Can the EU welcome and integrate the immigrant “other”?
Nowadays this urgent question is often asked by historians, sociologists, and political scientists. It has given rise to a plethora of books and academic conferences on the subject (see below for a sample). In the light of the events of the recent “refugee European crisis” the conclusions and prognosis are, more often than not, rather inconclusive and ineffective. In the short analysis that follows I’d like to examine the reasons for the deficiency, namely that the philosophy of religion is often ignored, if not downright excluded from the diagnosis, thus ending up with the wrong prognosis.
Another aspect of the wrong diagnosis is the lack of comparative perspective on the issue. By that I mean a hard look at the immigrant experiences of both the American and European continents, preferably by scholars who have lived and worked on both sides of the Atlantic. After all, it was European societies that were the primary immigrant-sending regions to America, South Africa, Oceania and Australia and just about every corner of the globe during the colonial industrialization phase of their history (1700-1920); we are talking about some 85 million Europeans; some 60% of which emigrated to the Americas (some 50 millions).
The present paradox is that the flow has now reversed and several Western European societies have now in turn become centers of global immigration. A comparison is logical and in order. There may be hard lessons to be learned from it. There is now a ratio of approximately 10% immigrants living in several European countries (UK, France, Holland, West Germany, Italy). However, they still have difficulty viewing themselves as permanent immigrant societies, the way the US viewed and continues to view itself; or for that matter of viewing the native second generations as nationals irrespective of the legal status of their citizenship. A de facto, second rate citizenship seems to be in place. The question arises: Why is that?
This question can only be answered by analyzing how these Western European countries have tried to accommodate immigrant religions, particularly Islam. Although European laws and regulations are now in place, each nation, deals with immigrant religions in markedly different institutional and legal structures on how the immigrants may publicly express religious beliefs and practices. Here a thorough knowledge of modern Western European history vis a vis religion can be useful in assessing the different reactions of various EU nations.
The French model of laicitè (or secularism) is primary in this respect. In practice secularism means a strict privatization of religion, its elimination from the public forum, while pressuring religious groups to organize themselves into a single centralized churchlike structure and serve as intermediary between it and the state, so as to better regulate and manipulate it. The model is in part the concordat with the Catholic Church established in Italy in 1929. Religion is tolerated but it is a private matter even when its symbols are pervasive in the country’s traditional culture. A great wall of separation between Church and State exists, as indeed is also the case in the US whose founding fathers well remembered the disastrous European wars of religions of the 17th century.
Great Britain, by contrast, while maintaining the established Church of England, allows greater freedom to religious associations, who deal directly with local authorities and school boards to press for changes in religious education, diet, etc., with little direct appeal to the central government. Germany, following the multi-establishment model, has tried to organize a quasi-official Islamic institution, at times in conjunction with parallel strivings on the part of the Turkish state to regulate its diaspora. But the internal divisions among immigrants from Turkey, as well as the public expression and mobilization of competing identities (secular and Muslim, Alevi and Kurd) in the German democratic context, have undermined any project of institutionalization from above. Holland, following its traditional pattern of pillarization, seemed, at least until very recently, bent on establishing a separate state-regulated but self-organized Muslim pillar. Lately, however, even traditionally liberal and tolerant Holland is expressing second thoughts, and seems ready to pass more restrictive legislation setting clear limits to the kinds of un-European, un-modern norms and habits it is prepared to tolerate.
But let us now look more closely at the comparison between the EU and the US. If one looks at the European Union as a whole, there are two fundamental differences with the situation in the United States. In Europe, first of all, immigration and Islam are almost synonymous. The overwhelming majority of immigrants in most European countries, the UK being the main exception, are Muslims, and the overwhelming majority of Western European Muslims are immigrants. This identification appears even more pronounced in those cases where the majority of Muslim immigrants tend to come predominantly from a single region, e.g., Turkey in the case of Germany, the Ma’ghreb in the case of France. This entails a superimposition of different dimensions of “otherness” that exacerbates issues of boundaries, accommodation and incorporation. The immigrant, the religious, the racial, and the socio-economic de-privileged “other” all tend to coincide.
In the United States, on the other hand, Muslims constitute at most 10 percent of all new immigrants. it is estimated that from 30 to 42 percent of all Muslims in the United States are African-American converts to Islam, making the characterization of Islam as a foreign, un-American religion even more difficult. The dynamics of interaction with other Muslim immigrants, with African-American Muslims, with non-Muslim immigrants from the same regions of origin, and with their immediate American hosts are, depending on socio-economic characteristics and residential patterns, much more complex and diverse than anything one finds in Europe. A nuance this which escapes the simple-minded approach of a Donald Trump and his cohorts.
The second main difference has to do with the role of religion and religious group identities in public life and in the organization of civil society. Western European societies are deeply secular societies, shaped by the hegemonic knowledge regime of secularism. As liberal democratic societies, they tolerate and respect individual religious freedom. But due to the increasing pressure towards the privatization of religion, which among European societies is now taken for granted as a characteristic of the self-definition of modern secular society, those societies have much greater difficulty in offering a legitimate role for religion in public life, and in the organization and mobilization of collective group identities. Muslim organized collective identities and their public representations become a source of anxiety, not only because of their religious otherness as a non-Christian and non-European religion, but, even more significantly, because of their religiousness itself as the “other” of European secularity. Presently, a post-secular Europe as envisioned by the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, is not on the horizon yet, if anything, things are going from bad to worse with the advent of right-wing ultra-nationalistic parties resurgent all over Europe and threatening the democratic system buttressed by Christian principles as envisioned by the EU founding fathers, the likes of Aedenauer, Schuman, Monet, De Gasperi, etc.
In this context, the temptation to identify Islam and fundamentalism becomes all the more pronounced. Islam, by definition, becomes the other of Western secular modernity allegedly rooted in a universal European enlightenment. Therefore, the problems posed by the incorporation of Muslim immigrants become consciously or unconsciously associated with seemingly related and vexatious issues concerning the role of religion in the public sphere, which is a question European societies assumed they had already solved according to the liberal secular norm of the privatization of religion. The assumption has resulted premature.
Americans, by contrast, are demonstrably more religious than Europeans. Therefore there is a certain pressure for immigrants to conform to American religious norms. It is generally the case that immigrants in America tend to be more religious than they were in their home countries. I can confirm this on a personal level: I do not remember my parents attending Church on a regular basis on Sunday in Italy while they did so once they emigrated to America. I am quite sure such was the case for my grandfather once he emigrated to New York when my father was born in 1912.
But even more significantly, today as in the past, religion and public religious denominational identities play an important role in the process of incorporating new immigrants. The thesis of Will Herberg concerning the old European immigrant, that “not only was he expected to retain his old religion, as he was not expected to retain his old language or nationality, but such was the shape of America that it was largely in and through religion that he, or rather his children and grandchildren, found an identifiable place in American life,” is still operative with the new immigrants. The thesis implies that collective religious identities have been one of the primary ways of structuring internal societal pluralism in American history.
Due to the corrosive logic of racialization, so pervasive in American society, the dynamics of religious identity formation assume a double positive form in the process of immigrant incorporation. Given the institutionalized acceptance of religious pluralism, the affirmation of religious identities is enhanced among the new immigrants. This positive affirmation is reinforced, moreover, by what appears to be a common defensive reaction by most immigrant groups against ascribed racialization, particularly against the stigma of racial darkness. In this respect, religious and racial self-identifications and ascriptions represent alternative ways of organizing American multiculturalism. One of the obvious advantages of religious pluralism over racial pluralism is that, under proper constitutional institutionalization, it is more reconcilable with principled equality and non-hierarchic diversity, and therefore with genuine multiculturalism.
American society is indeed entering a new phase. The traditional model of assimilation, turning European nationals into American “ethnics,” can no longer serve as a model of assimilation now that immigration is literally worldwide. America is bound to become “the first new global society” made up of all world religions and civilizations, at a time when religious civilizational identities are regaining prominence at the global level. At the very same moment that political scientists like Samuel Huntington are announcing the impending clash of civilizations in global politics, a new experiment in intercivilizational encounters and accommodation between all the world religions is taking place at home. American religious pluralism is expanding and incorporating all the world religions in the same way as it previously incorporated the religions of the old immigrants. A complex process of mutual accommodation is taking place. Like Catholicism and Judaism before, other world religions, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism are being “Americanized” and in the process they are transforming American religion, while, much as American Catholicism had an impact upon the transformation of world Catholicism and American Judaism has transformed world Judaism, the religious diasporas in America are serving as catalysts for the transformation of the old religions in their civilizational homes.
This process of institutionalization of expanding religious pluralism is facilitated by the dual clause of the First Amendment which guarantees “no establishment” of religion at the state level, and therefore the strict separation of church and state and the genuine neutrality of the secular state, as well as the “free exercise” of religion in civil society. The latter includes strict restrictions on state intervention and on the administrative regulation of the religious field. It is this combination of a rigidly secular state and the constitutionally protected free exercise of religion in society that distinguishes the American institutional context from the European one. In Europe one finds, on the one extreme, the case of France, where a secularist state not only restricts and regulates the exercise of religion in society but actually imposes its republican ideology of laïcité on society, and, on the other, the case of England, where an established state church is compatible with wide toleration of religious minorities and the relatively unregulated free exercise of religion.
As liberal democratic systems, all European societies respect the private exercise of religion, including Islam, as an individual human right. It is the public and collective free exercise of Islam as an immigrant religion that most European societies find difficult to tolerate, precisely on the grounds that Islam is perceived as an “un-European” religion. The stated rationales for considering Islam “un-European” vary significantly across Europe, and among social and political groups. For the anti-immigrant, xenophobic, nationalist Right, represented by Le Pen’s discourse in France and Jörg Haider’s in Austria, the message is straightforward: Islam is unwelcome and un-assimilable, simply because it is a “foreign” immigrant religion. Such a nativist and usually racist attitude can be differentiated clearly from the conservative “Catholic” position, paradigmatically expressed by the Cardinal of Bologna when he declared that Italy should welcome immigrants of all races and regions of the world, but should particularly select Catholic immigrants in order to preserve the country’s Catholic identity.
Sad to say, when it comes to Islam, secular Europeans usually liberal in their views on religion in general, tend to reveal the limits and prejudices of modern secularist toleration. The politically correct formulation tends to run along such lines as “we welcome each and all immigrants irrespective of race or religion as long as they are willing to respect and accept our modern liberal secular European norms.” Revealingly enough, some time ago Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, in his address to the French legislature defending the banning of ostensibly religious symbols in public schools, made reference in the same breath to France as “the old land of Christianity” and to the inviolable principle of laïcité, exhorting Islam to adapt itself to the principle of secularism as all other religions of France have done before. “For the most recently arrived, I’m speaking here of Islam, secularism is a chance, the chance to be a religion of France.” The Islamic veil and other religious signs are justifiably banned from public schools, he added, because “they are taking on a political meaning,” while according to the secularist principle of privatization of religion, “religion cannot be a political project.” Time will tell whether the restrictive legislation will have the intended effect of stopping the spread of “radical Islam,” or whether it is likely to bring forth the opposite result of further radicalizing an already alienated and maladjusted immigrant community.
The positive rationale one hears among liberals in support of such illiberal restrictions on the free exercise of religion is usually put in terms of the desirable enforced emancipation of young girls, against their expressed will if necessary, from gender discrimination and patriarchal control. This was the discourse on which the assassinated liberal politician Pim Fortuyn built his electorally successful anti-immigrant platform in liberal Holland, a campaign that is now bearing fruit in new restrictive legislation. While conservative religious persons are expected to tolerate behavior they may consider morally abhorrent such as homosexuality, liberal secular Europeans are openly stating that European societies ought not to tolerate religious behavior or cultural customs that are morally abhorrent, insofar as they are contrary to modern liberal secular European norms. What makes the intolerant tyranny of the secular liberal majority justifiable in principle is not just the democratic principle of majority rule, but the secularist teleological assumption, built into theories of modernization, that one set of norms is reactionary, fundamentalist and anti-modern, while the other is progressive, liberal and modern.
In conclusion, from the above considerations and reflections, we can safely assume that sociological-historical considerations, while helpful for the analysis of the issue of religion vis a vis the secular “enlightened” state, are not sufficient by themselves to arrive at a proper diagnosis and prognosis of the problem. What is also needed, and is solely missing in the ongoing dialogue, is an analysis that takes seriously and incorporates the philosophy of religion. Without a philosophy of religion the analysis and consequently the prognosis will continue to remain incomplete and ineffective. But let the dialogue continue among people of good will, be they believers or non-believers.
The new Silk Road: The agreement between the EU and China opens up new geopolitics scenarios
The year that has just started does not seem destined to be more peaceful than the one that has just ended.
While the world continues to be afflicted by the Covid-19 pandemic, the United States, which can boast to be “the oldest democracy” of the modern era, is not only helplessly suffering from the virus attack but is going through an unprecedented internal crisis that seriously calls into question its coveted role as world superpower.
On January 6 last, the Capitol Hill in Washington was assaulted by a crowd of “Trump supporters” who, inflamed by the subversive words of a President who does not seem to resign himself to electoral defeat, violently stormed the House in a bid to stop Congress from counting electoral votes to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in last November election. The attack brought America back to the dark times of Abraham Lincoln’s first election when, in 1860, eleven Southern States refused to recognize the electoral result and started an attempt to disrupt the Republic that resulted in a bloody civil war.
Donald Trump’s reckless adventurism which, in the coming days, could lead to his ousting, is not only causing a deep crisis in the internal set-up of the American society and its institutions, but also risks seriously undermining America’s credibility globally and leading to a major downsizing of its geopolitical ambitions.
Throughout his four years in office, Donald Trump has attempted to “contain” China economically and politically, by imposing tariffs and duties on Chinese goods imported into the United States and supporting the “democracy movement” in Hong Kong that has been causing unrest in the former British colony for almost two years. By inciting his supporters to challenge and oppose the Presidential handover, he has handed a propaganda weapon on a silver platter to a country like China that, after being the first to be hit by the pandemic, was also the first to emerge successfully from it.
While recalling that when protesters stormed and ravaged Hong Kong’s Capitol Hill in 2019, both Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, applauded the protesters’ violent behaviour, it was easy for the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, to accuse the Americans of “double standards” in the moral and political assessment of their own and others’ behaviours.
In a press conference convened to comment on the Washington attack on Capitol Hill, Hua Chunyingsaid: “I believe that this assault is a déjà vu … I see that in the United States there are different reactions to what happens at home compared to what happened in Hong Kong in 2019 …”.
Over and above propaganda skirmishes, in the year in which the centenary of the CPC’s is celebrated, China keeps on scoring points in its favour in the geopolitical and economic competition with the United States.
On December 30, 2020, the news of the historic investment agreement between China and the European Union was reported.
After seven years of negotiations, during a conference call between Chinese President Xi Jinping and the President of the European Commission, Ursula Von Der Leyen, with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, the “Comprehensive Agreement on Investments” (CAI) was adopted.
It is a historic agreement that opens a new “Silk Road” between Europe and the huge Chinese market.
The CAI’s basic principles aim at a substantial rebalancing of trade between Europe and China, as the latter has so far shown little openness towards the former.
With this agreement, China is opening up to Europe in many significant sectors, with particular regard to manufacturing and services.
In these sectors China commits itself to removing rules that have so far strongly discriminated against European companies, by ensuring legal certainty for those who intend to produce in China, as well as aligning European and Chinese companies at regulatory level, and encouraging the establishment of joint ventures and the signing of trade and production agreements.
In the manufacturing field, the “automotive” sector will be boosted, with specific reference to the production of electric cars, but also to the production of chemical products, materials for telecommunications and new generation health devices.
As far as the servicesector is concerned, China will foster European investment in cloud services, financial services, private healthcare and the services related to air and maritime transport.
In all the sectors covered by CAI, European investors and producers will no longer suffer any discrimination with respect to Chinese competitors, including state-owned companies, nor will they be denied access to productive sectors so far forbidden to foreigners.
The agreement also provides for guarantees that will make easier for European companies to deal with the paperwork needed to fulfil all administrative procedures and obtain legal authorizations, thus removing the bureaucratic obstacles that have traditionally made the operation of European companies in China difficult.
It is the first time in its history that China opens up in this way to foreign companies and investment.
In view of attracting them, China is committed to lining up in terms of labour costs and environmental protection, thus progressively aligning its standards with European ones, in terms of fight against pollution and trade union rights.
With a view to making this commitment concrete and visible, China adheres to both the Paris Climate Agreements and the European Convention on Labour Organization.
While commenting on the signing of the agreement, President Von Der Leyen stressed that “this is a fundamental step in our relations with China. The agreement will provide European investors with unprecedented access to the Chinese market, thus enabling our business to grow and create jobs. It also commits China to adhering to the principles of transparency and non-discrimination and fundamentally rebalances our economic relations with China.
The China-Europe agreement is another piece in the mosaic of commercial and political relations on which China wants to build the geopolitical role of a nation which, according to growth estimates, is destined to reach the first place in the world ranking in terms of GDP by the end of the decade.
In fact, CAI follows by just a month the signing of the “Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership” (RCEP), an agreement of strategic importance signed by China with the ten ASEAN countries and with Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
The RCEP has been described as “the world’s largest trade and investment bloc” and essentially creates an area of economic cooperation and free trade involving 2.2 billion people producing 28%of world trade and over 30% of global GDP.
The RCEP countries account for 50% of the world’s manufacturing output, 50% of automobile production and 70% of electronics. The RCEP eliminates 90% of tariffs on trade in the signatories’ region, thus creating a huge Asian free trade area that sees, on the one hand, India’s marginalization and, on the other, the growth of China’s role throughout East Asia.
The CAI agreements with Europe and the RCEP agreements with Asian partners undoubtedly mark a historic turning point in relations between China and the rest of the world. The United States remains excluded from these relations, as it is currently blocked in a process of transition that limits not only its democratic activity, but also its operativity and international credibility.
After the hallmark of U.S. foreign policy in Trump’s era was reduced to imposing tariffs on trade with China, the gradual loss of credibility of the U.S. administration has stultified Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s attempts to gather a broad international anti-Chinese coalition led by the United States.
The RCEP is there to demonstrate how fragile the U.S. attempts to counter China economically and politically have been, as two once strategic partners of the United States like South Korea and Australia have literally turned a deaf ear to American appeals and have struck a historic and strategic deal with China.
The CAI puts Europe in communication and in ever closer connection with what for centuries was “The Middle Kingdom”, i.e. a China that has chosen to lower its ideological barriers in order to open up new pathways of economic progress and hopefully democratic development.
French and German representatives were present at the CAI signing.
While Europe was opening the “new Silk Road”, the country that gave birth to De Gasperi, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, and to Marco Polo, protagonist of the opening of the first “Silk Road”, was conspicuously absent from the negotiation table.
Has Germany Lost its NATO Compass?
Authors: Dr. Zlatko Hadžidedić, Adnan Idrizbegović
By the end of 2020, a strange information appeared in Bosnian and German media: having made unilateral concessions to the long campaign of Russia to put an end to the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Germany now wants to overthrow the current High Representative, Valentin Inzko, and bring the OHR under control of its own man, Christian Schmidt. Does this bilateral initiative have any legal basis? And, is this petty manoeuvre in the Balkans going to open Pandora’s box on the global level, again?
The Office of the High Representative was established in 1995 by the Dayton Peace Accords, to exercise the remaining10% of the Bosnian state sovereignty, which has in 90% been ceded to the two ethnically defined sub-state units, the so-called entities. As such, High Representative has the authority to overpower blockades and vetoes introduced by the entities. High Representative is an inseparable part of Bosnia’s Dayton Constitution, no less than the entities and their veto power. In that sense, the Russian campaign to eliminate the Office of the High Representative while preserving the entities and their veto power is legally absurd: one cannot take one part of a contract out, while insisting on implementation of the rest; for, taking one part out nullifies a contract altogether. However, implementation of the Russian requests under the given conditions of the Dayton Constitution would destroy the last remnants of the Bosnian sovereignty and integrity, granting full sovereignty to the entities and resulting in Bosnia’s dissolution. Russia, acting for years as a self-proclaimed supporter of Serbia and its interests to dissolve Bosnia, does not introduce any novelty in its foreign policy in the Balkans. Yet, what is going on with Germany, a NATO member, an EU leader, and a self-promoted supporter of Bosnia’s sovereignty and integrity?
It should be noted that a High Representative can be replaced only by decision of the UN Security Council, under recommendation of the Peace Implementation Council, a body for implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords consisting of diplomatic representatives of the US, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Canada, Japan, and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference represented by Turkey. The UN Security Council decisions can be reached only by consensus of the permanent members with veto power. Decisions of the Peace Implementation Council can also be reached only by consensus of its original members (US, UK, France, Russia, Germany, Italy). It is, therefore, legally absurd, again, to replace a High Representative by a bilateral agreement between Russia and Germany, without any such consensus. It would mean a violation, if not elimination, of all legal procedures, not only those referring to the institution of High Representative, but also those related to the Security Council and the UN as a whole. Indeed, what happened to the German foreign policy, hitherto absolutely devoted to international legal procedures and international law?
An explanation for the German change of course, presented in both Bosnian and German media, was German increasing dependence on Russian gas supply, bearing in mind that Germany has given up all alternatives to the Nord Stream pipeline, which delivers Russian gas to Germany. Once upon a time, the former German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, strongly advocated an alternative pipeline, called Nabucco, which would bring Iranian gas to Germany and the rest of Europe. On the other side, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who eventually became Chairman of the Board of both Nord Stream AG and Rosneft, a Russian oil corporation, advocated the Nord Stream pipeline as the preferential one. Eventually, Schroeder had enough luck to have a comprehensive anti-Iranian coalition (ranging from Russia to the US) on his side, so that the Nabucco project was eventually abandoned and the Nord Stream remained the only option. At the time, Schroeder was criticised by German media for linking his private interests with strategic interests of Russia: for, the company Nord Stream AG, of which he was the Chairman, was in 51% owned by the Russian corporation Gazprom. In this way, Schroeder made Germany dependent not only on Russian gas supply, but also on Russian geostrategic interests, articulated by the Kremlin and Gazprom. Schroeder’s personal friendship with Russian President, Vladimir Putin, did not pass unnoticed, either. In this way, Germany not only gave up its own energetic sovereignty, but also abandoned the official EU energetic security strategy, which stipulates diversification of energy supply sources. Schroeder thus intentionally buried the traditional German Ostpolitik; but what was the reason for the next German government, led by Angela Merkel and controlled by the CDU/CSU coalition, to adopt the same course? What has happened to the German geostrategic orientation? Has Germany lost its NATO compass?
After the disastrous consequences of the 1973 oil crisis, German government invested heavily in construction of gigantic oil and gas storages, with a strategic goal to control negative effects of permanent oil price fluctuations on the German economy and population. Yet, these storages have eventually ended up in ownership of the Russian oil and gas giant, Gazprom. Such a development has given Gazprom effective control of the German energy market. Consequently, it has given Gazprom and Russia strategic influence on the entire economy of the European Union. One can only wonder, why has Germany decided to deliver not only its own destiny, but also that of Europe, to Russia? And then, no wonder that Great Britain has opted for Brexit to simply run away – this time, not from the Brussels bureaucracy, but from the Kremlin’s oilgarchy and Russian energocracy.
This U-turn in geopolitical orientation, unilaterally performed by Germany but tacitly agreed upon by the rest of the EU countries, certainly generates shockwaves throughout the Euro-Atlantic structures, inevitably separating Europe from the Atlanticist part of its identity. In this context, the most loyal American allies among the NATO members, Turkey and Germany, have turned their backs on the US and started looking at Russia as a new strategic partner. Both of them utilised the crisis of leadership in the US, caused by President Trump, to reclaim their sovereignty and decide which side to turn to. Since Trump has managed to disable the entire global security architecture as constructed after the World War II, attacking all multilateral organisations and treaties and thus opening the gates of the West for the Russians and Chinese to enter, German and Turkish re-orientation can be justified as rational. Yet, a bitter taste of betrayal – by Germany, by Turkey, but no less by Trump – lingers on. Does it mean that America, under Donald Trump, has eventually lost the Cold War, as Russia had once lost it under Boris Yeltsin? Will American influence be reduced to the English-speaking world? Is Germany, together with Russia, establishing a new, Eurasian Union? Is China going to be a part of it, given its hasty trade deal with the EU? Has the worst Anglo-American nightmare, that of a united Eurasian “World Island”, finally come true? Or the current German-Russian pact is going to end up like the previous one, smashed under the weight of the Anglo-American axis?
Global Pandora’s box has obviously been opened and the world geopolitical order, as we knew it, has fallen apart. A new order, or perhaps a disorder, is approaching. Such a development can be detected at all levels, looking at the top or at the bottom, and is signalled even by the clumsy German attempt to court the Russians by abandoning fundamental legal principles and its own foreign policy postulates in a seemingly insignificant place like Bosnia. Strangely, both Germany and Russia have accepted to play the roles assigned to them in the 1990s by the then British propaganda, which labelled them as patrons of Croatia and Serbia in their efforts to carve up Bosnia along the lines of its multiple religious identities. Whereas Russia openly adopted its role as the protector of the Orthodox Serbs many years ago, Germany’s adoption of the parallel role, that of the protector of the Catholic Croats, is a relative novelty. While in the 1990s both Germany and Russia were reluctant to play the roles casted by others, now they have become eager to demonstrate their rising power through such a game. The attempted appointment of Christian Schmidt leaves no place for doubt that Germany has fallen into this trap with a surplus of enthusiasm. For, the former German Minister of Agriculture, and a member of the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU),was publicly decorated by Croatia with a medal of “Order of Ante Starčević” for his promotion of Croatian national interests. He proudly shares this medal with prominent Croatian ultra-nationalists and war criminals, such as Gojko Šušak, Mate Boban, Dario Kordić, Jadranko Prlić, and many others, who were inspired by the Croatian Ustash a regime from the World War II, as much as the Ustashas themselves had been inspired by the then German Nazi regime. In this context, it should be noted that Schmidt’s inclinations are not derived from some religious, pan-Catholic sentiments, but rather from his ideological, ultra-nationalist affinities, for which he was rewarded by his ideological brethren. If appointed a High Representative, Schmidt will probably follow the same path, so he will promote interests of Croatian ultra-nationalists, whose goal is to cede a part of the Bosnian territory and make it a part of Croatia, rather than interests of Catholics in Bosnia. Does it imply that he is going to work together with ultra-nationalists of all sorts – and there are enough of them in Bosnia – on the country’s final dissolution? Is that outcome in Germany’s best interest, and what kind of image does Germany project if it sends Schmidts as its representatives? Finally, what message does Germany leave to the world, if it takes the advantage of the uncertain power transition in America to prepare dissolution of a US-sponsored international treaty, the Dayton Peace Accords, thereby introducing, with a help of Russia, a new era of lawlessness?
There are so many questions to which German authorities should offer valid answers, before they pull the trigger to assassinate both Dayton and Bosnia, and destroy some of the last remnants of the international order. Do they think that they owe these answers to the rest of us?
How does the UK-Spain Deal Saves Gibraltar from a Hard Brexit
The new year’s eve brought Spain and Britain to reach a last minute deal making Gibraltar part of the Schengen zone even though it is a British overseas territory. Located at the southern tip of the Iberian Peninsula and bordered by Spain on the north, Madrid and London were engaged for months in diplomatic negotiations over the post-Brexit future of Gibraltar. Now this deal ensures that Gibraltar is not separated from Europe from a hard border.
The name Gibraltar is derived from Arabic word Jabal Tariq translated as Mount of Tariq. In 1713, it came under the power of Britain after the kingdom of Spain ceded Gibraltar in the Treaty of Utrecht and has remained with Britain since then. Located at a strategic location, Gibraltar was used as a key base during the Napoleonic wars and its importance grew with the opening of Suez canal. Thereafter, Gibraltar was fortified and earned the title, ‘the Rock.’ During the second world war, it became one of the bases for the allies.
After the war, in the 1950s, Spain claimed sovereignty on Gibraltar following which the 1967 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum voted to remain with Britain. Even during the referendum of 2002, people of Gibraltar voted against shared sovereignty by Britain and Spain. Gibraltar has thus remained as a Britain overseas territory and the citizens have British citizenship.The governance of Gibraltar is managed by its own government through a parliament. Britain governs on matters of defence and foreign policy.
Britain (including Gibraltar) became part of the European Union in 1973. It was the only British Overseas Territory included in the European Union. In the 2016 UK European Union membership, 96% of the Gibraltarians voted to remain, however since a total of 51.9% of the votes in the UK was cast in favour of leaving the EU, Brexit followed. Gibraltarians mainly voted ‘Remain’ because the territory’s economy depends on an open border with Spain, which sends over 15,000 workers and 200 trucks there daily. UK’s withdrawal from the European Union also implies Gibraltar’s exit from European Union.
The UK-Spain Deal
Brexit left Gibraltar with a hard border situation with the EU. With the UK-Spain Deal, Gibraltar is being placed in the Schengen area, with Spain acting as a guarantor and it will follow other EU rules. This will restore free movement of people across Gibraltar and EU, meaning citizens of EU and Gibraltar can move across without passport checks. The Gibraltar deal will mean the EU sending Frontex border guards to facilitate free movement to and from Gibraltar. Their role is planned to last four years.
The agreement between Madrid and London has been signed off on an agreement in principle. So it remains to see what the nitigrities of the deal would mean for all parties. British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has said that, “we reached agreement on a political framework to form the basis of a separate treaty between the UK and the EU regarding Gibraltar. We will now send this to the European Commission, in order to initiate negotiations on the formal treaty. In the meantime, all sides are committed to mitigating the effects of the end of the Transition Period on Gibraltar, and in particular ensure border fluidity, which is clearly in the best interests of the people living on both sides.”
World Bank Plans to Invest over $5 Billion in Drylands in Africa
The World Bank plans to invest over $5 billion over the next five years to help restore degraded landscapes, improve...
Looming Large: The Middle East Braces for Fallout of US–China Divide
China would like the world to believe that the Middle East and North Africa region does not rank high on...
India’s Sprouting Counterforce Posture
In recent years, the technological advancements by India in the domain of counterforce military capabilities have increased the vulnerability of...
Health experts arrive in Wuhan to investigate COVID-19 origins
Members of an international team studying the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19 arrived in Wuhan, China, on Thursday,...
Learning to build a community from a ”Solok Literacy Community”in the West Sumatra
Established on September 21, 2020 in Solok City, West Sumatra Province, Indonesia. Solok Literacy Community initiated by the young people...
JCPOA Implementation Amid a Tug of War between Rhetoric and Facts
The man behind the insurrection at home and disarray abroad! A few days before the fifth anniversary of Implementation Day...
2021 will be defined by the more long-term crisis facing humanity: Climate change
Rather than low-tech and often unworkable solutions (reduced or no travel, mass vegan diets) governments are increasingly embracing technology to...
Middle East2 days ago
Erdogan punches above his weight
Middle East3 days ago
Can Syria be reborn from the ruins after a decade of civil war?
Economy2 days ago
Pakistan Maritime: Shipping Policy of 2020
Americas2 days ago
How Americans Struggle Between Nobility and Mean Reality
International Law3 days ago
Human Rights and Democracy have been causalities of the COVID 19 Pandemic
Economy2 days ago
The role of economic warfare in understanding contemporary geopolitics
Diplomacy3 days ago
Corona Vaccine: A Diplomatic Tool
Urban Development3 days ago
Cities Are Key to India’s Post-Pandemic Growth