Adam Lanza was not the only mentally challenged person wanting to kill young children on Friday 14 December 2012. Far away in a little village of Chenpeng in central China’s Henan province, Min Yongjun had the same plans. They had both independently chosen soft targets – young kids at school – to unleash their terror. Lanza had armed himself with real lethal weapons – guns, while Min who lives in a society where guns are outlawed to the public armed himself with a knife.

Their operations did not last very long. But when they were done, Lanza had left his mother shot dead at home, succeeded in killing six staff members of the school, gunned down twenty young kids and then turned the gun on himself. Min, in the same manner had started out by stabbing an elderly lady in her home before heading to the school where he unleashed his terror of stabbing on 22 young kids. With all the similarities, there is one notable difference: While the Chinese kids are recovering from their wounds in a hospital, the American kids are all dead and buried.

To many rational people, this little difference might be one argument to rethink the gun culture in the United States. But being rational is not all that easy when you are a part of an abnormal system which has become very normal to you. Senseless shootings are daily occurrences in America. Sandy Hook is indeed not the worst on record. The only thing that made it to stand out was the sheer number of innocent little tots that were gunned down. Americans are used to it. They have gunned down presidents and paupers alike as well as famous and unknown people. They have gunned down people in places of worship and entertainment centres. Family members have not been spared. One kid gunned down his parents for refusing his request to hold his birthday party at home with his friends. Shopping malls, bus stops, offices, schools, family homes, sport centres, banks, markets, car parks, name it and you have a potential shooting range for mass killing. In fact, the probability of one being shot dead in America even in the safest of places is so high, Somalia seems a peace haven in comparison. You just need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There is an old saying that charity begins at home. Outside its borders, America is fighting the rather contentious War on Terror. As Obama sends unmanned drones half-way round the globe to hunt down terrorists, the message seems to be, “We will not tolerate you killing Americans: We are capable of doing the job ourselves.” Interestingly, no one has so far used the word terror to describe any of the shootings. Apparently, it is only terror when it is done by non-Americans.

If the cold-blooded murdering of twenty innocent 6 and 7 year old kids along with six of those caring for them in an elementary school where they were supposed to be safe is not terror, then America must have a rather strange definition for the word. The paradox is that within a period of half a year, Americans will inflict more self-damage than Al Qaida has ever managed to do in its whole existence.

What shocked the world the most in the days following Sandy Hook was not the brutal mowing down of innocent people by a lone gunman. It was what they found when they peeped into the American social system through the window that was inadvertently left opened by that incidence. Many parents around the globe were faced with having to explain to their shocked kids, the American gun culture. Even to the parents, it had all sounded surreal and simply incredible. Too many questions were flying around begging for answers. “But people cannot just be allowed to carry guns around and keep guns at home”. “What do they need the guns for anyway?” and the naïve “Why do they have to kill children?” and the even more naïve one “Why is nobody doing anything about it?”

The off-the-shelve ready-made explanation is – This is the land of the free. Our Constitution allows us freedom to live our lives the way we choose to without unnecessary interference of “big government”. As for right to bear arms, you are quickly reminded of the all-mighty Second Amendment to the US Constitution which was signed in December 1791. At the time, Americans needed the security of their guns to serve as protection and deterrent against their enemies, seen and unseen, imagined and real, domestic and external. The fears might have been real then. So might have the need to bear arms.

The nation´s face of helplessness

But that was 221 years ago. The world has since moved on. Sadly America has not. During one of the televised debates of the 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama reminded his Republican Party challenger that the US military’s needs have changed. There are today less horses and bayonets. They have been replaced by modern warships, precision-guided missiles – and of course, Obamadrones.

Most countries around the world, over the years, adapted their constitutions to take account of the changing world, and to institute systems which (even if not perfect in some cases) were aimed to guarantee social justice and cohesion. America opted for the self-centred system of “I” rather than the inclusive “we”. Too many successful so called “American dreams” were built at the expense of the masses, and exploitation of the gullibles. American version of capitalism and consumerism led to the disenfranchising and alienating of too many of its citizens. These rather blinkered mentalities are perpetrated by a revoltingly greedy minority who are powerful enough to hold the whole country to ransom. It is as sickening as it is immoral.

America is a highly polarised nation. It is difficult in the present day America to reach consensus on any issue of importance. The overall tone in the country is rather acrimonious. There is great division on almost every conceivable issue – religion, politics, gender, race, economic status, sexual orientation etc. American democracy is spelt with a z to read “democrazy” rendering politics very hateful, deceitful and unproductive. The negative overtones of “left”, “right” and “liberals” on nearly every issue has contributed largely to disagreement and lack of harmony, all across society. Blatant dishonesty, opportunism and lack of integrity within the political circle have not helped much.

Americans are a proud and happy people. They see themselves as being very special. And in a way, they are. They live in a fairly affluent and successful nation. But American success has come at a price – a very high price which many societies would consider as not worth paying. Perhaps the biggest price of all is that of mental ill-health of too many of its people. Mental problem is as prevalent in the country as is obesity. The only difference is that while obesity is easily visible and apparent, mental ill-health is concealed.

Americans realise that there is a mental health problem in their society. What they fail to realise is the extent of this problem. Thus, Nancy Lanza easily passed for a sane person. In most other societies, a woman who had a mentally challenged and deranged adult son at home and kept life weapons of mass destruction in the same home, then takes the child out for shooting lessons, would be considered insane.

There have been suggestions that there should be stricter control aimed at denying access to guns to mentally ill people. The truth is that if gun ownership is denied to all mentally ill people in the country, there will not be many guns left in circulation. To every apparent mentally ill person in America, there are at least five other concealed cases. It is epidemic – one that the nation’s health-care services are ill-prepared and totally unable to cope with. Paradoxically, the largest mental health hospital (the Fairfield Hills) was located in Newtown, Connecticut. At the peak of its operations before it was shut down, it housed and cared for over 4000 resident psychiatric patients in its sprawling estate not far from the Lanzas’ home.

In 1996, in the little Scottish village of Dunblane, a mentally challenged gunman shot and killed sixteen 5 and 6 year-old kids and one of their teachers. The response from a society of shell-shocked but mostly sane people was not to call for more guns, or for armed guards in primary schools. The government, with the full support of the people, banned the private ownership of all handguns capable of carrying cartridge ammunitions. No senseless tragedies of this nature have been reported ever since.

In the same year 1996, a shooting spree in Port Arthur, Australia, left 35 people dead. It took the government less than two weeks to issue sweeping reforms of the country’s gun laws. What was noteworthy about the Australian case is that the gun control reform was initiated by a conservative prime minister who had by then just been elected with the help of gun owners. Australia did not just push for stricter gun-control; they also implemented a very ambitious and aggressive gun buyback under which close to 700.000 riffles were bought back and destroyed by the government. The success of the programme speaks for itself through the statistics over the sixteen years.

While people are being killed daily, everyone in America seems to have an opinion on what and who is responsible for the sad state of affair – and consequently, what to do to solve the problem. There is an invisible civil war going on out there. The battle line is very simple. It is formalised in one simple statement: Gun does not kill, people do. While many people believe that taking guns out of circulation is the answer, there are others who strongly believe that more guns and not less, is the answer. While some feel that there is a very serious problem, others claim that things are being blown out of proportion for political gains. Things are not as bad as people make them out to be – or are they?

Created and fully backed by the Second Amendment, gun is big business in America. This is a thriving industry through which money – lots of it – is being made by some. In a perfectly capitalist state, if you can make money selling something which is not deemed illegal, even if people kill themselves with your product, you are simply realising your American dream. And in America, people do not do things by half; even mega-churches operate like big businesses. Those who set them up do not just want you to believe in God, they want you to bring your money. Many of the founders do not believe in God. Some of their leaders are on drugs, fornicating with their “sisters in Christ” and actively money laundering.

A nation that sells its soul for money will eventually reap the fruits of its investment. Even the National Rifle Association condemns money-minded bad guys who they accuse of being the real culprits for this sad state of affairs. In a news conference, Mr Wayne LaPierre, the now internationally famous NRA spokesman condemned video-game makers for helping to create real life “monsters” like Adam Lanza. He had lamented that “there exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people”.

Some might say that this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Mr LaPierre happens to represent an industry that has ensured that there is one gun per capita in his country – by a very big margin the highest in the whole world. That is ten times higher than in the failed state of Somalia where people are ten times more mentally stable per 1000 inhabitants than in the USA. He represents an industry that employs a quarter of a million people and contributes over 5 billion US dollars in taxes to state and federal authorities. Nearly one out of every two households in his country keeps a gun, and some 4 million people are members of his association.

In the immediate aftermath of the Newtown incidence, there was quite some noise made about how things were going to change for the better in America. Obviously, many naïve people outside the USA had Dunblane (UK) and Port Arthur (Australia) in mind. Inside the country itself, no one, and that included the tear-shedding Obama, was under any illusion that changes would come anytime soon. The battle over Obamacare would be like a child´s play in comparison. Gun is at the heart of the American culture. It is not a problem on the skin. It runs deep into the inner part of the body. It has been so for generations.

There will be some more soul-searching, press focus, and noise about gun and gun control. In a few months, these will all die out. The truth is that it will take a lot more than Sandy Hook to provide enough pressure to shake the status quo. And just in case anyone is forgetting,  there are mid-term elections coming up in two years, in which “good guys” will be pitted against “bad guys” of this debate.

Americans know and accept that there is a price to pay for their love for their guns. In a cynical way, one could say that they see the gun as being closely linked to their human rights. Secondly, the “bad guys” that Mr. LaPierre referred to as well as the “good guys” that he would like to see posted to every school do play a significant role in the economy of the country. So do the NRA and its gun industry.

Most countries have replaced their guns by implementing programmes of social justice and reengineering. They know and understand that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is not a good guy with a gun in the long run: It is creating a just and fair society administered by fairly honest political elite and supported by an educational system that teaches its young ones, cooperation, respect for others, sense of community and integrity. They know and understand that when a society has fallen so low to a situation of good guys and bad guys with guns, that society is a degenerate, and has lost its soul. The word “social” has a very derogatory nuance in the US as it is linked to “socialism” which is very close to being a crime.

Perhaps more disturbingly, the American definition of mental illness is too narrow. Concealed lunacy is very widespread. The extent of the problem is big – a lot bigger than any US Administration would ever like to admit. There are no good data on the number of mentally challenged people. Most deadly crimes in the country are committed by people who are not registered as mentally disturbed. The state does not have enough resources to invest in facilities for detection and care for mental illness. Its wealthy people will not contribute to helping society out in such a “socialist” venture. Fairfield Hills in Newtown Connecticut was shut down because it had become redundant under a decentralisation policy: And of course, there was no money to keep it going. The over 4000 resident psychiatric patients were sent to other facilities. Rather than shutting down, Fairfield Hills should have been expanded, and indeed many more facilities of this size and nature should have been established.

What America lost in Sandy Hook on that fateful Friday morning of December 2012 were not just the 20 innocent young children and 6 adults. On that day, the image of the USA as a nation of sane, rational, intelligent and caring people was badly dented. As the little bodies of those kids got laid to rest, so were the final nails on the coffin of the glossed-up world perception of their country. Many outside the country can now understand the reasons for many of America´s missteps and out-of-touch approach in dealing with major world affairs.

Indeed, as America inflicts terror and social discord on itself, the rest of the world is left to just watch helplessly on the sideline and to wish the people all the best, while praying and hoping that insanity is not hereditary.

The author of this article Edward Ojo is a member of the Editorial Board of Read-Online.Org and a socio-economic researcher. (Contact: Edward.Ojo@read-online.org)

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Read-Online.Org For other contributions by this author, please visit his page by following this link

Revolution is far from a common outcome of social mobilization with support of ICTs and social media. In fact, the thresholds for political engagement among citizens, in democracies and authoritarian regimes alike, remain largely unchanged by recent technological advancements. We are by no means suggesting that social media and ICTs are without consequences for political mobilization and social change. In fact, we are dedicated to understanding this area because of our belief in the transformative potential of ICTs.

Response to “Social Media: 20 key lessons learnt for political engagement” by Dr. Terry Tucker

Introduction

In his article “Social Media: 20 key lessons learnt for political engagement” (Read-Online.org, 7/4-2012), Dr. Terry Tucker writes about the role social media played in the Arab Spring and the campaigns against SOPA/PIPA (Stop Online Piracy/Protect IP Act) and NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). His article consists primarily of a list of lessons learned from these highly disparate “events.” In the first paragraph he claims that they are only “seemingly unconnected,” and the text proceeds without mentioning the vast differences in context—the lessons learned from revolts and revolutions gets lumped in with lessons from political campaigns in democratic countries. The “lessons learnt” are presented without clear references to analyses or descriptions of these cases, as if the conclusions were self-evident and independent of political context. Given the vast differences between these cases it is probable that Dr. Tucker attempts to draw generally applicable conclusions about the consequences of social media for political engagement rather than restricting his analysis to specific cases.

Dr. Tucker is very optimistic about the possibilities of social media, and his article echoes of the writings of Martin Hauben, Howard Rheingold and other earlier preachers of the revolutionary potential of new information and communication technologies (ICTs). The lingo is the same—revolution, regime change, and the end of history. Another similarity with earlier cyber-optimists is how Dr. Tucker writes about social media as if it was an entity with agency. Among other things, we can read about what social media “has done in the Middle East” (emphasis added). Cyber-optimism was a common position in the early years of the debate about the political consequences of ICTs, within and outside of academia, and opposition between optimists and pessimists has plagued this debate for many years. Within the scholarly community a clear empirical turn in the research around ICTs and politics has pushed the debate forward toward a more realistic middle ground. In the wider debate, this development is still to come.

Dr. Tucker’s piece illustrates all too well the unfortunate gap between the wider political debates around social media (in which we include Dr. Tucker’s article) and empirically grounded research. Recently, a growing interest in social media and online political engagement has arisen outside academia resulting in a widely read debate with little connection to the empirically grounded research in this field. The consequence of this divide has been that wild claims contradicting earlier knowledge of social science are made and published, reaching a large audience without being challenged. The aim of this article is to challenge some of Dr. Tucker’s claims in order to illustrate how important parts of Dr. Tucker’s reasoning are at odds with empirically grounded observations within the research field. We end the article with reflections on the potential gains of bridging this divide for the understanding of the relationship between social media and politics.

Social media and revolution

According to Dr. Tucker, the birth and global spreading of social media is causally related to the recent revolutions in non-democratic regimes. Apparently, “[s]ocial media is best suited to a ‘Maoist’ strategy” where “the will of your opponent is quickly overcome through indirect means and psychological mass” (lesson 12). Tucker also presents a historical ranking of social revolutions, claiming that, “The most profound revolutions to date were social media – population-centric resistance movements.” (lesson 19). However, the most surprising and inaccurate statement is saved for the end of the article:

“Revolution may not have been the original aim. But in most cases to date, it has been the outcome. Social media and the growing body of collective effort create a sense of inevitability of perceived outcome and regime change. The sense of narrative creates actions before consequences. Social media creates a sense of the “end of history” as the nuanced version of the narrative creates millions of identifiable personal stories, statements, or chronicles feed the proverbial beast. The ethics and universalism of the moment is greater than the parts.” (Lesson 20)

This kind of revolutionary prophecy was not uncommon among cyber-utopists in the 1990s, nor was the form of technological determinism evident in Dr. Tucker’s writing. While such opinions may have been common back then, today they are nearly extinct. For good reasons, few still talk as Dr. Tucker does of the “inevitability” of regime change in relation to social media. The accumulated knowledge of research on the Internet and politics gives us at least three reasons to question this statement.

1. Revolution is far from a common outcome of social mobilization with support of ICTs and social media. In fact, the thresholds for political engagement among citizens, in democracies and authoritarian regimes alike, remain largely unchanged by recent technological advancements. This is evident by the hundreds of studies of the so-called mobilization hypothesis (among the more famous examples we find Margolis and Resnick’s book “Politics as Usual”), investigating the claim that new forms of political communication and engagement offered by ICTs will help mobilize new groups of citizens to become politically active. This research shows that the cognitive and social recourses that have traditionally been important for explaining political participation are still significant for understanding online political engagement. In many ways the digital divide shown by this research mirrored the previously known inequalities that created a divide between politically active and non-active. Consequently, social media is not mono-casually linked to social mobilization, a prerequisite for revolutions to occur. The new socio-technological landscape does not in itself mobilize earlier inactive citizens to become engaged in political protests.
2. Social revolutions (in any form) have not become more common in the age of ICTs and social media. On the contrary, the occurrence of revolutionary wars, coup d’états and adverse regime changes was highest around the fall of the Soviet Union and has since started to decline. Except for the years after the end of World War II, the past decade has been the most stable period of the post-war era.
3. Dr. Tucker does not discuss the many ways that authoritarian regimes employ ICTs and social media in order to stabilize the regime and battle oppositional forces. Social media gives non-democratic governments excellent opportunities for surveillance and propaganda. From the UN E-government surveys (conducted between 2003 and 2012) it is evident that non-democratic regimes have caught up with, and in many cases, passed advanced democracies when it comes to advancements in the political usage of ICTs. Among the most advanced E-government nations in the world we now find regimes such as China, Bahrain and Kazakhstan. Authoritarian regimes’ ICT proficiency is well-researched; among other important works in this area, Kalathil and Boas’s book, Open Networks, Closed Regimes (from which this article’s title is borrowed), have helped change the debate from a blind optimism to a realism that acknowledges that ICTs and social networking are a double-edged sword in relation to democratization.

• The currently available data lacks the years of the recent protests and revolutions in the Middle East (2011-2012). However, it is evident that these events do not change the overall picture.

Social media and universalism

Dr. Tucker views online political activism as a universal, liberal (in the U.S. sense) and democratic movement. He said, “Within this cloud is a network of individuals and communities that identify with a single and or multiple unifying factors, such as: grievances over corruption, religion, governance and unemployment” and talks of a movement characterized by universalism and common ethics.

If researchers studying political engagement and social media have learned one thing over the past decade, it is that online political engagement is highly fragmented and Balkanized. Just like (or even more than) other political practices, online politics is ideologically diverse and polarized. Several studies have shown that political social media use highly depends on ideological preferences. Some (most prominently Cass Sunstein) even claim that the structure of the Internet reinforces this polarization, and that it undermines possibilities for deliberation over ideological divisions.

According to some scholars, the U.S. political blogosphere is divided into several functional blogospheres with little communication between them – Left-wingers communicate primarily with others on the Left, Right-wingers with Right-wingers and so on. This observation is not isolated to the U.S., but evident in studies of social media use from many different contexts.

This does not mean that online politics are one-dimensional or that debates and solidarity between different groups are impossible. American political scientist Henry Farrell notes the difference in the Egyptian blogosphere before and after the regime change; before, bloggers of different political stripes emphasized their common opposition while after Mubarak’s regime fell, the solidarity between groups vanished.

This is an important aspect of online politics—even though it is a political sphere in its own right, with its unique mechanisms, it is everything but disconnected from conventional politics and the political behavior associated with it. It is hard to understand how Dr. Tucker can talk about a universal and ideologically coherent movement of social activism; a fuller explanation must include both its inclusive and exclusive qualities.

Conclusion

Our aim is not to suggest that social media and ICTs are without consequences for political mobilization and social change. In fact, we are dedicated to understanding this area because of our belief in the transformative potential of ICTs. Hopefully, the debate will progress, and move away from the polarization between techno-utopian and techno-phobic positions towards recognizing that ICTs are embedded in and affected by pre-existing social and political orders. That would give us a chance to gain a fuller understanding of the consequences of ICTs and social media for politics, government and democracy. Articles such as “Social Media: 20 key lessons learnt for political engagement” and its overtly optimistic view of social media and its capacity to change the world are a step away from a more realistic and nuanced debate.

• Martin Karlsson is a doctoral candidate in political science at Örebro University in Sweden, specializing on the relationship between ICTs and politics. (To contact Martin: Contributor-Karlsson@read-online.org)
• Pär Isaksson is a research assistant at Örebro University. He is specialized in democratic theory and political philosophy. He wrote his master thesis on the conceptualizations of liberal democracy among prominent deliberative democratic theorists. (To contact Pär: Contributor-Isaksson@read-online.org)

Tony Blair

Tony Blair knows that he has an impossible task as the Special Envoy to the Quartet. He has no new ideas of how to get a peace process going. There have been no initiatives coming from him. Worse still, he does not appear to enjoy enough level of respect from one of the two key parties. In fact, there have been calls for his removal due to lack of confidence in him and questions about his neutrality. In all fairness to him, one might argue that it is not the job of the Special Envoy to take initiatives. Rather, the job description is to simply convey the decisions taken by the Quartet. That being the case, perhaps what one needs is a different profile altogether. 

Of Kofi Annan

Kofi Annan is not new to being thrown into situations in which he is called upon to go-between conflicting interests and for which the stakes are high. As the Secretary-General of the UN during a very turbulent period, he was, for most of the time having to play high diplomacy and thread very carefully on issues for which the world needed an honest broker. There was constant pressure from different sides to act or say things which he knew were not totally right.

It was not always easy going, and he did not get all his decisions right all the time. He was occasionally called upon to defend the indefensible and to represent the views of the Security Council or the UN General Assembly even when he knew that this was not pristine. But he somehow managed to weather through and to keep some level of integrity and dignity. He made quite a few enemies along the line, but most agreed that he was honest at his job. Some might even consider him to have been one of the most successful occupants of the post of UN Secretary General.

It must then have been for his quiet, yet highly effective diplomacy qualities that the international communities had tapped on when he was called upon to act as the peace envoy to Syria. Afterall, since leaving the high-profile job at the UN, he has continued to play a useful role on the world stage as a peace-maker and an honest mediator in some other conflicts.

Yet, Syria had proved an impossible task for him. Everyone was going to make promises which they had no intention of keeping. This is a proxy war in which everyone had taken side. The job of an honest-broking peace envoy happened not to exist – not then, and not now. Still hunted by the bloodshed in Rwanda under his direct watch (before becoming SG of the UN), it was obvious that Annan was not going to stick around to see the same thing happen in Syria. Those close to Kofi Annan know him to be a man of integrity and honour.

Of Tony Blair

Tony Blair has a job which one could consider as a very neat, safe and cozy one. He is the Special Envoy of the Quartet (i.e. the UN, EU, USA and Russia) on the Middle East, working towards finding a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. This job was handed to him by George W. Bush in what most people had considered to be GWB´s thank-you gesture to Blair for his unflinching and total support for the invasion of Iraq to rid it of its WMD. The initial objection by Russia was overcome, and Tony Blair accepted his new job in June 2007 on the same day that he stepped down as the British prime minister.

Considering that the main task is to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, it is obvious that this is potentially a job for life. There is no peace and, worse still, there is no process. Everyone knows it.

Even though most intelligent people round the globe realize that there will never be a peaceful settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, only very few people are prepared to come to terms with this stark reality. Most others prefer to hope (at best), but in realty to fool themselves, into believing that there will be one. There has not been a settlement in over half a century. In 2012, the world is farther from finding one than it has ever been.

The reasons for this situation are not hard to find. To most Jewish hardliners, the one practical and ideal solution would be for the Palestinians to be moved out of their present location to Jordan. To them, that indeed is the only peace process worth considering. There are many Israelis that crave peace with their Palestinian neighbours, and are prepared to make some sacrifice for this. But they are in the minority.

Kofi Annan

Israel is a powerful nation by itself, and one to be respected at that. The only external power that has much leverage on the country is the USA. Anyone that expects leadership from the Americans in pushing the Jewish state towards some form of settlement with the Palestinians – one that would require any measure of concession – must either be naïve or simply choosing to be unrealistic. There are elections every two years in the US. Most politicians know how far they can go in pushing Israel. There should be no illusions of any kind that American policy in this direction will change anytime soon.

In Europe, the key powerhouse is Germany: EU policy on Israeli-Palestinian affair is carved out by this country. Most others just follow. As most people would remember, Germany has a bad history (still fairly fresh in many minds) as far as the Jewish people are concerned. Today, German apologists are unable to play a neutral role in dealing with this issue. The more prominent Berlin has become in shaping EU foreign policy in the Middle East (while keeping a figurehead foreign policy representative from a different country), the less neutral the EU has become in dealing with the peace process.

While most would feel uneasy about the continued Israeli settlement activities on the occupied lands, no one is able or willing to stop this happening. Changing the situation on the ground should ensure that if eventually there is a settlement, what the Palestinians would end up with will be as little as possible. The truth is that the situation on the ground is such that a two-state solution is fast becoming a pipe dream. Most people who have some sense of justice and fairness have been cowed in; they are unable to openly voice their minds, for the fear of being profiled as anti-Semites.

So, back to the Quartet and their Special Envoy: Tony Blair knows that he has an impossible task. He has no new ideas (and some might say that he never had any at all) of how to get a peace process going. There have been no initiatives coming from him. Worse still, he does not appear to enjoy any level of respect from one of the two key parties. In fact, there have been calls for his removal due to lack of confidence in him and questions about his neutrality.

Of James Wolfensohn

James Wolfensohn was a successful banker who rose to become president of the World Bank. He was a very articulate person who combined fine qualities of an experienced technocrat with those of a senior diplomat. Some seven years ago when the search was on for the right candidate to occupy the post of the first Special Envoy for the Quartet, Wolfensohn´s skills and profile stood him out.

His task was to oversee Israel’s disengagement from Gaza. But he lasted only one year on this job – appointed in 2005, stepped down in 2006. His job was made impossible as he was prevented from having any form of contact with Hamas.

James Wolfensohn

In addition, withholding funds from the Palestinians to punish them for making wrong choices in an open, fair and free democratic process, had meant the imminent collapse of the Palestinian structure.

Wolfensohn had too much integrity and honour to continue as Special Envoy under that climate. Those close to him know that it would equally have proved impossible for him to continue in that post today under the climate of 2012. He certainly would not have considered it expedient for him to hang on to the post while settlement activities continued on the ground and while there is no peace process of any sort underway.

Of Annan and Wolfensohn

What would Kofi Annan or James Wolfensohn have done if they had been faced with the current situation?  Each one of them might have written a letter along the line:

When I accepted the responsibility to act as the Special Envoy of the Quartet on the peace process for Israel and Palestine, I had resolved to do my best to bring about peace to this part of the world. Having come to terms with the fact that I will be unable to achieve this objective, today, I am tendering my resignation.

The failure of my mission is due to many factors. Notable among these is, the fact that some members of the Quartet have not lived up to their responsibilities to hold the parties accountable when they continue to engage in activities that derail any efforts at finding just and lasting peace. Secondly, I have come to the conclusion that even though there are public pronouncement on both sides, of the desire for a settlement, I have a deep suspicion that enough efforts are not being made on either side (and in particular on the Israeli´s side) to make this happen.

My task has been made close to being impossible and I do not see any progress being made in the search for peace. Coupled with that, is the fact that, I do not command the same level of respect for neutrality from both parties. Consequently, I have decided that it is time for me to step down as the representative of the Quartet and to make place for a new person who might have fresh ideas, and command respect from both sides.

Thank you all for the opportunity to serve. I do regret the failure of my mission.

Of Tony Blair

What would Tony Blair do under this situation? Well, that is exactly what he is currently doing: Stick in there, even if nothing is happening as far as a peace process is concerned – and everyone knows it. Get paid to do nothing. This post exists for as long as there is no settlement. No new initiatives are needed; at least not from the Special Envoy of the Quartet, which members in any case do not have strong political will to do anything. Carefully managed, this could be a job for life.

And of you?

What would you do under this situation? Remember, some people do not have the integrity to quit voluntarily; rather, they need to be pushed out. Think very carefully about it. It might prove to be the measure of what honour means to you. One good argument to support hanging in there is to claim that it is not the task of the Special Envoy to take initiatives. Rather, the job description is to simply convey the decisions taken by the Quartet. That being the case, perhaps what one needs is a different profile altogether.

The author of this article, Alison K. Coster is a guest contributor to Read-Online.Org. She is a senior policy researcher and an economist. She can be contacted by e-mail to contributors.editor@read-online.org

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Read-Online.Org

The situation that any nation which is dependent on external source of energy wants to avoid is one in which it becomes reliant on one source for all of its energy needs.  For reasons of national security, a nation has to have a range of energy feedstocks that can supply its needs and a range of international sources for the feedstocks.  As a strategy to minimize resulting disruption to the smooth running of its economy through the management of its ‘source dependency’, a nation wants to reduce the risk of the impact, in case, for whatever reason or reasons, one source is discontinued or becomes no longer available.

Every nation of the world is subject to some type of energy dependence.  Even if a nation is fortunate enough to be self sufficient for its energy needs, it is still ‘dependent’ on the reliability of its energy sources.  The transit of energy feedstocks from source, to processing if necessary, and then onwards to the end user, involves a complex supply chain.

In July 2002 Jonathan Stern published a paper for the United Kingdom´s Royal Institute of International Affairs titled ‘Security of European Natural Gas Supplies – the impact of import dependence and liberalization’ in which he defined four categories of energy dependence.  The paper focused on natural gas as it is such a vital energy feedstock for European nations but the types of dependencies described in the paper are equally applicable to other energy feedstocks.

As the title of the paper suggests, ‘import dependence’ is one of the four dependencies energy thirsty nations are subject to.  The USA has to import 30% of its energy needs.  The EU has to import approximately 50% of its energy needs with some individual nations having to import as much as 95%. Chinain 2008 imported 45 % of its energy needs and this is forecast to increase to 80% by 2030. Indiais even more import-dependent at 70%. Japantops the league of import dependence nations following the tsunami of March 2011 by currently having to import 84% of its energy needs. Japancurrently ranks third behind theUSAandChinaas one of the world’s largest net importers of crude oil.

By 2005, Britain had become a net importer of crude oil, natural gas and coal.  This was as a result of the declining production in the North Sea and the availability of imported coal costing less than coal extracted domestically.

The import of energy involves the transit of feedstocks across national borders.  As the number of borders crossed increases so does the complexity and risk involved in international transit increases as more businesses and governments become involved in managing the movement. 

An example of when both governments and businesses across borders affected an energy supply chain happened in 2006.  Leading up to January 2006 there had been a series of disputes between both Ukraine and Russia at a national and corporate level. The disputes were about pricing and unpaid bills. At least nations suffer the same problems that domestic consumers do.  There were also accusations that Ukraine was diverting supplies away from parties that Gazprom had contracted with in Western Europe.

The disputes came to a head on New Year´s day 2006 when Russia cut off supplies to Ukraine.  It took four days for the situation to be resolved and normal supplies were resumed.  These circumstances were repeated in January 2009, once again, in the middle of winter when demand is at its peak,  and 18 European nations were under the threat of short supplies. In both incidents the West believed that Russia was using Gazprom as a proxy of its foreign ministry in an effort to prevent Ukraine drifting towards the West and away from its sphere of influence. In both incidents other European nations suffered shortages through circumstances that were beyond their control highlighting the risks of transit dependence.

It is the transit modes for natural gas that make it more vulnerable to this type of dependence than crude oil.  Crude oil has an open international market and its main mode of transport is by sea.  Tanker loads of oil can be bought and sold as they are in transit and final destinations can be changed to meet new commercial circumstances.  Natural gas is predominantly transported by pipeline and therefore is highly regionalized with prices set by agreement rather than the market pressures of supply and demand.

Any high profile, capital intensive and vital infrastructure such as nuclear plants, oil rigs, pumping stations, overland pipelines, tank farms and pier facilities are constantly subjected to the ongoing risk of partial or full destruction.  This can happen as the result of a genuine accident or as a result of human failure.

A natural cause accident was the tsunami that hitJapanin March 2011.  This destroyed a nuclear facility forcingJapanto reconfigure its energy sources from nuclear to natural gas and crude oil when the process of recovery began.  The Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster was an example of disruption caused by human intervention.  The pipeline across theSinaiDesertfromEgypttoIsraelis subjected to regular terrorist explosions causing disruption; another type of human intervention.

The continuous flow of energy feedstocks relies on safe, reliable and secure infrastructure collectively referred to as ‘facility dependency’.

The situation that any nation which is dependent on external source of energy wants to avoid is one in which it becomes reliant on one source for all of its energy needs.  For reasons of national security, a nation has to have a range of energy feedstocks that can supply its needs and a range of international sources for the feedstocks.  As a strategy to minimize resulting disruption to the smooth running of its economy through the management of its ‘source dependency’, a nation wants to reduce the risk of the impact, in case one source is cancelled.

In 2000, Bulgaria, the Slovak Republic and Finland were 100% source-dependent on Russia for their supplies of natural gas. Looked at in isolation this situation would make these nations appear extremely vulnerable to any action taken by Russia to interrupt supplies for whatever reason.  However, looking at the total energy balances for each of these nations, the degree of source dependence decreases.  The Slovak Republic only uses natural gas for 30% of its total energy needs; Bulgaria only uses it for 13% and Finland for 4% of its total final consumption.

By 2010 these circumstances had not changed.  Compare these nations with France who has developed a range of international sources for natural gas – importing from Russia, Algeria, Norway and The Netherlands.  None of these sources for natural gas accounted for more than 25% of France’s total imports.  To put this into perspective further, France’s energy needs are only 20% supplied by natural gas and France relies on natural gas supply imports for no more than 5% of its total energy needs.

Whatever the composition of the energy-dependency of any nation, a secure supply of energy feedstocks is of paramount importance for every economy.  The US State Department declares it is working to ‘elevate and intensify our efforts on energy security’.  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office recognizes ‘the challenge we face today on energy security and how a geopolitical perspective can help navigate government and business towards a stable supply of energy’.  Where there is a dependency there is a risk and where there is a risk, every possible measure available must be taken to reduce it to an absolute minimum to ensure that we can fuel our economies.

The author, Alan Russell is a member of the Editorial Board of Read-Online.Org. He can be contacted by mail through Alan.Russell@read-online.org

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Read-Online.Org

Our world of discontent

Increasingly, the tone, texture and tempo of unrest grow. There is a global discontent, and grievances mount; Arab Spring, Occupy, Eurozone, the global economic crisis, unemployment, Syria, Iran and US-Pakistan are a few of the events and places that are prominent in the news. The themes of discontent resonates, there are multiple simultaneous revolutions in social media, politics, economics and cultures. Yet, as it appears, for every problem identified there seems to have been a solution, so why then the constant rumble of instability?

The silent weapons of globalization have several converging elements.

• Globalization is not the same as a world economy.
• Ideologies offer attractive but unworkable solutions to cultural dynamics
• Economic dislocation, or a global financial crisis, is not a traditional (security?) problem.

Current dominant economic activities, do not all mesh with social or political ones.  Some of these activities are eroding, others emerging, and a need to unify strategic plans with tactical unification at the local level requires the integration of three distinct realms into strategy planning:

• Social structure
• Political system
• Culture

The US army recently declared the squad as the foundation for decisive force, yet the NATO ACT calls for developing the true “civ-mil soldier;” Is this a doctrinal divergence; a difference of terms?  Understanding needed capabilities is important. Understanding where is also important. Understanding the human environment has been a military quest in such places as Afghanistan and Iraq. The creation of special teams such as Cultural Support Teams (CST’s), Female Engagement Teams (FET), and Human Terrain Teams (HTT) is organizational proof for the need for this capability. Although much discussion still centres on definitions there is a clear divergence and [t]he definition established by NATO was sufficiently broad in scope to accommodate the various perspectives presented. However, this was also part of the challenge, with the established definition being so broad that the discussions often lacked the focus necessary to develop the foundations for a narrative that supported the intent of effecting institutional change.

Clearly, the strategic plan requires tactical unification and training. This linkage across multiple skill sets will enhance the “Knowledge Sets” to implement this unification. 

Organizations understand how to use the technology and all the tools of digital influence; do they understand the data-to-information-to-knowledge linkage? Do they know how to transform data and information to a “skill” and capability?

A recent MSNBC report on academic attrition of veterans would appear to indicate that although we have the technology, there has been a significant atrophy of critical cognitive skills. The military is not an academic institution, yet if the numbers in the article are representative of the military population, then the gap between military and civilian education is widening. This also appears to be the case as reported in the Decade of War lessons learned study by JCOA. Perhaps not so for senior levels of Professional Military Education (PME), but, it is soldiers, NCO’s and Junior Officers that do most of the “interacting.”

There have also been a number of articles lately on disruptive thinking over at the Small Wars Journal. Many of these articles look at this as a “gap” that needs to be narrowed in academic, business and military organizations. They pronounce that this knowledge and skill set will enable organizations to greater heights. But will this build agility? Or resilience in your networks?

Looking at the trends of change, this disruptive thinking that wrenches organizations to new innovation occurs on the “fringe” of your networks, of your “Spatialterra,” and not in your headquarters.  The gap between process, innovation, and decision making starts with identifying training in the interdependence of multiple “knowledge sets,” and not just the tools of technology.

Corporate success is truly an effect-based approach.  Percentage of market share and profit are the dominant metrics used to assess performance. Yet, many directives and policy appear to use pattern and trend analysis to produce either impressionistic or deterministic understandings; understandings that are linked up to the strategic vision but not linked down with tactical unification. Linking strategic vision with operational unification and objectives with tactical tasks is more than the difference between competitive intelligence and a business plan assessment. The eleven overarching lessons in the decade of war study clearly demonstrate this lack of tactical unification, and as importantly, the lack of training in these interdependencies.

This is not just a military problem, but a problem in civilian industry as well.

Assessments should inform and influence in both directions. Tactical unification requires a degree of flexible decentralization. Your operations, like your dynamic pricing and marketing campaign, is a mosaic of a strategic vision that is regionalized, even localized, to meet the specific nuances of your operating environment.  It means having a layered contextual analysis. It means that your outliers, your “fringe,” are probably on the cutting edge of what is locally, or regionally “disruptive” thinking and innovation.

For example, why do your tactical subordinates appear to argue that their personal analysis is more than just whim or opinion? Why do we use the data to question the theory, business plan, or perceived market reality?  Should we instead, question the data or information?

Social media (and social and digital) influence is the norm. Like the Occupy Movement, it is here to stay. Narrowing the gap, and building a true civ-mil soldier means training interdependencies between tools, technology and human environment skills to obtain a “cognitive dominance.”

Narrowing the “gap” between organizations and institutions requires many levels of Ouroboros; the ability to re-generate and adapt to the new, it is what all organizations say they strive for.  

This gap, like social media rests on three elements. Reach, Relevance and Resonance. For an analogy, think “Occupy” Reaching your objective and narrowing the gaps requires multiple parallel steps. The CEOs reach is a different “reach” and “resonance” than the local program manager.

“…there is no mention of tools in these pillars (Reach, Relevance and Resonance). This is because, tools and platforms do not dictate what the pillars are and are only helpful in supporting the intent of an outcome. Measuring influence… is always a means to an end and never an end in itself.”

Global interconnectivity means local-local relationships directly affect strategic direction. It is not enough to develop strategic policy as an instrument of top down change. Appreciating the nuance of the local environment, and developing the mechanics to influence and steer the social environment with tools capable of measuring impact and change, is an essential capability in the current operating environments. Social movements are no longer driven primarily by ideology, but are instead driven by the emotional reaction to information via social media exchange.

Big companies are treated differently from smaller companies

Generally speaking, if a person wants resources and stability they seek a large organization. If they seek innovation and entrepreneurship they look to small and private organizations in the Silicon Valley. Applying the elements of social and digital influence above, market segmentation/micro-segmentation is understood from this perspective:

•           Market segmentation on a global level that can be maximized offers the potential to expand influence and outreach capabilities into previously non-aligned or identified areas. Local-local relationships and influence on this level becomes a strategic concern/ outcome. To apply this to product sales, for example, being able to sell to a digital social network of 10 participants has little impact on sales. However, being able to develop an understanding of the social entry points and influencers as well as the common entry points and influencers, to a point where 1000 digital social network sites of ten people is now connected to a common product, local-local becomes strategically significant.

•           Market segmentation is a defining concept of the social narrative terrain. However, that does not necessary demand complex market segment analysis. Basic needs in emerging cultures are key points of entry and by themselves can address the basic criteria of market segment analysis: homogeneity (common needs within segment), distinction (unique from other groups), and reaction (similar response to market). Fundamental needs such as clean water, electricity, and food, can eclipse the analytical conventions of market segment analysis. A center point of influence is often achieved by addressing these most fundamental needs.

•           This enables a staff and local managers to analyze and produce assessments and make decisions that directly impact vision and design, but just as importantly, emphasizes tactical execution in context with the local operating environment

The cost of failure for the military, business and academia is different, but arguably they are connected: Especially for the advocates of Unrestricted Warfare/Asymmetrical Warfare.  Additionally, the goal is not to make each organization mirror each other but to synthesize and integrate strategy with tactical unification in a meaningful way.

Linking this vision with execution is embracing concepts you are already familiar with. It means planning to organize, organizing to compete, organizing to lead, and shaping the internal and external environment. It means that the CEO and the local crew is a “weapon system” and has the power to shape success or failure in everything they do.  Additionally, it means that each one of these assets, and everything in between, has inherent limitations and strengths. It means that the weapon system you employ is an acknowledgement of some element of the economic-political terrain that requires shaping. The political terrain takes on gross dimensions when it involves not just managing local actors, but internationally competing governments and multi-national businesses. Geo-politics, the tactical implications of geo-politics, and how those assessments translate to operational and tactical execution can no longer be ignored.

How does all of this affect risk assessment; logistics, long term planning?

The traditional methods of a hostile takeover or corporate raid remain essential tools in the kit bag. But increasingly, the existential risk and threat to profit and loss comes from this widening gap between education, institutions, tools, technologies and the interdependencies in this “spatialterra.”

The author of this article, Terry Tucker, is a member of the Editorial Board and security expert of Read-Online.Org. He is a Senior Military Analyst for The Department of Defense, Center for Army Lessons Learned, and for Wikistrat, a global geopolitical marketplace for analysis. (Contact:  Terry.Tucker@Read-Online.org )

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the editorial position of Read-Online.Org

For other contributions by this author, please visit his page by following this link

Syria is the latest manifestation of the gross and sordid failure of the United Nations Security Council in its present form to be able to assure transparent, fair and honest approach to dealing with issues of great importance to the security of the world. The need and urgency to reform the UN-SC has never been greater. Veto-wielding permanent members of the Council have all (without exception) used their votes in manners which have very often reflected their national interest than that of the world peace or world community as a whole.

And the killings continue

Sadly and tragically, the slaughter of the innocents in Syria continues while the world elects to talk, condemn, hold conferences, talk and talk some more, and at the same time appearing to be unable to do anything to stop the loss of innocent lives of the most vulnerable. History appears to be repeating itself as political and diplomatic games are played out.

Bashar al-Assad of Syria has lost all moral de jure claim to executive administrative leadership in his role and function as President of Syria which is evidenced by his gross administrative leadership in either actively or passively condoning the increasing evolution of violence against the Syrian people many of who are children he was sworn in to protect as chief executive of that country.

China and Russia must be held to strict account for their non-prescriptive diplomatic actions in either encouraging Assad to persevere in terms of maintaining the status quo or in not being forthright in their assuasive condemnation of the internal violence against the Syrian people. There are no apparent reasons for the violence other than the fact that Assad’s leadership is being questioned as being of prescriptive legitimacy which may impact on the leadership elites governing China and Russia as being of primary soundness in terms of legitimate governance status.

While one would have liked to see the problem in Syria from the point of view of ‘wrong is wrong’ and ‘right is right’, one has to bear in mind that unfortunately, in international law, this is not always the case. International diplomacy involving sovereignty issues and problems are often nuanced and obscured, involving both tradition and history which must be considered if an effective and sustainable solution is to be found. The international community does have a fundamental ordinal responsibility to act beyond mere words. The standard word prose being advanced by diplomats over these past 15 months resulting in only continued internal strife and death of the most vulnerable has illustrated in a manner most manifest that time for extraordinary measures is now!

One of the key raisons d’être of the United Nation is to guarantee the protection of innocent lives against massacres and genocides either from external aggressors or internal despots. The responsibility to protect is part of the charter of the world body and the Security Council has been the principal organ for ensuring that this responsibility to protect is recognized as being of fundamental importance and to which all Nation States ought to be obliged to respect.

Syria is the latest manifestation of the gross and sordid failure of the United Nations Security Council in its present form to be able to assure transparent, fair and honest approach to dealing with issues of great importance to the security of the world. The need and urgency to reform the UN-SC has never been greater. Veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council have all (without exception) used their votes in a manner, which unfortunately have very often reflected their private national interest rather than that of the world community as a whole.

Russia and China might be the latest culprits, and the situation in Syria is dire with atrocities being committed against innocent people. But they are by no means the only ones. It is no secret that the United States use of its veto power in what most people would consider as very irresponsible has been one key reason why the Israeli-Palestinian issue has remained unresolved till today.  There exists a credibility gap, which makes it difficult to isolate China and Russia as the only malefactors in articulation of a policy as to what ought to be done prescriptively.

Yet, while the reform of the Security Council is not a debate matter for the immediate, the UN must find a way to immediately bring serious direct actions against Bashar al-Assad. He has to realize that he is only just clinging on to the office of president by the rule of the gun, and that this is in no way acceptable as might no longer connotes right.

Assad has lost all credibility to govern

Assad is most profoundly ill-suited to continue as the president of Syria. His actions of atavistic violent fear grounded leadership has only generated despair and violence upon the most vulnerable Syrians as evidenced in the most recent slaughter of innocent people. Standard western nation Westphalian de facto rationalizations for Assad’s continued exercise of presidential authority/power are no longer valid. Bashar al-Assad must now stand down or be displaced by an external interim caretaker transitional authority. This authority should be charged only with the responsibility and mandate of ensuring a prescriptive peaceful civic electoral transfer of power and authority to the Syrian people.

Syria is a lot more complicated than most people had realized, and this makes finding a solution to the current crisis very difficult. In addition to the ethnic divide, there is today, a complex mix of groups operating within the country, and the western allies are having an uncomfortable situation of being on the same side as terrorist groups that include al Qaida. Arming the rebels would risk arming such groups and creating the potentials for destabilizing the whole region on the long run.

Its a war! There are no saints out there.

It is also a fact that serious crimes are being committed not just by the Assad forces but also by the opposition.  While the government forces are committing the greatest attrocities with heavy weaponry of the State, the opposition groups are resorting to deadly tactics aimed at further discrediting the government. Those who choose to see this conflict from a black and white perspective are either naive or dishonest.

Serious mistakes were made at the onset of the crisis. Swift success in Libya had spurred on those who wanted to see changes in Syria but who forgot that situations in both countries were not identical. Rather than encouraging any form of dialogue, opposition groups were encouraged to rise up in arms.

China and Russia both reject Western governments’ insistence that Assad must go. They would rather like to see a peace process coming from within Syria itself. The great obstacle in this is that it is hard to see how the opposition would accept allowing Assad to participate in any manner of any interim arrangement. Such is the level of animosity. Seeing that they have the wind on their side with western pressure being exerted on Damascus, it is hard to see how efforts to narrow differences between the two sides could yield any fruits.

When words of condemnation are no longer enough

The international community which espouses good governance as expressed in the multiplicity of press releases condemning Assad’s violent internal control must now not just stand idle. Mere words of self-serving condemnatory rectitude can no longer assuage the most vulnerable in Syria: A nation now racked and roiled in disharmonic social violence lending to a complete breakdown in the fundamental rule of law. Yet, realistically, the best hope that Western capitals now have is that the defections from the Assad government will gather pace, or at least continue, and that the regime implodes.

One would hope that the United Nations has learned some lessons from Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and even Bosnia. To ensure that lessons from past disasters were learnt in order to prevent others in future, the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, appointed Lakhdar Brahimi, Algerian Ambassador to the UN to lead a panel of peacekeeping experts to examine-analyze-prescribe the UN’s future role in conflict (peacekeeping) zones.

The Brahimi report which was released in summer 2000 recommended a series of revolutionary innovations, which are now practiced by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) of the UN. It recommended among others, that the whole peacekeeping operation needs to be speeded up, with traditional consent-based peacekeeping operations dispatched within thirty days, more complex ones within ninety days. It also called for the relationship between the Secretariat and the Security Council to be strengthened and clarified: “The Secretariat must tell the Security Council what it needs to know, not what it wants to hear“, when formulating or changing mission mandates.

The Brahimi report’s most important recommendation was a crucial psychological-emotive shift. UN troops must no longer stand by while civilians are being massacred around them, if they can intervene. The report argued that while consent of the local parties, impartiality, and the use of force only in self-defense must remain the three pillars of peacekeeping operations, these concepts are fungible and open to interpretation.

Annan – Assad in frank talks, but are they speaking the same language?

No failure did more to damage the standing and credibility of the United Nations peacekeeping in the 1990’s than the UN’s reluctance to distinguish victim from aggressor. Interestingly, when the Rwandan genocide occurred, Kofi Annan was the head of UN/DPKO. It is the opinion of this author that he failed to exercise moral prescriptive leadership at the time.

The result was, over 800,000 men, women and children slaughtered. The memory of this no doubt haunts him today as he shuttles round the capitals seeking ways to resolve the present crisis.

The international community has an ontological fundamental responsibility to protect. Failing to act only reinforces the status quo existing in petty despotic nation states whose leadership still believes that internal national sovereignty regardless of tyranny and violence is an absolute right not to be subject to external involvement. Such external involvement could only be sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. But to be able to perform, the Council needs credibility. The scoreboard currently shows for all the five permanent members less of credibility and a lot more of hypocrisy.

Despots the likes of Bashir al-Assad of Syria and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan will eventually face the International Criminal Court. The question is, before that happens, how many innocent people have to die?

The author of this article, Monte McMurchy is a member of the Editorial Board of Read-Online.Org. He is a member of UNDP Democratic Governance Roster For Electoral Systems, Member of UNDP Expert Roster For Crisis Prevention and Recovery, and Member of UNDP Expert Roster For Parliamentary Development. He has 20+ years international experience in Civic Electoral Building and Civil Capacity Good Governance Development under the aegis of CIDA-USAID-OSCE-CoE-Commonwealth-UNDP-UN.(Contact: monte.mcmurchy@read-online.org)

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the editorial position of Read-Online.Org

Angela D. Merkel, the German Chancellor

Germany, and Angela Merkel in particular, seem to be attracting considerable criticism for not being willing to take sufficient steps to resolve the Eurozone crisis. How much of this criticism is justified and how much is wide off the mark? More importantly exactly what measures need to be taken; by whom, and over what period? The measures taken at the end of June 2012 are sufficient only to provide time for more substantial measures to be taken. One thing is for sure, this is not the time for a blame game or finger-pointing. It is the time for serious actions. 

Eurozone crisis: Result of a complex set of factors

There is neither shortage of criticism of Germany and of the European Commission in terms of their responses to the Eurozone crisis, nor advice as to what should be done. Some of the advice from outside the Eurozone obviously upset Manuel Barosso, the President of the European Commission. At a press conference in Mexico, on the occasion of the G20 meeting he hit back, stating that “This crisis was not originated in Europe … seeing as you mention North America, this crisis originated in North America.” In retrospect he probably regrets saying something that is, at best, a half-truth. A number European banks were substantially involved in the banking crisis in 2007/8; to suggest that the financial crisis was an American or Anglo-Saxon crisis and not a global crisis is to ignore the interconnectedness of the banking and wider financial systems.

In fact the Eurozone crisis results from a complex set of factors. Some of these originate from beyond the Eurozone. But a number of others originate within the Eurozone itself, and are connected to the flawed structure of the economic and monetary union ‘prefigured’ in the Maastricht Treaty, and followed through in the Eurozone institutional structure.

External Factors

If we start from the problems outside the Eurozone we may detect the extended nature of the 2007/8 global financial crisis, with many banks still repairing their balance sheets, with this banking sector deleveraging ironically being encouraged by the too precipitate imposition of new global and regional bank regulation. (It would, for instance, be preferable to see the Basel 3 capital adequacy requirements phased in over a period of 3 years).

Financial markets, including the sovereign bond market, have remained febrile and prone to both irrational movements and to speculative attacks on exposed countries. The high yields being paid, for instance, on some tranches of Spanish and Italian debt is because of the speculation of the bond markets that further bail-outs may be on offer. The problem is that bail-outs provide a one-way bet in favour of market speculators. They should have been punished early on by a default; it might have stopped the deliberate speculation from going further. Interestingly Merkel has always been in favour of ‘haircuts’ for the private bond-holders. This represents a difficult global financial environment for the Eurozone, which is not entirely of its own making.

If we now turn to the Eurozone itself we discover a number of problems, both in relation to the causes of the crisis and in seeking a resolution.

Eurozone Problems

The main cause – exposed by the external behaviour of bond markets and the utterly unhelpful behaviour of the Credit Rating Agencies (see CRAs) – lies in the way in which the inadequate structure of the Eurozone monetary system has amplified the aggressive export-led growth strategy of Germany since 2000. This has created an escalating banking crisis within the Eurozone.

First, Germany’s economic behaviour has led to an underlying balance of payments crisis within the Eurozone. Germany is running a permanent balance of payments surplus with the remainder of the Eurozone. (It is also, accompanied by China and Japan, running surpluses with the rest of the world. The idea that there is something morally superior in running surpluses rather than deficits is economic nonsense. Permanent surplus countries are the reason why, at Bretton Woods, the ‘hard currency’ clause was inserted in the IMF constitution, to achieve symmetric adjustment of current account imbalances. It has never been invoked!).

The imbalance in the Eurozone, created by a combination of average German productivity growth (actually Germany’s performance is well below that of Greece!) plus, as the major factor, a deliberate suppression of wages and prices in Germany since 2000 (i.e. below the 2% ECB target set for all Eurozone countries) and hence depressed domestic demand. The ECB phrasing is “below or close to 2%”. The “close to” is the recognition that unless deliberately engineered 2% is the likely minimum absolute price level ‘friction rate”, given on-going relative price adjustments in the economy. In fact it will often be higher (as the Bank of England has found).

It should be recalled that Germany was roughly in current account balance in 2000; it now has an 8% of GDP current account surplus! Germany has chosen to follow an aggressive export-led growth strategy to the detriment of not only the remainder of the Eurozone (with the exceptions of the small countries of Netherlands, Finland and Austria). The initial appreciation of the Euro from 1999 intensified Germany’s exports to other Eurozone countries. Over the past few years the depreciation of the Euro has, partially, decreased this earlier trend.

The second problem is that from 2008, Germany has also become an importer of capital from other Eurozone countries (flows of 15 billion euro in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2011). Much of this capital inflow results from German banks’ repatriation of funds from the peripheral countries. Flows in the other direction were close to zero. This has resulted in quasi-permanent imbalances, between the Eurozone national central banks, in the ‘autonomous’ TARGET 2 (Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross Express Settlement System) mechanism which, effectively, amplifies the internal Eurozone debt problems when there is a permanent balance of payments surplus generated by one of the major countries, i.e. Germany.

Hence, Germany’s strong financial sector integration within the Eurozone is even greater than its real economic integration. Indeed, Germany has suggested either limiting the ECB long-term financing or requiring annual settlement of the TARGET 2 imbalances between national central banks. Neither would work, or be permissible, and in any event would not solve the underlying trade and payments imbalances. In passing it should be noted that in the case of any default, say due to a Greek exit, the default amount would be shared proportionately between the remaining countries: for Germany this would be a 27% share only.

The TARGET2 system means that inward capital flows to Germany are occurring in the form of net creditor positions in the TARGET system, i.e. in the form of credits to the Bundesbank and debits to the central banks in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and, particularly Italy in 2011 and 2012. The credit/debit balances are now over 500 bn euro. This represents capital flight as banks in the deficit countries are unable to obtain funding from other commercial banks and are being funded via the ECB.

The problems associated with TARGET 2, though soluble (see below) are indicative of the unfinished nature of monetary (let alone fiscal) union. In the US the Californian ‘central bank’ is simply a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank. In the Eurozone system the central banks are independent, except, of course, that critically they cannot issue currency.

Germany is not the only ‘sinning’ country since the Euro was established. The two countries, excepting Greece for the moment, which have had major national banking crises, are Ireland and Spain. Prompted by the bond market’s irrational behaviour – the bond yields of all of the Eurozone countries until around 2007 (actually including Greece!) were almost identical – in Ireland and Spain the residential and business construction sectors expanded beyond any reasonable assessment of demand. In Ireland three years ago and in Spain more recently this, predominantly private sector, boom translated into a major banking crisis requiring either banking closures or mergers and substantial recapitalisation. However, it should be noted that both Spain and Ireland ran national government budgetary surpluses prior to their banking crises, unlike Germany after the Eurozone was launched. They were not profligate in fiscal terms and stuck to the Maastricht criteria. Greece, as we all know, is a different case, but not because of an indolent workforce as some suggested: Greek workers work some of the longest hours in the Eurozone.

So much for apportioning blame: even though a crucial part of the Eurozone crisis is attributable to it, it is not all Germany´s fault. The situation is not helped by the tendency of German commentators and politicians to claim moral superiority when the underlying economic analyses point the other way.

Now we know why we are here. The question is, what to do and how to do it, over a period which is politically and institutionally feasible. Too much time has already been wasted on half-hearted, stop-gap measures; radical solutions are now required. It is imperative that a plan with a time-line needs to be established. A summary of such a plan is sketched out below.

German Constitutional Problems

For a start, to be fair to Angela Merkel, it is worth exploring the constitutional reasons why the Germans appear to be rather reluctant to embrace solutions such as Eurobonds or turning the ECB into a genuine central bank and allowing it to operate in the same way as the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England. (It should be said that Eurozone countries other than Germany will also have constitutional problems).

There are severe obstacles presented by the German constitution (and particularly the conservative interpretation of the constitution by the current Karlsruhe court) in respect, not only of the issuance of Eurobonds, but also the freedom of action given to the ECB and also the assumption of liability for the debts of other Eurozone countries, i.e. via the ‘bail outs’. However, they are not insurmountable.

There are two points to make on the current position.

First the changes required to permit the issuing if Eurobonds (an overt mutualisation of Eurozone debt which will ease the immediate financial problems of the Eurozone) are relatively minor in terms of the constitutional changes required (both to the German constitution and the TFEU). In fact, strictly, the TARGET imbalances and the ESM (European Stability Mechanism) pose the same legal problem.

Second, the key problem in Germany is the desire of the Karlsruhe Court to protect the permanent (Ewigkeitsklausel: eternity clause) democratic essence of the German constitution. This is expressed in Article 20 (Basic institutional principles; defence of the constitutional order). The second of the four points involved is critical to understanding the problem, and the solution.
(2) All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive, and judicial bodies.

It is clear that any interpretation should distinguish between governance and democracy (in essence voting). Hence, providing the Bundestag is able to control the budgetary spending relating to any unlimited incurred liabilities linked to Eurobonds or other debt liabilities, then the constitution – perhaps for clarity, requiring a relatively minor amendment – should not provide an insurmountable barrier.

 The fact that the Eurozone Fiscal Pact commits all 17 Eurozone countries to balanced budgets (which should be defined by economists not lawyers) means that this condition is met. This point has been made already by the Court. It should be noted that, politically, any such amendment would require the assent of a two-thirds majority in both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat.

In extremis, if the monetary union itself is massively threatened and Eurobonds become the only way out, then they will be adopted, whatever constitutional barriers appear to be in the way.
A Summary Plan to Resolve the Crisis.

1. The proposed Banking Union should be set up as soon as possible and actions taken to close or to take over failing banks which cannot be recapitalised, as judged by the ECB. This action has already been taken in both the US and the UK. This would improve inter-bank lending and liquidity. Accompanying the Banking Union should be a protocol indicating that after 3 years the individual Eurozone central banks should become branches of the ECB.
2. Steps should be taken to amend the TFEU and the German constitution to put both the ESM and the later Eurobond issuance on a sound constitutional legal footing, and achieve the essential mutualisation of Eurozone debt.
3. The above actions should enable reflationary measures, including increases in debt, to be adopted across the Eurozone, particularly in Germany. These measures should coincide with fiscal consolidation (essentially measured by budget deficit reduction) targeted on a 3-year timescale to achieve the Maastricht 3% deficit target. (It should be pointed out that all of the countries which have improved their trading positions have done so over a long period and in the context of strong external global economic growth. This is also the reason why it is a growth, rather than an austerity and anti-growth strategy that the Eurozone situation currently requires).
4. It should be made clear to all Eurozone countries that the 2% inflation target should be adhered to, and inflation rates lower than this rate will be penalised. (This applies particularly to Germany whose rate should ideally remain at 2% for the next 3 years)
5. All countries should have a target of a zero balance of trade within the Eurozone.
6. A plan to achieve a full Fiscal Union over the next 3 years should be established and all the steps needed in order to achieve this target should be taken by all Eurozone countries.

It is unlikely that all of the above steps will be taken in the proscribed time period, yet unless they are achieved, the future for the Eurozone is likely to be one of continuing crisis, with a high risk of breaking up. This is really not the time for a blame game or for finger-pointing. It is time for action, and time for the heads of Eurozone governments to show leadership.

The author, Michael Lloyd is a member of the Editorial Board of Read-Online.Org. He is a Senior Research Fellow, Global Policy Institute, London, and Director of LCA Europe Limited. (Contact: Michael.Lloyd@read-online.org)

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Read-Online.Org

For other contributions by this author, please visit his page by following this link

Barack Obama promising change – but for when?

Mr. President, does it not bother you, that for someone who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, your apparent double standards makes even the most ardent of your supporters feel rather uneasy? Africa will judge you on the basis of the company that you keep and your contributions to advancing peace and stability on the continent. If your Administration has difficulties to call time on the slaughtering of innocent men, women and children being engineered by a tiny African country, how could anyone take your ability to make peace in any other part of the world serious? 

Dear Mr. President,

It is not every day that one gets to write a letter to a president – much less to the president of the only world super  power. Yet, when there are burning issues of great concern that need to be directed at the president, an open letter is perhaps as good as it gets.

When you were sworn in as the 44^th President of the United States of America, many people lauded what they hoped was going to be the beginning of a fresh, honest and active engagement of the United States of America in world affairs and politics. The euphoria that greeted your arrival was such that even the normally drab and conservative Nobel Committee got carried away and awarded you their highest honour. Awarding the coveted Nobel Peace Prize on the basis of promises of (hope and change that we can believe in,) made in eloquent speeches, was something new to the Committee. But they took the risk.

On the African continent, seeing an African-American sworn in as the US President was not only a source of pride, it gave the people all over the continent hope, that one of theirs, in such position of power would make a change for the better. It is against this background that I am raising this particular issue that has become of such importance to Africa.

Mr. President, to a casual observer, post-genocide Rwanda has been an African success story. The econmy is booming. New roads, factories and skyscrapers are springing up. There is peace in the country and elections were held without violent incidents. The affairs of state are running smoothly. The elected president – once a war-lord, has a long history of association with various American Administrations. He enjoys a special place in yours. Thus, one might be forgiving in concluding that all is well with Rwanda. But, Mr. President, that conclusion would be misleading.

The report of a joint mission investigation carried out for the Human Rights Office of the United Nations in years following the Rwanda genocide detailed how tens of thousands of Hutu civilians including pregnant women and children were systematically slaughtered with knives, bludgeoned with hammers and burnt alive by the Rwandan army and the Allied Democratic Liberation Forces in Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The investigation revealed that “the majority of the victims were children, women, elderly people and the sick, who posed no threat to the attacking forces.” The UN report stated in part: “There is no denying that ethnic massacres were committed and that the victims were mostly Hutus.” It went on to say: “The joint mission’s preliminary opinion is that some of these alleged massacres could constitute acts of genocide.”

Mr. President, these alleged acts of genocide were committed on the watch of the current Rwanda president – Paul Kagame. It is a fact that these initial murderous acts were committed during the period when you were not in charge of the US Administration. Does it not disturb you to know that, more than ten years since that investigation was carried out, Rwanda, under Paul Kagame (with the tacit support of your Administration) has continued to commit acts of genocide and war crimes in a war of aggression aimed at destabilising the DRC?

In the past months, several groups operating on the ground – aid organisations, human rights bodies, independent observers and the United Nations itself – have produced damning reports of human right abuses, war crimes and crimes against humanity being carried out by Rwanda forces under Paul Kagami in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Under your Administration, disturbing reports keep appearing under such headings as “U.S. Supporting Rwanda’s terror in Africa” and “Obama’s Administration aiding Rwanda to Destabilizes the Congo — again”. Human Rights Watch reported a few weeks ago the fact that Rwandan army officials have provided weapons, ammunition, and soldiers to support Ntaganda’s mutiny in eastern Congo. These are weapons that no doubt would have come from the USA with the support of your Administration.

One influential Africa watcher Maurice Carney was stating the obvious when he declared that “the Rwandan government has acted as a major destabilizing force in the east of DRC since 1996. However, as a staunch ally of the United States and the United Kingdom, Kagame has benefited tremendously from the diplomatic cover and protection that accompanies his relationship with such powerful nations”.

Emira Woods, the co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, lamented just recently that “Rwanda’s role in destabilizing the Congo has contributed to the millions who have perished as result of the conflict since 1996 and the 100,000 displaced persons since March of this year (i.e.2012). It is time that the United States, which provides significant funding to the Rwandan government, uses its leverage to hold Rwanda accountable for its destructive actions in the Congo.”

Mr. President, the only difference between what is happening in Dafur and what is happening in the Great Lake Region of Africa is that the atrocities in one are being committed by a head of state that has been indicted while the others are being committed by a head of state that is highly courted by the same people who indicted the other head of state. In both cases, ethnic cleansing is systematically being carried out. In both cases innocent men, women and children are being massacred daily.

In the case of Liberia and Sierra Leone, one head of state sponsored atrocities in the neighbouring country. He did not cross over in person into the neighbouring country to fight or to kill anyone. He did not send his own forces across the border to kill. All he did was to support and arm the opposition killing innocent people. Today, he is a convicted criminal of the International Criminal Court.

In the case of Rwanda and the DRC, one head of state is ordering, supervising and sponsoring genocide in the neighbouring country. What is most troubling is that today, this same head of state is a darling of your Administration. To most Africa watchers, especially those who wish the continent well, the sheer level of hypocrisy of your Administration is not just shocking, it is mind-boggling. It leads many people asking where is the hope that you promised and where are the changes that we could believe in?

Mr. President, does it not bother you, that for someone who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, your apparent double standards make even the most ardent of your supporters feel rather uneasy? Does it not bother you, for example, that one of the reasons why you lack credibility in dealing with Syria is that your whole Middle-East policy (or a lack of one) does not show any real courage? Does it strike you that after nearly four years, it is hard to point to any African policy of your Administration? Have you reflected on the fact that under the Clinton and GW Bush Administrations, there was a sense of direction on African affairs which most people saw as being pragmatic and purpose-led – the policy which has now been totally blurred out under yours?

It disturbed a lot of people that loved to see true democracy flourish and yield fruits in Africa when your Secretary of State recently described Rwanda as an example of democracy at work in Africa. It is true that there were elections. It is also true that the current Rwanda president (who has led the country since after the genocide) was re-elected to power by “popular votes”. Paul Kagame got 95% of the votes in the presidential election.

Mr. President, with all due respect, I am of the humble opinion that you do not need a Law degree from an Ivy League university to smell that something is not real here. Understandably, you are only an African by name, and it is also obvious that you know very little about the continent, its history and its peoples. But, the only other person in Africa who got this level of “popular votes” was President Idi Amin Dada of Uganda. Of course outside Africa, you also had the democrat Kim Jong il who was the supreme leader of North Korea scoring 95% of votes in a “free and fair” election.

Resident Paul Kagame of Rwanda

To obtain 95% of popular votes in a presidential election in the very heavily tribalised Africa, you must have succeeded in carrying out a very careful social engineering. What made Paul Kagame’s success at the polls even more memorable is the fact that he belongs to the minority tribe which accounts for less than 10% of the population. The estimated total population of 8.9 million is made up of 90% Hutus and 9% Tutsis (to which Paul Kagame belongs).

Following the Rwandan genocide, the country had needed two very crucial things. The first was justice – to punish the perpetrators. The second was a truth-and-reconciliation process – to bring the people back together. Sadly, Rwanda got neither of these. Justice in Rwanda had meant punishing those who carried out the killings during the genocide. Those who created the environment that led to the genocide itself (including shooting down the plane carrying two serving presidents) were left untouched. Reconciliation had meant revenge – locking up without trial elements from the majority tribe, intimidating those not locked up, silencing the press and liquidating political opponents wherever they might be. Even a political opponent that went on exile to South Africa had an assassination squad sent from Kigali to liquidate him.

Genocide is a heinous crime against humanity. There is no justification for it whatsoever. Those who are guilty of it deserve to be punished as heavily as possible so as to serve as deterent to others who might in future be contemplating it. There is no excuse for those who have been victims of genocide to embark on crimes against humanity themselves. Sadly, those who have been past victims seem to have succeeded in shaming and blackmailing the rest of the world into accepting that it is their legitimate rights to perpetrate heinous crimes against others. They are quick to remind the rest of the world of the  attrocities they had suffered in the past which justify their lack of respect for human rights which they consider to be a luxury.

While this strategy might work in some other parts of the world, it is one that is sure to backfire very tragically in the African setting. While they sympathise with the victims, most Africans are getting sick and tired of being reminded of the Rwandan genocide while the president of the country who was one of the main causes of the tragedy in the first place treats 90% of the citizens of his country like criminals. There is a vicious cycle at work. Most non-Tutsi Rwandans are too scared to speak openly about the situation in their country. They bear their resentment behind closed doors while their “popular” president who makes Charles Taylor look like an angel in comparison, wins 95% of votes in a presidential election. It is a time-bomb that is ticking. It takes foresight to read the writing on the wall.

Mr. President, most observers of African affairs know that the question is not that of if, but of when there will be a new mass killing inside Rwanda. Those who think that building new roads, factories and skyscrapers is the answer to solving the problems of that etnically-divided country in which the tiny minority subjugates the vast majority to ridicule, obviously do not know Africa and the African people well enough.

Those who truly love Africa and care about the continent need to reflect on the future effects and implications of their actions (or inaction) of today. They should realise that being patronising and sweeping dirt under the carpet does not help Africa. Peace and stability of Africa or any of its regions is more important than the interest of just one person. The problems in Dafur were not created in one day. The genocide in Rwanda was the result of a long build-up of perceived injustice.

Displaced in Eastern Congo, and nowhere to run

I would like to add that, thanks to the rapidly increasing number of its educated people, Africa has ceased to be the “dark continent”. The failure of your Administration to make any reasonable impact there, which is partly due to the very visible double standards and hypocrisy of your Administration, is setting you up as perhaps the least relevant of all US presidents to the continent in modern African history. Eight years of your Administration’s inaction and support for dubious regimes would have done little to help the continent. This coming just after the Administration of GW Bush which no one on the continent would have described as being spineless or cowardly. He reined in Charles Taylor and worked to get Omar el Bashir indicted.

Mr. President, Africa will judge you on the basis of the company that you keep and your contributions to advancing peace and stability on the continent. If your Administration has difficulties to call time on the slaughtering of innocent men, women and children being engineered by a tiny African country, how could anyone take your ability to make peace in any other part of the world serious? Sadly, Mr. President, so far, many are left wondering what your Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for- and perhaps if one day you might just consider returning it. Again, perhaps a new four-year term might produce the change that Africa can believe in. Yes, you can. The question is, will you?

The author of this article Edward Ojo is a member of the Editorial Board of Read-Online.Org and a socio-economic researcher. (Contact: Edward.Ojo@read-online.org)

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Read-Online.Org

For other contributions by this author, please visit his page by following this link

Laszlo Andor – Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Rising unemployment and social exclusion in many countries make it very unlikely that current levels of protection for the unemployed will be sustained in the near future unless there is a change in Europe’s economic policy.  Although the European Commission emphasizes the need to reduce poverty and social exclusion, it does not propose actions to reduce inequalities in society. It is too focused on employment as the only way out of poverty and social exclusion in times when the labour market cannot offer a timely real solution. Also, the Commission does not adequately identify the need to address in-work poverty and quality work.

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION

Labour market policy is one of the policies that have achieved the greatest harmonization and development at the European level. The reason is that, if labour market policy is left entirely within individual Member States, it would risk impairing the single market. However, due to the differences in labour market traditions, most policy issues are left to the Member States even though the basis, coordination and monitoring lie with the European Commission. However, coordination through the open method has proved too weak and has not been able to avoid the use of labour policy to affect trade (social dumping) by countries experiencing difficulties.

In the early days of European integration, EU legislation attempted to set rather high minimum standards for the working conditions of employees. This meant progress in Southern Europe but also that Northern Europe could avoid competition from countries with cheaper labour. With a similar purpose, accession countries were endorsed with long periods of barriers to movements of their workers. During the eighties and nineties, there was a strong drive in most Member States for labour market flexibility through the introduction of temporary contracts and agency labour. Labour markets differ widely between the developed countries. Usually, the dividing line is drawn between continental Europe and the Anglo-Saxon world. Europe is deemed to have rigid labour markets while the USA a more flexible one. Even though in the sixties some papers pointed out that Europe’s labour protection encouraged investments in human capital and growth, the perception changed after the oil crisis. In times of rapid technological change, flexible labour markets facilitate the renewal of skills, something more important in this case than skills’ accumulation. Rigid labour markets then started to be considered among the main factors explaining why Europe’s economy had performed more poorly than that of the United States after the 80s.

FLEXICURITY: YES, BUT WHERE IS THE SECURITY COMPONENT?

Flexicurity was introduced to alleviate the adverse consequences of this flexibility for workers. The European Union tried a response that combined the flexibility of Anglo-Saxon labour markets and the security of European ones:  An approach started in Sweden in the 80s, which was adopted by the EU in the 90s. The new paradigm was based on the idea that security for workers was not to be found on the job but on a set of tools and protection schemes provided or funded by public employment services. Even though workers would have to go through many different jobs in their lives and be unemployed in most transitions from one job to the next one, public employment services will provide them with the tools to make this transition as smooth and fast as possible. Social protection would at the same time guarantee their income along the process. However, flexicurity depended largely on tax financed assistance and training to the unemployed, something that made it little extensible to countries with weak public sectors or persistently high unemployment. The dominance of the flexibility component in Mediterranean countries generated acute social inequalities. These inequalities called for further flexibility, not by introducing new forms of contracts, but by lowering protection in regular ones. This move was justified by remarking the unfair contrast between the privileged situations of insiders on standard contracts as against the outsiders on the recently introduced ones.

The first decade of the monetary union coincided with the ten years of the Lisbon strategy. In the Lisbon Strategy, social policy was subordinated to improving the efficiency of labour market. The Lisbon strategy included targets for employment growth that were nearly achieved. Most of the employment growth took place in five member states – Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland- due to unsustainable and speculative flows of capital to them. The outbreak of crisis reversed all these employment gains. Almost 40% of the reduction of unemployment prior to the crisis, in the period 2002-2008, has been lost ever since.

The crisis hit the labour markets very hard and many Europeans are today unemployed. In many countries, it is the ordinary worker and not just the little employable who encounters increasing difficulties to find a job or to keep it. As a result, social conditions have deteriorated and poverty increased. Also, massive and persistent unemployment deteriorates the skills and employability of the work force turning unemployment into a social problem in the short and in the long run.

There is, therefore, an urgent need for policy action in the labour market. In some countries, the crisis has left millions of construction workers unemployed. They need new skills and qualifications to escape the poverty trap and return to employment. The task ahead is a difficult one: not only to train and give new skills to such a huge number of unemployed workers but also to stimulate job creation on a massive scale.

It cannot be emphasized enough that labour market policies have to be coordinated with Macroeconomic policy, for example a true growth initiative, to bring about the desired effects. In a nutshell, the first condition for inclusive growth is growth itself.

However, the European Commission fails to acknowledge that labour policy cannot be the same at the time of growing and shrinking of the economy. In the first case you can aim at making economic growth as labour intensive as possible but in the latter you have to prevent job losses and over adjustments to falling demand. Short time working arrangements and policies aimed at making lowering wages easier were an effort to gain competitiveness and a greater share of total demand. Even though it can work at the firm level, since this is a zero sum game, it has limited effectiveness at the country level and even less at the European level. However, the most troubled countries need to regain competitiveness in the long run to reduce the imbalances they had built up prior to the crisis. Since competitiveness is a relative concept, they need wages growing at a slower pace than in the more competitive countries. A less painful adjustment can be achieved if wages in the latter grow faster and the euro depreciates at the same or even faster rate to avoid that the EU looses competitiveness in global markets.

ANOTHER SOCIAL AGENDA?

In this context, the EU launched the Europe 2020 Strategy as a revised version of the Lisbon Agenda. Europe 2020 is a growth strategy aimed at promoting a smarter and a more sustainable and inclusive economy in the European Union. This general objective is divided into five more specific ones on employment, innovation, education, social inclusion and climate/energy to be reached by 2020. Europe 2020 Strategy will be implemented by Member States with the support of the European Commission. Each Member State will set its own national targets and will program how to achieve them in its National Reform Programmes. Progress will be reviewed on a regular basis through the open coordination method. The European employment rate target is 75% for the 20-64 years old age group by 2020. The EU also targeted the reduction of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion in, at least, 20 million people from a total of 113 million. However, current national targets set up in the Member States’ National Reform Programmes, all added up, fall short of the EU target by 8 million people, that is, 40% of the global target. This is not a very good start.

An inclusive economic growth is a crucial aspect of the Europe 2020 Strategy and one of the most outstanding features of the European social model. It not only reflects Europe’s solidarity but also its need to become competitive in global markets. Inclusive growth promotes social stability, a key factor for growth. Social cohesion and social capital enhance competitiveness and, finally, only a truly inclusive growth takes full advantage of all human resources and human capital in a society.

Economic growth cannot be truly sustainable if the majority of the population does not participate in it or does not enjoy its benefits. However, the number of severely materially deprived people in Europe has increased by more than 300 000 people during this crisis. They are those people who cannot afford basic necessities of life such as eating meat, fish or a protein equivalent every second day, a washing machine, a tv set, a telephone or to pay the utilities or their accommodation rent.

The number of people in such harsh living conditions has not increased much but behind this relatively small figure, one finds sharp contrasts between individual countries. We find that while it has increased by almost a million people in the United Kingdom, it has decreased by close to seven hundred thousand people in Denmark. So, even though if at the aggregate level, the situation looks more or less stable, figures at country level are worrisome.

Although the European Commission emphasizes the need to reduce poverty and social exclusion, it does not propose actions to reduce inequalities in society. It is too focused on employment as the only way out of poverty and social exclusion in times when the labour market cannot offer a timely real solution. Also, the Commission does not adequately identify the need to address in-work poverty and quality work. It should give more importance to the need of strengthening social protection schemes instead of considering it as just a wrong incentive to work. In the end, social services as a support mechanism for the excluded are downplayed and the focus is on services assisting people to get non existing jobs. To make things worse, budgetary constraints and falling aggregate demand will refrain job creation in the coming years. As long term unemployment rises, disposable income declines and poverty increases. The increase in the number of those benefitting from social protection systems will continue to add pressure on welfare systems while budget constraints and austerity measures try to downsize them.

CONCLUSIONS

As an overall conclusion we find that even though the European Commission acknowledges that we are going through a severe crisis, its recommendations have the flavour of believing in supply side shortages, mismatches or market failures as the ultimate cause of unemployment. For example, it is far from clear that diminishing protection in permanent contracts will result in easier access to employment. As Greece and Ireland have shown, such changes take time while in the interim, spending cuts and recession keep forcing job losses up, not down. In the case of Southern Europe, for example, it is more likely that it will result in more unemployment since laid-off workers will hardly be substituted by new ones.

There are great inconsistencies between European policy recommendations. Even though they acknowledge that job losses will increase in the coming years and that there will be little job creation, they recommend supply side measures as if unemployment were only caused by poor activation of the work force. These measures have failed to deliver the expected results. Even though there is no evaluation assessment or analysis of the reasons of this failure, the Commission still emphasizes the need to maintain or accelerate the pace of reform and austerity. Even though we hear some calls for growth lately they are nothing but a new way of calling austerity and supply side reforms. Public budgets are under heavy pressure since one of the distinct characteristics of the crisis in the European Union has been volatility and episodes of acute rationing in public debt markets. This leaves little margin when it comes to designing policies aimed at fighting back the crisis, fighting unemployment, poverty or social exclusion.

Rising unemployment and social exclusion in many countries make it very unlikely that current levels of protection to the unemployed will be sustained in the near future unless there is a change in Europe’s economic policy.

There are also some other components of the “Shared Commitment for Employment” worth commenting on. The European Investment Bank Group will be set up as a new facility to provide micro-credits to start new businesses. Behind this policy underlies the assumption that entrepreneurial spirit is more frequent among the disadvantaged or any other targeted group than in the general population as a whole or that newly started businesses are more likely to succeed in today’s difficult economic environment than long established companies that have accumulated know how and experience.

To a great extent, the European Commission recommendations are of the type “one size fits all” when there are great differences in the situations that countries like Ireland, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg or Poland are going through. Active labour market policies need more evaluation but, grossly, public efforts to reduce unemployment must be further directed towards counselling, assisted job search and monitoring. The positive effects of an intensified and earlier effort in active labour market policies are well documented in the Nordic countries. The increase in employment is more valuable than the increased cost of counselling. This cost-benefit analysis should be updated and generalized to take into account the current situation in most European labour markets and to test the validity of its results in other countries different from the Nordic ones.

The author of this article, José Antonio Poncela, is a member of the Editorial Board of Read-Online.Org. He was a former General Director of Budgets, Economic Planning and European Funds at the Government of Castilla-La Mancha. He is a researcher at CEET and a lecturer of Macroeconomics at the University Carlos III. (Contact: Jose-Antonio.Poncela@Read-Online.org )

For other contributions by this author, please visit his page by following this link

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Read-Online.Org

Hollande & Merkel..... Tête-à-tête ........ even if not yet seeing eye-to-eye

In addition to the straitjacket in which it finds itself in the Eurozone, the French social model is too socialist in structure. While it might work in times of plenty, it leaves very little room for manoeuvre for the leaders in times of adversity. Hollande’s plans are neither robust nor coherent, nor brutal enough to carry out the sort of surgical changes needed to restore the French economy to good health. He will need to do some unpopular things within his own powerbase.  For Hollande, it might well turn out to be a case of head-you-lose and tail-you-lose.

HOLLANDE: OFF TO A BOLD START

The euphoria that greeted the election of François Hollande did not last very long. He did not have much time to savour his victory at the polls. The business-like manner in which he had dashed off straight after his inauguration in Paris to Berlin to meet with the German Chancellor won him the admiration of many. Lightning and thunder could not stop him. The brave and polite manner with which he had informed his German colleague that the Franco-German relations that later crystallised at the EU level into what was to be known as Merkozy is to all intents and purposes dead, won him respect.

François Hollande has taken a few good steps since coming into office. His choice of prime minister was considered by most people as a fairly sensible (and pragmatic) one. Other than one or two of the ministers, the executive cabinet consists of capable and respected people. Hollande knows that the task ahead of him is daunting: But he knows what needs to be done, and hopefully, how to do it. Yet, there is a world of difference between knowing what to do and how to do it, and being capable of actually doing it. To start with, the tasks that are pending are not best suited to a social democrat. Even a centre-right leader would shudder when faced with the enormity of the tasks.

The French economy is by no means the worst in Europe currently, but France has more problems than most. And these are serious skin-deep problems. The cry to stimulate and boost economic growth and abandon the crippling austerity regime makes a lot of sense; at least it makes a lot of political sense. And, it is currently à-la-mode.

Pumping funds into the economy should help to create new jobs, increase people’s purchasing power, thereby increasing demands for goods and services. This should in turn create even more jobs, then surely but steadily pull the economy out of the cellar, give confidence back to people who have lost it, and create wealth with which national debts could be repaid.

Obviously, there are advantages to towing the path of growth by stimulating and boosting the economy. So with all its advantages, if it was so easy to implement this, why should there be objections from some quarters? Simply because, everything that has an advantage always invariably comes with a disadvantage or two to go with it.

Putting it bluntly, stimulants do not come cheap. The money will have to come from somewhere – borrowing. For a country that is already heavily indebted, that has a reduced-credit worthiness, and consequently a higher cost of borrowing, there is an important consideration: How much will the stimulant cost? Can the country afford it? On the other hand, can a country really afford not to buy a stimulant to boost its crippled and debilitating economy at whatever cost? Could allowing the free-fall of a nation’s economy not amount to a collective economic suicide?

Yes, it does. But then there are two issues that need to be considered. The first is that of “collective responsibility”. All Eurozone members have committed themselves to protecting the integrity of the single currency. Financial discipline in the form of austerity is the path towards this end, as far as Germany sees it – even if this results in collective economic suicide. Most others disagree.

STIMULANTS NEED CONDUCIVE ENVIRONMENT TOO

The other issue (which is a weakness) in the argument for buying into a stimulant package is that it treats all the countries in difficulties as equally deserving of borrowing and pumping more money into their economies. This is not only simplistic but foolish. One size fits all never works.

Imagine two cars that run out of gasoline and need to have their tanks refilled. Imagine that one of the cars has a tank that is leaking fuel heavily. While it is true that both cars need to have their tanks refilled, the one with a leaking tank has a structural problem that needs to be attended to. If the refill is to have any impact, the leaking needs to stop. If it does not, the cost of running the car will be enormous and the driver is likely to fail.

Hollande is the guy that just got in the driving seat of that car with a tank that leaks not only gasoline, but engine oil as well. And the reason why he might fail is that those who put him in the driving seat are mostly the same as those that are benefiting from the leakage. Yet, without sealing the leaks – through very radical moves – he has no chance of success.

France has too many people that are not working. It has a legion of people that have the wrong mindset – a mindset of entitlements. There are generations of parasites on the State sucking life out of the national economy.

France has too many immigrants who it never succeeded in appropriately integrating and who have become a burden and a giant blood-sucking parasite on the State. Of course it is politically incorrect to discuss this issue, so it gets swept under the carpet.

 Rather than standing up to the problem and facing up to the failure in the system, successive governments adopted the hands-off policy of laissez-faire. Political correctness trumped over pragmatism which ended up benefitting nobody. The problem was not the arrival of migrants. It was the failure of the establishment (that welcome them) to implement a meaningful programme to integrate them into the society. Yes, integration programmes are expensive. But lack of an integration programme is a lot more costly as France is now finding out.

The French economy is not notable for its competitiveness, nor for high productivity. The statutory number of working hours per week does not fit into modern-day economic realities. The retirement age of 60 is not practical in most other Western economies.

Like in Greece and Italy, France has a larger than necessary public sector. France never really fully adjusted to, nor took advantage of modern information and telecommunication technologies to restructure and reform its civil service. There are too many of its employees that have too little to do to justify their pays. Its public service would function better with between 25% – 30% less staff than it currently carries. But then, you do not “grow” jobs by sacking civil servants who are breadwinners for their families. That would not be boosting the economy – would it?

France does not only suffer from a high level of unemployment, it has a sizeable amount of under-employment and disguised unemployment as well. There are too many people who are operating at less than reasonable capacity even when they are counted as being employed. Youth unemployment is a problem – currently standing at close to 28%. Its youth’s NEET (that is, not in employment, education, or training) ranking is abysmal. And the cost to the economy is too high. Servicing NEET costs France 2.0% of its GDP – the same level as for Ireland. The only other EU member state worse than these is Bulgaria at 2.5% of its GDP. This compares with an EU average of just 1%, Germany at 0.6%, Luxembourg (the lowest) at 0.4%, the Netherlands and UK at just under 1%.

Boosting growth and getting people back to work would appear to be the obvious way to go. That indeed is the only real option open to François Hollande presently. But the stake is high and he somehow needs to convince Germany that in the long run, growth (and not austerity) is indeed in the best interest of the Eurozone. Presently, he might as well be talking to the wall.

THE CAMP DAVID G8 TALK-SHOP

If Hollande had gone to his first G8 Meeting hoping that the other six would help him convince the German Chancellor that growth should be the way to go, he must have left disappointed. He would have realised that the meeting was nothing more than a talk-shop. Their resolutions and declarations were too vague and carefully crafted to please everyone. “We commit to fiscal responsibility and, in this context, we support sound and sustainable fiscal consolidation policies that take into account countries’ evolving economic conditions and underpin confidence and economic recovery” ran one of their resolutions. And this to mean exactly what?

F Hollande. Lost in translation?

They pledged their support for Greece – no mention of how. They promised to reverse the declining state of the world economy – no credible roadmap. They made a few more empty promises. The British prime minister had to go all the way to a meeting in the US to urge his EU counterparts that belong to the Eurozone to do something about the problems in the 17-nation group. The parts of the communiqué devoted to the economic crisis is so vague it reads like a tragico-comedy script.

Possibly the most challenging part of the G8 meeting was devoted to watching the match between Chelsea Football Club of London and Bayern Munich.

Back home, Hollande has to map out his battle plans. Will he succeed in getting Germany to reconsider its stance on fiscal compact? If he fails, will he come to terms with running an austerity regime which he campaigned against? He had promised to hire more teachers and police (for obvious reasons!) and pledged to subsidise job-creation. Growing the economy through creating jobs is laudable. But relying so heavily on financing job-creation by taxing the wealthy, only appeals to socialists. It makes very little economic sense.

In addition to the straitjacket in which it finds itself in the Eurozone, the French social model is too socialist in structure. While it might work in times of plenty, it leaves very little room for manoeuvre for the leaders in times of adversity. Hollande´s plans are neither robust nor coherent, nor brutal enough to carry out the sort of surgical changes needed to restore the French economy to good health. In order to succeed, he will need to do some very unpopular things within his own power-base. Half-baked actions or cosmetic moves that are aimed at pandering to the electorates will only serve to make a bad situation worse. At the same time, there is a popular saying that the person whose head is used in breaking open the shell of a coconut, does not live to eat out of the coconut itself. For Hollande, it might well turn out to be a case of head-you-lose or tail-you-lose. Only time will tell.

The author of this article Edward Ojo is a member of the Editorial Board of Read-Online.Org and a socio-economic researcher. (Contact: Edward.Ojo@read-online.org)

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Read-Online.Org

For other contributions by this author, please visit his page by following this link