September 11, 2001?

Daniel Pipes claims, in his book In the Path of God from 1983 which was republished 2002 after the 9/11 catastrophe, that militant Islam, or fundamentalism, is hopeless which I agree with. He drew the conclusion in 2002 and 1983 that Muslims had to westernize in order to modernize. I guess this is not valid because Asian countries have been modernizing without completely westernizing, keeping a distinct original character. Samuel P Huntington, in his book Clash of Civilizations from 1996, claims that the Western civilization is not universal hinting at the possibility that the Sinic and Muslim civilizations will never merge into the Western.  My analysis of this extremely important issue is that the western culture is the most biological and psychologically most correct one. Other cultures have to use more coercion to get people to thrive. This would be an argument for advocating westernization. Already John Locke, who was trained as a physician, set forward psychologically relevant rules and rights. A major risk is that an Asian country could with harsher, inhumane methods push their people to challenge the West economically. Someone said that an equivalent of the Roman Empire development could take place from this time’s democratic embryo. I don’t believe this will happen though. The West is more significant than Greece was at the time.

Why did the destruction of the 11^th September 2001 take place? Pipes argues that westernization is more problematic for the Muslims than modernization and the Arab Spring that we witness today is probably more a modernization attempt rather than a westernization ditto. Since 1983 the population of Egypt and Iran has doubled, and this madness creates a very large youth unemployment. Most Muslims adhered to traditional Islam where people realized that sharia did not work and had come to a compromise which Pipes calls The Medieval Synthesis, although there has been fundamentalists all the way from the beginning. Pipes argues that from about 1970 oil wealth has made Muslims more fundamentalistic although he says in the foreword of the 2002 edition of his book that the issue is more complicated.

Looking back ten years it has become seemingly conventional wisdom, especially in Europe, that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been completely in vain. I’m not so sure. If the US had not reacted forcefully, terrorism might have been encouraged. Now the swift occupations told governments in the Middle East to prevent terrorism on their soil that might otherwise be dealt with in a similar fashion. Saddam Hussein was also a person that was so disastrous in the region that removing him also set a precedent which Gadhafi now have faced. I therefore do not think the human sacrifice demanded so far have been in vain. What we have learned so far, however, is that being the leader of the free world is making you undeservedly unpopular.

Scholar's ink is holier than martyr's blood!

Already by 1500 more than 1,500 scientific and mathematical articles had appeared in print claims Niall Ferguson in his just released book Civilization: The West and the Rest. The reformation of 1517 fragmented the Church in Europe whereas it was lying like a wet blanket over the Ottoman Empire. Printing books became prohibited by death penalty 1515. Calligraphy of the Quran was more in Ottoman style.

It is not 'comme il faut' to point this out among Western scientists, but Ferguson reminds us that science led to proficiency in war by sharpening the weapon systems in use. He shows a graph where the results in mathematics are compared for countries of the East and the West and notes that the Easterners are beating us in tests distinctly now on the basic school level. However, we don't know if school math tests will translate in superior elite mathematicians. As I pointed out earlier, it is still up to the Chinese to prove that they will achieve the same per capita results in science as the West without freedom of thought.

Interestingly, Ferguson also points out that there is a delay in the effect of superior science by telling the tale about Ottoman siege of Vienna 1683, that could have ended badly, a couple of years ahead of the publication of Isaac Newton's Principia and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, books that cemented the appearance of the United States by inspiring Thomas Jefferson and the Scientific Revolution.

Furthermore, Christians new that separation of Church and State was important as can be seen in the Biblical statement from Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". The Muslims have a problem with this to this date. Political Islam is a problem today in Europe. As I pointed out earlier, Francis Bacon (1561-1626) also quoted the Bible when claiming that Man should subdue Nature at the same time as he advocated for science.

How much of a problem is this today when the West contemplates the problems in North Africa mostly as a threat to their economy by a raised price on crude oil rather than a fight for human rights and political freedom. Well, if we look back on the Iraq war and remember how much bile the US and Britain has had to endure for the liberation of the Iraqis it should be easy to understand this. By staying out of this intervention, France and Germany began a strain on the trans-Atlantic relationship that today is cemented with differences in the economical outlook for the future. Needless to say, it is of great importance to Islamists to rule by dividing the West which Muammar Gaddafi, as Saddam Hussein, knows when he bombs his own oil installation to look for an effect on the price of oil.

Is there a political motive behind building mosques?

The Arab Lobby in America: Alan Dershowitz - The Daily Beast: "The methodology employed by the Arab lobby is thus totally inconsistent with democratic governance, because it does not reflect the will of the people but rather the corruption of the elite, while the Israeli lobby seems to operate within the parameters of democratic processes. Yet so much has been written about the allegedly corrosive nature of the Israeli lobby, while the powerful Arab lobby has widely escaped scrutiny and criticism."

This difference appears to stem from the fact that the Saudis are not popular in the eyes of the public in the US, according to Dershowitz, whereas the Jews and their lobby organization AIPAC are. The Arab lobbies thus target high profile individuals with money rather than affecting public sentiment.

Just as you must ask who funds Wikileaks it is interesting to ask the question who funds the building of mosques in the US and also in Sweden for that matter. Freedom of religion is important but if a religion is spread by injections of unpopular funds it is phenomenologically interesting since it is impossible to build churches in Saudi Arabia. We should of course not be like they are, in the sense of preventing religious freedom, but I must say that I find it irritating. However, the limit for the feeling of security that would allow such "infiltration" is probably reached in at least Europe, where there are more Muslims per capita than in the US, as judging from the current debate and which means there would be a limit to religious freedom in the Western society.

One reason for the discontent with Muslims in both US and Europe can of course simply be that things are not going very well in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The idea was that if you attack us on 'our' soil we would act via prevention on 'your' soil. Since this paradigm did not work as well as expected, the impulse then becomes to remove Muslims from 'our' soil. This impulse would then put pressure on the concept of free religion since Islam became politicized. It becomes an issue between national security and freedom of religion.

Radical Muslims are not significantly more religious than Moderates

Charles Krauthammer makes a reference to a Gallup Poll article where various ideas were analyzed.

Radical Muslims were defined as those: 1) feeling the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were "completely justified"; and 2) having an unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion about the US. 7% of Muslims across ten countries studied were radicals.

However, the poll showed that attendance to religious services did not significantly differ between radicals and moderates. Religion was determined to be equally important in the lives of the two groups.

The radicals were generally more educated and affluent. Thus it is not a question of manipulation of ignorant masses that gives radicalism in this case.

Rather, the radicals felt that they were being dominated by or even occupied by the West. So if Americans feel threatened by radical Muslims these Muslims rather feel oppressed by Americans.

Hostile feelings were not so pronounced towards countries like Germany and France. It is thus more of an anti-Americanism than an anti-West question.

It is, of course, important to note that religiosity itself is not a factor in radicalism when trying to judge the situation at Ground Zero and the possible implication this controversy has for Swedish troops in Afghanistan. West should therefore definitely not be at war with the religion Islam. The problem is rather that people in certain locations, happening to be Muslims, have hostile feelings towards Westerners, particularly Americans.

However, particular groups as the Taliban, who cut noses of girls and stone people to death for trivialities have their own idiosyncrasies and are very sensitive to religious symbolism, like their own vindication for the erection of a mosque close to Ground Zero. The Taliban does not seem to fit the characterization of the radical group in the poll.

The Ground Zero mosque and Afghanistan

Op-Ed Columnist - Islam and the Two Americas - NYTimes.com: "By global standards, Rauf may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they'll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill-served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam."

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the mosque, is un-American in the sense that he speaks against 68% of the Americans who doubt the idea of building a mosque at Ground Zero. Religious freedom dictates that Muslims can build in other places, but not here, and now. Charles Krauthammer writes in The Jerusalem Post that it would be an equivalent of building a Japanese shrine on Pearl Harbor. And this is the problem, the Taliban would celebrate a victory if a mosque materializes in this spot. A definitive sign of weakness in an on-going war with Muslim fundamentalists.

Ross Douthat, the New York Times columnist above writes about two Americas, a constitutional and a cultural, that want a mosque and that are against it, respectively. The US is currently polarized in many fashions, Republicans and Democrats, Tea Partyers and other Republicans, Democrats that go on Chelsea's wedding and those who don't. But I'm not sure that the cultural Americans described are not constitutional? I once wrote in the blog that Obama's popularity abroad, relative George W. Bush, partly stems from a projection of weakness, a young and inexperienced President, and now he reinforces this notion by wavering on the issue. He wants to leave Iraq and Afghanistan with the tail between his legs not after having achieved something.

General David Petraeus have just made the necessary comment that most probably there will not be any large withdrawal of troops in July 2011 as Obama earlier prescribed. When McChrystal left, it was claimed that there was no changes on strategy in Afghanistan. However, the more long term perspective of McChrystal seems to have won out, after all, and this is probably in line with common sense in the region. A longer perspective, at least five years as the ISAF people claimed, would pacify the New York Times editors temporarily. Waging wars with the present media cover seems at times impossible. It is the probable reason for the rise in the so called "Shadow War".

Eurabia?

Blond bombshell Geert Wilders returns to Britain, looking for a fight - Times Online: "On February 20 the Dutch centrist coalition Government collapsed, deeply divided over keeping troops in Afghanistan, paving the way for a general election in June in which the Freedom Party is expected to do extremely well. Polls suggest that the party will triple its tally of seats, becoming at least the second-biggest parliamentary party and quite possibly the overall winner. Mr Wilders is likely to be a key player in any coalition, with a profound impact on the political agenda."

Last time Wilders was not allowed to enter the UK. This time he is back and more popular at home. I must say I have problems with a person that wants to ban the holy book, the Quran, of a world religion. This is not serious. Furthermore he wants to slam head-scarf wearing Muslim women with a €1,000/year tax. "A head-rag tax". Not very serious either.

He is a person that equals Islamofascism with Nazism. That is not so far out, since the Israel prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu compares Ahmadinejad's Iran with the Nazi Germany of the area. Wilders is getting good press in The Jerusalem Post. However, what is such a person capable of executing and with what public support once he would be elected? There is definitely a whiff of future racist persecution over what I just wrote. On top of this we are one minaret ban vote in Switzerland and a call against Switzerland for Jihad from Muammar Gadhafi later at this point.

In other words this looks like a problem that is not going away by itself. What can be done about it? Personally I don't feel threatened by Islam and I am for freedom of religion but I intensely dislike the habit some of Islam's practitioners have to field these death threats. This is fascist methods. And it apparently works on people. There was a recent apology by the journal Politiken in Denmark for the Muhammad cartoons. Many disliked the apology though. I would not have apologized. Freedom of the press is one of the corner stones of our civilization.

Islamic Law for Governance?

Many writers have argued that what happened in Iran cannot be reversed. Amir Taheri suggests the creation of a new imamate.

The fight for Iran’s future is far from over Amir Taheri - Times Online: "The new system that seems to be emerging in Iran appears to be modelled on two Islamic states of recent times."

What is interesting with the article is that Taheri seems to suggest that Iran cannot be ruled only with force of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps military dictatorship. They need further legitimization. They need an ideology as well.

Based on the other Iran that Taheri spoke of last time, I would like to ask if this Iran really buys in on that kind of religious legitimization. That the rurals in Afghanistan on their educational level does might not be that surprising but the other Iran is rather educated. Ahmadinejad's supporters might buy it. Isn't the problem right now that a religious legitimization and a constitution based on sharia does not function for a modern state today? The other Iran demands a government that can bring them out of a global economic crisis.

It would be of considerable interest to discuss the fact that sharia is not suitable for governing a modern European state, based on the failure of the Islamic Republic, since there are more and more demands for the use of sharia instead of the Western Law in for example Great Britain.

There is, of course, democracy advocates in Iran, but how many?

Reuel Marc Gerecht writes an interesting article in The Weekly Standard called The June 12 Revolution. It points out that there was democracy talk of reform during Khatami in the 90s but this talk was suppressed by Rafsanjani and Khamenei.

Gerecht seem to have a grain of optimism regarding a possible opening of Iran's politics in his argumentation if Moussavi wins but I don't get an answer to the question of why Iran only makes business mainly with the SCO and with the Friday prayers sounding fiercely "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" and now recently "Death to UK". Western orientation does seem small and insignificant?

Gerecht writes about "leaving the revolution" whereas I earlier read "restoration of the revolution". That is more like Taheri's becoming a normal country and in-line also with the devout clergy who advocated separation of church and state.

Wikipedia tells me that Khomeni preached that revolt, and especially martyrdom, against injustice and tyranny was part of Shia Islam, and that muslims should reject the influence of both liberal capitalism and communism with the slogan "Neither East, nor West - Islamic Republic!" I might remind of an incident during the Gaza War in January where Khamenei asked for volonteers for suicide bombings in Israel and got 75,000 answers.

In other words they tried Islamic Republic for 30 years but it is not popular anymore, whatever it was politically--obedience to Islamic jurists. Ahmadinejad has by now bungled the economy. Will they now try East or West? Again my bet is they want double digit growth under severe control like in China. President Obama's dialogue would depend on if they want to go global, both East and West.

Europe might have an influence in Iran and could possibly build on the experience from German and Italian exports to the country as Bronwen Maddox discusses in Iran's mullahs cannot afford to ignore EU but it is what Obama says that count. So far there has not been any Death to Germany or Death to Italy. The reason, as I have discussed earlier, might be that Ahmadinejad thinks the German will come out as anti-Semites and join him in the holocaust denial, although recently Gerard Schröder had to remind him that the holocaust is a historic fact.

President Obama did indicate today, depending on the violence in Tehran, that he is about to change strategy on dialogue which might mean that he in principle listens to Gerecht and EU.

Update from Robert Kagan.
Update from iht.com by Philip Bowring. Iran's Chinese lessons.

Theocracy vs. Ideological Military Dictatorship?

Articles & Commentary: "Today, the majority of Iran's grand ayatollahs oppose the concept of theological rule. Not by coincidence, the majority are now in prison or under house arrest."

Shiite Islam is healthier than the theocracy!? I used to think that they have not reached the point where they would separate church and state but that seems to be wrong. However, it seems to be the state that likes it, not the clergy.

The pious workers and rural people that support Ahmadinejad and thus the regime are probably not particularly Western oriented, as would students be. The Chinese apparently helped the regime after the student revolts ten years ago. Opening up Iran probably have to happen via entry of Western businesses that aids Ahmadinejad's supporters. However, it seems like they rather would do business with its SCO partner China.

After this election debacle the Iranian regime will be even more sensitive to influence from the West and it might be very difficult for President Obama to enter into a dialogue with Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. Both Export and Import are the greatest from China and it's only Germany that has export to Iran significantly of the Western nations according to CIA World fact book. Ingvar Kamprad, however, pointed out that he did business behind the iron curtain with IKEA early on.

With Iran's current attitude it really smells a new Cold War situation.

Det globala kriget mot terrorismen?

Det heter numera att kriget mot terrorismen är slut. Den första som jag hörde säga detta var Storbritanniens Utrikesminister David Miliband. President Obama har idag i Turkiet sagt att USA skall försöka se den muslimska världen före al-Qaida.

Frågan är vad man vill kalla aktiviteten i Afghanistan och Pakistan i detta fall? Kriget mot al-Qaida? Eller det lokala kriget mot terrorismen? Terrorister är tydligen det man är orolig för i vart fall.

Det är klart. Det är ett tag sedan den 11e september 2001. Det är därför jag, precis som Obama gjorde med Irakkriget, inte förstår varför man trappar upp striderna i AfPak. Skapar inte närvaron av utländska trupper mer problem än de löser? Jag är inte ensam. Tydligen vill 58% av tyskarna att de skall dra tillbaka sina trupper från Afghanistan enligt en färsk sondering.

Obama säger att man skall närma sig muslimerna som människor först och inte som potentiella terrorister. Jag har föreslagit att man skall ta bort sanktionerna för Iran som ett tecken för just detta men Obama menar idag i stället att Iranierna skall lägga ner sina försök att skaffa kärnvapen, som de säger att de inte håller på med.

Som det ser ut försöker Obama säga en sak men göra en annan. Jag hoppas han lyckas men ärendet riskerar att falla tillbaka där det var utan reella förändringar. Jag tror inte det räcker med att introducera sig som Barack Hussein Obama för att vinna "the hearts and minds" bland muslimerna. Det räcker förmodligen inte med att bara tala med Iran som Bush-administrationen påpekade.

En del hävdar att man inte är för frihet, tolerans och demokrati om man försöker skapa diplomatiska förbindelser med t.ex. Iran. Jag håller dock inte nödvändigtvis med eftersom man om det lyckas kan skapa en förändring i Mellanöstern som skapar bättre förutsättningar för friheten. Situationen med Iran är dock väldigt spänd och kanske inte går att relaxera i nuläget.

Demokratin här och där

6:e december numret av The Economist innehöll en informativ artikel om muslimer i Europa kallad "When Townhalls turn to Mecca". Artikeln innehöll en intressant tabell:

Det handlar om hur många muslimer som finns i bebyggda trakter i Europa.

Amsterdam, 24%, 180000inv
Bradford, 16%, 75000inv
Birmingham, 14.3%, 143000inv
Regionen Bryssel, 17%, 160000inv
Île de France (Paris), 10-15%, upp till 1.7m inv
Stor London, 8.5%, 625000inv
Marseille, 20%, 350000inv
Rotterdam, 13%, 80000inv
Wien, 8%, 120000inv

Detta är stora procenttal men om man får tro artikeln så fungerar detta bra i Europa för tillfället. I många städer är alltså var femte person muslim. I Sverige totalt sett finns där väl ungefär 400000 muslimer vilket blir c:a 4-5%.

Om man till detta lägger en analys från FT.com kallad "Forgotten flowering" där man hävdar att den politiska Islam är på tillbakagång i Mellan Östern, kan man undra varför muslimer inte skjuter raketer i Europa? Orsaken är att dess framväxt via demokratin har förhindrats effektivt av sittande regimer efter missödet med Hamas 2006.

Demokratin har med andra ord tagit ett steg tillbaka samtidigt som den politiska Islam minskat sitt inflytande. Vän av demokrati men mer missnöjd med politisk Islam, och sharia, står det still.

Ett framtida starkare Mellan Östern enligt denna princip kan ju dock komma att kunna påverka "Eurabia" negativt i framtiden? Frågan om att kunna integrera muslimer bättre och att Svensk Lag bör gälla för alla har blivit viktigare. Detta diskuterades ju i Svensk press härom veckan i form av ett kontrakt för invandrare. Det är också viktigt att "decentraliserade nätverk" föregår med gott exempel.

Vill man vara försiktig kan det föreslagna kontraktet kunna gälla just lagfrågan, Svensk Lag före sharia. Problemet blir då att en person i sharia behöver inte bry sig om Svensk Lag och dess kontrakt. Jag var negativ till ett kontrakt av denna orsak. Detta med ett immigrationskontrakt diskuterades i EU under 2006. Man sade ingenting om detta under vår diskussion i November, underligt nog.

Feghet eller Respekt

Filmen Fitna illustrerar två pågående konflikter. En i Västvärlden och en i Mellan Östern.

I Västvärlden integreras de muslimska invandrarna. Ibland till ganska gälla toner som under kravallerna med bilbränder i Frankrike nyligen.

I Mellan Östern bekämpas muslimska terrorister och terrororganisationer mer eller mindre direkt.

När Fitna visas och många ser den i Väst inger detta respekt hos terroristerna. Omvänt kan respekt till immigranter och muslimska minoriteter tolkas som feghet.

Det vore bra om svenska medier inser vikten av att man på samma gång kan få immigranter att tolerera samma kritik som t.ex. de kristna kan utstå samtidigt som man då visar moralisk styrka gentemot terroristerna i Mellan Östern.

Fitna poängterar att vi står inför uppgiften att besegra islamofascismen precis som vi en gång besegrade kommunismen och nazismen.

Det gäller att finna mod till att besegra rädslan och uppvisa en nolltolerans mot dödshot.

Fitna--filmen

Såg Geert Wilders film Fitna från Dick Erixons hemsida.

För information om filmen se Wikipedia.

Det är starka bilder som ger klara associationer. Jag tänkte ungefär så här:

Under förintelsen dödades ungefär 6m judar. Israel har ungefär 6m innevånare idag.

Vad hade hänt om Saddam Hussein hade varit kvar vid makten?

Det är skönt att veta att en intervention i regionen ägde rum och att den för närvarande är ganska stabil.

Filmen representerar ett viktigt argument som bör beaktas.

Vad är en skolavslutning för något?

När eleverna samlas på en skolavslutning är syftet en allvarsstund med siktet mot framtiden där vad de lärt sig skall tjäna som bas för nästa steg i livet.

Biskop Antje Jackelén säger i Sydsvenskan att "Förmedlingen av en kulturell och religiös tradition är faktiskt en del av en kulturell bildning".

Skolavslutningen är en del av traditionen. En seans där stundens allvar skall betraktas--ett minne för livet.

Vad finns det då för lokaler där man mest effektivt kan få fram den stämning och allvarskänsla som behövs? Alla som suttit i en kyrka eller katedral vet att av någon anledning infinner sig sådana känslor vid dylika tillfällen.

De känslorna är viktiga och del i det kulturella arvet. Vår civilisation står på en grund av kristendomen.

Opportunistiska ateistiska krafter försöker nu "ta den ene och slå den andre med" genom att hävda att ett muslimskt barn inte kan tvingas delta i en skolavslutning där man använder en kristen lokal.

Detta är svårförståeligt eftersom ett muslimskt barn lärt sig i skolan att den västerländska civilisationens tradition är kristen och att den också tillåter det muslimska barnet att fritt utöva sin religion. En sådan tradition är naturligtvis värd att vörda även för ett muslimskt barn.

Politik och religion

Det knorras i Europa om den islamska närvaron och man fruktar minareter. Den amerikanska högern är tydligen inte ensam. Se tidigare inlägg.

Det är det största partiet i Schweiz, SVP, som samlar in de nödvändiga 100,000 namnunderskrifterna för att kunna förbjuda byggandet av minareter.

Minareten finns inte i koranen, tydligen, utan står som en symbol för det politiska islam, en plats där sharia gäller. Fundamentalistiska muslimer lever kanske enligt sharia.

Religionsfrihet betyder ju inte att ett separat politskt system gäller. Vatikanen har ju ingen makt inom katolicismen längre.

Man frågar sig om moskéer utan minareter är comme-il-faut?

Anti-amerikanismen föder anti-europeanismen

Våld föder våld. The Economist, sidan 56, 28 april, 2007 har en artikel som diskuterar hur elaka tungor i USA reagerar mot anti-amerikanismen i Europa. Man anför tre huvudproblem: 1) Europa begår ett demografiskt och ekonomiskt självmord. Återväxten är för låg. Det föds bara c:a 1.5 barn per två individer mot c:a 2.3 i USA. Ekonomin är dessutom för hårt reglerad och nedtyngd av sociala beting; 2) Till skillnad från Amerika är Europa ett samhälle som lämnat kristendomen bakom sig; och 3) Muslimerna ersätter det demografiska och spirituella tomrummet. Det finns dem som påstår att det muslimska hotet mot Europa är lika illavarslande som det nazistiska hotet var på 1940talet. Att visa en alienation mot Europa är något som hör till den Amerikanska högern så det är kanske inte så allvarligt eftersom högern för närvarande inte är på frammarsch. Man kan oclså fråga sig om Europas tomma kyrkor verkligen betyder att europeerna har övergivit sin tro. 75% av europeerna hävdar att de är kristna och europeiska sociologer talar om att tro utan att vara associerad med en kyrka. Dessutom representerar muslimerna bara 4% av populationen och är sinsemellan splittrade. Trots detta är anti-Europeanismen inte obetydelsefull. I och med att det kalla kriget tog slut så försvann detta argument för sammanhållningen. Iraq-kriget gjorde att Tyskland och Frankrike alienerades med USA och Storbritannien. Anti-Europeerna skriver ocskå böcker med titlar som "America Alone", "Our Oldest Enemy", "While Europe Slept" and "The West's Last Chance". Nu är det väl ändå så att majoriteten ser värdet av att samarbeta över Atlanten. Detta samarbete har ju varit fundamentet för världsfreden sedan 1945. Jag hoppas därför att man fortsätter att förstå att det är fler saker som förenar än som skiljer de två parterna åt. Nicolas Sarkozy, den nye Franske presidenten är ett steg i rätt riktning.