Davids Medienkritik

My Reply to Mr. Soros:

Dear Mr. Soros,

In your reply to my email you fail to address the central point of
my argument: That democracies can be successfully introduced and
established through military means. A number of the world’s
democracies, including the United States of America, were born of
military conflict and revolution. Your assertion that “you can’t
introduce democracy by military means” has been repeatedly proven wrong
by history.

You further contend:

“The analogy with Post-war German and Japan is a
false one. We didn’t attack them in order to introduce democracy. They
attacked us and were soundly defeated.”

With all due respect: I never claimed that the United States
attacked Japan and Germany in order to introduce democracy. Nor did I
claim that the US attacked Iraq or Afghanistan solely for that purpose.
My point was that military action ultimately brought freedom,
liberation and democracy to Japan and Germany following the Second
World War despite the tremendous cost to the United States and its
Allies in both human lives and financial resources. America’s military
liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan from regimes of mass murder has also
provided those nations with an historic opportunity to establish free
societies. Democracy will not come easily or cheaply. No one has ever
said it would. But the alternative, a terrorist state, is something
that the free world simply cannot afford.

Your statement that “we didn’t attack them (Japan and Germany) to introduce democracy” also stands in stark contrast to the following passage from page 157 of your book, “The Bubble of American Supremacy”:

“In World War II, America fought for the survival of
democracy and human rights—although the expression human rights was
not as popular then as it has become since.”

You also made no attempt to answer my concerns involving the United
Nations. I wrote, “There is nothing the United States could have done
to convince nations like France or Russia to take 17 UN resolutions
seriously and actually enforce them.”

Over a twelve-year period, Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate and
abide by international law, hoping to eventually have sanctions lifted
so he could resume development of weapons of mass destruction. Neither
France, Russia nor China, all members of the Security Council with veto
power, made any serious attempt to hold Saddam to over a dozen Security
Council resolutions. In fact, the opposite is true. In 1998 when
Hussein refused to cooperate with UNSCOM inspectors, France, Russia and
China refused to back tough measures to get inspections back on track,
resulting in the collapse of the UNSCOM inspection regime and the
expulsion of UNSCOM inspectors from Iraq. It is also important to
remember that all three nations had extensive business dealings with
the Hussein government and were owed billions in debt by Iraq.
Recently, allegations that Saddam bribed Russian and French officials
have also prompted new questions as to those nations’ true motivation
for resisting military action to enforce international law in Iraq.

Mr. Soros, on page 108 of your book you quote the following passage from a UN commission reporting to Kofi Annan:

“The Security Council should take into account in all
its deliberations that, if it fails to discharge its responsibility to
protect in conscience-shocking situations crying out for action,
concerned states may not rule out other means to meet the gravity and
urgency of the situation—and that the stature and credibility of the
United Nations may suffer thereby.”

Not only did the United Nations fail on Iraq for twelve years, it
also failed on genocide in Rwanda and it failed repeatedly in the
Balkans. How can you honestly expect Americans to trust their national
security to an organization with a track record of failure in a post
9/11 world? How do you expect the UN to effectively stand up to Iran
and North Korea when they weren’t even able to deal with Rwanda or
Kosovo? Clearly, “the stature and credibility of the United Nations”
has suffered over the past decade.

Additionally, I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of any
comparison between “Germany and Japan” and Iraq as “false.” In fact, a
number of useful comparisons and analogies can be drawn between the two
while keeping historic differences in mind:

The most useful comparison of Nazi Germany to Saddam’s Iraq involves
the proposition that we cannot appease dictators and allow them to
become imminent threats. In the 1930s the world stood by as Adolf
Hitler violated one international arms treaty after the other. A
pacifist policy of appeasement and multilateral diplomacy through the
League of Nations was initially pursued to deal with Germany’s
rearmament and expansionist tendencies. Hitler, a dictator armed with a
clear ideology of hate and aggression, was allowed to flout
international law while snatching up neighboring states one by one.
Finally, when it was already far, far too late, the world took decisive
action to stop Nazi Germany. By that time the Fascist state had become
an “imminent threat.” 55 million people died in World War II.

Many point to Saddam’s Iraq and 2003 and declare that there was no
“imminent threat” to the United States. Saddam had no weapons of mass
destruction and it was therefore wrong to invade. I ask them: Should we
have waited for Saddam to become an “imminent threat?” Should we have
waited until he was in a position to kill millions before stopping him?
Was there any doubt that he would have sought weapons of mass
destruction if given the chance? This is the same man who invaded two
neighbors, used chemical weapons to murder thousands of his own people,
fired SCUD missiles at Israel, and killed, tortured, imprisoned and
suppressed millions more. Not only would it have been wrong to further
pursue an ineffective diplomatic path in dealing with such a man in a
post 9/11 world, it would have been dangerously irresponsible.

We have written a number of articles on our website comparing
Germany during and after World War II to Iraq. I invite you to look
them over and decide for yourself if the comparisons that they draw are
valid or not. You can view a few recent examples here, here and here.

Mr. Soros, you also add in your reply:

“I’m all in favor of removing tyrants like Saddam
Hussein but the way we went about it has made it more, rather than less
difficult, to do it in the future, because we acted unilaterally and
arbitrarily.”

I appreciate the fact that you are in favor of removing tyrants like
Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, had we followed your plan to deal with
Saddam through the United Nations, his regime of mass murder and
torture would likely still exist today. I would contend that it is the
fundamentally flawed United Nations system, chronically blocked from
taking any real action to enforce vital resolutions, which has made it
more, and not less difficult to remove brutal dictators from power. Mr.
Soros, on page 118 of your book you state that NATO military action in
Kosovo was justified even without a UN resolution, you write:

“I believe we were justified in intervening in
Kosovo without UN authorization, and we would have done better if we
had relied on NATO and not the United Nations in Bosnia. But unilateral
action that goes against international public opinion cannot be
justified, and it can endanger our national security by turning the
world against us. That is what the Bush administration has accomplished
by its rabid unilateralism.”

I disagree that the United States should base its national security
policy on “international public opinion.” In many parts of the world it
was unpopular to stand up to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, yet
it was the right thing to do. In many parts of the world it was
unpopular to oppose Fascism in World War II, yet it was the right thing
to do. Bluntly put: The United States should not and cannot change its
foreign policy to match the ever changing whims and fancies of
international opinion. To ask it to do so would not only be
impractical, it would endanger the nation’s security. It was right to
act in Kosovo, and it was right to act in Iraq, where, by the way, the
humanitarian situation was far worse.

You label the Bush administration’s actions as “rabid unilateralism”
and on page 174 of your book you even call them “rampant
unilateralism.” How so? The Bush administration spent months at the
United Nations hoping against hope to see real action on Iraq. Nothing
the President or anyone else could have done would have convinced
nations like France, China and Russia to fully enforce the seventeen
Security Council resolutions on the books concerning Iraq. That was the
fundamental problem. We all know that the three veto powers opposing
the US had big money tied up in Iraq. For them it was more about
national interest and less about international justice.

So did President Bush subsequently engage on an “arbitrary” and
“unilateral” campaign? Not at all. How can you call putting together a
coalition of dozens of nations “ rabid unilateralism?” Tell the leaders
of Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Denmark and the
Netherlands that Mr. Bush is rabidly unilateral. Soldiers from all of
those nations have fought and died next to American soldiers in Iraq
and Afghanistan. President Bush was enforcing the UN resolutions that
the UN itself could not and would not enforce. How can we see a body
that cannot even enforce its own laws as “legitimate” Mr. Soros?

Bluntly put: The United Nations Security Council and the five veto
powers do not have a monopoly on the terms “multilateral” or
“legitimate” nor does acting outside the United Nations necessarily
make an action “unilateral” or “illegitimate.” That seems to be where
we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

To me, a failure to confront a humanitarian crises or international
threat through the United Nations is far more illegitimate than a
willingness to take action outside the United Nations to confront that
threat. Until we fundamentally reform the United Nations, this will
always be an issue and a problem. I appreciate the suggestions you make
in your book on UN reforms. The problem is actually getting them
implemented.

You write in your reply:

“It took President Bush’s policies to upset the
Germans. As you know, German Chancellor Schroeder managed to stay in
power by taking an anti-American platform. This goes to show how much
damage Bush has done to America’s standing in the world.”

Mr. Soros, as a citizen of both Germany and the United States, I can
assure you that anti-American sentiment in Germany has been around far
longer than George W. Bush or any of his policies. Additionally,
Chancellor Schroeder is not the first German leader to win an election
or profit politically by taking advantage of this anti-American
sentiment. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in former
President Jimmy Carter’s autobiography “Keeping the Faith.” Here is
what President Carter wrote in 1982:

“Helmut Schmidt seemed to be torn between the
conflicting political forces in his country. In private conversations
he was very tough in dealing with the Soviet threat, often the leader
among Europeans in proposing strong action. But in German political
debates, he emphasized the opposite facet of the same question and
seemed reluctant to do anything that might be interpreted as
anti-Soviet. At times this conflict made it difficult for Americans to
understand him and was the reason for some of our problems. There were
many reports from news reporters and others in Europe and in the United
States concerning his critical comments about me, Secretaries Vance and
Muskie, Dr. Brzezinski, and other officials in our government. These
persistent criticisms, often highly publicized, helped to legitimize
anti-American sentiments in Germany.” (Pages 537-538, “Keeping Faith”)

It is also common knowledge that the majority of Germans widely
opposed Ronald Reagan’s tough stance against the Soviet Union and his
decision to station Pershing rockets on the European continent in the
1980s. Yet that decision was a decisive step in winning the Cold War.

Sadly, anti-Americanism has a long and storied history in post-war
Germany and in much of Europe for that matter. The chronically biased
reporting of the media further exacerbates the problem. If you followed
our website regularly you would know that. If I had millions to spend,
I would invest some of them in publications like Medienkritik that seek
to uncover and expose outrageous, anti-American bias in the European
media. Few things have damaged transatlantic relations more than that
bias.

Your claim that it took President Bush’s policies to upset Germans
is simply incorrect and clearly contradicts the historic record. The
fact that Chancellor Schroeder shamelessly exploited anti-American
sentiment to win re-election after promising the United States not to
make Iraq a big issue is more of an indictment of his character than
anything else. It is also interesting to note that Germany’s most
extreme parties, the Communists and the Neo-Nazis share Mr. Schroeder’s
firm anti-war, anti-Bush stance.

Mr. Soros, throughout your arguments you fail to hold European
politicians and journalists responsible for the current transatlantic
rift, choosing to place most if not all of the blame on the United
States and President Bush. Not only is this approach one-sided, it is
patently unfair. That is not to say that the United States bears none
of the blame. It simply means that there are two sides to every coin.

I would suggest you change the name of your book from “The Bubble of American Supremacy” to “The Bubble of European Impotence.”
I don’t say that in an attempt to be funny or insulting. I say that
because the Europeans’ lack of real military power makes it impossible
for them to intervene in major international crises without the United
States backing them up. That means that, without the US, the Europeans
are necessarily confined to diplomacy to resolve problems, leaving them
largely impotent when diplomatic channels prove ineffective in dealing
with ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein. This was demonstrated with
remarkable clarity during the Bosnian conflict. European forces were
unable to deal with a relatively minor conflagration in their own
backyard until the United States stepped onto the scene and flexed its
military muscle. The same will be true in Iran, and the Iranians know
it. They know as long as they play the European diplomacy game that
they have nothing to fear. The only power that can truly hold them
accountable is not the EU or the United Nations, but the United States.

The fundamental imbalance of power arising from Europe’s inability
to live up to its military obligations and its lingering dependence on
the USA provides for an environment of inequality and resentment. Many
European nations such as France and Germany have come to define
themselves through their resistance to US “dominance” or “hegemony”
which they define as “unilateral” despite the fact that the US is
currently in a coalition consisting of dozens of nations in Iraq. They
insist that the US seek “legitimacy” through “multilateral” channels.
In reality, these terms are code words for European checks on US power.
Despite your claims to the contrary Mr. Soros, there is nothing
particularly “multilateral” or “legitimate” about one, two or even
three nations with a veto in the UN Security Council, (France, Russia
and China) determining whether US actions are justified or not. To me,
a Chinese dictator sitting in Beijing should not have the right to
determine what is “multilateral” or “legitimate” in the world, yet that
is exactly how the UN Security Council works. To expect Americans to
put their security in the hands of such a dictator is, again, not only
unrealistic but also dangerous, particularly in a post 9/11 world.

The solution is for European nations to step up to the plate in
accepting greater international responsibility. Until they do so, they
will never be accepted by the United States as “equal partners.” That
means they will have to spend far more on their militaries so that they
can actually resolve conflicts such as the one in Bosnia without US
help. A stronger Europe would allow the United States to spend less on
its military and more on international aid. A stronger Europe would
contribute to a greater equilibrium of power in the world. But a
stronger Europe standing side-by-side with the US in partnership will
never become a reality if Europeans don’t become proactive and simply
continue to blame the United States for all the world’s problems. I
fear that your criticisms contribute to and reaffirm this complacency
born of blame.

Unfortunately, in your book and on your website, you choose to
largely ignore the failings of the Europeans, the UN and the
international community. You and many others have turned President Bush
into a convenient scapegoat for virtually everything. I believe that
this flagrant lack of balance also runs rampant in the European press
and has done serious damage to transatlantic relations. If we refuse to
look at this problem from a more comprehensive, balanced position, we
will never be able to solve it. And the European bubble of impotence
and resentment will continue to grow and grow.

In closing I want to point out that my wife’s family is from Russia.
Both of her parents are scientists who were able to make it through
some very tough times in the USSR because of the philanthropic work
that you did Mr. Soros. For that I say “thank you.” Again, I hope you
consider my opinion. It comes from the heart.

Sincerely,
Ray D.   
Medienkritik

To conclude, I must say that Mr. Soros did have the decency to
publish my email in its entirety on his blog. Despite the fact that I
disagree with him on a number of issues, I appreciate the fact that he
is willing to engage in a tough and open debate on these important
matters. (UPDATE: I stand corrected, Mr. Soros has now decided
to suddenly remove my email and his response from his website. Hardly
conducive to an open discussion.)

First published here in October 2004.