Brussels meeting on the Euro?

Tried to use the occasion for the meeting to gain in understanding on the current situation in Europe. The top government officials in Sweden are taking a cautious stance on the Eurozone political maturation issue. Swedish voter interest in the Euro has plummeted so the Swedes are running away from the problem whereas the Poles are trying to help by joining as soon as possible with higher growth than the Eurozone average. Sweden will help via the IMF though.

Swedish officials don’t think the crisis is a political crisis as I do. Part of this reason seems to be that Europe is solvent and in better economic shape than the US. This is, I think, a very good argument for the crisis being rather political. What Merkozy wants by introducing the Maastricht criteria again in a new form is hard to understand though. The whole charade seems to work, sort of, but it might be borderline knife-wrestling. Someone said that this is not a debt crisis it is rather a current account crisis, ie having used current account rather than budget deficit maximum of 3% and the public debt maximum of 60% would have predicted the crisis. Using 3/60 would not have predicted the crisis.

At the same time as it might be absolutely essential for making progress the fiscal union/integration issue is causing ire in other countries that are beginning to feel sidelined. Britain does not want the Eurozone to go down for the sake of its economy but would probably don’t mind politically. However, since the “peripheral” countries are withdrawing from the issue the only way forward is indeed a fortified Eurozone. It is unlikely that Merkozy will manage to entice all 27 countries and instead move forward with the 17.

The question is if an “economic government”, a second floor on the EU edifice is necessary. How much of a charge on democracy would be possible to use to save the Eurozone? Neither France nor Germany would want an official loss of sovereignty though. Is the current affair an attempt to secure the cooperation of financial workers in another fashion? Is the elite placing tentacles that the populace is not controlling? The reason I’m asking is the serious writers call the meeting “making a fudge”. If people meet to do the same as earlier, that did not work earlier, my guess is that they need a cover for something else. I understand it is very uneuropean to question the good intent of the meeting but who are we trying to fool here? In any case, it is fascinating that the issue is so polarized among those that think the Euro will fall and those that think we have business as usual. This is not economics. This is politics.

Niall Ferguson's Take on Europe?

Niall Ferguson has written a ten year projection on Europe, The Saturday Essay, on wsj.com. I guess this is the kind of thing he dishes out to students at Harvard for comments. Therefore I can’t resist the temptation to comment myself, albeit on a more humble level.

Ferguson thinks Norway will pop the question about a Nordic Union with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and Finland but he does not think they would be in close contact with Britain. This idea was up for discussion in the Swedish press not long ago. They even speculated on how to fuse the different royal houses into one. At the time I thought this was irrelevant because of the presence of the European Union. Why one more? The foreign minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, thought the same way. The Nordic countries are actually quite different, especially Finland, which is already a member of the Eurozone. Ferguson thinks they would change allegiance, apparently. This is perhaps not so likely. There is a movement in Finland right now in the other direction. They want to remove Swedish from their schools. Finland was taken from Sweden 1809 by Russia after having been together for 700 years. This legacy means many Finns speak Swedish. Being close to Russia after years of Finlandization they rather cuddle up to Germany and the Eurozone for independence of a sort they prefer.

Sweden might also be in the mood of joining the Eurozone according to the politicians and the industry. It makes sense both economically and security wise. It is interesting that very little of current discussions on Europe involves NATO and security issues. America has vanished from the equation. It seems like Germany and the zone has supplanted it. People giving opinions on the matter in the Swedish press thinks Sweden, Denmark, and Britain will be forced to join the zone and support countries in trouble. Only the independently wealthy Norwegians seems to be able to do as they please. If politicians and industry in Sweden want to join Germany, it still might be difficult to convince the populace which watches British and American TV every day and don’t want to pay for the profligate Greeks. However, if the US can’t fix their gridlock in Congress soon and start working on their debt, people will lose their sense of security from the US and turn to Germany for comfort.

Ferguson is bullish on Britain and wishes it will stay out of the Eurozone which is my feeling also. He thinks Ireland would rejoin the English kingdom which I would also believe on cultural vibes. The Brits would not ever join the Eurozone and I have earlier suggested that they would form not Taiwan but Japan outside a Chinese equivalent Continent. He thinks Britain would be preferred for banking by China rather than Brussels although he envisions some sale of assets to the Chinese to go with that. When the ten Euro-countries fall to the Germans, that Ferguson suggests, there will be a new phase in European development built on German language and culture. Maybe Brussels will be moved to Berlin rather than to Vienna that Ferguson suggests. When France, Spain, Italy and seven other countries fall, people would flee to the security of a joined Eurozone that keeps the Russians at bay.

Ferguson seems to have an idea that the SPD would gain momentum is Germany. Angela Merkel, raised in East Germany, does have a streak of Social Democrat over her politics so maybe he is right and that the Eurozone will become something to the clear left of the US and Britain, even if the Democrats rule. Sweden’s center-right is also moving leftwards. What happens in China will probably also be important in terms of foreign investments. If China becomes socialist rather than robber baron capitalist they might favor the Eurozone preferentially over the new English kingdom. Personally I have this naïve idea that the US and Europe would start investing in jobs in their own hemispheres rather than in Asia, despite short sighted growth aspects and then Britain could count on support from this angle as well.

In 2012, Ferguson believes, Israel will attack Iranian nuclear facilities with all problems thus induced, like a blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. I don’t think this is likely. According to The Economist the Israeli military is against such a move which is going to be too problematic. My feeling is that the Arab Spring is slowly going to make the region Islamist/socialist. That would make the Israeli position continuously worsening as the US seems to leave the area for South East Asia in their Pacific Century. The response to the Muslim world is then going to be focused on the relationship with Europe which differs between The New English Kingdom and the Eurozone, or The United States of Europe, as Ferguson calls it. Israel does not have a good relationship with Europe, unfortunately, and might be forced into accepting to give up it Jewish state for something similar to South Africa, since Europe is so heavily on the side of the Palestinians, which I’m personally not. The fact The Arab Union went against Assad, sort of, is though a positive sign for the area, that could speak for a relative future stability.

Wolfgang Münchau at the Financial Times the other day claimed that saving the Euro would destroy the EU. Ferguson is on the same track. It is very likely that Germany with its “not now but later” approach have worked the situation into a two pronged result. Either they become rulers of the Eurozone with a weakened France or the whole thing falls apart with them still standing on the remnants to mind their own business with Russia.

The Moderates and the Social Democrats in Sweden moves in the German direction

Muddling through seems less and less an objective for the elites in Europe. The cost of borrowing threatens to strangulate the Euro zone and the independence of the ECBs printing press is at risk at the peril of future inflation. However, according to World Weekly at the Financial Times edited by Gideon Rachman, 80% of Germans think the Euro zone will survive.

Former EMU propagator Göran Persson, the former Swedish Prime Minister and a Social Democrat, now says that Sweden should join. So says another former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, who is the current Foreign Minister and a Moderate. The Swedish people is not there yet though. There is not a majority for EMU membership at the polls.

Bildt and Persson talks like there is no risk for the Euro but David Cameron would rather see a networked Europe of independent states fearing that a fortified Euro zone would start to dominate the peripheral countries in the EU. According to the latest news, however, he agrees with Angela Merkel concerning the need for Lisbon Treaty change, as long as the cash cow, The City of London, which supplies 30% of British GDP, is not made less globally competitive by enemy legislation or taxation.

In other words, Merkel is beginning to have an effect on northern Europe as the British press is increasingly doubting the viability of the Euro, to the irritation of Berlin who claims media has been against it all along. Detailing how an economic program for saving the Euro is beyond most people but deciding whether or not they are British or German should be more feasible and my earlier request for the official Swedish position on this question seems to have been answered. Not only the Swedish business community, which trades preferably with Germany, but also the two main parties are now for Germany.

My one or the other kind of argument is not shared by David Miliband or the Labor party in Britain who wrote the other day that Britain needed Germany and who argued for a fortified EU. He calls being “outside” the EU a disaster for Britain. Cameron, on the other hand, is pressured by at least 100 MPs in this direction. It is understandable that many Brits would not mind that the Euro zone, as a future potential adversary, would disintegrate. It is a straight forward balance of power argument. A multipolar Europe rather than a divisive block construction.

Gideon Rachman argued for an orderly dismantlement but was told that this might lead to such disorder that extremist parties might get power in Europe again. I’m not convinced this would happen, though, we are not far enough from the war yet. But the problem of how to organize Europe still does not have a clear answer that can be formulated in the press for the people to take in.

Someone wrote today that politics is still at the top despite global finance. It has its own politics and as the Occupy movement has demonstrated, as has reactions in Europe of other kinds, some people don’ t like this politics. The politics of global finance is today nation-building in Asia and nation deconstruction and austerity in the West. No doubt there is a reaction. It is also funny to see how it is assumed that the economy in Asia is more powerful that in the West when it is immature and cannot really be compared with the economy in the West.

Following what has been written about the possibilities for Italy to get out of its predicament is not particularly hopeful. The press is against Italy but evidently seasoned politicians in Sweden and also Britain is for Italy. The math, which is simple enough, is clearly against. Politicians must therefore factor in a change of heart that has taken place in southern Europe for reform.

The Next Trend?

Samuel P Huntington wrote the following in his 1996 book Clash of Civilizations:

“In the early 1990s, Chinese made up 1% of the Philippine population but were responsible for 35% of the sales of domestically owned firms. In Indonesia in the mid-1980s, the Chinese were 2-3% of the population but owned roughly 70% of the private domestic capital. Seventeen of the twenty-five largest businesses were Chinese-controlled, and one Chinese conglomerate was responsible for 5% of Indonesia’s GDP. In the early 1990s, the Chinese were 10% of Thailand’s population but owned 9 of the 10 largest business groups and were responsible for 50% of its GDP. Chinese are about one third of the population in Malaysia but completely dominate the economy.”

The US is going Pacific and the UK is pondering Europe. David Cameron is talking about a “networked Europe” rather than a block Europe. The Germans, however, wants “more Europe” which probably means a more German Europe, if Angela Merkel is going to get full support from the Germans. Thus the new trend is that the US is facing stiff competition from the Chinese in East Asia and the Pacific and the UK in Continental Europe.

Another new trend might be the language question. Mandarin Chinese might take over much of the English dominance in East Asia and German might have a renaissance on the Continent. Culture follows power! Before World War II Swedish children learned German as their first foreign language.

Anglo-Americans and also other Europeans might though find comfort in the following statistic:

“If demographic trends continue, well over 50% of the world’s Christians will be in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia within 25 years—a clear shift from Christianity’s traditional home in Europe and North America.”

It is from the 2010 book Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices by Robert Booth Fowler et al. Perhaps we should let the Chinese dominate East Asia and focus on South America and Africa which even lies in our time zones and where we are more likely to find hearts and minds than in the assertive Asia.

This book also tries to explain how a religious America works compared to a secular China. The religious pluralism observed in America functions as a vent for freedom making possible a streamlined collective approach in the economy. People will feel free with maintained integrity as long as they can exercise their faith.

The last 20 or so years in the US feature what could be called the Fifth Great Awakening with an increase especially in evangelical Protestantism. The First Great Awakening in American came before the Revolution in the 18^th century. Periodically America turns spiritual and looks for the next political reform. We have yet to see what lies in stock this time.

The problem is that you can't talk about the problem?

Yesterday Italy ended up in real trouble. Some said its economy is dead other meant that it still has a chance. After all it a country based on knowledge and it has significant assets to back it debt. But it seems like this was the straw that broke the camel's back. There is talk today on Huffington Post of a two-speed Europe solution. There is talk about a budget czar for the Eurozone in the Financial Times.

A budget czar that takes control over the budgets of member states would mean that it is clear that they can’t do this on their own. Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal have failed to match expenses with income and can’t sustain welfare states on the same level as states in northern Europe. We have technocracy delegitimizing democracy in such states and would need a panel of judges to decide which countries are in and which are out.

Nicolas Sarkozy has been advocating for a two speed Europe whereas Angela Merkel has spoken for a more homogenous variety. Merkel is of course right as far as the EU motto is concerned but if technocracy with economic steering, a Eurozone economic government, will make countries like Greece balk at this prospect, they will have to split the Eurozone somehow. A solution with debt redemption over 20-25 years via a fund is a more probable proposition which is also discussed in the Financial Times today.

So, what people are beginning to talk about is that democracy does not work everywhere. Still you have politicians who stand tall and say they wish democracy for Libya’s people soon, when there are problems in southern Europe already. The question today is whether or not southern Europe will accept technocracy or if they will cut themselves loose and stay democracies. Greece is an interesting example because 70% poll favorably for the Euro at the same time as they poll 60% against the bail-out from the Eurozone.

Freedom of Religion in the US is Individualistic

Denis Lacorne wrote in his book that Samuel P Huntington claims that the US is a deeply religious country, defined by an American Creed, and that the US is neither secular nor a religious theocracy. It was actually Gunnar Myrdal who in 1944 defined the American Creed. After reading Huntington’s Who Are We? from 2004, I’m convinced that Huntington’s idea is more correct. He says that the new US was already forming as John Locke was born 1632 thus staying with Tocqueville on this one. American exceptionalism, he says, is not to a little part due to its religiousness. What also makes the US unique and the most religious protestant country is that many sects were allowed to form and thus made possible a more individualist religious life. What Lacorne also forgot to say was that the Catholicism in the US is very protestantized which makes it less authoritarian.

However, if you ask Americans what about the US they are most proud of 85% say the political system. This should be compared with 7% for Germans. It therefore seems like the Americans are united under an American Creed, a political idea, at the same time as they have religion for community and support. In 2002 a court in San Francisco decided by a 2 to 1 vote that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were a violation of the separation of church and state. The words therefore were unconstitutional. However, this became highly controversial and the Senate passed a resolution 99 to 0 that the decision be reversed. A Newsweek poll claimed 87% of the public supported inclusion of the words while 9% opposed. Atheists are less popular than Muslims in the US.

President Clinton claimed that America needed a third “Great Revolution”, in addition to the American Revolution and the Civil Rights Revolution, where they “prove that we literally can live without having a dominant European culture”. Huntington means that this multiculturalism would threaten American Identity. He sketches four development possibilities: multiculturalism; bifurcated into Latin and English; exclusivist with revival of racial and ethnic concepts: and a preferred cultural path where Americans stick to their Creed. In light of the dismissal of multiculturalism in Europe this is interesting. Currently “ever closer union” is what seems most popular to save the Union in what could be described as a desperate attempt to find a European Creed.

Weakly deterministic?

Francis Fukuyama's book The End of History and the Last Man is an interesting book. It constantly provokes the reader. However, I'm a little surprised that Fukuyama in 2006, when he writes the Afterword in the book, still believes in his weak determinism that the world is destined for liberal democracy only. I have said most of this earlier but this is a summary.

Despite that 2006 was the culmination of problems of starting democracy in Iraq, Fukuyama discusses this problem in the Afterword and speculates that the problem of separating state and religion might be a permanent problem for Muslims to endorse democracy. The development of the Muslim communities in Europe will probably cast light on this issue. Will Europe become a Eurabia that plays down democracy for authoritarianism and sharia?

However, the largest problem with the idea that liberal democracy will win out eventually is the success of China the last 30 years. They took ideas from West, worked hard and managed to come out on top. At least temporarily. They claim that once ideas are generated democracy is inefficient. If they are equally strong, authoritarianism and liberal democracy might start to oscillate and thus co-exist peacefully.

There is a problem though. If authoritarians buy a company they will affect the lifestyle of the employees more than if liberal democrats buy a company. This asymmetry will definitely cause problems. There was an article on wsj.com the other day that advocated for letting the Chinese buy companies in the US. The argument went that there are now 700,000 Americans working for Japanese companies in the US and this is working just fine. But then, the Japanese do play baseball. In Sweden the Volvo Cars experiment with Chinese ownership is ongoing with initial positive results.

The main philosophical argument used for the weak determinism for liberal democracy is that its driven by the need for recognition. I'm not sure why the strong determinism of Hegel and Marx are to be taken serious. In retrospect they are ridiculous and why spend time on ideas from thinkers that have proven ridiculous ideas? In my own experience philosophers often have a few gems and then a lot of crazy ideas, which could be such an argument.

It is a great difference between the Anglo-Saxon pursuit of happiness and the need for recognition. I was under the impression that the latter created two world wars and that the former saved the day. Ideas that fascinate the masses can be very dangerous when wrong. Fukuyama is in principle saying that a scientist is working for the recognition he might get rather than out of curiosity when the latter is probably more biologically correct. Money comes to you. So does fame. When a scientist is getting a crazy idea the possible effects on his life comes after the fact, obviously.

The reason for why liberal democracy is more universal would be that the majority of people like being free. However, with 1,3bn Chinese, 1,2bn Muslims and 1,1bn Catholics it is possible to start wondering if this really is true. Part of mankind prefer order and no responsibility. They are natural or cultural followers and thrive in hierarchical systems. Liberal democracy is more demanding. I believe liberal democracy is a higher developmental form and that future improvements will derive from it but perhaps not as a majority system.

A good question is if it is possible to figure out if an idea is wrong even if it is popular. Have Fukuyama's idea led to too much give-aways to China so that they have evolved too fast and therefore will become intoxicated of their own invincibility, which could be a risk. During Mao, 1949 to 1976, China bottomed out in relation to the GDP of the UK. Now they will match the US GDP in 2016. If people start thinking like this, we will probably see more protectionism. A few years ago it was not uncommon to hear that doing business with China will make them change their political system. I remember watching Swedish TV where a commune politician from Karlstad was going to China and changing them.

Does Germany change military security for financial security?

What happened in Germany now is possibly a trend for where Europe is heading. The savings package that Angela Merkel has proposed, to the dismay of the opposition who think the cuts are too anti-social, plays down the Bundeswehr for greater financial future security with less debt. Germany is going to save some €80bn the next four years. Setting an example for Europe is also given as an explanation. Leading by example. Is Merkel saying place no money in military matters. Especially not borrowed money.

Merkel hesitated against the wish of the US around the time of the financial crisis to borrow money for a stimulus. Common sense has it that if you don't have a need for it during a crisis don't put yourself in debt. Not high finance but the idea probably rubs well with the public. As does the idea of not spending more money than you earn.

I guess the Anglo-Saxon model was that you can borrow if you have ideas to make money from the borrowed money that earned more than the interest, up to a point, and that point seems to come earlier in Germany these days. I have also gathered that the mentally repugnant idea that you should increase consumption in Germany to stimulate the economy in Europe does not interest the Chancellor. Increase consumption when there are bad times!?

It has become very dangerous to have debt apparently. Britain has gotten a warning today for losing their triple A rating if they don't lower their debt burden more than earlier planned. Anne Applebaum writes about the German president that left because of some question of why Germany is in Afghanistan. If Britain all of a sudden is going to decide that it is more dangerous to increase their debt than leaving Afghanistan to its fate, things will start to happen. Germany apparently does not lower funding for their foreign military adventures but will lower costs significantly for their domestic use. President Köhler perhaps left office because he wanted to tell the truth which would then have been that foreign economical reasons are very important for the domestic security of Germany. A reason that then would be constitutional.

Excuse me for asking, but is not all this financial security going to cost growth and therefore cause debt problems for southern Europe? And what is going to happen with the other European countries if Germany has to save this much? Is Germany selfish again? A lot of people have written about this today but I don't get any answers on how unique the folding of your military is and what you are replacing it with, if at all?

United States of Europe?

Op-Ed Contributor - Europe’s Birth Pangs - NYTimes.com: "The birth of a state is no less difficult. Indeed, what pessimists — including many here in Germany — see as an existential crisis for the continent is really just the latest stage in the birth pangs of a new country."

These are the words of Gabor Steingart, Chief Editor of the German financial daily Handelsblatt, and a person that has figurated often in a fierce anti-American mood in Spiegel Online International.

Joschka Fischer, the former foreign minister of Germany, and a Green Party member, a party that has gained 70% in the pollls, ie, from 10% to 17%, sings approximately the same song in an anti-Merkel mood. The Free Democrats and the CDU are going down in the polls.

Andrew Stuttaford writes on WeeklyStandard.com about the possibility of a federal Europe enforced by the abyss alternative of euro zone dissolution: "This might have mattered less in economically more comfortable times, or in the times when Brussels was not stretching so far, blithe times when voters (foolishly) and Eurocrats (realistically) could, for the most part, pretend that the other did not exist. That's over now. Building an economic union is messy and intrusive. It'll be hard to slip it through on the quiet. The PIIGS are being ordered to take a long hard road. The peoples of Northern Europe will be told to pay for its paving. What if either says no?"

Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, argues that the Euro zone is going down.

I guess this is it. The EU has been built so far as it goes without the sovereignty of nations suffering. Now people want to create a fiscal federal state without sharing politics as if this was possible. It boils down to a face saving maneuvre of grand dimensions or a successful United States of Europe. Pondering a post-EU/EMU Europe might be more realistic.

Ukraine-Russia relations

Ukraine and Russia: A normal day's debate in Kiev The Economist: "And extending the stay of the Russian fleet is backed by some 60% of Ukrainians."

Apparently the brawl at the Ukraine parliament the other day was a hangover from the unfair election, since the majority of Ukrainians don't mind keeping the Russian Sebastopol base. It might be more interesting to ask the Russian taxpayers whether they like the marriage or not? The gas subsidy is derived from removing the export duty from Gazprom.

Marrying Ukraine and Russia might be strategic in terms of securing the food potential of Ukraine once called the food store of the Soviet Union. The attitude from the West now seem to be favorable for the marriage when the economics of not having the burden of Ukraine is important rather than the political domain speak. The Obama administration is in principle letting Russia in on their old turf without fussing for potential gains in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Europe is more on their own now since they did not help out so much yonder?

The Obama doctrine is getting clearer. He is not sentimental at all as evident with Europe and Israel. Friendship is redefined. It is super pragmatic. As I pointed out once before, the slow but sure disappearance of the US from Europe has thrown Europe into a crisis of identity that is now enforced by the economic problems of southern Europe together with a prestige fight with the US about whether or not the Euro zone was a good idea. Europe's attitude towards the US was a little too harsh during the financial crisis perhaps.

What is interesting, however, is how Russia in reality views Europe. In his speech on Victory Day May 9th, 2007, when the Red Army beat Nazi Germany, Vladimir Putin said: "It is all the more important that we remember this today, because these threats are not becoming fewer but are only transforming and changing their appearance. These new threats, just as during the Third Reich, show the same contempt for human life and the same aspiration to establish an exclusive dictate over the world". A New York Times article at this point was a trifle paranoiac and suggested Putin talked about the US, but maybe he was talking about the EU and Germany? Maybe he fears economic rather than military threats?

Putin has also said that the fall of the Soviet Union was the worst catastrophe of the century. In the above speech he said: "Victory Day not only unites the people of Russia but also united our neighbors in the Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States". In other words 20m people did not die in vain, a sacrifice so large that is possible to question its reasonableness. This is all becoming more of a reality now and personally I am ready to question the wisdom of the earlier alienation from the US on its pursuit for freedom in far away places. As you make your bed, so you must lie on it.

What seems to remain now is to establish a working economic relationship with Russia as Putin tries to repair what he can from his greatest catastrophe.

Iran Sanctions' Status

Editorial - Iran, Sanctions and Mr. Gates’s Memo - NYTimes.com: "There, the news is not good. While Russian and Chinese leaders told Mr. Obama that they will work seriously on new sanctions, diplomats say their representatives are already seeking ways to dilute any resolution. Brazil and Turkey, which currently sit on the Security Council and have a lot of international sway, also are resisting."

If you look back a while, there is a picture emerging of an endless discussion of talks, sanctions and bombs when it comes to Iran. The point were Iran would have a nuclear weapon capability is pushed forward all the time--in absurdum. Apparently the distinction between a nuclear capable Iran and the one today cannot even be discussed in the open. However, the window of opportunity is slowly closing now when Brazil and Turkey are against sanctions as well. Many would agree that something has to be done and it seems evident that Europe has to make up its mind if it wants to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or if it still is in NATO? The problems in Afghanistan are linked to those in Israel/Palestine and Iraq. Iran is the key.

The waves in Europe have recently been geared at giving the view that the world has become a true multipolar entity. It seems to fit Europe to want to disappear from view among themselves and to express an intense urge to be left alone in peace. In the mean time, countries like Russia is meddling in the world as detailed in an article by Bronwen Maddox at the Times. Security arrangements with Russia ought to be out of question as suggested in an article by Ben Knight in Deutsche Welle.

I think I wrote something yesterday but I can't resist writing a little today about what I think is very important, that Europe realizes that the US is the only friend they have. The Russia friendliness as of late in Europe seems to disregard totally the mental power fight surrounding the Iran case between the two power blocks that were detailed by Robert Kagan in the presidential election debate of 2008. It is a serious breach of confidence with the US, who seem to want to work along the line of striking deals with Russia and China on security issues which are not possible if they are not of the token quality recently seen in removing nuclear missiles.

An article in Washington Post yesterday claimed it was time to pack up and leave Afghanistan, and to give up American influence in the World altogether, but that probably also means that you loose the other Middle Eastern fights to a resurgent Iran. Fareed Zakaria who wrote the book The Post-American World still think the fight in Afghanistan is worth its while and he also think people should go more easy on Hamid Karzai for its facilitation. He also suggested that this was in part for the sake of India which he hails from. Trans-Atlantic influence in the world remains very important.

Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that we are dealing with a new Cold War. Between countries that don't know how to behave and those who do. Between countries that have decent governments with low corruption and those who don't. Between democracy and authoritarianism. Again, the key is Iran and we eagerly await the destabilization of its suppressive rule.

Europe 1859 and now?

On Liberty/Chapter 3 - Wikisource: "The modern regime of public opinion is, in an unorganized form, what the Chinese educational and political systems are in an organized; and unless individuality shall be able successfully to assert itself against this yoke, Europe, notwithstanding its noble antecedents and its professed Christianity, will tend to become another China."

John Stuart Mill writes this in 1859 in his book On Liberty, still in print today, and the book of office of the Liberal Democrats in the UK. It bothered Mill that Europe seemed bent to become ruled by the tyranny of mediocrity, the masses.

Today we have acknowledged that the masses did not turn out to become tyrannical but understanding as to the need of innovation. Even the Chinese speak of it but does not agree on how it should be fostered. Furthermore the masses are not considered mediocre since politicians, even if they are not eccentric or exceptionally high IQ, have a political intelligence important for resonance with the masses. We speak also about the wisdom of the masses.

What is interesting though is the almost spastic talk about innovation today in the "modern regime for public opinion". My question would be if it is possible to increase innovation in the West? We can perhaps increase the per capita education but do we at the same time increase the per capita innovation? If I am right we would be able to increase our ability to capitalize on innovations but not increase their numbers in a given population. People are nervous these days because China and India are bringing in more people from poverty and are thus increasing their innovation per capita.

What can we do then to stay competitive? Well, if Europe will become another China, as Mill feared, he meant static for centuries, we will start treating people non-individualistically. We would start locking people up in collectives. We would prevent free discussion, something Mill also warned against. We would prevent freedom of thought and like the Catholic church rely totally on dogmatic tradition.

Ralph Waldo Emerson was a contemporary of John Stuart Mill and he famously said "gather from far every ray of various genius to our hospitable halls". This is why America today is more competitive. They import talent to increase their per capita innovation. Just increasing the amount of money you spend on innovation is not going to do the trick. Europe must become hospitable to foreigners and empower the individual.

The Red-Greens of Germany are coming?

News Analysis - Germany Begins to Shed Its Role as E.U. Integrator - NYTimes.com: "Mrs. Merkel’s call for the right to exclude countries like Greece actually seems linked to domestic politics before an important regional election in North Rhine-Westphalia in May. Polls suggest that the governing coalition could lose to a liberal combination of Social Democrats, Greens and the Left party."

Well, today EU leaders meet again to dwell on the topic of Europe's future. The article by Stephen Castle and Matthew Saltmarsh points out that Germany's interest no longer necessarily is Europe's interest. Angela Merkel and her CDU party have been speaking for the environment but apparently are also threatened, like Nicholas Sarkozy in France, in regional elections by a Red-Green coalition. Polls indicate that Germans are not keen on sending money to Greece, they'd rather invest via the markets in Russia, apparently.

Here in Sweden Henrik Oscarsson discuss the recent result of a SIFO poll where the most talked about topics are displayed for the different parties. Swedes fancy jobs, healthcare, education, eldercare and the environment, in this order. The Red-Greens own healthcare, eldercare and the environment. It is more even for the job and education categories. However, the Center party and the Christian Democrats have completely failed to rally for the environment and eldercare, respectively, which is perhaps the main reason for the lead of the Red-Greens over Alliansen, the rightwing governing coalition, who never since the last election 2006 was in the lead in polls.

The article thus suggests that Red-Green coalitions might be breaking Europe apart by challenging the ruling center-right coalitions. The Red-Greens have traditionally been against the EU and EMU in Sweden.

The Red-Greens of Europe are coming?

Sarkozy Meets With Leaders of His Party After Defeat in Regional Elections - NYTimes.com: "There also was interest in the good showing of a coalition of green parties, known as Europe Ecology, which ran in third place a week ago and whose active support will be needed by the Socialists if they hope to win the presidency. The anti-immigrant National Front also ran well. The elections were disastrous for François Bayrou’s Democratic Movement party, which tried to position itself as a centrist alternative."

I guess it has finally happened. The awaited surge in social democracy after the financial crisis, that did not materialize as of yet, might be here. Together with anti-immigrant activity and a fright of the center. Perhaps Nya Moderaterna and the Social Democrats in Sweden are approaching a barren center ground? As in Sweden, the Greens are important. Maybe it will even save Labour in the UK in the soon to be elections?

Social liberalism won out in the US as well which I liked very much. President Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi managed to secure 219 votes, of 216 needed, for the historic Health Insurance Reform. The tone of the soul of the US has been set in this mode and not in the Tea Party mode. It is a digital choice rather than a gradual spread. Huffington Post said about the win, Congress: Yes we can! There has be so much talk about the need for bi-partisanism that using a majority for a while seemed like pure sin.

It was probably good for the process to not rush the bill through and to have lots of discussion going on. It is apparently possible with democracy where the representatives have the voters wishes in mind rather than just react on the whip lashes like Fredrik Reinfeldt is pronouncing here in Sweden. For the sake of a favorable interest rate as he said in the Saturday Interview on the Radio program One. Democracy ceases to exist the minute we allow the market to direct our vote and mind.

Russia joining NATO?

The Dutch retreat - The Globe and Mail: "A military alliance without a clear common enemy, or a clear goal, becomes almost impossible to maintain. NATO is still dominated by the U.S., and European allies still fall in line, if only just to keep the alliance going – and in the hope of exerting some influence on the only remaining superpower. This means Europeans participate in U.S.-initiated military adventures, even though national or European interests in doing so are far from clear"

Well, this thoughtful suggestion from Ian Buruma is probably on many a European mind. Spiegel ONLINE today provides a possible development for NATO. Some influential defence people argue for letting Russia join NATO. Today is also the day Sweden has begun having bilateral meetings with Russia. Something makes me think that the article in question is rather about a possible bilateral defence union for Russia and Germany.

With their energy needs, Germany has been approaching Russia for some time now. When former chancellors engage in Gasprom, people tend to get the general idea. Russia has been talking about a new security arrangement for Europe which the US recently described as unnecessary waste of time. However, the experts tries to motivate Russia with the notion that it needs defence against up and coming Asian powers.

The German experts brings up the problem of Russia needing to conform to NATO values. I guess it is possible to ask if Turkey has conformed or deviated during its time in NATO as a possible comparison. Carl Bildt reports from Russia today on his blog and is pleased with what he saw. The situation from the devious Georgian invasion has healed remarkably fast. Georgia has become a small problem and getting Sochi ready for the next Winter Olympics is probably more important.

The large question is of course, and I have discussed it before, is for Russia to decide whether they are European or Asian. There is a border in Yekatherineburg and the question is if Russia wants to have one foot in each door. As it has been relayed in the available press during the last years, it appears that Germany is more willing to accommodate Russia than the US. There are obvious benefits of solving the political problems of the Eastern European states that were former parts of the Soviet Union at the same time. Russia remains wary of the recent NATO advancement as long as they would not be members themselves.

However, as much as a federal politically united Europe would be a good thing if it worked, a Russia joined with Europe with its fundamental differences is for me a fairytale. A Russia joined with a Republican US is of course an impossibility. It is therefore my initial feeling was that the German experts in their article rather wants to feel out the European interest for a German-Russian axis. Who knows, France might also be interested since they have begun sales of weapons to Russia.

The post-Western World?

Op-Ed Columnist - Gone, Solid Gone - NYTimes.com: "The Obama presidency has been a shock to Europe. At heart, Obama is not a Westerner, not an Atlanticist. He grew up partly in Indonesia and partly in Hawaii, which is about as far from the East Coast as you can get in the United States. “He’s very much a member of the post-Western world,” said Constanze Stelzenmüller of the German Marshall Fund."

First Fareed Zakaria discuss the post-American World and now Roger Cohen puts the post-Western World on the table for size. Follow the money and all is going to be well? Allow me, to doubt this. Not this time. First of all, this is the last shift of development that takes place and it is already possible to extrapolate the result. Europe wants to build a better society built on Western lore. A more humane society? It might still be that the last shift is a too tall order. Alternatively it might be the next Roman Empire that is forming as a Japanese fellow suggested a while ago when there was a discussion of an Asian Union. Too many people under one flag is my humble prediction.

Cohen's pragmatist President is actually making an attempt to humanize America with the Healthcare bill. Does that actually make him Eastern or European? Obama has recently even put aside the job question for the benefit of health to the dismay of many even if it rather the market that is going to fix jobs, not the government. Maybe he knows his place. Healthcare is more governmental than unemployment. At least in countries where healthcare is a right. There are more sick people than unemployed.

In, Europe, however, a new discussion was started, and as a response to the Asian build-up, there will probably be more of it: sustainability. If you live in Sweden, it is even more so. The Green party is the only one that is making some significant progress. In America there is no Green Party. There is Al Gore but many tend to make fun of him. I learned two things following the Copenhagen conference last fall. America and China are locked in a fight that will hamper their sustainability nerve. Europe is in a different box than these two combatants. However, China is expected to win the battle on green technology which perhaps is going to make it possible for them to develop without suffocating.

How far is the revolution?

EUobserver / Greece comes to standstill as citizens focus anger on EU: "One worker said: 'The EU wants to squeeze Greece like a lemon. It wants to get all the money from us.'"

The elites are in trouble, as wrote David Brooks the other day. I have read in the press that it is Greece that has managed its wealth erroneously but this is not the opinion of the Greeks according to several articles from both European and American press. In the US there is the Tea Party movement with their claim on fiscal responsibility.

Lemon juice is the word because Greece has complained on Germany who stole their gold during World War II and did not pay it back, something the Germans do not agree upon. Increasingly people are beginning to get the feeling that too much is decided on top of their heads and that they have to pay for other people's mistakes, despite going to work every day.

However, the question is what the Greeks in reality expect. Their country's finance is bust and austerity measures in need. They are not in the mood for working themselves out of their pit. Do they have a feeling that this is not possible? That someone is going to rescue them? Perhaps no one is providing a new way forward. A clear sustainable goal for future living. They are frustrated because they have lived their life but this did not work. Debt accumulates as they live above their means.

The Germans, those in Europe with the deepest pockets, apparently got crazy when they heard that the Greeks were going to raise their pension age from 61 to 63 and wondered if they had to raise theirs from 67 to 69 to bail Greece out. A revolution is perhaps not really justifiable. However, they need reform. Transparency International rank them with Bulgaria and Romania, way down on the list. Corruption is rife. Turkey is actually above Greece in the corruption ranking and some people hesitate to enroll them to the EU because of their problems of governance, their civil war between the democratic Muslims and the secular Military.

Is it then possible for the Greeks to complain on the European elites? Corruption is not only a problem of the establishment. It is also a systemic ailment. The bottom line of recent events, however, is that the Greeks don't seem remorseful.

The First European Era of Sweden?

Due to the fact that doctorates could not be received in Sweden but rather warranted that the student spent time abroad, an era in science that was internationally competitive was created. Hopefully we have entered a new such phase with the EU. We are talking about the so called "Frihetstiden", or era of freedom, in the Swedish history, i.e., 1718 to 1772, from the death (murder?) of the warrior king Carl XII, and the collapse of the Great Power Status of Sweden, to the coronation of Gustav III.

Tore Frängsmyr claims in his book, Svensk Idéhistoria from 2004, that the first half of the 18th century ushered in a utility culture in science that led to the establishment of the Science academy 1739, "Vetenskapsakademin", modelled after the Royal Society of London from 1660.

Apparently this challenge in utility imported from England back fired somewhat and did not create a significant enough pay off and was replaced gradually during the latter half of the 18th century with French enlightening, although the interest in the radical parts of this movement was not embraced. Rather the Swedes lost themselves in mystical matters of the type Swedenborgianism.

This demonstrates the danger in a too forceful promotion of the practical aspects of science. Frängsmyr does not mention the great Anthony van Leeuwenhoek that for the first time saw microbes and mammalian cells in his microscope and that was a member of the Royal Society. This was of course a real eye opener in science. Sweden did not build up an interest in the microbial world and excelled in the more macroscopically descriptive botany of Carl von Linné. What we today call medicine was standing still for the entire 18th century in Sweden until 1801 when Edward Jenner's 1796 discovery of the cow-pox vaccine was introduced. Carl Wilhelm Scheele should be mentioned as a forerunner in European chemistry in the hunt for the element oxygen.

Still Sweden was better internationally in science than we were in industrialization during the 18th century. Both an attempt of Jonas Alströmer to start a textile factory and Mårten Triewald to start a steam engine failed and Sweden remained in agriculture only except for the iron business.

Sweden was mainly influenced by the German philosopher Christian Wolff, a rationalist inspired by Leibniz. Even the Church took up wolffianism to fight the modern world with its own weapon. Wolffianism meant that one uses mathematical type deduction for all kinds of problems. The empiricist John Locke was also influential but his influence on Swedish culture is not elucidated formally according to Frängsmyr. Immanuel Kant who fused rationalism with empiricism became important during the so called "gustavianska tiden" 1772 to 1809. However, his tacit support for the French revolution made him look suspicious in this paranoically repressive era. Wolffianism is believed to have inspired the thoroughness of Germans which we just might have inherited as well.

The four Estates ruled in Sweden during the so called "Frihetstiden" after the disastrous rule by Carl XII. However, there was no real freedom of religion, the press or speech. A new law for the freedom of the press was enacted 1766 as an expression of the enlightenment. The question is how this period reflects in the absence of a revolutionary mood in Sweden at the time?Frängsmyr does not mention any influence from the American revolution which did have a positive outcome rather than the disastrous French ditto? He did claim however, that the Swedish 1809 constitution is modelled on the separation of powers of Montesquieu.

Happy Columbus Day everyone!

The "Good" War in Afghanistan is very expensive?

The three trillion dollar war Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes - Times Online: "The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million)."

The Iraq war turned out to very, very costly. I still believe that Saddam Hussein, a monster, had to be stopped. Ahmadi-nejad is not of the same caliber. So far he does not outright attack another country even if I understand that the Israelis are worried due to his distasteful speeches. Now lately he called the holocaust a myth, again. I believe Ahmadi-nejad is working patiently on swinging the public international opinion to his favor with these speeches, hoping that anti-semitism will continue to grow in for example Europe. He is working very hard on legitimizing the placement of Israel in Palestine.

Since I don't believe that the Afghanistan effort is worth its while anymore it makes me into a person that think the "good" war is the bad war and vice versa.

So why do I make this post? Well, as I said earlier the bad reputation that comes from being involved in a war is costing more indirectly that the cost in lives and money. That can be understood from on-the-street-talk in a periferal country like Sweden. There are Swedes that like Russia more than the US because of this. Therefore, it is a very expensive undertaking that goes on in Afghanistan right now. What Stiglitz and Bilmes point out is that the war cost much more than it is advertised at. I suggest that the effect on the reputation makes it even more expensive. So expensive that wars are not really possible anymore. Only policiary actions not causing civilian causalities would work.

Kennedy's Dream of the Two Pillars

On July 4, 1962 John F Kennedy declared that he saw a United States of America cooperating in the future with a United Europe.

Kissinger is discussing the future stability of this world in his book Diplomacy from 1994 by claiming that France nowadays in principle only have one option, to turn to the US. One can add to that that the historical option of turning to Russia is blocked by Germany which form an ever tightening union with this country, especially via the energy politics.

Before Kennedy, Wilson had tried to "liberate to Old World from its follies and to raise its sights beyond the nation state". It did not work.

I'm thinking of this because PJ Anders Linder the other day wrote in an editorial on SVD.se that "Europe lies beyond the EU". I don't know of course, but I tend to interpret this statement in the direction that the nation states are in again. I hope this is wrong, for everyone.