Amsterdam, Wednesday, May 09, 2001 00:02:10 Charm officers from the US Bush administration are making a tour through Europe, Russia and Asia to win support for its space missile shield.

The European governments have until now reacted with caution and are sceptical about its feasibility in the real sense. The larger strategic questions that surround the consequences of such a shield might be far reaching and its implications are not yet clear. If the United States chooses to install the shield unilaterally, then a diplomatic confrontation with its allies is immanent, as is shown by the two expulsions of the US from two prestigious UN bodies.

They probably will get a friendly welcome and some good will understanding for their points of view. Their European counterparts will say that they recognize the problem but don't think the Americans provide the answer. The European political feeling will more likely be that diplomacy and the economy will do a better job, at least in the long run.

A working missile shield might master a dangers feeling of invulnerability of the Americans. In which case its power feeling might be to exercise stronger influence over Europe.

But foremost, a lot of Europeans will asks themselves why the Americans refuse so bluntly to do their part in the efforts to reduce energy consumption.

The ejection of the US from the UN bodies has received strong reactions. William Saffire, columnist of international affairs for The New York Times is very angry. His opinion on the causes of the dishonouring votes is hopefully not a general feeling in the administration on which they make their foreign policy.

In the New York Times he writes:

"Why? Not because of any U.S. straight talk about meaningless treaties on land mines or sea bottoms or air warming. And not, as Senator John Kerry said yesterday about the triumphant anti-Americans, because the world now finds "a lack of a sense of honesty" in the U.S. government.
The real reasons for slapping us in the face are obvious and immediate: first, to punish the U.S. for daring to ask the 53 nations of the U.N. group to criticize China's record of repression. And second, to humiliate the U.S. for opposing the commission's recent vote blaming Israel for the war started by order of Yasir Arafat. "

And he gives journalist a good challenge. He gives them the advice to fight for the country instead of lazy incompetent American diplomats.

"That's even worse than being caught napping. Powell's job is to know which nations will stab us in the back in return for some Chinese trade or Arab oil preference or Security Council vote. If our career diplomats in Geneva and New York are out to lunch, and if our intelligence agency is justifying its budget by turning its headquarters into a movie set, then who will make public the "essentially" secret vote that fighters for human rights need to know?

Here is a challenge for journalists. Who will piece together and break the complex story behind the stealthy ousting of the overconfident Americans? More than a hundred diplomats were privy to the plot; can nobody be induced to reveal the truth? What payoffs were promised by our European allies — especially France, Austria and Sweden, now elected to the U.N.'s sanhedrin of hypocrisy — that the Bush administration prefers not to know about?"

The journalist who unravels this treacherous misery will in Safire's mind undoubtedly win the Pulitzer Prize.

US launches missile charm offensive BBC May 8, 2001. || Triumphs May 7, 2001 An ESSAY By WILLIAM SAFIRE