The “West” tends to forget the fact that Islamic civilisation in Arab Andalusia was at its height many centuries before David Hume and John Locke, Diderot and Immanuel Kant wrote their epochal works.

For two centuries, Arab Andalusia was an incomparable centre of philosophical and scientific scholarship. Muslims, Jews and Christians held critical debates there on all sorts of issues, without fear of religious controversy. The Aristotelian tradition would probably have died out without their work. Dante and Nikolaus Cusanus, Giordano Bruno and Spinoza owe their Islamic teachers just as much as do modern astronomy, logic, optics, mathematics, medicine and not least poetry. As we all know, though, this heyday was not to last.

Hans Magnus Enzensberger

Perhaps one of the most important questions for the future of human society over the next few centuries can be phrased as follows: does the West represent the future of the Middle East, or does the Middle East represent the future of the West?

The modern technology and progress of the secular West and the backwards medieval societies of the Middle East are not static conditions. For centuries, the Islamic world was the center of history, scholarship, science, and religous tolerance, while the West was a rabble of feuding religious kingdoms where art and science were often labelled as heresies. Somehow, through the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, theological institutions lost their supremacy and eventually, a new age of development and discovery began. Meanwhile, the educated, multireligious societies of the Middle East slowly become poorer and degenerated into feuding factions where religious leaders called the shots. That is where things lie today.

The public debate on the topic of asking when will the Middle East modernize assumes the first half of my proposed question is the future—that the West’s enlightened rationalism will inevitably spread to all societies. We also tend to assume that the spread of knowledge, rationalism, technology and social growth would not come at our expense.

Yet is it not possible that, in the future, technological and economic innovation occurs in China, India, and the Middle East, making the West less relevant and poorer? And as the West becomes poorer, unitary religious authorities grow more powerful, such that centuries from now, Christian fundamentalists in the American interior call the shots in their provincial fiefdoms, while enlightened governments in the Middle East are the center of knowledge and power?

Sure, it sounds unlikely looking around the world today. It feels utterly impossible. But that’s essentially what happened to Western civilization about 1500 years ago, as a unified Roman Empire slowly broke up and shattered into countless waring kingdoms where the Pope in Rome manipulated the feuding kingdoms. And this view of the future was more generally discussed in The Illusion of the Progressive Trajectory, in which CA commenters overwhelmingly agreed with me that social progress is not an irreversible trend. What should we say of the benefits of the enlightenment? Which society will benefit in the future from secularism, science and technology?

When thinking about the Islamic world from the perspective of a Westerner, especially as I enjoy my oppulant lifestyle in Dubai and marvel how I live and work in an area that was a dry sand pit a decade ago, I find myself uncomfortable as I wonder to myself: do we represent their future, or do they represent ours?

As World War I came to a close, leaders from the Czech and Slovak ethnic nations of the dissolving Austria-Hungarian Empire met in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to discuss their collective future. They signed the Pittsburgh Agreement and established a unique framework for one state consisting of two equal nations, Slovakia and Czechia. This plan was later abandoned for a more unitary state that was centered in the Czech city of Prague and which was called Czechoslovakia, seen by many Slovaks as a move to a Czech-centric state that they opposed. The unhappy marriage between the two states nonetheless lasted for three generations (more or less) until a relatively clean divorce in 1992.

Today, it’s taken for granted that Czechoslovakia split apart in a bloodless division of territory. But the story is not quite so simple. When the communist government fell (through elections), the Czech half of the country was notably richer than Slovakia, further aggravated by a stark divide in the political culture between the two. As political parties emerged, the Czech parties had no presence in Slovakia and vice versa. After elections, the victorious Czech parties declared their support for a stronger, “viable” fedaration, or failing that, two independent states. The Slovak parties pushed for greater autonomy or possibly even independence. Ultimately, two men took the premiership in both halves of the federation, with the Czech public electing Václav Klaus, and the winner in Slovakia was Vladimír Mečiar, who headed an ethnic nationalist party.

At the time, it appeared that the two sides could have hammered out a compromise that would have led to a working federation, and the two sides entered into intense talks on the future of the country. It was then with a sudden interruption on 17 July 1992 that the Slovak Council, a democratically elected house of representatives, adopted the Declaration of independence of the Slovak Nation.

Exactly how this was introduced and adopted remains unclear, but it was followed by several days of uncertainty, as some analysts thought it was grandstanding or a power play. Yet six days later, Klaus and Mečiar emerged from meetings to announce that the parties had agreed to dissolve Czechoslovakia. There are multiple views on Klaus’ motives—on the one hand he said that he opposed dissolution, and even resigned as he refused to preside over the dissolution, but on the other hand, he agreed to the dissolution without a referendum, which many believe was to preserve his political power and to avoid losing influence and leadership in a compromise. As it happens, a September 1992 poll showed that only 37% of Slovaks and 36% of Czechs favored dissolution. Even so, the division of the country went ahead and became effective January 1, 1993.

The irony of this was that many peoples across Eurasia—Kurds, the Basque, Tibetans, and many more—want an independent state but can’t get it. The Slovaks recieved independence even though many of them didn’t want it.

What are the practical spects of splitting a state? After the two respective assemblies agreed to dissolution, the hard assets of the state such as military equipment and infrastructure were divided in the ratio 2 to 1, in line with the approximate ratio between the Czech and Slovak population. Most of the minor disputes that came up during the asset split were resolved without too much trouble.

The economic impact was manageable, although there were some problems with constructing a national border between what had previously been an open trade zone. Of course, these barriers came down a little more than a decade later when both countries joined the EU. Czechs hoped that dissolution would start an era of high growth as they would no longer have to sponsor the less developed Slovakia, while many Slovaks looked forward to being independent and unexploited. Both desires came true—the Czech Republic developed quickly and Slovakia has maintained very high rates of growth, and the GDP per capita margin is shrinking.

The old Czechoslovak currency, the Czechoslovak koruna, was used in both countries initially, but two national currencies were adopted on 8 February 1993, both called the koruna, which had an equal exchange rate at first but which slowly saw the Slovak koruna drop in value. Slovakia adopted the Euro on 1 January 2009; the Czech Republic continues to use the Czech koruna.

All in all, the lesson of the Velvet Divorce is that a country that agrees to break or allow territory to secede can do so relatively peacefully—all while maintaining political stability and high rates of economic growth. This could happen in the future, and in somewhere such as Europe, as Scotland and Wales casually discuss possible referendums to consider independence.

The EU and Japan are two major economic and political global powers today. But it’s no secret that, due to aging populations and the rise of BRICs and other competitors, their power will wane in the future. The Global Threats report sums up the situation in both regions as follows:

EU

Europe by 2025 will have made little progress toward achieving its current vision of becoming a cohesive, integrated, and influential global actor. It will be in a position to bolster political stability and democratization on Europe’s periphery by taking in additional new members in the Balkans, and perhaps Ukraine and Turkey. However, continued failure to convince skeptical publics of the benefits of deeper economic, political, and social integration and to grasp the nettle of a shrinking and aging population by enacting painful reforms could leave the EU a hobbled giant distracted by internal bickering and competing national agendas, and less able to translate its economic clout into global influence.

There are no easy fixes for Europe’s demographic deficits except likely cutbacks in health and retirement benefits, which most states have not begun to implement, or even to contemplate. Yet the drop-off in working-age populations will undermine Europe’s social welfare model. Progress on economic liberalization is likely to continue only in gradual steps until aging populations or prolonged economic stagnation force more dramatic changes—a crisis point that may not hit before some time in the next decade and might be pushed off even further.

Read the rest of this entry »

See previous posts regarding fun facts about the coldest inhabited regions of the world, such as France’s Icelands, Iceland’s bankruptcy, banks of seeds, and seeding arctic populations.

Tribalization and nationalism in the arctic continues! Following on the push for independence from Denmark by the Faroe Islands, Greenland this week voted with a supermajority of more than 75% to receive greater autonomy from Denmark. This may even lead to independence for this enormous island of just 56,000 people. With the approval of more than 3/4 voters, Greenland now has the sovereign right to take control of its security, system of justice, and police force.

Greenland scenery.

What is so bad about Denmark? Greenlanders elect two representatives who sit in the Danish parliament, so the region receives due political representation. The current primary export is fish, but Denmark provides a whopping half billion dollar grant for public services such as education and health care, so there is plenty of economic assistance. Locals may believe that independence promises a greater shares of profits from possible exports of oil, rubies, gold and diamonds—if they can ever convince anyone to invest the money to exploit these possible resources. But that’s a long way off. And who only knows how it would defend itself. (SIDENOTE: does anyone know if Greenland is within the US defense perimeter along with Iceland?)

Ultimately, this referendum comes down to tribalism and the phenomenon of arctic nationalism, the same factor that plays into Faroese identity, as noted previously. Greenland may be the sovereign territory of Denmark, but it shares little history with that nation. Up to 88% of the population is Inuit or mixed Danish and Inuit in ethnicy. Only 12% are of European descent. And Greenland explicitly chose to leave the European Community in 1985, just as the Faroese chose to opt out of EU membership.

Baron Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld was a Finnish geologist and explorer who was the first to chart the northeast passage across Eurasia in 1878. See the map here, and more information here and here.

Thanks to Dr. Russel Alfred Wallace for the background story.

Thanks to Chief Wiggum for the head’s up.

Treat this as suspect for the moment, as I’ve only found this article on it so far. But if true, it could be a major turn in Afghanistan.

Brown: Chinese may join Afghan mission

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced the possibility of Chinese forces joining the multinational coalition in Afghanistan. Brown told New York’s Council on Foreign Relations on Friday of China’s possible plans for deploying troops to the war-torn country, amid the worst fighting with insurgents since the US-led coalition invaded the country in 2001.

The premier said he expected more nations not currently involved in fighting to join the Afghan mission, comprised of 41 nations. All nations should “see this as the front line” in the battle against terrorism, Brown added. The NATO has called for additional forces, a demand supported by US President-elect Barack Obama, who said he would switch the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan through a phased withdrawal.

My initial thoughts are as follows: Why is Brown speaking for the Chinese? Are they using him to float the idea as a test balloon? And second, are the Chinese interested in supporting the War on Terror and OEF? Are they looking for an opportunity to become a “responsible stakeholder”? Or, are they interested in learning up close and personal how Western troops operate for any potential future conflict? Readers, your first reaction?

Libya is no longer listed as a sponsor of terrorism by the US, but don’t forget that Libya remains a dictatorship ruled at the pleasure of Moammar Gadhafi. Just Wednesday, Libya’s state-owned oil company Tamoil said that it stopped all crude deliveries to Switzerland. Libya supplies about a fifth of all the petroleum used in Switzerland.

The same thing happened in July. The reason? A dispute over the arrest of Hannibal Gadhafi, Moammar Gadhafi’s son, at a luxury hotel in Geneva on suspicion of beating two of his servants. Gadhafi Jr. was released on bail three days later and returned to Libya with his wife, but the episode prompted a series of diplomatic recriminations that included Libya recalling some of its diplomats from Switzerland, suspending the issuing of visas for Swiss citizens, reducing the number of flights to Switzerland and detaining two Swiss nationals. The two were later released on bail but ordered to stay in Libya.

Is Switzerland in trouble? Not quite.

“It’s annoying, but the delivery stop won’t cause fundamental problems for Switzerland’s oil supply,” said Rolf Hartl, managing director of the Swiss Petroleum Association, noting that Swiss petroleum buyers would switch to other suppliers if Tamoil runs out of stock.

“In the end it’s an economic own-goal because the only ones who suffer will be Tamoil, which is owned by Libya,” Hartl said. “Sooner or later all parties have an interest in returning to business as usual.”

Thanks to Dr. A. R. Wallace for passing on the AP story.

The Economist reports on the situation of Faiza M., a Moroccan woman who married a French citizen and moved with him back to France. She applied for citizenship and was rejected on the basis that she wore a burqa, a “radical practice” that is “incompatible with the essential values of the French community, and particularly with the principle of sexual equality.” One (female Algerian) official is quoted as saying “[The burqa] is not a religious sign but the visible sign of a totalitarian political project preaching sexual inequality.”

Get over it. The burqa is just a piece of cloth. It is clothing and it is not the state’s role to intervene into what type of clothing people wear. The motto of France since the French Revolution is: Liberté, égalité, fraternité. This decision makes a mockery of France’s “essential value” of liberty.

The sad thing is that Faiza M. only started wearing the burqa at the request of her husband when they arrived in France. As long as it is her choice, she should be able to wear whatever she likes. If, however, she is being forced to wear a certain kind of clothing against her will, then the state should step in to protect her personal freedom. Religion cannot be used as a shield. Legal and religious institutions are rightly separated, and a country’s laws are applicable to all citizens equally. Using religion to flout the laws is unacceptable, like the Muslim woman in Florida who refused to reveal her face for a driver’s license photo.

Finally, I would just like to stress that I am by no means a Muslim apologist. All faiths have their whackaloons. The bottom line is: I am a freedom-loving libertarian, and am willing to defend that position.

With questions about a two-tier system for NATO and concerns about certain members being unreliable or not sharing the burden, a ruling by the German Supreme Court comes as more bad news. The issue this time was the deployment of German AWACs along the Turkish border with Iraq in 2003. The article notes that:

Germany had sent its Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) planes at the request of its NATO ally, Turkey. Germany provided crews to man NATO planes that flew surveillance flights near Turkey’s southern border which were meant to protect Turkey against an Iraqi attack during the US-led invasion. Schroeder’s government described the 2003 deployment as a “routine” NATO operation.

However, although a NATO flight in conjunction with Turkey would seem fairly uncontroversial, there was a much deeper issue at hand for the Germans, the risk of war. The AWACS were sent to patrol the border and to be able to alert and direct Turkish fighter jets in the event of an attack by Iraq, most likely with missiles. And although the planes are unarmed and used solely for command and control purposes, the risk that they could have become involved in a war was real, according to the German Supreme Court. Therefore, the previous government of Gerhard Schröder, acted illegally and unconstitutionally by putting the German military in a situation in which it could have potentially been involved in armed conflict. Only the German parliament has the authority to do such.

Effects

First of all, this ruling puts the Chancellor on a much tighter leash that before and strengthens the German parliament. It does not however, affect any current operations such as in Afghanistan, Djibouti or Kosovo nor is it likely to cause trouble for any politicians who were involved in the decision at the time. Yet, it could complicate future decisions, mostly minor ones, and subject them to prevailing political whims which may in turn further damage Germany’s reputation as an ally of the United States and as a reliable NATO member. However, outsiders do need to retain a bit of perspective as the Germans, and indeed their form of government, is rather explicit in its intention to keep the majority of power in the hands of the elected representatives of parliament and prevent an overly strong executive branch from repeating World War Two.

On a related note, this is also bad if not fatal news for the CDU’s proposal to create a German NSC.

In 1871, the many German states, previously divided and often at odds with each other, were united under the leadership of Prussia and Otto von Bismarck. Europe had long consisted of a strong France in the west, a divided series of weak states in central Europe and a strong Russia to the East. A united Germany radically changed the situation and led to new instability and a tightening of alliances. From 1871 until 1945, Europe struggled to find a new balance of power with room for a strong Germany and while balance has now come to Europe, the Germans themselves are nevertheless still searching for their proper role in Europe and indeed the world.

It is for these reasons that a seemingly innocuous and in fact logical step like creating a national security council has again sparked debate among citizens and politicians alike. At the moment, Germany has a Bundessicherheitsrat* (Federal Security Council) which deals mainly with the exports of arms. It is very different from what American or British readers would imagine when hearing the name. Over the past few years though, with the changes in both the domestic and international security situation, debate has been ongoing about whether Germany needs a National Security Council based more on the American model for example.

In 1998, the Red-Green coalition government (SPD and Green Party) laid out their ideas of the Bundessicherheitsrat in their coalition contract. It envisioned that the Bundessicherheitsrat took on more responsibility than its previous one of merely overseeing weapons exports. In 1998, the Red-Green government of the SPD-Grüne somewhat expanded its role* insofar as giving more weight to the domestic situation in countries purchasing German weapons. Yet, despite the name, it is still a far cry from what other countries have. To begin with, a national security council

is usually an executive branch governmental body responsible for coordinating policy on national security issues and advising chief executives on matters related to national security. An NSC is often headed by a national security adviser and staffed with senior-level officials from military, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement and other governmental bodies.

Indeed, the US model for example consists of the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security adviser, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Director of National Intelligence, President’s Chief of Staff, Counsel and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. Included in the Director of National Intelligence are the 16 agencies in the US Intelligence Community both foreign (CIA, NSA, etc) and domestic (FBI, DEA etc). Hence, both internal and external security issues are discussed and coordinated. This stands in contrast to Germany’s current system for example.

In Germany however, no such coordinating and advisory body exists. It is with that, and the changing nature of threats, in mind that the Christian Democratic Union (CDU – center right) has proposed* creating a U.S. style NSC. The proposal notes that “In order to guarantee coherent and effective interagency work combining both domestic and foreign security, a national security council is necessary as a center for political analysis, coordination and decision making” (my translation). Among other things, it will help to coordinate Germany’s domestic agencies like the Verfassungsschutz and Bundeskriminalamt (like the FBI) with the German military and Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND). As Volker Kauder, Chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, noted, “Especially with the threat of global terrorism, it’s important to overcome the traditional boundaries between domestic and foreign security.” True enough, but that’s much easier said than done in post-WW2 Germany.

The proposal, under on and off discussion since 2004 and however logical to outsiders, deals with a very touchy. It has been subject to severe criticism by other parties like the SPD and FDP and has been met with skepticism by ordinary Germans. Remember, despite Germany’s previous military achievements in technology and fighting not to mention its world-renowned weapons manufacturers, Germany is still a country where only 62% of its men would fight to defend it and around 75% of the country thinks it is never acceptable to use violence to achieve important political goals. In fact, the German constitution explicitly states that no one can be forced to bear arms. It is with that in mind that critics say plans for an NSC must be done away with, that it is entirely unnecessary, that it could undermind Germany’s foreign policy and how much influence it would have on policy in relation to parliament. In addition, the opposition worries it would lead to more German military participation abroad and potentially use of the German army domestically (Germany has no national guard). Yet, Kauder and others ask about the increasing importance of energy security and “How should we react when China supports dictators to ensure access to raw materials?”

This Wednesday, May 7th, the CDU is holding a conference (English) to discuss their new 16 page Entwurf für eine Sicherheitsstrategie für Deutschland (Draft for a Security Strategy for Germany). The English description of the even is as follows:

Germany’s involvement in international peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan and in the Balkans is the result of the new role our country has assumed in international security policy. The growing threat of terrorist activity, nuclear proliferation, dependency on certain countries for energy and raw materials and the consequences of climate change demand a comprehensive overhaul of our security policy concept. Current debates about the deployment of Bundeswehr troops demonstrate the need to improve communication about Germany’s security policy to the general public. A broad-based debate on security policy needs to be generated at all levels of society in order to reach a general consensus, on the basis of threat analyses and discussions into the appropriate response. In May, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group will therefore present a draft security strategy for Germany that will analyze security threats both domestic and foreign, both military and non-military, and present appropriate security policy solutions.

Check back later in the week for an update and more discussion on a potential German NSC and the CDUs proposals.

* link in German