Schlagwort-Archive: US Politics

almost a diary, German Politics, US Politics

Start spreading the news, I’m leaving today.

Believe it or not, this weeek of travel diary, easily consumable blog-entries is nearing its end. I guess it’s hard to have a bad time in New York, and I am no exception to that rule. I met friends of old days, and I made new ones. I love metropoles. There’s always something to discover. Like yesterday evening, when I was walking down East 43rd Street, looking for a theatre, I could not find. But then, 3 minutes later, I was sitting in the second row of a Bruce Hornsby jam session. Entirely unplanned. And it was great. This is what differentiates cities like New York from the likes of Frankfurt (in addition to the fact that they don’t need a qualifier concerning their location). Metropoles are cities that never sleep. However, sleeping is something I am looking forward to doing at home. The next entry will be from the old world again.

P.S.: I haven’t written anything about the Bush-Schroeder-Daeubler-Gmelin quarrels so far, because I sent my reply to William Safire of the New York Times. So I am waiting for a reply first. But you’ll be able to read my rebuttal of his NYTimes column, “The German Problem”, in this theatre, soon.

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

America pissed off?

The last few days have witnessed histerical German media. Apparently, the US administration is not amused by the chancellor stating his disapproval for an invasion of Iraq as clearly as possible. A lot of analysts think that the US are right to be pissed off because they think that Schroeder is simply using the topic for his campaign (if so, it did certainly pay off), therefore creating unnecessary international tension and that he will later be forced to do anyway what he says he won’t before the election (should he be reelected).

Two things to that: One, the Iraq discussion certainly is a party political issue in the US as well. There is a lot of discussion going on. I don’t think it’s fair to denounce that in other countries, simply because they have upcoming general elections. In addition, if the discussion is owed to campaigning it should not be taken seriously anyway. But if the US government thinks that its foreign policy has to be treated at some level far above day to day politics, they should think again. Policies that are affecting everybody’s interests in the most crucial ways have to be discussed publicly. That’s crucial to a liberal democracy. Sometimes dissent is unavoidable.

Two, isn’t it great? So many Europeans lamenting about the US government not listening to its allies. And now that. I don’t think the issue has received the same kind of attention in the US – especially not during the week before 9/11/2002 – but who can say that they don’t listen to what we say if the chancellor can stir up so much attention once he says no? And he’s just the bad European of the day. Blair, the good European is having tea with W in Camp David this weekend. Honestly, isn’t it a bit like good cop, bad cop? Do the European foreign policy strategists think that treating the US from two angles is increasing its influence? I wonder…

But anyway – things probably aren’t as bad between the old and the new world as typical crisis hunting journalists on either would love them to be. The US government knows that Europe, including Germany, will support it, should it actually go in. Military support will probably be limited to showcase troops – simply because there isn’t anything useful Europe has that the US has not (maybe apart from this German ABC clearing unit already deployed in Kuwait). But Europe will probably pick up a large part of the tab by providing controlling and nation building resources after the initial intervention. Just as in Afghanistan. If we like it or not.

Standard
US Politics, USA

1+1=2?

1 : Enlightening, isn’t it? Well, think of it that way: This week’s edition of “Die Zeit” features an interview with Samuel Huntington (reminder: “Clash of Civilisations”). Huntington basically states that a relatively young demographic structure is a necessary, albeit not sufficient condition for countries to be aggressive. Older people usually sit in comfortable chairs and don’t fight against each other.

He makes that point using the example of 19th century Europe’s demographic shifts and the subsequent wars in the first part of the 20th century. It’s a theory – and I can tink of the situations to which he probably refers, eg India vs Pakistan: Very young countries, and also countries with way too many guys without girls – a consequence of the abortion rate and infanticide of girls – looking for ways to prove themselves outside a relationship. That is certainly a useful resource for troublemakers of all kind – and probably what Huntington is thinking about. But…

+1 : Last week’s edition of “The Economist” was about the apparent “demographic miracle” happening in the US. As opposed to pretty much all other industrialised countries have the US succeeded in reversing the ageing trend and can boast an increasing birth rate. So…

=2 ?: Take Huntington and the US birthrates, put it together and you can come up with all sorts of ideas what the underlying reasons for the urgent need to fight yet another war actually are…

Standard
Iraq, US Politics

Iraq. Or not Iraq. Is that really the question?

Brink Lindsey of the conservative US Cato Institute has made an important point in the introduction to his blogentry justifying the looming US invasion of Iraq.

He says that only very few of us have access to classified information. Quite true. But this point begs another important question. Does that really matter?

If the services have information available proving the US governments claim that Saddam is building nuclear WMD and ready to use them against Israel, the US or Europe – and that this justifies to go in and get him – why wouldn’t they publish it in order to make that point once and for all?

I can see only two reasons for the lack of such information. The first one is obvious. They don’t have any proof for their claim. The second is a bit trickier. I hope I am not going too far down the line of conspiracy theory here – but if the alleged current Iraqi threat is a consequence of secret western aid of the 1980s (and possibly later…) then weapon experts could likely point that out with the obvious political ramifications.

In that case, it is quite clear that access to this classified information could provide an improved basis to make an informed decision about attacking Iraq.

However, hoping that we won’t have to attribute another war to the secret services secret policy games around the globe, I would still bet on the first alternative. Classified information is probably unlikely to be really helpful in this context.

There is a case for ousting Saddam – but to make it, you can rely on published information on petrol economics, ethnic conflicts, and the survival struggle of all those weak autocratic regimes in the Middle East. Maybe I’ll try to put something together later on.

So far you might check the rest of Lindsey’s opinon on www.brinklindsey.com.

Standard
US Politics, USA

Leviathan has to move.

LeviathanA friend in need is a friend indeed. Leviathan certainly is not a friend of the Afghan people as recent reports of new fights in and around Kabul confirm.

So instead of trying to forge some sort of working government out of the state-of-nature-like inter-agency conflicts of competing warlords Leviathan apparently prefers competing with his friend Nicholo M. on who is best in curtailing civil liberties in the West. A state-of-the-extremely- scary-art example of the latter was exhibited last week in the New York Times, titled “Kafka in Tulia“.

I am not going ot summarise the article, I think it’s best if you read it yourself. Now if the West (and especially the US) want to underscore the theoretically sound claim that decent institutions of governance are prerequisite to economic and social development – and that the West is an example of those institutions – I think stories like the one above seem to make it necessary to reconsider the definition of “decent” in today’s politics.

Standard