Another European Country Turns Hard Right

Parliamentary elections this weekend in Finland have resulted in one more run to the political Right by members of a hoi polloi fed up with the European Union, the Eurozone, and immigration.  The True Finn party, which has a microscopic six seats in the 200 seat parliament, has been predicted by Finnish state broadcaster YLE to end up with forty-one seats when the last thirty percent of the ballots have been counted.

This means the True Finns, which are notably Europhobic, opposed to immigration, and death on participating in another bailout of a broke Eurozone state, are in a dead heat with the almost as hard right National Coalition Party and the merely right wing Social Democrats.  The big loser has been the Center Party, the senior partner of the current coalition government.  The Center Party lost roughly a quarter of the support it had in the 2007 elections.

Before the vote, the True Finns were expected to gain support, but nothing like what has turned out to be the case.  The stunning success of the True Finns means that either it or the Euroskeptic NCP will be in the next coalition.  The other sixteen members of the Eurozone are hoping it won't be the True Finns, who are completely opposed to Finland participating in yet one more bailout.

Not that the True Finns being in the government will matter that much.  Finnish law provides that parliament must vote on every instance of bailout participation unlike all the other Eurozone where the ministers alone hold the authority.  The Finns are opposed to bailing out the next candidate for Eurozone welfare, Portugal.  Given that every Eurozone decision must be unanimous, this means that Portugal will not get the money.  It also means the Eurozone will face its largest and gravest challenge yet.

The Finns are a notably fiscally responsible people.  At one time they stood at the head of the list of countries most admired by Americans because they were the only state to pay off in full and on time the money loaned to them by the US during and after World War I.  While other, much larger states including the UK, did not pay their obligations to the US, "plucky" Finland did.  A few years ago when Finland fell off the fiscal sobriety wagon briefly they could have benefited from some Eurozone understanding and assistance, but such was not forthcoming.

In a sense the current election represents pay back time.  However, it is much more than that.  Finn after Finn interviewed in the European media showed a remarkable disinclination for taking a share of the ultimate responsibility for money loaned to states which had already proven themselves improvident.  There was a great well of resentment directed at the majority in parliament for having signed onto the earlier rounds of bailout, those to Greece and Ireland.  "Never again!" became the motto across the Finnish board.

While the True Finn Party rode the bailout horse for all it was worth, they rode another as well: Immigration.  As immigration did not have the potential to affect the Eurozone generally, it was not as well covered by the European media.  Yet it was the position on immigration which separated the True Finns from the NCP.  To the highly nationalistically inclined True Finns, immigration--any immigration--was a suicidal concept for Finland.  This nationalistic message would have reverberated deeply in much of the non-elite Finnish population.

The history of Finland is to a great extent the history of nationalism, nationalism frustrated as during the long years of Russian occupation and nationalism triumphant as during the Winter War and Finland's alliance with Nazi Germany during much of World War II.  After the war Finland became somewhat of a hollow state with options in foreign and national security as well as economic policy subject to Soviet control.  It has been only since the collapse of the Soviet Union that Finland has again been undisputed master of its own house.

That mastery and the Finnish identity which underlies it has been threatened in the eyes of more than a few Finns by the machinations of the EU, the Eurozone, and the influx of immigrants, particularly those from non-European backgrounds.  To a degree far surpassing the other parties, the True Finns linked the two issues.  Their ultimate message was simply: "Who runs Finland?  Who is Finnish?"

Pace the multi-culturalists and others favoring open borders and the loss of national identity and sovereignty, the message of the True Finns as well as its appeal to a large bloc of voters is not inherently racist.  Neither is it xenophobic.  Nor is it "Islamophobic."  The message and its appeal address something fundamental in the relation of individual, nation, and state--identity.  It also addresses the equally central matter of just who runs our country, us or outsiders?  Given the years of domination either direct or indirect by Russia, it is not surprising that Finns might be particularly touchy on the question of who is in charge in Helsinki.

Should events play out as the movers and shakers of the Eurozone fear, the bailout for Portugal will not happen.  In turn this means the Eurozone will be called into question.  This is not a bad idea.  The Eurozone is a ramshackle construction at best, sold to governments and voters alike as being a currency federation without a central bank.  This is akin to being sold a nuclear power plant without the reactor--all the whistles and bells are present but without the guts of the endeavor.

The giants of the Eurozone and EU, Germany and France, will huff and puff about the unfairness of a percentage of the electorate of tiny (five and a half million people) Finland tossing a spanner in the works.  There will be pressure put upon the new parliament to vote for the bailout regardless of explicit or implicit promises to the electorate.  Inducements will be offered.  Arms will be twisted.  It will be polite smiles in public and rather ugly frowns in private.

But, these are the Finns.  An enigmatic and mysterious people, the Finns are as deep and impenetrable in some ways as their endless evergreen forests, as cold but strangely inviting as the dark blue lakes dotting those forests.  The Finns barely seventy-five years ago held off the monstrous steamroller of the Red Army for months, fighting alone against the largest military juggernaut in the world.  They did not win a victory, but they won a defeat in which they came off far better than would have been the case had they not fought or not fought with such tenacity.  Even Joe Stalin had to respect the Finns.

The Eurocrats may learn to respect them as well.  If the Finns, True and otherwise, hold tough, say a firm "no!" to the next bailout, the result will be short term dismay for the Eurozone enthusiasts, but this in the longer term may prove highly beneficial.  There is another benefit residing in this election for those European politicians with the wit to see it.  The Finnish common folk have shown one more time that they have not bought the bill of goods being peddled by the multi-cultural, post nationalist elites.

There is a lesson there--and not just for Europeans.

Cowardice And Appeasement Masquerade As Statesmanship

As expected when the Libyan insurgents failed to topple the Gaddafi regime by escalade, time has favored the Colonel's side.  His troops and militia are better equipped and trained than the rebels.  The latter are long on spirit but very short on capabilities.

The utter ineptitude of the amateurs which constitute the majority of the insurgent fighters is pathetically evident in pictures showing recoilless rifles mounted without any protection alongside the paved road which is the only sure line of communication east to west.  It is equally obvious in pictures showing fighters waving weapons but not digging individual fighting positions, shooting into the air while piles of ammunition spill out of boxes out in the open.  It is seen as well in the shooting of light antiaircraft cannon against aircraft hopelessly out of range.

The fighters interviewed by Western mainstream media all cheerfully acknowledge their lack of military training of even the most rudimentary sort.  (The Geek's personal favorite is, "I'm not trained but I've seen a lot of action movies.")  They also profess a willingness to die, a sentiment which seems to be well neigh onto universal among Muslim men.

The problem comes in the whole idea of war as summarized by General George S. Patton, Jr., a man who both knew a thing or two about war and loved the thrill of combat.  "You don't win by dying for your country.  You win by making the other sonofabitch die for his."  The mere willingness to die for the "cause" has the utility of mammary glands on a bull.

The combination of aircraft, armor, better training and leadership and a total willingness to kill any and all who might be opponents of the regime conspires to assure the Colonel has gained the upper hand in the ongoing insurgency.  With every passing day his forces will grow stronger and the rebels weaker--at least in manpower and materiel.  It is different in the critical consideration of political will.

Gaddafi's political will was assured by the institution of International Criminal Court proceedings against him, his family, and closest associates.  Way back when the deposed dictator of Liberia, Charles Taylor, was arrested in his exile refuge of Nigeria and sent to stand trial in the Netherlands, Gaddafi branded the action "unacceptable."  He saw the handwriting on the wall with the arrest and trial of his onetime surrogate.  He is not going to suffer the same fate.  Nor will he allow it to befall those closest to him.  The result is a high political will either to prevail or to die in Libya.

The political will of the insurgents is bound up with the certainty of brutal reprisals by Gaddafi should he win.  The rebels are not going to submit easily or meekly to forces which will kill them out of hand in the best of cases or deliver them to the mercies of Gaddafi's torture specialists in the most likely event.  The insurgents have very few choices: win, beat feet to the nearest border, or die miserably.

The correlation of forces is such that the war will continue and grow more bloody as the implacable Gaddafi pushes harder and deeper into the Land of the Insurgents.  If the West thinks it has seen a "humanitarian crisis," all that can be written in reply is, "You ain't seen nothing yet."

The insurgents are demanding a no-fly zone and would greatly prefer airstrikes against Gaddafis' bases of operation and field forces.  The opinion on the street in Benghazi is still opposed to the introduction of foreign ground forces, but that is subject to change as the government Masters of Massacre move closer.

The Arab League unanimously approved of a no-fly zone and called upon the UN Security Council to order the imposition of one.  Of course, asking the Security Council to do this is rather like masturbating with steel wool--both unproductive and unpleasant.  Russia and China have made it clear that each would exercise a veto over any such resolution in keeping with their view of the sanctity of internal affairs of a nation-state.

Any benefit from the Arab League move is most likely to be more indirect.  Both the European Union and NATO have specified that the Arab states must carry the substantial political burden of seeking a no-fly zone.  And, it must be noted that the EU with Germany at the lead has made it clear that it views any such action with great distaste.  The slapping down of the Cameron-Sarkozy endorsed no-fly zone plan was both quick and brutal.  NATO is not appreciably more excited about the prospect of executing any no-fly scheme.

Then there is the United States.  President Obama has denounced the Libyan regime in ringing tones but other than the exercise in fine sounding rhetoric has been tepid at best in supporting the insurgent movement.  He has deferred to the "international community" as part of his ongoing campaign to demonstrate that under his version of leadership the US is not going to be unilateral, particularly regarding Muslim majority states.  In this he is probably supported by most of We the People who have become sick, sore, and tired of long, expensive, bloody, and very unsatisfying wars in distant Muslim countries.  There are very few among us who want to see the Marines once more land on "the shores of Tripoli."

The big question is simply this: Will the views of We the People and our equivalents in Europe change as the Gaddifi forces butcher their way to and through Benghazi?  Will we remain indifferent and allow our governments to keep their detached attitude as the slaughter grows and the refugees crowd across the Egyptian border?

A slightly smaller question is will the Arab League keep their collective hands out of the Libyan cauldron if the body count escalates markedly?  At what point--if any--will their members say enough is enough and move to enforce the no-fly zone or provide ground forces in a peace imposition role?  It is difficult to see circumstances in which authoritarian regimes with large military forces at their disposal--think Syria or Saudi Arabia--send forces to protect rebels against a fellow authoritarian, even one as cordially despised as the Colonel.  It is equally hard to envision the Egyptian army moving into Libya given the politically unstable environment at home.

In short, it is difficult to see the Arab states dirtying their hands in Libya.  They have too much to fear at home to allow such a precipitant action.  There is too much danger of further unrest throughout the region for the local ground and air forces to engage in a bit of peace imposition.  The danger of inciting "radical extremists" within their Muslims looms too large in the minds of Arab leaders to take any risks.

Absent irresistible political pressure from the population it is equally unlikely that Western states will do other than provide humanitarian assistance regardless of tough talk from assorted capitals.  There is too much of the odor of appeasement present throughout the EU for that to happen.  Too much fear of upsetting the local "radical extremists" to allow the use of force.  To much fear of exciting the animosity of former colonial subjects to permit firm action.

This leaves the US.  As the broad guage negative reaction to the King subcommittee hearings on homegrown terrorism and Islamic radicalization have demonstrated, the stench of appeasement and fear can clog the nostrils of Americans as well.  At the same time the US has a president who exists by virtue of defining himself as being anti-George W. Bush.  He has already taken heavy hits from his own base for having extended Bush era policies after having promised to jettison them.  And, with a firm eye on next year's election, the last thing he is eager to do is commit the US to another war in a Muslim majority country.  It is no way for a Nobel Peace Prize winner to operate, is it?

There are good reasons that might be adduced in support of a decision to stay out of Libya.  The reasons taken in aggregate make the no-go choice appear to be an act of wise statesmanship.  Still, one has to wonder what will the decision of future historians be if and when the Colonel's killers prevail and stand triumphantly on mounds of corpses.  Will the estimate of these hypothetical historians of tomorrow be one of praise for wise statesmanship or condemnation for ethical failure of the highest sort?

The Geek has his conclusions.  Time will prove if he is correct.

Watching A Regime Crumble?

Saif al-Islami Gaddifi, the usually well oiled, politely mannered, western-style number one son of the Libyan Brother Leader has become the public face of the embattled regime.  Given Brother Leader's unusual shyness this is an expectable move.  Saif is seen both inside Libya and by foreign observers as a rational, reform-minded, and totally adult sort of guy, quite unlike either his father or younger brothers.

However the message delivered by Saif was not one of peace, reform, and good feelings.  Rather he warned darkly of "civil war" and "hundreds of thousands dead" in appearances on state television.  Events over the past twenty-four hours show his remark must not be taken as hyperbole.

Neither should his observation that his father would fight to the "last man, last woman and last bullet."  The blood spilled in Benghazi coupled with the horizontal escalation of the violent protests to other cities including Tripoli show the matter has become existential to the regime--and family.  The uprising is already existential for the protesters.  If they fail in their goal of ending the Gaddafi regime, the agents of the regime will end them, if not today than certainly in the days and weeks to come.

When conflicts are seen by both sides as directly existential, it not only increases political will, it assures the struggle will become continually more lethal until one side or the other in effect is obliterated.  This has raised the Libyan internal conflict well above those waged in Egypt or Tunisia--and perhaps above that in Bahrain where voices of compromise are still speaking.

As the Gaddafi government stepped up its suppression with the use of fast mover aircraft, it accompanied the purely military and Saif's propaganda with pro-Brother Leader demonstrations in Green Square, Tripoli.  The carefully orchestrated show of popular support for the Gaddafi regime was unintentionally undercut by reports of both airstrikes and automatic weapons fire being heard not far from the Square as the demo went down.

Nor is the legitimacy of the Gaddafi regime enhanced by such high profile kicks in the crotch as the mass resignation of the Libyan delegation to the UN under the leadership of its deputy permanent representative.  It is not known if the Libyan ambassador to the UN shares the views of his mission.  What is certain is the families of the dissident diplomats back home in Libya are not good life insurance risks now--unless the regime collapses.

Perhaps more alarming to the Gaddafi family enterprise is the reported defection of members of the armed services.  Reportedly the defectors include two air force officers who took their jets to Malta rather than attack civilians in Benghazi.  One of the two pilots, both of whom claim to be colonels, has taken the wise precaution of requesting political asylum.  Can't be too safe--if the insurrection fails of its goal.

Other, far lower ranking defections from the army and other security forces have also been alleged.  The allegations are most probably accurate, particularly if those changing sides belong to the same tribe or clan as those being attacked.  Clan, tribal, and regional loyalties trump mere institutional affiliations in Libyan life.  They can even trump religion qua religion.

The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, the primary opposition group among the rudimentary political culture which has survived the forty years of suppression, is ginning up for a return home.  Its Washington based spokesman, Ibrahim Sahad, has not received much play in American media but has been quoted overseas as predicting that this time the Brother Leader cannot survive.  He offers no reasons for this conclusion beyond the self-evident and widely known failures of the Gaddifi regime and the impetus given by the use of mercenaries, heavy weapons, and aircraft against the demonstrators.

While no objections can be offered as to Mr Sahad's arguments regarding the weakness of the regime, his group can not yet offer a clear vision of what must be done the day after the regime collapses.  Nor does he make any useful suggestions for the role which might be played by Western governments in facilitating regime change in Libya.  These lacks are indicative of the large, very large problems which will confront the Libyans in the wake of a collapse of the Gaddafis, particularly if the collapse is preceded by a welter of blood letting, a potential which must be taken seriously by outside observers.

Considering that the web of internal security and domestic intelligence organizations involves as many as one in six Libyans, there are a lot of asses in the sling potentially.  This implies there will be no going gently into that good night of exile.  Considering further the conflicting tangle of tribal, clan, and family alliances both for and against the status quo and the large number of potential scores to be settled, betting on a peaceful and orderly transition (such as is pro forma called for by any number of outsiders) is about as likely as a cold day in August in the dunes south of Tobruk.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is, sadly, almost certainly correct in averring that "rivers of blood" will ensue unless the protests stop.  As there is no high likelihood of the anti-government folk packing it in and waiting to be arrested by the internal security wallahs, the number of bodies is doomed to grow--perhaps exponentially.

The US, the EU, and the UN have been dithering too long already.  It is more than passingly strange that the Security Council can get its collective panties in a twist over a person being killed in Lebanon but remain totally unconcerned about the looming slaughter in Libya.  It is equally interesting that the US, which has shown a remarkable capacity to work itself into a lather over other, less bloody exercises in repression, has been tongue tied about Libya.  Then there is the EU.  That organization can work itself into the highest of high dudgeons over the allegation of a single Palestinian dying at the hands of the IDF but has confined itself to the barest sighs of concern over the use of heavy weapons against civilians in Libya.

Italy and the UK both have large direct investments in Libya,  Italy is the preferred destination of any and all of those who can board a boat on the Libyan coast.  It surpasses understanding why both London and Rome have not become directly, substantially, and materially involved in ending the crisis in Libya before the worst realistic case comes to pass.

Admittedly, Brother Leader is not the poster boy of rational policy or carefully considered reaction to outside influences, but that is no reason to sit back with folded hands as the escalating dance of death continues in Libya.  As the American ambassador to the Court of St James is reported to have said yesterday, Her Majesty's Government bears a measure of responsibility for enhancing the international legitimacy of the Libyan dictator.

The fact that the enhancement occurred during the previous New Labor government is all the more reason the Coalition has both the political freedom and ethical responsibility to take the lead in the EU to seek ways of effective intervention in the Libyan crisis.  While Italy may have a greater direct stake in the outcome of the events in Libya, the current political state of affairs in that country shifts the load to the UK, which has both means and justification for seeking action on the part of the EU and UN.

The US can and should play a supporting role to any British initiative.  The current weakness of the US not only in the region following the incomprehensible veto of the West Bank settlement resolution in the Security Council as well as the all too obvious working both sides of the street during the "Lotus revolution" has drastically curtailed our diplomatic influence and prestige and thus ability to directly operate in Libya.  But, we can still back the play of another responsible actor--and the UK is the best candidate for the role.

It is critical that the end of Gaddafi come before the body count grows much more.  As is the case in every internal war in human history (and most all inter-state wars as well) the dead dictate policy.  The more protesters who are killed the more vengeance will be demanded.  The more vengeance which is feared by partisans of the status quo, the more desperate and lethal the attempt to suppress.  The cycle is clear, and, once started, not easy to interrupt before it has run the full course, until people are simply sickened by the slaughter they have perpetrated and suffered.

Time is running out.  It is running out for the Gaddafi regime.  It is running out for the international community (whatever that might mean in this context) to take measures intended to limit the suffering, end the killing, and start a new clock on a new future.

The European Union Feels Neglected

The Baroness Ashton, who is the EU's head diplomat, has written a five page paper dealing with the needed changes in the supra-national entity's diplomatic relations.  Much of the leaked exercise in whining deals with the perception in Brussels that Europe is no longer the primary focus of American foreign policy.

The Baroness, a person bereft of previous diplomatic experience or, indeed, governmental background beyond service on one of the UK's innumerable quangos, holds the cause of the current lack of EU influence on Washington to be the consequence of European lack of unity.  Apparently, Ms Ashton has convinced herself that the failure of Europe to speak with a single voice has assured its irrelevance to American policy makers.

A cynic might be tempted to dismiss her assessment of both cause and effect to be a transparent effort in empire building.  Ms Ashton's argument certainly leans in the direction of seeking to elevate the EU's diplomatic apparatus above the foreign policy establishments of the individual member states.  There is no doubt that the Baroness's report to the EU is of a piece with earlier proclamations of the supremacy of the EU's ambassador in Washington over those of the individual states.

A less cynical but equally realistic person might conclude that the Baroness has thrown down the gauntlet of challenge.  The document by its demands for a more unified European voice asserts that there is an authentic political entity called the European Union which is more than simply the sum of its sovereign parts.  As such the document calls on the Euro-fanatics to stage a sort of foreign policy putsch against the national establishments.

Since there is no actual political entity hiding behind the name "European Union," there is no need nor is their any reason for the US to pay any particular attention to the desires or dictates of the Eurocrats in Brussels.  Unless and until the EU morphs into a genuine political body with all the features of sovereignty which characterize a state, this situation will not change.  Nor should it.

While the notion of a United States of Europe with all the attributes of central government sovereignty such as apply to other federated states has long beguiled segments of the European elites, the dream (or nightmare) is far from achieving reality as the current Euro zone monetary problems demonstrate.  As a result, there is really no reason for the EU to have any influence in Washington beyond that achieved by one or another of its member states.

Apologists for the Ashton position would note that President Obama has demonstrated a remarkable lack of interest in or concern for Europe.  Beyond the use of European locales for the Great Tour of 2008, Mr Obama has not only ignored Europe, he has scorned it.  Even symbolic engagements such as meeting with European leaders on the sidelines of EU conferences have been allowed to slide by.  Considering the importance of symbolism in foreign relations, this sort of back-of-me-hand approach has been seen by Europeans as a mark of profound disrespect.

Of course, the Obama treatment has been laden with disrespect.  However Ms Ashton is wrong to conclude that they are emblematic of a unique disdain for the EU.  President Obama has shown himself to be equally tone deaf in his treatment of individual leaders including those of the UK, the closest ally the US has in the fractious EU.

Then there is the other side of the coin.  Just how good have the assorted countries of the EU been as allies and parters of the US?  A strong case can be made for the proposition that with allies like those countries the US has no need for enemies.

The European states have not been close nor effective collaborators in the presumably joint effort in Afghanistan with the notable exceptions of the UK and France.  The members of the EU were far more against us than with us in the great adventure in regime change in Iraq again with the notable exception of the UK.

In a not dissimilar fashion, the elites of the EU states have not been in close concert with the US on the critical matter of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  Indeed, these worthies have been even more willing than their American counterparts to engage in systematic efforts to deny the legitimacy of Israel.  Attempts to undercut the right of Israel to exist in peace and with defensible borders in no way assists in the effort to find a way to peace in the region.

While the EU has finally become more forthright and effective in its collective effort to back the American sponsored play in the matter of Iran and its quest for nuclear capability, that development came almost too late to matter.  It must be noted that member states still seek creative ways to evade the sanctions for the benefit of their domestic economies.  Overall, the EU in both actions and words has given very little reason for Americans to accept the contention that the body and its members are good allies in a common cause.

The EU apparently fears a US collaboration with China which leaves the Union out of the game.  There is good reason for this apprehension.  China is far more important to the US now and into the future.  It is a formidable adversary of the US, which must be handled with great care and even greater realism less it become an even larger threat in the years to come.  It is difficult enough to deal with Beijing on a bilateral basis.  It is much harder to engage the Trolls of Beijing in the context of multilateral meetings as has been shown repeatedly by the Six Power Talks and their aftermath.

While there is minimal likelihood of the US and China ever establishing any simulacrum of a co-dominion or even the sort of bi-polar environment of the Cold War sort, there is a requirement for the US to establish in an effective way lines across which the Chinese cannot cross.  In this context there is a role for the EU to play, but it is not one of equality as the Baroness apparently desires.

The Chinese, not unlike the Russians (or the advocates of violent political Islam for that matter), respect force above all other considerations.  The immediate expression of force may be confined to the economic sphere, but must rest when night falls on the credible capacity and political will to use military might in pursuit of policy.  The Europeans are even less likely than the Americans to accept this hoary but nonetheless true principle of diplomacy.  Attempting to get the EU to agree to use armed force is a task compared to which the Labor of Sisyphus becomes a walk in the sun.

The near universal cuts in military expenditure in the EU underscores the melancholy fact that European diplomatic influence has become a rapidly wasting asset.  This in turn undercuts the argument made by Ms Ashton that it will take only a single voice approach to foreign relations for Europe to reclaim its pride of place in American strategic considerations.

There is another very important point left unaddressed by the Ashton report.  What is in it for the US should the EU speak with a more unified voice?  That is, what advantages accrue to American policy if the EU reigns supreme over the often dissonant European chorus?

There is no immediately obvious answer to these questions.  Actually, a stronger case can be made for the contention that European dissonance benefits the US.  While the Americans have not and should not pursue an intentionally divide and conquer approach to the several European states, internal divisions in the continent allow the US to follow a course of exploiting to its advantage any of these organic divisions when such is necessary or desirable.

Ms Ashton, like the Eurocrats generally, has an inbuilt distaste for the nation-state.  Again, like the European elites overall, she has a fondness for supra-national institutions which surpasses logical understanding.  She has no choice but to see the future of European foreign relations in terms of the EU and not the self-defined national interests of its member states.

Ironically, she has a soulmate in President Obama.  The Clueless Guy In The Oval would like to deal with the EU as a single voice rather than the cacophony of conflicting voices which has been and will continue to be Europe.

But the reality is the nation-state is far from the scrapheap of history.  The Baroness Ashton is simply not attuned to reality.  Unlike Mr Obama, she is not elected, not ultimately responsible to an electorate far more given to the appeals of nation and nationalism.  As a result, she can afford to be totally out of touch with reality.  And, bucko, as this five page ditty shows the lady is beaucoup out of touch.

The (Not So) Ugly Face Of Nationalism Haunts Europe--Again

The European Union is once again facing crisis.  Well, more than one crisis to err on the side of accuracy.  The better known one, the crisis which attracts all the ink both real and virtual as well as the attention of those great beasts collectively named "The Market," is the one involving another round of EU bailouts.  The lesser volume crisis attracted the attention of EU chief magistrate, Herman van Rompey, who delivered a speech last week in which he equated the growing scepticism concerning the Union with an explosive and destructive increase of the dreaded creature from the depths of hell: nationalism.

The Eurocrats of Brussels are contractually obligated to put loyalty to the structures of the Union over national affections.  Even elected national officials are required to put the interests of their governments and people subordinate to the needs and policies of the One Big Union.  Beyond those obligations there is a sentiment abroad in the "elites" of Europe to the effect that the days of the petty nation-state are over, replaced by the One Great Society and Polity called "Europe."

The presumptions of the Euro-fanatics have prevailed even when the great hordes of the unwashed, the hoi polloi, have made it clear--as in the famed case of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty--that they want no truck with a supranational entity, another and quite suspect layer of government.  Whenever the voices of the lesser orders have shouted loud and clear, "No!," the Eurocrats and Euro-fanatics have simply changed the rules and insisted on another turn at bat, another chance to assure that the peasants get it right.

The rolling thunder of default crises which have and continue to strike the Eurozone have had the net effect of engendering an ever greater distrust in the minds of the peoples of Europe regarding not only the legitimacy of the fiat currency, the Euro, but of the political scheme which resides behind it.  Greeks have quite literally taken to the streets in opposition to the dictates of the Eurocrats which accompanied the bailout of the Greek deficit mess.  The same has occurred in Spain and Portugal.  And, threatens in Ireland.

The Irish, who are not noted for a lack of national identity and pride in that identity, have already made it plain to the Lords Protector of the EU that infringements on sovereignty are unacceptable.  The demands made by Brussels that the Irish restructure their corporate tax rate as a part of the price of Eurozone assistance is over the edge.

Imagine that, a government seeking to protect low corporate tax rates!  What is happening in Dublin?  Has the Irish parliament been taken over by a branch of the Tea Party movement?

No.  The Tea Party has remained safely confined on this side of the Atlantic.  Rather, the Irish government is well aware of the depth of hostility held toward the EU by the average Irish voter.  The government is also aware that raising the corporate taxes would be akin to severing the Irish financial jugular.  Also, comments from members of the Dail hint strongly that even the Irish political hoi olligoi is not immune to the powerful attractions of nationalism.

Even in Germany and France, the two strongest proponents of economic and political potency through international cooperation--that is, through the mechanisms of the EU--have been showing an increasingly steep tilt toward national primacy.  German taxpayers are not thrilled at the prospect of paying for Greek or Spanish or Portuguese policies of social spending largess.  The French, who have long believed that government exists only to strip the individual of his last sou and final shred of liberty, are more and more willing to see the One Big Union as being the worst malefactor in these twin threats.

Herman van Rompey is far from being alone in seeing a direct line connecting doubts about the efficacy and legitimacy of the EU to the rise of aggressive nationalism and its inevitable handmaiden, war.  Of course, van Rompey and the others of his ilk are as wrong as a cat barking.

Austria is a member in good standing of the EU.  Neighboring Switzerland is a complete non-participant in the One Big Union.  Yet the Austrian army is not mobilized on the border ever vigilant, waiting for the Swiss legions to pour across.  Nor is EU member Sweden deploying enhanced border protection against the nocturnal commando raids from non-member Norway.

Somehow, go-it-more-or-less alone Norway and Switzerland among others have managed to elude the embrace of the Union while not becoming aggressive exemplars of the sins of nationalism.  As Mr van Rompey must know in his more rational moments, there is no necessary tie between primacy of loyalty to one's home country and pursuit of that country's national interest and warfare.  The EU is not a necessary mechanism for the restraint of nationalism.  It is not a requisite for peaceful intercourse among the several European states.

The long ago precursor of the EU, the European Iron and Coal Community, was a creation, or, more accurately, a reaction to the extremes of economic and political competition which had laid the foundations for both parts of the Great European Civil War of the early and mid Twentieth Century.  The original concept actually was formed before German tanks rolled across the Polish border and was well rooted in a proper but narrow interpretation of the conditions which had brought World War I.

The initial Iron and Coal Community worked well.  It worked so well that it quickly expanded into the Common Market.  The Common Market, as the name makes explicit, was a customs union.  As such, it worked to the mutual benefit of its members.  But, as it was a limited institution, it made no claim upon the primary loyalties of individual Europeans.  It made no political demands.

Even in its limited role, the Common Market did not enjoy universal approbation.  French farmers, Italian factory workers, German industrialists all found more than a few reasons to oppose the Market.  Nonetheless, the Market was reconceptualized as a political as well as economic institution.  Leaving aside all the fits, starts, zigs and zags, the Common Market ultimately morphed into the EU.  Along the way, the Eurozone was fabricated, a common currency without the mechanisms of a central bank or an aggregate device of economic governance.

In both its initial and later, Lisbon Treaty based form, the EU was the creation of the political and opinion molding elites of the member states.  The people of Europe were not consulted.  At no time other than the Irish referendum did the hoi polloi have a seat at the table.  This was not oversight.  It was intentional as the self-appointed sophisticates of the elites did not trust their own citizens.  That was true at the beginning; it is true today.

The EU in both its dot one and dot two forms were crammed down the collective throats of Europeans generally in a manner identical to the passage of Obamacare here.  Not surprisingly, the peasants have not been pleased, with the result there is a strong current of resentment, a strong desire to vomit the cram down back in the faces of those who did the cramming.

The current and continuing deficit contretemps has given both a motivation and a focus for those who feel strong discontent with the Union.  The Eurocrats are well aware of this.  The European Parliament as well as the executive entity have attempted to deflect the worst effects of popular rejection by developing a series of ploys which can be seen as a European version of the American federal government's technique of unfunded mandates.  The idea is to displace both responsibility and political blame to the national governments, which are required by the Union to undertake unpleasant and expensive actions.

Nifty, heh?  By displacing all unpleasant and politically costly actions onto national governments, not only is the EU held harmless but is actually enhanced.  Popular anger directed at national governments can be massaged to become support for the Union.  The EU regime can be portrayed credibly as the savior of the common man in a way resembling the elevation of the US federal government as a moral pinnacle compared to the reactionary state governments during the salad days of the civil rights movement.

Whether the Eurocrats will win is both unclear and debatable both as to probability and longer term effect.  Should the stresses on the Eurozone cause the collapse of the Euro as a credible circulating medium, the shock waves will not be good for the Union.  However, should the Union fail, the failure will be limited to the overreach of entering the sphere of politics, of power over the lives of individual citizens of European countries.  In effect, this would mean the Union would revert to the days of the Common Market.  It is arguable that this would be a very real benefit for Europeans both as individuals and as nation-states.

As President Obama meets with leaders of the Union's member states (for a scheduled two hours) on the sidelines of the NATO conference, he might be advised to consider that the EU and his administration are staring failure in the face for the same reason.  Both he and the Eurocrats held the views and convictions of the average citizen in contempt.  Both he and they refused to accept the voice and views of the citizens, listening only to like minded members of their respective elites.

Or to put it very simply: Both President Obama and the Euro-fanatics forgot that the common citizen, the hoi polloi had minds--and votes--of their own.  Both Mr Obama and his counterparts in Europe must now pay the price.  And, so Mr Obama has.  And so they will.

From Europe, One Good Idea And One (Very) Bad Idea

The British and French governments are demonstrating that they have a capacity for thinking on matters diplomatic and military which is infinitely superior to that monstrous international amphyctony known as the European Union.  The EU has grown from a rather decent, modest concept of enhanced economic unity to a bloated mastodon with delusions of adequacy while the British and French governments under more or less conservative leadership have shown a realistic appraisal of how diplomatic and military clothing must be cut to fit the economic cloth.

In a way quite unforeseeable only a few years ago, London and Paris are edging to a degree of military cooperation without precedent.  This merging of capacities not only magnifies the military strengths of both but addresses points of relative weakness to the advantage of both countries.  It is a foregone conclusion that this development will serve to amp up the diplomatic influence of both as well.

A few days hence French President Nicholas Sarkozy will hold a summit with British PM David Cameron.  The high point of the meeting will be the announcement of a military alliance between the two countries which will see among other features the reconfiguration of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to accommodate RAF aircraft.  This will be a temporary(?) fix bridging the gap between the budget constricted requirement to retire the British fleet of Harrier jump jets and the commissioning of the next generation British carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the arrival from the US of the Joint Strike Fighter.

There will be other mergers of capacity in the structure of the new alliance.  But, far more important than the details is the existence of the agreement.  This bilateral approach marks a departure from the very tired thinking which has dominated Europe since the end of the Cold War and the rise of the EU.  It provides a viable alternative to both the highly undesirable combined EU military force and the increasingly irrelevant and politically divided NATO.

The alliance is a natural in several basic ways.  France and the UK are the only nuclear powers in Europe.  Both are permanent members of the UN Security Council.  Each has a sizable expeditionary force capacity and a recent history of distant operations including the ongoing one in Afghanistan where France has 4,000 troops deployed at present--not as many as the UK but more than simply symbolic.  The alliance would provide a firm platform for future distant operations provided, of course, the interests of both countries are directly involved.

An indirect benefit for both comes from economies which may result from the alliance.  This would assure that each state would have resources for necessary unilateral operations.  France has a wide variety of post-colonial commitments in Africa as does the UK.  But these commitments are of an individual not a joint nature, so it is critical that each have an autonomous capacity.  The same obtains with respect to the few residues of colonial majesty still sticking to the British lion's mane such as the Falkland Islands where it is unreasonable to expect France or any other state to offer direct assistance.

The recent defense and security review conducted by the Cameron government makes it clear that the UK must operate as a partner with some alliance in most conceivable military activities.  Whether with NATO or in a bilateral context with the US or, now, France, the UK has no realistic choice other than alliance based operations.  Still it is essential that the UK retain a sufficient independent capability to deter, say, Argentinian ambitions regarding the Falklands.

A closer merging of intelligence capacities will accompany the enhanced military alliance.  Both countries have good to excellent intelligence apparatuses and a further level of cooperation will enhance these as well.  When looking at the threats today and into the near future, the name of the game is intelligence.  Closer and more comprehensive sharing of assets and product will give both countries yet another leg up in the contest with advocates of violent political Islam.

All the way around, the developing alliance is a fine idea.  Even the US will benefit, at least incidentally, from its existence.  A thumbs-up to both London and Paris--even if it means Napoleon is spinning in his tomb.

Now for the really bad idea.

The European Union emboldened by the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty has created a new diplomatic monster which will simultaneously undercut the ability of the individual member states to execute effective independent foreign policy and confuse the diplomatic landscape for everybody else.  The grotesquely named European External Action Service (EEAS) is an equally grotesque bureaucratic blight on the great garden of diplomacy.

The EEAS is headed by a Briton, the Baroness (life peerage due to Tony Blair) Ashton.  The Baroness is a person without any discernible qualification for her job to which she was appointed by Gordon Brown.  As the woman has no foreign policy experience, not even a professorship in diplomacy, one can only conclude she got the job as a reward for her years of toiling in assorted Labor Party supported quangos.  As a one time quangocrat Ms Ashton not only has no hands on acquaintance with the trenches of diplomacy, she has no direct contact with politics per se.  She is, in short, a veteran of the remote and lofty world of unelected, unaccountable policy making boards whose let-them-eat-cake attitude toward the inhabitants of the real world is legendary.

The Baroness has a true barony at her disposal.  The EEAS disposes of some 7,000 eurocrats who will labor not only in the Brussels headquarters but in some 137 embassies around the world.  Nor is the Baroness Ashton's fiefdom impoverished.  Its budget comes in at approximately twelve billion dollars.  That is pretty top drawer--as is the Baroness's own reward, nearly three quarters of a million dollars not including perks and bennies.

The personnel deployments are a bit confusing.  There will be forty-six diplomats in the tiny but luscious island of Barbados.  The Turkish contingent amounts to 132 which outstrips the 124 assigned to the US.  Morocco will get ninety-two nudging the less scenic and far more dangerous Afghanistan's eighty-five.  Twenty-nine eurocrats will fetch up in Tajikistan while thirty-one will wade ashore in Yemen.  The numbers roll on and on with little if any relation to either the interests in play or any other real world consideration until the least favored country of Togo gets a mere three, not even enough for a game of whist.

The assorted poohbahs and panjandrums will be housed in appropriately expensive quarters and will ride about in splendid armor plated limos.

As the citizens of the Barony of Ashton ride about so also will they sow diplomatic confusion.  The standard has already been set by the EEAS man in Washington, Joao Vale de Almeida, who let it be known that he spoke for all the EU member states.  He modestly told the assembled press that, where the EU had a unified position, "I am the one leading the show."

Well, this implies that either the EU will have a common position on everything, in which case the member states could save a lot of money by shutting down their embassies for all except routine functions such as visas, or there will not be many common stances, so even the EEAS heavyweight is superfluous.  In either alternative, the existence of the EEAS "ambassador" will raise the question of who is in charge here?

In the best of times, diplomacy is often conducted in turbid waters.  The addition of a foreign policy equivalent of a fifth wheel in no way clarifies the murk.

The Lisbon Treaty removed the requirement that all EU foreign policy decisions be unanimous.  This means that the EEAS may work against the policy interests of one or more member states.  For example, if a majority of EU members vote to cozy up to Tehran, the EEAS will do just that not only in Iran but in other capitals where the eurocratic version of ambassadors will press their host to also hug the ayatollahs tighter.

Stances to the contrary dictated by national interests would not matter.  Thanks to the splendors of democracy, the majority would rule, even if, as in the case of Iran, major players such as the UK, France, and Germany are in the dissenting minority.

The consideration of conflict between a majority position and those of individual members is not academic.  It has already been seen in the context of Hamas and the Gaza Strip as well as with regard to Israel.  It deserves noting in this regard that the Baroness has bloviated at some length about her "clout" in Gaza due to her record of securing financial assistance for the terroristic thugs who run the place.

Looking ahead, the EEAS poses a long term threat to the diplomatic establishments of all its member states.  Due to the very high salary schedules, a budding diplomat faced by a choice between his own country's foreign service and the EU's apparatus will be tempted sorely to go with the money.  This means over time each member will be bled of its most ambitious, most able, and most promising diplomats.  This may bode well for the dreams of the collectivists of Europe, but it has no good impact for the several states.

That was probably one of the intentions of those Eurocrats who designed and built the EEAS.  To these worthies the notion of nation is anathema.  So, they no doubt have hoped that starving each member of talent will be the best way of bringing the hated nation-state to the desired status of extinction.

Now, bucko, that is a really bad idea.

It's Time To Toss Turkey Out Of NATO

Had it not been for the accidents of geography, the limits of technology, and the plain fact that the Truman Doctrine specifically mentioned Turkey along with Greece as being under direct threat by the Soviet Union, Turkey would never have been invited to join an alliance with the words, North Atlantic, in its name. The original justifications for Turkey's membership in NATO have expired along with the cold war, but had Turkey not changed so much in the past few years, it could still play a major--and positive--role in the new cold war between the civilized states and the countries dominated by political Islam.

It is not as if the US and the other members of NATO had not known for years before the event that simple demographics assured the eventual fall of Turkey to political Islam. (Even the Geek got a timely heads up from a Turkish officer at Leavenworth some fifteen years ago. The captain told the Geek that the Islamist leaning "peasants" from Anatolia outnumbered the urban descendants of Ataturk.)

The astute warning given by the Turk proved accurate. The AKP (Peace and Freedom Party) got the votes and now is the government. To pass legal muster the AKP applied a modicum of rhetorical whitewash to its Islamist manifesto. No sooner did Erdogan and company take over in Ankara than the agenda of political Islam came roaring forth. In its conduct of affairs both internal and external the Erdogan regime has followed the political Islam playbook albeit with less bloodshed than has been the case elsewhere. (They had to be careful at least until the Army was defanged and kept to the barracks.)

To keep the Army muzzled, Erdogan's merry crew used the pending and obviously hopeless petition for membership in the European Union. The idealistic Europeans cooperated by insisting that the Turkish army be firmly subjugated to civilian control so as never again to take over the government as had been the case repeatedly when the civilians allowed too much chaos. (The Geekess witnessed this up close and personal when she lived in Ankara in the early Seventies, ducking bullets as she went to class at a local university.)

A quick wave of arrests of scores of high ranking military officers, both serving and retired, on charges related to a conspiracy of such elaborate and convoluted nature as to rate as very bad fiction finished the job. The admittance of an ever larger number of Islamist recruits from both Anatolia and the urban ghettos filled with displaced Anatolians assured the army became ever more politically reliable, ever more aligned with the political agenda of AKP.

Without the army the diminishing and aging secularist population has little, if any hope of regaining political supremacy. And, absent a secularist, Ataturkian restoration, there is no feasible probability of Turkey being regarded as a civilized state on a par with the other members of NATO.

Erdogan and his supporters have lashed the fortunes and future of their country and fellow citizens firmly to the mast of political Islam. They are convinced that the future has a restored Ottoman Empire and Caliphate in store for them.

Sure, the new, improved Ottoman Empire will be far different from the one which shuffled into oblivion ninety years ago. And, unless firm alliances are made with alternative centers of Islamist power such as Iran and Pakistan, the new AKP version of the Ottoman Empire will be embroiled in war both hot and cold.

It is probable that Ankara and Tehran have an understanding currently. It is probable that the understanding--not unlike the infamous pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in August 1939 has delineated spheres of interest. Again, not unlike the referenced predecessor in cynical exploitation, the understanding will eventually evaporate.

In the meanwhile Turkey can carry the heavy freight in the battle for Iran's bomb. It can also do the pioneering in the fomenting of ever greater quantities of hate Israel sentiment among the useful fools and leftists of the West.

The Erdogan rejection of the West and embrace of the mullahs of Tehran is obvious enough to be visible even to the astigmatic Barack Obama. There is no profit in trying to cozen, bribe, or otherwise make nice to the political Islamists of Ankara. The only road to profit is the one which takes Turkey out of NATO.

The sooner Turkey is invited to hit the highway out of NATO the better for all hands. If nothing else, consider just how much information of a sensitive sort flows from Brussels to Ankara and thence (perhaps) to Tehran. Really, from a purely security standpoint, having Turkey in NATO today makes as much sense as would having Mussolini's Italy as one of the planners of D-Day.

EU Elites Get The Jitters Again

If anything perturbs the serene sleep of assorted Eurocrats more than an election success on the part of a "right wing, " populist party it is hard to imagine. Well, perhaps the thought of having to bail out Greece or one of the other "PIGS" states. But, for the moment the elites of the EU are spinning faster than an Iranian centrifuge because of the outcome of the Hungarian elections.

The Right-leaning Fidez party under the leadership of veteran politician Viktor Orban came out of its seemingly perpetual status as a minority with fifty-three percent of the vote. That meant the Socialists were out.

This is not the part of the election which is giving the Eurocrats hissy-fits. Rather it was the emergence of the hypernationalist, antisemitic, anti-Gypsy Jobbink party which gained almost seventeen percent of the votes. An obscure, fringe element founded by Gabor Vona, the Movement For A Better Hungry rode a wave of anti-status quo, anti-establishment rhetoric to a stunning degree of success.

Jobbink is deeply disturbing not only for the strong echoes of National Socialism in its verbiage, but for its militia offspring. The Hungarian Guard is also headed by Gabor Vona. In its actions if not its uniforms the Magyar Garda closely resembles the Iron Guard of Hungary's World War II Nazi days. The Hungarian Guard has been outlawed by a local court but the Socialist government did not enforce the suppression order.

The breadth and depth of the anti-status quo vote bespeaks not only a widespread frustration over current economic conditions which are, admittedly, bad even by Central European standards but also anger over corruption which appears pervasive. Of the two the former is the more often pointed to by observers, but the latter is the more critical.

A perception of corruption, of cronyism, of the hoi oligoi ripping off and exploiting the hoi polloi necessarily results in a corrosion of faith in the current system. Taken to the extreme, corrupt acts by members of the government leads to a violent exercise in regime change as in Kyrgyzstan.

Corruption along with economic conditions which seem to have a greater, disproportionate impact on the working class, the small shopkeeper, the lesser farmer provides a very rich soil for politicians hawking the wares of the farther right shore of politics. They cater effectively to a general sense that the status quo is so rigged to the sole benefit of the hoi oligoi that wholesale change is needed. This, of course, along with a hefty dose of national pride and the appointment of an evil "Other," constitutes the stock in trade of Jobbik and similar parties throughout Europe.

As has been seen in the US with the shrill, not to say, hysterical reactions of the Left to the rise of the Tea Party Movement, the European internationalist elites have responded to any success by a so-called "populist" party by attacking the voters rather than soberly assessing the real world motivations for the vote having gone the way it did.

There are very good, quite realistic reasons for disenchantment among the European hoi polloi. The rush toward meshing the many quite different nations of Europe into a single entity has been way too rapid not to perturb the equanimity of those many folks who are not by virtue of employment, education, or background given to celebrating internationalism, let alone the multi-cultural stance so fervently embraced by the "betters" of the EU.

The stresses imposed by Muslim immigration and the apologies offered by the multi-cultis on their behalf have fostered a sense of alienation within their own lands on the part of many. One consequence has been to increase the distrust felt by some as to the motives and worthiness of those in government.

Further stressing the social and political cohesion of most European states have been the effects of the Great Recession. The view from the bottom of the economic pyramid has been that somehow, some way, the Mr and Ms Bigs of the several European states have been able to ride out the recession. The conclusion drawn all-too-often is the hoi oligoi have made a corrupt bargain to protect themselves while offloading the bitter fruit of economic calamity on the lesser sorts.

Absent any of these several stressors there is little doubt but the traditional waver between Center-Left and Center-Right governments would have continued. However, the European social and political compacts have been tried and found wanting under the pressure of these several recent phenomena. The result has been a shift to the extremes on the political spectrum.

The fact that the extreme most favored by recent voters has been that on the Right is quite important. The Right emphasizes the national. National identity. National economy. National interest above all. The European voters have shown in impressive numbers that they reject the forced integration not only of the several European states but of non-Europeans into the local culture, society, polity, and, most importantly, sense of identity.

This is evidence that, once more, the lofty thinking people who live in the high mountains of the Left have no clue how the hoi polloi not only live but think of themselves, their nation, their identity as individuals and as a nation. With disdain bordering on arrogance, the high minded who inhale the rarefied air of an ideal world have shown that their belief in changing the "lesser sorts" to a similar view of life and living if only enough hectoring, lecturing, verbal beating is administered does not work.

The True Believers of the Left in Europe and, dare one write, the US as well, have been and continue to act as if they are the new divinely ordained aristocracy equipped by virtue of birth, education, employment, social and economic status to dictate to all the rest, the vast majority, how they should live, how they should view life and the world, how they should think and behave. This proclamation of being in sole possession of moral rectitude serves to provide grounds for alienation.

The alienation is enhanced when the elite slide through economic hard times relatively undamaged. The alienation is completed when the the two perceptions combine to give rise to a sense of class based corruption. If the perception is reinforced by proof positive of corruption in high (and not so high) places as it has been in Hungry, the result is the rise of the more extreme Right.

Once again an elite has been hoisted on a petard of its own making. In Hungry as in other European states the lurch to the far Right has been caused by the attitudes, words, and actions of the Left leaning elite.

That ground truth is what should be exercising the movers and shakers of the EU, not the specifics of the Hungarian election. Of course, this will not happen. The elite in Europe as in the US is too blinded by its own light, believes too deeply in its own press releases, is too sure of its own rectitude to engage in self-examination.

Failing this, the elite can only lambaste the blindness, the stupidity, the xenophobia of the lesser breeds in need of guidance, care, and supervision. And so the days of the Left elite may be numbered, small numbered.

Turkey And The EU--It Is About History--And Religion

The Islamist leaning government of Turkey is in a bit of a snit over the choice of Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy as the President of the European Union. The job which is relatively lacking in any semblance of real power went to the colorless Belgian since both France's Nicholas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel wanted it that way. (Who said nationalism is dead and buried, even in the EU?)

The hair up the Turkish nether region is the consequence of some remarks made by Van Rompuy five years ago regarding the pending application of Turkey for membership in the EU. Not to put too fine a point on it, Van Rompuy is against membership.

The Belgian, who most days has the texture and piquancy of an undercooked Belgian waffle, took the position that the admittance of Turkey would dilute, perhaps even pervert, the fundamental values of the Union. These values, Van Rompuy observed, were "also the fundamental values of Christianity."

This unexceptional, historically valid point is what sent the Turks of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) into their fast boost exoatmospheric trajectory.

It probably didn't help that the Belgian also commented, "Turkey is not a part of Europe and will never be a part of Europe."

Not that the Turks haven't tried over the centuries. Just think, "Walls of Vienna." The efforts by the Ottoman Empire, by the Sultan of the Sublime Porte, to extend the sway of Koran and scimitar to Eastern and Central Europe were neither peaceful nor absent a religious as well as a political motive.

The current peaceful attempt by Turkey to "invade" Europe may have economic considerations, but it is also informed by both religion and politics. Given that the AKP seems dedicated to rolling back the secularization initiated by Ataturk gives greater weight to Van Rompuy's views.

There is a fair measure of irony in the words of the AKP's Deputy Chairman for External Affairs, Suat Kiniklioglu, during the course of his interview with the Manchester Guardian. "What is even sadder is that he (Van Rompuy) is making that argument on the basis of the supposed Christian values of the Union. The values we (the Turkish government) envisage are of democracy, transparency, human rights, and the rule of law."

Duh. Just who does the AKP parliamentarian think invented, developed, and died for these values?

Each and every one of the listed values are products of the European historical dynamic. Yes, there are those who can argue that Islam, the Koran, Muslim history can show a dedication to at least the rule of law--provided it is Sharia solely. Yes, there are those who can point to carefully selected and parsed quotes from the Koran to show concern over at least some "human rights."

The same exercise in intellectual masturbation can be undertaken with, for example, the Soviet Constitution adopted in the shadow of show trials and lethal purges during the late Thirties as the Smiling Dictator, Joe Stalin, directed the combined productions. The take away is simply that words can be real pretty--and equally meaningless.

What counts is the effect of the words. The actions taken on their behalf, under their imperatives. What matters is taking the words and making them realities in the street. The history of Europe is a record of taking high sounding words and transforming them from lifeless symbols to street actualities by blood, persistence, and the passage not of years, nor decades but generations, centuries.

While the influence of Judaic thought, Judaic concepts of justice, of law, of duties are far more present in the European cultural matrix and have exercised far greater power on the evolution of European trajectories than many good "Christian" Europeans have cared to admit over the long, long centuries, the primary root of European values are, as Van Rompuy stated, those of Christianity.

The process by which secularism as the leitmotif of government emerged in Europe was one driven by religion. This paradox germinates in the profound ambition on the part of legions of Catholic Popes to be supra-national secular rulers using the force of religious belief as their primary weapon to subjugate or at least control the nascent national rulers of the several coalescing European states.

Secular government must proceed the full flourishing of democracy, transparency, genuine respect for the rights and dignities of the individual as well as the rule of impartial law. It is ironic to say the least that it was Christian ideas, Christian ideals, Christian values which provided the basis to successfully oppose a Christian political institution with theological roots and imperatives--the Catholic Church--so as to bring about the triumph of the secular state.

(It must never be forgotten that organized religions of all stripes are political institutions. That is to say organized religions, even if lacking a centralized and hierarchical structure, pursue political power--defined as the authority, the capacity to materially and directly affect the perceptions, beliefs, and thus the behavior of adherents. Or even non-adherents. But, this is a subject for another post.)

While Christianity, its theology, its many belief systems, carries the seeds of its own removal from institutional political authority, Islam does not. Unlike Christianity, Islam is a total system in which there is no split between the faith and politics, the creed and the legal system, the doctrine and economic activity, the strictures and science. There is no possibility of a state being simultaneously secular (and thus extending benefits, privileges, immunities and rights to all citizens equally) and authentically Islamic. There is absolutely no daylight between the faith and the polity, the community of believers and the community comprising the society.

To put it bluntly: There is no room for the Second Amendment or at least that part relating to the relationship between church and state in the Koran. In the sayings and deeds of the Perfect Man, Mohammad. In Islam.

The Turkish yowls prove that the shoe fits. That the reality, the history of Van Rompuy's comments pinch.

Fortunately M. Van Rompuy is not alone in his views. They are shared by both M. Sarkozy and F. Merkel. They are shared by many, many Europeans even if deprecated by members of the EU's elites, the chattering class, the academics, the Euro-philes for whom the hoi polloi of the many, many streets of Europe are nothing but rude bumpkins, rough peasants, unenlightened, unwashed masses.

In the West, in the US, the notion of "tolerance" like that intellectual perversion of Einstein's mathematics, "cultural relativism," has been raised to the level of a fetish. Our self-appointed elites wave the fetishes of "tolerance," "diversity," and "cultural relativism" while accusing those who do not worship the fetishes as "xenophobic," "Fascist," or simply "prejudiced," "Islamophobic."

It can only be assumed (hoped) this phase of self-loathing will pass before more harm is done by its lamentable existence these past few decades. The West, the US, has much to be proud of, many profound (and profoundly Christian rooted) accomplishments to celebrate.

Not least of these are the very values espoused by the AKP Deputy Chairman of External Affairs: democracy, transparency, human rights, and the rule of law. And, the one he didn't mention but is basic to the others: the triumph of the secular state.

Fear Of Free Speech In The EU

It appears as if the European Union has joined the list of those afraid of free speech. The worthies of that organization don't put it that way, of course. No. The intent of the new Equal Treatment Directive is to spare the sensitivities of those who might be somehow, someway, someday offended by somebody's oral or written statement.

In a trenchant and not particularly biased analysis Paul Belien, an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, has shown the way in which a basically fairminded and proportionate effort to assure that people suffering from a physical handicap would not be discriminated against in access to goods and services including housing bloomed under the ministrations of the Society of Perpetually Indignant and Concerned to a portmanteau attack on freedom of speech and opinion. Kowtowing to the supposed needs of homosexuals and the very real demands of Islamists, the Directive (which must yet be approved by all twenty-seven member states' Foreign Ministers and which was an initially tightly focused proposition) has become a very ambiguously worded device to gag all potential critics of, among other things, Islam, or even Islamist jihadism.

The "Equal Treatment Directive" would not only supplant existing national laws on the subject, it goes far, far beyond the (so-far) nonbinding UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution on the subject of "religious defamation." This resolution, which the US cosponsored with Egypt, was meant to be a compromise with the far more sweeping demands made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It was also intended to be part of President Obama's "outreach to the Arab/Muslim world" gambit.

Ms Clinton has made her (and presumably, the Obama administration's as well) position on the religious defamation versus free speech matter more clear. She has been reported to have taken a strong stance against the proliferation of religious defamation laws. Her statement leaves no word for dubious interpretation

Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called 'anti-defamation' policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion, I strongly disagree. The United States will always... stand against discrimination and persecution... But an individual's ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others' freedom of speech.

The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.

That seems to be that. One can only hope that the sentiment continues to prevail regardless of trends among the trendy in the European Union or cage rattling from the Muslims.

The problem with freedom of speech and opinion is that while everybody is in favor of the idea--for himself--very few are in favor of the idea when applied to purveyors or holders of uncomfortable, unpleasant and even frankly insulting views differing from one's own. As the noted and indefatigable free speech crusader, Nat Hentoff put the matter in the title of one of his books a few years back, Free Speech for Me But not for Thee.

While opponents of free speech and its necessary companion, freedom of opinion, may couch their arguments in terms of "sensitivity" or "concern for the dignity of others," they are actually motivated by fear. Fear pure and simple undergirds every attack on the rights of others and thus all to speak freely and openly on anything and everything.

Individuals who say, "That hurts my feelings," or "That offends me," are actually saying, "I'm not tough enough, not resilient enough, not secure enough in my identity, values, beliefs, personhood, to listen to that, to read that."

The same is true of groups which hold the necessity of restricting the untrammeled rights of others to speak or write in a way which is less than fawning adoration. When Muslims, when a Muslim entity such as the OIC, demands limits be placed on the rights of free expression, they are actually declaring a lack of faith in the integrity, the power, the validity of their own religious beliefs.

Both Christians and (to a much greater, even lethal extent) Jews have been vilified and attacked in speech both oral and written, both actual and symbolic. Neither has crumbled before these attacks; neither has been deterred, let alone defeated by these "hate crimes," this "hate speech." Arguably, both Jews and Christians have been strengthened in their beliefs, in their collective identity, their collective faith by "negative" speech, by "defamation."

It is of more than passing interest that Muslims alone among the "People of the Book" show this unique sensitivity to any remarks or comments which might be interpreted as "defamatory." Is it perhaps that Muslims are afflicted by some basic insecurity about the value of their beliefs?

Alternatively, is it perhaps attributable to the fear dominated aspects of Islam itself? Whatever the root might be, the bitter fruit of the plant is fear. A fear of a fear so pervasive that Muslims believe they must be protected against it no matter what the cost to other people, other cultures, other societies, other countries.

The High Minded, ever-so-sensitive, ever-so-multicultural activists of the European Union and their colleagues in the US may sincerely believe that the poor Muslims must be protected against those so foul minded as to criticize the religion. They may so despise their own cultural roots, their own national heritages that they are more than simply willing to eviscerate the freedom of expression and inquiry, speech, and opinion that so many of their ancestors bought over the centuries with their own blood. In any event, these super-sensitive, paternalistic, patronizers of the "lesser breeds without the law" are actually serving the worst interests of those they seek to "protect" at the cost of liberty.

By silencing through the force of law those who would criticize, those who would be so bold as to argue against any particular religion, any cited lifestyle, any ideology, the end result is to further fear, inhibit the opportunity to grow stronger through enduring--and countering--unwelcome speech with acceptable speech. The great club of law swings against all--and when it comes to limiting speech, that mindless bludgeon injures all--the would be protectors as well as the purported victims.

It is a cliche that the answer to bad speech is good speech, better speech. Only through the free exchange on the part of all comers to the marketplace of ideas and beliefs can progress toward a more humane world be made. The only place where free expression can be absent without ill effect is the graveyard.

"Engagement" Or Sanctions? The No Choice Choice

The European Union is finally ready to back stronger sanctions against Iran. Presented by a choice between more, tougher sanctions and the "military option," the EU is all for sanctions.

Wow! What a shock! Also why bother?

The nature of diplomacy is simple. The goal of all diplomacy is to gain advantage for a country and its national interests as subjectively defined. Like all political operations diplomacy is a search for power, its maintenance, expansion, or, at the very least, protection. The practice of diplomacy comes in two forms: The use of coinciding national interests as a base for furthering mutual self-interest or the employment of coercion.

Most of the time diplomacy proceeds by the embellishment and expansion of mutual self-interest. Even bitter rivals such as the US and the Soviet Union could find and expand upon mutual self-interest. During the most frigid periods of the Cold War both governments shared the self-interest of survival, so conflicts were tacitly limited well below the nuclear threshold. From that minimum basis engagement, seeking an expansion of mutual interest was often profitable--even if getting there was frustrating to say the least.

Coercion has often been counterproductive. An excellent example of this nasty reality is found in the record of US-Cuban relations particularly during the immediate aftermath of the Castroite takeover. For a series of reasons which no doubt seemed rational at the time, the US embarked on a series of escalating coercive measures.

The result was Cuba ran to the Russian Bear. Another consequence was the ability of the Castro regime to use the US hostility as an excuse for every economic failure which afflicted the nation. Still another easily foreseen outcome was the Castroite exportation of its ideology to other parts of Latin America. The list could go on almost without end. Suffice to say that the American efforts at coercing Castro into compliance with our policy demands led to such critical events as the Bay of Pigs and, far more importantly, the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Further back in our history, coercive diplomacy directed against Imperial Japan resulted in a rather important consequence: Pearl Harbor and the war in the Pacific. Coercion, even the relatively mild sort of economic sanctions, can lead to foreseeable and unfortunate results such as World War II.

On many other occasions coercion has simply been ineffective. Cast your memory back to the use of the US military as the globe's largest SWAT force in Operation Just Cause. The run up to that adventure in regime change was marked by escalating economic sanctions. The H.W. Bush administration was certain that economic pressure would have to work given that Panama used the Yankee dollar as its circulating medium. It didn't. The only alternative to a humiliating admission of failure was the "military option."

This brings us to Iran.

Non-coercive diplomatic engagement depends upon the pre-existence of coinciding national interests. Without some matrix of prior mutual national interests there is little, if any, cause to believe that engagement will have a positive result.

To put it bluntly: There is no coinciding national interest between the US and Iran. This is not the case with regard to many of the EU countries. Germany, France and Italy all have substantial trade interests with Iran. But, the trade is arguably more important to the entrepreneurs of these countries than it is to Iran.

The Iranians, particularly that state within a state, the Revolutionary Guard Corps, have shown both creativity and persistence in evading the impact of the sanctions already in place. Further sanctions would bring more creativity and more persistence in its wake. Given the willingness of China and Russia to turn the Nelsonian Eye on the sanctions as well as the new avenue opened by the close relationship between Iran and Venezuela, there is no doubt that Iran will not be fatally injured by any conceivable set of additional sanctions.

Absent a base of coinciding national interests and given a relative immunity to economic pressures, there is little reason to conclude that either engagement or another round of sanctions will produce any movement on the key issue of Iran's nuclear program. That is a critical predicate.

A second critical predicate that reinforces the first is the power of nationalism in the Iranian collective mind. In so far as the regime can place responsibility for internal pain on the external actors led by the mullahs' two main enemies--the US and Israel--it plays to nationalism and thus furthers regime consolidation and support. As the historical record shows clearly (again think Cuba), external pressure is the best friend a government can have.

Remember the key rule of international politics including war--pressure consolidates long before it fragments.

Admittedly, the Obama administration must go through the motions of seeking to resolve the challenge presented by the Iranian nuclear program through the mechanisms of engagement and non-violent coercion. The administration--and the rest of us--should have no expectations of success emerging from this process. Anything else is pure delusion.

This implies that there are only two options available in the real world. One is accepting the Iranian nuclear capacity. The other is war. (Let's call it what it is.)

To say the least, neither option is palatable. Accepting Iran as a de facto nuclear power implies that non-proliferation is a dead duck. If Iran can get the bomb--or at a minimum--a breakout capacity, why not other countries? It is necessary to consider a world in which Burma, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and a host of other countries with ambitions and fears have the ability to plant radioactive mushrooms.

Not pleasant is it?

(Of course, it is always possible to entertain delusions of a nuclear weapons free world, but the more countries that have the Big Bomb the more will think they must have one too simply for survival if no other reason.)

Air and missile strikes carried out on the Iranian nuclear complex as well as necessary associated targets ranging from air defense installations to government facilities could, probably would, halt the nuclear program for at least some years. However, the cost could outweigh the benefits. Since it is never possible to calculate the cost-benefit ratio until long after the war has ended, the prudent government must base its pre-war appraisal on the worst realistic case.

Anyway the question is examined, the costs of a strike or strikes against Iran are greater than the benefits. While the US (or in high probability the Israelis) have the physical capacity to abate the Iranian nuclear nuisance, the metaphorical fallout would be quite significant.

If there is no base for engagement from the existence of coinciding national interest and no real potential for coercive diplomacy (including the war option) having a good outcome, where does that leave the US and the rest of the world?

Well, if one is of the High Minded persuasion, that is if one really, really believes that we exist in a post-nationalist world, it is possible to dream of a UN sponsored removal of nuclear weapons from the globe. Outside of academic and similar elite circles in the US and Western Europe, the notion of a post-nationalistic international political dynamic is without traction, or even the least appeal.

The alternative is to accept the existence of a nuclear armed Iran and all that implies. Regional political dynamics will be altered--profoundly. The potential of nuclear proliferation will be augmented, perhaps exponentially.

If the reality of a nuclear capable Iran is accepted, the time has come to contemplate how the US can conduct its international relations in order to minimize the damage to its national and strategic interests. The time has come to look for ways in which the US can employ the new reality to its advantage--difficult or even impossible as that may seem.

Certainly, the US and the other parties of the P5+1 must go through the motions. They must do the diplomatic yada-yada which will ensue in Turkey and elsewhere. If the expectations are low enough, it might be a useful exercise--at least as far as clearing the decks is concerned.

But, there can be no doubt that as the palaver spins so do the centrifuges. Iran will not be deterred nor diverted this late in the game. Whether any nation likes it or not, Iran will join the nuclear club shortly.

The conclusion?

Simple, but unpleasant. The real foreign policy challenge for President Obama and Company is crafting a way to exploit to our advantage the altered balance in the region--and the world. This will require a degree of thought and realpolitik orientation not seen since George Kennan, Dean Acheson, and Harry Truman developed and implemented the ultimately successful Doctrine of Containment over a half century ago.

Can the current administration match the brain power and realism demonstrated by these long dead giants? That is the key question.

The Geek has his doubts. Lots of them.

Keep The Mullahs In Power Above All Else

The party line in Iran has reversed course. The Supreme Leader has confirmed the change. He now avers that the West was not behind the unrest in Iran following the election. This development came hard on the heels of the Iranian decision to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors into the Arak heavy water reactor and other sites previously prohibited to them.

The Charm Offensive has gained speed as Friday approaches. The big noise on Friday is the scheduled release of the latest poop out of the IAEA on the Iranian nuke projects. There is very real apprehension that the new report will contain the fruits of US, UK, Israeli, and IAEA intelligence showing the weaponization efforts of the mullahs. If the IAEA drops the ElBaradi protective shield, it will be the result of coordinated multi-lateral pressure and will result in enhanced pressure to "Do Something!" about the emerging Iranian threat on the part of Western opinion molders and politicos.

Reinforcing the potential that the West will "do something" are the recent remarks by both France's Nicholas Sarkozy and, today, Germany's Angela Merkel. Considering that both nations are in the "Billionaire's Club" in bi-lateral trade with Iran, the new harshness is not easily ignored in Tehran--or Qom. The potential of the new measures including the prohibition of gasoline shipments to the country puts added and very real pressure on the economic basket case called Iran.

The deep divisions demonstrated both in the Iranian public and the clerical elite that runs the country have destroyed the facade of the Iranian monolith. The weaknesses within have been and continue to be on display for all to see. In short, Iran looks as unstable as it actually has been for several years, years in which desperation has grown along with economic misery and increasing restiveness under the sway of the reactionary semi-theocracy.

The intent of the Iranian charm offensive is simply to delay the next measures proposed by the US and others, the "crippling sanctions" once promised by SecState Clinton. A second, perhaps overarching intent is to drive a wedge between the US and EU on the one hand and Iran's protectors, Russia and, even more, China.

The goal is to keep the centrifuges spinning in both announced and inspected facilities and the highly probable undisclosed ones. The end goal is to get the bomb. For in possession of the bomb lies the future security of the regime.

Iran has watched US policy to Pakistan closely. We cooperate, support, facilitate the government of Pakistan even though we know perfectly well that the Inter-Services Intelligence wallahs have supported and continue to support Taliban and al-Qaeda. We do this out of fear. Fear that the Pakistani bomb or fissionable materials might fall into the "wrong hands" in the event of a regime collapse. Whether there is any basis in reality for this fear, there can be no denying that it exists at least at the level of anxiety in Washington.

In short, the government of Pakistan may be obnoxious in some, even many, respects, but it is infinitely preferable to no government at all or a government dominated by Islamist jihadists.

The consequence is simple. We will act to secure its continuation in power regardless of other considerations such as expense, human rights violations, corruption, or even its level of perceived legitimacy.

The Supreme Leader in Iran wants the same sort of guarantee above all else. For Grand Ayatollah Khemenei, regime maintenance is what it is all about. This is buttressed by the clear indication that he desires to establish a family dynasty in the quasi-theocracy by seeing his son succeed him as Supreme Leader.

In the short run Iran depends upon its capacity to be a regional troublemaker as well as its foreign protectors China and Russia to purchase time and regime maintenance alike. In the longer term, say in another eighteen to twenty-four months, the Supreme Leader sees the "Pakistani Gambit" as a sovereign remedy to forestall the collapse of the government.

If the US fears the consequences of a Pakistani collapse or Islamist jihadist takeover of Pakistan, it would be even more fearful of Iran falling apart. Right now Iran faces three internal threats, regional defensive insurgencies in Kurdistan and down in Baluchistan. In addition the events of the post-election period show that the potential of an offensive insurgency pitting the large segment of totally discontented and disaffiliated Iranians against the Islamist reactionaries of the clerical establishment and its supporters of the Iran-Iraq War period, the Revolutionary Guard and the jihadist militia.

The specter of a nuclear Iran collapsing in a welter of insurgency and bloodletting with fissile materials at risk would be guaranteed to produce a number of Xanax moments in Washington. The less risky course of action would be to bite down on distaste and do what could be done to prop up the regime. At the least Washington would be deterred from throwing its weight behind one or another insurgent contestant.

Or so the logic tree of the Supreme Leader and his coterie must/might run. Buy time. Keep the centrifuges spinning. Get the fissionables. Play the Pakistani Gambit. Keep the regime running.

And, there it is, one more foreign policy challenge for the Nice Young Man From Chicago and his crew of progressives. Gotta hope they are up to it.