Connect with us

Europe

The smallest Orthodox Church in Europe converted into a “test-ground” for Ankara’s political technologies

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] A [/yt_dropcap]s the April constitutional referendum in Turkey approaches Recep Erdogan has promised to “hold Europe accountable” for the unjust attitude towards Turkish emigrants. So now the referendum has taken place. Despite the statements of European observers and politicians about violations during the vote Turkish president celebrates his victory.

But anyway, he has no time to relax: the hype in liberal circles about violation of human rights in Turkey grows bigger while the voters are expecting to see the results of the given promises. Supporters (51,4%) want to see the enemies of Ankara defeated by “the mighty hand of their leader” while the others (48,6%) with even greater impatience anticipate a fail of the government on the international scene which will give them an opportunity to crash AKP on the pretext of their ineffective policy and inability to solve the problems of the nation.

What response will come from Mr. Erdogan? For now we can only observe an exchange of mutual threats between Brussels and Ankara without actual actions: Erdogan threatened to open European borders for emigrants, in exchange Brussels threatened to stop negotiations about Turkey’s membership in the EU, and Turkey finally claimed that it had no big need in that… However there are signs that go unnoticed to the mainstream mass media but they prove that Ankara is confident and ready to start to act.

Erdogan’s hidden leverage surprisingly is Patriarch of Constantinople – Bartholomew, who has a “first among equals” position in the Orthodox world. A “battleground” to try this leverage in action opened in Czech and Slovak republics. The ultimate target for Bartholomew was the autonomous and autocephalous Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church (the CSOC).

Back in 2013, the Constantinople Patriarchate (CP) tried to introduce its two archbishops into the Holy Synod of the CSOC on the pretext of assistance in solving some internal problems and misunderstandings in the CSOC. When this attempt failed, CP tried another strategy: during meetings with CSOC bishops in January and May 2016 CP demanded certain amendments in the CSOC charter that will bring it closer to the “Tomos of autocephaly of CSOC” issued by CP in 1998. It turns out that unlike the Tomos given to CSOC in 1951 and unrecognized by CP (the Russian Orthodox Church Tomos) the CP Tomos of 1998 gives autocephaly to CSOC on certain conditions. In particular, CP demanded guaranties that in case some inner misunderstanding should arise in CSOC they would ask CP for advice and help because CP was their “Mother Church”. A bunch of other amendments implied formal independence for CSOC while placing it under total control of CP.

So, CSOC summoned a special Synod commission that met with CP representatives in Wien on 8-9 March 2017. Then Metropolitan Rostislav (Patriarch Bartholomew settled his conflict with Rostislav before Crete Council and admitted his position of the Primate of the Church in January 2016) appointed an extended Synod meeting on the 5th of April 2017 in Bratislava (Slovenia). It was dedicated to implementation of the new amendments in Tomos of autocephaly in the Church’s charter.

Taking into account that believers of CSOC make only 1% of the population in their countries, the whole event should have gone unnoticed. This is the way of a prudent manager to test a new strategy without taking a big risk in case of failure. And really, still we don’t see the results of the April Synod meeting in Bratislava.

The Holy Synod was to accept the new amendments secretively and thus create predispositions for a future intervention of CP in the affairs of another autocephalous church. In perspective – CP supporters will bring to light any problems and mistakes of CSOC bishops and escalate the situation – this will be a handy tool for manipulating the church under control of protégés bishops from CP “Mother Church”.

However Ankara’s Czech and Slovak “project” of taking control over a foreign religious entity faced a strong push-back from the local bishops and parishioners. Some sort of “CSOC independence” movement started to draw public’s attention to the possible problems of changing the Church’s charter according to CP plans. In response, groups of anonymous activists supporting the changes started to distribute agitation materials criticizing CSOC leadership and claiming that CSOC problems won’t stop without CP’s intervention and help. Thus we see that charter changes are not some trivial standard procedures and the above mentioned amendments are not a simple precaution in case of problems – these are steps of Ankara’s plan of intervention in CSOC with a political interest.

And here some new details came to light – they affect not only Orthodox believers but all people in Czech Republic. Particularly, you should know that after CSOC loses its autonomy and falls under Patriarch Bartholomew, CP will get access to the money that Czech government gives to the Church according to the “restitution law”. By the way, this law is already a subject for social discussions and complaints of taxpayers. The situation will only escalate in case of new obligations to donate money to foreign religious authorities.

Thus, it stands clear that CP (that is experiencing a crisis because of ambiguous attitude of its sponsors – Greek and US business elites – towards Donald Trump) will get a big financial profit by taking control over CSOC: it’s commonly known that Czech government promised to give a symbolic sum of 3 billion Euros back to religious organizations by year 2030. It’s symbolic, because the EU promised to pay Ankara 3 billion Euros as financial assistance for accommodating refugees. That’s not all, Czech Republic also plans to give churches 2,5 billion Euros for unrecoverable property (earlier taken from them or destroyed).

In case of a successful realization of the Ankara’s plan CP will gain not only money but also “reputation points”. CP is already imposing the idea of its sole leadership and ultimate power in the Orthodox world, in fact Patriarch Bartholomew aspires to become an analogue of Pope in “the Orthodox variation”. After CSOC this scheme may be used to partially or totally take control over the following Churches: Church of Greece (about 97% of country’s population), Romanian Church (74%), Albanian Church (25%) and Polish Church (1.5%). Together they amount to a large community that can be used as a political power in Europe, with this leverage Erdogan will be able to exert pressure on the leaders of the countries in question and other EU members. For example: the Orthodox and Catholic parishioners can unanimously claim a better policy towards refugees and the politicians will have to open all boarders. Or another scenario: Orthodox and Catholics will unite to provoke national hatred among local people against migrants saying that migrants are a threat to the Christian identity of Europe. This, in its turn, will lead to a further marginalization of refugees and destabilization of the situation…

No doubt, Turkish president is an experienced politician and plans to set a big political game, predict the future dynamics “on the field”. We see that the present situation with CSOC has a long pre-history. But that’s only a probe of power. Whether it will be successful and set a start to a series of “coups” organized by Constantinople to take control over independent autocephalous Churches of the Orthodox world – this also depends on the actions of EU politicians, relationships of CP sponsors with new US President and believers’ attitude towards all this. Time will tell how effective Erdogan’s plan is and if he succeeds in “punishing” eurobureaucrats this way.

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

U.S. Demands Europe to Join Its War Against Russia

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

On December 16th, the Russian Senator, Konstantin Kosachev, who heads that body’s foreign-affairs committee, went public accusing the U.S. Government of coercing German corporations to abandon their investments in the key Russia-EU gas-pipeline project, which is now nearing completion. It’s a joint project of Russia and of corporations in some EU countries. He called this U.S. pressure against European corporations an affront to the national sovereignty of both the German and the Russian Governments, and, more broadly, an affront against the sovereignty of the entire EU, which, he pointed out, is not like America’s NATO alliance with Europe is, an instrumentality of war, but is supposed to be, instead, an economic and political union — an instrumentality of peaceful international cooperation, not of any sort of international coercion.

Here is the historical context and background to this:

In recent decades, the U.S. Constitution’s clause that requires a congressional declaration of war before invading any country, has been ignored. Furthermore, ever since 2012 and the passage by Congress of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, economic sanctions by the U.S. Government have been imposed against any company that fails to comply with a U.S.-imposed economic sanction; a company can even be fined over a billion dollars for violating a U.S. economic sanction. And, so, sanctions are now the way that the U.S. Congress actually does authorize a war — the new way, no longer the way that’s described in the U.S. Constitution. However, in the economic-sanctions phase of a war — this initial phase — the war is being imposed directly against any company that violates a U.S.-ordered economic sanction, against Russia, Iran, or whatever target-country the U.S. Congress has, by means of such sanctions, actually authorized a war by the U.S. to exist — a ‘state of war’ to exist. For the U.S. Congress, the passage of economic sanctions against a country thus effectively serves now as an authorization for the U.S. President to order the U.S. military to invade that country, if and when the President decides to do so. No further congressional authorization is necessary (except under the U.S. Constitution). This initial phase of a war penalizes only those other nations’ violating companies directly — not the target-country. Though the U.S. Government punishes the violating corporation, the actual target is the targeted (sanctioned) country. Sanctions are being used to strangle that target. The fined companies are mere ‘collateral damage’, in this phase of America’s new warfare. In this phase, which is now the standard first phase of the U.S. Government’s going-to-war, the U.S. Government is coercing corporations to join America’s economic war, against the given targeted country — in this case, it’s a war against Russia; Russia is the country that the U.S. Government wants to strangle, in this particular instance.

On Tuesday, 11 December, the U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously (no member objected), by voice vote — unrecorded so that nobody can subsequently be blamed for anything — that President Donald Trump should impose penalties, which could amount to billions of dollars, against any EU-based corporation that participates with Russia in Russia’s Nord Stream II Pipeline to supply gas to Europe. This “Resolution,” H.Res.1035, is titled “Expressing opposition to the completion of Nord Stream II, and for other purposes,” and it closes by asserting that the U.S. House of Representatives “supports the imposition of sanctions with respect to Nord Stream II under section 232 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.” With no member objecting, the U.S. House thereby warns corporations to cease doing business with Russia, because the U.S. Government is determined that any such business will be terminated and will maybe also be fined. The U.S. Government imposes its will as if it were the dictator to the entire world, and without even needing to use its military, but just economic coercion.

The U.S. Senate doesn’t yet have a similar bill, but the unanimous passage of this one in the House constitutes a strong warning to Europe’s corporations, that unless they obey the U.S. sanctions, huge financial penalties will be imposed upon them. There are not many issues on which the U.S. Congress is even nearly 100% united in agreement, but during this phase, the introductory phase, of America’s war against Russia, the war against Russia is certainly among those few instances — entirely bipartisan.

According to Russian Television, on December 12th, headlining “US lawmakers want to put a cork in Russia’s gas pipeline to Europe”: “On Monday, Austria’s OMV energy group CEO Rayner Zele stated that the company is set to continue financing the pipeline next year. OMV has already invested some 531 million euros ($607 million) into the project, Zele told Ria Novosti. In early December, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also said that Berlin’s abandoning the project would not make sense as Russia will still go on with it. Germany earlier rebuked Trump’s criticism of the project after the US leader accused Berlin of being a ‘captive’ of Moscow citing Germany’s alleged dependency on natural gas from Russia.”

If the U.S. Government fails to strangulate the economies in the countries such as Russia and Iran against which it has imposed sanctions, then the next step, of course, would be some type of armed invasion of the given targeted country. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, America’s economic sanctions killed from 100,000 to 500,000 Iraqi children, but then the U.S. invaded and destroyed the country vastly more than just that.

Economic sanctions are an attempt to coerce a targeted courntry’s — in effect — surrender, but without needing to use a military invasion as the coercive means. Any sanctioned country is therefore in America’s bomb-sights, and will be conquered in one way or another, unless the U.S. Government backs down, at some point.

According to the most extensive study that was ever done of U.S. military bases worldwide, there are over a thousand such bases, and this is a huge multiple of all non-U.S. military bases put together. That study was published in 1995. Many new U.S. military bases have been built and manned since 1995, such as several dozen in just one country, Syria, where the sovereign Government has never invited them in and many times has ordered them to leave, but they refuse to leave. Currently, the U.S. Government spends more than half of all monies that are being spent worldwide on the military.

Regarding the Nord Stream II Pipeline, the beneficiaries if that Pipeline is never completed and placed into service, will be American LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) producers, and also America’s allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. World War III could actually start as a result of the U.S. Government’s serving America’s (and its allies’) fossil-fuels producers above all other concerns regarding not only global warming, but even world peace itself. Those are the interests that are, in effect, at war against the entire world. This is not a statement of opinion: it is established and well-demonstrated fact. It is the overwhelmingly documented reality.

Here, translated by me and slightly abbreviated, is the December 16th statement that was made by Russia’s Senator Kosachev, the Chairman of the International Affairs Committee:

A categorical statement by the United States on Nord Stream 2, calling for Germany to abandon it, and for the European Union to rally the ranks “against Russian aggression” is a clear and unceremonious interference into the affairs of sovereign nations, to which the United States has no right to have any official opinion. …

Washington’s attempts to dominate and interfere in the affairs of other states are extremely dangerous for the whole world and destructive for international cooperation. This line directly contradicts the interests of any countries that are not US satellites. And it obviously contradicts the interests of Russia.

And if Russia followed solely its own egoistic interests, we should just as unceremoniously intervene in, say, the trade disputes of Washington and Beijing on the side of our Chinese ally, in the NAFTA crisis, in order to impose upon the US additional problems regarding its relations with both Canada and Mexico, or the fates of the Transatlantic and Trans-Pacific partnerships, where the United States is again working hard. To do that would be proceeding from the American principle, “the worse it is for our competitor, the better it is for us”.

We do not do that. Firstly, because Russia respects the sovereignty of other nations and never interferes in their internal affairs. Secondly, because, in principle, it is not proper for a world power to behave in such a way. …

What especially disappoints me in this situation [is] … Germany’s silence. The United Statyes is actually encroaching on Germany’s rights. That silence is disappointing, as is the EU’s passivity, which doesn’t respond to the intrusion of Americans into their sovereign affairs. The European Union is not NATO. …

Author’s note: first published in strategic-culture.org

Continue Reading

Europe

The sad fate of Europe’s leading figure

Published

on

According to a new poll conducted by IFOP, French President Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister Edouard Philippe’s popularity ratings hit new lows as the “yellow vest” protests are getting more and more serious.

The poll’s results which were published on Tuesday, indicated that Macron’s approval rating fell to 23 percent, down six percentage points on the previous month, while Philippe’s fell to 26 percent.

It’s to be noted that the “yellow vest” demonstrations were initially held on Nov. 17 in protest to fuel-tax rises. But then it took an anti-Macron color and became a broad movement.

The poll also shows that France 40-year-old president’s score now matches the low charted by his socialist predecessor François Hollande in late 2013. Hollande was then widely considered to be the least popular head of state in modern French history.

Protesters condemn Macron of closing his eyes on the rising cost of living in France. During the recent rallies, four people have died and dozens were wounded.

The protests raised at a time when some analysts were speaking of Macron’s role in leading Europe! Not long ago, there were talks of Macron becoming Europe’s new Angela Merkel, and that he’s slowly assuming her role as Europe’s leading figure. As Merkel’s center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) fared badly in the September general elections, her status as Europe’s leading figure has taken a hit. On the other hand, Emmanuel Macron emerged victorious from the French presidential elections, defeating France’s far-right candidate Marine Le Pen and entered the Elysee Palace.

From that time on, Macron had several meetings with European authorities on migration, fixing the euro currency, Europe’s defense, taxing digital companies and other issues. This was while his authority was flagging at home.

Attending in Germany’s National Remembrance Day for the victims of war and dictatorship, Macron said that the French-German alliance “is invested with this obligation not to allow the world to slide into chaos, and to accompany it on the road of peace.”

The picture which the French President was trying to draw at that time is way different from the reality which flaunts in Paris streets. Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Now Macron-haters have seized upon the protests in Paris and are shouting that the French president stands revealed as a massively flawed leader — remote, arrogant and pushing an outdated neoliberal agenda.

Before this, the theory was that if Macron could demonstrate his ability to change France, he would also take decisive steps towards a genuine European economic government, and then a reformed, strengthened EU had the power to push back against the extremists and far-right movements which gathered lots of support over last years. But this theory has failed! Macron’s domestic agenda ran into trouble, and as a result his international agenda is failing. This is the story of France’s young president.

In the face of recent protests, Macron had no way but to withdraw from his order to increase fuel taxes. It also seems that he should take more appeasing actions to satisfy the demonstrators. Under such circumstances, other reforms that were to be implemented by Macron’s government in near future now look much less likely to happen. It will, in turn, prevent the realization of developments that Macron has promised the French citizens, which will subsequently lead to more anger inside the French society.

Now it seems that things are getting a lot worse. Protests and street violence are likely to go on for months, turning the mire even more frightening for both French citizens and their president. The outcome of the existing chaos can be the raise of a far-right or far-left president in France next elections.

Now Macron’s dreams to be known as Europe’s leading figure are all gone. Indeed, he’d be lucky if an early election doesn’t terminate his presence in the Elysee Palace. The “yellow vests” are currently his most terrible nightmare. Macron, who came to power with the slogan of economic development in France and the economic and political leadership of the European Union, has definitely failed to become a strong leader in Europe. Today he’s considered a defeated figure in the French economy and politics, rather than Europe’s leading figure.

First published in our partner MNA

Continue Reading

Europe

Italy steps up political activities in the Mediterranean

Published

on

The Mediterranean serves as a platform for Rome’s geopolitical efforts in the region which are aimed at creating a powerful configuration of strength that would leave the three main vectors of Italy’s foreign policy – the southern (directed at North Africa), the western (directed at the Atlantic) and the eastern (directed at the Balkans) – open and easy of access.

The Gibraltar, the Bosporus, the Suez Canal, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait – the world’s busiest transport arteries –  acquire a particular strategic importance for Italy as a Mediterranean power.

The so-called geopolitical theory of “extended Mediterranean” was devised recently to justify Italy’s right to secure its presence in these regions . This theory is designed to put an end to the narrow perception of the Mediterranean Region as a space bounded by access to the sea and, accordingly, with a limited role of Italy.

Rome has conceptually “expanded” the Mediterranean at the expense of the adjacent Atlantic and land areas, having included the Sahel, the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula. Thereby, Italy has assumed a “greater” geopolitical role in the region as a country whose economic stability depends on the stability of the territories adjacent to the Mediterranean region.

First of all, this refers to troubled countries, such as Libya, Algeria and Tunisia, which supply Italy with gas. Italy’s intention to politically establish itself in the Sahel as part of the “expanded Mediterranean” was dictated by the desire to create a controlled space in the rear of Libya, Tunisia and Algeria to prevent their further destabilization.

Italy is among the top six EU countries with highly developed sea trade. According to Eurostat, in 2016 this figure was 61% (of which 66.6% were imports and 55.9% were exports). By this indicator, Italy loses to Portugal (81%), Cyprus (80%), Greece (77%), Spain (74%) and Malta (67%). None of Italian ports is included in the ten busiest EU trade harbors. The Italian authorities intend to change this situation.

Under the EU parameters, maritime trade accounts for 51% of overall trade, of which 53% is export and 48% is import. 19% of the global sea traffic and 30% of oil haulage pass through the Mediterranean Sea (an increase of 120% over the past 16 years). 65% of all energy resources are delivered to Europe by the Mediterranean. As these indicators tend to show an upward trend, Italy is set on  ensuring a more pronounced economic and political presence in the Mediterranean .

Given the situation, the Italian diplomacy face the following agenda in the region:

– to promote an equal distribution of power among top players in the Mediterranean in order to avoid any imbalance, be it in favor of countries that have no binding agreements or strategic cooperation agreements with Rome, or in favor of states whose political, military and economic potential is equal to that of Italy (France, Spain), or exceeds it (Germany);

– strengthen the political and economic presence of Italy in areas designated as the “extended Mediterranean”, thereby ensuring the participation of the Italian fleet in international anti-piracy missions;

to promote the peaceful settlement of current conflicts in the region (Syria, Iran, the Cyprus problem) with a view to prevent a buildup of other countries’ military presence within Italy’s strategic interest zone;

– to promote the diversification of energy supplies with due regard for Italy’s 77% dependence on external supplies, to initiate the development of gas and oil fields in Libya, Algeria, Egypt (Rome plans to invest € 175 billion in the development of the energy sector and related environmental projects by 2030.)

– to contribute to the transformation of Italy, located at the junction of sea routes from North Africa, the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, into a leading transport and distribution hub of oil and gas exports and imports for the EU ;

– to prevent the weakening of Italy’s positions in the EU in case of the strengthening of the Berlin-Paris axis, which will not be easy to achieve amid the emerging conflict between Brussels and Rome over the Italian budget.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy