Connect with us

Europe

Prime Minister May’s hard Brexit

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

The speech of the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, delivered on January 17 at Mansion House, foreshadows a new and more global Britain, but above all entails the end of the European Union as we know it today.

Thirty years after the speech delivered by Margaret Thatcher at Lancaster House in 1988, when the conservative Iron Lady accepted the European single market and the freedom of movement and trade within Europe, a new conservative Iron Lady states she is ready to leave the European Union and the European single market.

In the European Union, Great Britain has always experienced Germany’s marked hegemony that it has tried to control both by entering the European Union and then deciding to leave it, as it is currently doing.

Great Britain never wants hegemonic powers in its way: neither the EU nor the Franco-German Europe, nor even the possible EU of the South, with the alliance between Italy, Spain, Greece, the Balkans and Austria.

In fact, the documents of the Bank of England on the euro have always been very clear: we do not want the single currency because, as Great Britain, we are a global power and the only counterpart for the Commonwealth, and we do not accept a Mark disguised as European currency, namely the euro, which is the result of a pact – proposed by Margareth Thatcher herself – between those who did not want German reunification and Germany itself.

The core of the issue was as follows: Germany could be reunited but it had to give its currency as ransom.

At that time the Italian President of the Republic, Francesco Cossiga, was in very close contact with Margaret Thatcher, on the one hand, and Helmut Kohl on the other.

He carried out a strong and necessary mediation activity.

Hence, in his recent speech, Theresa May has made it clear that Great Britain wants back its full sovereignty on migration issues, which will be the axis of the future “engineering of nations” and the primary tool for controlling and managing the labour force, its complexion and cost. She also wants full sovereignty on customs – another essential factor in the relationship between Great Britain and the European Union.

Hence, following the traditional model of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA), May’s government will manage a series of trade agreements with the individual EU and non-EU countries. Obviously what will be missing in the Euro-British regulations will be richly offset by the new economic relations between Great Britain and its wide Commonwealth, as well as between Great Britain and Donald Trump’s United States.

Let us wonder, however, whether the United States still need the European Union – this is currently the real question.

In fact, only the US weight and clout did enable France and Germany to create the first pan-European institutions and only Great Britain did act as a strategic and economic counterbalance to ”Rhenish Europe”, the one that Charles De Gaulle defined as “the United States’ Trojan horse”.

Indeed, before the vote on Brexit, it was precisely Great Britain to strongly support the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which was designed as a geoeconomic alternative to the probable fragmentation and disruption of the European Union.

Hence Brexit has had a long-standing gestation and it will completely change the EU strategic and economic landscape.

It was worth recalling that it was Prime Minister Edward Heath to bring Great Britain into the European Common Market in 1973 – a choice reaffirmed by the outcome of the referendum held by Wilson two years later.

However, throughout the 1980s, the European integration process slowed down significantly and, therefore, in those years the City of London created wealth with its monetarist policies of high interest rates. This enabled the holders of UK government bonds to make excellent profit and also enabled the City to stabilize its rates without adhering to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).

In 1986 Thatcher’s financial reforms established a close link between the City and the US financial system – a link which will obviously make Brexit even stronger.

However are the United States really interested in having a “Little Britain”, which will no longer be the trusted channel with the EU, or will they strengthen the traditional ties of the Anglosphere between Britain and the United States?

And what will be the geopolitical and financial link between one of the largest economic areas of the globe, namely he EU, and the United States, which cannot certainly afford to neglect Europe?

Certainly Donald Trump was clearly in favour of Brexit and, after taking office, he will be the first world leader to receive Theresa May at the White House on January 27th.

Moreover, it is well-known that President Trump does not like the European Union. He prefers to deal with the individual EU Member States, but this does not mean that Europe is not still decisive in the US strategic and economic framework.

Do the United States want to keep united and friendly a great commercial and political area, namely the EU, which acts as a rampart vis-à-vis the Russian Federation and the Arab and Islamic world, or do they want to deal only with its Member States, thus destroying the Union and paving the way for Chinese and Islamic capital?

We will soon see Donald trump’s proposals in this regard.

Moreover, the origin of the European Monetary Union lies exactly in its unusual and asymmetrical relationship with the United States: the slow creation of the single currency stems from the crisis of the Bretton Woods agreements, created specifically by the United States, by the strong exchange rate volatility in that phase and, above all, by the US refusal to restore a global monetary balance.

Only China and, in other respects, the Russian Federation are currently interested in redesigning, with the EU, a new international monetary and financial system which will be based on a basket of currencies at variable exchange rates in a predefined range.

Furthermore today Germany does no longer need a highly regulated economy, mediating between capital and labour, as was the case until 2000 and up to the financial crises of 2006 and 2009.

Hence Germany can further financialize its economy by lending euro to its periphery and hence maintaining extremely high trade surpluses, as currently happens, or can invest directly in the US system through the City.

The United States will always have a growing share of high-interest and short-term “toxic” assets.

Moreover, regardless of Brexit, the City’s trading and transactions with the United States and the European Union have decreased significantly.

London’s financial centre does not yet know whether to invest in the EU or elsewhere in the world, especially in China or in the BRICs and the British government’s participation in the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank proposed by China has created strong tensions with the United States. Said tensions will persist if the North American financial markets maintain their growth.

Another problem not to be overlooked is that neo-liberal policies, from Thatcher onwards, have deeply divided Great Britain socially and geographically.

In Great Britain the Gini coefficient, a statistical measure of social inequality, has risen from 0.26 in 1979 to the current 0.4.

The gap between the rich London and the South of the country and the increasingly poor North is particularly evident.

All this could lead to an inherent weakness of the British political system, irrespective of the party in power.

Moreover, as many commentators have noted, also Donald Trump’s election is a kind of Amexit: the US unilateral withdrawal from the post-Cold War global system, which had not been well negotiated and was based on the Russian and Chinese strategic void filled by an America which was becoming the only global power.

This is no longer the case – the United States are no longer the “indispensable nation”. With President Trump, the United States will no longer act as the world’s policeman and, in the North American decision-makers’ minds, Brexit means that the EU shall either break up or rebuild itself as a real Union.

Also NATO which, until Barack Obama’s Presidency, denied to Russia and China the right to their natural spheres of influence – often with suicidal intentions – will be a US (and British) direct instrument or an inter-European mechanism which, however, the EU Member States shall pay largely by themselves – and today’s Europe has certainly neither money nor strategic ideas.

Moreover, Theresa May’s Brexit is not yet well-defined within the British political scene: the Supreme Court’s ruling has forced the government to seek approval from Parliament before formally starting negotiations on Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The Scottish National Party wants to remain in the EU and threatens to hold a second referendum on the separation between Scotland and England and it also wants to table over 50 new amendments to the law for Britain’s withdrawal from the EU according to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

The Labour Party itself wants to slow down the process of separation between Britain and the Union, although it will generally vote in favour of Brexit in Parliament.

The Tories have no majority in the House of Lords and the Bremain supporters could cause problems to Prime Minister May’s government.

Hence if – as currently everything leads us to think – President Trump manages the new relationship with Britain vigorously, the UK economy will be granted full and free access to the US financial and non-financial market, without forgetting that Prime Minister May wants better strategic and military cooperation with the United States, both for renewing the Trident missile system and for tackling the other matters relating to global intelligence.

As a result of Brexit and the consequent British full entry into the US economic and strategic sphere, the EU will be less effective also at military and intelligence levels.

Hence we will see what will happen on January 27 next, after Prime Minister May’s meeting with President Trump in Washington.

At technical and legal levels, the British Prime Minister intends to close the economic negotiations between her country and the EU Member States before the end of the procedure pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which also means she wants to avoid “cliff edge”, namely the tariff and economic cliff edge of spring 2019, the moment of real Brexit.

Not surprisingly, Prime Minister May talks about an “implementation phase” from now until 2019, before the end of negotiations with the EU on Article 50.

The political and strategic significance is very clear: Prime Minister May wants to stay on good terms with the EU area but, if Europeans want to “punish” Britain, London will become a centre for the trade, financial and political war against the European Union.

If the EU has a punitive attitude vis-à-vis the UK on Article 50, Britain will become a low-taxation and low- regulation economy; it will gradually acquire a large part of European industries and will wage a tariff and financial war against the EU and its Member States.

Not to mention the City’s finance, which will be directed against the euro area and will support any aggressive US dollar operation.

Or any aggressive operation of other countries, which will certainly come to the fore against an ever weaker Euro.

Currently the global economic trends are clear: increased uncertainty on global financial markets, which favours emerging economies and their countries of reference, such as Russia and China; reduced dependence of peripheral markets from those of the First World economies (the so-called decoupling) and the rise of China’s public debt.

Probably, the growth of public spending in the United States will add other crisis factors on the global scene, while we must not neglect the agreement between Russia and OPEC for reducing oil extraction and the related increase in oil barrel prices.

The EU may remain the old regional union of the Cold War and it will be bound to break up under the combined pressure of Brexit and Trump’s Presidency in the United States, or may become smart and hence start or extend negotiations with Israel, the non-EU Balkans’ area, South Korea and Singapore – obviously in addition to China and Russia – for a new Eurasian economic union.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs "La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa", he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and member of the Ayan-Holding Board. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d'Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: "A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of "Honorable" of the Académie des Sciences de l'Institut de France

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

US-EU possible soft tactic to contain Iran

Payman Yazdani

Published

on

The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has created a new rounds of speculations about the three European major players’ (the UK, France and Germany) capabilities and abilities to keep the deal alive without the US.

Following the US President’s unilateral move to withdraw from the Iran’s Nuclear Deal, lots of diplomatic and political efforts have been made both by the European and Iranian officials to keep the internationally achieved deal alive.

Islamic Republic of Iran has announced that it will remain in the JCPOA just if the EU can guarantee Iran’s benefits and interests under the JCPOA in the absence of the US, otherwise Teharn will leave the deal, too.

Despite all measures taken and political promises made by the European sides to keep the JCPOA alive, over the past ten days many big EU firms and international companies have announced their decisions to stop their activities and operations in Iran including Total, Eni, Siemens, Airbus and Maersk.

Just couple of days after the US withdraw from the JCPOA, French gas and oil giant Total has announced that due to return of the US sanctions against Iran it has to pull out of Iranian Southern Pars oil field.

Italian oil giant Eni has also decided to abrogate its agreement with Iran to study oil and gas in Iran.

Maersk as the biggest shipping company in the world has announced that due to its vast activities in the US and to avoid possible US punishments, it will stop its activities in Iran.

Considering the limited capabilities and potentialities of the EU to challenge the US hegemony and also the fact that EU governments cannot force private sectors to work with Iran, it is not realistic to expect the EU to save the JCPOA.

As I mentioned in my previous writing, the possibility of job division between the US and EU to contain Iran should not be ignored.

All facts on the ground imply that all EU measures and promises to keep the JCPOA alive will only result in remaining of some small European companies in Iran. Big companies that can invest and transfer technology to Iran will leave Iran to avoid the US possible punishments. This possible soft and indirect US-EU tactic can help the joint goal of the US and EU to contain Iran.

By this tactic, firstly the EU can buy time and contain Iran so that not to leave the JCPOA. Secondly, the EU will pave the way for selling of its products and services in Iran’s market without investment and transferring technology. Thirdly, Iran’s incomes and revenues will be limited which Americans and the Europeans consider it as a good soft and indirect way to increase pressure on Iran to limit Iran’s regional influence and missile capability.

First published in our partner Mehr News Agency

Continue Reading

Europe

Internally weak EU cannot be strong international player

Payman Yazdani

Published

on

Commenting on the EU capabilities to protect its interests against the US unilateralism, Italian political science professor, Dr. Pastori Gianluca believes that an internally weak EU cannot be a strong international player.

The US president’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) despite the US key European allies’ opposition has raised so many questions about the global weight of the EU.

Despite many promises from EU key states to keep the JCPOA alive without the US, many believe even if the EU decides to do so the block won’t be able to challenge the US President’s decision due to its internal disunity and limitations. The issue was discussed with political science associated professor of Milan Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Dr. Pastori Gianluca.

How can the EU protect the right of its companies working and investing in Iran? Is it feasible?

European companies have always had good economic relations with Iran and these relations have grown even stronger in the last few years. I do not think that this attitude will really change in the coming months. In the past, the US already adopted secondary sanctions against countries investing in Iran (e.g. with the ‘Iran and Libya Sanctions Act’ in 1996), but their impact on the behaviour of foreign investors was quite limited. At that time, even some US companies managed to bypass the sanctions operating through foreign branches. Moreover, US-EU relations are currently quite tense, also due to the US will to introduce tariffs on European export. For this reasons, I think that, while the European governments will take a low profile in face of new US sanctions, on the political level they will keep on supporting their national presence in Iran.

Despite being an economic superpower, the EU is not able to protect its interest against the US unilateralism in recent year. Why?

The main problem is that the EU still faces difficulties in transforming its economic power into political power. Traditionally, the EU has been quite effective in promoting and protecting the economic interests of its members but has been far less effective in the political filed. There are many reasons to explain this state of things. As an economic community, the EU exists since 1957, when the European Economic Community was established, while the political union is far more recent. Moreover, the different member states have different visions of the international system and different interests to pursue. Finally, many of them are very jealous of their own sovereignty in international matters and are not ready to submit this kind of matters to a meaningful coordination or – even more — to subordinate them to a common foreign and defence policy.

The EU officials have talked about independent EU over the recent years. Considering the existing facts and EU potentialities, how feasible is it? What are the obstacles to this end?

The EU is currently facing one of the most difficult phases in its history. Anti-European parties are gaining strength in several member states, while the results of the referendum held in 2016 on the exit of the UK from the Union (‘Brexit’) have shown that integration is a reversible process. In the long term, this is the main problem that the EU has to face to affirm its international role. An internally weak EU cannot be a strong international player. At the same time, the development of a strong international profile can help to re-launch the European project, showing to the member states that the EU can be helpful even in the political field. Worth noting, since 2017, several countries are striving to implement a more effective common security and defence policy, largely due to Donald Trump’s proclaimed will to reduce the US engagement in Europe.

First published in our partner Mehr News Agency

Continue Reading

Europe

Europe: National Sovereignty versus International Conquest, at Stake over Iran

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

Europe now faces its ultimate ideological fork-in-the-road, which it has thus far ignored but can no longer ignore: They need to decide whether they seek a world of nations that each is sovereign over its own territory but over no other (and this would not be a world at war); or whether they seek instead a world in which they are part of the American empire, a world based on conquests — NATO, IMF, World Bank, and the other U.S.-controlled international institutions — and in which their own nation’s citizens are subject to the dictatorship by America’s aristocracy: the same super-rich individuals who effectively control the U.S. Government itself (see this and this — and that’s dictatorship by the richest, in the United States).

Iran has become this fateful fork-in-the-road, and the immediate issue here is America’s cancellation of the Iran nuclear deal that America had signed along with 6 other countries, and America’s consequent restoration of economic sanctions against Iran — sanctions against companies anywhere that continue trading with Iran. First, however, some essential historical background on that entire issue:

The U.S. aristocracy overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Government in 1953 and imposed there a barbaric dictatorship which did the bidding of the U.S. and allied aristocracies, by installing the Pahlavi Shah there, just as they had earlier, in 1932, installed the Saud King in Saudi Arabia — which land never ever had known democracy. As Wikipedia says of Ibn Saud, who became King in 1932, “After World War I, he received further support from the British, including a glut of surplus munitions. He launched his campaign against the Al Rashidi in 1920; by 1922 they had been all but destroyed,” with Britain’s help. Similarly, the U.S. and its British Imperial partner installed Pahlavi as Iran’s Shah in 1953. This was done by U.S. President Dwight David Eisenhower. After the death of the anti-imperialistic U.S. President FDR, in 1945, the U.S. Government quickly became pro-imperialistic under President Harry S. Truman (whom imperial England’s Winston Churchill wrapped around his little finger), and then even more so under Eisenhower, so that during the brief presidency of Ike’s successor President JFK, the anti-imperialistic ghost of FDR was coming to haunt the White House and thus again threaten the conjoined U.S.-UK’s aristocracies’ surging global control. Kennedy was quickly souring on, and coming to oppose, imperialism (just as FDR had done) — he was opposing conquest and dominion for its own sake. So, he became assassinated and the evidence was covered-up, so that the CIA, which Truman had installed and which Eisenhower placed firmly under the control of America’s aristocratically controlled military-industrial complex, became increasingly America’s own Deep State, designed for global conquest (though using an ‘anti-communist’ excuse and cover for their real and ruling motive of global conquest and dominion).

When the U.S.-imposed Shah was overthrown by an authentic revolution in 1979, America’s continued alliance with the UK-U.S.-installed Saud family turned into a U.S.-UK alliance against Iran, which nation has ever since been demonized by the U.S. and UK aristocracies as being a ‘terrorist regime’, even though Saudi Arabia actually dominates global Islamic terrorism, and Iran is opposed to terrorism (except to terrorism that’s aimed against Israel). And everybody who knows anything on sound basis is aware of these established historical facts. But, actually, the U.S.-Saudi alliance is even worse than that: global Islamic terrorism was invented and organized by the U.S. aristocracy in conjunction with the Saud family starting in 1979 when Iran freed itself from the U.S.-UK dictatorship and restored Iranian sovereignty (even though in a highly compromised Shiite theocratic way, nothing at all like the secular Iranian democracy that had been overthrown by the U.S. and UK aristocracies in 1953). The U.S. and Sauds created Islamic terrorism in 1979 in order to draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan and ultimately used these terrorist proxy “boots on the ground” so as to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan — thereby draining the Soviet economy in the hope of ultimately conquering the U.S.S.R. and then conquering Russia itself, which the U.S. President GHW Bush on the night of 24 February 1990 made clear that the U.S. and its allies must do — he gave the European vassal-nations their marching-order on that date, and they have reliably followed that order, until now.

Russia, which the U.S. aristocracy craves to conquer, is an ally of Iran (which they hope to re-conquer). The basic principle of America’s aristocracy is repudiation of national sovereignty. That’s what the U.S. Government globally stands for today. Russian Television headlined on May 11th, “‘Are we America’s vassals?’ France vows to trade with Iran in defiance of US ‘economic policeman’” and reported that U.S. President Donald Trump’s re-imposition of U.S. economic sanctions against any companies that do business with Iran, is being resisted by all the other nations that had signed the Obama-Kerry nuclear accord with Iran, the “JCPOA” treaty: UK, France, China, Russia, U.S., and EU (which is led by Germany). The U.S. regime knows that if even America’s allies — UK, France, and Germany — hold together with Iran, to defy the Imperial actions punishing them for continuing with Iran even after the U.S. pull-out from the treaty, then the Western Alliance will be jeopardized, if not terminated altogether, and finally the Cold War, which GHW Bush had ordered the allies to continue even after the end of the U.S.S.R., and of its communism, and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance mirroring America’s NATO alliance, will finally end also on America’s side, just as it had ended in 1991 on the Soviet Union’s side. Such an end to the Cold War would possibly cause America’s military-industrial complex — and the stock values of mega-corporations such as Lockheed Martin — to collapse.

Thus, the U.S. aristocracy is afraid of peace replacing their existing permanent-war economy. All those trillions of dollars that have been invested in machines of mass-murder abroad, could plunge in value, if UK, France, and Germany, terminate the Western Alliance, and become individual sovereign nations who join with Iran — another individual sovereign nation — to say no to the Imperial power (the U.S.), and yes to national sovereignty, which sovereignty constitutes the sole foundation-stone upon which any and all democracies are constructed. No democracy can exist in any nation that is a vassal to some other (the imperial power). In a world where national sovereignty is honored, democracy would not necessarily exist everywhere, but it would no longer be internationally prohibited by an imperial power, which inevitably is itself a dictatorship, no real democracy at all.

On March 3rd, the 175-year-old imperial magazine, The Economist, headlined against China as an enemy in this continuing Cold War, “How the West got China wrong” and explained “the Chinese threat”:

“China is not a market economy and, on its present course, never will be. Instead, it increasingly controls business as an arm of state power. … Foreign businesses are profitable but miserable, because commerce always seems to be on China’s terms.”

The imperialistic view is that the international dictator and its corporations should rule — there should be no real sovereign other than this dictatorship, by the U.S. regime now, since America is today’s imperialist nation.

Perhaps Europe now will make the fateful decision, between international dictatorship on the one side, or else the supreme sovereignty of each and every nation on the other, to determine its own laws — and to require any corporation that does business there to adhere to its legal system and to none other: the supremacy of each nation within its own territory, not of any international corporations, not even of ones that are based in some international-bully country that says it’s “the one indispensable nation” — meaning that every other nation is “dispensable.” Russia won’t accept that. Iran won’t accept that. China won’t accept that. Will Germany accept it — the land of the original: “Deutschland über alles”? Will France? Will UK?

Americans accept it. The U.S. public are very effectively controlled by America’s aristocracy. A Yougov poll at the start of 2017 (the start of Trump’s Presidency) asked over 7,000 Americans to rate countries as “enemy”, “unfriendly”, “friendly”, “ally”, or “not sure”; and, among the 144 rated countries, Americans placed at the most hostile end, in order from the very worst, to the 13th-from-worst: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan. Other than Saudi Arabia, which the U.S. Government treats as being its master if not as being its very top ally, and which is, in any case, by far the U.S. military’s biggest customer (other than the U.S. Government, of course), that list from Yougov looks very much like, or else close to, what America’s aristocracy would want to see targeted, as being America’s ‘enemies’. So, other than Americans’ including the top ally both of America’s aristocracy and of Israel‘s aristocracy, Saudi Arabia, on that list of enemies, the list was very much what the U.S. aristocracy’s ’news’media had been promoting as being America’s ‘enemies’. In fact, even though those ‘news’media haven’t informed Americans that 92% of Saudi Arabians approve of ISIS, or that the Saudi royal family financed and organized the 9/11 attacks (in conjunction with others of George W. Bush’s friends), Americans view Saudi Arabia hostilely. That’s acceptable to America’s aristocracy, because the Saud family’s hatred is focused against Iran, the main Shiite nation, and the U.S. public (have been deceive to) prefer Saudi Arabia over Iran. In fact, a 17 February 2016 Gallup poll showed that Iran was seen by Americans as being even more hostile toward Americans than is Saudi Arabia. So, America’s aristocracy have no reason to be concerned that their chief ally and second-from-top governmental customer, the Saud family, are unfavorably viewed by the U.S. public. Both in America and in Saudi Arabia, the aristocracy effectively controls its public. Thus, the American people think in the way that the American aristocracy want them to — supporting any conquest (e.g., Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-) that the aristocracy want to perpetrate. Of course, the way to achieve this control is by means of the windows through which the public get to see the world around them, which windows on the world are the nation’s ‘news’media.

On May 12th, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) reported that the American people are very effectively controlled to believe Iran to be America’s enemy and very dangerous to us. The headline was “Media Debate Best Way to Dominate Iran” and the article documented that the American people are being very intensively propagandized by the aristocratically controlled media, to favor aggression against Iran, and are being heavily lied-to, in order to achieve this.

So, though the American public will continue to support the American Government (despite distrusting both their government and their ‘news’media), foreign publics aren’t so rigidly under the control of America’s aristocracy; and therefore Europe’s aristocracies could abandon their alliance with the U.S. aristocracy, if they strongly enough want to. Their ‘news’media would obediently do whatever they’re told, and could begin immediately portraying the reality of the U.S. Government, to their people — including, for example, the reality that the U.S. stole Ukraine

, and some of the participants have even confessed their roles; Russia did not steal Crimea (and the Crimea-Ukraine issue was the alleged spark for the ‘restoration’ of the Cold War — which The West never actually ended on its side, only Russia did on its side).

An end of The Western Alliance (America’s empire) could happen. But it would require — from the EU’s leaders (and/or from Turkey’s Erdogan) — courage, conviction, and a commitment to national sovereignty’s being the foundation-stone to any democracy anywhere, and this change-of-political-theory would be something drastically new in Europe (and-or in Turkey), which is a region that has historically been staunchly supportive of empires, and thus supportive of dictatorships (ones that are compliant — foreign stooge-regimes). That would require a historic sea-change. Iran’s peace, if not Iran’s very existence (and maybe even world peace), might be depending upon this slender hope.

first posted at strategic-culture.org

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy