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.

Anti-American and anti-Bush demonstrations have started in a number of places in The Netherlands:

Dutchwoman Anja Wassink came with her teenage daughter Simone, who carried a "Wanted: George W. Bush, terrorist," sign. "We came because we want to do something to show we don't agree" with Bush's policies, Anja said. She said she had never attended a protest before.

Bush should "drop dead," Simone said.

As you can see there's nothing like raising your children so that they can produce some well reasoned political arguments. But, the turn-out however was very low, a few thousand here, a few hundred there. Still some of it is truly mindboggling:

Dutch blogger Sered argues that the protests are anti-Bush rather than anti-American and that they are fed by the negative attitudes prevalent in Dutch media with regards to the current president. While I agree with the media argument, we should be aware that the world has changed since the free wheeling 1990s and that even a Democratic president would put US interests first and should therefore not expect automatic European media support. Hillary Clinton, to name one, has moved to the center of US politcs and supported Bush on Iraq and in a number of other areas, she even produced a pro-life speech not that long ago. In doing that she has moved to the right of most of conservative Europe, hardly a ticket to demonstration-free visits to the old continent.

And not just marginally, no, the results from a survey conducted by RTL News about Dutch attitudes toward the US and president Bush on the eve of his visit to The Netherlands are jaw-dropping. In summary the Dutch response to the following 10 positions:

1. We owe our freedom and democracy to the US: 49% Disagrees

2. The US is our best friend and partner in the world: 58% Disagrees

3. The Dutch Government is a lapdog of the US: 68% Agrees

4. The Netherlands should never have sent troops to Iraq: 51% Agrees

5. President Bush is a danger to world peace: 56% Agrees

6. The US attitudes towards other countries increasingly scares me: 64% Agrees

7. The European Union should form a counterweight to the US: 71% Agrees

8. It is good the US leads the War on Terror: 62% Agrees

9. The US exaggerates the terror threats for its own advantage: 71% Agrees

10. The Bush Administration puts too much pressure on other countries to become and stay partners of the US: 79% Agrees.

Baffling, especially numbers 1,2 and 6. At the same time, this poll was probaly designed to get these results.

Believe me, of all the “Old Europe” nations, this is one of the most pro-American countries, so you can imagine the results if you run a similar poll in say France or Italy. It also, once and for all, destroys the hopeful notion that after the Van Gogh killing the Dutch would have a better understanding of what the War on Terror really stands for and that maybe, just maybe, George Bush could be re-evaluated as someone who probably is getting it right. Not so, and it is exactly this attitude that will prevent the Dutch from ever pro-actively dealing with the dark forces that are lined up against the small nation to subvert its freedom. And that's not just Muslim terror, an increasingly powerful Franco-German dominated European Union will eventually make the Dutch wish for a return to the days that the US was their best friend and partner.

With poll results like the ones above I don’t think there will ever be any American appetite to once more bail the Dutch out of a troubled spot. If it ever existed, it evaporated on the release of these numbers. The trans-atlantic relationship is dying faster that even I had projected.

But it gets worse. What is getting the attention of the Dutch is the cost of security during the Bush visit which apparently runs into a few million euros. It’s bewildering that a nation that not only owes its freedom to the US, was rebuilt with US help and was defended against communism with the US picking up the tab would be willing to display such ignorance and idiocy. And that in the week that European freedom should be celebrated and the American blood that was spilled for it remembered. But then, half the population isn't even aware that they owe their freedom to the US.

I've never been worried about George Bush and his ability to perform but for today and tomorrow, I really wish him good luck.

UPDATE: Dutch blogger Sered Pov looked at the numbers too. Check him out for further reporting on the Dutch visit, he's actually on the ground in Holland.

READER MAIL:

I am not surprised by these results. It is merely the
harvest of years of a biased presentation of the news
together with a limited or lack of news source
alternatives.

Go here and click on the first link under audio/video for a short interview Bush did for Dutch public TV earlier this week - here's a transcript. It will give you an idea what to expect during his European trip:

And as you know, I made a difficult decision. Some in Europe didn't agree, some in Holland didn't agree, and I can understand that. But now we have an obligation, and a duty, it seems like to me, to work together to help others become free.

Let's see how that message will go down in Europe, people in Latvia and Georgia will be a bit more receptive to it than the Dutch I suspect. Linking it to ending fascist tyranny sixty years ago will be a unique opportunity to deliver it once more, and judging from the interview Bush is getting pretty good at it.

Here's the program for the May 7-8 visit:

Bush will arrive at the Maastricht Aachen Airport on Saturday night and travel by car to Château St Gerlach in Houthem, where he will stay overnight.

Throughout the visit, two motorways and several roads will be closed to traffic while Bush's entourage is making its way between various destinations.

On Sunday morning Bush will have breakfast with Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende and later travel to the Netherlands American Cemetery and Memorial at Margraten near Maastricht.

Queen Beatrix will welcome the US leader to the cemetery, where a commemorative ceremony will be held for Victory in Europe Day.
Thousands of visitors are expected at the cemetery, where they will be inspected for weapons, explosives and ammunition.

Upon completion of the commemorative ceremony, the president will drive back to the Maastricht airport and depart from the Netherlands.

The event will be covered here, of course, and I will look especially at how Dutch and other European media are commenting on the event. And, you can bet that the visit will bring out some unique and creative anti-Americanism, again I plan to share it here on Peaktalk this weekend.

The Dutch are warming up for the Bush visit to their country, scheduled for early May. It promises to generate some interesting coverage from various Dutch media and I definitely plan to follow the visit and its political impact here on Peaktalk.

The fun has already started with an eclectic group of peace activists and political fringe parties filing a suit in a Dutch court against the Dutch government, seeking to (a) prevent Bush from entering the country, and in case he does manage to step onto Dutch soil (b) the arrest of the US President for numerous violations of the Geneva Convention and extradite him to the Court of International Justice.

Ludicrous sure, but expect more in the weeks ahead.

At least to the American left. A European professor has anonymously penned his experiences at a liberal arts college in America. Excerpt:

One of the first signs of political bias was an unqualified admiration for Europe in general and its welfare systems in particular. Having both personal and scholarly experience of those, I told new colleagues of all the problems that I saw there: unemployment twice as high as in the U.S., heavy welfare dependency, high crime, health care rationing, perpetually rising taxes, etc.. This image of Europe did not accord with what my new-found colleagues – overwhelmingly liberal – had decided that they saw over in the Old World.

Precisely my experience. The message that you have abandoned Europe for a new life across the ocean is usually met with total incredulity. And as the professor explains, there is not a lot of scope to engage in a debate as many students and professors have discovered. Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: More politically correct (which is also increasingly anti-Semite) madness at universities, this time in Britain as Melanie Philips reports:

As the Guardian reported yesterday, the Association of University Teachers is about to debate a proposed boycott of Israeli academics who refuse to denounce their government's policies in the occupied territories. But the motion will 'exclude "conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonial and racist policies".

Read it all.

It’s odd to note how some media portray Bush’s impending visit to Europe and in particular the stopover in The Netherlands:

The meeting comes amid reports that the US will soon request the Netherlands to intensify involvement in future military conflicts and anti-terrorist operations.

As if the American president would step on a plane to beg a small country to participate in US overseas military efforts. These visits are usually multi-purpose efforts and future military co-operation may only be a part of the agenda. Very often, presidential calls on small countries are a reward for past assistance or designed to underline the strong bond between the US and that particular country, the recent visit to Slovakia was a case in point. The Dutch by the way have always been good friends of America; even centre-left coalition governments in the past were very reluctant to pander to domestic anti-American rhetoric and maintained a healthy relationship with Washington.

In addition to celebrate past co-operation (Iraq, US assistance in getting a Dutchman to head up NATO) and future joint efforts there will be a focus on the 60th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany. That will provide a perfect setting for Bush to propagate his message of freedom and democracy and offer him yet another venue to influence European public opinion. That’s the part of the visit I will be looking forward to: see if and how Europe’s attitudes to Bush and his agenda are changing. Expect a lot of interesting and translated stuff on this site during the first two weeks of May.

Emanuele Ottolenghi weighs in on the Dutch emigration debate and suggests Hollywood liberals swap their passports with Dutchies fleeing their homeland. I think I have once proposed a similar scheme for those wishing to cross the 49th parallel in either direction, great idea, but to date it has generated very little response.

The US-European rift is not just one that emanates from a deep divide over international strategy and foreign policy. Economics are equally important as Russell Berman argues. Yes, it's always politics and markets.

Victor Davis Hanson sums up the US-European relationship by comparing Europe to the troubled teenager on whom the parent, the US, ultimately closes the door. It's an excellent piece with some memorable and delightful quotes:

Our cousins abroad cannot figure out why a crass nation of former European rejects, led by a cowboy from Texas, is wealthier, stronger, and more willing to sacrifice for principle than a more venerated, cultured, and aristocratic civilization.

Read the whole thing.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

Condi Rice is in Europe, offering a hand and trying to mend some fences which falls pretty much within the expectation levels for the Bush second term to take the hard edges off the rift between the US and Europe that developed during the first term. This is only a preparatory field trip; the real test will come later this month when Bush visits Europe and will attend a NATO summit where more concrete plans for NATO involvement in Iraq will be hammered out, the prospects for which are not exactly encouraging.

Events of the past four years have revealed that the strategic interests for both the US and Europe have diverged following the disappearance of the Soviet threat and that the ‘replacement threat’ is interpreted differently on both sides of the ocean. As a result, anti-American behaviour on European streets should be seen in a very different light. Whereas in the past the Soviet threat would help in relegating these sentiments to the sidelines, they are now a potent force that Europe’s leaders will not ignore and to that extent they will influence Europe’s willingness to work with the US on a number of issues.

Those sentiments by the way have not gone unnoticed in the US. The anti-American floats during a German carnival parade and similar exercises in French media can no longer be discounted as folksy protests and satire; they help shape the tone of a crucial debate and get on American radar screens, resulting in some targeted expressions of the new geopolitical realities, here is some reader mail:

Put bluntly, I am an American isolationist, and I have a hatred for Old Europe that is without limit. I do not want France as an ally, nor do I want the Germans, actually, the damn Germans, as allies either. The Atlantic Alliance is dead, no matter how politicians and diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic pretend otherwise, and so, too, is NATO. We stood with West Europe for fifty years and at a cost in dollars that is beyond imagination, and our reward? Look at carnival in Mainz, Germany 2005. I hope to live long enough to see France and Germany--and you can add Spain and Belgium as well, burned to the ground by hate-filled Muslims.

Well, that’s one point of view and it seems that Bush has set himself on a course that is anything but isolationist, but some of his ambitions may well lead to an exclusionist reality. Excluding Europeans, that is.

Dan Drezner today points to a study about the public's perception on cross-Atlantic relations which says that there is some improvement in the way Europeans look at the US. The study focused on German, French and American attitudes only and was conducted in November last year so it may not be representative of the actual state of affairs, but it makes a few interesting points. While attitudes are still not great, there appears to be room for US-European common ground when it comes to dealing with Iran.

A reader writes:

I agree with much of your analysis about its current decline and potential imminent collapse with one difference. I believe economic prosperity cannot be separated from moral virtue (indeed it flows from it) and as such Europe's decline doesn't stem from lost economic soundness --which has occurred in the past 25 - 30 years. But proceeds from its loss of a sound moral compass which occurred as early as 100 - 150 years ago as a result of the rise of secular humanism. Secular humanism divorces the connections between such things as truth and honour from justice; and self-control, courage and humility from self-fulfillment. The philosophical framework of moral relativism is the spawning ground for ideas such as multiculturalism, tolerance and unsustainable government-sponsored socialism.

It’s both economics and socio-cultural aspects whose interaction will determine the direction of a society. Protestantism and in particular Calvinism contributed in no small part to establishing the old Europe as an economic powerhouse. The downward spiral in which the continent finds itself now is again a combination of both and there’s no better evidence of the rusty moral compass then the prevailing hedonist attitudes.

An e-mail from a reader highlights the American exasperation over European attitudes:

Americans can take care of ourselves but is Europe ever going to wake out of its slumber? The irony of a free election in Iraq at a time when Dutch governmental officials are in hiding and films are censored by threat is almost funny if it did not show the utter failure of Europeans to see what is happening to them. There were many lessons taught by the disastrous history of the 20th century in Europe: have they been lost and forgotten so soon? Remember tolerance is letting others do what they want; freedom is being able to do what you want. Tolerance is a one sided agreement, freedom is a reciprocal responsibility.

Arthur Waldron, professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania argues that the re-election of George Bush and the killing of Theo van Gogh (which by the way happened on the same day) may well lead to both a more accurate awareness and steps to action to deal with the threats the free world is facing. At the same time however he nails the new geopolitical reality:

If we were to wake up one morning and learn that the EU buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg had been destroyed, we would surely be shocked, but we would not in any way be under direct threat ourselves.

And it is just not a political issue argues Waldron, economics and demographics equally a future which he argues may look something like this:

When the smoke clears, we may well see an Asia much wealthier than before, a United States bruised but still standing—and a Europe that resembles something like the ruins of the Spanish empire.

That’s been my future projection for a while now.

Many scholars are putting forward the notion that Europe is the new superpower on the block, creating once more a bi-polar world. Jonathan Rauch compares this phenomenon to the Japan hype that dominated the 1980s to conclude that a Japan dwarfing America never came to pass, but Japan is still there as a - somewhat bruised - economic powerhouse. I’ve been very skeptical about any potential for Europe as an economic or political powerhouse, here’s what I wrote last year in the wake of Jeremy's Rifkin's European dream:

While that diversity should benefit those that resist the stifling encroachment of the centralist EU, it at the same time will hinder a pan-European consensus on how to deal with threats to the very fundaments of the continent’s future: security, immigration, cross-Atlantic relations and yes, the environment. It will be an uneasy road ahead for European countries, hardly the dream that Rifkin paints. On the contrary: instead of eclipsing the American Dream as he argues, Europeans are struggling to define if there is such a thing as a European dream.

I'll admit that it’s way too early to write the old continent off, but it’s hardly justified to consider them the new superpower acting as a counterbalance to the USA. And European elites refusing to help out in Iraq believing that the burden of that mission will somehow cripple America' status as a powerhouse may get some short-term political traction at home, in the long run they will face a hefty bill for failing once again to douse the flames of a regional crisis with global repercussions.

Europe’s unease with the Bush administration is not just anchored in a natural dislike or because of policy differences over Iraq or the War on Terror, or even social policies for that matter. The world; and Europe in particular, is starting to feel the pain of the ever sinking US Dollar, a process that is wiping billions off the value of overseas investment in the US and making fortress Europe a pretty expensive place to do business these days. For now it’s hardly an issue for Americans but Europeans are more than likely to remember the dollar crisis of the 1970s when US Treasury Secretary John Connally dispensed some plain logic in relation to the collapsed greenback:

The dollar's our currency; but it's your problem."

And for now the rest of the world is indeed picking up a part of the tab. Getting others to do so is only deferring the real crisis, say some of the experts currently gathered in Davos:

"There's nobody home on economic policy in America right now," said Stephen Roach, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley. The twin burdens of household and public debt in the United States, he said, are unsustainable. He described American consumers as "an accident waiting to happen."

With the dollar trading above $1.30 to the euro, near its economically tenable limit for Europe, Roach said, the United States could not rely on currency markets to right the imbalance with the Asian countries that finance American deficits by buying Treasury bills.

The answer, he said, was in the hands of the Federal Reserve, which he said would have to raise rates aggressively to curb the spending binge.

And that would land the dollar crisis right on the doorstep of every American household, literally, as mortgage rates will prick into an asset bubble that has sustained the US economy ever since the technology-boom turned to bust a number of years back. That may be the wake up call for monetary experts in Washington to start making some serious moves to try and intervene and prop up the flagging currency. The question is when, for if it will happen too soon it may taint the Bush presidency in a way that can seriously offset any potential successes in the foreign arena. And it is precisely there that Bush can use some solid international assistance and collaboration in order to deliver on his ambitious agenda and make the world a safer place. Footing the bill for that endeavor could hamper its successful execution. Politics and markets go always hand in hand and Condi Rice may start to build bridges across the ocean much sooner than anyone could have expected.

Entered in today's OTB Traffic Jam.

For those of you that didn’t read my post on the mother who inadvertently killed the man that robbed her and who was subsequently arrested on manslaughter charges and spent three days in custody, please read it first. Then look at this story which today got the necessary traction on a number of blogs:

When two men walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot, owners Bobby Doster and Gloria Turner never hesitated. The pair pulled out their own pistols and opened fire. The armed suspect and his partner were killed.

Most of the attention was focused on what will surely find its way into some Hollywood script:

"I just started shooting," said Gloria Turner, 56. "I was trying to blow his brains out is what I was trying to do."

My focus however is, in light of my earlier post, on this:

The owners won't be charged, according to local officials, because they were acting in self-defense.

That pretty much sums up the difference between an American and European approach to dealing with crime. No further comment necessary.

It was only a little while ago that I pointed to some American sites qualifying me as a “moderate conservative” or "center-right". In the department of more evidence of the growing gap between Europe and North America, I give you Fistful of Euros – by the way a very good site – who have listed me on their blogroll as "radical right”. What more can I say?

To further illustrate some of my earlier ruminations on the different work ethic on both sides of the ocean, here’s what an American expat in Holland is saying about the situation she found in her host country:

This is also what I have noticed at work — people here do their job and go home at five. I am used to people working from 7am to 7pm. I wanted to work here in the office on the weekend once, but that was not possible.

Yes. Dutch are more comfortable going into crime infested neighborhoods during their weekends than the office, the absolute no-go zone. And as our American in Amsterdam explains, there’s some background to it:

Americans spread their work out over the day, the first few hours they have a cup of coffee, a chat with colleagues, play a little on their PC. The Dutch are living for life, instead of living for work like the Americans. It's a different perspective.

A little while ago I pointed to another motivator to stay as far away from the office as possible: taxes.

But whichever way you look at it, you’re probably OK as long as you are not in Europe. The CIA has produced a pretty devastating report confirming what many in the blogosphere had been arguing for quite a while:

The report by the intelligence agency, which forecasts how the world will look in 2020, warns that Europe could be dragged into economic decline by its ageing population. It also predicts the end of Nato and post-1945 military alliances.

In a devastating indictment of EU economic prospects, the report warns: "The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalisation could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role."

Economics may not be the CIA’s home turf but the assessment here looks fair. There’s more:

“ … the report predicts that Europe’s Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025, potentially triggering tensions”

Potentially triggering tensions? I thought we had entered the tensions phase years ago. It makes you wonder what form "tensions" will take two decades from now. And then there’s the cross-Atlantic relationship:

The report predicts that America’s relationships with Europe will be "dramatically altered" over the next 15 years, in a move away from post-Second World War institutions. Nato could disappear and be replaced by increased EU action.

No NATO and increased EU action? You’re not only going to be better off in North America, you’re also going to be a whole lot safer.

… has a long memory says Victor Davis Hanson. If the sheriff had decided to stay at home and do nothing, here’s what the world would have looked like:

Iraq, Iran, and Libya would now have nukes. Afghanistan would remain a seventh-century Islamic terrorist haven sending out the minions of Zarqawi and Bin Laden worldwide. The lieutenants of Noriega, Milosevic, Mullah Omar, Saddam, and Moammar Khaddafi would no doubt be adjudicating human rights at the United Nations. The Ortega Brothers and Fidel Castro, not democracy, would be the exemplars of Latin America. Bosnia and Kosovo would be national graveyards like Pol Pot's Cambodia. Add in Kurdistan as well — the periodic laboratory for Saddam's latest varieties of gas. Saddam himself, of course, would have statues throughout the Gulf attesting to his control of half the world's oil reservoirs. Europeans would be in two-day mourning that their arms sales to Arab monstrocracies ensured a second holocaust. North Korea would be shooting missiles over Tokyo from its new bases around Seoul and Pusan.

I have to add that there’s still a good likelihood of the North Koreans lobbing missiles in any direction, but yes, Uncle Sam’s track record is pretty impressive.

It's a long piece but Bruce Bawer's analysis on the origins and perpetuation of anti-Americanism in Europe is a must-read. Bawer not only reviews the controversial ideas of some European and American commentators, he’s pretty effective in deconstructing some of the anti-American myths that they and European media (often state-owned or state-supported) perpetuate. And Bawer is also pretty clear where the key to an eventual betterment of trans-atlantic relations might be found:

There is no question that the chief obstacle to improved understanding and harmony between the U.S. and Western Europe is the Western European media establishment.

Here's another a good excerpt:

This practice has continued to the present day, when major European newspapers eagerly fill page after page with nonsensical anti-American rants by the likes of Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky. When European journalists and intellectuals aren’t relishing the latest windy jeremiad by one of these cranks, they’re busy congratulating themselves for their appreciation of nuance. That’s their term of choice for what they have and America doesn’t. Americans, they argue, are possessed by naïve, simplistic ideals, while Europeans are more aware of real-world complexities. Actually the opposite is closer to the truth. Yes, America is built on an idea, namely liberty; but far from being divorced from reality, it is an idea that Americans have realized, developed, and successfully exported for more than two centuries. We have demonstrated the depth of our commitment as a people to this idea by waging a revolution, a civil war, two World Wars, several smaller wars, and the Cold War in its name. It is, in short, an idea that is utterly indissoluble from our own living, breathing, everyday reality. By contrast, much of Western Europe is founded on an idea of itself that is significantly, and dangerously, divorced from reality. That idea, as Robert Kagan explains so adroitly, is that the world has moved beyond the necessity of war. It is a pretty fiction, but a fiction nonetheless. And keeping it alive requires that one ignore dangerous realities—such as the growing problem of militant Islam within Europe’s own borders.

Read the whole thing.

A Brit in Canada:

“ … I too am sick and tired of the Bush bashing that is going on world wide. Is it mass hysteria? Or are the declining countries (Old Europe) adopting the Middle Eastern strategy of blaming the U.S. for all its current and future problems. I can only say that Canadians are suffering the same irrational syndrome and I feel isolated in many situations.

An American in Holland:

Your farewell to The Netherlands strikes a chord with me—I really miss the USA. I too support Bush at the current juncture, to the near-total incomprehension (at best) of everyone I know here.

A German in Canada (about a Liberal Bush-bashing Member of Parliament):

I think anyone who has been "dumbfounded" by Bush's re-election is not fit to be an MP. She seems to have been sitting under a liberal rock for too long.

All reader reactions about the US President and the current state of the world. The most poignant reaction was a question, one that has been in my mind from the second I heard about Van Gogh’s murder:

What is the attitude of the Dutch people towards America's war on terrorism in light of the murder? Bush said that the terrorists "hate freedom". At the time many people laughed at this notion, but do you think people in the Netherlands will think again about what Bush said and link America's fight with their own?

From what I can see Bush has been savaged by the Dutch media from the day he won the Florida recount and that has only intensified since the War in Iraq. My initial reaction to the question is that Dutch politicians and press have never connected the dots explicitly and as a result Bush’s war has largely been cast as an American overreaction to 9/11 with those on the fringe recycling the worn-out oil argument. In the US Bush got 51%, in Holland and places such as Germany and Canada he never polled above the 20% mark.

Note that the Dutch have historically been very close to the US. Anti-Americanism peaked in the 1980s when cruise missile deployment was a major issue, but since then it petered out and it never reached the levels it has in France or other European countries. The Dutch are too pragmatic to pointlessly challenge the US, but Bush is not exactly a mainstream character on the streets of Amsterdam as opposed to Bill Clinton who of course was well liked.

I have yet to see a poll that would indicate that the Dutch have changed their views about Bush, but given the overall reaction in the country I would wager that a significant number of Dutchmen see the larger picture and are able to say World Trade Center, Fallujah, Van Gogh in one sentence.

The mailbox is full of interesting stuff and in response to one of my older pieces about the decline of Europe one reader writes about his views. I wanted to use a few excerpts but that wouldn’t to justice to the writer, so here’s the whole thing, consider it a guest column:

Just finished reading your thoughtful piece on the decline of Europe. As an American who has also been curious about the two continents relations over the last 10 years or so, I would like to add a few comments.

(1) I think it’s interesting that you hit upon the idea of part of the anti-Americanism throughout Europe as, at least, being partly based in some level of resentment. I too have a sense of this. My grandparents came from Europe in the late 1890's. Obviously they didn't leave Italy because they were prosperous. They came like almost all immigrants, because they had almost nothing to lose. That simple fact, that we are largely a nation of cast-a-ways, I think has a more to do with the prevailing feelings about each other than either side cares to admit.

Within the US, there has long been a sense the Europe is a more refined, elegant, and educated continent. This idea is imbued in everything from the cars we lust after, to the candies we eat. Likewise, the US - from a European perspective - is seen as brutish, excessive, and uneducated. Exactly the feelings one would have about the poor gardener that lives in the shack across the street who has suddenly won the lottery.

We are like the children who have run away from home, now returning all grown-up with obvious signs of success and wealth. The parent-child relationship there is naturally going to be complicated.

(2) Relating to why Europe - for the most part - has been spared any direct hits from terrorists. I agree that 'up until now', the terrorists have been willing to spare Europe any direct involvement. However, I sincerely fear that this will change in the next few years, and Europe will actually become the major battleground. This situation should concern everyone, I dread that there is going to be more Madrid scenarios in the coming years. Why?

The US has drawn a line in the sand, and now in a post-election world two things are patently clear. (a) We will continue to both fight them and pursue setting up democracies in the mid-east, and (b) We will not be bullied politically into accepting any implicit offers of security for disengagement. The US has clearly and un-equivocally stated that we do not agree with any of their ideals and we think that they are in fact, wrong. We have publicly situated ourselves as being their 'enemy', they know where we stand.

Europe will be another story, they see Europe as being partly-sympathetic and even maybe a potential partner. This is a horribly dangerous situation.

No matter how nuanced, diplomatic, and generally averse to conflict the average European state is -- it will never EVER accept the ideals exposed by the radical Islamist. Those ideals of the Islamist - their views on democracy, relation of men and women, freedom of speech, pursuit of science, et al. - are so far removed from the general tenets of western philosophy that the two can never occupy the same cognitive space.

This is presenting a terrible foundation where the terrorist will find an initial level of 'acceptance' and see a sympathetic partner, only to ultimately find that really is no desire for those ideas within a European society. They will feel betrayed and their hatred will be intensified because of it. They will forever think they are only 1 or 2 more devastating bombs away from getting you to accept a peace-for-silence bargain.

(3) Where does Europe go from here.

Well, from an economic perspective, obviously the free-market approach has beaten the 'statist' approach without question. Europe, in order to stay competitive, needs to take its lumps as permit a certain level of un-employment in order to reorganize its economies around the more sane approach of market-based entities. This is never easy and will result in lots of political backlash, however some leader will need to take up this issue and deal with it. The grand EU experiment will ultimately fail unless each state is able to get able to get their own house in order financially. As it is now, it is many small and stagnant economies grouping into a single large stagnant economy. In terms of Mergers and Acquisitions, this one is DOA in its present form. There is no growth and no investment happening in Europe and power is continuing to shift to an ever more capitalistic Asia.

From a political perspective, Europe needs to enjoin the US in the fight against terror. The long-term way to do that successfully is to encourage democracy in the Mid-east. Obviously, the French and Germans want to save face -- and not suddenly be seen as sucking up to Bush -- and they have an excellent way to do this: Iran. Iran could become the 'European' effort of this conflict. I'm not suggesting that Europe deploy troops, but I mean they should begin an
aggressive and thorough attempt to stop the nuclear proliferation, terrorist funding, and help encourage democracy. They need to summon whatever political will they can muster and use it now in Iran. This may be Europe's last hope to regain some authority and show some leadership on the world stage.

Instead the President of France is making a death-bed vigil to Arafat. What a symbolic event that is...

My post "Reform of Else" below indicates that European political elites know very well where the issues are and what steps need to be taken, however it's too early to assume that "reform is on the way". Even more complicated will be the relationship with the US, especially when it comes to Middle East policies which includes the War on Terror and Iraq.

While Europeans instinctively stake out the role of middleman it seems that in order to contain threats from the radical Muslim fringe, be they in Tehran, Fallujah or a Paris suburb, far closer co-operation with the US is warranted.

That's the conclusion of a report about Europe's economic future from the hand of Wim Kok, a former Dutch Prime-Minister:

Europe's overall performance in the past four years, Kok says, has been disappointing. Growth has been weaker than in the US or Asia - the result both of continuing structural weaknesses and sluggish demand. In terms of the new-fangled knowledge economy, America is extending its lead. "The EU's world share of exports of hi-tech products is lower than that of the US; the share of hi-tech manufacturing in total value added and numbers employed in hi-tech manufacturing are also lower."

Kok's conclusion is not dissimilar to that of the CBI: Europe has to reform or accept the bitter consequences. The report calls for more R&D expenditure, the completion of the single market, cutting down on burdensome regulation to create the right climate for entrepreneurs, more investment in human capital to create an adaptable labour market and exploiting environmentalism for competitive advantage.

Kok, for the uninitiated, is a former union leader who became leader of the Labour Party, Minister of Finance and Prime-Minister and was credited by many for the Dutch economic successes of the 1990s. Apparently both Clinton and Blair borrowed heavily from Kok's "third way".

As with the discussion over how to deal with the excesses of radical Islam, Kok's report identifies the issue and points the way ahead. The question however is whether European leaders and their consituencies are able to break with decades of cushy economic arrangements between the public and private sectors.

William Sjostrom earlier this week uncovered some facts that give a new twist to the oft debated discrepancy between the American and European work ethic. I discussed these in the past and described it as Hedonist Europe in response to an interesting analysis from Donald Sensing. While I looked at the socio-cultural aspect of that phenomenon, it appears that there is a far more simple logic behind it: taxes. The more taxes you pay, the less inclined you are to put in more work.

I have always believed there’s a sound interaction between economic and social dynamics. People work less in Europe because there’s no direct benefit in working more and earning more: painful progressive taxation is the disincentive which in turn has allowed governments to fund generous programs that serve as a safety net for many working and non-working Europeans. As a result the incentive to hoard for a rainy day is less; there is a nice blanket that ensures one’s security in case work derived revenues dry up. Now I know that drastic cuts are being implemented in some European countries, but it’s not too hard to note the huge divergence between US and European entitlements. This economic phenomenon has spawned a culture that has:

(a) created a workforce that has grown accustomed to a certain level of wealth which can be attained with a reasonable but not excessive amount of work;
(b) allowed a culture wherein individual gratification is far more focused on leisure activities and not work (the infamous 35-hour workweek);
(c) made it easier to abandon religion as a spiritual guide which is now more easily achieved by the individual who is economically secure and free to pursue whatever interests he or she has.

Interestingly, Americans have very individualistic origins but these were not the result of a state-offered route to self-realization, it was rather the rejection of the helping hand and the struggle with the elements that shaped its unique and different destiny. Needless to say, there’s more room for God in such a setting than in the pre-ordained cradle-to-grave-journey offered in the old world.

On a side note, Canada as I have argued before has an odd position right between the US and Europe. Polls often found that a majority of its citizens were comfortable with current taxation levels (somewhere in between US and European tax rates) if that meant preserving government entitlements. So even if the option of lower taxes is flagged, many are unwilling to bite because it poses a risk of losing state delivered benefits and as a consequence: more work. From direct experience I can confirm that the hardest workers in Canada often are those that are self-employed or those that stand to gain from above normal efforts such as employees in starting companies whose low salary is compensated by an equity allocation or commission-based remuneration package. In the US you can attain a certain measure of wealth as an employee; the irony is that Canada’s universal health plan allows many to pursue an entrepreneurial track without having to worry about medical insurance.

So economics is the dominant factor in explaining differences in work ethic, but its socio-cultural impacts are deep and may in turn hamper a rapid return to the survival through hard-work ethic.

Or less, depending on how you look at it. The official Soros website has now removed the letter from Davids Medienkritik as well as George Soros’ initial reply, shortly after the story got Instalinked. I never found the Soros campaign against Bush very credible and was actually quite disappointed about the light intellectual underpinnings of it given where it was coming from. If Soros is now ducking a real debate then not only the credibility of his effort to unseat Bush has been damaged, his reputation will have suffered as well. That’s a pity, as I point out below Soros does have some interesting insights that are particicularly useful in the post 9/11 world.

Ray of Davids Medienkritik wrote to George Soros, taking issue with the fact that the latter is reluctant to believe that military force can help establish democracy. Soros replied, but the brief nature of his rebuttal allowed Ray to pen a fairly detailed assessment of US-European relations and the role of the United Nations which Soros in his response failed to address.

Well, let me solve that. In Soros on Soros (1995) the renowned philanthropist argued that - apart from the UNHCR - he preferred to stay clear from the institution altogether, at one point even arguing that it was “evil”. Soros primarily blamed the ineffectiveness of the Security Council for this where a failure of the US, UK and France to reach common grounds contributed to inaction in the Balkans:

Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was fond of saying that Bosnia was just one of 17 equally important humanitarian crises. The point he missed is that Bosnia served as a catalyst for the disunity of the Western Alliance. And without Western unity, the United Nations cannot survive.”

Well if Bosnia was a catalyst what does that make Iraq? The end? Not unlikely given the current state of affairs which Soros foresaw as early as 1995:

On the one hand we need an international organization to preserve peace and order because we cannot and should not act as the world’s policeman. On the other hand, the international organization we have got, the United Nations is inadequate. Therefore we must exert ourselves to make it work.

He went on to argue that the UN Charter needed to be revised but he acknowledged that that would probably be as difficult as asking Americans to rewrite their constitution. So, he went back to the core of his analysis that the leading nations of the world (the West) needed to pull together to come up with a new structure and then invite other nations to join in. Essentially he floated the idea of a UN of Democracies, a concept that has been getting traction ever since the disastrous days of trying to get Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions.

So that’s why Soros may have circumvented the UN issue in his response, but it may also be his realization that the wedge that has divided the Western world may forever inhibit reform of the UN. From that perspective the United States under George Bush may very well have started the process to build a new international alliance of democracies, using the concepts outlined by Soros some ten years ago. Wouldn't it be more productive for Soros to side with Bush and try and influence his policies as a starting point for the new world order? Is there anything in the Kerry platform that could compel Soros to think that world reform could start with an old-school Democrat?

Check out my post below on a new North America that could form the seed of such a new institution. A far out idea? Maybe, but given the American-European schism and a collapse of the UN as a viable entity we have to start thinking outside the box and George Soros has given us some of the concepts to start doing that.

In his TCS column, Henry Miller has taken on a book whose title has long fascinated this staunch Euro-skeptic: Jeremy’s Rifkin’s The European Dream. In his book Rifkin has made his contribution to the Euro-American debate by arguing that:

"the American Spirit is tiring and languishing in the past, a new European Dream is being born" -- an ethos that "emphasizes community relationships over individual autonomy, cultural diversity over assimilation, quality of life over the accumulation of wealth, sustainable development over unlimited growth, deep play over unrelenting toil, universal human rights and the rights of nature over property rights, and global cooperation over the unilateral exercise of power."

All of Rifkin’s arguments have in some shape or other been discussed and debunked here on these pages so let me stick to what Miller has to say. He takes on Rifkin and accuses him of oversimplifying affairs in order to suit his own political or ideological agenda; Rifkin is one of those disgruntled Americans from the left who have discovered Europe as the model society. You will find a lot of these types along the West Coast who are truly mystified when you tell them that you have abandoned Europe for better opportunities and especially a better quality of life across the ocean. They have after one or two trips to Amsterdam or Rome determined that everything is better in the old country. They do however lack the spirit to risk everything and go there and instead suffer America’s capitalism and ignorance, lament their lives, while they drink from Jeremy’s Rifkin’s well of oversimplified generalizations. They’re not dislike the bearded Al Gore who went to Europe to seek inspiration after his 2000 election defeat, and we all know in what shape he returned. Miller deconstructs Rifkin as follows:

In stark rebuttal to Rifkin's paean to European society and institutions, European countries and their Union are, in comparison to the United States, in dire straits. They have aging populations and low birth rates, their productivity is in decline, and their economies are stagnant. Everything in Europe is not on the decline, however: Stultifying taxation, over-regulation, obstruction of free markets, unemployment, anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-Semitism, and envy of the American economic miracle are alive and well.

While engaging in some generalizations himself (moves to deregulate, privatize and enable free-markets are on the rise in a many European countries, the EU has been a strong promoter of free trade), Miller strikes the right notes. Europe is on a crossroads and pulled in many different directions. The push for merging into one European superstate is questioned on many levels especially given the dominance of the two European powerhouses, France and Germany, in that institution. At the same time the rate at which new members join that project will serve as a counterbalance to those two troubled states, one of whom is adhering to its statist economic model and the other that suffers from its costly attempt to fund its reunification with its eastern brothers.

While that diversity should benefit those that resist the stifling encroachment of the centralist EU, it at the same time will hinder a pan-European consensus on how to deal with threats to the very fundaments of the continent’s future: security, immigration, cross-Atlantic relations and yes, the environment. It will be an uneasy road ahead for European countries, hardly the dream that Rifkin paints. On the contrary: instead of eclipsing the American Dream as he argues, Europeans are struggling to define if there is such a thing as a European dream.

Yesterday in the Daily Telegraph Mark Steyn reflected on the US troop redeployment and put it in the context of US-European relations. As ever in good form:

But in NATO, for generations, whenever the bill's come, there's been a stampede to the washroom, not just from the Canadians but the Continentals, too.

There are days, and this is one of them, that I am really thinking to devote this entire blog to the monumental realignment that is taking place in cross-Atlantic relations. The diverging paths of Europe and North America that started shortly after the end of the Cold War and which were accelerated by and after 9/11 are of the same magnitude as the struggle against Islamofascism itself. The war on terror is but one component of two continents steadily drifting apart. John Kerry’s promises to fix these rifts and return to the Cold War days of strong relations with European partners negates the new global and economic realities, it's an uniformed campaign ploy to differentiate himself from Bush. A Kerry presidency will very likely be treated with the same suspicion as the Bush one over at the Elysee. For the Euro-inclined North Americans called Canadians who wonder where they will end up it should be evident that from cultural, geographical and economical standpoints their fate is unalterably intertwined with their southern neighbour.

It appears that peace activists’ prayers have finally been heard, Bush is redeploying US troops based in Germany. In doing so he has unwittingly removed one of the pillars of Germany’s economy, and Davids Medienkritik is quick to point out that the French would be more than willing to take up the vacant slot. They might, but let's not forget that they are too close to home to stay in Germany over the weekend and prop up the local economy with redundant Euros.

Chrenkoff kicks off the week with a discussion of a document called Outline of a Doctrine of French Policy, which can be summarized as promoting the position that France should be the leader of a Latino-Catholic force in the world as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon and Slavo-Soviet power blocks in existence at the time when the doctrine was formulated by Alexandre Kojeve. From today’s vantage point it isn’t hard to fathom that the current French leaders have applied Kojeve generously in recent years in positioning France as a very distinct pillar of the western world, assuming a leadership role in the European Union and challenging the Anglo-Saxon, or American, supremacy following the end of the Cold War. Arthur Chrenkoff summarizes some of the diverging paths of the Western World and concludes:

Regardless, however, it is wise to remember today that our common roots in Athens, Rome and Jerusalem don't necessarily make for our common interests in Washington, Brussels or Baghdad.

So the Cold War period was a unique period where the interests of the Judeo-Christian World briefly converged. Up to that point there was too much that differentiated them, but with the advent of two successive evil empires it wasn’t that hard to unite what came to be known as the western world. The enabler for that was neither religion nor economy, these were really often dividers, no, it was the ability to adopt the principle of a liberal democracy with guaranteed rights for the individual as a sustainable model for the modern state. Ironically, apart from France and Italy, at the time Kojeve launched his ideas the Latino-Catholic world was still mired in dictatorship and regression and was a somewhat uneasy partner of the free West. But with democracy and economic reform taking hold in Spain, Portugal and Latin America the West from a liberal market perspective today is far more homogenous than ever. However in the face of Islamofascist terror and threats of chaos imposed from wayward third-world entities the West should, in theory, be far more unified than it is today. Only two weeks ago I pointed to Garton Ash whose new book centers around the premise that “there’s more that unites than divides us”.

If that’s the case, then attempts that seek to end the post Cold War convergence by trying to build a new pillar of power in a time when western liberal democracy faces one of its most lethal threats are extremely dangerous. They not only end a unique alignment of the free world, they negate the basic values on which that alignment was built. It doesn’t come as a total surprise that this is coming from a European nation that missed the reformation, came late to empire and was a laggard when it came to economic reform and embracing free markets.

UPDATE: David Warren weighs in:

But power politics are more calculating and cynical than that. The whole project of building a united Europe depends on replacing the old intra-European national antipathies with a new common antipathy. The public demonization of America thus serves the interests of Europe's new bureaucratic order, as George Jonas and others have argued.

An unapologizing European, who wants a Europe bound up with America in the cause of spreading freedom through the world, Mr. Garton Ash often writes as if sweet reason were bound to prevail. It seldom is, and to defeat the enemies of freedom, her friends must be willing to get ugly.

Mike Perry of the Inkling Blog sent me some thoughts on the divergent paths of Europe and the US and reminds me of a very important part that I, as a former resident of Asia, should have spotted and addressed much earlier:

I enjoyed your remarks about "Hedonistic Europe." Europe and the US are moving apart quite rapidly. More and more I find I have more in common with more traditionally minded Asians than with at least the public voices of Europe from whence my culture came.

Very true. Michael Barone, interviewed by John Hawkins over at RNW echoes the same sentiments:

With its negative population growth, sluggish economies and huge welfare state burden, Europe is on its way to becoming less important economically, culturally and militarily. The United States, in contrast, has positive population growth, a resilient and growing economy and a smaller welfare state burden. With one-third of the world--India and China--moving rapidly from Third toward First World status, Asia is likely to become more important to the United States and Europe less so.

By sheer economic necessity and the potential for becoming part of an emerging middle class many Asians embody the traditional set of virtuous capitalist values that helped built great economies in Europe and the US during much of the 20th century. Over time I received many comments from readers about China being a potential enemy of the US and the free world and I always brushed these off as erroneous views of the post-cold war world. On the contrary, when it comes to the potential of future alliances many Asian countries and especially China are likely to be natural partners for North America, economically, strategically but also culturally.

By some considered the most powerful woman in The Netherlands, Neelie Kroes is likely to be appointed to become a member of the European Commission. Mrs. Kroes belongs to the free-market liberal party and was a popular figure in the 1980s when the Dutch started to re-embrace the market as the preferred engine of economic growth. As is the case with so many politicians who start out as idealistic reformers, over time they become part of the political establishment and invariably become mandarins once their time as an elected official is up. They get plum appointments in the public and private sector and can cruise well beyond the retirement age from appointment to appointment without making any real attempt to reform or effect change, as doing so would disrupt the very system that they feed on. Sustaining vested interests appears to be the primary objective, rocking the boat not. The European Commission is a prime example of this dynamic, it is a notorious dumping ground where retired politicians thrive as mandarins until they are too old to serve or when some type of scandal from the past comes to haunt them finishes them off for good. Yet, the leader of the Dutch free-market party hailed Mrs. Kroes’ likely appointment with great enthusiasm:

All too often an unholy alliance of Christian-Democrats and Social-Democrats obstructs necessary economic and political reforms in the European Union.

And since the centrist Christian-Democrats and Social-Democrats are devoid of ideas it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the European Commission is hardly a hotbed interested in generating initiatives that will motivate Europeans to come out and buy-in to the European project. Euro-skepticism remains the order of the day. I doubt if Mrs Kroes, much as I once liked her is able to make a dent in the complacent mandaranism that dominates the team she will now join. Her second marriage to a social-democrat who as a minister had to resign over out-of-whack expense claims further supports the notion that Mrs Kroes has become pretty much part of a political elite. Political elites invariably have a tendency to adhere to and sustain a set of values which somehow ensures their hold on power, be they in government or in a party that is shut out of power by the electorate. David Warren pointed to this mechanism earlier this week when he compared Democrats and Canada’s Liberals:

Both U.S. Democrats and Canadian Liberals have come to envision the role of the political party within the State as the creation and nurturing of vested interests that will bind whole constituencies to the party in permanent dependency. It is to create and preserve ghettoes of one sort or another, and the groupthink of the ghetto. For both, the demonization of political opponents is the most effective tactic for herding the vote.

Anti-European voices are guaranteed to get the demon-treatment from the Euro-elites. Americans have rallied behind Reagan and George W. Bush because they were able to convincingly win the battle of ideas and they were not identified as members of the political elite. Reagan demonstrated the bankruptcy of statist socialism as a model for society, Bush has pretty much abandoned old style internationalism as practiced by his father and grandfather, it had become an obsolete model in the new world and dogmas of the political establishment were replaced with new ideas from neo-conservatives. It’s the successful proliferation of new ideas that has sustained the success of the United States as a political and economic entity in recent years where relative outsiders were allowed to define new political agendas. Karl Rove can hardly be cast as a member of the political elites. Warren argues that Bill Clinton was an aberration because he projected many new ideas; I would add that a lot of Bill’s ideas came straight out of the conservative handbook. Here’s a bit more from Warren:

The Liberals have, through interminable re-election, been able to remake Canada in their own image, as a country in which ideas will not be discussed. The Democrats failed to do that in the U.S.

That’s why Europe and Canada lack dynamism and ability to generate the same level of economic and social progress as we see today in the United States, it also explains why both entities struggle so much with Bush and the Republicans: they lack the imagination to either engage their US counterpart in a real debate or are clueless as to how to partner with the US for the benefit of all. Any generous European or cordial Canadian compromise with Bush would be seen as suspicious by vested interests and constituencies, note how Tony Blair struggled domestically. In the US, the Democrats will likely be shut out of executive power for another four years for running an aloof elitist who fails to provide new ideas and is only able to co-opt a weaker version of what is already on offer from the Republican side.

Ideas and innovation define progress, renewal and ultimately success in a society. The European Union, Democrats and Canada’s Liberals all of whom at one point where quite capable of painting a vision of a better tomorrow have failed their respective constituencies by recycling old ideas and propping up vested interests, often with the help of a firmly ensconced mandarinist elite. Democrats are looking at a challenged road ahead, and with more plum appointments in Europe and barring ideas from discussion in Canada, both polities will fail to make a decisive jump and become part of tomorrow.

Donald Sensing takes on one of my favorite topics, European decline versus American dynamism. One point is interesting where Donald says:

One might argue, though, that as Christian faith has declined in Europe, God has been replaced by the state as "that which greater than nothing can be imagined," a classic definition of God given ~900 years ago by St. Anselm. If so, rather than envisioning themselves as children of God, Europeans have more and more envisioned themselves as children of the State, which is now the ultimate respondent for the plea, "give us today our daily bread."

Not necessarily so, many European countries have actively rolled back the state over the past 25 years and while the state remains prominent in day-to-day life in most European countries, God’s place has been taken by other institutions. The first one is the individual which has left behind many of the constraints that church and society put on it in the past. The hedonistic culture, the relaxed sexual mores, and of course the holiday culture (which is viewed as a very basic entitlement) have long overtaken restraint and the Calvinist work ethic. When I comment to friends back home that I have taken only a few weeks of holiday I am met with sheer amazement: “man, you work hard!” As I discussed before, the centerpiece of European civic ambition is to lead a nice and comfortable life and “make it” to retirement with as little effort as possible.

But that doesn’t mean that individuality has given Europeans a suitable replacement for God. On the contrary, the quest for belonging to a bigger group, a cultural or spiritual entity, has taken on many bizarre forms. One example that springs to mind is the cult that has developed around soccer teams with its extremist form of hooliganism, or even the fads inspired by certain reality-TV shows. Whenever I visit the old country I am amazed at the out of the ordinary cross-generational behaviour that can be witnessed on a regular basis when watching European TV. This is not to say that these cultural expressions are absent in America, they are very present, but it seems they are kept in check by religiosity and responsibility. The latter is brought about by economic necessity; there is not much of a safety net that you can hope for when excessive consumption takes the place of working. In general, I find North American youths in their early twenties far more mature and responsible than their counterparts across the ocean. They may have less fun but they are far better positioned to lead fruitful and exciting lives, underpinned by a healthy work ethic and undiluted ambition.

So if the average European has become a pleasure-seeking individual devoid of a clear spiritual home you can probably sense how the slow abolition of the nation state and the embrace of the European Union impacts the citizenry. At a time when guidance, purpose and cultural identity would help mitigate the excesses of clueless atheist hedonism, Europeans are offered the uncertainly of a cultureless statist behemoth over which they have very little, if any, influence.

Those who have followed the deterioration in US-European relations over recent years will be eagerly awaiting Free World: Why a Crisis of the West Reveals the Opportunity of Our Time, a new book by Timothy Garton Ash which is due out in October/November this year. The Economist had a preview and notes that according to Garton Ash, Europe and America have more in common than some of the recent rhetoric from both sides would indicate. I especially was intrigued by this comment:

As Donald Rumsfeld tactlessly pointed out, the divisions within Europe mean there is little sense in proclaiming that there is a common European view of the war, peace or even policy in the Middle East –and a similar story prevails on the other side of the Atlantic. The many attempts to argue otherwise, says Mr Garton Ash refreshingly, come from others seeking to grab attention in a crowded market by provocative simplifications and distortions (bolding mine – ed.)

Many weblogs, this one included, have been extremely critical over European attitudes over issues such as Iraq, Israel and the global War on Terror. Simplifications surely have been used in the discussion about US-European relations and co-operation, seeing a once solid ally who is supposed to share the same values abandoning a longtime partnership in what could be one of the defining battles of our times in no small part contributed to the intensity of this debate. Garton Ash is right on the mark by arguing that democracies on both sides of the Atlantic have far more things in common that should enable them to unite. But when I look at the various arguments I have made over time, from socio-economic to demographic to economic, it seems that it is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile the bi-polar free word. It is almost as if there’s as much to unite as there is to divide and while maybe a simplification I don’t think it’s a distortion. At the same time the current state of affairs may well be reversed if Europe is able to deal with all the challenges that prevents it from more clearly aligning its interests with those of the United States. Let’s revisit the discussion when Garton Ash’s book is on the market.

Entered in Beltway's Traffic Jam

Here’s a tidbit from the stack of newspaper clippings I get on a regular basis from my dad, and this recent one really is too good to be true:

“The extent of Reagan’s influence was evident last week when the Green Left party proposed to apply targeted tax cuts to stimulate the Dutch labor market – Reaganomics from the former Communists!”

Lenin is turning in his grave.

Sunday mornings are for reading and coffee drinking, I worked my way through a pile of Dutch magazines Irene brought back from her trip to the motherland. In it a lot of interesting stuff that will somehow work its way into my posts in the weeks ahead. Here’s a very interesting excerpt from an interview with Antony Burgmans, co-Chairman of Anglo-Dutch food conglomerate Unilever after being asked if he had any concerns over Europe’s future:

“Yes. In the past fifty years in Europe a contract has emerged between political elites and the citizen. The political elites have committed to take care of its citizens and in return for that they extract 44% of gross domestic product from society. That leaves very little money for innovation. And as government feels it has a natural right to interfere in everything there are simply too many rules. That leaves very little incentive to be entrepreneurial. Research has indicated it is the greatest ambition of 60% of Europeans to make it to retirement. Isn’t that horrifying?”

Right, there’s Europe for you in a nutshell: the mission is to make it to retirement and the government should pick up the tab. The human qualities of imagination, risk taking and entrepreneurialism have long migrated across the ocean to the new world which by consequence has a far better future.

UPDATE: Glenn points us to this interesting fact:

The US and Canada added more millionaires last year than Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, combined.

Simple isn't it? Taking a risk is likely to be more rewarding than waiting for the goverment to take care of you and hoping that some sort of pension plan will kick in at 65. It doesn't mean everyone in North America will become a millionaire of course, but it means you can have a realistic shot at it and you are probably going to have more fun doing that than just trying to make it to retirement ...

Following my comments on the fraying of the transatlantic security arrangements, it is interesting to note that Bush yesterday spoke out in favor of a good relationship between the US and Europe and a hope that a European defense arrangement would not necessarily undermine NATO. The problem is, it will, as it will make NATO redundant. Bush is setting the stage for his visit to Britain this week, remaining open to continental Europe, while at the same time hoping that Tony Blair can get some verbal assurances from the continent that the EU force will not undermine NATO. Any EU defense grouping would eventually make NATO irrelevant as NATO’s and the EU’s strategic defense priorities are not compatible as long as the US is a NATO member. By virtue of its charter, the US are and will be a NATO member unless it gets to the point that American membership becomes an exercise in futility and Americans decide it is wiser to abandon the transatlantic effort.

The key to this problem may well rest with Blair, by joining a European alliance the British would risk severing the important strategic link they have now forged with the US, something they are unlikely to do. From that perspective NATO may well see a different type of shake-up and transform itself into a loosely organized defense alliance for the Anglosphere with the US, Britain, Canada and potentially Australia and New Zealand as members while the Europeans go their own way. Not an entirely inconceivable scenario.

My discussion earlier on the growing rift between Europe and the US did not elaborate on one of the crucial issues that will be instrumental in the widening of the gap between the two continents: defense. NATO has always been perceived - and to an extent - functioned as a military alliance of the free democratic western world against Soviet expansion, with Turkey functioning as a member of convenience. The ‘Red Threat’ disappeared and in a way NATO has been looking for a new role ever since. Simultaneously the fast integration and expansion of the European Union came with calls for a European defense force, or as one plan from former French President Mitterand and German Chancellor Kohl would have it, a rapid reaction force consisting of military personnel from EU member states. The argument that NATO was probably just that given the multiple membership overlaps never made any serious headway, and when during the 1990s Europe’s leaders failed to react very rapidly to the disintegration and genocide in Yugoslavia, it was the Clinton administration that dusted off good old NATO and gave it a role in the new world. Not for long though, NATO, despite an on the ground assignment in Afghanistan, seems once again relegated to the sidelines and any wishful thinking about a meaningful role for NATO in Iraq is not very likely, here’s Robert Kagan:

NATO probably will increase its involvement in Iraq, and it should. But no one should imagine a significant NATO role; it will probably be around the margins. It will be hard to get France, Belgium, Germany, and Luxembourg to sign up for any big NATO mission in Iraq.

That’s where the problem lies. A number of key NATO members have other plans; diplomatic discord earlier this year over Iraq was just the start of the fraying of the transatlantic western military alliance. The opponents of a joint US-European effort in the war against terror have given new life to the old Franco-German dream of a European military force - rapid or not - that would essentially function as the EU’s army:

Belgium, along with France, Germany and Luxembourg in April proposed an autonomous EU military planning and command centre which will be separate from NATO headquarters.

A scary prospect since we do not need a lot of imagination to project how such an alliance would position itself in global conflicts where the US in the name of freedom, stability and democracy would engage itself militarily. Under the expected visionary leadership emanating from Brussels, that military alliance would position itself on the sidelines, alienating the Americans and underlining that the rift between the two continents has become an unbridgeable gap.

Anyone who would argue that smaller European nations might resist this trend should take note of what has happened over the bending of the EU’s Stability Pact rules where France and Germany eventually got their way. The same mechanism will manifest itself in military affairs. Despite the celebrations over Poland and the Czech Republic signing up for NATO, we should take a look at their geographic and economic location on the map. From whom will they stand to benefit most economically, and who is the best counterweight to their greatest fear, Russian aggression? A distant US embroiled in a war against terror, or their next door neighbors who also happen to control the purse that fuels their economic reconstruction?

This situation will also once again put pressure on any British leader; a yes or no to adopting the Euro is only a prelude to an even more ominous abandonment of sovereignty: putting the fate of the United Kingdom into the hands of a military grouping dominated by a Franco-German axis. No wonder Blair is so close to Bush.

This is the week of assessing the diverging ways that Europe and the US are taking and Glenn points us to Mark Steyn who is good commentator on any day but when he’s on a roll, he’s seriously good. This is a piece that requires reading in its entirety but here’s the essence:

In the war on terror, the United States believes in pre-emption; Canada, like many other ‘allies’ (Europe ed.), believes in pre-emptive surrender. These two strategies are incompatible.

What Steyn also highlights is this week’s survey in Europe that revealed that a whopping 59% of Europeans think that Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. Note that the 59% is just an average and that the number differs per country. Embarassingly, the Dutch are well ahead of the pack as 74% of Dutchmen think Israel is far more dangerous than say, Iran or North Korea. Again Steyn:

At present demographic rates, by 2020 the majority of children in Holland — i.e., the population under 18 — will be Muslim. What do you figure that 74 per cent will be up to by then? Eighty-five per cent? Ninety-six per cent? If Americans think it’s difficult getting the Continentals on side now, wait another decade.

I have received some e-mails inquiring about this amazing number and I will try to address it at some point, in the meantime have a look at what I said about it earlier.

These words from Richard Perle got little traction in North American media, but I find them very interesting. Germany has always been a loyal ally of the US, but ever since the collapse of the Soviet empire there was less of a need for the Germans to stay close to the US. They threw their destiny into the hands of the European effort and in doing so they ended up almost automatically in a close partnership with that other large continental entity that has never exactly been in favor of strong transatlantic arrangements. Perle is making an argument from an American point of view, but I would add that from a European perspective a close Franco-German alignment is also highly undesirable. The French and the Germans may not believe in a strong partnership with the US, but in moving to that position they are dragging many smaller nations committed to strong transatlantic relations with them to the detriment of long-term security and stability in the Western Hemisphere. The inescapable conclusion is that the Americans (and British) will have to go it alone, and that will also sadly mean that NATO is a doomed institution.

Den Beste highlights the growing rift between the US and Europe and finds the word ‘effete’ to describe Europe, a word that has three meanings: decadent, weak and barren (or sterile), Cara Remal has some comments on it as well. Indeed, Europe is drifting and it is not exactly clear where it is going. It would therefore be wrong to say that Europe is morally incompetent, and I would say that it has lost its moral compass. If that situation continues for longer than is good for Europe we can talk about incompetence.

In various communications with friends and family back in Holland there has been a marked increase in concern and disagreement with the positions I have taken on Peaktalk. My pro-American position when discussing the war on terror as well as some critical comments on the old continent on this blog have not been taken kindly by some. Now it is important to note that my family and close friends are generally people who vote right of the center, are law and order types, support fiscal restraint and free markets and are well-educated which in turn has resulted in a decent slot for them on the social and economical ladder. Not exactly your left-liberal anti-war type you would say.

Take my father, now seventy-six, a man whose life interest was built up around what happened during the World War II which played itself out during his teenage years, indeed he had to hide out in the final year of the war when Germans started to round-up and deport young men for forced labor in their rapidly collapsing war industry. He listened illegally to the BBC and his fascination with, and admiration for, Winston Churchill continues unabated to this day. He is a free-market liberal, and when given a chance he will visit war memorials and allied cemeteries wherever he is in Europe. Yet, ever since the beginning of this year he has somehow combined his strong held beliefs about freedom and the importance of a strong transatlantic alliance with a decided dislike of the Bush administration and my mailbox is often filled with Dutch press clippings he has collected that seek to enlighten me over my misguided beliefs around pre-emption and the war against terror in general. I am disappointed about this as it flies in the face of everything he taught me as a child; it was not for nothing that he took me to so many war commemorations and allied cemeteries as a kid. The trauma and enormous casualties that Holland suffered during the Second War helped in instilling the important notion in me that never ever should we appease terror and never again should we shirk in the face of political fanaticism. That thinking fueled the strong support of those on the right in Europe in supporting nuclear armament during the post-war years, deterrence was something that had been painfully forgotten during the 1930s and would not be repeated in the face of Soviet aggression. And now that it has turned out that our apparent greatest enemy collapsed, and that the real enemy with deadly aggressor attitudes has revealed itself, my father drops it. And so does my mother, who all of sudden is able to explain to me over the phone what the problem is with neo-conservatives. And so do many friends who berate me over writing positively about Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. And then there was the gem of one other good friend who advised me to tune in to the BBC to get a more balanced view in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Again, none of them are uneducated; none of them are lefties, on the contrary.

They have disconnected themselves from the US and its core values of defending freedom and democracy and by accident help the acceleration of the deep rift that in the long run will no doubt destabilize Europe and combined with demographic pressures may lead to a gradual collapse of the continent’s political and economic prowess. Indeed, over the next few generations there’s no doubt in my mind that Europe will be under extreme pressure to survive as the polity it is today. I say that without any pleasure or seeming moral superiority, it is a fact and it does not make me very happy, in a way it makes me very sad.

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.

So what is underlying this slow and steady European slide? In the case of my father it may be the wariness of having to endure another world war, remember that support for Iraqi Freedom was lowest among the older generations, even in America. It may also be the case that in order to define itself Europeans adopt the Canadian model of self-definition: What is it that we are? What we are is what we aren’t, and we are definitely not American. Europeans, left, right and center, young and old go out of their way to define themselves as not American. Not that it does not necessarily define them as European, but still it puts them on the map somewhere, they think.

What many Europeans seem to be doing is to isolate themselves from the evil that is engulfing this world by looking down on what European intellectualism defines as the so-called American simplicity and penchant to solve everything with a gun. It is incredible but I grew up in awe of everything that was American and saw the nation as an edifice of achievement and success combined with a willingness to fight for it and to defend it. That was why Reagan struck a chord with the young and ambitious Europeans during the 1980s. He opened the door to what could be if you worked hard and stood up to tyranny. For those of us raised with the notions of freedom and liberty, Ronald Reagan was a validation of what we had always known and it was good to see some retrenchment of leftist policies during those years on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet, anti-Americanism lurked beneath the surface, sinking deeper during the Clinton years when the fruits of the 1980s economic restructuring manifested themselves and a president occupied the White House who seemed so European. Bush’s entry however unleashed all that lurked beneath the European surface in terms of anti-Americanism and after the September 11 attacks it did not take long for many old country media to launch their arguments “it’s tragic what happened, but …”. I bet you that line of reasoning would have been more muted had Clinton still been in the White House. Europeans reject the individualistic, direct, confident, and uncomplicated American that is George Bush, that is Ronald Reagan. Why? Because that is the person that left the Old World to seek a better opportunity across the Atlantic. Europeans could never really deal with these far-flung family members that came back with stories of big houses, big cars and an abundance of food that many in Europe did not know existed. Resentment, probably yes, self-reproach for not having been adventurous enough? Maybe. America represents a level of success and makeability that Europeans never had and to the extent they had it we will have to go back to the industrial revolution and before, to find it. That spirit has somehow left them and those left behind will go as far to jeopardize their own security in order to prove their point about America. The dominant European media reinforce this notion and if the geographic distribution of my readership is any indication of Europeans’ willingness to hear a different point of view, then I am not very optimistic that they will ever get one. This time the US will not bail out the old continent as the strategic and economic map of the world has changed beyond recognition. As a child I once uncovered in our attic an old newspaper clipping with a map of Europe from 1939 that my father had colored blue, red and green to see which country stood where in the conflict between the allies and the axis. Today we can use just one color to determine who stands where. One color representing a directionless strategy that combines the worst of appeasement and inaction. This time the European self-defeating position will lead to their ultimate undoing.

Bush and Schroeder apparently had a good meeting and it is tempting to contrast the Bush-Schroeder dynamic with the Bush-Chirac interactions. In relation to Iraq a number of things strike me: the first one is that Schroeder probably senses that a huge Muslim population in his own country is something to worry about in the long run, as opposed to Chirac. But he also no doubt has come to the realization that the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq is very similar to the effort that was undertaken in Germany last century. By contributing to this effort under the UN flag Schroeder is not just following a sensible international effort, he is listening to that moral imperative: maybe we Germans should help others the way we were helped almost 60 years ago. Definitely interesting points, but the most compelling argument no doubt is the sheer pragmatism that is driven by the ballot-box, Schroeder’s Social-Democrats are toast if an election were held today and that is a dynamic that Chirac probably does not have to deal with for a while, if ever.

A reader asks to what extent Chirac is vulnerable and if he is not facing any election that would force him to tread a bit more carefully. Chirac served his first term from 1995 to 2002 after which an amendment was enacted that reduced presidential terms in France to five years. I am not sure if there’s a constitutional two-term limit in France, but if there is then Chirac has got another four years to go after which he will probably retire. The one thing on Chirac’s mind is carving out a legacy for himself and he has two unique opportunities in front of him that would ensure that, one being defining France’s role in Europe and the other one positioning France vis-à-vis the United States, formalizing France's role in the world at large. Chirac in other words has entered an important stage of his presidency and it is unlikely that he will be very flexible in dealing with the outside world if that would jeopardize his legacy. It should be noted that Chirac represents the right in France, just imagine what the world would have to put up with if it were a French socialist occupying the Elysee.

The announcement earlier today that Dutch Foreign Minister De Hoop Scheffer will be the new NATO Secretary-General highlights the importance of strengthening the transatlantic links, which is discussed below in “French Europe”. The decision was apparently delayed as France was procrastinating and Canada was seeking to push it own candidate. The unwritten rule however is that NATO’s military leader is an American, and its political leader a European. With a Dutchman in that role we can probably expect a continued pragmatic approach to joint security issues, as opposed to the confrontational ways in which some European nations have recently exercised their transatlantic options.

I guess no one expected any miracles from the Blair-Schroder-Chirac summit, and in an interview with the New York Times today the French President underlines his position for a rapid transfer of power in Iraq by the US to a new Iraqi administration and his inflexibility to come to a swift agreement on Iraq.

The entire blogosphere jumped on the piece of Tom Friedman, also in the NYT, asserting that France is not a rival or an annoying ally, but an enemy that sees itself as an equal to the US. If Friedman is right, and I think he is, then what is even scarier is that the French have not only bullied many in Europe into their delusional vision of a European Union, but that they are undermining the vital security link that exists between the US and Western Europe. With assistance from Germany the French will no doubt push very hard for their agenda and try to intimidate especially the smaller countries by leveraging their strong position in the EU. For now, that force is getting some pushback from the UK (Blair), Spain (Aznar) and Italy (Berlusconi), but the moment that the latter two fail in their next elections and make way for pro-European forces then the British are alone. At that point the Anti-American sentiment in Europe will have the upper hand and it will be in a position to damage the long term security interests of all Europeans, and what is worse, it may undo all the achievements that post World War II Europe has made. No doubt you will remember that prior to the invasion of Iraq, Chirac reacted furiously to some smaller European countries that were willing to support the US, today in the NYT he has not taken back a word of that bullying attitude:

Mr. Chirac defended his outburst last February when he berated Central and Eastern European countries poised to join the European Union for missing an opportunity to "keep quiet" when they signed letters supporting American policy in Iraq before the war. "I don't regret it; I should regret it, but I don't," he said, adding, "You can take your own position if you want to, that's not the problem but at least warn us first so we don't look ridiculous." Such an approach, he said, is "not the way that Europe is made."

And the way Europe is being made is the way France wants it, and beware of taking an independent stance; it could make Chirac look ridiculous. This is episode is textbook lesson in what a unified Europe will unleash onto the free world.

Not surprisingly the Bush team is trying to sign up the UN to help out in Iraq, a wise move and it falls right into the strategy to exhaust all other options before any further US troops are committed. Bush also relies on strengthening ties with nations that have already committed troops in Iraq and this morning he had breakfast with Dutch Prime-Minister Balkenende and the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, De Hoop Scheffer. All right, I am not entirely neutral here, my national pride rises to the surface every now and then, and when Dutch politicians get the red carpet treatment at the White House I do pay extra attention. The importance of this meeting was underlined as Cheney, Powell and Rice attended as well and I like to interpret this as a sign that my native country is a solid US ally on the European continent which Bush in turn may need in case of likely future diplomatic battles with the French and Germans. The Dutch have always been solid allies of the US (in fact The Netherlands was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with the newborn US in 1782) and I have very little doubt that the lessons of history play an important part in this. The Dutch Foreign minister after today’s meeting commented that:

The seriousness with which Bush discussed nuclear proliferation in Iran and North-Korea was the thing that I found really noticeable. It will become very dangerous if things with these countries do not work out.

Indeed. His reaction reveals that the gravity of that situation so far has not really registered on a number of European radar screens. Maybe the Dutch team can help disseminate that message across the continent.

Update: here's a more detailed briefing about the Dutch visit, including pictures of the Dutch PM laying a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery.

The Economist this week visits an old schism between Europe and North America: Holidays. While Europeans are lavished with in some cases up to 40 days of paid holiday by their employers, their North American counterparts have to do with significantly less. Americans have an average holiday entitlement of 16 days but take 14 on average, in Europe the holiday allowance ranges from 28 to 42 according to the Economist.

As much as I am a free-market, capitalist, Anglo-Saxon enamored person, the idea that you take an absolutely minimal amount of holidays is baffling. I work with employees who accept the legal minimum here which is 10 days, in my native country no one would even turn up for work given such a skimpy entitlement. It is interesting that Canadians – so often accused of following the European socialist welfare model – have adapted to the American model when it comes vacationing: less is better. Even the powerful unions have not been able to secure additional leisure time for their members. The situation has also translated into attitudes, as it is very often cool to be seen to be working hard and macho to eschew holidays, one of my former business associates here commented that when he took off for his summer break of one week (!) it was essentially his wife that forced him to take it. He would be picking up e-mails and be ready to come back to the office if need be. In my Asian days it were indeed also the Americans who thought nothing of taking stacks of legal documents on their trip to some remote tropical destination or encouraged me to read up on a convoluted tax-driven oil & gas deal structure on a flight to a well deserved break (which by the way I refused). The Europeans, including the Brits, were always gone leaving the paperwork behind: it’s holiday time!

That does not mean that I think work obligations should be subrogated to holiday arrangements, on the contrary. When there is a real and identifiable need you should be available, pack up your bags and show up for work, I have done that on a number of occasions and I do not regret it at all, part of the job. But under normal circumstances, people should be able to take a few uninterrupted breaks from work to relax, rejuvenate and not look at the screen of their PC, but look a the sunset with the only worry being where to have dinner tonight. That is hard to achieve with an average of 14 days in the bank. I not only have great memories of these breaks as they have taken me all over the world, they help you in showing up for work as a rejuvenated person with fresh ideas able to contribute in a meaningful and enthusiastic way to the job.

When I started out working in Britain I got 25 days, which in addition to the statutory days is a bit long for a young guy straight from university, you are young enough to work long and you are not making enough to go on big holidays anyway, and an extended spell at a college or university in most cases could be regarded as a holiday so why reward newcomers on the job market? In Hong Kong, moving into my 30s, I got 20 days but together with the luxury of both British and Chinese statutory holidays I managed to discover parts of Asia and visit family back in Europe every single year. Given the long hours I was making I think that was a pretty decent arrangement. What was not entirely normal was to go to 10-15 days a year after I had landed in Canada and this was one of the more important issues that helped me decide to become a self-employed consultant. Maybe less money initially yes, but more freedom and more holiday flexibility. When I look at the days I have taken off this year, and these are days taken purely on the basis of the needs of myself, Irene and the kids irrespective of the financial implications, it so far has been only 3 weeks for a family visit with likely another week for a trip to Oregon and Northern California in the fall. With a few days here and there that takes me to about 25 days, a mid-point between the European average and the upper band of the puritan North Americans. A Dutch friend commented on this schedule as “boy, do you work hard”. Well, maybe I do by his standards but it puts me in a spot where I think I achieve an optimal balance between work and relaxation, which in turn should yield a decent productivity level. Way ahead of European, short of North American standards, but good for me. If that means that I continue to be some hybrid of European and North American mores, well so be it.

“Liberal” on this side of the Atlantic is always associated with the “Left” whereas in its true meaning it is describing “freedom” as in the freedom to act, the freedom to trade, the freedom to conduct enterprise and freedom from government interference. Samizdata correctly points that out when discussing the Economist’s 160th anniversary. And by the way, I agree with their assessment, the Economist is a great periodical but their tone can indeed be a little smart-assed and I would add maybe from time to time a little condescending.

Many in North America take “Liberal” to be describing the “Left”, which for instance is why Rachel Lucas’ merchandise is labeled with the amusing slogan “Imagine No Liberals”. But, although I tend to agree with most of what Rachel says and I think her mug is incredibly cool, I simply cannot buy into the slogan. In North America the term liberal refers to the socially progressive and over time this has come to be the label for the “Left” in general. Same in Canada, the Liberal Party is to the left of the political center, in The Netherlands however the Liberal Party is clearly to the right.

The problem with the way the term “Liberal” is used in North America is essentially that it moves away from the core of what it is to be on the “Right”. In North America you are a conservative if you adhere to free markets, low taxes, being tough on crime and a pro-active (pre-emptive these days) foreign policy. But the conservative field also encompasses the religious right, social intolerants and racists so where does that leave the free market, tough on crime and terrorism crowd who at the same time are socially liberal and see nothing wrong with, for instance, legalizing prostitution? The term coined for this group so far has been “Libertarian-Right” or “Conservative-Liberals”. Neither term in my opinion fits the bill entirely, so we may need to find a better term for this rapidly growing portion of the electorate on both sides of the Atlantic. In some countries there is even a need to establish a political party that will cater to their specific beliefs and opinions. I guess most of you are familiar with the Political Compass test (which will test you and determine where you are politically) but for completeness sake I will throw it into this discussion, have a look here. Yours truly ended up on the Libertarian-Right.

My parents always collect a healthy dose of articles and newspaper clippings for me to read and I always spend quite a bit of time shortly after my arrival digesting interesting pieces of news and analysis that I never picked up online. Here’s an interesting one and it discusses the issue of immigration and integration, which continues to dominate Dutch and European headlines. While there are the obvious social and cultural obstacles that prevent many newcomers from being able to integrate it turns out that the key reason is economic. In the United States 10% of the total population consists of immigrants, but of the total working population in the US, 11.7% are immigrants. Immigrants in the US thus contribute disproportionately to production, which is good since it helps the integration process as well as the ability of newcomers to build up a secure economic position. Contrast this with Holland where an equal 10% of the population consists of immigrants, yet a paltry 3.4% of the working population are immigrants. It is not too much of a stretch to think that the same numbers can be found elsewhere in Europe and likewise the US numbers should be similar in Canada and Australia. The discrepancy between Europe and traditional Anglo-Saxon immigration countries results from the fact that the immigration countries apply very strict criteria as to who are let in and can join the workforce and are therefore loath to open their borders to those who will have to fall back on government support. In Europe, and Holland is a good example, immigration has not been subject to rigorous screening resulting in significant numbers of newcomers who have not been able to connect and integrate in their new home countries.

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

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

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