The Norwegian prison where inmates are treated like people

The Guardian, Sunday 24 February 2013

An inmate sunbathes on the deck of his bungalow on Bastoy.

An inmate sunbathes on the deck of his bungalow on Bastoy.

Photograph: Marco Di Lauro

Before he transferred to Bastoy, Petter was in a high-security prison for nearly eight years. “Here, they give us trust and responsibility,” he says. “They treat us like grownups.” I haven’t come here particularly to draw comparisons, but it’s impossible not to consider how politicians and the popular media would react to a similar scenario in Britain.

There are big differences between the two countries, of course. Norway has a population of slightly less than five million, a 12th of the UK’s. It has fewer than 4,000 prisoners; there are around 84,000 in the UK. But what really sets us apart is the Norwegian attitude towards prisoners. Four years ago I was invited into Skien maximum security prison, 20 miles north of Oslo. I had heard stories about Norway’s liberal attitude. In fact, Skien is a concrete fortress as daunting as any prison I have ever experienced and houses some of the most serious law-breakers in the country. Recently it was the temporary residence of Anders Breivik, the man who massacred 77 people in July 2011.

Despite the seriousness of their crimes, however, I found that the loss of liberty was all the punishment they suffered. Cells had televisions, computers, integral showers and sanitation. Some prisoners were segregated for various reasons, but as the majority served their time – anything up to the 21-year maximum sentence (Norway has no death penalty or life sentence) – they were offered education, training and skill-building programmes. Instead of wings and landings they lived in small “pod” communities within the prison, limiting the spread of the corrosive criminal prison subculture that dominates traditionally designed prisons. The teacher explained that all prisons in Norway worked on the same principle, which he believed was the reason the country had, at less than 30%, the lowest reoffending figures in Europe and less than half the rate in the UK.

As the ferry powers through the freezing early-morning fog, Petter tells me he is appealing against his conviction. If it fails he will be on Bastoy until his release date in two years’ time. I ask him what life is like on the island. “You’ll see,” he says. “It’s like living in a village, a community. Everybody has to work. But we have free time so we can do some fishing, or in summer we can swim off the beach. We know we are prisoners but here we feel like people.”

I wasn’t sure what to expect on Bastoy. A number of wide-eyed commentators before me have variously described conditions under which the island’s 115 prisoners live as “cushy”, “luxurious” and, the old chestnut, “like a holiday camp”. I’m sceptical of such media reports.

An inmate repairs a bike.An Inmate repairs a bike. Photograph: Marco Di Lauro

As a life prisoner, I spent the first eight years of the 20 I served in a cell with a bed, a chair, a table and a bucket for my toilet. In that time I was caught up in a major riot, trapped in a siege and witnessed regular acts of serious violence. Across the prison estate, several hundred prisoners took their own lives, half a dozen of whom I knew personally – and a number were murdered. Yet the constant refrain from the popular press was that I, too, was living in a “holiday camp”. When in-cell toilets were installed, and a few years later we were given small televisions, the “luxury prison” headlines intensified and for the rest of the time I was in prison, it never really abated.

It always seemed to me while I was in jail that the real prison scandal was the horrendous rate of reoffending among released prisoners. In 2007, 14 prisons in England and Wales had reconvictions rates of more than 70%. At an average cost of £40,000 a year for each prisoner, this amounts to a huge investment in failure – and a total lack of consideration for potential future victims of released prisoners. That’s the reason I’m keen to have a look at what has been hailed as the world’s first “human ecological prison”.

Thorbjorn, a 58-year-old guard who has worked on Bastoy for 17 years, gives me a warm welcome as I step on to dry land. As we walk along the icy, snowbound track that leads to the admin block, he tells me how the prison operates. There are 70 members of staff on the 2.6 sq km island during the day, 35 of whom are uniformed guards. Their main job is to count the prisoners – first thing in the morning, twice during the day at their workplaces, once en masse at a specific assembly point at 5pm, and finally at 11pm, when they are confined to their respective houses. Only four guards remain on the island after 4pm. Thorbjorn points out the small, brightly painted wooden bungalows dotted around the wintry landscape. “These are the houses for the prisoners,” he says. They accommodate up to six people. Every man has his own room and they share kitchen and other facilities. “The idea is they get used to living as they will live when they are released.” Only one meal a day is provided in the dining hall. The men earn the equivalent of £6 a day and are given a food allowance each month of around £70 with which to buy provisions for their self-prepared breakfasts and evening meals from the island’s well-stocked mini-supermarket.

I can see why some people might think such conditions controversial. The common understanding of prison is that it is a place of deprivation and penance rather than domestic comfort.

Prisoners in Norway can apply for a transfer to Bastoy when they have up to five years left of their sentence to serve. Every type of offender, including men convicted of murder or rape, may be accepted, so long as they fit the criteria, the main one being a determination to live a crime-free life on release.

I ask Thorbjorn what work the prisoners do on the island. He tells me about the farm where prisoners tend sheep, cows and chickens, or grow fruit and vegetables. “They grow much of their own food,” he says.

Other jobs are available in the laundry; in the stables looking after the horses that pull the island’s cart transport; in the bicycle repair shop, (many of the prisoners have their own bikes, bought with their own money); on ground maintenance or in the timber workshop. The working day begins at 8.30am and already I can hear the buzz of chainsaws and heavy-duty strimmers. We walk past a group of red phone boxes from where prisoners can call family and friends. A large building to our left is where weekly visits take place, in private family rooms where conjugal relations are allowed.

After the security officer signs me in and takes my mobile, Thorbjorn delivers me to governor Arne Nilsen’s office. “Let me tell you something,” Thorbjorn says before leaving me. “You know, on this island I feel safer than when I walk on the streets in Oslo.”

Through Nilsen’s window I can see the church, the school and the library. Life for the prisoners is as normal as it is possible to be in a prison. It feels rather like a religious commune; there is a sense of peace about the place, although the absence of women (apart from some uniformed guards) and children is noticeable. Nilsen has coined a phrase for his prison: “an arena of developing responsibility.” He pours me a cup of tea.

“In closed prisons we keep them locked up for some years and then let them back out, not having had any real responsibility for working or cooking. In the law, being sent to prison is nothing to do with putting you in a terrible prison to make you suffer. The punishment is that you lose your freedom. If we treat people like animals when they are in prison they are likely to behave like animals. Here we pay attention to you as human beings.”

A clinical psychologist by profession, Nilsen shrugs off any notion that he is running a holiday camp. I sense his frustration. “You don’t change people by power,” he says. “For the victim, the offender is in prison. That is justice. I’m not stupid. I’m a realist. Here I give prisoners respect; this way we teach them to respect others. But we are watching them all the time. It is important that when they are released they are less likely to commit more crimes. That is justice for society.”

The reoffending rate for those released from Bastoy speaks for itself. At just 16%, it is the lowest in Europe. But who are the prisoners on Bastoy? Are they the goodie-goodies of the system?

Hessle is 23 years old and serving 11 years for murder. “It was a revenge killing,” he says. “I wish I had not done it, but now I must pay for my crime.” Slight and fair-haired, he says he has been in and out of penal institutions since he was 15. Drugs have blighted his life and driven his criminality. There are three golden rules on Bastoy: no violence, no alcohol and no drugs. Here, he works in the stables tending the horses and has nearly four years left to serve. How does he see the future? “Now I have no desire for drugs. When I get out I want to live and have a family. Here I am learning to be able to do that.”

A convict works on Bastoy prison farm.A Convict works on Bastoy prison farm. Photograph: Marco Di Lauro

Hessle plays the guitar and is rehearsing with other prisoners in the Bastoy Blues Band. Last year they were given permission to attend a music festival as a support act that ZZ Top headlined. Bjorn is the band’s teacher. Once a Bastoy prisoner who served five years for attacking his wife in a “moment of madness”, he now returns once a week to teach guitar. “I know the potential for people here to change,” he says.

Formerly a social researcher, he has formed links with construction companies he previously worked for that have promised to consider employing band members if they can demonstrate reliability and commitment. “This is not just about the music,” he says, “it’s about giving people a chance to prove their worth.”

Sven, another band member, was also convicted of murder, and sentenced to eight years. The 29-year-old was an unemployed labourer before his conviction. He works in the timber yard and is waiting to see if his application to be “house father” in his five-man bungalow is successful. “I like the responsibility,” he says. “Before coming here I never really cared for other people.”

The female guard who introduces me to the band is called Rutchie. “I’m very proud to be a guard here, and my family are very proud of me,” she says. It takes three years to train to be a prison guard in Norway. She looks at me with disbelief when I tell her that in the UK prison officer training is just six weeks. “There is so much to learn about the people who come to prison,” she says. “We need to try to understand how they became criminals, and then help them to change. I’m still learning.”

Finally, I’m introduced to Vidor, who at 72 is the oldest prisoner on the island. He works in the laundry and is the house father of his four-man bungalow. I haven’t asked any of the prisoners about their crimes. The information has been offered voluntarily. Vidor does the same. He tells me he is serving 15 years for double manslaughter. There is a deep sadness in his eyes, even when he smiles. “Killers like me have nowhere to hide,” he says. He tells me that in the aftermath of his crimes he was “on the floor”. He cried a lot at first. “If there was the death penalty I would have said, yes please, take me.” He says he was helped in prison. “They helped me to understand why I did what I did and helped me to live again.” Now he studies philosophy, in particular Nietzsche. “I’m glad they let me come here. It is a healthy place to be. I’ll be 74 when I get out,” he says. “I’ll be happy if I can get to 84, and then just say: ‘Bye-bye.'”

On the ferry back to the mainland I think about what I have seen and heard. Bastoy is no holiday camp. In some ways I feel as if I’ve seen a vision of the future – a penal institution designed to heal rather than harm and to generate hope instead of despair. I believe all societies will always need high-security prisons. But there needs to be a robust filtering procedure along the lines of the Norwegian model, in order that the process is not more damaging than necessary. As Nilsen asserts, justice for society demands that people we release from prison should be less likely to cause further harm or distress to others, and better equipped to live as law-abiding citizens.

It would take much political courage and social confidence to spread the penal philosophy of Bastoy outside Norway, however. In the meantime, I hope the decision-makers of the world take note of the revolution in rehabilitation that is occurring on that tiny island.




Cartoon Politics: Rupert Murdoch, The Pro-Israel Lobby And Israel’s Crimes

Gerald+ScarfeCartoonist

Veteran draughtsman Gerald Scarfe. In  the latest issue of the Sunday Times of London he depicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu building a wall, and squeezed between the bricks, Palestinian bodies. He is using blood to hold the wall together, and the caption on the drawing was, “Will cementing the peace continue?”

By David Cromwell, Senior Editor, Media Lens

A crucial element of pro-Israel political lobbying is the reprehensible smearing of justified criticism of the Israeli state as ‘antisemitic’. Thus, a recent cartoon by Gerald Scarfe in the Sunday Times provided a convenient target for outrage.

Scarfe had depicted Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, building a wall that encased the bodies of Palestinians depicted in various states of agony. The mortar was blood-red and the caption said: ‘Israeli elections: Will cementing peace continue?’

Netanyahu’s party had just won the most seats in the recent closely-contested parliamentary elections in Israel. The wall was clearly a reference to the ‘separation barrier’ which Israel claims is there to protect its citizens from Palestinian attacks, but which is in fact being used in a cynical land grab to expand the borders of Israel.

The cartoon was clearly a strong, even shocking, image. But Scarfe, perhaps best known for his illustrations accompanying Pink Floyd’s classic album The Wall, has a long history of acerbic and brutal caricatures, often depicting blood. And he was surely making a valid political point about Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians and the state’s endless colonial expansion, all under the guise of a mythical ‘peace process’.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is ardently pro-Israel, linked to Zionist propaganda interests and a supporter of Israeli attacks on Gaza, submitted a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission alleging that the cartoon ‘is shockingly reminiscent of the blood-libel imagery more usually found in parts of the virulently antisemitic Arab press.’ This is the myth dating back to the Middle Ages that Jews murdered children and used the blood in religious ceremonies.

The Board’s ‘anger was heightened’ by the cartoon being published on Holocaust Memorial Day: ‘a day meant to commemorate the communities destroyed by the Nazis and their allies in the mid-20th century.’

Israel’s UK ambassador Daniel Taub said:

‘The image of Israel’s security barrier, which is saving the lives of both Jews and Arabs from suicide bombers, being built from Palestinian blood and bodies is baseless and outrageous.

‘The use of vicious motifs echoing those used to demonize Jews in the past is particularly shocking and hurtful on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, but the crude and shallow hatred of this cartoon should render it totally unacceptable on any day of the year.’

Meanwhile the speaker of Israel’s parliament, Reuven Rivlin, wrote to his UK counterpart to express ‘extreme outrage’.

The essential message beneath the barrage of opprobrium was: Thou shalt not criticise Israel.

Rupert Murdoch: A Friend Of Israel
Initially, the Sunday Times had stood firm. On the afternoon when the storm broke, the paper ‘defended’ the publication of the cartoon, and ‘denied that [it] was antisemitic.’ In a statement, the paper described Scarfe’s imagery as ‘typically robust’, adding:

‘It is aimed squarely at Mr Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel, let alone at Jewish people. It appeared yesterday because Mr Netanyahu won the Israeli election last week.’

Martin Ivens, the acting editor of the Sunday Times, said:

‘The last thing I or anyone connected with the Sunday Times would countenance would be insulting the memory of the Shoah or invoking the blood libel.’

But the ‘typically robust’ argument quickly collapsed when the Sunday Times owner Rupert Murdoch stepped into the breach later that day, declaring via Twitter:

‘Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times. Nevertheless, we owe a major apology for grotesque, offensive cartoon.’

It had not taken long for Murdoch, a self-declared ‘friend of Israel’, to stamp hard on his ‘acting editor’ Ivens who, despite his pedigree as a pro-Israel columnist, had probably just demonstrated that he is not the safe pair of hands his master would have liked. So much for editorial independence and the ‘free press’.

Anyone in a responsible position in Murdoch’s news empire, as with the corporate media generally, is under considerable pressure to be favourable towards Israel. Murdoch’s pro-Israeli position is reflected in his newspapers, and his editors are made well aware that they have to follow the ‘strong views’ which he spends considerable time and force imposing upon them.

In March 2009, the American Jewish Committee honoured Murdoch with their ‘National Human Relations Award’. Only weeks after the brutal onslaught by Israeli forces on Gaza in Operation Cast Lead – with around 1400 Palestinians killed, including more than 400 women and children – Murdoch had this to say to his audience:

‘My friends, I do not pretend to have all the answers to Gaza this evening. But I do know this: The free world makes a terrible mistake if we deceive ourselves into thinking this is not our fight.

‘In the end, the Israeli people are fighting the same enemy we are: cold-blooded killers who reject peace … who reject freedom … and who rule by the suicide vest, the car bomb, and the human shield.

‘Against such an enemy, I will not second-guess the decisions of a free Israel defending her citizens. And I would ask all those who support peace and freedom to do the same.’

Accepting an award in 2010 from the Anti-Defamation League for his support of Israel, Murdoch decried the global ‘ongoing war against the Jews’ and made clear his disdain for criticism of Israel:

‘When Americans think of anti-Semitism, we tend to think of the vulgar caricatures and attacks of the first part of the 20th century.

‘Today it seems that the most virulent strains come from the Left. Often this new anti-Semitism dresses itself up as legitimate disagreement with Israel.’

Sam Kiley, the former Times Africa correspondent, said that he left the paper in 2001 because of pro-Israeli censorship of his reporting on the Middle East. Kiley said that Murdoch’s close friendship with the then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, and the media mogul’s heavy investment in Israel, were the reasons behind his decision to resign.

Kiley wrote that:

‘In the war of words, no newspaper has been so happy to hand the keys of the armoury over to one side than the Times.’

He added:

‘The Times foreign editor and other middle managers flew into hysterical terror every time a pro-Israel lobbying group wrote in with a quibble or complaint and then usually took their side against their own correspondent.

‘I was told I should not refer to “assassinations” of Israel’s opponents, nor to “extra-judicial killings or executions”.

‘No pro-Israel lobbyist ever dreamed of having such power over a great national newspaper.’

Murdoch’s executives were so anxious to avoid irritating their boss that when Kiley interviewed the Israeli army unit responsible for killing a 12-year old Palestinian boy, he was asked not to mention the dead child in his piece.

‘After that conversation, I was left wordless, so I quit,’ Kiley said.

According to Isi Liebler, an Australian Jewish community leader who now lives in Israel, Murdoch’s ‘affection’ for the state ‘arose less out of his conservative sensibility than from his native Australian sympathy for the underdog fending off elites seized by conventional wisdoms’. Liebler added:

‘He’s met Israelis, he’s been to Israel, he’s seen Israel as the plucky underdog when the rest of the world saw Israel as an occupier.’

The danger that Murdoch and his News International empire represent to democracy has been well documented. His power to curb criticism of the Israeli state, indeed to promote its agenda, is part of this bigger picture.

The Sunday Times Apologises For Its ‘Terrible Mistake’
Jonathan Cook, an independent journalist based in Israel, noted of the hyperbolic pro-Israeli response to Scarfe’s cartoon:

‘As Holocaust Day comes round again, Israel has taken advantage of the occasion to teach the world a lesson. Not, of course, a lesson about the Holocaust’s universal message but one that Israel can exploit to shut up its critics.’ (Facebook, January 29, 2013)

Cook pointed to a column in the liberal Israeli Haaretz newspaper by Anshel Pfeffer, ‘Haaretz’s arbiter of all things anti-Semitic’, who had actually found nothing antisemitic in the cartoon even, Cook noted, ‘using his hyper-sensitive measurements.’

Pfeffer was meticulous in explaining why the howls of outrage, manufactured or otherwise, were wide of the mark. He gave four reasons why the cartoon was not at all antisemitic:

‘1. It is not directed at Jews: There is absolutely nothing in the cartoon which identifies its subject as a Jew. […] Netanyahu is an Israeli politician who was just elected by a quarter of Israeli voters, not a Jewish symbol or a global representative of the Jews.

‘2. It does not use Holocaust imagery: […] there is nothing in Scarfe’s cartoon that can put the Holocaust in mind. Perhaps someone thinks that the wall should remind us of the ghetto, but don’t forget, Scarfe is the original designer of Pink Floyd’s The Wall. Should the Sunday Times have not published the cartoon on International Holocaust Memorial Day? Only if one believes that is a day in which Israeli politicians have immunity from being caricatured. […]

‘3. There was no discrimination: […]. Netanyahu’s depiction is grossly offensive and unfair, but that is only par for the course for any politician when Scarfe is at his drawing-board. Scarfe has spent his entire career viciously lampooning the high and mighty – Netanyahu is in illustrious company.

‘4. This is not what a blood libel looks like: Some have claimed that the blood-red cement Netanyahu is using in the cartoon to build his wall indicates a blood libel motif. Well of course it’s blood but is anyone seriously demanding that no cartoon reference to Israeli or Jewish figures can contain a red fluid? […]’

These sensible arguments were presumably not to the fore when, at 4pm on January 29, ‘representatives of the Jewish Community met with the Sunday Times Senior Editorial Team and News International Corporate Affairs.’ Following the meeting, acting Sunday Times editor Martin Ivens issued a craven apology in which he said:

‘Everyone knows that Gerald Scarfe is consistently brutal and bloody in his depictions, but last weekend – by his own admission – he crossed a line. The timing – on Holocaust Memorial Day – was inexcusable. The associations on this occasion were grotesque and on behalf of the paper I’d like to apologise unreservedly for the offence we clearly caused. This was a terrible mistake.’

In his 2000 book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Norman Finkelstein noted that the Holocaust ‘has been used to justify criminal policies of the Israeli state and US support for these policies’ (pp. 7-8). And Noam Chomsky has observed that the Israeli state has long ‘consciously manipulated’ the Holocaust to promote its own interests.

The ‘terrible mistake’ of the Sunday Times, along with the rest of the corporate media, has been to overlook, indeed facilitate, this shameful reality.

MEDIA LENS is a respected media watch/ political analysis organization in the United Kingdom.  Follow us on Twitter, on Youtube and on Facebook

The second Media Lens book, ‘NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century’ by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2009 by Pluto Press. John Pilger writes of the book:

“Not since Orwell and Chomsky has perceived reality been so skilfully revealed in the cause of truth.” Find it in the Media Lens Bookshop

In September 2012, Zero Books published ‘Why Are We The Good Guys?’ by David Cromwell. Mark Curtis, author of ‘Web of Deceit’ and ‘Unpeople’, says:

‘This book is truly essential reading, focusing on one of the key issues, if not THE issue, of our age: how to recognise the deep, everyday brainwashing to which we are subjected, and how to escape from it. This book brilliantly exposes the extent of media disinformation, and does so in a compelling and engaging way.’




Pontecorvo: Return to Algiers (1992)

US desperately tries to set Ukraine against Russia

Alexei Kovalev / A Pravda.ru report

Yet again the U.S. is trying to clash Ukraine and Russia. Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer is concerned about Ukraine’s possible rapprochement with Russia, believing that it will do the country irreparable harm. Ukraine’s integration with the EU is supposedly much more attractive. What kind of game have the official Washington and grey cardinals of the White House started?

In the 1990s, a new international habit was formed. Many believe that all more or less important issues of global politics can only be solved with the approval of Washington. This opinion did not appear out of the blue. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States of America remained the only superpower in the world.

When Europe was gathering strength, and before China reached its present power, the U.S. dollar was the world’s sole reserve currency. If Washington issued a sentence to any country, such as Yugoslavia, it was doomed, despite the opinion of the country’s population and the position of less powerful players.

The omnipotence of the U.S. was particularly noticeable in the newly independent states of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Often, the most powerful political player in these countries was not the official leader of the government (legitimate or not), not the Prime Minister (an ambitious or technical one), not the opposition leader (democratic or nationalist), not the Speaker of the Parliament, but the American ambassador. This happened because the Ambassador was not only a diplomat, but a representative of the United States government. A decade ago, the U.S. without doubt was the global leader and unparalleled global hegemon.

But let us look at the current state of affairs…

Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer said that the rapprochement with Russia instead of integration with the European Union would do much more harm to Ukraine than the West. He made this statement in an interview with Ukrainian Tyzhden. The interview was published the day after the cautious statement by the Ukrainian Ambassador to Russia Volodymyr Yelchenko made at the meeting with Moscow students. The statement concerned a hypothetical possibility of Ukraine joining the Customs Union (in the future, under certain circumstances).

Pifer said in an interview with Ukrainian Tyzhden that he knew very well that there were people in Ukraine who thought that the West was so concerned about the possibility of transition of the country into the Russian sphere of influence that it was ready to forgive anything. He added that this was not the case and that he did not think that Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia that much.

He said that according to some geopolitical calculations the country’s existence in the Russian sphere of influence might not be beneficial for Europe. However, the Europeans are not really worried about it. He added that a closer relationship with Russia instead of integration with the EU would do more harm to Ukraine than the West.

The former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine may be hinting at something of the following nature: Paul Wolfowitz, who was then an adviser to the U.S. president for security, was quoted by The New York Times on March 8, 1992 saying that the main strategic objective of the U.S. was to avoid the creation of a major strategic unit able to conduct policy independent of U.S. on the territory of the former Soviet Union. At the same time, a long-term U.S. foreign policy strategy with regard to the entire Eurasia was formulated that was to prevent the formation of a strategic force on the continents capable of opposing the U.S.

Of course, one can say that Wolfowitz’s wording is only a personal opinion of an eccentric presidential adviser, one of many. In fact, one could argue that over the past 20 years, the Presidents of the United States listened to the opinions of very different advisers. As a result, the United States over the years contributed to the establishment of democratic order in different parts of the world and economic prosperity in the objects of its foreign policy.

Of course, much depends on the subjective perception. Pifer, for example, doubts that Ukraine wants to be part of Russia. This is, obviously, not the point. There is an issue of a closer cooperation, particularly in the economic sphere. Let’s try to find out whether the subjective feeling of the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine reflects the objective reality.

Recently, the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) and the Russian Levada Center published the results of a joint survey. It turned out that, compared to a survey conducted in February of 2012, there was a slight decline in the warm feelings towards Russia in Ukraine – from 86 to 83 percent.

Not surprisingly, Ukrainians who favor Russia the most favorably are concentrated in the South (91 percent) and East (90 percent) regions, and fewer in the western region (63 percent). At the same time, in the Central region 87 percent of the population favors Russia.

The attitude of Russians towards Ukraine, on the contrary, has changed significantly over the last six months. The number of Russians who feel positive about Ukraine increased by ten percent – from 64 to 74. But these numbers are not essential because the category “feel good / bad” is volatile. The other part of the study related to specifics is much more important.

Both in Ukraine and Russia the majority of respondents would like to see both countries as independent but friendly states with open borders without visas and customs barriers (in Ukraine – 72 percent, in Russia – 60 percent). In Ukraine, the number has increased over six months by three percent, in Russia it remained unchanged. The number of Russians who would like to have more isolated relations with Ukraine, compared to February, decreased (from 20 to 14 percent). In Ukraine, there was a slight decrease in this number – from 13 percent in February to 11 in September.

In other words, the overwhelming majority of both peoples want closer relations between the countries. The political elites of both countries should not ignore this fact.

Who would not benefit from the integration of Russia and Ukraine? Could it be the U.S. State Department and its former representatives in Ukraine?

Two things are possible – either the U.S. Department of State is mistaken, or long-term interests of Washington do not coincide will those of the majority of citizens of Russia and Ukraine. On the other hand, why is it their business? Ain’t Nobody’s Business, as they say in the States. Russia and Ukraine can deal with each other on their own.

Alexei Kovalev

Pravda.Ru

Read the original in Russian

Дмитрий Судаков

//




NORWAY, SCOTLAND, AND WHY I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE ARC OF INSOLVENCY

Last week Iain Macwhirter wrote an excellent article ‘Face reality: We could be as prosperous as Norway.’  It was a must read essay, not least because it was written by the journalist who coined the term “the arc of insolvency” in relation to Iceland and Ireland after the 2008 banking crash.  Interestingly, Macwhirter is now dissociating himself from the widely used, albeit inaccurate, meme. The information in his article needs to be discussed and disseminated in Scotland as widely as possible which is why we’re re-blogging it here.  Iain Macwhirter has also re-blogged it on his excellent Now and Then blog with a new title for the article.  We’re going with the new title.

Norway, Scotland, and why I was wrong about the arc of insolvency
by Iain Macwhirter, Bella Caledonia
SUGGESTED BY PAUL CARLINE

It was only ever one side of the story. While some neoliberal small nations exploded because of their irresponsible banks, the rest of the Nordic arc – Denmark, Sweden and Finland – passed through the eye of the storm largely unscathed. Certainly, in Norway, where I have been hanging out this week, there is no sign of any financial hangover from the great crash.

Oslo is, as usual, a building site. There can be few cities outside south-east Asia that are so obviously booming. Unemployment here is very low, salaries are very high, beer is ruinously expensive at £8 a pint – though that doesn’t seem to stop people going to the pub. Even the banks are doing well in Norway, largely because they didn’t get caught up in the property madness that exploded Iceland and Ireland.

Deficit? Nonexistent – Norway has the largest budget surplus of any AAA-rated nation in the world. Growth is “only” 3.7%; inflation is 1.4%; unemployment at 3.3% is the lowest in Europe and poverty is almost too low to measure. This is a country which regularly tops the global quality-of-life indexes. So what is the secret? Why has Norway been largely immune to the economic crises that left countries like Britain as debt zombies, kept going only by zero interest rates and money printing?

Well, oil for a start. Norway is Europe’s largest exporter. Mostly the revenues have been parked in the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which is now the third largest in the world and worth $500 billion. The government is only allowed to take a tiny amount out each year, so this wealth accumulates without generating inflation.

When you visit Norway you really appreciate how giddily altruistic the Scots were in the 1970s and 1980s – giving their oil away in exchange for the Barnett handout and a couple of savage industrial recessions. The Scottish people were the ultimate ragged-trousered philanthropists: the only nation, region, principality or state in the world to have discovered oil and never to have directly benefited.

The oil is running out, of course, but there’s still “enough” as Norwegians like to say, and gas is all over the place. Norway is now the second largest gas exporter in the world. There is much anguish in Scotland about how North Sea oil is a “sunset industry”, and how no country can depend on a diminishing natural resource. But it can be a pretty long sunset. It might surprise people in Scotland to learn that Norway does not put its economic success down to natural resources but to social solidarity.

Norway is one of the most egalitarian of countries. In 2010, 95% of Norwegians earned less than £50,000 a year, and they have one of the flattest income distributions in the world. They look with horror on countries like America and Britain where millions are in poverty while the top 1% get richer and richer. They believe that low wages damage the economy – and they are right.

In Norway, pay is still mostly negotiated centrally by a tripartite arrangement of unions, government and business. It sounds like something out of the 1970s and probably is. But Norwegians feel this corporatism works well in a small country of five million people and that social solidarity is not incompatible with economic dynamism. The state in Norway doesn’t have to spend billions on tax credits to subsidise low pay because firms pay decent wages. And because labour costs are inelastic, Norwegian companies have a strong incentive to grow by innovation in productivity.

Compare and contrast with Britain where productivity is flatlining as employers cut wages to keep going through a triple downturn.

Also, consumer demand in Norway is steady and predictable because people feel secure and able to spend for the future. Thus you don’t get the debt cycle of boom and bust that happens in Anglo-Saxon countries such as Britain and America where people had to borrow to maintain living standards and are now cutting back, burdened by debt. Effective demand is stable in Norway so companies can invest with greater security.

There are so many lessons for Scotland here, it’s hard to know where to begin. Obviously, if Scotland had benefited from its oil wealth since 1970 it would be a very different country to the one it is today. It is doubtful whether we would still have some of the worst mortality rates for middle-aged people in Europe, as the Glasgow Centre for Population Health reported this week. Also, Scotland is not backward or naive in favouring collective solutions like free higher education and elderly care, which are all regarded as essential pillars of the Norwegian welfare state. The feel of Norwegian society is very much like Scotland, in terms of social expectations and outlook. Looking at Norway today, it is hard to argue that Scotland could fail to be an extremely successful independent country, were the Scots to vote Yes – though they don’t seem to minded to take this option.

Once independent, Scotland would probably find a place as one of the energy-rich small nations of the true arc of Nordic prosperity. As for the debate about Scotland in Europe, Norway is of course not a member of the European Union and has its own currency, the krona. The Norwegians stayed out of the EU largely on the grounds that it was too right wing – a proposition that astonished the Tory Eurosceptic former defence secretary Liam Fox on a visit here last month. Norway is one of a block of Nordic currencies including Denmark and Sweden that kept the krona though they are in the European single market. Which confirms there are many ways small countries can relate to the EU, and to neighbouring countries.

Norway isn’t that much engaged with Scottish independence. Most people still call the UK “England” – the country that helped liberate Norway from the Nazis. They are intrigued at the prospect of a referendum on independence. In 1905, the Norwegians voted to dissolve the union with Sweden by a margin of 99.5%. Only 184 people voted No.  So, perhaps a little way to go yet, Alex.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Iain Macwhirter is the award-winning political columnist for the Herald and Sunday Herald. He has been a political broadcaster for over 20 years, in Westminster and Holyrood, and is former Rector of Edinburgh University.

Iain Macwhirter’s Now and Then blog

//