Failed state indicators challenges to ASEAN

Hafid Abbas, Jakarta | Opinion | Wed, August 01 2012, 8:12 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 6

The recent publication of The Fund for Peace 2012, Failed States Index, has created world-wide controversy. Those who are displeased by the report criticize its failure to take into account indicators like cultural diversity and other factors that we can not simply quantify.

Indonesia deems the report inaccurate and baseless since the country is enjoying fantastic economic growth of up to 6.5 percent; is strongly committed to democratization and decentralization; promotes and protects human rights and has considerable press freedom.

Despite creating widespread disagreement, the report could be important for ASEAN members to address internal matters and accelerate the realization of “ASEAN Community 2015”. It is also relevant to the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) which was launched at the summit in 2000.

Recently, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen told other leaders that the main agenda was to transform ourselves into a European Union-like community in only three years’ time.

The Fund for Peace report presents various issues which cannot be solved by individual countries in isolation. Myanmar is the only ASEAN country in a “critical” condition.

From social and political indicators, Myanmar continues to deteriorate. Its score in 11 out of 12 of indicators is above seven on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being worst. Its state legitimacy score is 9.4 (corruption and lack of representation in the government); “uneven economic development” scores 8.7 (ethnic, religious, or regional disparities); “Group grievances” (tension and violence between groups and the state’s ability to provide security) also scored 8.7.

Four countries are in danger of plunging to the ‘failed state’ category: Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines and Indonesia. Cambodia for example, has nine out of 12 indicator scores with scores above seven.

The worst indicator is its progressive deterioration of public services, while Laos has serious problems on human rights especially the rise of factionalized elites.

Similarly, the Philippines is facing a critical issue with security. Indonesia, meanwhile, is considered very weak in social indicators especially the mounting demographic pressures related to natural disasters, disease, environmental degradation, pollution, food scarcity, malnutrition, water scarcity, population growth, youth bulge and mortality rate.

The third category comprises Thailand and Vietnam. According to the report, Thailand has to address the long-standing issue of factionalized elites.

Its local and national leaders are embroiled in disputes and brinksmanship for political gain, power struggles, defectors, flawed elections and political competition. Vietnam has to address critical issues concerning state legitimacy and human rights, which include press freedom and civil liberties.

The fifth group consists of countries in the “safe zone”: Malaysia and Brunei. Malaysia is very weak on human rights, lack of press and political freedom, torture and opposition figures jailed as political prisoners. Brunei has a dominant issue on uneven economic development related to ethnic, religious, or regional disparities, a yawning gap between the rich and the poor, slum populations, etc.

Then the only ASEAN country to have reached the level of “a very stable state”: Singapore. The only issue facing the wealthy city state is human rights, particularly press and political freedom.

Given these circumstances, there must be a collective and genuine ASEAN solidarity to immediately reduce the gaps between nations in the spirit of the 1967 Bangkok Declaration, ASEAN Vision 2020 and the ongoing creation of a single community of nations by 2015. Without joint effort, ASEAN dream will remain an empty dream.

The writer is currently a professor at the State University of Jakarta and former director general of Law and Human Rights Ministry and  IIEP UNESCO consultant

What to do next to keep ASEAN unity and peace?

Lina A. Alexandra, Jakarta | Opinion | Wed, August 01 2012, 8:29 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 7

Less than a month before the 45th anniversary of ASEAN, the regional organization failed to conclude its routine ministerial meeting with a usual joint communiqué. If we are to find an excuse for this failure, ASEAN is analogous to a 5-year-old boy – given the establishment of its Charter in 2007.

As reflected in a comment made by the first US Ambassador to ASEAN, David Carden, the tension among the member states is indeed “normal” in the growing process of ASEAN.

What are the implications for ASEAN after this failure, however?

First, it is obvious that there will be a lack of an agenda to be affirmed in the next ASEAN Summit in November since the communiqué usually sets the key points for the leaders to be followed up at the highest level.

Moreover, some important agenda items, i.e. the drafting process of ASEAN Human Rights Declaration and the direction for East Asian Summit will significantly be affected by this failure.

Second, the failure of Cambodia’s chairmanship to come up with the joint communiqué “positively” pushes ASEAN to rethink of its consensus-based decision making process, which has been repeatedly criticized.

The consensus process allows any member to have veto power and to impose its own views even if its position differs from the other nine member states.

It is interesting to compare the case with Indonesia’s decision in 2009 to finally sign the terms of reference of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, although it still reserved many disagreements with the draft due to the minimum articles aimed at the protection of human rights because of this consensus mechanism.

If this mechanism persists, it will definitely set a bad precedent for the next chairman and also any member state in the future to maintain their stands when a difference of opinions occurs.

Third, again, it is important to reemphasize that what has been feared by many has materialized — external actor can, indeed, steer and divide ASEAN.

Whether it is because of the external actor’s sheer size and power from which none of the member states can escape or the fact that since ASEAN’s establishment it has never had a common vision to become one community bound together.

Perhaps it is both. It is indeed a major blow for ASEAN despite some of its achievements in the past few years.

What next then? The initiative of Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to conduct “charm diplomacy” by visiting Manila, Hanoi and Phnom Penh is laudable.

But, rather than just listening to their views and expectations, it is crucial to continue the process of realizing the code of conduct (CoC).

We cannot wait any longer to present ASEAN’s common position on this CoC draft to be negotiated further with Chinese counterparts.

Any delay will result in a worsening of the situation, as China gets bigger in terms of its power and influence, making negotiations even more difficult to manage.

Now is the right time to really start thinking about the establishment of the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) Part II to affirm member states’ commitment to maintaining the region’s neutrality from the influence and competition of major powers, which attempt to divide ASEAN along lines of external interests.

If it is part of the growing process, then ASEAN should quickly recover from this failure — or hiccup, to borrow the secretary-general’s term. But, as always, it depends on each member to reflect and think about whether they really wish this ASEAN boat to continue sailing toward its ultimate goals.

The writer is currently a researcher in the department of politics and international relations at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and guest lecturer at the graduate school of diplomacy, Paramadina University, Jakarta.

China, RI begin missile talks

Margareth S. Aritonang and Novan Iman Santosa, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Headlines | Fri, July 27 2012, 9:48 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 1

(AP/Chiang Ying-ying)

China and Indonesia have started talks on the ambitious local production of C-705 anti-ship missiles
as part of Indonesia’s efforts to achieve independence in weapons production.

The defense cooperation reflects strengthening ties between both countries amid heightening tension in the South China Sea involving China and a number of Indonesia’s ASEAN neighbors.

Defense Ministry chief spokesman Brig. Gen. Hartind Asrin said that the initial talks were conducted during the first China-Indonesia defense industry cooperation meeting held in Jakarta on Wednesday.

The ministry’s defense potential director general Pos M. Hutabarat hosted the Chinese delegation which was led by Liu Yunfeng, a deputy director general at the Chinese State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (SASTIND).

“The meeting discussed various efforts to improve cooperation between the defense industries of both countries,” Hartind said on Thursday. “We’ve already prepared an area for the [missile] production site that faces the open sea for trials.”

Hartind said the C-705 had a range of 120 kilometers.

He said that the Indonesian Navy had successfully test-fired the C-705 missiles in the Sunda Strait.

“China has also offered to donate weapons systems that Indonesia might need,” he added.

A source said that Indonesia was expected to reply to Phase 1 of the missile proposal at the end of August and Phase 2 one month later. A contract is expected to be signed in 2013.

Phase 1 is on semi-knocked down production while Phase 2 is on completely-knocked down production.

A proposal for a Phase 3 on research and development is already on the table although the focus is currently on the first two phases.

Aside from the missile production, a number of Indonesian Army Special Force Command (Kopassus) members recently conducted the second “Sharp Knife” joint exercise with Chinese Special Forces operatives earlier this month in Jinan, Shandong, China.

China has also offered to train 10 pilots from the Indonesian Air Force to train using a Sukhoi simulator in China.

Commenting on the defense cooperation, defense expert Andi
Widjajanto said the industrial cooperation was solely to gain access to more advanced technology.

“However, it will take a long time for us to be independent in the defense industry, perhaps after 2024. This is the reason Indonesia builds partnerships with many countries that possess modern military technologies,” he said. “This is also why we require partner countries to transfer their technologies to us in any agreement we sign with them.”

Andi added that there were two goals in terms of the partnership: to access advanced rocket technology, and to collaborate in upholding maritime security, which began when President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono signed an agreement in March during a state visit to Beijing.

“I don’t believe it has anything to do with conflicts in the South China Sea,” he stressed.

Meanwhile, chairman of the House of Representatives’ Commission I on defense issues, Mahfudz Shiddiq, said such global partnerships in the defense industry were designed to develop Indonesia’s own industry.

“We have allocated Rp 150 trillion [US$15.8 billion] to modernize our weapons-defense system from 2010 to 2014. It would be wasteful paying such a huge amount to foreign defense industries without any attempt to improve our own,” he said.

“Therefore, we require partner countries to transfer their military technologies in the hope that they will gradually improve our own technologies.”

He added that the partnership with China was due to its advanced military technologies in fields such as rocketry. “This is not political, even though others might link the partnership to political issues, for example the South China Sea disputes,” Machfudz said.

Indonesia already cooperates on weapons production with several other countries including South Korea to build jet fighters and submarines, the Netherlands to build frigates and Spain to build medium transport aircraft.

Add CommentShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

ASEAN: Chartering human rights

Debbie Stothard, Bangkok | Opinion | Wed, July 25 2012, 5:02 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 7

Mid-July saw ASEAN sink to unprecedented depths when leaders failed to issue a joint communiqué at its latest Ministerial Meeting in Cambodia because of disagreement over reference to the South China Sea dispute with China. Unsurprisingly, the Indonesian foreign minister called this latest roadblock to “ASEAN consensus” “utterly irresponsible”.

ASEAN consensus focuses on agreement among the governments of member states instead of consensus with the population. It routinely avoids and even suppresses public participation in key debates and initiatives relevant to the public interest. Nowhere is this more evident than the process of drafting an ASEAN human rights declaration.

The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) is tasked with drafting the declaration, but has done this largely behind tightly closed doors. Limited consultations with civil society organizations have been held in some member states, and at no point was a draft published, leaving the public and human rights groups in the dark. There has only been one formal consultation at the regional level, but participation has been heavily restricted and the draft declaration was not published.

That human rights defenders and their organizations have made every effort to comment and provide recommendations on a text that they have never seen is a testament to their commitment to promote international human rights standards. The same cannot be said of AICHR and the governments to whom it reports.

Om Yentieng, a high-level Cambodian official and his country’s representative to AICHR, told reporters in June that “NGOs want to write [the declaration] instead of us, but they don’t know their duties.” He went on to say that the declaration “is for all 800 million ASEAN people, so if those 800 million people want to help, in 800 million years we will not be able to finish it.”

Om overestimated the total population in ASEAN by about 200 million. His apparent faulty statistic aside, the condescending comment reveals a bigger problem — ASEAN’s tendency to talk about a people-centered community without actually enabling the people to participate meaningfully in issues that affect their lives.

After receiving the latest draft of the declaration, some ASEAN foreign ministers wished to see AICHR consult with “all stakeholders in ASEAN, including civic society and sectoral bodies of the group, to listen to their opinions on the matters.” Outgoing ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan also waded into the issue by encouraging “more openness”. But AICHR has not announced any further consultations. The foreign ministers also announced their intention to publish only “key elements” of the draft but refused to release it in full on the grounds that it has not been finalized.

The inherent absurdity that a document can simultaneously be open for consultation but cannot be seen in full until it is no longer possible to change it appears to be lost on ASEAN. The most likely explanation of this chronic allergy to transparency is that there are some regressive elements in the declaration.

Some commissioners on AICHR have reassured rights groups that the declaration would not go below international standards, but many, especially countless victims of human rights violations, would find it difficult to take them at their words.

During AICHR’s existence, it has refused to comment or even acknowledge the arbitrary detention and persecution of many peaceful activists, journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders in most ASEAN member states, made possible by draconian laws that clearly contravene international human rights standards. How can anyone be confident that similar repressive elements have not been embedded into the declaration?

It is now crunch time for ASEAN. It can make the right decision to publish the draft declaration and then conduct broad-based consultations at both the national and regional level. Or it could continue tumbling towards irrelevance and becoming a laughing stock in the international human rights community.

The writer is deputy secretary-general of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).

Add CommentShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

ASEAN, neutral or neutered?

Simon Tay, Singapore | Opinion | Wed, July 25 2012, 5:01 AM - Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 7

ASEAN’s failure to issue a communiqué at the end of the ministerial meeting hosted in Cambodia last week shocked many. Reports indicate that drafting floundered on the issue of the South China Sea, where the sovereignty of different islets is disputed. The Philippines wished to record that the matter had been discussed whereas Cambodia, which currently chairs the group, felt that any mention would compromise ASEAN neutrality.

The claims in the South China Sea were never going to be resolved by a statement, however worded. As such, the quite unprecedented failure shows up not so much the struggle to deal with a sensitive issue but rather what it may suggest are more systemic concerns about divisions within ASEAN.

These come precisely at the wrong time when the group needs to show unity and resolve to create an ASEAN Community by 2015. It also dents ASEAN’s credibility as host for dialogues that span not just its own region but a wider footprint, like the newly created East Asia Summit.

Factors of division within the group have been emerging over time. These relate not just to the South China Sea, but more broadly to the roles of the USA and China and such issues as the Mekong River and Myanmar.

The Obama administration’s “pivot” to give more attention to Asia over these last four years has been evident and has largely been well received. But this comes after more than a decade in which China has emerged as the best friend to many. Given the economic dynamics, there is a sense that China will not go away but will grow in importance. This is especially notable in Beijing’s largesse to some in ASEAN.

Take Cambodia, the host of the failed meeting.

Over the last decade, Beijing has provided billions for infrastructure, including the building for the Kingdom’s Council of Ministers. In April, Chinese leader Hu Jintao made a four-day state visit and just a month before the ASEAN Ministerial meeting, a senior Communist party leader visited Phnom Penh with promises to “take strategic approaches to step up the bilateral cooperation to new heights”.

Given that the US market currently remains its largest trade partner, Cambodia seems to be playing a risky game. Intended or otherwise, the failure at the Phnom Penh meeting is seen as favoring China.

Other ASEAN members have come to quite different positions. The Philippines has strengthened its US alliance as Manila asserts its claims to areas in the South China Sea. Vietnam has tilted toward America and the recent visit by US Defense Secretary Panetta to Hanoi raises the possibility for arrangements to host an American military presence at Cam Ranh Bay.

What can the small and medium sized states in ASEAN do, given these great power dynamics?

There are things beyond their control. ASEAN could breathe easier if Beijing and Washington DC recognize their interdependence and that the region is big enough for them both. But if the rhetoric of differences grows louder and it comes to push and shove, ASEAN will be in an invidious position.

Other things are hard but possible. For too long, individual countries’ policies toward China and the USA have been little discussed. Dialogue could help each ASEAN member understand the other’s concerns and, from this, seek common positions. Agreeing upon anchor points about the critical relationships with these giants would help ASEAN maintain centrality.

Last comes what should be do-able and indeed ought to have been done at this last meeting. This is to agree a form of words, a set phrase, about the South China Sea.

Critics will say that papering over differences will not resolve the issue. Of course not, but there are other uses.

Think of papered up forms of words like the “one-China” principle in relation to Taiwan. While this is open to varying interpretations, it has helped frame a range of differences that is understood (but not conceded) by each party.

Not least, if ASEAN can reach such a form of words about the South China Sea, then its communiqués need not be held captive to a single issue. Noting but setting aside what is unresolved, the group would then be able to go on to deal with the rest of its agenda, where consensus is possible.

ASEAN has achieved centrality as a kind of default position, and largely because great powers lack sufficient trust amongst themselves. There are however still necessary conditions to be of use in this role.

Perfect neutrality is impossible, when some of its members are formal allies with one power or receive large amounts of high profile aid from another. But open and healthy dialogue about the fullest possible range of issues is critical for ASEAN-led dialogues to remain relevant.

For this, each ASEAN member must be willing to keep the group’s interest as a whole in view, and not focus solely on its bilateral ties with China or America. Otherwise, ASEAN will not only fail to be neutral, but be ineffective and indeed neutered.

The writer is chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs and teaches at the National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Law.

U.S, China disagree on more nuke talks with N.Korea

The Associated Press, Beijing, China | Wed, 11/24/2010 9:44 AM A | A | A |-Klipping the Jakarta Post

A U.S. envoy called Wednesday for international condemnation of North Korea over its shelling of a South Korean island, a day after he ruled out resuming six-nation nuclear disarmament talks with the North while it works on a new uranium facility.

Washington's reluctance to resume the talks is at odds with China's position, which is keen to get back to discussions as soon as possible.

Stephen Bosworth has been conducting hurried consultations with North Korea's neighbors, including China, after a U.S. nuclear scientist reported visiting a new sophisticated uranium enrichment plant that could improve North Korea's ability to make and deliver nuclear weapons.

The situation was made more critical after North Korea on Tuesday shelled a populated South Korean island and the South returned fire.

"The United States calls upon the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) to cease its provocative and irresponsible actions against its neighbors and fully abide by the terms of the armistice and adhere to its international obligations," Bosworth told reporters at a Beijing hotel. "We call on all members of the international community to condemn the DPRK's acts and make clear that they expect the DPRK to cease all provocations and implement its denuclearization commitments."

The appeal for a strong reaction was clearly directed at China, North Korea's economic and political benefactor. Beijing's public reaction has been extremely cautious so far, with a Foreign Ministry spokesman expressing concern over the situation and calling on both the North and South to "do more to contribute to peace and stability on the peninsula."

On Tuesday in Tokyo, Bosworth said that North Korea's work on the new facility makes it impossible to resume negotiations on its nuclear disarmament that stalled last year.

"Needless to say, we regard this development with great seriousness," Bosworth told reporters at a Tokyo hotel. "We do not contemplate resuming negotiations while active programs are under way or while there is a possibility that North Koreans will test another nuclear device or test a missile."

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, however, said the report of the new nuclear installation made an early resumption of talks more necessary.

"We have taken note of the relevant report" on the facility, said the spokesman, Hong Lei. "What is imperative now is to restart six-party talks as soon as possible."

Disagreements between the U.S. and China over how best to coax Pyongyang to the table have occasionally roiled the talks, which also involve, Japan, Russia and South Korea as well as North Korea. Pyongyang had agreed to dismantle its nuclear programs in return for aid and other concessions before the talks foundered last year after North Korea conducted a second nuclear test.

Cooperation between Beijing and Washington is considered key, though, to any progress on the nuclear issue. After talking with the Chinese foreign minister, Bosworth made an apparent nod to that cooperation.

"We strongly believe that a multilateral, diplomatic approach is the only way to realistically resolve these problems," he said.

Despite North Korea's moves, Beijing worries more about instability in its communist neighbor, preferring to offer aid, trade and other incentives as a way to encourage Pyongyang's cooperation.

The new North Korean uranium facility, which Stanford University scientist Siegfried Hecker over the weekend reported that he was taken to, is part of the main Yongbyon atomic complex. Hecker reported that the facility appeared modern and that his North Korean hosts told him that it contained 2,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium.

The North's previously known nuclear program is plutonium-based. At low levels, uranium can be used in power reactors, but at higher levels it can be used in nuclear weapons.

The European crisis: Lessons for Indonesia

Budiono Kusumohamidjojo, Jakarta | Mon, 12/26/2011 6:17 PM A | A | A | - Klipping The Jakarta Post

The European economic crisis was triggered mainly by a flaw in the euro currency mechanism in late 2009, when Greece suddenly came close to a state default. Italy was on the way to follow suit. The ensuing crisis is only part of more complex problems plaguing the old continent and it directly threatens the fabric of the European societies.

Capitalism does not appear to be adequate for rescuing the welfare society. It is beyond doubt that Europe is in need of an overhaul of its social and political structures and institutions.

The trouble shaking Greece and Italy has startled European leaders, as both countries are cradles of European civilization and are in many ways also important contributors to our present world civilization.

There is general acknowledgment that the whole crisis has its cause in the enduring tacit complacency of European societies and their political leaders. Like it or not, they have been oblivious during the pleasant achievement of having rebuilt Europe from the rubble of the Second World War. Economists, sociologists and philosophers alike generally agree that Europe is now actually facing the fact that “it is pay day”.

Only Germany seems to have kept its track, based on its eight centuries old Hansa tradition supported by even older guilds, which combines innovative hard work, producing and trading. Still, even Germany cannot escape being part of a Europe now compelled to undergo a process of reconstruction, and if not deconstruction, of its social-cultural structure and institutions.

The idea of freedom being the philosophical product of the Renaissance and the French Revolution of 1789 has certainly played a decisive role in shaping European civilization. However, any civilization has its own failings. In some respects the idea of freedom and the creativity it stimulates has its price. Grave new problems, beyond human recognition, come to the surface and startle the “sacred” welfare society.

The good thing is that the European summit held recently in Brussels drew important lessons from the precarious situation. Seventeen of the 27 members of the EU have agreed to stringent disciplinary measures to bring the crisis under control. Still, in the depth of the crisis EU leaders also seem capable of reflecting the wisdom of the French Noble Prize winner Albert Camus (1913-1960), who once said something like, “if you are happy, don’t forget yourself, and if you are desperate, don’t kill yourself.”

Indonesia can learn a lot from the European experience and how their leaders are responding. Indonesian leaders should prepare for 2012, as the decisions made in Brussels will ensure a sort of austerity that will be felt in other parts of the world. The European golden economic ball of the 20th century is over.

The seeming anticlimax of the European civilization has obviously dragged the European leaders into resignation and concern about the future of Europe, while they concurrently watch the rise of new global players, particularly in East Asia and South America. And yet, compared to Europe, Indonesia is being confronted with more tremendous challenges not from forgotten achievements, but indeed from home works carried forward from the past, present pressing problems and looming challenges of the future.

Indonesia has neglected many of the problems of its own past. The dangerous thing is that many Indonesians even pretend to have forgotten them. We have yet to work on our nation building of a people inheriting a complex diversity that unites us simply because we are “Indonesia”. This is proven by the endemic violence and conflicts in the various regions.

After a lapse of 13 years of “Reformasi” that put an end to the Soeharto era, we are yet to prove that we can govern ourselves reasonably. To date we are merely working hard to manipulate democracy to the benefit of the “primordial us” rather than the whole nation. We have yet to prove that we are applying democracy to achieve a better life for the masses and justice for everyone.

We cannot afford to be ignorant, especially about the intense competition among nations that will only become fiercer due to the diminishing availability of resources indispensible for the survival of any nation. By the time we have to face the revolutionary world economic situation, we should have put our homework of nation building and governing ourselves democratically in good order.

If Indonesian leaders fail to address these three grand challenges in due time, Indonesians will encounter a crisis that is many times heavier than the one now plaguing Europe, even before the arrival of the mid 21st century.

The writer is senior adviser at the Centre for European Studies, University of Indonesia.

Follow our twitter @jakpost
& our public blog @blogIMO
| | | | | | | | Post Comments | Comments (4)

Paolo Scalpini | Tue, 27/12/2011 - 07:12am

Europe’s major problems are:
1) Too much focus on financial gain instead of the real economy: unnatural financial constructs with no real value behind it except for spend-more-than-you-have consumerism have created gigantic bubbles of imaginary wealth as well as debt. This is both a problem of big (inefficient) government as well as a short-sighted badly regulated and greed-driven free-market of mainly financial ‘products’. In the meanwhile there is a decline of productive and creative prowess creating an ugly trade balance.
2) Lack of unity, vision and leadership: the example of the Euro has been given already, but also the absurd austerity competition will not necessarily make things better. When different EU policymakers and their advisors start screwing up the essentials of the real economy as well instead of investing in people’s skills and competiveness, we will be in a greater need of welfare than ever. We cannot afford to not being able to afford social security. The demons of the last century are looming behind the corner in such a case.
3) Demographics
Last but not least, other parts of the world simply do not realize yet in what dire strait they are in. Inefficiency, plain stupidity, selfish materialism and wastefulness are not European monopolies. In fact, while European civilization might have started in Greece, the current downfall has started where it has reached a crest with a major banking bailout. Other parts of the world will indeed be hit much harder, because artificial constructs and ratings, based on for example over-subsidized exports and fake monetary depreciations to severe social instabilities and unsustainable economic growths, will eventually come tumbling down with much worse consequences.

Report Abuse

san san lim | Mon, 26/12/2011 - 23:12pm

it is shown welfare society has failed, it is time we switch to sound money, limited goverment, cut spending by 70%, reduce gov. by 80-90% and let the free market take care of us. I believe we will be more prosper and less corruption. The bigger the goverment the more corrupt the goverment will be, you know "absolute power is equal to absolut corrupt"

Report Abuse

Job | Mon, 26/12/2011 - 22:12pm

A more cogent analysis would focus on the role of the Euro in the European economic crisis. By creating a common currency which no central authority can control, economic problems in 1 member of the Eurozone cannot be contained domestically, with resultant contagion.
The crisis originated in the USA, spreading to Europe by reason of the globalisation of international capital markets. this is an inevitable consequence of free trade and market economics. While capitalism may not be prefect, I am yet to see a workable alternative.

Report Abuse

Tessarajan | Mon, 26/12/2011 - 22:12pm

ACTUAL REASON for EUROPE COLAPSE, due to EUROPE LOST their CAPATILISM because they INVESTED EMERGING MAEKET in CHINA and IMPORT CHEAP PRODUCT from CHINA, That causes EUROPE manufactured PRODUCT LOST BUSSINESS in WORLDWIDE.

Report Abuse