All eyes were on the Netherlands this past week, as the Dutch went to the polls to elect a new government. Since Donald Trump shocked the political establishment in Europe as well as the United States by winning the 2016 Presidential Election, the Liberals and Progressives in countries from France to Austria have been petrified that a European version of Trump was waiting in the wings. In January opinion polls in Holland had the Conservative, anti-immigration leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) Geert Wilders, running even with Prime Minister Mark Rutte and his ruling People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). As sometimes happens in politics, an unexpected "event" occurred a week or so before the election. The Netherlands is home to over three-hundred thousand Turkish-Dutch dual citizens, and it just so happens that the Turks are preparing for elections as well. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was determined to have certain ruling party government ministers campaign in the Netherlands, to round up votes for his Justice and Development Party (AKP). From out of nowhere, Prime Minister Rutte decides to stand up to Erdogan and refuse entry to a Turkish politician who was traveling to Holland for the purpose of building political support for Erdogan's incumbent government.
In a bizarre switching-of-hats, Rutte was able to look tough with regards to Turkish immigrants, just as the Dutch are heading to polls to elect a government. In an even stranger flip-flop, the Dutch media, who had been painting Wilders as a neo-Nazi because of his opposition to the resettlement of refugees in the Netherlands, begin to praise Rutte for his uncompromising position regarding Turkish immigrants. Why the about-face? Because recent polls in the Netherlands had made it clear that the Dutch people were no longer supporting an extremely liberal policy with regards to refugees and immigrants. Wilders has never wavered in his policies regarding the immigration issue, and in response, he has been vilified in the Dutch and European Press and accused of being both racist and out-of-touch with the mainstream of Dutch society. Let me be clear- while I am able to use terms like "Nazi" as I write this blog post, that kind of language can get you into big trouble in Europe circa 2017. No problem for the press; they just make use of more "polite" adjectives and phrases to paint Wilders as a bigot. In the end, the EU political establishment was able to breath a sigh of relief. Wilders and the PVV gained five seats in Parliament, and it appears that Rutte and the VVD will lose roughly eight seats. But Rutte won the day, as he will be able to patch together a governing coalition and continue on Prime Minister.
Now that the Dutch have voted, all the attention turns to France. This French presidential election is unlike any France has previously experienced, as the Socialist and Center-Right candidates seem to be finished even before the first round voting is complete. Marine Le Pen, leader of the Far Right National Front (FN), is all but guaranteed to be in the second-round runoff, as she can confidently guarantee at least twenty-five percent support in the first round. Unfortunately for Le Pen, it has proven exceedingly difficult for the FN to build on that percentage. As for the other candidates, Francois Fillon of the Center Right Republicans, seemed to be the safe bet. He had emerged from a bruising inter-party struggle with former President Nicolas Sarkozy and Bordeaux Mayor Alain Juppe with momentum and enthusiastic support, but a serious controversy derailed his candidacy early-on, and with outgoing President Hollande deeply unpopular, the Socialists are just about out of the race as well. Who is left to run against Marine le Pen? Emmanuel Macron, a middle-of-the-road politician who is the leader of a new, moderate political movement called "En Marche!", has moved into the catbird seat, and will probably be the next President of the French Republic. As French politics go, Macron is middle-of-the-road, but in reality, he is left-of-center. Most analysts give Le Pen no chance of winning, but recent polls have shown her staunch supporters have grown from the twenty-five percent figure to somewhere closer to thirty-five percent. Once the second-round is set, the entire French political community will put aside its difference and support whoever runs against Marine Le Pen and the FN. The French media, which has turned lampooning and insulting Le Pen into a daily exercise, will no doubt ratchet-up the accusations of racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia. Outside of supporters of the FN, the press will be happy to lead the Crusade to send Le pen packing. What is always so fascinating to observe is just how similar the media in Europe and the United States have become.
At one time, the press in western Europe prided itself on unbiased, non-political reporting. The obsession with editorializing, at least as it is manifested in today's society, originated in the United States. That's not to say that the British don't have a history of activist journalists; in fact, they've been an essential part of the British unwritten "checks-and-balances" tradition for centuries. But on the continent, reporting, while at times quite sensational (Italy), seemed to take very seriously its responsibility to present unbiased news. The last two decades have ushered in quite a sea-change with regards to the media and press, particularly in France. Analysts will argue that the European press has become more editorial-driven and political because of the rise in right-wing political parties. Interestingly enough, the European political environment has seen an increase in far-left political activism as well, but don't expect to see the Green Party ever mentioned in the same breath as Marine Le Pen's FN. As the new Left-oriented movement has been labeled "Progressive", the right-wing political groups have been called "Populist". Analysts who believe that the Trump victory in 2016 will help conservatives and the Far Right don't really understand the current political environment in Europe. Since mid-November 2016, after Donald Trump was declared the winner and it became obvious that recounts and other extreme efforts to rescue Hillary Clinton's candidacy were going to fail, the European media mobilized it resources to ensure that every media outlet and every newspaper stayed on message-that message being the deconstruction of Donald Trump as an honest, qualified, deserving President-Elect. In December, Austrians elected Green Party candidate Alexander Van der Bellen over the conservative Nicolas Hofer. Poor Hofer never had a chance, not after the Austrian media continually compared his candidacy to Donald Trump. The media in Sweden, Italy and France have fallen in line, as any Trump allegation that fins its way across the Atlantic automatically becomes fact. Much of this development is driven by a media on both sides of the ocean who were blindly enamored with former President Barack Obama, and Trump. The European people share their media's love affair with Obama, and Trump is perceived as the "anti-Obama". Any candidate who truly wants to win, self-identified as populist or not, had better think long and hard before praising anything related to the new U.S. president. Marine le Pen has been supportive of Trump since he won the Republican nomination, so she is obliged to ride this out. She isn't too concerned, though, as she knows the media would be lined-up against her candidacy regardless of her opinion of Donald Trump.
The media in the United States has lost all pretense of "fair and balanced". With the exception of Fox News, the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and the upstart Breitbart organization, the Left enjoys an intimidating dominance in mainstream news sources. For years, the media's liberal bias was well-known, but never admitted, as some of the crusty old farts who ran these organizations demanded that at least the claim of unbiased reporting must be defended. Most of the old-school geezers have been swept-aside, and the press in 2017 actually embraces its bias in favor of the Progressive Agenda. The media is smarter than we are, which explains why so many Americans are still skeptical about Global Warming, and why others want to own their handguns for self-defense. The media feels an all-encompassing obligation to support what is on our best interest, since, in from their perspective, many of us act contrary to what is best for our country and our planet. This attitude is alive and well in Rome, Paris, Berlin, The Hague, Vienna and London. As our world gets smaller, the ties that connect the U.S. media to their peers on Europe grow stronger, therefore it should come as no surprise that every disproved, absurd, tired allegation made against candidate Trump somehow made its way into the European newspapers as well. The pesky allegations made against Hillary Clinton were treated by the European Press as politically-driven exaggerations and lies. Whether its in Brussels, Oslo, Dublin or Prague, conservative candidates in Europe have an uphill climb, and unfortunately, the press will make sure that Donald Trump is more of a hindrance than a help. I was not surprised that Mark Rutte managed to stay Prime Minister in Holland, but I wouldn't get too comfortable if I were in his shoes. Being one-half French, my heart always brings me back to this year's Presidential Election in France and its consequences. Everything points to a victory for Emmanuel Macron and "En Marche!", but yet, Marine Le Pen represents so many things which are sacred to the French people. She is the decided underdog, and she has never been afraid of sitting down and breaking bread with the underemployed and struggling poor white families of Marseille, Bordeaux, Paris, Calais and Brest. She has finally broken with her father's legacy, as she is more likely to be criticized for advocating French departure from the EU than she is of being a bigot. Marine Le Pen sings loudly and boldly about the French language, French history and French culture, and this appeal alone could push her over the fifty percent mark in the second round. But like Trump last November, le Pen must battle not only a room full of political opponents, but an aggressive, entitled media as well.
Showing posts with label Austria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Austria. Show all posts
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Thursday, May 26, 2016
U.S. media ignores voter fraud in Austrian presidential election.
The world has truly become such a small place. Last week, Austrians voted between an extreme conservative candidate and an extreme liberal candidate in the landlocked euro-zone nation's presidential election. Austrians vote for President in the same manner as the French. Anyone who wishes to contest the election and can afford the small entry fees, is welcome to run for president. If one candidate earns fifty percent or more of the vote, then that person is declared the president. If no one reaches the fifty percent mark, then the two candidates with the highest number of votes, run against each other in the second round, with the winner being declared president. Although the Freedom Party candidate had a substantial lead in votes, his total fell beneath fifty percent, which necessitated a second round of voting, between the Freedom Party candidate and the left-wing Green Party representative. The conservative Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer embarrassed the sitting government and mainstream politicians, by coming in first by such a large margin. Unfortunately for both Hofer and those of us who support free and fair elections, the result of the second round were far from open and fair. Aftee the day's voting was complete, conservative Freedom Party candidate Hofer was ahead of his opponent, Green Party candidate Alexander van der Billen, by less than one percent. Hofer had won every province in Austria but two; unfortunately for Hofer, one of the provinces he lost included the capital city of Vienna, which has a huge majority of Green party voters amongst its residents. Before Hofer could celebrate his razor-thin victory, 700,000 postal votes still had to becounted. Postal votes in Austria are similar to absentee votes in the United States; thry are mailed in early by folks who either will be out of country on election day, or just prefer to avoid the crowds. Another difference between postal voting in Austria and Absentee Voting in the United States is the ease in which fraud can impact on the postal vote's final tally. You see, postal votes are collected and processed by the current administration, which placed third in the election and was strongly supporting the Green Party candidate. Almost immediately discrepencies were observed with the postal vote count. In four separate polling locations, evidence was discovered which pointed to apparent fraud. The problem was so obvious that Hofer supporters were incensed and damanded an investigation. Why? Because the Green Party candidate managed to outpoll Hofer in postal votes by just enough margin to declare victory, which he quickly did.
Why should we care what happens in Austria? Because the conservative Freedom Party wasopenly calling for a refugee policy that was in contrast to the declared position of Germany and France. In fact, Hofer represents what the majority of Austrians, and probably the majority of French and Germans believe. Hofer points out the frightening reality that the current policy espoused by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, which has no limitations, qualifications or boundaries, will no doubt greatly increase the number of refugees trying to find a home in Europe. Back in the day, when a nation fell under the authority of a despot, the people eventually rose up and returned Democracy to their lives. The American Revolutionary War is a good starting point. The colonists had no place of retreat to escape the tyranny of England and George II, so they showed tremendous courage and fought against their oppressor. Many young men died in the conflict, but the sacrifice was not in vain. Romania provides a good example from a more recent period. After four decades of eastern-European style Socialism, the people of Romania rose up against the security police, and dictator Nicoli Ceaucescu and his harridan wife were executed by a people's court. Democracy has returned to Romania. What we are experiencing in 2016 is quite different, at least in Africa and the Middle East. It's true that some groups rose up against Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad; but now those who are dissatisfied or have lost their homes, give their life savings to despicable smugglers, in the hope of being granted residency in what they believe are exceedingly wealthy, generous societies in Europe. The same situation flourishes in the poorest counties in the world, all mostly located in sub-Saharan Africa. Instead of encouraging people to leave the land of their birth, we should assist them in improving life at home. Sometimes this assistance comes in the form of military support, which is acceptable. Tyranny roots itself in deep by creating police states. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as the old saying goes.
The day after the postal votes in Austria were counted, it was obvious that the Green candidate, van der Billen, who along with the current Austrian government, supports the open policy on refugees that has been established by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, was somehow going to overcome Hofer's lead. It was also apparent that information coming from at least four voting precincts was very questionable. In one instance, van der Billen received more postal votes than the total number of postal votes that were actually submitted before the election. In fact, one federal employee admitted to fraud regarding the number of postal votes for the Green candidate. Sadly, the international press, including CNN, Reuters, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and NPR were quick to point out the liberal Green Party victory in Austria, because it demonstrated that the good Austrian people were not opposed to more refugees. Breitbart was the only news service in the U.S. who mentioned the irregularities. This decision by the international press to ignore voter fraud was instrumental in the current government in Vienna's decision to certify the vote and declare van der Billen as President. I believe this is the first time that the Green Party has won such a high elected position anywhere in the world. I was very disappointed that the Austrian Freedom Party didn't raise more hell. Norbert Hofer publicly thanked the voters, and promised that in the next election, these type of shenanigans would not occur, and the Freedom Party would win outright. I hope the Freedom Party has the opportunity to contest another election.
Why should we care what happens in Austria? Because the conservative Freedom Party wasopenly calling for a refugee policy that was in contrast to the declared position of Germany and France. In fact, Hofer represents what the majority of Austrians, and probably the majority of French and Germans believe. Hofer points out the frightening reality that the current policy espoused by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, which has no limitations, qualifications or boundaries, will no doubt greatly increase the number of refugees trying to find a home in Europe. Back in the day, when a nation fell under the authority of a despot, the people eventually rose up and returned Democracy to their lives. The American Revolutionary War is a good starting point. The colonists had no place of retreat to escape the tyranny of England and George II, so they showed tremendous courage and fought against their oppressor. Many young men died in the conflict, but the sacrifice was not in vain. Romania provides a good example from a more recent period. After four decades of eastern-European style Socialism, the people of Romania rose up against the security police, and dictator Nicoli Ceaucescu and his harridan wife were executed by a people's court. Democracy has returned to Romania. What we are experiencing in 2016 is quite different, at least in Africa and the Middle East. It's true that some groups rose up against Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad; but now those who are dissatisfied or have lost their homes, give their life savings to despicable smugglers, in the hope of being granted residency in what they believe are exceedingly wealthy, generous societies in Europe. The same situation flourishes in the poorest counties in the world, all mostly located in sub-Saharan Africa. Instead of encouraging people to leave the land of their birth, we should assist them in improving life at home. Sometimes this assistance comes in the form of military support, which is acceptable. Tyranny roots itself in deep by creating police states. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as the old saying goes.
The day after the postal votes in Austria were counted, it was obvious that the Green candidate, van der Billen, who along with the current Austrian government, supports the open policy on refugees that has been established by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, was somehow going to overcome Hofer's lead. It was also apparent that information coming from at least four voting precincts was very questionable. In one instance, van der Billen received more postal votes than the total number of postal votes that were actually submitted before the election. In fact, one federal employee admitted to fraud regarding the number of postal votes for the Green candidate. Sadly, the international press, including CNN, Reuters, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and NPR were quick to point out the liberal Green Party victory in Austria, because it demonstrated that the good Austrian people were not opposed to more refugees. Breitbart was the only news service in the U.S. who mentioned the irregularities. This decision by the international press to ignore voter fraud was instrumental in the current government in Vienna's decision to certify the vote and declare van der Billen as President. I believe this is the first time that the Green Party has won such a high elected position anywhere in the world. I was very disappointed that the Austrian Freedom Party didn't raise more hell. Norbert Hofer publicly thanked the voters, and promised that in the next election, these type of shenanigans would not occur, and the Freedom Party would win outright. I hope the Freedom Party has the opportunity to contest another election.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Europe takes a giant leap to the Right. (Part II)
The Italian love/hate relationship with Silvio Berlusconi is truly something to admire. He has been charged with a variety of crimes, with only a few inconsequential accusations amounting to convictions. At press time, Berlusconi was in the news regarding the potential sale of his football team, Italian giant AC Milan. He is currently serving a "house-arrest" sentence for tax evasion (I think), but our contacts in Italy and within Berlusconi's recently reborn party Forza Italiana warn is to never count out Silvio Berlusconi. Interestingly enough, Berlusconi has provided the Italian people with the only political consistency that they country has experienced since the second World War. Italy is famous for having governments of spectacularly short lifespans, but Berlusconi, who shamelessly appeals to the nationalist and patriotic emotions of the Italian people, has managed to stay in office longer than any other Italian Prime Minister. The current left-of-center government is bleeding votes as the economy struggles with the usual "confidence in banking" issues. But at least we can count our second "left-of center" government, alongside Sweden.
The Czech Republic is a bit of a mess. Because roughly fifteen percent of the population continues to support the Communist Party, and no other parties will work in coalition with the Communists, its virtually impossible to put together an effective coalition government. The center-right and the center-left usually end ever election with only a small percentage difference in votes. Two important issues to watch: the far-right has been growing rapidly, especially with unemployed young people and in rural areas. Also, if a center-left coalition were to include the Communists, would that impact the Czech Republic's membership in NATO and relationship with Russia, vis-a-vis the United States? Poland, on the other hand, is not a difficult country to size up politically. Poland is, and has been (and will probably continue to be), the most right-of-center country in Europe. The Polish people are strongly pro-U.S. and anti-Russian, even after the fall of Communism. The Catholic Church continues to influence the lives of most Poles, and, learning from history, the Polish government has built a powerful Army and Air Force. Another country that appears to be most comfortable with a right-wing government is Hungary. The Fidesz (Hungarian Civic Alliance) Party has a substantial majority in the Hungarian parliament, and Fidesz leader Viktor Orban is Hungary's Prime Minister. The Fidesz Party has come under attack from international human rights organizations because of accusations that the party is anti-Semitic, racist and xenophobic. Fidesz has made serious efforts to clean up its image, but it makes no bones about its opposition to immigration, especially from Turkey and other Islamic nations.
The United Kingdom just re-elected David Cameron to a second term as Prime Minister. Last time around, Cameron had to spend the first few days after the election, trying to put together a coalition government; this time around, he gets to watch TV and fool around with his lovely wife. Cameron's Conservative Party absolutely destroyed the opposition, with a result that shocked even the most optimistic Tory punter. Now the poor British people will have to listen to a few weeks of Sky News and BBC analyzing and re-analyzing how this development came to pass. For me, its not rocket science. Since Cameron took office, there have been a number of racially-connected mini-riots in various UK cities. Not to mention the incident involving the British soldier who was brutally murdered on the street, practically in front of his post. And who can forget the look of fear on the faces of Prince Charles and Camilla as their car was attacked by a group of protesters in London? I'm sure the fact that the ISIS commander who appears to be in charge of the beheadings department proudly brags about his English heritage, is something that sticks in the craw of every English person. The UK is not a haven for extremist and future terrorists should not consider relocating there. The voters wanted to make sure that the right message was delivered to the bad guys. Although I'm not sure what the Tories plan on doing to tighten immigration and fight the growth of Islamic extremism in the Black and Arab ghettos of London, Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol (just to name a few), but I'm sure the message was received, loud and clear.
We haven't reached the Balkans and Greece, but I think we've arrived at a good place to take stock of our research. Twelve of the countries we reviewed, including Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain and Austria, have right-of-center government. Only three (France, Sweden and Italy) are sailing against the wind. I expect France and Italy to elect right wing governments in their next elections, especially if the terrorist issue continues to be a priority. How can it not be? With the entire continent embracing conservative governments, what does that mean for the rest of the world? The EU will probably adopt more market-friendly policies, which includes encouraging tax cuts and tax code reform. Also, Immigration faucet will be turned down to a trickle. In a number of European countries, the fear isn't that foreigners will arrive with a terrorist agenda, but that desperate Africans, Algerians, Libyans and Ethiopians will arrive and take all the jobs. Getting in a shoe box with twenty other people and managing to get it from Tripoli to Reggio on the coastal boot of Italy, will no longer guarantee someone legal residency in Europe. I believe that this is the first change that Europe will embrace. And right-wing governments from Warsaw to Lisbon will be on too happy to introduce the legislation to their constituents.
The Czech Republic is a bit of a mess. Because roughly fifteen percent of the population continues to support the Communist Party, and no other parties will work in coalition with the Communists, its virtually impossible to put together an effective coalition government. The center-right and the center-left usually end ever election with only a small percentage difference in votes. Two important issues to watch: the far-right has been growing rapidly, especially with unemployed young people and in rural areas. Also, if a center-left coalition were to include the Communists, would that impact the Czech Republic's membership in NATO and relationship with Russia, vis-a-vis the United States? Poland, on the other hand, is not a difficult country to size up politically. Poland is, and has been (and will probably continue to be), the most right-of-center country in Europe. The Polish people are strongly pro-U.S. and anti-Russian, even after the fall of Communism. The Catholic Church continues to influence the lives of most Poles, and, learning from history, the Polish government has built a powerful Army and Air Force. Another country that appears to be most comfortable with a right-wing government is Hungary. The Fidesz (Hungarian Civic Alliance) Party has a substantial majority in the Hungarian parliament, and Fidesz leader Viktor Orban is Hungary's Prime Minister. The Fidesz Party has come under attack from international human rights organizations because of accusations that the party is anti-Semitic, racist and xenophobic. Fidesz has made serious efforts to clean up its image, but it makes no bones about its opposition to immigration, especially from Turkey and other Islamic nations.
The United Kingdom just re-elected David Cameron to a second term as Prime Minister. Last time around, Cameron had to spend the first few days after the election, trying to put together a coalition government; this time around, he gets to watch TV and fool around with his lovely wife. Cameron's Conservative Party absolutely destroyed the opposition, with a result that shocked even the most optimistic Tory punter. Now the poor British people will have to listen to a few weeks of Sky News and BBC analyzing and re-analyzing how this development came to pass. For me, its not rocket science. Since Cameron took office, there have been a number of racially-connected mini-riots in various UK cities. Not to mention the incident involving the British soldier who was brutally murdered on the street, practically in front of his post. And who can forget the look of fear on the faces of Prince Charles and Camilla as their car was attacked by a group of protesters in London? I'm sure the fact that the ISIS commander who appears to be in charge of the beheadings department proudly brags about his English heritage, is something that sticks in the craw of every English person. The UK is not a haven for extremist and future terrorists should not consider relocating there. The voters wanted to make sure that the right message was delivered to the bad guys. Although I'm not sure what the Tories plan on doing to tighten immigration and fight the growth of Islamic extremism in the Black and Arab ghettos of London, Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol (just to name a few), but I'm sure the message was received, loud and clear.
We haven't reached the Balkans and Greece, but I think we've arrived at a good place to take stock of our research. Twelve of the countries we reviewed, including Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain and Austria, have right-of-center government. Only three (France, Sweden and Italy) are sailing against the wind. I expect France and Italy to elect right wing governments in their next elections, especially if the terrorist issue continues to be a priority. How can it not be? With the entire continent embracing conservative governments, what does that mean for the rest of the world? The EU will probably adopt more market-friendly policies, which includes encouraging tax cuts and tax code reform. Also, Immigration faucet will be turned down to a trickle. In a number of European countries, the fear isn't that foreigners will arrive with a terrorist agenda, but that desperate Africans, Algerians, Libyans and Ethiopians will arrive and take all the jobs. Getting in a shoe box with twenty other people and managing to get it from Tripoli to Reggio on the coastal boot of Italy, will no longer guarantee someone legal residency in Europe. I believe that this is the first change that Europe will embrace. And right-wing governments from Warsaw to Lisbon will be on too happy to introduce the legislation to their constituents.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Europe takes a giant leap to the Right. (Part I)
One of the most interesting political trends I've been watching on the international scene recently has been the growth of right-of-center political parties in Europe. This development does not follow a trend, as Asian countries seem content to continue the trend of hopping from one extreme to the other, and South America is on a decidedly leftist run at the moment (trying to gauge African politics with a western yardstick is a dangerous game, so we'll just leave the African nations out of today's discussion). From my optic, and with some countries is can be difficult to judge; a number of new political movements have shown up on the scene, who really skate a thin line between fascist and eco-terrorist. Teaching a modern European politics class in college must be an interesting job. But a quick analysis of the major players in Europe show a definite swing to the right. The Christian Democrats of Angela Merkel seem as entrenched as during the best Helmut Kohl days. In fact, the popularity of the right in Germany may be the only hope for the opposition, as new right-of-center and extreme right parties threaten to draw votes away from the CDU. To put it simply, the CDU may not be conservative enough anymore. Everyone seems to be watching France with baited breath, as Marine Le Pen shows no sign of weakening. In fact, the other players involved appear to be hoping for some screw-up on Le Pen's part. She does live on the political edge, and she doesn't appear to speak with a delay (so as to think through everything she says beforehand), but let's face it; everyone expects a mistake sooner or later. Her political party, the National Front (FN), did very well in the last European Union Parliamentary election, and polls show her consistently on top of her two rivals (but by the smallest of margins). Some things are certain: the Socialists (PS) will not abandon Francois Hollande, who was lucky to squeak out a win against Sarkozy when all the elements were in favor of a PS blowout. Many expect Sarkozy to emerge as the UPM candidate, completing a remarkable "phoenix-rising-from-the-ashes" comeback, and I agree. Le Pen and Sarkozy may split the right vote so evenly that Hollande gets a second term. Regardless, its impossible to deny that the French electorate has moved to the right.
The conservative government of Mariano Rajoy continues to face the tremendously difficult job of rebuilding the Spanish economy. The fact the his People's Party (PP) has managed to stay in power this long is more a case of the electorate remembering what an unmitigated disaster the last government was. But Spain is not a lost cause, as the country has been registering very encouraging growth. But unemployment remains an issue, and with local elections coming at the end of the month, and the national election occurring before the end of the year, its very possible that the Spanish electorate could flip the players once again. I don't think so. I believe a number issues, with immigration and crime being near the top, will keep the PP in charge in Madrid. Portugal also has a right-of-center government, which is trying to tackle an economic situation which is one of the worst in the EU. Portugal has benefited from low oil prices, low interest rates and the low performance of the Euro, but debt and a struggling banking sector continue to blunt recovery. Portugal will have national elections in either September or October. It will be interesting to see if the current government tries to push through any additional reforms before the election, which might result in a negative response by the electorate.
I'm not ambitious enough to tackle the subject of the Belgian government. Its a solid candidate for a posting all on its own. The Netherlands is a fascinating country, politically. The right-of-center "People's Party for Freedom and Democracy" (VVD) won the last election, but the left-of-center "Labour Party" (PvdA) is not far behind. The recent trend in Holland has been to the right, and there is no reason to believe it will end. Immigration is a big issue, with many Dutch fearing the Islamization of their society. The government in Denmark is right-of-center, with the Liberal Party (V) leading a coalition that includes the increasingly popular far-right Danish People's Party. Denmark is an interesting society, though, as the monarchy, highly limited by the constraints of the constitution, is obliged to perform ceremonial functions and not much else, similar to other European monarchies. But Queen Margrethe II will not hesitate to make her opinions known; in fact, if she moved to increase her own power I would be surprised if she were not supported by the Danish people. The monarchy is Holland is just as popular, where former Queen Beatrix continues to be adored by the Dutch.
In Scandinavia, Norway and Finland continue a recent trend towards conservative governments, while the Swedish refuse to break their tradition of left-of-center politics. The continued growth of the conservative parties in Norway has been surprising, although the immigration issue is huge in both Sweden and Norway. Many consider Norway to be the wealthiest country in the world, with the highest standard of living (Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Switzerland might disagree); Norwegians are beginning to show a desire to protect the benefits that they believe they deserve as native Norwegians. Speaking of Switzerland, the Swiss People's Party has a strong hold on the reigns of government, and just happens to be a right-wing political party (not simply "right-of-center"); this is not surprising as the Swiss have always appeared to associate their famous neutrality with Nationalism. Austria has been electing conservative governments for over a decade, and the trend continues to move to the right. The issue of immigration has threatened to cashier the current government, in favor of a political party with even more right-wing credentials. The Austrians don't screw around.
The conservative government of Mariano Rajoy continues to face the tremendously difficult job of rebuilding the Spanish economy. The fact the his People's Party (PP) has managed to stay in power this long is more a case of the electorate remembering what an unmitigated disaster the last government was. But Spain is not a lost cause, as the country has been registering very encouraging growth. But unemployment remains an issue, and with local elections coming at the end of the month, and the national election occurring before the end of the year, its very possible that the Spanish electorate could flip the players once again. I don't think so. I believe a number issues, with immigration and crime being near the top, will keep the PP in charge in Madrid. Portugal also has a right-of-center government, which is trying to tackle an economic situation which is one of the worst in the EU. Portugal has benefited from low oil prices, low interest rates and the low performance of the Euro, but debt and a struggling banking sector continue to blunt recovery. Portugal will have national elections in either September or October. It will be interesting to see if the current government tries to push through any additional reforms before the election, which might result in a negative response by the electorate.
I'm not ambitious enough to tackle the subject of the Belgian government. Its a solid candidate for a posting all on its own. The Netherlands is a fascinating country, politically. The right-of-center "People's Party for Freedom and Democracy" (VVD) won the last election, but the left-of-center "Labour Party" (PvdA) is not far behind. The recent trend in Holland has been to the right, and there is no reason to believe it will end. Immigration is a big issue, with many Dutch fearing the Islamization of their society. The government in Denmark is right-of-center, with the Liberal Party (V) leading a coalition that includes the increasingly popular far-right Danish People's Party. Denmark is an interesting society, though, as the monarchy, highly limited by the constraints of the constitution, is obliged to perform ceremonial functions and not much else, similar to other European monarchies. But Queen Margrethe II will not hesitate to make her opinions known; in fact, if she moved to increase her own power I would be surprised if she were not supported by the Danish people. The monarchy is Holland is just as popular, where former Queen Beatrix continues to be adored by the Dutch.
In Scandinavia, Norway and Finland continue a recent trend towards conservative governments, while the Swedish refuse to break their tradition of left-of-center politics. The continued growth of the conservative parties in Norway has been surprising, although the immigration issue is huge in both Sweden and Norway. Many consider Norway to be the wealthiest country in the world, with the highest standard of living (Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Switzerland might disagree); Norwegians are beginning to show a desire to protect the benefits that they believe they deserve as native Norwegians. Speaking of Switzerland, the Swiss People's Party has a strong hold on the reigns of government, and just happens to be a right-wing political party (not simply "right-of-center"); this is not surprising as the Swiss have always appeared to associate their famous neutrality with Nationalism. Austria has been electing conservative governments for over a decade, and the trend continues to move to the right. The issue of immigration has threatened to cashier the current government, in favor of a political party with even more right-wing credentials. The Austrians don't screw around.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
MB reviews "Woman in Gold".
Links A. Negative review of "Woman in Gold".
B. Positive review of "Woman in Gold".
Because I left this film debating my own opinion, I decided to provide in the links, a review supporting "Woman in Gold", and a review criticizing the film. "Woman in Gold" is the story of an elderly Austrian lady living in Los Angeles, who has a potentially legitimate claim to ownership of one of the world's most treasured paintings: Gustav Klimt's "Woman in Gold".
The lady in question, Maria Bloch-Altmann, who is Jewish, was forced to flee Vienna in March, 1938, after the German Army crossed the border and occupied Austria unopposed. The majority of her wealthy, established, and artistic Viennese family, including her parents, did not escape and died in Nazi concentration camps. After removing Maria's family, the Nazi's looted their home, and many prized objets d'art, including a number of famous paintings, found their way to Germany. After the war, some of the Bloch family paintings, the ones by Austrian artist Gustav Klimt, ended up on display at the Belvedere Museum in Vienna. After the death of her sister, Maria decides that its time to regain custody of her family's paintings, and through an Austrian-American friend, finds a young lawyer who ends up being just the right advocate for the job (the attorney is also an Austrian-American Jew, although the film makes it obvious that he is not observant). The viewer is taken on a trip through the legal proceedings, interspersed with Maria's flashbacks of her family and the events leading up to her departure from Austria.
I do recommend this movie, if only because of Helen Mirren. She, like Meryl Streep, has this uncanny gift to create accents that are hard to distinguish from the those of native speakers. Every moment that Mirren is on the screen was a comfort for me. I totally bought into the idea that she was an elderly Austrian Jew, whose family was murdered in the Holocaust, and who was determined to regain some of her rightful possessions. It was a bit more of a stretch with Ryan Reynolds as the attorney, although he certainly wasn't bad in the role. I suppose it's that I've seen him in so many movies of a different flavor that it is now difficult to imagine him in something of this sort. Katie Holmes, who plays Reynold's wife, was completely wasted in her role. At first she seemed angry that her husband was taking a detour from his career to help this old woman, then, without any explanation, she's totally on board, picking out the clothes he should wear in court when he is NOT at her bedside for the birth of their second child. But all of these issues are just details. The real problem with this film is in its history.
In 1938, Hitler ordered his army to cross the border into Austria. He gambled that the Austrian Army would not fight, and he was correct. The next morning, the Austrian authorities handed over control of the country to the Germans, and the German Army had an impromptu parade down the Ringstrasse in Vienna. Actually, Hitler himself was on his way, and would be leading his own parade before the day was over. Many Viennese turned out to welcome the Germans, and the now-famous 8 mm films show the sidewalks full of cheering Austrians, waving little swastika flags. The simple truth is that many Austrians sympathized with the Nazis. Austria was on the same losing side in the First World War, alongside Germany. Post-war, Austria suffered almost as bad as Germany, although economically, Austria was able to rebound sooner. The average Austrian in 1938 looked north to Germany and saw the booming economy, the growing job market, the rebuilt army, and the sense of national pride. It's no wonder that the Germans were welcomed by so many Austrians. The film makes great hay out of Austrians cheering for the Nazis, not once taking into account that Vienna was only one city, and that a large percentage of Austrians were proud of their independence, and didn't want to become a piece of Germany. Many Austrians continued to be loyal to the Habsburg pretender living in exile in Spain. After watching this movie, you couldn't be blamed for believing that every non-Jewish Austrian in Austria supported the Nazis, which was simply not the case.
The Jewish community in Austria was decimated by the Holocaust. The Nazi's enacted the same exact procedures in Austria that had proven so effective in Germany. Blame the Jews for the ills of the world, humiliate them publicly, confiscate all their possessions, and in the end, ship them off to "relocation camps". In the film, the average Austrian on the street was complicit in the beating and humiliation of Jewish Austrians. When Jews were trying to escape or hide from the Gestapo, the bad guys had no better friends than the Austrian people, who would gladly point out the Jew's hiding places. There is no doubt that a number of Austrians joined the Nazi movement and participated in the unthinkable atrocities committed against Austrian Jews. Too many were involved. However, Austria was not Germany. The Austrian people did not rise up in an anti-Semitic rage, to burn synagogues and murder rabbis. In fact, before the Anschluss (the German term meaning union or connection, used to describe the unification of Germany and Austria) occurred, there were rarely episodes of anti-Jewish sentiment, although anti-Semitism existed in every European city (and still does). But as the movie progressed, I continued to look (in vain) for a non-Jewish Austrian: one who wasn't a monster. It's possible that the family friend who gave Maria and her husband a car-ride to the airport in Vienna is an Austrian hero. Then again, he may have been Jewish.
I have spent a good deal of time in Austria and I know Austrians who are like family to me. I accept that I'm biased. At the same time, I pride myself on being honest. I have studied Austrian history in depth, and there is a reason why so many great Jewish minds flourished in Vienna, not to mention the Jewish musicians and the brilliant men of medicine. The Jewish community was an integral part of Austria, and its destruction at the hands of the Nazis left a hole that will never be filled. Regarding the paintings (including the one that lends its name to the movie), some Austrian politicians and bureaucrats wanted the works of art to stay in Austria because the artist was Austrian. It was not anti-Semitism that encouraged the Austrian government to contest Maria Bloch-Altmann's efforts, it was a sense of national pride. So much Austrian art was looted by the Nazis, and most will never make its way back to Austria. This explains the importance of the paintings. That said, I also understand the importance in the eyes of Ms. Altmann, who doesn't see the lines of Austrian school kids waiting to see the "Woman in Gold"; she sees Nazi storm troopers taking her family's possessions and loading them onto trucks to be driven to Germany.
In the end, I wanted very much to like this film. But I think it's overt message, delivering a blanket indictment against all Austrians alive in 1938, is a tragedy in itself. We've reached a point in the history of our society and culture, in which a falsehood can be accepted as truth, especially in support of "guilt by association". The Germans and Austrians fought as allies in the first Great War, and Austria allowed itself to be annexed by Germany just before the commencement of the second Great War…….certainly enough evidence to be "guilty by association", and to justify a bit of artistic lying, I mean license. The greatest tragedy is that in the rush to simplify the causes and forces behind history, to ignore the complexities of the economics, the national defense, and the national self-pride that was also at stake, in doing that we may doom ourselves to be candidates for repeating the same mistakes again.
B. Positive review of "Woman in Gold".
Because I left this film debating my own opinion, I decided to provide in the links, a review supporting "Woman in Gold", and a review criticizing the film. "Woman in Gold" is the story of an elderly Austrian lady living in Los Angeles, who has a potentially legitimate claim to ownership of one of the world's most treasured paintings: Gustav Klimt's "Woman in Gold".
 |
| Gustav Kimt's Painting |
I do recommend this movie, if only because of Helen Mirren. She, like Meryl Streep, has this uncanny gift to create accents that are hard to distinguish from the those of native speakers. Every moment that Mirren is on the screen was a comfort for me. I totally bought into the idea that she was an elderly Austrian Jew, whose family was murdered in the Holocaust, and who was determined to regain some of her rightful possessions. It was a bit more of a stretch with Ryan Reynolds as the attorney, although he certainly wasn't bad in the role. I suppose it's that I've seen him in so many movies of a different flavor that it is now difficult to imagine him in something of this sort. Katie Holmes, who plays Reynold's wife, was completely wasted in her role. At first she seemed angry that her husband was taking a detour from his career to help this old woman, then, without any explanation, she's totally on board, picking out the clothes he should wear in court when he is NOT at her bedside for the birth of their second child. But all of these issues are just details. The real problem with this film is in its history.
In 1938, Hitler ordered his army to cross the border into Austria. He gambled that the Austrian Army would not fight, and he was correct. The next morning, the Austrian authorities handed over control of the country to the Germans, and the German Army had an impromptu parade down the Ringstrasse in Vienna. Actually, Hitler himself was on his way, and would be leading his own parade before the day was over. Many Viennese turned out to welcome the Germans, and the now-famous 8 mm films show the sidewalks full of cheering Austrians, waving little swastika flags. The simple truth is that many Austrians sympathized with the Nazis. Austria was on the same losing side in the First World War, alongside Germany. Post-war, Austria suffered almost as bad as Germany, although economically, Austria was able to rebound sooner. The average Austrian in 1938 looked north to Germany and saw the booming economy, the growing job market, the rebuilt army, and the sense of national pride. It's no wonder that the Germans were welcomed by so many Austrians. The film makes great hay out of Austrians cheering for the Nazis, not once taking into account that Vienna was only one city, and that a large percentage of Austrians were proud of their independence, and didn't want to become a piece of Germany. Many Austrians continued to be loyal to the Habsburg pretender living in exile in Spain. After watching this movie, you couldn't be blamed for believing that every non-Jewish Austrian in Austria supported the Nazis, which was simply not the case.
The Jewish community in Austria was decimated by the Holocaust. The Nazi's enacted the same exact procedures in Austria that had proven so effective in Germany. Blame the Jews for the ills of the world, humiliate them publicly, confiscate all their possessions, and in the end, ship them off to "relocation camps". In the film, the average Austrian on the street was complicit in the beating and humiliation of Jewish Austrians. When Jews were trying to escape or hide from the Gestapo, the bad guys had no better friends than the Austrian people, who would gladly point out the Jew's hiding places. There is no doubt that a number of Austrians joined the Nazi movement and participated in the unthinkable atrocities committed against Austrian Jews. Too many were involved. However, Austria was not Germany. The Austrian people did not rise up in an anti-Semitic rage, to burn synagogues and murder rabbis. In fact, before the Anschluss (the German term meaning union or connection, used to describe the unification of Germany and Austria) occurred, there were rarely episodes of anti-Jewish sentiment, although anti-Semitism existed in every European city (and still does). But as the movie progressed, I continued to look (in vain) for a non-Jewish Austrian: one who wasn't a monster. It's possible that the family friend who gave Maria and her husband a car-ride to the airport in Vienna is an Austrian hero. Then again, he may have been Jewish.
I have spent a good deal of time in Austria and I know Austrians who are like family to me. I accept that I'm biased. At the same time, I pride myself on being honest. I have studied Austrian history in depth, and there is a reason why so many great Jewish minds flourished in Vienna, not to mention the Jewish musicians and the brilliant men of medicine. The Jewish community was an integral part of Austria, and its destruction at the hands of the Nazis left a hole that will never be filled. Regarding the paintings (including the one that lends its name to the movie), some Austrian politicians and bureaucrats wanted the works of art to stay in Austria because the artist was Austrian. It was not anti-Semitism that encouraged the Austrian government to contest Maria Bloch-Altmann's efforts, it was a sense of national pride. So much Austrian art was looted by the Nazis, and most will never make its way back to Austria. This explains the importance of the paintings. That said, I also understand the importance in the eyes of Ms. Altmann, who doesn't see the lines of Austrian school kids waiting to see the "Woman in Gold"; she sees Nazi storm troopers taking her family's possessions and loading them onto trucks to be driven to Germany.
In the end, I wanted very much to like this film. But I think it's overt message, delivering a blanket indictment against all Austrians alive in 1938, is a tragedy in itself. We've reached a point in the history of our society and culture, in which a falsehood can be accepted as truth, especially in support of "guilt by association". The Germans and Austrians fought as allies in the first Great War, and Austria allowed itself to be annexed by Germany just before the commencement of the second Great War…….certainly enough evidence to be "guilty by association", and to justify a bit of artistic lying, I mean license. The greatest tragedy is that in the rush to simplify the causes and forces behind history, to ignore the complexities of the economics, the national defense, and the national self-pride that was also at stake, in doing that we may doom ourselves to be candidates for repeating the same mistakes again.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Illegal immigration is an international problem, not something unique to North America.
Links: A. Europe faces a flood of sea-bound illegal immigrants.
B. France's NF calls for an end to allowing migrants entry.
In the last few weeks, calm seas have resulted in thousands of illegal immigrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea, hoping to reach Europe and a brighter future. I can't blame these folks; I would probably being taking the same action if I were in their shoes. It's not a difficult issue to understand. People in north and sub-Saharan Africa, who struggle to feed their families and have no real hope of bettering their lives, will spend whatever meager amount of money they can raise to try and hire a smuggler to find a place on a boat that will sail in the direction of Europe. One difference between the illegal immigration in this part of the world and the problem on the U.S./Mexico border: persons attempting illegal entry into the southern United States (mostly from Mexico and Central America) usually don't bring their families. They settle in, find a job, and send for their families later (ideally), who then repeat the process as a group. Border Patrol officers on the U.S./Mexico border normally encounter adult males, between the ages of sixteen and fifty, who are attempting illegal entry. Certainly families will attempt to cross together on occasion, but usually the male bread winner will come first. For most persons attempting the crossing of the Mediterranean, it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity; therefore a much higher percentage of families will attempt the crossing together. This detail increases the number of children and elderly who are at risk, and ultimately, become casualties.
The various Republics that constitute the European Union (EU) in 2015 (and those who cling to the periphery, like the UK and Norway), have elbowed and bruised each other to see who can be the most "progressive" and "liberal". This has resulted in a number of positive developments, especially in the area of minority rights. A serious movement exists to guarantee women equal pay for equal work, and the gay community has been granted certain protections that combat homophobia not only in the workplace but in public environments as well. The move to appear more progressive has really focused on the social issues of each respective nation. Certainly Germany, Italy, Austria, France, and others have taken steps to strengthen the so-called "social safety net" of unemployment, disability, paternity leave, gay-partner benefits, and other concerns. Its almost as if one day the EU decided that it had reached a level of maturity and wealth that obligated its member countries to leave no person without lodging, food, clothing, medicine, and a certain degree of comfort. This is a very worthy goal, but a bit too utopian for my reality. Not every EU member state is drowning in wealth. In fact, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain threaten to scuttle the entire EU scheme in debt sometime within the next decade. Sadly enough, these four countries have each been forced to deal with the ever-increasing issue of seaborne illegal-migrant traffic (in this instance, Europeans use the word "migrant" instead of "immigrant"). Part of the EU's effort to deny no person basic human rights was the decision to not repatriate these sea-borne migrants who come by the hundreds of thousands every year (except in the case of terrorists or murderers....good luck checking everyone). Once these refugees from Niger, Libya, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Congo, etc., either land or are intercepted at sea (lets not reflect too long on the poor souls who never make it to this point....its too heartbreaking for me to consider), they are distributed to various immigrant processing locations. Just because a boatload of migrants was intercepted in Italian waters does not guarantee that they will become wards of the Italian state. They may end up in Austria, or Denmark. But wherever they end up, one fact is guaranteed: they are the responsibility of the state, i.e. the taxpayers of whatever country we are dealing with. Some nations, including France and Austria, have been very proactive in creating education and employment training programs for the migrants. Ideally, the new arrivals will soon become productive, job-holding, tax-paying members of society. Sadly, it just doesn't happen that way; at least not often enough.
Recently I saw an interview with Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's National Front political party and possibly the front runner for the presidency in 2017. I can't say that I agree with everything this lady has to say, but I give her credit for being intelligent, clear and to-the-point. As is highlighted in the second link above, Le Pen points out that the longer the EU states continue the policy of guaranteed legal residency for all persons who manage to float a dinghy in the direction of Europe, then the number of migrants will continue to increase. Soon the numbers will become unsupportable. If residency is no longer a guarantee, and persons who attempt an illegal entry by sea are treated in the same manner as those who attempt an illegal entry by land (repatriation), then people will stop risking their lives and their meager savings in this effort. Look, its normal for decent folks to have sympathy for persons who are trapped in the third world and have little hope for the future. But there are other avenues to help that do not involve drowning your own country and crippling the future of your children and grandchildren. Europe is not financially able to support a third of the population of Africa. In fact, the more I look at Greece, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, and Italy, the more concerned I become regarding the EU's ability to support itself.
B. France's NF calls for an end to allowing migrants entry.
In the last few weeks, calm seas have resulted in thousands of illegal immigrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea, hoping to reach Europe and a brighter future. I can't blame these folks; I would probably being taking the same action if I were in their shoes. It's not a difficult issue to understand. People in north and sub-Saharan Africa, who struggle to feed their families and have no real hope of bettering their lives, will spend whatever meager amount of money they can raise to try and hire a smuggler to find a place on a boat that will sail in the direction of Europe. One difference between the illegal immigration in this part of the world and the problem on the U.S./Mexico border: persons attempting illegal entry into the southern United States (mostly from Mexico and Central America) usually don't bring their families. They settle in, find a job, and send for their families later (ideally), who then repeat the process as a group. Border Patrol officers on the U.S./Mexico border normally encounter adult males, between the ages of sixteen and fifty, who are attempting illegal entry. Certainly families will attempt to cross together on occasion, but usually the male bread winner will come first. For most persons attempting the crossing of the Mediterranean, it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity; therefore a much higher percentage of families will attempt the crossing together. This detail increases the number of children and elderly who are at risk, and ultimately, become casualties.
The various Republics that constitute the European Union (EU) in 2015 (and those who cling to the periphery, like the UK and Norway), have elbowed and bruised each other to see who can be the most "progressive" and "liberal". This has resulted in a number of positive developments, especially in the area of minority rights. A serious movement exists to guarantee women equal pay for equal work, and the gay community has been granted certain protections that combat homophobia not only in the workplace but in public environments as well. The move to appear more progressive has really focused on the social issues of each respective nation. Certainly Germany, Italy, Austria, France, and others have taken steps to strengthen the so-called "social safety net" of unemployment, disability, paternity leave, gay-partner benefits, and other concerns. Its almost as if one day the EU decided that it had reached a level of maturity and wealth that obligated its member countries to leave no person without lodging, food, clothing, medicine, and a certain degree of comfort. This is a very worthy goal, but a bit too utopian for my reality. Not every EU member state is drowning in wealth. In fact, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain threaten to scuttle the entire EU scheme in debt sometime within the next decade. Sadly enough, these four countries have each been forced to deal with the ever-increasing issue of seaborne illegal-migrant traffic (in this instance, Europeans use the word "migrant" instead of "immigrant"). Part of the EU's effort to deny no person basic human rights was the decision to not repatriate these sea-borne migrants who come by the hundreds of thousands every year (except in the case of terrorists or murderers....good luck checking everyone). Once these refugees from Niger, Libya, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Congo, etc., either land or are intercepted at sea (lets not reflect too long on the poor souls who never make it to this point....its too heartbreaking for me to consider), they are distributed to various immigrant processing locations. Just because a boatload of migrants was intercepted in Italian waters does not guarantee that they will become wards of the Italian state. They may end up in Austria, or Denmark. But wherever they end up, one fact is guaranteed: they are the responsibility of the state, i.e. the taxpayers of whatever country we are dealing with. Some nations, including France and Austria, have been very proactive in creating education and employment training programs for the migrants. Ideally, the new arrivals will soon become productive, job-holding, tax-paying members of society. Sadly, it just doesn't happen that way; at least not often enough.
Recently I saw an interview with Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's National Front political party and possibly the front runner for the presidency in 2017. I can't say that I agree with everything this lady has to say, but I give her credit for being intelligent, clear and to-the-point. As is highlighted in the second link above, Le Pen points out that the longer the EU states continue the policy of guaranteed legal residency for all persons who manage to float a dinghy in the direction of Europe, then the number of migrants will continue to increase. Soon the numbers will become unsupportable. If residency is no longer a guarantee, and persons who attempt an illegal entry by sea are treated in the same manner as those who attempt an illegal entry by land (repatriation), then people will stop risking their lives and their meager savings in this effort. Look, its normal for decent folks to have sympathy for persons who are trapped in the third world and have little hope for the future. But there are other avenues to help that do not involve drowning your own country and crippling the future of your children and grandchildren. Europe is not financially able to support a third of the population of Africa. In fact, the more I look at Greece, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, and Italy, the more concerned I become regarding the EU's ability to support itself.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Just How Many Muslims Have Immigrated To Europe, Anyway?
Link A. Immigration To France, Wikipedia
B. Immigration to Germany, Wikipedia
C. Immigration In Europe From A U.S. Perspective
D. Islam in Europe, Wikipedia
The issue of Islamic Immigration to Europe is both difficult and complicated. When I decide to educate myself on a particular subject, my first task is to collect as much information as possible. With regards to Muslim Immigration, what should be the starting point of my research? Post World War One, when the dissolution of monarchies in Germany, Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia, encouraged people to relocate in search of better opportunities? Or possibly just after World War Two, when Europe, which had been bled dry of healthy young men, needed immigrants to work in both the fields and in the factories? Or should we start our conversation in the late 1960's, when Paris was fresh with revolution, and terrorists were beginning to make their presence felt? Actually, I think it's better to start with the present and work our way back. A number of prominent European nations have a Muslim population that is eight percent or greater. The growing number of Muslims in Europe is a relatively new development, something that began in earnest within the last sixty years. Three times in the last fifteen hundred years, Christian armies were fortunate to defeat much larger and better equipped Muslim forces that were intent on invading the heart of Europe. For our history lesson today, take note of the Battle of Tours in 732 (against the Moors from Spain), the 1529 Battle of Vienna I (against the Ottoman Empire), and the Battle of Vienna II in 1683 (the Ottoman Empire's last foray this far into Europe). During the years of Moor control on the Iberian peninsula, and Ottoman administration in the Balkans, no doubt the number of Muslims in Europe increased. But the Moors were sent packing by Isabella and Ferdinand, and rebellions by Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century all but ended the reality of "Turkey in Europe". Muslims still exist in the Balkans, but basically only in the Albanian community, which is about as close to secular as you can get (I would guess that a mosque exists for every three houses in Kosovo, but I never saw one in use).
The increase in the number of Muslims in Europe was driven by two factors: economics and post-colonial paternalism. Whenever Europe was in need of an influx of young men to work in the factories and on the farms, the people of North Africa and the Middle East were happy to oblige (no surprise; European wars had decimated the economies of those areas as well). North Africans came to work in France, and Turks came to Germany and Scandinavia. In most instances, they put down roots and had children. In the 1960's, as France and England (and to lesser and later extent, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal), granted independence to their African colonies. For numerous reasons, guilt and a sense of paternalism being at the top of the list, Europe opened its doors to citizens of its former colonies. England was probably more affected by post-colonial immigration from India and Pakistan than Africa, but France welcomed hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from recently independent Algeria, Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Guinea. Belgium was obliged to welcome Congolese. Later, following the Biafran War, England did open its doors to thousands of displaced Ibo, although white Rhodesians weren't nearly as welcome. As for the number of Turks in Germany and Scandinavia, I don't really have an explanation. Historically, Germany has always had close relations with Turkey, which may be part of the answer. Also, following the Civil Rights marches in the United States and the televised horrors of the Algerian conflict and the Vietnam War, European societies were determined to avoid the appearance of racism. And the Immigration Statutes written into law during that time are still in effect today. In less delicate terms, once it was turned on, the faucet was never turned off. Europe continued to accept immigrants long-past the ability of its economies to comfortably provide jobs and housing. This fact, along with other socio-economic and cultural issues, is responsible for the high percentage of minorities needing government support to survive.
In 2015, roughly ten percent of the population of France self-identifies as Muslim. Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are not far behind. Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo all have a substantial Muslim population because of the historic legacy of the Ottoman Turks, but rarely do you see an observant Muslim community in the Balkans (I understand that recently, a number of really nasty extremists have popped up, who were raised in these areas, so things may be changing). As of late, politics in western Europe have definitely swung in the direction of anti-immigration, and the events of last week will only increase that statistic. Sweden, Holland, France, and even Switzerland have taken steps to tighten up their immigration controls. Given the twenty-five thousand anti-Islamic demonstrators that marched in Leipzig last week, I'm guessing Angela Merkel has something in the works as well. No doubt, the high percentage of Muslims living in European countries is connected to the rise in extremist activity. But the increased police presence and the tightening of immigration laws is a knee-jerk reaction to attack the problem at the perceived source. Why are children of Algerian immigrants, who came to France, assimilated and worked their asses off, sympathetic to Islamic extremism? Since the symptom is the same in every country, then the problem must be the same as well. These young men and women have no distraction. They don't feel as if they belong anywhere, and once the European school systems, which are bedrocked to favor the native population, spit these kids out, they had nowhere to go. And the media and entertainment industry that our generation has allowed to take over the minds of young people today, tells these kids (and the inner-city youths in the United States as well), that there is something WRONG with working in a fast food joint, or on a farm, and there is something wrong with working for an hourly wage and taking college classes at night. The television and the MP3 players are constantly reminding these young, impressionable minds, that the life of a gangster is the life to be admired, and that money and sex should come easy. If it doesn't come easy, then someone is denying you your due, and you are entitled to take it.
Remember the riots in the urban, ethnic communities of France just a few years ago? Those kids had nothing to do. Their parents were at work, sometimes holding down two jobs, and unable to battle the message coming from the entertainment industry, and when I say entertainment industry, I point the finger directly back at the United States. The hip-hop and rap music that glorifies the selling of narcotics for easy money, and killing of rivals and anyone in authority. And sex? It is in no way connected to responsibility; it's all about the act, and the sense of domination. What is occurring in our inner cities in the United States, is replicated in Europe. We don't have many children of Muslim immigrants (in comparison), but our young people are latching on to a message just as theirs are. The message they are hearing is that the easy riches come with their ideology. That women are subservient, and should always be available for sex, and that the Jew has stolen everything from you, including your heritage. These young people, in the suburbs of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and Stockholm, are looking for an easy, quick answer and a place to belong as well. We will give you a gun, which will make you a man, and we will teach you to kill your enemy (who is the reason you can't have that Porsche you want, or those new three-hundred euro sneakers). Has it been so long since we were at that age? The mind is much like jello, waiting to be molded into the adult brain it is to become. You will rarely find a terrorist (at least a dead one) who is over the age of thirty-five. There is a reason for that.
B. Immigration to Germany, Wikipedia
C. Immigration In Europe From A U.S. Perspective
D. Islam in Europe, Wikipedia
The issue of Islamic Immigration to Europe is both difficult and complicated. When I decide to educate myself on a particular subject, my first task is to collect as much information as possible. With regards to Muslim Immigration, what should be the starting point of my research? Post World War One, when the dissolution of monarchies in Germany, Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia, encouraged people to relocate in search of better opportunities? Or possibly just after World War Two, when Europe, which had been bled dry of healthy young men, needed immigrants to work in both the fields and in the factories? Or should we start our conversation in the late 1960's, when Paris was fresh with revolution, and terrorists were beginning to make their presence felt? Actually, I think it's better to start with the present and work our way back. A number of prominent European nations have a Muslim population that is eight percent or greater. The growing number of Muslims in Europe is a relatively new development, something that began in earnest within the last sixty years. Three times in the last fifteen hundred years, Christian armies were fortunate to defeat much larger and better equipped Muslim forces that were intent on invading the heart of Europe. For our history lesson today, take note of the Battle of Tours in 732 (against the Moors from Spain), the 1529 Battle of Vienna I (against the Ottoman Empire), and the Battle of Vienna II in 1683 (the Ottoman Empire's last foray this far into Europe). During the years of Moor control on the Iberian peninsula, and Ottoman administration in the Balkans, no doubt the number of Muslims in Europe increased. But the Moors were sent packing by Isabella and Ferdinand, and rebellions by Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century all but ended the reality of "Turkey in Europe". Muslims still exist in the Balkans, but basically only in the Albanian community, which is about as close to secular as you can get (I would guess that a mosque exists for every three houses in Kosovo, but I never saw one in use).
The increase in the number of Muslims in Europe was driven by two factors: economics and post-colonial paternalism. Whenever Europe was in need of an influx of young men to work in the factories and on the farms, the people of North Africa and the Middle East were happy to oblige (no surprise; European wars had decimated the economies of those areas as well). North Africans came to work in France, and Turks came to Germany and Scandinavia. In most instances, they put down roots and had children. In the 1960's, as France and England (and to lesser and later extent, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal), granted independence to their African colonies. For numerous reasons, guilt and a sense of paternalism being at the top of the list, Europe opened its doors to citizens of its former colonies. England was probably more affected by post-colonial immigration from India and Pakistan than Africa, but France welcomed hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from recently independent Algeria, Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Guinea. Belgium was obliged to welcome Congolese. Later, following the Biafran War, England did open its doors to thousands of displaced Ibo, although white Rhodesians weren't nearly as welcome. As for the number of Turks in Germany and Scandinavia, I don't really have an explanation. Historically, Germany has always had close relations with Turkey, which may be part of the answer. Also, following the Civil Rights marches in the United States and the televised horrors of the Algerian conflict and the Vietnam War, European societies were determined to avoid the appearance of racism. And the Immigration Statutes written into law during that time are still in effect today. In less delicate terms, once it was turned on, the faucet was never turned off. Europe continued to accept immigrants long-past the ability of its economies to comfortably provide jobs and housing. This fact, along with other socio-economic and cultural issues, is responsible for the high percentage of minorities needing government support to survive.
In 2015, roughly ten percent of the population of France self-identifies as Muslim. Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are not far behind. Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo all have a substantial Muslim population because of the historic legacy of the Ottoman Turks, but rarely do you see an observant Muslim community in the Balkans (I understand that recently, a number of really nasty extremists have popped up, who were raised in these areas, so things may be changing). As of late, politics in western Europe have definitely swung in the direction of anti-immigration, and the events of last week will only increase that statistic. Sweden, Holland, France, and even Switzerland have taken steps to tighten up their immigration controls. Given the twenty-five thousand anti-Islamic demonstrators that marched in Leipzig last week, I'm guessing Angela Merkel has something in the works as well. No doubt, the high percentage of Muslims living in European countries is connected to the rise in extremist activity. But the increased police presence and the tightening of immigration laws is a knee-jerk reaction to attack the problem at the perceived source. Why are children of Algerian immigrants, who came to France, assimilated and worked their asses off, sympathetic to Islamic extremism? Since the symptom is the same in every country, then the problem must be the same as well. These young men and women have no distraction. They don't feel as if they belong anywhere, and once the European school systems, which are bedrocked to favor the native population, spit these kids out, they had nowhere to go. And the media and entertainment industry that our generation has allowed to take over the minds of young people today, tells these kids (and the inner-city youths in the United States as well), that there is something WRONG with working in a fast food joint, or on a farm, and there is something wrong with working for an hourly wage and taking college classes at night. The television and the MP3 players are constantly reminding these young, impressionable minds, that the life of a gangster is the life to be admired, and that money and sex should come easy. If it doesn't come easy, then someone is denying you your due, and you are entitled to take it.
Remember the riots in the urban, ethnic communities of France just a few years ago? Those kids had nothing to do. Their parents were at work, sometimes holding down two jobs, and unable to battle the message coming from the entertainment industry, and when I say entertainment industry, I point the finger directly back at the United States. The hip-hop and rap music that glorifies the selling of narcotics for easy money, and killing of rivals and anyone in authority. And sex? It is in no way connected to responsibility; it's all about the act, and the sense of domination. What is occurring in our inner cities in the United States, is replicated in Europe. We don't have many children of Muslim immigrants (in comparison), but our young people are latching on to a message just as theirs are. The message they are hearing is that the easy riches come with their ideology. That women are subservient, and should always be available for sex, and that the Jew has stolen everything from you, including your heritage. These young people, in the suburbs of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and Stockholm, are looking for an easy, quick answer and a place to belong as well. We will give you a gun, which will make you a man, and we will teach you to kill your enemy (who is the reason you can't have that Porsche you want, or those new three-hundred euro sneakers). Has it been so long since we were at that age? The mind is much like jello, waiting to be molded into the adult brain it is to become. You will rarely find a terrorist (at least a dead one) who is over the age of thirty-five. There is a reason for that.
Friday, November 14, 2014
Austria, The Islamic Extremist Hotspot Of Europe?
Links: A. Radical Islam in Austria is Growing
B. Austria's Radical Islam Problem
C. Austria Threatened by Islamic Aggression
(If you haven't taken the time to read the links, please stop now and do so. I have a terrible habit of writing on and on, and I probably lose a good number of readers who have other things to do. I am focusing on providing links to relevant bits of information so I don't feel the need to add another paragraph.)
Austria is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. The Austrian people are tremendously industrious; Austria is one of those places where manual labor (artisans) is considered admirable employment. In fact, Austrians have much more admiration for the glass worker, or carpenter, or skilled brick worker, than they do for a stock broker. For centuries the Austrians ruled a large percentage of the known world. In fact, the Austrian Empire (actually, the Austro-Hungarian Empire) was still with us as late as 1918. I realize for many young people, Austria is just a tiny, mountainous place populated with a handful of Germans (ouch!), but the history of Austria truly is magnificent. My close Austrian friend, Marco Scherer informs me that grade schools in Austria no longer teach Austrian history with a sense of pride. As it probably is in most European countries, young people in Austria are taught to be proud of their inclusion in a greater European community, the EU. Not counting Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra and San Marino, Austria has Europe's smallest military. Austria, with a long tradition of prolific naval victories (Lepanto, Lissa, etc.), no longer has a navy (we have President Woodrow Wilson to thank for that alteration of geography). Well, at least in Europe, people don't have the inconvenience of border crossing checkpoints anymore. But is that a positive or negative development?
In 1938, Nazi Germany invaded Austria. The invasion was timed perfectly, to interfere with a planned referendum on Austrian autonomy. Obviously Hitler was concerned about the outcome of the referendum, otherwise why not let the vote take place and be welcomed as liberators? Well, the Nazi propaganda machine went into overdrive, producing reams of film showing the Viennese waving little Nazi flags and saluting hysterically as Hitler's motorcade sped by. Then the Nazis produced their own "plebiscite": those in favor of reunification with Germany accounted for over ninety percent of the votes cast. The truth is, the majority of Austrians did not support Hitler. But World War One had left Austrians believing that it was best to keep a low profile, and just "go with the flow". Millions of Austrian young men were drafted into the German Army, and died fighting for Hitler's psychotic vision. The Austrian Empire was dismembered following the First World War, and Austria was treated as a belligerent following the Second. The Austrian people have become as anti-war as you can imagine, and with good cause. Since the end of World War Two, Austria has strived to be a diplomatic leader in the cause of peace around the globe. Austria has also welcomed refugees from all over, and Austrian politicians have strongly supported the idea of a European government. The heir to the Austrian throne, Otto Von Habsburg, even served a term as a member of the European Parliament. The bottom line is: Austrians didn't want to piss anybody off. Peace was better for everyone, as Austria demonstrated by quickly recovering from the ravages of war to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Austria's immigration policy mirrored the generous and accepting nature of the Austrian people. Before long, Vienna was home to not one, but three large mosques.
The rest of the story requires no intimate detail. When a handful of mosques locate themselves in a European City, eventually one of them will start to spew hate (actually, Vienna is home to upwards of sixty mosques . . . how did that happen?). Most of the mosques in Vienna exist for the sole purpose of giving the Viennese Muslims a place to worship (132,000 Muslims live in Vienna; that means 2,200 worshippers per mosque). But some of the mosques in Vienna have spread the call of Islamic Fundamentalism. A number of the Imams at these mosques recruit young people to travel, train and kill on behalf of radicalism. A Salafi mosque exists in Vienna, and I'm sure more than just prayer and fellowship is going on inside. The mosque network in Vienna was allowed to develop roots to reach out and connect mosques from various other European communities. This facilitated fundraising, smuggling, weapons purchasing, and all kinds of nasty business. Then the Iranians and Hamas showed up, and gave everyone a lesson in Money Laundering 101. All sorts of money passed through Viennese Banks and on to other European cities. And we all know what the Iranians want: anything that has to do with nuclear reactor construction that can't be purchased on the open market. By the way, where is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)? In Vienna, of course.
For the longest time, the Austrian government mirrored the attitude of the Austrian people and was very non-confrontational. I'm pleased to say that change is in the air. The Austrian people were not happy to learn that the jihadi message was becoming accessible to high school-age Austrians, and we all remember what great decisions we make at that age. Also, social media is making it easy for the extremist message to reach outside of the Muslim community. Within the last decade or so, Austria has elected either a right or a center-right government. Austrian law enforcement has started working very closely with both Interpol and the United States to monitor the activities of certain questionable groups. A recent round of jihadi apprehensions in rural areas is an example of current aggressive action taken by Austrian authorities. The Muslim extremists have long taken advantage of the good nature of the Austrian people, and Austria has developed the unfortunate reputation of being a safe haven for radicals. The Austrian government and Austrian law enforcement have taken direct and aggressive steps to end the recruitment of young Austrians and to disrupt the purchase and transport of illegal weapons. Money laundering has become a thing of the past, and the Iranians have gotten the message that they need to head back to the Trash-i-stans (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan) to find nuclear reactor parts on the cheap. I'm glad the air is getting clearer again in Austria. I was getting a little worried there for our friend, Heidi.
B. Austria's Radical Islam Problem
C. Austria Threatened by Islamic Aggression
(If you haven't taken the time to read the links, please stop now and do so. I have a terrible habit of writing on and on, and I probably lose a good number of readers who have other things to do. I am focusing on providing links to relevant bits of information so I don't feel the need to add another paragraph.)
Austria is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. The Austrian people are tremendously industrious; Austria is one of those places where manual labor (artisans) is considered admirable employment. In fact, Austrians have much more admiration for the glass worker, or carpenter, or skilled brick worker, than they do for a stock broker. For centuries the Austrians ruled a large percentage of the known world. In fact, the Austrian Empire (actually, the Austro-Hungarian Empire) was still with us as late as 1918. I realize for many young people, Austria is just a tiny, mountainous place populated with a handful of Germans (ouch!), but the history of Austria truly is magnificent. My close Austrian friend, Marco Scherer informs me that grade schools in Austria no longer teach Austrian history with a sense of pride. As it probably is in most European countries, young people in Austria are taught to be proud of their inclusion in a greater European community, the EU. Not counting Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra and San Marino, Austria has Europe's smallest military. Austria, with a long tradition of prolific naval victories (Lepanto, Lissa, etc.), no longer has a navy (we have President Woodrow Wilson to thank for that alteration of geography). Well, at least in Europe, people don't have the inconvenience of border crossing checkpoints anymore. But is that a positive or negative development?
In 1938, Nazi Germany invaded Austria. The invasion was timed perfectly, to interfere with a planned referendum on Austrian autonomy. Obviously Hitler was concerned about the outcome of the referendum, otherwise why not let the vote take place and be welcomed as liberators? Well, the Nazi propaganda machine went into overdrive, producing reams of film showing the Viennese waving little Nazi flags and saluting hysterically as Hitler's motorcade sped by. Then the Nazis produced their own "plebiscite": those in favor of reunification with Germany accounted for over ninety percent of the votes cast. The truth is, the majority of Austrians did not support Hitler. But World War One had left Austrians believing that it was best to keep a low profile, and just "go with the flow". Millions of Austrian young men were drafted into the German Army, and died fighting for Hitler's psychotic vision. The Austrian Empire was dismembered following the First World War, and Austria was treated as a belligerent following the Second. The Austrian people have become as anti-war as you can imagine, and with good cause. Since the end of World War Two, Austria has strived to be a diplomatic leader in the cause of peace around the globe. Austria has also welcomed refugees from all over, and Austrian politicians have strongly supported the idea of a European government. The heir to the Austrian throne, Otto Von Habsburg, even served a term as a member of the European Parliament. The bottom line is: Austrians didn't want to piss anybody off. Peace was better for everyone, as Austria demonstrated by quickly recovering from the ravages of war to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Austria's immigration policy mirrored the generous and accepting nature of the Austrian people. Before long, Vienna was home to not one, but three large mosques.
The rest of the story requires no intimate detail. When a handful of mosques locate themselves in a European City, eventually one of them will start to spew hate (actually, Vienna is home to upwards of sixty mosques . . . how did that happen?). Most of the mosques in Vienna exist for the sole purpose of giving the Viennese Muslims a place to worship (132,000 Muslims live in Vienna; that means 2,200 worshippers per mosque). But some of the mosques in Vienna have spread the call of Islamic Fundamentalism. A number of the Imams at these mosques recruit young people to travel, train and kill on behalf of radicalism. A Salafi mosque exists in Vienna, and I'm sure more than just prayer and fellowship is going on inside. The mosque network in Vienna was allowed to develop roots to reach out and connect mosques from various other European communities. This facilitated fundraising, smuggling, weapons purchasing, and all kinds of nasty business. Then the Iranians and Hamas showed up, and gave everyone a lesson in Money Laundering 101. All sorts of money passed through Viennese Banks and on to other European cities. And we all know what the Iranians want: anything that has to do with nuclear reactor construction that can't be purchased on the open market. By the way, where is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)? In Vienna, of course.
For the longest time, the Austrian government mirrored the attitude of the Austrian people and was very non-confrontational. I'm pleased to say that change is in the air. The Austrian people were not happy to learn that the jihadi message was becoming accessible to high school-age Austrians, and we all remember what great decisions we make at that age. Also, social media is making it easy for the extremist message to reach outside of the Muslim community. Within the last decade or so, Austria has elected either a right or a center-right government. Austrian law enforcement has started working very closely with both Interpol and the United States to monitor the activities of certain questionable groups. A recent round of jihadi apprehensions in rural areas is an example of current aggressive action taken by Austrian authorities. The Muslim extremists have long taken advantage of the good nature of the Austrian people, and Austria has developed the unfortunate reputation of being a safe haven for radicals. The Austrian government and Austrian law enforcement have taken direct and aggressive steps to end the recruitment of young Austrians and to disrupt the purchase and transport of illegal weapons. Money laundering has become a thing of the past, and the Iranians have gotten the message that they need to head back to the Trash-i-stans (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan) to find nuclear reactor parts on the cheap. I'm glad the air is getting clearer again in Austria. I was getting a little worried there for our friend, Heidi.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
What Are Chinese Students Taught About The West? (Part II)
Link: The Opium Wars
Part II
In 1836, most of China was cut off from trade with the Western world. What trade that did occur left the Chinese with a healthy trade surplus. Europe, the United States and Russia (heretofore referred to as "The West") wanted access to Chinese markets, and they wanted it bad. At the time, the drug Opium (grown primarily in Turkey and in Her Majesty's Dominion of India) was being smuggled into China at a steadily increasing rate. The import of Opium was threatening the balance of trade, not to mention the growing number of Chinese who were becoming addicts. Ironically, the sale of Opium was illegal in England at the time. The Chinese government decided that what was good for the goose was good for the gander, and not only made Opium illegal, but in 1839, raided a number of warehouses and ships in Canton and burned their cargo of Opium. The Chinese may have felt that they were well within their rights to combat what was obviously a menace to Chinese society, but their actions could not have been more damaging to China's interests. The war that followed was one-sided. The British held every military advantage and occupied areas around Canton. In 1842, the Chinese were obliged to agree to the Treaty of Nanking, which ceded Hong Kong to Great Britain and opened up various ports to trade.
The United States and France approached China after the Treaty of Nanking, and demanded the same concessions. The idea of "most favored nation" took root in China, and to many Chinese, they became lower class citizens in their own country. The British and the French again defeated China in the Second Opium War (1856). In 1858, with the signing of the Treaty of Tientsin, foreigners (read missionaries) were allowed to travel unimpeded throughout China, and the Western nations were allowed to open embassies in Peking. This last concession is more important than it may seem. The Chinese revered their Emperor, and to allow "foreign devils" to live in the same city was a terrible insult. More ports were opened to trade, the Opium poured into China, Christian missionaries seemed to be on every street corner, and the Chinese Civil Administration became prostrate with corruption. In 1898, a movement of peasants calling themselves "Boxers", decided to remove the foreigners from China (initially the Boxers were protesting the insults inflicted on Chinese peasants by mostly American missionaries). The movement swelled to hundreds of thousands, and forced its way past Chinese authorities and occupied Peking. Cixi was powerless to stop the Boxers, and their intent to remove the foreign devils sounded promising, so she sided with the Movement as it laid siege to the foreign legation (the collection of Western embassies). Eventually a rescue army of Austrians, French, Brits, Russians and even Japanese troops crushed the Boxer rebellion. Cixi was allowed to stay on the throne, but another round of humiliating concessions were forced on China.
Imperial China died with Cixi (actually, Cixi was succeeded in 1908 by the child-emperor PuYi. His story is also a fascinating read, as he lived long enough to experience Mao's Cultural Revolution). Fast-forward to 2014, and one finds Chinese history books paint a less-than flattering portrayal of the West in the nineteenth century. I've seen a few translated versions, and not surprisingly, a bit of Sino-license has been applied. But just as the West had a monopoly on history in 1900, its China's turn to interpret history in a self-serving fashion. The few Chinese that I have had the pleasure to know are very aware that current Western accounts of the Opium Wars and the Boxer rebellion are much more accurate. But even in its accuracy, the greed and avarice with which the West conducted its China policy beggars shame. Less than 180 years ago, British and French diplomacy was centered around creating a nation of Opium addicts. I'm sure that many historians and armchair revisionists will disagree with my assessment, but there it is. As someone who on occasion has had delicate dealings with a number of Chinese, let me say that my respectful acceptance of the shameful behavior on behalf of the Western governments in the mid 19th century, was well-received and greatly appreciated.
Part II
In 1836, most of China was cut off from trade with the Western world. What trade that did occur left the Chinese with a healthy trade surplus. Europe, the United States and Russia (heretofore referred to as "The West") wanted access to Chinese markets, and they wanted it bad. At the time, the drug Opium (grown primarily in Turkey and in Her Majesty's Dominion of India) was being smuggled into China at a steadily increasing rate. The import of Opium was threatening the balance of trade, not to mention the growing number of Chinese who were becoming addicts. Ironically, the sale of Opium was illegal in England at the time. The Chinese government decided that what was good for the goose was good for the gander, and not only made Opium illegal, but in 1839, raided a number of warehouses and ships in Canton and burned their cargo of Opium. The Chinese may have felt that they were well within their rights to combat what was obviously a menace to Chinese society, but their actions could not have been more damaging to China's interests. The war that followed was one-sided. The British held every military advantage and occupied areas around Canton. In 1842, the Chinese were obliged to agree to the Treaty of Nanking, which ceded Hong Kong to Great Britain and opened up various ports to trade.
The United States and France approached China after the Treaty of Nanking, and demanded the same concessions. The idea of "most favored nation" took root in China, and to many Chinese, they became lower class citizens in their own country. The British and the French again defeated China in the Second Opium War (1856). In 1858, with the signing of the Treaty of Tientsin, foreigners (read missionaries) were allowed to travel unimpeded throughout China, and the Western nations were allowed to open embassies in Peking. This last concession is more important than it may seem. The Chinese revered their Emperor, and to allow "foreign devils" to live in the same city was a terrible insult. More ports were opened to trade, the Opium poured into China, Christian missionaries seemed to be on every street corner, and the Chinese Civil Administration became prostrate with corruption. In 1898, a movement of peasants calling themselves "Boxers", decided to remove the foreigners from China (initially the Boxers were protesting the insults inflicted on Chinese peasants by mostly American missionaries). The movement swelled to hundreds of thousands, and forced its way past Chinese authorities and occupied Peking. Cixi was powerless to stop the Boxers, and their intent to remove the foreign devils sounded promising, so she sided with the Movement as it laid siege to the foreign legation (the collection of Western embassies). Eventually a rescue army of Austrians, French, Brits, Russians and even Japanese troops crushed the Boxer rebellion. Cixi was allowed to stay on the throne, but another round of humiliating concessions were forced on China.
Imperial China died with Cixi (actually, Cixi was succeeded in 1908 by the child-emperor PuYi. His story is also a fascinating read, as he lived long enough to experience Mao's Cultural Revolution). Fast-forward to 2014, and one finds Chinese history books paint a less-than flattering portrayal of the West in the nineteenth century. I've seen a few translated versions, and not surprisingly, a bit of Sino-license has been applied. But just as the West had a monopoly on history in 1900, its China's turn to interpret history in a self-serving fashion. The few Chinese that I have had the pleasure to know are very aware that current Western accounts of the Opium Wars and the Boxer rebellion are much more accurate. But even in its accuracy, the greed and avarice with which the West conducted its China policy beggars shame. Less than 180 years ago, British and French diplomacy was centered around creating a nation of Opium addicts. I'm sure that many historians and armchair revisionists will disagree with my assessment, but there it is. As someone who on occasion has had delicate dealings with a number of Chinese, let me say that my respectful acceptance of the shameful behavior on behalf of the Western governments in the mid 19th century, was well-received and greatly appreciated.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Post-Scotland: Crisis for Independence Movements in Europe?
List: Scotland Independence Referendum Complete Results
I was one of the many who anxiously followed the Scottish Independence Referendum results as they were announced. I'm not Scottish, but I love Scotland and I'm a bit sad that the voters rejected outright independence. I'm also surprised. I can't explain why, but I had this feeling that the voters would surprise the pundits. Actually, they did. The vote wasn't really close. So I'm stuck humming "Loch Lomond" with a permanent vision of Queen Elizabeth and those ugly little dogs in my head. Back on the continent, different folks with a variety of agendas set about interpreting the results. Personally, I don't believe the referendum on Scotland is a precursor to anything (accept possibly another go by the Quebecois to separate from Canada). Those persons keeping an eye on the various European independence movements now turn their focus on Catalonia, Spain.
In 2012 the state government of Catalonia signed an agreement stating that a referendum on independence from Spain would be held in 2014 unless "socio-economic and political context make a postponement necessary". Madrid is doing everything possible to legally combat the independence movement, which shouldn't be a surprise. I will not get into the nuts and bolts of the Spanish financial crisis, except to say that I believe high domestic growth and international financing confidence indicate that the economy is on the mend. The recent modest improvements in the economy have not discouraged the movement for Catalonian Independence. Many Catalonians believe that Catalonia provides more to the Spanish government than it gets in return, especially when Barcelona is factored into the equation. If Catalonia manages to hold the referendum in 2014 (which becomes less likely everyday), there is little doubt that the people will vote to secede by a statistical majority. Even if the referendum is postponed for a year, I can't envision a scenario in which the Catalonian people vote against independence. I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe the only way that Madrid can avoid a separation with Catalonia, is by proposing increased autonomy, and hoping that the Catalonians won't act unilaterally. Frankly, I don't see this ending well. With the Basque question presently on the back-burner ("hey, we were here first!"), the Spanish people are beginning to resent the Catalonian independence movement. Most Spaniards have felt the pinch of austerity in recent years, and the Spanish media never misses an opportunity to portray Barcelona as the Bacchanalian capital of Europe, with plenty of drunk students and money from tourists to go around. My biggest concern, is that Madrid will be obliged to provide Catalonia with virtual independence, and the Basques will be right behind.
In all honestly, the so-called independence movements in mainland France (Brittany and Normandy being the only two that have received any media attention) are used as platforms to attract tourists. Both Brittany and Normandy have fascinating and unique customs and dialects, but so does every region of France (trust me on this one; my family is from Angouleme). The one exception is Corsica.
Since 1960, Corsica has suffered through periods of unrest highlighted by violence committed by Corsican nationalist groups. Because of its location, the culture of Corsica incorporates traditions from France, Spain, as well as Italy. In the mid to late 1970s, the underground independence movement was responsible for a number of assassinations, including mayors and policemen. The government in Paris reacted aggressively and many arrests were made. In the 1990s, the independence movement collapsed due to internal conflict, and in 2000, French President Lionel Jospin granted increased autonomy to Corsica. Since then steps have been taken to protect the indigenous language, which is close to extinction. One issue that has consistently caused problems is the building of summer/vacation homes in Corsica by wealthy Parisian families. The last time I checked, the Parisians were winning, I'm sorry to say (of course, there's nothing wrong with a polite, half-French, half-Texan buying a vacation house in Bastia, right?). You can commit the Corsican independence movement to history; France has won.
I am fascinated by the case of Belgium. Fifty-five percent of Belgians (the northern side) speak Flemish (Dutch), and forty-five percent (the southern side), speak French and call themselves Walloons. I once read an article which described Belgium as suffering from a case of "linguistic apartheid", which, ironically, is a Dutch word. Basically, Belgium is a country made up of two separate nationalities, the Flemish and the Walloons, and neither side wants to play with the other. Belgium is a wealthy country of 11.2 million souls, and (more irony), its capital Brussels is considered the de facto capital of the European Union. Having spent some time in Belgium, I must say there seems to be a bit of snobbery at play on the part of the Flemish. What keeps Belgium together? More than anything else, its royal family. Don't misunderstand; the Belgians don't adore their royals as the Dutch love the House of Orange. Its just that the royal family seems to be the one thing that presides equally over both sides. The rational thing to do would be for the Netherlands to annex north Belgium and for France to annex the south. Brussels (and its environs) could remain a city-state, continuing its important functions relating to NATO and the EU. But for something this prolific to happen, enough folks on both side would have to make the effort. And no one cares enough to make the effort.
I won't delve into the examples of German "independence movements", because they follow the same examples of mainland France. Bavarians want to talk about independence, but only if you come for Oktoberfest and drink lots of beer. If you enjoy history as much as I do, you will appreciate the case of South Tyrol. This situation involves Austria, not Germany; but I took advantage of the shared language to build a nice segue. Time for a bit of history. In 1914, The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire went to war against France, Russia, England, and Serbia (the Ottoman Empire, the United States, Italy and a few others joined later). At the time, Germany and Austria-Hungary (Central Powers) were bound by a mutual-defense treaty with Italy. The Italians chose to interpret their obligations quite narrowly and announced neutrality. In 1915, Italy renounced its neutrality and declared war on the central Powers (Italy's former allies). After the war, the victorious Allies dismembered Austria-Hungary, and, in payment for services rendered, gave Italy large swaths of Austrian territory including South Tyrol. Even though another World War has occurred (in which the Italians switched sides AGAIN), many Austrians still resent Italy's land grab. The former province of Tyrol is now split into North Tyrol (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy). Even today, seventy percent of people in South Tyrol speak German and identify themselves as ethnically Austrian. Austrians in Tyrol take this issue very seriously, and at times groups of armed men have gathered in the mountains, anticipating hostilities. Why won't Italy act sensibly, and return South Tyrol to Austria? It has everything to do with the fact that South Tyrol is a wealthy province, with a booming tourist industry and a robust agricultural sector. Unfortunately for Austrian Tyrolians, the government in Vienna is more pacifist than Heidi, and does nothing more than occasionally mention the issue politely through diplomatic channels. In 1866, Italy demanded an end to Austrian rule in Venice because Venice was obviously an Italian city. In 1918, the situation repeated itself with Trieste. How about a little fair play from Rome? Don't hold your breath.
I began this post with a bit of reflection on the Scottish referendum, and really never made any correlations. I guess that was the point. Every circumstance is different, and the independence issues on the mainland bear more similarities to the late problems in northern Ireland than they to do the temporary family disagreement over Scotland's status. I do believe the issues mentioned above will attract the attention of the European media some time before the end of the year (with the exception of Corsica), as some dispensation has been debated. Personally, I'm anxious to see the Quebec independence movement (Mouvement Souverainiste du Quebec) reassert itself and call for another referendum. In 1995, the vote was razor-thin, with fifty-one-percent voting against independence and 49 percent in favor.
I was one of the many who anxiously followed the Scottish Independence Referendum results as they were announced. I'm not Scottish, but I love Scotland and I'm a bit sad that the voters rejected outright independence. I'm also surprised. I can't explain why, but I had this feeling that the voters would surprise the pundits. Actually, they did. The vote wasn't really close. So I'm stuck humming "Loch Lomond" with a permanent vision of Queen Elizabeth and those ugly little dogs in my head. Back on the continent, different folks with a variety of agendas set about interpreting the results. Personally, I don't believe the referendum on Scotland is a precursor to anything (accept possibly another go by the Quebecois to separate from Canada). Those persons keeping an eye on the various European independence movements now turn their focus on Catalonia, Spain.
In 2012 the state government of Catalonia signed an agreement stating that a referendum on independence from Spain would be held in 2014 unless "socio-economic and political context make a postponement necessary". Madrid is doing everything possible to legally combat the independence movement, which shouldn't be a surprise. I will not get into the nuts and bolts of the Spanish financial crisis, except to say that I believe high domestic growth and international financing confidence indicate that the economy is on the mend. The recent modest improvements in the economy have not discouraged the movement for Catalonian Independence. Many Catalonians believe that Catalonia provides more to the Spanish government than it gets in return, especially when Barcelona is factored into the equation. If Catalonia manages to hold the referendum in 2014 (which becomes less likely everyday), there is little doubt that the people will vote to secede by a statistical majority. Even if the referendum is postponed for a year, I can't envision a scenario in which the Catalonian people vote against independence. I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe the only way that Madrid can avoid a separation with Catalonia, is by proposing increased autonomy, and hoping that the Catalonians won't act unilaterally. Frankly, I don't see this ending well. With the Basque question presently on the back-burner ("hey, we were here first!"), the Spanish people are beginning to resent the Catalonian independence movement. Most Spaniards have felt the pinch of austerity in recent years, and the Spanish media never misses an opportunity to portray Barcelona as the Bacchanalian capital of Europe, with plenty of drunk students and money from tourists to go around. My biggest concern, is that Madrid will be obliged to provide Catalonia with virtual independence, and the Basques will be right behind.
In all honestly, the so-called independence movements in mainland France (Brittany and Normandy being the only two that have received any media attention) are used as platforms to attract tourists. Both Brittany and Normandy have fascinating and unique customs and dialects, but so does every region of France (trust me on this one; my family is from Angouleme). The one exception is Corsica.
Since 1960, Corsica has suffered through periods of unrest highlighted by violence committed by Corsican nationalist groups. Because of its location, the culture of Corsica incorporates traditions from France, Spain, as well as Italy. In the mid to late 1970s, the underground independence movement was responsible for a number of assassinations, including mayors and policemen. The government in Paris reacted aggressively and many arrests were made. In the 1990s, the independence movement collapsed due to internal conflict, and in 2000, French President Lionel Jospin granted increased autonomy to Corsica. Since then steps have been taken to protect the indigenous language, which is close to extinction. One issue that has consistently caused problems is the building of summer/vacation homes in Corsica by wealthy Parisian families. The last time I checked, the Parisians were winning, I'm sorry to say (of course, there's nothing wrong with a polite, half-French, half-Texan buying a vacation house in Bastia, right?). You can commit the Corsican independence movement to history; France has won.
I am fascinated by the case of Belgium. Fifty-five percent of Belgians (the northern side) speak Flemish (Dutch), and forty-five percent (the southern side), speak French and call themselves Walloons. I once read an article which described Belgium as suffering from a case of "linguistic apartheid", which, ironically, is a Dutch word. Basically, Belgium is a country made up of two separate nationalities, the Flemish and the Walloons, and neither side wants to play with the other. Belgium is a wealthy country of 11.2 million souls, and (more irony), its capital Brussels is considered the de facto capital of the European Union. Having spent some time in Belgium, I must say there seems to be a bit of snobbery at play on the part of the Flemish. What keeps Belgium together? More than anything else, its royal family. Don't misunderstand; the Belgians don't adore their royals as the Dutch love the House of Orange. Its just that the royal family seems to be the one thing that presides equally over both sides. The rational thing to do would be for the Netherlands to annex north Belgium and for France to annex the south. Brussels (and its environs) could remain a city-state, continuing its important functions relating to NATO and the EU. But for something this prolific to happen, enough folks on both side would have to make the effort. And no one cares enough to make the effort.
I won't delve into the examples of German "independence movements", because they follow the same examples of mainland France. Bavarians want to talk about independence, but only if you come for Oktoberfest and drink lots of beer. If you enjoy history as much as I do, you will appreciate the case of South Tyrol. This situation involves Austria, not Germany; but I took advantage of the shared language to build a nice segue. Time for a bit of history. In 1914, The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire went to war against France, Russia, England, and Serbia (the Ottoman Empire, the United States, Italy and a few others joined later). At the time, Germany and Austria-Hungary (Central Powers) were bound by a mutual-defense treaty with Italy. The Italians chose to interpret their obligations quite narrowly and announced neutrality. In 1915, Italy renounced its neutrality and declared war on the central Powers (Italy's former allies). After the war, the victorious Allies dismembered Austria-Hungary, and, in payment for services rendered, gave Italy large swaths of Austrian territory including South Tyrol. Even though another World War has occurred (in which the Italians switched sides AGAIN), many Austrians still resent Italy's land grab. The former province of Tyrol is now split into North Tyrol (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy). Even today, seventy percent of people in South Tyrol speak German and identify themselves as ethnically Austrian. Austrians in Tyrol take this issue very seriously, and at times groups of armed men have gathered in the mountains, anticipating hostilities. Why won't Italy act sensibly, and return South Tyrol to Austria? It has everything to do with the fact that South Tyrol is a wealthy province, with a booming tourist industry and a robust agricultural sector. Unfortunately for Austrian Tyrolians, the government in Vienna is more pacifist than Heidi, and does nothing more than occasionally mention the issue politely through diplomatic channels. In 1866, Italy demanded an end to Austrian rule in Venice because Venice was obviously an Italian city. In 1918, the situation repeated itself with Trieste. How about a little fair play from Rome? Don't hold your breath.
I began this post with a bit of reflection on the Scottish referendum, and really never made any correlations. I guess that was the point. Every circumstance is different, and the independence issues on the mainland bear more similarities to the late problems in northern Ireland than they to do the temporary family disagreement over Scotland's status. I do believe the issues mentioned above will attract the attention of the European media some time before the end of the year (with the exception of Corsica), as some dispensation has been debated. Personally, I'm anxious to see the Quebec independence movement (Mouvement Souverainiste du Quebec) reassert itself and call for another referendum. In 1995, the vote was razor-thin, with fifty-one-percent voting against independence and 49 percent in favor.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Independence Movements in Europe
Link: Is South Tyrol Austrian or Italian?
I was a bit surprised when I recently stumbled upon a news program highlighting the various independence movements active in Europe today. This is just the kind of interesting topic that gets my blogging blood flowing. As a form of disclaimer, let me say up front that if I so chose, I could write about active independence movements in almost every country in Europe. But with my post dangerously long as it is, I wisely decided to comment on only the Independence Movements that have gained the highest media profile.
I chose this particular link because it details the European identity crisis with which I am most familiar. In 1918, just after the end of the first World War, the winning Allies detached South Tyrol from the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and sewed it on to the Italian province of Alto Adige. This decision continues to ruffle feathers 96 years later. South Tyrol is one of a number of independence movements that are presently being debated in Europe. The people of Scotland will actually have the opportunity to vote in a few weeks on the issue of independence from the United Kingdom. Where else, you ask? The folks in Barcelona, Spain want their province of Catalonia (Cataluña) to become a separate Republic; Catalans already speak their own language, which gives them a bit of a head-start. In Belgium, the Flemish in the north and west would like separation from the Walloons in the south. The status quo in Belgium is quite unique: On the left side of Belgium (as you are looking down at the map in front of you), all the road signs are in Flemish. On the right side of Belgium, all the road signs are in French. Brussels, the capital and one of the most important cities in the world, accommodates both Flemish and French. Since the Flemish constitute roughly 50 percent of the population and the French speakers are closer to 35 percent (I have no idea what the other 15 percent are speaking; maybe Zulu), the Flemish are understandably a bit miffed at the arrangement.
I assume most Americans, like myself, were unaware that an independence movement existed in the northern Italian province of Alto Adige. My close friend Marco Scherer, a member of the Austrian Army and a lifelong resident of the north Tyrol village of Schlitters, explained the issue to me in simple terms. Italy was rewarded for ignoring its mutual-defense pact with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War One. Because Italy joined the Allies, the Italians were given a big slice of Tyrol. It made no difference that the land annexed by Italy was at the time over 90 percent Austrian in ethnicity and German in language. In most instances, the population would have assimilated to a large degree after 96 years. But that isn't the case in south Tyrol. Most folks still speak German and consider themselves Austrian. Certainly there are many ethnic Italians as well, and the two groups do seem to get along. But the issue has at times led to bloodshed. To this day it is a very difficult subject with many Austrians (and all Tyrolians). They consider the Italian annexation of south Tyrol to be Fascism at it worst and Imperialism at its best. Its a fair, simple question to ask: in 2014, why is Italy governing a territory that is ethnically, linguistically, traditionally, and historically tied to Austria?
France has had an independence movement in the province of Brittany for some time. The central government in Paris has worked with representatives of the movement, and a good deal of governance and authority has been transferred to local officials and departments. I understand that recently the French government has discovered a budding Catalonian succession effort on the French side of the border (Catalonia is in northeastern Spain, separated from France by the Pyrenees Mountains). Because France has a history of being sympathetic to the Basque separatists of north central Spain, I'm sure the Spanish are enjoying the irony. Speaking of the Basque Independence Movement, the Basque people, with their own language and customs, have been seeking independence from Spain since the mid-19th century (or earlier). Following the second World War, the movement became more aggressive in its activities, encouraging the Basque people to commit various acts of civil disobedience. The terrorist group "ETA" (Homeland), has committed many acts of violence in support of Basque Independence, including the murder of judges, politicians, soldiers, police, and former ETA members. Since the turn of the last century, there has been positive movement towards a peaceful resolution, with the Basque people renouncing violence to a large degree. The Spanish government in Madrid has given recognition to the Basque language and culture, and taken steps to provide local authorities with more control. I do not think I will live to see the day that the Basque region becomes a separate nation from Spain. I'm not going to tackle the subjects of Corsica (France), or Cyprus (Greece and Turkey); these two beautiful Mediterranean islands have violent histories which have been covered many times in all forms of media, and do not really fit into the category addressed in this post.
I was going to end this less-than cohesive post with a discussion on Bosnia-Herzegovina. But similar to Cyprus and Corsica (and Kosovo), it deserves a post all to itself. What were they thinking? Lets have Croatians living next to Bosnians and Slovenians next to Serbs, when all they want to do is kill each other? Well, hope springs eternal, and I have a soft spot in my heart for Bosnia (and Herzegovina). A few facts that no one familiar with the Balkans will dispute: the Bosnians are a determined, hard-working people, and over the years they have suffered numerous episodes of tremendous suffering. I think I will close on that note, as tomorrow I will be writing on the current state of affairs in the Balkans (pending other more important developments). Cheers.
I was a bit surprised when I recently stumbled upon a news program highlighting the various independence movements active in Europe today. This is just the kind of interesting topic that gets my blogging blood flowing. As a form of disclaimer, let me say up front that if I so chose, I could write about active independence movements in almost every country in Europe. But with my post dangerously long as it is, I wisely decided to comment on only the Independence Movements that have gained the highest media profile.
I chose this particular link because it details the European identity crisis with which I am most familiar. In 1918, just after the end of the first World War, the winning Allies detached South Tyrol from the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and sewed it on to the Italian province of Alto Adige. This decision continues to ruffle feathers 96 years later. South Tyrol is one of a number of independence movements that are presently being debated in Europe. The people of Scotland will actually have the opportunity to vote in a few weeks on the issue of independence from the United Kingdom. Where else, you ask? The folks in Barcelona, Spain want their province of Catalonia (Cataluña) to become a separate Republic; Catalans already speak their own language, which gives them a bit of a head-start. In Belgium, the Flemish in the north and west would like separation from the Walloons in the south. The status quo in Belgium is quite unique: On the left side of Belgium (as you are looking down at the map in front of you), all the road signs are in Flemish. On the right side of Belgium, all the road signs are in French. Brussels, the capital and one of the most important cities in the world, accommodates both Flemish and French. Since the Flemish constitute roughly 50 percent of the population and the French speakers are closer to 35 percent (I have no idea what the other 15 percent are speaking; maybe Zulu), the Flemish are understandably a bit miffed at the arrangement.
I assume most Americans, like myself, were unaware that an independence movement existed in the northern Italian province of Alto Adige. My close friend Marco Scherer, a member of the Austrian Army and a lifelong resident of the north Tyrol village of Schlitters, explained the issue to me in simple terms. Italy was rewarded for ignoring its mutual-defense pact with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War One. Because Italy joined the Allies, the Italians were given a big slice of Tyrol. It made no difference that the land annexed by Italy was at the time over 90 percent Austrian in ethnicity and German in language. In most instances, the population would have assimilated to a large degree after 96 years. But that isn't the case in south Tyrol. Most folks still speak German and consider themselves Austrian. Certainly there are many ethnic Italians as well, and the two groups do seem to get along. But the issue has at times led to bloodshed. To this day it is a very difficult subject with many Austrians (and all Tyrolians). They consider the Italian annexation of south Tyrol to be Fascism at it worst and Imperialism at its best. Its a fair, simple question to ask: in 2014, why is Italy governing a territory that is ethnically, linguistically, traditionally, and historically tied to Austria?
France has had an independence movement in the province of Brittany for some time. The central government in Paris has worked with representatives of the movement, and a good deal of governance and authority has been transferred to local officials and departments. I understand that recently the French government has discovered a budding Catalonian succession effort on the French side of the border (Catalonia is in northeastern Spain, separated from France by the Pyrenees Mountains). Because France has a history of being sympathetic to the Basque separatists of north central Spain, I'm sure the Spanish are enjoying the irony. Speaking of the Basque Independence Movement, the Basque people, with their own language and customs, have been seeking independence from Spain since the mid-19th century (or earlier). Following the second World War, the movement became more aggressive in its activities, encouraging the Basque people to commit various acts of civil disobedience. The terrorist group "ETA" (Homeland), has committed many acts of violence in support of Basque Independence, including the murder of judges, politicians, soldiers, police, and former ETA members. Since the turn of the last century, there has been positive movement towards a peaceful resolution, with the Basque people renouncing violence to a large degree. The Spanish government in Madrid has given recognition to the Basque language and culture, and taken steps to provide local authorities with more control. I do not think I will live to see the day that the Basque region becomes a separate nation from Spain. I'm not going to tackle the subjects of Corsica (France), or Cyprus (Greece and Turkey); these two beautiful Mediterranean islands have violent histories which have been covered many times in all forms of media, and do not really fit into the category addressed in this post.
I was going to end this less-than cohesive post with a discussion on Bosnia-Herzegovina. But similar to Cyprus and Corsica (and Kosovo), it deserves a post all to itself. What were they thinking? Lets have Croatians living next to Bosnians and Slovenians next to Serbs, when all they want to do is kill each other? Well, hope springs eternal, and I have a soft spot in my heart for Bosnia (and Herzegovina). A few facts that no one familiar with the Balkans will dispute: the Bosnians are a determined, hard-working people, and over the years they have suffered numerous episodes of tremendous suffering. I think I will close on that note, as tomorrow I will be writing on the current state of affairs in the Balkans (pending other more important developments). Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)