What is Europe anyway? Ask the Ukrainians....

Europe is not really a continent, geographically speaking.

Continents are meant to be defined by tectonic plates. But Europe is just a peninsula of the massive Eurasian Tectonic plate.

India, called a subcontinent, has its own plate. As does Arabia. Much of central America sits on the Caribbean plate, rather than the North American or South American.

So Europe is really not a geographical entity. What, then, is it?

It is sometimes assumed that the distinction is racial, that Europe is where the white people came from. There is little basis for that view in history. Europa was a figure of Greek legend. Pretty soon the term Europe came to have a geographical meaning, which by the middle ages was taken to be the area where the Roman Church held sway.

That is the boundaries of Europe were defined by the Mediterranean (with Islam the majority belief to the south) and the Orthodox Christians to the East, and the Ottoman empire (including modern Greece and much of the Balkans) to the South East.

The world 'Europe' was not much in use, however. Christendom was the term of choice.

Only after the reformation, when the power of the Roman church was broken in large parts of Western Europe did the word 'Europe' come to the fore.

So Europe is a cultural place.

And it is not fixed. Greece rejected Roman papal authority back in 1053. It has not returned to the fold. But from a modern secular perspective Greece is viewed as the cradle of all European civilisation. It was only in the 19th century, during the reign of Westward leaning Tsar Peter the Great that Europe extended far enough east to include the Russian heartland. Although as early as the sixth century BC some Greeks had located the boundary between Europe and Asia somewhere in the Caucasus.

Sometimes people who are not really European attempt to define themselves as such, in order to make a political statement about what they want to be.

Therefore secular Turks will often describe Turkey as a 'European nation', when almost all definitions of Europe would place the country something more than 95% in Asia. The aforementioned Peter the Great shifted his capital to the West as part of an attempt to Europeanise his nation.

It is in this light that I would view the current struggle in Ukraine. Poland, a Catholic country, has a long history of Europeanism. It was the first country in Europe (since ancient times) to elect its head of state. Many Ukrainians see Poland as their closest neighbour. Russia, a big, Orthodox country, with a lot of money and oil, is seen by many other Ukrainians as their natural partner.

This division is often reinforced by language. With Russian being the majority tongue in the industrial East, Ukrainian in the West. But bearing in mind the religious definition of the middle ages Europe the religious divide, where Western Ukrainians traditionally accepted the authority of the pope (although much of their traditions look somewhat eastern, allowing priests to marry for instance). Eastern Ukrainians remained Orthodox, under the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow. The East much earlier became part of the Russian empire, the West under the authority of the Habsburgs or Poland.

In the same way that an ancient European divide, across the Alps, between North and South seems to have reopened in the financial crisis, so too has another divide, between east and west. This latter divide being both ancient and modern.

In the unambiguous West; London, Paris, Washington, Frankfurt, Milan, Madrid, Europe seems pretty much broken and crisis ridden. Nationalism is at the fore to a greater extent than at any time since the second world war. The brief moment at the end of the cold war when Europe looked like it might become a world wide player dissolved in the forming of a post Kyoto G2 consensus.

Whatever it is that unites Europe, is, as ever, overwhelmed by the divisions. In 1914 the Emperors in Berlin and Moscow were both cousins of the Emperor in London. That did not prevent the beginning of an internal European conflict that would destroy European power, propelling the aptly named United States to the role of Global hegemon.

Yet on the streets of Kiev people are willing to die for whatever it is they think Europe is. I have met Israelis and Turks who think joining 'Europe' is their dream.

For these people, being the of 51st state of the USA is unpalatable as an alternative. Europe is their dream. But, as ever, it remains a dream. An ideal. It is 100 years since Europe tore itself apart in the first world war. All attempts at unity since have ended in failure.

It seems the people of Europe forget the cost of their division. In refusing to learn from the past, it is to be hoped Europe does not doom itself to a repeat. For if they cannot learn to live together as brothers, they may well die together as fools.

Bono, philanthropy and taxes

Bono berates us all for the poverty of Africa.

Yet he doesn't pay his taxes, quoting the Gospel of Saint Matthew:- “Let not the left hand know what the right hand does.”

Someone should tell Bono the full quote:-

"But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth".

This teaching does not provide cover to those wishing to avoid their tax liability. It instructs them to keep quiet about what they give to the poor. It specifically tells the like of Bono to shut their big mouths.

Bono would do better to give to Caesar (the state) what is his, all that filthy lucre.

And when it comes to morality, a humble and broken heart is what God requires.

Merkel in Germany

Angela Merkel and her Christian Democrats have had a good election. 42% of the vote.

Some right wing Eurosceptics got close to representation with over 4% (In Germany, you need a minimum of 5% to get ant representatives into parliament).

But her coalition partners (the Free Democrats) slipped below 5%.

So, Merkel has no one on the right to form a coalition with.

Other people in parliament include the SPD (socialist/social democratic) Green and Lefists.

Between them they have 43% plus.

This is a great result for Merkel, but I do not believe it is quite the kind of result the British media says it is.

Firstly, the leftists and the rightists are pretty much neck and neck. The SPD has not done well, neither have the greens, that makes the German electorate look pretty much left wing, all other things considered.

Secondly, Merkel's victory is more a conquest of the German right than it is of the German electorate. 42% is a great result for the CDU/CSU alliance. But that is the sum of all the parliamentary parties of the right. This is a personal victory for Merkel, not a victory for the right.

Thirdly the British see this election result as a shift to Euro-scepticism, a rejection of the elitist euro agenda. But the Eurosceptic right wingers (AfD) scored as poorly as the Free Democrats.

You could more easily style this result as a rejection of free market neo liberalism as a rejection of Europe. After all, it is a victory for Ms Merkel, who has committee to saving the Euro.

The left is split, with many voters going to the left of the centrist SPD. The greens ran on higher taxes. The SPD leadership was lacklustre. Almost no one goes to the right of Merkel.

Someone from the German left will need to work with the CDU.

If the German left can find itself a leader, it is well positioned for the next election.

Overpopulation of Malthusians

There is a conventional wisdom that we are heading to disaster because here are just too man of us.

That we really are undergoing a population explosion.

And if we don't take some sort of drastic action, there will pretty soon not be enough food to go around.

One of the earlier guys to record such an opinion was Rev Thomas Malthus, way back around 1800.

But the evidence does not support such a view.

Not only is there more than enough food in the world to feed everybody, but the nations where people starve are more often than not food exporters. People starve because food is not shared. And because rich countries demand debt payments take precedence over full stomachs.

Furthermore, the rate of population growth has been slowing for around 50 years. Population is falling in China and in Europe. Population is stable in North America. The years of rapid growth are over in Southern Africa and South America.

Only in some parts of the Islamic world does population continue to rapidly expand.

The UN estimates population will cease to grow, and begin to decline, around the year 2100.

More recent estimates are for peak population in the year 2050.

Just think, over half the people alive today will likely live to witness peak population. The issues facing the world are not those of ever expanding population, but of an aging population.

Fascism in Europe

Germany has been pretty cautious throughout the Euro crisis, and there are good reasons for this German caution.

Firstly Germany is a democracy, and the voters are feeling pretty cautious. As would the voters of any other country that was being asked to bail out its neighbours.

Secondly there is an election coming. In four days' time.

But also there are other reasons, specific to German history. Because of the second world war, there is still something of a guilt complex in the national psyche. And because of the terrible suffering of the 1930s depression, there is a terrible fear of inflation.

These two things are linked. It is true that Germany was probably affected worse than any other western nation by the great depression, but that is not the only reason the Germans fear inflation. The chaos of the great depression, allied with a ruling elite discredited and largely dispossessed by the disaster of losing world war one, is what left the door ajar for the Nazis in the first place.

So it is not some Nazi like sense of superiority that makes Germany so reluctant to bet the farm on rescuing southern Europe so much as the fearful folk memory of the disaster that unfolded last time the country lost control of its economy.

This is very difficult to understand from a British perspective. I am over 40, I cannot remember a time when I thought we did have control of our economy. Nor point to any such time in the last century.

But today we look south towards Greece, where they have had a real fascist style political assassination. The authorities dress it up as an argument over a football match, but really Golden Dawn have sent a mob down there to cover a premeditated attack.

Now figures on the left speak of 'banning' Golden Dawn. What idiocy. People are turning to Golden Dawn from a sense of hopelessness and alienation. How will 'banning' them help? Will it make the political system more inclusive? Will it spread hope?

There is a potential tragedy unfolding before our eyes. That is in its fear of the fascism of the past, Germany enforces an austerity on Southern Europe which, rather than saving us from the 1930s, creates a new fascism of the 21st century.

Perhaps Ms Merkel can alter course after the election. Perhaps the German electorate will swing further to the left than anyone expects. The tragedy is not yet complete. But we need a change in direction to avoid it. I cannot see that change can come from Greece, or from anywhere other than Germany.

Democracy in the UK

It may seem strange to anyone who is a long term resident here, but we have had an outbreak of democracy.

The executive decided that we should go to war.

They consulted parliament.

Parliament said no.

War is cancelled.

In terms of geopolitics, this is probably something of a non event. It will not have much impact on any US decision to attack Syria or not. And the UK contribution is small enough to be negligible.

For years we British thought that our army was the best in the world. Then we were humiliated in Basra and Helmand. That has taught the sane amongst us that we are not so special.

We have to adjust to the newly perceived reality. Even if our leaders can't perceive it.

It seems our parliament can.

For the first time since Vietnam, the UK will not join the US in a military adventure.

For the first time since Suez the parliamentary opposition has opposed the government on military action.

For the first time since 1782 the government has los such a vote. To put that in context, the Americans had yet to win their revolutionary war back then.

This may not be a great geopolitical event, but in UK terms it is seismic. We are no longer first in the queue for military action or for backing the Americans.

We might even develop an independent foreign policy.

Stumble on Syria

The time has now come for Syria to be attacked.

The reason? Pride.

The vast number killed was not enough.

The sensitive strategic location was not enough.

No. It is because the US President, Mr Obama declared a red line, and that line was crossed. So the USA must attack Syria to maintain 'credibility'.

No matter that the Syrian civil war has morphed from a struggle against the regime for basic rights into a fight for survival against Islamic fundamentalists. No matter that America plans to provide air cover for the allies of al Qaeda. No matter that the Kurds and the Christians of Syria, pushed to choose sides, reluctantly opt for al Assad as the lesser of two evils, no matter that even Israel no longer deploys its rhetoric against the Assad regime.

Do the people of America not wonder that in Egypt a democratically elected government is deposed by the military, their government does nothing. Islamic fundamentalists seek to take over Syria, and America's leaders, so blinded by their hatred of Iran, fight alongside.

American pride is wounded. Syria must be attacked.

What hubris is this? Was  nothing learnt in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Can a nation march to war in such pride and arrogance then leave victorious?

Alternatively, could the Syrian straw, added to the myriad other burdens be the one that breaks the American back?

We are about to find out.

Pity the poor of Syria. Their homes are a battlefield.