SANCTIONS. The Europeans and Africans are both experiencing structural and transformational setbacks right from the time of COVID19 in 2020 to late 2022 and through to the current Ukraine – Russia war. Most European and African economies were set for rapid recovery after the COVID pandemic but this boom run may not be possible as a result of the war.

Because of the Ukraine – Russia war Africans are in many ways indirectly affected more than Europeans whom the war is closer to them than ever. This is as a result of weak economic institutions and the absence of buffers to absorb the shocks from external crises.

The economies of Ethiopia, Senegal, Benin, Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda were all projected to grow at 7.2%, 6.8%, 6.7%, 6%, 6.2%, and 8.1%, respectively. When the pandemic hit Africa, these forecasts had been impossible. Africa has what it takes to secure Europe’s oil and gas supply disruption due to Ukraine-Russia in spite of the fiscal challenges.

Governments and Business Sanctions on Russia

The Ukraine-Russia crises add to the woes of EU economies leapfrogging from challenges that retarded growth and prosperity. With this, there is going to be a deepened supply chain interruption on global energy policies, food, and essentials for crop production. This is happening due to a list of sanctions on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. The tall list includes, actions taken by national governments and actions taken by companies and organizations (business).

Sanctions by countries include, Switzerland’s ban on transactions with the Russia’s central bank, freezes its assets overseas, Russian ships banned from British, Canadian ports, Russian aircrafts banned from U.S., EU, and Canadian airspace, Italy seizing property and volumes of wealthy Russian individuals, the UK also imposes asset freezes on Chelsea owner Abramovich, Rosneft boss Sechin, Australia has banned alumina exports to Russia , and with Finland’s national railway operator suspending services between Helsinki and Saint Petersburg, closing the rail link between Russia and the European Union.

The U.S. in retaliation, has also banned Russian oil and other energy imports, while South Korea bans exports of strategic items to Russia and subsequently joins the SWIFT sanctions.

Russia is faced with uncountable economic (business) sanctions, crippling its economy. Sanctions by businesses and companies also come with the suspension of business activities and diplomacy. These include, the Radisson Hotel Group suspending new partnerships and new investments in Russia, French sportswear retailer Decathlon suspending its activities in Russia, Carlsberg planning to exit the Russian market.

At the same time, Nestle said it would suspend several brands, including KitKat and Nesquik in Russia, days after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky criticized the world’s biggest consumer goods company for continuing to operate in Russia, Eneos Holdings has stopped buying crude oil from Russia in response to Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, Renault is also suspending operations at its plant in Moscow .

Another example is Heineken that has also stopped production and sale of Heineken beer in Russia while Apple Inc has paused all product sales in Russia, Nokia will stop deliveries to Russia, and Total Energies have stopped investments in Russia. The KPMG, and PwC have asserted to no longer have a member firm in Russia. Also, an entertainment platform, TikTok, made it known to suspend live streaming and uploading of videos to its platform in Russia. Shell also stopped buying Russian crude and said it would phase out its involvement in all Russian hydrocarbons from oil to natural gas.

These sanctions notwithstanding, have a ripple effect on countries and businesses that sanctioned Russia especially, on energy and food. Businesses have not quantified the loss in revenue volume after ceasing operations in Russia. However, Europe that sits with Russia and Ukraine would have to endure a huge supply chain disruption affecting economies in the region. This denotes that Russia would not suffer from the sanctions alone but businesses would lose revenue, and the country’s trade routes would be longer, causing delays in delivery, and the volume of trade would reduce causing shortages of goods and services.

Europe in Search for Gas Suppliers

When it comes to the energy sector, Russia has been Europe’s primary energy supplier and well-known customer. Through the Nord Stream 2 pipelines, Europe obtains not less than 24.7% of its energy through Russia and Germany. The case Russia is closing the supply lines of natural gas, Europe may be looking elsewhere to enhance its demand for consistent supply.

Prior to the Ukraine – Russia war, the Eurozone inflation rose from 5.1% in January to 5.8% in February 2022. This was attributed to the COVID19 and as the Ukraine – Russia war has become another huge crisis driving and tossing about global macro-economic indicators, the economic dynamics present themselves in ways to increase the cost of transportation, and food due to supply chain disruption across systems of global routes. This is mechanically leading to higher prices on goods and services.

In Denmark, inflation is expected to more than double from 2.2 % to 4.5% and economic growth of 2.1% instead of 3.1% while since 1975, Holland’s inflation has reached 11.9% leading to the rising cost of energy, food, and petrol.

As no one knows when the war would end, gas reserves could run over and Europe may have limited space and time to look out for alternatives in the short term.  In the medium term, hyperinflations could destabilize Europe’s economic prospects and could dwindle to cause prices of oil, petrol, and food to rise more than ever.

Why Europe needs Africa now

Europe and Africa have good relationships in trade, business, and investment. The EU is Africa’s largest trade partner with a 36% export and 33% import volume. EU’s Pre-Brexit business and investment in Africa amounted to $261 billion with a shift from raw materials to extractive industry. As this may seem to be a huge milestone, grants, and loans to Africa since the 1970s are below the 0.7% of the EU’s gross national income.

Is this not the time for the EU to rethink and deepen its relationship with Africa beyond trade and investments? In an era of the Ukraine – Russia impasse lies an opportune recipe for the EU and Africa to clarify and quantify its long-term commercial links of exports and imports of energy from Africa. This is where energy diplomacy is needed

The Northern African countries, including Algeria in 26 years have supplied 10 Billion Cubic meters of gas annually to Spain and Portugal.

The potential to double the supply is possible if Algeria and the EU are able to agree on reciprocal capacity infrastructures development through comprehensive energy diplomacy through the MENA on an individual country basis.

This should be a priority for the EU to step in to resolve the supply crises between Morocco and Algeria which could also threaten the energy crisis in Europe. It is also an opportune time to focus on Libya to end its political instability as it has the capacity to supply Europe with oil and gas.

Libya is still the 9th in oil reserves globally, and 21st in gas reserves but the political tension undermines its capacity to meet its supply target for domestic use and export.

In sub-Saharan Africa, Nigeria and Niger are gearing up to construct an estimated $21 billion capacity pipelines. Nigeria has a big market share in Europe’s gas import with an estimated $12 billion exported to Europe in 2019 alone. The gas supply infrastructure deficit is undermining Nigeria’s and other African countries including Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Angola, and Congo the efficiency and reliability to export more to Europe.

In the wake of the Ukraine – Russia war, the EU is looking out for reliable sources with less cost to beef up the oil and gas supply so they could cut off Russia’s oil and gas as part of the sanctions.

The nearest continent with more reserves than needed is Africa. Therefore, it is imperative to improve Africa’s energy infrastructures by taking swift actions via energy diplomacy.

To deepen inter-regional integration between the two blocs, the EU must not develop the policy documents for Africa and implemented by the EU in Africa but create an enabling diplomatic environment where Africans can own the supply. This will make Africa develop its infrastructures further to build a continent of prosperity to accommodate EU citizens at home from away.

*This article was originally published by Peter Bismark via think-tank ILAPI

The post How Africa Could Stabilize Global Gas Disruption first appeared on Opulens.

RIGHTS. The 2020s could be a decade when new systems and functions concerning rights are developed. But the future development can be both light and dark, depending on which ideas win more support and acceptance in public debates. Keeping in mind the 2010s nationalist and populist development where human rights are despised, at the same time as there is a lack of new ideas about rights catalogs for a post-industrial societal development.

Brexit and rights 

In connection with the Brexit debate, the academic David Miller asked why many left-wing Britons took a stand for EU membership based on communication about labor union organization, working conditions, and social rights. After all, rights as civic ones are a historical product of formations of nations and nation-states as the UK.

Miller’s point about rights being interpreted from a state-centric perspective is also about the idea of ​​”liberal nationalism”, which can also be likened to nationalist social democracy – high taxes and a demand-based welfare state, as well as restrictive immigration and demands for cultural uniformity. In addition, the liberal-nationalist view is that citizenship and rights should only be national because the nation-state is regarded as the only possible form of social and institutional organization.

The argument in the style of Brexit being bad for social rights and the working class in Britain has been part of the pro-Remain left-wing referendum campaign. Furthermore, millions of anti-Brexit and pro-EU Britons realized that they risked losing their civil rights as EU citizens regarding turnout, mobility, and health care. In turn, pro-Brexit leftists have argued the opposite, namely that Brexit would be good for British civil rights, partly because the European Union is still equal to neoliberalism and undermining national democracy.

European Union and rights 

But regarding Brexit and the view of rights, it is important to understand the following, as the historian Yuval Harari argues. According to Harari, Brexit was not a political battle between people who were for or against rights. Rather, it was a political struggle between those who wanted rights in a universal and cosmopolitan sense against those who wanted the rights to stay at the border and primarily be for “our own“.

Much of the EU’s ‘social dimension’ of rights and conditions can and should be criticized for improving and further evolving over time. At the same time, it is also important to understand that the EU is the only example in the world of how concrete civil rights have been shaped at the supranational level and could thus include and unite more people than ever before in history.

This partly explains the establishment of European citizenship in the 1990s and 2000s as a kind of political target for both left-wing and right-wing populists and nationalists in the Union. For those who in an authoritarian way believe that man must be subordinated to the nation and mentally limited to “the national”, ideas about rights and the individual’s private sphere at the supranational level can feel very irritating and negative.

The “civil rights vs human rights” false narrative

Rights discussions in the 2010s also show that nationalism cannot be divided into good and evil because different ideas tend to merge. For example, when the Sweden Democrats in 2017 handed out their “freedom prize” to the Czech Republic’s former prime minister and now right-wing extremist Vaclav Klaus, the motivation was that Klaus had argued that human rights have become a threat to civic rights and national sovereignty. However, such ideas and reasoning are not limited to right-wing extremist actors, as the debate on rights from a nationalist and authoritarian point of view has occurred among other debaters, including on the left.

For example, the historian and debater Lars Traedgaordh, known for the texts concerning Swedish identification and social trust, argued in the 2010s that civil (welfare) rights should outweigh human rights regarding Sweden’s function as a state. Above all, it is about the view of humanitarian immigration and resources concerning the welfare state, where Traedgaodh believes that Sweden has a greater responsibility for its own citizens than for non-citizens. In addition, Traedgaordh has reasoned in the style that the focus on multiculturalism, pluralism, and universality should be reduced in favor of culture in the “national” sense.

A rights debate for 21st century

In this way, based on the 2010 rights debates, one can conclude that the political battle that Harari believes is generally not about for or against rights but is about which people should have rights and how the rights should be managed institutionally. Those who want a cosmopolitan world and are driven by universal values and rights need to explain how democracy, welfare, and the rule of law can really function globally. And those who want rights based on nationalist and discriminatory reasoning need to explain why the public as the state should treat people in an arbitrary, repressive, and exclusive way.

There are several reasons why more people as in the Swedish debate should look ahead and write about modern ideas about rights. The modern state needs to be precisely universalist and cosmopolitan to be able to deal with global problems and challenges and contribute to human security and the development of the climate and the planet. Today, more and more people are joining decentralized and often global communities such as networks and associations with their own constitutions, democratic processes, and economic ecosystems. Animals also need to have their rights more protected in line with climate change. There are also transhumanist and futuristic ideas about rights for robots, AI, and cyborgs in the post-industrial as well as “post-human” societal visions of the future.

Such a development may sound comical and strange, but it is important to remember that one of the most important functions of rights is to ensure peaceful interpersonal relationships. The future development may mean that relationships between people and with other beings become increasingly complex and interconnected over time through various interactions and processes concerning the handling of the climate issue. In such a world, a universalist and complex view of rights is needed for humanity as a whole to keep the ability to solve common challenges.

The post Fight for your rights! first appeared on Opulens.

ART HISTORY. The Luxembourg museum, close to the artists quarters of Saint Germain, in Paris, is situated in a lush park. Its opening exhibition shows women painters, a rarity in those days.

It was a big day, this 31 May 1783, when the prestigious Royal Academy of Painters welcomed a new member: the talented Adélaïde Labille-Gaillard. Soon afterwards, another woman, close to the royal family, Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun, also insisted on becoming a member. Her magnificent portrait of Marie-Antoinette, her protégée, is displayed in this intimate exhibition. 

A quota to accept only four women had been established long ago among an abundance of men. However, a few years later, this one-hundred-year-old Academy was transformed into an Institute, and women painters were accepted in greater numbers. They excelled in the art of portraits. Women could not paint nudes because, at the time, the models were exclusively males…

The relative democratization between the genders opened up doors to otherwise closed ateliers for these women painters. They were thus accepted as pupils for male teachers. It further led to free of charges, highly classified, drawing classes for the impoverished ’demoiselles’ who possessed an artistic talent. 

This short epoch was called la parenthèse enchantée – or the ’enchanted parentheses’. During this period, the art world experienced a women painters’ boom. During the 1783 painting exhibition, a commentator wrote that: ’women have truly become rivals of their male counterparts, and these shall have to deal with some real competition!’

I was surprised at the dexterity and vigour in those paintings, mostly depicting other women. Many of which were auto-portraits, often sitting painting, with their brushes and easel at hand or holding a child. They favoured intimate, domestic scenes sometimes with fun touches, like the woman who’s attaching her shoelaces. They also showed great dexterity in the ’sentimental genre’ that enhanced feelings by painting music being played for example.

However, apart from the two above-cited women painters, most of the others have been ’buried’ and forgotten in the collective memory… This exquisite, rather small, exhibition finally gives them justice.   

Anne Edelstam

Peintre Femmes, 1780 – 1830

Musée du Luxemburg, Paris 

19 May to 4 July 2021

The post Women painters from 1780 – 1830 first appeared on Opulens.

FASHION. The nordic fashion that’s shown at Prince Eugene, Waldemarsudde, situated in Stockholm Royal Park, doesn’t have much resemblance to anything Nordic except for its name. 

What is Nordic anyways? After having been a rather homogeneous country, Sweden has become very cosmopolitan. This fashion exhibition mirrors this international development. Not only that, but the concept of fashion itself has developed from superficial utter garments to becoming more and more of a social manifestation. It’s asking questions about the relationship that we have between fashion, art, identity and sustainability. 

This exhibition, in the upstairs’ atelier at Waldemarsudde, points in that direction. Several designers are represented in this somewhat odd show that also encompasses films with catwalks and interviews. I will only concentrate on four main designers for the sake of this article. Hopefully, this little taste will make you curious to go and find out about all the others as well.

These young designers won a prize this year for their works: Elina Äärelä, Ines Kalliala, Idaliina Friman and Kristian David. They are exhibited on a podium in the large middle room. I was immediately intrigued by their unusual, quite extravagant and exciting designs.  

Elina Äärelä grew up with a Christian background very present, as her father was a pastor. Her design is centred around the Christian message, inspired by the Church’s liturgic clothes and Christly messages. Her collection is called Silent Voice and brings the thoughts to our inner voice, to a personal communication with God. However, she has transformed the formal religious uniforms into sporty versions of the former, with hoodies, sweatpants and gym shoes. By transforming the superficial into something spiritual, she’s not only modernising but also deepening our connection to fashion. 

Kristian David is Swedish with roots in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. To Construct a Bridge is a fitting title for such a multicultural background. His hybrid collection shows this complexity. He’s using the Palestinian shawl, keffiyeh, the long caftan with over-emphasized shoulders to mark a power relation between men and women and between the East and the West. Via this hybrid collection, he provokes both worlds. 

Idaliina Friman uses her family’s past from Northern Finland to personalise her collection called Hetta. Unusual fabrics are used, such as pet bottles as padding for her almost out-of-space looking clothes. They cover the entire body and even most of the face. The design refers to the very harsh Finnish winters and gave me shivers just to look at the clothes!

Ines Kalliala’s collection is called Personal Uniform, and as the name refers to: it consists mostly of personified suits for women and men. She uses ready-mades and vintage materials. Her motto is: “to mend and repair my favourite clothes”. Sustainability is the red thread throughout her work. The fishing net used as a veil was certainly an unusual ingredient, I thought. 

None of the designers lacks imagination, that’s for sure. Even if the clothes aren’t easy to wear, they’re certainly fun to look at and pushes one’s fantasy to its limits. It’s refreshing to see fashion as a means for esthetic communication about how our lives are shaped by the social and cultural environments we’ve grown up in. 

Like any contemporary work of art, these designs make us reflect about our stereotypes and pre-conceived ideas. This trend seems to be here to stay. Sustainability, cultural variations, personal identities and new ways of re-using old materials and fabrics is the latest fashion, at least if we consider these young designers. 

This Nordic fashion might not be so rooted in Scandinavian traditions, but it’s undoubtedly stained by a new international trend, coupled with a sustainable vision for our future world. A world that is in dire need of repair, a return to nature and to God, as this exhibition has taught me. 

Future Nordic Fashion

Prins Eugene, Waldmarsudde, Stockholm.

April 24 – Octobre 3, 2021

The post Future Nordic Fashion first appeared on Opulens.

Ever since the Six-Day War, Gaza and the West Bank have been presided over by Israel. The genesis of the conflict harkens back to Israel’s founding and the advent of the Arab nationalist and Zionist projects of the 19th century. This analysis by Tomas Nordberg examines many of the initiatives that we have seen so far and why they have all failed to bring enduring peace to the region. 

This article was originally published by Tomas Nordberg via Global Bar Magazine 

US President Jimmy Carter invited Prime Minister Begin of Israel and President Sadat of Egypt to Camp David for negotiations in 1978. The first of the two agreements that were concluded was named ”A Camp David Accords: The Framework for Peace in the Middle East”. The agreement refers to Article 2 of the UN Charter, including Article 2 (3) which states: ”All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.” The agreement says in the Preamble: ”To achieve a relationship of peace, in the spirit of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, future negotiations between Israel and any neighbour prepared to negotiate peace and security with it are necessary for the purpose of carrying out all the provisions and principles of Resolutions 242 and 338.” The Palestinians were not a party to the agreement. The European Community (EC) voiced in 1979 that a two-state solution is required for sustained peace.

Israel withdrew its soldiers and evicted Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005 under the so labelled Disengament Plan. Territorial control was transferred to the PA but Israel remained in charge of the seafront, access (except from the border crossing with Egypt) and airspace, including the deliverance of humanitarian assistance. 

Peace through Territorial Arrangements: The Case of Secretary of State John Kerry

US Secretary of State John Kerry attempted to find a peaceful solution between the parties during the Obama administration. As facilitator, he tried to address all the core and final status issues and reach a final status agreement. Secretary of State Kerry focused on peace dividends and on convincing the parties that they both have an interest in the sucess of the other. Economic initiatives would strengthen the Palestinian economy which were to become a partner with Israel who would prosper. Sustainable peace with Arab and Muslim states would put an end to the charges that Israel was not a legit state. Security matters was dealt with by expanding the capacity of Palestinians to deal with these issues. Israel helped in improving conditions in the occupied territories which was appreciated by Palestinian security agencies and followed by a drop in attacks on Israelis.

Furthermore, the Arab League reconfirmed that they stand behind the Arab Peace Plan of 2002. And world leaders tried to convince the parties to seek peace based on this initiative. Kerry intended to facilitate sustained, continuous and substantive negotations on the core subjects such as how Jerusalem is to be divided up and the creation of a Palestinian state that respects human rights and is able to survive. Kerry is a firm believer in the two-state solution as the only sustainable way for a democratic and Jewish Israel to last. 

President Obama did veto a UNSC Resolutions that condemned settlements. The US has traditionally been in opposition to settlements, a sentiment that is widely shared in the world community. The Palestinians try to take advantage of this to create a state of their own via international organisations. We saw how President Trump changed the bipartisan consensus since fifty years regarding settlements, paving the way for complete Israeli annexation of the West Bank. Kerry, on the other hand, had ever since he was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee strived for bilateral negotiations between the parties with the US as a facilitator.

We must try to understand the legal context. The Geneva Conventions forbid a country that has taken over territory during an armed conflict to move its citizens into the territory of an occupied country. Israel accepted already in 1947 the notion of a Palestinian state but the Arabs refused this idea. The United Nations came up with the two-state solution which has been the basis for subsequent peace negotiations. It was argued that Jerusalem should be the capital of two states, a concept that President Bill Clinton incorporated in the Clinton Parameters. Under the UN plan, the Jewish sections would constitute the capital of Israel and vice versa for the state of Palestine. Of course Jerusalem in 1947 was a smaller city than it is now. Israel annexed large swaths of territory in 1967 to the north, south and east of Jerusalem, areas that were part of the West Bank but that Israel viewed as part of Jerusalem.

Back in 2002, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia made an attempt to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for ”full withdrawal from all the occupied territory, in accordance with UN resolutions, including in Jerusalem.” Israel asserts that the settlements are excogitated by the settlers with the intent of settling state land which is not owned by the Palestinians. The late Saeb Erekat worked all his life for what he called a comprehensive peace with an independent, sovereign Palestinian state and all Israelis and Palestinians living in peace, freedom and dignity. John Kerry worked with Saeb Erekat to resuscitate the Arab Peace Initiative. It aspires for Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and full normalization between the Arab States and Israel. Israel refused land swaps during the Obama Administration because it wanted to proceed with settlements. The Palestinian state would set up a postal service under the Arab Peace Initiative but it would not be allowed to control the borders of the state or have an army. It was glaringly obvious during Kerry´s negotiation rounds as a facilitator that the very border referred to in the Arab Peace Plan is missing.

The Clinton Parameters said that a Palestinian state should include 94-96 % of the West Bank and allowed for Israeli annexation of settlements in blocs, with 80 % of the settler population at the time. Further, the Parameters included Arab areas for the Palestinians in East Jerusalem and Jewish ones for the Israeli; temporary international and Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and the long-term presence of three Israeli-controled ”early warning stations”; Palestinian sovereignty over its own airspace and return of refugees only to the Palestinian state. Gaza was not mentioned; however, President Clinton declared publiclty that the Palestinian state would include the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, Israel vowed to acknowledge the ”moral and material suffering caused to the Palestinian people by the 1948 war, and the need to assist the international community in addressing the problem”.

The main problem of this peace proposal was that it didn´t provide for a geographically contiguous Palestinian state. The Palestinian Negotiating Team (NAD) went as far as saying that the parameters divided the Palestinian state, including East Jerusalem, into separate cantons. The team also refused to relinquish the right to return. And it was naturally against the Israeli annexation of settlement blocs in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem. Interestingly, a Hebrew University opinion poll found in 2011 that 58% of Israelis and 50% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution based on the Clinton Parameters, compared with 47% of Israelis and 39% of Palestinians in 2003, the first year the poll was conducted.

Both sides did agree that a solution should be found along the lines of UNGA Resolution 242 and lead to the implementation of UNGA Resolution 194. The main critique levelled against the Clinton/Barak plan of 2001 was that it would afford Israel around nine percent of the West Bank, deprived the Palestinian state of good land and water and almost split the Palestinian state by Israeli annexation flowing east from Jerusalem.

Part 3 will be published on Monday 2021-04-05

The post Palestine: Why are the peace initiatives failing to bring lasting peace? Part 2 first appeared on Opulens.

ECONOMY.  “We need to get off of all of these subsidies at some point — otherwise, we’ll have a zombie economy”

Carl Bildt, co-chairperson for European Council on Foreign Relations.

Covid-19 is a hard blow to the world. According to official statistics worldwide, around 111 million people are considered infected, and approximately 2,5 million people have died.  

At the beginning of the pandemic, economists spoke about the biggest impending economic crisis since the Great Depression in the 1930s. However, GDP statistics for the third quarter of 2020 show a strong recovery. For example, the growth in Germany was 8,2 percent compared to the second quarter. In France, the growth was at 18,2 percent, which is almost the whole loss from Corona. 

Corporate bankruptcies in the EU diminished by on average 25% in 2020. Without billions of euro in government-supported loans and wage subsidies to keep companies floating, the number of bankruptcies would have been doubled, according to a study from the research institute National Bureau of Economic Research NBER.

Government support has certainly prevented rising unemployment, but the proportions are risking to increase the number of zombie companies.  The Bank of International Settlements, an international financial institution owned by central banks, defines zombie firms as “a company that at least is ten years old, listed on the stock exchange and has interest rate costs that are exceeding the company’s results before interest rates and taxes”. 

BIS’s estimation shows that when the share of zombie companies increases by one percent within an economy, the productivity growth decreases by 0,3 percent.  They distort investments and slow down renewal, so much that such companies could contribute to the 2020s as an “a lost decade” with a standstill economy, according to the World Bank. 

Most of the European governments did plan to phase out their support for companies during the autumn of 2020. The governments counted on the Coronavirus to be under control by then. A second wave has just filled the hospitals and is aggravated by new strains of the virus, which also led to economic support being brought forward. When the third wave of Covid-19 strikes, while the EU’s member states are having problems cooperating about vaccines and measures against the pandemic, the economy risks shrinking even more. 

The increase of zombie companies and government budgets operating on high deficits, even when the economy is booming, combined with weak productivity growth, was already a problem in Europe before the pandemic. Consumers in the world’s biggest economies have accumulated about 2.9 trillion dollars in extra savings during the lockdowns and a large number of liquid assets that could lead to a powerful recovery, according to Bloomberg.

Inflation and growth are not low because of a surplus of savings, but because of a very high indebtment that sustains an over-capacity in the economy with low-interest rates and high liquidity. Small savers do not know what they can invest their money in because nothing seems to lead to returns on their investments. 

Rarely has optimism in the financial markets been as high as it is now. On the stock exchange, record highs are continuously beaten, while at the same time, everything from real estate to high-risk bonds continues to increase in value. Growth in the world economy is expected to be around 4% in 2021 in order for the economy to be fully recovered to its pre-pandemic state by the end of 2022 fully. That requires a previously unmatched level of indebtedness and asset-buying (quantitative easings) by the central banks. 

It is a question of “toxic positivity” in the economy.

When someone shows toxic positivity, it means the person attempts to be happy and positive even if feeling terrible. They also want others to adopt the same distorted positivity. Otherwise, the bubble risks to burst. 

Negative interest rates are a large transaction of wealth from savings and wages to governments and debtors. It functions as a tax on realism. If the interest rate and the price of money are equal to zero today, then all profits have to be achieved in the future. Thereby, the economy becomes dependent on debt and asset bubbles. Politics become dependent on financing rising expenditures with cheap loans and perceives that reforms are unnecessary. 

The promises of the future promises are also on the present’s accomplishments, and we are now expecting the value of our stock to be extremely high, our real estate to be constantly rising in price on our real estate and for dividends to give us ever-increasing profits. 

The worst that could happen is not a financial crash, but that the current situation becomes normal. It means a weak and K-shaped recovery, where specific sectors as tech companies and sectors with higher added value recover fast, while a majority of small and medium-sized companies and entrepreneurs do not. The pandemic becomes a permanent feature of the economy. 

Researcher Jessica Mead at Swansea University et al. finds in a study that those who psychologically have dealt better with the pressure and isolation during the Covid-19 pandemic are those who were ready to accept that life will become more stressful, compared to those who were not able to accept that. That can be a source of guidance both for the pandemic crisis, as well as the debt crisis. 

The post Europe between zombie companies and toxic positivity first appeared on Opulens.

Recently, the leader of a major opposition party in Georgia was detained, despite calls from the outside world for dialogue and restraint. Prime Minister Giorgi Gakhari resigned last week, alleging the plans to arrest the opposition leader to be the cause that risks plunging the country in crisis. But what is the conflict really about? We put the question to George Mchedlishvili, associate professor of political science at International Black Sea University in Tbilisi.

This article was originally published by Tomas Nordberg via Global Bar Magazine. 

The protests continued on Saturday the 27^th with the demonstrators demanding the release of Niki Melia. The Washington Post writes that the chaos in Georgia plays into Putin´s hands and encourages the Georgian politicians to act in unity and to compromise.

How are we to understand what is happening? And what is the background to the conflict? We asked George Mchedlishvili, associate professor in political science at International Black Sea University in Tbilisi.

How would you characterize recent developments? 

– The detention of the leader of the United National Movement (UNM), the biggest opposition party, is hardly a positive development on its own right. However, it must be said, that the detained Nika Melia bears a significant portion of responsibility for what happened. He had been warned on more than one occasion that the failure to pay a 40,000 Georgian Lari (around $12,000) bail would entail his detention. This bail was imposed on Melia for the removal of the monitoring bracelet that had been attached to his wrist for the alleged calls to storm the Parliament during the huge June 2019 protests. So, despite the lack of wisdom on the part of the Government, who should have been cognizant that the detention of the political figure of such magnitude would escalate political tension in the country, from the standpoint of the law they were right.

– These developments contribute to the further polarization of the Georgian political landscape, which hardly bode well for the country’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

How would you describe the background of the conflict? 

– The background is a nearly decade-old conflict between the United National Movement (UNM), the ruling party till October 2012, and the Georgian Dream (GD), which was created in late 2011 for this very goal – to defeat the UNM – the mission GD successfully accomplished in October 2012. The parties changed roles, but their attitude towards each other did not change, and continues to be characterized by extreme degrees of animus and vitriol. The narrative of UNM against the GD has not undergone any changes over the past decade and is based chiefly on accusations of pro-Russian orientation. The narrative of the GD is also practically unchanged and is associated with the authoritarian and repressive methods of governance that the UNM employed when in power. Unfortunately, this bipolarity remains the defining feature of Georgian politics, whereby both ”poles” view the game exclusively in a zero-sum fashion and a new and meaningful political force, substantively distinct from both GD and UNM, is yet to appear.

What are the underlying reasons for the conflict? 

– UNM and several small opposition parties pinned their hopes on the elections, hoping to seriously squeeze the Georgian Dream’s parliamentary preeminence. But the elections, although they were held with some violations, were nevertheless recognized as legitimate, and gave a majority (albeit very far from constitutional) to the incumbent Georgian Dream. The UNM-led opposition chose to boycott the parliament (thus betraying their voters) and opted for escalating political tensions to avoid complete irrelevance. For this reason, the leader of UNM, Melia, publicly removed the monitoring bracelet, fully aware that this in-your-face act of disobedience would trigger the response on the part of the law enforcement. The current escalation of tensions plays into the hands of the opposition, as they stand to lose more from the status-quo.

What does this unfolding of incidents portend for the future of democracy in Georgia? 

– Georgia’s fledgling democracy seems to be the biggest loser in the current confrontation. Situations like these, whereby a politician is detained (even though he partially bears the responsibility), and the rhetoric is inflammatory, is distinctly bad for the state of democracy and political dialogue in Georgia.

Who is responsible for the situation?

– Both parties bear the responsibility. The opposition leader himself chose the path of obstructing justice. He could not help but foresee the consequences of such a line of conduct. I believe the bulk of responsibility lies on Nika Melia himself. On the other hand, the authorities acted very unwisely and clumsily. They could have predicted international reaction to such a forceful step.

The post What is the conflict in Georgia about? first appeared on Opulens.

WORLD. Globalisation has historically often been interpreted as an economic and technological process. However, modern globalisation is a many-sided and complex process that has been hard or even impossible to predict, as in the case of the Covid-19 pandemic. For more people to get involved in the world’s development, it is also necessary for democracy to become more globalised. 

Since the end of the 1980s, many studies about globalisation have been published. The most common definition of globalisation is by presenting it as increased economic and technological flows. At the same time, globalisation as a process and phenomenon has social, cultural and political sides. 

In order to understand why the focus on globalisation has been centred around the economy, it is important to understand the historical context of modern globalisation. Already during the 1970s, certain experts and academics started writing about the upcoming economic and institutional changes. Even before globalisation became an established term, it was recognised that aspects such as the Internet, computers, and mobile phones transformed from industrial to informative societies. 

One individual who resonated in such ways was political scientist Ernst B. Haas who based his arguments on the contemporary European Economic Community’s institutional development. Haas concluded that technological changes would lead to an end of European political and economic integration because European and other governments worldwide, instead, would prefer global integration and collaboration. 

During the 1990s, one of the world’s most unique and groundbreaking developments took place when the European Union was formed as a polity. It was a process based on democratically approved supranational integration and cooperation. Also, it happened at the same time when globalisation became one of the primary global stories that, in principle, all humans around the world had to relate to. So how did these connected, complementing but also conflicting process take place simultaneously? 

One of the answers is that globalisation turned out to be very hard to predict and that hardships of prediction led to support for other developments, as regional integration.

When it comes to Europe, many contemporary political leaders and citizens thought that the EU was needed to handle globalisation in different policy areas as it was later manifested in climate negotiations in the 2000s and refugee reception during the 2010s. 

As globalisation took place during the 1990s, sociologists Ulrich Beck presented his ideas of the world as “the global risk society”. According to Beck, globalisation meant much more than economic aspects because it was also about everything from migration and terrorism to climate and welfare. Beck argued that states should not act as nation-states but as cosmopolitan states that can handle global problems and risks. 

In general, all problems are depending on how humans are socially constructing and interpreting them. Problems can be simple and difficult and can be complicated and complex. For many people who were critical or negative to globalisation, the case was often that globalisation was interpreted as something complicated, which led to conclusions that globalisation could be prevented or controlled efficiently. In reality,  globalisation has proven to be a more complex process that is not the same as a complicated process. 

For example, underground public transportation as a metro is a complicated system with all its trains, time schedules, tunnels in combination with hundreds of thousands of daily passengers.  Planners and other metro employers can still make judgments and analysis of risks and problems such as suicide attempts and electricity failures. Creation of new train lines and other significant changes demand agreements in planning and political decisions at the local level combined with other decisions and requirements. 

Complexity, on the other side, is a much more different process, as seen in technological decentralisation. Only some years ago, it was still common with opinions that taxi cars, and not Uber or Lyft, were obvious in urban centres around the world. Applications, blockchains and artificial intelligence make it possible for different systems, components and networks to cooperate and complete each other in ways that make such processes hard or even impossible to predict. Usage of decentralised technology is touching everything from terrorists to impacts on ecology and how social and economic interactions will look in the future. 

The manifestation of complexity is also obvious when it comes to climate change because climate change, transformation and development are including urbanisation, energy and economy. Dealing with climate change means complex solutions where the public, private and individual institutions are all part of the general solution. Complexity is not only about how a problem is perceived and constructed but mainly about acceptance for different ideas, perspectives and partial solutions that need to melt together and integrated into a holistic structure through collective wisdom and planetary consciousness. 

Through the years, globalisation has been criticised for being undemocratic and for reducing acting spaces for the government’s decision-making and popular sovereignty. At the same time, there is no “national sovereignty” when it comes to climate change, AI and nuclear weapons’ impact. In order to deal with global problems, challenges and risks, more people need to have planetary awareness. Via digital democracy and co-creative process, as in communities and social platforms, more people can be involved, and more knowledge can be gathered. Thereby, complexification and further globalisation of democracy are necessary for a peaceful, harmonic and wealthy future of our planet. 

The post The complexity of globalisation first appeared on Opulens.

DICTATORSHIP. Philosopher Clive Hamilton and sinologist Mareike Ohlberg are attempting to make a comprehensive approach to how China and the Chinese Communist Party are handling their foreign interests in a globalised world in their “Hidden Hand – Exposing how the Chinese Communist Party is Reshaping the World”.

When Samuel. P Huntington wrote about the clash of civilisations in his essay with the same name, the Chinese culture was already one of seven examples, depending on how one is counting, that he emphasised.

His thesis has been pondered upon and analysed since he wrote the essay. I am not wholly convinced that we have come closer to a consensus in the public debate. The recent pandemic has put the world at a stop due to the outbreak of Covid-19 in Wuhan. It has also led to the world’s relations with China and the Chinese Communist party being brought into the limelight. 

In the book “Hidden Hand – Exposing how the Chinese Communist Party is Reshaping the World” writers Clive Hamilton and Mareike Ohlberg are attempting to make a comprehensive approach to how China and the Chinese Communist Party are handling their foreign interests in a globalised world. Even Sweden has been affected, for example, in a way that the Swedish citizen Gui Minhai has not been heard or seen of since 2018. 

As a writer and book publisher, Minhai was convicted to ten years of prison in 2020. Questions about his captivity have been raised several times, but from CCP:s point of view, the case is closed. The reason being that Minhai was rumoured to publish a book called “Xi Jinping and his mistresses” something that really has provoked the CCP and especially it’s leader Xi Jinping. Minahi’s case is mentioned in the book. 

When discussing China, it is important to understand that it is Xi Jinping, CCP:s chairman since 2013 and probably the most powerful politician in the world, who is in charge of things. During Xi Jinping’s time at power, the tune has been sharpened against everything and everyone who could be seen as a threat to China and CCP:s interest internally and globally.

In the book, which is one of the more informative published about Chinese politics, the writers show in several areas and examples the real influence of the CCP. It is an appalling reading. CCP’s attempts to increase its influences over the electrical infrastructure,  intellectual property and raw materials will be difficult to ignore.

 With one example after another, the writers present the economic and intellectual influence that the CCP has over the West and its different institutions. Even examples where Chinese interests have bought whole institutions. The book’s credibility is high concerning which examples the writers have chosen, showing how ridiculously unaware the West’s economic elite have been for years.

Countries like Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA, have many times been naive concerning how they handled the extention and magnitude of Chinese influence. The writers are taking up several examples when governments and interest groups have been convinced of China’s legitimate measures, while the requirements of compensation have been almost nonexistent among western stakeholders. 

CCP:s influence is both economical and strategical.

Cooperations with many western scientists and software developers are an important factor for CCP, and is something which the CCP is working on in order to become a global leader in IT. To this, espionage and cyberhacking can be added, with direct and indirect traces to China, which have increased dramatically during the last years.

Today, university after university are establishing long-term cooperations with Chinese interests, ultimately leading to CCP’s security organisations that actively are searching for new knowledge areas to develop. The digital strategy of CCP has been clear. It is about creating a Chinese future, including everything that enables digital control over the population. Something that the citizens of Hong Kong already have experienced during the last years. 

 It is not an exaggeration to call mainland China one of the most monitored and surveilled areas in the world, especially in big cities. This specific surveillance policy is directly ordered and cherished by the highest levels in CCP.  The CCP’s political rhetoric speaks about dissidents and traitors, lessons learned from the fall of the U.S.S.R. 

Something which has characterised Xi Jinping’s time in power is the constant fear that CCP will lose its legitimacy and be overthrown. There is no price too high to pay when it comes to CCP’s dominance internally and globally. 

Corruption within the party are continually occurring and have become a high priority for  Xi Jinping’s leadership. The many exposures and trials connected to corruption speak volumes. Also, it is an easy way to get rid of one’s political rivals to the chairman post. As stated on a real poster with Xi Jinping pictured in 2014: “The question of corruption is completely critical, flies as well as tigers have to be smashed”. 

”Belt and Road- Initiative” (BRI), a project with over 70 participating countries, is one of the world’s most comprehensive infrastructure projects. China is providing a helping hand to developing countries and other stakeholders to create large infrastructure projects. 

And it is not only out of generosity that the BRI is performed since, in the end, it is also about China getting more control over harbours, other types of infrastructure and raw-materials in relevant countries. Something that countries like Malaysia and Kenya experienced the hard way. For example, Mombasa – Kenya’s largest harbour-  became Chinese owned after the Kenyan government could not repay their construction loans. 

I see very few chances that other countries will have the will and power to break down the Chinese influence in the short term. Despite the concerns with demographic problems,  because of the former one-child policy, the CCP are unwilling to drop their control of mainland China and other parts of the world.

The post China’s hidden hand first appeared on Opulens.

DEMOCRACY. For a long time, the idea of “A League of Democracies” has been suggested.  How could it influence world politics? Could 2021 be the year when the league is created?

The UK has the presidency of the G7 this year, a group of nations created during 70s also consisting of Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Canada and the United States. British Prime minister Boris Johnson will arrange a first digital summit and if possible due to the Covid-19 situation, even a summit in Carbis Bay in June. Johnson has also invited the Prime ministers of Australia, India and South Korea. 

Other countries have previously been invited as guests to G7 meetings. Still, this time the aim is to create a foundation for the guests to participate in the transformation from G7 to D10 – Democratic 10, a group of the world’s ten largest democracies. 

According to the UK government, D10 has two advantages compared to earlier proposals: it is not too big, making cohesion easier, and neither is it too small as it would encompass the Pacific region better than the current G7 current concentration on transatlantic relations. The D10 would also keep its focus on two issues: development of 5G, the next big phase in communication standards, and development of critical supply chains. These choices for a future D10 would mean a conflict with China. 

Boris Johnson has several reasons to propose the formation of the D10. In domestic politics, he feels the pressure that the slogan “Global Britain” should have some kind of content after Brexit. Also, he wants to create a better impression and improve relations with the new American president Joe Biden, whose staffers often see Johnson as a populist with a crazy hairstyle in the like of Donald Trump. 

The host country can organise a G7 meeting in the way it wishes, but how will the other members react? Decision-makers hail the idea of creating aD10 in Washington DC and Tokyo. The Biden administration sees it as something positive – an alliance of like-minded countries with the intention to take on the challenge from China.  

For a long time, President Joe Biden has been proposing a top-meeting for democracies during his first year of presidentship. The enlarged G7 meeting can give a platform for establishing cooperation in several policy areas. D10 could become a way for Biden to show the USA’s renewed interest in multilateralism, at the same time Biden can gather a more powerful alliance against China that the USA will more and more be coming into conflict with. 

Australia, India and South Korea all have open conflicts with China. Also, they see favour on an influential alliance that is not only reserved for the West. The Pacific region has the highest economic growth, which is seen as the best answer for the pandemic and that more and more stands up in the centre for the global power struggle. 

In comparison to this trio, Canada is more cautious, while Europeans are outright sceptical. France, Italy and Germany are worried that the D10 could become an alliance with an edge against China and Russia (whom they rather would wish to bring back into the G7’s fold) 

Italy, which has its economy closely connected to China’s, is demanding guarantees that G7 will not change. France suspects that Johnson wants to reduce the influence of the EU member countries in the G7 framework and in conjunction their power in future negotiations with the UK. 

The Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel,  has recently successfully steered the  EU:s agenda in order to decide on a controversial investment agreement with China. She thinks that the forming of the D10 could trouble Germany’s industrial exports to China and the country’s import of gas from Russia. 

The old G7 from the Cold War needs to find new reasons to exist in a changed and unstable world. It is a fact that the democratic countries in Asia and Oceania have a more prominent importance today. 

There are those who fear that the creation of a D10 would worsen international tensions, but maybe not with China and Russia. The EU has dropped its criticism of China’s concentration camps in Xinjiang because the EU wants China’s investments. The EU’s trade strategy to save its industry that is passing through a crisis is based on establishing carbon tariffs against the rest of the world.  

Germany has become dependent on the Russian gas, and Berlin has decided not to use its participation in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline as a way to influence Moscow. Besides that such actions have resulted in an open field for illegal annexation, poisonings, at least one assassination, attempts to undermine western democracy and even the German government in secret offering one billion Euros last year in order to secure an American guarantee not to impose sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 project.

It is possible that the League of Democracies will not be successful this time due to the conditions in world politics have changed, even for the G7. Cold War II does not have the same conflict spaces as the first one. But the debate shows that democracies can have fundamentally different interests when it comes to geopolitics. Groupings between them are not easy to create, as is often presented. International organisations and agreements are becoming more powerful when they are clear in their aims and have members acting in good faith. 

The post D10 – an alliance of democracies? first appeared on Opulens.

HUMANITY. In “Pieces of the puzzle – Managing migration in the EU” researcher Bernd Parusel argues for a new European immigration policy and system based on human rights, social inclusion and global cooperation. One important conclusion is that if the EU cannot improve and learn from current failures, it will be more or less impossible to create better solutions at the world level as well.

During 2015, more than 1 million refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants came to the EU. Most of EU-governments accepted the majority of immigrating individuals as in cases of Germany, Sweden and Portugal. But instead of taking pride in such large and historical humanitarian effort, the EU has changed negatively when it comes to policies, decisions and communication. Even those EU-states as Germany with a “welcoming attitude” are not more restrictive and pessimistic regarding humanitarian migration.

While the Corona pandemic has resulted in border closures and reduced human mobility across the world, the EU: Commission has been organising a new “New Pact on  Migration and Asylum”. A pact that most of the EU-governments and parliamentary groups in the European Parliament are unsatisfied with. Several analysts and experts have already been proclaimed the pact as “business as usual” where ideals of open society and closed society are mixed as a European, one can often feel that issues concerning immigration policies and systems are a never-ending story. 

However, it is not a never-ending story, but migration will always be part of Europe. After all, most Europeans have someone in their history as parents or have friends and colleagues who have been refugees and immigrants. Also, as the EU is integrating politically and economically, even the migration policy areas will have to follow. It is hard to have a single market and common institutions with 27 asylum systems.

Historically seen, EU-governments have been discussing and negotiating about integrating policies and institutions for the humanitarian and labour migration already since the 1980s. 

Such historical background is described in the book “Pieces of the puzzle – Managing migration in the EU”  by Bernd Parusel, published via European Liberal Forum. Parusel makes a detailed historical presentation that is important when understanding Europe concerning migration. In the first place, the book is a strong encouragement to political actors, especially liberal and progressive ones, to find and create better solutions than the existing ones. 

Parusel emphasises that it is important to defend human rights that are EU:s cornerstone and push forward with new dynamics such as offering meaningful storytelling about the future of Europe. For example, an important proposal in the book is how new legal pathways could be created so that more people can enter the EU legally, freely and safely when applying for the right to asylum. Among other important proposals are to develop new mechanisms for shared responsibilities between EU-governments. 

The book provides a detailed and comprehending analysis concerning what has happened and what can be done by Europe. Parusel is also proposing better cooperation between the EU and other governments as the African ones when it comes to humanitarian assistance and deportation actions. The overall message is that more fences and walls will not work, while better cooperation and common goals will benefit humans, governments and continents. 

Finally, an important message of the book is that what is done Europe does not stay in Europe. Parusel highlights the importance of the 2018 Global Compact on Migration agreement and negotiations depending on European governance and development. Thereby, the EU can improve itself and our planet regarding human dignity and security. 

The post Time for EU:s humanitarian update first appeared on Opulens.

DEMOCRACY. The book The Tribalization of Europe. A Defense of Our Liberal Values by Marlene Wind is a welcomed contribution to discussions about Europe’s future. Wind’s message is that historical lessons are important to act against opportunism and populism. 

In autumn 2018, I was riding a Uber-cab in Barcelona during my summer school participation for basic income supporters across Europe. When the driver and I rode near a demonstration asked him what was going on. The driver answered that members from “Catalan and Castellano communities” were in conflict with each other about Catalonia’s future status. 

The term “community” and the driver’s English on Urdu dialect reminded me of when I was living in India and reading about riots in Bangalore. My university colleague told me that it was about a conflict between members of  Kannada and Tamil communities. How could something like that happen in a country with enormous cultural pluralism, I was thinking at the time? Until I realised that similar things happen in Europe, including my own experience from Bosnia, when people are using or better said misusing their collective identifications. 

Terms as nation, tribe and identity politics have dominated political debates in the USA and Europe for the last five years. They especially concern phenomenas as “Brexit and Trump”. A book analysing such developments is Tribalization of Europe. A Defense of Our Liberal Values, written by political scientist Marlene Wind working at the University of Copenhagen. Her book is focusing on the Brexit process, separatism in Catalonia and the anti-democratic development in Hungary.  

Wind argues that the European Union was created as a universalist project. Partly by thoughts to unite people over national borders in Europe and partly to promote a democratic and free world. Several parts of her book remind of what among others historian Yuval Noah Harari has written that the EU is the largest multicultural experiment based on universal values.

According to Wind, nationalists and populists in Europe act against ideas as liberal-democracy by their ambitions to conduct identity control. Wind describes tribalism or tribe mentality as an organised way of proclaiming “the true” ethnic, cultural or nation-based belonging at the same time as wanting to exclude “the others” from a community. For example, in Sweden, the nationalist and radical-right Sweden Democrats’ agenda is to politically decide who and who is not a Swede. 

Another important aspect in Wind’s book is the defence of democratic constitutionalism, as the individual freedoms and rights. Wind argues that Europe’s history during the interwar period 1919-1939 shows how horrible things can get when anti-democratic, totalitarian and authoritarian actors and systems take over. According to Wind sooner or later, different decampments from constitutional democracy as the attack on the rule of law and independent judiciary lead to dictatorship and crimes against humanity. 

There are some parts of the book I wish that Wind could have explained more. For example, there is a whole chapter about how liberals have been too passive in the debate regarding populism but almost without any concrete proposals what liberals should really do.  I also wish that Wind could include some more famous references to Jürgen Habermas’s constitutional patriotism and ideas around European citizenship. 

In general, the book is an important contribution to understand better why nationalist, populist and tribalist only can damage Europe development. A Europe that can still inspire the rest of the world that supranational democracy can work. 

The post The Tribalization of Europe first appeared on Opulens.