Harris Interactive:

Majorities of the public in France (68%), Spain (57%) and Germany (57%), as well as 39 percent of Italians and 35 percent of British adults consider Germany to be the "leader" of Europe. Of these European countries, Germany is considered the leader by all five. In the United States, almost two-thirds (63%) of Americans lean more towards the country they believe to be their closest partner, Great Britain, as the leader of Europe today.

I learned about this poll in the US Embassy's InfoAlert, which recommends many other interesting articles from the last two months as well, especially regarding the future of NATO.

President Bush's current trip to Europe has been described as a "farewell tour" in quite a few newspapers, which I find a bit surprising. I thought there would be plenty of reasons and opportunities for George W. Bush to visit Europe in the remaining seven months of his presidency. 

Does that sound as if I already miss President Bush? Charles Hawley writes in Spiegel International that the German media will miss the "climate killer":

Germany never much liked George W. Bush. But he was able to unite Germans. Hating the US president was about the only thing the country could agree on in recent years.

Related Atlantic Review post, which encouraged a debate with 53 comments: "Europeans Mourn End of Bush's Presidency"

William Drozdiak, president of the American Council on Germany, opines in the IHT that Europeans ignore Bush and are "anticipating a new age of enlightenment in trans-Atlantic relations":

As President George W. Bush embarks this week on a farewell tour of Europe, he should not be surprised by the lack of interest in his trip. Like most Americans, Europeans are looking past Bush.

Whether Barack Obama or John McCain moves into the Oval Office, Europe is anticipating a new age of enlightenment in trans-Atlantic relations as NATO nears its 60th birthday. While there are ample reasons not to let expectations get too high, both candidates espouse policies that could greatly enhance cooperation among leading Western democracies.

The phrase "a new age of enligthenment" is a bit too strong, but otherwise I agree with Drozdiak. Once Obama or McCain is inaugurated and asks for more troops for Afghanistan, we will start to miss George W Bush, who was the "perfect excuse" for the lack of burden sharing.

Kurt Kister wrote in the respected German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung that the presidential elections (esp. an Obama victory) would mark a new beginning for Americans, but that would not be the case in Europe and Asia: "The memory about Bush will overshadow the image of the US throughout many years in the future". In reference to the Sueddeutsche Zeitung's headline, the Atlantic Community asks: "How Long is Bush's Shadow?" Pretty long, I would say.

"Support for the far-right National Democratic Party quadrupled in local elections in the eastern state of Saxony on Sunday. In the village of Reinhardtsdorf-Schöna, one in four voters chose the NPD," writes Spiegel International.

Michael van der Galien of the PoliGazette blames Germany's culture for these election results. He also claims that most of his Dutch compatriots "basically believe that what happened in World War II was not an 'accident,' but a logical result of Germany's intolerant and militaristic culture."

Such accusations will not lead to more German troops for Afghanistan, more burden sharing within NATO or a higher defense spending, which have been long-standing demands by the United States and other NATO allies. Instead these accusations contribute to the dominant feeling among the majority of Germans that we should not participate in any wars on foreign soil anymore.

Well, the Dutch press -- in contrast to their US or Canadian counterparts -- has not called for more German troops for Afghanistan. I thought the reason was that they understand that there just is not enough support among the rather pacifist (a better term might be: "war-weary") German public. Though, perhaps van der Galien is right and "the Dutch" are really concerned about the next invasion by their xenophobic and militaristic neighbors and therefore they don't want the Germans to play a stronger military role in Afghanistan, but I doubt it. I think he exaggerates Dutch concerns regarding Germany.

Benjam in Perry writes in Anglofritz:

Berlin-based Scottish expat, culturist and opinionator Nick Currie, better known as the musician Momus, elects Barack Obama today as the next President of Europe. The position just opened up, Momus says, after French President Nicolas Sarkozy earlier this month withdrew his essential support of Tony Blair for the job.

He also quotes Roger Cohen in the New York Times, who describes Obama as an online phenomenon, jumping national borders and  "stirring as much buzz in Berlin as he does back home." Well, that's quite a bit of an exaggeration, but there is probably indeed more popular support for Barack Obama than for Tony Blair for the position of EU President. (See Nanne's post on Contention About the New "EU President")

Obama is considering a visit to Berlin, says Karsten Voigt, the German government's envoy for German-American relations, according to DW World. I doubt that Obama will indeed visit Germany during the hot election campaign. He already has won more than 80% of votes from the US expats living in Germany and registered as Democrats, I believe.

It would be great, however, if Obama would take time of from the campaign trail and visit Europe in order to put to rest the criticism from Steve Clemons (and myself) regarding his Lack of Real Interest in Transatlantic Cooperation:

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe, Obama has held zero hearings -- at least that is how the record appears to me. Compare this to the House Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe, which is having constant hearings -- or to the Senate Subcommittee's work before Obama became Chair -- or to a comparative commitment of Hillary Clinton

Related posts in the Atlantic Review:

• President Obama and Europe

• Clinton Most Likely to Rebuild US-European Alliance

• Obama the Catalyst

Deutsche Bank got a lot of negative press coverage in the United States. David Vickrey, who used to work on corporate finance transactions at Deutsche Bank Securiites and Barclays Capital, has written extensively in his blog Dialog International about the involvement of German banks in the US mortgage crisis. Here are a couple of posts in chronological order (latest on top):

Karma and Bad Times for Deutsche Bank in America (April 27, 2008)

Greed and Fear: US Subprime Crisis Takes Its Toll in Germany (April 9, 2008)

The Subprime Crisis Leads to Mad Mergers in Germany (April 1, 2008)

German Government: Please Sue Deutsche Bank (March 10, 2008)

Deutsche Bank: America's Foreclosure King (January 24, 2008)

German Bundesbankers expect a gradual slowdown of the economy as a result of weaker global growth, higher oil prices and a stronger euro. They are not concerned about any direct fallout from the US mortgage crisis, writes Ralph Atkins in the Financial Times.

The article's headline is "Schadenfreude stirs in resilient Germany," but Atkins only claims once that "across Germany, a sense of schadenfreude has even started to emerge." His only indication is that "Peer Steinbrück, finance minister, has long maintained that a run on a bank, as seen with Northern Rock in the UK, would not happen in Germany." Well, many Germans are scared about their jobs and worry about poverty in their later retirement. Many are so concerned about the financial markets that they do not invest their savings, but keep them on a bank account with low interest, which is bad for retirement plans and for the economy. That's why the finance minister tries to reassure the public. That's not Schadenfreude. Perhaps the folks at the Financial Times felt compelled to use a German word in their headline. Next time write "Blitzkrieg" or "Kindergarten" or address people as "Herr Steinbrück" rather than "Mr. Steinbrück" (a weird habit of some).

Otherwise the article is good and describes what has been going on:

Germany's recent economic history has been the mirror image of the US's. Instead of enjoying a consumer and housing boom over the past decade, Germany has experienced a period of painful adjustment to the costs of reunification in the early 1990s and the effects of globalisation on a high-wage economy. By the time the global financial crisis struck, extensive private-sector restructuring had restored cost competitiveness, while consumers had retrenched financially - with house prices flat or even falling. The result was an economy driven not by consumer spending but by its powerful export motor, with industry producing high-quality goods that appear relatively insensitive to the higher exchange rate. 

Atkins ends with an FT typical conclusion:

But that is not the same as saying Germany has the better long-term prospects. Whereas the US's financial system and more flexible labour markets appear to booms and busts, Germany's economic growth rates traditionally remain steadier - but lower.

This is my favorite quote of the year so far: "Would we have allowed Nazi Germany to host the Olympics?"

This awesome statement was found on a protest sign in San Francisco. German Joys and Andrew Sullivan have a picture.

This statement is fascinating on so many levels. Not just because the author has not heard about the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. And not just because of his/her comparison between Nazi Germany and China. I find the statement revealing because the author apparently thinks that it is the United States as Master of the Universe that gets to decide who is allowed to host the Olympics.

Apparently it is not just US presidents and senators (and plenty of slightly megalomaniac "experts" without any military experience) who boldly declare stuff like "we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon" or similar phrases along the lines of "We must not allow evil doers doing evil stuff." Apparently even the usually pretty left-leaning protestors in San Francisco consider the United States to be a hyperpower.

Actually, right now President Bush is not making any bold statements regarding China. All of a sudden, he prefers quiet diplomacy. What a change from this second inauguration speech three years ago.

Over at Atlantic Community, we have recommended a few press commentaries regarding China and the Olympics:

• Chinese Outcry Against the Western Media: "The Chinese believe that Tibet cannot be the real reason for Western criticism of China and call for boycotts."
• The Positive Side of Chinese Nationalism: "The Olympics have inspired Chinese nationalism which will lead to increased civil engagement and awareness of the responsibilities and rights of citizenship."
• Will the Chinese Change International Institutions?: "In the past, the World Bank, like the IMF, was traditionally dominated by American, Europeans, and their neoliberal agenda. However as American financial pillars are now underpinned by Chinese money, it has become impossible to ignore Chinese interests."

UPDATE: Megalomania and arrogance is of course not limited to the US, but also widespread in Europe, where declarations about "not allowing" Iran, China and others to do something are even more ridiculous considering our real political influence and military power. I just wanted to clarify that this post is not meant to bash the United States, but to criticize stupid and arrogant people, who overestimate their country's power. These people are a danger to their country.

The New York Times Blog The Lede (HT: David) describes a press release from Germany's Environment Minister Gabriel (Social Democrats) as "creative":

In a statement released today, Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel described Mr. Bush's speech on Wednesday as disappointing. But the statements harshest words were put in the title of Mr. Gabriel's critique, according to Reuters: "Gabriel Criticizes Bush's Neanderthal Speech. Losership, Not Leadership"

Comparing any unpopular leader to an ancestor of Man is hardly original, though far more expected from the likes of Kim Jong Il of North Korea rather than a government with warm ties to the U.S. Mr. Gabriel's kicker, however, seemed in a league of its own. Losership, Not Leadership? That's a new one, according to Google.

UPDATE: Mr. Gabriel was criticized in March for polluting the atmosphere. He used a government plane to fly back from the Spanish holiday island of Mallorca for a cabinet meeting in Berlin, writes Spiegel International (HT: Bashy).

China has now overtaken the United States as the greatest perceived threat to global stability in the eyes of Europeans, according to the opinion poll commissioned by the Financial Times. The poll, carried out by the Harris agency between March 27 and April 8 and published on Tuesday, found that 35 percent of respondents in the five largest EU states see China as a bigger threat to world stability than any other state.

Moreover, the United States is also doing better in popularity contests: Atlantic Community noted: "For the first time since 2005, the number of people abroad that view the US as a positive force has increased slightly, to 35 percent."

Related posts in the Atlantic Review:

• Europe is a Threat to the United States

• Transatlantic Foreign Policy Attitudes and Threat Perceptions