Display:
What should be done?

End the War on Terrorism and the War of Civil Liberties going on under its cover. Treat terrorism as a crime issue as Europe has always done before the neo-cons came about. And address the political issues underlying it, politically.

Where did the Mohammed Cartoons come from? A Danish "culture editor" who is a fan of Richard Perle.

The 9/11 pilots also lived in the US for several years...

The London bombers has issues with British foreign policy going along with American post-9/11 policy.

Europe is trying to engage everyone in the Middle East instead of lecturing countries and peoples about values and democracy, endorsing war and occupation, or getting involved in an escalation of diplomatic snubs. The biggests recent failure of European Middle-East policy was getting dragged into an embargo of the Palestinian Authority's democratically elected government.

We stop bombing them. We stop supporting undemocratic regimes that suppress them. We stop making islamism the only political outlet people in the Middle East have left.

There is also the Alliance of Civilisations sponsored by Annan, Erdogan and Zapatero.

How's the Euromediterranean Partnership doing? I don't really know, I should read everything under that link.

The fact is, the US' middle-east policy is a big part of the problem. What is the Eu doing about it? Rolling over, containment, maybe stalling with the Iranians so Bush doesn't have a clear opening for another war.

Oh, and the EU is providing the bulk of the new UNIFIL.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 06:08:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and the EU is providing the bulk of the new UNIFIL.

Will UNIFIL reduce the risk of terrorism to Europe?
I doubt it. DoDo makes a good point on how peacekeeping looks from the ground.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 06:52:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you the same person who often asks why the EU doesn't commit troops to Darfur?

I think UNIFIL is more likely to piss off Israel then the Lebanese. It already has.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 06:55:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, not (yet) pissing off, but read this:

According to Alexander Ivanko, spokesman for the UN interim force in Lebanon (Unifil), there have been more than 100 recorded ceasefire violations by Israeli forces in the last month. These have been mostly over-flights and incursions by tanks, troops and bulldozers. Mr Ivanko said that 24 Lebanese civilians - including four men from Aita al-Shaab - had been detained at gunpoint by Israeli troops. All were later released.

In addition to the incursions, there have also been a number of shooting incidents - described by the residents of Aita al-Shaab as "intimidation fire".

...Talk of the UN met with a similar lack of enthusiasm. "We don't know them and they don't know us - so how can their be any real trust between us? They will not stand against the Israelis; they are Europeans that are coming now," said Kalamia. Villagers had seen UN troops roll through the village without stopping a few days earlier. "They have come and gone before, it's the same old story. Whether they're here or not, it doesn't make any difference to us," said Fatmeh Srour.

If UNIFIL would block IDF tank incursions, that would indeed constitute a move lessening the terrorism threat, by changing perceptions.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:19:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re your first sentence: Please, read my atlanticreview diaries again.
Re your second sentence: So far it was the other way around. Israel is happy to have basically NATO babysitters at its borders. Let me write a new diary about it. Otherwise we are getting too off-topic here.
by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:35:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We saw a couple of days ago Israel is unhappy that France and Italy will actually be deployed armoured vehicles and anti-aircraft missiles.

But I agree, this is a diversion.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:40:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where did the Mohammed Cartoons come from? A Danish "culture editor" who is a fan of Richard Perle.

You are not saying that this was a US plot, are you?

The cartoons were published in many European papers out of solidarity. And EU politicians defended the publication.

The US media (with small excpetions) did not print the cartoons. And US politicians criticized the cartoons.

On the cartoon issue: The US was the appeaser, while Europeans defended our liberties. Fine, but some papers were overly insensitive to Muslim feelings.

Please excuse the generalization based on time constraints: Many Arabs have an inferiority complex. And we in the West are to blame, because we often rub into their face: Undemocratic, few liberties, bad economy, bad science, bad technology, hardly any internationally well-known authors/musicians/sports stars etc.
They only thing they have left to feel proud of is religion. And then our papers need to make a statement about press freedom and not being cowards and appeasers and they reprint the cartoons.

So, to answer my own question about what needs to be done: Forget about democracy promotion. We don't have much credibility or expertise to do so. Let's find a way to boos self-respect in the Arab world. Avoid humiliating the Arabs.

Of course, this is very difficult. And it should not mean appeasement or ignoring human rights violations etc.
I have no clue how to make Arabs more proud and self respecting and feel less humiliated and have less of an inferiority complex etc.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:03:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where do you get this idea that Arabs have an inferiority complex? I think it is we that have a superiority complex [e.g., trying to rub it in their faces that they're inferior].

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:08:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding the Cartoon Controversy, I would have to go and dig up a bunch of links to the dozens of diaries ET published on the topic, for which I don't really have time right now. Maybe tonight. Did you read our debates?

You oversimplified it in your first comment, and so did I in my reply. The cartoons are tangential to the present discussion and I am not really interested in repeating all I said in the ET debates on the topic.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:29:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I read some of those diaries.

I brought up the cartoons, because the suspects in the failed train bombing plots in Germany mentioned them as their motivation.

That's why I think it is worth looking at the long-term consequences of the cartoon uproar.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:38:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
hardly any internationally well-known authors/musicians/sports stars

Well, not known to you. This is something like Robbie Williams or Kylie Minoque being megastars in Europe, but virtually unknown in the US, and US writers concluding the UK has no internationally well-known pop musicians. Your line made me recall a scene on my Franz Ferdinand DVD, in a documentary of their concert world tour: an interview towards the end of the US leg of the tour with MTV in New York. Almost all questions were silly ones like "did you came here because a you'll be famous if you are famous in the US" [the already famous boys stopped for the second to find a polite answer], "so now you'll go to Buffalo then Chicago, and what comes after your world tour is over - recording a new LP?" [it was the middle of a world tour, not a US tour].

Also, regarding books, declarations of the lack of this or that based on ignorance and not speaking Arabic is something Angry Arab regularly fumes about, for example here.

Overall, I mostly agree with your above post. In particular that Europe is part to the problem, not just a sufferer of collateral damage. On the other hand, one can't talk about these problems without talking about the US, that would be the other extreme.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 08:15:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no clue how to make Arabs more proud and self respecting and feel less humiliated and have less of an inferiority complex etc.

Stop supporting political systems that inevitably leave them poor and less developed? Just a thought.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 08:19:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree.

Let's stop driving our cars today.

Colman, don't get me wrong. I am not saying this to criticize you, but just try to think it through.

I look forward to Energize Europe.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:22:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You think that whoever got in power wouldn't want to sell us oil? Why?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:34:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't understand what this has to do with your earlier comment.

You wrote: We should stop supporting the undemocratic regimes.

I responded that we should not drive our cars then. Then we would withdraw our support of these regimes.

What do you suggest? How do you want to stop supporting those regimes?

Stop development aid for Egypt and others? Sure. What else?

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:39:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Stop development aid. Stop propping up unpopular regimes. Stop treating  Saudi princes as respectable world leaders. Speak against their human rights abuses and their suppression and their outrages. Let their governments fall. And above all, stop bloody interfering.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:43:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry for being explicit, but this is a silly discussion. The population of most oil-rich Muslim countries is not poor, those without oil (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan) or with major wars behind them (Iraq, Afghanistan, less so Iran) are really poor. To stop driving cars won't affect the regimes of the poor countries, and (unless oil production is throttled severely so that other customers buy less for much more) won't make the subsidized population of the oil-rich ones richer. On the other hand, stopping driving cars will help Europe to get closer to energy independence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (I already don't have a car.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:44:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series