Why did Golden Dawn do so well in the 2014 elections

Many people wondered why Golden Dawn did so well in the Greek EU elections, despite being presented as a criminal and violent organisation. As a French living in Greece and as an ex-candidate for D66 in the Netherlands, now trying to help Greek social liberal Kinonia Axion, I think it is pretty clear why Golden Dawn is having good results, despite the heavy charges weighing on its leaders.

First, they are the only current Greek party with a very intensive grass root organisation and grass root activities. One might not like what they do (and obviously murder and racket of immigrants is the worst kind), but most people only see the “nicer” face of the organisation. It is the face which distributes food to the poor, helps older members of the community, defends households against the rising violence. Also, it should be noted that most people don't trust the media (owned by the Greek families which are manipulating the country behind closed doors). These media present in a very spectacular way Golden Dawn as a terror group. People don't trust that, just like they don't trust the police or the government. Everyone knows here there is little to expect from the corrupt justice system and law enforcement apparatus.

Another obvious reason is that, unlike Portugal, Greece is totally unused to mass immigration. And one has to recognize that in the last 10 years, immigration has literally exploded in Greece. The Western media always speak about Lampedusa (in Italy) or Melilla (Spain). But the fact of the matter is that the majority of immigrants to the EU enter via Greece. For such a small population and poor country, it is simply unbearable. Nothing is ready to tackle the flow of migrants, often arriving in absolute misery but meeting even worst conditions when detained here, following the idiotic Dublin 2 rules that the EU imposed on Greece. No wonder they turn to criminality or prostitution, facing as a consequence the hostility of the locals. Golden Dawn thrives on this kind of feelings. Many Greeks see no problem in an organisation which gets rid of some of the "dark skinned guys who roam our streets and are ready to kill an old lady for a 20 euro note".

Last but not least of the reasons why Golden Dawn is doing so well is, unfortunately, the nationalistic and conservative traditions of the Greek system. Greece is a very religious, traditional and in many regions quite conservative country. Beyond the rather “leftist” Athens, most provinces have deep nationalistic roots. It is not so far ago that the government was a military junta. While this junta was toppled by the rich families dominating the Greek politics, allied with the leftist youth of 70′s Athens, it had quite a lot of popular support. God, fatherland, family values and the “Great Greece” idea still sell quite well in the Greek political landscape… no wonder that the most disgruntled vote Golden Dawn.
Tweet

Witnessing Greek Reality (Lecture given in Athens)

Speech given in Athens, on 25th October 2013, on the point of view of a social liberal foreigner on Greece's current situation. 

 Good afternoon, goede middag, καλι σπέρα σας.

It is an honor for me that Κοινονια Αξιον (Society of Values) and D66 asked me to give you a summary overview of the Greek situation today.

First, I would like to explain from which point of view I will share these ideas with you. As some of you might know, I am French, although I have lived 11 years in the Netherlands, where I was politically active with the social liberal party D66. I guess I could be described as a centrist, secularist, pro-European reformist. My wife is Greek and we moved to Greece together in May 2012. My academic background is in political science and international relations. Today I work for a maritime shipping company. These experiences did shape my political thinking and it is from this perspective that I will explain how I see Greece and its political, social and economic situation. It is from a social liberal point of view that I will analyze it. It is with the eye of the outsider that I will describe it. In other words, while I will try to be as objective as possible, you must understand that my subjective feelings, my background, my own mentality and culture are also shaping these thoughts that I would now like to share with you.

The situation in Greece has been described in the press of all your countries, I am sure, in less than favorable terms. I will not try and make the picture rosier than it is, but I would like to also show you another face of Greece, beyond the spectacular front pages and the prejudiced clichés of the Northern Europe media. While the current Greek crisis seems to be primarily driven by economic news and uncertainties, I would like to make the point that the current situation is originally a political, social and even cultural one. What I actually mean is that if this country finds itself now in dire straits, the causes are deeper and more ancient than what the press often writes. What is the current Greek predicament? There is a long list of symptoms, most of which you might have heard of already.

First, the obvious: the country ran a structural budget deficit for too many years, which lead to the building up of an unsustainable debt. This deficit was due to a double imbalance: on the revenue side, Greece has a terrible tax collection record, but on the cost side, it also has a lot of unjustifiable expenses (for instance, the military expenses used to be the second highest in NATO countries, in percentage of GDP). This insolvency issue was ignored or at least underestimated by external (European) auditors as well as Greek politicians. The bank sector, like in many other countries, was exposed to this massive Greek’s sovereign debt but it was also exposed to private and corporate debt, through the abuse of credit based on unsound economic assumptions. The result is that current real interest rates in Greece are at an usury level, preventing any local investment by smothering credit, even for ventures which could actually be successful.

Still on the economic symptoms, there is a simultaneous problem which has not been described as extensively by the media: Greece has a particularly poor trade balance. The country exports much less than it imports (in value). The current trade deficit is 1.83 billion EUR. This makes any significant recovery of the Greek economy mostly dependent on the revenues of tourism, a factor which is not entirely under the control of Greeks themselves. All these economic factors (public and private debt, trade balance and the corrective austerity measures) have had a terrible personal consequence for many citizens: unemployment is the highest in Europe with figures around 27.5% of the active population, but with rates at least twice higher for the youth. We can unfortunately speak of an entire generation sacrificed, bearing the brunt of the crisis and of the measures taken to remedy it. The result is a bleeding of the population through emigration, mostly towards Northern Europe and, ironically, Greece’s creditor countries.

Let’s have a word about the regulatory environment (still from a social liberal perspective). The Greek state and administration have created a very bureaucratic regulatory environment. When I arrived here, for instance, I searched for information on how to create a business. I was quickly convinced not to do so. There are multiple licenses and authorizations in triplicate for the smallest of enterprises. There are also capital requirements and rules that are simply impossible to reach for a normal person. All this, obviously, stifles job and value creation, but it also encourages corruption and abuses of power. A typical social liberal answer to this would be to thoroughly liberalize most economic activity, literally freeing the energies. At the same time, this would help increase tax collection, ensuring that the welfare state is funded. But it does not happen in Greece at all, unfortunately. Not only does this prevent Greek citizens from creating businesses and jobs, it also prevents foreign capital to invest in Greece. Foreign investment is nearly always a net benefit for the countries involved. Greece bureaucracy effectively prevents the regular flow of foreign investment.

Bureaucracy is also made evident by the size and structure of the public sector. The efforts of the current government have reduced the relative size of the public sector in the active population (from 27% to about 20), as well as its costs. But it is fair to say that this policy has had huge negative impacts on the population. Also, due to the manner it was carried out, this downsizing and cost cutting effort has been very inefficient. Initially, the public sector was bloated for structural reasons (everything had to be controlled by the state in the dominant left wing ideology). But very quickly political parties began giving away public positions to their clientele without any regard to people’s skills or to the public needs. In some administrations, it is hundreds of civil servants who were hired in complete opacity, without filling any need. When the decision to cut costs in the administration was made, this issue was not tackled at all. Instead, the government did cut the pay of all civil servants by various percentages (more or less 40%). Since more than a quarter of the active population was employed by the public sector, the cuts had a devastating effect on the purchasing power and the standards of living of millions. Civil servants had mortgages and credits based on their previous salary and had to face the new reality alone. At the same time, the useless clients of the parties were not made redundant. So we are now in a situation where there is a lack of qualified personnel for some areas in the public administration, reducing the efficiency of the state action, while unproductive employees are still bloating the public sector. And the Greek state is still short of 2 billion euro this year… Even Unions are part of the problem: instead of defending the common good of those they represent, they consume everybody’s time and resources in sterile blockades.

Another massive problem in this country and one which has been described extensively in the press is the corruption levels. Greece has one of the worst corruption index in Europe (ranked 94 out of 180 in the world in 2012 with a Transparency International index of 36), just after Russia, the Belarus, Ukraine and Albania. I think it is fair to say that it is impossible to live in Greece more than a couple of months without being confronted to it, even in relatively “soft” ways. The fact is that corruption, under all its forms is everywhere. It is not limited to the political “elite”. Everyone participates, at a moment or another and it is very difficult to avoid. From the most modest citizens to the rich mansions of the Northern suburbs of Athens, everyone is flouting the law a way or another. This is done in 3 ways: tax evasion and VAT fraud, black labor and graft or bribery (principally between politicians or civil servants and ordinary citizens or businesses). And everyone has always a very good personal reason or justification to do so. I don’t mean that all Greeks are dishonest. Like most other Europeans they are hardworking, they love their family, and they want to be respected for their qualities. But it is the whole system, the overall structure, which literally bends them into participating in the overall corruption, either actively or passively.

Last but not least of the symptoms, there is a political crisis in Greece. Everyone in Europe has heard about Χρυσή Αυγή (Golden Dawn) and about their activities both political and on the “grass root” level. This extreme right movement has become very popular in some areas, managing to collect votes of the most disheartened citizens, the ones who feel abandoned by the system. Typically for such a party, Golden Dawn blames foreigners for all Greek problems, especially immigrants from the Middle-East, Asia and Africa, which are seen as invasion. But the Golden Dawn issue is of course only a symptom in itself of a wider political crisis: Greek citizens have absolutely no trust any more in their politicians.

The two traditional and currently ruling parties (PASOK and Nea Demokratia) are not seen as representing citizens as in any democracy. They are seen as parasites in a clientele system where political parties are in fact serving the interests of rich clans or families, older themselves than the Greek Republic. Votes are bought in exchange for subsidies or investment projects which have nothing to do with the actual needs of the country. Greeks very rightfully think that they have no recourse, no defenders in the traditional political arena. For this reason, voters transfer their ballots towards extreme parties: Golden Dawn of course, but also and more and more the left wing Syriza. Please remember that Greece is not a proportional representation system. For this reason, many votes get dispersed on smaller parties that don’t reach the percentage for a presence in parliament, despite their individual merits. At this rate, if elections are hold soon, we could have a Parliament where the two main parties could be a neo-Nazi one and a coalition of left wing radicals without even a common agenda.

A word about the role of the media here. Greek media are not really helping to have a proper political debate. Rather than informing citizens on facts, they prefer “entertainment news” and sensational headlines. Hardly a Greek specificity, I will grant you this, but in this case a very damaging issue. Topics such as immigration, suicides or criminality are used as emotional red flags in the media show, particularly on TV, without reflection on facts and reality.

And yet, despite all this gloom, Greece has a great number of strengths and positive aspects. So before I explain why I believe that all negative points I just described are only symptoms of a deeper problem, I will tell you why Greece has all the cards in hand, to be a peaceful, prosperous and socially advanced country.
Greece has several economic sectors which could generate prosperity, jobs and tax revenues. Everyone knows about the tourism industry and most can quote the maritime sector (shipping). But Greece is also an agriculture with a fantastic export potential and products with high added value. It has a mining industry which could generate more jobs and growth. It has a geographic and natural situation which is still unexploited. The combination of abundant sun, wind and sea makes Greece a perfect country to develop green energy. I dare say that with the proper investments, Greece could export electricity instead of depending on imports for its energy. Greece also has modern ports which are in an excellent position at the South-East entrance of Europe, giving potential access to both Central and Eastern Europe as well as all the Black Sea area. Considering that two third of the maritime traffic to Europe comes from Asia via the Suez canal, it is not difficult to see that, with the proper investments, Piraeus should be the location to discharge goods destined to Prague, Vienna, Bratislava and so on.

Greece also has one of the most hard working population in Europe. With effective average weekly hours in the highest within the EU, combined with excellent education of the youth, Greek workforce could be one of the most productive. There is a dynamism in this country’s population, a resilience that strikes me as a great strength and one of the best hopes for the future. This resilience and this dynamism is today mostly spent in internal struggles, social unrest and more prosaically in the day to day fight for survival. This strength is reinforced, in my humble opinion, by one of the pillars of Greek society: families. For anyone coming like me from Western Europe, one of the most striking aspects of Greek society is that it is family based. The social contract might not be very strong with the State, but it is iron within the families. I strongly believe that one of the reasons the country hasn’t imploded yet is the resilience of family bonds.

I would also like to add another strength that is maybe less economically relevant, but which, I think, is politically fundamental. I mean of course the Greek culture. Greece is a country reborn from the Ottoman domination, of course, but it is also a country with a very ancient tradition of political debate, of philosophical and scientific discussion and innovation. It is a country where people enjoy and share classic culture and value exchange. It is a country where people are open to what is done outside in the world. Greece invented the concept of Europe, maybe not as we understand it nowadays, but in opposition to the Asian Empires: as a mentality of individual freedom, of citizenship. It is in Greece that this idea was born, which we are now taking for granted, that individuals have political rights and are actors of the political sphere, not merely subjects.

This naturally leads me to the last part of this discussion on the Greek situation. My idea is that this political and philosophical culture is in jeopardy. I believe that it is its progressive disappearance that created the current problems. It is of course an ancient process, one which probably began right since the independence. It might also have its roots in the centuries of colonization by the Ottoman Empire. It is not the framework of this presentation to identify precisely when and why it happened. But the fact is that a fundamental piece of the democratic social and political contract has been eroded for many decades: what we call in political science the rule of law. In French, we say “l’état de droit”. It does not mean that Greece has no laws. It might very well in fact have too many, at least from a social-liberal perspective like ours.

The “rule of law” means that the law is the same for all citizens or that each citizen has equal recourse within the framework of the law, in case of conflict. For instance it is what, in a democracy, prevents someone to arbitrarily detain you. It is also the rule of law which makes you think that if you are wronged in any way, you can confidently make use of the justice system to get your right recognized. It is for me glaringly obvious that this is exactly what has been destroyed in Greece.

Greek citizens don’t believe that if something is wrong, it will be solved via the courts. Greek citizens, in most cases, don’t even trust the police to actually protect them or simply uphold the law. Greek citizens believe that there are laws and regulations for the ordinary people and that these rules do not apply for the rich and the powerful. Greeks citizens don’t just believe this, they know it because they are confronted with it every day. Most Greeks are so used to this situation, that they sometimes don’t think that it is abnormal. They are participating, willingly or unwillingly into their own oppression. Let me take a very basic and simple example.
I’ll take the car traffic… Any other European who has driven a vehicle on Greek roads for a couple of hours will know what I mean. While Greeks are absolutely charming people individually, they can be lethal behind a steering wheel. There is simply no respect of the code whatsoever, be it on the highways or in the city streets. People drive motorbikes without helmets, stack their two kids on the same motorcycle on the highway, drive over the speed limit on the emergency lane, ignore traffic signalization and generally bully each other on the road. Unsurprisingly, traffic accidents are extremely common and the cost in lives as well as in healthcare and judicial consequences is very high.

You are probably starting to see where I am going with this example. The problem is that there is no one to make sure that the law is respected. The police does not intervene on the road. Actually, many drivers never passed their driving exam. Most of them just bought it from a corrupt license examiner. But even more than the absence of punishment for illegal behavior, there is no deep feeling of right or wrong any more. This is the very basis of the social contract. In a democracy, you should not just obey the law because you are afraid of the police: you do it because you know that it is better for everyone and thus for you too. In other words, it is the feeling of common good which is lacking as well. No one considers any more that a restriction of his/her individual whims can be good for everyone.

If you look beyond the traffic example, and if you generalize this mentality to all other aspects of society, you will realize what’s going on in Greece. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Greek mentality today. At the same time, as I mentioned earlier, there is an incredible family solidarity and private social contract. And at the same time, beyond this family cell, as actual citizens, Greeks behave in an extraordinary individualistic way. The economic problems, the debt, the corruption, the fight about the austerity measures and the rise of extreme ideologies all point towards this debilitation of the social contract: the absence of rule of law.
The attitude towards the police is symptomatic of this. Greek police is considered as an instrument of tyranny, not as a guaranty of the normal functioning of society (this dates back to the Junta time, at the end of the 60’s). So police officers and agents know that if they try to apply the law, they will be abused or ignored. At the same time, in many cases, they are themselves the ones breaking the law, abusing their powers, especially on the weakest in societies. Unsurprisingly, a big proportion of the police corps is tempted by the ideology of Golden Dawn or even actively colludes with the party.

To conclude this presentation of the Greek situation, I would like to say that there is a lot of hope despite the current predicament. There are (social-liberal) solutions to the Greek crisis. But the first issue to tackle, ladies and gentlemen, is the redefinition of the social contract. Not just in the political field (although the good example should be given by those in power), but also in the social field this country needs new “game rules”. We need to associate the liberal approach, the protection of all citizens rights and freedom by the rule of law, with the preservation of the social safety net, with everything this implies: funding it with appropriate and fair taxation, administrating it in the lightest and most efficient way possible.

Thank you, bedankt, ευραριστώ!

Tweet

Greece at last or new beginning

After nine months of letting this blog pretty much slowly die, I have decided that my personal circumstances were justifying a relaunch. Due to private reasons, I just relocated to Greece, in Nea Ionia (Attika). Many friends and relative have been a bit shocked or at least surprised by this decision, considering that Greece is going currently through quite difficult times. The country is experimenting a dreadful economic crisis, while the political crisis is raging at the same time. I thought it would be interesting for readers to hear from me what it means to live this daily.

It has definitely a very strong link to the main topic of this blog, as, if you want to believe most media, Greece issues are now European ones and the solutions and problems we are experimenting here are dealt with at the European level. More generally, it seems to me and many other observers that the crisis which is so acutely felt here is also a symptom of the more general problems that Europa is currently experiencing. It can be seen through the local prism of the budget and debt issue, but it can also be described as a growth crisis of the European concept. Solidarity, economic rationality, democracy, federalism and nationalism are all being tested simultaneously and how we (citizens) are going to answer this is going to determine the future of this continent, not just the price of bread in Athens.
Tweet

European solidarity?

Greece, the land where democracy was invented, entered the European Union in 1981. While we Europeans are all confronted to the worst existential crisis since the Rome treaty, Greece has taken the brunt of it. I am using the word "existential" on purpose, to avoid "economic". Indeed, I want to prove, by use of the Greek example, that the crisis we are currently experiencing is only economic in its consequences. It is, in my opinion, before anything else a political crisis of solidarity. To state the obvious, it is by far not just a European crisis, but the actual chain of events unravelling in Europe during this crisis is beyond any doubt a European specificity and a threat to the existence of our regional organisation.

There are clearly several levels to the catastrophic chain of events which began with the sub-prime crash in 2008, the banking failures, the companies bankruptcies, the "bear" stock markets, the currency crisis and now the defaulting countries. There is an international crisis of the deregulated markets, obviously. It was not sop much a failure of capitalism, as was written by some leftist journalists, but a perversion of its mechanisms. Capitalism is a system which can be extremely efficient if two factors are present: a high level of information of the economic agents and a very low level of competition distortion. The global level of the crisis came precisely from a complete absence of both these factors. Agents began trading products where they had no visibility at all, or even where they were purposefully and massively misled. In other words, there was a massive fraud scam going on at the global level. But instead of compensating the lack of (government) regulation by an increased competition, these agents (banks, funds, traders, insurance companies and notation agencies) cooperated and colluded to avoid their individual demise. This led to their failure en masse and the need for the governments to rescue several of them (or their victims) with taxpayer money. Here already, we see that the origin of the crisis was one of fraud, essentially, a criminal enterprise, with economic consequences and all too human victims.

However, the global level crisis was followed by a local or country level one. Several of the countries which had to "bail out" financial institutions found themselves unable to meet their own obligations. This happened because they had to cover extraordinary expenses to recapitalize these financial institutions and because the economic crisis at the global level reduced at the same time their fiscal income. Extreme examples of such crisis include countries which had relatively sound budgetary principles such as Iceland, Portugal or Ireland, but also ones which did not. Greece is currently the archetypal example of such countries. Like France, the USA or Italy, its budgets were not balanced before the crisis. Unlike France and Italy, after the crisis they became unsustainable, because the weight of the public debt interests could not reasonably be covered by the country taxes. Like Mexico or Brazil in the 80's, Greece became technically insolvent.

Unlike these countries, the Greek government had consistently lied about it. The previous PASOK government had lied about its budget deficit before the country adhesion to the Eurozone, the Nea Democratia government kept lying about it after it came to power. To the credit of the current PASOK government, it disclosed the extent of the countries woes when it came to power in 2009. Unfortunately, it was already too late for any realistic local salvage plan. Greece has a poorly efficient public sector, an incredibly expensive military (second only to the USA in terms of budget to GDP ratio and first in NATO in terms of enlisted men and women in the army). It has way too many nationalized companies and not enough free competition. Its fiscal efficiency is poor, to say the least, with the richest people paying too little taxes (or evading them all together). Last but not least, the Church weighs enormously in political affairs without contributing to the economy.

A regional or international solution had to be found. Because of its membership in the European Union and its participation in the Euro single currency, the Greek problem quickly became a European problem. The Greek debt was a Euro debt and its crisis, by weakening the Euro, soon threatened to spread like a contagious disease. Namely, other European countries with the same currency and similar budget issues could face the same reluctance from lenders to give them any credit. And there lies precisely my point. Notation agencies and international banks did treat (to a certain extent) Europe as a apart entity. With some reason, they calculated that the European countries could not ignore the Greek issue (or the similar Portuguese and Irish ones). European banks had lent vast amounts to Greece, and so had sovereign entities. A Greek default would weaken or even threaten them. By their assessments and notations, they clearly sent the message that they expected a regional answer to a potentially regional problem. Although they had themselves some responsibility in the problem (contributing to aggravate it), it can not be denied that they had a point. Greece and the other European Union member states are linked by several treaties and by their common institutions. They share a money and their economies, via the common market are integrated in a very extensive way.

Yet, it is not so much an economic answer that these lenders wanted to see. It was a political one. In petto, this was a test of political will, of institutional resilience and (for some) of statesmanship. And it is, I think, stating the obvious again to write that this test was lamentably failed. While some, like Jean-Claude Juncker or Jean-Claude Trichet, did raise to meet the challenge where and when they could, most of the "usual suspects" showed a total lack of political sense. Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, but also for instance the Slovakian and Finish leaders (Iveta Radicova and Jyriki Katainen respectively), did not rise to show European leadership. They cringed and cowered on national issues, nationalistic ones even. Europe, as an idea as well as an institutional construction, is based on solidarity. Until 2008, it never had to face any substantial crisis. The Cold War never turned hot. The fall of the Berlin wall was more an opportunity than a crisis. The Bush led "War on Terror" (tm) always was an American thing, even if the Labour UK government demonstrated high levels of servility in it. None of these issues was a true crisis, because none of them threatened the livelihood of the European citizens. Even the defeat of the European constitutional referendum was mostly a technocratic issue. While citizens were consulted and generally rebelled against it, it did not affect them enough to even take the pain of trying to understand it or vote for anything else than local political reflex.

But nowadays, the crisis is well there. The refusal from international lenders to give sustainable interest rates to Greece and now other EU countries is actually threatening the life of millions of European citizens. And yet, the European answer has oscillated between hesitations and chauvinism. Europe, understood as a collective of member-states, has spectacularly failed the first serious test that was presented to it. Even if Greece is saved (and it will, sooner or later, but at which cost?), the current European institutional "house" is dying. It is dying from the poison that its own lack of solidarity is producing.

It might take a while, but the lessons of this bitter event have to be taken. The faster the better. It is not realistic to expect a vague coalition of member-states to present anything structured in answer to a regional or international crisis. It is not realistic to expect a lone country to play the role of scapegoat for the failures of international organisations, even if this country's government clearly dug its own grave. It is even less realistic to expect citizens to stay still or even to have a rational answer to all this. It might be time to build actual institutions to give Europe the political reactivity that its economic sheer mass requires. We can't continue to have such a massive truck with so many drivers and so little direction. Europe needs political leadership supported by democratic legitimacy and it needs it now. It is not time for less Europe, it is time for a stronger and faster one. Now is the time...
Tweet

Dutch Army plans revisited

Tweet
Dear readers,

My girlfriend had a funny remark this morning about the Dutch armed forces. Apparently, the new defence budget of the Netherlands includes no replacement for its tanks or transport helicopters. She said: "what is the point of a modern army without tanks? They really should get rid of it completely if they can't do it seriously". I had to laugh but to give her the point.

I had read yesterday that its submarine forces (already reduced to three after the damages sustained by the 4th) would be scrapped too. At the same time, the Dutch Defence Ministry is reserving billions of dollar for the basic (non VTOL version) of the US made JSF. And anyone with a ounce of reason will think: WTF? Why buy an extremely expensive plane (the most expensive there is, in fact) to a non-European entity, undermining European defence? Why the version least useful for external intervention and force projection? Why on the other hand refuse to replace the materials actually useful in today's world affairs: submarines, helicopters and armour? I thought about it a little bit and no rationale reasoning came to me.

But then I realized there is a simple explanation: follow the money. The Dutch coalition is made of VVD and CDA (right wing, near to Dutch big money and business interests). Their own interest is not to improve the Dutch defence capabilities or the European coordination. Their interest is to fill in their pockets and the ones of their business friends. Search no further... I suspect that the US industrials (and particularly the ones making the JSF) are ranking highly amongst these friends.

Europe and the Middle-East revolution

Dear readers,

After this very long pause in writing, I have been motivated by the Middle-East revolutions to put out this new piece. The main reason was my total disgust feeling when watching the reaction of European institutions and European countries to the insurrection.

I am not going to elaborate too much, but suffice to say that these reactions have varied from worried indifference to the most abject collaboration with the tyrants. I am no stranger to realpolitik and I am well aware that international politics aren't based on good feelings and kindness. Nevertheless, I think that it is the sign of a good statesman (or woman) to be able to recognize the momentum of History and at the very least to be able to capitalize on it. Our dear leaders have unfortunately shown nothing of this.

When Tunisia went into full revolutionary mode, the French government proposed to help the Tunisian dictatorship with crowd containment know-how and technology. When Egypt took the street, the only comments from German or Dutch elites was that the risk of the Muslim Brotherhood taking over was too big. It could have been a threat to... Israel. I am no Islamophile, but, let's face it, the complacency of the EU and Egypt towards Israel's apartheid policy has only made the Middle-East problems worst, not better. When Bahreini decided that they had enough, the only comment from our "lesson givers" was: beware of the pro-Iranian Shia majority. Now that Algeria and Lybia are in trouble, Berlusconi, Frattini and Schwarzenberg went very publicly on the record to express their support to Gaddafi. They were obviously terrified of a massive influx of refugees. Maltese authority were more discrete (at least they had some decency) but no less worried in their warning.

Unfortunately for all these despicable EU politicians, Bouteflika in Algeria and Gaddafi in Lybia decided to handle the matter the hard way. Algerian "security forces" (i.e. goons) simply beat up demonstrators into submission. Gaddafi forces went simply berserk on the people, shooting indiscriminately into the crowds with heavy weapons, sending its Air Force against rebelling cities and sniping people from the roofs. When Army and Air Force units refused to shoot at their own people, he used Ukrainian pilots and African mercenaries. Both are cheap and don't ask questions. The graphic videos and pictures filtering through the Lybian media shutdown are explicit enough: streets are littered with body parts and rubble. Hospitals are crowded, when they are not bombarded themselves.

One would expect from our dear politicians that they would at the very least resign. Don't hold your breath, though, that is not going to happen. Schwarzenberg (Czech Republic) was ashamed enough to say that his words had been taken out of context. In my opinion, the only lack of context (and his only excuse) was that he did not know the extent of the slaughter at the time. Anyway, honor and justice would require from them to politically fall on their swords, so to speak. That is not going to happen, so I won't hesitate: people of Europe, wake up! Demand the immediate resignation of all the politicians who knowingly lent a hand to the Maghreb tyrants (or still do so). Honestly, it won't be a big loss for Europe... And if they do not resign, let's take the street. After all, why would we always arrogantly pose ourselves in model to the Arab world? We can learn so much from it too.

Will we pluck the chicken or kill it?

Dear readers,

I have listened with disgust to many of the comments made in the UK and in the Netherlands about the so-called Icesave deal. This is a nasty piece of chauvinistic bullshit if there is one. Let's go back to the facts. In 2007 and 2008, many Dutch and British citizens (as well as most Icelandic people) subscribed to Landbanski saving accounts which were proposing extraordinary returns, far above the (then already quite high) market interest rates. Unfortunately for them, such rates could only be achieved through a semi-pyramidal scheme, part of the returns being funded by capital being invested by the new customers. Please note that each national group of citizens was also relying on guarantees from their respective national finance regulators. This lasted until the now infamous credit crisis burst, leaving thousands of people with virtually nothing left of their savings.

Obviously, these customers turned back to their state and activated the refund requests linked to the national guarantee. Some of them, however, had invested amounts in the Landbanski scheme that were higher than the national guarantee limit. They lost a lot of money, on top of the promised interests. Understandably, these citizens and the public organisations that had imitated them (regional councils, towns and other districts) were quite angry at the Icelandic banks for having failed them, despite the fact that they should probably have known better. There is indeed no such thing as a saving system which can deliver twice the market interest rate.

However, things became uglier. Hit by a triple bank failure (aggravated by the UK uncompromising attitude), the Icelandic currency lost most of its value and the Icelandic economy collapsed. Iceland new government and its citizens, understanding for the first time that their previous go-it-alone policy was not protecting them in times of crisis, decided to apply for EU membership. The reasoning is that the European Union, particularly its monetary aspects (the Euro), could protect them in the future from similar disasters. This was favourably seen by most EU member states (in normal times, Iceland would be a net contributor to the EU budget). But the UK and Netherlands, were both governments are in difficult electoral situations, facing strong populist criticisms, vocally requested that Iceland first reimburse the sums they had advanced themselves to their duped citizens. This is called the Icesave package deal and is currently being discussed by the Iceland Parliament, the Athling (the oldest Parliament in the world).

This is unfortunately probably going to derail the whole process. EU membership negotiations were already going to be difficult, due to a understandable worries from the Icelandic fishery sector. But the new British and Dutch exigences are enraging an already touchy Icelandic public opinion. And I can only give my support to the unfortunate Icelandic citizens. Why on Earth, when they are already down, highly indebted and suffering from a terrible crisis, should they be forced to support the costs of guarantees that were passed by other governments. Why should they pay for the misdeeds of a private bank which only happens to share a geographic situation with them. Why should they be asked to cover on their own money the risks taken by other people? Why should they in other words, pay for the greed of fellow Europeans? I see no ethical basis for this. I don't see any legal reason for this either. On the contrary, I believe that we should rather give a shoulder to fellow Europeans, especially at a time when everyone is suffering. That's what solidarity is for. That's what the EU is for: being stronger together, not screwing the weakest link...

Ireland will vote on Lisbon in October... again

Dear readers,

The Irish government just declared that a new referendum will be hold on the Lisbon Treaty in October this year. Although this time, analysts and polls suggest that the yes should win, the Irish Ministries in charge have left nothing to chance. Most interestingly, they have provided a website to explain the treaty in plain and understandable English.

This is, I think, a great move. It contrasts with the unreadable attempts made previously by the same government but also many other ones (such as France and the Netherlands...). I advise anyone interested in the Treaty to have a look at it. The beginning of the .pdf brochure which can be downloaded on it is very Irish centric, but everything after the Chapter 1 is invaluable information on the way the EU will function in the future, should Ireland, Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic ratify it eventually. Even better, this brochure explains in layman terms what are the goals and common objectives and ideas of the European Union (as per the new treaty) and I found this a great reading. Something, which, I believe, should be taught in schools and published in the press a lot more often...

So, for the sake of it, here it is (from the brochure's Chapter 2):

The European Union as a Community of Values

2. The preamble to the Treaty on European Union, as revised by the Lisbon Treaty, will include for the first time a reference to Europe’s cultural, religious and humanist inheritance, “from which have developed the universal values of inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law”.

3. The opening articles of the new Treaty seek to establish the nature of the Union as a community of values, on which the Member States confer competences in order to attain their common objectives.

4. Article 1 of the amended Treaty on European Union will eliminate the old distinction between the European Union and the European Community. This article confirms the establishment of a single legal entity, the European Union, which will in formal legal terms, replace and succeed the European Community once the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified. The European Union will have “legal personality”. The Union’s current laws and all other aspects of its legal order remain in force.

5. The nature of the Union now established is further clarified as one “on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives which they have in common” (Article 1).

6. Article 2 further develops the idea of the Union as a community of values in which human dignity, minority rights and equality are given Treaty recognition for the first time.

Article 2
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

7. Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union provides that any European State which respects the above values and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union.

8. Article 3 describes the Union’s objectives:

Article 3
1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.

3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties.

9. The aim of this article is to set out the Union’s core objectives briefly and in an accessible manner. In the negotiation of this text, particular attention was paid to achieving a balanced treatment of the Union’s economic and social objectives. The reference to “full employment” in paragraph 3 above is a significant change from the existing Treaties which mention only “a high level of employment”. The reference to the United Nations Charter, in paragraph 5, was inserted on the basis of a proposal from the Irish Government.

My apologies for this lengthy quote. And just because I am a nitpicker, here is my only criticism on this title. It writes lengthily about values. I hate this term which has no... value. Value is a relative noun and, as such, should not be used to define fixed referents. Let's speak about goals, objectives, ideas, ethics, but please, not about values! Let's please speak about the (positive or negative) value of common goals and ideas. That would at least make some sense.

But all in all, I highly recommend this white paper. I only regret it comes so late.

Libertas lies, Libertas lies, Libertas is American

Dear readers,

I have been away for a while. Sorry about that. I'll try to be more regular, although I would make no promise. This post is a reaction to something I noticed while recently using Google Reader.

I was reading feeds from Slate, the Democrat's US news website when I realized what was the advertisement joined to each post (provided by Google Ad and in Dutch). Because it was about politics, Google Ad automatically displayed an animated ad by Libertas, the Irish party turned pan-European. The ad more or less says: "If you wanted to have a say in the new EU constitution, Brussels says NO. Sign the Libertas petition".

So I would like to help a little bit the persons who might have seen his ad and got confused by it. First, I would like to point out one lie spread by this ad: that the currently discussed treaty is a Constitution. It is pretty clear that the previous project, which had some constitutional aspects to it, was shelved. The current one remains only a treaty between sovereign nations. I personally regret it, but that's the way it is. So the ad is misleading already about this. Secondly, it is a fact that Brussels (i.e. the European Commission or the Parliament) has no say in how countries ratify such treaties. This is down to each country's specific constitution. For this reason, saying that Brussels says no is a pure lie. The ones who say no are the member states, which have always been wary about letting "Brussels"becoming too democratic, because it might stop them from haggling together, away from the citizen's watch.

So Libertas is lying. Again. No real wonder for this obscure party, born from the ambition of an Irish businessman, Declan Ganley. Ganley has pan-European ambitions, a paradox for this very Americanized new politician. He claims to want a more democratic Europe, a claim dispelled very quickly once you have a look at Libertas website, which recycles al the old anti-European themes, falling in the most basic populism and demagogy.

Hence the title of my post, inspired by one of old War-time BBC French speaking slogans aimed at the occupied France. "Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris est Allemand". Libertas funds and backing is indeed tightly linked to Ganley's personal fortune, born from very good business in then Bush led USA. Republicans have notoriously been fearing a too powerful Europe. No wonder they might have helped an initiative aiming at undermining European affirmation.

European marine defence

Dear readers,

As you probably know, Europe has no defence forces, stricto sensu, and of course even less of a navy. Of course, the European Union website will tell you otherwise, and I am aware of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP). But such a policy is very deceptive in its name as well as its definition. First, it is not really as common as it says it is, and, second, it is more an intention of a policy than a real policy by itself. Let me explain.

The CFSP, or PESC in the French EU jargon, is primarily a voluntary coordination effort by member states who are not militarily neutral. It is also a prevention system and an anti-terrorism information exchange forum. But it is not a common army, and though multinational units do exist, they can not be engaged on an order from Brussels, even if it was backed by the EU Parliament. In other words, it is a nice beginning but not a real policy. There is also a generally agreed guideline on military purchase contracts, but I dare say that it does not prevent or discourage EU countries to buy military equipment without coordination with their neighbours nor does it prevent them from buying equipment outside of the Union, even if the price tag is higher.

The result we all know. While the EU has some powers in terms of economic and monetary policies, and while it certainly has a strong common environmental policy, it is looked upon with derision by other major powers. And with good reasons. There is no "big stick" to paraphrase Roosevelt, to back up the European soft words. OK, I'll give you one or two successful common missions in the Balkans and a half success in solving the Russo-Georgian war. But let's face it, the Eurocorps is a sad joke (no offence intended to its brave members, but I am sure they are as disappointed as myself about their forces), there is no EU navy or Air Force and countries like the Netherlands, Poland or the UK have absolutely no European solidarity when it comes to military spendings. They simply buy what the USA tell them to, regardless of the price or the actual need for such equipment.

Recently, I have to admit, some light seemed to show at the end of the dark tunnel of the CFSP. France led initiatives seem to be pushing in a better direction. First, under Jacques Chirac presidency, France and the UK decided to develop a new generation of aircraft carrier together. This was a major decision for both countries and the result was a common design platform for modular ships (three to be exact). Unfortunately, while the UK kept their end of the bargain and ordered their two units to host their future JSF aircrafts, France is still mulling over its decision to buy a replacement for the already shelved Clemenceau. Though it is for budget reasons, the decision of delaying the decision might in the end cost a lot more to France. This is one of the miracles of the National Accountancy system that France uses for its budget. It is a system which, unlike normal accountancy principles, counts only the current year for expenses and revenues, ignoring future expenses for the next year. It means that, technically, a measure can be taken which actually will cost more to the tax payer, but, in the short term, will weight less on the yearly budget. It's completely stupid, but, let's face it, French civil servants and politicians are not the brightest lot.

Anyway, to come back to the topic, there is one area where France is pushing in the right direction, and it is the navy. Just yesterday, France hosted an initiative aimed at gathering an EU rapid reaction force of naval units. France has allegedly the biggest navy of the EU (at least until the UK carriers are build) and would probably contribute the most to it, hence the location of the meeting. But interestingly enough, the real reason behind such an interest is the usual one: EU countries have a common enemy. It is not Russia, not Iran, not China or Syria. The common enemy disrupting vital marine supply lines is a bunch of African pirates, operating from the war torn area of Eyl, between Puntland and Somalia proper.

These strange mix of Punt mafia and Somali Islamists is motivated by greed and power and raids everything moving between the Somali barren coast and the Seychelles islands. They are disrupting a major oil and gas tanker route, as well as a container route from Asia to Europe and from the Middle-East to Europe (not counting several secondary routes to Africa). So French navy units and other EU ships have began policing the area, first as secondary operation zone for the NATO forces protecting the entrance of the Persian Gulf, and now as an operation by itself (FR). The operation had yesterday its first success, with the arrest of a dozen pirates on a boutre loaded with RPG launchers and assault riffles. They were duly delivered to Puntland coast guards who are also beginning to show their own teeth lately. We will see where all this leads. But I hope that we will see more of these operations in the future.

I also hope that European countries will eventually begin to purchase weapons, ships and vehicles together, even if I know that it is not for tomorrow...

Tax and economy

Dear readers,

Thanks to Kathy Gill, from US Politics, I ran into this excellent series of charts by Karmanaut. While these charts and the discussion on the blog specifically refer to both current US candidates tax plans (and are therefore doubly irrelevant for this blog), I think they are extremely interesting from an other point of view.

These graphs show that the understanding and perception of any economic policy are extremely difficult for the general public and biased by journalists often poor understanding of both mathematics and economics. Mathematics and particularly statistics are not a trivial thing. They are a tool to describe our reality and ultimately, in this case, to base politics. However, statistics can be presented in very different ways because they weight a specific indicator in function of various factors. If you weight the population factor, you end up with a graph about uneven population distributions, which is politically loaded. If you weight the contribution factor (to taxes or the economy), you also get a politically loaded graph.

This comes from the very weird way our perception works: if we see a phenomenon as affecting one group more than any other, we tend to unconsciously perceive it as being unfair. It takes an effort of the mind to realize that such inequality might very well be a good thing for the whole society (and therefore for all its constituent groups in the end). It might even be fair, ethical, good policy. There is no way to know, unless you understand the background behind the graph itself.

It's NO again...

Dear readers,

So that's it! The Irish have voted against the Lisbon Treaty, the text of which should have replaced the defunct EU Constitution (that they had previously approved). The text of the treaty was more or less similar to the Constitution, only the non institutional aspects and the state symbols had been stripped from it. This was to take into account what the Dutch and French has said they didn't like (or at least what politicians had said they didn't like). All these efforts have been in vain. Obviously, the situation changed between the two series of ratification and the Irish have voted against elements completely different from the French and the Dutch ("the constitution was [supposedly] too pro-business and not social enough"). The Irish are afraid of the supposedly (again) attack against their sacrosanct neutrality, and more generally of getting their voice diluted in the new system.

The fact that both reasons (the previous ones and the current ones) are totally imaginary is irrelevant. People rarely vote for rational reasons. Mostly they vote "with their guts", for the guy who is more eloquent or demagogic (thanks to the Sin Fein...) or simply because they are angry or happy. It does not matter much. I can't help feeling betrayed, as an EU tax payer, by the ungratefulness of most Irish people. After all, they have benefited my generosity for so many years, that they could have made the effort to read the treaty and realize that what a handful populist were saying was a big pile of crap. But I am not feeling that bad against them. They have excuses, just like so many others.

Their excuse (and one major flaw of both the Constitution and the treaty) is that these texts have been discussed in closed chambers, by lawyer and specialists and are the result of tit for tat negotiations between politicians who have everything in mind but their fellow citizens interests. So maybe this time, our politicians will understand that they have to consult the people of Europe to ask them what they want. My guess is they would tell them that they want more transparency in Brussels like in the various capitals, more accountability from the politicians at all level and more democratic decisions. But of course, instead of this, they will continue the blame game: taking credit for all the good things (mostly discussed in Brussels) and blaming Europe for their own failures. I would also hope that this time, they try to create a simple text, easy to explain in layman's terms to everyone. But I know that the Danish, English and other Polish politicians will add a dozen of opt out and conditions so that the text become unreadable again and making sure it is (again rejected).

Fair enough, we have the politicians we deserve. But frankly, sometimes I despair from both the politicians and my fellow citizens... Who is the most ignorant or stupid is not always easy to find out.

Europe's Day and Lebanon Civil War

Dear readers,

It's today Europe's Day (9th May) and it could be a great celebration for me and all other European dreamers like me. We could wave European flags, sing the European anthem, fire blue and gold fireworks, whatever. But I don't feel like rejoicing. First, nobody cares. My fellow French and Dutchmen voted against the EU Constitution and we are now stuck with parliamentary approval of a fig-leaf, watered down Lisbon Treaty. Europe is not more democratic than three years ago, not more transparent and not more social (nor "pro-business", by the way). The No-sayers shot themselves in the foot, but they also back stabbed the pro-European Yes-voters. So I don't see much reason to party.

There is another reason I feel sad today: Lebanon imploded again in Civil War. This unfortunate country is torn between pro-Iranian opposition militias (essentially Shia, with the silent approval of the Aounists) and the pro-Western government (with a divided Army unable to re-establish law and order) and some Sunni militias. The Shias have taken the airport and a TV station, while the Sunni have blocked the Syrian road to cut Hezbollah and Amal from potential Syrian reinforcements. But Shias could benefit from Iranian air bridge if their supplies run out (again unlikely). As usual, the ones suffering are the ordinary Lebanese of all confessions and political views who believe that laws and not thugs should rule the country.

Some people are quick to send both sides back to back with shared responsibilities. I am not one of these. Sure, the government might have mishandled the situation... But everybody should keep in mind that the Lebanese legitimate government has been pushed in its last throes by Hizbollah. A private sectarian militia controls half of the country, decides of war and peace, runs private secret services, a command and control network, secret arm stashes and randomly kills peaceful journalists, politicians or too brave Army officers for their liking. This militia is not even representing domestic interests but the ones of a foreign power (Iran and, to some lesser extent Syria). The Lebanese government and Army might have left things gone too far and have left themselves bullied. But the first responsible for all this violence is a fascist theocratic murderer: Hassan Nasrallah.

So you see, dear reader, there is really nothing to be happy about.

Kosovo-likes

Dear readers,

I usually try to resist commenting news when they are still too hot topics, but there are cases when the opportunity is too nice to be ignored. Kosovo indepen-dance is one of these. I know it is a heated debate, but it is also a perfect occasion to make a couple of useful comparisons and use the thought framework that has been presented in previous posts.

So Kosovo declared independence unilaterally, an easy shot considering the UN is administrating the Albanian populated Serbian province. Even easier because the UN administration was a de facto EU one, and most EU countries had made clear that they were ok with Kosovar's independence. What's left of Serbia, of the Serbian world (that is essentially Republika Serpska in Bosnia) and of Serbian allies (Russia and China, primarily) is of course outraged. And rightfully so, I would add, as the declaration in question as well as the recognition by the USA and most bigger EU countries is obviously in breach of most international laws. It is certainly nothing new and Russia as well as China have practiced intensively in this field too in the past (Afghanistan, Chechnya, Tibet, Taiwan, Abkhazia, etc., only to name a few).

But let's face it, they are legally right now and they are letting the world know. Serbians are enraged too, which is understandable, even considering that they are themselves partially responsible for what is now happening to them. If they had behaved a bit better with their various minorities in the past decades, they probably would still enjoy a complete national territory. Imagine that Texas would rebel and declare independence under UN/EU supervision, because the Chicanos are considered second class citizens there, and see what the US reaction would be. There would certainly be a nasty fight... Remember Alamo and all that crap. Ok, it would never happen you would say. Why? Well, for one simple reason: the USA are a strong military power and an influential diplomatic one (still) and they can ignore UN decisions and laugh at the EU if they want to. It's called the "reason of the strong" or the law of force.

And that's what happened in Kosovo, no legal process, but a succession of strength conflicts, more or less violent. Serbia oppressed ethnic Albanian Kosovars, Albanians created a guerrilla to answer this, Serbian forces and paramilitary crushed the rebellion and killed many civilians, the UN whined, the Russians laughed, NATO bombed the Serbians to smithereens and invaded Kosovo. I am not saying that it was wrong to invade Kosovo. I supported it when it happened. It is what happened afterwards which went very wrong. The international community let Kosovars think that they could get independence, despite the fact that there is absolutely no treaty, international agreement or UN charter article which allows a part of a national state to split from it if it is not a federal entity. Kosovo was not a federal republic inside Serbia, it was simply a province with an ethnic majority different from the rest of the country. The Kosovar reaction was only predictable: they declared themselves independent, despite the fact that the Serbian minority in the North of the province will never recognize an independent Kosovo government as a legal entity.

Russia and China (but also Spain, Cyprus and various other countries) were quick to denounce the move and quicker to warn other countries that recognizing Kosovo independence was opening the Pandora box. And again they were right. Basically, the EU and the USA have said to the world that Kosovo is a unique case, not an example to follow. Ridiculous: first, ethnic groups, oppressed or not in various country will only see that they can get away with an independence claim if they have the military strength to back their word; second, even if you only follow the Kosovo path exactly, that still paves the way to huge conflicts. So waht is now the guideline to break away, Kosovo style?

First, of course, there need to be some oppression and you have to make the world know about it. Because if you are being oppressed and nobody cares (like nationalities in Central Asian dictatorships, for instance), it does not count. It has to be on Western telly and it has to be easily Googled, otherwise, you can suffer in silence. Second, you have to rebel and get some military power. Having foreign sponsors (preferably Western) helps, but if you can do well on your own, it is fine too. The most difficult part is to get the UN to intervene. The UN is notoriously slow to react and if you have an enemy in the Security Council (or if your oppressor has a really good ally there) you are basically screwed. See Darfur or Palestine, for instance, it does not matter that their plight has been thousand times worse than this of the Kosovars: China is supporting Sudan and the USA are supporting Israel, so their rights will never be recognized. Also the problem is that to get the UN to react and send NATO, EU or ANZAC troops to the rescue, there must be some pretty horrible violations of Human Rights (like slaughters, genocide, tortures, etc.). You might not be ready to play that game, especially if the ones tortured or raped are family members. But sometimes, you don't have a choice... The rest of the story is a piece of cake. Once the connection with the "motherland" is severed by force, declaring independence is a matter of PR and making it look good institutionally. And now that Kosovo got it, nobody can even tell that there is no precedent.

You think that I am a cynic and a pro-genocidal Serbian? You could not be more wrong. Remember the previous posts. I don't believe in nation states. They are a product of imperialist XIXth century and European colonization. I am actually enjoying the fact that the Pandora box is open. It is only showing how obsolete the UN has become, how stupid the post World War II border intangibility rule has become. I am, by the way, not ok either with the much quoted right of people to rule themselves. It is only another disguise of the nation state principle. You can always find a subgroup to oppress. The other, the different, the guy with an accent is always the enemy. No, the true path is in supra national non-imperial systems. And if some old empires and nations must die to reach this stage, so be it. So yes, let's allow Taiwan to become officially independent, let's Palestinians have their own state(s), let's Abkhazia, Transdniestria, Kurdistan, Chechnya or Tibet be independent. Let's get rid of Corsica (if there is truly a majority for independence there), of Pays Basque or of Friesland. Who cares?

The point is, they will be independent for a while. Then they will realize that you are nothing in this globalized world if you are alone. And they will want to join the EU, the ASEAN or whichever supranational group they may realistically belong to. Then the real winner will be the citizens. That is of course if the supranational entities in question are anything else than a club of unelected people, irresponsible before their populations...

Who will be the boss?

Dear readers,

As you know, if you have been following this blog for a while, I have always had some admiration for the editor of Europea World, Peter Sain ley Berry. His most recent Comment on the EU-Observer is worth the reading. It is about the choice for the Presidency of Europe. Who will man the post, as described in the Lisbon Treaty? Tony Blair has been quoted as a front runner, though Sarkozy is reputedly against this (and I tend to agree). Peter Sain ley Berry is making the case that such a President (whose functions will very obviously been defined by the man rather than by the vague text of the treaty) will have international law as his only "bible". He goes on saying that any candidate, particularly Mister Blair, will have to be judged on his credentials regarding such laws. Which is equivalent to definitely discrediting the former UK's Prime Minister. We can safely say that his regards for such laws are minimal and his loyalties more towards his American friends. And these, as we all know, have little or no respect for anything international.

I'd like to go a bit further and throw a couple of names. Who would have the obvious stature, natural charisma, massive experience and most of all respect for the supra-national institutions fitting this job? I would say that there are very few contenders. Gerhardt Schroeder has the charisma and the experience, but his links with Vladimir Putin discredit him as much as Tony Blair's links to Georges W. Bush. No French politician could qualify in my eyes, not even François Bayrou, who badly lacks the experience and the charisma. Louis Michel would probably be a good choice, but the current infighting in Belgium could hamper such a nomination. Jean-Claude Juncker has said several times that he wants to remain faithful to his Luxembourg voters, so unless they ask him personally to take the job, he is unlikely to accept it. This is unfortunate, but expected. Apart from the case where one woman would get the job (after all it would be a good sign for Europe), I think there could be a surprise candidate. Romano Prodi has just lost his current job. He used to be a Commission President, which certainly gives him the experience, and he has both the charisma and the international stature and he speaks multiple languages. His respect for laws and international treaties is absolute. So he is a perfect match... Unless of course Mister Berlusconi vetoes him. That would be unfortunate too, but Il Cavaliere is not known for his sense of the public good neither for his tolerance. So I am now running out of names.

Do you have an idea?

(Re)-thinking Europe

Dear readers,

I have just finished Edgar Morin's "Penser l'Europe" ("thinking Europe"), which is an excellent excuse for me to begin blogging again. The book will be also the opportunity for me to go a bit beyond and expose my own views on this important topic.

Edgar Morin is a French left wing philosopher and social anthropologist. His Mediterranean roots (born Edgar Nahoum in 1921, he is of Spanish and Sephardi Jewish origin) were soon hidden by his war name of Morin. Involved in the Spanish Civil War and later in the French Resistance, Morin was attracted by Marxism and was until his expulsion in 1951 a member of the French Communist Party. He is still today a known sympathizer of the center left "stream" of the French Socialist Party. More importantly, of course, he is a popular intellectual in France and even in Europe, respected by both right and left wing politicians for his open mind, immense culture and defining ideas.

It is interesting to know that Edgar Morin, as he admits himself in the book, was initially a strong opponent of the European idea but came later to recognize its vital importance. Converts are often the most enthusiastic missionaries, so it is no surprise that Edgar Morin has written this essay in an extremely convincing and didactic way.

The whole idea of the book is that Europe nearly died during the XXth century, mainly because of its internal tensions. Morin tries to understand what stands behind the European ideal (historically as well as nowadays) and why is it important to find it out. The tone is sometimes a bit precious, as Morin is often obsessed with semantics. But naming things is controlling them, by making them ours, so I guess he has a point in trying to be as precise as he can be. This aspect aside, the reading is pure pleasure. Morin manipulates concepts and ideas with ease and more importantly makes them understandable for people who don't have the same immense scientific and cultural background.

Morin sees Europe as an entity not really well defined from the geographical, cultural or ethnic point of view. He then tries to define what common points have developed and existed along History between the nations and other political organisations which have flowered on its space and which could have explained both the extraordinary expansion and global success of Europe and its terrible implosion and decadence during the XXth century. He finds them to be what he calls a "dialogic" between nihilism and creation, a permanent instability, source of progress as well as destruction. What he calls dialogic is the opposition between two ideas which are antagonistic without being contradictory or exclusive and as the same time complementary without being stable. He goes a bit further by explaining that it is this dialogic which has created the European Nation States and the modern democratic systems, but also the ideologies that have nearly destroyed Europe: Marxism and Fascism. This dialogic has also transformed Europe, both through its oppression of the rest of the world through the colonial system, and through its adoption and integration of other cultures in its own identity. Due to this, Europe has both spread its defining principles through the world and acquired a massive responsibility in doing it. The dialogic between cultures and civilization has made European civilization in some way compatible with all cultures.

This responsibility is the reason Edgar Morin wants a political Europe. He understands that to survive along these principles, Europe must be stronger (not in a military way, but in a softer, influential way) and united. Europe has hurt and changed the world all together, for better or for worse. But it now has to survive with it and in it. The Nation States have been created by the European dialogic and have been made redundant by it. We still have to invent something else to complete our cycle to the next stage, whatever it is. Otherwise, the nihilistic aspect of the dialogic will only destroy them, nothing will have been created to go beyond... Morin thinks that a Confederation (a bit along the Swiss model) could help us define what this next stage is.

But interestingly, at the end of the book, Morin gives clues. The point, according to him, is that there should not be any ideology. Europe has already created and destroyed all religions of earthly salvation. Europe has invented secularism and has proved that it is the only peaceful way to go. But it has not destroyed religions or ideologies. It has absorbed them and invented a system where all systems can coexist without facing annihilation. Our habit of facing the ultimate Void (and surviving it) has given us this amazing ability. Call it democracy if you want (though it is a tricky word to employ here, so much has it been misused), it does not matter. It is a way of handling public matters which solves the problem of power. No other system has done it. Of course, none is perfect either, and our democratic system could see many improvements. But Europe's mission, its new creation process, could be to defend it against the permanent entropy of the Void, and to propose it to the rest of the world that we infected with our own dialogic. Spreading democracy (what a terribly dangerous slogan) could become an ultimate goal for a future European Union.

The point that I would like to add to Morin's analysis is that it does not need to be disruptive. It does not need to be disruptive to the European States. They are going to disappear a way or another, swallowed by this new Void that is globalisation. They can understand that it is not too late for them to accept this kind of immortality. But more importantly, it does not need to be disruptive for the rest of the world. They can understand that Europe has now permanently abandoned any aggressive expansionism. What they can now also understand is that the system that we are offering (for free, so to say) is not exclusive of their own cultures or of their own contribution to civilization. It is the whole point of the democratic process that it is is not ethnocentric. It is not attacking any faith, any social system neither any form of expression. The democratic system only basis is that there should be a rule rather than chaos and that the rule does not need to be any heavier than needed to respect each group or individual. For this reason, it is the ultimate universal. The universal that includes all particularities.

Sarkozy and the EU - follow up

Dear readers,

Nicolas Sarkozy, the new French president, loses no opportunity to look like a fool. He had, before his election, made very clear that he was opposed to Turkey's accession to the European Union. He had even strongly supported his predecessor's idea to include into the French Constitution an article stating that before any EU enlargement (after Croatia's), French people would have to approve it by a referendum (as a constitutionalist, I strongly reject the idea of mixing levels of priority in legal texts, but that's another story).

Furthermore, he had put as a condition to any extra discussion with Turkey (such as the opening of new "accession negotiation chapters") that an EU committee would discuss enlargement rules. This was accepted by other EU members (under Greek and Cyprus pressure) and such a committee was indeed created last week. Though the UK managed to exclude from the committee powers any discussion on the final borders of Europe, Sarkozy claimed loudly in the (French) media that such powers had been indeed included. Denying the obvious can be damaging in the future, but it seems that an otherwise relatively clever Sarkozy has suddenly lost touch with reality. Of course, the fact that French people and media did lost touch with any reality a long time ago probably helps.

Now Sarkozy has another issue at hand. He wants to be seen as the President who changes things (especially things made by Jacques Chirac, his predecessor and mortal enemy). So he decided yesterday to ditch the Constitution article mentioned above and replace it by one where the President has the right to chose between a referendum and a vote by the Congress (both French Parliament Chambers gathered together). Needless to say that it is usually a lot easier to get the second right than the first. This infuriated politicians and media opposed to Turkey's EU accession. They see it as a concession to Turkey, as French MP's are globally more in favor of Turkey's accession than French citizens themselves. I truly wonder how Sarkozy is going to sell this to his party and his voters without looking like an idiot... On the other hand, he seems to have other preoccupations right now. And about this one, I have only one thing to say: the bastard! OK, I am only jealous. ;-)

Myanmar, China, the EU and the Olympics

Dear readers,

I have been away for much too long and I would like to apologize. I have been pretty busy doing too many things at the same time (and thus nothing really well enough).

To come back to our topic, I would like to talk today about Myanmar. Our newspapers have been full of public indignation to what just happened there and what is most certainly still happening. They were also full of governmental indignation at the same facts. We heard the UK, USA, French or German governments having terrible words for the mad generals' junta. Sanctions were even voted by the European Union as well as the US Congress. Even the UN Security Council (this true embodiment of international hypocrisy) went as far as calling the Myanmar thugs to more measure. But, let's be honest, for what result? Nada! The government violently cracked down on the unhappy monks and their civilian supporters. Everything went back to normal, and, while the generals feast on the spoils of the people in their new capital, the "order" reigns in Rangoon.

Why is that? Well, it is simple. The Western countries have little or no interaction with Myanmar (ex-Burma) and the suppression of this little won't change anything for the ghoulish members of the junta. They can continue to mismanage, plunder, torture, slaughter and exploit in all impunity. The only true country with which they have any interaction is China. But as we all know, the People's Republic of China is not shy about Human rights violations. It cultivates it as a national sport. And speaking about sport, it is just organizing the next Olympics. What an unfortunate coincidence! Immediately, of course, some voices rose to ask China to act towards Myanmar in a responsible way to help the International Community stopping the slaughter. But China's answer was the usual: Myanmar problems are internal and do not threaten the region's stability. This is basically a diplomatic way of saying: "as long as Myanmar problems don't threaten our oil and raw material routes, we prefer to continue help the generals plundering the country, it is highly profitable and who cares about poor citizens, they'll die sooner or later anyway". Just the way China deals with North Korea, basically, and, after all, just the same way it deals with its own citizens when they are unhappy...

So the same voices raised an idea: why not ask for a boycott of the same Olympics if China does nothing? That sounds like a fair idea: China badly needs these Olympics to help it improve its international standards (quite spoiled by its treatment of Tibet or Sin Kiang or its unfriendly gesticulations against Taiwan). And it probably needs it even more than it needs Myanmar. So, what happened? Well, nothing of course. I don't know why, but there is not any such request anymore in the global press. Not a word. So I am asking myself a question: did China pressured the Western governments (after all, China is a big market for their industries, but, more importantly a major workshop for the goods they consume)? It is actually unlikely. As the recent Dalai Lama visit to Washington shows, the Chinese dictators don't have this power yet. So maybe it is another reason. Maybe main media were too afraid? For instance afraid of being banned from covering these famous Olympics. Or worse, simply of losing very substantial publicity revenues if the show (as unlikely as it is) does not go on? I don't have any proper answer to these questions. But I think they deserved to be asked.

For myself, I will boycott the Beijing Olympics. I am sad of seeing the Games once again giving up to a country which violates some of the basic principles of sport and more importantly Humanity. So I will not watch TV broadcasts showing the Games and I will not read newspapers about it either. It would be a serious treason to the poor people of Burma who suffer and desperately hoped that this time we would mobilize for them. With something more than good words. We are very good with words. Not too much with actions.

During this time, China holds the 17th Party Congress. A vast farce where journalists dig up in word counts (you don't really want to listen to the whole speeches, it's way too boring) what the next party line will be. A farce where new party leaders try to impose their mark on History, like Deng Xiao Ping in its time. Apparently, the new fad this year is "Scientific Outlook on Development"... Probably a cover up for more exploitation and pollution. But who cares? It's China, right?

European Treaty on the (dissection) table

Dear readers,

The Portuguese Presidency of the European Union has decided to fast track the discussions on the new European Treaty. For those who have been sleeping in a glass box during the last years, the new treaty is a barely readable but badly cut down version of the Constitutional Treaty sunk by the French and the Dutch referendums in 2005. Anyway, the Portuguese (who currently hold the presidence of the European Commission as well) want to close the negotiation in six weeks to have something signed and validated by the member states before 2009. Most commentators are underlining the difficulty of the task (if not its unreal timetable). They point at Poland's coming elections in October as well as UK's Georges Brown lock up with unions and its own Labour Party. They also mention more minor points such as Austria's issue with University policy. All agree anyway to say that pulling the treaty out of the ditch is going to be nothing less than Herculean.

But I personaly believe than, further than the usual bickering and Teheran carpet seller style of the negotiations (which is sadly nothing new), the real problem comes from the legitimacy. We are again paying for decades of governments playing against the EU at home and even sometimes in Brussels. We are paying for the failure from most political parties to actually show some European commitment. Worse we are paying the total absence of "selling the EU to its citizens". I have said it earlier, but unfortunately, the current events are showing again the urgency of such points. The EU can't survive another blocking of its institutional construction. But it can even less survive the total disaffection from its citizens. Most citizens of the EU, even educated ones, have no idea what are the positive aspects of the EU, even the quite obvious ones. Most citizens on the other hand believe all the bad stories that an ignorant press or irresponsible politicians have spread over the EU. In summary: everything bad in the EU comes from Brussels, but everything good comes from the local politicians... Yeah, sure...

The UK unions fortunately know better, and they have severely attacked Georges Brown for its opt-out clauses in the social policy. But in other countries, unions and political parties alike blindly attack the EU for all kinds of wrong reasons. So, let's say it once and for all: yes, the EU is not very democratic, neither very transparent. But let's be honest about it, the main reason has nothing to do with Brussels (which has always attempted to simplify and democratize things) but everything to do with a bunch of ruthless national politicians. And it's time to name a few, just for the sake of responsibility (a word they use a lot but practice very little, if at all): Tony Blair and Georges Brown, Jacques Chirac (though sadly his current successor seems to take exactly the same way) and Laurent Fabius, the Kazynsky brothers, Jan Pieter Balkenende and, last but not least, Silvio Berlusconi (the frightening clown of the Italian politics). There are others, but I believe that these ones are the most directly responsible.

So if the Portuguese really want to do something for the EU, it is, I believe, more important to win the hearts and minds of its citizens, through a massive explanation campaign. This is the most urgent thing at the moment, probably the only real one actually. All the rest is technicalities which could easily be overcome, if only the European citizens had a little faith in their institutions. I just hope that decades of power play, haggling and sabotaging by national authorities haven't killed the little good will left.