These are my 20 minute thoughts and hopes for the New Year (London, 31st January, 12:06).
2009 will be a year of change, not just because this was the election platform of Barack Obama (in which he hopefully still believes), but because the world had a heart attack in September 2008 and any serious doctor could not advise to simply get back to normal.
Heart attacks are usually a symptom of something, either your body/system gets old or your body/system was working under extreme pressure which it could not withstand.
Let’s assume the world is still in its prime but has been working beyond capacity. What would a doctor do after a heart attack? He would deal with the emergency at hand and get the system working again. This is what happened between September and November 2008. Then the doctor would tell you to take a rest, stop running, stop gambling and stop unnecessary stress. He would tell you to go back to the fundamentals and reevaluate your whole way of life. You will probably do less for a while, spend time with the family and ask yourself what you really want from life. This is what is happening now, the world takes a step back, does less (produces less, hence the recession fears) and starts to reevaluate whether the current way of life can continue.
Following this train of thought, 2009 will be a year of slowing down and changing to a more sustainable way of life: a way of life, less frenetic, more thoughtful and more orientated towards long term sustainability.
For other reasons than outlined below, I decided that 2009 will also be a year of change for me: moving global (to the UN) and South (to Geneva). It will probably be a slower year and a year of reevaluating our personal way of life.
Let’s see next year how the world and the Wilkens-Goldings have managed the year of change.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Plan D comes from Ireland
I believe the EU will work better with the Lisbon treaty. It helps to make the institutions, voting and power sharing more transparent and manageable. Ratifying the Lisbon treaty also finishes the institutional navel gazing and creates room for doing real stuff. From my perspective, the EU needs even simpler, transparent and democratic rules which would probably move it further towards a federal structure. This would be fine with me. Having said that, I agree that a second Irish referendum is not the most democratic way out of the problem. I have argued straight after the first Irish referendum that one should ditch the Lisbon treaty and gradually reform the EU step-by-step, as it has happened so far.
Of course, ideally we should have a more efficient and democratic European Union. But from my perspective this can only be achieved through more federalism.
From what I understand Libertas will be a pan-European party which stands for more democracy in Europe. There is nothing to argue about. I could undersign this.
But the single focus of Libertas on fighting the Lisbon treaty weakens it, I think. If you stand for more democracy, why not propose to have a pan-European referendum about the Lisbon treaty on the same day with the referendum passing with 50% of the European electorate. This would then also be consistent with the direct election of the EU President as proposed by Libertas. I am all for this. Together with the EP elections in June this would be the best communications campaign for Europe, a real political discussion about Europe’s future. This would be a real Plan D, not a buraucratic Plan D of funding information campaigns.
In this way, the creation of Libertas as a pan-European party with a united election platform is a good thing and puts the mainstream parties under pressure to think and campaign more European. If that happens we will have a real European Parliament election campaign in 2009, with real debate and political competition. If Libertas can act as the catalyst for this, Libertas will be thanked by pro-Europeans all over Europe.
Of course, ideally we should have a more efficient and democratic European Union. But from my perspective this can only be achieved through more federalism.
From what I understand Libertas will be a pan-European party which stands for more democracy in Europe. There is nothing to argue about. I could undersign this.
But the single focus of Libertas on fighting the Lisbon treaty weakens it, I think. If you stand for more democracy, why not propose to have a pan-European referendum about the Lisbon treaty on the same day with the referendum passing with 50% of the European electorate. This would then also be consistent with the direct election of the EU President as proposed by Libertas. I am all for this. Together with the EP elections in June this would be the best communications campaign for Europe, a real political discussion about Europe’s future. This would be a real Plan D, not a buraucratic Plan D of funding information campaigns.
In this way, the creation of Libertas as a pan-European party with a united election platform is a good thing and puts the mainstream parties under pressure to think and campaign more European. If that happens we will have a real European Parliament election campaign in 2009, with real debate and political competition. If Libertas can act as the catalyst for this, Libertas will be thanked by pro-Europeans all over Europe.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
A first concrete US contribution to climate change
The Obama administration should not waste its energy and money on saving the 3 big US car makers, but rather use their market failure as a first concrete contribution to a new climate policy.
The economic state of GM, Ford and Chrysler is a reflection of the fact that they have missed the turn to defining mobility in the 21st century. Instead they were lost in a time bubble projecting past and current consumer patters into the future and building ineffient monsters believing their own advertising strategies.
Not many people knew that the end would come so quickly, but the signs were on the wall, with climbing oil prices and government CO2 regulations. While oil prices have dropped dramatically, government CO2 regulation has increased and consumer behaviour is changing, partly due to current recession fears.
Why should the US, or any other government, spent tax payers money on saving inefficient and polluting industries? Any government investment in these industries now will only prolonge their agony and waste another $ 50-100 billion (or credit which US taxpayers will have to pay back for many years). In addition, a government bail out will make it possible for the car makers to continue building inefficient and polluting cars which will be forced on US consumers under the 'Buy American' slogan. This will make for a bad start of US climate change policy when the main thing the US needs now is credibility.
Of course, it's all about jobs and this is important. But given the choice, should the government not invest in jobs for the future rather than jobs of the past? Can the US government asked China to close down coal power plants when it keeps subsidiesing its ineffienct and polluting car monsters?
I propose that the US government puts together a stimulus package for the car makers, the people who build the cars. They should receive a one-off payment helping them to make a new start in life. The car companies can get subsidies only for business plans based on new mobility ideas.
This way the collapse of the car industry in the US can create opportunities for new enterpreneurship and help to reduce the US and global CO2 targets at the same time.
The economic state of GM, Ford and Chrysler is a reflection of the fact that they have missed the turn to defining mobility in the 21st century. Instead they were lost in a time bubble projecting past and current consumer patters into the future and building ineffient monsters believing their own advertising strategies.
Not many people knew that the end would come so quickly, but the signs were on the wall, with climbing oil prices and government CO2 regulations. While oil prices have dropped dramatically, government CO2 regulation has increased and consumer behaviour is changing, partly due to current recession fears.
Why should the US, or any other government, spent tax payers money on saving inefficient and polluting industries? Any government investment in these industries now will only prolonge their agony and waste another $ 50-100 billion (or credit which US taxpayers will have to pay back for many years). In addition, a government bail out will make it possible for the car makers to continue building inefficient and polluting cars which will be forced on US consumers under the 'Buy American' slogan. This will make for a bad start of US climate change policy when the main thing the US needs now is credibility.
Of course, it's all about jobs and this is important. But given the choice, should the government not invest in jobs for the future rather than jobs of the past? Can the US government asked China to close down coal power plants when it keeps subsidiesing its ineffienct and polluting car monsters?
I propose that the US government puts together a stimulus package for the car makers, the people who build the cars. They should receive a one-off payment helping them to make a new start in life. The car companies can get subsidies only for business plans based on new mobility ideas.
This way the collapse of the car industry in the US can create opportunities for new enterpreneurship and help to reduce the US and global CO2 targets at the same time.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
How to rebuild Iceland: A letter to a friend in Reijavik
My dear friend,
You ask me how to rebuild trust in Iceland. Here are my two cents:
Starting point for rebuilding trust, both internally and externally, is to design and implement policies which make sense and work (the Product). Acknowledge mistakes, draw conclusions and come up with bold policy proposals to move forward. Be absolutely transparent and participatory in the communications (we need all of you here to get out of this mess).
Create a ‘We’ feeling, rather then we are the victims and the guys at the top always mess up.
Act and communicate along the following lines:
You ask me how to rebuild trust in Iceland. Here are my two cents:
Starting point for rebuilding trust, both internally and externally, is to design and implement policies which make sense and work (the Product). Acknowledge mistakes, draw conclusions and come up with bold policy proposals to move forward. Be absolutely transparent and participatory in the communications (we need all of you here to get out of this mess).
Create a ‘We’ feeling, rather then we are the victims and the guys at the top always mess up.
Act and communicate along the following lines:
We made mistakes because we had too much trust in the invisible hand of the market – we had become market fundamentalists. We were not alone in this, but we were possibly among the most extreme and the most exposed. PM should offer to resign, but say that this will not solve the issue.
Clear message that government is working 24/7 and engages the best brains in Iceland and the world.
Priorities now are: short term crisis management, introducing tight banking regulation which helps avoid repeat in the future, and economic reform which gets economy through crisis and helps build sustainable economy in the future. This is also important for FDI confidence.
Build in the message that Iceland has great potential which has not gone away. ‘We have to create a new Wirtschaftswunder’. And as in Germany after the war it will be hard.
Engage the best brains in the world to help in tackling these priorities. Take them to Iceland and give media exposure (We work with the best people in the World). One brain could be George Soros who has long warned about the crisis and what led to them.
Launch and moderate a national debate about the Future of Iceland (the vision thing). This should build on the best of new media, ask the Obama campaign people.
All this will be much easier if the fresh start comes also with a fresh face, the Icelandic Obama. If this is not possible, at least a major reshuffle of the top people. These people need to talk to everyone ‘We need everyone here to get out of the mess’.
In sum:
Fresh start (admit mistakes + 24/7 crisis management + design long term economic policy framework)
Best would be fresh face(s)
Build community sense of ‘Aermel hochkrempeln’
Get the best minds in the world to Iceland to help
National vision debate
This is from far away (Brussels) and may be all too basic. Most is probably already done. If so, ignore.
Good luck,
Andre
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Some implications from the Georgia-Russia war
My speaking points at a meeting on the implications of the Georgian-Russain War.
How has the Georgian-Russian war been perceived in Europe?
In general
o It was a wake up call for the need for clear and common EU positions and decisions in relations with Russia and the Eastern neighbors.
o Also, a reminder that frozen conflicts are still conflicts and can erupt quite easily into hot conflicts.
Otherwise it depends who you ask in Europe
o for the Baltics, Poland, Czech Republic + UK and Sweden (the friends of Georgia) this was an aggression of Russia and confirmation of the re-emerging expansionists Russian Empire. For them it was a mistake not to give a NATO Map to Georgia as they believe it would have avoided this standoff. They were quick in support for Sakasvili and for calling sanctions against Russia. This group is close to the current US position.
o for the rest of the EU lead by France and Germany, the crisis was a confirmation of 3 things: that Sakasvili is an adventurer who cannot be trusted, that Russia’s un-proportionate military reaction was manifestation that Russia is back in geo-political business, that EU and NATO policies for the whole Eastern region need to be rethought. Their take was that it was wise not to give a NATO Map to Georgia.
2. What are the prospects and constraints for concerted action?
Despite these differences the EU acted quick and united with surprisingly swift crisis management by Sarkozy. A discussion is now underway on the EU’s stands towards Russia. It started off with some tough words but in the end the Realists/pro-engagement faction is winning the debate. EU knows that there is no alternative to engagement with Russia.
On Georgia, there is a re-evaluation going on. The state of emergency in November last year was seen largely as an unfortunate overreaction. Playing with missiles is going too far for most EU countries. There is disappointment with Sachasvili. The exception is the Eastern EU members who feel deep rooted solidarity with Georgia based on historic memories of their own.
It is most likely that the EU will continue to support Georgia (as during the Donor conference) but start increasingly to distance them from Sachasvili.
A dividing issue is NATO expansion and the US missile defense system. Generally New Europe supports NATO expansion while Old Europe does not. I expect that at the next NATO Council a diplomatic formulation will be found which affirms that Georgia and Ukraine can join one day but not now. Here much will depend on the post-election position of the US.
On the other hand the EU is realizing that the ENP-enlargement light- approach has not had the effect its designers had in mind. Here all options are now discussed, even (silently) the prospect of eventual (if very distant) EU membership.
3. What options are there for stability and security arrangements for Georgia as a result?
I would like to quote Sakasvili here, in a German TV interview ‘Wrong question, you should ask …’ . Seriously, the question should be what the options for stability and security in the whole region are, including for Russia and Europe. Security and Stability can only be achieved with all partners involved.
With the military option Sakashvili has gambled away any hope to re-integrate South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the medium term. The Russian recognition leaves these territories in international limbo and under the direct influence of Moscow.
NATO is the wrong track. It is the track of the cold war. I think we have to dramatically rethink NATO and its relationship with Russia.
Can this be a revival of OSCE? Medvedev is calling for a new Security architecture. Why not take him by his word and explore what this means? Simply accepting a Russian proposal for discussion would be a positive sign.
My view is that the EU should accept the Russian proposal for debate. It may be a last chance to build in our values before Europe and the US influence in the world further declines.
Some concluding remarks :
Let's look at Georgia, Russia and the separatist entities separately for a moment
Georgia:
Something went seriously wrong here. After a good start and many good reforms, Sakashvili lost it. Despite warnings he opted for a military solution of a frozen conflict. He gave Russia the chance to demonstrate where the red lines are.
Georgia is a big looser of this conflict: it probably lost option to join NATO, lost South Ossetia and Abkhazia for the foreseeable future and will have to rebuild a trusted relationship with the EU.
I see the following priorities :
o Economic reconstruction and social development is priority + integration of refugees. This is where the EU should concentrate support.
o Now it is important to make sure that Georgia does not re-militarize.
o Government needs to reopen dialogue with civil society, and engage in CS confidence building.
o High level corruption should be made an issue, especially in relation to militarization and the military budget.
o Useful to put in place an independent investigation into the conflict, and probably also think about transitional justice.
o Think about post-Sakashvili period and how not to loose the momentum for further transition to an open society
Russia:
No question that Russia had a hand in creating this conflict. However, both Putin and Sakhasvili wanted to force it. Russia handled badly, luckily for Sachasvili.
Russia achieved its main goals: NATO membership pf Georgia is probably off the table, and West has to recognize Russia’s regional and global ambitions.
Conflict and Russia's reaction put the question of the future European security structure on the agenda. I think it would be useful to discuss this with the Russians.
Frozen Conflicts:
Depends who you ask, but at least there is some movement in the discussion. The link to Kosovo makes everything very complicated.
Need to explore what all this means for future of international law
At least all parties should agree that military option is not an option.
Apparent exclusion from Donors spending is a mistake. It recognizes that the territories are lost and pushes them further under Russian influence.
EU:
East is back, ENP on agenda
Russia, need for new, more mature relationship, does not mean giving up values, but need for a value driven interest policy
Re-think cold war and post-cold war arrangements. My sense is that NATO is in decline and OSCE needs a relaunch or is dead. Why not explore what the Russians mean by European Security Structures, engage, change it and give feeling to Russia that they have launched something with EU and others coming on board.
Interesting what EU position on NATO will mean for relationship with US. Likely that under McCain more difficult. But also possible that he will push New/Old Europe agenda. We should manage a more cooperative position of the US.
How has the Georgian-Russian war been perceived in Europe?
In general
o It was a wake up call for the need for clear and common EU positions and decisions in relations with Russia and the Eastern neighbors.
o Also, a reminder that frozen conflicts are still conflicts and can erupt quite easily into hot conflicts.
Otherwise it depends who you ask in Europe
o for the Baltics, Poland, Czech Republic + UK and Sweden (the friends of Georgia) this was an aggression of Russia and confirmation of the re-emerging expansionists Russian Empire. For them it was a mistake not to give a NATO Map to Georgia as they believe it would have avoided this standoff. They were quick in support for Sakasvili and for calling sanctions against Russia. This group is close to the current US position.
o for the rest of the EU lead by France and Germany, the crisis was a confirmation of 3 things: that Sakasvili is an adventurer who cannot be trusted, that Russia’s un-proportionate military reaction was manifestation that Russia is back in geo-political business, that EU and NATO policies for the whole Eastern region need to be rethought. Their take was that it was wise not to give a NATO Map to Georgia.
2. What are the prospects and constraints for concerted action?
Despite these differences the EU acted quick and united with surprisingly swift crisis management by Sarkozy. A discussion is now underway on the EU’s stands towards Russia. It started off with some tough words but in the end the Realists/pro-engagement faction is winning the debate. EU knows that there is no alternative to engagement with Russia.
On Georgia, there is a re-evaluation going on. The state of emergency in November last year was seen largely as an unfortunate overreaction. Playing with missiles is going too far for most EU countries. There is disappointment with Sachasvili. The exception is the Eastern EU members who feel deep rooted solidarity with Georgia based on historic memories of their own.
It is most likely that the EU will continue to support Georgia (as during the Donor conference) but start increasingly to distance them from Sachasvili.
A dividing issue is NATO expansion and the US missile defense system. Generally New Europe supports NATO expansion while Old Europe does not. I expect that at the next NATO Council a diplomatic formulation will be found which affirms that Georgia and Ukraine can join one day but not now. Here much will depend on the post-election position of the US.
On the other hand the EU is realizing that the ENP-enlargement light- approach has not had the effect its designers had in mind. Here all options are now discussed, even (silently) the prospect of eventual (if very distant) EU membership.
3. What options are there for stability and security arrangements for Georgia as a result?
I would like to quote Sakasvili here, in a German TV interview ‘Wrong question, you should ask …’ . Seriously, the question should be what the options for stability and security in the whole region are, including for Russia and Europe. Security and Stability can only be achieved with all partners involved.
With the military option Sakashvili has gambled away any hope to re-integrate South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the medium term. The Russian recognition leaves these territories in international limbo and under the direct influence of Moscow.
NATO is the wrong track. It is the track of the cold war. I think we have to dramatically rethink NATO and its relationship with Russia.
Can this be a revival of OSCE? Medvedev is calling for a new Security architecture. Why not take him by his word and explore what this means? Simply accepting a Russian proposal for discussion would be a positive sign.
My view is that the EU should accept the Russian proposal for debate. It may be a last chance to build in our values before Europe and the US influence in the world further declines.
Some concluding remarks :
Let's look at Georgia, Russia and the separatist entities separately for a moment
Georgia:
Something went seriously wrong here. After a good start and many good reforms, Sakashvili lost it. Despite warnings he opted for a military solution of a frozen conflict. He gave Russia the chance to demonstrate where the red lines are.
Georgia is a big looser of this conflict: it probably lost option to join NATO, lost South Ossetia and Abkhazia for the foreseeable future and will have to rebuild a trusted relationship with the EU.
I see the following priorities :
o Economic reconstruction and social development is priority + integration of refugees. This is where the EU should concentrate support.
o Now it is important to make sure that Georgia does not re-militarize.
o Government needs to reopen dialogue with civil society, and engage in CS confidence building.
o High level corruption should be made an issue, especially in relation to militarization and the military budget.
o Useful to put in place an independent investigation into the conflict, and probably also think about transitional justice.
o Think about post-Sakashvili period and how not to loose the momentum for further transition to an open society
Russia:
No question that Russia had a hand in creating this conflict. However, both Putin and Sakhasvili wanted to force it. Russia handled badly, luckily for Sachasvili.
Russia achieved its main goals: NATO membership pf Georgia is probably off the table, and West has to recognize Russia’s regional and global ambitions.
Conflict and Russia's reaction put the question of the future European security structure on the agenda. I think it would be useful to discuss this with the Russians.
Frozen Conflicts:
Depends who you ask, but at least there is some movement in the discussion. The link to Kosovo makes everything very complicated.
Need to explore what all this means for future of international law
At least all parties should agree that military option is not an option.
Apparent exclusion from Donors spending is a mistake. It recognizes that the territories are lost and pushes them further under Russian influence.
EU:
East is back, ENP on agenda
Russia, need for new, more mature relationship, does not mean giving up values, but need for a value driven interest policy
Re-think cold war and post-cold war arrangements. My sense is that NATO is in decline and OSCE needs a relaunch or is dead. Why not explore what the Russians mean by European Security Structures, engage, change it and give feeling to Russia that they have launched something with EU and others coming on board.
Interesting what EU position on NATO will mean for relationship with US. Likely that under McCain more difficult. But also possible that he will push New/Old Europe agenda. We should manage a more cooperative position of the US.
Monday, November 3, 2008
GreenTrabi and the Eco-Economic Revolution
The global car industry is in recesssion. Most German car manufacturers are already working in forced holiday mode. What a great moment to think anticyclical and launch a new car. Or relaunch a true vintage car, the Trabant.
Why? The Trabant is one of the most successful mass produced cars of all times. It was a real Volkswagen (people's car), it was small, simple (it could actually be repaired), durable (most kept going for 20 years), timeless design, had an ecological side (the chassis was made of some kind of recycable cardboard material, while the engine was a real ecological disaster). And of course it achived historic fame as the mobility symbol of the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall. What other car brand can claim a similar status. Are these not enough reasons for a relaunch of the Trabant?
What should the new Trabi be and look like?
The new Trabi should be based on the key values of the original Trabant: simple- small- recycable- durable- timeless design- cheap (7000 Euro would be a good target)- Made in (East) Germany.
In addition, and crucially important, the new Trabi should push the limits of eco-economic technology and design. The new Trabant will be GreenTrabi.
The GreenTrabi will be the Volkswagen of the 2010s. And as the Volkswagen Kaefer was the symbol of the German economic miracle of the 1950s, the GreenTrabi could be a symbol of the German eco-econmic miracle of the 2010s.
The GreenTrabi concept has nothing in common with the idea of the miniatur model company Herpa to produce 5000 limited edition New Trabis for a retail price of 50,000 Euro each.
What's next? Let's find an investor who puts his money into the GreenTrabi car revolution. And let's launch the idea in 2009, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. 1989 was the year of the peaceful revolution to a capitalist society. The capitalist system now needs a eco-economic revolution and the GreenTrabi could become another revolutionary symbol.
Why? The Trabant is one of the most successful mass produced cars of all times. It was a real Volkswagen (people's car), it was small, simple (it could actually be repaired), durable (most kept going for 20 years), timeless design, had an ecological side (the chassis was made of some kind of recycable cardboard material, while the engine was a real ecological disaster). And of course it achived historic fame as the mobility symbol of the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall. What other car brand can claim a similar status. Are these not enough reasons for a relaunch of the Trabant?
What should the new Trabi be and look like?
The new Trabi should be based on the key values of the original Trabant: simple- small- recycable- durable- timeless design- cheap (7000 Euro would be a good target)- Made in (East) Germany.
In addition, and crucially important, the new Trabi should push the limits of eco-economic technology and design. The new Trabant will be GreenTrabi.
The GreenTrabi will be the Volkswagen of the 2010s. And as the Volkswagen Kaefer was the symbol of the German economic miracle of the 1950s, the GreenTrabi could be a symbol of the German eco-econmic miracle of the 2010s.
The GreenTrabi concept has nothing in common with the idea of the miniatur model company Herpa to produce 5000 limited edition New Trabis for a retail price of 50,000 Euro each.
What's next? Let's find an investor who puts his money into the GreenTrabi car revolution. And let's launch the idea in 2009, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. 1989 was the year of the peaceful revolution to a capitalist society. The capitalist system now needs a eco-economic revolution and the GreenTrabi could become another revolutionary symbol.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Functional communications
Communications should be functional, i.e. service a clear objective. In the private sector a key aim is selling your product and communications are build around this purpose.
In the non-profit sector this is different but the key questions is always 'What business am I in', 'What do I want to achive'. There will be various answers but it is important to ask the right questions first. And the right questions always start with the business challenge. How can I achive the goals of my organisation? What do I need to make it happen? Who do I need on board? What does he need to know?
Communications is always functional. If not it will not be genuine and may be a waste of resources.
To be continued and edited.
In the non-profit sector this is different but the key questions is always 'What business am I in', 'What do I want to achive'. There will be various answers but it is important to ask the right questions first. And the right questions always start with the business challenge. How can I achive the goals of my organisation? What do I need to make it happen? Who do I need on board? What does he need to know?
Communications is always functional. If not it will not be genuine and may be a waste of resources.
To be continued and edited.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The global financial crisis and the resulting opportunities
The global financial crisis has implications which go much beyond the financial and economic sectors. Below are a eight thoughts and an attempt to see the opportunities in what currently looks like a pretty grim picture.
Thought 1: The West is in trouble and has become a potential source of instability for the world. During the last 8 Bush years the West's political leadership has been gamble away. But now the economic fundament of the Western way of life is being gamble away too. This is serious. In the future the challenge is to manage a peaceful decline of the West while rescuing as many of our liberal political and economic values as possible. This will only work if we accept the multipolar world as a reality and as an opportunity for a new style of global cooperation and governance.
Thought 2: The trouble of the West is contagious. And this has repercussions, not only economically. Even in decline, the West will weather the financial crisis and a recession better than emerging and developing countries. Democracies should be better equipped to deal with economic instability, one should hope. But how will Russia and China behave in a recession? Despite our differences, we cannot feel good if Russia and China suffer economically as instability there will have huge political, but also economic repercussions for us.
Thought 3: Global issues have to come to the boil before global action is taken. But if they boil and a global interdependent system is close to standstill, global leaders can and do act. Who would have thought that trillions of Euros would be found within a matter of weeks to deal with the global financial crisis? This should be a lesson for other global issues such as climate change and poverty. What were the estimated costs of Nicholas Stern to fighting climate change? And how many G8 summits went by talking about 'Making poverty history'? The question is whether we will have to come to boiling (or drowning) point before such dramatic government action will be taken on climate change and poverty reduction. On climate change global leaders cannot afford to wait until the system comes to a hold, because it will then be too late to get it going again, even with all the money in the world. Even the option of migration to another planet, as suggested by Stephen Hawkins, will need some serious preparation.
Thought 4: Globalization is very tangible now. We are interdependent, no question. Naomi Klein’s ‘No Logo’ was fun; No Lehman Bros is the hard reality of globalization. On the opportunities side, the attempts of major countries to work together shows that hard core globalization can force global government action. Will history books mark the collapse of Lehman Brothers as the start of building 21st century global governance?
Thought 5: Global governance has a comeback. And it is the Economy, stupid, which creates this new opening for global governance in the 21st Century. We need New Global Governance which can both manage the assent of China, India, Russia, Brazil as well as the decline of the US and Europe. Europe and the US must concentrate on shaping this new global governance and enshrine its progressive values it, while we still have some power to do so.
Thought 6: The early European Union a model for 21st century global governance. The EU started as s steel and coal community, not as the value community of today. While the fathers of the EU had a value driven vision of Europe in mind, they started pragmatically with coal and steel. Can this be a lesson for global governance? Can we re-build global governance based on global financial governance and then move on in a similar way the EU has done? Could this be an example for building a global open society. This is for financial and economic experts to answer. However, the EU is already at the forefront of creating global standards on another global issues- climate change. And arguably this is currently the EU's most successful foreign policy.
Thought 7: Keynes to create a new energy revolution. While the financial crisis is not quite over yet politicians are already turning to the predicted, and in some places already real, recession in the real economy. After major bail out packages for the banks now major stimulation packages for the economy are in preparation. And this is good. But stimulation packages should be used to stimulate the new, renewable energy growth sector and help create an energy revolution which creates sustainable growth now and in the future. The trillions of Euros which will likely be spent on fighting the global recession should be spent on fighting climate change at the same time. It’s a question of efficiency and forward thinking. And it combines the Urgent with the Important.
Thought 8: Development money will be scarce, at the least in the short term. This will apply to government development aid but also private foundation money and NGOs. We may find a consolidation in this sector but also lots of broken promises. However, rather than competing for scarce resources, the development community should use the crunch in development aid to assess approaches and structures, to restructure and to let go of ineffective models. Competition for creativity should result in doing things better with less.
Undoubtedly there are many more and more sophisticated angles to the Global Financial Crisis. The importance is to understand the crisis as an opportunity which should not be wasted.
Thought 1: The West is in trouble and has become a potential source of instability for the world. During the last 8 Bush years the West's political leadership has been gamble away. But now the economic fundament of the Western way of life is being gamble away too. This is serious. In the future the challenge is to manage a peaceful decline of the West while rescuing as many of our liberal political and economic values as possible. This will only work if we accept the multipolar world as a reality and as an opportunity for a new style of global cooperation and governance.
Thought 2: The trouble of the West is contagious. And this has repercussions, not only economically. Even in decline, the West will weather the financial crisis and a recession better than emerging and developing countries. Democracies should be better equipped to deal with economic instability, one should hope. But how will Russia and China behave in a recession? Despite our differences, we cannot feel good if Russia and China suffer economically as instability there will have huge political, but also economic repercussions for us.
Thought 3: Global issues have to come to the boil before global action is taken. But if they boil and a global interdependent system is close to standstill, global leaders can and do act. Who would have thought that trillions of Euros would be found within a matter of weeks to deal with the global financial crisis? This should be a lesson for other global issues such as climate change and poverty. What were the estimated costs of Nicholas Stern to fighting climate change? And how many G8 summits went by talking about 'Making poverty history'? The question is whether we will have to come to boiling (or drowning) point before such dramatic government action will be taken on climate change and poverty reduction. On climate change global leaders cannot afford to wait until the system comes to a hold, because it will then be too late to get it going again, even with all the money in the world. Even the option of migration to another planet, as suggested by Stephen Hawkins, will need some serious preparation.
Thought 4: Globalization is very tangible now. We are interdependent, no question. Naomi Klein’s ‘No Logo’ was fun; No Lehman Bros is the hard reality of globalization. On the opportunities side, the attempts of major countries to work together shows that hard core globalization can force global government action. Will history books mark the collapse of Lehman Brothers as the start of building 21st century global governance?
Thought 5: Global governance has a comeback. And it is the Economy, stupid, which creates this new opening for global governance in the 21st Century. We need New Global Governance which can both manage the assent of China, India, Russia, Brazil as well as the decline of the US and Europe. Europe and the US must concentrate on shaping this new global governance and enshrine its progressive values it, while we still have some power to do so.
Thought 6: The early European Union a model for 21st century global governance. The EU started as s steel and coal community, not as the value community of today. While the fathers of the EU had a value driven vision of Europe in mind, they started pragmatically with coal and steel. Can this be a lesson for global governance? Can we re-build global governance based on global financial governance and then move on in a similar way the EU has done? Could this be an example for building a global open society. This is for financial and economic experts to answer. However, the EU is already at the forefront of creating global standards on another global issues- climate change. And arguably this is currently the EU's most successful foreign policy.
Thought 7: Keynes to create a new energy revolution. While the financial crisis is not quite over yet politicians are already turning to the predicted, and in some places already real, recession in the real economy. After major bail out packages for the banks now major stimulation packages for the economy are in preparation. And this is good. But stimulation packages should be used to stimulate the new, renewable energy growth sector and help create an energy revolution which creates sustainable growth now and in the future. The trillions of Euros which will likely be spent on fighting the global recession should be spent on fighting climate change at the same time. It’s a question of efficiency and forward thinking. And it combines the Urgent with the Important.
Thought 8: Development money will be scarce, at the least in the short term. This will apply to government development aid but also private foundation money and NGOs. We may find a consolidation in this sector but also lots of broken promises. However, rather than competing for scarce resources, the development community should use the crunch in development aid to assess approaches and structures, to restructure and to let go of ineffective models. Competition for creativity should result in doing things better with less.
Undoubtedly there are many more and more sophisticated angles to the Global Financial Crisis. The importance is to understand the crisis as an opportunity which should not be wasted.
Final article published in Open Democracy http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-global-financial-crisis-opportunities-for-change
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Democracy's international challenges
CEPS Conference ‘Democracy’s international challenges’
Brussels 17 June 2008
Talking Points Andre Wilkens
While I do not agree with McCain’s proposal for a League of Democracies (which was already discussed here), it has started a debate about the value of Democracy and how to defend it. What I think we need is a Re-Think.
Definition: I support the need for a definition of what we mean: Democracy Promotion/Assistance/Building/Strengthening. Democracy Promotion has become the synonym for Democracy Export and Regime Change, including through the Rule of Force. I would go for a broader definition which looks at the building of sustainable open societies. Democratic institutions and processes are part of this but cannot be reduced to it.
Context: The world is dramatically different from the late 90’s/early 2000, the high time of Democracy Promotion. Mark Leonard and others have described this very well. This is the biggest challenge to democracy promotion. It seems to me that new times require also a review of the old approaches. But what we see is a re-brew of democracy promotion minus Bush.
One of the biggest challenges is the economy. The happy marriage between democracy and capitalism is now challenged by the happy marriage of non-democracies and capitalism. the currently democratic West is loosing its economic dominance and, potentially, the ability to set economic and social standards. In the new world order the West will also have less money available to promote its objectives while Russia and China have set up policies and structures to promote their own models.
In this new world we have to think ‘out of the box’ of democracy promotion. We have to find new ways to build sustainable open societies. This may take longer than in the 90’s democracy boom years and it may be through new approaches, e.g. climate and energy policy, migration, information technology.
EU integration: EU integration, incl. expansion of the EU, has been a very successful, and sustainable, way of building open societies. The creation of the EU was probably one of the biggest idea ‘Out of the Box’ ideas of the last century – building peace, stability, prosperity on steel, coal and bureaucracy. Democracy is a vital organ of the European model. Without democracy the system will collapse, but as humans do not fall in love with another human’s vital organs but the sum of things, so does the European model need more than a vital organ to attract others.
European Integration is not finished (Turkey, Western Balkans and even the unfinished business of democracy building in the new EU members) and is probably the area where the EU has the most to win or loose. ENP was an interesting, but possibly failing, approach to extend the EU model without offering membership, but we should make the most of it.
Democracy Promotion starts at home: This has to be one of the key lessons of the last 8 years. The double standards in defining democracy and how to apply it has cost the US, but also the EU, much credibility in promoting democracy in the world. Guantanamo, Patriots Acts, Torture, extra legal tricks to operate outside the democratic system, growing racism, organized crime and corruption, restriction of media freedoms: We have a lot to improve. Therefore strengthening democracy needs to happen not only abroad, but also at home. However, many organizations, governmental and non-governmental only look abroad.
Internal and external policies are nearly always linked. For the European model to be attractive it has to work and deliver at home.
An integrated and value driven interest policy: Do we need a separate democracy promotion policy, assistance and institutions? Is it not better to have an integrated foreign policy which is driven by Western core interests? Rather than segregating democracy promotion and assistance, we should make the building of sustainable open societies our core policy interest. Open Societies are better political and economic partners, also when it comes to energy and raw materials. We should evaluate whether our external policies, incl. trade and aid, assist democratic developments or hinder it. This is not necessarily about conditionally but about a credible (ethical) external policy. As on climate policy, we should lead by example.
Funding: Democracy assistance usually means giving money to NGOs to implement the donors’ agenda. Does this still work? Are NGOs the most effective way to promote sustainable democracy? Can and should we sub-contract democracy promotion to NGOs?
Brussels 17 June 2008
Talking Points Andre Wilkens
While I do not agree with McCain’s proposal for a League of Democracies (which was already discussed here), it has started a debate about the value of Democracy and how to defend it. What I think we need is a Re-Think.
Definition: I support the need for a definition of what we mean: Democracy Promotion/Assistance/Building/Strengthening. Democracy Promotion has become the synonym for Democracy Export and Regime Change, including through the Rule of Force. I would go for a broader definition which looks at the building of sustainable open societies. Democratic institutions and processes are part of this but cannot be reduced to it.
Context: The world is dramatically different from the late 90’s/early 2000, the high time of Democracy Promotion. Mark Leonard and others have described this very well. This is the biggest challenge to democracy promotion. It seems to me that new times require also a review of the old approaches. But what we see is a re-brew of democracy promotion minus Bush.
One of the biggest challenges is the economy. The happy marriage between democracy and capitalism is now challenged by the happy marriage of non-democracies and capitalism. the currently democratic West is loosing its economic dominance and, potentially, the ability to set economic and social standards. In the new world order the West will also have less money available to promote its objectives while Russia and China have set up policies and structures to promote their own models.
In this new world we have to think ‘out of the box’ of democracy promotion. We have to find new ways to build sustainable open societies. This may take longer than in the 90’s democracy boom years and it may be through new approaches, e.g. climate and energy policy, migration, information technology.
EU integration: EU integration, incl. expansion of the EU, has been a very successful, and sustainable, way of building open societies. The creation of the EU was probably one of the biggest idea ‘Out of the Box’ ideas of the last century – building peace, stability, prosperity on steel, coal and bureaucracy. Democracy is a vital organ of the European model. Without democracy the system will collapse, but as humans do not fall in love with another human’s vital organs but the sum of things, so does the European model need more than a vital organ to attract others.
European Integration is not finished (Turkey, Western Balkans and even the unfinished business of democracy building in the new EU members) and is probably the area where the EU has the most to win or loose. ENP was an interesting, but possibly failing, approach to extend the EU model without offering membership, but we should make the most of it.
Democracy Promotion starts at home: This has to be one of the key lessons of the last 8 years. The double standards in defining democracy and how to apply it has cost the US, but also the EU, much credibility in promoting democracy in the world. Guantanamo, Patriots Acts, Torture, extra legal tricks to operate outside the democratic system, growing racism, organized crime and corruption, restriction of media freedoms: We have a lot to improve. Therefore strengthening democracy needs to happen not only abroad, but also at home. However, many organizations, governmental and non-governmental only look abroad.
Internal and external policies are nearly always linked. For the European model to be attractive it has to work and deliver at home.
An integrated and value driven interest policy: Do we need a separate democracy promotion policy, assistance and institutions? Is it not better to have an integrated foreign policy which is driven by Western core interests? Rather than segregating democracy promotion and assistance, we should make the building of sustainable open societies our core policy interest. Open Societies are better political and economic partners, also when it comes to energy and raw materials. We should evaluate whether our external policies, incl. trade and aid, assist democratic developments or hinder it. This is not necessarily about conditionally but about a credible (ethical) external policy. As on climate policy, we should lead by example.
Funding: Democracy assistance usually means giving money to NGOs to implement the donors’ agenda. Does this still work? Are NGOs the most effective way to promote sustainable democracy? Can and should we sub-contract democracy promotion to NGOs?
Europe needs Roma Inclusion Policy
Europe must end violence against the Roma
By Emma Bonino, Jan Marinus Wiersma and Andre Wilkens
Published: Financial Times, June 4 2008 17:11 Last updated: June 4 2008 17:11
Arsonists attacked Roma settlements on the outskirts of Naples late last month, in a stark reminder of the perils minority groups still face even in European Union countries.
The Italian authorities, unable to contain the violence, resorted to evacuating the camps’ inhabitants, ostensibly for their own safety. Meanwhile, a police crackdown on petty crime led to arrests of nearly 400 Roma, many of whom are likely to be expelled from the country. Italy’s tough, new policy for managing immigration problems makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant: people found guilty of the offence can be sentenced to four years in jail.
Italy’s new government, under Silvio Berlusconi, the prime minister, has declared that the measures are fully compatible with Italy’s international and European obligations. Many commentators, however, have noted with unease that these measures appear to be specifically crafted to strike Italy’s sizeable Roma community. Italians have come to associate the Roma with a perceived rise in crime and their own sense that the streets of their towns and cities have become less safe.
Is this a problem unique to Italy? We think not. Racist violence is anything but an exclusively Italian phenomenon, and the burnings of Roma settlements could have happened in any European country. So are negative attitudes toward the Roma, who face discrimination, social and economic exclusion and denial of their rights as citizens throughout Europe.
If we do not find the right approach to dealing with the Roma, events similar to the attacks in Italy could become more frequent and spread elsewhere in Europe. It would be bad news for Europe if the approach of the Italian government towards Roma – exclusion and expulsion – were to become the standard. This would place pressure on basic European principles, including the duty of governments to promote equality, provide the necessary legal safeguards, allow for freedom of movement and protect minorities.
Although policies to promote Roma inclusion have been put into place throughout Europe, not least in the framework of the European Union’s enlargement, progress in implementing these policies has generally been disappointing. Roma continue to be the single group most discriminated against in Europe. They are deprived of educational and employment opportunities and they suffer poor living conditions and access to healthcare.
Such social exclusion travels. In a sense, Italy is currently only the most visible example of Europe’s failing approach to its Roma. It is imperative that countries now find a common approach, one that respects fundamental freedoms.
Promoting Roma inclusion is a shared responsibility for the EU and its member states. Even though government leaders acknowledged this in December 2007 – after an earlier outbreak of violence against Roma in Italy – it is all too easy to hide behind subsidiarity (the notion of taking decisions at the lowest appropriate level) when it comes to minority issues. Both member states and the European Commission have the tendency to do so.
Countries in the east first recognised that an ambitious joint plan for Roma inclusion was the best way forward. In 2005, eight heads of state from central and south-eastern Europe adopted the Decade of Roma Inclusion, committing their countries to implementing 10-year action plans for opening the doors to Roma in education, employment, health and housing. Spain has joined since. Italy should do so now and so should the other EU member states that have not signed up.
European government leaders will discuss the Roma issue at their summit this month. They should not be satisfied with mere stock-taking of existing instruments drawn up by EU civil servants. It is time to announce a new policy, a long-term European Roma inclusion strategy based on the blueprint of the Decade of Roma Inclusion.
Italy and the other European countries, within the EU and outside it, must find an effective approach to end racist violence against the Roma people once and for all. This must be done now, before there is more violence and before the Roma retreat into a shell.
Emma Bonino is a vice-president of the Italian Senate. Jan Marinus Wiersma is Dutch member of the European parliament. Andre Wilkens is director of the Open Society Institute Brussels
Roma must respect the laws of Italy
Published: Financial Times, June 6 2008 03:00 Last updated: June 6 2008 03:00
From Mr Franco Frattini.
Sir, The Italian government could not agree more that there must be no violence against the Roma, as recommended by Emma Bonino, Jan Marinus Wiersma and Andre Wilkens ("Europe must end violence against the Roma", June 5). The Roma have the right to full protection and full respect for their culture, history and traditions. They deserve a serious offer of integration into our societies. However, they must also be required to respect the law of the country.
In Italy, tolerance towards crime has exasperated millions of honest citizens and risks generating feelings of hostility, which we want to prevent towards the many law-abiding Roma and immigrants. Contrary to the allegations in the article, there is no room for exclusion and expulsion in the current Italian government policies, which will be based on our people's traditions of tolerance and solidarity, but also on their expectation of respect for the rule of law.
Franco Frattini,
Foreign Minister, Italy
***RECEPTION IN A LEGAL FRAMEWORK, TODAY'S ITALY IS NOT XENOPHOBICIl Messaggero - 7 June 2008by Franco Frattini(an inofficial translation )
Italy, a founding member of the European Union, shares the fundamental values that guided the EU integration process over the last 50 years. Whether in my personal capacity or in my official commitments in National and European institutions, I have always sustained that the Charter on Fundamental Rights be binding, If the Charter is not formally included in the Treaty of Lisbon, it is because other influential European countries, certainly not Italy, did not want it.From the coasts of Sicily and Sardinia to the eastern frontiers of Italy, our people offered and continue to offer rescue operations, assistance, and food to thousands of immigrants who, driven by desperation, enter in Italy and therefore in Europe in violation of the law. We proceed in that manner because we consider that proactive solidarity for hungry people is our primary moral duty. But, after that we require the respect of the law and the credibility of the State. We require the appropriate punishment for those who steal, rape women, kidnap children, send their children begging in the streets instead of going to school. These are elementary rules in the UK, Italy, as well as in other European countries.In Italy it is now necessary to stop illegal immigrants from circulating within the border-free Schengen zone towards other European countries that certainly do not appreciate it. These are regulations that were largely forgotten by the previous Government where the Honorable Bonino was then an influential Minister and who now accuses Italy. It is also for this reason that Italians massively voted in favor of this new Government seeking for more credibility in the security policy. The Roma community have the right to guarantee and protect their culture, history and tradition. They must be seriously offered the opportunity to be integrated in the Italian society.But, like any other resident in the Italian territory, they are required to respect the law. Failure to do so would result in punishments for crimes committed. Millions of honest citizens are exasperated by a tolerance towards crimes. Today this creates a rejection towards those honest immigrants who work and respect the law.Italian standards therefore are not xenophobic, as it was claimed by MM Wiersma and Wilkens who hardly know Italy, or by the Honorable Bonino who, knowing her compatriots very well, said something serious and untrue.Italian standards are those of acceptance and legality. A country where children should go to school rather than beg in the streets; where one who commits a crime goes to prison without getting rid of his faults by passing them to others. A country like any other European country. Anyone who loves Italy will not stand itanother day seeing it represented as a haven for thieves and illegal immigrants; however, when the democratic State does react, it is described as a xenophobic country. The Italian Government, with strong popular support, will continue to uphold the respect of legality and the rights of everyone, but first of all, the right to security for honest persons.
By Emma Bonino, Jan Marinus Wiersma and Andre Wilkens
Published: Financial Times, June 4 2008 17:11 Last updated: June 4 2008 17:11
Arsonists attacked Roma settlements on the outskirts of Naples late last month, in a stark reminder of the perils minority groups still face even in European Union countries.
The Italian authorities, unable to contain the violence, resorted to evacuating the camps’ inhabitants, ostensibly for their own safety. Meanwhile, a police crackdown on petty crime led to arrests of nearly 400 Roma, many of whom are likely to be expelled from the country. Italy’s tough, new policy for managing immigration problems makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant: people found guilty of the offence can be sentenced to four years in jail.
Italy’s new government, under Silvio Berlusconi, the prime minister, has declared that the measures are fully compatible with Italy’s international and European obligations. Many commentators, however, have noted with unease that these measures appear to be specifically crafted to strike Italy’s sizeable Roma community. Italians have come to associate the Roma with a perceived rise in crime and their own sense that the streets of their towns and cities have become less safe.
Is this a problem unique to Italy? We think not. Racist violence is anything but an exclusively Italian phenomenon, and the burnings of Roma settlements could have happened in any European country. So are negative attitudes toward the Roma, who face discrimination, social and economic exclusion and denial of their rights as citizens throughout Europe.
If we do not find the right approach to dealing with the Roma, events similar to the attacks in Italy could become more frequent and spread elsewhere in Europe. It would be bad news for Europe if the approach of the Italian government towards Roma – exclusion and expulsion – were to become the standard. This would place pressure on basic European principles, including the duty of governments to promote equality, provide the necessary legal safeguards, allow for freedom of movement and protect minorities.
Although policies to promote Roma inclusion have been put into place throughout Europe, not least in the framework of the European Union’s enlargement, progress in implementing these policies has generally been disappointing. Roma continue to be the single group most discriminated against in Europe. They are deprived of educational and employment opportunities and they suffer poor living conditions and access to healthcare.
Such social exclusion travels. In a sense, Italy is currently only the most visible example of Europe’s failing approach to its Roma. It is imperative that countries now find a common approach, one that respects fundamental freedoms.
Promoting Roma inclusion is a shared responsibility for the EU and its member states. Even though government leaders acknowledged this in December 2007 – after an earlier outbreak of violence against Roma in Italy – it is all too easy to hide behind subsidiarity (the notion of taking decisions at the lowest appropriate level) when it comes to minority issues. Both member states and the European Commission have the tendency to do so.
Countries in the east first recognised that an ambitious joint plan for Roma inclusion was the best way forward. In 2005, eight heads of state from central and south-eastern Europe adopted the Decade of Roma Inclusion, committing their countries to implementing 10-year action plans for opening the doors to Roma in education, employment, health and housing. Spain has joined since. Italy should do so now and so should the other EU member states that have not signed up.
European government leaders will discuss the Roma issue at their summit this month. They should not be satisfied with mere stock-taking of existing instruments drawn up by EU civil servants. It is time to announce a new policy, a long-term European Roma inclusion strategy based on the blueprint of the Decade of Roma Inclusion.
Italy and the other European countries, within the EU and outside it, must find an effective approach to end racist violence against the Roma people once and for all. This must be done now, before there is more violence and before the Roma retreat into a shell.
Emma Bonino is a vice-president of the Italian Senate. Jan Marinus Wiersma is Dutch member of the European parliament. Andre Wilkens is director of the Open Society Institute Brussels
Roma must respect the laws of Italy
Published: Financial Times, June 6 2008 03:00 Last updated: June 6 2008 03:00
From Mr Franco Frattini.
Sir, The Italian government could not agree more that there must be no violence against the Roma, as recommended by Emma Bonino, Jan Marinus Wiersma and Andre Wilkens ("Europe must end violence against the Roma", June 5). The Roma have the right to full protection and full respect for their culture, history and traditions. They deserve a serious offer of integration into our societies. However, they must also be required to respect the law of the country.
In Italy, tolerance towards crime has exasperated millions of honest citizens and risks generating feelings of hostility, which we want to prevent towards the many law-abiding Roma and immigrants. Contrary to the allegations in the article, there is no room for exclusion and expulsion in the current Italian government policies, which will be based on our people's traditions of tolerance and solidarity, but also on their expectation of respect for the rule of law.
Franco Frattini,
Foreign Minister, Italy
***RECEPTION IN A LEGAL FRAMEWORK, TODAY'S ITALY IS NOT XENOPHOBICIl Messaggero - 7 June 2008by Franco Frattini(an inofficial translation )
Italy, a founding member of the European Union, shares the fundamental values that guided the EU integration process over the last 50 years. Whether in my personal capacity or in my official commitments in National and European institutions, I have always sustained that the Charter on Fundamental Rights be binding, If the Charter is not formally included in the Treaty of Lisbon, it is because other influential European countries, certainly not Italy, did not want it.From the coasts of Sicily and Sardinia to the eastern frontiers of Italy, our people offered and continue to offer rescue operations, assistance, and food to thousands of immigrants who, driven by desperation, enter in Italy and therefore in Europe in violation of the law. We proceed in that manner because we consider that proactive solidarity for hungry people is our primary moral duty. But, after that we require the respect of the law and the credibility of the State. We require the appropriate punishment for those who steal, rape women, kidnap children, send their children begging in the streets instead of going to school. These are elementary rules in the UK, Italy, as well as in other European countries.In Italy it is now necessary to stop illegal immigrants from circulating within the border-free Schengen zone towards other European countries that certainly do not appreciate it. These are regulations that were largely forgotten by the previous Government where the Honorable Bonino was then an influential Minister and who now accuses Italy. It is also for this reason that Italians massively voted in favor of this new Government seeking for more credibility in the security policy. The Roma community have the right to guarantee and protect their culture, history and tradition. They must be seriously offered the opportunity to be integrated in the Italian society.But, like any other resident in the Italian territory, they are required to respect the law. Failure to do so would result in punishments for crimes committed. Millions of honest citizens are exasperated by a tolerance towards crimes. Today this creates a rejection towards those honest immigrants who work and respect the law.Italian standards therefore are not xenophobic, as it was claimed by MM Wiersma and Wilkens who hardly know Italy, or by the Honorable Bonino who, knowing her compatriots very well, said something serious and untrue.Italian standards are those of acceptance and legality. A country where children should go to school rather than beg in the streets; where one who commits a crime goes to prison without getting rid of his faults by passing them to others. A country like any other European country. Anyone who loves Italy will not stand itanother day seeing it represented as a haven for thieves and illegal immigrants; however, when the democratic State does react, it is described as a xenophobic country. The Italian Government, with strong popular support, will continue to uphold the respect of legality and the rights of everyone, but first of all, the right to security for honest persons.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
New Energy for Europe
This is an article I wrote in May 2006 and which I think is still very relevant.
When Russian President Vladimir Putin temporarily switched off the gas supply to Ukraine in a price dispute at the beginning of 2006, affecting also many parts of the EU, he opened our eyes to a potential future with the Kremlin sitting on the weightier - and well-oiled - lever of foreign policy.
Europe reacted with papers and diplomacy. Instead of joining forces to find a strategic solution, carbon heavy travel was on the rise as European leaders jetted back and forth to Russia and Central Asia competing for national energy deals. The European Parliament’s trade committee even proposed the diversification of energy supply by offering a trade deal to the repressive regime of Turkmenistan.
Putin’s challenge is less of an economic and more of a political challenge. It is a challenge to Europe’s ability to promote its values in the world, and to do so consistently. In this context, looking at short term energy security in isolation is too narrow a strategy response, a response which leads Europe into a cul-de-sac of higher prices and greater indebtedness toward unstable and repressive regimes.
To create alternatives you have to think alternative. EU leaders need to look at the bigger picture. Only by putting Putin’s challenge to Europe into a bigger picture will we come to realise it as an opportunity to re-energise the European Union. This bigger picture links energy security with climate security and the future of Europe. Long-term energy and climate security as well as foreign policy independence depend on the development of new, clean energies and a dramatic rise in energy efficiency.
In its 50th year the European Union is in a mid-life crisis. This is not just an institutional crisis following the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Rather the EU lacks a vision after many big projects have been completed: the internal market, the Euro and the unification of Western and Eastern Europe. The Lisbon Agenda for the creation of jobs and growth, you may recall, was an attempt to be relevant. But it has not delivered much beyond lofty statements.
The European Union needs a big idea which is relevant to its citizens, unleashes innovation and creates jobs. We believe this big idea should make the EU the most energy and resource efficient economy in the world. Europe would then utilize its strength to become a positive global leader on the most pressing issues the world faces today
One of those pressing global issues is climate change. The Earth’s atmosphere is dangerously warming up due to the paramount role of fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal in feeding the global economy. The burning of these fuels accounts for 75% of the annual increase in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). And this continues despite scientific proof that temperatures may increase by up to 6°C by the end of this century unless drastic action is taken. Even an increase of no more than 2°C, currently the EU’s declared target, would have catastrophic consequences, putting the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions at risk due to rising sea levels and freak weather extremes like storms, floods and droughts. Already global warming leads to conflicts over access to water and agricultural land, to increased poverty and to migration.
A radical move from fossil and nuclear (old) to clean, renewable energy sources and energy saving-technologies (new) is required. The recent Stern report in the UK makes a convincing business case that investing seriously in climate protection now will pay off economically in the long-run – and prevent a major economic recession triggered by the impacts of climate change.
The EU response to the crisis has been a mixed bag: a pioneering emissions trading scheme that is yet to deliver the necessary emission cuts; lip services on energy efficiency and renewables without clear coordination between Member States over measures to achieve them; and an Energy Green Paper underwritten by defensiveness over the need to diversify oil and gas supply – and not by putting the focus on shifting away form fossil fuels altogether.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is using Russia’s energy resources and the billions of extra Petro Euros, as a foreign policy weapon to regain Soviet-style grandeur at the expense of democracy in Russia and its near abroad.
News from Russia is bad: Mr Putin and his political technologists have created a hybrid democracy in which the economy, the media and increasingly civil society are controlled by Putin’s state. Russia’s so-called managed democracy does not shy away from asserting the Kremlin’s views forcefully on opponents inside and outside Russia.
How should we move forward?
European leaders and civic society should link the issues of securing our climate and securing energy sources, and use the gauntlet laid down by Russia as an opportunity to re-energise the European idea. This is an opportunity to invest politically and economically in a European project we call ‘New Energy for Europe'.
New Energy is clean, climate-friendly and efficient. It is an investment which offers long-term security to all sectors of society. This is not an appeal for new declarations. It is an appeal for making New Energy for Europe the centrepiece of European Union policy for the next decades. Doing so would fill the empty Lisbon agenda with content and deliver innovation, competitiveness and jobs. It also implies the EU taking on a leadership role in fighting climate change and making energy a positive force in foreign policy rather than a negative one. New Energy for Europe will gradually reduce the EU’s energy dependency on Russia, ultimately affecting the Kremlin’s ability to maintain and export its model of “managed democracy”.
New Energy for Europe means in practice a New Energy Pact which will:
create an EU legislative and budget framework in favour of innovation and investments in renewable energies and in energy efficiency technology (new energy)
phase out subsidies and incentives for old and climate-damaging energy sources and shift those subsidies to new energy
internalise external costs of dirty energy with a tax, and invest revenues into new energy
make a decisive shift in the EU budget, which will be reviewed in 2008, towards massive investments in new energy
set ambitious and binding sectoral targets for the share of new energy by 2020, such as 25% for the heating and cooling sector, 35% for the power sector and for cars to emit an average of not more then 140 grams of CO2 per kilometer
push for a global accord providing for binding annual CO2 cuts in line with the need to limit global temperature increase
The German EU presidency in the first half of 2007 can turn Mr. Putin’s challenge into an opportunity for the European Union. Chancellor Angela Merkel has stated that foreign policy relations with Russia as well as energy and climate change will be the main topics for her EU Presidency. By linking these topics Ms. Merkel could lay the ground for an ambitious ‘New Energy for Europe’ pact, which would deliver energy and climate security, renewed European foreign policy independence and a re-energised vision for the European Union to overcome its mid-life crisis.
While long-term in nature, the decision to build Europe on New Energy would send an immediate message to citizens and business in Europe, and especially to the Kremlin.
When Russian President Vladimir Putin temporarily switched off the gas supply to Ukraine in a price dispute at the beginning of 2006, affecting also many parts of the EU, he opened our eyes to a potential future with the Kremlin sitting on the weightier - and well-oiled - lever of foreign policy.
Europe reacted with papers and diplomacy. Instead of joining forces to find a strategic solution, carbon heavy travel was on the rise as European leaders jetted back and forth to Russia and Central Asia competing for national energy deals. The European Parliament’s trade committee even proposed the diversification of energy supply by offering a trade deal to the repressive regime of Turkmenistan.
Putin’s challenge is less of an economic and more of a political challenge. It is a challenge to Europe’s ability to promote its values in the world, and to do so consistently. In this context, looking at short term energy security in isolation is too narrow a strategy response, a response which leads Europe into a cul-de-sac of higher prices and greater indebtedness toward unstable and repressive regimes.
To create alternatives you have to think alternative. EU leaders need to look at the bigger picture. Only by putting Putin’s challenge to Europe into a bigger picture will we come to realise it as an opportunity to re-energise the European Union. This bigger picture links energy security with climate security and the future of Europe. Long-term energy and climate security as well as foreign policy independence depend on the development of new, clean energies and a dramatic rise in energy efficiency.
In its 50th year the European Union is in a mid-life crisis. This is not just an institutional crisis following the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Rather the EU lacks a vision after many big projects have been completed: the internal market, the Euro and the unification of Western and Eastern Europe. The Lisbon Agenda for the creation of jobs and growth, you may recall, was an attempt to be relevant. But it has not delivered much beyond lofty statements.
The European Union needs a big idea which is relevant to its citizens, unleashes innovation and creates jobs. We believe this big idea should make the EU the most energy and resource efficient economy in the world. Europe would then utilize its strength to become a positive global leader on the most pressing issues the world faces today
One of those pressing global issues is climate change. The Earth’s atmosphere is dangerously warming up due to the paramount role of fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal in feeding the global economy. The burning of these fuels accounts for 75% of the annual increase in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). And this continues despite scientific proof that temperatures may increase by up to 6°C by the end of this century unless drastic action is taken. Even an increase of no more than 2°C, currently the EU’s declared target, would have catastrophic consequences, putting the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions at risk due to rising sea levels and freak weather extremes like storms, floods and droughts. Already global warming leads to conflicts over access to water and agricultural land, to increased poverty and to migration.
A radical move from fossil and nuclear (old) to clean, renewable energy sources and energy saving-technologies (new) is required. The recent Stern report in the UK makes a convincing business case that investing seriously in climate protection now will pay off economically in the long-run – and prevent a major economic recession triggered by the impacts of climate change.
The EU response to the crisis has been a mixed bag: a pioneering emissions trading scheme that is yet to deliver the necessary emission cuts; lip services on energy efficiency and renewables without clear coordination between Member States over measures to achieve them; and an Energy Green Paper underwritten by defensiveness over the need to diversify oil and gas supply – and not by putting the focus on shifting away form fossil fuels altogether.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is using Russia’s energy resources and the billions of extra Petro Euros, as a foreign policy weapon to regain Soviet-style grandeur at the expense of democracy in Russia and its near abroad.
News from Russia is bad: Mr Putin and his political technologists have created a hybrid democracy in which the economy, the media and increasingly civil society are controlled by Putin’s state. Russia’s so-called managed democracy does not shy away from asserting the Kremlin’s views forcefully on opponents inside and outside Russia.
How should we move forward?
European leaders and civic society should link the issues of securing our climate and securing energy sources, and use the gauntlet laid down by Russia as an opportunity to re-energise the European idea. This is an opportunity to invest politically and economically in a European project we call ‘New Energy for Europe'.
New Energy is clean, climate-friendly and efficient. It is an investment which offers long-term security to all sectors of society. This is not an appeal for new declarations. It is an appeal for making New Energy for Europe the centrepiece of European Union policy for the next decades. Doing so would fill the empty Lisbon agenda with content and deliver innovation, competitiveness and jobs. It also implies the EU taking on a leadership role in fighting climate change and making energy a positive force in foreign policy rather than a negative one. New Energy for Europe will gradually reduce the EU’s energy dependency on Russia, ultimately affecting the Kremlin’s ability to maintain and export its model of “managed democracy”.
New Energy for Europe means in practice a New Energy Pact which will:
create an EU legislative and budget framework in favour of innovation and investments in renewable energies and in energy efficiency technology (new energy)
phase out subsidies and incentives for old and climate-damaging energy sources and shift those subsidies to new energy
internalise external costs of dirty energy with a tax, and invest revenues into new energy
make a decisive shift in the EU budget, which will be reviewed in 2008, towards massive investments in new energy
set ambitious and binding sectoral targets for the share of new energy by 2020, such as 25% for the heating and cooling sector, 35% for the power sector and for cars to emit an average of not more then 140 grams of CO2 per kilometer
push for a global accord providing for binding annual CO2 cuts in line with the need to limit global temperature increase
The German EU presidency in the first half of 2007 can turn Mr. Putin’s challenge into an opportunity for the European Union. Chancellor Angela Merkel has stated that foreign policy relations with Russia as well as energy and climate change will be the main topics for her EU Presidency. By linking these topics Ms. Merkel could lay the ground for an ambitious ‘New Energy for Europe’ pact, which would deliver energy and climate security, renewed European foreign policy independence and a re-energised vision for the European Union to overcome its mid-life crisis.
While long-term in nature, the decision to build Europe on New Energy would send an immediate message to citizens and business in Europe, and especially to the Kremlin.
Are we exporting the wrong model?
At the weekend I saw Ann Leonard present the Story of Stuff - a critique of our consumer society. Although this is not much new, it is well put together and shows that our society is in overdrive and heading the wrong way. I don't want to repeat what she has to say, you can watch her presentation on www.thestoryofstuff.org .
But do we, in the West, do even more harm than portrait in the presentation/film. We have not only build the most successful consumer society which is based on ever more exploitation of our world, but we also agressivly promote this model to the rest of the world. An this will be the downfall of the system. As long as a relativly little community (The West) lived along this system and exploited the rest of the world, it had a fair chance of survival. Now that the rest of the world is catching up with us (because we want them to for economic and social reasons), the system will collapse. That is not the key problem as systems are replaced by other systems. The question is whether the system will break and be replaced before mankind collapses or after. So, in our own interest, should we not stop to promote the consumer society model to the rest of the world?
But do we, in the West, do even more harm than portrait in the presentation/film. We have not only build the most successful consumer society which is based on ever more exploitation of our world, but we also agressivly promote this model to the rest of the world. An this will be the downfall of the system. As long as a relativly little community (The West) lived along this system and exploited the rest of the world, it had a fair chance of survival. Now that the rest of the world is catching up with us (because we want them to for economic and social reasons), the system will collapse. That is not the key problem as systems are replaced by other systems. The question is whether the system will break and be replaced before mankind collapses or after. So, in our own interest, should we not stop to promote the consumer society model to the rest of the world?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
