Temporary constancy

I am now back 'home' for the Christmas and New Year holidays. I'll be spending some time in the south of France and then hopefully some time skiing in the Alps in early January, before going to look for accommodation (amongst other things) in Annecy, France, my next abode.

On my last night in Liege, I had a Christmas dinner with friends. We cooked a couple of turkeys, a load of vegetables and consumed plenty of beer, wine and gluhwein! At the end they all surprised me (I had absolutely no idea this was coming) by giving me a box full of 'memories'. They had bought a flag of Wallonia and signed it, there were also pictures of us during the time I'd been there, a Santa Claus apron (they considered me the 'official chef') and of course, being in Belgium, ubiquitous chocolate. Having always lived in places before where people are used to friends, schoolmates and colleagues leaving, I'm not used to being given something when I leave. It's just a matter of life - you accept the parting of a friend and you go on with your life. You know it had to happen eventually and, in a way, you've spent all the time you've been together preparing for that moment. The people I met in Liege weren't Belgian, but they weren't TCKs like me either - they'd always lived in the same place, so they weren't accustomed to the same level of mobility and change in social circles as me. So I was quite touched to be given the 'memory box', it was a nice personal touch and left me with several things of sentimental value.

But now I'm at 'home' (as close to one as I'll find at the moment anyway). It's a house which we've had for the last decade roughly and I come back usually at least once each year. Even though it's not really home (it's in a country I've never technically lived in before and of which I'm not a citizen) and I don't speak the language fluently (although not far off), it's a place I can come back to and which is familiar to me. So, at least for a short time, I feel a sense of familiarity - not necessarily like I'm at home - but at least something that I recognise and that is constant.

Antwerpen

Today I spent the day visiting Antwerp, a city in Flanders. I've heard good things about it before, so I had relatively high expectations before going. And while there were definitely things I liked about the place, there were a couple of points (things that were out of control of anyone's control though) that brought it down in my eyes.

First of all, it takes just over two hours to get there (and back) from Liege, which meant that I spent more than 4 hours of the day just sitting on a train. So I didn't have as much time as I would have liked to visit the city.

Secondly, even though Monday is usually the day when museums are closed here, it turns out that in Antwerp a couple are closed on Wednesdays as well or instead of Monday. On top of that, I managed to pick a day when the majority of the museums that were normally still open were undergoing industrial action and so they were either closed or manned by skeleton staff and so were partially closed.

Thirdly, the places where you can see how diamonds are treated, cut, etc. close for the season in October - so I couldn't see any of it, which was quite disappointing.

Despite that, it's not like I had a bad day - the Grote Markt and the Cathedral were definitely worth a visit, as was Ruben's house (which was partially open).

Last day of work

Yesterday was my last day at work here in Belgium, and saying goodbye to all my colleagues finally brought on the usual 'leaving symptoms'. It's the first time really that my leaving plans have actually begun to have an impact on my life. I also really don't like goodbyes - this is one case where the saying "practice makes perfect" doesn't apply, at least not for me.

As 'celebration' for having finished my job I bought myself a waffle on the way home yesterday (hey, student budget...). The Liegois certainly know how to make the best waffles in the world! They're definitely something I'll miss when I leave. I need to see if I can procure myself a lifetime's supply somehow...

I leave in 11 days, during which time I need to pack, arrange things like closing my bank account, cancelling my phone SIM card, etc. and of course say goodbye to all of the friends I've made here. Tonight I'm going to the Christmas market in town to have dinner with a group of people at one of the stalls, which should be good. The Christmas market here is really nice, in one place they've grouped huts around an ice skating rink and they serve drinks and food. The atmosphere is fantastic, unlike any other Christmas market I've been to before. I'll always remember my first Christmas market though - in 1994, in the German embassy in Beijing!

In the last week I've also been sampling the local nightlife (well, maybe a bit more than sampling). It was St. Nicolas yesterday, and in Liege the students celebrate it by going out a couple of days before the actual day. So Monday and Tuesday night were spent in the carre, sandwiched between thousands of other students (as you can see in the picture on the left). It was essentially one huge party, unlike anything you get in England. Over the weekend I also went to Bruges, to see an ice sculpting festival. It wasn't bad, although a little disappointing after the scale of the ice festival in Harbin, which I visited in the mid-90's.

Despite at the moment having some regrets about having to leave, I have to admit that it was very nice this morning to not have to get up at 6:30 to go to work!

What next - Iraq in the EU??

I originally posted this on another blog of mine, but I figured that it wouldn't be completely irrelevant on this one either.

This is slightly old news, but a few weeks ago David Miliband, the UK's foreign secretary, gave a speech in Bruges about his view on the future of the EU. One of his points was that he thinks that the expansion of the EU is key and that the border of the union shouldn't be geographical. There is already debate about allowing Turkey into the EU since part of the country is in Asia Minor, but he's talking about having Israel as a member, as well as other Middle Eastern and North African countries. Now I'm all for diversity and the breaking down of political boundaries and barriers, but since when has Europe (that's the thing the E in EU stands for, Mr. Miliband) included North Africa and the Middle East? I have no problem with having trade links and economic ties with countries in the respective regions, but having them as member states of the EU brings in a whole host of other issues - mainly financial and security.

He said the goal "must be a multilateral free-trade zone around our periphery". This would be a "version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Mahgreb, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in line with the single market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it".

First of all the majority of these countries, albeit far from the poorest in the world, are not as rich as Western European countries. Citizens in the current EU would therefore have to pay more in taxes for these countries for development, farming subsidies, etc. It's all very well giving countries aid, but I get the impression this would be taking things a bit far. I know that the EU does have entry requirements, some of which may be financial or economic, but by 2030 I doubt a country like Iraq or Libya would be able to reach a Western European level of wealth, unless they get some Chinese-style economic growth going on some time soon.

Secondly, as member states of the EU their citizens would have the right to travel freely within the EU. Given a certain war against terror, this doesn't seem like one of the brightest ideas I've ever heard, especially for the UK and their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. On top of that, given the current tensions between Christianity and Islam, mixing it all up could just make matters worse (not that I'm promoting the idea of complete separation) - just look at India and Pakistan and the issues between Islam and Hinduism there. Obviously it's a different situation, but there are some similarities. You just have to look at our history to know that religions do not co-exist easily. Will people never learn from our past mistakes?

Having said that, Miliband does have some sense at least and some of his suggestions like greater European military co-operation sound like good ideas to me. He's one of the few British politicans who actually believes that the EU has a use to the UK - he's not a pompous, self-important, "Rule Britannia" politician at least.

What does worry me though is that I mentioned this speech to a guy I know (a Brit) and he, completely seriously, without even giving it much thought (judging by his response time), nodded and said "I think that's a good idea". The thing is he's one of these people who loves the idea of globalisation, with everyone living together. Sadly that's an unrealistic utopia - I don't believe it could ever happen peacefully, at least not in the beginning. He bases his opinions and ideas on this ideal without seriously thinking about the consequences. And my main argument against this global mixing of cultures is that it defeats the very point of doing it. At the moment we have a vast array of cultures with very different societies and values. If you put them all together, within a few generations the world will essentially be one society with one common culture (with a few pockets of exceptions, but the number of which would decrease with time). Soon there wouldn't be cultures to mix, and the variety of cultures is one of mankind's most intriguing facets in my opinion.

This phenomen of deculturisation and loss of national identity is already happening in a number of regions. European countries are becoming more generally European for example. Or recently there was this article about the loss of languages in Mexico, linguistically one of the richest countries in the world. According to the UN one language disappears every two weeks. The same thing is happening in South East Asia as well, although it gets far less media coverage. Countries like Thailand and Malaysia have developed relatively rapidly in recent years and are far more developed than some neighbouring countries such as Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and Burma. Some of these countries, such as Laos, are beginning to catch up though, and the cause? Bridges. A number of borders are defined by rivers like the Mekong (between Laos and Thailand) or to a lesser extent the Salween between Burma and Thailand. Bridges facilitate the transfer of people and money from neighbouring countries, who go in and spread their culture and values. Yes they bring economic advantages and can help to give the people a better quality of life, but it all contributes towards the deculturisation of the world, which would be a tremendous loss to man. And it's basically all in the name of capitalism. No, I'm not a communist, it just seems that more and more people live for the bottom line, for the money that they could potentially make out of something, rather than what's actually best for people or the region.

All of this makes me think that maybe Bhutan's approach is the right one. First of all they limit the number of foreign tourists and business that are allowed to enter the country. They also just the happiness of the people with the Gross National Happiness index, first established in 1972 by King Jigme Singye Wangchuck. It essentially aims to build an economy that serves the people and culture based on Bhuddist spiritual values - certainly in theory a real commitment to safeguarding their unique culture.