One of my correspondents usefully sends me all sort of articles including ones from The Economist. I am much too much of a cheapskate to fork out for a subscription to the Green Left Weekly aka The Economist, which really is a complete rag these days. (Nothing is too green, too Keynesian, too internationalist.)
But check out this editorial rant. Now I don’t know much about Estonia but to single out Canada, which is about to be upended economically by Trump, is surely a joke. And how come this country even rated a mention? The carbon tax of course.
Oh and Tunisia is an obvious past winner? Not only is it the source of many of the illegal immigrants to Europe it is also a hotbed for violent Islamism.
If you thought for one second that the editorial line of the Economist was sound, check out this bilge.
TO WIN The Economist’s country of the year award, it is not enough to be peaceful and rich. We aim to reward improvement. Previous winners include Myanmar and Tunisia, for escaping tyranny and building something resembling democracy. Switzerland, Japan and New Zealand, which were just as lovely a decade ago, need not apply.
This year’s contenders include plucky Estonia. Threatened by Vladimir Putin, it is one of the few NATO members to meet its obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defence.
One of the poorer countries in Europe, its schoolchildren were nonethelessthe continent’s star performers in the most recent PISA science tests. Estonian head teachers have the autonomy to hire and are and are held accountable for results. It is only a single generation since Estonia was a wretched colony of the Soviet Union; now it looks almost Nordic.
Another small country on the shortlist is Iceland (population: 330,000), which was the fastest-growing rich country in 2016. Also, its footballers knocked England (population: 53m) out of a European tournament. Wags noted that the English coach was paid £3.5m a year, whereas Iceland’s was a part-time dentist. (By the way, Iceland effectively went broke during the GFC; see Michael Lewis.)
China may be a dictatorship with foul air, but it excels on two measures that matter a lot. A report in March concluded that its greenhouse-gas emissions may already have peaked, or will most probably do so within the next decade. (Sure) And, despite slowing growth, a hefty 14m rural Chinese lifted themselves out of poverty in the most recent year for which data are available (2015), more than anywhere else.
But don’t forget the other, richer, democratic Republic of China, which held another free election in 2016. Voters picked a moderate, Tsai Ing-wen, as Taiwan’s first female president. She has so far dealt well with Beijing’s bullying; though she is horribly vulnerable to being let down by Donald Trump if he strikes a grand bargain with the mainland. It is tempting to award Beijing and Taipei joint first place and call it a “One-China” award. (You know it makes sense???_
Would they stand on the same podium to accept it?
Canada has stayed sober and liberal even as other rich countries have been intoxicated by illiberal populism. It remains open to trade and immigrants—a fifth of its population is now foreign-born, twice the proportion in the United States. Its prime minister, Justin Trudeau, has negotiated a carbon-pricing deal with nearly all Canadian provinces and vows to legalise pot, too. Just what we would have asked of a former snowboarding coach. (OH PLEASE)
However, our pick is Colombia, for making peace in 2016. This was a colossal achievement. The conflict between Colombia’s government and the Marxist insurgents of the FARC lasted for half a century and claimed perhaps 220,000 lives. At one point the country was on the brink of becoming a failed state—something that is now inconceivable.
FARC guerrillas murdered with abandon, recruited children and occasionally forced girl soldiers who became pregnant to have abortions. They also ran drug, kidnapping and extortion rackets to Nnance their war.
Government troops were brutal, too. Some of them used fake job advertisements to lure innocent men to remote places. They then killed them and claimed the corpses were rebels, making themselves seem more heroic and increasing their odds of promotion.
The nightmare ended in 2016—touch wood. President Juan Manuel Santos thrashed out a peace deal with the FARC and submitted it to a referendum. When (stupid) voters narrowly rejected it, because the FARC leaders were not being punished severely enough, the two sides sat down again and answered some of the objections. The new deal is being pushed through parliament. It would have been preferable to hold another referendum. But if voters want to risk a return to war,
