George Handlery on the week that was. More second thoughts about the Lisbon Treaty. Whom to thank for success against narcomarxist terrorists? Dictatorial solidarity is stronger than race. Is poverty moral? Must a liberal agree with every position he encounters? The virtue of theft.
 
1. The attempt to smuggle the EU’s failed basic law back into life after a re-write have failed on account of Ireland’s rejection. Now it turns out that all along many had reservations against the Lisbon Treaty but “did not dare to ask.” Poland, Austria, Germany are on record of hedging their bets. The solidarity of the advocates of “bureaucratic centralism” is showing cracks. Count on more resistance. All this is not to suggest that Europe does not need an umbrella organization. It is the method and the concept of unity pursued that motivates the critics.
 
2. The 700 hostages of the Columbian FARC are free. Useful idiots continue their discreet support of the Communist kidnappers. They shift the discussion to “lessons” and “credits earned” front. Switzerland’s eccentric leftist foreign minister, mindlessly opined that liberation is to be credited to mediation efforts. Such as her stunts. The terminology directs craved attention to her eager-to-grab-headlines person. Without wanting to underrate the value of the “good offices” provided by skillful mediators –Ms Calmy-Rey, given her sympathies and her theatrics is not one of them – the case is irrelevant for arbitration techniques. The successful operation was entirely confrontational. The FARC was beaten at its own game. No version of mediation had a role in getting the hostages free. However, but for the incurably naïve, this is no surprise. The differences between these terrorists and civilization represented by the Columbian government, were not the result of a misunderstanding between good or reasonable people. Therefore, instead of honoring the capitulationists, say “thank you to Mr. Uribe”. He had the courage to persevere and solved a problem by using the instruments suited for the purpose.
 
3. Should a dictatorship with unceasing human rights abuses be ostracized? All will nod “yes.” However, if the case fits an African “Leader” the story can have another ending. Misplaced solidarity with perpetrators – but not with victims – is turned on. Actually, the concrete case on everybody’s mind does not have racial solidarity in its core but the bonding of those that oppress the weak. Instead of protecting the region’s reputation, the rogue is supported. Not the rights of the abused but the privileges of the mighty are sustained in the name of resisting “outside interference”. Indeed, the politics of identity, be it religious, linguistic, or racial, can be abused to protect what would be rejected if only the guilty (African dictators) would not share traits with those (African tyrants) called upon to pass judgment.
 
4. Moved more by faith than by reason, some assume that underdeveloped societies  have a moral advantage over materially advanced ones. The idea is not new or necessarily invented to upgrade non-western performance. An illustration is the case of the Russian Slavophiles in the 19th century. The cageyness with which many industrialized states react to the often-odd ways of non-western governments comes from this bias about moral content. Objectively, lagging in development is not an expression of virtue. Living close to man‘s original state in nature hardly ennobles – even if the 18th century believed in the “noble savage”. If anyone had doubts about the correlation between morality and living “naturally” then the current African Summit will dispel it. The moral obligation of the gathering was to deal with Mugabe’s “reelection” and the brutality by which “Comrade Bob” holds on to power. If not decency, then the region’s reputation demanded that the problem be handled by the continent’s state system. Instead most (but not all) of the assembled notables chose to support their colleague. Call it dictatorial solidarity flowing from a realization that the fate of those attending is inseparable from that of a ranting lunatic. Keeping the dictatorial club in power has the continued misery of the abused masses as its price. The support of an erratic tyranny which, by the way sheds lots of African blood, damaged greatly the reputation of Africa. The show put on in Sharm el Sheich confirmed an image that scares away the investment that would be the motor of modernization.
 
5. Ultimately, good government, which is also responsible government, allows people live in security as they see fit. What does good government do? It reduces arbitrariness, protects a private sphere, and it secures an environment in which destines can be shaped by individual striving and not by the empowered. Reasonable laws, security within the law‘s boundaries, create conditions in which economic development, that is, the escape from poverty can take place. Political rights and economic security are and remain interrelated.
 
6. Horrible pictures from Zimbabwe circulate that show mutilated farmers that had contested the confiscation of their land. The starvation of the population proves the economic madness of the affair. The case also establishes the relationship between liberty and prosperity, respectively between need and tyranny. More telling of what is wrong with us is the limited attention paid to the atrocities of Mugabe’s “war veterans”. Had the facts been reversed, making the victims colored and the perpetrators white the international outrage would be deafening. This makes the reaction to racially motivated atrocities not a matter of principle but a position dictated by political opportunism. Human rights deserve better.
 
7. Some patterns created by the West’s tradition of thinking might be part of its problems when it needs to deal with forces that do not share its premises. Having an open mind and to leave the possibility open that in a dispute neither party is fully correct is an approach with proven use. Nevertheless, to make an absolute rule out of a specific experience can lead to errors. Truth might be in the middle – but must not be located there. 2x2 is four and not six, nor is it located, between these positions at five. Therefore, picking the middle ground can be just wishy-washy and in the conflict between two assertions, one might be totally right and the other very wrong. The lesson to be learned is that, in the classical sense, you are not liberal if, having examined contradictory positions, as a principle you claim to hold both.
 
8. Throughout the globe, minorities that are local majorities have been created by shoving borders around. Frequently, the right to the land pre-dates the entity to which people find themselves arbitrarily assigned. In such cases protection to remain “different” such as expressed by “minority rights” is due. Concurrently, collective rights owed to individuals on a territory ruled by other ethnics are also to be acknowledged. In such cases, we are arguing for the right to self-government and autonomy. It is assumed that this self-government does not collide with the principles formulated by “human rights” and with national laws fitting within that category. By this criterion, certain rights claimed by Moslem immigrants to countries with an advanced legal system present a problem. Sharia-based concepts undermine the principles upon which modern secular society and its state rest. Can demands be legitimate that assert the unequal treatment of men and women, honor killings, the inferiority of certain religions and ways of life – including that of the majority – and immunity form national law? Should such demands be not only accepted but also endorsed in the name of tolerance for something that is dedicated to be toleration’s incompatible opposite? Ultimately, the issue is “can totalitarian movements demand protection from a pluralistic-democratic system”. More bluntly “must a democracy tolerate activities intending its overthrow by illegal means?”
 
9. There has been a generation in whose mind “immigrant” meant a person willing  to work hard to achieve the success denied to him at his origins. Today, what is politely called a “migration background” suggests membership in a group using pressure to maintain a way of life imported from a place it allegedly choose to leave because of its inadequacies. The term also connotes a reluctance to learn the language of the majority, participate in its school system, pursue its career ideals and to reject its way of life. This adds up to a strategy of personal failure by design in a context in which success would be possible.
 
10. Groups that, after their immigration, consciously resist any degree of integration or assimilation often become criminally inclined. This is not quite accidental. If you practice the “rejectionism” listed above, your lawful road to success is blocked. The criminal inclination has further roots. Many modern-day migrants come from failing societies in which the causes of wealth, poverty and mobility are not understood. A symptom is that the rise of industrialized societies is explained by the colonial exploitation of the currently backward. (If this would hold water Turkey would be a leading country.) Such perceptions undermine the will to acquire the skills and attitudes that allow mobility. Once one cannot achieve by performing in ways that is socially rewarded, only one approach is left to get the tempting goods others have. This is to just take them by force or by tricks. The justification is that, after all, the victim has not acquired these coveted objects by an understood process but was simply lucky or privileged to have benefited. Under these terms, taking it away implies serving something resembling justice through evening the score. By this standard “theft” becomes a “virtue”.