Amiland

2003-06-25T12:31:00.000-07:00

UPERSTAR HEALTH INSURANCE: For those living in Germany, by now you've heard of the reality-TV show "Germany's Searching for a Superstar." I'm not as hip as I sometimes seem, and this show really only came to light for me a couple weeks ago.

Here's the premise, as I understand it (not having ever seen an episode): A bunch of contestants are competing on television, over a span of months, to become Germany's next "superstar." Singing, I think, is the key category.

At the end of each episode, a Non-Superstar is voted out of the competition.

Anyway, Bildzeitung is reporting that one of the Superstars-Still-To-Be had breast implants. No big news really, except that she says Germany's health insurance paid for it. This, my friends, is the highly touted German Krankenkasse.

In the article, a German plastic surgeon explained:

The Krankenkassen only pay for such operations if there is a medical necessity. For example, if a woman severely suffers mentally from breasts that are too small.

Apparently, since this poor woman found her breasts to be a "sickness" and felt that she was "incomplete," we all pay ridiculously high premiums for rather lackluster service.

Remember: In case either your employer or your wife objects, women at the Bildzeitung website don't always have all of their clothes on. The article is here.

2003-03-16T00:37:00.000-08:00

UROPUNDITS: Yesterday I officially joined the group of bloggers who call themselves Europundits. You'll find exclusive posts by a number of notable bloggers on European issues...

I posted on Chancellor Schröder's address to parliament on Friday morning. Go check it out...

...

We are still experiencing some technical difficulties with the template, but hope to have them resolved soon. The Schröder post is at the bottom of the page...

2003-03-15T06:30:00.000-08:00

ERMANY SAYS JEIN TO HELP: It appears that German officials are beginning to soften their stance with regard to the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Initially, Germany had said that its problematic no to confronting Iraq with force also meant a no to participating in any reconstruction.

This helped them land in a row with Cuba and Libya as countries that said they would not support reconstruction in any way.

Now, according to reports from dpa and AFP, "There is already an 'internal' discussion within the red-green coalition [Schröder and his enviro-partners] about reconstruction loans, as well as the deployment of as many as 1,000 soldiers for a peacekeeping force."

The news agencies are picking up on the "Weekend-Scoop" of Der Spiegel, which will first hit newsstands on Monday. The story is from the "Panorama" section, which is not available online.

According to the reports, though, "it depends on who's asking for help." If the United Nations, for example, looked to Germany for support, Germany could say no only "with difficulty," according an unnamed member of Schröder's cabinet.

There is no direct indication of what Germany would say -- with difficulty, I'm sure -- if the United States asked for support.

[± Steven Den Beste writes in with this comment: "Not to mention what Germany would say if the US does NOT ask for support..." He also sent a link to this post from September last year, where he wrote: "Keeping the faith with our servicemen is more important to me than the UN, or whether the Germans and French like us, or even whether 80% of the world thinks we're wrong." Thanks Steven.]

Meanwhile, the same press reports are citing a soon-to-be published article in Welt am Sonntag, where Defense Minister Peter Struck (SPD) said that any reconstruction efforts in Iraq would not be supported by the defense budget.

We'll be glad to help, the two reports seem to be saying, just don't expect us to help with our own money.

2003-03-15T04:19:00.000-08:00

PIEGEL DISCOVERS THE TRUTH: The title of the story is an oh so clever one: Brainwashington. The subhead: "The worldwide anger at the war-politicians and brain-washers in the White House is growing."

It's a long story, but it eventually turns to the role of the Internet in purveying information related to the confrontation with Iraq. Here's how Spiegel Online sees it:

While in the USA trust in much of the mainstream media is disappearing and the fear of becoming victims of the directed disinformation of the Bush administration is growing, many young Americans -- maybe "the best and the brightest" of their generation -- have started to create a counter-sentiment in the public that is startling from cover all of the crows and hawks, which are currently nesting on the Potomac.

Hunters for the truth. How poetic...

Their most important tool for producing information and for the dispersal of uncensored news is the Internet.

Young Americans are coming to German online sites and translating texts that are critical of Bush, in order to make them available to their friends at home -- "because the American press would never carry such a story," said a Susan per email, and because US newspapers cover "primarily the perspective of the administration," wrote a guy named John in pigeon-German.

It's a good thing Susan and "pigeon-German" John are able to translate German news for us, so as to provide the ultimate truth.

No mention in the Spiegel Online article of those translating ridiculous "news" stories in German for the ridicule of Americans. But anyway:

Of course there are also -- and particularly -- in the USA quite a few similar Websites, which have taken it as their task to disperse the suppressed news.

And who are these lonely voices of reason, according to Spiegel Online?

It's always a treat when Spiegel writes about balanced and objective journalism...

2003-03-14T08:03:00.000-08:00

OLD WAVE: Der Ami (me) has been knocked out for the past couple days with a ~~24-hour~~ 48-hour stomach flu. This sort of thing has been going around in Germany:

The number of people who are "officially" sick [i.e., they have a note from their doctor: "Krankgeschrieben"] has doubled since the flu-wave started in middle February.

Each week, another 300,000 to 500,000 are getting sick. Unfortunately, the report doesn't say how many are getting better...

2003-03-12T13:53:00.000-08:00

ERMAN VICE: It appears that the German Customs Office is working overtime these days. In addition to keeping up with all of the German-based companies under investigation for violations of export laws, the customs officials are in hot pursuit of Don Johnson -- of "Miami Vice" fame.

Ok, so they're actually just examining some documents found in his car...

Johnson's car was stopped for a routine check as he entered Germany from Switzerland in November with two other men, said Wolfgang Schmitz, a spokesman for German customs.

Officials photocopied the documents, but they did not seize them and allowed the former "Nash Bridges" star to continue his journey without formally questioning him, Schmitz said.

Also according to Schmitz: "There is currently no indication of illegal transactions."

I read somewhere that a guy once dared suppose there was a treachery -- that "Nash Bridges" was influenced by earlier episodes of "Miami Vice." I'd link, but then some might conclude I'm making the same argument.

2003-03-12T10:41:00.000-08:00

ORE (AND LESS) TREACHERY: Let me first say that the post below is not accusing the German government of any wrongdoing, as more than a couple emails have charged. I do link to Steven Den Beste, though. You decide.

But to state it clearly: There is no evidence that the German government is inappropriately involved with any of these cases of illegal exports. This is not Iraq-Kontra.

Both Mrs T. over at T6I and Scott at PapaScott, two bloggers that I follow regularly, make some good points on this issue.

That being said, yet another report (via AFP) is stating that Germany's involvement in illegal exports to Iraq is even more treacherous than initially thought.

A television magazine program, "Report München," has said that the number of confirmed German companies fingered in Iraq's declaration to the UN has now reached 109. Again, the number comes from Baghdad, so it's accuracy should be viewed with skepticism. (And again, these are companies, not government representatives.)

But what is even more damning, because it puts the number in perspective, the TV show reported that the 109 companies from Germany are twice as many from all other countries combined.

Government involvement or not, I find it highly troubling (some might even be suspicious) that German companies represent perhaps two-thirds of those named in Iraq's declaration.

2003-03-11T18:43:00.000-08:00

IGH GROWTH INDUSTRY: The German newspaper Die Welt has a damning story in Wednesday's edition about Germany's recent and quite extensive business connections with terrorist supporting states.

Yes, we all know that the US government supported the regime of Saddam Hussein in the 70s and 80s.

But that was before Iraq invaded Kuwait, before the Gulf War in 1991, before sanctions were imposed by the all-powerful and all-knowing United Nations.

What has Germany done since then?

Well, in addition to the two men convicted in January for selling industrial drilling machinery to Iraq -- one was sentenced to fewer than ten years less than Mounir Motassadeq -- it appears that Germany's internationally renowned engineers have been quite busy.

As has already been extensively reported, nearly 100 German firms were named in the Iraqi report submitted to the UN as part of Saddam's final chance to declare its WMDs. But this information came from Iraq, so can we really trust it?

Now, according to Die Welt, the German Customs Office [Zollkriminalamt] has compiled its own catalogue summary of Germany's proliferating companies.

With regard to Iraq, 137 people are currently under investigation or have been accused. They come from 65 German companies where preliminary investigative proceedings are underway.

At the moment, four separate court proceedings against German companies for illegal exports to Iraq are already in process.

But Iraq isn't the only country where Made in Germany is in demand. Die Welt reports that others, including Pakistan, India, Libya and Iran, "are fostering intensive business relationships" in Germany.

The participation of a German company in the construction of a poison gas factory in Rabta produced international headlines. But with that, the trade relationships to Libya weren't at all broken off. Completely the opposite. In the last year, 39 companies have come under the suspicion of the investigators. They are accused of delivering illegal weaponry materials for the construction of missiles, energy components for the missiles, as well as guidance devices.

Also coming to the attention of the Customs Office were 19 companies who have stocked Iran with, among other things, the most modern combat tanks and replacement parts.

Steven Den Beste once dared suppose there was a treachery... And to think, these deals weren't recorded by Germany's Federal Statistical Office?

That's a shame, because illegal exports constitute perhaps the only region where Germany's economy has actually grown in the past ten years.

2003-03-11T15:55:00.000-08:00

OMESICK SOLDATEN: According to the Bundestag's annual report on German military forces [Bundeswehr], 2002 was a record year for complaints. A third more complaints from soldiers were recorded last year as compared to 2001. And for the first two months of 2003, complaints are already up a further 13 percent.

[Here are the news reports in the Süddeutsche Zeitung and Der Tagesspiegel.]

The main reasons for complaints concerned out-of-country deployments, an area where the Bundeswehr naturally has less experience. The typical foreign deployment lasts six months and is not generally staffed with soldiers performing required civil service.

(± Here, I mean to say that enlisted soldiers (as opposed to conscripts) are typically deployed on foreign assignments. The SZ piece below, however, claims that "too many" conscripts are currently involved in such deployments, partly resulting in more complaints. In common parlance, civil service usually refers to those who reject compulsory military conscription and perform an Americorps-like job instead. Sorry for any confusion...)

Reforms are on the table, but the minister responsible for the report cautioned, "The huge ship tanker [that is the] Bundeswehr can't be maneuvered arbitrarily." Some reforms may have already gone too far.

An opinion piece in Wednesday's Süddeutsche Zeitung, though, sees the problem from a different light:

But can one conclude, like the minister [has], that too much reform cannot be expected from the Bundeswehr? Maybe it's even the other way around: The more consistently and transparently that the reforms of the Bundeswehr are driven forward, the more clearly the soldiers will see the tasks that [government] policy wants to give them.

Insert snide remark here about the German government's policy to consistently and transparently reject the use of any force to disarm Saddam Hussein...

2003-03-11T09:33:00.000-08:00

HAT'S THREE YEARS: I am certainly glad that the four Algerian men who plotted to detonate a bomb in Strasbourg have been found guilty in a German court. According to the story in today's International Herald Tribune, the presiding judge said the men they were planning a "bloodbath."

All four men were sentenced to between 10 and 12 years in prison.

Less than a month ago, Mounir Motassadeq was convicted in Germany for knowingly aiding the September 11 terrorists. His conviction carried 3,066 counts. He was sentenced to three more years in prison than his Algerian buddies.

2003-03-11T09:10:00.000-08:00

IGHT OF MIGHT: Not that Germany's unionized workers need an excuse to work any less than they already do, but they're currently planning to engage in a "work stoppage for peace."

(AP) Germany's largest industrial union is urging its 2.6 million members to stop work for 10 minutes Friday in a protest against the looming war in Iraq

I guess that's all fine and good, but here's what Klaus Zwickel, the union boss, had to say:

I still hope that efforts by the unions and their members will contribute to securing peace. International law must be strengthened. The right of might must not prevail.

Did he really say the right of might? But isn't that what unions are all about?!?

2003-03-10T11:32:00.000-08:00

LLEGITIMATE WORLD CUP: Amiland reader Matt writes in with this bit of historical context for international law:

I thought that it was funny that the articles about WM06 [World Cup 2006] and having the heads of state personally vote on any future resolution were next to each other.

If it had not been for a "rogue" voter, Germany would not be hosting the World Cup in 2006. Back in 2000 the New Zealand representative was supposed to vote for South Africa, but at the last minute (more or less) switched his vote to Germany.

So it appears that Germany had to do a bit of arm-twisting and bullying here. I guess that's what one would expect from a soccer superpower. If only they had consulted with their allies, we could've all agreed to cancel the tournament in the name of world peace.

But you know, just because they received enough votes to host it, Germany's sponsorship of the World Cup should still be seen as illegitimate in the world community. I'm planning a protest march for this weekend...

2003-03-10T09:34:00.000-08:00

ODAY'S HEADLINE: From the AP -- "Chief organizer says it wouldn't be a problem to have 36 teams."

I have to admit that I thought to myself, When are they going to realize no amount of inspection teams in Iraq can win the cat and mouse game with Hussein...

But then I read the rest:

BERLIN - Raising the number of teams by four to 36 at the 2006 World Cup would not be a problem for Germany, Franz Beckenbauer, president of the organizing committee, said Monday.

Oh... Ok.

You see, Germany is hosting the 2006 World Cup (for soccer).

2003-03-10T04:19:00.000-08:00

NTRY VISA: According to press reports here, Chancellor Schröder is backing the recommendation of President Chirac, that the heads of state from the UN Security Council should themselves vote on any further resolutions.

Schröder has said he is ready to make the trip to New York.

Does he perhaps not trust his own foreign minister to vote as ordered?

In the end and if left alone, Foreign Minister Fischer could still vote his conscience, regardless of what the chancellor tells him to do. He has always been the unknown in this equation, stating from the very beginning that 1441 alone provides legitimacy for a US war with Iraq. It would of course be an extremely bold (and career-risking) move by the foreign minister. But who knows...

2003-03-09T18:46:00.000-08:00

ER NEW YORK MIRROR: It appears that a journalist with the renowned German weekly, Die Zeit, is not so pleased with how he was quoted in the New York Times a couple weeks ago.

Christoph Dieckmann, Die Zeit journalist and "authentic voice of the German east," has taken a swipe at Richard Bernstein for his NYT article, "The Germans Who Toppled Communism Resent the U.S."

I initially posted on the NYT piece after it was published on February 22. As fate might have it, my focus at that time also fell on Bernstein's quotation of Dieckmann:

"It's because they are poorer in the east than in the west, and there's a kind of anger at America for this," said Christoph Dieckmann, a former dissident Protestant minister from eastern Germany who now works as a reporter for the weekly Die Zeit. "They blame America for their poor economic state."

I even titled my post, "They Blame America," because I found this comment so outrageous and simpleminded.

Now Dieckmann has published an article in this week's Die Zeit, where he pretty much says that he didn't say that. (Thanks to Godmar for the tip.)

But first, Dieckmann mocks the "New York Times Man," whom he actually never refers to by name.

The conversation turned out pretty badly. He seemed deeply taken aback. Five weeks ago he came to Berlin as the German correspondent of the New York Times. Now he wanted to know why the eastern Germans seemed so unfriendly to America.

Dieckmann then turns to his conversation with the "New York Times Man" Bernstein, and he explains the context around the quotation attributed to him in the Times article. Generally put, Dieckmann was explaining the complicated feelings that eastern Germans have for America.

According to the tape-recorder-like detail provided by Dieckmann, nowhere in fact does he say, "They blame America for their poor economic state." Indirectly, he's denying the quotation.

This is interesting. We're all kind of used to misquotations from Der Spiegel in order to amplify a bit of anti-Americanism, but would the New York Times stoop to this level as well?

Did the Times "Spiegelize" Dieckmann?

...

Godmar also told me he sent letters to both Die Zeit and the New York Times, but has yet to hear back from either. Since Dieckmann has pretty much just called Bernstein a liar, the question is whether the NYT will stand by their New York Times Man in Germany or not?

CORRECTION: I misunderstood. Godmar only sent a letter to the New York Times. The NYT still has yet to reply. In my opinion, Dieckmann doesn't really need to say anything else, anyway, as his article makes it quite clear that he didn't say what was attributed to him by Bernstein.

2003-03-09T18:38:00.000-08:00

EXT GENERATION OF GERMAN LEADERS: In the post below, I walked through a few outlandish comments by German students in a school in eastern Berlin. One of the students, 18-year old Susie, said, "President Bush is a second Hitler."

Others contemplated the role of the CIA in attacking the World Trade Center. The proud principal boasted of his students' "more realistic views."

In an attempt to simplify for American readers, I said that Susie and her classmates were "high school students."

Amiland quasi-co-contributor Godmar writes in with this comment:

Susie isn't attending a "high school" as they're known in America, she's at the Darwin Gymnasium. A "Gymnasium" is a school in Germany's tiered school system that only about 25% - 40% of students [are allowed to] attend. Gymnasium is the highest tier.

In East Berlin specifically it is about 30% - 35% (in 7th grade) that attend the Gymnasium. The other tiers ("Realschule" and "Hauptschule") end after 10 and 9 years, respectively; in order to be allowed to attend a German university, you have to have the Abitur, which you typically acquire by attending a Gymnasium.

In other words, she didn't visit some ghetto school where kids receive a sub par education, she visited a school type that frequently prides itself on educating the next generation of Germany's leaders. Go figure.

Well, it certainly does appear that Susie and her mates are preparing themselves quite adequately to take the reins of Schröder's SPD someday. Heck, he might even need a new under-secretary of defense sometime soon...

2003-03-09T12:54:00.000-08:00

EALISTIC VIEWS IN GERMANY: A very interesting article, by Nina Bernstein, is in today's "Week in Review" from the New York Times. It chronicles the growing sentiment among younger Germans that they don't owe any further gratitude to the United States.

Personally, I think they're probably right. But all the same, they seem to be significantly lacking some historical perspective.

Nina quotes Gary Smith, president of the American Academy in Berlin, who captures the mood:

There is a total disconnect. They wear jeans and listen to Eminem, but this is not relevant to the America that these students are afraid of. In the end it comes down to America's power in the world.

I've posted before on the ridiculous proposition that the struggles of integrating former East Germany with the West are America's fault. [± The original quotation for this "proposition" came from a German journalist, cited in an article in the New York Times. See this post where the journalist from Die Zeit essentially says that he was misrepresented in the NYT piece.] There's more of that sentiment here:

In the east, teenagers' cynicism is fueled by their parents' disappointment with reunification. In 1990, many economists said the east would be as prosperous as the west within a few years. More than 12 years later, unemployment in the east is still running at 20 percent, double that in the west.

"In my opinion, capitalism didn't win," said Andreas Schutt, 23, a part-time computer programmer, whose 50-year-old father was just laid off. "In my opinion, Communism lost. Now capitalism is failing, too."

If only these kids understood that Germany's economy hardly represents free market capitalism anymore. If anything, these young students should be disenchanted with Germany's Sozialmarktwirtschaft.

But anyway, enough economics. Let's look at what they're learning in history...

Susie, an 18-year old Schulerin (high school student), has learned this much from her German history classes:

President Bush is "a second Hitler," she said, and the attack on the World Trade Center was the equivalent of the Reichstag fire.

The article goes on to explain:

However outrageous such a link seems to Americans -- and the German justice minister was fired last fall for voicing a less virulent version -- it evoked little disagreement from Susie's classmates. On the contrary, several chimed in with conspiracy-laced challenges to the official version of events. Of the Sept. 11 attacks, Franzeska, 18, said, "There are a lot of rumors that the Americans did it alone."

Oh, but history class isn't over yet:

A boy named Marian added, "We can't imagine that the C.I.A. didn't know something about this." Then, he asked rhetorically, "Did you think that Americans were really on the moon?"

Are you wondering where these students get their perspective? Try the school's principal:

"[The United States] was either a dangerously unknown territory or an earthly paradise," [Herbert Schkutek, the 53-year-old principal] said. "Now they have more realistic views."

But thank you to Nina -- the article's author -- for her sarcasm at the end, to put everything back in place:

Their views, more outlandish than realistic, were bolstered with selective history. Next, the students were going on a school field trip to learn more about America. They were off to see "Bowling for Columbine."

I bet they also got extra credit to march in the pro-Saddam protests a few weeks ago...

2003-03-09T11:00:00.000-08:00

IPLOMATIC DECENCY: Also according to Welt am Sonntag, the ultima diplomatico Walter Kolbow, German Under-Secretary of Defense, said that Rumsfeld should "first learn a bit of diplomatic decency."

That came right before this comment: "I've sat across from Rumsfeld -- it wasn't a pleasure."

If you're like me, you might be starting to ask yourself, Where does Schröder find these professional diplomats?

2003-03-09T09:07:00.000-08:00

USH IS A DICTATOR: According to Reuters, the German Under-Secretary of Defense has called President Bush a "dictator." Walter Kolbow (of Schröder's SPD) was quoted in a local newspaper (Die Kitzinger, not online) on Friday as saying:

Economically and politically, Bush positions himself [in an] absolutely one-side [manner], without any respect for anyone else. That isn't a partner, that's a dictator.

You'll recall that another of Schröder's government -- Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin -- likened Bush's "political methods" to Hitler's shortly before federal elections last September.

Immediately after the minister's comments became public, she tried to finesse them without denying them. Schröder said, "If anyone were to compare the American president with a criminal, they would have no place in the government."

Unfortunately, the Chancellor didn't have the wherewithal to fire his minister until after the elections.

Similarly, Under-Secretary Kolbow is backpedaling, saying that his comments have "nothing to do with describing the US President as a dictator."

Hmm. What were his words again? "That's a dictator."

You decide...

UPDATE: The German-language Reuters report linked above is drawn from a news story in the newspaper Welt am Sonntag. Here is an English-language story from Reuters.

According to the German under-secretary, he didn't call Bush a dictator ("Bush... That's a dictator.") but instead said, "The Americans look more and more like dictators with their unilateral decisions."

I don't know, but the original quote from the local newspaper seems to me much more believable than this effort to save his skin. Since he made the comments at an event full of fellow SPDers, though, it may be impossible to find objective corroboration.

Like I originally posted: You decide... I'd believe the local newspaper any day before one of Schröder's politicians.

According to Reuters: "Kolbow confirmed to Reuters he had made the remarks and said they referred to the U.S. stance on Iraq and environmental issues."

I tell you, those Iraqi (stance) dictators...

UPDATE: The local newspaper is not called "Die Kitzinger," as I posted above, but "Kitzinger Zeitung."

UPDATE (03/10/02): The opposition CDU speaks out: "Herta Däubler-Gmelin only survived politically for a few days after her Bush-Hitler comparison. A politician who describes the American president as a dictator is just as unbearable as an under-secretary in the Defense Ministry."

They are calling for the dismissal of the under-secretary, in order to preserve "a spark of foreign policy believability."

According to news reports, the CDU has also written a formal letter of inquiry [parlamentarische Anfrage] to request an official explanation from Schröder's government.

2003-03-09T07:14:00.000-08:00

EARTLAND OF AMERICA: To quote the Boss -- This is my hometown...

"People waving flags and singing "God Bless America" covered a downtown Omaha hillside Saturday afternoon in a show of support for the U.S. military and President Bush."

2003-03-08T02:57:00.000-08:00

IKE-MINDED PACIFISTS: There's an editorial in the Süddeutsche Zeitung today: "The Missionary Bush is Misusing the Faith -- Simple Solutions: The US President and His Fundamentalist State Christianity."

The frame of the article is weeklong visit by a delegation from the Evangelical Churches in Germany (EKD). According to the article, the delegation didn't just meet with "like-minded pacifist splinter groups" in the US, but with the National Council of Churches (NCC). Ok.

The author of the editorial is quite impressed that the EKD could go a whole week, meeting with other such religious groups, without coming across any military hawks. Hmm.

He believes that it shows "how deeply divided the American people are, between those against war and those for it." Right. He goes on:

And it also shows: No matter how much George Bush tries to present his mission as a godly task, or how religiously he colors his vocabulary, no matter how deep his personal piety might be -- he is standing way on the edge of American Christianity.

As they say, don't read the whole thing...

2003-03-07T08:36:00.000-08:00

LOGGING FISCHER: Joschka Fischer is now giving his speech to the UN. Key quotes: "only the disarmament of Iraq" -- "we fight together" -- "we stand united" -- "joint approach to attain our common goal" -- "Iraq's cooperation ... does not yet fully meet UN demands" -- "in recent days, cooperation has nevertheless improved."

This is the standard diplomatic formulation: Oh, look, Hussein is now really starting to participate. Let's give him a last chance...

And now he's saying we should wait for Blix to present yet another report that details yet again all of the known infractions against previous resolutions. He goes on:

"Inspections based on 1441 are now showing progress."
"... endless suffering to innumerable people ..."
"... international terrorism would be strengthened not hindered ..."
"... the progress of the last few days have shown ..."

I bet he was disappointed not to get a round of applause.

UPDATE: The full text of Fischer's remarks are available via the Website of NYT.

2003-03-07T08:14:00.000-08:00

OVIE REVIEW: The New York Times has favorably reviewed the German movie, "Nirgendwo in Afrika." The movie opens in New York today -- I believe it will run with English subtitles. It has been nominated for an Oscar as best foreign language movie.

2003-03-07T00:50:00.000-08:00

SA TODAY, EUROPE LATER: Via German blogger (in English) Tobias Schwarz, I came across this article from USA Today. Tobias deconstructs the rather silly bullet-point list offered as advice to Amis in the piece. (I mean, it's good advice, but advice you'd give to any tourist traveling in any country at any time -- except for the advice to stay away from McDonalds, which is just dumb.)

But some of the anecdotes in the article are a bit harsh, suggesting at least a slight increase in everyday anti-Americanism on the street.

For the record: Many of us Amis who have lived here for awhile experience very little of such sentiment. The actual pervasiveness of anecdotal evidence and stories of "peaceful American tourists tortured to death by mad and naked European pacifists" is always difficult to evaluate.

If you are planning a trip to Europe, just remember the author's advice to not discuss politics in "rowdy bars," and you should be alright.

UPDATE: John over at Iberian Notes offers good advice on how to get along in Spain: "It's a good idea not to talk about politics or about the United States in general with Spaniards unless you're ready for an argument; don't bring up either subject yourself, ever." But if you do get attacked, just say something nice about Barcelona.

John also links to this piece in The Onion. Like I've done in other places at Amiland, The Onion reminds us that many Americans have European heritage: "Their ancestors came from France, from Germany, from Italy -- places where they have naked breasts on the cover of mainstream magazines."

2003-03-07T00:00:00.000-08:00

ERMANS DON'T UNDERSTAND TAGESSCHAU: According to sueddeutsche.de, "Many [German] television viewers can't get anything out of the nightly news anymore because they don't understand the buzzwords." (Thanks to Godmar.)

[The 8 p.m. broadcast of "Tagesschau" is the most watched news program in Germany, with 11.1 million daily viewers.]

Now, we've all seen the Jay Leno bit where he asks recent college graduates (usually at their graduation) a simple question, and they whiff on it. Germans really get a kick out of that stuff over here. And sometimes it is funny (or sad).

Anyway, a new poll by GEWIS-Institut concludes that 88 percent of Germans "don't understand the daily contents of the news."

The research institute asked 1061 men and women if they could describe the meaning of a series of "buzzwords" that are often used in news broadcasts.

One of the terms was "scud missile."

Of the peace loving Germans, 75 percent flat out said that they didn't know what a "scud missile" was. From the rest, 13 percent explained it incorrectly.

That led me to think... Some of the most recent polls in Germany still indicate that about 85 percent of Germans are against war with Iraq.

Which means about 10 to 15 percent of the population is "for" confronting Iraq with military means -- and 12 percent know what a scud missile is. Coincidence?

2003-03-06T09:23:00.000-08:00

ILLIONS OF DEATHS: Today's top Iraq story at tagesschau.de (and the Website's main story nearly all day) is an interview with the German spokesperson for International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNC).

She says: "We're afraid that there will be mass deaths in the months after the war, and millions of people will die."

And based on the reports that US and British forces plan to drop 3,000 bombs in the first 48 hours of an attack, the IPPNC fears 250,000 deaths "at the beginning of the war alone."

Previously, the largest number I'd seen published was a report from the UN, where up to 500,000 people "could suffer injuries and require medical treatment," as reported in the IHT.

As a review, the exact number of Iraqi casualties from the Gulf War in 1991 is in dispute, but it ranges between 50,000 and 150,000. The first "official" report -- which was later rewritten -- estimated 158,000 Iraqi deaths.

...

The "Tagesschau" is perhaps Germany's most respected daily news program on state-sponsored television. Even Gerhard Schröder has appeared in newspaper advertisements for the show: He's in his office, half-sitting on the front of his desk at the end of hard day, watching the nightly news.

Now we know what he's watching...

2003-03-06T08:37:00.000-08:00

PPOSITION POLITICS: A commentary at BusinessWeek Online gave Angela Merkel some good press yesterday. Such an article is primarily the fruit of her recent trip to the US, where she seems to have successfully raised her profile.

She now has to be seen at home as working with the Chancellor to get Germany back to work -- but at the same time, too positive an improvement in the economy would devastate her party's chances in the next federal elections, in 2006.

It's an interesting time to be the opposition leader in Germany...

UPDATE: And it keeps getting more and more interesting, as German unemployment increased again this month, to 11.3 percent. The number that strikes me, though, is the 9 percent in western Germany that are jobless.

2003-03-06T08:11:00.000-08:00

NBC IN GERMANY: The American television channel, CNBC, is offering a day of Germany-focused programming. The theme: "Was the day the wall came down a new beginning -- or the beginning of the end?"

The topic at 5 p.m. EST (23:00 in Germany) is, "The cost of Germany's growing anti-U.S. sentiment."

I'm not sure if my hotel room for tonight gets CNBC, but I'll see what I see...

2003-03-06T03:02:00.000-08:00

MAGNIFICENT PLACE:
The Pinakothek der Moderne

by Emily Berns Heyser
emily DOT heyser AT gmx DOT net

Munich may be a handsome, modern city, but it never has had an exceptional work of modern architecture or a first-rate modern-art museum. Not surprisingly, then, last fall's opening of the city's new Pinakothek der Moderne, across Barer Strasse from the Alten and Neuen Pinokotheken, was the major cultural event of the year. From the beginning the crowds were large, and critics and ordinary visitors were laudatory, both about the building's architecture and about the collection. Put off by the long lines, I waited till last week to see for myself what all the fuss was about. A friend and I went on Sunday, when entrance (normally 9 euros for adults) is free.

The museum is built around a large, naturally lit central rotunda with a two-level mezzanine that vaguely reminded this former New Yorker of the spiral ramps in Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum. But there the resemblance ends. Unlike the intimately scaled Guggenheim, Stefan Braunfels's Pinakothek is a vast, high-ceilinged building with four levels of exhibition rooms branching off from the rotunda. Its collection ranges from the early twentieth century to the present, and includes classics of painting, sculpture, graphics, design and multimedia and video art. It has rooms for permanent and temporary installations, a café, museum shop and auditorium. Most impressive, however: the building's sense of space and light - both natural and artificial - makes the most of the works shown. Unlike Wright's building, Braunfels's is a magnificent place to display and view works of art.

In the sections of the museum devoted to large pieces, the curators have contributed to the feeling of light and airiness by giving the artworks plenty of space around them. Lit by natural light and surrounded by large areas of white, John Chamberlain's sculptures made from smashed-up cars look not only vibrant and dynamic but almost beautiful. The wide, light-filled left-hand staircase leading from the rotunda to the first floor is a perfect showcase for the giant ceiling-to-floor Plexiglass noodles of Olaf Metzel's colorful "Reise nach Jerusalem" (2002). In a room showing cathedral-like light sculptures by Dan Flavin, each piece is given its own wall.

A large Max Beckmann room contains an impressive group of paintings including a giant triptych, several self-portraits and an unusual snow landscape from 1934. Other famous international artists like Georg Baselitz, Joseph Beuys and Donald Judd are well represented too, and there is a good painting by Jasper Johns. Yet I was also happy to make the acquaintance of artists whose work I didn't know, like the Argentine-born Lucio Fontana, who makes sculptures and sculpturelike pictures. The museum's artificial overhead lighting brought out wonderful reflections in his cut and scratched copper relief "Concetto spaziale New York."

In the rooms displaying smaller, more intimate artworks, the curators have hung them closer together. Gems are to be found everywhere, scattered among mediocre works. In a room with a beautiful still-life of sunflowers by Emil Nolde, there are two wonderful self-portraits, one by Karl Schmidt-Rottluff and the other by Otto Mueller. There are strong paintings by European artists previously unknown to me, such as Carl Lohse, whose "Vorlesen" is a powerfully claustrophobic image of a woman surrounded by looming, listening men.

Downstairs, at the bottom of a wide staircase descending from the rotunda, a huge backlit wall showcases masterpieces of twentieth-century home design. Dangling menacingly above those stairs, with the wall as a dramatic backdrop, a large black sculpture reminded me of a hammerhead shark and my friend of an oversized anchor.

The museum is too big, too packed with variety and quality to be taken in during one visit. My friend and I left after about four hours, determined to return soon.

Museum Website:
www.pinakothek-der-moderne.de

2003-03-05T12:56:00.000-08:00

OYCOTT UPDATE: I caught this via the AP wire:

A small eastern German company on Wednesday became the first to announce the loss of U.S. business over Berlin's refusal to back the Bush administration's moves to disarm Iraq militarily.

Apparently, a firm in Maine has stopped doing $50,000 annually in business with the German company, which employs 42 people. In a letter to Chancellor Schröder, the CEO of the affected company wrote:

We ask the German government to modify its anti-war stance in the case of Iraq for the protection of German industry.

According to the AP, the CEO "appealed to the chancellor to change his position, accusing him of sacrificing the German-American friendship 'on the altar of short-term political success.'" This was German company's largest American customer.

2003-03-05T12:29:00.000-08:00

VIL AMIS, GOOD AMIS: That's the title of an interesting article in the Tagesspiegel today. The article is a sobering look -- from a German perspective -- at the issue of possibly relocating US troops and bases outside of Germany. It starts:

They [the Amis] were nice occupiers -- and lucrative [for Germany] as well. Whole regions of West Germany lived from the economic influence of the US Army. At one time, 300,000 GIs were stationed here. Now it's still a good 70,000. The minister presidents and mayors surely don't want to lose them as well.

According to the article, in 2001 alone, two of the bases in Germany resulted in 1.4 billion euros of civil contracts, accounting for 27,000 jobs in a country with 11-plus percent (and growing) unemployment. In all of Germany, another 15,000 Germans have jobs that are directly tied to the American military presence here.

The author writes:

If the citizens [in the towns around US Army bases] demonstrate, then [they should demonstrate] not necessarily against, but for the US Army. And against the SPD [Schröder's party].

The article is a good overview of the current situation. The author highlights that the plans to reorganize and relocate US forces in Europe are older than the USA-Germany disagreement over Iraq. But still he asks:

So does Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with these plans? Indeed it does. If it weren't for the disgruntled mood [between the USA and Germany], SPD Minister President Beck [from Rheinland Pfalz] would have sounded the alarm long ago. And he would have begged the Chancellor to speak with Bush about how to manage the aftereffects. As it is, the SPD has to endure the damage with clenched teeth.

I've also received a few emails from Americans in Germany -- primarily military or ex-military -- that have touched on these themes. Here's part of an email from QMP:

I work for the US military in Rheinland Pfalz. If the US military were to pull out of this area the already teetering economy would be crushed. The US employs thousands of Germans and fills the apartments of over 50,000 German landlords here. In the last five to seven years the average German here has built a home to rent to Americans.

Were the US to leave, the housing market would collapse, landlords would default on their loans, and banks would fold. Those few Germans who own the home they rent to Americans would then suffer a loss of income (much of it retirement income) and their standard of living would be reduced. If that weren't bad enough, the 200 to 400 million dollars worth of contracted supplies and service the US military orders from German firms would also disappear.

Add it all up and you might as well try selling Rheinland Pfalz to the French. If I were a German landlord, I would be out protesting for the Americans to stay.

I wonder if the French, considering their newfound clout in the center of old Europe, are interested in buying...

2003-03-05T07:37:00.000-08:00

ATIONAL RELIGION: The New York Times has picked up on Germany's new law requiring a 25 or 50 eurocent deposit on all cans and bottles. The law appears to be drying up even the sales of beer.

"We're missing 20 percent of the beer drinkers," said Udo Frank, a spokesman for Holsten-Brauerei, Germany's largest beer maker with about 8 percent of the market.

According to the article, some makers of cans and bottles are experiencing as much as a 60 percent drop in sales.

And it's all a bit confusing, as every retailer and corner shop has their own process for returning used containers. I liked this bit from the article:

For Germany, where recycling is practically a national religion, government regulation is plentiful and planning is prized, the tumult has come as something of a shock.

Personally, I've only collected a small bag of bottles and cans that I need to return for my deposit -- maybe about three or four euros worth. Now if only I could remember where I bought each of them...

2003-03-05T06:40:00.000-08:00

ALL FOR POSTS: Since its launch, the mission of Amiland has been to take a look at how Germany looks at the USA -- and how Amiland looks back. For the most part, I try to cover the day-to-day goings on, focusing on German and American newspapers and magazines.

Another source of how we look at each other happens at a deeper level, culturally.

I'd like to invite Amiland readers to submit posts that take a look at books or movies or events, such as art exhibitions or plays. The theme is open to anything that might be interesting for an Amiland reader. (I'm sure Mrs T. wants dibs to review Scholl-Latour's new book.)

Other possibilities include novels by Frederick Busch, art treasures in Dresden, or a review of German movies: "Good Bye Lenin" or "Nirgendwo in Afrika."

Primarily, though, I think it'd be interesting to post non-fiction book reviews from Amiland readers. There are always new books touching on issues important to Americans and Germans, as well as American-German relations -- not to mention all of those on the bestseller lists from Spiegel and Focus.

If you're interested, drop me a line and we can discuss a topic that might be interesting for you and for all of Amiland's readers.

The first guest post -- from an Ami living in Munich -- is coming up tomorrow...

2003-03-05T03:48:00.000-08:00

ARREN CAN'T BE NASTY: In a Karneval float from this weekend, the opposition leader Angela Merkel was portrayed as an Uncle Sam Cannonball shooting out of ... well, shooting out of Uncle Sam. Funny, I thought.

And while I agree with Glenn Reynolds that Schröder and his supporters are probably feeling desperate -- in the SZ today, the lead editorial says the Chancellor is hoping for a "miracle" -- this float demonstrates neither that desperation nor any type of nastiness from his supporters.

At Karneval parades in Germany, every politician takes a roasting.

Chancellor Schröder, for example, was himself portrayed over the weekend as a worthless leader who can't point his country in a single direction; as a womanizer who raises petty lawsuits; as a waiter serving a "salad" of all kinds of tax hikes; and as a pirate that steals his people's money.

Granted, none of these floats were quite as "colorful" as the portrayal of the opposition leader.

At the moment, though, it is much worse -- nasty even -- to be portrayed as Schröder was: a provincial, rudderless Chancellor, whose only propositions so far have been mainly about increased taxes.

UPDATE: Amiland is looking for contributors... Scroll to the next post above to find out more.

2003-03-04T06:15:00.000-08:00

HAT ARE THEY PROTESTING: I've posted before that German demonstrators have been showing up lately at the US Air Force Base Rhein-Main near Frankfurt -- they did this in 1991 too.

But RG, an Amiland reader in the know, writes in with the rest of the story:

I keep seeing emphasis on the American base at Frankfurt, when in fact, most of the base has been shut down. The Rhein-Main AFB is a shadow of its former self. Ramstein, on the other hand, is the major US airport in Germany today. But since it (Rhein-Main) is close to a major metro area (Frankfurt), it gets the protesters.

I would guess the largest group still at Rhein-Main is the arms control folks, doing routine inspections of the former Soviet Union (Defense Threat Reduction Agency) -- so the protesters are obviously against fewer nuclear weapons?

And to think that they've wasted two beautiful weekends in Germany out there...

2003-03-04T05:39:00.000-08:00

ERMAN ABDICATION: While I do agree with Andrew Sullivan's thesis in general that "very little of the opposition to this war is actually about this war," I'm not sure about this bit in the same post from today:

For the Germans, it's about a new national identity. The Germans have never been able to sustain a moderate polity on their own. They veer from extreme romantic militarism to romantic pacifism. Their current abdication of all strategic responsibility for Europe or the wider world is just another all-too-familiar spasm from German history.

Yes, Germany was the first to stand publicly against any use of force to disarm Hussein. Schröder's irresponsible and problematic no at a campaign rally gave hope to the Iraqi dictator that he just might divide the West and escape with his weapons of mass destruction. And Schröder continues to stand by this "electoral promise."

But to characterize Germany's current position as an "abdication of all strategic responsibility for Europe or the wider world" is simply not accurate.

We shouldn't forget that two years ago Gerhard Schröder put his own government on the line to support Enduring Freedom. Basically, he said, You're either with me or against me. He forced the members of his governing coalition, including the Greens, to vote either for his government policy (and support of America) or against participation in Enduring Freedom. A failed vote would have led to new elections. It was a bold move that demonstrated solidarity with the United States.

We also shouldn't forget that just recently Schröder agreed to increase the presence of German troops in Kuwait by about 50%. The deployed personnel represent some of the world's best at detecting and decontaminating agents from chemical and biological weapons. No small contribution on the border to Iraq.

Germany has also overtaken the leading role in Afghanistan, while the Bundeswehr stands guard outside US bases here in Germany.

Schröder has put himself at odds with the US on Iraq, and he may yet pay for it -- especially if forced to the Bundestag for permission on NATO support.

With regard to Iraq, Germany ain't done good, but let's keep the cathedral in Cologne here...

2003-03-04T01:23:00.000-08:00

T'S ALL ABOUT OIL: Gas prices in Germany reached all-time highs in the month of February. According to the Petroleum Economic Association [Mineralöwirtschaftsverband] the average price for a liter of premium gas was 1.14 euros. Regular unleaded was two eurocents cheaper. (German-language report here.)

Let me do the math... One US gallon is 3.785 liters. At 1.14 euros per liter, the cost for a gallon of gas in February was 4.32 euros. Based on today's exchange rate, that comes in at $4.72 per gallon. Ouch.

Of that, more than 70% went to the state as taxes. Double ouch.

2003-03-04T00:34:00.000-08:00

RANKFURT BLEIBT AM MAIN: An interesting study was just released from Mercer Human Resources Consulting (press release). It ranks the world -- you might be surprised (if you're an Ami), but old Europe and Germany didn't do so badly...

Zurich topped the list in "overall quality of life," with Geneva, Vancouver (is that in Europe?) and Vienna tying for second. In fifth place, we find our first German cities, Frankfurt and Munich, in a multi-city tie.

Now, I've only been there for business, but Frankfurt?!

The top American city is San Francisco, which comes in at 20th place. Baghdad, with or without human shields, ranked 213 out of 215 cities in the report.

2003-03-03T11:09:00.000-08:00

MARRIAGE OF EQUALS: In what appears to be a match made in heaven, the website of the New York Times is now picking up occasional English-language versions of articles from Der Spiegel magazine.

The latest installment includes the cover story for this week's edition: America's Shadow Warriors.

Comments on the piece are, as always, welcome...

2003-03-03T10:43:00.000-08:00

PUNDITSCHAU LIVES: Regular Amiland readers will recall that I nicked the idea of Punditwatch in order to offer the German version: Punditschau. I only got so far as to focus on the Sunday night special, Sabine Christiansen, and even that much I haven't done for a couple weeks now.

Somehow, the "orgy of frowning earnestness" didn't seem worth the time -- probably because I don't have the British humo(u)r to truly appreciate it. But Mrs T. over at T6I (whence the quote above comes) does.

Mrs. T. writes on one of the guests last night:

Hats off to Peter Scholl-Latour. It's no great achievement for a veteran journalist to become a fatuous self-regarding windbag. But it takes a special man altogether to make Vanessa Redgrave seem the voice of reason by comparison.

Go check out the rest.

...

Another, amazingly mind-boggling, achievement of Scholl-Latour includes the two books -- one of which is called Battle against Terror, Battle against Islam? -- that he currently has on non-fiction bestseller lists here in Germany.

Even Michael Moore can only claim one book on the list...

2003-03-03T09:44:00.000-08:00

ON COURAGE AND BIAS: Here's a bit in the Süddeutsche Zeitung today, reporting on the meeting of the Arab League this weekend:

All the same, the Syrian President Bashar Assad had the courage to highlight the schizophrenia of the Arab position: Those, like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, who make their territory available as a deployment area to America and Britain, support the aggression against Iraq and therefore should not speak about a peaceful solution.

But I wonder how the author really feels...

Here's how Sunday's Washington Post characterized the words of the Syrian President:

In the opening session, Syrian President Bashar Assad accused the United States of seeking to serve Israel's interests, dominate the region and redraw the map of the Middle East.

Courageous words, indeed.

...

The beginning of the article also describes the suspension of Egypt from the Arab League -- in 1979 after signing the Camp David Peace Accords with Israel -- as a courageous action. According to the article, it showed Arab resolve to punish a country that "acted against the will of the majority."

In some circles, one might describe such a policy as, "You're either with us or against us." Here, "regardless of whether the decision was politically clever," it appears to have been courageous.

On the whole, the article is calling for courage from the Arab League to act on Iraq -- which of course would be a good thing. But it's calling for a "similar courage" to that needed in 1979 to act on Egypt.

Hmm... At best, it's just a really questionable comparison.

2003-03-03T05:10:00.000-08:00

OPPOSITION TO FREEDOM: Interestingly, in her interview with Der Spiegel, Susan Sontag also says: "The invasion that we are rejecting would be welcomed by the majority of Iraqis. We shouldn't forget that. And that doesn't make our opposition easier."

So let me get this straight. The Iraqi people -- the Iraqi "We" -- do want the Bush junta to un-democratically overthrow their current regime. But the "We" of Susan Sontag doesn't want this because... That would've been a good follow-up question as well.

To be fair, Sontag does give one reason, which essentially comes down to the argument that war will only make the situation worse and lead to more terrorism. Fair enough.

She's also worried that the secular Hussein might be replaced by a fundamentalist regime. You never know, but I don't think she was referring to the United States here...

2003-03-03T04:50:00.000-08:00

WE, THE BUSH JUNTA, WANT OCCUPATION: Most people know where Susan Sontag is coming from, so in some ways it's just more of the same from her interview this week in Der Spiegel (see post below). But that doesn't make her comments any less "noteworthy."

Here are just a few pulls from her answers:

But pay attention to the rhetoric of this administration. The "We" that Bush and the others use is the royal "We" -- not the "We" of the Constitution, not "We, the people." If George W. Bush and his advisors were confronted with proof that a majority of Americans reject the war, their answer would be: "It is our task to lead." Their foreign policy has been removed from the democratic process. They have mistakenly written a dangerous policy.

...

I think that September 11th was the gateway. The Bush administration immediately understood that everything would now be possible: a new foreign policy in which military expansion could be condoned by self-defense.

...

Europe is secular, whereas the overwhelming majority of people in this land [USA] believe in God. The USA is in many respects an anarchical country. That's the reason why Bush's polarizing language is so successful here [in the USA].

She of course also refers to the administration as "the Bush junta" and later argues that the "White House is drawing towards war because they want to occupy Iraq." A good follow-up question might have been, "Why?"

Perhaps there are some Sontag experts out there who can find more compelling conclusions that I can...

2003-03-03T04:05:00.000-08:00

SPIEGELVIEW: German newspapers and magazines use the Q&A format of interviews much more frequently than their American counterparts. Generally, I think it's a valuable device, giving voice to the person being interviewed in a way not possible in a news story or reportage.

When reading an interview in Der Spiegel, though, a large part of the "story" actually comes from the questions themselves. And when the person being interviewed is Susan Sontag -- as in this week's issue -- it's all the more interesting.

Here, just for fun, are some of the questions posed by the interviewer:

Frau Sontag, President Bush is apparently wildly determined to start a war against Saddam Hussein. Do you still have any confidence that it won't go so far?

There is dogged resistance to this war in Europe. Even the position of Americans is increasingly mixed, if one believes opinion polls. [In case you're wondering, this wasn't a question.]

Do you believe that Bush is using the attacks from September 11th as an excuse [to do] what he had always intended -- namely, invade Iraq?

The lack of willingness to give up sovereignty is also behind US unilaterialism -- for example, resistance to the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court? [I'm assuming that the interviewer indicated this was a question, as opposed to a statement, by tone of voice.]

The ghost of illegitimate war has followed America since Vietnam. How is it that this nightmare no longer has any effect?

With questions like these, who needs answers...

2003-03-03T03:32:00.000-08:00

ONE MAN'S PLANTATION IS ANOTHER MAN'S COURT: Last week, I commented on the epithet used by the Süddeutsche Zeitung to describe George Washington: President and slave owner. The post received some interesting feedback...

Here again is what the SZ wrote:

Just outside the town of Potomac, a good 20 kilometers northwest of Washington, you reach the so-called mansions with a living area of more than 10,000 square feet -- about the size 200 years ago that was enough for the entire plantation of President and slave owner George Washington.

Thanks to Amiland reader Joshua for fact checking the SZ (and me) with regard to the size of Washington's plantation, which was of course larger than 1,000 square meters. Joshua writes:

1,000 square meters is about a quarter of an acre. In fact, Washington's plantation at Mount Vernon consisted of about 8.09 million square meters (2,000 acres) when he inherited it, and he eventually acquired additional land to expand it to almost 32.4 million square meters (8,000 acres).

Part of the confusion here arises from my translation of Hofstaat in the original German as "plantation." This isn't entirely accurate.

A Hofstaat isn't found in slave-day America, but in European royalty. It is the king's court, the "place of residence of a sovereign or dignity," and it is comprised of "the retinue of a sovereign, including the royal family and personal servants, advisers, and ministers" (Dictionary.com).

Thus, the Hofstaat here was not Washington's plantation, so to say, but his residence and his slaves, among others. Here's (I hope) a better translation of the sentence from SZ:

Just outside the town of Potomac, a good 20 kilometers northwest of Washington, you reach the so-called mansions with a living area of more than 1,000 square meters -- about the size, a good 200 years ago, that was still [big] enough for the whole court of President and slave owner George Washington.

Of course, this doesn't change the ridiculousness of the epithet. But what of the 1,000 square meters?

It is accurate that Washington's "McMansion" at Mount Vernon was about 1,000 square meters. This, to be honest, was the extent of my initial fact checking.

But Joshua is still right, because all of Washington's "court" -- particularly the slaves -- surely didn't live in the McMansion, but instead slept in small and overcrowded quarters, somewhere out on the plantation.

...

Sorry to those who found this diversion a bit too diverting, but I did learn another thing while on this aimless walk. I'm told by a German-speaking Amiland reader that Hofstaat here is definitely a poke -- if not another derogatory one -- at what SZ might call the nation's First Slave Owner.

2003-03-02T12:46:00.000-08:00

SADDAM ALAAF: The Weekend section of Saturday's Süddeutsche Zeitung takes a look at Saddam Hussein and George Bush in the time of Karneval.

I'm not sure what the point of the article is, but I did find this AP picture taken at Karnevel celebrations in Düsseldorf...

2003-03-02T08:36:00.000-08:00

ALAAF: When in Germany, do as the ~~Germans~~ Brazilians... It's Karneval!

2003-02-28T02:06:00.000-08:00

SLEEPING ON THE JOB: Interesting post today from Eamonn Fitzgerald on a German bank's financial troubles...

2003-02-28T01:17:00.000-08:00

AMIS ON THE MOVE: Lots of chatter today about the relocation of American troops to bases in the East.

Spiegel is citing reports from Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). The Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, just back from a trip to the US, is apparently talking up four to five possible bases for American troops.

And Die Welt mentions Hungary, in addition to providing quite a few details about possible plans in Poland.

Die Welt is citing the Hungarian newspaper Népszabadság. The article says that the airport in Biala Podlaska, Poland (not far from the Belarus border), could serve to replace the pivotal role that the Frankfurt airport now plays for US forces in Western Europe.

Can anyone out there read Hungarian?

2003-02-28T00:20:00.000-08:00

EVEN ASHCROFT WAS PLEASED: Kudos to the Washington Post editorial page for this:

"It is a harsh sentence, but I think it is justified," said German Interior Minister Otto Schily in response to the conviction last week of Mounir Motassadeq on 3,066 counts of accessory to murder. Is 15 years in prison a "harsh" punishment for willfully aiding mass murder? ... Mr. Motassadeq will spend 1.8 days in prison for each count on which he has been found guilty -- unless, that is, he is released early.

We understand that European countries have different visions of just sentencing than those that prevail in this country; in many areas, the European reluctance to lock people up for long periods offers a healthy example. But as Mr. Motassadeq's case demonstrates, inflexible maximum sentences can produce offensive absurdities in terrorism cases. Fifteen years is not enough time for more than 3,000 dead.

My gut feeling when the sentence was handed down last week was pretty much the same.

Most German headlines at the time called it a "long sentence." The dpa reported that Motassadeq had "hardly expected" to receive "the full severity of the law."

The official American reaction that I've seen -- from John Ashcroft even -- has also been quite positive.

The WaPo makes its point with balance: we understand that German sentencing laws are different, and we even see this as positive, but come on: 15 years for knowingly aiding in mass murder?

2003-02-27T23:30:00.000-08:00

HOW GERMANY LOOKS AT SPAIN: This isn't a German-Spanish blog, but I thought I'd pull this bit from the International Herald Tribune today:

Guenther Grass, the Nobel Prize-winning novelist, German Social Democratic Party member and a signer of a declaration backing Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's position of no war even with United Nations backing, accused Aznar in Madrid on Wednesday of returning Spain to "pre-democratic" circumstances (read the Franco era) and serving as "a vassal" to the United States. According to Grass, whose politics over the years included rejection of German reunification, "Europe says no to the United States."

Maybe John over at Iberian Notes can give us some more insight into this IHT piece on Spain and Prime Minister Aznar...

UPDATE: John has posted a few remarks here. Thanks.

2003-02-27T22:57:00.000-08:00

WHAT'S THE FRENCH WORD FOR IRRELEVANT: A couple days ago, Diablogger recounted an episode in a Florida restaurant, starring some highly sophisticated professors with European blood. During a discussion about Iraq, the German-accented Herr Doktors just couldn't imagine "how someone who can't read French and German newspapers can possibly be informed on this matter."

Ignoring what the French might say about the comparison of their (journalism) culture with Germany's, it appears that these profs were actually right.

In today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer notes:

However, winning the peace [in Iraq] will mean not just the reconstruction of Iraq. It will mean replacing an alliance system that died some years ago, but whose obituary was written only this year. In French, with German footnotes.

Dust off those dictionaries. It's time to translate the new world order...

2003-02-27T21:28:00.000-08:00

DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT: Did German Defense Minister Peter Struck really put it this way...?

I think that we've done enough for Turkey.

At least that's how Spiegel quotes him. Sure, Germany had already said no to further support, and a government spokesman did say something about "others showing solidarity." But is such a confrontational stance really the German strategy?

In an interview with television station ZDF (although I can't find it online), Foreign Minister Fischer apparently contributed to this less-than-diplomatic course:

From our perspective, that's enough defensive support [for Turkey].

I have to admit, when I first read the initial report in Die Welt (translated by Jabba in a post below), where Germany said it wouldn't deliver additional Patriot missile batteries, I didn't see it as such big news. First of all, it was just a spokesman doing the talking.

And in any case, Germany pretty much has no further support to offer.

The German Bundeswehr (military), believe it or not, is overextended. They have round about 8,000 servicemen and women participating in different missions all over the world. They simply don't have much more.

To me, that would've been a legitimate reason why they can't (or don't want to) provide any more support to Turkey. But using the line that it's now time for others to show solidarity is, in my opinion, a thin one.

Part of the problem, especially if you listen to Germany's Greens, appears to be that Turkey is by its own choice allowing the US to move troops through their country. This is the logic: if you support an illegitimate war in Iraq, then you forfeit your right to NATO defense.

Obviously, this argument doesn't stand up, especially for Germany, which has indeed (and rightfully) allowed the US to move troops through their country.

So now, what should happen if Hussein gets off one those missiles that he doesn't have, and it lands in Germany? Should NATO refuse its support?

UPDATE: The AFP is quoting Struck's categorical no as well: "Ich denke, wir haben genug getan für die Türkei." ... And Reuters made a subheader out of it.

2003-02-27T14:34:00.000-08:00

IF MARX HAD BEEN GROUCHO: Who even needs The Online when you've got Reuters?

HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba's communist authorities can't get enough of Marx, the German guy Karl. It's Groucho they won't allow into the country.

A shipment of 5,100 books sent by the U.S. government to Cuba for the island's independent libraries -- including Groucho's "Memoirs of a Mangy Lover" -- have been held up at customs.

"Karl and Groucho. Both brought tears to the eyes of millions, but for very, very different reasons" (USA Today).

2003-02-27T14:12:00.000-08:00

NOT A DAY MORE: Condoleeza Rice has an interview in Friday's issue of Die Welt. She doesn't break any new policy, but instead repeats the maxim that US forces will remain in Iraq as long as necessary -- "but really not a minute longer."

Andrew Sullivan and his readers have been discussing the meaning and import of this strategy, first made policy in President Bush's speech on Wednesday night.

2003-02-27T13:24:00.000-08:00

LOOK IN THE MIRROR: Presidents Putin and Bush had an apparently cooperative and constructive telephone call today, resulting in this classic subhead from Spiegel:

At first, Russian President Putin made himself out to be a friend of peace, now all of sudden he's fiddling with the US President.

Well, if Spiegel is worried about Putin, then I'm not worried about a veto...

2003-02-27T08:27:00.000-08:00

THE GOOD OLD DAYS: This is not from The Onion:

BERLIN (Reuters) - Hoping to capitalise on a wave of nostalgia for Communist East Germany, a Berlin company is planning to build a theme park that revives life behind the Iron Curtain in the country that disappeared nearly 13 years ago.

Nostalgia for East Germany has lingered ever since reunification in 1990. Known as "Ostalgie", a play on the German words for east and nostalgia, the spirit has given rise to scores of "GDR parties", books, songs and popular films.

Ostalgie is for real, comrade. I've even been thinking about dressing up as Erich Hönecker for Karneval this year.

2003-02-27T05:36:00.000-08:00

GIVE AND TAKE: I was glad to see that the AP picked up on Germany's plans to deploy 30 more troops to Kuwait next week. The Defense Minister made the announcement yesterday. The deployment includes members from Germany's crack nuclear-biological-chemical (ABC-Abwehr) detection and decontamination team.

Germans often argue -- rightly -- that they are indeed involved in international affairs.

And Schröder, even considering his problematic no on Iraq, is largely the reason for this involvement. In his Regierungserklärung [address to parliament] this month, Schröder said:

Germany -- and this must be made clear to the world -- has taken on international responsibilities to a degree that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago..."

And he's right.

This increased presence in Kuwait, while made strictly under the banner of Operation Enduring Freedom, can surely be seen as preparation for a possible biological or chemical attack from Iraq, especially in the case of war.

The Chancellor just can't put it that way. Indeed, the Defense Minister said, "This is simply to provide better maintenance possibilities." But he also confirmed that German troops would stay if war broke out.

...

At the same time, Germany is drawing the line at its current involvement in the NATO defense of Turkey. Amiland reader Jabba sent in the following translation of an article in today's Die Welt:

The Federal Government wants to refuse further military support for Turkey. Acting Government Spokesman Thomas Steg made this clear on Wednesday. He was reacting to the new requests by NATO for the defense of Turkey in case of war in Iraq. The corresponding memorandum was sent to NATO member states on Wednesday and received by the Federal Ministry of Defense.

Steg stated that "no addition to the promised support is foreseen" and referred to the participation of German crews on AWACs flights over Turkey. Germany supplies a third of the crews.

Primarily at issue are six additional Patriot missile systems, which would require German soldiers to man them. The question, then, is whether NATO is still able to provide these systems without Germany's participation.

According to Die Welt, only Germany, Greece, Holland and the United States are able to supply the needed Patriots.

UPDATE: The AP also has an English-language report on Germany's apparent decision to decline additional requests for assistance from Turkey.

The government spokesman is quoted as saying, "We are providing the solidarity requested, and expect now that the other countries will make their contribution." I guess he's just sick and tired of carrying the burden for the international community.

But I found this bit most interesting: the article says that Germany leases the Patriot missile systems from the United States. Maybe it's time to call in the Special Forces Repo Team...

2003-02-27T04:21:00.000-08:00

NEWS THAT CAN USE YOU: Andrew Sullivan pointed out the interestingly different headlines from AP and Reuters yesterday, both covering the antiwar vote in the House of Commons.

But Spiegel wins the prize for being the most creative: "Revolt against Warlord Blair."

On the other hand, Germany's leading news agency, the Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa), has pretty much covered the whole spectrum since yesterday:

Weds -- 17:23 -- Sharp Criticism in British Lower House for Blair's Iraq Policy
Weds -- 20:47 -- Antiwar Proposal Defeated in British Lower House
Weds -- 22:24 -- Majority in Lower House for Blair's Iraq Policy
Thurs -- 10:38 -- Blair Stays on his Iraq Course Despite Resistance from his own Party
Thurs -- 11:29 -- Analysis: "Mass Mutiny" against Blair

There's pretty much something for everyone here...

2003-02-26T16:52:00.000-08:00

AMERICA ON COURSE FOR WAR: This week's title page from stern...

The title story -- USA: A Country in a State of War -- is available here (in German).

They are also running a multi-part series on the history of Iraq, From Babylon to Baghdad. Part three is from 1918 to 1963. Here are parts one and two.

The start page of the special section is here, with background reading and lots of pictures.

I'm not sure, but I don't know of an English-language publication that has offered anything similar.

2003-02-26T06:36:00.000-08:00

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION: In what Germans call the Kanzlerfrage [the chancellor-question] -- which asks, "Who would you directly vote for as chancellor?" -- Angela Merkel is currently edging Gerhard Schröder, 41% - 36%.

Even though the Kanzlerfrage is somewhat irrelevant, because Germans don't directly elect the chancellor, it is a strong indicator of public sentiment.

In the federal election last fall, for example, the CDU/CSU often polled quite strongly as a party (in the so-called Sonntagsfrage, which asks, "If elections were held this Sunday, which party would you vote for?") but was relatively weak in the Kanzlerfrage.

But now, according to a new poll from the Forsa Institute, the CDU/CSU is leading in both the Sonntags- and the Kanzlerfrage.

...

What does this mean? Well, it could mean that IF early elections were held -- a big if, but some scenarios could still lead to it happening -- Angela Merkel and the CDU/CSU would have a reasonable chance of assuming the majority in government.

BUT: The poll was conducted February 17-21, so it probably doesn't include any possible backlash from Merkel's WaPo op-ed last week. Since then, she's been taking a pretty sound beating in the media here.

2003-02-26T01:49:00.000-08:00

DIPLOMATIC TRAFFIC: Although her op-ed in last Thursday's Washington Post caused quite a stir over here in Germany -- rightly so, in my opinion -- Angela Merkel hasn't been making headlines in the US.

I've been following the (lack of) press reaction to her visit this week, which has included meetings with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, McCain, Hagel (R-NE), Greenspan and others.

The New York Times seems to be the first major to run a feature piece on her visit:

It is not every foreign leader who, in 48 whirlwind hours in Washington, gets to meet with the vice president, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser, the deputy secretary of state, the United States trade representative, influential senators and the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

When the visitor is leader of her country's opposition party, such treatment is all but unheard of.

Merkel also gave a speech at Georgetown University last night. Next stop is New York, where she has appointments with Henry Kissinger and Hans Blix. A trip to Ground Zero is also planned.

I hope to have more coverage of her trip -- from both sides of the Atlantic -- soon...

2003-02-26T00:51:00.000-08:00

GERMAN REINHEITSGEBOT: Anyone who has been to this beautiful country knows that Germans take their beer seriously. In 1516, in the Duchy of Bavaria, Duke Wilhelm IV passed the German Reinheitsgebot [Purity Law], which is still reverently followed today.

Along with setting sizes and prices for a Mass and a Kopf of beer, the Purity Law mandates: "The only ingredients used for the brewing of beer must be Barley, Hops and Water."

Today, in 2003, I read this from Reuters:

A German priest has developed a novel way to brew beer -- in a washing machine. Michael Fey, 45, a Catholic priest from the western city of Duisburg, came up with the idea of converting his 35-year-old toploader to provide beer more cheaply for youth outings he organises.

German engineering at its finest!

2003-02-25T10:28:00.000-08:00

PRESIDENT AND SLAVE OWNER: In the post directly below, I summarized an article for the masses from the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Rise up and tear down those aristocratic palaces that are five times bigger than your average house! Socialism and populism at its best.

But the most telling part of the article comes already in the second sentence, where we learn:

Just outside the town of Potomac, a good 20 kilometers northwest of Washington, you reach the so-called mansions with a living area of more than 1,000 square meters -- about the size 200 years ago that was enough for the entire plantation of President and slave owner George Washington.

Excuse me? Did they really print that in one of the most respected newspapers in Germany?

Ok, if we give them the benefit of the doubt, I suppose they were trying to suggest that it's such a large tract of land -- not only big enough for a President, but big enough even for a President and his slaves. Talk about big!

But I don't know. What would happen if the Washington Post started referring to Germany's current head of state as Chancellor and bed-hopper Gerhard Schröder...?

UPDATE: Yes, I do know the history of "my Founding Fathers," as a couple readers have jeeringly asked. But don't even start with me if you're trying to defend this reference in this article. It's out of place and line.

German reader Tobias puts it well: "It is these fine lines of manners among friends that are currently being overstepped by both sides." I agree.

And yet another reader reminds me that Schröder would bring a lawsuit and restraining order against the Washington Post if it dared to print such a comment. Good point.

2003-02-25T09:48:00.000-08:00

REFRIGERATOR ARTICLE FOR THE MASSES: The current confrontation with Iraq and the resulting diplomatic strife between the USA and Germany have provided plenty of fodder for Amiland. But even when the German media aren't writing about standing up to Goliath, sometimes all you can do is shake your head in disbelief...

Take today's Seite Drei article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung: "Kind of Far to the Refrigerator."

I wonder what this article's about, you might ask. Then comes the subhead:

Although they are already privileged, millionaires will profit the most from Bush's proposed tax cuts -- and they are building [houses] like princes and kings once [did].

Hmm. Interesting combination they've come up with here...

The frame of the piece is a portrait of the Jaeger family and their six million dollar home, located northwest of Washington, DC. To be sure, the Jaegers are rich -- Steinreich -- and Mr. and Mrs. do say a few things in the article that sound less than modest. Some people might even find them unsympathisch -- not very likeable.

For instance, the title comes from Mrs. Jaeger's complaint that, in her enormous new house, she does have to walk farther from the refrigerator to the kitchen table. Basically, the piece is a story about an obscenely rich American family -- scorn, scorn.

The moral of the story is that America is becoming a plutocracy, and all of its rich rulers are building "aristocratic palaces" that are "five times bigger than the average American home." Skandal.

Oh, and Bush is acting as chief architect with his proposed tax plan.

Check out this segue, moving from a description of the Jaeger's house to...well...well, just read it:

There are six full baths, five bedrooms, 13 telephones, seven open fireplaces and not less than nine toilets. Mr. Jaeger said that he is pleased with the result: "A brilliant interpretation of our wants/needs."

Mr. Jaeger is George W. Bush's man. The one who will profit the most from the planned tax cuts because he belongs to the richest [class], which should pocket 60% [of the cuts] from the economic program. It hasn't gone this well for the richest of the rich in American since the Roaring Twenties.

Note that I have put no ellipses between the two paragraphs.

We do learn at the end of the article that it "has crossed Mr. Jaeger's mind" to be more philanthropic. You know, a few coins for the common people and the working masses.

After reading the article a couple times now, I'm only left to wonder whether Mr. and Mrs. Jaeger know how their portrait in the Süddeutsche Zeitung finally turned out. Did they hang up this article on their refrigerator?

2003-02-25T04:53:00.000-08:00

DAVID VERSUS GOLIATH: Great title page from stern magazine...

One of the title articles is available online: End of a Friendship. I haven't read it yet, so let me know what you think.

Just remember that stern, in the opinion of many Germans, is not seen as "high journalism" -- like Der Spiegel. The article starts off by talking about the German ambassador's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor...

P.S. The little guy there is the Chancellor.

UPDATE: My matey Mrs. T. at T6I has the goods on this stern article. Check it out.

2003-02-24T07:46:00.000-08:00

BANNING GERMAN TOURISTS: According to the AP, a restaurant owner in Denmark is banning German and French guests from eating at his place, Aage's Pizza.

Aage Bjerre has three rules for dining at his pizzeria on the Danish island of Fanoe: No dogs. No Germans. No French.

The AP also reports that 60% of the island's guests are German, but that tourist season starts after Easter.

On Friday, [Bjerre] put two homemade pictograms on the shop door, much like the ones that show the outline of a dog with a bar across it. One featured the silhouette of a man colored red, yellow and black — the colors of the German flag. The second was painted blue, white and red — the French Tricolor colors. Both silhouettes had a bar across each man.

"I do what my conscience tells me to do," he said.

Hey, I don't write this stuff, I just blog it...

2003-02-24T07:13:00.000-08:00

REFORMS FROM THE PEACE-CHANCELLOR: Yesterday the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung reported that Chancellor Schröder will give a Regierungserklärung [an official government address] to the Bundestag on March 14. According to press reports, the speech will propose bold reforms in labor laws and the social welfare system.

Amiland generally doesn't concern itself with the domestic politics of Germany, but lately there's been a fine line between what's domestic and foreign policy here.

And that's why the Regierungserklärung caught my eye. According to the FAS, and reported in several papers today, the title of the address will be: Courage for Peace -- Courage for Change.

UPDATE: An English-language summary of the announced address is available from the AP.

2003-02-24T01:19:00.000-08:00

CLOONEY IN GERMANY: For the most part, I didn't even read what so many of the American actors had to say about President Bush during a recent film festival in Berlin. It was the usual from the usual suspects.

But George Clooney's interview on a German talkshow tonight (Monday) has been getting quite a bit of press over here. It's on a show that I never catch -- last week one of the guests was Eugen Drewermann -- but I had intended to watch tonight. Now I don't need to.

Thanks to Amiland reader John for sending in the Reuters report of tonight's show, where Clooney offers his expertise on winning wars, among other things.

"I believe [Rumsfeld] thinks this is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore," said Clooney, who starred in a film about the 1991 Gulf War "Three Kings" that took a dark look at the war to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. "We can't beat anyone anymore," added Clooney, who has called it unfair that Americans opposed to war are being branded unpatriotic.

I mean, he did star in "Three Kings." Maybe Rumsfeld should set up a special commission with Clooney, Mark Wahlberg and Ice Cube, which could study international issues for him.

2003-02-23T12:53:00.000-08:00

ALIEN TRANSLATIONS: Amiland reader Godmar -- who doesn't need to use an online translator for help -- provides yet another dumb or dishonest headline from Spiegel Online.

Reporting on a speech by US Senator Byrd (D-WV) from nearly two weeks ago, Spiegel Online still couldn't translate it honestly.

For its headline, Spiegel chose, "Bush's Policies Lack Any Wisdom Whatsoever," which they put in quotation marks. Did Senator Byrd really say that?

Of course not. Here's what he said:

High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?"

So what he said, in fact, was that the uncertainty caused by the Bush administration's refusal to rule out the use of nuclear weapons was unwise. Godmar summarized the alien translation:

Spiegel out of nowhere puts "unwise" in its superlative: "lacking any wisdom whatsoever." Then they change the object of discourse from "this type of uncertainty" to "Bush's policies."

Stick all of that inside (!) double quotation marks -- to make it seem that Byrd actually said it -- and there you get the title: Bush's Policies Lack Any Wisdom Whatsoever.

This is sad and embarrassing for Spiegel. When will they learn that even online translators will catch their dumb or dishonest translations.

I plan to send this post to the Senator. He might be interested that his words are being grossly distorted in the foreign media.

UPDATE: Several Amiland readers have sent in emails about Senator Byrd's remarks in the Senate. My post is not about whether I agree with the Senator or not. Some consider his remarks brave. Others not.

My post is strictly concerned with the quotation-headline in the Spiegel Online article about the remarks.

I reread Senator Byrd's speech, and it is full of quotations that Spiegel Online could have picked out for its title. The whole speech is very critical of Bush and his policies, and Spiegel Online translated most of it. On a quick read-through, the translation in the article itself is accurate.

But the headline they chose, which is in quotation marks, is simply nothing that Senator Byrd said. It is dishonest.

2003-02-23T12:24:00.000-08:00

RHINELANDERS ARE AMERICA: In response to my post below, Rhinelanders Conquer America, Amiland reader Richard sent in the following comment:

It would be fairer to say Rheinlanders are America. I recall reading, but cannot cite a reference, that more Americans have German blood coursing through their veins (40%+) than any other brand. I believe there was German language instruction in the Cincinnati public schools until 1917. Because of Germany's brilliant foreign policy in the early 20th century, Germans are now the most assimilated ethnic group in the U.S.

Thanks, Richard. Now let's all go out and have a Beck's beer!

2003-02-23T10:16:00.000-08:00

IT JUST FLEW OUT: Who'd have thought that Secretary Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" remark wasn't a pre-plotted strategic attack. According to William Safire's On Language today:

When I asked Rumsfeld how he came to use the phrase Old Europe, his major diplomatic coinage, he replied, modestly, "It just flew out of my mouth."

Well now, there you have it...

2003-02-23T10:04:00.000-08:00

RHINELANDERS CONQUER AMERICA: Visiting friends today, we went to an exhibit in the Rheinsiches Freilichtmuseum, a sort of open-air museum with authentic homes from 15th century Germany -- it reminded me of the sod house museums we used to visit on trips across the plains. Good stuff, actually.

A permanent exhibit at the museum is called, "Schöne Neue Welt: Rheinländer erobern Amerika" -- Brave New World: The Rhinelanders Conquer America.

It traces a number of families from the Lower Rhine region who picked up and traveled to the new world with William Penn. It is an interesting exhibition, with a large collection of documents and "artifacts." It also includes life-size models of the people, part of the immigrant ship from London, houses and taverns in the new world, as well as a printery.

One of the most influential inhabitants of 18th century Germantown, Penn., was Christoph Sauer, who founded his printery in 1738. He published two periodicals, The High-German American Calendar and The High-German Pennsylvanian Story-Writer, both printed in German Gothic script. In 1743, his printery put out one of the first foreign language Bibles to be published in the new world.

The exhibit today reminded me of the deep roots that so many of us Americans have with the people of Germany. It reminded me how absurd and even sad much of the talk is today. But it also reminded me that those roots are strong, and that these differences from today will work themselves out.

In any case, I can recommend the exhibit as a pleasant way to spend a Sunday afternoon in Rhineland Germany.

2003-02-23T00:50:00.000-08:00

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY: This isn't a personal blog, but... One month ago, on January 23, I made the first post to Amiland. It has been an interesting and exciting month. More than a single late night and the occasional early morning have allowed me to make a post on every day.

Special thanks to Andrew Sullivan, who linked to me on my first day, and to Glenn Reynolds, who has been kind with a few links so far.

Other have also noticed. Thanks guys.

Even the big media in Austria -- the ORF -- picked up my post about Der Spiegel's hatchet job on Tom Friedman's op-ed. (Alas, Tom never wrote me back...)

But I'm most thankful to those readers who have continued to come back, and especially to those who have peppered me with comments, criticism and tips. (I hope you'll keep writing, even though I've decided against a comments section for now.)

Oh, and of course a loving thanks to my girlfriend, who has seen less of me because of this new hobby.

...

Today also marks another rite of passage for Amiland: The first hate mail.

It seems that a certain "alien7" has taken offense to a post of mine from February 11, where I drew attention to a Spiegel Online article with the headline, "Rumsfeld Threatens Sanctions."

I said the translation must be dumb or dishonest, because nowhere in the sources cited by Spiegel Online did Rumsfeld say any such thing. Specifically, the Spiegel Online article references a German television interview that Rumsfeld gave. Nowhere in the interview does Rumsfeld "threaten sanctions" either, as Spiegel Online would like its German readers to believe.

One hardly has to make up provocative remarks for the US Defense Secretary. But the headline from Spiegel Online was pure anti-American crap.

Anyway, let's get back to alien7, who seems to have taken my post rather personally -- do we finally have Spiegel's ear?! The alien wrote:

I am writing in concern to one of your artcles [sic] at this address... http://amiland.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_amiland_archive.html#88857782

In particular, this statement...
"Take for instance the article with this headline: Rumsfeld Threatens Sanctions [Sanktionen]. The summary of the piece also states, "Rumsfeld is threatening consequences" [Konsequenzen]. The way it's written suggests that the US is threatening someone, presumably Germany, with sanctions and serious consequences. ... Huh?!"

First off, alien7 (I'll call alien7 a he) provides the wrong stinking link. His URL is to a post that has come to be known for its dog poop analysis. But I'll presume alien7 meant this link, which actually contains the comment he cites. Not an impressive start. Alien7 continues:

I am from Australia and I am living in Germany now. It also sounds like you don't even know German hence, "...is threatening someone, presumably Germany...". So you make presumptions on an article you cannot even understand?

It appears alien7 has a problem with my presumption in the cited text. My presumption is that Spiegel Online is trying to dupe its readers to believe Rumsfeld is threatening Germany with sanctions. If my presumption is wrong, what is the headline saying? If not Germany is being threatened, then Turkey? Or who? Alien7 doesn't say, but he goes on:

Look up presumption http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=presumption and check the first description of the word.

Here alien7 loses the thread a bit, I presume because he has no argument, and he attacks me personally. To spare you the suspense, here's the "first description" of the word, presumption: "Behavior or attitude that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery."

I have to admit, that bit with the link to dictionary.com is quite clever. It gets better:

Sounds like you ran it through an online translator and tried to piece together some ammo on a German newspaper. Online translators are very, very questionable pieces of technology especially with some languages in particular.

Very, very good point. Online translators don't work well at all. I presume that's why Spiegel Online thinks that it can continue to deliver dishonest translations to its German reading public.

The fact is that Spiegel Online named the ARD-Interview with Rumsfeld as its source. As a test, I ran "ARD-Interview" through a number of different online translators, and every time I came up with "ARD-Interview." So it seems quite clear where they are getting their (dishonest) information.

Oh, and as the final "argument," alien7 provides a link to the recent Observer article titled, "US to punish German 'treachery'." That's it, just the link. At least he got the right one.

Now I'm presuming that alien7's point is that America is indeed threatening Germany with sanctions. I mean, it does say as much in the Observer piece. Basta.

If this presumption of alien7's argument is correct, then he unfortunately continues to go wrong on several points. The first is that he contradicts himself. Earlier, alien7 mocked my presumption that Spiegel Online was trying to infer Germany as the target of sanctions. But now, alien7 wants to further prove my "behavior or attitude that is boldly arrogant or offensive" by demonstrating that America is in fact threatening sanctions on Germany.

As I said in the original post: Huh?!

And with regard to sanctions, even if the US did impose sanctions on Germany -- an entirely preposterous idea that would never come as the result of the Germans not supporting a war in Iraq -- the Observer article, written on February 16, has absolutely nothing to do with the Spiegel Online article from a full week before, on February 9.

Finally, the Observer article is written like a piece from The Onion. It offers no sources and is full of unsubstantiated conjecture. It is an equally invaluable anti-German article, as Spiegel Online's is anti-American. Citing crap to substantiate crap is, if you'll allow my effrontery, crap.

Unless you can find somewhere else in the interview -- or anywhere in the Spiegel Online article for that matter -- where the preposterous title "Rumsfeld Threatens Sanctions" could find its root, I stand by my assertion that the headline is either dumb or dishonest. And maybe even both.

But thanks for writing in for my anniversary...

2003-02-22T12:38:00.000-08:00

MORE DEMONSTRATORS: About 2,000 protestors spent a sunny Saturday afternoon in front of the US Rhein-Main airbase near Frankfurt. A favorite sign: No Blood for Oil. A human blockade apparently closed off the entrance to the base for a short time.

An important note is that the German military has been providing extra protection for the base since yesterday.

2003-02-22T12:16:00.000-08:00

POLITBAROMETER: As I mentioned in a post below, I caught some numbers on television last night that shocked me...positively.

The television station ZDF, in conjunction with the research group Wahlen, has been conducting bi-weekly polls since middle December last year. It's known on TV as the "Politbarometer," measuring how Germans feel on a number of different issues.

Sure, most Germans continue to have an unfavorable opinion of Bush and believe that Germany's relationship to the USA has gotten worse. (Foreign Minister Fischer continues to be the most popular politician in Germany, and Schröder's SPD is still struggling.)

But the interesting number came from this question:

If it comes to a UN resolution for US military action against Iraq: How should Germany participate?

Leaving aside the obvious distortion of "US military action," only 50% of respondents said that Germany shouldn't participate at all. (The summary of the poll online put it this way: "a majority of 50 percent.")

And according to the Politbarometer from middle December, this sentiment isn't even new. Then, only 53% said that Germany should not be involved in any way.

From the other half of the "50 percent majority," 33% said Germany should provide matériel and financial support, while 14% were ready for the participation of German soldiers. Apparently 3% were undecided or did not know.

These numbers aren't making headlines, maybe because they aren't news to anyone. I don't know.

The dpa did pick up on the poll, but they didn't mention the 47% of Germans who, with the backing of the UN, would support at least some kind of German involvement in Iraq. To me, anyway, that's a good headline.

2003-02-22T11:51:00.000-08:00

COTTBUS WINS AGAIN: Ok, I know I promised not to cover any more soccer until 2006, but American Gregg Berhalter, who plays for a Bundesliga team in eastern Germany, continues to get good press.

Cottbus and U.S. defender Gregg Berhalter remained the German league's hottest team. ... It now has the league's best record since the winter break of four wins and a draw.

The East German club beat Bremen 1-0 behind a goal by Marko Topic and a stingy defense led by Berhalter. During its streak, the club has yielded just one goal with the American World Cup player in charge of the defense.

Energie Cottbus is now ranked 16th out of 18 teams and needs to continue winning in order to avoid demotion to Germany's second league -- the teams with the three worst records are demoted.

2003-02-22T06:41:00.000-08:00

ABSTRACT DANGER FOR THE NYT: Apparently, the Soviet Union didn't really represent a threat to West Germany or the United States. As taken from this piece on the people of eastern Germany today:

The Nikolai Church protests of 1989 grew out of an earlier church peace movement that spread east from the west in the early 1980's, when West German churches were protesting their government's decision to install medium-range Pershing II missiles to counter what Washington perceived to be the Soviet threat.

My history is perhaps a bit rusty, but somehow I recall that German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt also "perceived" the threat of Soviet SS-20s pointing at Bonn. Later, in the 1980s, Helmut Kohl found the USSR a bit threatening as well.

In fact, pretty much the entire free world, with China to boot, recognized very well what might be called "the Soviet threat."

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Washington -- under the leadership of President Jimmy Carter -- that initially failed to "perceive" any threat when the USSR began upgrading its middle-distance rockets aimed at Western Europe?

(See the post below for a look at the article's content...)

2003-02-22T05:12:00.000-08:00

THEY BLAME AMERICA: There's an article in the New York Times today that takes a look at why the Volk in the eastern half of Germany are so opposed to a possible US-led war in Iraq.

What used to be called the German Democratic Republic stands out these days as the only former member of the Soviet bloc that does not back the American position on Iraq.

According to the article, here's where they're coming from:

Germany itself can show defiant independence of the United States because the cold war is over and it feels secure. But eastern Germans, many of whom have been very disappointed with the results of reunification, may reject American policy because they feel neither secure, nor sometimes even represented, in the new Germany of which they have become a part.

"It's because they are poorer in the east than in the west, and there's a kind of anger at America for this," said Christoph Dieckmann, a former dissident Protestant minister from eastern Germany who now works as a reporter for the weekly Die Zeit. "They blame America for their poor economic state."

This conclusion, to my mind, is way off target. The problems facing eastern Germany are the same problems facing all of Germany: high taxes, inflexible labor laws, and the Gemütlichkeit of their social system.

As another article in the Times today makes clear, the West has invested heavily in the other countries of the former Soviet bloc. But even Germany, when it looks east for investment, looks beyond the former East Germany.

German companies, building on centuries of trade to the east, spotted opportunities to offset their own record-setting wage levels at home. ... Laundry from Berlin's five-star hotels is reportedly sent each day to be cleaned in low-cost Poland.

This isn't bad. Indeed, it's good. But resenting America for the lack of investment and growth in Germany is also indeed ridiculous.

And in the end, it always seems to come back to American imperialism and, of course, oil.

The other day, the German minister for the environment, Jürgen Trittin, said that the real interest of the United States in Iraq was oil, and this view, announced near the top of the German government, played to an audience in eastern Germany.

Like I also said the other day: I have accepted by now that many Germans feel this way. I was encouraged, though, by some numbers that I saw on television last night...

2003-02-21T12:16:00.000-08:00

WHENEVER YOU'RE READY: A new poll from the Forsa Institute (dpa) says that 70% of Germans are against setting a deadline for Saddam Hussein to disarm. To me this eliminates the credibility of 70% of the Germans who are against military intervention.

Whether the UN Security Council builds a deadline into a second resolution or not -- I'm guessing they won't -- we have to have a deadline. The deadline should be no further in the future than it requires Hussein to demonstrate he is willing to cooperate fully with the inspections process.

No one can argue that he is currently cooperating. And those who believe that Hussein can be peacefully disarmed against his will are simply no longer credible.

By my count, that number's up from 62% -- the percentage of Germans who thought that the Spiegel Online interview with Eugen Drewermann was "profound and correct."

UPDATE: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld says that the US and Britain are ready.

UPDATE: I've been reminded that 62% of Spiegel Online readers does not necessarily represent 62% of Germans. Fair enough.

2003-02-21T08:34:00.000-08:00

CONGRESSIONAL BLOGGING: In Bonn today as part of a German-American economic summit, Congressman Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, "read Schröder the riot act," as reported by the AP. He said:

It is sick when political leaders speak about Saddam Hussein as if he was Mother Theresa, and then about the USA as if it was a dangerous superpower that threatens world peace.

(Aside: Does Jay Leno still do the bit of matching two people to see how their kids might turn out?)

Even though Lantos made clear that he is no supporter of Bush the candidate, he said that to call the President a warmonger is "grotesque." He went on:

To achieve peace, sometimes it is necessary to conquer tyrants. We have done that in American history, and if necessary we will do it again. And Germany has a responsibility to participate, not for the sake of the USA, but for the sake of its own people.

Lantos also said that he was pleased Angela Merkel made clear in her Washington Post editorial that Schröder doesn't speak for all Germans. The AP reported:

He found it "amusing" that people in Germany were upset about that Merkel delivered her criticisms in a foreign newspaper. In the age of the Internet, he advised the German government, you'll have to get used to the fact that it makes very little difference where and when somebody says something.

And that for a 75-year old! Somebody get him a blog...

2003-02-21T06:44:00.000-08:00

CITIZEN AND IMMIGRATION: The AP reported yesterday that the publisher of such family classics as "The Hitler We Loved and Why" has been deported from the United States to Canada.

According to the report, Ernst Zündel is a German citizen who immigrated to Canada in 1958. He wanted to avoid the West German draft. US officials returned him to Canada, though, because that was his port of entry.

(± Here's another article via AWZ with additional background information about Zündel's deportation from the US.)

Now Amiland reader AWZ sends me this article from Canada's National Post. It says that the Canadian Minister of Immigration, Denis Coderre, is determined to make sure that Zündel is not allowed to find asylum in Canada.

Asked what he might do to remove him, Mr. Coderre said: "Just watch me."

Also according to the article, German authorities have issued a new arrest warrant, which could finally lead to Zündel's extradition.

± And here is reaction from a survivor of Nazi concentration camps.

2003-02-21T05:15:00.000-08:00

ANOTHER ABSTRACT DANGER: I found this bit in an opinion piece today by Ken Pollack, author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, interesting:

Then another batch of important defectors escaped to Europe and told Western intelligence services that after the inspectors left Iraq in 1998, Saddam Hussein had started a crash program to build a nuclear weapon and that the Iraqis had devised methods to hide the effort.

The reports of these defectors prompted the German intelligence service in 2001 to conclude that Iraq was only three to six years away from having one or more nuclear weapons.

Josh Marshall over at TPM has just published the second part of his interview with Pollack. Go here for parts one and two together. Good stuff.

2003-02-20T16:09:00.000-08:00

THE FAZ GOES OFFLINE: Starting today (Thursday), I noticed something different about the Internet site of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung... It appears that they've moved all of their print content behind password protection, only available to subscribers.

They continue to maintain FAZ.NET, but the lack of access to the newspaper itself is quite/rather unfortunate. The weekly edition in English-language is still available.

UPDATE: TS sent me a tip that FAZ.NET will continue to carry some articles from the Foolathon section of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung print edition. They'll be integrated online in the Kultur area.

It's possible that other select articles from other sections of the print edition will also be thus integrated. I think it's still too bad. The FAZ online presence has gone from lackluster to, well, lacking. But times here are indeed very tough on the publishing industry...

2003-02-20T15:23:00.000-08:00

WHO IS RAINER BARZEL: Another bit of coincidental history is that the first no-confidence vote in Germany took place against Willy Brandt. (See post below and here for context.) In 1972, having just pulled off large gains in a state election, the CDU/CSU opposition tried to oust the weakened Chancellor.

They fell short of the necessary majority in a secret ballot, 249-247. And if you're curious why the opposition today is reluctant to challenge Schröder, see if you can remember the name of the CDU/CSU's candidate who lost that vote...

2003-02-20T13:50:00.000-08:00

MORE GERMAN ~~DOMESTIC~~ FOREIGN POLICY: Angela Merkel, the leader of the opposition CDU in Germany, will be visiting the US this weekend. She has taken the opportunity to bring Germany's domestic foreign policy squabbles to the editorial page of the Washington Post.

Most Germans I know draw on their interpretation of post-WWII history when explaining their current antiwar position. But Frau Merkel goes back to the books, too:

The most important lesson of German politics -- never again should Germany go it alone -- is swept aside with seeming ease by a German federal government that has done precisely this, for the sake of electoral tactics. ...

But the history of Germany and Europe in the 20th century in particular certainly teaches us this: that while military force cannot be the normal continuation of politics by other means, it must never be ruled out, or even merely questioned -- as has been done by the German federal government -- as the ultimate means of dealing with dictators.

The FAZ.NET is reporting that Merkel will meet with Cheney, Rice, and Armitage. They also write:

Such a series of high-ranking meetings is unusual for a foreign politician in the opposition. During his most recent visit to Washington in October, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer (Green) was met solely by his political colleague, Colin Powell.

Spiegel Online is also covering the WaPo column, but they went with a different lead: "Merkel Bows to Bush."

[In German, the headline runs: Merkels Bückling vor Bush. Thanks to "d" for translation support. For an interesting discussion of the best translation for Bückling (from "bows" to "kowtows" to "brown-noses"), follow this link to LEO.]

While I don't necessarily agree that Merkel is joining the "war chants of the US government," I do think Spiegel Online is correct for criticizing her. She's taking Germany's domestic fights overseas, which they rightly say marks a "crass break in the local political culture."

At the same time, Spiegel Online reminds us of another instance where Germany's infighting went international and partially contributed to the fall of a chancellor. It was 1973, in Moscow, the capital of the enemy from the (first) Cold War.

Herbert Wehner, then the SPD's faction leader, was at odds with Chancellor Willy Brandt over, among other things, the government's Ostpolitik. In September 1973, while visiting Germany's embassy in Moscow, Wehner let fly some of the most bitter words in German politics: "That man likes to take lukewarm baths."

No, really. That's what he said. It appears he was criticizing Brandt's indecisiveness.

The Chancellor himself was too tired and weak to confront Wehner, who was actively working against him. In May 1974, shortly after the Chancellor's buddy, Günter Guillaume, was captured as a spy, Willy Brandt resigned.

Now, I'm not sure whether Angie knows how Gerd takes his bath, but I reckon she wouldn't mind if he slipped in the tub. (Go here if you're interested in how Merkel could try to make him fall.)

2003-02-20T06:18:00.000-08:00

DOES PAUL READ AMILAND: Paul Krugman, as if he was a regular Amiland reader (I've posted, you decide) wrote in his column on Tuesday that it's not so much culture or history that divides Europeans and Americans, but our news coverage.

While Paul focuses on television news programming, I think newspaper and (especially in Germany) radio reporting are also quite influential, particularly among people who are sincerely interested in an issue. Indeed, that's the basis for much of the work I do on Amiland.

In the op-ed, Paul poses two explanations for the current "great (media) divide" among the western world. Just judging by his tone, I suspect he considers the first not really plausible: "That European media have a pervasive anti-American bias that leads them to distort the news."

Well, that just can't be...except for maybe the occasional mis-quote to support an "oil for war" argument.

The other explanation, the one which (I'm just guessing) he would support, is that some US media outlets are selling a war for patriotic reasons.

Of course, the situation isn't as black-and-white as, say, my television when I try to watch SAT1. But I'd still invite Paul to read through some of the pages here on Amiland.

...

Interestingly but perhaps not shockingly, the German media has picked up quite jovially on Paul's piece. For the most part, they just summarize it in German.

But the best introduction of Paul's op-ed goes to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which wrote (my emphasis):

Paul Krugman, Professor at Harvard University, risked a small comparison in Tuesday's edition of the otherwise quite patriotic New York Times.

As Professor Glenn would say: Heh.

Now I'm not calling the New York Times unpatriotic, but by "patriotic" here, the SZ is implying pro-war.

And I'm not sure how Harvard comes into it.

...

Yep, the "clever" (SZ) Paul is right: "We have different views partly because we see different news."

2003-02-20T04:07:00.000-08:00

YES, SADDAM DOES CARE: After I posted that the deputy prime minister of Iraq was praising Schröder's antiwar stance, a fellow blogger from Germany sneeringly asked me in an email: "Do you really think that it matters what Saddam thinks of the German position?"

Well, now we have the answer:

President Saddam Hussein's government, apparently emboldened by antiwar sentiment at the U.N. Security Council and in worldwide street protests, has not followed through on its promises of increased cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors, according to inspectors in Iraq.

Of course, Schröder's own SPD party isn't helping the situation either. For the first time, a cabinet member has publicly accused the Bush administration of wanting to start a war for oil interests.

In an interview with Die Welt, Jürgen Trittin -- who was part of the record setting 500,000 last Saturday -- said:

The critics are exactly right when they use the slogan: No war for oil.

So insightful. But I have accepted by now that many Germans feel this way.

It's interesting, though, to look at the question he was actually asked: "But if a majority in the UN Security Council [were to support a war], then it would be a multilateral action, wouldn't it?"

You might be confused by now... How did Trittin get from the interviewer's question about possible support in the UN to such an insightful "no war for oil" answer? Maybe the cabinet member's explanation, from the same question, will help to clarify:

Democracy must protect the relationship (± proportion) between ends and means. That's why a war is not legitimate.

Still not clear? Allow me to interpret: You see, no matter how large the coalition of the willing actually is, the US will be acting unilaterally. And no matter what the UN decides, the US will be acting illegitimately. It's all about oil, no matter what anyone else says or does.

No wonder Saddam is pleased to have Germany on his side. Which reminds me, I wonder how Miss Germany is getting along...

UPDATE: Right on cue, the opposition CDU is demanding the dismissal of Trittin from Schröder's cabinet. Please move along...

2003-02-19T11:08:00.000-08:00

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST: According to press reports, Miss Germany has started off on a weeklong "peace mission" to Iraq. Immediately after her coronation in January, Alexandra Vodjanikova had said that she "would like to meet Saddam Hussein."

She wants to discuss with him "the dangers of weapons of mass destruction," reports the AFP, and "prompt him to let the UN weapons inspectors do their job."

UPDATE: The dpa is reporting that a meeting with the tyrant is still "in doubt."

2003-02-19T08:59:00.000-08:00

FALSE ASSUMPTION: I'm still following the deutsche waves caused by Josh and Andrew's posts from yesterday (see my post below). In short, they both picked up on a single sentence from a Deutsche Welle story, which itself was reporting on an interview with two SPD ministers.

The sentence in question is indeed less than clear. On account of its complex structure, a typo and debatable word choice, it is possible to imply more than the sentence actually says. Here's the original again:

In the interviews, two German government ministers let readers know that there is little danger now that that [sic] American-hating terrorists could unleash the smallpox virus on the German population.

I have since traded a few emails with the editor of Deutsche Welle who is responsible for English content online. While I still think the sentence is less clear than it could be -- and the use of the phrase "American-hating terrorists" is unnecessary -- I am sure that an implication of any sort was not intended.

The "that that" typo, which has now been corrected online, was perhaps the smell of smoke that caused some suspicions.

Further, I agree with the DW editor, who wrote in his email, "The content of the story is correct."

Not being a native speaker in my own country of residence, I can also understand the difficulties of "shifting very quickly between two languages," to use the editor's phrase.

As clear as they could be, are not either all of my sentences. Doch.

In his original post on this issue, Josh was prudently circumspect in his conclusion: "I'm curious to hear more about just what these ministers said, the precise quotations and context and so forth." And now the original interviews are available online.

[Warning: The Bild website, not unlike its print edition, often has pictures of less-than-fully-clothed women. (Remember that cultures are different.) Do not follow the link below if you do not want, even accidentally, to view such content.]

Here is the abstractly dangerous link to the interviews from Bildzeitung.

For the most part, the interviews aren't worth all the excitement they've aroused, including here on Amiland. (They're not worth translating, so you'll have to trust me.) Both ministers just say that the whole smallpox vaccine "scandal" is a non-story.

...

Over the past couple days, some Amiland readers have written in about the vaccine story and asked why I haven't posted on it yet. (Even though I didn't move on the topic right away, sincere thanks to all for the tips.)

But I have to agree with Schröder's party on this one. While they've handled themselves and the issue less than brilliantly, I'm not sure there's anything concrete behind the opposition's accusations.

My fellow Ami, PapaScott, sums it up best: "No, this is just domestic politics as usual, nothing to see here." Scott also has a good link to an English-language summary of these domestic goings-on.

Please move along...

2003-02-18T15:11:00.000-08:00

UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION: I just went to the corner and bought today's (Tuesday's) Bildzeitung for 50 eurocents. I had to read the original interviews with Interior Minister Schily and Health Minister Schmidt (both of Schröder's SPD), which Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan refer to in recent posts.

Both Josh and Andrew zoom in on this sentence from a Deutsche Welle piece that is reporting on the interviews:

In the interviews, two German government ministers let readers know that there is little danger now that that [sic] American-hating terrorists could unleash the smallpox virus on the German population.

Now, I'm not sure what the heck DW was trying to report here... But nowhere in the actual Bildzeitung interviews does either Schily or Schmidt say anything that remotely suggests what might be construed from the DW coverage.

On a whim, I did a search for a corresponding DW piece in the German language and came up empty.

Perhaps the "that that" repetition in the DW sentence suggests a last-second edit of some sort. I mean, if you read the sentence closely, it doesn't really say that terrorists will now attack the US instead of Germany. In fact, the sentence as written actually doesn't say anything that makes sense. Deutsche Welle needs to issue a corrected version.

At the same time, I do agree with Andrew that "an underlying assumption" exists here in Germany, that "by appeasing these thugs, [Germany] could deflect the horror toward the Brits and Americans."

[± I should have pointed out initially that Josh had also made a similar, albeit more circumspect, point in his original post: "But, as it reads, that quote really does tend to confirm the least generous interpretation of German motivations in the current situation: why stick our necks out when it's the Americans who are going to take the hit anyway?" Sorry.]

In fact, the assumption is not even so underlying. In a sidebar disgustingly titled "Pointer for Terrorists" in this week's Der Spiegel (not online), the writer makes this very point.

[As compared to terror warnings and threats in the US and Britain], only in the German capital of Berlin was there no trace of the panic that gripped the world last week. Instead of being concerned about terrorists, last week the main issue at Tegel airport [in Berlin] was an increase in pay rates for the personnel.

As opposed to the Americans and British, the Germans feel largely safe from terror attacks. But the relative calmness is only determined by one thing: the clear anti-war stance of Gerhard Schröder. If that were to change, according to a secret analysis of the security services, then the threat would increase abruptly. Then, terror attacks would also be feared in Germany.

Did you get all that? Let's review. The title is a notice to terrorists: look, we're anti-war. Don't attack us. Get America and Britain instead. Then the conclusion: Germany is safe unless Schröder changes his anti-war position.

I'm almost afraid to know how many Germans nodded their heads when they read this crap. Have they forgotten the dozen or so terrorists arrested on German soil, with plans to attack sites in Germany, since September 11? Indeed, I'm almost afraid what might happen over here...

UPDATE: I've written to the folks at Deutsche Welle and DW-World -- who I think generally do quite fine work -- to ask for a clarification of the "that that" sentence.

2003-02-18T13:12:00.000-08:00

MEISTER CHIRAC: While I can't argue with their one conclusion that Schröder is the biggest loser from the EU's "single" voice, I'm not quite sure how Spiegel Online concludes that President Chirac is the "Meisterdiplomat."

My buddy Erik over at Bite the Wax Tadpole led with the hypothesis that "Chirac was blinded by his world view." Professor Glenn linked to Erik, asking, "How Stupid is Chirac?" He now has a solid piece at GlennReynolds.com. Others, from Daniel W. Drezner to Collin at Innocents Abroad, are criticizing the French blowhard.

But Spiegel Online sees him as the master diplomat. Interesting analysis...

To be fair, within old Europe, Chirac is perhaps the winner of the "emergency conference" of the EU in Brussels. Britain couldn't pass the "time is running out" phrase and Germany had to accept to the word "force." Vive la France!

But all the world's a stage, froggy. All the world.

2003-02-18T11:59:00.000-08:00

SPINNST DU: Ever since Schröder signed up to the EU paper that supports the possible use of force in Iraq, Germany is spinning out of control. The CDU/CSU opposition is "praising" the Chancellor for his changed position. And for his part, the Chancellor is maintaining that his government has always held this position.

Angela Merkel, leader of the CDU opposition, said, "The election-influenced position of Schröder is no longer valid." [Schröder announced his absolute no to war -- what I call his problematic no, paraphrasing Secretary Rumsfeld -- in a campaign speech in January this year. I wrote about it here.]

Another prominent CDUer, Wolfgang Schäuble, had harsher words for the Chancellor:

Of course this shows that Schröder can't stick to what he has said. That's actually been expected from the start. Now that once again we don't have any elections in front us, things are again being expressed a little differently.

But that's not even so important to me. That's how it's occasionally been in the months before. And we said back then: Now he's starting to fall down. But he fell down in the right direction. And we won't prevent him from doing that. We will support him.

Actually, such nice supportive words... But the real harsh words came from the leader of the CSU opposition, Edmund Stoiber, who said, "The actor Schröder has been very publicly debunked on the international stage." The Chancellor is a "fall-down guy" [Umfaller], he said.

On the other side of the aisle, Schröder's Foreign Minister Fischer continues to stand by his man. He said, "[The EU position paper] is a declaration of principles, which doesn't change the fact that Germany will not participate in a military action."

Here, Fischer is exercising selective memory. You see, Schröder promised in the federal elections -- last fall -- that German soldiers would not take part in any American "adventures" in Iraq. This position was in fact supported by Fischer.

But in January this year, in local state elections, the Chancellor went further. Germany would not agree to support, in any way, the American-led catastrophe about to be visited upon Iraq. Fischer is still trying to forget that bit.

Now, I'm not saying that I don't agree with Schröder's last stand. I just think he has a tough sell ahead of him. Here is his first attempt at unloading this jalopy:

Of course we had to make concessions. It can't be any other way. ... The fundamental position of the German government has not changed. ... Germany's position has not changed in any way whatsoever, and it will not be the case [that it changes].

Huh? I guess I am confused now...

I think his argument runs thus: Germany agrees that war must always be an option, the last option.

Even in Iraq, the Chancellor agreed, war is an option.

But for Germany, he's saying, war is not an option in Iraq.

Any questions?

2003-02-18T09:14:00.000-08:00

AS A LAST RESORT: In the post directly below, I mentioned that the European Union, in its joint statement issued last night [English | German], acknowledged war must remain an option in disarming Iraq.

But the leaders of both old and new Europe emphasized that war is not the first option:

Force should be used only as a last resort.

Ground shattering. As if a new doctrine was fought for and won, the German media and even the Chancellor are emphasizing today the "letztes Mittel" [last resort] wording of the statement.

Don't get me wrong. I agree. War should always be the last resort. And this may come as a shock to Germany and the rest of old Europe (France, Austria?), but President Bush agrees as well.

In fact, he said just as much on October 16, 2002, in the highly publicized signing ceremony of the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq:

If we go into battle, as a last resort, we will confront an enemy capable of irrational miscalculations, capable of terrible deeds.

In his weekly radio address on December 7, 2002, he said so again:

Americans seek peace in the world. War is the last option for confronting threats.

Most recently, at Naval Station Maypot in Florida last Thursday -- five days before the EU came up with something to say -- President Bush made his position clear once more:

Military force is always this nation's last option.

And doing just a cursory search of the Internet site of the White House, the Press Secretaries Fleischer and McClellan repeated the President's position on 11/12/02, 11/23/02, 12/04/02, 01/24/03, and 02/14/03.

So tell me again. What was so remarkable about the EU finally speaking with a "single" voice? And does Schröder really hope to distract anyone from the fact that he's just about compromised his problematic no?

2003-02-17T15:04:00.000-08:00

TIME IS NOT RUNNING OUT: According to the AP, and celebrated tonight on German television, Gerhard Schröder worked to nix the British-sponsored phrase, "time is running out," from the joint EU declaration on Iraq policy. The AP reports:

France and Germany, who oppose war, appeared to emerge in a strong position Monday night after the EU statement backed more time for the U.N. weapon inspectors, without giving a deadline.

I'm not sure I see it as a "strong position," but anyway. On the bright side, both the EU and NATO have finally acknowledged officially and publicly that war must remain a consideration in dealing with Iraq. This stance marks a considerable compromise on the part of Germany and its Chancellor.

We'll see how the media covers this latest German maneuver in the next couple days, especially if a vote of some sort comes before the UN Security Council.

After tonight, I just can't imagine Germany voting against a UN resolution that France, Russia and China would agree to; at most, they'd abstain. But is it perhaps even possible that Foreign Minister Fischer would show his green rebel colors and vote yes...?

2003-02-17T04:11:00.000-08:00

MORE PRAISE FOR SCHROEDER: In this post (second update), I linked to an interview with the Iraqi charge d'affaires in Germany. He's a strong supporter, along with Berlin's 500,000 marchers, of Schröder's Iraq policy.

Today's Bild newspaper quotes the deputy prime minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, as also praising the Chancellor:

Herr Schröder is a clever politician. He has analyzed the situation well. ... Germany is leading the UN Security Council in the right direction.

No comment necessary...

2003-02-17T02:09:00.000-08:00

NO CONFIDENCE IN MY GERMAN HISTORY: Some people have written to Amiland with questions about the formalities of a possible no-confidence vote in Germany. (If you're coming from Instapundit, first read this post below.) I'm not a constitutional expert or a Germam historian, but here's how I understand it...

A vote of no-confidence is in fact a vote for a replacement chancellor. When a new chancellor is voted in, the old one is effectively pushed out. This method ensures that a head of government is always in place.

It also raises the bar for a successful no-confidence vote. The CDU/CSU would have to propose a replacement chancellor from their own ranks, something they will likely be scared to do. (A failed no-confidence vote could also turn out to be a crushing defeat for the named replacement, perhaps ending his (Stoiber) or her (Merkel) chance in the next scheduled elections, in 2006.

According to Article 67 of the Grundgesetz, the vote would take place in the Bundestag, the upper house of German government. A simple majority is required.

Currently, there are 603 representatives in the upper house: Schröder's coalition holds a majority with 306. The CDU/CSU opposition, plus the Free Democrats (FDP), number 295. They would need to pull seven in order to have a majority. (The PDS stands tall with 2, but they would likely never join the fracas.)

The only successful vote of no-confidence in German history took place in 1982, when Helmut Kohl (CDU) replaced then-chancellor Helmut Schmidt (SPD). It was a passing of the helmet, so to say. (Sorry...)

Then, as now, the CDU was looking to replace the SPD, which had attained its majority in 1980 elections with the help of a junior partner (then it was the FDP). The country was also suffering from rising unemployment and low stagnating growth. Sound familiar?

After the SPD and FDP squabbled amongst themselves over possible reforms (the SPD wanted to raise taxes while the FDP hoped to lower social expenses), the FDPers in the cabinet (led by Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher) walked out.

Also similar to 1982, the very question, What it means to be sozialdemokratisch, is making the rounds today.

Of course, too close a comparison with today doesn't hold up to scrutiny. While it is within the realm of possibility that current Foreign Minister Fischer would take his helmet and hit the road, it is impossible to imagine a scenario where the Greens would change sides -- or even the SPD wanting them.

It is possible, though not at all likely, that the Greens would grow completely disenchanted with being in charge and return to their natural position as minority, albeit a strong one, opposition.

Another difference is that in 1982, the ruling party was in disagreement over how to strengthen the economy and eventually crushed itself under the weight of this disagreement. Current Chancellor Schröder has learned from history: As long as he doesn't make any bold new suggestions, there'll be nothing to crush him, domestically at least.

...

To follow-up: The AP is already reporting that Angela Merkel, chairperson of the CDU, is trying to distance herself from the "absurd discussion" of a no-confidence vote. That makes sense. If such a vote failed (which, at this point, it likely would), even being linked to the discussion could have a negative impact on her.

...

As another update: Much of the mainstream media is staying for the most part away from this whole story. A German colleague tells me that it's too dangerous and controversial for them to touch right now.

2003-02-16T17:19:00.000-08:00

GASOLINE ON THE BONFIRE: When I first checked out this week's cover of Der Spiegel (on newsstands Monday), my first thought was, Oh well, just another anti-American Spiegelism.

It's a picture of President Bush, I think taken from an address he gave last year. There's a silhouetted cross in the background. Surrounding Bush and the cross is a collage of military photographs.

The title reads, "On a Godly Mission: The Crusade of George W. Bush."

In a previous post, I mentioned a Spiegel Online interview with one Eugen Drewermann. His thesis: "God and President Bush senior have melted together into some kind of force. And it is this force that is driving the current president to conduct a bigger and better war in Iraq than his father did." (If you're interested, my buddy tictoc has translated a bit more of the garbage. When I read it now in English, it only seems the more absurd...)

Anyway, it appears the 62% of Germans who thought this interview "profound and correct" convinced the Spiegel editors that they had found the theme of their next anti-American crusade. Thus the title.

But like I said, it didn't impress me at first. Then Amiland reader Jim sent me a second mail on the topic:

Can't quite get that cover out of my head. Specifically, I keep thinking about all the Muslims walking past the kiosks on the street or in the U-Bahn [German subway], nodding wisely, gratified by the German alliance in the war against the Ami-led Crusaders and their obsessed warlord, Bush. In the current situation it's gasoline on the bonfire. It's truly serious.

And he's right. What I never seem to remember is I often laugh at the "arguments" many Germans take seriously. For some, the fact that Bush's administration has ties to the oil industry is enough evidence that a war in Iraq would only be about oil. Why? Because it was in Der Spiegel, they say.

In my very first post to Amiland, I wrote that it's a shame Der Spiegel is on the disingenuous slant it's taken. They have never honestly addressed the problem of Iraq. And oftentimes, they've done it dishonestly. A damn shame.

2003-02-16T11:59:00.000-08:00

INSTA-NO-CONFIDENCE: If you're coming from Instapundit, the post on the possible vote of no-confidence for German Chancellor Schröder -- Schroeder's Last Hurrah -- is a couple scrolls down.

But be sure to read your way down there -- it was a record-setting-ly disparaging protest in Berlin yesterday...

2003-02-16T11:47:00.000-08:00

RECORD SETTER: One of the record setting 500,000 demonstrators -- Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul -- will be a guest on the German political discussion show, Sabine Christiansen, tonight. When she's not marching for peace (see below), Heidemarie also serves on Chancellor Schröder's cabinet as Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development.

Come back to Amiland later for Punditschau, the German version -- which I shamelessly nicked -- of Punditwatch.