US Presidential 2012: Among GOP Leaders, No One Thinks of Europe

The Huffington Post ran this piece on the foreign policy ideas of the United States' Republican leaders for the 2012 presidential race. European and transatlantic issues are glaringly absent from the party's foreign agenda.

Also called the GOP (for "Grand Ole Party"), Republicans constitute the other half of the US political party system, with Obama's Democratic party seen as more aligned with European-style ideas on the role of the state, social welfare and other issues. These Republicans, who after the President's rough two-and-a-half years in office, are sure to give Obama a serious run for his money. European observers following the early maneuvers of the 2012 campaign should know these names and judge who might toe the line against Obama, who as the incumbent will surely be nominated again as his party's leader.

Here are EurAmerican's picks for the three best and worst GOP hopefuls when it comes to foreign affairs. At best, the top dogs present a balanced and respectful attitude toward America's involvements abroad, a condition that is not always a given, with a certain focus placed on trade and high-skilled immigration. Among the worst candidates, several posture around imbalanced policy considerations that range from myopic to unrealistic, on such issues as support for Israel and what to do against the threat of Islamic extremism. A casual reading of the HuffPo article reveals that, in a party overwhelmed with either domestic or at least non-European foreign policy questions, few take the time for pronouncements specific to the Old Continent.

The Best Three

1) Mitt Romney

HuffPo says, "in an effort to make the U.S. a more competitive economy -- particularly with China -- Romney has proposed enforcing looser immigration laws to take advantage of highly skilled workers. (...)

Americans, St.Patrick's Day and the Morality of Drinking

Dig this from the Pew Research Center's findings on American morality and St. Patrick's Day. This week, Americans will celebrate Ireland's patron saint, and not necessarily because they have Irish heritage. For many this means excessive drinking, though the tradition is not morally neutral, at least in the US. A full 61 percent of Americans polled find excessive drinking morally wrong, Pew reports. There is also a huge disparity on the morals of drinking between self-identified liberals (50%) and conservatives (71%). An even greater divide runs along the education line: forty-three percent of those with a college degree disapproved of excessive alcohol consumption, while those with a high-school education or lower did so at a whopping 74 percent.

Also see Pew's study on American moral perceptions of sex, drugs and cheating on taxes.

Lukashenko Versus WashPo, Or, Basic Freedoms

The Washington Post ran this interview Sunday between Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and one of the newspaper's editors, Lally Weymouth. Last December, the country held elections that gave a victory and a fourth presidential term to Lukashenko. The news incited massive protests and the round-up of over 700 pro-democracy demonstrators. The EU and the US have responded by imposing sanctions and asset freezes on Belarus' top government officials and their families. Relations remain tense as the Lukashenko administration and opposition forces continue to struggle against one another both at home and in foreign diplomacy and press.

On an editorial note, Lukashenko exhibits what seems to be a fundamentally flawed understanding of the exercise of the freedoms of assembly and the press in the United States, which results in what is at times a comically arrogant disdain for these human rights. See the full interview for more discussion on legal rights, amnesty and the jailing of opposition leaders. 

The president's stance utterly owns his designation as "Europe's last dictator," as he was recently described by former U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. He references ideas such as "propaganda" and "the fifth column" that smack of a Cold War rhetoric most in the West would be disappointed to learn had not vanished forever. The president goes so far as to offer a bizarre-o insinuation that President Obama may be assassinated and "repeat the fate of Kennedy" -- and this, according to the Belarusian leader, because he's not keeping a tight enough rein on his political opposition. 

The following are some of the interview's best parts, with Weymouth in italics and Lukashenko in regular typeface.

"If you hold an election and seven out of the nine candidates running against you end up in jail, it is not a very good signal to the West that [Belarus] is an open and democratic place. Plus, there were limits on the amount of money the candidates could raise and how much time they could spend on television. There was only one debate, and you did not participate.

"The question is not about the time limit the candidates [had] in the media. The question is what these candidates said. They were saying that Lukashenko needs to be hanged. Belarus is a wayward country. So, the Americans decided to treat the results of the elections in a very negative way."

...
 

"... If your security services had information that people were trying to engage in mass disturbances, they would arrest hundreds of thousands of people.

"I don't think so.

"You don't think so, but I know so."

...

"Why did you kick out the U.S. ambassador in 2008?

"Why do we need an ambassador who is masterminding the actions of the fifth column?

"Do you really believe this?

"I am the president of Belarus. I know this."

...

"What is your impression of President Obama?

"Good opinion, but you don't let him do his job.

"Who is "you?"

"The opposition.

"You mean Republicans?

"Not just Republicans - I mean businessmen, some part of the security forces. I don't think Obama would like to repeat the fate of Kennedy.

"Why did you bring that up?

"If Obama will go on pursuing his course of action, there will be people who may not like it. He will pursue the interest of the majority of his people, but there will be radical people who don't like this course of action. It may have bad consequences."

Egypt and the European Angle

Here's some of what we in the U.S. may not be seeing in regards to the European response on Egypt:

From Presseurop
 

The European Voice reports that the EU is reconsidering their aid structures to the country, which for the last three weeks has been paralyzed by protesters demanding the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. Earlier this month EU leaders gathered in Brussels called for a democratic transition 'now,' offering various EU instruments that include "proposals and projects" to assist a post-Mubarak Egypt. The columnist Bruce Stokes underscores the leverage that trade could provide in stabilizing the nation should the current president, who has occupied his seat since 1981, respond to broad calls from his citizens that he step down.

From Le Figaro

Le Figaro describes a furious public after this afternoon's speech by Mubarak, in which the president announced the transfer of his powers without going as far as resigning his office. This article features a fascinating minute-by-minute timeline on the events of the day, from before the speech to the march toward the TV station where Mubarak had delivered his address.  

EUobserver sports a black-and-white dichotomy between in reporting and editorial blogs, with almost zero attention paid to the Egypt conflict in the former, and near-exclusive focus poured onto the Middle Eastern nation. Roberto Foa alludes to the region then segues nicely into a demographic analysis.  George Irvin surmises that, "will Mubarak go? The answer must surely be ‘yes’," before launching into a security debate with an Israeli-Arab orientation.  Nicu Popescu writes on revolutions, European "fence-sitting" as policy and the Egypt uprising's similarities with those in Albania and Belarus.

Presseurop submits that the revolutions across North Africa are only difficultly comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. On EU-Middle East relations, they say it's "time to ditch the Arab stereotype."

Euronews bring an under-reported angle to the religious climate in Egypt, where Muslims and Coptic Christians are united in solidarity during anti-government protests.

Global Europe illustrates discord between the EU's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, and the Egyptian government, after the latter warned her not to follow through on a planned diplomatic visit later this month. Those close to Ashton say she still plans to arrive in the region, at least to Tunisia.

Watch this space for more on European and US dealings in the ongoing Egyptian turmoil.

The West and the Sudan Referendum

THOUGH it deserved better than being relegated to the Sunday "Outlook" section, The Washington Post today ran a compelling early-warning article and video on the role of the international community as Sudan gears up for a referendum on January 9th. In less than a week, southern Sudanese will take to the ballot box and determine whether their half of the country will secede from its northern counterpart. The north-south divide has produced decades of violence fueled by economic, racial and religious differences, notably in the region of Darfur, and many international figures have expressed great regret over not doing more to stabilize the region.

This time, leaders hope, will be different: President Obama has initiated a blitz of diplomatic activity in an effort to preemptively avoid violence. The push has involved US officials as well as foreign partners. Obama has sent over twenty envoys to the region in recent months, and has bundled a mixed carrot-and-stick package designed to motivate Sudanese power figures into a proactive mindset toward keeping the peace. The US president has also enlisted the help of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, whose country abuts Sudan's northern border. Mubarak can leverage diplomatic and political heft with Sudan's would-be warmakers, the US administration hopes. Said Samantha Power, an advisor to Obama on the region, "this is the first time I have seen the US government devote so many high-level resources to preventing violence before it happens rather than responding to it after the fact."

In light of the violence in recent years, the event will take

place under the strong glare of international media, which boosts at least somewhat the chances of a peaceful referendum. And a host of international groups are involved, with the African Union acting as peace brokers, the European Union with offers of economic aid, and a full 10,000 UN staff on the ground to ensure a voting process both fair and on-time.

However, the piece argues, "diplomacy can only be effective if it is complemented by a willingness to take action if prevention fails." This rings loudly of a hard-power solution of last resort, should the violence that is so dreaded nonetheless erupt. The article, written by the genocide prevention expert Michael Abramowitz, goes on to suggest dim hopes for the overly optimistic. It reminds the reader of the recent catastrophes in Rwanda and Bosnia, as well as the withering criticism roused by the international community's role -- by turns inappropriate, insufficient or lacking entirely -- in both of these.

Abramowitz therefore urges that the international community be prepared to make war to break war, so to speak, even as he strongly questions the role the UN would be able to play should armed intervention become necessary. 

"It is far from clear that the U.N. Security Council would react quickly to an unfolding crisis, and most experts agree that the U.N. troops in Sudan would be of little use should atrocities commence. (Years of conferences, NATO and E.U. deliberations, and think-tank studies on civilian protection have yet to yield momentum for an effective international rapid-deployment force to deal with such emergencies.) The United States has the capacity to intervene militarily in Sudan, but after 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, would it have the will, and would it be effective?

If the unthinkable were to happen in Sudan this year, we might hear echoes of Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general in charge of peacekeeping forces in Rwanda in 1994, who futilely begged the United Nations for more troops to end the slaughter there - and who has lived in anguished regret over his failure ever since."

Abramowitz clearly sees the need for a two-pronged security approach for Sudan: 1) do everything possible to prevent violence from happening, and b) should violence return, be prepared to quell fighting with a persuasive (meaning mighty) show of force from the international community. 

PRACTICALLY speaking, the burden of the second task of course falls to the West. The military prowess of the African Union and its members is more reputed for internecine warring than for effective peacekeeping. More worrying still, the other blocs involved -- the EU, the UN, the United States -- face deep structural differences on what necessitates armed response to bloody conflict. The recent ghosts of Bosnia, Rwanda, Afghanistan and Iraq have only emphasized this disparity, in which the US is most often ready to fight (Afghanistan) -- but fights when it shouldn't (Iraq), or doesn't when it should (Rwanda), or fights too late (Bosnia). 

By drastic contrast, Europe suffers from a nearly Pavlovian reflex against military action of any kind, for any reason. This is the product of deeply entrenched civilizational lessons learned from two world wars fought at home, as well as a "never again war" dogma that has occasionally blinded the continent to its responsibility to act militarily in the world during times of true humanitarian need (Bosnia, again).

We all hope that no referendum-related violence transpires in Sudan, but another major question may develop among the international community of the West: if intervention becomes necessary, will we be of one accord to execute it?

Krugman's US-Euronomics

Consider this an info-dump of Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman's latest postings at the New York Times. If this seems like something of an antidote to EurAmerican's atypically hawkish and euroskeptic posts from this week's Wall Street Journal, so much the better. Balance in partisanship -- that's what we like!

Krugman's pieces grow from the spark provided in this piece, also from the NYT, which takes the pulse of the current "we told you so" debate going on between Europe's solvents and debtors. It traces the germinations of the euroskeptic debate back to an obscure 1992 report from the Financial Times. In it the politologue Ed Balls observed a crucial and possibly disastrous difference between the nascent euro currency project and the environment of the US, another continent-wide monetary zone. The report concluded, to borrow the NYT piece's shorthand, that "Europe lacked the type of federal taxes and transfer payments used in the United States to ease economic divergences among its many states." 

Courtesy The New York Times

The NYT piece goes on to juxtapose prominent voices from the euroskeptic and the pro-EU antipodes. Speaking about the current troubles, Norman Lamont, the former Conservative chancellor of the exchequer, had this to say about the euro in the near future:

“I have always said that the euro will break up,” Mr. Lamont said in a recent interview. “Not after the first crisis today, but after the second crisis, which could be 10 years away. This is, after all a political project, not an economic project.” 

In contrast, Jerzy Buzek, the current head of the European Parliament, used with these words during December's opening of the Europe House, headquarters of the European Union delegation in London:

“We remember what happened in the last big crisis — it was something horrible, and such a threat is always waiting for us... Let us answer by having more solidarity. Overcoming history is an imperative for us.” 

It bears noting that Buzek's tone on the euro crisis -- which is far from finished ravaging great swathes of Europe and the world -- suggests that the "last big crisis,"  as he puts it, is already past, and belongs to history. These pictures provide a markedly more compelling argument that the euro crisis is both ongoing and far more serious the Buzek's seemingly clueless tone would indicate.

US Pessimism on Euro Crisis, New START

Two noteworthy US media pieces have blipped on the Euro-pessimism radar, so I thought I'd echo them. 

EurAm doesn't necessarily endorse these views in their entirety, though it's certainly closer to these than the euphoria sweeping parts of the anti-nuclear set. Regardless, at the end of the day, it's about the sharing of Europe commentary -- especially what's taking place outside of Europe, especially what's candid and controversial -- that allows you the reader to cut to the heart of transtatlantic debate.  

So away we go:

1) Count on The Hudson Institute for consistently euro-pessimistic, moderate-conservative commentary from Washington. In today's Wall Street Journal, Hudson's economic policy expert Irwin Stelzer lays out acid commentary characteristic of his firm in a 2010 EU year in review, excerpted below. Note the passing reference to the US Constitution, lending a spontaneously Euro-American comparative view to the succeeding lines. Stelzer also leaves off with an intentionally troubling final thought on China, and the economic and geopolitical capital it could gain as the eurozone tailspin continues.

"All else that happened in Euroland in 2010 pales into insignificance when compared with the decision to set up mechanisms for replacing—some say supplementing, some say monitoring—national decision-making on fiscal policy with control by the Brussels-based Eurocracy, amending the Lisbon Treaty to make that possible. This is the step that the founders of the euro always knew would some day be necessary. That day has now arrived, and they are delighted.

Douthat on Christianity and Christmas

Ross Douthat of the New York Times takes on some of the more prickly cultural aspects of present-day American Christianity in his latest column. His prose begins with a certain whiff of cynicism before plateauing to a more insightful double book review of sorts on the state of the Christian faith, in a season when it is so consciously thought of (even if this mainly takes the form of shopping and social-event planning). Douthat begins:

"... This is also the season when American Christians can feel most embattled. Their piety is overshadowed by materialist ticky-tack. Their great feast is compromised by Christmukkwanzaa multiculturalism. And the once-a-year churchgoers crowding the pews beside them are a reminder of how many Americans regard religion as just another form of midwinter entertainment, wedged in between “The Nutcracker” and “Miracle on 34th Street.” 

Boom!, cracks the columnist's irony. But Douthat's real thesis emerges late and tucked in among other thoughts of the third paragraph.

These anxieties can be overdrawn, and they’re frequently turned to cynical purposes... But they also reflect the peculiar and complicated status of Christian faith in American life. Depending on the angle you take, Christianity is either dominant or under siege, ubiquitous or marginal, the strongest religion in the country or a waning and increasingly archaic faith.

He goes on to describe the arch of American Christianity's progress to the state we find it in today. Borrowing the metaphor of "a shock and two aftershocks," namely the cultural revolution of the 1960s, followed by the religious conservatism that arose through the 1980s-era "moral majority" and the culture wars of the 1990s. The second aftershock is taking place now, "a backlash to that backlash — a revolt against the association between Christian faith and conservative politics... in which millions of Americans (younger Americans, especially) may be abandoning organized Christianity altogether."

On the European side of things, the near-empty churches and chapels scattered over the European continent seem to have experienced this exodus of the young decades ago. Not since before World War II has Christian life on the Old Continent known any semblance of thriving culture that includes a sizable contingent of the young. Perhaps the U.S. (and Canada, too) is slowly edging toward a European likeness, where Christianity is marginalized as a practice and sometimes openly mocked by opinion leaders in a manner not tolerated States-side.

Douthat ends with a provocative final thought, which bears an uncanny relevance to Europe if one chooses to read it that way. I'll make my conclusion by borrowing his:

"... Believing Christians are no longer what they once were — an overwhelming majority in a self-consciously Christian nation [or civilization]. The question is whether they can become a creative and attractive minority in a different sort of culture, where they’re competing not only with rival faiths but with a host of pseudo-Christian spiritualities, and where the idea of a single religious truth seems increasingly passé.

Or to put it another way, Christians need to find a way to thrive in a society that looks less and less like any sort of Christendom — and more and more like the diverse and complicated Roman Empire where their religion had its beginning."

UPDATE: In an event pregnant with symbolism given the above, the Obama family made a highly unusual church visit this past Sunday.

Midterms and Moderation

In the frenzy of international coverage on the U.S. midterm elections, voices on either side of the Atlantic are starting to turn from frenetic excitement to more cool-headed thinking on what lies ahead for American politics--and their effect in the world.

The latest post from Gulfstream Blues paints a damning picture of the new make-up in Congress, where Republican candidates won six seats in the Senate and a whopping 67 in the House of Representatives. But Democrats managed to hang on to their majority in the Senate, and have a steady ally in Obama; As most bills pass from the House to the Senate and then to the President, the new GOP-heavy House still faces tall hurdles in getting the Washington political machine to crank its way. 

And the government shake-up may still be feeling the first tremors of the 2010 partisan earthquake. Some House Democrats have joined fed-up Republicans in calling for Nancy Pelosi to resign. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House and superlative bête noire of conservative circles around the country, has become increasingly seen as a stale mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. 

Growing rumors place Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) at the top of the Democratic Party's leadership list, though his record is considered too moderate by many progressives under the Democratic party banner. But no clear alternative has emerged, giving Hoyer a strong shot at clinching the Democratic leadership despite some of his party's misgivings. A choice like Hoyer may bring his party's side of the rapidly partisan  Congress toward the middle, which may neutralize some of the incendiary rhetoric heard in the election run-up. Then again, the fiscally conservative coalition of "Blue Dog" Democrats suffered heavy losses Tuesday, which may remove a stabilizing force from Washington's already polarized atmosphere.

Now that the Republicans have poured into Congress (the biggest victory in 70 years, writes The Washington Post), key questions have risen on message and how much the party can realistically expect to accomplish. The "Party of 'No'" has been surprisingly effective at stonewalling much of Obama's initiatives, stirring ire from within the country and baffled confusion from without. 

Yet Republicans can't get too ambitious, or the electorate will throw them out in 2012. Nevertheless Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) publicly stated Thursday that his aim is to "deny President Obama a second term in office." He tempered these stiff words with a reminder to Republicans that they "have to be realistic about what we can and cannot achieve, while at the same time recognizing that realism should never be confused with capitulation." 

McConnell and Obama may find some common ground when they meet at the White House November 18th. Obama may agree to a temporary extension of high-earner tax cuts, and McConnell could build support for an upcoming House bill that would limit its current $1.4 billion operations budget. House minority leader and Speaker-apparent John Boehner (R-Ohio), has agreed to seek a 72-hour reading period for all bills, which will give the diminished Democratic caucus more time to consider new legislation.

Each of these measures will, if passed, play to the middle of taxpayers' concerns with profligate government spending on one end and, on the other, recession-era federal liquidity seen by many as vital to keeping the U.S. economy on track to recovery.

*

For European observers of the midterms, it is vital to accept that American politics is fundamentally different from politics on the Continent. The U.S. and Europe are not aligned on one continuous political spectrum. Their histories in classical liberalism, socialism and other political thought lines are connected but different. Observers frequently use the one-spectrum image to reduce transatlantic comparison to bite-sized and ultimately meaningless dimensions. Europe has its own political spectrum, and that of the U.S. is wholly separate; together the two form a kind of fuzzy X shape in which certain fundamental values and ideas make up the center in similar ways--or don't. All other branches trace their roots to distinct roots of the transatlantic political tree. 

Criticizing U.S. politics is easy (and easy to oversimplify) from a European perch, especially given certain night-and-day differences, such as how much money is involved in American campaigning. The liberal commentariat unleashed withering rebukes on the mostly Conservative Supreme Court for having opened up the floodgates of deregulated campaign finance in 2009. But little suggests that more cash in the game means more money for conservatives, any more than for the Democrats as well. 

"Perhaps the most important lesson from Election Day was that money simply can't overcome demographics. Republicans who spent big tended to run in states where the Democratic Party dominates," writes the Washington Post.

Americans are sometimes chided as not voting in a way that considers all those under American governing influence, which is to say all those affected -- worldwide -- by all (or any one) U.S. policy. Ridiculous notions that "Europeans should get to vote in U.S. elections too" surface in op-eds like this one from European Voice:

"If European observers ever wondered if American elections matter, this mid-term election is likely to demonstrate how important shifts in political power can be, especially for Europeans and others who did not get a vote."

This kind of pontificating, with its apparent disregard for national sovereignty and will of the people, is exactly what alienates Americans from Europeans politically, and vice-versa. It does little to advance the understanding that would inform U.S. voters, who would lean on representatives, who would then legislate in the common interest of transatlantic citizens everywhere.

Let's be more specific, and take the foreign policy example of Iran. Fears over a U.S. military response to Iran's nuclear progress are largely overblown, contrary to what European Voice has claimed, because the two wars America is currently fighting leave next to zero political capital to take on a third fight. Likewise, the U.S. resistance to climate change legislation, a top-priority issue for Europeans, sits on the back-burner of Congressional legislation when global economic recovery, huge joblessness, and Iraq and Afghanistan are still left on its political plate--and all that, in an election year. 

*

Many Republicans dug in their heels in 2008-2010 because they felt they had to. Greatly outnumbered in Congress, with furious voters at home, the GOP had to fight tooth-and-nail to preserve its influence. Some fear more entrenched partisan skirmishing through 2012; I wonder if a chamber held by each party may actually have the psychological effect of easing the pressure on each side not to reflexively dismiss the other's concerns. In an interview in the Washington Post, Blue Dog Democrat Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) cited Bill Clinton's urge to grab at small-scale progress in the face of steep odds. 

"If you can't get a dollar but you can get a dime, take a dime every time," Schuler quoted the former President.

With Democrats holding both the Senate and the White House, Republican triumphalism--or the liberal doom-and-gloom that has inversely mirrored it--is far from a practical, moderate reading of this week's events. If the GOP leads the pack today, there's no guarantee they won't stumble in future clutch moments. We saw as much in the mediocre transatlantic dealings of a Democrat-controlled House, Senate and White House since 2008.

On EU Foreign Corps, EU Officials Optimistic, Others Very Skeptical

           The locomotive of the European Union’s nascent diplomatic corps has been picking up speed, with a ribbon-cutting at the service’s new Washington site on Sep. 29^th, and officials in Brussels promising it will be ready to roll before the planned start of December 1st. But critics on both sides of the Atlantic have expressed major doubts as to whether the world can expect an EU foreign agency that can chug its weight.

            Created after the landmark Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009, the European External Action Service (EEAS) will seek to unify the EU’s voice in world diplomatic affairs. Its chief architect, Lady Catherine Ashton, sits as the EU foreign affairs chief and one of several vice presidents of the European Commission. Another key figure is João Vale de Almeida, the EU ambassador to the United States, who has been promoting a strongly optimistic view on the EEAS starting off well this winter.

EU Officials: New Service? No Problem

            The EU’s new service will offer a “a more reliable, more credible, and a more results-oriented partner” to the United States, Almeida pledged in a September interview with Washington’s The Hill newspaper. A Portuguese national and longtime deputy to European Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso, Almeida arrived in Washington in July amid talk of a “wider mandate” for his ambassadorship.

           

            “My ambition is to move beyond what exists today, to build a stronger and even more positive EU-US agenda with solid bilateral and global pillars,” Almeida said in an August press release, before presenting his credentials at the White House. He promised “an agenda that unlocks the full potential of our economies, promotes joint action in foreign policy, and enhances our capacity as global partners."

            Almeida’s words obliquely addressed critics’ concerns about the EU’s readiness to operate a new diplomatic structure—and a big one at that. As a branch of the Brussels-based European Commission, the EEAS will comprise 8,000 officials, with 800 more EU diplomats dispersed among the agency’s 136 foreign embassies. On budget, the latest estimates from the Devex newswire put the EEAS’ funds at $620 million. (...)

US Congress, Anonymous Official Step in to EU Roma Row

When the EU-neglectful United States Congress interjects, it's serious. Democrats Benjamin Cardin (MD) and Alcee L. Hastings, and another official insisting on anonymity have criticized France's deportations of the Roma as a "shell game" for minority migration laws that have often played against the country's Muslim population, the largest in Europe. See the full story from EUobserver.

German Pride, EU Crisis, and the US

Check out this big-picture perspective on resurgent national pride in Germany from the New York Times.  The country that Jurgen Habermas once termed the "self-absorbed colussus," crippled with guilt over two world wars, the horrors of the Nazi-led Holocaust and global acrimony spanning generations is now staging a comeback -- to itself. 

The historically conflicted "German-German relationship" of its citizens could be showing signs of thaw, evident in new roles of German prominence from crisis-time leadership in the European Union, to its soccer team's success in this summer's World Cup to the current preponderance of German acts on European pop charts. From the article:

“Maybe it’s our time again,” said Catherine Mendle, 25, a school social worker strolling the grounds and halls of the square glass and concrete Chancellery building on a recent afternoon as part of a government open house. A military band played in the background, and Mrs. Merkel signed autographs for curious visitors.

“We have this extreme helper syndrome, to try to make the world love us again, and it’s completely overdone,” Ms. Mendle said. Germany, she said, had been reduced to simple stereotypes — Oktoberfest, auto factories, the Holocaust. Its rich traditions in music and literature, and its enduring emphasis on social welfare and a strong commitment to the environment, deserve more respect abroad and at home, Ms. Mendle said.

And this on German politics and history:

 "... Chancellor Angela Merkel has led a bloc of countries fending off President Obama’s calls for stimulus spending to combat the economic crisis, certain that the world should follow Germany’s example of austerity.

German pride did not die after the country’s defeat in World War II. Instead, like Sleeping Beauty in the Brothers Grimm version of the folk tale, it only fell into a deep slumber. The country has now awakened, ready to celebrate its economic ingenuity, its cultural treasures and the unsullied stretches of its history.

As Germany embarks on this journey of self-discovery, the question is whether it will leave behind a European project which was built in no small measure on the nation’s postwar guilt and on its pocketbook."

It remains to be seen how Germany will deal with its load of problems also shared throughout Europe. On integration, for example, a stark line is drawn between the assimilated and those who suffer the brunt of the global unemployment trend, including immigrants, like the Turkish manual laborers brought in en masse during the 1970s and after. Immigration remains today a question roiled by entrenched opinion, and the European demographics problem doesn't help. The German vision for economic recovery stands at loggerheads with the socialized economic thinking of France, Spain, Italy and elsewhere. 

The risk of playing the EU's rich daddy during the crisis, of course, is that other Europeans won't remedy their economic weaknesses exposed by the 2008 meltdown -- or worse yet, that Europe will come to expect German bail-outs at every hard turn -- both after the crisis and in the long run.

And what would such a reality mean for the United States? Frittered German cash means badly depleted EU capital, both of the economic and political kind. (And on the latter: ask an average American to name three EU leaders, they'll likely say "Uhh," "Hmm" and "What?") Skeptics and Euro-Doomers are already airing bold claims that "Europe is history" -- and that particular damning, from IHT editor-at-large Roger Cohen. 

A healthy future transatlantic relationship is not just a matter of national pride as with the Germans, a growing light within a confused-as-ever European palette. Both the US and Europe want to see a finished EU masterpiece -- not because it should be beautiful, but because it's vital to our common interests.

Religiosity in the US: A Religious Outlier Indeed

Charles Blow created this fascinating chart on religiosity worldwide, with the US far removed from its counterparts in other industrialized countries. The graph was published in Saturday's NY Times, in an op-ed of sorts titled "Religious Outlier." This data, taken from a recent Gallup poll, draws from responders in 115 countries. Blow writes:

"Sixty-five percent of Americans say that religion is an important part of their daily lives. That is compared with just 30 percent of the French, 27 percent of the British and 24 percent of the Japanese.

"[Blow] used Gallup’s data to chart religiosity against gross domestic product per capita, and to group countries by their size and dominant religions.

The cliché goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words.”

The Gallup poll hypothesizes a strong correlation between religiosity and income, and is appropriately titled "Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations." And the poll sets forth this summary of the survey's implications:

"Social scientists have put forth numerous possible explanations for the relationship between the religiosity of a population and its average income level. One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, helping many residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families. A previous Gallup analysis supports this idea, revealing that the relationship between religiosity and emotional wellbeing is stronger among poor countries than among those in the developed world."

Does Gallup mean to suggest that religion is practically necessary in the Third World, whereas in developed nations, religion takes a back seat to feelings of self-sufficiency and control over one's life path? What would those say who buck the trend -- including Americans, Italians, Greeks, and residents of the Persian Gulf? After all, Greece was religious well before its debt crisis, and the faithful Gulf boasts one of the highest concentrations of wealth in the world.

The comment board is open.

The Wane of Danish "Flexicurity" and European Safety Nets

Liz Alderman, economist and blogger on the NY Times' Economix blog, has some compelling things to say about the down-scaling of Denmark's welfare programs in light of the global recession, and how the northern country serves as a cautionary study on social safety nets and "two-speed markets" in Europe and the U.S. (...)

Lellouche Calls for EU National Guard, Belies Economic Backstory with Russia

In the wake of Russia's devastating forest fires, Pierre Lellouche, French minister for the EU, called this week for an EU-wide "crisis response force" to better deal with potential catastrophes. This begs a comparison to the National Guard, as the most similar body is known in the United States. 

The minister cited the Haiti earthquake disaster and last summer's fires in Greece as proof of the necessity in creating a federal EU crisis response detail to handle natural and other disasters as they erupt. (...)

Just What Is "Culture"? UNESCO and American Sensibilities

The Netherlands' NRC Handelsbad printed this op-ed on the early August anointing of Amsterdam's 17th-century canal ring zone by that European (yet curiously, global) behemoth: UNESCO. Arts consultant Michiel Van Irsel editorializes in characteristically Dutch euroskepticism, as the world already saw over the European Constitution referendum in 2005. 

Irsel advises readers to"pretend UNESCO does not exist," lest the specialness of the organization's sites devolve to become "more common than Starbucks."

Islam, Immigration and Official Response in France and the US

This just in from blogger and Figaro journalist Valérie Samson: a report from Deaborn, Michigan, on the US' largest concentration on Muslims and their feelings vis-à-vis their adopted (or for the younger generations, home) country. Available here in either French or English.

Art Goldhammer weighs in on Sarkozy's recent moves on immigration. For an example and first-person perspective, watch the police break-up of a protest by illegal immigrants (see video here). Today's Guardian (UK) describes Sarkozy's administration as "characterized by increasingly widespread social disorder."

Correction On Sen. Kyl's Words

My sincere apologies go to any readers who read what I posted earlier today from a Huffington Post front-page article claiming that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) called explicitly to repeal the 14th Amendment, which guarantees US citizenship to anyone born within US borders. See the following correction from the original CBS News article, to which the HuffPost article linked:

"EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier edit of this story suggested that Sen. Kyl supported repealing the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship. While the senator has proposed hearings on the Constitution's guarantees on citizenship and what he terms a "reward" for parents who are in the country illegally, Kyl's communications director Andrew Wilder said that "he did not call for the 'repeal' of the 14th Amendment." "

Again, I regret and am sorry the spread of misinformation took place on EurAmerican. Special thanks to follower GF for calling me on this. Make sure to leave similar or separate comments on this or any other post. 

French Police Forcibly Break Up Demonstration -- Global Immigration Debate Boils Ever Hotter

In the Paris suburb of La Corneuve on Monday, police forcibly evicted a group of mostly African immigrant squatters who were protesting the demolition of the building where they lived. French online newsgroup Mediapart posted the above video of the chaos. Note: this video contains scenes of physical and emotional duress that may shock viewers.

Reports following the event varied wildly. Police from the local Seine-Saint-Denis precinct released a statement claiming the eviction was carried out in "relatively good conditions," reports CBS News' World Watch department. But local Socialist Party official Stéphane Troussel chose far more damning words.

"Faced with his failure in the suburbs, it is tempting for [French President] Nicolas Sarkozy and his government to abandon working-class neighborhoods or to try and rein them in through showy and highly publicized security operations," he said to news channel Somalia24.

The Corneuve eviction comes at a time of high-heat global immigration polemics, from the debate on Turkish accession into the EU to the highly controversial Arizona law that would seem to legalize racial profiling against Hispanic-looking people in the US. Tensions continue to mount, as the no. 2 Senate Republican, Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) calls for no less than a repeal of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees American citizenship to all those born in the US -- regardless of citizenship status of the newborn's parents.

1:40PM -- This just in: Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli OKs immigration status checks by police in his state (and my home state)... Will VA become a de facto Arizona on the immigration question? AND: The Huffingon Post puts up this editorial riff on anti-mosque sentiment in America. Reminds me of my piece on the minaret construction row in Switzerland from EuropeanAffairs.org.

French and American models of meritocracy

Here's some food for thought on the meritocratic systems in France and the US, culled from the latest post on Evaluations, the blog of NY Times editorialist Ross Douthat. Very much related to his insightful and provocative recent op-ed on access to the Ivy League by rural white America, which has been causing a decent stir... But back to French-US meritocracy:

"...So the meritocratic elite is not as left-wing, nor the “country party” as principled in its conservatism, as Codevilla wants to believe. Nor are our meritocrats quite as intellectually-challenged as [Codevilla would] like to think:

Much less does membership in the ruling class depend on high academic achievement. To see something closer to an academic meritocracy consider France, where elected officials have little power, a vast bureaucracy explicitly controls details from how babies are raised to how to make cheese, and people get into and advance in that bureaucracy strictly by competitive exams. Hence for good or ill, France’s ruling class are bright people — certifiably. Not ours. But didn’t ours go to Harvard and Princeton and Stanford? Didn’t most of them get good grades? Yes. But while getting into the Ecole Nationale d’Administration or the Ecole Polytechnique or the dozens of other entry points to France’s ruling class requires outperforming others in blindly graded exams, and graduating from such places requires passing exams that many fail, getting into America’s “top schools” is less a matter of passing exams than of showing up with acceptable grades and an attractive social profile … our ruling class recruits and renews itself not through meritocracy but rather by taking into itself people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in.

"This is overdrawn... Elite colleges do seek high grades and sterling standardized test performances (SAT scores are still the coin of the meritocratic realm), and they do select for the brilliant and the driven — not with quite the same ruthless efficiency as the French, perhaps, but pretty ruthlessly all the same..."