No one is really fine in the European gas chamber but – just to paraphrase Orwell – someone is finer than the others. It is Germany, as you can easily imagine.
Earlier this year, the German industrial production recorded no annual growth and consumer confidence was at very low levels.
However, as is now well-known, since the beginning of the Euro phase Germany has destroyed our manufacturing industry and is replacing us in the major global markets: China, Russia (except for the crazy sanctions due to the situation with Ukraine – an operation much more linked to the US and NATO actions than to the Russian ones).
Hence the crisis of German production was short and regarded the relative compression of the Chinese market, as well as the much more severe negative cycle of the US production.
However, when markets are stolen from the others, everything gets easier and quicker.
The story began with the Social Democrat Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, shortly before the phase of the EU single currency started, when – also thanks to the “reabsorption” of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) still underway – he managed the forced lowering of the German mark value and the companies’ production costs, already below the expected Euro waterline, so as to make the “great German factory” already competitive even before the introduction of the single currency.
Moreover the Euro certainly enabled Italy, which was not at all prepared for the single currency, to reconstruct its own debt record, which was approaching the end with an imminent “Argentina-style” perspective.
But the single currency, inevitably too “high,” destroyed the purchasing power of wages and salaries, by halving them, and doubled both production costs and consumer prices.
Italy experienced an 80% deflation, which lasted six month, of which you can easily imagine the social effects.
Social effects experienced not even after the Second World War lost – and that says it all!
Hence Italy was forced to increase exports, which made us gain some positions on the world market, but destroyed – due to an usurious and virtually absent ruling class – the great State-owned industry, sold at a loss, however with one-off “transfers and payments” to the old and new political forces.
Furthermore, the shift to a stupidly “high” currency value further destroyed Italy’s banking system, which is now playing a secondary role compared to the large liquidity areas being created both within the EU and in the rest of the world.
In fact, Italy experienced recession for at least five of the past eight years.
Still today, Italy’s GDP is lower than in 1999 and its sovereign debt has grown by 133% since 1999. Furthermore, since the introduction of the Euro the national average productivity has steadily declined.
But what does it has to do with Germany? Certainly it has to do with Germany.
In fact, the European Union is unable to manage the huge German current account surplus – and indeed it remains silent before it. Said surplus is over 8% – a percentage that no EU Treaty allows and which also funds the current remarkable growth of wages and salaries in Germany (4.5% on average), besides refinancing the local domestic demand, which is the real engine of growth in the current phase in which exports are flagging.
Since the beginning of the 2006 crisis, caused by the US “financial bubble” on the European monetary and banking markets, Germany has slowly but relentlessly forced the other EU countries to be more fiscally “correct”.
This means to increase their domestic taxes in order to support the expected lower purchase of government bonds and to “cash” money to add to their coffers in case of few renewals of bonds at maturity.
Nevertheless, even freshmen in Business and economic universities know that if taxation increases, domestic consumption will decrease and that if the internal market shrinks, there must be an equivalent share of exports offsetting that loss.
However, if the Euro external value changes for each individual country of the Area, Italy’s EU competitors recording a stronger and more stable external value of the Euro will take markets away from Italy also at equivalent prices.
This has meant basically destroying the Italian, Spanish and sometimes even French companies to favour both Germany and the German industrial expansion area beyond the old Iron Curtain.
Since the very beginning, the German labour outside German borders has supported the country’s expansion onto global markets at highly competitive prices, while Italy and the other regions which had not been cynically prepared for the Euro geoeconomics have collapsed under the weight of the unsustainable costs of their exports and international competition.
While former Italian President Ciampi was visiting China’s Great Wall, Chancellor Schroeder quickly landed in Beijing and in one single day signed all the contracts concerning the remarkable expansion of the Volkswagen Group into China.
It is worth recalling that this was exactly the same paradigm used by the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) against the German Democratic Republic (GDR), reduced to an Anschlűss country, both to avoid the competition of Communist Germany’s companies, which were not performing so poorly, and to use – at a much lower cost – the labour force “released” from those areas.
Hence the model with which the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) bought the German Democratic Republic (GDR) – with our money, and sometimes even with the GDR money – was replicated for the rest of Europe.
Incidentally, at that time the “moralistic” rules on rigour, which found many inexperienced advocates (but we would also say agents of influence) applied not even to Germany which, in the phase of “rigour”, made three-year investment plans accounting for 5.2% of GDP.
Also at geopolitical level, the strategic relationship between Germany and the United States makes economic sense: the pressure of sanctions against Russia, guilty of taking back what is its own in Crimea and part of Ukraine, undermines the economies more interrelated with Russia, including Italy’s – hence a crisis adds to the other.
The US interest is very clear: the more the European economic fabric and common interest crumble, the more the Dollar area – and, in any case, the US commercial and financial expansion area – is guaranteed and expanded.
The more the United States come back to Europe, the more the German bilateral power on the USA increases and the bilateral power of the other EU countries proportionally decreases. After the notorious “Arab springs”, the latter are now reduced to an internal struggle (such as Italy vs. France for Libya) or to a “joint action” – often fully ineffective – with the United States which, however, think they must walk out of the Middle East, after having madly set fire to it.
In a recently-published book, a CIA executive has candidly admitted that the United States “hoped that the democratic uprising would destroy Al Qaeda” – and we have seen with what tragic and uncontrollable outcomes.
Not to mention the case of the war in Syria and its impact on the EU welfare, which will shortly become totally unsustainable and will place the less cautious and far-sighted EU countries in a tragic situation while, on the contrary, it will create opportunities for profitable investment for the North European and US banks and private insurance companies.
After the EU restrictive rules on the EU Member States’ public budgets, with the 2011 regulations known as “Two Pack Regulations”, France has set itself – at least partially – against the financial (and later political) Germanization of the European Union, while Italy has continued to use the debt lever and the lucky chance provided by the ECB Governor, Mario Draghi, with the programme designed to repurchase – on the secondary market – the surplus of government bonds of countries like Italy.
But it will not last.
There are only two possibilities: either the sequence of “sacrifices” and budgetary constraints is applied – and forget about the story that States spend too much and badly, because all States do so – and hence Italy will no longer have a domestic market to support its industrial output, because it also has a low labour productivity, or it shall incur debt on financial markets and ultimately collapse under the burden of the interest generated by that debt.
Obviously, they will help us die.
Later, they will buy our companies at low cost so as to incorporate them in their European and global networks, with the national workforce that will be a variable – and not a constant – factor of business calculations and profits which will go abroad.
In 2013, Italy already ranked second in the list of Mergers and Acquisition (M&A) of German companies – and it just so happened during the crisis – and currently over 30% of the Italian companies which are now no longer nationally-owned have already been sold to the Germans.
Only in 2013, for example, we recorded as many as 23 deals of German small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) which acquired Italian companies, out of a total of 171 sales of national SMEs between 2013 and 2014.
Given the complexity of these operations, it is obviously not possible to speculate on the activities which are still in progress.
Hence the issue lies in undermining a country and then buy it at very low prices.
A strategy which has long been developed and that Italy, for the fatal inability of its ruling class, did not prepare on time, i.e. before the Euro’s entry into force.
What can be done? Getting out of the single currency is useless.
However, Italy must operate freely on the major global markets where the country can still compete with its European “allies” – and it shall do so quickly and with harsh and resolute methods.
And it must accept foreign to foreign transactions not denominated in Euro, as with China and the Russian Federation.
This is what good intelligence and a ruling class not consisting only of mere parvenus and upstarts, like the current ones, would be for.
Europe tells Biden “no way” to Cold War with China
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.
Germany and its Neo-imperial quest
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.
Should there be an age limit to be President?
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.
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...
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...
Syria: 10 years of war has left at least 350,000 dead
A decade of war in Syria has left more 350,200 people dead, High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet told the Human Rights...
Afghan crisis: Changing geo-economics of the neighbourhood
The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan has caused a rapid reshuffle in the geo-economics of South, Central and West Asia. While...
The Role and Place of the Taliban on the Global Map of Islam: Challenges and Threats
The rise to power of the Taliban (a terrorist organization banned in Russia) in August 2021 has raised a number...
Millions in Yemen ‘a step away from starvation’
The crisis in Yemen, now in its seventh year of war, continues unabated, with thousands of people displaced and millions...
Turkish Economy as the Reset Button of Turkish Politics
Democracy has a robust relationship with economic growth. Barrington Moore can be seen as one of the leading scholars focusing...
Intelligence4 days ago
The AUKUS Alliance and “China’s Maritime Governance Strategy” in the Indo-Pacific
Europe4 days ago
Europe tells Biden “no way” to Cold War with China
Eastern Europe4 days ago
Ukraine’s EU-integration plan is not good for Europe
Americas3 days ago
AUKUS aims to perpetuate the Anglo-Saxon supremacy
East Asia4 days ago
The Demise of a French Sub Deal: Is China a Threat?
Africa3 days ago
Money seized from Equatorial Guinea VP Goes into Vaccine
Development3 days ago
Demand for Circular Economy Solutions Prompts Business and Government Changes
Terrorism3 days ago
A shift in militants’ strategy could shine a more positive light on failed US policy