After thirteen long years, the European Commission has finally adopted a bill approving the use of four different genetically mutated (GM) crops, three of which are species of corn and one a species of potato. It has been a stubborn case; an example wherein many interests meet scepticism and fear, and where prejudices meet the power of science.

Vital in the discussion about GM crops is the question why we should grow them in the fist place. Many oversimplified answers are available. Some of these are familiar ones, like better resistance to drought, pests and stress. A more radical and innovative scientific feature is altered composition, shortly described as the addition of beneficial substances into the crops themselves, thereby replacing possible later (chemical) additions in the food production process.

This arouses fear in many people. That is not strange, as genetic mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell’s genome, which are best known to us thanks to world news about radiation and viruses. But there’s more: Think of ‘don’t mess with my food’ and Hollywood scenarios telling horrifying tales of mad scientists manipulating this world. And in a sense it is true that scientists manipulate what happens in the world, yet for very different reasons and with very different means. Some basic biology helps most people see the light.

In nature there is natural selection as a driving force of evolution. Leaving the broader discussion aside, it is reasonably safe to say that, when an organism develops a trait that makes it unsuited for survival – like for instance blindness – its chances of survival are slimmer than those of its rivals. The same works the other way around, meaning when a positive trait is developed. The familiar ‘human’ variant of this is called artificial selection. Most of us have encountered real-life examples of this: Dogs. They all share a same ancestor, namely wolves, yet their looks are astonishingly different. Many dog-lineages have been carefully ‘crafted’, meaning that sexual reproduction was carefully driven into a desired direction by excluding those that did not have either the looks or characters the breeders were looking for. This is the reason why some dogs have flat snouts, some are always fluffy and some have a body/paw ratio of 100:1. In other words, if you want to breed dogs with a long snout, you keep all those with the long-snout trait, while excluding all other gene pools that do not seem to favour your wishes.

Dogs are, however, certainly not the only example of artificial selection. Mankind has tried to steer nature’s course many, many times over. The relevant examples here are agricultural products. Grow wheat each year, harvest all, yet use in re-seeding only seeds from plants that produce most. If all goes as planned, the same amount of wheat will, in due course, produce more. There are limits to that process, and they are nature’s limits. Looked at from this perspective, genetic mutation is ‘just’ the next step, the step enabling mankind to overcome difficulties that nature alone is not able to solve, at least not in our lifespan. In practice it is much more difficult to grasp than artificial breeding, for as we know not all breeders have biological know-why and know-how, but ‘all’ those involved in the actual process of mutating crops certainly have. For, as the name implies, genetic mutation happens on gene-level. Unlike in normal natural circumstances, where reproduction is only possible if a creature’s DNA or genetic structure is related closely enough to allow it to happen, this makes cross-border transfer of genes possible (for instance from fungi to bacteria).

This means that the conventional technique of breeding, where existing genes are randomly rearranged, is left behind. Generally, it is not grievously wrong to say the genes code for DNA, and DNA codes for proteins (there are exceptions, but they’re irrelevant here).  As plants and creatures are very different in phenotype (appearance), you might expect major differences on the genotype level too. And in a sense there is, but the structure of genetic material is in many ways quite similar in different species. This has the advantage that it makes scientists better suited to identity (potentially) useful genes, which in turn can be used and implemented into genetic material by Genetic Engineers instead of making the genetic material a mere combination of two distinct parents.

This sounds rather attractive when you think of the implications this can have. Can you imagine crops much better suited for long droughts or for concluding when its spring (meaning grow-time)? And what about the dependence our crops have these days on chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides? ‘Biological agriculture’ – meaning agriculture by nature so without the chemical and fertilizers – has been thriving in Holland. People apparently are willing to pay a higher price if their food hasn’t been ‘infected’ by all sorts of post-seeding substances. If scientists and farmers get more freedom, albeit carefully watched freedom, then there is much territory left to be explored.

People, especially in Europe, are weary of the process, though. Some have religious reasons, stating that ‘it is God’s job do steer nature’. Luckily for us, most are sensible enough to go beyond that argument. Their other arguments don’t hold much sway, as they’re aimed mostly at safety. This might be another Hollywood left-over, creating unwilling minds when it comes to genetic mutation, or it might not be. Whatever the reason, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has rigorously assessed the now legal products, and not just once. Also, as already stated, GM crops have already been safely used over and over again in other countries. Fears that they might spread in our own national wildlife, creating havoc and destroying other species, have become common, though groundless, myths. First of all, most agricultural products aren’t grown at places where similar species grow, meaning gene flow isn’t possible. Second, the advantages of genetic mutations are aimed at reasonably controlled agricultural situations; hence the advantages are much less useful in nature. You might note here that bugs and other small creatures travelling along on our ships and aeroplanes do create just the havoc we seek to avoid: Nature itself is probably much more unsafe than are GM’s.

The former is not meant to be saying we shouldn’t be careful. On the contrary: A couple of decades of GM crops cannot be considered as something worthy of the label ‘long-term proof’. The demand for case-by-case studies then, in order to asses each GM crop on its merit instead of judging the whole scene at once, is certainly legitimate And that is only a good thing. A strict procedure aimed at both the safety of civilians as well as Mother Nature should not be neglected, but then again it never should have.

And there are reasons abound for introducing more GM crops, so there is no need so stick with a biologically framed vision. Equally pressing and mundane matters are waiting, and not exactly waiting in line. First of all there is shortage of food, on a global scale. In recent years it has led to a steady increase of average food prices, which has, as always, hit the poorest hardest. More production in Europe is unlikely to change a persisting lack of supply, but being more self-sufficient might lower demand and therefore prices.

A second reason is added value for farmers. They will be able to make their own choices, no longer being told whether or not to grow GM crops. As these mutated crops have advantages over their natural ‘predecessors’, they might also improve the European market compared to countries which started using them long ago such as China, India, USA and Brazil. In the last decade more and more farmers opted for GM crops, both in richer, developed nations as in those less well off. How many of us are inclined to ascribe that process to randomness rather than to apparently serious practical advantages? Relevance can be found too in the area of energy and environment. Crops needing less water or other post-seeding activities demand less of our resources, which is something well in-line with the European Union’s long-term ambitions.

The last and most profound ‘argument’ is not scientific but about science: A wide-spread consensus that the advantages are great, the dangers much less so. The European Commission has (finally) done something pragmatic, something that overcame prejudice. Not that I would stress blind faith in ‘science’, but the reports, examples and needs are too numerous to leave these plans in ruins. Hunger is still our enemy, not difficult innovation.

Those against genetically mutated crops should raise several questions. Not the least of those is whether or not they would ponder over its acceptability if they were starving themselves. That is a staggeringly easy question to answer I think, but we need to remind ourselves of its power. Let our brains do the work, are GM’s will keep on paving the way, despite opposition.

Another crucial phase for Iraq’s future has passed. How does one sum up the March 7^th parliamentary elections? Not with a one-liner.

Starting with voter turn-out estimates, said to lay around 62%. To some that figure is a disappointment, especially in comparison with Iraq’s previous election. Nevertheless, the share of people eligible to vote that actually showed up is  larger than during Britain’s last election, however. “So what”, you might reply. Well, Britain wasn’t plagued by bombs set off by mobile phones and other, sadly more effective, acts of terrorism.

Seen from that perspective, one can easily understand how right US president Obama was in stating that he had “great respect for the millions of Iraqis who refused to be deterred by acts of violence, and who exercised their right to vote.” Because that is after all what happened: Even for ‘modernized’ democratic states, 62% is not a bad number.

The inevitably question is: What will happen next? Official results will probably not be available for a month and a government coalition isn’t anywhere in sight even if results make their public debut sooner than that. And, unlike in previous years, politics are now at the center stage by being Iraq’s biggest obstacle for a better future. If reasons for invading are cast aside, it is to Mr. Bush’s credit that security has improved greatly. His final attempt to secure life in the Arab state has been reasonably successful. Training too has worked out well, as more than a million people are now wearing uniforms in Iraq. Paying public sector workers already accounts for about a fifth of the total budget (and it is also the reason why unemployment rate isn’t causing heart attacks).

Despite that there is no denying the many deaths each month: It is not quite yet a ’safe haven’.  Last week’s elections – i.e. the government coalition eventually to to result from it – will only be proven useful if sectarianism can be overcome,  and that cannot be taken for granted, as it will mean that Sunni Muslims, who held power during Saddam’s reign, need to accept they will not have most of the power, and on the other hand that Shia Muslims need to realize that they cannot and should not abuse their majority.

Where in America’s senate 60 is the magic number, Iraq’s legislative chamber requires 163 for a majority in the legislative upper house. It is very, very unclear who will be part of it. The Iraqi National Alliance, a fierce Shia group (though leaning less on Iran than its rival the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq), is said to have done well, but Arab pride is growing too as shown by the rise (in admittedly notoriously unreliable Iraqi polls) of the Iraqi National Movement, led by Mr. Allawi.  He relied on a more secular –hence in this case less sectarian – way of campaigning, quite different from the Iranian tradition and theocracy, which is anyway much more Persian than Arab.

A split coalition is, I think, the safest bet. Kurdish involvement is expected by many, and that would be a good thing if one desires a representative government. And while they might not be the largest ethnic group, their numbers are great enough to ensure possibilities of filling in a vital role in the formation of a coalition. Another good candidate to participate therein is Shia party Dawa – led by the current Prime Minster Maliki – both thanks to his (expected) good performance in the elections, as well as the options he holds in steering the current policies of his country that might influence future agreements (and disagreements).

In the meantime an issue re-enters the scene, one that was thought to be dead: The withdrawal of American troops. The deadline approaches.  If the Iraqi government makes a request to the White House that some troops need to remain on their soil for a longer period, than Obama should give in, which means breaking an electoral promise.

The reason is simple. After spending hundreds of billions of dollars in a war nobody likes, we finally arrived at a stage where not all seems to have been done for nothing. Saddam is gone, Iraq is free and more secure, and has a lot of economic potential. But, in order to make sure those prospects and achievements are protected, security is essential. Being free on paper while still running the risk of being blown up whenever you stick your nose out of the front door is not a true form of being free. It is like having the freedom to think about criticizing the Kremlin, while KGB-idiots are looking for any expressions that might betray those thoughts, only to turn those into the full penalty of law.

All we can do now is wait for the results to lead to a long, bumpy road. That road is essential in more than just the respect of the latest elections; it is also a test of the durability of Iraq’s democracy. Let us hope for the best.

Sometimes you read and not much seems to happen in your brain. You seem to just passively interpret and, with a bit of luck, store the information. In my case an example of that would be Colonel Gaddafi’s Jihad against Switzerland.

Thanks to much negative publicity most people are familiar with the term ‘Jihad’. Acquaintance, not knowledge, is a characteristic of this type of familiarity, as the most likely translation you will have encountered is ‘holy war’. Not that it is outright wrong to call Jihad a holy war, it just isn’t enough. Jihad is much more than just warfare against unbelievers (or kaafir, non-Muslims), it is ‘an effort’, generally aimed at ‘God’s cause’.

This made me think about what Libya’s Colonel did.  His words about Switzerland certainly carried a rather offensive tone, and they came from the mouth of someone not quite suited to call for Jihad anyway. I even wonder to what extent the whole concept can still be used, as it carries an intimate relation to ‘them’ and ‘us’, as expressed by the terms ‘daar al-harb’ and ‘daar al-islam’ respectively.

I am not about to lecture any one of you in Islam, thanks to both a lack of time and knowledge. Besides, there are many books available already. Even someone like me, however, is able to spot a difficulty. Whenever Jihad was called for in the past, it happened via religious authorities, i.e. Islamic scholars. Members of these high-ranks achieved their status via a long route of education. The Colonel does not, to my awareness, hold any such position. This is a trend that has become more prominent in the past decades: Rather than relying on old traditions and the presumably knowledgeable scholars these produced, more radicalized organizations and/or persons started to take matters into their own hands.

The question is not, in this case, whether or not this accords with Islamic ways. Very few people care about the Colonel’s message anyway, as most of it is aimed at bolstering his own image (from what I’m able to tell, the only reason he has for spreading the Jihad message is that it’ll picture him as one of the very few that is able to stand up against the Swiss’ minaret ban). The question is whether any ‘holy war’ to any other country is even remotely Islamic.

Being an atheist, I have no reason or driving force that makes me want to defend Islam at all, but we should get the facts as clear as we can. And Jihad is something in need of further filling in: It aims at making an effort’ that supports or is in accordance with ‘God’s case’. What, however, is that? I’d say first and foremost being a good Muslim. This is something much more personal and much more acceptable too, as it can be achieved by striving for justice, responsibility and other values much more common and explicit in Western traditions. There is also another sense to ‘Jihad’, one which is encountered in the old law-traditions of Islam. By being tied to expansion and defense of territories, easily explained by accumulation of land in the early years of Islam, it is much more hooked-up with violence and warfare.

The expansive drifts of nations or churches in the ‘Dark Ages’ are not new to anyone; defensive tendencies might be. Arab countries which were Muslim states could negotiate a peace treaty with non-Muslim states, for whatever reasons, for a ten year time-span (after which re-negotiations were prescribed). These were based on the difference I mentioned earlier on: ‘daar al-harb’ and ‘daar al-islam’, meaning places that weren’t yet Islamic (‘houses of war’) and places where Islam already prevailed (‘house of Islam’). Muslims define themselves by an ‘us’ that is not tied to any geographical location, ethnicity or race, however.

Their religion (made up by the Quran, Hadieth, Sharia etc) is what binds them, so this means that any Jihad against any other country will necessarily involve other Muslims too, as they are spread throughout the world. Why rally if living the life of a Muslim is possible in Switzerland, not despite but because of such a wide rule of law? It is ironic therefore that minarets became banned as a result of their image that spoke of a violent ideology and an irrational, intolerant religion, and that the only reaction the Colonel could come up with was exactly that.

For an ideology to work the means are exclusion, the end is war. For a Muslim the end is to serve God, the means are to live well. Most of our values are not that different, even if our norms are. There’s a whole lot of distance to be covered before democracy and Islam go hand in hand, despite many examples that it is certainly possible, but we should not paint the picture solely in black.

Some politicians often cross lines themselves, and position themselves outside the borderlines of rational conversation. Some do not. One who clearly does not is ‘our’ president, Herman van Rompuy.

An outstanding way of showing just how indecent and insulting even a British citizen can be, normally known for the superstition of being polite and well-mannered instead of being an outright idiot, was provided by Nigel Farage. Before reading on, I’d suggest you watch the following small clip hosted on YouTube:

Farage insulting van Rompuy

“You have the charisma of a damp rag”

Most attention intuitively goes towards the obvious insults phrased by Nigel Farage, a Member of European Parliament (MEP) for the United Kingdome Independence Party (UKIP). What drove him in stating these things?

We’ll take a look at – for EU views – less relevant reasons. He’s walking the road towards national UK elections, and his awful version of charisma helps him to find the spot light, draw attention to himself and blame everything and everyone, as politicians and people just like to do in less pleasing economical times. And, as the Guardian phrased quite nicely, because “being rude about foreigners is what comes naturally.”

As these are for the most part forces aiming for more power after the next elections in England, they don’t hold much sway for Eurocrats. It is probably Tory leader David Cameron we will have to deal with in the years to come, which is nearly as bad for Brussels’ spirit anyway.  Farage did stress some valid points though, even if in a manner beyond all acceptable norms. Take his words on filling in the presidency:

We were told that when we had a president, we’d see a giant global political figure, a man who would be the political leader for 500 million people, the man that would represent all of us all of us on the world stage, the man whose job was so important that of course you’re paid more than President [Barack] Obama.”

Hardly anyone sees van Rompuy as their president in any comparable way as to how US citizens view Obama as theirs. Comparing political powers is equally ridiculous, as Obama is active on the world scene and clearly a political heavy weight regardless of his qualities. I think both he and van Rompuy are able, capable politicians, but that does little to change or boost the Belgian EU’s president’s status.

We can add to that the fact that Obama is a democratically elected president, despite flaws of the American system which many think has an inherent capability to turn into a ‘pig circus’ thanks to splendid personal attacks by politicians and incapable ‘Fox-news’ reporters labelling Obama as a communist. How can van Rompuy become a global pioneer in big issues? The Lisbon-treaty might have been aimed at more democratic institutions and transparency, yet it failed to do so by making Euro/bureaucrats choose the president, pay him extravagantly, come up with two vague foreign-affair positions and gave the parliament more powers without taking more efforts to hook it up with the people it ought to represent.

The Greek argument

Farage also fired away by bringing Greece into the ‘conversation’. A real death eater these days: Financially ruined, unpopular and regarded as pretty much untrustworthy. Allowing Greece to enter the Euro zone turned out to be a huge mistake, as creative accounting, financially suicidal tendencies and a huge debt have now proven. Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, is reluctant to give financial hand-outs, as she says it is incompatible with her demands towards her own citizens. But will she and France’s Sarkozy have a choice? Plans to spend thirty billion Euros on Greece government bonds are already echoing in the hallways. Rumour has it that the shared currency that has no national union to rely upon is crumbling.

That is not true. People underestimate the general willingness of European politicians to make the Euro a success. Yes, there are numerous disagreements between all sides on many issues. The Euro, however, is not one of them. The costs it would bring along if it failed and a new, old currency would have to be re-instated would be tremendous, far outdoing any government bail-out in the current situation.

Still, the Euro should be carefully watched. If Greece manages to get out of its self created and styled mess, than that would be one hell of an achievement. Even now, with the grave state their financial system is in – among other things thanks to irrational spending, early pensions and a dysfunctional tax system – protests keep popping up everywhere. You would think citizens knew it to be in their own best interests to cut spending, albeit on the long term. And then there are still the other members of the PIIGS to watch out for, though Ireland is setting a good example.

A fine and future

Making Europe more popular won’t work by extending its sphere of influence to municipalities. It will only happen when it takes firm grip on large issues concerning crime, infrastructure, research & development, global politics, ethical guidelines etcetera. Pragmatics, not more theories and rules, is the best bet if our goal is a better, cheaper and more popular Europe.

What we should not forget here is that national governments helped just as hard to obscure successes as Brussels’ own centralized way of going about. The more reluctant we get to hand over some of our autonomy, the less likely things are to run smooth. We can, for instance, agree to make crossing borders go more swiftly, yet we have seen over the past decades that taking them away achieved most.

They took a small step forward with the Lisbon-treaty, but they will have to work hard to overturn the tone of scepticism, which is one of the driving forces creating a sphere in which people like Farage are going wild as anyone that watched the above clip will probably have noticed. That is not how politics is done; it is not how politics should be done. Mutual respect, even if critical to the bone, is a prerequisite.

As you can read on Farage´s Twitter account, `Freedom of speech is expensive in Brussels´, as he got fined 2.980 Euros (the maximum amount for insulting our president). No doubt he will appeal without results. Without giving this man any credit for doing so, some reflection from the side of Europe is needed. This does not mean overturning or editing the already ratified Lisbon-treaty, but it does mean something more is needed, the least of which could be a readable and accessible essay that deals with the president’s task, salary, future and indirect way of designation. He is, after all, paid with tax-revenues. Saying journalism ought to justify political-institutional choices is just too easy.

March third municipal elections were held in the Netherlands. After the recent fall of our government, the general prognosis was that ring winged, libertarian parties would do well, while those belonging to the camp traditionally labeled as left were expected to lose some power.

This was not widely off mark. The two largest shareholders of the former cabinet -  Christian Democrats (CDA) and Labor (PvdA)- were waiting for a showdown wherein we could see whom would receive the blame for both the cabinet’s fall, as well as unpopular crisis management and a general pessimistic mood when it comes to political decisiveness.

As soon as you start taking a look at the broader picture, however, there is as much a general trend as there is wide-spread disagreement. The Christian Democrats and Labor both lost quite a lot of seats, but the first is still the third largest party in vote count (nearly 15%), and largest when it comes to total seat numbers (1463), while the latter is still the largest party in the Netherlands with 15,8% of total votes. Labor did badly in comparison to 2006, but as soon as you compare their performance to the European elections it was not bad.

Libertarian parties, of which VVD and D66 are considered to be prominent ones, did reasonably well too, with 1,8% and 5,4% increases respectively (in comparison to 2006 figures).  Most noteworthy, maybe, is the popularity of the so called ‘Municipal Interests’ (Gemeente Belangen): Count all their seats, and they are by far the most powerful, though of course their aims are specifically tied to municipalities and without their name little remains of a common core binding them to any ‘political wing’ (note that his is pragmatic, and not at all a bad thing).

Most interest was aimed at Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom (PVV). Several newspaper reports drew my attention, especially foreign ones for their bold statements that ‘extreme right wingers are on the rise’. No such thing has happened, at least not generally. The Christian Democrats are centre right, while Labor is considered to be leaning towards the left, if not outright left.  And they are two of the three largest parties. The two cities where the PVV did run for elections were The Hague and Almere: Their results were good, becoming second in The Hague, first in Almere.  Noteworthy is that Labor still has the largest share in The Hague.

Libertarians did well, as I already stated. Yet that is not the same as ‘rising extreme right’, as neither VVD nor D66 share such outlooks when it comes to issues of integration and immigration. One could consider VVD as a right-wing party, no doubt, but hardly extreme. D66 is the self-labeled party ‘of pragmatists’, admired or despised for their intellectual, education minded philosophy while stressing language, social conditions and respect as solutions for integration problems rather than the harsh, sometimes painful, words of Wilders.

This is not to deny the performance by Wilders’ and his, as rumor has it, carefully selected politicians. But all in all we ought to look at the facts. And the facts tell us just two municipalities where his freedom party PVV entered the fray. There his score was excellent.  Sadly for some bitter minds, the limit of his scope also means the limit of the extreme right, so you could easily shed light on the elections in a totally different way by looking at, for instance, Utrecht, where ‘Green Left’ (Groen Links) was victorious. That drew my attention, as a party on the left became the biggest despite recent major problems in involving clashes of ethnic groups (you could try and explain this away by non-native votes or something like it, only by missing my point).

As elections were held all over the country, it is impossible to sum up all the data while also getting to a decent conclusion. Even with the numbers we have used here, I still don’t think it is possible to do it. That is simply because some parties have lost in accordance with prior beliefs and expectations. We all knew the PVV was popular in some parts and for obvious reasons, but their ideas aren’t as one sides as the press often depicts it. Wilders is experienced, knows how political business works and will do all he can to put that to good use.

And calculation is of vital importance these days. How can we tie the results to conclusions? Sometimes left wingers did well, even better than several years ago, sometimes they did reasonable well by simply maintaining a prominent share of power, and sometimes they failed. Wherever one party failed, another one took off. There is no trend that cannot be defied by comparing cross-municipal elections. To actually be able to spot a general trend means waiting till June, when parliamentary elections will take stage again.

America’s defense plans suddenly look a lot less cowardly than they did last year when it was announced that the anti-missile plans in Poland and the Czech Republic would not go through after all. It seems Obama was serious when he stressed his rejection of the choice between ideals and safety, as plans have been announced to place anti-missile defense shields in Poland and Romania, with a possible additional spot in Bulgaria. More strain, then, on the already plagued relation between Russia and the US, despite the fact that the official aim is guarding Europe for the Iranian and North-Korean threats.

It was clear that the global heavyweight had no intention of leaving its NATO allies completely unprotected, as plans on the drawing boards involved defense systems relying on ships in the Baltic Sea. Not many expected a program extension, however, that would ensure the building of additional anti-missile bases in Poland and Romania by 2015. The latter might get one on a smaller scale, involving two short-to-medium-range interceptors, but the agreement -propelled by US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher- probably surprised the Americans as much as the rest of the world. Not because everyone was convinced that Romania’s loyalty was reserved for the Kremlin, but because their willingness for swift cooperation was such that matters were settled within weeks. Parliamentary approval is now the last step that could block this deal, but few expected this to cause problems.

After Bush, with his annoying way of practicing international politics, Obama was a relief with his more relativistic and pragmatic approaches. Accusations of ‘going too soft’ seemed to have reached him now too, as he clearly steers into a bumpy road by getting the US closer to Russia in a way that no one in the Kremlin can appreciate. In a futile attempt to do undo some public relation damage, Romania’s president Traian Basescu’s made it actually even more obvious with his words of wisdom:

“The new system is not against Russia. I want to categorically stress this, Romani does not host a system against Russia, but against other threats” (Source: Al-Jazeera).

The question is not whether or not he is sincere; the question is whether anyone in the former communist command centre will see this is as words of comfort or words of confirmation. The old American defense plans lead to a lot of Russian resistance by imposing serious limits to Russia’s policy of ‘nuclear deterrence’, or indeed they just didn’t like the thought of having America’s fists so close to home-land.

In practice Russian reasons are misguided, both politically and maybe historically. As we’re talking about defense anti-missile shields, aimed at securing NATO-members from mainly Iran’s potential weaponry, there is no threat to the state itself. The only thing it potentially cannot do is attack Europe. The Bulgarian anti-missiles at least would not be able to intercept Russian missiles crossing the Arctic, as they are both slower and have lesser reach than those proposed by Bush. Even if the same could not be said of those to be stationed in Poland, America still has anti-missile defense systems waiting to do their masters biding on their own soil.

The political game is obvious: A cold-war relic, they just do not want this -what they see as sign of-American influences anywhere near their borderlines. Partly because they claim to have an historical agreement on their side, dating back to and making possible the German reunification, that forbids stationing bases in ex-communist states in Eastern Europe.  If true, it turns this policy into a clear violation. The Americans vehemently keep denying ever such an agreement was made.

To make matters worse, Bulgaria seems disappointed to have been passed: They too, seemed hopeful for a deal. And why shouldn’t they? No one buys the shocks of politicians, as they at least could have seen it coming. A missile base might display the American flag, but it will surely be a magnificent stimulus to local economies by demand for labor, supplies, services and, maybe, enduring profitable knowledge?

There is another, not yet here mentioned, possible reason as to why America decided to go into talks with Romania. It is actually a persuasive one as well. For quite some time the West has patiently been negotiating with Iran to try and get it to open up their agenda by letting in foreign officials who could check and report about Iran’s nuclear facilities and goals. It has been a pain; that much is obvious. If it weren’t for Russia and China, economic sanctions would have happened long ago. The latter is a stubborn on: China turns a blind eye to any misdoings, preferring not to interfere with any country’s internal affairs, thereby enabling it to usurp as much financial profit as it can. Russia, however, does care about foreign politics and its sphere of influence. By starting talks with Romania, something of which the Kremlin was well aware, the Americans hoped to drag Russia along in imposing sanctions on Iran, thereby making the anti-missile policy superfluous for its current purpose. That has failed. Russia did not take the bite, if it even was one.

It won’t make any difference anymore, however. The arguments from Russia’s side speak with the voice of pride more than of that of reason. With  a changing political and military scene worldwide, it might even be a prudent decision to take some precautions on safety, though it does strike as odd that it is again the US carrying the burden, not the ‘self baptized new world leaders from Europe’.

Nature is fact, leading to descriptive and explanatory accounts, while morality concerns values and norms. So in an often heard fallacy evolution is somehow tied to ethical randomness.  How do we tie what is good to some objective standard? Is everything allowed, now that ‘there is no God in which to ground morality’?

Well of course not. That would imply there never was, nor ever will be a standard, however subjective it might be, for ethical behaviour, which is plainly wrong from my point of view. That statement won’t solve our problems of course, so we will try a little harder.

Keeping philosophical jargon out as much as I can, it is best to start at an easy place. Many will have heard of it before, yet I often encounter people being flabbergasted by it when the principle crosses their paths in discussion. It is the difference between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, or in pragmatic terms, a fact and norm. It is very easy to grasp this by examples from nature. When, for instance, elderly creatures die because they are less apt for survival, then that is a factual statement, prone to verification or falsification. If it turns out to be correct, what does this tell us? Well, it tells us that older creatures tend to die, duh. This then, is the ´is´ that is not an ´ought´. If you haven’t already recognized the difficulty, then you will be able to now by turning it into a normative statement. ´Elderly organisms tend to die more quickly in nature, this means that they ought to die, as it is only natural`.

Anyone that has an old grandma will protest, or at least I hope they would. But this is, exactly, what it is to turn a factual statement into a normative one. Absolutely not-done in philosophy, although more complicated counter examples have started to arise, but prone to pop up in normal conversation every now and then. If you are inclined, after the grandma example, to deny this, then consider another example.

Paedophiles. Not many people like to have them as a neighbour, especially not when children are around. When they abuse children people are often outraged, and with good reason. When discussing what to do with these people, who clearly have a functional disorder in their brain– that is to say, they are ill and need treatment, not simply punishment- things get a little messy. Most tend to make a swift u-bend and demand punishments, which neither cures victim nor perpetrator. As soon as I start arguing that these people can have a hard time themselves too -by living in a society where their needs are tabooed- I run into wall. “Nonsense, these people are crazy.”

Now if we regress, plunge into the depths and take a closer look at all the arguments, I always keep something in the back of my mind: You cannot punish someone for something he or she cannot help or for which they are not responsible. This does not mean paedophiles may run free, it means they have rights too. At these moments people often frustratingly turn their heads to a last resort “that it is just unnatural”. And there we have it, a natural thing that became a norm.

Is it informative, does it help us here? I don’t think it does. “Look”, you might say, “there are no grown up lions trying to make love with cubs.” That is probably correct, so in the case of lions it is unnatural to have sex with whelps. Does that mean they are not allowed to? You tell me. Paedophiles again: They either are what nature made of them, what society made of them or some mix in between. In the first case the unnatural argument already stopped working, in the second other people are as much to blame as the paedophiles themselves and the third is a bit more ambiguous, but the blame is not all credited to the person’s own fault. These things are very important. From a societal perspective it might be a good solution to simply lock them up,  but from a judicial perspective it is not correct to punish misbehaviour driven by uncontrollable forces.  It is telling, I think, that even in extreme cases like these there are examples in nature where children are involved in sex with adults. There are even monkeys who have sex with ‘children’ to arrange social relations and hierarchy, so unnatural, in the strict sense, will already have been deflated.

My attention was turned to paedophiles for a reason. As I said, and I hope you agree, it shows just how easy it is to condemn an act without thinking it through, sometimes just because it feels wrong. It has been done before on many occasions, as people desperately sought for objective moral grounds, so don’t worry. Here are some other examples, some of which are almost humorous.

Let’s start with the West’s beloved Socrates who demonstrated to his contemporaries the difficulties involved in attempting to assign the gods as the source of morality. He left us the question “is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Whether philosophically inclined or just quick witted, it’ll lead you to a difficulty. When it is pious because it is loved by the Gods, morality becomes arbitrary: It’ll mean that when they decide that killing kittens is pious, it’ll make it a good thing to do, which is clearly counter intuitive. If you choose the other option, it logically implies some other reason that the pious is good, because apparently the God’s also use that reason.

Another example is Aquinas, a rightly famous Christian. He, sadly, deduced norms from nature, which doesn’t work as we already saw. Innovative as he was, he also tried it from a teleological perspective. This takes a different route, but it ends up where we stopped earlier: Something is perceived in nature, and therefore it is right. Take the human eye and nose. They have a clearly perceived function for most of us. If you were to ask, “for what do you use your eye”,  the question would  almost appear to be inappropriate. Well, for seeing maybe? Likewise with the nose, only then for smelling, and perhaps, breathing. There are many more of these examples, many having apparently easy answers, such as what the heart, lungs and ears are for. The problem is that they are pretty clear cut cases on first sight, but what if you push a little further?

What would you do if you risked your eyes drying out, making them dysfunctional? You would see a doctor, I suppose. Even if you wouldn’t, I still imagine you will, just for the sake of argument. Now, the eyelash seems to hold a proper relation to the eye in making sure it keeps functioning. So my inclination is that it is a natural function of the eyelash to keep your eye healthy. That is a descriptive statement or an explanatory one at best. If we walk the path laid down to us by Aquinas, batting your eyelash to impress someone across the street will therefore be an immoral act.

Are there any other ways out? Going for another optional route in stating that ‘nature almost universally tends to function in that way’ -which you could see in this case as the equivalent of saying that certain things almost always work in a certain way, via a certain route and sometimes towards a certain goal-, won’t bring us anywhere. One simple example to illustrate this: Most people are right handed. That logically excludes the possibility that most people are left handed, provided we read ‘or’ as ‘implying only one option’. Does this mean that, because most are right, being left handed is an act of immorality? The judgment is yours to make.

The basis of the actuality of moral standards

The forgoing was almost entirely couched in negativity meaning my objective was to defuse some of the issues that invariably arise in any discussion of ethics thus denying them the opportunity to obscure our vision or to block any further fruitful discourse on these matters. We’ll turn now toward a more positive, more actual instantiation of morality that will presumably provide a framework wherein I will not argue for decisive rules that ought to be followed, but rather one that demonstrates why being an atheist does not deprive an individual of an ethical paradigm.

Surprisingly, it brings us back to an aspect of nature. After all the deflation, it is time to give nature some credit for the qualities with which we are bestowed. The most relevant one is, without a single doubt, language.  Having an ethical code, let alone adhering to one, is virtually impossible without an ability to use and turn to language, as reflection needs a vehicle.

As there are many different languages, subtracting things that are present in all of them is an unlikely and immensely complicated way of gaining results. Gladly, there are better ways. The foundation of a language is important here. Languages are not prone to individual changes, they are large systems guided by rules. Changes of meaning can therefore only be achieved via acceptance and recognition by more than one person.

You might say: Well I am able to rephrase this sentence or re-examine the meaning of this word. You still won’t have moved even an inch, as language’s syntax –grammar or structure- held you firm in place. This fact, the very simple observation that language is bound by rules and therefore non-random, together with semantics (meaning), creates a collective body enabling you to communicate and pass on intelligible information. In this the reason for the impossibility of a private language is hidden: A private language knows no rules but those of your will; content, structure and meaning can be changed to your liking. Ask why those things are necessary for a language and I will turn to Wittgenstein by replying: “That is what it means to be a language”. (And there is no denying that, unless you are able to go beyond your own cultural horizon, which will need reflection, and guess what you need in order to reflect?)

My indebtedness to Wittgenstein is great here, as he demonstrated not only the omnipresence of meaning in language, but also a refutation of scepticism. Scepticism requires language to express itself, but to refute itself as well, hence it presupposes what it tries to falsify or deny. This also means that language is, in a certain way, something objective, something you can use to build with or on. It might not prove reality beyond all doubt, but it is ‘as solid as a rock’ for human standards.

The good thing is that language, by its semantics, is meaningful. Being meaningful, it carries value in the widest sense of the word. Don’t think metaphysics; remember Husserl who said (transl.) ‘Go back the things themselves’, in a similar fashion Wittgenstein said ‘Don’t think, look!’. This means something very simple. Concepts such as ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ and ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’ are part of the system. Can you strictly define them? I couldn’t, and I dare say you cannot either. Still, you do grasp their meaning. You grasp their meaning because you know how to use them, you know when either one of them can be applied to a situation in reality, precisely because they became what they are via a route that ties them to the horizons of our lives.

If this sounds vague, then let me explain. There is nothing that makes ‘good’ an objective thing, or better: there is not a Platonic essence of ‘goodness’. If you encounter something, judge it to be ‘good’ and ask yourself ‘why ‘:  What will you seek? Reasons or essence? They are not the same. You know something to be good, because you have been raised and taught, acquired and mastered a language in a culture that you made your own, came to be a creature capable of reflection and independent thought: This is what makes you yourself able to judge, because you have a standard that is both your own, and that of your culture.

This implies something: Sharing aspects is not the same as sharing everything. Being embedded in a culture, then, still leads to misunderstanding. There is room for discussing things, thanks to a common language, but there will remain things on which you cannot come to agree (republicans versus democrats, for instance). The jump towards ethical relevance is nearly there, because, on those things we agree to disagree, it is most often our norms, not our values that ensure pluralism.

By now you’ll understand, I hope –or I’ll have failed abysmally-, that ethics is not something beyond our lives. If nothing was new to your brains, then I regret wasting your time, but then you might as well read the rest. My conclusion of this paragraph draws precisely on the fact that, though meaning is not strictly definable, it is here. Remember that it is part of a (language and cultural) tradition, a process of learning, constantly being redefined, subtracted off and added to. Everything then, is not permitted, or at least not in our world. If anyone thinks this is not true, try to murder in our world and see what happens: You’ll be locked up. Why? Because you attacked our system, the system we live in and came to see as justified, true and worthy of consent.

An attack on cultural relativism; ‘why we can be good, after all’

So morality and language share as close a relation as anything. As there are so many languages, do they all lead to different codes and standards? If so, are we confined to live in a world of relativism?

To the first question, I am inclined to nod. Yes, there are many languages; yes these lead to different codes of behaviour. I left out the most crucial question, however: Do these lead to different values? To that, I vigorously shake my head. ‘Naturally’, it is possible that people might live differently from what we are used to, and therefore come up with a system so tellingly anti-us, that nothing seems to be able to explain it away, and it some cases people might even have very different values, but these, I think, are exceptions and no need whatsoever to think morals and ethics are a waste of our time, by never being able to live up to any objective standard.

To prove my point, I’ll use some rather extreme examples. Extreme example are well able to shed light on normal issues, as both I and another greatness of the 20^th century share as an outlook (Austin, a British philosopher of language. The use of ‘another greatness’ refers to Wittgenstein. Don’t confuse my imperfect reference for arrogance).  Two examples are hopefully enough: Ritual sacrifice and reincarnation.

A ritual sacrifice is not something that is generally considered to be inherently valuable, as it is tied to a set of ‘ought’ beliefs. It describes or prescribes what must happen. Think of several reasons why rape as a ritual sacrifice must happen, such as ‘it pleases the Gods’, ‘it makes the Gods less angry’ or ‘the Gods are bored with normal politics’. Whatever you come up with, you will see it is not a value that is being denounced.

Not being denounced? What could be more gruesome than rape? Not much springs to mind to give a satisfying answer. And it needn’t. It is the norm that is revolting, not the value. Gods that like rape scenes repel us, no doubt. What about the people who practice these rituals? At first thought, they too would suffer the fate of our displeasure. But what makes them do it? Pleasing the Gods: The very same thing Christians profess to do when attending church and Muslims when practicing Salaat. Westerns burned witches in ‘the middle or dark ages’, as they were ‘devilish’. We don’t agree with that, but we all understand what drove them: Their religious beliefs, their loyalty to God, and surely their ignorance. That is what you get when God is the ground for morality: Everything is allowed, as long as God likes it. It is not evolution that makes this world random, dangerous and immoral here.

One more example, before I’ll call it a day: Reincarnation. Some people are very, very reluctant to kill earthworms. This would strike many of us as odd. They make such good baits for fishing!

Does this mean -or do those people believe- that earthworms are valuable, precious creatures? No, it does not. There is another belief backing their supposed love for earthworms. Those people love their relatives, and they believe that those of them that died could, or even might have, come back as earthworms. So the value here is (for instance): You don’t kill or harm those you love. Taking it a step further, this will imply a norm: You don’t kill or harm any earthworms.

A meaningful world

The notion that gives morality actual input is tied to the world we live in, I feel like I have said it a dozen times (maybe I have). Values are much more universal than we they are, especially when we encounter strange, unfamiliar cultures. Surely you can come up with many counter examples that put heavy strain on my point of view, from cannibals to devil adherents. You would even have me on your side, but that is not the point. The point is that we now have a reasonably objective platform from which we can judge not just our own standards, without those of others as well.  And isn’t that a lovely fact?

Isn’t it a good thing to know we, not just religious people, can be moral? You might wonder why nothing was written on evolution in here. The most notable and well-known scientific theory on earth, perhaps, yet that would irritate as many readers as it would please. The paradigm of science tells us all about evolution, and we would do well to look beyond evolution, which is after all a realm of facts not of norms. All the stories about our endowments with a social nature are very plausible to my mind, even if they aren’t to yours. These would explain why we are social, why we reason and why we care about morals, but they would not justify them, as we now know.

To end this article neat and clean, I would have to present a nice summary and conclusion, but if you are a good reader you will have had enough; enough to know that all is well.

Last week the United Nations officially made a request to the Dutch government to lengthen their stay in Afghan province Uruzgan. However much the CDA (Christian Democracts) would like to fulfil that demand, it would take a miracle to make it happen.
Especially Labour (abbreviated for purposes of clarity, the actual name is ‘Partij van de Arbeid) refuses to let go of the last agreement, in which a withdrawal was scheduled to take place in August 2010. Despite requests from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen, they have made it very clear that they will not give in.

Most readily to spring to mind are new elections, to be held within a time span of three months. The current coalition was one where forces were constantly pulling the others in a direction unwanted from ideological perspectives. This lead to socialists labelling government as asocial, while right-wingers couldn’t resist stressing the lack of libertarian principles. And in a way that was correct. Health care hung in between by having some active market principles in stock -while other more crucial ones were left out-, education received too little attention and the number of policemen rose, but was unequally spread over districts.

There is an easier way to summarize the past three years under Balkenende, however. When looking at voter preferences, most are driven towards the right, even though the crisis is ‘said to have come from the right’. The more Labour blunders, the more liberals thrive. As I see it, that is a satisfactory explanation of both why libertarians are doing well in the polls, as well as why CDA is losing yet still likely to end up in the next coalition. Perception is the key word here, and for many it tells a story where the Christian Democrats were held back by especially Labour and to a lesser extent the Christian Union (the other coalition partner). And as a centre right party, much of what CDA aspires to is still attracting voters.

Then there is the stance they took in the last debates culminating in the coalition’s end. It was one of openness, one where all alternatives were regarded as worthy of attention, even if by instinct all knew that they planned on supporting the NATO by staying in Uruzgan. Wouter Bos, Labour’s party leader, was the exact opposite: No doubt about it, by the end of 2010 all Dutch troops would be gone from Afghanistan. Polls suggest most people agree that we ought to leave, and as past promises spoke clearly along the same line much could be said for Bos’ position. But, as often, there are two sides to a coin. CDA had more to go on that blind faith in America, or indeed a history of trailing the NATO. Ben Bot, who is a former UN-diplomat and minister, says that Holland is making a fool of itself by wasting their carefully crafted image on the international scene: “It isn’t about what you have done; it is about what you are doing”.

The aim of his argument is international influence. You can’t, being as small as the Netherlands, demand to be heard and listened to, while neglecting those tasks that grant exactly these privileges. There is some truth to his message. The Netherlands would have never received the praise it had from Clinton if no participation took place, let alone that Fogh Rasmussen would have labelled their work in Uruzgan as ‘the standard’ for all countries. Their chances of receiving invitations to G-tops now seem to be slim, as are any visits or phone calls to high ranked US officials. That is, if we are to believe the pessimistic scenarios. That is not the question, however. The question is whether or not achieving a better reputation is enough to justify lengthening a stay in an already unpopular war.

On the whole, I would say it is not. It is an odd thing to perceive so much talk about what is in our interest, while the most important request of all gets so little attention: The one made by the governor of Uruzgan. Not because Afghan politics is reliable, by all standards it is not, but because he governs on a level that has actual input to the lives of Afghans (unlike president Karzai). Being part of a representative democracy, we had a choice: A war, or no war? The same cannot be said of the people living in the region where our troops are located. Instead of focusing on what is in our best interest, we should be focusing on why we are there. If that cause is still a legitimate one, then we ought not to leave. And are we to leave, then another will have to take over. Canada might be a candidate, though whichever country it is, it will have to start from scratch. Rebuilding bases, trust and connections takes valuable time and money.

Labour is right that NATO could have prepared itself for a take-over for a long time. That it did not is wholly its own fault. Once again, perception becomes a keyword here. I don’t think that they for a moment considered the fact we would leave, while most of our allies were either staying well put or increasing troop numbers. Confusion is omnipresent at the UN when it comes to another strange way of handling matters, for it is not their usual way of working to make an official request as long as no clear consensus seems to have been reached, as these are internal affairs. The UN wasn’t trying to grab hold of the last straw either, it send out its wish for a prolonging of Dutch presence because the Dutch government itself cleared the way for them to do so, by implying it had reached consensus. Bos was outraged by Verhagen’s statement (foreign affairs), but later admitted he had been kept up to date. In any case, cabinet negotiations had more go on with this request in the back of their minds. Meanwhile, the UN apparently assumed it had all been settled; why else pave the way for an official request?

Sadly for the Christian Democrats, not to mention the Afghan civilians, the prevailing point of view seems to be that the west’s own economic crisis and other internal problems are hard enough to cope with without a war in the Middle East to fight. And CDA might have sympathizers, they lack actual allies. Meaning it is not only very unlikely that their mission will continue after the already set deadline, but now virtually impossible as a missionary cabinet will not get a say on the issue. The only hope for NATO is a rapid election, with a super majority in favour of the Afghan war, which would amount to saying all American republicans suddenly started voting for government run healthcare scheme.

Last week the United Nations officially made a request to the Dutch government to lengthen their stay in Afghan province Uruzgan. However much the Christian Democrats (CDA) would like to fulfil that demand, each day that passes makes this less likely to happen.

Especially Labour Party (Partij van de Arbeid) refuses to let go of the last agreement, in which a withdrawal was scheduled to take place in August 2010. Despite requests from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen, they have made it very clear that they will not give in.

Ben Bot, who is a former UN-diplomat and minister, says that Holland is making a fool of itself by wasting their carefully crafted image on the international scene: “It isn’t about what you have done; it is about what you are doing”. The aim of his argument is international influence. You can’t, being as small as the Netherlands, demand to be heard and listened to, while neglecting those tasks that grant exactly these privileges.

There is some truth to his message. The Netherlands would have never received the praise it had from Clinton if no participation took place, let alone that Fogh Rasmussen would have labelled their work in Uruzgan as ‘the standard’ for all countries. That is not the question, however. The question is whether or not achieving a better reputation is enough to justify lengthening a stay in an already unpopular war.

On the whole, I would say it is not. It is an odd thing to perceive so much talk about what is in our interest, while the most important request of all gets so little attention: The one made by the governor of Uruzgan. Not because Afghan politics is reliable, by all standards it is not, but because he governs on a level that has actual input to the lives of Afghans (unlike president Karzai).

Being part of a representative democracy, we had a choice: A war, or no war? The same cannot be said of the people living in the region where our troops are located. Instead of focusing on what is in our best interest, we should be focusing on why we are there. If that cause is still a legitimate one, then we ought not to leave. And are we to leave, then another will have to take over. Canada might be a candidate, though whichever country it is, it will have to start from scratch. Rebuilding bases, trust and connections takes valuable time and money.

Sadly for the Christian Democrats, the prevailing point of view seems to be that the west’s own economic crisis and other internal problems are hard enough to cope with without a war in the Middle East to fight. And they might have sympathizers, but they lack actual allies.

With the euro as its currency, Greece is facing a booming deficit and a looming crackdown. These are Europe’s problems almost as much as they are Greece’s.

Before countries signed up to the Euro there were many skeptics. A currency without a political union to back it simply would not work, or so the claim went. And no, the European Union is not, in practice, something you can call a union. Diverging national interests and voting preferences have made that goal unachievable for the time being. Even so, in due course most became pretty sure the skeptics have been proven wrong. The Euro has become a stronghold, a trusted monetary unit.

Then the all too familiar crisis hit the banks. The banks were bailed out, the economy got stimulus injections like never before, and all was well. Or almost. All was not entirely well. Governments were stuck with huge debts and soaring deficits, and much doubts remains what will happen when governments put a halt on their flow of money to keep the market’s engine running smoothly.  Western nations, even those with high debts – are there still any with low debts?-, would do wise to keep spending level up in 2010, postponing cuts until 2011. The reason is simple: Cut spending or raise taxes too soon, and your economy might slump back into recession (Japan in the 90’s is the classical example here, but America did something similar in the 30’s). Fiscal austerity might be a good thing, though not if this means killing valuable growth, which greatly exceeds an extra year of debt in value.

There is one particular example where the former lines just do not hold, and it is called Greece. Glorified as its past of the ‘Poleis’ might be, it now has little left to boost about. They hoodwinked the European Union into believing it was suitable not just to join the EU, but to share in its currency too. Even after shifting some blame towards Brussels for its naïve idealism, it is still bad, as damage has been done to Greece’s trustworthiness and the EU’s credibility.

In the past weeks ministers from all EU members states gathered to discuss what should happen next. Proposals made by the plagued nation to cut its deficit have been scrutinized and were good enough only for a lukewarm welcome. Do not underestimate the sheer size of the task: Bringing back double digit deficit numbers to below 3%, which is the maximum allowed by official EU guidelines, is no small feat. When eyeing Greece’s Prime Minister Papandreou and other MP’s I would almost start thinking they don’t even want to take harsh measures. And that is probably correct: Protests -albeit unconvincing ones- pop up regularly, and steps that have a negative impact on the lives of citizens’ are rarely popular.

The only thing that makes matters a lot easier is that they just don’t have any choice. Greece must cut, or it will eventually have to default, which is not an option within the Euro zone. A first step must be raising taxes. Not just by increasing percentages tied to the level of income, also by improving the tax system itself. As it now stands it is as transparent as a barrel of oil; and a duck and cover game makes many able to evade paying their taxes. Another sound step would be to increase pension age. Current retirement-age average lies around 58 years. The new aim will probably be set at 63 years. Compared to a country like the Netherlands -where a fixed 65-year pension age will probably become 67 by 2020- even that could be considered as too generous.

As outlined earlier, it won’t be all up to Greece what happens next. A shared currency also means shared responsibilities and risks. So the question this week was: Will Brussels (i.e. Germany) subsidize Greece? The answer seems to be negative, which is very positive. We should be very unwilling to do that, indeed. Not just will it be unfair to those who have played the game by the rules, it might also set an example that relaxes stances towards a healthy financial balance. An argument that runs along the lines that ‘banks were bailed out, why not a nation’ is not very persuasive. The stakes are too high, all have known for a long time that mismanagement was fashionable and no politician will let Greece get away autonomously after it had happened.

The slippery slope argument of ‘not setting an example’ is hard to pin down as legitimate or not. After all, why should nations ruin their financial system just because they can get away with it? High burdens in the future and preventing to have to take unpopular decisions, maybe, but failure would be devastating. Perhaps -with Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland in tight spots- it is not so much making sure countries aren’t sickening their own economies any further with a subconscious feeling of getting away with it, but makings them aware that fiscal prudence must be strived for immediately, and in the long term as well.

The name IMF (International Monetary Fund) is already echoing in the hallways. This Washington based institute has much experience when it comes to rigorous handling of financial problems and an image bolstered by the recent crisis. For a European country it would be seen as humiliation to ask the IMF for help, though what other choices are there? The alternative would be for the EU to set up its own equivalent of the IMF, but that would cost time and money, plus create bureaucracy, while the IMF is already set to go.  Besides, would it be any less humiliating?

At this moment, taken on the whole, it is not a bad thing that the Euro went down a bit. Its value hovers just below $1,40, which is not worrisome. As the value drops, export becomes more rewarding and attractive, stimulating the economy. This must be prevented on a longer time scale, as a cheap Euro will make importing products more expensive and that could lead to more inflation.  Brussels will no doubt therefore closely monitor the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain). Greece already got a new deadline of one more month to come up with a decent (read: better) plan. I have no idea how they intend to use their precious time. I would urge them not to label anything as taboo, while seriously considering letting in an outsider such as the IMF, which can bring along a more objective viewpoint, leading to long-term stability rather than short-term wishful thinking. After all, a debt of more than 100% of GDP does not exactly radiate a bright light.

If Greece embraces neither IMF nor comes up with a satisfactory plan, then we might, for the very first time, need continental interference in national politics. The Eurocrats will love it.