Connect with us

Europe

White Hate Across the EU: How Psychology And Finance Cause (And Can Solve) Right-Wing Nationalism

Steve York

Published

on

Open borders without restrictive controls have been a catalyst and created a rise in Right Wing nationalism with the rebirth of a nation-state mentality where xenophobia is institutionalized. Uncontrolled migrant gateways especially in Italy and Greece have created tension among European Union (EU) member states. In response, EU states have placed restrictions on border crossings testing the limits of the Schengen Agreement for open and free borders flows. These new restrictions on the open borders are biased and are based on a political discourse of hate.

The historic rise of the Right is founded upon a minority ideological political movement blaming the weakness of liberal democratic governance and the resulting economic uncertainty on ethnic minorities. The Right uses patriotic themed imagery to stereotype national identity as an ‘us’ against ‘them’ conflict portraying a migrant ethnic personality against a neo-national citizen. The Right uses this new identity to express dissatisfaction against globalism and international institutions. The Right’s manifestation of fear of ethnic change creates an antagonistic environment where protectionism is the policy, the minorities are the scapegoats, and violence is the consequence.

Anti-Migrant policy and politics create exclusions on the freedom of movement and directly affect the survival of Schengen where restrictions cause institutional racism. New nationalist policies of border management are based upon xenophobia and a national self-interest that uses hate or racism which is a mismanagement of the terms under Schengen agreements. Reckless state behavior fails to uphold the terms of Schengen while increased costs associated with time and productivity losses are passed on to consumers.  Moreover, independently applied border controls are a leading cause of a decline in economic productivity in the EU. Discriminatory types of laws do nothing to encourage a diverse and globalized EU.  These types of laws create a homogenous identity and create a myopic view of sovereignty.  The whole idea of the EU was to create a shared and common border to become competitive against large economic forces like the United States.  This creation of the EU was an In group and all nations had to meet certain standards to become a part this new institution.

The rise of Right Wing nationalism can be identified in some groups found in Austria (Austrian Freedom Party), France (National Front), Netherlands (Party for Freedom), Greece (Golden Dawn), or in Germany (Alternative for Deutschland Party) to name a few. Groups blame the economic problems on a crisis of a liberal democracy viewing the broken system as the institutions associated with linked economies, growing national debts, and unsustainable welfare systems. Groups use the immigrant as a cultural and economic threat to the nation.  Groups also use multiculturalism and European integration as reason for protectionism. Groups use the negative imagery of race and religion creating a fear of ethnic minorities.  The crisis of liberalism is seen as a rise in Right Wing nationalism and is based upon a loss of trust in the intuitions that govern a global civil society.

The Right creates the identity in the group as a social base to form a commonality for members. This affiliation is used as a social construct for nation building. This forms a self-deterministic ethnocentric personality of the minority Group. The rule of the minority over the governance of the majority.  The trend moves away from globalism and the collective good of the EU. The failure of government and its role to provide stability and sovereignty allows the voice of hatred and emotions of fear to blossom. The rise in nationalism in the EU is really the use of fear, emotions, and images for a racist minority influence over the liberal-minded majority. The idea of the Right is to use a loss of identity to create a need for a growth in the Right Wing.  As the world globalizes, the changing dynamics of the labor markets and the rising unemployment rates across Europe are the catalyst for this movement. The Right uses the perception of inequalities to create a new world order using the emotions of anger and fear to promote global threats. This is classic out group hostility as defined in Social identity Theory. Feeling and emotions are used by the Right to create isolationism and withdrawal in the name of nationalism. The Right challenges the global community and becomes a threat to international institutions. NATO and the UN will lose power as will the illusion of freedoms with a new nationalism. The Right-Wing movement seems to be driven by fear of globalization.

In addition, the huge growth in migrant populations after the Color Revolutions and Arab Spring can be used by hate politicians as a way of weakening the strong political bonds of current political leaders.  Political leaders can use immigrants for both positive and negative political purposes. Immigrants are potential voters and can be added to a political base once they achieve citizenship.  On the negative side, politicians can demonize migrants as criminals distracting people from other more serious problems like unemployment or rising inflation.

While the Schengen Agreement provided a common legal and financial system for shared security, an unequal minority/majority relationship among member states encourages institutionalized xenophobia. For instance, new laws are ethnocentric and discriminatory. Racist laws force oppressive assimilation, using an adopt-and-embrace culture technique. The French passed a law in 2010 prohibiting the burqa in public. The Swiss, who guarantee freedom of religion, have banned the construction of minarets used by Muslims in their call to prayer.  Denmark and Sweden do border spot-checks profiling migrants. While in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his ruling Fidesz Party recently closed borders to asylum seekers as a political statement designed to help win a recent election in April (BBC 2018). The ethnocentric actions are in violation of the UNHRC, an institution responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe.

Psychology alone cannot adequately explain the behaviors of Right Wing nationalism without including the economic reality of globalization. Theory alone can only explain the symptoms of the changing economic landscape of the EU.  Psychology in a way explains the negative side of the rise in nationalism.  Some European nations have strong economies and low unemployment yet fear the huge growth of migrants from the Syrian conflict.  This is a fear the Right uses to create a new reality.

The Right blames the growing migrant population for the financial crisis.  When members join the EU they become economically dependent on each other. When strong and weak economies combine, the result was the European financial crisis arising from unsustainable debt levels and default fears from the nations of Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.  European financial institutions held this debt, so any default would threaten the stability of the European financial industry and the common currency of the Euro. The financial fix in 2009 also included Anti-Migration Policies that reinforced institutionalized bias, including the use of proxy governance – limiting visas for migrants using the European Financial Stability Fund and other Stability Mechanisms based upon racial quotas. Limiting visas was an illusionary fix and the cause of significant institutional xenophobia and scapegoating.

The primary goal of future work is to identity ways to manage the use of fear as a political instrument.  Members of the EU could create globalized legislation like a Common Asylum System where members are able to reinstate an open and free border program.  The goal would be to foster cooperation among national police and customs authorities. States could manage the borders jointly and have a shared administrative and fiscal system of controls.  This system can manage the flow of asylum seekers concentrating on areas where existing controls have failed. Moreover, a common system can focus resources on First-Entry Border Control Points and a Willing-Member States Program (WMSP). A further responsibility of the WMSP is a jobs training program that could help migrants adjust to new condition. In the end, what is needed most is a subtle, agile, and empathetic system of governance that knows how to fuse psychological fears and financial instability into a system of common prosperity and societal understanding. If leadership across the EU cannot do this or is unwilling to engage it, then the hate-mongers will only increase.

Steve York has a long and distinguished career serving his country and managing global security problems. He is currently pursuing his doctorate in Global Security in the School of Security and Global Studies at the American Military University.

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

Economy15 mins ago

Reforming the WTO is a Long and Complicated Process

Since early autumn 2018, the issue of reforming the World Trade Organization (WTO) has become an increasingly visible item on...

Newsdesk2 hours ago

Green Economy in Nigeria gets a boost from India-UN Fund

Jointly advancing environmental sustainability and poverty reduction is a challenge the government of Nigeria holds at heart. In pursuit of...

Reports3 hours ago

Malaysia’s Economy Remains Resilient but Faces Global Headwinds

Malaysia’s economy is expected to grow at a more moderate pace in the near term, growing at 4.7 percent in...

Middle East5 hours ago

Stepped up US military posture in the Gulf threatens Indian hopes for Iran’s Chabahar port

The arrival of the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier group in the Gulf to deter Iran from further testing...

New Social Compact7 hours ago

Wait for Gender Equality Gets Longer as Women’s Share of Workforce, Politics Drops

Stagnation in the proportion of women in the workplace and women’s declining representation in politics, coupled with greater inequality in...

Tourism9 hours ago

Why 2019 Is the Year of the All-Inclusive Resort

Nearly half of all millennials list all-inclusive resorts as a top choice for their vacation stays. For the other half...

Newsdesk17 hours ago

Clean energy transition in Ukraine

On 18 December 2018, the EU-Ukraine Renewable Energy Investment Forum takes place in Kyiv, co-organised by the European Commission’s Directorate-General...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy