Davids Medienkritik

WSJ Opinion: "Anti-Americanism is Mostly Hype"

This piece - written for the Wall Street Journal by Lebanese author Fouad Ajami - provides ample food for thought:

"American liberalism is heavily invested in this narrative of U.S. isolation. The Shiites have their annual ritual of 10 days of self-flagellation and penance, but this liberal narrative is ceaseless: The world once loved us, and all Parisians were Americans after 9/11, but thanks to President Bush we have squandered that sympathy. (...)

The deference of American liberal opinion to the coffeehouses of Istanbul and Amman and Karachi is nothing less than astounding. You would not know from these surveys, of course, that anti-Americanism runs deep in the French intellectual scene, and that French thought about the great power across the Atlantic has long been a jumble of envy and condescension. In the fabled years of the Clinton presidency, long before Guantanamo, the torture narrative and the war in Iraq, American pension funds were, in the French telling, raiding their assets, bringing to their homeland dreaded Anglo-Saxon economics, and the merciless winds of mondialisation (globalization).

I grew up in the Arab world in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and anti-Americanism was the standard political language – even for those pining for American visas and green cards. Precious few took this seriously. The attraction to the glamorous, distant society was too strong in the Beirut of my boyhood."

This speaks to the reality - eloquently identified by Dr. Andrei Markovits - that America will always be disliked primarily for what it is and not what it does. The Blame-America-First line of thought so powerful among members of the American left meshes very well with this trend and often seeks to highlight and justify it in political terms.

(As an aside, the irony of foreign America-bashers seeking visas and green cards also reminds of this story, entitled "Green Card" from fellow blogger Karin Quade.)

There is one line in the article - however - that is difficult to agree with:

"The great battle over the Iraq war has subsided, and Europeans who ponder the burning grounds of the Islamic world know the distinction between fashionable anti-Americanism and the international order underpinned by American power. George W. Bush may have been indifferent to political protocol, but he held the line when it truly mattered, and the Europeans have come to understand that appeasement of dictators and brigands begets its own troubles." (emphasis ours)

The European reaction to Iraq at the very beginning shows that this is still not entirely the case.

Even if Europeans possess this understanding of the dangers posed by dictators and fanatics at some level - painfully few are willing to take REAL ACTION (as opposed to talking about, passing resolutions, writing angry letters of condemnation or just wringing hands from the moral high-ground) to combat them.

Just look at how few Germans support the mission in Afghanistan. One poll showed 85% opposed to sending troops into the south of the country were most combat was taking place. A poll from last year showed a solid majority favored bringing German troops home.

Questions for our readers: Let's assume that Obama wins the upcoming election and people in Germany and France suddenly begin to love the United States a whole lot more. What would be the difference or benefit in real terms for the United States and its people? Would we see more European troops in conflict zones? Better trade conditions? More German tourists (is that a good thing?) Perhaps fewer uncomfortable social encounters with taxi drivers, party-goers and university professors?

Or...might relations actually get worse (if the US goes protectionist for example?)

Please leave us a comment with your thoughts... 

WMD: The Dishonesty of German Politics

A Wall Street Journal report, referring to several articles (1, 2, 3) in SPIEGEL:

Curveball Revisited
March 29, 2008

In the long history of U.S. intelligence fiascos, few have been as minutely examined as the "Curveball" episode – the source whose fraudulent claims were largely responsible for the pre-Iraq War view that Saddam Hussein possessed biological weapons. So it's worth noting what a new, remarkable report from the German magazine Der Spiegel tells us about the spy who lied.

According to media legend, Curveball was a creation of Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi politician who headed the exiled Iraqi National Congress before Saddam's overthrow. That notion was destroyed in 2005 with the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report on intelligence. But the myth persists in many circles that, through Curveball, Mr. Chalabi had conned his neocon friends, who in turn had conned President Bush, who in turn had pressured a reluctant but spineless CIA into giving him the "intelligence" he needed to make the case for war.

But Curveball was nobody's stooge. On the contrary, he is Rafid Ahmed Alwan, an opportunistic Iraqi asylum-seeker who came to Germany in 1999. His claims to having inside knowledge of Saddam's illicit weapons program quickly made him a prized asset of Germany's intelligence service, the BND. So convinced were the Germans of the reliability of his information that in the fall of 2001 they purchased 35 million doses of smallpox vaccine for fear of what Saddam might be cooking up.

More remarkable is that even after September 11 – when then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder promised "infinite solidarity" with the U.S. – the German government refused to allow the CIA to interview Curveball in person. Often, the Germans resorted to dishonest pretexts for their lack of cooperation, such as that Curveball didn't speak English, when in fact he spoke it fluently (and as if nobody in the CIA spoke German or Arabic). "It was a blockade that made

WSJ: Press Corps Quagmire

This is a WSJ commentary from William McGurn, a former speechwriter of President Bush. He makes some valid points regarding the prejudice of the White House press corps. Why do I think his arguments are even more applicable to the German media landscape?

Press Corps Quagmire
By WILLIAM MCGURN February 19, 2008; Page A19

(...) By the end of 2006, sectarian violence was tearing Iraq apart, the terrorists were getting away with spectacular acts of murder, and our strategy plainly was not working. For a man said to resist unpleasant truths, the president acted boldly. He replaced his defense secretary, replaced his commanders on the ground, and completely overhauled his strategy. Granted, it would have been better had it come earlier. But it was a tough thing to do, he did it -- and he did it knowing full well that the critics would jump all over him.

The president announced the surge in a nationally televised address in January 2007. A conservative columnist accused the president of offering nothing but "salesmanship and spin." A cable TV host went on a rant declaring "the plan fails militarily, the plan fails symbolically, the plan fails politically." Columnists and commentators either hedged their bets or predicted disaster ahead, with allusions to Vietnam sprinkled in for good measure.

Yet the surge went ahead. In Anbar Province, Marines were sent in to take

The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens: "Allies"

Here an excerpt from a highly perceptive piece entitled "Allies" by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal:

"It is a statistical certainty that American and British soldiers will pay a price in blood this spring because their French, Spanish, Italian, German and -- if Mr. Dion has his way -- Canadian counterparts mean to keep their moral slates clean. A century ago that would have been a mark of martial and national dishonor, of "letting the side down." Today, it is a concession to the political reality that most NATO governments cannot muster political support for anything except a "peace mission" in Afghanistan. "If you are non-U.S., implicitly there is a political calculus," says a senior U.S. Army officer about his NATO colleagues. "You are looking over your shoulder to Ottawa. You're asking: 'Will getting five killed-in-action mean a phone call about the wisdom of this particular operation?'"

Afghanistan, of course, was supposed to have been the "good war" -- the war that, unlike Iraq, everyone was willing to fight. Now the best that can be said for France, Germany, Italy and company is that they will not actively stand in the way of its being fought, so long as they're not fighting.

But even that is an improvement over the way some European governments are conducting themselves in the war on terror closer to home. Earlier this month, an Italian court named and indicted 25 CIA officers and five Italian officials for the rendition to Egypt of a cleric named Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr, aka Abu Omar. Germany, too, has issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA officers involved in the abduction (in Macedonia) of a German man of Lebanese descent named Khaled al-Masri. Mr. Masri has since become a cause célèbre back home -- a living indictment of the Bush administration's perfidious approach to fighting terrorism.

In Sheikh Omar's case, even the Italians don't dispute the Egyptian was a dangerous actor: He is believed to have recruited terrorists and plotted an attack on the U.S. embassy in Rome. Mr. Masri, by contrast, is usually depicted as an innocent caught up in a web of CIA intrigue. But as John Rosenthal of the invaluable Transatlantic Intelligencer blog notes, it was German, not American, intelligence that first became intensely concerned about Mr. Masri's activities.

Not two weeks after 9/11, Mr. Masri was already being investigated by authorities in Baden-Württemberg as a "follower of Bin Laden." A classified report from Germany's Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigations notes that Mr. Masri maintained "numerous contacts to dangerous persons and accused suspects in the domain of Islamist terrorism." He had a friendship with a militant Islamist named Reda Seyam, suspected of involvement in the 2002 Bali bombings. He frequented an Islamic Cultural Center known for distributing audiocassettes with such charming messages as "Whoever fights against the Christians, the Jews and their allies is a martyr." It was shut down by Bavarian officials in December 2005 and the organization that ran it was banned.

For all this, Mr. Masri may be guilty of nothing more than fellow-traveling. The same might be said of the German government, which at a minimum involved itself in the abduction it now means to prosecute by agreeing to keep the whole matter secret. "The German government, witness to the entire incident, pretended not to know anything," the German newsweekly Der Spiegel reported in 2005. "In a court of law, such behavior amounts to the suppression of evidence."

The German government also involved itself in another apparent CIA kidnapping in December 2001 of a German citizen and terrorist suspect named Mohammed Haydar Zammar, who was later rendered to his native Syria. Rather than demand his instant repatriation, however, the government of Gerhard Schröder arranged for investigators to interview Mr. Zammer in Syria, in exchange for which it dropped charges against two Syrian agents in Germany. Mr. Zammar remains in a Syrian prison.

None of this need shame the German government: Mr. Zammar is reported to have recruited some of the 9/11 hijackers and his fate is richly deserved. What is shameful is that the same governments that actively colluded with the U.S. to bring the worst terrorist cases to some kind of justice are now bending to the demands of activist prosecutors and the prevailing anti-American mood, and again allowing the U.S. to take the flak for what were often joint operations. For the indicted CIA officers, that flak is less deadly than what the GIs in Afghanistan can look forward to this spring. But the principle is the same.

Asked what he worried about most in wartime, Napoleon is said to have replied, "Allies." Plus ça change."

Read the whole thing. (Registration required)

UPDATE: Another editorial along the same lines appeared today in the Washington Post blasting the hypocrisy of the Italian and German governments. And yet another interesting piece on France in the New York Times.

UPDATE #2: The Washington Times featured an op-ed by blogger Paul Belien on what he believes to be Germany's persecution of the parents of home-schooled children. A commenter of ours with insight on the American media's reporting on Germany blasted that piece as follows:

"Paul Belien is a psycho who is now spreading this ridiculous homeschool saga - which has until now been relegated to right-wing blogs - (not) to national news. The primary problem with this piece is it is factually incorrect, and misleading. It is full of transparent half-truths (connecting schulpflicht laws to adolf hitler), lack of context (the families are not accurately described, nor was the condition of the main subject in the article), and - quite simply - idiotic and unnecessary slander: "As Hitler knew, Germans tend to obey orders unquestioningly." Regardless of what you think about the German public, this is an extremely insulting and preposterious statement, as would be any similar statement about Americans.

I posted it as an example of anti-Europe commentary in the U.S. press, which, although it is far less prevalent than anti-US commentary in German/European press, is no less stupid.

Paul Belien has a reputation as an idiot, and for good reason. He was fired from the WSJ years ago after the facts caught up with one of his baseless rants, and how he continues to get published is beyond me, although the WT is a pretty sleazy paper."

It will be interesting to see if Brussels Journal responds.

Mark Steyn: The Lack of Civilizational Confidence

In our posting "The Success of the German Social Model" we argued that "Germany within just a few decades will become a lagely sclerotic society with decreasing reliance on Christian and family values."

In support of my hypotheses may I humbly present excerpts from this fantastic piece by the incomparable Mark Steyn in the Wall Street Journal of January 4, 2006 (Hat tip Pat West). Again, these are just excerpts - I urge you to read the whole article.

It's the Demography, Stupid
The real reason the West is in danger of extinction. BY MARK STEYN

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands--probably--just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.

One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society--government health care, government day care (which Canada's thinking of introducing), government paternity leave (which Britain's just introduced). We've prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity--"Go forth and multiply"; because if you don't you won't be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare.

Americans sometimes don't understand how far gone most of the rest of the developed world is down this path: In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department. I don't think Don Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health and Human Services.

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European

Applause for SPIEGEL ONLINE...

(By Ray D.)

No...we haven't been drinking too much Glühwein. Today SPIEGEL ONLINE ran a translated article from the Wall Street Journal with a conservative, American view of the transatlantic debate on torture and terrorism. EUREKA!

This is a very positive first step after the publication has run countless pieces from The New York Times and conducted countless interviews with left-wing Bush critics. Today's WSJ piece is a highly rare example of the German media attempting to provide readers a fair, balanced view of conservative-American thought in unfiltered form.

For Germans to understand American politics, they must at least have a chance to read opinions and ideas from both sides of the debate. Davids Medienkritik has never been about promoting the Bush administration or neo-conservative thought. It has been about promoting fair, balanced, unbiased media coverage of the United States and the American political system in the German media.

Present all sides fairly and objectively and let the reader decide: That is what good journalism is all about. SPIEGEL ONLINE's decision to run the WSJ piece is a first, small step towards that objective. Let's hope this is not the last time we ever see this. In the meantime we will continue to do our jobs...

Note: Here is the WSJ article in original English. (Registration required)

UPDATE: Hold your applause ladies and gentlemen. SPIEGEL ONLINE botched the translation after all.

Message to Europe: Beware of the Future!

Another interesting quote from the Wall Street Journal (free registration required):

"The danger here is less to America--which will
continue to protect itself in any case--than it is to
Europe. The phony outrage over American anti-terror
practices will only make it harder for European
governments to take the actions required to stop
terror on their soil--witness French paralysis in the
wake of the recent riots.

More dangerous for the longer term, the Continent's
preening anti-Americanism has also been duly noted on
this side of the Atlantic. Europeans should worry that
their moral hauteur may well be repaid by American
popular opinion the next time they call on the Yanks
to put down one of their homegrown fascists."

(Hat tip Fondue)

More on German Trade with Sudan

Atlantic Review has the goods right here. Also be sure to check out this outstanding opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal entitled: Europe's 'Moral Outrage'. We've posted excerpts here.

Is Davids Medienkritik Having an Impact?

(By Ray D.)

Read the following excerpts from an outstanding recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece and decide for yourself...

"Europe's 'Moral Outrage'

December 1, 2005

Europe is enthralled by another American "torture scandal." Governments demand
the truth behind allegations, first made by the Washington Post last month, that
the CIA has operated covert prisons in Europe and secretly transported terrorist
suspects through European airports. Human Rights Watch claims to have located
the prisons in "New Europe" -- Poland and Romania.

The outrage on the Continent is deafening. Franco Frattini, the normally
level-headed European Commissioner for Justice, threatened "serious
consequences," including the unprecedented "suspension of voting rights" in the
European Union for the Poles and Romanians if the allegations prove true. After
all, "European values" would have been violated.

It is difficult to comment on the substance of the allegations because there
isn't much substance at the moment. Both the Romanian and Polish governments
have denied the reports, while Washington promised to look into the case. So for
the time being, there are only allegations and a lot of moral outrage. That
moral posturing, though, deserves a closer look.

We'd be the first to applaud Europeans for finally concerning themselves with
moral principles instead of commercial interests. Many of the Middle East's
problems, including terrorism, would be easier solved if Europe were seriously
concerned about morality. Europe would no longer be Iran's No. 1 trading
partner, and its companies wouldn't be able to attend trade fairs in Sudan
anymore.

Unlike American companies -- recently defamed in Germany as "(blood) suckers"
and "locusts" by the former government -- European firms are quite busy in
Sudan. The chamber of commerce and industry in Stuttgart has enthused over what
great opportunities Sudan's oil resources offer to German companies.

Lest people think they are doing something morally reprehensible, the salesmen
from Stuttgart prefer to describe the massacres of black Africans in Darfur as
"political disturbances." The German economics ministry, which sponsored the
German pavilion at last February's trade fair in Sudan, will also support next
February's event, the chamber of commerce assures its members.

Where is the outrage? How does that jibe with supposed European values?

Or who in Europe has heard of Soghra, an Iranian woman sentenced in October to
death by stoning for adultery? Or Mokhtar N. and Ali A., hanged last month in a
public square in Iran for homosexuality?

In much of Europe's public debate, the true meaning of human rights has
degenerated into a tool that gives anti-Americanism an aura of legitimacy. The
real, horrendous human-rights violations in the Middle East, North Korea, China,
Cuba, etc., are largely ignored or relegated to news blurs on the back pages.
For front-page coverage, you need an American angle." (emphasis ours)

That last paragraph really hit the nail on the head. Go read the entire thing. If you haven't already subscribed to the Wall Street Journal Online, now is the time to do so. These guys are true pros. They obviously recognize a good thing when they see it. Hopefully they will continue the very necessary task of exposing the hypocrisy and holier-than-thou superiority complex of the left-wing Eurosnob elite.

How to Fail in German Politics

The WSJ's commentary "This Professor from Heidelberg", that is based on an interview with Paul Kirchhof - the conservative's pre-election candidate for finance minister - ,  is a lucid description of what can go wrong in German politics with a campaign which focuses on free market reforms.

One conclusion stands out:

"...in order to demonize someone in Germany, one has to make him American."

Read it all.

(Hat tip cjhanus)

Interesting Articles on the German System

Is Germany's system of government a bad example for Iraq? Have a look at this interesting piece by Michael Greeve in the Wall Street Journal for his answer. Also be sure to check out this highly worthwhile piece by Ryan Lizza in "The New Republic" entitled "Bundesbog." (Hattip: Stefan H., Helian)

German Media Landscape: Keep the Conservatives Down

(By Ray D.)

Recently one of Germany's larger media firms announced that it planned to purchase a majority stake in ProSiebenSat1, Germany's second largest broadcasting corporation. So what? No big deal, just another corporate merger, right...?

Wrong. This isn't just any media firm: It's Axel Springer. And Axel Springer is the sort of company that touches a very raw nerve with certain groups of Germans. For starters, it is a firm that values a strong transatlantic partnership, supports the Israeli peoples' right to existence and is dedicated to fighting totalitarianism. But that is just the half of it. The firm, which owns newspapers like "Die Welt" and the best-selling tabloid "Bild," is also perceived as conservative. And to top it all off, the Chairman of Axel Springer is one Mathias Doepfner, a man who has mercilessly criticized the resurgent anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro-appeasement tendencies in German society. 

So when Springer announced it wanted to expand its reach, a shrill cry went up from the ranks of the German left that democracy itself was being threatened by over-concentration of media. Particularly loud, fearful objections were registered at Stern and Der SPIEGEL. The SPD's Vice-Chairman for its parliamentary fraction, Ludwig Stiegler commented openly that, "This is a very alarming concentration of media power in a conservative publishing house." Stiegler added, "Springer shouldn't celebrate too soon. I am certain that the anti-trust authorities will take a very close look at the merger."

Germany's Real Media Hegemon: Bertelsmann

As is so often the case, the outcry was a highly selective one motivated in part by personal interests and political fears. Remember that Stern is Germany's most widely read weekly with 8 million readers and Der SPIEGEL is more or less tied for second-place with FOCUS with around 5 million. And it just so happens that Bertelsmann, far and away Germany's largest and most powerful media corporation (and Axel Springer's major competitor), owns a majority share in Stern and a 25.5% stake in Der SPIEGEL through its subsidiary Gruner & Jahr.

And let's just compare Germany's two largest media firms for a moment: Bertelsmann has a turnover of 17 billion Euros, a presence in 63 nations and a workforce of over 76,000 employees. Axel Springer has a turnover of 2.5 billion Euros, a presence in 27 countries and a workforce of 10,700. Should its merger succeed, Springer would still be much smaller than Bertelsmann. Yet we are supposed to be worried about the over-concentration of media power at Axel Springer? Is there something wrong with this picture?

The Wall Street Journal: "Axel Springer's Enemies"

No one has given a better account of the ongoing hypocrisy in German media and politics vis-a-vis Springer than the Wall Street Journal. Here are excerpts from an outstanding August 11 editorial that hit the nail right on the head:

"German democracy is under attack. At least that is what a flock of the media elite has been claiming since Axel Springer, Germany's largest newspaper publisher, said Friday it would buy ProSiebenSat.1, the country's second-largest broadcasting group. This "cannot be in the interest of democracy," said Michael Konken, the chairman of Germany's journalist association. Frank Werneke, a trade union leader, called for "the containment of media power across sectors."

These concerns would sound more sincere if they also had been voiced four years ago when Bertelsmann, the world's fourth-largest media company, took control of RTL Group, Germany's largest broadcaster. But back then, there were no such warnings about democracy's imminent decline. Bertelsmann's outlets are more to the liking of the German left.

Let's look at some of the facts. Although the acquisition will nearly double Springer's sales to about €4.2 billion, Bertelsmann still dwarfs its competitor, with global sales more than four times higher. Bertelsmann's German business alone still outpaces its rival with about €5 billion in sales. RTL is slightly more popular than ProSiebenSat.1 but neither broadcaster reaches 25% of the German audience -- the ceiling regulators have set for combined print and television companies. (...)

The principles Springer journalists are expected to support are freedom and democracy in Germany and efforts to bring the peoples of Europe closer together; reconciliation between Jews and Germans, which includes support for Israel's right to exist; the trans-Atlantic alliance and the liberal value community with the U.S.; the rejection of totalitarianism and the defense of Germany's free, social-market economy.

What sounds like a manifesto that any reasonable democrat in Germany should be able to sign is now being called a threat to the country's democracy. Without doubt, the company's commitment to the trans-Atlantic relationship is what irks its opponents the most. Springer publications often criticize U.S. policies but its readers will not find the kind of hysterical anti-Americanism now so prevalent in much of Germany's media.

Consider the two weeklies Stern and Der Spiegel, both with circulations of over a million and links to Bertelsmann. Der Spiegel in particular is considered Germany's most high-brow and influential political magazine. To give a flavor of the kind of image these two publications spread of the U.S. and the Bush administration, one only has to look at some of their covers.

Last fall, when General Motors was considering layoffs at its German Opel unit (which in the end did not happen), Stern's front page showed a giant cowboy boot with the American flag on it about to step on a group of people grouped together to form the Opel logo. The headline was "The Wild-West Method." Another front page in March 2004 showed President George W. Bush in front of an American flag above what looks like a Middle Eastern city from which smoke is rising up. Headline: "How America lied to the world." The story was about the Iraq war, of course.

Before the U.S. election last November, Der Spiegel showed a caricature of President Bush dressed as a cowboy ready to shoot his opponent. The headline here was "Will America become democratic again?" Another front page in 2003 showed the American flag with little assault rifles and gas nozzles superimposed on the stars, headlined "Blood for oil. What Iraq is really about."

Television, particularly public broadcasters ARD and ZDF, whose news shows are still the most trusted, often echoes such themes. According to Media-Tenor, a media analysis center headquartered in Bonn, their Iraq coverage was at times even more negative than that of al-Jazeera.

Rather than stifling the political debate, Springer's expansion to the TV world is likely to introduce the kind of "plurality of opinions" its opponents claim he threatens. What Springer threatens is not the diversity of view but the uniformity of view and group think -- and that can only be healthy for Germany's democracy."

We at Medienkritik would like to think that the above was inspired to some degree by our work. Apparently the Journal's article caught the attention of Springer Chairman Mathias Doepfner, who made reference to it in a recent interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. We wanted to link to that interview, but for some reason SPIEGEL ONLINE has taken the unusual step of restricting access to the piece with a fee after only two days. So we will work on an English translation for you. Stay tuned for that...

(Emphasis ours throughout)

You're Fired!

Not quite.

But he is transferred to another, so far unknown destination: "The German Diplomat from Hell". No more New York party circuit, no more equation of the human rights policy of the U.S. and of North Korea (he preferred the North Korean version). The German foreign ministry decided to get rid of this guy in order to avoid "irritations in the relationship between the U.S. and Germany."

Hmm... I guess there is another German diplomat who should have been fired long ago in order to avoid irritations between the U.S. and Germany.

Consequences for the German Diplomat from Hell?

(By Ray D.)

Not long ago, we posted on an article entitled, "The German Chair: A tale of torture at the hands of an America-hating diplomat," by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal. According to the author, a relatively senior German diplomat attached to the German Consulate General in New York invited him and his wife to Sunday brunch. The article details Mr. Stephens' account of the harrowing conversation that followed with diplomat "Thomas P.", in which the German official allegedly made the following statements:

• "The gulag was better than Gitmo, since at least the Stalinist system offered its victims a trial of sorts."
• "Civil rights in the U.S. were on a par with those of North Korea and rather behind what they had been in Europe in the Middle Ages."
• "The Wall Street Journal takes its orders from the government."
• "The only people who appreciate American foreign policy are poodles."

Semi-Surprising: Potential Consequences for Diplomat "Thomas P."

In Germany, big-shot bureaucrats and officials often get away with treating people like garbage with absolutely no consequences. So it was semi-surprising to read that the German government was actually taking the case seriously despite the best efforts of Uwe-Carsten Heye, the Director of the German Consulate General in New York, to downplay the allegations and cover for his underling. "Thomas P.", the diplomat who allegedly made the comments, denied the charges and claims the conversation went differently.  (Apparently he thinks Mr. Stephens would be willing to put his career and reputation as a journalist on the line and lie about the conversation simply to ruin his life.)

According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, diplomat "Thomas P." has been recalled to Berlin and the German Foreign Office (Auswärtigen Amt) has opened an investigation. The official will be required to report on the incident from his point of view. The German government apparently felt it necessary to closely examine the case to avoid further straining transatlantic relations.

SPIEGEL ONLINE further points out that the case has drawn the attention of Guido Westerwelle, the leader of Germany's FDP (Free Democrat Party), who sent out a fax demanding that Germany's Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer personally clarify what happened. Westerwelle is quoted as saying, "Someone who has such abstruse thoughts is hardly qualified to represent Germany."

Indeed. If "Thomas P." truly made the statements listed above, he has no place working as a German diplomat...especially not in the United States. Germany deserves diplomats who are capable of representing the nation with dignity in both public and private. Anyone capable of making statements so outrageous in any setting has no business serving our great land. Let's hope that German officials at the Foreign Office get to the bottom of this fiasco. We will continue to follow this case.

Update: Letters from our Readers

We would like to thank those of our readers who responded to our earlier call to write letters to German authorities about this case. Here are a few outstanding examples forwarded to us:

Letter 1:

Dear Generalkonsul Heye:

I oppose the foreign policy of the current U.S. administration. I deplore the yet-to-be-civil status of civil rights in this country. And I advocate the privilege of Free Speech.

Having said that, I add my voice to those who are appalled at the unseemly conduct of Thomas P., the diplomatic official who so egregiously abused his role as guest (in this country) and host (of journalist Bret Stephens and his wife).

Free speech is a curious thing. In the U.S., we allow everyone—including morons, hate-mongers and fascists—to speak their mind. But it is one thing to express one’s opinions in a professional setting, public or private. It is quite another matter to invite a guest and his wife to one’s home for an ostensibly social occasion, then subject them to overbearing, insensitive, and inappropriate rants.

That the Federal Republic of Germany should assign incompetents such as Thomas P. to any diplomatic position—never mind one so crucial—does not speak well of its standards. I urge you to take the appropriate steps to remove Herr P. from his position and replace him with someone who understands the difference between Free Speech and Disrespectful Oafishness.

Sincerely,

Leslie L.

For more letters, click the link below:

The German Diplomat from Hell

German Diplomat Describes Civil Rights in the USA as "on a par with those of North Korea"

We at Davids Medienkritik are not easily impressed by bad behavior from German elites. After all, we've seen and reported on a lot in the past. But we were simply blown-away by what we read in a recent Wall Street Journal piece by Bret Stephens:

The article, entitled, "The German Chair: A tale of torture at the hands of an America-hating diplomat", details Mr. Stephens harrowing conversation with a relatively prominent official from the German Consulate General in New York during a recent social call to his Manhattan apartment. The remarks of the German diplomat were so outrageous and over-the-top that it is difficult to understand how he received his position in the first place, even by German standards.

Here is the article's money passage:

"What occasioned this discovery was meeting a relatively senior German diplomat posted to the New York consulate. My wife--also German--knows his wife socially; our children use the same playground. They had invited us to their home for Sunday brunch.

I should say here that I speak almost no German, and it quickly became apparent that the diplomat's wife spoke almost no English. So it was perhaps natural that, soon after we arrived, she and my wife took to one corner of the spacious apartment while the diplomat ushered me into his study. Less natural was the conversation that followed. I made the normal chitchat of first encounters: praise for the unobstructed (and million-dollar) views of the Hudson River; a query about what he did at the consulate.

But the diplomat had no patience for my small talk. Apropos of nothing, he said he had recently made a study of U.S. tax laws and concluded that practices here were inferior to those in Germany. Given recent rates of German economic growth, I found this comment odd. But I offered no rejoinder. I was, after all, a guest in his home.

The diplomat, however, was just getting started. Bad as U.S. economic policy was, it was as nothing next to our human-rights record. Had I read the recent Amnesty International report on Guantanamo? "You mean the one that compared it to the Soviet gulag?" Yes, that one. My host disagreed with it: The gulag was better than Gitmo, since at least the Stalinist system offered its victims a trial of sorts.

Nor was that all. Civil rights in the U.S., he said, were on a par with those of North Korea and rather behind what they had been in Europe in the Middle Ages. When I offered that, as a journalist, I had encountered no restrictions on press freedom, he cut me off. "That's because The Wall Street Journal takes its orders from the government."

By then we had sat down at the formal dining table, with our backs to Ground Zero a half-mile away and our eyes on the boats on the river below us. My wife and I made abortive attempts at ordinary conversation. We were met with non sequiturs: "The only people who appreciate American foreign policy are poodles." After further bizarre pronouncements, including a lecture on the illegality of the Holocaust under Nazi law, my wife said that she felt unwell. We gathered our things and left."

The article was so upsetting that one of our German readers has already written an official letter of protest to the German Consulate General in New York and the German Foreign Ministry in Berlin. You can view the letter's English version here, the German original here.

We want to encourage our readers to follow the good example of our reader. Please email, call and write the responsible German authorities with your thoughts on the matter.

The German Consulate General in New York can be contacted at: [email protected] and [email protected]. The Consulate General's contact info is here. 

We also suggest you forward a copy of your letter to the Embassy in Washington, DC at this link. 

You should also forward a copy to the office of Karsten Voigt, the German government's Coordinator for German-American Cooperation at: [email protected]

You may also want to forward a copy to the office of Dr. Friedbert Pflueger, the CDU/CSU fraction's expert for foreign policy in the Bundestag at: [email protected]

This is truly unacceptable for both Germans and Americans. This diplomat is an embarrassment to Germany and needs to be fired. Make your voices heard!

Note: We would leave to read your letters and any responses you receive in our comments section, or you can email them to us.

(Emphasis ours throughout, article by Ray D.)