SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (19970)6/6/2007 11:15:46 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
'Re-Arming' Europe
The Old World needs an intellectual revolution to meet the challenges ahead.

BY PASCAL BRUCKNER
Sunday, June 3, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Bernard Kouchner and Nicolas Sarkozy, the new French foreign minister and president, are the most improbable and interesting couple of the year. The former fought against Europe's passivity in confronting the massacres in Bosnia, Rwanda, Chechnya and Darfur. The latter has strongly denounced the spirit of repentance that he thinks is demoralizing the Old World. Today, despite their disagreements, they have one point in common--a desire for action as opposed to capitulation.

Europe has been absent from the world stage for too long. After 1945, Europe remade itself on the idea of its refusal of war. Europe was not, like the U.S., born from the collective oath that everything is possible, but from the fatigue of enduring so much bloodshed. Had the two world wars not happened, Europe's yearning for peace--confused with its longing for rest--would never have existed.

European democracy is now the democracy of small steps, of constructive modesty. It is what remains when other dreams have been abandoned, a diversified space where life is good, where one may fulfill himself, enrich himself, preferably in the presence of a few cultural masterpieces.

Such ambition would be perfect in a world in which the Kantian ideal of "perpetual peace" had been won. However, the contrast is striking between the idyllic dreams of the Europeans--a society of law, dialogue, mutual respect, tolerance--and the tragedies being endured by the rest of the world, in autocratic Russia, aggressive Iran, the devastated Middle East, unstable Africa and in recent episodes of hyper-terrorism. Europe is not enamored of "history"--the nightmare from which it emerged with such difficulty in 1989 after the Berlin Wall came down. Europe claims to have no adversaries, only partners, and to be a friend to all, the tyrant as well as the democrat.

And Europe has been haunted for half a century by the torment of repentance, reliving and remembering its past crimes: slavery, imperialism, fascism, communism--what it sees in its long history is an unending series of killing and plundering, culminating in two world wars. Europe gave birth to these monsters and was also "mother" to the theories which allow for both their genesis and destruction.

Continuing in the footsteps of the Arabs and the Africans, Europe instituted the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But it was also the first to theorize abolitionism and it put an end to slavery before other nations did. It seems that Europe committed the worst acts and then found the means to eradicate those acts, like a jailer who throws you in prison and then sneaks you the keys to your cell. Europe brought despotism and freedom to the world at the same time--sending the military, the missionary and the merchant to subjugate those faraway lands. And the colonial adventure died because of that contradiction: subjecting these continents to the laws of the city, instilling in them the idea of nationality and the rights of the people to dictate their own future. The colonized who claimed their independence turned against their masters the laws that they had been faithfully taught.

A civilization capable of the worst atrocities as well as the most sublime creation cannot examine itself only from the perspective of a guilty conscience. Genocide is far from a Western specialty, and it is the West which has allowed us to conceptualize certain acts as crimes against humanity; it is the West which since 1945 has distanced itself from its own barbarity to give a precise meaning to the term crimes against humanity.

Europe's genius is that it knows too well the fragility of the barriers separating it from its own ignominy. This lucidity, pushed to the extreme, keeps Europe from calling for a crusade of Good against Evil, inspiring it to substitute instead the battle of the preferable against the detestable, to use the excellent formula of Raymond Aron. Europe is constituted inside the very doubt which denies its existence, seeing itself with the pitiless gaze of an intransigent judge.

This suspicion weighing down our most notable successes risks degenerating into self-hate, into facile defeatism. We would then have only one obligation, to pay off our debts, forever atoning for what we have taken from humanity since its beginnings. Observe the wave of repentance ravaging our latitudes, especially our principal Protestant and Catholic churches: It is a good thing, a salutary awakening of awareness, provided that they accept reciprocity, and that other cultures and other faiths recognize their errors as well.

Contrition is not reserved for the chosen, nor is moral purity given like a moral allowance to those who say they are humiliated and persecuted. For too many countries, in Africa, in the Middle East, in South America, self-criticism is confused with the selection of an easy scapegoat who can explain their unhappiness: It is never their fault, always someone else's, the American Great Satan or the little European Satan.

This is the problem in Europe today: No policies of great import can be achieved through guilt. This was made clear in the whole [Danish] affair of the Muhammad caricatures, when Brussels, instead of showing solidarity with Denmark and Norway, whose embassies were being burned down--chose instead to send Javier Solana into the Arab capitals like a traveling salesman of mea culpa. Just as the status of "victim" cannot be transmitted hereditarily, there is also no transmission of the status of "executioner."

The duty of memory does not imply the punishment or the automatic corruption of our children or of our great grandchildren. There are no innocent states or citizens, that is what we have learned during the past half century. But there are states capable of recognizing their duty and looking their own barbarity in the eye, and there are others who seek in their long-ago oppression excuses for the indignities of today.

Europe does not need to blush because of its history. Here is a civilization which raised itself up from the apocalypse of World War II, representing today the peaceful marriage of strength and conscience--it may indeed walk with head held high, serving as an example to other nations.

The time has come for a new generation of political leaders to mentally re-arm Europe, to prepare the Union for the confrontations which will soon be coming. We need a veritable intellectual revolution if we do not want the spirit of penitence to stifle in us the spirit of resistance--to give us up with bound hands and feet to the fanatics and the despots.

Mr. Bruckner is a writer based in France. This piece was translated from the French by Sara Sugihara.

opinionjournal.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (19970)8/17/2007 11:01:59 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Rumble Down Under
A major ally in the war on terror faces an election this fall.

BY MARY KISSEL
Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Radio listeners in Sydney last week were treated to some good ole Aussie plain talk on the war on terror. "It's not all negative and nobody pretends that it's easy," Prime Minister John Howard told talk show host Ray Hadley. "Pulling out will guarantee a descent into civil war and chaos and a victory for terrorism and we're totally opposed to that." And what of the much-maligned President Bush? While he's "under pressure at home," Mr. Howard retorted, "he's not a person who succumbs easily to pressure, and he's right."

Mr. Howard could just as easily have been describing himself. A man who's been fighting political trench warfare since the 1960s, the 68-year-old prime minister is dug into what he dubs "the toughest election I have had in the last decade or more." After 11 years in power at the helm of the ruling conservative Liberal Party, the straight-talking John Howard may finally be on the outs and Australia leaning left.

Polls show Mr. Howard trailing his challenger, the Labor Party's Kevin Rudd, by around 10 percentage points, with an election expected to be called in late October or early November. The so-called "Howard battlers," the blue-collar workers who swung the 1996 election decisively for the conservatives, are now seen as swing votes, particularly in Queensland and Tasmania.

A few decades ago, an Australian election wouldn't have mattered outside Asia, where Canberra occasionally intervened to put out fires in Pacific Island spats and kept tabs on Indonesia. Since taking office in 1996, however, Mr. Howard has carved out a global role for his country, proving himself a pragmatic and powerful ally in the war on terror. Australian troops are deployed in more hot spots than at any point in the country's history, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. Back at home, he's kept Australia's economic engines purring; the federal government is wholly debt-free and unemployment is at a 33-year low.

This is still a fresh vision of Australia, a nation where "tall poppies" get cut down--a popular phrase for compatriots who succeed too much and need to get taken down a notch. Talk to most Aussies, and they'll tell you they're just a middling-size nation that's largely dependent on mining resources. In fact, they have the world's 15th largest economy and boast some of Asia's most sophisticated services companies and a top-notch military.

Mr. Howard has had such a successful run that most political pundits attribute his polling numbers not to policy blunders but, first, to fatigue and, second, to Labor having finally found an electable challenger. (In good Aussie style, Mr. Rudd also comes in for his share of ribbing. One comedian asked earlier this year, "Do we want a Prime Minister named Kevin?")

It's hard to overestimate the fatigue factor. Mr. Howard is the second-longest serving prime minister in Australia's history. His core team, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Treasurer Peter Costello, has been in place since 1996. It's easy, too, to get complacent when the majority of Aussies now own their own homes, have stocks in their investment portfolios, and watch the war on terror from a comfortable geographic distance.

After a few leadership debacles, the Labor Party found Mr. Rudd, a 49-year-old fresh face. He styles himself a new left "economic conservative" who would keep the budget balanced. He spouts the odd non sequitur--he'd "keep interest rates low" while "preserving central bank independence"--and panders to the trade unions, threatening to roll back the Liberals' program of flexible work contracts. But other than that, Mr. Rudd largely echoes Mr. Howard's free trade, conservative economic management--something the prime minister acknowledges with relish. "I think it's a bit of a risk electing a bloke who doesn't have a plan of his own," Mr. Howard told radio host Mr. Hadley.

It's on the "fear issues" such as climate change, job security and foreign policy where Labor wants to distinguish itself--and where the election, if Mr. Rudd wins, could impact the U.S. and its allies. The opposition leader wants a phased withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq, playing to local fears that the war on terror has "made Australia a target." He advocates humanitarian aid for, and dialogue between, opposing factions--unsurprising positions for a man who spent seven years as a foreign service bureaucrat before entering politics. Under a Rudd government, Australia would maintain its close U.S. alliance, he says, but plump for a stronger United Nations and nurture its relationship with China. Mr. Rudd also supports ratifying the Kyoto Treaty.

Mr. Howard has responded by rounding up his troops and getting prepped for a grass-roots tussle. That includes a dash of populist politics--most notably, a wash of money for projects in key constituencies. It hasn't, however, stopped him from pushing ahead with controversial national reforms. In June, after the release of a report of sexual abuse in aboriginal lands, he announced the government's most ambitious reform of policy toward its native population since the 1960s. Mr. Rudd supported it.

Mr. Howard's strengths lie in his record of economic growth and foreign policy successes. Mr. Rudd's strengths lie in distracting voters from that record and focusing them on peripheral issues. But as long as Mr. Rudd doesn't make any major gaffes, the thinking goes, Australians are ready for a change.

Or are they? As an Aussie friend once told me, of Mr. Howard, "Every time his critics give him the kiss of death, it amounts to mouth-to-mouth resuscitation; he revives and bounces back with incredible force." Mr. Howard has a long way to bounce in a short period of time. But don't count him out just yet.

Ms. Kissel is editor of The Wall Street Journal Asia's editorial page.

opinionjournal.com