Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - January 3, 2025, Winnipeg, Manitoba THINK TANK COMMENT EDITOR: RUSSELL WANGERSKY 204-697-7269 ● RUSSELL.WANGERSKY@WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A7 FRIDAY JANUARY 3, 2025 Ideas, Issues, Insights Europe, on the brink, faces a pileup of threats P ARIS — Europe faces the new year amid a grim pileup of threats, its voters angry, its traditional political parties fragmented, its major economies stagnant or sluggish, its birth rates plummeting and its eastern flank engulfed in a calamitous war. The continent’s liberal democracies are under severe strain, not least from populist right-wing movements. Seven of the European Union’s 27 member states are now governed fully or in part by ex- treme parties. More might follow as frustration mounts, especially among 20-something voters, at governments’ failure to limit immigration and promote jobs, housing and better living standards. “There’s a disenchantment and a crisis of trust in this young generation who believe it’s not such an important thing to live in a democratic sys- tem” so long as “the government delivers public services, a nice economy and low energy prices,” Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer, acting president of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a think tank, recently told reporters. Germany and France, on whose muscle the con- tinent has long relied to exert its will and chart its direction, appear for now to be all but ungov- ernable, their centre-left and centre-right parties discredited. In both countries, the symptoms of civic ill health are multiplying. France got its fourth new prime minister of 2024 a few weeks ago; many be- lieved he might not last as long as his predecessor given the nation’s fractured parliament. In Germany, the fertility rate for 2023 was reported to have tumbled below 1.4 children per woman, the threshold considered “ultra-low” by the United Nations. A grim milestone, no doubt, but less shocking than the free-falling birth rates in Spain or Italy. There is widespread worry that Europe is approaching a brink where the past’s comforting assumptions — about social stability, generous welfare benefits and broad prosperity — are fraying fast. That sense is deepened as Russia’s predatory threat drives up defence spending, squeezes pub- lic finances and poses dire choices. To modernize atrophied militaries and satis- fy Donald Trump’s demand that the continent shoulder more of the burden of deterring Russia, European leaders will need to rely on growth that doesn’t exist, higher taxes in already-overtaxed countries or cannibalizing social programs, which would spell political suicide. Not since the Cold War has Europe faced such a menacing security environment. Alarm bells are ringing nearly everywhere — not only because of Moscow’s intensifying hybrid war of sabotage, propaganda and election interference across the continent, but also because Washington’s postwar promise of protection looks flimsier than ever as Trump prepares to return to the White House. Sweden’s government, so frightened of Russia that it ditched two centuries of neutrality to join NATO last year, recently mailed out a booklet, In Case of Crisis or War, meant to help Swedes prepare for the worst. Norway and Finland have issued similar instructions. “Terrorism, cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns are being used to undermine and influence us,” warns the Swedish government pamphlet, mailed to every household in the land. “To resist these threats, we must stand united.” Elsewhere in the north, the Baltic republics — NATO members increasingly certain they are in the crosshairs of Russian aggression — are on course to spend a greater share of economic out- put on defence than does the United States. In the south, Romania and Moldova have been shaken by what appears to be massive Russian election meddling. The euro area, hamstrung by overregulation, aging populations and labour shortages, is losing ground to the United States amid a widening transatlantic gulf in economic prospects. The Stoxx Europe 600, a broad index that includes British companies, barely managed a six per cent return this year. In the United States, the S&P 500 climbed nearly 25 per cent. That gap reflected a disparity between the buoyant U.S. economy, expected to have grown by 2.8 per cent in 2024, and its anemic counterpart, projected to have expanded by just 0.8 per cent. The moment demands what Europe lacks: strong, visionary leaders. France’s Emmanuel Macron might once have fit the bill, but he has been rendered mostly irrelevant by his own folly in calling an election that yielded a hung parliament. Germany’s Olaf Scholz, a colourless man who led a querulous coa- lition government, is on course to be trounced in federal elections next month. His likely successor, the prickly conservative Friedrich Merz, might have his own hands full with fractious coalition partners, to say nothing of a flatlining German economy. The risk for Europe is not only that it will be left in the geopolitical dust, an also-ran against the U.S. and Chinese titans. It is also that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, building a full-time war economy to sustain his imperial appetites, will see in the continent’s impotence the potential for vassal states, ripe for the taking. — The Washington Post Dreaming of peace for this new year DURING a recent church Christmas concert I was approached by an older friend, a retired pastor, who piqued my interest with a wild dream that he had been harbouring, the prospect of a moratorium on war. After the concert we agreed to meet to think together about his “improbable fantasy” (my words). He shared with me how the war in Ukraine brought back horrible recollections of the brutal- ity that his own family had endured at the hands of Russian authorities. He confessed that he shed tears inside when he thought about both the past persecutions and the present sufferings of his and others’ families in Ukraine. We wondered togeth- er, “Is war inevitable or necessary?” Then he reminded me of accounts of truces wherein opposing troops agreed to play a football game between the trenches during what is known as the First World War. Multiple photos showing fraternization between so-called enemies have been authenticated, implying that the seemingly impossible can occur. If a temporary pause, or improbable ceasefire, is possible, then can we harbour hopes for a more lasting peace? Although not directly, the role of God in times of war came up as we somehow stumbled on our mutual regard for Simone Weil. One of the most renowned philosophers of the 20th century, she died at the age of 34 in 1943, the midst of the Sec- ond World War. Of Jewish origin, she converted to Catholicism and became increasingly religious throughout her short life. One of her most controversial theological asser- tions, as I understand it, was that when Christ was born, a vengeful God no longer intervened the same way in human affairs by destroying God’s and Israel’s enemies in violent wars. In her view, God gave up power, meaning a greater free will, greater self-determination with greater discre- tion. From that point on, humans were left to fig- ure problems and relationships out for themselves following Christ’s lead. Hannah Arendt, a contemporary of Weil’s (al- though they never met) came to a similar conclu- sion from a different perspective. Arendt was a secular Jew, a humanist who wrote, “The decisive difference between the ‘infinite improbabilities’ on which the reality of our earthly life rests and the miraculous character inherent in those events which establish historical reality is that, in the realm of human affairs, we know the author(s) of the ‘miracles.’ It is (humans) who perform them — (humans) who because they have received the twofold gift of freedom and action can establish a reality of their own.” In Weil’s and Arendt’s views, humankind — be- cause of unwillingness to face its own frailties — is responsible for creating its own sordid history. Human beings have the right, the capacities of skills and judgment, and the responsibility to answer for our own actions and their conse- quences. We cannot pin our blame on God. They both acknowledged that humans do not control everything, but while there are mysterious forces at work in our lives, we can author miracles, or achieve the improbable, because we are free to initiate historical changes. But we also can’t pin our hopes on those who think that, because of their elevated political positions, they are above the law, and beyond eth- ical boundaries or moral conscience. There will always be those who justify dehumanizing, de- monizing and brutalizing those who do not agree with them, or get in the way of their totalitarian or imperialistic inclinations. Nevertheless, if we accept the contention even on a minimal level that we are co-creators of history, our dream of a three-year moratorium on war seems possible even while it remains implau- sible. Realistically, a pause on waging wars would not take much adaptation for most of us, partic- ularly those of us lucky enough to be born in the West whose daily lives are mostly untouched by war’s horrors. Our political leaders and governments would be most greatly impacted, as they would have to find new ways of resolving differences, disputes and conflicts rather than the current default of declaring and waging wars of various kinds. We dreamt together of all the possibilities if all the political efforts and financial resources that currently are devoted to making and supporting wars were channelled more constructively. What if we sought to eliminate the military industrial complex, the weapons production and armaments trade and the feeding of ordinary people’s lives to an insatiable war machine? Calculations by a multitude of humanitarian groups project that if the money committed to making and sustaining wars was used to feed people and build housing, schools and hospitals we could wipe out world hunger, shelter everyone, educate all children and wipe out diseases which now kill tens of thou- sands worldwide. A moratorium on war would also require recon- ceptualizing the power imbalances in the current UN that prevent effective diplomatic intervention in conflicts. What would not be required are ma- jor revisions to current declarations and conven- tions on the rights of all people to live in a world free of fear, want and discrimination. Would that we could create a way of ensuring that these commitments be honoured by those who signed on to them. Granted, a three-year moratorium on war is hard to imagine, even more difficult to achieve and sustain. Weil and Arendt also remind us that human achievements are fleeting, and they must be continuously and repeatedly nurtured and re-created to withstand the march of time. Mora- toriums, much like families, religions, education and democracy, require ongoing re-examination, support and renewal. If they become too mun- dane, too taken-for-granted or their reasons and purposes forgotten, they will disappear. Nevertheless, in spite of the monumental, seem- ingly insurmountable, challenges a moratorium would demand, would it not be a wonderful and encouraging resolution for 2025 to start us down that road? John R. Wiens is dean emeritus at the faculty of education, University of Manitoba. Let’s resolve to eat more sustainably MANITOBANS and Saskatchewanians need to rethink their diets. In addition to healthier and affordable, they must be more sustainable. Many consumers are already beginning this shift, but there’s still much to do. The new year is a good time to align our values and motivations and take the neces- sary next steps in this transition. According to the latest Sodexo Canada Sustainable Food Barometer survey con- ducted by Leger, over half of Manitobans and Saskatchewanians already connect sus- tainable food to improved health. About half associate it with support for local producers and economies, and reduced waste — all priorities people in the Prairies care about. However, the desire to change still comes up against current financial considerations as well as entrenched eating habits, both in Canada and globally. Over two thirds of consumers continue to list price as the top hurdle, mistakenly believing sustainable op- tions typically cost more, while a third don’t want to change eating habits. The good news is, eating more sustain- ably is fundamentally about adjustments or reductions, rather than elimination or complete transformation — making this resolution one we can and must keep. When it comes to cooking sustainable meals, Prairie Canadians are willing to make compromises. Over two-fifths are will- ing to eat a sustainable dish even if it takes longer to cook; more than a third would even if it’s more difficult. When trying new foods, long-lasting herbs and spices help improve taste and manage cost. Cooking an international recipe once a week is one way to introduce less familiar but delicious and more sustainable ingredi- ents. As for cost, there are many affordable ways to include more sustainable options. For example, using whole-plant ingredients. Tubers, beans and legumes are healthier, cheaper and often locally sourced. Conversely, animal meat proteins are the most expensive and have the biggest carbon footprint. Without eliminating them, consumers can reduce their frequency and portion sizes, supplementing with rice, beans or mushrooms. Of all measures surveyed, Manitobans and Saskatchewanians are least likely to reduce their consumption of non-red meat. Yet, sustainable diets are about more than that. Reducing waste is also a major benefit. Over three quarters of Manitobans and Saskatchewanians are already reducing food waste in their households. Most consume sea- sonal products and buy local whenever pos- sible. Reducing travel distance, local sources are fresher, tastier, more nutritious, last longer and are less likely to become waste. Canned or frozen fruits and vegetables are also a good option. They’re often as delicious and nutritious, and freezing from fresh reduces packaging. Conscious of their wallets as well, over half of Prairie Canadians try to store food better. Two-fifths reduce their consumption of processed foods and over three-fifths intentionally cook their leftovers instead of throwing them away. Younger generations can learn from their parents and grandpar- ents, as those aged 55 and above are signifi- cantly more likely to practise all of these cost and waste savers. They can’t do it alone. At the heart of the transition, the Sustainable Food Barometer also shows Manitobans and Saskatchewan- ians expect farmers, producers and the food services industry to shift to more sustain- able practices including sustainable grow- ing, sourcing, delivery and waste reduction. With this goal, we can all contribute to the economic, social and environmental health of the country — to our personal and collective benefit. By resolving to eat more sustainably, Manitobans and Saskatchewan- ians can improve their health, extend their wallets and reduce their carbon footprint. From field to fork, we are what — and how — we eat. Davide Del Brocco is the senior sustainability manager of corporate sustainability and responsibility for Sodexo Canada. DAVIDE DEL BROCCO JOHN R. WIENS By resolving to eat more sustainably, Manitobans and Saskatchewanians can improve their health, extend their wallets and reduce their carbon footprint BENOIT TESSIER / POOL VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS FILES French President Emmanuel Macron (right) and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Paris in 2023. Both leaders face great struggle or irrelevancy as Europe faces mounting threats. LEE HOCKSTADER ;