Lessons to learn from Norway
By Wei Seng
Paradise on Earth?
First published in The Guardian on Wednesday, then republished in The Straits Times, Timothy Garton Ash writes about Norway vis-a-vis the European Union, and some of the lessons that can be learnt from Norway and about Norway.
The writer refers to Norway as "close to a paradise on Earth" because of high living standards and social equality. This, he says, allows many people to use Norway as an example for many things. British MPs from the Eurosceptic Conservative party claim that Norway's being out of the EU and its resultant prosperity meant that Britain could leave the EU and probably do as well as Norway could. Researchers also cite Norway as an example of how greater equality could have spillover benefits in terms of education and crime amongst other social indicators. And for those "hydrocarbonists" who support the "drill, baby, drill" faction, Norway is the epitome of how oil drilling can create prosperity and equality, since Norway's economy (and hence social democracy model) is sustained by significant exports of oil and gas drilled in its waters. And there are some who allude Norway's success to its historical and cultural links to the Vikings and their traditions and characteristics.
But the writer would like to remind readers that it is easy to draw "too-simple lessons from the experiences of other countries, or of projecting on to them lessons you want to draw for your own". In short, only highlighting what serves your own purpose and neglecting the rest. One may also fall into a trap, the frequently-commited "fallacy of confusing correlation with cause". The lessons that should be learnt need to be the right ones as well: emulating the success stories of another country in your own, in a totally different context, can produce wildly different results.
And, well, even supposed-Paradise Norway is not immune to the "shockwaves of world politics", as the country struggles (like many other European nations) to integrate its growing Muslim populace and its exports have to be imported by its European neighbours for the country to earn any money at all.
So what can Singapore learn from Norway? Maybe tips on the social democracy model that Norway champions, given that Singapore tends to be averse to some of the ideas of social democracy such as pensions because of disincentives to work. Or perhaps how the country manages to create such an egalitarian society, important given that Singapore is becoming a more unequal society as the country continues to grow and develop.
Replotting the map of Europe
By Wei Seng
How does New Europe look to you?
In yet another geopolitical write-up, I feature an article from The Economist that proposes replotting the map of Europe to group within Europe the countries with cordial relations and seperate the countries with souring relations. Sounds like an easy exercise isnt it? The Economist also provides justifications for the relocation of countries. It is quite interesting to see the map of Europe adjusted as such, as an indication of which countries have similarities or get along better.
What you see very obviously being adjusted is off the coast of continental Europe. Britain has shifted southwards next to Spain and Portugal because of "similar position(s)" in its "dire public finances". Britain has also broken up into England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which might make governance easier. In Britain's place is Poland, "which has suffered quite enough in its location between Russia and Germany" (think of World War 2 and Cold War) and deserves "the security of sea water between it and potential invaders".
In addition, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have shifted out of the Baltics to west of Ireland, forming a group of 4 countries that have undertaken "internal devaluation" to make their economy more competitive. In place of these 3 Baltic states comes Belarus, which deserves some Nordic influence to "shed (its) Soviet legacy", much as how the 3 Baltic states have benefitted from being in the area.
Another obvious change is the split of the south of Italy into a seperate state of its own called Bordello, "to form a currency union with Greece, but nobody else". Probably a depiction of the messy state of finance as well as the amount of organised crime in south Italy.
Some other still-obvious changes include:
1. The northward shift of neutral Switzerland into Scandinavia, accompanying other generally neutral countries like Sweden (which people often mix up with Switzerland) and Norway (happy to see another country not in the EU next to it)
2. Swapping of places between Belgium and Czech Republic, since Belgium suffers from so much squabbling within its fractious Flemish-French coalition government that it deserves to be in Central Europe, while Czech Republic being peaceful suffers from much of the nationalist squabbling in its neighbours. Birds of a feather should flock together huh?
More changes occur in the Balkans, and there's even new fictional countries created to fill some of the gaps created from the shifting of states. The changes here are so messy that I wont elaborate though you could check out the original article for the full explanations.
Sleepwalking Europe?
By Wei Seng
Achtung, EU!
I have written about the decline of Europe and the European Union, and in the wake of the Greek debt crisis, it seems like Europe's slide into irrelevance is being expedited. Timothy Garton Ash, in The Guardian, writes about how "Europe is sleepingwalking to decline" and the need for "a Churchill to wake (Europe) up".
The Greek debt crisis might have been temporarily resolved for now with the guarantees and loans from the European Central Bank, but the problem is far from resolved as Greece's underlying problems have not been tackled adequately and other countries in Europe such as Spain and Italy are also in vulnerable positions like that of Greece. Such stop-gap measures would at best probably only postpone the Armageddon that will eventually come for the Euro and EU. The writer suggests that "either the eurozone move towards fiscal union", which would be problematic for many countries to implement stringent standards as they lose even more sovereignty, or "some of the weaker member states default, either inside the eurozone or by leaving it altogether", of which default in the eurozone would be the Armaggedon for the whole of the EU while kicking out defaulting member(s) might be palatable to all-along fiscally prudent countries like Germany but Armaggedon nonetheless for the defaulting member(s).
In addition, the writer reiterates more signs of Europe's decline, as discussed in my article written in March, such as the EU's failure during the Copenhagen climate change summit to effect real change. In essence, the Greek debt crisis seems to cement Europe's decline from the global arena vis-a-vis the continuing rise of emerging powers, now moulded into blocs in the like of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China) or BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India & China) or IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa)
So is there any saving grace? The EU "is still the world's largest economy" though "it punches far below its weight". The factors that drove the establishment of the EU post-WWII / Cold War, such as the communist threat, have been greatly diminished, and "most Europeans have never had it so good" in terms of standard of living and quality of life. But as the writer insists, things need to change "radically" so that "things may remain the same". He claims that we'd need another Winston Churchill, legendary British wartime Prime Minister, to explain the threats to Europe, instead of the current slate of leaders. He does not really establish how we could find such a leader, but I guess the most important thing right now is for Europe and the EU to really wake up to the realities of today's world and do something fast before it sleepwalks into the quicksand and sinks.
Europe’s core-periphery conundrum
By Wei Seng
Time to redraw the divide?
I am still catching up on all my subscribed The Economist magazines that have accumulated in my absence in India. This article that I wish to feature today hence comes from a month back, from 27 March. Charlemagne, The Economist's European correspondent, argues that in Europe there actually isnt a core-periphery divide that affects the economic geography of the continent, but more of a north-south divide.
To the uninitiated (this was taught in A-level Geography), the core-periphery theory suggests that with economic development a region (the core) will expand into its neighbours (the periphery) to continue its economic growth. The periphery can benefit if the economic spoils of the core spill over into the periphery, but the periphery may alternatively lose out if the core sucks up resources from it but remains undeveloped economically.
While Charlemagne is not using the core-periphery theory per se, he is arguing that it is impossible to define Europe based on a core-periphery model as it would be geographically inaccurate when one studies representations of economic development on the map of Europe. If there is a core, it would probably be represented by Germany (probably the economic capital Frankfurt) and Belgium (Brussels, the administrative capital of the European Union). But variations in economic development away from the core defy the impression of a simple "concentration gradient" whereby economies further away from Frankfurt and Brussels are poorer. The Scandinavian countries are a good example, for they are located far away from the "heart" of Europe but yet these are the wealthiest and most developed countries in the continent. It seems like it is too simplistic to represent Europe based on a single core surrounded by the periphery.
Charlemagne then suggests that instead what we see in Europe is a North-South divide. Again for those unaware (this is also taught in A-level Geography), the north is a representation of the rich whereas the south is a representation of the poor, a generalisation based on global trends. Such a representation of the world can be said to be quite contentious because it is geographically inaccurate. Australia, being a rich country, is located in the Southern hemisphere but qualifies as the North in this divide. For Europe, however, this divide seems to fit in nicely with both geographical and economic trends. If you look at GDP representation, you actually see an East-West divide, as we currently understand of Europe that Western Europe is wealthier than Eastern Europe. However, since the financial crisis of 2008 and the eventual storm it has unleashed on governments in Europe, it seems more accurate to portray an economically-stronger Northern Europe and an economically-weaker Southern Europe.
Where then, to draw the divide? While Eastern Europe would qualify as part of the south given the difficult conditions they face today in managing and reviving their economy, even some Western European countries with higher GDP per capita than that of in Eastern Europe are in varying depths of trouble. One could probably draw the line south of France, Germany and Switzerland, which would then include Spain, Portugal & Italy, the economically more fragile countries in Western Europe. Greece and the Baltic states would very obviously be in the South given the harrowing economic conditions faced.
The difference in portraying Europe using the core-periphery theory and the North-South divide is this: given the severity of the financial crisis, while countries in the core / North are holding up well, they are no longer willing to support countries in the periphery / South that are tethering on the edge of bankruptcy, given the systemic risk of default and collapse some of these countries face and the threats of the problem spreading. That many of these countries in the periphery / South are in the EU makes matters worse for countries in the core / North because it seems reasonable to expect help from wealthier neighbours in an economic alliance when your country is in trouble. The North-South divide illustrates more the contrast as well as the unwillingness of countries in the North to help the South, which the core-periphery model does not exactly illustrate.
Sounds like a storm in a teacup or making a mountain out of a molehill, the usage of different economic geography theories to describe Europe, for us observers in Asia. Then again, the subtle differences in definition of these theories help explain the mindset of countries like Germany today, when it refuses to bail Greece out from its debt crisis, though for us it seems the logical thing to do.
Goodbye to EU?
By Wei Seng
EU - Tower of Babel?
We read frequently in the news about the demise of Pax Americana or the rise of the post-American world. I am not about to discuss at length the decline of America, but I want to bring attention to what many people might have neglected as they watch America's supposed decline: Europe's concurrent decline. And Europe's decline is also of its own making, though of a different nature compared to the Americans: the financial crisis and its aftermath triggered all these claims about America's decline, but it is the EU (European Union) and the way it operates that will do Europe / the EU in as a global power.
In Time magazine this week, The Incredible Shrinking Europe discusses why EU is beginning to lose its shine as a global power of equal importance compared to America and China. The magazine recognises that it is not that Europe is becoming poorer or that the people in the EU are suffering (unlike in America right now), but rather how the EU administration does things.
I highlight some of the main problems I see with the EU.
Some problems with the EU that have affected its standing in the global arena:
1. EU is too huge. Managing 27 member nations that each want their own voice to be heard is a mess. Obviously there will be countries that dominate (large ones like France & Germany), but its actions seem to be confounded by the differences in opinion between many of the nations, which will hamper what it is trying to say and do. Germany wants to work closely with Russia but the Eastern European nations in the EU are terrified of getting closer to Russia due to fears of the Cold War / Soviet Union days. This makes EU decisions on issues regarding Russia difficult and contentious.
2. EU seeks too much consensus. It goes for the "least-bad options", which may be useful in slowly amending the status-quo, but when it comes to crucial decisions necessary to reform, the EU might fail because it decides to go for the lowest common factor instead of what is really best even if it might hurt. The procedure and the eventual selection of the permanent President and Foreign Minister reflect this. Picking two affable and unoffending people, Belgian Prime Minister Herman van Rompuy and British Lady Catherine Asthon, may have achieved the purpose of happiness amongst all EU members, but it does not help EU if it really wants people who can "stop traffic" and portray images of leadership, decisiveness and power.
3. EU has too many underwhelming leaders. With regard to too many, it now has 4 leadership axes that will potentially create much conflict. There's a permanent EU Council President and EU Foreign Minister, on top of the original leaders: the rotating presidency (amongst the EU nations) as well each country's heads of government / state. This is a "complex mechanism" that makes it difficult for constructive work. It could encourage turf wars as well as make it difficult to show solidarity. Who is American President Obama supposed to call when he needs help from the EU? Chances are, he will probably end up calling French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown or / and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, because he will directly enlist their help rather than go through the EU before reaching these leaders who make the decisions. Especially given current conditions, chances are he'll skip calling Europe and go straight to other nations (that are, not coincidentally, emerging powers) like China, as evident following the Copenhagen climate summit where EU was almost totally sidelined despite having hosted the key summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.
4. EU is not as democratic as it claims to be. The way the Lisbon treaty was rammed down the throats of governments was evidence of how the EU parliamentarians and decision-makers just wanted to get things done without getting sufficient support from the people for their actions. The French and Dutch in 2005 first rejected amendments to the European Constitution. Then with the Lisbon treaty, making Ireland go through another referendum to force it to ratify the treaty (making little and unexplained amendments in the treaty along the way) does indicate of some undemocratic tendencies.
The United Nations (UN), with close to 200 members, has even more members, but while the UN may often be described as inefficient, it is still serving a huge purpose as a gathering of world governments that can act together in times of crises. At very least, it still has the symbolism and serves a purpose in its existence. While the EU has created much benefit for the member nations, it often seems to undermine or contradict local government decisions, probably because there is an isolated European Parliament that is rather insular to the real, on-the-ground views of the EU citizens.
In addition to this article in Time magazine, Time magazine interviewed EU Foreign Minister Lady Catherine Ashton for her views about EU. She does a good job with the publicity, but we will wait and see how she manages to get her job done given the difficult conditions she's been placed in.
In my opinion, the EU has a lot of potential to create a balance of powers between America and the East / ascending developing nations such as China, India & Brazil. Indeed if we talk about the decline of Pax Americana, Europe should by right be part of the decline as well because it is after all closely allied with America and part of the West that is seeing stagnation / decline in political and socioeconomic spheres in the global domain. The EU can still serve as a role model in terms of an economic model that generally promotes cooperation and creates wealth for its denizens (but less so after the Greek debt crisis) as well as a relatively peace-loving actor on the global stage that can serve as a reminder for cooler heads to prevail in dealing with touchy issues like Iran and North Korea.