Pope Benedict XVI’s forthcoming visit to Spain is commented by Leo Wieland on the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (5/7): “ Colder than the relations between Spain and the Vatican, since the election of Socialist prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, are only the relations between him and the US President George W. Bush. While, though, the latter seems not to be wanting to have Zapatero at the White House, not even during the last part of his mandate, Benedict XVI shows he is not afraid of making contact with him. Quite the opposite, during his first visit to Spain next Saturday in Valencia, the Pope will also meet Zapatero and presumably will want to speak to him about some basic aspects of the family from his point of view“. And some comment about the elimination of Germany from the World Cup semi-finals could not be missing. On the Frankfurter Rundschau (5/7), Jan Christian Müller writes, “ The fans as well as the professional observers and even the fault-finders feel that Klinsmann has made the most of his team, preparing it for the future as well. He deserved the praise, not for his nice, friendly attitude, but for his focussed work based on a philosophy and a strategy that he has defended bravely and sometimes even uncouthly, even at times of crisis. […] It worked out perfectly. Down to the 120th minute, against Italy, the apt winner of the match. […] It does not matter now if the World Cup is won by someone else: losers too can be winners if they have done their best“. “Only a peace process led by the United Nations can stop the Iraqi catastrophe” : this is the headline of an international political comment published on the British daily newspaper The Guardian (05/07). “The British and US Governments love to make people believe things are getting better in Iraq. They are wrong. Facts disavow their optimism”, states Menzies Campbell. “ The coalition – he writes – has no strategy to leave the country, but it has no strategy to remain either, and to go on like this is not a credible option”. According to Campbell, “the foundation of a new strategy should be a peace process led by the United Nations to speed up the national reconciliation and the internationalisation of the support to Iraq. Only an international solution can support the legitimacy and efficiency of the Iraqi Government, improve the delivery of basic services and smooth the end of militarisation”. The “silence of Europe before the Palestinian crisis” is commented on the pages of the French Catholic paper La Croix (04/07) by Dominique Moïsi, an international relations expert. “ This psychological and moral lack of commitment before the Palestinians – he comments – is new for Europe, while for the United States it is but a repetition. The first and most important reason for the silence of Europe is that the Palestinians have disappointed the Europeans after the victory of Hamas and the extremist speeches of their leaders about the non recognition of the State of Israel”. In addition, before the threats of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, the Europeans wonder: “ Why support in the Middle East people who seem to be closely connected with those who want to destroy us? The Palestinians pay the price for their discords and the greater strategic mistake of the burst of the second intifada, just after September 11th. They did not understand the world had changed and the new powers, India, China and Russia, were much closer to Israel than to them”. To the launch of the seven missiles by North Korea into the Eastern Asian skies, the French daily Le Monde (06/07) devotes a report by Philippe Pons. “The desperate gesture of a regime that has hit rock bottom? A bet to try to re-establish a relation of power to its advantage?” , wonders Pons, who thinks “ Pyongyang has proven so far that it knows how to play its cards right enough, sailing close to a diplomacy that is on the brink of disaster. The development of the crisis about the Iranian nuclear power could be one further element that has led Pyongyang to this showdown”, since, “just like the Democratic Republic of Korea, Iran too won’t bend to the needs of the international community”. “It is clear – comments, about the same topic, Vittorio Emanuele Parsi in a leading article on the Italian Catholic paper Avvenire (06/07) – that the way the world will react (or will it?) to the North-Korean challenge will be very carefully observed in Teheran. The two crises share the same object: the problem of nuclear proliferation before the clearer and clearer ineffectiveness of the Treaty that is supposed to prevent it… however, while Teheran positively denies any military involvement in its plan, Pyongyang is not keeping it secret, quite the opposite”. Different are the reasons of the involved States, highlights the leader writer, but, with reference to China and Russia’s refusal to adopt a resolution against Korea, “the attitude by no means firm and united of those who should be the “peacemakers” – he comments – risks turning Kim Yong’s game into a success story: to be imitated in Teheran today, somewhere else tomorrow”.
