I used to be a climate skeptic. In these times that is the same as heresy and I quite like heretics. Political correctness found a new golden calf, the ecological lobby started a massive PR-campaign and anyone who wasn’t on board immediately was verbally lynched by the angry mob. “If you are not with us, you are against us!” seemed to be the general idea.

Of course, I will in that situation almost by default go sit with the opposition. The case of climate change was defended by people whom I did not consider to be trustworthy and they rarely managed to argue their case. On the other side of the trenches, many skeptics were eloquent and well-informed.

Of course, this was not a political conversation, it was a scientific one. And while I am not a scientist, I am a believer in science and rational thought. It was very tempting to remain a hardcore heretic but that was an emotional response, based on scientific arguments that did not hold up. The PR of the believers was terrible and largely fabricated, but not the science itself. When getting over my dislike for the messengers and the loads of crap the actual message was hidden under, it became clear that I was wrong.

There is scientific proof that there is climate change and that it is at least partially caused by human activity.

We have expelled large quantities of greenhouse gasses, have caused ecological disasters in our oceans and have destroyed most of our natural resiliency trough deforestation. If this climate change is natural, then we have made its effects many times worse. If it isn’t natural, we have caused it. You can deny this, and you are welcome to do so, based on scientific arguments. I quite hope this will happen, it would be great if it turns out we were worried for nothing.

All we can do now is try to mitigate the consequences of climate change. We can reinforce vulnerable coasts, we can prevent desert forming, we can evacuate islanders who will lose their homes to the rising seas.
Looking back on my being a skeptic, I don’t actually feel that it was the wrong approach to take. The hysterical and insufferable group of people who attack skeptics are the main reason for that. They deny people the right for a dissenting opinion and often don’t bother to actually read the arguments made by skeptics, let alone reply with scientific arguments. This was experienced firsthand by the authors of the bestselling book on economics and incentive: Freakonomics. They wrote a sequel named Superfreakonomics and have a chapter about climate change.

In that chapter they talk about the possibility to influence nature. Influencing weather itself, and preventing hurricanes, may seem like science fiction but we may very well start doing this in the near future. They also talked about a theoretical idea to counter climate change. If we could somehow change the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, neutralize them, that might actually stop it.

Even before the book was published and before most people involved had actually read it, they were attacked on blogs and in the media and portrayed as climate skeptics. Anyone who reads the book knows that this is exactly opposite to the truth. They believe in climate change, they consider it a serious problem and consider the Kyoto approach to be severely lacking. They wrote about potential alternatives that would actually counter it. The pre-emptive reactions, let’s call them preactions, were very offensive and attacked them personally. All before people had read it, even though the book itself is very clear about them not doubting climate change. So why were they trolled?

This is why some people, including me, instinctively joined the opposition. The activists were reason enough to despise the whole movement.

But what if it wasn’t true? What if climate change was a myth, or what if it was actually completely natural? What if this was indeed the big scam some skeptics claim it is? We would have no defense against it. Skeptics are silenced, anyone who thinks there might be a better way to fight it is attacked.

That is unacceptable. Climate change is true, but that does not give anyone the right to declare it a dogma that can’t be doubted. That is not how it works. Doubters have the right to doubt, skeptics have the right to be skeptic and debate must never be silenced.

Even if the believers are right and the skeptics are wrong.

Disclosure: I am a member of the party Open Vld and live in Flanders. I believe BHV should be split. I am currently working for the government and will lose this job the moment the new government is sworn in.

At this moment Belgian politics are not focused on our presidency of the European Union or on the very real economic challenges the global crisis has given us, the increase in debt, the soaring number of public servants and red tape. The fact that our population is aging and our retirement system will not be able to cope, has been pushed aside.

You see, there is a political crisis in Belgium. Hardly surprising, when isn’t there a political crisis in Belgium? In truth, we have been in a cold war-like crisis for decades, with occasional eruptions. Everything has to do with the very complex political system in Belgium. If you already know it, you may want to skip ahead to the title “current developments”.

The Belgian political system (simplified)

Officially, we are a federal state, but we have given a very Belgian interpretation to the word “federal”. In the north you have Flanders. This is the region that borders the North Sea and has the ports of Antwerp, Zeebrugge and several others. People here speak Dutch and it is a generally prosperous region. In the south you have Wallonia where people speak French, except in a small region where people speak German. The capital, Brussels, is officially bilingual, although seldom so in practice. Brussels is not part of the region of Flanders or Wallonia. It is its own separate region.

In Flanders, as in Wallonia, there are two regional governments. One is geographical, based on region. The other one is based on culture and language. In Flanders we have merged these two, not so in Wallonia. The reason for there being two governments is because of the peculiar arrangement that has been made for Brussels. Brussels is situated in, but is not part of, Flanders. There is a government in Brussels with the same power as the Flemish and Walloon regional governments. But there is no second government in Brussels with power over cultural matters. People living in Brussels are considered to be either part of the French-speaking (Walloon) culture and community, or the Flemish one. So the Flemish and Walloon governments are responsible, each for their own community in Brussels but only on matters of culture.

Because Belgium is a federal state, the government necessarily is a coalition between parties from both states. There are no national parties to speak of, all parties are either Flemish or Walloon. Voters can only vote for people who live in their own state, divided into provinces. As a Flemish person you can not vote for someone who lives in Wallonia, and you can’t vote for someone living in Flanders if you live in Wallonia. The government will always be a coalition of several Flemish and several Walloon parties.

There is one exception to this. Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde is not a provincial constituency but consists of the capital, Brussels and a region in Flanders. Because of this, it is possible for people living in this constituency to vote for politicians who do not live in Flanders. Several French-speakers who migrated to Flanders, do this and this favors the French-speaking politicians who are electable in Brussels. It also means that Flemish voters who do not live in Brussels, can vote for members of the Brussels parliament.

The constitutional court has ruled that this is unconstitutional. But the French-speaking parties do not want to split BHV. They argue that we might as well solve the problem by changing the constitution. The Flemish politicians are opposed to this and demand that BHV is split.

Current developments

This crisis was almost solved in 2005 by then prime-minister Guy Verhofstadt and in 2007 promises were made by current prime-minister Yves Leterme. Earlier this year, former prime-minister Jean-Luc Dehaene failed in an attempt to finally solve the problem, prompting an ultimatum from a government party, Open Vld, who subsequently withdrew their support for the government and forced new elections.

The results of these elections were surprising. In the north the party N-VA won a landslide victory. They believe Belgium should be split and Flanders should become its own state. They agreed to enter negotiations, believing that more powers for Flanders and a split of BHV were a step in the right direction. In the south, the great winner was the PS, a socialist party who is opposed to giving the states more power. The two parties agreed to negotiate and have been doing this, together with possible coalition partners, for more than 75 days.

They planned for a broad reform that would include BHV but would also address some other issues such as more power and money for the states. The real bonus that would make the French-speaking parties eager to make the negotiation work, was the promise that the leader of the PS, Elio Di Rupo, would become prime minister. It would be the first Walloon prime minister in more than 50 years.

These negotiations have just failed. It is likely that an external negotiator will be brought in and will try to reconcile the parties. Currently, none of them are willing to bulge. This means that there is no new government and that the old government remains in place with limited power. Update: the king has refused to accept the resignation of Di Rupo, the leader of the PS, and has asked him to continue. This implicitly means that the king is sending a signal to all parties involved, although it is not certain this will have any impact.
Update: Di Rupo has resigned again. The King has kept this under advisement. This follows a thinly veiled attempt by the King and Di Rupo to put pressure on the possible coalition parties to accept the current proposals.

I normally don’t write about Belgian politics but have written this article to help my foreign readers understand this… special situation.

Ranked by population, North Korea is probably be the most discussed country in the world. Odd perhaps, the Hermit Kingdom is small, economically irrelevant and relies on international help to keep its population alive. A population that is constantly bombarded with propaganda yet attempts to flee the country every chance they get. Punishment is either execution or imprisonment for life, often for the entire family. The people of North Korea live in a culture of terror, frozen in time. The official economic doctrine is that of “Juche”. Basically meaning that the state should be able to sustain itself on all fronts. (also known as autarky)

It makes one wonder how this state can sustain itself. Not that there is much of a working state. It seems that the only government apparatus that actually works, are the secret police and the military. Most of the economy relies on foreign aid, meant as a way to appease and prevent mass-starvation.

North-Korea’s economy was, just like Cuba’s, based on cheap trade with communist superpowers. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the increasing popularity of the free market in China was the beginning of a crisis that probably will never end. Kim Jong-Il inherited an anachronistic stalinist dictatorship with a collapsing economy and no hope of improvement.

What he needed was a miracle. Something that would make his country relevant, would prevent an invasion, would allow him to keep his borders closed and that he could use to negotiate aid to keep his people alive. A nuclear weapon would do just that. But there is something here that reminds me of a certain era during the Cold War.

During the Cold War, U.S.-president Nixon followed a political and military strategy that was based on game theory. His strategy was meant to make the leaders of the Soviet Union believe that he was somewhat mad and aggressive. So much in fact that he might start an unprovoked nuclear attack against the Soviet Union at any time. The slightest occurrence could tip the scales and make him order nuclear destruction. Basically, this made the whole idea of nuclear deterrence rather moot. A mad man could not be expected to care about mutually assured destruction. Add the fact that during Nixon’s presidency, bombers armed with nukes were constantly airborne, often rather close to Soviet territories.

The Soviet Union went out of their way to make sure there was nothing that could offend Nixon. The slightest diplomatic disagreement was potentially disastrous and had to be avoided. In theory, even a first nuclear strike by Nixon could have been met with diplomacy and talks.

Now let’s look back to North Korea and Kim Jong-Il. Is he mad? Mad enough to use nuclear weapons? There are very few people in the world who can confidently answer that question with “no”. Kim Jong-Il may, in our minds, very well use his nukes. What’s more, he might use them unprovoked and there is no predicting where he will send them. This means that his nuclear weapons are much more than a powerful deterrent against possible invasion, it also becomes a very good reason to appease him and let him preserve his status quo.

We should really think about the possibility that Kim Jong-Il is a very rational man who has devised a brilliant strategy to maintain his position indefinitely. And the fact that we will never be sure about this, is why it works. The incident with the South Korean ship that was torpedoed by North Korea might have been human error or an overzealous captain, but it might also have been an attempt to reinforce the idea that Kim Jong-Il is a dangerous man who should be feared.

What would happen if Kim Jong-Il uses his nukes? The Taepodong-missile has a theoretical reach of 2500 to 6000 kilometers (the 6000 km range is disputed). That means they might reach certain parts of the United States. The incentive for appeasement becomes larger with every increase, even theoretical, of missile range.

But, what if Kim Jong-Il isn’t a rational person. What if he is in fact just as delusional as we make him out to be? What would be his goal?

The propaganda North Koreans are fed may shed some light on this. They still claim that an invasion by U.S. troops could happen any day, that South Korea is an occupied territory where people are somewhat wealthier but are oppressed by the U.S. And they still talk about eventual unification.

If North Korea uses nuclear and chemical weapons against the capital of South Korea and American military installations, they will be able to march right in. The North Koreans might be surprised at fierce resistance by the population, but they are a massive military force, trained to be absolutely ruthless. If there is no foreign military intervention, they may very well take the peninsula.

But the chance of there being no foreign military intervention is as good as zero. China, Japan and the U.S. all have good reasons to intervene immediately. An invasion, even aided with nuclear weapons, would fail and would mean the end of North Korea.

It seems like the status quo is the best Kim Jong-Il could hope for. He is currently preparing one of his youngest sons to take power. Kim Jong-Un was raised in luxury, educated in Switzerland, is fluent in English and likes basketball. If he took power, he would most likely be a reformer (but not a revolutionary) and would probably introduce more civil liberties and trade (but not too much). This shows to me that Kim Jong-Il realizes his position and understands that change is inevitable. What better way to accept this than organizing it?

Change is coming to North Korea. And surprisingly, the great champion of change might be the same family that has oppressed it for decades.

There has been a lot of commotion about the planned mosque near the remains of the WTC-towers. Many people believe this to be insensitive, a provocation even. They argue that a mosque near the location of the most infamous example of muslim terrorism is unacceptable. It is a very emotional debate, with mothers of victims speaking out against a giant mosque looming over the place where their children died. The mosque is perceived as a symbol of triumph to commemorate the attacks.

Of course, those people are wrong.

The 9-11 attacks were not an action of Islam against the West. They were the actions of a small group of fanatics and quite a lot of the victims were muslims. The idea that the United States was under attack by the forces of Islam is utterly false. Al Quada is not Islam, Bin Laden is nothing more than a gang leader with a history of violence who happens to have access to a massive fortune. Their greatest feat was that they set up all muslims in the U.S. to share the blame. That way, those muslims feel very disconnected, they are being cast outside, suddenly are no longer welcome.

The public outcries against the mosque are a very clear example. Muslims are the scapegoats for crimes committed by others who also call themselves muslims. All this is happening in the country that used to prize its freedom above everything.

Freedom isn’t free. You have to pay for it and it is the most expensive thing in the world. It seems that many no longer want to pay that price. They demand conformity to an ideal with the argument that it is how the U.S. should be. They invoke the words of men dead for over 200 years to argue their case. They are willing to let everyone be free, as long as they use that freedom to be white, middle class, protestant and preferably not intellectual. The disdain they have for anything else seems to be the result of a deeply rooted inferiority complex and they are taking it out on that minority that is under siege, the easiest target, the scapegoats. I will not go so far as to mention anything that would fall under Godwin’s law. We are not quite that far yet. But we are getting closer and the free world is set to lose the diamond in its crown. The country that has always been the great champion of freedom, justice and democracy seems to have lost all its values.

Freedom cannot exist without tolerance for the right of people to be different, to make other choices. The moment tolerance vanishes, freedom becomes oppression.

And the sad thing is, this debate is not based on facts. There are no plans for a big mosque in a traditional style, it would not be named “Cordoba house”, it would not be visible from Ground Zero. The plans are for the building of an Islamic community center that would give cooking lessons, offer day care and would look like a typical office building, several blocks away from Ground Zero. Yes there would be a prayer space, but so what? There are several protestant and catholic churches that are a lot closer to ground zero than this community center would be. A community center that is based on the example of a Jewish community center that is known for free dialogue with other religions.

If this community center gets built, it will be a striking blow to Islam fundamentalists, because it will be an instrument for dialogue and understanding. There is nothing fanatics fear more.

And on top of that: I thought New York was in America? Where there is freedom of religion, free speech and where property rights are respected? You can only forbid the building of the community center if you are willing to trample all over those values. Values that were meant to protect the United States against bigots, fanatics and idiots.

You should also watch this video by Keith Olbermann.

For all those who argue the U.S. is a Christian nation: a comment from the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797.

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility [sic], of Mussulmen [Muslims];[...]“.

There was a time in my life when I would declare myself to be a libertarian and would vehemently argue its cause in ideological debates.

But the past few years, I have come to doubt if that label really covers my principles and ideology.

The first doubt arose during discussions about war. I defended the position that war can in some situations be justified and can even be the only possible course of action in certain hypothetical cases. After all, if dictators rule with an iron fist, if a minority oppresses a majority or a majority a minority, if human rights are trod upon there must be a reaction, it must be stopped by every means necessary. If that is war, then war is the right course of action.

“Not true” argued my opponent. By advocating war in that situation I neglected the principle of non-initiation of violence and I also ignored the fact that military action would require money, that was taken by taxation, a violation of private property.

I rebutted that in a hypothetical situation a volunteer army, or a professional one funded by voluntary donation, was entirely possible, but that in a realistic situation I would indeed be in favor of a state-run army, paid with taxes if that was the only realistic military body available to right the injustice. I dismissed the non-initiation of violence argument because it would not be an initiation, it would be a reaction to the violence committed by the oppressive regime. The fact that the oppressed were not the same as the ones reacting against it was irrelevant in my mind.

My opponent, and to my surprise several other attendees, disagreed. Revolution was the answer, the oppressed had to rise up and a state had no right to tax its citizens in order to pay for a military intervention.
This bothered me quite a bit. As much as I was, and am, a defender of private property, I did not believe this could outweigh the fate of an enslaved individual. Yet I realized that my opponent had a point when he argued that my desire to intervene made something like a state, a military and a means to finance this, necessary.

Could I still call myself a libertarian if I believed that a state with a military apparatus was necessary and if I was all too willing to send that military into war against regimes that committed atrocities against their people?

I was not willing, or rather I was simply unable, to change my beliefs. I could not help but argue in favor of humanitarian military intervention. And I had to admit that while the no-state idea was appealing, I also considered it to be an impossible ideal.

In truth, I was and am an advocate of liberty. You cannot advocate liberty for yourself while excluding others. You can only advocate liberty if you consider it to be a right all people share equally. If any individual’s liberty is under siege, all liberty is under siege. An attack on the freedom of any one of us is an attack on the freedom of all of us. It is a philosophical good, a right we can only claim if we claim it for all.

I believe that in many cases military intervention is necessary and that we are hypocrites for helping some but not others. I believe that the liberty of the individual is a right that is universal. That it is a necessary consequence of consciousness.

Am I a libertarian? The more I ask myself that question, the less I care about the answer. What does it matter?

I remember a dinner in Brussels with a few international young people. One of them was a U.S. citizen and someone who was rather “in the know” about U.S. politics. He assured us that the support Obama seemed to have, would erode. Once the Clinton-machine started purring it would quickly overtake Obama, opening the possibility that his enthusiast supporters would be co-opted trough a Vice-Presidentship.

A few months later, millions cheered Yes we can! when the results catapulted a charismatic black man with a vision to the white house. I wasn’t on his side. But I couldn’t help but like him.

Now we are close to the two-year anniversary of his election and Obama has low approval ratings, the right has a new massive movement that is gaining support and the next elections will most likely cost the democrats dearly. How could it go so wrong?

Actually, it was to be expected that it would all go wrong. The message Obama spread was very clear: “We are going to change everything! Nothing is ever going to be the same again.” Change everything for everyone, for the better. That is a revolutionary promise and it just can’t be done. You can’t please everyone all the time, but the promise of Change meant just that. They created immense expectations, expectations that they simply can’t back up. Disappointment was inevitable.

Obama is president. There is still racism, poverty, violence… There is war in the world, Guantanamo is open, Iraq is occupied, Afghanistan is turning into a new Vietnam, the world still runs on oil, Bin Laden is still out there somewhere. What exactly has changed?

Of course you can’t change the world overnight. But that is exactly what was promised. Of course that couldn’t be done and of course the people are disappointed. And because of that they are going to take away the votes the Dems need to fix it. Not that they could if they had them.
Obama was elected trough a massive marketing campaign and has in fact fulfilled some of his promises. But he has done so without the flair, elegance and ease that people expected. Brilliant PR-moves were too few and far between. It seemed as if the administration couldn’t get a grip.

Obama pushed for a – flawed – system of universal healthcare that is based on a European model at a moment of global economic crisis. That was not the main concern of people and the result is less than fulfilling. On top of that it sparked the Tea Party that combines a demand for Reaganesque smaller government with a Bush-like care for deeply conservative values.

Obama promised a withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. But he forgot that Vietnam is still an undigested trauma. Not because of the root-causes and justification of war, but because the U.S. lost a war that can’t be lost. He doesn’t seem to realize that withdrawing before victory will be seen as defeat.

But none of that matters. The people have been disappointed because the promises were unrealistic. You cannot fix that by listing your achievements, that comes over as arrogant. By doing so, you dismiss the concerns people have. By blaming the Republicans, you make them seem more powerful and relevant because you admit they have the power to stop you.

Obama is in a bind. Even if he does more than any other president, he won’t have done enough.