Actually, Derbyshire either misses or evades the real point of blaming the potato famine on the English government and nobility. Nobody but a total kook would believe the potato disease was concocted in a British laboratory. That silly notion is quite easily disposed of, but isn't the real charge anyway.


No, the real charge is that the cupidity of the British upper classes had monopolized the Irish wheat crop and, to a lesser extent, other grains crops for export, and left the Irish unhealthily dependent on the potato for sustenance. They did not cause the potato blight, but they caused the potato famine, by setting up the conditions that made famine an inevitable result of the blight.


Curiously, Derbyshire does say this:

And there is not much doubt that in the matter of the Irish famine, some blame must fall on the British governments of the time.

But then goes on to cite as the only portion of blame I can see from the article, a failure of the British government to provide proper famine relief. But as he also notes, that was extremely difficult for governments in what we call the Civil War Saeculum, as they were uniformly weak and decentralized. The real blame, it seems to me, goes to what the government did to uphold the capacity of the English nobility to rape Ireland's wealth, leaving the Irish unnaturally vulnerable to any random catastrophe, such as the potato blight.


I also feel the need to comment on this, even though it's less relevant to western Europe:

I dislike the best-known instance of it: the Vietnam War memorial in Washington D.C., which seems to me ill-conceived and depressing, encapsulating ? and designed to encapsulate ? all the negative emotions about that war that poisoned American life for an entire generation.

Ah, but that's the only way that the Vietnam War can be remembered. Can we recall it as a triumph? But it wasn't; we lost the war. As a noble enterprise, even if it failed? But the record is too sordid for that, too. The Vietnam memorial captures perfectly the futility, the senseless waste and loss, that characterized that national descent into folly and madness, while paying tribute to the soldiers -- far, far too many -- who gave their lives in service to that madness. I can certainly understand not enjoying the feeling, but if we do not recall it we may, alas, repeat it.

Brian Rush wrote;

No, the real charge is that the cupidity of the British upper classes had monopolized the Irish wheat crop and, to a lesser extent, other grains crops for export, and left the Irish unhealthily dependent on the potato for sustenance. They did not cause the potato blight, but they caused the potato famine, by setting up the conditions that made famine an inevitable result of the blight.

The 1840's throughout Europe was called the Hungry Forties for a good reason, there was hunger and localised famines. However nowhere else in Europe suffered in the 1840's to anywhere the same degree Ireland did.

The reason why Ireland suffered more badly than other European nations was it's agriculture was not commericalised and far more dependeant on substance farming to a greater degree than the rest of Britain. Ireland had a lot of mirco-tenant farmers farming very small pieces of land. Ireland up until recently has been more backwards in just about everything in comparsion to places like Scotland and Wales for example.

Ireland being totally engulfed by the counter-reformation made things worse, Ireland was like Spain and Southern Italy very Catholic, very poor and backwards, Ireland was probably worse than Spain or Southern Italy. The only part of Ireland which was modernized and industrised was Ulster where the majority of the population was Protestant. In Ulster the economic environment was akin to Northern England and Lowland Scotland.

I shall re-enter more or less where I left off.

Attempts to apply to the turnings to the rest of the world have been hampered, I think, by a weird kind of Americo-centrism that prevents some people from recognizing the obvious. Thus, Mussolini's Fascist party seizes power, transforms the entire government, imprisons/exiles its opponents, makes a new deal giving the Church an official role in Italy, and starts building a new empire--and posters on this site call this a Third Turning! What possible reason can their be for this conclusion other than to keep Italy on the same cycle as the US? And it has seemed equally obvious to me that France as late as 1958-62 (I did overstate this case originally) was still in a Fourth Turning, involving the overthrow of a weak regime (the Fourth Republic), civil war in Algeria, the end of the French empire, and the creation, for the first time in French history, of a strong Presidency elected by universal suffrage (well, practically the first time--see 1848-51.)

In general, I have argued, repeatedly, that while Italy is somewhat ahead of everyone else (the postwar political order, dominated by Communists and Christian Democrats, has completely collapsed there), the rest of Western Europe is 5-10 years (and for the French, more like 15 years), BEHIND the United States. Because the crisis in Europe lasted well into the 1950s, Europe is still ruled by artists, with the notable exception of Tony Blair. They don't remember the war, but they remember postwar poverty and anxiety and remain committed to the institutions that got them out of it. (The German SPD leadership is NOT an exception. Germany had the longest crisis--approximately 1930-55--and has a gigantic Artist generation.) And that accounts for the increasing estrangement between Artist-led Europe, commited to multinational institutions, peaceful solutions to conflicts, and government-sponsored social security (in the broadest sense), and the Boomer-led US, which is reveling in international anarchy and the free market.

It occurs to me that because Europe was just entering its High when the birth control pill came along, the European prophet generations are probably much smaller than the Boomers. And I agree with the implied conclusion of others that when the European crisis comes, the status of immigrants will be the key issue. The other great issue will be the survival of the Euro and the EC, or the form in which either/both will survive.

David Kaiser '47

Welcome back Dr Kaiser.

Why do you think that the saeculum operates at the level of the nation state?

The generations in the U.K. seem to be the same as the American generations. That's not surprising for a country who had World War I and World War II and who caught Beatlemania the same time as the U.S. did. Both ended the two wars the same time so people of the same ages would get to fight in the wars and when the Beatles broke up it was heard on both sides of the Atlantic. The Silents have the same story of course and even the old generations but the Xers are just like the American Xers also. I expected I'd enjoy all the London punks when I came here and already I've got to say they're hip. The Gen-X punks of the U.K. really do act like American Xers. I watched a few smoke pot which wasn't surprising. I might finally join them in or possibly even make a trip to Amsterdam while I'm in Europe even though that's unlikely. I haven't smoked pot in almost three years. All the age groups seem to match the U.S. in generations but the Boomers seem definitely different. I know Tony Blair is equivalent to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush but there's something definitely distinct in the way this generation behaves. Will they turn out to have "football moms" just like the ones across the Atlantic? I'll have to see. One thing I've noticed is that they don't have SUV's in the U.K....that definitely seems different than the U.S. and its affluence. Where did the Boomers wanting their gas-wasting machines and other symbols of rich Boomer pride go? -Craig

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Welcome back Dr Kaiser.

Why do you think that the saeculum operates at the level of the nation state?

I would like David Kaiser to explain his ideas to us, I can't see why a functioning saeculum can work on a nation state level, especially in a very interconnected place like Europe with small nations which have changed their borders many times in the last 500 years. You can have seperate saeculums for isolated countries like Japan or for whole regions, however not for France and Germany.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I shall re-enter more or less where I left off.

Attempts to apply to the turnings to the rest of the world have been hampered, I think, by a weird kind of Americo-centrism that prevents some people from recognizing the obvious. Thus, Mussolini's Fascist party seizes power, transforms the entire government, imprisons/exiles its opponents, makes a new deal giving the Church an official role in Italy, and starts building a new empire--and posters on this site call this a Third Turning!

Actually David the early years of the Italian Fascist regime were in a 3T. The Italian fascist movenment in the 1920's were a small fringe group, not a mass movenment like the Nazis were in the Late Weimar Republic. Anyway not much changed after the fascists took over power in the late 1920's, however things really started to change after Wall Street Crash of 1929, when the Last European 4T started.

In general, I have argued, repeatedly, that while Italy is somewhat ahead of everyone else (the postwar political order, dominated by Communists and Christian Democrats, has completely collapsed there), the rest of Western Europe is 5-10 years (and for the French, more like 15 years), BEHIND the United States. Because the crisis in Europe lasted well into the 1950s, Europe is still ruled by artists, with the notable exception of Tony Blair.

A collapse in the political order can be a strong 3T sign, In Italy unlike in Mexico say the collapse in the political system has not resulted in a new political order, however in political limbo. Like wise the formation of many new parties all over Western Europe reflects the breakdown in the political order which dominated these countries since the end of WW2.

Europe (including Britain) is rough in synch (Russia's case) or 3-4 years behind the USA. True the European political leadership is still composed mostly of Silents; however the nations of Europe use a parliamentary system of government with a ceremonial head of state. An apt comparison of Europe?s political leaders would be the US Congressional Leadership, which is still dominated by the Silents.

According to this article by John Derbyshire, that the countries of western europe and Britain especially and debating the issues, the USA resolved a decade earlier.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbys...hire112502.asp

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

In general, I have argued, repeatedly, that while Italy is somewhat ahead of everyone else (the postwar political order, dominated by Communists and Christian Democrats, has completely collapsed there), the rest of Western Europe is 5-10 years (and for the French, more like 15 years), BEHIND the United States. Because the crisis in Europe lasted well into the 1950s, Europe is still ruled by artists, with the notable exception of Tony Blair. They don't remember the war, but they remember postwar poverty and anxiety and remain committed to the institutions that got them out of it. (The German SPD leadership is NOT an exception. Germany had the longest crisis--approximately 1930-55--and has a gigantic Artist generation.) And that accounts for the increasing estrangement between Artist-led Europe, commited to multinational institutions, peaceful solutions to conflicts, and government-sponsored social security (in the broadest sense), and the Boomer-led US, which is reveling in international anarchy and the free market.

I mostly agree with everything you said, esp. that Euroland (excepting the UK) is under Adaptive control, governmentally and more importantly culturally. That's part of why they look on American fractiousness with such dismay, just when they think they've woven a perfect global 'safety net' to prevent war and reduce the sharp edges, places like the USA tend to make sudden moves the shred it (in their view).

It's one of the Generational curses of the Adaptive archetype to face Idealists and Reactives often concluding that what they regard as their most crucial legacies are in fact irrelevant. The Progressives experienced something very similar toward the end of the last 3T, as did the Compromisers before them. They left many legacies, but the lasting peace and good-will they most wanted and want to leave simply never happen.

I would disagree slightly in calling the U.S. 'Boomer-led'. We're not, not quite yet. While the current and former Presidents are Boomers, and Boomers are gaining control of Congress, the Silent still dominate the upper echelons of the most of the Federal Government's executive machinery, the major private institutions, and they still shape (though with steadily weakening effect) the culture. I do think we're some distance closer to 4T in the USA than Euroland is.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why do you think that the saeculum operates at the level of the nation state?

I can't speak for him, but I suspect myself that slight variations may exist among closely-linked nation-states, depending on local factors for such things as birth rates, initial conditions, etc. I do think that most of Western Europe (France, Germany, Spain, etc) are on a pretty close lock-step cycle, some years behind the USA. If I'm right, WW II reset the European cycle to some extent.

I do NOT think that the United Kingdom is on the same cycle as Euroland, I think they're just a short step temporally behind the USA. While the UK suffered in World War II from the Blitz, losses of people and materiel, etc, they didn't suffer as much, or as long, as mainland Europe, especially as the losers of the War.

That's part, I think, of why the UK is so split on the whole question of Europe and the EU. The split is partly along cultural lines within the UK, and partly along class lines. There is a subset of the 'educated' class in the UK, dominated by Adaptives but with plenty of Boomers and Xers among their number, who love the EU and most of what it stands for, especially the commitment to peaceful solution and multilateralism, and the repudiation of patriotism and nationalism. This is very roughly the same group that in the USA is represented by the New York Times editorial page and the Mario Cuomo/Jim Jeffords/Sarah Brady school of political thought.

Further, Britain is still pulled by her ties to the USA, Canada, and Australia in directions not necessarily in synch with the EU, esp. the USA. There is a significant faction in the UK that feels more kinship with America than Europe, even when they think the EU is right in some specific dispute.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

There is a subset of the 'educated' class in the UK, dominated by Adaptives but with plenty of Boomers and Xers among their number, who love the EU and most of what it stands for, especially the commitment to peaceful solution and multilateralism, and the repudiation of patriotism and nationalism. This is very roughly the same group that in the USA is represented by the New York Times editorial page and the Mario Cuomo/Jim Jeffords/Sarah Brady school of political thought.

In light of that, the following story may be interesting. Note that the source of the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...27/ixhome.html

is itself not neutral on this subject.

This is posted without intention of infringement or profit for discussion purposes only.


Why 'biased' BBC news team stands accused of selling its soul to Euroland
(Filed: 27/12/2002)


Eurosceptics are questioning the corporation's impartiality. Damian Thompson asks if they have a case


A retired research scientist from Cambridge is refusing to pay his television licence fee in protest at the BBC's uncritical coverage of the European Union. "We are moving towards an oppressive super-state yet the BBC gives us very little real information about it," he says. "It reminds me of Soviet propaganda. It really does."

On the face of it, the comparison sounds a little excessive. But this particular licence refusenik, Vladimir Bukovsky, has actually spent 12 years of his life in Soviet psychiatric hospitals and prison camps. As a civil rights campaigner, he did more than anyone else to expose the persecution of dissidents during the Brezhnev era.

Earlier this month, Bukovsky stood outside the reception of Broadcasting House and took a pair of scissors to a giant facsimile of his licence. Needless to say, there were no BBC television cameras present to record the event but it will have acutely embarrassed the corporation at a time when the Eurosceptic campaign against BBC bias is gathering pace.

For the past year or two, sarcastic paragraphs have been appearing in diary columns, offering miniature illustrations of the corporation's Europhile mindset - reporting, for example, that production staff were seen applauding pro-federalist speakers during a televised debate on the EU or that Martha Kearney, Newsnight's political editor, had agreed to judge an essay competition entitled: "Why are we afraid of the European Union?"

Minotaur, an independent monitoring unit run by a former head of publicity for BBC News, is currently analysing every reference to Europe on the Today programme. Previous Minotaur surveys have covered the 2001 general election and the launch of the euro notes and coins.

Each has come to the same conclusion: that the corporation's European coverage is slanted in favour of the single currency and presents the case for withdrawal from the EU as, in the words of one BBC correspondent, "flat-earth politics".

So far, the BBC has found it easy to shrug off the Minotaur reports. It points out that they have been commissioned by the arch-Eurosceptic Lord Pearson of Rannoch and are therefore not quite as independent as they might seem.

There are signs, however, that corporation executives are more worried than they are prepared to admit. Anne Sloman, the corporation's political adviser, has been spotted lunching with Pearson. The meeting was cordial but it is hard to imagine anyone less likely to win over the corporation's critics.

According to a BBC current affairs presenter who understandably refuses to be named, she once told him: "Don't you realise that these people [hard-line opponents of the EU] are mad?"

Pearson's organisation, Global Britain, has posted several hundred pages of Minotaur findings on its website, www.globalbritain.org. Although in places the reports do seem one-sided, reading too much into slips of the tongue or hurried editorial decisions, taken as a whole they point to a subliminal BBC "line" on Europe that is difficult to reconcile with the obligation of impartiality set down in its charter.

In the five years up to 2002, Eurosceptics became increasingly convinced that the BBC was acting as an unofficial cheerleader for the single currency. Several programmes employed the device of inviting pro and anti-euro lobbyists to change the minds of a target audience but, on closer inspection, seemed designed to produce a particular outcome.

A 1997 Panorama studio debate achieved an 18 per cent swing to the euro in less than an hour. In 2001, Referendum Street subjected residents of a north London street to the arguments of both sides.

But, not long before filming began, the Eurosceptic Zac Goldsmith withdrew from the project because of the producers' insistence that their anti-euro team should be led by the unappealing David Mellor.

This time, the swing was 23 per cent in two days, though viewers were given no evidence about how the polls were conducted. When Panorama repeated its debate this May, there was another swing to the euro but only after 40 voting machines were switched off "to refine the sample".

By this stage, many Eurosceptics were convinced that the BBC would try to nudge the electorate in a referendum, just as it has admitted doing in the 1975 Common Market vote, when Today disseminated pro-EEC information supplied by the Foreign Office.

Public opposition to the euro fell during 2001; Minotaur speculated that the BBC's positive coverage "could well have contributed to this significant change".

The high-water mark of euro-enthusiasm was reached this January when the euro notes and coins were launched. "Euphoria in Euroland," was the opening line on the Ten O'Clock News. "Euphoria at the BBC" might have been a better description.

This was how Paul Mason of Newsnight reported the scenes in Maastricht: "As the midnight hour approached, a giant inflatable euro tree blossomed into life. For once, the Ode to Joy seemed exactly the right tune."

Jim Naughtie, in Paris for Today, struck an almost Biblical note: "The arrival of the currency that the fathers of modern Europe dreamed about are [sic] all symbols made flesh."

As it turned out, it was the last good news about the EU the BBC could report for nearly a year, until the agreement on enlargement. The value of the euro dropped as the Germany economy went into seizure; allegations of corruption were levelled against the European Commission by Marta Andreasen, its sacked chief accountant. Blair argued with Chirac.

Some BBC programmes reported these developments impartially. Others seemed intent on acting as a buffer between the bad news from Europe and the public.

The Six O'Clock News, after reporting Andreasen's charges, went over to a BBC correspondent in Brussels who simply repeated the EU's rubbishing of Andreasen; the Commission's press officer couldn't have done better.

The latest Minotaur report focuses on Today's handling of the last European Council summit. The Franco-German deal to cap farm subsidies caught the programme by surprise, says Minotaur, and its review of the press on Oct 25 played down its significance. Listeners were told that the agreement was opposed by "those European conspiracy theorists" the Sun and the Daily Mail.

The next day, it emerged that Tony Blair had made a scathing attack on the deal. On Oct 29, his stand-up row with Chirac dominated the newspaper headlines.

Today reported it briefly but a crucial part of the story, the cancellation of an Anglo-French summit, was ignored until Oct 30 when, bizarrely, the Rev Leslie Griffiths announced it on Thought for the Day with the comment: "What a to-do!" Throughout all this, only two out of 13 interviewees expressed negative sentiments about Brussels.

The case for withdrawal from the EU was not heard. But then, as Minotaur says, it almost never is. Thirty per cent of the electorate want to leave the EU but you would never guess that from the BBC's output, which treats the pro-withdrawal lobby as an eccentric or malevolent force.

A television news report during the election showed a UKIP candidate hammering at a campaign board. He was shot from a low angle, the sky throwing his face into shadow: pure Hitchcock.

"Steve Reed wants to smash the European Union to pieces," said the commentary. Why is there such antipathy to anti-EU campaigners? According to one senior BBC journalist, it is because their opinions fall outside "the fairly thin band of ideology that gets the stamp of approval".

In August, the BBC accepted a ?25 million EU loan to make programmes, tying its commercial future into the success of the EU project. For the BBC's Labour-supporting chairman and director-general, support for the EU makes ideological and commercial sense.

Yet there is no evidence that the management dictates a pro-euro line to its senior journalists, most of whom would scream blue murder if it tried to.

But, in a sense it does not have to because, outside a small circle of independent-minded correspondents, there is a vast army of junior reporters, script editors and researchers whose right-on prejudices - on Europe, hunting, immigration and abortion - are so instinctive that they are not even aware of them. This is hardly surprising, given that they are recruited mainly though the media pages of the Guardian.

If, over the next few years, the strain of enlargement begins to pull Europe apart, it will be interesting to see if the BBC will allow a national debate over Britain's membership - or, to put it another way, whether million of licence payers who oppose membership will get their money's worth.

At the moment, the signals are mixed. Richard Sambrook, head of news, has warned his journalists that they need to be more concerned about impartiality. On the other hand, no public institution is quite so resistant to criticism as the BBC.

A few months ago Andrew Turner, the Tory MP, wrote to Gayvn Davies, the BBC chairman, asking about the Minotaur reports - documents that contain the most detailed allegations of bias ever levelled against the corporation. Davies's reply was positively Olympian in its condescension.

"BBC management have not so far alerted us [the Governors] through the normal reporting channels of any issues raised by the Minotaur reports of bias in our coverage," he wrote. "I therefore have no reason to believe that these reports give grounds for concern."

************************************************** **********

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I would disagree slightly in calling the U.S. 'Boomer-led'. We're not, not quite yet. While the current and former Presidents are Boomers, and Boomers are gaining control of Congress, the Silent still dominate the upper echelons of the most of the Federal Government's executive machinery, the major private institutions, and they still shape (though with steadily weakening effect) the culture. I do think we're some distance closer to 4T in the USA than Euroland is.

About the upper echelons of the Executive Branch of the Government, while it is true that many of the cabinet secretaries are Silent, almost everyone below the cabinet is Boomer (or even Xer). Among the career Senior Executive Service, almost all of these people are Boomer, because the Silents have taken their 30 years service retirement and are comfortably enjoying second careers in the private sector (this applies to an increasing number of early-wave Boomers, too). So yes, it would be fair to say that the Executive Branch is run by Boomers.

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I would disagree slightly in calling the U.S. 'Boomer-led'. We're not, not quite yet. While the current and former Presidents are Boomers, and Boomers are gaining control of Congress, the Silent still dominate the upper echelons of the most of the Federal Government's executive machinery, the major private institutions, and they still shape (though with steadily weakening effect) the culture. I do think we're some distance closer to 4T in the USA than Euroland is.

About the upper echelons of the Executive Branch of the Government, while it is true that many of the cabinet secretaries are Silent, almost everyone below the cabinet is Boomer (or even Xer). Among the career Senior Executive Service, almost all of these people are Boomer, because the Silents have taken their 30 years service retirement and are comfortably enjoying second careers in the private sector (this applies to an increasing number of early-wave Boomers, too). So yes, it would be fair to say that the Executive Branch is run by Boomers.

But are they making any signficant difference yet, or are they still following the rythms set by the outgoing Silent?

Anti-Americanism and anti-Europeanism are at opposite ends of the political scale. European anti-Americanism is mainly to be found on the left, American anti-Europeanism on the right. The most outspoken American Euro-bashers are neoconservatives using the same sort of combative rhetoric they have habitually deployed against American liberals. In fact, as Jonah Goldberg himself acknowledged to me, "the Europeans" are also a stalking-horse for liberals. So, I asked him, was Bill Clinton a European? "Yes," said Goldberg, "or at least, Clinton thinks like a European."

There is some evidence that the left?right divide characterizes popular attitudes as well. In early December 2002, the Ipsos-Reid polling group included in their regular survey of US opinion a few questions formulated for the purposes of this article.[8] Asked to choose one of four statements about American versus European approaches to diplomacy and war, 30 percent of Democratic voters but only 6 percent of Republican voters chose "The Europeans seem to prefer diplomatic solutions over war and that is a positive value Americans could learn from." By contrast only 13 percent of Democrats but 35 percent of Republicans (the largest single group) chose "The Europeans are too willing to seek compromise rather than to stand up for freedom even if it means war, and that is a negative thing."


Anti-Europeanism in America


Robert Kagan argues that Europe has moved into a Kantian world of "laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation," while the United States remains in a Hobbesian world where military power is still the key to achieving international goals (even liberal ones). The first and obvious question must be: Is this true? I think that Kagan, in what he admits is a "caricature," is actually too kind to Europe, in the sense that he elevates to a deliberate, coherent approach what is, in fact, a story of muddled seeking and national differences. But a second, less obvious question is: Do Europeans and Americans wish this to be true? The answer seems to be yes. Quite a lot of American policymakers like the idea that they are from Mars?on the understanding that this makes them martial rather than Martian?while quite a lot of European policymakers like to think they are, indeed, programmatic Venutians. So the reception of Kagan's thesis is a part of its own story.

But the question remains: why are the neocons so mad at Europe? The anti-Semitism that is allegedly swamping the Continent cannot be the answer, except in the minds of the more loopy Zionists. Nor can Europe?s supposed envy of the United States. It does not exist except among pathologically pro-American beauty consultants and self-employed plumbers in Essex. What is to envy? East Texas? No, the answer is that neocons fear Europe. Why else would they get so angry about a continent that they profess to believe is impotent? Why, if the United States is mortally threatened by a two-bit mass-murderer in the Middle East, should the hacks of the New Right?and with them the administration?give a damn about what the Europeans think? Why don?t they forget Europe, forget the UN, and do the right thing and kill Saddam? It would be a morning?s work. What?s stopping them? What?s frustrating the best laid plans of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney (not to mention Andrew Sullivan and the White House attack monkey Jonah Goldberg)? To many on this side of the Atlantic, it looks as though the administration is scared, not physically perhaps, but politically.


If Bush does not go to war, he loses face (and therefore votes). But if he stands and fights he risks losing the support of the 60 percent of Americans who do not believe that he has made the case for war. Some of us are wondering, therefore, whether he might not continue to procrastinate and, after cutting a relatively bloodless (but profitable) deal in the Middle East, declare a famous diplomatic victory. It is that possibility that goes some way to explaining why the neocons hate Europe. They do not want diplomatic victories. They want military victories. Some of them have been lusting after a war with Iraq since Sept. 12. Now they fear that Europe?or at least European and Third World voices within the UN?will somehow snatch it from them.


The Anti-Europeans

Anti-Americanism has an evil twin: the neocon campaign to malign the West?s other democracies.
By Mr. Stuart Reid in the American Conservative

Standard Fair Use disclaimers apply.

Thursday 2/20/2003 -- The WASHINGTON TIMES
FRANCE, GERMANY PROTECT IRAQ TIES by David R. Sands

France and Germany, the two countries at the forefront of opposition to the
U.S. hard line against Iraq, have a long history of commercial and other
contacts with the regime of Saddam Hussein.
TotalFinaElf, France's huge oil firm, holds the contract to develop
Iraq's southern Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, which could contain as much
as 25 percent of the country's reserves.
German firms were the market leaders in supplying sensitive dual-use
technology to Iraq in the years before the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and they
have been trying to boost civilian commercial contracts in more recent times.
Khidir Hamza, an Iraqi defector who once headed Saddam's nuclear weapons
program, recently called Germany "the hub of Iraq's military purchases in the
1980s."
Iraq analyst Kelly Nugent Motz, in a recent analysis of Iraqi dual-use
purchases that have helped build the country's arsenal of biological,
chemical and possibly nuclear weapons, noted that many of the materials U.N.
weapons inspectors are now seeking are "things the West supplied."
"The real targets in Iraq ?€” whether of inspectors now or of soldiers
later ?€” are the West's own exports," said Ms. Motz, editor of IraqWatch.org,
published by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a
Washington-based research group.
The issue of Western economic interests in Iraq has sparked an angry
trans-Atlantic debate over motives of those supporting or opposing a
potential U.S.-led military strike against Iraq.
European critics ?€” and many of the hundreds of thousands of protesters
in the United States and Europe in recent days ?€” contend Bush administration
policy is driven not by Iraq's weapons but by its oil.
U.S. energy firms largely frozen out by Saddam's regime could get
priority deals to develop huge new Iraqi fields under a new regime in debt to
Washington, they contend. But France and Germany are vulnerable on the same
score, according to those who support the Bush administration tack.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, at a recent Senate hearing
on the future of a post-Saddam Iraq, recalled being told repeatedly during a
recent European trip by skeptics that the debate about an Iraq war was
"really about oil."
"And I agreed with them," Mr. Biden recalled. "It is about oil ?€” French
oil and Russian oil."
Richard Perle, a leading supporter of war with Iraq and head of an
influential civilian Pentagon advisory board, last week said that
TotalFinaElf was given a highly favorable deal on exploration rights in Iraq
as part of an effort by Baghdad to buy allies against the United States. "The
French interest in the propagation of contracts that will only go forward
with this regime is perfectly obvious," Mr. Perle said in a speech in New
York.
Iraq has not been shy about dangling threats and rewards to its trading
partners in order to bolster its international support and end the diplomatic
and economic sanctions it has endured since the end of the Gulf war.
In December 1999, the Iraqi newspaper Babel, edited by Saddam's elder
son, Uday, warned France that its support for a U.S.-backed U.N. resolution
toughening the existing trade sanctions could directly hurt French interests
in Iraq.
French oil firms might be forced to close their Baghdad offices and
"lose the immense concessions which they have won but not yet exploited,"
wrote Abdel Razzak Hashemi, a former Iraqi ambassador to Paris. "The numerous
advantages which French companies enjoy on the Iraqi market could also be
halted."
Baghdad followed through on the threat in July 2001, announcing that
French firms would no longer be given preferential treatment in
oil-development deals, citing Paris' support for the "smart sanctions"
program then being pushed by the Bush administration.
At the annual Baghdad international trade fair in November, the Iraqi
Information Ministry reported that Saddam himself had ordered domestic buyers
to "give priority" to German companies as a reward for "the firm positive
stand of Germany in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq
by the U.S."
Some 101 German companies were represented at the Baghdad exposition,
including companies offering air-conditioning equipment, energy and
transportation services, cosmetics, textiles and other products. Direct
two-way trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million
annually, while another $1 billion is sold via third countries, according to
Iraqi authorities.
All Western countries ?€” including the United States ?€” have long
involved economic ties to Saddam's regime. American firms were among the many
suppliers of dual-use equipment and support that built up Iraq's conventional
and unconventional military arsenals in the 1970s and 1980s.
Even now, despite the extreme hostility between Washington and Baghdad,
the United States buys nearly 5 percent of Iraq's oil exports under the
U.N.-administered oil-for-food program.
German firms were particularly active in striking deals with Iraq. Their
relationships with Saddam's regime date back to the 1970s.
The German daily Tageszeitung reported recently that it had seen
portions of Iraq's 12,000-page arms declaration to U.N. weapons inspectors in
December showing that German firms were the market leaders in supplying Iraq,
even in the decade after the Gulf war. The paper reported that 80 German
firms were named as suppliers in the Iraqi declaration.
Even before the latest escalation of tensions, U.N. weapons inspectors
had filed numerous reports of German firms complicit in aiding Iraq's covert
programs in weapons of mass destruction.
One April 2000 U.N. "activity memo" regarding the German firm Water
Engineering Trading, found that between 1984 and late 1988 the company had,
among other violations:
?€? Sold, without license, $10 million worth of machinery and equipment,
and tons of chemicals.
?€?Supplied parts of the Samarra chemical weapons complex (identified by
U.S. intelligence as Iraq's prime production site for mustard gas and nerve
agents).
?€?Supplied machine tools for converting conventional 122 mm artillery
shells and rocket-propelled grenades into chemical munitions, exported as
cooling containers for powdered milk.
?€?After March 1987, sold most of the components for the $20 million
Falluja chemical weapons plant to Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military
Industrialization.
French firms show up far less frequently among the companies cited by
the U.N. inspectors, although Iraq did acquire French Mirage jet fighters and
French-made Exocet missiles during the 1980s.
It was a French firm that won the contract to help build Iraq's nuclear
power plant at Osirak, which was bombed by Israeli jets in 1981 shortly
before it was to come on line.
Mr. Hamza, the former Iraqi nuclear engineer, recalled in a recent Wall
Street Journal opinion piece that many of the French projects in Iraq enjoyed
huge profit markups.
Saddam's regime paid $200 million for a small French research reactor in
the mid-1970s that had a then-market price of about $50 million, Mr. Hamza
recalled. "With these kinds of deals, is it any surprise that the French are
so desperate to save Saddam's regime?" he asked.
But it is French oil interests in Iraq that have attracted the most
attention as the debate over war intensifies. Iraq has the world's
second-largest proven oil reserves after Saudi Arabia's, and many of its most
promising fields have been largely unexplored since the economic freeze
imposed after the Gulf war.
Russia and France have the largest contracts, while the major U.S.
energy giants, including ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil, have been largely shut
out.
Iraqi exile groups, including the U.S.-backed Iraqi National Congress
(INC), have only increased speculation by issuing conflicting signals about
the future of the energy concessions negotiated by Saddam.
"American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," INC Chairman
Ahmed Chalabi said last year.
But a senior leader of one of Iraq's two Kurdish opposition groups said
the future of Iraq's oil wealth remains an exceedingly sensitive subject in
the discussions with U.S. officials about a post-Saddam Iraq. "We know there
are countries such as France and Russia with very important issues, but our
first priority will be to ensure that our country's oil wealth is used to
benefit Iraqis," the Kurdish official said.
The Coalition for International Justice, a Washington-based human rights
group, released an extensive study of foreign economic interests in Iraq on
the brink of a likely new war. French, Russian and Chinese oil concessions,
with an estimated top value of $38 billion, are the biggest interests in play.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin, in a
phone call yesterday, reportedly agreed they continue to oppose military
action while U.N. weapons inspections proceed, a day after Chinese Foreign
Minister Tang Jiaxuan and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin
agreed on the need to continue the inspections process.

I think there are similar US-somewhere in Europe exchanges that have been called off as of late. This one better fits media stereotypes (a la Ryan White in rural Indiana).

(Standard fair use disclaimers apply.)

U.S. school cancels student exchange with Germany
Copyright ? 2003 Nando Media
Copyright ? 2003 AP Online

By STEPHEN GRAHAM, Associated Press

BERLIN (March 23, 11:44 a.m. AST) - First, President Bush snubbed Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Now a Tennessee high school has called off an exchange with German students.
More than a dozen students from Hamburg's Sachsenweg School were to depart next Tuesday until their hosts suggested they stay home rather than bring "anti-American feeling," said Sachsenweg English teacher Jutta Kuehn. The German agency that coordinates educational exchanges said other programs also have been called off.

Despite efforts by officials including the American ambassador to Germany to play down such incidents, the cancelation was another indication that the disagreement over Schroeder's anti-war stand is beginning to strain German-American friendship at its heart.

The bond is rooted in Germans' gratitude for American aid rebuilding after World War II, defending West Germany during the Cold War, and consenting to German reunification in 1990.

While France's anti-war strategy is scene as a calculated move to counter U.S. influence in the world, Germany's stand tends to rankle more with Washington; Bush pointedly refused to congratulate Schroeder on his re-election last year.

Indeed, Schroeder's opposition to war marks the first time that postwar Germany has staked out a position on international security independent from Washington's.

Germans, from Schroeder down to Sachesenweg's English teacher, have been stung by accusations that the opposition to war stems from anti-Americanism, and are baffled by calls to boycott French and German goods.

Germans remember their own history of aggression and destruction in two world wars, and their decades of insecurity on the Cold War front lines.

In the case of Iraq, they worry about a humanitarian disaster and say they haven't seen enough evidence that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein justifies military action now.

But flag-burning and comparisons between Bush and Adolf Hitler during anti-war protests this week prompted German President Johannes Rau to appeal to demonstrators not to "stir hate against America."

These are just the sort of misunderstandings that 30 years of educational and cultural exchanges between the United States and Germany are meant to bridge, said Sabina Margalit, the executive director of the German American Partnership Program in New York.

To confront German stereotypes, the German Foreign Ministry grants about $1 million a year to student exchange programs. This year some 6,000 students from each country are to participate in exchanges, recovering to pre-Sept. 11 levels.

Gottfried Boettger, an official at the government agency that coordinates the exchanges, said other programs have been scuttled by war, but declined to elaborate.

Kuehn, the teacher, said she could understand Americans who consider the Germans ungrateful. "But it is sad when the kids have to bear the brunt of political events."

Tim Tackett, the principal of the Oakland High School in Murfreesboro, denied the war played a role in calling off the Germans' trip to Tennessee and his students' plans to travel to Hamburg in the summer. Security was the main issue, he said.

While those concerns were shared, Kuehn and students alike said they got clear messages that the war was the deciding factor.

Kristina Milina, a 16-year-old student, said her pen-pal was quite candid.

"She said her teacher didn't want to do it because Germany wasn't supporting the war," Milina said. "We were really shocked and felt like we'd been taken for a ride."

Kuehn said the cancellation had poisoned relations between the schools, leaving a mark on the young German 9th and 10th graders.

"They're bitterly disappointed," said Kuehn, who is talking to another school about setting up an alternative exchange. "This will certainly stick in their minds."

U.S. Ambassador Dan Coats insisted that no retribution was intended and expressed regret that the exchange had been canceled.

"I think the children should have gone to Tennessee," he told the Hamburg Journal television program on Monday. "We need to continue these exchanges. That's what maintains our good relations."

The following is quoted for discussion only without intention of infringement or profit.

Here's an interesting interpretation of the American-French-German relationship:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=6972



Battlefield Europe
By Walter Russell Mead
Los Angeles Times | March 31, 2003




The battle of Iraq is over. The battle of Europe has begun.

At least that's how it seems in France and Germany, where the contest over war in the Middle East now shifts to the future of Europe. The recent discovery of bugging devices in the offices of the European Union -- and the near-universal suspicion that they were planted by the U.S.-- only heightens the suspicion and tension between the Cold War allies.

Until now, Europe has meant Germany plus France. Two of the bitterest rivals in the world for more than a century, France and Germany buried the hatchet, sort of, after World War II. With some encouragement from the United States, which hoped a united Europe would help contain the Soviet Union, France and Germany invited neighboring countries into the club that has grown into today's European Union.

They may be partners, but France and Germany have different visions of what that union should be. Think of France as a kid who loves and knows basketball -- how to dribble, shoot and make plays as well as anybody in the world -- but who stopped growing at 5 feet, 5 inches. France loves the game of power politics, and it wants to play in the big leagues, but it's too short for prime time. France hopes the European Union will grow into a superpower that, under French leadership, will challenge the U.S. for world leadership.

That's not the German way. Stung by losses in two world wars, and with a conscience still scalded by the legacy of the Hitler period, Germany sees the EU as an alternative to power politics, not a new and better way to play the old game. Germany is tired of playing games and thinks that it is high time the human race grew up and got serious about problems like the environment and international law.

Here's one way to describe the relationship: Together, Germany and France can afford a fancy sports car. Germany spends all its time polishing it and tinkering under its hood. It is a poky driver, never going more than 40 miles an hour -- even on the autobahn. This drives France crazy. Why have a sports car if you can't lay rubber, the French wonder. Why get the car if you aren't going to go out drag-racing against Uncle Sam?

Until last summer, Germany had always been careful to keep the keys to the car up on a high shelf, where France couldn't reach them. But Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was in big trouble last summer. Unemployment was up, his popularity was down and elections were coming. Desperately reaching around for a popular issue, he attacked the Bush administration's unilateralism and its threats of war against Iraq.

It worked. Schroeder was reelected by a narrow majority and, as his government's popularity continued to plummet, he kept playing the antiwar, anti-American card. With Germany locked into opposing U.S. policy in Iraq, French President Jacques Chirac realized Schroeder had left the car keys on the kitchen table, and France was off to the races.

Since then, Chirac has been driving like a madman -- honking his horn, flashing headlights, cutting in and out of lanes, racing the wrong way up one-way streets and generally having the time of his life. As France obstructed the U.S. at the United Nations -- forcing Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to accept a two-resolution process and then blocking a second resolution while grandstanding its opposition around the world -- Frenchmen everywhere swooned with joy. France was in the big leagues, and the crowd was going wild.

The U.S. response was slow in coming, but when it came, it was a shock to both France and Germany. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said that the Franco-German alliance represented "old Europe." "New Europe," said the Defense secretary, backed the U.S. Within days, he had evidence to support his point of view: Ultimately, about 20 European countries would go on record backing the U.S. in Iraq, against five (including France and Germany) that support "old Europe's" viewpoint and four neutrals.

Suddenly, the Americans were challenging the idea that the French and the Germans together were in charge of Europe. Of the EU's five largest members, Britain, Spain and Italy tilted toward the U.S. With the EU committed to eastward expansion, it was about to include even more pro-U.S. countries. The arithmetic is clear: Even if Germany sticks with France, old Europe won't have the votes it needs to control the future foreign policy of the expanded European Union.

A pro-American EU is France's worst nightmare. British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the leader of Europe? Brussels the poodle of Washington? Poland deciding France's foreign policy? France once vetoed Britain's EU application because Britain was too pro-U.S. to be a good European. Hints and threats from Paris suggest that countries that want into the European Union need to put some distance between themselves and the U.S. That is unlikely to happen. When Russia, Germany and France formed a common front against the U.S. at the U.N. Security Council, Central and Eastern Europe grew more desperate than ever to keep strong ties to Washington.

All this makes Berlin very unhappy. Germany has long borders with Poland and the Czech Republic. It has a long and complicated history in Central and Eastern Europe, and it desperately wants to see these countries integrated into the stable institutions of the European Union. Germany wants new Europe in the club, even if that makes the club less anti-U.S. Germany now has to find a way to pick up the pieces. It must take the car keys away from Chirac and go back to driving the European car in its own slow and careful way. Germany might choose Paris over Washington; it can't choose Paris over Washington and Warsaw.

The Bush administration faces two big jobs to keep the battle of Europe from flaring up further. First, it must reward its friends. The leaders who braved public opinion and Franco-German pressure to support the United States in its hour of need should be able to show their fellow citizens the value of good relations with Washington. The Central and Eastern European countries, in particular, must know that the U.S. is a powerful, reliable friend.

Second, the Bush administration must rebuild its relationship with Germany. That will involve some nose-holding on both sides. Germans still don't like Bush's unilateralism, warlike rhetoric and talk of preventive war. And there are plenty of people in the Bush administration who will never forgive Schroeder.

But U.S.-German relations remain today what they have been for 50 years -- the cornerstone of the Western alliance. Fix that relationship and the rest falls into place. Neglect it and the battle of Europe gets worse -- and the U.S., committed to the war on terror, does not need any distractions.

Walter Russell Mead, a contributing editor to Opinion, is the author of "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World."

I think France is the scape goat.
92 percent of the French people are behind their President on the war issue.
12 percent of the Spanish people are behind their president on the war issue.
What that looks like to me is the triumph of American dollars over democracy, which sounds alot like the war in Iraq, and our general foreign policy. Even here in Estonia, the majority oppose the policy.

"Old Europe" has enough money to put where its mouth is.
and Blair's term will end fairly soon. Dontcha worry.

Originally Posted by Justino

I think France is the scape goat.
92 percent of the French people are behind their President on the war issue.
12 percent of the Spanish people are behind their president on the war issue.
What that looks like to me is the triumph of American dollars over democracy, which sounds alot like the war in Iraq, and our general foreign policy. Even here in Estonia, the majority oppose the policy.

"Old Europe" has enough money to put where its mouth is.
and Blair's term will end fairly soon. Dontcha worry.

You're saying you'd prefer a Tory PM?

Here's Walter Russell Mead's take on what lies ahead:

Chirac wants to drive E.U. to glory

The battle of Iraq is over. The battle of Europe has begun.

At least that's how it seems in France and Germany, where the contest over war in the Middle East now shifts to the future of Europe. The recent discovery of bugging devices in the offices of the European Union -- and the near-universal suspicion that they were planted by the United States -- only heightens tension between the Cold War allies.

Until now, Europe has meant Germany plus France. Two of the bitterest rivals in the world for more than a century, France and Germany buried the hatchet, sort of, after World War II. With some encouragement from the United States, which hoped a united Europe would help contain the Soviet Union, France and Germany invited neighboring countries into the club that has grown into today's European Union.

They may be partners, but France and Germany have different visions of what that union should be. Think of France as a kid who loves and knows basketball -- how to dribble, shoot and make plays as well as anybody in the world -- but who stopped growing at 5 feet, 5 inches. France loves the game of power politics, and it wants to play in the big leagues, but it's too short for prime time. France hopes the European Union will grow into a superpower that, under French leadership, will challenge the United States for world leadership.

That's not the German way. Stung by losses in two world wars, and with a conscience still scalded by the legacy of the Hitler period, Germany sees the EU as an alternative to power politics, not a new and better way to play the old game. Germany is tired of playing games and thinks that it is high time the human race grew up and got serious about problems like the environment and international law.

Here's one way to describe the relationship: Together, Germany and France can afford a fancy sports car. Germany spends all its time polishing it and tinkering under its hood. It is a pokey driver, never going more than 40 miles an hour -- even on the autobahn. This drives France crazy. Why have a sports car if you can't lay rubber, the French wonder. Why get the car if you aren't going to go out drag-racing against Uncle Sam?

Until last summer, Germany had always been careful to keep the keys to the car up on a high shelf, where France couldn't reach them. But Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was in big trouble. Unemployment was up, his popularity was down and elections were coming. Desperately reaching for a popular issue, he attacked the Bush administration's unilateralism and threats against Iraq.

It worked. Schroeder was re-elected by a narrow majority and, as his government's popularity continued to plummet, he kept playing the antiwar, anti-American card. With Germany locked into opposing U.S. policy in Iraq, French President Jacques Chirac realized Schroeder had left the car keys on the kitchen table, and France was off to the races.

Since then, Chirac has been driving like a madman -- honking his horn, flashing headlights, cutting in and out of lanes, racing the wrong way up one-way streets and generally having the time of his life. As France obstructed the United States at the United Nations -- forcing Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to accept a two-resolution process and then blocking a second resolution while grandstanding its opposition around the world -- Frenchmen everywhere swooned with joy. France was in the big leagues, and the crowd was going wild.

The U.S. response was slow in coming, but when it came, it was a shock to both France and Germany. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said that the Franco-German alliance represented "old Europe." "New Europe," said the Defense secretary, backed the United States. Within days, he had evidence to support his point of view: Ultimately, about 20 European countries would go on record backing the United States in Iraq, against five (including France and Germany) that support "old Europe's" viewpoint and four neutrals.

Suddenly, the Americans were challenging the idea that the French and the Germans together were in charge of Europe. Of the EU's five largest members, Britain, Spain and Italy tilted toward the United States. With the EU committed to eastward expansion, it was about to include even more pro-U.S. countries. The arithmetic is clear: Even if Germany sticks with France, old Europe won't have the votes it needs to control the future foreign policy of the expanded European Union.

A pro-American EU is France's worst nightmare. British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the leader of Europe? Brussels the poodle of Washington? Poland deciding France's foreign policy? France once vetoed Britain's EU application because Britain was too pro-United States to be a good European. Hints and threats from Paris suggest that countries that want into the European Union need to put some distance between themselves and the United States. That is unlikely to happen. When Russia, Germany and France formed a common front against the United States at the U.N. Security Council, Central and Eastern Europe grew more desperate than ever to keep strong ties to Washington.

All this makes Berlin very unhappy. Germany has long borders with Poland and the Czech Republic. It has a long and complicated history in Central and Eastern Europe, and it desperately wants to see these countries integrated into the stable institutions of the European Union.

Germany wants new Europe in the club, even if that makes the club less anti-U.S. Germany now has to find a way to pick up the pieces. It must take the car keys away from Chirac and go back to driving the European car in its own slow, careful way. Germany might choose Paris over Washington; it can't choose Paris over Washington and Warsaw, Poland.

The Bush administration faces two big jobs to keep the battle of Europe from flaring up further. First, it must reward its friends. The leaders who braved public opinion and Franco-German pressure to support the United States in its hour of need should be able to show their fellow citizens the value of good relations with Washington. The Central and Eastern European countries, in particular, must know that the United States is a powerful, reliable friend.

Second, the Bush administration must rebuild its relationship with Germany. That will involve some nose-holding on both sides. Germans still don't like Bush's unilateralism, military rhetoric and talk of preventive war. And there are plenty of people in the Bush administration who will never forgive Schroeder.

But U.S.-German relations remain today what they have been for 50 years -- the cornerstone of the Western alliance. Fix that relationship and the rest falls into place. Neglect it and the battle of Europe gets worse -- and the United States, committed to the war on terror, does not need any distractions.

Walter Russell Mead is the author of Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World.

For those who thought Garry Trudeau was out of line this last Sunday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003May3.html

French Ignore Controversy, Mark Alliance With Colonists

Associated Press
Saturday, May 3, 2003; Page A11

VALLEY FORGE, Pa., May 2 -- French officials said today they would attend a festival at Valley Forge to honor France's role in American independence this weekend even though organizers withdrew the invitation because of tensions over Iraq.

The weekend-long French Alliance Day festival is set to mark the 225th anniversary of France's decision to support American colonists in their war of independence against Britain.

But when word got out last month that Jean-David Levitte, France's ambassador to the United States, would attend, organizers were inundated with phone calls from people irate about France's opposition to the war with Iraq.

The Bush administration is angry at France for its promise to veto any U.N. resolution authorizing the war that toppled the regime of former president Saddam Hussein.

Levitte canceled because of a scheduling conflict and offered to send a replacement to a Sunday service at Washington Memorial Chapel at Valley Forge National Historical Park near Philadelphia.

Fearing demonstrations, chapel officials withdrew the invitation and advised French officials not to send anyone until next year.

But the French Embassy in Washington said Daniel Bastien, a military attache, would attend.

"Our view is that the concerns are a little bit exaggerated. It would really be a little bit strange not to go," embassy spokeswoman Nathalie Loiseau said.

Chapel officials did not return phone calls.

? 2003 The Washington Post Company

In support of my contention that modern Europe is in some ways where America was 10 years ago, only more so, I offer this:

The following is quoted without intention of infringement or profit for discussion only.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html


Page Three girls face veto from Brussels feminists
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels and Tom Leonard
(Filed: 25/06/2003)



Advertisements that affront "human dignity" by demeaning women would be prohibited under proposals being drafted by the European Commission.

Television programmes would also be censored to ensure there was no promotion of gender stereotypes.

The plans, still in their infancy, are already provoking bitter dispute in Brussels and were described by one commission official yesterday as "lunatic".

The proposals, which need the approval of the college of 20 commissioners before being put forward as a draft law, would force insurance companies to offer the same rates for pension annuities and car insurance regardless of gender, overriding the actuarial data used to calculate risk.

Tabloid newspaper "Page Three" pictures would also be threatened. Most forms of gender discrimination - either for or against women - would become illegal, affecting welfare benefits, education and health insurance. But plans to ban London gentlemen's clubs have been abandoned as a step too far.

The proposals were drafted by the European Union's employment and social affairs directorate, known in Brussels as one of the last outposts of "unreconstructed" 1970s Leftists.

It is headed by Anna Diamantopoulou, Greece's socialist commissioner and an ardent feminist. But EU diplomats say she is a model of moderation compared to her top civil servant, Edith Quintin, viewed as a champion of France's militant trade unions.

The driving force behind the proposal is Barbara Helfferich, a German feminist who was head of the European Women's Forum before joining Mrs Diamantopoulou's cabinet in charge of "gender equality".

Fierce resistance is already building in the free-market wing of the European Commission, led by Italy's Mario Monti and Holland's Frits Bolkestein, who are in charge of competition policy and the single market.

One official said: "This goes to the heart of insurance company business, which is to discriminate on the basis of actuarial data. It is a huge interference in the markets."

Media regulators in Britain claimed yesterday that "human dignity" was already accorded sufficient respect in the existing rules for advertising and programmes.

The Independent Television Commission, which polices standards of both programmes and commercials, said its own codes appeared to cover the same ground as the planned European Union legislation.

It insisted that advertisers and programme makers had to be allowed creative freedom and to be able to use humour, even if it meant creating stereotypes that some found offensive.

Mrs Diamantopoulou has so far succeeded in pushing through legislation such as a "Vibrations Directive" limiting the time farmers can spend on tractors and a "Noise Directive" restricting decibel levels in the workplace.

If the new proposals are endorsed by the commission they will still need the assent of the European Parliament and EU governments under majority voting. Britain does not have a veto.

John Mildenhall, managing director of the advertising agency TBWA, said any such regulation would meet with "massive resistance from advertisers and advertising agencies".

He predicted that it would lead to greater "sterilisation" of the portrayal of women in advertising. "Advertising is unrealistic enough as it is in reflecting what women really talk about," he said.

Recent research by TBWA found that the American series Sex and the City, in which women talk explicitly about sex, was the closest approximation on television of the conversations young women have together.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

In support of my contention that modern Europe is in some ways where America was 10 years ago, only more so, I offer this:

I cant see Europe being that far behind in the saeculum, the last awakening in Europe started no later than 1968, at most they are 4 years behind the saeculum of North Americia.

You also have to consider that the political centre of gravity of everyother western nation is way to the right of the US.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

You also have to consider that the political centre of gravity of every other western nation is way to the right of the US.

Did you mean to say that the political center of gravity of every other western nation is way to the left of the US?