Connect with us

Europe

Nationalism and its effects on peace in Europe

Teja Palko

Published

on

With global crisis, unemployment, dissatisfaction, poverty and intolerance has increased and with it also nationalism. Political parties with nationalist platforms are rising and gaining more support around the world and Europe is no exception.

In Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom and across Europe we can see the rise of the right. The financial crisis in the Eurozone and beyond has triggered rising of nationalists and far-right political parties. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) on 9th of July released a report about the dramatic increase in anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, online hate speech and xenophobic political discourse as the main trends in 2014.

Nationalism can be positive with legitimacy, promotion of nations and inspiration for citizens or negative by creating tensions between different ethnicity and groups in or outside the country. Some negative aspects of ideology or political movement can be seen in the latest football matches in the Balkans, where supporters of team groups have burned many national flags and hooliganism that is the result of long lasting hatred and nationalism on the ground. Every country has its own history and different positions, but still similarities could be found.

The country all news is regarding to in recent times is Greece. A known slogan “Greece for Greeks” is well known in its anti-austerity party. Attacks against minorities and immigrants with racism are seen in one of the European Union (EU) members. Golden Dawn neo-Nazi party is linked to hundreds of violent attacks against minorities. It is known for anti-immigration, racist-nationalist worldview. With elections being held this year in January the party captured 6.3% of the vote and 17 senate seats in Hellenic parliament and become the country’s third largest party. In 2014 the party won 9.4% of votes in European parliamentary election and with it 3 seats out of 21. The party has been put on a trial this year for its criminal activity. Nationalism in Greece has divided citizens and noncitizens to us and them and created the gap between both. With the economic crisis, Greeks debt, overall economic meltdown, unemployment and increasing number of refugees from different countries, the party led by Nikos Michaloliakos has gained more support and caused even greater intolerance to foreign people in need. Unfortunately, they are not the only one spreading intolerance. Many politicians have a stance against immigrants, which shapes the Greeks’ attitude towards nationalism.

Also in neighboring country FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) “Macedonia” who wants to join the EU and the North Atlantic Organization (NATO), but Greece suggests that this will not happen until they resolve the name issue, right wing party has a lot of influence. A symbolic dispute over the name and heritage of Macedonia is blocking country to joint Euro-Atlantic integration. The country is officially recognized by 120 countries, but it is faced with continued denial of Macedonian identity by its neighbors, Bulgarians, Serbians and Greeks. The leading right political party VMRO-DMNE with more support from public from latest elections is involved in political tensions with opposition that those not approve election results. Fear of nationalism and ethnic suppression is widespread because of the past in a country where 25% of the population are Albanian Muslims, 65% Macedonian Slav and Turks, Roma, Serbs, Vlach and Bosnian minorities. Dissatisfactions have been raised by minority groups, despite Ohrid agreement which should provide equality among different groups. Questions are rising like this one: is Macedonia because of overall situation heading towards extreme nationalism?

Strong nationalism could also be found in Serbia. In the past was support for The Serbian Radical’s leader Vojislav Šešelj, that was accused and indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICT) for Crimes against Humanity and War crimes of former Yugoslavia in the 1990 wars for whom UN prosecutors demanded a 28-year prison sentence and been provisionally released after 11 years based on health problems, a lot stronger than today. The party won in 1992 22.58% of the popular vote and after that in parliamentary elections saw four higher results in 1997, 2003, 2007 and 2008, but in the last two elections did not get into the National Assembly of Serbia. Core ideology was the goal of creating a greater Serbia, opposing to European integration and globalization and regarding Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić as Serbian heroes. The Serbian far-right leader was welcomed as a Serb Hero by hundreds of supporters, which was in neighboring countries seen as a defeat of the judicial system and injustice. With Serbs seeking EU integration nationalism seems to have taken a second place even though the football match with Albania has shown us that Serbian nationalism is still much alive. Slogan Kosovo is Serbia is another point of nationalism since after seven years no concrete answer towards solution has been achieved.

A Kosovo report by Council of Europe in 2013 revealed a negative trend towards nationalism. Social cohesion was endangered with limited tolerance for minority languages, cultures, traditions and identities. Authorities do not support platforms for interaction and dialog between communities, minorities do not participate in decision making. In 2014 Kosovo parliament elections, Democratic Party of Kosovo with Hashim Thaci as a leader won the most of the popular vote. Party got 32.1% and 37 seats out of 120. Nationalism is strong in the country that has unilaterally declared independence in 2008 and has so far support and recognition of 108 United Nations members and 4 other states and entities.

In many other countries that were not exposed similar situation with rising nationalism and right wing parties exists. What those parties have in common is nationalism, many of them anti-migration politics, conservatism, Euroscepticism but on the other side they have different goals. Nationalist parties in Europe are rising and with it also nationalism in Europe. The continent that wants to look like a whole from the outside is drifting apart from its goal to work and present itself as one. Is nationalist wave going to hurt Europe or EU integration? Should we be worried? Is nationalism causing even more conflicts in recent so unrest region in Europe? Is nationalism the last brick in the wall that is going to promote anger and blame without understanding and respect with a hostile public opinion which will lead to the further insecurity or tensions?

Teja Palko is a Slovenian writer. She finished studies on Master’s Degree programme in Defense Science at the Faculty of Social Science at University in Ljubljana.

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

From West To East A Somber Week

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

It has been a somber week. 

An orphaned dugong nurtured and returned to the sea has died from eating plastic.  Mariam died from a stomach infection made much worse by the plastic which often harbors bacteria.  Only a few hundred of the sea mammals — similar to our manatees but with a forked tail — are left in Thailand.

India celebrated independence — 72 years of it — on Thursday, Pakistan on Wednesday having pipped it by a day.  All this while Indian Kashmir was in lock-down, the people caged in their houses, and food running short according to a National Public Radio eyewitness report.  One in ten is the ratio of the security personnel to the population.  It is as if the small town where I live had 20,000 instead of a couple of dozen police officers.

Mr. Modi would have you believe otherwise.  He has unilaterally rescinded Kashmir’s autonomy claiming he can because the state at present is absent a legislature.  He omits to mention he dismissed it.  The Kashmiris are livid and waiting like a time-bomb for the lock-down to end, although there have been stories of small-scale demonstrations met with tear gas and shotgun pellets.

More than pellets in the armament of the forces trained on each other, India and Pakistan each have over a hundred nuclear weapons enough to destroy themselves and give the rest of the world a nuclear winter.  In Pakistan’s favor … the prevailing wind is from the west carrying the radioactive dust to India.

While only one in ten may want to join Pakistan, two thirds of the people in Indian-held Kashmir want independence from India according to polls.  So do other areas of strife in the northeast and the eastern end of India’s southern peninsula.  In the jaws of the military and the paramilitary, success for insurgents appears remote.

Kashmir has a stronger legal case.  In 1952, Nehru promised a peaceful solution based on a plebiscite adding they had given their word of honor at the UN and a great nation does not go back on it.  So much for greatness.  At present India controls 45 percent, Pakistan 35 percent and China the rest — the troubles are confined to the Indian section.

A couple of thousand miles away to the east is a very unhappy young man.  In an economic vice of sanctions he seeks relief to fulfill his desire of economic progress for his country and a better life for his people.  Donald Trump has put him on ice, seeking more concessions on nuclear disarmament but Kim Jong Un cannot throw away his main bargaining chip.  He chose to test fire a couple of intermediate range missiles — he has long range ones also. 

In Britain, Boris the bad-enough (no Godunov for sure) is giving all indications of a no-deal brexit.  Jeremy Corbyn is asking Conservative MPs to support him to take-over in a united move to prevent such an economic disaster but so far no takers.  Boris has returned from a visit to Ireland.  Perhaps the present open border between north and south opened his eyes.

Between the Boris brexit and Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports, the markets had had enough.  The Dow sank in the largest one-day drop of the year, although reviving a little on Friday.

All in all, a somber week indeed.

Continue Reading

Europe

Will Putin and Macron Open a New Political Season?

Dr. Andrey KORTUNOV

Published

on

On August 19, President of France Emmanuel Macron hosted President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin at Fort de Brégançon in the commune of Bormes-les-Mimosas in the Var department on the French Riviera. Given the vagaries of the weather this summer in France, the Mediterranean coast seemed a more suitable location for a meeting than the currently scorching-hot Paris.

Formally, Macron is on vacation right now, where any respectable Frenchman should be in August. However, the meeting with his Russian counterpart can hardly be seen as a part of the president’s holiday activities. Macron and Putin probably find it difficult to talk to each other about things not related to their official positions, as they are very different people.

For starters, an entire generation separates the two leaders: Macron is 25 years younger than Putin. And their respective terms in office are incomparable – two years for Macron versus two decades for Putin. We should also note that the French leader is a textbook technocrat whose career has been largely spent on the economic side of the government, while Putin is a classic silovik whose background is in foreign intelligence.

What is more, past meetings between the two leaders do not exactly instill confidence in future cooperation. At the start of the French presidential campaign in 2017, the Russian leadership clearly favored François Fillon, who is much closer to Putin in terms of both his politics and his personality, and someone the Russian President can more easily relate to, than Macron. Later, the Russian state-owned media held little back in its harsh (and not always fair) criticism of the founder of the “La République En Marche!” party. Macron likely remembers the warm welcome the Kremlin gave to his rival, leader of the National Front Marine Le Pen, in the run-up to the final round of voting in the French presidential elections. For his part, the young French politician has not always followed diplomatic protocol in assessing the policies and intentions of his Russian counterpart.

All this notwithstanding, literally two weeks after he was sworn in as President, Macron received Putin in Versailles. The two leaders met regularly after this, both in a bilateral format and on the side-lines of various multilateral forums. Interestingly, Macron was the only major European leader to take part in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum last year. Word has it that the two leaders even address each other with the informal word for “you,” as both Russian and French allow such lexical liberty.

One may be a football fan (Macron) and the other a Judo aficionado (Putin); one a staunch liberal (Macron) and the other a steadfast conservative (Putin). They may differ on fundamental issues of human rights and the future world order, but Putin and Macron need each other. Probably more so than they did two years ago.

Right now, Putin simply does not have a more suitable negotiating partner in Europe than Macron. The indefatigable Angela Merkel is coming to the end of her political career and her influence on European affairs is waning. Italy is in its usual state of latent political crisis, and neither Giuseppe Conte nor Matteo Salvini are in any kind of position to speak with Putin on behalf of Europe with any kind of authority. And this is even more true for the United Kingdom’s newly appointed Prime Minister, the eccentric Boris Johnson.

A serious conversation will not happen in the immediate future between the Russian leadership and the President-elect of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, and it will probably not be easy. It is hard to say that the Kremlin harbors high hopes for the successors of Jean-Claude Juncker and Federica Mogherini, as they have already leveled some harsh criticism at Moscow.

Russia and Europe have plenty of topics for discussion. The settlement of the situation in Eastern Ukraine, for example, which is showing signs of promise following Volodymyr Zelensky’s victory in the Ukrainian elections. There is the situation in Syria and the threat of a new escalation in Idlib and new flows of Syrian refugees into Europe, which has been made worse by the recent decision of President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to suspend the agreement with the European Union on migrants. The future of relations with Iran following the sharp aggravation of U.S.–Iran relations and the threat of the Iranian nuclear deal falling apart entirely. And the future of European security after attempts to save the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) finally failed.

All of these issues are obviously important for both Putin and Macron. All the more so, as France will be hosting the latest G7 Summit in Biarritz just one week after the visit the President of the Russian Federation. It is entirely possible that the Normandy Four Summit on the situation in Donbass will be held in the early fall in France too. And the Second Paris Peace Forum, which, judging by the 2018 edition, is touted as a benefit event hosted by the President, is planned for later in the year.

On the whole, the President of France, who has squandered a great deal of his popularity at home over the past two years, has the chance to claw his way back in the new political season. He can try to recover at least some of his recent losses by creating an image of himself in France as Europe’s main political leader, including in matters relating to the east. “National greatness” is not an empty phrase, even for Macron’s most determined domestic political opponents.

And the meeting with the President of the Russian Federation is a good opening move for a party trying to make waves in “big” European politics. Despite the difficulties that will inevitably arise in the upcoming discussions with Putin, it would still be easier for Macron to negotiate with him than to achieve an understanding with the egotistical President of the United States Donald Trump, who is unable to even appreciate the exquisite taste of Rhône wine.

Of course, the current political situation creates both additional opportunities and additional difficulties for the Russia–France dialogue. Difficulties include the recent clashes between the police and civic activists in Moscow, which led to a large number of arrests. It is easy to predict that this issue will somehow emerge in the French press, as well during the talks between the two leaders, something that will no doubt irk the President of the Russian Federation.

Russian observers typically liken unauthorized opposition rallies in Moscow to the “yellow vests” in Paris, pointing out the violent actions of the French police. I happened to witness first-hand both the events that occurred in Paris last autumn and the Moscow rallies that took place in later July of this year. And, to be perfectly honest, any parallels between the chaos in Paris and the Moscow unrest are improper and inappropriate.

For one, the events in Paris can only be described as large-scale riots, accompanied by numerous acts of violence and vandalism, while the demonstrations held in Moscow were peaceful, albeit not authorized by the authorities. So, pushing these dubious analogies only further provokes anti-Russian sentiments, which are already more widespread in France than in many other European countries.

Nevertheless, as Otto von Bismarck rightly noted, “Politics is the art of the possible.” Public sentiment is important, but not the only, factor that determines the foreign political priorities of even the most liberal democracies. Russian historians generally consider the reign of Alexander III (1881–1894) a conservative, even reactionary, era, but this did not stop the President of the French Republic Marie François Sadi Carnot from entering into a military alliance with the Emperor of Russia. The rule of Leonid Brezhnev (1962–1982) is often referred to as the Soviet Era of Stagnation, yet President Charles de Gaulle nevertheless visited the USSR in the summer of 1966, thus marking the beginning of the era of “special relations” between Paris and Moscow.

In this case, of course, we are not talking about the beginning of a new era in Russia–France or Russia–Europe relations. Unfortunately, objective prerequisites for this have not yet come about. However, the presidents of France and Russia are more than capable of opening a new season in European politics in Fort de Brégançon on August 19 by achieving a tangible rapprochement of the Russian and French positions on at least one or two of the issues above without losing face and without sacrificing their principles. The unprecedentedly hot summer in Paris – and the equally unprecedentedly cold summer in Moscow – should come to an end.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Europe

Marine Le Pen’s Nationalist Ideology and the Rise of Right-Wing Parties in Europe

Mohamad Zreik

Published

on

“When you decide to stand against injustice, expect that you will be cursed and then betrayed and then atoned, but do not keep quiet about injustice in order to be told that you are a man of peace.” Marine Le Pen stood in the face of injustice and said the word of truth without hesitation. As the truth hurts, Le Pen has faced much criticism, insults, and opposition campaigns. Marine Le Pen, the candidate for the 2017 French presidential election, lost to Emmanuel Macron, a moderate centrist young man who believed in economic and political openness to Europe, and her loss was an expression of democracy and freedom.

What will change in France and Europe after Macron takes office? Had Le Pen come to power, what would have happened? Why was this powerful campaign against Le Pen?

Marine Le Pen is the president of the National Front and the daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the extreme right-wing political party in France. Since French society is a mixture of different civilizations, cultures and religions, Le Pen has not won many votes and was not accepted by the society because her project was France first, not Europe first, and the fight against terrorism was one of its priorities, without the support of anyone or the consent of religious and political groups to carry out this process. Le Pen’s experience is not new. When her father ran in the past, he called for the reinstatement of the French franc, the restoration of French identity instead of the European one and the implementation of a French national policy without referring to the European Union.

Many political analysts believe that if Le Pen was able to reach the presidency, Europe would enter a phase of wide change, since Germany and France are the two pillars of the European Union, the departure of France will lead to an imbalance in the European Union and to a weakness in its structure. Le Pen’s proposed program did not impress many advocates of freedom because it negatively affects the rights of refugees and works on a harsh policy with foreigners coming to France. As an Arab citizen and human rights defender, I will not accept Le Pen’s proposals at the beginning, but I meet with her on many things and concerns. The European continent has become a place for the export of large numbers of people who are doing terrorism in the world and the great margin of freedom in Europe has made it a tool for making evil and to strengthen the role of ideologically unclean groups, all due to the issue of human rights and the right of opinion and expression.

The European continent is witnessing a widespread campaign against the EU, the BREXIT in Britain was no accident, as well as the rise of right-wing parties to take power in Denmark and the Netherlands and demand a firmer policy, and it is noticeable that the right-wing European parties are growing in France, Italy, Spain, Hungary and Austria. The project demanded by Le Pen has become necessary on the European continent, especially with the financial crises in the European Union and the many terrorist acts that threaten European security.

From the Treaty of Westphalia to the founding of the European Union to the present Europe, the situation has changed a lot. The idea of a civilian state was necessary to end the 30-year war and the founding of the European Union came to unite the European continent after it was divided during the Cold War. Today, in the era of globalization, openness and freedoms, the economic crises that hit the world in general and Europe in particular, and the incidence of terrorist acts are increasing rapidly, and I am afraid that Europe will become a place of terrorist acts and a center for terrorist group. Therefore, the world today needs leaders such as Le Pen to control human insanity and restore stability to the international community.

The success of the experience of democracy in a certain part of the world does not mean that it is the ideal system and that it can easily be applied to the rest of the world. Many peoples of the world are not suited to democratic regimes, and the failure to implement a democratic system does not mean that the regime that will govern this country is oppressive and unfair, but one that suits the form of the state and the needs of the people. Henry Kissinger acknowledged that the idea of the European Union could not last forever because European countries since ancient times were not based on the doctrine of unity and participation.

I still dream of the beautiful Europe of the 1980s, when it was the center of international economy and trade and when the international political decision was linked to Europe. Europe today is a mass of endless economic crises and a center of attraction for terrorist acts that threaten European and international security, without forgetting the US decision, which often affects European sovereignty. Le Pen’s project is to reject American hegemony, return to French roots and adhere to French identity. The idea of a closed door policy and a strict policy with foreign expatriates is an internal French affair.

The situation in France will not be better after the arrival of Macron and terrorism will not stop, Emmanuel Macron is trying to give more economic, social and cultural freedoms and more integration with the European community. Of course, economic and political cooperation will have a positive impact on France and Europe. But in return for this cooperation, what special benefit will France gain, knowing that Macron has put forward the idea of establishing an EU military force, which means that the EU’s role will be not only economic and political but also joint military action.

The series of terrorist operations has not ceased after Macron’s arrival, and is increasing day by day. From France to Britain, Belgium and Germany, the target is Europe, which is the victim of terrorism. Terrorism wants Europe to become unstable and panic and make it a “New Land of Jihad”. Of course, Macron’s European policy plays an important role in strengthening the position of terrorist groups and creating fertile ground for them. Terrorism needs freedom and open borders to turn the impossible into reality.

When Le Pen raised the voice and said that we are French and wanted to rearrange the French house, she knew that France was the target and if it was not immunized, Great France would become just an idea in the “Museum of History”. Le Pen, an ultra-nationalist, does not scare me as an Arab Lebanese. Why would I be afraid of someone who wants to fight terrorism and oppressive ideology? We all love unity and freedom, but on the other hand there are some emergency circumstances that push the political system in a country to take an unusual path. Today, right-wing approach can make a difference, which some describe as extremism and lack of respect for human freedom.

The world today needs leaders like Marine Le Pen in every corner of the globe. The world today is ruled by force, and is afraid of those who say the word “no” to every stranger and outlaw. Le Pen has lost and the French will regret this option sooner or later because the European future does not bode well!

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy