A common feature of Europe's extreme right is its racism and use of the immigration issue as a political wedge. The Lega Nord in Italy, the Vlaams Blok in the Netherlands, the supporters of Le Pen's National Front in France, are all examples of parties or movements formed on the common theme of aversion to immigrants and promotion of sim-plistic policies to control them. While individuals like Jorg Haider and Jean-Marie Le Pen may come and (never to soon) go, the race question will not disappear from European politics anytime soon.
An aging population at home and ever more open borders imply increasing racial fragmentation in European countries. Mainstream parties of the center left and center right have confronted this prospect by hiding their heads in the ground, hoping against hope that the problem will disappear. It will not, as America's racial history clearly shows.
Race relations in the US have been for decades -- and remain -- at the center of political debate, to the point that racial cleavages are as important as income, if not more, as determinants of political preferences and attitudes.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
The first step to address racial politics is to understand the origin and consequences of racial animosity, even if it means uncovering unpleasant truths. This is precisely what a large amount of research in economics, sociology, psychology and political science has done for the US.
This research shows that people of different races trust each other much less; whites are less willing to support welfare spending because it is perceived to favor minorities; more racially fragmented communities have less efficient governments, more corruption and patronage, more crime and fewer productive public goods per tax dollar.
This does not mean that the answer is to eliminate heterogeneity and create racially homogenous communities, but an ac-knowledgment of the reality of these issues is needed in order to start constructing solid public policies toward race relations.
Of course, Americans disagree on how to do this. Some favor affirmative action programs that provide preferences for minorities in job allocation, college admission and public contracts. These policies are seen as a way of offering reparation for past injustices and, more importantly, for creating role models and for overcoming residual and perhaps involuntary discrimination.
Others argue that a race-blind policy coupled with free market polices and pro-family values are all that are necessary to create jobs for minorities and help keep black families together.
The latter is crucial to any pol-icy, since one of the most important causes of poverty in the US is the diffusion of single parents (read single mother) households in the black community.
Regardless of the correct answer, the point is that determining what to do about race is a dominant issue in US politics. Of course, minorities have made progress towards more integration and economic success. In the 1950s, blacks could not sit in the front of buses, today two of the main players in US foreign politics are blacks.
To be sure, right-wing US politicians continue to deploy the "race card" as a tactical tool. Take the case of Patrick Buchanan, once an aide to former presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Rea-gan, who became an independent presidential candidate in the last election. He recently published a successful book entitled The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasion Imperil Our Country and Civilization. But for every book like this there are 10 others with a serious analysis of the US' race question.
Policy analysis and debates about race relations lag terribly behind in Europe. At most the question is dealt with narrowly, in terms of immigration quotas and border restrictions, not in terms of the social problems and opportunities created by an increasingly racially mixed Europe.
Of course, a clear immigration policy is needed in order to avoid the accumulation of illegal immigrants. But this cannot be the end of it -- border controls with Mex-ico are not the end of American policy towards domestic race issues!
Europe is rich and rapidly aging; Europeans, cushioned by generous welfare programs, are no longer prepared to accept "dirty jobs" in, say, agriculture or the leather industry. This makes an increase in immigration unavoidable. Europeans, however, are quick to criticize the US for any failure in their policy toward minorities and for any manifestation of racism across the Atlantic.
Reading the European press one often perceives a superiority complex towards the US over racial issues: they, the Americans, have problems with racism; we are immune from it, except for crazed neo-Nazi skinheads and their like.
What has happened in recent weeks, from Paris to Amsterdam, shows that the race problem in Europe is much deeper and, as in the US, stems from the sad truth that race relations are inherently difficult and trust and cooperative behavior does not travel well across racial lines.
If Europe's mainstream parties do not begin a more serious investment in understanding racial tensions in Europe and put "race" as one of their main priorities, individuals like Le Pen are bound to try filling the void with their message of hate.
Alberto Alesina is a professor of economics at Harvard Univer-sity. Francesco Giavazzi is a professor of economics at Bocconi University, Milan, and a member of the Group of Econo-mic Advisers to the president of the European Commission.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing