Red Green Mess

I’m back in Stockholm after a couple of days that have taken me from Geneva to Haugesund in Norway and from there to Tbilisi in Georgia as well as to Brussels for different discussions.

But now it’s two days of making some additional contributions to the campaign before the election here in Sweden on Sunday.

The opinion polls are showing a very tight race, although it is my distinct impression that the momentum at the moment is more with the centre-right alliance parties.

They evidently carried the day in the first of the two major final TV debates yesterday. What happens in the second one tonight will obviously be of major importance.

By acting together as they have done, they have really turned the tables in the debate about how to govern Sweden.

They are seen as a united alternative, while there are increasing tensions on the Left.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that a continuation of a Social Democratic minority government simply isn’t possible, and that there in all probability will have to be a formal coalition that includes the Green Party and the ex-Communists. But that’s an alternative profoundly detested by many Social Democrats, and what sort of policies would actually emerge out of such a government is very unclear.

So on Sunday there is a choice between one reasonably clear majority government alternative of the centre-right, and some sort of red-green mess if the majority ends up on their side.

Good News – For Once?

It is not that usual with days when good pieces of news are coming out of the Middle East.

But yesterday seems to have been such a day.

There now seems to be some sort of agreement to set up a new coalition government in the Palestinian Athority.

It means that Hamas will share power with Fatah – something Hamas offer before, but Fatah then refused.

One of the basis for the new government is the so called prisoners document drafted by key Palestinians in Israeli jails. This document contains an implicit recognition of Israel, and seems now to have been accepted by Hamas.

This is undoubtedly an important step forward. The key question is now whether it will lead the Israelis and the US to lift their different sanctions against the Palestinian government.

I take it for granted that the EU will do it – this is very much in line with what’s been discussed in EU policy circiles for some time. There has been distinct unhappiness over the policy one was more or less forced into after the Hamas election victory earlier this year.

If all of this happens, it will certainly not sort out all of the problems of the area. Very far from it. But it might have the highly important effect of stopping a further deterioation of the situation.

By the standards of these problematic days, that must be called progress.

Five Years Later

On September 11 five years ago I was standing at Potzdamer Platz in Berlin explaining to a friend the tremendous changes there since the wall through Berlin had come down.

Suddenly there was a call from a friend in the UN building in New York. He had just from his room seen the second plane crash into the World Trade Center.

To me it was immediately obvious that al-Qaeda had succeeded. No other network had the resources to plan and execute an attack of this magnitude. And within minutes it was clear that a plane had also struck Pentagon.

The United States immediately declared itself at war, and to a large extent remain in that state today, with the Pentagon now talking about ”a long war” and the President lately defining the enemy as ”Islamic fascists”.

As the Taleban regime in Afghanistan was protecting Usama bin Laden and the core of the al-Qaeda network, the attack to unseat the regime there was unavoidable. It was undertaken by the US, but it had the broad support of the United Nations.

That attack succeeded in liberating Afghanistan from the Talibans, but at the battle of Tora Bora Usama bin Laden and his core group managed to escape over the mountains. Since some years back it seems that virtually all traces of him has disappeared, although he delivers his videos and messages from his remote hideout.

But the core al-Qaeda organisation has been severely damaged since then. Although what is still there is likely to continue to plan large-scale attacks, its capabilities are severly reduced.

Today, it is more a symbol and an ideological inspiration for other groups, some of them originally helped by al-Qaeda, but many also new creations during the last few years taking the ideological lead from the fundamentalism from the mountain hideout.

Today, Usama bin Laden’s most powerful weapon might be his videos and messages as he continues to evade capture.

In the last few years we have seen Europe coming into focus in a way that was not the case five years ago. Although the September 11 group had its origins in Hamburg, we have since them been made aware of the risk of terrorism being bred in the margins of the second- or third-generation immigrant communities in Europe. And their targets tend to be targets in our part of the world.

The fight against this terrorism isn’t really a war in the classical sense. There is no clear beginning and end, there is no clear enemy and military instruments are certainly not the key when it comes to winning the battle. That they have declared war against us is no reason for us to elevate them to that level.

We still require to reinforce police and intelligence cooperation, and that is done as we are learning more and more.

But at the end of the day we are talking about a battle between values and ideas that to a large extent will have to be fought out within the society and culture of Islam. On our side, we must move ahead more desively with more genuine attempts to address some of the root causes that are leading young men into terrorism, be that different situations in the Middle East or the cultural alientation in the secular societies of Western Europe.

The greatest danger at the moment is hardly the one or the other terrorist attack – they will come – but that reactions to them – by supporters or those frightened into different reactions – will lead us into a more fundamental clash of civilisations. In this context, I fail to see that the designation ”Islamic fascists” is particularly helpful.

We shall always be clear that what Usama bin Laden really seeks is such a more fundamental conflict, which would increase the possibility of the groups that he seeks to inspire to recruit and to attack. That is one of the reasonbs why we should be careful in the extreme not to let things slide into a direction that long-term plays into his hands.

Five years after September 11, I would guess that the assessment he is making in his cave is that while his al-Qaeda has been severly beaten, a number of events have inspired new although significantly less competent organisations, while tendencies towards a clash of civilisations have gradually become more pronounced.

The next five years must be different. Otherwise the risk of a really serious development is very clearly there.

Good Debate – But Very Dangereous Position

To start with the positive, it is of course a good thing that Nicolas Sarkozy goes to Brussels and gives a major speech on his vision for Europe.

Apart from the IHT summary, there is also the complete text available in French.

Too many politicians in too many countries are too silent on the challenges on the European scene that they will face in the years to come.

So Sarkozy should be praised for this, as well as for his thoughts on how to handle the institutional issues ahead.

Much in line with what’s been discussed here before, he declared the old constitutional treaty dead, and instead wants to start discussion on a more limited treaty of institutional reform.

That’s a far more realistic approach, although some of his proposals might not necessarily be acceptable yet. But it’s a good start to a necessary debate.

Another issue – but I leave commenting on that one until later – is whether a Britain under a Prime Minister Brown would be ready to go along with anything.

But where I profoundly disagree is his call for the suspension of membership negotiations with Turkey. He wants to restrict membership to countries on the continent of Europe, although it’s not clear if he wants to expell Cyprus with its position off the coast of Lebanon.

I’m not certain how that suspension would work. France can always block any progress in the talks, but to get the Union to officially suspend the talks is another matter, and would be bitterly opposed by a number of member states. It could easily descend into a very nasty and very damaging debate.

The last few months should have demonstrated anew the geostrategic importance of Turkey. Apart from the importance of facilitating and anchoring the continued democratic and secular reform path of Turkey, I don’t think Europe can afford to have a rejected, disillusioned and bitter Turkey as its neighbour.

It’s also very easy to see other consequences. Cyprus is likely to be divided for ever. And efforts to handle the Kurdish issue will be far more difficult, perhaps making a slide into an open conflict, that could also start unravelling a lot of the reforms of Turkey.

And it’s highly likely that a Turkey rejected by Europe will move towards more of a relationship with a Russia that will then have new geostrategic opportunities, also in blocking part of the energy diversification of Europe.

It’s high time for those really caring for the strategic position of Europe in the decades ahead to speak up in the debate.

The Sarkozy position is a position taking us to conflict – inside the Union, but more importantly along some of its most critical borders.

IISS Global Strategic Review

Geneva this weekend is the site for the big Global Strategic Review conference organized by the International Institite for Strategic Studies.

And being a member of the Council of the IISS I’m here, and also have to speak about peacekeeping and stability operations in one of the sessions today.

But we started yesterday evening by listening to a speech by Sheik Humam Hamoudi, who is Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Baghdad and was a key man in negotiating the constitition of the country.

His assessment of Iraq was not without its problematic sides, but basically positive. He categorically ruled out dividing the country, although it was interesting to note that he believed US policy was drifting in that direction. And he saw the centralized control of oil revenues as the key means to assure that this did not happen.

Security would improve over time, he thought, as Iraqis saw that they are now truly governing themselves. But he complained somewhat that US and Iraqi priorities are somewhat different, with him stressing the need to improve basic services, while he said the US was more focused omn fighting the different militias.

Today we continue the discussion with listening to more of those actually doing things in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11, all know that success or failure in Iraq and Afganistan will have profound implications for the future of the entire region.

Afghanistan Again

As we approach the five year anniversary of the toppling of the Taliban regime, the situation in Afghanistan looks increasingly problematic.

NATO has just called for 1 000 more troops in order to contain the rising tide of violence in the South of the country, but it looks rather unlikely that these forces will be forthcoming very fast.

At the hearth of the failure is the failure to attack and to limit the rapidly increasing drug production in the country, and in particular in these southern provinces.

In a report to be issued in full shortly, the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime in Vienna is painting a picture of a situation rapidly escalating completely out of control.

Drug production is up nearly 60% this year, with Afghanistan now completely dominating the global opium markets.

According to UNDOC, production is the troubled Helmad province, where British forces are now having a hard time, increased by more than 160%.

And it says that ”the southern part of Afghanistan was displaying the ominous hallmarks of incipient collapse, with large-scale drug cultivation and trafficking, insurgency and terrorism, crime and corruption.”

There seems to bew little prospect in fighting this, and reversing the disturbing trends, without a fairly long-term combined military, political and economic effort.

Five years after the toppling of the Taliban, that’s not too comfortable a conclusion. And one must question whether either the willigness or the resources are really there among, effectively, the NATO governments.

But if even worse should be avoided there isn’t really any alternative.

A Balanced View

As I head off to Geneva for a couple of days, I note that The Economist has made its judgment on Sweden and our election campaign.

The Social Democrats are fond of saying that all the world is envious of everything that Sweden is.

That’s a wild exaggeration, and The Economist presents a far more balanced picture, pointing out the obvious and glaring shortcomings, and effectively calling for some profound reforms.

Well worth reading.

New Balkan Tensions in Bosnia

Among the elections immediately ahead of us is the one in Bosnia on October 1st.

So far, the election campaign has been rather divisive, with old nationalist slogans coming back, and the race to some extent being a race to catch the nationalist vote in each of the three major population groups.

There is a risk of the election setting Bosnia back.

There are numerous reasons for this development.

One is the renewed dispute over basic constitutional issues triggered by parts of the debate surrounding the efforts to modify and modernize the Dayton constitution. Suddenly, the ultimate demands that were overcome by the compromise of Dayton are back on the table.

A second reason is some new relevation of what happened during the war, in this case videos showing senior Bosnian Muslim commanders being involved in ordering atrocities against the Serb population.

And a thir is the disintegration tendencies that have come to force with the independence of Montenegro as well as the ongoing debates about the possible independence of Kosovo.

Now, the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik has accelerated his talk of the eventual independence of the Serb part of Bosnia.

Long a favourite of the international community, not the least Washington, Dodik is suddenly on a collission course with the views of the outside world. But his aim is very clearly to win votes in the October 1st elections.

He recently said that an independence referendum cannot be avoided because Bosnia is untenable as a single state. Referring to ongoing talks on Kosovo province, Dodik said the independence of Kosovo would intensify Bosnian Serbs’ wishes for secession, saying that this option had the support of 99 % of the Serbs of Bosnia.

This talk is, to put it very mildly, unhelpful. Wipping up nationalist passions is always possible, and the Balkans is going through a sensitive period, but it is no way to take responsibility for the future.

Doing Business 2007

There are numerous reports trying to rank countries according to different criteria.

Among the most interesting and relevant ones is ”Doing Business” published annually by the World Bank.

It measures the ease of doing business legally in different countries, as well as the reforms in this direction.

The top reformer in this year’s report is Georgia. It has seen an impressive package of reforms aimed at easing the burdens of business and improving growth prospect.

It has been inspired in these efforts not the least by the success of Estonia.

Georgia is to be congratulated. And it follow in the footsteps of last year’s top performer Serbia.

It goes without saying that these countries have some way to go before reaching the top. And the top ten countries in this year’s report are Singapore, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Hong Kong/China, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Australia, Norway and Ireland.

Two Nordic countries – Denmark and Norway – among the top ten isn’t too bad. Finland and Sweden should take note.

Campaigning

My blogging has suffered from the fact that I’m on a campaign journey in different parts of Sweden in connection with the election September 17th.

At the moment I’m on a train approaching Gothenburg, and will spend the day here before proceeding to Skåne – the southernmost region of Sweden – tomorrow.

Increasingly it looks likely that we will see a change of government as a result of the elections.

I have never been in an election campaign where the Social Democrats have been as passive and defensive as in this one. Their virtual absence as one travels around to the different meetings even feels somewhat strange.

Yesterday evening was the important interview with opposition leader Fredrik Reinfelt in TV.

He did very well, and opinion polls indicate that so far every other party leader has done better in these interviews than Prime Minister Persson, with Reinfeldt at the top of one of the lists.

It will require something truly unique for the Social Democrats to turn this election campaign round in their favours in the somewhat less tan two weeks remaining.

Critical Difference

Increasingly, there is an amount of foreign interest in the Swedish election as well.

In its main editorial today, the Financial Times have some thoughts about the subject. They point out some of the obvious shortcomings of Sweden particularly in terms of employment generation.

But they also write that the Social Democrats have done well over the past decade, having “reformed pensions, presided over some of the fastest economic growth in Europe and renewed public services: for example, introducing real parental choice in schools.”

These are indeed successful policies, but FT seems to have missed the rather crucial fact that they were in fact decided upon by the centre-right government of the early 1990’s, although the Social Democrats were part of the agreement on pensions.

And the same applies to most of the liberalisation measures that has increased the growth potential of the Swedish economy since then.

On choice in public services, the Social Democrats have conducted a virtual crusade against it, only being prevented from rolling all the reforms back by the resistance also of the small Green party it has been dependent on.

So the successes the FT talks about were in fact in spite of – not because of – the Social Democrats.

A rather critical difference.

Lappeenranta Thoughts

Today the foreign ministers of the European Union assemble in Lappeenranta in southeastern Finland for their twice-a-year informal discussion of the state of the world.

They will meet among the beutiful lakes of the Saima district of Finland.

It is not too far from the city of Viborg that was once established by the Sweden of those days as a trading outpost towards the East, and which up until it was incorporated in the Soviet Union after World War II was a cosmopolitan hub on the Gulf of Finland.

They will certainly not lack issues to discuss. And the Middle East will be in focus of their discussions.

I see in the media that the Finnish Foreign Minister Tuomioja has declared that Europe should now be ready to talk also to Hamas, and this is bound to stir some debate.

But of course he’s right. If the European Union should engage itself more actively in the Middle East – instead of just being asked to foot the bill or provide the troops – then it must be ready to have open channels of communication with all the actors in the region.

And it might well be that the EU could play a critical role in facilitating some move to avoids the emerging meltdown both on the West Bank and in Gaza. It’s difficult to see that anyone else could – although the difficulties for the EU should certainly not be underestimated.

The US is more and more engaged in the November mid-term elections, and the administration is stressing the message of fighting terrorism and ”Islamic fascism”. No openings are to be expected from there at this time.

And Israel is heavily engaged in its internal debate on what went wrong with the Lebanon war. It has scrapped whatever it had as policy for the West Bank and is now doing little more than handling a status quo that is rapidly changing for the worse.

To all of this should of course be added the looming larger crisis with Iran, where at the least the EU3 has a critical role to play, as well as the need to manage the fragile situation in Lebanon.

In addition, I hope that they will have some time to at the least show awareness of the challenges looming in the Balkans.

Whether there will be time for a sauna as well I don’t know – but meeting where they do, there should be.