I Think I'm Becoming More of a Conservative

I salute David Cameron for his veto to the EU because I think I have become more conservative and appreciate the maintenance of Anglo-American culture versus the new form of polity that is emerging in Europe under the leadership of Germany. Liberal seems to mean merging the Anglo-American culture with the Continental which is not realistic. Gideon Rachman points out in his column that the Netherlands and France seem to be hanging rather lose in the new constellation formed. France because the socialists, if they win in the spring, would opt against. What I don’t like with the Germans so far is the strong anti-Americanism displayed in their English propaganda magazine Spiegel Online International. The English journals and magazines are more neutral against Germany.

Sweden has ended up in a precarious situation the reason for which I am a little unsure. I had this idea that the Swedes that historically have had a soft spot for the strong leader would have liked the EU and to become more of a guided citizen of Europe than a member of the “free world” now when crisis strikes and federalism is back on the agenda. Many politicians and industry in Sweden are German and would like an EMU membership but the populace is to 80% against this development currently. This surprised me actually and the question is if this is Germanophobia, Anglophilia, or just holding tight in your wallet for southern profligacy? The fact that English is used in media and music to a great extent in Sweden probably adds to the ambivalence. Birgitta Ohlsson, the EU minister, Jan Björklund, party leader in the People’s Party, and Carl B Hamilton, chairman of the EU commission today write in Svenska Dagbladet  that Sweden should join the “core of Europe”. That would mean EMU membership or at least membership in the new coalition. The new suggested Left Party leader Jonas Sjöstedt immediately takes a point that they act against the people. It is interesting to find Tories side by side with Swedish Left Partiers!

People are demonstrating in Italy because of Monti’s austerity measures which raise the question if the German austerity way is actually going to destabilize Europe. If these problems become more severe this might lead to a notion from the market that a federalization attempt of the Eurozone would not add to financial improvement. People seem therefore have lost hope and walk out on the street without a clear objective. They do not sense the reality of the emergency. Large numbers are just large numbers and not years of hard work with less to balance the books. They feel unfairly treated and cheated by everybody. Almost all serious writes that publish in the free media diagnose the problem as a problem of a widening gap between the rich and the poor. In order to entice investors Merkozy let the private investors off the hook in the deal and loaded the problem onto the taxpayers, something that did not show very clearly in the aftermath.

What kind of new culture is forming under Germany on the Continent then? It is different both in its economy and in its general culture. Germany is well founded in philosophy, literature and music but it is not clear exactly where they stand politically, except that they have a right of center and a left of center party with a strong former communist block as of recently. Catholicism will be a strong factor in its development. They even have a German-born and raised Pope. That is a factor that ameliorates the fusion with Poland but not with Sweden. Britain is a more secular and religiously open-minded country which fits better with the liberal immigration politics of Sweden. The Orthodox Greeks are culturally and economically way out as I pointed out before. How does Catholicism influence people then compared to a more secular religiously open-minded setting. It could have an effect on the degree of privacy due to the culture of the Confession. Personally I believe strongly that maintaining privacy is a survival factor for future civilizations.

What does Britain have to offer the Swedes then? Its culture multiplies the knowledge-factor via the second language with a factor of at least ten times. We can directly access the Anglo-American literature and all its text books for academia. Unless Sweden would go back to German as a second language they will always have problems on the Continent. The problem there for the Germans is clear. Their language does not sound that attractive so it does not work as efficiently to foster a culture as English. Therefore there is a risk that there will be harder power than what would be needed in the English case. In an era where teaming up to survive is becoming more and more necessary to challenge the gargantuan Chinese state it is important to realized that Sweden is a small country which has to form ties with for them the right partners. The time has come again for a decision. Last time around Sweden made a U-turn after the war. Will they make a U-turn post battle this time when the smoke clears?

Europe?

Germany is the current power house in Europe and it seems like there are wishes that Sweden should help Greece to help Germany out in the Eurozone. How about investing this money in Britain instead? They are a little short right now.

The right of center Allians of Sweden will break up?

Reading today in Svenska Dagbladet about a fragmentation in Swedish politics. The Center party in Sweden wants to break lose from the Allians, a right of center coalition of the Moderaterna, Folkpartiet, Centerpartiet and Kristdemokraterna. Recently the ten year party secretary Maud Olofsson announced that she will leave her post coming a congress in September. She had been instrumental in forming the Allians that initially won the election of 2006.

Small parties like Kristdemokraterna and Centerpartiet have suffered from losing voters being minors in the Allians. People have moved to the largest party Moderaterna to gain influence. They now poll around 4% which is the entrance bar to the Parliament. The finance minister Anders Borg, Moderaterna, have made an invitation at the yearly political gathering in Almedalen to offer collaboration with The Green party. I guess he saw the fragmentation coming. Another reason is that the Alliance is ruling as a minority government, a phenomenon that is common in Swedish politics, and is thus looking for a more stable situation. The Greens are moving forward like in Germany.

Also Jan Björklund, the minister of education, is suggesting that Sweden as the first country in Europe should introduce Chinese at the high school level. He says it will be more important for Sweden than French and Spanish. He did not say German, which gives the general direction of the thinking of government. They are German Chinese in their minds and will combine this with the Anglo-American presence. I have heeard comments that it is easier to collaborate with the Chinese than with neighbors in the EU so I guess it all makes sense. China seems to be successfully ruling by dividing in Europe.

Which brings me to the question of the prospects of the US. Walter Russell Mead, the editor of The American Interest and a professor of foreign policy at Bard College in NY, wrote a very up-beat article about America on wsj.com because of Fourth of July that was nice to read. It all made sense in the gloom given in the press about America at presence. I am a firm believer that the US will work themself out of their current fiscal problems and stand tall again. I even kept my American pension money in New York. Europe on the other hand seems to lean towards Chinese help rather than self-reliance.

Sweden is an engineering country and today there is a debate article in Svenska Dagbladet where people claim they should broaden the engineering education which is overdue. The article is a response to a report issued by Svenskt Näringsliv where the relative role of Natural Science/Technology and Humanistic subjects was discussed. I tried to read most of the main articles in this debacle but did not see the question about what the competition from China and India study. Volumewise they will churn out hundred of thousands, almost a million, engineers per year that work for lower salaries. I guess what Sweden wants to achieve is to produce engineers that can make Swedish companies rather than working for foreign companies in Sweden. This might require a modernization of an earlier successful educuation as Nina Wormbs and Sverker Sörlin argued in their article.

Differences between the US and Germany?

I have been told that in the US a person that has suffered a bancruptcy can get a second chance but that in Germany such a person is lost forever. It occurred to me that this difference might stem from the Hegelian master and slave problem. A person is not a man if he has not lived through a death challenge. If he does not dare the challenge he becomes as slave. The bancrupt person died, so to speak.

What is not clear is if the nowadays risk-averse Germans, which can be seen in the differences between Germany and the US on the economy and on military matters, on nuclear power, are truly Hegelian or not. A death challenge to become a serious person is a rather silly adventure. Modern education would be meaningless since an educational endproduct would not be useful without a risk to vanish. Hegel spoke before public education though.

One category of functionary in the modern society, the soldier, firefighter and police, could of course be selected on Hegel's basis. I guess we know today that the percentage of humans that qualify in this category is rather small. Smaller in Europe than in the US, apparently.

The US and Germany seems to have less and less to say to each other. When Angela Merkel was over the last time and gave a speech before Congress she irritated the hosts by pushing for greenery. Now recently they took a stand against nuclear everything. The economy, Middle East policy, Libya.

So, while the Swedes sit and watch their BBC productions on TV, do they become more German or Anglo-American? I don't see any polls on these issues. Why are we afraid of discussing this? There was a recent poll on a higher interest for Swedes to join NATO but this is not a discriminatory between Germany and Anglo-America. The German-US split might break NATO. That is probably why Obama gave Angela Merkel the Medal of Freedom, the highest honor that can be given a civilian.

The Global Position?

I see that some people claim that they are global liberals or that Sweden is a global country. Is this an escape from the real people "verklighetens folk"? I must admit I feel a little guilty myself but the question is what such a stratification does to a country. The global postion is a little fuzzy.

As I noted before, the Libya debacle is a case in point. Swedes and Danes share the same base in Italy but do not do the same job and Germany is not doing anything. This is examples of different penetration of the stratification problem.

As a global liberal it is necessary to take a strand for helping the so called rebels in Libya which means you get in trouble supporting Germany's new anti-nuclear line as the path forward for Europe especially when you get 40% of your electricity from nuclear power. Again it is possible to escape as a global liberal with global values but such values are theoretical. They don't exist in reality in a country. I wonder if calling Sweden a global country is not the same as declaring it neutral in all conflicts and keeping one's options open? Saying that we do what the EU does is not true either. We are not even part of the euro-zone.

Then again how homogenous is the global position. Is it the position of global peace? Or the position of global finance? Is it the defunct G20? Jeffrey D. Sachs suggested the world should be divided into self-sustaining regions instead of a G20 mechanism where the regions take care of economical and security questions. Our region would then be the Nordic countries. Some 25m people. Since Norway is not part of the EU and Sweden and Finland not part of NATO we are not even ready to take care of our immediate environment.

With our language education we are part of the Anglo-American culture domain. But apart from security issues, Great Britain and the US are not so close anymore. Germany just took a path that seemed unpalatable for Sweden and thus an ever closer Union does not look potentially good right now, which is what is necessary to save the Euro. You see, neutrality politics becomes tempting again.

Where is the future forming right now? 1523 when Gustaf Vasa got financial help from Lübeck to take back Stokholm from the Danes and then help to organize Sweden saw a development where Holland slowly took over control from Lübeck and thus formed the Western civilization with England during the 16th and 17th centuries. Sweden became on their own then from their benefactor, independence, but did not get part of the real action until later. Are we doing the same mistake today?

Trust

"As this book should have indicated by now, the more one is familiar with different cultures, the more one understands that they are not all created equal. An honest multiculturalism would recognize that some cultural traits are not helpful in the sustenance of a healthy democratic political system and capitalist economy."

The above citation comes from the 1995 book Trust by Francis Fukuyama. Fukuyama says the neoclassical economy is to 80% correct. The rest is culture dependent. All individuals are created equal with human rights to match but then they end up in various cultures with different potentials.

I found this book when I arrived at the conclusion that I did not know how to increase trust in societies that lacked this. Fukuyama's book does not mention the Middle East as low-trust but well France and Italy that aspires to good relations with the low-trust North Africa and Middle East in the Club Med association. He does not have a recipe for increasing trust either.

The main message of the book is that familiarism countries, with low-trust to people outside the family, like China or Italy, does not produce such large corporations like high-trust countries like Japan, Germany and the US. These countries would then not have the same potential economically. China today seems to defy this rule, however. Perhaps they are compensating for high-trust outside the family with "systems" of people held together by fear?

Leading by example is in my opinion much superior to leading by fear. Protestantism offered a more individualistic situation for people that then could relate to each other rather than to an authority like the parish priest. The fear of God was not used as a motivation. God became someone you related to directly on a more equal basis than Catholics and Muslims.

If the high-trust outside the family has not passed the North/South divide in Europe it is not likely that it will spread to North Africa and the Middle East. Today we have a situation in Europe where Southern European countries are in worse economic shape than Northern states. It should be remembered in this context that the Western Civilization started in the Netherlands and England. Cultural factors then important for breaking the Malthusian ceiling could still be in operation.

As Fukuyama points out, the melting pot America have managed to unite around common values and principles but have recently performed worse in this context. Fukuyama speaks about individualism taking precedence. The EU project is in actuality not even trying with its divisive motto "united in diversity". Is this good or bad? Perhaps it all depends on how large the optimal size of a nation is.

Is Sweden on the way back to a neutral position?

It has been going on for a decade now, the problem with China's undervalued currency. The most dramatic lines in Gideon Rachman's book Zero-Sum World, that came out in November of 2010, are: "It is no longer clear that the most important economic relationship in the world--that between China and the United States--is still mutually beneficial. The Americans worry about their trade deficit with China and argue that an undervalued Chinese currency helped create the credit bubble that blew up in 2008. The Chinese call such charges absurd--and worry about the safety of their dollar assets."

Would a small country with a large export industry be careful to take sides in such a battle? Would they forget what happened when Liu Xiaobo got the Nobel Peace Prize--threats from China to countries participating in the festivities in Oslo? Democracy? Well, the Swedes as a people are still hesitating to join NATO, even if the membership in the EU approximately amounts to the same thing, except a relationship with the US. The Social Democrats and their coalition, prior to the election last September, even suggested that the US should close their bases around the world. That might mean that they think US's supposed empire is in decline. Values or prosperity?

The SOM Institute in Göteborg regularly polls the Swedes to find out what they value the most. It is health, freedom, honesty and a world in peace. Peace runs very strongly among the Swedes. They have a tradition of staying out of the World Wars and concentrate on peace keeping in the UN and Afghanistan. They reacted very strongly against the Vietnam War and has taken in 2% of it's population worth of Iraqis. Faced with this moral dilemma, my guess would be that they retract into a neutrality politics. It is interesting to note that Germany seems to be heading in the same direction?

Does Sweden want a European Germany or a more German Europe?

"Today, a lack of political courage is endangering the euro. Germany is not innocent in this regard. For the first time in decades, German isolation has become a real concern. Now we need a signal that Germany wants a more European Germany, rather than a more German Europe."

The above was published in The Financial Times today by former Merkel coalition partners Frank-Walter Steinmeier, foreign minister, and Peer Steinbrück, minister of finance. In other words the SPD is attacking the ruling CDU coalition by being decisive on Europe. I'm getting a feeling that the future of EU is being decided in a current debate in Germany.

If a state in the US is doing well, my guess would be that others tries to copy their way if the character of their states allows this. This would speak for a more German Europe. However, the above authors argue for a more European Germany? The populace in Germany seems to say that they don't want to pay for others any longer. Interviews advocating this way was recently aired on Swedish television from Germany and the debate turned vicious during the Greek bailout crisis this spring.

Sweden is also a net contributor to EU and a surplus country highly dependent on exports. We lack a debate such as the one in Germany on whether or not we want to stay in the EU or break away. Perhaps because we are not members of the EMU but we are still involved and will definitely be involved now when tighter control and federalization is being performed on the EU.

There has been a continuous debate in the press lately with an overweight on federalization since the original critique of the Euro was that a lack of a political union would make the currency impossible. Wolfgang Schäuble, the current minister of finance in Germany recently said that there will be something like a political union in ten years time. Markets are apparently waiting for a "signal" of political will. How will other countries than Germany interpret such a signal? Is such a signal in reality possible?

A so called "scandal" involving the US

Helle Kleins blogg: "Jag lyssnade till Göran Greider (Dalademokraten) och Roland Poirier Martinsson (Timbro) på radion i morse. De debatterade den senaste säkerhetspolitiska skandalen - misstankarna att USA och även Israel bedrivit spaning på svensk mark utan att svenska myndigheter skulle varit informerade. Enligt Poirier Martinson är USA "den goda kraften" så det eventuella illegala spionaget är inget problem. En häpnadsväckande hållning med tanke på de folkrättsvidriga krig USA bedriver, svarade Greider"

Helle Klein, a priest and former political editor of Aftonbladet, a tabloid, listened to the radio and concluded with a fellow barricade man Göran Greider, editor Dalademokraten, that the US is a villain in the world. Roland Poirier Martinsson, a conservative philosopher counters with pointing out, what I also think is obvious, that the US is a force for good and that this in effect means they cannot spy on Sweden.

Actually I listened to the radio as well, Studio Ett yesterday, where it was clear that even Lars Ohly, the party chairman of the Left, does not even think the US was to blame for the "scandal" but seemed to want a pick a fight with the government for lying and not saying they knew about the US protecting their embassy.

Now, why is this happening right now in Sweden? Why does the left want to pick a fight with the US and the government calling it a pet dog to the US. Is it because a country that threatens other peaceful countries from going to the Nobel Peace Prize fest in Oslo needs some "pekinesers"?

"Peaceful China" is active lately in harassing Japan over islands and has cut of sale of rare earth metals as a retaliation (Financial Times). Apparently China wants Japan to build factories in China instead for making it possible to transfer technology and skills. As they point out, however, the world is more complicated than ganging up with either the US or China but I wonder about Europe, China's largest export market, Germany seems to be on China's side at the upcoming G20. Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister, is criticizing the US for lowering the dollar as a retaliation for China's undervaluation of the renminbi. China started this fight, however.

I have no idea why Sweden would want to pick a fight with the US about protecting their embassy. It has though become increasingly clear that we are going to face a choice between democracy and human rights and authoritarian government and perhaps a different economic system. I often read about Swedish complaints on violations of international law. That is usually OK as long as you stay independent of all power in the world.

Multiculturalism in Europe?

Muddle through seems to be typically European on important issues such as whether or not the EU should be federal or member states should have the most say. The latest in this debate is apparently that the EU is seeking to secure its own revenue. Perhaps we will come to see the EU against the member states?

Another muddle through issue is that of multiculturalism vs pure racial delight. Germany is hotly debating how to select one or the other of continuing immigration of skilled labor for the obvious need thereof or if the conclusion of Merkel's comment of a failed multiculturalism attempt will mean end of immigration. Germany is now actually a net emigration country.

In Sweden people seem to debate what Merkel meant with her comment. It is true that Germany have given citizenships based on blood links and prevented Turks from gaining citizenship, sometimes all the way to the third generation. On the other hand, there are 3,000 mosques in Germany. With the Swedish experience where multiculturalism also have failed, if Merkel is right, because we are seeing an anti-foreigner active party entering the Riksdag. So what is Merkel saying when tightening integration probably will not work, since Sweden have tried that? On top of this it seems like the Swedes are more tolerant to foreigners.

Angela Merkel went to Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey for help in ordinating language training for her Turkish speaking prospective Germans. The same Erdogan had given a speech in Germany to 15,000 Turks, in Turkish, where he said that they should not integrate (help is on the way?). Erdogan had however now agreed to language training for Turkish immigrants. A change of hearts? Germany is against Turkish EU membership so this is a possible negotiation point.

In other words Germany is behind in the nation-building of a liberal multicultural state and we should perhaps focus on our own problem to reach the front. What is it that makes people start getting nervous when the foreigner count reaches 5-10%? It is not rational. There is no possible reason to fear that an ethnocultural minority will take over in Sweden, even if the foreigner count doubles. It is also apparently the case that most Western democracies experience that ethnocultural minorities actually benefit from keeping cultural attributes when they integrate rather than demanding total assimilation which is not reasonable to require for all immigrants.

In any case, critics of multiculturalism nowadays apparently claim that the stability of the democracy is threatened. What I have heard from the Sweden Democrats is that they also think there is an economic cost from immigration. In other words they are against foreign aid. People like Will Kymlicka believe that stability is actually enhanced because of minority rights given to ethnocultural minorities. Experience also shows that loyalty to the nation state is not affected negatively by minority rights of the type that does not infringe on standard liberal values.

The language question, raised by Merkel, is interesting from the point of view of the US which perhaps is the country that separates state from ethnicity the most by not having a constitutional national language requirement. Apparently it was arranged from the beginning that English speaking people always where in the majority in each region.

But most people learn the language and still group themselves ethnically based on dual language skills. People get help from other immigrants from the home country and this must mean that they are aided in their integration. Apparently this does not work as well in Europe. People differ in their attitudes. But let us hope that we will not have the same problem in Europe as we had in the 17th century between Protestants and Catholics with the current ethnocultural and religious problems.

All these problems are tightly linked to the position of the woman in the family and the work place. The only party that actively brings up the integrity of the old core family in Sweden now is the Christian Democrats which is in crisis due to being the smallest party in the polls with a falling trend in memberships and voters. I have gotten the feeling, and also from my own experience, that the traditional families are slowly braking up based on other organizational parameters in the current society. This development could have beneficial effects on the integration issue even if the civil society will necessarily take an other blow with unknown consequences from this historical phenomenon.

More than 40 percent of the former East Germans believe that differences outweigh the similarities

Dagens Nyheter has an editorial today for the 20 year celebration of the reunification of Germany. It is up-beat. The Financial Times ran an article the other day which was more to the point and perhaps more true to the actual picture. The communist ghost is not dead and there are nostalgic people left. In a generation or two the rift might be mended though.

Personally I'm pleased with the fact of a reunited Germany. A strong Germany is good for the EU and very important for northern Europe. I especially like the Germans that with the US think in terms of checking Russia. Yes, I'm old enough to remember the Soviet Union and that abominable socialism that cause former East Germany to have only 70% of the GDP of West Germany after 20 years and over a trillion Euros invested.

So what is a strong Germany going to do in Europe? There has not been much written lately since the debt crisis in the spring about the future of the EU, if you discount the talk about "economic governance". A few articles flashed by where there was a call for further political union as the means of saving the Euro so that seems to be the current trend.

If that trend holds up, it is waving in the wind, I don't think Turkey should enter the EU. Their democracy is different from that of northern Europe and would not fit in. They are probably fine on their own as a neighbor of the EU and Russia which they according to Carl Bildt are going to dwarf economically in not too distant future. If the EU stays as it is today, Turkey could probably join without problems. This is apparently the position of AngloAmerica and of the Swedish government although France and Germany are skeptical.

A development that I find interesting is the interest China shows in helping Greece out by even buying bonds if necessary. They apparently want to score some European points for their prosperous state capitalism being nice in the hour of need to the desolate Greeks which the German public was not. They are going to lease part of the port in Piraeus for €3.3bn. Are they giving back for all the talk about human rights and being nice to the poor? I don't think the Greeks mind though.

It was also nice to see that the Latvians chose a center-right governance that continues the reform policy and that the Russian inspired opposition did not complicate matters. They are complicated enough with the 18% drop in GDP that Latvia suffered as a result of the financial crisis. The Harmony Centre containing three parties The Harmony Party, The Socialist Party and The New Centre. It is led by the Mayor of Riga and consists mostly of the Russian speaking minority. According to The Financial Times the ruling coalition got 59% of the vote and The Harmony Centre got 25%. In other words, all things well in the Baltic Sea area.

The Modern Soldier?

Afghanistan and the West: The Difficult Relationship between Democracy and War - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International: "And because the German public is particularly sensitive, as a result of the two world wars, the Bundeswehr has even tried to create a new type of soldier: the good, good-natured warrior, a man with a rose in his gun barrel, friendly, helpful and devoid of the inner beast."

The COIN wielding General McChrystal was sacked. One reason could have been that the new aid worker like soldier did not function as expected. It is about winning hearts and minds but if the Taliban runs a full scale terror against this approach the question is if this does not require harder resistance? Someone on the Swedish radio proudly said that the Swedish soldiers were much better than the Americans on peace keeping. I guess the problem is that if there is no peace to keep this might represent a problem rather than an asset.

I'd like to continue from my last post and ask if the Talibans are an equivalent of the Indians? I don't think so myself. They are rather gangsters in the drug trade. Most Afghans probably see what their society could become if peace reined and if their economy could be boosted. They want to integrate with a world economy and live more comfortable lives, albeit with their own religion. The eternal question then is what kind of soldier is in need for fighting the Afghan battle? This is apparently a matter of intense debate. The Taliban's tactics, like Hamas', is to hide out among civilians and to use gangster methods to coerce these people. Is it possible to fight such battles without civilian casualties. I don't think so but politicians must face a debate on how high the losses can be before the mission is to be cancelled. The article above is asking the German politicians to do this.

Is the soldier depicted above a fictive construct or is it possible to generate such individuals? After all, when people start shooting at each other survival becomes paramount and stipulating examples is part of war fare. It is of course a great difference of coming in from outside and fight in somebody's else's war than to be engaged in a local conflict with age old internal problems and animosities that elicit demand for revenge that then would ignite the soldier's "inner beast" mentioned. The article is important because it brings up the current juggling of responsibility and judgment between the politicians and the military.

Why did the people of Germany and France chose such different leaders?

Europe's 'Opposite Twins' Clash Over Future - WSJ.com: "In Paris, Mr. Sarkozy sometimes referred to the German chancellor as the 'woman from the East' during cabinet meetings, a spokesman let slip. Aides to the president say he was often frustrated because Ms. Merkel didn't show enthusiasm for his initiatives"

The cited article is a must read for anyone trying to understand the status of the current Europe. Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy are so different that they might be able to collaborate just because of this but, of course, each leader have chosen an administration of people they get along with and these two teams have been fighting it out for a while now after the debt crisis of Greece.

Yesterday there was an article by Hans-Werner Sinn, apparently one of Germany's heaviest economists who writes for Project Syndicate, where he blamed president Sarkozy for the unnecessary bail-out on €750bn of the "Club-Med". Sinn does not agree but the political elite in Germany speak in terms of separating northern Europe from southern where they want to place France. Polls are down for both Sarkozy and Merkel but most worries are for Merkel whose coalition with FDP, that have gone from a 15% support at the election to 5% now, is in apparent danger. Bo-Inge Andersson at SVT claims the animosities are real between CDU and FDP.

Right now there is an ongoing process of establishing an economic government for the EU. According to observers, France and Germany differ in the proper understanding of what this steering mechanism actually would entail. The Economist reported a while ago that 50% of the people of France think capitalism is kaput vs. 8% for the people of Germany. The export machine of Germany is therefore running full steam while the French ponder what to do next.

I'm not sure but there might be a polarization in Europe on whether there will be more integration or not. Charlemagne made an interesting note on the difference between politicians in member countries and the Eurocrats in terms on how they value money. The Eurocrats anticipate a bright future with increasing revenue for their trade whereas the nationals worry on how to make ends meet, being the ones that actually are the bread winners.

Germany is accused of being mercantilistic. They gained from the fall of the Euro.

Op-ed: The G-20 and "Chermany": "It was easy to rail against mercantilism that, regardless of its intellectual pedigree, has doubtful moral connotations: mercantilism involves doing well but at someone else's expense. Fiscal consolidation, on the other hand, has the aura of moral correctness and virtue."

It is strange. The world does not care much for Midsummer in Sweden and has placed the G8 and G20 meetings this weekend. The US advocates spend now, save later, be mindful of growth. They are worried that Germany's fiscal austerity will cause a recession in Europe. Angela Merkel has defended Germany's position: it is foolish to spend money you don't have in a crisis. It causes bad vibrations among the people. Balanced budget on the other hand causes good vibrations and will cause people to spend to revive the economy. As usual lay people, have to make up their mind by non economical means when the schools clash. Most probably for political reasons?

So, the lucky Germans with their lowly valued Euro, boosting their exports, preach fiscal austerity to further boost their mecantilistic approach? As Christine Lagarde, the French Minister of Finance, said: "there is no Euro crisis"? China, apparently, decides to loose more than they have done on the lower Euro and raised the value of the renminbi. This could according to the article above depend on the fact that the discussion has moved from a bilateral "Chimerica" problem to a multipolar affair involving countries like Brazil and India as well. Some form of responsibility for balancing the world economy that would not in fact warrant the connotation "Chermany", a dual mercantilistic approach? Is China out picking easy public relation points among the world poor like during the COP15 conference?

I have heard people saying that the US is bankrupt and that they would default on their debt. I guess some US billionaires recently gave evidence to the opposite. There are apparently 403 billionaires in the US. If they lent the government 2-3bn each on average, the US would be saved. Angela Merkel probably have many good economical advisors. However, if it boiled down to who to believe, President Obama or Chancellor Merkel, it might be good to remember that Merkel was born and raised in East Germany. It is funny though that both Obama and Merkel currently flirts with Russia.

Germany is far ahead of the EU on Russia

"Moreover, the Germans already have thousands of enterprises that have invested in Russia. Finally, in the long run, Germany’s population is declining below the level needed to maintain its economy. It does not want to increase immigration into Germany because of fears of social instability. Russia’s population is also falling, but it still has surplus population relative to its economic needs and will continue to have one for quite a while. German investment in Russia allows Germany to get the labor it needs without resorting to immigration by moving production facilities east to Russia."

George Friedman at Stratfor discusses the relationship between Russia and Germany relative France and Poland which of course also has a great importance for Sweden. The above citation provides one explanation for the driving force of common interest between Russia and Germany.

This might mean that Germany preferentially would invest rather in Russia than in the EU. Especially in the southern parts. The question is if Sweden has enough clout to tackle Russia in the same way?

Today we learned on the news on SVT that foreign trade is improved by immigration in Sweden which would point in an other direction that is more favorable. Immigrant labor in Sweden can work here and in immigrant countries of origin. The information given did not specify if immigrants came from Russia or not. Imagery provided spoke rather of the type of immigration Germany apparently fears would threaten their societal stability.

Doing business in Russia is not easy according to IKEA which will stop expansion in the country and just maintain operations. Leon Aron at the AEI writes that a climate of fear stifles innovation in Russia. This would mean that one would find only beneficial opportunities in simpler endeavors where salaries are not all that low. Seems like the German's fear for foreigners might put them at a disadvantage?

The falling populations in Germany and Russia are interesting though. Great Britain is projected to pass Germany as EU's largest country by 2050 and the US will increase its population as well. Their in house solutions sound more viable.

The Day After the EU Summit

De Gaulle and Churchill have a message for Sarkozy and Cameron Timothy Garton Ash Comment is free The Guardian: "Simply put, Churchill concluded that Britain could no longer rely on France and must secure its own survival, security and, so far as possible, continued greatness, through a special relationship with the United States. De Gaulle concluded that French greatness must be restored through a fierce independence from the US, but also from Britain, and by finding partners on the European continent"

Well, Germany is apparently having their way so far which might be what Garton Ash means with a civil1940. I agree with Angela Merkel that it is better with a 27 country "economic government", whatever that will come to mean. After all Sweden would not be a part of Nicolas Sarkozy's Euroland government. I don't know what they mean with a two speed Europe though, talking about the Eurozone, because many of the countries outside the zone are in the high speed circle?

Watching the intense media hype around the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I have begun to wonder if it could alienate the US and the UK? There was a discussion of a vanishing "special relationship" even before this debacle. With Clegg aboard the British ship Cameron might steer the British government in the direction of the EU after all. Charlemagne believes that France and Germany will iron out a joint position after the dust of the debt crisis has settled, if it does.

A lot of people are tip toeing around the concept of an "economic government". Anders Borg, the Swedish Minister of Finance, believes this government must come from within the states. There is no way some little green guys in Brussels will helm the EU ship. The question then becomes how is this self reliance enforced. Borg was very reluctant to suggest remedies. The invisible hand? That magic which keeps the EU together whether its people wants it or not?

In my analysis the current fight in EU is between the people and the elites, or Eurocrats as some people call them. Merkel is more on the people's side than Sarkozy from the enarchic France. I wrote more, because the German people gives her a hard time recently for supporting the wealthy. The elites in Europe are negotiating and Merkel and Sarkozy are involved in some kind of political theater displaying these remarkable photographs of the dear old couple.

It was interesting that Dimitry Medvedev joined the fray on an American note and suggested that the Euro is in danger and that BP Plc might collapse. Estland is joining the club but Island is apparently not so interested anymore now when they recovered somewhat from their recession.

The other fight is between the economic system of the US and that of Germany apparently where the US is afraid of recession and Germany of inflation. President Obama has issued a statement where he warns Europe for risking the world economic recovery by their austerity. From the economic discussions available it seems like Wall Street and The City of London is in the same boat but that Germany and France are each in different vessels. That would give a continued Churchillianism but a partly broken Gaullism.

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?

The absolute basis for a foreign policy?

It is with deep worries that I read of the Red-Green change in their foreign policy and it is my sincere hope that the Allians wins the election in September. Based on the information in the media I have discussed the prospects in Afghanistan thoroughly, which might have sounded critical at times, but in the end I back Obama's ambitions for other reasons.

If you want to build a foreign policy, I guess you start out by defining what countries you want to be specially friendly to. People in Sweden seem to be very fast in complaining on the US but they don't dare to say anything negative about Germany or Russia. Especially Germany.

When the trans-Atlantic balance is wobbly and Germany challenged the US after the financial crisis, people in Sweden have become even more German. This might have resulted in the shift in Red-Green policy. I have a feeling that the Germanophilia is nothing you talk about, for old historic carefulness reasons sake, which make the policy close in on the old neutrality nerves and kum-ba-yah peace movement instead.

Being for a development of the Club Baltic does not have to mean becoming anti-American. For me anti-Americanism equals being against human progress. The political, scientific and cultural leadership that emanates from across the Atlantic is worth admiring. It is possible to criticize America for this and that but as a country go out and demand that they should change their security doctrine is utterly wrong.

It has become old fashion to bring up the fact that American security thinking has kept Europe in general and Sweden in particular out of trouble from the brutal Soviet Union expansionist rule over the years. Russia is brushing off Stalin as a strongman that conquered Nazi Germany and has reinstated the public worship of armory in motion on that old Red Square. Red from blood of some 40m victims of Stalin's executions.

American scientists have lately made progress in understanding how life is maintained and it should be remembered that Stalin's Soviet Union threw modern biology and genetics in the vast paper bin via Lysenko's ideas. The only science that flourished in the Soviet Union was that of the weapons industry and space, which is closely linked to missile development. I don't see life develop in Russia of today and as I have said it would be a great disappointment if Club Baltic development led to reprisals against human progress.

Yes, it is possible to become a monk and say that there should be peace on Earth. From a global perspective this is however not possible. The bad guys would take over the business. We see this taking place in failing states such as Somalia, North Korea, Afghanistan and God forbid Pakistan. It is necessary to stand tall against such threats. Sweden seems to confront a more important election than I originally thought it would. The difference between an anti-American Sweden and a Sweden that would move too fast into the sustainable society versus a more sensible and balanced Sweden is grand.

The Continent?

Charlemagne's notebook The Economist: "The eurozone is in a moment of historic flux. Mr Cameron made it clear several times that Britain had no intention of being drawn closer to the euro, though he made the case that the euro's stability was of vital importance to Britain, as a major trading partner. This was not a meeting between members of a single political family, but a polite encounter between new neighbours."

The Times called the meeting between David Cameron and Angela Merkel frosty. After all, Cameron had gone to Paris first. Perhaps because Merkel had not wanted to meet with Cameron at a visit in London which Sarkozy had done. Merkel apparently is more sour for the Tory elopement from the EU parliament EPP group. The ruling society of the Continent.

I had a feeling that prior to the €750bn bail-out EU was in a fragmented stage. The outgoing German EU commissioner Günter Verheugen, who had spent 10 years at the Commission, said when he left that the EU had no vision for Europe. There is no consensus among the 27 nations. Now, all of a sudden there is talk of an economic government of the Euro zone. Cameron, however, wants nothing to do with Euroland.

The problem I have with The Continent is that it is very much "the lid on". If it wasn't for the Anglo-Saxon press, I personally would not know much about its business. The Swedish press writes very little about Germany and France as well. Nothing about Poland. The Swedish blogosphere is probably close to en par with the frequency of interest--very important-- for foreign policy in Europe of 1-2% according to the EUrobarometer. There is very little information to come by. Thus it takes time to get a feel for what is going on.

So what is happening? Well, searching the internet for post-EU-politics does not yield much. I have a distinct feeling, however, that this is what we have to start pondering. Take Verheugen's word for it. I have changed my mind on the peace issue. I do not think an-ever-closer-union is necessary for peace. Being subjungated under Germany is worse. Germanization of Europe is probably not possible. English as an enforced second language was not possible either. A prerequisite for further integration. Right now the EU in general and the euro zone in particular stand before the decision of accepting Germany as ruler in an economic government. "Do what they say"?

As I said, I don't think that the communitarian Europe needs that boss. Therefore we will see more fragmentation and the dissolution of the eurozone. The fragments will be more stable though and therefore more peaceful. Some people say that there would be chaos in Europe if the euro zone was brought down. There are signs that Germany is working of making an "orderly" transit in the name of "stability".

Returing a moment to Verheugen's judgment, there are probably visions for Europe. The problem is, however, when it is not possible to verbalize such visions in public.

Europe Day--a day late for obvious reasons

Europhiles lead 'economic governance' calls on Europe Day EurActiv: "'The financial, economic and social crisis presently affecting Europe and the World needs decisive answers and demands urgent action,' warned the European Movement, a pro-EU integration campaign group, at the weekend."

They are not dead yet, apparently, the people hailing Shuman's speech 60 years ago that started all the EU fuss. People are now discussing what actually happened last night. Is it Sarkozy's economic government of his call from the French chairmanship of the EU? Is it an attempt of stabilization but no money down for the "lazy" Greeks? How much is left of the Maastricht Treaty?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, above at the Telegraph, writes that this weekend's deal demands even more belt-tightening from Club Med countries. Is the current crisis leading to more political integration of the EU or less? Most people seem to think that what we just saw was only temporary relief. Anders Borg, the Swedish Finance Minister, said something on the news that I interpreted as meaning Club Med countries have to tax themselves more if they are going to keep their social models. He did not seem to mean that they had lost their sovereignty. But then again what does more belt-tightening then mean. Evans-Pritchard suggests that a new state is forming in front of our eyes.

The timing of all this is interesting. Because this federalistic push takes place right at the British hung parliament where the Brown government does not want to commit themselves to something expensive Continentalish and Euroish. To their dismay they had to furnish £10bn for the "stabilization". The eurosceptic Britons, on the other hand, have their election right on Europe Day.

Angela Merkel, on her side, visited a military parade on the Red Square celebrating the demise of the Nazis on the same day as she lost an important election in North Rhine-Westphalia, the largest German Land with 18m inhabitants. Nicholas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi actually should have joined her but stayed home instead due to the financial crisis according to New York Times. Merkel, in my mind, reverted a little to her East German descent this week-end.

Taken together, all this probably point in an attempt for business as usual. Carl Bildt speak of taking the long term perspective and it does not seem like the French and the Germans have similar projects which cast some doubts over Europe Day.