George Handlery about the week that was. The terrorist‘s contempt. Might, modernization, and Russia and China. Abusing power through non-use. Honoring past tyrants and future policy. The homework of the Irish. Violence seldom remains unanswered.
 
1. Christian Klar, a famous terrorist of the German Red Army Fraction got life for the murder of nine persons. (He performed retail, not wholesale.) The German government, acting in the name of the unconsulted people, will let him go in January. Demonstratively, aside of his capture, the as-ever arrogant Klar, regrets nothing. One wonders whether some of his contempt is not justified in view of the imbalance between the forgiveness extended and his withheld recantation.
 
2. Modernization from above. In most instances modernization’s initial steps came not from below (USA, Switzerland) but, in an abounding number of cases, they were ordered from above. Indeed, the use of authoritarian power to nudge a society toward a system that lends it greater efficiency attracts by simplifying and accelerating the process of development. (Prussia, Russia.) This is the reason why “progressives” often support the benign individual or party that proclaims advancement to be its goal. Accordingly, after the fact, opinion makers like to tag such leaders with the adjective “The Great”. We have several examples in which progressive dictatorships have, albeit bypassing the original blue-print, converted into democracies. (Taiwan, South Korea.) This, however, is not part of the original plan of action. Democratization – limiting government power and upgrading people-power – represents regime change that dismisses those that had initially tackled the traditional order. Given this danger inherent in the approach, the question of the popularity of modernization by fiat arises. For one thing, claiming to modernize a traditional society with methods that are as harsh as the gut resistance generated by stand-pattish culture, international support but at least supportive understanding is elicited. (Castro, Mao, Stalin, Lenin.) This might appear to be surprising in the case in the circles that are critical of the application of power used to uphold the legal order of open societies but cheer any system that claims to serve “progress”. Second, since the industrial revolution, a traditional society is likely to be militarily weak. Modernization can enhance, besides morally justifying those holding power, a dictatorship with muscle. Stalin’s USSR shows how. Third, modernization validates the control of the previously private, that is, non-political aspects of life. Furthermore, it also puts the economy under government direction. If added up, we see why modernization from above does not intend to be altruistically progressive – especially in the political realm – and why it is frequently reduced to military-oriented upgrading. The foregoing is more than theory and generalization for its own sake. In the case of contemporary Russia and China, we observe centrally directed modernization in progress. The ultimate outcome of the divergent tactics exhibited by Moscow and Peking will, to no small extent, determine mankind‘s future.
 
3. Stalin’s resurrection to secular sainthood is furthered by the yahoos-inspired nationalism Russia‘s current rulers cultivate to secure their power. A democratic Russia, just like earlier a democratic Germany, is not possible unless the dictatorial temptation is rooted out. The prerequisite of that is the correct depiction of the past and the price paid for the successes of authoritarian rulers. (Given Hitler’s ultimate failure, here the Germans had an advantage as they successfully reviewed their record.) Today’s Stalin cult is supported by two factors. For one, before they hatched, as larvae, today‘s elite had a Stalinist past. The other one is that, given the political analphabetism of information-deprived Russian society, PR can divorce Stalin’s over emphasized successes from his soft pedaled mass murder. The beneficiaries of rewriting the past are those who have something to hide. And as long as the myth is allowed to stand, the Great Expansionist’s deeds are an inspiration for the insecure at home. Those witnessing the process from abroad are also affected: the Stalin cult is more than a nutty palliative for the confused on the home front. The present’s justification of historical tyranny by conquest abroad is, at the same time, also a program for the future.
 
4. The anticipated end of American unilateralism represents a challenge to the Atlantic Alliance. Until now, the US could be counted upon to act unilaterally once urgent action was needed while, due to the implied burdens, consensus for it could not be achieved. A possible retreat to some sort of Fortress America will deprive the alliance of the advantage of getting action without having to assume its risks. Unilateralism is also registered under the heading of “abuse of power.” One should add here the reminder that the non-use of power (when justified) also falls under the category of the “abuse of power”.
 
5. All parties in Germany, including those rated to be “right-of-center”, have drifted not only to the left but also into the left’s programs and assumptions. Concurrently, there is also a general anti-American shift discernible. Are we, as we notice these trends, looking at both “sides of the same medal”?
 
6. Will they catch on? Success cannot be handed to you. Accomplishment is dependent on an opportunity that is identified as such and then exploited by the qualified. The Roma is one of those minorities that have not become more successful than the majority around them. (Jews, Armenians, Koreans in the USA.) That is because the “opportunity” is not only allowed to pass but is also rejected. The writer read about a settlement where 51 out of 52 failing pupils are Roma. Girls marry at 14 partly so as to be freed from obligatory school attendance. Encouraging is that a Gypsy representative has proposed that the distribution of welfare aid be made dependent upon attending school.
 
7. Where violence rules, the insight is likely to spread that, its only effective antidote is counter-violence. Those who protest preventive and repressive actions that are within the legal framework do so with the slogan that “power is not a solution”. At the same time, they refuse to deal with the causes of general insecurity. The combination of these two attitudes suggests that, blinded by abstract theories, we are confronted with an inability to understand how the real world works. Concurrently there is a failure to comprehend that, tolerating criminal violence provokes its organized mirror image. Violence seldom remains unanswered.
 
8. We get explanations for the violence of Greek. They appear to be determined to erase whatever the Romans, the Turks, the Italians then the Germans – and perhaps worse of all, the tourists – have left standing. One articulated problem is that after school they need to attend expensive private tutorial programs. If so, on this level, they are not only victims of the economy and of corruption but of politics that might have given too much power to the educationists.
 
9. The Irish will hold a second vote on the European constitution. Consider this to be a generous offer. The first time around the Irish failed their “True and False” test and gave the wrong answer. Now they get a second chance to redeem themselves in a make-up exam. Presumably, if they mess up again they will be sent to the shed. How lucky that the corporal punishment of the insolent has been abolished!
 
10. Iran’s reaction to Obama’s initiative to talk without preconditions is emerging. The cause of the subdued manner in which the negative reaction is treated is that it does not “fit the concept”. The concept is that it is American intransigence that radicalizes sensible Iran. This trifle is, however, not a valid reason to spike the story. Iran unbendingly reminded the USA of her record under Carter. Reacting to the unprecedented detention of their diplomats, the Americans, wanting to talk, have been – purposely – humiliated. Tehran likes to remember this. Somehow that precedent seems to play a role in the framework according to which Iran prepares to handle Obama’s efforts to come to an understanding. Adding to the insult is that the Mullahs have also found themselves called upon (by whom?) to tell the world that Obama does not really represent Blacks (is he supposed to?) and that he is continuing Bush’s policies. In case you are unable to tag this as positive or negative: Iran rates Bush equal to a used Kleenex.