What is your opinion on the whole Wikileaks? one of my friends asks me. She, a Political Scientist like I am, has at least the opinion that we should indeed have one. An opinion.
I was, to be honest, a bit disappointed. Yes, sure, we all shared a few good laughs on the expense of our politicians and the Western world is most likely not going to be changed or influenced by what the US now call a case of betrayal of state secrets. It is after all not much of a surprise that diplomats, politicians and officials have their own opinions on their respective counterparts. The only news is that US-officials occasionally think the same than us lesser human beings: that the German Minister of Foreign Affairs is not so qualified for his job and that Putin is an alpha-male, for example.
The stir in the mostly authoritarian Arab nations in the Middle and Greater East might be a bit more substantial since criticism towards the rulers is never a good thing in theocracies, dictatorships and their kind. But it would greatly underestimates the smartness of people living in these countries. Like us they have their own view on their leaders. And the Iranian opposition is for sure far from being stunned about the fact, that not all their Muslim neighbors are big fans of Iran - especially not the Sunni ones. The struggle for power between Shiites and Sunni, between secular and religious, between the military and the opposition, the multitude of lines of conflict in the whole area was certainly not generated by Wikileaks and will most likely not be fueled further.
And this is, after all, the only really interesting "betrayal of national and international secrets": some governments in the Middle East and the Gulf urged to US to go hard on Iran. Saudi-Arabia and the US have expressed and acted upon common interests in the past. No big surprise here either. That the Saudis are afraid of the Shiites and their internal opposition and mostly care to secure the political and economically status quo in their country - we all knew that.
But - a whole different storyline seems to developing right know. Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks is now official state enemy no. 1 and not only in the United States of America. And where America´s arrogance when it comes to judging other nations has become pretty obvious over the last few days, we now see a demonstration of its ongoing power as well. Only three countries in the world are considered safe for the now-refugee Assange: Cuba, Iceland and Switzerland. the rest is enemy territory. Other countries, like Ecuador, took back there offers. To long and mighty is the arm of Washington for someone to escape in a world still controlled by American money, military and secret services. This is no news either, but every time we see the prove we should be shocked and outraged. The US are a democracy after all and should therefore face threats in a way suiting a system that above all guarantees the basic human rights. And Julian Assange is no citizen of the United States either. Or is his betrayal really a matter of international concern?
If Assange really has raped two women in Sweden there is no doubt that he has to face the punishment for his actions. One just wishes that other famous rapists had been chased with the same sincerity and willingness to get them into court. Roman Polanski for example. But Assange is a threat and maybe this is a sign that he actually has more in store.
To form an opinion on this, we or I, have to neglect the accusations in Sweden and just focus on the political dimension, the different kind of accusations issued by the American government. Many people did and will interpret the actions of one Julian Assange. Some might consider him a threat to world peace, like such as thing really exists. Other might see him as a modern-world prophet of freedom. Isn´t it our right to know what goes on behind our backs? Are Yemenite citizens in no right of the truth about their government´s cooperation with the US government? Should their not be more transparency when, let´s say, Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi, both leaders of a democratic nations (at least on paper) exchange expensive gifts (expensive for the tax-payers) and one or two political game plans? Does our right as a citizen really stop with our right to vote and hence delegate our power to a politician within a system? Don´t we have to right to be informed about what said politicians do with that power? Or is it really a threat to world peace when we don´t keep our little mouths and ears shot, oblivious to our surroundings beyond the contains of our shopping carts?
I guess it is an individual decision whether you want to think of Julian Assange as a peace activist or the devil´s advocate.
Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2010
Mittwoch, 24. November 2010
One way to look at Germany, I guess
Yesterday, I read two articles on globeandmail.com about Germany that kept me wondering on how Canada looks at Germany (knowing that these where only two possible perspectives). I have to say, I found both articles pretty, what, naive? Badly researched? A nice gesture for Angela Merkel´s conservative government?
First, Doug Saunders take on how well Germany dealt with the financial crisis - especially compared to other European states. The article is a bit older, from August I think, I just only saw it yesterday.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/broken-europe/hope-germanys-secret-to-recovery/article1659177/
In a sense he is right about the one fact that the government managed to save a good amount of jobs in certain sectors of industry by simply paying a big share of the employees salaries. As the few examples shown say, people were happy that they could keep their jobs, even on a Kurzarbeit- a part-time basis. But here lies the first crucial point that Saunders forgot to mention: people were happy to keep their underpayed jobs because they knew they would not find a new one elsewhere. Especially all he blue-collars over fifty that had been with their company trough most of their working career. The situation for well-experienced workers over fifty on the German job-market is more or less hopeless and they all knew that.
The second point Saunders is not filling to put his finger on is the simple fact that none of these jobs is an investment into the future. As soon as the state will stop funding those jobs, they will vanish and with them what little hope the people on these jobs had. And none of these jobs will ever be a full-time employment again. So, the average worker deals with the fact that he or she can either be unemployed and on social welfare until retirement age or work for half the money and barely above the margin of subsistence for the next two decades.
The German production industry, especially the automotive sector, has been in trouble long before the financial crisis. Like in the United States of America, the inquiry on the market has been constantly declining. Saving those jobs is an act of good will for the single worker but also a show a Germany´s incapability to design a labor market fitting the demands of the 21st century. Hence, the government - and there was a big debate on the point of all these measures, let us keep this in mind, too - as invested highly into the past and not the slightest bit into the future.
And the 7% unemployment rate is a nice little illusion. If you take all the jobs like the above mentioned, where the state pays salaries in sectors that are nowhere the states responsibility, if you take all the 1-Euro-jobs provided by the national agency for employment where the jobholders still receive social welfare to survive, if you take all the jobs where people have to rely on the state in order to survive because their income is above the minimum income needed to exist, if you take all the internships, trainee-ships and voluntary services that academics with a PhD degree do on a regular basis, if you take all these jobs out of the statistics, Germany´s unemployment rate would hit 20 percent. That is the future perspective, unfortunately.
The second article, published yesterday, was actually a bit hilarious because of its clear black-and-white perspective. Dealing with current research on how Canadians are effected by increasing stress levels at work, the German "example" should show that Canadians are all whiny and don´t have the right attitude towards work - unlike the Germans.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/work-life-balance/part-4-harder-worker-no-life-just-act-more-like-the-germans/article1783415/
It is true, Germany has the 38.5 hour week. On paper. Most people work more and for less money, since extra-hours are only rarely paid. And especially in the private sector, somebody who is employed on a 38.5 basis costs less than somebody on a 50 hours week. Yes, there is such a thing as a very protected work environment with companies that have strong Trade Unions. Those are mostly non-profit organizations or old, well established companies. But the ideal conditions the authors points out is a memory from the fairy-tale-land that Germany maybe was in the 1970s, with full employment and a booming economy that gave the Trade Unions a big deal of liberty to ask for anything. Today, as the article above shows, people simply fear for their job and therefore except any condition. There is the many supermarket chains for example that don´t even allow their employees to form or join a union. Their is the many, many middle class companies with less than eight employees that are nowhere politically represented - unlike their bosses.
According to recent research, every third German faces depression, burn-out, allergies and other stress-related illnesses due to the rising pressure at work. A lot of people wish they could downsize and some actually do. Alternative living arrangements, sabbaticals, time off work become more and more common.
Yes, Germans are very industrious and efficient which means that a higher outcome of everyday´s work is expected. It doesn´t mean that people can drop their pens everyday at four o-clock. Yes, Germans value work and career and it is a big part of our culture and self-esteem. But that does not mean that people don´t have their boundaries and take off to work singing and whistling like the seven dwarfs every day when there is another 14-hour-day ahead.
The picture of the hard-working German robot is another myth form a century long gone.
First, Doug Saunders take on how well Germany dealt with the financial crisis - especially compared to other European states. The article is a bit older, from August I think, I just only saw it yesterday.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/broken-europe/hope-germanys-secret-to-recovery/article1659177/
In a sense he is right about the one fact that the government managed to save a good amount of jobs in certain sectors of industry by simply paying a big share of the employees salaries. As the few examples shown say, people were happy that they could keep their jobs, even on a Kurzarbeit- a part-time basis. But here lies the first crucial point that Saunders forgot to mention: people were happy to keep their underpayed jobs because they knew they would not find a new one elsewhere. Especially all he blue-collars over fifty that had been with their company trough most of their working career. The situation for well-experienced workers over fifty on the German job-market is more or less hopeless and they all knew that.
The second point Saunders is not filling to put his finger on is the simple fact that none of these jobs is an investment into the future. As soon as the state will stop funding those jobs, they will vanish and with them what little hope the people on these jobs had. And none of these jobs will ever be a full-time employment again. So, the average worker deals with the fact that he or she can either be unemployed and on social welfare until retirement age or work for half the money and barely above the margin of subsistence for the next two decades.
The German production industry, especially the automotive sector, has been in trouble long before the financial crisis. Like in the United States of America, the inquiry on the market has been constantly declining. Saving those jobs is an act of good will for the single worker but also a show a Germany´s incapability to design a labor market fitting the demands of the 21st century. Hence, the government - and there was a big debate on the point of all these measures, let us keep this in mind, too - as invested highly into the past and not the slightest bit into the future.
And the 7% unemployment rate is a nice little illusion. If you take all the jobs like the above mentioned, where the state pays salaries in sectors that are nowhere the states responsibility, if you take all the 1-Euro-jobs provided by the national agency for employment where the jobholders still receive social welfare to survive, if you take all the jobs where people have to rely on the state in order to survive because their income is above the minimum income needed to exist, if you take all the internships, trainee-ships and voluntary services that academics with a PhD degree do on a regular basis, if you take all these jobs out of the statistics, Germany´s unemployment rate would hit 20 percent. That is the future perspective, unfortunately.
The second article, published yesterday, was actually a bit hilarious because of its clear black-and-white perspective. Dealing with current research on how Canadians are effected by increasing stress levels at work, the German "example" should show that Canadians are all whiny and don´t have the right attitude towards work - unlike the Germans.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/work-life-balance/part-4-harder-worker-no-life-just-act-more-like-the-germans/article1783415/
It is true, Germany has the 38.5 hour week. On paper. Most people work more and for less money, since extra-hours are only rarely paid. And especially in the private sector, somebody who is employed on a 38.5 basis costs less than somebody on a 50 hours week. Yes, there is such a thing as a very protected work environment with companies that have strong Trade Unions. Those are mostly non-profit organizations or old, well established companies. But the ideal conditions the authors points out is a memory from the fairy-tale-land that Germany maybe was in the 1970s, with full employment and a booming economy that gave the Trade Unions a big deal of liberty to ask for anything. Today, as the article above shows, people simply fear for their job and therefore except any condition. There is the many supermarket chains for example that don´t even allow their employees to form or join a union. Their is the many, many middle class companies with less than eight employees that are nowhere politically represented - unlike their bosses.
According to recent research, every third German faces depression, burn-out, allergies and other stress-related illnesses due to the rising pressure at work. A lot of people wish they could downsize and some actually do. Alternative living arrangements, sabbaticals, time off work become more and more common.
Yes, Germans are very industrious and efficient which means that a higher outcome of everyday´s work is expected. It doesn´t mean that people can drop their pens everyday at four o-clock. Yes, Germans value work and career and it is a big part of our culture and self-esteem. But that does not mean that people don´t have their boundaries and take off to work singing and whistling like the seven dwarfs every day when there is another 14-hour-day ahead.
The picture of the hard-working German robot is another myth form a century long gone.
Dienstag, 23. November 2010
Sarkozy vs. Berlusconi
Today I wonder who is more ridiculous and hilarious: Sarkozy or Berlusconi. One blamed journalists as pedophiles when he did not like their questions. The other one had a new and bigger penis put on a statue at an official building.
In times when democracy as a political institution faces a crisis of faith and trust in many countries men like Sarkozy and Berlusconi do even greater harm. Or is the fact that men like them have been voted in the first place more than a symptom of crisis but a symptom of decadence? How much damage can be done until it is irreversible?
In times when democracy as a political institution faces a crisis of faith and trust in many countries men like Sarkozy and Berlusconi do even greater harm. Or is the fact that men like them have been voted in the first place more than a symptom of crisis but a symptom of decadence? How much damage can be done until it is irreversible?
Montag, 8. November 2010
The "good, old"-Goebbels comparison - now even in BC
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-new-democrat-apologizes-for-nazi-comments/article1778395/
The good, old Goebbels comparison - a political opponent is or acts like Goebbels. Well, we have heard that in the past. I am just surprised that Goebbels made it as far as British Columbia, a place on Earth far away from Germany and its Nazi-past - not only in terms of geography. Don´t you really have nobody else to refer too?
German politicians like to do it once in a while. They speak about yellow stars on somebody´s chest and yes, Helmut Kohl, former Chancellor said something about Goebbels too. Mahmud Ahmadinedshad does it all the time, although one can never be too sure whether he thinks he is the new Hitler or the new victim of propaganda, persecution and all that. Nasrallah does it and a lot of Palestinians and some Jewish people and one can only ask: why are the Nazis so damn fascinating? Why can we not stop talking about them and referring to them and pointing out the fact that they might have done and achieved something good or masterful (like the German autobahn or a very thorough and undoubtedly very effective propaganda machinery)?
Leonard Krog was most likely a bit clueless about Goebbels and just going for the effect. To mention the name Goebbels gives you for sure some audience. But I am bit shocked about the comments that follow the article on globeandmail.com (see link above). He was not referring to the Holocaust, just to Goebbels´mastery of mass propaganda and hey, what is the big deal? I mean, he was good at that, right?
Well, let us just take this away from the Holocaust, let us only talk about the twelve years of Nazi rule in Germany. The propaganda machinery was combined with an equally effective system of "education". From day one in a child´s life, so the ultimate goal, the child should here nothing else than what we want it to hear: hatred against the "other", hatred and mistrust towards your neighbor and your own family, the rightfulness of oppression and extermination of those that were labeled as minor, the indoctrination of the child to make it a devout part of the collective. No freedom of thought or speech, no freedom to chose any other way, no freedom to decide whether you want to die for the country and the "Führer" or not. And to make sure that everybody follows the rules, even those who were not so impressed by Goebbels excellency in propaganda, a system of espionage was established that gave the one party that Goebbels belonged to the ultimate power. Yes, there was propaganda, but also oppression and fear and cruelty. And think about liberal politicians in BC whatever you want, but you have to do a great big deal to "earn the right" to be compared to Joseph Goebbels.
Tomorrow is the 9th of November, the anniversary of the Reichskristallnacht, indeed Joseph Goebbels "masterpiece". Can we really refer to Goebbels and not take the Holocaust into consideration. I don´t think you can separate the mass propagandist from the mass murderer. But what´s the big deal, huh?
The good, old Goebbels comparison - a political opponent is or acts like Goebbels. Well, we have heard that in the past. I am just surprised that Goebbels made it as far as British Columbia, a place on Earth far away from Germany and its Nazi-past - not only in terms of geography. Don´t you really have nobody else to refer too?
German politicians like to do it once in a while. They speak about yellow stars on somebody´s chest and yes, Helmut Kohl, former Chancellor said something about Goebbels too. Mahmud Ahmadinedshad does it all the time, although one can never be too sure whether he thinks he is the new Hitler or the new victim of propaganda, persecution and all that. Nasrallah does it and a lot of Palestinians and some Jewish people and one can only ask: why are the Nazis so damn fascinating? Why can we not stop talking about them and referring to them and pointing out the fact that they might have done and achieved something good or masterful (like the German autobahn or a very thorough and undoubtedly very effective propaganda machinery)?
Leonard Krog was most likely a bit clueless about Goebbels and just going for the effect. To mention the name Goebbels gives you for sure some audience. But I am bit shocked about the comments that follow the article on globeandmail.com (see link above). He was not referring to the Holocaust, just to Goebbels´mastery of mass propaganda and hey, what is the big deal? I mean, he was good at that, right?
Well, let us just take this away from the Holocaust, let us only talk about the twelve years of Nazi rule in Germany. The propaganda machinery was combined with an equally effective system of "education". From day one in a child´s life, so the ultimate goal, the child should here nothing else than what we want it to hear: hatred against the "other", hatred and mistrust towards your neighbor and your own family, the rightfulness of oppression and extermination of those that were labeled as minor, the indoctrination of the child to make it a devout part of the collective. No freedom of thought or speech, no freedom to chose any other way, no freedom to decide whether you want to die for the country and the "Führer" or not. And to make sure that everybody follows the rules, even those who were not so impressed by Goebbels excellency in propaganda, a system of espionage was established that gave the one party that Goebbels belonged to the ultimate power. Yes, there was propaganda, but also oppression and fear and cruelty. And think about liberal politicians in BC whatever you want, but you have to do a great big deal to "earn the right" to be compared to Joseph Goebbels.
Tomorrow is the 9th of November, the anniversary of the Reichskristallnacht, indeed Joseph Goebbels "masterpiece". Can we really refer to Goebbels and not take the Holocaust into consideration. I don´t think you can separate the mass propagandist from the mass murderer. But what´s the big deal, huh?
Dienstag, 2. November 2010
Teabags go Israel!
Neither about Canada nor Germany, but still a link I would like to share, since I have been thinking about the Tea Party a lot recently and it fits into my research project on the future of democracy in Canada, Germany, the USA and Israel.
I doubt that the Tea-Party-"Movement" will be to successful in Israel, although Israel can do movements. But Israel´s political landscape suffers greatly from the lack of new faces and new potential leaders much less a figurehead able to unify all protesters of all kinds in the "movement".
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/world/middleeast/02israel.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast
I doubt that the Tea-Party-"Movement" will be to successful in Israel, although Israel can do movements. But Israel´s political landscape suffers greatly from the lack of new faces and new potential leaders much less a figurehead able to unify all protesters of all kinds in the "movement".
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/world/middleeast/02israel.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast
Politik und Glamour?
Heute nur ein Link zu meinem Beitrag auf meinem blog auf vorwärts.de zur Frage, wie man junge Menschen, aber besonders junge Frauen wieder mehr für Politik interessieren kann. Darf Politik sexy sein?
http://www.vorwaerts.de/artikel/macht-medien-mweidlichkeit?page=0%2C1
Today just a link to one of my articles on vorwärts.de on the question how we can interest young people, especially women for taking an active role in politics. Can politics be sexy? In German only
http://www.vorwaerts.de/artikel/macht-medien-mweidlichkeit?page=0%2C1
Today just a link to one of my articles on vorwärts.de on the question how we can interest young people, especially women for taking an active role in politics. Can politics be sexy? In German only
Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2010
Those who applaud Angela Merkel for her new-found butt-kicking attitude should consider the law and basic liberties firs
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/germany-targets-muslims-in-push-to-criminalize-forced-marriage/article1774397/
Next to the fact that I would wish that Germany would appear in the global news because of something valuable we have achieved and not only because of our sudden facade of strict policies towards Muslims in general, this article is a bit naive when it comes to the facts.
First of all, there is a thin line between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage, whether one likes the idea of the latter or not. Arranged marriages are indeed pretty common in some parts of Germany´s immigrant society and protecting women that end up in Germany after an arranged marriage far away from home and the culture and language they understand could be a positive affect of a new law. Unfortunately, the new law does the opposite, in fact, people have to married a year longer before they get their own permanent residency status. Thus, the new law would not change anything for the better.
There is an undeniable problem with forced marriage and especially cases as mentioned in the article, girls and young women send abroad for a family vacation and never to return. These cases are, unlike the article hints at, the minority and a whole different story than arranged marriages.
Those who applaud Angela Merkel for her new-found butt-kicking attitude should consider the law and basic liberties first. Both in Canada and in Germany the state has repeatedly withdrawn and reduced his competencies and responsibilities regarding peoples´ marriage and bedrooms since the Seventies. It is a legal problem if the state wants to exert more control again - but just for one religious group in the population. And it would be a legally problematic matter to find a formula for the new law that helps judges to distinguish between forced and arranged marriage
to be implemented in a state under the rule of law.
What women in need really need are structures they can rely on. They need a resident status or at least a refugee status on their own. Are we really expecting women to speak out against an arranged or forced marriage when they know they will be send back home - just to be the disgrace of the family, eventually in poverty and separated from their children? They need a state that protects them against so-called honor killings - with police force if necessary. They need a state that makes sure her children can stay with her, safe and with a minimum of social security. They need places to turn to, shelters in case of abuse, rape or the danger of forced marriage. They don´t need us to exploit them in favor of our new-found hard-lining against Muslims for mere strategic matters.
If Angela Merkel thinks about this and tries to implement all this into a big package of new laws that might change the status of Muslim women in Western countries dramatically, then we can clasp our hands. But as long as we don´t see this law it is just populism, just mere boosting her own severely damaged popularity while riding the wave of en-vogue Muslim bashing.
Next to the fact that I would wish that Germany would appear in the global news because of something valuable we have achieved and not only because of our sudden facade of strict policies towards Muslims in general, this article is a bit naive when it comes to the facts.
First of all, there is a thin line between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage, whether one likes the idea of the latter or not. Arranged marriages are indeed pretty common in some parts of Germany´s immigrant society and protecting women that end up in Germany after an arranged marriage far away from home and the culture and language they understand could be a positive affect of a new law. Unfortunately, the new law does the opposite, in fact, people have to married a year longer before they get their own permanent residency status. Thus, the new law would not change anything for the better.
There is an undeniable problem with forced marriage and especially cases as mentioned in the article, girls and young women send abroad for a family vacation and never to return. These cases are, unlike the article hints at, the minority and a whole different story than arranged marriages.
Those who applaud Angela Merkel for her new-found butt-kicking attitude should consider the law and basic liberties first. Both in Canada and in Germany the state has repeatedly withdrawn and reduced his competencies and responsibilities regarding peoples´ marriage and bedrooms since the Seventies. It is a legal problem if the state wants to exert more control again - but just for one religious group in the population. And it would be a legally problematic matter to find a formula for the new law that helps judges to distinguish between forced and arranged marriage
to be implemented in a state under the rule of law.
What women in need really need are structures they can rely on. They need a resident status or at least a refugee status on their own. Are we really expecting women to speak out against an arranged or forced marriage when they know they will be send back home - just to be the disgrace of the family, eventually in poverty and separated from their children? They need a state that protects them against so-called honor killings - with police force if necessary. They need a state that makes sure her children can stay with her, safe and with a minimum of social security. They need places to turn to, shelters in case of abuse, rape or the danger of forced marriage. They don´t need us to exploit them in favor of our new-found hard-lining against Muslims for mere strategic matters.
If Angela Merkel thinks about this and tries to implement all this into a big package of new laws that might change the status of Muslim women in Western countries dramatically, then we can clasp our hands. But as long as we don´t see this law it is just populism, just mere boosting her own severely damaged popularity while riding the wave of en-vogue Muslim bashing.
Mittwoch, 13. Oktober 2010
Oh for heaven´s sake, it is not always Israel´s fault
As unfortunate as the fact is that Canada was not granted a temporary seat in the United Nation´s Security Council, blaming the governments support for Israel as one of the reasons for Canada´s loss does not seem helpful at all.
Globe and Mail journalist John Ibbitson named a few reasons for Canada´s defeat in the election. Reducing the development aid and even more so, not having had a coherent strategy on certain issues in the past is for sure on of the problems to point out, along with the changes on carbon reduction policies. And yes, a lot of Arab countries, or better be said, Muslim countries might not like the support of Israel through Ottawa. On the other hand, due to its past, Germany´s support for Israel - with ups and downs - has been unwavering ever since the foundation of the state of Israel. Recently, during the reign of Ms. Angela Merkel, a conservative like Mr. Harper, it has even grown stronger and more obvious, much to the dismay of many in the Middle East. And still, Germany made it through the elections, let´s say, quite easy.
Israel has been blamed for many things in the past. A European-wide poll found that the majority of people see Israel as the biggest threat for peace in the world. Arab nations blame Israel for controlling their own development (or the lack thereof). And now Canada blames Israel for its loss in an UN-election.
Sure, there is a lot that needs to be said about Israel´s settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, about the ongoing occupation and the suppression of people that are unlucky enough to be born in one of those two tiny areas on Earth. Not everybody likes what Jerusalem West has to say about Palestinians and a support for the freedom of the Palestinian people is a good and noble a cause as the fight against Antisemitism all over the world. However, blaming Israel, blaming "the Jews" for everything we haven´t achieved is nothing else then modern day Antisemitism.
"The Jews" have a long, long history of being everybody´s scapegoat, from London to Cape Town, from Paris to Prague and further to Moscow. Maybe, in the 21st century, we are able to overcome this narrative that has survived and developed many different heads ever since Rome started battling those monotheists in Judea.
We have a saying in German: "Das brennt mir auf dem Herzen" which means that something weighs heavily on somebody´s heart, a sentiment for sure not unknown to speakers of the English language. Our common heavy hearts have their origin in Yiddish: Es brent mir ahfen hartz. So please, Mr. Ibbitson, es brent mir ahfen hartz, just stop the blaming and the finger-pointing. I know what you meant to say but people sometimes just hear want they want to hear......
Globe and Mail journalist John Ibbitson named a few reasons for Canada´s defeat in the election. Reducing the development aid and even more so, not having had a coherent strategy on certain issues in the past is for sure on of the problems to point out, along with the changes on carbon reduction policies. And yes, a lot of Arab countries, or better be said, Muslim countries might not like the support of Israel through Ottawa. On the other hand, due to its past, Germany´s support for Israel - with ups and downs - has been unwavering ever since the foundation of the state of Israel. Recently, during the reign of Ms. Angela Merkel, a conservative like Mr. Harper, it has even grown stronger and more obvious, much to the dismay of many in the Middle East. And still, Germany made it through the elections, let´s say, quite easy.
Israel has been blamed for many things in the past. A European-wide poll found that the majority of people see Israel as the biggest threat for peace in the world. Arab nations blame Israel for controlling their own development (or the lack thereof). And now Canada blames Israel for its loss in an UN-election.
Sure, there is a lot that needs to be said about Israel´s settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, about the ongoing occupation and the suppression of people that are unlucky enough to be born in one of those two tiny areas on Earth. Not everybody likes what Jerusalem West has to say about Palestinians and a support for the freedom of the Palestinian people is a good and noble a cause as the fight against Antisemitism all over the world. However, blaming Israel, blaming "the Jews" for everything we haven´t achieved is nothing else then modern day Antisemitism.
"The Jews" have a long, long history of being everybody´s scapegoat, from London to Cape Town, from Paris to Prague and further to Moscow. Maybe, in the 21st century, we are able to overcome this narrative that has survived and developed many different heads ever since Rome started battling those monotheists in Judea.
We have a saying in German: "Das brennt mir auf dem Herzen" which means that something weighs heavily on somebody´s heart, a sentiment for sure not unknown to speakers of the English language. Our common heavy hearts have their origin in Yiddish: Es brent mir ahfen hartz. So please, Mr. Ibbitson, es brent mir ahfen hartz, just stop the blaming and the finger-pointing. I know what you meant to say but people sometimes just hear want they want to hear......
Dienstag, 5. Oktober 2010
Media coverage on the recent terror warnings for Europe
The title of this blog already says it all. It is terror warnings for Europe, not in Europe.
German media took more than 24 hours to start reporting on the recent warnings. On Sunday, when possible terror attacks in Europe where one of the main topics in the States and on CNN and the government issued a warning for travelers in Europe, there was no evidence and no media reports on that to be found in German newspapers (online, which are usually faster) and in the main national news shows in the evening. On Monday, the Interior Minister, de Maiziere, admitted in an official statement that there is ongoing evidence of people planning terror attacks but there hasn´t been more activity or tangible plans recently. He warned against an atmosphere of panic. Is the Globe and Mail right and German government is downplaying the whole problem?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/fbi-germany-play-down-fears-of-europe-terror-threat/article1741001/
Or is it just the typical threat-and-fear-element of American politics in the face of pending elections. This is what people normally think when the United States of America play the Al-Qaida-card, especially, when a day before, after a long silence, suddenly "new" Osama bin Laden videos show up (as it was the case this time again).
According to New York Times, even the US administration wasn´t sure how to deal with the situation since the issued warnings are anything than precise and practicable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/world/europe/04security.html?_r=1&ref=europe
For those who can read German a small collection of German newspaper articles. Still, it is just one in between many and Germany currently is more concerned with the civil uprising and government crisis in Stuttgart. Even conservative newspaper like the FAZ, who would normally alert and play the potential threat of Al-Qaida and other terror groups up than down (whereas the more liberal and leftwing-liberal newspapers don´t agree with the war in Iraq and with American foreign policies, hence there are traditionally a lot more critical on everything concerning this topic), even those conservative papers acknowledged that the threat should not be taken lightly but not to seriously either.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/terrorwarnungen-fuer-europa-al-qaida-geschwaech
te-zentrale-gefaehrliche-spinnen-1.1008175
http://www.faz.net/s/RubF359F74E867B46C1A180E8E1E1197DEE/Doc~E43EAE6388EB749CBAA6D38E36DF907B8~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
thema nicht auf die leichte schulter nehmen, aber keine panikmache
Germany´s biggest yellow paper, the BILD-Zeitung, did not jump on the panic-train either, which was the biggest surprise.
http://www.bild.de/BILD/politik/2010/10/05/terror-nachwuchs-wie-gefaehrlich/sind-die-islamisten-aus-deutschland.html
Are Germans right in downplaying the whole scenario? Or are we just naive and arrogant to think that we are safe and will be spared? Naive, because we think that not participating in the Iraq-war makes us the somehow better westerners in the eyes of fundamental groups? Arrogant, because we believe that the state has everything under control and that we, again, the "good Germans" are not the main target of Osama bin Laden and co?
How does Canada react? Well, it is a somewhat non-reaction without being one. The government advised Canadian travelers in Europe to be watchful and use common sense. That is never wrong.
German media took more than 24 hours to start reporting on the recent warnings. On Sunday, when possible terror attacks in Europe where one of the main topics in the States and on CNN and the government issued a warning for travelers in Europe, there was no evidence and no media reports on that to be found in German newspapers (online, which are usually faster) and in the main national news shows in the evening. On Monday, the Interior Minister, de Maiziere, admitted in an official statement that there is ongoing evidence of people planning terror attacks but there hasn´t been more activity or tangible plans recently. He warned against an atmosphere of panic. Is the Globe and Mail right and German government is downplaying the whole problem?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/fbi-germany-play-down-fears-of-europe-terror-threat/article1741001/
Or is it just the typical threat-and-fear-element of American politics in the face of pending elections. This is what people normally think when the United States of America play the Al-Qaida-card, especially, when a day before, after a long silence, suddenly "new" Osama bin Laden videos show up (as it was the case this time again).
According to New York Times, even the US administration wasn´t sure how to deal with the situation since the issued warnings are anything than precise and practicable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/world/europe/04security.html?_r=1&ref=europe
For those who can read German a small collection of German newspaper articles. Still, it is just one in between many and Germany currently is more concerned with the civil uprising and government crisis in Stuttgart. Even conservative newspaper like the FAZ, who would normally alert and play the potential threat of Al-Qaida and other terror groups up than down (whereas the more liberal and leftwing-liberal newspapers don´t agree with the war in Iraq and with American foreign policies, hence there are traditionally a lot more critical on everything concerning this topic), even those conservative papers acknowledged that the threat should not be taken lightly but not to seriously either.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/terrorwarnungen-fuer-europa-al-qaida-geschwaech
te-zentrale-gefaehrliche-spinnen-1.1008175
http://www.faz.net/s/RubF359F74E867B46C1A180E8E1E1197DEE/Doc~E43EAE6388EB749CBAA6D38E36DF907B8~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
thema nicht auf die leichte schulter nehmen, aber keine panikmache
Germany´s biggest yellow paper, the BILD-Zeitung, did not jump on the panic-train either, which was the biggest surprise.
http://www.bild.de/BILD/politik/2010/10/05/terror-nachwuchs-wie-gefaehrlich/sind-die-islamisten-aus-deutschland.html
Are Germans right in downplaying the whole scenario? Or are we just naive and arrogant to think that we are safe and will be spared? Naive, because we think that not participating in the Iraq-war makes us the somehow better westerners in the eyes of fundamental groups? Arrogant, because we believe that the state has everything under control and that we, again, the "good Germans" are not the main target of Osama bin Laden and co?
How does Canada react? Well, it is a somewhat non-reaction without being one. The government advised Canadian travelers in Europe to be watchful and use common sense. That is never wrong.
Montag, 4. Oktober 2010
Same goals, same ambitions? Why it doesn´t really matter whether Canada or Germany gets a temporary seat in the UN Security Council
I have published this here a few days ago in German but this could be interesting for Canadian readers, too.
Canada and Germany have a similar status in the international balance of power. Germany´s influence as a traditionally strong power in the Middle of Europe has been redeveloped after the reunification and even more so after the integration of many Eastern European states into the European Union. Additionally, Germany has been urged from different sides to become a more active global player over the last decade. The same could be stated for Canada and chances are high that Canada will benefit further from the lessening strength of the United States of America – morally, politically and economically. Both countries are led by conservative governments at the moment but even a change in government in upcoming elections would influence the international standing and the aim of foreign policies only slightly (at least in Canada). Both Ottawa and Berlin have outgrown their traditional role as mediator and financial backer of the big international organizations and want to have more influence on what the money is spent on. Both countries participate in UN- and NATO-missions and have therefore changed their attitude towards military interventions in the past. And yet, politicians and even more so the citizens of both countries embrace this new role only reluctantly, especially the legitimation and necessity of military interventions. In the past, these questions have influenced the outcome of major elections, as it has happened in Germany during the Bundestagswahlkampf, the national elections in 2002, when Gerhard Schröders “no” to a German participation in America`s Irak war was a major factor to his later victory in the election.
This borderline position between military power and development aid worker will most likely shape the upcoming term in the Security Council for either of the countries. Canada, the inventor of “responsibility to protect” is an esteemed member of the international society and a spokesperson for the re-invention of the design of international policies. Germany is highly influental on the diplomatic level, for example in Russia and China, but also as a mediator and partner in the Middle East - after the failure of the latest peace talks still on the future political agenda of the United Nations. So, who would be the better choice?
Paul Heinbecker, former Canadian embassador with the United Nations, set up a few criteria and major aims for Canada´s campaign. In the foreground on the future agenda should be human rights and democracy, poverty reduction and disarmament. Hence, he demands from Stephen Harper´s government to put more effort in the battle for women and children´s health. As important as this agenda is, expectations of and from Germany are not going to be any different. Germany has already send signals that it wants to be a strong balance weight against the client politics of the members with Veto-right. The scepticism towards the United States of America is still at hand in Germany´s mainstream, even in a conservative-liberal government. Germany will most likely continue on the basis of their last term in the Security Council (2004/05) when Germany opposed strongly against the United States intervention in Iraq. So, again, does it really matter which of the two countries will be elected? Maybe it is just a matter of taste.
Germany doesn´t have a common position on the question whether we should or should not claim a seat in the Security Council. On side calls for a permanent seat since decades (but, with the ongoing unification of Europe those voices have become more quiet) the other side opposes against such a claim and rather strives for a more modern and suitable division of seats. Like some Canadians these voices demand a new design for the United Nations Security Council (as well as for most of the international summit architecture) with one seat for the European Union and more seats for the Second and Third World countries. Naturally, neither London nor Paris is quite enthusiastic about this approach which might lead to the fact that they would rather see Canada taking a seat (or Portugal).
For both the United Nations and its Security Council it would not make much of a difference whether Ottawa or Berlin will gain some more international influence during the next two years. Both countries share a similar agenda, stand on common ground as for their aims and have a comparable world-wide reputation. Both countries are still peace-keepers rather than military superpowers and hence have a high interest in peaceful conflict resolution. I guess we can lean back and relax. And who knows, maybe Portugal will surprise us all.
Sonntag, 3. Oktober 2010
Happy Reunification Day? Why we Germans don´t really celebrate our biggest moment of the last 50 years
“Happy Reunification Day!”, my Canadian better half texted me last year when I was still living in Germany. My friends and I found it adorable, for the effort he had made. How could he, proud Canadian patriot that he is, know, that we don´t really do anything special at that day or exchange jubilant words of congratulations. Okay, some people, if they live in Berlin, gather for the festivities at the Brandenburg Gate, the symbolic place where it all began. Other bigger cities have some sort of official celebrations too. And, of course, everybody dwells a bit in memories, looking back to the events of those months that had caught us all pretty unaware. We even shed some tears while watching the repeats of now twenty-one and twenty-year old versions of the main news formats in TV: people dancing at and on the Berliner Mauer, the wall, a wall which nobody would have approached only weeks ago, aware of the sharp-shooters ready and willing to take those out that want to go to the other side. And there he is again, in his trade-mark clothes, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, as he steps out on that balcony in the German embassy in Prague, where East-German refugees have camped. And we here his famous words again: “I am here today”.... They were free, the borders between East and West still closed, but those who had taken the risk to leave everything behind, they were going to be free at last. We hear the crowd´s uproar, the screams of joy and victory and yes, that is the moment, when tissues are a really good thing to have at hand. No denial, it was one of our really great moments in time, the one we could and can look back to with pride, the turn or the change, as we call it. A change in many ways was this peaceful revolution that showed the world a new face of Germany.
Yes, we are proud for a second and touched and then we go back to daily business. Exchanging congratulations for the occasion, like a “Merry Christmas” or a “Happy Thanksgiving”, this never really occurred to anybody. I never gave that much thought, blamed two reasons for the lack of festive atmosphere that surrounds the day. The reunification, when it happened, started as a people´s movement but in the end it came down to head-butting between the powerful states of that time. We all remember Margaret Thatcher´s initially inhibitions against a united Germany. Too fresh were still the wounds in European souls that we had cut during the Second World War. And, although nobody said it aloud, the separation had been convenient. A united Germany in its full political and economic power would change the balance of power, a perspective neither Paris nor London really looked forward too. Rumours say that it was during these days that former chancellor Helmut Kohl agreed to give up the German super-strong currency, the Deutsche Mark, in favour of a European currency yet to come. The price to pay for the reunification. And still, like a miracle, the process could not be reversed and finally the day of reunification came. To not to fuel the negative emotions of the neighbour states, German officials dutifully kept their heads down instead of organizing a big party.
The other reason is much simpler. Traditions grow with time. Canadians have stuffed turkey for Christmas, Germans like their Rouladen or their sour-sweet roast on that occasion. Canadians share gifts at the 25th, all in pyjamas and sweatpants, we do it the night before, all dressed up in our best clothes. Soccer fans worldwide, when their teams win a game, have the somewhat odd tradition to get into their cars (drunk) and cruise the streets all night, honking and waving flags. But what should we do with a reunification day? His our flags in the backyard? Eat fish or fried Sausage from Thuringia? We really don´t know, and nobody told us.
Two days ago I read an interesting analysis in the New York Times. Germans do not celebrate, because Eastern Germans have no real reason to do so. Underdeveloped, poor, high rate of unemployment, brain-drain, dying cities and villages, that, so the article, is the reality in Germany´s East today. Undeniable, this description, but still, could it be the reason?
I consider myself a very open-minded person. I have traveled the world, I have been around my country millions of time, I met many, many people due to my work and my personal interests. I have friends in Israel, Palestine, the States, Canada, Cameroon, Turkey and who knows were. I have one, single friend from the East of Germany, too. He is by the way, the second person I consider a friend from “drüben” as we used to call it, from “there, the other side”. Two people in twenty years. And my friend and I would not even be friends if it were not for the fact that we are both members of the same political party because otherwise, we simply would never have met. There is not many people from “there” in my old home town, which is nothing less but Bonn, the former capital of the west of Germany.
It is not that I don´t want any contact with people from the east. The few I have met are really likable fellows, the women, even in my generation and younger are a feminist´s pride and I admire my friend for his down-to-earth way thinking and living. Dresden is a wonderful city, maybe the most beautiful in the country and I like the people from Saxony for their frankness. It is just that people from the east never seem to be, to live, to work, to socialize where I am. Maybe they don´t mingle with us, because they don´t like us, don´t like it when people from the west tell them occasionally that they are a burden for the country. That they still don´t understand the way things are (things = capitalism). I think they do understand capitalism quite good, but they still have this attitude: they believe in solidarity, in the state´s responsibility to care for its citizens, in people caring for people and this is way “the west” votes conservative and liberal and “the east” votes for the left-wing party, which makes it all so hard for conservative-liberal governments to get and stay into power. Germany is still deeply divided. It´s the mentality.
At Christmas and Thanksgiving, family and friends gather for a celebration of old traditions and beliefs and they gather out of love for each other. At the beginning of the process, people that have never met, just loved each other. At the Brandenburg Gate, the wall, people from “there” and ”here”, they hugged, they cried, they welcomed each other home. But maybe, along the way, like it happens in many relationships, the love got lost and was replaced by mutual agreement. Nothing bad, man, just nothing really worth celebrating.
Yes, we are proud for a second and touched and then we go back to daily business. Exchanging congratulations for the occasion, like a “Merry Christmas” or a “Happy Thanksgiving”, this never really occurred to anybody. I never gave that much thought, blamed two reasons for the lack of festive atmosphere that surrounds the day. The reunification, when it happened, started as a people´s movement but in the end it came down to head-butting between the powerful states of that time. We all remember Margaret Thatcher´s initially inhibitions against a united Germany. Too fresh were still the wounds in European souls that we had cut during the Second World War. And, although nobody said it aloud, the separation had been convenient. A united Germany in its full political and economic power would change the balance of power, a perspective neither Paris nor London really looked forward too. Rumours say that it was during these days that former chancellor Helmut Kohl agreed to give up the German super-strong currency, the Deutsche Mark, in favour of a European currency yet to come. The price to pay for the reunification. And still, like a miracle, the process could not be reversed and finally the day of reunification came. To not to fuel the negative emotions of the neighbour states, German officials dutifully kept their heads down instead of organizing a big party.
The other reason is much simpler. Traditions grow with time. Canadians have stuffed turkey for Christmas, Germans like their Rouladen or their sour-sweet roast on that occasion. Canadians share gifts at the 25th, all in pyjamas and sweatpants, we do it the night before, all dressed up in our best clothes. Soccer fans worldwide, when their teams win a game, have the somewhat odd tradition to get into their cars (drunk) and cruise the streets all night, honking and waving flags. But what should we do with a reunification day? His our flags in the backyard? Eat fish or fried Sausage from Thuringia? We really don´t know, and nobody told us.
Two days ago I read an interesting analysis in the New York Times. Germans do not celebrate, because Eastern Germans have no real reason to do so. Underdeveloped, poor, high rate of unemployment, brain-drain, dying cities and villages, that, so the article, is the reality in Germany´s East today. Undeniable, this description, but still, could it be the reason?
I consider myself a very open-minded person. I have traveled the world, I have been around my country millions of time, I met many, many people due to my work and my personal interests. I have friends in Israel, Palestine, the States, Canada, Cameroon, Turkey and who knows were. I have one, single friend from the East of Germany, too. He is by the way, the second person I consider a friend from “drüben” as we used to call it, from “there, the other side”. Two people in twenty years. And my friend and I would not even be friends if it were not for the fact that we are both members of the same political party because otherwise, we simply would never have met. There is not many people from “there” in my old home town, which is nothing less but Bonn, the former capital of the west of Germany.
It is not that I don´t want any contact with people from the east. The few I have met are really likable fellows, the women, even in my generation and younger are a feminist´s pride and I admire my friend for his down-to-earth way thinking and living. Dresden is a wonderful city, maybe the most beautiful in the country and I like the people from Saxony for their frankness. It is just that people from the east never seem to be, to live, to work, to socialize where I am. Maybe they don´t mingle with us, because they don´t like us, don´t like it when people from the west tell them occasionally that they are a burden for the country. That they still don´t understand the way things are (things = capitalism). I think they do understand capitalism quite good, but they still have this attitude: they believe in solidarity, in the state´s responsibility to care for its citizens, in people caring for people and this is way “the west” votes conservative and liberal and “the east” votes for the left-wing party, which makes it all so hard for conservative-liberal governments to get and stay into power. Germany is still deeply divided. It´s the mentality.
At Christmas and Thanksgiving, family and friends gather for a celebration of old traditions and beliefs and they gather out of love for each other. At the beginning of the process, people that have never met, just loved each other. At the Brandenburg Gate, the wall, people from “there” and ”here”, they hugged, they cried, they welcomed each other home. But maybe, along the way, like it happens in many relationships, the love got lost and was replaced by mutual agreement. Nothing bad, man, just nothing really worth celebrating.
Donnerstag, 30. September 2010
Politician´s attitude
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/interview-mit-joachim-gauck-mutige-politiker-ziehe-ich-vor-1.1006223
Gehört eigentlich nur bedingt hierher, aber ich finde, dieses Interview mit Herrn Gauck kann man ruhig mal lesen. Gauck beanstandet darin die Mutlosigkeit von Politikern/innen, Dinge einfach mal zu tun und etwas zu wagen.
For those who can read German. Joachim Gauck, former candidate for the German Presidency, civil rights activist and priest, had this interview with one of Germany´s big daily newspapers. It does not really belong here, but there is some true points that Canadian readers would agree on as much as German readers. Gauck explicitly critizises politicians for their lack in courage to make bigger changes in the system and to promote fundamental reforms even if this would mean that they might not be re-elected the next time. I know that a lot of people out their wish for politicians to be more visionary and bolder. Maybe all of us should say it more often.
I will translate the interview soon.
Gehört eigentlich nur bedingt hierher, aber ich finde, dieses Interview mit Herrn Gauck kann man ruhig mal lesen. Gauck beanstandet darin die Mutlosigkeit von Politikern/innen, Dinge einfach mal zu tun und etwas zu wagen.
For those who can read German. Joachim Gauck, former candidate for the German Presidency, civil rights activist and priest, had this interview with one of Germany´s big daily newspapers. It does not really belong here, but there is some true points that Canadian readers would agree on as much as German readers. Gauck explicitly critizises politicians for their lack in courage to make bigger changes in the system and to promote fundamental reforms even if this would mean that they might not be re-elected the next time. I know that a lot of people out their wish for politicians to be more visionary and bolder. Maybe all of us should say it more often.
I will translate the interview soon.
Dienstag, 28. September 2010
Great Britannia, Britannia rule the world
A comment on the article in "Globe and Mail" on the inauguration plans of Governor-General to be, David Johnston
Check out this Globe and Mail article "New governor-general plans ‘highly symbolic’ swearing in" at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/new-governor-general-plans-highly-symbolic-swearing-in/article1728399/?service=email&utm_source=Shared+Article+Sent+to+User&utm_medium=E-mail%3A+Newsletters+%2F+E-Blasts+%2F+etc.&utm_content=1728399&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links.
The Governor General has a merely representative function, he nevertheless has the power to form governments (the last Governor General, Michaelle Jean, supported Stephen Harper´s minority government by preventing a liberal-NDP coalition) signs new laws and has the power to support or contradict the Prime Minister´s politics. The nomination of David Johnston caused rumors and criticism that the Governor General will be less neutral but more openly supportive of the Prime Minister´s equally often criticized style of governing. Additionally, his support for the cause of Canada´s war veterans is not in every Canadian´s favor and i another sign that he will interpret his role more conservatively.
After former General Governor Michaelle Jean his nomination indeed seems to be some sort of role-back in good old times. Users on www.globeandmail.ca describe him as "angry white old man". Whether he is angry or not only people who have met him might be able to decide, whereas he is, quite obviously an old white man. he is the first General Governor in a few years, yes decades that has not come from a minority background and is not a woman. Well, one can say, still nothing the matter with nominating a white man for the change. In a functioning democracy like Canada is one, he should be able and willing to represent the rest of the country´s population as well. That he is an old man might justify, with all due respect, a bit more concern. Michaelle Jean has represented a modern approach to politics and life, whether it was by being a role-model with her own lifestyle, her active agenda to empower young women, especially from migration backgrounds or her emotional and touching way of speaking and leading, that brought people a bit closer to that far-a-way political scene in Ottawa. Old man Johnston has to prove that he can do likewise. His own arrangement of the inaugural ceremony might lead to the assumption that he thinks he is already a tiny bit to big for his new office. The office itself has been questioned often enough in the past, especially by younger and more open-minded Canadians who see it as an anachronistic legacy from the times when monarchy ruled the world. The same voices know speak up against his addition of new and personal twists to the swearing-in-ceremony, seeing it as a sign of arrogance and overestimation of one´s own person. Maybe a bit more modesty would have been a better start, stick through the ceremony the way it is, one wants to say. It would have enhanced people´s acceptance of Canada´s unique constitutional extra in times when people sometimes have a hard time liking politicians and democracy anyway.
Die gleichen Ziele, die gleichen Ambitionen?
Die gleichen Ziele, die gleichen Ambitionen? Warum es eigentlich recht egal ist, ob Kanada oder Deutschland bei der Wahl im Oktober einen Sitz im Sicherheitsrat erhalten
Kanada und Deutschland haben im internationalen System mittlerweile einen vergleichbaren Status. Deutschland hat als traditionelle europäische Mittelmacht wieder erheblichen Einfluss auf der internationalen Bühne, nicht zuletzt auch deshalb, weil Berlin in den letzten zhen Jahren von mehreren Seiten zu einer stärkeren internationalen Präsenz gedrängt wurde. Öhnliches gilt auch für den nördlichen Nachbarn der USA und Kanada nutzte die Phase schwächer werdenden us-amerikanischer Macht zur Konsolidierung der eigenen Position. Beide Länder haben derzeit konservative Regierungen, wobei zumindest im Falle Kanadas eine grundsätzlich andere Außenpolitik auch bei einem Regierungswechsel nicht unbedingt zu erwarten steht. Sowohl Ottawa als auch Berlin sind mittlerweile über ihre traditionelle Rolle als Vermittler und Mittelgeber hinausgewachsen und mit ihren Streitkräften an zahlreichen internationalen UN-, aber auch NATO-Einsätzen beteiligt. Und doch, beide Seiten nehmen diese Veränderung nur zögerlich an, haben ihre neue Rolle in der internationalen balance of power scheinbar noch nicht recht gefunden, was auch daran liegen mag, dass die jeweilige Bevölkerung beider Länder bei der Frage nach Auslandsinterventionen gespalten sind. Außeneinsätze können in beiden Ländern durchaus Einfluss auf den Ausgang von Wahlen nehmen, wie in Deutschland zuletzt während dem Bundestagswahlkampf 2002 geschehen.
Genau diese gespaltene Position zwischen Entwicklungshelfer und Militärmacht dürfte auch in beiden Fällen die kommende Ratsperiode prägen. Der Erfinder der „responsibility to protect“, Kanada hat dabei auf der Ebene der internationalen Debatte um Sinn und Zweck von Peace-keeping-missions (und damit auch der Vereinten Nationen als Institution) ein deutlich höheres Ansehen als Deutschland. Deutschland ist aber diplomatisch einflussreicher, vor allem in Russland und China, den beiden oft schwierigen Veto-Mächten im Sicherheitsrat, aber auch als Vermittler und Partner im Nahen Osten – nach dem absehbaren Scheitern der derzeitigen Friedensgespräche auch zukünftig leider ein Dauerthema.
Paul Heinbecker, ehemaliger kanadischer Botschafter bei der UN, formuliert Kanadas Agenda als ernst zunehmender global player. Im Vordergrund der Ratsperiode sollten Menschenrechte und Demokratie, Armutsbekämpfung und Abrüstung stehen. So fordert er von Stephen Harpers Regierung besonders den Kampf für die Verbesserung von Frauen- und Kindergesundheit weltweit zu intensivieren. Eine thematisch andere Agenda dürfte aber auch von einem Ratsmitglied Deutschland nicht zu erwarten sein. Deutschland hingegen hat signalisiert, ein Gegengewicht zur Interessenpolitik der ständigen Mitglieder setzen zu wollen. Der auch in der konservativ-liberalen Regierung vorhandene Skeptizismus gegenüber den USA dürfte dabei eine Linie fortsetzen helfen, die Deutschland schon in seiner letzten Wahlperiode 2004/05 vertreten hat. Damals hatte die rot-grüne Bundesregierung den Irak-Krieg der USA auch im Sicherheitsrat zu verhindern versucht, nachdem man bereits signalisiert hatte, seinerseits keinerlei Truppen zru Verfügung zu stellen. Deutschland ist auch eines der größten Geberländer und hofft daher zu Recht auf entsprechende Berücksichtigung.
In Deutschland ist die Sicherheitssitzfrage traditionell umstritten. So wünscht sich eine Seite seit längerem einen festen, ständigen Sitz im Sicherheitsrat, wobei diese Forderung mit der zunehmenden Einigung Europas in der letzten Dekade etwas in den Hintergrund gerückt ist. Dies spiegelt auch die Gegenstimmen gegen einen solchen Status, denn schon immer haben besorgte Stimmen geäußert, dass drei ständige Sitze für europäische Staaten einer gerechten Verteilung von Macht in der Welt entgegenstünden. Genau diese Stimmen fordern heute denn auch oft die vollständige Reform des Systems, nach der die europöischen Länder künftig nur mit einem EU-Sitz vertreten sein soll, ein Gedanke, der in London und Paris nicht auf allzu große Gegenliebe stößt.
Und manche Stimmen scheuen auch die Verantwortung, jene, die Berlin lieber zurückhaltender in der internationalen Politik sehen wollen. Die internationalen Einsätze vom Kosovo über Afghanistan bis in den Libanon sind nicht unumstritten, weder in der Bevölkerung, noch der Politik. Das die Regierungskoalition nun die Abschaffung der Wehrpflicht beschlossen hat, deutet aber auch an, die zukünftige Arme professioneller und einsatzfähiger gestalten zu wollen. Die Abschaffung verlief in der Öffentlichkeit relativ unkommentiert, vielen scheint nicht klar zu sein, dass dies für die Zukunft wohl eher eine aktivere militärische Rolle Deutschlands mit sich bringen wird.
Für die UN und den Sicherheitsrat wird es kaum einen Unterschied machen, ob Ottawa oder Berlin in den nächsten zwei Jahren erhöhten Einfluss erlangen. Beide haben ein Interesse, die bisherigen Veto-Mächte zu behindern und die unterrepräsentierten Staaten der Zweiten und Dritten Welt stärker in die Vereinten Nationen einzubinden. Beide Staaten sind für eine auf Entwicklung ausgerichtete Politik bekannt, Kriegseinsätze gelten hier wie dort als letztes Übel. Es bleibt also entspannt abzuwarten, wer von den beiden das Rennen machen wird. Sorgen muss man sich keine machen.
Kanada und Deutschland haben im internationalen System mittlerweile einen vergleichbaren Status. Deutschland hat als traditionelle europäische Mittelmacht wieder erheblichen Einfluss auf der internationalen Bühne, nicht zuletzt auch deshalb, weil Berlin in den letzten zhen Jahren von mehreren Seiten zu einer stärkeren internationalen Präsenz gedrängt wurde. Öhnliches gilt auch für den nördlichen Nachbarn der USA und Kanada nutzte die Phase schwächer werdenden us-amerikanischer Macht zur Konsolidierung der eigenen Position. Beide Länder haben derzeit konservative Regierungen, wobei zumindest im Falle Kanadas eine grundsätzlich andere Außenpolitik auch bei einem Regierungswechsel nicht unbedingt zu erwarten steht. Sowohl Ottawa als auch Berlin sind mittlerweile über ihre traditionelle Rolle als Vermittler und Mittelgeber hinausgewachsen und mit ihren Streitkräften an zahlreichen internationalen UN-, aber auch NATO-Einsätzen beteiligt. Und doch, beide Seiten nehmen diese Veränderung nur zögerlich an, haben ihre neue Rolle in der internationalen balance of power scheinbar noch nicht recht gefunden, was auch daran liegen mag, dass die jeweilige Bevölkerung beider Länder bei der Frage nach Auslandsinterventionen gespalten sind. Außeneinsätze können in beiden Ländern durchaus Einfluss auf den Ausgang von Wahlen nehmen, wie in Deutschland zuletzt während dem Bundestagswahlkampf 2002 geschehen.
Genau diese gespaltene Position zwischen Entwicklungshelfer und Militärmacht dürfte auch in beiden Fällen die kommende Ratsperiode prägen. Der Erfinder der „responsibility to protect“, Kanada hat dabei auf der Ebene der internationalen Debatte um Sinn und Zweck von Peace-keeping-missions (und damit auch der Vereinten Nationen als Institution) ein deutlich höheres Ansehen als Deutschland. Deutschland ist aber diplomatisch einflussreicher, vor allem in Russland und China, den beiden oft schwierigen Veto-Mächten im Sicherheitsrat, aber auch als Vermittler und Partner im Nahen Osten – nach dem absehbaren Scheitern der derzeitigen Friedensgespräche auch zukünftig leider ein Dauerthema.
Paul Heinbecker, ehemaliger kanadischer Botschafter bei der UN, formuliert Kanadas Agenda als ernst zunehmender global player. Im Vordergrund der Ratsperiode sollten Menschenrechte und Demokratie, Armutsbekämpfung und Abrüstung stehen. So fordert er von Stephen Harpers Regierung besonders den Kampf für die Verbesserung von Frauen- und Kindergesundheit weltweit zu intensivieren. Eine thematisch andere Agenda dürfte aber auch von einem Ratsmitglied Deutschland nicht zu erwarten sein. Deutschland hingegen hat signalisiert, ein Gegengewicht zur Interessenpolitik der ständigen Mitglieder setzen zu wollen. Der auch in der konservativ-liberalen Regierung vorhandene Skeptizismus gegenüber den USA dürfte dabei eine Linie fortsetzen helfen, die Deutschland schon in seiner letzten Wahlperiode 2004/05 vertreten hat. Damals hatte die rot-grüne Bundesregierung den Irak-Krieg der USA auch im Sicherheitsrat zu verhindern versucht, nachdem man bereits signalisiert hatte, seinerseits keinerlei Truppen zru Verfügung zu stellen. Deutschland ist auch eines der größten Geberländer und hofft daher zu Recht auf entsprechende Berücksichtigung.
In Deutschland ist die Sicherheitssitzfrage traditionell umstritten. So wünscht sich eine Seite seit längerem einen festen, ständigen Sitz im Sicherheitsrat, wobei diese Forderung mit der zunehmenden Einigung Europas in der letzten Dekade etwas in den Hintergrund gerückt ist. Dies spiegelt auch die Gegenstimmen gegen einen solchen Status, denn schon immer haben besorgte Stimmen geäußert, dass drei ständige Sitze für europäische Staaten einer gerechten Verteilung von Macht in der Welt entgegenstünden. Genau diese Stimmen fordern heute denn auch oft die vollständige Reform des Systems, nach der die europöischen Länder künftig nur mit einem EU-Sitz vertreten sein soll, ein Gedanke, der in London und Paris nicht auf allzu große Gegenliebe stößt.
Und manche Stimmen scheuen auch die Verantwortung, jene, die Berlin lieber zurückhaltender in der internationalen Politik sehen wollen. Die internationalen Einsätze vom Kosovo über Afghanistan bis in den Libanon sind nicht unumstritten, weder in der Bevölkerung, noch der Politik. Das die Regierungskoalition nun die Abschaffung der Wehrpflicht beschlossen hat, deutet aber auch an, die zukünftige Arme professioneller und einsatzfähiger gestalten zu wollen. Die Abschaffung verlief in der Öffentlichkeit relativ unkommentiert, vielen scheint nicht klar zu sein, dass dies für die Zukunft wohl eher eine aktivere militärische Rolle Deutschlands mit sich bringen wird.
Für die UN und den Sicherheitsrat wird es kaum einen Unterschied machen, ob Ottawa oder Berlin in den nächsten zwei Jahren erhöhten Einfluss erlangen. Beide haben ein Interesse, die bisherigen Veto-Mächte zu behindern und die unterrepräsentierten Staaten der Zweiten und Dritten Welt stärker in die Vereinten Nationen einzubinden. Beide Staaten sind für eine auf Entwicklung ausgerichtete Politik bekannt, Kriegseinsätze gelten hier wie dort als letztes Übel. Es bleibt also entspannt abzuwarten, wer von den beiden das Rennen machen wird. Sorgen muss man sich keine machen.
Montag, 28. Juni 2010
When soccer turns politics
Canadians will understand that soccer is more than just a game. Every hockey game between a Canadian and an US-American team is always somewhat political, or to be better said, a diplomatic issue. The lasting differences between the two countries, occasionally boosted by the mutual dislike of their people, make hockey a show of national pride. Soccer, at least in Europe, isn´t any different.
Yesterday´s game between England and Germany is one of the most classic duels in soccer history and it has everything that a good match would need to become an awesome event for the fans. It has the emotion, the political dimension and even more important, it has the drama! The same could be said about a game between Germany and the Netherlands or Germany and Poland.
Two words are enough to describe the core of the emotions at a Germany vs. England match: “Wembley” and “Second World War”. Whereas Germany has stable and friendly relationships with its neighbour states today, the past is not settled between the British and the German people. British still call the Germans “Nazis” and even worse, they don´t expect them to be anything else. It is not a bad joke or famous British black humour but unfortunately an ongoing stigma that is passed from one generation on to the next. Yesterday every TV spectator could see English fans in Second World War uniforms. Sadly enough, those men were barely older than twenty. The World War, one would think, has nothing to do with their world. Both countries´ yellow press media make it only worse. The standard vocabulary used in headlines on game-day could be right out of a 1944 newspaper. The battle royal.
Still, the situation has somewhat changed during the last, say then years. There are too many young Germans nowadays that oppose the war-zone-talk in the yellow press prior to games like that. Whether this is because Germany´s society has really developed a lot or because Germans want to overcome the past so much is a question not easy to answer. Is Germany a modern nation in the 21st century or is the soccer-party nation from 2006 just another make-over for a nation that still desperately searches for a source for new national self-esteem. Soccer is just one possible tool for achieving the latter because next to the many thinks soccer is, foremost it is about national pride.
2006 Germany has celebrated the World Championships utterly peacefully and with fans all over the world. Still, already in 2006 and even more so today, critical voices claim that the massive pride, the multitude of flags, the new lust in singing the national anthem is nothing more than a revival of an over-nationalistic past. Those who receive their pride from their nationality and thus from distinguishing themselves from others can finally show off that new pride again with their beloved national symbols 2006 it seemed that Germany had waited decades to dust off the good old flags and give them a good waving. Where are flags so important, why are people so obsessed about them? Why do people wait forty years bring them out and the whole atmosphere in a country changes from bad to better just because of three stripes in red, gold and black? Bystanders in Germany talk about the party nation on the edge. The climate seems to be a little too forced, a little too aggressive to be really enjoyable. Germany must win, Germany needs a boost in self-esteem.
There might be a point. Germany has been through a lot in the past few years: a rough economic situation that was only fuelled by the global economic crisis combines with the essential depressive nature of the German people. Depression and Angst, there are German things, a core of our personality. It is cynical that Germany´s national goal keeper as a consequence of his severe depression committed suicide last year. Soccer is more than a game but it is more than politics too. It is an outlet, a catharsis for a nation´s emotional set. Germany needs to win, because Germany really needs something that could be enjoyed, something that is just light and funny. Once in a while, people might think, that if the ever calm and reserved Germans could let out some of the emotions they are showing at a soccer tournament, a lot would have been different. People want to be playful. We always admire our more care-free and bubbly neighbours in the south, yet we know that we can never be that way. Only at carnival and while watching soccer we can behave like we want.
And isn´t soccer all about emotions, all about the drama? Today was a hard day for the English soccer, not only because they lost an important game and were sent back home, no because a national trauma was relived and refunded for a new generation. England was in Wembley again, denied an equalizer. Needless to say, and maybe a biased opinion, that Germany would have won anyway. Maybe it was just the karma, the World War uniforms that should go where they belong: to a museum, to teach the upcoming generations about what it means when millions have to suffer because of an inferiority complex that one nation amongst them has harboured for too long.
It was good to see the young and wonderfully talented German team seem to be undisturbed the weight of the past that lasted on yesterday´s game. Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski have their origins in Poland, Mesut Özil represents the big Turkish community in a state that has long hit the road to a multi-cultural society. Sami Khedira was born in Germany, but comes from an Arabic family, Cacau is Brazilian-born. It is not their past after all. They were in the stadium to play soccer and they did some wonderful soccer. It was a first step into a new century and maybe, ob day, soccer will just be a very important game. As a German, it was refreshing to see the game on Canadian TV. The commentator focused on the game played, the soccer shown and not at all on the historic burden between the opponents. Enjoyable!
Yesterday´s game between England and Germany is one of the most classic duels in soccer history and it has everything that a good match would need to become an awesome event for the fans. It has the emotion, the political dimension and even more important, it has the drama! The same could be said about a game between Germany and the Netherlands or Germany and Poland.
Two words are enough to describe the core of the emotions at a Germany vs. England match: “Wembley” and “Second World War”. Whereas Germany has stable and friendly relationships with its neighbour states today, the past is not settled between the British and the German people. British still call the Germans “Nazis” and even worse, they don´t expect them to be anything else. It is not a bad joke or famous British black humour but unfortunately an ongoing stigma that is passed from one generation on to the next. Yesterday every TV spectator could see English fans in Second World War uniforms. Sadly enough, those men were barely older than twenty. The World War, one would think, has nothing to do with their world. Both countries´ yellow press media make it only worse. The standard vocabulary used in headlines on game-day could be right out of a 1944 newspaper. The battle royal.
Still, the situation has somewhat changed during the last, say then years. There are too many young Germans nowadays that oppose the war-zone-talk in the yellow press prior to games like that. Whether this is because Germany´s society has really developed a lot or because Germans want to overcome the past so much is a question not easy to answer. Is Germany a modern nation in the 21st century or is the soccer-party nation from 2006 just another make-over for a nation that still desperately searches for a source for new national self-esteem. Soccer is just one possible tool for achieving the latter because next to the many thinks soccer is, foremost it is about national pride.
2006 Germany has celebrated the World Championships utterly peacefully and with fans all over the world. Still, already in 2006 and even more so today, critical voices claim that the massive pride, the multitude of flags, the new lust in singing the national anthem is nothing more than a revival of an over-nationalistic past. Those who receive their pride from their nationality and thus from distinguishing themselves from others can finally show off that new pride again with their beloved national symbols 2006 it seemed that Germany had waited decades to dust off the good old flags and give them a good waving. Where are flags so important, why are people so obsessed about them? Why do people wait forty years bring them out and the whole atmosphere in a country changes from bad to better just because of three stripes in red, gold and black? Bystanders in Germany talk about the party nation on the edge. The climate seems to be a little too forced, a little too aggressive to be really enjoyable. Germany must win, Germany needs a boost in self-esteem.
There might be a point. Germany has been through a lot in the past few years: a rough economic situation that was only fuelled by the global economic crisis combines with the essential depressive nature of the German people. Depression and Angst, there are German things, a core of our personality. It is cynical that Germany´s national goal keeper as a consequence of his severe depression committed suicide last year. Soccer is more than a game but it is more than politics too. It is an outlet, a catharsis for a nation´s emotional set. Germany needs to win, because Germany really needs something that could be enjoyed, something that is just light and funny. Once in a while, people might think, that if the ever calm and reserved Germans could let out some of the emotions they are showing at a soccer tournament, a lot would have been different. People want to be playful. We always admire our more care-free and bubbly neighbours in the south, yet we know that we can never be that way. Only at carnival and while watching soccer we can behave like we want.
And isn´t soccer all about emotions, all about the drama? Today was a hard day for the English soccer, not only because they lost an important game and were sent back home, no because a national trauma was relived and refunded for a new generation. England was in Wembley again, denied an equalizer. Needless to say, and maybe a biased opinion, that Germany would have won anyway. Maybe it was just the karma, the World War uniforms that should go where they belong: to a museum, to teach the upcoming generations about what it means when millions have to suffer because of an inferiority complex that one nation amongst them has harboured for too long.
It was good to see the young and wonderfully talented German team seem to be undisturbed the weight of the past that lasted on yesterday´s game. Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski have their origins in Poland, Mesut Özil represents the big Turkish community in a state that has long hit the road to a multi-cultural society. Sami Khedira was born in Germany, but comes from an Arabic family, Cacau is Brazilian-born. It is not their past after all. They were in the stadium to play soccer and they did some wonderful soccer. It was a first step into a new century and maybe, ob day, soccer will just be a very important game. As a German, it was refreshing to see the game on Canadian TV. The commentator focused on the game played, the soccer shown and not at all on the historic burden between the opponents. Enjoyable!
Freitag, 25. Juni 2010
POLITICAL PARTIES in comparison
Subtle "hints of change" in the German liberal party
If you really want to say it that way then you could blame the German liberals for being political dinosaurs - not because they are as heavy and as strong but because they seem to be lacking contemporary survival skills or, to come back to political terminology: the right answers after the economic crisis in the last year.
That they were actually voted into parliament with the best result ever did surprise a few if not many people in Germany. Knowing the difficult political situation Germany currently faces and the new, massive voter flotation in between parties, which were caused by the lessening strength of the two leading parties, the conservative CDU and the social-democratic SPD their success in the last election is easily explainable: people just seemed to be having no other options. It was not their program that laid the foundation for their victory, nor their campaign but the tremendous loss of the voters´ faith and trust that the others parties experienced. The CDU lost nearly a third, the SPD half of their voters during the last eight years!
The German liberal party FDP has a long history, and most of the time it has been a story of success and importance for the development of the German society and the political system. Ever since 1945 the party consisted mainly of two strong factions. The so-called social-liberals had an emphasis on human right and peoples´ rights. Liberalism in their understanding means less control of the state both over the people and the economy. The keyword for their agenda is "freedom" which contains the idea of the free and self-responsible citizen as well as the idea of a free market economy. However, the social-liberals always believed in a strong social welfare system and in the responsibility for the weaker in the society as well. This faction had is high-time in the Seventies and early Eighties, when they formed a coalition with the social-democratic party.
The other faction has been the stronger and more influential one during the last ten years. They were - and still are - Germany´s true neo-liberalists and, according to the world-wide atmosphere, they changed their ideology and program. The keyword again was "freedom", but freedom in the sense of an unhindered global economy, the privatization of crucial social institutions like the health system, a tax reduction for the high-income earners while simultaneously a reduction of the social welfare was advised. The modern liberal party of Germany, the FDP, is what scientists call a Klientelpartei, a client´s party that makes politics for the well-being of a certain part of the society even if this might be carried out on the shoulders of the rest.
When the global economic system started to collapse and with this the neo-liberal ideology proved to be a failure the German liberals seem to be at a dead-end. Everybody expected them to be the main looser of the upcoming elections since their ideology had proved to be devastating. Slight alterations in the campaign were already noticeable. In one big interview last fall, the chairman of the liberal party, nowadays minister of foreign affairs, Guido Westerwelle, already rowed back a little when saying that he and his party had always believed in the state´s responsibility to control the economy. In the end, even this would have not been necessary. Despite the collapse of the world-wide system, despite the fact, that the German tax-payer indirectly had to pay for the mistakes of the speculators, despite the fact that the Liberals didn´t change their agenda while the weak and poor were hit by the economic crisis first, on Election Day the voters gifted the liberals with their best results ever.
In the end one is always smarter. This old German proves its point again. After only slightly more than six months in government, the FDP has lost most of their voters and faces a long term low with an approximately eight percent loss of support in less than a year. A little late, but not too late, people on both sides of the fence seem to finally wake up. During the last regional elections many voters returned to the conservative and social-democratic party, showing once again that the surprising support for the liberals was more a result of the lack of prospects then real acceptance of the liberal´s political agenda. And inside the party, a new generation is ready to lead the party in the times after the end of ordoliberalism. The chairman, Gudio Westerwelle, without an alternative in the last ten years, is constantly losing the faith of his party. A few first tentative voice already mentioned that it might be a good idea if there would be a change on the top. Westerwelle still has the support of some strong people in the background, but all of them just the political grandseigneurs from the Eighties. The younger generation however whistles some wind of change. Social-liberalism, they whisper, was not a bad idea after all.
If you really want to say it that way then you could blame the German liberals for being political dinosaurs - not because they are as heavy and as strong but because they seem to be lacking contemporary survival skills or, to come back to political terminology: the right answers after the economic crisis in the last year.
That they were actually voted into parliament with the best result ever did surprise a few if not many people in Germany. Knowing the difficult political situation Germany currently faces and the new, massive voter flotation in between parties, which were caused by the lessening strength of the two leading parties, the conservative CDU and the social-democratic SPD their success in the last election is easily explainable: people just seemed to be having no other options. It was not their program that laid the foundation for their victory, nor their campaign but the tremendous loss of the voters´ faith and trust that the others parties experienced. The CDU lost nearly a third, the SPD half of their voters during the last eight years!
The German liberal party FDP has a long history, and most of the time it has been a story of success and importance for the development of the German society and the political system. Ever since 1945 the party consisted mainly of two strong factions. The so-called social-liberals had an emphasis on human right and peoples´ rights. Liberalism in their understanding means less control of the state both over the people and the economy. The keyword for their agenda is "freedom" which contains the idea of the free and self-responsible citizen as well as the idea of a free market economy. However, the social-liberals always believed in a strong social welfare system and in the responsibility for the weaker in the society as well. This faction had is high-time in the Seventies and early Eighties, when they formed a coalition with the social-democratic party.
The other faction has been the stronger and more influential one during the last ten years. They were - and still are - Germany´s true neo-liberalists and, according to the world-wide atmosphere, they changed their ideology and program. The keyword again was "freedom", but freedom in the sense of an unhindered global economy, the privatization of crucial social institutions like the health system, a tax reduction for the high-income earners while simultaneously a reduction of the social welfare was advised. The modern liberal party of Germany, the FDP, is what scientists call a Klientelpartei, a client´s party that makes politics for the well-being of a certain part of the society even if this might be carried out on the shoulders of the rest.
When the global economic system started to collapse and with this the neo-liberal ideology proved to be a failure the German liberals seem to be at a dead-end. Everybody expected them to be the main looser of the upcoming elections since their ideology had proved to be devastating. Slight alterations in the campaign were already noticeable. In one big interview last fall, the chairman of the liberal party, nowadays minister of foreign affairs, Guido Westerwelle, already rowed back a little when saying that he and his party had always believed in the state´s responsibility to control the economy. In the end, even this would have not been necessary. Despite the collapse of the world-wide system, despite the fact, that the German tax-payer indirectly had to pay for the mistakes of the speculators, despite the fact that the Liberals didn´t change their agenda while the weak and poor were hit by the economic crisis first, on Election Day the voters gifted the liberals with their best results ever.
In the end one is always smarter. This old German proves its point again. After only slightly more than six months in government, the FDP has lost most of their voters and faces a long term low with an approximately eight percent loss of support in less than a year. A little late, but not too late, people on both sides of the fence seem to finally wake up. During the last regional elections many voters returned to the conservative and social-democratic party, showing once again that the surprising support for the liberals was more a result of the lack of prospects then real acceptance of the liberal´s political agenda. And inside the party, a new generation is ready to lead the party in the times after the end of ordoliberalism. The chairman, Gudio Westerwelle, without an alternative in the last ten years, is constantly losing the faith of his party. A few first tentative voice already mentioned that it might be a good idea if there would be a change on the top. Westerwelle still has the support of some strong people in the background, but all of them just the political grandseigneurs from the Eighties. The younger generation however whistles some wind of change. Social-liberalism, they whisper, was not a bad idea after all.
Donnerstag, 29. April 2010
Other voices
Topic: Scandal in the Catholic Church
Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung
Every forth German thinks about leaving the church a recent poll says
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/196/509329/text/
Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung
Every forth German thinks about leaving the church a recent poll says
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/196/509329/text/
Donnerstag, 1. April 2010
Other voices
Topic: Scandal in the Catholic Church
Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/thema/Walter_Mixa
Walter Mixa, Bishop of Augsburg, belongs to the ultra-conservative faction of German Catholics. He is now accused of physical abuse of children in an orphanage during the Eighties.
For German-speakers in Canada....
Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/thema/Walter_Mixa
Walter Mixa, Bishop of Augsburg, belongs to the ultra-conservative faction of German Catholics. He is now accused of physical abuse of children in an orphanage during the Eighties.
For German-speakers in Canada....
Mittwoch, 31. März 2010
Other voices
Thema: Skandal in der katholischen Kirche
Aus: Globe and Mail Canada
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/can-faith-in-the-pope-and-the-church-be-saved/article1515918/
One interesting article about the Pope and the current crisis of the Catholic Church. In Northamerica, even more so in the United States, the discussion of the topic focus a lot more on the role of the Pope himself than this is the case in the German debate. On the contrary, the problematic structures of the Catholic Church as an institution that have led into this crisis seem to be less important for the public here.
Aus: Globe and Mail Canada
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/can-faith-in-the-pope-and-the-church-be-saved/article1515918/
One interesting article about the Pope and the current crisis of the Catholic Church. In Northamerica, even more so in the United States, the discussion of the topic focus a lot more on the role of the Pope himself than this is the case in the German debate. On the contrary, the problematic structures of the Catholic Church as an institution that have led into this crisis seem to be less important for the public here.
Dienstag, 30. März 2010
Wer ist Michaelle Jean?
Das Amt des Generalgoverneurs von Kanada ist ein historisch gewachsenes Amt, das zunächst vor allem dazu diente, die Krone im politischen Geschäft zu repräsentieren. Der Generalgoverneur oder die Generalgoverneurin ist der Stellvertreter/in der Krone von Kanada, genauer gesagt, der Königin von England. Dieses Amt darf jedoch nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass die konstitutionelle Monarchie Kanadas eine rein formale ist, in der die Königin keinerlei politische Rolle spielt. Der Generalgouverneur wird zwar durch sie ernannt, dies aber nur aufgrund des Vorschlags des amtierenden Premierministers. Der Generalgouverneur selbst sein Amt in Absprache mit dem Parlaments und dem Premier aus. Die Königin hingegen hat keinerlei Einfluss auf die Amtsausübung des Generalgoverneurs.
Der Generalgoverneur besitzt einige dem deutschen Bundespräsidenten vergleichbare Befugnisse. Seine Aufgaben sind repräsentativ und überparteilich, zudem ist er der Oberbefehlshaber der Streitkräfte. Er kann das Parlament einberufen, vertagen und auflösen. Zur Eröffnung der ersten Parlamentssitzung einer jeden Legislaturperiode verliest er die sogenannte „Thronrede“, die aber nichts anderes ist das die vom Premier und seinem Kabinett erstellte Regierungserklärung. Ähnlich dem Bundespräsidenten müssen beschlossene Gesetzes ihm zur Prüfung und Genehmigung vorgelegt werden. Auch kann er zahlreiche Posten vergeben, ist dabei aber immer an den Vorschlag des Premiers gebunden, er hat also Ernennungs- aber kein Vorschlagsrecht. Seine Aufgaben als Repräsentant der Krone sind aber eher Makulatur und schon deshalb erscheint dieses Amt als ein wenig anachronistisches Derivat des Commonwealth.
Derzeit ist der Generalgoverneur übrigens zum dritten Mal eine Gouverneurin, Ihre Exzellenz die höchst Ehrenwerte Michaelle Jean. So richtig scheint diese Frau nicht in diesem Amt zu passen, denn Michaelle Jean ist alles andere als unzeitgemäß. Das Männer und Frauen wie sie in den letzten zwanzig Jahren in dieses Amt berufen wurden, zeigt, dass die Kanadier dieses alte Amt modern umzudeuten wissen. Zudem hat die Berufung des Governeurs mehr und mehr symbolischen Zweck. Wie Michaelle Jean, die gebürtig aus Haiti stammt und als Kind mit ihren Eltern als politischer Flüchtling nach Kanada gab, hatten zahlreiche ihre Vorgänger/innen der letzten Jahre einen Migrationshintergrund. Und Michaelle Jean sieht ihre Aufgaben auch weit über die eigentliche Funktion des Amtes hinaus, denn sie ist eine Frau mit einer Botschaft.
Bei ihrer letzten Thronrede wirkte sie wie die typische Vertreterin der Gattung Politikerin: schnörkellose Brille, gut sitzendes Kostüm, schlank, professionell, eben wie jener Typ Frau, der etwas emotionslos immer alles im Griff hat, der weiblich wirkt, ohne allzu fraulich zu sein. Eine Woche später reist Michaelle Jean nach Haiti, in ihr Herkunftsland und zeigt ein ganz anderes Gesicht, eines, dass Condolezza Rice, Angela Merkel und Hillary Clinton sicherlich haben, aber öffentlich nicht zeigen mögen. In Haiti sieht man eine hochemotionale, weinende, wenig staatstragende Michaelle Jean, die dennoch vor den versammelten Journalisten eine feurige und couragierte Rede hält, in der sie besonders jungen Frauen Hoffnung auf eine bessere Zukunft machen will.
Michaelle Jean ist keine Karrierepolitikerin und vielleicht macht genau das den (wertfrei beobachteten) Unterschied aus. Nach ihrem Studium lehrte und forschte sie zunächst an verschiedenen Universitäten in Italien. Neben Englisch und Französisch spricht sie fließend Italienisch, Spanisch und Kreolisch. Zurück in Kanada hat die Journalistin eine erfolgreiche Radioshow. Zwar steht sie wohl dem separatischen Bloc Quebeciose nahe (und das finden viele Kanadier etwas mysteriös), hat aber keine aktive politische Laufbahn hinter sich gebracht.
Michaelle Jean ist eine Frau, die sich als Politikerin und stellvertretendes Staatsoberhaupt nicht einfach in eine Schublade packen läßt. Sie hat etwas geheimnisvolles, etwas, dass einen dazu bringt, lange über die nachzudenken. Auch die Kanadier wissen manchmal nicht recht, wo sie diese Generalgoverneurin hinstecken sollen. Erfrischend ist aber ihr scheinbar wenig prätentiöser Zug zur Macht (Generalgoverneurin zu werden läßt sich noch ein wenig weniger planen als Bundeskanzlerin zu werden), die Tatsache, dass sie in gewisser Form eine Quereinsteigerin ist. In Zeiten, wo allenthalben über die mangelnde Attraktivität der Gattung Politiker gesprochen wird (sowohl was ihre gesellschaftliche Stellung als auch die Neigung, selber einer zu werden, betrifft), zeigt sie, dass durchaus moderne Versionen dieser Gattung möglich sind.
Der Generalgoverneur besitzt einige dem deutschen Bundespräsidenten vergleichbare Befugnisse. Seine Aufgaben sind repräsentativ und überparteilich, zudem ist er der Oberbefehlshaber der Streitkräfte. Er kann das Parlament einberufen, vertagen und auflösen. Zur Eröffnung der ersten Parlamentssitzung einer jeden Legislaturperiode verliest er die sogenannte „Thronrede“, die aber nichts anderes ist das die vom Premier und seinem Kabinett erstellte Regierungserklärung. Ähnlich dem Bundespräsidenten müssen beschlossene Gesetzes ihm zur Prüfung und Genehmigung vorgelegt werden. Auch kann er zahlreiche Posten vergeben, ist dabei aber immer an den Vorschlag des Premiers gebunden, er hat also Ernennungs- aber kein Vorschlagsrecht. Seine Aufgaben als Repräsentant der Krone sind aber eher Makulatur und schon deshalb erscheint dieses Amt als ein wenig anachronistisches Derivat des Commonwealth.
Derzeit ist der Generalgoverneur übrigens zum dritten Mal eine Gouverneurin, Ihre Exzellenz die höchst Ehrenwerte Michaelle Jean. So richtig scheint diese Frau nicht in diesem Amt zu passen, denn Michaelle Jean ist alles andere als unzeitgemäß. Das Männer und Frauen wie sie in den letzten zwanzig Jahren in dieses Amt berufen wurden, zeigt, dass die Kanadier dieses alte Amt modern umzudeuten wissen. Zudem hat die Berufung des Governeurs mehr und mehr symbolischen Zweck. Wie Michaelle Jean, die gebürtig aus Haiti stammt und als Kind mit ihren Eltern als politischer Flüchtling nach Kanada gab, hatten zahlreiche ihre Vorgänger/innen der letzten Jahre einen Migrationshintergrund. Und Michaelle Jean sieht ihre Aufgaben auch weit über die eigentliche Funktion des Amtes hinaus, denn sie ist eine Frau mit einer Botschaft.
Bei ihrer letzten Thronrede wirkte sie wie die typische Vertreterin der Gattung Politikerin: schnörkellose Brille, gut sitzendes Kostüm, schlank, professionell, eben wie jener Typ Frau, der etwas emotionslos immer alles im Griff hat, der weiblich wirkt, ohne allzu fraulich zu sein. Eine Woche später reist Michaelle Jean nach Haiti, in ihr Herkunftsland und zeigt ein ganz anderes Gesicht, eines, dass Condolezza Rice, Angela Merkel und Hillary Clinton sicherlich haben, aber öffentlich nicht zeigen mögen. In Haiti sieht man eine hochemotionale, weinende, wenig staatstragende Michaelle Jean, die dennoch vor den versammelten Journalisten eine feurige und couragierte Rede hält, in der sie besonders jungen Frauen Hoffnung auf eine bessere Zukunft machen will.
Michaelle Jean ist keine Karrierepolitikerin und vielleicht macht genau das den (wertfrei beobachteten) Unterschied aus. Nach ihrem Studium lehrte und forschte sie zunächst an verschiedenen Universitäten in Italien. Neben Englisch und Französisch spricht sie fließend Italienisch, Spanisch und Kreolisch. Zurück in Kanada hat die Journalistin eine erfolgreiche Radioshow. Zwar steht sie wohl dem separatischen Bloc Quebeciose nahe (und das finden viele Kanadier etwas mysteriös), hat aber keine aktive politische Laufbahn hinter sich gebracht.
Michaelle Jean ist eine Frau, die sich als Politikerin und stellvertretendes Staatsoberhaupt nicht einfach in eine Schublade packen läßt. Sie hat etwas geheimnisvolles, etwas, dass einen dazu bringt, lange über die nachzudenken. Auch die Kanadier wissen manchmal nicht recht, wo sie diese Generalgoverneurin hinstecken sollen. Erfrischend ist aber ihr scheinbar wenig prätentiöser Zug zur Macht (Generalgoverneurin zu werden läßt sich noch ein wenig weniger planen als Bundeskanzlerin zu werden), die Tatsache, dass sie in gewisser Form eine Quereinsteigerin ist. In Zeiten, wo allenthalben über die mangelnde Attraktivität der Gattung Politiker gesprochen wird (sowohl was ihre gesellschaftliche Stellung als auch die Neigung, selber einer zu werden, betrifft), zeigt sie, dass durchaus moderne Versionen dieser Gattung möglich sind.
Sonntag, 28. März 2010
„We are Pope“! – The Germans and their difficult relationship with the Catholic Church and its leader
When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope Germany´s biggest popular newspaper enthusiastically titled: We are Pope! Like: We are World Champion! It was an irritating show of German national self-confidence that had nothing to do with a particular liking of Ratzinger (which didn´t exist back then) nor with the fact that being the Pope´s home country was actually a dream we always wanted to fulfill (like becoming soccer champion). In fact, there had been a longer story of criticism, yes even resentment for the man that from now on would at least represent the German Catholics for the next, say, decade. ´
Germany´s Christian population is basically divided into 50 percent Protestants and 50 percent Catholics. Germany´s Protestants have a long tradition of being progressive, worldly and politically somewhere at the left wing. Ratzinger, old enough to be a living legacy of the Third Reich (it is known now that he was member of the Hitlerjugend) represents Germany´s Bavarian south, the politically and socially most conservative part of the country and its people. Hence, Ratzinger was never really “our” Pope from day one, since his and his followers´ opinions on many subjects, like abortion, the role of females in society, homosexuality, early childhood education etc. were some thirty years behind of what the majority of people believe in.
The Catholic Church in Germany has a long tradition of getting involved (or involving herself) in to politics and the public debate, especially when it comes to matters of law, moral, gender and education. In the 1970s, when the government decided to make major changes on the abortion law and the marriage law, the Catholic Church became a loud and back then an influential opponent of the reform movement. Nowadays, German´s still pay the historical “Zehnten”, originally ten percent of the year´s harvest, nowadays around eight percent taxes on the monthly income that end up in the pockets of their church. If you don´t want to pay the Kirchensteuer (church tax) your only way around is to leave your church for good. If you are a devout Christian, but you maybe don´t agree on everything the Church does with this money, well, you have to suck it up. Stay and stay with it or leave.
This idea is crucial to the way Benedict XVI predicts the future of his church. In his books (for example: Salt of the Earth. The Church at the End of the Millennium) he made one point clear: his will to allow as less changes as necessary and to keep the Church as close to traditional doctrine as possible. Giving into the wishes and needs of many modern and more profane oriented followers is not on his agenda at all. Rosinenpickerei, cherry picking, is what he blames younger generations and the average people of our time for. If that means, that the Catholic Church will be a much smaller, but more cohesive community in the future, so be it. Such opinions are rightfully his, especially since they make some sense out of his perspective. It just shows a lot about his vision of Christianity and even more, about how he sees the Catholic Church as an institution. Modernity, this was proven by German author and publisher Alan Posener in his recent book on Pope Benedict, is as appealing to Benedict as to many (so-called) Muslim extremists in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Knowing this, it isn´t much of a surprise that the Catholic Church and Rome still put their INSTITUTION in front of the well being of their believers and in front of the basic idea of Christianity: altruism. Nothing else is the background of the latest scandal in Germany: not of the ongoing and widespread abuse of children through Christian clergymen but of the cover-up trough said clergymen. It is the believe that the Catholic Church as an institution should be an insular “brotherhood” of powerful priests that lead the mass of obedient believers instead of being a transparent, integral part of a democratic community. The Church still deals with its affairs like a secret society would do.
Knowing Benedict XVI., his believes and that of other important Bishops, like Walter Mixa, Bishop of Augsburg, the recent revelations might be shocking but not surprising, at least not the way the Church had handled the situation in the past. When the Pope´s brother admitted, that he had slapped his choir pupils a decade ago, when he was the leader of the famous Regensburger choir, this admission added only to the overall picture that Germans have of their Pope. Did we really expect anything different? This whole controversy only drives further apart what has been estranged for a long time. The ultra-conservative voices of the Joseph Ratzingers and Walter Mixas of this world might still be heard a bit longer, however, the last years have, especially compared to the Sixties and Seventies, already shown the diminishing influence of Christianity on public debate and politics. This might leave some people happy, nevertheless, Christianity is one on the fundaments of European Culture. This should not be neglected.
The unveiling of abuse and terror over decades, which started in the United States of America and in Ireland has now finally reached the rest of Europe. And it is spreading, from Germany to Austria, Switzerland to the one Catholic mansion since the famous Reyes Católicos, the Spanish Kings: Spain. The consequences are yet to be seen, but there is no doubt that the Institution of the Church and the Vatican will be shaken up badly. Behind the turmoil might be the future shape of the Church: a small group of “true believers” under the leadership of an unworldly sect or a modernized version of one of the world´s oldest institutions, were the European Clique has less influence and the progressive forces in Latin America, Asia and Africa a bit more.
Germany´s Christian population is basically divided into 50 percent Protestants and 50 percent Catholics. Germany´s Protestants have a long tradition of being progressive, worldly and politically somewhere at the left wing. Ratzinger, old enough to be a living legacy of the Third Reich (it is known now that he was member of the Hitlerjugend) represents Germany´s Bavarian south, the politically and socially most conservative part of the country and its people. Hence, Ratzinger was never really “our” Pope from day one, since his and his followers´ opinions on many subjects, like abortion, the role of females in society, homosexuality, early childhood education etc. were some thirty years behind of what the majority of people believe in.
The Catholic Church in Germany has a long tradition of getting involved (or involving herself) in to politics and the public debate, especially when it comes to matters of law, moral, gender and education. In the 1970s, when the government decided to make major changes on the abortion law and the marriage law, the Catholic Church became a loud and back then an influential opponent of the reform movement. Nowadays, German´s still pay the historical “Zehnten”, originally ten percent of the year´s harvest, nowadays around eight percent taxes on the monthly income that end up in the pockets of their church. If you don´t want to pay the Kirchensteuer (church tax) your only way around is to leave your church for good. If you are a devout Christian, but you maybe don´t agree on everything the Church does with this money, well, you have to suck it up. Stay and stay with it or leave.
This idea is crucial to the way Benedict XVI predicts the future of his church. In his books (for example: Salt of the Earth. The Church at the End of the Millennium) he made one point clear: his will to allow as less changes as necessary and to keep the Church as close to traditional doctrine as possible. Giving into the wishes and needs of many modern and more profane oriented followers is not on his agenda at all. Rosinenpickerei, cherry picking, is what he blames younger generations and the average people of our time for. If that means, that the Catholic Church will be a much smaller, but more cohesive community in the future, so be it. Such opinions are rightfully his, especially since they make some sense out of his perspective. It just shows a lot about his vision of Christianity and even more, about how he sees the Catholic Church as an institution. Modernity, this was proven by German author and publisher Alan Posener in his recent book on Pope Benedict, is as appealing to Benedict as to many (so-called) Muslim extremists in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Knowing this, it isn´t much of a surprise that the Catholic Church and Rome still put their INSTITUTION in front of the well being of their believers and in front of the basic idea of Christianity: altruism. Nothing else is the background of the latest scandal in Germany: not of the ongoing and widespread abuse of children through Christian clergymen but of the cover-up trough said clergymen. It is the believe that the Catholic Church as an institution should be an insular “brotherhood” of powerful priests that lead the mass of obedient believers instead of being a transparent, integral part of a democratic community. The Church still deals with its affairs like a secret society would do.
Knowing Benedict XVI., his believes and that of other important Bishops, like Walter Mixa, Bishop of Augsburg, the recent revelations might be shocking but not surprising, at least not the way the Church had handled the situation in the past. When the Pope´s brother admitted, that he had slapped his choir pupils a decade ago, when he was the leader of the famous Regensburger choir, this admission added only to the overall picture that Germans have of their Pope. Did we really expect anything different? This whole controversy only drives further apart what has been estranged for a long time. The ultra-conservative voices of the Joseph Ratzingers and Walter Mixas of this world might still be heard a bit longer, however, the last years have, especially compared to the Sixties and Seventies, already shown the diminishing influence of Christianity on public debate and politics. This might leave some people happy, nevertheless, Christianity is one on the fundaments of European Culture. This should not be neglected.
The unveiling of abuse and terror over decades, which started in the United States of America and in Ireland has now finally reached the rest of Europe. And it is spreading, from Germany to Austria, Switzerland to the one Catholic mansion since the famous Reyes Católicos, the Spanish Kings: Spain. The consequences are yet to be seen, but there is no doubt that the Institution of the Church and the Vatican will be shaken up badly. Behind the turmoil might be the future shape of the Church: a small group of “true believers” under the leadership of an unworldly sect or a modernized version of one of the world´s oldest institutions, were the European Clique has less influence and the progressive forces in Latin America, Asia and Africa a bit more.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)