Europe

European governments have begun a search for tax-evaders sheltering funds in Liechtenstein.

Since Germany revealed that it had bought, for $5 million, the names of 1400 tax evaders sheltering income in Liechtenstein, the hunt has been on for tax evaders on both sides of the Atlantic.  The thing has all the ingredients of a reasonably entertaining caper film.  A disgruntled ex-employee seeking to use confidential banking records as a bargaining chip against the government of Liechtenstein.  Secret databases passed from government to government.  Wealthy scofflaws scrambling for cover.
MORE

Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia, and the United States followed the United Kingdom and others in recognizing it.

The dismemberment of Serbia proceeds apace, and Kosovars are rejoicing, just as Montenegrins did in June 2006.  The Serbs' displeasure could make sense, even from a disinterested, anti-nationalist point of view: not every minority in every country needs its own UN-approved fiefdom, and peacefully sharing land with dissimilar neighbors seems, to my cosmopolitanist taste, praiseworthy.

But no Kosovar can be expected to entrust her well-being to the cosmopolitan talents of the Serbs, whose most fraternal gesture since independence has been not to wage war against Kosovo.

More worrisome, though, is Kosovo's potential to embolden quasi-states that have much less reason to fear their mother-states.  Abkhazia has suffered under Tbilisi, and North Cyprus under the Greek-EU embargo.  Neither of these has the case that Kosovo does -- not yet, anyway.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has called the eventual adoption of some form of shari'a law for British Muslims "inevitable."

A chorus of critics has since condemned the Archbishop, the eccentric prelate some wags affectionately refer to as "the ArchDruid." But is it self-evidently true that Islamic law is incompatible with modernity, or that a liberal state can't embrace some forms of religious law? Consider India, where the formidably titled Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 was seen as a landmark in minority rights. As in many countries, Indian family law is determined in part by religious boards -- for Christians, Parsis, Hindus, and Muslims -- that draw on and interpret faith traditions to adjudicate disputes. The system is by no means universally popular. Many Hindu chauvinists oppose Muslim personal law in an effort to denigrate a minority they see as a fifth column. Some secular liberals oppose it on grounds that a liberal state demands a uniform civil code. Then there Muslims who want to see Muslim personal law revised in response to changing social norms. And that, difficult though this may be to believe, is well within the Islamic tradition. Shari'a has historically evolved in response to local conditions and cultural traditions, and one would assume the same would be true of a shari'a for British Muslims. By bringing these practices into the light of day, by forcing the women and men who embrace Islamic law to take part in wide-ranging public discussion, we'd bring members of hidebound, isolated communities into the light of liberal modernity.