Not that this is an original thought, but good riddance nonetheless.
Monthly Archives: March 2006
Asia beats Europe in education
From the BBC News site comes this disconcerting news:
Europe is falling behind Asia in terms of education and skills, according to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
It blames France and Germany which are criticised for mediocre education systems and their inherent class bias.
And further on:
“Europeans from difficult socio-economic backgrounds don’t receive the same educational opportunities as children from rich and middle-class families,” the study said.
It seems we are wasting a lot of potential here, not to mention the loss in future competitiveness and possible social unrest.
Conspiracy theories
Soj on Transdniestr
European Tribune – Putting the Squeeze on Transdniestr by Soj
I see that the western press is almost completely ignoring the developing situation in Transdniestr, despite the huge ramifications involved.
[…]
With the election of Viktor Yushchenko in early 2005, Ukraine has steadily allied itself with the west, including the United States. And the west believes that Russia is illegally maintaining military bases in three autonomies in Europe, including Transdniestr, which is the primary stumbling block towards the signing and ratification of the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty. To put it bluntly, the west wants Transdniestr to do what Adjara did in 2004 (in Georgia), which is acquiesce to Moldovan central government, perhaps in the form of some lind of limited autonomy in a federation.This issue shifted last week when Moldova and Ukraine implemented new customs regulations, requiring all Transdniestr goods (that are being exported) to carry a Moldovan tax stamp. In other words, Transdniestr must pay taxes to Moldova to export its goods, which of course angered the Transdniestrians. At first Igor Smirnov believed that Ukrainian president Yushchenko must be “poorly informed” on the new regulations, implying Yushchenko would never implement them if “only he knew” about them.
Milosevic is dead.
CNN.com – Milosevic dies in prison cell – Mar 11, 2006
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has been found dead in his prison cell in The Hague, Netherlands, according to the United Nations. He was 64.
Serbian radio says he hung himself, just like the Krajina president did. I must have misread something.
BBC says:
Steven Kay, Mr Milosevic’s lawyer, told BBC News 24 that he had been found dead in his cell on Saturday morning.
[…]
The tribunal last month rejected a request by Mr Milosevic to go to Russia for medical treatment. He had high blood pressure and a heart condition.
The Twins’ New Poland
A belated link, you could say. I somehow missed this article in The New York Review of Books when it was published in january. Better read it right away, before it dissapears behind the subscrption wall.
It’s by Timothy Garton Ash; he’s usually good when writing about central europe.
Montenegro – the other side
Well, we are united in our diversity here at Fistful. I have to say I disagree with almost every point Doug made about Montenegro in his last post, and will respectfully dissect his arguments below. But first off, a plea for some sanity here. Too many people seem to think that the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1990-93 was in some way the EU’s “fault”; that it failed to act quickly enough, to apply diplomatic pressure, or even (in contradiction to the evidence) that the EU’s recognition of Croatia and Slovenia in December 1991 somehow caused the wars. Nonsense. The fact is that Yugoslavia was broken up by the policies of the Serbian leadership. Outsiders tried to ameliorate or decelerate the process and the consequences; they largely failed. The international community does bear some responsibility for its inaction in the face of evil. But the larger share of the responsibility belongs to the local actors – especially, though not only, the Serbian political leaders. The fact is that we can plan all we like for international do-gooding, but the forces in action on the ground will always be the crucial factor. And so it is in Montenegro.
I’m sure Doug agrees with me on most of that. Now let’s get to the points of our disagreement. It’s important to realise that Montenegro has been effectively independent since 1997, when Djukanovic, then Prime Minister, threw the pro-Milosevic elements out of the ruling party and won the Presidential election against his former patron. Montenegro has had a separate customs area since roughly then. It adopted the Deutsch Mark (now the Euro) as currency in 1999, while Serbia retains the dinar to this day. The State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, established in 2003, remains largely fictional apart from the foreign ministry. Montenegro’s referendum, if successful, will merely formalise the reality of its independence. In fairness, Doug states most of this as well. Yet he seems to think that rolling history back is both possible and desirable.
Continue reading
Identity and Global Conflict
Montenegro: Jump higher
So, Montenegro.
Little mountainous state on the Adriatic. Six hundred thousand people, mostly Montenegrins, a few Albanians and whatnot. Was an independent country until 1919, when it got swept up into Yugoslavia. Now it’s part of the “Federal Union of Serbia and Montenegro”, which consists of (1) Serbia, and (2) Montenegro.
And they’re arguing about whether they should leave. After all, the Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, and Macedonians all left, right? And the Kosovars are about to, any day now. Why should Montenegro be left behind? They had their own country for centuries; why not once again?
Why not indeed:
Continue reading
Breaking Up The Power Giants?
Battle may be about to be joined. EU competition commissioner Neelie Kroes is back in the news. She made a speech yesterday, and in that speech she suggested that the golden days of the EUs unreformed energy giants may be numbered, as the European Commission is considering launching an onslaught on monopolistic energy utilities and the politicians who protect them (and here). According to The Economist Angela Merkel has recently gone for a policy of “underpromise and overdeliver”, so I do hope she has taken a leaf out of Merkel’s book, and that this won’t be yet another example of ‘overpromise and underdeliver’. The stakes, as I was suggesting yesterday, are really quite high.
Kroes principle objective seems to be those companies that control both the supply and distribution of energy, and in so doing effectively block their rivals from entering the market. But in taking on these companies she will also need to take on the political networks that support them. As Euractiv (which incidentally has a useful dossier on the energy topic) puts it “The EU considers common energy policy amid national sovereignty concerns”. My question is, just who is it who has so much vested interest in this national sovereignty idea? Can it be simply a coincidence that Kroes hails from the Netherlands, one of the smaller EU member states? Oh well, one more time onwards and upwards to the coalition of the willing.