Since February 2009 , this blog and Huib's 3 other Euroblogs are together at:

AT HOME IN EUROPE [EU] (at EURACTIV)
- In Europa Zu Hause [DE]
- L'Europe Chez Soi [FR]
- At Home in Europe [EN]
- In Europa Thuis [NL]

Showing posts with label EU Security Defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU Security Defense. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Worst imaginable scenario in Holland: The right negotiates an anti-social minority government , dependent on Wilders' votes

SP party cartoon: Wilders calls the shots...
I have been wrong. Wilders' one-man PVV "party", a mafioso construction controlling 24 out of 150 parliamentarians in the Dutch administrative capital The Hague is not excluded, no, it it calling the shots, for the moment.

Election-winner VVD (conservatives, 31/150) and election-loser CDA (Christian-Democrats, 21/150) agreed with the false-blond populist (PVV, 24/150) on August 9, 2010, to negotiate a coalition government program, to be implemented by a VVD-CDA team of Ministers, with the support of Wilders' acolytes, who will not participate personally in that Government. If nobody from the participating parties disagrees, that would provide a tiny second-chamber majority of 76/150, but a minority in the first chamber, the senate, where it would master a minority of 35/75.

The right is hoping for a landslide at the regional (provincial) elections in March, 2011, for the provincial parliaments who nominate the senate members.

The VVD and CDA agree on a 18 billion euro spending-cut program, without compensation by way of charging the wealthy and the banks who provoked the recent financial crisis. Wilders, who had himself elected on promises of no-cuts on pensions and welfare, agrees however, in so far as his program of apartheid and discrimination of immigrants, as well as his security proposals are honored by the two other parties.

What we see, is a devilish scenario. Wilders remains free, to develop his provocations and to terminate his collaboration with the Right at any moment that suits him. The Dutch welfare state is deconstructed by the thatcherite conservative VVD, while the CDA, I presume, will limit itself to protecting the corporatist structures it planted in Dutch society from the Fifties onwards.

Wilders already gave in on the retirement pension issue. Although he declared, before elections, that maintaining the retirement age at 65 years, was a "breaking point" for him and the PVV, three hours after closure of the ballot boxes in June, he said on television, that he was ready to accept a 67 year limit.

In an artistic move, Wilders created a national and international discussion about the pros and cons of his appearance at the SIOA meeting in New York on September 11 against the Park 51 inter-religious centre, where an Islamic worship room is planned. The public debate shifted as planned, from the barbarous cuts to "freedom of speech" with the US ultra-right.

We got a preview of the way in which an eventual minority rightist government will deal with that kind of provocations, as CDA-leader and acting foreign minister Verhagen timidly asked Mr. Wilders "to please consider the consequences of his deeds" for the international position of the Netherlands and its business interests.

Meanwhile, the not-right political side, kept quiet. Intimidated by Wilders' rhetoric and inapt to mobilize the majority of Dutch citizens who are staunchly against apartheid and discrimination on their doorsteps, they are waiting for a miraculous end to the Fortuyn-Wilders nightmare, hiding away in silence and hoping that somebody else than themselves, will take upon them the dirty task to tell the bare truth about Wilders' gliding to (neo-)fascism.

Yesterday, a relatively minor social-democrat eminence, senate-member Frans Leijnse, also professor at the respected Leyden University, finally crossed the border of silence and wrote an article for a nationwide daily, demonstrating that Wilders' party, the PVV, is to be considered as neo-fascist.

Too little, too late. The hate-poison has spread itself to wide proportions of the public. About Islam, anything goes, actually. People feel themselves abandoned, left alone. Lone rider Wilders has their sympathy. Attacking Wilders equals high treason.

The only solution, I see, is a grassroots campaign in the twelve Dutch regions (provinces) that shows how patient and democratic action creates a better life for all inhabitants of f.i. an urban neighborhood, without discrimination of newcomers. That shows, that the acolytes of Geert Wilders are empty-headed and supremacist. That makes clear, that the democratic left is not your enemy, but your ally.

Such a campaign will have to deal with the outrageous accusations from Wilders and his far-right Israeli and US allies, that the Left is part of a world-wide conspiracy that allies itself with Islamists in order to stay in power. Likewise, it will have to deal with religious fanatics, who reject any accommodation with western society. But why wouldn't it be feasible? It must be the right way to deal with 21st century problems. Common sense will accept credibility of peaceful social solutions. The democratic Left should take their own destiny in their hands and go forward.

There is no way back.
Anymore.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Clinton and Ashton: US-EU Girl Power Made Netanyahu Climb Down


The three "40+ breakthroughs"
  • Hillary Clinton spent 40+ minutes on the telephone with Israeli PM Binjamin Netanyahu, making it perfectly clear that, this time, the Obama Administration would not accept "No" for an answer to its demands that Israel puts an end to its provocations.
  • In a first show of which impact a united European stand can have on Washington's capacity to effectively change its policies in the Obama way, Catherine Ashton braved Israeli objections and visited Hamas-governed Gaza Strip on a 40+ hours' mission.
  • Combined US and European action made the overconfident rightwing Netanyahu-Lieberman Government give in within another 40+ hours.

Israeli Government gives in and works at damage-control
This morning's Guardian brings a first evaluation: Israel's Binyamin Netanyahu in climbdown over US demands for peace.
The key issue of the clash between the US and Israel was the provocatively announced construction of 1.600 Jewish flats in the contested East Jerusalem area. The Guardian:
He [Netanyahu] did not announce, as the US had demanded, a freeze on the construction of Jewish homes in Ramat Shlomo, in East Jerusalem, the key point at issue.
But diplomats in Washington, Moscow and Jerusalem said Netanyahu had given a private promise that there will be a temporary freeze on any new construction. The work, while not cancelled, is to be postponed for several years.
Substantial negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are still far away. But this could be a turning point. The Guardian points out, that:
Obama and Clinton stand to gain from the Israeli retreat, which will heighten their reputation among the Palestinians and in the Arab world. Obama and Clinton were left looking weak after a similar stand-off with Israel last September when peace talks failed to get under way.
The EU as a whole is in an awkward position concerning the Middle East. They have big security interests at stake, much more important than those of the US.
During the G.W.Bush administrations, a divided Europe had to remain powerless at the side-lines, when its vital interests were put in danger by the 2003 Iraq invasion, by the Bush-supported killing of the remains of the Oslo arrangements, by the ill-inspired Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and, last but not least, the Cheney-handcrafted 2008 Georgian disaster (where Israeli "advisers" to the Georgian army played a key role).
A story of exacerbated European divisions
Most of the time, Europe was divided. In 2002/2003, divisions between the Blair-led UK and the other bigger EU powers France and Germany, were even exacerbated, as Blair harangued most fresh Eastern European EU-members and, to a still undisclosed measure, Balkenende's Holland, at the side of the US Neocon Iraq scheme. A lasting European rift was avoided, thanks to the stupidity of US post invasion policies in Iraq, that brought soon striking evidence of the underlying fraud and made it clear, how much the Iraq adventure was and is contrary to every possible European interest.
As part of the big powers' Oslo Quartet, the EU did not weigh much upon the steady dismantling of the two-state solution. As a "useful idiot", the EU furnished and still furnishes, the bulk of the international financial support to the Palestinian Authority, only to see its investments repeatedly destroyed by Israeli bombs (harbour, airport).
And Tony Blair again: As a Quartet appointed facilitator of negotiations in the region, what has he done?

During the 2006 Lebanon invasion, the EU found more of a common stand than before. It helped and helps, thanks to the wisdom of many Lebanese leaders, to maintain a shaky cease-fire at the Northern border of Israel. But proposals by the German Foreign Secretary Fischer, to extend the EU peace operation to areas of conflict between Israel and Palestine, fell on deaf ears.
Another result of the US failures, their pro-Likud stubbornness and their open contempt of the NATO allies, has been, now and then, a revival of outdated particular claims in the Middle East from former European colonizers and mandate-holders. France saw an opportunity, for instance, after the murder of Hariri in Lebanon, to reassert some of its former influence there, as the US hopelessly failed in understanding the particular dynamics of that multicultural society. That did not help to forge a common European stand, either.

Georgia: A turning point in retrospect
But Sarkozy's unique and rapid intervention (as he happened to be president of the EU in 2008) in the Georgian conflict, showed for the first time, that the EU can deal independently with its own interests in the wider region, if it acts quick and undivided.
While Cheney himself was desperately stoking conflict in defeated Tbilissi, France made for the EU an honorable compromise with Moscow that the Bush administration had to bow to.
This was exceptionally possible because of the halfheartedness of the US intrigue in Georgia.
For, in a general way, it is a hard fact, that the EU only can progress in its international security policy, if it is not going against the US and/or Russia's.
A united stand of the EU, even at this moment of the still fledgling Ashton mission, will also influence US and Russian positions, like it seems to me, that has happened now by way of the surprising Gaza initiative of the EU's Ashton.

Let us give the two-girls power a chance!

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Obama Health Care Reform is at a Tipping Point. For Europe, too

The historical struggle in Washington about Health Care Reform went mostly under the horizon of the European mainstream press, lastly. 

One understands why. The procedure got stuck, last autumn, in the dark alleyways of US decision-making on the federal level. 
For it is complicated to understand, why a Senate and a House of Representatives, both with a comfortable 50%+ majority of Democrats, cannot agree on a set of arrangements that are, since dozens of years, part of the civilization of most EU countries: Collective insurance, guaranteeing access to health care for every citizen.

Most European countries have adopted a mixed system, where state guarantees and tax measures facilitate commercial insurance companies as well as non-profit co-operatives in providing basic health care to every citizen (and, in many instances: even to non-citizen inhabitants). Paradoxically, Great Britain, champion of privatization, is an exception: It has a completely state-governed NHC system. Even Ms. Margaret Thatcher proved unable to change things there...

What the Obama team is proposing in the United States, is nothing more than a first step into a world, where the 20% not-assured- and the 25% insufficiently protected citizens, will get access to a compulsory (yes!) basic protection against being left behind, when they fall ill. 

The conservative-Democrat and Republican foes of the Reform, are divided as for their motives:
  • loss of profit for private insurance companies (representatives sponsored by insurance comps and medicine producers)
  • too much state (federal) intrusion into private citizen responsibilities (libertarians and their ilk)
  • angst for state constraint on decisions on life and death, on abortion and on church-prohibited matters - imagining local "death committees", repayment of abortion charges, advantages for illegal immigrants and making God-abiding citizens pay for other people's sins while caring AIDS patients, for instance (here we find the fundamental Christian Right together with the Libertarians).
President Obama is not only a fine expert of the American Constitution and its guarantee for all citizens to be able to struggle for happiness, but he is also influenced by the Chicago School of Community Development. This School has adopted the view, that (local) emancipation of people in disadvantaged situations is best served, when their aspirations are coupled with advantages for the men and women in power. The result is a, you could say, rather cynical and resolutely NON ideological approach to empowerment. New coalitions are to be built around every step forward to emancipation and more equality.
That is why, in my opinion, President Obama has spent so much effort and time in building a large and diversified majority for his health care plans, leaving behind, under way, many principles of it, in exchange for support from people of whom he hoped that they would find more (immediate) profit in supporting the laws, than in refuting them.
As the American economy and the American private-public relations are different from the same, when you are dealing with a difficult urban neighborhood, this strategy did not work. Even a provisionally Senate-adopted set of laws, full of "pork"*), could not pass the hurdle of a 60% majority in the Senate.
So, to my relief, Obama changed recently his strategy and decided to use legal means at the disposal of the Presidency and the Democrat majorities in House and Senate. There is nothing revolutionary in that. Former president G. W. Bush made his outrageous tax-cuts for the rich also into law in that way. And he had a smaller majority than Obama.
This Rooseveltian (regulating the cisis-ridden economy during the 30's) and Johnsonian (social system and race equality) Obama-operation, is nearing its completion, these days. It is more than due. Liberal support is withering away, and "tea-party" like demagogy is not only on the move in the US, but also in Europe and in Israel.
In Europe, a Wilders does not hide his contempt for Obama (Copenhague and recently in London), an Ulfkotte spreads his venom on German websites, etc. The Israeli Government humiliated the Obama administration with its continuing colonizing policy.
As of March 15, it seems, when we believe Slate magazine, that the Health Care Bill will be rightly and legally forced on Congress:

March 15, 2010: "I have no intention of not passing this bill," says Speaker Pelosi. She doesn't have the votes, as her own whip, James Clyburn, said yesterday on Meet the Press. But pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak told National Review late Friday, "they've been able to peel one or two of my 12," and he sounds discouraged: "It's almost like some right-to-life members don't want to be bothered." That sounds more like five or six. Fox News calculates Pelosi has 211 of the required 216, with many still undecided, while Nate Silver guesses she'll get "between 216 and 218." Nobody has a clue, but the mood is upbeat. Chance of passage: 55 percent.

Slate's "Whipometer" indicates a small but real opportunity that the bill will pass later this month.
The European Stake
The European stake in this titanic fight is big. If Obama looses, he will be weakened in all possible fields where Europeans need the support of the US for policies that differ from those that were pursued by the Bush-Cheney administration: Iran, Israel-Palestinian peace, world-wide regulation of hedge funds and credit swaps, Afghanistan, engaging Russia, engaging the Muslim world, nuclear disarmament and also climate change policies.

More so, a continuous divergence between the US- and European(-Canadian) social systems, would kill the necessary harmonization and cooperation in the globalized world economic and financial field. Only if, what I cannot bring over myself to imagine, Europe would abandon its "aquis" in the social field, a harmonization the other way around, would set the conditions for a (doomed) Atlantic supremacist "white 21st century".

There is much at stake in Washington for Europe, the next weeks!

Saturday, March 13, 2010

A Wise Man sets the Course for Europe in the World

Due to my travelling to meet Central and East European friends in order to discuss with them the problems of redeveloping urban neighbourhoods in crisis, I missed the newly elected European Council President Herman van Rompuy's historical intervention at the Bruges European Academy.
Here follows a part of it (in English):
FAIL (the browser should render some flash content,not this)
Herman van Rompuy speaking at the Bruges Europe College, March 6, 2010.

Van Rompuy is very well aware of his powerlessness. He was chosen by the Sarkozies, the Merkels and the Browns just because of his lack of sex-appeal and supposed lack of ambition, over candidates like Holland's J.P.Balkenende or Letlands former president.
One thing is sure, read my lips, the man is terribly UNDERestimated.
Listen to his Jesuit-, finely tuned-, rebuttal of sarkozist and insular British policies.
Even Eurosceptic Tony Barber of the London Financial Times admitted graciously, that the Van Rompuy speech had class and substance, compared to the voidness of the actions and words of baroness Catherine Ashton, EU foreign secretary.
A full analysis of Van Rompuy's words is under review.
Please, download and read the full text of the Van Rompuy opinion at Consilium Presidential Service in Brussels (English).
.

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Wilders' Money to remain hidden to you and me, but open to CIA?

The European Parliament will have to decide, this week, if it allows American authorities to data-mine your and mine international euro-transfers by way of copying the SWIFT data.
Swift services banks in Europe and elsewhere. For instance, when I send some of my Dutch retirement money to my Belgian account, the ING bank warns me, that this may be monitored by American authorities.
I have no problem with that. If the CIA wants to know, that I live in Brussels and that I buy my shrimps there at Delhaize, good riddance, OK with me.
But the EP has a point, when it says, that American authorities have to have a reason, when they ask for Swift data. Any European nation allows prosecution to scrutinize my financial data, or listen to my private communications, only, when there is a probable link to crime or terrorism. If there is no one, I can trust my bank, that it protects my privacy.
So, why does the CIA not trust my national European secret services?
That is a long, difficult and complicated story.
I will tell you another time. For a considerable part, they may be right. For who believes, for instance, our Italian secret service Mafiosos?
So, please, CIA, NSA, search for bank transfers linked to Al-Qaeda! I couldn't agree more.
And, do not forget to tell us about Mr. Wilders, from Holland, who gets millions of dollars from US accounts for destabilization of European nations.
Pardon me, if I watch the Dutch representatives from he PVV "party" in the EP.
What are they up to?
Will they vote for a going Dutch alone, as their program states? Or will they vote for transparency to the CIA, while Dutch public opinion remains left in the dark?
Hey, Mr. Wilders, your credibility is at stake!

Friday, July 10, 2009

Bulgaria: A political earthquake not to be neglected by Europe

For the third time since 1989, Bulgarian voters have inflicted a massive "no" to their political class.
The GERB party (a Bulgarian language shortcut for "Citizens for an European Development of Bulgaria") got 116 of the available 240 seats in the one-cameral parliament of Sofia. Their nearly 40% of the more than 60% vote, propelled the vociferous major of the capital Sofia, Boiko Borissof, into the seat of prime minister.
(Borissov, the virtually nominated prime minister, said on July 9, 2009: I have a program of support to the legal officers who are charged with corruption cases, we are going to invest massively into infrastructure and in European cooperation ... [Photo: Sofia Echo, Krassimir Yuskesseliev])

At the European elections of last month it was already impossible to deny, that Borissovs party was going to carry the national elections, scheduled for July 5.
The high level of participation in the election helped to justify the GERB victory, in spite of frequent vote-buying, an ethnic Turkish vote and "election tourism" on an unprecented scale.

In 1990, Bulgarian voters chased the historic Todor Zhivkov gerontocracy. In 2001, they invested their hopes in the former king Simeon. Every time, they were disappointed. Will the Borissov landslide of 2009 be their ultimate revenge?

Will the third Bulgarian electoral revolution finally bring peace and progress?
In recent years, I had the opportunity to spend some time in the country. My engagement with urban solutions had me relate to a variety of local actors. As I did not know much about the country, like too many ofe to confess the European decision makers who should, I have to confess, that I only have learned about what I do NOT know about Bulgaria. My opinions should be evaluated accordingly. I share, nevertheless, four observations with you, if you'll permit me:
  1. The astounding resistance of Bulgarian identity to foreign dominance,
  2. the dumbing effects of Stalinist and post-Stalinist repression during 45 years,
  3. the economic and strategic trump cards of the country,
  4. and how the European Union could catch the opportunities for itself and for the Bulgarian people.
1. The unfinished Bulgarian Renaissance
In the second half of the 19th century, a seemingly unimportant province of the Ottoman empire woke up. The decline of the Ottoman Empire was certainly of much help. But the emancipation of inhabitants of remote villages, of virtual serfs to absenteist Turkish landowners and of artisans working in the few cities that existed, could not have been imagined without the intervention of an European educated elite of former university students and freemasons. Like the 18th century enlightened intellectuals in France and elsewhere, they concentrated on popular education. It is by force of that drive, that a new Bulgarian nation came into existence on the vague memories of mediaeval culture. It was a very real Renaissance. The Bulgarian Renaissance.
The European big powers of the epoch adopted a double approach. Insofar as the Bulgarian upheaval weakened the Turkish "sick man", they were helpful. But when the Bulgarian independence threatened to offer an entrance to the Mediterranean to the Russian Czars, they blocked.
Bulgarian independence was OK, as long as it did not hinder Austrian plans with Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia. It should not endanger Greek ambitions in the Northern Aegean either. The Balkan Wars of the early Twentieth century learned a disappointing lesson to upcoming Bulgaria.
That explains why the country choose the wrong side at the start of the two great wars.
Bulgaria was confined from the South by Greece, from the East by Turkey, from the West by Serbia and from the North by Rumania. In spite of all that, the country thrived between the two wars. Its natural resources helped very much to keep international crisis and depression away.
Until about the year 1940, a national entity with half a century of independence, existed. But its existence was fragile: Wrong choices and geopolitical compromises (Yalta, 1944) changed its destination and brought it under Soviet dominance until 1990.
2. The years of emptiness
I spoke with a young woman student, at the start of this year. She won a grade in classical philosophy at Sofia University. I told her, that I was confident, that out of the actual mess of Bulgarian culture, something new and vigourous would develop. But she cut me short. She explained to me, examples at hand, that the nearly half a century cultural desert and all the repression that went with it, killed any hope for creativity and free intellectual life. I was dumbfounded. Who am I, to deny the artistic and cultural disaster that manifests itself daily in Bulgarian television, in the shows of the unexplainable Aziz?
Of course: The classic treasures of Greek and Roman civilization are being preserved. Precious artisanship survives in the valleys of the Balkan mountains. The Rila monasteries receive hundreds of visitors a day. But where is the young generation of artists, writers and thinkers one should expect to havAe established itself after the Big Change of 1990?
I had to admit: It is not there.
How could the energy, the unexploited energy, come back and manifest itself?
The only workable solution, I see, is a new cross-fertilization with Europe. Like hundred, two hundred years ago.
Engish, French and German cultural missions do still exist. French secundary education in a number of cities, has survived the Soviet era. The Borissov program suggests an intensification of those exchanges. Europe has to decide. Leave them alone, let the Americans do their thing, or redevelop and intensify cultural and educational exchange.
It is urgent. Cultural void means negative perception of minority cultures. In the Bulgarian case, that means: suppression of Roma and Turkish identities. Europe should help Bulgarians to get confidence again in their own culture. That is a precondition for respect of others. When you feel safe, you do not envy others.
3. Unexploited economic and strategic opportunities
Bulgaria is a rich country. Without the riches in agriculture and men, Alexander the Great, in the fourth century before Christ, could not have spread Hellenism in the East. He came from the City of his father Philip, Philippople, the actual Plovdiv. At the end of the First century, Trajanus, the Roman emperor, would not have built a road from the Mediterranean to Dacia, if the environment wouldn't have been safe and abundant. Bulgaria is potentially a great crossroad between the East and the West, and: between the North and the South.
The East-West connection is the first to have been reestablished. Turkish trailers circulate by the hundreds between West and East. The EU helps with road construction, but has frozen its subsidies because of Bulgarian maffiose dealings with contracts. The new government wishes to end this and reclaim imediately the lost money.
Iaccompanied by hundreds of Turkish and other trailerst is very important. On the road between Istanbul and Budapest, I am accompanied by hundreds of Turkish and other trailers. We loose many hours in queues and with burocratic rules.
The North-South links are virtually non-existant. It is true, that you can go by modern road from Thessaloniki to Sofia. But what next? A good road that connects northern Greece via the Rhodopes Mountains through central Thrakia with the Balkan throughways ti the danube valley and Rumenia is only vaguely under construction. However, its strategic role is evident: Avoid the Dardanelles and arrive directly in the Ukraine, in the Krim, etc.
Well, if I may give my largely uninformed opinion: We should not consider Bulgaria uniquely as a problem to the EU, but as an opportunity in the first place. An opportunity to get a hold on the difficult situation at the South-Eastern end of the EU ...
4. How to engage the new Bulgarian leadership?
A regional strategy, alas, is not an EU priority. The USA established a giant military base in Blagoevgrad, next to the Greek and Turkish borders. An American university in that city completes the deployment.
But the EU has also its unique qualities. Cofinancing big investments. Giving a hand in education. "The soft dorces will prevail in the end", said a great Dutch poet once.
Bulgaria needs fast trains, reliable motorways, a thriving agriculture. The EU can give that. And more. It is a vision, a global vision, that is not present.
Even if it is reasonable, to keep one's distances with the actual new Bulgarian government, because of it's populism, it should be deemed good policy to encourage the European orientation of Borissov and give him, as long as possible, the benefit of the doubt.
In my experience, local projects that engage local actors, and represent a genuine mutual confidence, will do a great part of the job. That is how the "soft forces" will win.
In the End.

Monday, September 08, 2008

Ethnic cleansing made the violence fall in Iraq

Why was the "Iraq Surge" a "success"?
Juan Cole explains it once again:

A crucial element in the fall of violence from the catastrophic levels of summer,2006, was the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad of its Sunnis. I wrote in mid-July:

"As best I can piece it together, what actually seems to have happened was that the escalation troops began by disarming the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad. Once these Sunnis were left helpless, the Shiite militias came in at night and ethnically cleansed them. Shaab district near Adhamiya had been a mixed neighborhood. It ended up with almost no Sunnis. Baghdad in the course of 2007 went from 65% Shiite to at least 75% Shiite and maybe more. My thesis would be that the US inadvertently allowed the chasing of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs out of Baghdad (and many of them had to go all the way to Syria for refuge). Rates of violence declined once the ethnic cleansing was far advanced, just because there were fewer mixed neighborhoods. Newsrack was among the first to make this argument, though I was tracking the ethnic cleansing at my blog throughout 2007. See also Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post on this issue.". . .

As Think Progress pointed out,the Washington Post illustrated Karen DeYoung's important article with a clear ethnic map showing the ethnic cleansing:


The point is not that there are no Sunni enclaves left in Baghdad, only that there are many fewer such enclaves, and that many formerly mixed neighborhoods are now entirely Shiite. In fact, this ethnic cleansing is among the major reason that the some 4 million Iraqis displaced internally and externally by Bush's war refuse to return. They have nothing to return to. The mixed or Sunni neighborhoods from which the Sunnis among them escaped no longer exist. A fourth of the Iraqi refugees in Jordan have, moreover, had a child kidnapped. Even if the child was returned, the family is not going to risk returning.
The Americans built walls in the city, isolating neighbourhoods, with Israeli help. Now, the Sunni exode is worrying the US, and it prepares to crush the Shia. Starting with the Sadr movement. But Sadr hides his fighters among the population. A clash with mainstream Shia politicians and - paramilitary bands is looming.

In my earlier post, I also quoted this:

"As Think Progress quoted CNN correspondent Michael Ware:
' The sectarian cleansing of Baghdad has been — albeit tragic — one of the key elements to the drop in sectarian violence in the capital. […] It’s a very simple concept: Baghdad has been divided; segregated into Sunni and Shia enclaves. The days of mixed neighborhoods are gone. […] If anyone is telling you that the cleansing of Baghdad has not contributed to the fall in violence, then they either simply do not understand Baghdad or they are lying to you.'
"

McCain and ideologues such as Fred Kagan must deny or ignore the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and other areas, and ignore the millions of Iraqis now living abroad or in other provinces, many of them in dire straits, because their Rambo complex forces them to insist that an extra 30,000 US troops, inserted for 16 months, made all the difference.

McCain's Rambo foreign policy sets him on a course of confrontation with Russia, which he has not forgiven for its aid to Vietnam in the old days, and with Shiite Iran, which his party's propaganda continues to confuse with Sunni radicalism of al-Qaeda.

One of those slick films shown at the convention on Thursday commemorating the victims of 9/11 actually asserted that "it began in 1979" with the taking of US embassy personnel hostage in Tehran. The film then skipped over to the Sunni radicals. I can't understand what the Iranian hostage crisis has to do with 9/11. This conflating of all Muslim movements, in which McCain frequently engages, is just another Big Lie. Iranians were upset by 9/11 and sympathetic to the US, holding candlelight vigils. President Khatami spoke heartwarmingly against the terrorism that had struck the US, explaining that Iran had also suffered grievously from terrorism.
I guess, that, whatever McCain says, the Iraqis will NOT accept a (semi-) permanent American military presence in their country. Much trouble ahead.
Where is the European solution to this danger at our borders?

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Friday, May 09, 2008

Lebanon: The Clash, so long announced and feared.

Juan Cole follows hour after hour developments in Lebanon. The armed clash, involving Hizbollah and the Lebanese Army, the one the US and so many others longed for, and the same one that so many others (including me) hoped could be avoided, happens these days.

... 2006: young Lebanese visit Beirut neighborhood where their apartment stood, after Israeli bombings ....




An informed observer is cited on Cole's Informed Comment Blog (9.5.08):

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Late Dutch Revenge for the way, the big Powers made a fool of them in Srebrenica

Why do the Dutch and the Belgians block an SAA?
A Fistful of Euros wonders, why the Dutch dare (together with the Belgians) to block a Serbian Accession Agreement to the EU. The SAA was intended to help the less extremist Serbian factions to accept (grudgingly) Kosovar independence, and to open a fast track to Serbian inclusion into the EU.
Mladic and Karadzic in 1994/95

For both intentions, it is a lame compromise: Even moderate Serbs will not agree, in a foreseeable future, with the breaking of the 1999 UN guarantee of the territorial integrity of Serbia, including Kosovo. They are supported by Russia and by a number of EU members who fear irredentist claims in their own countries. And, less important, but significant, by a growing cabal of extreme right-wing American/European anti-Islam activists. The latter warn against the creation of another "Islamic" state on European soil, like Ariël Sharon of Israel already did in 1999.

On the other side, there is no argument about the necessity and unavoidability of a Serbian membership in the EU. Neither in the most Eurosceptic circles in the EU, nor in Serbia itself. Serbian EU-membership will come, sooner or later. But not now.

The SAA was a wrong signal:
It will not help more moderate nationalists to win today's presidential elections. Perhaps it would even have weakened Tadic and his followers. Serbian frustration over coming European support for an independent Kosova will anyhow have the upper hand over hopes to be in the EU soon.

A commenter, Ivan Nicolic, on A Fistful of Euros, has quite another view:
So, what do we get? We get that the Dutch are blocking democratic Serbia that had nothing to do with Srebrenica, moreover that was fighting against Milosevic, the same person that was giving assistance to those who are accused to be guilty, and yet, asking from Serbia to be responsible for arresting and delivering those two to the Tribunal in Hague, although they are citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Maybe some argument could be found for Mladic, because for some time he was hiding in Serbia, but for Karadzic there is no basis at all to connecting him to Serbia.
Correction: Former JNA General Mladic is a citizen of Serbia, is living publicly in Belgrade and meets there regularly with old comrades from the Yugoslav Army in public places. From time to time, when there is a surge of pressure for his arrest, he goes into hiding in Montenegro.
Nikolic' conclusion on the Dutch move:
And why? Because the Dutch need to wash them selves in their own eyes, not taking into consideration that they could cause even more damage.
Well, I think, that the Dutch accepted the horrible truth about Srebrenica, too late, but nevertheless some five years ago, when the Report on the Srebrenica mission that was commissioned by the Dutch Government, provoked its downfall (April 2002).

Americans and EU-big powers made a fool of the Dutch Srebrenica batallion
Apart from their own failures (politically and military), another, important, circumstance came then finally into the open: The big powers had intentionally left the Dutch Government in the dark about the arrangements they had made with Milosevic and Karadzic/Mladic, about giving up the UN-protected Muslim enclaves (like Srebrenica) to the Serbian Bosnians as a precondition for the ceasefire that was to end the armed phase of the Bosnian conflict later in 1995.

That is why I took the liberty to comment today on the Fistful-site, as follows:
In my opinion, the Dutch Government is taking revenge for the scandalous way, it was kept uninformed of the big countries’ arrangement with Milosevic/Karadzic in the spring of 1995, i.e., to give the latter green light to do away with the (UN-protected) Muslim “enclaves” in Serbian Bosnia, like Srebrenica.
Frustration about the NATO allies, who did not come forward with the promised air support, is still great in the country.
The whole affair has been documented by Frank Westerman (1996,in Dutch), the 2002 Dutch government-commissioned report by the Amsterdam Institute of War-Documentation (English version at the Dutch Government website) and most recently by Florence Hartmann (Paix et Chatiment, November 2007, French), the former porte parole of Carla Del Ponte (TPIY).

The Dutch, while officially referring to the TPIY procedure, are unofficially saying to the Brits, the French (and the US): “Milosevic died, before he could be brought to confirm the 1994/5 deals with you about Srebrenica at the The Hague Court. Give us Mladic, who you helped to protect for more than 17 years, and who is freely walking around in Belgrade, and we’ll see!”
A slightly different French version of this opinion is on: L'Europe Chez Soi, Toto Le Psycho and HUIBSLOG. The Brussels Medium4You Blog Journal also carries that French version, where it provoked some interesting comments.


Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Trouble in Eurabia House: SIOE against the Vlaams belang.


No, no: It has not been the popular hate-manifestation that Europe's baldheads hoped for. A mere 200 people gathered on September 11 at the Luxemburg Train Station and the Schuman Square. Most of them were Vlaams Belang activists, who saw the event from their own Flemish perspective: To them, not the "Eurabisation of Europe" was the issue, but the fact, that a socialist, francophone, politician initiated the interdiction. Thus: Yellow lion flags all over! (Photo)
The Anglodanish organisers were not amused at all. But who can forbid freedom of expression on foreign soil? Brethren: You'll have to live with national and regional particularities and sensibilities, if you want to create an Europe of your design...
SIOE not only blames the German maverick politician Udo Ulfkotte for it, bur now also the Flemish extremist party Vlaams Belang.

SIOE website (England), 14.9.07:

SIOE considers that Vlaams Belang played right into Thielemans’s hands, which he must now be rubbing together with glee with an “I told you so” look on his fat face.

Some female Vlaams Belang supporters jokingly wore niqabs in Schumann Square.

Well, if Vlaams Belang doesn’t get its finger out of its political ass pretty damned quick, such women may find themselves compelled to wear niqabs when outdoors, if they are allowed out of the house.

The only way Islamism will be defeated is by fighting it single-mindedly, but you have to have a brain to have a mind, and it’s pretty obvious some leaders of some political parties are brainless.
Oh my! European politics are about national and regional feelings. Some UK activists have to educate themselves somewhat more...

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Legal Alien: Pepperdine 2 and 3 Reports: European stooges enter the scene. Pipes underhandedly calls for a pogrom on Mosques.

Leon de Winter, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Henryk Broder, Andy Bostom, Daniel Pipes and Greg Davis (This photo is merged from two smaller photos. [By Vik Rubenfeld, on whose reporting I draw, HR])

In A Legal Alien in New York I published two new reports about the Pepperdine Conference against 'Eurabia' and Islam.
  1. Pepperdine 2: "Ibn Warraq" tells his tale. (July 7)
  2. Pepperdine 3: European Stooges enter the Scene (July 10).
1: "Ibn Warraq", a Pipes pet and anti-muslim hetzer working under pseudonym in the US, takes a Muslim mother's warning to her children not indulge in stupid commercial "sport" hooliganism, as proof, that Muslims never will integrate into Western society. However, that mother did nothing else than a Christian mother could have done: she referred to religion as a basis of discernment.
Nevertheless, the Pepperdine audience seems convinced, that this is proof of the Islam danger and the dhimmi treason.

2: Ayaan Hirsi Ali introduces a new concept. Suppression of Muslims is no more a Government task, in her eyes. She has 'learned' in the US, that a "popular upsurge" will be a better way. Dutch writer Leon de Winter delivers a vague statement about the Amsterdam situation and confirms that even Calvinists are ready to come into action, as they have "enough" of the Islam intrusion. (If the reporter understood him well, and if I understood the reporter correctly). German prize-winning anti-islamic writer Henryk Broder communicates some German and British anecdotes that should deliver more proof of Islam's evilness and the treacherously weak ('appeasement') reactions of mainstream European politicians.
Finally, the conference initiator, Pepperdine visiting Professor Daniel Pipes, delivers an outrageous statement, calling, underhandedly, for a pogrom-like popular movement against Mosques.

The reporting will be continued in the next days.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

London Financial Times Commenter is as disgusted as I am about Pepperdine...

Ah, I'm not alone in my disgust about the Pepperdine Conference.
Listen to Gideon Rachman of the London Financial Times, who chastizes Mark Steyn and Ajaan Hirsi Ali even more than I did:

The collapse of Europe

If you happen to be passing though Malibu next month, why not pop into an intriguing-sounding conference at Pepperdine University on "The Collapse of Europe". One of the early sessions is entitled - "Eurabia: Is Muslim domination of Europe inevitable?"

My answer to this is "No" it's not inevitable. In fact, given that the Muslim population of Europe is just 4% at the moment, I would say it's highly unlikely. But don't trying telling that to an audience of American conservatives. The idea that Europe is about to be submerged by the Muslim hordes seems to be almost recieved wisdom over there. It is certainly a notion that has launched a great many books. There is “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis” by Bat Ye’or; “While Europe Slept – How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within” by Bruce Bawer; “The Death of the West” by Pat Buchanan; and “The Cube and the Cathedral” by George Weigel.

I was depressed to see that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Dutch politician is taking part in the Pepperdine conference. She is a highly intelligent and courageous woman, so it's a shame to see that she is mixing with buffoons like Mark Steyn, who is giving the keynote address at the conference.

Steyn is the author of the most successful recent book about the alleged Muslim takeover of Europe. “America Alone” earned its author a place in the New York Times best-seller list and praise from President Bush.

Mr Steyn argues that – “Europe has all but succumbed to the dull opiate of multiculturalism.” Indeed “a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman” – a Muslim general who made it to the outskirts of Paris in 732. With apparent relish Mr Steyn predicts a “Eurabian civil war”. The weak-kneed elites will succumb to militant Islam. But an “unreconstructed minority” will turn to “neo-nationalist strongmen”. The poor old Europeans can’t win. It’s either appeasement or fascism.

It is alarming stuff. So it is comforting to recall that Mr Steyn has been disastrously wrong about many things in the past. I've just looked up a piece that he filed from Iraq in June 2003, in which he confidently informed his readers that everything was fine - "a vast number of bureaucrats are running around Iraq with unlimted budgets in search of a human catastrophe that doesn't exist." This is vintage Steyn - jeering, complacent and utterly stupid.

Steyn's Iraq epic ended with him sitting in an Iraqi cafe, watching a BBC television report suggesting that there was a crisis in Baghdad's hospitals. Once again, Steyn knew better. He sneered at:

"the blazing lights of round-the-clock CNN and BBC camera crews filming their reporter yakking away in front of a telegenic moppet whose acute tonsillitis is somehow all Rumsfeld's fault. These days, I always laugh my head off at BBC World reports. And, in that Ramadi cafe, I was touched to find that, even though most of them hadn't a clue what he was going on about, within half a minute, the rest of the crowd was roaring along with me."

Ah Iraq - if only the rest of the world could see the funny side. In fact, I have a suggestion for Mr Steyn. When he has finished lecturing the inmates at Pepperdine, perhaps he could repeat his trip to Iraq and see if it's still as hilarious as the last time.

Nothing to add. My analysis is upcoming...

Thursday, June 28, 2007

'Square Root or Death': Kaczinsky-Poland keeps course


Sad. Who could have believed, only two or three years ago, that we should be counting the sequels of intra-European wars of the twentieth century in regard to demography, in order to get the right number of votes for every country in the European council?
Well, nothing more realistic than surrealism.

France and the UK lost about 20 million young men in the First World War (1914-1918). The ensuing demographic effect is stunning. Until 1940, those countries lost tens of millions of potential babies. The consequences are felt even now. Are France of the UK asking for compensation in vote-power within the European Union?

Poland, a historical victim of three partitions between Russia, Prussia and the Austrian Empire, and, as it says, bereft of 28 millions of its 66 million potential, by Germany during the Second World War, is certainly one of the European countries who may feel themselves a victim of history. Of history. Not (exclusively) of Germany.

Today's Germany is inhabited by 90% of people who were not yet born, or were small children in 1945. Generations grew up in a democratic society, living with the loss of parents, wealth, happiness, caused to the people as a whole, by carpet-bombings, forced military service, hunger and distress. Should Poland get favours at their cost? And, at the cost of 25 other European countries, who had nothing to do with Nazism or are victims themselves?

In "L'Europe Chez Soi" and "TotoLePsycho" (French) [Arithmétique polonaise (et néerlandaise)], two days ago, I dissected the outrageous Kaczinsky position. Culminating point: The three million Polish Jews who died prematurely during the World War, not only at the hands of Nazis, but with the willing and sometimes very enthusiastic collaboration of... Poles. An antisemitic tradition that was continued in the 1945/46 Polish pogroms against returning Jews and the 1956 antisemitic turn in the regime, that caused a further emigration of many of the remaining Polish Jews. Are they counted, too, within the 28 million extrapolation?

The Kaczinsky twins régime continues its outrageous claiming (EU-Observer 27.6.07):

Polish PM ups ante in Germany war talk

27.06.2007 - 11:02 CET | By Andrew Rettman
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The Polish government has compared modern Germany to the pre-WWII Weimar Republic, continuing the hostile rhetoric which erupted in the run-up to last week's EU summit and which shows no sign of abating ahead of next month's formal negotiations on a new treaty.

Reacting to a German newspaper remark about "the square root of the dead" - a reference to Polish claims that EU votes should take count of war losses - prime minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski issued a warning to Europe.
"Something bad is happening in Germany. As in historic days gone by when most Europeans were too afraid to talk, so it is today," he said on Tuesday's (26 June) "Sygnaly Dnia" national radio show.
As a Dutch national, and having lived under German occupation, I feel, I am rather sensible to German pretensions. I cannot stand them. But what I am seeing here, is not a complaint of hurt cultural and national feelings, but pure and naked revanchism.

I understand Polish fears. The modern (XVI-XX) history of the Netherlands is one of subtle balancing between the three European "big" powers, ending, after 1945, into an absolute reddition to the new dominating power in (Western) Europe: the US. Poland is trying to do the same. In spite of its deceptions in Iraq and with the hosting of CIA torture centers, it counts on the US, only the US, for safety.

In my view, it should understand, that there will be no safety for Poland, without a strong Europe, that has its own defense and energy policy. But, in stead of furthering such a policy (against the classic powers) together with the smaller European countries, Poland is blocking or trying to block, any possible progress in those domains. Look at what they are after: a blocking-, a debilitating-, power (EUObs.):
"The dispute is whether this [the reasonable delay when a national Parliament opposes a common European decision] is after three months or two years. We agreed two years," he [Jaroslav Kaczinsky] said. "Two years is a long time. Any body who has this possibility [to delay EU moves] will be treated seriously."
The English (regrettably) simply opted out, leaving it to the other 26 to squabble or to go forward. The Polish stand is: sabotage.

Is it a mere coincidence, that this is exactly what the US (neoconservative) right is hoping for?

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

A German Mouthpiece for Hirsi Ali and Daniel Pipes: Udo Ulfkotte

Dr. Udo Ulfkotte is a German security expert. Trained as a lawyer, he serves business and security agencies like the American NSA in the anti-spy sector.
He and his front organisations like "PAX-Europe" were some time busy attacking "greens, leftists, reds, and islamist fundamentalists". Recently, he put his activities into a higher gear, following instructions from Hirsi Ali and her friends (see my Daniel Pipies Rallies his Friends against Islam and Eurabia in A Legal Alien in New York - 11.6.07), declaring outright that "Islam" as such is undermining Europe (creating a phantomatic "Eurabia"). He might have been inspired by Dutch ex-conservative-liberal Geert Wilders, who, with a similar one-issue program, won 10 seats in the 150-strong national Parliament in The Hague.

The Dutch international Public Radio Programme's Blog section carries (13.6.07) a contribution by its Berlin correspondent Laurens Bovens, that we reproduce here:

(RNW - Radio Nederland Wereldomroep Logo)

'German Wilders' attacks Islam

by Laurens Bovens

13-06-2007

Just like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, a politician has appeared in Germany who is warning against "a tsunami of Islamisation." His name is Udo Ulfkotte, a former journalist who has often made appearances on German Television programmes as an expert on Islam. But Mr Ulfkotte has turned over a new leaf. He is working on the formation of a political party. A party that is to defend Christian values in Germany and Europe against what he regards as the increasing influence of radical Islam.

Udo Ulfkotte (Photo from own website )

Cheers go up when Udo Ulfkotte declares: "I am not with the left, I am not with the right, I am with the Lord God"He casts his eyes upward. Mr Ulfkotte is a confirmed Christian, but one who belongs to a movement that believes living together with Muslims is practically impossible. "European values are those of the Judeo-Christian tradition: peace, freedom, democracy and tolerance."

"Muslims are different, they are from a different tradition. This is clearly demonstrated at many schools in the Netherlands and Germany by the extent to which children are willing to use violence. Muslims are in many ways different from Europeans."

Lecture
Fifty people have come to attend Udo Ulfkotte's lecture in an out-of-the-way hall in a poor Berlin district. This is where the fledgling politician, who travels far and wide and also lectures abroad, tells his tale for the umpteenth time. Just like Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders did before him, he talks of a tsunami of Islamisation. Mr Ulfkotte means to say that European governments are too easily swayed to give in to the demands of radical Muslims. Where will that lead? Mr Ulfkotte goes through a long list of examples:

He claims that Germany allows polygamy among Muslims. And that some swimming pools have introduced separate opening hours for Muslims and non-Muslims. He asks himself why 'we' accept that some parents do not have their children innoculated.

Mr Ulfkotte does not limit himself to Germany. The Netherlands is up next: "Amsterdam has cancelled education on rural life" he says, because pigs were part of the discussion during these classes and that was an affront to Muslim schoolchildren. Mr Ulfkotte claims the affair escalated to the point where the curriculum was changed.

It's an example of how he only tells half the story. Yes, there was one school in Amsterdam where this occurred, but Mr Ulfkotte fails to mention that the Amsterdam authorities were furious about the incident. A spokesperson for the responsible councillor says this must never happen again because you cannot solve problems that way.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders, another critic of the Islamic culture

Political party
Mr Ulfkotte says he has around 500 supporters and has plans to form a political party, the name of which is yet to be revealed. He says he has no intention of sitting in parliament, but hopes to pressure other parties into adopting his programme and turning against Islamisation in Germany. "If that doesn't happen, I hope we will be strong enough to do it ourselves", he says.

His audience likes what he has to say. His words are frequently interrupted by applause, and afterwards several people say they have learned something. But not everybody is pleased. Two Muslim students from the Berlin Free University are also listening to his speech and later accuse Ulfkotte of being racist. "He tries to paint an evil picture of Islam and conducts a witch hunt against Islam."
Radical Islam

She disputes that Mr Ulfkotte is only denouncing radical Islam. According to her, he makes Muslims in general appear in a bad light. "He is peddling conspiracy theories here."She compares Mr Ulfkotte to the far-right NPD. "It would be dangerous if he formed a party." Which could happen in the coming weeks, ahead of the 2009 p[arliamentary] election.
A Dutch listener commenting on this article from Australia, however, is fully convinced of Wilders', Ali's and Pipes' 'Eurabia' myth:

Maarten Hoogesteger, 14-06-2007 - Australia

Hooray that someone with a bit of commonsense is finally raising their voice. About time. I have watch with incredulity as Europe hands over their continent to a bunch of stark raving mad desert dwellers. European politicians who allowed this to happen should be put on trial for treason and for aiding and abetting an enemy. Shame on them.

Short, but everything is in it:

  • the 'collapse' of Europe (continent 'handed over')
  • racism: 'a bunch of raving mad desert dwellers' (does he know, that the germanic tribes came once from the central Asian steppes?)
  • and the "treason" by the 'Left' - our concentration camps are under preparation...
A second commenter, however, sees it otherwise:
This [softening of Christian fundamentalism through Enlightenment, HR] is therefore no justification to claim moral high ground over Islamic Jihadists. This "Judeo-Christian tradition" is only interesting for historians but not for politicians. If Udo Ulfkotte is defending Christian values in Germany and Europe, than he is by default someone I distrust.
And so do I.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Wolfowitz: "Shaha told me that Iraqi oil would pay for the Iraq occupation"

Wolfowitz and Riza (photo msn)
I am disappointed.

I had expected Wolfie to come up with a better justification for his wasting of public money on a pay rise for his 'long time companion' at the World Bank staff, than this:

"My girlfriend forced me to grant her that salary increase".
(Huffington Post, introducing a Washington Post comment, May 15, 2007).

How mean! How insipid! Even Bill Clinton, when blamed over Monica, never went as far, as to blame her for his break of ethics.

Remembering, how, as an assistant-defense minister in 2003, Paul Wolfowitz got the American Senate to accept another irresponsible spending of public money, saying that "Iraqi oil wealth would compensate largely" for the 31 billion dollars, the Pentagon was going to 'invest' (mostly via Halliburton's KBR and Bechtel) in Iraq, I expected an equally creative and original statement over this new unethical overspending issue.

Wolfowitz got a week extra to respond to the blame of the World Bank investigation commission over the exceptional pay rise he gave to his girlfriend Shaha Risa, when she had to leave the World Bank staff over the incompatibility of her function and her relationship to the newly appointed president.

He did not spend that week well. I suspect, he quarreled endlessly with Shaha, over the kitchen table. She can be terribly "intractable", when she is "extremely angry and upset".
(Quotes are from the 15 page written response by Wolfowitz to the WB investigation committee, as quoted by Peter S. Goodman in the Washington Post.)

Wolfie should have followed his own analysis of the reasons why the Bank's Ethics Committee did not want to deal with the harpy themselves: "It would only be human nature for them to want to steer clear of her." (Wolfowitz in his written response).

The bitch! She even scares to death a complete and very ethical consistory of bankers! Why, by all means, did you stay with her in such "a longtime relationship", Paul?

Maybe, Paul's famous 2003 Iraqi oil statement will provide a clue to that burning question. Few people know it, but I know for sure, that, basically, Paul D. Wolfowitz is a timid intellectual, absolutely unfit for a role within the jungle of dominating males that populate the Washington Administration and the Neocon cabals. Shaha, the untractable bitch, compensates for that otherwise potentially lethal handicap.

(Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in the Defense Secretary's office at the Pentagon, March 21, 2003, Photo D.H. Kennerly. [This is a placeholder for the copyrighted photo I will buy from that photographer, if it is not too expensive...] It illustrates perfectly the the relation between the two men. Wolfie arrives with a problem, gesticulating. Rummy, annoyed, stands up and starts arguing, dominating the scene with hard words words and broad gestures. It will take the genius of BagNews Notes to interpret the scene correctly. Note the little statue of Theodore Roosevelt in the corner. Th. Roosevelt was, during the first years of the XXst century, the first American president who extended the Monroe Doctrine to other parts of the world, colonizing the Philippines, for instance.)

When Donald Rumsfeld, his boss at the Pentagon (photo) had, once again, verbally abused his egghead assistant, urging him to speak plainly and strongly and not giving lectures, but to be quotable and soundbiting, a subdued Paul went home to his Washington suburb house, wanting to quit altogether and go fishing.

This is where Shaha comes in. She is indeed an intractable housewife, never doing the shopping for the household herself (that would be a "career break"). So, she started sending quivering Wolfie to the local supermarket to buy dinner.

It was at one of those many occasions of hubby been sent shopping, that a writer for the Dutch left-leaning weekly "De Groene Amsterdammer" met him and got charmed by Wolfowitz' helpless intellectual behavior. (Article, in Dutch, by the Washington correspondent of the weekly, May 2003).

Apparently longing to "stay clear" for a moment, from the company of dominating males and females, Paul D. had a little chat over coffee with this intelligent young man and was happy to make a show of his vast intellectual luggage, suggesting at the same time, how open he is to discussion with people from different intellectual and cultural horizons.

Wolfowitz' mood thus being restored, he could live up to go and see Shaha again. He told her his nightmare of having to meet with the Senate committee over the 31 billion dollars for Iraq (correction: for the Pentagon and its contractors). And how Donald Rumsfeld had offended him.

Shaha, probably entering once again into a fit of "extreme anger", then must have lectured Wolfowitz as follows: "I am the Middle East expert of the World Bank!", she cried, "I know everything about oil. For that is what the Middle East is about! Donnie Rumsfeld is right. Do like him! He told those sissy European diplomats the difference between 'old' and 'new' Europe. A truth, so embarrassing, that nobody dared to discuss it. That is how he got away with liquidating NATO. You, you try to get your way all the time by being nice, by trying to convince people. Sometimes, you have to be a nuisance, you have to offend, to shock, telling them the untold truth!"

"But, Shahi-dear," replied Wolfowitz, "we have been told by Cheney, that we should strictly avoid to use the word 'oil' in relation to the occupation of Iraq. If, ever, we are in a situation that we cannot avoid the o-word, we should say that we are talking about the protection of the property of the Iraqi people...".

- He couldn't finish his explanation, as Shaha Risa interrupted him: "And that is exactly what you are going to say, dumbhead! Tell the Senate, that the Iraqis are going to pay themselves for our occupation of their country. I am a banker. I can tell you that it is a clear-cut win-win situation. Your 31 billion will flow back into the American economy through the extra profits our oil companies are going to make on Iraqi oil."

"You know, there are many things they know,and also a lot that they know they do not know. There are even more that they do not know they do not know. But the most effective for you in keeping them quiet, are the things they know well, but do not dare to say! "

And she added: "Just as nobody is going to expect you to mention the embarrassing oil side of the question, nobody will dare to follow you on that tricky field. You'll have your famous quote. I give you a soundbite (this time, exceptionally, for free) that will ashame even Donnie. - And now, Paulie, do the dishes. You're interrupting my career."

And this is why I believe, that, when, some time soon, an investigating committee into the ethics of misleading the American people, Congress and the world, over the Iraq occupation, will grill Mr. Wolfowitz, he will again excuse himself, saying:

"It was Shaha who told me that Iraqi oil would pay for the Iraq occupation!"

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Europe: Missile defense plan coolly received

The Financial Times relates how European representatives reacted to the US missile defense project in a NATO meeting, one of these days:

Europe cool on US missile bases plan

By Daniel Dombey in Brussels and Neil Buckley in Moscow

The US sought on Thursday to overcome scepticism among its Nato allies and hostility from Russia over its plans to locate missile defence bases in Europe – but failed to win a convincing show of support.

[..]

Thursday’s US presentation, spearheaded by Lt. Trey Obering, director of the missile defence agency, Eric Edelman, under-secretary of defence, and John Rood, head of the State Department’s non-proliferation bureau, argued that the proposed sites in Poland and the Czech Republic would allow the system to cover all but a handful of Nato allies.

The system, which is principally designed to protect the continental US, already uses bases in
California and Alaska. According to maps circulating among Nato officials, only Turkey and parts of Greece, Bulgaria and Romania would be outside the system’s protection once additional interceptor missiles were installed in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic.

[...]

But on Thursday some countries, including Turkey and Belgium, voiced worries that shooting down missiles could leave them at risk of radioactive debris, and also mentioned concerns about command and control of the new system, public opinion and the reaction of Russia.

Exactly the three points, I mentioned earlier here. But I do not think, that Europe should follow blindly Russia in its opposition. A continental protective system against space-born nuclear attacks is not wrong in itself. On the contrary: It would strengthen Europe's position in world politics and be a supplementary stimulus for European cooperation on security matters. It is a problem that only can be solved by the EU-countries themselves. Hiding behind the broadening Russian back, is a second-choice, weak, option.

Moreover, the Russians seem not to be so sure themselves, what they want exactly:

At a later stage of the meeting, Russia took approximately an hour to outline its objections – despite promises from the US to deepen co-operation through steps such as sharing radar images to help early warning.

In Moscow, Sergei Ivanov, Russia’s first deputy prime minister, said he saw ”no grounds” for co-operation between Russia and the US on creating a joint missile defence system.

”We believe this system of strategic missile defence has, to put it mildly, a somewhat chimerical nature,” he said.

Mr Ivanov’s comments represented an apparent change in Russia’s position.
The first deputy premier had told the Financial Times in an interview earlier this week that Russia had proposed creating a joint anti-missile defence system to Nato five years ago, saying it could use Russian-made S-300 or S-400 surface-to-air missiles. ”We could ward off the threat this way,” he said.

But he also told the FT he believed there was no realistic possibility of Iran or North Korea having missiles that could reach Europe or the US in the foreseeable future.

Powered by ScribeFire.
Related Posts with Thumbnails