Cargo culters

Cargo cults happen in primitive societies where people believe that performing some magic rites will bring in the white men with their rich resources. The term originates from Melanesia where an ancient belief that ancestors and gods could provide sudden richness combined with the modern experience of first missionaries and later - during World War II - soldiers bringing in huge resources. To seduce those ancestors and gods they performed rites, built mock airports, etc.

The term "cargo cult" has become a metaphor for symbolic not effective action. It has been used for the behavior of many Third World leaders after their independence. Someone has even described communism as a cargo cult because it copies only a few random elements - such as steel production - from economically successful countries. But as it doesn't really understand how capitalism works it is doomed to fail.

As I see it cargo culting is popular nowadays. The favorite rite at the moment is being pro-Western. I think it is no coincidence that the most pro-Western leader of Russia - Yeltsin - left the greatest mess. Similarly, the most pro-Western leader of Serbia - Djindjic - became infamous for the corruption of his regime. I see the LDP in Serbia as the most modern version of this cult. But it may not be a coincidence either that pro-Western Tadic has been criticized for having implemented very few reforms.

Of course there is nothing wrong with being on good terms with the Western World - the main power of our times. The problem is that these people think that that is the only thing they have to do. In fact developing a country is mainly humble hard work, like getting trains to run on time, providing good roads, having everyone pay his taxes, preventing special interest groups from becoming too powerful and having judges who really speak justice.

This does not mean that the cargo culters never deliver. Sometimes there is some big foreign investment or some EU subsidy is awarded. But if you have a cool look at the long term the effect is small, the result is instable (see Greece) and - given the financial problems of the EU - the money available is shrinking.

In educational psychology you have the theory of conditioning. Basically it says that now and then (unpredictable) a big reward is the most addictive form of conditioning. Lottery organizers know all about this. But is also works with our leaders.

The Chinese show how one should develop a country. Unlike Russia they don't antagonize the West. They simply go their own way developing their country. When they build a road or an airport it is ready on time and the quality is good.

In the mean time the EU and the US are sliding increasingly towards cargo cult behavior. The financial deregulation was a typical example of that. Nobody knew how it was supposed to improve the economy, but as it had been accepted as an article of faith that deregulation helped the economy grow it was supposed this would help too.

The big advantage that the Chinese have is that they are a country of engineers. They know how things work or are supposed too work and that attitude pervades into the way the country is governed. In many Western countries the power has shifted to lawyers, economists and social scientists. Many of them don't know how things work and - more problematically - they don't care very much. They prefer big theories above simply going to the shop floor and see what the workers are actually doing.

Ethnic traps in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan

I have recently reading a lot about Afghanistan and Iraq and what strikes me is the similarity between America’s problems there and in the Balkans. Americans keep making the same mistakes based on their misunderstanding of ethnic dynamics.

What strikes one in the Balkans first is that the Americans have no idea how compromises are made. As long as the US is supporting one faction one can be sure it won’t compromise, but somehow that doesn’t register in the US and they keep playing favorites. Even more amazing is that those favorites are largely historically determined and have little to do with present US interests. Yet they keep being promoted because somehow it is supposed to be humiliating for the US if a former ally suffered a defeat. Another US addiction is to borders. Partitioning of both Bosnia and Kosovo is taboo. Why? Because somewhere in the past the US committed itself to those borders. In the mean time it keep deceiving itself that within those borders the conditioned for a peaceful multi-ethnic society are present.

What brings me to Iraq. One of the hottest items it Kirkuk. Should it be controlled by the Arabs or the Kurds. Here too the taboos abound. Kirkuk is a province that should not be partitioned. Let alone that one should look for a comprehensive solution that concerns all the borders of Kurdistan. To make the discussion even more abstract the subject of ethnic cleansing by the Kurds is taboo. Just as in the Balkans the pretense must be maintained that no ethnic cleansing happens under US control. And so we see that the discussions about Kirkuk are about abstract voting rights instead of the real issues.

In Afghanistan the absurdity of US ethnic thinking becomes even more visible. Afghanistan is divided between the Pashtus who constitute some 43% of the population and have traditionally ruled Afghanistan and the other tribes who nearly all speak Dari, a Persian dialect. Afghanistan is relatively recent creation that comes from conquests by the Pashtu rulers. The other tribes have rather mixed feelings about Pashtu rule that has included ethnic cleansing and the Taliban.

The US conquered Afghanistan with the help of those other tribes, but then turned its back to them and offered the Pashtus the governance of Afghanistan. To add injury to insult they imposed a hugely centralized government system. This system was imposed by the American diplomat Khalilzad – himself of Pashtu descent. In its defense we are told that otherwise the Pasthus would become angry and not support us. But don’t expect the Pashtus to be grateful. Many of them sympathize with the Taliban and even president Karzai is pushing for negotiations with the Taliban. They know that Taliban rule means Pashtu rule.

A very basic strategy in Afghanistan would be to give the non-Pashtu provinces the tools to get rid of the Taliban. Many would jump at the chance. It would leave us with only the Pashtu provinces in the need of counterinsurgency. But it doesn’t fit in the US imposed system where only national institutions are reinforced. It looks like the US is incapable to discern its friends from its enemies. This reminds one of the dubious US friendships with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

The dirty effects of the white Schengen list

It has always been my position that the EU has played an important role in tearing Yugoslavia apart. And although the EU had its share of active harmful policies (for example the recognition of Croatia and the Bosnia "police reform") most of it was passive. If leaving Yugoslavia could bring you sooner in the EU: who could resist the temptation?

Now it looks like Schengen will have similar unintended harmful effects. People from Serbia will be allowed visa-free travel into the EU from 1 januari 2010 but people from Kosovo with a Serb passport not. But what will that mean for the refugees from Kosovo who live in Serbia? That they can better stay in Serbia? And what for the Serbs in Kosovo: that it is more profitable to take refuge into Serbia?

For Kosovo similar harmful effects apply. One of the reproaches is that Kosovo doesn't control its borders well enough. It sounds like the Kosovo version of the Bosnian police reform. Bosnia itself gets the same treatment: a dispute between the entities about issuing passports is one of the reasons for not allowing on the white Schengen list. In my opinion the EU is behaving in these cases as a manipulative third world dictator. It should allow the ethnic groups in those countries to find solutions for their own problems. The EU should offer a bit of flexibility in solving those problems. Take Bosnia: as long as it provides adequate procedures, what is the problem with two entities proving passports? This is just the EU doing the kind of grandstanding that made the Yugoslav conflicts so difficult to solve.

It is still a proposal and the final approval will only be in november. But I am curious how much the EU will be able to avoid of those pitfalls.