Unexpected European attitude toward China

Rarely in the world's diplomatic history has an emerging power been met with open arms.

In a comment piece for the Emirati newspaper Al Khaleej, Saad Mehio asked what he believes is the biggest question of the 21st century: "Will the West peacefully accept China's integration as a big power in the world order?" Rarely has an emerging power been met with open arms in the world's diplomatic history. Dominant powers fiercely seek to maintain their supremacy, which means keeping competition at bay. The US president George W Bush's strategies emphasised the US intention of sustaining its lead, and the Obama administration is perpetuating this approach in its national security strategy.

The US position is understandable. What is baffling, though, is the European Union's apprehensive attitude toward China's rapid rise to power. The EU didn't hesitate to voice its resentment of Chinese economic breakthroughs in the Balkan region. Europeans, especially Germans, fear that China might fill the economic void once they leave Iran after sanctions were approved. Finally, a recent report issued by the European Council on Foreign Relations called on European leaders to be aware of the Chinese challenge.

Until now, the world thought Europe would benefit from China's rise, which would create a balance with American power and give Europe a more important role in the world order. "If this proves anything, it is that the West and the East will always be different and will never meet."

In its editorial, the pan-Arab newspaper Al Quds al Arabi condemned Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, describing him as "the ugly face of the European extremist right wing" because of his anti-Islamic positions. Mr Wilders had produced a film in which he depicted Islam as a terrorist religion. He was able to exploit the mounting Islamophobia in Europe to fuel his popularity among Dutch fundamentalists, which won him additional seats in parliament. A few days ago, Mr Wilders took his hostility a step further, suggesting that Jordan's name be changed to Palestine, thus ending the Middle East conflict by giving Palestinians an alternative homeland - a vision which coincides with the views of the Israeli far right.

"Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine and they shall remain so. Such provocative statements harm the Netherlands and threaten its interests all over the world." The strong showing of the Party for Freedom in the Dutch parliament is shameful. "Mr Wilders' party must be shunned as its participation in any government would be a threat to Europe and European Muslims." Europe, which firmly resisted Fascism, must not stand idly in the face of new generations of this movement. Otherwise, they will gain in strength and jeopardise Europe's internal security and foreign interests.

In her article for the London-based Al Hayat, Randa Takieddine wrote about the French president Nicolas Sarkozy's recent efforts to build a stronger relationship with Syria, despite Lebanese fears. For all the historical, economic, cultural and political ties that bind France and Lebanon, and despite Paris's repeated assurance that it holds Beirut's interests at heart, the fact remains that Lebanon is not a major player in the Middle East conflict and it carries no weight in the peace negotiations with Israel. The French president is seeking to exploit these negotiations to gain a more prominent role in the peace process.

Mr Sarkozy soon realised that the key is Syria. He has been focusing his efforts to achieve an open relationship with Damascus, as evidenced by the multiple diplomatic visits between the two countries. He played an essential role in taking Syria out of the international isolation that followed the assassination of the Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri. However, Paris also realised that any relationship with Syria cannot circumvent the Iranian issue, as Damascus is not ready to forsake its regional alliance for a better relationship with the West. "President Sarkozy sees that good ties with Syria and Israel are far better than any emotional or historical relationship with Lebanon. He isn't looking for sentiment but rather a leading and effective role on the global scene."

The Qatari daily Al Watan featured a comment piece by Akram Mohammed Ahmed, who shed light on the World Health Organisation's submissive relationship to leading drug companies around the world.

"What transpired in the WHO when the swine flu epidemic broke out was nothing short of a scandal." The big-league drug companies were able to force the peoples and governments of the world to spend billions of dollars to buy swine flu vaccines without sufficient reason or urgent necessity for such measures. They backed their marketing procedures by issuing reports exaggerating the dimensions of the expected damage and terrorising people in a bid to push them to exert pressure on their governments to provide the vaccine.

Reports from health departments in Europe show that the WHO, in its published reports, intentionally magnified the gravity of the epidemic for the benefit of big drug monopolies. The WHO was quick to deny such claims, but national and regional health organisations confirmed the role that scientists with strong ties to drug companies played in drafting the reports and called for a comprehensive review of its performance and integrity.

* Digest compiled by Racha Makarem @Email:[e-mail]