. That it is also almost totally ineffective is almost beside the point.

So, Darfur simmers and festers while the world looks the other way. “Attention! Eyes Right (or Closed)!” Now, what’s going on in the strategic review over Afghanistan…?

On Oct. 8th, the McCormick Freedom Project presented a sit down with Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The program was moderated by Elizabeth Brackett from PBS’s NewsHour. Secretary Albright’s new book Read My Pins: Stories from a Diplomat’s Jewel Box has just been published and she was in town making several appearances to speak about it. This particular event, however, seemed to be more about discussing and answering questions posed by the moderator and the audience than just speaking to the topic of her book.

I have seen her speak one other time at the Chicago Council for Global Affairs in 2008 when Memo to the President: How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership was published, and found her very captivating both times, but the setting of this event was much more informal and intimate and I felt like I got a much broader view of the incredible woman that she is. We also got to see a little more of the humorous side of her.

Born in Czechoslovakia, Secretary Albright immigrated to the United States when she was only eleven. She is well beloved in her home country, but when asked by Ms. Brackett about the suggestion from the former Czech president that she should run for the presidency, Secretary Albright responded that she would never give up her US citizenship. She spoke very passionately about how her view of democracy is influenced by her childhood, and that coming to the US was the most important thing to ever happen to her. In her mind, she said, democracy and freedom are the same, but there are different kinds of democracy; we all want the right to self-determination, but our ideas of what that should be differ.

When speaking about Iraq, Ms. Brackett asked if her analysis of the war was the same now as when she wrote Memo to the President. Her response was yes, she still felt that it was one of our greatest disasters in foreign policy and that it hurt our image and it hurt democracy because democracy cannot be imposed. She mentioned the National Democratic Institute, for which she is the Chairman of the Board of Directors, and the work that they do on a couple of different occasions.

On Afghanistan she spoke more about our long history there rather than directly to the question of whether we should increase troops, but she did say that the question is not black and white, get out or stay. She does feel that if we are going to increase the troop numbers then the people are owed a discussion.

When the topic turned to her new book she told the story of how after the Gulf War there was a poem published that called her an “unparalleled serpent” and so she started wearing a snake pin. From there it evolved into wearing pins that fit the day and the mood. During peace talks she would wear a dove. Sometimes she would wear balloons if she was hopeful, which turned to turtles because the process was so slow, which turned to crabs because she was irritated at everyone. When asked about the fly pin that she was wearing that day she said that it was because she “was not a fly-by-night friend of Chicago.”

An audience member asked her what she would wear to meet President Ahmadinejad and she replied that she has a pin (though it is currently in a museum), designed by Bill Cohen’s wife, of a dove and an eagle. And of course she would also wear a green suit.

She had so much to say that I wish that I could write it all here, but let me just say that if you have a chance to hear her speak in the future – take advantage. She is a charming, poised, and accomplished woman who loves, as she apparently shared with Ms. Brackett before stepping up to the stage, to make complicated foreign policy issues make sense. And she is very good at it.