How the EU combats the crisis

I found this marvelous chart on the website of the Institute of International and European Affairs (IIAA). The IIAA is an Irish think tank with a main focus on topics related to the European Union. It describes itself as 'an independent, not-for-profit organisation with charitable status'. The chart gives an oversight of the different components of Europe's anti-crisis strategy. It may look puzzling at first, especially if you are not that into economic terminology. Still, it is one of the most comprehensive and understandable explanations I have seen. Next time when you hear a journalist or politician rambling about eurobonds or the financial stability pact, just take a look at this chart.

As is evident from the image a lot is going on and it should be sufficient to stabilize the situation. Still, in the long run there is a lot of work to be done. I'm happy that the chart hints toward greater integration in social and economic areas such as employment. I'm also a big supporter of the fiscal union with 'more cash transfers between rich and poor regions'. A lack of unity and over-emphasizing one side of the integration process is what brought us this mess. More Europe - and a more balanced Europe! - thus is the way forward.

Underdog contributions to humanitarian aid

One of the courses I really enjoyed last semester is International Development Aid. 'How on Earth can you make a course out of that' you may ask? Well, admittedly it diverges from the more common formulas. In our IDA-lessons we were stormed at with figure and fact; a veritable crossfire of statistics. The goal is not to cultivate a fetish for numbers, but to visualize some underlying trends in development aid. Various mechanisms in financing and applying aid can remain hidden by manipulating the way in which various concepts are defined.

The design of our lessons was quite successful. Even to such an extent that I wish to try the formula in this post. We will be fighting the idea that humanitarian aid is a matter of the North paying to the South. Following is an armory of dates, amounts, and percentages that are to drive the enemy claim toward surrender. Enjoy!

• In 2009, the efforts of the BRICS countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - totaled to an amount of 3,7 billion US dollar. That same year the joint humanitarian aid expenses of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait was 4,2 billion. It should be added that these are conservative estimates as certain aid flows are under-measured.
• In 2010, the top two contributors to the Emergency Relief Fund for the Haiti earthquake were Saudi Arabia and Brazil. They respectively donated 50 and 8 million US dollar. Amongst the top ten contributers were a lot of African nations too: Nigeria gave 2,5 million while Equatorial Guinea made an effort of 2 million. Gabon, Tunisia and the Congo DR each added 1 million US dollar.

Ever heard that 'we can not help all of them'? Believe me, we aren't. Most refugees are located in the Third World!

• Really unexpected humanitarian aid numbers for the year 2008 are: Thailand (27,4 million), Kazakhstan (9,7 million) and Iraq (8 million). A similar exercise for 2010 brings about Turkey (60,9 million), again Thailand (11,7 million) and Mexico (10,7 million).
• Bangladesh received 70% of its 2007 humanitarian aid from non-traditional donors. In 2008 Pakistan can say the same for 85% of the aid and the Maldives even got as much as 90% of their humanitarian aid of 2009 from non-Western countries.

All numbers were lifted from reports by the independent research institute Global Humanitarian Assistance. Hopefully this post was useful to you in some way. As with a lot of figures these numbers are only a first step towards a more thorough understanding. If you are interested in North-South development cooperation, check out my earlier post on how aid really functions.

The Iranian bomb: cause or solution to unrest?

In a previous post I explained how the conflict between Iran on the one hand and the United States on the other is in fact a security dilemma. Both sides are 'securing' their interests at the expense of creating more danger to the interests of the other. A quick recap of the facts: Iran is accused of working on nuclear weaponry by the United States and regional ally Israel. This assumption has been confirmed by IAEA reports on this case. The Iranian authorities however remain vigorously that their nuclear enrichment program is for civil ends only. My personal feel is that Iran has probably restarted its military branch of the nuclear program. A pity if you oppose nuclear proliferation like I do.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IRANIAN NUKES?

Iran is not the only country that is going rogue with
a nuclear program. No wonder it feels insecure when
Israel and Pakistan - both US allies -  posses an arsenal.

Isn't Iran entitled to a nuclear arsenal? I'm talking about the legal entitlement here, not about the moral or humanitarian sides of the question. For this I wish to refer to the opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. This statement by the International Court of Justice was to answer whether a state may use a nuclear attack or threaten to do so. The advice stated that there is no prohibition on the use of nuclear arms as such, but it would be in conflict with humanitarian law. So did the Court really rule that nukes are out of the question? Not exactly as the advice left a loophole: the Court felt that it 'cannot conclude definitely whether the treat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence'. So if a the existence of a state were at stake, the use of nuclear arms might be permitted.

In its finality this opinion is inconclusive on the use of nuclear force. In it the Court also recognized that there is no evidence for or against the legal possession of nuclear arms, thus actually allowing the continuous possession of nuclear devices. Iran is however a signatory member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus committed itself to a prohibition on developing its own nuclear arsenal. This is probably the main reason Iran keeps denying that its nuclear program has a military branch; heavily sanctions might follow if Iran openly admitted any violations. It is often remarked that other states - in question Israel, Pakistan and India - have nuclear arms. These are indeed contrary to the principles of non-proliferation. But then again these three nations have not signed the above mentioned treaty. You may well consider them to be 'rogue nations' for this (I do) but fact is that they follow the rules.

HOW NOT DO DEAL WITH IRAN

Iran remains that its nuclear program doesn't serve military
ends. That statement is likely untrue, though I do believe
that Iran is building nuclear arms for defensive reasons.

Up till today international reaction vis-a-vis the Iranian nuclear aspirations carried a certain degree of machismo. The United States, and even more fiercely Israel, have been talking about unilateral military measures. Such action is not bound to the realm of fiction: Israel acted against key facilities in the nuclear programs of Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007) before. The strategy applied against Iran is supplemented with assaults on nuclear scientists and economic pressure. The latter in the form of an embargo on Iranian oil, currently upheld by the United States and the European Union. It is my opinion that the path pursued is in its entirety a mistake. For starters the aggressive talk and action only endorse the radical voices in Iran, claiming that the West is pressuring the country toward regime change. A second setback is that the embargo will hit the people of Iran hard. If hardship for the masses is our idea of creating justice I pass for it. Not only is using this impoverishment-strategy interference with Iran's internal affairs, it is ethically most questionable too.

My feel is that Iran should not build a nuclear weapon or talk about closing of the Strait of Hormuz, the West needs to understand that aggression invokes aggression. That is the mechanism behind the security dilemma. Maybe Iran can send a message by collaborating with its fellow members at OPEC. Economic and political affirmation of the Middle East as a region in its own right would force us to rethink our strategy. And rethinking is needed. Iran certainly made some bad choices concerning its methods in the past, but its concerns are valid. As a regional power it is entitled to secure and manifest itself as long as it does not violate the rights of others.

American elections, economic crisis and the future world

The upcoming United States presidential election promises to be most interesting. America is at a crossroads: it can continue down a road of careful progress or it can try to secure the system it currently leads. The latter might create some successes in the short run, but the ultimate demise of the current world-system is inevitable. Even more vulnerable is the dominant position of the United States within that system. As I shall continue to argue, American politics would do better by using their achievements to sustain progress in stead of holding it back. Now it would do violence to reality to state that these two policies are parallel to the Democrat-Republican divide. It can however not be denied that, in recent years, the two parties have polarized. This can be seen in the charts on the right. It is also evident from the heavy resistance of some against the approaches of incumbent president Barack Obama.

AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

This political polarization is a result of the waning position of the United States as hegemon within the world-system. The concept of hegemonic power is complex and much debated. For issues of space I shall refer to the related concept of superpower: the States have a significant more means to steer the direction in which the world goes. For a long time, and certainly since the demise of the Soviet Union, it policed international society on its own. Examples are the creation of the WTO and increased U.S. unilateralism. No-one can stay in power forever though; contenders are always on the rise. The unique American position has been under fire ever since the seventies. In that decade, the stabile Bretton Woods financial system was abolished, Europe acted more independently and the 'Third World' began to manifest itself as a unique set of nations. Also the loss of the Vietnam War caused heavy resentment to future foreign ventures of a military nature.

Between 1970 and 2010 the American GNP doubled
while middle income wages only rose by 20%

The end of the Cold War, and indeed the 'end of history' perceived by some, is an intermezzo of temporary nature. It only shows that the hegemon has overcome the systemic contradictions for the time being. How did the States overcome these? The answer was found in shifting the burden: the world was put on a diet of neoliberal recipes to safeguard the system of its own destruction. Working class people earned a smaller share of their productivity and Third World nations were trapped in a cycle of restructuring and loans. By cutting the prices of input - labor and raw materials - more profit could be generated to relaunch the system.

THE LOGIC BEHIND TODAY'S TAMPERING

In this light today's sputtering of the economic machine is nothing new. Another phase of contest for the system ánd the hegemon are announced. Indeed the cures prescribed are not very original: we nationalized the messy risks of the banks (they can keep the profits though) and the national governments are going to cut spending. Meanwhile environmental policies are under pressure because you don't have money to save the planet when you have to save the banks (depends on your priorities I guess). Another factor is in play here too: more sustainable production equals more costly production, read 'less profitable'.

A cartoon from The Huffington Post expressing the logic.

The benevolent hegemon, as the U.S. was portrayed in the nineties, is not so benevolent anymore. The establishment has launched an offensive: Obama is to concerned about the environment, healthcare is 'socialist', the Chinese need to increase the value of their currency, etc. It all comes down to the same thing: production must get cheaper, cheaper at the expense of equity and sustainability. They want to pass the bill to the people and the planet. The waning superpower is trying to safeguard its capital - the ultimate basis of its superiority - in various ways. Another most curious part of this wicked strategy is the uneven stress on the public debts of eurozone-countries. Washington and also London are kept strategically of the radar while their situations are fairly comparable. As a nice bonus to the euro taking part of the heat, the social achievements in continental Europe are pressured too.

EMANCIPATION FOR THE FUTURE

But there is reason to keep up hope. (About time that phrase showed up :p). Scoffing at Obama and his 'evil socialist scheme' together with the fuss about Occupy Wall Street are emancipating people across the States. If the Democrats continue down a more progressive road they might turn America from a conservative bastion to a leading reformer on the world stage. In Europe the struggle is going on as well, both within the institution of the Union as on the national level. What Europe do we want? What America do we want? These questions are being raised today. And by looking for an answer we are discovering what kind of world, what sort of society we want to be a part of...

NOTE: The graphs on polarization where retrieved from Polarized America? (Kenworthy, 2010). First hand sources are mentioned by the author.

Rattle those chains!

Western democracies often label themselves as 'free'. But what does it mean to be free? How free are we really? With this post I do not seek to refute the liberties enjoyed by citizens in the West. I simply wish to reflect upon the nature of those liberties; I want to investigate if liberty is synonymous with freedom. In the tradition of some earlier posts I want to promote a view rooted in marxist thought - what follows thus is a marxist conception of freedom.

There are a few difficulties in grasping an abstract philosophical notion like 'freedom'. We need to overcome these before we can judge todays freedom, and point out future directions. The latter should be the ultimate goal of our reflections. Now how to deal with the problems we face? How to know freedom? As always, starting in the field of practice proves to be useful: in the West we are free in a relative fashion, relative to contemporary authoritarian societies and relative to our own past social order. This notion of relative freedom has its (theoretic) opposite in an absolute freedom. I added theoretic between brackets because freedom can never be absolute. Absolute freedom only exists in the realm of fiction, where it is often attributed to divine beings. Mortals however will always be subject to boundaries; as material substance human beings have to abide the rules of physics. Next to the laws of nature, other limitations exist: geographic conditions, material capacities, social structures, etc. Even the expectations themselves can impose boundaries as expectations are formed within a social context - our scope of possibilities can be limited by dominant cultural values.

Mankind is however no passive slave of his conditions; throughout history we gained knowledge over nature and applied tools to overcome our limitations. Agriculture lead to increased carrying capacity of the land, language allowed for better coordination, etc. Sometimes our instruments of liberation imposed new boundaries, as was the case with economic modes of production (feudality, capitalism) or the creation of unity (culture, religion, nationalism). Karl Marx' famous example is the organization of society under the state - a strong mechanism for overcoming our natural condition but a strong boundary on further development as well. In fact, Marx thought it was such a big roadblock that he saw revolutionary overthrow of the state as only possible way forward. A bit radical, but considering the circumstances at his time not a strange conclusion at all.

Our liberal freedom is built upon the unfreedom of others.
Historic ánd continued exploitation make up pour welfare;

Speaking of evolution, we can discern an evolutionary pattern away from the initial 'anarchic' freedom. This natural condition was described by Hobbes as the fight of all against all; Darwin called it the struggle for survival. It is a natural freedom of social boundaries that we luckily left behind us. Ever since civilization came about, history has unfold as a history of emancipation from our boundaries. The modern day western society is quantitatively more free than say China's or Iran's. Qualitatively they are all the same: they are communities build upon tools to lift us out of natural anarchy but impose new limitations. They are filled with tools of oppression (political correctness, gender constructs) and tools of exploitation (a capitalist market economy).

One might argue that western democracies do not pose the same physical obstacles as raised by 'unfree' societies. True, but our liberal freedom - manifested in welfare and security - is based upon the exploitation and unfreedom of others: the bottom billion in the third world, the cheap Chinese workers, etc. Our freedom is stolen freedom and simply shifts the burden. The goal should be to take the next qualitative jump from liberal freedom to actual freedom. We ought to build a fair society in which the explicit goal is true maximum freedom for all, not just limited freedom reserved for some.

Ten most interesting albums of 2011

An unusual topic and perhaps not the most inspiring one. But hey, I have to study for my exams so please don't crucify me. The article pretty much is what it says to be: just an overview of the ten most interesting albums released in the previous year. I choose the term 'interesting' to reflect the personal nature of this list. These albums are in no way 'the best' or 'the most important' ones. They are merely the ones I liked best.

#10 - I'm With You by Red Hot Chili Peppers

Quite frankly I was a bit disappointed by this one. I'm certainly not the biggest Peppers fan, but I do take an interest in their most popular songs. Looking forward to this release might have created to big expectations. Still, a song like The Adventures Of Rain Dance Maggie sounds nicer once you've heard it a couple of times. Please notice the cow bell in the instrumentation.

#9 - Fallen Empires by Snow Patrol

A nice album that can measure up to their previous work. I had a battle going on with myself which release I would like best: Snow Patrol's or Mylo Xyloto by Coldplay. The latter had my bet but it turned out to be the other way. In fact, going by the recent evolution of both groups, I conclude to like Snow Patrol better. They are a band with potential that can deliver new sound without losing quality.

#8 - Jeff Bridges by Jeff Bridges

An unusual album as I only new Bridges as a notable actor playing in movies by the Coen brothers. It's somewhere in between easy rock and country; a perfect background score for those lousy moments. I include it in this list because of the surprise value mainly. Especially the song What A Little Bit Of Love Can Do is worth checking out.

#7 - Keys To The Kingdom by North Mississippi Allstars

I discovered this band when working my way further into the beautiful genre of the blues rock. Being a contemporary band, I was wild about their sound. This newest album contains less blues-influenced material and more of their easy-to-digest rock. Maybe I listed it higher if it was more in the line of their previous work. Still, even their non-bluesy work is quite okay. And a song like How I Wish My Train Would Come makes up for it all.

#6 - El Camino by The Black Keys

The rougher work in contemporary blues rock. The Black Keys always seem to experiment in the direction of alternative rock and more chaotic sound. El Camino does not hold their best work but there are some real pearls on the album. Lonely Boy is a special one (the video rocks!). My personal favorite is the poetic yet rough Little Black Submarines. It may even be my favorite song of 2011...

#5 - Collapse Into Now by R.E.M.

Now there you have a band. I can say I'm a real fan of R.E.M. since I like most of their work, regardless of the album/period. Their latest and also last work is again something entirely different. Too bad they will stop, but I guess it's a good sign when you can say such a thing. Also check out the 1982-2011 compilation set Part Lies, Part Heart, Part Truth, Part Garbage. It contains two new songs, even 'newer' than Collapse.

#4 - Bad As Me by Tom Waits

Tom Waits is the champion of the musical experiment. You can't capture him in a single genre, and I admire that. Waits is more than a musician, he's an artist. I don't like all of his songs but when he mixes blues, jazz and softer variants of rock it sometimes works out really nice. The song Back In The Crowd jumps out for me. Perhaps not the best album, but I'm really glad that I can witness a genius like Waits.

#3 - Paper Airplane by Union Station

Okay, so it is by Alison Krauss and Union Station. I don't like the vocal country in which Krauss is given the lead, even though the lady can sing. No questioning in that! What makes this album so special for me is that it contains bluegrass I truly enjoy. Most country of this type I just find 'amusing' or 'good fun'. Songs like Dust Bowl Children or On The Outside Looking In were a revelation to me. That is why this album deserves a third place.

#2 - Pull Up Some Dust And Sit Down by Ry Cooder

I didn't new Ry Cooder before I heard him on the radio this year. After looking up some older material I concluded that his recent release is what I like best. But still, I like it A LOT. This 2011 album was inspired by the banking crisis and the Occupy Wall Street movement. And that is how I like my music: beautiful and engaged. Just sit back while you play No Banker Left Behind. The homage in John Lee Hooker For President is also a nice addition.

#1 - All At Once by The Airborne Toxic Event

 This is an album I like in its entirety. Already familiar with their previous self-titled album, All At Once doesn't seem to offer anything new. When in the beginning I was drawn to the curiosity of just a few songs, later on the whole album just grew on me. The title song and All I Ever Wanted are a good start for breeding a fascination. Also try the older songs The Girls In Their Summer Dresses and Sometime Around Midnight.

Any thoughts or comments? Some album I seem to have missed? Please do share!

Nationalism as an empty box: the Flemish case

Recently, my good friend and blogger Dimitri asked me how he could define ideology. He was tasked with a review of Breytenbach and his literary opposition to the South African Apartheid regime. This compelled me to re-investigate some material I came across last year whilst writing a paper myself. In this post I want to share some insights on nationalist ideologies.

I resent the tendency among nationalists to defend their ideas as a coherent national ideology. There, I said it.

When assessing whether nationalism can be an ideology, one must keep in mind the distinction between two contrasting views on the concept: the scientific and the ideological. Any ideology will claim that it offers a coherent world view rooted in a real basis. All other ideologies are rooted in something else, something 'not real', and thus are false. For nationalists the ultimate foundation is the national character, the 'soul' of a people. To allow this nationalists have to presume a primordial 'nature'. Traditional nationalism considers the qualities that make up this nature to be given and invariable. More sophisticated versions circulate today, but I feel that the discourse of cultural patterns is more of a rhetorical means to block criticism. For it sure is not a genuine element of the theory.

"Rectilinear Flanders - Turn the page in a
pull to the right and you will see the
center color black" - cartoonist GAL
criticizes the impact of the ideology behind
Flemish nationalism. Depicted is De Wever
chairman of the New-Flemish Alliance.

From a sociological point of view, presuming a people with a single nature is too much of an abstraction. Bart De Wever, leader of the Flemish nationalist party N-VA, often recognizes this in debates. What he fails to explain is how nationalism can escape the devastating impact of this conclusion. (It can't). This pattern is typical for modern nationalism: Romantic views of national liberation lack the mobilization potential it had back in the 19th century. And indeed nationalism in itself has become hollow, an empty demand for autonomy that floats in an ideological vacuum. The empty box of nationalism requires to be filled with the conceptual framework of a proper ideology.

In the Flemish case we see that the N-VA draws upon neoconservative ideas on society and mankind. For its economic program it takes on board neoliberal recipes. This makes that the party program - save from the demand of independence in itself - has nothing to do with nationalism. The other Flemish nationalist party, Vlaams Belang, adopts an ideology situated at the far-right. Politicians of these two parties argue that Flemish nationalism provides a case for analyzing practically anything, from the budget to migration policy. But they are wrong, nationalism is not an ideology! Always try to trace the underlying ideology and unmask nationalism for the poor view it is - if it can be called a view at all.