A Word from London

Herbert London

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute, John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U., and the author of the recently published book Decade of Denial, Lexington Books.

The Effect of Islam on Spanish Attitudes

It has become something of a cliché for European diplomats to say, "The important thing is to build a coalition for peace in the Middle East, not to build a coalition for war in Iraq." Needless to say, this is a comment directed at the Bush administration and a-not-so subtle effort to promote a Palestinian state.

In Spain it is virtually axiomatic that the allies should concentrate on a Middle East conflict that is roiling emotions and shaking governments across the Arab world. As one Spanish diplomat noted "Things are bad enough now; we don't need to worsen them." Presumably the anticipated attack on Iraq could destabilize Arab governments favorably disposed to Europe.

Another Spanish politician argued that if the United States does not push harder for a peace agreement that addresses Palestinian concerns, it will not be possible to build support for action in Iraq.

While these concerns are valid on their face, what they overlook is the extent to which Spanish opinion has been compromised by "oil money" that now plays a significant, if indeterminate, role in Spain's economy.

The cranes all over the hills of Marbella pay tribute to Saudi investments. King Fahd himself has built one of the world's largest villas in the region. As the Spanish economy goes south following the direction of the American market, Arab money looms large in the future of many Spanish regions, particularly the Costa del Sol.

Under these circumstances it is easy to understand why Spanish public opinion is decidedly pro-Palestinian. Of course not every Spaniard supporting the Palestinian cause has done so because of Arab investments. But it would be naïve to contend that this money doesn't play a role in shaping opinion.

The high rollers in the Marbella gambling casinos are invariably Saudi. The patrons of Brioni suits and Cartier jewelry are more often than not Arab oil men. They ogle the topless Spanish bathers who couldn't possibly be more different from Saudi women in burqas. They come to the south of Spain to buy and see what is clearly unavailable in their homeland.

There is more than a little hypocrisy associated with Saudi behavior. In Saudi Arabia these members of the royal family observe Sharia-the Muslim religious code-but in Spain they are dissolute, observing only the code of self-indulgence and sensate pursuits.

But they spend and spend some more generating willy-nilly a host of beneficiaries. Moreover, that is not the only way in which the Arab bias permeates Spanish culture.

With the Spanish birth rate at 1.3 children per family well below "replacement level" and with an enormous unfunded liability for prospective pensioners, Spain desperately needs young workers whose taxes can mitigate the financial tangle. As a consequence, young North Africans are welcome-even if they have difficulty in acculturating.

There is little doubt that the growing presence of this immigrant population is having an influence on public opinion. Rarely, if ever, does one read an editorial in El Pais, a Spanish daily published along with the International Herald Tribune, which favors or even explains the Israeli position.

Elite opinion is unquestionably one-sided, in part because of an effective propaganda machine that paints Israel as a militant, unsympathetic power. It is hard to contend that there is a dramatic rise of anti-Semitism in Spain; yet there is little doubt about the reflexive anti-Israel view and there is concern that this position could easily slide into widespread anti-Semitism.

In many respects Spain is like France, a nation increasingly Islamicized. As this trend continues it is unlikely balanced, dispassionate accounts of the Middle East will result. If Spain presages European attitudes, generally favorable opinion of both Israel and the United States is unlikely. That not only makes multilateralism impossible, it puts the United Sates on a track different from Spain and other European nations. So much for the Western alliance.

Legal Representation for the Victims of 9/11

September 11 was a day of infamy for America. The scars it left in our national life won't soon be forgotten.

But while a tragedy for all Americans, it was most heartfelt for the bereaved families who lost a loved one in this wanton attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack sentiment ran high. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America, for example, urged its members to join an altruistic and patriotic service: free legal advice for the thousands who would be eligible for billions of dollars in awards.

If ever there were a time when lawyers could pursue their calling for a noble purpose; if ever there were a cause that demanded our most magnificent effort as lawyers, as human beings as Americans-this is it. . .

reads a brochure for Trial Lawyers Care, the pro bono organization set up by the national association. It was a statement that captured the spirit of the moment.

But moments pass and whatever once seemed clear, pure and obvious has become muddled, contentious and ambiguous.

With payment delays occurring, many families decided that a noble calling was not as effective as hired attorneys who would collect fees. Guillermo Gleizer, a lawyer who represents more than 100 injured victims and is charging fees of up to 25 percent, said,

But we represent a client in every single problem related to the September 11 tragedy-hospitalization, credit cards, mortgages-and we want to make money. Guy works, guy gets paid. That is the American way.

Of course, it is also the American way to offer a helping hand to those in distress. It is decidedly American to assist others out of patriotic fervor.

William L. Mauk, a spokesman for the Trial Lawyers Care, notes that:

It's infuriating and frankly, I don't have much regard for them (the paid attorneys). I think they are taking advantage of a national tragedy.

Yet it is also the case that victims are feeling as if they are being victimized again. The payment process is slow and cumbersome. It is not merely a matter of fill-in-the-blanks legal work. The paid attorneys performing a service and the victims do have volitional decisions at their disposal.

Presumably the lawyers receiving a fee offer a "better" service than their pro bono counterparts, albeit this claim is conjectural. Paid attorneys invariably argue you get what you pay for.

From my perspective there is something unseemly about this paid legal representation. Lives have been lost and families destroyed. If there was ever a time to pull together to assist fellow Americans this is it. The fact that liability lawyers will use this opportunity to benefit from someone's grief is-on a moral level-unconscionable.

My tears in this matter are all for the families. They deserve assistance. The widow with two little kids is probably crying out for help. It is her family that matters.

Clearly proper representation is necessary. And just as clearly making sure that American generosity is directed to the victims, not the attorneys, is also necessary.

America, as a nation, came together to assist the victims of September 11. It would be a shame if this national sentiment were translated into greed and bickering.

I admire the attorneys who are willing to give their service freely. But my hope is that victims' families get what they deserve and what America wants them to have. Any other concern is pettifogging legalisms.

Rewarding Illegal Immigrants

Recently the New York State Legislature passed a bill that would allow illegal immigrants living in the United States to pay "in-state tuition rates" at the City University of New York (CUNY), and the State University of New York.

The bill, which Governor George Pataki requested, promoted and is expected to sign, would reverse policies at both institutions which currently charge an "out-of-state resident rate" for illegal residents.

Jay Hershenson, CUNY's vice chancellor for university relations said,

This is a great victory for thousands of hard-working immigrants who look to institutions like CUNY to realize their dreams.

"Great victory for thousands of hard working immigrants?" Is he kidding? These are illegal immigrants who violated our laws and our sovereignty. What the governor and university administrators are saying in effect is, "Let's reward the lawbreakers."

Maybe in an election year the governor doesn't consider illegal entry into the United States a serious matter. But even if that is the case, what is the justification for rewarding these people with tuition benefits?

Keep in mind, the Coast Guard and the Immigration and Naturalization Service are charged with preventing people from entering this country illegally. Over the last several decades thousands of Cubans have been turned back from the Florida shore and hundreds of thousands have been forced to return to the southern side of the Rio Grande.

Yet if one of these trespassers should gain entry and migrate to New York, he will be rewarded with a tuition discount as if he were a legal, tax-paying resident of New York State.

What this means, of course, is that if by guile or nerve you beat the barriers to entry, rewards await you.

Keep in mind that the governor's program applies equally to those who enter illegally because they are escaping the totalitarian control of Castro's Cuba or leaving Mexico for presumptive economic reasons. While the former may warrant sympathy, laxity in the case of the latter promotes anarchy and a loss of national sovereignty.

This, I should hastily note, is not a plea for immigration restriction. It is merely my reflections on rewarding illegal behavior. In some sense it is comparable to saying that if a criminal breaks out of prison and is not apprehended, he is entitled to a discount at Wal-Mart.

Clearly the generosity and openness in America make this nation exceptional. And just as surely immigrants from around the globe have used the City and State University to launch successful careers in their adopted home. However, what distinguishes the Pataki program from the extraordinary history of immigrants in our public institutions is that the present legislation applies to illegal immigrants.

Surely there is a difference between legal and illegal aliens. If the laws of this land do not distinguish between the two, then boundaries, border guards and passports are unnecessary. At that point, the U.S. is simply a place to land as a citizen of the globe. Neither loyalty nor allegiance are necessary. Everyone will be rewarded in the same way.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is one give-away program with a dangerous precedent. Either Pataki doesn't get it or he is too busy building constituencies for the next campaign. No wonder New Yorkers are increasingly cynical about politics. Who wouldn't be with programs like this?

A Reconsideration of Immigration Policy

Since 1965 when the Immigration Law was organized around the principle of family unification, I have been a critic. It struck me then, and has been reinforced subsequently, that immigration policy should be designed to benefit the host nation at least as much as the immigrants landing on our shore.

Several ideas make more sense than existing policy without appearing unduly restrictionist. For example, fulfilling a job need or a related skills based policy seem more reasonable than the existing position. However, whatever the principle, I assumed that the consequence of immigration was assimilation, a desire to imbibe the traditions of America and to express allegiance to this nation.

But like John Maynard Keynes faced with evidence that challenged his point of view, an intelligent man changes his mind. Well, I am changing my mind. Clearly our porous borders during this period of strife and potential terrorist attacks warrant an examination of immigration policy, but as notable is the incontrovertible evidence that many immigrants haven't any interest at all in assimilating.

According to a new poll (2002) by Zogby International, a large majority of Mexicans believes the southwest territory of the United States rightfully belongs to Mexico and that Mexicans should have the right to enter the United States without first obtaining permission. Fifty-eight percent of Mexicans surveyed agree with the statement, "the territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Only 28 percent disagree, and 14 percent are unsure.

A similar majority, 57 percent, agree with the statement, "Mexicans should have the right to enter the U.S. without U.S. permission." Thirty-five percent disagree and seven percent are unsure.

It is instructive that a large majority of Americans think immigration should be reduced and most oppose amnesty for illegal aliens, (65 percent oppose amnesty and 58 percent are in favor of fewer immigrants). Fully 68 percent support the use of military forces to guard the border.

These divergent views are remarkable. What they suggest is that loyalty to the host nation, that is, the United States, is tentative at best. Many Mexicans regard this nation as an imperialist power that acquired land that rightly belongs to them. If one accepts this argument, it would apply with equal vehemence to the British, the French, the Spanish and even the Russians over Alaska. Where, indeed, would it not apply?

As long as this view is widely accepted, assimilation is not likely. John Fonte, a colleague at the Hudson Institute, notes that in California many Mexicans are less willing to assimilate after they have gone through the public school system than before their entrance. Apparently the elites in that community maintain the view that it is far more desirable for Mexicans to separate themselves physically in the barrio, linguistically and culturally, than to integrate into American life.

That position obviously has negative economic implications, but politically it is a volatile force with which to reckon. And for elitists in the Mexican community, that is what counts.

As a consequence, facile notions of job procurement and selection based on skills or even an immigration lottery will not mean much if the intractable opposition to assimilation persists. The United States depends on unity; the idea of a disloyal population in our midst harboring hostile sentiments about the legitimacy of the state structure and reinforcing hatreds with a 137-year legacy will splinter this nation like an axe hitting soft wood.

It was a civil war that converted the "United States are" to the "United States is." Will it take another civil war to keep the states united? That may be the question that awaits us, albeit there still may be time to do something about it. Yes, I have changed my mind.

Liberalizing the Japanese Education

Japan is in the throes of an educational revolution. The once vaunted Japanese system that consistently outperforms the United States on international tests in science, literacy and math is being altered to foster individuality instead of the emphasis it has had on rote memorization.

The new program reduces the hours of traditional subjects; it allows for rounding in math, for example, pi can be 3 instead of 3.14; it adds a new class called "period for integral study"; and it calls on teachers to devise projects which nurture a "zest for living" and "an ability to learn and think for oneself."

Some people applaud this development, arguing that the way out of the decade-long economic slump is through imaginative new products and meeting new challenges, presumably goals of the revised curriculum. But this is not a widely accepted belief.

Takehiko Kariya, the author of The Illusion of Education Reform, contends that during the last decade schools have already turned away from rote memorization, but that hasn't made kids any smarter. In fact, a recent study indicated that students in elementary and junior high schools score lower on basic skills tests than students in the same schools 13 years earlier.

It certainly isn't clear whether the so-called "period of integral study" can produce a generation of creative thinkers, especially since no one can define what creative thinking is and what steps are needed to achieve it. As one might guess, Japanese teachers are scrambling to find appropriate models. So far the "period of integral study" is an evolving experiment without clear results.

Just how one learns to think for oneself is one of those educational platitudes that almost everyone accepts, but almost no one knows how to engender. In many instances, teachers let kids pursue their own interests, assuming intrinsic learning ability if an interest is cultivated.

Yet common sense suggests that an interest without basic skills such as reading ability, research capability, facility with computers is an exercise in futility. In one case, a Japanese student interested in environmental issues simply counted the number of trees around a local temple. I wonder how this exercise enhanced his critical thinking ability.

In fact, how can any student think critically or imaginatively without a knowledge base? For example, if a student is asked to propose imaginative solutions for an issue like "global warming," he would first have to determine the veracity of the problem, he would then have to know something about chemical reactions and physical properties and he would have to consider some kind of cost-benefit analysis. Without the appropriate knowledge, what you get are either empty platitudes or an exchange of ignorant opinion.

One could make the case that rote memorization is a necessary prerequisite for any serious research effort. For example, turning to my illustration of global warming, knowing the properties of carbon compounds is critical in devising antidotes to carbon concentrations in the atmosphere or thinking about alternatives to fossil fuel reliance.

It is understandable that Japanese leaders are in a desperate search for answers in order to snap out of economic malaise. But changing the education system that has performed so effectively in the post-war era may be misguided activism.

Japan has a 100 percent literacy rate. Its students are among the most technically proficient in the world. Japan has clear advantages in such fields as nanotechnology, robotics, and solid state computer chips. It seems to me rather frivolous to ignore these strengths in behalf of some utopian goal.

An alteration in the education curriculum will not, in my judgment, change economic prospects. Political leaders, grasping at straws, invariably rely on educational solutions, but diluting programs that produced notable achievements is probably not the answer for Japan. In fact, it is probably not the answer for any country. ?