AMERICAN FUTURE

In a rather transparent effort to encourage Europeans to face East rather than West, Putin celebrates the 50th anniversary of the European Union by asserting that “Russia is Europe’s Natural Ally“:

The history of relations between Russia and Europe is one of mutual influence and benefit . . .

Russia has shared all the triumphs and tragedies of Europe. We have twice played a decisive role in disrupting attempts to unite Europe by force, the last time in the second world war. Today’s European project, based on the goodwill of Europeans, would have been infeasible without this.

Today, building a sovereign democratic state, we share the values and principles of the vast majority of Europeans. Respect for international law, rejection of force to settle international problems and preference for strengthening common approaches in European and global politics are factors that unite us. In our joint work within the United Nations, the G8 and other forums, we always feel we share a common view of the world.

A stable, prosperous and united Europe is in our interests. European integration is an integral part of the emerging multipolar world order.

[ . . . ] I am convinced that the development of relations between Russia and the EU has logically led us to the need for a new treaty on strategic partnership. The treaty should become an instrument capable of ensuring a higher level of economic integration and interaction, providing for freedom and security on the European continent.

From the OpinionJournal:

The European Union—led by Germany, France and Italy—has long been Iran’s largest trading partner. Its share of Iran’s total imports is about 35%. Even more notable: Its trade with Tehran has expanded since Iran’s secret nuclear program was exposed. Between 2003 and 2005, Europe’s exports rose 29% to €12.9 billion; machinery, transport equipment and chemicals make up the bulk of the sales. Imports from Iran, predominantly oil, increased 62% to €11.4 billion in that period.

In the absence of an official embargo against Tehran, private EU companies have sought commercial opportunities in Iran. But the real story here is that these businesses are subsidized by European taxpayers. Government-backed export guarantees have fueled the expansion in trade. That, in turn, has boosted Iran’s economy and—indirectly by filling government coffers with revenues—its nuclear program. The German record stands out. In its 2004 annual report on export guarantees, Berlin’s Economics Ministry dedicated a special section to Iran that captures its giddy excitement about business with Tehran:

Federal Government export credit guarantees played a crucial role for German exports to Iran; the volume of coverage of Iranian buyers rose by a factor of almost 3.5 to some €2.3 billion compared to the previous year,” the report said. “The Federal Government thus insured something like 65% of total German exports to the country. Iran lies second in the league of countries with the highest coverage in 2004, hot on the heels of China.

Iran tops Germany’s list of countries with the largest outstanding export guarantees, totaling €5.5 billion. France’s export guarantees to Iran amount to about €1 billion. Italy’s come to €4.5 billion, accounting for 20% of Rome’s overall guarantee portfolio. Little Austria had, at the end of 2005, €800 million of its exports to Iran covered by guarantees.

The Europeans aren’t simply facilitating business between private companies. The vast majority of Iranian industry is state-controlled, while even private companies have been known to act as fronts for the country’s nuclear program. EU taxpayers underwrite trade and investment that would otherwise be deterred by the risks of doing business with a rogue regime.

It’s also hard not to see a connection between Europe’s commercial interests and its lenient diplomacy. The U.N.’s December sanctions resolution orders countries to freeze the assets of only 10 specific companies and 12 individuals with ties to Iran’s nuclear program. Europe’s governments continue to resist U.S. calls for financial sanctions, and the German Chamber of Commerce recently estimated that tougher economic sanctions would cost 10,000 German jobs.

As if on cue, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier last week detected in Tehran a “new ambition” to resume talks. The last time the Europeans promoted such diplomatic negotiations, Iran won two more years to get closer to its goal of becoming a nuclear power. In 2004, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily, then-Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer told Iranians to consider Europe a “protective shield” against U.S. pressure. The EU continues to provide a shield for its business interests in Iran, and thus a lifeline to a regime that is unpopular at home and sponsors terror abroad.

From an op-ed in the Washington Post by Dennis Ross, director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H.W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Clinton:

At a time when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is calling Hezbollah’s victory a defeat for U.S. plans in the Middle East, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is proclaiming that implementation of Resolution 1701 will constitute a strategic setback for the Syrian regime, can Syria’s behavior be altered to make this U.N. resolution’s fate different from those of its predecessors?

John Reid, the British Home Secretary, hosted an emergency meeting of EU interior ministers that discussed new counterterrorism measures. Among them:

• Access to websites that provide information on how to make bombs or which advocate violence could be blocked.

• A “full exchange” of information between different police forces within the European Union that has not been filtered by national governments

• Ways to improve the traceability of commercial detonators and explosives – particularly liquid explosives.

• EU-wide training of Imams to ensure that they understand the societies in which they operate.

Somehow, I think I’ve heard all this—and more—before. The EU has, since 9/11, repeatedly talked the talk but has never walked the walk.

Will it now? Reid, for one, is certainly worried:

What’s clear to all of us is that we face a persistent and very real threat across Europe. It is a threat we face here in Britain as individuals and as communities, but it’s not unique to the UK. It affects us all across the European Union. [The threat is] virtually unconstrained in its capacity and ability to do immense harm, death and destruction . . . Its adherents … would abuse our open societies, would misuse our freedoms and adapt the latest technology to their evil intent and have no regard for human life or for human rights. We must not and will not allow terrorists to undermine the common European values that bind our societies together and make us strong. But as we face the threat of mass murder we have to accept that the rights of the individual that we enjoy must, and will be, balanced with the collective right of security and the protection of life and limb that our citizens demand. That is not always an easy balance but it’s one that we are committed to maintaining.

Item 1:

British security services issued their assessment of the probability of a terror attack for the first time Tuesday, telling Britons that they faced a “severe” threat, meaning that an attack was “highly likely.”

Item 2:

British authorities suffered what they took as a significant setback in their counterterrorism strategy when three appeal judges upheld a previous ruling that so-called control orders – a form of house arrest – used to detain six Iraqi suspects constituted a breach of their human rights and should be quashed.

Item 3:

The European Union does not intend to place Hizbollah on its list of terrorist organisations for the time being, EU President Finland said on Tuesday. “Given the senstitive situation, I don’t think this is something we will be acting on now,” Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, told a news conference following an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.

The U.S. Congress has sent a letter to the EU’s foreign policy chief Javier Solana, urging the EU to add Hezbollah to its list of terror organizations. The letter, signed by 210 members of Congress, came after Solana’s statement of two weeks ago, in which he argued that there was not sufficient data to tie Hezbollah to terrorist activities. The letter was sponsored by representatives Elton Gallegly (R-CA) and Robert Wexler (D-FL) and signed by both majority and minority leaders of the House. Members of Congress previously called on the EU, in a 2005 resolution, to add Hezbollah to its terror list, but the EU has yet to take action. Adding Hezbollah to the terror list would enable the EU to stop the transfer of funds from EU countries to the Hezbollah and seize assets Hezbollah has in Europe.

Some day, the EU is going to pay dearly for its appeasment of terrorism.

In an international version of “a new prison/garbage-disposal facility/low-costing housing is a good idea, as long as it’s not in my backyard”, there’s support for an international military force to be placed in southern Lebanon, but no one, according to the New York Times, wants to supply troops:

The United States has ruled out its soldiers participating, NATO says it is overstretched, Britain feels its troops are overcommitted and Germany says it is willing to participate only if Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia which it would police, agrees to it.

The basis for the U.S. position is self-evident: as Israel’s sponsor in the Proxy War, our presence wouldn’t exactly be welcomed by any of Lebanon’s Arab neighbors. Then, too, there’s the burden of history. As the Times points out:

France — which has called the idea of a force premature — and the United States are haunted by their last participation in a multinational force in Lebanon after the Israeli invasion in 1982, when they became belligerents in the Lebanese civil war and tangled fatally with Hezbollah. They withdrew in defeat after Hezbollah’s suicide bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, which killed 241 Marines and 56 French soldiers.

The Europeans are operating in never-never land, as is their wont. The international buffer force they envisage would follow a cease-fire and operate with the consent of the Lebanese government to support the deployment of its army in southern Lebanon. In the Times’ words,

Such a scenario would mean that Hezbollah, which is part of the Lebanese government, would have to be part of a decision that led to its own disarming and the protection of Israel . . .

In other words, fat chance.

Meanwhile, in Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Solana threw cold water on NATO and placed his faith on—you guessed it—the UN:

“I think several member states of the European Union will be ready to provide all necessary assistance [under a Security Council mandate],” he said, but did not name the countries or what they might be prepared to do.
Mr. Solana is said to be wary of a NATO-led force. Another senior European Union official said. “NATO is too identified with the United States,” the official said. “It would be Iraq all over again.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Solana to name names.

What the Times article underlines is the West’s lack of will to confront the threat posed by expansionist Iran. If the will existed, the necessary military forces would be available.

From Gerald Steinberg’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

Then . . .

In early 2000, the European Union was an enthusiastic supporter of unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the security zone in southern Lebanon. Paris was about to take over the EU presidency in July and played a dominant role in the discussions. The French foreign and defense ministers pressed Israel to return its military forces to the international border. In detailed talks that took place at the French ambassador’s residence in Jaffa, in which I participated as an academic consultant, the Europeans assured us that once Israel retreated, Hezbollah would lose its raison d’être as a “militia” and transform itself into a political party. France and its partners would send peacekeepers to prevent terror and missile attacks against Israel, help the Lebanese army take control of the border, and disarm Hezbollah.

In May that year, the Israeli military left Lebanon. The United Nations certified that the withdrawal was complete. But Europe did nothing. Hezbollah’s leaders celebrated a great “military victory,” and Iranian “advisers” provided intelligence, training and thousands more of missiles, some with ranges of 75 kilometers and more that could penetrate deep into Israeli territory and for the first time hit Haifa, Israel’s third biggest city.

Instead of the promised transformation, Hezbollah took positions right across Israel’s border and prepared for the next round of the war. Fearing international and particularly European condemnation, Israel did nothing to prevent this dangerous buildup. Emboldened by Israeli restraint, Hezbollah staged the first cross-border attack and kidnapping only five months after Israel’s withdrawal, in October 2000.

. . . and now

Europe’s role, once again, is limited to repeating the same old tired phrases. The EU called Israel’s response and attacks on Beirut and in Gaza “disproportionate” and violations of international law . . . The knee-jerk condemnation of their country was not lost on Israelis who recall the broken promises from 2000 and the visceral antipathy toward them when they had to fight Arafat’s terror war. Beyond the rhetoric, European officials offer no framework for a proper and “proportionate” level of force in response to mass terror aimed at the ultimate goal of “wiping Israel off the map.”

U.S. vetoes resolution against Gaza incursion (from the Washington Post):

The U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council resolution put forward by Qatar on behalf of Arab states that would have condemned Israel’s two-week military incursion into Gaza. The vote on the draft resolution was 10-1, with the United States voting no, and four countries abstaining—Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Washington had voted against the text because it was “untimely and already outmoded” . . . The resolution would have demanded the unconditional release of an Israeli soldier captured earlier as well as Israel’s immediate withdrawal from Gaza and the release of dozens of Palestinian officials detained by Israel.

European statements (from the New York Times):

German Chancellor Merkel—It is important to remember “how this escalation started, through the kidnapping of the soldiers, through rockets – from the firing of missiles against Israeli territory. The parties to that conflict obviously have to use proportionate means, but I am not at all for sort of blurring the lines between the root causes and the consequences of an action.”

French Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy—“We obviously condemn this disproportionate act of war, which moreover has two consequences. The first is that it forces anyone who wants to enter Lebanon from now on to go either by sea or via Syria. The second consequence is that it risks plunging Lebanon back into the worst years of the war . . . Today there is a risk of a very dangerous spiral of violence, which could destabilize the entire region.”

European Union—“The European Union is greatly concerned about the disproportionate use of force by Israel in Lebanon in response to attacks by Hezbollah on Israel. The presidency deplores the loss of civilian lives and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. The imposition of an air and sea blockade on Lebanon cannot be justified.”

Russia—“One cannot justify the continued destruction by Israel of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and in Palestinian territory, involving the disproportionate use of force in which the civilian population suffers . . . All forms of terrorism are completely unacceptable. All sides involved in the current events should take rapid measures to stop the region sliding into open conflict.

British statement (from The Guardian)— Statement of Foreign Secretary Beckett:

“We urge all parties to do all they can to address this crisis and to prevent the situation from worsening. We strongly support the UN efforts to arrange, as quickly as possible, a ceasefire and the release of the abducted soldiers. We call for the urgent release of the Israeli soldiers and an end to the attacks on Israeli towns and cities and urge all those countries with influence over Hezbollah and Hamas to play their part. Israel has every right to respond to inexcusable acts of provocation, but while Israel is entitled to do what is required to protect its security, it should do so in a way which does not escalate the situation and which is proportionate and measured, conforms to international law and avoids civilian deaths and suffering.”

Israeli statements (from The Times):

Israeli army radio announcement—“Israel is imposing an air, maritime and land blockade on Lebanon until further orders as part of operations to retrieve its two soldiers abducted by Hezbollah on Wednesday.”

Shalom Simchon (Agriculture Minister)—Israel “wants to make the Lebanese Government understand that it is responsible for what happens in Lebanon.”

Mark Regev (Foreign Ministry spokesman)—Palestinian Foreign Minister Zahar “is part of a leadership that is involved in a very tangible way in terrorism and in violence. He had knowledge of the recent hostage taking, and he is part of a leadership that has orchestrated rocket attacks, countless rocket attacks … countless missile attacks against Israeli urban areas.”

Hezbullah statement (from The Times):

“The Islamic Resistance declares that it will shell the city of Haifa and surrounding areas if the southern suburbs and Beirut are the target of a direct Israeli aggression.”

ISRAELI PRESS LINKS

Jerusalem Post (Op-Ed)—“ Hoping the Ripples Reach Iran“

Jerusalem Post (Op-Ed)—“The Predicament of the Lebanese Government“

Jerusalem Post (Op-Ed)—“Blinded by Engagement“

Jerusalem Post (Editorial)—“War and Peace“

Jerusalem Post (Editorial)—“Stop Iran Now“

Jerusalem Post (Editorial)—“Taha’s Temerity“

Haaretz (Editorial)—“‘No’ to Lebanon War II“

That’s what Bill Keller said the other day on Charlie Rose.

Well, Mr. Keller, what about this, from your own newspaper:

In a resolution that reflected rising concern among Europeans about their countries’ cooperation in the United States’ effort to curb terrorism, the Parliament voted 302 to 219, with 22 abstentions, to demand that the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the European Union’s 25 member states “explain fully the extent to which they were aware of the secret agreement” between Swift, an international banking consortium, and the United States government.

[ . . . ] The debate preceding Thursday’s vote was heated. “Now we discover that our powerful friend and ally is rifling through our private bank accounts,” said Jean-Marie Cavada, a lawmaker from France, speaking for the Liberals. Freedom, he said, “is not the enemy of our citizens, and it is high time the United States decided which camp they belong to.”

An Italian lawmaker, Giusto Catania, said the Swift case was the other side of the coin from the suspected C.I.A. kidnappings, The Associated Press reported. “This is perhaps less violent but with the same objective: that is to extort information,” he said.

The revelations about the Swift data transfers have brought accusations that Swift, which is based in Brussels, violated European data protection laws.

Privacy International, a human rights group in London, has filed complaints in at least 32 countries, including all 25 European Union nations. Belgium is also investigating what information was handed over and with what justification.

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of “consequences” is.

From The Telegraph:

President Jacques Chirac of France stormed out of a European Union summit last night after a French employers’ leader said that English was “the language of European business.”

The walkout came after Baron Ernest-Antoine Seillière de Laborde, head of the main European employers’ organisation, Unice, was invited to deliver the opening address of the summit, to heads of government and state from all 25 EU nations. Mr Seillière, a French steel tycoon, began to give his speech in English. A spokesman for Unice said he spoke in English because he represented 20 million companies for which English was the official business language.

Chirac interrupted and asked why he was speaking in English. “I’m going to speak in English because that is the language of business,” replied the former chief of the French employers’ group, which has been at odds with Paris.

The president stalked out of the conference room. The French delegation then followed, forcing Philippe Douste-Blazy, the foreign minister, and Thierry Breton, the finance minister, to leave with as much dignity as they could muster.

The incident highlighted French sensitivities to the unstoppable rise of English in the EU, which welcomed millions of new citizens from the ex-Communist bloc in 2004 with little or no interest in speaking French but years of English lessons under their belts.

C’est dommage.

(The title of this post is a reference to a famous incident involving Nikita Khrushchev at the UN.)

Europe’s good intentions have “gone sour,” writes Victor Davis Hanson for RealClearPolitics:

. . . beneath the veneer of the good life, there is also a detectable air of uncertainty in Europe this summer, one perhaps similar to that of 1914 or the late 1930s.

The unease is apparent in newspapers and conversations on the streets that echo the view that voters and politicians want nothing to do with the European Union constitution. Perhaps the general European discomfort could be summed up best as the following: Why hasn’t the good life turned out the way we wanted it to?

England, France and Germany are upping their retirement ages and/or planning pension cuts. They have given up the dream that workers in the future can quit at 55 – or even 65!

The Iranians irk Europe. European governments sold them precision tools necessary for nuclear reactors. Many Europeans assured Tehran that dialogue, not rowdy Americans, alone can solve the “misunderstanding” over nuclear proliferation. But as thanks, Iran’s pesky president talks down to these postmodern Europeans as if they were George Bush. Meanwhile, Iran presses ahead – hoping to top off with nukes three-stage rockets that could reach the Vatican, the Eiffel Tower or the Brandenburg Gate.

Frontline Spain clamors impatiently for the European Union to clamp down on illegal immigrants streaming across the Mediterranean. The utopian vision of a continent with porous borders is, for the time being, on hold – at least as it pertains to Africa.

The Dutch, the French and the Danes are petrified about unassimilated Muslim radicals in their countries who have killed or threatened the most liberal of Europeans. Churches are almost empty. Mosques are being built; Italians wrangle over plans for one of the largest in Italy – to be plopped amid the vineyards and olive groves of Tuscany.

A majority of polled Germans now believe that the pacifist Europeans are in a “clash of civilizations” with the Islamic world.

What is going on?

Good intentions that have gone sour.

The enemies of Europe’s past – responsible for everything from Verdun and Dresden to a constant threat of mutually assured destruction – were identified as nationalism and militarism. Meanwhile, at home, Europeans cited cutthroat competition and unbridled individualism as additional contributory causes of the prior strife and unhappiness.

So in response to the errors of the past, Europeans systematically expanded the welfare state. They welcomed in immigrants. Politicians slashed defense spending, lowered the retirement age and cut the workweek. Voters demanded trade barriers to protect the public from the ravages of globalization. Either to enjoy the good life or to save the planet, couples forswore children.

But instead of utopia, unintended consequences ensued. Unemployment soared. Dismal economic growth, shrinking populations and a scarier world outside their borders followed.

Abroad, even the much-heralded “soft power” of a disarmed Europe could only bring attention to, not stop, the killing in Darfur. Meanwhile, China and India are no longer inefficient socialists but breakneck capitalist competitors. Indeed, they have thrown down the gauntlet to the Europeans: “Beware! Workers of the world who labor harder, longer and smarter deserve the greater material rewards!” In this new heartless global arena, apparently few will abide by the niceties of the European Union.

Publicly, Europe’s frustrations are fobbed off on “crass Americans” – and particularly George Bush. The Iraq war has poisoned the alliance, the Europeans insist. They contend that America’s greedy consumers warm the planet, siphon off its oil and trample foreign cultures.

But in private, some Europeans will confess that the problem lies with Europeans, not us. Some brave soul soon is going to have to inform the European public: Work much harder and longer for less money; defend the continent on your own; move out of mama’s house and start changing diapers – and from now on expect far less from the state.

Who knows what the reaction will be to that splash of cold water? In response, what European populist will soon appear on the streets in Rome, Berlin or Madrid once again to deceive the public that it was someone else who caused these disappointments?

We in America should take note of the looming end of this once seemingly endless summer. We’ve been there, done that with this beloved continent all too many times before.

In other words, another utopia of European origin bites the dust.

This morning, the New York Times reported on its front page that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) struck down an agreement obliging airlines to share personal details of passengers traveling to the U.S. The agreement, which dates from May 2004, allows US authorities to search through information about each passenger including name, address and credit card details 15 minutes after departure for America.

The ECJ acted on a complaint filed by the European Parliament, which challenged the agreement in court on two points: The parliament was not consulted when the accord was reached, under intense pressure from the Bush administration, and it objected to the extent of personal data to be turned over.ⁱ

The Court found that the European Commission and the European Council lacked the authority to make the deal; it did not rule on the privacy question.

The inanity of the situation was pointed out by Jarrod Agen, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, who observed that privacy was not really the issue, because his department could obtain the same information by questioning the passengers on arrival.

By its ruling, the ECJ places the lives of Europeans, not just Americans, at greater risk. If shoe-bomber wannabees aren’t identified before they arrive in the U.S., they and their innocent fellow passengers may never land here. The ECJ’s ruling may be legally correct, but it ignores the possible consequences. It’s an anti-connect-the-dots ruling. How very European.

1. The controversy began with the US Aviation and Transportation Security Act. Passed on 19th November 2001, it introduced the requirement that airlines operating passenger flights to, from or through the US, provide the US Customs Border Protection Bureau, upon request, with electronic access to passenger data contained in their reservation and departure control systems. ↩

The Bush Administration wants to keep its efforts to combat Islamic terrorism under wraps. The European Union wants to deny that Islamic terrorism exists. Western governments are unwilling to tell their people “this is our enemy and this is what we’re doing about it.” While their motivations may differ, they have this in common: a preference for a Fog of Peace. Bush wants to keep some unobservable truths hidden; the EU wants to hide some observable truths.

With regard to the EU, consider this gem of an op-ed by Nick Cohen in The Guardian:

Franco Frattini, the EU’s Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, has already banned the use of the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’ to describe Islamic terrorism. ‘You cannot use the term “Islamic terrorism”,’ he insisted. ‘People who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of religion, Islamic religion or other religion, they abuse the name of this religion.’

[ . . . ]

. . . the EU wishes to deny that political Islam inspires terrorists to blow up everything from mosques in Baghdad to tube trains in London, even when Islamist terrorists say explicitly that it does. You should always pay your enemies the compliment of taking them seriously. The EU can’t understand what its enemies are saying, because it won’t call them by their right name.

Keith Porteous Wood, of the National Secular Society, is going to the Council of Europe this week to uphold the battered cause of freedom of speech. He has files full of policy papers from religious groups agitating for the EU or UN to impose a universal blasphemy law. It won’t work for the same reason that New Labour’s incitement to religious hatred law hasn’t worked. A law that protects all religions is self-contradictory, as each religion is blasphemous in the eyes of its rivals.

None the less, we should worry about how illiberal ‘liberal’ Europe is becoming. It’s not only Islam that is provoking censorship. Bans on Holocaust denial have spread across the Continent. In France, it is an offence to question any genocide, including the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, while in Belgium, the country’s highest court denied Vlaams Blok, a Flemish nationalist party, state funding and forced it to disband after finding it guilty of racism.

. . . the supposedly liberal states of Europe are showing an indecent eagerness to reach for their lawyers. Their contempt for plain speaking . . . shows their waning faith in liberal democracy. A backlash from Europeans who believe they have the right to speak their minds and have their votes respected strikes me as inevitable.

The European Union is putting together a set of politcally correct guidelines as part of its counterterrorism strategy. European Commission spokesman Friso Roscam Abbing told the Wall Street Journal that “Islamic terrorists” could soon become “those who have an abusive interpretation of Islam,” and that “jihad” might be banned because it “can also mean the internal struggle to become a better man.” The rationale for the EU’s newspeak is that it wants “to take away any possible motivation or justification for people who are on the brink of becoming terrorists” by creating a “non-emotive lexicon” that avoids “linking Islam and terrorism.”

How naive can you get? If the EU had existed in the 1930s, what substitutes would it have proposed for “Nazi” and “totalitarian.” And what difference would it have made?

None. And it won’t this time, either. On second thought, it will—by showing Islamists that appeasement is alive and well in Europe. How sad, and how frightening.

An investigation by the European Parliament (EP) has found that the CIA has operated more than 1,000 rendition flights over European Union territory. The author of the report on the investigation, Italian EP member Claudio Fava, stated that the CIA “has, on several occasions, clearly been responsible for kidnapping and illegally detaining alleged terrorists on the territory of [EU] member states, as well as for extraordinary renditions.”

In its article on the investigation, The Guardian identifies Fava as a member of the EP’s “socialist group.” The Guardian fails to mention that the “socialist group” is an amalgam of several parties including the Democrats of the Left and that Fava is a member of that party.

Who are the Democrats of the Left? The party developed from the PDS (Partito democratico della Sinistra or PDS, “Democratic Party of the Left”), which in turn was a reshaping of the Italian Communist Party into a social democratic party. Under the leadership of Massimo D’Alema, the party merged with other minor like-minded movements, and took the current name, removing the hammer and sickle from its symbol and substituting it with a rose.

A rose by any other name?

After noting that not a single detainee has died at Gitmo in over four years of operation, Victor Davis Hanson has this to say in the National Review Online:

In contrast, the European Milosevic just dropped dead while under custody of the U.N. at the postmodern tribunal at The Hague. This follows the recent suicide of Croatian Serb leader Milan Babic, likewise an inmate in a European detention center.

Few in Europe said much about the deaths of such high-profile prisoners, whose barbarity differed from that of many of the killers in Guantanamo mostly in order of magnitude. If American Rambos can keep alive Muslim jihadists, with their radically different customs, religion, languages, and diets, why cannot the more sensitive Europeans ensure that fellow Europeans don’t drop dead in their jails?

We often hear about how incompetent the Iraqis, under American tutelage, have been in trying Saddam Hussein. After all, his trial is only in its initial stages, two years after he was captured. But compared to the more illustrious court of The Hague, Saddam’s trial is racing along at a rapid clip. Before his sudden death, Milosevic had been in court for four years without a verdict. In terms of utopian international jurisprudence, the reprobate Milosevic died a free man, at his last breath still innocent until proven guilty.

The public wonders why the incompetent Americans can’t catch Osama bin Laden, or at least Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Few note that it has been over six years since the collapse of the Serbian rogue regime, and still no one seems to know where either Radovan Karadzic, or his military commander, Ratko Mladic, is hiding inside Europe — not exactly the Sunni Triangle or the borderlands of the Hindu Kush.

Stick it to ‘em, VDH. They deserve it.

From The Telegraph:

School textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam and other faiths by experts overseen by the European Union and Islamic leaders, the European Parliament was told yesterday. The call for a special committee to examine religious education in schools came from Hans-Gert Pöttering, the German Christian Democrat who heads the largest group of MEPs. Pöttering suggested that the EU could co-operate with the 56-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has its headquarters in Saudi Arabia, to create a textbook review committee that could help to choose the experts to sit on the committee.

It’s good to see that the proposal was immediately condemned as “appeasement” by Charles Tannock, a British Conservative MEP:

This sounds like an exercise in political correctness and appeasement. I don’t see why we should be bringing children into this debate.

And you thought that the division of Europe ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall? Not so, according, to an article in The Telegraph informing us that Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul sparked disagreement among his EU counterparts at a weekend meeting in Austria when he called for European nations to review existing laws to ensure they outlawed the “defamation” of all religions.

Gul said several European nations already maintained laws against religious defamation, but

. . . these restraints sometimes only apply to the established religions of the concerned countries. I would like to call on you here to start a process of re-examination of your legislations to ensure that these restraints apply to all religions equally.”

Dutch foreign minister Bernard Bot took exception to Gul’s words:

We have freedom of speech. That means that Mr Gul can say what he wants and I can say what I want. And I think that this [Mr Gul’s idea] is superfluous.

Where does Gul get the idea that Chritianity is “protected” in Europe?

The Free West blog adds that the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant reports that the EU is considering cooperation with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to discuss religious tolerance and reacts with these words:

This is a shame and disgrace. The OIC is a club of tyrannies and dictatorships with its HQ in Yeddah in Saudi Arabia, a religous tyranny where it is forbidden to convert to Christianity or where it is forbidden to import Christian bibles, let alone to get a visa when you are a Jew. These are dangerous developments. The EU is slowly capitulating to the religious insanity and intolerance coming from the worst of nations, the Muslim tyrannies.

It seems that way to me, too.

Thanks to Agora for this excerpt from an interview with EU Foreign Commissioner Benita Ferroro Waldner:

Commentator: Why couldn’t you just put the Muhammed-affair to rest?

Waldner: Because I don’t think this was a sporadic incidence. I think it was the peak of an iceberg, if you want. It showed a frustration among Moslems. And I think what we have to do is really engage with them, clearly speaking up about our fundamentals but also see where is, so to say, the border of that, the limit of that. And I think the limit of our Freedom of Speech is there where, indeed, the freedom of “the other” starts and where we have to show a responsibility and a respect and also tolerance for each other. But I also see it as a two-way street. [emphasis added]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of freedom of speech, is it?