Few things make Europe's problems seem a long, long way away like 43° heat and fabulous wealth. But, as I walked along the seafront Corniche in Doha just 48 hours ago, I was thinking about just where Europe goes from here.
I was listening to a couple of thought-provoking podcast programmes on my ipod. First up there was an episode of (the ever-excellent) Peter Day's World of Business that looked at Japan's economic situation and asked whether it was waving or drowning. Noriko Hama argued that it was, as is widely believed, drowning, thanks to massive debts, deflation, insularity and demographic catastrophe.
Not so, argued Eamonn Fingleton. His reasoning made interesting listening to a European. He was dismissive of the problems associated with debt, and instead emphasised Japanese strengths, such as its ability to produce extremely high-spec products, making it clear that he
I recently spent a week in Azerbaijan, talking to local activists, experts and Baku-based diplomats about their views on the worsening human rights situation and what the EU could do about it. Many of these discussions were reminiscent of the tens of debates about yet another autocratic Eastern European country – Belarus. Sadly, most conclusions were similar too. Unless the EU expands its presence in Azerbaijan (and Belarus), it is unlikely to achieve most of its goals.
Of course, the situation in both states is different in a number of ways - Azerbaijan is an oil and gas rich Caspian republic far away from the EU’s borders. Belarus, on the other hand, borders three EU members. The regime in Minsk looks up to Moscow as its key partner and financier; engagement with the EU primarily serves to balance occasional pressure from Russia and gain additional funds. For its part, Baku’s
The chroniclers of the time say that Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address surprised everyone in its brevity. His predecessor on the platform, a well-known orator, took two hours to perform a speech of 13,000 words, all forgotten. But Lincoln’s 300 words, delivered in a few minutes, went down in history as containing a definition, in just 11 words, of what a democratic government must be.
That definition was “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” and is not just rhetoric. It is still there today, enshrined in Article 2 of the Constitution of the French Republic, which held its presidential elections on Sunday. Yes, the 1958 Constitution establishes Lincoln’s triple distinction, in the same terms, as the guiding principle of the Republic. Thanks to Lincoln, everyone has a simple yardstick to distinguish a government that is democratic from one that isn’t. Government of
Power can be exercised directly, by submitting an issue to a vote, or more subtly, by eliminating all discussion on a policy and its alternatives from public discourse. What is not talked about does not exist. This is why politicians devote so much energy to controlling the public agenda. This was the way things were in the EU with regard to austerity. But in less than a week the dykes have broken and we are awash in discussion. As with any sudden change, it is easier to explain it after the fact than to predict it before.
In the last two years many voices have been raised in favor of a change of strategy. Yet they always came to nothing. They failed mainly because the people these messages were addressed to might question the legitimacy of those who proposed a change of course. On the one hand, messages from across the Atlantic were rejected on the grounds that the US and the EU
The outcome of the French elections will have a significant impact on the future of austerity and growth in Europe - and the ‘Fiscal Compact’ has become a major topic in this context. As part of our Reinventing Europe project, Sebastian Dullien explains in more detail how the ‘Fiscal Compact’ actually shapes fiscal policy and austerity in Europe and argues that a meaningful 'Growth Compact' may provide the best way forward. Jose Ignacio Torreblanca seems to agree and says that it's time to say “basta” to the nonsense of austerity.
Ulrike Guerot does not think that Hollande is the ‘most dangerous man in Europe’. On the contrary, Hollande might be the right president to reform the French economy and reinvigorate Franco-German relations. Thomas Klau is also convinced that Europe should have no real reason to fear Hollande's victory.
Hollande and Merkel should launch an ambitious EU reform programme
Why the emerging special relationship matters for Europe
How will Taiwan’s relationship with China evolve?
Europe should take a more assertive approach to political reform in Jordan
China is facing a choice between regress and reform
Europe can help Burma reform, but its help must be gradual
An end to the bloodshed may necessitate talks with the regime
Putin's return: why Europe should prepare for a weaker Putin
The thinking behind Germany's unpopular approach to the crisis
How well did European foreign policy perform over the last year?
