Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs declines any canditature for new NATO Secretary General

Mr Jonas Gahr Støre, Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, has long been mentioned as a dark horse in the competition for the post of Secretary General in NATO. The top candidate has long been Danish PM Andres Fogh Rasmussen, who is popular with a vast majority of NATO-member governments, and Mr Støre's Polish counterpart Mr Radoslaw Sikorski. While Mr Rasmussen's drawback has been the cartoon-incident a few years back, resulting in Turkey founding it difficult to support a Danish candidate, Mr Sikorski has come off as a little too anti-Russian for some of the major Western European countries. For the part of Mr Støre, non of these are the case; he managed more or less well (I'd argue more to towards less than more well) with the cartoon-incident, appeasing most Middle Eastern countries, and he is on a good standing with Russia. What has counted against him, however, is that he is not from an EU Member State, as this has been seen as a bit of a pre-requisite for the new Secretary General. Also, Mr Støre's party colleague, former PM and Minister of Foreign Affairs and currently President of the Norwegian Parliament, Mr Torbjørn Jagland, has long been a broadly supported candidate for the Council of Europe Secretary General. The chances of Norway getting both of these posts are at best slim and normally next to none, and Mr Støre's bid for the NATO job would only have undermined the chances of Mr Jagland. This, however, is yesterday's news today. Mr Støre has stated that he prioritised his jobs in Norway, running for Parliament in the fall and continue to work on what he characterises as the "Government project".

Although I believe that Mr Fogh Rasmussen will be an excellent Secretary General and I hope he gets the job, I am a bit disappointed by the news of Mr Støre's withdrawl. Mr Støre has an outstanding background for the job, including several high posts as well in national politics as well as in international organisations, he has proven an excellent capacity for coalition building and management, which he proved during the last phase of the Doha negociations, and he is a truly cosmopolitt who probably would be able to use his potential better in Bruxelles than in Oslo. Also, it should be mentioned, getting him out of Norwegian politics would be quite a blow to the Labour party, as he is by far the country's most popular politician. Despite his qualities, they are not enough for me to wish our Government a continued life after the elections

Physical Attacks on Politicians is just Plain Stupid

Yesterday, as Lord Mandelson, the British Business Secretary and former EU Commissioner for trade, arrived at a low-carbon emission summit in Central London he was approached and, in search for a better word, harassed by a young demonstrator. The demonstrator, the 29 year old Ms Leila Deen, is a member of the a group called Plane Stupid who works against the planned extension of Heathrow to include a third run-way. Ms Deen, after having exchanged a few words with Lord Mandelson, emptied a cup of what The Times describes as 'cornflower paste and green food dye' over the Business Secretary. The Secretary, having formerly been Secretary for Northern Ireland, reacted with initial perplexity before he disappeared inside to clean up and upon his return five minutes later described the incident as adolescent. He added

“She was so busy throwing what seemed like green soup or something in my face that she failed to tell me what the protest was about but, as you can see, thankfully it wasn’t paint and I’ve come through it intact.”

There are two thoughts that comes to mind when I read this. The first concerns Lord Mandelson's reaction, and the second the choice of activism.

Three years ago, as a new centre-left (dubbed 'red-green') government had taken office in Norway, a young economics student showed is discontent with the announced policies of the new, and first, clear-cut socialist minister of finance, Ms Kristin Halvorsen, by planting a cake in the back of her had as she entered the Ministry of Finance building. Ms Halvorsen reacted by calling it an attack on democracy and claimed it was a step away from the openness of the Norwegian society, as she could no longer find herself able to walk to work. Police investigation commenced and the young student faced in a worse-case scenery up to 15 years of imprisonment for his 'attack on democracy". Lord Mandelson, on the other hand, reacts by dismissing the action against him as adolescent and states he is happy it wasn't paint. Scotland Yard, as well, unlike their Norwegian colleagues, downplays the incident, a spokesperson stating

"It's not a murder, it's just someone throwing a bit of paint. There's no investigation underway and no arrest. We would not take action unless we receive a complaint."

This comment, together with the Secretary's statement should probably leave Ms Deen, unlike her Norwegian counterpart, out of fear for judicial prosecutions from the judiciary. The Secretary, by his reaction, clearly demonstrated how little influence pressure groups such as Plane Stupid have when they resort to actions such as this one against high-power office holders. Unlike her Norwegian counterpart, Ms Deen has been reduced to ridicule, with her actions labeled 'adolescent', effectively excluding her from the serious public debate. Ms Halvorsen, unlike Lord Mandelson, only managed to ridicule herself elevating a cake in the back of the head to that of a threat against the system, gave the young student a bit of a status as a hero.

My second comment is on the action in itself. I would assume that by stating my preferences for Lord Mandelson's reaction over those of Ms Halvorsen I have also given away my position on these sort of actions. In a democratic society violence by non-governmental actors have no place apart form in self-defence. We do not seek political aims by violent means. Both the cake against Ms Halvorsen and the cup of cornflower paste are harmless acts that pose no threat whatsoever to neither democracy nor the officials being the targets. Nevertheless, they have no place and they only serve to illuminate the lack of language and arguments of the 'attack's' proponents. We make decisions based on debate and information, not by physical means. These acts represents the mild extreme of a continuum which culminates in actions such as the 2005 Paris banlieu incidents, the Thessalonika 2008 demonstrations or the Seattle 2003 fighting, where masses of people, they be the 'mob', disillusioned and angry young men or well-educated middle-class youths with a need to rebel against their parents. In any case, any politician who gives in to whatever group makes the biggest uproar is weak and unfit for office. To seek to influence decision makers is legitimate. To meet with, have lunch with and by that trying to form the opinions of those in power should be encourage. These are all aspects of a vibrant, liberal, participatory democracy. Peaceful demonstration as a show of force and public opinion, as we saw in Europe in the winter/spring of 2003 against the Iraq war is yet another legitimate way of seeking influence. However, the moment any demonstration takes the step from being purely verbal and by presence, and enters into the territory of violence, however how insignificant, it has crossed a line and lost all legitimacy they once had.

The Radical Right as seen from Bruges

I'm sitting in a class on European parties discussing far-right movements in the European Parliament. Our Italian-Canadian colleague has given us an introduction into Alessandra Mussolini and her likes, and we're currently exploring voter behaviour and the over-representation of young, uneducated men amongst Mussolini's voters. Although her looks, she's a former Playmate, is a plausible argument for voting for her if you're 16 and hormonal, but at 25 it is no longer. Mussolini and her lot occupies around 8% of the seats in the 2004-2009 EP, and there's no reason to see them as a threat, although our Italian house-communist disagrees.

The voters we're talking about are not amongst my colleagues here in Bruges, nor did I meet them at the Hill in Bergen. Not comparing Frp with Mussolini, they are the closest we come in Norway to a right-wing populist party flirting with nationalism and xenophobia, you don't find anyone who will openly support them amongst the students at the Faculty of Social Sciences. The same is the case here. You don't study any form of social science and support a far-right wing party. It is just not acceptable. Being a blood-red communist believing in state-centrism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, so-called "democratic" or "social" ownership of the means of production is fully acceptable, but do not even dream about claiming that any for of right-wing authoritarianism could be desirable (unless you argue by quoting Plato and Machiavelli) or that Muslims and globalisation represents a threat to our society.

That being said, I have no problems with the far-right being seen and treated as pariahs. What bothers me in this respect is more that flirting with the far-left and claiming that the Communist Utopia is something we should strive for. Is it something we should have learned from the 20th Century, in particular here in Europe, it is that totalitarian ideologies, whether they be to the Right or the Left, promising Salvation and a Utopian future, represents exactly the opposite; any ideology that claims to present and represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (so help me, God), who promises to set us free and pretends to be the way to something bigger, is in the end, whatever the good intentions, bound to bind us and lead us to serfdom.

I've gone off on a whim here, intending to focus on modern-day populist right-wing parties. It is a sad fact that while the far-right is being dominated by pulp, low-brow, angry young men, modernisation losers, under-educated unemployed victims of globalisation and modernisation, the contemporary radical left has the credibility of being represented by high-fly academics and other May-68 anachronisms, and low-educated voters on the left often vote moderately social-democratic. To specify, I am sorry for the fate of the former, but I am more scared by the choices of the latter.

The Second Coming

He is back. When He first came we were not prepared. We did not know what to expect. For seven years He walked among us. For seven years He preformed miracles and blessed us with His presents. It has been nearly eleven years since He left us. For eleven years we have been in the Valley of Darkness, we have walked in the Shadow of Death. But just as night is darkest just before dawn so was also 2008 a year of misery before His return. Today He was back. With a miracle He returned. Against the three-time World Cup winner football superpower, the machine that is known as Germany, and on their own grass He led us to Victory. This is truly The Second Coming.

The Stig has been outed

The Stig, anonymus test driver for BBC's Top Gear, has his alleged identity revealed by a British newpaper according to Timesonline. Having for years been a devouted follower of Top Gear and the wits of presenter Jeremy Clarkson when I first saw the article i asked myself if I really wanted to know who The Stig was. Off record a BBC employee caracterises the revelation as "bloody enoying" adding with reference to the article "you wouldn't write a piece saying that Santa didn't exist." I can only follow in line behind these comments.

I will not tell you who The Stig (apparently) is, for that you will have to follow the link. I just know that watching Top Gear will not be the same again.

The Stig, I miss you.

We are not alone

We are not alone in the universe. NASA findings on Mars suggest the presens of alive micro-organisms. Yet helas, we've yet to find someone to play with. Next up is macro-organisms, or intelligent life. ET, we are waiting for you!

The lack of formality in norwegian

How do you introduce a formal letter or e-mail in norwegian? In english there's always Dear sir/madam, and the French have their Madame/Monsieur (la Directrice/le Directeur), but what do we have? Writing to the Prime Minister I can't start by Dear Prime Minister (Kjære Statsminister) which would be a missmatch in level of politeness and familiarity. I can't write Monsieur le Premier Ministre (Herr Statsminister) as the "Herr" is a relic of the fifties and an anachronism after 1968. Some would of course propose that I write Dear Jens (Kjære Jens), but as I (1) didn't vote for him, (2) is not very fond of him as a politician and (3) have never even met him nor communicated with him adressing him with "dear" and omitting his last name is slightly to cozy (or koselig) for my taste. Also I can't be properly polite any longer without sounding sarcastic. After we abandoned the "De", "Dem" and "Deres" (Vous and Votre) and replaced it with "du", "deg" and "ditt" (tu, toi and ton) I have a hard time adressing respectable people in a proper way. Just imagine adressing President Sarkozy with "Et toi, Nico, qu'est-ce que tu pense?" The only person(s) I can still talk to without feeling ashamed about my language are the royals, as they can be adressed in the third person. ("And how did Her Majesty find the exhibition?" "Oh, it was quite interesting. I especially liked the pictures by...")