Replies to post #4715 on Foreign Correspondence

[otraque]

British bombers: Worst fears true
By Dominic Casciani

But this is not just a nightmare in terms of the threat of violence from within, the fallout in the coming weeks and months will have the capacity to severely test - perhaps in some cases test to breaking point - the cohesion of British society.

So why does it make so much difference that the bombers are, as now suspected, British?

In the hours after the bombings, Muslim leaders in the UK, joined by other faith leaders, senior police chiefs and ministers, launched an action plan long prepared for such an attack on British soil.

That plan focuses on keeping communities together by very publicly and loudly saying all that can be said to differentiate between British Muslims and those who would seek to use a faith to justify atrocities.

The strategy relied to some extent on the public seeing terrorism as a "foreign" threat - just as in years gone by the IRA threat could be presented as something that came from the unique, alien circumstances of Northern Ireland's sectarian society, rather than something that sprang from ordinary folk in ordinary neighbourhoods.

But the revelation that the four London suspects were British will confirm the worst fears of many Muslim leaders.

The four years since 9/11 has seen an extraordinary growth in Islamic identity in Europe. This has almost certainly benefited many communities which have, paradoxically, found a more confident voice amid the spotlight on their faith.

Many Muslim leaders point proudly at younger generations who have increasingly carved out a unique British-Muslim identity, taking the best of Islam and grafting to it many elements of European thought.

Simmering anger?

But at the same time, there has been a simmering anger which has become more and more visible in the wake of Britain's controversial anti-terrorism laws and the Iraq war.

In some cases, this is expressed through politics - such as George Galloway's sensational East End victory at the General Election on an anti-war ticket.

In other cases, it is religious with small radical groups mushrooming here or there, declaring Muslims must choose between Islam and British society.

Shahid Malik, one of Labour's Muslim MPs and probably the best placed among them by virtue of age to gauge the mood of younger generations, has said before there is a sense of double standards and injustice among some, particularly over foreign policy towards the Palestinians.

But he also says quite frankly there is a nervous reluctance among Muslim communities to admit extremism exists - much in the same way many white people cannot confront racism.

Radicalisation

There is however plenty of evidence already of how the process of radicalisation works - the most telling from Tel Aviv in April 2003.

It was then that two British young men, Asif Hanif and Omar Sharif, carried out a Hamas-organised suicide bombing, killing three.

The pair met at university and, it is thought, got involved in radical Islamist student politics where the perennial issue is the perceived injustice of Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, and the West's alleged hypocrisy. These groups can be catalysts in alienation, presenting Western culture as immoral and incompatible with a literal reading of holy texts.

Suitably inspired, they headed for Syria where, officially continuing their studies, they joined Hamas and made the leap from talk to fatal action.

In many respects, their profiles fit that of the 9/11 hijackers: these were young, educated men with good prospects.

In their minds, the decision to bomb was philosophically rational, based on an analysis of how they believed Muslims are treated - and the responses open to them.

Backlash fears grow

So what happens now? If the apparent British suicide bombers are of similar stock - young British-born men who are not driven by desperation, then British society's ability to deal with this may be severely tested.

This is what Muslim leaders fear most.



But just as importantly, they fear that reaction may, in turn, create deeper divisions in society - and create more opportunities for those seeking to radicalise the young.

Anxiety levels are up across the country and if this turns to anger then it could have an immensely destabilising effect.

Take the 2001 Bradford riots, for example, which had everything to do with a corked bottle of pent-up anger that exploded on the streets.

Crucially, the clashes themselves are popularly thought to have been triggered by white racists deliberately provoking young Muslim men to fight back. And when they did, the situation quickly got out of control.

Returning to present events, if Muslim communities are destabilised by the London bombings, the implications for British society could be far greater than a hot summer night's riot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4677209.stm

[otraque]

The other worst case evidence brought forth today is the initial announcement that it was ordinary plastique explosive used they have now turned 180 degrees and are now saying it was high-quality quite hard to get plastique explosive of a kind that they believe can only have been smuggled into Britain to be used by this cell.

[otraque]

3 different views in postings on BBC "Talking Point"" to question "Is London getting back to normal"
<<All this talk about getting back to normal. The fact is the majority of people living and working in London don't have any choice. It's either get to work or be out of a job. I'd give anything not to have to do it every day!
Janet, Essex, England

I use Liverpool Street station every day and I have a message for the people behind this atrocity. I am not scared. Like my friends and colleagues I am angry but you will not scare us and you will not change our way of lives. If your aim was to cause long term panic and terror then you have failed. You have not weakened our resolve you have hardened it.
Mark M, Colchester, UK

London is not getting back to anything approaching normal. Sure people are using public transport, going to work to show that we can't be beaten. But I run a market stall in one of London's main market area and there was NO-ONE around today. Our takings were down 80%, proving that people are only venturing past their front doors when they deem it strictly necessary.
Simon Brown, London, UK>>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4671349.stm

[Amaunet]

Intelligence Brief: Germany


Can you say Bundesverfassungsgericht - expialidocious?

-Am

Intelligence Brief: Germany


11 August 2005
Elections in Germany are approaching, currently scheduled for September 18. A poll taken on August 3 confirms the trend from July: the Christian Democrats have a solid 42 percent majority. The Social Democrats (S.P.D.) -- who are currently in power -- remain stuck at 29 percent, whereas radical Left alliance Linksbuendnis (which is formed by the Electoral Alternative for Labor and Social Justice (W.A.S.G.) and the Party of Democratic Socialism (P.D.S.), which is now known as Linkspartei) is at 11 percent. [See: "Angela Merkel's Forecasted Win and Germany's Foreign Policy"]

However, on August 5, some high-profile independent lawyers, and experts from the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) told the press that the Left has misused federal electoral laws because in some German states it is not clear whether voters of the Linksbuendnis would be voting for a P.D.S. or for a W.A.S.G. candidate. It is argued that this confusion has been created in order to get P.D.S. officials elected in western states where they normally receive very little support. Therefore, some German states could disallow the Linksbuendnis to take part in September's vote.

While the battle for federal acceptance of the Linksbuendnis has just started, the issue signals a serious political problem in Germany since traditional parties have not been able to effectively contrast the Left's electoral strategy.

The German Crisis and the Rise of W.A.S.G.

W.A.S.G. is without a doubt the most important political novelty of today's Germany. Launched by former Social Democrat minister Oskar Lafontaine and his leftist followers, W.A.S.G. has been able to successfully intercept S.P.D.'s disappointed voters. Social Democrat Prime Minister Gerhard Schroeder, elected in 1998, has tried in the last years to introduce market reforms in accordance to the wishes of German entrepreneurs, but the German social and political landscape has shown signs of severe unhappiness with his policies.

Trade unions, workers and parties from the Left judge the reforms too market-oriented and fear that the renowned German welfare state will be dismantled. On the contrary, liberal conservative movements and German capitalists believe the reforms were too weak and insufficient to tackle what German President Horst Koehler argued on July 22, that Germany faced "an unprecedented crisis" that needs the government to "pursue its agenda with full determination and energy."

As a result, the S.P.D.-led coalition experienced a dramatic decrease of support in the last four years, and Schroeder's ability to remain in power after 2002 is explained by some analysts as due to his steadfast opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which made it possible for the Social Democrat to keep the Left's votes in 2002. However, notwithstanding a new foreign policy, characterized by a strategic partnership with Russia, a strong commitment to refuse any involvement in the Iraq war, and an open dialogue with Washington in order to relaunch the transatlantic relationship, Schroeder's days in power seem to be nearing an end.

Germany's social system is nowadays widely perceived as unable to cope with the aggressive Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal model. In the post-bipolar geo-economy, statist policies based on public spending and labor market guarantees are often considered impossible to harmonize with companies' needs to compete globally. Moreover, the European Union -- of which Germany is the largest country, and one of its leading states -- has been built upon neo-liberal principles.

However, German wealth and an excellent welfare state are inextricably linked to the twentieth century's German "social market system" -- also known as "Rhine capitalism." Should such a model be dismantled -- in order to increase economic competitiveness -- it is fairly obvious that the social stability largely enjoyed by the country in the last 60 years would be extremely hard to maintain.

This context has witnessed an unexpected rise of the Linksbuendnis. Whereas P.D.S. has always remained strong in the eastern states, the W.A.S.G. has rapidly gained consensus in various states of the country, and not only in the poorer ones in the east. Lafontaine's strategy is to gather the votes of those German citizens who do not believe the welfare state is doomed to fail in the age of globalization. After the E.U.'s single currency introductions, Germany has fallen prey to recession and economic depression. Many Germans no longer believe that the euro -- and the European Union -- are without question in Berlin's interests.

As wages no longer progress like they did in the 1980s, and the E.U. is plagued by inner division and economic crisis, a significant part of the German population is skeptical about the classical Europeanist and moderately liberal policy advocated by both the C.D.U. and the S.P.D. (and their respective allies the Free Democratic Party (F.D.P.) and the Green Party).

Since in 2005 the new W.A.S.G. party rapidly found a strategic agreement with P.D.S. to create the Linksbuendnis, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats realized how dismal their situation looked. Hence, the current juridical issues are regarded by some observers as a C.D.U./S.P.D. maneuver to hamper the Left alliance's rise.

However, the general situation looks unsettled. W.A.S.G.'s leader Klaus Ernst announced on July 20 that his party does not rule out entering a coalition with the Social Democrats and the Greens in order to prevent the formation of a C.D.U.-C.S.U.-led government. Moreover, 39 percent of German citizens would accept a C.D.U./S.P.D. "Grand Coalition," according to a recent poll.

The Bottom Line

It is far from clear whether the Linksbuendnis will be able to compete in every German state. It is certain, though, that its struggle to resolve any juridical issues will be energetic and will have wide popular support. However, any policy designed to resolve the German economic crisis will be very difficult to bring about. The welfare state and the German social model have become a landmark of the German post-Nazi national identity.

However, the fundamental question will be that of the revitalization of the once near-perfect European economy -- either by a neo-liberal turn, or by a difficult (but desired by many) re-launch of a more traditionally German social market and welfare-oriented program.

If elected, expect an Angela Merkel government, presumably allied with the F.D.P., to face steadfast opposition by a revitalized Left opposition, and to struggle with having to make unpopular decisions. Look for new crises to surface in a declining S.P.D., as its Leftist identity shifts toward the Linksbuendnis and its reformist agenda is carried on more decidedly by a conservative rule.

Report Drafted By:
Federico Bordonaro



The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of [e-mail]. All comments should be directed to [e-mail].