February 27, 2003
Fukui enters the stage

The world's central banks wield enormous influence over the economies they are setting interest rates for. The mistakes they make can render an entire impecunious, so the question of who runs the central banks and what the policies are is of more than just ephemeral academic interest. The worst performer of the G-7 economies has been Japan for a long time, so the question there is especially acute. Earlier this week, Japanese prime minister Koizumi announced the successor to current Bank of Japan governor Hayami. The new man is Fukui, whose profile had been steadily rising in preparation for this moment. Fukui is very much an orthodox choice, and the speculation that Koizumi might nominate someone from outside the cozy sphere of Bank of Japan or Ministry of Finance officials has thus been proved wrong. Fukui used to work at the Bank of Japan until he was forced to resign as the result of a scandal in 1998. Despite the interlude since then, which he spent as the director of the Fujitsu Research Institute, he is still very much a BoJ man. More importantly, his views aren't significantly different from those of outgoing governor Hayami. Both are opposed to any form of inflation targeting, although Fukui might be more amenable to further non-conventional monetary easing than Hayami has been. With interest rates at zero, monetary easing has to take the form of liquidity injections. The BoJ has been buying Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) in the secondary market for some time now, but further measures that have been floated include buying more bonds, buying corporate bonds, buying foreign bonds and buying equities. Since the BoJ can create the money necessary to buy these assets at zero cost to itself, it could amass a huge amount of assets. Of course, the idea is that as the supply of yen increases, the value of the yen will fall and that the economy will reflate. This is a perilous course to take. For if the BoJ buys more JGBs, perhaps even in the primary market (thus in effect underwriting any government borrowing by monetizing it), it would eventually have the effect of squashing the yield curve as flat as a dime at zero.

There's not much chance that will happen. Fukui, like Hayami, believes that the deflation that is gripping Japan is primarily a structural phenomenon, and that it therefore cannot be cured by purely monetary means. He is likely to keep up the pressure on (or pass the buck to, depending on one's point of view) the Koizumi administration.

Two deputy governors were also nominated, Toshiro Muto and Kazumasa Iwata. The former is a Ministry of Finance official, whose current job is in the government as Cabinet Office Director General for Economic and Fiscal Management. As such he is close to both prime minister Koizumi and finance minister Takenaka. He could provide the bridge between the BoJ and the government in order to coordinate policy better. But as someone with a Ministry of Finance background Muto also tends to be hawkish on the budget, favoring fiscal consolidation rather than further deficit spending. Iwata on the other hand is an academic, who is the farthest from the Hayami orthodoxy. He has advocated on several occasions the introduction of an explicit inflation target in order to battle the deflationary spiral. So the three nominations of Fukui, Muto and Iwata represent three main reservoirs from which Koizumi could have picked his candidates: the Bank of Japan, the Ministry of Finance and academia. The much-rumored private sector candidate has not materialized.

None of these nominations are going to change the outlook for monetary policy much in the short term. Fukui's voice will be dominant and he will be able to sway the six sitting members of the BoJ Policy Board. With inflation targeting off the radar, the policy options for Japan to deal with its deflationary spiral are bank reform (and the cleanup of non-performing loans), deregulation and structural reform, yen depreciation and fiscal stimulus. Bank reform and deregulation have been making scant progress, so hoping for salvation from that front is futile. Yen depreciation is politically problematic and would not necessarily solve Japan's problems; inflation generated solely by currency effects could steer the economy into stagflation rather than new growth. Fiscal stimulus has been tried many times in the last decade and has never produced a strong enough response to pull the economy out of its slump. What we are likely to see is further policy stalemate between the BoJ and the government, with each blaming the other for the current situation.

The Koizumi administration has been in power for almost two years now, and the initial promise of reform has never been realized. There has been some progress, but no major milestones have been reached. For instance, the commission that was supposed to cut down on unnecessary road building seldom meets, which of course means that more unnecessary roads are getting built in order to fatten the pockets of the LDP's traditional construction cabal. Koizumi's popularity was grounded in the percepetion that he was different, that he was a new kind of prime minister who really would tackle Japan's problems. Now that he is proving just as impotent as his predecessors in slaying the dragon of deflation and pushing through reform, he popularity is waning. A recent Yomiuri poll put his approval rating at 49%, while Asahi put him at 44%. These numbers are down very considerably from earlier in his tenure as prime minister. Since Koizumi is an outsider within the LDP, he has no real power base with the party. The only reason why he has not been ousted yet was because he was seen as the LDP's only electoral hope. With his popularity sliding and a leadership election looming in the fall, Koizumi's position is coming under pressure. There is still a large reservoir of yearning for reform (perhaps more in the abstract than in the painfully concrete), and none of the political parties are doing a good job of addressing this. The same Yomiuri poll that showed Koizumi's sliding popularity also gave the LDP 30% of the vote. What is more striking though is that more than half of those questioned did not have a preference for any party. This shows the disconnect between the desire for reform amongst the electorate and the political leadership.

In short, it looks like the Japanese economy is not going to recovery anytime soon. The export sector is doing OK, and that is also the home of Japan's best corporate governance, with CEOs actually paying some attention to concepts such as return on capital employed, rather just blindly pursuing market share at all costs. But the prolonged slump in the Japanese economy has had repercussions far and wide. With the Japanese out of the picture, only the US and Europe remained to keep the world economy afloat after the Asian crisis of 1997. And Europe's not doing too well either. A return to health of the Japanese economy would be a boon to the entire world. Structural reforms are badly needed, as is a cleanup of the non-performing loan problem. But until the politicians in Japan can dispose of their ossified mindset, it's hard to see how such an economic revival might take place.

And that brings different dangers with it. A country that's long been suffering from poor economic performance and a general feeling of hopelessness is a fertile breeding ground for all sorts of nasty, illiberal tendencies. Creating a feeling of wounded pride and resentment is but the first step. The most extreme case of this has been Nazi Germany, which went from defeated empire to world-threatening menace in less than a decade. The situation in Japan is not as bad as it was in post WW I Germany, so such an extreme outcome is unlikely. On the other hand, Japan never faced up to its war crimes of WW II, and to this day is grossly unsensitive to the victims of its imperialist past. So what is Koizumi doing in visiting the Yasukuni shrine, where all war dead, including the worst war criminals, are honored? Is it because he's too dim to realize the effect this has abroad? Is he forced into it by the dark side of the LDP? Is it a cunning plan to inure the public, both at home and abroad, to a more militaristic Japan?

I don't know. Koizumi is hard to read. His track record as a reformer is very disappointing. He could be a ruthless opportunist who uses whatever issues he needs to stay in power. Or it's a long-term strategy planned by the darker forces in the LDP to lay the groundwork for a new, more assertive Japan in the international sphere. Having Japan play a larger role in international affairs need not be a bad thing, but a Japan that will separate itself from the West would be (insofar as we can still speak of a monolithic West these days). An arms race between Japan and China would raise tension in a part of the world that is capable of generating a large amount of economic growth and prosperity. The world is complicated enough without having another wildcard thrown into the mix; I'd much rather the Japanese continued to rely on US troops as a guarantee of their safety than have a new inimical Imperial Navy ply the seas of the orient. The missile tests by North Korea won't have helped though.

The most likely scenario is that nothing much will change in the short term. There'll be piecemeal reform efforts, more economic stagnation and not much action. As always, Japan will keep muddling on. For how much longer? That depends on the pain threshold of the Japanese electorate.

Posted by qsi at 10:41 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Japan , Monetary Matters
February 26, 2003
Substitutes in the shopping experience

Buying groceries is one of the more infuriating aspects of life here due to the limited opening hours of supermarkets. These in turn are dictated by various laws that restrict the number of hours that shops are allowed to open. This means that the only day that I can buy my groceries is Saturday. My usual supermarket is open on weekdays till 8 PM, which is not late enough. I seldom get out of the office in time to get to the store in time and do all my shopping by 8 PM, so I don't even try. There are a handful of supermarkets open on Sunday, but they're either far away or parking is impossible (in the center of Amsterdam). So I waste a good part of every Saturday at my local Albert Heijn (part of the troubled Ahold group; if you live on the East Coast, you're likely shopping at an Ahold-owned supermarket too.) I am always struck by a palpable sense of liberation whenever I am in the US; I can go grocery shopping any time I want!

Although it's nowhere near the size of an American supermarket, my local store does have a fairly extensive range of products, and I can get my shopping done relatively painlessly, if only on a Saturday. It also happens to be one of the supermarkets where they're testing self-scanning. You get a portable scanner to scan the bar codes of the products you're buying. This cuts down dramatically on waiting times at the check-out, because your total has already been calculated. The scanners also have an LCD screen with which you can keep track of your running total as you add (and potentially remove) items.

While scouring the cheese section last Saturday, I was adding one of my long-time favorites (Port Salut) to my cart. Then I stopped, because I realized it was French. It just felt wrong. I put it back. I've never been much of a fan of organized boycotts, but at this point I just could not bring myself to buy it. Same for Camembert. So the quest has begun for suitable alternatives. I realize it does not matter one whit in the grand scheme of things, but it makes me feel better not to buy French products.

There is also a more serious issue than just the cheese. Occasionally as I sit down at night to blog, I will fortify my spirits with some spirits (purely for medicinal reasons, of course). These can take many forms, but two variants predominate: whiskey and cognac. The former does not present any problems, obviously, but the latter does. Over the years I have unfortunately acquired an appreciation of XO cognacs. I say unfortunately because the financial consequences of such appreciation are not neglible. On the other hand, it has kept my consumption fairly limited. I may go through a bottle in the course of a year. But my bottle is running out, and this is going to leave me looking for a worthy alternative. I'll still have my whiskeys (and wine to go with meals), but surely there must be some alcoholic beverage somewhere in the world that resembles cognac? With wines I had long since relinquished any dependence on French products. They're good, but tend to be overrated, and there are plenty of high-quality alternatives around.

For the time being I'll be stuck with Gouda cheese and whiskey. It could be worse I suppose if I liked beer... imagine the horror of not being able to buy Belgian and German products. Apparently Prazdroj is good, but not being a beer drinker I can't vouch for that.

Time to finish my drink.

Posted by qsi at 11:19 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on France
February 25, 2003
Dissent in East Germany

Yet more glimmers in Germany that a semblance of sanity might still exist there. A group of 27 Christian Democrat politicians from the states of Brandenburg and Berlin have signed a letter criticizing Schröder, which they are going to hand to the American ambassador tomorrow. The statement contains the following:

It is a matter close to heart to tell you that we are ashamed at the behavior of our goverment in the Iraq conflict in both the Security Council and within NATO. [...] The goverment led by Chancellor Schröder has in four and a half years ruined our country economically and is now damaging our long-term security interests.

They also blast the peace movement of both today and of yesterday. Referring the 1979 NATO decision to station nuclear Pershing and cruise missiles in Europe to counter the Soviet threat, they say that the same forces who were opposed to the NATO policy then and "sought proximity to the SED-regime of East Germany" are now splitting Europe apart. (The SED was the communist party, which still exists in its current PDS form.)

Of course, they should have spoken out during the election campaign. But I suppose better late than never.

Posted by qsi at 10:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Germany
Glimmer of hope in Germany

Germany's economic problems are well-documented, and the generally prevailing opinion is that it is but a hair's breadth away from a situation akin to Japan's deflationary spiral. The situation is not as bad as that yet, and today's Ifo numbers showed a bounce back upward in both expectations and the current conditions assessment. Still, it's a far cry from a recovery and unemployment is still rising relentlessly, which will keep Schröder on the defensive for quite some time yet. In Japan the Koizumi administration has been talking a lot about reform, but has been unwilling and/or unable to implement any major structural reforms. The poor economic conditions in Germany have certainly not been lost on either German politicians or the population, and the gloom has become the norm. What has been lacking thus far is a blueprint for pulling Germany out of its slump. There have been encouraging noises now and then from various corners, including the government, about the need for reform. Nothing much has happened. Small steps have been taken on the pensions front in the last years, but these steps have been tiny and tentative.

The economic malaise is now encouraging others to speak out more boldly. A sign of the times is an interview Guido Westerwelle gave in the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung over the weekend. He is the leader of the small right-wing liberal FDP party; as always, the moniker "liberal" in the European context refers more to the classical liberalism of the 19th century rather than the so-called liberalism of US politics. Most of these European liberal parties have becoming a firm part of the socialist welfare state consensus, and have at best argued for a bit less socialism rather than provide a clear alternative. The German FDP has been moving the right direction on this front, although their election campaign was ruined by Möllemann scandal.

Westerwelle's comments were a frontal attack on the German labor unions, which are bastions of unreconstructed socialism. Their leaders are overtly political (and to the left of Schröder), and their antediluvian economics are part of Germany's structural problems. For instance, they argued that wage moderation had clearly failed to create new jobs, and therefore demanded huge wage increases in order to create more demand. They think companies exist solely to provide jobs to workers. But despite their many protestations about wanting to create jobs, unions have played a role stifling Germany's economy. Industrial relations are supposed to be consensus-based. Workers' representatives are present on the boards of companies, and unions have considerable influence on corporate policy. But what's even worse is that most wage negotiations are done on an industry-wide basis, not company by company. This means that companies will get stuck with wage settlements negotiated at a high level that takes little to no account of their actual situation. This exacerbates the problems that corporate Germany faces.

So Westerwelle took aim at the unions, demanding that they be robbed of their power. He accused them of being more interested in the protection of the power and privileges of union functionaries than in either the workers or the unemployed. And their policies were "a plague for our country," and then added that "functionaries like Mrs. Mönig-Raane and the Green Verdi-chief Bsirske are the pall-bearers of the welfare state and of the prosperity in our country." (Verdi is a public sector union.) What's so remarkable about these comments is that they would have been unthinkable a few years ago. This is an encouraging sign that there are perhaps glimmers of hope for the German economy after all. Just dealing with the unions is hardly going to be enough, but the unions' opposition to all measures of economic liberalization has made reforms a lot harder. At least the economic crisis is bringing forth some much-needed new thinking. One should not overestimate the FDP's or Westerwelle's influence though. In the last election the FDP got 7.4% of the vote, which was good by its recent standards. But with Germany's economy is the state it is in, any movement in the right direction should be welcomed.

Posted by qsi at 10:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Germany
February 24, 2003
Real life imitates Monty Python

Speaking of last chances, the entire UN circus reminds of a Monty Python sketch. There is of course the famous Spanish Inquisition sketch with a numerically confused Cardinal Ximenez trying to explain the Inquisition's mean weapons. And then there's Photos of Uncle Ted. It looks like the UN took the Pythonesque rendition of the Inquisition as its role model for dealing with Iraq. The number of last chances keeps increasing, and the proposed method of torture is about as effective poking the old lady with cushions, even with all the stuffing up one end. I think we're now at the phase where France and Germany will propose the use of the Comfy Chair in order to make Saddam comply.

Ximinez: Right! If that's the way you want it -- Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions!

(Biggles carries out this rather pathetic torture)

Ximinez: Confess! Confess! Confess!

Biggles: It doesn't seem to be hurting her, lord.

Ximinez: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?

Biggles: Yes, lord.

Ximinez: (angrily hurling away the cushions) Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

(JARRING CHORD - Zoom into Fang's horrified face)

Fang: (terrified) The...Comfy Chair?

(Biggles pushes in a comfy chair -- a really plush one)

Ximinez: So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair!

(They roughly push her into the Comfy Chair)

Ximinez: (with a cruel leer) Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven. (aside, to Biggles) Is that really all it is?

Biggles: Yes, lord.

Ximinez: I see. I suppose we make it worse by shouting a lot, do we? Confess, woman. Confess! Confess! Confess! Confess!

Biggles: I confess!

Ximinez: Not you!

It should be pointed out that in this sketch, Biggles in played by France. We'll soon see their confession, no doubt.

Posted by qsi at 11:52 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Iraq
A Vulcan mindset

Another final last ultimate chance resolution is being introduced, which will give the UN Security Council its final, last, ultimate chance to prove its irrelevance. It is being introduced unilaterally by the US, Britain and Spain too, so that might cause additional problems. Naturally, the European Axis Powers of France and Germany are not happy about this.

So let me get this straight: if the US does not introduce resolutions in the UN Security Council and acts with its allies to protect its national security, that's Bad. And if it introduces another resolution in order to act with its allies, that's Bad too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. This vaporizes any last shred of doubt that may have existed that the Axis Powers have but one goal: to obstruct the US. All the sound of fury that they bring to bear serve but to obfuscate this one central issue. They want America to fail. That's it. There's nothing else to it, and they'll go to any lengths to achieve that, even if it means that they themselves will be vulnerable to the Islamofascists in the future. Apparently in the warped Franco-German mindset it's preferable to defeat an imaginary American threat than to face the real Islamofacsist threat.

What really amazes me is how civil and polite throughout this American politicians have been. The worst we've seen thus far was Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" outburst, but in the face of such duplicitous idiocy coming out of Europe, I am beginning to wonder whether there's something Vulcan about American diplomats and politicians. Almost preternatural restraint there; I don't think I could pull it off.

Posted by qsi at 11:39 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on USA
Another Round in Old versus New Europe

My apologies for the lack of blogging recently, but travel had taken up some time, and then (with all the recent travel), there were some remedial activities to be undertaken on my apartment, which was quickly becoming chaotic even to the extent that it was beginning to make me feel uncomfortable. Speaking of chaos, there is quite a bit of it going on in Europe. The reshaping of the continent is proceeding apace, and the blogosphere has been pretty good about documenting the political coming of age of the New Europe, which refuses to be bullied by the Old. Another such example came from the Visegrád Group of nations, which consists of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. They've been formally cooperating on various matters that affect their four countries, including accession to the EU. As recently liberated countries, they also share a particular view of the world that is deeply different from the Old Europe.

I've only been able to find this German-language version of their latest exploits, but the gist of it is that they've said in no uncertain terms that they're not going to be bullied around by France. After a meeting in Prague with the Czech foreign minister Svoboda, Polish foreign minister Cimoszewicz made the important announcement that the Visegrád Group would continue its work and cooperation also after the countries had become members of the EU. And just to underscore the point, he he drew attention the fact that the four Visegrád Group countries are going to have 58 votes in the Council of Europe, the same number as Germany and France combined. That is another reason why the New European Insurrection is giving the French fits. The other part of it is that France still thinks it's a world power and deserves respect for that reason alone; she still thinks she's a pretty young girl, when in fact she's become an old whore with drooping breasts and way too much make-up who bitterly wonders why business is down so much.

Economically the new member countries are still fairly insignificant compared to the rest of Europe, as this graph shows. Even adding up the four countries' GDP, it still comes to only 4% of the current 15 members' total GDP. So their economic clout is going to be limited in an absolute sense. On the other hand, the New European economies have much better growth prospects than Old Europe (unless there's a complete collapse in western Europe). New Europe's influence will come from the population that it brings into the fold of the EU, and not so much from the direct economic impact. Indirectly EU accession is going to remake the economic map of Europe; having Poland on its eastern border might just be what Germany needs to wake up from its stupor.

February 19, 2003
Stupidity versus malice

Hanlon's Razor states that one should never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. I am invoking the Razor on behalf of Gerhard Schröder and the Czech op-ed I blogged about yesterday. I do think the comparison with the Warsaw Pact is on target in that the effects of the policies of the Franco-German Axis are trying to bring about a rift between the US and Europe. I think one should differentiate between the Germans and the French though in this regard. I don't think that Schröder actually set out to create such a rift, at least not as a conscious bit of policy making, as also pointed out by Ralf Georgens on his blog. Instead, it is Schröders horrendous economic record and his need for a diversion that set him on the path to confrontation with the US. The electoral campaign of last fall has been well-documented, and Schröder has paid the price. Germany's weight in international affairs has diminished drastically. The tax hikes and spending cuts completely gutted Schröder's support on the domestic policy front, and with his international influence waning, he became easy prey for the French. Chirac gave Schröder a way out: support the French anti-American line and appear to be relevant again. It also fit well with Schröder's earlier anti-American rhetoric during the election campaign. The real villains in this piece are definitely the French, who for decades have been playing the spoiler role in international affairs, trying to undermine American foreign policy with a obsessive, maniacal passion that is of clinical proportions.

In the malice stakes, France is way ahead of Germany on this one. The latter just gets the stupidity award. Blame for this sad state of affairs in Germany must go beyond merely Schröder though. The opposition parties of the CDU/CSU and FDP are culpable also. The CDU now claims they would have signed the letter of support for the US that caused Chirac's fit the other day, but any support for the US during the election campaign was sorely lacking. One might ascribe this to an electorate hostile to the idea of supporting the US, but that's just part of it. No major politician in Germany even tried to make the case for the US, certainly not during the election campaign. This gave the proverbial floor to the anti-American voices. There was no debate; it was all one-sided, and the leadership of the CDU/CSU and the FDP failed miserably. Sometimes political leaders have to lead and take a stand for what's right. I have no doubt that there are plenty of politicians within the CDU/CSU who are the heirs of the pro-American Atlanticist tradition of Helmut Kohl, Franz-Josef Strauß and Hans Dietrich Genscher. But by keeping quiet they lost the argument by default. And that's pretty stupid too.

Schröder can no longer count on his anti-American position to hang on his support. The polls have probably gone as low for the SPD as they ever will. It's now down to the resolute vote-SPD-no-matter-what vote. This gives an opening to the opposition to exploit Schröder's internationally weak position to bring some semblance of sanity back into German politics. Let's hope for Gemany's sake they are willing and able to take up the challenge.

Posted by qsi at 10:57 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (1)
Read More on Germany
February 18, 2003
Not quite your dad's Studebaker

When I hear the name Studebaker, I think of something like this or this. Which makes the new Studebaker something of a, well, not quite shock, but certainly it takes some getting used to. It would certainly have been useful in the great storm that hit the northeast, but it does bear an eerie resemblance to the Hummer. So much so, that GM is suing Avanti, the maker of the new Studebaker.

At $75,000 it's not even outrageously expensive. It's not something I would buy (parking would be a problem, especially this side of the Atlantic), but given the size and specs I had expected it to be a whole lot more expensive. Coming soon to a suburban soccer mom near you.... 6000 pounds of metal!

Posted by qsi at 11:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Cars
The Warsaw Pact's legacy

The difference between the Old and the New Europe is exemplified by this op-ed in the Czech newspaper Lidové Noviny. It talks about the new Cold War that's developing between the French and the Germans on the one side, and the US on the other and puts this into the context of old Cold War. More specifically, it casts the Germans and the French as the moral and ideological successors to the Warsaw Pact. Although I don't fancy myself becoming a translation service here, it's so good that I'll translate most of it (as best I can):

You can't say that the Warsaw Pact didn't work. First, it had a whole bunch of rockets of all ranges, second the cooperation of the participating countries ensured the same communist doctrine, third it did not fail in its propagandistic aggression in the fight against imperialism. And in this regard (fourth) the "fight for peace" activities paid off. Even to the extent that they left deep marks in the minds of Europeans. [...] In the [western] countries there were big "peace" protests, but the "pro-imperialist" governments remained firmly in power. As much as Josif Vissarionovich would have cried over the recent fall of his empire, so it would please him how alive the legacy of the Warsaw Pact is today [...]. He would be very content how this institution is renewing and preparing the ground for the continuation of the Cold War. The old rulers of the Kremlin could not have dreamed in their wildest dreams that a decade after the fall of the Warsaw Pact, that in France and in a unified Germany the anti-American, "anti-imperialist" "fight for peace" would be carried out not by communists, but by civil governments, who moreover would be cooperating on the basis of the ideology of European cooperation. Sure, at the moment this is all just the preparation for a Cold War, nevertheless it is in this spirit that the anti-American cooperation is taking place in the "Old Europe." And in this contest with the reviving Warsaw Pact both NATO and the EU might fall apart.

Comparing the situation of the Iraqi crisis with the Cold War is not an exaggeration. In many respects the approaches by France and Germany are completely different from the Kremlin's "fight for peace," but in a way the current peace movement has actually gone beyond that. The aggressive anti-American pacifism reaches all the way to the Atlantic Ocean and threatens to break apart the West into mutually inimical European and American parts. It amounts to the utopian idea that the best way to get along with totalitarian regimes is by appeasing them. This is supported by influential media and prominent circles of the intellectual elite, who really should mainly be reflecting the events of the Cold War. To destroy the unity of the West - could the Cold War strategists in Moscow imagine anything more beautiful? Let's hope that the US will face down the current peace-making anti-imperialist aggression. France and Germany may write [the US] off however much they want, but they have little hope of success - the US can only be defeated, as in the Vietnam war, only by its own people. But America is not the only target of this pacifist attack. The "Old Europe" has long since written off Israel, without even realizing that the fall of Jerusalem would be but the first step in the fall of Rome. And now they're trying to get rid of Turkey, the only real ally of the West in the Islamic world. With all this they're preparing for the continuation of the Cold War. It would be good to stop this while there is time.


Could the difference between the Old and New Europes be any clearer? The so-called "peace" movements that are now out in force against the US are the same ones who were protesting against the US in the 1980's. Then, they were the Kremlin's useful idiots. Today, they are Saddam's. Tomorrow, they'll be the Saudis'. And they've always been Yassir's. But what do you expect of the Old Europe that gave us Gretta?

While the Warsaw Pact analogy is appropriate (the new Axis Powers share the same anti-Americanism as the old Warsaw Pact and have a losing ideology to boot), there is still time to avert a new Cold War. I hope the French and the Germans come to their senses before it's too late. But I have one plea: don't call it the new Warsaw Pact. That's an insult to the Poles; recently liberated from communism, they are choosing the right side in this conflict. Perhaps we should call it the Strasbourg Pact instead.

Posted by qsi at 10:58 PM | Comments (27) | TrackBack (1)
Read More on Czech Republic
Has the infiltration reached Baghdad?

Since I unfortunately do not speak or understand Arabic (it's on my to-do list), I have to rely on second-hand and third-hand sources. American Soldiers in Baghdad? is a story from a the Hungarian daily Magyar Hírlap, which in turn is quoting the London-based Arab paper As-Sharq El-Ausat. According to this story, American commandos have been detonating explosives near industrial and government installations. The damage was said to be insubstantial.

Needless to say, I'm skeptical. Why would American commandos run the risk of being in Baghdad right now, and increase that risk by setting off firecrackers? It could part of a psychological campaign to destabilize the regime, but I wonder whether the benefit of any such action weighs up against the risk. They would be more effective as a striking force once the war starts if they are indeed in Baghdad. On the other hand, if they're setting off firecrackers in Saddam's back yard, it might just have the desired psychological effect. It may just make him sleep a tad less soundly.

Posted by qsi at 09:51 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Iraq
Appearance and reality

I am a Macintosh user, and have been one for over ten years now. What kind of image does that statement conjure up in your mind? If you don't care about computers, it probably means little to you. If you've been around computers for a while and have ever been involved in Advocacy Wars, that statement will bring to your mind very different images depending on which side you've been on. (If you're still fighting the Advocacy Wars, you probably don't have time to read this blog.) The fact is, Macintosh users have something of a reputation for being overly zealous in expounding the benefits of their beloved Mac. Zealots is a term that springs to mind, as are things like "obnoxious" and "stark raving mad," especially if you've ever been on the receiving end of a barrage of emails from aggrieved Mac Zealots. The situatiion now is probably not as bad as it used to be, now that Apple has a relatively stable business and is not in imminent danger of going out of business (its problems notwithstanding). The crown of obnoxious zealotry has probably passed to the Linux crowd, who not only advocate their favorite operating system, but also have the Open Source Religion. I fought my battles in the Advocacy Wars even before I was a Mac user; in those days it was the Atari ST versus the Amiga, plus various other computer platforms that have now been all but forgotten. Then there were the schismatics, the people who fought narrower battles. I remember one guy who plastered every Mac mailing list and newsgroup advocating the use QuickDraw GX, especially after NeXT bought Apple. This was a next-generation imaging system for the Mac OS in the days of System 7 and as many Apple products, it was really good, conceptually ahead of its time, pushing the limits of the hardware and ultimately unsuccessful even on the Mac platform. Apple never made it a standard part of the operating system, so few programs made use of of QuickDraw GX. Parts of it still survive even now in the new imaging models Apple uses in Mac OS X, but this one small part of the Mac OS inspired (if that is the right word) one lone nut to write fifty or more postings every day to all kinds of Mac fora. I'm glad I never ended up like that.

The reality of Mac users is that they're far less obnoxious than the lunatic fringe makes them appear. Most Mac users use the Mac as a tool, not as a religion. But it is the lunatic fringe that is the vociferous and also the one most likely to bombard non-Mac sites with its evangelism. And thus the outward face of Mac-dom tends to be defined by the lunatic fringe, at least to those who don't pay much attention to the much larger corpus of more sedate, realistic Mac users who inhabit the rest of the Mac Web. I usually don't write about this because I've outgrown the Advocacy Wars, and base my continued use of the Mac on simple pragmatism. I have a lot of Mac software, and I still prefer the user interface. But more importantly, I don't feel any need to dispel the erroneous impression the Mac lunatic fringe is creating in the wider world, because I simply don't care. To put it in more topical terms: the Mac Lunatic Fringe does not hijack airliners and slam them into the World Trade Center. They don't use force to impose their views. They're nuts, but they're mostly harmless.

But still, the outward appearance is largely dictated by the impression generated by a relatively small fringe. This appearance quickly becomes reality if it not counterbalanced by saner voices. But again, in the case of the Mac I don't care enough to do much about it. But as my earlier allusion to September 11th demonstrates, there are people who should care, and those people are the secular, moderate Muslims. Right now the image of Islam is one of a bloodthirsty, backward, primitive religion bent on destroying all the infidels. And it's hard to argue against that view since so few moderate, secular Muslims have come forward to denounce the acts and ideas of the Islamofascists.

I was surprised by the comments to my Combating the Enemy Within blog entry. The Instapunditing brought a good many visitors to my site, but the comments were dominated by those who thought I was too lenient in my stance on Muslims; some of the comments came straight from the racist canon. It's hard to tell how widespread this kind of opinion has become, but I do know that for a fact that the image of Islam and Muslims has been going down the drain for some time now. And my views have been changed too in a negative sense. I remember being in New York just before September 11th, and in our midtown Manhattan offices I was reading from material that was on my in-pile. It was from a research outfit called 13D. I was not familiar with their output, nor do I read them very often, but they had a piece out at the beginning of September 2001 with the title The World's Greatest Threat: Islamic Fundamentalists. My view of Islam at that point was that it had its problems, that the PLO and Yassir Arafat were utter scum and that Arab regimes in general were despicable. But I remember thinking to myself at that time that surely the situation can't be that bad. A few days later I was in a transformed Manhattan, and my views had started to change too. As I said previously, I am not yet at the stage where I am willing to give up completely on all Muslims; there are those who are loyal citizens of the west, and who despise the fundamentalism just as much as we do. But they seem to be a small minority, and the organizations purporting to represent Muslim either here in the Netherlands or across the Atlantic (such as CAIR) are only reinforcing the view that Muslims can't be trusted and are irreconcilably opposed to the liberal values of the west.

And over the last year and a half, there have been times when I have thought to myself "to hell with them all," much along the lines of the commenters here. That's why it's so important that the moderate and secular Muslims who do support the West in this war speak out. Loudly. Because if they don't, the Islamofacsists and their minions in organizations like CAIR will continue to poison the image of all Muslims. Letting the lunatic fringe determine the image of all Muslims is going to have serious consequences. My hope is that it is just a lunatic fringe, but sometimes I do wonder.

The tide can still be turned, but time is running out. Decisive victory over the various tyrants in the Middle East who support the Islamofascists is a necessary first step in what the West can do to defeat Islamofacsism. Nobody likes to be on the side of a loser, and we have to make sure that any regime which supports Islamofacsists in any way will be made a loser. A big, big loser. And we have to start soon with Saddam. I wish Bush would get on with it already, and screw the UN and the Weasels. If we don't get rid of Saddam now, he'll become a hero to the Arab immigrants in the west, who will be emboldended by such a victory. And the problem will be worst for France. Those dollar signs they have in their eyes after Iraq gave them sweetheart contracts have made them blind to the most obvious reality. Get on with it!.

Posted by qsi at 08:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Islamism
February 17, 2003
Digging out from the metaphorical snow

From the safe distance of six time zones, I really regret not witnessing the big storm that has hit the northeast firsthand. You see, having grown up in the Netherlands, I've never experienced a foot or more of snow. Sure, I've been skiing and such, but that's different. The climate here in the Netherlands, especially in the western parts of the country, is pretty horrible. It's long been one of my complaints, as it seems that rain and gray skies go on forever. Even on days like today, where we had blue skies, it still feels no different, because the threat of Grayness is always present. At some point in my life I will move to an area that has Real Winters and Real Summers, just so that I can experience the extremes of weather for a change.

Meanwhile, I still haven't managed to readjust completely from the 8 hour time difference between Amsterdam and Colorado. Usually I've been able to bounce right back from such distant travel, but this time I am having great trouble. Perhaps I am getting old. Perhaps I need to sleep more.

As for digging out from the metaphorical snow, I'd just like to apologize to those of you who've sent me email recently; I am working on the backlog. Fortunately, the emails I receive are polite, unlike the vitriol that more popular bloggers seem to receive. I guess the only reason I am not getting hate mail is because my blog is relatively obscure, but I would not be surprised to receive it either. It comes with the territory. Oh well. I do hope Megan will bounce back and continue to blog.

It's only 9 PM, but I am going to bed. Eventually I'll return to the proper time zone. Meanwhile, here's a cool gadget that will soon become a must-have: terahertz cameras, which finally fulfill with old cartoon favorite of X-Ray vision. You can be Superman too! (And you thought those pop-ups for webcams were annoying... wait till you see the advertizing for this one.)

Posted by qsi at 09:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on The Blog
Weekend slogans

Funny how the protesters over the weekend carried "Free Palestine" posters, but not a single one was concerned with a "Free Iraq." Makes you wonder... of course, I'm all in favor of both a free Iraq and a free Palestine. After we get rid of Saddam Hussein, we could do worse than put Yasser Arafat in the crosshairs.

It might even catch on...a free Middle East?

Posted by qsi at 08:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Peace Movement
February 15, 2003
Saving the village

The comments to my earlier blog about Combating the Enemy Within have focused in part on the issue of immigration. The Netherlands isn't the US, a country whose very identity is inextricably linked to immigration. But the Netherlands has for many centuries been a safe haven for various refugees, some of whom then proceded to seek sanctuary elsewhere. Recent immigration to the Netherlands has however been different. There is no melting pot here. The current wave of immigrants from the North Africa and Turkey were referred to in the past as "guest workers," who had been invited here in the 1960's and 1970's to do the kind of dirty and menial jobs that the Dutch no longer wanted to do themselves. The idea was that they'd stay for a few years and then return to their native countries, having earned some hard cash. Since the whole arrangement was based on the idea that it would be temporary, no attempts were made to try to integrate or assimilate them. Why bother if they're gone in three or five years' time anyway? It did not quite turn out like that, and many of them did become permanent residents of the Netherlands and other parts of northern Europe. Add to that an insanely generous socialist welfare state and you have the makings of the parallel society that has sprung up. Even if they lost their jobs, they could continue to cash government checks. Paid for doing nothiing; why bother going back?

The current situation is based on the serious mistakes of the past. Still we have to face the problem as it exists now, and there's no use crying over spilled milk. You have to understand why the milk containers leaked so much to avoid at least repeating the same mistakes. That realization is slowly dawning now. As for what to do about the problem, various commenters suggested draconian measures such as deporting large parts of the population. It may come to that, but I certainly hope that won't be necessary. The price we would pay for that would be enormous. After all, we do have a liberal, democratic constitution and throwing it out the window like that would be highly corrosive to our own standards and the ideals we purport to stand for. But it's that constitution that is under threat from the Islamofascists; whether it's the US Constitution, the Dutch or any European one for that matter, they're essentially the same in their goals and aspirations, and are viewed as being the same by the Islamofacsists. It's their goal to undermine our system of government and our liberties. The nightmare scenario I outlined previously is one where we have to face the choice between certain destruction of our way of life by the Islamofascists and inflicting considerable damage to our principles in defending these same principles. That's what I meant by having to destroy the village in order to save it.

If we act now to stop the ring-leaders of Islamofascism it should still be possible to defuse the situation without compromising our own principles. But time is running out. And I return to a point I made earlier: those secularized, moderate Muslim immigrants who do live here must find their voice, and we must help them find their voice. If they don't (and we don't), then they too will be become the victims of wider anti-Muslim hysteria. That's where I differ from Hirsi Ali at this point; we need engage and encourage the moderate Muslim immigrants, not insult their religion. It's a disagreement about tactics, not the final goal of victory of Islamofascism. I think she can do a lot of good, but her public statements are not helping right now. In any war, you have to choose your tactics and strategy carefully; just shooting at anything that moves does not constitute a good strategy.

I must disagree with the commenters who say that wholesale expulsion of immigrants is the solution. Advocating such a wholesale expulsion of a large part of the population, you are summoning up dark forces. Those are the same dark forces that are lurking under the surface now and feeding anti-semitism, for instance. If we ever get to that point, it's going to be very ugly time indeed in Europe. They're hardly likely to line up meekly to be sent off to the place where their grandparents were born. The amount of force required to implement any such solution would be horrendous.

It takes two to tango, as they say. The assimilation of the current immigrant population can only happen if there is a willingness on both sides. This means that the Dutch government should stop any policies that allow people to live in virtual isolation by handing them welfare checks (although I advocate this as a general principle, and it should not be based on ethnicity). For those who continue to undermine our system, there are laws for treason and subversion. Those who advocate or commit violent acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. One of the problems is that the law and criminal justice systems in the Netherlands are outrageously lenient, and the law enforcement authorities are all but capitulating to criminals. This in turn is encouraging the street gangs, many of whom consist of immigrant kids.

There is a serious danger coming from this fifth column within our own society, but as I said, we still have time to defuse it. And this is important for another reason as well: demographics. The Netherlands and Europe need more (young) immigrants in order to avert the demographic catastrophe that otherwise awaits us. Aging populations are a global problem, but Europe is particularly at risk.

I'd rather not be around if the village ends up being destroyed while it's being saved. The rebuilding effort will be arduous, and you'll wonder whether it's worth rebuiding in the first place.

Posted by qsi at 12:52 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Islamism , The Netherlands
The new Axis Powers

An entire web site dedicated to the new Axis Powers!

Posted by qsi at 01:26 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on France , Germany
Combating the enemy within

One of the more controversial figures in Dutch politics has been Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali immigrant who abandoned Islam and became an atheist. In combination with her high-profile remarks about Islam and the oppression of Muslim immigrant women in the Netherlands, this has earned her numerous death threats, and she even had to leave the country for a while as a result. She's still under increased protection. She used to work as a researcher at the Wiardi Beckmann Foundation, the think tank of the left-of-center Labor Party. She defected over to the right-of-center Liberal Party (VVD) and got an electable position on the party list. Since the last election, she's been a member of parliament for the VVD.

A few days before I went off on my vacation, Hirsi Ali gave an interview to the Dutch daily newspaper Trouw which really set the cat amongst the pigeons. The theme of the interview were the ten commandments, and religion played a major role in her observations. Some of the stories she told were about her childhood in Somalia, such as the time when she was beaten unconscious and had her skull fractured by an imam. She and her sister had been taunting him previously, not wanting to learn about the Koran.

I don't have the patience to translate the whole thing, but here are some of the highlights of the interview. She started off by saying that the current Christian Democrat prime minister Balkenende is not a Christian:

[Balkenende] is always talking about biblical values, but never about the things God asks us to do. Balkenende, the scientist who had to learn to refute in order to arrive at certain truths, believes that the world was created in six days? That Eve was made from Adam's rib? That's impossible. Scientists don't believe. I am convinced that Balkenende is not a Christian.

I suppose it depends on the definition of Christian that one employs. But this was not what caused all the excitement. It were her comments about Islam and Mohammed that led to the ire of Muslim organizations. In the following she refers back to a comment she'd made earlier about Muslim being "backward" or "retarded" (depending on how you want to translate the word), she said the following about the second commandment:
With the first commandment Mohammed tried to imprison common sense and with the second commandment the beautiful, romantic side of mankind was enslaved. I really think it's horrendous that so many people are left bereft of art. In that sense Islam is an outlived culture. Which is to say: unchangeable, set in stone. Everything has been written up in the Koran and there's no tinkering with it. Personally I still think that Mohammed's teachings are obsolete, but because in my new role as a politician I could not go into debate with people who'd hold it against me that I'd called them backward, I have retracted that statement. Or actually I should say that I have qualified my words: I think that Islam - the submission to the will of Allah - is a backward principle, but that does not mean that I think that the practitioners of the religion are backward too. They're behind the times. That's different. They can still move forward.

Traditional political weaseling here, but she goes on about the third commandment:
Insulting the prophet Mohammed is punishable by death. This the prophet heard himself from God, just like he heard other convenient things from time to time. Read about it in the Koran: he stole Zayned, the wife of one of his students by saying it was Allah's will. And what's worse, he fell in love with Aisha, the nine-year-old daughter of his best friend. Her father said, "Please wait until she reaches puberty," but Mohammed did not want to wait that long. So what happens? He gets the message from Allah that Aisha has to prepare herself for Mohammed. That's apparently Mohammed's teaching: it's OK to take the child of your best friend. Mohammed is, by our western standards, a perverse man. A tyrant. He's against freedom of speech. If you don't do as he says, you'll have an unhappy ending. Makes me think of all the megalomaniac rulers in the Middle East: Bin Laden, Khomeini, Saddam. Do you it's strange to have a Saddam Hussein? Mohammed is his example. Mohammed is the example for all Muslim men. Does it surprise you that so many Muslim men are violent? You're scared by the things I am saying, but you make the same mistake that most native Dutchmen make. You forget where I come from. I've been a Muslim, I know what I'm talking about. I think it's terrible that I, living now in a democratic country where freedom of expression is our greatest good, am still confronted with the posthumous blackmail of the prophet Mohammed. In the Netherlands mister Aboutaleb can read to Koran and think, "that Mohammed is great." And I can think, "that Mohammed as an individual is despicable." Mohammed says that women have to stay indoors, have to wear a veil, can't do certain jobs, don't have the same inheritance rights as men, have to be stoned if they commit adultery. I want to show there is another truth besides the "truth" that is spread with Saudi money all over the world. I realize that the women who call themselves Muslims won't understand me yet, but one day they'll remove their blinkers. We have to employ all channels of socialization - family, education, media - to make Muslim women self-sufficient and independent financially. That's going to take many years, but one day that women will realize like I did: I don't want my mother's life.

These comments about Mohammed caused a massive storm of protest from Muslim organizations in the Netherlands, including some veiled threats. Prosecutions under various laws have been threatened but nothing has come of these thus far. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's stated aim is to liberate Muslim women living in the Netherlands who are currently living under the fairly repressive conditions. I wonder whether this is the right way of going about these things. Her approach of open confrontation, indeed open attack on Islam makes sense if you think that there is no hope for reform possible without a dislodging the religion of Islam. Such open confrontation is not going persuade any moderate or secularized Muslims who might be allies in the fight against the Islamofascists. Instead, it's only going to antagonize them.

The problem is that thus far there has been little evidence of any pro-western, secular or moderate movement within Islam, certainly here in the Netherlands. The organizations purporting to speak for the Muslim immigrant populations have been very much along the mould of CAIR in the US. They show little affinitiy with the secular, western values which form the bedrock of our society. Instead they're not quite openly supportive of outright Islamofascism, but it's clear their sympathies are a lot closer to Bin Laden than the constitution of the Netherlands. Yet within the second or third generation immigrants there must surely be a significant number of those who're more attracted to our western secular lifestyle than the stultifying backwardness of fundamentalist Islam. But unless they make themselves known and their voices heard, the only signal we'll be getting from the Muslim immigrant community is that of adherence to a primitive, medieval religion and sympathy for those who seek to destroy our society and civilization. This in turn will vindicate Hirsi Ali's stance to seek frontal confrontation with Islam. It may become necessary, but to think that you'll be able to convert a significant portion of them to atheism is fanciful and not realistic. Even then the best you can hope for is to convert them to a more modern version of Islam, one which does not live in the glorious past of 1,200 years ago but at least tries to come to terms with the modern world of the 21st century. The best hope is the Turkish model, which combines a secular state with a somewhat more modern version of Islam. It's far from perfect as a model, but it's the best we have. And since there is a large Turkish immigrant community here in the Netherlands which is at least somewhat imbued with secularized thought, it's from within this group that any moderate and reasonable Muslim strand is most likely to emerge. That's why it's counterproductive at this stage to go for a full confrontation with Islam as Hirsi Ali is doing. It may yet become necessary, and perhaps I am too optimistic or naive to think that we have not yet reached that point. The alternative is worse.

Steering towards a full-blown confrontation is the Arab-European League, the AEL. The organization has its roots in Belgium and has been spreading its wings to the Netherlands as well as other European countries. Follow the links to read about the AEL and its founder, Abu Jahjah. Apparently there was a TV or radio debate with him a week or so ago here in the Netherlands. I have not seen or heard it, so I can only report what I heard about that debate third-hand. He was pitted in the debate against a number of pretty sharp Dutch debaters, such as the former GreenLeft leader Paul Rosenmuller. I generally disagree with him, but he's pretty good at debating. The general consensus about that debate is that Jahjah swept the floor with the Dutch politicians. In Dutch, a language he only learned relatively late in his life (20s?). Abu Jahjah adeptly used the very concepts of liberal democracy to defend himself against all accusations. He calls on the values enshrined in our constitution (however imperfectly defined they may be at times) such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion to justify what he's doing. He knows exactly which lines he cannot cross publicly; whereas he says he's only exercising his rights under the constitution, it's also clear that the AEL is working towards undermining it. It's the old Sinn Fein trick, building a semi-respectable facade for the world to see, while still being allied with dark forces.

Abu Jahjah is an extremely intelligent man. He can argue his case and defend himself using the vocabulary of liberal democracy while we works to undermine it. His sympathies lie clearly with the Islamofascists, but he's toned the public rhetoric down to a level where he's just another voice in the cacophony of our liberal democracy. He's perfectly aware of the weaknesses of liberal democracy and is detemined to exploit these to further his own Islamofascist aims. Combined with his intelligence, this makes him an extremely dangerous man.

The best way of dealing with idiotic and repugnant points of view (such as those espoused by the AEL and Jahjah) is to expose them for what they are. A well-informed population will be able to sift through them, consider them and reject them. The frightening scenario here is that it might not work that way. The immigrant community in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe has never made any attempt to integrate into wider society, nor has there been any effort by the governments to force them to. There's no melting pot here. There are multiple pots bubbling and boiling next to one another. Many of the immigrants from countries such as Morocco and Turkey (who form the bulk of Muslim immigrants to the Netherlands) have been living within their little parallel world in the Netherlands for decades. There is a bit more integration with second and third generation immigrants, but overall there is an astonishing degree of separation between the immigrants and the native population. And their numbers are large enough that they can't be ignored either. Within a few years, about 10% of the Dutch population will be Muslim. Another problem is that the immigrants are very different from the kinds of (Muslim) immigrants the US gets. What we have here is the bottom of the barrel, people who were at the bottom end of society even back home in Morocco. They're the worst educated of the bunch. The ruling elites in Morocco consider them utter barbarians and are just as glad to be rid of them.

Exposing them to the fresh winds of vigorous debate is going to be hard. Many don't speak Dutch, and living on the margins of Dutch society they're easy prey for the power-hungry predators of the AEL. If traditional methods of persuasion (or dissuasion in this case) do not work, what alternatives are left? A massive propaganda campaign could have an impact, but I am skeptical it can break into the majority within the group. The AEL will always have an advantage. Stopping government handouts to might increase pressure on them to learn Dutch and try to become more connected to society, but that too will not be enough.

This leaves the depressing prospect that we are very likely to end up with a substantial portion of the Dutch population under the sway of a brutal, primitive, fascist ideology. It certainly won't be the 10% of the population, but even if the AEL can muster the support of 5% it'll have the critical mass to disrupt wider society. You don't need a huge percentage to create a big problem, especially if they're willing to employ violent means to underscore their demands. This is the nightmare scenario. Accede to the demands of the Islamofascists or you'll be faced with widespread violence. Suddenly the poll over at LGF about which European country will first introduce Sharia is no longer so far-fetched. Will we accept the introduction of a parallel system of governance for Muslims, as is happening in Nigeria? It's too absurd to imagine.

There are no good alternatives. The AEL under Jahjah is going to become a powerful disruptive force, and any options for dealing with them are problematic. Will we have to destroy the village in order to save it? The best bet is still some combined education/propaganda campaign with the stick of loss of government subsidies (which I think should happen anyhow, regardless of religion). But the vast majority of these immigrants have now obtained Dutch citizenship. Sending them back would be very problematic in any case, but deporting Dutch citizen to a foreign country will raise insuperable constitutional hurdles. Using repression or outlawing certain kinds of speech or opinion are equally unconstitutional and very likely to be counterproductive anyway. The reality is that we have a large section of the population who can easily fall under the sway of the AEL and there's not too much we can do about it. The result will be increasing polarization between the growing group of immigrant who'll support the Islamofascists and the wider population. This guarantees an ugly outcome.

There might still be a chance to avert such an ugly outcome, but it will require strong and determined action. The flow of Saudi money has to be stopped; mosques cannot be allowed to spread anti-western propaganda any longer. We have to get a grip on the incubating Islamofascism within the immigrant community, and encourage the moderate. secular strands to come forward and denounce the Islamofascists. We might still be able to pull it off, but time is running out. And while I strongly defend Hirsi Ali's right to say the things she has said, I think they're counterproductive at this point. Only if and when we come to the conclusion that all Muslims are beyond rhyme or reason does it make sense to open up a full frontal assault on Islam. I hope it does not come to that.

There is another aspect that would help: a big crushing defeat for the various dictators in the Middle East. Starting with Saddam is a good beginning, but getting rid of the Saudis (who're funding much of the anti-western forces in Europe) will have to come next. Removing the external support for the enemy within has to be part and parcel of the strategy of defending the West against the threat of Islamofascism.

UPDATE: I have written a follow-up here.

February 13, 2003
Some thoughts from the trip

Although I did take a laptop with me on vacation, I actually managed not to use it very much during my stay in Colorado. As an avid blog reader and a blogger myself, it was initially a bit strange to be cut off from the goings-on in the blogosphere, but it was no weirder than being cut off from my Bloomberg terminal and not watching CNBC or Bloomberg TV. In fact, I hardly watched any news at all, and I spent an inordinate amount of time tuned to the Weather Channel. As I had suspected, their longer-term forecasts were pretty bad. Predicting the weather more than a few days out is very, very hard. Those ten-day forecasts you get lose all predictive value after day four or so, unless you live in places like Los Angeles (75 and sunny for the next year) or Amsterdam (55 and rainy for the next year). I did get some weird weather while I was in Vail, starting off with a blizzard as I drove from Denver to Vail on I-70 followed by a veritable heat wave for a day or two. Temperatures hit 55 in Vail village, and Denver was up at almost 75. Fortunately, the weather returned to more winter-like conditions soon after, and there was a nice pack of 6 to 8 inches of fresh snow on Monday. Going out into the back bowls with that kind of snow is a skier's heaven. Especially the wide open expanses in Blue Sky Basin, Siberia Bowl, Mongolia Bowl and Teacup Bowl are great. You get incredible amounts of pristine snow to ski in. Vail may not have the most challenging or steepest slopes, but there's an awful lot of terrain there to explore.

I really wish I could have blogged while I was on the ski lifts. Those times always prove excellent for contemplation and I could have knocked out many a great blog entry. I direct transcription link within my brain would have been great; nanotechnology cannot come soon enough as far as I am concerned. The ideas are not gone, and I will write them up over the next days as I regain a firmer hold on the Central European Timezone. The adjustment from Mountain to CET has proved more difficult than usual this time. Perhaps I am getting old.

Vail is hardly an average Colorado town. Virtually none of the people on the slopes are local. I did meet a few, but the skiers are visitors from all over America, with some local Coloradans mixed in. I must say though that the people in Colorado (and not just in Vail) are extremely friendly. It's so completely unlike Manhattan. Coloradans also drive way too fast in white-out conditions. Since most people are vacationing, the hot topics of the day were kept out of conversations as if by a tacit pact. It's vacation, and we're not going to discuss the war or any other contentious issues. The only time this broke down was the morning when the Columbia was lost. The TV in the breakfast room was tuned to a news channel. What this all means is that I have no great insights into the psyche or disposition of the average vacationer in Vail. I guess it's a good sign people can forget the war at least temporarily. Or perhaps not. It certainly did not feel like there was an air of crisis hanging over the town or slopes.

Since I was utterly exhausted from all the skiing, I did spend more time than usual watching TV. Or, to put it more accurately, flipping through TV channels in a semi-comatose state. The thing that really, really annoyed me were all the food commercials. I had some excellent dinners while I was there, and by the time I was flipping through channels I was usually well-fed. Watching commercials for more food just evoked a gag reflex. I don't want golden crusts, country skillets, feed-3-for-$5 deals, whoppers, dollar menus or generic Tyson Chicken. I JUST HAD DINNER! Aaaargh! (sorry.)

Are there really more food commercials on these days? Or is just me watching more TV this time? And then there's the mysterious channel 76. All it shows, night and day, is an oscilloscope. I forgot (again) to ask what it was, but by the differences in the reading of the oscilloscope, it looks like it's measuring the spectral composition and intensity of incoming radiation. The pattern is very different during the day and night, and also different depending on cloudiness. So it looks like it's on there to show people how much radiation is coming in and what kind of radiation it is. When all your muscles hurt and your brain is shorted out from the wine, it's actually a fascinating channel to watch. (Ah, how easy it is to amuse a nerd: just show him an oscilloscope and he's happy!)

I am still trying to catch up on all the blogging that's been going on while I was in my self-imposed hiatus. This may take a while yet, but I am slowly getting up to speed with things again. (Work is not helping either; I feel like I already need another vacation.) I'm also trying to straighten out all things that I wanted to blog about while I was on the ski lifts. First though I am going to make another attempt to get myself back into the right time zone.

Posted by qsi at 11:38 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on The Blog
February 12, 2003
Shocking Excel discoveries

There are no direct flights from Amsterdam to Denver, so I was forced onto the Layover Roulette playing field. It hardly ever snows here in Amsterdam, but on the morning of my flight to Detroit of course it did. With the snow plows and the deicing equipment overstretched, my flight was delayed to the extent that I missed my connecting flight to Denver. I was rerouted via Minneapolis in the end, and my luggage even managed to keep up with me. I think was lucky to make it. In any case, on the final flight from Minneapolis to Denver I sat next to a woman working on her laptop. I know it's rude to peek, but with the screen always within my peripheral vision I could not help but notice what she was doing.

She spent quite a bit of time working in Excel. Now, in my job, I spend a ridiculous amount of time working in Excel, and I have broken the program many times. What I saw on the flight was probably how the vast majority of people use Excel, and I was astounded. It was completely contrary to anything I have ever done with a spreadsheet. She was hardly using any formulas other than SUM() to add numbers together. Even more astounding was that she was creating new views of the same data, but kept on re-entering the numbers from cells on other sheets. Sometimes she copied the numbers over, but often she'd just type them in again. Then she actually whipped out a huge calculator, did some multiplications and divisions on the numbers shown on the screen, and entered the results in yet another cell. Absolutely amazing.

My spreadsheets tend to get out of hand. I parametrize everything, because I know that I will want to play around with various scenarios later (and I don't mean the built-in Scenario option, it's too limited). I am lazy. Very lazy. I don't want to solve problems more than once. So I prefer to solve a class of problems rather than an instance of a class. This means more work initially in building a spreadsheet to deal with all aspects of the class of problems I am solving, but it pays off enormously later on when a different instance of the same class of problems comes along. It also means I break Excel a lot. It has a tendency to disappear. Not crash, but disappear. It usually happens in running VB code, and I have not been able to isolate the conditions yet... you're happily running your code and suddenly Excel is gone. It does not even go through its Dr. Watson-post-crash thing. Excel also tends to become unstable if you have large amounts of data in the sheets. Filling a few sheets with say 20 columns of data that's 50,000 rows deep will usually do it. It'll crash sooner the more formulas you have in the cells.

In any case, this brief glimpse I got into the world of Excel usage supports the thesis that computers are already fast enough for most people. Reducing the complexity of computing is likely to bring far greater benefits to these ordinary users than faster chips. For my work though, I could always use a faster computer, although here I have run into a curious problem as well. I have a dual P4 running at 833 MHz at work, while one of my colleagues has a newer machine with a dual 1.7 GHz P4, DDR RAM versus my SDRAM, etc. In running some of our heaving spreadsheets there's hardly any speed difference between the two machines. I am absolutely stumped as to why this should be. Raw CPU speed is almost double and memory bandwidth is much greater. The spreadsheets are not I/O-bound. Yet the speed improvement of running them on the newer machine is marginal. There's something very strange going on. But that's nothing really new...

Posted by qsi at 11:24 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Miscellanea
Shifting alliances

I commented yesterday on the Franco-German axis that is now undermining NATO. As I said, this is happening a lot faster than I had expected, but the decline in NATO's relevance does not come as a big surprise to me. It's part of a big realignment in the post WWII institutions that is taking place. I expected these processes of transformation or decomposition to take a lot longer. But the UN, EU, IMF, World Bank and NATO are changing and in some cases, they're slowly sliding into irrelevance. The irony in NATO's case is that it is losing its relevance just as it had admitted a new batch of member countries who most desired the benefits of NATO membership.

Aside from the geopolitical reasons of the Franco-German Axis for torpedoing NATO, there are some other factors at work too. The threat we now face is more diffuse. The Soviet missiles, tanks and fighter aircraft were there right across the West German border. That was pretty hard to ignore, even those the pacifist left of Western Europe did its best to try to pretend they weren't there. Even though the French were playing their spoiler game against American interests, their self-interest in maintaining an American security umbrella was strong even never to overplay their hand. They knew that without US protection, their own country would be vulnerable. The force de frappe was not a sufficient nuclear deterrent. Since the fall of communism and the rise of islamofascism as the prime threat to our western way of life, the threat has become more diffuse. There are no huge armies of tanks, aircraft, ships or missiles lined up somewhere. Instead, we have a disparate network of shady regimes in a loose alliance arrayed against us. The threat is real all the same, but it's easier now to fool yourself into thinking it's not there.

This is what emboldens the French in their new pursuit of a more vigorous anti-American foreign policy. The German government has arrived at its current position as a result of the pacifist, anti-American past of its leading figures. They were the ones who in the face of the Soviet threat argued for unilateral disarmament; it's not a surprise that in the face of a new threat they again choose to bury their heads in the sand. It is surprising that both Germany and France seem willing to sacrifice NATO so quickly in order to pursue their dream of a foreign policy identity for the EU. But building an identity based on a negative definition (i.e. anti-US in this case) is never going to be enough.

The clear threat of the Soviets did manage to keep NATO coherent during the cold war. The threat of obliteration that the Soviets posed to the free West focused otherwise muddled minds wonderfully. Now that it is gone and replaced with a more diffuse threat, the muddle wins once again. The desire to take down America a notch or two is apparently too great to resist. It's also doomed to failure, because by their very actions, the Franco-German Axis is undermining whatever is left of their so beloved multilateral institutions, such as NATO and the UN. It boils down to the fundamental reality gap that exists in Berlin and Paris: they don't see the threat, or don't want to see it. Once you admit the threat is there, the anti-American spoiling tactics become too dangerous.

As I mentioned yesterday, one of the big winners out of all this might be Russia. It depends on where Putin will come down in the final question on Iraq. Russia is a country that has recently lost an empire, and is still hurting from that loss. Its nuclear arsenal gives it an an importance far exceeding its economic prowess, and it's the one thing that bestows any respectability on the Russian government at this point. Putin has been making good use of this lopsided position that Russia enjoys, and apparent he has a good relationship with Bush. Putin has also shown far more strategic insight than Schröder or Chirac and seems to understand the strengths and weaknesses of his position better. Pulling Russia firmly into the orbit of the West would be in both the US and the Russian interest, and in the post 9/11 world it seems more likely than ever.

Putin could secure a long-term strategic advantage if he chooses the side of the US now. The Bush Administration has been edging towards a more sympathetic position where it comes to supporting Russia. Recent moves to classify certain Chechen organizations as terrorists is one such step; by acknowledging the link between Al-Qaeda and the Chechens the United States is allying itself with the Russians. A reciprocal gesture becomes more likely. Right now, Putin still has not committed himself and is steering a careful course. He was never expected to become a full-blown supporter of the US line on Iraq, so his reticence has not been a surprise nor has it been seen as a betrayal. But he's been careful not to burn any bridges with Washington, and the rapprochement on the issue of terrorism is bringing Putin closer to Bush. All that Putin needs in order to support the US line on Iraq is a committment from the US that any post-Saddam Iraq would be willing to honor the large debts that the current Iraq owes to the Russians. While the French and the Germans are busily alienating themselves from Washington, Russia might come out of this looking pretty good in Washington.

The long-term strategic benefits would be enormous. America's focus is already shifting away from Paris and Berlin towards economically more dynamic regions such as China or to friendlier countries such as Poland. Russia could have an influence far above its economic importance in the next years if Putin plays his cards right and maintains his friendship with Bush. The alternative for Putin is to throw his weight behind the Franco-German Axis in the hopes of derailing American power in short term. He's probably realist enough to realize that that's an unlikely outcome. So I think he's going to end up being much more supportive of the US position than his latest comments indicate.

I still don't trust the Russians though. Any such moves would be done out of pure-self interest. That's fine as far as it goes, but neither Putin nor Russia have yet recovered emotionally from the loss of empire, and the revanchist emotion runs deep and strong. Still, I am hopeful that such short-term cooperation will lay the foundation for a more constructive course for Russian policy in the medium and longer term.

Posted by qsi at 10:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Russia
February 11, 2003
I'm back

I'm back from a nice skiing trip to the Colorado Rockies, and aside from a sore shoulder, I have survived the entire expedition without any accidents. I got back earlier today, but had to go straight to the office, so I do feel a tad tired. Full-scale blogging will resume tomorrow. During my stay in Colorado I got a lot of snow, a heat wave and icy cold weather up on the mountain. When it's 15 below (in Fahrenheit) and there's a wind blowing, it gets real cold real fast. But that was just one day, and it did not impinge too much on the skiing.

It has certainly been an eventful period. I am amazed at how recklessly the French and the Germans are frittering away the NATO alliance. That NATO would be losing relevance did not come as a big surprise, but still it's astonishing to see the cavalier attitude these two countries are taking to the alliance that has kept them free and prosperous for the last half century. The new Franco-German axis is born of desperation. The Germans are desperate because they've lost any foreign policy clout they had before the last general election, and now that Schröder has become a big loser domestically, he has to try to cling on to some semblance of international respectability. He does not appear to care where he gets his tender loving care from internationally; it's clear he won't get it from the US, so he tries to ingratiate himself with Saddam. The French are desperate too: their entire post World War II policy of trying to counteract Anglo-Saxon power and influence is in complete tatters. America is by far the most powerful nation in the world, and regardless of the merits of America's case, in French eyes there needs to be a countervailing force. Even if this means de facto support for Saddam, that's fine. It's the price one has to pay in terms of Realpolitik. So we have a new Franco-German axis born of different sources of desperation. With Schröder so weak, it's Chirac who can drive the debate within Europe, and what he's trying to do there is to transfer the traditional French paranoia of Anglo-Saxon influence to the European stage. He's setting up a simple litmus test for Good Europeans: you can't be both a Good European and sympathetic to America. The negative self-definition of French identity (i.e. defined by what it is not:American) is being foisted on Europe, or at least, the French are trying. It's not going to fly, as the letter of support by eight European heads of state showed. But it's the big chance for France to cement its vision of a European identity on the wider EU before the new entrants get all sorts of ideas of their own. And that's another reason it's not going work, because this Franco-German Axis is treading on the sensibilities of too many of the smaller countries. They won't suddenly become rabidly pro-American, but I suspect they'll see Franco-German domination within the EU as a bigger threat than anything America might do. France and Germany are painting themselves into a corner here, and getting out of it is going to become harder the more they paint. They'd be well advised to open the windows and the let the paint dry for a while before trying to redecorate again.

The big winner out of all this could be Russia. How? Tune in tomorrow. I'm going to bed now.

Posted by qsi at 10:33 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Read More on France , Germany , The Blog