Written on 04 May 2015.

   Human beings are a species to be found in all save the most uninhabitable corners of the world. Several hundred thousand years ago, homo sapiens had left its origins in Africa to discover and populate foreign lands in Asia, Oceania and Europe. Ever since, humans have restlessly moved around the globe, exploring even the remotest places. Perhaps homo sapiens should more aptly be called homo peregrinus.

   Boston 1847: They crawled out of the ship's hull, unable to walk, more dead than alive, victims of the Great Potato Famine. People on the quay gave them water and food, and some offered to host them in the basements of their homes. But others treated them badly, spitting on those destitute and smelly refugees, many of them only speaking a weird language, Gaelic.

   The descendants of these Irish immigrants include some of the most famous Americans from John F. Kennedy to Henry Ford and Walt Disney.

Homo peregrinus

   Prehistory was characterized by numerous waves of human migrations, from Africa to Spitsbergen and Easter Island, from the Bering Strait to Tierra del Fuego. History's first mass movement was prompted by the rise of the Roman Empire, first by military expansion, secondly by people from the periphery moving toward the centers of the empire and, in the end, occupying them.

The impact of this massive immigration can be observed by looking at the effigies of the emperors themselves. Among them were a Syrian, a Spaniard, a Numidian and an Arab. Not to speak of the later Germanic and Greek emperors.

   Historic migrations heavily changed the composition of populations. In the Middle Ages, Greece was invaded by Romanians and Albanians to the extent that the modern Greek word for peasant is "vlachos", the Walachian.  At a global level the heaviest change came during the age of colonization which saw Europeans settle and occupy North and South America, Australia, New Zealand and Siberia.  Slavery and indentured labor shifted millions from L'île de Gorée to Callao, from Cochin to Trinidad.

   In historical analogy, if the age of colonization corresponded roughly to the period of military expansion of the Roman empire, we are now experiencing the second part, i.e. the movement of people from the periphery to the centers.  Like Rome and Constantinople attracted Gauls and Britons, Persians and Syrians, North America, Europe and Australia are now the centers of attraction in a Europeanized world. All high-income countries are now absorbing immigrants with the exception of Japan which fiercely maintains its insular population, although it is aging and shrinking.

  Economic globalization is currently a fashionable topic. Less attention is devoted to its corollary, the human globalization. The expatriate worker, diplomat, student or pensioner is an icon of the modern world, as is the refugee drowning in the Mediterranean or in the Rio Grande.  No German dentist can hope to get rich without a certificate from an American university.  Indian pharmacists, Iraqi hairdressers, Moroccan pickpockets, Ethiopian runners, Syrian snipers, Persian rug dealers are as well known as Korean scientists, Indian philosophers and Latin American poets. In a shrinking world, more people are moving, and they move faster than ever.

   They change the demographics. Some Eastern European countries experience shrinking populations because so many working age people have moved to prosperous western Europe.  Western European populations are stabilized by immigration as happened in Rome during the last centuries of the empire.

Mass immigration

   Immigrants are always greeted with ambivalent and often hostile feelings.  Rarely, invaders are offered friendship as happened to the Britons in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1610, when a girl nicknamed Pocahontas convinced her father, Paramount Chief Powhatan, to save the settlers from poor harvest failure, lack of farming skills and famine. The policies of all immigration countries (except Israel and perhaps Canada) are models of ambivalence. 

   The United States is proud to continue being an immigration country with a quickly growing population. Yet, many European Americans (aka Caucasians) and to some extent also African Americans fear the approaching year 2040 when the so-called minorities will become the majority, and in a range of Southern states Spanish will later become the prevailing native language.

   This ambivalence causes a highly emotional and unstable immigration policy of stop and go style. However, no matter which policies are pursued in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California, migrants always find ways of getting in. Every loophole is quickly discovered. When President Barack Obama (himself a result of immigration) decided not to return unaccompanied minors, some 60,000 single children and teens streamed across the border in 2014 to the despair of overwhelmed border county officials and citizens. Republicans are furious. Presidential hopeful Marco Rubio said: "There is no right to illegally immigrate anywhere in the world.”

   Australia currently refuses to admit any boat people to the mainland. They are processed on islands such as Christmas Island and Nauru and either returned or kept forever on the islands.

    According to urban anthropologist and ethologist Frank Salter, immigration is creating "ethnic stratification" in Australian society. Salter asserts: "Aboriginal Australians remain an economic underclass and some immigrant communities show high levels of unemployment. Anglo Australians, still almost 70 percent of the population, are presently being displaced disproportionately in the professions and in senior managerial positions by Asian immigrants and their children. The situation is dramatic at selective schools which are the high road to university and the professions". (Wikipedia)

The European quandary

   Europe is torn between the desire to treat illegal immigrants in a decent and human way, and the wish to keep them out.  Some countries accept large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers, especially Sweden and Germany, whereas others, such as Croatia, Czech Republic and Romania flatly refuse to accept any refugees. Poland, Slovakia and Hungary would reluctantly admit refugees on a case by case basis.

   Since it is impossible to find a common denominator for a European immigration policy, individual countries are pursuing their national interests which, in most cases, mean that governments are obeying to the xenophobic instincts of their electorate, regardless of the suffering of the (non-voting) illegals.

   Although this policy can prove quite successful in island countries, as exemplified by Japan and Australia -- it will be difficult to pursue elsewhere, especially in Europe with its thousands of miles of land and sea borders.

   Demographically speaking, Europe resembles a village which on two sides is overshadowed by high-risers and skyscrapers. The village consists of small houses, the largest one counting a mere 82 million people. The high-risers bordering Europe in the South and Southeast are still growing: Turkey is approaching 100 million inhabitants, Egypt is moving fast toward 120 million, Iran toward 100 million, the Maghreb countries approaching another 120 million. And behind them in the second row of buildings skyscrapers are shooting up: Sub-Saharan Africa is multiplying toward 2 billion in 2050, the Indian subcontinent to 2.3 billion, according to the latest United Nations projections..

   From the roofs of these teeming high risers and skyscrapers people are looking down on Europe. What they are seeing appears like paradise to them. Peaceful countries with green fields and forests, plenty of water, well kept towns and cities, shopping malls, paved roads and bullet trains, a sweet Disneyland populated by a mere half billion well fed people who do not want to accommodate another few hundred million willing to take the plane, jump the fence or swim to Europe's shores.

   Let us not fool ourselves: Europe's basic instinct is to build dykes against the rising human flood while commiserating with the suffering these dykes cause. Crocodile's tears. For demographic reasons alone -- excluding wars, oppression and crises of all kinds -- the human flood will continue to rise, year after year. Europe will most probably spend more and more millions to raise the dykes, build fences and send its navies to deter and discourage boat people.

But due to its long and porous borders, more and more immigrants will succeed getting in, legally or clandestinely. In the long run, Europe's immigration policy, no matter how it is defined, will fail. The children and grandchildren of the immigrants, being born Europeans, will exert political pressure on governments to accept more Arabs, more Africans, more Asians.

   Europe will begin to resemble the USA of today. Half or more of the leading university scientists will be foreign born. Outside big cities most physicians and hospital staff will be Asians or Latinos. Every major city will have quarters for Arabs, Turks, sub-Saharan Africans and Latinos, perhaps even a small Chinatown. Social disparities will increase. The poorest decile of the population will swell with wetbacks, illegals who just made it across the Mediterranean or scaled the fences.

Pioneer Turkey

   Turkey shows what happens if refugees are not allowed to seek work and receive no support from the government: hundreds of thousands of Syrians are currently reduced to begging and camping in abandoned houses or under bridges, especially in the cities. Some are surviving on petty crime, prostitution, underpaid illegal work and boardwalk trade. Almost 300,000 Syrian children cannot attend school for lack of money; parents prefer them to work.

   Understandably, the local population is less than happy. Turkey currently hosts the largest refugee population worldwide, 2 million Syrians. In cities close to the border the number of divorces has increased because married men had unregistered marriages with Syrian women. Local people fear terrorist attacks because of reduced security.

   Many of the refugees do not plan to return to Syria for which they see no rebuilding and no future without repression either by President Assad or by religious fanatics. Although Turkey accepted the refugees under the assumption that they were victims of the common enemy Bashar al-Assad, and because they are Sunni Muslims like most Turks, only rich immigrants who can buy real estate or set up a business have a chance of being fully welcomed.

   The Turkish example shows what European countries can expect to experience if  the influx of refugees continues to rise as quickly as it does now. Penniless immigrants are likely to accept any work well below the minimum wage stipulated in the country. They will need free public health care. They will try to import their families and burden the school system with their numerous children.

Italy's experience

   In Italy, the social strain of new immigrant poverty is already visible in the cities. Scores of Bengali, Pakistani and North African windshield wipers are attacking cars at traffic lights. African handbag peddlers and Bengali umbrella vendors are pursuing tourists wherever they step out of their tour buses. Bengalis sell padlocks to lovers on the Milvian bridge.  Chinese euro stores and souvenir shops have eliminated almost all Italian competition. They are now so numerous that some even cannibalize each other.

   Because refugees are non-Europeans and most of them non-Christians, they are lacking the strong bond of neighborhood and religion that facilitated acceptance of Syrians in Turkey. Refugees from Austria, Switzerland or France would certainly be more welcome in Germany than Syrians or Eritreans although, on the whole, Germany proves remarkably hospitable to the current wave of refugees.

   However, the Turkish experience is in only of limited validity in relation to Europe. Like Jordan and Lebanon, Turkey is no "dream country" for refugees from Syria or Iraq or passers-through from Afghanistan and South Asia on their way to Europe. Most refugees would eventually leave Turkey if neighboring countries offer prospects of peace and development.

Dream country Europe

   Europe is by definition the "dream country" and most immigrants  desire to stay permanently or will postpone their plan to return long enough to end up as Europeans.

   Under the special conditions prevailing in Europe, the word "integration" of immigrants acquires a special significance. There are two separate reasons why European governments cannot simply "admit and forget" refugees, as Turkey did. Humanitarian concerns and empathy rule that the country admitting a destitute, desperate and possibly traumatized refugee must take care of him of her until the immigrant can take care of him- or herself psychologically and economically.

   Apart from the humanitarian motivation there are also  practical and social reasons for governments to help refugees: in order to avoid Turkey's problems with begging, homelessness, prostitution and public fears of terrorism and crime.

   Considering the rapidly rising numbers of boat people arriving, the Mediterranean looks to become the world's main illegal immigration highway dwarfing even the Mexico/US border.  With the gradual resurrection of the Mare Nostrum campaign Europe is opening its door to the hundreds of thousands waiting on Libya's and other North African beaches. It sends a signal deep into Africa and the Middle East that the drowning of thousands has not been a useless sacrifice.

   In fact, the sea as the ultimate, most cruel fence to fend off migrants, proved not only to be a surprisingly porous border but to become a secret ally of the migrants forcing Europe to open the gate by sending ships to ferry the boat people to their planned destination. perhaps not the right country but at least to Europe.

   For Europe, this new development means it should prepare for a mass assault of immigrants from the South and Southeast to a tune not seen since the late days of  the Arab invasion during the Middle Ages. If  current trends prevail, the coming decades will change the face of the European population. It will also strain the economy because the newcomers will need massive assistance before becoming viable citizens.

   The immigrants will form a new population strata filling low level and menial jobs or academic positions which do not require government certification. Italy's example shows that Asians and to a lesser extent Arabs replace local staff in retail business, transport, cleaning and domestic service. Africans are mainly working in agriculture. Existing minimum wages are widely ignored and governments will hesitate to police them in order to avoid creating jobless foreigners requiring public support.

   There can be little doubt that the extremely high youth unemployment rates prevailing in southern Europe are partly a result of competition by immigrants who take the learning-by-doing jobs and are often more skilled and harder working than local youths.

   Mass immigration will counter the future trend toward smart machines and robots replacing human work.  For a gas station it might be more profitable to operate a car wash with half a dozen immigrants instead of investing in an expensive drive-thru tunnel. Customers also appreciate the human service and are willing to tip which reduces the pressure on the station's owner to pay adequate wages.  

   Still, the trend toward human replacement by software and robots -- allegedly one third of all jobs will have disappeared by 2025 -- combined with competition by increasingly better trained immigrants is likely to eliminate the work millions of Europeans are now relying on. Governments should expect chronic unemployment to creep into social strata hitherto considered safe and protected.

The other migrants

   Italian authorities are currently looking for more "hubs",  buildings such as unused army barracks which could serve to accommodate freshly arrived boat people, give them medical treatment and process their asylum requests. While Europe is scrambling to deal with arrivals vastly exceeding expectations, no thought is devoted to the other migrants: the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, who failed to make it. Those who tried to leave Eritrea and were apprehended by police, punished and condemned to virtually lifetime military service. Those who were captured by criminal Beduin tribes in Sudan or Sinai, tortured and made to phone their relatives at home to pay ransom, once, twice perhaps. Those who managed to leave Syria or Iraq and went from one European Consulate to another to apply for visa, in vain. Those who are selling their organs to raise money for the coyotes, the smugglers. Those who on their way through the desert were robbed once, twice, three times of all their belongings, raped, enslaved, beaten, left to die by the wayside. Those who are  prey of gangsters and madmen in Libya, those who are sold to smugglers by a criminal "government" in Tripolis, and eventually those who drown in the Mediterranean. 

   No names, no numbers, no records. 

Heinrich von Loesch

Written on 18 April 2015.

   A new study raises questions about current guidelines which generally restrict the consumption of saturated fats and encourage consumption of polyunsaturated fats to prevent heart disease. The research was published today, 18 March, in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. 

   An international research collaboration led by the University of Cambridge analysed existing cohort studies and randomised trials on coronary risk and fatty acid intake. They showed that current evidence does not support guidelines which restrict the consumption of saturated fats in order to prevent heart disease. The researchers also found insufficient support for guidelines which advocate the high consumption of polyunsaturated fats (such as omega 3 and omega 6) to reduce the risk of coronary disease.

   Furthermore, when specific fatty acid subtypes (such as different types of omega 3) were examined, the effects of the fatty acids on cardiovascular risk varied even within the same broad ‘family’ – questioning the existing dietary guidelines that focus principally on the total amount of fat from saturated or unsaturated rather than the food sources of the fatty acid subtypes.

   Gates Cambridge Scholar Dr Rajiv Chowdhury, the lead author of the research at the University of Cambridge, said: “These are interesting results that potentially stimulate new lines of scientific inquiry and encourage careful reappraisal of our current nutritional guidelines.

   “Cardiovascular disease, in which the principal manifestation is coronary heart disease, remains the single leading cause of death and disability worldwide. In 2008, more than 17 million people died from a cardiovascular cause globally. With so many affected by this illness, it is critical to have appropriate prevention guidelines which are informed by the best available scientific evidence.”

   For the meta-analysis, the researchers analysed data from 72 unique studies with over 600,000 participants from 18 nations. The investigators found that total saturated fatty acid, whether measured in the diet or in the bloodstream as a biomarker, was not associated with coronary disease risk in the observational studies. Similarly, when analysing the studies that involved assessments of the consumption of total monounsaturated fatty acids, long-chain omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, there were no significant associations between consumption and cardiovascular risk.

Interestingly, the investigators found that different subtypes of circulating long-chain omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids had different associations with coronary risk, with some evidence that circulating levels of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids (two main types of long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids), and arachidonic acid (an omega-6 fat) are each associated with lower coronary risk.

   Similarly, within saturated fatty acid, the researchers found weak positive associations  between circulating palmitic and stearic acids (found largely in palm oil and animal fats, respectively) and cardiovascular disease, whereas circulating margaric acid (a dairy fat)  significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease.

   Additionally, when the authors investigated the effects of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acid supplementations on reducing coronary disease in the randomised controlled trials, they did not find any significant effects – indicating a lack of benefit from these nutrients.

   Commenting on how these findings relate to the consumption of red meat, Chowdhury added: “Last year, two seminal papers very convincingly showed that the harm observed in red meat for heart disease risk can, in fact, be attributed to another harmful chemical (L-carnitine) abundant in red meat rather than the long-supposed saturated fat. Unless we have more evidence, higher consumption of red meat should still be considered harmful, but it’s just that the saturates may not be the principal explanation, as is traditionally perceived, for the harmful cardiovascular effects of red meat.”

   Professor Jeremy Pearson, Associate Medical Director at the British Heart Foundation, which helped fund the study, said: “This analysis of existing data suggests there isn’t enough evidence to say that a diet rich in polyunsaturated fats but low in saturated fats reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease. But large scale clinical studies are needed, as these researchers recommend, before making a conclusive judgement.

  “Alongside taking any necessary medication, the best way to stay heart healthy is to stop smoking, stay active, and ensure our whole diet is healthy – and this means considering not only the fats in our diet but also our intake of salt, sugar and fruit and vegetables.”

University of Cambridge

Written on 24 April 2015.

   Wenn deutsche Reporter über Ereignisse und Probleme in Entwicklungsländern berichten, zeigen sie oft eine gewisse Scheu, den Ursachen nachzuspüren.

    Deutlich zeigte sich das bei zwei Reportagen der Süddeutschen Zeitung. "Vor uns die Sintflut" (22/4/15)  hiess ein Bericht des Korrespondenten Arne Perras, der einfühlsam die Probleme Bangladeschs schilderte: die Armut, den steigenden Meeresspiegel dank Klimawandel, das Eindringen des Meeres in das Delta, den sinkenden Süsswasserzufluss wegen Bauten am Oberlauf von Ganges und Brahmaputra, das versalzende Land und die verzweifelte Gegenwehr der Menschen, ihren Kampf um den Lebensunterhalt.  Ein anrührender, guter Bericht.

   Was fehlte, war eine Erwähnung dessen, was die Bengalen selbst zu ihren Problemen beitragen. Ein Hinweis, dass sich die Bevölkerung Bangladeschs trotz der seit Jahrzehnten bekannten Problematik höchster Dichte auf wenig urbarem Land weiter vermehrt, fehlt.  Bei derzeit 170 Millionen Einwohnern ist weiteres Bevölkerungswachstum unvermeidlich, eine dramatischere Gefahr für Wohlergehen und Überleben der Menschenmassen als der steigende Meeresspiegel.  Trotz der seit Jahrzehnten dramatisch gesunkenen Fruchtbarkeit nimmt die Bevölkerung  wegen der extrem jungen Altersstruktur weiterhin Jahr um Jahr um über 2 Millionen zu.

   Kein  Wunder, dass Armut die Menschen -- vor allem die Frauen -- in die Maquiladoras treibt, die berüchtigten Textilfabriken, die dem Land einen kleinen Wirtschaftsboom gebracht haben. Auswanderung kann ein wichtiges Ventil für den Überdruck sein. Aber wer will schon junge Bangladeschis? Im vorwiegend hinduistischen Indien, das Bangladesch umklammert, sind die muslimischen Bangladeschi wenig willkommen.  Auf den traditionellen Arbeitsmärkten im Nahen Osten und in Südostasien sind die 2-3 Millionen Gastarbeiter aus Bangladesch inzwischen starker Konkurrenz aus anderen Ländern ausgesetzt. In Europa ist neben Grossbritannien neuerdings Italien ein Gastland: in Rom bilden junge Männer aus Bangladesch inzwischen eine der stärksten Minderheiten. Laufend kommen weitere Jünglinge dazu, viele mit Booten übers Mittelmeer. Haben sie eine Chance, als Asylbewerber anerkannt zu werden? Wohl kaum. Ein wirkliches Ventil für den Bevölkerungsdruck kann Europa nicht bieten.

   Zwei Tage später erschien in der Süddeutschen ein Bericht des Korrespondenten Tobias Zick  "Vergeltung" (24/4/15) über die Situation der Somalis in Kenia und das Flüchtlingslager Dadaab, der Heimstätte von 350.000 Somalis. Zwei von drei Somalia-Flüchtlingen in Kenia leben in diesem angeblich grössten Flüchtlingslager der Welt.  Als Reaktion auf das Blutbad somalischer Attentäter mit 144 toten Schülern in Garissa Anfang April fordert die Regierung nun den Hochkommissar der UN für Flüchtlinge auf, Dadaab binnen weniger Monate zu räumen. Täte er das nicht, dann würde die Regierung selbst die Räumung durchführen und die Flüchtlinge nach Somalia zurückschicken. Wie der Korrespondent berichtet. löste die Ankündigung der Regierung heftige Proteste der Hilfsorganisationen aus. Angeblich verstosse die Massnahme gegen internationales Recht, das Kenia akzeptiert habe. Der Korrespondent meint, Dadaab ähnele inzwischen mehr einer Grosstadt als dem Zeltlager, das es -- wie ein Foto zeigt -- ursprünglich war. Deswegen sei es garnicht möglich, Dahaab zu räumen.

   Warum stösst die kenianische Regierung so brutale Drohungen aus? Um das zu verstehen, muss man ein wenig zurückblättern in der Geschichte. Die somalische Minderheit, die im wüstenartigen Nordosten Kenias lebt, war im Rest des Landes nie beliebt. Das somalische Gebiet war nie sicher. Räuberbanden, shifta genannt, zwangen Reisende und die lokale Bevölkerung zu Vorsichtsmassnahmen. In den Augen der meisten Kenianer waren Somalis shifta und umgekehrt. Der Staat glänzte hauptsächlich durch Abwesenheit.

   Kenia hat viele Stämme, und einige haben noch recht elementare Sitten. Damit konnte die einstige britische Kolonie gut leben. Das änderte sich, als 1991 nach dem Tod des Diktators Siad Barre Somalia im Chaos versank und tausende von Flüchtlingen über die Grenze kamen. In Dadaab fanden Jene Zuflucht, die keine Verwandten und Freunde in  anderen Orten Kenias hatten, die ihnen Unterschlupf bieten konnten. Die Zahl der ungeliebten Somalis -- einheimische und fremde -- wuchs rasch an. Dazu gesellte ich etwas anderes: die Demografie. Die Somalis sind zusammen mit den Einwohnern von Niger die fruchtbarste Bevölkerung der Welt mit durchschnittlich sieben Kindern je Frau. Die Kenianer, auch recht fortpflanzungsfreudig, liegen bei etwas über 4 Kindern je Frau. Das bedeutet, dass der somalische Bevölkerungsteil durch Einwanderung und hohe Fruchtbarkeit viel schneller wächst als die restliche Bevölkerung Kenias. Ein Umstand, der in Nairobi wenig Freude auslöst.

   Aber warum jetzt plötzlich Dadaab auflösen? Man mag vermuten, dass das Blutbad von Garissa nur den Anlass lieferte, eine lange erwünschte Massnahme gegen alle Widerstände umzusetzen Das, was mit Flüchtlingslagern geschieht, wenn man sie nicht rechtzeitig auflöst, illustriert die Geschichte der Palästinenser.  Die Sonderorganisation der UN für die Palästina-Flüchtlinge UNRWA schreibt:  "When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services."  Seit 1950 haben Millionen Palästinenser, die Tüchtigsten und Glücklichsten,  die Lager verlassen, haben sich selbständig gemacht, sind in die Golfstaaten, nach Amerika und Europa ausgewandert.  Trotz Jahrzehnten dieser weltweiten Diaspora gibt es immer noch die Lager. Sie sind immer noch voll von Menschen, die sich als Flüchtlinge bezeichnen, die der Hilfe bedürfen, über sechzig Jahre nach der Entstehung Israels. Eine schreckliche Tatsache, und ein Ergebnis der hohen Fruchtbarkeit der Palästinenser.

   Niemand sollte sich wundern, wenn die Regierung in Nairobi ein solches Szenario für Dadaab fürchtet. Die Fruchtbarkeit der Somalis ist höher, als die der Palästinenser je war. Ob man Dadaab auflösen darf und kann, ist eine andere Frage, ebenso wie die Frage, ob der wilde Nordosten eigentlich zu Kenia oder zu Somalia gehören sollte. 

Ihsan al-Tawil

Written on 16 April 2015.

   Nobody  was surprised with Hillary’s announcement. Now the next question is if the Americans want another Clinton under today’s circumstances for president, despite all the enthusiasm with her announcement.

    There is a lot of talk lately on how Europe with all its problems reminds the same continent in mid-1930s when populists, nationalists, fascist and Nazi movements were rising. A Europe suffering under unemployment, chronic economic recession and poverty. While most are right saying these things about Europe, from this side of the ocean USA also reminds more and more mid-1930s.

   The economic recession is global and even though Obama administration has managed to avoid big hiccups – and all despite Republicans often unethical tripping – the crisis is still here. The Americans might have left Iraq and Afghanistan but new fires seem to rise here and there, all of them demanding US involvement and certain problems with certain nations don’t seem to go away doesn’t matter what diplomacy does.

   But even though serious, everything seems like business as usual. What has changed the last decade is the social behaviour of the Americans or at least it looks that it has changed from this side of the Atlantic. Suddenly old prejudices, discriminations and passions we all thought were left in history, reborn and not only reborn, they seem to divide today’s America deeply.

   Fifteen years ago we all talked about the rising Islamophobia, today we are talking about hate. Hate that doesn’t discriminate - actually it is the only thing that doesn’t discriminate at the moment. The murder of another black man or woman in USA from the police has become news as usual for this side of the Atlantic.

   News about discrimination for race, faith or sexuality have become mainly US news nowadays. While we are talking about disagreements between EU member states – a purely union of independent countries with independent internal, defence and foreign policy - in US it looks like some states of the federation are acting mutiny. There are states in USA that not only disobey the federal laws, ignore the president and the congress all the high court, but they also paraphrase articles of the constitution giving meaning that contradict the founded laws of the USA.

   The opposition party, in this two party democracy – to be honest I never understood how a country with a two party system can accuse another country with one party system as anti-democratic, but this is a different conversation – holds over 45% of the voters; nearly half of the population. This party instead of practicing what an opposition should practice - control of the government, obedience to the laws and the constitution - has turned into an extremist partisan party that has employed every single trick to boycott the federal government. And they do so with a scary fanaticism like they act against occupational army.

   They didn’t only oppose the US government in its negotiations with Iran, they intentionally tried to boycott everything endangering a war with uncontrollable consequences not only for USA but for the whole world. They got involved in the Ukrainian conflict befriending with the most extreme and neo-Nazi elements of the Ukrainian opposition with unknown till now consequences but definitely having a share in the continuing crisis.

   They have created the most prejudice and discriminating laws covering them under religion just like radical preachers do in Afghanistan and Syria. Actually their latest manufacture, “the freedom of religion law” is one of the most discriminating laws in modern history compared only with sharia laws. And the homophobic element is only the peak of the iceberg. The same law can be used against Muslims tomorrow, Jews after and then against anybody left-handed. They have open Pandora’s Box and they don’t know how to close it now.

   And this are just examples. A nation that still doubts if their president had the right to be a president, still considered for some enemy. I was reading the other day an article which called Barack Obama a dictator, his policies Nazi and the Obamacare a Nazi creation. The effect to give health coverage to the poor a Nazi creation? Do these people know what they are talking about? Only the fact that they have the right to say and right things like that isn’t it enough proof that democracy is still there?

   Rand Paul has been GOP’s champion in discriminating and racist comments but the rest of the republican leadership follows very close. It suddenly seems that Sarah Pallin has become the American politics rule and not the exception. And that scares everybody. Because the American president’s influence expands globally.

   From this side of the ocean it looks like the next American president is going to get over a deeply divided country with serious social problems – without including economic problems, unemployment, homeless - and the tendency of some for isolation while they want to expand even by force dominance, however schizophrenic this might sounds. Is Hillary ready for that? Can she unite or she will further divide? Are the Americans ready to stand up and stop this schizophrenic situation? Do the Americans want a president who might stop all that? And do they want Hillary to be the one? And if not, what’s the alternative? Rand Paul?

   It is nearly twenty years since Bill Clinton was president of the USA. The last eight years USA had its first black president and is heading for its first woman president. But is that all the Americans except from their presidents? To be the first black or the first woman? While in the meantime from a champion of human rights they evolve as a society into a global negative example of hate?

Thanos Kalamidas  OVImagazine