Sunday, April 18, 2010

Africa's Forever Wars

BY JEFFREY GETTLEMAN | MARCH/APRIL 2010
Foreign Policy

There is a very simple reason why some of Africa's bloodiest, most brutal wars never seem to end: They are not really wars. Not in the traditional sense, at least. The combatants don't have much of an ideology; they don't have clear goals. They couldn't care less about taking over capitals or major cities -- in fact, they prefer the deep bush, where it is far easier to commit crimes. Today's rebels seem especially uninterested in winning converts, content instead to steal other people's children, stick Kalashnikovs or axes in their hands, and make them do the killing. Look closely at some of the continent's most intractable conflicts, from the rebel-laden creeks of the Niger Delta to the inferno in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and this is what you will find.

What we are seeing is the decline of the classic African liberation movement and the proliferation of something else -- something wilder, messier, more violent, and harder to wrap our heads around. If you'd like to call this war, fine. But what is spreading across Africa like a viral pandemic is actually just opportunistic, heavily armed banditry. My job as the New York Times' East Africa bureau chief is to cover news and feature stories in 12 countries. But most of my time is spent immersed in these un-wars.
I've witnessed up close -- often way too close -- how combat has morphed from soldier vs. soldier (now a rarity in Africa) to soldier vs. civilian. Most of today's African fighters are not rebels with a cause; they're predators. That's why we see stunning atrocities like eastern Congo's rape epidemic, where armed groups in recent years have sexually assaulted hundreds of thousands of women, often so sadistically that the victims are left incontinent for life. What is the military or political objective of ramming an assault rifle inside a woman and pulling the trigger? Terror has become an end, not just a means.

This is the story across much of Africa, where nearly half of the continent's 53 countries are home to an active conflict or a recently ended one. Quiet places such as Tanzania are the lonely exceptions; even user-friendly, tourist-filled Kenya blew up in 2008. Add together the casualties in just the dozen countries that I cover, and you have a death toll of tens of thousands of civilians each year. More than 5 million have died in Congo alone since 1998, the International Rescue Committee has estimated.

Of course, many of the last generation's independence struggles were bloody, too. South Sudan's decades-long rebellion is thought to have cost more than 2 million lives. But this is not about numbers. This is about methods and objectives, and the leaders driving them. Uganda's top guerrilla of the 1980s, Yoweri Museveni, used to fire up his rebels by telling them they were on the ground floor of a national people's army. Museveni became president in 1986, and he's still in office (another problem, another story). But his words seem downright noble compared with the best-known rebel leader from his country today, Joseph Kony, who just gives orders to burn.

Even if you could coax these men out of their jungle lairs and get them to the negotiating table, there is very little to offer them. They don't want ministries or tracts of land to govern. Their armies are often traumatized children, with experience and skills (if you can call them that) totally unsuited for civilian life. All they want is cash, guns, and a license to rampage. And they've already got all three. How do you negotiate with that?
The short answer is you don't. The only way to stop today's rebels for real is to capture or kill their leaders. Many are uniquely devious characters whose organizations would likely disappear as soon as they do. That's what happened in Angola when the diamond-smuggling rebel leader Jonas Savimbi was shot, bringing a sudden end to one of the Cold War's most intense conflicts. In Liberia, the moment that warlord-turned-president Charles Taylor was arrested in 2006 was the same moment that the curtain dropped on the gruesome circus of 10-year-old killers wearing Halloween masks. Countless dollars, hours, and lives have been wasted on fruitless rounds of talks that will never culminate in such clear-cut results. The same could be said of indictments of rebel leaders for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court. With the prospect of prosecution looming, those fighting are sure never to give up.

How did we get here? Maybe it's pure nostalgia, but it seems that yesteryear's African rebels had a bit more class. They were fighting against colonialism, tyranny, or apartheid. The winning insurgencies often came with a charming, intelligent leader wielding persuasive rhetoric. These were men like John Garang, who led the rebellion in southern Sudan with his Sudan People's Liberation Army. He pulled off what few guerrilla leaders anywhere have done: winning his people their own country. Thanks in part to his tenacity, South Sudan will hold a referendum next year to secede from the North. Garang died in a 2005 helicopter crash, but people still talk about him like a god. Unfortunately, the region without him looks pretty godforsaken. I traveled to southern Sudan in November to report on how ethnic militias, formed in the new power vacuum, have taken to mowing down civilians by the thousands.

Even Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's dictator, was once a guerrilla with a plan. After transforming minority white-run Rhodesia into majority black-run Zimbabwe, he turned his country into one of the fastest-growing and most diversified economies south of the Sahara -- for the first decade and a half of his rule. His status as a true war hero, and the aid he lent other African liberation movements in the 1980s, account for many African leaders' reluctance to criticize him today, even as he has led Zimbabwe down a path straight to hell.
These men are living relics of a past that has been essentially obliterated. Put the well-educated Garang and the old Mugabe in a room with today's visionless rebel leaders, and they would have just about nothing in common. What changed in one generation was in part the world itself. The Cold War's end bred state collapse and chaos. Where meddling great powers once found dominoes that needed to be kept from falling, they suddenly saw no national interest at all. (The exceptions, of course, were natural resources, which could be bought just as easily -- and often at a nice discount -- from various armed groups.) Suddenly, all you needed to be powerful was a gun, and as it turned out, there were plenty to go around. AK-47s and cheap ammunition bled out of the collapsed Eastern Bloc and into the farthest corners of Africa. It was the perfect opportunity for the charismatic and morally challenged.

In Congo, there have been dozens of such men since 1996, when rebels rose up against the leopard skin-capped dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, probably the most corrupt man in the history of this most corrupt continent. After Mobutu's state collapsed, no one really rebuilt it. In the anarchy that flourished, rebel leaders carved out fiefdoms ludicrously rich in gold, diamonds, copper, tin, and other minerals. Among them were Laurent Nkunda, Bosco Ntaganda, Thomas Lubanga, a toxic hodgepodge of Mai Mai commanders, Rwandan genocidaires, and the madman leaders of a flamboyantly cruel group called the Rastas.
I met Nkunda in his mountain hideout in late 2008 after slogging hours up a muddy road lined with baby-faced soldiers. The chopstick-thin general waxed eloquent about the oppression of the minority Tutsi people he claimed to represent, but he bristled when I asked him about the warlord-like taxes he was imposing and all the women his soldiers have raped. The questions didn't seem to trouble him too much, though, and he cheered up soon. His farmhouse had plenty of space for guests, so why didn't I spend the night?
Nkunda is not totally wrong about Congo's mess. Ethnic tensions are a real piece of the conflict, together with disputes over land, refugees, and meddling neighbor countries. But what I've come to understand is how quickly legitimate grievances in these failed or failing African states deteriorate into rapacious, profit-oriented bloodshed. Congo today is home to a resource rebellion in which vague anti-government feelings become an excuse to steal public property. Congo's embarrassment of riches belongs to the 70 million Congolese, but in the past 10 to 15 years, that treasure has been hijacked by a couple dozen rebel commanders who use it to buy even more guns and wreak more havoc.

Probably the most disturbing example of an African un-war comes from the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), begun as a rebel movement in northern Uganda during the lawless 1980s. Like the gangs in the oil-polluted Niger Delta, the LRA at first had some legitimate grievances -- namely, the poverty and marginalization of the country's ethnic Acholi areas. The movement's leader, Joseph Kony, was a young, wig-wearing, gibberish-speaking, so-called prophet who espoused the Ten Commandments. Soon, he broke every one. He used his supposed magic powers (and drugs) to whip his followers into a frenzy and unleashed them on the very Acholi people he was supposed to be protecting.

The LRA literally carved their way across the region, leaving a trail of hacked-off limbs and sawed-off ears. They don't talk about the Ten Commandments anymore, and some of those left in their wake can barely talk at all. I'll never forget visiting northern Uganda a few years ago and meeting a whole group of women whose lips were sheared off by Kony's maniacs. Their mouths were always open, and you could always see their teeth. When Uganda finally got its act together in the late 1990s and cracked down, Kony and his men simply marched on. Today, their scourge has spread to one of the world's most lawless regions: the borderland where Sudan, Congo, and the Central African Republic meet.

Child soldiers are an inextricable part of these movements. The LRA, for example, never seized territory; it seized children. Its ranks are filled with brainwashed boys and girls who ransack villages and pound newborn babies to death in wooden mortars. In Congo, as many as one-third of all combatants are under 18. Since the new predatory style of African warfare is motivated and financed by crime, popular support is irrelevant to these rebels. The downside to not caring about winning hearts and minds, though, is that you don't win many recruits. So abducting and manipulating children becomes the only way to sustain the organized banditry. And children have turned out to be ideal weapons: easily brainwashed, intensely loyal, fearless, and, most importantly, in endless supply.

In this new age of forever wars, even Somalia looks different. That country certainly evokes the image of Africa's most chaotic state -- exceptional even in its neighborhood for unending conflict. But what if Somalia is less of an outlier than a terrifying forecast of what war in Africa is moving toward? On the surface, Somalia seems wracked by a religiously themed civil conflict between the internationally backed but feckless transitional government and the Islamist militia al-Shabab. Yet the fighting is being nourished by the same old Somali problem that has dogged this desperately poor country since 1991: warlordism. Many of the men who command or fund militias in Somalia today are the same ones who tore the place apart over the past 20 years in a scramble for the few resources left -- the port, airport, telephone poles, and grazing pastures.
Somalis are getting sick of the Shabab and its draconian rules -- no music, no gold teeth, even no bras. But what has kept locals in Somalia from rising up against foreign terrorists is Somalia's deeply ingrained culture of war profiteering. The world has let Somalia fester too long without a permanent government. Now, many powerful Somalis have a vested interest in the status quo chaos. One olive oil exporter in Mogadishu told me that he and some trader friends bought a crate of missiles to shoot at government soldiers because "taxes are annoying."
Most frightening is how many sick states like Congo are now showing Somalia-like symptoms. Whenever a potential leader emerges to reimpose order in Mogadishu, criminal networks rise up to finance his opponent, no matter who that may be. The longer these areas are stateless, the harder it is to go back to the necessary evil of government.

All this might seem a gross simplification, and indeed, not all of Africa's conflicts fit this new paradigm. The old steady -- the military coup -- is still a common form of political upheaval, as Guinea found out in 2008 and Madagascar not too long thereafter. I have also come across a few non-hoodlum rebels who seem legitimately motivated, like some of the Darfurian commanders in Sudan. But though their political grievances are well defined, the organizations they "lead" are not. Old-style African rebels spent years in the bush honing their leadership skills, polishing their ideology, and learning to deliver services before they ever met a Western diplomat or sat for a television interview. Now rebels are hoisted out of obscurity after they have little more than a website and a "press office" (read: a satellite telephone). When I went to a Darfur peace conference in Sirte, Libya, in 2007, I quickly realized that the main draw for many of these rebel "leaders" was not the negotiating sessions, but the all-you-can-eat buffet.

For the rest, there are the un-wars, these ceaseless conflicts I spend my days cataloging as they grind on, mincing lives and spitting out bodies. Recently, I was in southern Sudan working on a piece about the Ugandan Army's hunt for Kony, and I met a young woman named Flo. She had been a slave in the LRA for 15 years and had recently escaped. She had scarred shins and stony eyes, and often there were long pauses after my questions, when Flo would stare at the horizon. "I am just thinking of the road home," she said. It was never clear to her why the LRA was fighting. To her, it seemed like they had been aimlessly tramping through the jungle, marching in circles.

This is what many conflicts in Africa have become -- circles of violence in the bush, with no end in sight.

Getting physical

By Saffina Rana
25.02.2010 / 04:18 CET
The EU is keen to do more to encourage people to take exercise.

Anyone who has spent a lot of time slumped in an armchair during the past few years may have dozed through the news that the EU now has guidelines on physical activity. Which is an added reason for the European Commission to estimate that when it comes to taking daily exercise, roughly half of all EU citizens are not doing enough to stay healthy. However, having an EU policy without the power to implement it leaves the Commission itself somewhat exercised.

The EU guidelines on physical activity, developed in collaboration with the World Health Organization, outline daily exercise quotas for adults and children. Even more ambitiously, they serve as a blueprint for member states to create their own national exercise plans, with their numerous recommendations on developing facilities and activities at central, regional and local levels, on training staff, and on subsequent monitoring and improvement of initiatives.

EU sports ministers endorsed the recommendations in November 2008 – at a time when only Finland, France, Luxembourg, Slovenia and the UK had national plans in place. They remain merely recommendations, and not binding. The choices over action lie entirely with individual member states.
Last month, however, Spain and Germany announced that they had adopted national exercise plans. “In Germany, the plan is founded on a federal cabinet decision,” says Jacob Kornbeck of the Commission's department for education and culture.

Spain has gone even further, by adding its own provisions concerning people with disabilities. The Commission hopes these decisions will encourage similar action by other member states. “Even though the process itself is not legislative, not about adopting binding measures, it's still a very strong signal to send out at a federal level,” Kornbeck says of the German decision.

Review mechanism
The guidelines may also play a major role in the Commission's communication on sport, which is expected in July.

“It's highly likely there will be something in it about a regular review mechanism in the Council [of Ministers], based on the EU guidelines,” says Kornbeck.

A review system would identify disparities in the distribution of public funding for sport. It could induce countries that currently spend predominantly on elitist sports to switch funding to activities for the population at large.

The guidelines have already been implemented by sporting bodies – notably the International Sport and Culture Association, the European Health and Fitness Association, and the European Non-Governmental Sports Organisation.

Grassroots support
The Commission is keen to maximise support to grass-roots initiatives of this sort, so it maintains an EU Platform on Nutrition and Physical Activity, which it launched in 2005. This brings together 32 stakeholders from local authorities, industry, research and civil society, and last year it launched 160 initiatives, each of which depends on a funding commitment from private partners in order to secure Commission support from the EU Health Programme. One success story involving exercise is the Epode network to combat childhood obesity.

“We have done a lot through the platform, but not enough. It's not easy,” says Philippe Roux of the Commission's department of health and consumer policy, which hosts the platform.

Coupled with its lack of leverage in this field, the Commission is aware of added difficulties in engaging with public stakeholders in member states.

“When it comes to sponsorship and financial support, they continue to be afraid of intervention by the food industry in education and sport,” says Roux.

Saffina Rana is a freelance journalist based in Brussels.
© 2010 European Voice. All rights reserved

How much exercise is enough?
WHO/EU guidelines on daily physical activity

If you are healthy and aged between 18 and 65:
Aim for a minimum of 30 minutes of moderate physical activity five days a week or at least 20 minutes of vigorous exercise three days a week. You can do this in bouts of at least ten minutes and alternate between vigorous and less intense exercise.

If you are healthy and over 65:
As before, but prioritise exercises for strength and balance.
School-age children:
An hour or more of moderate to vigorous physical activity every day. This can be in bouts of ten minutes or more and consist of a range of activities (for example, aerobics, weight-bearing exercise, strength training), according to the needs of the age group.

Working together
An initiative to combat child obesity in two small French towns is achieving global success, supported by the EU Platform on Nutrition and Physical Activity.

Epode – a French acronym for Together Let's Prevent Childhood Obesity – started in Fleurbaix and Laventie, not far from Lille. Between 1992 and 2004 they developed a community prevention programme that hired sports educators and built new sporting facilities, organised walk-to-school days, and hired nutritionists to mentor children, families and schools into changing their menus, environments and behaviour.
The proportion of overweight children in the two towns fell from 11.2% in 1992 to 8.8% in 2004, according to a study published last year. Two nearby towns that did not adopt the strategy saw a rise from to 12.6% to 17.8%.

Through the EU platform, the programme, initially local and then national, became a network by joining forces with companies such as Ferrero, Mars, Nestlé and Orangina Schweppes, as well as with four universities and the European Association for the Study of Obesity. In Europe, the network now extends to 275 towns and cities – with 32 in Spain, 13 in Belgium and 5 in Greece. A five-year programme using the same method was launched in Australia last year, and Mexico will follow next.

Azeris feel Iranian pressure

Members of Iran's Azeri minority have long complained that their rights are stifled. They make up a quarter of Iran's population, but claim the authorities are worried about an uprising by ethnic Azeris, as Tom Esslemont reports from the Azerbaijan-Iran border.

By 0900 the border between Azerbaijan and Iran is jammed.
Dozens of Azeri men and women with large plastic bags jostle to squeeze through a grey metal gate to passport control - and beyond that, Iran.

Border guards shout at them in an attempt to keep them in line. It fails.

For decades Azeris have crossed this fluid border to see family and friends on the other side. More than 20 million Azeris live there and have done since the territory was annexed under the Shah after a settlement with the Russian and, subsequently, Soviet leaders.

These days the existence of a border between the two Azeri-dominated lands is just taken for granted.

"I go to market on the other side because the food is cheaper there," says Gulchohra Hasanova as she emerges through the border gate, her shopping basket laden with nuts and fruit.

She had returned from Iran with enough food to last her a few days. Hers is a story echoed by dozens who cross back and forth on a daily basis in the border town of Astara.

Iranians also come here to buy alcohol - the sale of which is banned in their country.

On the run
But the freedom of movement is not open to everyone.
Not far away in his damp, dark two-room apartment I meet Mohammad Rza Lavai, an Iranian Azeri.

Azeris continue to cross freely into and out of Iran

As he tries to light the gas stove in his kitchen he tells me he is on the run.

He says he fled Iran in September, claiming he had been persecuted for his ethnicity.

He shows me articles he wrote while he was there - printed in Azeri newspapers - in which he criticizes the Iranian government for their "treatment of the Azeris".

"They did not like it when I used to write in Azeri and publish my work in newspapers: I strongly criticised the regime," he says.

"Soon the authorities called me in. I was jailed several times."
He is visibly shaken and points out that he is now on medication.
"In jail I was electrocuted and beaten," he continues. "There is no such thing as human rights in Iran."

Awkward relationship
It is impossible to verify Mr Lavai's story, and the Iranian constitution does not ban Azeri - but I came across others with similar stories, who did not want to speak on record.

There's no doubt that Sahar TV is the voice box of the Iranian authorities

Emin Huseynzade, Caucasus project manager at the think tank Transitions Online, says there has always been an awkward relationship between Azerbaijan and Iran.

"It started during the Shah period," he says. "And [it has become] a tradition: to keep Azeris out of education, out of the [Iranian] culture.
"People were not allowed to give their son or daughter an Azeri name. The cultural life in Iran pushed Azeris to become Persians. That is the main problem actually."

Professor Ali Ansari of St Andrew's University, an expert in Iranian history, says it is seen differently by the Iranian authorities.
"Azeri culture was suppressed in Iran but it has been tolerated and at times encouraged for political purposes," he says.

"However the Iranians are understandably very sensitive to any murmur of separatism and will crack down quickly on this."

Anger through television
These days there is another problem, in that Azerbaijan now supplies Israel with much of its oil.

By way of a response, Iran appears to be showing its anger through television.

When you turn on a television set in southern Azerbaijan it is possible to pick up Iranian TV.

Sahar TV broadcasts in the Azeri language. Its programmes regularly contain criticism of Azeri policy.

Men watch Sahar in tea rooms in towns like Astara and nearby Lenkoran.
The television set is always on, though not necessarily tuned into Sahar all the time.

Many say they only watch it out of curiosity, calling it Iranian propaganda.

Azeri nationalism?
Azeri journalist Khagani Ibadov says: "There's no doubt that Sahar TV is the voice box of the Iranian authorities.

"The presenters often accuse Azerbaijan of being a Zionist regime because of our strong ties with Israel. It shows just how worried they are about Azeri nationalism."

Sahar TV has, on at least one occasion, doctored an image of the Azeri flag so that the crescent moon was replaced with the Star of David, I was told.

As Mr Ibadov warms his hands on his glass of hot green tea he tells me Sahar TV is state-controlled.

"The programme presenters say everything that the Iranian government is too afraid to say directly," he says.

Back at the border Azeris continue to cross freely into and out of Iran.
In spite of everything Iran and Azerbaijan do enjoy bilateral ties and last year their trade turnover was reported to be $700m (£450m).
Lorries, emerging through thick soupy puddles that have collected at the border, carry Iranian produce, destined for local markets, the Azeri capital, Baku - and beyond.

The trade continues, but the stark differences between these two neighbours remain.

The age of we

Geoff Mulgan, 15 March 2010

About the author
Geoff Mulgan, Chair of the Commission, became Director of the Young Foundation in 2004, after various roles in UK government including head of policy in the Prime Minister's office

Civil society grew up in tandem with democracy. For two hundred years we have learned again and again that the formal apparatus of elections and parliaments only works if it’s complemented by a vigorous informal world of activism, argument and campaigns. Indeed it’s through civil society that societies experiment and adapt, imagining different futures and trying them out.

Much of the daily life of civil society is healthy – with no signs of long-term decline and decay, or for that matter any rise in selfishness and other ills, despite the pressures of recession. But it’s also clear that civil society is less than it could be. For a century or more it has been pushed to the margins by commerce and the state, which have claimed the lions’ share of resources and power. It has been paid lip-service, but generally neglected. And it has lost ground in areas it was once strong, like finance or childhood.

Today we can see the convergence of both long and short-term trends which could point to a major change in the position of civil society. The long-term trends can be traced back to many sources – the rising economic importance of charities and social enterprises globally; the counterculture of the 1960s; the global flowering of civil society activity in the wake of 1989 and the fall of the Berlin wall; declining trust in politics and the rise of a culture in which people seek and expect expression and voice.

The net effect of these changes is that it’s become harder for politicians to ignore civil society’s voice. In Barack Obama the western world has its most visible leader rooted in community activism. Here David Cameron and Gordon Brown compete to show off their credentials. But beyond a general encouragement for volunteering and social enterprise the political parties have found it hard to define a more serious agenda for civil society. In large part this is because the more radical agendas involve major shifts in power.
The Inquiry into the Future of Civil Society, undertaken with the involvement of hundreds of people from across the UK and Ireland, has tried to define what that agenda should be. Its starting point has been the remarkable coincidence of three crises: the financial crisis and its economic effects which has sharply reduced the status and confidence of market liberalism; the ecological crisis which has moved centre stage as never before in the wake of the Copenhagen Summit at the end of 2009; and a crisis of political confidence, particularly in Britain because of an accumulation of events, including most recently, the scandal of MP’s expenses.

Each crisis poses very different questions. But it is now impossible to imagine plausible answers to these questions which do not involve a widened role for civil society associations – as the complement to representative democracy; as the place where a different kind of economy takes shape, or is being rediscovered; and as the site for everyday solutions to the effects of rising carbon emissions.

Our recommendations propose not just action to promote the conditions for civil society to act (such as better protections of civil liberties around campaigning, as well as fewer regulatory barriers in the way of everyday community action), but also major changes to how power is organised.

In the economy and finance we argue for a major shift in regulations to expand the social economy, in part returning to the more pluralist economy of the nineteenth century. Social enterprises and cooperatives already account for a large share of economic activity (£24bn and £28bn respectively). But they rarely appear in considerations of economic or industrial strategy, and most of the gatekeepers of investment largely ignore them.

In the media we argue for radical reforms to favour greater pluralism in place of the division of labour between a single public sector organisation and a small band of commercial conglomerates. That will involve changing funding flows, as well as encouraging philanthropists and civil society to become more directly engaged in supporting diverse sources of news and comment.

For democracy itself we recommend moves to complement the formal rules of elections and representatives with greater engagement of civil society, more openness on the part of assemblies (for example with petitions or opportunities for citizens to take part in debates), devolution both down to local government and beyond to neighbourhoods, and more overt support for community leaders at all levels.

The bigger message behind these and many other recommendations is that we are seeing a shift from an age of ‘me’ to an age of ‘we’: with more willingness to strengthen collective institutions that embody a common interest rather than only self-interest.

This message takes us to the core of what civil society means today. Its ideas extend well beyond the much older traditions of charity and mutual support, though they grow out of them. They generalise from the direct impulse of charity to address the underlying causes of suffering and need, which can include attempting to challenge power structures. They put a strong emphasis on rights to voice, or democracy and, compared with traditional approaches to charity, assert that beneficiaries are best placed to define and understand their own needs. They are suspicious of actions, however well-intended, that leave beneficiaries passive and powerless.

Beyond traditional charity and mutual self-interest, modern civil society is also concerned with universal principles and claims, as well as universal accountabilities. In the environmental movement these ideas have arguably been taken furthest, with a commitment to nature and the biosphere as well as the interests of future generations. These ideas of universality have grown steadily as civil society associations have gained in confidence and depth. They have been most visible in those parts of civil society dealing with children, people with disabilities, race, gender and poor communities. But they can be found to some extent in almost every field. They have pushed civil society not only to denounce what is wrong in the present but also to grapple with visions of how things could be better; of a world with significantly enhanced rights, and equally enhanced responsibilities, radical devolution of power and active voice in many fields of life, from the workplace to the family.

That radical vision is now laying down a challenge to politics: whether to stop at supportive words. Or whether to go further and implement a radical shift in power.

Geoff Mulgan is Commission Chair for the Inquiry into the Future of Civil Society

Masdar: Abu Dhabi's carbon-neutral city

The world's first zero-carbon city is being built in Abu Dhabi and is designed to be not only free of cars and skyscrapers but also powered by the sun.
The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is the last place you would expect to learn lessons on low-carbon living, but the emerging eco-city of Masdar could teach the world.

By Tom Heap
Monday 29 March
2100 BST, BBC Radio 4

At first glance, the parched landscape of Abu Dhabi looks like the craziest place to build any city, let alone a sustainable one.

The inhospitable terrain suggests that the only way to survive here is with the maximum of technological support, a bit like living on the moon.

The genius of Masdar - if it works - will be combining 21st Century engineering with traditional desert architecture to deliver zero-carbon comfort. And it is being built now.

Masdar will be home to about 50,000 people, at least 1,000 businesses and a university.

It is being designed by British architects Foster and Partners, but it is the ruler of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who is paying for it. And it will cost between £10bn ($15bn) and £20bn ($30bn).

Renewable energy
The architects are turning the desert's greatest threat - the sun - into their greatest asset.

The quality of air will be better than any other street in the Gulf and in the world, and that alone will bring you safety, health and happiness

They have built the biggest solar farm in the Middle East to power the city and to offset the inevitable burning of diesel and baking of cement in construction.

They are also experimenting. One project involves a circular field of mirrors on the ground, all reflecting towards a tower in the middle.

That, in turn, bounces the light down in a concentrated beam about a metre (3ft) wide to produce heat and drive generators.

But I was told firmly not to wander over and feel the warmth, as it could fry me in seconds.

The international team of engineers have real pride in their work.

This is more than building to them, it is a lab bench with the freedom to get it wrong, and Masdar's chief architect Gerard Evenden loves the concentration of expertise: "What Abu Dhabi is beginning to generate is the Silicon Valley of renewable energy."

Keeping cool
The Emirates have seen one of the world's most spectacular building booms paid for by oil and made tolerable by air conditioners, which also depend on oil to feed their vast appetite for energy.

Lunar technology has begun to influence our thinking

But Masdar will have to be low temperature and low carbon.

Part of the solution is apparent the moment you walk in. And you do "walk in" because this is a city surrounded by a wall, a defined boundary.

Unlike the upward and outward sprawl of Dubai or Abu Dhabi, Masdar is compact like ancient Arab cities.
Streets are narrow so buildings shade each other, and the walls and roofs of buildings will do their bit to shed heat too.

The vertical faces are dressed with screens which look like a terracotta mesh. They keep the sun out but let the breeze in.

And as architect Gerard Evenden says: "Lunar technology has begun to influence our thinking."

One idea being tested is using a thin foil surface covering, a gas or vacuum blanket, to keep the heat out. It is an idea dreamt up for a moon base.

To encourage a breeze, wind towers are being built, drawing draughts through the streets without using energy.

Masdar will still use electricity for gadgets, some air conditioning and, most crucially, to desalinate sea water but, when it comes to power, the city has a simple mantra: "Only use energy when you have exhausted design."

Driverless vehicles
Conventional cars must be checked in at the city gates and then you can choose between the oldest and newest modes of transport.

At street level, it is all pedestrianised and the planners have done their best to keep the city compact and foot-friendly.

But if fatigue overtakes you, then slip down a level and meet the Personal Rapid Transit or podcars.
These driverless vehicles are guided by magnetic sensors, powered by solar electricity, and they stop automatically if an obstacle appears. They are programmed to go where you ask.

Kaled Awad, director of the Masdar project claims: "The quality of air will be better than any other street in the Gulf and in the world, and that alone will bring you safety, health and happiness."

The future success of the project will be clear to see.

On top of the wind tower, there will be a beacon betraying the city's actual energy use: red for too much, blue for just right.

It will be 45m (147ft) up and visible for miles around so, when Masdar is finished in five to 10 years' time, we will all know if it is in the red.

Italy: Papa’s boys, daddy’s girls

Published on March 16 2010

LA REPUBBLICA
 
According to a recent OECD study, Italy ranks right after the UK as the wealthy nation in which a father’s income and educational attainments most heavily determine his sons’ success. And this dearth of social mobility is a drag on economic growth, notes the OECD.

In a fossilised, immobile society of all but immutable socioeconomic hierarchies, merit counts for little and opportunities to ascend the social ladder are few and far between. This is hardly news to us, but now it’s been statistically corroborated by the OECD in a soon-to-be-released study called "A Family Affair", which, citing statistics galore, reviews intergenerational social mobility across the world’s wealthiest nations.

So how much of a wallop does papa’s paycheck pack? Well, almost 50% in Italy. This, according to the OECD’s figures, is the extent to which Italian children’s earnings reflects their parents’. In Italy, in other words, half of the income advantage a high-earning father has over a low-earning father is automatically passed on to his son, regardless of the latter’s aptitudes and personal history. The percentage is a notch higher in Britain and a tad lower in France and the United States. In Denmark, Australia and Norway, this “hereditary” transmission is under 20 per cent.

A huge waste of human resources
The figures show how much incomes vary according to family background. Having a dad with a university degree, for instance, is a sort of insurance policy. In Italy (far more so than in France or the UK), an engineer’s son is nearly 60% more likely to go to university, just as dad did, than a worker’s son, and over 30% more likely than an accountant’s son. Moreover, a college-educated family generally provides a culturally and socially more propitious background: whether or not he earns a degree himself, the son of an Italian college graduate will earn, on average, 50% more money than a man whose father never went to college. The only places where the situation is worse for those whose fathers left school early on are Portugal and Great Britain. This “scholastic endowment” comes to only 20% in France, and not even 10% in Austria and Denmark.

A system in which everyone is and remains a “papa’s son”, for better or worse, poses an economic problem in rich countries: it means a huge waste of human resources. "First,” says the study, “less mobile societies are more likely to waste or misallocate human skills and talents. Second, lack of equal opportunity may affect the motivation, effort and, ultimately, the productivity of citizens, with adverse effects on the overall efficiency and the growth potential of the economy.” The OECD concludes that the greater the social inequalities in a given country, the more immobile that society is going to be. And Italy is one of the Western countries with the highest levels of inequality.

Earnings of the father visited upon the son
On the other hand, Italy (in contrast to the US, France, Germany and Great Britain, for instance) is one of the countries where family background has the least influence on scholastic performance: the engineer’s son does not do better on a maths test than the worker's son. The only places that show less family correlation in scholastic aptitude are Canada, South Korea and some of the Nordic countries. In all likelihood, this is the upshot of a substantially homogeneous and socially integrated public school system, a system without any yawning gulfs between different types of secondary schools and in which the engineer’s boy and the worker’s boy are liable to be classmates. The study shows that everyone stands to gain from increasing the social mix in schools, which can improve the performance of disadvantaged students without adversely affecting overall results. So the OECD stresses the importance of the school system in offsetting the influence of family background on educational achievement.

Not only is much of the future already engraved on Daddy’s paycheck, but there seems to be little point in bothering to study: according to the economists, career advancement in Italy tends to depend more on seniority and experience than on levels of competence or training. Intergenerational mobility in Italy is low because intragenerational mobility is too. To turn a scriptural phrase, the earnings of the father are visited upon the son: in our day, in our country, quantum leaps from rags to riches or vice-versa remain a statistical anomaly.

Сепаратизм в Україні: "Розкольники"

Кость БОНДАРЕНКО, політолог
Кому вигідний «дерибан» України?

Першою штучно створеною «точкою розриву» країни став Донецьк. Саме тут розпочалася історія PR-розколу України.

Якщо українська влада все-таки вирішить на президентських виборах калькувати російський політичний сценарій «Преемник», то за відсутності в Україні власної Чечні, вона може використати чинник регіонального сепаратизму. На політичну орбіту виходить маловідома або призабута постать, яка завдяки політичним технологам несподівано перетворюється на «рятівника нації» й головного претендента на перемогу.

Етно-політичні, мовні, культурні, історичні, економічні й ментальні відмінності між різними регіонами України відомі всім. У відносно «мирний» час вони не впливають (чи майже не впливають) на політичне життя держави загалом. Однак у добу потрясінь чи змін окремі політичні сили знову й знову апелюють до того, що роз’єднує Україну. Зокрема, під час подій зі зривом з’їзду «Нашої України» у Донецьку деякі ЗМІ настирливо нагадували українським обивателям про те, що Україна — не монолітна держава. За кілька днів після цього Президент Леонід Кучма, відповідаючи на запитання «Контрактів», чи не бачить він у намаганнях штучного переділу України за політичними ознаками загрози подальшому розвитку країни й чи не збирається втрутитися в цей процес як гарант дотримання Конституції, зазначив: «Я завжди звертаюся до розуму тих політичних сил, які розпалюють цю ситуацію. Я завжди попереджаю про наслідки, які можуть бути, й про те, чим це загрожує Україні». Справді, політтехнологи, які намагаються у великій грі за президентство використати карту регіональних відмінностей України грають з вогнем: недовга історія незалежної України рясніє прикладами місцевого сепаратизму.

Російський вектор і донецький сектор
Років десять тому російські геополітики неодноразово пропонували активніше використовувати відмінності, що існують між українськими регіонами, для впровадження традиційного принципу «divide et impera» (розділяй і володарюй). Олександр Дугін, наприклад, писав: «Галичина є чимось іншим, аніж решта України. Вона розвивалася під неабияким католицьким впливом. Велика Україна є значно цікавішою у політичному сенсі, ніж Галичина, й набагато ближчою до Росії». У своїй книзі «Основи геополітики» Дугін пропонує розділити Україну на три-чотири частини, а Володимир Жириновський — переважну частину України приєднати до Росії, а Галичину або віддати Польщі, або перетворити на буферну зону між Росією та Європою — під виразним російським контролем. Такі ідеї в Росії непоодинокі.

Російські концепції впали на благодатний грунт. В Україні з’явилося чимало адептів регіонального сепаратизму. На початку 90-х років частина донецьких інтелектуалів виношувала плани відродження Донецько-Криворізької Республіки, що незначний час існувала 1918 року. Об’єднання промислового потенціалу Донецька, Дніпропетровська, Луганська й, можливо, Харкова могло зумовити створення нового державного утворення на промисловій основі. Іншу територію України було б приречено на занепад і животіння в рустикальному (орієнтованому на село) просторі. Автори ідеї апелювали до таких чинників, як: а) переважна російськомовність населення областей, що мали ввійти до Донецько-Криворізької Республіки; б) значний рівень урбанізації цієї території України; в) значний економічний потенціал (лише Донецька, Дніпропетровська та Запорізька області є бюджетонаповнюючими); г) підвищена етнічна строкатість регіону.

Зрозуміло, Донецько-Криворізька Республіка у разі її утворення могла б ментально тяжіти до Росії. Однак економічні процеси не дали б змоги їй увійти до Російської Федерації. Донецькі політики виявилися далекогляднішими, ніж здавалося, й вирішили замість сепараційних процесів взятися до активного захоплення політичних висот на київському рівні. Усвідомлення того, що, завоювавши Київ, можна досягти значно більших результатів, ніж урятувавшись втечею від Києва, призвело до занепаду донецько-криворізького регіонального сепаратизму.

Як Галичина від України відпочивала
На початку української незалежності заявив про себе й закарпатський «русинський» сепаратизм. На відміну від донецько-криворізького, цей вид сепаратизму базувався на двох «китах»: по-перше, на спробі довести мовно-культурну та історичну окремішність «пудкарпатських русінів» від українців; по-друге, на географічному розташуванні (саме район, довкола якого мало початися будівництво «Пудкарпатської Русі», є географічним центром Європи). Брак потужної сировинної бази та великої промисловості, на думку лідерів русинських сепаратистів, повинен бути компенсований завдяки туристичній галузі та ймовірним зацікавленням регіоном з боку іноземних держав (Закарпаття ще напередодні Другої світової війни розглядали як ідеальне місце для розміщення військових баз). Однак саме брак інтересу до русинської справи ззовні призвів до занепаду сепаратистського руху.

Ще один різновид сепаратизму — галицький, точніше, галицько-буковинський, позаяк останнім часом ці два регіони тісно пов’язані між собою. Під час революції 1917-1921 років, і в міжвоєнний період, і в часи Другої світової війни, не кажучи про 1950-1980-ті роки, саме Західна Україна була найактивнішим регіоном, який боровся за незалежність України, своєрідним локомотивом, що тягнув країну до незалежності.

У другій половині 90-х років ХХ століття частина галицької інтелігенції вирішила, що її заслуги перед Україною настільки вагомі, що вона може відпочити від решти України в Європі. В основі новітнього галицького сепаратизму лежить кілька чинників, серед яких основними є: а) створення своєрідного галицького міфу на базі окремішної історії та новішого міфу про можливість перетворення Галичини на «локомотив», що вивезе Україну в Європу; б) невдоволення частиною галицької еліти другорядним, підпорядкованим становищем у рамках загальноукраїнських елітарних процесів; в) поразка галицької моделі, галицької концепції Української Держави — зокрема й з баченням ролі та місця російської мови, російської культури та українсько-російських міждержавних відносин. Додатковими чинниками стали мовний (на Заході України значно більший відсоток населення розмовляє українською мовою, ніж на Сході), побутовий (Захід України більш прив’язаний до народних традицій), ментальний (на Заході України переважає консервативне сприйняття дійсності), релігійний (потужний вплив УГКЦ у Галичині) та інші відмінності.

Галицький сепаратизм наразі — ідея, яка оволоділа незначною частиною населення Західної України. Ризикнемо припустити, що її сповідує не більш як 0,1% населення. Ідея сепарації від України наразі популярна зараз у середовищі митців, інтелектуалів, деяких журналістів. Однак соціологічні дослідження свідчать, що понад 50% галичан будуть готові проголосувати за незалежну Західно-Українську Республіку у разі, якщо офіційний Київ піде на політико-економічне зближення з Росією. І ця цифра з року в рік зростає.

Острів Крим
Після виходу України зі складу СРСР російське населення Криму зіштовхнулося з двома проблемами: а) відокремленням від Росії і б) поверненням на півострів кримських татар з майновими претензіями. Починається широкий рух російського населення Криму за сепарацію від України й приєднання до Росії. Україна спершу пішла на певні поступки Криму й навіть погодилася на статус Криму як Автономної республіки в складі України (що є нонсенсом в умовах унітарної моделі держави). Ба більше, було обрано президента Криму, Верховну Раду, затверджено Конституцію республіки. До 1995 року офіційний Київ, зважаючи на слабкість державних інституцій, повинен був рахуватися з відцентровими настроями у Криму й заплющувати очі на відверто антидержавну політику президента Криму Юрія Мєшкова. Однак у квітні 1995 року інститут президентства в Криму було ліквідовано. Фактично відтоді можна було говорити про поступовий занепад кримського сепаратизму в його російській формі. Підписання Великого договору з Росією 1997 року поставило крапку у питанні: кому ж належить Крим?

Водночас з вирішенням питання російського сепаратизму в Криму постає інша проблема: можливість кримсько-татарського сепаратизму. Впродовж 90-х років ХХ століття кримські татари виступали у ролі союзників офіційного Києва й допомагали в боротьбі з відцентровими настроями на півострові. Коли ж російський чинник у Криму втратив актуальність, чимало політиків в Україні заговорили про можливу загрозу (в перспективі) — створення незалежної Кримсько-Татарської Республіки. Адже на користь цього свідчать: наявність історичного підгрунтя (незалежне Кримське ханство існувало до 80-х років ХVІІІ століття, а до Другої світової війни кримські татари мали свою автономію), мовні, цивілізаційні та релігійні відмінності. Поява торік у кримсько-татарській пресі статей Мустафи Джемільова, в яких говориться про необхідність не лише повернення до власного коріння, а й до засад власної державності, викликали справжній фурор у київських політичних колах. Окремі депутати Верховної Ради України навіть звернулися з приводу цього за оцінкою до правоохоронних органів.

Складається враження, що нинішнє покоління лідерів кримських татар не вдасться до радикальних дій щодо України. І Мустафа Джемільов, і Рефат Чубаров надто тісно прив’язані до системи української націонал-демократії. Проте наступне покоління кримсько-татарських політиків є надто непрогнозованим, а офіційний Київ та українські політики не вміють або не хочуть працювати з кримськими татарами, шукати порозуміння й виступати у ролі союзників кримських татар. Ба більше: з кожним роком усе аморфнішою стає платформа, на якій може розвиватись українсько-татарське порозуміння.

PR-розкол України
Тепер повернімося до питання, кому ж вигідний «дерибан» України? Одна — найпростіша — відповідь лежить на поверхні й частково нами озвучена: нагнітання сепаратистських тенденцій вигідне певним силам за межами України. У сусідній Росії є чимало реваншистських сил, які прагнуть дестабілізувати ситуацію в Україні, щоб потім провести інтеграційні дії, спрямовані на відновлення СРСР. У грудні минулого року значна кількість реваншистів здобула мандати на виборах до Державної думи РФ. Проте ці сили не є основним рушієм сепаратизму в Україні.
Головний рушій — це внутрішні політичні сили. Традиційно розмови про сепаратизм загострюються напередодні парламентських або президентських виборів. Тому є підстави розглядати сепаратистські рухи в контексті виборчих технологій і розробок політтехнологів. Приміром, галицький сепаратизм певною мірою може зменшити рейтинги загальновизнаних вождів націонал-демократії, відвернувши увагу від процесів демократизації в Україні, й перенести основний центр суспільної уваги на питання «усамостійнення» від «київських» проблем. Іншими словами, «ні Ющенко, ні Тимошенко нас не порятують, треба робити свою, незалежну державу».

Ескалація регіонального сепаратизму може також стати передумовою створення образу кандидата — «рятівника нації». Наприклад, завтра штучно виникає загроза, умовно кажучи, обласного сепаратизму. Губернатор якоїсь області оголошує про вихід зі складу України й створення незалежної держави. В Україні — паніка, мобілізація, вводиться надзвичайний стан. Натомість з’являється представник силових структур, який залізною рукою наводить лад і відновлює конституційний порядок. За кілька тижнів цей політик зможе балотуватися в президенти України, ставши при цьому автоматично фаворитом кампанії.

Сепаратизм може бути використаний і як козир Президента в боротьбі з Верховною Радою — радикальний виступ сепаратистів стане підставою для введення надзвичайного стану й розпуску парламенту. Так само сепаратистські рухи використовують як механізм усунення того чи іншого уряду, дискредитації певного політика. Як бачимо, сьогодні сепаратизм в Україні може існувати лише як політична технологія — не важливо, чи це буде розробка вітчизняних, чи зарубіжних фахівців з PR.

Змінювати треба систему, а не кордони
Рецепти боротьби із сепаратизмом відомі: забезпечення пропорційного представництва регіональних еліт на київському рівні та ротації еліт, якомога менше втручання Києва в елітарні процеси на рівні регіонів, забезпечення прав та інтересів регіонів, гармонійне поєднання вертикальних зв’язків (Київ — регіони) з горизонтальними (зв’язки між регіонами), взаємопроникнення культур і традицій, притаманних тим чи іншим регіонам, поширення регіональної інформації горизонтальним методом, зрештою, перегляд бюджетної політики. Проте навряд чи ці рецепти буде реалізовано. Тому залишається головне — усвідомити, що у регіонів є спільний супротивник — Центр. Він — жорстока необхідність, з якою слід рахуватись, але якій потрібно протистояти. Спільно, а не поодинці. Кожен, хто вибуде з гри, позбавиться опіки Центру, обов’язково отримає свій власний Центр, з яким знову доведеться боротися. Тому краще — спільними зусиллями.

Найпростіше — розвалити державу, намагаючись побудувати на її уламках щось нове. Проте навряд чи незалежне Закарпаття чи незалежний Крим будуть чимось кращі за незалежну Україну — проблеми, традиції, критерії, менеджмент — все залишиться старим, навіть не українським, а пострадянським. Змінювати потрібно систему, а не кордони. «Мені не подобається жити в державі Суркіса, але я не хочу жити i в державі Сенчука», — заявив 1999 року один із львівських інтелектуалів.

Якщо сепаратизм існує, отже, це комусь потрібно. Опитування народу свідчить про те, що йому байдужі сепаратистські концепції. Отож, це — елітарні ігри. Ігри або на рівні політтехнологів, або на рівні регіональних лідерів. Тому сепаратизм може бути або елементом великих загальноукраїнських ігор, або засобом шантажу, «останнім доказом» Києву з боку місцевих еліт. Однак і у першому, і в другому випадку — це надто небезпечна гра.

Український дiловий тижневик "Контракти" /
№ 06 вiд 09-02-2004

Romania and Europe: an entrapped decade

Romania’s post-communist transition was captured by a political elite that consolidated its power, enriched itself and led the country into a European Union that preferred not to notice. Its people are the losers, says Tom Gallagher.

About the author
Tom Gallagher holds the chair of East European Studies in the department of peace studies, Bradford University, England.target=_blank>New York University Press, 2005).

The twentieth anniversary of the revolt which swept the iron dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu from power in Romania in December 1989 passed with far less notice in the west than the comparable events in Poland, the Czech Republic and East Germany. This may have something to do with the timing; the burst of commemoration and celebration at the moment of the fall of the Berlin wall and the “velvet revolution” left little surplus energy for events further east (see David Hayes, “1989: moment, legacy, future”, 2 November 2009).

But perhaps it owes more to the outcome. For the extraordinary uprising that led the supposedly regimented crowds at a mass rally in Bucharest to turn on the great leader was quickly superseded by a putsch by second-ranking communists, who followed the capture of the tyrant Ceausescu and his equally domineering wife with a hasty trial and execution. The subsequent road has been uneven and tough for millions of Romanians - but ever since those chaotic days of December 1989, those who took charge in that moment and their successors have never been far from power.

The wizard of Bucharest
The architect of much of this political achievement - perhaps indeed the only truly successful politician in Romania - is Ion Iliescu, who turned 80 years old on 3 March 2010. Iliescu, who served three terms as president (1990-92, 1992-96, 2000-04), designed the country’s hybrid post-Ceasuescu political system, one with outwardly democratic features but intended to foil any change that threatened the power of the new elite he sponsored. This was initially composed of former communists, primarily members of the youth movement and elements of the secret police who had controlled foreign trade; later it was broadened to include resourceful entrepreneurs, sometimes linked with nominal opposition forces, whose fortunes sprung from making profitable transactions with the state (see Theft of a Nation: Romania since Communism [Hurst & Co, 2005] / Modern Romania [New York University Press, 2005]).

The core of Iliescu’s success was to preserve and upgrade aspects of the communist system that could become the basis of the ostensibly pluralist regime now in place. Iliescu and his team were hopeless administrators, and unable to accomplish Romania’s modernisation. But this was never really on their agenda. Instead they were skilful masters of manoeuvre at a time of transition when the rules for governing states and those for managing inter-state relations were changing as a result of the abrupt end of communism over almost half of Europe.

Even today, Iliescu remains a key voice in the Partidul Social Democrat (Social Democratic Party / PSD), the lineal successor of the Communist Party. It has endured opposition and emerged stronger thanks to its weaker rivals’ failure to uproot its sources of influence within the state. It has adapted to situations that appeared to pose a mortal danger: large-scale privatisation of state business, entry into Nato, and engagement with the European Union. Indeed, its greatest achievement was arguably to drain the process of Europeanisation of all nearly all progressive content and to force the EU to accept Romania as its twenty-seventh member in 2007 after implementing an extremely limited agenda of change (see “The European Union and Romania: consolidating backwardness?”, 26 September 2006).

Iliescu, after three terms as Romania’s elected president, retired in 2004. He remains the best-known figure in a PSD which today is dominated by wealthy local bosses and a few powerful national figures (such as Adrian Nastase and Mircea Geoana) with backgrounds in diplomacy and law. Nastase and Geoana (respectively prime minister and foreign minister, 2000-04) - were the PSD’s successive candidates for president in 2004 and 2009; on each occasion Traian Basescu - representing the Partidul Democrat-Liberal [Democratic Liberals / PDL] - won a narrow victory. The most recent election, in November-December 2009, was surrounded by dispute over the integrity of the outcome; but Basescu, who in May 2007 survived an attempt to impeach him for alleged constitutional violations and abuse of power, was eventually confirmed and began his second term in February 2010.

The inside job
Traian Basescu enjoys important executive prerogatives. He has tried to reform the justice system which has continued to be a tool in the hands of the powerful ready to be used against rivals, or indeed ordinary citizens who get in their way. Basescu did not rise up through the communist elite; towards the end of the dictatorship he captained an oil-tanker. His motives for shaking the elite consensus in this way are unclear: it is debatable whether he wants to reduce Romania’s stark inequalities and return “the oligarchy” to some form of social accountability, or merely to insert his own protégés into the ranks of the privileged.

His own party appears ready to curb him if he seeks to challenge the powerful. The PDL’s narrow parliamentary majority has been reinforced by a stream of defections, mainly from the PSD. The group has set up an independents’ party whose aim appears to be to represent the interest of both the bureaucracy and strong economic forces; their influence would reinforce the tendency to use the state as private property.
Iliescu worked hard to make sure that the state could be manipulated and pillaged in this way. He devised the constitution of 1991 (revised in 2004) which established a bicameral parliament that shared power with an elected head of state. There was care to ensure that parliament would not represent Romania’s 22 million citizens but rather be a forum where members of the new elite transacted their private business. Parties were composed of factions whose members often changed sides irrespective of ideologies, manifestos or programmes. The parties only showed discipline when there appeared a risk that the privileges they enjoyed before the law and in relation to the state budget might be cut.

Romania’s media has become a powerful tool of depoliticisation and conformity. The major private television stations have been bought up by oligarchs involved in politics; the coverage of politics has been trivialised, and independent voices are rarely heard. Real hardships, exceeding those in most other European Union states, continue to affect a large segment of the population. Many Romanians deeply resent the huge concentrations of wealth in what was (the privileged communist elite aside) a very egalitarian society before 1989. By 2008, the 300 wealthiest men in the country controlled at least one-third of gross domestic product; the parliamentary elections of that year saw only 39% of people voting.

The transition dance
The privileged position that even some of the most feared members of Nicolae Ceausescu’s secret police have continued to enjoy was shown at the funeral of Nicolae Plesita in October 2009. This unrepentant torturer spent his final days in a hospital of the domestic intelligence service (SRI), though this institution was supposed to have no connection with its dictatorial predecessors (see Dennis Deletant, Ceausescu and the Securitate: Coercion and dissent in Romania, 1965-1989 [ME Sharpe, 1996]).
Amid such scenes, it is hard to argue that Romania has witnessed genuine de-communisation. The fate of just one such initiative illustrates the reluctance of the new elite to allow any kind of reckoning to be made with a dictatorial past. The National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives (CNSAS) ruled in 2007 that Dan Voiculescu - an MP who owns the most influential media trust in the country - was an informer before 1989. The response of parliament was effectively to disable the council.

Democracy-advocates from outside Romania had hoped that the post-communist system would build its legitimacy by acquiring broadly respected rules and institutions. If these democratic structures had proved capable of launching a reform process, then the integration of citizens into political life and the consolidation of a pluralist system would follow. Instead, the distribution of state assets among political players, their key economic allies and a retinue of clients was able to promote consensual behaviour among rival elite forces - and keep Romania’s citizens on the outside.

In June 1990, Iliescu consolidated his authority by mobilising an army of coalminers to Bucharest and launching them on street-protestors with considerable violence. The mineriada was a turning-point: since then, the elite has sought to strengthen the passive features of society. Most Romanians had become used to compliance in the face of the terror endured before 1989 - though in 1996 and again in 2004 they voted out Iliescu’s party. It was easier to oppose than to construct, however: for Romanians found that that most of Iliescu’s rivals had also embraced the view that politics essentially revolves around transferring state assets into private hands and building up a network of patron-client relations.

The emigration of 10% of the adult labour force to work mainly in different parts of the EU also proved an important safety-valve that prevented any backlash against official misconduct. Across much of the country there was no pretence about who exercised power and for what ends. In districts and towns - particularly in the south and east - families or other kinds of tight-knit alliances enjoy a stranglehold over local decision-making. They often have members or well-wishers in strategic positions in the townhall, the police, the notary office and the courthouse.

The justice system was released from executive control only in 2004. But Iliescu’s PSD ensured that the supreme council of magistrates, the supposedly independent body managing Romanian justice, was staffed by its own appointees. The European Union - in violation of its own principles - was prepared to endorse this bogus reform during the negotiations for membership (see “Romania: the death of reform”, 25 April 2007).

The European trick
The country’s accession to the European Union was the greatest triumph of Romania’s domestic power-networks. The official European version was that the projection of the EU’s values eastwards in the 2000s was transforming a peripheral country via the exercise of “soft power”. But the engagement with Romania exposed serious design flaws in the EU’s reform-drive. The ambition of a progressive reform of public institutions underpinned by a moral and humanising vision that would facilitate the emergence of an engaged citizenry, has proved to be a mirage (see Romania and the European Union: How the Weak Conquered the Strong (Manchester University Press, 2009).

The failure was preordained, in that the EU over seven years of consultations ended up engaging with the successors of the communist nomenklatura and secret police. Herta Müller, the Romanian-German writer who won the Nobel literature prize in 2009 for her fictional writings about life under the Ceausescu dictatorship, has frequently commented on the ability of old structures to mutate in order to retain their mastery (see Lyn Marven, “Lifewriting: Herta Müller’s journey”, 15 October 2009). A handful of alert EU officials also discovered that the people they were negotiating with were not those who wielded the real levers of power, and that those who did usually kept themselves well hidden.

The Brussels civil servants and their political masters in the European Council told Romania that the road to Europe lay through embracing free-market capitalism and a more transparent democracy. But their only real interest was to see Bucharest complying with the economic conditions; the political ones were of secondary concern.

The EU forgot, or chose to ignore, that the post-communist ruling elite had already been busy for years transferring state assets into private hands. A further contraction of the state and the consolidation of a tight-knit capitalist class based on cohesive power-groups - some with a pre-1989 lineage, others more recent - was presented it with no problems. The Bucharest oligarchy’s masterstroke was to induce major multinational firms to become informal advocates of early membership. The government of Adrian Nastase (2000-04) offered lucrative contracts to top firms, many of whom - in an era of declining political-party memberships - just happened to be a major source of funding for the some of the main parties in (for example) France, Germany, and Italy. These parties, on both the right and left, were prepared to lobby for Romanian membership of the EU even though at that stage it had delivered few reforms.

The EU was at heart clueless about what it wanted from Romania, beyond the formalistic requirements of membership. By contrast, Romania’s domestic elite had a coherent vision - the opportunity to entrench their networks of wealth and power at the heart of the world’s most successful regional political and economic entity.

The circle of power
The success of this elite brings failures in its wake. A politicised and low-grade bureaucracy lacks the capacity to access the billions of structural funds set aside for it, with the incredible result that this poor country is a net contributor to the European Union’s budget. Much of its energy sector was at the EU’s insistence quickly offloaded to well-connected local capitalists who promptly resold it to Kazakhstan’s state oil company. Austrian firms dominate Romania’s financial-services sector, and have dismissed many Romanians with zero compensation; Austrian banks’ exposure in east-central Europe, though reduced in the second half of 2009, is equivalent to about 80% of the country’s entire GDP.

But if Austria will not be allowed to sink, Romania has more to fear. After a decade of EU intervention, it can boast only the garish high-rise headquarters of the financial companies (foreign and local) which have profited from the country’s privatisations. The public infrastructure, far from being modernised thanks to the injection of funds paid for by European taxpayers, has instead fuelled a real-estate boom that benefits only the privileged.

Nicolae Ceausescu met a violent end. Ion IIiescu, his successor, looks destined to die peacefully in his bed. Both men conserved systems of personal power in which national wealth was first concentrated by the state and then after 1989 privatised and distributed among the state’s well-placed guardians. The result is to trap Romania in underdevelopment. The twenty-seventh member of the European Union is in a vicious circle. Traian Basescu will have a tough job breaking out of it, if indeed he wishes to.

Georgia: Cultivating a Martial Spirit

In the wake of war, Georgia adds “military patriotism” to the curriculum. Part two of a series.

by Tamar Kickacheishvili 16 March 2010

In mid-January, Nona Mikiashvili found out that her 11-year-old son, Lasha, would begin studying something the authorities here are calling military patriotism in the fall.
Lasha was excited at the prospect that he might get to handle a weapon, but his mother had doubts. “I don’t object to a military course if it includes emergency situations, but it should never be mandatory for all students,” she said. “As for patriotism, it’s impossible to teach at school. I’m really curious how they’re going to teach it. What will they do? Telling students that we [Georgians] are the best, only to have them find out differently later in life, it might cause problems.”

Lasha also does not know what to expect from the new lessons in patriotism. He understands that a patriot loves his country, he said, but “Can someone teach you how to love?” he wondered.

President Mikheil Saakashvili’s announcement about mandatory military patriotism courses in public schools came about a year and a half after the August 2008 war between Georgia and Russia. Presidential spokeswoman Manana Manjgaladze said military-patriotic education, part of a package of proposals by Saakashvili and Education Minister Dimitry Shashkin, would include training in civil defense and cultivating a martial spirit, “which historically was always in the nature of the Georgian people.”

MODERNIZING AN OLD IDEA
The ministry is still working on the curriculum for the course. Natia Jokhadze, director of the National Curriculum and Assessment Center, said the new curriculum will be ready by the fall and classes will start in the upcoming school year. She said military patriotism classes will be taught at every grade level and they will include civic participation, civil defense, and emergency situations.

The announcement of the course has raised fears about the possible militarization of the country’s schools and questions about how patriotism will be defined.

David Zurabishvili, one of the leaders of the nonparliamentary opposition Republican Party of Georgia, said the inclusion of civil defense is simply to give a pretty shape to an ugly idea. “The president announced it, and now the Ministry of Education is trying to figure out how to soft-pedal it to our society. This initiative amounts to militarization, and the idea that everyone must be a militant is the wrong approach,” Zurabishvili said.

Saakashvili was not the first to broach the idea of patriotism classes. In November, Irakli Aladashvili, editor in chief of the military magazine Arsenali, said military education should be taught in public schools. “I think that the upbringing of the motherland’s defenders should start at the school desk,” Aladashvili said, calling for classes in civil defense, first aid, and, optionally, weaponry.

In light of Georgia’s recent experience with military conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Aladashvili said its citizens should be able to defend themselves. “We shouldn’t be compared with other countries that never experienced war. We had wars within the country as well as in the Caucasus region. I covered the war in Chechnya as well. And I think that Georgian students should study military patriotism,” Aladashvili said.
In the Soviet era students were given military lessons, and some countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States still have the subject in their curricula. The textbook for those classes typically included praise for the Communist Party and its ideology. Aladashvili said it would be key that the new classes should not be used to indoctrinate students. “I think politics should not have any place in this modern military patriotism course. It should just be about patriotic souls.”

PATRIOTISM WITHOUT MILITARISM?
Confused parents are not the only ones uneasy about the new courses. Some opposition politicians say it’s a distraction from Tbilisi’s bungling confrontation with Russia. “The Georgian government wants to replace people’s disappointment with a sense of patriotism. They’re just trying to cover up their mistakes and the pain of a lost war with this new initiative,” said Guguli Magradze, leader of the Women’s Party, a member of the opposition Alliance for Georgia.

Better to offer peace education in schools given Georgia’s recent history, Magradze said.

“Peace is the only thing that would give Georgia a chance to take its normal place on the geopolitical map of the world,” Magradze said.
More perniciously, Magradze said, the authorities are hoping to cultivate a more pliable citizenry with such courses. “This subject is in the interests of the ruling party, for the purposes of having obedient citizens who obey the dictates of authority. They want slaves. This idea should cause protest in our society,” she said.
Tamar Chabashvili, principal of a secondary school in central Tbilisi, disagrees.

Calling the new courses “extremely necessary,” Chabashvili said the project would help bring up a new generation of patriots and active citizens. “I think that this subject should include the history and present of the country, including the battles that Georgia had in Abkhazia and the war that happened last year in South Ossetia. It must be a mandatory subject,” she said.

Pavle Tvaliashvili, a consultant on education management and reform at the private Center for Training and Consultancy in Tbilisi, said a course that teaches students how to behave in emergencies would be welcome. Nor would he have a problem with a course that aims to instill patriotism.

“I think that patriotism should be used to teach the important values of mankind such as peace, responsibility, freedom, love. … In my opinion, it’s wrong to kill others. However, sometimes when someone attacks you, you must be ready to defend yourself,” Tvaliashvili said.

Psychologist Gaga Nizharadze, who has written extensively about post-Soviet culture and behavior, said he fears the courses could fuel an increase in violence or bullying among students. Nizharadze said patriotism cannot be taught in a classroom. “Patriotism is not a subject, it’s a personal characteristic and that’s why it’s impossible to have separate lessons in it and to teach it this way,” he said.

Nizharadze said the decision to give elementary school students military courses suggests that the country’s priority has become militarization.
“Actually I’m against teaching patriotism or any other ideology at school. The only ideology in a democratic country should be that all ideologies are equal,” Nizharadze said.

Tamar Kickacheishvili is a reporter for Georgia Today, an English-language newspaper.Home page photo by Rob Sinclair.

Israel creará la primera red de coches eléctricos del mundo

La instalación de 500.000 tomas permitirá recargar baterías por todo el país
ANA CARBAJOSA - Jerusalén - 09/08/2008
El Mundo

Vivir sin petróleo. Es el sueño de la legión de países importadores que aspiran a reducir emisiones de gases contaminantes, dejar de depender de países políticamente inestables y sanear los bolsillos de los consumidores. En el caso de Israel, país en conflicto con sus vecinos de Oriente Próximo, las aspiraciones de suficiencia energética van muy en serio.

El Gobierno reducirá los impuestos para incentivar la compra de estos vehículos
Y piensan lograrlo con la puesta en marcha de la primera red de coches eléctricos del mundo, que contará con 500.000 puntos para recargar baterías por todo el país y cuyos automóviles a pilas empezarán a salir a la calle el año que viene. Para nutrir la red eléctrica, el Gobierno sembrará de placas solares el desierto del Néguev y pondrá en marcha una batería de medidas legislativas.

"En el pasado ya lo hicimos con la alta tecnología, con el software. En el futuro lideraremos el mundo de las energías renovables", explica Hezi Kugler, director general del Ministerio de Infraestructuras israelí.
Hasta ahora, los coches eléctricos no han cuajado en el mercado, en parte por su falta de autonomía y de puntos para recargar las baterías. Israel considera que, por sus características, puede ser el lugar ideal para este tipo de proyecto. En este pequeño país, la distancia entre los núcleos urbanos no supera los 150 kilómetros. Además, parte de sus fronteras -con Líbano y Siria- son intransitables para los israelíes por motivos políticos, lo que reduce los viajes de larga distancia. "No tenemos paz con nuestros vecinos. Esa desgracia se convierte en oportunidad para experimentar nuevas tecnologías", asegura Mark Regev, portavoz del primer ministro israelí, Ehud Olmert.

El coche se podrá cargar en casa por la noche, haciendo uso de los excedentes energéticos del día o en puntos repartidos por el país, así como en estaciones de servicio. Nissan y Renault se han comprometido a producir estos vehículos en masa en 2011, pero los primeros empezarán a circular el año viene.

Los israelíes buscan dejar atrás el concepto coche-conductor/propietario. El nuevo modelo económico se parece mucho al de los teléfonos móviles. Los coches serían los aparatos, y la red de baterías, la compañía telefónica. "Se dejará de comprar coches, igual que se ha dejado de comprar teléfonos. Lo que se contrata es el uso del aparato para un número máximo de kilómetros, así como el servicio técnico", explica Dafna Berezovski, directora de marketing de Better Place, la empresa que está detrás del invento. El precio mensual del contrato del coche eléctrico, aseguran, será siempre menor que lo que los conductores invierten ahora cada mes en gasolina. El padre de la criatura es el empresario israeloamericano Shai Agassi, un seductor que se pasea por foros como el de Davos y que ya ha conseguido convencer al Gobierno israelí y al danés, y va camino de seducir a otros tantos países europeos, incluido el Reino Unido. Su primer ministro, Gordon Brown, se ha mostrado muy interesado. "Israel es sólo un primer paso. Aspiramos a una revolución energética en el mundo entero", dice Berezovski. Será Better Place, una empresa privada, la que corra con los gastos de este proyecto, para el que cuentan con financiación al menos para la primera fase (130,5 millones de euros, a los que deberán añadir otros 533 más adelante). Por su parte, el Gobierno modificará las leyes e incentivará el uso de los nuevos coches. Hoy, los israelíes pagan hasta un 80% de impuestos al comprar un coche; el Ejecutivo los reducirá hasta el 20% para la compra de vehículos eléctricos.

La idea se gestó hace un año, cuando Agassi obnubiló al presidente Peres durante un encuentro de empresarios. Entusiasmado Peres, Agassi le informó sobre las reformas legislativas necesarias, incluidos potentes incentivos fiscales. Los detalla el director general Kugler, que cuenta que los coches son sólo una pieza más del engranaje de la revolución energética en ciernes con la que en 2020 Israel pretende haber reducido al menos el 25% de las importaciones de petróleo. "Estos coches tienen que alimentarse con energía limpia. No tendría sentido reducir por un lado las emisiones, pero aumentarlas por otro para producir la electricidad que consumen". Esta misma semana, el Gobierno ha aprobado un millonario paquete legislativo para incentivar las renovables. Tienen en la cabeza sacar el máximo rendimiento energético al desierto del Néguev, al sur del país, donde se instalarán proyectos de energía solar hasta alcanzar los 4.000 megavatios.

Hasta cinco ministerios deben coordinarse para sacar adelante estos faraónicos proyectos.