Der Spiegel rounds up press commentary from the other side of the pond (via TMV).

And David Frum takes on some of these predictable assessments in the Daily Telegraph by arguing that No policy can outwit the Grim Reaper. I fear he's right.

Some of you will recall my exasperation over Canada opting out of a North American Missile Defense Shield, an unfortunate move that even under the current conservative leadership of Stephen Harper has not been re-addressed.

The focus of missiles directed at western urban centers has now shifted back to Europe which arguably is within range of missiles launched from Iran. Anti-American sentiments, a firm belief in negotiation table stability as well as resenting any form of defense that could be construed as 'offense' are all contributing to European inaction. And if there is any attempt to become pro-active on this issue it is coming from the New Europe. Robert Haddick - aka Westhawk - has written an instructive column on the latest missile adventures in Europe.

Would be safer? Better? Your must-see for today:

From 18 Doughty Street:

18DoughtyStreet.com is the initiative of Stephan Shakespeare, an internet entrepreneur, and a number of Britain’s most-read bloggers. They have come together to challenge the biases of establishment broadcasters and mainstream parties.

Another thought provoking piece from 2006 Nobel Laureate Edmund S. Phelps in the WSJ, arguing that differences in economic dynamism are not just instititutional, but to a large extent cultural:

The values that might impact dynamism are of special interest here. Relatively few in the Big Three report that they want jobs offering opportunities for achievement (42% in France and 54% in Italy, versus an average of 73% in Canada and the U.S.); chances for initiative in the job (38% in France and 47% in Italy, as against an average of 53% in Canada and the U.S.), and even interesting work (59% in France and Italy, versus an average of 71.5% in Canada and the U.K). Relatively few are keen on taking responsibility, or freedom (57% in Germany and 58% in France as against 61% in the U.S. and 65% in Canada), and relatively few are happy about taking orders (Italy 1.03, of a possible 3.0, and Germany 1.13, as against 1.34 in Canada and 1.47 in the U.S.).

Phelps should dig further and may care to bring in religion and history as Italy, France and to some extent Germany are all Catholic and all came late to empire building as opposed to the nations that rejected papal primacy and set out to conquer the world. Max Weber was one of the first sociologists to pioneer this theme. Of course, these factors have been overcome by time and dynamic capitalism as Phelps describes it has now made successful inroads in Catholic underperformers such as Ireland and for instance Poland.

The Dutch, together with the Brits and Nordic countries are very different from their big continental brothers, but I would still suspect that their entrepreneurialism comes in below the levels measured in North America. That however is probably more a function of institutions rather than values.

As I mentioned yesterday, this old-new analogy will be part of the Rumsfeld lexicon and stay with us for a long time. It was one of the things he was absolutely right about. There is a distinction between the tired, careful, economically moribund and static part of Europe personified by especially Chirac’s France and Schroeder’s Germany and the dynamic and pragmatic youngsters that are building something new on the rubble of the former Soviet Empire. Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states: they know exactly what they missed out on for some fifty years and are in a serious hurry to reclaim it, unhindered by strife-inducing immigration, regulation and deep complacency.

And that is also a reason to be not all that negative about Europe, although personally I would not like to be sandwiched in between Old Europe and Putin’s Russia. But some readers see the opportunity and here is an e-mail I got from a Dane last week after linking to quotes from Steyn’s new book:

Since I am planning to follow your example and leave Western Europe, we probably have a similar outlook, although I plan to move to Estonia.

Mark Steyn's idea of "Europe" seems to come from the British and American intelligentsia. He ignores the fact that there is a New Europe which is fast-growing (economically), pro-American, and almost Muslim-free.

In addition, there are vast distinctions among various Old European and New European countries. There is no easy analysis, but the Rumsfeld distinction is quite helpful in understanding a very underreported phenomenon.

A compelling argument to create a trans-Atlantic free trade zone, modeled after NATO:

A trans-Atlantic free-trade zone would have greater aims than simply defending the interests of importers and exporters. "Peace in Freedom" has always been NATO's motto. "Prosperity with Values" could be the aim of the trans-Atlantic free-trade zone. One of those values would be the goal that this prosperity reach as many people as possible.

A worthy goal supported by an appealing slogan. But don’t expect it to materialize anytime soon, and if it will, its shape will not be driven by either Europe or the US and Canada. Asia in the end will indirectly dictate the form of such an alliance.

While the Bush administration is now continuously blasted for its flawed strategy in Iraq, it should be noted that its outsourcing of the war in Afghanistan to NATO has equal potential for trouble. And that is not necessarily an American mistake, but the inability of some of NATO’s members to step up and share the dangerous workload equally with some of its allies on the frontlines:

Canada's Defence Minister is confronting those NATO countries with troops deployed in relatively stable parts of Afghanistan — including Germany, France, Spain and Italy — saying they must lift the restrictions that prevent their soldiers from taking on the more dangerous tasks being shouldered by Canadians.

It's a problem that one former Canadian military leader says threatens the future of the 57-year-old North Atlantic Treaty Organization — an alliance founded on the principle that an attack against one of its members is an attack against all.

Canadian troops are paying the ultimate price with a frequency that has caused many at home to question Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. Trooper Mark Andrew Wilson, killed in a roadside bomb explosion this weekend, was the 40th Canadian soldier to die in the conflict.

You may recall the difficulty some nations had in getting a fiat for troop deployment in Afghanistan. The debate very often centered on the fine distinction between “peacemaking & reconstruction” versus “combat”, the latter one being not all that palatable in Europe’s mainland capitals. If we take that lack of resolve into account combined with the latest and troubling missive from NATO’s top commander in Afghanistan, then it is not overly hard to conclude that this mission is in peril.

Britain is prepping itself for the Blair-Brown handover, the Dutch are in election mode, Angela Merkel is relying on a grand coalition and appetite to support American ventures is running very low in Madrid and Rome these days, not to mention the upcoming French presidential battle. In other words: no one is foolish enough to, at this point in time, waste political capital on a highly contentious move to increase troop levels for Afghanistan. And that is something which Canada’s conservative minority government has discovered as well, no doubt prompting its Defense minister’s desperate call for help.

If the Afghan mission fails we will not only lose a country to years of darkness, the twinkling NATO star will probably lose its luster for good.

RELATED: Leaders-in-waiting grope for new position on US.

For getting fatter. In France.

Former Hong Kong Governor and EU-Commissioner Chris Patten is back with a new book called Cousins and Strangers and it is getting mixed reviews. The book is a mixture of assessing the situation in the world today and where Patten believes the various key players, in particular Europe and America, should be moving:

In Cousins and Strangers, Chris Patten, one of Europe’s most distinguished statesmen, scrutinizes the final years of the twentieth century and how the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 fundamentally changed the nature of this Western alliance. Today, the threat of terrorism, economic competition from Asia, and a seemingly unbridgeable cultural divide have strained the alliance to a moment of reckoning. Patten argues that America’s status as the only superpower must be reined in, but he also warns Europe against too ardently challenging U.S. leadership. He questions whether Britain needs to choose between bolstering its “special relationship” with the United States and forging a greater role in a united Europe.

Patten’s ambiguous relationship with America has been most notable in his sharp rejection of Bush and the invasion of Iraq which he considered to be an aberration in America’s recent history as a benevolent superpower. And although that may put Patten on the wrong side of some of the neo-con right, he understands quite clearly where tomorrow’s threats are coming from. They will come from failed states rather than successful states, as he argued in a must-hear interview on CBC radio yesterday. As an example he cites the explosive situation in Pakistan as a key example of hazardous instability and he contrasts it with China, a more stable and successful state.

It is here that Patten provides some incisive views and he is at his best in my opinion when he discusses China, and to some extent India. Rather than branding the resurgent Middle Kingdom as the next global military threat – something which the Pentagon’s Quarterly Defense Review attempted to do last week – Patten sees the nation as a partner of the West in bringing peace and prosperity to the world. As discussed here before, I believe that is the only rational position to take, but that doesn’t mean that we should always kowtow to Beijing in order to have meeting of minds. On the contrary, and Patten himself can rightfully claim to be one of the few Western leaders to have stood up against the Chinese leadership, which he argues has always been quite respectful to him despite their past altercations. They have “much more sophistication than those who wish to curry favor with them”, and that is probably a sound piece of advice for anyone engaging the Chinese leadership.

Patten’s wish for Britain to play a bigger role in a more integrated Europe and for the US to revert to some sort of pre-9/11 magnanimous multilateral player may not be based in today’s political reality. Even a post-Bush era will be subject to the shifts that occurred during his tenure in the White House, something Patten conveniently discounts. His assessment of the origins of jihadist terror, well we can equally open them up to debate. But, if we want to map our way into the future and define our relationship with newly emerging economic superpowers such as China and India, then Patten’s superb ability to articulate the threats and opportunities is extremely useful. In that, he probably stands alone among his European contemporaries. But then, he is no longer bound by an electorate and can freely speak his mind.

Anne Applebaum has commented on Theodore Dalrymple’s piece on Europe’s doomed future by listing three aspects – political leadership, embracing the new Europe and stop being obsessed with the US – that she believes are currently holding Europe back. As Anne says, the list is of course much longer and without much difficulty we can throw in political apathy, demographics and unintegrated Muslims, but the overarching theme to me seems to be a deep rooted fear of change which in turn finds its origins in being a pampered and somewhat self-indulgent polity. So to take Applebaum’s points, there is not a lot of political capital going around to take on drastic reforms, immigration from the former Soviet world has sparked serious unease with unskilled yet highly motivated workers competing with Europe’s lethargic workforce, and finally: the opposite of blasting the US would be embracing it, which again, implies some drastic change.

There is a lot of Euro-doomsday commentary making the rounds at the moment and I for one was one of the earlier ones to take on and promote that topic, but we need to apply some caution. Over-simplification yields terrible analysis.

Firstly, there is not one monolith called Europe and any probe needs to make very clear the distinction between the various parts and groups that constitute today’s Europe. Secondly, and that is something that Jay Reding correctly notices, there is no place for American complacency. Americans do have some challenges with their current set of leaders, are not exactly clever or pro-active in embracing its immigration issues and are fairly unengaged when it comes to casting a ballot. But there’s one thing that Americans got right from day one and they still know how to deal with it far better than their ancestors: change.

At least that is the conclusion after two successive electoral defeats of Western leaders who had made anti-Americanism the center of their campaign platform. True, these two men were not the most appealing characters, but at one time their divisive message yielded some miraculous results at the ballot box. No longer. Here's an editorial from WaPo on the topic:

Mr. Martin becomes the second G-8 leader in four months to exit from office after discovering that anti-U.S. demagoguery is no longer enough to win an election. Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, also tried to rescue his political career last fall by parading his differences with Mr. Bush; the result was the victory of Angela Merkel, who has moved swiftly to repair relations with Washington.

Mark Steyn has taken a closer look at the phenomenon and explains:

It would be a stretch to argue that Mr. Chirac, Mr. Schroeder and now Paul Martin in Ottawa ran into trouble because of their anti-Americanism. Au contraire, cheap demonization of the Great Satan is almost as popular in the streets of Toronto as in the streets of Islamabad. But these days anti-Americanism is the first refuge of the scoundrel, and it's usually a reliable indicator that you're not up to the challenges of the modern world or of your own country.

Yes. It also means that Washington will no longer be alone or solely reliant on Tony Blair and John Howard in stating the morally obvious when it comes to terrorism and the Middle East. Today for instance Angela Merkel - while visiting Israel - made it plain that Hamas can not count on European funds if it fails to recognize Israel while at the same time underlining the threat that Iran currently poses for the world. Expect similar comments from Mr. Harper soon.

From a concerned American, who hasn't given up all hope when it comes to salvaging the old continent. Read Victor Davis Hanson.

Excellent interview with Robert Kagan, about Iraq, Bush, Merkel and US-European relations. What makes it worthwhile reading is that the questions are asked by a highly skeptical European periodical, which allows Kagan to make a few blunt statements. Key excerpt:

SPIEGEL: Will the present contempt for Europe in the US recede eventually? Or is anti-Europeanism here to stay, like the anti-Americanism in Europe that US commentators like to point to?

Kagan: My sense is that it's not such a big deal anymore. Europe is not very much on Americans' radar screens anymore. People here spend a lot more time talking about the US than Americans spend talking about Europe.

Still, I owe you a long piece about the roots of Europe's anti-Americanism. Hopefully next week.

Thanks for the many comments and e-mails. The breadth and historical depth of the phenomenon warrants a longer post, and for that I need a bit more time. Stay tuned.

Despite it being a Peaktalk core theme, I’ve never been able to come up with a comprehensive explanation for Europe’s anti-Americanism. Instead of finding one blanket theory that covers this phenomenon, there are different aspects that can help explain it, the first one was posted here. The second one is delivered by Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal who argues that the European perception of the moral equivalence between the US and the former USSR is a key explanatory factor. He concludes:

It reinforced the message of the “peace” movement of the 1980s that the Soviet occupation was basically on a par with the American domination of Western Europe. Now that the Soviet domination has ended, West European public opinion wants America out as well. It is a sentiment they share with the Jihadists.

While I agree with the basic premise that Belien puts forward, there are some notable differences among Europeans, which is why I keep on arguing that Europe has now become a multi-tiered continent and that it’s hard to come up with a “one size fits all” theory. Still, we’re building a broader explanation looking for the origins of anti-Americanism, and if readers can come with more suggestions I will post them, together with my own thoughts. The end result will hopefully be one detailed explanation of this bizarre, yet interesting phenomenon.

UPDATE: To be clear, European anti-Americanism should not be confused with Europe's Inertia. Anti-Americanism is only one aspect of that inertia.

Further to my post about state-funded religion in Dutch schools, a reader writes:

Most Europeans could not believe that the US government did not support the (or any) Church(es). Furthermore, most Americans, particularly my friends to the left of center, refuse to accept European governments financially support churches. They maintain it is some kind of Bushian disinformation.

The problem in my opinion is that it is something that is underreported in American media. On the one hand it doesn't fit the stereotype of secular Europe and on the other hand there's just a plain lack of knowledge. The latter was one of my complaints about the reporting and editorial commenting after the Van Gogh killing last year, most of it lacked depth and context. It seems some media outlets are catching on, I am glad that I have been able to void the gap in this particular case in the meantime. It is by the way something I plan to continue to do.

Further to my post about state-funded religion in Dutch schools, a reader writes:

Most Europeans could not believe that the US government did not support the (or any) Church(es). Furthermore, most Americans, particularly my friends to the left of center, refuse to accept European governments financially support churches. They maintain it is some kind of Bushian disinformation.

The problem in my opinion is that it is something that is underreported in American media. On the one hand it doesn't fit the stereotype of secular Europe and on the other hand there's just a plain lack of knowledge. The latter was one of my complaints about the reporting and editorial commenting after the Van Gogh killing last year, most of it lacked depth and context. It seems some media outlets are catching on, I am glad that I have been able to void the gap in this particular case in the meantime. It is by the way something I plan to continue to do.

Remember, Raymond van het Groenewoud, the Belgian singer who scored a hit across the pond with the song “Down with America”? Well, some Belgians didn’t take to kindly to his tune and filed a complaint with the Belgian Centre for Equality of Chances and Against Racism, an institute that is known not to waste a lot of time bringing charges against those it perceives to spread “hate”. It’s remains unclear what the outcome of this complaint will be, very little probably, but it is interesting to see that some in Europe are more than a little fed up with the relentless anti-Americanism to which they’re being exposed.

And remember, Gretta Duisenberg, the widow of the former head of the European Central Bank? She was the one who a few years ago tried to give her pro-Palestinian campaign some momentum with some unprecedented and vile rhetoric, an example of which was the following:

In June, Mrs. Duisenberg founded "Stop the Occupation," an organization that calls for the imposition of economic sanctions on Israel. A Dutch radio interviewer asked Mrs. Duisenberg how many signatures she hoped to collect on a petition of support for the group. "Six million," she replied, chuckling heartily at her own joke. Subsequently, she denied the comment's obvious implication: The number six million, she said, just popped unbidden into her head.

And she continued her mission to the West bank and Gaza where a highly publicized meeting with the late Arafat took place. That prompted a Dutch journalist to ridicule Mrs. Duisenberg, who in turn revealed her limited sense of humor by taking the writer to court in a case that she eventually lost.

Anyway, Mrs. Duisenberg assembled another group of activists, artists and writers to tour Palestinian territory this week, but the tour faltered almost immediately as Israeli authorities turned her away the moment she arrived in Israel, having been identified as a ‘security risk’. Interestingly, the same would probably have happened to her on her last tour were it not for the diplomatic passport that she then still carried by virtue of being married to the ECB chief. Mrs. Duisenberg however remains as strident as ever and has informed the media that the Dutch government and its embassy now have the task to deal with her unwarranted expulsion.

To be clear: while many of us are offended about what both Van het Groenewoud and Duisenberg say or promote, we shouldn't try and silence them by using the law or the ability to bar them from entering a particular place. The deliberate contempt they use to further their cause and the baseless claims they construct to support their arguments are best fought by exposing them for what they are. We can be grateful that there are blogs and media outlets that do so, and consequently hate speech laws do not have any role in a free democracy: they stifle debate and muzzle a free press. Still, I take some pleasure at Van het Groenwoud being served with a racism-complaint and Mrs. Duisenberg being booted out of Israel. Their bigotry has outrun its course and some people were getting justifiably tired of it.

Via Geen Stijl.

Michael Barone – writing about New York and New Orleans and how these cities continue to be influenced by their cultural heritages – makes an interesting point about why he thinks that there is a distinct Dutch influence on New York, to this very day. He considers what Simon Schama wrote about 17th century Amsterdam:

Schama's Amsterdam burghers work hard all day and party most of the night; their business interests spread around the world; they are vulgar, belching, and farting, but are also knowledgeable patrons of high culture; they are religiously tolerant and open to new talents: You become Old Money when you've been rich for five minutes. Tell me if that's not New York.

Having been part of the Dutch expatriate community in Hong Kong for seven years, I think that the description equally applies to many Dutch today, although the spirit in the low countries itself has decidedly become less ebullient. Lexington Green adds some more comments from a historical perspective here, and I once again take the opportunity to highlight that:

• Tolerance is not an inborn and uniquely Dutch quality, but a fairly sophisticated manner to come up with pragmatic solutions, and
• The Dutch are probably the most Anglo-Saxon of all continental European tribes.

Both points underline how a very small country was able to become a successful colonial power and Barone's idea that some of the influence that came with it can be felt to this day in New York is quite plausible.

The old Nieuw Amsterdam settlement located at what is now Lower Manhattan.

With the German elections only days away, Old Europe is back in the news. Today David Frum has taken on the issue with an interesting column where he discusses how anti-Americanism again features as a potent electoral weapon in the old world. But Frum also has some solutions that can help stave off the Europe’s decline:

Europe's problems are obvious: slow economic growth, ageing populations, extremism in its immigrant communities. The solutions are unfortunately equally obvious: lower taxes to encourage business creation and family formation, deregulation to reduce the cost of living for ordinary people, a firm determination to assimilate newcomers to prevailing European values and norms. Obvious as those solutions are, however, they are also unpalatable and unmentionable.

They’re not unmentionable, many have tried, but they are unpalatable which can be better described as unintroducable. And the reason for that is that there is very little appetite among average Europeans to change the culture of comfort and care that has been created over a number of decades. Try and get a mandate from the voters for that.

Take for instance Norway, flush with oil revenues which in any other Anglo-Saxon jurisdiction would lead to tax cuts and a retrenching government (Alberta is one very good example), but this weekend the Norwegians happily returned a centre-left coalition back into power, hungry as they are for more government services and increased social spending. It’s a question of mentality and culture and resolute Thatcherite language just doesn’t appeal to a middle class that is enjoying a contented lifestyle, supported by a smorgasbord of government entitlements that neutralizes the element of risk in almost everyone’s life.

What is lacking in most of the analysis - and in Frum’s too - is that compared to America there is no real entrepreneurial spirit in Old Europe. Instead a managerial culture in both the private and public sector has taken hold that makes it too difficult to equate hard work, risk and less government with actual progress. Exactly the opposite is true, rolling back the welfare state and appealing to spirited individualism is seen as a return to a less glorious past. Stability defines the mindset and the problem is that socio-economic trends in both Europe and the world at large are no longer stable. European decline is essentially an inability and deep unwillingness to deal with change in an effective and pro-active manner. It's time to step out of the comfort zone, literally.

Immigration nations like the US have always been the clearest models of how individual effort is the surest way to improve one’s social-economic destiny and it is precisely therefore that Europe’s immigrants so far have failed to successfully integrate. As opposed to their equally disadvantaged counterparts in North America (like impoverished Mexican immigrants) they have simply been given the wrong example. These lessons have been taken to heart in the former communist nations of New Europe who had been deprived of wealth for too long and have now taken the shortest way to create abundant societies. They of course have one advantage, onerous government regulation and tax collection were not a part of the communist heritage and they were able to start off with a relatively clean slate.

So, a dramatic change in attitudes is the only way forward for Old Europe. The German elections will be a test to see if that message has sunk in; the signs however are not very encouraging:

Analysts say voters are growing increasingly fearful of the opposition shadow finance minister, Paul Kirchhof, whose radical tax proposals go far beyond what Merkel wants. Merkel and several other Christian Democrat leaders have begun to distance themselves from Kirchhof's long-term goal of a flat 25 percent tax rate without tax breaks.

Some interesting links on Katrina over at German weekly Der Spiegel:

Former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal points to budgetary cuts by the Bush administration as the main culprit. Look, if there's blame to be apportioned, let's also take a close look at the action (or inaction) of Congress. And the same applies to the executive and legislative branches in both Louisiana and Mississippi. It seems that there's a very nasty debate brewing over the Katrina aftermath that may reach far deeper - as a domestic issue - than Iraq ever will.

And Germany's environment minister, Juergen Trittin, weighed in linking the hurricane to US climate protection policies. Don't get worked up about the latter, it's election season in Germany and the ruling coalition is not looking good in the polls, some last minute anti-Americanism on the back of a natural diaster sounds like a pretty desperate move to me.

One of the major irritants with mainstream media in North America has been the standardized and predictable reporting following the Van Gogh murder. The Dutch tolerance-meme has been debunked here earlier, but the notion of Holland as some sort of paradise survived last year's troubles and remains painfully persistent, a great example being Slate which last week ran a five-day diary by one Seth Stevenson under the title, Should I Move to Amsterdam? Now, the fact that the traditionally left in North America live with some uninformed rosy notion about Holland wasn’t really new to me - just hang around long enough in the Vancouver to LA corridor and you can compile a book about the Dutch paradise - but this writer reinforces the stereotypes to a point that it felt like I was reading a parody. Seth, however, is dead serious:

The larger point is this: They live much better here. They carve out cozy, delightful moments anywhere they can find them. They bring their families on candlelit, nighttime boat rides through the canals. They chat with their friends at outdoor cafes as the sun sets. They leave work by 6 every evening. And these are not special, once-in-a-blue-moon treats. This is how they live, all the time.

Absolutely, Seth, no question about it, this is the way Amsterdam’s citizens live, everyday, year-in, year-out. The idea that Dutch have started to turn their backs on the candlelit boat rides in order to find a better future for their offspring is something Seth happily ignores, in fact he’s able to explain recent problems away with some brief and sharp analysis:

It's all quite depressing to think about. I'd built up Amsterdam in my mind as a progressive-thinking paradise—a perfect escape pod when I decide I can't hack it in the United States any longer. But it turns out the legendary Dutch tolerance (for soft drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, euthanasia) does not extend to immigration. Perhaps Moroccans are not “gezellig” The bottom line is: This country has its problems, too.

But Seth is happy to gloss over the problems in his search for more experiences that will underpin his Euro-dream. Still, he knows somehow he’s on shaky ground and wastes no time to re-assert that he really is an American, albeit a critical one:

I realize I'm in grave danger of sounding like a Euro-snob. So, let me be clear: I don't think they're any smarter or cooler than us (though they're certainly taller and slimmer). And yes, of course, we're capable of living beautifully in the States. But the "gezellig" lifestyle is a national priority with the Dutchies. I'm not even sure what our shared priorities are in America. Getting rich? Appearing on television? It's fair to say that coziness is not high on the list.

Note to Seth: getting rich features pretty high on the list of Dutch wishes and when it comes to appearing on TV, the Dutch have set a standard that puts even the trashiest American entertainment to shame.

Yet after visiting the Anne Frank House it becomes clearer why Seth prefers his homeland: it’s probably a lot safer than the blood-drenched streets of Old Europe:

Frankly, I don't enjoy living in the shadow of history. I don't like to be sitting at a sidewalk cafe, enjoying my coffee, when I suddenly flash on the image of Nazi boots tromping through the intersection. Each time this happens, I feel heavy with meaning and guilt. I can only take it in small doses. Give me some newborn American soil, with its blank slate and empty memory. History may be a nice place to visit, but I'm not sure I want to live there.

Normally I would say, read the whole thing but these excerpts should save you the trouble, although you may want to flip through Seth's slideshow.

NOTE: For a more balanced view on the Dutch streets - looking for some beacons of hope among all the negative and often poorly researched reporting – consider my observations after a visit to the lowlands earlier his month.

The debate on European attitudes versus the US and the war on terror continued in my inbox over the weekend with one observant reader from New Mexico pointing to the different treatment given to Clinton and Bush in Europe:

The European media and hence the European populace had made up their minds about Bush long before the 2000 election was even held. The European media grabbed hold of the typical American media’s anti-Republican hyperbole and ran with it. I was in the Netherlands in ‘92 when Clinton was first elected and the general consensus was that he was a hick, probably couldn’t find Europe on a map and was likely to be a foreign policy disaster. The major difference was that they gave him a chance. The American media liked him; let him slide on quite a bit and the European media left him well enough alone. Bush never got that chance.

I will concede that Bush “talks” more in absolutes than most modern politician. Europeans, in my experience, are not used to this and it makes them uncomfortable. European politicians (and a fair number of American politicians) talk mostly out the sides of their mouths. Europeans, in general, seem to prefer this because they feel assured that no matter what the politician is saying:

1. he doesn’t really mean it; and
2. it’s never going to happen anyway.

Clinton fit this mold rather snugly. My suspicion, however, is that his wife is more like Bush, albeit from the other end of the political spectrum. The realization that Bush says what he means, means what he says and will do his utmost to accomplish his goals is very disconcerting to the average European. I believe this is because they still attempt to pin the definition of politician on Bush (i.e. when he speaks of the evil perpetrated by the terrorists he’s exaggerating) and that they truthfully they (Europeans, in general) do not, even yet, comprehend the nature of the enemy. It’s simply too frightening, maybe if I close my eyes, hold my breath and count to 10 it will go away. I would like to believe that they are right, but logic dictates that they cannot be.

Well said. The failure of most politicians to talk in absolutes has contributed to many policy failures on both sides of the ocean. When there’s a war going on direct language is probably a vital ingredient in making clear that, to follow my reader’s argumentation, (1) we mean what we say, because (2) some bad things are happening right now.

Seldom, if ever, do I get views from critics or detractors. My post Europe's Inertia however generated one, and here’s an excerpt:

Under the heading “Europe’s Inertia” I discovered a number of “pillars” who in my opinion were not entirely correct. In the first place the unwillingness to wage war. I believe that in Europe a majority had very deep concern about waging an unjust war in Iraq. There is absolutely no inertia and lethargy, on all fronts people are working hard to fight the terror that is currently threatening us. What does play a role is disagreement with American policy and its execution. There is no war, but only the fight against certain groups of fundamentalists and suicide bombers, unfortunately fed by a 7th century interpretation of the Koran. The tension between Europe and America manifests itself on many different fronts, especially because of the muscular language and the endless repetition of the terms “democracy” and “war on terror”, representing a mentality that it’s all about us and the rest of the world is left to figure things out for itself. Bush’s continuing performance in a “high noon” setting doesn’t add anything constructive either.

What follows is a list of the points of contention between the US and Europe (Kyoto, International Court of Justice, Guantanamo Bay, support for Israel’s occupation of the West Bank etc.) which I won’t replicate as all of these can easily be grouped as sub-reasons under pillar number three. As a reminder, these were the pillars:

1. Ingrained political correctness.
2. An over-reliance on the government to sort things out.
3. Strong reluctance to equate Europe’s troubles with a US-based solution.
4. Different demographics.
5. Strong denial or Resignation.
6. Proportional Representation (submitted by a reader)

So there continues to be deep frustration about the way America conducts the War on Terror, something that was evident over and over during my recent European trip. And I did not hang out with the some lefties on the fringe, no, this is the Dutch upper middle class, well-educated, voting on the right but only willing to fight the spread of Muslim terror as long as the name Bush or America is not printed on it. Vilifying Bush has become an article of faith and only after carefully maneuvering the conversation in a certain way are some of those critics willing to admit that maybe the idea to invade Iraq wasn’t that bad, but that the execution of it left something to be desired.

Still, it doesn’t mean there’s a defined European version of what the overall war means, if you think about it and look closely at pillar number three and the reader’s comments it is clear that the disagreement is no longer centered around how to approach the problem, but what the problem really is. Europe’s struggle with jihadist terror can simply not be seen in an American context or fought with a Washington-devised solution and America’s fight against violent fundamentalism can equally never be addressed with a set of European tools. That divergence reaches far deeper than the often cited difference between “waging a war” or “conducting a law enforcement operation”.

READER MAIL: Some clarity from California:

Americas behavior is all about , gasp , its own self interest! This is shocking! That a country would actually act in its own interest is truly beyond the pale. Americans look at Europeans as selfish self absorbed people who are perfectly willing to leave their own self defense to the Americans. We act because to do nothing would cause us to lose our , dare I say it, democracy and freedom. The fact that we defend western values almost alone speaks worst of Europe then ourselves. Europeans, like disgruntled teenagers, prattle on with unrealistic idealism and then demand equality in decision making while contributing nothing to the family income. With Iran Europe has shown the world the wisdom of diplomacy without threat to back it up. At Srebrenica idealism stared pure evil in the face and blinked. Yes America will always act in its own interest and yes other nations will join us or not according to their own interests.

Forgot all about Bosnia, which of course was textbook inertia.

The German election campaign was kicked off by chancellor Gerhard Schroeder earlier today. Building on the winning strategy of the 2002 contest he again played to anti-American sentiments:

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder opened his campaign Saturday for next month's national election seeking to rejuvenate his beleaguered center-left party by taking a swipe at U.S. military aggressiveness and the verbal gaffes of a conservative opposition leader.

"But take the military options off of the table; we have seen that they're not suitable," Schroeder said, apparently alluding to U.S. President George W. Bush's statement on Israeli TV on Friday that "all options are on the table" in the confrontation with Iran.

With the strong showing of a new party on the left, Schroeder needs to shore up his base and that will unfortunately go at the expense of transatlantic relations, again. Ultimately, the lack of a constructive debate about the future of Europe's largest economy will be at the expense of the German voter.

NOTE: Davids Medienkritik confirms my suspicions that the German campaign will be fought over anything but the real issues.

One of my regular readers has raised the issue of the future of the allied war graves in Europe and what will happen to them if relations between Europe and the US further deteriorate:

Old Europe--I do not know about New Europe--does not appear to have the strength, or even the desire, to defend itself against Muslim colonization. Bernard Lewis is, therefore, likely to be correct when he says that Europe will become a Muslim society during the current century. It follows logically, then, that the time has come for the US and the American people to remove our war dead from our graveyards in Europe, the Netherlands included. It is only a matter of time before the European Left, well practiced in the art of sucking up to tyranny, or the new Muslim masters of Europe run bulldozers through these burial sites, vandalizing the graves of American soldiers, bulldozing their remains into the sea, burning them and desecrating them in numberless other ways. It is better for the American government and the American people to recognize Old Europe is lost to ultimate Muslim control, that American cemeteries in Normandy and across once Christian Europe are prime targets for European/Muslim insult and to bring these soldiers home while there is still time to do so. In time, all Europeans will come to hate these soldiers. How much better it is to act before that time is reached.

As a child my parents took me to many of these cemetaries and I grew up experiencing the deep symbolic value of the strong bond between North America and Europe. It was also a stark reminder of the importance of fighting tyranny.

It's an issue for Americans and Canadians to decide what to do with thse graves in the future but given what they represent a removal would only mean one thing: we've given up on Europe. Despite all my admonitions about Europe and its future, I think it is way too early to give up.

Europe's Steady Decline continues to be the single-most read post of this site and still generates mail because new visitors when they decide to hang around a bit longer often pick this post for further reading. Glenn was kind enough to instalanche it, and to be frank having read it again for the first time in a long time, it looks pretty good. And this is because it's personal, but more importantly because most of it stands as of today although events have impacted the content somewhat, consider this:

Note that this may also be why al-Qaeda and similar groups are avoiding Europe as a terrorist target. It is a great place to recruit and set-up operations, but more importantly a direct attack on any EU member state might solidify the slowly evaporating link between the US and Europe. Don’t count on a bomb on the Paris metro or Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport. And an attack on a densely crowded London Underground station is not on the cards, as yet.

Well, here we are almost two years later and Western Europe is now solidly under the gun. That in theory should mean a closing of cross-Atlantic ranks following the logic of the initial post. Has it? So far, only partly. Former Delaware Governor Pete Du Pont opined yesterday that events have sparked movement and that Western Europe’s rude awakening will eventually strengthen the bond between US and Europe: rallying behind a common cause to secure common interests. Du Pont is shrewd enough to point out that some leadership changes need to take effect; Schroeder for instance definitely needs to go. I would add Chirac to that list (due to retire in 2007) but we should be careful that other changes will not disrupt the fragile partnership. Tony Blair is expected to retire in the same year as Chirac and it remains to be seen if a Bush successor will stay the course in the War on Terror.

But even if there’s a political alignment across the pond then there may still be different approaches and not every Euro-leader may jump happily onto the US-defined plan to bring democracy to Muslim world as a means to defeat jihadists, as the Economist noted this week:

“Trying a few radical experiments to see if you can turn Morocco into an all-singing, all-dancing democracy might be fun if you are on the other side of the Atlantic. It’s a bit different if you are in Spain, and living just a few miles across the water”

And not just in Spain, for the rest of Europe is filled with agitated Muslims ready to create mayhem wherever they see fit. For that reason alone, Europe’s solution will never be exactly the same as America’s. It is therefore too premature to confidently project a rebirth of a western alliance, as much as we would like to see it. If that will spell Europe’s ultimate decline remains to be seen, but from today’s vantage point I am not overly hopeful that European's homegrown solution can reverse it.

Q & A: Where does Canada fit into all of this? They have been told to stay out of it altogether.

A reader wonders about the supposed benefits of a European union, especially the part about economic growth and the often heard theory of the old continent being “a counterweight to the US”, and writes:

And I can't help but think EU integration has not helped economic growth. Sure, it has helped to raise the lagging member states economies, but it terms of unlocking dramatic pan-Europe growth, I don't see the success. Nor does it seem a necessity to do so. I know the logic goes make EU one market and it will thrive. But is one market with a huge bureaucracy sitting on top of it going to be more efficient than a fragmented market with myriad bureaucracies? Maybe, but is it a necessity for EU integration in order to have economic growth? I think not, there are many things the member states can do to become more competitive, they just prefer not to at the moment. As for becoming a counterweight to the US, what exactly does that mean? Maybe I'm blinded by being an American, but what exactly are they to counter?

One of the issues of comparing European numbers with US numbers is the faulty assumption that the EU is one economic and political entity, and we are thus erroneously lumping countries as diverse as Holland, Greece, Latvia, Britain, Sweden and Italy together in one basket. All these countries have very distinct fiscal and economic policies so we should look at them on an individual basis in order to see that there are European success stories as well as European basketcases. But I would agree, even if you group some of the mature north-western European nations together their performance lags that of the US in terms of growth, unemployment, economic freedom etc.

It will be hard to argue that trade harmonization, open borders and one single-currency are offset by an emerging central bureaucracy. But it’s true that all these single market initiatives haven’t brought the economic nirvana that some predicted it would. Competitiveness as my reader argues starts at the level of the nation state and until the time there’s one European super-state – and that may now be a very distant prospect – we should compare economic performance on an individual, national, basis.

As for the counterweight theory that is hardly a European dream. It’s a vision of which some European nations had a taste in the past when they could lay claim to be an empire (Portugal, Spain, Britain, Germany, even the Dutch had a brief taste of it) but who have now traded these illusions in for a more pragmatic way to be part of today’s world. Only one country is still reluctant to come to terms with that and picked the EU as a vehicle to reinvigorate these antiquated dreams.

Here's an interesting column that looks at the demographic and political shifts that are forever changing Europe, although it isn't really clear in making the distinction between Old and New Europe. Still it highlights a very relevant dilemma:

" ... the U.S. faces a delicate task: how to keep an old but estranged friend from committing suicide"

Judging from the post above my initial take would be to invest both financially and politically in Eastern Europe. Caught in between the older Europeans may have no other choice than to change their ways and opt for life rather than suicide.

OK, one more post on the Bush visit to Holland and then we’ll move on to more pressing issues. The left-liberal NRC Handelsblad yesterday penned a predictable editorial following some analysis of Bush’s speech. An excerpt, translated:

You can’t ignore his call for freedom. From that perspective it is a pity that his speech in Margraten was defaced by a reference to the news from Iraq. The invasion of that country, based on dubious arguments and followed by a long and bloody fight for peace and security, is not exactly an example of a successful liberation, even though one can celebrate the removal of Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial rule. By comparing Iraq and Word War II in one breath, two incomparable quantities are aligned as if they’re equal.

On the face of it this logic is sound as in terms of magnitude both events are hardly comparable. But when you look at it again it becomes glaringly obvious that in a rush to make their point – disapproving the Iraq War and thus George Bush and his policies - the editors make two deeply flawed assumptions: (1) the length and bloodiness of a conflict define its success; and (2) freedom and liberation are adjustable values, depending on the size and scope of the situation. Using that logic the allies shouldn’t have fought for the defeat of the Nazis as it turned out to be quite a lengthy and bloody effort. What’s more troubling is that Iraq wasn’t mentioned in isolation by Bush (something the editors conveniently forgot), it is part of a much larger issue of freedom and peace in the Middle East. If the Second World War has taught us anything of value it is that we should nip totalitarianism in the bud before it takes over an entire region and provokes another, real, world war.

For the NRC Handelsblad it's a tall order to apply that logic. It is important to emphasize that here, as the bulk of the mail I received from Dutch readers over the past week focused to a large extent on the disturbing role the nation’s media have played in reporting about issues such as Iraq, Fortuyn, Van Gogh and almost everything related to it. Work for the Dutch blogosphere I guess.

A lot of e-mail over the weekend following on the Fortuyn remembrance and the Bush visit. There is a huge variety of perceptions on essentially the same two issues: the changing relationship between the US and Europe, and Europe's internal turmoil. This one I found very instructive:

To me it's also very suprising that the EU seems to be more of an existing entity amongst US citizens than it seems to be in Europe itself: the EU has a huge communication problem and there's a big democratic gap between the EU governmental bodies, bureaucrats and the European people.

Yes. But the gap exists because the average European isn't sufficiently engaged (or bothered) to make a real effort to effect change. Turn-out in the EU constitution referenda later this month will probably underline this serious lack of interest. For Americans that's probably the most baffling part, the absence of real democratic legitimacy that characterizes the whole EU project. And for some Europeans it is too.

One reader is optimistic however about Holland's chances to solve the problems of immigration and integration:

" ... Holland has become more sensitized to the fact that the problems are getting more severe rather than less. Britain and Italy are seeming to move more in the Dutch direction, and Germany is moving the opposite, and Spain is a push. So in many ways this puts Holland as the vanguard of the new synthesis of "enforced liberalism", which makes a great deal of sense. Despite what the rhetoric is, this is similar to the position that most Americans take: keep whatever religion you want, but if you don't believe in a liberal society, find somewhere else. Holland may be the first to realize that inclusive liberalism starts with excluding intolerant (and expansionistically intolerant) ideologies, a very illiberal idea.

Enforced liberalism. A contradiction in terms, but it could well be a model for all western societies going forward.

Again, thanks for the many interesting responses.

Today we're remembering and celebrating the end of World War II and earlier today Bush did that at the American military cemetery in Margraten, The Netherlands, together with veterans who helped liberate Europe.

An excerpt from the Bush speech:

"On this day, we celebrate the victory they won, and we recommit ourselves to the great truth that they defended, that freedom is the birthright of all mankind. As the 21st century unfolds before us, Americans and Europeans are continuing to work together and are bringing freedom and hope to places where it has long been denied: in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Lebanon, and across the broader Middle East."

The Canadians played a major role in the liberation too, and they paraded today in Apeldoorn, also in The Netherlands:

This is probably going to be one of the last V-Day celebrations with a significant contribution from Allied veterans. It's now up to a new generation to ensure that their legacy is remembered and, more importantly, preserved.

UPDATE: Here you can see the Bush speech, click on the second line under audio/video on your right. It's evident that the White House considers The Netherlands to be one of the more reliable "Old Europe" countries judging from the speech. With its share of Muslim terror and its Euro-skeptic attitudes the Dutch could continue to be a solid ally for Washington and act as a wedge to destabilize Euro-unity. Dutch politics however are in a flux and if the shaky centre-right coalition falters there will definitely be less appetite to celebrate and expand the good relationship with Washington.