The Clash of Civilizations

For some reason, I have been unable to post the last weeks. I have composed a couple of postings but they were all saved as drafts. I will post some of them in the coming time. Here is one that is almost 4 weeks old...

Today the Netherlands Scientific Council for Advice to the Government published its report on how to deal with (radical) Islam. It is like a fresh breeze in a dry, scorched desert.

The media were all over it.

One of the authors, the arabist scholar Maurits Berger, said in response to a question that reading the Q'uran in order to understand the mind-set of people in the Middle-East is like a Japanese Zen-bhuddist reading the Old Testament in order to understand contemporary Europeans. He pleaded for a more balanced approach of both immigrants from moslim countries to Europe as well as muslim countries. He argued that it is more helpful not to put too much attention to the fact that they indentify themselves as muslims, but to the issues at hand, such as high unemployment, high crime rates, poverty and what have you. He also said that it was extremely strange to refer to Indonesians, Moroccans, Turks and Egyptians as Muslims. It is like calling American, Brits and Germans 'Christians'.

You will recall that this is exactly what I said in an earlier post. It is pleasing to see that some learned fellow agrees.

Dutch Politics: Rita Verdonk

This blog is in English. For a large part, the reason is that this give me opportunity to dump things here I e-mailed to friends across the world. The other reason is that most, if not all, of my philosophical writing is in English, and this blog is intended for someof that writing as well.

However, occasionally, I get so worked up about things in my country of residence (not choice!), this swamp-by-the-sea, this Netherworld, Holland (or rather Netherlands as the country is officially known -- Holland being the pars pro toto, the most densely populated Western
provinces. Population density here is higher than Bangla Desh -- another swampy delta by the sea). My difficulty then is, should I write about the things that occupy me in Dutch or in English. I don't know but if you have any idea, let me know.

In the mean time, I feel I can no longer shut up about the actions and policies of Mrs. Rita Verdonk, the minister for immigration and integration. I have come to the conclusion that she is an evil person.

For sure, the political responsibility for immigration and integration is the most ungrateful job you could have, because you'll never do it right. Populist xenophobes will accuse you of being to soft; leftist liberals with cosmopolitan leanings will accuse you of being to stern. So with this minister. Furthermore, prior to being appointed as minister she had no political experience to speak of. I believe she was a prison warden before.

Mrs. Verdonk became minister at a time when Dutch attitudes towards migrants were changing (for the worse). She committed herself to the following olicies. First, she wanted to stop migration -- especially from lowly eductated people who came here to marry of join their family. It looks like she has succeeded in doing that. Secondly, she wanted to force new and old migrants to assimilate as quickly as possible. As for asylum-seekers, she wanted to apply the same policies: prevent asylum-seekers from going to Holland and try to evict them as soon as they had a negative decision on their application for asylum -- and preferably before that time.

She is quite vocal about these things. She has managed to get into the news every three months or so with another proposal or scheme. She has huge support from the Dutch population.

What is not generally noticed, however, is that most, if not all, of her proposals turn out to be unconstitutional or completely impractical. For example, one of her policies is that each migrant from Africa or Asia take a 'inburgeringstoets', an 'integration' test, which tests for general knowledge and basic linguistic skills in the country of origin. And while this might be a good idea (I doubt it) if we'd be a country like Canada or the USA where the official language is also the lingua franca of the world, it grossly overrates the presence and visibility of Holland in the world. Imagine where an inhabitant of Kirgizistan who wants to migrate to Holland has to learn Dutch?

But the most objectionable is that this is a policy that officially aims at integration, but it is used as a means to keep out immigrants.

Nuclear gun control

I have been sick for a while, so there was little or no activity on these pages. But now I feel better. Well enough in fact to get concerned about things again.

A few weeks ago, George Bush, on his visit to India, announced an accord between the USA and India. The US will supply India with nuclear technology. In return, India will allow international inspectors to visit two thirds of their installations. India, you will remember, has never signed the non-proliferation treaty. It has conducted several muclear tests and it is widely believed that it has about 5 operational nuclear weapons.

The technology that the USA is selling to India is aimed at civil use, however, it can easily be used to create fission material (plutonium) for high grade nuclear weapons. India has the world's largest reserves of thorium, so they already have the raw ingredients.

What kind of message does the Bush administration think it is sending? On the one hand, they are castigating Iran for their efforts to attain nuclear technology. While the Iranians say they only want this technology for civil use, the Indians are quite open about wanting to further develop their military nuclear program. And what would Pakistan think about the actions of thier "ally" in the fight against terrorism? Or North-Korea? Or what about China, who will have a much more effective nuclear threat at its Southern border?

In effect what this decision to hand India the technology it so desparately wants achieves is more guns on the playground. Some nuts claim that guns do not kill people, only people. However, when it comes to nuclear weapons, we tend to think differently and are extremely concerned when a kid on the playground announces he now has access to a gun (let alone use it). And rightly so. For this reason, we have the non-proliferation treaty: every country that has access to this technology promises it won't use it militarily and opens up its instatllations for international inspections. And while this is not perfect, it severely hindered efforts of 'rogue' states to acquire the necessary technology and fission materials.

The Bush administration, with one single decision, has effectively killed the non-proliferation treaty and made the world a less safe place. Never mind that they adopt double standards, never mind that their assessment of the role of India in the region's military balance is not exactly realistic.What really gets me about all this is that the Bush administration has once again given up on an international treaty (the non-proliferation treaty) for short-term political gain. The lack of vision is astonishing -- and extremely dangerous.

A case for cosmopolitcanism: Shanti Sellz & Daniel Strauss

I just found out this. Along the 1000 mile long border with Mexico, hundreds of 'illegal immigrants' die each year from heat exhaustion or other causes in their effort to reach what Ry Cooder describes as 'the promised land' in his song 'across the borderline' (great song...!)

The USA is the promised land for many Mexicans. There they can earn more in a month than a whole year working much harder in their home country. No wonder then that many are willing to try a clear the border. Not so long ago, this was relatively easy. You had a whole grey economy of seasonal workers, domestic helpers and what have that consisted of illegal Mexicans. Then something changed. Many blue collar and middle class Americans are afraid that more and more the Mexicans are a threat to their jobs and their salaries. Much like many in the Netherlands are afraid of an influx of Polish workers.

Since the US system is such that there is huge political capital to be gained if you do exactly as your voters ask you to do, many politicians in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have been advocating a tougher stand on the the migration from Mexico to the USA. One of the measures proposed (and half-way completed) is a high fence all along the US Mexican border, designed to keep unwanted human being out. So far, it has not really quenched the flow of half-desparate adventurers whose only crime is that they are ambitious, eager to improve their situation and willing to take some considerable risks in pursuing their ends. And the risks are high, so far, 279 migrants have died in Arizona alone trying to go over to the other side.

A local church initiative "No More Deaths" has decided to try and prevent these deaths. They leave food and water along the trails leading through the Sonora desert and during the hot summer patrol the desert to assist Mexicans eager to find employment in the USA with finding the way, providing them with water and, if necessary, medical assistance.

Last year, the state of Arizona has outlawed such activities, claiming that it is a crime to assist people trying to immigrate illegally into the USA. (Similar laws apply in California it seems).

The results of this law are ridiculous. In July 2005 with temperatures in excess of 105 degrees (more than 40 C), Shanti Sellz, a volunteer for No More Deaths together with a collegue, Daniel Strauss, were patrolling the Sonora Desert between the border town of Nogales and Tucson. They encountered a group of immigrants. Three of these were in such bad shape that they needed medical attention. Shanti and Daniel conferred with a doctor who advised to bring them to a local hospital where they could receive urgent treatment. They put them in their car and drove out to Tucson. On the way, they were stopped by the US border patrol and arrested on the grounds that they were assisting illegal immigrants.

Shanti and Daniel declined a plea bargain which would let them off the hook with a fine. Instead, they now face a jury trial where they could get up to 15 years imprisonment, the maximum penalty under Arizona state law.

I find it preposterous that volunteers who assist a couple of people in a life threatening situation can end up on prison. It shows that the walls around the rich states of this world not only hurt the poor -- they inevitably will hurt those who are sympathetic to the plight of the poor.

Perhaps cosmoplitanism, the theory that claims that national borders are morally arbitrary, is right after all.