It is apparently not possible to discuss why people risk their lives in Afghanistan?

Reading around a little to see what has become of the debate on the US-NATO effort in Afghanistan. Swedes are apparently there because others are--solidarity. This is not a good enough reason for me.

There was at least one free thinker, Jan Guillou, who wrote a column in Aftonbladet. He writes that we have no reason to stay in Afghanistan any more with military personnel. This is very true. Last Tuesday night Obama removed the Swedish reasons. There is to be no nation building which means that the European arguments all disappeared. No democracy, no women's liberation and no schools for little girls. That's why I was a little surprised over the quick mobilization of 7,000 men. After all, I had been reading in a European think-tank report that EU should set up a more independent way in Afghanistan.

Hamid Karzai also countered with the news that it will take 15 years for Afghanistan to afford keeping their own troops and asked for the money in advance. After all, this is the latest news--build up the Afghan forces so they can take care of themselves.

In a post yesterday I tried to link this to the possibility that the newly discussed animosity about Muslim ways might be involved in the decision. There is an article in TimesOnline today that discusses the severity of this issue in France. The French don't like minarets either to approximately the same degree as the Swiss. The minaret debate is so sensitive that the socialists have boycotted it. Sarkozy says religious people have to be more discrete in their devotion to minimize conflicts. This goes for all religions. France is currently investigating in a large national effort what their French identity is.

It seems like Adam Cwejman wants to do the same in Sweden. He does not have any faith in the plural society and is afraid that we brake the Swedish norms. I think we should look instead for common European norms and then find that our immigrants will understand better why they have to understand these. Cwejman has a point though. I have experience with integration in the US and there people immigrate into diasporas that even interact in their original languages. However, there is a common language that everyone speak as well. In Europe we don't have that in the same way making integration more difficult.

Cwejman claims Sweden is a very peculiar place in the world which makes me think if we should not be more interested in finding out how we can integrate into Europe rather than just focusing on how immigrants can become Swedes. It would be to much to ask that they first become Swedes and then again Europeans.

Tolerance??

Spinoza was born 1632 in Amsterdam by Jewish parents that had fled from the Iberian penisula being so called marranos, ie, Jews that publicly were Christian but in the dark retained their Jewish faith. However, due to Spinoza's free thinking he was demoted from his Jewish congregation 1656 with the words: "He'd be damned during the day, and during the night. Damned when he is asleep, damned when awake. Damned would his entry be and his exit. May the Lord never forgive him".

It still matters where you live on Earth but things have improved. I respect people of faith, but, like the Humanists, I have little understanding for the cumbersome dogmatics that one encounters in the standard Abrahamitic religions. It is a wonderful literary heritage but my adoration stops there. As the first posts in my blog "etiketted" "scriptures" clearly show, religion have been countering the development of science and prosperity by reason over the 350 years from Spinoza's departure from the established religion of the day. My faith of today is similar to that of Spinoza. It is a faith free of interference to scientific and philosophical thinking. Perhaps it will be possible for me to write about my faith today. It wasn't for Spinoza.

In the program 'Konflikt' on the radio P1 yesterday the prospective joining of Turkey with the EU was discussed. It seemed that a person speaking for Turkey's entry used arguments of islamophobia rather than recognizing distinctive differences in the freedom of the press and the democratic set-up as the reason for the unlikely entry of Turkey any time soon. I don't think the religion Islam is a problem in Europe as long as it is not political Islam. Faith should be private. It should not be a state matter. It is the responsibility of the Muslims to keep it private.

The decision of Switzerland to ban the minaretes is similar to the de-veiling of Muslim women. There are situations where a veil is not recommended, like in the upbringing of other people's children, but other than that the liberal stance of allowing for Islam and its attributes should encouraged. The sounding of church bells could be as annoying as the howling of a muezzin.

Carl Bildt was interviewed in the radio program. Being a strong proponent for early entry of Turkey into the EU, he argued for the increased safety for Europe in having open doors for Turkey in this direction rather than Turkey opening doors in the other direction. However, it seems to me that Turkey might be able to improve Iran by example, a feat that the West is completely unable to do. There are signals in the literature lately that Turkey already in principle have given up membership in the EU and instead is directing its attention elsewhere. If they really believe in democracy they can influence others, otherwise they will fail. It is a good test. A failed democratic state the size of Turkey in the EU would be a disaster.

Immigration, Nordic Union and Integration?

JohanNorberg.Net#3359#3359#3359: "Invandringsfrågan är inte vilken fråga som helst, som man kan kompromissa om hur som helst. Det är en central mätare på var man står i synen på öppenhet, mångfald och gränsöverskridanden."

I agree that the issue of immigration is an important leverage point in the political debate in the EU. I find it strange if Sweden would not afford taking in asylum seekers and obviously admitting as many via "arbetskraftsinvandring" as is possibly possible. Siv Jensen apparently was introduced as someone that is a fan of Ayn Rands Fountainhead. I have not read the book, only about the book, but I don't think Rand is a good prophet for Northern Europe.

Dick Erixon calls Siv Jensen and FrP honorable populism. He is of course a populist in his discussion concerning "verklighetens folk". He is also a populist when it comes to immigration with the argument, now and then, that immigrants often becomes a burden on the welfare state and with the impossible request for absolute integration. However, that is exactly the point, humanism versus clean economics.

"Främlingsfientlighet" is a character that I have gotten the feeling is related to the talk of greater Nordic unionization. It is to me a development like that of the shogunate of Japan long time ago when they shut themselves out of the world for a couple of hundred years. It is for me the opposite to greater incorporation into the EU and to greater things. For me it is a poison for opportunity.

More discussion:
Fredrik Segerfeldt, Dick Erixon, Johnny Munkhammar, Johan Ingerö, Philip Wendahl, Aaron Israelson

Integration?

Migration and development: The aid workers who really help The Economist: "The World Bank says foreign workers sent $328 billion from richer to poorer countries last year, more than double the $120 billion in official aid flows from OECD members. India got $52 billion from its diaspora, more than it took in foreign direct investment."

This is positive news that Tobias Billström (M) och Gunilla Carlsson (M) also brings forward in an article in Sydsvenska Dagbladet today. Migration coupled with circular migration, i.e., that people also return to their home countries with experience and funds, has been discussed as an important development.

Jan Ekberg, an economist from Växsjö Högskola, calculated on the other hand that there is little incentive for positive effects on immigration if integration works poorly. An article in Spiegel ONLINE International discusses the effects of poor integration something that people have complained at here in Sweden also.

It is interesting that Gunilla Carlsson is a coauthor on the positive article above since the problem becomes one of international support rather than adjustment of the population composition of Sweden if the calculations of Jan Ekberg are correct. So if we want to help the world from poverty, admit foreigners to work in our country. There is of course also a need for a more efficient integration or we just have to start working longer all of us. What perhaps should be discussed at the same time is how we are going to maintain our welfare systems considering the above facts?

Migration on Earth?

UNDP-rapport om migration - invandring lönsamt för alla Wolfgang Hansson Analys Nyheter Aftonbladet: "Migranter skickar hem stora summor pengarna till familjen som är kvar i hemlandet. Pengar som sammantaget är långt större än hela västvärldens bistånd. Pengar som leder till ökad konsumtion och skapar fler jobb. Precis som det finns ett flöde av idéer och innovation till mottagarländerna så återvänder migranterna med sin kunskap till de gamla hemländerna. En slags omvänd 'brain-drain' som leder till färre barn, en större vilja att sätta barnen i skola och höjer kvinnornas status."

There was recently an online debate on The Economist web site where the pros and cons of migration were discussed. The consensus between the two propositions became that Mother Earth could take more migration than at present and still benefit. One question that came up was to which extent migration should be regulated in the receiving country. It was called societal engineering. Sounds a little difficult in my humble opinion but Nyamko Sabuni recently advocated such measures for Sweden.

International Migration--A Debate

Economist Debates: International Migration: Statements: "In addition to border and visa controls that regulate migratory flows, considerable cultural, linguistic and other barriers limit international migration. For example, even in the European Union, where policymakers have desperately tried to remove barriers to mobility, less than 2% of the population is thought to live in another member state. This should be compared with some 3% of Americans move to a different US state every year."

There is an ongoing debate this week at The Economist where International Migration is discussed. Found this interesting comparison in the argument of the opposition, arguing that migration is a good thing, and currently have 70% of the votes.

Even if they have been talking about moving around in Europe they are far behind the mobility observed in the US. It is probably very important for people to move to areas where work is accessible at a given time. There is a great resistance in these work related moves even inside a country like Sweden. The government is currently trying to motivate people, and even legislate, to increase the mobility.

One comment argued for less migration for maintaining diversity. It is an interesting argument since it rhymes with environmental concerns for maintaining various species in nature. However, benefits from mixing people from different areas is probably currently superior to potential loss of diversity. The people of the earth are still quite diverse and on top of this it seems like people are more or less the same and that most of the differences stem from physical attributes like skin color and the like.

Other arguments against International Migration was that given countries should be allowed to maintain their uniqueness and inspire immigrant to assimilate. However, a guest writer argued that the moral attributes for such inspiration has dwindled, at least in the US, and that multiculturalism thus is maintaining itself.

Other arguments for the migration was that there is so much economical differences among countries that some degree of equalization was motivated. It was also pointed out that migrants in rich countries send home $300b per year. A considerable aid to poor countries. Thus migration is altruistic in nature, as well as beneficial economically for the recipient countries.

A Plural Society

Samhällsorientering nyckel till integration SvD: "Sverige är, och ska vara, ett land som präglas av mångfald. Det berikar och utvecklar alla som lever och verkar här. Men vi kan inte oförblommerat välkomna all mångfald som positiv, vi måste också vara tydliga med att all mångfald inte är bra."

Nyamko Sabuni writes an article that I agree with in essence. The above citation concerns multiculturalism. Sharia is not good, there should be equality before the law. When a muslim is not allowed to change faith, it is not good. Honor killings, not good.

How do you defend multiculturalism then? I read a book review in The Economist that argued for a sharpening of arguments for multiculturalism among liberals because this book, and the sentiments around, are becoming increasingly anti-foreign. We need immigration for our economy and those who come nowadays are apparently mostly Iraqis and Poles.

Sabuni says that plurality enriches and develops all involved. I have been an immigrant in the US and I know that it is very exciting and a tumbling experience to come to a new country. This initial enthusiasm from the immigrant is contagious and creates an interface which makes people question their status quo, something that is very important for getting new perspectives. Comparing the new with the old is a very important process that has been a driving force for change all through history. The entry of muslims into Europe is a major movement of people.

Iraq is a fascinating country with a proud history where the Sumerian culture was the first of our civilizations to develop in historic time with the advent of the cuneiform writing. It is fitting that the Iraqis now can learn about democracy in Sweden and lets hope they are mostly USA Iraqis and not Saddam Iraqis, although they most probably see themselves as Swedish Iraqis.

The Americans have of course with their Melting Pot thought more about pluralism than most. William James, the first American psychologist, have written that pluralism was "crucial to the formation of philosophical and social humanism to help build a better, more egalitarian society". It is obviously so that people in the Middle East and Europe will find themselves more equal as muslims comes to for example Sweden and succeeds.

Some would argue that change is not a good thing. However, in at least the US and Japan the notion of change has created new developments in politics during the last year. Change is perhaps not the key word right now in the EU but I think it should be. Further integration of the 27 member states at the same time as the enlargement is cancelled is a winning concept along the lines of the Melting Pot. Incorporating Turkey would be too much change in the foreseeable future.

During the conference of Nya Moderaterna and an article by Maud Olofsson, the party leader of Centerpartiet the question of value constancy came up. It is important to restate that alignment to common European values is of importance and that immigrants would have to adapt the most. It is probably easier for an immigrant to understand the importance of Swedish values if they are served in the European context. At the present 5-10% immigration of muslims there should not be any problems and it is difficult for me to understand people that do worry.

Yisrael Beiteinu: "No loyalty, no citizenship". En variant av det invandrarkontrakt som diskuterades i Sverige för några månader sedan?

En verklig vinnare i det Israeliska valet är Avigdor Lieberman och hans parti Yisrael Beiteinu (Vårt hem Israel). De är nu det tredje största partiet med femton mandat av de 120 möjliga. De två vinnarpartierna Kadima och Likud har 28 respektive 27 mandat. Det en gång stora partiet Arbetarpartiet, Golda Meirs och Shimon Peres parti, kom först på fjärde plats.

Lieberman liknas med Jörg Haider och Jean-Marie Le Pen i vissa delar av den internationella pressen, nämligen vänstertidningen Le Monde, enligt en artikel i The Jerusalem Post kallad Who in the world is Avigdor Lieberman?. Detta är intressant eftersom Moderaterna i November 2008 lade fram ett förslag om invandrarkontrakt liknade det som en paroll för Yisrael Beiteinu sade, nämligen "No loyalty, no citizenship". Man ville ha lojalitet från de 20% araberna i Israel. Där finns en rädsla från jämförelsen med Palestinierna i Judeen och Samarien samt i Gaza. Något tillspetsat kan det alltså vara frågan om en person är lojal eller en självmordsbombare.

Jag röstade emot Moderaternas förslag eftersom jag tror att en invandrare måste få känna sig både svensk och med en nationalitet från sitt invandrarland. Anser också att det ger ett ogästvänligt intryck. Invandrarkontrakt hade också varit på förslag i EU 2006. Jag tror det är en biologisk omöjlighet att kräva total assimilering av alla invandrare med en viss nationalitet.

Högerförskjutningen i Israels politik anses bero på en ökad frustration med Israels situation lokalt och i omvärlden. Man undrar vad orsaken till Moderaternas förslag var?

I en artikel på Spiegel ONLINE International kallad Erdogan Rides Wave of Popularity in Muslim World så berättar man om hur den turkiske premiärministern inför 20000 åskådare i Tyskland ber dem att aldrig assimilera sig. Allt detta sker på turkiska. Jag får den känslan av att läsa artikeln att det inte var populärt i Tyskland. En viktig fråga är om det verkligen är värt att satsa på ett utländskt modersmål i EU eller om energin i stället skall läggas på att lära sig ett annat EU språk utöver tyskan i det här fallet? Det beror ju lite på om målet med EU är att få fram en ny federal supernationalitet eller om man satsar på separata nationalstater. I Tyskland hade man enligt samma websida börjat muttra över globala förändringar i tyskan, som "cool" och liknande.

Jag kan dock förstå Erdogan till viss del eftersom mina egna barn lärde sig lite polska av sin mor och mormor i USA där de lärde sig engelskan i skolan och i hemmet. Mormodern i det här fallet kunde ingen engelska. Men å andra sidan verkar det ju som Erdogan vill ha ett turkiskt nätverk i Tyskland, i det fall Turkiet skulle bli EU medlem, något som de flesta tyskar för övrigt är emot. Själv undrar jag hur ett lojalitetskontrakt skulle fungera i detta fall?

Den utbredda anti-semitismen i Europa kan nog delvis förklaras med att judiska församlingars lojalitet till den nationalstat de bor i ifrågasätts relativt dess lojalitet till andra judar i diasporan och till Israel. Frågan är om liknade anti-nätverkism från nationalister kommer att bildas för andra typer av nätverk som bildas globalt nuförtiden?

Politik och religion

Det knorras i Europa om den islamska närvaron och man fruktar minareter. Den amerikanska högern är tydligen inte ensam. Se tidigare inlägg.

Det är det största partiet i Schweiz, SVP, som samlar in de nödvändiga 100,000 namnunderskrifterna för att kunna förbjuda byggandet av minareter.

Minareten finns inte i koranen, tydligen, utan står som en symbol för det politiska islam, en plats där sharia gäller. Fundamentalistiska muslimer lever kanske enligt sharia.

Religionsfrihet betyder ju inte att ett separat politskt system gäller. Vatikanen har ju ingen makt inom katolicismen längre.

Man frågar sig om moskéer utan minareter är comme-il-faut?