If maverick Dutch journalist and moviemaker Theo van Gogh was a fundamentalist believer in the right to free expression, his 2 November murder may have been his very own 'martyrdom operation'. Rohan Jayasekera comments on the disturbing legacy of a man who believed in free speech, whatever the consequences.
Actually, I don't see anything here that doesn't prove van Gogh's point.
The Dutch language is thick with words wrapped up in culture-specific meanings which defy easy translation. Gezellig, for one. It means cosy, slightly self-satisfied. Gedogen, another. It means tolerance, but something else as well - like a kind of polite endurance of something unpleasant. Gedogen really means accepting reality. If the law cannot prohibit an unpleasant problem - and the Dutch do not care to solve it - then it must be politely endured and managed out of sight. Dutchmen take rich pride in their global reputation for tolerance, even one based on mistranslation.
The word only works in Holland, and then only when spoken by 'native' Dutchmen. It doesn't work so well for hundreds of thousands of Dutch citizens of Arab and Muslim descent. Dutch white folks' gezellig reliance on gedogen to manage uncomfortable realities took a knock with the violent death in May 2002 of maverick anti-immigration campaigner Pim Fortuyn. On 2 November it took another with the stabbing and shooting of film director Theo van Gogh, a descendant of the mad genius Dutch painter.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
11/19/2004 11:22:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...his 2 November murder may have been his very own ’martyrdom operation’...
I suppose that's why Theo begged for mercy and begged for his life as his killer approached with the beheading knife.
#3
This actually raises a very interesting question: why hasn't someone in the US made a horrifyingly offensive anti-Islam movie? And I don't mean this in the way of propagandistic shlock like "Der Ewing Jude", but something like van Gogh's movie, that while seemingly not that offensive or crude, pushes their hot bottons?
Imagine how much pure enjoyment was to be had if some anonymous film maker made a movie about a young Moslem girl who is driven mad by abuse and turns into a vicious killer of abusive Moslem men. Make her ultra-orthodox, so you never see her face, so she could be *any* Moslem girl. Maybe give some of the girls ideas. I bet the Imams would freak out at the idea.
#5
why hasn't someone in the US made a horrifyingly offensive anti-Islam movie?
Because we're not like Europeans. As annoying as the PC movement is, it has nonetheless made raw racial hatred intolerable, and no-BS American leaders like Giuliani have zero tolerance for hate crimes no less than for other crimes.
Not even Howard Stern would make a "horrifyingly offensive anti-Islam" production. Ann Coulter lost her job for her dumb remarks after 9/11. When it comes to real tolerance and pluralism, we get it. Many Europeans still do not.
#8
True, CF-- note how african-americans like Condi are now fair game for crude racist insults from the "left." They're becoming indistinguishable from the McVeigh crowd.
#9
lex: what is offensive to you may not be what is offensive to others. In the example I suggested a girl is driven to crime by having been victimized. Now, in the US, murderous wives are sometimes pardoned for killing vicious husbands; and you would hardly be offended by their having a right to self-defense. In fact, you might even applaud it. And yet, a woman refusing to be beaten by a man, or even fighting back, is a horrible, repulsive, objectionable and frightening prospect for many Moslem males. And so, when I say a "horrifyingly offensive" movie, it has a very interesting meaning: to many Moslems, human rights, the abolition of slavery, criminalizing child and wife abuse, outlawing 'honor killings' and the murder of apostates is "horrifyingly offensive." And it's about time somebody made a movie that shows how REPUGNANT these "cultural traditions" are to civilized people.
I would only add that Van Gogh, unlike his great-granddad, was one of those idiotarian untalented non-artists who specialize in insulting people of faith. His life was devoted to spiteful, snide attacks on catholics, jews, muslims alike. An equal opportunity abuser, if you will. Nothing justifies his murder, of course. But I still doubt that a movie like his would be made here-- unless of course it took as its target evangelical Christians....
#1
Haven't read all of it, but it's worth noting that the author says the following:
"When the United States began to look beyond Afghanistan , toward Iraq and the "axis of evil," Europeans realized they had lost control. It became clear that the bargain underlying transatlantic cooperation during the Cold War had become inverted. Whereas once the United States risked its own safety to defend the vital interests of a threatened Europe , a threatened United States was now looking out for itself in apparent, and sometimes genuine, disregard for what many Europeans perceived to be their moral, political, and security interests."
"In the end, however, Europeans have not sought to counter U.S. hegemony in the usual, power-oriented fashion, because they do not find U.S. hegemony threatening in the traditional power-oriented way. Not all global hegemons are equally frightening. U.S. power, as Europeans well know, does not imperil Europe 's security or even its autonomy. Europeans do not fear that the United States will seek to control them; they fear that they have lost control over the United States and, by extension, over the direction of world affairs."
#3
Ptah - Wow - terrific quote. Kagan can shred a topic adroitly and then reweave it into a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Magnificent analysis and summation of the current situation in one paragraph. Thx, Ptah and Thx for the post, tipper!
#4
a threatened United States was now looking out for itself in apparent, and sometimes genuine, disregard for what many Europeans perceived to be their moral, political, and security interests."
#5
In this sense, the United States is and always has been a revolutionary power, a sometimes unwitting -- but nevertheless persistent -- disturber of the status quo, wherever its influence grows. For Europeans, who are consumed with radical changes on their own continent and seek a predictable future in the world beyond, the United States has once again become a dangerous member of the society of nations.
#6
Reading this left me with a dammed if you do dammed if you don't feeling.
I come back to the point where I think We must always act to protect ourselves. If Europe (actually France and Germany) wants to have some input it would do well to drop the current attitude of obstruction it has adopted. It seems Chirac or de Villepin always use carefully selected words that are designed to divide and inflame. If they cooperate with us they might have some influnce.
I don't give a damm if France and Germany think what we have done in Iraq is "legitimate." I don't consider their purposeful and selfish obstruction legitimate. France and Germany have proven that they would rather talk and watch people die than act and save lives.
#7
Brilliant. Kagan is a national treasure. In other words, the Euros derive so many benefits from our hegemony, and have so much to lose from its alternative (US withdrawal into Fortress America mode), that their "resistance" is basically nothing more than nose-thumbing and media screaming about crimes 'n' atrocities 'n' such.
Europeans = chihuahuas. Little dog can't harm us, can't help us. Ignore the chihuahua's yapping and look east, fellow 'mericans.
Americans might be tempted, therefore, to dismiss the debate over legitimacy as a ruse and a fraud. They should not, however. There are indeed sound reasons for the United States to seek European approval. But they are unrelated to international law, the authority of the Security Council, and the as-yet nonexistent fabric of the international order. Europe matters because it and the United States form the heart of the liberal, democratic world. The United States' liberal, democratic sensibilities make it difficult, if not impossible, for Americans to ignore the fears, concerns, interests, and demands of their fellows in liberal democracies. U.S. liberalism will naturally drive U.S. foreign policy to seek greater harmony with Europe .
Other than that, here's my comment:
An enlightened despot doesn't tend to be liked, no matter how enlightened. He's still a despot. The King once had the support of his nobles, and they all acted like despots together. Now he's distancing from them, and (as Kagan notes) the nobles complain not because the King doesn't have popular support but mainly because he doesn't have *their* support.
Like it or not, the issue of "legitimacy" matters. If the current fabric of international law is torn and tattered then the solution is not to go naked, but rather to find new clothes to wear.
Start thinking about the Global Council of Democracies.
#11
How in the heck do you go about getting "support" where there is no way France will ever agree? Germany will just go along with France most of the time. If "liberal" western cohesion is important then countries besides the US will have to modify their views too. France is a very large obstacle and shows no signs in it's acts or public pronouncements in and kind of "liberal western" unity.
One side still grasps the central role of military force in world affairs, the other lives in a fairyland in which neck-sawing fascists are a progressive anti-colonial "resistance."
In any case, we and the Euros will be irrevocably divided by the Israel-Palistinian war over Israel's right to exist as long as it continues. Which will be until one side is defeated. Ain't gonna be our side....
#13
"Opinion polls taken before, during, and after the war show two peoples living on separate strategic and ideological planets. Whereas more than 80 percent of Americans believe that war can sometimes achieve justice, less than half of Europeans agree."
First, Aris, let me say that you and most Europeans would be Nazis if my father's generation of Americans had thought the way most Europeans do.
Second, the very issue of "world order" is absurd -- right up there with world government (again reminding me of Nazis). The world is and always will be a very messy place so long as humans with tools of war exist. Confronting the "axis of evil" is simply the task of removing powerful tools of war from people who are too intolerant for restraint.
Frankly, I believe that you and the other patrons of the European "world order" mentality are being duped by Chirac and Annan into seeing the world as some word game to be solved by intellectual dialogue -- while they dine elegantly and line their pockets. That's the only way I can explain things like the infinite series of useless U.N. resolutions. You would do well to contemplate Chirac's dining tab while he was mayor of Paris or to seriously investigate what really happened with "Oil for Food". You have been duped by those most vocal about "world order".
Posted by: Tom ||
11/19/2004 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Wow, Aris, we agree.
Do you ever discuss those radical ideas w/your friends and associates?
#15
Folks, compared to most Europeans, Aris is a moderate. Go read the chatboards at the Guardian Talk sometime. In their bizarre universe, every american military action is another Stalingrad, and every arab death cult slaughterer is a fighter for "liberation." See the Italian Iraq hostages' statements as soon as they were released in which they forgave their fascist captors and called them "guerrillas."
These notions are hammered into every European's head by an educational system and a newsmedia that are dominated by a 1968er generation that makes Dennis Kucinich look like a moderate. There are of course some brave holdouts against this idiocy but the majority of Europeans are living on a different planet.
As regards anything to do with war, Israel and violent third-world movements, there is no such thing as "western unity." Move on, folks. Different century now.
#16
The irony is if Europe had been more cooperative over the past decade and started carrying their fair share, we'd listen to them.
But they've been wrong too many times which cost hundreds of millions of people their lives.
Kagan also wrote, "...Europe 's initial support for the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and NATO's historic invocation of the right collectively to defend the United States were aimed in part at ensuring that Europe would have some say over the U.S. response to the terrorist attacks. It is no wonder, then, that Washington 's apparent indifference to these offers of assistance was so troubling to Europeans. "
Excuse me???? More rewriting of history? I've heard this from a lot of Europeans. I seem to remember of course we'll help you, you supply the blood and the money but we'll tell you where, when and how.
That is not support.
----
And quite frankly, with that EU monstrosity, "democracy" is not a term I'd apply. More like quasi-commie. It's not going to work.
Democracy is not top-down, monarchy is.
Democracy is bottom-up. I've had to explain that to Europeans more than once and they still don't get it or us.
And if Europe doesn't get off its' rear, there won't be a liberal Western democracy to deal with.
I think we've always been willing to give Europe a seat at the table. But their history precedes them. But they couldn't - can't even handle Kosovo. It's a mess and they should be fixing it, not the UN.
#18
Sock Puppet> How in the heck do you go about getting "support" where there is no way France will ever agree?
Don't get the support of France -- the point isn't to get the nobles' support (and certainly not any *one* noble's support), but rather to build a system that will provide *you* with "legitimacy" while removing legitimacy from *their objections* instead.
Counting democracies that supported you vs the democracies that opposed you is pretty close to a 50%-50% ratio. You had US-UK-Australia-Japan-Phillipines-South Korea-Italy-Spain-Portugal-Denmark-Netherlands-Slovenia-Poland-Czechia-Slovakia-Hungary-Romania-Bulgaria-FYR Macedonia-Estonia-Lithuania-Latvia-Iceland-Turkey-Panama-Costa Rica-Belize-Turkey-Mongolia (and possibly a couple more I'm forgetting) versus France-Belgium-Luxembourg-Germany-Austria-Greece-Cyprus-Serbia-Croatia-Switzerland-Finland-Sweden-Norway-India-Mexico-Canada-Argentina-Chile-Brazil-New Zealand-South Africa-Namibia-Mali (and several more I'm forgetting or who're ambiguous cases for "democracies"). And several of those opposing countries might have been in favour had it not been for the violation of the "international order" as it *currently* stands. You could have won the vote with a system that provided only democracies with a voice. And knowing they *did* have a voice might have made them even more likely to support you.
There is no such thing as "the West" anymore.
Yeah, there is, though since it nowadays includes Japan, South Korea and the Phillippines the name "West" isn't that appropriate anymore. It's those democracies that care about the individual rights of their citizens and where you are still free to criticize the people that govern you. Continental Europe is a portion of it. The Anglosphere (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) is another. The East Asian democracies is a yet third one. Portions of South America, and a tiny portion of Africa even.
Do you ever discuss those radical ideas w/your friends and associates? It must be difficult and lonely
I strongly supported the war in Afghanistan, when "friends and associates" said it was "for the oil". I was the only student in my university to vocally oppose having demonstrations against Clinton during a visit of his five or so years ago, thinking them hypocritical.
As for "difficult and lonely" I'll leave that characterization for tasks harder than mine -- but I *would* call it *frustrating* to be among the most pro-American voices one will ever hear in Greece (the only Greek person I've ever met who's more pro-American than me is my brother)...and then you go to an American forum and hearing them repeatedly consider you an anti-American troll.
Tom> Your objections to a "world order" or a "world government" are similar to objections a person might have three hundred years ago against written constitution that limit the absolute power of the monarchs.
Things change. It's not just about whether the absolute ruler is good or bad. Rule of law can eventually exist IMO, and things tend to work smoother when it does.
Excuse me???? More rewriting of history? I've heard this from a lot of Europeans. I seem to remember of course we'll help you, you supply the blood and the money but we'll tell you where, when and how. That is not support.
German troops have died in Afghanistan. They've supplied blood as well.
Anonymous2u, I don't believe you know anything about the "EU monstrosity". You call it "quasi-commie" but throughout the continent it's utterly *despised* by communists as it's a vast democratizing and liberalizing (with the Classical Liberal meaning of the word) force.
#20
I strongly supported the war in Afghanistan, when "friends and associates" said it was "for the oil". I was the only student in my university to vocally oppose having demonstrations against Clinton during a visit of his five or so years ago, thinking them hypocritical.
As I say, Aris is much closer to our way of thinking than the vast majority of Europeans. Now think about that.
I'll modify my statement somewhat and say that the "west" has no meaning as regards Israel, the arabs, and Iran, and of course any kind of war effort. Which is to say, on the most important matters of our time, there is no such thing as a loyal and coherent "western" confrere for us.
true, but mommy can't keep them safe from the threat of Islam. As a few more bombs go off and a few more film writers are gunned down - I think we will see them being forced to grow up real soon.
#25
Facts - other than France, most euro states actually were avoiding diplo contact with Arafat before he died. The EU attempted to declare the political wing of Hamas as terrorist (and thus banned from getting donations from europeans) this was only blocked by France. NATO is now providing training to Iraqi forces, though French and Germans wont go to Iraq to do it.
Even on the mideastern issues that most divide the US from Europe, we are within shouting distance. Only France (and I suppose Belgium and Greece - sorry AK) is firmly at odds with US goals. Everyone else can be worked with.
#26
Tom> Your objections to a "world order" or a "world government" are similar to objections a person might have three hundred years ago against written constitution that limit the absolute power of the monarchs.
You conveniently miss the point that your "world order" is not capable of restraining mullahs and Dear Leaders who do not subscribe to it. Nor does lack of participation in a World Court mean that the U.S. chooses to abandon all law and morality.
And who made Europe the definitive giver of "world order"? Sharia, anyone?
Posted by: Tom ||
11/19/2004 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Only France (and I suppose Belgium and Greece - sorry AK) is firmly at odds with US goals. Everyone else can be worked with.
Maybe, but "everyone else" doesn't have a seat on the UNSC, and France still dominates the EU. The trump holder, the one with blocking power, has enormous power to f*** things up for the rest.
#29
Aris, depending on where one is coming from will determine whether or not it's quasi-commie.
Europe is about equality, not equality of opportunity. It won't work, it's already been tried. Europeans are relying on the State to make things better, the State can't. It's been tried. I've been calling it mutated monarchy for about 3 years now, unelected 1 or unelected brusselsprouts, still unelected - and from EU books, more unaccountable than US. What does the final fisheries agreement look like?
I will never say a bad word about the German armed forces, they have performed magnificently w/in the parameters allowed.
However, Afghanistan was a bone to keep US quiet so the world could get back to "stability." And from the looks of things, lucrative UN deals. Do we need to review the headlines and stories from that point in time?
As far as I'm concerned, frogistan has never been a "historical ally."
---
If you really want to have some fun w/your no-blood-for-oil friends, no blood for cocoa. They shouldn't be hypocrits (sp), should they?
#30
I have an observation and a question that I hope does not cause a row or detracts from the main topic of the discussion: The article talks about the "legitimacy" that Europe can impute by being 25 nations that agree. However, in another sense, we are being asked to believe that the EU will become "one" in roughly the same way as the United States is "one".
So, are they 25 or one? Is this slipperiness akin to that which accompanies the "flexibility" that the Euros endow the concept of "legitimacy"?
I hope this doesn't start a catfight in which Aris gets misread again. If he answers my question, be sure to read it slowly:I certainly will.
I had a similar thought after reading post #25. LH says that eveyone but France and Greece can be worked with - but, should they become a union - that's like saying - everyone but Kansas and California can be worked with when referring to the US.
Once unite: all for one, one for all - but it seems they won't get to elect the people who will decisions for them. Maybe Euro's can soon make their motto the same as the people of DC - taxation without representation.
#33
So many milestones I can't keep up. Aris has it right on this one...World Council of Democracies. The UN is dead and rotting, killed off by the cancer of socialist and islamic dictatorships. Not that Aris hasn't been right before - I was just never had the chance to agree.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/19/2004 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#36
2b - As a few more bombs go off and a few more film writers are gunned down - I think we will see them being forced to grow up real soon.
Not sure it will be "growing up". I think it be more along the lines of returning to old habits (such as xenophobia). The worse things get in Europe, the closer we get to one or more of those nations panicking, starting mass deportations, and then it will just explode.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
11/19/2004 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
#37
Excellent post, excellent thread.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/19/2004 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#38
Aris, in what sense can a system under which unelected EU commissioners take powers away from the elected governments of member states be described as 'democratizing'?
#39
L of R - ok. So I guess the solution would be to do nothing but sit around and blame the Jews and the US. Wouldn't want xenophobics to panic, now would we.
#40
I don't know but to state that Europe "has lost control" over the U.S. implies that it ever had any.
When did that happen? Political NATO was a nice discussion board but the U.S. always called the shots. And since I was involved with NATO I know what I'm talking about.
What has changed is not "European control" but Europe being the center of security concerns.
#43
What has changed is not "European control" but Europe being the center of security concerns.
excellent point TGA.
As they say... Needs America to Operate. Those that I know say that it's less because the Americans "call the shots" but more because the Europeans always just want to call another meeting.
Like a marriage where one person only wants to talk about sex and the other person wants to have it ;-)
#44
oops..just reread my post and decided it sounded rude instead of funny. But I do think it highlights a basic difference between Americans and our friends across the pond. While Europeans say impulsive ,the American's say, "indecisive". Tomaytoe, toemattoh,
#45
What 2b and TGA said. The issue in the closet here, the one that dare not speak its name, is the fact that all the real action, all the real challenges and threats, arise from regions where Europe has little real influence: the near and far east.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/19/2004 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
#47
Europe 's initial support for the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and NATO's historic invocation of the right collectively to defend the United States were aimed in part at ensuring that Europe would have some say over the U.S. response to the terrorist attacks. It is no wonder, then, that Washington 's apparent indifference to these offers of assistance was so troubling to Europeans.
The rift has little to do with Iraq and much to do with the fact that, regardless how much we may sympathize (or not) with the Europeans, they can do very little to help or hurt us beyond their region. Can't project force; can make mischief with the jihadists (as France is doing) but will never really make common cause with them or the Chinese.
#48
Tom> You conveniently miss the point that your "world order" is not capable of restraining mullahs and Dear Leaders who do not subscribe to it.
The current world order is not *my* world order. The world order I'd prefer (with a council where democracies would have a say, and tyrannies would not) does not exist yet, nor has it ever existed, so we don't know whether it would be capable of dealing with such issues or not.
Liberalhawk> Only France (and I suppose Belgium and Greece - sorry AK) is firmly at odds with US goals.
No problem -- I agree with you there.
Ptah> I have an observation and a question that I hope does not cause a row or detracts from the main topic of the discussion: The article talks about the "legitimacy" that Europe can impute by being 25 nations that agree. However, in another sense, we are being asked to believe that the EU will become "one" in roughly the same way as the United States is "one". So, are they 25 or one?
The EU is still 25 voices that try to find a common position, it's not 1. I don't know if it will ever become 1.
Other than that I have no idea what Solana meant about "the legitimacy that comes through the collective action of a union of twenty-five sovereign states". If he's talking about legitimacy to act outside the EU borders, I don't think I agree with him at all. The idea of "shared sovereignty" is that the EU member-states have the right to share and pool their own sovereignties, transfering them to a collective body. I don't see how that would influence morally the legitimacy of actions (by the USA, or the EU, or anyone else) outside the EU area.
If *all* (or most) democracies of the world were included in a decision-making process, that might confer "legitimacy". But EU couldn't confer it alone anymore that the USA could.
#50
There was one time in recent history when the Germans were more hawkish than the U.S. That was in the late 70s when Helmut Schmidt had to urge the Carter administration to do something about the Soviet SS 20. I was actively involved in that discussion and somehow the roles seemed to be inversed. Carter, the deluded "pacifist" vs Helmut Schmidt, the "realist hawk" (unfortunately his party was split on that topic).
The real problem with NATO and the UNSC is that they were never made for the things now expected from them. NATO was a defense treaty designed to deter a Soviet attack in Europe. Attack one state, attack them all. The Soviets knew they wouldn't get away with a "little aggression". That worked.
The Europeans were willing to submit to U.S. "dominance" in NATO because it was their only way of defense.
What NATO is expected to do now is of interventionist nature outside of Europe. It's obvious that Europeans are not willing to play the same submissive role as before. Any NATO intervention now may be seen as important and necessary, but not critical for European survival. So if Europe is expected to participate, it will insist on a real debate and a real choice. The power situation has not changed militarily, but the political necessities have.
That's why Germany is in Afghanistan and not in Iraq. Afghanistan is seen as a "legitimate cause". The U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, which had to get NATO involved. The U.S. actually brushed NATO aside in the first months which may have had a military advantage but not a political one.
Iraq was not seen as a imminent security concern for Europe (let's not discuss now whether this assessment was correct). That's why many NATO members stayed out.
More of the same could be said of the UNSC. It might have been designed to work the way it is expected today but it never really did (and could). For the last 60 years it was little more than a world forum to draw attention to conflicts that it couldn't resolve. Gulf War 1 was the only real exception, but even then it was the broad coalition that Bush 41 managed to build. The UNSC just gave the whole thing a "legitimacy" which it actually never needed because Saddam had invaded a country and there really wasn't any doubt about who the aggressor was.
If we want the UNSC to be an organ that truly can "legitimize" military action, it needs to change. Only nations that are willing to actively contribute troops and/or other efforts to secure peace and resolve conflicts should be on it.
As for NATO, it should be replaced by a worldwide treaty organization of democratic (or at least not dictatorial) nations that pledge (mandatory) mutual assistance in cases of aggression from outside AND willingness to fight the WOT. That doesn't mean that every partner nation must be obliged to participate in any "preemptive" military action the U.S. deems necessary. But the framework should be there to make a decision easier. If preemptive action becomes necessary, UNSC decisions need a "fast track". The usual way of endless debates, some sanctions, some more sanctions, some threats, more threats, "serious consequenes" etc doesn't address a case like Iran properly. When a country like Iran (that signed the nonproliferation treaty) pursues nuclear weapons, a UNSC response must come in weeks, not months and years. Swift decisions with credible military threats would deter violating nations. Sanctions can work, but not for threats like these.
#51
The U.S. actually brushed NATO aside in the first months which may have had a military advantage but not a political one
Agreed. In other words, NATO is now primarily a political instrument designed to keep the US and EU joined at the hip, rather than a military alliance.
If we're going to get serious about actually using and deploying real military assets in the regions that matter, then we need to elevate the role of democratic nations in those regions and de-emphasize the role of militarily insignificant European allies.
Again, sorry to repeat myself but the logic here screams out for us to please, finally, get serious about driving a much closer relationship with India and Russia. Japan and Australia are important, sure, but the truly crucial nations-- especially but not only as regards containing Iran (and China)-- are these two major powers that together straddle the volatile regions of the near and far east.
#52
lex, I know how you favor Russia and India as world players, but your are dead wrong about European "insignificance". Europe lacks decisive military power for now, but it has considerable economic influence... and this also counts (and hurts) for offenders.
And despite all the differences Americans and Europeans still share a lot more than America and Russia or India. Russia will actively strive to regain its status as a world power and rival of the U.S. Invite Russian troops into Iraq is like paying Danegeld...
Russia will never be a real ally. It's not a democracy and it's a bloody mess apart from that.
Ignore Europe at your own peril.
#53
TGA: That's a helluva proposal. I'm not sure exactly how I'd respond if I were Condi Rice, but it's serious, well-stated, and worthy of respect. I wish the heads of state and foreign ministers of various European countries (*cough* weasels! *cough*) were saying things like this instead of the nonsense Chirac is peddling these days.
Any way we can get you elected Chancellor over there?
Posted by: Mike ||
11/19/2004 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
#54
Mike, only in America can a President be elected by telling the people EXACTLY what he thinks and plans to do.
Gosh..am I wrong, but it seems like we have actual consensus here on rantburg - even with Aris that the UNSC needs to be replaced with a body where dictators aren't given memberships.
But here's the thing - I don't think it will ever be more than ceremonial. For the same reasons that we have touched on in this thread re: is the EU 1 or 25?
If it's 25 individual democratic states- then it's just an advisory group were representatives of the people agree to agree - as long as they actually agree. As soon as the body is capable of making a binding decisions for parts of it's whole, it becomes the government whose members either are or are not accountable to the electorate for their decisions.
But we do not and will not ignore Europe. We have thousands of institutional ties, especially as regards trade, policing, cross-border investment, multinationals that are truly neither "American" or "European" etc. These will continue, and strengthen, regardless of NATO or the security sphere. Has there been the slightest reduction in US-Euro law and intel cooperation since the Iraq War? Of course not. It's strengthening.
Russia will never be a real ally. It's not a democracy and it's a bloody mess apart from that.
I'd settle for India alone, but Russia at a minimum needs to be inside the tent pissing out. The immediate goal should be to wean them off of support for Iran. Achieve that and I'm happy.
As to Russia becoming an ally, you're probably right. There is utterly no point of cultural or economic convergence (other than another source of reserves for ExxonMobil, if Russia ever stops screwing foreign investors) between us and Russia today, and no sign of one emerging. For that matter there's little convergence with European cultural or social norms, either. Iranians would have an easier time integrating themselves into our culture than Russians. Perhaps this will change in another 40 years or so. Perhaps not.
But having an enormous amount in common culturally with the French (not just democracy but love of technology, openness to multiculturalism etc), hasn't prevented Frenbch elites for sixty years from seeking to thwart and counter us at almost every turn. The point is that we and the Russians have, despite our vast cultural and political differences, some very hard interests in common, mainly putting out the islamist fire on Russia's southern flank, also constraining China. It's the task of our diplomats to highlight these and forge an alliance of realists from them.
For Russia we should craft a relationship similar to the one we have with Turkey: not friends, just greatly useful partners. I'm sure that Gospozha Rice well understands this.
#57
Nobody here is ignoring Germany TGA. We fully understand that with a change of leadership - Germany could become a mighty machine overnight. It's not like we think you are a bunch of Paleo's or frogs. We understand what a few changes could do.
But it's not going to happen until you have a change of leadership away from the creaking socialist politics that leave you undefended from a credible Islamic threat.
#59
I'd definitely dissent from a consensus that we need to replace the UNSC with anything other than bi-lateral treaties. Old Europe sees these supra-national organizations as a means of controlling America. I am not in favor of giving Europeans control of anything.
TGA says we ignore Europe at our own peril. He cites its considerable economic influence. I cite the fact that it drew us into three major wars in the last century through its constant tribal bickering. Aside from that, I seriously ask, is there any reason not to ignore it?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/19/2004 15:38 Comments ||
Top||
#60
The framework to counter such an attack, of course.
I wish Germany could have a 9/11 moment WITHOUT a 9/11 attack.
#64
we all know that the world will only truly unite when Mars attacks. All we can do is to prepare the framework for such an attack. And replace Martians with terrorists cum WMDs
OK, Iran for 25 years has been openly supporting terrorist movements that have slaughtered hindreds of US marines and diplomats. Now Iran is harboring hundreds of Al Qaeda operatives. Iran is determined to acquire nukes. So why are the Europeans so insistent on refusing to face up to the very real likelihood that Iran's terrorist proxies will soon have access to WMD's? What good is the Atlantic Alliance here?
#65
2b, we all know that the world will only truly unite when Mars attacks.
I don't know - if history were to be our guide, the French would be accepting their bribes and allowing them to secretly use their government bases. The Russian leader would ignore them in exchange for personal ambitions until the day Martians turned on them - at which time the would spare no life in the fight. And the Paleos would do nothing but blame the Jews.
#66
I just do not see how with NATO, G-8, UNSC, WTO, OECD and OSCE that somehow the missing link in getting the nations of Europe and the US to work together is a new international framework.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/19/2004 15:49 Comments ||
Top||
#68
Mrs. D - you are making me think that once again - we see this transatlantic disconnect between Americans wanting to act and the Europeans wanting to form a new committee to discuss what actions need to be taken :-)
But we have to have some framework to work together - and clearly the security council is not it. Only democratic nations would certainly be an improvement over a body that has Sudan heading human rights. NATO rules don't reflect today's reality. Besides...anything to get rid of the UN would be a huge improvement.
#71
The UN serves an important purpose. It is a place where everybody gets to come and talk. The UNSC is tootheless and powerless and that's fine too.
But having some other organization that involves democratic nations involves deciding who democratic nations are. Remember, last year Richard Armitage said Iran was a democratic nation. And what happens when a nation reverts from democracy to a lower form of government? And I suspect we may see this as Islam encroaches on European governments.
I just don't see the need for an additional organization whose attraction to most of its members will be to act as a fetter on America.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/19/2004 16:04 Comments ||
Top||
#72
I think we need to view the French like we view the Turks and Russians. You can work with them as long as it is in their interests.
#74
We can't afford to ignore Europe, it seems the way they get our attention is to go to war amongst themselves.
TGA, check out Bobby Jindahl (sp) new republican House member from Louisiana.
Very interesting background and sends a message to India.
Ah, well, Europe will have elections soonish. We'll see what happens then. At least Italy will finally complete it's first post-WWII government w/an "extremist right-winger" at the helm.
hehehehehehehehehehehe
And the vote on joining the EU - now that's going to be very, very interesting.
#79
I have an observation and a question that I hope does not cause a row or detracts from the main topic of the discussion: The article talks about the "legitimacy" that Europe can impute by being 25 nations that agree.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/19/2004 17:16 Comments ||
Top||
#84
"And the vote on joining the EU - now that's going to be very, very interesting"
Um, the nine referendums about new countries joining the EU happened last year. Are you talking about the referendums on the European Constitution which are yet to happen?
"For the same reasons that we have touched on in this thread re: is the EU 1 or 25? If it's 25 individual democratic states- then it's just an advisory group were representatives of the people agree to agree - as long as they actually agree. As soon as the body is capable of making a binding decisions for parts of it's whole, it becomes the government whose members either are or are not accountable to the electorate for their decisions."
The EU can already take binding decisions for its members with qualified majority (rather than consensus) in *certain* areas of policy. It can't do so in matters of *foreign policy*, which still remain a matter of national sovereignty and therefore require consensus. So, it's not as simple as that.
#86
"with qualified majority (rather than consensus How is the difference defined?"
Sorry, instead of the word "consensus", I should have probably used the word "unanimity". The difference between unanimity where everyone has to agree and any country can veto, as opposed to qualified majority which means atleast a certain percentage of the member-states must agree, representing atleast a certain percentage of the population of the EU.
#87
I think the 21st century will be more like the 19th century than the 20th century. From that perspective France is acting in a 19th century manner and protecting it's (percieved) interests, while America is acting as a 20th century power and promoting a multilateral world (yes, I meant to say that). Look at what France does, not what it says.
#89
You know anonymous2u, you are making me go hunt for that post when I mentioned that I considered France to be imperialistic in Africa -- and I had posted that one some time *before* the Ivory Coast incident.
#90
SUPER thread! Lots said here (and in the article that's triggered it) that needs to be considered, and I'm glad people are discussing it.
The one thing most of Europe doesn't seem to understand is that the actions of the United States are being taken in the belief that we're countering a threat to our peace and security. We are not just out trying to add territory, or to control area. We have assessed that certain nations pose a reasonable threat to our peace and our citizens, and we're doing what all good nations would do - defending ourselves. The Europeans may not agree to the seriousness of the threat, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Several nations, however (France particularly), are acting as if there is, and never would have been, a threat. The Oil-for-weapons/palaces/graft/bribery program explains a lot of the attitude of the French - they were being well-bribed to hinder US action. That puts them in the role of accomplice, in my book, and makes them a legitimate target of any behavior we wish to take against them.
Russia was against us until they, themselves, were heavily struck, and now they're grudgingly moving in our direction. I agree there's no place in Iraq for them, but they have the power to exert heavy pressure on Iran and North Korea. They need to show us they understand the problem by bringing that pressure to bear. The French government is beginning to look more and more like la Cosa Nostra, rather than a legitimate government (my definition of a legitimate government being one which exercise power "derived from the consent of the governed"). Neither NATO, nor the European Union, nor any single nation have any legitimate power to exercise restraint on US sovereignty, and any attempt to do so - economically, culturally, socially, or militarily - is a hostile act.
If Europe wishes to influence US action, they must do so in a legitimate fashion, and understand that sometimes friends agree to disagree. The actions of Chirac, in the United Nations, in Europe, and as the leader of France, has been nothing but contemptuous and hostile. Those nations that agree with his behavior are tarred with the same brush, and deserve any retaliation the US or its populace may choose to visit upon them.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/19/2004 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#92
I wouldn't say that Europeans don't see the seriousness of the current islamist/terrorist threat, but their historical experience has led them to be less active about trying to resolve every problem as soon as it arises. It has been said that Europe's current policies are based on the experience of November 9th (fall of the Berlin Wall), while America's actions are a consequence of 9/11. The Fall of the Berlin Wall and the (Yugoslavia excepted) peaceful unification of Europe is a marking experience. It seems to prove that some problems (the Soviet Union/Warsaw Treaty) simply go away if you just sit, wait and discuss with patience (Reagan's decisive policies are willingly ignored). So many still think that the terrorist threat can be matched with patience and negotiation. This is something the U.S., with the experience of 9/11, simply cannot accept.
The U.S. needs to be careful though not to fall into the same trap the German Emperor William II fell into: To believe that military power is everything and that a (sometimes complicated) web of treaties, alliances and negotiations is only cumbersome and irrelevant. Germany twice made the experience that if you play the bully, the nations will gang up against you, and how powerful you might be you can't defeat the whole world.
The U.S. has a tendency to be a bit too outspoken about her "rightful position" as the eternal leader of the world and the most powerful nation. We all know that you are but don't shove it down our throat on every occasion. This creates resentment and can lead to unwanted alliances against you.
Europe has the right to affirm itself as a major player. It isn't willing to do so militarily, but it is an economical challenge the U.S. must live with. Europe certainly has its own homegrown problems, but it also has opportunities the U.S. will have to cope with. We are friends and rivals. We just neede to make sure that, despite being rivals, we're still a team. Because China will NOT be our friend despite all the business opportunities.
As for France, the U.S. (unfortunately) doesn't realize that France is actually quite easy to play. I always loved to deal with the French in negotiations. I would do most things an American would be reluctant to do: Go to meet them on their own terrain, in France, the most sumptious French surroundings, coming well prepared with a hundred literary references, boost their ego how often I could.
The French got their Ego polished, but I got the better deal. And the French wouldn't even notice.
If America understood that the French are satisfied with feeling important instead of really being important and could play them this way, we wouldn't have the current rift.
#93
TGA - that assumes that we Americans feel responsible or considerate enough to assist in eliminating well-deserved French feelings of inadequacy and fantastic conjurings of remembered past empire/glories. I, for one, would refer them to our unofficial FrankG-family motto: "Get over it!"
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2004 22:05 Comments ||
Top||
#94
Frank G, I know.
But a mozzie buzzing around all night can kill your sleep, too.
So if you can't swat it, lure it into some other place.
But of course you need to get up and switch on the light in another room.
Telling the mozzie "Get over it" won't do the trick.
#95
The Berlin wall fell not because Germans sat around and did nothing, as you say, but because Ronald Reagan took the initiative to make it beyond their ability and budget to compete.
TGA - your post shows the same arrogance that our of "blue citizens" impose on our "red citizens". It starts with the assumption that we are inferior - but just don't know it. It's very unbecoming and it's untrue. Saying and firmly believing that doesn't make it so.
#96
RAID or a complete EU/UN Oil-For-Food-Investigation will swat that insect. What indictments await "the worm" once he's out of office?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2004 22:25 Comments ||
Top||
#97
I don't see TGA as arrogant at all. I just choose to make my own (arrogant?) decisions with his excellent advice considered (always) and accepted (sometimes)
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2004 22:26 Comments ||
Top||
#98
Read this absolutely great thread, Condi. It is your homework assignment before the Senate confirmation hearings.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/19/2004 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
#99
I respect TGA very much and do not consider him arrogant. I was just saying that particular post echoed the arrogance that we are tired of hearing.
#100
"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun."
-- Mao Tse Tung (in one of his lucid moments)
The world grows smaller every day. The growth of global communication nets, accessible to all regardless of location or status, threatens the entrenched power structures - from the MSM to the UN.
#101
TGA - your approach makes sense for a nation whose power and position are roughly equivalent to those of France. Doesn't work for us. We meet them at the UN, not in Fontainebleau, and in the UN, France has a veto and a global media platform. In other words, they have all the trumps and will play them ruthlessly against the hated hyperpuissance, no matter how much we stroke them. But your approach would be quite useful for us as regards Brazil or, in places, Russia.
#102
anon, first read carefully about what I said about the Berlin Wall (including Reagan's role).
The whole post has nothing to do with arrogance. The thing is, even a very powerful nation needs to compromise for its own good.
France may be annoying and even irrelevant. If it manages to gang up with other annoying and irrelevant nations they together become less irrelevant and more annoying.
Germans actually hate this attitude nearly as much as the Americans do. Like them we are rather straightforward people.
This is why we often pay the second highest prices in the big oriental bazaar which is foreign policy.
Sometimes it pays a lot to give up a little pride. It doesn't make you less sovereign or powerful. But sometimes saves you big bucks.
#103
So while everyone seems to be in a relatively benevolent Friday evening mood - helped along, no doubt, by your national beverage of choice - shall we tackle another of the residua of Old Europe? Referring, of course, to those ex-colonies whose non-sensical borders create seemingly endless strife in Africa and the ME, from Congo to Nigeria to Cote d'Ivoire to (unfortunately) Iraq. Boon of kleptocratic dictators feathering their Swiss bank accounts, bane of anyone hoping for a decent future for sub-Saharan Africa. So which way will our benevolent assembly of democracies go? Respect the legacy of Westphalia, or midwife the break up of the relics of empire?
#104
Oh, not another continent to fix tonight, please!
As for the "national" beverage of choice: It's straight Glenmorangie Single Malt 18yo Scotch.
Which, for some strange reasons, is cheaper in Germany than in Scotland.
EU mysteries...
#105
agree completely with the last point. No need for us to rub everyone's nose in the fact that we can crush them ten times over. I would hope that Bush/Rove/Condi are now trying to figure out which thowaway cards they're willing to deal in order to reassure the worried allies-- Germany and UK, maybe also Japan-- and the fence-sitters that the US is willing to accept constraints.
Probably some meaningless BS like a middle east "envoy" and restarting, if that's the right word, the ridiculous peace process; maybe also a compromise on Kyoto. This would give us a bit more breathing room re. Iraq and Iran, so we can push hard there, crush the fascists prior to the Iraqi elections and put real heat on the mullahs.
Bush is a good poker player. He'll drop a hand or two in order to win overall.
#111
TGA - I agree with your post number 102. But what I am saying is that the need to compromise works both ways. It is not just the US who needs to consider how they present their arguments. Europe always tells us what we need to do - how we should do it better - how we did it wrong. We are tired, very tired, of trying to appease everyone's egos. We want to get down to the business of addressing the serious Islamist threat to the western way of life. We are doing the best we can to counter that threat...making some mistakes along the way - but moving forward. We need Western Europe's (forget France) help - not their constant sniping.
This blame America and the Jews game is not productive to our common goals. Europeans need to stop treating America as the dunce and foil and work with us. An occassional "thank you" now and then for our blood efforts would indeed be appreciated.
#112
Important NOT to let the world know what your throwaway cards are
We have dozens. Pick a card, any card... Preferably something that the Euros value enormously and that means next to nothing to us. Like the ridiculous fiction of a mideast "peace process"...
#114
Even better would be to distract the Euros, throw them completely off-guard by upping the ante, as Reagan did by proposing to slash both powers' arsenals at Reykjavik. Why not propose a NAFTA-EU Free Trade Zone? Or a complete end to agricultural subsidies on both sides of the Atlantic? That would dominate the news for months and call the Euros' bluff regarding their constant yammering for more help to Africa and the rest of the third world.
And while we're at it, propose that we'll add another fifteen billion for preventing AIDS in AFrica-- provided that the EU pony up its first fifteen billion ;-)
#5
Don't know, CrazyFool, though my history teacher yesterday made a clear differentiation between political (since according to him the VC were SAID to be defeated by that time) while admitting that Hue and the Tet Offensive were militarily a Viet Cong FUBAR and a Marine Corps "0wn@g3."
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/19/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As is usually the case with Schwartz, damned good article. Tells the truth about Fallujah (insurgents running a Taliban-style gov't, locals glad to see us running 'em out), and lays the smackdown on the lamestream media for - let's just lay it on the line, folks - lying about it.
Schwartz is a very savvy analyst of the situation in that part of the world. He's also a convert to Sufi Islam (the gentler, mystical strain of the religion), so he has a cultural awareness that many of us admittedly lack. Only minor gripe I have with him is his past expressions of optimism that the House of Saud can change into something deserving of a destiny other than permanent enshrinement on the Endangered Species List.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
11/19/2004 1:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Schwartz also has a problem with denial. He wrote a book called "The two faces of Islam" which basically blames the House of Saud for all of Islam's problems.
Well, the House of Saud does subsidize Wahabi mosques, etc. but the problem with Islam is more basica than that; much more.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
