“Vanity of power” is the title of the editorial in the French daily Le Monde (12/9) which, six years after the terror attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, assesses the American strategy in the global war on terrorism, in its campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. “The almost spontaneous solidarity with the USA after 11 September – writes Le Monde – has now become mistrust or even hostility. Never has the level of popularity of the USA and its President sunk so low in all continents…”. In spite of all the controls that “without hesitation limit personal freedom, especially that of foreigners living in America”, the USA “today is hardly less vulnerable and no longer omnipotent”. Not only at the military level is American power bogged down, as demonstrated by the Iraqi and Afghan morass, but also “the political record of these last six years has not been brilliant”. “The utopian idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East has run into the sand of Mesopotamia, while the axis of evil has expanded by the addition of Iran” whose President continues the country’s nuclear research without bothering about the sanctions. But President Bush is convinced that “the present difficulties are but transitory mishaps and that the judgement of history will prove him right. While awaiting that day he is placing his allies and other Western democracies in an uncomfortable position…”. The Italian Catholic daily Avvenire (13/9) with an editorial by Fulvio Scaglione analyses the “somewhat suspect” media offensive of Ben Laden six years after the Twin Towers. “An appearance of vitality that fails to conceal the inexorable decline of the organization”. From “operational nerve centre” created to finance the mujaheddin against the Soviets, Al Qaeda today “has become an omnipresent brand name. Ten years ago it would have spoken less and circulated more weapons to terrorists…”. Meanwhile “in Iraq General Petraeus has established an apparent accord with Sunni leaders, while in Pakistan the alliance between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto opens the road to a government less timorous in its crackdown on radical mosques and Syria seems to be returning to a more normal dialectic of international policy. We are now in a post-Al Qaeda phase. Perhaps that doesn’t seem much, but it is no small thing. Developments in Russia – bomb test and post-Putin – are at the centre of analysis in the German press. “You don’t have to be a Kremlinologist to grasp that two events of particular explosive power on the same day are not a matter of chance in Putin’s Russia”, writes Brigitte Kols in the Frankfurter Rundschau (13/9). “The test of the bomb may be the signal that the successor chosen for the throne of Putin is Ivanov, the ‘hawk’ of the Kremlin and founder of a defensive megaholding. The faithful companion since their days in the KGB has shown himself to be, at Putin’s side, a strongman who uses strong words to denounce the US anti-missile defence shield in Poland the Czech Republic. And the ‘success of the bomb’ that also bears his signature is better suited to him than to the civilian Medvedjev, the man of Gazprom, who was long considered the main heir. Apart from Putin himself, of course. But why tinker with the Constitution to seek a third term in the Kremlin when you’ve got friends like Ivanov?”. And in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , Michael Ludwig observes: “The question of power will be decided in the Kremlin, not by the ballot box. At the present time, for the various pro-Putin groups, what counts is amassing as great an influence as possible and being able to control, also in future, the greatest possible flow of money. Also to this end Putin is trying to place his henchmen in important positions. For example he has appointed as the new governor of Sakhalin, below whose coastal waters lie huge deposits of oil and gas, a man who enjoys excellent relations with Gazprom, and whose rise to power in advantageous financing deals had previously been facilitated by swindles and pressures. The real battle will be fought for billions of dollars”. The President of the Polish Bishops’ Conference (KEP) Archbishop Jozef Michalik in an interview with the Catholic weekly Niedziela (37/2007) points out that “despite numerous criticisms, the Polish episcopate, in my view, is not ignoring its role as moral and doctrinal guide. I think however that some of us get too actively involved in trying to find solutions to concrete questions; and this incites their adversaries to accuse of them of partisanship. And I also think some of these accusations are well founded. It seems to me, however, that the time is coming, or has already come, when the faithful themselves must be able to distinguish which of their bishops express the voice of the Church and which speak of their own opinions and preferences. Unfortunately, in the media, it is the less important questions, i.e. those of politics, that arouse the strongest emotions. But in that context I have come to the realization that there is a healthy realism among people who no longer trust in the cynicism of politicians or believe in the quarrels between them. And this is irrespective of their political colour”. Commenting on the affair of Radio Maryja Michalik wonders: “but in the present situation, when religion and the Church are judged by every newspaper and every television channel, have we really the right to close down a Catholic radio station? Would it be proper and morally right to destroy with our own hands a Catholic means of communication and its circle of faithful listeners? If there are defects in it, we need to correct them, but not close down the station. And the Church has the chance to do so”.
