.

Via Thomas Barnett, Daniel Pipes discusses the 751 Zones Urbaines Sensibes (Sensitive Urban zones) demarcated by the French Government, which are “are conveniently listed on one long webpage, complete with street demarcations and map delineations.”

Daniel goes on to state:

What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.”

Daniel declares that a more apt description for ZUS would be “Dar al-Islam, the place where Muslims rule”, but I feel that’s more of a provocative statement than an accurate one. A more appropriate description for ZUS would be “Gap Societies”.

In early 2005, I wrote a paper title “In the Midst of the Swarm: Reconceptualizing the (Mislabeled) Global War on Terrorism“, which called for a new framework of focus on the GWOT (Global War on Terrorism), looking to take account the swarm-like phenomena covered by John Robb and a social-level interpretation of Thomas Barnett’s Core v. Gap States.

One aspect of the paper defined “Gap Societies” in areas in Europe like ZUS:

Organizations like Al-Qaeda to Hizb ut-Tahrir are not just “terrorist groups” or “Islamist extremist,” but groups that represent a worldwide social movement that transcend nation-states, Core or Gap states or civilization blocks. Thus, there is a need to focus on different social groups inside Core and Gap states that are disconnected from the larger society and how they related to other states and societies globally.

…Borrowing again from Barnett, one may call these alienated segment of the European Muslim diasporas as being “Gap” societies, which are not fully integrated to where the live as locally to the state and globally to the world. In short, a particular segment of Muslims living in “Gap” societies – be it within the Core or Gap states – are the foundation for the militant Islamist social movement.

These Zones Urbaines Sensibes (Sensitive Urban Zones) sound very much like “Gap Societies” that exist outside the fabric of French society, economy and law, while being physically inside France. Just as the United States and other states must take a lead in helping closing the Gap States where they remain, governments must act to close the gaps (connect “Gap Societies”) that exist within their states. This is the best path to succeed in the Long War.

The arrest, part of Operation Suez, is one a specific evidence of fighters in Iraq returning to Europe, perhaps to start sleeper sells or find more recruits for the War in Iraq. Regardless of the exact reasons, there is now more concrete evidence of the Mujahideen network in Europe and Iraq linking up:

The ring that Operation Suez discovered illustrates the extent to which al-Qaeda satellite support rings have established themselves in Europe. This cell went undetected for two years despite Bousbaa’s previous arrest. The arrests lend more credence to pronouncements by Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon, who has led high-level inquiries into al-Qaeda in Spain, and by Pierre de Bousquet, the head of France’s domestic security service, several months ago that implied that foreign fighters in Iraq are already returning to Europe to re-establish or establish new networks to support terrorist operations in Europe.

Ultimately, Operation Suez demonstrates with hard evidence one of the consequences if Iraq slides to a failed (rather than failing) state. How long before another Madrid or London type bombing occurs brought on by groups with “Iraqi field training”?

“America tends to underestimate the political cost of this. One post-communist minister recalls trying vainly to convince his American counterparts that staying in Iraq was rather unpopular at home. American military aid to the new democracies has been stingy. And the cost and hassle of America’s visa policies grate harshly. “Estonians don’t understand why their sons are dying in Iraq for democracy and freedom, and yet their families can’t get visas for the United States,” says Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a former foreign minister.

So far, only Slovenia’s 1.9m people have visa-free travel to America. Poland and the Czech Republic have lobbied hard; so did Mrs Vike-Freiberga on her recent trip. But there is little sign of change. In most post-communist countries, each visa application costs a non-refundable $100—a week’s wages. In Romania, even the appointment costs $11, for seven minutes of telephone time.” (Empahsis Mine)

Comment
To be fair to the Bush Administration, the US has lobbied hard for the “Big Bang” approach that has led many of “New Europe” states to be accepted into the EU and has given Central Europe some voice in the world stage through branding them as part of a “New Europe”.

However, the US must follow though on building a relationship with these states. While sending troops to Iraq has bought countries like Estonia closer ties to the US, simple things like visa-restriction fail to show what clear benefit such sacrifices provide back.

Just like at home, the Bush Administration should pursue a campaign to show the people – of Estonia, Poland etc – the benefits of closer ties with the US. Currently, we’re not doing that (or enough) and worse than that we’re losing our chance to prove these people right the next time around.

Additionally, while countries like Bulgaria and Slovenia are small, they represent members of a growing bloc – the European Union – and a post-nation-state identify of “Europeanness”. The US must reach out – both at government and public level – to those who are receptive to the US.

Indeed, reaching out to the Central Europe region (where in Hungary there is a statue in honor of Ronald Reagan in remembrance of the Cold War), can act as a balance to the German and French states, while the US could also provide security against the fear of a possibly reassertive and aggressive Russia (as long as the EU remains anemic in security terms).

Let’s hope that the Post-Bush Administration, whatever that maybe – will take things into the positive direction, if the current Administration cannot.

Italy: Prime Silvio Minsiter Berlusconi’s lost in April’s elections has paved the way for Romano Prodi to take lead as the succeeding Prime Minister. Prodi has discussed pulling out the 2,700 Italian troops (3rd largest contingent in Iraq). The latest targeting against Italian troops in Iraq will expedite such moves; indeed, CounterTerrorBlog discusses that Al-Qaida hopes to bully Italy to withdraawing, doing what it did against Spain with.

US: Mid-term elections are coming around very soon for the US, leaving many Republican nervous. With President Bush hitting every lower and lower approval ratings and increased Republican-infighting, we should expect Democrats to make gains against the Republicans. If they will recapture Congress is not known, but things can only get worse for the Republicans – and so the support for the Iraq War will suffer.

The Consequences
The fourth largest contingent of forces, from South Korea, are already beginning their partial pullout, paring down “1,000 of its 3,200 soldiers remaining in the country” by the end of this year. Italy, with the coming establishing of Prodi’s government, will most likely pull out its forces out of Iraq perhaps by the end of the year. The UK, American’s venerable ally, could be next when Prime Minister Tony Blair steps down. A very scary situation for supporters of the Iraq War.

With the “Coalition of the Willing” already mocked for its lack of many major powers, the list of nations (listed by the Coalition’s web site) will look even thinner.

Shakeup in the CIA, raising oil prices and the Iran Crisis are putting President Bush in an ever weaker position in the mainstream press and the masses (as the polls show). As more announcements on withdrawals will be announced, support of the war will fall into an ever deeper lull.

Still, the StrategyPage still looks pretty optimistic over the conditions in Iraq:

“[Violence] keeps the foreign journalists happy, but the local reporters are more concerned with the street crime and corrupt government officials…Most of the patrols and raids are now conducted by Iraqi troops, who are well aware of the fact that they are still fighting Saddam.”

But the overall feeling Americans and the world will have is “if the US is wining the war in Iraq, why is everyone pulling out? Abandoning the US?” The counterpoint that the more successful Iraqi government troops continue to be the more the Coalition Forces can step down will sound too convenient of an answer.

While the US has been and needs to slowly withdrawing some troops from Iraq as Iraqi Government forces standup, US withdrawal under media and public calls for an immediate pullout may only embolden and encourage the insurgents and US enemies.

While not perfect analogies, British troops remained in Malaysia for over 10 years to quell the Communist rebellion and similar numbers of years were spent by US forces in the 1899–1913 Philippine Insurrection (though with a high cost of civilian life). A better analogy is that Japan did not receive its sovereignty from the Allies until 1952.

We are only in Year 3 of the Post-Saddam Iraq Era. While the world and even the US public will increase pressure on withdrawing US forces, we need to remember that the Iraq Project is a long term project – longer than a single election cycle – and will have a profound effect on the Middle East, the World and most importantly the Iraqi People for generations to come. It is sad irony that elections in the democracies of the UK, Italy et al may imperil democracy in Iraq.

For a view supporting “Cut and Run” from Iraq, see Lt. Gen. William E. Odom’s article “ Cut and Run? You Bet” in Foreign Policy, May/June 2006.

The Observer reports leaks regarding the July 7 London subway bombing inquiry by the British Government:

The official inquiry into the 7 July London bombings will say the attack was planned on a shoestring budget from information on the internet, that there was no ‘fifth-bomber’ and no direct support from al-Qaeda, although two of the bombers had visited Pakistan.

While this is not surprising news in itself (if indeed, these leaks are accurate), this confirms the difficulty and the nature of the threat in this (for a lack of a better name) the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The enemy we face is larger, bigger than Al-Qaida or Bin Laden – it is a worldview, an idea – something that cannot be easily stopped.

According to the report, the attacks were largely motivated by concerns over foreign policy and the perception that it was deliberately anti-Muslim, although the four men were also driven by the promise of immortality.

As mentioned in earlier post, “Global Swarm: Explaining GWOT through Thomas Barnett, Huntington, Global Guerillas “, the threat we face is a cocktail mix of religion and issues of social justice (mix of real/exaggerated/false etc) with an overall feeling of the persecution of Muslims (The Ummah) around the world. Defeating such a “movement” will indeed be a Long War.

The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday.

In an interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show “prudence” when covering religion.

“The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,” he told the newspaper. “We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.” (Empahsis Mine)

In StrategyUnit’s commentary on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed Cartoons, I stated:

The gulf and difference in values, assumptions and perception between millions of Muslims and what the West (esp. the sacredness of the freedom of speech) is not to be underestimated. This is a real division that exists between the cultures and a wedge that fundamentalist at both sides can drive and finally nail down to make the “Clash of Civlizations” a defacto truth.

Sadly, StrategyUnit has miscalculated the sense “sacredness” over free speech that EU officials are willing to state publicly. Eugene Volokh sums it up well, here:

When you say something like that against a backdrop of thugs burning embassies and killing people in reaction to your citizens’ speech, appeasement and surrender are exactly what’s going on, “voluntary” rules or not. Millions of Europeans should feel humiliated that one of their super-government’s officials is even proposing this.

On Slate Magazine today, Francis Fukayama’s “Europe vs. Radical Islam” takes to tasks the rash of “decline of Europe, raise of Eurabia” books that have been hitting American shelves lately, specifically “The West’s Last Chance” by Tony Blankley and “While Europe Slept” by Bruce Bawer. However, Fukayama focuses on the most extreme and perhaps even founder of the “decline of the West” crowd: Pat Buchanan’s “Decline of the West”.

Oddly and disappointingly, Fukayama skips over Bat Ye’or “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis “, though he mentions the word. Its a shame because Eurabia is probably the most credible of all four books that addresses the subject with the fullest sense of reason and moderation with no wild scenerios like the type Blankey represents. Why this major omission?

Regardless, I believe Fukayama goes to the heart of the issue of Muslims in Europe and shifts the question on the need for Europeans to redefine what it means to be British, French, Germany…what it means to be European:

The problem that most Europeans face today is that they don’t have a vision of the kinds of positive cultural values their societies stand for and should promote, other than endless tolerance and moral relativism. What each European society needs is to invent an open form of national identity similar to the American creed, an identity that is accessible to newcomers regardless of ethnicity or religion. This was the idea behind Bassam Tibi’s concept of Leitkultur (guiding or reference culture), the notion that the European Enlightenment gave rise to a distinct and positive universalist culture based on the dignity of the individual. Muslims coming to Europe would be minimally expected to accept this perspective as their own. The German Christian Democrats timidly endorsed a version of this five years ago, only to retreat in the face of charges of racism and anti-immigrant prejudice from the left. Interest in a “demokratische Leitkultur” has been revived in the wake of recent events, however, and a vigorous debate has opened up over how to define it. There will be many missteps along the way: The state of Baden-Württemberg, for example, recently introduced a test that would require the respondent to support gay marriage as a condition for citizenship, something deliberately designed to exclude Muslims.

Time is getting short to address these questions. Europeans should have started a discussion about how to integrate their Muslim minorities a generation ago, before the winds of radical Islamism had started to blow. The cartoon controversy, while beginning with a commendable European desire to assert basic liberal values, may constitute a Rubicon that will be very hard to re-cross. We should be alarmed at the scope of the problem, but prudent in responding to it, since escalating cultural conflict throughout the Continent will bring us closer to a showdown between Islamists and secularists that will increasingly look like a clash of civilizations.

Fukayama nails on the head that Europe needs to find out what being European means before they began a process of incorporating other groups into their societies. The threat of a “Clash of Civlizations” in Europe is very real but fortunately has not fully materialized yet. Time is running short, but that doesnt mean its too late.

The Jyllands-Posten cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad have sparked a global culture clash being seen around the world. Brussels Journal has done an exemplery job covering this event as it unfolds and their article, “The War is On“, is among others a must read.

The implications on Islamic terror is profound, as the the Wretched has noted: “The holy grail of every agitator is to find an issue on which both sides are unalterably opposed. Radical Islam has found it the blasphemy of Mohammed and ironically gave those who would rouse the West a mirror issue of their own: the blasphemy of censorship and the extinction of freedom of speech.”

The Clash of Cultural: A Counterpoint

What is missing in the conservative blogosphere is any serious analysis about what is the perspective of the “other side”. In today’s Asia Times Online, Ehsan Ahrari presents us with this view. Aharai is a respected strategic analyst, former professor at Armed Forces Staff College and has written written numerous papers for the US Military’s Strategic Studies Institute. His views, though contrarian to many in the West, should be taken seriously.

Here are excerpts from Ahari’s “Cartoons and the clash of ‘freedoms’“:

What seems to be notably different about the era after the terror attacks in 2001 is that no subject, and nothing, is sacred in the West, especially when it comes to Muslims and Islam.
…
In Austria, it is against the law to make any statements denying the occurrence of the Holocaust. But one can say anything about Islam and get away with it. Aren’t Muslims right when they take the position that there is an open season against their religion, and that the exercise of freedom of expression is used only as a “civilized” excuse for insulting them?
…
In the West, freedom of expression is considered sacred. For a number of people, that freedom might even be regarded as absolute, thereby allowing an individual to insult even someone’s faith. Two issues must be clearly understood regarding this controversy. First, for Muslims, nothing and no one is above Islam. No one should be allowed to be disrespectful about anything remotely associated with Islam. Having an open discussion regarding the Islamic faith is perfectly acceptable. Insulting Islam is not. That old adage about disagreeing without being disagreeable (or offensive) is fully applicable here. Second, not many understand in the West that a requirement of the completion of the faith for Muslims is to love and respect the Prophet of their religion. That might also be an alien notion, especially among secular Westerners for whom freedom of expression has remained an integral part of their secular puritanism.

Freedom of speech is indeed a noble idea. To state that it should have no limits (or that it should be absolute) may be a useful academic exercise, but one should also keep in mind that such an exercise of freedom could also lead to the same kind of deleterious consequences as when one screams “fire” in a packed theater. Thus it is not enough to couch the whole argument about drawing caricatures of the Prophet under the rubric of freedom of speech, and thereby dismiss (or even be derisive about) the religious sensitivities of millions of Muslims. Why is it that the golden rule related to the insanity (or illegality) of yelling “fire” in a packed theater is not being applied here? That, in the final analysis, is the question the Western zealots of freedom of speech should answer. (Empahsis mine)

Read Ehsan Ahrari article over slowly. And then go over the quote from the Wretched again. It seems both cultures are at an impasse, but in the long run who will acquiescence?

The gulf and difference in values, assumptions and perception between millions of Muslims and what the West (esp. the sacredness of the freedom of speech) is not to be underestimated. This is a real division that exists between the cultures and a wedge that fundamentalist at both sides can drive and finally nail down to make the “Clash of Civlizations” a defacto truth.

——————
Update: The Brussel Journal points out that maybe the idea of freedom of speech being a sacred law in the West (at least in Europe) is not so true as it seems. Paul Belien, the author, has a point.

Update2: Tariq Ramadan discusses his own view of the matter here: Cartoon Controversy is not a Matter of Free Speech, but Civic Responsibility

These topics are less sexy than terrorism and oil prices; and addressing its challenges will be far more difficult too. Changing climates and changing demographics will cause major shifts on a very wide horizontal level- it will effect every aspect of the state from domestic issues like pensions to the state’s relative global power.

Because these changes will cause ripples on a wide horizontal space of issues, these challenges can reset the global configuration of power more so than terrorism can; this fact must not be forgotten.

Cold Spell in Europe and Economic Troubles
As being widely reported, much of Europe has fallen under a severe cold spell sending much of Europe well below freezing point. In the wake of the Russian-Ukrainian natural gas issue, there is the question of how vulnerable is Europe’s energy needs if such cold spells become increasingly common. The OilDrum has the scoop on how Gazprom has been unable to meet its commitments due to high energy demand brought on by the unusually bitter cold.

And if these cold spells will become more permanent, what is the economic loss brought on by the increasing cold? People are more likely to stay indoors away from the cold, infrastructure and agriculture would be hit hard by the cold and so on. Energy crisis brought-on by general energy scarcity and shift in the climate can cause more damage than that of terrorism.

There is no way for sure (yet) to know if this recent cold spell will be a more common feature of Europe and if its related to a wider climate change. But, the current events in Europe demostrate the challenges that will increasingly be faced by states as the climate changes.

Europe’s Demography Problem and Global Power
The issue of demographics is nothing new, but this week’s media reports illustrate that its becoming part of the normal daily discussion, along with all other national concerns. Indeed, this week’s issue of BusinessWeek has an article titled “How Europe Can Age Gracefully“, which outlines policy changes needed in the short-term to lessen the economic shock of a graying Europe.

And here are other articles from this week:

Telegraph UK: The Celtic canary in the UK’s coal mine

This was a story by Peter MacMahon, the paper’s “Scottish Government Editor”, and it begins thus: “Scotland’s demographic time bomb will explode in three years, when the number of pensioners north of the Border overtakes the number of children in school, the Executive has been warned.”

Seems straightforward enough: the country’s demographic death spiral is accelerating faster than expected. And, as far as the Scotsman is concerned, the alarming thing about this development is that it could put cushy state teaching jobs “in doubt”.

For crying out loud, man, get a grip. It puts every job “in doubt”. It puts the continued existence of your country “in doubt”. And it means the Scottish National Party is going through the motions: nobody needs a Scottish nation if there are no more Scottish nationals. See you, Jimmeh? Not for much longer.

AP: “German leaders wake up to shrinking population”

“Each generation is being reduced by about a third,” said Norbert Walter, chief economist at Deutsche Bank. “The consequences are foreseeable,” he added, referring to the financial havoc a shrinking population is causing in areas ranging from the increasingly underfunded state pension system to weak consumer spending and sagging property values.

These articles discuss the issue at a limited domestic level, but what about the geopolitical and geoeconomic implications? If most of Europe’s population continues its decline, its population decline will be matched by economic decline and decline of world power. Things in Europe can still change but otherwise the whole European Project may die and with it will be the notion that Europe as one of the key centers of global power.

Who will replace them? Will it be India, Brazil and others? Even China has demographic issues to contend.

Declining birthrates in places like Europe, Japan and Russia and increasing immigration in once homogenous states (like France) is becoming an issue of mainstream discussion. Just last week (January 04 & 05), the WSJ and the Economist both ran articles on the issue of demographics, commenting on the opposite ends but equally faulty premises. One seeing immigration and demographics change as signaling the decline of the West (WSJ) and the other tends to underplay the challenge of declining birthrate and changing demographics (Economist).

The impact of changing demographics are analyzed through the New Republic’s piece on the Netherlands, on the effects of Muslim immigration and the socio-political upheaval (a turn to the Right) it has caused in a state stereotyped as an uber-liberal country.

The challenge facing Netherlands (and other countries) is a major one: it is the challenge of successfully transitioning from a nation-state to a market-state. Indeed, Philip Bobbitt has already foresaw such issues in his seminal work The Shield of Achilles:

“Whereas the nation-state based its legitimacy on a promise to better the material well-being of the nation, the market-state promises to maximize the opportunity of each individual citizen…The current conflict is one of several possible wars of the market-states as they seek to open up societies to trade in commerce, ideas, and immigration which excite hostility in those groups that want to use law to enforce religious or ethnic orthodoxy.” (Emphasis mine)

The Economist Optimist versus WSJ “Death of the West”

Economist: The Market Will Solve Everything

Here’s an except from the Economist (Jan 5th 2006), Incredible shrinking countries:

The crucial question is therefore what the effect of demographic decline is on the growth of GDP per person. The bad news is that this looks likely to slow because working-age populations will decline more rapidly than overall populations. Yet this need not happen. Productivity growth may keep up growth in GDP per person: as labour becomes scarcer, and pressure to introduce new technologies to boost workers’ efficiency increases, so the productivity of labour may rise faster. Anyway, retirement ages can be lifted to increase the supply of labour even when the population is declining.

The Economist seems to completely ignore the host of issues surrounding population decline: 1) Solvency on Social Welfare; 2) How to fashion smart immigration policies; 3) Deep socio-cultural questions of what it means to be a nation with a shrinking population; 4) Potential geopolitical consequences (think “emptying Russia v. China”); and so on.

The fact that the article completely ignores the pressure for immigration to solve labor shortage and the difficulty many countries face integrating immigrants is dismaying. Indeed, last Wednesday the U.S. Chamber of Commerce mentioned:

“The United States faces a severe worker shortage in the near future, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said Wednesday in advocating better education for Americans and changes in immigration law to allow in more foreign workers.”

Additionally, the Economist blindly places its faith on the Market to produce “new technologies”, but many states do not have an effective market, the ability to invest in new technologies or lack of good governance.

Mark Steyn at WSJ: The Muslim Horde is Coming!

And here’s a bizarrely alarmist opinion piece on WSJ by Mark Steyn, “It’s The Demography, Stupid“:

The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they’re flying planes into buildings for they’re likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock ‘em over?

The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction… A society that has no children has no future.

Mark Steyn paints the picture of a great Muslims Horde overrunning the West, probably starting with Europe. He seems to fear some growing tide of “non-natives” taking over “our land” with their “different” values. This is the stuff of “Bill the Butcher” from “Gangs of New York“.

The Challenge in Netherlands

It would be foolish not to say that the French Riots of 2005 has put some currency in Steyn thinking. Indeed, such problems even exist in Netherlands, a country seen by many as a liberal ideal. Many have turned reactionary right in the face of Muslim immigration. As noted in TNR, Holland has the “second-largest per capita Muslim population in the European Union, after France.” And with comes with the fear like that of Pim Fortuyn, the seemingly paradoxical fear against Muslims immigrants because of the perception that they will undermine Holland’s liberal culture:

And, in June 2004, a study showed that 86 percent of Dutch natives felt threatened by Holland’s Muslim population–this while only 33 percent acknowledged knowing anything about them other than what they saw on television or in the streets.

Reading the entire TNR piece is a must, but it suffice to say here that especially since Fortuyn and Van Gogh murders, Netherlands has seen its political landscape shifting to the right, especially regarding immigration, Islam and terrorism. Related to this is a recent flight of Dutch natives to Anglo states like Canada and New Zealand. A slew of new laws on terrorism and immigration have made Netherlands from required “social orientation” classes for immigrants to government surveillance of most forms of communications.

All of this, along with the French Riots, sounds like the fulfillment of Mark Steyn views, but suffers from the inability to see any alternative future. What the French Riots and the situation in Netherlands represents is the challenge of adjusting to new realities. Europe and other places like Japan need immigrants to sustain the labor force. The Economist is correct that the focus should be on “growth in GDP per person”, but it obvious that there will be labor shortage in certain industries. For example, U.S. agriculture is heavily dependent on Mexican migrants. Most Americans would shun such backbreaking labour.

Declining birthrates of “natives”, increasing immigration and changing demographics bring up several important issues to a State:

1. Immigration: what type of immigrations do they want? What policies can encourage such immigrants to come?
2. National Identity: How do states like those in Europe build a national society beyond the idea of shared history and ethnicity?
3. Integration: Related to National Identity is “how to integrate and define the relationship of immigrants?”
4. Effects on the Socialist Economy: Labour practices in places like France make it difficult to fire employees, which also make it difficult to get hired unless a person has special connections – something recent immigrants are at a disadvantage for.
5. Solvency of Welfare System: Declining population (esp. lost of potential high income earners) put stress on the Welfare system that needs to be adjusted.

In essence, its becoming all about the market-state. What policies should the government take to help maximize

Conclusion
Changing demographics (like changing climate) will become a bigger problem and challenge for many states than the “Global War on Terrorism”. But we cannot approach the demographic challenge by placing full faith on the Market, or turn xenophobic in our fear of some “Muslim Horde” (or the “Yellow Horde” if you are Russian).

Many of these issues listed above are not only about building a multinational state but part of a larger conflict and larger evolutionary step towards a market-state.

I cannot comment too much on Japan, China or Russia’s demographic challenge, but for Europe it is ultimately the next generation of Europeans, those who have no recollection of what it was like to be German or French before all the changes of the Maastrict Treaty, that will lead Europe to a market-state system.

Just last week (January 04 & 05), the WSJ and the Economist both ran articles on the issue of demographics, commenting on the opposite ends but equally faulty premises. One seeing immigration and demographics change as signaling the decline of the West (WSJ) and the other tends to underplay the challenge of declining birthrate and changing demographics (Economist).

The impact of changing demographics are analyzed through the New Republic’s piece on the Netherlands, on the effects of Muslim immigration and the socio-political upheaval (a turn to the Right) it has caused in a state stereotyped as an uber-liberal country.

The challenge facing Netherlands is a major one: it is the challenge of successfully transitioning from a nation-state to a market-state or to maintaining an ethnic-based nation-state idenity while risking demographically imploding. Indeed, Philip Bobbitt has already forsaw such issues in his seminal work The Shield of Achilles:

“The current conflict is one of several possible wars of the market-states as they seek to open up societies to trade in commerce, ideas, and immigration which excite hostility in those groups that want to use law to enforce religious or ethnic orthodoxy.”

Economist Optimist versus WSJ “Death of the West”

Economist: The Market Will Solve Everything

Here’s an except from the Economist (Jan 5th 2006), Incredible shrinking countries:

The crucial question is therefore what the effect of demographic decline is on the growth of GDP per person. The bad news is that this looks likely to slow because working-age populations will decline more rapidly than overall populations. Yet this need not happen. Productivity growth may keep up growth in GDP per person: as labour becomes scarcer, and pressure to introduce new technologies to boost workers’ efficiency increases, so the productivity of labour may rise faster. Anyway, retirement ages can be lifted to increase the supply of labour even when the population is declining.

The Economist seems to completely ignore the host of issues surrounding population decline: 1) Solvency on Social Welfare; 2) How to handle immediate needs on military manpower; 3) How to fashion smart immigration policies; 4) Deep socio-cultural questions of what it means to be a nation with a shrinking population; 5) Potential geopolitical consequences (think “emptying Russia v. China”); and so on.

The fact that the article completely ignores the pressure for immigration to solve labor shortage and the difficulty many countries face integrating immigrants is dismaying.

Indeed, last Wednesday the U.S. Chamber of Commerce mentioned:

“The United States faces a severe worker shortage in the near future, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said Wednesday in advocating better education for Americans and changes in immigration law to allow in more foreign workers.”

Additionally, the Economist blindly places its faith on the Market to produce “new technologies”, but markets in many states can be far from functioning and may not be effective enough to allow the needed technological innovation. And some states may not be able invest in these new technology for a lack of good governance or a host of other reasons.

Mark Steyn at WSJ: The Muslim Horde is Coming!

And here’s a bizarrely alarmist opinion piece on WSJ by Mark Steyn, “It’s The Demography, Stupid“:

The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they’re flying planes into buildings for they’re likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock ‘em over?

The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction… A society that has no children has no future.

Mark Steyn paints the picture of a great Muslims horde overrunning the West, probably starting with Europe. He seems to fear some growing tide of “non-natives” taking over “our land” with their “different” values. This is the stuff of “Bill the Butcher” from “Gangs of New York“.

Case Study in Netherlands

It would be foolish not to say that the French Riots of 2005 has put some currency in Steyn thinking. Indeed, in Netherlands – the bastion of all things liberal – the we see this problem most acutely. As noted in TNR, Holland has the “second-largest per capita Muslim population in the European Union, after France.” And with comes with the fear like that of Pim Fortuyn, the seemingly paradoxal fear against Muslims immigrants because of the perception that they will undermine Holland’s liberal culture:

And, in June 2004, a study showed that 86 percent of Dutch natives felt threatened by Holland’s Muslim population–this while only 33 percent acknowledged knowing anything about them other than what they saw on television or in the streets.

Reading the entire TNR piece is a must, but it suffice to say here that especially since Fontuyn (sp) and Van Gogh murders, Netherlands has seen its political landscape shifting to the right, especially regarding immigration, Islam and terrorism. Related to this is a recent fligh of Dutch natives to Anglo states like Canada and New Zealand. A slew of new laws on terrorism and immigration have made Netherlands from required “social orientation” classes for immigrants to government surveillance of most forms of communications.

All of this sounds, along with the French Riots, sounds like the fullfillment of Mark Steyn views, but Steyn fault is his inability to see no alternative future. The American transformation to a multinational state (or rather a “United States”) is what the Netherlands should look closely at. Ethnic strife is not the only possible future, but policies in Europe and elsewhere must change.

What the French Riots and the situation in Netherlands represents is the challenge of adjusting to new realities. Europe and other places like Japan need immigrants to sustain the labor force. Economist is correct that the focus should be on “growth in GDP per person”, but it obvious that there will be labor shortage in certain industries. Take for example, U.S. agriculture is heavily dependent on Mexican migrants. Most Americans would shun such backbreaking labour.

Declining birthrates of “natives”, increasing immigration and changing demographics brings up several important issues to a State:

1. Immigration: what type of immigrations do they want? What policies can encourage such immigrants to come?
2. National Identity: How do states like those in Europe build a national society beyond the idea of shared history and ethnicity?
3. Integration: Related to National Identity, is how to integreate and define the relationship of immigrants?
4. Effects on the Socialist Economy: Labour practices in places like France make it difficult to fire employees, which also make it difficult to get hired unless a person has special connections – something recent immigrants are at a disadvantage for.
5. Solvency of Welfare System: Declining population (esp. lost of potential high income earners) put stress on the Welfare system that needs to be adjusted.

Conclusion
Changing demographics (like changing climate) will become a bigger problem and challenge for many states than the “Global War on Terrorism”. But we cannot approach the demographic challenge by placing full faith on the Market, or turn xenophobic in our fear of some “Muslim Horde” (or the “Yellow Horde” if you are Russian).

Many of these issues listed above are not only about building a multinational state but part of a larger conflict and larger evolutionary step towards a market-state. States will need to adjust to the economic and security challenges of declining birthrates with proper polices on immigration and integration being an essential part of that adjustment.