Gassenfenster

Germans still don´t get it

2005-03-29T13:19:00.000+02:00

Germans have yet to wake up from their socialist dream. According to a recent poll only one third of germany´s unemployed would be willing to move to another place in order to get a new job. Also, a majority of unemployed wouldn´t take a new job if their daily way to work was too long. Only half of them say they are intensively looking for a new job.

What´s the rest of them doing? Probably too busy watching TV, playing Playstation and complaining about why no one does anything against the high unemployment rate in germany.

So, what´s to do? It´s easy. Cut social benefits and spread a little "soziale Kaelte" (social frostiness) in order to get them off their lazy asses. But unfortunately, that´s not possible, because germans don´t want "amerikanische Verhältnisse" (american circumstances), i.e. real capitalism. And our cowardly politicians are certainly not going to risk loosing votes by confronting their electorate with reality.

Are Koreans going crazy?

2005-03-27T15:48:00.000+02:00

And I don´t mean North Koreans this time. According to this piece at One Free Korea, the "Streets of Seoul are no longer safe for foreigners".

Funny how leftist western politicians often try to make you think that we in the west had a monopoly on xenophobia, while xenophobia and racism sadly are quite common all over the world. Take, for example, China. While, as a white westerner, you are actually treated very well, black people are scorned by many chinese.

And, in other other parts of the world, muslims also once again show their intolerance:
According to this article in the New York Times, Muslims are outraged about a Pakistani acteress kissing a Hindu in a movie. Don´t these people have anything better to do?

Two Years Later

2005-03-21T00:52:00.000+01:00

A great post from Ace of Spades HQ on the occasion of the second anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War.

Carsten Schmiester for Reichspropagandaminister

2005-03-19T11:23:00.000+01:00

Carsten Schmiester is one of the leading anti-american propagandists in the german media. He works for the publicly funded Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR) and publishes about 1-2 extremely biased articles per week on tagesschau.de.
So, here is another piece of his outstanding propaganda work. Goebbels would be proud of him:

"Bush continues to sound "the trumpet of freedom"

Two years ago the USA went to war with Iraq. Today they are still fighting.
For freedom, as US-President Bush says. That is why the sacrifices, the many dead and wounded US-soldiers, were not made in vain, thinks the president. Not everyone is as convinced as he is."

[Of course not everyone is as convinced as he is. If you are an anti-american, socialist propagandist, you probably don´t believe in sacrificing anything for the spread of freedom and prosperity. And there will always be enough idiots to support your views. But that doesn´t make them right.]

"More than 1500 dead and over 11.000 wounded US-soldiers in Iraq. It´s also these numbers that cause - two years after the start of the war - a change of the opinion picture in the US. Opinion polls show that today 53 percent of those questioned speak out against the war, two years ago it was only 27 percent. The fraction of those in favor of the war shrunk from 70% to 45%. America has doubts about the war - only President George W. Bush hasn´t. "

[Yes, only president Bush AND the 45% of americans which, according to the poll Schmiester mentions, are in favor of the war in Iraq. But what´s 45% of americans? If you were against the war in the first place, like Schmiester, this amounts to nothing.]

"He still obliviously praises the achievements of his country: "The insecurity and the sorrows of the last few years were not without avail. Millions have been liberated, millions will follow." The president adds pugnaciously: "The trumpet of freedom has been sounded, and that trumpet never calls defeat"."

[What he does here is simple: Buy using the german word "unbeirrt" (obliviously) he asserts that Bush is a stubborn warmonger who won´t listen to any voice of reason, and still praises his country, although we all know that the Iraq war was an utter failure and that, of course, there is no reason to praise the US. He knows exactly what kind of reaction he will get from his readers: "Damn stubborn yankee! How dare he call his wars acts of liberation! Thousands of civilians were killed only for the oil interests of the U.S."]

"Neoconservative Politics
So "Freedom Trumpeter" Bush still sounds the attack, although more quietly. Not only politcal reason lead him to his change of course in the Iran question. That america suddenly supports negotiations with Iran about the Iranian nuclear program, is also due to the fact that Bush lacks the money and the soldiers for a new war. But this doesn´t chance his aim of also helping democracy to a break through in Iran, just like in Iraq, in Libanon, and at best also in Syria. That is still the core of neoconservative US-Anti terror policy. "

[So, in this paragraph, Schmiester first tries to mock President Bush by calling him "Freedom Trumpeter", afterwards he alludes that only the european position of engagement towards Iran was right all along. As if there was no rational argument for a hardline approach. Then he shows, that anti-american Journalists like him will never be satisfied with anything the U.S.-administration does, even if Bush does exactly what they have always demanded from him: Now that Bush has changed his stance on Iran, it is interpreted as if he did this only because he had no other choice. Because due to his flawed decisions in the past, he has run out of money for new wars, and as no one wants to join the US-army anymore, he is also running out of soldiers. While the last part (about spreading democracy) doesn´t sound all that bad, it actually hides the assertion that Bush "just like in Iraq" wants to spread democracy by violent means, which is not true. But this is how Schmiester wants to convey it, and this is how the average reader will understand it. They will think once again: "Damn Bush, always wants to meddle in the affairs of other countries. Why can´t he just let them live how they want to live."]

"Split Echo
Scientiest Rashid Khalidi of Columbia University has his doubts with this policy. He recognizes progress in some countries, but he doesn´t see any reason to laud Bush for this. "If anyone derserves praise, then it´s the Iraqis, who have forced Bush to do the right thing", he thinks, and adds another example: "In the case of palestina, the USA did nothing, to foster progress. The palestinians did that themselves"."

[Great choice of an interview partner. Rashid Khalidi, according to Daniel Pipes, also called Israel a "racist" state with an "apartheid system" and argued that America had been "brainwashed" by Israel. I guess, Mr. Schmiester was very surprised about Khalidis negative assessment of U.S. policy in the middle east. And what did the palestinians actually do to foster progress themselves?]

"Other experts see the issue more positive and are thankful to the american government. Like Professor Fuad Ajama of John Hopkins University. "The bush-administration had the heart to venture into uncertain terrain. Still, doubts remain, but america today trusts democracy more than it did in the past"."

[What a great attempt at pretending balanced reporting! He finally brings himself to interview someone who has a more pro-bush stance and all he quotes from him is this: "doubts remain", "america trusts democracy"???]

"Struggling against a lack of credibility

The future of Iraq remains uncertain. Only one thing is for sure, that american soldiers will have to stay for a long time in order to fight the approximately 50.000 rebels. They have to hold out in the struggle for freedom as well as - since the torture scandal in the Abu Ghraib prison - in their struggle against their own incredibility. "

[Well, they wouldn´t have to, if people like Schmiester wouldn´t keep working night and day in order to damage the image of the U.S. and their soldiers. People like Schmiester are guilty of inciting anti-american hatred. By refusing to call the terrorists in Iraq Terrorists ("50000 rebels") they help them. And that is exactly what Schmiester has in mind. He doesn´t care about the people in Iraq. He´s only interested in harming the U.S.]

"Reminder from the Cold War

The critical public radio "NPR" has rebroadcastet an interview with the recently deceased US-Diplomat George F. Kennan. As a monition. A reporter had asked the originator of the "containment policy" against the former Sowjet Union for the best way to spread to democracy. The answer seems very up-to-date, even today. "It´s one thing when we show, what is possible if you have a democracy. It´s something completely different, if we arouse the impression, that we think of ourselves as superior and demand that others have to learn to be like us". "

[Well, I think we´ve shown the world long enough how democracy works, and what can be achieved by following democratic and capitalist ideals. Unfortunately, that doesn´t seem to have worked. Now it´s time to apply more concrete measures.]

I cannot understand how our public broadcasters can keep people like Schmiester. What he does has nothing to do with journalism. I haven´t read any article from him that was not anti-american or anti-bush. The only thing he does is trying to spread anti-americanism. And the worst thing is, that I actually pay this guy because he works for a public broadcaster!

Mood Swing?

2005-03-18T01:03:00.000+01:00

Here´s the transcript of the chat with ARD-correspondents Tom Buhrow and Jörg Armbruster. Much of what they said was quite encouraging. Maybe I´m too enthusiastic, but I think we are witnessing some kind of mood-change in the german journalistic elite. At least they begin to realize that the U.S. administration is serious about its democratization attempts in the middle east, and that it´s not all about oil. I got the feeling that they are at the same time surprised and impressed by this. Of course, they are still very critic of the Bush administration in general. Some quotes:

Armbruster: "Unfortunately, the americans have made almost every possible mistake in their attempt to create something like a democratic state structure [in Iraq]. I am still sceptic, but I won´t rule out anymore, that in the end there will be something like a new democracy. Even though it will at first not have much to do with our understanding of democracy."

[The next quote shows that they really start to understand what the foreign policy of the Bush administration is about. That´s not something ordinary for the german media.]

Buhrow: "In the view of President Bush his policy in the middle east is two sided: On the one hand he´s concerned about the security of the U.S. and its allies (which we also belong to). He believes, that one cannot fight terrorism by fighting particular groups, but only if you bring the people in the region freedom and hope. Then - so his calculation - the breeding ground for terrorism would dry out. The second aspect is the following: He really believes in the mission of spreading democracy and in the constructive power of democracy."

Armbruster: "The Iraqis want democracy, but they have no experience. They still have to learn, just as we have learned after World War 2"

Armbruster: I don´t think it was the elections in Iraq. Therefor Iraq is perceived too much as a scaring example. Much more important is, what is happening in Libanon at the moment. The opposition managed to force the government to resign. This is egregious in the middle east."

[This last quote is quite revealing. It shows the reluctance to give the Bush-administration any credit for any possible democratization processes in the region outside of Iraq.]

Meet the press

2005-03-16T20:58:00.000+01:00

On thursday at 15:00 CET ARD-foreign correspondents Tom Buhrow (Washington) and Jörg Armbruster (Cairo) will be answering questions during a live chat-session on the ARD-Homepage. The topic will be the future of Iraq and democratization in the middle east in general.

Those are the people providing germans with their view of the U.S. and the middle east. Will be a good opportunity to ask them some interesting questions...

The Flat-Tax revolution

2005-03-16T14:10:00.001+01:00

Today´s good news come from Poland, where the government decided to implement a flat-tax system. The Czech government might follow this example soon. So the idea that this system could even spread to western europe one day, is not so far-fetched anymore.

The basic idea behind the flat-tax is, that by lowering the tax-rate to a single unified low rate and abolishing all tax exemptions, the state´s tax-revenues will actually rise. This is due to the fact a low tax rate will probably result in higher economic growth. On the other hand there are fewer incentives and possibilities for tax-evasion.

The system is explained in more detail in this paper published by the Adam Smith Institute.
The countries that have already introduced a flat tax include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Georgia, and - to some extend - Russia, Serbia and Ukraine.

The economist also discusses this issue and reaches a quite optimistic conclusion. Open markets in the European Union might encourage a competition for the best economic and fiscal system:

"So far, the preferred response of the Germans and French is to press for an EU-wide ban on “fiscal dumping” and to push the EU towards tax harmonisation. The trouble is that EU decisions on tax are taken by unanimity—and there is no way that the Slovaks and others are going to surrender their freedom to set their own taxes. So some in western Europe are beginning to think of copying the flat-taxers, rather than fulminating against them. Gerrit Zalm, the Dutch finance minister, has said that his Liberal Party is considering a flat tax for the Netherlands, albeit at the high rate of over 30%. More surprisingly, advisers to left-of-centre governments in Spain and Germany have also done serious feasibility studies on flat taxes. If old Europe cannot beat the flat-taxers of new Europe, it may have to join them."

Meanwhile Craig of the National Exam makes the case for a Consumption tax system. But, as a german, I may be a bit biased against the "Mehrwertsteuer", because I already have to pay it everyday...

Is North Korea executing refugees?

2005-03-12T15:53:00.000+01:00

According to AlertNet North Korea has executed 70 refugees who where caught in China and handed over to the North. The Article is based on a statement by a South Korean group that helps refugees and should therefore be taken with some caution.
But, on the other hand, there is no reason to believe that people who are caught fleeing the "Workers Paradise" would not be rigorously punished by the regime. The least they can probably expect is to end up in one of North Koreas notorious Prison Camps.
I already wrote something about this issue some time ago. You can read it here.

Update:
You can download a wave-file of an interesting speech by David Hawk, who wrote the report on North Korean prison camps for the U.S. committee for human rights in North Korea. Hawk bases his report mostly on interviews with North Korean refugees who have made it to South Korea after an escape that often lead them through half of asia.

Today´s dose of anti-americanism

2005-03-10T15:55:00.000+01:00

Provided by the Asia Times.
They have many good articles about Asia. But when it comes to the USA they seem to go nuts, allowing crazy leftists to use their paper as an anti-U.S. propaganda outlet. (I recently mentioned their disgusting editorial cartoons). So, today I came across the following article, from which I will quote some "highlights":

F. William Engdahl: "The Oil factor in Bush´s ´war on tyranny´"

"The use of tyranny as justification for US military intervention marks a dramatic new step in Washington's quest for global domination. "Washington", of course, today is shorthand for the policy domination by a private group of military and energy conglomerates, from Halliburton to McDonnell Douglas, from Bechtel to ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco, not unlike that foreseen in president Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 speech warning of excessive control of government by a military-industrial complex. "

After this fantastic start Engdahl goes on specualting about possible future targets of us military intervention and comes up with a list of several countries. Among them: Iran, Syria, Sudan, Algeria, Yemen, Malaysia, Somalia, Cuba, Myanmar, Belarus, Zimbabwe. Of course, those countries being potential targets has nothing to do with the fact that they are dictatorships.

"What is striking is just how directly this list of US "emerging target" countries, "outposts of tyranny", maps on to the strategic goal of total global energy control, which is clearly the central strategic focus of the Bush-Cheney administration."

Well, if you are in the mood for some anti-american conspiracy theories, read the whole article. It´s full of such gems. The problem with such theories is the fact that they contain a bit of truth and are therefore very appealing to many people. Of course, U.S. foreign policy is also guided by the aim of achieving energy security. But that is only one of several factors influencing U.S. foreign policy. The same with the often cited military-industrial complex. It may have some influence, but it is certainly not some kind of secret shadow government setting the agenda for the White House, as people like Engdahl like to claim.
Sadly, I would estimate that his view is common among a majority of germans today.

Irresponsible

2005-03-07T12:22:00.000+01:00

I will never understand how governments can even consider to pay terrorists in order to free hostages.

I haven´t understood it, when germany´s government paid ransom for the release of 14 german hostages held by terrorists in Algeria in 2003 and I don´t understand it now.
According to the "The Australian" the captors of Guilianna Sgrenna were paid about 6-8 Million Euros to free their hostage.

That´s 6-8 million Euros that these people can buy new weapons with in order to kill american (but also italian) soldiers or capture new hostages.

I guess, it´s all about politicians who want to pose as great liberators. Unfortunately all they do is create new incentives for terrorists to continue their lucrative hostage business and thereby put other people in danger. That´s probably the most despicable and irresponsible behaviour from a politician one can imagine.

Predictable media reactions

2005-03-06T12:24:00.000+01:00

Did anyone really doubt that the incident that lead to the death of one italian secret service agent and the injury of Guiliana Sgrena would be interpreted as a delibarate assassination attempt by the US-Army?

This from Spiegel-Online (in german): "Zeit"-Chief Editor doubts US-Assertion"
"Sgrena herself writes that during the incident she remebered the words of her captors who cautioned her to be careful "because the americans don´t want you to return".

Why wouldn´t they want her to return? After all, an anti-american journalist who is captured by those who she always tried to depict as "resistance-fighters" could be used just great for the american "propaganda".

The real explanation for this incident is probably much more simple:
There is a huge number of young soldiers on the streets of Iraq who are simply affraid of being blown up by a carbomb, because still everyday terrorists try to kill them, although even the stupidest Iraqi should have realized by now that those soldiers are also there to bring democracy, stability and prosperity to the country.

This documentary on PBS gives a little insight into the daily job of soldiers in Iraq. It also shows the situation on Iraqi streets, which may help to understand how such incidents can happen. (found via calivalleygirl)

Update: Now Sgrenas boyfriend tells the press that she was targeted by the US-Army because of some "information" she held, that the US didn´t want to become public. Well, I guess then the best way to prove their allegations would be to publish this information... I wonder when this will happen.

Meanwhile, Fakten und Fiktionen wonders why the US-Army, instead of making sure she was dead, drives her to a military hospital and treats her. That is not exactly "standard procedure" if you want to kill someone...

Germany´s energy security

2005-03-02T17:07:00.000+01:00

A nice quote form today´s New York Times:

"[Russia] is pursuing a model of corrupt, state-managed capitalism, economists and political analysts say, that is inimical to democracy and could condemn its economy to perpetual third world status"

It´s becoming more and more obvious: Russia seems to be leaving the path of democracy and free market-economy.
For Europeans, and especially Germans, this should be a major source of concern. Under Germany´s red-green government the foundation for greater dependency on russian energy-imports has been laid. This is in part due to the ideologically motivated phasing out of nuclear energy. Though heavily subsidized by the state, renewable energy sources will not be able to compensate for the loss of atomic energy given todays rate of energy consumption, let alone the predicted rise in energy demand.

Today germany imports around 35% of its natural gas and 29% of its crude oil from Russia. According to some analysts this number could rise above 50% in the future. This may in part explain why the german government is often inclined to turn a blind eye on russia´s deficits in the area of democracy.

Unfortunately, energy security still doesn´t seem to be a big topic among germany´s politicians or the general public. I recently heard a speech by an expert who councels the german parliament on energy issues. He said that especially parliamentarians of the green party don´t like the term "Energy Security". This is probably because in their eyes anything concerning the securtiy of germany has a bad nationalist taste to it. They seem to be more inclined to think about how to plaster the landscape with more wind powerplants and dream about putting solar cells on every house in germany. This will, of course, not solve our energy problems. But the greens never concern themselves much with reality.

The US seems to be taking energy security more seriously. They are using an enormous amount of ressources to stabilize the middle east, not least because it is the most important source of energy supply for America and (even more) for its asian and european allies. Instead of criticizing them ("Blood for oil") we should have a big public debate about how we want to meet our future energy demand in germany and what we can do to secure, stabilize and democratize the regions we chooe to depend on.

What goes wrong on the Korean Peninsula?

2005-02-16T12:07:00.000+01:00

The answer is quite simple. The leftist South Korean government under President Roh Moh-hyun is continuing and even extending former President Kim Dae-jungs failed sunshine policy towards Pyongyang. After the first inter-korean summit between Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il in 2000 many hoped for a reconciliation between the two sides. What actually happened was, that the South tried everything to appease the North, while the North continued it´s aggressive policy and lunatic rhetoric. The South kept providing more and more (aid, economic assistance) while the North only kept demanding more.

David Scofield wrote a great article about this phenomenon: South Korea's perilous historical revisionism

It shows how South Korean youth today is taught to think of the North more as a "misunderstood sibling", than a dangerous regime. The result is that more and more koreans tend to put the blame for the current situation on the United States alone. It seems as if views like the following one become ever more common among the South´s population:

"Prove there are people starving and being tortured, there is no proof ... it's all a campaign by the United States and Japan to demonize the North and weaken Korea."

So, once again it´s leftist ideology distorting the truth and helping to keep dictators in power.

Meinungshoheit

2005-02-15T12:19:00.000+01:00

Here´s an interesting story found via Ace of Spades HQ.
After recent successes of the us-blogosphere in their fight against the biased mainstream-media (Rathergate, Easongate), some parts of the media seem to be fighting back using legal means.
The Newspaper "Tulsa World" is threatening a critical blogger with legal action, because he published excerpts from their articles and, which is even more disturbing, because he linked to their site. Read more here.

"Art"

2005-02-12T23:32:00.000+01:00

Found some disgusting anti-american cartoons by Gavin Coates, Cartoonist for the Asia Times. He´s got all the standard issues covered. Very original: Blood for Oil, Blood for Recunstrucion-Contracts, equalling Bush with the Terrorists; American "occupation" worse than Saddam, Bush incites terrorism, etc.

So, don´t miss it! Here´s the LINK!

The decline of radical Islam

2005-02-11T12:37:00.000+01:00

Ray Takeyh and Nikolas K. Gvosdev wrote an interesting article for last Decembers issue of "Middle East Policy": "Radical Islam: The Death of an Ideology?"

According to their assesment, political Islam has no real future as a dominant political force anywhere in the world. One of the most important reason being that radical Islamists, when given political power, are not able to provide the population with the promised political outcome. The best actual examples are probably Afghanistan and Iran.

"Fourth, even though Islamism appeals to those on the margins of power and wealth because of its stress upon "righteousness," Islamist parties can easily lose legitimacy when they cannot produce the just moral order that they have promised. For example, Palestinian refugees in Jordan, living in conditions of squalor and political disenfranchisement, may find Islamism’s slogan that "Islam is the solution" to be seductive. The rhetoric of a new order for Sudan, based upon Islamic principles, gave way to a corrupt military dictatorship, leading many to question whether such a regime could in fact deliver the justice it promised. In Iran, the Islamists created a command economy that suffered from numerous irreparable defects and was plagued by corruption at every level. Indeed, Iran’s hard-line clerics are among the most corrupt actors on the Iranian political scene, actively creating institutions to maintain their privileges at the expense of the collective good. The soldiers of faith in Algeria and Egypt, proclaiming their "vision of probity and justice," in practice behaved as a criminal gang, extorting funds from the local population to sustain their campaign of violence and terror. Disillusionment leads to the discrediting of Islamist claims that they alone can deliver a more perfect order – and can often lead to repression and violence, as Islamists seek to use force to retain power."

But they also acknowledge that brutal force applied by the state has in the past played a major roll in the marginalization of radical Islam, for example in Egypt and Algeria.
But the best weapon in the fight against radical Islam, according to the authors, would be an integration of the radical forces into a democratic process, because this would lead to their taming and bring up conflicts inside their movements.

"When these movements exist in "pure" opposition, it is easy to find common ground among diverse groups inacceptance of abstract principles. As an Islamist movement draws closer to attaining power (or after a successful seizure ofpower), however, fissures inevitably open up between those who maintain that strict adherence to ideology will produce results and those who are more pragmatic or willing to make compromises." [... ] Ultimately the most powerful antidote to radical Islam, beyond the immediate palliatives of state-sponsored controls, may be greater pluralism and competition of ideas."

At the same time they critizice the Bush-Adminstration for their war in Iraq, which, in my eyes, is a little contradictory.

"Unfortunately, many U.S. initiatives, including the military displacement of Saddam Hussein’s regime, have only helped to fill the reservoirs of Islamist radicalism and validate their spurious claims of Western hostility to the Islamic realm."

The Bush-Administrations attempt at bringing democracy to the middle-east should be welcomed by the authors, even though this may - in the short term - lead to a strenghtening of the appeal of radical islamists in the region. The democratic process that has been started in Iraq may - in a best case scenario - spread to other countries in the region, thereby bringing radical islamists into the political process and forcing them to deliver on their promises of better government (which they will probably not be able to do).

In general I would support the underlying assessment, that radical Islam will, in the end, inevitably fail. The conflict between radical Islam and western secularism is a struggle of ideas. As our western ideology of democracy, pluralism, human rights and capitalism is simply the better one and reflects human nature more accurately, we will win this fight.

Update: Victor Davis Hanson: "Why Democracy? Ten reasons to support democracy in the Middle East" .

The germans and their past (and present)

2005-02-10T15:29:00.000+01:00

To all who speak german I recommend reading the following article by Richard Herzinger in "Die Weltwoche":"Adolf Hitler,20. April 1889 - ?".

It´s a great sum up of the influence of gemany´s Nazi-past on today´s politics and society.

And another little link (also in german). This will lead you directly to Spiegel Online´s Forum, where people discuss the fact that North Korea admits to having nukes. For many it seems to be great opportunity to rant about ... right: The United States. Of course not about North Korea or Kim Jong-Il. Because they had no choice. After all, they had to do something to defend themselves against the threat posed by the US-Imperialists.

I have to translate one comment from the forum, because it´s so funny (or sad):

"On the other hand we may not forget that a maniac is ruling in the White House!!!
It could be, that he will really bomb "North Koreas atomic arsenal" thereby starting a war with China.
This, by the way, was also predicted by Nostradamus - A war of the USA against China, in which the USA will make the sea boil, which would have been the Tsunami".

China´s Demise (before its actual ascendency)

2005-02-09T18:46:00.000+01:00

I came across an article by Nicholas Eberstadt in the "Policy Review" today, that discusses demographic trends in Asia and Eurasia. The part about China is especially interesting:

According to Eberstadt the Chinese society is aging rapidly:

"Between 2000 and 2025 China’s median age is set to rise very substantially: from about 30 to around 39. According to unpd projections for 2025, in fact, China’s median age will be higher than America’s. The impending tempo of population aging in China is very nearly as rapid as anything history has yet seen. It will be far faster than what was recorded in the more developed regions over the past three decades and is exceeded only by Japan."

Moreover this trend will hit China at a time where it isn´t nearly as well prepared as other more developed societies which are experiencing rapid aging at the moment.

"To put the matter bluntly, Japan became rich before it became old; China will do things the other way around. When Japan had the same proportion of population 65 and older as does China today (2000), its level of per capita output was three times higher than China’s is now. In 2025, 13.4 percent of China’s population is projected to be 65-plus; when Japan crossed the 13.4 percent threshold, its per capita gdp was approaching $20,000 a year (constant 1990 ppp dollars). One need not be a “Sino-pessimist” to suggest that China will be nowhere near that same economic marker 22 years from now."

What makes matters worse is that China has yet to come up with an extensive social security system. So elderly people will mainly have to depend on their offspring.

"Absent a functioning nationwide pension program, unforgiving arithmetic suggests there may be something approaching a one-to-one ratio emerging between elderly parents and the children obliged to support them. Even worse, from the perspective of a Confucian culture, a sizable fraction — perhaps nearly one-fourth — of these older Chinese will have no living son on whom to rely for sustenance. One need not be a novelist to imagine the intense social tensions such conditions could engender (to say nothing of the personal and humanitarian tragedies)."

Furthermore, China´s older generation will probably be less healthy than older people in more developed countries, increasing the pressure on the health system and making them less likely to continue contributing to economic life.

"Second, and no less important, there is no particular reason to expect that older people in China will be able to make the same sort of contributions to economic life as their counterparts in Japan. In low-income economies, the daily demands of ordinary work are more arduous than in rich countries: The employment structure is weighted toward categories more likely to require intense manual labor, and even ostensibly non-manual positions may require considerable physical stamina. According to official Chinese statistics, nearly half of the country’s current labor force toils in the fields, and another fifth is employed in mining and quarrying, manufacturing, construction, or transport — occupations generally not favoring the frail. Even with continuing structural transformations, regular work in 2025 is sure to be much more strenuous in China than in Japan. Moreover, China’s older population may not be as hardy as peers from affluent societies — people likely to have been better fed, housed, and doctored than China’s elderly throughout the course of their lives."

This all seems to show that China´s often predicted rise as a world power will not be nearly as trouble-free as often imagined and is also not nearly as certain. As Eberstadt puts it, the problems caused by this demographic trend will probably result in "economic, social, and political constraints on Chinese development — and power augmentation — that have not as yet been fully appreciated in Beijing, much less overseas."

Did Bush lie? (this time on North Korea)

2005-02-07T13:04:00.000+01:00

According to this article in "Foreign Affairs" the Bush administration deliberatley "distorted and misrepresented" data on North Korea´s uranium enrichment program.

"Much has been written about the North Korean nuclear danger, but one crucial issue has been ignored: just how much credible evidence is there to back up Washington's uranium accusation? Although it is now widely recognized that the Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence data it used to justify the invasion of Iraq, most observers have accepted at face value the assessments the administration has used to reverse the previously established U.S. policy toward North Korea.
[...]
Relying on sketchy data, the Bush administration presented a worst-case scenario as an incontrovertible truth and distorted its intelligence on North Korea (much as it did on Iraq), seriously exaggerating the danger that Pyongyang is secretly making uranium-based nuclear weapons. "

And why should the US do that, even though they know that a military confrontation with North Korea is much too dangerous? (Even if North Korea didn´t have any nuclear weapons, Seoul would still be in range of North Korean Artillery and Japan would still be in range of North Korean Missiles.) According to the article, the reason is quite simple. The US is affraid of a rapprochement between North and South Korea as well as Japan.

"Kelly's confrontation with Kang seems to have been inspired by the growing alarm felt in Washington in the preceding five months over the ever more conciliatory approach that Seoul and Tokyo had been taking toward Pyongyang; by raising the uranium issue, the Bush administration hoped to scare Japan and South Korea into reversing their policies."

These are serious accusations. The author alludes that the US adminstration is deliberatley blocking any moves that could ease the tensions in the region in order to keep the status quo on the Korean Peninsula. I´m not going to dismiss this view right away. Without the danger North Korea poses there would be little rationale to keep american troops in South Korea (especially given the growing anti-americanism among the younger population) or to continue the theater missile defense program in cooperation with Japan. A strong military presence as well as a missile defence shield for US-allies can also be used as a means to contain Chinas growing power in the region, so the Bush-Administration would seem to have a reason to keep the situation in Korea unchanged.

But, as the author himself states, the North indeed "technically" violated the 1994 agreement. But in his view they only enriched uranium in order to use it at a later time for a purely civilian purpose in the Light Water Reactors, which were to be built by Japan, Korea and the US (as well as other nations) under the 1994 agreement.

"Did North Korea, then, cheat on the 1994 agreement with the United States, as the Bush administration has insisted? All of the operative provisions of the accord relate to freezing the North's plutonium program and make no reference to uranium enrichment. Pyongyang scrupulously observed these provisions until the Bush administration stopped the oil shipments in December 2002. The agreement does,however, reaffirm a 1991 agreement between North and South Korea that banned "uranium enrichment facilities," making no distinction between HEU and LEU. Pyongyang clearly did violate that accord by pursuing uranium-enrichment efforts (however limited they may turn out to have been) and thus, technically, violated the 1994 Agreed Framework as well."

There are some problems with the authors assesment:

1. If the North´s program of uranium enrichment was really for purely civilian purposes, why did they do it secretly? (The author speculates that maybe they didn´t know it was forbidden. But that is not plausible)

2. The idea of the US being interested in keeping the status quo sounds logical. But this status quo is not stable one. In fact the situation in North Korea is deteriorating rapidly since the early 1990s. Without help from South Korea and Japan this process will continue, maybe leading to a sudden collapse of the regime, which cannot be in US interest, because of its destabilizing effects for the whole region.

3. The US is probably right to distrust Pyongyang and work with a worst case scenario. North Korea has in the past proven that it cannot be trusted. To name just some of the worst examples of the North´s aggressive behaviour:

The unprovoked attack on South Korea in 1950 starting the 3 year long Korean war.
The abduction of Japanese citizens.
The attempted assassination of South Korean president Chun Doo Hwan in Myanmar in 1983 (killing 19 people, among them several South Korean ministers and high officials)
The bombing of a South Korean passenger plane in 1987 killing the 115 people on board, which is widely believed to have been conducted by North Korean agents.

Please don´t harm the terrorists!

2005-02-05T18:17:00.000+01:00

The New York times is running a piece today about a new tactic applied by the Iraqi police. They broadcast videotaped confessions of captured terrorists, in order to break to morale of the insurgents. You would think that this would generally be considered a good idea, because it might be a way to fight terrorism in Iraq that doesn´t involve any bloodshed. If it helps to diminish the morale of terrorists as well as their popular support, it might save hundreds or thousands of lives. But, of course, it can´t be left uncriticised by human rights activists.

The broadcast of such videos raises questions about whether they violate legal
or treaty obligations about the way opposing fighters are interrogated and how
their confessions are made public. [...] Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights
Watch said such tactics raised the issue of whether the people were tortured or
otherwise coerced into making the statement.

These comments are especially ridiculous considering that the example given in the article is one of a terrorists involved in a video-taped beheading of a supposed Iraqi "collaborator". And now they are worried about him being mistreated, because his confession is aired on TV.

Politicians outraged: Deutsche Bank continues reforms

2005-02-04T20:16:00.000+01:00

Unions and leftist politicians are outraged today. What has happend?
Basically, Deutsche Bank refuses to abolish its reform plans despite good economic data.
Part of these reform plans is to continue laying-off workers. According to Christine Scheel, so called "Finance Expert" of the Green Party, this is unethical.

Here you can clearly see the worldview of the german left. In their eyes companies´ main aim should be to provide people with jobs and social benefits. But companies should mainly be concerned with making profit. That is the reason they exist. That´s capitalism. Is that so hard to understand? Well, of course it is, if you have spent most of your life defying reality in favour of indulging yourself in the idea of some socialist utopia.

So, once again, we are blaming the usual scapegoats, the managers of big companies, for germany´s economic malaise (see last post). For politicians it seems to be a good way to get rid of their responsibility for germany´s over 5 million unemployed. Well, it might actually work considering the stupidity of the general puplic (see last post).

The same ideology stands behind another grotesque plan of the left, which has yet to be implemented. Because of the high jobless rate among youths, some politicians plan to punish firms, which refuse to hire and educate young workseekers. They don´t realize that even firms which are looking for new workers, often cannot hire them, because they lack basic knowledge and skills, which in turn is due to our failed education system (see last post).

Can´t they understand: If companies need workers, they will hire them. If they don´t need workers, how can one consider to force them to hire or keep workers they don´t need? Politicians only concern should be to provide companies with a free and secure environment in which they can prosper. Capitalism will do the rest, including the creation of new jobs. That is the only way germany can escape its economic downfall.

Some weeks ago, "The Economist" ran a survey about "Corporate Social Responsibility", which is quite interesting in this context. They criticise that the worldwide growing trend of demanding from companies to take over more "social responsibility" could in the end be very harmful to the companies and even the people those measures are meant to help.

Germany´s Demise

2005-02-02T14:45:00.000+01:00

So, finally germany´s unemployment rate has climbed above 5 million. Not that this would come as a surprise to anyone. But I want to use this opportunity to name some of the reasons why I think our economy is in such a bad shape.

1. We are lazy
Germany has developed a culture of demanding and not providing. If we want more money, and a secure job we don´t think about improving ourselves, learning more skills, working harder. No, we go to the streets and demand higher wages. If we loose our job, it´s the managers faults and we demand that the politicians help us by subsidizing our companies.
If something goes wrong, it´s always someone else´s fault. We don´t blame ourselves, but evil globalization or the managers and politicians.

2. We are badly educated
Germany´s school system (maybe except for bavarian schools) is dominated by leftist teachers propagating laissez-faire education. If children fail in tests it´s not because they maybe lazy or just stupid. No, we have demanded too much from them. So we lower our demands. We adapt to the weakest link in the chain, so no one gets left behind, thereby discriminating against those who can and want to achieve more. Teachers also often fail to provide basic knowledge because they are too occupied with preaching anti-americanism and anti-capitalism (we even have special classes for this purpose: e.g. "Social Science").

3. We despise Capitalism
I can´t count how often I end up in conversations with people who want to tell my why capitalism and globaliztion are bad. Capitalism, so they say, destroys our values (while actually it is socialism and leftist ideology that destroys any values in our society). Globalization and open markets lead to people loosing their jobs, they tell me. Instead they should be thinking about how they can use the opportunities provided by globalization for their benefit.
Then they tell me, that "Consuming" is generally bad. People should not be greedy for money and fancy products. For example, they should not buy a car, but just use a bike. (BTW: At the same time they often contradict themselves by telling me that a lack of domestic demand would be the biggest problem our economy faces).

4. We are stupid
After over 6 years of chancelor Schroeders Red-Green government and their many desastrous decisions, their often demonstrated incompetence, and their unwillingness to intransigently go through with badly needed reforms we are still willing to reelect them. Yes, according to a recent poll by the FORSA institute the Socialist/Green-Coalition would really be reelected.

What if someone ruins your country and destroys the relationship with your best ally? Right, you reelect him into office! At least that´s what we would do. That about says it all.

Good vs. Bad

2005-01-29T20:40:00.000+01:00

PBS has just released a new Documentary on Islamic Terrrorism, called "Al Qaeda´s New Front" (You can watch the whole thing online).

First, I don´t like it when people use the term "Al Qaeda" for the phenomenon of islamic terrorism. It gives people the idea that the whole problem was just based on one big terror organization, that can be contained using policing methods. This is simply not true. I think instead the term "Jihadism" should be applied more often. We have to understand that our enemy is not just one organization but an ideology. And that this ideology can only be contained by spreading democracy and fighting poverty (which means spreading capitalism and promoting free trade) as fast as possible.

At the same time we have to learn to be more proud of our western values and the things we have achieved here in the west. There must always be room for criticism of ourselves and our societies, but the left has certainly gone to far with this. Today pupils in german schools are regularly taught that our prosperity was built upon exploitation of other nations, namely from africa and the middle east. This is not true. Our wealth is mainly built upon the hard work of our parents and them embracing the idea of free market economy as well as our ability to build and maintain sound political and judicial systems.

The left is providing the terrorists with the arguments they in turn use to argue, that our societies are decadent and not worthy to exist and that their islamic society would be the better model. If we don´t stand behind our ideas and values, we won´t be able to win the war on terror. We should have the heart to stand up and say without any doubt: Yes, in this conflict we are the good. And they are the bad.

Second, I think that such documentaries as the above mentioned should be shown more often here in germany. We have so many documentaries about the "Crimes oft the CIA", "The Bush Dynasty", "How Bush lied on Iraq", etc. etc. But only few about islamic terrorism and the spread of Jihad ideology around the world. This leads to many people underestimating the threat we are facing today. And it is one of the reasons why so many germans don´t understand the policies of the current US administration. In their eyes things like Guantanamo are nothing but an act of arbitrariness conceived by a clique of evil megalomaniacs in the White House.

Holocaust Remembrance Day

2005-01-27T15:33:00.000+01:00

Being born in germany in the 1970s I feel no guilt at all for the crimes committed by the generations preceding me. At the same time I do not feel that germans should carry more responsibility to prevent further such crimes, that means no level of responsibility that would exceed the responsibility of any other person on this planet.

While building memorial after memorial and giving big speeches about germany´s "special responsibility", people tend to forget that the victims of the past (the Jews) still face many dangers today. Anti-semitism in europe is on the rise. And yet, when it comes to talking about contemporary anti-semitism, one of the main underlying problems (growing muslim extremism) is not discussed because of political correctness. At the same time a new consensus seems to take hold in german public opinion. The consensus that it is ok to criticise Israel. But such crititcism often tends to be extemly one-sided, concentrating on the suffering of the palestinians and making no effort to understand the jewish side.

Holocaust Remebrance Day in germany seems to me more like an event which main aim has become to make germans feel good about themselves. We like the idea of being a bad people finally turned good. And this is exactly the idea that is celebrated on holocaust remebrance day.

I wish that german´s would put less emphasis on their perceived "historic guilt", but more on the question of how to help the jewish people today. A first step would be to openly discuss the dangers of muslim extremism in europe. Furthermore politicians should work against the biased reporting of state-sponsored TV channels on the Israeli-Palestianan conflict.

Update I: "Europe has taken over the Holocaust" by Mark Steyn

Update II: The Economist about anti-semitism in Europe and Russia.

The war hungry media

2005-01-17T15:04:00.000+01:00

The german media is full of news about American journalist Seymour Hersh claiming in the New Yorker that the US is planning to attack Iran and would therefore be conducting secret special operations in the country. Of course many german journalists are happy about the news, because it seems to prove their standard claim, whereby the current US administration was full of war hungry lunatics and that Iraq was just the beginning of a greater military offensive in the middle east.

But to interpret these reconaissance missions (if they are really being conducted) as some kind of preparation for an impending military strike on Iran probably goes to far. Maybe their main purpose is to gather information in order to be able to verify any possible outcome of the negotiations between Europe and Iran as well as ensuring that Iran puts all its cards on the table during the negotiations.

Also, considering the more than weak denial from US officials, one is almost inclined to believe that the information was deliberateley leaked to the media as a warning to Iran, maybe in order to strenghten the europeans´ bargaining position in their negotiations with the country. So in the end just a continuation of the good cop, bad cop game.

An islamist insurgency in europe?

2005-01-10T16:04:00.000+01:00

It´s probably not going to happen, but some muslims seem to like the idea according to this article on jihadwatch.org.

Amnesty for mass murderers? Great idea!

2005-01-10T13:31:00.000+01:00

In an article for the International Herald Tribune North Korea expert Andrei Lankov argues that the North Korean leaders should be assured that they would not be punished in any way should they lose their power. As he sees it, their fear of punishment is one of the main reasons for them not to loosen their grip on the people and not implementing far reaching reforms of the economic and political system.

There are two main arguments in favour of punishment:
1. Revenge / Avenging their victims
2. Deterrence / Preventing others from commiting the same crimes in the future for fear of
punishment

I think revenge is an archaic idea that shouldn´t be applied by modern, enlightened societies.
And deterrence doesn´t apply here either, because no dictator has in the past refrained from killing his people for fear of a possible future punishment. Dictatorship always goes along with megalomania, so dictators - when coming to power - generally don´t believe that one day their people would want to get rid of them.

So I agree with Lankov. Amnesty for mass murderes can be a good solution if it helps saving people´s lives.

Germany´s Economy "mostly free"

2005-01-09T13:01:00.000+01:00

According to the Heritage Foundation´s "Index of Economic Freedom 2005" Germany achieves a 2,0 on a scale from 1 (free) to 5 (repressed), scoring better than many other countries in the european union. And also scoring better than countries like South Korea or Japan which, in the past years, often showed much higher GDP growthrates than germany. While this is no reason for satisfaction, I was actually quite surprised to find that under our present government the rating dropped from 2,36 (in 1998) to todays 2,0. According to the Heritage Foundation Germany´s main problems still lie in the area of Fiscal Burden (rating 3,5), Banking and Financing (3,0) as well as Regulation (3,0).

Of course, there´s always plenty of problems with such ratings. From the problem of properly operationalizing the respective variables to the problem of finding accurate data. But the "Economic Freedom of the World: 2004 Annual Report" comes to similar conclusions. Germany´s economy ranks 22 out of 123 countries scoring 7,3 on a scale from 1 (repressed) to 10 (free). In this report the US rank third while according the Index of the heritage Foundation they only rank 13th which underlines the fact that based on how "economic freedom" is defined, one can reach quite different results.

Well, according to Johan Norberg the "Economic Freedom of the World" report constitutes the better index of these two.

Update: Can anyone explain to me, why the Heritage Foundation gives France a rating of 5 in the catagory of "government intervention", while China gets a much better 3?

How China sees the world

2005-01-08T23:35:00.000+01:00

In an article of China´s main propaganda mouthpiece "People´s Daily" the author compares Europe with the USA. The article can be summed up quite easily:
Europe = good
USA = bad
The main argument is, that europe is expanding by peaceful means using softpower while the US activeley pursued a neo-imperialist agenda.

And of course we get the usual criticism of the Iraq-war:

"[...]which again proves that military might is often futile and inefficient as a means to solve nationalist, cultural and social problems."

Well, anyone who followed Chinese officials comments with regard to the Taiwan issue during the last months will probably hope, that the chinese heed their own propaganda...

Micro credit

2005-01-08T20:43:00.000+01:00

I once saw a documentary on television showing how a poor family in a brasilian slum got a small credit from a local bank. Well, actually it was just one person who lended people money. They used it to buy a solar-powered telephone which they let their neighbours use for a small fee. This way a new telephone company was started and one more family lifted out of poverty.

Read more about how supplying poor people with small credits could be a better answer to poverty in the third world at global-growth.org.

Distorted Worldview

2005-01-08T20:41:00.000+01:00

This article on honestreporting.com looks at the reasons for Israels bad ranking in a recent public opinion poll conducted in britain, citing a good example for dishonest reporting in the guardian.In the poll Israel ranks #1 as "least beautiful country" as well as "least deserving of international respect".

The first thought that came to my mind was: What kind of distorted view do many british have of the world they are living in?
But then a second thought struck me: Where´s germany??? We´re not even in the Top 5. Are we not considered hateworthy enough anymore by the british? What have we done wrong?

A detailed look at the poll conducted by Yougov gives reasons for relief.At least we´re on the next to last position when asked in which country they would most like to take a holiday. Well, I would agree with them on that.... BTW: Guess the only country that ranked worse? Right! Israel.And we at least rank #2 when it comes to "least friendly people", only beaten by France.

Israel is close behind us ranking third.I predict that, if we don´t start another war soon and the Palestinians don´t get their own state in the near future, Israel will probably overtake us in the next poll.

And something else I found strange: Besides the fact thatDubai isn´t really a country but a part of the United Arab Emirates. What is their problem with Dubai? It´s probably one of the most mdoern, liberal, and friendly parts of the middle east...

BTW: Does anyone know where to find a poll on germans´ public opinion towards other countries? I guess, the results would be simliarly "interesting"...

They´re doing it again

2005-01-08T20:39:00.000+01:00

The german Social Democrats of Chancelor Gerhard Schroeder are said to have won the parliamentary elections in 2002 for mainly two reasons:
1. Schroeders public opposition to the Iraq war.
2. The governments´ crisis management during the floods in eastern germany.

Some months ago, when the conservative opposition was ranking high in polls and the social democrats were almost declared dead by some analysts, there were (half-serious) speculations saying that the only chance for Schroeder to be reelected would be if there was a new american-led war in 2006 or another flood.

Now we have a flood crisis that is by far worse than that experienced by germany three years ago. And Schroeder, beeing an experienced tactician, knows exactly how to utilize it for himself and his party. According to this article from the online version of germanys leftwing magazine "Der Spiegel" "Schroeder and Fischer score as crisis managers". The article states for example that "since the beginning of the crisis on december 26th Schroeder and his foreign minister Joschka Fischer did almost everything right" and that "the opposition paled in the face of the Chancelors Tatkraft (energy, drive?)".

Well, what exactly did he do to deserve Spiegels´ praise? He promised to donate €500 million of germanys tax payers money to the countries affected by the flood. Now please don´t get me wrong. While I strongly agree with the need to help those affected by the flood, I hate the thought of Schroeder getting good publicity and (in the end maybe) votes just for donating germanys´ tax payers money. I mean, that´s something even I could do given the necessary constitutional and political powers...

Well, at least the article also states that the money will not be spent immediately, but during a time period of 3 to 5 years and be invested in well-evaluated longer term projects. Supply with drinking water, the healthcare system and education...This is important because I fear that much of the money that is being donated worldwide at the moment could get into the wrong hands or be wasted on unnecessary projects, while there are other parts of the world where this money could be better used or is more needed.After all countries like India or Indonesia, while not exactly being rich for european standards, are not completely helpless themselves.

I really hope that most people donate money to big organizations like the red cross, because one should let the experts judge what the money should be used for and where in the world aid is needed most.

Going back in time

2005-01-08T20:38:00.000+01:00

Some weeks ago I made a bus trip to Prague. When we left the city, our busdriver told us we were driving past a hotel that was recently bought by a Lybian Company, which had since forbidden American Tourists from staying there.

Turns out that the bus driver got the story wrong, because the Hotel was bought some years ago and it was the american government that didn´t want their citizens to stay in a lybian hotel because that was obviously considered trade with a country that supported terrorism. (At least that´s what it says in this article form Radio Praha.)

Anyway, the point is the reaction of the people in the bus (most of them germans). Many of them cheered spontaneously at the "good news". These people were actually happy that americans were denied access to this hotel. Obviously it´s socially acceptable again for germans to support discriminating against certain people. Well, at least as long as it´s the "amis".

Asian Refugee Crisis

2005-01-08T20:36:00.000+01:00

Outside the public interest a human tragedy is unfolding in Asia these days. But it has nothing to do with the terrible tsunami that has affected countries of the region on christmas. In fact this tragedy is completely man-made. Who is responsible?

On the one hand we have the North Korean Regime. There have always been many reasons for North Koreans to flee their country. But since the inititation of economic reforms in 2002 the number of refugees has risen. This is due to the growing amount of outside information flowing into the country and exposing the Regimes´ lies. At the same time the economic reforms lead to a huge rise in prices accompanied by only a relativly slight rise in wages, thereby worsening the already bad situation of many North Koreans.

On the other hand we have the South Korean government, at the moment controlled by the left-leaning, anti-american, pro-north-korean URI-party under President Roh Moo-hyun. In order to stop the flow of North Korean refugees into neighbouring Russia and China (from where they often try to get to South Korea) the government has recently undertaken a change in policy, trying to block refugees with a "criminal background" from entering the country and cutting back on the money dispersed to refugees from the north.While this policy is officially justified by stating South Korea just wanted to prevent human smuggling, it is actually clearly aimed at appeasing the North. This comes before the background of a growing consensus in the South Korean public that their main enemy is not the regime of Kim Jong-Il but the USA.

Of course one could also argue that economic interests lie behind all this. The higly modernized economy of South Korea is in desperate need for cheap labor and not even China can provide the low labor costs that North-Korea can these days. Adding to this are geographical proximity and a common language. The starting of production in the North Korean Kaesong Special Economic Zone just some weeks ago highlights this fact.This "Special Economic Zone" is in fact nothing more than a South Korean Economic Outpost in the North. The South provides almost everything (even the electrictiy) while the North provides Cheap Labor for the South Korean firms settling there.Considering this, one can clearly see why the South Korean Government is interested in stabilizing the North Korean Regime, preventing a break-up that could result from a mass exodus of the population like we have seen in germany.

While one can actually argue that a sudden break-up of North Korea could have devastating effects for the whole region and should therefore be averted by all means, one should also consider the effects that can result from stabilizing one of the most criminial and disgusting regimes in the world.Because this also means that people who flee their country because they are poor, hungry and deprived of many basic human rights, are sent back into the arms of a murderous regime, that will probably punish them for their attempted escape.More on the personal effect of the new South Korean policy can be derived from this article in the New York Times.