Last week during the Question and Answer segment of a speaking engagement, a young person asked me how I could be sure that I was on the correct side of any particular issue. No doubt at one time or another, most people have considered this question. When I was younger and knew very little of the world, I was very careful before pronouncing an opinion on political or international issues. Frankly put, I didn't want to look foolish. During my college days, if some group or another was protesting apartheid or speaking up on the issue of abortion, for instance, I would find the time to learn as much as I could before I put my credibility on the line by stating my opinion, and my audience was usually limited to my friends and family. Today when I listen to the various groups protesting President Donald Trump and his actions since his inauguration, I frequently hear Trump and his supporters referred to as "Nazis and Racists", with the President himself constantly being compared to Nazi Dictator Adolf Hitler. I'm willing to bet that the great majority of people using the term "Nazi" and making comparisons to Hitler, probably could not find Germany on a map, let alone accurately explain Hitler and his National Socialist movement. Regardless, the name-calling and bullying won't be ending anytime soon, so those of us who support President Trump had better prepare ourselves for the long-haul.
When President Trump took office, he immediately went to work following through on a number of his campaign promises. Anyone who followed the 2016 presidential election shouldn't be surprised by Trump's Executive Order temporarily halting immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations. Contrary to what is regularly written by the left-wing press, the order does not "ban" immigrants from any country. Instead, it temporarily freezes the process, to allow officials from the Department of Homeland Security to review and properly investigate each applicant. According to Trump's own language, the review must be completed within a four-month window. Actually, on two separate occasions, President Obama took the same action, albeit his effort included only two "Muslim-majority" nations. What were President Obama and now President Trump intending when issuing these orders?
We have been incredibly fortunate in that significant terror attacks in the United States over the last decade have only occurred about once a year. Europe, which is ground-zero for refugee resettlement, is basically at war with Muslim extremists. The French have felt the brunt of violence, with the United Kingdom and Germany not far behind. Terror-related deaths have also occurred in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain. Along with individual terrorist actions, Europeans have had to deal with rampant sexual assaults against women at public celebrations, including New Years. It seems that Muslim extremists have decided that any woman wearing what they consider to be revealing attire, is a justified target fro sexual assault. The terror attacks that fill the headlines of European newspapers are almost always directly tied to the refugee community. Why hasn't the United States suffered the same frequency of terror-related events? One reason is because we have just recently bought into the refugee "come-one, come-all" attitude that the left seems to believe is safe, intelligent policy. President Trump's Executive Order was intended to prevent some of what Europe has suffered. With so many refugees arriving on the borders of Hungary, Greece and Italy every day, it has been impossible for European law enforcement to adequately investigate each new arrival. President Trump enacted his Executive Order so that our law enforcement would have the time and resources to accomplish what the Europeans have so far failed to do- protect innocent civilians from terrorists who have been purposely seeded into refugee communities.
The fact that one court in Washington State and another in California have ruled against the President should come as no surprise. These activist, leftist judges believe that their authority overrides the Executive Branch, which flies directly in the face of the Constitution. If the President of the United States does not have the authority to control the border, then who does? If you speak to rank-and-file Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers, those who are most familiar with Immigration Law (yours truly has a bit of experience in that area as well), they will tell you that the President absolutely has the authority to take action limiting immigration. Interestingly enough, our Justice Department includes the existence of Immigration Courts, who are trained to interpret law relating to immigrants. Instead, we have the California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ignoring the Constitution for the sole purpose of damaging a President whom they despise.
At the end of the day, those of us who call ourselves Conservatives must be more aggressive in support of our President and the policies for which he was elected. At the moment, the left is running rampant, destroying property, threatening people and bullying our society into hiding behind our locked doors. Their behavior, which has yet to be criticized by any national Democratic Party leader, is an attempt to overurn the results of the 2016 election through intimidation and fear. But they may have a surprise coming. Sixty-four million American citizens voted for Donald Trump, and groups within that block are beginning to mobilize, so that our voices may be heard. At times I almost regret not behaving in such a fashion when Obama was piling up twenty trillion dollars in debt, destroying our reputation internationally, and leaving wounded veterans to die on the streets. Hindsight is 20/20, as the cliche reminds us, so I'm going to focus on the future.
Showing posts with label Spain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spain. Show all posts
Saturday, February 11, 2017
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Spying in the 21st Century; counter-terrorism, diplomacy, and economic espionage.
Our world has changed dramatically in the last five decades. We have enjoyed a renaissance in technology, with the internet changing lives and medical research making discoveries to help people will illnesses and injuries live a more productive, happy life. Unfortunately the world has also become a much more dangerous place. Terrorism made its original rude introduction in the early 1960's, and then tapered off a bit, before that eventful day in September of 2001. Since then, the word, "terrorism" seems to be included in every newscast, and part of almost every travel advisory. When terrorists were almost exclusively focused on Israel, the battle lines were simple to demarcate. Today, we live in a world that is slowly being transformed by the actions of Islamic Extremists. The Obama Administration is determined to not label the bad guys as Muslim Extremists, for fear of appearing "Islam phobic", an unfortunate complication in the efforts to combat groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At the moment, the United States is not technically at war, although our Air Force is heavily involved in the allied air coalition against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Another danger we face in the world today is the rebirth of nationalist and expansionist Russia. Although we support Ukraine diplomatically and have spearheaded the sanctions regime against Russia, our military has not been directly involved in that conflict. So are we at peace?
The answer is no, and we haven't been for sometime. You see, even when the soldiers are stateside and the diplomats are making nice with each other, another conflict is being waged in the shadows. All nations are involved in espionage in one form or another, and the more industrialized, populous states are constantly looking for new ways to improve the art. The United States is primarily interested in intelligence for national security purposes, which makes terrorism a priority target for the CIA, NSA, and the intelligence gathering apparati of the Departments of Defense and Justice. Next on the list is probably China, who has created a tremendously advanced and complicated network of spying, utilizing scholars, businessmen, and researchers to both collect on and occasionally subvert the United States in numerous ways. Russia is also a high-priority collecting target, especially since the arrival of Vladimir Putin and a return to cold-war type aggressive activities. The U.S. government remains highly interested in information regarding narcotics and counter-intelligence. A priority target that does not get its deserved share of attention is economics. The major economies of the world, even the ones who appear to be very closely aligned, are all in the business of collecting confidential information regarding economics and international business. In fact, it makes complete sense. The health of our nation's economy has to be included in national security concerns, and the Chinese in particular seem to be determined to outmaneuver everyone in this area.
Why are the Chinese so successful at espionage? The truth is, they haven't always been good at spying. But once China and the United States started regular bilateral relations, and Chinese university students and researchers were invited to the U.S. to study and do research, the Chinese saw an opportunity to exploit our openness to gather confidential and at times top secret information. The larger, more prestigious U.S. colleges seem to compete for visiting Chinese scholars. Unfortunately, many of these universities have received contracts from the Department of Defense to work on highly classified programs. On more than one occasion, Chinese students have been discovered in possession of internet connections that are active only between the Chinese mainland and the student's personal laptop. Our own experts have been unable to break into the conversation between the student and Beijing for a number of reasons, including the complexity/security firewalls of the program being used, and the opposition of the respective university's administration from what they perceive as being "action which will discourage future Chinese scholars from wanted to study here." Can you imagine a student having access to a lab computer, downloading classified information onto a disk, then returning to their dorm room to send the information to China, without us ever knowing exactly what was being transmitted?
Back to economic espionage. Its not just a war between China and the United States; the European nations are also interested in getting a "heads-up" on the intentions of our international companies and investors. For example, the European conglomerate "Airbus", which manufactures airliners with parts from a number of different EU countries, is in regular, fierce completion with Boeing for new airliner orders. The United States has economic rivalries in the Defense Industry as well. Germany, France, the UK, Russia, Italy and Spain all manufacture and export military hardware of one sort or another. Even South Africa goes head to head with the U.S., when it comes to anti-riot vehicles and helicopters. To have confidential information regarding a foreign competitor's progress on a competitive product can be invaluable, and nations have started training Intelligence Officers to be focused on the business community for the duration of their career. Many times these Intelligence Officers will utilize Businessman cover in order to gain access to confidential information. The United States and France wrote the book on this type of espionage, and they continue to this day to practice it more effectively than anyone else.
Espionage has evolved quite a bit in the last few years, let alone last five decades. So much intelligence collection has been directed towards force protection, other typical areas of interest have suffered. But the major powers still manage to cover all their bases and go after the terrorist target together. The joint intel ops that are becoming more and more commonplace just might be the precursor to something much more meaningful: an Intelligence Service that represents more than just one nation. I assume that the EU has already broken ground in that regard.
The answer is no, and we haven't been for sometime. You see, even when the soldiers are stateside and the diplomats are making nice with each other, another conflict is being waged in the shadows. All nations are involved in espionage in one form or another, and the more industrialized, populous states are constantly looking for new ways to improve the art. The United States is primarily interested in intelligence for national security purposes, which makes terrorism a priority target for the CIA, NSA, and the intelligence gathering apparati of the Departments of Defense and Justice. Next on the list is probably China, who has created a tremendously advanced and complicated network of spying, utilizing scholars, businessmen, and researchers to both collect on and occasionally subvert the United States in numerous ways. Russia is also a high-priority collecting target, especially since the arrival of Vladimir Putin and a return to cold-war type aggressive activities. The U.S. government remains highly interested in information regarding narcotics and counter-intelligence. A priority target that does not get its deserved share of attention is economics. The major economies of the world, even the ones who appear to be very closely aligned, are all in the business of collecting confidential information regarding economics and international business. In fact, it makes complete sense. The health of our nation's economy has to be included in national security concerns, and the Chinese in particular seem to be determined to outmaneuver everyone in this area.
Why are the Chinese so successful at espionage? The truth is, they haven't always been good at spying. But once China and the United States started regular bilateral relations, and Chinese university students and researchers were invited to the U.S. to study and do research, the Chinese saw an opportunity to exploit our openness to gather confidential and at times top secret information. The larger, more prestigious U.S. colleges seem to compete for visiting Chinese scholars. Unfortunately, many of these universities have received contracts from the Department of Defense to work on highly classified programs. On more than one occasion, Chinese students have been discovered in possession of internet connections that are active only between the Chinese mainland and the student's personal laptop. Our own experts have been unable to break into the conversation between the student and Beijing for a number of reasons, including the complexity/security firewalls of the program being used, and the opposition of the respective university's administration from what they perceive as being "action which will discourage future Chinese scholars from wanted to study here." Can you imagine a student having access to a lab computer, downloading classified information onto a disk, then returning to their dorm room to send the information to China, without us ever knowing exactly what was being transmitted?
Back to economic espionage. Its not just a war between China and the United States; the European nations are also interested in getting a "heads-up" on the intentions of our international companies and investors. For example, the European conglomerate "Airbus", which manufactures airliners with parts from a number of different EU countries, is in regular, fierce completion with Boeing for new airliner orders. The United States has economic rivalries in the Defense Industry as well. Germany, France, the UK, Russia, Italy and Spain all manufacture and export military hardware of one sort or another. Even South Africa goes head to head with the U.S., when it comes to anti-riot vehicles and helicopters. To have confidential information regarding a foreign competitor's progress on a competitive product can be invaluable, and nations have started training Intelligence Officers to be focused on the business community for the duration of their career. Many times these Intelligence Officers will utilize Businessman cover in order to gain access to confidential information. The United States and France wrote the book on this type of espionage, and they continue to this day to practice it more effectively than anyone else.
Espionage has evolved quite a bit in the last few years, let alone last five decades. So much intelligence collection has been directed towards force protection, other typical areas of interest have suffered. But the major powers still manage to cover all their bases and go after the terrorist target together. The joint intel ops that are becoming more and more commonplace just might be the precursor to something much more meaningful: an Intelligence Service that represents more than just one nation. I assume that the EU has already broken ground in that regard.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Are you telling me that some countries still have colonies? Shame!
Links: A. Territories Under the Jurisdiction of Other Countries.
B. Where on the Globe are the Remaining Colonies?
Were you aware that two cities on the north Mediterranean coast of Morocco are actually part of Spain? Ceuta and Melilla are leftover remnants of the days when Europe almost went to war over Morocco just prior to the first World War. I highly recommend visiting these cities, which truly are neither Spanish or Moroccan, but an exotic, spice-filled hybrid of both. And since you are going to be in the neighborhood, why not take a little tour of Morocco itself? You won't be sorry. Historically, Morocco existed as part of the French colonial empire, and the stories of Ceuta and Melilla, and of Spanish General Francisco Franco and his northern-Morocco based army of Falangists crossing the Straits of Gibraltar to begin the Spanish Civil War, are fascinating on their own. In the early 1960's, when two million Frenchmen called Algeria home, many people don't realize that somewhere between two-hundred and three-hundred thousand French citizens were living in Morocco. Does France have any colonies left in Africa? Does anyone have any African colonies still on the books, so to speak? And Asia, are any European nations still getting free rubber and petroleum from the Far East? I love maps and Geography, with History coming a close second, so I was able to make a close guess before examining the two links that I have provided. For the sake of keeping this post simple and fun, lets follow the established definition of "colony", and let's start right at home, with the United States.
With consideration to populated areas only (the United States has research facilities at various small island clusters, including Palmyra Atoll, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef and Midway, Wake, Baker, Jarvis and Howland Islands), the United States administers the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territory of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands, and the Territory of Guam. When I was in High School and originally discovered that the United States administered so many far-flung areas around the world, I was amazed. And to think that the U.S. overseas empire once included Cuba, Haiti, and the Philippines! Most of the territories listed above were Pacific Ocean nation-states that had been occupied by the Japanese and liberated by the U.S. during World War Two. Over the decades, the relationships have occasionally been contentious, but as of 2015, everyone seems to be satisfied, at least for the moment. The U.S. taxpayer dishes out quite a bit to keep these naturally unbalanced (fish, bird shit, and more fish) economies afloat, but these communities have and continue to provide the United States with a number of invaluable benefits, for research and military purposes. The United States conducted weapons testing near some of these areas, and an elaborate effort has been underway for some time to clean up the mess that was created. The one wild-card in the mix is Puerto Rico, which on occasion has flirted with both becoming the fifty-first state and also with becoming an independent nation. Something to note: with the exception of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, all of the overseas U.S. possessions are in the Pacific Ocean.
Canada has no colonies, unless you consider the Province of Nunavut to be an occupied nation, as many of the indigenous peoples do. We can pass over Mexico and South and Central America, as Ecuador's claim on the Galapagos Islands and Chile's on Easter Island are considered directly connected to the mainland. Very few European nations continue to administer foreign lands. Portugal, once one of the world's greatest colonial powers, now counts the Azores as its last remaining foreign dependency (it is considered an autonomous region of Portugal and its inhabitants are Portuguese citizens). Spain has cast off all of its former possessions, as has Italy, Belgium and Germany. The Netherlands continue to administer the Caribbean Islands of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, an arrangement totally acceptable (and beneficial) to the local population. I find Denmark to be a fascinating country. This relatively small, Baltic state has authority over the North Sea-located Faroe Islands (a very modern European population of roughly fifty-thousand, that collects revenue from fishing), and also Greenland, or Kaalallit Nunaat, which is jointly administered by both Copenhagen and Nuuk. Denmark has been both deliberate and patient with the slow integration of the native peoples into self-government. In fact, it appears as if the native population (a small Danish minority exists) are finding the current arrangement to be most beneficial.
The United Kingdom and France appear to have more overseas "dependencies" than anyone else. The U.K. continues to effect some authority over the Caribbean communities of the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos. All of these states have self-rule, with an appointed British governor to represent the best interests of the English Queen (Elizabeth II, not Elton John). The British occupy two distant regions that have been the cause of some controversy: the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar. For a century, the British administered the Falklands, without a word of complaint from Argentina, the nearest country as-the-crow-flies. The Falklands aren't the most hospitable islands, as the climate is cold and blustery, and the land won't grow much of use. But the Falklands are located in a bit of a strategic location. In the 1980's, in an effort to encourage a wave of national pride, a military junta in charge of the Argentinian government invaded the Falklands, changing the name to Las Malvinas. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister at the time, so suffice to say that the Falklands were back in British control within six-months to a year. The issue still rankles some Argentineans, although I don't see the argument. I find the continued British presence in Northern Ireland to be much more debatable, but much more complicated for this post. The British also continue to occupy Gibraltar, which is part of mainland Spain (as Ulster is part of mainland Ireland). The Spanish have made countless requests for the return of Gibraltar, and on occasion have implemented temporary blockades. But Gibraltar has proven to be a priceless possession over the centuries, especially during the two World Wars, and the British have no intention of giving it up. The Channel Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man may all be closer to mainland France than the U.K., but they are thoroughly British, to the point that the French would never consider asking for them back.
France has a very complicated, sometimes tragic history involving its colonies. In most instances (not all), France attempted to introduce the populations of its colonies to France as an ideal to be replicated. Cities were built in the French pattern (Hanoi, Saigon, Brazzaville, Algiers, Tunis, Abidjan, Damascus), the French language was widely instituted, and French history, literature and art became staples of education. In most places, the transition was gradual, and the French footprint is still quite visible today. In fact, a number of potential independent nations have elected to stay part of France, including Guadalupe, Martinique, Reunion, Mayotte, and French Guiana. During the past fifty years, French occupation of New Caledonia and French Polynesia has at times been contentious. In both instances, France poured more money into the local economy and legislated expanded home rule. New Caledonia is a difficult situation because the French who trace their heritage to the mainland constitute almost as large a percentage of the population as the indigenous peoples. New Caledonia is an undiscovered jewel in the South Pacific, just northeast of New Zealand. Probably because of distance, it has only become popular with French tourists, even though it is home to arguable the most tropical landscapes and beaches in the Pacific. French Polynesia is occasionally criticized for the urbanization of the capital city Pape'ete on Tahiti. Well, if you don't care for lots of people in your tropical vacation, then just hop the ferry to Moorea or Bora Bora; you can't lose. France has always been dedicated to bringing economic success to its foreign dependencies. French Guiana benefits tremendously from the French Ariane Space Center that is located in Kourou. When France abandoned its claim to Indochina (Vietnam), the French government relocated a number of Hmong tribesmen to Guiana, where they have thrived.
I consider Bouvet Island, Jan Meyer, and Svalbard to be integral to the geography of Norway, just as I consider Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Keeling, Coral Sea Islands, and a few other small islands to be directly connected to Australia. New Zealand does administer the Cook Islands, but only as a welcome support for the small indigenous population. I did not include Gaza or the West Bank in this discussion because it was not appropriate. For all intents and purposes, Gaza is occupied and administered by Hamas and the West Bank by the Palestinian Authority. If they would take a little of the foreign donations that end up lining people's pockets (or in the case of Hamas, buying weapons), and focus on infrastructure, job creation and community development, we would all be better off. But destroying Israel remains the end goal of all endeavors, and until that changes, then Israel will be obliged to treat the West Bank and Gaza as occasional occupied territories. Jeez how I hate war.
B. Where on the Globe are the Remaining Colonies?
Were you aware that two cities on the north Mediterranean coast of Morocco are actually part of Spain? Ceuta and Melilla are leftover remnants of the days when Europe almost went to war over Morocco just prior to the first World War. I highly recommend visiting these cities, which truly are neither Spanish or Moroccan, but an exotic, spice-filled hybrid of both. And since you are going to be in the neighborhood, why not take a little tour of Morocco itself? You won't be sorry. Historically, Morocco existed as part of the French colonial empire, and the stories of Ceuta and Melilla, and of Spanish General Francisco Franco and his northern-Morocco based army of Falangists crossing the Straits of Gibraltar to begin the Spanish Civil War, are fascinating on their own. In the early 1960's, when two million Frenchmen called Algeria home, many people don't realize that somewhere between two-hundred and three-hundred thousand French citizens were living in Morocco. Does France have any colonies left in Africa? Does anyone have any African colonies still on the books, so to speak? And Asia, are any European nations still getting free rubber and petroleum from the Far East? I love maps and Geography, with History coming a close second, so I was able to make a close guess before examining the two links that I have provided. For the sake of keeping this post simple and fun, lets follow the established definition of "colony", and let's start right at home, with the United States.
With consideration to populated areas only (the United States has research facilities at various small island clusters, including Palmyra Atoll, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef and Midway, Wake, Baker, Jarvis and Howland Islands), the United States administers the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territory of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands, and the Territory of Guam. When I was in High School and originally discovered that the United States administered so many far-flung areas around the world, I was amazed. And to think that the U.S. overseas empire once included Cuba, Haiti, and the Philippines! Most of the territories listed above were Pacific Ocean nation-states that had been occupied by the Japanese and liberated by the U.S. during World War Two. Over the decades, the relationships have occasionally been contentious, but as of 2015, everyone seems to be satisfied, at least for the moment. The U.S. taxpayer dishes out quite a bit to keep these naturally unbalanced (fish, bird shit, and more fish) economies afloat, but these communities have and continue to provide the United States with a number of invaluable benefits, for research and military purposes. The United States conducted weapons testing near some of these areas, and an elaborate effort has been underway for some time to clean up the mess that was created. The one wild-card in the mix is Puerto Rico, which on occasion has flirted with both becoming the fifty-first state and also with becoming an independent nation. Something to note: with the exception of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, all of the overseas U.S. possessions are in the Pacific Ocean.
Canada has no colonies, unless you consider the Province of Nunavut to be an occupied nation, as many of the indigenous peoples do. We can pass over Mexico and South and Central America, as Ecuador's claim on the Galapagos Islands and Chile's on Easter Island are considered directly connected to the mainland. Very few European nations continue to administer foreign lands. Portugal, once one of the world's greatest colonial powers, now counts the Azores as its last remaining foreign dependency (it is considered an autonomous region of Portugal and its inhabitants are Portuguese citizens). Spain has cast off all of its former possessions, as has Italy, Belgium and Germany. The Netherlands continue to administer the Caribbean Islands of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, an arrangement totally acceptable (and beneficial) to the local population. I find Denmark to be a fascinating country. This relatively small, Baltic state has authority over the North Sea-located Faroe Islands (a very modern European population of roughly fifty-thousand, that collects revenue from fishing), and also Greenland, or Kaalallit Nunaat, which is jointly administered by both Copenhagen and Nuuk. Denmark has been both deliberate and patient with the slow integration of the native peoples into self-government. In fact, it appears as if the native population (a small Danish minority exists) are finding the current arrangement to be most beneficial.
The United Kingdom and France appear to have more overseas "dependencies" than anyone else. The U.K. continues to effect some authority over the Caribbean communities of the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos. All of these states have self-rule, with an appointed British governor to represent the best interests of the English Queen (Elizabeth II, not Elton John). The British occupy two distant regions that have been the cause of some controversy: the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar. For a century, the British administered the Falklands, without a word of complaint from Argentina, the nearest country as-the-crow-flies. The Falklands aren't the most hospitable islands, as the climate is cold and blustery, and the land won't grow much of use. But the Falklands are located in a bit of a strategic location. In the 1980's, in an effort to encourage a wave of national pride, a military junta in charge of the Argentinian government invaded the Falklands, changing the name to Las Malvinas. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister at the time, so suffice to say that the Falklands were back in British control within six-months to a year. The issue still rankles some Argentineans, although I don't see the argument. I find the continued British presence in Northern Ireland to be much more debatable, but much more complicated for this post. The British also continue to occupy Gibraltar, which is part of mainland Spain (as Ulster is part of mainland Ireland). The Spanish have made countless requests for the return of Gibraltar, and on occasion have implemented temporary blockades. But Gibraltar has proven to be a priceless possession over the centuries, especially during the two World Wars, and the British have no intention of giving it up. The Channel Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man may all be closer to mainland France than the U.K., but they are thoroughly British, to the point that the French would never consider asking for them back.
France has a very complicated, sometimes tragic history involving its colonies. In most instances (not all), France attempted to introduce the populations of its colonies to France as an ideal to be replicated. Cities were built in the French pattern (Hanoi, Saigon, Brazzaville, Algiers, Tunis, Abidjan, Damascus), the French language was widely instituted, and French history, literature and art became staples of education. In most places, the transition was gradual, and the French footprint is still quite visible today. In fact, a number of potential independent nations have elected to stay part of France, including Guadalupe, Martinique, Reunion, Mayotte, and French Guiana. During the past fifty years, French occupation of New Caledonia and French Polynesia has at times been contentious. In both instances, France poured more money into the local economy and legislated expanded home rule. New Caledonia is a difficult situation because the French who trace their heritage to the mainland constitute almost as large a percentage of the population as the indigenous peoples. New Caledonia is an undiscovered jewel in the South Pacific, just northeast of New Zealand. Probably because of distance, it has only become popular with French tourists, even though it is home to arguable the most tropical landscapes and beaches in the Pacific. French Polynesia is occasionally criticized for the urbanization of the capital city Pape'ete on Tahiti. Well, if you don't care for lots of people in your tropical vacation, then just hop the ferry to Moorea or Bora Bora; you can't lose. France has always been dedicated to bringing economic success to its foreign dependencies. French Guiana benefits tremendously from the French Ariane Space Center that is located in Kourou. When France abandoned its claim to Indochina (Vietnam), the French government relocated a number of Hmong tribesmen to Guiana, where they have thrived.
I consider Bouvet Island, Jan Meyer, and Svalbard to be integral to the geography of Norway, just as I consider Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Keeling, Coral Sea Islands, and a few other small islands to be directly connected to Australia. New Zealand does administer the Cook Islands, but only as a welcome support for the small indigenous population. I did not include Gaza or the West Bank in this discussion because it was not appropriate. For all intents and purposes, Gaza is occupied and administered by Hamas and the West Bank by the Palestinian Authority. If they would take a little of the foreign donations that end up lining people's pockets (or in the case of Hamas, buying weapons), and focus on infrastructure, job creation and community development, we would all be better off. But destroying Israel remains the end goal of all endeavors, and until that changes, then Israel will be obliged to treat the West Bank and Gaza as occasional occupied territories. Jeez how I hate war.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Has the United States ever been on the wrong side of a war? Just a few to think about:
Links: A. The American Legion breaks down the Vietnam War
B. Triggers of World War One
C. Spain did not destroy the U.S.S. Maine
I've decided that once every week I will have a "random history" day, in which I chose a subject from world history and hopefully present it in a manner which encourages comments. The majority of my viewers are not from the United States, a fact of which I'm actually very proud. With that in mind, the subjects I chose will rarely, if ever, be about the United States. Today, though, we start off with a topic which should be of interest to everyone. Certainly in my travels around the world, I've heard non-Americans offer opinions on the subject. Has the United States ever fought on the wrong side of a war? I have to choose the noun "war" as opposed to "conflict", because including every little scrape and rumble would have made any kind of focus impossible. And lets not be shy - lets dive right in with the most controversial of wars: Vietnam, or the Second Indochina War (1961-1975).
When the United States started paying closer attention to events in Indochina, France, the former colonial power, and picked up stakes and moved on. Following the Second World War, France, which had made a tremendous financial investment in French Indochine, decided to fight tooth-and-nail to defeat the communist insurgency that had flared up after the departure of the Japanese. While the communists were raising hell in Korea with the U.S., they were also raising hell in Vietnam with France. For many years, though, the French gave back as good as they got. Both Saigon and Hanoi had been modernized along French lines, with grid-like downtowns, bakeries, streetlights, traffic signals, and a large City Hall. Unfortunately, not much is left, but Saigon still has a few old colonial buildings standing. The French Foreign Legion accomplished things in Indochina that are basically impossible to comprehend. Almost outnumbered and usually outgunned, the Legionnaires just refused to quit. The famous battle of Dien Ben Phu, standard fodder for all arm chair generals, is replete with examples of bravery and heroism in the face of overwhelming opposition. The surrender at Dien Ben Phu ended France's efforts to keep its Asian colony, and introduced a perspective that would hit home to the United States in the decade to come; the perspective that its impossible to fight to defend a country when the country isn't your home.
During the Vietnam War, the United States went through three presidents: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon. Each man was faced with the decision of whether or not to escalate the war. Even with the draft in place, at no time did the United State have anywhere near its full combat strength in Vietnam. If necessary, the United States in 1970 could put millions of soldiers into the field. But more soldiers no doubt result in more casualties. As most students of military history are aware, almost all the battles of the war were victories for the United States and South Vietnam (pre-1973). But while we were winning victories in the field, the north was flooding South Vietnam with both irregular troops and civilians, to put pressure on the economy and spread the ideology at the same time. Strategically speaking, the famous Tet Offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam. Nothing was gained and many well-trained soldiers died. But it created a permanent fear in the heart of the South Vietnamese people, that a North victory was only a matter of time, and the Yankees would be leaving as soon as the winds changed direction.
Even though Nixon campaigned on ending the war, he did consider certain military options that might have destroyed the Viet Cong permanently. But Nixon was unable to control the monster of public opinion and pressure from our European allies. If Nixon had doubles the number of troops and called for a full, non-stop bombing campaign of the north, the war would have been over in a few months. Unless, of course, the Chinese invaded, as they did in Korea. Or the Russians decided to up the ante. Nixon also had the option of introducing Atomic weapons. But the question today is not whether the war could have been won, the questions is whether we were fighting for the right side. I think history has answered that question. After defeating the south in 1975, Vietnam became a violent, reactionary, totalitarian state. Hundreds of thousands, of not millions, died, AFTER the departure of the Americans. And, as is the nature of communist regimes, the attempt was made to transport its brand of communism to both Laos (successfully), and Cambodia (eventually). We were fighting in an effort to support the legal right of South Vietnam to exist (guaranteed by the United Nations, and also to hopefully prevent the genocide that unfortunately, followed.
The justification for going to war is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. In 1915, if you were to ask any Austrian why a war was being fought in Europe, they would reply that it was because of the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by guerillas trained in Serbia. In Russia, you would be told that Russia went to war to defend tiny Serbia from the military might of Austria. France would say that they were obliged to go to war with Austria because of a mutual defense treaty with Russia, the same excuse Germany would use for coming into the conflict on the side of the Hapsburgs. Whew! The British waited a bit until recognizing an obligation to fight alongside France, and Italy decided to wait a year or two, and see who was winning before deciding what side to join. The United States stayed neutral until almost the last year of combat. A powerful and active anti-war movement kept President Woodrow Wilson from taking that final step until the Germans stupidly sent a telegram to Mexico, offering the Mexicans a return of all lands lost to the United States over the years if they came into the war on the side of Germany. For some reason, the American people were more angry with the Zimmerman Telegram than they were with the continued sinking of U.S. passenger liners full of innocent civilians.
Back to the original question. The United States declared war on Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Was the United States justified in going to war over the telegram, and/or the continued sinking of U.S. ships? I have a different opinion. First and foremost, if the United States did not want to lose passenger liners (and innocent Americans), then it shouldn't have filled the hold of these liners with military equipment bound for Great Britain. Secondly, why are Americans willingly sailing into a war zone anyways? In 1863, if an Austrian ship delivering rifles to the Confederacy were sunk by Union blockading ships, would Austria be justified in declaring war on the United States? And one must keep in mind that by 1917, the British maritime blockage was causing famine in Central Europe. Children and the elderly were starving to death in Austria and Germany, while the soldiers were kept fed so they could continue fighting. Germany was searching for any way to combat the British blockage, so they were unsuccessfully attempting one of their own. The telegram, which some experts continue to claim is a fake, is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. In other words, it's an effort to distract folks from the truth. If we go back to 1914, and imagine if the French Vice President were assassinated in Belgium by anarchists trained and armed in Germany, I can assure that France would be preparing for war. The same can be said for a British Prince, or a Russia Archduke. Austria's attempt to respond to the assassination of the heir to the Hapsburg throne was to punish Serbia, the guilty party. At that particular time in history, it would have been a very normal course of action to expect.
Last but not least, my favorite: the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898. At the time of the destruction of the battleship Maine in Havana, the U.S. Congress was debating several measures regarding the Spanish possession of Cuba and Spain's treatment of the "indigenous" population. Spain was portrayed as being borderline slave masters to the population of Cuba, save for a tiny class of Castilian plantation owners, civil servants and diplomats. The same scenario was widely discussed regarding both Puerto Rico and the Far East colony of The Philippines. In reality, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines basically constituted what remained of a once mighty Spanish Empire (excluding Spanish Sahara, Rio Muni and Equatorial Guinea in Africa, and a few other small enclaves). Spain itself was broke, and staggering from internal conflicts relating to failed Republican governments and inept Monarchs. But the new young King showed great promise, and the people of Spain sensed a new beginning. Some of the ship-building facilities were modernized and orders placed for the beginnings of a new fleet. In all honesty, the American interest in these Spanish possessions had almost nothing to do with philanthropy. It had to do with economics and business, and also a growing sense of wider "Manifest Destiny"; something that stretched further than California. Cuba was less than one hundred miles from Florida, of course it should be part of the United States, not crumbling, decrepit old Spain. Its very likely that U.S. officials were being honest in their accusations of sabotage against Spanish authorities in Havana. The battleship, which should never have been sent to Havana in the first place (an effort at intimidation, no doubt), just "blew up". The Americans claimed that the Spanish purposely mined the harbor so as to come into contact with the Maine, or some such thing. As you will learn from examining the third link I have provided, Spain has been completely exonerated. In all likelihood, the explosion of the Maine was an internal, accidental event. tragic, yes, but justification to go to war? We did go to war, and Spain fought valiantly both on land and on sea. But the Spanish fleet was twenty years too old to stand up to the powerful American squadron, and Teddy Roosevelt and his Roughriders eventually subdued the Spanish garrison on Cuba (with heavy losses). The United States got to keep Puerto Rico permanently, and the Philippines and Cuba temporarily. I'm not sure if an apology has been delivered to the Kingdom of Spain, but if not, then one is due. Pure and simple, it was a war fought on false pretenses, and something beneath the fine, commendable, and respectable reputation of the United States government.
B. Triggers of World War One
C. Spain did not destroy the U.S.S. Maine
I've decided that once every week I will have a "random history" day, in which I chose a subject from world history and hopefully present it in a manner which encourages comments. The majority of my viewers are not from the United States, a fact of which I'm actually very proud. With that in mind, the subjects I chose will rarely, if ever, be about the United States. Today, though, we start off with a topic which should be of interest to everyone. Certainly in my travels around the world, I've heard non-Americans offer opinions on the subject. Has the United States ever fought on the wrong side of a war? I have to choose the noun "war" as opposed to "conflict", because including every little scrape and rumble would have made any kind of focus impossible. And lets not be shy - lets dive right in with the most controversial of wars: Vietnam, or the Second Indochina War (1961-1975).
When the United States started paying closer attention to events in Indochina, France, the former colonial power, and picked up stakes and moved on. Following the Second World War, France, which had made a tremendous financial investment in French Indochine, decided to fight tooth-and-nail to defeat the communist insurgency that had flared up after the departure of the Japanese. While the communists were raising hell in Korea with the U.S., they were also raising hell in Vietnam with France. For many years, though, the French gave back as good as they got. Both Saigon and Hanoi had been modernized along French lines, with grid-like downtowns, bakeries, streetlights, traffic signals, and a large City Hall. Unfortunately, not much is left, but Saigon still has a few old colonial buildings standing. The French Foreign Legion accomplished things in Indochina that are basically impossible to comprehend. Almost outnumbered and usually outgunned, the Legionnaires just refused to quit. The famous battle of Dien Ben Phu, standard fodder for all arm chair generals, is replete with examples of bravery and heroism in the face of overwhelming opposition. The surrender at Dien Ben Phu ended France's efforts to keep its Asian colony, and introduced a perspective that would hit home to the United States in the decade to come; the perspective that its impossible to fight to defend a country when the country isn't your home.
During the Vietnam War, the United States went through three presidents: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon. Each man was faced with the decision of whether or not to escalate the war. Even with the draft in place, at no time did the United State have anywhere near its full combat strength in Vietnam. If necessary, the United States in 1970 could put millions of soldiers into the field. But more soldiers no doubt result in more casualties. As most students of military history are aware, almost all the battles of the war were victories for the United States and South Vietnam (pre-1973). But while we were winning victories in the field, the north was flooding South Vietnam with both irregular troops and civilians, to put pressure on the economy and spread the ideology at the same time. Strategically speaking, the famous Tet Offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam. Nothing was gained and many well-trained soldiers died. But it created a permanent fear in the heart of the South Vietnamese people, that a North victory was only a matter of time, and the Yankees would be leaving as soon as the winds changed direction.
Even though Nixon campaigned on ending the war, he did consider certain military options that might have destroyed the Viet Cong permanently. But Nixon was unable to control the monster of public opinion and pressure from our European allies. If Nixon had doubles the number of troops and called for a full, non-stop bombing campaign of the north, the war would have been over in a few months. Unless, of course, the Chinese invaded, as they did in Korea. Or the Russians decided to up the ante. Nixon also had the option of introducing Atomic weapons. But the question today is not whether the war could have been won, the questions is whether we were fighting for the right side. I think history has answered that question. After defeating the south in 1975, Vietnam became a violent, reactionary, totalitarian state. Hundreds of thousands, of not millions, died, AFTER the departure of the Americans. And, as is the nature of communist regimes, the attempt was made to transport its brand of communism to both Laos (successfully), and Cambodia (eventually). We were fighting in an effort to support the legal right of South Vietnam to exist (guaranteed by the United Nations, and also to hopefully prevent the genocide that unfortunately, followed.
The justification for going to war is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. In 1915, if you were to ask any Austrian why a war was being fought in Europe, they would reply that it was because of the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by guerillas trained in Serbia. In Russia, you would be told that Russia went to war to defend tiny Serbia from the military might of Austria. France would say that they were obliged to go to war with Austria because of a mutual defense treaty with Russia, the same excuse Germany would use for coming into the conflict on the side of the Hapsburgs. Whew! The British waited a bit until recognizing an obligation to fight alongside France, and Italy decided to wait a year or two, and see who was winning before deciding what side to join. The United States stayed neutral until almost the last year of combat. A powerful and active anti-war movement kept President Woodrow Wilson from taking that final step until the Germans stupidly sent a telegram to Mexico, offering the Mexicans a return of all lands lost to the United States over the years if they came into the war on the side of Germany. For some reason, the American people were more angry with the Zimmerman Telegram than they were with the continued sinking of U.S. passenger liners full of innocent civilians.
Back to the original question. The United States declared war on Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Was the United States justified in going to war over the telegram, and/or the continued sinking of U.S. ships? I have a different opinion. First and foremost, if the United States did not want to lose passenger liners (and innocent Americans), then it shouldn't have filled the hold of these liners with military equipment bound for Great Britain. Secondly, why are Americans willingly sailing into a war zone anyways? In 1863, if an Austrian ship delivering rifles to the Confederacy were sunk by Union blockading ships, would Austria be justified in declaring war on the United States? And one must keep in mind that by 1917, the British maritime blockage was causing famine in Central Europe. Children and the elderly were starving to death in Austria and Germany, while the soldiers were kept fed so they could continue fighting. Germany was searching for any way to combat the British blockage, so they were unsuccessfully attempting one of their own. The telegram, which some experts continue to claim is a fake, is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. In other words, it's an effort to distract folks from the truth. If we go back to 1914, and imagine if the French Vice President were assassinated in Belgium by anarchists trained and armed in Germany, I can assure that France would be preparing for war. The same can be said for a British Prince, or a Russia Archduke. Austria's attempt to respond to the assassination of the heir to the Hapsburg throne was to punish Serbia, the guilty party. At that particular time in history, it would have been a very normal course of action to expect.
Last but not least, my favorite: the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898. At the time of the destruction of the battleship Maine in Havana, the U.S. Congress was debating several measures regarding the Spanish possession of Cuba and Spain's treatment of the "indigenous" population. Spain was portrayed as being borderline slave masters to the population of Cuba, save for a tiny class of Castilian plantation owners, civil servants and diplomats. The same scenario was widely discussed regarding both Puerto Rico and the Far East colony of The Philippines. In reality, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines basically constituted what remained of a once mighty Spanish Empire (excluding Spanish Sahara, Rio Muni and Equatorial Guinea in Africa, and a few other small enclaves). Spain itself was broke, and staggering from internal conflicts relating to failed Republican governments and inept Monarchs. But the new young King showed great promise, and the people of Spain sensed a new beginning. Some of the ship-building facilities were modernized and orders placed for the beginnings of a new fleet. In all honesty, the American interest in these Spanish possessions had almost nothing to do with philanthropy. It had to do with economics and business, and also a growing sense of wider "Manifest Destiny"; something that stretched further than California. Cuba was less than one hundred miles from Florida, of course it should be part of the United States, not crumbling, decrepit old Spain. Its very likely that U.S. officials were being honest in their accusations of sabotage against Spanish authorities in Havana. The battleship, which should never have been sent to Havana in the first place (an effort at intimidation, no doubt), just "blew up". The Americans claimed that the Spanish purposely mined the harbor so as to come into contact with the Maine, or some such thing. As you will learn from examining the third link I have provided, Spain has been completely exonerated. In all likelihood, the explosion of the Maine was an internal, accidental event. tragic, yes, but justification to go to war? We did go to war, and Spain fought valiantly both on land and on sea. But the Spanish fleet was twenty years too old to stand up to the powerful American squadron, and Teddy Roosevelt and his Roughriders eventually subdued the Spanish garrison on Cuba (with heavy losses). The United States got to keep Puerto Rico permanently, and the Philippines and Cuba temporarily. I'm not sure if an apology has been delivered to the Kingdom of Spain, but if not, then one is due. Pure and simple, it was a war fought on false pretenses, and something beneath the fine, commendable, and respectable reputation of the United States government.
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.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Still Stuck In Africa...Let's Talk About Liberia And Ebola (Part II)
Links: Wikipedia Liberia
The U.S. Has An Obligation To Liberia
Mea Culpa To Dallas From The Liberian President
(Part II)
The second and third links I have chosen deal with the outbreak of Ebola in Liberia (and Guinea). To get right to the point, when a serious outbreak of a hemorrhagic virus strikes a poor country where most of the population ingests less than one thousand calories a day the body count can become shockingly high in a matter of days. The truth is, this outbreak has not yet "exploded", for lack of a better term. Perhaps this is because Ebola actually isn't that easy to catch, or because the Liberian and Guinean governments (and international organizations) have responded to the outbreak so
effectively. The answer is most likely a combination of both factors. On Oct. 15, The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 4,546 people have died from the Ebola virus with an additional 8,997 confirmed cases. My source estimates are a bit different: roughly 18,000 cases (although not officially confirmed), mostly in Guinea and Liberia, but also a few in Mali, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, and Senegal. I'm told that efforts to isolate the illness in Guinea and Liberia have been outstanding. The International Red Cross, the WHO, the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC), and Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) have been working closely together and with the local Ministries of Health to provide isolation equipment, protective clothing, detection equipment, and a variety of other essential medical tools. Even though the number of new cases appear to have plateaued, and wealthy nations are sending specialists and even troops to the region, many experts are concerned that we are only at the beginning of this outbreak.
Five hundred troops of the U.S. 101st Airborne are headed to West Africa. The French are
already there, and believe me, when the Elysee Palace in Paris got wind of the U.S. deployment, orders were sent to increase the French presence in what was once part of French West Africa (excluding Liberia and Sierra Leone). I am very familiar with this part of the world, and although independence was granted to Mali, Chad, Niger, Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, and Burkina Faso, a Frenchman is never very far away. France was much more successful than the Brits in keeping relations pleasant with its former colonies. It probably had something to do with the fact that the French allowed locally-selected political representation for its colonies in the French House of Deputies, and that France spent a fortune (and continues to do so) standing up and supporting the CFA franc as a currency for its former colonies, and get this, folks...the French treasury guarantees the CFA franc! Can you imagine the Brits using their precious Sterling to guarantee the Kenyan Shilling
or the Nigerian Dollar? Back at the ranch...I expect to see the French Foreign Legion deployed to Mali and Cote d'Ivoire in its entirety sometime soon, and the British will have to make their military presence known in Sierra Leone. The U.S. gets Liberia, as it should. Too many times in the last century and a half, U.S. administrations have refused to get involved in Liberian problems. What a shame and what a terrible legacy. This is one of the few occasions in which I will use the word "shame" and the United States in the same sentence. Liberia was once a child of the U.S., much like Hawaii (which was a separate Kingdom) and Puerto Rico. I believe that at one time or another we should have intervened and helped to put things in order. It wouldn't have taken much because Liberia is a country that is rich in natural resources. However, as is frequently the case in many underdeveloped countries, the Liberian people have rarely seen the benefits from any of its national wealth.
Its certainly not too late to make a difference. Considering that President Reagan's justification for military intervention and temporary occupation of Grenada was accepted, then without a doubt the United States had the bona fides to involve itself in Liberia's various coups and civil wars. The flag is almost identical to ours, the towns are named Harper, Fishtown and Greenville, and the original settlers, former American slaves, drew up their original Constitution as a mirror of our own. Why then did we chose to ignore Liberia for so many years? Because it is in Africa, over there "somewhere", and didn't figure into our strategic national interests. Fast-forward to 2014, and Liberia doesn't need a strong-arm presence to re-establish order. Liberia has an honest, determined, brilliant, popular President who has been dealt the shittiest of hands by fate. As for the French, U.S., and U.K. troops, their presence is intended to help keep order during evacuations, if such need arises. So far they have not been needed, although the French contingent in Mali may have its hands full fighting a reborn "Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb" flare-up in the north. My contact in Bamako, Mali is more concerned with the Al-Qaeda threat than she is Ebola. The French military (and government) normally never hesitate to act where terrorists are concerned, as they demonstrated in Mali in 2012-2013, so I hope this mess doesn't turn into a two-front issue (Ebola in the south, Al-Qaeda Magreb in the north). As I sit here at my computer, most of the involved parties are eyeing the border areas between Mali and Guinea/Liberia, and Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea/Liberia. A number of gold mines exist in the border areas, with a number of mine workers coming from the infected countries. Everyone is sitting on edge, waiting for the first confirmed case in Mali and/or Cote d'Ivoire. As for the spread of Ebola, I will remain probably the last optimistic person in the U.S. I expect that the number of cases in Liberia and Guinea will start to decline, so we can put this subject on the back burner, and return to our daily criticism of this administration and how it handles foreign affairs.
The U.S. Has An Obligation To Liberia
Mea Culpa To Dallas From The Liberian President
(Part II)
The second and third links I have chosen deal with the outbreak of Ebola in Liberia (and Guinea). To get right to the point, when a serious outbreak of a hemorrhagic virus strikes a poor country where most of the population ingests less than one thousand calories a day the body count can become shockingly high in a matter of days. The truth is, this outbreak has not yet "exploded", for lack of a better term. Perhaps this is because Ebola actually isn't that easy to catch, or because the Liberian and Guinean governments (and international organizations) have responded to the outbreak so
Its certainly not too late to make a difference. Considering that President Reagan's justification for military intervention and temporary occupation of Grenada was accepted, then without a doubt the United States had the bona fides to involve itself in Liberia's various coups and civil wars. The flag is almost identical to ours, the towns are named Harper, Fishtown and Greenville, and the original settlers, former American slaves, drew up their original Constitution as a mirror of our own. Why then did we chose to ignore Liberia for so many years? Because it is in Africa, over there "somewhere", and didn't figure into our strategic national interests. Fast-forward to 2014, and Liberia doesn't need a strong-arm presence to re-establish order. Liberia has an honest, determined, brilliant, popular President who has been dealt the shittiest of hands by fate. As for the French, U.S., and U.K. troops, their presence is intended to help keep order during evacuations, if such need arises. So far they have not been needed, although the French contingent in Mali may have its hands full fighting a reborn "Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb" flare-up in the north. My contact in Bamako, Mali is more concerned with the Al-Qaeda threat than she is Ebola. The French military (and government) normally never hesitate to act where terrorists are concerned, as they demonstrated in Mali in 2012-2013, so I hope this mess doesn't turn into a two-front issue (Ebola in the south, Al-Qaeda Magreb in the north). As I sit here at my computer, most of the involved parties are eyeing the border areas between Mali and Guinea/Liberia, and Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea/Liberia. A number of gold mines exist in the border areas, with a number of mine workers coming from the infected countries. Everyone is sitting on edge, waiting for the first confirmed case in Mali and/or Cote d'Ivoire. As for the spread of Ebola, I will remain probably the last optimistic person in the U.S. I expect that the number of cases in Liberia and Guinea will start to decline, so we can put this subject on the back burner, and return to our daily criticism of this administration and how it handles foreign affairs.
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)