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 Both in Canada and in Germany the state has repeatedly withdrawn and reduced his competencies and responsibilities regarding peoples´ marriage and bedrooms since the Seventies.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.

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......

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.

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.

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.