Connect with us

Europe

Is the European Union on the Verge of Dissolution?

Published

on

And The Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe’s Crisis and America’s Economic Future. by Yanis Varoufakis (April 2016)

“The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must”–Thucydides

This book, just out, is a must read for anybody in any way interested in the history, the cultural identity, the present crisis, and the future destiny of the European Union. It is almost prophetic, a sort of Cassandra warning, predicting, but always rigorously logically and rationally, how the ongoing drama of the EU, of which he was a participant for a short while, will eventually end, and not only for Greece or the EU, but the whole economic global apparatus as presently constituted, unless urgent reforms and measures are adopted to remedy a deficit of Democracy and a lack of transparency.

The author is well known. For five short months he was the flamboyant Finance Minister of Greece as the country attempted to negotiate its economic crisis. Contrary to general perceptions, he is not a Communist, nor a wild-eyed zealot radical, not even a Marxist. He is merely a rational economist, a European social democrat. The Anglo Saxon world would dub him a post-Keynesian.

varoufakisBefore discussing the most interesting features of this extraordinary book, perhaps a short note on its title is in order. Its inspiration seems to have come from Thucydides’ famous statement as quoted above on the relation of power to truth and justice. The very nature of war, as far as Thucydides is concerned, is dictated by the nature of power and how it determines who has the ultimate word. That is to say, might is right; the strong or the winner dictate the conditions of surrender, even the narration of events, and the weak accept what the strong impose. That’s the way things have been, are now and will forever be. Necessity dictates it. Notice however that Varoufakis has placed a question mark after the statement “And the weak accept what they must.” Without that question mark the title would have been a mere quote from the ancient Greek historian. With it, it becomes a powerful challenge to the misguided premise that the weak have no choice but to suffer in silence the abuses and the injustices of the powerful. In fact without that little question mark one may tend to misinterpret the whole spirit of the book.

With that well in mind, let’s proceed to examine the narration and analysis exhibited in this book. It reads almost as a narration with the eyes and ears of a novelist but at the same time it exhibits the competency of an experienced economist, who actually teaches the subject internationally. There are no fanciful or even slanderous inventions here; the facts are narrated objectively in the search for the truth, in the best tradition of ancient Greek philosophy. He manages this tone because he himself has been intimately involved in the events that led to what he calls the “defeat of the Greek people by the EU bankers.”

The general framework and assumption of the book is that the crisis in Europe is not over – if anything, it’s getting worse and we are doing precious little to fix it, except advocate more austerity coupled with less democracy and transparency. In this dramatic narrative which begins with Europe’s spectacular economic rise and ends with Greece’s spectacular fall which Varoufakis calls “the canary in the mine” being utilized by the EU bureaucrats, it is brilliantly demonstrated that the origins of the recent collapse go far deeper than our present leaders are prepared to admit; in fact they are complicit in the crisis. In 2008, the universe of Western finance outgrew planet Earth. When Wall Street imploded, a death embrace between insolvent banks and bankrupt states consumed Europe. Half a dozen national economies imploded and several more came close.

But the storm, the author writes, is far from over. From the aftermath of the Second World War to the present, Varoufakis recounts how the Eurozone emerged not as route to shared prosperity but as a pyramid scheme of debt with countries such as Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain at its bottom. Its woeful design ensured that collapse would be inevitable and catastrophic.

But since the hurricane landed Europe’s leaders have chosen a cocktail of more debt and harsh austerity rather than reform, ensuring that the weakest citizens of the weakest nations pay the price for the bankers’ mistakes, while doing nothing to prevent the next collapse. Instead, the principle of the greatest austerity for those suffering the greatest recessions has led to a resurgence of racist extremism. Enter the likes of Trump and La Pen, as Varoufakis mentioned at a recent lecture in Washington State: Fascism always follows in the wings of economic corruption. And so, once more, Europe is a potent threat to global stability. Drawing on the personal experience of his own negotiations with the Eurozone’s financiers and offering concrete policies and alternatives, Varoufakis shows how we concocted this mess and how it may not be too late to save capitalism from itself.

Varoufakis points out that in a true democratic federalism political unity would be in tandem with monetary unity. Not only there is presently no economic and banking unity, never mind social solidarity, but there is no federalism and little democracy and transparency, which were the hallmark of the EU at its origins as envisioned by its founding fathers and sadly it is now in deficit. The EU institutions in Brussels so cherished by Germany’s interior minister and seen as the targets of terrorists and non-democratic regimes such as Putin’s, are not themselves models of democracy. Most of them in fact are not in Brussels but in Frankfurt, the banking capital of Germany and the de facto capital of the EU.

But the solutions to those deficits, which are fundamentally cultural and rational requiring a genuine knowledge of the European identity and its ideals, cannot be activated or even considered as policy because those making major economic decisions in Europe are not elected, often hold secret meetings, and automatically side with policies that favor Europe’s banking community.

The book has essentially one message: The Europe we have today is only a currency union, but what’s needed to address a crisis like the one that hit Greece and Portugal and Spain is a European Union that’s democratically accountable, the Europe as envisioned at the outset by the EU founding fathers whose visions went beyond the merely economic. Varoufakis masterfully describes the institutions of global capitalism, how they were formed, how they were gradually deformed, why they were deformed, the names and faces of those who played a role, why we have the European Union, arriving at the conclusion that the central problem in Europe at this moment in history is a democratic deficit underpinned by the banks totally running things and devaluing the true cultural values and the very identity of Europe.

For the ECB (The European Central Bank) it’s all about the money. So when Varoufakis, as finance minister, argued with the representatives of Greece’s creditors about how his country could not grow economically if all it’s doing is killing jobs to pay its debts, he discovered that the they, the ECB and Frankfurt, did not care a fig about all of that rational stuff. They just wanted their money. And the fact that he was making too many rational arguments cost him his job. The founding fathers of the EU must be turning in their graves.

In an interview with the American journalist and expert in foreign policy Farid Zakaria on Sunday’s CNN on the 9th of May, Veroufakis was asked if he thought that Europe was on the verge of falling apart. His answer was “no doubt about it unless urgent measures and democratic reforms are implemented.” Then he added that it is a great blunder to emphasize the break-up of the EU market and nationalism in the name of love of country (the “not in my backyard” phenomenon when it comes to the issue of refugees and solidarity) at the expense of the union as a whole, implying that in a true federalism people hang together or end up hanging separately, to use Franklyn’s metaphor in the revolution against the English. He also utilized the quip of another man who fought the English: Gandhi, who when asked if he saw anything good in the union of the British Empire replied that “it could have been a good idea.”

So Veroufakis, despite it all, remains optimistic about the EU and the global economy where we will all hang together or hang separately. Well he should, for the alternative may be to contemplate the abyss, and not just for his own people, the Greeks. But his Cassandra like warning has been sounded and sounded loudly. Let’s hope it has not been sounded to the wind. Let those who have ears, let them hear, for time is fast running out.

Professor Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of “the neo-immigrant” exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Europe

Europe tells Biden “no way” to Cold War with China

Published

on

Amidst the first big transatlantic tensions for the Biden Administration, a new poll shows that the majority of Europeans see a new Cold War happening between the United States and China, but they don’t see themselves as a part of it.

Overwhelmingly, 62% of Europeans believe that the US is engaged in a new Cold War against China, a new poll just released by the European Council on Foreign Relations found. Just yesterday US President Joe Biden claimed before the UN General Assembly that there is no such thing and the US is not engaging in a new Cold War. So, Europeans see Biden’s bluff and call him on it.

The study was released on Wednesday by Mark Leonard and Ivan Krastev at the European Council on Foreign Relations and found that Europeans don’t see themselves as direct participants in the US-China Cold War. This viewpoint is most pronounced in Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, Portugal and Italy, according to the study. The prevailing view, in each of the 12 surveyed EU member states, is one of irrelevance – with respondents in Hungary (91%), Bulgaria (80%), Portugal (79%), and Austria (78%) saying that their country is not in a conflict with Beijing.

Only 15% of Europeans believe that the EU is engaged in a Cold War against China. The percentage is so low that one wonders if there should even be such a question. It is not only not a priority, it is not even a question on the agenda for Europeans. Even at the highest point of EU “hawkishness”, only 33% of Swedes hold the view that their country is currently in a Cold War with China.  Leonard and Krastev warn that if Washington and Brussels are preparing for an all-in generational struggle against China, this runs against the grain of opinion in Europe, and leaders in Washington and Brussels will quickly discover that they “do not have a societal consensus behind them”.

“The European public thinks there is a new cold war – but they don’t want to have anything to do with it. Our polling reveals that a “cold war” framing risks alienating European voters”, Mark Leonard said.

The EU doesn’t have the backing of its citizens to follow the US in its new Cold War pursuit. But unlike the views of the authors of the study, my view is that this is not a transatlantic rift that we actually have to be trying to fix. Biden’s China policy won’t be Europe’s China policy, and that’s that, despite US efforts to persuade Europe to follow, as I’ve argued months ago for the Brussels Report and in Modern Diplomacy.

In March this year, Gallup released a poll that showed that 45% of Americans see China as the greatest US enemy. The poll did not frame the question as Cold War but it can be argued that Joe Biden has some mandate derived from the opinion of American people. That is not the case for Europe at all, to the extent that most of us don’t see “China as an enemy” even as a relevant question.

The US’s China pursuit is already giving horrible for the US results in Europe, as French President Macron withdrew the French Ambassador to the US. The US made a deal already in June, as a part of the trilateral partnership with the UK and Australia, and stabbed France in the back months ago to Macron’s last-minute surprise last week. Max Boot at the Council on Foreign Relations argues that it is Macron that is actually arrogant to expect that commitments and deals should mean something: “Back in February, Macron rejected the idea of a U.S.-E.U. common front against China. Now he complains when America pursues its own strategy against China. What’s French for chutzpah?” What Boot does get right is that indeed, there won’t be a joint US-EU front on China, and European citizens also don’t want this, as the recent poll has made clear.

The US saying Europe should follow the US into a Cold War with China over human rights is the same thing as China saying that Europe should start a Cold War with the US over the bad US human rights record. It’s not going to happen. You have to understand that this is how ridiculous the proposition sounds to us, Europeans. Leonard and Krastev urge the EU leadership to “make the case for more assertive policies” towards China around European and national interests rather than a Cold War logic, so that they can sell a strong, united, and compelling case for the future of the Atlantic alliance to European citizens.

I am not sure that I agree, as “more assertive policies” and “cold war” is probably the same thing in the mind of most Europeans and I don’t think that the nuance helps here or matters at all. Leaders like Biden argue anyway that the US is not really pursuing a Cold War. The authors caution EU leaders against adopting a “cold war” framing. You say “framing”, I say “spin”. Should we be in engaging in spins at all to sell unnecessary conflict to EU citizens only to please the US?

Unlike during the first cold war, [Europeans] do not see an immediate, existential threat”, Leonard clarified. European politicians can no longer rely on tensions with China to convince the electorate of the value of transatlantic relations. “Instead, they need to make the case from European interests, showing how a rebalanced alliance can empower and restore sovereignty to European citizens in a dangerous world”, Mark Leonard added. The study shows that there is a growing “disconnect” between the policy ambitions of those in Brussels and how Europeans think. EU citizens should stick to their sentiments and not be convinced to look for conflict where it doesn’t exist, or change what they see and hear with their own eyes and ears in favor of elusive things like the transatlantic partnership, which the US itself doesn’t believe in anyways. And the last thing that should be done is to scare Europeans by convincing them they live in a “dangerous world” and China is the biggest threat or concern.

What the study makes clear is that a Cold War framing against China is likely to repel more EU voters than it attracts, and if there is one thing that politicians know it is that you have to listen to the polls in what your people are telling you instead of engaging in spins. Those that don’t listen in advance get the signs eventually. At the end of the day it’s not important what Biden wants.

Continue Reading

Europe

Germany and its Neo-imperial quest

Published

on

In January 2021, eight months ago, when rumours about the possibility of appointment of Christian Schmidt as the High Representative in Bosnia occurred for the first time, I published the text under the title ‘Has Germany Lost Its NATO Compass?’. In this text I announced that Schmidt was appointed to help Dragan Čović, the leader of the Croatian HDZ party, to disrupt the constitutional structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina and create precoditions for secession of the Serb- and Croatian-held territories in Bosnia and the country’s final dissolution. I can hardly add anything new to it, except for the fact that Schmidt’s recent statements at the conference of Deutsche Atlantische Gesellschaft have fully confirmed my claims that his role in Bosnia is to act as Čović’s ally in the latter’s attempts to carve up the Bosnian Constitution.

Schmidt is a person with a heavy burden, the burden of a man who has continuously been promoting Croatian interests, for which the Croatian state decorated him with the medal of “Ante Starčević”, which, in his own words, he “proudly wears” and shares with several Croatian convicted war criminals who participated in the 1992-1995 aggression on Bosnia, whom Schmidt obviously perceives as his ideological brethren. The question is, then, why Germany appointed him as the High Representative in Bosnia? 

Germany’s policy towards Bosnia, exercised mostly through the institutions of the European Union, has continuously been based on the concept of Bosnia’s ethnic partition. The phrases that we can occassionaly hear from the EU, on inviolability of state boundaries in the Balkans, is just a rhetoric adapted to the demands by the United States to keep these boundaries intact. So far, these boundaries have remained intact mainly due to the US efforts to preserve them. However, from the notorious Lisbon Conference in February 1992 to the present day, the European Union has always officially stood behind the idea that Bosnia-Herzegovina should be partitioned along ethnic lines. At the Lisbon Conference, Lord Carrington and Jose Cutileiro, the official representatives of the then European Community, which has in the meantime been rebranded as the European Union, drew the maps with lines of ethnic partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, along which the ethnic cleansing was committed, with 100.000 killed and 1,000.000 expelled, so as to make its territory compatible with their maps. Neither Germany nor the European Union have ever distanced themselves from the idea they promoted and imposed at the Lisbon Conference as ‘the only possible solution’ for Bosnia, despite the grave consequences that followed. Nor has this idea ever stopped being a must within their foreign policy circles, as it has recently been demonstrated by the so-called Janša Non-Paper, launched a couple of months ago, which also advocates the final partition and dissolution of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such a plan is probably a product of the powerful right-wing circles in the European institutions, such as Schmidt’s CSU, rather than a homework of Janez Janša, the current Prime Minister of Slovenia, whose party is a part of these circles, albeit a minor one. To be sure, Germany is not the original author of the idea of Bosnia’s partition, this author is Great Britain, which launched it directly through Lord Carrington at the Lisbon Conference. Yet, Germany has never shown a will to distance itself from this idea, nor has it done the European Union. Moreover, the appointment of Schmidt, as a member of those political circles which promote ethnic partition as the only solution for multiethnic countries, testifies to the fact that Germany has decided to fully apply this idea and act as its chief promoter.

In this process, the neighbouring countries, Serbia and Croatia, with their extreme nationalist policies, can only act as the EU’s proxies, in charge for the physical implemenation of Bosnia’s pre-meditated disappearance. All the crimes that Serbia and Croatia committed on the Bosnian soil – from the military aggression, over war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide, up to the 30 year-long efforts to undermine Bosnia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – have always had a direct approval and absolute support of the leading EU countries. During the war and in its aftermath, Great Britain and France were the leaders of the initiatives to impose ethnic partition on the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and now Germany has taken up their role. In such a context, the increasing aggressiveness of Serbia and Croatia can only be interpreted as a consequence of the EU’s intention to finish with Bosnia for good, and Schmidt has arrived to Bosnia to facilitate that process. Therefore, it is high time for the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina to abandon any ilussions about the true intentions of the European Union and reject its Trojan Horse in the form of the current High Representative.  

Continue Reading

Europe

Should there be an age limit to be President?

Published

on

The presidential elections in Bulgaria are nearing in November 2021 and I would like to run for President of Bulgaria, but the issue is the age limit.

To run for President in Bulgaria a candidate needs to be at least 40 years old and I am 37. I am not the first to raise the question: should there be an age limit to run for President, and generally for office, and isn’t an age limit actually age discrimination?

Under the international human rights law standard, putting an age limit is allowed in the context of political participation under the right to vote and the right to run to be elected. Human Rights Committee General Comment No.25 interpreting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that an age limit has to be based on objective and reasonable criteria, adding that it is reasonable to have a higher age requirement for certain offices. As it stands, the law says that having an age limit for president is not age discrimination, but is 40 actually a reasonable cut-off? National legislations can change. We need to lower the age limit and rethink what’s a reasonable age for President, and not do away with all age limits.

We have seen strong leaders emerge as heads of state and government who are below 40 years of age. Sanna Marin, Prime Minister of Finland, became Prime Minister at 34. Sebastrian Kurz, the Prime Minister of Austria, was elected at 31. Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand, assumed her position at 37. So perhaps it is time to rethink age limits for the highest offices.

The US has plenty of examples where elected Senators and Congressmen actually beat the age limit and made it despite the convention. The age limit for Senator in the US is 30 years old. Rush Holt was elected to the US Senate at 29. In South Carolina, two State Senators were elected at 24 years old and they were seated anyways. The age limit for US president is 35 years old.

In Argentina, the age cut-off is 30. In India, it is 35. In Pakistan, it is 45 years old. In Turkey, it is 40 years old. Iceland says 35 years old. In France, it is 18.

Generally, democracies set lower age limits. More conservative countries set the age limit higher in line with stereotypes rather than any real world evidence that a 45 year-old or 55 year-old person would be more effective and better suited to the job. Liberal countries tend to set lower age limits.

40 years old to be a President of Bulgaria seems to be an arbitrary line drawn. And while it is legal to have some age limits, 40 years old seems to be last century. Changing the age limit for president of Bulgaria could be a task for the next Bulgarian Parliament for which Bulgarians will also vote on the same date as they vote for President.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia31 mins ago

Afghanistan and the Quest for Democracy Promotion: Symptoms of Post-Cold War Malaise

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan should be the first step in a reduced American overseas force posture. Democracy promotion in...

Middle East3 hours ago

UAE-Israel relations risk being built on questionable assumptions

A year of diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates and Israel has proven to be mutually beneficial. The question...

Americas5 hours ago

Afghanistan and Beginning of the Decline of American Power

Has America’s disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan spoiled its global standing? The pictures of retreating American soldiers at Kabul International Airport...

Defense7 hours ago

North Korea’s Nuclear Shadow: A Worrisome Expansion

Abstract: The nuclear news from North Korea remains clear and threatening.  Ignoring both political warnings and legal prohibitions, Kim Jong...

Russia11 hours ago

Russia’s Blueprint For Success in the Middle East

As a tradition in the modern world the Middle East remains unstable. Continuous political turbulence in the region extinguishes all...

pakistan-terrorism pakistan-terrorism
Terrorism18 hours ago

India’s view of “terrorism: at the UNGA?

At the recent United Nations’ general Assembly session, India was furious at mention of Kashmir by Pakistan’s prime minister Imran...

New Social Compact20 hours ago

Prevent gender-based violence in humanitarian emergencies

Top UN officials met in the margins of the 76th General Assembly on Thursday,  with a strong call to action...

Trending