Last week I reported on the SARS epidemic in Hong Kong and it appears things are getting more serious. And it is getting closer to home, last Friday I experienced an unusual but explicable case of hysteria related to SARS.

As some of you know, my main activity during the day is advising start-up companies on financing and legal issues, as well as overall business strategies. There are great start-ups all over the place, very few make it because they lack solid business management skills and that is what I provide. In any case, one of my client companies’ CEO was on a business trip in, you guessed it, China. On Friday when I was working from my home office I got a call from the lady who runs that companies’ administration, HR and related operational matters asking me what to do as some of the employees had raised the alarm over the CEO’s impending return. Some of the employees appeared to be very concerned and they suggested that the CEO should be quarantined as he had spent over a week in China, one of the more seriously affected areas. Now this falls out of my jurisdiction but I have grown quite close to this company and its people, I get involved in all sorts of things and I am always willing to help whenever they call on me. Still, I was caught off guard here, but I quickly reassembled my managerial skills and said there was no issue until next Monday as he would only arrive late Sunday and that the only thing he should do is follow whatever regulations local health authorities had implemented on Sunday at the airport. What else can you do? This CEO by the way is one of the nicest and most employee-considerate company executives that I have ever come across so the idea that he would come into the office coughing and spreading the SARS epidemic was truly absurd. The lady thanked me for the advice and relayed this advice to the staff in an e-mail which also contained some information on what local authorities had advised so far. What happened then was truly interesting and it provided me with the evidence of what I had suspected when I got the call in the first place.

Now this company has two divisions and they develop products that are somewhat similar in nature. The problem is that one division is generating good revenue and requires a lot of managerial attention (contract negotiations, equipment purchases, trips to California etc.) whilst the other is not generating a penny, yet they have a unique product with enormous potential in development. Guess where the SARS concerns came from? After my advice real hysteria broke out on the non-revenue side where accusations started to fly that the company was not acting in the best interests and safety of the employees, while at the revenue generating side humorous e-mails from people looking forward to 10-days quarantines started to drop into my mailbox. It was all a matter of attention, and the fact that the concerns of the non-revenue generating guys did not automatically translate in deep management concern and holding hands pissed them off even further, leading to some pretty unpleasant discussions at the office. I was glad that I was not there. I have seen these mechanics before and while the non-revenue generating guys have a truly great product it is so much harder to bring it to commercialization. We do everything we can to get it to that stage but for some reason it has not clicked as yet. The other division’s success and their frustration has resulted into a number of unpleasant incidents over the past year and it was always a function of the non-revenue team not getting managerial attention, influence and yes, money.

So, what happened today ? Our CEO is fine, we followed whatever instructions there were and he is back in the office. The non-revenue generating guys apologized for their overreaction, and tomorrow I will resume handholding them by going through one of their business plans. When I told them that, they already looked happier. It is all a matter of attention, really.

On days like this you always deliberate, shall I post on Arnett ? Shall I do something on De Genova? Well, the answer is apart from the little blurb on Arnett yesterday the blogosphere has come out in full force about these two sad figures that there is very little that I want to add. The same happened with Michael Moore. So, I will post on subjects that really get to me, that I know something about, that personally affect me or a combination of the three. If it so happens it applies to Arnett or De Genova type cases I will blog, but for now enough is said about them.

Good to see and hear that the pro-America rallies are gaining momentum. Even in Vancouver, Canada, a notorious hub of left coast activity a rally took place yesterday. What gave the rally momentum were some interesting testimonials, especially this one:

Ariel Tijerino, who moved to Canada from Nicaragua in 1998, had a similar view, saying in an interview that he backs U.S. action in Iraq "one hundred per cent -- one million per cent ... I'm from Nicaragua and I appreciate what the Americans did for us."

I highlight this comment because Nicaragua is so often pictured as a benchmark of US aggression by the anti-war crowd. Well, my guess is that Ariel is not the only Nicaraguan thankful for America's efforts to rid the place of the Sandinista dictatorship. Apparently more pro-America rallies are scheduled in Canada and may many more refugees speak up, they have an important message. I am just waiting to hear about pro-America rallies in Europe, when they happen I will be one of the first to let you know.

First of all, I have to thank Pejman of Pejmanesque and David Janes for all the new visitors over the weekend. Thanks. It all coincided with the Fortuyn article and a lot of people responded to that. It appears there have been few balanced publications about Fortuyn in the English language and a lot of English speakers have been looking for more information about him. I have to check whether any of his books have been translated, as you may know he wrote many. David Janes' reaction was summarized as follows:

" . a cautionary tale about what could happen if political thought is partitioned into acceptable and non-acceptable topics, as defined by a very narrow elite of the population "

Well, exactly. In the meantime the trial of Pim's murderer proceeded today and the court has determined that Van der Graaf is not mentally incapacitated and was not temporarirly insane when he committed the crime which means a life sentence is now more likely. Today he commented he felt the need to act on behalf of certain groups in society and prevent Fortuyn from becoming Prime Minister. It also materialized he had some chemical substances in his garage: "not to be used for attacks, but just to experiment with". Of course, just like we all spend some time in the garden over the weekend, it is not unusual to experiment with some chemicals in the garage. The mechanical and rational approach with which Van der Graaf perpetrated his crime is scary and not unusual for radicalized elements, it comes straight out of the universal handbook for terrorism.

The district attorney wanted to find out how Van der Graaf felt about the feelings of Fortuyn's family, but he found it too difficult to talk about feelings. The Fortuyn family suffered deeply over the loss of their beloved brother but they have not lost their unique spirit: Fortuyn's sister in law resolved to attend the trial of the animal rights activist wearing a fur coat.

Just as I had inserted some comments on the role of the media in my last post on 'hate', I came across another astonishing piece of our media at work. Peter Arnett was kind enough to clarify where he stands in this conflict by giving a helping hand to the Iraqi Ministry of Information. Beyond belief.

Well, former British minister Robin Cook has hit the news again, saying that British troops should be withdrawn from Iraq arguing that the war will lead to a “long-term legacy of hatred for the west”. Apart for the obvious reason, he is wrong on two counts. In the first place, as I have argued here before, withdrawing professional troops in the middle of a battle is counterproductive.

He is also wrong on the issue of ‘hate’. It is an argument frequently used by the opponents of the war against Iraq, trying to make the case that any action on our part will instantly create thousands of Al Qaeda recruits who will set out to harm the US, Britain and every other country that supports the war. The claim does not hold water. The Iraqi people will not hate us once this war is over. I can tell you that the Vietnamese do not hate the Americans, the Japanese do not hate the Americans, the Dutch do not hate the Germans and Indonesians do not hate the Dutch. Once a conflict is over people move on, especially in situations where the end result is positive for a vanquished country. Once the fear of Saddam and his Baath henchmen has disappeared and US trucks with food start rolling into Iraqi cities there will be very little hate.

The reason for the absence of hate is that hate is something that is mongered, something that is fomented by groups of people with ulterior motives and it so happens we are now at war with those very people. These hatemongers create hate and use it to control their audience: “Do you see them? It is all their fault! Let’s hate them!“ Sound familiar?
There has never been hate towards the west in the Arab world, maybe some levels of misunderstandings or even dislike. But hate? The radical islamists are the ones that have used the resentment of the Arab people towards their own feudal leaders to incite anti-Western feelings. And now the Iraqi leadership will no doubt attempt to do the same thing and yes, some may be susceptible to that. Just this Friday evening I was watching TV when a report came up on a spontaneous protest at the end of the Friday prayers at a mosque in Jordan. The reporters wasted no time to point out that all of a sudden a few people began shouting anti-American slogans and before everyone knew it the prayer session had turned into a huge anti-American rally. They hate us, can’t you see it? It just so happened that a TV crew was right there, in front of that very mosque and there happened to be just a few regular Jordanian townsmen who all of a sudden started to shout anti-American slogans. Everything the anti-war crowd needed, the birth and promulgation of hate against the west, right there. The report was of course beamed into every household in the Western hemisphere providing the evidence that to the extent they do not already hate us they will very soon start to hate us all and therefore this war is wrong. As I mentioned in my post yesterday about Fortuyn, the media create and shape a certain picture and there you go, the case is made and large groups of people will buy into it. They hate us, didn’t you see the telly yesterday?

Arabs do not hate us, Iraqis do not hate us, just like the Germans did not hate the Jews. You only need a few very well organized hatemongers to incite hate and fan that hate. These are the very people we are fighting right now. That is why we are at war in Iraq, Mr. Cook, and that is also why we better not pull out our troops Mr. Cook.

Earlier this week in Holland the trial of Volkert van der Graaf started, the murderer of Pim Fortuyn. Most of you will remember that Fortuyn was an up and coming conservative-libertarian who changed the Dutch political landscape with his party List Pim Fortuyn last year. He was killed 9 days before the election by an animal rights and environmental radical whose trial is now underway and I intend to follow the trial over the next few weeks. I think however it is useful to set the stage for that trial and reflect on who Pim Fortuyn really was.

Fortuyn created a political storm in Holland last year by convincingly taking the left-liberal government coalition to task for issues that had started to affect day to day life in Holland. These were issues that up to that point in time had either been covered with the veil of political correctness or had just not been adequately addressed by the ruling coalition or even the opposition. Like North America, Holland was booming in the 1990s and there was a complacent sense that the country was doing well, yet a number of developments in society were starting to eat away at the fundaments on which Holland was built. They included muslim immigration and radicalization of those very muslims, soaring crime rates and a healthcare system that had started to crack under the pressure of long waiting lists. The immigration issue was also an issue at large as Holland’s population density had increased to levels that had started to impact the quality of life in the country. Yet, Fortuyn’ agenda extended well beyond that. His frustration with the huge collective sector that so dominates life in Holland led him to actively promote far reaching privatization, his acceptance speech when he assumed his position as a professor at Erasmus University was entitled “Without Government Employees”. That to a large extent was fed by his experiences with collective, unionized or otherwise organized labor which had and has a very counterproductive grip on many institutions in Holland. Fortuyn had dealt with these issues first hand in the various roles he had before becoming a full-time politician, ranging from senior faculty member to consultant to CEO of a privatized government agency. In a way, Fortuyn was ahead of his time, he believed in a “contract society” that was governed by contracts rather than employment agreements and he believed in the ability of each of us to freely compete in a marketplace governed by these independent contracts rather than centralized top-down agreements. He believed in the flexibility of each individual to develop him or herself to the fullest in such a free society.

His socio-economic views went hand in hand with a liberal stance on sexual and cultural issues. He was openly homosexual and he had ensured that his entire private life was part of the public domain, denying any opportunity to his political opponents to use it against him during the campaign, to the extent that that is possible in Holland. Fortuyn had grown up during the 60s and 70s and was very much aware of the importance of those years for the liberation of women, gays and sexuality in general. While Holland is an extremely tolerant and liberal country, and this is something I hear over and over wherever I go in North America, these freedoms have not come without a fight and Fortuyn was one of the first people in Holland to emphasize that people should continue to fight to defend these very important and unique rights. They are not a given. This is where he clashed with muslims as he rightly became concerned over a radicalized muslim culture fueled by imams preaching in mosques in Holland. They preached the immorality of homosexuality and the belief that homosexuals were sick elements that deserved to be stoned to death. Fortuyn was not a racist, his argument was relatively simple: Holland is pretty full so let’s reduce immigration and to those immigrants that are here we say: fine, this is our country and this is our set of values, if you want to live here please respect them as you would probably ask the same of us if we were living in your country. It is here that he started to split the Dutch left and created a measure of confusion for it was the left that had always stood up for the emancipation of women and gays. Yet at the same time the left had always rejected a debate about immigration and muslim values as an examination of muslim values clashed with their culture of political correctness. Their promotion of a multi-cultural Holland ruled out any questioning of the status and values of strangers in Holland to an extent that some abuse of women, gays and children was ignored as “it was part of another culture”.

To be true, Fortuyn’s love for Holland was also a bit of a weakness. His ideas on foreign policy were not earth shattering and the hordes of foreign journalists that interviewed him had to deal with someone whose command of the English language was, for someone with his intellectual abilities, disappointing. His other weaknesses extended in the interpersonal field. He was not exactly a diplomat and many of his friends and colleagues questioned his ability to see things through to the end. He was also not a big fan of the royal family (this is an understatement), which in Holland is a surefire way to damage yourself politically. It was therefore that there were serious doubts over his ability to lead as Prime Minister, a concern he swept under the carpet with the comment that he would “lead by speech”. Dutch newspapers reported on the day that he was murdered that polls showed his party would be the largest and Fortuyn in that case would have become Prime Minister. I believe that he would have been a credible Prime Minister, and his “management by speech” vision is Reaganesque in its essence, a well-spoken visionary lays out the path surrounding himself with a kitchen cabinet of business leaders and academics with the belief and skill to implement that vision.

It was all a little too uncomfortable for the ruling elites as Fortuyn’s message caught on with the public at large. The establishment had nothing tangible to attack him with during the election campaign, on the contrary, Fortuyn convincingly came out a winner during many of the pre-election debates. So the left-liberal clan resorted to an age old routine: slander. They threw everything at Fortuyn with the idea that some of it would stick and in doing that they were given all the help they could get from the Dutch media notably the NOS, the Dutch equivalent of the BBC and some of the Dutch top newspapers. The slander ranged from calling Fortuyn “Nazi” to comparing him to Mussolini, none of which was even close to the truth, yet as it was coming from people who had long been the respected face of government some of it stuck. What was even more galling to Fortuyn was that senior politicians who had been his friends and whom he had advised behind the scenes (so to some extent he was an ‘established’ politician) started to throw the same abuse in his direction. In one interview by the NOS, Fortuyn quietly laid out some socio-economic numbers on big city populations and his concerns that middle classes were abandoning the big cities in favour of the suburbs to which the interviewer reacted; “and that is something you dare saying on TV ? “, to which Fortuyn replied: “ I am just stating an obvious fact, if I can no longer state simple facts on TV what do you want me to do ? ”. Yet it set the tone and for many uninformed viewers a very unfavorable picture was created. His impeccable dress and confident style was also something that did not go down very well with a large segment of the Dutch population, some of you will remember my comments on the need to stay with the “average mean” in Holland, if you act normal you are considered weird enough. With his bald head and self-assured rants he came across as a conservative James Carville in Savile Row suits with a Hollywood flair for publicity. In Holland, that is completely off the map, beyond comprehension.

The other day I watched a DVD with a collection of weekly interviews Fortuyn gave in the months leading up to this death and I saw a man who was growing increasingly tired and frustrated, who was hounded in a most unreasonable fashion by politicians and media that were hell bent on destroying him. Fortuyn was not always the diplomat, but he was very often, if not always, right, he did not hate, he was open and looked for a “tough debate” yet, what he got in return was hate, invective and disrespectful undeserved slander. Many filed lawsuits against him, all of which were dismissed by the courts and when asked why he did not take some of his opponents to court for hate crimes against him he simply stated that he did not feel that a political debate should be settled in court and felt his arguments were strong enough to settle the case in an open debate. In fact he felt the courts had no jurisdiction in settling political discussions. Yet it all resulted in an incredible amount of stress and the strain showed during these interviews. It hurt me to see that someone who had such a unique message was taken apart in such a vile manner and it still does. Fortuyn did not deserve that.

So the climate of hate, of demonization as some called it, was created and it is impossible to say if that has been directly attributable to his death, yet many believe it played an important role. A report from an independent government commission found that both the government’s security apparatus that is supposed to act on threats to politicians as well as Fortuyn and his associates had failed to adequately address the threats on his life. He was shot 5 times by Van der Graaf shortly after a radio interview in Hilversum, right in the heart of Holland. It appeared Van der Graaf was acting alone, yet his membership of a radical animal rights group has raised serious questions about the planning of the murder.

Politics have gone back to normal yet Fortuyn’s ideas have found their way into the platforms of most political parties. To that extent he changed the Dutch political scene. Yet he paid the ultimate price and it is sometimes depressing to see that the political establishment has gone back to its usual routine. Not too long ago former Prime Minister Kok who was in office when Fortuyn was murdered, commented on Fortuyn’s death. Kok said that he was still haunted by the events surrounding Fortuyn’s murder especially street rallies where he, Kok, was identified as someone who had contributed to the murder. Reading that you have to wonder whether Fortuyn’s death had had any impact on him, as he was apparently more concerned about being implicated in the murder than in the fact that Fortuyn was assassinated. The former leader of the Liberal Party, Dijkstal, in a recent interview was concerned over the effect of Fortuyn on the political debate in the country, “it was possible to discuss everything all of a sudden” he said with disgust. Well, isn’t that the essential part of a democracy? It really is heartbreaking to see how Fortuyn’s legacy is sometimes dealt with in the Dutch media.

For me Fortuyn will always be a symbol of a set of political values that will become increasingly important in years to come. The slow collapse and increasing irrelevance of socialism as a socio-economic model and the changing nature of the “right” has opened the way to a new conservative-libertarian route. Fortuyn was one of its visionaries and he always will be.

May justice be served, Pim.

Quite busy yesterday so I did not really have the time to finish my discussion of Drezner's arguments regarding the comments made by the US Ambassador to Canada, Cellucci. There is some good news from Canada though, the support America movement is growing and here's another site that has just gone up: Friends of America.

Last night Irene and I went to the opera, Richard Strauss' Elektra, not exactly something that will put you in a good mood, fairly depressing. It was compounded by the fact that Elektra was played by a Janice Soprano look alike.

I will check in later.

It seems I made a correct assumption the other day, Daniel Drezner has the goods on Iraqi troops fighting at gunpoint. Daniel also has some thoughts on America's ambassador blasting Canada, just scroll down. I do not agree with him, though.

Today the stock of Robert Mondavi, the winemaker, took a beating as the company reported a loss for its most recent quarter and adjusted revenue projections. I had been following the Mondavi stock for a while given its low price-to-earnings ratio and it does not really come as a surprise that wine consumption is down. Think about it, the 1990s are long over and with a war going on, is this a time to drink? I asked myself that question when Irene and I had a few glasses of chardonnay last Friday. For some reason it felt totally inappropriate to drink with scenes of war being beamed into our living room. The old Calvinist in me emerged and I felt I could not drink as long as there are troops out there fighting on our behalf. We had to suffer as well. Yet, I had a glass anyway as Irene convinced me that there was nothing wrong with it, if we had to implement a battlefield regimen at home we would have to cut back on our daily rations of food and deprive ourselves of sleep. Nonsense, life goes on, yet somehow I was not totally comfortable with the concept and I bet there are a lot of people out there that feel exactly the same way. Expect further reductions in some areas of entertainment spending and expect Mondavi’s stock to drop further.

The British have run out of parking space so they have decided to pave France, have a look here.

In addition to welcoming those who came here through Pave France I also want extend a warm welcome to visitors who have come here thanks to Jurjen, another Dutchman living in North America. He is in Washington State, not far from here and he has an interesting weblog.

Springtime is here. The sun was shining this morning and I decided to work from home in the morning and shortly before lunchtime my almost 3-year old daughter Nora and I walked to our local post office to get the mail and a newspaper. Not that the paper would add a lot since I had already digested three continents of news highlights online, but it is a routine and so there I was in front of the newspaper stand. All of the headlines focused on the deteriorating relations between the US and Canada including very detailed analyses over the speech the US Ambassador to Canada gave yesterday in which he rightly blasted the Chretien government for not supporting the US in its war on Iraq.

The fact that all the major Canadian newspapers are splashing this across their front pages tells me that many in Canada believe this is a serious issue. Public opinion is changing and it appears that a majority of Canadians now believes that their government should support the US in its war effort. It is hard to say what has prompted this move in the right direction, but I believe there is a genuine feeling that Canada should stand by the US, although there will be many people that will just look at their wallets and realize that Canadian wealth to a very large extent depends on the huge volumes of trade going back and forth over its border with the US. Hopeful signs I think, and yes, there will be “Rally for America” in Toronto next week, let’s hope other Canadian cities will follow.

Interestingly there is a very senior Canadian government minister who believes that support for the US is the way to go. His name is John Manley and he happens to be Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. It has surprised me that he had not spoken up before on this issue because he is known to be fairly pragmatic in his dealings with the US and he enjoys a very good working relationship with his counterpart Tom Ridge, as Manley also deals with cross border security. Yet, for those of you familiar with the workings of this government (read my post regarding the old man) it is clear that Manley has been bullied into submission. But you could also argue that he has wisely shut up as he is a contender for the leadership of the Liberal party and thus a candidate to lead Canada as Prime Minister. By showing his hand now he would lose the chance to ever have a real shot at that leadership position. His main contender for the job is one Paul Martin who I can only describe as not very different from the man he seeks to succeed: sheer ambition for the top job but no vision at all. Business elites in Canada like him as he is billed as a fiscal conservative who was Minister of Finance during the boom years of the 1990s but there is scant evidence that he had anything to do with the economics of those revered 1990s. He rode the wave and benefited from the groundwork laid by his predecessors, just like Bill Clinton. None of the fiscal policies coming out of Ottawa would have been there would it not have been for the final decision maker: Chretien. I am not clear what the fascination is with Paul Martin but that is besides the point now.

The point is that if Manley starts to play his cards right he may well end up out-maneuvering Martin. Skeptics will argue that the Martin leadership is a done deal but I do not buy into that. The quest for the leadership bears a lot of similarities to the power struggle in the conservative party in Britain in 1990 when Margaret Thatcher’s days were counted. The absolute favourite to succeed her was Michael Heseltine but he stumbled just before the finish line and John Major became Prime Minister as Margaret Thatcher skillfully inserted the latter in order to dash Heseltine’s lifelong ambition of becoming Prime Minister. The same could happen here as Chretien detests Martin and does not care that much as to who succeeds him, as long as it is not Martin. This scenario could leave Canada with a pro-US Prime Minister which is good news, it could however further relegate the conservative free-marketers in Canada to the sidelines if not completely obliterate them and that is bad news. The shaping of the relationship with the US may well become a decisive factor in what Canada will look like in the future, if it isn’t already.

The other day I commented on the fact that the reign of terror perpetrated by Baath party loyalists among Iraqi troops prompted lots of them to fight on. Well, I was only partly right as some of you have pointed out. In fact there are three groups of fierce loyalists that we are facing in Iraq. We have Saddam’s Baath Party fighters and two other groups, Saddam Fedayeen and Al Quds. I believe the latter is the Arab name for Jerusalem so that will tell you what to expect from that group. In addition to terrorizing regular troops to fight on there are two other distinct reasons for fighting on, and these apply especially to the aforementioned hardcore groups. One is sheer loyalism to the Saddamite cause and the other is the fact that most of the members of these groups do not have anything to lose so they might as well die while they are at it. Again, it would compare well to the SS in the final days of World War II, loyalty until death follows.

Andrew Sullivan has for quite a while been reporting on how the BBC, Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation as he calls it, is reporting the war. In fact Andrew has been on the BBC's case for months now and with good reason. I will not go into the details of the discussion but it is interesting to note that many of my friends and relatives back in Europe see the BBC as the model for unbiased and independent reporting. In the same breath they will add that they need to get their news from the BBC as they consider CNN to be a mouthpiece of the Bush administration. Well, there you go, it all depends on where you live I guess.

Today Peaktalk can put its marker in the ground: one month in operation. It has been quite an interesting experience and I think I have done what I set out to do: discuss politics and current affairs and try to comment and analyze as well as link it back to my own personal experiences. Asparagirl nailed it a few days ago in the LA Times:

Blogs are the perfect example of "the personal is political," she thinks, because they show how one's "political reasoning" interacts with one's life and vice versa.

I really enjoy doing the posts where the personal interacts directly with the political and I hope it shows, let me know. I tried to stay away from becoming a linker, and with the war in full gear that would simply be impossible, there are many others that do an excellent job here, notably The Command Post. However when something interesting does come up, I will link. I also wanted to avoid becoming exclusively focused on the war, but that is difficult these days, yet I will keep trying to bring other interesting items up for discussion like Hong Kong’s environment the other day. The other thing that happened is that I was drawn into the blogosphere even more than before and have discovered a variety of unique blogs that I am now reading on a regular basis. A lot of the content overlaps, yet each blog puts its own spin on affairs and many have truly original stuff and interesting links. And then there are a lot of blogs that have supported this site by recently referring to Peaktalk and I am most grateful for this, in return I suggest to go and check out Mike Campbell, Lou in Queens, LordSutch, Diablogger and former Belgian Entre Nous. I also got a lot of traffic from DaghtatorBlog in Denmark after his ringing endorsement earlier this week, thanks.

In summary, I will keep at it and I hope you will all continue to visit and spread the word about Peaktalk.

The one thing I could not get out of my mind yesterday is the POW situation. Falling into Iraqi hands as a prisoner of war is a horrifying and humiliating experience. I keep reading stories from POWs from Desert Storm like this one and I try to understand how they managed to pull through. The conditions under which they were kept prisoner were appalling and the abuse they suffered was gruesome.

The one POW that I keep thinking about is Shoshana Johnson. She is a single mother with a 2-year old at home (why on earth are single parents sent off to a warzone?) and an army cook and probably not well prepared for spending time in captivity. And yes, she is a female captive and she is likely to be exposed to vicious sexual abuse. I can only conclude that she in particular is getting a very raw deal here. No one can probably imagine how someone copes in such a situation, but reading some POW accounts it is apparently a case of mind over matter. Most former POWs were able to switch off their physical being and focus entirely on their mental will to survive. I hope Shoshana and the others (James Riley, Edgar Hernandez, Joe Hudson and Patrick Miller) will muster the force to overcome their fear and physical suffering and survive this ordeal. Let’s all think about them when we have some time and hope and pray for their safe return. Make that a safe return soon.

Foreign policy is the exclusive domain of a federal or national government. That may seem to be an obvious statement but in the months leading up to the Iraqi war there were many city councils in North America that spent hours deliberating the need to go to war in Iraq and formally adopt motions that dealt with this issue. It reminded me of Europe in the 1980s when various cities and even small villages declared themselves “nuclear weapon free zones”. I happened to live in one of those nuke free cities and it infuriated me as there was of course no point for the local council to get into what was essentially the domain of the national government for if they had wanted to deploy nukes in our municipality they would have, simple as that. The basic problem was that left-leaning city councils felt it was necessary to help shape foreign policy, the mistake they made was that they were doing it in the wrong venue and at the expense of local taxpayers.

I was reminded of this when Alberta’s Premier Ralph Klein stepped up to the plate to support the US. A very admirable move as frustration in Canada about the way the federal government deals with the US and its war in Iraq is mounting but I am afraid Klein has overstepped the boundaries of his provincial domain, as much as I agree with him. If we let state, provincial and municipal entities into the realm of foreign affairs it could potentially be harmful to policy being developed at the national level. Ralph Klein is a great conservative and he should use his excellent political skill set to put together a right of the center political force in Canada that can replace the current government at the next elections. That would really help the US.

The Command Post reports that Portland Fire Bureau officials ordered US flags removed from downtown fire engines, concerned that their presence might provoke dangerous confrontations with anti-war demonstrators. Well, I thought this sort of bizarre defeatism was restricted to Europe as I reported earlier on a similar event the day before yesterday. Denying you have a flag to be proud of, denying you have military, all in order to appease the appeasers ?

One of the things Irene and I discovered is how special everything “European” is in North America. Let me give you an example. The decoration of our house is somewhat eclectic as we have a significant number of Chinese tables, chests, chairs and ornaments, but also a Mexican dinner table and a few American sofas and chairs. Yet every visitor always goes out of his or her way to comment on how European our house is. Same for our two kids, lots of Gap and Old Navy clothes, yet “they look so European”.

Nonsense. There is no other word for it. People say this because they want to see it. They do not know where to put us in their proverbial set of boxes, so since we are European and speak with an accent we are “European” and everything we do is uniquely “European”. That extends of course to the two Japanese cars in our driveway as well as the fusion food we serve together with Californian wines. All very European. It gets a bit trickier when politics becomes part of the equation as Europeans are perceived to be liberals, no question about it. This is where North American liberals go off the rails. “But you are European, you should know better !” is what I hear when I give my pro-Bush, free-market view of the world. This is usually the point where the discussion ends for they are not able to deal with the confusion I have generated by launching some conservative, republican positions with a Dutch accent. It would have been better had I been a card carrying member of the Republican party speaking with a mid-Western accent in which case they would have argued with me directly or even attacked me, but a European ? I have seen quite a few in the recent past walk away in sheer confusion over the mismatch between their stereotype and the European in front of them. I am probably not that great a "European". It confuses them. It is interesting to see, but I always bemoan the fact that the opportunity for a great political debate has once again been lost.

Access to President Bush is vital for almost every political leader and it is great that in Canada there is a Prime Minister who has exactly that, the only problem is that he left office about 10 years ago. Brian Mulroney has given his views on the US-Canada relationship and the war on Iraq and he gets it right:

Mr. Mulroney acknowledged Mr. Chrétien's policy of neutrality is popular in Canada, but he said the test of leadership is to make the right decision in Canada's long-term interest even if the public is initially opposed. He pointed to Tony Blair, who committed troops to the war against great public opposition, which has begun to melt as the British Prime Minister rallied his nation to what Mr. Mulroney called a just war.

He goes on to say that:

"You have a Liberal Member of Parliament [Colleen Beaumier] going to Baghdad and saying George Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein. You have a press secretary [Françoise Ducros] to the Prime Minister, saying the President of the United States is a moron and nobody gets repudiated, nobody gets fired,'' he said. ''Guess what the consequences of that are? The consequences are the loss of influence.''

It is probably time that Mulroney gets to speak a bit more often. Not only is he right, he has access to the White House and that could be a valuable asset when the time is there for Canada to mend fences with Washington.

I continue to trace pieces of news that somehow shaped my decision to live in North America. Yesterday I highlighted the inability of the Dutch to respect their armed forces as symptomatic for the Dutch’s deteriorated social and cultural climate, which had been one of the reasons to not go back and live in Holland, today there’s disturbing news over another place I used to live. The latest from Hong Kong tells us that the fear for respiratory disease is deepening:

“… as all public hospitals reduced non-essential services, workers and students were told to stay home if they felt at all ill and one of the two top officials handling the outbreak was himself hospitalized”

When I read this I really feel a sense of sadness and anger. Hong Kong used to be one of the most dynamic economic engines of the world, a unique model for wealth creation. And in addition, it used to be a great place to live, I doubt if I will ever live in a place that has so much to offer as Hong Kong. However that great Hong Kong engine stalled at the end of the 1990s as a result of the slowdown of Asian markets but also because it stopped being the gateway to China as mainland China became directly accessible from abroad. The big issue to me has always been that very little of the wealth generated was plowed back into making Hong Kong livable. Yours truly is probably a veritable free-market conservative-libertarian who abhors statist intervention (which is why I fitted into Hong Kong so well), but if there was ever a case to redistribute some tax revenue for the better it would have been in Hong Kong. Apart from the excessive air pollution and littering, recent years saw phenomena as the chicken flu, red tide (dead fish turning up all over the place), cases of cholera and now the pneumonia or SARS epidemic. Now, Hong Kong residents have a propensity to go over board when certain isolated incidences of a disease hit the newswires, but we can confidently assume that the pneumonia scare is the latest installment of a rapidly and seriously deteriorating living environment in the former British colony.

It is interesting to note that when I left Hong Kong in 1999, the local government sought help from the international business community in addressing environmental issues. I do not know if the advice from that community was ever put to good use, but I doubt it. The decline of the quality of life had already been set in motion during British rule; in fact, the environment had never been an issue of great concern. The reason was that too big of a price tag was attached to trying to do something about it and that was something that did not sit well with the great money making, saving and investing skills of Hong Kong and its residents. The dichotomy of generating wealth but the inability to spend some of it on improving the place where you make and enjoy that wealth has been one of the more problematic aspects of life in Hong Kong. It may actually be one of the few as it is such a great place and I really hope that they will have the resolve to fix their current predicament.

And the good news is that we have seen no scud attacks on Israel, nor any chemical or biological attacks on US troops. The pre-emption by US special operations teams in the Western Iraqi scud launch zone is a piece of first-class warfare.

Was anyone surprised to see fierce resistance from Iraqi forces over the past 48 hours? Is the Baath regime not collapsing and if that is the case why are so many willing to fight the overpowering US coalition forces? One of the reasons is no doubt the incredible levels of fear instilled in Iraqi forces. Here’s a parallel. During World War II it was evident by January 1945 that Hitler’s Germany was near defeat yet it took another 4 months to finally trounce Nazi Germany and Allied forces very often met incredibly forceful resistance during their march to Berlin. The remnants of the German forces were not only extremely loyal; they were also terrorized by SS units that actively tracked down deserters and others that were unwilling to fight. Executions of German forces by these SS units were common. Whatever happened to Saddam and sons, as long as there is a semblance that they are alive and governing Iraq, there is fear among Iraqis and that fear in turn will continue to fuel the will to fight on the battlefield. Even after Hitler’s suicide it took another 7 full days for Germany to surrender. The days and maybe weeks ahead will be very difficult as we are not up against a poorly organized and ill-equipped army; we’re up against 25 years of instilled fear and terror.

While comparing the war to the endgame with Nazi Germany one other thought occurred to me. Is there any reason to keep Iraq in its current shape and form after Saddam has been defeated? If we are looking for stability and democracy we can either carve the place up into a Shia state, a Sunni state, a free Kurdistan and give some odd bits of desert to Jordan or we can try to preserve the Iraq as is with all the ingredients for continued strife and conflict. Both options have serious drawbacks, the carve-up route will no doubt lead to some heated debate over who gets control over the oil fields and also carries the risk of some radical Shia activity, but we have to remember that Iraq was an artificially designed state in which the Sunni rulers have always been a minority. A carve-up managed by the international community deserves further investigation if only to start settling the Kurdish issue which has been dragging on for far too long.

There were two and they were both irrelevant. The first one was by Michael Moore which I missed because I working behind my PC. The second one was by Saddam which I missed because I was too tired to wait for it. I did not miss anything.

I had resolved to not longer write about anti-war and 'peace' demonstrators but yesterday I spent exactly one minute watching a report from a peace rally in the US and the stupidity and ignorance of what I saw prompted me to throw in one more post on this phenomenon.

An interviewer asked a middle aged man if he thought that rallying against the war could not be seen as unpatriotic. The man replied that he thought it would be an act of patriotism to bring the troops back immediately. This response is a piece of seriously flawed logic and I will tell you why. Not long ago I was watching a documentary on the failed rescue mission in Somalia in 1993 on which the movie "Black Hawk Down" is based and during which a significant number of American troops died. When interviewing one of the surviving servicemen the question was asked what bothered them most. One surviving task force member put it like this (and I am paraphrasing this): " The worst thing was that the political leaders pulled all the American troops out of Somalia immediately after the failed mission. We could not finish our job. All our buddies that died, died in vain."

The world has changed since Vietnam. This is no longer an army of unmotivated drafted soldiers, this a modern, professional and very committed force of troops taking its task very seriously and is dedicated to finish whatever assignment it has at hand. This is also something that former General Wesley Clark at CNN has pointed out a number of times over the past few days. If you think pulling them out is patriotic, you do not understand the professional dynamics that govern these committed soldiers. Finishing the job, that is patriotic.

Last Friday I picked up another worrying piece of news from my native Holland. Hold on to your seats, this is truly sad stuff. The Dutch Ministry of Defense has advised members of the Dutch armed forces not to wear their uniforms when traveling to or from their bases, as the war might have impacted the public's perception of soldiers, and servicemen and women may encounter negative reactions to their uniform. In other words: you're not safe wearing your uniform in public. This is by the way not new, my wife mentioned to me that she had heard stories like this well before the war on Iraq.

So if a society is no longer able to respect its troops, to support the men and women that are volunteering to stand up and fight for the freedoms of that very society, that society is in deep trouble. In fact, you may ask yourself whether a society like that will stand any chance of survival in the long run. I am a great supporter of freedoms and individualism, but in the Dutch case extreme liberalism and unfettered individualism have been undermining the very institutions that shape and stabilize a free society. For those of you who have wondered why I left the place years ago: here's one good reason.

Support is growing and rightly so, now there's a website called Canadian Friends of America. Go visit.

Good news coming out of Iraq, evidence that US forces are hailed as liberators:

"Americans very good," Ali Khemy said. "Iraq wants to be free."

and

Some chanted, "Ameriki! Ameriki!"

Hope this will continue in other parts of Iraq. It is not a surprise, many have predicted that this would happen and it further underlines that this is a just war.

There is so much news coming from all directions that it is hard to keep track of everything, I spent most of last night watching CNN but do not feel that it is time well spent. You're better of leaving the TV on and do other things, I very often find more useful information online from various news sources as well as blogs. And in the car there is of course the radio and that is how I found out about "Shock and Awe" just now. The latter concerns me, I have a feeling massive bombing is not going to do the trick, targeted "Decapitation Strikes" make a lot more sense.

A new war oriented blog-pool is The Command Post, with various contributors, another one is Back to Iraq. Have a look.

Also, I am swinging from one train of thought to the other. Last night when I went to bed I thought it would be over in a mattter of hours given the fast progress in the south and the upbeat messages of surrendering troops and the likelihood that Saddam and sons were killed, this morning I was not as upbeat when I realized that the Republican Guards may be fighting it out in street to street battles. Again, Shock and Awe does not give me any comfort yet.

Looking around the blogosphere no one really knows, I do not think CNN or FOX really know, so all we can do is digest every snippet of news, draw our own interim conclusions and hope that it will be over soon.

Lots of discussions this morning also on potential War Crimes trials: should we sent the captured Iraqi leadership off to The Hague like Milosevic and friends, court martial them on the spot or go for a hybrid Iraqi/International style court in Baghdad? Chances that anyone of them will be alive to stand trial are remote and if anyone is left: do not sent them to The Hague, do it in Iraq with local help, the Iraqi people need to purge their own institutions as a way to rebuild their country and start a process of national healing. Give them a say in it, it is their country.

I really do not want to waste too much time on the anti-war demonstrations but yesterday's rally in Amsterdam saw the return of Gretta Duisenberg. I wondered what had happened to her and thought that the avalanche of negative publicity had made her retreat from her radical and hateful posturing, but no, she's back. This time she had toned down her anti-semite rants and focused instead on "Bush's shameful behaviour" and stated that there could have been other ways in which to deal with Saddam. Yes, sure. The rally was followed by throwing paint-bombs and stones at the Spanish consulate in Amsterdam. Well, for a change they did not attack the American consulate, someone had probably noticed that Spanish PM Aznar was standing next to Bush and Blair last Sunday. At the same time a rally in The Hague got really out of hand with the burning of an Israeli flag and groups chanting "Hamas". The police subsequently arrested a few members of the Arab-European League who were behind this flag burning incident. It seems there's no longer any debate, it is just getting uglier.

Today Michael Ledeen alerts us to the fact that indeed the war on Iraq is one and the same thing as the war against terrorism: yesterday's surgical strike on Baghdad killed a Palestine Liberation Front terrorist. The focus on the weapons of mass destruction, the torture chambers and the suffering Iraqi poplulation shifted the attention away from the presence of major terror groups in Iraq. And they have been there for a long time, the infamous Abu Nidal for instance spent his last days in Baghdad. It is very clear that once Baghdad falls we will have contributed in no small part to the collapse of groups that have perpetrated the most heinous crimes in Israel and indeed all over the world. It reminds me of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communist East Germany when it became clear that the country had been a safeplace for various left-wing and Arab guerrillas. Losing support of a centrally located safehaven was a major blow for many of these terrorist groups and for some it was the end. The fall of Baghdad will be a major setback for Palestinian terrorists. I wonder how Arafat is sleeping these days.

Great atmosphere. Fresh from the BBC an update of the EC summit today in Brussels:

The French are not prepared to talk about the reconstruction of Iraq at all at the moment. People who have been at these summits and sat inside the room for many years say they cannot remember one quite as bad as this. Tony Blair and President Chirac have at least briefly shaken hands but they spent most of the time on the opposite sides of a very large room and the way they are regarding one another at the moment, it's probably a good thing.

This by the way is a great online news log service with lots of war updates.

Regular visitors will know that every now and then I will throw in a bit of Dutch news. Well, today it seems that the Dutch labour party has changed its tack and is consequently enabling the formation of a new pro-war coalition government lead by the Christian Democrats. Labour leader Wouter Bos stated that “under the new circumstances, neutrality would be inappropriate” as that would only embolden Saddam. Why did it take him so long to say that? Afraid of a backlash from the left in his party? I know Wouter as he used to be a Human Resources manager for Royal Dutch Shell in Hong Kong before he entered politics and I ran into him on a regular basis while we were both working in the former British colony. He always struck me as more of a pragmatist than an idealist, which is why I was surprised that he took so long to voice support for the war. It is probably not easy to take a pro-war stance in a country like The Netherlands but if Wouter had bothered to look across the North Sea he would have taken notice of how labour’s Tony Blair had managed to do that. Anyway, better late than never.

New feature: a "Best of Peaktalk" on your right hand side. This section will link to past postings that generated most responses from my readers and which got direct links from other blogs. I thought it was probably useful to keep them upfront, especially for newcomers.

Sitting in front of the TV last night watching the first military activity, the aircraft carriers and stealth bombers, it hit me again how important a strong military is. Diplomacy is great and it very often works but a strong military apparatus is a vital ingredient to back up the diplomatic effort. It sounds obvious but for too long the world has relied on the goodwill of nations. The power balance between the US and the Soviet Union and the relative impotence of what we now call rogue nations made the world a relatively easy place to live in. Diplomacy usually worked, and if it did not there was always financial pressure with which some third world deviants could be brought into line. Massive power as is now amassed in the Gulf area was unheard of during the cold war era. If there was military action, it was usually limited and short in nature. As a result, the cold war period bred a generation of politicians and diplomats whose fundamental belief was that conflicts could be resolved through negotiation and, through multilateral institutions. The ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and the rise of terrorist sponsoring states such as Iraq, North Korea and Iran require the international community to fundamentally reshape its thinking and the way it deals with regional conflicts that may spread to other parts of the world. Diplomacy, however laudable, is only a part of the “conflict resolving package”, it can never stand on its own, at least not anymore.

The difficulty of the cumbersome process that we have gone through with the UN is evidence that the international community at large is going through a very difficult phase of reshaping its thinking. The world after the fall of the Soviet Empire is not the loosely knitted group of states that will migrate to prosperity and democracy as we were hoping after the fall of the Berlin Wall. On the contrary, smaller nations that have developed a capability to destabilize the world together with terrorist groups that wage an asymmetrical war have created a world that needs an entirely different way of conflict management. The US coalition currently active in Iraq is only the first step in the direction of dealing with a dramatically different world, and that message is starting to sink in now, although very slowly. Don Rumsfeld was right about the “Old Europe and New Europe” comparison but it extends well beyond Europe. The world community at large needs to reshape its thinking and for now the US is taking the lead, yet others will have to face the new realities. Given the reactions to the start of hostilities that will probably take a while.

The faster Saddam’s regime collapses, the stronger the case for building and maintaining a state of the art military and it should not be the US alone to do that. It is the duty of those who value their freedom and wish to preserve it and are willing to pay a heavy price for that. It reminds me of this great poster of Ronald Reagan: “Peace through Strength”, more than ever a vital message.

As promised I will share with you my rage over the shameful performance of the Canadian government this week. To be clear: I am not a Canadian but I happen to live here and as such I have a bit of an insight into what is going on here. First of all, the government here made it very clear that it does not support the US-led coalition that will go to war in Iraq in what is now a matter of hours. The key reason is that the Canadian government does not believe that this action is legal and it further believes that, like France and Germany, more time for weapons inspections by the UN is required.

The centerpiece of their argument is seriously flawed. UN resolution 1441 provides sufficient legal ground to attack Iraq and in addition there is a very strong argument to intervene in situations where urgent humanitarian needs require this. The latter has happened in Bosnia and Kosovo and it did not happen in Rwanda, the latter being one of the worst human tragedies of the past century and for which the UN is still carrying a huge portion, if not all, of the blame. Beyond the strict legal argument there is the right for each and every country to defend itself against attacks or harm that may come to visit its citizens. Again, the Iraqi arms build-up as well as its terrorist connections prove a substantial ground for action especially in light of the attack on Kuwait in 1990 as well as the numerous attacks on Iraq’s Kurdish population. I am stating the obvious here, but it is leading into the following argument.

If you still believe, in spite of the all strong arguments noted above, that after 12 years of arguments and sanctions it is not right to attack Iraq, you may very well make that point, but you lose all credibility if you fail to support your closest friends that are willing to stand up to the source of evil that is confronting the world. With American, British and Australian soldiers likely to die in the next few days, the least you could do as a friend and ally is to express some level of support to your friends and especially to your closest neighbor who also happens to be your major customer, in this case buying 85% of everything that you export abroad. And not only that, that southern neighbor also provides for your security as you have miserably neglected to do anything about your own defense and you have indicated a considerable degree of unwillingness to integrate security arrangements for a North American perimeter that might have benefited the security of your and your neighbor’s citizens. The legacy of Prime Minister Chretien is that he has relegated the status of a once powerful nation like Canada to that of a completely irrelevant bystander that even in times of acute danger can not bring itself to support those that are willing to contain the danger and are taking on the dirty work. Compare the Canadian PM to the British PM, compare their respective parliamentary performances earlier this week and it is not difficult to see that Chretien can not even stand in Blair’s shadow. As I have argued earlier on this site, you do not always have to agree with one another but you can at least make some effort to sit at the table and participate in the discussion. Yes, that will require you to give up some of your cherished ideals but that is something all of us do on a day-to-day basis: there is a real world out there. If I walked away from every client that I have because in most cases I do not always agree fully with what they are doing, then I would be unable to help shape their businesses and I would be sure to not have any business myself. Is that not true for everyone in a working relationship? Give up some of your ideals to be part of a team, you will at least be ensured a continued income flow and an ability to shape the process because you’re involved and a part of it even though you do not always like it.

The Canadian government has chosen not to participate. I have spoken to many Canadians in the past 48 hours and a significant number is deeply ashamed of what is happening. Canada also does not have the luxury to put itself in a situation like this. The French and Germans may retreat into their European fortress and survive, but in Canada’s case there is a tonne of bi-lateral issues on the American-Canadian table that the American government now will not even bother to look at. Why would they ?

If, and this is something I hope and feel will happen, the campaign in Iraq is short, weapons of mass destruction will turn up, and masses of Iraqi civilians will enthusiastically hail American, British and Australian liberators into their country, then Chretien and his cabinet will be toast, both on a national and international level. They will have deserved this as they are not acting in the best interests of the Canadian people, do not show loyalty and respect for their best friends and fail to help where human need is urgent. Their stance in this matter is disgraceful.

It’s been hectic the past 24 hours, hence the light blogging. In addition, there is so much to absorb in terms of news and events that I have to sit down, digest it all and pick up a few themes on which to elaborate. One no doubt will be the appalling performance by the Canadian government. In my quest for more news I have come across a few interesting blogs that I encourage you to visit. In Denmark it is the DaghtatorBlog, in Canada you will find the Canadian Loudmouths and be sure to call into Right We Are!, two women on the right side. Yesterday I got linked by Amitiai Etzioni, thanks, and I likewise encourage you to visit his new blog here.

I am glued to my screen. Here's Tony Blair's speech he has just given in the House of Commons. Go read it.

Update: Blair survived, a government motion was just passed. Tony Blair deserved this very important show of support. I wonder how this will affect other nations that are still on the fence.

The irony is now that those who decided not to support the war or tried to wreck the UN resolution are scrambling for a position that will leave them some room to maneuver. This applies in particular to the French who have now said that they will change their perception of the situation once Iraq will start to use chemical or biological weapons.

In the meantime, the Dutch government has restated its position and now says that it supports the war “politically” but not militarily. The latter is an important point as the Dutch Prime Minister stated that Resolution 1441 provided enough grounds to go to war. Fine, so 1441 was good enough after all, a sentiment echoed by Japan’s PM, Koizumi. And in Canada the Prime Minister has refused to take the drastic position that the French had taken by not condemning the war. What I expect will happen is that this positioning will intensify over the next few days and weeks and will fluctuate with the developments on the battlefield. A lot will also depend on what the outcome is for Tony Blair who is facing his party and parliament as I am writing this. There’s a lot going on so I will update regularly with short pieces in the next few days.

For all the discussions and rhetoric over the war, let's be clear on one thing: there are men and women who are going to fight on our behalf. Our thoughts should be with them as well as with their families.

For Americans and Brits, but especially for people who are frustrated that their governments are not supporting this important war here's a chance to do something: support the troops. Over at RWN John Hawkins has started a campaign to leave messages for the troops. Another option is to go to Trooptrax, a project that is sending music to the troops. Peaktalk recommends both strongly.

No doubt, this was one of Bush’s better speeches. We do not need anymore adjectives like tired, firm, resolved, no, Bush delivered a speech that was what it should be: the Commander-in-Chief talking. On the one hand being forceful and decisive and on the other hand reassuring to the home front and to the people of Iraq. The centerpiece was of course the ultimatum and it gave the speech the decisive momentum it needed. The first time I saw a US President taking the stage with a forceful and reassuring message was in 1975 when President Gerald Ford announced that US Marines had captured the American ship Mayaguez off the coast of Cambodia after it had been taken by communist rebels. At the time it had a very profound impact on me. It does of course not compare in magnitude to what is happening now, but for me it was the first time I witnessed the reassuring force of American freedom and justice, wherever in the world, symbolized by the office of the President of the USA. Last night, I witnessed it again.

Update on who is willing to join the coalition of the willing. There are no big surprises here: Australia is in and Canada is out. My native Holland, a staunch atlantic supporter over the years is backing out, the current government led by the Christian Democrats is under a lot of pressure from the Dutch Labour party as they are together building a new coalition government. It seems weird that the Dutch left is leaving Blair out in the cold. I am disappointed. It will be very important now to take a position, shaping the world during and after this war will become the exclusive domain of those that are willing to fight for it. If you're not in, you will be out for a long time to come.

We are now counting down to war. It is happening this week and the stakes are high. One leader deserves all the praise and support he can get in the next week, especially now that some of his own cabinet members are deserting him. Look at what he said yesterday during the Azores press conference (underlining is mine):

“ … on the transatlantic alliance is, I think, very important. Some of you will have heard me say this before, but let me just repeat it. I believe that Europe and America should stand together on the big issues of the day. I think it is a tragedy when we don't. And that transatlantic alliance is strong and we need to strengthen it still further”

Well said Tony Blair. I did not like him when he was elected Prime Minister in 1997 and thought he was Clintonesque, without a vision, dancing in the middle of the political spectrum. Well, I was wrong. If ever in recent history someone stepped up to the plate is such dramatic fashion it is Blair. For the sake of the world he must survive the political onslaught he will face in his own party this week. Let's all hope he will.

So what about France, does the European-born Peaktalker have any opinions here, or concerns or a reaction? Well, I thought about it long and hard and I think it is time to forego a well-constructed political argument. The whole Chirac charade was expected although I must say that it surprised me that they were willing to push it this far, or as Bush said it in yesterday’s press conference on the Azores: “France showed their cards”. So I have decided on a somewhat lighter approach to my dealings with France.

In Europe in the 1970s there were really three major holiday destinations of choice for the Dutch: stay at home, Spain and France. Going to France was usually equated with taste and an appreciation of all things cultural so I ended up spending a lot of time with my parents in France, from the beautiful Riviera, to Bretagne, Normandy (D-Day memorials) to Paris to the Alpes for skiing. Great holidays, great fun, interesting history and for a young boy it was a thrill to go to France. For the generation of my parents France became some sort of a cultural benchmark: French wine, French cheese and, yes, they also brushed off their basic school French and started to take French lessons again. Some people even started to serve up French cheese as a snack before dinner, something that even the average Frenchman would find absolutely ludicrous.

In spite of all of this I never connected with French culture that deeply, a visit to Greece spelled a love affair with that country and an Israeli visit unleashed a passion for Israel (look at my post of March 2). While Paris in Dutch folklore is heralded as that great city of lights and beacon of culture I was not really captivated by a great city until I visited London in 1978. What was ever so special about Paris if there was something called London ? The international atmosphere, the language, the architecture, the pubs, the theaters, the commercialism in this thriving metropolis left Paris in the dust and it was not a surprise that my first real job application was for a bank in London.

So, for some reason I immediately connected with Anglo-Saxon culture and Britain in a way that I never connected with its opposite in Europe, France. Maybe, there is a deeper reason for it as all children want to prove their parents wrong or show that they have set out on a materially different course. There is some merit to the argument that I rejected the French and their culture precisely because of this. To this date my parents bring out French wine when I visit them and my father continues to be unconvinced of the great American and Australian wines I serve whenever he visits my home. And yes, I get panic attacks when people suggest that “French immersion” is the way to go when it comes to education here in Canada. I just do not connect with it and I always feel it is necessary to make a point that I distance myself from whatever is French. Which of course did not stop me from highlighting my French language skills whenever I applied for a job.

I never visited France again since my childhood years until the mid-90s when I lived in Asia. On a business trip to New York and after spending 2 weeks in a hotel on Fifth Avenue I had to fly back to Hong Kong and had decided to go via Europe and stopover in Paris for a meeting about a potential telecom deal in Indonesia with a large French conglomerate. Mind you, you are seriously spoilt if you have spent two weeks at the Peninsula but I will never forget the reaction in the Paris hotel when I turned up (after an overnight flight), a bit too early. I was basically told to get lost for I had dared to show up too early, there was no room available and, no, I could not shower and change for my meeting and it was a problem and it would take a while for them to find an alternative arrangment for me. I am a quiet and easygoing guy but when I have a meeting to go to and it appears I am not going to make it in time I can become quite agitated so I got angry. So I had to raise my voice and eventually I got a room to change, but right there at that moment I knew once and for all that Anglo-Saxon culture and manners had so much more than this arrogant, bizarre, French behaviour. Now you may not get that at every hotel in Paris but the contrast between New York and Paris at that moment was too much for me. I got the room, made the meeting but did not get the Indonesian deal, which in retrospect was for the better but that is a different story.

In summary, despite good memories from my childhood years, I have never developed a warm bond with the French. Their attitude over the past few months in relation to Iraq has hardly been a surprise to me and I decided not to spent too much time on it. Somehow it was a given and it brought back some memories and feelings that I thought I’d share with you.

I have reason to believe that the demographic for country music fans closely overlaps the Republican demographic so hold on to your seat whoever distributes Dixie Chick music, the fall out has apparently already started. But talking about music and the war, here’s a new blog that combines jazz and right wing politics: Berkeley Square, go have a look.

The long wait for a conclusion to the failed attempts to get a UN resolution has yielded a number of very interesting and somewhat unexpected results. The most obvious one is the deep rift between the US and Old Europe which in turn will remove any chance of Britain becoming a solid part of Europe once and for all. It will also have resulted in the irrelevance of the UN as a policy making and enforcing institution, to the extent it ever was. These changes will reshape the international landscape for years to come and, I think, they will change the landscape for the better.

What has also happened is that the anti-war sentiments have become distinctly uglier over the past few months. The past week served up a smorgasbord of invective that, I have to say, is becoming quite scary. Let’s highlight a few:

(1) Democrat Congressman Moran has accused the Jewish community in the US of pressuring the Bush administration to go to war;
(2) In La Habra, California a shrine remembering September 11 was demolished by ‘peace’ activists;
(3) One of the singers of country group the Dixie Chicks found it necessary during a concert to apologize for the fact that Bush was also a Texan;
(4) An extremely sad installment came out of Concordia University in Montreal (was it not the same university where Benjamin Netanyahu was prevented from speaking a little while ago?) were a painting showing the World Trade Center towers protruding from President Bush's unzipped pants was on display;
(5) And to top it all off there is now a threat to create real damage to the Vandenberg Air Force base in California in an effort to disrupt the war.

So we are seeing rhetoric straight out of Adolf Hitler’s book who blamed the Second World War on an international Jewish conspiracy. Comments like this are beyond the pale, especially when they come from a US Congressman. In addition, the memory of more than 3,000 innocent people is being trampled by people who call themselves ‘peace’ activists. And now with threats against US military installations, our men and women on the front line are being endangered.

The above nastiness is an age old dynamic at work. If you can not win the debate, try, slander, try invective, throw out some hate and no doubt some of it will stick. It is the inability of the anti-war movement to conduct a normal debate along the lines of “I do not agree with you because of A, B and C”. It happened in Holland recently where conservative-libertarian Fortuyn was demonized by the larger political parties and branded a racist and even compared to Mussolini. None of this was even close to the truth but the left-leaning political establishment found it impossible to argue with his sharp and well-documented rationale, so the only option left open was slander. This demonization created a climate wherein an environmental activist found sufficient justifcation to pump four bullets into Fortuyn’s head.

Now that their arguments do not longer stand up and rather than try and make a better case the time has come to unleash the devil. This analogy may sound dramatic but we are getting close to more very unpleasant scenes. And if I see this weekend’s peace demonstrations I wonder if they have any sensible argument left. The “blood for oil” slogans for instance were again numerous. Did I not see a video a month ago where demonstrators when asked why if it was about oil we did not take the oil 12 years ago had absolutely no answer, not one of them? And what about “Bush has no congressional approval” Didn’t he get that twice ? I have another great example. Last week I got an e-mail using “years of American occupation” as a an argument against the war. Sure, a continuation of Saddam’s 25 year rule is certainly preferable to any amount of time that you have to live under Americans. Sad stuff, there’s really no other description for it.

The only way to end this debate is to get results and I expect we will see them very soon as war now seems only days away. Yet, I fear that it will not silence some of last week’s hatemongers. Some of them are so full of resentment that they will need very little to bring it out at the next possible occasion. People that trivialize 9-11, people that gladly bring out nazi-like demonization of Jewish citizens are not likely to bow out quietly.

It is almost a daily event but I will try and restrict it to a weekly one on Peaktalk: bizarre initiatives from the Canadian federal government. This week they launched an initiative to burn $650 million on a French language initiative for French speakers outside the province of Quebec and for English speakers inside Quebec. The purpose is of course to strengthen and maintain the French language. This I think is an uphill battle given the long term demographics of North America and strengthening the French language at the expense of a majority of English speaking taxpayers is wasting money to please a few special interest groups. The $650 million would have been well spent on teaching the next generation of Canadians some languages that will make them competitive in the world marketplace of tomorrow. What languages? Look at North American demographics and international economic trends and there’s your answer: Spanish and Mandarin. In addition to the English and Dutch my children are getting I know where I will spent my funds for language training. Not on French.

Bloggers have a life that is not entirely devoted to blogging although it sometimes seems it is the only thing they do. We know what Glenn Reynolds does, we know what Andrew Sullivan does and Rachel Lucas gives us regular updates of her work.

What is it that I do? Well, it’s interesting but I decided when I moved to North America to leverage my financial and business skills to help build smaller companies. A great idea on paper, not easy to achieve, especially not in the current economic climate. One of the roles I am currently busy with is as CFO of a small new media company. As CFO the idea was and is to do all the financial affairs, investors relations and legal work. Well, in practice I do that but I spent most of my time listening to other people, trying to resolve conflicts, and above all manage expectations. The latter part is very challenging especially when you take into account the fact that we are all dealing with well educated and astute people so you would think that when it comes to certain business related aspects of the company they would have some sort of a plug-in to reality. Well, they do not and it is up to me to very often to deliver these reality checks. Yesterday I spent the better part of the day talking and listening and sometimes descending into utter amazement over some of the statements that were made. So I was a little tired yesterday, I am not good at participating in endless meetings and my mind often wanders off during meetings like that, crafting my next blog, honestly. By the time I hit the PC I have usually mapped the whole thing out in my mind.

And then there’s the creative part of the work. Last night I spent quite a bit of time going through a script for a digitally animated feature production that this new media company has in development. So, I am dragged into things that I should not be involved in but sometimes I need to and most often I learn a lot from it and I really enjoyed reading the script while picking up a few inconsistencies in the storyline. So what I am doing really is providing value on a number of different levels and in the process I am learning a lot. A savvy banker who thought he knew it all is now sharing some of that know-how and in the process is retooling his own skill set. And, yes, he can blog about it.

I had resolved not to write about Elizabeth Smart but the affair has had an impact on almost everyone I know in my direct environment, including myself. In thinking about it you want to know more and you are somehow looking for answers. Well, all the questions you could probably have were answered last night by Patricia Hearst on Larry King. I love interviews with Patty Hearst, she is direct, to the point and quite blunt about a variety of issues. She was very clear about what Elizabeth would be facing rebuilding her life and what the key challenges were that would prevent her from doing that. The basic message was that she should rebuild it together with her family with as little interference as possible from the outside world, and that includes both prosecution and defense lawyers. Too much of that could potentially result in abuse worse than that she suffered at the hands of her kidnapper. In addition, the media would do Elizabeth a great favour to back off for once. I could not agree more, if we really want to help her get back to normal that is the greatest gift we can ever give her. No book deals, no interviews, no movies, no nothing. Let her move on, it will be hard enough as it is.

Silence for the storm ? Very little news on the war front it seems today, yet tons to read in the blogosphere.

The first few weeks of my blog have been really very interesting and I am getting great response and referrals from all over the place. I like to return these favours so go visit Betsy in North Carolina, Estonian blogger Unigolyn and the Chicagoboyz who are not necessarily all boys or based in Chicago but they have great stuff. I also note that LGF had a piece on Chris Patten yesterday. This coincides with Samizdata today reporting on corruprion at the European Commission. I am not suggesting anything, really, but it strikes me that there's very little positive coming out of that institution, is there?

Every now and then real disappointment hits you. A memory of the past gets tainted by the realities of the present day. What am I talking about? Here you go:

Chris Patten also challenged U.S. President George W. Bush's argument that a war to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would combat terrorism and spread democracy in the Middle East. "As a general rule, are wars not more likely to recruit terrorists than to deter them? It is hard to build democracy at the barrel of a gun, when history suggests it is more usually the product of long internal development in a society," he said.

There was a time when I deeply admired Chris Patten. That was when he was still Governor of Hong Kong. I met him a few times when I lived in Hong Kong, the last time when I picked up a few signed copies of his marvelous book “East and West”. You see, Patten was one of the people who promoted free markets and democracy as he so firmly believed in the theory that markets can flourish only in free societies where the rule of law guarantees freedom. That is why he set out to make some drastic changes in Hong Kong’s electoral process while that was still possible before the territory was handed back to China in 1997. He antagonized almost everyone at the time, the Hong Kong and international business community (who were afraid of missing out on deals with China), Hong Kong politicians (afraid of their new masters) and a variety of others who felt the need to be gentle with Beijing. Patten was at the time a lonely crusader supported by only a few. It was brave, it made sense and it was the right thing to do.

In the early 1990s, one of the widely held views was that the ‘Asian Values’ model was working: suppress dissent, use as little democracy as possible so that everyone can focus unhindered on economic growth. It was a great excuse for authoritarianism for as long as it worked. Patten questioned this socio-economic model promoted by especially Dr. Mahathir in Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. For the Chinese leadership in the 1990s under Deng Xiaoping it seemed like an ideal approach to restructure their society: capitalism with an iron fist, for which they coined the term “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. Patten at the time did not win the day as Asian economies were indeed booming beyond belief recording phenomenal economic growth rates. However, as the Asian market meltdown unfolded between 1997 and 1999 it became evident that it was precisely the lack of transparency, the inherent corruption and limited rule of law that contributed to the market collapse in Asia. Patten it seemed was right and he went on a campaign with his book and TV-show to tell the world that capitalism and free markets only thrive in free, open and transparent societies. The world was at his feet, he could have picked any job he liked but, after a brief spell advising how to restructure the Northern Ireland police, he became a Euro Commissioner. And that is where things got off track with him I guess.

His anti-war stance, his support for continued funding of the Palestinian Authority and his criticism of Israel are in sharp contrast with the liberal and freedom promoting values he stood for when he was Governor of Hong Kong. The irony is that he is a member of Britain’s Conservative Party, and that the current British Prime-Minister supporting a war against Iraq comes from the left. Chris Patten it seems has internalized a little too much of continental European thinking to a point where he is now on a collision course with Bush and Blair who are ultimately defending the free and transparent world that Patten so promoted in the 1990s. Again Chris, I am disappointed.

Again, Canada has launched an initiative with a new deadline for Iraq to disarm. The problem is, Canada is not seen as a credible partner by the U.S., Britain or Spain, the countries that are sponsoring the proposed resolution that has a March 17 deadline. The reason for that is that Canada has never bought into the fundamental concept of disarming and removing Saddam. Had they done this at an early stage, they would have been a credible partner for Bush, Blair and Aznar and they would have been able to contribute something that would have been listened to in Washington and London. It is Tony Blair who after September 11 realized where to position Britain and as a result became a credible partner for the U.S. Tony Blair is the key reason for the U.S. to have gone back to the U.N. Security Council and so Blair has been able to shape the direction of dealing with Saddam. Canada never really was a part of the discussion as it never made clear it wanted to play a meaningful role. To now at the eleventh hour enter the stage with a number of revised deadlines is in the words of one diplomat "not plausible". I would go a bit further: the proposals are irrelevant. If you want to be relevant you sit at the table from the beginning, then you have some credibility and then you can help structure the final deal. It is time Canada rethinks its foreign policy, realizes how it can help shape international policy and only then can it come back to the table with a credible vision. So far, they are still not getting it.

This really is a subject I had wanted to avoid but developments back in my native Holland prevent me from doing so. For some odd reason, few really spectacular events take place in Holland compared to the rest of the world. Well, the Dutch have had their share of tragedy over the past few years: a bungled military operation in Bosnia, the assassination of politician Pim Fortuyn and as recent as a few weeks ago an Enron-type scandal: Ahold (which by the way is the second largest food retailer in the U.S). And now, yes, it is not restricted to the Windsors, a royal scandal.

What happened ? One of the Queen Beatrix’ nieces, Princess Margarita, broke ranks with her royal family and in particular with Queen Beatrix by together with her husband giving a series of very candid interviews to various media. The key accusation made in the interviews: the Queen’s due diligence of her husband prior to her getting married was a bit too rigorous. It allegedly included wiretapping the Princess’s apartment and lifting her husband’s file from the social services department in Amsterdam. This in turn was followed by a cooling of relations between the Royal family and the Princess and husband, more wiretaps and now a fight in public. It materialized that the Queen had had access to the Dutch intelligence services directly while politically responsible ministers looked the other way. In a constitutional monarchy a sovereign is not really supposed to do anything, ministers who have their power base in a democratically elected parliament are responsible for the Queen and her family. For some reason that is not always the way it works and Princess Margarita has opened the book on the day-to-day workings of our constitutional monarch. The princess has upped the ante by filing a lawsuit against former Prime Minister Kok and two other ministers that were somehow involved. This is, believe me, heavy stuff for a nation like Holland. Breaking ranks with the Royals is usually a kiss of death and it is generally believed that Princess Margarita and her hubby have earned themselves a one-way ticket to obscurity.

People always believed that the Oranje-Nassau’s (that’s their surname) were nothing like the Windsor’s, they were normal, down to earth, had regular jobs, rode their bikes and liked the occasional drink and cigarette. Well, they are not that regular. Like Queen Elizabeth, Queen Beatrix enjoys a considerable amount of power over political matters, apparently has access to using the Dutch security and intelligence services and is unusually wealthy. This clearly defies the notion that the Dutch royals are regular folks, the reason that they were perceived as such was because their public relations have always worked very well and the Dutch media have not been as sensation driven as the British or the American. Do not expect to see Queen Beatrix’ former butler on CNN’s Larry King.

What this affair does however is that it lays bare the power structure that the Royals enjoy and that will substantially change the perception the Dutch have of their Royal family. This in turn may ultimately have an impact on their long-term constitutional role. This is a development that is not unexpected as we have seen some major changes in the way the British royals have positioned themselves in the United Kingdom following a few scandals. It was bound to happen in Holland, the irony is that it is not the press but a few disgruntled royals who found it necessary to bring their worries into the public domain. I am really ambivalent about this affair, I must say I have always liked the royals but was never really sure whether it was a modern way of structuring government. In 1999, I had the pleasure of meeting her majesty Queen Beatrix, and I was impressed because of her openness and her knowledge of affairs (it was during her state visit to China). I do not think she has deserved the public circus that is now taking place but I do think that here or there the Dutch have to modernize their royal institution somewhat.

More and more people are getting frustrated over the holding pattern we are in. Mark Steyn is venting his frustrations about this and about the 'peace' movement. I am sure he is well-known to all my North American readers, for the European and Asian crowd: go read him.

With Saddam demanding all the headlines, someone in Asia is getting very agitated over the fact that he is not getting the attention he thinks he deserves and needs. He has responded by issuing a few wacky threats and firing off a few missiles into the sea. Some have branded Kim Jong Il of North Korea the Michael Jackson of international politics, I just feel better by calling him what he effectively is: a very dangerous tyrant.

I usually do not get very nauseous over the daily news but that changes when the threat hits home directly. When CIA-director Tenet during a Senate hearing a few weeks ago confirmed that North Korean missiles could reach the North American mainland it didn’t take a lot to figure out what that meant: everyone from Alaska to California is at risk and given that me and my family are right in that target area made me quite uneasy. I have no doubt the CIA has done some analysis on the accuracy of North Korean missile technology but I think we can assume that something that is aimed at Los Angeles would end up in Vancouver and something aimed at Seattle would end up in Klamath Falls. We’re all in the line of fire.

During last week’s press conference, when prompted about North Korea, Bush qualified the North Korean issue as a regional one. The critics of the President wasted no time to explain to the rest of the world that North Korea was everything but a regional problem and that by focusing on Iraq Bush had his priorities wrong. Well, the fact of the matter is that they did not really understand what Bush was saying. He was effectively making the point that, as opposed to Iraq, there are a number of countries that border directly on North Korea and that they therefore have an equally important stake in containing North Korea. They happen to be a former superpower, a future superpower, both with nuclear capabilities, an economic powerhouse and an upcoming economic powerhouse all of whom have fairly strong ties with the U.S. and who all stand to benefit from a swift removal of Pyonyang’s version of Saddam. In other words: "Russia, China, Japan and South Korea are fairly powerful nations with an equally strong interest and the U.S. is working closely with these regional power in dealing with North Korea and it is nice for a change that America can work with a base of regional partners in cleaning up the mess rather than going it alone".

On the face of it the White House is making an argument that is not great but I think it holds water, for now. In Iraq the U.S. has very little partners to work with and in Asia it has. A regime change in North Korea would be directed at North Korea only and contrary to Iraq there are no regional issues to speak of, the “catalyst for change” argument does not apply here. I also believe (and I hope this is the case) that the Bush administration is working on a priority based list and we all know that when the “Axis of Evil” was launched as a concept it meant that each constituent would get its turn at some point. We are currently working on Iraq, Iran and North Korea will follow shortly. On a different level the administration must have a sense that North Korea is not as yet plugged into terror networks but that is an assumption that has a limited shelf life. The more desperate Kim gets, the more desperate his moves and exporting some of his technology elsewhere is only a matter of time.

All in all, we are being asked to make a lot of assumptions with regards to North Korea and its nuclear adventures. The efforts of the Clinton administration have been a solid waste of time so we now have to build our hope on this administration following through on its commitment to deal with the Axis of Evil. I will buy into their strategy for now but want to give my recommendation for the sequence of events: 1. North Korea, 2. Iran.

The CBC is not noted for its pro-American attitudes but for some reason they do some unique reporting on America. This morning they ran a fairly long piece on Texas in order to see what shaped President Bush by talking to a variety of people in Texas and visiting the Alamo. The message that came through loud and clear was that Texas is driven by a combination of unique optimism and a spirit of independence.

That spirit comes hand in hand with the strong commitment to free markets and pushing business opportunities as far as possible. While Enron was an example of the latter, one of the interviewed Texans pointed out that the Enron debacle and other tragedies (like the recent Columbia disaster) were also events that caused spirits to soar because even in the event of tragedy there was a sense of purpose, a sense of quest. Texans picked up the pieces and moved on with optimism. This radio documentary was a great start of my day as it provided me with a real dose of optimism. I may be stating a few obvious facts but these days we can use all the optimism there is and the Texan brand is probably a pretty good one. Maybe Texas should start to export some of their positive thinking as a product to the rest of the world, I think they will have a huge market here in Canada.

To John Hawkins' readers, his RWN today listed Peaktalk as his Website of the Day. Thanks and keep coming !

Gathers momentum. According to Bob Dole we are dealing with a hangover from the 1990s and Clinton goes on about the tax cut. Look at my "Worried Bush" post below: it is going to get very interesting from here on.

Many have commented that President Bush looked tired and exhausted, even wiped, during last week’s press conference. I agree absolutely, but I do not think that this is only a result of the pressure he is under because of the upcoming war in Iraq. I think the President is coming to realize that a force far harder to control than Saddam is creeping into the picture. That force is the U.S. economy.

Bush has made it clear time and again that he will not fall into the same sword as his father did a little over 10 years ago but I have the feeling that economic woes are starting to cast a very dark shadow over his presidency. His worrisome look to me is evidence that he knows that even a quick victory in Iraq will not be sufficient to bring about a mood of confidence that will enable a swift re-election. On the contrary, once Iraq is resolved, the media will turn to the disturbing economic picture that is emerging. This is something that Bush’s opponents for 2004 will look to for political gain as a successful war against Iraq is something they really can’t use to their benefit as they so virulently opposed it.

The economic indicators coming out of the U.S. over the last few weeks are not very encouraging and what is worse, the U.S. Dollar has taken a severe beating since the beginning of the year. Now some would argue that a falling dollar will make the U.S. more competitive but we should acknowledge that the rapidly falling dollar is a result of funds fleeing the U.S. and looking for safer havens in this time of turmoil. This exodus of capital also contributes to falling stock markets which in turn further deteriorates the climate in which to raise funds or to invest. January this year was the first month in 30 years in which no IPO took place, I do not know what happened in February to IPO activity but if anyone knows, tell me. Our economic system is still digesting the excess 1990s and a real return to growth can only be effected by an enthusiastic and confident return to investment. That is precisely why Bush cut the taxes on dividends and is increasing government spending: a climate needs to be created where people that sit on capital are willing to put it at risk again or where for a lack of investment government all of a sudden becomes an important investor. I can tell from my own experiences doing consulting work for small firms that currently seek fresh capital: it is tough out there at the moment and the investors that are on the sidelines need very little reason to stay there for a while to come.

With that in mind we can only hope that progress on the international scene can translate itself into some economic growth at home. Yet it remains to be seen if with the disappearance of uncertainty dollars will come flowing back into the market place. Deficit financing by the Bush administration has a whiff of desperateness to me and from an investor’s perspective may bring as much comfort as concern. Bush knows this and he will also know that blasting an Iraqi dictator out of his palace can be done much faster than turning a troubled economy around. There's you're root cause for his worries. I hope a market rebound following the end of hostilities in Iraq can deliver something to Bush that so far his economic team has not been able to deliver.

Every so often you come across bizarre snippets of news. Saturday’s New York Times (sorry can’t get the URL) alerted us to the fact that the Bosnian Serbs have been ordered by the Human Rights Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina to pay US$2 million in compensation for the massacre of muslims in Srebrenica in 1995. The money will be used to build a memorial at the graveyard where families of the victims plan to bury the remains of their relatives once they have been identified. Apparently, part of the funds will also be applied to DNA testing which is quite expensive.

While this is a step in the right direction it appears to me to be a bizarre one. How would relatives of Israelis killed in the recent suicide bombings react to the news that the Palestinian Authority would be paying for a memorial at their relatives’ gravesite? Is this not adding insult to injury? I applaud the fact that steps are being taken to address past wrongs, but let’s not forget what really happened in Srebrenica as it represents one of the darkest chapters in Europe's recent history. Innocent civilians had fled to Srebrenica as the United Nations had declared this city a safe-haven. When Bosnian Serb forces captured the city women and children were separated from the men and most of the men were executed. The UN forces present failed to intervene, rendering the term ‘UN safe haven’ a meaningless concept that ultimately cost many innocents their lives. While the Bosnian Serbs are first and foremost responsible let’s not forget about another party that carries a huge portion of the blame here. The UN failed miserably in Bosnia and if the time is there for reparation payments maybe it is time that the UN is taken to court.

Much of Thursday was spent in anticipation of the press conference, rumors were circling around that President Bush would have important news, some people suggested the capture of OBL. Well, that was not the case. I was not able to get everything he said as my two-and-a-half year old daughter tried to convince me continuously that Barney was a better thing to watch on TV by saying “this not fun watching”. My response that a very important guy was trying to make a very important point did not really make any impression on her.

Although no big surprises were delivered, it was in a lot of respects a crucial press conference that set the stage for the endgame with Iraq. The single most important thing was that we are now in the final stages of diplomacy and that the U.S. will press on with a Security Council vote essentially calling other countries’ bluff. No fudging the issue, let’s get clarity once and for all of who is with us and who is not. It is important as it will also address any issues that may come up if a military campaign against Iraq is concluded as it will be very clear who was in favour and who was against. The President went on to say that regardless of the Security Council outcome we will do what is best as "when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission." One of Bush’s trademarks is his unique clarity and last night he again delivered that, a relief in an international setting where indecision and inaction have been the benchmark over the past few years.

There were a few smaller points that got my attention. A possible war against Iraq is one and the same thing as the war on terror, said the President. Notably the Democrats have tried to make the argument that a war on Iraq would distract us from a war on terror. Not so, as I have argued here before, it is one and the same thing and I was very pleased that the President was unequivocal about this. The President also noted that a regime change would be a ‘catalyst for change’ in the Middle East. He’s right to emphasize that point as it is one of the underlying reasons for taking action against Iraq. It reflects my post of yesterday that said that the Arab world has been unable to bring about democracy and order in the Middle East and that it is now very likely that others will have to initiate that process. The Arabs can do it, but, they need a strong hand: a catalyst.

In summary, the President reiterated his case and laid out very clearly again what’s at stake and what he intends to do about it. More than once he invoked the pledge he made to protect the people of the United States of America and he underlined that this is his constitutional duty. My little daughter was probably right, on the face of it it was not a great TV-show but the message that was delivered was very important.

So Canada may be going to war in Iraq after all. Good. Why don't they just say that ?

Politics and Markets I promised but I have posted precious little on the 'markets'. As you can read in the 'About' section 'markets' is a pretty wide concept so I guess I am still within my mandate. The real reason I did not report on anything relating to financial markets is that this blog is proving to be therapeutic, I have hardly looked at the markets since starting Peaktalk, the political scene is taking most of my time now. That is probably for the better as markets have been moving in one direction only: down.

My “Voices from the Middle East” post got me thinking. The Arab world is hopelessly divided and now fearful as well, witness yesterday’s meeting in Qatar. They know they have lost the initiative and it will now to a very large extent be up to the U.S. and a few other Western nations to redraw the map in the Middle East. Don’t they at the end of the day have themselves to blame? Why have they not attempted to take matters into their own hands and forged some sort of Arab consensus that would have helped in preventing this war?

They have been backing the wrong horse (Arafat) they have refused to take on the black sheep in their own group (Saddam) and have done precious little against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. The Gulf War of 1991 should have been a red flag for the Arab world and I clearly remember that during and after that war there was talk about democracy and modernization in the air, Arab nations like Kuwait would change for the better. Yet, very little happened and the voices for change disappeared as quickly as they had arrived on the scene. Yesterday’s meeting in Qatar was a stark reminder that the Arab world has given up the will to shape it own destiny. It is now up to others.

Interesting radio report this morning from the Middle East. The CBC has reporters all over the place and they were trying to paint a picture of what the atmosphere was like in various Middle Eastern locations. CBC is not exactly pro-war but it struck me that none of the reports was making a strong case against the war. On the contrary. The 400,000 Iraqi refugees in Jordan are more than pleased to see things finally moving in Iraq. And the Iraqi’s themselves, what is their biggest fear? An interesting picture emerged from talking to the few people that were willing to speak to Western reporters. Their fear is not the bombs, not the Americans, no, their biggest fear is Saddam. They fear that he will go out with a bang and torch his own country, killing his own people and destroying the few assets they have.

Some in North America have become so frustrated with French and German attitudes that they are seriously promoting a boycott of French and German produce. In the case of wine it is not such a difficult choice, I'll have a Napa or Sonoma cabernet over any French red. But seriously, I do not believe in this approach. Boycotts and sanctions have never worked. They always lead to anger and frustration on both sides of the equation and most often hit those who stand to benefit most from the exchange of goods and who can least afford economic loss. I will always remember anti-apartheid activists in The Netherlands who found it necessary to smash the stores of non-suspecting liquor store owners who carried some South African wines in their collections. It does not make sense and it does not work.

Today we have witnessed another installment in the continuing French-German soap opera that has lead to a very serious rift between the U.S. and a number of European countries. The Russians are tagging along, which is a disappointment, and it is now very clear it is no longer about Saddam but about creating a European counterbalance to the U.S. and to some extent to the United Kingdom. Tony Blair's genuine efforts to act as a bridge between the U.S. and continental Europe have not worked. From the point of view of a Euro-skeptic this may all be for the better, but it is very disappointing nonetheless. My disappointment stems from the fact that the democracies of the Western world are no longer able to speak with a unified voice and have given Saddam a victory of sorts by piling delay upon delay leading in turn to prolonged inaction. The longer this diplomatic farce drags on the more Saddam wins, the longer U.S. troops have to wait to move in and the greater the likelihood that the reign of terror claims more victims. The sickening attack today on a bus in Haifa is a dreadful reminder of the fact that this reign of terror continues unabated. Suicide bombers and their families are subsidized by, among others, Saddam.

I have to say, I am not surprised as to how this diplomatic chess game is playing out and in a way I am glad to see that the hold on European politics that the French and Germans have had over the past few decades is beginning to fray. Strong dissent from a number of Eastern Europe countries and a further strengthening of the ties between the U.K. and the U.S. will reshape the European continent for decades to come. Even the Dutch government, notoriously weak for raising an independent voice within Europe, today communicated its utter dismay over the way the French and Germans are handling matters.

The efforts of the French and Germans to build a strong unified Europe as a counterbalance to the U.S. were well on track during the 1980s and early 1990s under Mitterand and Kohl. The process hit some serious bumps in the road during the course of the 1990s when Europe was incapable to deal with the ravages of war in the former Yugoslavia and the U.S had to intervene in both Bosnia and Kosovo. The new Eastern European democracies instantly learned that the real deal was coming out of Washington and not out of Brussels, Paris or Berlin. Now the picture is even clearer and a fractured Europe will have to refind its balance. With a disinterested America and a disappointed United Kingdom it will be a very difficult and long process.

My first week was pretty good in terms of traffic and feedback, more than I expected and I thank you all. Yesterday I got a great referral from PejmanPundit and I likewise suggest you go and visit his site, he has great stuff. Sari gave a great endorsement over the weekend and so did the Israpundit. Go visit them I suggest.

My piece yesterday on pre-emption coincided with this piece on the subject. We may soon be able to bring out a handbook on this subject as we may unfortunately need it in the next few years.

I am getting a lot of questions about the peak, so I owe you all an answer. It is the Machapuchare in Nepal. No, I have not climbed it. My accomplishments in that department are limited to the Lantau Peak and Tai Mo Shan in Hong Kong. While not that high (834 and 958 meters respectively) they qualify as serious suicide attempts in 35 degrees centigrade and 88% humidity. Especially if you run out of water.

It must have been September last year when the Bush administration put forward its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. I must say I was quite pleased to see that the concept of rolling back rogue nations was actually getting implemented at the highest levels. I was however not keen about the prospect of having to listen to all the verbal abuse that would come from the usual suspects following this important policy initiative.

Let me fast forward to the present and note that a number of the so-called usual suspects (France, Germany, Canada) seem to have a problem with the fact that going into Iraq does not only mean disarming Saddam but also getting rid of him for good. This weekend Canada’s PM Chretien started to backtrack on earlier statements because he was concerned about the potential of who will be next on the list to be disarmed and disposed of. What was he thinking? That we would go into Iraq, disarm Saddam, and then pack up and go? The usual suspects always seem to think that the idea of pre-emption is equal to an unleashed and unrestrained America that goes wherever it likes using the full gamut of its military capability to do whatever it likes. This very simplistic view ignores the considerable constraints on the policy of pre-emption. Let me outline what I think they are and I will not include the United Nations as the past few weeks have clearly demonstrated that obtaining UN approval for any military action is no longer a very productive way of going to war to protect your citizenry from biological, chemical and possible nuclear attacks.

So, what are the constraints placed on pre-emption? I think they are: (a) approval from Congress to use military force; (b) public opinion in the U.S. and in the countries allied with the U.S. and (c) the physical capability to use a military apparatus for various pre-emptive strikes. If you look at these constraints it is not hard to connect the dots and say, the constraints on using pre-emptive strikes are the constraints placed on any executive power by a free, democratic and open society. The Bush administration has to work with Congress, has to deal with the public at large and has to make sound judgment calls in allocating the necessary resources to the Pentagon’s budget which in turn is driven by Congress which in turn answers to the American voter. The test of the ballot box combined with the unique force of public opinion act as checks and balances on the Administration’s ability to wage war. This is exactly why acts of pre-emption are so justified as they are validated by the very people they seek to protect.

Did Tony Blair not get a vote of approval in the House of Commons last week to go to war? Did George Bush not seek approval from Congress? Are Bush and Blair likely to go to their respective legislatures for any pre-emptive strike on say North Korea and will they in doing so not factor in the public mood as well as any upcoming election? I think they will and it is therefore that free societies should have the inalienable right to undertake pre-emptive military action when necessary. The assumption that free societies should not have this right is ludicrous for if you make that assumption you are effectively saying, yours is not a free society.

Just think of the reverse. Is Saddam going to convene the Iraqi parliament to discuss his next military adventure? Maybe he will and in that case imagine of what will happen to the dissenting members in his Baath party. Will they be doing press interviews? I don’t think so. A close examination of dictatorships around the world tells us that it is precisely in these totalitarian societies that the executive embarks on military adventures without any legislative approval or public support. On the contrary, the unfettered executive dictator usually blows his entire budget on military gadgets while leaving his population at large in dire circumstances. Healthcare in North Korea? Pension plans in Iraq?

There is a lot of behind closed doors negotiation going on with regards to the next UN resolution while the military build-up continues. We are in waiting mode. A good moment to look at some interesting numbers that Time Magazine published last week (I usually get around to read stuff like this only a week after it has rolled into my mailbox). While a majority in the U.S. clearly supports the use of military force to remove Saddam it is very interesting to see that the younger generation (ages 18 to 29) supports the war effort by a solid 63% while of the older group (age 65 and over) only 40% supports a direct attempt to remove Saddam.

It is not a complete surprise as these numbers have been floating around for a while and in my weekly conversations with my retired father I detect similar sentiments. Why ? Is this not the generation that lived through World War II and saw the brutal excesses of totalitarian despotism with their own eyes or have these experiences shaped them in such a way that they never want to see war again ? It may also be that the Vietnam War has shaped their thinking and that they have become overly conservative in giving the nod to the use of military force. Or maybe they want to live the remainng years of their lives in a world where war has no chance of affecting the lives of their children and grandchildren. It is probably a combination of all, in any case Charlotte Beers has her work cut out for her.

What is encouraging though is that the younger generation is behind the plans to go to war. I will revisit this issue in the weeks to come as I feel it is an important one and it merits further discussion.

Some of my readers may ask what a pro-American Dutchman who has lived in the UK and Hong Kong is doing in Vancouver, Canada. Well, here's the answer.

I was having lunch today with a few local lawyers who expressed some concern that Vancouver is no longer number one on the list. Well, if we're second only to Zurich (no offense to the Swiss), I can live with it.

Stefan of Shark Blog calls me the antidote to Gretta Duisenberg. Starting out this blog less than a week ago I set myself some objectives but becoming Mrs. Duisenberg’s antidote was not one of them, however I thank him for his compliment because the behaviour of the lady in question (for those of you familiar with the case) has been truly appalling. Please have look here for some backgound on the Duisenberg story.

It ties nicely into an e-mail I received asking what has changed in Holland since the 1970s when the country was so enormously pro-Israel. The short answer is, I do not know, I left Holland 13 years ago and an awful lot has happened since then. However I can hazard a guess and I think it boils down to a unique form of resentment combined with the Dutch’s natural empathy for the underdog. Remember that out of the 120,000 Jews living in Holland prior to World War II an approximate 20,000 survived and it gave the Dutch an immense feeling of guilt. That guilt translated into the aforementioned inborn empathy for the underdog and consequently resulted in strong support for Israel and a very warm relationship with Israel ensued. That lasted until the early 80s when Israel invaded Lebanon and the Palestinians were getting some coverage for their plight in Western media. At that time Israel had become a prosperous, strong and self-reliant nation which prompted the Dutch tendency to cut Israel back down to size and this what I call that strange form of resentment: anyone who rises above what is average or standard is cut back to that average size. “If you’re acting normal, you’re weird enough” is an old Dutch proverb, believe it or not. If you drive a big Mercedes in the U.S. you’re someone who has had success but if you do that in Holland you’re a show-off and you need to be brought back to the boring grey average. This is what happened to Israel: it had just become a little too successful for comfort and the guilt over what had happened in the Second World War had been more than compensated, so let’s get back to normal please !

As Israel was always perceived as a close friend of the U.S. you can add in the potent anti-Americanism (the U.S. being another example of success and self-reliance) so prevalent in my native country. And since Israel was no longer an underdog, the feelings of empathy shifted to the Palestinians. So if you add all of these factors together you’re beginning to get the picture of why the love affair with Israel ended.

Other reasons commonly cited are the growing muslim population in Holland, but I do not believe that is a factor. There may be a bigger turn-out for pro-Palestinian rallies in Amsterdam or The Hague simply because there are more Arab speaking sympathizers around but that is about it. Neither is anti-Semitism a reason. To her credit Holland has always been a haven for a variety of oppressed refugees and many Jewish people found their way to Holland over the past few centuries which is exactly why there was such a vibrant Jewish community in Holland, particularly in Amsterdam. Anti-Semitism was and is widespread in the rest of continental Europe, not in Holland. The latter makes the performance of Mrs. Duisenberg such a toxic one as she mixed the common Dutch resentment for success and empathy for the underdog with anti-Semitism. Shame on her for doing that and if I am the antidote, fine, I am glad to do it.

It looks like I am off to a good start with quite a few visits in the first few days. I am also getting e-mails and that is always very encouraging, I will respond to each one of you. As for the site design, I have to thank Stacy at Sekimori, she did a really great job. For visitors that dial-in the 'peak' may take a bit longer to load but I do not think it is too heavy. I have decided not to include a comment option, whenever I visit other sites I start reading them in detail and I get stuck. If you want to share your views, drop me an e-mail.

Saturday's arrest of one of Al Qaeda's top leaders is great news in itself but I think it is even better news that we are getting solid co-operation on the ground from Pakistani authorities. That co-operation has been consistent for this is not the first arrest made with local help.

It reveals the commitment that President Pervez Musharraf has made to supporting the U.S. and its allies in their war against terror and that is one brave stand for his position in Pakistan is far from secure. He may extend the scope of his co-operation even further by throwing his Security Council ballot in favour of the upcoming U.S./British resolution. If he does that he has real guts.

My father is someone deeply fascinated with history and it is probably from him that I developed my passion for politics, wars, revolutions and international affairs. I can clearly remember picking up a book with on the cover a group of smiling and celebrating soldiers. I was deeply fascinated by it and flipped through it very often although I must have been only 5 or 6 years old and was never able to grasp what it was all about. That changed very soon as I started to learn the history of a relatively young country named Israel and its brave fight against the countries that were seeking to annihilate the young state. The book it turned out was about the Six-Day war.

Growing up in Holland in the early 70s meant growing up in an environment that was passionately pro-Israel and for some reason I plugged right into this. I collected Israeli stamps, read everything there was to read about Israel, and Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan became household names for me. I even regretted being born a Dutchman and was disappointed I was not one of those heroic Jews that we’re able to build up a country from scratch and defend it against its enemies. The fact that Israel has a nice warm climate with palm and olive trees all over the place also played its part in my love for the place I have to admit. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973 I even managed to raise some coins and nickels and contributed them to a help Israel collection in a local store. At school we sang Israeli folk songs, accompanied on the guitar by our teachers. Again, we are talking the early 70s and The Netherlands was one of Israel’s closest friends. That has changed, but I will not go into that right now.

The solid relationship between our two countries culminated for me in a memorable visit by an Israeli dance group to our school in, I think, 1975. They toured our country and for some reason our school was part of this cultural feast and I can still vividly see all the children at our school shouting, clapping and singing during the performance of this vibrant bunch of young Israelis bringing a piece of their world into our school. Afterwards we collected signatures and we were so proud to have a collection of Hebrew names, I still must have them somewhere.

My mother was on the school board and as a result she organized a dinner for the dance group’s leader Jonathan and his wife as well as its key singer, Effi Netzer (I did a Google and he’s still around performing all over the place). I clearly remember the dinner at our house with my parents, a few of their friends and the guests of honor. There were also two other guys that had tagged along with Jonathan, wife and Effi, Dov and Gil. As an innocent child I assumed they were responsible for the music or something like that but it was not entirely clear to me. Not long after the visit my father told me that Dov and Gil had very little to do with the creative part of the tour as they were armed Israeli security agents. You can imagine the impact on a Dutch boy of only 11 years old growing up in one of the most boring suburbs in Europe: Israeli security men with guns in our house ! This sealed my passionate love affair with Israel once and for all.

Even though I was very young I must have sensed what it meant to bring your own security wherever you went: you are nowhere safe and, more importantly, you can rely on absolutely no one to provide that security for you. It was so different from the way we lived. At the time I was impressed with and proud of those great Israelis who took care of their own affairs and it must have instilled the importance of being self-reliant and independent in me. This feeling was reinforced a little while later when Israeli commandos liberated a group of Jewish hostages on the airport of Entebbe in Uganda were they were held captive by a group of Palestinian and German left-wing terrorists. And a few years later the Israelis again took matters into their own hand by bombing a nuclear facility under construction in Iraq, knowing very well that the country’s security would be fatally impaired if that facility would ever become operational.

Israel’s security has not improved one inch in the 28 years that separate today from that great evening at my parents house. On the contrary, the threat that was facing them and forced them to bring out their own security detail has now come to visit us. It reinforces the need to be self-reliant, tough and independent for we can not rely on anyone to provide us with that great blanket of security for it does not exist.

I barely got started this week and Glenn Reynolds has already linked me. Thanks !

I unconsciously introduced the 'b' word in my last posting. Well, it has been the subject of much debate this week here in Canada. One of PM Chretien's lackeys used it to describe Americans. This truly sickens me and I do not want spend a lot of time on it, but if you want to know more, David Frum has the goods.

One of my absolute TV favourites ever is the BBC trilogy about the fictional British Prime Minister, Francis Urquhart, which appeared in the early 1990s. It deals with the rise to power of an older and ruthless conservative PM, played magnificently by Ian Richardson, and his subsequent attempts to hang on to power and safeguard his legacy. In the series he is supported by a conniving wife who takes great pleasure in this aggressive powerplay and relishes the nickname the press has given her husband: the old bastard.

For the past ten years Canada has been governed by a Prime Minister who reminds me time and again of Urquhart. Jean Chretien has been in power now for 10 years and has been able to do so without presenting any vision to his people, ruthlessly crushing all dissent in his own party, demoting anyone that came a little bit too close to the PMs chair and surviving many, and I mean many, embarrassing scandals in which he and his party were deeply involved. He has even been able to stage his own exit, announcing his retirement 18 months in advance. The purpose of this long sunset period is not only to hang to power as long as possible but also to take the wind out of his long-time rival's sails to succeed him as Prime Minister. Chretien has not only determined that he will leave on his own terms, he will also have a hand in the decision of who succeeds him.

As foreigner living here I have been truly amazed as to how he is able to hang on to his job for so long as in any other western parliamentary democracy he would have been turfed out years ago. Not here in Canada and there is a very good reason for it. Canadians believe that Chretien's Liberal party has been in power because the conservative opposition is hopelessly divided in two parties. Not so. Jean Chretien and his party have been in power because Chretien has skillfully moved his left-of-the-center party to the right while at the same time giving the necessary hand-outs to those on the left. He has failed to present a vision for this country or even an agenda of where he would want to take the country. On controversial issues he usually stays quiet for weeks, waiting to see where the winds of public opinion come from and then stakes out a position in accordance with that opinion. This has lead to a few embarrassing moments, most notably after September 11. Chretien's primary mission was not to lead his country into a new century, no, the mission has been to remain in power and stay in power for as long as possible.

So, a combination of carefully balancing the political moods in his country and terminating everyone in his way in a merciless way has left him to be the absolute ruler of Canada. Although I really have a problem with the net results of his policies and an even deeper problem with the way he has managed relations with his counterpart in Washington, I must stay that it is one clever politician to pull all this off for over 10 years. He is playing the game very shrewdly and has left many opponents in and outside his party biting the dust. Whenever I see or hear him in the media my thoughts go back to that great and skilful old bastard played by Ian Richardson.