Gli sculaccioni dello zio Sam
L'ECO INTERNAZIONALE DEL MINISTRO TERZI 16/3/13
INDISCRETO: LA NATO O FINMECCANICA? 8/12/12
DI PAOLA E IL VETO DI LA RUSSA 26/11/11
IL MINISTRO IN MIMETICA E LA FONDAZIONE CUTULI 8/4/2011
UN CONSIGLIERE MILITARE PER FRATTINI 11/2/11
L'UOMO CHE RIDEVA TROPPO E IL CIRCOLO DELLA CACCIA 9/3/10
AFGHANISTAN, LA UE SILURA IL CANDIDATO ITALIANO 23/2/10
GLI IMBARAZZI DI EIKENBERRY 22/11/09
VERSO L'INCORONAZIONE DI KARZAI 6/11/09
FARNESINA, PIANI ALTI SENZA FIRMA 8/10/09
E SE AUNG SAN SUU KYI CHIEDESSE IL VISTO ALL'ITALIA? 15/5/09
PEACEKEEPING, LA MATEMATICA DI SILVIO E QUELLA DI GEORGE 13/6/08
ESTERI/IL VALZER DEI SOTTOSEGRETARI 1/5/08
SE IL BUON ESEMPIO NON E' PIU' UNA VIRTU' 9/4/08
SE IL GOVERNO ITALIANO NON SA BENE CHI APPOGGIA E CHI NO LA GUERRA ALL'IRAQ 30/3/03
Qualche sera fa il ministro Giovanardi in televisione ha citato la Nuova Zelanda tra i Paesi che sostengono la coalizione che è in guerra con l'Iraq. Uno svarione colossale anche se la NZ è lontana. Per farsene un'idea gli consigliamo questo articolo del Sunady Star Times
* * *
Domenica 30 Marzo 2003
US fury over NZ war stance
30 March 2003
By GUYON ESPINER
The Government's refusal to support the war against Iraq has dealt a hefty blow to hopes for a New Zealand-US free trade deal, according to well-placed sources from the US.
The Sunday Star-Times has learned Washington is becoming increasingly agitated about New Zealand's position, exacerbated by Prime Minister Helen Clark's reluctance to commit resources to a post-conflict Iraq without a UN mandate.
The tension has arisen as a new poll in today's Star-Times shows two-thirds of New Zealanders continue to oppose the war.
In comments unlikely to ease that tension with America, Clark is now questioning whether the US will ever be able to kill or capture elusive Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Clark also said she didn't believe the Iraq war would have gone ahead had George Bush's presidential rival Al Gore been in the White House.
While Clark and Foreign Minister Phil Goff maintain their stance on the Iraq war will not harm prospects of a trade deal, worth $1 billion a year to the economy, sources close to the thinking of the Bush administration said that was "naive".
"When you have a number of Americans coming back in body bags there is not a congressman in his right mind who is going to vote to give some benefit to a country that didn't support those people," one source said.
"Even though there was no waiting room that New Zealand was already in I would say they are now not even in the building.
"If they had a 10% chance as of two months ago, I would say it is less than a 10th of 1% now."
Australia, which has 2000 troops in the Gulf, has already begun talks towards a free trade deal with the US, sparking fears about damage to the New Zealand economy if our neighbours have tariff-free access to the US. Sources said Australia was reaping the benefits of its close strategic alliance with America.
"I'm astounded that anyone would not understand that if a friend goes out of its way and actually risks its people then any kind of advantage that ensues is going to go to them - it's common sense," one said. "Thinking that this has no impact is completely naive, completely ridiculous."
The fact that the war was not proving as easy for the allies as some had anticipated had heightened US sensitivity to New Zealand's position.
"People in Washington are commenting about the fact that New Zealand has not only not been supportive but publicly been less than helpful. When people notice something there are repercussions."
A spokeswoman for the US embassy in Wellington would say only that it would "welcome" New Zealand joining the US-led coalition but that "no single bilateral issue will make or break the possibility of a free trade agreement".
While the US did not rule out a future trade deal it was not ready to negotiate one now and "security" interests, as well as economic and political ones, were a factor, she said.
Clark said New Zealand was "still very engaged on trade" but it would be ridiculous to back a war it didn't believe in to gain export dollars.
"I cannot think it is a credible or tenable position to say that we should do something that we deeply believe is wrong for some material pay-off and I wouldn't be party to it." Clark is concerned the invasion of Iraq was "lighting a bit of a time bomb" with possible consequences including more conscripts for Islamic terrorist groups such as Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.
Clark believes the war has its roots in the September 11 attacks. However, she said Iraq might never have been invaded without Bush.
"I don't think that September 11 under a Gore presidency would have had this consequence for Iraq. But I think in this (Bush) administration there were forces that always wanted to go after Iraq and September 11 tipped the balance."
Clark questioned whether the US could ever capture or kill Saddam. "The US has an enormous focus on trying to capture or in some way take out Saddam Hussein but he is very elusive and I have sometimes wondered whether they could ever prove that they did given the (body) doubles and the triples."