Sekėjai

Ieškoti šiame dienoraštyje

2024 m. rugsėjo 22 d., sekmadienis

Corruption in EU


"“IT WAS RETRO style,” laughs Ruta Kaziliunaite, the co-ordinator of Lithuania’s Special Investigation Service (STT), the country’s anti-corruption police. 

Last November the former leader of the Liberal Movement party was convicted of taking bribes from an executive at MG Baltic, a trading and real-estate conglomerate. It was not a matter of hidden transfers to shell companies, but of old-fashioned wads of cash: the STT found €242,000 ($269,000) stashed in the MP’s house and car. (Both men are appealing.)

In fighting corruption, Lithuania is one of the European Union’s star pupils. Corruption is hard to measure; it is by nature secret. But Transparency International, a Berlin-based watchdog, gauges how clean countries are perceived to be, and Lithuania went from 48th in the world in 2012 to 34th in 2023. The European Research Centre for Anti-corruption and State-building (ERCAS), an academic outfit that measures public integrity and transparency, rates Lithuania among the top 20 for both.

This is the sort of success story the EU likes to tell about itself. Europe is home to the world’s least corrupt countries, and Eurocrats see their union as a force for reform. The EU generally requires countries to improve their governance before they can join; its regulations are meant to keep them honest once they are in.

Unfortunately, the data over the past decade tell a different story. Lithuania and its Baltic neighbours, Estonia and Latvia, have improved dramatically. But other formerly communist countries that joined the EU in the 2000s have not. Poland, a relatively clean country, got dirtier from 2015 to 2023 under a populist government. Romania jailed thousands of crooked officials, but others often took their places. In Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia oligarchs have outlasted prosecutors. Under Viktor Orban’s illiberal rule, Hungary has become as corrupt as some countries in Africa and the Middle East.

The ex-Soviet bloc is not the only region to worry about. Hopes that southern Europe would turn more Scandinavian have not been borne out. The graft that surfaced in Spain during the global financial crisis has led to little reform. Italy has improved, but only from the low bar of Silvio Berlusconi’s scandal-plagued administrations. Greece’s corruption is infamous, and the reforms which the EU and IMF imposed after the euro crisis did little to fix it. In 2019 a Greek prosecutor who went after Novartis, a drug firm, for bribing doctors was fired—and was then prosecuted herself, even though in America the company admitted guilt and paid $347m in fines. (She was acquitted last year.)

Worse, EU institutions have had big scandals of their own. In late 2022 Belgian police arrested several members of the European Parliament and their aides for accepting bribes from Qatar (and seized nearly €1m in retro-style cash). A quarter of MEPs have been entangled in ethical trouble, according to Follow The Money, a Dutch investigative website.

In many countries—such as Armenia, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine—anti-corruption advocates want to join the EU precisely in order to clean up government. If the EU is not doing well at fighting corruption, it suggests these hopes may be misplaced. What is going wrong?

One issue is that although the EU’s reforms reduce corruption, the billions of euros it distributes can encourage it. Corruption tends to be high in countries rich in natural resources—the so-called resource curse. When EU aid goes to countries with weak institutions, “it functions like a resource curse”, says Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, a corruption scholar who heads ERCAS.

Indeed, in many big corruption cases EU aid is part of the story. Hungary’s EU-funded infrastructure projects consistently go to businessmen connected to Mr Orban. In the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Romania many big recipients of EU farm subsidies are agri-businesses with dodgy links to politicians. Italy’s EU-backed covid-relief fund was targeted by a €600m fraud scheme for which European prosecutors recently charged dozens of people.

Compared with America, the EU and its members are laggards at enforcement. In 1997 the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, signed an anti-bribery convention. Since then, America has carried out nearly 80% of the successful prosecutions of companies under the treaty. Seizing profits from corruption is hard for European governments: most can do so only when they are tied to a specific criminal conviction. None has “unexplained wealth orders” (UWOs) like those in Britain, which let the government confiscate assets for which there is no plausible legal source.

That will change: in April the EU directed members to pass UWO legislation within 30 months. And the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), launched in 2021 to go after abuse of EU funds, has been making up the gap with America. EPPO prosecutors filed 139 indictments in 2023, up 50% from the year before, and won freezing orders worth €1.5bn—respectable even by American standards.

The stakes are not just economic. America and the EU see corruption as a security issue: Autocracies use cash and networks of cronies to hollow out democracies. Corruption creates “vulnerability throughout the economy and the political system”, says Richard Nephew, the global anti-corruption co-ordinator at America’s State Department." [1]

1. Dirty sponges. The Economist; London Vol. 452, Iss. 9414,  (Sep 14, 2024): 27, 28.

Amerikos motinystės politika tampa rinkimų kampanijos lazda


 „Prezidento rinkimų lenktynės atskleidė Amerikos politinės kultūros lūžių liniją dėl labai asmeniško sprendimo turėti vaikų.

 

 Ji nėra nuolanki. Ji nėra suinteresuota šalies ateitimi. Ji ir kitos bevaikės moterys iš aukšto žiūri į amerikiečius, pasirinkusius daugintis.

 

 Tai yra keletas atvirų respublikonų nusistatymų prieš viceprezidentę Kamalą Harris, kuri buvo puolama ne dėl to, ką padarė ar pasakė, bet už tai, ko ji neturi: dėl biologinių vaikų.

 

 Paskutinis smūgis buvo iš Arkanzaso gubernatorės Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Praėjusią savaitę ji užlipo į sceną buvusio prezidento Donaldo J. Trumpo kampanijos renginyje ir pareiškė, kad trys jos vaikai suteikė jai tokio nuolankumo, kurį svarbu išlaikyti nacionalinėje politikoje.

 

 „Mano vaikai daro mane nuolankią“, – sakė ji miniai. „Deja, Kamala Harris neturi nieko, kas galėtų išlaikyti jos nuolankumą."

 

 Vadinkite tai motinystės takoskyra. Prezidento rinkimų lenktynės atskleidė Amerikos kultūros – ar bent jau iškiliausių šiandienos politikų – lūžių liniją dėl labai asmeninio (ir dažniausiai privataus) sprendimo turėti vaikų. Kadangi rinkimus, greičiausiai, lems labai maži balsų skirtumai, galbūt, moterys, kurių balsai gali pakreipti skalę į abi puses, pati motinystė tapo kampanijos lazda.

 

 Konservatoriai bando patikti rinkėjams, kurie motinystėje gali įžvelgti egzistencinę vertę. Žymūs respublikonai, įskaitant senatorių JD Vance'ą iš Ohajo, D. Trumpo kandidatą, savo susirūpinimą dėl reprodukcijos susiejo su mažėjančiu gimstamumu Jungtinėse Valstijose, paniekindami tokias bevaikes moteris, kaip ponia Harris.

 

 „Tai nėra žmonių, kurie dėl įvairių priežasčių neturėjo vaikų, kritikavimas“, – sakė Vance'as interviu komentatorei Megyn Kelly liepos mėn., kalbėdamas apie ankstesnius komentarus, kuriuos jis išsakė vadindamas ponią Harris ir kitas aukščiausias demokrates. "bevaikės, kates auginančios, ponios“ neturinčios tiesioginio intereso šalies ateičiai. „Kalbama apie Demokratų partijos kritiką už tai, kad ji nusiteikusi prieš šeimą ir vaiką“.

 

 Demokratai praneša, kad turi mažiau vaikų, nei respublikonai. Remiantis 2022 m. Čikagos universiteto apklausa, maždaug 38 procentai demokratų tais metais niekada neturėjo vaikų, palyginti su 26 procentais respublikonų." [1]


Nuolatinių šalies gyventojų vaikų gimdymo klausimas yra tautos kultūros išlikimo klausimas.

 

1.  The Politics of Motherhood Become a Campaign-Trail Cudgel: News Analysis. Rogers, Katie.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Sep 22, 2024.

The American Politics of Motherhood Become a Campaign-Trail Cudgel


"The presidential race has exposed a fault line in American political culture over the deeply personal decision to have children.

She is not humble. She has no stake in the future of the country. She and other childless women are looking down on Americans who have chosen to reproduce.

These are a few of the broadsides Republicans have lobbed against Vice President Kamala Harris, who has come under attack not for something she has done or said but for something she doesn’t have: biological children.

The latest jab came from Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas. This past week, she took the stage at a campaign event for former President Donald J. Trump and declared that her three children had given her the sort of humility that is important to maintain in national politics.

“My kids keep me humble,” she said to the crowd. “Unfortunately, Kamala Harris doesn’t have anything keeping her humble.”

Call it the motherhood divide. The presidential race has exposed a fault line in American culture — or at least among today’s most prominent politicians — over the deeply personal (and usually private) decision to have children. With an election likely to be decided by razor-thin margins, perhaps by women whose votes could tip the scale either way, motherhood itself has become a campaign-trail cudgel.

Conservatives are trying to appeal to voters who may see an existential value in motherhood. Prominent Republicans, including Senator JD Vance of Ohio, Mr. Trump’s running mate, have tied their concerns about reproduction to the declining birthrate in the United States, disparaging childless women like Ms. Harris in the process.

“This is not about criticizing people who, for various reasons, didn’t have kids,” Mr. Vance said in an interview with the commentator Megyn Kelly in July, addressing past comments he had made calling Ms. Harris and other top Democrats “childless cat ladies” without a direct stake in the country’s future. “This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-child.”

Democrats report having fewer children than Republicans do. According to a 2022 survey by the University of Chicago, about 38 percent of Democrats had never had children as of that year, compared with 26 percent of Republicans." [1]

The question of giving birth to children of permanent residents of the country is a question of the survival of the nation's culture.

1.  The Politics of Motherhood Become a Campaign-Trail Cudgel: News Analysis. Rogers, Katie.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Sep 22, 2024.