Interesting times

Last night I had a chat&drinks session with a French friend, and we were talking about different things going on in Europe these days. There wasn't a shortage of things to discuss. Toward the end of the conversation, we remarked in what a crazy time we live. It feels like we're on the precipice of something, particularly in Europe. Things are about to change, we speculated, and they could possibly go in extreme directions. It looks like we've all been victims of that old purported Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times." But to continue with the 'mangled cliches claiming to be proverbs theme', the Chinese character for crisis also means opportunity! Could the economic crisis lead to a strengthening of pan-European institutions, or could it just as easily lead to the disintegration of the entire EU project?
The topic that got us thinking in this direction was the unfolding story in the UK of ever-spreading strikes among industrial workers protesting the presence of foreign EU workers in the UK. The dispute started last week when British workers at an oil refinery in Lincolnshire walked out in protest at a contract to carry out work at the plant being awarded to an Italian firm, which then supplied Italian workers. Since then, the strikes have been spreading. Workers at neighboring plants have started walking out to show solidarity with the Lincolnshire plant workers. And now nuclear plant workers have joined the movement. The demonstrators are getting a lot of press, and when interviewed the leaders of the walk-outs all say that the plants are hiring "cheap foreign labour" to save money instead of hiring better-qualified British workers at home because they are more expensive. "British jobs for British workers" read the signs.

The assertions they're making, however, adon't exactly reflect reality. According to the refinery owner, a company called Total, the Italian workers are making the exact same wage that the British workers make. Additionally, not a single British worker lost their job as a result of the contract being awarded to the Italian firm. And of course as EU citizens, Italian workers have the exact same legal right to work in the UK as the British workers. And given that these Italian workers have received the same training that the British workers have, claiming that the British workers are better trained betrays more than a little Anglo arrogance.

Yet the issue has taken hold among the British public. The strikes are turning into the biggest labour unrest since the Thatcher government took on the labour unions in the 1980's. Gordon Brown has condemned the strikes, but they continue to expand (but not quite as fast as the media coverage of them is). Given that people in the UK are jittery already about the dire state of the British economy, which is predicted to be the worse affected by the global economic crisis, it's not surprising that people are on edge and looking for someone to blame. Obviously, foreigners are historically one of the first targets in such situations. But what is it that the striking workers want exactly? They're demanding that British companies shouldn't be able to consider foreign EU workers for jobs, but EU membership requires that EU citizens be able to work across borders. So are they calling for the UK to suddenly pull out of the EU?
This trend toward populist protest is hardly isolated to the UK. As the far-right in the UK has reported increased interest in recent months, last week's one-day strike in France demonstrated to many French politicians an alarming rise of the far-left. The demonstrators were venting their fury that as tens of thousands of Europeans lose their jobs, the bankers who got us into this mess are being bailed out by the national governments. Although the strike didn't grind France to a halt as the organisers had predicted, it really seems to have rattled the French government. The French communist movement is reporting that its ranks are growing fast and furiously. Across Europe, the far-left is sensing that their time may have come, particularly in countries like France where they are still a powerful force. According to the BBC, recent intelligence reports have picked up an "elevated threat" from European far-left activists, predicting a possible rebirth of the "violent extreme left."

Both of these groups are clearly not fans of the EU. The European far-right loathes it for taking away national sovereignty, and the far-left regards it as little more than a dismantling of labour protections for the benefit of big business. If either of these two forces become more powerful with the public, it would be bad news for the future of the European project.

At the same time, the changing economic reality could also have the effect of strengthening the EU. Many analysts are predicting that Ireland's dire economic woes will almost certainly mean that the re-vote on the Lisbon treaty will result in a 'yes' this time, as Irish voters lose confidence that the nation could go it alone if need be. European politicians may be able to use the current crisis to point out examples of how a strengthened EU would allow Europe to develop a fast, cohesive and effective response to such crisies in the future. Iceland is now working with Brussels to develop a fast-track process for them to join the EU and get into the Eurozone as quickly as possible in order to resolve their current crisis. And even in the UK, where debate about replacing the sterling with the euro has been dead in the water for years. discussion of the UK going onto the single currency has suddenly reignited as the pound plummets to historic lows.

So which way are things going to go? It's difficult to say now, and probably depends on who will be calling the shots over the next few years - the governments, or a panicked public. These are interesting times indeed.

Make money, not war

In vreme ce sotia primarului Moscovei cumpara cu 50 de milioane de lire a doua cladire ca marime din Londra - prima este resedinta Majestatii-Sale Elisabeth a ll-a - iar China are cea mai rapida crestere economica din istoria moderna, aproape ca te intrebi cine a castigat, de fapt, "razboiul rece".

Celebrul slogan al miscarii beat din anii '60, "make love, not war", vehiculat de boemii care-i ascultau la Woodstock pe Janis Joplin si Joe Cocker, pare sa se fi trasformat in epoca multipolara in "make money, not war" iar 'torpilele financiare" se dovedesc mai periculoase decat bomba cu neutroni.

Pentru natiunile vestice, pacea pare mai costitisitoare si mai complicata din unele unghiuri de vedere decat razboiul. De fapt, traim cea mai lunga epoca din istoria ultimului mileniu in care marile puteri nu se afla in stare de razboi una cu cealalta.

Istoria Europei este, citita intr-o anumita cheie, istoria prin care natiuni dominante - ca a fost vorba de Spania, Franta, Anglia, Turcia, Suedia, Olanda, Austria, Germania sau Rusia - au incercat, singure sau prin aliante deseori cu geometrii variabile, sa-si impuna dominatia asupra punctelor strategice prin forta militara. Puterea militara a fost fratele geaman indispensabil al celei economice: cine a avut-o pe prima, a cucerit-o si pe a doua.

Odata cu finalul "razboiului rece" - care, macar aparent, s-a incheiat cu un soi de capitulare fara conditii a lagarului socialist, urmat de dezintegrarea URSS - Comunitatile Europene (devenite astazi Uniunea Europeana) si-au permis cea mai consistenta extindere din scurta lor istorie iar Statele Unite ale Americii au devenit, de departe, cea mai formidabila forta militara pe care a cunoscut-o omenirea (America are un buget militar mai mare decat toate statele mentionate mai sus la un loc).

Momentul "Kodak" al Occidentului a fost intrerupt insa de cateva "detalii" care nu se numara in focoase nucleare.

De la chestiunea jugoslava a inceputului deceniului 9 si pana la actuala lupta impotriva terorismului international, politica occidentala a scos in evidenta falii grave intre pozitia unor state vest-europene si aceea a Statelor Unite ale Americii.

Tentativa americana de a diminua dependenta energetica a Vestului de energia ruseasca nu a dat nici un rezultat, iar tari ca Germania, Franta sau Italia au preferat, in cele din urma, sa incheie intelegeri pe cont propriu cu "Ursul Levantului", Rusia - este dificil sa vorbim astazi de o politica energetica comuna a UE. Disparitia pericolului militar rus a redus apetitul proamerican al unor tari Vestice.

La randul sau, UE se confrunta in interior cu propriile-i stafii: votul irlandez si, mai recent, cel polonez poate semnala nu doar o modificare de abordare in chestiuni externe ale politicii comunitare, ci si o posibila modificare interna de mentalitati, care ne face sa intram intr-o zona de imprevizibil.

Iar orice disesiune importanta in sinul Uniunii creeaza oportunitati de mutari tactice pentru o Rusie care si in perioada comunista a "cochetat" cu Franta si/sau Germania, socotiti potentiali aliati naturali.

Mai sunt putine zile pana ce la Beijing se va da startul Jocurilor Olimpice - un alt prilej pentru o China in plina explozie economica sa-si dovedeasca opulenta si puterea. De la proprietarul de firma de confectii din Italia si pana la cel de automobile din SUA, umbra Chinei se intinde amenintator nu prin forta batalioanelor in mars, ci a miliardelor de dolari adunate in conturile antreprenorilor care asculta de un centru unic de putere si care, incepand cu finele anilor '70, nu au mai traversat nici o criza economica (economiile vestice, inclusiv cea americana, au trecut prin cel putin patru-cinci zgaltiituri majore).

Asa ca daca la inceputul anilor '90 parea limpede cine a "castigat" razboiul rece, astazi intrebarea incepe sa comporte intrebari mai nuantate. Gazpromul este cea mai mare companie din lume iar "nationalismul energetic" este o arma letala pe care Rusia nu ezita sa o foloseasca din plin.

Ca si China, Rusia a acumulat imense rezerve in dolari si isi extinde rapid economia in toata lumea, cu o forta mult mai mare decat a facut-o oricand in perioada 1950-1990. Si in timp ce Rusia, China sau India par adevaratii mari castigatori ai globalizarii, manifestantii antimondializare se incapatineaza sa-si arunce rosiile spre Coca-Cola sau McDonald's: un alt punct marcat de cei mentionati.

Presedintele George W. Bush arata pumnul Iranului, insa autoritatile de la Teheran anunta fericite ca au mai descoperit un zacamint de titei de peste 1,1 de miliarde de barili. Uitati-va la bursa si vedeti cam despre citi bani vorbim.

Numai in ultimul an Iranul a castigat 60 de miliarde de dolari, fiind unul dintre marii profitori de pe urma cresterii preturilor pe plan mondial iar productia/extractia este in crestere. Mai mult, o potentiala "alianta anti-hegemonica" Rusia-China-Iran, pe care marele politolog american Zbigniew Brzezinski o considera "improbabila" in anii '90, nu mai pare astazi deloc exclusa.

Federatia Rusa face afaceri prospere cu Iranul si a rezolvat in aceste zile chestiunea istorica a frontierei cu China, frontiera pentru care a curs mult sange in a doua jumatate a secolului trecut.

Este poate pentru prima oara in istorie cand macar aparent vehicolul de putere (nu neaparat de conflict, cele doua notiuni netrebuind confundate) nu mai este cel religios - secole de-a randul a jucat rolul principal - sau cel ideologic (epoca razboiului rece) si intr-o mult mai mica masura cel militar (in Irak pacea este mult mai greu de gestionat decat conflictul militar in sine, care s-a redus la doua saptamini).

Vehicolul de influenta devine banul si pragmatismul economic iar forta militara nu mai insoteste in mod obligatoriu succesul economic. Sigur, nici una dintre puterile economice semnificative nu este derizorie din punct de vedere militar - cu exceptia Japoniei. Inca. Problema este ca noile "linii Maginot" se construiesc mai degraba din bancnote si nu din cazemate si tunuri.

Intr-o lume a conflictelor religioase s-au comis numeroase crime - chiar genocide - insa aceasta lume a nascut o morala menita sa "filtreze" cultul puterii. O lume a ideologiilor/doctrinelor a nascut extremisme de tipul fascismului sau bolsevismului, care au condus la exterminarea a zeci de milioane de oameni, dar au creat si un comportament etic, democratia, parlamentarismul si Carta Universala a Drepturilor Omului. O lume a banului nu a fost/este capabila sa produca o etica si, cu atat mai putin, o morala.

Este o lume a unui anumit tip de forte brute, netrecute prin filtrul niciunei convingeri. Bancherii se pot dovedi, in viitor, mai nemilosi decat batranii generali care secole de-a randul si-au condus batalioanele iar "sarjele" financiare pot lasa in urma lor mai multe victime decat cele de cavalerie de odinioara.