Connect with us

Europe

Italy vs France: War of elites over “yellow vests” and Libya

Published

on

The disputes, which regularly flare up between the current governments of France and Italy are important for Russia, since the ideological rift between President Emmanuel Macron and the ruling Italian coalition of Matteo Salvini and Luigi Di Maio has, among other things, have direct bearing on this country. However, there is more to these disagreements than just different views about the role played by Moscow, which Paris sees as purely negative, and Rome – as causing sympathy and even inspiring hope.

Paris and Rome disagree also about the “yellow vest” protests as well as about a settlement in Libya, where France and Italy are vying for the role of the main peacemaker in the war-torn North African country. Let us take a closer look at the root causes of these disagreements.

Ever since his election in 2017, President Emmanuel Macron, has represented the European Union’s globalist “mainstream” of today’s European Union, blaming the current failures of the Old World on the suddenly increased influence of “nationally oriented” populists and, last but not least, Russian “schemes.”

During his election campaign, Macron brought up the issue of Russia’s “malicious interference” into European politics, accusing the Russian media of “illegally influencing the elections” with its negative coverage of his person.  Since the start of the politically damaging “yellow vest” protests that flared up at the end of 2018, the Macron administration has been trying hard to  blame them down on “Moscow’s hand” allegedly lurking behind both these protests, and also Brexit.

Meanwhile, the Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini views Russia’s role as positive and denies having taken “a single ruble” from Putin, despite repeated claims to the contrary by The Financial Times and other European mainstream media outlets.

In January 2019, however, it became clear that there was more than just dissatisfaction with the new “environmental” tax that triggered the “yellow vest” protests. People vented their anger also at the EU’s globalist policy, namely financial austerity, mass immigration to Europe and, above all, the essentially undemocratic nature of the European Union’s present structure, which ignores the “protest” results of elections and referendums (Brexit, the Dutch vote against Ukraine’s association with the EU, the electoral gains achieved by the “anti-system” Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France, etc.)

Fully aware of this, the leaders of Italy’s ruling parties openly sided with the “yellow vest” protesters.

“I support honest citizens protesting against a president who governs against his people,” Matteo Salvini, who combines the posts of Deputy Premier and Interior Minister with that of the leader of the Italian League party, said in a statement on January  9, 2019.

In his swipe at President Macron, Salvini was supported by his partner in the ruling coalition, the leader of the Five Stars Movement (M5S), Luigi di Maio, who called on the ”yellow vests” not to “weaken,” and offered French protesters the use of his party’s Rousseau platform to improve organization and “draw up an electoral program.”

“This system (Rousseau) is made for a horizontal and spontaneous movement such as yours and we would be happy if you want to use it,” Di Maio wrote in a post on his party’s blog.

Summing up the conflict simmering behind those provocative statements, the pro-European Commission EU Observer online newspaper wrote: “Macron attacks Salvini as the leader of the EU front, while Salvini acts as the leader of the whole league of forces against the EU. And all this – on the eve of the upcoming elections to the European Parliament.”

The Macron administration sought to present criticism from the “populist” Italian coalition as an unprovoked PR attack by one EU member on another, with European Affairs Minister Natalie Loiseau urging her Italian colleagues to “show respect” for France and emphasizing that France and Italy have always been “neighbors, allies, and friends.”

“France refrains from lecturing Italy. Mr. Salvini and Mr. Di Maio would be better off putting their own house in order,” Loiseau tweeted earlier this month.

“I believe that the main priority for the Italian Cabinet should be the welfare of the Italian people. And I’m not sure that its interest in the yellow vests movement has anything to do with the wellbeing of the Italians,” she added.

Salvini and Di Maio immediately lashed back at these stinging remarks, accusing the French leadership of hypocrisy. And with pretty good reason too, as Macron’s team did tell a lie when it said it had always behaved correctly towards Italy. Most recently, Macron was all too happy to lambaste the Italian “populists’” position on migration issue, while heaping praise on his own political correctness.

As it turned out, however, last summer’s incident with the migrant ship Aquarius, which tried to bring 629 asylum seekers from North Africa and the Middle East to Italy, was fresh on Matteo Salvini’s mind. When the Italian government denied the Aquarius the right to dock, Emmanuel Macron accused the Italian authorities of irresponsibility and even compared them to “leprosy spreading throughout Europe.” (Notably, the formation by the Five Star Movement and the League of the new Italian coalition government in 2018, shortly before the incident with the Aquarius, caused serious ideological concerns among globalists also because the Italian government’s draft “contract” provided for the immediate lifting of anti-Russian sanctions.)

“Maybe Mrs. Loiseau has forgotten that President Macron once compared us to leprosy when commenting on our government… The French people are asking for change and for recognition,” Matteo Salvini said.

“What hypocrisy!” Luigi Di Maio chimed in, adding that the real leprosy was the policy pursued by the French government, namely its predilection for pursuing a “colonialist” line in Africa, causing an influx of migrants from Africa heading towards Europe and leaving Italy to cope with this problem alone.

All this is adding a new twist to the Franco-Italian conflict that has been dragging on since summer over ways to handle the migrant crisis. While in summer Matteo Salvini accused Emmanuel Macron of hypocrisy over the migration problem, advising him to let in “thousands of migrants, as Italy did” before lecturing Rome on humanism, the sides are now at loggerheads over the entire “European project,” the relations with Russia, the austerity policy, etc. The scale of this conflict is widening now that, according to the EU Observer, Di Maio plans “to bring together left- and rightwing anti-system voters across Europe who are in favor of preserving the union, but are against austerity policies.”

Another important point of contention is primacy in the Libyan settlement. Emmanuel Macron’s May 2018 attempt to bring the leaders of all the main conflicting parties in Libya together in Paris was openly frowned on by Rome, which held an international conference on Libya in Palermo, Sicily that brought together 38 delegations with the list of guests including the Libyan National Army Commander, Khalifa Haftar, the head of the rival government in Tripoli, Faiz Saraj, the Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi. During the conference, the Italians openly tried to shut the French out of important decisions.

The Palermo meeting was a clear diplomatic victory for Rome, which, unlike Macron, who was quick to announce his success and upcoming peace in Libya through highly improbable early elections, the Italians set themselves more pragmatic tasks in Libya than just achieving immaculate democracy and quick prosperity. Matteo Salvini believes that the first thing to do is to end illegal migration and set up a network of independent and non-corrupt migrant identification centers.

Of course, while contemplating all these factors, Russian observers should avoid looking at the situation from the standpoint of whether the French or the Italians are closer to Russia. What is now happening between the French and Italian elites is an ideological dispute, rather than an interstate conflict. It just so happened that Italy’s position in the dispute is more realistic and better attuned to taking into account Russia’s interests – a position that is now being shared by an ever growing number of voters across the European Union.

Therefore, Russia has every right to take this position closer to heart than that of the globalists, which the current French president happens to epitomize. Because accusations by Macron and his globalist friends of “Russian meddling” will come anyway, Moscow can and should make its opinion heard. In our day and age, a desire to “please everyone” and avoid criticism by sitting on the ideological fence is viewed upon as a sign of weakness.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

The Leaders of the Western World Meet

Published

on

The annual meeting of the G7 comprising the largest western economies plus Japan is being hosted this year by the United Kingdom.  Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister has also invited Australia, South Korea, South Africa and India.  There has been talk of including Russia again but Britain threatened a veto.  Russia, which had been a member from 1997, was suspended in 2014 following the Crimea annexation.  

Cornwall in the extreme southwest of England has a rugged beauty enjoyed by tourists, and is a contrast to the green undulating softness of its neighbor Devon.  St. Ives is on Cornwall’s sheltered northern coast and it is the venue for the G7 meeting (August 11-13) this year.  It offers beautiful beaches and ice-cold seas.

France, Germany. Italy, UK, US, Japan and Canada.  What do the rich talk about?  Items on the agenda this year including pandemics (fear thereof) and in particular zoonotic diseases where infection spreads from non-human animals to humans.  Johnson has proposed a network of research labs to deal with the problem.  As a worldwide network it will include the design of a global early-warning system and will also establish protocols to deal with future health emergencies.

The important topic of climate change is of particular interest to Boris Johnson because Britain is hosting COP26  in Glasgow later this year in November.  Coal, one of the worst pollutants, has to be phased out and poorer countries will need help to step up and tackle not just the use of cheap coal but climate change and pollution in general.  The G7 countries’ GDP taken together comprises about half of total world output, and climate change has the potential of becoming an existential problem for all on earth.  And help from them to poorer countries is essential for these to be able to increase climate action efforts.

The G7 members are also concerned about large multinationals taking advantage of differing tax laws in the member countries.  Thus the proposal for a uniform 15 percent minimum tax.  There is some dispute as to whether the rate is too low.

America is back according to Joe Biden signalling a shift away from Donald Trump’s unilateralism.  But America is also not the sole driver of the world economy:  China is a real competitor and the European Union in toto is larger.  In a multilateral world, Trump charging ahead on his own made the US risible.  He also got nowhere as the world’s powers one by one distanced themselves.

Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen is also endorsing close coordination in economic policies plus continued support as the world struggles to recover after the corona epidemic.  India for example, has over 27 million confirmed cases, the largest number in Asia.  A dying first wave shattered hopes when a second much larger one hit — its devastation worsened by a shortage of hospital beds, oxygen cylinders and other medicines in the severely hit regions.  On April 30, 2021, India became the first country to report over 400,000 new cases in a single 24 hour period.

It is an interdependent world where atavistic self-interest is no longer a solution to its problems.

Continue Reading

Europe

Revisiting the Bosnian War

Published

on

Genocide is not an alien concept to the world nowadays. However, while the reality (and the culprit) is not hard to profile today, history is ridden with massacres that were draped and concealed from the world beyond. Genocides that rivaled the great warfares and were so gruesome that the ring of brutality still pulsates in the historical narrative of humanity. We journey back to one such genocide that was named the most brutish mass slaughter after World War II. We revisit the Bosnian War (1992-95) which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 100,000 innocent Bosnian citizens and displaced millions. The savage nature of the war was such that the war crimes committed constituted a whole new definition to how we describe genocide.

The historical backdrop helps us gauge the complex relations and motivations which resulted in such chaotic warfare to follow suit. Post World War II, the then People’s Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina joined the then Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. Bosnia-Herzegovina became one of the constituent republics of Yugoslavia in 1946 along with other Balkan states including Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. As communism pervaded all over Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina began losing its religion-cultural identity. Since Bosnia-Herzegovina mainly comprised of a Muslim population, later known as the Bosniaks, the spread of socialism resulted in the abolition of many Muslim institutions and traditions. And while the transition to the reformed Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1963 did ease the ethnic pressure, the underlying radical ideology and sentiments never fully subsided.

The Bosniaks started to emerge as the majority demographic of Bosnia and by 1971, the Bosniaks constituted as the single largest component of the entire Bosnia-Herzegovina population. However, the trend of emigration picked up later in the decades; the Serbs and the Croats adding up to their tally throughout most of the 70s and mid-80s. The Bosnian population was characterized as a tripartite society, that is, comprised of three core ethnicities: Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. Till  1991, the ethnic majority of the Bosniaks was heavily diluted down to just 44% while the Serbian emigrants concentrated the Serbian influence; making up 31% of the total Bosnian population.

While on one side of the coin, Bosnia-Herzegovina was being flooded with Serbs inching a way to gain dominance, the Yugoslavian economy was consistently perishing on the other side. While the signs of instability were apparent in the early 80s, the decade was not enough for the economy to revive. In the late 80s, therefore, political dissatisfaction started to take over and multiple nationalist parties began setting camps. The sentiments diffused throughout the expanse of Yugoslavia and nationalists sensed an imminent partition. Bosnia-Herzegovina, like Croatia, followed through with an election in 1990 which resulted in an expected tripartite poll roughly similar to the demographic of Bosnia. The representatives resorted to form a coalition government comprising of Bosniak-Serb-Craot regime sharing turns at the premiership. While the ethnic majority Bosniaks enjoyed the first go at the office, the tensions soon erupted around Bosnia-Herzegovina as Serbs turned increasingly hostile.

The lava erupted in 1991 as the coalition government of Bosnia withered and the Serbian Democratic Party established its separate assembly in Bosnia known as ‘Serbian National Assembly’.  The move was in line with a growing sentiment of independence that was paving the dismantling of Yugoslavia. The Serbian Democratic Party long envisioned a dominant Serbian state in the Balkans and was not ready to participate in a rotational government when fighting was erupting in the neighboring states. When Croatia started witnessing violence and the rise of rebels in 1992, the separatist vision of the Serbs was further nourished as the Serbian Democratic Party, under the leadership of Serb Leader Radovan Karadžić, established an autonomous government in the Serb Majority areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The vision and the actions remained docile until the ring of independence was echoed throughout the region. When the European Commission (EC), now known as the European Union (EU), and the United States recognized the independence of both Croatia and Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina found itself in a precarious position. While a safe bet would have been to undergo talks and diplomatic routes to engage the Serbian Democratic Party, the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović failed to realize the early warnings of an uprising. Instead of forging negotiations with the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosniak President resorted to mirror Croatia by organizing a referendum of independence bolstered by both the EC and the US. Even as the referendum was blocked in the Serb autonomous regions of Bosnia, Izetbegović chose to pass through and announced the results. As soon as the Bosnian Independence from Yugoslavia was announced and recognized, fighting erupted throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Bosnian Serbs feared that their long-envisioned plan of establishing the ‘Great Serbia’ in the Balkans was interred which resulted in chaos overtaking most of Bosnia. The blame of the decision, however, was placed largely on the Bosniak president and, by extension, the entire ethnic majority of the Bosniaks. The Bosnian Serbs started to launch attacks in the east of Bosnia; majorly targeting the Bosniak-dominated towns like Foča, Višegrad, and Zvornik. Soon the Bosnian Serb forces were joined by the local paramilitary rebels as well as the Yugoslavian army as the attacks ravaged the towns with large Bosniak populations; swathing the land in the process. The towns were pillaged and pressed into control whilst the local Bosniaks and their Croat counterparts were either displaced, incarcerated, or massacred.

While the frail Bosnian government managed to join hands with the Croatian forces across the border, the resulting offense was not nearly enough as the combination of Serb forces, rebel groups, and the Yugoslavian army took control of almost two-thirds of the Bosnian territory. The Karadžić regime refused to hand over the captured land in the rounds of negotiations. And while the war stagnated, the Bosniak locals left behind in small pockets of war-ravaged areas faced the brunt in the name of revenge and ethnic cleansing.

As Bosniaks and Croats formed a joint federation as the last resort, the Serbian Democratic Party established the Republic Srpska in the captured East, and the military units were given under the command of the Bosnian-Serb General, Ratko Mladic. The notorious general, known as the ‘Butcher of Bosnia’, committed horrifying war crimes including slaughtering the Bosniak locals captured in violence, raping the Bosniak women, and violating the minors in the name of ethnic cleansing exercises. While the United Nations refused to intervene in the war, the plea of the helpless Bosniaks forced the UN to at least deliver humanitarian aid to the oppressed. The most gruesome of all incidents were marked in July 1995, when an UN-declared safe zone, known as Srebrenica, was penetrated by the forces led by Mladic whilst some innocent Bosniaks took refuge. The forces brutally slaughtered the men while raped the women and children. An estimated 7000-8000 Bosniak men were slaughtered in the most grotesque campaign of ethnic cleansing intended to wipe off any trace of Bosniaks from the Serb-controlled territory.

In the aftermath of the barbaric war crimes, NATO undertook airstrikes to target the Bosnian-Serb targets while the Bosniak-Croat offense was launched from the ground. In late 1995, the Bosnian-Serb forces conceded defeat and accepted US-brokered talks. The accords, also known as the ‘Dayton Accords’, resulted in a conclusion to the Bosnian War as international forces were established in the region to enforce compliance. The newly negotiated federalized Bosnia and Herzegovina constituted 51% of the Croat-Bosniak Federation and 49% of the Serb Republic.

The accord, however, was not the end of the unfortunate tale as the trials and international action were soon followed to investigate the crimes against humanity committed during the three-year warfare. While many Serb leaders either died in imprisonment or committed suicide, the malefactor of the Srebrenica Massacre, Ratko Mladic, went into hiding in 2001. However, Mladic was arrested after a decade in 2011 by the Serbian authorities and was tried in the UN-established International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY). The investigation revisited the malicious actions of the former general and in 2017, the ICTY found Ratko Mladic guilty of genocide and war crimes and sentenced him to life in prison. While Mladic appealed for acquittal on the inane grounds of innocence since not he but his subordinates committed the crimes, the UN court recently upheld the decision in finality; closing doors on any further appeals. After 26-years, the world saw despair in the eyes of the 78-year-old Mladic as he joined the fate of his bedfellows while the progeny of the victims gained some closure as the last Bosnian trail was cased on a note of justice.

Continue Reading

Europe

Greece And Yugoslavia: A Brief History Of Lasting Partitions

Published

on

Prior to the 1992-1995 Balkan war, the European Community delegated the British and Portugese diplomats, Lord Carrington and Jose Cutileiro, to design a suitable scheme for ethno-religious partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in February 1992 they launched the Lisbon Conference, with the aim of separating Bosnian ethno-religious communities and isolating them into distinct territories. This was the initiation of the process of partition, adopted in all subsequent plans to end the war in Bosnia. However, such a concept was stipulated by Carrington and Cutileiro as the only available when there was no war to end, indeed, no war in sight; and, curiously, it has remained the only concept that the European Community, and then the European Union, has ever tried to apply to Bosnia.

Contrary to the foundations of political theory, sovereignty of the Bosnian state was thus divided, and its parts were transferred to the three ethno-religious communities. The Carrington-Cutileiro maps were tailored to determine the territorial reach of each of these communities. What remained to be done afterwards was their actual physical separation, and that could only be performed by ethnic cleansing, that is, by war and genocide. For, ethno-religiously homogenous territories, as envisaged by Carrington and Cutileiro, could only be created by a mass slaughter and mass expulsion of those who did not fit the prescribed model of ethno-religious homogeneity. The European Community thus created a recipe for the war in Bosnia and for the perpetual post-war instability in the Balkans. Yet, ever since the war broke out, the European diplomatic circles have never ceased claiming that this ‘chaos’ was created by ‘the wild Balkan tribes’, who ‘had always slaughtered each other’. There was also an alternative narrative, disseminated from the same sources, that Russia promoted the programme of ‘Greater Serbia’, which eventually produced the bloodshed in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Facts on the ground, however, do not support either of these narratives. All these ‘tribes’ had peacefully lived for centuries under the Ottoman and Habsburg empires, until nationalist ideas were imported into Serbia and Greece at the beginning of the 19th century. On the other hand, Russia’s influence in the Balkans could never compete with the influence of the Anglo-French axis. The latter’s influence was originally implemented through the channels of Serbian and Greek nationalisms, constructed on the anti-Ottoman/anti-Islamic and anti-Habsburg/anti-Catholic grounds, in accordance with strategic interests of the two West European powers to dismantle the declining empires and transform them into a number of puppet nation-states. In these geopolitical shifts, nationalist ideologies in the Balkans utilized religious identities as the most efficient tool for mobilization of the targeted populations and creation of mutually exclusive and implacable national identities.

The pivotal among these nationalist ideologies has been the Serb one,  built on the grounds of Orthodox Christianity, with its permanent anti-Islamic and anti-Catholic agenda. The existence and expansion of Serbia was always explicitly backed by London and Paris – from a semi-autonomous principality within the Ottoman territory in the 1830s and the creation of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1882, through the 1912-13 Balkan wars and World War I, to its expansion into other South Slavic territories in the form of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia), promoted at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919.

Eventually, the Serbian elites – supported by the Anglo-French axis, again – used the dissolution of the communist Yugoslavia as an opportunity for implementation of the 19th-century ‘Greater Serbia’ programme, that is, Serbia’s expansion in all the Yugoslav territories populated by the Orthodox Christians. However, this time ‘Greater Serbia’ was used as a catalyst in a bigger geopolicial reshuffling advocated by the UK and France – the simultaneous implementation of four ethnnically homogenous greater-state projects, including ‘Greater Serbia’ (transferring the Orthodox-populated parts of Bosnia, plus Montenegro and the northern part of Kosovo, to Serbia), ‘Greater Croatia’ (transferring the Catholic-populated parts of Bosnia to Croatia), ‘Greater Albania’ (transferring the Albanian-populated parts of Kosovo and Macedonia to Albania) and ‘Greater Bulgaria’ (transferring the Slavic parts of Macedonia to Bulgaria).

Since 1990s, ethno-religious nationalisms in the Balkans have served only  this geopolitical purpose – creation of ethno-religiously homogenous ‘greater’ states, including the disappearance of Bosnia and Macedonia, whose multi-religious and multi-ethnic structure has been labelled by the British foreign policy elites as “the last remnant of the Ottoman Empire“ that needs to be eliminated for good. The only major foreign power that has opposed these geopolitical redesigns is the US, which has advocated the policy of inviolability of the former Yugoslav republics’ borders. Yet, the US has never adopted a consistent policy of nation-building for Bosnia and Macedonia, which would be the only one that could efficiently counter the doctrine of ethno-religious homogeneity promoted by the UK and France and supported by most EU countries.   

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending