On the radio tonight. I have been asked to weigh in on the shifting global alliances following Bush’s trip to Europe, on The World Tonight at CHQR AM770 at 7:05 PST.

UPDATE: Done. No idea how that went but we covered everything, Europe, Holland, Bush, van Gogh, anti-Americanism, Canada, Iran, Iraq, even John Kerry made a surprise appearance.

From a political perspective it seemed a different Hollywood presented itself last night. On two separate occasions American troops were honored and applauded, Ronald Reagan was the first in the list of obituaries (with his unforgettable “win one for the Gipper” clearly audible in the short clip) and Chris Rock even allowed himself a hilarious swipe at John Kerry. Tentative steps, sure, but it seemed notably different from previous years although even in absence Michael Moore managed to get some applause.

So what about the awards? Having discussed the movie before, here and here, I was thrilled to see Million Dollar Baby picking up all of the key statuettes. It’s been a while since I have been this captivated by a movie and the actors that carry it. And no, there’s no underlying extreme liberal agenda being promoted as some have erroneously and foolishly argued. You can bet they will raise their voice again in the weeks ahead, desperately unwilling to see this year’s best movie for what it is: a beautiful and timeless piece of art.

And now the NY Times is covering the story of the fleeing Dutchmen:

Leave this stable and prosperous corner of Europe? Leave this land with its generous social benefits and ample salaries, a place of fine schools, museums, sports grounds and bicycle paths, all set in a lively democracy?

The answer, increasingly, is yes. This small nation is a magnet for immigrants, but statistics suggest there is a quickening flight of the white middle class.

Well, you all knew that already.

UPDATE: Read this post from Austin Bay too, it features Mark Steyn as a commenter, taking on European demographics.

Just returned home for a very agreeable weekend in arguably Vancouver’s best hotel suite. Irene won two-nights at the Pan Pacific, the Royal Suite no less including dinner and breakfast, at a local business function a few weeks ago. It was indeed a royal pleasure to spend forty-eight hours away from it all, sleep, eat, read and watch some movies that I otherwise wouldn’t even bother to rent from our local DVD store. Also, you get a completely different perspective on your hometown if you're playing tourist for two days, I think I am beginning to see what is so likable about the place.

The challenge for the rest of the day will be Oscar night and see if Hollywood is able to appropriately remember Ronald Reagan and Theo van Gogh.

One of the great things about blogging is that you get mail from the strangest corners. This week a reader from Rotterdam chimed in and sent me some pictures of the city in whose suburbs I grew up and where I went to university in the 80s.

In the front you see the Noorder Island and in the back is the city center that was bombed to rubble by the Germans in 1940. It wasn't until the mid 1980s that the city's center actually recovered from that event, it was during that decade that most of the new buildings that you see were built and that's also when the center regained some vibrancy so typical of older European cities. People in Holland often look down on Rotterdam as a boring "working" city, but nothing could be further from the truth. The fun factor in Rotterdam, as opposed to Amsterdam, is not that obvious as you have to make a real effort to find it, but it's definitely there.

Let's turn to some history. On the left you see the Erasmus Bridge, that's where Clinton appeared in 1995 at a ceremony to celebrate the launch of the Marshall-Plan fifty years earlier. On the far right you see the red colored Willems Bridge, that was my view from my student flat and it was the location of the last stand of brave Dutch marines against an overwhelming force from Nazi Germany. A little to the left of that bridge you see an older white building that miraculously survived the battle and ensuing bombardment. In my days it housed one of the better Rotterdam bars where I spent way too much time and money. Which reminds me, here's the city by night:

Thanks to Guido and Ruth

I'm with James Joyner on this one, let's not overhype this. Still it's a cool picture:

And despite my doubts about Condi running in 2008, I could not resist picking the presidential category for this post.

Missile Defence, that is.

A reader asks if the Dutch Government has taken a different approach in dealing with radical Islam by expelling three radical imams, or if we are just witnessing a token gesture to placate the right. Well, radical mosques have been under surveillance for quite a while, an activity initiated long before the Van Gogh murder. But like the CIA, Dutch intelligence services found themselves in uncharted territory after the Cold War and were clueless when it came to acting on information about the new enemy. Van Gogh’s killer for instance had long been on their radar screen. The events of last November have prompted the Dutch to be more pro-active, so I really think there’s a pattern here that will form a cornerstone of Dutch policy going forward.

It is also the least controversial part. As I argued before taking on the radical fringes is a policy that can and will be seen as justified across the political spectrum, the problems arise when the discussion focuses on the moderate muslim majority. They need to be co-opted and integrated into Dutch society and it is here that both the left and the right have failed miserably in coming up with a viable and above all human strategy. That is not to say that taking on the hardline Islamists is an easy thing, imagine the outcry and unrest if you happen to turf out the wrong imam or close down a benevolent mosque just because you are misinterpreting intelligence. Challenges galore, but at least the initial steps have been taken.

NOTE: Do check out Zacht Ei’s report on the legal aspects of the imam affair.

One of the flaws in the analysis and reporting around Bush’s trip to Europe - and I am guilty of this too - is the assumption that NATO, the EU, are all one and the same thing: “Europe”. In turn it's also very popular to use the term interchangeably with “France and Germany”.

Timothy Garton Ash, one of the more knowledgeable scholars in this department, reminds us that Europe is still speaking with many different voices and is anything but one unified entity. That may change in the next few years Garton Ash argues, and that may also represent the greatest fear of those that value a strong transatlantic relationship.

Yesterday I discussed the deep surprise I generate when Americans learn about my European background and my support for US foreign policy as well as a number of other things that are not necessarily equated with mainstream Euro-thinking. Surprise turns to deep confusion when people figure out that you have actually abandoned that well-funded first world paradise for an uncertain future in North America. Almost everyday I have to deal with bewildered Americans and Canadians in whose mind Europe, and especially Holland, is the place to live. That by the way is an assumption built largely on unsubstantiated perceptions of tolerance, history, culture and the “more play than work” ethic that has somehow shaped the North American view of my home country.

Yesterday Asparagirl (or Brooke) took on this issue by crunching some Dutch emigration statistics and noted a worrying trend of fleeing Dutchmen. Of course, the Fortuyn and Van Gogh murders have given some momentum to this phenomenon both of which came on top of issues like increased crime, an overburdened healthcare system, overpopulation, soaring property prices and last by not least a huge unassimilated Muslim population that had started to make its mark on day to day life.

None of these issues prompted my departure from the lowlands so I am hardly representative of the new Dutch exodus, but when I had to make the call after my stint in Hong Kong in 1999 to return to Europe or roll the dice and embark on a new adventure the choice wasn’t that difficult. That raises the question of who is actually emigrating and my sense is that as opposed to the first waves of mass emigration in the 20th century when often desperate people sought a better life in the new world, these days a far more educated and wealthier group is packing up its bags. Education and some money in the bank allows for a soft landing abroad, no one is fleeing poverty these days and a new adventure has to be reasonably comfortable since that’s what you’re used to. Dutch society may well have started to experience the beginnings of a brain drain, with educated risk takers on the move and safe-players that stay. One great example of the latter is the question I often got when I decided not to return home: “well, what about your pension?”

Where do these driven Dutch end up? Apparently Australia is the preferred option but the decision is often a function of the ease of immigration. So even though the US may feature high on the list it’s not that easy to get into these days, whereas a country like New Zealand will roll out the red carpet for anyone who is keen to move there (as a back-up I still have an easily awarded NZ visa in my passport). In between are Canada and Australia and apparently Argentina is becoming an attractive option for the real risk takers.

Expect more on this trend and as Brooke notes, other European countries may start to experience the same dynamic in short order.

So in the week the Economist bills him as dithering, Canada’s Prime Minister is unable to confirm whether Canada will participate in North American Missile Defence, ignoring his own Ambassador to Washington who says Canada is “in” and his own party who are saying Canada’s “out”.

The fact of the matter is that technically speaking they’re in but just as with healthcare where the word “private sector” is unspeakable, when it comes to defense, the words “America” and “missile” are believed to equate political suicide. I say believe because no one has dared to try it out yet. That is also why Canada’s Conservatives have failed the test of political competency as their leader has also remained solidly on the fence, even after George Bush explained to him personally that political success can only be achieved through applying courage and common sense. Both of these virtues are absent in Canada’s political scene which is why there’s no debate, no creativity and no real progress. Canadians may satisfy themselves with this sad state of affairs, but outsiders and potential partners may become so exasperated that they will eventually ask themselves: why bother? And that will hurt Canada.

UPDATE I: Old Peaktalk regular US Ambassador Paul Cellucci is equally baffled:

"We don't get it," Paul Cellucci said in Toronto. "If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."

UPDATE II: It's now an official no. Perplexed? Check out Bob and Debbye who have some good comments.

Well, there are some voices in Germany that ask: Could Bush be right? And in anwsering that question they compare the Bush visit to the now famous Reagan visit in 1987 which was equally controversial at the time:

When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate -- and the Berlin Wall -- and demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this Wall," he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. Realpolitik looks different.

But history has shown that it wasn't Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicians who were lacking in imagination -- a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany.

The vision of a strong and unified Europe as a counterweight to the United States is what passes for imagination and dreaming in European capitals these days.

During my most recent trip to the US I was baffled to see what a European accent yielded in terms of a response. It ranged from the “We’re Sorry” type of exclamation to instant Euro-celebrations (that deep envy of rich government entitlements and long vacations) leaving me wondering if I should remain the calm, friendly and quiet diplomat or reveal my orphaned status, throw in a few Gipperisms, and engage in a full frontal reality-check. Problem is that I am too much of a diplomat to do the latter but there are folks, like Kate, who are happy to give Americans of the moonbat type variety a harsh rendez-vous with the facts. Maybe something to try next time.

A reader sent me a link to an article (from 2000!) by Camille Paglia who focuses on the diverging intellectual traditions that characterize Europe and North America:

North American philosophers from the late 19th century on turned away from the metaphysical preoccupations and dour worldview of European thinkers. The pragmatism of William James was based on his early study of anatomy and physiology. James' portrait of consciousness as an active agent anticipated McLuhan's identification of modern media as "extensions" of the senses. John Dewey's theories were also grounded in the senses, and his focus on educational reform prefigured McLuhan's attentiveness to how the young process information in our media-saturated age. Dewey's faith in democracy paralleled McLuhan's opposition to Marxism, flowing from his recognition of how capitalism, in creating mass media, enhanced individualism and promoted social mobility.

With the current focus on the growing rift between the two continents we have been focusing, especially this week, on the larger global security issues and how they are viewed on both sides of the ocean. Yes, there's an awful lot that unites us, but we shouldn't underestimate the myriad of social, cultural and economic variables that have created two very distinct societies.

Here’s the new modus operandi for dealing with the US, or so it seems if you look at the way European NATO members, in particular Germany, and Canada have been positioning themselves over the last 24 hours.

While NATO members yesterday committed to co-operation in Iraq, Germany and France it transpires will limit their effort to contributions outside Iraq only. And despite the apparent good meetings highlighting the special relationship between Germany and America, German Chancellor Schroeder recycled earlier comments about the future of transatlantic security co-operation:

Mr Schroeder stood by his controversial comments last week that Nato was no longer the ideal place for solving international security problems, but stressed that this meant that the defence alliance should become the venue for "open and intensive discussion" on global issues.

So we’ll talk with you, work a bit with you, but in reality we don’t want to and once we have our own pan-European security function up and running you can take a hike. Plays well with a majority of German voters I guess.

Over to Canada where Prime Minister Paul Martin took advantage of the NATO get together to inform Bush that Canada would not be a part of a North American Missile Defence system. Very interesting, since on the same day Canada’s newly appointed ambassador to Washington stated that his country's participation in the project was a done deal:

The next ambassador to the United States raised the stakes in the debate over missile defence program by saying Tuesday that Canada is already a part of the controversial program.

“We're a part of it now,” he said, citing an amendment to NORAD, a continental defence pact, that has given the joint command responsibility for watching for incoming missiles.

It’s hard to say which approach is more pathetic, Europe’s token assistance or Canada’s endless dithering, in both situations domestic political considerations trump a common sense approach to joint defense. At least the Europeans have a valid reason to blow up NATO, here’s the invaluable Mark Steyn:

America and Europe both face security threats. But the difference is America's are external, and require hard choices in tough neighbourhoods around the world, while the EU's are internal and, as they see it, unlikely to be lessened by the sight of European soldiers joining the Great Satan in liberating, say, Syria. That's not exactly going to help keep the lid on the noisier Continental mosques.

We started off this week by arguing not to expect too much of the President's European road trip. Well, we got more evidence than ever that NATO and transatlantic co-operation are essentially dead. You can’t say that Bush didn’t try.

UPDATE: At least the Aussies are willing to play ball.

Chrenkoff interviewed Michael Ledeen, the man who coined the phrase "faster, please" when discussing Iran, Syria and Saudi-Arabia. Needless to say, it's a must-read.

The number of Dutch-speaking Peaktalk readers is small but I still would like to point to a new very good site – and weblog – called Vrije Denkers (Free Thinkers). It’s a group effort based around the frustration over the current state of affairs in Holland. What prompted my interest and recommendation was that the group believes that: (1) recent developments in the world don’t necessarily mean an end to history or a collapse of Western civilization, but the new circumstances require a very different approach to move forward in uncharted territory; (2) as such the debate, existing political constructs and thus political parties need to undergo fundamental change and reform; (3) which is evidenced by the fact that yesterday’s progressives are today’s conservatives and that yesterday’s conservatives are today’s progressives. These three things are not unique to the Dutch situation, Europeans and Canadians should take note of these mechanics while Americans can point to a progressive conservative revolution which by the way took some forty years to entrench itself in American life. Anyway, check out the site and if they have some worthwhile posts or articles I will link and translate.

Apparently it was a good day at NATO headquarters where the alliance agreed to help train Iraqi forces and on top of that a lot has been made of the earlier Chirac-Bush get together. Even the Belmont Club is optimistic.

We need to scratch the surface a little bit here. This recent poll finds that there continues to be deep seated suspicion about the American President and his long-term strategic objectives:

A majority of people in eight countries – Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, South Korea, Spain and Canada – said they thought it should not be the U.S. role to spread democracy, AP-Ipsos polls indicates.

Now, this could be the result of poor messaging on Bush’s part or skewed questions from AP-Ipsos, but as David Frum (in the National Post this morning) notes the origins of the US-European divide came into being well before Bush took office in 2001:

The Bush administration has to begin by understanding that the fundamental cause of the trans-Atlantic rift is the ambition of the leaders of France and Germany to build the diverse countries of Europe into a European super-state dominated by the largest member states, that is themselves. This project is dangerously unpopular with many European voters. To overcome that unpopularity, those leaders have needed to mobilize a countervailing emotion: anti-Americanism.

And very little effort is required to feed that emotion. Again, whatever the diplomatic niceties, Europe and America have diverging long term goals. The trick for leaders on both sides of the Atlantic will be to navigate the relationship through these opposing objectives and the political sentiments at home. There surely will be some smooth sailing, but there undoubtedly will be some very rocky spots where the differences will be so glaring as to preclude any form of co-operation.

UPDATE: Davids Medienkritik is participating in a pro-American rally in Mainz tomorrow, probably a much needed counterweight to anti-Bush rallies and press commentary that qualifies the Bush tour as "The Emperor Makes a Visit".

When I wrote my views on asymmetric peace deals and how they couldn’t work I always had the Good Friday accords in the back of my mind for they seemed to invalidate my theory. Well, no longer:

“ … Sinn Fein should be financially penalised after concluding that the IRA were responsible for the robbery, in spite of denials by Mr Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, and Mr McGuinness, the party's main negotiator.

Ministers expressed deep anxiety about the decision, which they fear threatens to unravel the Northern Ireland peace process. One minister said: "We seem to be going backward, not forward on this. It's very worrying."

The IRA recently hinted that it could end its ceasefire because of the failure of Tony Blair to revive the power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland, which was suspended over spying allegations against Sinn Fein.

The asymmetric nature of the deal is pretty evident when your partner in peace starts robbing banks in order to stockpile weapons to fight you, something he vowed not to do according to the terms of the peace agreement you just signed.

Tony Blair, hardened after his Iraq experiences, will no doubt take a far tougher stance in dealing with Gerry Adams and his cohorts than he did before. I am not pleased to see a peace arrangement fall apart, but I can't say that I am surprised.

It’s been a while since I discussed the Van Gogh affair and that partly has been caused by the fact that there hasn’t been an awful lot of news to report. Dan Darling at Winds however has a fairly detailed analysis of a recent report from the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment about the affair. Their study makes it very clear that the filmmaker’s murderer was absolutely not the deranged individual that many would like him to be (his trial is currently on hold until a three-month psychological assessment is completed) but part of a larger group and a broader strategy best summarized by the now omnipresent term ‘jihad’. Although the findings of the report are not earth-shattering material for those who have been following the affair, it may be mandatory reading for especially the Dutch establishment that would love nothing better than a verdict built on a lone-nut theory.

The calls for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon are gaining momentum, but what is an interesting sub-story is the "why" of Syria’s continued presence. There are reports that there are now up to 1 million Syrian workers in Lebanon, most of them working in low wage positions that reportedly pay twice as much as comparable jobs in the Syrian homeland. Lebanon is and has always been a cash cow for Assad and his cronies and there’s nothing more difficult for a corrupt dictatorship than to let the outside world disrupt the cash stream that sustains it. And having 1 million disgruntled workers flood the streets of Damascus looking for a job will be equally disruptive for Assad and friends. With that in mind, expect a long and protracted battle before Syria will end the occupation of Lebanon.

UPDATE: It seems there's some movement on the withdrawal front which is good news. The occupation, the vested interests and the ensconced position of the Syrians are eerily reminiscent of the Indonesian occupation of East-Timor, which took quite some time (and blood) to resolve.

Bush has kicked off his European trip and the consensus is that he will try and find some common ground for the ambitious plans he has set out for his second term. Condi Rice has done some preparatory work and now it is time for the boss to nail down the details of co-operation for the next four years in particular when it comes to European or NATO contributions for the efforts in Iraq, Iran and Israel. Maybe Afghanistan and North Korea will appear on the agenda as well.

Somehow I tend to think that all the media hype around this trip is overstating the importance of the likely outcome. While American efforts and interests around the globe could surely get a lift from some solid European commitments, if any is forthcoming it is not likely to have a major impact. Europe has struggled with Bush from the moment he took office and I would question that some recent successes in Iraq will all of a sudden result in a pan-European change of heart. The relative apathy after the Van Gogh murder or the train bombings in Madrid reflect the very different way in which Europeans look at the world and how they look at resolving conflicts around the world, most notably the ones at their doorstep.

And then the political landscape in Europe is changing fast. Spain ceased to be a loyal ally and yesterday Portugal (remember Bush and Blair on the Azores in the run-up to Iraq?) got a new socialist government. Yes, Gerhard Schroeder may be under pressure and Tony Blair is likely to win another term but there is absolutely no steady march to a pro-American approach in Europe. On the contrary, the swift approvals that the EU-constitution is getting, the continued and deep skepticism over what transpired in Bush’s first four years as well as Europe’s awkward position when it comes to dealing with Islam make it far likelier that the old continent will go it alone. And if they co-operate it will be on the scale of training Iraqi police officers in a safe and far away location as Mark Steyn notes.

And on the other side of the ocean the feeling of diverging destinies has been gaining momentum. No US politician has mentioned it yet but it won’t be too long before the cost of commitments in Europe becomes a campaign item that will strike a chord in middle America. My mailbox these days is full with reactions from American readers, here’s a good example:

" I used to think of Europe and America as "us", now it is very clear that in world outlook, sentiments, ethics, and political philosophy, Europe has departed from the trajectory both areas seemed to be following as recently as 20 years ago "

Peaktalk readers my not be representative of the American mood in general and certainly not in the way policy is framed over at Foggy Bottom but barring any major change of heart in Europe these feelings will become more persistent, become mainstream and ultimately affect US policy. And to a large extent America is already pretty much used to craft plans on its own: Iraq, North American missile defense, Kyoto-independent environmental planning, all good examples of unilateral work in progress.

The Bush trip is interpreted in that it somehow can help open a door through which Europe will suddenly join and revive that great post Word War II partnership. Don’t count on it and adjust your expectations for this week accordingly. US-European relations have turned a corner over the past four years and from that perspective another Bush tour in Europe won’t make that much of a difference.

BarcePundit has been all over the Spanish EU referendum, the first one in a string of similar votes across Europe asking Europeans whether the newly drafted pan-European constitution is a good idea or not. The Spanish, coming late to the party after the Franco years, have generally been a pro-European bunch and support from both the governing socialists and the conservative opposition contributed to the unsurprising 76% “yes” vote. There are two things that strike me as noteworthy:

Voter Interest
Turn-out was lowest ever in Spain at 42% which again underlines the general indifference prevalent in Europe towards the eroding sovereignty of nation states. Even when given the chance to shape their destiny a significant majority in Europe prefers to stay at home or do other more important things. Think about it, given the general apathy (6% of the returned ballot was blank) the “no” voters probably turned out en masse meaning that the 17% they scored would be diluted to an even lower number if all voters had cast their ballots. No euro-skepticism in Spain.

Government Propaganda
The BarcePundit notes another important point and that is the propaganda effort by the incumbent Spanish government. This is a uniquely European phenomenon where “messages from the government” or “campaigns to get out the vote” are invariably slanted towards the outcome that those in power prefer, using public funds in the process. These are the people that contend that US elections are bought by big business, well in Europe it’s often big government or an ensconced public service that is able to effectively manipulate the outcome of elections on the taxpayer’s dime.

So, bear this in mind when other European voters get their say on the new constitution: a largely indifferent electorate and a publicly funded effort are set to contribute to a pre-ordained outcome.

Feeling much better, so we're back to regular blogging over here. Also, thanks for the many tips how to deal with the laptop situation, there seems to be a widely shared feeling about Dell which one of my readers summarized as follows:

I have had mixed success with Dell products. It is very odd... many times the systems are fine. But when they are bad---they are VERY bad.

Exactly my experience which is sad since I have become so accustomed to Dell products. Anyway, the laptop is in repair and I am now banging out posts on my wife's Toshiba.

It seems the army of environmental skeptics is growing. While staying true to their conservationist instincts – which I fully support - they have become disenchanted with the sensationalist zero-tolerance attitudes propagated by institutions like Greenpeace. Here’s Patrick Moore who helped co-found that organization but moved on and started his own environmental company:

Beginning in the mid 1980s, Greenpeace, and much of the environmental movement, made a sharp turn to the political left and began adopting extreme agendas that abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.

As an ex-Greenpeace activist his criticisms are credible and the various arguments he makes in favor of nuclear energy, genetically enhanced foods and salmon farming not only make sense, they are grounded in years of experience in this business. We can only hope that more enviro-skeptics raise their voices before the world enters into more misguided multi-billion dollar efforts such as the Kyoto Protocol which came into effect last week.

A week from now we’ll be watching the Academy Awards and in addition to wondering what movie will end up grabbing most of the Oscars, my question is how Ronald Reagan will feature in the traditional obituary part of the evening. Last night the Dorsman household watched The Reagans after I discovered it at our local DVD store and remembering the fuss about it a year ago - CBS cancelled its release - I decided I had to see it. It was almost painful to sit through the three-hour factually incorrect slanderous smear directed at the former President and his family. There was absolutely nothing redeeming in the entire film other than the fact that the producers managed to find an actress who was the spitting image of Betsy Bloomingdale, and that was about it. From beginning to end it was a deliberate attempt to discredit Ronald and Nancy Reagan and misrepresent their entire record in Sacramento and Washington.

Look, artistic freedom is fine and I guess someone had to break the hagiographic spell that has accompanied Reagan throughout his life, but isn’t it a sad irony that the industry of which he was such an important part has not been able to take a stab at a more balanced portrayal of the Gipper? Will Hollywood ever pay homage to one of its most famous sons? Let’s see what happens next week, but I am not very optimistic.

It's not a great week. In addition to the flu I have had some major laptop issues, paralyzing me even further. In what is likely a power circuit problem Dell Support convinced me to get a new Dell adapter (took 7 days to get here) which broke down the moment I connected it. My Dell 600m laptop is out of warranty, is about 20 months old and now I need to send it back for service without knowing the cost but I suspect it won’t be a few bucks . At the same time I need to reorder a new adapter from a different department. This is all costing a lot of time and money, not to mention serious frustration on my part. I wonder how Dell can sustain this business model over a long period of time.

Anyway, before I proceed with Dell am I better off buying a new laptop altogether? And if so, what should I get? Toshiba? IBM? Any suggestions?

UPDATE: Found a Dell-authorized repair shop here in town, so there's hope to salvage my laptop. Wonder why their service department didn't bother to tell me that right away.

I am down with a pretty severe case of flu, I think. So blogging will be non-existent in the next few days and with some excessive doses of sleep I should be back shortly.

From one extreme to the other, that's how we can best describe the Dutch approach to Muslim immigration. From friendly accommodation and a gentle touch, new arrivals in Holland are now expected to sit through an integration course with some feisty introductory videos, described here by one Adrienne McPhail who obviously doesn't like it that much:

One of the most disturbing elements of this program is a video that these individuals must watch. The video describes the essence of Dutch life. In the video are images of windmills and tulips but there are also scenes of a homosexual wedding and topless women sunbathing — elements that are clearly offensive to Muslim people.

Only in Holland. You have to wonder what bright public employee or socio-cultural policy analyst came up with this idea.

The problem is that it probably achieves the complete opposite of what it intends to accomplish, as it will likely infuriate some unsuspecting new entrants who were under the impression that no one in the Dutch government would even attempt to bother them other than to enlist them in some sort of tailormade welfare program. This video however is surefire al-Qaeda recruitment material.

As I said it is from one extreme to the other and the emergence of such luminaries as Geert Wilders - the politician claiming that Islam is incompatible with democracy - falls right into this unfortunate pattern. What truly is lacking is an understanding how a tough approach of the various radical Islamist fringe groups can be combined with co-opting the silent moderate Muslim majority in Holland. No one to date has been able to compellingly integrate these two necessary steps while at the same time addressing the need for the Dutch to replenish the demographic shortfalls they are facing with strict but workable immigration policies.

NOTE: The Guardian ran an interesting piece with Dutch-Surinam comedian Jorgen Raymann striking the right note:

Raymann believes the Netherlands 'needs to take a stand. We have to kick out the extremists and start a dialogue with the moderates. Dutch are not xenophobic, they are in a panic. When they have got over it, they will get back to their proud, tradition of moderation'.

Moderation, pragmatism anything better than this rudderless journey littered with botched policies.

It has been an under-used category on Peaktalk but today I was able to dust-off "Syria". The horrendous bombing in Beirut is a stark reminder of who is calling the shots in what we once called the Middle East's Switzerland, and that any reform of Bashir Assad's Baathist state will involve, or even start in, Lebanon.

Although in the debate over Million Dollar Baby it seems that for once I am not ending up on the conservative end of the opinion scale, there is now an excellent blog, Libertas, dealing with conservative thoughts on the movies. As a Reagan buff I am also thrilled to see that John Meroney is part of the team, he's currently working on a book and documentary film about Ronald Reagan’s Hollywood career, and the impact it had on developing Reagan’s vision. (via the Corner)

And while pointing you to other good reads, do check out Matt Rosenberg's Rosenblog whose recent site re-design simply looks awesome. And yes, the content is good too.

Continued over the weekend with Wal-Mart's CEO explaining why the company doesn't think its employees need union representation. As much as I agree with him, it's probably best if a third party would make that point, so let's pay some attention to Colby Cosh who has come up with a very clear common sense defense of Wal-Mart's actions.

Iraq’s election results are in and with the Shi’ite Alliance just shy of a majority it is now imperative that the parties start to work together and build a national coalition. An invite to the Sunnis would be a crucial ingredient for success. Matt Yglesias has some good comments but thinks that a government of national unity would pretty much stifle debate and result in backroom decsionmaking. That, given the current state of affairs, wouldn't be such a bad thing at all. The elections have legitimized the new power arrangements and once all the key decisions have been made (constitution, what to do with Saddam etc.) the voters can be asked to render their verdict. After that Iraq can slowly migrate to a more diversified western-style democracy but as long as ethnicity determines party-affiliation the country's democracy will be fragile at best.

Established to defend freedom and democracy, NATO is probably the most readily available tool to assist Washington around the world now that the US military is stretched very thin across a number of different missions. NATO is currently active in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia and with the demise of Soviet communism appeared to have found a new meaning in life. Not if it is up to Gerhard Schroeder who has realized that NATO’s new purpose in life might well be a little too close to Washington for his liking and this weekend suggested to look at other ways to set up security structures:

In Munich, Schröder bluntly stated that NATO was "no longer the primary venue where trans-Atlantic partners discuss and coordinate strategies."

Which in turn got a blunt rebuke from Rumsfeld, who knows very well that any alternative European security arrangement that weakens NATO effectively puts an end to any European contributions for US efforts around the world. This will be a divisive issue within NATO as countries like the UK and The Netherlands – as well as some of the new Eastern European members – would be loath to follow a course that will really sever the transatlantic bond that has ensured the survival of their freedom.

And before I get a deluge of e-mail from Americans arguing that the US doesn’t need NATO, let me say that that is probably true but it will be a lot easier cleaning up the mess in Iraq with a few partners on the ground who might also be willing to sign up for future missions.

The suspension of hostilities in Gaza and the West Bank and the meeting at Sharm-el-Sheikh between Sharon, Mubarak, Abbas and King Abdullah is generating a mixed response around the world and I can’t blame Israelis for being indifferent about it all, although some are more optimistic than others. Given recent history the prevalence of negativism and indifference was to be expected, even the chances of achieving an asymmetric deal between Israel and the Palestinians proved to be elusive. Yet, there’s a good reason to look at last week’s developments with at least a glimmer of hope because the mechanics on the ground have changed considerably:

1. Arafat is gone and Abbas is probably the least unpleasant of all possible replacements;

2. Sharon’s is now in charge of a government of national unity which means a strong potential for broad Israeli support;

3. Economic disarray in the occupied territories could prove to be the incentive for Abbas to solidify his power by improving the lives of average Palestinians, a route which requires far closer co-operation with Israel.

This is a unique confluence of aspects that may have created a small window of opportunity and I say small because any of these potentially positive developments can easily be disrupted. Those that take a negative point of view point to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, as Melanie Phillips does:

“ … the source of this terrible conflict is not Israel’s behaviour. It is not the settlements, the road blocks, the prisoners. It is not, despite the near-universal assumption, the absence of a Palestinian state. The source is the Arab world-backed Palestinian terror war against Israel’s existence”

This is correct, but even the broader picture in the Arab Middle-East has undergone some considerable change since the start of the second intifada at the end of the Clinton presidency as a number of renowned Palestinian backers have either disappeared from the scene or experienced a severe curtailment of operations:

1. Al-Qaeda has been put on the defensive and lost its base of operations in the process of which the radical Muslim regime in Afghanistan was destroyed to make way for a pro-Western democracy;

2. One of the Palestinian’s greatest benefactors, Saddam’s Iraq, was invaded by US forces and is now a nascent democracy that is likely to be as un-involved in Israel as possible;

3. Both the Afghan and Iraqi invasions have put a number of notorious Arab nations on the defense: Syria (and by consequence Lebanon) and notably Saudi Arabia have become the subject of unprecedented international pressure and scrutiny;

4. Likewise Iran, that other anti-Israel force is now under the gun with US forces next door and a European diplomatic front now forcing it to weigh its options in the new Middle East.

These are not hard conditions that will all of a sudden result in a rock solid peace deal between jubilant Israelis and free peace-loving Palestinians, absolutely not. There’s an equal argument that domestic pressures force Mubarak to be un-cooperative and Syria, Saudi-Arabia and Iran may interpret the pressure they’re under as a sign to lash out and turn back the clock for years to come. Still the changed situation on both Israeli and Palestinian sides and the new realities in a divided Arab world (whatever happened to the once forceful Arab League?) may provide an opportunity to make progress and at least achieve a lasting ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians. And you can bet that the new US Secretary of State - who in terms of age and intellectual-political background is bound to approach the conflict in a manner far different from her predecessors – is going to do whatever it takes to see to it that this crucial aspect of helping reshape the Middle East succeeds. You can’t afford to be either negative or overly optimistic and indifference is not very productive either, but maybe, just maybe, there’s scope for hope.

In the early 1990s when I lived in Hong Kong there was a tremendous amount of hype about Vietnam and it being the next economic miracle and on track to throw of the communist's party yoke and become a democracy. For some reason neither really materialized. The country has not been very well covered by the media in my opinion, but that may change now that the VietPundit has opened up shop and it won’t be just the present that he will cover, the past will be equally important:

I plan to offer some thoughts on the Vietnam War from a South Vietnamese perspective, which is sorely lacking in the media and academia

With that the Orange County based pundit makes it onto my regional blogroll, together with BarcePundit who is covering affairs from that other European country that has had a recent rendez-vous with Islamist terror. Speaking of which, my call for English-language reporting by blogs from my home country has been heard with newcomers Dutch Report and Sered’s Point of View who are now also on the regional roll. Check them out for first-hand reports from The Netherlands.

Wunderkraut, a new blog to me, reports on the latest example of NPR bias.

It’s hard to assess at exactly what stage North Korea is in terms of nuclear development, but today’s announcement that they now have nuclear weapons - didn’t we hear this before? - can hardly be encouraging. At the same time they are pulling out of the much hyped six-part talks which has been the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s North Korea policy.

The increased focus on Iran and its nuclear adventures as well as omitting North Korea from the latest State of the Union must have hurt Kim Jong-Il’s ego and this is once more evidence that we are dealing with a completely irrational bunch of people. Which given the subject matter is good reason to deal with this potentially explosive issue. And no, pre-emptive action is not an option; even with conventional weapons it would turn the Korean peninsula into a wasteland with enormous casualties in the south. Rapid deployment of North American missile defense, faster please.

NOTE: Check out this week's editon of Time with a cover story on the global nuclear smuggling ring.