There are numerous reactions in the German press to the terror attacks in Bombay (Mumbai). In the Frankfurter Rundschau , Arnd Festerling observes (12/7): “ Terrorism has globalized its methods, irrespective of terrorists and their motives . […] Terrorists target the symbols, the veins of modern society, its means of transport. And they gauge the success of their actions by the number of victims. That’s why they blow up crowded trains during the rush hour, and not cars, for according to the cynical calculation of terrorists, the efforts to do so would not justify the relatively low number of victims. And airplanes are by now too secure. Their one objective is thus plain: spreading fear and terror through terror attacks – there are neither warnings nor blackmail attempts . […] Society is largely defenceless against attacks of this kind, even if the police or the security services are able to prevent some. […] So, the victims of Madrid, London or Bombay have different nationalities: but the terror attacks resemble each other due to the model of global terrorism“. An editorial in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (13/7) comments: “ India is probably experiencing the start of a terrorism of new quality. For some time the country has been registering high rates of growth. The number of the rich is increasing. The symbol of this new India is Bombay. And the terrorists evidently want to strike at this symbol. It is natural to think of the analogy with the World Trade Center in New York . […] If however the nation continues to conduct itself as it has done so far, the terrorists are destined to failure. There will be no eruptions of violence, neither between India and Pakistan, nor in India itself. It would be a great victory for common sense“. “A step backwards by 30 years” is the title over Vittorio Emanuele Parsi ‘s editorial in the Italian Catholic daily Avvenire (13/7) dedicated to the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East with the re-eruption of conflict between Israel and Lebanon. “In a tragic historical recourse to inverted parts – comments the editorialist – this time it was the Hezbollah that drew inspiration from what has been happening in the Palestinian territories, and that kidnapped two Israeli soldiers”, and in response to the “ fragile, divided and uncertain” society of Israel , the “ means of the kidnapping of soldiers is proving effective”. It explains, first of all, “the hard-line reaction, disproportionate in purely strategic terms, that Israeli premier Olmert has decided to implement to combat the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority” . There is “now the risk of a new Lebanese campaign, in Lebanon itself”. So, while “the ‘party of God’ has raised the stakes, and finally demonstrated it’s wish to take the whole of Lebanon as its hostage”, Olmert “ has made it plain that he is ready to light the fuse of the powder-keg and ignite a new civil war. That is the dramatic situation of Lebanon today and, within it, that of the political role of Christians… It will be they who pay the highest price, if the whole situation should explode”. With reference to the launch of North Korean missiles on 5 July, Jean-Cristophe Ploquin, in a comment on international policy in the French Catholic daily La Croix (12/7), observes: “The nationalistic tendencies in Asia make the formulation of a diplomatic response difficult. Japan, in particular, is isolated from its four immediate neighbours, the two Koreas, Russia and China. Two opposing views emerge at the UN Security Council. On the one hand, that of Japan and the USA, which call for sanctions to be imposed on North Korea…. On the other, that of China and Russia which recommend their lifting”. But, the analyst stresses, “after the provocation of Pyongyang, another dispute is being exacerbated: the one that opposes Japan to South Korea”. This is, first of all, because “the Japanese Minister of Defence Fukushiro Nukaga is calling for the need to equip his country with a ‘limited offensive capacity’ against enemy terrorists”, a proposal that has led the government in Seoul to warn of the “expansionist nature of Japan” , which requires “ vigilance“ , and of “attempts to exaggerate the crisis” as a pretext to “transform the country into a military giant”. To this is added the dispute “over some fish-rich islets at the intersection of their respective territorial waters”. The role of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the imminent G8 in St. Petersburg is analysed by Simon Tisdall in the British daily The Guardian (11/07). Even if “ the official agenda includes action on energy security, global education and pandemic diseases, the main aim of the host of the summit is to confirm the re-emergence of post-Soviet Russia as an international player deserving a place at the top table”. With an “ economic growth of 6% every year since 1999″ , Russia is “the second largest oil producer in the world and possesses 65% of the world resources of natural gas” . Moreover “ Putin’s personal popularity is unmatched by his G8 guests”. Yet many foreign policy conflicts with the USA, together with Russia’s “ poor human and civil rights record, could make for an indigestible dinner when he and Mr Bush meet privately on Friday evening“. Putin “ is limbering up to flex new muscles at the G8″.
