Z el indiscreto

Cuando hace unos días Nicholas Kristoff publicaba en el New York Times algunos comentarios del Presidente Rodríguez Zapatero en un encuentro privado con personal del NYT, algunos pensaron que la culpa no era suya, sino del malvado periodista que se había saltado el off the record de la conversación. Las declaraciones no tenían desperdicio «temo que con McCain vuelva la guerra fría», propias de una mala intención, o una ignorancia abismales, como si la guerra fría fuera fruto del calentamiento de un presidente, y el comunismo y su afán por dominar el mundo no hubieran tenido nada que ver. Independientemente del fondo de la cuestión, que no nos aportaba nada nuevo a los españoles que vamos conociendo a nuestro Presidente, se planteaba la conveniencia estratégica de atacar con dureza delante de un grupo de periodista a alguién que podría ser el Presidente de la nación más poderosa del mundo, con la que desde que el gobernante socialista llegó al poder no hemos tenido una relación muy fluida.

Pero las consecuencias de su incontinencia verbal quedaron aún más claras cuando otro de los periodistas presentes en la reunión, Cohen, publicaba detalles de la conversación privada entre los dos Presidentes, e incluso atribuía a Zapatero el agradecimiento a Bush por su «apoyo» electoral,

he had a “certain consideration” for Bush, because “I recognize that my electoral success has been influenced by his governing style.”

El resto de los comentarios tampoco tienen desperdicio:

Asked about Russia and Georgia, Zapatero came back with rhetorical questions. “What was the purpose of the creation of NATO?” he asked. “To defend ourselves against Russia or Communism? The expansion of NATO, and NATO today, what is it defending?” As for the Georgians, Zapatero mused, “were they enslaved by Russia or Communism?”

The Georgians were enslaved by a Soviet totalitarian system. So were the Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians, Estonians and countless others. That nightmare is vivid for them, as is America’s fight for their freedom. They do not want to risk falling back. They want the “normality” they feel NATO — and the European Union — guarantees them. It’s a psychological thing. Spain should get that.

But Zapatero’s more concerned about “certain gestures that may provoke Russian nationalism.” He seems to buy into Vladimir Putin’s nonsense about the “encirclement” of Russia, which spans from Eastern Europe to Northern Asia, by the likes of Lilliputian Georgia, if it were allowed into NATO.

“To think that Georgia will be more secure if it’s in NATO, that won’t be the case,” he said. “All we’ll achieve is a greater divide between Moscow and the rest of the world.”

Wrong. NATO locks in liberal democracy. It brings stability and prosperity, not threats, to Russia’s environs.

Las conclusiones del periodista son devastadoras:

Zapatero’s a wry, polished, suave politician — a socialist with that European socialist habit of being amused by almost everything and committed to almost nothing.

Zapatero is the kind of guy who reminds me of the need for smart American leadership. In fact, he reminds me of why, raised in Europe, I chose to become an American.

Despite Spain’s dictatorial past under Franco, Zapatero seemed to me mealy-mouthed about totalitarianism and tyranny. Moral relativism oozed from his lawyerly repartee. He illustrates why Orwell felt compelled to say: it’s not enough to be antifascist; you must also be in principle anti-totalitarian. The European left has often had a hard time with this notion.

Quizás no es gran cosa, ahora que el Presidente Bush está de retirada, pero, una vez más, el Presidente de España envía al mundo una señal inequivoca, a través del NYT, uno de los medios de comunciación con más influencia en las cancillerias de todo el mundo: Cuidadito con él.