THE ART OF LOSING FRIENDS
Artículo de Charles Krauthammer en "The
Washington Post" del 24-9-04
Por su interés y relevancia, he
seleccionado el artículo que sigue para incluirlo en este sitio web. (L.
B.-B.)
Of all our allies in the world, which is the only
one to have joined the United States in the foxhole in every war in the past 100
years? Not Britain, not Canada, certainly not France. The answer is Australia.
Australia does not share only a community of values with the United
States. It understands that its safety rests ultimately on a stable
international structure that, in turn, rests not on parchment treaties but on
the power and credibility of the United States. Which is why Australia is with
us today in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard has taken
great risks and much political heat for his support of America. There is a
national election in Australia on Oct. 9, and the race is neck and neck between
Howard and Labor Party leader Mark Latham. Latham has pledged to withdraw from
Iraq.
This is a critical election not only for Australia but also for the United
States. Think of the effect on America, its front-line soldiers and its
coalition partners if one of its closest allies turns tail and runs.
The terrorists are well aware of this potential effect. Everyone knows
about the train bombings in Madrid that succeeded in bringing down a
pro-American government and led to Spain's precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. But
few here noticed that this month's car bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia, was
designed to have precisely the same effect.
Where was the bomb set off? At the Australian Embassy. When was it set
off? Just weeks before the Australian election and just three days before the
only televised debate between Howard and Latham.
The terrorists' objective is to intimidate all countries allied with
America. Make them bleed and tell them this is the price they pay for being a
U.S. ally. The implication is obvious: Abandon America and buy your safety.
That is what the terrorists are saying. Why is the Kerry campaign saying
the same thing? "John Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard
Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for
international terrorists." So reports the Weekend Australian (Sept. 18).
Americans Overseas for Kerry is the Kerry operation for winning the
crucial votes of Americans living abroad (remember the Florida recount?),
including more than 100,000 who live in Australia. Its leader was interviewed
Sept. 16 by The Australian's Washington correspondent, Roy Eccleston. Asked if
she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the
support for President Bush, she replied: "I would have to say that," noting that
"[t]he most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta."
She said this of her country (and of the war that Australia is helping us
with in Iraq): "[W]e are endangering the Australians now by this wanton
disregard for international law and multilateral channels." Mark Latham could
not have said it better. Nor could Jemaah Islamiah, the al Qaeda affiliate that
killed nine people in the Jakarta bombing.
This Kerry spokesman, undermining a key ally on the eve of a critical
election, is no rogue political operative. She is the head of Americans Overseas
for Kerry -- Diana Kerry, sister to John.
She is, of course, merely echoing her brother, who, at a time when allies
have shown great political courage in facing down both terrorists and domestic
opposition for their assistance to the United States in Iraq, calls these allies
the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed."
This snide and reckless put-down more than undermines our best friends
abroad. It demonstrates the cynicism of Kerry's promise to broaden our coalition
in Iraq. If this is how Kerry repays America's closest allies -- ridiculing the
likes of Tony Blair and John Howard -- who does he think is going to step up
tomorrow to be America's friend?
The only thing that distinguishes Kerry's Iraq proposals from Bush's is
his promise to deploy his unique, near-mystical ability to bring in new allies
to fight and pay for the war in Iraq -- to "make Iraq the world's
responsibility" and get others to "share the burden," as he said this week at
New York University.
Yet even Richard Holbrooke, a top Kerry foreign policy adviser, admits
that the president of France is not going to call up President Kerry and say,
"How many divisions should I send to Iraq?"
Nor will anyone else. Kerry abuses America's closest friends while
courting those, like Germany and France, that have deliberately undermined
America before, during and after the war. What lessons are leaders abroad to
draw from this when President Kerry asks them -- pretty please in his most
mellifluous French -- to put themselves on the line for the United States?