We had the Danish ambassador come and talk to us today in our Transnational class. He was extremely articulate, had prepared a full speech about the Asian and European situation and took on questions that did not correspond to his area of expertise, or responsibilities.

Among other things, he positioned his speech stating differences between internationalism and globalization or internationalization. The latter being mostly economic and the former political. He gave the example of a teacher in Denmark who allegedly asked a pupil what internationalism meant, and whether it was good. The pupil replied: Lady Di.
How?
- she was a British Princess, with an Egyptian boyfriend, in a French city and a German car with a Dutch engine. her driver was on Scottish liquor. she was followed by Italian paparazzi and treated by an American doctor. Then she died.

Talk about international misfit ;-)

The ambassador warned us against the dangers of nationalism. In his view, it caused the death of 250 million Europeans and brought nothing good in return. He therefore hopes that Asia will not make this mistake and even though he cannot see the same level of integration in Asia as in Europe - he hopes that wherever possible, countries will institutionalize their relations to prevent them from falling into the trap of nationalism. He was quite pessimistic about the regions: countries that grew as large exporters of cheap stuff saw their growth curbed, Japan is not growing, China is growing and taking humongous proportions but lacks infrastructure and will have three big bills on its lap very soon with no money to pay for them:
- environmental issues
- energy - including oil
- water distribution

In contrast, Indian prospects were good. The country was growing steadily and building a strong base of knowledge from which it could derive value-add industries. For a long time, he believed that India was like a plane driving up and down the runway without ever taking off but he now thought that the plane had grown wings and could start going places.

On the European size, he does not believe that the integration of Eastern and Central Europe countries will pose a big problem because their contribution to the overall output of the Union is tiny. He stated that a key difference in Europe is based on people's preferences: in europe, people trade growth for social equity and welfare. They prefer to limit immigration, accept high taxes, lower pensions, etc...and maintain a high level of social protection. This limited the growth of the continent and contributed to a lower comparative advantage, which could have potential damaging consequences.
however, he did not believe that the continent would ever break up and he hoped that demographics trends could be reverse with an import of talent (which contradicts the trend against immigration argued by 10% of the population in countries such as Germany, Austria, France, Denmark). He proposed a Europe "a deux vitesses" (I quote) with France and Germany in the leading pack and everybody behind. He said that this would not affect political unity.
When asked to talk about the question of the acceptance of Turkey in the Union he said: the real question was whether to invite Greece in the Union or not. As soon as you invite Greece, you import the whole Greece/Turkey problem. Europe will probably start negotiating with Turkey. So long as it remains a secular state, a democracy and fulfills the basic requirements to enter the Union, it will be difficult to push this out further. Entering negotations which are likely to last for years (they lasted for some 7 years for Spain and Portugal) will allow the Union to test the robustness of reforms in Turkey. He thought that goodwill on part of Turkish people was not to be tested anymore, the profound changes that the country had undergone vouched for that already.

Finally, he did take a question on European position with respect to Israel. I must admit that the question was posed in a very narrow manner and with a jest of intolerance.

-"what would you say about the lack of support Europe lends to Israel? Would you call this an expression of anti-semitism?"

The Ambassador replied very diplomatically

After the war, Europe was feeling very guilty toward Jews. German treatment of Jews could not easily be forgotten. Therefore everyone but the Palestinian was for an Israeli state. Now Europe is for an Israeli state but feel that some of the more recent developments in the region on part of the Israeli goes beyond what was a legitimate position. Europe does not support terrorrism in any way either and therefore, support to a legitimate Palestinian state does not mean support to violent means to achieve this end. Europe, in his opinion, will never withdraw completely its support of Israel. By and large, Israel is what resembles most a European state in the Middle East and this is deeply felt by all European citizens.

I can now complete my ranking of ambassadors who have come to Insead based on their address.

Legitimate criteria are as follows
- clarity of speech (in English)
- content and analysis
- sense of humor
- ability to address questions outside the realms of their duties
- entertainment value

1- Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2- Danish Ambassador
3- Us Ambassador
4- French Ambassador

Maybe smaller countries with no evident military power grow better ambassadors because the need to resolve problems through negotaitions is more acutely felt.