Cum Grano Salis

2004-03-02T19:14:00.000+01:00

China's thirst for oil

The 21st century might be seen one day by historians as the century of Islam's modernization, in which Muslim countries evolve from nations of inhabitants to nations of citizens. The proxy war between the US and the EU that is taking place in the Middle East right now, the strategies, positions and policies concerning this issue have been discussed at length in the media (while European media largely ignores that the EU is still funding terrorists and tolerating that Israelis get killed). What are the positions of the rising dragon in the East? How will its policy influence the development in the Middle East?

An interesting facet is the Sino-Saudi connection. The authors state (emphasis mine):

According to a conservative estimate by the U.S. Department of Energy, China's oil imports over the next two decades will grow by 960 percent. The International Energy Agency predicts that, by 2030, those imports, now at 1.9 million barrels a day, will rise to at least 10 million barrels a day, the current import level of the United States. [...] Nevertheless, a decade hence, the lion's share of China's energy imports will almost certainly come from one source: the major oil exporters of the Middle East.

Undoubtedly - setting Taiwan and other issues aside for a moment - the relationship between the US and China will be influenced strongly by the access of oil in the Middle East. China feels that the US is trying to gain control over the Gulf Region - and perceives this as a possible long-term threat to its energy supply. What is the consequence? The authors continue (emphasis mine):

Iran, now the second largest supplier of China's oil, has become a particularly important trading partner. As relations between the two countries have expanded, the PRC [HZB: People's Republic of China] has sold ballistic-missile components to Iran as well as air-, land-, and sea-based cruise missiles, giving Tehran the capability to attack U.S. naval forces in the strategically vital waters of the Persian Gulf. Even more significantly, China has provided Iran with key ingredients for the development of nuclear weapons, including reactors and significant quantities of uranium. If Iran is today well on its way toward an indigenous nuclear-weapons capacity, that is thanks in no small part to Beijing.

Growing ties with Iran? Don't we recognize this from somewhere...? Nevertheless, the most important fact is that China is approaching Saudi Arabia. China has not only helped Iran, it also greatly participated in the Pakistani nuclear project; why shouldn't it help the Saudis? As Gal Luft notes (emphasis mine),

A key component of China's strategy to guarantee access to Persian Gulf oil is the special relations it has cultivated with Saudi Arabia. [...] High-level visits of Chinese leaders to Saudi Arabia culminated in 1999 with President Jiang Zemin's state visit in which he pronounced a "strategic oil partnership" between the two countries. China has offered to sell the Saudis intercontinental ballistic missiles with a range of up to 5,500 km. The Saudis have so far preferred to turn down many of the proposals and limit their procurement from China in order to maintain their special relations with the U.S. But continuous deterioration in Saudi-American relations or, in the longer run, a regime change in the oil kingdom, could drive the Saudis to end their reliance on the U.S. as the sole guarantor of their regime's security and offer China an expanded role.

Saudi Arabia is already considering to go nuclear - lesson learned from the Iraq war (in contrast to the US negotiations with North Korea): those in possession of nuclear weapons have far more diplomatic space. The reason why the US is so soft on Saudi Arabia - despite the fact that 15 of the 19 perpetrators of 9-11 were Saudis, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has been a proliferation hub of terror money for decades - must also be seen from the mentioned perspective: Saudi Arabia could try to select a new security doctrine, either by buying nuclear weapons off-the-shelf from Pakistan - or by teaming up with China. As Luft and Corrin mention (emphasis mine),

There are some particularly alarming scenarios to consider here. If the Saudis were to begin worrying seriously about a future American seizure of their oil fields, they might well seek ways to deter it. Given the weakness of their own military, one option would be to acquire nuclear weapons. Although talk of a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia may, at this juncture, seem farfetched, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Saudi Arabia could break its military dependence on the U.S. either by entering into an alliance with some other existing nuclear power or by acquiring its own nuclear capability. In either case, China would play a crucial role.

China already seeks to enlarge its military power (annual spending on defense has grown 17 percent recently), and though it is far from being on par with the US, it might well become a competitor in the Middle East, especially with its energy need growing drastically in the future. In contrast to the US, China's infrastructure is not yet heavily depending on oil. In order to not let China deepen its ties with terrorist states - which it is not unlikely to do in the future to satisfy its growing oil thirst - either a democratic Middle East is necessary, or alternative forms of energy supply must be found and utilized (the latter is what the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security suggests to overcome the heavy dependance on oil). Among the numerous valid reasons for liberating Iraq, I reckon that the Pentagon certainly also considered the question of China; for example, a stable and democratic Iraq - which has the second-largest oil supplies after Saudi Arabia - is far more in US interest as a Chinese trade partner than the Iranian Mullahs or the current Saudi government.

2004-02-22T21:39:00.000+01:00

Germany on the decline

Much is going wrong these days here. A high-tech truck toll system that was intended to be implemented on Germany's autobahn collapsed because the plans were too ambitious (even though abroad, people are rather shaking their heads concerning our can deposit frenzy). Though in a recent newsweek ranking of the power of nations, Germany came in second, the nation is on the decline, as Tom Goeller points out:

If no one has the courage to end the economic recession with deep, sharp cuts of the welfare state, Germany not only will continue to hurt itself but also kill the European single currency. For three years there has been no economic growth in Germany. It is easily foreseeable that Germany's deficit will continue to exceed the limit of the 3 percent of gross domestic product that the euro zone countries agreed to. Finance Minister Hans Eichel admitted recently that there is no way he'll meet his goal of balancing the national budget by 2006.

Schröder has stepped down as party chairman (he still is chancellor), but this is only going to accelerate his fall. He is perceived as a strange fellow by many Socialists in his party, the SPD, and the new chairman - Franz Müntefering - has already announced he would "slow down" reforms (what an expression! Imagine a farmer sitting on a truck driving with 5mph at you, shouting at you from a distance of 200 meters: "CAREFUL THERE, I must slow down!"). Germans are - deep down in their hearts - extremely Conservative people (even the Socialists); every change is seen as an intrusion, everything has to remain as it is. The freshness and the optimism that the US are famous for would be very helpful here.

The gravest mistake is and remains the deliberate strain of the relation with the US, though the average opinion concerning Germany has recovered recently. But Schröder seems to have noted that France alone is not an option, so he is trying to add Britain to the French-German axis. As EURSOC (fine blog on European affairs) writes,

Germany, which bridges western and central Europe and symbolised the continent's division for over forty years, deserves a pivotal role in the EU. Hitching its horse to France's wagon is clearly not the best way for Germany to win friends with central Europe's nations.

Blair can certainly help Schröder to open some doors in the US, though only a new chancellor will be able to clean up the mess of the current government. This year, 14 elections will take place in Germany; in contrast to the results in Iran, I hope the current government will get punished again for its incapability.

2004-01-17T20:26:00.000+01:00

Not dead but still asleep

Though I have more than enough to do until February (don't expect any posts until then), I've had to change the comment system (I now use Haloscan) because BlogSpeak isn't working anymore. I was unable to rescue old comments, for which I'm very sorry. But then, there will enough to comment on in the future. See you then!

Yours,

HZB

2003-12-12T15:54:00.000+01:00

Sunset in Japan

from Achikochi, a fine blog with great pictures from Japan. What a beautiful sunset that is! So relaxing...

I'll be back with new own content at the end of January, just don't have the time to write good posts now. Though my fingers have really been itching sometimes...

2003-11-03T14:10:00.000+01:00

On attitudes and asymmetries

Note: I'll have to be on blog hiatus for a while, till mid-January from now on. A lot to do, sorry, and I'll miss blogging. But there are so many great blogs out there to roam! I promise I'll be back, and I have provided an extra-long post this time, hoping to provide something to gnaw at.

Before I start my original post, I'd like to give a short introduction to a theory from social psychology, which I'll refer to afterwards.

An important human motivation is to possess an error-free cognitive order, a structure of information (i.e. concepts, values, attitudes) that is consistent and free of contradictions. A psychological theory that has shown to be valid in this context is the theory of cognitive dissonance by Festinger ("A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance", 1957), and it has been elaborated quite successfully in psychological research.

To put it shortly, Festinger assumes that every person is motivated to actively acquire information that is congruent with the current framework of information, whereas incongruent information is avoided. Cognitive dissonance, a state in which certain parts of the cognitive information structure contradict, is perceived as "uncomfortable", which leads to the wish to remove the cognitive dissonance to restore the balance. For example, if I hold the view that most dogs are aggressive animals, and over the next week I meet the friendliest dogs the world has ever seen, I can either change my opinion about dogs being aggressive (information adapted to reality), or I can see this occurrence as an odd exception (reality adapted to information). [I don't think most dogs are aggressive, though some clearly are, for whatever reason]

Further, a key assumption is that there is a significant impact of attitudes on behavior (an attitude might be defined in psychological terms as a psychological tendency to evaluate an entity/person/thing/information; attitudes can be measured on a cognitive, behavioral and emotional level). If now a cognitive dissonance arises between a person's specific attitude (e.g. "I don't like apples") and this person's shown behavior (e.g. "I'm eating my aunt's apple cake"), there are certain cognitive strategies to overcome this dissonance. One, in this example, would be to play down the behavior ("It was Aunt Marry, I would hurt her if I didn't eat this cake. I do it only this time"), another would be the adaptation of the attitude ("Hmmm! Apple cake is not that bad, apples are actually tasty!").

The more central (e.g. important, universal, self-defining) and elaborated such attitudes are, the more powerful they influence not only behavior, but also other factors (e.g. perception of information, memory). Further, while peripheral attitudes can be adapted rather easily, central attitudes (e.g., for some pitiable people, that would be "Bush is evil") are by all means more strongly "defended" against dissonance than peripheral ones (e.g. "I dislike this new CD"), even though a huge amount of empirical evidence might contradict those central attitudes. The more central the attitude, the larger the tolerated strain to defend it.

At a certain point, i.e. at the point of a massive influx of contradictory evidence, some people not only deride and mock this information as "made up" to continue defending their attitude, stepping over the boundary of rationality to become ideologists untouchable by reality; some bolder ones also simply make up consonant information themselves in order to restore their cognitive balance and that of their peers, making enormous fools of themselves without ever being aware of it. These two types of people are called fundamentalists, and one important aspect of becoming a fundamentalist is that certain monolithic attitudes are the pillar upon which a very large part of their identity resides; those attitudes are, by whatever reason, such an important defining characteristic of the individual that they can only be altered or dismantled through enormous efforts - either by overwhelming and existential evidence, e.g. for extreme Leftists in the US, it would probably require either the horrible scenario of a nuclear strike onto an American city by Islamists ("external" nuke), or a strong effort of the individual to alter those attitudes by him/herself (a mental paradigm shift corresponding to an "internal" nuke would be required for fundamentalists to destroy the deeply-buried bunkers of their central attitudes).

Unfortunately, the latter case happens rather seldom (there is no true motivation for a change from within), which is why fundamentalists are so loyal to their cause and predictable/controllable. In order to cure the fantasy ideology of fundamentalists, I think few measures are adequate, and discussion is not one of them. The mind of an Islamist, for example, will never be cured by a discussion; it will only be cured by the "soft, elevating" empirical evidence that life on Earth isn't that bad after all, contradicting the tachings of Islamists that martyrdom is the best thing one can do. It is part of the long-term strategy in Iraq to establish a strong economy, individual freedom and health for every Iraqi, creating envy and the desire to reform in the neighbouring dictatorships. This satisfies common Iraqis and in the long term maybe even some of those terrorists that haven't yet been killed or imprisoned.

In the other case, a fantasy ideology will be cured by the "hard, destructive" empirical evidence that the military power of the United States is unleashed in its entirety in case of another severe Islamist attack on the US; this is also why Islamism is the greatest threat to Islam. The probability for the latter case has been considerably lowered, though, by the flypaper strategy: if terrorists are drawn anywhere now in the world, it is Iraq, where the US is not an abstract entity but a real enemy. This was behind Rumsfeld's suggestion to deploy other nation's troops than already are in Iraq, and behind Bremer's idea to speed up the training of Iraqi security forces as well: thus, the US army can continue battling terrorists in a regionally confined area, which possibly was one of the main ideas of the war in Iraq.

I've been carried to somewhere else than I originally intended, but well, now the actual posting begins, I'll try to keep it short!

It is astonishing to behold the amount of asymmetries in the world where symmetry is pretended. An architect building an asymmetric house when his task was to build a symmetric one is either malevolent or a moron. But the same thing can be applied to the double standards of the broad streak of anti-Americanists and anti-Semites, both of which appear to become more and more entwined over time.

Let's take the example of French writer Michel Houellebecq, who has called Islam a "stupid religion", which consequently led to a case against him for having abused free speech. Mr Houellebecq is certainly not everybody's most beloved author (though I think he has written some good books), because he likes to provoke, enjoys to utilize sharp words and has a desperately gloomy style.

The question is: did he abuse free speech? Just think about this: what if he had said "Christianity is a stupid religion"? Or even, "Judaism is a stupid religion"? I deem it highly unlikely that masses of people with frothing mouthes would have obsessively confronted him for abusing free speech as it happened in this case. And what is even more interesting, as the Telegraph notes:

Yesterday he was asked whether or not he still thought Muslims were stupid. "I didn't say that," he said. "I said they practise a stupid religion." Asked if he was racist against Islam, he answered: "You can't be racist against Islam."

Absolutely. I don't think Islam is a stupid religion, I simply think it's a religion that needs to reform in certain areas. Nevertheless, Houellebecq has merely stated the following, according to the Telegraph:

In this very rocky, inspiring land, I said to myself that the idea of believing in only one God was cretinous. I could not think of another word. And the stupidest religion of all is Islam.

It's his right to say so, actually, because it refers to the contents of a religion. If he had uttered "And the stupidest religion of all is Christianity", nothing would have happened. This is the double standards that are systematically applied. In psychological terms, we have differentially sensitive cognitive balances, i.e. case-sensitive attitudes: the same amount of criticism applied to either Islam or Christianity has different results, because criticism of Islam "abuses free speech" (even if harshly uttered), while criticism of other religions "is free speech". Signs with "Israel = swastika" are free speech, while I wouldn't even dare to think what would happen to a person who holds a sign with "Islamism = swastika"...

The second asymmetry I'd like to introduce on individual level would be, according to Chicago Boyz, the case of French university professor Guy Milliere. He notes (translation by Chicago Boyz, emphasis mine):

The Jew is once again the symbol of detested capitalism, and by a shameful distortion of history, of "imperialism". The liberal [in the US this would be "the libertarian"] becomes the bearer of evil. The Jewish, or pro-Jewish liberal becomes the target of the ultimate hatred. The anti-globalization movement gets closer to islamists, and the latter allow themselves to openly attack "Jewish thinkers" guided by their "race". The "anti-racists" fight for the right to wear a veil, and fascist-leaning newspapers approve. To publish some books becomes difficult : publishers are scared. There are no professional interdictions yet, but that will probably come. I am currently the object of several campaigns attempting to cut off my means of income and have me thrown out of France. Is it because I do not do my work well? No, it's because I am a libertarian, because I defend Israel, because I am outraged by terrorism, because I love the United States, and especially because I have a critical view of Islam. It would be so much easier if I were a leftist, fascist, anti-semitic, anti-american, convert to Islam. Then I would be left alone.

A symmetry that's asymmetry... Slowly, but steadily, this asymmetry has been implemented, and has grown. It's the same thing in Germany. If you defend the US or Israel, you are not only a minority, but you are also in a much less comfortable position - because of the asymmetry that can be perceived on a more general level too, as Victor Davis Hanson notes in a great column (emphasis mine):

Well apart from the spooky placards (stars of David juxtaposed with swastikas, posters calling for the West Bank to be expanded to "the sea") that we are accustomed to seeing at the marches of the supposedly ethical antiwar movement, we have also heard some examples of Jew-baiting and hissing in the last two weeks that had nothing to do with the old crazies. Indeed, such is the nature of the new anti-Semitism that everyone can now play at it - as long as it is cloaked in third-world chauvinism, progressive thinking, and identity politics. [...] There has always been the suspicion that European intellectuals favored the dismantling of Israel as we know it through the merging of this uniquely democratic and liberal state with West Bank neighbors who have a horrific record of human-rights abuses, autocracy, and mass murder. After all, for all too many Europeans, how else but with the end of present-day Israel will the messy Middle East and its attendant problems - oil, terrorism, anti-Semitism, worries over unassimilated Muslim populations in Europe, anti-Americanism, and postcolonial guilt - become less bothersome?

Indeed, either the (open or unconscious) wish to let the Arab world destroy Israel, the wish to lessen Europe's anti-Semitic past or darkest ignorance lead to showing a sign reading "Sharon=Hitler". And, of course, Israel is seen as the biggest threat to world peace by 59% of Europeans, ahead of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Umm... there might just be a tiny difference between Israel and the rest, don't you think? Another horrible asymmetry.

This is one facet why the US is detested with such fervor by many Europeans, too: they openly back Israel! But one of the most important is mentioned in an excellent article by Daniel Pipes. He mentions that according to Karl Marx, capitalism will fail because of the immiserization hypothesis. According to it, profits will decline, workers will get poorer and finally overthrow their bosses to establish a socialist system. The only problem is that this idea has been brutally debunked by reality. Practically all socialist systems have failed, and the stone-age Communist regimes that still exist won't exist for that much longer either, I think. Actually, it is the people in Socialist states that have been victims of the immiserization hypothesis.

Further, the "dependencia theory" holds that the "First world" brutally exploits the "Third world" - and the US and its enterprises (and some even think yo- know-who controls those), as the nation with the greatest economic freedom and power, is the main enemy here. The greatest irony is that nothing has helped to overcome poverty, hunger, disease, misery in the third World as well as globalization and free markets. Indian students of today cannot believe how their parents lived; South Korea used to be poorer than Angola in the 50s and is now on par with Portugal. The only reason why globalization in Africa didn't work so well in the region South of the Sahara lies in the completely corrupt bureaucracy, the lack of reliable property rights and the suicidal political course of some dictators - i.e. the absence of freedom, the most detrimental condition for an economy. The selective cases anti-globalizationers cunningly provide are just that - cases of failures. What they fail to do is to actually perceive the bigger picture - which shows that globalization and its results are the best thing that could happen to humanity.

To many people, Marxism and socialism (or mutations thereof) are central attitudes. It has been shown that central assumptions of this ideology have been powerfully debunked by reality, rendering it practically worthless. Some people have drawn that conclusion indeed, others have sought a different strategy - the support of the opponents of the US by supporting Islamism. As Pipes notes in the article mentioned above,

Only a pedant would point out that the suicide hijackers hardly represented the wretched of the earth;and that their objectives had nothing at all to do with socialism and everything to do with, no, not again! militant Islam. So desperate is the left for some sign of true socialism, it overlooks such pesky details. Instead, it warily admires al-Qaida, the Taliban, and militant Islam in general for doing battle with the United States.

It's a sign of deperation, actually, and the louder they shout "Bush = Hitler", the more they close their eyes from reality and wish for their Utopia. Their hollow and dead corpse of an ideology is hijacked by Islamism and they are beginnig to zombie-like follow their Dear Leaders, which at this time leads to some absurd behavior only. And they utilize the strategy of blaming others, just as Islam has more a blame- than a guilt-culture. A lack of the latter leads to the inability to criticise oneself and a lack of responsibility, so no improvement is possible, but others (Jews, Bush, the US, Aliens etc.) are made responsible. Paradoxically, the worse those people feel, the fiercer they attack. Their blaming of the US for the attacks is revealing and utterly self-defeating, and another ridiculous asymmetry.

To conclude this long rant, I'd like to quote some classics who have (as I have) fallen from the Left as well, but some decades ago. As Roger Kimball notes,

The "unadmitted motive" of pacifism [before WW2], Orwell wrote, was "hatred of Western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism." [...] Orwell noted that pacifism was "objectively pro-Nazi" because it inculcated an attitude that aided England's enemies. Just so, anti-Americanism is objectively pro-terrorist. It was not surprising that the Nazis did all they could to encourage pacifism among the English (just as the Soviets actively aided the anti-War movement in America in the 1960s and 1970s)."

Or, even better, there is Albert Camus:

On the day when crime dons the apparel of innocence - through a curious transposition peculiar to our times -- it is innocence that is called upon to justify itself. The Rebel (1951)

It is this quote, originally a criticism of Stalin-defenders, that powerfully captures what is going on in many minds and media today, and the moral clarity of Camus and Orwell is a light in dark times - they provide evidence that the defenders of moral relativism and utopian idiocies, that terror excusers and adepts of a zombie-ideology have already been proven wrong.

2003-10-31T05:38:00.000+01:00

German MP reveals anti-Semitism

In a shocking speech on October 3rd (German Reunification Day), held before invited guests by German MP Martin Hohmann (in German) in Neuhof close to Fulda, Hohmann has implicitly depicted the Jewish people as a "people of perpetrators". The full speech (in German), which has been deleted from the official regional CDU page but has been cached by tagesschau.de, contains many anti-Semitic views; I'll try to summarize the most important statements.

According to Hohmann, it's not the "brown hordes" [Neo-Nazis] that should give cause for concern, but an "ubiquitous destruction of courage in the national self-confidence", resulting from the 12 years of Nazi dictatorship in Germany. Well, it's amazing, isn't it? The growing German self-esteem has been focused on before, the only problem I see here is that the omnipresent problems that an inflated German self-esteem tends to provoke are often neglected. This also makes me deeply concerned because it appears to be connected with a tendency for revisionism.

Hohmann also asks whether the Jews were "exclusively victims and sufferers". In order to answer this question, he refers to "The International Jew", a four-volume anti-Semitic work written by Henry Ford in 1920. Hohmann mentions that Ford had described Jews as the "world bolsheviks". Further, according to him, "Jewish thinkers stood by the cradle of Communism". Hohmann states that even the murder of the Russian Czar was ordered by a Jew, before lengthily commenting on the crimes of Communist Jewish revolutionists.

Hohmann finishes by stating that the bolsheviks of Jewish origin, just like the Christian National Socialists, had "put down their religion". He concludes that neither the Germans nor the Jews are a people of perpetrators, but that the "Godless with their Godless ideologies" were the perpetrators. "Justice for Germany, justice for Germans" he uttered at the end of the speech. Later, when asked about his speech, he said the 20th century had been a century of great sufferings on "both" sides, and this suffering should be "equally" acknowledged.

It is a horrible irony that such a tripe is being spewed on the Reunification Day. But Hohmann has been known before; he described the holocaust memorial in Berlin as the "monumental expression of the incapability to forgive ourselves" (!). Further, he adamantly fights homosexuality; he described the adoption right of homosexuals as a "denaturation of the family concept" that had to be fought with "civil courage".

It is shocking that a German MP utters such (and there are more) words. And harsh criticism from all sides is now thrown at this individual; e.g. Dieter Graumann from the Frankfurt Jewish Community states that "anti-Semitism has now crossed the regulars' tables and entered the German Bundestag". Many politicians have demanded that he resigns immediately. I hope so too. There is, as a SPD MP states, "no place in the German Bundestag for an anti-Semite".

Hohmann's thinking is distorted and sick. But the problem is - as many readers will remember from the prior discussions about the German "victims"-question - that indeed many Germans don't want to be "victims" of the "guilt club" anymore, as they state it. The era from 1933-1945 is suppressed. Therefore, the necessary conclusions are not drawn anymore; a slow paradigm shift is to be perceived at the horizon, and is gaining momentum on a EU level too; Germany is still the angry adolescent in Europe, rebelling against the rules. Anybody who criticises this is, you will remember, anti-German and self-hating. I'm not a friend of the guilt complex myself, I'm just a fan of intellectual honesty. But it appears the "growing German self-esteem" is more interested in the future than in the past. The problem is that it starts to forget about the latter.

2003-10-25T00:38:00.000+02:00

Cartoon of the day

from Cox & Forkum.

2003-10-23T13:19:00.000+02:00

It's the ecology, stupid - continued

...or, as Deutsche Welle puts it, "The Consumer's Can Nightmare Continues". I've posted on this issue before, which has now irritated the EU Commission.

As many will already know, Germany is fascinated with protecting the environment. Now, this is not a bad thing, it only becomes a bad thing if this usually sensible attitude becomes a fundamental ideology solid as concrete, defying all criticism, seriously harming the economy and lacking planning competency. And Jürgen Trittin, Germany's Green party environment minister, is such a fundamentalist, lacking all other fundamental traits a minister needs. He pushed through the new can deposit law, which commenced January 1st this year, even though a nation-wide collection system was not yet there, i.e. you could only give back cans and plastic bottles at the shop where you bought them (and not mentioning the job loss caused by this farce).

Now, the EU Commission, usually not a pool of competency, has given Germany time until October 1st to implement a nationwide collection system. This has to do with the fact that many stores have simply completely banned cans, which is a disadvantage for foreign producers who are not so familiar with the German deposit system. As EurActiv.com puts it (they provide the best and most succinct overview):

According to the Commission, the German deposit and return system for non-refillable drinks packaging restricts imports from foreign producers and is therefore not in line with internal market rules.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Commission, but I think they are right here. Trittin simply introduced the system without truly listening to the concerns of consumers, producers or even the EU. It was one of the prestige projects to please the Green electorate, and it had to be pushed through as fast as possible. I'm not against a can deposit in general, I'm against this method of realisation which, as a consequence, is nothing but an additional tax. I live in Aachen, close to the Netherlands. Recently, I talked to a dude from there who said he didn't care for the deposit, but he simply threw away the can in the Netherlands. But the shops, of course, cannot work with this unclaimed money (at least not with the whole of it), as they have to be able to pay back the deposits at any time. It's dead capital, and it amounts to 450 million Euro until the end of October, according to the Guardian.

Germany now has two steps to reply to the EU's request. If the EU judges the response inadequate, it can formally request a change of the system; if still Trittin is incapable of doing this, the next step would be the European Court of Justice.

Behind the scenes, many other European countries have been laughing at this dilletantic theater. And I agree with them.

On a more optimistic note (I've decided to occasionally mention some good news concerning Germany :), we have recently overtaken the US as the biggest exporter for the 1st time in 11 years. Germany is the market leader of machinery exports, is anybody wondering that we have such bands as Kraftwerk?

And in 2004, an economy growth of 2 percent is possible. This would be nice, because growth can only be perceived on the German employment market if it surpasses 2 percent - you know about our overregulation etc. - but I'm disgressing :)

2003-10-21T05:08:00.000+02:00

Why do we hate them?

I've received much criticism for my previous post, suggesting I'm self-hating, that guilt and excuse drips from every line I write and that I'm generally "anti-German". None of these accusations is true. I'll try - in one last post on the issue - to both clarify my position and analyse some deeper roots of German anti-Americanism in its many disguises, and why it has become so rampant only recently.

In some very good analyses, Russell A. Berman goes beyond the superficial observations of German and European anti-Americanism. He mentions (emphasis mine):

The genuine epicenter of anti-Americanism today is in Europe, not in the Islamic world. Indeed it can be localized even further as "old Europe," the continental Western European countries, especially France and Germany but Spain and Italy as well.

This sounds incredible and astonishing. The legendary "Arab street" is not the epicenter but Europe? And "old Europe", hasn't it been a staunch partner of the US in the past decades, not heeding some occasional disagreements among friends? Is not the current disagreement concerning Iraq rather unimportant because central values and ideas are shared? Not an easy question to answer. Berman provides three aspects of European anti-Americanism:

1. The first is (emphasis mine):

[A]lthough anti-Americanism may point fingers at the United States, it is primarily an expression of local identity problems. German anti-Americanism always involves escaping a troubled national past, hence the constant Nazi metaphors. French anti-Americanism, in contrast, imagines retrieving a former great power status through a special relationship to the Arab world, hence the prominence of anti-Semitism and the violent attacks on Jewish demonstrators and Iraqi dissidents.

It's the scapegoat method, one that Germany has utilized rather um... excessively in the past. It not only helps to focus on other people's "problems" instead of one's own, so real solutions are not sought for. It also helps to raise self-confidence by relativising the position of the only world-power left by perceiving them as a nation of stupid, shallow burger-munchers. Or, as Berman puts it in another great article (emphasis mine),

For those Germans who compare Bush and Hitler, the equation provides a perverse consolation: If they can show that today's Americans are as bad as the Germans once were, then today's Germans can feel absolved of any inherited guilt. This anti-Americanism is therefore less a sober response to current American policies - in Iraq or elsewhere - than an irrational symptom of a troubled German past.

The same could be said about the perverted comparison "Sharon=Hitler"; this as well serves to relativise Germany's guilt. Another facet is added by James C. Bennett (emphasis mine):

Overt fascism and national chauvinism were banned [in Europe], but a new Euro-chauvinism took its place, loudly proclaiming the superiority of European ways over crude American ones -- a new chauvinism on a wider scale, based like the old national chauvinism primarily on resentment.

To summarize these points, one aspect of German anti-Americanism is to create a "balance" to a subsconciously-felt guilt by applying the disgusting and ignorant Hitler comparisons to the leaders of the very two nations that Germany has special ties with. At the same time, the problematic German identity can dedicate itself to be immersed in a "European" identity (last year, the EU was more important than the US for 55% of Germans, while now it's more important for 81%), a very undemocratic, intransparent and overly bureaucratic identity that is, and an identity that ironically grossly exaggerates its own merits. Out of the frying pan into the fire... or, as Berman states,

A so-called democracy deficit has resulted; most Europeans experience the E.U. as a primarily bureaucratic matter, lacking any compelling ideals or deep principles that could stir the hearts of the public. Anti-Americanism has filled that gap; it has become the European ideology of the hour, providing an emotional underpinning for a unified Europe that stands for nothing of its own, except its distance from Washington. The incapacity of the Europeans to act in concert, particularly in foreign policy matters, only adds fuel to the fire. Anti-Americanism is much less about the character of American actions than about the European inability to act at all.

2. The second point that Berman mentions is also rather telling (emphasis mine):

[A]lthough anti-Americanism opposes U.S. foreign policy in the name of its presumed victims, there is no evidence of any particular solidarity with these countries prior to American engagement. The anti-American sector of the European public that has resisted, with increasing vehemence, the U.S. role in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq had previously expressed absolutely no interest in the misfortunes of the victims of Milosevic, the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein. [...] Anti-Americanism is not concerned with the particular issues at hand but only in adopting an automatic opposition to any U.S. role. There is apparently no regime so wrong than an American effort to right it would not provoke protests.

There is an eerie blindness to this issue in Germany. You can tell people about the enormous sufferings of the Iraqi people, they actually don't care; even if they care, this "does not justify war". Germans have - since attacking other nations in the past wasn't so successful - the deeply-rooted weltanschauung that only "defensive" wars are "just" wars, and lecturers as Germans tend to be, all other nations must comply to this iron rule or earn the deepest frowns of Joschka Fischer. The sovereignity of a state, as despicable and horrible its regime may be, is to be regarded as the highest priority regardless of what kind of government is ruling. This is one of the weirdest results of moral relativism, and it is actually much more inhuman than the liberation of an oppressed country.

3. The final point mentioned by Berman refers to the "conspiracy"-tendency of anti-Americanism (emphasis mine):

Third, like any other prejudice, anti-Americanism is characterized by an ongoing loss of reality. It has little to do with the reality of American life or U.S. policies, and it is equally oblivious to the lives of the Afghans and Iraqis, who only serve as interchangeable tokens, pretexts for an obsessive hostility to the United States. Anti-Americanism offers a securely ideological worldview that will simply not yield to facts. Hence we see the grotesque willingness of large parts of the European mass media to treat the Iraqi information minister seriously, while directing unrelenting skepticism toward American reports. For anti-Americans, any evidence of American success can only have been fabricated, just as expressions of pro-American support on the part of Iraqis are denounced as counterfeit.

This is probably the reason why the enormous progress in Iraq, if we compare it to the progress in post-war Germany and Europe, is practically absent in German media; but every time an American soldier is ambushed, it is reported widely. No reports have been made on the fact that the majority of Iraqis and Afghans are quite happy they have been liberated. German media seems to suffer from an enormously short attention span, and from a remarkable lack of strategic thinking. There has never been a detailed analysis of the Iraq scenario in any paper, just superficial, short-term predictions like "the new Vietnam", "the rise of the Arab street" and such. Peter R. Range remarks on the possible reasons (emphasis mine):

Throughout the spring and summer [2002], as a robust debate over Iraq policy emerged in the United States - leading finally to President Bush's decision to seek congressional and Security Council approval - Germany slept. The policy community barely discussed the issue, to the point that Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute Berlin, wrote an opinion piece in a German daily admonishing them to get involved. That never really happened, says one German journalist, partly because much of the country's policy debate is stifled by political correctness. "You could never publish an op-ed piece asking whether Iraq might become a democracy, or oil prices might go down, two years after a war in Iraq," he said.

Why exactly couldn't you do that? Again, the sovereignity of Saddam goes unchallenged, despite his deeds. To partly explain this, many Germans - though wishing for the EU to become a concurrent of the US - do not want Germany to play a major military role in the world. Germany does not perceive the reasons for the Dresden and Hamburg air raids that clearly anymore, but it perceives the still existing war damages, it still remembers and sometimes white-washes the "victims" (true victims and self-victimising victims) of war. [Self-victimisation, especially if indulged in by Germans, very quickly leads to a justification of certain deeds, and therefore is to be harshly criticised. German self-victimisation starts with forgetting about the reasons why Dresden and Hamburg were bombed.] Therefore, Germany does not want to create such a national trauma in any other nation's memory; no matter how much that nation is suffering and bleeding, no matter what that dictator does. This memory assymetry is dangerous, and it may be motivated by a whitewashing tendency again, as Henryk Broder (in German) notes (own translation):

If the air raid on Berlin was to be retroactively deligitimated as corresponding to the air raid on Baghdad, it is the suicide attacks of Palestinian terrorists against Israelis that shall retroactively legitimate the anti-Jewish terror of the Nazis.

Broder refers to those who think there is a right for terrorism (only granted to Palestinian terrorists against Israel, of course), but in my opinion many a Gutmensch's mind is subject to this subliminal rationalising.

James C. Bennett has a gloomy outlook:

The modern world was first carried forward by two great civilizations. The Anglosphere was one. The dynamic industrializing culture of 19th century Continental Europe, to which the spark of the Judaeo-Christian encounter was so important, was the other. That culture committed suicide in the '30s. Perhaps its successor is not the revival of that culture, but rather its zombie. [...] It would not be surprising if the twin anti-modernist themes of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, now rapidly coalescing into a single nasty mess visible in many of the pro-Saddam demonstrations of the past year, become once again the predominant political-cultural theme in Western Continental Europe, overwhelming the decent and positive forces there that had previously prevailed. And we should not be surprised if such people hate us.

I personally don't think this will happen, the anti-modern forces of every political shade, even though they chant the same protest tunes (e.g. Neo-Nazis and Attac) will, in the long run, be swept into the dustbin of history. The necessary economic adaptations are known and already implemented (see Schröder's reforms; they point into the right direction despite being incomplete). Still, I guess the political developments in the ME will define the core of future US-EU relationships. The EU, sponsoring Arafat's terrorism, has taken over the role of the former Soviet union in supporting the enemies of freedom in the ME. But then, the EU slowly but steadily (read the EU constitutional draft) has chosen the winding path away from freedom as well, at least right now. And this is the certain path to being the enemy of the US, if the current trend is extrapolated into the future.

To conclude - and to answer the accusations made against me - I say that I'm far from being anti-German; indeed I think it is Germany that should an can play a major role in healing the wounds that Schröder and others have created, and it is Germany that has far more potential to do good concerning educational, economic and political factors than it does now. To call me "anti-German" implies that the points I criticize, i.e. support of a dictatorship, anti-modern attitudes, whitewashing tendencies, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism based on guilt etc. - are part of "the" German identity. I disagree, I think a thorough, rational analysis of Germany's history and of America's values and aims only allow a different conclusion: the German identity of today should not contain ancient and historically detrimental parts anymore, they are relics of the past that should be buried once and for all.

UPDATE: An excellent analysis of the origins of America-bashing was written by Lee Harris (a German translation can be found here). It focuses on the central role of Marxism in all its mutations, and the core thesis of immiserization. A quote (emphasis mine):

This is the immiserization thesis of Marx. And it is central to revolutionary Marxism, since if capitalism produces no widespread misery, then it also produces no fatal internal contradiction: If everyone is getting better off through capitalism, who will dream of struggling to overthrow it? Only genuine misery on the part of the workers would be sufficient to overturn the whole apparatus of the capitalist state, simply because, as Marx insisted, the capitalist class could not be realistically expected to relinquish control of the state apparatus and, with it, the monopoly of force. In this, Marx was absolutely correct. No capitalist society has ever willingly liquidated itself, and it is utopian to think that any ever will. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of socialism, nothing short of a complete revolution would do; and this means, in point of fact, a full-fledged civil war not just within one society, but across the globe. Without this catastrophic upheaval, capitalism would remain completely in control of the social order and all socialist schemes would be reduced to pipe dreams.

Highly recommended. Belmont Club has more, saying it is no coincidence that the Left is allying with Islam.

2003-10-15T19:45:00.000+02:00

Another peek into the German mind (updated)

In a recent column in the Washington Post, Anne Applebaum makes some very precise observations concerning the current state of affairs in Germany. She notes (emphasis mine):

As in the United States, many of the books that have recently found their way to the top of German bestseller lists concern Sept. 11, 2001. Unlike those in the United States, many of them also argue that the Bush administration was responsible for Sept. 11. One book, by a former German government minister, argues that the planes that hit the World Trade Center may have been secretly steered from the ground. Another -- translated from the French and titled "The Appalling Lie" -- says that the Pentagon was never hit by a plane at all but was instead deliberately blown up with a bomb. Germany's establishment press has studiously debunked these theories, to little avail: Recently, an opinion poll showed that one in five Germans believe them.

Indeed, look at the current Amazon.de bestseller list concerning political books. The first two books are, of course, the usual Michael Moore stuff, and at rank 4 and 5, we find the two most disgusting conspiracy books, both of which claim that the American government was behind these attacks to fortify its world domination.

The parallels to anti-Semitism are obvious; the US strife for world-domination, the CIA as the spin doctor behind 9-11, the assumption that no Jews were killed on 9-11 etc. - the boundaries between anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism become blurred. The mindset of those disgusting conspiracy freaks whose ideas have been fisked into the ground for several times now are nevertheless hard to extinguish in 20% of average German's minds. And their books still rank high on German bestseller lists.

Apart from the revisionist tendencies of the conspiracy theorists, there have been some other tendencies in the German literature too. Applebaum states (emphasis mine):

But if German bestseller lists reveal a German reassessment of the United States, they have also in recent years revealed an even more vigorous German reassessment of Germany. Not one but two books have become popular through their descriptions of the Allied bombing of Dresden in 1945, which resulted in fires that caused tens of thousands of deaths. One of the authors used the word "crematoria" to describe the burning buildings, described the Allied bomber pilots as the equivalents of Nazi police units that murdered Jews and concluded by wondering whether Winston Churchill, who ordered the bombings, ought to have been condemned as a war criminal.

These books have also been effective: According to another opinion poll, more than a third of the Germans now think of themselves as "victims" of the Second World War -- just like the Jews.

Germans as the victims of WW2 - this is a nauseating streak of revisionism, and it can be considered as one of the fountainheads for the fundamentalist pacifism in Germany. As Dennis Prager noted in an excellent article (emphasis mine):

It is therefore incredible that all that education about evil has produced a generation [in Germany] that shies away from judging, let alone confronting, evil. It boggles the mind that a nation that was liberated from Nazism solely by armies waging war should embrace pacifism, that a nation that saw what appeasement of evil leads to now embraces it. I was sure that some German leaders would stand up and say, "My fellow Germans, we know a Hitler when we see one, and Saddam Hussein is one." But no German stood up to say this. Instead one of your leaders compared the American president to Hitler. I was sure that some German leaders would stand up and say, "My fellow Germans, we know genocidal anti-Semitism when we see it, and we see it in the Arab world." But no German leader stood up to say this either. [...] How could you have produced a Hitler and not recognize another one just one generation later? How could you know firsthand about torture chambers and children's screams and not ache to end them in another country? How could you side with amoral France against your friend America? There is, it would seem, only one answer. Nazism taught you nothing. Instead of learning that evil must be fought, you learned that fighting is evil.

Prager absolutely nails it, but the fact that Germany learned "fighting is evil" also shows that it has been largely suppressed in German minds why Germany was attacked: a horrid dictatorship with the most brutal genocide in history, a country that waged war all over Europe. But this is neglected. A very good example of this behavior can be found in this German blog (written in English), where the author states, concerning the bets on Arafat's death:

You're talking about the dead of a human being. You're talking about the dead of a father, grandfather, son, uncle, husband brother-in-law, best friend.... whatever. Yes, I know what you want to write: He's also a terrorist and murdered or is responsible for the murder on oh so many innocent people. Yes, that's true and that is what will make the world without him a better place, sure, but it is still absolutely tasteless, styleless and ... impossible behaviour to bet on someone's dead.

We notice a slight mention of Arafat being "also" a terrorist, of killing "oh so" many innocent people, but above all, Arafat is a "father, son, uncle". This was not written in Ramallah but in Germany.

The most dangerous tendency of this revisionism is represented by the tendency to create a "memorial" of the German sufferings of WW2. Applebaum notes:

Lately momentum has gathered behind a movement to build a new museum in Berlin dedicated to Germans expelled from their homes at the end of the war -- just like the Holocaust museum. It's not wrong for Germans to remember their relatives who suffered, but the tone of the campaigners is disturbing, because they seem, at times, almost to forget why the war started in the first place.

This is amazing and shows how dangerous it is to be or to become ahistorical - and how appaling. As Marek Edelman notes,

Many people suffered during World War II, Germans among them. But let there be no mistake: To label as victims the millions of ethnic Germans who were expelled from their homes in Eastern Europe after the defeat of the Nazis is to make a mockery of the Holocaust. [...] Despite my past, I do not seek revenge against Germans. I do not have a quarrel with them, and count among them some of my dearest friends. But as a Polish Jew, I cannot view German expellees as victims. To do so would be to consider myself an executioner.

Indeed, such a "memorial" implies a moral equivalence between German expellees and victims of the holocaust - which is, to say the least, nauseating. The "memorial" discussion has, btw, poisoned the atmosphere between Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany; a Polish spokesman said the atmosphere was now as bad "as in the seventies". I can very well understand that. Nothing is more horrifying to Poland or the Czech Republic than a Germany indulging in revisionism. I'm glad Schröder has spoken out against Berlin as the location. And I'm disgusted that Stoiber, Schröder's opponent in the last election, has uttered support for Berlin as the "memorial" location.

On a lighter note, many Germans have been content with Schwarzenegger's election victory in California. Reuters mentions:

Manfred Guellner, managing director of the Forsa polling institute, said there is widespread discontent with politicians. "The dissatisfaction is growing every day," he told Reuters. "Germany and Europe are ripe for the same sort of phenomenon. People feel they're being messed with. They want simple language and simple remedies."

I tend to agree, though I'd like to see some results in California first.

UPDATE: An excellent satire on the issue can be found here, it starts with "WARSAW--A Volkswagen delivery bus explosion yesterday destroyed its cargo of 20 crates of premium Kielbasa in the latest round of understandable German reaction to Poland's audacious attempts to preserve its illegal, oppressive, and probably petroleum-motivated occupation of German lands." Highly recommended.

UPDATE: Richard Bernstein has a fine column in the NY Times: Honor the Uprooted Germans? Poles Are Uneasy.

ANOTHER UPDATE: As could be predicted, the already-mentioned Lilli Marleen goes the first steps on the path of white-washing, concerning German "victims". We find such statements like:

I'd say Hamburg had its average share of Nazis, idiots, supporters, anti-Nazis, weasels and whatever. But the bombing of Hamburg was extraordinnaire, even when there was no military goal to hit. Most of the people in Hamburg also never before had harmed a soul, but they got killed by that bombings because the Brits wanted revenge for what german pilots had done to the UK.

"Hey, sorry for the bombings there in Southern England! I mean... yeah, civilians died, an' we're very sorry, but bombing HAMBURG??" Ah, the double standards, the one-sidedness; history in the making. Another interesting statement:

[...] there are something between 5.000 and 7.000 people who died by that bombing [of a German ship with refugees] or later in the cold water. Did all these people deserve to die there and then? We just can seriously doubt it, if we will not climb down the ladder and claim "All germans deserve dead". Sure - this is nothing compared to 6.000.000 killed jewish people by the Nazis, but can suffering be compared?

Umm... how many British ships were sunk by German submarines? How many innocent civilians in Poland were slaughtered, exploited, killed? And again, a "sure... but..." sentence, this time comparing the holocaust to the sinking of a ship... this comparison, even if only indirectly conducted, i.e. perceiving the sinking of a refugee ship in war times (in war there are often mistakes) and a deliberate act of bureaucratic machine-like genocide as being even comparable, is sick and distorted, to say it friendly.
It is this whining, one-sided navel-gazing that is so dangerous. And it is this tendency that would be strengthened if a "memorial" to the German "victims" would be installed in Berlin. Even the tendencies of German revisionism - which lead to the self-victimization in the 1930s, and we all know what happened after - must be fought.
Plus, of course, we have this moral equivalence of "bombing", which denies who started it - the Germans. The self-victimization of Germans is dangerous because it plays down the fact who started the war, and fades out what the Germans themselves did. I greatly loathe it. In her comment section, Lilli tries to reduce my line of reasoning to a "guilt" complex:

Sorry Hans, but when I was younger I was about the same than you are today. Full of guilt and feeling bad for all and everything any german ever has done. Believe me, this is stupid. You are responsible for what you do and you ought to think objective about what your ancestors did.

The irony is: I'm far from a guilt complex, I simply hold my opinion just BECAUSE I objectively judge the German past. My conclusions are: stand up to fascism, or its supporters, even if they hide under the cloak of pacifism to shield a fascist dictator; defend democracy, and fight etatism and socialistic (Volks-)tendencies; and never forget. I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks thus, but in my opinion, these are the only rational conclusions that can be drawn from the German past - provided that one embraces the ideals of democracy and freedom, which I do.
It appears Lilli projects her own guilt complex onto me, and at the same time evades it herself by means of a dangerous moral equivalence that she herself appears not to grasp in its entire ugliness.

2003-10-08T00:28:00.000+02:00

What the German media don't say

Via LGF, I found this impressive speech by Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi delegation to the UN General Assembly. He states (emphasis mine):

[...] As for the second truth, it is that the liberation of Iraq, and what happened is indeed liberation, could not have been achieved without the determination of President George W. Bush and the commitment of the Coalition. At the forefront are the United States of America and Great Britain. If today we hear the voices of those in doubt of the intentions of the American and British governments in undertaking this liberation, we invite them to go and visit the mass graves, to visit the dried up marshes, to visit the gassed city of Halabja, to examine the list of the missing whose very right to live was taken away from them by the regime.

I have not found any mentioning of this in the German media. A visit to the mass graves would be recommended indeed to those OK-Saddam-had-bad-manners-but-no-war-never!-posers who weirdly fade out the atrocities of the previous Iraqi regime, even to those who heroically claim they are not armchair pundits. But I've mentioned before that fading out atrocities is common practice in Germany; there was a recent TV show here, for example, romanticising the GDR (German Democratic Republic). At the same time, "Bush = Hitler"-comparisons are widely acceptable among many Germans; this, of course, is nothing else but a white-washing of the holocaust, deriving either from a remarkable and dangerous lack of knowledge or plain malice and hate. As Fraterslibertas states,

A true appreciation of the scale and scope of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis should give pause to those who label Bush 'Hitler' and call Ashcroft a Nazi. I believe that it is insulting to the memories of the victims of the Nazi regime to use those labels with so little thought. If Bush were like Hitler, post 9/11 events would have unfolded quite a bit differently. Muslims would have been beaten in the streets of the US, some to death. Mosques would have burned. Muslim shops would have been looted. Legislation would have been passed stripping Muslims of all rights and within months camps would have been built. Muslim men, women, and children would begin to disappear into them never to be seen again. The Democratic party would have been outlawed along with all other political parties and most of its leaders killed or sent to camps. The media would be taken over and run by the state and any attempts at dissent ruthlessly crushed. Michael Moore would not be writing books. He would have been strangled with piano wire and left hanging from a meat hook (a heavy duty, reinforced meat hook to be sure). A vicious war would have been waged against all Muslim nations. Kabul, Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, and Riyadh (for starters) would have been turned to sand. All oil fields in the Middle East would have been occupied. Citizens in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan would be bombed, brutalized, driven from their homes, and eventually killed to make room for the repopulation of those regions by Texans (Bush's volk). I could go on and on with this but you get my the point.

Interesting enough, Islamofascists and their sympathisers - whose values are pretty much the same as those of the Nazis - are not in the focus of attention, nor are, for example, the ridiculous staged elections in Chechnya or the war going on there for more than ten years, led with utmost brutality; I have not yet seen transparents comparing Putin to Hitler or a Nazi. No, this term is reserved for Israel or the United States; Sharon, for example, "escalated" the ME conflict by attacking root structures of terrorism in Syria, as I've read in a German paper. Of course, you know, this suicide bombing thing was not really nice, but assailing those who intend to destroy Israel? Let's not "escalate" it; a suicide bombing is sad, but it doesn't "escalate" anything. In other words, such an opinion implies, "Israel, shut up and tolerate those suicide bombings" - i.e. tolerate your destruction. Jörg Zink, a German priest, has stated (in German) a few months ago in a German TV show (own translation, emphasis mine):

I admire them [Palestinian suicide bombers] because their cause and the cause of their people or religion [...] is so important to them that they give their lives for it. These are not suicide bombers, these are courageous young people who give themselves fully over to their cause. [...] Of course they are lied to, but the fact that they are derogatorily called "suicide bombers" is simply not just.

A report was made against him, but the senior prosecutor in Stuttgart dropped it (in German) because, according to him, Zink (own translation) "...probably simply wanted to state his admiration for the disposition to suicide, without the intention of judging the implications for third persons". Had Zink stated his admiration for the RAF, he would have been in more trouble.
Davids Medienkritik has a link to a fine article (in German) by Henryk Broder in der Spiegel (yes... they occasionally let Broder publish to create the impression of being "balanced"), where Broder states (translated by Raymond Drake):

Concurrently, state sovereignty can be quite a bother now and then for even the most enlightened of European statesman. For example, in the war against Milosovic when NATO bombed Belgrade - without a UN mandate. Or earlier this year, when French intervention troops marched into the Ivory Coast to evacuate endangered French citizens - without invitation from the local government. No one got upset about the flagrant violation of the Ivory Coast's sovereignty. Apparently it doesn't matter whose sovereignty is violated but instead who the violated party is. And in the case of Israel, a couple of special rules apply.

Indeed, all those who firmly rejected the war in Iraq turn silent when asked about the pacifist German government in Kosovo or Afghanistan, or about the French intervention in Ivory Coast. It's such a funny obsession with Israel and the United States, isn't it?

Leo Bauer has a very interesting essay on the topic of Islamofascism, where he states:

Islamofascism is the combination of the revisionist elements of the West with the theocratic elements of Islam, sired in an unprecedented inter-cultural marriage of the Western Antiimperialists with the Islamist tyrants. [...] Therefore, nothing could be further from truth than the assumption that Islamofascism was just a pejorative term of self-righteous Westerners to draw a mark of Cain on an "indigenous" culture, like some Western commentators concerned about racist prejudice have suggested. In fact there are Westerners who promote cultural relativism, a racist view of other cultures, by arguing they were naturally imcapable to adapt the universal concept of individual liberty. But one will find them among those who deny to speak about Islamofascism, not among those who do.

It is not only the Islamofascists themselves who are a danger, though they are the most imminent one; a threat also arises from terror-excusers, be they motivated by a false political correctness, dangerous moral relativism or darker motives.

2003-09-30T01:56:00.000+02:00

On pole-sitting

Germans are known for their love of the environment. Trash is to be thoroughly separated (at best, packages are affectionately cleaned before doing so), empty deposit bottles and cans are to be collected and transported to where they have been bought with theological zeal and religious perspiration (in German), and now, we have a new form of symbolic urban reafforestation, an excellent revised dimension of tree-hugging - pole-sitting against fear.

As Deutsche Welle notes,

The Church of Fear, a project by German gadfly Christoph Schlingensief, has reached Germany and it's hard to know what to make of it. Maybe that's the point. From Monday until Saturday, people strolling along Frankfurt pedestrian zone in the city's center will be treated to a group of people perched on top of tree trunks. It is the latest performance art project from one of Germany's most famous agents provocateur, theater director Christoph Schlingensief, and his Church of Fear (CoF). [...] Church of Fear, described on its website as an international association of sects and religious communities, is Schilingensief's latest vehicle. The well-known German gadfly loves to take aim at politicians and major corporations as well as cultural issues. [...] The website somewhat cryptically proclaims: "We are made to fear. Our beliefs are destroyed. That's why Church of Fear says fight the terror monopoly of politics... Sabotage the media machinery that produces fear... Our beliefs have been taken from us, our fear will not be!"

On the homepage of Church of Fear, we find statements like (own translation)

CHURCH of FEAR says:

FEAR IS POWER!
FEAR IS OUR EXPLOSIVE!
NO LEADER, NO GOD WILL GUIDE YOU!
YOU ARE THE DEED!

CHURCH of FEAR says:

BE AFRAID!
FEAR IS THE MOTOR IN YOUR TERROR MACHINE!
The DECAPITATION BATTLE against the MONOPOLISTS OF FEAR in PARLIAMENT and PRESS, in MARKET and MANEGE has begun.

[...]

Could you imagine to answer terror with COUNTER-TERROR?
ARE YOU PLANNING A TERRORIST DEED?
When, where, against whom?

(This appears to be intended as a satire, it is seen as "art" by some here to ironically encourage "terror" against those "monopolists" manipulating our "fears".)
Schlingensief has always been a strange fellow to say the least, an agent provocateur and an eternal pubescent, somehow desperately stuck in a permanent revolution against - well, something. Even though he rightly accused Möllemann of anti-semitism and has been fighting xenophobia in some teutonic-radical installations, his "art" has been disgusting and disturbing more often. As thresholds states:

When Schlingensief started proclaiming "Kill Helmut Kohl" ("Tötet Helmut Kohl") around the thirty-sixth hour of his performance, he was arrested by the German police. Another version of the events was that Schlingensief was arrested because he had started singing about the death of Lady Diana to the melody of "Staying Alive." Schlingensief published his own account: suspecting that the police were called by the owner of a cafe next door, he had used the speaker-system to warn the visitors of the cafe. He had announced: "I'm urging all guests of the cafe next door, to leave this ugliest cafe in Kassel; the waitress has AIDS and only a few more days to live."

Schlingensief in a way excellently embodies the German dualism of aggressive pacifism, of violent benevolence, a rebel Gutmensch obsessed with permeating his environment with brutal agreeableness. His additional statement, that beliefs abound in areas where they should be non-existent - "in parliaments, stock exchanges and television stations" - misses the point entirely, it's not "beliefs" that need to be replaced with "fear" as the new idol, and collective group-therapy revolving around "fear" certainly appears to be enriching paranoia. Believing in one's own fear might appear sophisticated but it's utter crap. Beliefs in values like freedom, justice and democracy are essential and vital, in contrast to what Islamists and other enemies of freedom desire; again equidistance is not morally superior, it's dumb and self-defeating. Schlingensief fails to recognize that the wars of the future can be subsumed under the label "progress against regress" - why else do Neo-Nazis (the NPD in Germany) share identical ideas with Attac and so-called "left" anti-globalizationers concerning the evils of the obscure globalization? Why do Islamists and Neo-Nazis exchange very similar views? Why does Old Europe - together with ME tyrants and regimes - cynically prefer "stability" within the framework of a brutal dictatorship slaughtering its own people over freedom and democracy; why does Old Europe struggle with implementing economic and other reforms that deserve their name? Why do anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism permeate all strata of German and European society and political orientation? Because all mentioned groups share backward-oriented and not progress-oriented values. A non-partisan position is not only impossible, though several European writers see impartiality as the highest achievement, as if mental pole-sitting, group therapy and negation of an enemy were the solution; no, this sophisticated equidistance is also very detrimental because it neglects and thus tolerates the destructive potential of the backward-oriented groups and additionally blocks all progress.

The Frankfurt pole-sitting that has been staged in the framework of the "Church of Fear" is also fabulous in its merciless compassion. Not only are several unemployed encouraged to "express their fears" (it was difficult enough to assemble enough volunteers), they also have a kind of an occupation for a week, and are literally sitting in the pole position; this surreal image, published on Indymedia Germany, shows it all:

Isn't it a brilliant idea to sit on a wooden pole to fight the terror monopoly of current politics; to defend your fear from being "instrumentalized"? You know, all this feeling of being threatened is just an illusion, instilled on us by a hostile environment - al-Qaeda, 9-11, Islamism, terror groups operating in Europe - all paranoid inventions of "them", politics, economy, those "uppish" ones, to keep the ducks in line! MY FEAR IS MY OWN, one wants to intonate, in a woody way. That the epistemological strife of Schlingensief critically approaches the delusional attitudes of the conspiracy morons is obviously not disturbing anybody (Schlingensief repeatedly intonated "Sharon, leave Arafat alone!" while standing at the microphone - whatever that has to do with "exploring one's fears"); this is German "art", and somehow it's similar in tastelessness to the comparisons of the WTC with a phallus symbol, as introduced by our sophisticated Adrienne Goehler (Berlin senator of culture) (in German) on 9-13-01. In a meandering cognitive sweep of admirable broadness, Schlingensief integrates environmentalism, anti-ism, fatalism and epistemologial laziness into a medley that excellently captures the current German approach to most problems - sitting angrily but idle in a haughty position. Germans are very good angry sitters, probably the best world-wide; further, we love self-referential soul-searching for FEAR and other soul-related stuff and indulge in telling anybody interested our whole story in excessive detail. Insofar, and only insofar, this pole-sitting distantly makes sense, though I doubt the "artist" intended it to be thus comprehended... it's often more revealing what an artist does not say, or want to say.

That's it. I'm going to angrily relax now...

P.S.: I've changed the current poll, results for the old poll (US-EU relations in 20 years) can be found here.

UPDATE: the comment section is currently disabled due to a problem with the blogspeak-server; it is supposed to work again in a few hours. Sorry for the inconvenience.

ANOTHER UPDATE: the comment section is up and running again.

2003-09-21T22:32:00.000+02:00

Why Islamism is the largest threat to Islam

NOTE before posting: I won't be able to post much in the next three months due to heavy work ahead. I'm sorry, because I was enjoying posting daily or every second day a lot; but I'll try to at least post weekly.

Further, there are some good news from Germany. State elections in Bavaria have resulted in a devastating defeat for Schröder's party, which lost more than one third of its supporters. CNN states:

Schröder's Social Democrats fell more than 10 points to 18.5 percent in Bavaria, according to a television exit poll released after polling stations closed at 6 p.m. [...] The SPD's defeat, which follows heavy losses in state polls in Hesse and Lower Saxony in February, underlined Schroeder's weak standing nationally after three years of economic stagnation.

Good. It appears the times in which anti-Americanism helps winning elections in Germany are over, for now at least... Bill Dawson has a short analysis of the election.

In a lucid and highly recommended post, Belmont Club makes some very good points. He points out the three conjectures. I'll go through them point by point:

1. In the first conjecture, Belmont Club mentions (emphasis mine):

The terrorist intent to destroy the United States, at whatever cost to themselves, has been a given since September 11. Only their capability is in doubt. This is an inversion of the Cold War situation when the capability of the Soviet Union to destroy America was given but their intent to do so, in the face of certain retaliation, was doubtful. [...] In stark contrast, the nuclear threshold against a terrorism may be crossed once they get the capability to attack with weapons of mass destruction. Unlike the old early warning systems, designed to gauge Soviet intent, the intelligence systems of the War on Terror are meant to measure capability. The relevant Cold War question was 'do they intend to use the Bomb?'. In the War on Terror, the relevant question is simply 'do they have the Bomb?' This puts the nuclear threshold very low.

Absolutely, only that war has been declared for years now - 9-11 only brought it to the surface. How can you fight an enemy hiding in the shadows who does not care for his own life, whose hate and yearning for America's destruction are far beyond reason; an enemy who would use the strongest weapon available practically without hesitation? The only way to prevent this destruction is to not let WMDs fall into the hands of Islamists. By all means; the consequences would be devastating. A problem resides in the fact of pan-Arabism; Islamism is spread all over the Arab world, which appears quite united in wanting to destroy Israel and the United States. Islamists can easily hide in this vast geographical and political area, where persecution seems half-hearted at times. In the highly interesting comment thread to this post over at EuroPundits, Nelson Ascher states (emphasis mine):

As I'm beginning to see it, Blair has an oncological view of the problem while Rumsfeld has an epidemiological view of it, meaning that if one is contaminated, one becomes not a victim but part of the problem.

Perceiving the "problem" as being locally confined appears indeed incorrect to me as well; it has repeatedly been stated that al Qaeda is capable of creating cells who are operating totally independently, but who know each other from the old days of indoctrination; i.e. there is a loose network of communication, support and planning that can be immediately discarded if needed; there are sleepers that have infiltrated the US and Europe who can be awakened and gather information. This is asymmetrical post-Clausewitz war, but it is nevertheless war. The mutating, growing, multiplying virus-like al Qaeda-structure cannot be coped with only in oncological terms, it must be fought on numerous levels. Sometimes, the ultimate defeat of a virus strains the host as well.

2. The second conjecture deals with the fact that Islamists acquiring WMDs would be the greatest threat to Islam itself (emphasis mine):

The so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanatical intent; lack of a centralized leadership; absence of a final authority and cellular structure guarantee uncontrollable escalation once the nuclear threshold is crossed. Therefore the 'rational' American response to the initiation of terrorist WMD attack would be all out retaliation from the outset.

This was true for any fanatic, fascist regime the US have defeated: total victory is needed, negotiations are useless, because the aim of fundamentalists never changes (except if they are taken out). Many innocents would die in such a gloomy scenario, but then many Germans and Japanese were killed who certainly did not kill anybody, or who did not actively support their regimes; yet, they supported warfare by joining weapon production, etc. But there was no other possibility to defeat these regimes, or the US would certainly have chosen to do so (the defeat of a regime is something different from defeating an ideology and all its horrendous implications; from this point of view, the devastating attacks against Nazi Germany and Japan might have been considered the only possibility to defeat these ideologies, even if other means existed to defeat the regimes; if it is possible to separate the mentioned regimes from their ideologies at all, that is).
Even if speaking in oncological terms, there is always healthy tissue taken out (which feeds a tumor) or hurt when removing a tumor. I do not intend to sound cynical, but I guess that is how it is. The fact that America's only rational retaliation to a WMD attack would result in a massive nuclear strike shows that Islamism and its aims are the greatest threat to the Islamic world. I am sure the Arab regimes more or less clandestinely supporting terrorist activities know this; the fact that they know about this places them in the ranks of the terrorists. This is why George Bush stated, "those who are not with us are against us".

3. The third conjecture about sums it up (emphasis mine):

It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day in which all the decisions will have already been made for us. That effort really consists of two separate aspects: a campaign to destroy the locus of militant Islam and prevent their acquisition of WMDs; and an attempt to awaken the world to the urgency of the threat. While American arms have proven irresistible, much of Europe, as well as moderates in the Islamic world, remain blind to the danger and indeed increase it.

Indeed Europe sleeps in the shadow of the giant. but I think it is a strategic sleep based on the proxy war in the ME I mentioned before. Add to this the fact that Europe already depends on Muslim immigration to large degrees if it doesn't want to turn into a museum ("war for people" under the surface, hehe...). Further, Belmont Club mentions in another interesting post (emphasis mine):

There is an obscure branch of mathematical economics called hedonic cooperation structures. It is the study of how coalitions are formed. In a world solely consisting of Europe and the Islam, no coalition would form between them, because the threat posed by Islam to Europe would outweigh any benefit. But if America were added to the equation, a three-node graph would emerge and Europe would coalesce with Islam because they could reap the benefits of cooperation with Muslim nations while remaining shielded by the presence of America from any downside. During the ten years following the Desert Storm, the French did just that. They enriched themselves in Oil for Food deals while the United States spent blood and treasure to keep Saddam in his cage. Paradoxically, the more successfully America prosecutes the War on Terror the less willing old Europe will be to see a threat.

This is indeed one of the most surprising results: Europe is not capable - be it by its deluded media, by its cynical and egocentric governments, or by its leftist elites - to perceive what the United States is doing once again to secure peace and stability in the long term. Europe, drifting in illusional dreamworlds, does not recognize the threat transnationalism (UN, ICC etc.) poses by being utilized to confine the US - the very power that is willing and capable of facing the threat of Islamism. Transnationalism is a moral bridgehead for Islamists into the West, it is abused as a means for war. Concerning morale, I by far prefer a world in which the United States can protect the values and ethics of the West to a world in which the United States is morally bound by transnational institutions wielded by an egocentric Europe and infiltrated by Islamist excusers; the latter scenario will certainly lead to much greater woe and catastrophe than the first does and did.

2003-09-18T17:36:00.000+02:00

Guess who's talking...

I have recently discovered a very interesting piece of press about the President of the US, from German media. I'll quote some interesting parts (italics mine):

His election promises forced him to introduce new economic policies to stimulate the economy. Driven by his Jewish advisers, he wasted countless billions in stimulating the economy, but could not end the crisis. [...]
He has a Messiah Complex [...]
[The President]'s bosses while he was developing his war plans were Jews. [...]
The sick warmonger in Washington had reached his goal of unleashing a world-wide conflagration. [...]
As a result of its rapid growth and its tendency to gigantomania, America has become a perversion of European culture. [...]
The natural result is that the war is not as popular as the American government would like it to be. [...]
[...] many American officials told me [...] that they simply could not understand why they were fighting. [...]
Many indications are that the war will end in terrible catastrophe for the United States. Perhaps this false Messiah, the lackey of his Jewish allies, will be brought to justice by his own people. [...]

I'll give you the answer to the question who is talking: this pamphlet is called America as a Perversion of European Culture, published by Robert Ley's Reichsorganisationsleitung der NSDAP in mid-1942. I report, you decide...

2003-09-16T15:25:00.000+02:00

False estimations and patience

Before posting today, a short note: I have changed my comment system, because the old one - BackBlog - constricted each feedback post to 400 characters, which made commenting a bit too intricate. Therefore, I have now implemented BlogSpeak, which has several advantages: it is capable of remembering your data , i.e. name, e-mail and/or URL, making commenting more convenient; you can comment as long as you wish (I've not yet found there are any constrictions); finally, I have the possibiliy of editing or deleting posts (don't worry - I will not edit posts at all. I will delete posts though in case somebody accidentally posts the same text twice, which occasionally occurs, or in case offensive language or hate-speech is utilized). Backblog will be kept active in the archive in order to read old comments.

False estimations - In yesterday's post, Davids Medienkritik (in English) mentions a study (in German) published by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, which analyses some statements made by German politicians before the war in Iraq started. I quote David's translation (emphasis mine):

Olaf Scholz, Secretary General of the SPD (Social Democratic Party): The war will "likely result in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people." [...] Heidi Wieczorek-Zeul (SPD), Minister of Development Aid: She expected "hundreds of thousands of innocent people, civilists, children, women" to become war victims, and she expected two to three million fugitives. [...] The former SPD-politician Erhard Eppler, Guru of the peace movement, expected "the lives of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions (of people) at risk". [...] Wolfgang Thierse, President of the German Parliament (SPD): "I think of the millions of people in Baghdad, who will be victims of bombs and rockets."

David rightly wonders whether German media will ever comment on those false estimations, although Germany's largest tabloid, Bild, has indeed done so (in German). This is a positive step, even though Bild has created some distortions (in German) in the past as well. Another positive step would be to let those politicians who made such statements explain the sources for their "estimations", which obviously have been nothing but pure populism. If the US army had announced there would be no civilian deaths in Iraq, a large uproar would have rumbled through the media, demanding excuses. Well, the US army has not said so. Instead, German politicians without expert knowledge have done armchair reckoning. I think an overstimation - deliberate or stemming from a lack of knowledge - should be excused as well. Especially if it is of a grotesque size.

Patience - Michael Barone, in an interesting article at Usnews.com, comments on those who continue to state that American strategy has "failed" and that the Iraqis need to be given sovereignity as fast as possible. He mentions that things should be put in historical perspective:

Clay and MacArthur improvised, learned from experience, made mistakes, and corrected them, adjusted to circumstances. It took time: West Germany did not have federal elections until 1949, four years after surrender; the peace treaty with Japan was not signed until 1951.

as mentioned before, pre-mature democratic elections are not wise, because not only is the lack of stability in a recently liberated country a large threat, but there are also still supporters of the old regime in Iraq, some of which are terrorists that must be actively fought. Further, the former head of state has not yet been captured; if Saddam were caught, many Iraqis would certainly lose their deeply-rooted fear of this diabolic dictator that still overshadows them. This would certainly boost the forces in Iraq who want a democracy. If I were part of Iran's/Syria's/Saudi Arabia's government, I would therefore not only support the terrorists in Iraq by all (secret) means (because a stable democracy in the Islamic world is the biggest threat to the Mullah/dictator regimes in the ME), but I would also consider hiding or supporting Saddam.

Barone mentions another interesting thing that is often neglected (emphasis mine):

The media also have the wrong standard for what is news. It is news when there is a fatal accident at Disneyland and not news when there is not. But Iraq is not Disneyland. In a country that is occupied after decades of a brutal dictatorship, good news is news. Yet with only a few exceptions--see Michael Gordon's story in the New York Times on the 101st Airborne in northern Iraq--the good news is not being told. More than 6,000 Iraqi civil affairs units--local governments--have been set up. Hospitals have been reopened. A court system has been set up. Mistakes, inevitable in a chaotic world, are being corrected: A Baathist leader put in charge in Najaf was soon removed.

Only those incidents that are bad news are considered worthy of reporting in the lion's share of German media (Germans, btw, tend to never be content with anything; add this typical German trait to the media coverage as well). This creates the over-all impression that things are going very bad in Iraq when they are in fact not. And this kind of reporting in fact strenghthens anti-American tendencies, because it not only describes the US as belligerent but also as incompetent, both of wich is false. As Barone says, in a liberated country, "good news is news". Reporting good news from Iraq would not only create a more balanced view on affairs in Iraq, it would in fact be obligatory.

2003-09-15T04:15:00.000+02:00

Proxy wars?

In a powerful, strongly recommended in-depth analysis, Steven Den Beste dissects a recent statement by German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, where the latter states that American strategy (domino theory) in Iraq had failed (imagine that, it's not even half a year that the war in Iraq actually begun...), and that sovereignity should be swiftly handed over to the Iraqis themselves (and the UN, of course).

The question remains: is that true? Has the American strategy failed? In the German media landscape, this impression is certainly evoked. Nearly every time an American soldier dies in Iraq, the media here focus on it; further, the "immense" costs of the Iraq campaign are mentioned (while our own economy is in shambles) and TV channels show angry Iraqis shouting and seething at US soldiers, but only very seldom are thankful Iraqis presented. What the German media does not mention is two things.

First, what actually do the Iraqis themselves think about their future, about their liberation and allied troops? Den Beste mentions a recent survey, in which Karl Zinsmeister describes astonishing results (emphasis mine):

- Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32 percent say things will become much better.
- The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. [...] critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. [...]
- Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37 percent of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28 percent. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. [...]
- Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33 percent want an Islamic government; a solid 60 percent say no. [...]
- Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43 percent said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears.

The survey results were published on 10th September in Wall Street Journal, still I have not yet seen it being mentioned in any German media. And the results are very much not corresponding to the picture that is created here; I'd expect any attempt to democratize Iraq to be a rather bad idea and I would be forced to conclude leaving this uncontrollable, savage region alone were the best idea if I had to exclusively rely on German media.

Second, there are already effects taking place in the larger scope of the Arab world, too. Den Beste mentions an interesting article by Amir Taheri in the NY Post who mentions (emphasis mine):

- In Syria, President Bashar Assad has announced an end to 40 years of one-party rule by ordering the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party to no longer "interfere in the affairs of the government." The party is planning a long-overdue national conference to amend its constitution and, among other things, drop the word "socialist" from its official title. [...] "What we need is a space of freedom in which to think and speak without fear," says a leading Syrian economist. "Bashar knows that if he does not create that space, many Syrians will immigrate to Iraq and be free under American rule." [...]"I decided to leave Iran and settle in Iraq where the Americans have created a space of freedom," Hussein Khomeini says. "The coming of freedom to Iraq will transform the Muslim world." [...] Saudi Arabia is also feeling the effects of Iraqi regime change. Last month King Fahd ordered the creation of a Center for National Dialogue where "issues of interest to the people would be debated without constraint." The center will be open to people from all religious communities, including hitherto marginalised Shi'ites. More importantly, the gender apartheid, prevalent in other Saudi institutions, will be waived to let women participate.

Obviously, the liberation of Iraq had very positive effects on both the Iraqi people and the Arab world. The fact that Germany and France resisted to this war in Iraq, combined with their wish to hand the power to the Iraqi people (and the UN) as fast as possible reveals several things.

Den Beste mentions that a swift hand-over would certainly enable a new form of dictatorship right now (indirectly supported by the UN - of which Iraqis have a very bad opinion - by doing nothing), which would be a complete failure for the US and for the democratization in the ME, which is the only possibility to bring long-term stability to the region. Democracies don't fight each other. Dictatorships and other forms of totalitarian states are always a risk to neighbouring nations. The question must be asked why France and Germany do not share this long-term stability plan, which worked fine in Europe?

In my opinion, the answer is that there is already a kind of proxy war in and for the ME region taking shape, and it is taking place between the US and the EU. John Fonte mentions (emphasis mine):

A white paper issued by the EC suggests that this unaccountability is one reason for its success:"[the] "essential source of the success of European integration is that [it] is_independent from national, sectoral, or other influences." This "democracy deficit" represents a moral challenge to EU legitimacy. [...] Two Washington lawyers, Lee Casey and David Rivkin, have argued that the EU ideology that "denies the ultimate authority of the nation-state" and transfers policy making from elected representatives to bureaucrats "suggests a dramatic divergence" with "basic principles of popular sovereignty once shared by both Europe's democracies and the United States."

Unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats... who are already responsible for much everyday legislation in every EU country (and Sweden just escaped a direct fiscal slavery)... doesn't it sound a bit like some benevolent moderate future "Mullahs"? Very thin ice I'm treading on, but I feel the EU shows many more structural similarities with a non-democratic entity than the US does. Which not only places the EU geographically, but also ideologically closer to the Arab world.

Further, there is the question of Israel. Israel government recently announced to get rid of Arafat. German media appeared to not be happy that the leader of Hamas - whose aim, btw, is the destruction of Israel and the obliteration of all Jews, if we look at the Hamas Convent and his very own deeds - was actually correctly described as an obstacle to peace. But to remove him, the unelected president and oldest terrorist? The horror!

Paradoxically, on one hand, the EU seems to not want stability and peace in the vicinity of Israel (e.g. by richly sponsoring Arafat), which the US and Israel aspire (for obvious reasons); on the other hand, the EU desires stability in the region of Iraq (which implied defending a dictatorship), whereas the US (and Israel) see a democracy as their strategic goal, which implies some turbulences during the process of transformation but which provides reliable stability in the long term.

I think only one position deserves support...

2003-09-13T21:37:00.000+02:00

Why the German Gutmensch doesn't understand 9-11

The German Gutmensch [literally "good-man"; those who are fundamentalist/extremist PC, want to prevent and stop all wars everywhere and now, dismantle all armies world-wide etc.] is a fascinating being. Henryk M. Broder (in German) mentions a very interesting discussion with a prototype Gutmensch, who seriously expresses his horror at the "murder" of Uday and Qusey Hussein, stating things like (own translation):

We believe the originator of this murder is the US-president. We are appalled by the state of the world. We mourn the numerous victims of this and any other war against humanity.

Uday and Qusey Hussein, the adornments of humanity, murdered with utmost cruelty! The question remains: what are the constituents of such a grotesquely distorted thinking? I'll try to focus on German pacifism, which features some national peculiarities.

First, the "Bombennächte" (bombing nights) have left deep marks in the consciousness of the Germans. The specific German problem resides in fading out the reasons for those. Considering the bombing nights as the worst things (and - consequently - considering every war as the worst thing, without reflecting the case for war at all) not only fades out the timeless horror of the holocaust, it also greatly diminishes the understanding of the reasons why Germany had to be attacked. Unconsciously (sometimes consciously), this cognitive strategy of protection fulfills two goals: it helps to neglect the horrors of the holocaust - and it enables a self-perception of being a "victim" of war (especially cynical in the German case as a general judgement). As a consequence, wars are universally perceived as unjustified - because the main focus lies with the victims and the devastation, not with the case for war. I don't want to sound belligerent, war is indeed horrible - but the alternative at times is much more horrible and unbearable. Nevertheless, in the Gutmensch perception, facts like Uday's arbitrary slaughterings, rapes and torture parties as well as Saddam's poison gas attacks of the Kurds (to but mention a few of their deeds) shrink to irrelevance compared to the nameless horrors the victims of war. The fact that all countries (except France) who signed the letter of eight in support of the United States were under Nazi reign is remarkable, because they know that there are worse things than war.

Second, I'd like to remark on a quotation from Matthias Küntzel, a German political scientist whose focus lies on Jihad and anti-Semitism (emphasis mine):

It is just this mission of purification and salvation, however, which gives[...] Islamistic antisemitism an eliminatory quality which creates a hatred of Jews that is even stronger [than] [...] the fear of death. The well-known scholar of Islam and muslim, Bassam Tibi, has accuratly critizied that nobody in Germany really wants to see [...] or [...] learn about this anitsemite dimension of 9/11. He wrote: "Unless the German public is prepared to confront this threat of antisemitsm in an adequate (appropriate) way (manner) it won't be possible to resume that it really understood the lessons of Germany's past."

To underline the importance of this statement, one must be aware of some core concepts of Al-Qaeda. I'll try to give a short historical overview (from Matthias Küntzel, "Djihad und Judenhass" [Djihad and Jew-hate], ca ira 2003).

Al-Qaeda has strong roots in the so-called Muslim Brotherhood (founded 1928), which never openly cooperated with the Nazis, but shared its deeply-rooted anti-Semitism. But another individual who later cooperated with the Brotherhood - Amin el-Husseini, the diabolic Mufti of Jerusalem (and relative to Arafat) - strongly cooperated with the Nazis during WW2 in order to kill as many Jews as possible. He elaborated the large amount of parallels between Nazi ideology and Islamism (e.g. monotheism, obedience and discipline, fight for honor, collective above individual - and the most important: anti-Semitism, the most important pillar of today's Islamism); el-Husseini was a great admirer of Hitler and went to Berlin several times (and there are many more relations between Nazism and Islamism). It was also this Mufti who killed or intimidated all rivals who wanted a peaceful solution with the Jews when Palestine was to be divided after WW2. Interesting enough, the Mufti was never punished for his genocidal, anti-Semitic deeds and phantasies (Simon Wiesenthal, in 1947, described him as a "not yet exploded bomb").

Later, on 18th August 1988, the Covenant of Hamas was signed, where we find statements like

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

By reading further through this Covenant, it becomes obvious that the goal of Hamas is not only to destroy Israel which is a "disease" in the Dar-al Islam (House of Islam = Arabic world), but also to kill all Jews world-wide (and, of course, Islamic world domination); again, anti-Semitism is pervading the whole document, and again anti-Semitism is the main pillar of Hamas, which regards itself as the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood.

Coming back to al-Qaeda: Osama bin Laden studied at Djidda University (Saudi Arabia), where his teacher, the Palestinian Azzam, preached Djihad and martyrdom above everything. 1982, these two founded the "Mudjahidihin Service Bureau" in Peshawar, Pakistan; Osama bin Laden here created an index of all Djihad-fighters, and he also created the "House of the Prophet companions" here, which was later-on known as al-Qaeda ("the basis"). Al-Qaeda has close ties with Hamas. Many Hamas cadres were "educated" in Afghanistan, and there were repeated large pro al-Qaeda celebrations in the Gaza strip after 9-11 (in Nablus, 3000 persons - on 9-11 - quickly assembled and chanted "God is great" and celebrated al-Qaeda). At the same time, al-Qaeda's picture of the USA is based on anti-Semitism as well (New York as the secret Jewish capital; Jews secretly control the USA; the USA is responsible for the bad economic and life conditions the Muslim world). Further, the USA is seen as being "at the top of all criminals" because it "created the 50-year-old crime of creating Israel".

After 9-11, the EU was not capable of connecting the dots. Hamas and al-Qaeda were and are seen as two distinct entities, when they in fact are closely linked. Only this allows the Gutmenschen in Germany to perceive the Palestinian terror against civilians as a "fight for liberation", while at the same time those who warn of the terrors of Islamism are considered "haters" and "warmongers". Die Zeit describes the EU's ME policy (translated by Stefan Sharkansky):

The EU is proud of its policy of equidistance between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But while they criticize Premier Ariel Sharon's occupation policy, his settlement policy and his reluctance for peace, they ignore Arafat's turnaround. Nobody wants to destroy the image of the freedom fighter with the keffiyeh, as far from reality as it is. Some don't want to shatter the symbolic figure of the left, others don't want to lose their last negotiating partner. The outcome of this policy is the refusal to supply spare parts for Israel tanks, and at the same time the months-long refusal to reconsider Arafat's budgetary support.

A third and final point is mentioned in an excellent article by Pascal Bruckner (emphasis mine):

For the last half century, Europe has been haunted by the demons of repentance. Ruminating over its past crimes-slavery, imperialism, fascism, communism-it has seen its history as nothing but a long litany of murder and rapine culminating in two world wars. The typical European man or woman is a sensitive creature always prepared to feel pity for the sufferings of the world and to assume responsibility for them, always asking what the North can do for the South rather than what the South can do for itself. [...] Europe's true crime is not only what it did in the past, but what it fails to do today: its inaction in Yugoslavia, its scandalous delay in Rwanda, its frightening silence in the face of the massacres in Chechnya. Obsessive attention to past abominations has blinded us to the horrors of the present. Repentance is not a policy, and the continent of Europe cannot model its relationship to the past on that of Germany. Neither the status of victim nor that of executioner is hereditary. The duty to remember implies nothing about the purity or guilt of descendants.

This is what one might describe as why German public opinion is imprisoned by PC. On one hand, as mentioned above, we have the over-pronounciation of victimhood, on the other hand, we have the "never again!"-line of reasoning which is applied like a reflex to any possible threat. Bruckner mentions another reason why German Gutmenschen oppose war (emphasis mine):

Europe suffers from two complexes about its American "protector": the debtor's complex and the Peter Pan complex. Western Europe knows that without American help in the last century, it would have been wiped off the map or colonized by Soviet troops. But some expressions of generosity are forms of insult. The Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization increased the debt, and America was guilty even of the help it gave us. Even today, we still have the vague sense that in the case of serious trouble, our security depends more or less on our Yankee big brother. Nevertheless, we criticize him for subjugating our continent. We delight in casting all our sins onto this ideal scapegoat, because everything that goes wrong in the world can be laid at Washington's door. In the imagination of many intellectuals and political leaders, America plays the role the Jews once did in National Socialist demonology. Yet we do nothing to free ourselves from American domination. Quite the contrary. We persist in our refusal to grow up and assume our responsibilities.

Bruckner hits the nail on the head: German public opinion, like that of a child, is bashing the US for its policy, for subjugating and conquering other countries, just like Europe is "subjugated". On the other hand, Europe is incapable of defending itself, and refuses to be capable of doing so. Instead, luxurious welfare states are reluctantly and slowly dismantled. Especially German Gutmenschen - in a kind of ahistorical obsession - perceive the US engagement in Iraq as world domination. Little do they reflect on any alternative, or little do they try to remember history, which makes their criticism sound very hollow and in fact childish.

CONCLUSION: German Gutmenschen should consider those points carefully, i.e.

- there are worse things than war, and wars can be necessary;
- the anti-Semite roots of 9-11 must be faced - only by doing so will Germany be able to fully face its past, which implies to stop the support for mass-murdering Hamas;
- it is necessary to act in the face of terror and tyranny instead of hesitating due to historically comprehensible but wrong reasons.

The only valid conclusion that can be drawn is staunch support for Israel and the United States.

P.S.: I won't be able to blog in the next week, lots to do, but I hope I provided some food for thought...

UPDATE: Scott mentions a good translation for Gutmensch, capturing its meaning: "bleeding heart liberal".

2003-09-12T18:58:00.000+02:00

Updates to "Der Spiegel loses credibility"

Reader markus feels he debunked a conspiracy hell-bent on "smearing" der Spiegel. If interested, read the updates of this post. Markus rightly mentions that der Spiegel debunks those conspiracy theories, after lengthily presenting them in detail; as for me, I drew a false conclusion from a short abstract of the article (before reading it), which sounded like an uncritical presentation of those ideas. I jumped the gun and apologize for this conclusion. Still, der Spiegel is known for distorting facts and latent (sometimes undisclosed) anti-Americanism. See here.

2003-09-12T13:48:00.000+02:00

German schadenfreude revisited

Before starting off, I'd like to mention that yesterday, a Neo-Nazi plot with the aim to bomb the Jewish center in Munich (and other buildings) was foiled by police. They had 1.7 kilograms of TNT. Appaling and frightening.

Today, the Spectator published a fine article by Andrew Gimson, concerning Schröder's exploitation of German anti-Americanism (Gimson is not part of the largely incestuous, navel-gazing German media landscape which is often more than coqueting with anti-Americanism). It is like fresh air in a stale room. Gimson writes (emphasis mine):

The Germans are becoming more receptive to all forms of anti-Americanism. A year ago 68 per cent of them still regarded a leading role for the Americans in foreign affairs as desirable, with only 27 per cent against: now 50 per cent of them reject such a role for the Americans, with only 45 per cent in favour. A venomous stream of anti-American and anti-Semitic resentment has burst forth in Germany during the Iraq crisis.

That is absolutely true. The greatest problem is that this anti-Americanism is so totally brainless; especially the younger adepts of the now-hip anti-Americanism (made fashionable by Schröder, during Bundestagswahl last year, where his anti-American stance saved his ass, in addition to managing a flood pretty well that devastated Eastern Germany) are starting to think when one discusses the Iraq issue with them. Once you get through their classically-conditioned shouting and propaganda salvoes, that is. Gimson also has something to say about Schröder's election stance (emphasis mine):

By using this rancid anti-Americanism to win re-election, Mr Schröder gave his blessing as Chancellor to it. One of the routed German Atlanticists, an eminent member of what used to be the foreign policy establishment, remarked to me on Monday that Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, would have been proud to unleash such hatred of America.

But most Germans appear to have sunk so low to not even notice this; most appear to discover a new self-esteem in proudly opposing the once highly-estimated country that liberated them or their parents from Nazism. Most Germans actually appear to be happy with the German way, and most appeared quite surprised with the fierce US reaction when SPD minister of justice Däubler-Gmelin compared Bush to Hitler. This is quite telling.
Elsewhere, Gimson mentions (emphasis mine):

Dr Jeffrey Gedmin, an American foreign policy expert who has often appeared on German television to argue the case for the invasion of Iraq, was amazed by the volume and bitterness of the hate mail he has received. "You Jew son of a whore, you are not welcome in this country, you and that nigger hyena Condoleezza Rice," was the sort of message sent to him by many of his correspondents. Dr Gedmin happens, incidentally, to be a Roman Catholic.

I have no words for such foul speech. I only hope the responsible persons are going to enjoy the consequences of their vile rant. What really shocks me though is that Gedmin states he received such diatribe form many of his correspondents. Gimson mentions Gedmin's quantifications (emphasis mine):

Dr Gedmin, who is director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin, estimates that about 10 per cent of his correspondents have actually thanked him for making the strategic case for what the Americans have done in Iraq - a case which few other people have had the temerity to express on German television. He reckons that a further 60 per cent of correspondents have attacked his views, but have done so in reasonably civil terms. Only about 30 per cent have descended to the rabidly anti-Semitic form of anti-Americanism.

Well, that's 90 per cent opposing his view, and it's only 30 per cent that were using a rabidly anti-Semitic form of anti-Americanism. Phew, I'm so relieved! I thought it was more. [sarcasm detector explodes] And to finally mention another everyday German tastelessness, Gimson mentions this (emphasis mine):

Another American who works in an office full of educated Germans said, 'With every American soldier that dies the schadenfreude is immense. Every day people come by my desk and say, "Isn't it great, Bush is coming crawling to Schröder now. Schröder won't get an invitation to the ranch at Crawford - George Bush is going to beg him to go there."'

This is completely sick, apart from being fundamentally wrong. Schröder only utilized the UN; before the Iraq war, he said, "Germany will participate under no circumstances", he even excluded participation under the sanctified UN mandate. And now, after the war is won, Schröder again denies help in Iraq - even in case of a UN mandate. This is interesting because it clearly shows Schröder and Chirac blatantly utilized the UN only as an obstacle to the US; concerning the UN itself, Jonathan Foreman mentions in the NY Post:

The truth is that many Iraqis distrust or even detest the U.N. And for good reason. It's not so much that they associate the U.N. with sanctions or weapons inspections. They associate it with incompetence, corruption and overfriendliness to dictators - most importantly, Saddam Hussein himself.

Obviously, Iraqis remember how Kofi Annan said Saddam was "a man who can be worked with", apart from Rwanda and Srebrenica. The question should be allowed what the role of the UN can be in the future; France and Germany cynically utilized it, the US rightly perceive it as a shield for tyrants and mass murderers. The only ones who must be fond of the UN are e.g. Lybia, recently heading the UN Human Rights Commission (joke? No...), and other such states.
Looking into the future, Gimson mentions there might be even a good outcome as Germany matures and emancipates itself. But he also says this outcome is not that likely, but rather another:

The Germans are going the way of the French, intent on a kind of European Gaullism that puts every possible obstacle in Washington's way. Unable to bear the reality of American power, they have opted instead to live in a world of illusions.

I'm still a bit more optimistic, I even think Gerrmany will come around in the long run. But the fact that Schröder has decided to closely team up with the French - while severely damaging the friendship with the US - will not only result in unpleasant consequences, but also turn out to be wrong. It's no wonder Germany does not want to send soldiers to Iraq - the Iraqis (not exclusively the terrorists among them) will certainly remember who opposed their liberation.

2003-09-11T15:40:00.000+02:00

Never forgive, never forget

It's been two years now since the black day. I feel the same shock and horror today that I felt that day.

I was doing an internship at an American company in Düsseldorf that day when one of my colleagues told me: "Something happened, please come to the conference room, there is a television." His voice was so serious that I followed him immediately.

When I entered the room, it was already crowded; about 30 people were sitting on chairs and tables around a TV in the centre, and there would have been a deathlike silence except for the news speaker - and the TV pictures. I remember perceiving the twin towers wrapped in a black cloud, and it was a terrible thing to behold. Then the first tower collapsed.

My stomach was a fist in my belly, and I noticed one American manager ran out; she was weeping, and others followed to comfort her. Everything felt unreal, and the pictures were repeated over and over again, when the second tower collapsed.

This was really too much for me, I needed some fresh air; a colleague went with me, and we didn't speak, we just went down and walked a bit on the street without noticing anything around. It was terrible. Some later, both of us looked at each other, and we know that an era ended, and that something horrible lay ahead of us; I say us, because I felt American in heart then (and do so now), and I was angry and shocked because I felt this was an attack on the heart of liberty, a vile assault on the hope of the world. It was in these dark hours that I chose sides (though I disagreed about Iraq in the meantime, but not so now).

The war on terror is nothing one can choose, because warfare has already begun. The only thing one can do now is to choose sides - the side of liberty, democracy and hope - or the other side. A heart-felt thank you to the US for facing the threat; for defending the virtues of freedom and civilisation; and for being the lighthouse of hope in dark times.

In 1775, Patrick Henry made a brilliant statement which could be applied today:

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Thank you, America.

P.S.: Davids Medienkritik (in German) notes that today, der Spiegel (in German) is concerned with the conditions the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have to suffer.

Further, I discovered that der Spiegel (in German) wrote - today as well - that helpers at the WTC site breathed a poisonous fog during their actions (should they have done nothing?). What a disgrace on this day, and what a disgrace this magazine has become.

UPDATE: Little Green Footballs mentions that celebration and joy were widely spread in Britain's Muslim community on 9-11-01. I had the pleasure to converse with a Muslim while sitting in the train on 9-12-01. The man - with a broad grin on his face, and obviously feeling exalted - tried to convince me this was what America "deserved" (that was the nicest he said). I chose to sit down somewhere else, because smashing his teeth would have been an improvement.

2003-09-09T19:32:00.000+02:00

Der Spiegel loses credibility

Reader grayp sent me this link to Eamonn Fitzgerald's Rainy Day that reveals der Spiegel's true mentality. Eamonn notes (emphasis mine):

Add the numbers in the date 11.09.2001 together and what do you get? 23! Add four hijacked planes + nineteen terrorists and what do you get? 23! What's the secret number of the Illuminati? 23! It is to this level of craziness that Der Spiegel has descended. It should not be regarded as a serious magazine anymore.

Well, actually, der Spiegel tried to deceive readers before; Papa Scott mentions how German exchange students were deliberately misquoted to provoke anti-American sentiment. It's disgusting; but it makes me sad as well, because I used to regard der Spiegel as a reliable news source. This incident is only the last straw. How very interesting that der Spiegel has a close cooperation with the NY Times...

UPDATE: due to reader requests, I've removed the automatic welcome bee. You can still hear it by clicking on the "Welcome!"-header in the sidebar.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Markus already mentioned that der Spiegel didn't try to deceive readers in its current issue as in the past; I just looked it up myself (no, don't worry, I didn't buy it), and it's true: conspiracy theories are debunked. Whether there is a systematic return to objectivity taking place is not clear - but I seriously doubt it.

STILL ANOTHER UPDATE: Wortfeld has a partial translation of the mentioned Spiegel article debunking conspiracy theories. I adhere to the opinion that the cover is offensive and disrespectful. Further, I think publicly debunking conspiracy theories is a two-edged sword; on the one hand, it dries out the soil of the paranoid, but on the other hand, it spreads those theories. In Germany's current atmosphere of widely-spread anti-Americanism (see this post), I doubt this is a good idea, it gives those morons way too much credit. One might draw a parallel to some 20 years ago, when some German youths started ranting that the victorious Allies had "installed" gas chambers after WW2. If der Spiegel presented these theories on 16 pages and then debunked them, it would be as nauseating.

LAST UPDATE (I promise): Here is the full translation of the mentioned article. Reader markus says we (Eamonn, Jeff Jarvis and I) were "smearing" der Spiegel. He obviously has no problem with the Spiegel cover, nor does he see the credibility of der Spiegel seriously threatened by the anti-American forgery mentioned above by Papa Scott.

2003-09-09T17:55:00.000+02:00

It's the ecology, stupid

Germany is probably the nation with the strongest environmentalist lobby in the world, and much ado about rubbish is taking place: Germans are required to separate their rubbish (paper; packages; bio-waste) as if there was nothing better to do. Last July, MSNBC already reported that cans in Germany might face extinction (emphasis mine):

"Trittin [Green party environment minister] sees the can as a symbol of ecological waste, a bad product to have when you care about the environment," says Hanno Fiedler, head of Ball Packaging Europe, Europe's second largest maker of drinks cans, who has just had the worst six months of his career. The cause of his distress is a new deposit of between 25 and 50 cents that has been levied on most recyclable cans and bottles since January. The deposit in effect doubles the retail price of the drinks and the rationale for imposing it shows how far Germany has gone in pursuit of environmentally sound practices.

Though I'm not an objectivist, I must say the Ayn Rand Institute has a point there:

With a doomsday mentality reminiscent of Dark Age fanatics, environmentalists place every possible legal (and illegal) roadblock in the way of new inventions and economic development, from the local to the international level. If environmentalism is successful in its assault on Western values, your life on earth will become increasingly difficult, as your wealth and freedom slowly decrease.

Indeed, this can deposit in times of severe crisis is ridiculous and cynical, nothing but a roadblock for economy and consumers (I stopped buying cans entirely, because I always threw them away until I realized that this is expensive...). What are the effects of this new can deposit? MSNBC continues (emphasis mine):

More than retailers, however, the victims of this situation are the can manufacturers. Beverage Can Makers Europe (BCME) says that 7.2 billion cans were sold in Germany last year, more than half of them containing beer. The market is worth about $656 million a year and Ball Packaging Europe, which is based in Ratingen, has about half of it. The association estimates that sales of cans in Germany fell by about 50 percent in the first half of this year. Ball Packaging Europe, which sold 13 billion cans in 2002, saw its German sales drop by 60 percent. The 1,000 employees in its four German plants are now working part-time.

Now, we will have 5 million unemplyoed this winter, and Trittin obviously is hell-bent on adding some more, because of his ideological obsession - the can as the enemy. I cannot even laugh anymore at this nonsense. But it's not only the can manufacturers that suffer beneath this idiocy, says MSNBC (emphasis mine):

Some of the biggest names in the German beer industry - already in less than robust shape - are reeling from the impact of a 30-60 cent deposit on recyclable cans and bottles that came into effect in January, writes Joanna Chung. The companies with greatest exposure to cans - Hannen, Holsten, Oettinger, Radeberger and Brau & Brunnen - are being hit the hardest. First-quarter volumes in the German beer market were down 9.1 percent owing to a 60-70 percent drop in sales of canned beer, according to investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston. The most optimistic outlook for a year is for a 5 percent decline in volume.

So, what's basically happening here is that a minister whose mind obviously is distorted by his compulsive obsession with protecting the environment™ from harm deliberately hurts the already feeble German economy. And the most ridiculous is the German tendency to create an intransparent bureaucratic event out of everything, says the Guardian:

The deposit only applies to fizzy drinks and not to flat drinks: customers have to pay a deposit on a can of the popular Apfelschorle (apple juice mixed with sparkling water) but don't have to if they buy a simple apple juice. Likewise the thirsty pedestrian has to pay a deposit for a can of cola, but not for a can of pre-mixed whisky cola. "Why is still apple juice less environmentally damaging than sparkling apple juice?" asks one producer. "Yet cans of still apple juice have no deposit, while sparkling does."

But the good thing is: I'm not the only one who seems to be fed up with this nonsense, the Guardian notes (emphasis mine):

Few consumers have bothered to get their money back after buying a thirst-quenching drink during this summer's heat wave. According to a recent ministry of economic affairs study 80% of deposits are unclaimed and by the end of October €450m [...] will have piled up in shopkeepers' tills - equivalent to 1.8bn cans that have simply been thrown away.

A minister who is not in touch with reality anymore should be fired immediately, and so should the lunatics who try to impose such idiotic laws. And you would not believe how many they are.

2003-09-05T21:27:00.000+02:00

Old Europe plays out

Recently, France and Germany decided to reject a US proposal to add international troops to the US-led occupation of Iraq. In FAZ Weekly, Michael Gavin mentions that German opposition criticised Schröder for this:

Merkel [German opposition leader] said Schröder's unequivocal declaration last summer that Germany would not take part in any war against Iraq had limited the country's diplomatic leverage and damaged German-U.S. relations. "And here we have another of these moves, where things are laid down very quickly," she added. "I don't like it."

I don't like it either, especially because there are already successful collaborations taking place, more of that later.

Interesting enough, Powell mentioned according to Yahoo! News:

If they [Schröder and Chirac] have suggestions, we'd be more than happy to listen to those suggestions.

This is an interesting statement that in a way captures the quandary the US faces at the moment. Even though Iraq was liberated in an incredibly swift and professional way, the after-war scenario is unstable and uncontrolled, with nearly daily US army casualties. The US costs of 4 bio. $ every month are another argument in favor of letting other nations participate in a peace-keeping mission in Iraq. But Chirac and Schröder have decided to stick to their Non/Nein. They are playing out.

In die Zeit (print edition), Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff mentions the following three options to increase security and stability in Iraq (own translation):

- Send more US troops;
- Recruit more Iraqi security personnel;
- Let UN participate and increase the amount of allied troops.

But then, Kleine-Brockhoff dissects each point - the US military is already strained; assembling an Iraqi security system takes too much time, Iraq would fall into chaos; and many armies are strained as well (Britain, Poland, Germany, etc.) or might become "part of the problem" (Turkey, Pakistan, India).
As mentioned before, Europe seems to perceive the threat from Islamism differently in terms of quantity, not quality (of course, the question remains: when does a certain quantity turn into quality?). William Drozdiak notes in the Washington Post (emphasis mine):

While Americans feel acutely vulnerable in the global war against terrorism and no longer enjoy the sense of protection once afforded by two oceans and a vast land mass, Europeans feel perhaps more secure than at any time in their history. For four centuries, every generation of young Germans and French prepared to wage war against each other. That prospect is now simply unthinkable. With the waning of the Balkan wars and rapid integration of Russia with the West, Europeans generally believe they face no serious security threat -- unless they are dragged into conflict elsewhere by the United States.

Europe tends to play down 9-11 and its consequences, although EuroPundits states in a great post [referring to a survey mentioned in the Washington Post and International Herald tribune] that there are more parallels in the perception of the war on terror between the US and Europe than one imagines; e.g. (emphasis mine)

Think about the following: they [Europeans] do not seem to be worried about Kyoto, the ICC (International Criminal Court), Global Warming, Genetically Modified Food, the absence (for the time being) of WMDs in Iraq, the hegemony of Hollywood, Pop Music and the English language, Arabophobia or Islamophobia, the Jewish/Zionist takeover or world media and finances. In short, not one of the fashionable causes preached by their own establishments has changed the fact that, when it comes to identify real existential dangers, they're still able to see through the ideological fog.

So far, so good. Let us assume a significant amount of Europeans is aware of the threat of Islamism, among them, of course, Old Europe's leaders. Further, an Iraq that is unstable and infiltrated by Islamists is not in Europe's interest at all (I even think Europeans prefer stability in that region over democracy, with all its labor pains; therefore, the - cynical - refusal to liberate Iraq, among other reasons mentioned). The question then is: why doesn't Old Europe jump on the bandwagon now?

The always brilliant Steven Den Beste mentions the key question (emphasis mine):

The real question, then, is whether Bush has become sufficiently desperate that he's willing to actually give the UN enough power over the situation so that it can prevent reform from taking place, and that is what most commentators have debated, fearfully or hopefully, over the last couple of weeks.

Indeed. France and Germany say they would join peace-keeping in an UN framework, and Powell has shown some plight in asking "what do you want?" - because the price in lives and money is dire, though I say: hats off to the United States for this sacrifice. But the US need support, and even though France and Germany want a stable Iraq, they also want their share of influence - and they shamelessly raise the price. They are playing out, because it won't get better quickly in Iraq - if nothing happens, the situation in Iraq with nearly daily casualties and high costs could threaten a reelection of President Bush, although the Democrats will probably not nominate Lieberman who appears determined to continue the war on terror. And a destabilized Iraq would not only threaten Bush's reelection, but a failure in Iraq would also be seen as a signal by al-Qaeda and other terrorists to continue their mission by force. This is in nobody's interest.

An interesting solution to this situation is presented by Constanze Stelzenmüller in die Zeit (in German), pointing to what is already taking place (emphasis mine; own translation):

But there is a model [for the situation in Iraq] - although it can still be improved: at present it is practised in Afghanistan. Under the label"Operation Enduring Freedom", a US-led coalition fights against Taliban and al-Qaeda at the Afghan border (German KSK combat troops also participate, by the way). At the same time, a multinational troop called Isaf, led by NATO [...], provides stability in Kabul. [...] This is what a reasonable division of labor could look like in Iraq as well: specialized combat troops would fight Baathists, Saddam loyalists and infiltrated terrorists; meanwhile, a multinational troop would provide security and peace in the population. Exactly here, the Europeans have much experience to offer after ten years of peacekeeping on the Balkans [...]

This would be an interesting solution in my eyes - why not continue a successful collaboration? It is in both US and Europe's/Russians interest to bring stability and democracy to Iraq. The fight behind the curtains is who will have how much to say in Iraq, because Iraq is only the beginning. It is a fight taking place on the backs of courageous US soldiers and their allies - and on the backs of the Iraqis. In a way, the future relationships between the US and Europe will decide in the Middle East.

2003-09-02T00:11:00.000+02:00

Is Microsoft getting nervous already?

Last May, the city of Munich has decided to migrate its entire computer network to Linux, even Steven Ballmer interrupting his skiing holidays couldn't prevent that. Well, one might say, that's only 14.000 computers, which is peanuts if we think in Microsoft categories (though its a symbolic action, and some other cities here have already followed Munich's example). But now, a real big thing is taking shape at the horizon: Japan, China and South Korea seriously consider creating their own Windows replacement, probably based on Linux technology as well, even though Japan's Trade and Industry Minister Takeo Hiranuma, according to Yahoo News, said:

Open-source software represented by Linux is solid in terms of their core software, but their peripheral software for such functions as word processing, spreadsheet and printing are not.

Well, I must say I have experimented with OpenOffice for some time now, it appears to be OK for everyday Office activities (I haven't yet tried to create complicated calculations or create macros). I agree with Mr Hiranuma that still some development is needed (but then, we're actually facing OpenOffice 1.1, I've never encountered any program that was so mature at version 1.1, especially not a Microsoft product).
If an alternative of this scope was realized, this would not be peanuts, but several hundred million users. And Asia, especially China has large growth rates (excluding Japan for now in terms of growth rates, not in terms of computer systems). The interesting thing is why those states consider a change, Yahoo News quotes Mr Hiranuma (emphasis mine):

It is important to provide (electronics) users' with options -- some people may want to use Windows as it is convenient while others may want an open-source software due to concern over security and costs.

So, apart from the price, the recent computer viruses are taking their toll; it seems some people are really disturbed by the security holes in Windows. As for me, I'm content with regularly (automatically) updating my XP sytem, plus my Virus scanner, and I've closed all unnecessary ports. I've not yet had any problems with a Virus or anything else, though I must say I've already curiously looked over the shoulder of some Linux fans, and I liked what I saw...

UPDATE: To all those who hear "voices" now when visiting this site - no, it's not due to inhaling paint thinner, having slept badly or being overworked. I've implemented a "welcome bee", saying "welcome to the bee-hive"; you can hear this bee by clicking on the "Welcome"-header in the sidebar as well. If this busy, ever-friendly welcome bee bothers you, I'll remove the automatic welcome (of course, you can also turn down the volume as well).

2003-09-01T16:46:00.000+02:00

Confessions - a rant

I recently remembered my first entry over at Little Green Footballs, which strikes me as the best weblog, and I admit I had to grin at what I read. A lot of thinking and reading has changed my position, but I'd like to give an as short as possible report on how and why I changed my opinion concerning the case for war in Iraq.

My first suspicions about German politicians were awakened long before I changed my opinion, by Slo-Mo (very slow speaker) politician Rudolf Scharping, who made a horrible statement, according to AJC (emphasis mine):

If further proof were needed that the climate had turned nasty, it was provided by Rudolf Scharping, Schröder's former defense minister, who reportedly stated, at a meeting in Berlin on August 27, 2002, that President Bush was being encouraged to go to war against Iraq by a "powerful-perhaps overly powerful-Jewish lobby" in the United States. In Scharping's formulation, reminiscent of older, far-right claims about excessive Jewish power, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism come together as common bedfellows.

This statement rumbled through my brain the whole day, because of its impertinence. But, as already discussed, the left is dangerously blind on the eye of anti-Semitism, though Scharping's comment could have been uttered in the 1930's.
Further, in the days prior to Bundestagswahl (elections), I was disgusted by the comments of Schröder's party fellows Däubler-Gmelin, who compared Bush to Hitler, and Ludwig Stiegler, who compared Bush to an Imperialist Roman Emperor (I even wrote an e-mail to the White House to express my horror at those "comparisons"). Even though I was disgusted by those words - because I've always been a great fan and friend of the US - I shared the position that a war was not inevitable, but could be avoided if Saddam complied to the now-famous UN resolution 1441. So, I thought, let's look at one of those hawkish weblogs and give them some heat. Little did I know that I would be royally grilled, first because my knowledge was thin, second because I over-simplified matters, and third because I naively idealized the UN's role (I must admit that it took all my patience to not counter-insult some who provided me with nasty slurs).
This experience really made me think hard. Was the German position - to which I unknowingly clung - really wrong? Hadn't we, the Germans, learned from history that belligerence leads to endless woe (this one really amazed me over at LGF - a German was verbally assaulted for not going to war...)? Why should Germany participate in a war without a threat to be seen on the horizon?
I read, and learned a lot concerning this issue. Not only did I look up facts, but I also reflected on the different mindsets between America and Europe. I'll try to give a short summary of what I think were key points that let me hold a moderate pacifist opinion in the past (in no particular order):

- One-sidedness of German media
- Understimation of 9-11's impact on American psyche
- Idealization of the UN
- Thin knowledge concerning the issue
- An US administration utilizing "straight talk"
- Perception of US foreign policy as "egoistic".

I'll try to go through these points. Concerning one-sidedness of German media, I already wrote about this issue before; there was no paper, TV channel or other medium here that backed the US openly; the friendliest thing was mild criticism.
As to underestimation of 9-11's impact on American psyche, I must say this factor was and is largely neglected as well. From the many American blogs/papers/e-mails I've read, I conclude most Americans experience 9-11 as one of the most important turning points in their history; not only on a political but also on an emotional level (many feel threatened by terrorism). Plus, there is an not often paraphrased emotion of hurt pride and being disenchanted, because the USA was seen before as one of the most secure places in the world. This view was buried under the dust of the world trade center, and it is a painful memory. In the first weeks after 9-11, all European countries showed great support for the US and made sincere statements, like Peter Struck said on 9-11: "today, we are all Americans". This support was shown in Afghanistan too, but then collapsed - Afghanistan appears to have been judged in Europe as a "just war", while the war on Iraq was perceived as an "unjust" war. Why? The average European might say, "well, Afghanistan was home of the Taliban, a brutal regime that hosted terrorists, and Osama bin Laden - they must pay for their horrible deeds. But Iraq is different - no connections to al Qaeda, a dictator, OK, but one who is weak and and least provides a stabel government". What a cynical statement and attitude! Europeans tend to fade out the world out there, many here just don't care about foreign policy and condemn everything that "disturbs" the current world order. Little do they know that asymmetrical warfare has been going on for years.
As to the idealization of the UN, I'll just point to an excellent post by Stormin Norman that helps clarify things.
My thin knowledge concerning the issue needed to be worked on too. I visited lots of weblogs to get information that is systematically faded out in German/European media. I wanted to read the opinions of those who supported the war in Iraq, and I largely had to rely on US media, like National Review or the aforementioned weblogs. This helped me to recognize what situation we are in, and how to best cope with it. Islamism and radical Islam are the greatest thrat of our times, if one says this phrase in Germany, there are not few who immediately fall prey to pre-installed German PC mode, stating "racist! you overgeneralize!" etc. Let them rant, I draw - just like the brilliant scholar on the matter, Daniel Pipes - a distinct line between Islam and Islamism. Remember I am discussing things from a German perspective, in Israel, realities are a bit different. Back to Germany, it appears as if the realization of this threat - not only on the level of the government, which has already taken some action, but also on the level of the population - must be achieved first. And the more information one gathers, the clearer become the parallels between Nazism (which the left is so proud of fighting) and islamism (which the left strangely ignores). And it becomes clearer that it is useless to negotiate with Islamists because they are fundamentalists who care about treaties only as long as they deem them useful. They are irrational - something the Kreml never was, depsite all the pompous ideological circus. The USA have shown that there is only one way how to deal with irrational fundamentalists whose goal is to destroy all who don't fit their distorted ideology.
The US administration utilizing "straight talk"-point is typical European. Europeans have criticised the US forever, and the US - being the biggest guy around - suffered this teasing, like a parent suffers the teasing of a child. But when the child becomes too annoying, the parent says "now it's enough!" (like these Hitler-comparisons, which are so brainless and ahistorical that it pains me even now). I am aware that there has always been some anti-European attitude in the US too. But the larger parts of criticism and insults seems to stem from a powerless Europe doomed to watch history in the making by others, a role that especially France has difficulties with; the British have deeper and stronger bonds than any other European country with the US, though Germany used to be called the "most America-friendly nation in Europe" by Newsweek in the past (print edition).
The final point - perception of US foreign policy as "egoistic" - is equally strange. All those arguments about "oil", "Bush's revenge" etc. are so superficial and ridiculous. Despite the debunked forgery of Saddam Hussein trying to actively acquire Uran, there is certainly more, undisclosed evidence that he really wanted WMDs. It would be completely foolish though to make all intelligence information public, not only because it is (in certain situations) unlawful but because it would greatly aid the other side. The reason for war was that Saddam Hussein was did not fulfill UN resolution 1441, he wouldn't disarm and played cat and mouse. This, of course, gave him time. Disarming Saddam was not only increasing security for the US (Saddam would certainly have loved to sell WMDs to anybody harming the US or Israel), but also for Europe (who, actually, is in the vicinity of Iraq?). What was not at all mentioned up to now is, of course, the Iraqi people, which according to those in favour of appeasement should have suffered some more.

I hope I haven't lost the plot somewhere up there! But perhaps this rant helps some to understand the position of a staunch European supporter of the US, who reached his current opinion through thoroughly analyzing facts.

P.S.: I won't blog much in the next week, there are even other things beside blogging that need to be done...

2003-08-31T20:50:00.000+02:00

More socialism watch

Today, the IG Metall, Germany's second-largest and influential trade union, elected a traditional hardliner, Jürgen Peters, as its new chairman, though he received the worst result in 40 years (66 percent) because he was largely responsible for the desastrous strike defeat in East Germany. Peters, according to Michael Fichter (all bold type by me),

wanted to strengthen his recognition and position via a successful strike, but was thwarted by the supporters of Huber [a moderate] [...] who blocked the needed extension of the strike to western Germany.

Concerning Peters' bad result, the BBC notes:

The size of the opposition to him reflects the divisions within IG Metall, spawned largely by Germany's economic plight, which has raised the necessity of long-postponed reform.

And my clue™-sense is tickling again too, if we consider what Deutsche Welle says:

[...] recent surveys show that most German citizens are sceptical towards the union's policies and find them too outdated and counterproductive.

One day before his election, Peters blathered some more; according to Deutsche Welle, he was...

[...] saying they [Schröder's reforms] would "further strangle the economy" and would not lead to any more jobs. "It is not ending unfairness, it is creating new justices," Peters said. The reforms include cuts in unemployment benefits and making it easier for companies to fire workers.

Well, if one gets a job here, one is practically a civil servant; Germany has one of the most rigid employment markets world-wide. There are many medium-sized enterprises who would love to hire new workers right now, but they don't because they cannot get rid of them in bad order situations. At the same time, collective bargaining - one, if not the remaining core competency of trade unions in Germany - totally neglects the financial situations of relevant enterprises, which leads to a bleeding-out of financially chipped enterprises (because they have to pay the same raises as financially stronger enterprises). Exceptions to this rule - and bargaining on the level of the enterprise concerned - are rare and difficult to achieve.

The irony is that it might be exactly Peters the hardliner who is incapable of blocking the reforms that he so urgently wants to prevent, utilizing socialistic reflexes. Stephen Silvia points out:

[...] the election of Jürgen Peters may actually increase the odds that the Chancellor's reform package will pass with only minor modifications. Why? Both Peters and the president of the German trade union confederation (DGB), Michael Sommer, are traditionalists. They demand preservation of the status quo, and offer no viable alternative vision for reducing unemployment in Germany. The traditionalist labor wing within the Chancellor's Social Democratic Party is also significant, but without a credible set of alternative proposals for improving the performance of the German labor market, it is difficult to see how they can out argue the reform proponents behind the Chancellor. As a result, the conservative "Hände weg!" position of German labor may produce political fireworks that may be of symbolic value to some union leaders, but it is unlikely to derail the reforms themselves. By choosing confrontation over cooperation, labor has less influence over the content of the reforms because it is no longer at the drafting table.

I hope Silvia is right, but I guess Peters will revive the ancient Klassenkampf-schemes and other socialistic routines to keep his organization "alive" - and to compensate for the loss of credibility. Either way, whether the IG Metall decides to block "reforms" here or not, there probably will be some development - and it appears the days of moloch-unions stuck in the seventies are numbered.

UPDATE: I've noted comments are limited to 400 characters now (after 1.000 in the first two trial weeks). Thanks to all who stomached this constraint - I'm already looking for a solution, so backrants can reach the due length.

ANOTHER UPDATE: For those interested, Tobias Schwarz has an interesting post concerning Peters and IG Metall.

2003-08-29T23:04:00.000+02:00

The German disease?

Despite a German economic sentiment indicator rising for the eighth month in a row, German economy has been in a slight recession for the first two quarters of the year; further, German budget deficit will be 3.8 percent this year, clearly violating the 3 percent ceiling of the EU stability pact.

One might ask why the former European economic powerhouse is about to grind to a halt, and (probably) joins the ranks of Japan, i.e. plunges into a longer recession. In my opinion, there are several reasons for this. First, we have still the wide-spread mindset of the Besitzstandswahrer (those who defend their own benefits and possessions at all cost). In an interesting BBC report, Anne Steeb mentions:

They all say, "Please don't take money from me, I want everything to change but please nothing from me, give me more". I think that's the problem. We had this system with the benefits and everything for so long that nobody wants to get out of this. They say, "OK, after my generation you can do it but not now".

Indeed. Reforms? Great! But hands off from my money, or else. This is one fundamental thing that must be altered, either people get the clue™ now, or it will be hammered into their minds by economic realities. But then, recent German governments have often only reacted, but never anticipated. I know honesty about unpleasant realities is uncommonly wide-spread in all governments of the world, but the German government is particularly obstinate.

There is another reson that is more structural. Germany, as FAZ Weekly points out, is tied up like a Gulliver. Stefan Dietrich mentions:

But Schröder's Agenda 2010 reform project faced headwind from his own party and the unions. Coalition debates and the legislative process have not left much of his intentions. Whatever task he tackles, whether he tries to reduce taxes, payroll withholdings, social welfare spending or subsidies - the supposedly oh-so powerful chancellor is hindered by special interests: a Gulliver of our time.

Schröder is still clinging to the German "consensus" model, attempting to please everybody. Enslaving himself to the opinions of others, he gets nothing done; all of his (sometimes not too bad, though insufficient) ideas are shreddered and mangled, until nothing remains but ludicrous tiny changes. Schröder only discloses unpleasant truths in mini-steps, but this "salami tactics" only delays the civil tempest that certainly would arise if necessary steps were immediately implemented.

But Dietrich mentions another important point:

The wild growth of federal-state commissions and common responsibilities has clogged up the political machine and robbed voters of being able to identify responsibility. A key element of democracy was lost on the way: political competition. Although governments can still be exchanged, there are hardly any political alternatives on offer.

What happens if a voter not only is unable to distinguish concurrent parties (not due to his ignorance but due to the parties' lack of profile), but if he also does not note any change? Of course: he gets tired of politics. I must say I have followed politics here closely for a long time, but I've grown tired of the sheer incompetence and indecisiveness in the recent past, but I'm not the only one; Eamonn Fitzgerald states:

The thought of escaping from Germany is more appealing than ever before, which causes me to wonder what I am doing here. The grinding, pseudo reform debate and the prospect of another term in office of a chancellor whose duplicity is beginning to make Nixon look honest are taking their toll.

Absolutely. But to be honest, the secret why still nothing happens here is: people don't feel there is a crisis. People are, as usually, complaining that "things get more expensive", "taxes are too high" etc. - but certainly the living standards have not suffered here, or at least not significantly in the last years. Only when things really turn bad here, we will experience true changes. What evidence of incapacity for Schröder.

2003-08-27T22:08:00.000+02:00

German socialism watch

Lothar Bisky, chairman of the PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism, what an oxymaroon...), the party which rose from the shambles of the GDR's Party of Undemocratic Socialism (which was named SED though...), has now changed his strategy, because voters somehow have figured out that socialism is uncool, and made their voting cross elsewhere (which led to the PDS' exclusion from the Bundestag last year, about the only positive result of last elections...): Bisky announced the PDS would drop the tendency to create a socialist state, instead the PDS would acknowledge capitalism and embrace democracy. (Cough)
It should be noted that the PDS is a phenomenon from and in Eastern Germany, where they got some pretty good results on state level in the past, up to 24% (in some Berlin districts, especially the former Eastern parts, they got even higher results). But last year, September 2002, when Schröder was ruthless enough to gain some votes on the back of our American allies and friends, the PDS only achieved 4%; 5% are necessary to enter the Bundestag. The reason for this was that the Eastern Germans suddenly realized that the other Germans helped them in times of crisis; the largest flood of the century had destroyed many roads, houses, and landscapes in the East just a few weeks ago, and there were enormous amounts of donations flowing into the East. Before, the PDS was seen as a kind of representative for Eastern Germans' problems (and indeed, some in the East yearned back for the good old socialist days, weren't they cozy!), as the only party who stemmed from the East and took that part of the country seriously.
I must admit this is a maneuver of a political genius, eh? Capitalism, a word that causes the PDS' not-so-secret guru, Marx, to ventilate in the grave! And democracy, this instrument of suppression! Engels would have cried, and now, all this is not ~~hostile~~ detrimental to the PDS anymore? Not even a tiny bit?
To be serious, I think Bisky will have large problems with a hard-core Communist group in the PDS, the "Kommunistische Plattform" (communist platform... you wouldn't have guessed, eh?); they are a minority, but have some followers and sympathisers. It will be interesting to behold the development of this party; if they get too close to the SPD, which is Schröder's party, they will lose their profile; but if they stay where they are, they won't gain anything either. Between Scylla and Charybdis, so to speak...

UPDATE: I've noted that backblog (the feedback section, which is located on another server, even less reliable than this one...) is still experiencing serious traffic problems. I hope they manage to cope with the situation soon, so comments can be written (and answered) again.

2003-08-26T16:15:00.000+02:00

Pipes clarifies

After Daniel Pipes was appointed to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace by President Bush last Friday, there were some voices of concern, as the Guardian mentions (all bold type by me):

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based civil rights group, said Pipes is "known for his hostility to Muslims,'' and called the appointment "a backdoor move'' that is "an affront to all those who seek peace.''

This is a weighty statement which requires further examination. A short look at his biographical sketch reveals that he is a true ME scholar and expert, and he noted the threat of militant Islam in 1995 already:

Unnoticed by most Westerners [...], war has been unilaterally declared on Europe and the United States.

(Now, tell me again about unilateralism...) Is this a statement that is hostile to all Muslims? Only, and only if all Muslims identify with militant Islam. In a recent column in the NY Post, he debunks some rumors and fairytales concerning his person. For example, Pipes writes:

I've spent two-thirds of my life studying the Middle East, learned the Arabic language, traveled the Muslim world, lived three years in Cairo, taught courses on the region at Harvard and specialized on it at the State and Defense departments.
In short, my career has been exactly devoted to "bridging differences and bringing peace."

Obviously, it is nonsense to insinuate ignorance on Mr Pipes' side, he knows what he does, and what he talks about. Nevertheless, he makes a sharp and important distinction:

I believe this distinction - between Islam and militant Islam - stands at the heart of the War on Terror and urgently needs to be clarified for non-specialists. The most effective way to do so, I expect, is by giving voice to the Muslim victims of Islamist totalitarianism.

I fully agree with that. I've mentioned several times before in this blog how many people have a blind spot here, and immediately throw in "weighty" PC arguments when one mentions Islamism as a threat. But a clear distinction is to be made here, the most dangerous ideology of today is radical Islam, not Islam as a whole. But Pipes does omit one thing that I find very important as well: there must be an honest, clear dissociation between the average Muslim and terror organisations who claim to be operating in the name of Islam as a whole; this includes severe judicial punishment. All sources of support for those terror organizations must be cut.
It is exactly in the shadow of mental attitudes like "it's wrong to condemn a whole religion" and "we must be tolerant about other cultures" that radical Islam can be fostered and kept thriving; this is why ignorance and tolerance are so dangerous concerning this issue.

UPDATE: There seems to be a server problem with backblog, so the comment section is currently disabled due to too huge traffic. Sorry about that, I hope it will work again soon.

2003-08-25T15:17:00.000+02:00

Michael Walzer interviewed

Imprints recently conducted an interview with Michael Walzer, social scientist. Walzer, despite his criticism of the Bush administration (which I found pointless), implicitly criticises the Europeans harder - even though he is home on the left. Walzer says (all bold type by me):

Iraq would have nuclear weapons today, had Europe alone been making decisions about the inspection regime, the embargo, and the no-fly zones. And there would be many fewer Kosovars alive in Kosovo today had Europe alone been making decisions there. It is easy to criticise American unilateralism; I do that all the time. But European irresponsibility is an equally serious problem.

American unilateralism? Actually, I'm quite glad such an unilateralism exists if it prevents a mad regime with nukes. And this unilateralism should be in Europe's interest as well, which in a way renders the word "unilateralism" inappropriate. Appeasement cannot face fundamentalism, as Lee Harris notes in an article I mentioned earlier. I'm not talking about belligerent arbitrary intervention policy here, I just want to point out that Europe, with its appeasement ideology, is operating in a dangerous mental framework which is threat-insensitive, or rather, not grasping the situation at all. Back to Walzer, he says

Most of the just uses of military force in the last thirty or forty years have not been authorised by the UN: the Vietnamese and Tanzanian interventions that I just mentioned; the Indian war against Pakistan that resulted in the secession of Bangla Desh and the return of millions of refugees; the Israeli pre-emptive strike against Egypt in 1967, after the abject withdrawal of UN forces from the Sinai; the Kosovo war in 1999.

The UN should not and cannot be seen as the highest moral instance, I agree with that. And why? Well, because it simply is a playground for dictators. Lybia heading the UN Human Rights Body? No, it's not a joke, this did take place. The UN is respected by many (especially Old Europe) but obeyed by none. The UN tries to embrace and include everyone and the result is meek. At best, one might see the UN as a neutral ground, where countries can test their diplomatic moves, and anticipate reactions; otherwise, it serves no real purpose, except that it has a dangerous Israel obsession, as David Tell notes. Walzer makes another very interesting statement:

Since I have often been a critic of Israeli governments, I am reluctant to call such criticism anti-Semitic. But it does seem to me that there is an oddly disproportionate hostility toward Israel on the European left, [...]. Indeed, much of the criticism directed at Israel has more to do with the existence of the state than with the policies of any of its governments - which was, again, never the case with France or with Germany after World War Two or with China today. Something is seriously wrong here.

Walzer clearly articulates what has been clear for some time now: a wide-spread hostility, i.e. anti-Semitism, on the left. An enormous one-sidedness is taking place in the media here as well; suicide bombings are reported, but Israeli retaliation is much more in focus, creating a kind of implicit David (Palestinians) vs. Goliath (Israeli) metaphor. The fact is neglected that the aim of Hamas, al Aqsa et al. is the obliteration of Israel, while the aim of Israel is to protect itself and continue to exist. A "balanced" report on such an unbalanced situation is, in my eyes, grossly negligent. Another point concerning the left:

It is hard work trying to sustain an oppositionist politics in the US today - especially when part of what I feel I have to oppose is the idiocy of many of my fellow oppositionists: knee-jerk anti-Americanism, old left dogmatism, and the rejection of any fellowship larger than the sect of the politically correct and the morally pure. I live on the left, but quarrel with some of my neighbours, and in the aftermath of 9/11 the quarrels have gotten more intense.

Interesting point, I fully agree with Walzer. 9-11 was such a shock that it catalyzed many thoughts and emotions around the world, among them many that had been lurking around subsconciously and which only now surfaced. On the left in Germany, it spawned or unveiled anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, in some persons at least. But in others, it also catalyzed some other thoughts - the desire to defend freedom and democracy, and the friendship with the United States. This should not be forgotten.

2003-08-24T15:42:00.000+02:00

It's just fantasy

Via Dormouse Dreaming, I found this very interesting and thought-provoking article by Lee Harris in Policy Review, analyzing Al Qaeda and the threat that arises from its underlying ideological view, or rather, from politicians and persons who have an over-tolerant view of these ideologies. Harris notes:

Let there be no doubt about it. The fantasy ideologies of the twentieth century were plagues, killing millions and millions of innocent men, women, and children. The only difference was that the victims and targets of such fantasy ideologies so frequently refused to see them for what they were, interpreting them as something quite different — as normal politics, as reasonable aspirations, as merely variations on the well-known theme of realpolitik, behaving — tragically enough — no differently from Montezuma when he attempted to decipher the inexplicable enigma posed by the appearance of the Spanish conquistadors. Nor did the fact that his response was entirely human make his fate any less terrible.

Indeed, Al Qaeda and radical Islam consist of nothing else than rigid fantasy ideologies, which clearly must be seen for what they are: a serious threat whose goal is to destroy Western Civilization as we know it. It is very dangerous and foolish to play down this fact, or to have a blind spot here. It is frightening how many people turn a blind eye on this issue.

UPDATE: Europundits has a complete translation of the die Zeit article I mentioned in an earlier post, concerning "the moralism of the cynic".

2003-08-24T12:45:00.000+02:00

Lest we forget

I recently found some pictures of an anti-war rally in Berlin, taking place on October 26th, 2002. I'll post two of them, lest we forget what a mindset is inherent to some protestors. The photos speak for themselves. If you want to see more photos, see here (courtesy of Leo Bauer).

2003-08-23T22:48:00.000+02:00

If we shadows have offended - think but this, and all is mended...

O bella Italia! Now, everything is back to normal again between you and Germany. It could have started with such a nice evening, Berlusconi and Schröder visiting "Carmen" in Verona's opera together, but Berlusconi thought differently, says Tom Rachman (Associated Press Writer):

The conservative Berlusconi said he was sorry not to have made it to the opera in Verona's ancient Roman forum, the Arena. The premier said he dropped out due to fears that leftist demonstrators would protest his presence and ruin the event for everyone.

Super-Silvio afraid of leftist demonstrators? Now, that is something I would not have thought; he usually is not that shy, as far as I can remember. Anyway, Saturday morning must have been a breakfast with much honey, on each person's bread and tongue, because everything was just fine, and the summer feud was ended. Not all feuds between the both countries ended that peacefully.
Remember that - despite Goscinny's and Uderzo's cartoon "Asterix" - Gaul was under Roman reign, while Germania was never fully colonized; Roman historician Tacitus foresaw that the barbarians from Germania would one day be the end of the Roman Empire, and it was the invasions from there that indeed initiated Rome's decline. Germany's culture catched on only later, in Roman times it was a rather barbaric place if we compare it to the speeches of Cicero before the Senatores. Then, it was Luther who produced another schism in Europe - Protestants in the North, Catholics in the South; destroying a united church with its capital in Italy. Still later, Goethe idealized Italy as "the country where the lemons grow" - something unthinkable in rainy, cold Germany; at the same time, Goethe wrote "Faust" - a book that still captures the "German" thinking very well, i.e. being torn in two between a more rational, empiristic point of view and a strong, subsconcious, "spiritual" energy which Goethe called "daimon". Italy, in contrast, was always a country of individualists, resisting the dream of the absolute more than Germans did. Each country produced a kind of artwork that captures these tendencies; look at Michelangelo's David and compare it to Beethoven's Symphony No. 9.
Personally, I think Italy and Germany could perfectly add to each other's capabilites; the relationship though always changed between war and peaceful friendship. In 1818, Schopenhauer said in Florence:

Mit Italien lebt man wie mit einer Geliebten - heute in grossem Zorn, morgen in Anbetung [with Italy, you live like with a beloved woman - today in great wrath, tomorrow in adoration].

In other times, a summer theater such as the one between Schröder and Berlusconi would have been dealt with in other ways; just remember what caused the French-German war in 1870. The fact that this mini-rift was dismissed as "summer theater" does not confirm the last part Schopenhauer's statement, but at last it rejects the first one. Actually, what really makes me mad is that the German soccer team lost against Italy 0-1 on Wednesday. But that is another matter...

2003-08-22T23:32:00.000+02:00

Trans-atlantic rift revisited

Recently, President Bush praised German peace-keeping efforts in Afghanistan, which was welcomed by German officials:

BERLIN, Germany (Reuters) -- The German government said praise by U.S. President George W. Bush for German peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan showed attempts to bridge a transatlantic rift over the war in Iraq were bearing fruit. [...] [German] Government spokesman Thomas Steg said Bush's comments praising Germany's role in post-war Afghanistan showed how both countries were committed to cooperation on certain issues.

But there were some other reactions as well, as Richard Wagner (sic) mentions in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: for example, Gernot Erler, deputy parliamentary leader and defense expert of Schröder's Social Democratic Party, mentioned that Bush's statement showed the United States had realized "Germany's increasingly important role for Washington". But then, Erler also said Bush's statement betrayed that he had economic problems at home, and needed allies due to this fact as well. Further, Angelika Beer, the Green Party's co-leader, uttered that Bush praise only "confirmed" what "has long been recognized" by the international community. Schröder himself said Germany didn't need to "hide from anyone".
Do I sense schadenfreude there? As Heinrich Heine said, "He only profits from praise who values criticism." The German government, though, was so fundamental in its opposition to a liberated Iraq that it was incapable of taking any criticism seriously. Again, notice the double standards! German participation in Afghanistan is totally OK, and the Greens largely supported that too, but a US action in Iraq - let alone a German participation - is to be strictly condemned? Concerning Schröder, I partially agree - Germany is doing a lot (at the moment, it's the second-largest peace-keeping nation in the world), but sounding off is not an option. The US government knows what Germany is doing - it does not have to be rubbed under their noses.
The article mentions another important point in my eyes: the asymmetry in experienced threat between the US and Germany. This is a very important fact that continues to cause misunderstandings and erroneous estimations. On 9-11, I was doing an internship in Düsseldorf, and our tasks were cancelled - everybody was crowding around the TV, some were weeping, most were pale. The next day, the large news screens in the train stations were crowded too, hundreds of people were standing around and appaled. Since then, much has changed - most Germans see 9-11 as a unique catastrophe which is horrible, but don't feel threatened, even though several 9-11 attackers lived in Germany, even though Germans were held hostage, even though Germans were victims of a bomb attack carried out by Islamists, ..., ergo, they do not understand what exactly the US are doing in Iraq. In contrast, the Americans indeed feel threatened - 9-11 showed that the US homeland is vulnerable as well (the last attack on American soil committed by a foreign enemy was in 1814, when the Brits set Washington aflame), a new and frightening experience. The US wants security and does not want this to happen again ever, which is absolutely legitimate. I only hope Europe does not need its own 9-11 before it understands, though I fear so.

2003-08-22T21:39:00.000+02:00

The Enemy Within

Today's Washington Post considers the possibility that the recent UN bombing could have been committed by Iraqi employees. Jamie Tarabay (Associated Press Writer) writes:

U.S. investigators suspect the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was an inside job and are questioning Iraqi employees and guards, many of whom were linked to Saddam Hussein's security service, a top American official said Friday. [...]
Kerik [former New York police commissioner who is working to re-establish an Iraqi police force] said some of the Iraqi personnel at the U.N. compound initially refused to cooperate with the bombing investigation and were being interrogated. "There are concerns about some of the people who were working there," he said "It's all under investigation at this point."[...]
Most of the U.N. security guards at the compound had been placed there by Saddam's security service before the war and reported on U.N. staff movements at the Canal Hotel, headquarters for U.N. inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction. [...]
"They were some of the most treacherous, and if we still have them running around in a capacity where they will have access to important information, then that is something we have to be concerned with," Kerik said.

Well, I'm quite surprised the UN did not think about this obvious weak spot. Did they really continue as if nothing happened? If so, this is really starry-eyed, it was clear from the beginning that an intervention in Iraq would result in pockets of resistance, but to place them in one's own ranks - and it was known that these security forces were Saddam's men - is really foolish. Saddam had and has many followers in Iraq. The first thing to do is to secure that the key points of consolidation in Iraq are free of them. And the UN too.

2003-08-20T23:55:00.000+02:00

"In Defense of Global Capitalism" - Europe's answer to Naomi Klein

I have always wondered at the manic, polemic rants of fundamental anti-globalizationers, often void of rationality and facts. It is individuals like Naomi Klein et al. who try to convey the picture that globalization turns us all into corporate slaves and lackeys, perpetuates children's work, destroys the environment and generally leads to the apocalypse. A fine Swedish author and thinker - Johan Norberg - has thought the same about anti-globalization and has now published a fantastic book in order to debunk some popular anti-globalization myths, called Das Kapitalistische Manifest (in German; the English edition, In Defense of Capitalism, will be published in September; a short summary in English can be found here).
Johan Norberg has recently been interviewed by the Canadian Frontier Centre for Public Policy. In this interview, he represents his points very succinctly, e.g. (bold type by me):

FC: You mentioned the tendency of globalization opponents to focus on very emotional examples and to avoid the big picture - you had some very interesting statistics about progress, maybe you could share some of those?

JN: In the world as a whole, during the last fifty years, we have seen a bigger reduction in poverty then we have seen during the five hundred years before that. It's an enormous development, the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history. During the last twenty years, the world's population grew by 1.5 billion people. In spite of this, we have seen a reduction in the number of absolute poor by about 200 million. Take hunger statistics. Chronic hunger has gone down from 40% to less than 18% in the last thirty years. Infant mortality has gone down from 18% to 8%. When the protestors and TV and newspapers tell one story, one anecdote about someone living a miserable life since they have lost their job, it stirs up the emotions and we think that something is going wrong in the world. But we are missing the big picture. Things are definitely getting better.

Indeed, the big picture is often neglected; instead, anecdotical evidence is presented, which is regrettable but not representative.

FC: During the 1990s, Sweden embraced school choice and started peeling back the public health monopoly. The unions and the teachers have not opposed it. Why are your labour organizations and your public sector union leadership more sophisticated than ours?

JN: You would have to answer about the Canadian unions. But in Sweden, the fact is that they are not ideological. They are more interested in creating a real improvement in the way they live their lives and in wages and working conditions than in shouting in the streets that they want to change and improve the world. [...] In the last ten years, nurses have seen wage increases of almost 50% which they couldn't get under the monopoly system. With competition, they can begin to demand better working conditions because they can always turn somewhere else.

Un-ideological unions? I would not have thought this might be possible, but then, I live in Germany, where the recent strike in East Germany was started on mainly ideological grounds, which resulted in a desaster for the IG Metall - they lost and had to stop the strike; now, they are considered by most as unrealistic, backward reform blockers (which is true). It was extremely important that the IG Metall lost this strike, because they were a bit off the ground, drifting around in ideological dreamworlds of the cozy past. The future will tell us whether the world's largest trade union will have to face reality.

FC: Why are you not keen on a unified European currency - the Euro?

JN: A common currency will also lead to common policies in many unsuitable areas of different economies that are in totally different stages of the business cycle. It means an interest rate that is much too high for Ireland, too low for Germany. It means that countries in recession will perhaps not come out of it. The only way to deal with this is to have very flexible labour markets so people move to where there are jobs and lower taxes. But that won't happen. I think the European politicians are more interested in centralizing policy to have massive redistribution to the places that are in worse shape. And that would be a subsidy for bad policy.

An interesting statement, with which I only partially agree. I think it was the correct decision to install a European currency, because it not only is a symbol of European integration, but because it lays economic pressure on politicians here to get realistic and push reforms. The growing bureaucracy in Europe is a menace, intransparent structures and unclear decision structures (umm... did I vote for any European Comissioner?) are a great obstacle to prosperity and competition. Daniel W. Drezner also points to the fact that probably both France and Germany will surpass the stability pact's 3 percent ceiling, and that this might decide the question whether the EU is a supra-national authority or an international organization (how interesting that the EU can still be "interpreted"...). Back to the interview,

FC: You have said that farm subsidies, particularly European farm subsidies, make everybody poorer. Why is that?

JN: It makes the developing countries poorer because that is exactly the kind of sector where they could compete. They have a lot of cheap labour, good soil, good climates, and so on. They could compete, but we stop them from doing that with tariffs that shut them out. Subsidies to our own farmers create food surpluses, which we then dump in poor countries. We destroy the potential for competition from them. But it also makes us poorer, because we are denied the opportunity to buy from the better source and it costs us billions of dollars.

Now, that is a valid point, and a key point in the EU. Britain and Germany share the opinion that the subsidies at least have to be reformed, which is dogmatically blocked by Chirac, who wants to keep up agricultural subsidies in France by any means. It might well be a very decisive question for the future of the EU when the economy here declines even more.
Johan Norberg is a brilliant and clear thinker, and one can only hope his ideas gain a wide audience. Btw, the only reaction to this book that I heard of from the anti-globalization camp has been a cry of outrage (on a personal level), but no facts that could contradict his ideas. The anti-globalizationers better get some good arguments, and soon.

UPDATE: I have abbreviated quotations a bit to increase readability. I'll try to keep postings shorter in the future and focus on the main points.

2003-08-19T23:52:00.000+02:00

The Nanny State

Before posting today, I want to express my sincere condolences to those in Israel or elsewhere who have lost a family member or a dear friend in the recent terror attack that killed 20 and wounded 100. Little Green Footballs is reporting on this. At the same time, I would like to say the same about another coward suicide attack in Iraq; it was done near the UN's HQ in Iraq.

There was a recent opinion poll published in the FAZ (in English) today, which is quite interesting. Anke Bryson writes (bold type by me):

Fifty-one percent of Germans would prefer to live in a political system where individuals can assume as much responsibility for their own lives as possible, according to a new survey by the Allensbach opinion research institute.
Some commentators have hailed this as a sign that their compatriots are finally tiring of a state that swallows more than half of their output only to redistribute much of it in a highly dubious manner; a state that also gives most ordinary citizens almost no choice in social provisions such as health and pension insurance.

Well, 51 percent seem to approach the Clue™, that is more than I expected. Still, I have been "tiring" of these issues for quite some time now, especially if money is spent for Viagra-Kalle and Miami-Rolf. Bryson continues:

Most German employees, including lower- and middle-income ones, cannot opt even partially out of generous, but expensive and structurally ailing, social programs, even if they would like to.

See? You have no option here, it's the socialist welfare state that embraces you with its adhesive tentacles in a hug that in the end will kill you softly. Isn't it a fundamentally democratic state we live in, where we cannot even choose? I always thought that choice is a democratic axiom. Bryson continues:

It [the survey] shows that nearly half of all eastern Germans, and one-third of western Germans, believe the state should assume primary responsibility for its citizens.

And here we find one of the characteristics that most clearly distinguishes between European etatism and American freedom. In an excellent column, Ralph Peters aptly puts it (bold type by me):

Socialism, a doctrine born in Europe, struck very deep roots. The collective takes priority over the individual. The European social contract amounts to this: We will not let the talented rise too high, and we will not let the lazy fall too low. "Equality" doesn't mean equal opportunities, but equal limitations. For Americans, freedom means the freedom to do: To make our own way, to struggle, achieve, to rise (to climb social, educational or economic ladders), to move beyond our parents' lot in life and give our children better chances still.

I'm not telling anything new here, but it is still amazing for me to perceive the amount of difference in mindsets between Americans and Europeans. Europe focuses on "egalité" (in the sense of leveling everything), while the US is more concerned with "liberté", the freedom of the individual. This difference also crystallizes in economy, as Bryson notes:

[...] expansive "consumer" protection - for example, through advertising bans or the restriction of special retail sales - betrays the same mentality. In many cases, it amounts to a form of corporate welfare, since it protects some businesses at the expense of limiting competition and keeps prices higher for consumers.

This is true; our current government as well has preferred to back larger business companies, though the lion's share of German GDP is produced by medium-sized enterprises, which are drowned in bureaucracy. But then, Schröder is member of a party which is currently debating how to handle and redefine the concept of "social justice" which is nothing but an aggregated term of "socialism"; and the left wing of Schröder's party is already getting mad, blocking all reform - again.
And now, another threat arises for Germany - Chinese beer challenges the world market. Where shall all this end?

2003-08-18T20:25:00.000+02:00

German socialism - thriving and exported

Back to something profane again. The peculiarities of Germany's over-luxurious welfare state are debunked by two recent, absolutely bizarre judicial decisions. First of all, a German alcoholic and drug-addicted, aged 54, was officially granted Viagra (which German public health funds do not provide to their members) because he "wanted to father a child". One must add to this that German health funds are about to collapse, and our politicians are still fraudulent concerning this issue - utilizing the "Salami tactics", i.e. disclosing the truth step by step, introducing ridiculously superficial changes - and then have the courage to call it a "reform". Back to "Viagra-Kalle", if we consider this situation, a person that is sick must really ask why the money is spent on such a thing, as health funds are intended to protect people's health, and not something umm... else. It is a slap in the face for really sick persons.
And here comes another shocker: a German, who claims he is "allergic" to Germany, now lives in Florida - in a flat sized 60 square-meters. Now, that is actually OK - were it not that it is the German welfare system that pays for this, which is a sum of 1587$ per month. Now, there is a law in Germany that focuses on this issue (paying welfare to Germans abroad) - but it was destined for German Jews who did not want to return to Germany after WW2, and who should be compensated (and the law does make sense in this context).
Bild states that our sponsored lucky friend Rolf J. lives in Collins Avenue, Miami, only two minutes to the beach. A German court has now ordered that "Miami-Rolf" has 6 months to find a new, cheaper flat. His reaction? "Then, I want the German state to sponsor me a car". Miami-Rolf was granted German welfare abroad, btw, because he has managed to provide an expert opinion by a psychiatrist stating he shows suicidal tendencies.
You know what? I'll just go to a psychiatrist myself and tell him to analyze my artificial sighs and suicidal tendencies. After the three magic words "allergic to Germany", he will probably instantly pull a form from under his desk, where I can make my crosses:

- Which state do you want to live in?
- Please select price class of apartment!
- Do you need a BMW abroad or will a local car do?
- Is a home pool required or would a three-year free entry into the local baths suffice? etc.

This is a sick combination of pure socialism and an appalling exploitation of an over-fat welfare state crunching under its own weight, in a time where unemployment rises to record levels here; where public health funds are collapsing soon; where retirement pensions are shrinking because too few younger people are born; where economic growth is dipping into recession because serious structural reforms are not done because our politicians are liars and cowards. Germany is certainly one of the states with an extremely balanced distribution of political power (which was obviously a wise thing to implement after the war). But we have reached a state of affairs where we need real reforms, either by a "Great Coalition" between the two big parties or by a constitutional amendment. But Germany, I tell you, is not yet sick enough. The Germans, like sleepy and egocentric young children, must go down the road some more before politicians dare to speak the truth. It is indeed Old Europe's cynicism and cowardice that can be perceived in the current political farce here. And I really loathe it.

P.S.: to all Internet Explorer users who have a problem with a cut-off site - I'm still working on this (thanks for the hint Tobias). The site is displayed perfectly with Netscape/Mozilla though (it seems Internet Explorer is much more fastidious concerning HTMLery).

UPDATE: At least, I've managed to repair my XML-link (in the sidebar at "syndicate this site"), and although blogspot is still incapable of producing stable and reliable permalinks, it seems to work. I strongly recommend - especially for heavy blog users - to install a newsreader, which is an enourmous help and a great tool. I can only recommend the (free) Wildgrape NewsDesk, I have installed it and it's great. Check out this link in case you want to know more about XML/RSS/Newsreaders.

ANOTHER UPDATE: I found and corrected the error in my template, the site should now be displayed without errors by anybody using the Internet Explorer.

2003-08-17T07:34:00.000+02:00

Germany - an Arab State in Europe?

Absolutely unbelievable. Reader Werner over at Europundits mentioned this article over at Henryk M. Broder, which is a pain to read: An Arab state in Europe. The author made some incredible observations:

I got my first whiff of the things to come on the evening of 9/11. The news of the bloodbath in New York City had arrived in Germany in the afternoon, so we had had to re-arrange our entire newspaper. I felt exhausted and sad and needed a pint of something: so I went to a pub in what used to be East Berlin. The pub was crammed full, the TV was showing the unbelievable news again and again and I could not help overhearing a man at a neighbouring table who used his mobile phone as if it were a microphone. He kept shouting about "that criminal Bush", "arrogant Americans" and "Sharon, that fascist", and of course about "those Israeli swine who are behind it all".

Yea, sure, dude. Wielding classic anti-Semitic arguments on 9-11? Sick asshat. But the beat goes on, and it gets worse:

Roll on the war against Iraq. It is true that there were hot debates about this issue everywhere, particularly in the US itself: both the legitimacy and the wisdom of the war were questioned, journalists voiced reasonable doubts whether the Iraqi regime did in fact possess weapons of mass destruction. In Germany such debates were conspicuously absent. Here it was very simple: the entire country had turned into one big peace camp. The sentence "Mr Stein is in favour of this military campaign" sounded like "Mr Stein lives in a house which is made of green cheese". Writers and intellectuals were even more unanimous than they had been re. Afghanistan. All newspapers - with the notable exception of DIE WELT, the paper I happen to be working for - denounced Mr Bush and Mr Blair as dangerous lunatics. German television stations began to resemble outposts of Al Jazeera.

My experience is different, at least the FAZ published some articles that were at least not anti-American (still critical), so did the local paper here and sometimes the Financial Times Deutschland. The vile rants - as far as I've read - were done by der Spiegel (check out their sardonic new cover, stating "world power without electricity"; Papa Scott has evidence that der Spiegel deliberately lied to create an anti-American sentiment), taz etc. As to television - he's right on that, I've been watching CNN (cough) very often in the past, and it sometimes appears not too fond of the US itself; still, it is light-years better than the average TV channel here, with one exception: N24, a tiny private channel (in the evening, they show documentaries on Gulf War I, on "Wings of Steel" [once Dick Cheney was interviewed about the F-16] and stuff) has been positive concerning the US too, compared to the rest. The author continues:

None of this would be worth mentioning were it not for the fact that the German government and TV stations and newspapers spoke with one voice. What does this kind of consensus remind us of? Certainly not a Western democracy in the middle of Europe. But it does have an uncanny resemblance to countries like Egypt or Syria.

It was painful to see that German opposition, CDU, only relatively late took a strong pro-US position. There should have been a clear US support from the beginning. But then, we HAVE no real opposition in Germany - the two main parties are so similar, they only differ in minimal degrees of quantity, not in quality. As to the "one voice"-hypothesis: I can only speak for myself, but even though most friends opposed the war, there were a few who at least did not oppose it.

For if one pointed out that this war might - as a side-effect - contribute to the security of Israel, this was not perceived as an argument in its favour. Quite the contrary. One journalist wrote that a conspiracy of people like (you know) Wolfowitz and Perle was responsible for this military adventure; another journalist suggested the US might be securing Iraq´s oil fields for the benefit of Jerusalem.

It was not an argument in its favour? Ladies and gents, behold the double standards! Every dead Iraqi soldier fighting for Saddam is mourned like a martyr, but nobody cares about the threat Israel was and is submitted to, not mentioning the brave American soldiers that AGAIN give their lives to free a suppressed country. And who in the peace camp mourns for those Israelis who die from suicide bombers? (sound of crickets)

Even though the article was slightly exaggerated at times and not wholly congruent with my perception, it drastically describes what was and is going on in certain minds here, even though some papers (and people) here seem to regain their balance.

2003-08-17T04:09:00.000+02:00

Leo Strauss and Neo-Conservativism

Yesterday, I already mentioned Leo Strauss and his still noticeable impact on Neo-Conservativism; I’ll try to deliver some facts today. Strauss (1899-1973) was a teacher of political philosophy at the University of Chicago, and though his ideas were (and are) barely known in Europe, the impact of his ideas in the US should not to be underestimated. As Robert Locke writes in a fantastic article in the FrontPage magazine:

As a crude measure of his importance for those readers who continue to believe that philosophical matters are of no practical importance, consider the following list of his students or students of his students: Justice Clarence Thomas; Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; former Assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes; former Secretary of Education William Bennett; Weekly Standard editor and former Quayle Chief of Staff William Kristol; Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind; former New York Post editorials editor John Podhoretz; former National Endowment for the Humanities Deputy Chairman John T. Agresto; […]

It is obvious that Strauss’ ideas have access to the highest levels in the US, and as he was a political philosopher (he indeed regarded political philosophy as the only philosophy), I’ll try to shortly present his main ideas.

- Strauss revived ancient philosophy as a real political critique. He held that understanding ancient philosophical ideas – especially those of Aristotle and Plato – helped to overcome the flaws of modern political philosophy. Locke sums up why:

Strauss contends that the modern view of politics is artificial and that the ancient one is direct and honest about the experience of political things.

It was Machiavelli’s “Il principe” that opened new doors in thinking and actually started political philosophy (and modernity): Man was, for the first time, seen as not a part of nature but as standing outside of it. Locke (bold type by me):

Pre-Machiavellian philosophy, be in Greco-Roman or Christian, had taught that the good political order must be based upon human virtues. Machiavelli believed that sufficient virtue was not attainable and therefore taught that the good political order must be based on men as they are, i.e. upon their mediocrity and vices. This is not just realism, or mere cynicism. It amounts to a deliberate choice as to how society should be organized and a decided de-emphasis on personal virtue. It leads to the new discipline of political science, which is concerned with coldly describing men as they actually are, warts and all.

- These ideas led to Enlightenment and more freedom than before, but it also led to purposelessness. Locke:

The philosophical price of freedom is purposelessness, which ultimately gives rise to the alienation, anomie, and nihilism of modern life.

This idea has been presented very succinctly in Erich Fromm’s “Die Furcht vor der Freiheit (the fear of freedom)” as well: man, in his long-awaited liberty, is afraid and wants guidance and fulfillment of spiritual needs. To avoid nihilism etc., Strauss suggested the concept of the “Straussian texts”, texts that contain an “exoteric” meaning for neophytes and an “esoteric” meaning for those familiar with the code. This might sound strange at first thought – did not Socrates wander about the market of Athens, accompanied by his students, and ask anybody he could reach about simple concepts, until advancing to the philosophical foundations; i.e., is philosophy nothing democratic? In contrast to hectic conspiracy theorists, Strauss regarded democracy as the worst regime except for all the others that have been tried from time to time, agreeing with Churchill here – i.e., as Peter Berkowitz states in The Weekly Standard:

Although he [Strauss] regarded modern democracy as flawed, it is, Strauss suggested, the form of government best suited to the protection and enjoyment of human liberty, and therefore should be defended wholeheartedly.

At the same time, Strauss did not believe that all men were equal, says Locke:

If man is political by nature, the goods of politics also exist by nature. The goods of politics are the ways man must behave to make political community work. If there are natural goods, there is a natural hierarchy of goods, and therefore a natural hierarchy of men, as different men pursue different goods. Civic equality may be salutary for the functioning of society, but men are not truly equal in value.

If we refer this “value” to “efficiency” or “capability”, I agree; indeed, in psychology there exists a whole branch that does research in how humans differ.

- Religion, according to Strauss (who was an atheist), is still important and necesarry. As Der Spiegel writes in a informative though slanted piece (in English) about this:

As his [Strauss’] theory goes, philosophers following in Nietzsche's footsteps could devote themselves to the question of how the death of God and the renunciation of religion impacts thought and being. But without the inner cohesiveness faith provides, states could not exist. For this reason, according to Strauss, religion serves as a binding agent in a stable social order. It is, admittedly, the opium of the people, but it is also an indispensable opium.

I’ll try to sum it up: modernity, with its value-relativism, nihilism and purposelessness, can lead to the rise of totalitarianism; Strauss had experienced that himself, being Jewish, he fled Germany 1932; he had experienced that a state like the Weimar republic, with its total tolerance and relativism, might be relatively easy destroyed by totalitarianism. Therefore, it is necessary to have firm values. Because neither all men’s capabilities nor investigative energies are equal, philosophizing should be for the minority who can cope with it, according to Strauss; religion should be the “opium” to keep up the stable social order and prevent totalitarianism, which is also a threat as it can become a replacement for religion (Strauss also thought that happiness was the natural aim of man, to which religion – in whatever form – adds too).

Not trying to be cynical, but it might be possible that Strauss was exactly what Irving Kristol described: “A neoconservative is a left-winger who has been ambushed by reality.” His ideas are interesting, though some ideas strike me as peculiar. Why should – especially in our highly-educated times – not everybody be allowed to hear the truth? I agree on the danger of decay of values and relativism; this really is a thing that totalitarians in mind, be they Islamists or whatever, can exploit – and they do. But I disagree on the idea that an information deficit and a mere retreat into religion are helpful in fighting totalitarianism, I think it is the combination of being informed and a corset of firmly-rooted democratic (in the old sense) and religious values that best helps to fight totalitarianism.

2003-08-16T01:04:00.000+02:00

HTMLery and a tiny initial rant

And now for something completely... profane. It's been HTML-exploration and implementation day for me today, I confess that I had (nearly) no idea about it before starting this blog, but in the last two days my HTML knowledge has virtually exploded (well... compared to what existed before, of course). I'm just trying to adapt the template to my wishes, which is extremely tricky at times, and I already have discovered a little inconvenience with blogspot: there seems to be a problem with permalinks, i.e. they do not seem to work reliably; other blogspotters may know what I refer to. And I'm just looking for some other webspace where I can deposit pictures, which isn't possible on a free blogspot account (I played around for 2 hours with one of those free webspace domains, only to find out that they will not let their bandwidth be stolen, i.e. obviously one cannot link to pictures deposited on that server). Anyway, I'm glad that a large part of the work has been accomplished, I'll adapt only a few things in the future. And then, I can finally start a fine rant, I've been thinking about one topic all the time: the influence of Leo Strauss, a great teacher of political philosophy, on current US policy, and the large asymmetry of his ideas' famousness between the US and Europe (this asymmetry in famousness is similar to that of Ayn Rand and Objectivism) - and the consequences. It might sound like a simplisme, but at times the frames within which our thoughts and attitudes reside are so broad that they are not immediately discernible, which might lead to "proxy-wars of content": one knows there is a disagreement, but it cannot be clearly paraphrased, so the discussion of a certain topic cannot be easily resolved because the latent structures that cause the conflict are unknown. Oh man - I sound like a psychiatrist now, it was obviously a too long day.

P.S.: Thanks to all who have posted here recently! It helps to keep up the motivation when HTML is interfering...

2003-08-14T16:25:00.000+02:00

Do "die Zeit" and "der Spiegel" approach the Clue™?

Having a bit too much time recently, I find myself trodding on old paths - reading die Zeit, a weekly German paper which is moderately left (apart from political orientation, it's fine journalism though, and they occasionally put down their tin-foil hats, as Stefan Sharkansky has already noted). One article by Richard Herzinger is the best I've read there in a long time (in German): Der Moralismus des Zynikers (the moralism of the cynic). Here, we find the following interesting statement:

For the Middle East, a historical window has opened, and this opening must now be utilized. A substantial part of German intellectuals is not bothered though. They bade farewell from reality in Iraq and in the Middle East a long time ago, as well as from any political reality, and they indulge in being sardonic, bitter know-it-alls, who base their whole self-confidence on the hope that the hated Bush-Americans learn a bloody lesson in Iraq. It is also particularly contemptuous that they try to sell this doggedschadenfreude as a sign of a morally superior position.

Now, that comes like a bombshell to the self-important traditional lefties who expect die Zeit to produce some genuine sophisticated criticism of the home of capitalism, doesn't it? But the thing is: the rest of the article is also spot on; the razor-sharp dissection of the entangled web of idiotarian weltanschauung continues. Herzinger writes:

The "opponents of the war" - with which [Ivan] Nagel [a former artistic director and super-Idiotarian] means the German and French government, who wage war at several scenes of the globe - were, according to Nagel, requested to repair "the damage of the war". Actually, the most important aim in Iraq right now is the recovery of the damage of a totalitarian dictatorship lasting 35 years, which transformed a once economically blossoming country into a social cemetary, by horrible wars outward and uncontrolled terror within. It is characteristic that the "moralist" Nagel forgets to mention this not completely insignificant point. Further, the damage of an embargo lasting 12 years is to be eliminated, which was imposed by the United Nations, and for which France and Germany likewise carry responsibility [...]. Nagel should express as well what the "reliable" European statesmen Schröder and Chirac had to offer as an alternative to the American-British war: nothing but the perpetuation of devastating sanctions, from which the Iraqi civilian population had to suffer terribly, not the regime however, which plundered everything at its desire.

The rest of the article hits the Nagel auf den Kopf (nail on the head :) as well. I rejoice at the dawn of reason and rationality in some German papers here, who were very critical of the war and at times approached open, vile anti-Americanism (e.g., during Iraq war, one German paper writing about George Washington began its article with "George Washington, first president and slave-owner..." - the fact that he was a slave owner had nothing to do with the purpose of the rant though). Further, it seems to me that the instinctive recoil from everything related to "war" here in Germany, which is comprehensible if one regards our past, is slowly being replaced by a more balanced, less fundamental view (which does not equal the former German belligerent policy of course). And even der Spiegel (a paper that bashed America par excellence during Iraq war), though mildly criticizing Bush for not kneeling before the UN, remarks on Dean (in German): Gang war against Dr Dean, in which the pre-election fight within the Democratic party is highlighted in detail (usually, the Democrats get a better press in der Spiegel). After the smoke of diplomatic and armed battle has settled and the trans-atlantic rift has closed a bit again, some heated debaters in the press here obviously are approaching the Clue™. They have still a long and stony way ahead though.

2003-08-14T03:22:00.000+02:00

Deus ex Machina?

"My name is Arnold and I am strong." Those were about the only English words Arnold Schwarzenegger could produce when he arrived in the US in 1968. Today, after being Mr Olympia for seven times and becoming one of the most famous male Hollywood actors (I admit I'm an Arnie fan - T2 is, at least for me, the epitome of an action film), he not only considers nails as not a necessary part of a balanced breakfast, but he also runs for governor in the state of California, after becoming a US citizen in 1983. And his chances of winning the election are quite good, according to recent polls.
Arnie always got along quite well with the Bush family. After being a fitness advisor for President Bush Sr., current President George W. Bush recently said Schwarzenegger would be a good governor. Arnie will probably win this election, I bet he is the most famous candidate by far, which might lead to a "mere exposure effect" known from psychology: "mere repeated exposure of the individual to a stimulus is a sufficient condition for the enhancement of his attitude toward it" (Zajonc, 1968). Further, he is associated with masculinity and determination, which are not only popular in the US as a whole, but especially in California if we regard the current state of affairs. "Somebody is needed to clean the house" is probably exactly what most Californians feel when they think of Grey Davis.
Let us now consider Arnie had already won this election. On the one hand, he might be considered the deus ex machina (Rise of the Machines ;) by some Republicans, a political wunderkind who secures them the important state of California one year before presidential elections. A Cimmerian election victory in California would be a dire blow to the Democrats, because the Republicans then would have a firm grip on Washington for a longer time; this probably is not what the nine mortals doomed to die (well... politically) dream of.
On the other hand, Arnie has some very moderate opinions that do not necessarily make him popular with the Neocons. Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff mentions in die Zeit (in German) that Arnie killed 383 persons in his films and even was pregnant, which not necessarily supports the Republican campaign against a loss of values and violent TV. And how will the Republicans continue their campaign against the Kennedy family if one of their (then) important persons is married to a Kennedy? And what about Arnie stating he was ashamed of being Republican in 1999 because of Clinton's impeachment due to sexual peculiarities? And I did not mention Arnie's positions concerning weapons, gays, and abortion yet...
Kleine-Brockhoff poignantly states that Arnie - by being moderate - has good chances to win in California, but that he also is the price the Republicans have to pay for staying in power for a longer time.

It's always the problem with those dei ex machinae - once they have been summoned and proven they are very useful, they are difficult to control. Let's see how president Bush handles his looming Faustian experience...

2003-08-13T22:13:00.000+02:00

Man: fail, dog: pass

So, I've just decided in a wild mood swing to join the realm of bloggers, although I'm not yet quite sure what incremental benefit may arise from this. I'll try to comment on things from a German perspective, because I have experienced that there are some German blogs investigating current political developments and international affairs, but they mostly do so from an Idiotarian perspective which isn't mine (well, not anymore ;). I'll try to not focus on political and economic rants exclusively though, there are enough oddities and peculiarities here that most readers from the Anglosphere will not know of. Let's start with one I discovered today: Man: fail, dog: pass.

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German man of Polish origin lost his driving license after failing an alcohol test but his dog passed with flying colors, police in the western city of Koblenz said on Wednesday.

Police said the 47-year-old man failed to perform any of the required actions, only to be upstaged by his West Highland white terrier who executed all of the commands given perfectly, including a 360 degree turn as his master staggered and fell.

At the conclusion of the uneven contest, the supervising doctor announced, "Man: fail; dog: pass."

Great. The question remains whether this nicely trained dog actually drove his master home as well. As there are war-dolphins trained to attack divers, I wouldn't be too flabbergasted at car-driving dogs.

"Hey Hans, your dog alright?"
"Yup, I just had to punish him for messing up my portfolio."
"Nevermind. Mine went into politics..."