The immersive experience of the visual panorama was of course the chief draw, but being inside industrially giant and industrially unfamiliar, unreachable architecture was extra-ordinary as well. Sometimes the installation, the frame can be nearly as dazzling as the contents.Reflecting on Victory in Europe Day, the instruments of surrender signed and witnessed late in the night of the 8th of May and hence Victory Day in Russia and Eastern Europe due to the time difference, and the commemoration of the formation of the predecessor to the European Union that followed barely a scant decade later, is a bit diminished for being subjected to the current filters of disloyalty and disunion.
Forging a united Europe should not be without flexibility and forgiveness, nor at the expense of individual dignities. The conception was not perfect and neither are the realities and incom-patibilities of day-to-day operations, but I thought that we were moving beyond that frame of mind, no more entrapment and petty skirmishes and no more convenient amnesia. To compare the manufactured crises of economics to the untold tragedies of war is petty and cause for offence, but—though politics and popular sentiment can be moved greatly by either upheaval—despite anger and irreversible damage done in the war, the victors did not retaliate. Though defeated Germany could have been broken utterly and completely by demands for reparations (like after the First War—which albeit, did not turn out so well; I sometimes call our fair village by that name, not because its not a nice place but since it has an exceedingly common name and earned the stand-out designation of Bad [Spa, stand-out among its similarly named peers, that is] only just after it was one of the first towns to acknowledge and congratulate Adolf Hitler on his coup d’etat, Machtergreifung), its people were allowed to rebuild and recover.
Germany certainly has done many great things to recuperate and to contribute to peaceable formation of the European Union but has not done so without outside support and a stable substrate. This contrary and exclusive thinking that sees no growing imbalance in Europe’s social priorities is not a very appropriate way to regard the day, and it reminds me of the forgetfulness of some of the better-off of America’s campaigners (followed by a loyal base of supporters) who’d now begrudge a nation and a system that created the environment that fostered and protected their success its dues. A little gratitude can urge anyone towards improvement. Please now allow the Eurocorn to chase away the negativity in this dark post.
While it is premature and insulting to suggest that Greece, failing to form a definitive coalition government after its legislative elections that were themselves held in the framework of a caretaker government ingratiated as a condition of the first bailout package, will flagrantly choose to not uphold its obligations—attracting no clear majority though like-mindedness abounds—it does beg the question at what cost default. Greece is already in hock for the better part of a generation just keeping current on payments to service its rescue packages, with acutely less to show for it in the end: the dictates of creditors and angel-investors are superseding public services and the cultivation of a jobs market. Prophets of doom are probably not exaggerating when the say that Greece will suffer an extended period of massive poverty if they are forced to default (there is not much choice left in the matter) and quit the euro, but such consequences are temporary, surely less than the terms of the loan, and the Greeks could begin clawing their way back right away. Such a precedent, though, would be dread to see, dread to hear for other countries on the economic ledge and the minders of the EU—a cue for Spain, Ireland, Iceland, Portugal, Belgium and Italy, another nation imposed with a caretaker government, to consider doing the same.
I venture that the biggest fear behind the potential for contagion and strict monitoring of Greek conduct lies in not the potential for poverty but rather that it is a renegade category of poverty. Consumption continues at a pace, regardless of financial standing, so long as there is credit and interminable refinancing. Trade partners can still sell their exports and settle payments with a common currency in understood and agreeable terms, but once those conditions disappear and a country is unable to afford imports, established trade routes break down and there’s a turning inward and countries become more self-sufficient, relying on native products and developing local manufacturing (even if not as immediately efficient and technically advanced), perhaps even getting accustomed to getting by with less. Stronger economies would not be sustained without broader markets for the export of their expertise, and their sterling credit.
Through honeymoon speculation is already enough—from all sides—to dampen the mood, French President-Elect Franรงois Hollande, neither unknown nor unseasoned, is certainly promising to be exciting and surprising. The petty tyrants of business have already passed judgement, and while I genuinely believe that Hollande does not care about the drift of opinion or the promissory notes of campaign, his declaration that the financial system is his true adversary and not antagonists with more conservative beliefs may cause some critics and short-term market-watchers to condemn him as a caricature socialist, I don’t think that this individual is one to dismiss. Hollande is not an anti-business radical, and perhaps with the support of a broad collation domestically and beyond the borders of France, his platform and priorities could restore an essential balance, which in the long-term, as opposed to the daily fluctuations and appraisals that drive so much of the markets and profiteers seeking to skim what’s possible in the short-term, could create a more stable economic environment through personal achievement and initiative—and quality of life should always trump the profits of the few.
Like some king in exile, however, the prohibition on cooperation and meaningful compromise has created a strange and dangerous inverted arrangement where the only powers afforded to the president are those of foreign missions. Absent a venue to affect change at home, abroad emissaries attempt to terraform the world in a way most sympathetic to American interests, but pressing the adoption of international treaties is not a tool for pressing social reform domestically, and even the most high-minded efforts are being returned as something twisted and unrecognizable and possibly even more dangerous. America does not possess the largess for its ambassadors to move unchecked, and though there is no Republican opposition to Obama in the business of envoys, there are certainly competing interests. There have been the boomerang antics of the internet intellectual property protection, and though attempts for universal application have failed, the shape it took when it finally returned to the States was more opaque and rigid, the president denied even his voice in demanding more protections for privacy be put into place. 
The same goes with the proliferation of the US-style security and surveillance mentality, which has become the chief export of this honourary consul. The intent behind Battlefield Earth, expanding the definitions of war and rules of engagement, was for the defense of the Republic and was not meant to be a civic apparatus or a desperate wedge for enacting unpopular or previously rejected legislation, but perhaps when there is no other outlet, the domestic aspects of laws express themselves awkwardly in diplomatic circles. Obama has not turned to ombudsmen to unblock politics, but seemingly frustrated and unheeded in his political backyard, he is being portrayed eagerly as taking on loop-holes (punitive and selective) rather than what he is doing in fact by working in the slow and imperfect framework of creativity, democracy and dialogue.The diplomatic tensions between the US and China are rising over the yet unclear deportment of a vocal dissident. I am not sure what to think about this. I do not know enough about the situation to be able to penetrate broader judgments that span from unwise meddling to enshrining basic human rights.
It is exceedingly difficult to assay the situation, especially when all parties are not exactly forthcoming. I was encouraged at first that the US State Department seemed to fake left and then indicate that it might not kowtow to other pressures and more practical considerations. I feel sympathy for this activist and his family and their grander cause, which surely touches a billion souls, but at the same time I have to wonder how it might play out if the situation were reversed. Months ago, there was an international outcry over the detention of a provocative artists and many politicians plied their resources into gaining his freedom, but just as countries resign at the futility of opposing American policy—pointedly demands for the sharing of flight manifests and financial transactions with the US Department of Homeland Security at the risk of being labelled a rogue nation or merely going-along-getting-along through secret deals for very public treaties—that would bring down all the wrath that can be mustered on malingers. How would American react to China railing against the detention of a figure like Bradley Manning, the Wikileaks informant who has been tossed in an oubliette somewhere—much less extracting him with an ambassadorial cavalry? What constitutes an internal-affair, and can the determination be made in the face of hypocrisy?
