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

The Aegean Dilemma: Turkish-Greek Complexity Challenging European Solidarity

Alexandros-Ioannis Papamatthaiou

Published

on

On the 12th of February2018, a Turkish coast guard patrol rammed into a Greek patrol boat near the Imia islands (Kardak in Turkish). The pair of uninhabited islands has been a source of dispute between Greece and Turkey since a military crisis in 1996, which almost resulted in war. The collision has been the climax of a number of Turkish violations on Greek territorial waters and airspace, which have damaged Greek-Turkish relations and escalated the tensions between the two countries. In this article I argue that Turkey’s geopolitical advantages over the US and the EU embolden it to pursue an ambitious foreign policy in the Aegean Sea, while its toxic domestic politics necessitates that it must do so. This combination creates a ticking time bomb for crisis in the Aegean Sea.It is time for the EU to act.

Turkey’s control of refugee flows has EU hands tied

The Syrian crisis has increased Turkish power over European nations that receive the greatest part of refugee flows. Currently, over 2.5 million Syrian refugees reside in Turkey. Turkish officials have threatened to force an influx of Syrian refugees into Europe, a situation that would destabilize already complex tensions within European states and further the far-right political crisis of Europe. The potentiality of this development provides Turkey with a favorable bargaining position over many Western European governments, which are interested in actively averting extremist actions against immigrant populations in order to prevent sectarian divide.

In addition, the waning desire of the Turkish administration to join the EU has removed any leverage the EU had over Turkey. In the past, Turkey has been willing to engage in bilateral talks with Greece over territorial disputes, mainly in an effort to withdraw Greece’s veto over its potential membership in the EU. However, Brexit and the emergence of anti-European movements in founding members like France and Italy, has caused Turkish officials to have second thoughts about the prospect of joining a union on the verge of collapse, according to reports. This development has reduced the bargaining advantage Greece previously enjoyed.

The US is unlikely to react in the event of a crisis

Since the time of the Cold War, American policymakers have viewed Turkey as a key ally against the Soviet Union and now Russia. The proximity of Turkey to Southern Russian cities favors the deployment of strategic nuclear weapons, while, most significantly, the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits create a double chokepoint that checks Russian maritime activity from the warm ports of the Black Sea. This means that in the case of conflict, if Turkey cooperates, Russia’s supply lines from the south could be shut down.

The location of Turkey, north of the Levant, gives Turkish leaders influence in Middle East matters as well and the ability to affect the political situation in both Syria and Iraq. The proximity of Turkey to the Syrian conflict allows it to intervene militarily as it did through Operation Olive Branch in Afrin in January. Turkey also holds a large portion of the Tigris and Euphrates river basins, which hydrate the majority of agricultural land in Syria and Iraq. In the past, Turkey has used its control over these river flows as a bargaining tool to curb Kurdish militant activity along its borders with the two countries.These geopolitical facts give Turkey a unique advantage in influencing politics in the Middle East, both directly through military operations and indirectly through river flows.

Turkey’s capacity to contain the Russian navy in a time of a crisis, its ability to directly get involved in the Syrian war, and its influence on the prosperity of Iraq, gives influence over key American strategic objectives: namely, keeping Russia under control, maintaining peace in the Middle East, and ensuring the stability of oil outflows. Despite the status of both Greece and Turkey as members of NATO, the US is unlikely to risk bringing Turkey and Russia closer diplomatically and tempting Turkey to intervene more often in the Middle East.

How are Turkish domestic politics exacerbating the conflict?

Turkey’s militarism is informed by the institutional friction between Turkish politicians and the Turkish army. Since the death of Ataturk, the Turkish army has assigned itself the role of the protector of Ataturk’s ideals. Frequent army intervention in Turkish politics through coups has made politicians apprehensive of the army and ready to externalize the army’s domestic pressure into international operations. After the coup attempt of 2016, President Erdogan has become increasingly determined to preoccupy the army with military operations and maintain stability domestically, as he concentrates power through institutional change and purges political and intellectual dissidents. Turkey’s leaders have also been empowered by public support. The Turkish public has a deep historical understanding of the Turkish identity, the memory of the Greek invasion of 1919, and the unfairness of the Treaty of Lausanne. President Erdogan’s popularity after the failed coup attempt of 2016 has enabled him to empower these conservative opinions and silence opposing Euro-friendly voices in Turkey.

Greek leadership has also done its part to worsen the tensions. The Greek Minister of Defense, Panos Kammenos, leader of the nationalist minority party in Greece’s coalition government, has been vocal on Greece’s expansion of territorial waters, mainly as a feat to maintain his party’s share of the vote. Historical tensions between the two countries, as well as President Erdogan’s public and institutional empowerment and Greece’s current diplomatically inept administration have fueled Turkish nationalist sentiment against Greece, counterbalancing against public support for European integration, and emboldening Turkey’s aggressions in the Aegean.

What are the objectives of Turkey?

Turkish perceptions and expectations of European and American passivity embolden Turkey to act in calculated aggression according to its favorable estimation of the balance of power. Turkey’s primary goals are to increase its claim on maritime territory that may contain potential oil reserves in the Aegean Sea and to hinder Greek efforts to expand territorial waters according to proposed international law [1]. These objectives constitute a reversal of the Treaty of Lausanne, which gave Greece control of the entire Aegean archipelago, and essentially landlocked the Turkish western coast. In a highly complex domestic climate, if Turkish policymakers judge that tensions have risen enough to even minimally justify translation of rhetoric into action, then Turkey is likely to annex the Imia-Kardak islands in a symbolic statement of intent, or even to potentially claim control over Kastelorizo, which would extend Turkey’s continental shelf into the southeast Mediterranean Sea.

Why should the EU care? What can be done?

In an environment of European reluctance and American rejection of involvement, the clock is ticking before the Turkish administration could make bolder moves. The crucial coming election could be the catalyst in materializing Turkish threats over the annexation of disputed territory. In the ever-increasing tense domestic politics of Turkey, political rivals try to outdo each other on anti-Greek rhetoric, resulting in heightened public expectations of conflict. Under the current circumstances, if Turkey escalates the conflict, then the EU stands to lose in all possible scenarios. If the EU intervenes, then Turkey may retaliate with the release of Syrian refugees into the continent, which will increase the influence of the far-right and break the EU from within. If the EU fails to act, then trust in its institutional power will wane, discouraging potential members from joining and increasing the separatist sentiments inside member countries.

The Aegean Dispute sheds light into the most important institutional anomaly of the EU: the absence of political unification to support economic integration.The European experiment has been successful in integrating economic activity within the continent. However, it now teeters with an unstable equilibrium, between further integration and outright demise. The Aegean dispute offers both a challenge and an opportunity for Europe: EU policymakers must look into ways of integrating security strategy, through cooperation agreements, security guarantees and investment into border control, while also moving towards an integrated and centrally-organized immigration plan for Europe. Tighter border security in the Balkan Peninsula will stop Turkey’s use of refugee flows as a bargaining chip and also appease nationalist sentiment in European countries, while security agreements will halt Turkish aspirations in the Aegean Sea and improve public trust in the EU’s institutional power. If the EU wants to remain relevant far into the future across the greater European continent, then it must start behaving as boldly and strategically as Turkey has over the past several years. If it doesn’t it will simply be outmaneuvered and, potentially, replaced as a major political voice in the global community.

[1] Wolff  Heintschel von Heinegg Der Ägäis-Konflikt: Die Abgrenzung des Festlandsockels zwischen Griechenland und der Türkei und das Problem der Inseln im Seevölkerrecht. (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1989)

 

Continue Reading

Europe

Catalonia would have been facing severe problems had it broke away from Spain

Bahauddin Foizee

Published

on

Catalan independence referendum, held in late-2017, had thrown Spain and Catalonia into severe political crisis and has created uncertainly for the foreign investors inside Catalonia.

What fate would the Catalans have embraced had Catalonia broke away from Spain after referendum?

Catalans from all walks of life would have suffered severe problems had the pro-independence camp got what they wished for in the referendum.

Here’s some food for thought for the Catalans who voted in the referendum and who didn’t, and for the ones who had been a keen spectator from Europe and elsewhere.

State Structures

Inception of an independent state requires the setting up of the essential state structures, including central bank, tax authority, judicial system, social security, a diplomatic service, a central bank and even an army.

Though most of these state structures/elements are available to Catalonia as an Spanish state/province, there are obvious concerns whether these elements are self-sufficient and mature enough to take the responsibilities of a newly born state.

Chaos

Had Catalonia become a sovereign state, a greater political uncertainty would have arose. There would be political chaos between the ones who opted for independence and the ones who didn’t.

The ones who sought to remain with Spain, or atleast didn’t actively support pro-independence campaigns, could have ended up facing rage and infuriated gestures from the opposite camp immediately after independence (had it been achieved).

Debt, currency, exodus of businesses

Moreover, Catalans would then have to assume a significant part of Spain’s debt. They would have to find a currency other than the Euro, as Spain would veto Catalan membership in the Euro Zone.

Without a confirmed currency in the market and with political uncertainty, there would have been a likely evacuation of multinational and Spanish companies from Catalonia to other parts in Spain. Already some multinational and Spanish companies either left or declared to leave Catalonia immediately after last independence referendum.

Access to EU market

If the membership to the European Union (EU) was delayed after Catalonia’s independence, Catalan products would have lost the privilege of unrestricted access to the EU market.

This newly independent state would have lost the leverages of entering into the EU member states’ markets as a free trade zone – a leverage its commercial products enjoy now as Spanish products.

Duties on Catalan goods and services would have been imposed not only by Spain, but also by other EU member states. Moreover, in times of economic disasters, Catalonia could not have called upon the help of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the European Central Bank (ECB).

Continue Reading

Europe

What Do We Need To Know About Brexit: What Is Happening Now?

Anosh Samuel

Published

on

European Union is a political and economic partnership of 28 European countries. The idea came up soon after the World War 2 that countries which trade together are less likely to get into a war with each other and consequently their economic growth is also fostered. EU has its own parliament and defined rules of the environment, consumer rights, transport, and common currency “EURO” used by 19 of the member states.

There had been no mechanism for any country to exit EU. However, article 50 of the Treaty on European Union introduced a procedure for any member state to leave or exit the EU. It was enacted by Treaty of Lisbon, which holds the signatures of all EU countries and it became a law in 2009. In this Treaty there are five short passages stating that;a) any member state can decide to leave the EU, b)the leaving country shall notify the EU of its plans and intentions, c) there are two years to reach an agreement except if member states unanimously decide to extend this period, d) the withdrawing member cannot participate in discussion of European Council, and lastly e) a request of rejoining the EU will be entertained with subject to the article 49.

Plebiscite In Uk

There have been 11 plebiscites held in the UK since 1973 and majority of them are linked to the devaluation. In 1975, first ever plebiscite was demonstrated in the United Kingdom, but that was subjected tothe continued membership of European Union. Now,a referendum took place on June 23rd, 2016 regarding the membership of UK in European Union, when UK voted to leave EU. It was named as BREXIT, but what does the term BREXIT actually mean? To answer this, it is a shorthand axiom of UK leaving the EU by merging two terms Britain and Exit. Alike, the Greek exit from the eurozone in 2012-2015 was dubbed as GREXIT. Let’s get to know the referendum breakdown across the UK: England voted to leave EU by 54pc and 46pc; Wales also voted for Brexit by 53pc in favor and 47pc against. However, in Northern Ireland 56pc of citizens backed staying in EU, the same thing happened in Scotland as turn out was 62pc.Since then, Theresa May, a former home secretary took over the prime minister office after David Cameroon resigned from the premiership.

Economy Of UK Since Brexit Vote

The senior parliamentarians and David Cameroon envisaged an immediate economic crisis if UK voted to leave EU. The value of pound slumped very next day after referendum but it regained its losses real soon. Immediate predictions of catastrophe were proven wrong as the economy of UK grew by 1.6% in 2016. It was near to Germany’s 1.9pc amongst leading G7 industrialized nations. The growth rate remained stagnant in 2017. According to Office for National Statistics figures, an increase in inflation was observed after June 2016 but it eased to stand at 2.5pc. Unemployment has fallen to nearly a forty-year low of 4.3pc.

Hard And Soft Brexit Means

The terms ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ are used during debates on account of UK exit from European Union. Generally, they give a notion of the proximity ofUK’s relations with EU post-Brexit, but there is no such definition of these terms. Soft Brexit is interpreted as acceptance of free movement of people in a single market. Whereas on contrary to this, hard Brexit contains no compromise of UK with respect to the free movement of people even if destined to leave single market. The question prompt up here is that what is Single Market?

The Single Market of European Union allows the free movement of money, services, and goods within the EU, as it is a single nation. People are allowed to land a job or set up their own business within EU zone. A common law-making is needed to certify that commodities are manufactured with same standards and enforce rules to certify a standard level. The idea of the single market was proposed to create employment opportunities, boost trade, and lower the prices. The advocates of the Single Market view it as an achievement. Great Britain already had a membership of free trade area in Europe prior to joining “common market.”Free trade area is not a single market since member states do nor amalgamate their economies but member states can trade without paying duties.

Theresa May’s Stance On Brexit

Since the referendum campaign Theresa May was against the Brexit but later she said it is what our people wish for, with her key comment “Brexit means Brexit.”A process to leave EU then triggered on March 29, 2017, while plans for Transition Period have been outlined by her after Brexit in a speech in Italy. She surprised everyone by calling an election on June 8, 2017, and opined that she wants to strengthen her hands in Brexit talks with leaders of Europe.

Transition Period

The transitional period is the time span after March 29th, 2019¬¬¬ to December 31st, 2020, to permit businesses and everything in place for the moment when new rules between EU and UK will begin after post-Brexit. The features and particulars to develop new relationship would also be hammered out.EU wants to endure the free movement during the transition period. The United Kingdom will be pulling out of its own trade deals.

Negotiations

Brexit negotiations officially have begun on June 19, 2017. The first tasks in EU summits were to get an agreement after Brexit on the rights of EU and UK expatriates. They were to decide a figure that the UK will have to pay to while leaving so-called ‘Divorce Bill.’ A breakthrough deal in Brexit talks reached on December 8 and now the UK and EU have shifted to discuss the permanent post-Brexit relationship.

What Is Happening Now And How Long It Will Take For Britain To Exit EU

Despite few political factions striving to halt the happening of Brexit. The government of the UK and main political party in opposition stood in favor of Brexit. They are centering their eyes mainly on a post-Brexit relationship with EU. The UK’s scheduled time for leaving the EU is on March 29, 2019, at 11 pm UK time. The EU and UK have conditionally consented on three issues so-called “divorce issues”, how much United Kingdom owes the EU, what happens to citizens of European Union residing in the United Kingdom and vice versa, and lastly, what happens to the border of Northern Ireland. Such discussions will lead to smoother future affairs and implementation of negotiated deals after Brexit.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy