George Handlery about the week that was. Worrying good news from the Middle East. How development helps to stabilize poverty. A claim that supports “the other side”. Still no one to call in Europe. The new non-American Dream. Save the welfare state, import more dependents.

 

1. We are not used to get good news from the murky Middle East. Before the submission of these lines, it became known that Israel has developed technical means to protect herself from rocket attacks. The soon-to-be-achieved capability also applies to Iran’s long range missiles that might carry the nuclear war heads she aggressively claims not to be developing. The impending emasculation of the attacker’s means is accompanied by an offensive development. Israeli submarines with a nuclear capacity will be deployed to guarantee retaliation in case her territorial defense fails. In Cold War terms, mutual assured destruction that had worked rather well seems to be resurrected. The chances of nuclear war appear to be reduced. Here, however, we should become cautious. Significant differences can be discerned.

The Soviet might have been at times dumb but suicidical they were not. Furthermore, they did not want to wipe the West off the map. All they wanted was to destroy her political and social system. The pillars of her productive capacity were notably excluded. They were needed after the conquest to “build Socialism.” Iran’s leaders are, unlike Marxists, not adherents of a teaching that tries to be rational. Their own rationally calculable elimination might, as they put their trust into Allah, not impress them enough to desist. In addition, their goal is not the destruction of a system; it is the liquidation of an entire people, of its state and all of its institutions. Alas, under these conditions no disincentive might be sufficiently persuasive to act as a reliable deterrent.

2. Foreign aid floes to the most disadvantaged. Not accidentally, the neediest societies are likely to be dictatorially ruled. “Bad government” and “bad feeding” are the matching halves of the same whole. Dictatorships, which illustrate the generalization, dominate entire world neighborhoods. Especially Africa stands out. Canceling out the goals of the well-intentioned helpers, aid facilitates the cause to keep these tyrannies in power. At the same time, the inflowing dough makes the blood-sucking oppressive system a paying proposition for those that run them. In these cases it is aid in money and goods that keeps oiling the oppressive system’s gears and thus helps to preserve the tyrannical rule whose economic consequence makes more help necessary.

3. A few weeks ago, the reader was informed about the Swiss referendum to forbid more minarets (not houses of worship). Certainly, the system of direct democracy makes the case, in the form it is presented, rather unique. Nevertheless, in some related version, the essential elements of this controversy are likely to surface in other countries too. That justifies reconstructing the controversial issue. Some of the proponents use a, to the writer questionable argument. They support the ban by citing, not surprisingly, the restrictions in most Muslim countries. The problem with this is that the anti-democratic action of a party does not justify the same with in return. For instance, the genocide of Jews would not justify the mass murder of Germans or others. Pointing out that the spokesmen of Muslims adhere to variable principles depending whether they are a majority or a minority, might be more appropriate.

The opponents of the ban take two questionable positions. One is a plain error. It asserts that religious freedom is at stake. Like in the case of the burqa or female circumcision’s relationship to Islam, the minaret is not an essential part of a Moshe. More revealing is a second claim. Stopping minarets is said to antagonize and then to radicalize peaceful Muslims who do not bother or endanger anybody. In some instances, this will undoubtedly be the case. At that juncture, the argumentation, departing from the danger of “radicalization”, brings up an interesting attachment to its claims. Not discrete warnings are issued. Those voting for the ban will be responsible for the price that will be paid due to the terrorism that will result from radicalization. If you come to think of it, the likelihood of such a consequence of displeasing the adherents of the religion of peace seems to be a clinching argument -in favor of the still timely ban.

4. Regardless of whether is it to be centrally directed or federally structured, we might all agree that the EU should assume a role that is commensurate to its size, wealth and potential might. Admittedly, not doing so has its advantages. The Kissingers of our days still have a hard time to “call Europe” and locate someone that picks up the phone. Bucking the predestined role means being freed from the connected duties. If the defense of the interests of the region, the West and generally of advanced societies requires it, the current condition allow the EU and those represented by it to avoid taking a stand. If the effort therefore borne by others succeeds, there is plenty of time to claim some of the credit for the achievement. In case of hard going and failure to achieve quick and cheap results a “We told you so” and a raised finger gets one off the hook cheaply.

The choice of two grey sparrows, to represent the community and its foreign policy interests to the rest of the world show that the policy of staying in the back when the charge goes forward, and one that leads when withdrawal is called for, remains unchanged. Two non-entities in terms of that famous phone call “what, who is that….?” types confirm the impression. The functions entrusted to Mr. X and Ms. Y is hardly the platform from which to climb the peaks of leadership. Much rather, it appears to be a resting place on a plateau that ends otherwise uncontroversial careers. (Meanwhile, let it be left to the readers in Belgium to determine privately whether Mr. Rompuy as Premier really expresses the best of that country’s political system and touted conflict-management techniques.)

5. Could Europe’s welfare-state public culture have created an environment that would have led to the integration of the now resistant segment of her Muslim immigrants? Hardly. For one thing, welfare services act as an economic magnet. Its drawing power can only be compared with that of the American Dream of yesteryear. The difference is in the cause of the attraction. The support of those who lack skills, a motive and the desire to amalgamate sucks in newcomers who carry much discontent and resentment in their carpetbag.

6. Throughout the developed world, there is a thesis that has attained through its stubborn repetition, the status of being a hard-to-challenge truth. According to the mantra, the retirement schemes and social services system in general is about to collapse. The demographics, that is ever fewer contributors supporting a growing percentage of the population drawing benefits, is the starting point of the argument. This is, indeed, a problem at least until the retiring post-war bulge that distorts the graph as it crawls to its top, is dead. The remedy, however, is more subject to debate. It is that the mass immigration from third world countries is supposed to provide the contributors the system is missing.

Several factors put holes into the soundness of this solution. One is that the panacea ignores the likelihood of the eventual retirement of the entrants. It is at least rather unlikely that they will skip their right to a pension and return to live in poverty at the place of their origins. That just happens to be the place they did not wish to be from the outset. Furthermore, this element lacks skills and is not adoptive enough to acquire new ones. Here it is often implied that it is an advantage to import people accepting low pay for bad jobs. This means jobs that are endangered by the Schumpeterian consequences of progress. The unemployed will hardly be able to come up with the contributions for which they have been imported. Besides that, even if stably employed, the low skilled also command low salaries. That translates into limited contributions. Let us remember that retirement systems have a built-in redistribution function. Therefore, the contributions gathered might not cover the costs of once-high earning and correspondingly entitled retirees. Such considerations suggest that the argument in favor of more and unfiltered immigration might need other justifications than this one.