Oslo Overboard

The Norway attacks of July 22, which killed over 76 people and left Oslo paralyzed,  makes me question everything I was ever taught about freedom and democracy.  Most people kill for those ideals, but Anders Behring Breivik, the gunman behind the attacks, killed because of them.

Far-right Breivik had some scary far-right views on immigration and the Islamicization of Europe. When he couldn't get his voice heard in the political arena--he was a member of Norway's far-right Progress Party--he resorted to violence. In cold blood, he detonated bombs in Oslo, and afterwards went on a shooting spree at a Norwegian Labour Party-run youth camp, in the island of Utoeya.

Somehow, in Breivik's mind (I refuse to call him Mr. Brievik. He doesn't deserve that respect) blowing up Oslo and killing children was the proper way to respond to his fear of Muslims and of Islamicization. His attack was aimed at the Labour Party, whic currently governs Norway, and which advocates liberal immigration policies.

He killed children. Made them beg for their lives. In this moment, I don't know who to hate: Breivik, the Muslim immigrants who supposedly caused him to do this, or both?

Immigration is a sticky subject in Europe. It is not as easy to immigrate and settle in Europe as it is in the States. I immigrated to America eleven years ago, and am so thankful that it was to the Land of the Melting Pot that I came. America, unlike Europe, is more of a settler country. Whereas each European country has its own language, customs, and history, tying its people together tightly, America has been and will be shaped by immigrant influences. But after 9/11, 7/7, the 2004 murder of Theo van Gogh, and the Madrid
train bombings, immigration is an even stickier subject. The topic of Muslim immigrants, especially, is problematic.

I inherently believe that immigrants need to assimilate into the culture and customs of their host country. It isn't fair to live there and enjoy its economic and political benefits, and not adopt its social benefits as well. It seems that many Muslim immigrants in Europe have done just that--but it is the small minority (as always) who refuses that causes problems. When they don't assimilate, they scare their European neighbours with their foreign-ness, which seems threatening to the Europeans neighbours' European-ness. (Identity struggles are already so exaggerated in Europe due to the formation of the transnational EU that this case would only make identity fears worse.)

And that leads to Islamophobia, which leads to hate--because humans can't help but hate what they fear. And so, we have the social conditions which create psychos like Breivik.

So who is to blame for the crisis in Norway? Who plunged Oslo overboard into a river of blood? Is it Breivik himself, who follows a sick tradition of terrorists who take action against the government, claiming to see the government as his enemy? (Cue memories of the Unabomber, bin Laden, etc.) Is it the Norwegian government, for allowing a lax immigration policy, when already there are identity issues to deal with? Or is it the few immigrants who cling to their status quo and refuse to assimilate, alienating themselves and breeding hate and fear?

There really isn't an answer, is there? To blame anyone but Breivik is to blame the liberal democratic values upon which most societies are built. Norway's freedom and openness didn't cause the terror attacks. But there are plenty of people ready to point fingers at Breivik's ideas: saying that Islamicization is the root of these problems, and immigration needs to be scaled back, or eliminated entirely.

An Italian MEP recently supported that latter statement. As did members from the English Defence League, and the National Front in France.

I don't understand it, all this Islamicization-immigration-terror-fueled ideology that both sides spew. Frankly, I fear it and despise it.Is Breivik right--are Muslim immigrants the root of the problem? (Reason: no. Mob psychology: maybe.) Do Muslim immigrants pose such a threat to democratic society; is Islam really incompatible with democracy? Has the other side resorted to terror now as well--opposing al-Qaeda and the Taliban are far-right individuals just as ready to bomb things and kill people?

I don't know what to believe. And honestly, I pity our generation: no other generation has been caught in an ideological war as ours has been, with no solid assurances from either side. All we have witnessed are the extremes. No middle ground has been identified. It's like there is a tacit belief that no middle ground can ever be created.

Scary. As scary as the fact that a lone Norwegian killed over 76 people and made kids beg for their lives, all while believing in a made-up threat.

I really want to believe in Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's statement that the Norwegian people will not waver from their values, that the response to Breivik's anti-democracy and anti-oppenness attacks will be more democracy and openness.

No matter what crazy people do, multiculturalism will NEVER die out. Because its death would mean the death of freedom and democracy, and as depraved as humans can be sometimes, those values will never, ever die out. Breivik and his cohorts achieved what you wanted--he made people think and scared the wits out of them--but his kind will never break humanity's faith in fundamental values. Get wrecked, Breivik.

A Not-Very-English Affair

British tabloid "News of the World" closed on July 7th, after 168 years of publication. The closure of this news paper is a sad day, indeed--both in terms of the end of a nearly two-centuries-long publication, and in the steep, seemingly irrevocable decline of journalsitic standards. But this is, in another view, far from the end: it is the beginning of a horror for the Murdochs. What seems like a one-off discovery incident leading to closure is actually a very complicated and torrid affair--not very English at all.

Phone-hacking allegations against the NoW go as far back as 2005, where it was first purported that Prince William's voicemail had been hacked into. That was the first bullet--several more followed, and NoW seemed adept at dodging them all by paying off angry claimants and bribing police officers. But it seems to have well and truly bit the bullet this go-around.

I, for one, am enthralled by how this story is coming out. An avid fan of "All the President's Men" (who couldn't be, with a dashing young Robert Redford?!) I always wondered how it'd be to have seen the events of the Watergate scandal slowly surface to the public. In a way, the NoW phone hacking scandal is the U.K.'s version of Watergate. Both scandals used the same subtext for their actions: the hunt for private information. Both scandals had very poweful, egotistical men at their apexes; Rupert Murdoch claimed that today, when he'd been brought in front of the Commons' Culture, Sport, and Media committee, was the most humble day of his life. Uh, duh. That's what happens when you sanction violations into people's privacy just to have juicy headlines and hefty pockets.

I don't buy any of the I-didn't-do-it-my-subordinates-did shtick. I fail to understand how someone as powerful as Rupert Murdoch would have been content to delegate such a major, consequential decision--to phone-hack or to not phone-hack--to anyone else. Nixon certainly knew of the Watergate tapes, and denied them with just as much conviction as Murdoch's denials hold.

The scandal is unfolding very juicily. As a spectator, I'm both excited and agitated. A slew of big names have resigned recently--including Sir Paul Stephenson, chief of Metropolitan Police; John Yates, Assistan Commissioner of the Met Police; and Rebekah Brooks, News International's Chief Executive. All these cause my eyebrows to go way, way into my hairline. Is there a conspiracy here--was Sir Paul being paid to not investigate NoW's actions in the past? (It's known that Ms. Brooks paid the police for information when NoW was under her editorship.) I just truly hope that these folks are denied their benefit packages. (Why else would they resign, I wonder, unless they wanted to avoid being stripped of dignity, power, and a bunch of money? Two out of three is bad enough.)

There is no doubt that Prime Minister David Cameron and his Parliament need to take action, now. This case should be made an example of, so few wish to ever attempt such a stupid thing. Isn't there some sort of journalistic code, or a clause in the Great Big Book of Rules of the World that journalistic malpractice leads to a hefty punishment, like a date with the guillotine or some sort? I definitely wanted that for the Watergate wimps after watching "President's Men."

Maybe this isn't the U.K.'s version of Watergate after all, though. Just a continuation of how each industry created manages to fall prey to its own greed and lust for power and basically implodes as a result of the disastrous decisions made in pursuit of those two. Watergate was the political manifestation; Enron the monetary manifestation; and NoW the informational manifestation.

Whatever the case, it's certain now that the Murdochs are between a rock and a hard place. How  they will worm themselves out of this remains to be seen. Keep your eyes and ears peeled. And don't watch FOX News. (It's controlled by News Corporation, which is owned by--you guessed it--Rupert Murdoch. They aren't airing coverage of this unfolding controversy.)

P.S. for anyone confused about exactly what the hell happened, go here. Gotta love the BBC.

Moments with Putin

Before you go any further, please note, I am not a: megalomaniac, Fascist, neo-Nazi, sadist, or psycho. But these are the words--or thoughts--people often conjure up when I tell them how much I admire Vladmir Putin.

Before you too go along and do it, you should let me give you some reasons as to why I love him. Firstly, being a leader does not necessarily mean being popular or liked--leaders make hard decisions, and I admire Putin for his ability to make said hard decisions (note how I never said "right" decisions.) After all, didn't Machiavelli announce to the leaders of the 14th-century world that it's good to be both feared and loved, but better to be feared alone than loved alone?

Putin certainly doesn't stir fear in the hearts of the Russian people the way Nicholas II might have. He is not a tsar, and I truly don't think that he plans to consolidate all of modern-day Russia into a modern-day tsardom under his leadership. Russia has always been an autocratic country. Putin's supposed tight-fisted control of Russian freedom is just that--supposed. According to the Hofstede Index, which measures a country's power distance, Russia has a whopping PDI of 93. In a high-PDI country, demonstration of authority is shown openly, and "politics is prone to totalitarianism" (source). The critics against Putin rail against him because they fail to understand two things: 1)  that the fall of Communism in Russia does not axe the prevailing cultural perceptions of power, and how it defines relationships amongst people (especially in politics), and 2) that a few short years in the Russian premiership and presidency cannot change the status quo quickly. This is Russia we're talking about--they held onto official fuedalism until the 1860s. Hardly the country to be pioneering new, cutting-edge social reforms and freedoms, no?

But the recent wave of globalization expects just that. Countries which are only now developing are expected, by their already-developed counterparts, to achieve the same standard of living and freedom that the already-developed countries have. We look at the BRICs today--of which Russia is part thanks to Putin's economic policies--and wonder why their citizens don't enjoy the same rights as citizens of the U.S. and the U.K. The answer is painfully simple: because they haven't had time. Globalization can achieve a lot of things quickly, it's true, but honest, lasting political and social reform will take more time than two prime ministerial terms to come about.

Then, there's the clincher: few people in Russia actually think Putin to be the freedom-devouring monster the West makes him out to be. In fact, in a YouTube interview, most Russians even said that Stalin--who truly was this monster--was necessary to help Russia move forward. Now imagine what Russians might say of Putin, who comes with much less ego and gulags (and, thankfully, also mustache-free.)

The point is, globalization places too much pressure on developing countries to achieve the status of already-developed countries. Obviously, it is the already-developed countries who place this pressure. These countries would do well to remember their own obstacles on the way to achieving the level of political freedom and the standard of living they currently enjoy. It was not an easy ride--so back off the BRICs, and back off Putin.

Why I Love the EU

Nothing makes a cosmopolitan nerd such as myself more giddy than the idea of integrating several countries to form a special region and giving it a cool name. No, seriously. The Eurozone is simply awesome (anything with the prefix Euro- is inherently simply awesome. Except for Eurotrash.) The European Union is simply awesome. I am not riding some blase wave of EUphoria (credit for that term goes to Prof. Folke Lindhaal). I know the EU has massive problems: issues with the Euro, historical and ethnic conflicts with fellow members, recent problems with immigration, etc. But despite it all, the mindframe and ideology behind the EU is a beautiful one, one that countries all around the world ought to be adopting in this globalizing age. Here's why the EU is awesome:

1. Border erosion. A professor of mine once remarked that, when driving from Belgium to the Netherlands, the only way he knew he'd arrived in the Netherlands was by noticing that the roads became a lot nicer. European countries share so much of the same history, cultures, and conflicts that integration with one another seems the next logical step. I don't mean to say that a giant European state ought to be created. But by integrating with one another, the states of Europe have a network of natural allies to lean on during hard times. And it makes travel within the EU so pain-free. Just flash your passport (or your Schengen visa) and off you go, to explore the vast Eurozone. This is taking the border between the U.S. and Canada and multiplying it by 17.

2. Common foreign policy. This one hasn't come out exactly the way the world thought it would, but I have no doubt that it is going to get there. Strength in numbers, people always told me. Having all the European countries on one page is going to make negotiations a lot easier--or trickier, depending on the side you want negotiations to fall on. After all the commotion Europe has been through: both World Wars, the Cold War and the "Iron Curtain," the Serbian crisis of the late 1990s, etc. common foreign and security policy can only benefit Europe. No more inner divisions. Common policy also means a better usage of resources: all countries will pour their resources one way, instead of having countries pour resources to counter one another's policies.

3. Transformationalist viewpoint. The EU is working towards an answer to that most important question: in a removed but ruling organization, how much sovereingty does a country keep?  This is England's beef with the EU (along with identity politics, but that's for later). The EU is attempting to show that a multi-national organization must and does allow room for individual member countries to run their states with little external influence. Save in times of crisis--such as intervening during a financial meltdown--EU policies have not really affected the individual countries of the Eurozone. Day to day affairs are still a country's own business. (No one from Strasbourg or Brussels came to Italy to tell bad boy Berlusconi to behave, or else, did they?) So globalization is possible, and everyone who is running around like a chicken without a head over the perception that states' roles have diminished can sew their chicken heads (or human heads) back on.

4. Gentrification. Ever noticed how we in America refer to Europe as, well, Europe, but they refer to America as...America? When we Americans say Europe, how many of us are actually thinking of eastern or central Europe? Point is, a lot of people have come to associate "Europe" with its high-power countries, like France, Italy, and Germany. When these countries join together and allow other potential countries to join in as well, a kind of gentrification process happens. Case in point, Turkey: it cleaned up, and continues to, so well for the chance of EU membership. Same with places like Romania or the Balkans. The EU's application process inadvertently spreads this spirit. It's bound to do more good than harm, but--as with everything else EU-related--the balance is a fine one.

All relationships take work. And the EU is no different. So let's have faith in it.

Crisis in the Cradle of Democracy

By Kaavya Ramesh, 6/29/11

Today, the Greek Parliament announced that it would adopt austerity measures in order to secure a 50 billion euro bailout ($72 billion) from the European Union. These measures include wage cuts, federal spending cuts, and privatization of government funds and industries.

As the discussion of EU bailouts grows louder and more heated, let's take a moment to look at the big picture. Should Greece even be using the euro? 

The European Union has four convergence criteria to determine whether a member nation should adopt the euro as its currency. If a member nation fails to meet any of these criteria, it cannot adopt the euro (this information credited to Steven J. Matusz, professor of economics at Michigan State University):

1. Price stability (all prospective adopters must have similar inflation rates).

2. Government finance (all prospective adopters have to have low government budget deficits and low national debt).

3. Exchange rate stability (prospective adopters had to have successfully fixed their exchange rates to one another for two years prior to adopting the euro).

4. Long-term interest rates (prospective adopters have to have similar levels of long-term interest rates).

Greece initially met these four criteria in order to begin adopting the euro at all...but are they continuing to meet them? Let's take a look.

1. Price stability

Greece seems to continue to meet this criterion. Looking at their Consumer Price Index, which measures overall prices in a country, the last Greek yearly inflation rate was 3.29%. This is relatively similar to Austria's inflation rate (3.19%), Belgium's inflation rate (3.35%), and Finland's inflation rate (3.31%).

2. Government finance

Greece certainly does not seem to meet this. The Greek government projects that by Fall 2011, the budget deficit will reach 17.1 billion euros ($24.4 billion). Additionally, at the end of 2010, Greek's national debt stood at a colossal 140% of its GDP. The Maastricht Treaty, which lays out the rules for adopting the euro, states that a country's total debt must be less than 60% of GDP. Greece is severely overstepping that boundary.

3. Exchange rate stability

Greece has already met this criterion. Because it is a one-time action (pegging the Greek currency to EU members' currencies before adopting the euro), it cannot be continually evaluated.

4. Long-term interest rates

Greece does not meet this criterion. The Greek long-term interest rate, last measured in May 2011, is 15.94. The country with the interest rate closest to Greece's is Ireland, with a rate of 10.64. By contrast, Belgium's rate (4.21), Germany's rate (3.06), and Austria's rate (3.53) are so far from the Greek rate that Greece should not be using the euro at all.

Conclusions: Greece does not continue to meet two of the four convergence criteria for using the euro. It's time to leave the eurozone.

The U.S. and the U.K.: Best Friends...but not for Life?

By Kaavya Ramesh, 5/26/11

Well, it seems that after Obama's visit to Jolly Old England, not all is well between the world's closest pair of friends. 

Far from painting each others' nails and watching chick flicks, the U.S. and the U.K. seem to seriously disagree about Palestinian statehood and action on Libya.

While the U.K. is contemplating endorsing Palestine's U.N. bid for statehood, the U.S. is worried that such action could potentially isolate Israel and demonstrate to the world that the two Western nations are not as close as they appear to be.

Additionally, while the Obama administration has taken a cautious and rhetorical approach to Libya, Cameron is contemplating escalating the air campaign on Qaddafi's forces. 

In terms of Israel, endorsing the Palestinian claim to statehood in the near future would hurt both the peace process and U.S. interests. Israel would never see the Palestinian bid as legitimate because they had no say in it. Rather than staying at the negotiating table, it is then likely that the two countries with competing claims on statehood for the same territory could find themselves embroiled in a nasty armed conflict...one that could potentially go nuclear. This is especially true if Israel pursues its feared "Samson Option," in which, in a use-it-or-lose-it sense, it detonates all of its nuclear weapons at once. 

This is why Britain needs to support the U.S. in backing off on endorsing Palestine's bid.

Libya is a bit more complicated. The Obama administration has certainly been ramping up its rhetoric in support of a democratic transition, but it hasn't done very much. If the U.S. doesn't join the U.K. in stepping up efforts to remove Qaddafi from power, the rebels who do end up taking over the country will have an excuse to hate the U.S. The benefits of inaction are not worth creating a new enemy in North Africa.

The U.S.-U.K. relationship is still likely to be the most unshakeable alliance in the world-- but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to try and align on some of the world's most dangerous security issues.