A Christmas songbook

This is NOT the Christmas spirit.

Christmas! An ideal occasion to do some easy 'cheap' blogging. Yet I do not want to forsake the idea behind this blog. In short: don't expect what isn't obvious. Like a guy with a certain background and a critical attitude could go singing merry Christmas tunes. Or could he?

Anyway, so here it is merry Christmas! Everybody's having fun? Or maybe not everybody, as some people might not know it is Christmas. So Is Christmas a celebration in spite of much suffering? Is it an expression of hope or the worshipping of consumption? The 'true' nature of Christmas combines both beauty and perversion. So don't you go saying that Christmas is for losers just yet!

Maybe the only Christmas song I truly like - one that combines both the critical attitude with the optimism - is John Lennon's Happy Christmas (War Is Over). Cherish all nice things that come with the holidays, but make sure that all hopes for a better future don't stay mere hopes!

Les blues de Bruxelles

The recent update included the possibility where I would blog on 'urgent matters' in spite of me lacking time. This post already exploits that built-in glitch in my otherwise quite firm schedule. The topic once again is the protest against Kabila's re-election as president of Congo. This connects to former posts in which I made a brief sketch of the candidates and commented on Europe's waning commitment to promote democratic values.

Congolese in Matonge with a sign praising the Belgian
anti-establishment party N-VA, of which Bart (de) Wever
is the chairman. They are blatantly missing the point...

This post is a result of my indignation toward anti-Kabila protests in Belgium. Ever since the results of the Congolese presidential elections have been announced, people have been protesting in the Congolese Matonge neighborhood of Brussels. People of Congolese origin are unhappy that Belgium tolerates Kabila's alleged election fraud. They wave Flemish nationalist flags (?!) and they accuse the Belgian establishment. They are totally missing the point! The Congolese in Belgium are fitting themselves an identity that does not exist. As they see it, the West supports Kabila's oppression out of economic self-interest. This view of course can not account for the lack of unity within Congo. I do not deny that economic patterns play a defining role. Complex reality can however not be reduced to a one-on-one relationship of Western exploitation and Congolese dictatorship.

Congolese waving a Flemish flag during the protests.
This can well be considered a strange sight in Brussels.

Colonial inheritance, Cold War dynamics and modern day globalization trough interplay shaped the Congolese economy to what it is today: an inconsistent amalgam of Western-dominated resource extraction, feudal farming methods and an informal petty market in urbanized regions. The Congolese economy is directed at meeting external demand and as such can not realize domestic development. The people of Congo are forced to fall back on the local community to satisfy their basic needs. This causes commitment to a regional identity created along ethnic and cultural divides. Since an economic base is lacking, no civil community or indeed 'nation' can develop.

Without nationhood the central government lacks the legitimacy it needs to be effective. In addition local patterns of clientelism and ethnic tensions are projected into the government institutions. Different groups became engage in a struggle for power over the state, an instrument of which each community wants to avoid that it gets used against its own security concerns. Where the state fails to provide public good, local communities struggle for power. This is the case in Congo - there is no Congolese nation, no Congolese citizenship, no Congolese identity.

The protesters in Brussels are trapped by the modernity paradigm. They blame Western egotism but remain trapped in a liberal discourse of progress and citizenship. I encourage them to tackle the real economic causes which lie underneath. Even if this means recognizing that part of the fault lies with local Congolese interests and the understandable but backward reliance on a closed identity.

Congolese elections and European values

A few days before the Congolese were to choose their new president, I blogged about the candidates. Last week the results of those elections were announced: Joseph Kabila succeeds himself as president of the Congo DR. He is believed to be won with little under half of the votes. However, he is not believed to be so by everyone: Supporters of Étienne Tshisekedi, who came in second, called the elections a fraud. They point toward the 'irregularities' that occurred to support their case. While it is true that not everything about the election process was democracy proper, all by all the result is called credible by the authorized commission.

Belgian police forces restraining Congolese protesters in
Matonge - the Congolese district in Brussels, Belgium.

Kabila was not elected by a majority of the people and in a one-to-one race against Tshisekedi he would surely bite the dust. The incumbent president profited from the divided opposition as I predicted in my previous post. Tshisekedi's followers, and indeed the political leader himself, fail to recognize this. While in the urbanized region of the capital opposition against Kabila is strong, the majority of the nation accepts a second term. Riots in Congo or abroad (we had some trouble with protesters in Matonge, the Congolese neighborhood of Brussels) are ungrounded. I do recognize that the grievances held against the Kabila regime are just, but the election outcome is representative.

What I find a real pity is that Europe didn't send a strong signal when tensions rose. A call to 'sit back and stay calm' can hardly be called a signal, can it? I noticed that the Old Continent is no longer as agile in promoting democratic ideals. Congo is just a single dot in a much broader pattern: values are forced to take a back seat more often than should be good for our conscience. Take for instance a bilateral trade agreement between the EU and Columbia: should we really strike a deal with a regime that doesn't take too kindly to human rights? The same goes for a deal in the making with India; the Indian government refuses to accept any trade agreement that holds a clause on human rights - and the EU is actually considering to drop its standard human rights clause!

It can be expected that this tendency will grow stronger in the future, and this for two reasons: First of all, the playing field for international trade is changing drastically. Countries like India, China and Brazil gain prominence and they are not stupid enough to attach value judgements to their contracts. Also, Russia is joining the WTO soon - this nation isn't exactly a staunch defender of personal freedom either. Holding on to its noble ethics would compromise the competitiveness of the EU. A second cause might be the declining power of the Commission and the Parliament. They have lost some of their grip on foreign policy since the creation of the External Action Service. What the future might hold, I can not say, but for sure fragmented and superficial protest wont bend the forces that shape our world.

Update

Hi dear readers! This blog is getting quite some more attention than I expected. I'm not going to publish my entire statistics, but I get quite some visitors from all around the world. Mostly Europe and the States, but also a lot of Russians and even a Kenyan regular. A big thanks to all of you who keep reading this blog!

As you might have noticed my activity dropped. I however promise to publish no less than four decent articles a month, and this up till February. To guarantee the quality of my blog - and to make sure you don't have to read silly updates every week - I have prepared enough material. If anything out of the ordinary would happen, I will take the time to write down my five cents too.

To finish this update: I will put a stronger emphasis on theory once my examinations are over. To this purpose I have added a new page to my blog, called 'theory'. Feel free to use it as I sure will! :D

On sustainable growth

Conclusions at COP-17 in Durban, South Africa were meager. True, the Kyoto Protocol to combat greenhouse emissions is prolonged. And surely commitments have been made to get a binding environmental treaty operational by 2020. Even if this outlook becomes reality, it can be classified under the label of 'too little too late'. Besides, emerging economies like China and India remain averse to far-going and legally binding measures. The other champion of environmental pollution, the United States, would have to ratify any such agreement in Congress. I seriously doubt that with its economic power waning, the States will make ecological commitments.

Bridging leftist ideas on the capitalist economic system with
ecological approaches that take into consideration the well-
being of the planet, provide useful insights for our future.

Up till today politicians have handled a strange logic in dealing with the climate crisis: the economic environment is taken as given, and from thereon we see what green measures we might take. That's bullocks, you can't negotiate with the climate! We must take into consideration the boundaries of our planet's ecosystem - without compromise. And from thát point on we should investigate what economic model is suitable. This radical shift has to take place in our minds and the minds of our political leadership.

We need to put an end to the parasitic way in which our economy relates to the environment. On a global scale, the political level must interfere in the sphere of economics. The pattern of consumption among prosperous citizens needs to shift drastically; away from unnecessary waste and luxury and toward investment in a green revolution. Parallel to the sustainable switch a big push is needed to close the ever-widening gap between rich and poor. The reason for this is twofold:

(1) Poor strata in a world dominated by market forces are confronted with unequal access possibilities. They are cut of from land, food and water even though such vital resources are abundant. Indeed it can be proven that such shortages are caused by unequal access rather than objective scarcity. As a result poor people will resort to clearing forests, burning cheap coal, etc. - this further exploiting the planet.

(2) Rich strata will make brainless consumption choices. They waste money to unneeded stuff simply because to them the marginal gain of a single euro/dollar is low. If the money thrown away had been invested in alleviating poverty, it would have contributed to a socially and environmentally sustainable world.

The essence: welfare should on a global scale be invested in the shift toward an ecologically sustainable society, which includes closing the gap between rich and poor. More growth at expense of the planet (and the poor) is in the long run devastating. Growth shall be sustainable or it shall not be at all.

Eurocrisis: An evaluation

That the euro might disappear is a thought that keeps on circulating. Today I heard that even some Irish banks are working along that scenario. A poor decision if you ask me. Political will to carry on with the euro-project is big and no economic law dictates that the eurozone should break up any time soon. Let's not forget that the euro is still a strong currency; in the end there is more room for a devaluation than for abandoning the euro altogether. The problem with the eurozone is that we have one currency that covers 27 different budgets, 27 different debts, 27 different wage policies, etc. Without getting too technical this makes the eurozone, and indeed the euro itself, vulnerable to asymmetric shocks. These are caused when one of the covered countries spends beyond its own economic payment capacity in the spirit that it is protected by the European umbrella. If one country starts to slip down the slope toward financial disaster, others soon follow. Just do not put the blame entirely with Greece and other 'small big spenders'. It were German and France banks who kept on financing in the search for profit. After all their risk was covered by government and taxpayer.

ECB president Mario Draghi, who brought the main rent
down to 1%, the lowest figure ever in the ECB history.

Now how get out of the difficult situation we're in? No two economists can seem to agree so what I will say next is certainly up for criticism. It is an opinion, but an informed opinion too. Something most EU politicians seem to agree upon is that Europe should get more grip on national budgets. Last night, 23 countries agreed to a (new) stability pact. They will implement the common rules: only 3% deficit, a public debt under 60% of BNP, etc. This formula exists since long, but this time the Commission and the European Court play a major role. In the past countries had to monitor themselves which obviously wasn't a big success. Less agreement can be found when it comes to the role of the European Central Bank. The ECB has announced yesterday that it would not keep on buying government bonds. For you who are not at home in the world of finances: Europe won't keep supporting indebted countries without limit. ECB president Mario Draghi stressed that the ECB does not have the proper mandate to do so. Yet, there is something the ECB could do instead: release the inflation genie! Inflation is the diminishing value of money over time, which manifests itself in rising prices. Generally, inflation is caused by wages going up faster than productivity or by a huge amount of new money being printed.

"Some more inflation would not be so bad
concerning our 1,5 billion of public debt"

Now why would the ECB want to print money? First of all, higher inflation means that the public debt of states would shrink. A quick example: I owe you hundred bucks and the rent is two percent, I have to pay you a 102. However, if in between inflation has risen from zero to three percent, those 102 are now worth 99 in real terms. I thus payed back less than I owed you. This isn't magic, but just a logical consequence of the inflation rate being higher than the rent. Additionally, high inflation allows the ECB to combat the speculators and strengthen Europe's concurrence position. Of course inflation is in the short run harmful to consumers and savers, common people already hit hardest by the economic crisis and budget austerity. Whilst not fair, it is paramount that we come clean. Inflation is in this a unique instrument. Sure, we need to handle it with care and no doubt that eventually we will need to get control back. But for now I can no longer agree with the neoliberal view that inflation is an ultimate evil. No wonder I was happy when the ECB reduced its most important rent from 1,25% to 1% yesterday - widening the inflation-rent gap with 25 percent points.

A dragon and its cave: China's environmental policy

Before I start, an important notice to my more regular readers: you might notice a drop in activity the next two months or so. This due to the holidays, examination period and preparation for my paper. The past two weeks I have been writing some scraps that can be turned into articles with ease. Just to make sure that, even without much time, I never run out of interesting material to post.

Now, after monetary and economic policy, this final post in the 'dragon nation' series will focus on China's environmental policies. China is often portrayed as a big polluter who doesn't want to see its economic growth constrained. The People's Republic is indeed the biggest carbon emitter in absolute numbers. When emissions are however expressed in terms relative to say population or wealth, the West still does a lot worse. Additionally, the United States and Western Europe pollute a lot more than their own ecology can cope with. Thus an 'ecological debt' is created to countries who's environment is polluted by the excess of the West.

The per capita carbon emissions from various countries. Just compare India and China (left) to Belgium or the States.

The ecological debt surely puts things in perspective; industrialized and industrializing countries suffer the same ailments. The question now is whether China undertakes efforts to mitigate its impact. In its most recent five-year plan, the Chinese Communist Party emphasized energy efficiency and laid out a strategy for cleaning the air. A lot of uncertainty remains, but the Chinese government is working on market-based mechanisms to combat climate change. An emissions-trading system and green taxes are among the favored techniques. The national strategy in the making draws upon regional experiments with carbon-trading and petroleum taxes.

China profits from betting on sustainability. It already is
the leading producer of solar panels and CF light bulbs.

Now why does China seek to implement this shift? One thing most debaters agree upon is that economic motives are driving the process. China is the leading manufacturer of compact-fluorescent light bulbs and solar panels already. Its industries profit from energy-efficiency goals. Yet the so-called green technologies might cause ecological stress in their production and disposal processes, a factor too often ignored. Another motive for China is that it needs to crick up its credibility if it wants to keep enjoying cash inflows from the Clean Development Mechanism. This tool, created under the Kyoto Protocol, allows industrialized countries to invest in carbon-reducing initiatives abroad. The emission reduction then goes on account of the investor. China received a lot of such funding in the past but its biggest investor, the European Union, wants to revise its policy before 2013.

As always, the picture looks more complex upon careful examination. China isn't the environmental boogieman we often blame it too be. Though its efforts are economically motived, I for one expect China to do a lot in the future.