Friday 5 September 2014

superfecta or theatre-in-the-round

NATO representatives have gathered in Wales in order to reassert the relevance of their club and address a depressing array of threats to broader peace. Such short workshops rarely result in any lasting resiliency or reflection, and instead in greater polarisation for fear of admitting to motivations that lie beneath hidden by the beards of รฉminence gris—but that's the trident of institutional problems. Nationally endemic problems can happily be ignored in such an ideological environment, and provocation buffets attention from all corners: Western powers are making a calculated (even unto failure) to punish Russia's stance in the Crimea with economic sanctions that are curiously—if not backfiring—only punishing to the sanction-givers, as Russia has independent means and no shortage of other buyers—and oddly chosen rhetoric, like attributing the false hubris that it might take Russia as much as two weeks to take Ukraine, when in fact it would be much quicker.

What version of history will bear the laurels of authority is a mystery in this complicated situation, but I am sure that no one comes out innocent, since after apparently winning the the imperium of non-interference in the Middle East, the organisation was directed to pick a fight with a tried and true paradigm and eagerly take up some Cold War housekeeping. And while patriotic aims fall away in this framework, the American general who has two roles that shuttle him between Stuttgart, Germany and Mons, Belgium as the European Commander and Supreme NATO Commander respectively, is prudently or brazenly arranging war-games in Russia's front yard and threatening to violate a gentlemans' agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev to not advance the bounds of NATO. Meanwhile, this posturing is being matched by more provocative sabre-rattling that is even harder to say whether it was factored in from the Caliphate. It has made overtures for overturning not only the United States, but also the royal house of Saud, and lately Russia with aims of expansion into Chechnya and the Balkans and reprisal for support of the Syrian government. Seemingly beyond the good and evil of media portrayals already (and seeing alibis as superfluous), I would wager Russia has few qualms in countering any attack by any means needed. The growing arsenal of the Caliphate and indelicate threats, however, are a source of concern not to be dismissed, what with some eleven commercial jet-liners procured from the captured airport in Tripoli ready to be deployed. All parties have a vision of the world better than the present state of things, but said aims are seen to wither in the face of real suffering and reckoning.

Tuesday 20 May 2014

arbitagรฉ or rub-a-dub

It could be that the US Central Bank never really introduced a tapering-scheme, meant to ween the economy off of its massive subsidy programme and has actually increased its printing of script, each bill redeemable for less and less.
Perhaps those whom try to project rosy futures to keep the whole rigged system on life-support realised that the American dollar was wholly untenable otherwise when they essentially—it seems—laundered some one hundred forty billion in bonds (debt—ungood) to hide their addiction to quantitative-easing (drawing money out of thin air—double-plus-ungood) to the country of Belgium. Belgium cannot live beyond its means as the European Central Bank and the European Union simply does not allow members to spin straw into gold. Whether such maneuvers actually took place are subject to question but it does seem quite plausible if not an eventuality, but certainly that college-try for tapering ought to be the subject of investigation, like with previous manipulation of the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) exchanges.

Saturday 12 April 2014

saargebiet oder neutral moresnet

Prior to the treaties and terms that were drawn up at the conclusion of the World Wars, the German state of Saarland had no cohesive identity and did not exist as an administrative division, until after WWI, French forces governed the area as a protectorate, the resource-rich region having historic connections to both countries and, like neighbouring Alsace, dominated by each power at different times over the centuries. The goal of long term occupation was that France could recover from the industrial ravages of the Great War and prevent Germany's rearmament through the coal and mineral deposits in this land. With the end of the following war, Saarland once again became a French protectorate with the surrender and when German territory was divided amongst the Allied Forces, which was not reunited with the rest of Western Germany until 1957 with what is referred to as die Kleine Wiedervereinigung. The French also had designs on another region, to the north, the heavily industrial and more resource-rich lands of the Ruhr Valley (Ruhrgebiet) of North-Rhine Westphalia.
French negotiators felt that the Ruhrgebiet should either be managed like the Saar Protectorate or be created as a separate condominium state—like the singular case of Andorra, ruled by two co-princes, the president of France and the Spanish bishop of Urgell, or the strange compromise reached a century earlier in the sliver of land called Neutral Moresnet (Esperanto was also the official language of this tiny country), which was a shared responsibility between the Kingdoms of Prussia and Belgium. A zinc mine, the region's only significant source, was located here and the committee that redrew the map after the last spate of warring wanted to ensure that no one country could monopolise the supply. American and British representatives, however, felt that France's demands went too far and taking away the country's industrial-base would make rebuilding the war-torn land impossible. Concessions were arrived at, however, and in exchange for being able to re-establish itself as an independent federal republic, West Germany agreed to pool its coal and steel resources with the rest of Europe and impose quotas on how much it could use domestically.

Thursday 27 March 2014

epimethius

Ever ready to take recourse to its core values—seemingly that of safeguarding the interest of powerful industry lobbies that know no bounds of patriotism but are exceedingly well-versed in all sorts of jingoism—the United States invoked a star-spangled jibe at its European allies during the G7 summit, which seemed to make quick amends of all America's recent transgressions and wiped the collective memories of those in attendance.

Of course the character of the meeting was drastically changed by its omission, though not shying from acknowledging the new by-laws and membership, and though some of the original rhetoric—that of curtailing nuclear proliferation, made the edit of more immediate and reactionary issues however countered with a demonstration of crouching prowess courtesy of the North Koreans with a test-launch of mid-range rockets—no one attempted to ignore what is happening on the periphery of Europe with the Russian incursion into the Crimea and further advances expected by the West. The exhortation for action and unity was certainly not an empty one, nothing schmaltzy or sentimental (but perhaps would have been taken so in a different context), since we all are really heirs to this peace, though probably not in the same ways as the venue was constructed, but it was a opportune one that has been maybe overlooked, as a comforting elision. In order to sway, I believe, those resistant to adopting wholesale the latest free-trade pact with the US, negotiated in secret and having accumulated many justified reservations over the standards of environmental and labour protections—or copyright embodied by the elusive Atomium landmark of Belgium and promises of endless prosperity that seem impossible to fulfill on a mutual level without losers, the current situation was nuanced to embrace a fuel-independence for Europe that America could help alleviate, as if by opening up a valve that would magically siphon US frack-gas (refined) to the Continent, with the condition of accepting all the other conditions, like accepting GM foods without stint or disclosure. Hopefully politicians will realise the awkwardness of this pitch afterwards and appreciate that acceptance of a commercial-accord is not the moral-imperative called upon.

Thursday 9 May 2013

leute heute

This day, coinciding the late night capitulation of Nazi Germany of 1945 to the Soviet army, after midnight according to Moscow time (executed in Reims, France) but observed on the day prior by Western European countries, is universally recognised as Europe Day for the Schuman Declaration of 1950 that founded what would become the European Union.
The fatefulness of the coincidences are muted (but not mooted) by the spirit of the day, reserved for lessons in civics, integration and harmony, but it is a little off-putting to have such a significant collusion of anniversaries that the political overtones cannot (and should not) be fully ignored or forgotten. Much could hinge on any given date on the calendar and maybe there is a certain hopefully affinity to be found in infamy but the designation of does seem a bit of a bombast, considering the certain friggatriskaidekaphobia to be overcome. The day also falls on the eve of the invasion of France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg in 1940 in addition to Victory Day, and curiously is precisely offset by a half-year with the German declared Schicktsalstag (Day of Destiny). 9 November, from a German point of view and the perspective of Weltsanschuung, is marked by the execution of cooler-heads in 1848 in Vienna that led to later crises of state, the overthrow of the monarchy and formation of the Weimar Republic, Hitler’s coup (Putsch) in Munich, the horrors of Kristallnacht (Reichspogromnacht) a few years later, the founding of the SS, an unruly and disenfranchised bunch of malcontents despite the lent prestige, and the razing of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Maybe that date will never be fully reformed but did redeem itself, and it was originally celebrated as the German Day of Reunification, though later shifted to October of the following year when all formalities were complete in order to not dither on a day already associated with atrocity. The culling of time and dates is certainly not limited just to the past and perhaps Europe Day is really an avenue towards redemption and unhinging.

Wednesday 11 January 2012

stamp act or omm-nomm-nomm

Despite problems reaching a broad consensus that would avoid creating market havens through the EU (and internal strife arising from coalition party factions in Germany instant on an all-or-nothing buy-in—the pro-business Freie Demokratische Partei, under the leadership of the Finance Minister, argues that no plan would work if restricted to only euro-zone traders and without the participation of opposing UK and Sweden), the European Union, after some 18 months of debate and exploration, is ready, wobbly platform or not, to institute a financial transaction tax that would levy a 0.01% - 1% surcharge on trades.
There is some strong opposition that deserves to be heard, but I do think that a lot of the resistance is peppered with misconceptions and misapplication. This idea is nothing new, dating back to the opening of the London Stock Exchange during Renaissance times, and is already practiced to some extent in the Britain, Sweden (double-taxation is never floated, interestingly, as a contrary argument), Belgium, Greece, Poland and Switzerland and in other markets (even formerly in the US, until 1966, and Japan, until 1999) and the world did not end, and the stock exchanges are in fact far from some hedonistic free-for-all, and brokerages see amazing profits on short-term holdings and the activity of day-traders.  A comprehensive agreement is projected to raise billions in tax revenue, discounting fears that the financial sector in Frankfurt or London and elsewhere would wither as investors flee towards more open markets without the transaction fees. Since consumption and income taxes in Europe are pretty high to begin with, though European citizens do realize benefits for the amount of money they pay in, taxing the financial institutions to offset the burden on the individual seems like a fair move. Only trades are levied and not home mortgages and loans to small businesses, as well as private banking, and pension funds should be exempt as well, though I do not think retirement accounts are as likely to be gambled on the stock market in Europe as in America. Some have been given cause to vehemently and callously doubt government’s ability to spend their taxes wisely. These proceeds would also shore up emergency rescue funds for banks and governments in crisis, and perhaps have the added benefit of taming speculation and automated trading, whose emotions and hair-pin triggers have created much turmoil.

Saturday 19 November 2011

baby out with the bath water

There have certainly been some chilling exchanges between Germany and the United Kingdom over the UK’s peripheral participation in the European Union and (at least perceived) German insistence that if one is in for a penny, then one is in for a Pound--or rather the Pound Sterling ought to be retired in favour of the common euro zone currency. These tensions are not being distilled in the most helpful of ways, and given the way words and intent has been twisted and other consequences of membership dues (like Germany’s being privy to the Irish budget before Ireland's leaders saw it) and other overtures to Britain, I think it is not surprising to hear of such aversion and ire. The UK is a member of the EU and that partnership ought to be respected, and not just over potential obstinacy that would threaten any unanimous range of movement submitted to Brussels.
Both sides ought to realize the limits of reparations and accusations before diplomacy is exhausted as well: sacrificing national self-determination for the sake of monetary-security is as big a farce as the security-theatre of the absurd of the States. And although the old arrangements have been shown to be less than ideal and Europe’s true-believers have been given a great gift in the chance to re-think and re-build the framework of this cooperative, one should not be tempted to dismiss the overall health and well-being of the EU with such prejudice. Some are crying socialism and collectivism, very reminiscent I think of the harsh treatment and fear-mongering propagated by the opponents of Obamacare when they cited horror stories from the British NHS (National Health Service) as reasons to avoid socialized medicine, but in large parts of Europe, the people are seeing benefits from the taxes they contribute realized in affordable health-care, less gentrification, labour laws that protect the worker, preservation of heritage and the environment, rule of law without tolerance for corruption. The financial institutions that are ailing for the most part are limited to those that were over-extended in the American real-estate market and the imaginary numbers game of derivatives, Volkswagen is worth more in real assets than all of American auto manufacturers combined, and though employment and future prospects have sadly diminished in many places, there is great potential for recovery, should national entities only be able to deliver on their original promises. There is not, I think, so much outside pressure mandating change as restructuring for competition, enforcement of regulation (taxation) and growth, within reason. There's already enough crap in the world to satisfy any consumer (though possibly not at the right price), but the de-industrialization of the world's former factories (the US and the UK have grown a bit shrill in their criticism along with moving to a service-based economy) had nothing to do with a grand-anti-consumerism movement and more to do with greed.
Countries that retained their manufacturing sector continue to enjoy economic health and good levels of employment all around--not to over-simplify matters and not to disparage those nations that have picked up the slack with the outsourcing and off-shoring of corporate colonialism, tasked nominally with the production and export of things out-of-proportion with their own needs, means and tastes. It is not just the cars, planes, computers, etc. but also the management and control in line with demand and the dirty part of the business that leaves a mess to clean up: increased demand and improvements in standards of living has not pushed the tolerance of the environment to unseen heights but the struggle to maintain profit and productivity has. Remanded to one's own backyard, manufacturing and the challenge to do it all better and within one's neighbourhood imperatives, I believe, to mend the environment and the economy. National branding won't heal rifts nor will it safeguard statehood but maybe without the artificial threats of endless debt and austere futures, nations can resume talking about what works and what hasn't and without entendre and vitriol.