Jinn of Current Events

Luther was no friend of freedom. In 1522 he wrote A Sincere Admonition to All Christians, to Guard against Insurrection and Rebellion where he proclaimed that no insurrection is ever right, no matter how right the cause it seeks to promote. Thus, he would be actively opposed to revolutions in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He would also have been horrified by the American Revolution. 

A German entity negatively comments at lgf about the prospects for liberty in Iraq and Arab countries in general: Democracy did not just start with 1789, you know, the foundations were laid when Luther revolted against the Pope in 1517. Oh. No.

Here are a few historical facts. Democracy, i.e. unlimited majority rule, goes back to Athens in Ancient Greece and is not much of an ideal (think Socrates). The best system for individual freedom and hence flourishing is (so far) a republic, a government limited by its constitution and a bill of rights, i.e. the American model -- which is not democratic at all. And 1776 is a far more important year in the history of freedom than 1789 may be, if at all, French propaganda notwithstanding (think La Terreur and Napoleon). Maybe someone needs to learn more about history and freedom -- in which case I suggest studying the Federalist Papers, for instance. Finally, the foundations of freedom are located in Ancient Greece, where heroic people believed in the examined life and the pursuit of happiness (read Aristotle); upheld objective and natural laws (think Antigone); experimented with constitutions; and sought various institutional means to prevent the usurpation of power.

Incidentally, the foundations of political freedom are not located in Germany. What one finds there, rather unfortunately, is Kantian-Hegelian collectivism in various forms, mainly the nazi/fascist variant (similar to Iraqi Baathist ideology) and the marxist/communist one (similar to North Korean Stalinist ideology). Not a very good record, I'm afraid. Given this history, Germany opposing the American effort to get rid of the tyranny in Iraq is not a good sign. Relative freedom was given to Germany by America and Britain in 1945 -- one would hope the Germans would try harder to understand what it is and what it requires (hint: not supporting tyrants or aligning oneself with them).

Ceterum censeo, delenda est Mecca. 

Donald Rumsfeld concludes an excellent speech: To understand what is at stake, it is worth reminding ourselves of the history of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations. When the League failed to act after the invasion of Abyssinia, it was discredited as an instrument of peace and security. The lesson of that experience was best summed up at the time by Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King, who declared, "Collective bluffing cannot bring about collective security."

That lesson is as true today, at the start of the 21^st century, as it was in the 20^th century. The question before us is - have we learned it?

There are moments in history when the judgment and resolve of free nations are put to the test. This is such a moment. The security environment we are entering is the most dangerous the world has known. The lives of our children and grandchildren could well hang in the balance. 

One major German newspaper, Berlin's Die Welt, shows clear understanding for Rumsfeld's recent comments: Outrageous, but true, it says, and warns of even worse to come if Germany continues on its current path of obstruction: Berlin's plunge into the company of pariahs, thieves and the usual suspects for anti-American activities would be complete. [via BBC News | Media reports]

Properly, the adjective "outrageous" can only apply to German policy, not Rumsfeld's identification of the facts. Telling the truth is not an outrageous act. Alignment with sundry tyrants is. 

Victor Davis Hanson: Yet remember, this is also an age of untruth and boutique piety. "Internationalism" and "multilateralism" can mean that Libya, which butchered the people of Chad, adjudicates human rights; that Syria, which practiced genocide, sits on the "Security" Council, and that the two gassers, Iran and Iraq, discuss protocols of illegal weaponry... Strange and depressing times. So let us trust in reason and history, rather [than] in hysteria and self-righteous bluster. 

Dale Franks: The purpose of the UN is not to serve as a polite debating society where bloodthirsty dictators can air their views in an atmosphere of courteous attention. Its purpose is to provide collective security for its members by opposing, and, if necessary, destroying those regimes which are bent on a policy of aggression. But there is no rational reason for any nation to remain part of a collective security organization that has no real ability to provide it.

In the 1930s, the League of Nations was presented with the challenge of responding to the rise of aggressive fascism in Germany and Italy. When its impotence at doing so became clear, the League collapsed under the weight of its own uselessness. By failing to act against Iraq now that its treachery has become crystal clear, the UN will take a long step towards going the way of the League of Nations. 

Christopher Hitchens on Jacques Chirac, The Rat That Roared: a man so habituated to corruption that he would happily pay for the pleasure of selling himself. ... He and his foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, have unctuously said that "force is always the last resort." Vraiment? This was not the view of the French establishment when troops were sent to Rwanda to try and rescue the client-regime that had just unleashed ethnocide against the Tutsi. It is not, one presumes, the view of the French generals who currently treat the people and nation of Côte d'Ivoire as their fief. It was not the view of those who ordered the destruction of an unarmed ship, the Rainbow Warrior, as it lay at anchor in a New Zealand harbor... 

And here is what Fischer, the German foreign minister says to Rumsfeld today: I don't share the opinion that Arab democracy will bloom after a war. (We'll assume that by "democracy" he means representative government and individual freedom, i.e. the American model of a constitutional republic.)

Oh but of course, Herr Fischer is right, let's completely ignore the examples of US victory against Japan, Italy, and Germany. Nazi Germany was on a par with Baath Iraq. Either he wants to save Nazi-like regimes in the Middle East or he is filled with arrogant contempt for the Arab people. Watching Germany from 1933 through 1945, then East Germany through 1989, Herr Fischer would probably have judged that representative government and freedom had no chance there... would he? Ceterum censeo, delenda est Mecca. 

France, Germany, and Belgium are blocking NATO from planning defensive measures for Turkey, a long-time NATO member that was a crucial and loyal ally in the Cold War. There will be hell to pay once Gulf War II is over. Donald Rumsfeld: It's beyond my comprehension. Turkey is an ally. The North Atlantic Treaty provides for that. Turkey is a member of the alliance. To prevent defensive capability -- just the planning, not even deployment -- I think that is inexcusable. This is not motivated by fear of war or love of inspections, but by an active desire to undermine the USA and the fight for freedom. It also demonstrates contempt for Turkey. [via Reuters]