Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘George Friedman

Euro-American Immigration Crisis? Different in nature?

On Sept. 4, Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) (Merkel’s party) was defeated in its race to control the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania state government.

The CDU finished third, after the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party, which came in second. This defeat is significant because this was the home region for Angela Merkel, who has been German chancellor for over a decade.

Last week, Donald Trump met with the Mexican president and, upon his return to the U.S., delivered a major address on immigration.

Also, the Hungarian and Serbian prime ministers met this week and warned of increasing migration into Europe, discussing plans to stem the tide.

Merkel’s party’s defeat in her home region comes exactly a year after Hungary, overwhelmed by the inflow of migrants from Syria, tried to block their movement, and Merkel redefined European policy on immigration by opening German borders to all refugees.

The election result shows not only the political unpopularity of her move in Germany.

It also drives home that the reaction against immigration in both Europe and the United States is not dying down.

It has not yet reached a point where anti-immigration sentiment is taking widespread political control in most countries involved. But it has become a transnational movement that cannot be ignored and is not going away.

Dominant mainstream parties’ first strategy to marginalize anti-immigration elements was to identify them as racists.

The assumption was that if anti-immigrant forces were equivalent to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, those who saw themselves as mainstream would shun the anti-immigrant movement. The strategy had little effect.

The anti-immigration sentiment was sufficiently strong and widespread that the charge of racism did not deter it. The movement was large enough that it could not be marginalized by the label.

I would argue that the label had, to some extent, an effect opposite to that which was desired. The anti-immigration faction would not shift and took the position that if that meant they were racists, well and good.

For those opposed to immigration, the charge tended to legitimize racism, rather than marginalize the anti-immigrant movement. The mainstream parties had lost the power to define the mainstream.

Where do you stand on immigration?

There are obvious reasons for the hostility to immigration.

One is economic.

Since 2008, the European economic system has at different times deteriorated or stagnated. In the United States, the economy has stopped growing rapidly.

Throughout Europe and the U.S., life has become more difficult, particularly for those earning the median income.

These segments of society especially feared the impact of large numbers of immigrants on wages and unemployment. Those political parties on the left that had historically supported the interests of the lower half of society were the most vociferous opponents of the anti-immigrant sentiment.

That lower-income half of society was left with no representation.

Therefore, the door opened to the emergence of parties that were opposed to immigration. They merged this position with hostility to the mainstream parties that many in the lower half felt had abandoned them.

The issue of immigration became entangled with terrorism and crime.

There is a war underway, and on occasion radical Islamists launch attacks in Europe. Large waves of migrants likely include at least a handful of jihadists, and a handful is enough to launch a terrorist attack.

The fear in countries like France was palpable, and leaders like French President François Hollande announced that there was a war.

Large-scale migration, which provided cover for terrorists, seemed to make no sense. The sense of embattlement forced the mainstream to take anti-immigrant sentiment much more seriously, further opening the door for anti-immigrant parties.

In the United States, the fear of immigrant criminality is not frivolous.

Throughout the United States’ history, immigrants such as the Scotch-Irish, the Catholic Irish, the Italians, the Jews and so on contained significant criminal elements. As these groups settled in the U.S., elements of the first and second generation peeled off into criminality.

I have no doubt that their grandchildren are on the boards of hospitals and museums.

But Mexican migration is no different from other migration and it brings with it street crime and, similar to Italian migration, organized crime stretching to the home country. This builds wariness, if not ostracism, from earlier generations of immigrants.

I grew up in the Bronx. Running numbers, dealing dope and shaking down store owners was part of life for some first-generation immigrants.

Most of us kept our heads down and looked forward to when we could leave the old neighborhood, which for some bizarre reason I am now sentimental toward.

I knew the Jews who ran the gambling, hired Irish muscle and paid Italians for protection.

And when the Puerto Ricans moved in, they took over the gambling, and the Jews, Irish and Italians moved to the suburbs.

Ninety-nine percent of the Puerto Ricans were like our parents, busting their chops to make a living and sending us to school. But it was the 1 percent that scared us, and anyone not afraid was not in touch with reality.

There was a phrase used back then: limousine liberals. They were people who went to Groton and Yale and came back to lecture us on how we should embrace each other.

They hadn’t a clue about what went on in the streets and we were pretty sure they didn’t care. They weren’t talking to us.

They were talking about us, trying to demonstrate our ignorant fear, and how they hoped to make us better people. God knows they weren’t going to tangle with the guys with knives and guns.

I don’t live in an area with a large contingent of Mexican immigrants. But I am sure that 99 percent of them just want to get out of those neighborhoods and have their kids become doctors or accountants.

I also know that the 1 percent of punks and gangsters are no joke and if I had no education and no job I’d be living among them. And I know I would be afraid, as those who lived in the Bronx before the Jews, Irish and Italians settled there were afraid of them.

In the end, I would like to think that those of us who survived came out better citizens, as will happen to Mexican immigrants. But let’s not kid ourselves. Being a stranger in a strange land is a dangerous thing all around.

It is not this process that alienates those in the bottom half of society from those way above them. It is the dishonesty or the ignorance that tells us there is nothing to be afraid of and we should be ashamed of being afraid.

This has opened the door to Donald Trump and the European right. When Trump talks about Mexican rapists and killers, he is speaking about a small handful of Mexicans.

From the point of view of those who went to Groton and Yale, that is very few and not worth talking about. For those who walk the streets with them, it is that tiny handful that terrifies. And when the mainstream parties dismiss their fear, they make the anti-immigration movement stronger.

I am pro-immigration. I have to be. I was born in Hungary. I went through the grinder of assimilation, the fear of violence and the contempt of the better born.

I also know from American history that the country I live in could not have been built without immigrants.

Where would we be had the English not migrated here? And I know that Europe’s population numbers are falling and that they need workers and many of the available workers will be Muslim.

But the advocates of immigration should not make it sound so easy. Many of them do not live in the neighborhoods where immigrants sort themselves out.

They don’t apply for jobs where the willingness to work for a few cents less an hour means the difference between working and telling your kids you didn’t get the job.

It is not that immigration isn’t necessary, but the pious advocates for immigration don’t live in the meat grinder where the old poor and the newly arrived poor meet.

There is finally the question of assimilation.

I don’t think it ever occurred to me that I could choose to Not learn English or look like other Americans. I knew in my bones that my only road out of the old neighborhood was to transform myself into an American.

Why else would my parents have brought me here? I was bilingual and still am. But I spoke Hungarian only at home and English at school.

I knew a secret that seems to have been forgotten today. At home, there is one culture. Outside, there is another. The latter is the culture of those who could throw a curveball, live in the apartments on Central Park South and give their kids what I didn’t have.

They were decent people, they invited me in to play. But it was their bat, their ball and their rules. Now, they are mine.

In Europe, it is harder to get into their game and that is what makes Europe different from the U.S.

In the United States, the meat grinder grinds fine, but there is an exit if you can find it. In Europe, I’m not sure whether you can ever get out of the meat grinder.

I became an American by playing by American rules. I’m not sure there is such a path in Europe.

But I know this about both places. Immigration is tough and it is dangerous both to the immigrants and those who welcome them.

Immigration is necessary, but it carries a price for all sides. Until the real story of immigration is told, the anti-immigration parties will rise and the center will become harder to believe or respect.

Note 1: The flux of immigrants and migratory workers to colonial Europe received a strong boost from enterprises after WWII. Business needed cheaper workforces from North Africa, the Sub-Sahara, Turkey…

Did the former colonial powers managed to swallow and overcome their sense of humiliation after being defeated in war? Did they treated the new comers with a decent level of dignity?

During the economic booms, these immigrants/autichtone probably obtained higher levels of life security than back home: better pay, health care, schooling…

Did integration stopped here? Do these autochtone of different colors, race…have to return back home, reverse migration, after decades of settling in the new nation, simply because the economy  is bad?

Or to cajole these far-right parties who claim losing their existential character?

And if the Jews in Israel are forced to return to their country of origins, simply because we believe their colonial behaviour is trampling on our existential characters?

US moving nuclear missiles from Turkey to Romania?

Aug. 19, 2016 A recent report that the U.S. moved nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania bears the hallmarks of disinformation.

By George Friedman

An article appeared on yesterday, claiming that the United States was moving nuclear weapons it had stored in Turkey to Romania.

The report cited two anonymous sources. The story obviously had significance. It indicated that the breakdown in U.S.-Turkish relations had reached a new level.

It indicated that the Romanian and U.S. governments were colluding to take highly significant actions without informing the Romanian public.

It also indicated that there had been a massive breakdown in U.S. security, because the location of nuclear weapons should be the most secure secret.

Were classified government secrets leaked, or was this a case of spreading false information?

In today’s Reality Check, chairman George Friedman examines the validity of a recent significant report on U.S. nukes.

(I lean toward believing the report: There are no secrets any more when the US army default on auditing its $trillion mishandling and mismanagement)

If true, it was a major story. Clearly, by journalistic standards, it was well beyond the threshold required for publication. There were two sources, who I will assume were seemingly good sources.

They obviously required anonymity, because to tell this they had to be breaking someone’s rules on secrecy. And the story was obviously important to the European public who the journalists serve.

The problem with the story, to begin with, is that it assumes both sources had access to the deepest secrets of the United States and were prepared to provide EurActiv with this secret. (Can’t see this problem)

The location of U.S. nuclear weapons is extremely classified for a simple reason. If any enemies knew the location of the nuclear weapons, they could destroy them with conventional weapons. (Doubtful reasoning: The US is the main source and cause in all its pre-emptive wars)

If the U.S. is moving these weapons, secrecy is necessary to protect against terrorists stealing them. (As if Romania is safer than Turkey?)

The United States therefore holds location and movement information very tightly. (Ground breaking piece of intelligence)

Sometimes, I would suspect, they give false information on location so that any accurate leak would be mixed in with false ones. I don’t know this, but that’s what I would do if I were the U.S. government. (You are wiser than all of the US government: So, most probably, there are no false information in that regard)

There is a great deal to be found on the internet about locations. And then there is pure guesswork, starting with the obvious (there are nuclear weapons stored at U.S. nuclear submarine bases) and ranging to what might be called “cafeteria gossip.”

U.S. bases have cafeterias where people will meet and gossip, overwhelmingly over things they know little about, or about their pay or upcoming leave or something of this nature.

That cafeteria gossip makes its way to Washington, to reporters and think tanks, and is reported. (Inclined to trust the cafeteria gossip over any formal or informal government disclosures)

Since I have no way of knowing what’s true, I can’t judge what is false, but as a citizen I would be appalled by the implied security breach if what I heard from cafeteria gossip in Washington were accurate.

It is altogether possible that the United States had tactical nuclear weapons in Turkey, although I’m not sure what we would do with them.

Sometimes they are a symbol of mutual trust between two nations. Putting them at Incirlik air base would be quite a sign of trust, since it is under Turkish command.

I could understand the basing more clearly than I could understand the mission.

Nuking the Islamic State is not practical. You do not destroy a light infantry force with nukes, especially when you don’t know which way the wind blows. And you do not hit the Russians with nukes, as they will hit back. But still, Turkey and the U.S. have been allied for a long time, so maybe they had nukes there.

Now the U.S.-Turkish relationship has deteriorated.

The Turks want Fethullah Gülen extradited from the United States. The U.S. wants the Turks to help out with IS. But for all the hollering, neither side has truly broken the relationship.

The U.S. does not want to lose its relationship and Turkey has gone to the line, but not over it. And we should all remember how the Turks turned on the Russians and then made up with them.

Turkish foreign policy is, shall we say, dynamic. If there are nukes in Turkey, pulling them out right now might not be the ideal signal. The U.S. is trying to move calmly through the storm and Vice President Joe Biden is going to Turkey next week. (When Biden gets on the move it is damned serious)

As for moving nukes to Romania, there is again the nasty question of what use they could serve. The United States is not going into a nuclear exchange with Russia, no matter what happens in Ukraine.

I assume that U.S. nuclear weapons require secure storage that allows for maintenance and servicing. That would probably take a while to construct. And then there would have to be a base security comparable to Incirlik.

I don’t know the security levels at Romanian bases, but the U.S. is extreme on this subject. (Dream on)

Plus, the last thing the U.S. wants is a political upheaval in Romania over weapons that fit only into fantasy scenarios. Romania fits into real world issues. You don’t upset real world interests for fantasy modeling. The United States needs Romania as an ally, not as a nuclear base.

Given all this, I strongly doubt that this is a valid story, although I understand why it was published.

However, from the standpoint of intelligence analysis and geopolitics it doesn’t stand up. Had there been a massive leak, it would have been followed by arrests. I doubt we will see any arrests. (The government will Not let you see)

I doubt that two people with security clearances high enough to know nuclear weapon movements would separately give the media this information. One perhaps, but two simultaneously, facing 30 years in prison at Leavenworth, is unlikely.

When we step back, neither the United States nor Turkey would be particularly embarrassed – beyond the fact of a leak from the U.S. Department of Defense.

The country that would be most affected by this is Romania.

Its citizens are somewhat ambivalent on the relationship with the United States. Many would be appalled at the thought of Romania becoming a nuclear target. And they would respond by attacking Romania’s pro-American government for putting them in secret danger. And of course the United States would come under attack.

It took two sources to get the story published. The question then is, who would go to the trouble to set it up? The main beneficiary would be Russia. (Why Not China?)

Russia dislikes the U.S.-Romanian relationship intensely and also hopes to alienate Turkey from the United States. Who else loves to kick off hunts for leaks in Pentagon? Do I know it was the Russians? No.

I don’t even have one source. But that’s why I am in favor of intelligence as a methodology. It allows me to identify likely answers in a world where sources are by definition unreliable, but logical analysis can clarify.

Russia practices disinformation, as does the United States and most countries. It is the common currency of humanity. At it is most effective because invisible.

At other times it can only be sensed. But it is always there. In this case, neither of the two sources had to be working for the Russians. There are probably many degrees of separation between Russia and the sources. It would be impossible to trace the information back.

This is not a big story. But I write about it to remind people of journalism’s vulnerability to disinformation.

At least some of what you read about a company’s new product is planted there by the public relations department, and disinformation is just the PR of the nation-state.

Sometimes, as in the fall of the Soviet Union, there was no source who knew the story. Sometimes 10 sources are all wrong or lying. In the case of this story, it runs into the problem of compounded unlikelihood.

For it to be true, a lot of common sense has to be false. Can happen. Doesn’t often.




August 2022

Blog Stats

  • 1,499,597 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 820 other followers
%d bloggers like this: