Cross-Culture

Independence or Union? Some cross-cultural reflections on the Scottish referendum debate

The dust may have settled internationally for now on the Scottish Referendum, even though some new debates have been created in the process. However, it remains striking how little specific attention was given at the time to the cross-cultural nature of the debate. As a Scot living in southern England, with a great interest in cross-culture, I followed the debate with keen interest. This led me to give a presentation on the topic at Riversdown House, Hampshire, in December 2013. I made a point then that those opposing independence were trying to persuade Celtic people with Anglo-Saxon arguments.

When interacting with people in other countries, Scots can be quick to point out that they are Scottish - and thus not English. They have a way of demonstrating a strong and explicit way of repeatedly reinforcing their national identity to others as well as to each other. For example, the world hardly needs telling that the tennis player Andy Murray is a Scot, despite him hardly ever playing for a Scottish team. Scots are an imaginative, passionate and romantic people, which the 'No' campaign (meaning ‘No’ to independence) seemed to have great difficulty to respond to. On the other side, the ‘No’ campaign epitomised an aspect of the psyche of Scots people that fits their Enlightenment tradition of hard-headed rationality and their quiet pleasure in being thought canny (shrewd) in financial transactions. The 'Yes' campaign (meaning ‘Yes’ to independence) failed to recognise that aspect sufficiently. In consequence, Scottish voters were obliged to choose between two rather polarised versions of their unique way of looking at the world. The websites of the two opposing campaigns gave ample evidence of this difference.

Little, if anything, was said in the speeches and debates leading up to the referendum that many Scots were most eager to be separated from the Welsh or the people of Northern Ireland. The nation that many Scots wanted to be separated from was England, and most especially that far-away, governing part of it called Westminster. Within England itself, London has continued to develop a cultural quality of its own. This is not necessarily of a kind that looks attractive to those living elsewhere in the United Kingdom, other than in its relative prosperity. For example, it has a very large ethnic population, but deeper friendships still seem to be substantially ghettoised within people’s ethnicity.

Personalities in a cross-cultural context can also be fascinating. In this case, the star personality was surely that of Alex Salmond the Scottish First Minister. The Lewis Model (described for instance in When Cultures Collide by Richard Lewis) analyses the world’s cultural types into three categories (and their combination), called linear actives, reactives and multiactives, Alex Salmond has shown himself to be a multiactive.

Multiactives are primarily relational: people are more important to them than facts, deals and processes. They can be talkative and impulsive, being ready to think aloud and do many things at once. They are not good at following pre-arranged plans. Their conversation can be animated and roundabout. They can be very creative, with the ability to think well spontaneously and out of the box, thus deliberately leaving the straighter path taken by a typical linear active (that is so characteristic of the southern English). The overall picture matters more than the details to a multiactive. The details can be worked out later. They admire and do their best to practise good oratory, show vision and do what stirs the heart. Alex Salmond’s waving of an outsized saltire (Scottish flag) at the moment of Andy Murray’s Mens’ Singles triumph at Wimbledon in July 2013 gave a memorable visual illustration of his unsquashable and multiactive bravura.

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister), is a much more linear active politician. Linear actives like to do things sequentially and in an orderly manner. They are task-oriented and can be highly organised. Speech is for information exchange and direct communication. They tend to regard the truth as something absolute. They are ready to speak the truth even if that may involve distress and confrontation. They dislike discussion that appears to them to be going round in circles or, worse still, is disorganised or chaotic. For a linear active it is important to be realistic about facts and what is actually possible.

Within a speech given in Scotland in February 2014, George Osborne made it very clear that the Scottish people would not be allowed to keep the Great Britain Pound (GBP) if they became independent. His well intentioned message did not work out as planned, though, because many Scots took his sober warning as an expression of disbelief in their ability and potential to succeed as an independent nation. The gap in the opinion polls proceeded to close in the months after George Osborne’s speech. If there is one thing that most Scots are agreed on it is the quality of their people. This sassenach (a Scottish word for someone English or a Lowland Scot) had, in the eyes of many, seemingly dared to challenge that deeply cherished belief.

The ‘No’ campaign’s faltering share of support was changed substantially for the better by ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He was one of the few prominent politicians who could present both linear active and multiactive oratory with the kind of passion that rivalled that of the ‘Yes’ campaign. Although the quest for Scottish independence was lost in the result of the vote, the cause of gaining more self-rule for Scotland was not. Multiactives can flourish in situations that they may regard as less than ideal, rather better than linear actives may imagine.

In contrast to Gordon Brown, the party leaders David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg did not finish nearly so well cross-culturally. Although maybe personally the nicest man of the three, Ed Miliband seemed the most uncomfortable in Scotland. While inwardly passionate to see the Union continue, all three did little to shift the campaign in their favour, while they did manage to appear panicked in the final stages. All this speaks much about the dangers of going into cross-cultural settings insufficiently prepared. Being a nice person displaying heartfelt reasoning, important as that is, is not nearly enough.

If there is going to be a United Kingdom in the longer term, the more linear active English need to develop more of the skills and approaches of the more multiactive Scots. This includes putting people, communities and relational thinking at the heart of public policy.

It is very difficult to see a warm rapport towards the English developing short-term in Scottish minds that were not already persuaded that way. However, some genuine efforts by the English to understand, value and embrace Celtic culture more would be one good place to start.

The people of northern England could be enlisted to mediate and establish stronger connections between all the people of England and Scotland, not just those living in the Borders (who did not want a division anyway).

A greater appreciation by the Scottish people of their very impressive reach and influence far beyond the bounds of geographical Scotland might help them to become a little less absorbed than previously with what happens ‘north of the border’.

Dr. Nigel Paterson

The Scottish Referendum – a View from the North of England

The months-long debate and analysis of the referendum concerning possible Scottish secession seemingly centres on class disparities between underprivileged, nationalistic Scots and a complacent, over-privileged, Westminster-directed elite often referred to as the “Establishment”. It is an easily discernible classification not necessarily closely-bound to the dictums of the Labour and Conservative parties.

It is no secret that the United Kingdom, since the social stress of the unfolding of the Industrial Revolution, has been a polarized society, unable up to now to rid itself of class questions that have been dealt with successfully in the 4 Scandinavian countries and to a lesser extent in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. The divisions in British society are, however, not merely dual, but clearly multiple. It is worth noting, therefore, that the Scottish referendum was seen in a different light, perhaps felt in a more visceral manner, in separate regions of Britain and particularly the North. We are talking about the heavily-populated northern heartlands of Lancashire, Yorkshire and the North-East. During the campaign, the question was often, “Who are the Scots?”  Perhaps even more pertinent to this dispute is the question, “Who are the English?”

For decades the British film  industry, enriched by the talents of such actors as Alec Guinness, Peter  O’Toole, John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, Alastair Sim, George Cole and  Charles Laughton, have put him on the screen for the world to see. The  BBC, in such admirable programmes as “Upstairs Downstairs”, “Yes,  Minister” and “Downton Abbey”, has reinforced the image. 

[These diagrams show how English and Scotish managers address their staff in very different ways.]

The Englishman dresses in tweeds or a three-piece pin-striped suit and  a Burberry mackintosh on rainy days. He wears a bowler hat, carries a  tightly furled, black umbrella with a cane handle, has a pink newspaper  tucked under his left armpit. He goes to church on Sunday mornings and  eats roast beef with Yorkshire pudding for Sunday lunch. He is a man of  principle, insists on fair play for underdogs, does things in a proper manner  and shows more affection for horses, cats and dogs than for children,  foxes and grouse. He probably went to Eton and Oxford (Cambridge?) and  frequents Ascot, Wimbledon, Twickenham, Lord’s and Wentworth. He  believes in the Monarchy, the Empire and the Conservative Party. When  not in his Club (no ladies allowed) he sits in the local (pub) with gardeners  and game wardens, with whom he sips warm beer called ‘real ale’. Often he  has tea with the vicar, with whom he discusses the Church of England,  farming, poaching, the village fête and his years with the Guards.

Englishmen are fond of cricket, croquet, rugby, sheepdog trials, detective  stories and queuing. When queues are slow, one does not complain, as  English people must never make a scene, not even if they have a doublebarrelled  name. The same applies to poor service in restaurants, railway  stations and that place where you get your passport. 

The antidote to such frustrating situations is the stiff upper lip. When  queuing or sitting in a train one does not enter into conversation with others  – that is the reason for carrying a newspaper everywhere. When a train  was derailed in a tunnel in the London Underground a few years ago, an  elderly City gentleman walked half a mile down the line to the next station,  where he proclaimed: ‘It’s horrible down there in the dark. People are  talking to each other!’ 

This powerful stereotype of the British character has been etched on  other nations’ minds by several generations of British films. Huge populations  abroad, including the Japanese, Indians, South-East Asians and  Africans, still subscribe to it and send their children to Britain to be  educated along the same lines.

[These diagrams show how English and Scottish managers lead in diverse ways.]

The majority of British people bear little resemblence to the stereotype.  Not only is the image one of an upper class personage of a former era, but  it does not take into account regional differences, which in the UK are  extremely marked. If you draw a latitudinal line through the city of Oxford,  it is questionable if you will find anyone north of it who behaves in the  manner of the stereotype. In the first place, nearly 10 million Britons are  Celts (Scots, Welsh, Irish, Cornish and Manx). These people are essentially  romantic, poetic and emotional. They, like millions of midland and northern  English people in the ‘wilds’ beyond Oxford, are extremely critical of  the archetypal Englishman existing in foreign minds. There is a type of  English person who roughly corresponds to the projected image, but he is  southern, upper class and almost extinct! Even in the south, we are talking  about a tiny, although often highly visible (and audible) fraction of society.  Foreigners, often laughing at the eccentric English stereotype, are unaware  that 50-odd million Britons laugh at him too. Northern, midland and  Celtic Britons feel much more affinity with some Europeans (Norwegians,  BRITAIN 179  Danes, Swedes, Finns, Dutch, Belgians, Germans, Swiss) than they do with  the braying figure in tweeds. Britons are supposed to be poor at learning  languages – this is a myth. Scots, Welsh, Irish and most people north of  Watford learn foreign languages well and often with a good accent.

What are real English people like? The ‘world image’ bears some  resemblance to the reality, but not much. The class system is still in evidence  in Britain – an unfortunate anachronism which North America and  most of Europe have dispensed with – but in fact most British people could  be called middle class. They do not have a strong political party to represent  them, although both Conservatives and Labour eagerly pretend to do  so. The absence of a moderate centrist party contributes, sadly, to the continuing  polarisation of British society.

Polarised or not, how do British people behave? Whatever the status, a  pattern can be observed. Yes, we are a nation of queuers and probably the  only time British people complain vociferously is when someone jumps the  queue. But the stiff upper lip can move – British people today hold nothing  sacred. While royalty is respected, the Royal Family is often ridiculed,  both in the press and on TV. If the British can laugh at themselves, so can  the monarchs – what could be more democratic than that?

Humour is a saving factor in British life – some say it is a product of a  fickle climate – and many English people feel that as long as there is  humour, there can never be utter despair. It is no accident that the BBC –  the most humorous television service in the world – is highly popular in  most countries fortunate enough to be able to receive it.

It is true that British people love detective stories. Agatha Christie is the  world’s most translated novelist and the British easily lead the world in  library book loans. Sherlock Holmes is one of the most famous and popular  Englishmen of all time. The fact is, the British have a strong conspiratorial  streak – they love plotting. The most beloved characters in the extensive  British theatrical literature are villains. Guy Fawkes, who was hanged  after failing to blow up Parliament, became an instant hero and the nation  still celebrates his anniversary every 5 November. The biggest heroes of  British naval history were Francis Drake and John Hawkins – both pirates.  Apparently polished and sophisticated in diplomacy, the British are masters  of intelligence gathering and political blackmail.

If we come back to the North – a fairly clearly defined region or even concept in British life (by contrast, there is no clear South) – there is little doubt that the proposed ‘Yes’ campaign found greater sympathy in the North than in England as a whole.  As we have discussed above, inhabitants of the North identify much more easily with Scots aspirations and characteristics, than do peole who live south of Oxford.  Apart from the century-old struggle for better living conditions, higher wages and more regional say, people in Lancashire and Yorkshire feel they share the following traits with their cousins north of the border.  They are straighforwardness, hard-headedness, taciturnity, modesty, under-statement, inventiveness, thrift, cosiness, friendliness, frankness, simplicity, openness, fidelity, reserve and sense of fair play.  Moreover, they consider themselves less diplomatic, less snobbish, less casual, less flippant, use less coded speech and are certainly less patrician than southerners.

This self-image of a reasonable, yet clearly focussed, sporty English Northener seems mirrored to a large extent in a kind of cultural Northern Dimension with our close European neighbours in colder climes – Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Icelanders.  Scots, both mainland and insular (Orkneys, Shetland, Hebrides), clearly fit into this rather close-knit, democratic dimension.  The sea-route from Newcastle to Bergen is short, and well-travelled for centuries.  The Vikings bequeathed more influence than they perhaps are aware of in Northern Britain.

It remains to be seen to what extent the impetus and excitement of the Scottish Referendum will stir up aspirations and demands in diverse English regions, not to mention Wales and Northern Ireland.

Richard D. Lewis

The Quiet Colossus

The first decade of the 21st century heralded an era of challenge among the actual and wannabe superpowers girdling the globe – a contest of increasing intensity as the second decade gets under way.

The United States, China, the Russian Federation and the European Union vie for influence in their respective hemispheres.  What is generally referred to as the West hung on to more than 50 per cent of world production (GDP) until 2013, when a tipping point was reached and the newly-formed BRICS union claimed that the four major members – Brazil, Russia, India and China (with South Africa tagging along) – accounted for 51-52 per cent.

Apart from the resolute pursuit of more control of the world’s financial institutions (IMF, World Bank etc.) by the ‘emerging superpowers,’ a regrettable aspect of the Zeitgeist has been the persistent friction between them and the West (and also between each other) due to a variety of causes since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  In Asia, China, Russia and India have traditionally been uneasy bedfellows – the great length of joint frontiers and competing cultural and philosophical persuasions engendering periodic disputes – but the dominant feature of conflict since 2000 has been the sharpening rivalry between Russia and the United States.

One might ask oneself why this antagonism should be so renewable, for it is easy to see how cooperation between these two nations would lead to mutual benefit.  Their peoples are not so unalike as they first may seem.  Both are mainly of European ancestry, frontier pioneers, mission-imbued, pragmatic, technically skilled, future-oriented and post-monarchical.  When they meet as persons, as colleagues, as fellow-scientists, as astronauts, they find each other blunt, friendly, congenial, even jolly.

Unfortunately, a Cold War mentality has lingered both in Moscow and Washington.  It is first one thing and then another:  NATO expansion; the war in Iraq; ‘colour’ revolutions in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; differing views about Iran, Libya and Syria; the Edward Snowden affair; now Ukraine and Crimea.  Angela Stent, in her recent book, “The Limits of Partnership: US-Russian relations in the 21st century,” points out that what Russians crave most is not complete agreement on important issues, but respect from representatives of other nations in conformity with Russia’s land area, economic assets and, above all, her rich and resplendent historical record.  While ancient European nations such as France, Spain and Sweden (formerly superpowers in their own right) recognize such sensitivity, the young, pragmatic American republic is less delicate in her foreign relations, especially with authoritarian regimes.

The future alignment of powers is by no means certain or settled for the coming decades.  The somewhat astonishing growth of the BRICS countries in the 1990s has fostered no little self-confidence and something approaching unity in their stance vis-à-vis the West, but China has never promoted an enduring alliance with any other country during her long history.  Eventual Russo-Chinese rivalry along the Sino-Siberian border is highly probable; Russian economic clout is precariously perched on a wobbly platform of oil-and-gas supply.  India, with her Western connections, is hardly the most reliable partner in growth as she grapples with near-insoluble problems of societal and physical infrastructure while Brazil, already struggling, seems out on a limb geographically and a somewhat incongruous partner for her Eastern hemisphere associates.

Shifts in alliances or economic unions could be multiple, even kaleidoscopic, in the long run.  Humans have a poor record in forecasting even cataclysmic political, military and economic swings and developments.  The Russian Revolution, the First World War and the Depression played havoc with the map of Europe.  The attack on Pearl Harbour, the economic ‘miracles’ of defeated Germany and Japan and the collapse of the Soviet Union were unforeseen, as were the 9/11 shock, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring and the massive ubiquitous investment of Chinese capital in the United States, Africa and elsewhere.

A world population of 7 billion people unleashes unimaginably powerful currents of growth, development, alliances and face-offs.  Globalists speculate on the growing influence of emerging mini-giants such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Mexico, all with burgeoning 100 million-plus populations.  Also discussed has been a ‘second division’ of promising ‘emergers’ such as South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Turkey and post-mullah Iran.

With so many contenders for pre-eminence, substantial power and influence can only be guaranteed if groupings are sufficiently large to resist domination by a true superpower such as China or the US.  Assuming the BRICS will eventually disband, which are the likely ‘super-blocs’?  Four seem inevitable:

    •    China (1.3 billion inhabitants)
    •    India (1.3 billion inhabitants)
    •    EU (500 million inhabitants)
    •    NAFTA (400 million inhabitants)

Who else is there? Japan and Australia would remain close to the US.  The Transatlantic Trade and Development Partnership is likely to be cloned by a Transpacific one which would attract Japan, Australia, S. Korea, the Philippines and possibly other states in S.E. Asia.

Russia will need to join somebody, building on her own Eurasian Customs Union.  For Russia, the EU is a more likely partner than China, India and the US.  Proximity favours Africa leaning towards some attachment with the EU, though China and India put out feelers there where they can.  With all these considerations in mind, what kind of balance emerges between East and West?  Have we forgotten anybody?  Japan, for instance, would add substantial weight to East or West, depending on her affinity with Asia or the US.  Japan’s economy, albeit stagnating around $6,000 billion, is greater than the whole of Latin America’s though her population is 20% and land area 5%.  Japan’s current relations with China suggest that she would favour a Transpacific trading pact before an Asian one.

Canada

Maps of the world are usually printed on a flat surface using various kinds of projections based on land surveys, aerial photographs and other sources.  If we open up such a map where Russia and Canada were coloured in a similar manner, we should see that, together with Greenland, they occupy 20% of the earth’s land surface.  Russia’s land area (17 million sq km) appears to dwarf that of her arch-rival the United States (9.373 million sq km) but if we join the US to Canada, the North American territory grows to 19,344,000 sq km and, with Greenland, to 22 million sq km.

On the surface at least, we see an approximate parity of land area between East and West – Russian and American spheres of interest.  Taking Canada into account, how significant is this?  Much of Canada’s northern territory and certainly Greenland have temperatures below freezing point for large parts of the year but have summer – April to September – relatively free from ice and snow.  The same applies to Russian Siberia.  Many people live in Arctic lands and have long exploited the minerals abundant in the area.  Russia’s economy has benefited hugely from oil deposits, gas and a variety of minerals in Siberia.  Canada, with a lower profile, is the world’s leading producer of uranium, potash and zinc ore.  She is 3rd in aluminium, 5th in nickel and in the top ten producers of lead, tin, copper and cobalt ore.  Other resources include gold, silver and precious stones.  Of great significance to Canada’s future include her developing into a major producer of oil, natural gas and shale gas, as well as having 7% of the world’s fresh water.  Her sources of hydro-electricity are limitless.  Canada is the 6th largest producer of world energy.  She ranks 7th in wheat harvests.

Abundance of commodities and vast natural resources are not the only considerations that qualify Canada for quasi-superpower status.  She has a multi-faceted robustness ingeniously disguised by the unpretentious, almost homely role she plays in world affairs.  She is not big just in area: her GDP is bigger than that of the whole of South and Central America (excluding Brazil) and equals that of mighty Russia!  Her GDP per capita stands at over $50,000, exceeding that of the United States and any other major power! (USA $48,312, Japan $45,903, Germany $44,021, France $42,319, UK $39,974, Italy $36,130)

When it comes down to business, her all-round ratings are formidable.  Third in the world in listed domestic companies, she has the 5th largest stockmarket capitalisation, ranks 9th in industrial output (actually 15th in car production!), is the world’s 10th biggest exporter and trader of goods, has the world’s 5th longest road and rail networks (passenger and freight) and is 5th in global competitiveness.

While Canada has the 5th best business environment on the planet, her standards of quality of modern life are equally impressive.  Canadians have more computers per capita than any other nationality (130 per 100 people), are 13th in patent registrations, 7th in world peace, 8th lowest in corruption, 3rd in gender equality and 3rd in giving to others!

Canada, multilingual and multicultural, with favourable demographics and substantial economic freedom, is destined to exercise far greater influence amid the great powers than she hitherto has chosen to do: laid back and universally popular (who hates Canadians?), protected on either side by two great oceans and with access to a slowly-warming third, and with a friendly neighbour to the south, Canada can choose her friends and partners with little fear of being rebuffed.

No two countries in the Arctic region share so much in common as Canada and Russia.  A map of the Arctic Ocean with the North Pole at its centre shows that the ocean is virtually closed by the coastal areas of Russia, Canada and Greenland.  By far the largest Arctic nations, Canada and Russia – neighbours across the North Pole – bear a shared responsibility for the state of affairs in the region and must see each other as strategic partners.  Dr. Natalia Loukacheva, Fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, points out that both countries share a common legal framework for the management of the Arctic waterways and sees transportation, both maritime and aeronautic, as being an obvious area of bilateral cooperation.  For instance, Canada could join Russia’s effort to modernise the Northern Sea Route by offering aid and working to develop the Northwest Passage.

Russia has exploited the Arctic for centuries.  About one-fifth of the Russian landmass lies above the Arctic Circle.  Two million of her people live there.  Cooperation with Western nations, though rare, is not new.  Russians and Norwegians share Spitsbergen and the two nations have managed fisheries in the Barents Sea.  In 1997, Russia ratified the United Nations Law of the Sea.  She also planted a Russian flag on the sea-bed under the North Pole in 2007.  When the US and Canada complained, Russian minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the event as only symbolic and confirmed that Arctic issues should be tackled solely on the basis of International Law.  In 2008, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway and the United States met in Ilulissat, Greenland to hold the Arctic Ocean Conference which stated in the Ilulissat Declaration that any demarcation issues in the Arctic should be resolved on a bilateral basis between contesting parties.  An example of such bilateral agreement was reached between Russia and Norway in 2010.

The warming of the Arctic Ocean and the subsequent opening up of a myriad of opportunities for oil and gas exploration and exploitation has transformed the Arctic area from being a remote, largely inaccessible, frozen wilderness into a likely rapidly-developing resource bonanza for Canada, Russia, Greenland and the United States.  The rapidly-receding ice in the Arctic Ocean exposes the prospect of early negotiations between Russia and Canada, the major stakeholders, with regard to agreeing the bilateral delineation of the continental shelf.  If the question of overlapping entitlements on the shelf can be resolved amicably, though it may take several months or even years, then many other possible disputes may well disappear.  One of the keys to reaching a successful resolution is the well-known Canadian skill-set in reasoned negotiating.  This has long been observable in international business teams as well as in the realms of politics and diplomacy.  There are not the same bones of contention between Canada and Russia as there are between Russia and the United States.  Canada and Russia have many commonalities that are reflected in their Arctic identity, Arctic expertise in technologies and challenges in survival in the hostile north.

While Russia has clearly manifested her intense interest in her two main aims in Arctic development – oil and gas exploration and northern transportation routes – Canada’s stake is also huge.  Her experience in different parts of the country (Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador, Mackenzie Delta and the Far North) has given her unrivalled expertise in petroleum and gas exploration.  Canadians have drilled some of the world’s deepest offshore wells (Annapolis G24 gas well (20,000 ft); they also built the world’s largest oil platform (Hibernia GBS) and have developed extremely specialized drilling systems in the Beaufort Sea.  For millions of years, sediments have been pouring out of the mouth of the Mackenzie River, creating tremendous banks of sand and shale – laminates of sedimentary rock warped into promising geological structures.  As early as 1977, its established gas reserves were 200 billion cubic metres.  According to a US Geological Survey, there are 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas north of the Arctic Circle, as well as over 90 billion barrels of oil.  Estimates of oil and gas reserves continue to increase as more exploration is initiated.

Extraction of Arctic oil and gas, in improving, though still hostile, environmental conditions, will only be maximised if wide-ranging cooperation takes place between Russia and Canada in assuring the navigation, communication and safety of the Arctic transportation system.  This includes both maritime and aeronautic collaboration.  Some initial steps taken in this area are the Churchill-Murmansk Northern Sea bridge and discussions between Winnipeg and Krasnoyarsk on the Northern Air-bridge.  One can envisage the Arctic as being a forum for international cooperation rather than conflict.

Against this background, tractable, deferential yet stoic Canada will have the opportunity not only to substantially enrich her economy, but also her destiny as an Arctic power, using her non-belligerent equable nature to placate her Arctic neighbours.  If hurdles that might impede Canadian-Russian rapprochement can be removed in the near future, there is a good chance that the joint Russo-Canadian collaboration in the Arctic Ocean might usher in an era of sensible amity and concurrence that other oceans and other powers have failed to achieve.

[Statistics from Economist Pocket World 2014]

Russia’s role in the BRICS union

The BRICS union – comprising Brazil, Russia, India and China (with South Africa tagging along) – was partly the brainchild of Jim O’Neill, the recently retired chief economist at Goldman Sachs.  It is a powerful union, commanding half the world’s population and nearly 50% of world GDP.  These figures, as seen by the West, are daunting enough, but, with further analysis, their significance increases sharply in connection with their relation to the expansion of global growth.

The year 2013 may well represent a tipping point for the global economy.  For the first time since the Industrial Revolution galvanized Britain to dominate world trade in the 19th century, emerging economies will produce the majority of the world’s goods and services.  The inhabitants of the rich, advanced countries are about to become less important, in terms of both production and consumerism, than the masses of people living in the planet's poor and middle class income countries.  

This is no surprise, either to economists or governments.  Emerging nations have enjoyed greater growth for at least the last 25 years.  The centre of gravity of world economic growth has been moving steadily eastwards during the second half of the 20th century.  According to the McKinsey Global Institute, it was balanced for centuries between Europe and Eastern China, located somewhere near present-day Pakistan.  As Europe and North America industrialized, it moved northwest to a point between Iceland and Greenland about 1950, then quickly east with the rise of Japan and then China, finding itself in northern Siberia in 2010 and forecasted to be near Novosibirsk by 2025!

The former titans of the world economy – Britain, USA, Germany, France, Italy – are all rapidly dropping out of the top 10 producers and consumers as far as expansion is concerned.  By 2020, only the US stands a chance of qualifying.  By that year, the whole of the EU may well contribute only 5-6% of global economic expansion.  China and India will represent half of it.

China is, of course, a clear leader of growth, already starring for nearly 20 years with figures of 10% and more, but the other BRICS countries were not far behind and even non-BRICS states like Mexico and Indonesia made the top 10 around 1995.  The fastest-growing countries in 2013 included South Sudan (31%), Libya (20.2%), Mongolia (14%), Paraguay (11%), Panama (9%) and Mozambique (8.4%).  These figures are in some cases affected by political developments, but such “minnows” may well be inclined to follow BRICS leadership in the future in dealing with the West.

There is a clear link between rapid economic growth and huge populations.  Population growth in the West has been stagnating or, at best, increasing slightly.  It is a different story elsewhere, where large populations exist in countries such as Nigeria, Ethiopia, Turkey, Egypt, Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh  (like aforementioned Mexico and Indonesia) and continue to show healthy growth.  The BRICS themselves cover half the globe.  If their union proves effective, their leadership might be useful for other aspiring areas, including Africa and South America.  Who will lead the BRICS?

One could answer quickly that China will.  The recent meeting between Obama and Xi Jinping gave rise to rumours of a planned joint hegemony – a world of bi-polar character – where a more amicable relationship between the US and China would increase their chances of leading, certainly influencing, initiatives of world significance in political, commercial and eventually cultural spheres.  This remains to be seen.  Of some certainty, however, is China’s leading role in industrialization and trade, not to mention her current financial strength.  Will she “call the tune” for the other three major BRIC powers?  This is by no means certain.

There is no doubt about the immense power (and especially the potential) of the BRIC bloc.  How will they “roll this out”?  What are they currently asking for?  They seek a meaningful dialogue with the West about the running of the IMF, the World Bank, the WTC and similar institutions.  Though international, these bodies are seen by the BRICS as Western creations and structures, designed to perpetuate the West’s influence and ability to “run the planet.”  There is little doubt that such an argument exists.  BRICS requires a greater voice in the running of such institutions.  Whose voice will it be?  The language used may be English, but what will be the tone?  Voluble, emotional Indian, fluid, charismatic Brazilian, reserved (often ambiguous) Chinese, or resolute, determined Russian? 

The question of “voice” – let us say effective communication – is only one issue.  Just as the four major BRICS nations communicate differently, their values are equally divergent.  Hindu philosophy and Roman Catholic doctrine have little in common with Chinese Buddhism and Confucianism or with Russia’s mix of Orthodoxy and secular beliefs.  Yet the BRICS' aims and aspirations will have to be expressed, pursued and strengthened in the next few years.  These nations cannot wait long – there is so much at stake – they will want to move forward, and convincingly.  Who will lead the pack?  

In communication terms, some questions arise.  China’s reserve, ambivalence and bouts of ambiguity, Brazil’s habitual euphoria and charisma (but lack of follow up), India’s Victorian rhetoric and rambling volubility are likely to prove less effective with Americans and Northern Europeans than Russians’ resolute, determined negotiating style.  These Anglo-American-Germanic fortresses will not be ceded easily.

Historians may remind us that in her very long history, China has never formed a long-lasting close relationship with any other power.  Her historical inclination is not to do so, and this complicates her attitudes towards inclusion or accommodation with Western countries (which in the course of history did her few favours)!  This complexity hinders her ability to lead the BRIC countries, with whom she is also likely to have internal cultural differences.

India?  With her technical brilliance, command of English and daring, risk-taking attributes, India would seem well-qualified to act as intermediary vis-à-vis the powerful Anglo-Saxon ingredients in the Western line-up, were it not for her inherent and persistent weaknesses in infrastructure, hygiene, gender issues, regional patchiness and stop-and-start leadership.

Brazil – a nation “whose time has come” (if there ever was one) – has had a transformation in national growth, drive and aspirations; she is asset-rich in the extreme, but traditionally sputters in advancement, habitually seeking the next “El Dorado” instead of pursuing process.  Geographically, too, she is out on a limb where essential BRICS close cooperation is concerned.

Which leaves us with RUSSIA – ubiquitous in land, active in 3 oceans (Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic), asset-rich beyond dreams, familiar with European, Asian and North American mentalities, aware of her past glories of Empire and civilisation, militarily adequate and confident, humanistic in her breadth of vision and in international affairs.

When it comes to involvement, Russia is in a unique situation.  If the US decided to pursue an isolationist course with regard to the rest of the world, it would be easier for her than for most other nations.  Defended by two giant oceans on her eastern and western coasts, she only needs to make some amicable arrangements with friendly neighbour Canada and have a little more patience with lively Mexico.  Only two land borders. 

With Russia, no such luxury exists.  With 14 common international terrestrial frontiers, not to mention her extensive maritime and oceanic presence, it will never be possible, let alone advisable, for Russia to isolate herself or even detach herself, from outside influence or observation; by the same token, she is inevitably involved with bilateral relations, interaction, initiatives and understanding with 14 other cultures.  History (and particularly geography) offered her no such escape route.  Good neighbourliness, perchance leadership, are opportunities that beckon.

These considerations lead us to think of BRICS leadership.  Is Russia a candidate?  In Western eyes she holds strong cards.  Her massive mineral assets, including oil and gas, are enduring.  The expansion and distribution of these (boons for humanity) inevitably signify substantial influence, soft power, steady solvency.

Her artistic record (ballet, opera, literature, theatre, the arts) unarguably qualify her to stand and speak with dignity among advanced, creative nations.  Her cultural structure – Eurasian, but largely basically European in theological, philosophical, artistic, historical and humanistic terms, places her closer to western thinking, outflanking even Brazil in geographic proximity and depth of sophistication.

Additionally, the quality of some of Russia's leading economists – those who paid off Russia's debts and stabilized the rouble in the years 2000 – 2011 – stand her in good stead to negotiate competently and adroitly with Western movers-and-shakers in the IMF, World Bank, WTC etc.

Finally, Russia's overpowering geography – the only extensive, unquestioned land bridge between East and West – gives her unique advantages in mediating geographical, financial, economic and ultimately political issues that might arise, not only with the West, but inside the BRICS structure too.

The BRICS concept is an immensely powerful one.  We are still in early stages.  If this union, with its impressive membership, can tighten their own team and succeed in exerting leverage on how world finances are organized, the nature of globalisation would change drastically.  Put together China as the No. 1 economy, India and China as the world's biggest consumers, Brazil with its unending supply of commodities and Russian assets of land, minerals and energy resources, and the bloc's influence would be immeasurable.  The economic clout is indisputable, but how durable is their union from a cultural point of view? 

The multi-faceted Russian Federation, with her Eurasian breadth of vision, could be a key player.

By Richard D. Lewis

This article first appeared in The St. Petersburg Times

Civil War in Spain? Catalunya pulls back from the brink

On 11 September 2012 over a million people took to the streets of Barcelona in a huge demonstration in favour of independence from Spain.

Just two weeks later, building on the impetus for self-government, the Catalan President Artur Mas brought forward regional elections by two years, pledging to hold an early referendum on Catalunya's political status and possible independence.

Shortly after in October, in the Basque Country, two separatist parties dominated the elections to the Basque Parliament by winning two thirds of the seats.

Facing the constitutional crisis of a possible breakaway of two of its Regional Autonomies, Spain waited with apprehension. The sabre-rattling ripostes and political condemnation were not long in coming:

• Ex-Army officer, Colonel Alaman publicly calls for military intervention in Catalunya;
• In a counter demonstration against independence for Barcelona, right arms are seen raised in the classic Fascist salute;
• In late November in the editorial of the official Army Magazine 'Ejercito', General Pontifas Deus denounces President Mas for his 'more than outrageous plans for self-government';
• In Brussels, Spain's Partido Popular Minister of Defence denies any knowledge of any 'Movement' in the Military, or any use of the Military as a mouthpiece for others;
• There are calls for the arrest of President Mas, possibly for treason.

With hindsight perhaps there was an over-reaction to the crisis. But for the Right and many traditionalists in the country, the unity of Spain is sacrosanct. Even today.

This concept of a united Spain has long been a challenge for Catalans, especially those whose language and family roots are Catalan. They have an intense sense of pride in their Catalanism, which combines within it an almost spiritual love of their language and culture and historical identity, within Spain but not necessarily of it. Catalans feel different, and in their history there is much to confirm this.

Having been settled firstly by the Greeks, Catalunya became the most completely romanized region of Iberia and had the least contact - at most 80 years - with the Moors during the seven centuries of Moorish occupation of the majority of the peninsula. From the 12th to the 14th centuries, Catalans, in a sophisticated confederacy with the Aragonese, dominated large parts of the Mediterranean, ruling Sardinia, Corsica and most of present-day Greece, and controlling the gold trade with Sudan.

But one of the most surprising aspects of this empire was the political and administrative structure that supported it. From the early 13th century Catalunya had a three-chamber form of parliament, the Corts, which passed all legislation and the Generalitat, which organised tax raising and expenditure. It was a very good time to be Catalan. When Queen Isabella in the beginning of the 16th century banned the Catalans from trading with the New World of the Americas, domination by Spain or the Central Government was to become their destiny for the next five centuries.

Every country has an event or events in its past which by repetition over the years form an emotive part of their historical identity and the date is familiar to all. For the English, 1066, the Battle of Hastings and the start of the Norman Conquest is the one we remember. For the Catalans it is 11 September 1741, during the War of Spanish Succession. After a year's siege Barcelona was finally captured by the French and Spanish armies who raised a third of the city to the ground. The 11 September is now the National Day of Catalunya and was also the date of Barcelona's latest demonstration for Independence from Spain.

But is it possible that what might most colour Catalunya's view of their relationship with Madrid are events in the 20th century, still within living memory of older citizens? In 1939, the final defeat of the Republican Government by Franco's Nationalist troops took place in Barcelona. It was effectively the end of the Civil War. The campaign against the Catalan language culture and people unleashed on Franco's victory was devastating. Any public use of the language was banned and any books in Catalan including priceless and irreplaceable private collections were destroyed. Street and town names were given Spanish names. Catalan went underground.

This discrimination damaged the language but what caused far more linguistic damage longterm were the 'tidal waves' of Spanish-speaking immigrants, mainly from Andalucia and mostly semi-literate: a quarter of a million in the forties, half a million in the fifties, and almost a million in the sixties. Absorption into the local population as had happened with previous immigrants was almost impossible as the new immigrants often lived in their own 'barrios' speaking Spanish which was also the language used in education. Spanish increasingly became the language of preference for domestic use, even in Catalan homes. Figures for 1975 show that Catalan was spoken in only 39% of homes in Barcelona.

So do these figures have any relevance in 2012? To some extent certainly. Girona's mayor, Carles Puigdemont identifies the original source of the desire for separatism: "We have our own language, our own culture, it's in our DNA." he might have been heartened to see flags of Andalucia among the Catalan pro-separatist flags fluttering from the balconies. Other pro-separatist politicians, seeing the huge increase in the movement of workers following the EU open border policy, must be asking themselves how this is affecting voting patterns. Without the DNA will those recent citizens be ready to take the risk of supporting Independence?

Carme Chacon, a Catalan, a dynamic politician and former Defence Minister in Zapatero's Socialist Government, sees it from a broader perspective. She favours the concept of smaller states within a Federal Europe, "different but united."  She sees herself as one of the many Catalans who have roots in other regions of Spain. Her father came to the north from Andalucia and her grandfather was an anarchist from Aragon. She declares "I am a Catalan, a Spaniard and a European. And I do not want anyone to oblige me to choose."

If her views are shared by many in Catalunya, could it be that Catalanism or cultural identity is not what has provoked this present independista crisis?  It is certainly underpinning it, but as Bill Clinton said, in another place and at another time, "It's the Economy, stupid."

It is difficult to believe, on the face of it, that this could be the case with Catalunya. Its reputation as the powerhouse of Spain for its industrial and commercial success, are supported by the statistics. It provides 20% of Spain's GDP, 25% of Spain's tax revenue, 35% of Spain's exports including 45% of high-tech exports, and 25% of Spain's tax revenue (2009 figures). In spite of this, Catalunya is €42 billion in debt. And the root cause of this situation lies in Catalunya's political State of Autonomy and its fiscal relationship with Madrid.

For Spain, though composed politically of regions with autonomy, has a centralised tax collection system. It was formulated in 1978 in the difficult days of Spain's fledgling democracy which followed 40 years of repressive dictatorship under General Franco, after the Civil War in the late 1930s.  Only the Basque Country and Navarre were allowed to raise their own taxes, a traditional right with its roots in the fueros of medieval times.

Put rather simplistically, Madrid levies the taxes and returns to each autonomy a percentage in services and investment. The difference between these two sums is the fiscal deficit. In the case of Catalunya, Madrid raises 95% of the taxes, and Catalunya raises 5% to cover its Social Services, including Healthcare and Education.  Figures from the Generalitat show that between 1986 and 2009 the fiscal deficit ran on average at 8% of GDP per annum and in that last year Catalunya contributed €16.4 billion (8.4% of GDP) more in taxes than it received from Madrid in state services and investment. Alternatively one could say that amongst the autonomies, Catalunya was the third highest contributor of taxes to central government, but was eleventh highest in what it received back from Madrid.

To put into perspective the damage this causes to the Catalan economy, the Cercle Catala de Negocis has cited a telling analogy: Japan's Tsunami Disaster caused an estimated loss of 3.6% - 5.7% of its GDP.

The strain that the increase in the fiscal deficit has placed on relations between Madrid and Catalunya was exacerbated by the sense of anger and betrayal felt by the Catalans over the fate of their new Statute of Autonomy of 2006. After four years of negotiations, this had been approved by the Catalan Parliament in September 2005, by the Spanish Congress in March 2006 and ratified in Catalunya by a majority vote in a referendum. It gave Catalunya extensions of rights in the Judicial system, Catalan language status, immigration controls, taxes and access to loans, and the right for Catalunya to be referred to as a nation.

The frustration felt then when an appeal to the Spanish Constitutional Court was filed by the conservative Partido Popular party was as nothing compared to the severe shock delivered by the Court's ruling in 2010 when the appeal was upheld. Fourteen articles of the Statute had been abolished and twenty-six were to be seriously amended: these changes struck at the very structure of civil, political and judicial administration in Catalunya. And as for the Autonomy's right to Nation status? It was deemed unconstitutional.  For Catalans, this was insult added to injury.

Of course many in Central Government and in the rest of Spain have a different perspective on the Catalan position. Barcelona is seen as an avant-garde, vibrant city rich in Art and Culture with a thriving port. As an autonomy, it is able to take advantage, as a gateway to Europe, of its geographical location on Spain's north-east Mediterranean coast, sharing a border with France. It is famous for its tourism, but respected and somewhat envied for its highly successful commercial and industrial sectors especially textiles, biotechnology - and wine production.  Whereas other Spanish autonomies with much lower GDPs, perhaps traditionally more rural and sometimes disastrously less well developed, have not only seen their budgets shredded, social programmes slashed, mounting redundancies in local government and private sectors, and rocketing unemployment especially among the young, all causing real poverty. Many therefore are tempted to see Catalans as 'spoilt children' trying to hold onto their 'goodies', exploiting their role as perennial victims of the wicked Central Government. Madrid seems to see its present fiscal policy towards Catalunya, however contentious, as trying to maintain the 1978 concept of regional autonomies, offering them 'cafe para todos'. This tends to be seen then (amongst other less altruistic motives) as an opportunity for radical wealth redistribution in favour of poorer regions of Spain, especially in the light of the euro crisis and diminishing EU funding.

But the Catalans are also suffering.  With their lack of fiscal control, faltering GDP and high tax rates, including the highest income tax rate of 56%, they share increasingly with other autonomies and European countries many of the problems referred to above.

So was the constitutional crisis all media hype?

The regional elections on 25 November took place with no military coup, but also without the President Artur Mas winning the outright majority he needed for his party, the CiU, to call for a referendum. Even worse, voters' support for the CiU dropped 8%, and their representation in the 135-seat parliament dropped from 62 seats to 50. They are still the largest party, but only in coalition can they function.

An anti-climax perhaps? Not necessarily if one examines the voting pattern. Naturally enough the Partido Popular leader Mariano Rajoy with schadenfreude was predictably scathing in his judgement of the Catalan President - perhaps he wished to divert attention from two very unpalatable facts.  Firstly that just under two thirds (87) of parliamentary seats are now held between four parties who either support at least a referendum on independence or those who openly campaigned on a more radical independista policy, such as Oriol Junqueras. He is leader of the party Esquerra Republicana Catalunya (ERC) which doubled their seats at the elections to become the second largest party. The high turnout of voters, 68%, more than two thirds of eligible voters, confirms the strength of the wish for constitutional change, which many political commentators feel Madrid should not ignore.

However, instead of compromise, Madrid appears to favour the policy of attack being the best form of defence.  The Minister for Education, José Ignacio Wert, is advocating much of Michael Gove's proposals for English education: league tables, privatisation, etc. But what has caused enormous offence to Catalunya is his attack on bilingual education policy, downgrading the status and use of Catalan to a specialist subject, and conversely defining Spanish as the main language of education.

Opposition is widespread and strong: 71% against in a December poll, but the most scathing appraisal is the article by internationally renowned Fernando Vallespin (Professor of Political Science and Administration and Director of Political Theory at Madrid's Universidad Autonoma) in El Pais on 7 December 2012. He says:

"Faced with the state of the current situation in Catalunya, what could be more rash than to aggravate them on the question they are most sensitive about, the defence of their language...What it shows is that (Madrid) has not bothered to find out absolutely anything about what is happening there, nor has it understood the basic message coming from the ballot box."

[Spanish original: "Ante la situación que estamos viviendo en Cataluña, ¿cabe algo más imprudente que tocarles en el punto más sensible, la defensa de su lengua?...Significa no haberse enterado de nada de cuanto está ocurriendo allí, ni haber entendido el mensaje fundamental emanado de las urnas."]

He also urges that party politics should be put aside…this circumstance demands a renewal of the constitutional agreement, seeking those outside politics who are capable of generating the maximum possible consensus. He concludes with these words:

"The Government is far too arrogant and doctrinaire and it lacks the will and ability to encourage efforts to be made towards a grand State plan. It has chosen the opposite option and we shall all pay the price."

[Spanish original: "Al Gobierno le sobra soberbia y doctrinarismo y le faltan la voluntad y la capacidad para adicionar fuerzas en torno a un gran proyecto de Estado. Ha elegido la opción contraria y lo pagaremos todos."]

He is the expert, but will they listen to him.

So will Catalunya pull back from the brink? Perhaps if Malta and Estonia can pull off being small independent countries in the EU, this ancient Catalan region will be encouraged to take that leap to escape their present near-impossible relationship with Madrid and Spain.

But Brussels has just confirmed that Scotland's exit from the United Kingdom would mean also giving up its EU membership. To renegotiate entry could be long and costly. Catalans have a reputation for being financially canny and having great common sense - an honourable compromise may yet be reached. For the whole is often worth more than the sum of its parts. Good Luck, Spain.

by Sheila Profit

Is there such a thing as the French Dream?

When my British friends and family tell me “you’re practically French now,” I have to say, I am still a little surprised. It’s true that I think that having lived in France for most of my adult life after spending my childhood and student years in the UK, I don’t consider myself as either British or French. I’m certainly more European than anything and my culture is a real mixture of Anglo thinking and Mediterranean living.

It’s true that as I go about my daily life in France I have the impression that my “Englishness” goes practically unnoticed. I am able to blend into the physical Mediterranean landscape and on a good day my Anglo lilt is often mistaken for some other accent whose origins are anywhere north of Provence.

I have embraced French life and culture as though it was my life’s vocation and I remember dreaming about life in France since I was a teenager. But as I move towards the half-way mark (i.e. more of my life spent away from the UK than in it), I ask myself whether the French dream has – and does – live up to expectations.

Along with the lifestyle, climate and culture, France has a good economic flag to fly and I can quote any number of projects and achievements that makes me delighted to live in the country. I still marvel with admiration every time I step on the TGV in Aix en Provence to arrive only 3 hours later in the capital.  

And then there’s the people themselves. When I hear the French talking about the French, they often mention how much they complain. “It’s an essential part of our culture,” one of my friends tells me. And it is true that the appointment of a new government, a new football manager or a new boss is often an open invitation to criticism.  I revel in the passionate discussions I hear (and participate in) at dinner tables and admire how the French are fervent debaters in whatever is the subject of the moment.

Yet, does all this discussion exist just for discussion’s sake or is it part and parcel of their natural resistance to change? Keeping what you have is a very strong French value and I have witnessed many battles on this subject fought and lost over the years. But having an opinion and expressing it is as important a part of French culture as is resisting whatever law, rule or idea is put down in front of them. So when you combine these three aspects of the culture, you get what some people perceive as “French arrogance”. I see it more as a way of being heard, included and participating in the change process without feeling that they have been subjected to it. It doesn’t mean that things don’t change, they just take a whole lot more time to do so than many other cultures are used to.

And change is definitely on France’s agenda. The recent electoral swing to the left has generated new hope for many, in spite of many of the unpopular changes and reforms that Hollande and his government are about to put into place.

Irrespective of their political beliefs, most of my entourage is relieved to see the back of Sarkozyism and as one person put it, unlike Sarkozy, Hollande actually went to political school so he knows how to govern. This is one of the first cultural gulfs I had to deal with when arriving in France that bounces back at me time and time again. In other words, if you went to the right school, you’re fit for the job. You can have all the potential in the world, but if you don’t have the qualifications, your skills and experience are worth little unless you are given the opportunity to prove otherwise.

And in the employment context I think this still rings very true today. An American friend of mine went for an interview recently at a recruitment agency. When asked what kind of job she would like to apply for, given her experience in a number of senior positions spanning over a 20 year career in France, she explained that there are any number of positions she could fill. Launching into a justification of the unstable job market today the recruiter explained: “employers are taking fewer and fewer risks and are therefore clinging more and more onto the qualifications of their potential employees as a reliable form of employability. And because of this you don’t really fit into any one particular position.”

Contrary to many of my French counterparts, as I was growing up, I was encouraged to seek out 3 or 4 different careers throughout my lifetime and challenge and variety is still something I cherish today. With my go-out-and-get-it attitude, at 16 I began my retail Saturday job career. But today’s young French have not been brought up in the same way. Work experience from an early age is a rarity, but becoming a necessity. The degree in the pocket is not enough to secure the long term employment that their parents or grandparents were guaranteed.

Many are seeking opportunities overseas as one alternative. In France, instead of falling into jobs that are the perfect match for their qualifications, many youngsters are obliged to work for virtually (and sometimes) nothing to gain the experience and improve their chances of being a better candidate than the other thousands applying for the same job. And that’s if the job hasn’t already been ear-marked for someone who knows someone who knows someone…

This may seem a pretty gloomy outlook, but France is still advocating the merits of its education system as the key to employment success. Last week Le Monde was still encouraging the diploma route by headlining articles such as “a degree is still the best employment guarantee” (Le Monde 05 July 2012) and  “job opportunities are more and more rare without qualifications” (Le Monde 14-16 July 2012). But this clearly isn’t enough for young people seeking jobs in France today.

It is not as simple as saying it’s all about where you went to school or who you know, but this is definitely a factor that is still influencing the French job market today. Over the years I have learned the art of successful networking in France and most of my work today is based on referrals. You may argue that this is the case in many countries, but the “who-you-know” aspect is still very prevalent.

When a friend of mine explained to me recently that she has bid for 5 big tenders this year and won none of them, she later discovered that the work had been allocated before the bid was published. I can’t help asking myself in France today where the emphasis lies between striving for excellent results and building excellent relationships.

Living in the South of France, the latter is so often the most natural option. Some of my most successful business meetings have taken place in sites of natural beauty, or whilst sharing some gastronomic moment with a client. This aspect of French culture lends itself so well to relationship building and it’s no surprise that it has been one of the more popular ways of enticing inward investment over the years. But for how long can it ride on its epicurean lifestyle, sublime climate and exquisite scenery?

I am actively involved in the Mediterranean Anglo-American Business Network where for the past 5 years we have been holding monthly networking events in English. We attract many French native speakers who like the refreshing alternative to doing business. And we are successful because we have taken the best of all of our cultures.  We have combined the qualities of the French culture (relationship building, good food, drink, climate, etc…) and put them into an Anglo business context (sociable, casual, no-fuss straight-talking) to produce what seems to be an attractive way for the French to do business.

The success of our events brings me back to the question of the French dream. I think that it is still worth pursuing, albeit a little bit differently. Living and working in France has brought me so many challenges on a practical level, especially running my own business. But in spite of the difficulties many of us are facing today in France, “enjoying life” still holds very strongly as a French value. It hasn’t hindered but helped my business. It has helped me live my dream on both a personal level and professional level and I have learned so much from both the culture and its people. It’s what brought me here all those years ago, and, if change is on the agenda for France, it’s one thing the French should never change.

by Rebecca Penna

 

Having spent the first twenty years of her life in the UK, Rebecca has gone on to spend the majority of her career in France where she settled in the early 1990s after graduating from Sussex University.

With an Anglo-European upbringing she has accumulated many years of personal and professional intercultural experience, particularly in service related industries and always in multicultural environments. She has also used this experience elsewhere in the retail and tourist industries both in the UK and in France. 

Rebecca spent over ten years working for the British Embassy and UK Trade & Investment (the UK's international trade department), combining diplomacy and international business, two very distinct environments relevant to her work today. She occupied a number of Consular and Commercial positions to later become Vice-Consul (Commercial). 

In 2007 she decided to create her own company and naturally moved into the field of cultural diversity where today she enjoys designing and delivering tailor-made training programmes and events (in French and English) in cross-cultural communication, managing diverse teams and working effectively across cultures.

See www.refervescence.com

Panama – a Country in Transition

Whoever has been fortunate enough to transit the Panama Canal by ship, has been part of a unique experience. In less than 10 hours you have crossed the American continent from coast to coast. And you have witnessed an engineering feat that counts as one the Wonders of the World. Many cruise ships enter the Panama Canal only to turn around halfway and go back the same way. Just to give their passengers the excitement of going through the locks and to be able to say: I have been into the Panama Canal. Most people know that the canal is situated somewhere in Central America. And that it literally splits the Americas in half. But as for the rest of Panama, its inhabitants and its culture, this is a black hole for most of the world.

Even for me, a Dutchman born in Colombia, married to a Colombian woman and with a profound interest for the Latin American region, Panama was quite unknown to me. I knew about the Panama Canal and knew where to find it on the globe, but that was about it. Until I was sent to Panama to lead an HR project in Latin America. I had visited Colombia many times over the past decades which made me realize why my youth in Colombia was such a happy one. I had fallen in love with the country, its people and the warm and human culture. Somehow I expected Panama to be about the same, perhaps with a more ‘costeña’ (coastal) touch. How wrong I was.

In the late 19th century Panama was a province of Colombia. In that era the United States realized that a canal through Central America would save their Navy a lot of time to get from the East Coast to the West Coast and vice versa. They examined the possibilities of digging a canal through Nicaragua or Panama. In 1902 they chose for the Panama option and started negotiations with Colombia to obtain a concession to construct the canal, since Panama was a province of Colombia at that time. Colombia was unwilling to cooperate and the US turned to support a slumbering uprising that was taking place in Panama. Since the jungle between Colombia and Panama (The Darien) is impassable for vehicles, Colombia was forced to send its troops by ship to Panama to suppress the uprising. But the US had sent gunboats to Panama to prevent the Colombian troops getting there, a perfect example of ‘gunboat policy’. Once Panama gained its independence, in 1903, the United States quickly expanded its influence over the new Panamanian government and obtained a concession to build the Panama Canal and subsequently an eternal lease to operate it.

After World War II, U.S. control of the canal and the Canal Zone surrounding it became controversial. Many Panamanians felt that the Canal Zone rightfully belonged to Panama; student protests were met by the fencing-in of the Canal zone and an increased military presence. Unrest culminated in riots in 1964, when approximately 20 Panamanians and 4 U.S. soldiers were killed. A decade later, negotiations toward a settlement began and resulted in the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. This started the process of granting the Panamanians free control of the canal and in 1999 the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) assumed command of the waterway.

The Panama Canal is nowadays one of the main sources of income for Panama. It generates an estimated revenue of $2 billion per year. The Panamanian economy is among the fastest growing and best managed in Latin America. Because of its key geographic location, the economy is mainly based on a well-developed service sector heavily weighted towards banking, commerce, tourism, and trade. In 2011 Panama had an unemployment rate of 2.7%. The handover of the Canal and military installations by the United States has also given rise to large construction projects. The skyline of Panama City has changed considerably over the past decade and rivals that of Miami. The city is bursting with big and luxurious shopping malls and new ones are opened every year.

Because of its unique geographic location and the booming economy, many international organizations have opened, and are still opening, offices in Panama. Also the expansion of the canal, a $5 billion project over the next 5 years, is attracting an international workforce. Panama is known to be one of the safest countries in the region and has a wide variety of excellent international schools. Besides the international organizations, a lot of individuals are drawn to Panama too in search of a better future. Not only people from Latin American countries such as Colombia, Venezuela, Costa Rica and Nicaragua, but also many Chinese, Indians, Arabs and, recently, Spaniards have come to Panama to try their luck . All these expats and immigrants are dealing with the challenge of living and working together with the Panamanians.

Why is living in Panama a challenge for foreigners? One of the reasons is that the nature of the Panamanians is a complex one. The Panamanian people stem from a mix of native Indians, conquistadores, blacks, Chinese, French, Americans, Arabs, Jews and a variety of other (mostly European) nationalities. Despite its strategic geographical location and natural wealth, Panama has never been a rich country until the beginning of this millennium. It has frequently suffered from incompetent and sometimes corrupt governments, military coups and indignation over the fact that the Americans had lured the country into a treaty over the Canal that was extremely unfavourable and unfair towards Panama. This makes the Panamanians still resent American exploitation and power, and have developed a strong national and personal honour. It is quite typical for Panamanians to say one thing and do another. They will change their course of action according to changing circumstances. All these things make it difficult for foreigners to adapt to living in Panama.

But now that there is money, economic growth and a lot of foreigners coming to Panama, Panamanians realize that they as well have to start dealing with these new circumstances. That is, if they want to move forwards and keep developing as they have been doing over the last decade. Because they still display features that are hard to deal with for Anglo-Saxons, Northern Europeans and some Asians, such as poor finishing power, reliance on paternalism, low productivity, weakness on accountability, poor sense of time, schedules, agenda and a flexible attitude to truth. On the other hand there are many positive aspects of dealing with Panamanians: they are loyal (if properly motivated), they cultivate relationships and believe in the value of friendship, they desire to please others, obey rules (if monitored) and defend your interests once you have gained their loyalty.

Managers in Panama often struggle to create successful multicultural teams. There is a lot of complaining about the poor Panamanian work ethics (in the eyes of the foreigners) as well as about the unwillingness or inability of foreigners to adapt to living and working in Panama (in the eye of the Panamanians). To overcome these differences, there are 5 simple rules of building winning multicultural teams:

1. Understand very clearly who you are
2. State objectives and roles very clearly
3. Define them in a way which means something to everyone
4. Use diversity as an asset
5. Have fun!

Often I see foreign management struggling to get to grips with Panamanian employees, because they expect them to be something that is not entirely clear to them. These (international) companies fail to make clear who they are, what they stand for and what their core values are. Once they have done this, they should state clearly what their objectives and roles are. Panamanian culture is typically high context. If you are not very clear about what you mean, Panamanians will give your words a meaning that goes with their context, not necessarily yours. And be sure to define your roles and objectives in a way that means something to them. Typical British understatement or coded speech, for instance, is not understood by Panamanians. And since international companies operating in Panama have to deal with Panamanian customers, suppliers and authorities (sometimes more frequently than they would wish), why not have Panamanian employees whose loyalty you have gained to deal with their fellow countrymen? These employees can provide the necessary leverage the country needs to transit from a quite passive attitude and inward perspective, to a more pro-active and international orientation. At the same time especially western foreigners have to let go of some of their typical linear-active way of thinking and acting and give in to a more multi-active attitude, where family, relationships and feelings are more important, and time and agendas not as much.

Mahatma Gandhi said: “No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive”. If Panama wants to reach its full potential given by its strategic geographical location, its economic outlook and multicultural diversity, it will have to strive for inclusiveness, open up to international influences and start building a 'canal' to connect the best of both worlds.

by Maarten Stal

 

Maarten Stal is a Dutchman living in Panama where he owner of People in Companies, specialized in HR Management and Cross Cultural Communication. He is licensed partner of Richard Lewis Communications Ltd. for the Central American and Caribbean region. Born in Colombia as child of expats, he always had a profound interest in diverse cultures. After spending his military service as a naval officer and graduating from law school in Amsterdam, Maarten went for half a year to Colombia to go back to his roots. There he met his Colombian wife. Back in The Netherlands he held several HR positions in a variety of Dutch and international companies. In 2011 he was sent by an international company with his family to Panama as HR Manager to lead a project to analyse and improve HR in the Latin American region. After the project was finished, Maarten decided to stay in Panama where he saw many opportunities for International HR Management and Cross Cultural Communication. Currently he is working with World Vision International, a relief, development and advocacy organization dedicated to working with children, as HR Consultant on a variety of restructuring projects throughout Latin America.

 

Accidental Diplomacy: Australian-Japanese Relations

Disasters create strange bedfellows. What good could anyone imagine would come from the horrors of the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear leak that hit the Japanese coast last year? Let me suggest one, a profound one – Japan for the first time since WWII felt cared for by foreigners. Foreigners, the “barbarians” of Perry’s black ships, the crazy, arrogant, unfathomable gaijins who had turned up in their thousands to get a bit of the action when Japan was in bubble economy mode.

Australia has been a major trading partner of Japan since WWII, exporting raw materials and getting them back in the form of cars, trucks, computers, anything. On the softer side Australia has also been seduced by wide-eyed anime characters like Astroboy, introduced business cards into its business etiquette and sushi, sashimi and tempura have become aussie standards. But where was the love? This was pure business and the usual cultural flow-on that always accompanies high levels of trade between countries.

Immediately after WWII Japan was single minded in rebuilding domestically, protecting itself against a China that was not only its traditional enemy but now communist and still expansionist. It was deep in the throws of American occupation and needing to find a dignified and profitable relationship with its victors, which included Australia. An Australia that had come surprisingly close to invasion with bombing attacks on its northern city of Darwin which rivaled the attack on Pearl Harbour for sheer quantity of bombs; the sinking of a ferry in Sydney Harbor with considerable loss of life by a squadron of mini subs; vicious and deadly encounters in Singapore and Papua New Guinea..

This very raw period presented complex and deep feelings on both sides of the Australian-Japan relationship, which prior to WWII, had been excellent. Remember we were on the same side in WWI.

A fact not generally known is that Australia was very keen on punishing the Japanese through the war crimes trials and clamoured successfully to have their judges appointed to the tribunals. The Japanese saw Australia simply as the victor seeking revenge through the tribunals and Australia saw the Japanese as still very much a cruel and inhuman enemy.  Culturally however there is a lot of evidence of the Japanese adopting what they believed to be western  (American) ways and dropping some of theirs. The process of omiai (arranged marriage) for instance, went into decline after the war. They embraced US ideas of capitalism and some management theory although they were in the end very Japanese in application.

When the Japanese started to see the rewards of their hard won reconstruction they became less enamored with western (American) culture and management methods and economic models. At times Japan even expressed this much to everyone’s embarrassment. For instance, a Minister of the Tanaka government in the mid 70s, flush with Japan’s economic success, jeeringly told the Americans, whose economy was languishing, that they didn’t know how to run their country. They had moved from obsequious defeat to the hubris of economic and ipso facto cultural superiority. The Japanese felt they had the right combination of government involvement in private enterprise through organisations such as the all powerful MITI, appropriate control of workers’ unions and a united population happy to be part of the post war miracle.

At the same time the West was starting to quote, or misquote, Japan as “the way to go “ regarding manufacturing methods, union control, “jobs for life”, the value and rewards of having a compliant society depending on who you were and what point you were trying to make. The tide had turned for both the Japanese and us Westerners. The not so funny joke of “who really won the war?” was extant when describing the Japanese’s recovery and the languishing of our economies.

Underlying all this change and ambiguity in the relationship was a raging commodities/manufactured goods trade between Australia and Japan; they needed each other profoundly.

Then came 1990, the bubble burst and has never been re-blown. Suddenly, the hubris that had started to characterize Japanese relations with foreigners was disappearing, rather there was a return to an embarrassed stance of a nation that was meant to be poor. Indeed, one of the best selling books of the era in Japan extolled the traditional virtues of poverty.

In a way we have come full circle with Australia and its main western ally, America, wondering, along with Japan, what to do with China. There is pressure for Japan to drop its pacifist position and convert its “Self Defense Force” into something more assertive. An interesting bit of byplay on this theme was the role Australian troops played in Iraq as protectors of the “strictly defensive”, Japanese.

The relationship appeared to have moved from one of hatred and distrust to something more ambiguous based on mutual benefit.

The recent tsunami revealed the new closer human aspect of the relationship in two ways:

One: a group of Australian haiku and tanka poets put together a collection of their poems that offered sympathy and support. This was sent to various groups and individuals. A common theme in the response was that the Japanese felt, for the first time since WWII, that non Japanese actually cared for them. To quote one Japanese Law Professor:

We had a lot of sympathy and condolences from the world this time as well, which might be the first time, in the past 60 years, to know we Japanese are liked by so many people in the world.

Two: With typical love of language the Japanese  coined a word to describe gaijins (foreigners) who fled Japan after the tsunami - it was “gojins”. This is not just amusing but suggests that the Japanese feel more part of the world and other people. There is a suggestion here that we foreigners are really one of them and should join them in this tragedy, not flee.

A very similar sense of redemption and oneness occurred under much lighter circumstances for Germany when they hosted the FIFA world cup in 2006. For the first time since WWII they publicly expressed an acceptable patriotism, which was seen as simply national pride not threatening jingoism. This was important to post war generations who had been brought up on a diet of lectures at home, in school and society in general not to publicly express national pride or indulge in triumphalism in victory. Like the Japanese they felt that for the first time in 60 years their neighbours had put the past behind them and normal relations had resumed. In the case of Japan; that normal relations had begun.

by Philip Porter

It could never happen in Norway

But it did. Norway is still in shock after the events of Friday 22 July 2011 - a date that will forever be remembered as a turning point in Norwegian history.

At 3:30 in the afternoon, Norway, with its nearly 5 million inhabitants, experienced its first terrorist attack. A car bomb exploded in the street outside the main government buildings in the centre of Oslo. The bomb was so big and the blast so powerful that it could be heard far outside the city. It destroyed nearby buildings and smashed hundreds of windows throughout the capital.

News about the explosion contained further information about a possible shooting on Utøya. There was some confusion to begin with as to whether the two episodes were related and at first the shooting was thought to be fireworks.

As the day wore on, a shocked Norwegian public tried to make sense of what was happening. There had indeed been shooting on Utøya and many had been killed. Utøya (literally “the outside island”) is about two hours drive from Oslo and is well known as the venue for the Labour Party's yearly summer youth camp.

Three hours after the explosion, Oslo was empty of all but police cars, ambulances, commando trucks and fire engines. With typical Norwegian efficiency a central command was immediately established on the largest town square. The sound of sirens continued throughout the evening and night, and the media confirmed that a man had been arrested on Utøya and charged for both crimes.

A native Norwegian man in his thirties admitted responsibility for the home-made bomb and for the massacre on Utøya. A right-wing extremist with strong anti-Islamic views, he blames the Norwegian Labour Party for allowing the immigration of Muslims to Norway and turning Norway into the multicultural society it is today. The attacks were aimed at destroying the Labour Party and killing its new recruits on Utøya.

Numbers of dead and injured were expected to increase during the night as rescue teams continued to search the government buildings and the island. Thankfully these were adjusted down the next day, but they were horrific. 8 people had been killed in the government buildings and 69, the youngest 14 years old, had been shot and killed on Utøya.

Oslo was a silent, mourning city on Saturday. Television stations sent continuous updates showing pictures taken immediately after the bomb exploded. Nearly all the shops were shut and the task of assessing the damage had begun. The normally busy city centre was empty and most of central Oslo had been fenced off as there was speculation about further undetonated bombs.

Ever the pragmatists, the Norwegians discussed positive aspects. For example, the government “high-rise building” or “Høyblokken” built in 1958 could, after all, be salvaged. The bomb had done extensive damage but the foundations were sound. Also, the majority of those who would normally be working in these buildings were on holiday - July is the main holiday month. In addition, the car containing the bomb had been parked over the extensive underground passages which connect the government buildings and this helped to absorb some of the blast.

By Monday morning carpenters and renovation teams had replaced broken windows with weatherboards and removed all the broken glass from the streets. They had been working all weekend - an amazing feat.

The first flowers and candles were already being placed outside the Cathedral in Oslo and as the days went by they filled more and more of the area around the church. Groups stood silently looking at the sea of flowers, many crying openly. This happened in towns all around the country. Very different Norwegians from the rather private people they are known to be. This somewhat Catholic tradition for showing public sorrow started when King Olav V died in January 1991 when the snow outside the Royal Palace was covered by candles and flowers.

Strangely, Norwegian flags were missing from the floral tributes. Norwegians are proud of their flag and exhibit a friendly and good-natured nationalism. The sorrow shown after the massacre was personal and the sense of bereavement transcended nationality.

This could be seen in the rose procession. 200,000 people each carrying a rose filled the streets of Oslo to express their support for a society that condemned terrorism, whoever was responsible. Norway has always defended her open society. Locked doors with codes and entrance cards are relatively new here. However, Norwegians are sceptical in spite of promises from the Prime Minister that there will be more openness in the future.

There has been much soul-searching in the aftermath of the terror. As would be expected of a society concerned with details and punctuality, the rescue operation on Utøya has been studied minute for minute. Could the police have been more efficient? Could more lives have been saved? What if, what if?

An immigrant was stopped in the street by reporters and asked for his comments. His reply was “My first thought when I heard about the bomb was 'I hope it is not one of ours' ”.

This is a sentiment that has been expressed by many Norwegians. They are thankful that the perpetrator was a so-called native. Norway struggles to integrate its immigrants like so many other nations and had one of them been responsible, this wonderful country would have looked very different today.

Flowers are still being laid outside the Cathedral and there are always roses on the fences around the government buildings. The heavy silence over Oslo has now lifted and voices and laughter can be heard again in the streets but it is going to take a very long time to get back to normal - whatever “normal” will mean in the future.

by Veronica Biong

The Glory that was Greece

The Greeks may currently owe us a lot; but our debt to the Greeks is immeasurable.

Small comfort to a country for which – according to Jeff Randall in a recent article in The Daily Telegraph – ‘there is no deus ex machina. The tragic dénouement will involve its default or withdrawal from the single currency, perhaps both.’

The deus ex machina, in classical drama, was the god who descended from the stage machinery, in order to intervene in human affairs and the phrase is generally used to mean a positive intervention, or rescue of the hero.

Randall’s whole article casts what is happening in Greece as a tragedy – which, of course, they invented, along with the foundations for Western philosophy, literature, mathematics, science, art, architecture etc. Greek intellectual achievements have been unparalleled in the history of the Western world, and they know it.

They also feel that we often fail to respect the source of our heritage enough. So the present humiliation must be all the more bitter for a justifiably proud people.

Starting with Minoan Crete, where there was evidence of settlement in 128,000 BC, real signs of civilization from 5,000 BC, and reaching a pinnacle with the city states of Sparta and Athens – which established the basis for Western civilization and liberal democracies – Greece really was the cradle of Europe.

No wonder that the Greek ideal inspired the Romantics – so much so that Lord Byron, the British poet, died (admittedly of a fever) fighting for Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire, into which it had been absorbed for hundreds of years. Independence was finally achieved in 1832 with the Treaty of Constantinople.

Some of the most famous lines written about Greece are in fact Byron’s:

‘The mountains look on Marathon/And Marathon looks on the sea/And musing there an hour alone/I dream’d that Greece might yet be free.’

Modern Greeks tend to see themselves as culturally-aware, eloquent, sophisticated Europeans, experienced in social and commercial matters, with strong intellectual powers, intuition and a sense of artistry.

Key values are reason, freedom, thrift (paradoxically in the current circumstances!), a love of the sea, theatre, rationalism, debate, close family ties, a talent for business (especially small entrepreneurism), democracy, and architecture.

They are a multi-active, dialogue-oriented culture, very tactile, putting lively human interaction above clock-time, and having been scientifically proven to have the strongest eye contact in Europe. Their style of communication tends to be verbose, theatrical and intense.

Yet their intellectual heritage has given them a strong rationalism to counter the emotion, rather like the French.

To deal with them effectively in business, you should really read up something on their illustrious history as the longer-term historical perspective is important for them and a source of great pride.

Other advice:

• Avoid discussion of Greece’s decline, historical and current
• Don’t mention the problems with Cyprus
• Avoid the topics of Serbia, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia
• Don’t praise the Turks too much
• Use some Greek
• Be prepared for long, roundabout discussion
• Let them get their emotions off their chest – they can use emotion as a weapon, so remain calm yet show compassion
• Be aware of differences in body language – a backward nod of the head means ‘no’. A tilt of the head to either side means ‘yes’
• Keep strong eye contact
• Identify the boss and address him or her directly. The boss can be extremely tough, in a paternalistic way, especially in more traditional businesses like shipping. Even nowadays, he may motivate his senior team by lining them up and slapping their faces to show them who is boss!
• Be flexible – they may well be flexible on agreements, so be prepared for them to propose modifications
• Be generous and friendly, but remain tough enough
• Even if they are in a weak position, preserve their dignity at all times
• Socialise (even till the late hours) and invest time in relationships
• Be aware they may try to charm you, so try to use your own charisma too
• Bow to their experience
• Understand that, in the end, they are pragmatic
• Above all, be aware of their shrewdness. It is probably their key defining characteristic. It is no coincidence that Odysseus, the best-known hero in Greek literature was primarily characterised for his cunning. It was he, after all, who came up with the idea of the Trojan Horse.

We began by referring to the current Greek tragedy, but does the word describe the current situation in the truest sense of the word? For instance, however sad it is, an accident is not a tragedy. A tragedy is a fall, usually ending in death, brought about by a fatal flaw in character of an otherwise great hero.

There is no doubt that Greece is a heroic nation, based on its intellectual achievements, but do those achievements contain a fatal flaw?

Probably the greatest philosophical contribution the Greeks made to the world was the idea that it is rational to strive for an ideal – whether that is at a personal or political level. The question then arises, as to what that ideal should be. At a political level, Plato’s Republic tries to build a picture of the ideal state, governed not as a democracy – maybe surprisingly – but by the ‘guardians’, who, to simplify it grossly, ‘know best.’

This idea of a Utopia has probably been the root cause of all the various ‘-isms’ that have eventually had to give way to more pragmatic forms of government.

Could it be that the European Union, with its bold single currency experiment, has pushed the ideal of an economically united Europe too far too soon?

If so, how ironic and how truly tragic, that Greece – the source of the idealism that made Europe great, and the concept of the EU possible – should be the first EU member state to bear the brunt of the harsh realities of real politik. The gods above Olympus must be shaking their heads at human hubris, or maybe giving a backward nod or two.

by Michael Gates