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.

"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.

German conservative interior minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has come out with a bold initiative to provide asylum for thousands of Iraqi Christians forced to leave their homeland in recent years because of religious persecution at the hands of Muslim extremist groups, writes Ulf Gartzke in the The Weekly Standard Blog:

According to the Schaeuble plan, which is backed by the interior ministers of the 16 German states, Iraqi Christians would be allowed to stay in Germany until conditions on the ground in Iraq have improved to the point where they can return home. While the Interior Ministry has not officially come out with any concrete refugees quotas, Berlin insiders believe that Germany could end up accepting anywhere between 5,000 and 7,000 Iraqi Christians per year.

Related post in the Atlantic Review: Small Town in Sweden Accepted More Iraqi Refugees than the Entire United States

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).

Germany's economic recovery "resembles that in Dubya's USA: growth for the well-off, more (crap) jobs but less income for the rest," writes DoDo in the European Tribune and points to a just released study by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) that says that real income fell by 3.5%.

Chancellor Merkel attacked suggestions that Germany had taken the easy option in Afghanistan: "We're not just digging wells and building houses; we also have a military mission."  Hugh Williamson reports in the Financial Times:

In her most outspoken comments on Afghanistan since Germany came under pressure this month to send more troops, the German chancellor said she had "absolutely no time" for proposals to redeploy Nato troops within Afghanistan.

The Federal Foreign Office announced today:

Germany is stepping up its efforts to establish an international uranium-enrichment plant under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Today, at IAEA's headquarters in Vienna, Federal Government representatives informed interested States about the details of the German proposals to multilateralize the nuclear fuel cycle, receiving a highly positive response. This concept is based on an initiative by Federal Foreign Minister Steinmeier. More and more countries are thinking of starting their own enrichment activities. Any joint solution must therefore take the desire for the peaceful use of nuclear energy into account, while at the same time making sure no fuel is misused to build nuclear weapons.

Could this be a workable compromise for the conflict over Iran's nuclear program?