A per capita country and the Lebanon war (with Europe in between)

Time for holidays, of unpretentious readings (how I miss the Summer of the “Da Vinci Code”…) and of futilities to relax. Parties with sardines or vodka, with foam or salami. Going south, to the coast, towards a heat that is attenuated by the sea.

Escaping the everyday buzz to try and understand it better. Everything is in pre-epoch in Portugal. Everything is ok. Those who can, go to the hotel. Those who sort of can, rent a place and share the costs with family and friends. Those who almost can’t, try to enjoy a couple of escapes to the beach. Those who cannot, either pretend they can or stay at home.

We are important people and that allows us to go on holidays in a relaxed manner. We are important, not only because we are one of the four better football squads of the world, but also because our C-130 travels, “at UN’s request”, between Italy and Beirut. And it is the only one. The national logic and the journalistic presentation of these two “important things” is more or less the same. One like the other let us at ease with ourselves.

On the one hand, we are good at doing what we like, that is, to play football (and everything associated to it: from Super Bock to cafe chit chat). All this despite us being a small country, make notice therefore that, in per capita terms, we clearly were the world champions.

On the other hand, we do per capita our very meaningful part, in helping the international effort to respond to the conflict in Lebanon. I repeat, our C-130 travels, “at UN’s request”, between Italy and Beirut to transport humanitarian aid. And it is the only one. Drawn in jealousy super-powers. It is on these little details that great nations define themselves!

Strangely, nobody seems ask why the hell is our C-130 the only one doing this work. But this does not matter. What matters is that it is the only one and it is Portuguese and that Portugal, in spite of being a small country, leads the aerial humanitarian effort to help the victims of the bombardments. That really puts me at ease. What else could we have done? It already had been our Minister of Foreign Affairs (MFA) who had asked for a special meeting of the MFA of the EU about this subject and now we had our plane that just keeps landing in Beirut filled with humanitarian aid.

It is true that, once again, the EU was completely incapable of taking a common stance that someone understands. It is also true that the international intervention plan in this conflict seems to be peacefully (to give Israel more time to do its “work”) prepared by the USA, by talking to those that matter. And, in Europe, it is France and the United Kingdom that matters (and, in a second level, Germany and Italy). The EU does not have armed forces prepared to die by the orders of the President of the Commission of of the European Parliament or of the Council. In Foreign Policy and Defence, the EU could be a vision or a Project, but it is not (I do not know if it must be) a reality.

As I have said before, us Portuguese, are at ease because we have already done what we could. Nowadays we are in the need of holidays, of pink magazines, of “Da Vinci Code” sequels, of open-air discos and pretty people. Pretty people like those who appeared on Beirut’s photography, the Paris of the Middle East, once again bombarded on a daily basis. Many of those pretty people should already have gone out of the city and the country (at least pretty people with appropriated nationality, that is, not Lebanese, and/or with enough money).
In Lebanon and Israel, the war became once again an everyday affair, occulting, among other tragedies, the Iraqi (only a man with the charisma of Fidel Castro managed to rival media-wise with an Israeli-Arab war; and, even so, only if the intensity of bombardments and the clarity of the mutilated bodies’ images is not enough).
I try to read something about what happens.
I knew there was an UN resolution to disarm Hezbollah and that, if something is certain, is that Hezbollah was not disarmed (thousands of missiles moved in lorries usually do not result from a well succeeded disarmament). It is true that the fact that Hezbollah, supported by Syria and a pro-nuclear Iran (remember?), violating the international line that separates (separated?) Israel from Lebanon, attacking Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two of them is not exactly an act of peace.

It is true that the non-recognition of the state of Israel state by Hezbollah, by Hamas and the successive declarations of Iranian representatives are not exactly an act of approximation to Israel, a small country in permanent state of war and fighting for survival.

It is true that Israel’s response is brutal, perhaps disproportional (but disproportional to what?, the two soldiers’ life or to the existence of a nation?). It is true that the news and the images that arrive to us are extreme.
I do not really know where to find guidance from. I will just stay here. Reading, Talking and trying to understand a bit better. Good holidays.

Money: Wanted

In the European Union (EU), with the terrorist tension in turmoil, the difficulties in economic growth and the sensitivity of the questions related to immigration and border control increasing, the concept of Independent State has gained terrain to the idea of Member State ( “Member-State”, and therefore, co-responsible for group decisions and for the success of their implementation). Only this explains all the tension about the EU’s budget, that is, about 1% of EU’s product (a national budget is usually situated between 45 and 50%of the national product). With the reinforcement of the importance of nationality and the difficulties in growth and in job creation, the “old buddies” have started counting each euro. Looking at the “old” 15 (not counting with Luxembourg), I will briefly refer to a basic difference that, among others, structures the relationship between States in the EU: there are those that pay and those that receive, that is, some Members States are net contributors for the EU’s budget, while others benefit from the referred budget.

When they seat at the negotiation table, the difference between those who contribute for the thin budget of the EU and those who benefit from it over and over again is clear. If I give the money to someone, I can demand some conditions. If I receive the money, I can, in as much, be a “good student” (I can also be a “bad student” here and there as long as such behaviour does not turn into a rule on the eyes of those who pay me, running the risk of having my nice sponsor simply stopping the payments). It is because of this (but not only) that only the more uninformed thought that Germany could be fined for having a deficit of about 4% of the product. It will be enough, through the German perspective, having offered its national currency to be ran together with those gentlemen and ladies of the south Europe that deserve little trust and to having been, since always, (and by far) the biggest net contributor (in absolute values) to the communitarian budget. “Enough! The Second World War ended 50 years ago and we (Germans) have enough problems with our economy and our development model.” On the other side of the barricade we have “nuestros hermanos” who want to be big, to be in all the photos and to always have a word while, simultaneously, also wanting to continue to receive funds, because they are still poor, and cannot just suddenly enrich, in a purely statistical way. It is a schizophrenia that limits, for now, Spanish ambitions (in the EU; not in Portugal).

So, who is giving out the money, wanting to control its destiny? From Germany, the United Kingdom, France (not much, in relative terms), Netherlands (a lot, too much, taking into account its dimension), Sweden, Denmark and Italy (little). And for whom does the money go to, not wanting to irritate their financiers? It used to go to Ireland (that went from a “country of cohesion” to the second richest country of the EU in terms of per capita product – just after Luxembourg), it goes to Spain (the main beneficiary in absolute terms), to Greece (theold poorest member of the old poor members of the Union) and, of course, to Portugal (you guessed it: the current poorest member of the old poor countries of the Union; poorer than the two richest of the ten relatively poor countries in terms of the EU average that entered the club on the 1st May of 2004: Cyprus and Slovenia; and very soon poorer than two others: Malta and the Czech Republic).