Davids Medienkritik

  • Davids Medienkritik: Democrat Tom Lantos Implies Gerhard Schroeder is Lower than “Political Prostitute”

    (By Ray D.)

    UPDATE #2: Watch it on YouTube. The crowd was not shocked – they loved the speech – a must watch. Thanks to Joerg of Atlantic Review.

    UPDATE: As our readers correctly note, SPIEGEL ONLINE fails to mention two key facts about Lantos: He is a Democrat and a Holocaust survivor. Had he been a Republican – they would have highlighted it in caps along with his ultra-tight best-cowboy-buddies relationship to President Bush. Instead, he is referred to as a “US representative”, a “US politician”, and “Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.” But hey – let’s be fair – SPIEGEL ONLINE did mention one key personal detail about Lantos to the German audience: He is originally from eastern Europe (you know – that region so many Germans love and respect) – Hungary to be exact. Bottom line: SPIEGEL ONLINE omits the two facts that give Lantos moral authority with their readers (Democrat – Holocaust survivor) and emphasizes the fact that he is from the “US.” 

    Let’s put it this way – had Lantos been a Republican – this would have
    been a front-page headline throughout
    German media. The reaction would have been far more
    violent and outraged. Furthermore, the blame would have quickly been associated with Bush.

    Main article: After hearing California Representative Tom Lantos‘ recent comments on former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, it is rather obvious that Schroeder, now a well-compensated employee at Gazprom, is fervently disliked on both sides of the American political aisle. These comments, as reported here, speak for themselves:

    “Speaking at the dedication ceremony for a
    victims of communism memorial in Washington, Lantos said their
    departure from the European scene heralded a closer relationship in the
    Atlantic alliance, which was badly splintered over Washington’s
    decision to launch the invasion of Iraq without strong European
    support.

    Lantos’ remarks reflected the lingering bitterness
    over French and German opposition to the war, as he recalled how the US
    saved Europe from fascism and protected it from communism for
    generations. He said the two leaders had turned their backs to the US
    and its fight against the next wave of tyranny, Islamic fascism.


    The congressman then provoked gasps of amusement and surprise in the
    crowd of several hundred when he said he would like to call Schroeder
    ‘a political prostitute, now that he’s taking big cheques from (Russian
    President Vladimir) Putin. But the sex workers in my district
    objected.’

    During his final weeks in office in 2005,
    Schroeder signed an agreement between Germany and Russia to build a
    pipeline under the Baltic Sea to supply gas directly to Germany.

    After leaving office, he became chairman of the North European Gas
    Pipeline, which is 51-per-cent owned by Russian state natural gas
    company Gazprom – a move that provoked outrage in Germany.

    Russia has used its energy reserves as a political chip in its
    continuing bid for hegemony in eastern Europe, and has come under
    severe criticism for repression of press and other freedoms.”

    Lantos is also probably quite frustrated at Germany’s continuing lack of serious commitment in Afghanistan, where the US, UK and Canada have absorbed around 85% of the fatalities – despite the fact that the operation is a supposedly “multilateral” undertaking.

    But consider this – one could argue that Mr. Lantos’ words are a bit harsh. They certainly weren’t terribly diplomatic. But then, how would the German and US media react if George W. Bush made a billion dollar pipeline deal with – say – a major energy player like Exxon or LukOil towards the end of his second term and then accepted a lucrative position at the same company just three weeks after leaving office? Would the rhetoric be any softer than that of Mr. Lantos?

    Think about it…

    Endnote: Commenter Helian has this to say:

    “So you thought you’d seen the ultimate in hypocrisy?  Guess again!!  Check out this story.
    It seems that Representative Tom Lantos, a Democrat no less, gave vent
    to some less than charitable remarks at the expense of booster seat
    Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at the recent unveiling ceremony of a new
    Washington monument dedicated to the victims of Communism. In fine, he
    declared that, if not for the fact that he was loathe to so grossly
    insult the prostitutes of his district, he would describe the
    diminutive anti-American hate exploiter as a “political whore.”

    But wait! It gets better. It seems that a certain Ulrich Wilhelm,
    described as a spokesman for the German government, “clearly and
    decisively” rejected the comparison of Schroeder with a whore, a
    sentiment with which any self-respecting hooker must certainly concur.
    Schoolmarm Wilhelm was, apparently, quite upset about Lantos’
    “unmannerly mode of referring to a former Chancellor of the German
    Federal Republic.” Apparently the “mannerly mode” for referring to
    Chancellors prescribed by the current German incarnation of Emily Post
    is drastically different from the “mannerly mode” of referring to U.S.
    Presidents. Just ask Ms. Wieszorek-Zeul, whom SPON would, no doubt,
    describe as an “expert” in such matters.

    What can you say? When the hypocrisy gets this thick, you can’t
    really react with scorn. It’s too ludicrous. All you can do is laugh.”

    And let’s not forget this about Gerhard Schroeder: He continues to insist that Vladimir Putin is a “flawless democrat.” Now if that isn’t political prostitution – what is?

    Published by

    David

    on

  • Davids Medienkritik: How Americans Must Engage the German Media

    (By Ray D.)

    Eric Staal of Republicans Abroad appears on ZDF talk show “Maybrit Illner”

    One of the greatest frustrations for the authors of this site is the the near total unwillingness of American diplomats to effectively engage German mass media. What do we mean by “effectively engage”?: Start by sending a representative fluent in German onto as many television talk shows, radio programs and internet forums as possible. In other words: utilize the mass media to explain American policy, to put a human face on the United States and to engage in the national dialog. Unfortunately for Americans in Germany (whether Democrat or Republican or Independent) that hasn’t happened for years now – but it’s not that difficult – as private individuals have demonstrated.

    Eric Staal of Republicans Abroad Germany, (a proud reader of Davids Medienkritik), provided a stellar example this past week when he appeared as a guest on a major German talk show – ZDF’s “Maybrit Illner” to discuss the G8 summit, poverty, the environment and security. He lent a human voice to the Republican viewpoint in America – a viewpoint that has been irrationally vilified and misrepresented countless times in German media. In fact, Eric spoke his piece so effectively that the German studio audience erupted in applause. We have two clips below: (View the entire program here)

    Above: Eric’s first answer with applause – 2 minutes

    Above: Highlights – 9 minutes

    One of the reasons we felt the need to start this site is because the US Foreign Service in Germany has exhibited a near total unwillingness to defend the United States from even the most vile media attacks. The bottom line: The US Embassy in Berlin is a near total failure in its efforts to engage the German mass media so as to reach the largest possible German audience. The American taxpayer is being under-served by his or her representatives in Germany. Frankly – the public diplomacy officials at the US Embassy in Berlin ought to send Eric Staal half of their annual paychecks – because he just did more to engage the German people in 2 minutes than they have done in the past year.

    There is absolutely no excuse for this dereliction of duty on the part of the United States Foreign Service. Even if the Ambassador cannot appear on television or radio because he or she lacks fluency or media experience, there are literally dozens of qualified individuals in the Foreign Service who are prepared to do just that. There are scores of bright and capable young people coming out of foreign affairs programs more than able to engage in this work. The failure to effectively engage German mass media is symptomatic of a lack of leadership – a hamstrung bureaucracy – and an unwillingness to make media outreach a top priority. That must change. Whether 2008 brings a Democrat or Republican to office, the United States diplomatic mission must enter the 21st century – particularly in a world of hostile media. Explaining American policy, engaging foreign media and reaching a mass audience must become the number one priority looking ahead. The failure to this point is baffling – and American taxpayers must demand accountability and reform. In the meantime – blogs like Davids Medienkritik and private individuals like Mr. Staal will continue to hold down the fort.

    Published by

    David

    on

  • Davids Medienkritik: Transparency International Names Different Villain

    And this time it’s not the U.S.

    Remember the German media’s anti-U.S. campaign in the early days of the Iraq war: it’s all about the oil, Haliburton corruption, etc., etc., etc.?

    Now here is an interesting statement from Transpacency International’s German chapter, that sheds light on the actions of different villain:

    Transparency International Files Complaint against 57 German
    Companies over UN Oil for Food Scandal in Iraq

    Berlin, 05.June 2007 – The German chapter of the anti-corruption organisation Transparency International (TI) today lodged a complaint with the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) against 57 German companies for allegedly paying $11.9m in kickbacks in the United Nations’ Oil for Food Programme in Iraq.
    TI accuses the companies of violating OECD Guidelines – adopted by Germany and 38 other governments – that set social, environmental and anti-corruption standards for Multinational Enterprises.
    The BMWi has the responsibility under international agreements to promote adherence to the Guidelines and when called upon to examine alleged abuses by German companies.
    The filing of the complaint marks the first time in any country that a government has been asked to take action under the OECD Guidelines regarding the corruption that occurred in the Oil for Food programme. (…)

    The Volcker report named after Paul Volcker, chair of the investigation and former chairman of the US Federal Reserve presented authoritative, detailed financial evidence of the kickbacks (illicit or disguised payments) paid by German companies and others to gain contracts to supply food, medicines and humanitarian goods to Iraq. TI’s complaint is based on the Volcker report findings published 2005.
    TI-Germany noted that state prosecutors in several German states have launched investigations into the role of some of the 57 German companies in the UN Programme. TI-Germany welcomed the investigations but considers the complaint necessary to supplement these legal proceedings. (…)

    Even if a German company or a member of its staff – is found guilty in these investigations it is under no legal obligation to establish mechanisms to prevent bribes being paid in future.

    According to Shirley van Buiren, chairperson of TI-Germany’s Corporate Accountability working group, the German government wasn’t as eager as the governments of Great Britain or the Netherlands to seek punishment for the companies mentioned in the Volker report.

    And, I should add, the German media, too, were less than enthusiastic about reporting on the matter…

    Published by

    David

    on

  • Davids Medienkritik: Unfiltered: Bush Takes His Message Directly to the German People

    (By Ray D.)

    This is perhaps the only way German citizens will ever see the true opinions and positions of the US administration unfiltered. This is one of the few ways the administration can hope to get a fair shake in foreign media – by defining its own positions without the overwhelming spin of a hostile press.

    BILD: Exclusive article by Bush on fighting AIDS in Africa

    ZDF: Exclusive interview with Bush on the upcoming G8 summit

    US Diplomatic Representatives in Germany Have Long Failed to Effectively Engage Mass Media…

    The US Embassy ought to have representatives fluent in German engaging mass media on a regular basis to clarify the US position, debate transatlantic issues and correct misinformation. They ought to be far more present on television talk shows, radio shows and as guest columnists in major newspapers. One appearance on a program such as “Berlin Mitte” will reach exponentially more Germans than years of organizing art exchanges or discussion groups at the local Amerika Haus or cultural center.

    The fact that members of the American Foreign Service haven’t more effectively engaged German media has been a costly failure. The system of two year rotations in the US foreign service clearly makes it more difficult to establish an effective media program. The fact that the Foreign Service and State Department tend to lean undeniably to the left also means that there is currently less desire to go out and explain and defend the positions of the US government on mass media forums – despite the fact that that is the very mission of the public diplomacy officials. One could say that some in the State Department and Foreign Service sympathize with or at least condone the America-hostile rhetoric of the European left.

    Here’s an important point: If the Ambassador cannot speak the local language – and the current US Ambassador in Germany cannot – then he needs to have a media representative fluent in the local language and able to effectively engage local media on important bilateral and multilateral issues. This MUST become a central mission of American embassies throughout Western Europe.

    Education of US Future Diplomats is Wanting…

    As someone who just graduated from a top foreign service Masters program in the United States – it is obvious that future American diplomats are not receiving the adequate preparation they need to deal with mass media. Writing memos, following the news and studying past foreign policy is fine – but it does not produce the sort of forward looking, modern, media-savvy diplomats that America has a critical need for moving forward. Top graduate programs must integrate communications and media studies into their foreign affairs and foreign service programs. Public diplomacy is a track that is vitally important and will only grow in importance. It must be emphasized and failure to do so will wield further mediocrity in dealing with foreign media.

    Further, when it comes to U.S. university programs in international affairs, the conservative point of view is vastly underrepresented in programs designed to prepare future diplomats. The classes I took on media, for example, were taught exclusively by individuals with unmistakably left-leaning world-views and an open hostility towards conservative and electronic media.  Even the self-proclaimed “registered Republican” professor bought a theory put forth by Bill Moyers and Dan Rather that the media were largely in lockstep with Bush before the Iraq War – serving as uncritical lapdogs in the administration’s march to war. This deeply flawed and extremely self-serving theory has become widely (and often uncritically) accepted inside the beltway. We were asked to follow the New York Times and Washington Post – and largely ignored conservative publications and viewpoints. When a controversial conservative professor was invited to teach on campus, the protests became so loud among faculty (one could say that a lynch mob atmosphere was created) that the dean actually had to step-in to keep him on board. That would have never happened had he been a controversial liberal like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky.

    It may be that conservatives are politically “out of fashion” for the moment (but – then – aren’t they always in Washington?) Still, as a graduate student, I would like to be exposed to both sides of the political spectrum in a balanced manner. It didn’t help that most of the students also tend to the left. It didn’t help that not a single classmate had served in the US Armed Forces. Academia can be a lonely place if you aren’t down with the left-leaning groupthink – particularly in the social sciences. You essentially have to keep quiet – or risk being shouted down and disliked by most of your peers and professors. 

    Published by

    David

    on

  • Davids Medienkritik: Hostile Environment: SPIEGEL ONLINE Presents Cooperation as Conflict

    (By Ray D.)

    Welcome to the world of German media. This is your first day as a SPIEGEL ONLINE trainee. Your mission: To become an expert on transatlantic relations. Let’s get started:

    Lesson number one: The United States government is always wrong.

    Lesson number two: Bush is evil – no matter what.

    Now let’s examine a current case: The United States wants to engage in multilateral cooperation, negotiation and engagement on the environment and climate change. They want to sit down and compromise on how best to reduce global greenhouse emissions in an effort to avoid confrontation. So – how do we spin this development in accordance with lessons one and two? Exactly…we sensationalize America’s attempts to reach-out and cooperate as a hostile “offensive against Chancellor Merkel’s climate plans.”

    Bushstartet

    SPIEGEL ONLINE Homepage Headline: “US Push: Bush Begins Offensive Against Merkel’s Climate Plans”

    Now let’s step outside the classroom: The language is quasi-military (“Vorstoss” / “startet Offensive“). The photo aggressive. The background accented with hyper-patriotic flag-waving.

    What does it all mean? Well, this is clearly a packaging and portrayal of events intended to upset and emotionalize the pacifistic, left-leaning audience. This despite the fact that the Merkel government has openly welcomed the willingness of the United States to move the discussion forward – a fact that SPIEGEL ONLINE readily acknowledges.

    Further, this is the biased reporting readers have been conditioned to expect after years of hate-America coverage. The covers speak for themselves:

    Collage

    After years of the above, how could it be any different? Bush – the perennial villain – the most dangerous man on the planet – could not be portrayed in any other way. The established “bad guy” template has grown so thick and entrenched that it would be impossible to shatter. And – with Bush now relatively unpopular in the USA – the cost of putting emotion and vilification before reason and analysis is historically low in covering the US administration.

    So Why Does the US Reject the German Position on the Environment…Do Most Media Consumers in Germany Really Know?

    SPIEGEL ONLINE has not been alone in its efforts to trump up conflict over the environment. Other media outlets have repeatedly played the “us versus them” card in coverage of debate over a proposed German plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions at the upcoming G8 summit. Rather than cool analysis and explanation of differing positions, much of the German media’s reporting has wrapped American resistance to German environmental positions in nationalist undertones. (Read President Bush’s actual speech on aid to Africa and environmental initiatives. Warning: This transcript is unfiltered by German media.)

    Above all, there has been virtually no attempt to explain why the U.S. government rejects certain aspects of the German position – or to explain the environmental policies of the current administration. Further, they chronically fail to consider the following points, made so eloquently by Robert Samuelson in 2005:

    “Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy. Considering Europeans’ contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you’d expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions — the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto’s base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The U.S. increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn’t done much better.

    Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It’s true that Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2 emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).

    On their present courses, many European countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won’t happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming — and then do little. Except for Eastern European nations, where dirty factories have been shuttered, few countries have cut emissions. Since 1990 Canada’s emissions are up 23.6 percent; Japan’s, 18.9 percent. (…)

    What we have now is a respectable charade. Politicians and advocates make speeches, convene conferences and formulate plans. They pose as warriors against global warming. The media participate in the resulting deception by treating their gestures seriously. One danger is that some of these measures will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits. Policies motivated by political gain will inflict public pain. Why should anyone applaud?”

    We now know that many of the European participants in Kyoto have missed their targets. The lack of real analysis and debate of that point in German media has been deafening. Yet the lack of real analysis and debate on virtually any issue has long been a tradition in most coverage of the Bush administration over the past six years. Typically, the coverage does not get too much further than: Bush = Bad.

    Voices of Moderation – Signs of Hope…

    It hasn’t helped that the usual Social-Democrat suspects have opportunistically seized the issue to attack the United States – a tried and tested method for rallying their America-hostile political base. It would seem that, to them, no agreement is truly multilateral and satisfactory unless it excludes the United States.

    Yet, in rare instances, responsible voices have broken through the thickets of bias and confrontation.

    The first example is a tagesschau interview with Karl-Heinz Kamp of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, a foundation affiliated with Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats. The opening paragraph correctly depicts the transatlantic debate over the environment as “heated” – yet warns that it would be wrong to celebrate it as a transatlantic fight. Mr. Kamp correctly notes that Germany must genuinely engage the United States and other nations on the environment – not dictate absolute positions from on-high – and then vilify those who do not go along. He emphasizes that – despite George Bush’s “Darth Vader-like” poll numbers in much of Western Europe (which also have more to do with media-driven vilification <see above photo> than true understanding of Bush and his politics) – that many Germans recognize the importance of strong transatlantic relations.

    A second hopeful example is to be found – of all places – at Tagesspiegel. Amidst advertisements for a book by former Guantanamo inmate Murat Kurnaz and a typical smear photo of George Bush – a small gem of intellectual honesty sits like a diamond in the rough.

    Bush2

    Tagesspiegel Homepage –  Christoph von Marschall’s article offers a Glimmer of Hope in a Sea of Bias…

    Christoph von Marschall, Tagesspiegel’s Washington correspondent, published an article that actually discusses the differences in policy and outlook between the United States and Germany. The headline and photo – which push negative images – were likely added by the online editors. The article itself delves into the political context of the debate in the United States and acknowledges that Kyoto was rejected by the US Senate (95-0) in 1997 well before George W. Bush ever assumed office. It admits that Germany and other European partners will fail to uphold their Kyoto commitments – a commitment they have attempted to force on the United States despite that nation’s concern that such an agreement could cost millions of jobs and billions of dollars in economic loss. Most incredibly, it discusses in some detail the Bush administration’s environmental policy and acknowledges that there are areas in which the United States is ahead of Germany. He writes:

    “Bush has, for example, created a billion dollar project to develop emission-free coal power plants. As in Germany, around 50% of the energy comes from coal. Thanks to Bush, America will have a  reduced emission or even an emission-free coal plant on the energy net by 2012, years ahead of Germany. The proportion of renewable energies from wind, sun and water is almost as high as in Germany. Additionally, Bush is spending billions to support the gradual transition from oil-based gasoline to biofuels like Ethanol.”

    Given the fact that Mr. Marschall has offered positive comments about Bush and his policies, it is quite remarkable that his work made it past the editor’s desk. (Perhaps Malte Lehming is on vacation?) This respect for balance and fact could be a sign of hope – and it is certainly a sign that at least one German correspondent possesses some degree of intellectual honesty.

    Overall though, the “environment” issue has been characterized in German media by conflict, confrontation and transatlantic hostility. One can only hope that the small but growing trend towards moderation and engagement will continue to move in a positive direction – despite the many voices of division.

    Published by

    David

    on

  • Davids Medienkritik: Happy Anniversary: Davids Medienkritik Celebrates 4 Years!

    (By Ray D.)

    Tomorrow – May 31 – will mark the fourth anniversary of David’s founding of our site. In 2003, neither of us would have or could have ever believed that we would reach this milestone. Above all, our readers have kept us moving forward and focused. On the way, we have raised awareness about what is happening in German media and prompted people around the world to think about the way media impacts public perceptions of the United States and other areas. That is ultimately our mission: To provoke thought and promote change.

    The following chart shows our monthly audience. It has remained solid at between 50 and 60 thousand per month. That translates into a daily audience of 1650 to 2000. We saw a steady increase from December to April.

    Consistent Performance: 50 to 60 thousand visitors per month in 2006-2007.

    Note: We would like to acknowledge the fact that blogging has been light of late. I just survived graduate school including final ceremonies and several massive final papers (five 10 -20 page papers within five weeks to be exact) and David has been on vacation. We are recharging our batteries and will pick things up again soon. Thank you all for your continued support.

    Published by

    David

    on

  • Davids Medienkritik: Torture: Headlines vs. No Headlines

    The latest torture pictures from Iraq get little play in the German media (exception: BILD):


    (Source)

    Forget about an appearance on the cover of SPIEGEL or STERN.

    I guess the gentlemen from Al Qaeda won’t be too happy about this lame PR fallout… Well, as an excuse the German media can claim that they didn’t report much on torture under Saddam either.

    It’s not, however, as if the topic of torture wasn’t of any interest to the German media. Now, these OUTRAGEOUS TORTURE EXAMPLES definitely made headlines:

    Spon105n

    For the life of me…I can’t come up with an explanation as to why some torture pics make headlines in German media and others don’t…

    Any ideas??

    Update: More Al Qaeda-torture news…

    NOTE from Ray on selective headlines: Something to keep in mind over this Memorial Day weekend: While the US and world media are absolutely obsessed with presenting and re-presenting “US casualties” in every imaginable light and form – in what can only be characterized at this point as willful defeatism – there is virtually no acknowledgment that the US military is slowly bleeding Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks to death – unless a leader so large is killed that they can’t ignore it. Why won’t they show the massive casualties taken by the insurgents? CNN will show snipers killing US soldiers – but they won’t show you this.

    As David asks: Any ideas why??

    NOTE #2 from Ray: Speaking of selective headlines: It will be interesting to see if our media friends at ARD Weltspiegel, who so gullibly swallowed Hugo Chavez’s propaganda oil donations to Joseph Kennedy in Boston, will now dedicate large chunks of air time to explaining why their Socialist hero is stamping out freedom of speech and shutting down opposition media at home. As journalists, you would think that is a story they would jump to report.

    Or perhaps author Justin Webb was correct. Writing of the European left, he observed:

    “The protests against nuclear weapons, for instance,
    concentrated on American weapons. The anti-war rallies were against
    American-led wars. The anti death penalty campaign focused on Texas. A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been
    altered. A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest
    indiscretion – or to magnify those indiscretions – while leaving the
    murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly
    untouched.”

    Stay tuned…

    Published by

    David

    on

  • Davids Medienkritik: “Botched” Execution: You Can Bet This Will Get Big Coverage

    Here we go again: Another death penalty story just fell into the laps of the German Amerika-Korrespondent vultures…

    I can see the headlines now: Poor mass-murderer suffers enormous pain and agony and torture…oh boo-hoo! Just another victim of the cruel American justice system…

    Here’s an idea: If you can’t find a vein, call out the firing-squad. You could also call these guys in a pinch…

    Published by

    David

    on

  • Davids Medienkritik: Exclusive Interview with Brent Scowcroft: The Future of US-EU Relations

    (By Ray D.)

    I conducted this interview with Brent Scowcroft is on the future of US-EU relations for a final paper for my graduate degree. The interview took place on March 19 and is 40 minutes long. LISTEN HERE.

    Condensed excerpts:

    Question: General, where do you see
    US-EU relations moving in the next ten years?

    SCOWCROFT: That’s very hard to predict
    because part of it depends on how EU internal developments move. There was an
    initial phase where we were pushing it because we thought that Europe united
    was stronger than Europe of many countries and we needed that strength in
    dealing with the Soviet Union. After the Cold War, we entered a second stage in
    which we saw ourselves in a more antagonistic relationship. (…) And France has
    always in part had that kind of an attitude. The French, I think, have spent
    the time certainly since the end of the Cold War and some before trying to
    drive us out of Europe so they could really be the pivotal state in the EU.
    That phase is on the decline now, and it comes at a time when the EU has its
    own internal problems. (…) Then they finally had a referendum and the European
    people said “No, we don’t like this.”

    Question: You’re referring to France
    and Holland rejecting the constitution?

    SCOWCROFT: Yes, and I think they were
    broadly representative – not of all of Europe – but of a large part. So Europe
    is trying to figure out who they are and for newer members, especially the
    eastern European members – to them – membership in NATO is at least as
    important as the EU and they still see their security problem as being east –
    Russia.

    Question: You say they are trying to
    figure out who they are (…). How do you think that identity crisis is going to
    affect US-EU relations looking ahead?

    SCOWCROFT: I honestly think that it
    will improve US-EU relations because there is ambivalence in the United States
    about whether we want a strong EU or not. To the extent that the EU does not
    appear to be a United States of Europe, our ambivalence tends to go away. (…) I
    think the notion of an EU that continues both to broaden and deepen is not
    going to happen. I think as it broadens, it’s going to get shallower.

    Question: Do you see increasingly the
    US picking and choosing partners in Europe?

    SCOWCROFT: No. I think we will treat
    Europe as a more organic thing than coalitions of the willing – but less
    organic than if there were a deep European Union. It will be sort of somewhere
    in between. We will lobby among the Europeans, but be comfortable with
    not-unanimity. One of the things we are seeing now in Europe with the Islamic
    minorities – even the Netherlands with a deep history of toleration – it has a
    deep history of toleration but not of assimilation. (…) And they’ve gotten over
    it in a way – but most of them have had great trouble assimilating the Muslims.
    (…) We will seek to help the Europeans with a problem that we don’t have nearly
    as much.

    Question: What about NATO. Do you see
    the hesitancy of the continental or “old” Europeans to carry their weight
    militarily as a major stumbling block?

    SCOWCROFT: I think it’s a major
    stumbling block, but it is due less to the issues we are talking about than to
    the deep instincts in Germany still – the aversion to force and militarism –
    and in the rest of Europe that Afghanistan is not our fight. A more interesting
    case in how Europe may go is Turkey and whether or not it gets into the EU.
    That is a stretch to the ethnic and religious issue. If Europe looks at it
    coldly and dispassionately they will say Turkey ought to be in the EU.

    Question: Do you see Iraq as a
    continuing factor in US-EU relations?

    SCOWCROFT: It was a struggle of
    leadership between the British and French. The French said this was their
    chance to drive the US out of Europe. It was pretty much a draw. Both sides are
    moving beyond unilateralism and the “new Europe – old Europe.”

    Question: Regarding Guantanamo, Abu
    Ghraib and civil rights. Do you think the US has gone too far?

    SCOWCROFT: I think there’s a real
    danger of it because it looks to the Europeans like we are denying our common
    heritage – that we are becoming like the people who we’re fighting. But I don’t
    think it’s deep enough to affect the basic currents we are talking about
    because I think deep down most Europeans think we will come around.

    Question: On trade, what are your
    thoughts?

    SCOWCROFT: I have thought, ever since I
    was in the first Bush administration, that we ought to have a free trade
    agreement. It is really quite simple except agriculture. We are already
    profiting from the EU and the breaking down of national differences in
    trade.

    Question: How do you see US-EU
    relations developing towards Russia?

    SCOWCROFT: I think we both need to look
    at Russia more realistically. Whether or not they become a democracy or
    something else is not going to depend on us but on internal developments.
    Russians are Russians and are both paranoid, have an inbred inferiority
    complex, and an instinct to dominate. I would like to break their monopoly on
    oil and gas. I think we can do it by promoting a pipeline under the Caspian
    Sea.

    Question: Is the Bush administration
    to blame for anti-Americanism?

    SCOWCROFT: Primarily the Bush
    administration that has had not only an over-leaning sense of its own power but
    a disdain for Europe. (…) They realize you can’t solve your problems unilaterally.
    All the military and economic strength we have can’t even tame a little country
    like Iraq. And to deal with the major problems of the world we’ve got to have
    friends – and now we’re even grudgingly saying even talk to our enemies. I
    think we are backing away from the high point of unilateralism. That will help
    us get back to a more normal relationship with Europe. I would take a hands-off
    view about the EU. I would say that we will deal with whatever kind of Europe
    the Europeans say they want.

    Special thanks to General Scowcroft and his entire staff for granting this interview.

    Published by

    David

    on

  • Davids Medienkritik: This is Interesting…

    UPDATE: CNN has since updated its coverage to include the Islamic connection – long after it was reported by others.

    Just an observation on US media: CNN’s report on a plot to kill US soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey completely omits (one could say hides) the fact that the perpetrators were recent Muslim converts and extremists. It also states that the men were all from the “former Yugoslavia,” failing to mention their Albanian background and the fact that two of the six suspects were born in other countries: One in Turkey and one in Jordan. CNN also downplays the group this way:

    While authorities are glad to have arrested them, the individuals
    are “hardly hard core terrorists,” one law enforcement source said.

    Another
    source said that while the allegations are “troubling,” they are “not
    the type that made the hair on the back of your neck stand up.”

    Looking elsewhere, ABC News reports this:

    Jihadist propaganda material, including “generalized messages” from
    Osama bin Laden and other leaders, was seized, authorities said. It had
    been downloaded from the Internet.

    Why does CNN go to such great length to obscure the full identity of the would-be attackers and then bend-over-backwards to dismiss the threat? Hmmmm….

    Published by

    David

    on

Crop the existing Der Spiegel sidebar image so that the bottom 40% of the magazine cover is removed, keeping only the top 60%, with a clean, sharp horizontal edge at the new bottom. Preserve the same style and appearance, just with less height.
Trump 2024: Spiegel Goes Full MAGA

RECENT POSTS