38th Edition – Grey Zones – Pike & Hurricane

Combining the best of both worlds or hurting either system?

Clara Bieler — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:24:11 +0000

The European Union–an economically integrated region that covers 4 million km² and has 508 million inhabitants. Wave by wave countries joined the union, adding to the socio-economic heterogeneity, uniting unequally developed economies and countries with different demographics. Currently, wages vary widely across the European Union: hourly pay averages €41.30 in Denmark, €39.10 in Belgium, €37.40 in Sweden, €6.80 in Lithuania, €5.00 in Romania and €4.10 in Bulgaria (according to Eurostat data for 2015). Similarly, social welfare and benefits range from abundant to non existent giving people the opportunity to benefit from the gray zones of the diverse system.

Swiss-German “Grenzgänger”

Switzerland may not formally be in the EU, but has still one of the closest trading relationships with the bloc, having signed free-trade agreements and pegged its currency. Linguistic similarity, attractive commuting routes and clearly regulated bureaucratic procedures allow Germans living in the area of Lake Constance and Breisgau region to become ‘cross border’ workers. Now in 2018 up to 300,000 workers cross the country’s borders every day for employment, benefitting from the cheaper rents and cost of living on the German side. Salaries are higher in Switzerland, whilst taxes and social security contributions are lower. Whilst there are provisions in place for Double Taxation, there is still an imbalance created by this arrangement. Germans work in Switzerland, but spend the majority of the money earned in another country. It’s an unintended imbalance.

Austria’s child benefits outflows

Austria’s newly elected conservative People’s Party has recently made its intentions public to cut benefits from children of Austrian residents not living in the country. A similar move had been debated by Germany the year before. The narrative is that children, whose parents work in Austria (which makes them residents and eligible to apply for benefits), living in low-wage countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia, should not be entitled to the same amount as Austrian children (114€ per month per child). In 2016, Austria transferred a total of 273 million € to EU and European Economic Area countries, supporting 132,000 children, whose parents work in Austria. Undoubtedly it benefits the children receiving it, even more so, than children living in Austria, given the differing purchase parities. It however adds to the inequality of the countries and systems.

Medical tourism, i.e. fertility and dental

In 2016, 488,000 foreign patients sought dental treatment in Polish clinics, according to the Polish Association of Medical Tourism. This trend is mirrored by other Central European countries: Hungary attracts patients hoping to save money on their dental treatments, whilst Czech Republic is now renowned for cataract surgery. Patients from the UK, Germany and Nordic countries can save up three times the cost by going abroad. In 2013, an EU directive further reinforced this by allowing patients to get refunds for medical treatments in other member states, if said procedures are covered by the national health scheme. However, this practice reinforced a divide.

Spotting the differences between European countries is far from rocket science. Jumping the systems has become easier with the European Union framework enabling unprecedented mobility of workers and capital. Yet, the subject keeps returning to imbalance of welfare systems, cost of labor and cost of living between countries. The free mobility of labor and capital creates a potential for arbitrage. In an Adam Smithian fashion, individuals act on self interest–trying to improve their status quo. That is just natural survival instinct. But who bares the cost?

It is an opportunity for many citizens of countries, that have not recovered as quickly from their past, be it communism, economic collapse or exodus. It is a challenge for countries, whose welfare systems were not built with newcomers in mind, and who experience an outflow of money to other economies, rather than seeing it re-invested. It is an issue that should have been tackled the same way ‘Bologna’ (finding a way of transferring credits across different universities and equalizing diplomas) or ‘Schengen’ (finding a way to allow non-EU citizens to access all member-countries with one type of visa) were approached. Acknowledging differences and finding workarounds.

Photo credits:

Image 1 by andreame, ‘europe-eu-collapse-broken-european‘, CC0 Creative Commons

Image 2 by Etching created by Cadell and Davies (1811), John Horsburgh (1828) or R.C. Bell (1872), ‘Profile of Adam Smith’, Public Domain

The post Combining the best of both worlds or hurting either system? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Neither Friend nor Foe – Shades of Grey

Dora Car — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:11:36 +0000

If the European Union were a person, it would more than likely be going through a period of severe existential crises right now. To say it has a lot on its plate at the moment would very much be an understatement; from Brexit and all the joys that come with the territory, to several of its other key members having significant internal political issues, all the way to the by-now pretty much constant worrying signs coming from both the West and the East, as led by Trump and Putin respectively. The former’s commitment issues to the EU and NATO alike, and the latter’s need to constantly show off its military dominance (as if we could ever even get the chance to forget) are very much a constant in the Union’s priority agenda. But not too far behind all these lies Turkey, in all its nationalist, yet utterly unpredictable glory.

The perfect utilitarian friendship

Apart from being NATO’s second biggest armed force, Turkey also has the (mis)fortune of being placed in a geopolitically incredibly interesting location, one that quite literally acts as the bridge between the East and the West. Although its nationalist agenda has become clearer than ever during the past year and a half, ultimately Turkey remains critically unpredictable, making its role of a strategic fault line that much more potentially perilous.

Out of the 38 percent of Turkey’s generals that were sacked, the majority were pro-Western secularists, according to one military analyst. The 400 Turkish military envoys to NATO that were ordered home were replaced by not-quite-as-qualified Erdogan-loyalists. Many of these are antagonistic towards NATO and more than friendly with its enemies. Another not so insignificant worry is Turkey’s increasingly warmer relationship with Russia ever since the coup, with Erdogan being increasingly enamoured of and looking up to his Kremlin equivalent.

The warming of Turkey’s relationship with Russia implies a certain message to both the EU and NATO, one with not-too friendly of a tone. For Putin, Erdogan is merely a means to an end, a pawn to weaken and deepen the divide between NATO and the West even further, a strategic objective at the game he has been playing way before Erdogan ever took notice. The new constitution put forward by the referendum epitomises the concept of illiberal democracy, one that some EU members are no strangers to either, and one with Russia very much at the forefront.

Keep your friends close, and your friends with questionable motives – closer

Despite all this, Turkey remains a crucial ally to the EU, even if the allyship is being tested on a regular basis. Turkey matters, not just because of its size, both in terms of population and armed force, but also because of the vast impact it continues to have in shaping the political forces of the world. In many ways, it must walk the thin line between Western liberalism and authoritarian nationalism as epitomised by Russia & Co. In more than one sense it bears the brunt of the burden of the violence that is still spewing from Syria, even though in absolute terms in much smaller numbers than just a year ago. In a way, the referendum in April 2017 was a test of whether democracy and political Islam can be reconciled, even though the result of the referendum should not be taken as a definitive answer to that question.

During the campaign for the referendum, both German and Dutch officials were accused more than once of ‘Nazi practices’, with the accusation against the mayor of Rotterdam being particularly ironic due to both the history of the city in the context of WWII and the personal background of the mayor himself. Even after the referendum result Erdogan wanted, he continued to provoke the EU with things not big or significant enough to justify an actual retribution, but not quite small enough to go completely under the radar either, and these things keep piling up.

Although de jure the Turkish accession talks haven’t been suspended yet, de facto they are at this point moribund at best, with both sides being more than aware of this. Some in the West will use Turkey and its current situation to justify their claim that Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible, and partially, they would be right. But to completely admit that would be to give up on Turkey in the state that it’s in today, and that’s not something the EU is ready to do at this point, no matter how provoked it may feel.

Partly, of course, this is due to self-interest. Both as a crucial NATO member and a vast regional power, Turkey is simply too important to cut off. It has played and continues to play an indispensable role in the remains of the fighting in Syria. Giving it that final boost to jump right into Russia’s arms would also make no sense, strategically-speaking. Then there is of course also the EU-Turkey refugee deal, bringing with it the obvious consequences.

Sometimes the best action is no (re)action

With European parliamentary election fast approaching, the general consensus tends to be not to react to provocations by Turkey, and the main idea is that we have seen it all by now, so just ‘endure’ another year. But what if there is more to come? Is patience and tolerance really a virtue at the point when it means waiting just that tiny bit too long, or tolerating something that should not be tolerated? Depending on who decides and the pretext that led up to that decision, the line can potentially become even more blurred than it is now, and the grey zone between the EU and its not-friend, but not-quite-foe-either – even greyer. For now, however, Turkey and the European Union remain in a loveless marriage.

By Dora Car

Photo credits:

Image 1 by geralt, ‘europe-turkey-conflict-germany‘, CC0 Creative Commons

Imge 2 by DimitroSevastopol, ‘putin-policy-the-kremlin-russia’, CC0 Creative Commons

The post Neither Friend nor Foe – Shades of Grey appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Socially Progressive, Economically Conservative: What Does It Mean to Be Liberal?

Annika Müller — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:55:29 +0000

The German FDP (Free Democratic Party) was an established part of the German parliament for 64 years—until their votes dropped under 5 percent in 2013. The German newspaper Focus lists unclear leadership, a programme void of any substance and the continuous rise of the AfD as reasons for this sudden drop. Moreover, the party is perceived as a “Klientelpartei”, a party that only serves the mostly economic interests of their party members, instead of serving the German people. What does this development say about the stand of liberals in the political world?

“Liberals in Germany want the state [to] be confined to provid[e] safety for the people and a stable environment, but not meddle around with people with overabundant regulation,” explains political scientist Michael Dreyer in an article for DW. According to him, liberals are usually socially progressive, but also economically conservative. However, this description is not true for all liberal parties. In the United States, “liberal” is almost synonymous with the left-leaning supporters of the democratic party. The British and Canadian liberal parties are also found on the moderate left. The Australian liberal party is thoroughly conservative. Dreyer explains this broad division with the history of the term “liberal”.

Liberalism is one of the oldest political terms, originating around the time of the French revolution and enlightenment. However, it is important to note that liberalism was generally a movement of the upper class, wealthy citizens and scholars—not a workers movement. Ed Rooksby, a teacher of politics at Ruskin College, Oxford, suggests that liberalism should be understood as a “specific historical movement of ideas”, rather than a collection of values. This could explain the significant differences in what does and does not qualify as liberal in different countries. In modern times, liberals usually support ideas such as the upholding of human rights, freedom of speech, press and religion, democracy and free markets, among others.

Moreover, Rooksby suggests that the history of liberalism is also the history of the rise of capitalism. In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was the liberals who fought against the feudal system, demanded democracy and the separation of church and state. By the 19th century, liberals demanded livable working conditions for factory workers. In the 20th century, especially after the second World War, many prominent politicians favoured neoliberalism as their political philosophy: A reworked version of liberalism, surrounding the idea that economic growth is the most important outcome and businesses should be able to pursue whatever gives them an economic advantage.

Famous neoliberals have historically been criticised for their disregard of workers and human rights. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990, dedicated a lot of her work to the decimation of the influence of workers and trade unions. While many criticised Thatcher’s policies as attempts to legalise worker exploitation, others praise her for making the UK more competitive in the age of globalisation. Former US President Richard Nixon implemented a row of policies that were supposed to end the supposed drug epidemic in the States, which resulted in unproportionate arrests of people of colour. This criticism seems similar to the hardships the German FDP is facing right now.

Rally in support of the British Miner’s Strike of 1984. The conservative government under Thatcher made plans to privatize coal mines and weaken the coal miner unions. This resulted in a nationwide general strike of coal miners.

The big predicament surrounding liberalism seems to be the combination of unrestricted economic growth and the preservation of the rights of the individual. According to liberals, everyone deserves a fair chance under capitalism—theoretically. It seems that, if the liberals want to persist as a politically important power in Germany, the USA and elsewhere, they will need to take an honest stand. The definition of liberalism, its ideas and who it really fights for are still grey zones within itself. Only time will tell if liberalism can redeem itself in the eyes of the public.

Photo credits:

Image 1 by Dirk Vorderstraße, ‘Christian Lindner (FDP)’, Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)

Image 2 by nicksarebi, ‘Miners’ Strike Rally in London in 1984′, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

The post Socially Progressive, Economically Conservative: What Does It Mean to Be Liberal? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Would you eat that? A perspective on food saving

Nina Kolarzik — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:40:46 +0000

What are rules and laws there for? To protect us. Take the example of food–there are hygienic reasons for best-before dates but it can be criticised, as the desire to constantly sell contributes to the throwing away of food too early. Since food production costs tons of energy and resources, that behaviour has a negative impact on the environment and green activists call for a more reasonable dealing with food.

But would you still eat something that is deemed not good enough to be sold in a supermarket or restaurant? Methods like dumpster diving are highly contested, but creative heads all over the world have already developed new projects to promote food saving. One is Zeenath Hassan’s Malmö based organisation “Rude Food”. To get to know their idea of food saving and whether it is a grey zone or not, I interviewed one of the activists and food savers, Hampus Mattson.

“Rude Food is an organization that collects surplus from restaurants, supermarkets and fruit and vegetable stands. Then we donate 60 percent of that to charity and we use the other 40 percent to make caterings. So we try to upcycle food before it becomes waste,” explains Mattson.

It is always the question of how small projects can make a difference in saving our environment. So I ask, how Rude Food can be seen as part of a broader environmental movement and whether local initiatives can have an impact on the global environment.

“[Rude Food] is a very small one, so I think in terms of the overall environmental movement, I hope that Rude Food is some mode of inspiration to other entrepreneurs to find these gaps in the system and take advantage of them, because that can help things in the bigger picture in the environment I think,“ says Mattson.

He explains, that “[the influence] is very country specific. We have met people from Australia that were involved in a thing called “Oz harvest”. And they do basically what we do […]. The difference between them and us is that they are huge, a massive organization […]. In Sweden, it’s very difficult for us to work with larger businesses. Everything is so slow, it takes forever, there are lots of hoops to jump through […]. I would say in our context in Sweden, I don’t know how much these types of small organisation like Rude Food can make a big difference in the overall picture, other than to inspire people. But then if you look at Oz harvest, they actually can make a significant dent in the food waste problem.”

Mattson mentions “gaps in the system”- that raises the question how exactly do the laws regarding food saving look like? For the topic for this issue, “Grey Zones”, this is an important aspect. Mattson explains the legal side of Rude Food:

“Since we were one of the first, maybe the first one doing it– when we approached municipal government offices that have anything to do with food safety, they didn’t really know what to say or what to think about it. So it became that we just follow the exact same rules that any other restaurant or food business does. And I would say that in legal terms, there is not actually a grey zone, because we are not taking food that has already been thrown out. It’s food that’s still edible, it’s still in a fridge, we are just moving it to another location and then we are using it. But culturally, maybe we are, because that is actually been the bigger hurdle […] whenever you talk about food waste and turning food waste into food, like regular food, people think it’s maybe dirty food or it’s rotten or it is spoiled, whatever. Overcoming that kind of mindset, that has been more of the difficult thing, I think, for Rude Food.”

A Cultural Grey Zone?

I want to go a bit deeper in the expression of a “cultural grey zone” and ask Mattson to explain it a bit further.

“I can start with looking at the business side of it. There is also this kind of unsettled thing in that we are getting a lot of our resources for free. So sometimes we hear ‘that is not really fair’ […] But usually that can be solved by telling them that we are not for profit, so we don’t actually make any money from this. It’s just a service that is meant to raise awareness about food waste. If you explain to people what it is, then you can overcome that […] If it’s in a grey zone, it’s because it has not been done before, so people don’t know how to react to it.”

So once people get into contact with the projects of Rude Food, how is the general reaction? Are they rather disgusted or do they appreciate and support the work?

“Generally, it’s–at least in my personal experience–good. We get positive feedback all the time, both in terms of ‘it is great what you’re doing’, in the sort of social sense and environmental sense and also we get compliments on the food as well. So everything has been positive” Mattson concludes.

Positive feedback is always good and something that keeps these organisations running. Without the engagement of its activists, Rude Food would not be able to exist.

As we can conclude from the interview, there is still a long way to go and many things we can do. Every one of us. Rules need to be redefined from time to time and it can be necessary to cross some lines or try something completely new. That potentially means, that you move in a grey zone between right and wrong. But as the idea moves on, this question will clarify.

By Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credit:

Portrait Hampus Mattson (chairman of the board at Rude Food) by Nina Kolarzik

Rude Food at the Parabere Forum by Malin Nilsson

Food Save Volunteer by Alexander Olivera

The post Would you eat that? A perspective on food saving appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Keeping International Law Grey

Diego Annys — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:51:30 +0000

The grey zones between UN Charter goals

1945. The United Nations is full of hope.

We fast-forward through time. Countries invaded. Human rights violated. Territories occupied. Peaceful demonstrations knocked down. People in despair. Where is the UN, the marvelous international society with all of its principles, the world wonders?

That is where the problem begins—all of its principles. The UN has quite a few of them. But the UN’s principles are not a problem, you respond. Because who would argue against human rights? I reckon that no sane human would. Who would dispute the right to self-defense? Perhaps only imperialist warmongers. Then what exactly is this problem?

Grey zones. The place where no one is sure what is allowed, and more importantly, not allowed. International law by itself is already a grey zone. Is it truly law? Or merely standards, norms, and principles? In the UN, these grey zones come in the shape of the goals and values written in the UN Charter, which lays out the core of the whole organisation. Many of the articles in the Charter conflict with one another, causing situations where you cannot honour both at the same time. Which article overrules the other, which is more important? Let us answer that question with an example. When your mom used to say you can only have one cookie a day, but also that you should not waste food and the pack of cookies expires tomorrow. Then what? Easy. You have another cookie, or five, making sure they are not wasted. You pick the value which is in your best interest.

However, the best interest of one is often not the best interest of another. Where you enjoyed the benefit of a lot of cookies, your mom faces the disadvantage you not hungry while she made dinner. There is however an advantage to having no clear boundaries: more freedom to act. When the UN is stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare of inaction, the grey zones in the Charter can be used to undertake action. Or they can also be abused. What is permitted, tolerated, frowned upon, protested against, forbidden? There is no black and white.

Self-defense vs non-intervention

The United Nations consists of, no surprise, nations. An important principle to states is sovereignty, having been added to the Charter in several ways, including the right to self-defense (article 51) and the right to non-intervention (article 2.4). When your state is attacked by another, you can defend yourself against it, even when this means breaking the UN’s non-aggression rule. Similarly, another state does not have the right to intervene in your state’s affairs to begin with.

Sounds clear cut? Unfortunately not. Remember when the United States and its allies invaded Iraq? They did so by claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which could be a threat to their national security. So they felt the need for self-defense, and invaded. Preemptive self-defense, but nonetheless, self-defense—going directly against Iraq’s right to non-intervention.

Self-defense vs individual human rights

Even in war, human rights need to be safeguarded. While Security Council resolutions often mention the need for human rights, and the Secretary General and the General Assembly argue for them in a persistent manner, reality is that legal reasonings are being put forward to justify human rights violations.

In his book ‘The UN and Changing World Politics’, Thomas G. Weiss argues that in the case of severe safety threats and war, as part of self-defense, human rights can justifiably be violated. When a plane, containing 110 people, was supposedly hijacked and considered a threat to thousands attending the Sochi Winter Olympics Games in 2014, permission was given to have it shot down. In the War on Terror, prisoners were tortured as part of the interrogations.

Many would disagree with the claim that war is a valid reason to violate human rights, but also in this case a defense to continue harming them is shaped. Even if not in self-defense, they would argue it is illegal for others to intervene in the sovereignty of the state, even a state using torture. Yet the protection of human rights is evermore seen as a prerequisite for a state to earn their sovereignty, and the Responsibility to Protect hangs over their head.

However, law has grey zones. By using these grey zones, attempts are made not to make torture legal, but at least to make it not illegal.

The ever-lasting self-determination dispute

The 2005 UN World Summit agreed to “condemn terrorism in all forms”. Yet, this does not resolve the question of what constitutes terrorism. The reason why this was left undefined is quickly found. The UN Charter mentions “the principle of […] self-determination of peoples” (article 1.2).

Some consider that there are justifiable motives for the use of terrorism, such as in the process of liberation from foreign occupation. Examples include the independence of many states, from the Eastern Bloc to the decolonised Africa. The liberated people might see the terrorising moves as heroic but the story must be different for those that witnessed violent self-determination movements within their territory. To them, recognising that they themselves are to blame for terrorist activities being undertaken against them, is completely unacceptable.

Self-determination can also go against UN Charter right to territorial integrity (article 2.4). One can argue the Catalans have the right to self-determination, but at the same time that Spain has the right to territorial integrity. Both have a valid point in their reasoning.

Fighting for values, one shade of grey at a time

The United Nations was made by states to improve the world, without them agreeing on what is an improvement. So the grey zones were made, to make sure the UN could at the least protect some of its core values. Now the grey zones are kept, so the states can pick and choose their values. The UN is caught in a grey web of bright global goals and dark national realities. So we are left wondering, between hope and fear: just as the UN was founded after the scourge of war, do we have to again go through the dark night before we can greet the sunrise.

The UN is full of doubt.

By Diego Annys

Image by Harshil Shah, Geneva – United Nations logo, Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The post Keeping International Law Grey appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Horrors of the Kanelbulle

Julia Glatthaar — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:52:16 +0000

Every country has a specific way in celebrating what people deem to be important, their national heritage, or just because everyone likes an excuse to party. Globally we celebrate events and movements such as international women’s day and with festivities expanded towards an ever growing range of bizarre holidays, there are also holidays like the international Winnie the Pooh Day on January, 18th that can be celebrated by everyone.

In Sweden, with Swedish people having an average of one to two fikas per day and eating around 316 kanelbullar (cinnamon buns) per year, it seems only natural to celebrate what represents Swedish culture at its best on October, 4th, the Kanelbulle Dag (Cinnamon Bun Day). However, do not let this little sweet, delicious, scrumptious pastry fool you! The kanelbulle has a dark past that is little known around Sweden. To let a bit more light into this grey zone of people’s minds, let us delve into this horror story together.

Colonialism, Exploitation and Cinnamon Cravings
Cinnamon may not directly spring into your mind as being the number one trade good that allowed for an increased European domination of the Indian Ocean in the late 16th century. However, this particular spice and the capture of the cinnamon trade was a priority goal amongst the European aristocracy.

Originally cinnamon was used to cover up the taste of foul meat during the winter and, more importantly, cinnamon was a mighty status symbol. Everybody who could afford this spice would make sure to have plenty of it on display to impress guests and friends during feasts.

Towards the end of the Middle Ages, the rising middle class soon began to pursue cinnamon as well and with rising demands, the race to capture the cinnamon trade monopoly was on!

Portugal was the first country to win this race and managed to take over Ceylon cinnamon production. They defended their monopol through cruel means- by enslaving the Sinhalese and by making sure that no competitor would take away their monopoly. Their methods would include measures such as sinking Arab dhows (trade ships) and hanging any possible European competition. This strategy did work for some time, until the Dutch forcefully took over the Portuguese production. For the local Sinhalese however little changed, some argue they were treated even worse by the Dutch than by their former Portuguese colonizers.

The colonizers changed flags once again in 1796 when the British arrived in Ceylon and displaced the Dutch from their control of the cinnamon monopol.

By the middle of the 19th Century the cinnamon market in Europe grew more “democratic”. Whilst there was an increase in production of 1000 tons a year, low quality cinnamon became more acceptable. Therefore cinnamon production sites were erected in a variety of locations, such as Brazil, the West Indies and Guyana and the era of the cinnamon monopoly came to an end.

Cinnamon – Sweden’s Grey Zone?

Sweden, the “lagom” country of Scandinavia, the neutral country during WWII, a country that you would probably not link to torture, slavery, exploitation and colonialism. Whilst Sweden did possess some small colonies overseas, this was a very small number compared to its European neighbours. Yet the Kanelbulle that became so popular in Sweden during the 18th century, and was made into the national holiday in 1999, is a product of Europe’s dark past, its colonial history.

So, next time you go out for some fika and get your favourite pastry, do think about where the Kanelbulle comes from and be aware of its bloody past.

By Julia Glatthaar

Pictures:

Image by Gabby Canonizado, Stranded for a While_B&W, Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)

The post The Horrors of the Kanelbulle appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.