How much protection for intolerant communities? The to be protected right of an intolerant religion for acceptance. Who is left to lead? Words in response to bullets mean more bullets. Console the poor or improve their lot?
 
1. Turkey’s ruling “moderate” Islamists have found a catching contention. It bolsters the case for their country’s acceptance by the EU. The line is that, a rejection will push them into the arms of Islamist global Muslim irredentism –where they seem to feel rather well. Concurrently, for local consumption, the membership is sold as a way to gain influence in the EU and to accommodate the Muslim point of view. The contradictions are more than a problem of logic. They mark the rocks upon which the good ship Europe might have its hull ripped.

<!---->

A freedom Muslims enjoy in foreign democracies is one they lack at home. Admittedly, to them the gap between the advantage and the disadvantage does not seem to be significant. If challenged they claim not to miss at home what they get abroad. Just in case, you did not guess it: Freedom of religion for all is meant. Some Muslim demands are put forward “abroad” by reminding the hosts of their principle of religious freedom. This is alleged in practice to include the rights of those that, as a matter of principle, do not recognize the right of other persuasions. Giving in to that implies that, the hosting community is to commit treason against its own ideas of tolerance for all in an order of freedom.

2. In Pakistan, a Christian woman has been sentenced to death for blasphemy. The calamity began when she was ordered to bring drinking water to her fellow workers. These refused to drink it because through her the dew became unclean. A tumult resulted. Once jailed, the mob that wanted to lynch her came up with the blasphemy charge. Reacting to the crime claimed by a mob, the court pronounced its sentence.

Not being a Christian or a member of an established religion in the West is not regarded as blasphemy. Thanks to the separation of Church and State, blasphemy or apostasy are not legally actionable. Even so, the scaring cases of persecution with the means of the state acting in behalf of a religion should make us think. Obviously, religious freedom is interpreted in Muslim countries as a right to assert the demands of the official religion. These can include acting against other, by definition deviant, religious communities.

A problem results from this attitude. It involves countries that are by all criteria not part of the Muslim world and which, therefore, grant the freedom of not only a religion but also of all persuasions. This general standard demands a response to a question of applied principle. Is religious freedom to be guaranteed to faiths that, in the name of this freedom, assert their right to pressure and persecute other religious communities?

3. Crises such as the ongoing Korean and Iranian ones raise a question. Is there anybody left or emerging, to lead the West/democracies now that Obama is fading? A problem inherent in our dilemma might be that such a leader should preferably be an American. Only an American has a direct access to the kind of existing national means that are pre-conditions of effective global action. Even the West’s enemies and her potential foes, suffer from a comparable problem. Alone, these lack quantitatively and qualitatively the means and the global projectability of these that the USA possesses. The democracies, notably Europe, does not have the will to be the power its size and wealth would enable them to yield. Meanwhile, the US is led to self-paralysis through posture-directed pseudo-actions whose emasculating effect is not sufficiently noticed by her electorate.

4. “China consistently supports the dialogue between the North and the South… to improve their relations.” In some ways, this official statement of Peking regarding Korea is even true. However, the implicitly accepted rule of the game, the way China referees it, devalues the service. The practice demonstrates that under the PRC’s casting, it is the Communists who are to do the shooting. The way the game is played, Seoul role is limited to do the talking. For the privilege of that, South Korea is to show gratitude to China and send supplies to Pyongyang for the pleasure of the “negotiation”. What is verbally China’s mediation is in practice the defense of the Kim Family Firm’s aggression. Anything reminiscent of evenhandedness only comes up when Peking equates aggression with the contemplated response of the provoked. In doing so, China does more than to weaken the Americans and their Korean “puppets”. By habitually protecting the North, a signal is sent that the régime there is apt to misinterpret. We enter the danger zone when Pyongyang is led to believe that Peking’s support is unconditional. Once this is the case, China’s course in confronting Korea, Japan and the USA will be dictated by North Korea.

Sounds farfetched? It is not. In 1914, it was tiny Serbia that had the ability to create a local crisis in which Russia, her protector, had to become involved against other Great Powers. Words in response to bullets reduce the risks for the shooter. The result is not more understanding, convergence and “peace” but more shooting.

5. South Korea’s counter measures, such as joint maneuvers with US forces, to warn Baby Kim, has moved China to take a bold stand. Peking called on all parties to use restraint. In this case, restraint is a code word directed at Seoul. The rough translation: submit and atone for having provoked aggression. It also indicates that the best the victim can hope for is a bit of time to submit to the more aggressive and stubbornly unreasonable party. China regards both contenders as equally responsible. The North might have been aggressive but obviously, the South must have provoked that. Otherwise, nothing would have happened. With China’s protection for one of the world’s most despicable dictatorships, Kim can feel safe and covered as he plans new atrocities.

6. You can push the response to whatever is unpleasant into the future. Just pretend the problem does not exist. In this case, you can be assured that the future will be upon you well before anticipated and with unexpected ferocity.

7. When discussing the Kim Family’s business model, which is hereditary monarchy, through an association Chavez, comes to mind. The Venezuelan does not tire to reiterate (repetition leads to acceptance taught Göbbels) that he cares for the poor. On one level, this is true. Chavez cares for the poor by improving life in poverty. Part of the package has a psychological component. At whatever level one is poor, seeing that others do better makes the burden harder to bear. So the system makes life harder for the better off.  At the cost of the viability of the economy, thought the restrictions placed upon them, the enterprising are made poorer. However, Chavez’ approach does not aid the poor by overcoming poverty and by elevating those mired in it. As a strategy that spreads poverty to swallow more people might bring some consolation. However, this is not a measure that can lead to general prosperity.

Actually, the Chavez system is a beneficiary of poverty and its dissatisfactions, and of the envy that can be cooked into a brew in the catalyst of blinded nationalism. The destitute are mobilizable political putty. Due to their misery, this is accomplished cheaply at the expense of minimal handouts. This makes the poor into a reliable supporters of their feeding hand and thus they act as a reserve army of radical collectivism. As long as Chavez is around poverty will also stay. A consequence will be that the gap between Venezuela and the leading economies will grow, quite regardless of oil wealth - as long as that lasts.