The German press is following events related to the confrontation between Sarkozy and French workers. For Brigitte Kols ( Frankfurter Rundschau – 21/11) this constitutes “a risky stress test”: “French President Sarkozy, who wants to go down in the history of his country as a reformer of the caliber of Margaret Thatcher, this is a matter of all or nothing. He was looking for a total confrontation and now he has found it…. Naturally there is practically no Frenchman who does not want to do away with old privileges – such as early pensions for railroad workers. Sarkozy is well aware that he has a majority on his side on this issue. It is for this reason that he wants to turn this case into an example for all the other reforms he has in mind. He has opened construction sites by the dozens, following the Sarkozy method: all together…. It is dangerous, not only in France, to impose by force what we call ‘modernization’, if the price of bread is not acceptable. This is why the French support the demands of employees for higher salaries, and surveys find Sarkozy the great reformer in decline”. In the weekly, Der Spiegel (19/11), Stefan Simons writes: “Six months after his election, Nicolas Sarkozy must face the first fundamental conflict of his presidency” […] “To withdraw, negotiate, be conciliatory? To the President this would mean losing face: no way!” […] “Therefore, Sarkozy is playing a risky card, since he cannot allow the conflict to become long and painful”. Georgia, which “until very recently” was one of the ex-Soviet Republics “that had the most brilliant prospects” of “rapid economic and political reforms”, “now risks transformation into a sick nation with a corrupted elite fighting for power.” This alarming description was launched by the British weekly, THE ECONOMIST (17-23/11). “It is not exactly a surprise”, states an editorial dedicated to Georgia, but “now the cup is full. By inciting the police against demonstrators and declaring a State of Emergency”, President Saakashvili “is using tactics that would make even the Cremlin blush.” “Its decision to hold early elections on January 5″ seems like a cynical attempt to capitolize on divisions within the opposition under conditions that can hardly be considered free and fair. Trumped up elections are the favorite method of tyrants”. However, “the West has been scandalously slow in condemning the abuse of power in its protectorate. America and the European Union have expressed regrets and have called for calm, but they have not publically and decisively stated that the use of force by the Georgian authorities is unacceptable. They should do so”. “In Lebanon,” observes Jean-Cristophe Ploquin in the columns of the French Catholic daily, LA CROIX (21/11) – “the choice of a new president would be a strong sign that the different religious communities and political factions share the objective of a common, peaceful future.” According to the Constitution, “the head of State must be a Christian of the Maronite Rite” and this “would permit the emergence of a unifying figure for this divided community.” “Friday, the mandate of the present President, Emile Lahoud, will end, and if a successor is not elected, Lebanon will plunge into a new crisis.” For the commentator, “an institutional bricolage is always possible”, but “the past leads us to fear the worst.” “Today the country would risk a further reduction of power for the Maronites and greater autonomy in the South of the country under the control of the Hizbullah”. In other words, there would be a looming threat of “the formation of two parallel government, one of which would be in the South.” “Lebanon and the Lebanese have nothing to gain from this”. “They had hoped that a new page would be turned for their Country”, observes Gerolamo Fazzini in an editorial published by the Italian Catholic Daily, AVVENIRE (22/11) dedicated to Burma. “They were convinced that the tragic new that occupied front pages of newspapers for days would open a crack in the code of silence that reigned during the years of the Burma Regime.” But instead, “only few weeks after the ‘purple revolution’ we must conclude that the changes were only superficial. Everything has remained where and as it was. The mobilizations of crowds in the West and demonstrations of solidarity” did not “produce any noteworthy results.” “How can we, at this point, say that the Burmese exiles are wrong in expressing their disillusionment? The facts speak for themselves. The scandalous traffic of precious gems, one of the main resources of the Military for refurbishing their precarious financial state, continues”. The Resolution condemning the Burmese Giunta passed by the UN yesterday “is not binding” and “the speech by the UN’s Special Envoy to Nyanmar, Ibrahim Gambari, was called off.” According to Fazzini “the international community is forgetting Myanmar. We have arrived at a crucial moment. We cannot permit the Military Giunta the luxury of believing that the indignation of the world was a fleeting emotion, that business counts more than human rights, that cynicism is the first rule of politics… The Burmese People would never forgive us”.
