Consider the situation that the State Duma Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (Lower House of the Russian Parliament) has called on the Russian government to immediately allocate money to projects aimed at combating anti-Russian propaganda, Russianophobia, and false information about the Russian Federation in the European Union.
Or, it would ask the government to provide more ambitious financial assistance to the “third sector in the EU Member States”, which promotes improved relations and cooperation between the EU and Russia, promotes Christian values, traditional family and marriage of men and women, peace and inter-national cooperation. What would be the reaction? Silence, cry and a series of articles on Putin’s regime and oppressed “civilian opposition,” but who cannot even get a three per cent support in the elections? Again, new penalties?
Or imagine another situation: How would the so-called European leaders, officials in Brussels, the European Commission and the European Council respond if the Russian Parliament, the Russian President and the Russian Government consistently expressed their grave concern over the deterioration of the human and civil rights situation and the rule of law, for example, in the Baltic Member States with the discriminated Russian minority? Silence and ignorance as heretofore? And how would they react if the Russians constantly criticized and pointed out violations of human and civil rights to Christian communities, such as in France? His president, Emmanuel Macron, is more concerned about the “gay suffering” in Chechnya than the oppressing and ejection of Christian symbols in French schools, or the punishment of Christian denominations and the use of Christian symbols. This childless and value-inconsistent president, who has already begun politically and ideologically breaking the Visegrad Four (V-4) and excitement of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico with his blushing about the “tighter EU core,” in May in Versailles, he even said to President Putin he would be alert regarding gays in Chechnya.
In other words, President Macron and his team, who had robbed Marine Le Pen’s agenda in the election campaign, are likely to be more concerned by gay people in Islamic Chechnya, which still has the largest natural increase in population among all subjects Russian Federation, such as the Russian minority in Ukraine, or peacekeeping and Minsk agreements by Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko. Does President Macron want to be a gay spokesman in Chechnya, or wants to create a “new turmoil” among gays and Islam that does not recognize and punish homosexuality in this autonomous republic in the Caucasus? I do not want to believe that President Macron would promote sex and the sexual orientation of one group or minority in Chechnya over the human and civil rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. In still unfortunate Ukraine, which cannot escape from the influence of fascist and Nazi groups tolerated not only by the Poroshenko regime but also by the European Union. Its “Iron Prime Minister”, Angela Merkel, accused former President Yanukovych of refusing to sign an association agreement between Ukraine and the EU in November 2013 in Vilnius. Then, she told him she expected more from him. She was not curious about the arguments of the then Ukrainian government or the president that Ukraine would not survive its “break-away” from Russia and the CIS, and that it needed a substantial financial subsidy of almost 400 billion euros. If we realize after four years what Ukraine “sacrificed” to the altar of “the sacred EU”, what price the Ukrainians have paid for, what they have lost and gained, we must ask – didn´t the Ukrainians rightly expect from Angela Merkel more? And more than what the EU offered and guaranteed?
Now that Lithuania is proposing a New European Plan for Ukraine (the so-called Marshall Plan for Ukraine) for 2017-2020 to get at least € 5bn annually to implement “long-awaited reforms”, what does it prove? That Ukraine, after massive political and military support from the US and the EU or the staff of various international consultants and experts, is still unable to reform its values and the economy for the image of the EU? Don´t you even see this image? This plan of further aid (the exact value of the current financial assistance is still unresolved, which could be a major shock to EU citizens, as in the case of the so-called Kosovo), is to be judged by the November EU Eastern Partnership summit. And there is also another package to be discussed in Brussels in early 2018. Under the EU’s external investment plan for Ukraine, there will be talk of the possibility of earmarking and drawing on € 88bn by 2020. So, if we make a short a reflection on what President Yanukovych told the office of President Merkel in Vilnius, wasn´t he right?
It seems, however, that Mrs Merkel or the entire EU leadership was not about the truth and Ukraine, but about starting another scenario – the coup and the economic chaos in Ukraine. The result is not just a civil war in Donbass and the return of the Crimea to Russia but also the departure of more than 2.5 million Ukrainian citizens – refugees to Russia and more than a million Ukrainians for work and “European life” in Poland. The number of Ukrainians who left for work in other EU countries because they cannot live at home is still not publicly spoken. Nor about how many of them already have Romanian, Hungarian, Polish, Slovak, German or Austrian citizenship. In the case of Slovakia, just a small example – since the abolition of the visa requirement more than 200 000 Ukrainians passed over the Slovak Schengen border, of course, they went further to the West. The way in which Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande supported the unconstitutional coup in Ukraine was and remained scandalously like when the “German-French integration engine” opened the EU to more than a million different migrants in 2014 and 2015, neither the Italians nor the Greeks could keep it. Mrs Angela Merkel, as well as other EU leaders, had already known that was organized by business smugglers and managed migration under the auspices and command of ‘third sector volunteers’. Instead of vigorous and decisive action (protecting borders at sea and on land), the EU, under Angela Merkel, wanted to corrupt Turkey and reimburse the costs of organized crime for a “social and racial engineer project” for the EU and build a so-called refugee Islamic camps in Turkey. Angela Merkel has allowed her to gamble with the EU and its citizens, and left the fate of the migratory crisis in the hands of Ankara.
It was the amazing value and peace policy of the EU, a great demonstration of how the EU, Angela Merkel and other leaders (including Martin Schulz) can crush and make people’s lives safer, threatening peace and security, which later confirmed new sexual and terrorist attacks in Western Europe and Scandinavia. Let’s go back to Russia for a moment. Let’s imagine another Russian reaction – predictable regarding current Russians. Russian constitutional and state organizations declare “the fight against EU propaganda, its lies, its perverse civilization, integration, anti-Christian and cultural values.” They then compile lists of politicians, activists and the media that disseminate “harmful and false EU propaganda” on the contrary to traditional Russian civilization values. Subsequently, special foundations, funds and civic associations will be set up to organize various seminars and discussions with citizens, and to inform the “embarrassed Russian democracy and the Russian society” about these dangers, the EU conspiracy portals and media against Russia and the negative impacts of their activities for the entire Russian society. Do you think Russia does not have to make such a decision? Or is it so internally strong that it does not need to protect the Russian society by such measures?
To sum up, MEPs who voted in favour of alleged Russian political and financial support for “radical and extremist parties” in the EU Member States have not yet been able to tell the public what this is about. They cannot give the public any proof of who, and as of Russia or the “Russian world”, these parties are funding the parties, what is the value of this aid. Nonetheless, the MEPs ask the European Commission to draft a draft legislation guaranteeing the transparency of the funding of political parties in EU countries by foreign entities. I personally would like to support this request, and broaden the requirement for transparency regarding the financing of the Third Sector and not only by foreign but also domestic subjects. Many so-called domestic entities were based on foreign capital. Let’s look at the result of this Members’ initiative. Maybe none. The media, ideological value struggle for the truth continues. Unfortunately, it is not only between American and Russian civilizations, but also between the so- called European (especially Anglo-Saxon) and Russian civilization. If the outcome of this struggle between the EU and Russia is a new constructive dialogue based on the truth, the recognition of errors and mistakes, the renewal of the strategic partnership between the EU and Russia, everyone will be relieved. In this case, there will be a new era of economic, cultural and social development in Europe and Russia. We all need such development.
Europe tells Biden “no way” to Cold War with China
Amidst the first big transatlantic tensions for the Biden Administration, a new poll shows that the majority of Europeans see a new Cold War happening between the United States and China, but they don’t see themselves as a part of it.
Overwhelmingly, 62% of Europeans believe that the US is engaged in a new Cold War against China, a new poll just released by the European Council on Foreign Relations found. Just yesterday US President Joe Biden claimed before the UN General Assembly that there is no such thing and the US is not engaging in a new Cold War. So, Europeans see Biden’s bluff and call him on it.
The study was released on Wednesday by Mark Leonard and Ivan Krastev at the European Council on Foreign Relations and found that Europeans don’t see themselves as direct participants in the US-China Cold War. This viewpoint is most pronounced in Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, Portugal and Italy, according to the study. The prevailing view, in each of the 12 surveyed EU member states, is one of irrelevance – with respondents in Hungary (91%), Bulgaria (80%), Portugal (79%), and Austria (78%) saying that their country is not in a conflict with Beijing.
Only 15% of Europeans believe that the EU is engaged in a Cold War against China. The percentage is so low that one wonders if there should even be such a question. It is not only not a priority, it is not even a question on the agenda for Europeans. Even at the highest point of EU “hawkishness”, only 33% of Swedes hold the view that their country is currently in a Cold War with China. Leonard and Krastev warn that if Washington and Brussels are preparing for an all-in generational struggle against China, this runs against the grain of opinion in Europe, and leaders in Washington and Brussels will quickly discover that they “do not have a societal consensus behind them”.
“The European public thinks there is a new cold war – but they don’t want to have anything to do with it. Our polling reveals that a “cold war” framing risks alienating European voters”, Mark Leonard said.
The EU doesn’t have the backing of its citizens to follow the US in its new Cold War pursuit. But unlike the views of the authors of the study, my view is that this is not a transatlantic rift that we actually have to be trying to fix. Biden’s China policy won’t be Europe’s China policy, and that’s that, despite US efforts to persuade Europe to follow, as I’ve argued months ago for the Brussels Report and in Modern Diplomacy.
In March this year, Gallup released a poll that showed that 45% of Americans see China as the greatest US enemy. The poll did not frame the question as Cold War but it can be argued that Joe Biden has some mandate derived from the opinion of American people. That is not the case for Europe at all, to the extent that most of us don’t see “China as an enemy” even as a relevant question.
The US’s China pursuit is already giving horrible for the US results in Europe, as French President Macron withdrew the French Ambassador to the US. The US made a deal already in June, as a part of the trilateral partnership with the UK and Australia, and stabbed France in the back months ago to Macron’s last-minute surprise last week. Max Boot at the Council on Foreign Relations argues that it is Macron that is actually arrogant to expect that commitments and deals should mean something: “Back in February, Macron rejected the idea of a U.S.-E.U. common front against China. Now he complains when America pursues its own strategy against China. What’s French for chutzpah?” What Boot does get right is that indeed, there won’t be a joint US-EU front on China, and European citizens also don’t want this, as the recent poll has made clear.
The US saying Europe should follow the US into a Cold War with China over human rights is the same thing as China saying that Europe should start a Cold War with the US over the bad US human rights record. It’s not going to happen. You have to understand that this is how ridiculous the proposition sounds to us, Europeans. Leonard and Krastev urge the EU leadership to “make the case for more assertive policies” towards China around European and national interests rather than a Cold War logic, so that they can sell a strong, united, and compelling case for the future of the Atlantic alliance to European citizens.
I am not sure that I agree, as “more assertive policies” and “cold war” is probably the same thing in the mind of most Europeans and I don’t think that the nuance helps here or matters at all. Leaders like Biden argue anyway that the US is not really pursuing a Cold War. The authors caution EU leaders against adopting a “cold war” framing. You say “framing”, I say “spin”. Should we be in engaging in spins at all to sell unnecessary conflict to EU citizens only to please the US?
“Unlike during the first cold war, [Europeans] do not see an immediate, existential threat”, Leonard clarified. European politicians can no longer rely on tensions with China to convince the electorate of the value of transatlantic relations. “Instead, they need to make the case from European interests, showing how a rebalanced alliance can empower and restore sovereignty to European citizens in a dangerous world”, Mark Leonard added. The study shows that there is a growing “disconnect” between the policy ambitions of those in Brussels and how Europeans think. EU citizens should stick to their sentiments and not be convinced to look for conflict where it doesn’t exist, or change what they see and hear with their own eyes and ears in favor of elusive things like the transatlantic partnership, which the US itself doesn’t believe in anyways. And the last thing that should be done is to scare Europeans by convincing them they live in a “dangerous world” and China is the biggest threat or concern.
What the study makes clear is that a Cold War framing against China is likely to repel more EU voters than it attracts, and if there is one thing that politicians know it is that you have to listen to the polls in what your people are telling you instead of engaging in spins. Those that don’t listen in advance get the signs eventually. At the end of the day it’s not important what Biden wants.
Germany and its Neo-imperial quest
In January 2021, eight months ago, when rumours about the possibility of appointment of Christian Schmidt as the High Representative in Bosnia occurred for the first time, I published the text under the title ‘Has Germany Lost Its NATO Compass?’. In this text I announced that Schmidt was appointed to help Dragan Čović, the leader of the Croatian HDZ party, to disrupt the constitutional structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina and create precoditions for secession of the Serb- and Croatian-held territories in Bosnia and the country’s final dissolution. I can hardly add anything new to it, except for the fact that Schmidt’s recent statements at the conference of Deutsche Atlantische Gesellschaft have fully confirmed my claims that his role in Bosnia is to act as Čović’s ally in the latter’s attempts to carve up the Bosnian Constitution.
Schmidt is a person with a heavy burden, the burden of a man who has continuously been promoting Croatian interests, for which the Croatian state decorated him with the medal of “Ante Starčević”, which, in his own words, he “proudly wears” and shares with several Croatian convicted war criminals who participated in the 1992-1995 aggression on Bosnia, whom Schmidt obviously perceives as his ideological brethren. The question is, then, why Germany appointed him as the High Representative in Bosnia?
Germany’s policy towards Bosnia, exercised mostly through the institutions of the European Union, has continuously been based on the concept of Bosnia’s ethnic partition. The phrases that we can occassionaly hear from the EU, on inviolability of state boundaries in the Balkans, is just a rhetoric adapted to the demands by the United States to keep these boundaries intact. So far, these boundaries have remained intact mainly due to the US efforts to preserve them. However, from the notorious Lisbon Conference in February 1992 to the present day, the European Union has always officially stood behind the idea that Bosnia-Herzegovina should be partitioned along ethnic lines. At the Lisbon Conference, Lord Carrington and Jose Cutileiro, the official representatives of the then European Community, which has in the meantime been rebranded as the European Union, drew the maps with lines of ethnic partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, along which the ethnic cleansing was committed, with 100.000 killed and 1,000.000 expelled, so as to make its territory compatible with their maps. Neither Germany nor the European Union have ever distanced themselves from the idea they promoted and imposed at the Lisbon Conference as ‘the only possible solution’ for Bosnia, despite the grave consequences that followed. Nor has this idea ever stopped being a must within their foreign policy circles, as it has recently been demonstrated by the so-called Janša Non-Paper, launched a couple of months ago, which also advocates the final partition and dissolution of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such a plan is probably a product of the powerful right-wing circles in the European institutions, such as Schmidt’s CSU, rather than a homework of Janez Janša, the current Prime Minister of Slovenia, whose party is a part of these circles, albeit a minor one. To be sure, Germany is not the original author of the idea of Bosnia’s partition, this author is Great Britain, which launched it directly through Lord Carrington at the Lisbon Conference. Yet, Germany has never shown a will to distance itself from this idea, nor has it done the European Union. Moreover, the appointment of Schmidt, as a member of those political circles which promote ethnic partition as the only solution for multiethnic countries, testifies to the fact that Germany has decided to fully apply this idea and act as its chief promoter.
In this process, the neighbouring countries, Serbia and Croatia, with their extreme nationalist policies, can only act as the EU’s proxies, in charge for the physical implemenation of Bosnia’s pre-meditated disappearance. All the crimes that Serbia and Croatia committed on the Bosnian soil – from the military aggression, over war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide, up to the 30 year-long efforts to undermine Bosnia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – have always had a direct approval and absolute support of the leading EU countries. During the war and in its aftermath, Great Britain and France were the leaders of the initiatives to impose ethnic partition on the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and now Germany has taken up their role. In such a context, the increasing aggressiveness of Serbia and Croatia can only be interpreted as a consequence of the EU’s intention to finish with Bosnia for good, and Schmidt has arrived to Bosnia to facilitate that process. Therefore, it is high time for the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina to abandon any ilussions about the true intentions of the European Union and reject its Trojan Horse in the form of the current High Representative.
Should there be an age limit to be President?
The presidential elections in Bulgaria are nearing in November 2021 and I would like to run for President of Bulgaria, but the issue is the age limit.
To run for President in Bulgaria a candidate needs to be at least 40 years old and I am 37. I am not the first to raise the question: should there be an age limit to run for President, and generally for office, and isn’t an age limit actually age discrimination?
Under the international human rights law standard, putting an age limit is allowed in the context of political participation under the right to vote and the right to run to be elected. Human Rights Committee General Comment No.25 interpreting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that an age limit has to be based on objective and reasonable criteria, adding that it is reasonable to have a higher age requirement for certain offices. As it stands, the law says that having an age limit for president is not age discrimination, but is 40 actually a reasonable cut-off? National legislations can change. We need to lower the age limit and rethink what’s a reasonable age for President, and not do away with all age limits.
We have seen strong leaders emerge as heads of state and government who are below 40 years of age. Sanna Marin, Prime Minister of Finland, became Prime Minister at 34. Sebastrian Kurz, the Prime Minister of Austria, was elected at 31. Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand, assumed her position at 37. So perhaps it is time to rethink age limits for the highest offices.
The US has plenty of examples where elected Senators and Congressmen actually beat the age limit and made it despite the convention. The age limit for Senator in the US is 30 years old. Rush Holt was elected to the US Senate at 29. In South Carolina, two State Senators were elected at 24 years old and they were seated anyways. The age limit for US president is 35 years old.
In Argentina, the age cut-off is 30. In India, it is 35. In Pakistan, it is 45 years old. In Turkey, it is 40 years old. Iceland says 35 years old. In France, it is 18.
Generally, democracies set lower age limits. More conservative countries set the age limit higher in line with stereotypes rather than any real world evidence that a 45 year-old or 55 year-old person would be more effective and better suited to the job. Liberal countries tend to set lower age limits.
40 years old to be a President of Bulgaria seems to be an arbitrary line drawn. And while it is legal to have some age limits, 40 years old seems to be last century. Changing the age limit for president of Bulgaria could be a task for the next Bulgarian Parliament for which Bulgarians will also vote on the same date as they vote for President.
Niger to Improve Women and Girl’s Access to Nutrition and Health Services
The Nigerien government will be able to provide its population with better health coverage with financing approved today by the...
Drops in Health Spending Jeopardize Recovery from COVID-19 in Developing Countries
Despite what will likely be the fastest economic growth in the aftermath of any recession in the last 80 years,...
City Climate Finance Gap Fund completes first year of operation
The City Climate Finance Gap Fund (the Gap Fund) has approved technical assistance for 33 cities across the developing world...
Early Elections in Canada: Will the Fourth Wave Get in the Way?
On August 15, Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada and leader of the Liberal Party, announced an early parliamentary...
Afghanistan may face famine because of anti-Taliban sanctions
Afghanistan may face a food crisis under the Taliban (outlawed in Russia) rule because this movement is under sanctions of...
Archipelagic Economies: Spatial Economic Development in the Pacific
A new World Bank report on the challenges facing the Pacific region’s outer island communities identifies investment in people and...
Western Influence Wanes in South Caucasus
Over the course of past year, Georgia’s relations with its Western partners have notably cooled. Under the ruling Georgian Dream (GD) party...
Energy4 days ago
Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline – An ‘apple of discord’ between Azerbaijan and Russia?
South Asia4 days ago
The Post-US Withdrawal Afghanistan: India, China and the ‘English Diplomacy’
Intelligence3 days ago
The AUKUS Alliance and “China’s Maritime Governance Strategy” in the Indo-Pacific
Defense3 days ago
AUKUS: Human-made disaster
Economy3 days ago
Finding Fulcrum to Move the World Economics
Economy4 days ago
Evergrande Crisis and the Global Economy
Europe3 days ago
Europe tells Biden “no way” to Cold War with China
South Asia3 days ago
The failure of the great games in Afghanistan from the 19th century to the present day