The failing nation-states of Western Europe are not peacemakers. They are warmongers, the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ – the Coalition of Sanctimony and Hypocrisy. They are trying to frame the current geopolitical struggle between a unipolar versus a multipolar world order as a struggle of the ‘Democratic’ Axis of Good against a strengthening ‘Autocratic’ Coalition of Evil located through most of Eurasia.

Germany’s new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, says “whatever it takes“. Twice this year the coalition of sanctimony has derailed opportunities to end the Russia-Ukraine War through the re-creation of a neutral Ukraine. (The present war is already nearly as long-lasting as World War One.) The re-creation of a neutral Ukraine is the only available off-ramp to end this war.

The anti-peace phalanx that pretends to be pro-peace – headed by Merz, Keir Starmer, Ursula von de Leyen, and Mark Rutter (and formerly including Joe Biden and Boris Johnson) – represents the expression of a clear and open geopolitical strategy of eastwards expansion, both further into the Slavic Heartland (refer to Mackinder’s Democratic Ideals and Reality, free on Google Books, published early in 1919 though mostly written late in 1918) and in Southwest Asia (aka the ‘Middle East’). (France’s Emmanuel Macron is more ambivalent than these others, and is expected to fade from the presentCoalition as his political career comes to an end, and as France becomes consumed by domestic problems.)

Considered to be the academic founder of the discipline of geopolitics, Mackinder – born in Lincolnshire, England – was then the Conservative MP for a Scottish constituency. In late 1918 – a critical pivot moment in world history – he held his seat in the House of Commons, with a comfortable majority in Britain’s immediate-post-war election. Mackinder saw the necessity of establishing a group of smallish neutral nation-states between the two potentially resurgent “Going Concerns” of defeated Germany and defeated Russia (Russia, then in a post-war civil war, and in the process of becoming the ‘Bolshevik’ Soviet Union). In line with Mackinder’s analysis, the World War reignited in the late-1930s partly as a result of those smaller states eschewing neutrality in favour of various mostly-failed attempts to form security alliances with former antagonists, and/or with Britain and France.

On the matter of Mackinder’s relevance to the 2020s’ world, note this quote re Heartland: Three Essays on Geopolitics, by Halford John Mackinder: “Heartland is a fascinating introduction to a pioneer of geopolitics. Halford Mackinder’s trailblazing ideas have influenced international politics to this day. His concept that world domination depends on the control of the global ‘pivot area’ or ‘heartland’ – the centre of the large land mass of Europe and Asia – has informed the political tactics and wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe through the decades. His theories have influenced politicians and political scientists for generations, most notably Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to a long line of U.S. presidents. In our times, the importance of Mackinder’s heartland theory for the United States’ fight to enforce global hegemony, Russia’s struggle to stay independent and relevant on a world stage, and China’s plans to establish a trade route between East and West, make Heartland essential reading for understanding our world.”

Ukraine and Israel as Western bridgeheads into the Eastern heartlands

In geopolitical context, both Ukraine and Israel can be seen as Western bridgeheads into the ‘Near East’ and ‘Middle East’ heartlands; bridgeheads against the west-resistant poles of Russia and Iran. Ultimately these geopolitical gambits seek as an end-goal the ‘containment’ of China; China being understood as the single biggest threat to the unipolar Western – essentially Christian, labelled ‘Democratic’ – world-order fantasy which prevailed especially in Washington in the 1990s. (In the Cold War, this geopolitical contest was presented as the battle of the Free against Communism.)

Since the demise of Joe Biden (dubbed ‘Genocide Joe’ by some, and not without reason), there has been a bifurcation of the western project.

The United States is most focussed on its Middle Eastern agenda (which, as in Obama times, very much includes geopolitical designs on Syria), so has doubled-down as Israel’s main sponsor of regional terror. Nevertheless, the self-appointed European coalition of sanctimony has been fully and consistently behind “Daddy’s” geopolitical interest in promoting Israel’s asymmetric war of aggression; and still is, despite some attempts to appear to be distancing itself from the Palestinian theatre of conflict. (On ‘Daddy’, see “Daddy” diplomacy: The politics of obsequiousness, Hugh Piper, Lowy Institute, 24 July 2025.)

Israel’s barbarism could only be tolerated by any group of countries if those countries had a ‘higher’ political purpose; namely opposition to a geopolitical adversary shared with Israel – an adversary which dares to resist western power. Any coalition facilitating Israel’s anti-human agenda (of erasing “human animals”, aka Amalek) has fully given up any claim to be considered The Good. In line with geopolitical realism, there are no Good Guys.

The European Coalition of Sanctimony quickly formed when peace threatened to break-out in Ukraine following the 28 February 2025 meeting in the White House. Their aim is to locate German soldiers in Ukraine; an insensitive act which to Russians would be as provocative as 1914 and 1941. If a post-war Ukraine is to have genuine peacekeepers, they cannot be belligerents; such peacekeepers would have to be there under the auspices of the United Nations, and only from countries which are verifiably neutral with respect to Eurasian geopolitics (India would probably qualify; so would South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Ethiopia, Egypt, Nigeria – and of course Fiji with its tradition of peacekeeping.)

The Coalition is, it claims, fighting for the ‘rules-based-order’ in one conflict while pushing-back against international law in the other (genocidal) conflict. A coalition of hypocrisy, indeed.

In the end, international rules are meaningless in a battle framed as Good versus Evil. Evil, by definition, does not follow the rules. So, if Good is to wage an unyielding war against Evil, why would Good handicap itself by following rules that Evil cannot be expected to follow? Laws can be applied to a real war – of A versus B – but not to a war when one or both sides claim to be Good combating Evil? For the sanctimonious, defeating the posited Evil is more important than following the rules.

These West European interests are pulling back from their unconditional support for Israel so that they can focus on their belligerence towards Russia. While they don’t admit the contradiction in their embarrassing support for one aggressor (Israel) and their adamant opposition to another (Russia), Israel’s war in Palestine has removed any possibility that the coalition can seriously claim the moral high ground.

In Aotearoa New Zealand – the little-West located in the far southeast – we need to show more empathy towards Asia, which has been invaded and abused many times by The West, and less towards West Europe which was last invaded by Asia in the fifth century (by Atilla the Hun). New Zealand (eg under Jim Bolger) once considered itself to be an Asian country. Now, New Zealand’s political class is at risk of reinterpreting the continent Asia – sixty percent of the world’s humanity – as a monolithic antagonist. Can the lands to the south of Asia – literally, Australasia – be trusted by Asia?

In geopolitical terms, the West are the aggressors – and the peace blockers – in both of the present faultlines.

The Central Issue: Unipolar versus Multipolar ‘World Order’

Realist scholars of geopolitics – including the conservative John Mearsheimer and the progressive development economist Jeffrey Sachs – are clear about the nature of and the openness of the western geopolitical project. They see the eastwards expansion of the west, cloaked in its narrative of sanctimony, as somewhat problematic.

A unipolar world order is not necessarily an overt dictatorship over every human on the planet. Rather, it is a system in which one central polity – potentially one man or woman, but more likely a technocracy of truth-guardians – has an effective global veto over the contest of ideas, should it choose to use that veto. In a multipolar world order, such vetoes may operate regionally, though there could be no ‘one-veto-to-rule-them-all’.

The first thing that people across the world should consider, is whether the one-empire world is a better aspiration than a multi-empire world; noting that empires come in both overt and covert forms, and that empires can vary from the somewhat benign (ie fraternal) to the severely malign. (Mackinder’s principal principle was that of ‘fraternity’.) Is a single benign empire best? The issues here are twofold: how easily can a benign empire become malign; and how can we be sure that a benign hegemon is really as benign as portrays itself? (We may note the more benign optics of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World compared to the chilling repression underpinning George Orwell’s 1984.)

The West’s illusion of being non-violent in achieving its objectives is a result of it using violence only as a last resort; the West favours heavy-handed diplomacy, known in earlier imperial times as gunboat diplomacy. Importantly – as we have seen in Palestine and Iraq, and as we saw especially in World War Two, Korea and Vietnam – the West will always resort to extreme violence if it feels it has no other choice. The West will always bring out its ‘big bazookas’ if it feels sufficiently threatened or sufficiently punitive.

The coalition of sanctimony, through Mark Rutter, let slip the truth that the President of the USA is ‘Daddy’. Another ingratiating word that I’ve noted, for example in Berlin Briefing podcasts, is ‘uncle’; a word that this year cost the Prime Minister of Thailand her job (see Thailand’s PM suspended over probe into leaked ‘uncle’ phone call with Cambodian official, Euronews 1 July 2025).

Daddy! says it all. The coalition wants a military presence in Ukraine. Please Daddy! Don’t stop the war in a way that obliges Ukraine to become a neutral country (eg in the way that Austria was obliged after World War Two).

Mackinder claimed: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island [Eurasia-Africa]; who rules the World-Island commands the world.” (Not unlike the Muldoon political stratagem which contributed to New Zealand choosing to adopt MMP. “Who rules the Cabinet rules the Caucus. Who rules the Caucus rules the Parliament. Who rules the Parliament rules the Country.”)

Mackinder, in his later writing, emphasised the lands between the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea as the Heartland. The World Wars of the twentieth century can be seen as grabs by Germany for Ukraine, the heart of the Heartland. Which country is it today which – using ‘whatever resources it takes’ – most wants to gain effective control of all of Eastern Europe, including former Soviet republics. Who rules the European Union rules Europe. Who rules Nato rules the West. The United States’ role in Nato is diminishing. Who, who once played a back seat in Nato, is now muscling into the front row?

Let’s play Dominoes, noting that geopolitical advance is performed using various ways and means, soft power and economic power as well as hard power. From a European viewpoint, the final important dominos would be Georgia (an especially interesting prize, given the ambiguous statuses of Abkhazia as a seaside playground for Russia’s richest and South Ossetia), and maybe Belarus.

Further south, after Syria and Iran are neutralised by Israel and the United States (noting the events of 1953), there are – as dominoes for American imperialism – Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Russia, with Belarus and Kazakhstan, would then be encircled. The geopolitical West then would be literally on China’s border; adjacent to China’s sensitive Xinjiang province (aka East Turkestan). It was Zbigniew Brzezinski’s published dream; to contain China, to effectively veto China as a ‘player’. Something like this was Brzezinski’s open conspiracy.

Conspiracy Theories

Yesterday we heard this (Donald Trump says China, North Korea and Russia ‘conspiring against’ US, BBC News, 3 Sep 2025) from the American president. Yes, he was probably baiting the media. But we have been told that only feeble-minded people believe in conspiracies. Are conspiracy theories only lulu-lala when they are espoused by anti-ruling-class people? Is it OK to laugh-off other people’s conspiracy theories while quite earnestly promoting one’s own?

I heard this just the other day on Berlin Briefing, Why military service is back on the table in Germany(14 August 2025; 28’20”); the 2029 hypothesis which is gaining all the hallmarks of a Euro-conspiracy theory. Young soldier: “For example, 2029, the date that is put there out in the room from all Nato allies…”. Nina Haase: “Hang on there, to explain what that means, the date 2029 is the date when most military experts seem to agree that Russia will be in a position theoretically to test Nato’s Article Five, so to test an attack on one of Nato’s countries to see just how Nato will react, whether the other countries will come to help, because that’s what Article Five means, an attack on one is an attack on all.”

A good reference for the 2029 story is Germany’s Army Is Rebuilding. What Could Go Wrong?, Politico, Jessica Bateman, 29 August 2025, ‘”We are now moving from a war of choice to a war of necessity,” he [Carsten Breuer, the Bundeswehr’s highest serving general] explained. From security analysis he believes Russia will be capable of attacking NATO territory by 2029, with the caveat that this depends on the outcome in Ukraine and whether the war exhausts the Kremlin’. Remember Iraq’s ‘weapons of mass-destruction’!

Nobody ever says why Russia would want to attack a Nato country in 2029 or any other year; allegations-of-evil by western soothsayers notwithstanding. Russia has never aspired to possess Western Europe, and its hegemony over Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1989 was entirely in the context of the finality of World War in Europe. The coalition of hypocrisy simply asserts this conspiracy theory as a justification for the militarisation of a near-bankrupt Old Europe, to deploy Donald Rumsfeld’s2003 putdown.

Western Europe is undergoing an Economic Implosion

France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are all now in economic crisis; in fiscal crisis. Their spending cuts led to revenue constriction, meaning that less government spending has led to bigger (not smaller, as the neoliberals presume) budget deficits. With France it’s especially political, given the present fiscal crisis, the looming presidential election there in 2027, and the lack of unifying candidates to replace Macron in that role. (Marine Le Pen, who has become a potential unifier of the non-Centre has been barred from running.) The United Kingdom government is imploding too, and for similar reasons (though Nigel Farage, continuing to espouse fiscal conservatism, remains a less likely unifier). Many people in Britain think that the Labour Government cannot survive even half of its five-year term, despite Labour’s huge majority in the House.

In Germany, there is some pressure on the right for the CDU to dump its SPD coalition partner in favour of finding common ground with the populist-right AFD. But ‘Putin’ has become the number one political issue in federal Germany, and the AFD are – at least in Merz’s eyes – ‘pro-Putin’.

In principle, Merz could revive Germany’s economy – and enhance his own political fortune – by practicing Hitlernomics; reindustrialisation through a government-spending initiative to invest in rearmament. Whatever it takes. Hitler’s popularity in the 1930s increased because he got Germans working again. But Merz has agreed to buy Germany’s weapons from the United States, so that the arm-twisting United States can make more money and less war.

Most European countries are facing radical demographic change. To fight wars, they will need to exploit immigrant labour. Of course that happened in World War Two, too. One thing we hardly ever heard about, re WW2, was Germany’s reliance on and exploitation of ‘immigrant’ slave labour. Many of the victims of the Royal Air Force in wartime Germany were in fact slaves from the places the RAF was supposedly trying to save.

It all leaves the polities of the countries which make up the coalition morally, intellectually and financially bankrupt.

The Rise of the Conservative Left

The nuanced political chatter in Europe now is about the rise of the ‘conservative left’. And, indeed, it appears that the ‘populist right’ is moving leftwards on economic policy. In practice, that will mean a return to something like Keynesian economics. To a degree this is what is keeping Giorgia Meloni popular in Italy, while the handwringers and conservatives to her north are tanking in the polls.

In New Zealand, there is one authentic party of the conservative left; New Zealand First.

The three policy-axes which determine elections are: economic (progressive [left; fiscal pragmatism] versus neoliberal [right; fiscal conservatism]); cultural [multiculturalism versus dominant-culturalism]; and geopolitical [conciliation versus belligerence re foreign states].

In Europe and elsewhere, the Left (Die Linke in Germany) is ‘progressive’ on fiscal policy, ‘progressive’ on identity politics (including open to immigration), and pro-peace. The Right (AFD in Germany) is becoming ‘progressive’ on fiscal policy, is conservative on identity politics (including immigration), and pro-peace in Europe. Two-out-of-three (potential points of agreement) ain’t bad; especially as left-identity politics is slowly giving way to ‘bread-and-butter’ issues.

So the left-Left and the right-Left may be able to ally to form future coalitions which will oust the “Saatchi and Saatchi” (to quote the late Jim Anderton, as in ‘the difference between National and Labour is the same as the difference between Saatchi and Saatchi‘) centrist legacy parties of the hitherto mainstream political class. (We note that ‘coalitions of opposites’ are not unknown to history; for example, the alliance between the West and the Soviet Union in World War Two.)

The legacy parties, though divided on cultural/identity issues (as are the new parties), are firmly neoliberal (ie fiscally conservative, claiming the virtue of balanced budgets), supportive of Ukraine, and facilitating Israel’s genocidal erasure of Palestine’s indigenous population. The legacy parties can only survive if their opposition remains divided. With the rise of the conservative left – the right-Left – such division can no longer be guaranteed.

Prediction

My sense is that, on or before 2030, there is a one-in-five chance (20%) that there will be a nuclear exchange between the world’s ‘great powers’. That ‘Third World War’ will have been caused by the last-gasp resistance – on the part of the West – to the new reality of a multipolar world order. If such a ‘last gasp of the West’ exchange does take place, my prediction is that there is a 50% chance of a mass extinction event on a scale at least as great as that of 65 million years ago. That’s a 10% chance of a mass extinction event.

Nevertheless ‘nine-out-of-ten’ (or ‘four-out-of-five’) ain’t’ bad, meaning it’s more likely than not that the world does eventually settle down. I am predicting a 50% chance that the politics of Europe will decisively shift towards the ‘conservative left’ in this half-decade (or in the 2030s, towards the radical centre, parties like TOP in New Zealand); and that there will be enough common ground between the old-left and the growing conservative left to make it possible for the two-lefts to form coalitions against the withering centre; against the diminishing hurrah of today’s elite political class. Something like this did indeed happen in the 1930s; then the creation of a coalition against fascism pushed the old conservative politics to one side.

Summary

The world is facing a dangerous moment. Sanctimony and hypocrisy are not the answers. Fraternity, trustfulness, dialogue, neutrality, sympathy; they are the qualities we need to embrace and project.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

A leading advocacy group supporting Palerstine has called on the government to follow Germany’s lead and suspend New Zealand military support for Israel to continue its mass killing and mass starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.

Germany and New Zealand were two of the countries to sign a letter yesterday condemning Israel’s plans to extend its war to Gaza City, displacing another million Palestinians.

However, one of the other signatories, Australia, announced that it would go a step further by moving to recognise a state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly next month.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Australia would work with the international community to make recognition a reality.

“I have said it publicly and I said it directly to Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu: the situation in Gaza has gone beyond the world’s worst fears,” he said.

“Far too many innocent lives have been lost. The Israeli government continues to defy international law and deny sufficient aid, food and water to desperate people, including children.”

The decision rides on a condition that the Palestinian resistance group Hamas plays no role in its future governance.

Letter condemns Israel
New Zealand joined Australia, United Kingdom, Germany and Italy in signing a letter that said:

“The plans that the government of Israel has announced risk violating international humanitarian law. Any attempts at annexation or of settlement extension violate international law.

It will aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation, endanger the lives of the hostages, and further risk the mass displacement of civilians.”

PSNA co-chair John Minto said in a statement that Israel had a long history of ignoring outside opinion because they never included accountabilities.

“However, Germany has followed its condemnation with action. New Zealand needs to do the same,” he said.

Minto says New Zealand should:

• End approval for Rakon to export crystal oscillators to the US which are used in guided bombs sent to Israel for bombing Gaza;
• Ban all Rocket Lab launches from Mahia which are used for Israel reconnaissance in Gaza; and
• Launch an investigation by the Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence into the sharing of intelligence with the US and Israel which can be used for targeting Palestinians.

“New Zealanders expect our government to end its empty condemnations of Israel and act to sanction this rogue, genocidal state,” Minto said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

On Saturday I came into possession of this letter, transcript below.

I will note that the recipient of the letter is someone I know a bit about; I would like to know more about his time in London, circa 1930-1932. I understand that he attended the London School of Economics. I never met him; but, me being a student of the Great Depression, I wish I had known him while writing my MA thesis.

Eric Salmon lived from 1903 to 1990. Certainly a patrician, he was an Auckland City Councillor and associate of Auckland’s ‘Mayor Robbie’. While he would never have had any sympathy with the Nazi cause, I would like to think that, like me, he would have had some empathy for the German people in 1933; and the many other people then caught up in events – indeed zeitgeists – moving too fast, and on too great a scale.

Sadly, I will never be able to see Mr Salmon’s letter to his German contact (probably written late in 1932). I do not know if he replied to the letter below.

Home Address:

Schwelm (in Westfalen)
Kirkplatz 7

Schwelm, 6th VI. [June] 1933

Dear Mr. Salmon,

                                    Your letter with the interesting account of your native [town?] and the economic position of New Zealand was a great joy to me, and I thank you very much for it. I hope, you won’t take it amiss that my answer comes so late. During the last months I spent all my time in finishing the dissertation for my doctor examination. Some days ago I finally handed it to my professor, and I am now preparing for the oral examination which will take place in the end of July. – How are you getting on with your work?

                        In the course of rather a short time the political situation in this country has thoroughly changed, and the questions you put to me in your letter have found a sudden solution. I may add : also a good one. You are perhaps astonished to read that, for – as far as I know – most of the great newspapers of the world tell you just the contrary. The reason for it is that the European nations, above all France and Polonia [Poland], but England too, fear a new war, and this fear is in an inexcusable way nourished by all those German people who don’t agree with the new spirit and the new methods. The Jewish question is also of great importance. The measures we took against the Jews were not at all cruel or unjustified, as you read in English papers. All we try is only to reduce the enormous influence and power of the Jews in Germany to an extent which compounds to their small number. More and more their influence has become a destructive force in our national life. What you see nowadays in Germany is not a warlike or an extremely militaristic spirit or a mass barbarism (as many foreigners suppose), but the will to build a new nation, in which no longer the unchecked liberalism of the postwar years reigns. We were standing just before a complete breakdown and the chaos of Communism, which would have been fatal for the whole world. In this dangerous moment came the revolution of our nationalist party under the great leader Hitler. It marks the beginning of something quite new in Germany. We know that a great many tasks are waiting for us, but seeing them we are no longer desperate as it was the case in the last years. The new Germany has a new hope, a new will, and a new energy, and with them we shall overcome all problems and difficulties.

      What do you think about the change in Germany, and what do you read in the papers? I should be very glad to hear something about it from you. Hoping you are quite well I am with kindest regards, yours Theodor Hort.

Herr Hort – presumably Dr Hort, soon after – is writing from Schwelm, eleven kilometres east of the Westphalian city of Wuppertal. To the west of Wuppertal is Düsseldorf, on the Rhine; Cologne is to the south, near where the river Wupper flows into the Rhine. To the north of Wuppertal is the Ruhr Valley, Germany’s western industrial heartland. Between Düsseldorf and Wuppertal is Neandertal/Neanderthal. Most of the journey between Wuppertal and Schwelm can be taken on the ‘world-famous in Westphalia’ Wuppertal Schwebebahn, the suspension railway, built between 1897 and 1903, which runs above the Wupper River. I am privileged to have ridden on that railway in 1984.

I had hoped that, because the railway is still there, that Wuppertal had not been bombed by the RAF during WW2. No such luck. I found this article in the Burnie Advocate (Tasmania), 1 June 1943: Wuppertal raid one of heaviest of war. This was eight weeks before Operation Gomorrah decimated Hamburg. (On Wuppertal, refer also: Planning a Bombing Operation: Wuppertal 1943, My grandfather, the bomber pilot, When the singing stops on Christmas Eve, German tragedy of destiny, Wikipedia.)

I have no idea what Theodor Hort’s fate was. Maybe he was recruited for the notorious Einsatzgruppen, which was top-heavy with academic doctors? More likely he turned away, at least in his mind, from the excesses of the New Germany; nevertheless serving his country in some capacity, albeit out of the kind of obligation that would have been hard to refuse. There is a high chance he died during the war. I’m guessing he would have been about 35 years old in 1943.

Throughout the twentieth century, many young Australians and New Zealanders studied at the London School of Economics. (William Pember Reeves was its Director from 1908 to 1919.) So did many upper-middle-class Germans; Herr Hort clearly fell into that class-category. Other Germans to study economics at the LSE included Heinrich Brüning and Ursula von der Leyen.

Brüning was Chancellor of Germany from mid-1930 to mid-1932. Brüning was the centrist politician most associated with the economic collapse of Weimar Germany during the Great Depression, thanks to his ‘liberal’ policies of stubborn fiscal conservatism. He sought to balance the Budget at any cost. Germany and the world paid a very high cost indeed. I understand that the “unchecked liberalism” Hort refers to is the economic liberalism of Brüning and others (think today’s neoliberalism), and not so much the social liberalism of Berlin that was an icon of 1920s’ Germany. (As a part of that social liberalism, Germany in 1918 – Germany’s first annus horribilis last century – became a proper democracy, with proportional representation, and votes for women.)

I would imagine that Hort’s parents would have voted for Bruning’s Zentrum (Centre) party. While it started as a Catholic party, it was actually the foundation party of German ‘Christian Democracy’, having already broadened its base by 1930. Westphalia, Düsseldorf and Cologne represented the West German heartland of centrist Christian Democratic politics. And consistently these places cast the fewest votes for Adolf Hitler’s party. (The city of Cologne, the least-Nazi-supporting city in Germany, was the first large German urban centre to be carpet-bombed by the British, in 1942.)

Nevertheless, at least in March 1933, young Theodor probably voted for the National Socialists. (Although his “great leader” epithet was probably a direct translation of ‘führer’ rather than an expression of devotion.) The Enabling Act of 1933, which ended democracy in Germany, had been in force for three months before Herr Hort wrote this letter. He, like many others in a desperate country, was willing to forego democracy if other goals might better be achieved without it. Further, by 1938, Hitlernomics – borrowing ‘as much as it takes’ to re-arm and reorganise along Spartan lines – was looking like a great success. (Something suspiciously similar took place in the Bundestag in 2025, exactly 92 years after the Enabling Act, using the outvoted ‘lame-duck’ parliament to get the necessary two-thirds majority. This time it was the ‘fascists’ – AFD – who were against borrowing to re-arm; and the outvoted fastidiously-anti-borrowing neoliberal FDP, who should not have been there.)

Finally, here, we should note that Germany as a whole – and certainly western Germany – while Judeophobic, was probably not much more Judeophobic than other European countries (including the USA); and that most German Jews, to 1918 at least, had seen themselves as more Germans than Semites, and played a significant role in the German armed forces in World War One. The circumstances of 1918, however, made it a relatively easy task for would-be-politicians with nationalist agendas to scapegoat Jews. There were vastly more Jews living in the countries east of Germany, and they from 1940 to 1944 ended up being very much in the wrong place at the wrong time. In Germany in 1933, ‘Jewish’ identity was used very much as proxies for the twin-devils who many Germans believed had ‘stabbed Germany in the back’ in 1918 (at a time when Germany appeared to be winning on the western front) and again in (and around) 1931; ‘Bolshevik’ Communists and big-finance capitalists. The 1918 claim of a ‘stolen war’ was an evidentially-false conspiracy theory which had the appearance of credibility to many desperate people looking for simple answers, and scapegoats.

On the Bolshevik matter, while Theodor Hort and others will not have known about it until much later – the winter of 1932/33 was the peak of the Holodomor where four million mainly-Ukrainians were deliberately starved to death by Josef Stalin’s Moscow-based regime. Too many elements of the western press were looking the other way. Soviet Communism was being romanticised in certain middle-class and working-class circles in ‘the West’ (though demonised in others: refer Three Women who Launched a Movement); the mega-atrocities were downplayed by mainstream journalists such as Walter Duranty.

It was the full discovery in 1939 of the Holodomor and the later Great Purge(s) that enabled the Nazis to contemplate an even worse genocide, a substantial part of which became the Shoah. The Shoah, while the worst genocide ever, was neither the first nor the last real-world example of ‘hunger games’ in the last 100 years.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Germany’s important election last week struggled to make the news cycle, even on Germany’s own Deutsche Welle(DW), Germany’s equivalent of Britain’s BBC. Especially (but not only) in the international media, most of the focus was on a single party (AFD, Alliance for Germany) that was never going to have the most votes and was (almost) never going to become part of the resulting government.

Germany is the world’s third largest national economy, and traditionally dominates the politics of the European Union; an important example of this dominance was the Eurozone financial crisis of the first-half of the 2010s; a crisis that was (unsatisfactorily) resolved, thanks to a problematic and controversial program of fiscal austerity.

At present, Germany, like New Zealand, is experiencing an economic recession. (Provisional annual economic growthwas -0.2% in 2024 and -0.3% in 2023.) The cause is similar, too, in both countries: the same ‘balance the Budget’ mentality that gave the world the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Election Result

The ‘winner’ of the German election was the CDU/CSU Alliance (see Wikipedia for a better presentation of the results), which works a bit like the Liberal/National Coalition in Australia. (The Christian Social Union functions in Bavaria much like Australia’s National Party functions in rural Queensland.) CDU/CSU (like National in New Zealand) comfortably prevailed with 28.5 percent of the vote, entitling that alliance to 33 percent of the seats in the Bundestag (Parliament).

The new Chancellor (equivalent to Prime Minister) will be Friedrich Merz; a 69-year-old version of our own Christopher Luxon, as far as I can tell. He is strongly anti-Putin and pro-Israel. He has come to power well and truly under the international media radar; and will be in a strong position to exert near-absolute power, given that he will always be able to turn to the AFD (who got more votes than the Social Democrats; 20.8%) for support in the Bundestag for any measure that is not palatable to Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats. In the new Parliament, the Greens and the Left merely make up the numbers.

Merz’s Christian Democrats will form a coalition government with the losing SPD (Social Democratic Party, like Labour in New Zealand) who came third with 16.4 percent of the vote; 19 percent of the seats. Together these two parties of the establishment centre hold 52% of the new parliament, despite having less than 45% of the vote. (The outgoing minority government was a centrist coalition of the SPD and the Greens; the election was held early because the ACT-like Liberal Party – the FPD, Free Democrats – withdrew from the coalition. The FPD vote shrunk from 11.4 percent in 2021 to just 4.3 percent of the vote this time.)

The result in Germany proved to be very much like that of the United Kingdom in 2024: a slide in support for the two major parties (‘the establishment centre’), a consolidation of power to the self-same establishment centre, and a shift of that establishment centre to the right. (See my chart in Germany’s stale (and still pale) political mainstream, Evening Report 27 February 2025, for a timeline of decline.) While both countries technically underwent a change of government, in both countries the establishment has entrenched its power, and in both countries the political assumptions of the power centre have shifted to the right.

Clearly this is problematic for democracy, because historically disastrous popular support for the ‘broad church’ parties of the establishment centre has coincided with increased power to those parties, as well as policy convergence between them. Further, based on legislative electoral requirements, neither Germany nor the United Kingdom (nor the United States for that matter) will have a new government until 2029. At a time when a week is a long time in international politics, 208 weeks is an eternity. World War Three, a distinct possibility, may be in its second or third year by then.

Voting System

Germany represents the prototype upon which New Zealand’s MMP voting system is based. There are some differences though, and some recent changes.

Germany calls its all-important ‘party vote’ the ‘second vote’, disguising its importance. It is possible that many German voters do not fully appreciate its significance. The electorate vote is called ‘first vote’, and winners (by a plurality, not necessarily a majority) are elected ‘directly’. The second (party) vote is understood as a top-up vote to ensure proportionality.

Party lists are regional in Germany. And ‘ethnic parties’ may get special privileges.

In one respect the German version is more proportional than the New Zealand version of MMP, in that it no longer allows overhang MPs. (However, the most recent result is not proportional in the important sense that two parties together with less than 45% of the vote have 52% of the seats.) In MMP, one can easily imagine an overhang situation being frequent if the ‘major’ parties, which win most electorates, only get between 16% and 29% of the party vote.

In 2013, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court decided that overhang seats were too big a threat to proportionality. So, they introduced ‘levelling seats’. In effect, it meant that if one party gets an overhang, then all parties get an overhang. The result was, in 2013, that a parliament that should have had 598 members (Deputies) ended up with 631, an effective overhang of 33. In 2017 that effective overhang grew to 111, and to 137 in 2021.

For 2025, they decided to abandon overhang representation altogether, by not guaranteeing direct election through the first vote. And they fixed the size of the Bundestag to 630 Deputies, up from a base-size of 598.

If the new German system was in place in New Zealand in 2023, then two of the Te Pati Māori electorate seats from 2023 would have been forfeit, going instead to second placed candidates; proportionality in 2023 entitled Te Pati Māori to four seats, not the six which they have. However, we should note that, if New Zealand was using the present German version of MMP, there would be no special Māori electorates, but the Māori Party would be exempt the five percent party threshold. Ethnic-privileged parties in Germany are incentivised to focus on the party vote, not the electorate vote. In Germany there is a Danish ethnic party (South Schleswig Voters’ Association) which is exempt the threshold. Its leader, Stefan Seidler, did not win his electorate. But his party got 0.15% of the nationwide vote, meaning it qualified for 0.15% of the 630 places in the Bundestag; one seat, for him.

New Zealand voters seem to have more tactical and strategic political nous than do German voters. Thus, it has been very rare for a party in New Zealand to miss out qualifying for Parliament because of getting between 4% and 5% of the party votes (noting that both countries operate a 5% disqualification threshold). In Germany, party-vote percentages just below 5% are not uncommon. In New Zealand, voters, conscious that they want to play a role in coalition-building, actively help parties near the threshold to get over the line. (Indeed, I voted New Zealand First in 2023, because I was 99.9% sure that the only post-election coalition options would be National/ACT or National/ACT/NZF; I favoured the three-party alternative, so I used my vote strategically to help block a National/ACT government.)

Indeed the latest German result was a bit like the latest New Zealand result, but with a party resembling New Zealand First (BSW) getting 4.972% of the vote, so getting no seats at all. BSW getting just a few more votes would have meant a substantial erosion of the two-party power result which eventuated. It is extremely difficult for new non-ethnic parties to get elected in Germany.

In 2025, two parties scored just under five percent of the vote. As well as the BSW, the (ACT-like) Free Democrats who had been part of the previous government, and who had indeed precipitated the early election, scored 4.3%. Indeed, fifteen percent of the votes were ‘wasted’ – that is, cast for ultimately unsuccessful parties. In New Zealand the wasted vote is typically around four percent. Indeed, this high wasted vote turns out to be a more serious challenge to proportionality in German than uncompensated overhang seats.

Both Germany and New Zealand have the contentious (in New Zealand) ‘electorate MP’ rule; the rule that’s misleadingly dubbed in New Zealand as the ‘coat-tail’ rule. (Misleading, because most MPs come in on the coat-tails of their party leadership, and always have.) In Germany the rule is stricter than in New Zealand. In order to avoid disqualification by getting less than 5% of the party vote, New Zealand requires that the party get one electorate MP. In Germany the rule (initially the same as New Zealand), since 1957 has been a requirement for three electorate MPs. In Germany in 2021, the Left Party got 4.87% of the vote and three electorate MPs; they just squeezed in, on both criteria!

Overall, United States’ Vice-President JD Vance’s pre-election comments about democracy in Germany were valid. German politics continues to exclude the non-establishment parties of both the right and the left, despite support for these parties having been increasing for a while, and now representing the majority of German voters.

Media Framing

German television electoral coverage, if DW is anything to go by, is superficial; indeed, is quite insensitive to the national and local dramas taking place. I watched the coverage live. In the hour before the Exit Poll results were announced, the discussion barely mentioned the potential dramas taking place, despite both the BSW and FDP parties pre-polling only just under the five percent threshold. The state of the economy was mentioned in a perfunctory way; clearly it was not a big issue for the political class on display.

At 6 o’clock exactly, the exit-poll results were read out, as if they were the election result. As indeed they turned out to be, more-or-less; the same as the pre-election polls. The subsequent uninterested attitude towards the actual counting of the votes was disappointing. There had been a bit of this in the 2024 UK election as well; as if the exit poll was the election result. In the UK case, Labour’s actual result (for the popular vote) was well under the exit poll result, while the Conservatives did significantly better than their exit poll tally; those facts, though, were for the nerds and psephologists.

In my observation, early votes and exit polls favour the parties supported by the political class; election day votes much less so. So, in New Zealand in 2023 it was initially looking like there would be a two-party coalition of the right. But, to the attentive, as the night wore on, the National Party percentage fell from 41% to 38%, meaning that NZF would have to be included in any resulting coalition.

I suspected something quite similar would happen in Germany, and I was only partially wrong. The exit poll results, and the subsequent counts, were presented to just one decimal place; indeed, the presentation of the numbers was very poor throughout. So, it was hard to see to what extent BSW was improving as the votes were counted.

In the exit poll, two parties – FPD and BSW – were shown as being on 4.7%, and the AFD was on 19.5%. So, the two 4.7% parties were largely written out of the subsequent discussion. We did see an early concession by the FPD, who – representing a segment of the political class – understood the polling dynamics rather well. And we did see the AFD’s Alice Weidel being asked if she was disappointed to get under 20%. Ms Weidel put on a brave face, but she did seem disappointed. When the votes were actually counted, her party got 20.8% exactly on Weidel’s prior expectations.

BSW was completely ignored. There was simply no interest in the possibility that they might reach the 5% threshold, even when the vote count had them upto 4.9%. In the end BSW reached 4.972%; so close! Out of sight, out of mind! In the official results the BSW were lumped with ‘Other Parties’. The DW election panel were too unaware to make any comments about the party itself, its philosophies, or how its possible success might influence the process of forming a coalition government. (Of particular importance was that, with just a few more votes, BSW might have given Eastern Germany a voice in a three-way coalition government.)

For DW, their perennial concern is the place of Germany within Europe and the World; they had little time to give the outside world a glimpse into the domestic lives and politics of ordinary Germans. And we heard nothing about the ‘ethnic vote’, the privileged Denmark Party notwithstanding. I suspect that many if not most of the recent immigrants who do much of the work in Germany either could not vote or did not vote. The election was about them, not for them; denizens, not citizens.

However, DW did invite on a gentleman who mildly focussed the attention of the discussants by suggesting that one of the priorities of the new Chancellor – Friedrich Merz – would be to acquire nuclear weapons! I don’t think the rest of the world had any prior insights into that; ordinary Germans were probably equally in the dark.

Who is Friedrich Merz? Who knows? It turns out that he dropped out of politics for a while, to play a leading role in BlackRock, the international acquisitions company which until recently owned New Zealand’s SolarZero (refer Update on SolarZero Liquidation by BlackRock, Scoop, 29 January 2025). Our media told us that the election was all about the “far-right” AFD Party; that is, the far non-establishment-right. We in New Zealand heard nothing about the far establishment-right; the shadowy man (or his party). Some now fear Merz will be an out-and-out warmonger. Even Al Jazeera, which can be relied upon to cover many stories about places New Zealand’s media barely touches (and in a bit more depth), had the portraits of Olaf Scholz and Alice Weidel on the screen, on 22 February, the day before the election, despite the certainty that Merz world become the new Chancellor.

In that vein, I heard a German woman interviewed in Christchurch, on RNZ on 25 February. She, disappointed with the election result, spent her whole edited four minutes railing about the AFD, as if the AFD had won. There was no useful commentary, by her or RNZ, of the actual result of Germany’s election.

Are we so shallow that we don’t care; that some of us with the loudest voices only want to rail against a non-establishment party, and to see the democratic support for alternative parties as being somehow anti-democratic?

East Germany

People of a certain age in New Zealand will remember the former East Germany; the DDR, German ‘Democratic’ Republic. Most people in Germany itself will have had knowledge of it, including the Berlin-based political staff of DW who were mostly in their thirties, forties and fifties. But the ongoing issues of Eastern Germany were barely in their mindframes.

In Eastern Germany – the former DDR – (especially outside of Berlin), support for the AFD was close to 40%, for BSW over 10%, and the Left much higher than in Western Germany. In the former East Berlin (which I visited in 1974), the Left seems to have been the most popular party. Support in the East for the establishment parties combined was between 25% and 30%, and with a lower turnout.

BSW, it turns out, is Left on economic policy and Right on social policy. And, in the German discourse, is categorised by the political class as ‘pro-Putin’. If BSW had got 5% of the vote, Merz could have tried to bring them into his government; or Merz might have turned to the Green Party instead of a ‘pro-Putin’ party. But I cannot see even the German Greens being able to govern as a junior partner to a belligerent establishment-right CDU-led government. BSW’s failure to get 5% of the vote may turn out to be one of the great ‘might-have-beens’ of Germany’s future history.

As JD Vance stated, this Eastern German situation poses a danger for democracy in Germany and in Europe. Eastern Germany is where the German state is at its most vulnerable. The majority of voters there have voted for ‘pro-Putin’ parties; and, significantly, parties prioritising the problems of economic failure over the big-politics of extranational power-plays.

The new German government, it would seem, is set to aggravate (or, at best, ignore) the problems of Germany’s ‘near-East’, while setting out to inflame the problems of Europe’s ‘far-East’.

The Debt Brake

This is Germany’s equivalent of Ruth Richardson’s 1994 ‘Fiscal Responsibility Act’ (now entrenched in New Zealand law and lore). This is the major single reason why New Zealand has had so many infrastructure problems this century, and why so many young men and families emigrated to Australia in the 1990s, with some of these emigrants coming back to New Zealand in recent years as ‘501s’.

The Merkel debt-brake is the self-inflicted single major reason why many European economies are in such a mess today; and Germany in particular. Germany is congenitally deeply committed to all kinds of financial austerity, with government financial austerity being the most ingrained. Rather than circulating as it should, money is concentrating. The debt-brake is “a German constitutional rule introduced [in 2009] during the Global Financial crisis to enforce budget discipline and reduce [public] debt loads in the country” (see Berlin Briefing, below).

Germany still has a parliamentary session under the old Parliament, before the new parliament convenes. Michaela Küfner (see Berlin Briefing, below) suggests the possibility that the old “lame duck” Parliament could remove the debt-brake from the German constitution, because she sees the make-up of the new more right-wing parliament as being less amenable to address this ‘elephant in the room’. Seems democratically dodgy to me, even talking about pushing dramatic constitutional legislation through a ‘lame duck’ parliament; like Robert Muldoon, pushing through a two-year parliamentary term for New Zealand in the week after the 1984 election!

(Two-year parliamentary terms are not unknown, by the way; the United States has a two-year term for its Congress. This is almost never mentioned when we discuss the parliamentary term in New Zealand. In the United States at present, there will be many people for whom the 2026 election cannot come fast enough; an opportunity to reign-in Donald Trump.)

Future German relations with the United States

On 27 February (28 Feb, New Zealand time) – before the fiasco in the White House on 28 February – I watched Berlin Briefing on DW. This programme is a regular panel discussion of the political editorship of Deutsche Welle.

The context here is that Friedrich Merz made an important speech the evening after the election; a speech that had the Berlin beltway – “people behind the scenes here in Berlin” – all agog. Merz said: “For me the absolute priority will be strengthening Germany so much so that we can achieve [defence] independence from the United States.”

The discussion proceeded as follows:

“How important is this anchoring in Nato of the idea of the United States as ‘The Great Protector’?” Nina Haase, DW political correspondent: “I don’t think there’s a word, ‘massive’ is not enough; people behind the scenes here in Berlin … they talk about are we going to part with the United States amicably or are we going to become enemies [my emphasis] … Europe has relied on the US so much since the Second World War is completely new thinking; just to prepare for a scenario with, if you will, would-be enemies on two sides; in the East with Russia launching a hybrid attack     and then [an enemy] in the West as well.” They go on to talk about the possible need for conscription in Germany.

The political correspondents were talking like bourgeois brat adult children who had expected that they should be able to enjoy a power-lifestyle underwritten by ‘big daddy’ always there as a financial and security backstop; and just realising that the rug of entitlement might be being pulled from under them. Michaela Küfner (Chief Political Editor of DW) goes on to talk about an “existential threat from the United States”, meaning the withdrawal (and potential enmity) of the great protector. “Like your Rich Uncle from across the ocean turning against you”, she said.

Nina Haase: “Pacifism, the very word, needs to be redefined in Germany … Germans are only now able to understand that you have to have weapons in order not to use them.” She was referring to earlier generations of pacifists (like me) who saw weapons as the problem, not the solution.

Ulrike Franke: “Everything needs to change for everything to stay the same”, basically saying Germany itself may have to pursue domestic Rich Uncle policies to maintain the lifestyles of the (entitled) ten percenters.

Michaela Küfner, towards the end of the discussion: “The AFD is framing [the supporters of] the parties which will make up the coming coalition as the political class who we will challenge”. And she noted, but only at the very end of the long discussion, that the effectively disenfranchised people in Eastern Germany are “a lot more Russia-friendly”.

Maybe Merz has a plan to build employment-rich munitions factories in Eastern Germany, to address both his security concerns and the obvious political discontent arising from unemployment and fast-eroding living standards? But Merz will have to abandon his innate fiscal conservatism before he can even contemplate that; can he do a Hoover to Hitler transition? Rearmament was Hitler’s game; his means to full employment after the Depression.

Implications for Democracy

I sense that Friedrich Merz will become the face of coming German politics, just as Angela Merkel once was, and as Trump and Starmer are very much the faces of government in their countries; becoming – albeit through democratic means – similar to the autocrats that, in Eastern and Middle-Eastern countries, they [maybe not Trump] rail against.

We might note that if we look carefully at World War One and World War Two, the core conflict was Germany versus Russia. Will World War Three be the same? And which side will ‘we’ (or ‘US’) be on? In WW1 and WW2, we were on Russia’s side. (Hopefully, in the future, we can be neutral with respect to other countries’ conflicts.)

Democracy is under strain worldwide. The diminishing establishment-centre – the political and economic elites and the people with secure employment and housing who still vote for familiar major parties – is clinging on to power, and for the time-being remains more powerful than ever in Europe.

In the Europe of the early 1930s, it was the Great Depression as a period of abject political failure that resulted in the suspension of democracy. All the signs are that the same failures of democratic leadership – worldwide from the 1920s – will bring about similar consequences.

For democracies to save themselves, they should bring non-establishment voices to the table. In 2025. Germany will be another important test case, already sowing the seeds of political failure. We should be wary of demonising the far non-establishment-right while lionising the far establishment-right.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Ref.

The above chart traces the vote-share of Germany’s establishment political parties: the right-wing CDU/CSU and the now-centre-right SPD (essentially the Christian Democrats, just like National in New Zealand) and the Social Democrats (just like Labour). And it compares Germany with England to show a similar process there.

An increasingly stale political centre has consolidated power in both Germany and the United Kingdom, despite record low vote-shares for these establishment parties. In Germany, the ‘major party’ combined vote has fallen to 45% (nearly as low as that in last year’s election in France, for the Centre and the traditional Right). In the United Kingdom, the establishment (Labour, Conservative) vote has fallen to 60%; though, given a much lower turnout in the United Kingdom than Germany, 60% there represents a similar level of support to that of the equivalent parties in Germany.

With these outcomes being at-best borderline-democratic (JD Vance had a point about the shutting-out of alternative voices), neither country is scheduled to have another election until 2029. And the ‘left’ establishment parties – in office in both countries in March 2025 – are as right-wing as their centre-right predecessor governments of Merkel and Sunak.

We note that, for Germany, elections before 1991 are for West Germany only. And, for the United Kingdom, my aim has been to focus on England, where Celtic nationalist parties have not played a role; thus until 1979, the British data is for the United Kingdom, whereas from 1983 the data is for England only. We also note that Germany shows few signs of promoting the literally colourful characters who play such an important part in contemporary British politics.

The waxing and waning of the postwar German mainstream

Postwar German politics began in 1949, with its new MMP voting system; proportional voting featuring two disqualification mechanisms, a five percent party-vote threshold, and the failure to gain a local electorate using the simple-plurality (FPP) criterion. (In Germany, in the 1950s, the latter disqualification rule was tightened; three electorate seats were required, rather than one.)

The rise in the two-party vote from 1949 to 1972 represented the consolidation of the major-party system, essentially in line with the post-war German economic miracle. From 1949 to 1969, the government was CDU-led. The SPD led the government from 1969 to 1982 (though with fewer votes than the CDU/CSU). All subsequent governments have been CDU-led, except for the relatively short-lived administrations of Gerhard Schröder (c.2000) and Olaf Scholz.

The fall in establishment-party vote-share reflects the rise of the Green Party in Germany, which itself reflects the waning of the economic miracle.

The 1990s’ political stability reflects the reunification era, the political dominance of Helmut Kohl; and the fact that, due to reunification, German politics suspended its characteristic debt-phobia.

The 2000s and 2010s represents the Angela Merkel era. The 2009 result reflects the Global Financial Crisis. The 2005 vote reflects the early Eurozone period, in which investment within the European Union was diverted into the development of the southern EU countries (and to Ireland). In particular, the 2000s saw the rise of The Left Party, which was shunned by the Establishment parties; this was the beginning of the German ‘firewall’, which meant that ‘grand coalitions’ were favoured over the inclusion of ‘outsider’ parties into government. In that time, the Green Party became a centrist party; inside rather than outside ‘the tent’.

In 2014 the debt-phobic way Germany ‘resolved’ the Euro crisis was popular in Germany, though ‘austerity’ ushered in the deflationary bias that has characterised subsequent fiscal policy in the European Union. (The adverse effect of deflationary fiscal policy was the use of a zero-interest-rate monetary policy by the European Central Bank; so the adverse consequences of the austerity policies played out more slowly than they might have.)

Since the initial ‘triumph’ of austerity in 2014, we have seen a substantial and ongoing decline in the vote for the establishment parties. However, these parties managed to consolidate power despite haemorrhaging votes. The new 2025 Government will be a substantially right-wing government made up of German-National (CDU 28.5%) and German-Labour (SPD 16.4%); this represents easily the worst vote ever for the ‘left’ SPD and easily the second-worst vote ever for the ‘winning’ CDU/CSU.

And, in the United Kingdom, the vote for Labour in 2024 was easily the worst vote of any ‘winning’ party in any election since 1945 (and possible since the time of Walpole in the 1720s).

Democracy anyone?

Postscript UK

In the UK, the highest percentage vote for a political party in the postwar era was 48.8% for Clement Attlee’s Labour Party, seeking a third term in office (in a very-early election which Attlee was tricked into calling). Labour was defeated, despite its record-high poll! Winston Churchill’s Conservatives got 48.0% of the vote; but, crucially, more seats. Attlee’s government was the least stale government in the United Kingdom’s post-war history; Attlee, in the UK, had a popularity and significance comparable to that of Michael Joseph Savage in New Zealand.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

During the opening of a two-week meeting in Hamburg on Monday to clarify state duties to protect the marine environment, Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne told the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) that it was time to speak of “legally binding obligations, rather than empty promises that go unfulfilled, abandoning peoples to suffering and destruction”.

Antigua and Barbuda formed an alliance with Tuvalu in 2021 called the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS), which has since been joined by Palau, Niue, Vanuatu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and the Bahamas.

They have asked the tribunal for its formal opinion on state responsibilities on climate change under the UN maritime treaty that it is responsible for upholding — the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The group of small islands wants the tribunal to clearly set out their legal obligations to protect the marine environment from the impacts of climate change, including ocean warming, acidification and sea level rise.

During the first day of oral hearings, Tuvalu Prime Minister Kausea Natano said vulnerable nations had tried and failed to secure action to cut global greenhouse gas emissions during years of international climate talks.

“We did not see the far-reaching measures that are necessary if we are to avert catastrophe,” said Natano.

‘Lack of political will’
“This lack of political will endangers all of humankind, and it is unacceptable for small island states like my own, which are already teetering on the brink of extinction.”

Browne told the tribunal it now had the opportunity to issue a “much-needed corrective to a process that has manifestly failed to address climate change. We cannot simply continue with endless negotiations and empty promises.”

Speaking after a northern summer of record-breaking temperatures on both land and sea, Browne said small island nations had come before the tribunal “in the belief that international law must play a central role in addressing the catastrophe that we witness unfolding before our eyes”.

COSIS members hope that a strong opinion from the tribunal will prompt governments to take tougher action on climate change. While not legally binding, the opinion could also form the basis of future lawsuits.

The alliance stresses that it is looking to the court to explain existing state obligations, rather than creating new laws.

ITLOS does not have as high a profile as the International Court of Justice, which earlier this year was tasked by the UN to provide an advisory opinion on climate change and human rights.

Nor are there as many states under its jurisdiction — the US is notable by its absence.

Influence on other courts
“But the tribunal is expected to come to a conclusion much earlier — potentially within the next year. And experts say its opinion could influence that of other courts including the ICJ as well as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has been asked by Chile and Colombia to provide a similar advisory opinion.

Thirty states that have signed the law of the sea, as well as the EU, submitted written statements to ITLOS before the deadline.

China is the only one to explicitly challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction. It does not consider ITLOS to have the power to issue advisory opinions, but only to resolve disputes.

While expressing its “heartfelt compassion for developing countries including small island developing States…. confronting our common climate change challenge” China maintains that the UNFCCC is the only proper channel for addressing it.

The UK does not dispute the tribunal’s jurisdiction, but it does warn ITLOS to have “particularly careful regard to the scope of its judicial function”. The country also raised concerns about the fact that the request for an advisory opinion was raised by only a small number of states.

Written responses show general agreement among states that greenhouse gas emissions are a form of pollution and that they will have a serious impact on the health of the marine environment and its ability to act as a carbon sink.

But they disagree on the extent to which they are required to act on this.

In its statement, COSIS notes that the law of the sea requires states to adopt and implement “all measures that are necessary to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment”.

No total pollution ban
Under the EU’s interpretation, however, this does not totally ban pollution of the marine environment or require states to immediately stop all pollution.

It points to existing international cooperation under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement and says the law of the sea does not require more stringent action.

COSIS, however, is keen to focus on the science, saying this shows the necessity of keeping global warming to a maximum of 1.5C.

Experts speaking at the tribunal outlined the ways in which climate change was already affecting the world’s oceans and how these are likely to worsen in future.

“Science has long confirmed these realities, and it must inform the content of international obligations,” said Vanuatu’s Attorney-General Arnold Loughman.

Republished from Climate Home News under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Around the world, today – July 26 —  is commemorated as the International Day for the Conservation of the Mangrove Ecosystem.

In 2015, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) during its General Conference proclaimed the day, also known as the World Mangrove Day.

It was first commemorated in 2016.

Mangrove forest conservation is crucial for global strategies on climate change mitigation as it is one of the most carbon-rich ecosystems in the world today.

According to the Department of Forestry, Fiji has more than 46,600 ha of mangrove forests which is approximately 4 percent of Fiji’s forest cover.

The ecosystem goods and services provided by mangroves include the provision of firewood, saltwater resistant building materials, traditional medicines and natural dyes.

Mangrove forests are productive fishing grounds and fulfil an important role as nurseries and habitat for a wide range of fish and invertebrate species which is crucial for food security and coastal livelihoods.

From masi to erosion defence
From the use of mangrove as a main ingredient for masi printing dyes to its role as a defence against soil erosion, mangroves are indeed plants with multiple benefits and their significance goes beyond just carbon storage.

However, despite the many benefits of the mangrove ecosystem, it continues to encounter challenges, including new infrastructure and development, pollution, and over-use.

In her Mangrove Day address, UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay warned that mangroves were in danger.

“Mangroves are in danger — it has been estimated that more than three quarters of mangroves in the world are now threatened and with them all the aquatic and terrestrial organisms that depend on them,” she said.

“In the face of the climate emergency, we must go even further, for mangroves also serve as key carbon sinks that we cannot allow to disappear.

“Beyond protection and restoration, we also need global awareness. This means educating and alerting the public, not only in schools, but wherever possible.”

Around the Pacific, the project on the Management of Blue Carbon Ecosystems (MACBLUE project) focusing on conservation and management of mangrove ecosystems and seagrass meadows is being implemented in four countries: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

Close collaboration
“The project is implemented by the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ Pacific) together with the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and the Pacific Community (SPC) as regional partners.

The project in close collaboration with the four governments will utilize remote sensing approaches to map the extent of seagrass and mangrove ecosystems, assess if the areas in the partner countries are increasing or decreasing, and model related carbon storage capacity and ecosystem services.

The resulting data will support government partners in their efforts to strategically develop and implement conservation, management, and rehabilitation efforts.

The integration of traditional use and ownership rights in national blue economy and ocean governance approaches is seen as a key priority.

MACBLUE Project director Raphael Linzatti said the implementation of the project would see support provided towards the four countries with mangrove conservation and management.

“The support will follow a demand-driven approach and tailored to address the needs and priorities of each partner country,” Linzatti said.

“The MACBLUE project will also allow for closer regional and international collaboration and building regional capacity through training activities and knowledge exchange, supporting long-term expertise within the region.”

The project will be implemented until December 2025 and is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection under its International Climate Initiative.

Joeli Bili works for the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ Pacific). The views expressed are the author’s alone.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Analysis by Keith Rankin.

The ‘Young Elderly’ are in essence the post-war baby-boomers. An average young elderly person in these charts was born around 1950 to 1952.

The charts look at ‘quarterly excess deaths’, so do not show week-by-week fluctuations in deaths. For example, data for the very end of 2022 covers the whole of the last three months of 2022.

As in my previous recent charts (see my Spiralling Deaths in Germany, Evening Report, 14 March 2023; and Examples of Germany and Denmark, Evening Report, 12 March 2023), I have emphasised Germany, because late-pandemic mortality has been so bad there. And because Germany’s differences with the rest of Europe create a very useful point for epidemiological analysis.

In the first chart (above), of the countries shown only Germany and New Zealand had excess deaths in this age group below ten percent in the first six months of Covid19. The United Kingdom was easily worst then.

The United States had a really bad pandemic, for two years from April 2020 to April 2022. But, subsequently, for nearly two years since April 2021 Germany has been for the most part easily the most deathly of these countries, for the young elderly, with only the USA contesting Germany for this dubious honour. For some of 2022, New Zealand was in second place out of these seven countries.

We note that Belgium, Netherlands and France all had high death rates early in the pandemic, but have subsequently had much lower death rates than Germany for this age group.

The two obvious avenues for investigation are diet (the French surely have a more healthy diet?) and differences in the policy responses to the Covid19 pandemic. My understanding is that, while all countries had similar public health restrictions during the peak weeks of Covid19, Germany was much the slowest of these countries to remove mandated public health measures. Germany’s abundance of caution may have backfired big-time. Yet the only reason given here (on Deutcshe Welle) is: “that diseases other than Covid19 are bouncing back because fewer people are wearing masks amid a general relaxation of pandemic rules in comparison with the past two years”. There is no hint of comparative analysis in this particular DW media report.

The second chart compares Germany with its four nearest Eastern European countries, and with the two Mediterranean countries which were the first to experience substantially elevated pandemic death rates.

For the young elderly ‘boomers’, Spain and Italy show quite the opposite pattern to Germany; they started with high death rates and then moved to generally lower rates. Both had summer mortality peaks in 2022, to some extent due to the summer heat waves but mainly due to the rebounding of tourism with Covid19 still present. Covid19 flourishes in bars and restaurants, and in airport terminals.

The eastern countries had more deaths overall in the middle seasons of the pandemic, despite (or maybe because of) the success of the measures taken in the early months of the pandemic. Also, for these countries, with lower life expectancies than their western neighbours, the young elderly are on average closer to their eventual deathdays. It is important to note that these eastern countries had the fewest pandemic-related deaths after March 2022. Presumably their people most at risk of dying had already died, and the remainder had higher natural immunity to respiratory illnesses than did the older citizenry of Germany. (I am not aware that Polish, Bohemian or Hungarian cuisine is particularly noted for its health benefits, in contrast to the much-touted Mediterranean diets; so a better diet is probably not the reason.)

There is one other country with a similar pandemic death-profile to Germany; its southern geographic and cultural neighbour, Austria. The final chart here shows the smaller countries of western and central Europe, plus New Zealand. (Australia and Sweden do not provide age-group data.)

First we note that Austria and its neighbours Slovenia and Switzerland start out closely synchronised. Switzerland drops off Austria’s high young-elderly mortality path from March 2021, and Slovenia drops off a year later (though has a high summer peak in line with its Italian neighbour). The Scandinavian countries had generally low death rates for the young-elderly age group. (They did however see rising deaths from mid-2021 for the older elderly.)

Any valid epidemiological analysis for Germany’s 2022 tragedy needs to take into account the similar experience of Austria, as well as the generally different experiences of the other European and neo-European countries.

The United States still has a worse overall pandemic record than Germany, for the young elderly. The worry for Germany, though, is that the reasons for its really bad 2022 have not necessarily been resolved; 2023 may be just as bad. Time will tell; so long as an asteroid strike or a nuclear war don’t displace infectious diseases as drivers of excess mortality in Europe.

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

https://www.dw.com/en/winter-illnesses-burden-germanys-intensive-care-units/a-64135331

https://www.dw.com/en/top-german-virologist-says-covid-19-pandemic-is-over/a-64214994

Germany’s Deadliest Weeks since World War Two? – Spiralling Deaths in Germany

The four weeks ending 8 January 2023 have seen easily the most deaths in Germany of any four‑week period since 2015. The worst week was the week ending Christmas Day, with 28,481 deaths. While it’s hard to compare with pre-1990 years, due to the East Germany question, it may well be that this week last December had a greater percentage of excess deaths than any other week since the last world war.

Baseline weekly deaths for 2022 would have been just over 17,000; a baseline of 68,700 for four weeks, as shown in Table 1.  Therefore, winter illnesses have raised peak deaths at the end of 2022 to 65 percent above what they would have been in a normal non-winter week.

While the December 2022 statistic is remarkable, it seems that most Germans themselves are not aware of this. Many people suffering individual tragedies will typically not be aware if their ‘micro’ tragedy is part of a much bigger ‘macro’ tragedy. This DW story (23 Jan 2023) The impossible task of calculating global pandemic deaths, only looks at 2020 and 2021, and gives no commentary on the Germany chart included. The best I can find on DW discussing the health situation in Germany last December is: Winter illnesses burden Germany’s intensive care units, 17 Dec 2022.

What is remarkable is that this latest winter toll comes very soon after three other periods of high peak mortality in 2022, listed in Table 1 as ‘autumn wave’, ‘summer wave’, and ‘omicron wave’. So, from the Grim Reaper’s point of view, the ‘low-hanging-fruit’ should already have passed.

These recent mortality waves compare unfavourably with the three ‘classic’ Covid19 death waves, each of which had weekly peaks in 2020. By ‘classic’ I mean the original ‘Wuhan’ coronavirus strain, before ‘variants’ and ‘vaccinations’ became a thing in 2021.

It is also noteworthy how high some of the pre-covid death peaks were. The influenza ‘pandemic’ of late 2016 to early 2018 was particularly pronounced. (I use single-quote-marks, because this actual pandemic was never granted pandemic-status by the World Health Organisation.) Germany’s two peaks for this influenza pandemic were in February 2017 and March 2018. We also note a particularly bad season of epidemic influenza in early 2015.

Refer to my Death Spikes and Covid Dissonance? Examples of Germany and Denmark for charts recently published, comparing Germany’s excess deaths with those of its neighbour, Denmark. The December 2022 mortality peak is reproduced to some extent in most (but not some eastern) European Union countries, and in the United Kingdom and United States. However, Germany’s year-of-death in 2022 is probably the most dramatic. (One other country which appears to have an equally problematic mortality, maybe worse, in 2022 is South Korea. I wait in hope for the eventual publication of South Korea’s complete dataset.)

Chart 1 below shows ‘excess deaths’ – as distinct from total deaths – for Germany, by age group.

Chart 1

Germany’s demographics are unusual (but maybe not unusually unusual) on account of World War Two. The oldest Germans – shown in red – were all born before that war. The German post-war baby-boomers are shown in green. Germany shows disturbingly high rates of pandemic death for its baby-boomers, from 2021. (It should be noted that Covid19 deaths tended to peak from November to January, whereas epidemic influenza death tended to peak in February or March. Thus the big reductions in excess deaths each February and March are mainly due to high death-norms set by pre-covid influenzas.

Countries regarded as having pursued the best anti-Covid19 public health policies in 2020 have not had a good 2022. Germany is one of those countries. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore and China are others. So are Australia and New Zealand. Once having acknowledged the 2022 death statistics for what they are, terrible, the question is whether the problems of 2022 in these countries will extend into 2023. While my hunch is that new vaccinations could make a difference, in 2023 at least, I am concerned that societies have already passed a demographic turning point and that life expectancies are already declining from their peaks, and may continue to decline for decades.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

The first of the above charts shows excess seasonal deaths in the United Kingdom as winter approaches. While the huge mortality peaks of the pandemic in Britain are long past, we do see significant excess mortality in the United Kingdom since April. And October 2022 excess mortality rates are higher than those of 2020 and 2021. The situation in Netherlands is similar.

The story in Germany is similar, since June 2022. While the recent unseasonal mortality peak – due to Covid19 if reports are accurate – is now waning, it seems likely that Germany will face another mortality peak comparable with its influenza peak of 2016/17. In Germany, none of its Covid waves had as much peak excess mortality as the influenza peak of February/March 2018.

The data is not as up-to-date in the following three countries.

For New Zealand, we see the Covid19 deaths as a period of rising seasonal excess from February to July this year. Then there was a sharp drop-off, meaning that from August New Zealand experienced just its normal late-winter seasonal mortality. While some of this was due to Covid19, it was offset by lower-than-expected deaths from other seasonal illnesses. My hunch is that New Zealand will see a summer Covid19 mortality peak; not as high as the July peak, but unambiguously Covid19.

The other New Zealand story is the unexplained winter mortality peak of 2021. All the New Zealand public knows about this is that it was neither Covid19 nor Influenza. It might have been due in part to RSV, which hospitalised many young children in 2021. In the United States at present, we are getting reports (eg from ABC News this week) of a “tripledemic”, which includes a nasty ‘flu’ and an RSV outbreak that is hospitalising older Americans as well as children.

Finland is one country in Europe which New Zealand likes to compare itself to. Finland avoided the dramatic Covid19 peaks experienced by United Kingdom and Netherlands. But it has had worryingly high excess mortality since June 2021, and continues to do so.

Sweden, unlike Finland, had two big peaks of Covid19 mortality in 2020. Since then, Sweden has generally looked much better than all other European countries. Nevertheless, Sweden did have a problem, presumably a Covid19 problem, from June to October 2022. Though not as bad as Finland.

Overall, the pattern seems to be that populations are becoming more vulnerable to respiratory illnesses. If people who have previously had Covid19 are dying more, then damage already done by the SARS-Cov2 virus is likely to be the main culprit. If people who did not get Covid19 previously are facing a higher risk of death from respiratory illness, then the main problem is likely to be compromised general immunity arising from reduced general community contact with these types of viruses.

The post-covid mortality problem is slightly worse than it appears, especially if we consider United Kingdom and Netherlands, both countries with high early death tolls from Covid19. In these countries, many of the people most vulnerable to Covid19 have already died. So the denominator populations are, disproportionately, covid survivors (meaning either they had it and recovered, or they avoided it). Typically, after a demographically-significant epidemic, subsequent death rates should be below the historical average.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

A View from Afar: In this the first episode for 2022 Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss what we all should expect to unfold in 2022 – especially with regard to foreign affairs and global security.

In particular Buchanan and Manning discuss:

– What’s behind this Europe, USA, NATO, Ukraine, Russia diplo-battle?

– What to understand from how authoritarian states are reacting to the USA’s re-emergence as a superpower?

– What does the intensity of US-led military Air-Land-Sea exercises signal?

And for a deep dive into this issue, check out Paul Buchanan’s analysis here on Kiwipolitico.com.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

An umbrella organisation representing Papuan students worldwide has been formed with a renewed commitment to strengthening their efforts to gain “quality education”.

Five country groups affiliated to the International Alliance of Papuan Students Associations Overseas (IAPSAO) met virtually yesterday to make a united stance on Papuan education, affirming their appeal last month for Indonesian President Joko Widodo to hear their concerns.

Opening the meeting, Dessy F. Itaar, president of the Papuan Student Association in Russia (IMAPA Russia), declared that the organisation was committed to achieving quality education for Papuans.

“That’s our main goal. Whatever happens, we will keep fighting until we get our rights,” she said.

The virtual meeting was a continuation of an earlier consultation on January 26 when the students expressed concern over policy changes that they believed would impact on education and Papuan students studying abroad.

Other Papuan student associations affiliated to IAPSAO besides the Russian-based one include the Papuan Students Association in the United States and Canada (IMAPA USA-Canada), the Papuan Students Association in Japan (IMAPA Japan), the Papuan Students Association in Germany (PMP Germany) and the Papuan Students Association in Oceania (PSAO).

Previously, student presidents united under the IAPSAO name were known as the Association of Papuan Students Abroad.

Renaming witnessed
Witnessed during the virtual conference by “hundreds of Papuan students” from countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, Germany, Indonesia and the United States, PSAO president Yan Piterson Wenda declared the renaming of the international organisation IAPSAO on behalf of the five presidents who were signatories.

Earlier, Itaar had stressed that although Papuan students were sent overseas to focus on their studies, it was important for the presidents to unite and speak out about the problems faced by fellow students.

“As presidents who represent every organisation that we lead, there is one moral burden that we carry — which is not thinking about ourselves, we must think about all members in each organisation,” she said.

Only Papuans know the struggle of Papuan inner souls, so Papuans should first help each other before other people help Papuans, Itaar said.

“The only people who can wake us up are Papuans.

When “our friends from the USA and New Zealand shared their struggles”, fellow Papuans from Japan, Russia and Germany agreed to support them.

“We Papuan children must get a quality education, whatever it is,” she said.

No political agenda
“Meilani S. Ramandey, president of IMAPA Japan, said the working team demanding the rights of the current and future Papuan generations had no political agenda. It worked only for educational issues.

“As Papuan students, we stick to this principle, it is not affiliated with any kind of political agenda.”

The students want to know the status of their scholarship programme, which is run under the policies of Papua provincial Governor Lukas Enembe.

“This is important so that all of us do not misunderstand,” said Ramandey.

Reporting on a meeting last week between representatives of the Papuan Students Association in Oceania and the Indonesian Ambassador to New Zealand, Fientje Maritje Suebu, and the head of the Papua Province Human Resources Development Bureau (HRDB), Aryoko Rumaropen, and his staff, PSAO president Yan Piterson Wenda recalled that the bureau had no power to respond to demands by the students.

“The Head of HRDB appreciates the steps taken by the students. The HRDB is disappointed with the policies taken by the central government, so the Indonesian Embassy must respond to this problem,” Wenda said.

“Then, the HRDB said frankly that they had no money. That’s why now all of my friends can’t buy food and pay for accommodation and other needs.

“In principle, HRDB is with us and will forward our aspirations to the Governor. We are waiting for the embassy to proceed with our demands.”

Embassy responded well
Dimison Kogoya, president of the Papuan Students Association in the United States and Canada, reported that the Indonesian Embassy in USA and Canada had responded well to the students’ letter.

“We have held a meeting and at the time of the meeting, we emphasised that our demands should be forwarded to the President,” said a computer science student at Johnson and Wales University in North Carolina.

President Reza Rumbiak of the Papuan Students Association in Germany said Papuan students who were studying in Germany remained in solidarity with students in the USA and New Zealand.

He said a letter had been received from the Indonesian Embassy in Berlin in response to the request by students for a dialogue with President Widodo – but the reply contained 18 points of rebuttal.

“The pressure on me as student president is very intense. But we in Germany support our brothers and sisters in the USA and New Zealand because our DNA as Papuans is communal,” said Rumbiak.

IAPSAO issued a four-point declaration to:

1. Make the International Alliance of Papuan Student Associations Overseas (IAPSAO) an umbrella organisation for all Papuan student organisations domiciled overseas;
2. Improve and maximise coordination and communication in efforts to protect, prevent, anticipate, and defend the educational rights of Papuan students overseas;
3. Affirm IASAO is an independent and academic forum; and
4. Make decisions in this forum based on mutual consensus.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The above chart plots estimates of vaccine-induced immunity to Covid19, for five countries, including three in Europe currently in the news for their most recent wave of covid infections and deaths.

Essentially, I give a score of 0.5 for each vaccine shot; and I assume that immunity wanes by 0.4% per day, starting 20 days after receipt of a vaccine shot.

On 9 November, in this story, Covid-19: Experts at odds over move to traffic light system, Melbourne-based New Zealand epidemiologist Tony Blakely refers to ‘the community’s “peak immunity”‘. Essentially, he was referring to vaccination-induced immunity, where there is a waxing as ‘jabs’ are given, and a waning (especially) in the period between second and third vaccine doses.

The chart shows Germany and Austria attaining peak vaccination immunity in August, soon after the ‘delta variant’ became the dominant variant of Covid19 in Europe. For Ireland, the peak was in early September.

Australia and New Zealand are just approaching ‘peak immunity’ now, so early December is precisely the ideal time to ‘open up’, as Blakely argues. Further, as third doses roll out from the end of November, New Zealand stands to maintain that peak through the summer holiday period, and into the risky period in February and March when secondary and tertiary education gets underway.

That vaccination-induced immunity will be topped up, also, by a degree of natural immunity arising from increased exposure to the virus, and not just to the vaccine.

Austria, Germany and Ireland are all countries which imposed substantial border restrictions, lockdowns and mask mandates; their immunity arising from natural exposure is – like New Zealand and Australia – comparatively low. Though Austria and Germany did have some residual natural immunity from the ‘alpha strain’ wave which hit Europe in March and April. They missed out on a major wave of ‘delta’ mainly because they were at peak immunity in August. (See chart below, for German cases and deaths.)

But all three of these countries are now facing waning immunity – fading vaccination immunity as well as fading immunity from the alpha wave. It is that immunity loss, plus the onset of winter, that appears to be driving their current covid emergencies; not the delta strain. (While the delta strain is still the dominant strain, waning immunity rather than the delta strain would appear to be the driving force.)

Of note here was a report from Ireland in the TVNZ 6pm News (Saturday 13 Nov). One health professional there commented, Jacinda Ardern style, that the new covid wave was “expected”; however, he said, what did surprise was “how rapidly” immunisation was waning. Ireland’s vaccination immunity was indeed waning – as the above chart shows – though was still higher than Austria and Germany. However, Ireland – like New Zealand and Australia – was unusually reliant on vaccines, given that its last substantial covid outbreak was in January and that it had endured a very long period of immunity-sapping public health restrictions.

Germany is an interesting case study, in large part because it was reputed to have managed Covid19 best among European countries in 2020. (Refer to my Covid19 deaths, the German case, 30 Oct 2021.) Germany looks bad in 2021, with deaths consistently and significantly above what they would have been in the absence of the pandemic.

In this new chart for Germany, we see four episodes of excess deaths which do not match the recorded Covid19 deaths: August 2020, May 2021, August 2021, October 2021. The last three episodes probably do relate to Covid19, probably cases of under-recording of covid deaths. The 2020 episode was in August, and matches a pattern through which some kind of infectious disease has a summer peak. This death peak may have been linked to a non-covid virus. (There was an unusual death peak in Belgium, France and Netherlands at the same time.)

We also note that there were three periods in which public health measures significantly brought down Germany’s death rate: July 2020, February/March 2021, and May 2021. We can understand higher later death rates as ‘postponed deaths’.

Germany’s situation is worrying; as are those of Austria and Ireland. The second Germany chart above shows that daily covid cases are now at a record high, and well above the reported world average.

Nevertheless, I am confident that concerted – albeit late – revaccinations will see these countries avoid the carnage that is taking place further east in Europe. We wait and see, however, whether obstinate vaccine-resistant behaviour sees another prolonged winter wave in west Europe. We would like to see vaccination-induced immunity in the European Union reaching Australasian levels.

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Most countries’ economies have financial signatures that reflect their cultures and histories. We may, in a binary sense, call these surplus and deficit signatures. But there are a number of important nuances.

For these four developed countries, Germany and Japan would be classed as having ‘surplus’ economies, while New Zealand and the United States would be classed as ‘deficit’ economies. The key to this classification is the green-shaded ‘foreign balance’.

Germany and Japan consistently show substantial negative foreign balances, meaning that their resident households, businesses and governments spend less than their national income, requiring other countries’ economies to purchase their unbought goods and services. This pattern is most clear for Germany, where, for every year since 2004, more than five percent of Germany’s available output has been enjoyed outside of Germany. It means that, in this era of low inflation, the German economy is accumulating substantial financial credits with respect to the rest of the world.

The problem for Germany is that, in order to spend those credits, it would have to become a deficit country. And that would not sit easy with Germany’s financial culture. Germany is a classic ‘mercantilist’ nation, as are a number of other northern European countries. The historical consequence of a country not using its credits is to lose them. Thus, in historical time, Germany’s negative foreign balances can be understood as an ongoing beneficial subsidy (ie gift) to the rest of the world.

The dominant signature feature that is shared by Germany and Japan is the persistence of large private‑sector surplus (net positive) balances. These are cultural signatures, not temporary features that vary substantially in historical time. They represent the savings’ cultures of the citizenry of these countries.

However, in Japan (unlike Germany, which subsidises its foreign sector), the main beneficiary is Japan’s government(s). Japanese citizens are more resistant to taxation than are German citizens. Rather than pay more taxes, they like to lend to their government, albeit at close to zero percent interest. Private income that Germans give up in taxes is, in Japan, held by Japanese citizens as government loans. The Japan option serves as a form of citizens’ insurance. By accounting for much more government spending as debt in Japan than in Germany, individual Japanese citizens experiencing ‘rainy days’ can effectively reclaim income that had been made available to their government.

While clearly very successful and effective, Japan’s financial policies are commonly dismissed in the west as ‘unsound’ Modern Monetary Theory.

New Zealand is a clear counterpart of Germany, a historical beneficiary of the kinds of subsidies that Germany and similar countries confer on their foreign sectors. New Zealand is unusual in that its cultural signature is one of private (business and household) financial deficits, funded by unspent income in countries like Germany. This pattern is quite financially sustainable. If New Zealand averages three percent economic growth and two percent inflation (these are our policy targets) then a foreign sector subsidy (also called ‘current account deficit’) of five percent of GDP each year will not add to the indebtedness burden of New Zealanders. In recent years that annual inflow has been averaging about three percent of GDP.

Like New Zealand, the United States is a beneficiary in the global financial order. While this is cultural – the pattern shows in all Anglo countries – it is also a consequence of the role of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

Unlike New Zealand, the United States has a signature pattern of private sector surpluses. And, like Japan, the United States has a strong pattern of government deficits. The result is that American governments (especially the federal government) is the most significant net beneficiary of both German‑style foreign subsidies and (as in Japan) of private domestic savings. The government spends what the private sector does not spend. Indeed, the United States’ signature government deficit represents the single most important balancing act that prevents global financial collapse.