Europe’s German Future

On February 9, 2012, in Uncategorized, by NatK

From Christopher Caldwell, at the Weekly Standard , ” Über Alles After All “: Last week Germany reclaimed its status as the leading power in Europe. In the two years since it became apparent that Greece was, essentially, bankrupt, there have been dozens of emergency meetings of the countries that use the common European currency, the euro. Most of the euro-using states believe that Germany—with a booming industrial economy, vast trade surpluses, a reputation for fiscal probity, and a history that makes it reluctant to reject the counsel of France—ought to cover the bill. Germany has long argued that Greece must become competitive again by selling off state assets and cutting government handouts. More recently, Germany has added another demand—that EU authorities be empowered to discipline Greece and other delinquent countries. At the Brussels summit on January 30, the Germans won. Germany is fortunate to have, in the moment of its triumph, a chancellor who does not scare people. Angela Merkel is an East German intellectual, a physical chemist, the childless daughter of a clergyman. She mumbles. Her taste in clothing runs to pantsuits. She isn’t brawny and forceful like her Christian Democrat mentor Helmut Kohl, who presided over the reunification of Germany at the end of the Cold War. She isn’t eloquent and haughty, or tempestuous and randy, like her Social Democratic predecessors Helmut Schmidt and Gerhard Schröder, respectively. “This lack of a presidential demeanor is a big advantage,” says longtime Bavarian governor Edmund Stoiber, whom Merkel replaced as party leader. Germany’s economy naturally provides it with a leadership role, but its history means that that role is something Germany cannot be seen to claim. “Neither personally nor politically does she come off as wanting to blow her own horn, along the lines of ‘I am the leader of Europe.’ ” By “Europe” Stoiber means the 27 countries that make up the European Union. The EU was launched in the wake of the Second World War as a way to organize Europe through economics, not war. This is a polite way of saying it was meant to keep Germany from dominating Europe with its army. A decade ago, the EU acquired a common money, the euro, which replaced the franc, the lira, the peseta, and the super-strong deutsche mark. The new monetary regime was meant to keep Germany from dominating the continent with its currency. But the euro has backfired. In 1990 British trade secretary Nicholas Ridley was forced to resign for calling the EU “a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe.” Ridley was quite wrong about Germany’s intentions, but he was right about the result. Joining Germany in a currency union meant playing by its rules. In fact, so big and rich is Germany—particularly now that reunification has brought its population to 80 million—that joining it in anything means playing by its rules. This is not Germany’s fault. It is the classic “German problem” that has confronted Europe for the whole modern era. It was camouflaged for six decades only by Germany’s reluctance to express any wishes whatsoever. As long as Germany wasn’t complaining, others could make free with Germany’s credit card. Once in the euro, Greece, Italy, Spain, and other countries that bankers used to consider reckless or unstable could borrow at the same rates. (The treaties that bound all these dissimilar countries together stipulated that there would be no bailouts for those who borrowed too much, but bankers obviously didn’t believe that.) A boom in lending pushed up wages and prices in those “peripheral” countries, rendering them uncompetitive. After the financial crisis of 2008, the countries that had overborrowed were saddled with more debt than they could comfortably repay. The eurozone’s Mediterranean members have come to think that Germany ought to rescue them. But the Germany to which they are addressing their petitions is not the penitent, diffident, and easily browbeaten land that they came to know over the last three generations. Germany has its own ideas about economics and morality, and it is ready to insist that its weaker neighbors adhere to them. That’s a great piece — pretty accurate all around. Continue reading at the link .

Follow this link:
Europe’s German Future

Life and Death in Homs

On February 9, 2012, in Uncategorized, by JuanGetalty

Video c/o Telegraph UK. And see: ” The Agony of Homs .” More at LAT , ” Syria violence: Who is helping the wounded? ” And NYT , ” As Russia Seeks Talks, Syria Is Said to Pound City .”

See the article here:
Life and Death in Homs

Israel’s Case for War With Iran

On February 8, 2012, in Uncategorized, by starsh1p

From Niall Ferguson, at Newsweek , ” Israel and Iran on the Eve of Destruction in a New Six-Day War .” The single biggest danger in the Middle East today is not the risk of a six-day Israeli war against Iran. It is the risk that Western wishful nonthinking allows the mullahs of Tehran to get their hands on nuclear weapons. Because I am in no doubt that they would take full advantage of such a lethal lever. We would have acquiesced in the creation of an empire of extortion. War is an evil. But sometimes a preventive war can be a lesser evil than a policy of appeasement. The people who don’t yet know that are the ones still in denial about what a nuclear-armed Iran would end up costing us all.

Read more from the original source:
Israel’s Case for War With Iran

At Los Angeles Times , ” U.S. boosts its military presence in Persian Gulf “: The Pentagon quietly shifted combat troops and warships to the Middle East after the top American commander in the region warned that he needed additional forces to deal with Iran and other potential threats, U.S. officials said. Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis, who heads U.S. Central Command, won White House approval for the deployments late last year after talks with the government in Baghdad broke down over keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, but the extent of the Pentagon moves is only now becoming clear. Officials said Thursday that the deployments are not meant to suggest a buildup to war, but rather are intended as a quick-reaction and contingency force in case a military crisis erupts in the standoff with Tehran over its suspected nuclear weapons program. The Pentagon has stationed nearly 15,000 troops in Kuwait, including a small contingent already there. The new deployments include two Army infantry brigades and a helicopter unit, a substantial increase in combat power after nearly a decade in which Kuwait chiefly served as a staging area for supplies and personnel heading to Iraq. The Pentagon also has decided to keep two aircraft carriers and their strike groups in the region. Continue reading .

Read this article:
U.S. Deploys Additional Troops and Warships to Persian Gulf

China Takes Aim at U.S. Naval Might

On January 5, 2012, in Uncategorized, by alexasami1a1

At great piece, at Wall Street Journal (via Google ):

At Los Angeles Times , ” Tension over Israeli proposal to commemorate Armenian genocide .” Also at New York Times , ” Turkey’s Leader Counters French Law With Accusations of Colonial-Era Genocide .”

Here is the original post:
Israeli Proposal to Commemorate Armenian Genocide Causes Tension

Tagged with:
 

A Blend of Cult and Coercion in North Korea

On December 21, 2011, in Uncategorized, by GilruthMilillo633

It’s a question on the minds of many: What explains the almost macabre outpouring of grief at the death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il? Well, see New York Times , ” North Korea’s Tears: A Blend of Cult, Culture and Coercion “: SEOUL, South Korea — Among countless mourners at a public square in North Korea, the kneeling middle-aged man in an off-white windbreaker stands out. The state broadcaster’s camera zooms in as he wails, rocking back and forth with clenched fists, his grief punctuated by the white puffs of his breath visible in the cold of the capital, Pyongyang. The camera lingers a few seconds too long on this perfect mourner. A couple of rows away, two teenaged boys stand motionless, seemingly uncertain about how to behave. They look toward the man — perhaps even at the camera beyond him — then briefly away, before also dropping to their knees to weep. A day after North Korea announced the death of its longtime ruler, Kim Jong-il, televised video and photographs distributed by the reclusive state on Tuesday showed scenes of mass hysteria and grief among citizens and soldiers across the capital. The images, many of them carefully selected by the state Korean Central News Agency, appeared to be part of an official campaign to build support for Mr. Kim’s successor, his third son, Kim Jong-un. In his first public appearance since his father’s death, Kim Jong-un visited the mausoleum in Pyongyang where Kim Jong-il’s body lay in state, covered with a red blanket. The coffin was surrounded by white chrysanthemums and Kimjongilia, a flower named after the deceased leader. Kim Jong-un was accompanied by a group of senior party and military officials, giving the outside world a hint about whom he might be relying on as he seeks to consolidate control over a dynasty that has controlled North Korea since it was founded by his grandfather, Kim Il-sung, whose death in 1994 led to even greater outpouring of public mourning. Contrived as they might look to Western eyes, the wild expressions of grief at funerals — the convulsive sobbing, fist pounding and body-shaking bawling — are an accepted part of Korean Confucian culture, and can be witnessed at the funerals of the famous and the not famous alike in South Korea. But in the North, the culture of mourning has been magnified by a cult of personality in which the country’s leader is considered every North Korean’s father. More at the link .

Read more from the original source:
A Blend of Cult and Coercion in North Korea

The Los Angeles Times examines the impact of Kim’s death on the regional economy, ” Kim Jong Il’s death could upset regional economy in Asia .” And at New York Times , ” In Kim’s Death, an Extensive Intelligence Failure .” Also, this morning’s Wall Street Journal has the don’t miss lead editorial, ” Breaking the Kim Dynasty “: Kim maintained power by promoting a sense of siege aimed at the U.S. and its “puppet regime” in South Korea. Demonstrating loyalty to reunification on Pyongyang’s terms and to the Kim family that personifies this goal is the key to advancement in the North. Nuclear weapons are crucial to this agenda, both as a bargaining chip to seek cash from the West and as a deterrent to any attempt to promote regime change. That last point is a warning about the horrendous long-term cost of letting Iran get the bomb. Kim’s death is producing the inevitable hopes that his successors will change all this and seek an opening to the world. The immediate likelihood is remote. Power has been centralized in the Kim family, including Kim Jong Il’s sister and her husband, who may play the role of regent during the coming years. Kim only began to install his youngest son, the 20-something Kim Jong Eun, as successor in the last few years, but he has also quickly picked up the terror mantle. North Korean propaganda suggests that the youngest Kim was behind the unprovoked sinking of a South Korean navy ship and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island last year. A measure of the regime’s danger is that South Korea went on high alert upon news of Kim’s death, and the White House issued a sensible statement pledging to maintain stability on the Korean peninsula and support America’s allies in the region. Don’t expect much change under Kim the Younger. And more at Wall Street Journal , from John Bolton, ” ‘The Great Successor’ ,” and Melanie Kirkpatrick, ” The World’s Most Repressive State .”

See more here:
Death of Kim Jong Il Creates New Layer of Risk to East Asia

Why Ron Paul Can’t Win

On December 16, 2011, in Iraq, Uncategorized, by starsh1p

From Kim Strassel, at Wall Street Journal . Strassel raises the interesting point that not that much has changed about Ron Paul from his earlier campaigns for the GOP nomination. The key significant difference is found not so much on the issues — Paul has moderated a lot of his positions on domestic affairs — but in the the candidate’s seriousness: Mr. Paul was largely written off in the past as an ideological crank, a man who ran primarily to have his views heard, and many political watchers have made the same mistake this time. But if there has been an overlooked theme in this race, it has been Mr. Paul’s new seriousness about winning the nomination. The Ron Paul of 2012 is a different candidate from the Ron Paul of the past. Aware that his absolutist positions worry voters, the libertarian has been conducting a far more mainstream campaign. Not that he’s flipped on any major positions. The Paul campaign knows that its greatest opportunity is attracting voters who are dissatisfied with the other front-runners’ policy timidity or lack of consistency. Mr. Paul is neither timid nor inconsistent, and it ought to make him a star…. Organizationally, the 2012 Paul campaign has also sloughed off its 2008 disdain of the establishment, and in Iowa at least Mr. Paul is engaging in retail politics, sitting down with party elders and activists. These are the efforts of a candidate newly willing to work within a certain framework, if it means a shot at the White House. Except on foreign policy, where Mr. Paul does himself in. In discrete areas, Mr. Paul’s “noninterventionist” approach resonates with those weary of war, or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid. And note that Mr. Paul has made small stabs at reassuring voters of his patriotism, as with a big national TV ad that highlighted his own military service and commitment to veterans. But none of this has addressed voters’ big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland. Perhaps nothing hurt the candidate more in 2008 than his declaration that one reason terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is because “we’ve been in the Middle East.” Far from toning down such views, Mr. Paul has amped up the wattage, claiming this year that 9/11 prompted “glee” in a Bush administration looking for a pretext to “invade Iraq.” He’s condemned the Obama administration’s killings of terrorists Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and he insists the U.S. is “provoking” Iran. Ron Paul’s a freak. I posted on this last night: ” Taking Ron Paul Seriously .” Added : From Linkmaster Smith at The Other McCain , ” You See, Mr. Paul, History Does Not Support Scientific Experiments .”

Follow this link:
Why Ron Paul Can’t Win