German ruling coalition far behind opposition in polls
Via "Amiland," a reference to some interesting poll results: the German television network ZDF. "Ami" highlights one:

But the interesting number came from this question: If it comes to a UN resolution for US military action against Iraq: How should Germany participate?

Leaving aside the obvious distortion of "US military action," only 50% of respondents said that Germany shouldn't participate at all. (The summary of the poll online put it this way: "a majority of 50 percent.")

By contrast, fully 47% said in the event of a UN resolution, Germany should provide material support and/or soldiers to the effort. As "Ami" notes, the overall support for Schroeder's early decision to vote against an Iraq war in the Security council is broad, at 61%. But it may not be deep: the "who would you vote for next Sunday?" question has the opposition CDU/CSU/FDP defeating the current ruling coalition (SPD/Green, Schroeder/Fischer) by a combined 54% to 39%.

That suggests the Iraq question is not a fundamental concern to many of the Germans supporting Schroeder's choices about Iraq. They may see a slumping economy and/or worsening relations with the United States as bigger concerns. Campaigns can change these results a lot, of course. But opposition leader Angela Merkel is obviously right: Schroeder doesn't speak for all Germans.

The poll was taken on between the 17th and 20th of February; results have a margin of error of 2.7% for large party supporters, and 1.4% for small party supporters, and presumably an intermediate figure for all German voters, the universe sampled. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:52:00 PM -- |    

 

Condom sense
Last month Nicholas Kristof had an op-ed in the New York Times, "The Secret War on Condoms," in which he wrote

Over the last few years conservative groups in President Bush's support base have declared war on condoms, in a campaign that is downright weird — but that, if successful, could lead to millions of deaths from AIDS around the world. [...]

The scientific consensus is simple: Condoms are far from perfect, but they greatly reduce the risk of H.I.V. and of gonorrhea for men, and they probably also reduce the risk of other sexual infections — but more studies are needed to prove the case definitively. See, for example, [this National Institutes for Health report] [...]

One study by the University of California at Berkeley found condom distribution to be astonishingly cost-effective, costing just $3.50 per year of life saved. In contrast, antiretroviral therapy cost almost $1,050.

Condoms remain the last line of defense between people and the HIV virus. In addition to the study Kristof cites, you can check out the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, or the CDC, albeit in words now couched to reflect the Bush Administration's preferred method of preventing sexually transmitted disease (STD).

Condoms are an important, crucial part of any realistic program to fight the spread of STDs. People -- especially young people -- about to have sex are not always going to choose to abstain from sex ... to put that statement mildly. Approaches stressing abstinence have their place, as well, no doubt about it: they may keep people from getting to the stage where that last line of defense is needed. But that last line of defense will be needed -- predictably, and often.

One definition of a conservative is someone who takes human nature as a given, rather than as something to be improved (although by that definition, I would describe myself as conservative, somewhat to my own surprise). Teaching kids to use condoms -- as part of an overall program stressing self-respect, waiting for marriage, and abstinence -- would seem to be a profoundly conservative choice to make by that definition. But it isn't the choice the Bush Administration favors.

That attitude comes with a price tag. In 1995, Governor Bush signed legislation requiring Texas schools to only offer abstinence-only sex education. The Washington Post has reported on the failure of that approach in Lubbock, Texas:

Since the abstinence-only curriculum began in 1995, teen pregnancy rates have fallen in Texas generally -- and Lubbock County specifically -- but not as dramatically as for the nation as a whole. Meanwhile, rates of sexually transmitted diseases have soared.

Closer to home, Christina Larson of Washington City Paper describes a Washington, DC abstinence-based program (Missionary Position, 10/25/2002) comments on one of the cornerstones of that program, "virginity pledges":

The pledge strategy has been shown to delay the onset of sexual activity for about a year, according to a 2001 study commissioned by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and published in the American Journal of Sociology. However, the approach also greatly increases the likelihood that participating youth will not use contraception when they do become sexually active, according to the same study.

Because of the AIDS catastrophe overtaking Africa, the stakes are even higher there than they are in the United States. Here, too, the Bush administration has been waging a full-court press against family planning and condom-based prevention of STDs, sometimes politically spinning the findings of well-known success stories in fighting HIV, such as the case of Uganda.

In that country, the so-called "ABC" (abstinence - be faithful - condom) approach, coupled with strong leadership by the country's president, has resulted in a dramatic decline in HIV prevalence according to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), particularly among youth. But that's the "ABC" approach, not the "AB" approach. In an NPR report by Brenda Wilson (RealAudio .ram file) reports that a key Ugandan health official says "because AIDS is a life and death issue, they tell even children: when all else fails, use a condom." While the USAID item cited above "recognizes the need to expand efforts beyond condoms," they don't suggest they'll drop condoms from their toolkit. At least not yet.

And that's a good thing. In fact, one of the primary risk factors for women contracting HIV in some parts of Africa is ... getting married. The sexual culture in those parts of Africa can be one where older men marry one or more young women for sex, child rearing, and domestic labor, but continue to have multiple partners outside the marriage. The young wives in these relationships don't have much hope of insisting on (let alone verifying) fidelity; they have some hope of successfully suggesting condom use.

South Africa's Thabo Mbeki was widely excoriated for his arrogant and stupid stand opposing HIV-fighting drugs for his country. If anything, the value of condoms is clearer than that of the drugs: as Kristof points out, lives can be saved for pocket change instead of for hundreds or thousands of dollars.*

But something more important than lives seems to be at stake for the Bush ideologues. It seems to be the power to make people fit the program, rather than make the program fit the people. It's what communists were once accused of, and it's what American "conservatism" has become -- a Victorian, head-in-the-sand denial of human nature and specifically human sexuality in all its contexts, good and bad, around the world. Whether it's pregnant teens in Lubbock, Texas, or dying Africans overseas, the price will be paid by the subjects of these pseudo-conservative social experiments.

=====
* The recent Bush administration AIDS initiative should be mentioned here; on closer examination, it appears to be a shell game exaggerating the new moneys for drug purchases by rerouting funds from other disease prevention and treatment programs. (via Josh Marshall, 02/05/03.) posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:55:00 AM -- |    

 

German knowledge of Iraqi smallpox remains in question
A few days ago, I mentioned that German opposition party member Friedbert Pflueger was asking about smallpox vaccine purchases, implying that a BND briefing on November 13 of last year had something to do with German health minister Ulla Schmidt's decision to purchase large stocks of the vaccine.

On Sunday, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) ran a story, "Bio-Terror: Danger hushed up," indicating knowledge of Iraqi smallpox weapons may have been widespread in the German government earlier than that. The story rests on a memorandum issued by the German health ministry, dated August 9, 2002 and notes that, judging by the fax dissemination list, it was widely circulated within the German government. Excerpts from that memorandum:

Bonn, August 9, 2002

BMG

Ref. 329

Supplementary justification to the request* of August 9, 2000, re the acquisition of smallpox vaccine

For the following reasons, the prompt appropriation of 10 million Euros as well as [additional authorizations]* in the sum of 20 million Euros for the acquisition of smallpox vaccines is factually undisputable and should not be delayed:

1. Probability of an attack

Estimates of the world situation and especially news reports point to an acute sharpening of danger levels: German security agencies have documented information that smallpox is being stored not just in official laboratories in Atlanta and Koltsovo, but also illegally, e.g. in Russia, Iraq, and North Korea. There are also indications that terrorist groups are trying to produce biological weapons. Even were a release of smallpox virus to occur elsewhere in the world, it would constitute an extraordinary danger for Germany because of the extreme transmissibility of the the virus and the mobility of the world's population. The indications of a possible imminent attack of the USA on Iraq are growing. It can feared that Iraq would react with the biological weapons at its disposal, including smallpox. (emphases added)

The major German tabloid "Bild" followed up with interviews with Ulla Schmidt and Otto Schily, ministers of health and the interior, respectively. From "Pocken-Alarm: Jetzt reden die Ministern" ("Smallpox alarm: Now the ministers speak):

Bild: Citizens are disquieted because of warnings of a smallpox attack. How big is the danger, really?

Minister Schily: Intelligence officials estimate that there is only an abstract danger that smallpox viruses could be brought to Germany by terrorists. Intelligence officials do not have concrete findings to that effect. In particular, we have no information that Iraq is storing biological weapons in the form of smallpox viruses. We only know since the mid-1990s that Iraq has experimented with camel pox.

Ulla Schmidt, for her part, denies that her ministry has information that Schily's ministry doesn't have, denies there is a concrete threat," and explained that her ministry just wanted to put some "oomph" (Dampf machen) into their appropriations request.

This story appears to be the basis of a flap (see items by Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan, among others) about whether German officials soft-pedaled bio-weapons threats on the basis that Germany's anti-Iraq-war stance might immunize -- so to speak -- that country against attacks. That seems unlikely: the memorandum itself notes that smallpox would spread worldwide very quickly. By the way, I recommend the quite excellent blog "Amiland," by an American in Germany who goes by the pseudonym "Ami," (...never mind!), who has been following the story closely.

Schily was arguably responding to the precise question of what German citizens were disquieted about. On the other hand, a paranoid person might infer that the operative word was "Germany" in Schily's first sentence. I'm unequipped to judge the significance of Iraqi camelpox tests as far as what they imply about Iraqi interest in smallpox weapons, but it doesn't seem a stretch to believe one implies the other. (I welcome knowledgeable correspondence or comments about this.)

But the point also remains that Schily does not explain why the health ministry believed there was "documented information" at German security agencies concerning Iraqi smallpox stores. Under the circumstances, I'm more inclined to believe the memorandum than Schily's or Schmidt's denials. The news today is that German opposition leader Angela Merkel (CDU) is calling for hearings to clear up the inconsistencies between the memorandum and Schily's and Schmidt's dementis.


=====
*"apl.-/apl" not translated, it seems to be a term of art for the German budget process, as does "VE," which I guessed was "additional authorizations" given its context in the phrase. I also don't know what "BMG" means. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:31:00 AM -- |    

 

Tony Blair for President
I'm probably among the last to note Tony Blair's speech in Glasgow over the weekend, which was excerpted extensively in the Wall Street Journal. I agree with Imshin, an Israeli who writes the blog where I first read about it, regarding the best part:

I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honor. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction.

This part rings familiarly to me:

But if we show weakness now, if we allow the plea for more time to become just an excuse for prevarication until the moment for action passes, then it will not only be Saddam who is repeating history. The menace, and not just from Saddam, will grow; the authority of the U.N. will be lost; and the conflict when it comes will be more bloody. Yes, let the United Nations be the way to deal with Saddam. But let the United Nations mean what it says; and do what it means.

On the costs of peace:

So if the result of peace is Saddam staying in power, not disarmed, then I tell you there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too. But these victims will never be seen.

In an interesting comment, Tim Dunlop ("Road to Surfdom") rightly points out that Blair explicitly denied that the "moral case" against Saddam (his brutality to his people) is the "casus belli" in the case of Iraq. Dunlop concludes

So presumably, if there was no UN mandate, mere morality would not be enough justification to launch a war. The moral case is "not the reason we act." So can the hawks stop pretending it is.

I'm not pretending it is. But even if the "moral case" is not judged a sufficient reason, it is still a powerful supporting reason, to be weighed in the balance against the deaths of innocents rightly feared those opposed to a war on Iraq. That's all Blair said, and he's right. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:13:00 AM -- |