World Affairs | SLEEPING WITH PENGOVSKY

Inevitability of War

The shed in which pengovsky keeps axes to grind is getting a bit too small, so maybe it’s time for a bit of a clean up. We might as well start in the UK, the leading candidate country in UCPWLIIHEM (Union of Countries Pengovsky Would Live In If He Ever Moved). Not only is London one of my favourite cities (London? London. London? Yes, London!) but Her Majesty, recently of Facebook and Twitter fame also exerts sovereignty over Scotland and its whiskey distilleries. One in particular. Plus, they have Viz and the Magna Farta, the BBC, not to mention curry and Winston Churchill.

Hannan (left) and Van Rompuy (right)

However, just as Slovenia, the UK has its share of half-wits who have developed selective blindness to either historical or current facts and have – combined with their preconceptions – a fundamentally skewed perception and potentially dangerous view of the world around them. Case in point being Daniel Hannan MEP (Conservative) for South East England, a member of the eurosceptic European Conservatives and Reformists, who took issue with EU Big Boss Herman Van Rompuy, specifically his remarks on 9 November, during celebrations of German Schicksaltag.

The Beef

Van Rompuy (his ascendancy to the EU Top Spot was detailed by Dr. Arf) said among other things that “[W]e have to fight the dangers of a new euro-scepticism [which] is no longer the monopoly of a few countries. In every member state, there are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world. It is more than an illusion: it is a lie.” He also added that “Fear leads to egoism, egoism leads to nationalism, and nationalism leads to war”

Hannan (link thoughtfully provided by @AdriaanN) on the other hand sees this as a childish argument which he simplifies into euroscepticism = nationalism = war and counters by saying that “[C]onservatives everywhere, understand that patriotism is what makes people behave unselfishly. It’s the basis of our sense of obligation to those around us. A patriot doesn’t belittle other countries: he cheers their sense of national pride, and values their freedom.” and then adds that “[o]ur patriotism gave us a natural sympathy for those who had seen their homelands overrun. It was British – and Anglosphere – patriotism that defeated two attempts to unite Europe in tyranny, and restored democracy to its nations. Without it, the EU would not have been possible.”

Now, let’s take Hannan’s argument apart one step at the time. First of all euroscepticism is not limited to a conservative ideology any more. This is the core of Van Rompuy’s speech. He speaks of a new euroscepticism which is not exclusive to a specific political platform or a few member states but is taking hold in all member states, big and small, rich and poor, East and West, left and right. And secondly, this is not some sort of newly developed patriotism spreading all across the EU, but rather a resurgence of plain old nationalism which has raped this continent twice over, thirce if you look from the Balkans point of view.

Patriotism vs. Nationalism

At this point a slight digression is necessary. Mr. Hannan tends to equal nationalism and patriotism. In this he could not be more wrong and yet this misconception is central to his set of political beliefs. Namely, while patriotism is a state of mind, nationalism is an ideology. Patriotism (love for one’s country) is neither inherently political nor inherently ideological. It is just a set of beliefs centred around one’s attachment to his/her community. Nationalism on the other hand is both inherently political and ideological, because it is based on an idea that one nation is better than the other. We see this daily. From the good-natured jibes between the French and British, from the small satisfactions Slovenes and Croats get from each other’s failures to the mass graves of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica.

To put it in teenage terms, the likes of which Mr. Hannan apparently understands: Patriotism = We love us! Nationalism = We hate you! Also, pay special attention how easily Hannan switches from nationalism (paragraph 5) to patriotism (paragraph 6), as if he is talking of the same thing. And (worryingly enough) from his point of view, he is.

But to go on: Not only is Mr. Hannan wrong in his assessment of the situation as a whole, he (predictably) picks the wrong cases to prove his point. Dole queues in Switzerland may indeed be as frequent as food riots in Norway, but with Mr. Hannan being only a couple of years my senior and growing up in what were arguably the most abundant couple of decades in the history of the Western civilisation, pengovsky can say with some conviction that he doesn’t know jack shit about how a country can indeed fail (as Yugoslavia did) or how militant nationalism can with utmost ease become a predominant rhetoric in a society given certain preconditions, none of which were ever experienced either by Switzerland or by Norway.

A Wee History Lesson

Thirdly. Although British national character is replete with history (or so the stereotype goes) Mr. Hannan would do well to brush up on his history. It wasn’t just the British/Anglosphere patriotism which defeated two attempts to unite Europe under a tyranny (I’m assuming Hannan means victories in WWII as well as the Cold War.)

On account of the first: While Anglo/American contribution to the war effort is immeasurable, both in men and materiel as well as in political persuasion and just plain stubbornness, it must be said that Western powers liberated only part of Europe. The other part was liberated by the Soviet Union and until 1943 the Russkies were winning the war for everyone else as much as for themselves. This contributed to fact that during Tehran and Yalta conferences the UK and the US were unable to play the table against the Russians and – as a result – had to give up on the principle of “fighting for the cause of nations everywhere” in case of Poland (and in part Czechoslovakia) and recognise the ugly realities of geopolitics, abandoning these countries to Communist rule just as they had to abandon them to Nazi rule only years earlier (a fact which is today often raised especially by the Poles during crucial votes in the EU Council).

And while we’re at it, Mr. Hannan would do well to look up the entry “partisan guerilla in the Balkans” before he chalks up victory in WWII solely to Western powers. Had he done that beforehand he might have found that there were resistance movements all over Europe which have at one point or another been critical to the war effort and also that such a guerilla movement evolved into a regular army in what was later to become Socialist Yugoslavia. While obviously not a strategic player, the partisan army was important enough and strong enough to have won recognition both from London and Moscow and had engaged an entire Wermacht Army group which might have been deployed either in France after D Day or in Italy where Mr. Hannan’s father had served.

Also, there’s one area of Europe where neither the Brits nor the Russkies took any part in liberating it. Slovenia, where Slovene partisans liberated the country without any direct foreign involvement, thank you very much. With this in mind I’d be grateful if Mr. Hannan would refrain from general remarks on history, as they fly directly in the face of his other remark in the same text, where he boasts that a patriot like himself doesn’t belittle other countries. That may be, but by that measure Mr. Hannan is no patriot, but simply a nationalist, who tends to overrate the value and importance of his country and treat other nations condescendingly and patronisingly by ways of neglecting (belittling) actions and sacrifices of other nations, big and small. In the old days we had a word for that: Imperialism.

Oh, and as far as winning the Cold war is concerned, forget it. The West didn’t know the Berlin Wall was coming down until it felt bricks flying. The Wall fell because Socialism lost legitimacy, not because Capitalism was inherently better. There just wasn’t any real alternative. And yes, it did look better from the outside.

Inevitability of War

War, according to von Clausewitz, is only an continuation of a nation’s politics using other means. Wars, therefore, don’t just happen, but happen because they are vehicles of perpetuation of a certain ideology or even just plain leadership. Case in point again being the Balkans, where Slobodan Milošević didn’t so much believe in Serbian nationalism as much as he had fostered it and used it to ensure his political survival. But once his rule became dependant on perpetuation of armed conflict, it was only a question of time before he was stopped. In that time a lot of people died. This was only a couple of years before Mr. Hannan entered European Politics and yet he seems to be completely oblivious to the fact.

Nationalism (as opposed to patriotism) does lead to war. And euroscepticism of today is becoming ever more nationalistic. Daniel Hannan may not recognise this, but as the rhetoric of the extreme political right is a) being adopted by the extreme left and b) is becoming more and more mainstream, euroscepticism is becoming less and less a devil’s advocate vehicle but rather a Trojan Horse for people who will risk peace to further their political agenda. Such people and their agendas thrive in circumstances where social insecurity is great, economic stability is lacking and democratic political leadership is feeble. Which is how one might describe the general situation in the EU today. OK, so maybe not in Switzerland and Norway, but neither of those countries is a EU member. Both, however, enjoy many of the advantages of the common market and are hardly entities unto their own. Another fact which Mr. Hannan conveniently ignores.

Apparently 55% of Brits want to exit the EU. This of course does not mean that they want war (as the caption under the picture in the Daily Telegraph misleads). What it does mean, however, that once again, for the fourth time in a hundred-or-so years, we are faced with a fact that shit is brewing in the Continent and that the British will have nothing to do with it. To date, this has always lead to war. If we allow Mr. Hannan’s attitude to become the norm, it is bound to happen for the fourth time as well.

And in not so distant future, pengovsky fears.

Multiculturalism: A Teutonic Shift

German Kanzlerin Angela Merkel created a lot of hoopla Sunday last when she said at a party meeting that “attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have utterly failed” (BBC) abd went on to add that “those who want to take part in German society must not only obey German laws but also master German language” (Deutche Welle).

Die Kanzlerin (source)

This goes to the very heart of what can, for the lack of a better expression, be described as “post-war values” (keep your shirt on, we’ll get there). That nationalism is on the rise is, of course, hardly news. That public’s disillusionment with mainstream politics is invariably giving rise to extremists of all sorts is plainly visible (the latest examples being Austria, Sweden and The Netherlands). Wherever this starts happening, mainstream parties almost without exception start mimicking those hard-liners who are “stealing their electorate”, using their rhetoric, imitating their rituals and trying to re-establish themselves as points of reference for their wayward voters.

Same old story

This is not new. We’ve seen it time and again and the political menstrual cycle (where parties promise to bleed to the last drop of voters’ blood) is replete with such attempts all over the world, democratic or not. What is new is the fact that this phenomenon has transcended the normal constraints of a political arena and has taken on wider sociological and cultural connotations.

What we are seeing today is parties trying to stay in power not by adjusting their political platforms, but by adjusting their values to accommodate voters which have defected to the extreme poles of either left or right. As a result relatively small groups of fringe voters are increasingly starting to dictate the debate on scores of issues at the expense of those voters who are (from parties’ points of view) “already in the bag”.

Thus we have a triple fuck-up: moderates are disillusioned and increasingly refuse to take part in the democratic processes, thus leaving room for hard-liners. Their importance is amplified even more by mainstream factors – not just political parties, but also opinion leaders, media, and so on – trying to regain legitimacy with hard-liners by “talking the talk and walking the walk”. But what almost invariably happens is that the above mainstream factors loose out on both ends, since moderates will not see them as representing their morals and/or ethics, whereas hard-liners will only see it as proof that they’ve been right all along and will stick with their original leaders.

Ze Germans

So, what Angie M. said the other day is not just your ordinary “hey-I’m-one-of-you” act. It represents a marked shift of proclaimed values vis-a-vis the outer world. The fact that the fields in which this change of values has taken place are 19th century classics (language and ethnicity) makes it all the more worrying. I don’t want to go into a rant on how 19th century romantic notions of national supremacy paved the way for Europe to be raped twice over, but alarm bells are ringing. Especially since this is Germany we’re talking about. No offence, but both World Wars had a lot to do with Germany trying to forcefully “take its rightful place on the world stage”.

What is even more worrying is that Merkel did not say this at a congregation of some Lederhosen-clad old farts munching over an inhumane amount of beer, but to a congress of young party activists (Junge Union) who are always plenty eager to prove themselves in the eyes of the leadership, usually by ways of defending party positions with extreme prejudice and over-zealously executing party politics. I for one would hate to see Junge Union becoming Jugend Union, if you catch my meaning.

An added bonus, so to speak, is the timing of Merkel’s statements. Only weeks after Thilo Sarrazin, member of the board of the Bundesbank published a book where, among other things, claimed that “all Jews share the same gene” and that “Muslim immigrants across Europe were not willing or capable of integrating into western societies.” (HufPo). Sarrazin was forced to resign from his post (and is laughing all the way to the bank as his book became a bestseller) and condemned by top German officials, including Merkel. And yet, she found occasion to say basically the same thing only six weeks later.

So, what of Multi-kulti?

Pengovsky is out of his comfort zone here, as I have never lived in Germany, but I imagine patterns are the same all over this part of the world. The usual game-play is that other cultures are fine as long as they don’t bother the established order. Doubly so if the term “other culture” comes to imply “other religion” as is mostly the case in predominantly Christian- or even Catholic-conditioned Europe. Whenever the concentration of people with “other culture” reaches critical mass, the majority starts having “problems”. These problems are of course nothing but a veiled form of sense of superiority, chauvinism and even racism. Since European nations practically butchered themselves to death in the 20th century and somehow realised that they do indeed all bleed red, a new enemy was found. Or rather, an old one was rediscovered. Islam. With Turks comprising most of Germany’s four million immigrants (5% of total population), it really isn’t such a long walk, no?

But what Merkel describes as death of multiculturalism, is in fact its victory. Members of other cultures have (in this case in Germany) grown so strong, that they became impossible to ignore. Sure, until now these cultures existed parallel to one another and never really integrated, but – if you don’t mind my saying so – this is as much the immigrants’ fault as it is of the German state.

Merkel said that the bulk of these people came to Germany in 60s and 70s and then never left, contrary to Germans’ expectations. Duh? Seriously? You expected that? A woman from East Germany who (let’s be nice and fuzzy here) had to endure Communist propaganda and hardship in order to earn a living and was – due to her belief in a better life and freedom of man – heavily involved in democratic movement in a country with one of the most ruthless regimes of the entire Eastern Bloc is now feigning ignorance as to why immigrant workers came to Germany? C’mon!

Immigrants came in search of a better life (or at least in search of a better pay). Apparently they got it. Or at least got something close enough. And they brought their culture with them. I won’t go into all that All Different All Equal crap, but fact of the matter is that immigrants’ culture now is a part of Germany. It is a part of their cultural production, it is a part of their economy, of their sports, of their politics even.

The perils of a short-lived victory

Multiculturalism succeeded as it put Germany where it is today. A country and a society which can stand on its own two feet and throw its weight around a bit. It’s just that other cultures didn’t go sit quietly in a corner somewhere and remained respectful, but are questioning the world around them as they bloody well should. With this an until then commonly-accepted set of taboos is coming down and is making some people nervous.

But as reactionary forces do what they’re best at – react – there is a clear and present danger of a real defeat of multiculturalism. And with that of Europe as we know is. As this German debate is implicitly aimed against Islam, it may take on the form of a wider lash-out against Muslims in Germany and across Europe. But the continent (and Germany in particular) has a sad history of starting with a specific religion and then pointing their finger on a map of Europe and saying “I sink ve should go zhere.”

Fearmongering the Slovenian way

What’s the connection between the economic engine of Europe and a sorry excuse for a nation of two million, you ask? Why, the youth organisation of Nova Slovenija (NSi), of course. The youngsters from this ChristDem party were proud to take part in the gathering of their German brethren in Potsdam and upon returning to home soil issued a scorching press release saying that what Merkel said for Germany goes for Slovenia as well. Only more so.

Because if Germany has problems with cultural co-existence, in Slovenia the nation and the country are at peril if immigrants will continue to refuse to integrate fully. This kind of multiculturation (not my word!) must be stopped immediately, sayeth the NSi.

Obviously, this kind of death-to-all-things-not-Slovenian writing is aimed primarily against immigrants from former Yugoslav republics. That they are mostly of Muslim faith is probably not a coincidence. Ditto for the fact that NSi is a Christian Democratic party. Fearmongering, you see. They refuse to speak Slovene. They will take our jobs. They will take our women. “They” being loosely identified as Muslims. Yesterday it was the Croats. Tomorrow it’ll be the Chinese. Or maybe just Slovenian socialists. There’s always someone you can blame for your own incompetence and inability to provide solutions for mounting problems.

Not all is lost

But there are a few rather humorous points in all of this, which show these fearmongers (at home and across the border) for what they really are: small-testicled windbags.

As a rule, defenders of all things Slovenian have a problem with Slovene grammar and syntax. NSi’s press release is no different. Words that don’t exist (multiculturation), wrong punctuation, incorrect syntax and extremely poor style all point to the fact that these people would probably bankrupt a even gold-mine let alone come to power by means of sparking mass hysteria and bigotry. At least they got the dual form right this time. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other, more capable people waiting in the wings.

Oh, and Thilo Sarrazin’s surname is probably derived from the word “Saracen“, which was a common descriptor of Muslims during the Crusades. A late Austrian psychiatrist would probably go: “I sink hez got issuez…”

P.S.: Some people are probably truly offended by now, if they even managed to read the whole text. To you I apologise. I tend to exaggerate to make a point. I also do not think all Germans are either xenophobic, racist or anti-Muslim. In fact, I think most are definitely not. But those who are, are becoming more and more mainstream. So for fuck’s sake, get off your sane German asses and really reclaim the space invaded by extremist loonies. And yes, this goes for Slovenia as well.

Immunity for Janez Janša and Ivo Sanader

Janez Janša and Ivo Sanader share a great many things. Not only are both former prime ministers of their respective countries, their parties are also members of European People’s Party, they were both implicated in alleged (and then strenuously denied) fixing of border incidents between Slovenia and Croatia prior to 2004 elections and now they are both facing criminal charges. Talk about male bonding! 😈

“So, tell me Janez, what’s it like on the inside?” (source)

As you know, former PM and now opposition leader Janez Janša was indicted for aiding and abetting bribery and corruption (with four more people facing similar or graver charges). What has happened since is that the indictments were “tested” by the local court at which they were filed and the court approved them. This of course does not mean that the man is guilty, but it does mean that potentially the biggest procedural hurdle was cleared and that the trial will go forward.

Which is why today the parliamentary Committee for Public Office and Elections had to vote on whether Janez Janša should be granted immunity in the Patria Affair. Under Article 83 of the Constitution a deputy can invoke immunity if the maximum penalty for charges against him/her do not carry more than a five-year prison sentence. And since charges against Janša carry three years or less, the parliamentary Committee can (even against Janša’s wishes) grant him immunity.

But the man, who already knows what the inside of a prison cell looks like, said upfront that he will not invoke the immunity clause and hours ago the committee dully voted not to grant him immunity, which means that the trial can start with the full cast. Not so in the case of JJ’s buddy Ivo Sanader, who – it now appears – was virtually run out of office but not because of now-virtually-solved border dispute with Slovenia, but because there was no way to keep the lid on his (alleged) mischief.

One version goes that he was “summoned” to Brussels, but – instead of stalling yet another round of border-dispute negotiations – he was greeted by a stack of binders documenting in detail his supposed criminal activities, some of which are said to be connected to the downfall of the Hypo Bank and then to a series of fraudulent and embezzlement activities in his native Croatia.

However, unlike his Slovenian paisan, Sanader, having returned from what was officially a lecturing tour in the US (unofficially avoiding questioning by the parliamentary committee and Croatian CrimPolice), decided to claim his seat in the parliament and invoke the immunity clause, to which he is apparently entitled.

Fun times. Two former PMs looking at a prison sentence, while their successors iron out what even yesterday looked like insurmountable problems. Can it really be that easy? Nah, I’d be out of stuff to write, then… 😈

And The Loser Is… Belgium

(another mighty fine post by dr. Arf)

Vlaams Belang in action (source)

Wednesday, June 9th. D- Day rememberance is well behind everyone and it kind of went unchecked over here in Belgium, because a different kind of war is being waged here at the moment : the national election. Now, I shouldn’t say ‘national’, because while there is still such a thing as a Belgian nation, it isn’t unified as you all know, and this while the national motto is ‘Unity makes power’. That power, though, has been seriously weakened over the past three years. It seems like only yesterday that one Yves Leterme won the 2007 federal election (that’s the proper name for this election) with 800.000 votes and the bold statement that ‘five minutes of political courage’ would suffice to split the electorate of Brussel – Halle – Vilvoorde, which entails the Belgo- European capital and its surrounding suburbs on Flemish regional ground but is inhabited by a majority of Francophones who are represented by francophone politicians who would like nothing more than to take another bite out of the Flemish region purely for electoral gain. Old news for those who have read my guest blogs here, I’m sure.

Just like it is old news that after three years of nothing much except saving the banks with tax payer’s money – no doubt a great feat in these times of economic crisis – this federal government was terminated when Open VLD president Alexander De Croo felt that three years of talk was cheap enough and pulled the plug. He was branded everything from a fool to a traitor by the other majority parties and even some politicians in his own ranks when that happened.

Curiously, though, we’re now in the home stretch of the election campaign and while there have been a few references to De Croo’s so called irresponsibility (which, of course, made him responsible for these elections), it’s hardly come up at all. Why? Well, there is a party called N-VA that has a party president called Bart De Wever, who makes no secret of the party’s wish to secede Flanders from Wallonia and thus to terminate the Belgian federal state, which, according to De Wever, is highly inefficient and brings this land to a standstill. However, De Wever repeatedly stated that while the final goal is secession, he sees this as an evolutionary process, rather than a revolutionary process. And the man and his party are booking great successes in every poll leading up to the elections, which are taking place when you read this (provided you read it on Sunday, of course). Which, of course makes all the traditional parties go apeshit, not in the least those south of the language border and makes them say the silliest things or try the most underhanded tactics to try and thwart N-VA’s success in Flanders.

On Flemish side, everything from ridiculing De Wever and N-VA to labour unions and former politicians ‘advising’ not to vote for the party and the man has been tried. It even seemed like a new ‘cordon’ sanitaire’, like the one placed around extreme right nationalist party Vlaams Belang, was being put in place. Undoubtedly, some politicians in other parties were wishing – although not out loud – that this would happen. Here’s why it didn’t : firstly, De Wever has successfully managed to come across as a competent politician and a consequent one to boot. The man also has a certain charm because he doesn’t pretend to be anything more or less than he is and he’s rather good at being himself. He’s also blessed with a rather sharp wit and a dry sense of humor that is certainly appreciated among the Flemish populace. Third : N-VA has been a loyal partner in the Flemish government, even if they were resigned to govern with left wing socialist party SP.a. Furthermore, N-VA’s message to cut deeply into the pockets of the unemployed by limiting the duration of eligibility for unemployment benefits hits home with the traditionally hard working Flemings, even if the majority of these Flemings don’t necessarily want the secession of Flanders. And lastly, unlike the Vlaams Belang, N-VA is indeed a democratic party. Having a nationalist agenda doesn’t change that.
This entire scare mongering against N-VA apparently seemed to worry the international economic markets, who, ever ready to make a profit from someone else’s recession, are poised to speculate against the Belgian National Debt. This is merely economical logic, because if Belgium falls apart in two states, who will pay off the Belgian National Debt? Our journalists reported in their blogs that they were overrun with mails and calls from their foreign colleagues, who wanted to know what was going on. One even spoke of a Serbian colleague who – recent history in mind – wanted to know if the Belgians could avoid civil war. This prompted N-VA to announce and international press conference to appease the international markets and explain that these were just scare tactics from mainly the francophone politicians and media, as foreign journalists apparently read the francophone press more than they do the Flemish.

One Flemish political commentator even wryly remarked in his blog post that he thought that CDH’s party leader Joèlle ‘Madame Non’ Milquet was on the payroll of N-VA’s PR department, as she made a lot of crass comments about how the language border, established in 1966, was a sociological mistake and that Brussel was 90% francophone anyway, so a demand for a ‘corridor’ to connect the capital to Wallonia seemed ‘like the natural thing to do’, therefore treading flat out on the territoriality of both regions and enraging even those Flemings who aren’t nationalist at all. I can only imagine the very large smile on De Wever’s face when she made that comment. My take on it is that Milquet seems as imbalanced as a certain Slovene politician was made out to be by his former Croatian colleague, not in the least because she makes this election all about the Brusselian francophones and not about the Wallonians in general, who are, according to independent press south of the language border(most newspapers are working out of Brussel and hence have a francophone staff and stance) are sick and tired of their own politicians. Having a Wallonian guitar player in my band, I can only attest to that statement. Which Is good news for the Parti Socialiste, as all the political ground gained by CDH and liberal MR/FDF will almost assuredly be ceded back to them after Sunday. The downside is that even the PS refuses to tell its constituents that there are massive budget cuts on the horizon and keeps promising higher unemployment benefits and pensions while there is no money. It is more important, it seems, to fend off the spectre of Flemish nationalism and make these elections about Francophonia, as the Brussels Capital Region is now called.

Not that the Flemish political parties lagged behind in trying to scare the voter into not voting for N-VA, as I’ve already established. But only in this final week they seemed to find their feet to counter N-VA’s popularity, by addressing several economic issues in their party programme. To have any chance of winning, they should have done this from the start, on either side of the language border. As it stands, though, N-VA stands to gain a lot of votes and thus seats in parliament, which puts the ball in their court if they win the election. Traditionally, it’s the winning party who provides the prime minister, but De Wever already said he would not become prime minister, if it meant he had to make too much concessions. A smart move, as this means he and his party could once again claim being consequent when negotiations fail once again (and that is a definite possibility) and we’ll gear up for another election, which is bound to piss off the voters even more than they already are now throughout this kingdom. If N-VA play their cards right, they might not only win the current election this time around, but also the next one, which would put them another step closer to the Belgian dissolution scenario they adhere to.

However, De Wever can’t help himself sometimes and just last Monday he said to be in favour of the termination of Brussels as a region, which made all other parties (excluding the Vlaams Belang, of course) go apeshit and then some. His mathematical logic for doing so is near perfect : Brussels as a region is governed by a parliament with no less than 900+ officials, has 16 municipalities that are all governed by their own mayors and their cabinets who mostly care for nothing but their own interests and hence are called ‘baronies’, has no less than SIX police zones that have NO coordinated policies (one frequently recurring example is that when trailing a suspect, police cars need to switch radio frequencies as they transit from one zone into the other) and lastly, if not for ‘solidarity’ from the regions – but mostly from Flanders, as it also pays ‘solidarity’ contributions to Wallonia, which in turn donates some of that cash to Brussels – Brussels would be so bankrupt, it would be classified as a third world state being in debt the way it is. Keep that in mind whenever you visit Brussels again. Unfortunately, no politician, neither Wallonian nor francophone (and there is huge a difference between the two) is even willing to consider this, just as they aren’t willing to consider righting these severe wrongs to the benefit of everyone living and working in Brussels. I know this seems like I’m down with the nationalists, but unfortunately for those who think otherwise, I don’t ignore plain facts in order to be considered politically correct by any francophone who should happen to read this. Nevertheless, if De Wever would have wanted to play the election game strategically, this was a wrong move, as other parties were given fuel to counter argue the ‘peaceful dissolution’ policy he said to be favouring.

Friday, June 11th, one month before the Flemish National Holiday. So, where does this all lead to? Most political commentators still predict a giant win for N-VA, as Bart De Wever has won all televised debates so far, which is no mean feat when you’re up against six other party presidents in Flanders. The man is just an excellent debater, as he once again managed to show in the final debate on commercial TV station VTM earlier this evening. He may have been wavering (pun intended) in the past week when attacked on N-VA’s economic standpoints, but he didn’t budge. Given the bashing the Christian democrats got in Holland two days ago at that country’s national election, people are assuming this could be the case for CD&V as well. While the liberal VVD won the elections in Holland, there is a lot of ambiguity about its Flemish pendant, Open VLD. Not even the presence of VVD party leader Mark Rutte at the Open VLD party congress yesterday can help predict whether the party will gain or lose votes. SP.a has not been able to weigh in on the election debates until the last week, which may work for them, since it’ll be fresh in the voters’ memories, or work against them because it’s a matter of too little, too late. Green party Groen! will most likely consolidate its percentage from last year’s regional elections, but won’t in all likelihood gain more than a few percentiles. Something which is being overlooked, but I find very important is that extreme right party Vlaams Belang has done a fine job destroying itself from within over the past few years and is on its way down. For more than twenty years the party leadership has remained in the hands of Filip Dewinter and Gerolf Annemans, which created a lot of dissent within the party bureau with those who wanted the VB to run a different course. I have to say this pleases me, even though I am aware that this party is down – and severely down, now it is fighting against a democratic alternative when it comes to Flemish nationalist issues in N-VA – but not out (yet). Nevertheless, their core business of sewing hatred and racism by attacking muslims and Islam in general, the – admittingly – lax Belgian immigration laws and their traditional outcry for a police state (yawn) went largely unheard this campaign, something which a true democrat can only be pleased about. An economic and constitutional crisis can sometimes be a blessing in disguise…

In the south, the PS will most likely reestablish its monopoly position, backed by a strong Ecolo, the Wallonian green party. MR/FDF will probably do well in the B-H-V region, but I suspect they will get punished for their bad government and immobilism of the past three years in the rest of Wallonia, as well as making it all about B-H-V without taking the rest of the region into account. CDH stands to go the same route.

Of course, these are all just guesses. While my suspicion against politics, politicians and political parties prompts me to keep an eye on what they’re doing to this country and its people, I am not a professional political commentator and as such, I can only give my own opinion based on whatever political instinct I’ve cultivated over the years. But I am rather certain that N-VA will take a huge leap forward, even if other parties and journalists will want to minimize their result if they won’t gain as much as the polls predict and will speak of a ‘victory defeat’ if such is the case. Whether this will be to this party’s advantage or not remains to be seen. There already have been rumours abounding about secret negotiations between N-VA, CD&V and the PS, in order to install a federal government which mirrors those of the two regions. Bart De Wever even admitted as much last night. As I’m writing this, only 24 hours remain until the voting stations open their doors. I don’t think we’ve had such an interesting election campaign for as long as I can remember and its results might, eh, result in me and my fellow countrymen waking up in a different country 48 hours from now. It’s either that, or more of the same for the next four years. Just before turning in this piece, I read a chronology of the current political problems concerning B-H-V by Prof. Dave Sinardet (a Fleming, in spite of his French sounding last name), who pointed out that this election is in fact the end result of several political parties on either side of the language border putting their own party political interests above the greater good by blocking negotiations whenever it suited them best. In short, he says the responsibility for the current situation lies largely with them. While I believe there is also an underlying ‘francophone’ issue concerning B-H-V that has been going on for over forty years and the responsibility thereof lies mostly with the Wallonian parties who refuse to respect the territorial boundaries for purely political gain, Sinardet’s analysis is by and large a correct one, as is his assessment that the polarization between Flemings and Francophones only increases due to this political scheming. And if this kind of scheming and the resulting immobilism will continue over the formation talks and, say, the next year or so, that much dreaded split of this country, the nightmare scenario for every Francophone politician and much of the Flemish ones, might get even nearer than it is today. If I wanted to keep Belgium in existence (I’m neither saying I would or wouldn’t), I don’t think I wouldn’t want that on my conscience, but then, I’m not a politician and it is crystal clear that several politicians on either side have not learned that lesson and they maybe never will. For now, let’s see what the voter has to say…

Frmr Croatian President Says Janša Is “Unbalanced”

Stipe Mesić says Janez Janša is “unbalanced”. Croatian only, I’m afraid (source)

Aftermath of Sunday referendum vote provided for some funny moments. One in particular. Former Croatian president Stipe Mesić was caught on camera by Croatian NOVA TV while chatting with his successor, incumbent Ivo Josipović and Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor. Mesić, known for his quick wit and even quicker gaffes said that “this Janša seems a bit unbalanced to me”. President Josipović then added that “[Janša’s] positions bombed his referendum bid” while PM Kosor was nodding “Yes, yes, yes”.

The scene caused some chuckles this side of the border, especially since the initial interpretation of Mesič’s statement was that Janša is mentally unbalanced (“neuravnovešen” in Slovenian), while Mesič himself later said that he meant to say that Janša’s views are unbalanced (“neuravnotežen“). Janez Janša and his SDS obviously refused to comment and in all honesty the statement is below par even for gaffe-prone Mesić, but it did provide for some light comedic relief after a month of hearing how the world as we know it will come to an end if the Arbitration Agreement is confirmed

The New Statesman

Two days ago pengovsky wrote that following Sunday’s vote on the Arbitration Agreement put PM Borut Pahor on a track to evolve from a politician to a statesman. A bold statement, to be sure. But there are reasons for it and they are not directly connected with political ramifications of yesterday’s vote.

A new statesman. Borut Pahor will hopefully not turn into Alan B’Stard. But there is some physical resemblance nevertheless 😉

Regardless of the fact that Slovene – Croatian border dispute was, from local perspective anyway, increasingly starting to look like something from the West Bank, it is not the only dispute in town, nor it is the most complex. Just take a look around.

Hungary recently passed a law which grants Hungarian citizenship to members of Hungarian minorities in neighbouring states. This in itself would not be problematic, weren’t it for the fact that Hungary and Slovakia have a troublesome history, as well as the fact that both countries have an increasingly dominant nationalistic element. Add to that the fact that Hungary (according to The Economist) is celebrating National Unity Day to commemorate the Trianon Treaty signed after the end of WWI, which deprived it of more than 70% of its territory and has a nasty reek of wishing “the good old days return”. Slovaks are, understandably going apeshit, passing reprisal laws and making references to Hungarian fascist past.

Moving on down, the same Hungarian law applies to Hungarians living in Romania as well. However, Romania is apparently doing the same, awarding Romanian citizenship to its minority in Moldova, so they can’t really complain. It still isn’t kosher, though. Giving away your citizenship to your minorities in other countries is bound to cause tensions and misgivings, as citizenship brings about its own set of duties and privileges, not in the least the right to vote, pay taxes and (if applicable) serve in the army. A country is not happy when its citizens exercise these rights in the name of another country.

South of Romania is Bulgaria, which – apart from having its own myriad of problems – takes a condescending attitude towards Macedonia. Bulgarians long held that Macedonian is just a Bulgarian dialect and have treated its former Yugoslav neighbour accordingly. The tensions and cross looks have eased somewhat, but the animosity and attitude are still there. Not that Macedonia doesn’t have its share of problems, both with Greece (which will not recognise its northern neighbour under its chosen name Macedonia) as well as with its large ethnic Albanian minority.

Which brings us to Kosovo. I trust we need not go over the shithouse that is the Kosovo problem, suffice it so say that some people are again contemplating breaking Kosovo in two, where the northern part (populared mostly by Serbs) would merge with Serbia, whereas the larger, southern part would remain independent. The caveat is that Kosovo Albanians made it clear that in such case they’d demand Serbia give up the Preševo province, which (for all intents and purposes) is located within Serbia proper, but does sport a large Albanian minority. And if that happens, who is to say that Kosovo will not merge with Albania. Which is a recipe for disaster. Since Serbian appetites for Great Serbia have been successfully curbed in the past two decades, it would simply not to allow anything remotely similar to Great Albania come into existence.

Unrest in Kosovo is almost directly linked to unrest in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a country in more or less idle running ever since the Dayton Accords. There too a policy of micro steps is being followed as any jolt in any direction will likely cause a domino effect and bring the house down, quite probably bringing about another round of Balkan carnage (just as Kosovo would if things went out of hand). Problems in Bosnia-Herzegovina are as much linked to Serbia as they are linked to Croatia, both of which have large ethnic groups in the country (I’m sure you know the details) and both countries have in the past been happily awarding citizenships to their brethren living in Bosnia, just as Hungary is doing now.

And speaking of Croatia, this country has its own set of problems with its neighbours. For example: There is a border dispute with Serbia on the Danube and with Montenegro on Cape Prevlaka at the very southern tip of Adriatic coast. The latter is supposedly solved (but has a status of an interim solution) while the former has barely been touched. Both are potentially explosive.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, brings us full circle to the Slovenian-Croatian border dispute. It is not the largest not the most explosive in the region. And yet, there were police stand-offs, bomb scares and similar shit. You can imagine how complicated other disputes are, then.

So, by solving one dispute and hopefully bringing about a solution acceptable for both sides, PMs Borut Pahor and Jadranka Kosor have shown prudence, restraint and commitment to peace. All of those are rare commodities in this part of the world, where drawing and redrawing borders, not unlike Janez Janša demanding territory south of Savudrija (to give an example completely at random) can lead to disaster.

By defusing what was increasingly becoming a flashpoint, PM Pahor can (not necessarily will) become a statesman whose opinion may be valued beyond the (now defined) borders of his country and the Arbitration Agreement can (not necessarily will) become a model for solving similar disputes in the region. So, a new statesman. Not exactly in the Alan B’Stard sense of the word, but the jibe is too good to miss. Then again, who knows…

The Definitive Guide to the Arbitrage Agreement Between Slovenia and Croatia, pt. 1

Since this is the hot topic in Slovenia at the moment, as well as since pengovsky was slacking lately, it is only fair to give you the low-down on the whole shebang and brings you up do speed on the issue. In (at least) two-part series 🙂

Croatia, as seen from Slovenia. The 200 metres in between constitute the disputed area.

The story so far

As you know, Slovenian Prime Minister Borut Pahor and his Croatian counterpart Jadranka Kosor signed the co-called Stockholm agreement, which ended months of Slovenian blockade of Croatian EU accession negotiations. The agreement itself sent sparks flying on both sides of the border, with Croatian and Slovenian opposition accusing their respective governments of selling out national interests to the other side.

After some serious political wrestling south of the border, Croatian parliament ratified the agreement with a required two-thirds majority upon which the ball was in Slovenian court and things started slowing down. First, the government of Borut Pahor, weakened by a series of more or less serious scandals and – combined with mounting burden of the economic crisis – becoming increasingly unpopular and painted as incompetent asked the Constitutional to rule on the constitutionality of the issue. The Court took its time, but in the end reached an overwhelming 8-1 decision saying that the agreement itself does not violate the constitution, as it sets forth a mechanism to decide on the maritime (and other disputed areas) of the border.

As the Arbitrage Agreement is “only” a bilateral agreement between two countries and not yet the actual decision on the border, Slovenian parliament ratified it with an ordinary majority. Naturally, this was done over vocal protest of the opposition, which claimed that a 2/3 majority is needed, given the sensitivity of the issue. But parliamentary Rules and Procedures are clear on the issue and a vote on the agreement was split down the coalition/opposition line.

Following the ratification, the government decided to call a referendum on the issue. Truth be told, the coalition at first mulled a preliminary (and non-binding) referendum which would have to take place prior to the vote in the parliament, but following a strong support by the Constitutional Court it backed down on its word, realizing that a consecutive (and legally binding) referendum would be called regardless. If not by the government, then by the opposition. After all it only needs 30 MP votes to demand a referendum. In the end 87 out of 90 MPs voted for holding a referendum on the issue. Well, actually there are 89 MPs at the moment, as Srečko Prijatelj of SNS is still in detention pending criminal charges 😀

And so the referendum is to be held on Sunday 6 June. Should it pass, the parliament would only have to find that the law on ratification of the Agreement was supported and that the agreement is ratified.

Junction

But the result of the referendum is far from being a foregone conclusion. Initial polls showed a marked support in favour of the agreement, which has been dropping slowly even since. This more or less corresponded with occurrence of another phenomenon: a huge increase in density of English language specialists per square metre in this country.

It all boiled down to one word: junction. Article 3, item b of the agreement says that one of the tasks of the ad-hoc arbitrage court is to decide junction of Slovene terrotirial waters to high seas. As the court will use an English version of the agreement as its roadmap, it should be next to irrelevant as to how exactly “junction” translates into either Slovenian or Croatian. Of course, it isn’t irrelevant and soon everybody and his brother was in the business of explaining the meaning of the word “junction” to everyone else, who naturally had their own competing theories.

But the bottom line is this: while the government and its supporters claim that “junction” means physical contact of Slovene territorial waters with the high sears, the opposition sees it differently and points out that there is no mention of “physical” contact and interprets the text as pre-empting any form of a direct contact with the high seas and limits Slovenia to a right of passage only.

High Treason, Historical Injustice and Greater Slovenia

In Slovenia opposition to the arbitrage agreement ranges from legal interpretations of the text, which invariably claim that the ad-hoc court will rule in favour of Croatia, i.e. will draw the border down the middle of the Bay of Piran, effectively limiting Slovenia to its insignificant pond of Adriatic Sea. But to prevent things to get too boring and scholarly, accusations of high treason, betrayal of national interests and collaboration with the occupator are being thrown in the supporters’ general direction.

The general claim – as demonstrated by SDS leader and former PM Janez Janša the other day – goes along the lines of Slovenia being constantly pushed around by foreign powers. After 1918, the argument goes, Slovenia lost parts of Carynthia. After 1945 we lost Trieste. After 1954, when the question of Free Trieste Territory was being settled, we lost Savudrija and parts of Istria. And now, we are willingly giving up what little we have left.

What the fuck!?

Exactly. Not only is the above sentiment historically incorrect, it also creates an unhealthy aura of Slovenia having territorial claims against its neighbours. And while one is always tempted to poke Italians with cries of “Trst je naš!” (Trieste is ours!), especially during football matches, it is beyond imagimation that Slovenia would try to “right the historical wrongs”, either by making demands against Austria and Italy, or by taking it out on Croatia.

You see, Slovenia never had Austrian Carynthia. It also never had Trieste and it never had Savudrija, much less entire Northern Istria. What it did have, was police jurisdiction over entire Bay of Piran, as well as spatial planning jurisdiction over four hamlets located on the disputed area around The River Dragonja estuary, at the mouth of the Bay of Piran. So, invoking 19th century rhetoric serves little purpose but to spread hate speech, historical fallacies not unlike those which fuelled the Balkan wars.

So, what’s the beef, for real?

Simple, actually. Slovenia claims to have access to high seas, both on the grounds that it is a seafaring nation as well as the fact that it had such access while it was a sovereign part of Yugoslavia. On the other hand, Croatia claims that it had always had a maritime border with Italy, since it had it as a part of Yugoslavia.

And since both countries draw continuity from the former federal state, they are technically both entitled to their claims, especially since there were no maritime borders between the republics of former Yugoslavia. But the geography of the Bay of Piran is such that using conventional approaches one of the parties in the dispute inevitably loses. Thus, an unorthodox solution is needed.

To find out what exactly was on the table, how we got here, why Arbitrage Agreement is better than many would have you believe and why others will rather gnaw their arm off then see it become a reality, tune in tomorrow 😀