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.

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.

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’.

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.

Iran is a trouble(d) country, a place where women are oppressed and do not enjoy the equality as many grew so accustomed to. Its reign is one of terror, its fist made of iron and patience is running low. Ahmadinejad is considered a recalcitrant and extremely provocative leader who can only do well in the eyes of those who hate ‘Western Capitalism’, such as Venezuela’s leader Hugo Chavez.

While women are oppressed, they are also the spearheads of forces steering towards a revolution. My knowledge is not great enough to tell whether or not one is coming any time soon, but I certainly hope so. There is a reason why women are said to be so active in the protests: They have most to gain.

Change is what is needed on many fronts. China and Russia are still holding the west back in imposing sanctions on Iran. You might ask, why not walk the path on your own? And that would be a relevant question. The USA fought the war in Iraq without UN support, but they’re unwilling to impose economical sanctions on Iran, just because China does not want this. It is as ridiculous as it sounds. Even the people of Iran -who are being told over and over again that everything wrong can be attributed to the west-, realize this is an inadequate explanation or justification of their lives of fear. You cannot criticize religious institutions, you cannot criticize the government.

China has a ‘hands-off’ approach along the lines of ‘don’t meddle with our internal affairs, and we won’t even bother to ask you questions on the most simple of things’. This is easy, as they themselves are as corrupt, vicious and unrighteous. In the meantime Iran is setting course to become a nuclear power, which is why actions taken by the UN and USA are so absurd. Though I am no fan of Israeli policies in general, their devotion to secure their existence and freedom via fierce military action can teach us a lot. In the 80’s they acted swiftly when Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear reactor. If they feel endangered, they attack. If Israel knew it would succeed, then I am convinced they would have destroyed each and every one of Iran’s nuclear sites.

My suggestion is not going to war, not at all. There are many ways to get what you want, and politics combined with economics can lead to persuasive results. Fact is that our policies were too soft for too long, which means words and deeds must now be combined in a much more offensive manner to get anything done. Economic sanctions, to prevent Iran from continuing their nuclear projects, are easily justified here, though I doubt that it’ll be enough (if anything at this point still is), as they’re notoriously difficult when it comes to making compromises.

They’re also notoriously infantile on human-rights. Yes, they might have officially signed the declaration of universal human-rights, but that will not prevent nine upcoming executions for ‘taking up arms against God’. One more reason to keep your state well separated from religion.
Under all circumstances, I oppose the penalty of death. It is both irreversible and immoral. It takes us down to a level characterized by revenge, rather than keeping in mind who is the criminal and who should be the wiser man (or woman, naturally). Lady Ashton, the High Representative of the European Commission, clearly agrees as you can read here in a press release. I am very glad that the EU unanimously agrees that the death penalty is not a solution, not even an option.

Europe has its Lisbon Treaty, it is time to step up, take the stage and play the aspired role. Simple words which can be waved away like an irritating mosquito will not bring us anywhere. There are two countries toying with Europe: China and Iran. Its time to put that to an end.

It is nearly three years ago that Hamas took over control and started their bloody reign over the Gaza-strip. Seen as the counter side of more secular minded Fatah, it gets little respect except from extremist and other irrational thinking creatures.

Belgium, where Europe’s hearts pumps -on foreign policies like that of a dying man-, planned to send its minister for development there. Israeli Deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon thought this wasn’t a very good idea.

We’ve heard his name in the news before. Only a few weeks ago he had a meeting with the Turkish ambassador, over allegedly insulting video material that was broadcast on Turkish television, after which he stated words in Hebrew that wouldn’t do much good in any Islamic orientated country, or, for that matter, in any country at all.

This time Israel made the news because the Belgium minster was not welcome in Gaza. The reason is Hamas: Israel neither talks, nor wants to recognize this group, which it considers to be a terrorist group (as do many countries).

Humanitarian aid and food is what is allowed into Gaza’s borders, and that is it. That is it indeed, as even those things have slowed down over the past few years. As an outsider to the region, it is difficult to shape your own views, at least if you would like to have any objectivity in them. So many stories meet each other head on while the truth, often so simple, is hidden and obscure. We hear Israel about terrorists’ casualties, and then moments later Hamas comes up with a story that works only if the other version is falsified. I would like to believe, as I don’t doubt many others do too, that the people in Gaza know that Hamas is no good. I actually do believe that, thought I must admit a lingering inability to make a hard, closed case to support that claim.

There are, however, some other issues that the world’s leaders should fight a little harder for. Israel, founded as a Jewish state over half a century ago, was a place “for the Jews”. After the terrible misdeeds of Hitler in the Second World War, and via a route of nasty deals made by former colonial powers, the United Nations agreed to grant them the right for their own state. The history is complicated, messy and unfair. Not just from the UN’s and Israel’s side, but from the other side as well. Those issues must be left behind, as Israel exists and will not be wiped out, whatever some people might hope or think.

With an eye to claiming borderlines as they were before 1967, many, even some of the fiercest anti-Israelis, unwillingly and silently accept that claim. In part it is all the more ironic, that a state with so called Biblical chosen people is neglecting a basic duty of giving each their due. Living in a country that is only theirs because it was granted to them by those who had no right to give it anyway, why not give to those who have lived through their own Diaspora too? Naturally, the people that occupied those areas prior to ‘Zionism’ also have a right to exist, a right to prosperity and certainly a right to fulfillment of basic human needs.

A two-state solution here is the best hope. That won’t succeed without more White House efforts, of that much I am sure. This also means condemning Israel for their settlement building more vigorously. Yes, Netanyahu might have postponed it, but he neither cancelled it nor did it with an indefinite time table. Add on top of that the buildings currently under construction, which by knowledge will be finished, and all his ‘painful step’ does is create some hatred, instead of a lot.

This all goes much further than basic human needs, which is the absolute place to start. From what I’ve heard and read, a practical stop of people going into Gaza has been active since March 2009. This has led to a severe backdrop in humanitarian aid, of which Michel, the Belgian minister for Development, says that only 20% is still arriving on the places where it is needed. And now that Michel isn’t allowed in either, there is an easy political route to take a look at the situation, again.

As a Dutch citizen, and therefore a European one, my hopes are aimed at Brussels. They’ll probably be futile: Their voice is not unified, and it doesn’t carry much weight in comparison to that of the US. The Belgian minister is right in a way, though, which brings us back to the introduction: Israel’s vision differs.

By not allowing him in, it considers itself to keeping a straight backbone. As I see it, it is doing something very different from that. More than anything else it is neglecting not a political organization, but a large group of people who have asked for their sorrows as much as Israeli citizens who are shot at with rockets.  With an aim of bolstering the ideals of the European Union by meeting parts of the population, not every politician is a political message without being a moral one too. I wonder whether Hamas has ever even heard of Belgium in the first place.

In January of 2009 the Dutch government erected a commission burdened with the task of investigation procedures, reasons and mistakes that were made in 2003, when America and the U.K. decided to invade Iraq, which got political support of the Netherlands.

This report has now finally materialized. Over 500 pages present a wide, partly historical view, of what happened in the early years of this millennium, without forgetting processes that have taken place years, or even decades, earlier, which have seen much Dutch political meddling.

It could be argued that little weight might be given to anything that focuses solely on Dutch politics when it comes to these grand, international matters. In general, that would be correct. But although this investigation stems from a relatively small country; it still is a bold underline to an already fiercely debated topic. A general trend towards more objective criticism on government decision procedures and involvement can be spotted in more countries, of which the U.K. is of course one, wherefore I thought bringing this news was relevant to a more general public.

Too bad little is presented in the result of this investigation that was not previously known. On the contrary, there was disappointment on the lack of rigor in condemning the Dutch government. One journalist, who was a guest in evening talk-show ‘De Wereld Draait Door’, repeated what he had stated before by saying that “already in 1998 we knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction” and that the Netherlands, who promised no military involvement, “participated in exploration with F16’s”.

Problem here is the evidence. The sources who speak of F16-usage are anonymous, so their reliability is as questionable as anything. Even so, many people were willing to dig deeper into this issue. David and his men, however, decided to opt for the road supported by the arm of law, neglecting opportunities that could have given us a more profound insight. Their reason for doing so was not persuasive: It could very well be that these sources, possibly military ones, were not allowed to have spoken out in the first place, wherefore the material could be considered illegal and is better ignored. As there wasn’t much more to go on, they dropped it.

Leaving that behind, there still remains a lot to be discussed. Some of this is Dutch politics only; much of it touches broader concerns. It is quite reasonable to suspect that, if the Dutch government knew Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, then so did U.K. and U.S.A. governments. It is equally reasonable to conclude that no country fought a war that can be called legitimate via the chosen route. And while the U.S.A. and U.K. directly fuelled the whole process, The Hague showed lack of spine in their response. In a sense they can be said to have fared even worse: Deciding not to go forth and support America, like France and Germany had also done, would have been wise, sound, responsible and, not in the least sense, justified.

The whole affair was messy and obscure, right from the start. The Dutch parliament did not know that the American government filed an official request for support to build up military forces for an Iraq-invasion on November 15^th, 2002. Only in January 2003 more light was shed on the issue, when prime-minister Balkenende weakly and unconvincingly joined the debate. Gathered information by the AIVD, the Dutch CIA only without torture affairs, and the MIVD (Military intelligence/information and security unit) had also provided the Dutch parliament with their reports and viewpoints on an Iraqi invasion, in a much more nuanced tone than those from foreign intelligence organizations. These were all too readily and easily cast aside, fitting with the picture that it no longer mattered: A decision had already been made.

Now this is definitely something clearly stated by the Davids-commission in their book, which I am not about to summarize to you. The facts that I just mentioned already point out where problems can be found. First of all, the government did not extensively, if at all, use available sources. Second, their opinion was formed quickly and emotionally, rather than via a route of reasoned argument (even without taking sources into account). Third, de Hoop Scheffer, then minister of foreign affairs, had a ridiculous and profound influence over the decision procedure. In a time span of less than an hour something as important as a war got its first, if still temporal, approval. Accusations that de Hoop Scheffer only gave his support to the war in order to get the secretary-general job at the United Nations were proven to be baseless; even if he did only get the job because of support, he did not provide it in order to get it.

An extra dimension is brought in by voters. Polls suggest little support among citizens for political support without military support (46% opposed this, while 43% supported it), but even less backing existed for ‘full-blown’ military support (only 18% ). What probably was the most important conclusion, in my eyes, was that whatever may have happened, an attack on Iraq without UN support or mandate was unjustified. And this was no secret. Practically every citizen was aware of this; the only ones seemingly still able to ignore this were politicians, of whom Dutch prime-minister Balkenende was one until yesterday-evening, when he finally gave in and admitted mistakes made by him and his party: Support for the war arrived too quickly, and should not have been given without the UN’s mandate. On the other hand, on a side note, it could be stressed that from an American perspective this arguments is less important. We should not expect them to wait going to war if they think the cause to be a legitimate one. Security is a complex issue these days, and the bureaucratic systems of Europe are often slow and not transparent. Only this argument is deflated not just by a lack of suitable and reliable evidence that could justify a war, but the absence of it on the whole.

There is one small upside to this new report. If forces Dutch parties that were involved towards recognizing mistakes. As I just mentioned this did not go down easy with Balkenende, who is the leader of the christian democrats (CDA). He refused to take over the document’s conclusions, stubbornly holding onto a view that made you think they took a wise decision to the best of his and his party’s abilities. Well, if it truly is the best you were able to pull off, it might be better to give up politics altogether. His stance has nearly led to a pre-mature break-up of the governing coalition. Sadly, it did not get this far: A full day of talks prevented early elections.

Herman van Rompuy is now, as we know, the first president of the European Council. His first side-kick is the Spanish Zapatero. Many reactions spoke in a surprising tone, best phrased as “I thought we got rid of the rotating presidency scheme”. Well no, we didn’t.

Herman van Rompuy and Lady Ashton are the two new prominent names that ought to take part in foreign politics in the name of the European Union, leaving aside the question how the balance will be made up among these two figures. Van Rompuy’s most important job will probably be heading conferences, in which all foreign representatives of Europe’s states gather together.  No mean feat, sure. His language and culture know-how should definitely make him able for that broad assignment.

He is also one face, a familiar one. Not someone chairing for six months, and then leaving again only to make room for the next national hero, burdened with the agenda of his nation. (Of course you could reasonably doubt whether ‘hero’ has got any reality input these days, as Europe isn’t exactly popular with many.) In this sense Europe did well.

That they chose to keep the rotating presidency oddly never rang a bell with me. It was a known fact; there would be no deleting of that position, it would just be downgraded. It does present a rather weird picture though. To take a step back: We already had all the fuss about Ashton and van Rompuy. Beforehand, practically no one could tell who would be taking care of which tasks. Even the Lisbon Treaty itself seemed to be confused, almost inconsistent, on the issue. A rotating president might be a less powerful president, but it is a president in name and fame all the same. They better not start trampling each other’s toes.

In a way it is ridiculous. Via this new route of bureaucratic measurements they’re turning practicality and pragmatism upside down. If you have one permanent president, it would be reasonable to suspect that he or she took care of the day to day affairs, not irregular meetings concerned with more important matters in which national leaders will want their say anyway. This is not because of leader-abilities, but because involvement, knowing your way around and being familiarized with colleagues, systems and laws makes things run a lot smoother. Van Rompuy is a long term appointee; Zapatero has a six-month term. Could someone please help me out and explain the logic here?

I’m sure that, in theory, all will have been put down in writing, and all should therefore work. Sadly theory, by its very meaning, implies that it is not yet practice. One nice example of this would be Spain’s ambitions. Besides the fact that they need to turn around their whole economy, they would also like to host European Union – United States and Latin America summits. If Mr. Obama lands in Spain later this year, as he is expected to do, who will be greeting him? The European Union can hardly ignore his visit. Can you imagine politicians shaking hands with Joe Biden, while putting Obama on hold? The hotline to the European president is still ringing; no one has so far picked it up.

In all fairness, Spain did send out a reassuring message:

“…You will have the rotating presidency at your disposal … so that you can properly carry out the function of leadership, the political management of the European Council…”  ( Zapatero, December 2009)

What to think of this is something I’ll leave up to you. All that rests for me is to write a side-note. Security, it is supposed to be as fool- and waterproof as the beloved Lisbon treaty. We can again say that is correct. No worries, no terrorists or anything of the likes this time, only the website dedicated to the Spanish presidency got hacked.  A picture of Mr. Bean amusingly shone towards the site’s many visitors for several hours. The joke: For years Zapatero’s face has been compared to that of Rowan Atkinson. Google pictures will make you understand.