More on innovation

Yesterday's entry described Israeli innovations in armor defense technology; today's is about the lack of EU innovation, as bemoaned by EU council chairman Herman Van Rompuy.

Van Rompuy blamed the lack of innovation on "societal problems" and said people "live in a climate of despair and are depressed." Which is interesting, if you think about it: if Europeans were beset by existential enemies on all sides, would they be more likely to innovate? (Just for the record, the latest Gallup poll reports that Israel is the seventh highest country on the happiness index. Ahead of it are several European countries, rather undercutting Van Rompuy's argument. )

The solution, according to Van Rompuy: political leaders must be upbeat and work hard to get people to invent new things. No suggestion, of course, that the massive weight of governmental taxation and regulation could be a cause of the problem or that the EU, itself a mighty bureaucratic machine, might be least able to fix the problem. Earlier this week, Ernst & Young released a report decrying the wastefulness and complexity of competing EU programs intended to foster innovation.

In fact, Van Rompuy's remarks sound a lot like what used to emanate from Soviet and Warsaw Pact leaders. I'm sure that's just a coincidence...

A Freudian slip?

A headline announcing that the European Commission had apologized caught my eye, since apologizing is not something the Commission normally does. Turns out that this year's annual EU calendar lists Sikh, Hindu, Muslim and Chinese holidays, plus Europe Day. The Christian holidays were left out, according to the press report. (No mention of Jewish holidays, so perhaps they have simply slipped away.)

So was this a Freudian slip, the acting out of an EU multiculturalist desire to erase Europe's Judeo-Christian baggage? Who knows? Unfortunately for the EU there are still priests in Ireland, one of whom lodged a formal complaint; hence the apology.

Just imagine

Let's say you're a shaker and a mover in the U.S. administration and you want to really make a difference in our foreign policy toward the Arab world. Would you (A) try to figure out where the tumult in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere is leading, and how we can protect our national interests? Or would you (B) beat up on Israel?

Apparently (B) is the right answer, because that's what we're doing. It turns out that we're threatening to gang up with the EU, the UN and Russia to try to force Israel to accept an independent Palestinian state that includes the West Bank, Gaza and parts of Jerusalem.

Now, don't for a minute think this is part of any 'peace process.' As commentator Caroline Glick notes: "Since [the Palestinian state] would not be established in the framework of a peace treaty with Israel, and since its leaders reject Israel’s right to exist, 'Palestine' would be born in a de facto state of war with Israel."

Nor is there any indication that an independent Palestinian state would help overcome the murderous hostility between Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah. Or that it would stop the Palestinian Authority (remember, we think they're the good guys) from inciting terrorist acts like the Fogel family murders in Itamar and then hypocritically condemning (probably only in English) the subsequent celebrations in Rafah. (Imagine handing out candy to Palestinian children because Israeli children had their throats slit in their sleep.)

We would, however, make our European pals happy. Not only would they get to be in the front row when the 'international community' gangs up on Israel, but they could demonstrate their clout at having gotten the United States to agree to an approach they've pushed a long time.

At least all this is easier than figuring out how to combat Islamist pressures in the Muslim world (let alone at home), oppose Iranian aggression, or decide what to do about Libya. Gee, maybe that's why it's so attractive!

A ray of light

In the welter of anti-Israel speeches, boycotts, accusations of Israeli apartheid and Nazism, here's one rational voice. UK Methodist preacher David Hallam is suing his church for its decision to boycott some Israeli goods.

Hallam's view: "What I object to is money which I am putting on the collection plate on a Sunday being used to fund a political campaign against the Jewish state. This is both discriminatory and a misuse of a charity's funds . . . The Methodist Church seems to think it has a God given right to tell Jews how to run their affairs. It is very disturbing we are getting involved in a territory where we don't have any members or churches."

What's really interesting about this case is that Hallam is going to sue on the basis of an EU directive against racism: Israel is being discriminated against because it is being singled out, even though many other countries have worse human rights records. If Hallam succeeds, this should put a damper on other boycotts and anti-Israel actions in Europe, since most countries are members of the EU. (Thanks to Daily Alert.)

Never again?

Novelist Andrew Klavan, in this video, notes that people are consistent. After the Holocaust, everyone said they would 'never again' stand at the sidelines when Jews or other people were being annihilated. That's quite true, he says - this time they're helping.

Commentator John Rosenthal provides a graphic example, describing how the European Parliament received the Israeli ambassador to the EU. One or two Members defended him; the rest accused Israel of various heinous crimes, and refused to believe that the video he showed of the flotilla incident could be real.

The group these Europarliamentarians are defending so vehemently makes no secret of its goals. The leader of the group states quite clearly that his goal was jihad. As jihad includes the annihilation of the State of Israel, I can only conclude that Andrew Klavan is right.

The convenient scapegoat

Looks like another moment of transatlantic communion. The US government is demonizing Wall Street and the US financial industry to draw attention away from its monetary profligacy and gross mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The EU, with the Germans in the lead, is demonizing US and UK private equity firms with hedge funds: the "swarm of locusts" who descend on Europe and take away all its jobs.

As John Rosenthal notes, this isn't the first time such imagery has been used. The Nazis talked about the "swarm of locusts," but the term stretches even further back, to 19th century anti-Semitic attacks on a German-Jewish financier. Rosenthal includes a cartoon that shows today's 'swarm' as American - which I suppose is better than showing them as Jewish, although I suspect that that is the subtext.

The reason for all this is obvious: the EU and the Germans must do anything to avoid acknowledging that the high level of Greek debt induced the recent crisis. Because if they admit that, then they'd have to do something about it.

Unpleasant surprises on Mideast trips

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden hasn't been the only VIP to meet with an unpleasant surprise during a Mideast trip. He was outraged by an Israeli announcement regarding housing construction in Jerusalem which has led to a serious crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.

Destruction rather than construction was the problem for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and top EU diplomat Lady Catherine Ashton. They were in Gaza when a rocket launched from there killed a Filipino worker in Israel. However, since Hamas said it hadn't launched the rocket, the two were free to condemn the attack without having to actually name a perpetrator.

Nor for that matter, do they appear to have acknowledged Hamas' recent contribution to peaceful dialogue: in a TV interview last month, a Hamas official called Jews bacteria who need to be exterminated. It's nice to know the UN and EU have high standards, and that we're doing our best to match them! (Thanks to MEMRI and Daily Alert.)

EP update

For anyone interested, Mr. Farage, the European parliamentarian mentioned earlier who dared to be rude to the EU's new president (and to cast aspersions on Belgium, the president's country), has been fined 2,980 euros.

His response, on Twitter: "Sentence passed, letter from Parliament President: maximum allowable fine €2,980. Free speech is expensive in Brussels." Farage plans to appeal the ruling.

Now the one guy who said what everyone thinks has been punished, business can continue as usual!

European Parliament mores

Last December, the EU appointed as president a relatively unknown Belgian politician, Herman Von Rompuy. Europeans have since been bemoaning the fact that their new leader is such a colorless, uninspiring fellow (although reportedly expert at backroom maneuvers).

But woe to any Member of the European Parliament who says any such thing out loud! UK MEP Nigel Farage did just that, saying that Van Rompuy had the "charisma of a damp rag" and the appearance of a "low-grade bank clerk," language Farage said would have been normal in the UK House of Commons. He made the comments during Van Rompuy's maiden appearance in the Parliament.

The reaction: horror and outrage, and now threats to discipline Farage. Apparently 'vivid political debate' is acceptable, but not personal insults or comments about someone's personal appearance. This, you understand, from a parliamentary body that routinely accuses the United States of dastardly motives and actions....not to mention what its members said about former President Bush. I'm glad to know they have standards!

Sorry to be right

Being able to say "I told you so" is usually sweet, but not this time.

Over a year ago, Mark Richard (a former senior Department of Justice official) and I predicted, in an article published in Policy Review, that U.S.-EU counterterrorism and law enforcement cooperation would suffer if the EU adopted the Lisbon Treaty.

Well, the Treaty was adopted on December 1, 2009, and the European Parliament, which under the Treaty acquired new powers in this area, has just rejected an agreement allowing the EU and the United States to share financial data that may be linked to terrorists. The agreement had already been renegotiated, but the Parliament found it still lacked sufficient protection for personal data.

Expect more of this in future. The Parliament has a great deal of pent-up resentment at being excluded from such issues in the past; it lacks the law enforcement expertise necessary to make informed decisions on such issues; and many of its members are convinced that the United States is out to abuse their privacy and to somehow take advantage of Europe.

Just for the record, here's the report prepared by Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, perhaps the most prominent European expert on fighting terrorism. It documents the agreement's proven value to European governments as well as to the United States. (Thanks to John Rosenthal.)

Sanctions, what sanctions?

The foreign ministers of the EU have announced that they will not support sanctions against Iran unless the UN Security Council (which includes China and Russia) does so as well. This is exactly the position I've been expected them to take. A couple of observations:

-- This confirms the futility of the Obama administration's multilateral approach to Iran, since the Chinese have said quite clearly that they do not support sanctions.

-- When even the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel finally discovers that Iran may be pursuing nuclear weapons, do not for a moment expect the Europeans to let that interfere with their booming trade with Iran. Indeed, Goli Ameri has it right: "The continued focus on Russia and China's intransigence is allowing Europe to stay under the radar." To be precise: "In 2008 the EU was—in its own words—the "first trade partner of Iran," with imports and exports totalling €25.4 billion ($36.4 billion) followed by China, Japan, and South Korea."

Mind you, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying that we should find sanctions that only hurt the Iranian elite, I don't think the United States has much of a policy either. I realize no one wants to consult the Bush record, but in 2000-2001 then Secretary Powell spent a lot of time trying to get agreement on 'smart sanctions' against Iraq. He failed.

I just want to know if Vice President Joe Biden's warning is still operative. He said we would shoot down any Israeli planes flying over Iraq to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Is anyone out there ashamed?

Trading in carbon credits

The 'trade' portion of the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House and is now somewhere in the Senate would establish a carbon emissions trading scheme compatible with the existing European one. In this scheme, companies trade the rights to emit carbon dioxide, while the total amount of carbon dioxide diminishes.

There's a fly in the ointment, however. The EU has touted its sytem as a great success, citing its high turnover, yet the EU's own European Police Agency, or Europol, is investigating fraudulent transactions that may account for up to 90% of the total.

Don't hold your breath, though, for the liberal proponents of cap and trade or the MSM (is there a difference?) to report this item. (Thanks to euobserver.com.)

Obama and the Brits

Did you ever wonder why President Obama sent the bust of Winston Churchill back to England, and why he seems to have slighted the British in many other ways? Well, Con Coughlin, executive foreign editor of the London Daily Telegraph, has a theory.

Coughlin thinks Obama bears a personal grudge, based on his grandfather's alleged torture at the hands of the British during the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya. In addition, Coughlin perceives an Obama administration slant in favor of greater European integration. He thinks key administration officials like Michele Flournoy at Defense and Philip Gordon at State are cold-shouldering the UK because it traditionally opposes more power for the EU.

I don't know if Coughlin's theory is correct, but his conclusion - that it makes no sense for the United States to snub the one ally most likely to fight with us - is spot-on.

Climate change

When historians write the definitive account of our times, I suspect they'll describe 'imminent catastrophic climate change' as the peculiar topic that distracted Western leaders precisely at the time when they needed to focus on real existential threats.

According to EU Observer, climate change will top the list of subjects to be discussed at the November 3 U.S.-EU summit - Afghanistan-Pakistan and Iran are further down the list. The Europeans want to avert a train wreck at the UN climate change conference scheduled for this December in Copenhagen and to that end will pressure President Obama to adopt a carbon dioxide emissions trading system compatible with theirs.

Mark and the MLAT

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder and his EU counterparts Gilles De Kerkove and Hans Nillson exchanged instruments between the European Union and the United States for two essential treaties on mutual legal assistance and extradition.

This is the result of years of work, led on our side by my dear friend Mark Richard who passed away last spring. The two treaties represent a big step forward in transatlantic cooperation to combat terrorism and transnational crime.

It is such a shame that Mark couldn't have been there to see the culmination of his efforts - but if he had, he would have spent the whole time explaining that he really didn't have much to do with it, or some similar nonsense. He was a brilliant guy with a very big heart and a very small ego.

Copenhagen summit

Success at the upcoming UN climate change summit in Copenhagen in December depends in large part on the positions taken by developing countries, particularly China and India. Thus far, those two countries have wisely refused to consider restricting their economic growth in order to meet carbon dioxide emission targets.

So the next step is to bribe them with assistance funds to "mitigate the effects of climate change and limit their CO2 emissions". The EU estimates a total of €100 billion a year by 2020 needs to be transferred to developing countries, with the EU contribution in the range of €2-15 billion.

However, a recent high-level EU meeting failed to reach agreement on how much individual EU member states would pay, making the Copenhagen meeting all the more problematic. (Thanks to EU Observer.)

I can't help wondering how much the United States is supposed to poney up for this futile effort. The idea of limiting economic growth for artificial emissions limits is ridiculous. Nor are large financial transfers of taxpayers' money likely to benefit developing countries - they usually just line the pockets of the elite. But no need to worry: if we do participate in this exercise, the sums involved, along with the costs to our economy, will likely be lost in our sea of red ink.

EU and Guantanamo

Reportedly, six EU member states have now publicly agreed to take Guantanamo inmates; another four said privately that they would do so, and five are mulling over the possibility. (There are 27 EU member states in total.) The U.S. government has identified 80 inmates as ready to be released, but there is no data available yet on how many each European country would accept.

Given that the EU has been one of the most vociferous critics of Guantanamo, it is only fitting that these countries help the Obama Administration close it down. This, however, is probably not what the Europeans envisioned when they dreamed of a post-Bush transformation in transatlantic relations.

Never a dull moment

A French-Israeli dual national is suing the EU at the European Court of Justice for failing to provide protection for its citizens from Hamas rockets. He argues that the EU is treaty-bound to 'offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers.' He further requests that the EU desist from funding the Palestinian Authority government in Gaza or other organizations likely to use the money for terrorism.

According to one of his lawyers, “There are about 300,000 European citizens living in Israel, and thousands of them are estimated to be living in range of terrorist rockets. The EU grants hundreds of millions of euros a year in aid to Gaza, and it is inconceivable that European citizens should be harmed by money supplied by the EU. It's time that the EU takes responsibility."

Eyal Katorza, the person who filed the suit, has lost his job and family business due to rocket attacks from Gaza. Something tells me this lawsuit won't fix those problems - but it will be very interesting nevertheless. For decades, the EU has gotten off scot free for funding Palestinian terrorism; maybe that will finally change.

Next steps on Iran

Both the EU and the United States are considering sanctions against Iran for its failure to budge on the question of developing nuclear weapons. Germany, a critical trading partner of Iran, and the EU are considering such measures as stopping all exports of gasoline to Iran, or banning Iranian ships or aircraft from docking or landing in the EU.

So far, there is no joint EU-U.S. list; nor is it likely that China or Russia, two veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council, will be enthusiastic. If the Security Council refused to approve sanctions, the United States and the EU would then have to decide to do it on their own - definitely a less valuable step, but probably worth trying anyway.

U.S. to oppose Iranian sanctions?

According to this report, the United States will seek to keep the G8 leaders from adopting financial sanctions against Iran. That's right - we apparently are willing to talk about sanctions, but not to apply them. (Thanks to Jihad Watch.)

Meanwhile, British embassy staffers seized by the Iranian government will apparently be put on trial. The British are seeking to persuade their EU counterparts to pull their ambassadors out of Tehran to protest the arrest of the staffers.

Then there's always the question of how to keep the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Iranians have just announced that the Europeans will no longer be allowed to negotiate with them (as punishment for allegedly fomenting last month's unrest). President Obama wants to negotiate with the Iranians, while Vice President Biden is apparently giving Israel 'permission' to bomb the nuclear facilities.

Should make for a great meeting!