A Whole New World

This weekend, world leaders will convene in Washington for a global summit, with the primary agenda of fixing the financial system of the world, no less. If the right people show leadership, that might actually happen, but why stop there?

Britain’s PM, Gordon Brown, ambitiously envisioned a “new world order” this Monday, calling upon Europe and America to be “internationalist not protectionist, interventionist not neutral, progressive not reactive and forward-looking not frozen by events.” This echoes this article in Newsweek on November 3, calling for an actual world bank to replace the IMF. In times of crisis, the status quo is questioned, creating a window for change. Now is a time of crisis, but also a time of change.

Our current world order was in large part forged on the ruins of World War II. Most global or regional institutions that we take for granted today had their foundations laid in the aftermath of the war: the UN, IMF, WTO, EU, NATO, OECD. Not merely acronyms, but the framework of the world as we know it.

Changing these things is difficult. Once something is institutionalised, a certain inertia becomes ingrained, and changes are mostly incremental, bogged down by endless debate and compromise. The UN reform process or recent years’ failed attempts at modernising the EU are cases in point.

The problem is it’s a new world out there. Neither WWII nor the Cold War defines the challenges facing the world today. As Fareed Zakaria has repeatedly pointed out, power centres are shifting; globalisation is changing the face of the world, threatening to render the current world order obsolete if it’s not adapted to suit the 21^st century. In order to maintain and spread peace and prosperity globally, we need strong and functioning global institutions. And they need to be geared to the challenges of today, not those of 60 years ago.

Brown states that “uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed.” It just might work. The election of Barack Obama in the U.S. is a sign that the world is ready for change. Obama cannot and will not change the world alone. But the momentum is there. This may be the time when world leaders finally step up the challenge of securing the future of the world.

United States of the World

Congratulations, Mr Obama. You have earned perhaps the hardest job in world at the moment, and you have a healthy majority of people believing you are up for it. I am one of them.

After the Cold War, the U.S. emerged as the world’s only superpower; the single most powerful force (in any respect) in the world. That this situation is gradually giving way to a multi-polar world with American influence waning is true to a degree. The rest of the world is rapidly catching up and increasingly playing along the rules which America invented. But the recent financial crisis has showed us that the need for a strong USA is as great as ever.

What the world needs is leadership from the leader of the world. Not callously wielded military might and arrogant attitudes. No, real leadership that reaches out and inspires. In John McCain’s loser speech he was very gracious and noble toward his opponent, but Obama obviously steals the show with his performance.

Obama’s victory speech nourishes the hope of many that he in fact can and will reach out. Toward the many different people that he mentions in his speech: “young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled”. He promises to enforce the ideal of America as a land of equal opportunities, regardless of race, colour, religion or sexuality.

Just as importantly, Obama reaches out to the world. A special mention of those in “forgotten corners of our world” (Australia might be one of them) is sympathetic, but also telling of the foreign policy to come. Of an American president who might finally realise that in order to win friends and influence people, it’s not a smart policy to be the class bully. Obama eloquently stated that “the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.”

What both the U.S. and the world needs now is a new vision and real change. No single person can do this alone. But Barack Obama might just be the man who can get the wheels into motion and help set the course for the world in this century.

Politics is not Easy

It should be clear by now that the current financial and economic crisis is no mere ripple, but a full-scale storm. Comparisons to the 1920’s are no longer muted, and a sense of morbid sensationalism enshrines the news cycle of worsening conditions.

It is not without some fascination that I have witnessed the Australian dollar lose almost 20% of its value against the Euro in a matter of weeks. I try to use my Danish credit card instead of Australian cash to make the most of it. This I can understand. But the intricate dealings of what shaped the current crisis, and even more so what do about it, are still somewhat out of my league. I’m not completely ignorant, of course, and I do my best to stay up-to-date and read views and opinions of the state of the world (a good Danish-language primer is this one, by economy professor Torben M. Andersen).

But apart from making a good conversation topic, the crisis has severely damaged any political ambitions I may still have harboured myself. Once I dreamed of being a minister, perhaps even the prime one. And I may have thought to myself: why are so many politicians economists? Well, to quote the Bill Clinton 1992 campaign, “it’s the economy, stupid”. In situations like these, politicians are those that must act and do what they can to contain the crisis and stave off total meltdown. And I would have no idea how to fix this. Yes, I could probably learn. But I am convinced of the importance of economic wisdom within any government.

No matter your political conviction, it seems clear that any politician in a high office should have a thorough understanding of how the world works; including, but not limited to, the economy.

Which is exactly why Sarah Palin is not ready to go to Washington.

Naser Khader: A Fallen Angel

Just over a year ago Denmark was cheering on a new political party that aimed for nothing less than revolutionising the state of political affairs. New Alliance was founded with lofty goals of doing politics in a new way, minimising the influence from the ultra-right-wing Danish People’s Party, and having a truly liberal and global outlook. On top of that rode Denmark’s new political darling, Naser Khader, a Syrian-born Muslim with secular and democratic ideals who for many demonstrated a fresh breath of air to decades of trench wars on immigration policy.

In the end, however, the ideals were all they could deliver. The early grassroots approach to policy yielded no detailed or coherent vision, and the party became mostly an uneven melting pot of wannabes. In last year’s general election they managed to secure five seats in the parliament, but status quo endured and the sitting centre-right government could continue unaltered into a third term. Two of the five quickly left, one to become independent, the other to join one of the ruling parties. And this week, a third was forced to withdraw from the party, also becoming an independent for the time being. From such highly lauded beginnings last summer, they are now down to two, with no chance in a million of retaining their parliament seats.

What went wrong? Apparently the catch-all approach backfired, and trying to fathom everybody eventually meant reaching no one. There never was more than a vision; no strategy, no planning, no organisation to back it up. Naser Khader’s personality was what started it all, but also what brought it down. In politics, seemingly, ideals can only get you thus far, after that skills are needed. Skills which it became clear in the election campaign that Khader did not possess, after all.

I think the vision had lots of merit. But from there it was pretty much downhill when the vision turned out to be backed by nothing but hot air. In the lyrics for the musical Evita, Tim Rice put it eloquently like this: “You let down your people, Evita. You were supposed to have been immortal. That’s all they wanted. Not much to ask for. But in the end, you could not deliver.”

Resistance to Change

10 years ago today, the Great Belt Fixed Link opened, connecting eastern and western Denmark and slicing off an hour’s travel time between most cross-nation trips. It includes the second largest free span in the world, and is a massive engineering feat, but more importantly it’s been a tremendous success. The usage has far exceeded expectations, and Denmark has become smaller, more inter-linked.

What is interesting to note is that in 1989, when construction began, a substantial part of the population actually were opposed to building the bridge. Some claimed they would miss the ferry ride – nobody actually does. Some claimed it would destroy marine biology – it hasn’t. Only a year after its opening, the large majority had a positive view of the connection.

Fast-forward to yesterday, where Irish voters (with a turnout of just 53 %) rejected the Lisbon treaty. They are of course not the first naysayers in the history of the Union (Denmark 1992, France and Netherlands 2005), but whatever one may feel about the EU, I think the primary force at work here is a misconstrued conservatism and fear of the new. Lisbon would actually enhance the democratic structures, not reduce them – but nobody seems to care.

We know what we have, not what we will get. This is apparently a common way of thinking for most people, around the globe. No matter if people tell us things can be better – it’s probably not worth the hassle, and if we’re happy to be content and not take any risks. But no wonders of the world are built without taking risks. Nobody can claim centuries of fame for sitting around, saying: we’re doing fine. Rome wasn’t built in a day – but if somebody hadn’t moved forward in faith, it would never have been built at all.

Beijing: Boycott or Engagement?

Recent events have put China in the spotlight once again as an oppressive regime that abused human rights and what not. China’s friendliness with Sudan, their alleged oppression of minorities in Tibet, and the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing have led numerous western figures to denounce the regime, protest the Olympic torch relay and even call for boycotts of the Olympics. There is no easy answer, but let’s get real for a moment.

I don’t believe the Tibet situation has been handled very well. China should long ago have taken up on the offer to meet the Dalai Lama. He is not a separatist, and he could be the key to a peaceful normalisation if only Beijing would swallow their pride and start talking to him. While calling the crackdowns in Lhasa genocide is surely exaggerated, there probably have been mishandlings of the minority. In principle, Tibet should have the right to declare independence, but that may not even be the wish of the majority – the Dalai Lama does not call for independence, only greater autonomy.

I am also of the opinion that China (as many other nations) could do more to pressure Sudan in the case of Darfur. We should continue trying to convince China that action here is needed. Hardly a cause for boycott, though.

When it comes to freedom of speech in China, I generally take the optimistic stand that quite a lot is actually tolerated. I do not know, however, whether I would be able to write so openly on this blog if I were in China. (To any PRC readers: I’d love to hear your comments, if possible.)

These disagreements with China are to some a cause for boycotting the whole or parts of the Olympic Games. While the Olympics are a huge media event, it is still a very cheap shot for western politicians wanting to look good and human rights-oriented. The reality is that nobody can foresee a regular economic boycott – this would not be affordable to any western economy, especially not under the current downturn. Bashing the Chinese now is a hollow call with fairly few consequences.

Some then would argue that greater measures are needed. Michael D. Peabody writes today on the Spectrum Blog that free trade with China has not, as previously thought, lead to improvements on human rights, and that “as an individual consumer you do have the choice to effect a positive change in China, and you can vote with your wallet.”

I disagree. I think that human rights, while still not equal to Western Europe or America, have improved in China. And no matter what, we may never agree on which rights are fundamental. America historically have a tendency to promote on democracy and freedom of speech, while Europe is more focused on social security and living standards. Yes, China may lag behind in democracy, but their progress over the last decades in living standards, economic freedoms, quality of life, and also freedom of religion are staggering.

Furthermore, history should teach us that boycotts rarely actually give the wanted results. Think of Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, or even the Mohammad crisis. Economic sanctions sound nice and peaceful, but usually fail to deliver. There are things that we may disagree on with China, and they should not be overlooked. However, as stated previously on this blog, I believe engagement is a much more worthwhile option than boycott.

We Want More Money

As of today, public sector workers across Denmark are on strike, demanding unprecedented pay raises for healthcare workers, among others. While any individual may of course request a raise, I have absolutely no sympathy for the method employed here – nor the demands. For several reasons:

Refusing to do your job is hardly a way of gaining sympathy. Especially in vital services such as health care, but also in general. You want more money? Get another job that pays more. You just want to do your job better? Then stop whining and pull up your sleeves. You want a new job? Then go get one.

Preventing others by force from doing their jobs has no place in a free, democratic society. However, strikes like this call for everyone to stay home from work, even those who might actually be satisfied with current conditions. This is repulsive and almost mafia-like.

A raise for these income groups is not validated by their level of education and comparison to other groups in society. Hiking their pay checks as proposed would tip the balance and do harm to the overall health of the nation’s economy. It seems that for Union and left-wing types, the prevailing sentiment is one of “we want more”, as if the State had a big gold pot for hand-outs to the self-imposed needy. In fact, the money they are demanding comes from of the rest of us. Why do you want my money?

Much can be said about the state of health care, etc. in Denmark, but just pouring more money into the workers’ pockets won’t solve any problems. More workers may be needed, yes. But even more so, greater efficiency and professionalism in the sector could boost quality of service, without necessarily breaking the budget. The easiest solution to this is outsourcing; if we let private providers handle many of these tasks, they could do it more efficiently for the same funds. And perhaps even with better working conditions and higher pay for those employees who meet the qualifications.

There are many good things about Denmark; the culture of strikes is not one of them. This method reeks of 19^th century Marxism and should have been long dead and buried.

A Night at the Symphony

Last night the New York Symphony Orchestra performed in Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea. That event may well go down in history as a groundbreaking thaw in the relations between the rest of the world and one of the weirdest regimes the world has ever seen. So would a proposed visit by Eric Clapton later this year. Or it may, as hawks would imply, simply be seen as yet another propaganda tool by master propagandists who would make George Orwell proud.

The first group would applaud dialogue as the way forward and see cultural engagement as a boon to relations, notwithstanding the possibility of interpreting the move as a recognition of the regime.

It is funny, therefore, that the same group of people would be so critical of this fall’s Olympic Games in Beijing. Prince Charles has announced his absence from the event (for the record, he hasn’t been at the Olympics for decades). Certain people would also have Danish Prince Frederik stay home to protest human rights abuses and what not. Fortunately he has been wise not to meddle in politics and accept the fact that Denmark has good relations and many cultural and economic exchanges with the People’s Republic of China.

If engagement is the solution in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, than how much more is it so with China? This was understood by Nixon when he visited China in 1972. And by most accounts, China and North Korea are worlds apart. Both are communist by name, but China is a modern country with free markets and widely enjoyed personal freedoms. North Korea is more akin to 1984.

This is not to say that everything is perfect in China, but boycotting a country rarely produces good results on either part. The Olympic Games in Beijing will be a great leap forward for China. Whether that can also be said about last night’s concert in Pyongyang, only the future will tell.

Kosovo and Nationalism

The world’s newest country was born on Sunday, and world politics is in full gear. Most western countries, including the U.S., UK, Denmark and Australia, have recognised Kosovo. Russia and China are biting their lips, however, and will likely veto an official UN recognition. Their reaction is understandable, because they fear a trend of secession in other places, notably Chechnya and Tibet.

National pride and a quest for power is an understandable feeling, especially to an avid Civilization player like myself. But the world of today, supposedly long after the end of colonialism, ought not to harbour such attitudes. Nationalism only evolved in the 19^th century, and it should have no prominent position in the 21^st. As the world has grown smaller, and borders diminished, being part of a nation-state means less than being part of a global economy and culture. Hence the rise of regionalism which – in Europe, for instance – results in smaller countries, but greater integration.

We went to war in Kosovo to protect an ethnic group from genocide; mandated in no small part by the UN declaration of Human Rights. This document, celebrating its 60^th anniversary this year, states for instance that “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country” (Article 13,1) and that “Everyone has the right to a nationality” (Article 15,1). But it still assumes the existence of countries.

The concepts of nationhood and borders are, like most societal structures, a human construction. Nothing mandates that people should have different rights just from being born on either side of a line on a map. Fundamental change is probably unlikely, but there should at least – as in the case of Kosovo – be an undeniable right for a group or region to leave a country and declare independence. This means recognising the free existence of entities such as Chechnya, Tibet, Taiwan, Greenland, Kashmir, Quebec, Scotland, and others that may so please.

Apologies Abound

An important trend in this decade is saying sorry – for nearly everything, it seems. Demanding apologies has become an important diplomatic tool, even for atrocities committed hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.

Today, the new Australian government issued a formal apology for many years’ mistreatment of the indigenous population. Apartheid-like policies during much of the 20th century, including removing aboriginal children to raise them in proper white families, has been the one sore point in recent Australian history. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd represents the nation and dynasty that committed these crimes, and although generations have passed since then, the government is still heir to these decisions and their consequences. For this reason, the apology makes sense, and hopefully a new era of aboriginal relations can begin.

Apologising for the deeds of other people can be risky, though. In the Danish Mohammad controversy of 2005-2006, Muslim governments wanted Denmark to apologise for printing the cartoons. What they failed to grasp was the concept of freedom of speech and an independent press. Say sorry for what? Letting people think for themselves? Allowing independent media? Tolerating differences of opinion? Prime Minister Anders Fogh wisely avoided apologising for the cartoons themselves. He expressed his personal opinions. But had he intervened, he would be taking credit for the decision of Jyllands-Posten, and thus undermining free speech.

Comparing these two may be far-fetched. Almost everyone agrees that the treatment of aboriginals was shameful. The Mohammad cartoons, however, violated no Danish laws or international treaties. They may have indecently violated Sharia or Qu’ran rules; but these are hardly universal. Muslims may believe whatever they want; I reserve the right to believe they are wrong.

Yesterday morning, three men were arrested in Aarhus for plotting to murder the cartoonist behind one of the infamous drawing. Two, which are Tunisian, were immediately extradited. The intended victim is understandably shocked, and so are Danish politicians and media. There is fear the crisis may rise from the dead. Perhaps our response this time should be to demand public apologies from the government of Tunis (for allowing two of its citizens to consider such a crime) or the government of Syria (for not allowing free speech, which is very important in our ideology). Or perhaps everyone should just take a deep breath and mind their own business.

Previous posts on the Mohammad controversy:
Who Gets To Define Tolerance? (March 21, 2006)
Never Be Rude To An Arab (Feb 13, 2006)
The Culture Wars (Feb 8, 2006)
Da Vinci, Harry Potter, and Muhammad (Jan 7, 2006)