I translated and saved this piece in 1993, from Norwegian "Aftenposten", our leading conservative newspaper. IMHO, nothing much has changed since then:
Former vice-prime
minister in Sweden, Per Ahlmark, in his latest book “That’s Democracy, Dummy!”
is critical towards the Swedish government for its attitude towards issues
being subjected to UN procedures. If the UN decides to do something, it is of
course quite easy to agree and follow suit. But in the opposite case, if the UN
is unable to reach a decision, the government has an alibi for not doing
anything.
Ahlmark thinks there
is something fundamentally wrong with the entire organization, and cites the election
of Kofi Annan as evidence. Annan has been awarded the Nobel peace prize, but
Annan also was head of the UN peacekeeping operations at the time of the
massacres in Srebrenica, and at the time of the genocide in Rwanda, and did
little to stop the killings.
In 1994, about 800.000
Hutu people were killed by the rival Tutsi, in only 100 days. Probably the
fastest genocide in history. But who tried to stop the killings? Not Kofi
Annan, not the UN, and none of the leading powers.
Ahlmark is equally
critical towards the Swede Hans Blix, chief of the UN weapons inspectors to
Iraq. Seen through the eyes of Ahlmark, he is technically incompetent, weak and
succumbing. The IAEA in Vienna was fooled both by Saddam Hussein in Iraq and
the ayatollahs in Iran during the 1980’s. Blix awarded both countries a “bill
of cleanliness” in spite of their intense covert effort to acquire nuclear and
other WMD.
But Ahlmark is that
rare animal, which can see more than one side of an issue. He is critical
towards the massive criticism now being raised because no WMD have been found
in Iraq, WMD that Saddam have had, and actually have used.
Instead, the soldiers
found mass graves with 10.000 of victims, torture chambers everywhere. But that
does not satisfy politicians and so called peace lovers in the West. The fact
that Saddam Hussein probably have killed more Moslems than anyone else in
modern times is not sufficient. The critics want to see Anthrax and mustard
gas. That the occupation put an end to the world’s most brutal and bloody
tyranny and a dictatorship accountable for the death of millions of people is
not sufficient.
So far Per Ahlmark,
according to a newspaper review of his book.
My translation of an
article in Norway’s leading newspaper “Aftenposten” by professor of state
sciences, Bernt Hagtvedt:
USA and Israel – two nations with profound similarities.
2003 will be
remembered as the year when the differences in identity between Europe and USA
were being focussed upon as never before. The war in Iraq became the ultimate
expression of that debate. Recently Josef Joffe, editor in chief of the German
newspaper Die Zeit visited Oslo, and gave a speech about the differences. He
adopted a wide view, and discussed the similarities between Europe’s view of
the USA, and our doubts about Israel. Those are two countries “that we like to
dislike”, as he put it. His main point is that the alliance USA-Israel maybe
has its roots at a more fundamental level than just the contemporary political
issues. And, Europe’s view on both countries also rest on some quite
determining conditions with roots in a distant past.
After WW2, European countries have come
together around a basket of values. Aggressive nationalism never again shall
send hundreds of thousands of people to their grave. The borders shall be
fixed; war is uncivilized, the recognition of the rights of minorities and a
state of law and order shall be the fundament of all politics. When the
Europeans see an increasingly unilateralistic and nationalistic USA, and a territorially
expansive Israel, we se our own downside. We see politics at a stage that we
hope to have outgrown. These countries behave in a manner similar to the
Europeans in the past. Therefore, we turn away from them – in a kind of
Freudian reaction pattern.
Nationalism.
While Europe has
become post-national, both Israel and USA are nationalistic states. This causes
Europeans to wonder. The intensity of nationalism can be assessed by looking at
their view of the army. After two catastrophes, many of the European countries
are left quite stripped, without the codes of honour and the buoyancy that made
them potent instruments in the 1800 and early 1900’s. The opposite condition
prevail in USA and Israel. The Israeli and the American armies still are
bearers of the nations survival capability and identity.
In both countries, religion has a much
stronger foothold that in the increasingly secular Europe. USA in many ways is
a pre-modern nation, in the middle of is blazing capitalism and its awe of
technology. Israel also is a strong mixture of the most regressive elements
with the most modern-secularised, with an economy that far surpasses that of
the sum of their neighbours. This level of power creates fear, also in Europe.
The strength of the religions also creates a kind of faith-based politics that
does not wear well with the Europeans. Both USA and Israel are expansive
states, Israel with respect to land, USA more like a new kind of imperial power
without concrete land conquests, but rather economical, political and cultural
hegemony. Both states represent a flight from Europe. USA, a transatlantic
exodus away from religious oppression, Israel away from a bottomless tragedy
that Europe carries with it as a deep wound.
Pioneer nations.
Both states are settler
nations. Both states met an indigenous population towards which they had, and
still have, a quite ambivalent attitude. For a long time, both of them bore
signs of being ethnocratic countries, with democracy for only a select group of
citizens, the rest being second-rate. The state of Israel is to an extent built
on the same elements. Because both countries started from scratch, so to speak,
they are also ridden by an image of themselves as being special, as chosen, as
the bearer of hope against “the old Europe”. They posses a new concept of
cleanliness on behalf of themselves. This makes them particularly
self-righteous in judicial matters. They view themselves as bearers of a new
order, the incarnation of rights beyond any state’s common fundament of civilization.
(Ref. Disrespect of the UN displayed by both nations.) From this follows a
particular, basic missionistic attitude and a doctrine rooted in
fundamentalism. (Ref. The American and
Israeli extreme right wing) that cause great concern in a Europe that really
have experienced what such fronts may do with people.
At the same time, any analysis of this
kind may easily overlook the enormous span of disparity within each of the
countries. Too often, we in Norway forget that within USA we find the most
articulate opposition to the present republicans, and in Israel a left wing
that is equally clear about recognition of human rights and democracy in the
fullest meaning of the word as in Norway. Therefore, it is all the time too
easy just to “like” or to “dislike “ USA or Israel. The point is to understand
– which is not same as excusing.
No comments:
Post a Comment