May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Main
Boris Johnson might look like a sheepdog, but there’s nothing common about the new Mayor of London. And he’s perfectly comfortable with this fact too, freely discussing his days at Eton and Oxford, where he was a member of the Bullingdon. Never heard of the Bullingdon? Well, imagine the richest snob at Princeton’s most elite eating-club, multiply his sense-of-entitlement by a thousand, and you have the average member of the Bullingdon. It’s the Ivy on crack. It’s Skull & Bones for the British. It’s a Porcellian not full of white trash.
Members of the Bullingdon dress up in bespoke $6,000 tails, book restaurants under assumed names, then trash the places. When they don’t end up in jail, they toss wads of cash at the owner on the way out. By comparison to some of his more colorful peers, Johnson could be said to live a rather modest existence. Consider Count Gottfried von Bismarck (descendent of Otto), a fellow member. According to the coroner, Bismarck’s body had the highest levels of cocaine in it he had ever observed. His body was discovered among several items that must go unmentioned by this family-friendly blog.
What’s remarkable about Johnson though is that he doesn’t talk down to anyone. He is happy with who he is, and doesn’t omit the literary and historical allusions on the stump. His speeches are smart, even if he occasionally lets loose with something objectionable. This is refreshing compared to America, where Ivy League educated pols are expected to wolf down corndogs and fried dough at agricultural fairs and pretend they like it. Which isn’t to say this has always been the case. Bobby Kennedy quoted Aeschylus in discussing the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. The days of politicians citing Greek tragedies, I’m afraid, are over--in the States at least.
 Boris Johnson If you read the accounts--well, the analysis of the accounts--of last week's vote in Britain, in which Labour was trounced in local council elections and lost the mayoralty of London, you may wonder if you had heard it before.
"Last week's results," writes the Wall Street Journal, "...may foreshadow a political and generational realignment in Britain." Really? It does sound familiar--and as well it should, since almost exactly the same things were said a little less than a dozen years ago (1997). Except that after that year's general election, which tossed out John Major and swept in Tony Blair, the apocalyptic thoughts were directed toward the Tories, not Labour. The 1997 debacle was the worst Tory defeat in a century, it was an unprecedented repudiation of a governing party, it called into question the long-range future of the Conservatives.
All more or less true--and, in retrospect, all deceptive to some degree.
Indeed, 1997 was an historic defeat for the Tories, whose three subsequent parliamentary leaders (William Hague, Ian Duncan-Smith, Michael Howard) were either humiliated by Blair at the polls (Hague, Howard) or retired by their own colleagues (Duncan-Smith). And last week's elections were very bad news for Labour: "Red" Ken Livingstone was ousted as mayor of London after two terms by Tory gadfly Boris Johnson, and Labour's percentage of the vote in council elections in England and Wales was actually lower than the third-party Liberal Democrats. As the Journal points out, if this had been a general election, the Tories would have swept into power with a commanding majority in Parliament.
But while local results often presage national elections--as happened when Tory councils were trounced in 1995--this was not a national election, Labour remains in control of the House of Commons, and Gordon Brown is prime minister. As another Labour prime minister (Harold Wilson) once said, a week is a very long time in politics, and while last week's results are encouraging for Tories and discouraging to Labour, there may not be another general election until 2010.
Having said that, however, allow me to make two observations. One is that, while true-blue conservatives, especially here, seem to have mixed feelings about the Tory leader David Cameron--too malleable, not sufficiently Thatcherite, too PR-minded, too green, etc.--he strikes me as being exactly what the Conservative party requires as Britain grows increasingly weary of Labour. And he is manifestly an able, energetic, attractive, and (above all) effective political leader with the requisite charm and hyperactive temperament to succeed. I don't know who the next prime minister will be, since left-wing Labour backbenchers may yet bring down Brown; but Cameron will be Britain's next Conservative prime minister.
And Boris Johnson, whose plummy accent, blond moptop and self-deprecating manner is almost entirely a phenomenon of charm, proved to be a smart, disciplined, and appealing candidate in what had appeared to be a hopelessly quixotic venture just a few months ago. Being mayor is almost entirely a public relations venture, and while Johnson probably has no future in national politics, his tenure in London will do the Tories nothing but good between now and the next general election.
A political realignment, yes; but 'generational' seems a bit overstated.
American cultural hegemony continues to abound throughout the world. Indeed, even as McDonald’s revenue fell in the United States, it grew by a double-digit margin in Europe.
McDonald’s Corp., the world's largest restaurant company, said first-quarter profit rose more than analysts estimated after European revenue gains blunted the first drop in U.S. comparable-store sales in five years.
Sales by European restaurants open at least 13 months jumped 11 percent in the quarter, as France, the U.K. and Germany led a record gain for the region. U.S. comparable-store sales fell 0.8 percent in March, the first decline since March 2003 as consumers pinched by rising fuel costs and sinking home values cut spending.
McDonalds is a staple of American capitalism and excess. In bygone days, a French farmer who opposed globalization drew worldwide renown when he led an attack against the chain in southern France. Let me be the first to welcome our new European friends to this gluttonous paradise.
Not only is the Labour Party expected to lose local elections, Prime Minister Gordon Brown risks a revolt from his own party in Parliament. Labor’s problems stem from Brown’s support for the elimination of the 10p tax bracket, which will result in a tax-increase for five million of Britain’s poorest. The public outcry against Brown’s proposed tax-hike has been so severe that some have predicted Labour will likely finish not only behind the Tories, but also behind the Liberal Democrats on May 1!
Left-wing loon and London mayor Ken Livingstone is even in a tight race for reelection after the British tabloids revealed that he has a third love child. (It would seem there are limits to what even Europeans consider personal.) As much as I’d love to see the Tories take over London, I will miss Livingstone’s pearls of wisdom as when he advised London citizens, in an effort to promote water conservation, “If it’s yellow, let it mellow; if it’s brown, flush it down.” Well, the people might heed this advice when they flush the Labour Party down the toilet along with number two.
Tory leader David Cameron is in dire need of a dry cleaner, or a new suit:
Kingsley Cardi, 15, was given a caution by police for “wiping snot” on the back of Mr. Cameron’s jacket today.
Afterwards Kingsley said: “I sneezed in my hand and wiped it on him. It was just a joke -- I was showing off.
“To be honest I just needed to sneeze and I didn’t have a hanky.”
Mr. Cameron took the incident in his stride as he continued on his walkabout to rally Conservative support in the run-up to the local elections. “It’s just one of the joys of my job. I’m sure I will be fine,” Mr Cameron said.
One further difference between politics in Britain and America emerges. In Britain, the people sneeze on the politicians. In America, politicians sneeze on the people. If you don’t believe me, watch this video of John Edwards shaking hands with supporters.
 Versace dress from the Fall 2008
collection via WWD. Couture fashion is big in European politics. First we saw the new Madam Sarkozy in Dior. Now we might start seeing Italian politicians in Versace. Women's Wear Daily reports:
On the heels of Silvio Berlusconi’s victory as Italy’s prime minister, Santo Versace has secured a seat in the country’s Parliament, becoming a member of the State Chamber. "I am taking this very seriously," Versace told WWD. "I decided to run because I want to do something concrete for the future.”
The son of Italian tailors, Santo Versace is best known as the brother of Gianni Versace, fashion designer for the stars. When Gianni was murdered in 1997, Santo--a banker, economics expert, and former military officer--became president and co-CEO (with sister Donatella) of the extraordinary and exquisite fashion house. And according to the London Times, Versace "opted for the centre-right 'People of Liberty' alliance led by Mr Berlusconi because he shared the values it placed on education and meritocracy. 'My father always said problems could be solved with three words -- work, work and work.'"
Not only does Versace now have a seat in parliament, but WWD also reports that he may be up for a position in Berlusconi's cabinet. As they say on that fashion design reality show, that's fierce!
I want to come back to a story that had quite a bit of media traction in Germany but went virtually unnoticed in the United States. About two weeks ago, I co-hosted a luncheon discussion for visiting Bavarian conservative CSU Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann at the German Marshall Fund here in Washington, DC. During the talk, titled "Confronting Germany’s Immigration and Homeland Security Challenges," Minister Herrmann declared for the first time in public that Bavarian police had foiled a potential Islamist terrorist attack aimed at blowing up the opening match of the 2006 Soccer World Cup in Munich on June 9 of that year.
Specifically, the police engaged in intensive observations of a lone man suspected of being "associated with Islamist extremism" and who was seen acting suspiciously near Munich’s state-of-the art Allianz Arena soccer stadium. However, during the surveillance operation, the suspect suddenly quit Germany, possibly as a result of growing suspicious that he was being watched. Both Interior Minister Herrmann and Waldemar Kindler, the Chief of the Bavarian Police Force who accompanied the minister on his trip to Washington, declined to comment on the suspect’s nationality or current whereabouts. At the time, German authorities decided not to reveal the foiled terrorist plots to the public in order to avoid mass panic and a potential disruption of the games.
During his Washington luncheon address, Herrmann also warned sternly of the growing "danger of attacks [in Germany and elsewhere in Europe] from home-grown networks" and the "formation of parallel societies in large cities and urban areas." "We can't just ignore the fact that there is drastic distance between some Muslims and our system of values.
I was beginning to dismiss Conservative leader David Cameron as a wet blanket. That he was so smug in installing that sissy windmill atop his house. That he led the Tories disgraceful call for an inquiry into the decision to go to war--a war Cameron and his shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, supported initially and now seek to use for political gain. The following news, however, has inspired me to reevaluate.
Teachers will be encouraged to physically restrain disruptive pupils under controversial new plans unveiled by David Cameron. The Conservative leader said he would change the law to allow teachers to physically intervene to search pupils or stop them leaving the classroom.
The proposal forms part of a detailed plan drawn up by the Conservatives to instill classroom discipline which the party says is crucial in improving school standards.
Mr Cameron said: "It is acceptable for teachers to feel they can be physical. It is not acceptable to wallop children but teachers should be able to put out their hand and grab them. There does need to be a restoration of common sense…a wave of political correctness has hit schools.
What’s next? The birch? Alas, Cameron specifically ruled out corporal punishment, but this is a good compromise. No longer will British teachers be cyber-bullied and bullied-bullied. One other reason to support the Tories: the Labor Education Secretary is named Ed Balls. Surely British schools kids would take Parliament more seriously if the MP in charge of their education had a different last name.
Mixed bag at the big NATO Summit this week:
NATO leaders agreed Thursday to endorse a United States missile defense system based in Europe and to provide more troops for Afghanistan, but they refused to back President Bush’s proposal to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO membership.
Washington’s failure to win over Germany, France, Italy, Spain and other crucial European countries to its view on Ukraine and Georgia was considered by some countries of Central and Eastern Europe to have sent a message of alliance weakness to Moscow, a day before the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, makes his first visit to a NATO summit meeting.
Well I don't think that anyone expected it to be all sunshine and skittles over there--not with all the bad blood over Afghanistan--so that's not a bad showing by the president. I'm not a huge fan of bringing new nations on board, unless they've got troops in the queue ready to earn that NATO merit badge in Afghanistan. We've got enough problems integrating the current eastern European nations' highly centralized Armed Forces into the weird multi-faceted chain of commands that make up NATO, ISAF, KFOR, and so on, so why shoulder even more baggage?
The obvious counterpoint, that with critical manning shortages in places like the Helmand Province, it wouldn't hurt to invite a few more willing souls to the Afghanistan party.
Exit question: had President Bush's missile defense plan failed and new national applicants been green lighted, would the Times article have run:
Washington’s failure to win over Germany, France, Italy, Spain and other crucial European countries to its view on Ukraine and Georgia Missile Defense was considered by some countries of Central and Eastern Europe to have sent a message of alliance weakness to Moscow.
Yeah, you betcha.
The Guardian reports:
For years now, Nato nations have been committed to reach a minimum defence spending target of 2% of GDP. Yet 20 of them, including Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, have fallen far short. Among the six that have reached the target, the shares of four (including Britain and France) are in decline. Inevitably, that means the US carries ever more of the load and becomes ever more sceptical about taking Europe seriously....
The experience of Iraq, coupled with Europe's increased role in the Balkans, has tempted some Eurocentrics to say that Nato is outmoded and that an enhanced military role for the EU should replace it. This is fantasy land. If there is one thing that would be even worse for Europe than fighting a war with the Americans as allies, it is fighting a war without them. While it is true that Europe spends too little on defence because it knows it can rely on the Americans, it does not follow that European nations would be keen to spend more if Nato broke down.
The Bucharest Summit pings my interest on two fronts. First, I'm curious to see how Sarkozy--who seems to be taking his role as Chef des Armées of Europe's largest military seriously--will lay out his plans for French involvement in Afghanistan. He's hinted that the French army will be relieving the beleaguered Canadians, but there's been no firm announcement on proposed troop strength.
Second, I'd like to see if France's strong leadership role in the European Union inspires more NATO nations to follow their example. Big changes *could* be coming to an alliance near you, but the United States, Canada, France, and Great Britain can't make that happen on their own.
In the end, the Guardian is right. NATO can preach reforms until they're blue in the face, but unless European nations start shouldering the burdens of their own defense, the alliance's purpose and utility will continue to be called into question
China’s brutal crackdown on Buddhist protesters in its annexed Tibet province has sparked a heated discussion in Europe about whether or not to boycott (at least parts of) the upcoming Beijing Olympics, which are set to begin with a grandiose opening ceremony on August 8. So far, the 27 EU countries currently meeting at the foreign minister level in Slovenia have failed to agree on a common approach on how to deal with this thorny issue.
Among the big three EU powers, French President Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be most open towards considering various potential Olympic boycott options. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in contrast, has already announced his intention to participate at the games. Finally, Germany just announced today that President Horst Koehler, Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier will not be attending the games. However, Merkel’s spokesman was eager to stress that this was nothing unusual and that none of the three had ever planned to go to the Olympics in the first place. Foreign minister Steinmeier also reiterated his government’s view that a complete boycott of the games should be avoided. Germany is certainly treading very carefully as it just weathered a dramatic deterioration in its bilateral relations with Beijing following Chancellor Merkel’s controversial meeting with the Dalai Lama at her official residence in Berlin last September.
France is already emerging as a key player in shaping Europe’s response to the Tibet crackdown. President Sarkozy, after all, will hold the rotating EU-presidency at the time of the Olympics this summer. Political leaders in Poland and the Czech Republic, for their part, have already announced that they will personally boycott the games and are urging other European politicians to do the same.
In this context it is interesting to draw a comparison between Europe’s response to developments in Tibet and Darfur. For example, previous attempts by U.S. human rights activists like Mia Farrow and others to effectively bill the Beijing games as "The Genocide Olympics." (because of "China’s role as business partner, diplomatic protector and underwriter of Sudan’s campaign of ethnic destruction in Darfur") have had only a very limited if negligible effect on international public opinion. For sure, the U.S. human rights campaigners scored some relatively minor points back home, as evidenced by Steven Spielberg’s recent resignation as an artistic director of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.
Continue reading "Europe's Olympic Problem" »
The Teacher’s Union in Britain is calling for a ban on cell phones in schools. Surely there are good reasons for adopting this proposal--to stop cheating, chatting, and the proliferation of the latest Britney ring-tone. The Union relies on none of these justifications. Instead it says banning cell phones is essential to winning the war against bullying. In another article, the Union takes TV quiz shows to task for allegedly fuelling bullying. What will they blame next? Unicorns? I have a better idea: how about a culture bankrupt of personal responsibility. You know, the kind of society that would blame cell phones and television programs for violent acts.
Bullying is a hot-topic right now. Everyone’s been talking about cyber-bully because of the tragic Myspace suicide. The New York Times even went old school the other day in profiling poor Billy Wolfe, the victim of a series of brutal attacks in his Arkansas public school. A montage of black eyes and other bruises accompanies the piece. Now Billy’s parents are suing several of the perpetrators, and this litigious result seems apt. Yeah, lawsuits are good, in some cases, especially when the police and school refuse to do their job. Bear in mind one of the great cases of American tort law involved a case of 19th century bullying. Bullies populated the earth even in the bygone days before cell phones and Charles Van Doren . . .
The Times reports:
Public buildings, including job centres, schools and hospitals, are to be encouraged to fly the union jack and other national flags to boost national identity.
Ministers will this week announce the lifting of restrictions on flag flying that have been in force since 1924. They will allow public buildings to erect flagpoles and fly the union jack and national flags, including the cross of St George, the Saltire of Scotland and the red dragon of Wales every day.
At present, flying national flags from public buildings is restricted to 18 days a year, which include the Queen’s birthday and Remembrance Day.
If anyone can explain to me why the British restricted flag flying in 1924, I'd be curious to hear. The best quote of the story comes from Captain Malcolm Farrow, president of the British Flag Institute: “Any nation that doesn’t fly the national flag from its government buildings every day of the week needs its head examined.” But what about the BBC--the Union Jack or the Shahadah of Hamas?
HT: USS Neverdock
The president signals his support for Georgia to join NATO:
President Bush indicated support yesterday for Georgia's aspirations to join NATO eventually, but left uncertain whether he will try to start the process at the alliance summit next month in Bucharest, Romania.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has made clear he opposes the prospect of Ukraine and Georgia -- former satellites of the Soviet Union -- joining NATO, leaving some alliance countries leery about provoking a conflict with Russia.
After meeting with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in the Oval Office yesterday, Bush said he would like to see Georgia become a NATO member at some point. "I believe that NATO benefits with a Georgian membership. I believe Georgia benefits from being a part of NATO. And I told the president it's a message I'll be taking to Bucharest soon," Bush said.
Just another ally that will be unwilling to dirty its hands in Afghanistan? Or would the Georgians turn out to be shooters like the Poles? NATO also needs fresh troops to unscrew the mess that is Kosovo, but perhaps the alliance should focus on properly integrating the current force before they start bringing more newbies on board.
Still, I love the idea of Ukraine signing the charter. Putting NATO on a new eastern European border (Estonia and Latvia are already there) with the Russians gives me nostalgic Cold War warm fuzzies. And--if nothing else--it'd make the alliance somewhat less of an anachronism.
I may be a tongue-tied American who would have taken up arms against the lobsterbacks had I been born in the 18th century, but I for one welcome Lord Goldsmith’s proposal to make British school kids pledge allegiance to the Queen at school assemblies. Certainly nationalism is preferable to the distressing displays of multiculturalism that have proliferated in England. Consider this recent episode:
Teachers at a primary school have been ordered to dress up as Muslims to promote multi-culturalism.
The West Midlands school is belatedly celebrating the Muslim festival of Eid and told its pupils and teachers to don traditional Muslim dress for the day.
All 257 pupils, most of whom are Christians, and 41 teachers--two of whom are Muslims--dressed up.
Although I would be shocked, shocked to learn that teachers do not dress up for Purim and students do not eat lunch in a sukkah during Sukkot, there is still a matter of instilling some national identity in today’s youth. To his credit, Prime Minister Gordon Brown solicited Lord Goldsmith’s report on how to "promote the meaning and significance of citizenship within modern Britain." Not a bad idea given the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent comments about sharia in the UK.
A good way to measure how far apart the Americans (particularly the current administration) and the Europeans are these days is by reading Helmut Schmidt’s “twelve questions for the candidates” in the current Atlantic Times. The former German chancellor simply wants to know where the contenders stand on issues like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and the environment. Schmidt rightly calls some of the candidates’ positions “nebulous” and predictably so during an election year.
But then there are those few questions posed in such a way that we know precisely where Schmidt and his cohorts stand. Here are a few:
“Since a quarter of the world’s states are Islamic, would you fight for religious and cultural tolerance and work against a clash of civilizations with Islam?” I guess Schmidt never met Karen Hughes. But seriously, I hope Herr Kanzler isn’t suggesting allowing sharia law to be practiced on German soil. Is he?
“Do you agree that, besides the Middle East, ‘Russia is the other great challenge for global security’ (Zbigniew Brzezinski)? Or do you share our view that, since Gorbachev, Russia has never violated its borders militarily and is acting more peacefully now than at any time in its Tsarist and Communist history?” Our view? That must mean not only Schmidt but Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schröder. As for “acting more peacefully now than at any time in its Tsarist and Communist history,” well, that would be pretty hard to top.
“Do you accept the global political and economic role of China? Will you finally invite China to the G-8 and other global summits?” Indeed, doing so will encourage a liberalization of China’s markets leading to greater economic freedom leading to greater political freedom. But this has already been achieved by the Olympics.
In a little more than a month from now, President Bush will head to Bucharest, Romania for a major NATO summit. The gathering is being billed as a potential “make-or-break” moment for the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, whose lackluster performance in southern Afghanistan has been a source of increasing tension within the alliance.
But South Asia won’t be the only thing on the agenda at Bucharest. The summit will also tackle the potentially divisive question of how much, and how fast, NATO should expand. Although three longstanding NATO aspirants--Albania, Macedonia, and Croatia--are widely expected to secure invitations to join the alliance this April, the bigger test case is likely to be Ukraine and Georgia, both of which are petitioning NATO for a “Membership Action Plan,” or MAP, at the summit.
Getting a MAP is no guarantee of future NATO membership for Ukraine or Georgia; on the contrary, it’s just an aid package that will help these countries’ democratically-elected governments tackle the various political, economic, and security reforms that, if successfully implemented, will help them qualify for NATO membership down the line.
The United States and most of its major allies are in favor of offering a MAP to Ukraine and Georgia, but several European states--most notably Germany--are still iffy. Their opposition isn’t substantive: rather, they are frightened first and foremost about pissing off Russia, which is loathe to see a closer relationship between NATO and its former satellites.
Despite Moscow’s saber rattling, a source tells the WEEKLY STANDARD that the vote count among NATO member states has gotten more favorable for Georgia and Ukraine in the past few weeks. What’s needed now is a strong diplomatic push on the part of the Bush administration--which, not so coincidentally, is precisely what Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and a bipartisan, bicameral group of Senators and Congressman urge Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to do, in a letter they sent to Foggy Bottom yesterday. Here’s the excerpt:
Continue reading "McCain, Lieberman, and NATO" »
Normally I wouldn't throw such an enormous block quote out at the masses, but today I'm firing for effect.
Dear Ministry of Defense Bureaucrats,
It is worth remembering that on 6th June 1940 the evacuation from Dunkirk of the BEF had finished two days earlier, with the bulk of their equipment being left on the beaches behind them. On D-Day, 6th June 1944, only 4 years later, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy (American forces - 73,000.) on 6th June 1940. Ninety-five per cent of these soldiers had been civilians with no military training, experience or even any great desire to be soldiers.
11,590 aircraft were available to support the landings. On D-Day, Allied aircraft flew 14,674 sorties. All of these aircraft had been built in less than four years. Ninety per cent of their pilots had never flown in an airplane, much less piloted one, before Dunkirk and ninety-five per cent of the mechanics and other ground support personnel who maintained their engines and other systems had never set foot on an airfield.
Operation Neptune, the naval support operation for the Overlord landings, involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune - 112,824 of these were British, Nearly two thirds of the ships were from the Royal Navy. 70 – something % of those ships had been built since June 1940. Ninety percent of the seamen and eighty per cent of the officers manning those vessels of war had never crewed more than a rowboat before June 1940.
A pipeline was laid under the ocean to carry fuel and lubricants to the allied forces. Two pre-fabricated harbors had been designed, built and towed through one of the most treacherous bodies of water in the world and installed on the Channel coast of France while under enemy fire.
All of this, and more, done in four years. All of it done without electronic computers. All of it done without fax machines, without cell phones, without voice mail, all of it done with manual typewriters and mechanical calculators and reams of paper and legions of men and women filing and stamping and checking and rechecking and working as if their lives depended on it. As if!
And today, with all our wealth and technology, you, Ministry of Defence bureaucrats, tell us we cannot produce 12, count them, TWELVE Chinook support helicopters vitally needed by our forces in Afghanistan...
Nice to see that someone on that island is fed up with MoD's misappropriations and Labour's all-around neglectful towards Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
Sounds familiar right? Bureaucrats, folks, our own worst enemy.
Kosovo declared its independence yesterday and today the United States, Britain, and France all recognized the new government, despite the protestations of Serbia and Russia. Senator Lieberman just put out the following statement:
The declaration of independence on Sunday by the democratically-elected government of Kosovo represents the only just and sustainable outcome for the future of this unique territory, and for the stability of Southeastern Europe.
It's not every day that a new nation comes into being. And for all the talk about anti-Americanism, I think we can judge Kosovo a likely ally in the years ahead--at least that's what all the flag waving would indicate.
Still, It will be interesting to see how the Democratic candidates respond to this--given that it was a Democratic president that began our commitment in Kosovo (How would Ned Lamont have responded for that matter, given that the only mention I can find at the Daily Kos is "Serbia is not thrilled.") Will they summon the courage to acknowledge that the Bush administration--maybe, just maybe--did something right? Don't hold your breath.
Cuts "Likely" to UK defense equipment:
The UK House of Commons Defence Select Committee has warned of impending defence cuts and is "deeply concerned" that continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are eroding the UK armed forces' ability to react to any new contingent operations.
In a report released on 28 January the committee suggested that despite a planned real-term increase in the defence budget of 1.5 per cent annually (GBP7.7 billion [USD15 billion] in total) until 2011, "cuts in the defence programme, including the equipment programme, are likely in the coming months as part of the Planning Round process".
It called on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to be "realistic" about the number of equipment programmes that can be funded.
Then there's this:
Muslims can claim benefits for several wives, says Ministers- Husbands who bring more than one wife to Britain can claim extra benefits for them at taxpayers' expense.
Ministers have ruled that men in polygamous marriages can receive state handouts for each wife, including additional income support, even though bigamy is illegal in the UK.
Nice to see that British tax dollars are supporting the important stuff.
Earlier this week, public opinion and mainly left-wing media circles in Europe breathed a big sigh of relief mixed with Schadenfreude after learning that the U.S. intelligence community now believes that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. “Relief” because 1) no one in Europe wants the Mullahs to get their hands on nuclear weapons, and 2) no one wants the U.S. to launch military strikes against Iran to prevent that from happening either; “Schadenfreude” because 1) the NIE seems to weaken the Bush administration’s aggressive rhetoric as to why Iran is a major international security threat, and 2) because, like in the case of Iraq’s WMD programs, people get the impression that there is once again a clear disconnect between what the (U.S.) intelligence community knows and what the Bush administration wants the rest of the world to believe.
For Europeans, both the content and timing of this week’s NIE were even more surprising as many regular citizens, journalists, and even security experts seemed to believe that a U.S. attack on Iran was imminent, or at least likely to happen before Bush leaves office in January 2009. It is rather ironic that these folks tend to be the same people who refuse to acknowledge that the U.S. “surge” has yielded remarkable security progress in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.
After learning about the NIE, governments in Germany, the UK, and France--the three European powers involved in the on-going EU3 + 3 nuclear negotiations with Iran--were quick to stress the need to keep the international pressure on Tehran, raising the specter of a new sanctions regime imposed by the UN Security Council. In this context, it is interesting that Germany’s conservative daily Die Welt not only refused to downplay the security threat posed by Iran but also raised questions as to whether U.S. and European intelligence services are on the same page when it comes to assessing what Tehran is really up to:
“[As a result of intelligence failures regarding Iraq], the US intelligence services are more defensive than their European counterparts, who aren’t yet completely convinced that Iran put a freeze on its atomic weapons program in 2003. But at least this can be said: If the US intelligence services don’t come up with any reliable information about an Iranian bomb in the next few months, the Mullahs won’t be attacked militarily under this US president.”
BBC took terror trainers....paintballing?
The BBC funded a paintballing trip for men later accused of Islamic terrorism and failed to pass on information about the 21/7 bombers to police, a court was told yesterday.
Mohammed Hamid, who is charged with overseeing a two-year radicalisation programme to prepare London-based Muslim youths for jihad, was described as a "cockney comic" by a BBC producer.
The BBC paid for Mr Hamid and fellow defendants Muhammad al-Figari and Mousa Brown to go on a paintballing trip at the Delta Force centre in Tonbridge, Kent, in February 2005. The men, accused of terrorism training, were filmed for a BBC programme called Don't Panic, I'm Islamic, screened in June 2005.
Not mentioned: "Don't Panic, I'm Islamic" was a Beeb documentary on how British Muslims are unfairly stereotyped as terrorists.
Even weirder is the description of activities at Hamid's terror camp:
The court was told previously that Mr Hamid taunted police on his return from an alleged terror training camp in the New Forest where exercises included somersaults, pole-vaulting and paintballing.
Somersaults? Pole-vaulting? Was he planning on attacking Circ Du Soleil?
Jan Bittner, senior foreign policy advisor to conservative CDU/CSU Bundestag Leader Volker Kauder, has written a compelling post at the Atlantic Community blog on the plight of the more than 2.2 million Iraqi Refugees who have fled to neighboring countries to escape sectarian violence and ethic strife at home. Based on first-hand accounts gained during a fact-finding trip to Amman, Damascus, and Istanbul in October, Bittner draws particular attention to the terrible sufferings of Iraqi Christians, who are arguably Iraq’s most vulnerable religious minority:
Christians in Iraq today frequently face an ultimatum: either convert to Islam (giving their daughters to Mujahideen fighters as “proof” that the conversion is serious) or leave their homes immediately. In Istanbul, a priest of the Chaldean church recounted the final wave of violence against the few remaining Christians in the Baghdad neighborhood of al-Dora, where he was serving in 2006. Today al-Dora and many parts of the country have lost their Christian populations, and 2000 years of Christian presence in Iraq is coming to an end.
The U.S. Government has already started to address the refugee problem. By the end of 2007, it will have provided almost $1 billion in humanitarian assistance since 2003 for Iraqis in Iraq and in neighboring countries. At the end of October, President Bush requested $160 million to provide basic health services and education for Iraqi refugees in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon; and $80 million to provide emergency relief supplies, health care, and water and sanitation infrastructure to people displaced in Iraq. At the same time, though, the Bush administration has come under tremendous pressure from Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill to allow many more Iraqis asylum in the United States. So far, however, logistical and bureaucratic hurdles at the State Department as well as terrorism and security concerns raised by DHS have caused regrettable delays in the relevant U.S. resettlement initiatives.
Europe, too, should do much more to help alleviate the suffering of Iraq’s refugees. For those countries that have decided to stay out of Iraq militarily, a sharp increase in humanitarian aid for Iraqi refugees would be an excellent opportunity to care for those people most in need and to help contain a humanitarian crisis that, even as violence declines, could have dangerous spill-over effects in a very volatile region of the world.
European public opinion is generally critical of sending soldiers abroad on tough missions to hunt down terrorists in far-distant countries. In contrast, the same polls consistently indicate broad-based popular support for soft, “feel good” foreign policies that focus on humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, and economic reconstruction. According to the German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Trends 2007 survey, among those Europeans backing a stronger EU role in international affairs, 84 percent were in favor of spending more money on development aid; 74 percent preferred using trade incentives to influence other countries; 68 percent wanted to commit more troops for peacekeeping missions; yet only 20 percent supported deploying troops for combat operations in general. With the notable exception of Sweden, the plight of Iraq’s refugees has so far failed to galvanize Europe to action. Unfortunately, large parts of European public opinion still view the Iraq war as a lost-cause--a quagmire caused by an unwarranted unilateral U.S. military invasion--that is essentially Bush’s problem to solve. EU leaders should seize the opportunity to tell their publics why helping Iraq’s refugees through expanded aid and targeted resettlement programs is not only a moral imperative but also smart, principled foreign policy.
Some years ago at the beginning of the Putin era, the consensus among several foreign policy experts was that Russia was about to re-assert itself in a manner that it had practiced so well during the Cold War. That is, attacking the United States by proxy.
The proxy for the United States was to be one of our closest allies, the UK. The reason was very simple. The UK remains a member of the UN Security Council and other international bodies owing more to its status as a member of the WW II victory parade than to its current actual power and influence in world events. It is the “weakest link” of all the American allies and an easy target.
Russia, it was predicted, would begin to attack the UK in every manner possible short of direct military confrontation. By doing so, Moscow would be taking on the entire western alliance and attempting to diminish the image of American and NATO dominance in world affairs. Going after London would be important symbolically, but it would involve little consequences for Russia given the inability of the UK to retaliate in any meaningful manner.
The prediction has largely turned out to be true. There have been several diplomatic confrontations with the UK, the most serious of these involving the poisoning death of Aleksandr Litvinenko, a former KGB officer and Putin critic who had become a naturalized British subject. UK press organizations and other entities in Russia also find themselves under constant harassment over their country’s decision to grant political asylum to Boris Berezovskiy--another political enemy of Putin who has lived in London in self-imposed exile for years. Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers have even challenged UK air space and have been intercepted recently by Eurofighter aircraft of the Royal Air Force.
But the most persistent and least-talked about assault by Moscow has been in the area of espionage. This week the head of the UK’s internal security and counterintelligence service, MI5, stated that Russian spying against London remains at Cold War levels. The consequence is that this constant harassment diverts intelligence resources that would be better devoted to fighting al Qaeda and other terrorist threats.
Jonathan Evans, MI5’s director general, said this week that espionage by Russia, China, and other countries was detracting from the service’s mission of countering militant Islamists who were growing in number and now targeting children as young as 15 in Britain. “Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen no decrease in the numbers of undeclared Russian intelligence officers in the UK--at the Russian Embassy and associated organizations conducting covert activity in this country,” Evans said.
“So despite the Cold War ending nearly two decades ago, my service is still expending resources to defend the UK against unreconstructed attempts by Russia, China and others to spy on us.” These comments were made as part of his first public speech since he became the head of MI5 this past April. That he chose to make this a subject of his first public address speaks volumes about just how pervasive Russian spying on the UK is at present.
Continue reading "Spies Like Us" »
Turkey’s threat to launch a large-scale military invasion against PKK fighters in Northern Iraq is not only of great concern to policymakers in Washington, where President Bush will meet with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make a last-ditch plea for Turkish restraint next Monday. Germany, too, is trying hard to prevent Ankara from embarking on a reckless military adventure with potentially disastrous consequences for security and stability across the region and beyond.
Since last Sunday, when several hundred nationalist Turkish anti-PKK demonstrators attacked a Kurdish cultural center in Berlin, German authorities are now also increasingly concerned about the conflict’s violent repercussions for relations between the country’s sizeable Turkish and Kurdish migrant populations. While several hundred German riot police were able to fend off the barrage of bottles and stones thrown by the young Turkish attackers (15 of whom were arrested), the clashes also left 18 police officers injured. The head of Berlin’s security police is already bracing for a further escalation in violent Turkish-Kurdish clashes in the weeks and months to come. "The conflict in the border region with Iraq has already spilled over into Berlin. We have to be careful and look the problem straight in the eye."
In total, there are currently about 1.7 million Turks living in Germany. This figure does not include the 500,000 or so naturalized Germans of Turkish origin or children born to Turkish parents in Germany who acquired German citizenship by birth. In contrast, the number of Kurds is estimated to be around 650,000. However, an exact ethnic demographic breakdown is hard to establish as Kurds with a Turkish passport are also counted as part of Germany’s Turkish population. According to the 2006 Annual Report by Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, about 11,500 left-wing Kurdish extremists and an almost equal number of right-wing Turkish nationalists are currently based in Germany. While Kurdish extremists have virtually stopped all their violent activities in Germany (they are now primarily focused on fundraising and propaganda operations), more and more young Turks in Germany are embracing a strange mix of both radical Turkish nationalist and Islamist ideas, making them prone to further violence.
A Turkish military invasion of Northern Iraq, which should be prevented at all cost, would undoubtedly lead to more violent clashes on German streets. For sure, the deadly hit-and-run attacks on Turkey by the banned PKK terrorist organization have rightly been condemned by Western governments in Europe and the United States. However, there can be no doubt that the roughly 3,000 PKK fighters holed up in Northern Iraq pose no real strategic threat to Turkey, which boasts a 620,000-strong army that is the second biggest in the entire NATO alliance. Back in early 2003, Turkey’s Islamist-dominated parliament denied the United States the ability to move U.S. troops into Northern Iraq to take out Saddam in what was viewed by Washington as an operation of vital importance to U.S. national security. Now, in 2007, Turkey has massed more than 250,000 troops along its border with Northern Iraq in preparation for what would certainly be a disproportionate response to a limited tactical threat.
It remains to be seen how much leverage President Bush can exert on the government of a country whose population ranks among the most anti-American in the world. According to the German Marshall Fund’s latest Transatlantic Trends public opinion survey, 74 percent of the Turkish population now views U.S. leadership in the world as "undesirable," and only 3 percent approve of Bush’s handling of international affairs. In this context it may be more effective to use those levers that really matter to Ankara. Markus Soeder, the former conservative CSU party secretary general who now serves as the Bavarian State Minister in charge of Federal and European Affairs, demanded just this week that the EU immediately freeze its on-going accession talks with Ankara in the event of a Turkish military attack on Northern Iraq. "It cannot be that a country wanting to join the EU wages a war of aggression."
Across the board, German political and media circles breathed a big sigh of relief after the defeat of populist Polish prime minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski by Donald Tusk, leader of the pro-EU and market-friendly Civic Platform party, in early parliamentary elections on Sunday. Until two weeks ago, the older of the identical Kaczynski twins (his brother Lech currently serves as Poland’s president) still seemed poised to win another term in office with an aggressive election campaign based on the fight against post-Communist corruption as well as rather obsessive friend-or-foe thinking, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy.
Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s fate was sealed, however, after he lost a high-profile TV debate against Tusk and when Poland’s young, educated, urban, and increasingly mobile population (more than 1 million Poles have moved to the UK since 2004) turned out at the polls in record numbers to get rid of a government that had left the country often completely isolated within the 27-nation EU bloc on issues ranging from EU institutional reforms to the death penalty. In the end, it was, essentially, only elderly, conservative Catholic voters from Poland’s poor rural areas who remained faithful to Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s Law and Justice party, thus underscoring the country’s growing deep cultural and political divide.
Since coming to power two years ago, the Kaczynski twins and their political allies have repeatedly launched aggressive political attacks on the German government in Berlin, using bellicose rhetoric and conjuring up memories of the Second World War in an effort to deflect attention from their mounting political problems at home. From the Germans’ perspective, it was disappointing to see that a country they had sponsored for entry into the EU (and NATO for that matter) was now using membership as a way of settling old scores. For sure, former Chancellor Schroeder’s cozy relationship with Russian President Putin and their planned Nord Stream gas pipeline bypassing Poland certainly sounded alarm bells in Warsaw. However, since taking office in late 2005, Merkel has repeatedly tried to allay Polish fears over the Russian-German project, which Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s hawkish former defense minister Radek Sikorski (who subsequently fell out with the twins and decided to run for Donald Tusk’s party on Sunday instead) even compared to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to partition Poland. It is unfortunate that Merkel’s repeated overtures to Warsaw, which also included an invitation to join the consortium by building an additional spur of the pipeline from the Baltic Sea to Poland, were rejected by the two hard-line twins, who insisted that Russia and Germany scrap the deal altogether.
Continue reading "Germany Welcomes Change of Government in Poland" »
Just today, my friends at Atlantic Community--a new Berlin-based online think tank--published the last installment of an interesting three-part survey gauging how 14 think tank experts from ten different European countries assess the potential consequences of a quick U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by the Summer of 2009 (somewhere along the lines of the "Edwards Plan"). In a nutshell, the surveyed analysts expressed fears that such a precipitous move could expose the European homeland to increased terrorist risks, lead to Iraq’s collapse and fragmentation, and also result in wider regional instability (i.e., the rise of Iran), further refugee flows, higher oil prices, and increased American isolationism. Geographically, Europe is of course much closer to Iraq and Iran than the United States. Here are the key findings of Atlantic Community’s survey:
1. Europeans Want America to Stay in Iraq
While the American public and policy debate revolves largely around exit strategies and "redeployment," European policy analysts believe that American troops should remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future. A sudden withdrawal or public announcement of a timetable was considered dangerous by a majority of those questioned. In addition, Europeans feel that America is not doing enough to draw Syria and Iran into the nation-building process.
2. Europe Should Help, But Not Follow US Lead
European analysts suggest either pursuing policies in Iraq independent of prevailing US wisdom, or hinging level of involvement on America’s willingness to cede control. Militarily, there is little remaining sense of obligation to support the United States. Several respondents recommend that France mediate discussions among internal factions in Iraq. Efforts could focus on dialogue with powerful stakeholders to reinvigorate Iraqi nationalism and reduce sectarian violence. European diplomatic offensive involving Iran and Syria is seen as essential, but experts are also focused on Turkey. Maintaining peace in Kurdistan could be encouraged through EU membership negotiations.
3. Premature US Withdrawal Would Threaten Europe
European analysts believe that American withdrawal from Iraq would spell disaster. Increased refugee flows, regional instability, cross-border violence, higher oil prices, terrorism within Europe, and increased American isolationism were the main predictions noted by our respondents. "With a weakened United States, geopolitical vacations for Europe would be over."
While many strategic analysts and politicians in Europe are fully aware of the dire fall-out if Washington were to adopt an "apres-nous-le-deluge" approach in Iraq, European public opinion, in contrast, is very critical of the U.S. troop presence there and leaves Europe’s political leaders virtually no margin to provide additional political, economic, or military support for Iraq’s stabilization and reconstruction above current levels. For far too long, unfortunately, European public opinion has viewed the Iraq war as a lost cause, a quagmire caused by an unwarranted unilateral U.S. military invasion, and that is now Bush’s problem to solve. Europeans should not forget, though, that they, too, have a major stake in the future of Iraq.
Check out the full survey here.
One of the more important post-9/11 reforms was the creation of passenger watch lists and the effort to ensure that the names of all passengers flying to this country were disclosed before arrival. But while important to U.S. security, it has been a significant challenge to induce our partners to compile and transmit passenger lists before each flight arrives in the United States. Some nations threatened to balk, questioning whether the U.S. would really turn back planes whose passengers were not disclosed. And when the European Union signed an agreement to provide the data, it got tossed out by a judge in May.
Now the United States and EU have come to a 7-year agreement that will ensure that Passenger Name Records are transmitted to the Department of Homeland Security as early as 72 hours before scheduled flights:
“I am pleased to have signed an important agreement with the European Union today that will allow the Department of Homeland Security to continue using passenger name record data as an essential screening tool for detecting dangerous transatlantic travelers,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a press release. “Two separate agreements over the past three years have enabled our frontline personnel to rely on PNR data to disrupt terrorist travel, deny admission to individuals presenting security concerns, and dismantle human trafficking and narcotics smuggling networks.”
DHS will collect 19 PNR items from airlines generally 72 hours prior to a flight’s takeoff, with periodic updates coming in as they occur. The PNR items include: All provided contact information; payment and billing details; other names attached to the reservation; date of reservation; travel itinerary; names of travel agents; baggage information; and seat numbers.
According to DHS, this data is collected on about 87 million passengers annually. Information is analyzed to identify high-risk travelers, so that appropriate action can be taken. The agreement with the EU should ensure that this information sharing continues, and is immune to legal challenge.
From the Wall Street Journal:
GLASGOW -- Last Saturday afternoon, baggage handler John Smeaton was standing in front of Glasgow Airport smoking a cigarette when a Jeep Cherokee burst into flames nearby. He watched its burning driver emerge. A police officer pursued the passenger.
What happened next has turned Mr. Smeaton, 31 years old, into an unlikely folk hero. When he saw the passenger hitting the officer, Mr. Smeaton ran over and kicked the assailant.
Mr. Smeaton has been interviewed on the BBC, CNN and other networks about his response to the attack in which two suspected terrorists attempted to ram into the airport's main terminal. (See the CNN interview.) In a Glaswegian accent that is at times impenetrable -- Australia's Channel 7 subtitled its interview with him -- Mr. Smeaton voiced a defiance that has turned him into a de facto spokesman for Glasgow's fighting spirit. His message to terrorists: "You come to Glasgow, we don't stand for it," he says. "We'll just set aboot ye." (Translation: "In Glasgow, we'll just deck you.")
By the next evening, an admirer had created a Web site devoted to Mr. Smeaton -- nicknaming him Smeato. It includes links to his media interviews, purported details from his past (he once owned a ferret) and a plea for Britons to buy him a pint in the bar at the airport's Holiday Inn hotel. There is also a picture of Osama bin Laden with the caption: "You told me John Smeaton was off on Saturdays!"
Here's the link to the Smeaton website. The WWS salutes Smeato and has purchased a pint in his honor...which, given the current weakness of the dollar, cost some $6.20. Still worth every penny.
Earlier this week in Washington, I had the opportunity to sit down for an informal discussion with visiting German defense minister Franz-Josef Jung. While the mounting security risks for Germany’s more than 3,500 soldiers currently deployed in Afghanistan certainly ranked high on his political agenda, the conservative CDU minister also warned that the on-going diplomatic wrangling over the future status of Kosovo could be a source of massive international tensions. The province of Kosovo, inhabited by about two million mainly ethnic Albanian Muslims, remains in a legal limbo since being run as a UN protectorate following NATO’s March 1999 bombing campaign that drove out then-Yugoslav strong man Slobodan Milosevic.
Today, many European political leaders fear that a potential unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, without UN Security Council backing and subsequently recognized by Washington, would not only do serious harm to relations with Russia but could also drive a wedge through the 27-nation EU. In the nightmare scenario, some EU members (like the UK) would follow the U.S. lead and recognize an independent Kosovo while others (Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, etc.) would continue to support the government in Belgrade, which views an independent Kosovo as a blatant violation of Serbia’s territorial integrity. The remaining EU members--including key powers such as Germany, France, and Italy--would suddenly be caught in the middle of an ugly, damaging international "recognition race" over Kosovo.
In February this year, UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari presented a status proposal that would, in essence, put Kosovo on track for eventual statehood and independence under temporary EU supervision. For instance, while Ahtisaari’s plan carefully avoids the word "independence," it gives Kosovo the right to negotiate and conclude international agreements, establish a Kosovo Security Force, and adopt national symbols. Serbia is firmly opposed to Kosovo’s independence and has already rejected the Ahtisaari proposal. Moscow, for its part, has made clear that it would veto any UN Security Council resolution that would impose a settlement on Belgrade. While the Kosovo political leadership has reluctantly embraced the Ahtisaari plan, the province’s prime minister Agim Ceku, has already warned that Kosovo would declare independence unilaterally if Russia blocked a UN Security Council resolution enforcing the plan: "We can't wait anymore. Every day of delay means an increase in frustration and a loss of legitimacy."
The idea of granting independence (if necessary against the objections of Belgrade and Moscow) to Kosovo increasingly resonates among top Bush administration officials and influential lawmakers from both parties on Capitol Hill. During his June 10 visit to Albania, Kosovo’s next-door neighbor and ethnic kin, President Bush came out strongly in favor of an independent Kosovo, arguing that "At some point in time, sooner rather than later, you've got to say, 'Enough is enough. Kosovo is independent.'"
Continue reading "Kosovo: The Next Transatlantic Clash?" »
As President Bush follows his G-8 visit to Berlin with a stop in Bulgaria, Congressional Quarterly covers a bizarre 'kerfuffle' over a North Korean money laundering operation involving a Bulgarian bank:
During a | | | |
