Where are we heading?

The Election for Change -Times Online: "Yet while the idea that it is time for a change has many advocates — even the Government puts itself forward as a champion of change — there is remarkably little agreement over what it is time to change to. What sort of Britain do we want? What vision for this country are we being offered?"

I'm reading this somewhat up-beat discussion of where the Times want the UK to move in the future. In Sweden we seem to want the job-line or the handout-line. However, I don't seem to recall that I have heard what these mechanistic objectives should lead. The visions of the two blocks please? And please end the technobabble on TV?

Is Sweden going to side with Norway and the UK and stand by the side of the EU and EMU? Sweden seems to be split on this issue. We don't speak with one voice, like the EU. However, the US, masters of one voice speak, nowadays speak with many voices as well. It's Republican, Democrat, Independent and Tea Party advocate and even recently the military who claim Israel is dangerous to their soldiers.

Another question is whether Sweden is going to follow the lead of Denmark that led to the top NATO job or if we are going back to neutrality politics? Denmark has lost over thirty soldiers in the wars and is more hardened than the Swedes today. Carl Bildt today confirms that the Parliament of Sweden is not in charge in a comment on our security politics on his blog. We have apparently not had a firm grasp of what we have been doing earlier. Perhaps we are split on that one as well? It would be interesting of Fredrik Reinfeldt followed up on Bildt's comment with a note on trashing our constitution.

The Swedish election differ from the British on one very important matter--the economy. I have a feeling that the Conservatives are not to keen on taking over the financial situation and that Labour rather wants to continue at the helm to weather the storm they are in. In Sweden it seems like Social Democrats have disappeared and that we will get environmental stuff with a foreign policy from the Left party.

The British election might end up becoming hung, as they say, and there will be a possibility that the Liberal Democrats, the third largest party, might side with Labour and form a coalition. We have the Sverige Democrats instead. Apparently 4-5% of the Swedish population is supposed to be treated like paria so they are not likely to side permanently on either side.

People in Sweden have a vision of a society that is gender equal which is interesting and possibly good if it materializes naturally. Apparently the quotation rule for boards in Norway has led to an exodus from Sweden of highly talented women that have made the Norwegian quota possible. There were not enough women in Norway. I'm against such quotations but I like the idea of a gender equal society. However, I would predict that we are going back to a neutrality politics in our foreign policy in this case and distance ourselves from the EU. Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, claims that gender equality around the world is a matter of national security for the US.

So, unlike many countries in the EU Sweden could look forward-- especially if we we plan for ourselves. The economy is good. We are well on the way on the Green trail. We are a superpower in international aid, they say. We spend our 3% on research even if there seems to be problems of spending them wisely. However, we don't have enough jobs. Can you imagine that? There is not enough for people to do, especially young people. This is a mystery to me.

Per capita medal count for the Vancouver Olympics

For the Beijing summer Olympics I calculated the per capital medal count because I find it more interesting. The two foremost countries were Australia and Norway with 220 and 200 medals/100m, respectively. The US had only 37/100m and China 7.7/100m. You find most countries between 50 and 80 medals/100m. Sweden had 56.

This year in Vancouver the total medal listing for the top ten countries is: USA 37; Germany 30; Canada 26; Norway 23; Austria 16; Russia 15; South Korea 14; China, Sweden and France 11.

The ranking per capita is (medals/100m): Norway 489; Austria 195; Sweden 118; Canada 79; Germany 38; South Korea 29; France 17; USA 12; Russia 11; and China 0.85.

Norway is truly impressive in both Beijing and Vancouver. However, Sweden came third in Vancouver per capita.

A Greek Tragedy?

The Greek Tragedy That Changed Europe - WSJ.com: "Modern-day Greece may be just and wise, but it certainly has not had an ordered life. As a result, the great opportunity and wealth bestowed by European integration has been largely squandered. And lower interest rates over the past decade—brought down to German levels through Greece being allowed, rather generously, into the euro zone—led to little more than further deficits and a dangerous buildup of government debt."

Jan Björklund was interviewed by Tomas Ramberg yesterday in the program "Lördagsintervjun" and the first question he got was about the crisis with Greece in the Eurozone. His wavering answer made me wonder about the position (FP) has about the Swedish prospective membership in the EMU.

The article above is indicating that Greece and some other countries not really would have been candidates for the EMU and that we are looking at a situation where countries even might start to leave the Eurozone with for them dire consequences. The membership, they argue, gave Greece a too god credit score and let them borrow too much. The EMU, in other words, was bad for Greece and perhaps also for some other countries like Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and Italy.

The article seems to paint a very gloom picture for the future of Europe and a potential break-up of the Union in a well off and a less well off region. If I understand this correctly Sweden and Norway would be in the well off area and thus perhaps benefit from membership mostly based on political integrational reasons. Another question to Jan Björklund would then be whether or not such political arguments still exist? Olle Schmidt says that the crisis in these countries is not the failure of individual states but of the monetary union. Schmidt also says that Sweden looses political influence staying outside something Anders Borg also said recently. Per Altenberg is another EMU-positive blogger.

However, Lars Calmfors (DN 15/1) discussed the matter and concluded that the only reason for joining the Euro would be a greater say in the political integration of the EU which is argued against in Tony Johansson's and Jonas Ljungberg's article. They claim the unified interest caused economical differences in the economy that prevents political integration. In my humble opinion then if other countries in the EU would pitch in, the question of political influence attached would arise.

There are, however, break-up tendencies for Europe as such that would argue for staying out of the EMU and that has fuelled a discussion about a Nordic Union. The Visegrad countries, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland tend to join forces now and then. We also have Great Britain that is fairly independent and where strong EU sceptical forces loom. Especially so if the Tories will win this years election which is probable. We have France with its recent discussion about its identity and its almost 50% subscription to the idea that capitalism is dead which makes it unique. It has also flirted with the so called Club Med formation around the Mediterranean. Germany is focused rather to the east and wants to develop Russia.

With recent developments it seems prudent to stay outside the EMU with Norway and Great Britain and await the possible recovery of the ailing states? For the non-economically knowledgeable person the political arguments for joining EMU seem to vanish by the day.

David Cameron's speech on future EU policy

BBC NEWS UK UK Politics Full text: Cameron speech on EU: "But our guiding principles will be these: we believe Britain's interests are best served by membership of a European Union that is an association of its member states, we will never allow Britain to slide into a federal Europe and that means we will watch closely how the Lisbon Treaty works out in practice. We will put in place a referendum lock, so never again can a British government transfer powers to the EU without the people giving their consent in a referendum."

So this is how David Cameron kicks off his election campaign. Apparently there is a tug-of-war in the EU, in the corridors, between the federalists and people like those of the Tories if one is to understand the comment on the Lisbon Treaty in the citation above. He also gives Labour a beating in the speech when he claims that "if the Tories win the election they will inherit the worst economical situation in 50 years".

He says that the UK will be ready to work with the EU on climate change, on energy security, on growth, on global poverty. However, according to the Eurobarometer 71 from the spring of 2009 the priorities of the people of the EU is the economy and health care with energy and environment way down on the list and with the question of global poverty not even assayed.

Federalists against the member states crowd. The key question then becomes if a non federal EU will be particularly efficient in dealing with for example energy security contra the Russians and the Middle East? In Sweden they said during the last election for the EU parliament that we have passed the stage of if we want to be members of the EU. But Olof Palme once turned down an offer by Willy Brandt to become a member of the EEC. Göran Persson and Anna Lind did not succeed in making Sweden a member of the EMU. Persson was down in Germany delivering speeches in German and Anna Lind was brutally murdered--hopefully not by nationalists. Norway is not even members of the EU but have a relationship with the UK via NATO. The position of the UK probably matters more than we are willing to admit for both countries.

Nobel Obama, the Polarizer

Well, a lot of people have had a lot of ideas regarding this year's Nobel Peace Prize so far. Initially I was surprised because I was mentally busy processing Obama's dilemma with AfPak. Since I firmly believe that it is time for Afghanistan and Pakistan to mind their own business, I do feel, however, that the prize comes as a good omen for peace.

It is of course a very distinguished body of people that nominate candidates for the Peace Prize therefore the prize carries weight and having the idea that Obama is worthy of the prize means that you are in good company.

Personally I believe that Obama got the prize because of the shift in attitude he created for the US. A shift in attitude that is of paramount importance for ushering in the new multipolar world order. This is a major change for the better.

That he takes a firm stance against torture is also very important. I have seen an editorial writer here in Sweden stating that he is against torture in war but in essence don't mind it in civil life. I hope that President Obama is against torture period. I am convinced, and my experience tells me, that this is going to become a very central issue in the not so distant future.

I believe Obama will prove more than worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Is Fascism Returning?

Den underbare landsförrädaren - Kultur - Göteborgs-Posten: "Nordisk litteratur låter sig inte historieskrivas utan att Knut Hamsuns litterära geni får en glansroll. Samtidigt består det skandalösa faktumet att han också var landsförrädare - i ett Norge där fosterländskheten närmast är ett nationellt patent. Hamsun var nazist. Han föraktade England och beundrande Hitler"

It seems from the above article that Göteborgs-Posten doesn't take a firm stance against fascism. Neutrality! They set, like the Norwegians, art in front of a clear political choice. In my experience fascism is clandestine nowadays and it is therefore important to know that it is contained. When people write articles that doesn't take a firm stance against fascism, it is worrisome.

I brought Hamsun up earlier from an article in The Jerusalem Post. However, it can be discussed, as does Van Reis, if art has precedence over morals. If you make up an example where a superb athlete in the interview after an achievement says that he likes violence to coerce people, most people would not like this person. Perhaps some people think violence is OK if you don't talk about it. I certainly don't. I think it is more cowardly to remain silent--"I know nothing".

In Sweden there is apparently a good memory of the atrocities performed by the right-wing fascists but not by the left-wing fascists. The social democracy apparently has a soft spot for the methods of Mother Russia. Being liberated from the Nazis in 1945 the Norwegians seemed healthy enough but now, not so many years later, they celebrate a talented nazi. For a person with my experience it is natural to ask if not the Swedes are in greater trouble even than the Norweigians. There was no occupation in Sweden by Nazi Germany. Some people wondered why?