The Fallout of the Crisis

In recent weeks and months I have addressed a number of populist and xenophobic tendencies in European politics and beyond in this blog. Unfortunately, there is no sign that these tendencies will abate. In Germany, the President was recently criticised by scores of conservative politicians for stating that Islam is part of Germany. Only a couple of days later, the head of the Bavarian Christian-Social Union, a junior-partner of the governing coalition, answered the statement by calling for an end to migration from regions with 'different cultural backgrounds' as these migrants are 'too difficult to integrate'. Chancellor Merkel did not dismiss this remark completely, instead she said that the 'multicultural' model in Germany has failed. 

I have always been of the conviction that the increase of these discussions is a reaction to the economic strains put on broad swaths of populations all over the globe due to the world economic and financial crisis. What is even more worrisome is that politicians are seemingly answering these calls by turning towards more selfish policies on a global scale. Many governments have silently given up on promised increases of development aid and are turning their attention towards national grievances at the cost of global problems that need international coordination in order to be solved. Climate change is only one of those issues. Nobody expects a binding agreement at the next Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Mexico and worse, nobody even seems to care that the CoP will again be a forum for empty talks.

At the same time, this trend towards selfishness seems to translate into 'beggar thy neighbour' policies within the world currency system. The Federal Reserve Bank of the USA just announced that they will uphold their easy money policy in order to stimulate economic growth, ignoring that they are fueling tendencies of an international race for devaluation. China is not willing to change anything substantial about its undervalued currency and Japan and Brazil are stemming themselves against currency appreciations. So far, the EU has refrained from joining the devaluation race, which may be a positive side effect of the Euro. The common currency has derived individual heads of states of the instrument of manipulating the currency for economic gains.

Still, many experts are warning that devaluation may lead to trade wars in the long run which would have catastrophic consequences for everyone. Is it far fetched that selfish and xenophobic reactions in the aftermath of the world economic crisis lead to an increased readiness to rely on egoistic policies in international trade? Maybe, but the trend of people/nations focusing on their own narrow needs is distinguishable in both areas. Additionally, both the xenophobic reactions towards migration as well as the egoistic policies of devaluation have another thing in common. Both are not sustainable in the long run. Western economies will not prevail without migration and devaluation will only reap benefits, as long as other states are not reacting through devaluation of their own currencies.

Peace and justice

Last week I had the chance to visit the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and some NGOs working in the humanitarian aid and peace-building sectors in Amsterdam and The Hague. A group of fellow students at the University of Tübingen had organised the trip and I was lucky enough to join in on rather short notice. Apart from Amsterdam being a gorgeous city and The Hague having a beach that is surely worth a visit in summer time, we met a lot of interesting people at the organisations we visited.

In Amsterdam we met with people from The Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa (AWEPA), an association of European parliamentarians working with African parliamentarians to further peace and development in Africa. The visit was somewhat of an eye-opener as people at AWEPA made us aware of the democratic deficits of many NGOs working in Africa that bypass parliaments to work directly with the government or civil society organisations and thus block the emergence of a strong legislative branch.

Later in the Hague we met with people from Cordaid, a large humanitarian NGO with catholic roots that gets most of its funds from Netherlands' government. Before moving to the ICTY and the ICC we also visited the International Water Association that has it's headquarters in The Hague.

For me the most interesting side-effect of the visit was to hear about peace-building and conflict resolution from two sides that are often pictured as opposites, namely humanitarian organisations focusing on alleviating suffering and working for peace, and international tribunals and courts, focusing on justice in order to ensure durable peace.
Humanitarian organisations like Cordaid have a relatively flexible stance towards conflict parties accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Their loyalties lie with the people suffering on the ground. While they do support the ICC, they also do support peace negotiations with people indicted by the ICC when there is a realistic chance for peace.

Prosecutors of international courts and tribunals on the other hand are not happy to see this. They try to isolate the persons indicted by the courts and pressure the international community to arrest them. The last thing they want to see is that alleged war criminals cut deals and blackmail governments and states into a peace deal that ensures their immunity.

As a consequence, peace and justice seem to be at odds sometimes. Interestingly, there are different opinions about this even within the tribunals. We had the chance to talk to a judge and some persons working in the office of the prosecutor. While the judge emphasised that courts deliver justice and are not responsible for peace, the position that courts can further peace through justice was defended by prosecution staff. The prosecutors focused on the many mis-perceptions about the work of tribunals and courts. Indeed, they convincingly argued that many of the allegations, essentially stating that courts try to achieve justice at the price of peace, result from propaganda efforts of the very same conflict parties that are being prosecuted. 

The point both judges and prosecutors had in common was to maintain the argument that law cannot be compromised for the sake of politics. In my opinion this is a somewhat problematic position in the world we are living in today. While on  the national level the state is the single most powerful actor and can eventually enforce the law, such a guarantor of law is missing on the international level. Thus warlords, militia leaders and heads of state will always try to get away with murder by bargaining, blackmailing and threatening. As long as the international community lets these people get away with their demands to be exempted from the law, there will always be discussions about peace and justice. In some cases, the people living in the conflict regions may end up on the losing side of these discussions.

ICC building in The Hague, front entrance
Top left picture: ICTY building in The Hague

Populism on the Rise

So, after a rather long summer break of beach vacations and the following struggle to keep up with the workload I finally get around to write a new post. Actually a couple of interesting things have happened during the summer months, but one topic has been hot across a variety of different countries: immigration and xenophobia.

It seems that looking for scapegoats remains a strong human inclination in hard times. Even though the world is slowly recovering from the financial and economic crisis, people in many western countries are still jealously guarding the economic recovery against perceived threats from the outside.

Already in spring the US State of Arizona passed the harshest anti-immigration bill of the US. After scores of illegal immigrants from Latin American and Middle American states had upheld economic growth in the US by working for wages no American would move a finger for, these illegal immigrants had become unwanted competition on the labour market. The bill introduced a duty to have immigration papers ready 24/7 and allowed police officers to check the immigration status of people if there were 'grounds for suspicion'. The Obama Administration has sued in Supreme Court against the bill.

In France, President Sarkozy has decided to deport illegal Roma living in camps in France in a populist move to appeal to right wing voters who want illegal immigrants out, especially during times of economic strife. This initiative has met harsh criticism by European countries and the European Commission. A trial at the EU Court is a possible consequence as the illegal Roma are Romanians and thus EU citizens.
Still, the initiative by Sarkozy does not only meet disapproval. When I was in Spain, a survey about Sarkozy's deportation plans was conducted in the scope of a political talk show there. Over 70 per-cent of the Spaniards calling in demanded that their President Zapatero should do the same thing in Spain and 'get rid' of the illegal immigrants in Spain. Yet, Spaniards are at the same time again starting to migrate towards France as seasonal workers during harvest time. Somethign Spaniards did not have to due in a generation as the economic boom boosted living standards across the Iberian peninsula. Due to economic strains they are now again moving to other European countries in the search for work, so one expects that they would have more sympathy for the situation of migrants.

In Germany, the former Secretary of Finance of Berlin and current board member of the Federal Bank Thilo Sarrazin has published a book about the unwillingness of immigrants to integrate in Germany, and has attributed some problems with integration to genetic causes. A concept frighteningly close to 20th century racism. Nevertheless he has also received public approval and attention.

Last but not least the US have mourned the 9th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11th 2001 amidst outbreaks of xenophobia and distrust towards their Muslim minority. Taking into consideration that the US have a history of immigrations by people fleeing from religious prosecution and that al-Qaeda explicitly planned to unleash a war between Islam and the West, these developments are worrisome indeed.

These developments are a consequence of our everyday approach towards migration and integration. As long as we are profiting from it, or we can just forget about it, we do not deal with the problems migration brings with it. Integration is a challenge for both the recipient society and for the immigrants due to a number of reasons. The book by Thilo Sarrazin has the virtue of at least addressing this topic and illuminating the problems migrants also tend to bring with them. Yet, migration should not only be a topic to vent steam in bad times. There should be a genuine and permanent effort to address the problems of immigrations on both sides and a strive for searching better ways of living together in the future. It is clear that immigration is the future in a globalised world, so we better start thinking of ways to make integration work despite economic strains.

Thilo Sarrazin

Germany and Europe - a love gone sour?

Together France and Germany have been seen as the heartland and motor of Europe for decades. The age-old animosity between the two neighbours had erupted in the scope of two World Wars in the 20th century. When the European integration began through the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community, thoughts were still mainly on avoiding another outbreak of the enmity. Very few people would have thought that the countries would become the driving tandem of the EU by the end of the 20th century.

Yet, something has changed since the world financial and economic crisis starting in late 2008. France has criticised Germany for its over-dependence on exports, claiming that the German model works at the expense of other EU Member States. On the other side, Angela Merkel blocked French President Sarkozy's plans for a joint EU approach towards economic governance. (I had posted some remarks on the lack of such a joint approach back in February). But the rift is not only widening between the European tandem. Also the rest of Europe is eying Germany with increasing suspicion.

The main reason for the tensions is Germany's slow approval of financial support for Greece and the European emergency fund to stabilise the Euro-zone. Media in other European countries has increasingly written about Germany 'showing its teeth' and pursuing and increasingly national agenda. Newspaper commentaries, like George Soros' commentary in last weeks Die Zeit, claim that Germany is trying to impose its model of financial austerity on the other Member States. In the German population on the other hand there are fears that Germany will be pulled back into the financial crisis by other, weaker EU Member States or that they will be deprived of the fruits of their hard work through the failures of irresponsible governments in other Member States.

What are the reasons for these widening rifts between Germany and many of its European neighbours? I argue that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the way Germany sees itself and is seen by its neighbours. Germans are traditionally very skeptical about the economic development and when assessing their overall situation. Even though Germany weathered the financial and economic crisis well, and came out on top, people are worrying about the chaotic situation in the German Federal Government, they are afraid that the model of temporary employment that brought Germany through the crisis might collapse or backfire; they are afraid that they could be sucked in to a new financial crisis by Greek, Spain, Ireland and other countries struggling for a financial equilibrium.

The EU neighbours on the other hand see Germany as THE economic power on the continent. And they see that the economic dominance has grown even stronger since Germany weathered the crisis comparatively well. Additionally, our neighbours are projecting their notions of nationhood on Germany. Pursuing national interests in certain situations is perfectly normal for most states, even within the EU. So other EU Member states see Germany's show of force, that is born out of fear, as a claim of leadership or even dominance within the EU. Germans on the other hand do not have a 'normal' notion of nationhood since World War II. The view that the Holocaust and World War II were a consequence of Germany's national ambitions is a mainstream view over here. As a consequence, Germany has to follow national interests much more implicitly than its neighbours. Only when Germans see their economic wealth at stake, a centrepiece of Germany's post-war self-image, stronger moves are admissible. But in Germany this is seen as self defence, not as a bid for power.

Only recently, inter alia through the World Cup 2006 celebrations in Germany, a more relaxed relationship with nationhood has been emerging in Germany. Germans were seen as a friendly and hospitable nation during the World Cup 2006, a fact that was widely reflected in national press coverage and in which Germans took a lot of pride. It was seen as a way to find a new approach towards nationhood, completely different from 20th century national(social)ism. Germans see themselves, and want to be seen, as a friendly nation (just have a look at the World Cup logo Germany chose below). Reliable, friendly and unoffending. So they do not realise how their economic policies are being read by their neighbours. Germany is not conscious of its increasing power within the EU and is thus not using this power in a responsible way and with respect for the fears of its neighbours that see an increasing economic dominance of Germany looming over their heads.

Germany still has to learn that power comes with responsibility. This responsibility has to be assumed actively. It is not possible to act as if the increase of German economic power had not taken place, but this is exactly what Germany is doing. Germans are saying 'we just wanna be friends' while they are defending their newly won economic power position. In order to understand the background of this misunderstanding, Germany and its neighbours have to learn to see things through each other's eyes. Apparently, 60 years of integration have not been enough to reach this level of mutual understanding.

Peace through integration - EU and UNASUR

With UNASUR, Latin America is following the example of the EU, trying to establish a zone of stability, economic prosperity and peace on the South American continent. But why has the European Union become a textbook example for peace while tensions still abound in Latin America?

Ensuring a long and stable peace on a formerly war ravaged continent is probably the most impressive achievement of the European Union to date. Even though peace has become the natural condition for a whole generation of Europeans, it was far from self-evident that a continent like Europe could achieve this in mere decades.

The situation along many borders in Latin America on the other hand remain tense. Some days ago, Hugo Chávez declared at a graduation ceremony of sports students that he would sever all diplomatic ties with Colombia. It was his answer to allegations of President Uribe of Colombia, who had claimed that Venezuela is supporting the FARC guerilla. Colombia is waging a decades old counterinsurgency campaign against the FARC. Information that FARC has used bases in Venezuela several years ago are well known, and so far it is unclear whether the proof presented by Colombia is new, or just documents the old facts.

This new row about alleged FARC support is a new episode in the animosities between Venezuela and Colombia that became heated when the US boosted its military cooperation with Colombia and got permission to use several army bases on Colombian territory. Even though a war over these disagreements still seems very unlikely, it is worrying that a solution to the problem was not found in earlier stages. That both states are members of UNASUR, documents that Latin American integration has still not managed to fully display the stabilising effects that the European Union project had in Europe.

Why is this the case? Of course there were also political conflicts between European states during the European integration, for example regarding the accession of the United Kingdom disputed between France and Germany in the sixties. France took up an 'empty chair policy', refusing to take part in European Council meetings as long as a solution was not found, effectively blocking the EC at that time. Even many status questions between the sates remained unsolved, including contested borders. Still, cooperation never suffered significantly.

The hegemonic interests of the US and its meddling in Latin American politics could be an explanation for the stuttering start of UNASUR. After all, the relations to the US is one of the main divisive issues in Latin America. Europe had to fend off the influence of a regional hegemon, too, namely the USSR. The Iron Curtain documented the division of Europe regarding the role of the Soviet Union. Yet, the division did not run between the governments of the EU member states. The external factor of US foreign policy thus definetly figures into the less than perfect security situation in Latin America.

Still, ohter factors have a bigger impact, namely the legacy of self-sufficient armed groups in many parts of Latin America. Without the FARC threat Colombia would be less tempted to cooperate with the US military in spite of security concerns voiced by its neighbours, and the latest episode of the quarrel would not have occured at all. Armed groups in a region are an invitation to proxy warfare, used to pressure other governments by supporting its internal enemies. Additionally, these groups do not respect borders. A Colombian air raid on FARC bases on the Ecuadorian side of the border sparked tensions between Colombia and Ecuador several months ago. When these groups cross borders freely and provoke reactions, suspicion about the neighbour's involvement naturally arise.

In Europe, peace was a by-product of economic integration. The economies of the European states became intertwined to a degree that no one could start to manufacture arms without the other one knowing. Distrust was diminished considerably which ultimately led to further reapproachment and cooperation. Transparency could also be a successful recipe for guaranteeing more stability in Latin America, but it would not be a final solution. The threat of armed non-state actors has to be confronted as they will be a lasting source of instability in the region. Thus, cooperation in military matters will be necessary to stabilise the security situation in Latin America.

Unfortunately, cooperation in issues of security are not as easy to achieve as economic cooperations. They presuppose a certain level of trust as military cooperation is not always as clearly a positive-sum cooperation as economic coordination. The challenges in Latin America are thus greater than they were in Europe. The politicians will have to actively work on building trust and transparency, in order to then move forward to military cooperation. The self-sustaining process of reapproachment and trust building in Europe was in some ways a lucky coincidence. Thus, the individual responsibility of politicians in Latin America is higher. Both Uribe and Chávez did not live up to this responsibility in their crisis management. One can only hope that Colombian President elect Santos will push his reconciliation efforts forward that he started by inviting Chávez to his inauguration ceremony.

The EU2020 Strategy

The EU2020 Strategy, successor of the Lisbon Agenda, was adopted by the European Council on 17 June 2010. The Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (FRFG), where I am working as a research associate, organised the launch conference for the EU2020 Strategy in Germany, together with the Representation of the European Commission in Germany. The conference took place in the “Europäisches Haus”, seat of the European Commission Representation directly at Pariser Platz, a few meters from the Brandenburger Tor.
A number of knowledgeable experts on the different aspects of the EU2020 Strategy, including representatives from the relevant Commission General Directorates, took part in three panel discussions. The audience consisted of over 100 stakeholders and interested citizens. The conference probably fulfilled its aim of sparking a public debate about the EU2020 Strategy, but on a personal side note I feel there are some more things to say about the successor of the Lisbon Agenda.

First of all, I think the failure of the Lisbon Agenda in general did not receive the attention it would have deserved. The world financial and economic crisis in a certain way was a welcome excuse for the European governments to bury the Agenda quickly and without too much noise. Since the crisis had made compliance with the aims set out in the Agenda impossible, the EU did not have to discuss the failure of the strategy. As a reminder: the proclaimed aim of the strategy was to make Europe the most competitive economic area in the world, something that the EU is probably less likely to achieve now than when the Lisbon Agenda was first adopted. This failure was barely discussed in public when the Lisbon Agenda neared its completion. But can a successful successor strategy to the Agenda be devised without discussing the failures? Yes and no.

Yes, because Europe has learned one important lesson from the Lisbon failure after all. The aims in the Lisbon Agenda were not clear, compliance was difficult to measure and there was no clear direction for Europe apart from lofty formulations. When the Lisbon Agenda was re-tuned a couple of years after its adoption trough the Council, including clear aims and agreements, some improvements became measurable. 

No, because Europe has still not moved away from a strategy striving to boost the same old indicators: economic growth as percentage of the GDP, research investments as percentage of the GDP, a maximum percentage of unemployment, a minimum percentage of university graduates. With the financial and economic crisis even the last European has lost his belief in these static figures. Instead of being presented a more sophisticated definition of growth, encompassing ‘smart’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘inclusive’ growth, that the EU introduced with its 2020 Strategy, people wanted to see a concept beyond mere growth and GDP.

And then there is the biggest no. After drawing a lot of vocal criticism from different European countries for the way a Bachelor/Master system introduced (some say imposed) on 27 different university systems with different academic traditions, through the Lisbon Agenda, the EU now seems to make the same mistake again. Again education seems to be the weakest link in the EU2020 Strategy as the Council has just decided to kick out a number of concrete education aims from the paper. Promoting ‘smart’ growth without a concept for education sounds like a challenging idea to say the least. It seems like the EU has forgotten that the innovation resources of Europe are the European students and professors, not patents miraculously appearing out of nowhere and education and research spending in percent of the GDP.

What are the reasons for this seemingly irrational misconception? Member States, particularly the German regional entities (Länder), jealously guard their competences in educational matters. The main areas in which German regions can uphold an independent policy are matters of internal security (police services) and education, and they are not ready to let Brussels have a say in one of the few areas in which a German regional government can sharpen its profile. In order to pacify the German ‘Länder’, the Council even adopted the sentence ‘These recommendations shall be fully in line with relevant Treaty provisions and EU rules and shall not alter Member States' competences, for example in areas such as education.'

The backtracking on tangible aims for the education sector in the EU2020 Strategy reveals the weaknesses of the EU system. The different political levels follow their own logics and have still not developed a sufficient understanding of the needs and priorities of the other levels. Try to explain a Finnish Commission official why the German government has to consult every step it takes in the education sector with 16 Länder, while taking shifting majorities in the second chamber and important elections in different regions into account. By the way, two commissions to reform Federalism in Germany have been founded in the last decade, with meagre results. It won’t be the last time that Europe witnesses a clash between the logics of regional and continental governance.

The Rome Statute Review Conference in Kampala

12 years ago, during the final session of the Rome Conference in June 1998, 120 states unexpectedly agreed to establish an International Criminal Court, the ICC with seat in The Hague. The final vote at the Rome Conference was the result of a long process that had started with the Nuremberg Military Trials against those most repsonsible for the Nazi atrocities committed during the Second World War. With the words of the prosecutor of the IG-Farben trial, Joshua DuBois, the idea behind the trials was that ‘It will not be possible to re-establish a healthy and peaceful European community by simply covering the dead with a shroud without any investigation.’

The idea that prosecuting atrocities committed in wars is in some way important for achieving peace after conflict is an idea that has been around ever since. But, for a long time it remained only an idea. The Cold War balance of power precluded any compromise on establishing an international organisation with the competence to judge crimes committed on an international level. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union this idea took a tangible shape and was finally passed through the Rome Statute, laying the foundation for the ICC in 1998. The 60 necessary ratifications of the Rome Statute to trigger its entry into force were gathered with exceptional speed, so the ICC could start its work in 2002 already.

Europe and Latin America are two of the main supporters of the court. As the ICC has no police force, it is heaily dependent on such state support and cooperation to do its work. The first eight years have seen a slow start of the court's work, with only three of thirteen prosecuted persons in custody and a polemic discussion about the courts role in the scope of an arrest warrant issued for the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

From May 31 to June 11 2010 the court's work was assessed during the Rome Statute Review Conference in Kampala, the capital of Uganda. The Review Conference had been planned since the Rome Conference and apart from assessing the court's work so far, amendments to the Rome Statute were discussed in Kampala. The three major amendments that were discussed at the conference were the deletion of art. 124, giving the states parties to the treaty the right to exclude the ICC's jurisdiction on war crimes for seven years in their territory (the article was not deleted); the amendment of art. 8, penalising the use of weapons like poison, chemicals and hollow-tip projectiles in internal conflicts (the amendment was passed) and most importantly the definition of the crime of aggression.

So far the ICC has jurisdiciton over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The crime of aggression, meaning the penalisation of a breach of the UN Charter through an armed attack, was also included in the Rome Statute, but the ICC's jurisdiction for the crime was pending a clear definition. A definition that was now reached at the Kampala Conference. Unlike to many other international conferences, the results of the Kampala conference were not clear from the start. Usually results are agreed months before the actual starting date of the conference between the delegations of the states involved. Nevertheless, the definiton of the crime of aggression and the different trigger mechanisms discussed in Kampala remained contested until the last minute.

Many countries, especially the African states parties and the UNASUR, were in favour of implementing the crime of aggression. But one central question remained: Would the UN Security Council trigger the jurisdiction of the ICC or would a Chamber of the ICC decide whether the Office of the Prosecutor could start an investigation in a case. The UN Security Council already has the power to refer cases to the ICC and defer them for 12 months if the council deems it necessary. The referal of the situation in Darfur (Sudan) was the first time the UN Security Council made use of this powers and sparked a controversy in doing so.

Many African states and NGOs are claiming that the ICC is following purely political motivations and is a neo-colonialist institution since there are so far only active investigations in Africa. Even though the ICC is also conducting preliminary investigations in Afghanisatan, Gaza, Georgia and Colombia, the UN Security Council referal has strengthened this perception among many critics of the ICC.

Thus many countries were opposed to giving the UN Security Council a role in deciding whether the crime of aggression has been triggered in a particular case. Since the Council decisons are politically biased due to the veto powers of the five permanent members, a stronger UN Security Council role automatically means a more politicised court.

The compromise reached im Kampala allows state parties to decide whether the court may act on the crime of aggression. It can only do so, where either the UN Security Council refers a matter to the ICC or the alleged aggressor and victim states are parties to the ICC treaty though. How this will play out in practice remains to be seen in the future. Since the ICC jurisdiction for the crime of aggression will come into force in 2017 earliest, we will probably have to wait for a while to see the results.

A positive result of the conference was that the UN Security Council was not chosen as the only trigger for the crime of aggression, a step that would have further politicised the court. Europe and Latin America have been two of the main blocks securing that the ICC remains an independent institution governed by legal decisions and not by political calculations.

Implementig Intergenerational Justice

Last week, a colleague of mine, Marisa dos Reis, organised an international scientific conference on the legal implementation of the rights of future generations on the premises of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal. It was the perfect excuse to put the doctoral thesis beside for a moment and board a plane to (reputedly) warmer regions. We had some bad luck with the weather, but let me get to the point of this posting.

There are a host of contemporary problems that directly affect today's children and tomorrows yet unborn people. They include the global financial and economic crisis, the depletion of natural resources, environmental degradation, conflicts and most notably global climate change. Most of these problems were not heard of only a hundred years ago. Of course there have always been financial and economic crises (1920's!) but until recently humankind just didn't have the technological means to alter our environment in a way that shapes the fate of generations to come. Even if the old Greeks or the Holy Roman Empire would have wanted to, they could not have destroyed or severly damaged the environment in a way that would have affected generations born 100 years later. Even the forest clearance on the Iberian Peninsula, one of the most obvious historical examples for human influence on the environment, was done in the course of many generations. Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Portuguese and Spaniards cut the trees down in the course of the centuries to build their fleets, creating the arid climate on the peninsula we know today. But our generation can wipe out the world in a blink of the eye with nuclear weapons.

The problems are thus more pressing than ever. Yet, future generations are difficult to protect against damages through law. This is true even if they are caused knowingly through massive neglect as is undoubtedly the case with climate change. Unborn people do not have legal standing in the traditional sense. Additionally, laws stretching far into the future might clash with the principles of the rule of law, most notably the principle of clarity. But still, politicians on national and international levels always refer to future generations, their rights and the need to protect them. Are these only phrases? Future generations and their rights are named in the preambles of the UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. They are mentioned by the Brundtland Commission, by the Stockholm Declaration on the Environment, by the Rio Declaration in 1992 and the UNESCO Decleration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations towards Future Generations, to name just a few.

So, apart from visiting beautiful Lisbon, it's restaurants and bars and the marvelous towns in the vincinity (Cascais and Sintra a really worth a visit), there was a major question to deal with. The objective of the conference was to elaborate whether the numerous declarations of safeguarding the rights of future generations can be put into practice despite the problems they confront legal practitioners with. International speakers from the fields of philosophy and all sub-fields of law came together in Lisbon to discuss possible ways of implementing these rights on the national, European and international levels.
Many interesting approaches were intorduced at the conference. Emilie Gaillard Sebileau from the University of Orléans presented possibilities how the problem of rights of future people could be solved in French national law. Lucy Stone from UNICEF UK explained how safeguarding children's rights may be a feasible approach to protect the rights of future generations. Maja Göpel from the World Future Council presented a possibility of including the rights of future generations in the Lisbon Treaty of the EU and Sebastien Jodoin from the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law presented a draft code of criminal law addressing crimes against future generations. These speakers are of course just a small selection. The current Ombudsman for Future Generations of the Hungarian Parliament, Sandor Fülop, and the former Ombudsman from the Israeli Knesset, Schlomo Shoham, gave valuable insights into the work of institutions established to protect the interests of future generations. A full participant list of the conference can be found on the website.

The results of the conference will be documented in the scope of the Intergenerational Justice Review of the Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations. The journal is accessible freely and will be published by the beginning of July on the homepage of the foundation.

Thanks for reading!

Comment on the General Elections in the UK

These days I think back a lot to my stay in Leicester, a middle-sized town in the English East-Midlands, right around the corner of Nottingham and Robin Hood's famous Sherwood Forest. I stayed there in 2005/2006 for an Erasmus term. The elections for the German Bundestag took place just a couple of days before I caught my coach to England.

I vividly remember how many other Erasmus students and especially my English co-students in the different seminars asked us Germans what was going on in Germany and how it could be possible that the politicians were not able to form a government for weeks.
The social democrat chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schröder, had triggered a snap election after losing a couple of important regions to the conservatives. Surprisingly the conservatives did not manage to achieve a clear victory despite the low popularity of the SPD government.

Chancellor Schroeder's appearance on election day has become famous for his psyched behaviour bordering on straight arrogance and many people were wondering if he was actually intoxicated. Long story short: Schroeder refused to step down to make a grand coalition under a chancellor Merkel possible and a political deadlock froze the Federal Republic for many weeks until Schroeder finally gave up and a CDU/SPD coalition could start its work.

In Leicester, we were talking a lot about the advantages and disadvantages of the British style first-past-the-post system and the German system of proportional representation at that time. Most people (including myself) considered it an advantage of the first-past-the-post system, that there was a very low danger of a hung parliament or a blockade like in Germany in 2005.

The General Elections in the UK on May 6th have now proven that this is not necessarily true. The majority of the British citizens are tired of Labour (at least according to 90% of all newspaper articles that I have read on the topic). But their voters are a more coherent group and have a higher regional concentration than those of the Tories or the LibDems, which means that with first-past-the-post even a hugely unpopular government has a chance to cling to power. Even though Labour is the main loser of the general elections, it is not clear yet if Tories and LibDems will be able to get to a coalition agreement, especially since David Cameron apparently does not even want to talk about the LibDems' main demand of reforming the electoral system of the UK.

Regardless of the outcome, the UK case illustrates a worrisome tendency: Not even a first-past-the-post system can apparently stop the decay of the large catch-all parties in Europe. In France, the political left is in hopeless disarray, much the same can be said for Italy. The big German parties are increasingly dependent on three-party coalitions in order to form a government in the German Länder, a trend that seems to be reinforced by the results of the elections in North Rhine-Westfalia today. Of course the LibDems benefited from the youthful charisma of their leader Nick Clegg and the frustration after the long Labour years. The only safe thing to say is that the negotiations about who will take power for the next couple of years in the UK will be interesting to watch. If the Tories fail to win the LibDems over, we could even witness Gordon Brown's comeback. The effects of this historical result on the first-past-the-post system is the second big question mark that will be answered within the next few days.

Argentina and the case of Baltasar Garzón

Baltasar Garzón is probably the internationally best known judge working on a national level. The Spanish judge was born in Torres de Albánchez in the Province of Jaén in Andalusia. After a side trip into politics in 1993, when he ran for the Spanish parliament on the list of the left PSOE party, he quickly dedicated himself to his career as a judge. Baltasar Garzón is currently the examining magistrate of the Juzgado Central de Instrucción No. 5 of Spain’s Central Criminal Court, the Audiencia Nacional. In this position he is in charge of judging Spain’s most important criminal cases.

Baltasar Garzón is considered one of the most active judges in using the principle of universal law and was one of the driving forces that constituted Spain's role as the nation with one of the widest interpretations of universal jurisdiction worldwide*. He is probably best known for issuing an international arrest warrant against the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet who had previously profited from a life-long amnesty as a member of the Chilean senate. The arrest warrant was eventually enforced by the United Kingdom but extradition to Spain was denied on health grounds.

Baltasar Garzón also tried to lift Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's immunity from prosecution at the Council of Europe in April 2001 and repeatedly expressed a desire to investigate the involvement of the former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killings of leftist opposition figures in the Southern Cone in 1975, known as Operation Condor. Additionally he opened investigations on systematic torture in the cases of former prisoners at the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay.
It is rather obvious that Garzón has a knack for taking up spectacular and sensational cases, an approach that is not beyond criticism for a judge who should act on purely legal considerations. Nevertheless his actions in strengthening universal law highlighted cases of impunity and furthered the notion of the primacy of the rule of law worldwide.

But Baltasar Garzón is also an inconvenient judge on the national level. With his investigations into the party financing of the Spanish Conservative Party, the Partido Popular (PP), and against a PSOE minister involved in creating death squads to fight the ETA terrorist organisation between 1983 and 1987, he has made himself enemies in both political camps. This fact is currently backfiring on him as he has come under fire for allegedly exceeding his authorities in the scope of an investigation.

Baltasar Garzón started investigating the crimes of the Franco regime during the dictatorship even though an amnesty was democratically passed in 1977. Three organisations, including the radical right wing party Falange, have sued him for perversion of justice. The Spanish High Court has opened the trial against him and the administrative body of the Spanish judges will decide on Thursday if Garzón will be stripped from his office. Scores of Spanish victim's and civil society organisations, including film stars and directors like Pedro Almódovar, are protesting against the proceedings.

It is an obvious scandal that right-wing parties can not only fend off investigations into crimes committed during the dictatorship but even put the judges investigating these crimes under pressure. Internationally the acceptance for amnesties is rapidly diminishing, a development emphasized by the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Rome Statute, establishing the ICC, has already been signed by over 110 states with obvious repercussions on the validity of amnesties covering war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocides. Passing the 1977 amnesty would be all but impossible nowadays. An amnesty could only be possible if concrete steps to investigate the crimes are taken and the truth is brought into the open. Those directly responsible for the crimes could not completely evade punishment and the victim's rights would receive considerably more attention today.

In an ironical twist of history, the Argentinean attorney Carlos Slepoy has now declared that he will apply for taking up criminal proceedings in connection to crimes against humanity or even genocide committed by the Franco regime. Ironically, Garzón himself had started investigations against Argentinean Junta leaders in the past, thus contributing to their amnesty being revoked. Now it is possible that we will witness the first case in which Argentina applies the principle of universal jurisdiction itself, another indicator that the relation between Europe and Latin America is changing. Latin America's democracies are sufficiently self-confident today to teach European states a lesson in respecting victim's rights, a thought that will surely cost some Europeans to adapt to.

A victim's organisation has started a collection of signatures against the indictment of Baltasar Garzón at http://www.afeco.org/

*Even though the use of universal jurisdiction has increasingly been limited due to the political fallout of the cases. The criteria for the cases having a direct relevancy for Spain have been strengthened, reason for the failure of the attempt to start investigations into the Operation Cast Lead of the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza by the end of 2008 in Spain.

What Europe and Latin America can learn from each other

In 2010 many Latin American states are celebrating their 200 years of independence anniversaries, called 'bicentenario' in Spanish. Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela and Colombia are preparing their respective celebrations with growing enthusiasm. In Mexico there will be a soccer tournament to celebrate independence and Colombia sports its own 'bicentenario' hymn. The celebrations also mark a point in history at which the relations between Latin America and Europe were transformed in a decisive way. Simon Bolívar, Francisco de Miranda in Venezuela and Miguel Hidalgo in Mexico, to name a few, all played their part in liberating Latin America from Spanish domination from 1810 onwards. Nevertheless the independence wars were mainly an elite revolution fought by the influential criollos (people of mixed Spanish and indigenous descent) for their own liberty. They did not bring liberty to the indigenous people of Latin America who were still considered of lower social status by the criollos.
The accumulation of independence anniversaries in 2010 is a welcome opportunity to have a look at how Europe and Latin America have fared since the former Spanish colonies gained their right to self-determination.

Europe has witnessed a fundamental transformation during the last 200 years. The ideas of the French revolution were still fresh and the consecutive waves of change were still rippling the political framework of the 'old continent'. The reality of Europe was still dominated by powerful nation states engaged in antagonistic relations and competing for influence within and outside of Europe. Balance of power politics and changing allegiances, accompanied by regular outbursts of war, shaped the relations between Europe's nations.

Today, the continent has grown together politically and economically in the scope of the European Communities. Only small patches of the continent remain outside the Union, either out of their own choice (Switzerland, Norway) or because they are not yet fulfilling the criteria for acceptance as Member States. While non-EU states like Switzerland and Norway are politically and economically integrated despite lacking membership, states like Croatia and Serbia are on their way towards accession.
But political crises like the fallout of the financial and economic crisis show that the cultural differences between European countries remain and sometimes lead to quarrels and misunderstandings. Germans are complaining about the mentality of sloppy accounting of southern Member States like Greece and do not want to pay other people's bills. France is pointing at German selfishness when addressing the growth of the German economy bought at the cost of wage sacrifice and the competitiveness of neighbouring economies.
Every European who has lived for some time in another Member State or has family in another European country has made his experiences with cultural differences. Most of the time these encounters are enriching experiences, opening our eyes for different cultural contexts. But sometimes it is frightening to see how easy it is to be misunderstood when out of one's own cultural context. Add to this mix of European cultures the cultures of the migrant groups living in many European cities and you have a huge variety of different cultural backgrounds crammed together on a relatively small continent. It is probably not surprising that the cultural cohabitation between Europeans of different nationality and migrants from different origins does still not run smoothly.

Latin America on the other hand is still in the process of economical and political cohesion. The difficulties in covering the large distances between Latin American states (intracontinental plane flights are not affordable for a large portion of the population) and the pervasiveness of political conflicts between them are a clear indicator for this. Even though Latin American integration is advancing, there is still a very long way to go. Culturally, on the other hand, Latin America is a remarkable example for a unique continent-wide culture including African, European and Latin American roots. Nobody who has read books by authors from different Latin American countries can deny the closeness in style and the same cultural roots of, say, Colombia's Gabriel García Marquez and Uruguay's Juan Carlos Onetti. The continent shares a common Iberian linguistic heritage, defying the trend of accepting English as the global 'lingua franca'. And the mix of cultures to be found on the continent is a herald of things to come with the advancing globalization. The strength Latin America can draw from its rich cultural heritage in the globalized world of tomorrow is considerable.

On a shrinking planet, the political, economical and cultural cohesion of regions is key for ensuring their influence on a global scale. While Europe has advanced on the political and economical level, it has a lot to learn from cultural cohesion in Latin America. The mix of cultures that respects African, European and indigenous roots could be a blueprint for a culturally unified Europe that does not overwrite its unique and diverse cultures by some kind of standardized culture, but produces a synthesis that is larger than the sum of it's parts. Growing together on a cultural level does not imply to lose the respect for the cultural roots of the different Member States. Latin America is the living example for this.

The Falkland/Malvinas case

The United Kingdom and Argentine are upholding a conflict about the status of a small group of islands in the South Atlantic since decades. Even the name of the islands, consisting of two large and several smaller ones, is contested. The British name is Falkland Islands while they are called las Malvinas in Argentine. Both the British and the Argentinian government claim the islands to be part of their territory. While Argentine sees them as an integral part of their Tierra del Fuego Province, Britain maintains their status as British dependent territory. The Argentinian claim is even included in transitional provisions of its constitution.

The contested islands look back at a changing history of rivaling claims. The British first landed on the islands in 1690. France claimed de facto control over the islands by founding a settlement in 1764. The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht conceded control of the islands to Spain, which lead to the expulsion of French and British settlers from the islands by 1770. The Argentinians first claimed sovereignity over the islands in 1820 after it's independence from Spain. Argentina was still known as the United Provinces of the River Plate Since at that time. Since 1833 there is a fully fledged British colony on the islands. The population of the islands sees itself as British, but Argentine declines their claims for self-determination, stating that the original (Argentinian) population has been expelled by British colonists who thus do not have a genuine right to self-determination.

The conflicting claims from Britain and Argentine first led to real tensions during the Falklands War / Guerra de las Malvinas in 1982. The Argentinian military junta used the claim for the islands as a vent for the growing discontent of the population with the military government. These claims quickly culminated in an Argentinian invasion of the islands in 1982. Contrary to Argentinian expectations, the United Kingdom under Margret Thatcher reacted quickly and sent a naval force to retake the islands. The resulting conflict lasted 76 days and cost the lives of 1000 soldiers and a handful of civilians and ended with the British reposession of the islands. The loss of the islands led to the toppling of the military junta that had originally triggered the conflict to consolidate it's rule.

Argentinian claims for the islands have never since been secluded and have been renewed in 1994, 2009 and 2010. The recent discovery of oil in the sea around the islands has led to new tensions in February 2010. While British companies began preparing the extraction of the oil, supposed to start in 2011, Argentinian President Christina Kirchner declared that Argentine is taking control of all shipping between its coast and the islands in order to hamper the exploitation of the oil field. While there are voices in the international (especially the British) press, saying that President Kirchner is using the Argentinian claim for the islands as a vent for discontent with her government, just like the military junta in 1982, Argentinians are taking the claims as a serious issue of national identity.

A suitable first step to defuse the conflict would be an agreement between the British and Argentinian governments to exploit the oil fields in a joint operation and share the profits. Economical cooperation could then help to unravel the highly symbolical issues that have proctracted the conflict. A conflict between two of the largest and most important states of Europe and Latin America can be a monkey wrench thrown into the process of deeper cooperation between the two continents and it is questionable if a group of remote islands are really worth the price to pay.

A sign on the Argentinian side of its border with Brazil,
proclaiming the Argentinian claim for the islands

Germany's blind spot: Latin America

At the beginning of the year, I wrote a post about Europe's foreign policy vis-à-vis Latin America with hopes for a boost of the relationship due to the Spanish EU presidency. Unfortunately, near state bancruptcies in some European Member States, tragic earthquakes in Haiti, Chile and Turkey as well as a dispute about the creation of the new European foreign service have tied up the EU's resources and a real breakthrough for the EU-Latin American relations is not in sight.

Meanwhile, Latin America has once more underscored its objective of leaving the US-American 'backyard' and becoming an independent region having an important word in global relations with the founding of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CALC) in February 2010. The organization includes all Organization of the American States (OAS) members but USA and Canada, which is a clear signal towards more independence of the region.

Some Member States of the EU have understood that Latin America will be a key region in the future and have intensified their economic ties in the region instead of waiting for a coordinated EU approach towards Latin America. France winds up arms deals with Brasília, supplying a nuclear-powered submarine and probably Rafale fighters. At the same time Paris is courting Bolivia in order to gain access to the large Lithium deposits in the Uyuni salt lake. Non-EU states, like China, are pushing their economic relations with Latin America with even more force. China has become the number one trade partner of several countries in the region. Germany, on the other hand, has slept through most of the Latin American boom.

Companies from Spain, Portugal and Italy seized the moment when Brazil privatized its telecommunication market in the 90's and invested in the growing market that has gained considerable importance now. The Spanish Santander Consumer Bank is another good example for European companies that have seized their window of opportunity in Latin America. In Santander's rise to becoming a global player in the financial sector, it's early investments in the Brazilian banking sector play a crucial role. German companies did not even have a spectator role in all these developments, also a consequence of Germany's foreign policy that focused on India and China while practically ignoring Brazil. When Angela Merkel visited Brazil for the first and only time yet, she stayed for one and a half days, a bad joke considering the size of Brazil. Additionally it took the German government five months to name a new ambassador for Brazil. The downfall of German interests in Latin America is apparant, especially in comparison to the Interwar Years when 'Made in Germany' became a guarantee for quality in Latin America.

Against this background, it should be seen as a positive sign that Germany's new foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, has declared Latin America one of his main areas of interest. There is definetly enough ground to be recovered for German foreign policy in Latin America to keep a foreign minister busy for a term or two. As a kick-off visit for his new Latin America strategy he visited Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil for five days. Unfortunately, German media's discussion of Mr. Westerwelle's trip mostly focused on one issue: the composition of his fellow travelers. His companion, Michael Mronz, is already an inherent part of his travels abroad. In the case of Brazil, which will soon host the Olympics and the Soccer World Cup, German news media see a commingling of private and professional interests on part of Mr. Westerwelle since his significant other is an event manager. There are speculations that Mr. Mronz used the trip to meet potential business partners on-site. Other members of Westerwelle's business delegation have been linked to himself and his brother, leading to further accusations of Westerwelle not respecting the red lines of his office.
One can only hope that this political discussion will not be the only public reaction to the foreign ministers first trip to Latin America. After all there were five days of talks with high government representatives in Latin America. The results of these talks should receive their fair share of attention in the national media. This is important for fostering the ties between civil society representatives so important in contemporary foreign politics.

Social benefits discussion revisited

Nearly one month ago I wrote a posting on our societal approach towards poverty, addressing the discussion of social benefits in German newspapers, especially a philosophical discussion in German feuilletons. Already some German right wing politicians were attacking the social consensus on welfare that had developed in Europe during decades.

Now, the German constitutional court recently delivered a judgement on the basis for calculating the social benefits. The judges reasoned that this basis is intransparent and does not take all the cost that incur in everyday life into consideration. This was not a judgement calling for a rise of social benefits, but for an overhaul of the basis for calculation. Theoretically even cuts would be possible as a reaction to the ruling, but in some areas the court deemed it obvious that benefits were too low. This especially applies to the rates for children. So far the needs of children have been calculated as a 60% of adult needs, which is obviously nonsense.

Furthering children and ensuring that they have the possibility to obtain an appropriate education can be very costly. Paying for private tutors, schoolbooks, private lessons for the piano or dancing lessons can easily add up to a monthly sum much superior to what an adult needs in the same period. And this does not even include spendings for clothes. Especially young children and teens need a lot of clothes simply due to the fact that they are growing rapidly.

But instead of triggering a discussion of how we can ensure that the poorest of our society can meet their needs and how to avoid that children growing up in poverty will automatically fail to advance in our educational system, the liberal party immediately started a discussion about the worth of labour in the German society. The discussion was spearheaded by the German foreing secretary and vice-chancellor Guido Westerwelle. After 100 days travelling across the globe and showing a reasonable diplomatic performance many Germans had already forgotten that the leader of the German liberal party was not only capable of a diplomatic demeanor but was also one of the loudest demagogues of the country. Now he has reentered the domestic political stage with a bang.

According to Westerwelle, Germany is approaching socialism and "late roman decadence" because people who do not work are leading lives in "wealth", earning more money than people who are working. Well, there is some truth in his claims. Some people work 8 to 10 hour shifts to earn a wage barely surpassing social benefit levels, but decadence is hardly the word for people struggling to get along with about 380 euros per month. Especially in times in which bankers, whose irresponsible gambling cost society a fortune, lose their jobs well endowed with a "golden parachute" or are even looking forward to record bonuses at the end of 2010. Westerwelle is demanding that the weak should be protected from the resourceful and sluggish. According to him, everybody is talking about the recipients of tax money while forgetting about those who pay taxes. 

What he does not realize is that the current asymmetry between social benefits and low wages might as well be a consequence of the increasing pressure on wages and the wage sacrifices of German workers and not following from immorally high social benefits. We do need a discussion about the worth of labour in our society, but from a completely different angle than Westerwelle is suggesting.

The Euro dilemma

Newspapers have been full of the potential bankrupcy of the Greek state lately. And financial analysts and newsmedia were quick to name the potential future candidates for state bankrupcy when the creditworthiness rating of Greece was lowered. Usually Portugal and Spain are listed first, followed by Ireland and Italy. Many commentators even go as far as seeing the whole Euro currency close to collapse. Having a closer look at the context of the latest developments on the financial markets, it becomes obvious quickly that the situation is not as severe as often suggested, but one will also soon discover the inherent flaws of the Euro system and the major dilemma that EU leaders now confront. From a Latin American perspective these developments are doubly interesting.

First and foremost because Latin America is aspiring to step into the footsteps of the European Union with it's UNASUR project. Since UNASUR is mainly driven by economical and financial integration, like the EU in it's early stages, there are valuable lessons to be learned from Eruope's approach to a common market and currency. This holds even if a common currency on the South American continent may be years or decades away or may even never come.

Secondly, it will be certainly interesting for Latin American states to see, how European states cope with rising debts and dangers of bankrupcy in comparison to, say, the Argentinian approach that tackled bankrupcy aggressively by ceasing the payment of debts in 2001. A decision that eased the pressure on the country's economy and financial system but came at the price that Argentina has still trouble to stock up on money on the world financial market.

Looking at the situation in Europe the figures in question have to be put into perspective first. Greece announced new debts summing up to 12,7 percent of the GDP for 2009, raising its total debt to 120 percent of the GDP. The old government had calculated with a 3,7 percent of new debts, a figure that was nearly quadripled when the new government stopped massaging the figures after years of 'creative' financial accounting. Portugal has debts summing up to around 77 percent of the GDP, Spain and Ireland are at about 50 percent. Spain incurs new debts of about 6 percent, Ireland 11 percent. The EU covenant for financial stability dictates a cap of 3 percent for new indebtedness and 60 percent for the total debt. At first glance these figures look dramatic, and in the case of Greece we certainly have to talk about an alarming situation since this development has been going on for years. Greece's total debt is massive and growing quickly. Speculations on the financial market concerning a possible bankrupcy and quick reactions of the other EU states are thus understandable. But the figures of the other states named as candidates for bankrupcy have to be read more carefully.

States that traditionally had a soft currency, like Spain, Portugal , Italy and also Greece, had higher debt levels and higher levels of new indebtedness in the past. For these countries higher debts have been normal for decades since they could be countered by inflation. And the high velocity with which debts are rising right now can be attributed to the world economic crisis, especially in the cases of Spain and Ireland.

But the figures hide a more fundamental dilemma. In the past the states were solely responsible for their own debts, meaning that they could also manage them with inflation. An exit now blocked by the EU criteria for financial stability. While the financial leeway has been restricted to a certain degree by the EU Commission, financial and economic policies still remain largely in the hands of the national governments. This means that EU Member States having the Euro are following different financial and economic approaches. They are profiting from the financial stability of the euro area which in some cases led to a blockade of economic reform since the need was not obvious in times of economic growth. Other states, like Germany, went through a cycle of economic reforms meanwhile, leading to wage sacrifice on a large scale. Germany thus gained a competitive edge in comparison to other EU states that experienced pay raises unheard-of in their recent history and are now paying the price in times of economic stagnation. They are not equiped to fare well on a global shrinking and increasingly competitive market. Thus, in a way, Germany is partly responsible for the debt situation in other Euro countries since it gained an edge against its European competitors.

Sharing a currency and a market without sharing financial and economic policies has led to this dicrepancy that is now endangering the finances of some member states. Should states like Greece fail to balance its budget, Europe will have to take the unpleasant decision to either help states like Greece and reward economically irresponsible behaviour or face growing doubts about the financial and economic stability of the EU and possibly even a new crisis stemming from the bankrupcy of EU Member States. There is still reasonable hope that Greece will be able to control it's problem on it's own by implementing strict savings schemes monitored by the EU Commission. The heads of the EU Member States declared their confidence in the Greek plans yesterday. But demonstrations in Greece against inevitable cutbacks show that things could become difficult. The demonstrations and the fact that Greece has an impressive record of tax evasion aliment suspicions that many Greek are not ready to pay for an efficient state but are expecting their fellow EU citizens to pay their bills.

The lesson Latin America can learn from these developments for it's own ongoing process of integration is to think twice if it is a wise move to share a currency without sharing economic and financial policies.

Fighting impunity - Latin America's and Europe's support of the ICC

I have already stressed in a couple of postings that Europe and Latin America may be closer in their values and aims than most people tend to perceive. Apart from a common, sometimes tragic, history dating back to colonial times and European imperialism, Latin America and Europe share core values of democracy and human rights. Together with Northern America they are forming a triangle of democratic believes. This is true in spite of tensions that arise in certain intervals, particularly between the US and some Latin American states. As I have stated before, Europe and the US do not further these similarities strongly enough, thus running the risk of losing a potential ally, e.g. to increasing Asian approaches.

I have recently started my research on a doctoral thesis about the influence of International Criminal Court (ICC) procedures on active conflicts. During my research it struck me that Europe and Latin America are the only continents in which the majority of states has signed and ratified the Rome Statute founding the ICC. In fact el Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua are the only states that still haven't signed the treaty in Latin America. In the Caribbean, Jamaica and Haiti have signed but not yet ratified the Rome Statute. Additionally, since 2003 the chief prosecutor of the ICC is the Argentinian Judge Luís Moreno Ocampo. Latin America and Europe are thus two of the main pillars of support for the ICC, even though the EU and Japan are by far the most important financiers of the court, providing more than 50% or nearly 25% of the budget respectively.

So what exactly does the ICC do and why are Europe and Latin America especially supportive of its work? The idea to found some kind of international court to judge severe crimes committed in wars and conflicts was already born at the beginning of the 20th century. Nevertheless, the Nuremberg trials, in which some Nazi war criminals were judged for crimes against humanity committed during the second world war, remained the only example for an international court judging crimes of individuals. The political situation during the Cold War made an establishment of such a court impossible for decades. After the cold war things started moving pretty fast though. In 1998 the Rome Statute, aiming to establish an International Criminal Court to judge severe crimes on a global scale, was adopted. In 2002, enough parties had ratified the treaty for it to enter into force. In 2003 the International Criminal Court started its work. Its mandate is to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The mandate is still limited to parties of the treaty or individual nationals of these states but the ICC can start investigations when a case is referred to the prosecutor in the scope of a Chapter VII decision of the United Nations Security Council as was the case with Sudan.

This may be only a first step towards fighting impunity on a global stage and some decisions of the ICC are being criticized as being counter-productive for peace negotiations, but humanity has to start in some way if a spirit of anarchy and impunity is to be replaced by some kind of universal legal order in the future. While the US, China and Russia remain skeptical of the ICC and thus impede a real global reach of the institution, 110 states have already ratified the statute. How come that nearly all of Europe and Latin America has done so?

The explanation lies in similar experiences in the past. While Europe has had it's good share of war crimes, genocides and mass murder in the 20th centuries and has thus decided to fight these phenomena as a lesson from their war ridden history, Latin America has recent experiences with impunity. After the Latin American dictatorships crumbled during the 1970's and 80's, most states passed amnesty laws (often initialized by the very people culpable of the crimes) or held truth commissions. Until today, many crimes remain unpunished, victims unaccounted for and perpetrators are living freely in comfort. These issues remain on the political agenda until today, as the Kirchner's hard-fought efforts to lift the Argentinian amnesty laws and the Fujimori trial in Peru show. The ratification of the Rome Statute is a signal from Latin America's democratic governments, that atrocities like those committed in the past will never go unpunished again. And here we come full circle when considering the biography of ICC chief prosecutor Moreno Ocampo. In 1985 he was assistant prosecutor in the Trials of the Junta, the first trial, in which high military leaders were prosecuted for mass killings since the 1945 Nuremberg Trials.

For further information on the ICC and Latin America consult this article in the ICC magazine of the Crimes of War Project.

How to approach poverty?

Last week Florencia from our bloging network wrote a very interesting article on the criminalization of poverty in Argentina, and interestingly the attitudes towards poor people and people living on welfare are in some aspects very similar to the current discussion in Germany. Of course the political environment is decidedly more polarized in Argentina at the moment with the Kirchner dynasty fighting for political survival, but the arguments which are used on both sides of the Atlantic ocean to deny the necessity of social transfers are interchangeable. Check out Florencia's article (in Spanish) here.

Europe in general and especially Germany is very proud of their social welfare system that they praise as a civilizing accomplishment, particularly in comparison with the United States. The condition of the US welfare system, with about 46 million citizens without medical insurance, and the repeated failures to reform it, show that we are indeed lucky to have developed a network of social welfare institutions that is working reasonably well. Barack Obama's experience with his personal take on the welfare reform, his main campaign promise which is getting more difficult to deliver by the minute, shows how difficult it is to introduce such a system without the underlying historical consensus that has grown in Europe over the decades. But this consensus is increasingly endangered also in Europe.

Like in Argentina, there is a growing tendency in Germany to doubt if social transfers from the rich to the poor are justified. This summer Peter Sloterdijk, a philosopher from the southern German city of Karlsruhe, published an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, claiming that transferring money via income tax from the middle classes to the poor is a form of expropriation. His main argument was that the hard working middle classes are paying the bulk of social transfers and are such deprived of the fruits of their labor. He suggested that social transfers should be paid on a strictly voluntary basis. A series of agitated reactions and counter-reactions swept through the German feuilleton pages, some attacking others supporting Sloterdijk's argument. Many authors either understood his text as an Utopian vision, others as an insidious intent to abolish the social welfare system. Independently from Sloterdijk's true intentions his article definitely caused some damage to the idea of social solidarity since it voiced the common accusation that welfare transfers are some sort of appropriation. Of course he forgot to mention that the income tax is closely followed by the value-added tax, the second most important source of income of a modern state, that everybody, regardless of his income, is paying. The pool of funds from which the social transfers are paid is much more ample than just the reservoir of income tax funds.

Even more damaging was an article written by the prime minister of the German region of Hessia, who claimed that many people living of social welfare are doing so willingly because they are earning more money staying at home and not looking for a job than they would earn in a regular job. While the problem of unreasonably low wages in some jobs is a real problem and the option to accept any suitable job has to be made more attractive for unemployed, his rhetorics were again aiming at the growing resentment against social transfers in our society. He named the fact that unemployed gain as much, or even more, than working people "the perversion of the Social State Principle". Fueling these growing resentments is a dangerous game since the number of people who understand the ideas behind our social welfare system is slowly but constantly diminishing.

There are two main aims at the core of introducing a comprehensive social welfare system. First of all it is meant to ensure that every human being can lead a dignified life. An idea closely connected to our notion of human rights and democracy and as such one of the core values of our societies. Secondly social transfers ensure social peace and thus create the requirements for the advancement of the wealthy strata of society and establish an environment in which prosperous persons can put their wealth to use.

While nobody dares to contest the first aim directly, the second aim is consequently ignored by those well-off people who vilify social transfers as theft or expropriation. Europeans are dead wrong if they are only looking to other continents for social polarization. Growing economical competition on the global level and diminishing natural resources are eating away at the consensus of solidarity in our societies. The bitter irony about this development is that many well-off people condemning welfare transfers do not even realize that they were initially introduced in their own interest and are still serving them as much or even more than the poor.