Giuliani for President!

Fred Siegel analyzes hizzoner's chances in The Wall Street Journal:

Between now and November 2008, the political world might easily endure any number of shocks affecting Mr. Giuliani's (and everyone else's) candidacy. The shocks could come from a variety of directions, ranging from the Middle East and especially Iran, to a new Supreme Court ruling on abortion, to another terror attack on the United States, to a dip into economic recession. Mr. Giuliani might also be damaged by the airing of more personal laundry, like his messy personal life, his overzealous conduct as a prosecutor, or his ties to his old friend and ex-partner Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner who in 2004 had to withdraw his acceptance of the post of secretary of homeland security and pleaded guilty recently to corruption charges. It would thus be premature in the extreme for Rudolph Giuliani to start drafting a victory speech. But as the makers of "Giuliani Time" intuited, the day is hardly inconceivable.

Canadian PM Speaks--in French...

Watching Bush and Stephen Harper on C-Span, struck by the Canadian PM speaking in French. The Americans look perplexed. To me is sends a message: Canada is not the USA. Plus, it is a signal to France and "la Francophonie" in Africa, the Carribean, and of course Brussels and Paris. Bush looks like he ate something that didn't agree with him. Now Harper is back in English, but the fact is that he spoke French first.

Tres interesant...

Iran and North Korea

Interestingly, here in Los Angeles we have the largest immigrant Iranian and North Korean communities in the USA. And they have their own television programs, which I watched on cable TV. Although I didn't understand what anyone said, from the graphics it was pretty clear that all the situations are more complicated than they seem. My guess is that there are thousands of people in this part of the country who might know what is going on in their respective homelands better than the pundits or politicians in Washington...here are some weblinks to Iranian and Korean television broadcasters.

The Mexican Election

I'm in Los Angeles right now, and with its large immigrant community, the Mexican election is big news--a lot like the US election of 2000. Days later, still no winner. And it means something, but what, I don't know. Here's the Wikipedia link.

The Death of Ken Lay

Here's the Wikipedia link. All I can say is that Enron was one of the piggy banks for George Bush's Presidential campaign. Ken Lay was a convicted criminal and Republican contributor. Now he is dead, and there will be no appeal. If Marc Rich's pardon left a black mark on the Clinton administration's legacy, the Enron scandal may cast a growing shadow on the Bush administration in years to come.

Christopher Hitchens on Alexander Cockburn and Barbara Epstein

From Christopher Hitchens' Web

A recent issue of Alexander Cockburn's Counterpunch carried a viciously unpleasant account of my supposed conduct at the memorial meeting for the late Barbara Epstein. The item alleged that I had sought an invitation to an event to which I was not invited, had then behaved boorishly, and had claimed to be the man who, with Paul Wolfowitz, had induced President Bush to invade Iraq.

I do not mind the normally cheerful and freehand satires that Cockburn produces about me, but the attempt to make Barbara Epstein's memorial into a theater for his abuse seems to me to cross a line of decency. As it happens, I was notified of her death, and of the arrangements, by an a series of emails from the New York Review of Books. I was also honored by an invitation from her son and daughter. I have since received a kind letter from Jacob Epstein, unsolicited, which I am not at liberty to quote in full. However, he does not object to my citing him as saying: "There is no question you were invited to Barbara's memorial, as Helen and I asked you. The Counterpunch thing about this was incorrect."

That's all that needs to be said about the only hurtful defamation. As to the rest of it, I wouldnt have been able to act the part of a drunken hack even if I had wanted to, since a fellow-guest and close friend of the family was overcome by the heat while I was talking to him downstairs, and I had to spend most of the time in the lobby and on the sidewalk, waiting for the Emergency Services and keeping him company. I do recall being briefly snubbed by Jean Stein as she passed through the lobby, but I found I could bear that.

When people ask me about "my war" in Iraq, I do tend to say that it was indeed I who started it. Cockburn and his mean-minded second-hand and third-rate informants have even got my heavy sarcasm wrong, and don't mind making Barbara Epstein's memorial seem like a vulgar brawl, instead of the dignified and touching occasion that it was, if it will serve their purpose.

The Devil Wears Prada

Really enjoyed seeing The Devil Wears Prada the other day, if only to watch Meryl Streep put on and take off her glasses for a couple of hours. It also served as a nostalgia picture, reminding this viewer of a misspent youth in New York City in the out circles of journalism hangers-on, a penumbra represented in the picture by a group of friends who dine together, a Greek chorus of young wannabes. Although they are supposed to be the "good guys" they are in just another circle of hell, ambitious in the world of celebrity chefs, art galleries, or Wall Street--anyone of them probably has a boss from hell, too, who could be played by Meryl Streep. But that's a quibble.

Details of magazine life seem accurately portrayed--no doubt because director David Frankel is offspring of former New York Times editor Max Frankel. I particularly enjoyed seeing all the subordinates ducking out of the hallway to avoid Meryl Streep as she arrived at work. At least the characters had some personality--it would have been even better if there were more life to the supporting players, more scenes of their private lives, second, third, and fourth level storylines. It's nice to want more scenes with the supporting cast for a change, rather than fewer.

There are lots of fun bits of business and clever lines. Such a pleasure to see a film with dialog instead of exploding fireballs. Meryl Streep's explanation of the history of Anne Hathaway's cerulian sweater. Stanley Tucci's insightful statement that the fashion industry is about "inner beauty." Anne Hathaway called a "glamazon" by her friend. The handsome and creepy New York Magazine reporter who seduces her seems like someone I may have met. Meryl's New York townhouse in what is presumably in the East 60s, looks just right. So does Anne Hathaway's crummy apartment. It's a real New York irony--the squalid living arrangements of high society , slum living plus champagne receptions.

Once upon a time, a million years ago in a galaxy far away, I worked as a gopher at Warner Brothers. I got coffee in individual cups (from Dunkin Donuts in those days, rather than Starbucks) carefully balancing the cardboard tray. I had to pick up my boss, go shopping, pick up and deliver videos, scripts, and the like. Tuesday Weld once kicked me off a set because she didn't like the way I looked (on the other hand, Ellen Burstyn was very nice). I was even asked to finish my boss's NY Times crossword puzzles... so I can vouch for the accuracy of the details in THe Devil Wears Prada.

The only thing that doesn't seem credible is the ending--the kindly old editor at the New York Mirror is hard to swallow. Even Perry White was portrayed as a dyspeptic curmudgeon, and newspaper journalist are no less ambitous than fashionistas--only concerned with things like political fashion, or gossip.

James Na on North Korea's Missile Threat

From Real Clear Politics:

That leaves, as always, Beijing. To say that China is embarrassed by North Korea's latest provocation is an understatement. Thus it is now the time to press Beijing hard, for once. North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear threat would not be where it is today were it not for Beijing, and the U.S. should finally make China take responsibility -- by agreeing to the quarantine. And the United States should make the continued Sino-American economic relationship contingent on China acting like a mature great power by exercising this responsibility.

Ultimately, China's economic relationship with the U.S. is far more important for China's economic growth and political stability than continuing to protect North Korea's arsenal. The choice ought to be, thus, very clear for China's leaders -- provided, of course, that Washington presents Beijing with the choice.

Will the Bush administration, at last, exercise this potent lever to contain North Korea's nuclear and proliferation threat? Or will the pro-China business lobby again trump national security and constrain the administration into rhetorically magnificent, but utterly ineffectual, symbolic gestures?

UK Readies for 7/7 Anniversary

Beginning with comments from Prime Minister Tony Blair, rejecting extremist "grievances" against the West. Here's a BBC account:

The prime minister told MPs it was down to moderate Muslims to stand up to extremism and tell those with "grievances" against the West they were wrong.

Appearing before the Commons liaison committee of senior MPs, he said he disagreed that ministers were not trying to work with the Muslim community.

Mr Blair told MPs: "If we want to defeat the extremism, we have got to defeat its ideas and we have got to address the completely false sense of grievance against the West.

"In the end, government itself cannot go and root out the extremism in these communities.

"I am probably not the person to go into the Muslim community... It's better that we mobilise the Islamic community itself to do this."

He said there was a "clear and active" threat of further attacks but stressed the "overwhelming majority of Muslims utterly abhor this extremism and are completely on the same side as everybody else in wanting to defeat it".

You're a Grand Old Flag

Mark Steyn on the story behind George M. Cohan's patriotic classic:

So how did George M Cohan spend Independence Day one hundred years ago? Well, the cocky little Irish scrapper bashed out a riposte to Mr Metcalfe and published it in The Spot Light on July 4th 1906:

I write my own songs because I write better songs than anyone else I know of. I publish these songs because they bring greater royalties than any other class of music sold in this country. I write my own plays because I have not yet seen or read plays from the pens of other authors that seem as good as the plays I write. I produce my own plays because I think I’m as good a theatrical manager as any other man in this line. I dance because I know I’m the best dancer in the country. I sing because I can sing my own songs better than any other man on the stage… I play leading parts in most of my plays because I think I’m the best actor available. I pay myself the biggest salary ever paid a song and dance comedian because I know I deserve it.

But believe me, kind reader, when I say, I am not an egotist.

He was having a grand old raggin’ of James Metcalfe, but for the most part he wasn’t wrong. George M Cohan, the Yankee Doodle Boy born on the Fourth of July. “You’re A Grand Old Flag”, a song born for the Fourth of July and first heard a century ago – and at millions of parades from Maine to California in every year since.

My Chevy HHR

A few months ago, the uncle of someone I know rented a Chevy HHR from Pensacola airport. Despite the unusual design, the car seemed appealing. Novelty, yes, but somehow friendlier than the more German-looking PT Cruiser, which may have inspired the design. Uncle said he liked the car, and so when I had a chance to drive one off the Budget rent-a-car lot at Long Beach airport, after arriving on Jet Blue, at the same price as a subcompact--I took it. And, I'm also pleased with the car. It's fun to drive, and unusual enough that you feel like an individual. It handles well, is a little higher off the ground, which made it easier to carry an elderly relation, who could get in and out more easily from his wheelchair. With a starting list price of $16,000 and getting 30 mpg on the highway, it's worth a test drive...

Happy 4th!

I'm in Santa Monica on a family matter, and was surprised to discover that they had their 4th of July fireworks on July 1st... So, here's a link to USA CityLink's 4th of July webpage, where you can find out what may be going on in your neighborhood.

Have a Happy Fourth!

John Dillinger Died Here

On a recent trip to Chicago, I took the gangster walking tour, and found myself in front of the Biograph theatre where the G-men shot Dillinger. It's being restored, there was no inside to the outside. Still, incredible to stand there--its a quiet surburban neighborhood, leafy and calm. Who would have guessed the history, unless one read about it somewhere...

H.L. Mencken Slept Here

One of the most interesting things about Alistair Cooke, I learned in my research on Masterpiece Theatre, was his friendship with H.L. Mencken--the "sage of Baltimore." He stuck by the literary lion well after he became unfashionable due to his pro-German sympathies, a victim of World War II. Indeed, Cooke championed efforts to save Mencken's house from the wrecker's ball when Baltimore suffered the tragedy of "urban renewal" in the 1960s. And so the splendid townhouse on Union Square endures to this day, a monument to Baltimore's literary pedigree (though the square seemed a bit dodgy the day I visited). The museum is currently closed, and I hope they open it again, so that we can see how Mencken's opulence contrasted with Poe's poverty. The Alpha and Omega of literary environs, a few blocks from each other, just off I-95 in "Charm City." Here's a link to the Mencken House website.

Edgar Allan Poe Slept Here

The other day I had a little spare time in downtown Baltimore, and so took a look at the Edgar Allan Poe house and memorial museum. It's next to a housing project--the Poe houses--and the tiny cramped quarters were clearly those of a poor, struggling, and starving artist. Spending a little time inhaling the atmosphere gave some real insight into what may have made Poe, Poe. And you think you have problems... Here's a link to the official site of Baltimore's Edgar Allan Poe Society.

An Open Letter to the Victoria and Albert Museum

by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton

After my article about the Che exhibit, Zoe Whitley, Curator of Contemporary Programmes of the Victoria and Albert Museum wrote me a thoughtful and caring letter addressing the issues I raised in my article published on June 28 on LaurenceJarvikOnline.

In it Miss Whitley acknowledged that she received many criticisms for this exhibit and that the issues I raised are important and serious. She proceeded to explain, “The content of the exhibition has to do with the legacy of an iconic photograph taken by Alberto Korda in 1960 - not the life of the man in the photograph.

“Again, in no way is the V&A seeking to honour a murderer. We have created a vibrant design exhibition, as is our remit, which in the process raises many issues for visitors to consider. I fully realize this response will not change your valid point of view, but I do hope it might go some way to explaining the Museum's rationale.”

Through the worlds of Miss Whitley I can see that she was aware of Che’s criminal history and that the exhibit focused on the image the late Alberto Korda’s photo – ironically taken while Che was very uncomfortable suffering from asthma - and how it became an icon. There was sincerity in her words and clearly expressed her regret that the exhibit had offended so many Cubans.

I feel compelled to point out the extent of her efforts to respond to the issues I raised. I certainly thank her for the concern and compassion expressed in her response to me. My expectation was that my letter to the museum would not result in a reply, as is the norm when I have written to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting – either silence or an arrogant, snobbish reply.

The problem for Cuban Americans is, why do people and organizations continue to offend us? Why is OK?

As I wrote to Miss Whitley, “The point of your exhibit is certainly an interesting and valid one and the case of the Che photo is a rather unique one, but there are so many, many other examples of the same phenomenon that are not offensive.

“I hope you can understand that every time Cubans see on the streets the careless display of Che paraphernalia we are genuinely offended - it feels like a dagger in the heart as our nemesis is used as a hero.”

After recently returning from Europe a filmmaker colleague told me what she saw there was revolting. “In Lisbon there are complete stores dedicated to Che and Castro merchandising. I entered one of them and complained to the owner and he laughed at me. There is no solution!”

A Cuban intellectual told me in relation to the cult about Che, “Oswald Spengler was correct when referring to the decadence” of the Western Civilization. “Canonizing an assassin, a killer an opportunist only shows once more our profound gullibility and blind search of false prophets.

“Trisha Ziff was absolutely correct arguing that Guevara has become the only symbol and banner of revelry for the oppressed.”

I have watched the sorrowful spectacles of so many Central Americans in my area, both legal and illegal, proudly sporting Che merchandising. I have been deeply offended and felt pity for them because if they knew of Che’s human and social crimes, they would be spiting on his image rather than wearing it.

This intellectual said, “The dreadful thing is, why Guevara? Why has such a nefarious figure become an ‘alter Christus’ in our era? In part it is due to the systematic misinformation and in part to the stupid stubbornness of the left academic-bohemians in relation to the Cuban Revolution. Their brains are profoundly clogged - I don’t want to say cretins.”

A former actor said about my Victoria & Albert Museum’s article, “Magnificent piece, very real (as Cubans know). But sadly we are fighting against something evil hidden under a great lie that to date we haven’t been able to unravel, because these people have a pact with the devil and it is a very hard fight.

“Thanks for your efforts to try to make the world understand our sad situation, but unfortunately it is a lost cause. I hope one day we can prove what we have been trying to convey for so long is true.”

As I replied to Miss Whitley’s nice letter, “As a filmmaker, writer and artist, I certainly appreciate what you are trying to convey in this exhibit. However, as a byproduct of the exhibit, the image of Che Guevara will become even more popular and generate more interest in the generally misinformed public about what he really was.

“Unfortunately, the exhibit will contribute to the Che fashion and interest in Che paraphernalia will increase generating sales, that because of Castro's policy of manipulating royalties will end up in his own pocket, which means more repression for the Cubans on the island.”

Would a respectable institution or a human being want to carry that on their conscience?

© 2006 ABIP
Agustin Blazquez, Producer/director of the documentaries
COVERING CUBA, premiered at the American Film Institute in 1995, CUBA: The Pearl of the Antilles, COVERING CUBA 2: The Next Generation, premiered in 2001 at the U.S. Capitol in and at the 2001 Miami International Book Fair COVERING CUBA 3: Elian presented at the 2003 Miami Latin Film Festival, the 2004 American Film Renaissance Film Festival in Dallas, Texas and the 2006 Palm Beach International Film Festival, COVERING CUBA 4: The Rats Below, premiered at the Tower Theaters in Miami on January 2006 and the 2006 Palm Beach International Film Festival, Dan Rather "60 Minutes," an inside view and RUMBERAS CUBANAS, Vol. 1 MARIA ANTONIETA PONS

ALL AVAILABLE AT: http://www.cubacollectibles.com/cuba_C.mvc?p=108-CC4
For previews visit: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Agustin+Blazquez

Author of more that 300 published articles and author with Carlos Wotzkow of the book COVERING AND DISCOVERING and translator with Jaums Sutton of the book by Luis Grave de Peralta Morell THE MAFIA OF HAVANA: The Cuban Cosa Nostra.

Bush on Guantanamo

From the White House press conference transcript:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You've said that you wanted to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but you were waiting for the Supreme Court decision that came out today. Do you intend now to close the Guantanamo Bay quickly? And how do you deal with the suspects that you've said were too dangerous to be released or sent home?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you for the question on a court ruling that literally came out in the midst of my meeting with the Prime Minister -- and so I haven't had a chance to fully review the findings of the Supreme Court. I, one, assure you that we take them very seriously. Two, that to the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so.

The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street. In other words, there's not a -- it was a drive-by briefing on the way here, I was told that this was not going to be the case. At any rate, we will seriously look at the findings, obviously. And one thing I'm not going to do, though, is I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people. People have got to understand that. I understand we're in a war on terror; that these people were picked up off of a battlefield; and I will protect the people and, at the same time, conform with the findings of the Supreme Court.

Q Do you think the prison will close?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I haven't had a chance to fully review what the court said, Terry. I wish I had, and I could have given you a better answer. As I say, we take the findings seriously. And, again, as I understand it -- now please don't hold me to this -- that there is a way forward with military tribunals in working with the United States Congress; as I understand certain senators have already been out expressing their desire to what the Supreme Court found, and we will work with the Congress. I want to find a way forward.

In other words, I have told the people that I would like for there to be a way to return people from Guantanamo to their home countries, but some of them -- people need to be tried in our courts. And that's -- the Hamdan decision was the way forward for that part of my statement, and, again, I would like to review the case. And we are, we've got people looking at it right now to determine how we can work with Congress if that's available to solve the problem.

Francisco Gil-White Talks to Rabbi Tovia Singer

About Iranian-American relations, among other things, on Arutz Sheva-Israel National Radio:

Immediately after the Ayatollah [Khomeini] came to power, one of the first things he did was to absorb SAVAK. Now SAVAK was the late Shah’s security service. It was a mammoth security service -- the biggest in the world after the Soviet Union’s. Now, that’s saying a lot because the Soviet Union was an enormous totalitarian state, and Iran was this tiny little fifth rate power. So to say that SAVAK was the second biggest security service in the world gives you a taste for just how repressive the Shah of Iran -- the great US ally -- was. And SAVAK was created by the CIA. And it was essentially run by the CIA -- SAVAK had very close ties to the CIA throughout the Shah’s reign. And Iran behaved as a feudal property of the US throughout the Shah’s reign. So the fact that the Ayatollah Khomeini, who had been complaining about SAVAK when he was in the opposition, and railing against SAVAK, and promising to disband it and so on and so forth... Well, when he took power he absorbed it wholesale. SAVAK became SAVAMA, the new Iranian security service. That’s point one.

Point two is that the Ayatollah Khomeini, immediately after consolidating his power, provoked a war with Iraq. Now, the Ayatollah Khomeini could not afford to provoke a war with Iraq unless he knew that the US was gonna provide him with weapons. Why? Because the Iranian Revolution depleted the Iranian arsenal -- so he was without guns, in other words. And the Iranian arsenal was entirely, or almost entirely US-made. So unless the Ayatollah Khomeini knew in advance that, if he went to war with Iraq, then the US would provide him with weapons and spare parts, he couldn’t afford to provoke a war with Iraq. And yet that is immediately what he did!

Well, what happened? The US sent billions of dollars in US armament every year of the Iran-Iraq War to Iran. When this was discovered, in the mid 80’s, it was called the Iran-gate scandal, or the Iran-Contra scandal -- and despite the scandal, the arms shipments went on! Now, when caught red-handed, the Reagan administration said the reason for those arms shipments was that -- this is so funny -- that the reason for the arms shipments was that Hezbollah, a tiny terrorist group in Lebanon, a third country, had taken a handful of American citizens hostage, and because the Iranians had some influence on Hezbollah, they wanted the Iranians to beg the Hezbollah to release that handful of US citizens. And that was the supposed reason that billions of US dollars in armaments went to the Iranians every year for the duration of the Iran-Iraq War. Now, this absurd explanation could not be true even in principle because the arms shipments to Iran -- as we now know, thanks to a congressional investigation that was done years later -- that the arms shipments began in 1981. The first hostage in Lebanon was taken in 1982. So obviously the policy of sending billions of dollars in armament to Iran every year couldn’t have anything to do with those hostages. And in fact the arms shipments continued after the last hostage was released.

In addition to this there’s also the fact that the Iran-Iraq war, towards the end, went badly for Iran. So Iran asked for a cease-fire in 1988. Now, immediately after that cease fire, Zalmay Khalilzad, a protégé of Zbigniew Brzezinski who was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor and the man who invented the policy of creating Islamist terrorism in Afghanistan by sponsoring the mujahideen (whom Osama bin-Laden, by the way, was training for the CIA)... This Zalmay Khalizad, a direct ideological descendant of Zbigniew Brzezinski, complained out loud (I believe it was in the Washington Post... I forget which newspaper now...) but he complained out loud that the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War was very bad because Iran was very weak, and that the US should have a policy to strengthen Iran and contain Iraq. What happened immediately afterwards? The Gulf War of 1991 that destroyed Iraq and left Iran as the big regional power. This war was launched while Zalmay Khalilzad was a policy planner at the Pentagon. Now Zalmay Khalizad, obviously, is the viceroy of the United States in Iraq. He has been responsible for crafting US policy in that area ever since.

In addition... The last point I would mention is -- as Jared Israel of Emperor’s Clothes has documented -- that the Iranians helped the US in the latest US invasion of Iraq. So, ...

Oh, and I forgot one point. During the civil wars in Yugoslavia, the Pentagon teamed up with the Iranians -- this is also documented on Emperor’s Clothes -- to send tens of thousands of mujahideen soldiers (these are the same soldiers that Brzezinski had created staring in 1979, and then throughout the 80’s)... to send tens of thousands of mujahideen to Bosnia to fight for Alija Izetbegovic, and to go on killing rampages against Serbs. That importation of mujahideen soldiers was coordinated between the Iranian government and the Pentagon.

So, if you look at the entire history of US-Iranian relations, yes, on the surface they exchange lots of insults, but the facts of US foreign policy do not reveal an anti-Iranian policy. On the contrary. And in fact, I have an article on www.hirhome.com where I predict that the US will not attack Iran, as a lot of people think it will. And I explain why: I give the whole history of the US/Iran relationship to support my case.

The Bookseller of Kabul

Over vacation, I read Asne Seierstad's memoir of living in Afghanistan, post-9/11. Someone I know used to work for a Bookseller of New York and a Bookseller of Los Angeles, and told me that they are the same sort of people as the Bookseller of Kabul. So the businessman's character was depicted with 100 percent accuracy. Most interesting to me was the skillful manner in which Seirstad described events with such restraint that the reader didn't fully realize how horrified and repelled the Norwegian journalist had been by her exposure to Islamic fundamentalism -- until the end of the story. It is completely damning, and an indictment of the United States's failures in Kabul, frankly. Poor Afghanistan! 75 percent illiteracy, fear everywhere, the mullahs are back. No wonder people living in Uzbekistan would tell me, again and again, they were so happy not to live in Afghanistan...

Leon Aron: No New Cold War

From AEI's Russian Outlook:

As a result of the growing divergence in values, the ships of U.S. and Russian foreign policies began to drift away from each other. That they have not yet moved as far apart as to lose visual contact is due to the anchors of each side’s strategic assets that are central to the other’s national interests.

For the United States, Russia is crucial in the global war on terrorism; nuclear nonproliferation; the world’s energy security; and the containment of a resurgent authoritarian China, which increasingly threatens the interests of the United States and its allies in Southeast Asia.

In Russia’s strategic calculations, America is featured as an ally in the struggle against domestic terrorism emanating from north Caucasus. Second, Washington is expected to show an “understanding” of Russia’s “special role” (and, therefore, “special interests”) on the post-Soviet territory, where 25 million ethnic Russians live outside Russia and where most of the people and industry are kept warm, lit, and working by Russian oil, gas, and electricity, until recently provided essentially on credit. Third, Moscow hoped for the U.S. decisive assistance in Russia’s integration into the world economy.

But perhaps the key American resource, the most desirable thing the United States can give Russia is esteem and equality. No matter how much America is castigated in the pro-Kremlin or Kremlin-owned newspapers or television channels; no matter what is being said about “Asia” or “Eurasia” as new national destinations, today, as under Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin, for people as well as the elite, a parity with America--be it in strategic nuclear missiles or corn, meat or steel, democracy or coal, outer space or Olympic medals--and its appreciation of Russia have always been a key legitimizing domestic political factor. When it comes to Russia’s national self-respect, no one else--neither Europe, nor Asia, nor yet Germany, China, France, or Japan--even comes close.