Friday, December 13, 2002
posted by Mooraq at 1:59 PM
Historical Moment
EU’s enlargement is a step of momentous proportions
No shortages of links about the meeting in Copenhagen that will add several Eastern European countries to the EU (here the BBC, the IHT, the Economist.....and the Prague Post). Last minute horse trading will not get in the way of the enlargement, too much is at stake for all participants. The EU is anxious to conclude a process that started ten years ago and required more than three years of tense negotiations. Poland and co., despite the current tough-guy posture, are eager to join the richest club in the world and put past them the horrors of the XX century..
It’s easy to get caught in the technicalities of the discussions (should Estonian be allowed to hunt bears? How much subsidy should Polish potato farmers get?) but the enlargement is a massive historical achievement. I suspect that even the war on Iraq that is now dominating the international headlines will be a footnote in history, compared to the EU expansion.
Fifty years ago, this was a continent ravaged by war, drowning in the sorrow of millions of deaths, reduced to pieces by its own hubris. Few people, idealists, dreamers, fools some called them, had the courage and foresight to lay the foundation for a different Europe. Slowly but surely these seeds germinated and, this historic weekend, I am proud to call myself European.
Thursday, December 12, 2002
posted by Mooraq at 5:55 PM
US Is Pushing on Behalf of Turkey
Undue Interference?
The US is putting pressure on the EU to give Turkey a date to start discussing its full membership of the Union. Some might call this an excessive interference in a EU decisional process in which the US should not be involved at all. It's a bit like if Tony Blair were to send a mail to George W. asking him to include Mexico as the 51st star. I am sure some of my American friends would have a thing or three to say about that!
Cynics might see the US fretting over the issue for purely tactical reasons. The US desperately needs Turkey bases for a potential war on Iraq and is trying to keep the ally happy. There is a part of thruth in that. But it is also true that the US sees the long term advantage for everybody of Turkey being dragged into a full-fledged democracy and a model for the rest of Islam. I agree with this argument, as I mentioned in an earlier posting, Turkey in the EU, provided it meets the requirements for joining, gets my vote too.
posted by Mooraq at 3:40 PM
Israel And Its Settlers
An article from the FT makes the point
Yossi Alpher on the FT makes a lucid analysis of the tough choices Israel must face. Mr. Alpher misses a point though, as he does not fully address the implications of Israel's current choice of occupying the West bank and Gaza.
Basically Israel’s occupation of the territories is not sustainable as a long term solution. Either Israel will decide to transform the West Bank and Gaza into fully Israeli territory, in which case sooner or later it will have to grant the people who live there the same rights as any other citizen (including voting). Or It will have to accept the creation of a Palestinian state. Other alternatives, like mass deportation or mass murder, are fortunately out of the picture, despite what some extremists may think.
The stark reality is that Israel is facing a challenge it cannot hope to best. That is not the new Intifada, but the birth-rate dynamic that is adversely affecting the ratio of Israeli to Palestinian in the area. Conservative politicians can pamper the public opinion and the religious right, but are just deluding themselves if they think they can solve Israel problems with arms alone. The solution will need to be political or will not be at all. As Alpher correctly points out, the price for any kind of peace will be the settlers. All things considered, a small price to pay to end one of the longest conflicts of the last two centuries.
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
posted by Mooraq at 7:26 PM
Europe and America, again
More on the everlasting diatribe
Stumbled upon an article written few months ago by Robert Kagan for Policy Review, and a response by Ronald D. Asmus and Kenneth M. Pollack. This needs further reflection....I will read them carefully and pen my thoughts tomorrow.
posted by Mooraq at 6:06 PM
Unsavoury Allies, Part 2
Algeria joins the coalition against terror, but is it on the right team?
US is enlisting Algeria's help in the war on terrorism. This is another military regime that has a far from clear standing on human rights, democracy and all the other little things that we usually like to think as civilised. I keep on thinking that the war on terror would be helped from a better strategic perspective (i.e., pushing for more democracy in this kind of country) and less tactical juggling (i.e., pampering to dictators in order to win their support at present).
posted by Mooraq at 5:11 PM
Europe in Crisis, or is it?
Rumors of its demise might be greatly exaggerated
Is Europe dying? According to a number of reports, especially coming from the other side of the Atlantic (and some prominent Euro-skeptic British newspapers), yes. The old continent is slowly being strangled by excessive regulation, a sclerotic welfare state, slow economic growth, too many taxes, ageing population, a stubborn Central Bank and not enough political vision. A quick look at some data seems to confirm this points, especially when the European situation is compared to the still dynamic American economy.
Strange as it sounds, although several of these points are right, this might be a case of seeing too much of the forest and not enough of the trees. Sure, Europe is guilty as charged on many accounts, but at the same time the meter by which many Europeans measure their status might be different. Let’s take the welfare state in Germany as an example. It is true that German social security is too generous and, in the long term, unsustainable. But Germans like the feeling of security that extended benefits give them and are probably prepared to pay for the privilege. As for the long term, let’s tell the truth, how many people really plan and worry about what might happen thirty years from now? A lot of Germany’s (and Europe’s) problems are problems in perspective, the systems has to be fixed but given the hard political choices that need to be made, it is not surprising if it’s taking a while for politicians to gather the necessary courage to make them. On top of that, exactly because of the strong social security system, the current sluggish growth has a minor impact on standard of living in Europe that a similar situation might have in the US. The economy is still strong, people still drive lots of Mercedes and BMW and everybody has a mobile phone. Believe me, the situation in Germany is not as gloomy as pictured by many.
At the same time, Europe is demonstrating immense dynamism on the political front. Silently a huge revolution is happening, with the admission of many former communist Eastern European countries in the EU. Of even greater future importance may be inclusion of Turkey as a prospective candidate for the European Union. I don’t think many people understand the implication of all this. It’s like if the US were planning to add Mexico as a new star on the banner and decided to start talking to Colombia to fix a date to do the same. It’s a BIG change and a bold move. If you think about it, ten years ago the 15 EU countries, rich, secure and culturally integrated, could have easily decided to stick to the present status, only striving for greater integration between them. The fact that they opted for an ambitious expansion plan, attracting countries which are, at best, very far from economically developed, has to be recognized as a courageous and forward looking political choice.
This to me is not the picture of a stagnant continent. Sure, many issues have to be addressed, laws and security systems have to be improved and the people of Europe needs to find the courage to embrace more fully the future. But, at the same time, one must not be blind to the amazing changes that are happening and to the still strong European economy.
Monday, December 09, 2002
posted by Mooraq at 2:35 PM
A New Secretary of the Treasury
Will it make any difference?
Paul O’Neil resignation does not come as a surprise. The mistake-prone Secretary of the Treasury was becoming for Bush jr. what Dan Quayle was for Bush sr.: a constant source of jokes. In addition to that the economy, in theory Mr. O’Neill’s responsibility, is not showing great signs of recovery. So, for most observers, it was not a matter of if but when he was going to be kicked out of his office. It makes sense that this happened after the mid-term elections since the move is as good as an admission of economic mismanagement.
To be fair, Mr. O’Neil was not an intellectual heavyweight, especially compared to his predecessors Rubin and Summers, but he was dealt very bad cards from the beginning. The economy was already poised for a recession when he took office and this administration narrow economic focus has been on tax cuts only. It did not take an economic genius to see that Bush’s tax cuts where not going to be effective against a recession. In any case, since somebody needed to take the heat, O'Neill's "resignation" was inevitable.
His successor has not been named yet (although John Snow appears to be the choice) but, whoever he is, he will have a tough job to do. This administration seems more interested in using the recession to force its own agenda, than to shape its priorities around the economic recession. The players might change, but if the game plan remains the same I don’t think we’ll see any different results. President Bush should be careful in learning from his father that a war on Saddam might propel his ratings sky-high, but when it comes to re-election "it’s the economy, stupid", that really matters.
posted by Carla Passino at 8:57 AM
Sack Iain Duncan Smith
Former Tory deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine urges a change of leadership in his party and calls for a revolutionary selection process. But will it work?
That the Tories are unhappy with their leader is no big news. Iain Duncan Smith has been criticised from every quarter within his party: social conservatives say he is too inclusive; progressives say he is too exclusive; both agree that he is too inconclusive. Tory MPs have openly been discussing his leadership - in public as well as in private - since the day after he became Leader of the Opposition.
Today, former deputy prime minister and Conservative bigwig Michael Heseltine ups the ante, urging his party to remove Duncan Smith and replace him with Kenneth Clarke. "We are at around 31% in the polls when we would need to be at 48 to 50 % to have a ghost of a chance of winning the next election. There's no prospect of achieving those ratings under the present management," he told the Independent.
The plan is revolutionary as much because of the practice it advocates as because of its targets. Duncan Smith was voted into the job by the members of the Conservative Party; now, Lord Heseltine is proposing that the parliamentary party override the grassroots vote on the grounds that it knows better.
He is, of course, right. The ever-shrinking membership of the Conservative Party is aged, extremist and as detached from the needs and wants of the moderate voter as it gets. Any choice of leader left in the hands of the grassroots guarantees a resounding electoral defeat. However, is the parliamentary party really going to make a wiser choice?
Duncan Smith owes his victory as much to the party's short-sighted and politically unaware members as to internal strife. Because parliamentary Tories are fragmented in feuding factions more intent on waging war to one another than winning the next general election, only a compromise candidate can possibly gain enough consensus to become leader: William Hague was one such and so is Duncan Smith. Kenneth Clarke is not one and this is precisely why he lost the leadership contest before, and may lose again.
So, by all means, let's topple Duncan Smith before the Tory party pales into insignificance. But only so long as his successor is not yet another bead in a string of ineffectual, grey leaders.
 |
|