Demonstrators hold up placards during a rally on Venceslas Square in Prague against a possible installation of a US missile defense radar system base in the Czech Republic, Nov. 17.

It is reported that the Czech government has begun an 890,000-dollar information campaign supporting the U.S. plan to set up a radar station in the Czech Republic. Opponents of the plan--led by the Social Democrats--want some of that money to fund alternative information campaigns so as to create an actual debate on the issue and prepare the population for the possibility of a referendum.
The radar system--officially presented by Washington as offering protection to the West from missile attacks by “rogue states“ would have two elements: a radar in the Czech Republic and an anti-missile base in Poland.
“We decided to start an alternative information campaign since we feel the government is brainwashing the Czech public, and we chose to visualize this problem for both the public and politicians in a mocking fashion,“ Lenka Kukurova, action campaigner for Greenpeace Czech Republic, told IPS.
Members of the Greenpeace organization recently staged a protest depicting a scene in which a U.S. general dictates to Czech ministers how to promote the base. The ’ministers’ could be seen holding sponges and washing giant brains placed on the heads of activists who represented the public.
“The action was very attractive for the electronic and printed media and we received good feedback,“ said Kukurova, “I think it’s because we are not just protesting, we are offering alternative information.“
Growing disapproval of the base among the Czech public precipitated the Greenpeace information campaign. Most Czechs do not trust Washington’s justification for the radar and parallels have been drawn to the situation that lead to the 2003 intervention in Iraq, when the U.S. claimed the Iraqi regime had developed weapons of mass destruction.
Government politicians insist that the public is unqualified to deliberate on the base and some believe they have already decided in fervor of it.
Even the right-wing media have cautioned the government.
The cabinet should at least “finance the functioning of an expert team . . . with the participation of people who are regarded as authorities--whether justifiably or not--by the radar’s opponents,“ read a piece carried by the Czech daily Lidove Noviny on Aug. 7.
The government has appointed a public relations expert, Tomas Klvana, to work as spokesman on the U.S. radar issue.
It has also hired the AMI Communication public relations agency to help promote the idea.
Klvana lectures at the New York University in Prague and is a representative of British American Tobacco in the Czech Republic. He also writes for the leading dailies Mala Fronta Dnes and Hospodarske Noviny, which both support the radar.
Shortly after his appointment last summer Klvana admitted supporters of the base “have not been coping well with communication,“ but also said it was difficult to speak to people from the regions “with rational arguments.“
On Nov. 2 Klvana launched an advertising campaign--as part of the government information program--involving information posters that will be placed on 500 benches and telephone booths.
Civic initiatives challenging the government plans are gaining steam.
A letter by 50 famous personalities was sent to Czech President Vaclav Klaus calling for a referendum on the base.
The letter accuses the government of scaring the public with false arguments such as threats that if the radar base is not built, in the future conscription may be reinstated.
Klaus, who is favorably but moderately inclined towards the radar, argues that the presence of foreign troops in the Czech Republic would require national consensus. He says he will not veto a referendum proposal by parliament.
A call for a referendum was already rejected by parliament on Oct. 26.
Opponents of the referendum claim difficult decisions should be left to politicians: “By his or her vote and taxes the voter is paying both for professional political decisions and also for politicians’ willingness to take on responsibility for complex and thankless decisions,“ right-wing daily Mala Fronta Dnes wrote on Sept. 1.
Klaus accepts that the radar’s absence from the 2006 election campaign makes the referendum initiative necessary.
The President has been critical of the government’s approach to the issue. He says that the public’s concerns about the radar cannot be easily dismissed, calling them “natural and very human.“
Locals of the areas surrounding the possible site of the base in the Brdy hills, south of Prague, fear the densely populated area could be the target of international terrorism and have raised questions about the possible health risks of radiation emitted by the radar. ANTIWAR.COM

There has been so much horrible news out of Iraq for so long that it is natural to want to celebrate better news. Sending another 30,000 American troops into Iraq has made life better: attacks are down, as are the number of American and Iraqi casualties. Some refugees are even venturing home. The news has cheered Americans and dampened Democrats’ enthusiasm for keeping up the pressure on Iraq policy.
Unfortunately, it is just as important to look at what has not happened since President George W. Bush announced his surge: Iraq’s leaders are no closer to making the political deals that are the only hope for building a self-sustaining peace.
Without a serious effort at national conciliation, American troops are just holding down the lid on a pressure cooker. Iraq’s rival militias, the insurgents, the bitter sectarian resentments and the meddling neighbors haven’t gone anywhere.
Consider this all too familiar horror: police said they pulled six bodies from the Tigris River about 25 miles south of Baghdad. They were handcuffed and showed signs of having been tortured. And five, including a child, had been beheaded.
Perhaps 160,000 American troops could hold down the overall casualty numbers indefinitely, but they cannot wipe away that sort of hatred. That’s the job of Iraq’s leaders. Either way, the American military doesn’t have enough troops for such an occupation without end, and the American Treasury can’t keep spending $10 billion a month to maintain it.
Bush’s escalation was sold as a way to buy Iraqi politicians breathing room to finally address the problems driving the sectarian violence: by agreeing on an equitable division of oil wealth, rules for provincial elections and ways to bring more Sunnis and former Baath Party members into the Shiite-dominated government.
Instead, Iraq’s politicians--and their American backers--have squandered the time and the best efforts of American troops. Bush’s generals are so frustrated that they’ve begun to complain publicly about the fecklessness of Iraq’s leaders. The ever-feckless White House, rather than looking for ways to compel Iraq’s leaders to perform, is lessening the pressure.
The New York Times reported this week that the Bush administration has scaled back its goals for political progress. Its newest low bar: Iraq’s dysfunctional government manages to pass a budget and approves legislation to allow former Baath Party members to rejoin the government.
(That was before the Iraqi Parliament dissolved into a shouting match over the Baath reconciliation bill and decided to put it off again.)
At least part of the recent good news can be traced to a new collaboration between American troops and Sunni fighters that last year were trying to kill Americans in wholesale numbers. The question is how long that collaboration will last if the Shiite-dominated government continues to deny the Sunnis access to basic government services and jobs.
Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, still have not begun a serious dialogue with Iran and all of Iraq’s neighbors about what they’re willing to do to help contain Iraq’s chaos.
Bush still sees no need for a strategy to get all 160,000 troops in Iraq safely home. And as long as they know that this is the case, that Bush is willing to go on paying the bills--and protecting the Green Zone--Iraqi politicians will see no reason to compromise.
Americans need to ask themselves the questions Bush is refusing to answer: Is this country signing on to keep the peace in Iraq indefinitely? If so, how many American and Iraqi deaths a month are an acceptable price? If not, what’s the plan for getting out?
IHT.COM

US President George W. Bush (l), puts his arm around Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (c) as they walk with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas back to the Oval Office after Bush spoke in the Rose Garden in Washington, Nov. 28.

Many reasons make us skeptical about the Middle East conference hosted by the United States in Annapolis, Maryland--not least of which is the seven years of utter disinterest shown by the Bush administration. Without active U.S. involvement, the problems that fester in that troubled region have only intensified.
But tempting as it is to dismiss the meeting out of hand, it could prove to be more than a mere photo op: An unprecedented number of players did attend, and a concerted effort by them all could provide a foundation for a peace deal.
Since taking office, U.S. President George W. Bush has been less than engaged in the Israel-Palestine conflict. His distance was the product of thinking that his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, had squandered U.S. power, prestige and influence by becoming deeply involved in peace talks without making any progress.
Mr. Bush did not trust former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and was very sympathetic to then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, before he was incapacitated by a stroke. Mr. Bush believed that the invasion of Iraq would so shift the regional balance of power that holdouts would be forced to make peace with Israel.
This calculation was wrong. The U.S. bogged down in Iraq, and failure to engage the Israel-Palestine situation confirmed to many Middle Easterners that Washington is not interested in their concerns and seeks not justice but a fait accompli for Israel.
It is now clear that genuine peace between Israelis and Palestinians is a precondition to peace throughout the region and the realization of U.S. objectives in the Middle East.
That provided the rationale and impetus for the conference, which appeared to restore some life to the peace process. Mr. Ehud Olmert, prime minister of Israel, and Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, agreed to launch immediate “good faith bilateral negotiations“ that would yield a permanent peace agreement by the end of 2008 and lead to the creation of a Palestinian state.
The “road map“ agreed four years ago would provide the framework for the deal. Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas established steering committees that will begin meeting Dec. 12; the two leaders will meet every two weeks to maintain the negotiating momentum.
Mr. Olmert called the meeting “the beginning of historic reconciliation“ between Israelis and their Palestinian and Arab neighbors. Noting the presence of 44 states, including Saudi Arabia and Syria, Mr. Abbas agreed that it was a historic moment.
But it will take considerable work and patience to ensure that the promise is realized and that the week is not another dead-end in a long series of failures. The signs are not promising.
First, all three key leaders--Mr. Olmert, Mr. Abbas and Mr. Bush--are weak. Each faces powerful domestic opposition to any deal-- some from within each’s own party--and is in little position to ignore it.
Second, while Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas are committed to a deal, this week’s meeting pointedly ignored three key issues that are the pillars of any agreement: the Palestinian “right of return,“ the status of Beit-ul-Moqaddas, and Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Third, Mr. Bush remains distant from the peace process, insisting that the real work has to be done by the principles.
The U.S. must demand that both sides stick to the agreements that they have made. Israel must be prepared to cede territory to Palestine, to give up some settlements, and to give land to compensate for the settlements it keeps; it must also free Palestinian political prisoners.
Palestinians must police their territory and ensure that it is not used to launch attacks against Israel.
Active involvement from higher levels of the U.S. government is required to push this process forward. Mr. Bush should be heartened by the presence of so many nations at his meeting, despite doubts about its value.
Those governments appreciate the stakes. If the U.S. truly wants peace, then it will seize on the momentum and that sentiment. It’s a long shot, but it’s the only hope for enduring peace.
JAPANTIMES.CO.JP