All my life, I've cooperated with Europeans; Europeans have been at the center of many of my life's projects. As a long-time participant in OSCE and related activities, I've travelled to many of the countries of Europe to various meetings, conferences, conventions. I've had close European friends I've corresponded with regularly. The "idea of Europe" was one I always believed I upheld. I was a great friend and admirer of E.P. Thompson and the European Nuclear Disarmanet movement in the 1980s. I read all the European thinkers in his circles and then people like Timothy Garton Ash and even Tony Judd although I didn't care for the latter. I read the New Statesman for years. I get the German Foreign Ministry's "The Week in Germany" every week in my emailbox and "The Atlantic Times" in my post box and actually read these publications front to back. Yes, I have the Carnegie Endowment app on my phone and read it all the time. I've been active at OSCE and the UN and meet with various European representatives often on various topics of interest and joint projects. I keep up.I'm not an American yahoo without a passport; I don't think we have to re-name those potato things at McDonald's "Freedom Fries"; I can read if not speak French.
Once some years ago I had a chance to have a substantive conversation with Gerd Poppe, who was then the German human rights commissioner, and himself a former political prisoner from East Germany. There were high hopes that he would be "better" than other bureacrats in such a position because of his personal experience. And maybe he was. I've always said that the worst thing anywhere, especially in our own country, is when an NGO comes to power and takes office. Look out! I'll leave it to Germans to assess his profile, but I was impressed by something he said frankly — he would be able to speak his mind freely and behave independently, except on three subjects where he'd have to take political guidance: China, Russia, and Israel.
And there you have it. The problem. The problem with Europe is on those three (and related subjects). We could have added Iran.
The theory of the funders at Ford, Rockefeller, Soros and other foundations that became involved in supporting the now-defunct International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, back in the 1980s, was that the US had used up all its chits in trying to bargain on human rights with the Soviet Union; it was no longer heard because of the propaganda din of the Cold War; it had no credibility because of its own support of human rights abusers in Latin America in its own hemisphere, and therefore only more "clean-handed" Europe could try to reason with the Soviet Union and help mitigate its behaviour. If liberal Americans could ally with Europeans willing to take on the Kremlin, so the theory goes, it would be an unbeatable combination; the Russians wouldn't be able to beat this alliance, and their constant whining of "your Indians" would be cut (as the Soviet propensity for countering every legitimate criticism about their own abysmal human rights record with fake or overblown complaints of American sins was called for short-hand in that era.)
There were several big problems with this theory, the chief of which was the lack of funding for NGO work in Europe — Europe just doesn't have the level of private foundations and funding of the civic sector that the US does, as it tends toward the socialist and state solution for taking care of social needs. Even so, there were a few foundations one could try to involve, and in any event, the main thing was to have the European figures with moral and political standing speak out, and if it had to be paid for by American funds, well, let them at least be from the private sector so no one could complain of government manipulation or, God forbid, invoke the horror of the CIA-funded Congress for Cultural Freedom days and the "Mighty Wurlitzer".
But as I think of all the various human rights and peace — and then lately Internet — meetings I've been to over the years in Europe or with Europeans here in the US, I have to say that the term "transatlanticism" was not one much used. In the days we spent at Perugia forming the IHF, I don't think the term once ever crossed anyone's lips.
That's because it's a bureaucratic term that belongs to the life of governments and establishment think-tanks and really doesn't have any vital life of its own in the publics of the countries on opposite sides of the Atlantic. In fact, for me — and I bet I'm not alone in this — the very term "transatlanticism" conjures up visions of dull lecture halls, government buildings with creamed chicken and steam table vegetable luncheons, or perhaps a lovely breakfast at Carnegie with fresh-squeezed orange juice and ambassadors — but off the record. The Europeans race to the doors to have a cigarette, coming from countries without policies against smoking indoors. You inform them they can't smoke there, either, and the next bus for New Jersey, where they will be able to have a cigarette, is leaving in 20 minutes. Just kidding!
"Transatlanticism" is about people telling themselves they are in dialogue and collaboration — but they are in dialogue and collaboration only with each other in this "thin layer". They are the smart ones, surrounded by idiots. There's a grant, a fellowship, a scholarship, a study tour, and this opportunity and that opportunity. I think of "Transatlanticism" as a kind of giant job corps for unemployed or even unemployable academics who studied International Relations and maybe will get a job in the World Bank or OSCE some day if they work it right as they flunked the foreign service exam. To be sure, there are very august personages on this circuit which I myself have participated in and listened to with respect and awe and I get it.
But, well, then there's real life. Real life is the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, G+ and even Second Life. And there I see the real Europe and the real Europeans who are anything but pleasant like those Europeans around the coffee urn at the transatlantic conference at Carnegie or SAIS or the UN or RFE/RL.
The Internet Europeans can be less educated or more educated than the Transatlantic circuit-riders, but they are certainly less modulated in tone. They hate Americans and American mass culture; they are ardent supporters of piracy and anarchist and hacking; they viciously loathe Israel and cheer Palestinian suicide bombers.
The other day a Croatian living in France who admired free software summited it all up on the day Croatia was accepted into the EU: he chastised my steady indifference to the whining of Europeans about the NSA bugging, and he went on to tell me Israel engaged in "ethnic cleansing" (!) and that I wouldn't know what it was like living a mile from a terrorist attack, as he had done three times in his native Croatia. I informed him I lived exactly that distance from the 9/11 attack of the World Trade Center and urged him to try to broaden his mind to understand the difference of the masses of Serbs killed by Croats or Croats killed by Serbs in ethnic cleansing raids and the civilians killed in Israeli counterattacks on Gaza. Europe!
Recently, at a hotel in Austria, I fell to chatting with the young men at the front desk on the night shift. I expressed a little shock when he showed me a drawer filled with flyers about legal prostitutes of every variety. I asked him how this squared with Austria being at least nominally a Catholic country, with the Catholic cathedral right down the street. He shrugged. With a perfectly straight face he then went on to tell me essentially why Americans "deserved" the terrorist attacks on them. This was because of American TV shows that illustrated how obscenely wealthy Americans were and this made particularly Arabs in Muslim countries envious, he explained. "Like the way you hold Sweet 16 birthday parties for your daughters and spend tens of thousands of dollars and give them their own Lamborghinis," he explained matter-of-factly.
I spent 10 minutes trying to explain that the overwhelming majority of Americans had nothing like this sort of wealth, which was only some fantastic TV show — he couldn't even seem to name which one. I said for my daughter's 16th birthday, we went to a local Afghan restaurant with the family and perhaps spent $117.82 for a party of 6. For her presents, we gave her a purse and pens and some books. Lambos? For reals?
So there's the facile and deep-seated and ignorant hatred of Americans that the Global Village and instant pervasive media seem to have increased, not dissipated, and then there's the deep hatred of Israel and the Jews. The casual antisemitism; the constant mean-spirited obsession with Israel; the constant denials that this is anti-semitism but is only legitimate criticism. The awfulness of the Boycott/Divest/Sanctions (BDS) movement which is funded by EU governments and includes hate-filled Palestinian groups in particular. The endless, screaming Internet hysteria around Israel that is all out of proportion to everything else.
Any year in the North Caucasus produces enormous numbers more of people killed by Russian forces or terrorists than the Israel/Palestine conflict, but Europeans never look at that; the sufferings of Chechnya simply never captured their imagination. There are all kinds of conflicts in the world with far more suffering and casualties — Sudan, the DRC, Nigeria not to mention of course the monster of all misery, Syria. No, none of that counts; a settlement built over a line in Israel is more cause for alarm than 25 or 50 people being blown up by the latest suicide bomberi n Iraq or Afghanistan.
To be sure, Europeans helped in Afghanistan and fought bravely and lost their men in the line of duty. But you had the sense that they beat a hasty path to the exits even faster than Obama, and that there was always endless fretting the entire way about whether you should fight the murderous Taliban or not, in the Bundestag in particular.
So many other topics where Europeans myopically have it in for Americans. Take the Norwegian killer. Why was there this unseemly haste on the left both in the States and in Europe to blame Breivik's mass murder on…Pamela Geller, a blogger? To be sure, along with Vladimir Putin and Dan Brown, she is mentioned a few times in Breivik's long manifesto. But you're going to tell me, um, there was no neo-Nazi strain and intolerant hatred of immigrants already present in numerous movements in Europe, and they had to go fetch inspiration from some lady in Long Island? For reals?
So often in these verbal fights over the years with Europeans on the Internet I would conclude coldly: "You know, there's a reason why my great grandparents and the ancestors of many other Americans fled your famines, your pogroms, your wars." Europeans seem to have awareness enough of living through the Nazi period, although to the young generation it's mere history. But even those who lived through the 1930s and 1950s don't seem to get it about that other big mass crime against humanity next door — the Communist Great Terror, where millions perished in the GULAG. There's a HUGE blind spot to this reality — it's truly unconscionable. So many Europeans natter on endlessly about American evils in the world — Vietnam or supporting the Shah of Iran or the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Did they get it that the Soviet Red Army massacred *one million civilians in Afghanistan*?! Did they understand that there were good reasons for the Cold War and fighting the communists because they were like that, massacring millions of their own people? Hello? Why do I need to explain this? Why is it that I've read all the books and heard all the stories about this monstrosity, but Europeans haven't? Or at least, so few Europeans.
In the US, the cause of the Darfurians and still the Tibetans persist, but in Europe they are obsessed with Israel/Palestine. Shamelessly boycotting Israeli academics who can't even be shown to support their country's policies in ways they never, ever boycotted Soviet academics who were part and parcel of state oppression.
Then, of course, there's the whole topic of Islamist extremism and the failures of the British government in particular to address this challenge despite outrageous terrorist attacks, in part caused by their decision to buy out extremists by funding them and keeping them close, in the belief this would automagically keep them from inciting or commiting violence. It didn't.
But worst of all — because it affects not just the domestic situation in Russia but Iran, Syria and other situations (hence a post on Minding Russia) — is the abject failure of Europeans of every kind to stand up to the Russians (with very few exceptions). This has now grown to be an alarming problem, manifested in all kinds of ways — the French sale of Mistrals to the Russians; Londongrad overrun with Putin-allied oligarchs and the High Court Judge failing to do the right thing and summon Russian suspects in Litvinenko's murder; Germany's trade deal with Russia and the false belief that if Merkel raises the NGO crackdown with Putin at the same time this somehow mitigates it. In particular, I have watched and written about the pipeline issues, and I always marvelled how when the European Commission officials were off to Baku or Ashgabat trying to get Nabucco or some shortened form of Nabucco off the ground, they were in fact always being undermined by the Italians or Germans or others going and making deals with Gazprom for Southstream. They would murmur how they could do both. But it was always clear to me that if you were trying to have a policy of lessoning dependency on Russia, the only way to begin was to well, begin. They didn't. Dependency only grows.
The OSCE meeting on the Internet in Dublin was a real eye-opener for me because I could see how bad it had gotten — even the Irish, who were supposed to be "The West" and "Europe" could not sign the US sponsored manifesto on Internet freedom because of pressure from the Russians and their allies in the thug's life. Then at another meeting like this in Austria, the Russians overran it with key speaking positions and their proxies like Baku prevailing, along with their like-minded (bad-minded) NGOs. Why was this happening?
All of this is by way of a long introduction to a brief Twitter spat with one Jan Techau. It turns out he was the head of Carnegie Europe's office and therefore felt himself to be a great Transatlanticist. By which, as I pointed out acidly, his way is paid by the funds of a 19th-century American tycoon.
Techau was renting his garments and clutching his breast because the US had been caught spying on the EU, and Europe was Outraged.
That is, in a story reported by the infamous Laura Poitras, who has been all over the plotting and execution of the entire Snowden affair, leftist Germans were quoted as outraged — note these qualifications, as they are important. That means a) the story bears checking to see if it really happened in the first place but b) even if it did, it does not matter to quite the extent imagined or c) even if lots more Europeans are mad — too bad.
When I happened on Techau's tweet that he "felt betrayed" I had only a brisk scolding for him — basically, too bad, Europe got what was coming to it because it has not been a trustworthy ally, buddying up to the Russians, hating on Israel, and not doing enough on Iran.
Techau retorted by first calling me an "angry lady" and then implying that I never read Carnegie's literature and didn't realize that he and his colleagues as the brave Transatlanticists were literally holding their fingers in the dike against the tidal wave of anti-Americanism, and how dare I criticize him as he was my best ally. He later penned a whole thinky blog post on the subject.
Nonsense, I said, and called him a "petulant baby". Those who selectively join the Newly-Acquired Conscience Society gasp at name-calling on Twitter as if such "ad hominem" attacks came out of the blue.
But of course, they were absent — and their outrage was missing — at this twerp calling me an "angry lady" as if frank talk was "anger," and then implying in multiple tweets that I was stupid, unread, and uneducated. Please. If someone disagrees with your point of view, that doesn't mean they're stupid, or need "anger management" and if you've insulted them in multiple tweets, at least have the maturity to accept a taste of your own medicine and get insulted back. Because I believe in pushing back with people like this and not wilting, as so many do.
And truly, it is petulant to be whining about the Americans placing bugs in this or that European venue, given what happened at the recent NATO talks where the Germans blocked the MAP for Georgia and Ukraine, and where in many ways, Europe has been so not on the same page as to be really giving comfort to the enemy. If you behave like an enemy or make common cause with the enemy, indeed you will be treated as such.
Techau seemed to accept the terms of this debate — that to the extent that Europe is perceived as an enemy or at least as abetting the enemies of America too much lately, then it, too, will have to expect to be put under surveillance. He accepted it on Twitter and in his self-serving blog post.
Even so, while he's counseling others not to make too much of this bugging, he himself said it was a "betrayal". Nonsense. It's a dose of reality for bad behaviour. Shape up. Or there will be more of it. And as Nathalie Vogel has pointed out, it's not as if Europe doesn't spy on Europe and the US, too.
Techau worries that the bugging incident has flushed years of "Transatlanticist" work down the toilet. If that's the case, it wasn't worth much to begin with, champ. Maybe it's better to go our own ways.
He positions himself and his pals as leading the charge valiantly against the tides of haters and populists and isolationists on both sides of the pond. "Ours is a high and lonely destiny," you can hear him intone over…what would it be? Pims biscuits and PG Tips? Guiness Stout?
At this point, I think we do have to look at all this very starkly. Russia has made shocking — dangerous — inroads into Europe and forced European countries to knuckle on so many things — arms control, arms sales, sanctions, etc. If we're supposed to be impressed by sanctions on Iran, I can only say — but where's the huge, relentless pressure on *Russia* which makes the Iranian problem able to so persist in the world, particularly at the UN? It's great there are sanctions, but there are so many fanctions decrying even those, and inciting endless hatred of Israel as if they are going to bomb Iran, and as if their possession of nuclear weapons is the problem. That undoes all the good, you see. The Internet noise.
Now, as Nathalie will tell you with a great more texture than I'd know about, there are German political groupings and figures who get it about the American security umbrella and the NSA and they aren't going to complain. Maybe the progs here will call them all Obamabots in a minute, but so what, they are staying the course not because they are slaves to a master but because they are full-fledged partners in a life-saving enterprise. After all, a more conservative leadership is now elected in Germany and the UK and elsewhere for good reason, and that would tend to indicate that the leftist Twittering masses who hate on America and Israel and cheer the Muslim Brotherhood and think 9/11 was chickens properly roosting aren't really in power, they're just in the view.
This would suggest that as the Wired State shapes up East and West, that the sad reality might be that the resistance to it would also have to be transnational and not through more local democracy and sovereignty. And that makes sense because many more things are interconnected now. Interconnection does not breed understanding, but breeds enmity the more we know. We now know more than ever that the Europeans will always capitulate to Russia, not only because they need their energy and aren't willing to use nuclear power or drill into shale except in Poland, which the rich Europeans are willing to sacrifice even if it hurts the environment, but because of a mentality that actually doesn't get it about what's wrong with Russia and its history. I really don't know how fixable that is anymore. I literally used to believe it was more fixable 25 years ago; now I don't.
Techau imagines that the Transatlanticist third-way types will save the day, and imagines himself heroically squeezed in the sandwhich:
From the eastern side of the Atlantic, we
were told: “See, this is where your slavishly pro-American position has
gotten you. This is what you get when you become their poodle.” Almost
within hours, it became a lot harder to make the transatlantic case in Europe. Some exasperated colleagues were complaining that years of work had been flushed down the toilet in days.From the other side of the pond, our complaint provoked a different
reaction. I was called a “petulant baby” by a particularly robust tweep
from New York, who then continued: “You didn’t think you needed the US,
you made pipeline deals with Russia, you hate on Israel. Consequences.”
In other words: if you decide to act like the enemy, don’t be surprised
when you’re treated like the enemy.
Techau thinks he represents the "true" Transatlanticism; Vogel calls him "false" because he was only weeks before this post cosying up with the Russians in some Kumbaya about which I have yet to learn the details. The reality is that the trans-ness that Techau is perfectly comfortable snuggling up to here is the Obama Administration — which is busy capitulating to Russia as well. That's the problem. Where's the Atlantic, guys?
I can't help thinking that Transatlanticism itself is an archaic concept if it is predicated on entire countries or their governments as such, and if all it has turned into is a talk shop to discuss mutual love for Russia and the need to placate Putin.
What is really needed is only networking among likeminded political groups across the sea within countries and that means that they will have to join each other in countering other political groups within their own countries. Yes, that is what it means. It means giving up the fiction that the hands across the sea are to states only as such. It means isolating the SDS and leaving it in the hands of Russia. It means calling out the many "progressive" supporters of Snowden in the US as being politically properly with him at his current destination, the lounge at Sheremetyevo asking for political asylum. Yes, it's a nasty political struggle and there isn't an alternative to fighting it as long as the Russians stay as thuggish as they are. When they are persuaded or *deterred* from stopping, then you can look at other options.
Techau is bemoaning a crisis that has "brought out the worst in people" — those evil populists and isolationists and calls for "more hard work" to be done.
Save your strength. It's not about populism or isolationism. It's about the harsh reality of needing to fight Russia in a new Cold War in a universal alliance that draws in the enemies of Putin who remain the friends of liberal democracy in Russia itself. Cold is what you have to be when criminality metasticizes and spreads and undermines Western institutions. The Magnitsky Act isn't some symbolism to placate some yahoo Congressmen; it's a real line in the sand against Russian mafia mentality that acts with impunity — which is why the Russians were so keen on revenge against it (if it were a mere symbol they'd ignore it).
I really don't think that people who live in the artificial rarified atmosphere of the Transatlantic conference circuit realize how much real business America transacts only bilaterally. There is no Europe. There are countries that the US deals with one by one. Sure, there are meetings of the Pillars of This and the Acronyms of That all the time and positions are coordinated. But the US transacts its real business bilaterally and never forget it.
That is why those of us who still believe in the possibility of international institutions as well as civic networks — which today means pressuring them to be their better selves by standing up to Russian thuggishness — can't be sidetracked into substitutions.
Leave a Reply