Connect with us

Europe

The Queen’s Last Ball?

Avatar photo

Published

on

With a little imagination, the annual Munich Security Conference can be presented as a big social event or royal ball in one of Alexander I’s or Louis XVIII’s European palaces. Just like at a grand ball, great importance is attached to details here, the invitees gossip and exchange rumours, and, on occasion, they even find solutions to extremely important problems. Why was the jumped-up gasbag Count N invited to the ball this year, while the genius and brilliant dancer Marquise NN was not? What were the well-known schemer Baron Z and the rising military General Z whispering about in the corner all that time? And, as a matter of fact, “dost thou know the lady in the crimson cap who with the Spanish envoy speaks?”

As in any ritual honed over the course of decades, everything in Munich is important — the order of the speakers, the time allotted for each session, the status of the moderator, the language preferences of the speakers and much, much more. A significant portion of the activities takes place outside the official program and is not recorded by “uninitiated” observers.

For example, even among the journalists who were present, hardly anyone paid attention to the intricate machinations that were taking place within the rather large delegation from the United States Congress. We are referring here to the search for a political successor to John McCain, that is, for someone who would replace the late Arizona senator as the informal leader of U.S. lawmakers in international affairs. It would seem that the circle of candidates has narrowed considerably, with Republican senator Lindsey Graham (one of the masterminds behind the latest package of sanctions against Russia) taking pole position. However, we will not find out the winner until the next Munich Security Conference.

Attendees at this year’s conference were wondering why such stars of previous editions as Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May were absent this time round. And why did Alexander Lukashenko and Benjamin Netanyahu get cold feet at the last minute? I was particularly disappointed by Netanyahu’s absence — his extremely moving speech, which included props (he showed part of the wreckage of an Iranian drone shot down by the Israeli Air Force), was one of the hits last year. One person who was there, however, was the Israeli Prime Minister’s eternal enemy — Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, who delivered a speech with his characteristic brilliance.

The most anticipated speakers did not bring any real surprises. Vice President of the United States Mike Pence delivered a speech in the style of an evangelical pastor from his native Indiana, urging obstinate allies to discard their heretical doubts and follow President Trump on every single issue without exception — from counteracting Nord Stream 2 to withdrawing from the multilateral nuclear deal with Iran. The European Union was criticized for its indecisiveness regarding Venezuela: not all of the United States’ European allies have stated their distrust of Nicolás Maduro and recognized Juan Guaidó as the country’s interim president. And China was admonished for its unfair trade practices. Pence also hinted at the impermissible behaviour of Ankara in its decision to enter into military-technical cooperation with Moscow.

The American preacher was repeatedly applauded for his eloquence, at least by the first few rows, which were made up of representatives of the United States and NATO. However, judging from the reaction of everybody else in the conference hall, most of the heretics had no interest in being told off like little children and continued to dig their heels in and hold on to their pernicious delusions. The overall impression was that the Atlantic split continued to deepen, despite the desperate attempts of the political elites on both sides of the Atlantic to halt the process.

Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov was restrained and concise. With his whole appearance, Lavrov demonstrated that his main aim in Munich was not just to publicly state Russia’s positions once again, but to engage in closed bilateral consultations with Russia’s main partners. Rumour has it that his meeting with his German counterpart Heiko Maas and a group of leading German businesspeople was extremely productive. All the more so, as he was joined at the meeting by such pillars of Russian business as Herman Gref and Aleksey Mordashov.

Many were eagerly awaiting the outcome of the consultations between Sergey Lavrov and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan Tarō Kōno. According to leaks, the two had a lively, and even stormy, discussion, although no progress in the way of concluding a peace treaty was made. Although it is worth saying here that such a meeting would not have even taken place in principle if it were not for the efforts of Vladimir Putin and Shinzō Abe.

Lavrov’s laconicism at the podium in Munich was compensated to a certain degree by his deputy. At the session on nuclear arms control, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Ryabkov looked more convincing, in my opinion, than his counterpart, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Andrea Thompson.

Russia’s standout achievement in Munich was the holding of the Primakov Readings at the conference. I cannot recall a single occasion in the past where Russia was given its own platform at the Munich Security Conference. Credit must be given here to the President of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Dynkin for his energy and perseverance in getting the event to happen, as well as to Wolfgang Ischinger for his political integrity in giving the Russian side such an opportunity.

However, perhaps the most impressive speech was given by the host of the conference, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel. Merkel was the true queen of the Munich ball; there was even chatter on the side-lines of the event to the effect that it was the best speech of her long political career. That, of course, is open to argument. I remember another rousing speech she gave at the 51st Munich Security Conference in February 2015.

At that time, Merkel had just returned from a trip to Kiev and Moscow, where she and President of France François Hollande had held exhausting negotiations with Petro Poroshenko and Vladimir Putin on how to put an end to the hostilities in Donbass. Merkel had an urgent flight to catch to Washington, where she had talks with Barack Obama, and a few days later, she was at the historic meeting in Minsk to sign the Minsk II protocols. At the 2015 conference, the German Chancellor looked extremely troubled and visibly tired, yet absolutely convinced in both the desirability and the possibility of preventing bloodshed. She had metal in her voice, the audience hung on her every word, a dead silence reigned in the conference hall and not a single person, it seemed, had any doubts about who the real leader of Europe was.

At the 2019 Munich Security Conference, Merkel looked great. She spoke freely, rather than reading from a script, reacting in a lively manner to the audience and not shying away from difficult questions or resorting to diplomatic ambiguities. Most importantly, she touched upon what most of the people in the audience had long been waiting for. The German Chancellor unequivocally reaffirmed Germany’s candidacy for leader of Europe and, more importantly, outlined a course for Europe to achieve “strategic autonomy” from the United States.

All the “red lines” were clearly marked out. Continuing the energy partnership with Moscow. Preserving the multilateral nuclear deal with Tehran. Opposing the course taken by Washington towards trade wars. Condemning the erosion of U.S.–Russia control over nuclear weapons. Adhering to the letter and spirit of the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation. Focusing on multilateralism as a fundamental principle of Germany’s foreign policy.

While the U.S. Vice President was applauded almost exclusively by those VIPs sitting in the front rows of the Hotel Bayerischer Hof conference hall, the German Chancellor’s speech was met with a prolonged ovation from everyone in the hall. Merkel deftly touched what we might call the “main” nerve of the European political process, and she said exactly what most of the people in the hall — Germans and other Europeans — had been waiting to hear.

Of course, there were also sceptics among the participants. There always are! Some were saying on the side-lines of the event that, now Merkel had left her post as leader of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and was nearing the end of her political career, she could afford herself more liberties than she had done in the past. The suggestion was made that the Chancellor’s speech should be viewed in the context of the upcoming elections to the European Parliament in May, where the European Union’s traditional parties will face an unprecedented challenge from non-systemic nationalists and right-wing populists. Others even argued that the 2019 Munich Security Conference was the “queen’s last ball,” and her speech was not so much a program for the Chancellor’s further work as it was a political bequest to her successor.

We do not know, and perhaps Angela Merkel does not know either whether the 2019 Munich Security Conference was indeed the “queen’s last ball.” We do not know when the veteran of European politics will leave her residence in the government quarter in Spree Bend and start penning her memoirs. The question remains open as to how far Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer or another probable successor will preserve the Chancellor’s political legacy: after all, Merkel herself was once seen as a pale and unimpressive shadow cast by the majestic figure of Helmut Kohl.

What we can say for sure is that, right now, Russia does not have a more reliable, more predictable and more significant partner in Europe, or in the West as a whole. And this despite the fact that Angela Merkel is a difficult and uncompromising partner who is far more demanding of Moscow than, for example, her immediate predecessor Gerhard Schröder. But, as one Frenchman said many years ago, “one can rely only on that which provides resistance.”

It would be wrong to prematurely place Merkel in the category of “lame duck.” On the contrary, serious progress in Europe–Russia relations, the conditions for which may appear as early as this year, would be a worthy and well-deserved finale to the long and difficult political life of one of the most prominent European statespersons of the early 21st century, Angela Dorothea Merkel.

First published in our partner RIAC

Europe

“The starry heavens above me…”* A plea for awareness and peace

Avatar photo

Published

on

*Immanuel Kant: “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” 

In the neighborhood with Russia

Who is actually aware today where the border of the former German Empire was once located? Or how far to the northeast the village of Nimmersatt and the nearby coaching inn Immersatt actually lay?   Nimmersatt was located at the northern tip of East Prussia, surrounded by the Baltic Sea to the west and Russia to the east and north. Russia – then Russian Lithuania – was our direct neighbor until 1918. The Memel territory was traditionally Prussian borderland, 120 km long and 40 km wide, stretching north along the Memel River. In 1422, the Treaty of Melnosee established the frontier, which remained almost unchanged until 1920. After the Pyrenean border, it is the second oldest in Europe.

Source: : de-academic.com

Located on the imperial border, Nimmersatt was the former German Empire’s most northeastern spot and was last in German hands in 1945.[1] Like Nimmersatt, there are many seemingly vanished places and landscapes in historic eastern Germany. But they have for the most part disappeared. These places bear witness to the fact that many Germans, consciously or unconsciously, are still deeply rooted in these seemingly vanished landscapes.

The German soul is closely connected with the East and its territories, especially with Germany’s historical East, including East and West Prussia and the Memel territory.

According to estimates, about 14 million refugees had to leave their homes after the Second World War, losing everything, all their belongings. About 2 million died in transit, and Germany lost a quarter of its territory.

As Simone Weil (1909–1943) once put it: “Rootedness is probably the human soul’s most important and most misunderstood need.”

Crises, conflicts and silver lining

If you look at today’s world, you see crises everywhere, wars and deep divisions in our societies. Fears are being fueled and images of “the enemy” that were actually long forgotten are being revived. The war that has been raging in Ukraine since 2014 has now escalated on the European continent into a proxy war between the United States and Russia. Russia is being declared the enemy. With its arms deliveries and military support,[2] Germany has also officially entered into the war with Russia.

What immeasurable suffering wars visit on mankind – a painful truth also understood by members of Germany’s “war generation” and their descendants, especially those with roots in Germany’s historical East. Germans and Russians look back on a common and consequential past; we share one of history’s darkest and most horrible chapters, beginning with Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 and the subsequent conquest of East Prussia by the Red Army.

Whatever happened, a shared history connects peoples, and Germans and Russians will therefore always be connected

Civilians are and always have been the ones who suffer most in war. During the Second World War, from 1939 to 1945, the Soviet Union had the most casualties: 24 million people,[3] 14.3 million of them civilians. Germany had a total of 7.7 million casualties, of which 2.2 million belonged to the civilian population.

In her old age, Mama, my mother, could still recall the terrifying whistling sound of the rocket launchers known as “Stalin organs.”[4]  During thunderstorms and when fireworks were being shot off, she would begin to shiver and sought shelter. Yet despite all the war trauma, the attachment to Germany’s historical East is part of the German soul and an integral part of the German cultural nation. Not for nothing was I christened Katja. Mama and my grandmother often affectionately called me “Katjuscha”[5] in their East Prussian dialect – a reference to the old Russian folk song.

The horrible sound of the Stalin organs was eventually forgotten. Bridges of reconciliation between Russians and Germans were built in large numbers after World War II, something that fortunately continues to happen.

Having left the Cold War behind us, which divided the world into good and evil or West and East, the world is evolving into a more complex, multipolar place – a multipolar world that could again give humanity a chance to create a new global world order of peaceful coexistence.

This might be possible were it not for the US, which seems to be resisting a multipolar world with all its might: The US wants to continue to assert its supremacy and influence worldwide. It has basically never withdrawn from Germany, and does not accept any other powers on the world stage. This US influence is expressed above all in the strategies of NATO and the EU, since they again rely on images of Russia and China as “the enemy” and on exclusion and division.

Shaktarp – when life comes to rest

The “Fifth Season” – Shaktarp in Lithuanian or, in Russian, Rasputitsa – is a special time, between the winter and spring season. It is the time of floods, of inundated meadows. This time was also called the time of “roadlessness” – the Memel territory and neighboring lowlands were neither passable, nor navigable during this period.[6] Life and people came to rest and there was thus time for reflection. Perhaps this is what our world sorely needs now.

It seems to me just the right time to pause, to rediscover and feel the magic of life. A magic that comes from looking at a piece of amber through which the sun is shining. Often found near the Baltic Sea, amber continues to fascinate people to this day. Sometimes known as the tears or gold of the gods, amber was once an important commodity, more valuable than gold, and it made its way across Europe on ancient trade routes from the Baltic Sea to Southern Europe and North Africa – one of the beginnings of globalization, or, rather, of the bonds that bring people together.

In addition to the Silk Road, the Amber Road has connected people, drawing them under the spell of this magical substance, which shines brighter than the sun.[7]

“States don’t have friends, states only have interests”

The observation made in 2013 by Egon Bahr, the German politician known for a commitment to peace and détente, remains true today: “International politics is never about democracy or human rights. It is about the interests of states. Remember that, no matter what they tell you in history class.[8] Otto von Bismarck and Charles de Gaulle, among others, have also pointed out that feelings and values have no place in politics. Only “interests and reciprocity should be used as a guideline.”[9]

Therefore, it is more important than ever to accept realities and define national interests. Values are volatile and often subject to the current zeitgeist. For example, no one called for a “feminist values-based foreign policy” until a German foreign minister from the Green Party did so. The much “cited community of values is not a form of governance, as it has not been legitimized by any democratic process.” [10]

We have been living in a multipolar world for a long time, with different forms of governments, democracies, dictators and authoritarian regimes.  But our international institutions and organizations, which were created after the Second World War, have not been updated.

According to a study by The Economist in 2021, only 45% of the world’s population lives in countries with democratic structures.[11] The ostensibly promising narrative of “change through trade” has not come to fruition. The expansion of economic relations with China that began in 1978 has been driven solely by economic gain. Even today, China offers a huge market for foreign products. The expansion of economic relations and the opening of the country in turn has helped move a significant part of the Chinese population out of poverty, and China’s technological backwardness has been quickly overcome. Both sides, the West and China, were and still are exclusively concerned with economic interests and geopolitical influence in Eurasia.

What is new, among other factors, is that the military no longer has a monopoly on wars and conflicts. We are increasingly experiencing ideologically fueled media and propaganda wars that deeply divide the population, make factual debates almost impossible, and drive humanity into division and thus into wars.

Ideology prevails over common sense and the heart

Fear and hatred are mighty propaganda tools – e.g., fear of the virus, fear of CO2 and distrust of Russia and China. The laborious and decades-long process of reconciliation between Germans and Russians, among others, has come to a standstill. Not only have economic relations been broken off, but cultural exchange has also come to a halt. Russian artists are being disinvited from performing if they have not publicly taken a clear stand against Putin. Political attitudes have become more important than art, and ideological attitudes are determining economic orientations and political decisions.

China – the surveillance state

The narrative of “change through trade” is now a thing of the past. China continues to pursue its “Grand Strategy.” What were once the dynasties of the Chinese Empire have become – since the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949 – the Communist Party, with current President Xi Jinping as its head, as emperor. In accordance with the “Chinese Dream,” the country is striving to become Number 1 in the world in all areas, including military power.

The drastic end of its zero-Covid policy shows how capable China is. The Chinese government has reacted, in a way that saves face, to the “spontaneous protests” and thus shown strategic flexibility. Thus, Xi Jinping has not only done the Chinese economy a great favor by lifting all Covid measures, he has also cemented his power and the power of the Communist Party. The transformation into a different system, propagated for so long by the West as justification for maintaining economic relations with an authoritarian regime, now seems more unlikely than ever. On the contrary, the Chinese government continues to pursue its strategy and to build a perfectly controlled, highly technological surveillance state.

China thus remains a very flexible economic partner and geopolitical player. This requires an equally flexible China strategy on the part of other countries. Supply chain disruptions must always be taken into consideration, investments in China should be thought about carefully and protected. Potential dependencies in the area of critical infrastructure and products, such as upstream inputs for pharmaceuticals, should always be avoided. Yet this also applies to economic relations with non-authoritarian regimes.

Moreover, dealings with China, economic and political, should be free of emotion, determined only by the relevant economic interests and reciprocity, for the benefit of all concerned parties. The fact is: China continues to go its own way and is a country in which the individual and individual freedoms play a very limited role.

Ideology has great importance in China – an ideology that is not only intended to hold the population together internally, but is the guiding principle externally for every political step on the world geopolitical stage. In dealing with China, one’s own national interests and reciprocity should always be the guiding principle. This applies not only to interactions with China, but especially to those with Russia as well.

We are all connected to each other.

Russia and the German soul

Let’s be realistic: Russia is a nuclear power; economic sanctions will not harm it in the long run as a country that is almost immeasurably rich in raw materials. On the contrary, sanctions allow Russia to diversify its gas market and thus no longer depend on just one customer.

A prime example:  the reactivation of the economic corridor running from China to Mongolia to Russia.[12] Further, the Russian gas pipeline to China will replace Nordstream 2.[13] In the course of securing its energy supply, China wants to keep its energy mix balanced and is thus increasing the share of natural gas. India is also a grateful purchaser of Russian gas.

Something that shows a decoupling from Russia is not so simple is the fact that from January to October 2022, Europe’s LNG imports increased by 40% over 2021. Russian LNG accounted for 16% of total European marine imports, with the main customers being France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands.[14] Instead of low-cost and environmentally friendly pipeline gas, the focus is now on LNG.

The resulting damage is now being felt by Germany in particular, as an industry-intensive and, compared to Russia, resource-poor country. The growing home-made energy crisis is driving deindustrialization in Germany; large companies are increasingly thinking of leaving the country; medium-sized enterprises – once the backbone of the German economy – are increasingly being destroyed; the country’s economic performance is declining; unemployment and poverty are the consequences.

And wasn’t the attack on Nordstream 2 the first terrorist attack against Germany since World War II?

The decisions and actions of the current Federal Government, with Olaf Scholz as Chancellor, are not in accordance with the oath taken “to prevent harm to the German people.”

“I swear that I will devote my strength to the welfare of the German people, increase its benefit, avert harm, uphold and defend the Basic Law and the laws of the Federation, fulfill my duties conscientiously, and ensure justice for all. (So help me God.)”

With or without God’s help, arms deliveries and military support to Ukraine, the homemade energy crisis, the intolerable excesses of gender-neutral language, so-called wokeness, cancel culture and uncontrolled immigration are also destroying not only the German soul, language and culture and putting pressure on the national budget, they are also continuing to widen already deep social divisions. None of this works to the benefit of Germany and the German people.

The power of culture, history and geography

“… the continuity of the state without which Germany would be much poorer – Germany did not come out of nowhere. Prussia was one of the most formative great powers in Europe and one of the most modern states in the world, with its effective administration, literacy down to the last street in the last village, and the rule of law at all levels.[15]

While there were serious political instabilities in the Weimar Republic, as the largest member of the German Empire, Prussia was politically very stable. Otto von Braun,[16] Prussian prime minister from 1920 to 1932 and a diehard Prussian and Social Democrat, reformed the state and school systems. Prussia was thus a “reliable pillar of the Weimar Republic.” But, following the so-called “Prussian blow,”[17] von Braun was removed from office.

The Reich’s control over Prussia, especially over the Prussian police, made it much easier for Adolf Hitler to establish a dictatorial regime in the course of the National Socialist takeover in 1933.[18]

The power of culture and shared history together with geography are enduring cornerstones that provide a strong foundation. “Between Russia and America lie oceans. Between Russia and Germany lies a great history,” wrote historian Michael Stürmer.[19] Vladimir Putin also quoted Stürmer in his speech to the German Bundestag on September 25, 2001.

Building bridges

My unshakable optimism tells me that it is not too late to return to our fundamental power, our culture and history, in order to create a new world order based on peaceful coexistence. What’s more, because of its geographic location, Germany should serve as a bridge between East and West.

Authoritarian regimes can only be changed from within, by their own people. Thus, Germany, too, can only free itself from its shackles from within, leaving behind the seemingly endless moralizing blame game and victimization loop and returning to what we Germans actually are: peace-loving, creative, innovative, technically expert and culturally sensitive.

How else should one interpret the famous “golden 20s” of the early 20th century? Here are some examples: Within a short time and despite the immense reparation claims made by the victorious powers based on the Versailles Treaty of June 28, 1919,[20] defeated Germany became the second most powerful industrial nation after the US – thanks to US credits, because banks in the US had faith in Germany’s economic power.  Further, as the treaty also prohibited motorized flight, some Germans made a virtue out of necessity, tinkered a bit and invented the glider.[21]

The economic basis for Germany’s return to its fundamental strength, to its roots, is first and foremost the need for a drastic reduction in the state administration and the number of its government employees.  The state should return to its original tasks: ensuring there is efficient infrastructure; a high-quality and affordable health-care system; high-quality, affordable and humane care for those in need; an excellent and free system of education; as well as ensuring internal and external security – in keeping with the oath taken to act for the good of the German people.

Changing our view of the world

The press, education and the health-care system, among others, must no longer be subject to competition and profit maximization, and could be transformed instead into foundations, for example.

Only a free press can ensure freedom of opinion and access to the full range of information. The monopoly of state media – such as broadcasters ARD and ZDF – and the ownership of media by billionaires – the Springer, Bertelsmann (Mohn) and Holtzbrinck families, among others – must end to create space for alternative media and sources of information. We need be well informed in order to become critical-thinking people in the sense of Immanuel Kant’s saupe aude.

The education system and especially the health-care system and pharmaceutical companies and their research must not be driven by profit maximization. Hospitals must not be run like businesses – health should be their exclusive concern. Old people’s and nursing facilities should be outfitted with the best possible equipment. The staff should be optimally paid. Profit should not play a role; all efforts should be guided by the desire to help people experience a graceful and respectful end to earthly life.

The divine within us and awareness

In his writings, Jacques Ancel, French geographer and geopolitician, proposed an identity of the heart, and a nation of the heart – the idea that people can connect and create a community based on a common history, language and culture. 

This path back to the heart reconnects us as human beings to the divine. We are all “soul people.” We are spiritual beings that come from the same source. This spiritual or divine expresses itself differently in various cultures and traditions, be it religion, Buddhism, shamanism or a closeness to nature.

We should shift back from the cold rational mind to the feelings of the heart. By doing so, we can create a new world view and a new world order. Such a reconnection to the heart and the divine in us would enable us to look at life and nature with reverence and love once again.

May we all become aware once again of our humanity and the many things that connect us.

Identity of the Heart – Back to the Roots – We Are All Love

References and further reading

Ancel, Jacques (1938):  Géographie des frontières, Gallimard.

Banik, Katja (2022): Im Rausch des Bernsteins – der historische Osten Deutschlands, www.katjabanik.com

Banik, Katja (2021): A clear view eastwards: Russia and Germany, www.katjabanik.com

Banik, Katja (2021): Without roots, no future. Decoupling ideologies, www.katjabanik.com

Bode, Sabine (2009): Kriegsenkel. Die Erben der vergessenen Generation, Klett-Cotta.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew (1998): The Grand Chess Board, Basic Books.

Die Bundesregierung (2022): Krieg in der Ukraine, www.bundesregierung.de

Deutscher Bundestag: Wortprotokoll der Rede Wladimir Putins im Deutschen Bundestag am 25.9.2001.

https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/geschichte/gastredner/putin/putin_wort-244966

Deutsch Historisches Museum (2022): Lebendiges Museum Online, Berlin.

Euractiv (2022): Russia says pipeline to China will replace Nordstream 2.

Dohnanyi, Klaus (2022): Nationale Interessen, Siedler Verlag, München.

Graichen, Hesse (2012): Die Bernsteinstraße. Verborgene Handelswege zwischen Ostsee und Nil, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, Hamburg.

Jähner, Harald (2022): Höhenrausch. Das kurze Leben zwischen den Kriegen. Rowohlt-Berlin.

Kossert, Andreas (2009): Kalte Heimat: Die Geschichte der deutschen Vertriebenen nach 1945, Pantheon Verlag.
Lasch, Otto (1959): So fiel Königsberg, Gräfe und Unzer Verlag.

Namzhilova, Victoria (2022): Economic Corridor China – Mongolia- Russia: Infrastructure in Focus, RIAC.

ostexperte.de, Nachrichten aus Russland und China, Berlin.

Putin, Wladimir (2021): Offen sein, trotz Vergangenheit, Gastbeitrag vom 22.6.2021 in der WochenzeitungDie Zeit.

https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2021-06/ueberfall-auf-die-sowjetunion-1941-europa-russland-geschichte-wladimir-putin/komplettansicht

Pölking, Hermann (2022): Das Memelland. Wo Deutschland einst zu Ende war, bre.bra. verlag, Berlin

RedaktionsNetzwerkDeutschland (2022): www.rnd.de. Hannover.

Statista (2022): https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1055110/umfrage/zahl-der-toten-nach-staaten-im-zweiten-weltkrieg/

Segelflugzeug.org (2022): www.segelflugzeug.org

Teltschik, Horst (2019): Russisches Roulette: Vom kalten Krieg zum kalten Frieden, C. H. Beck.

The Economist (2022): https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/02/09/a-new-low-for-global-democracy?fsrc=core-app-economist?utm_medium=social-

Wagener, Martin (2021): Der Kulturkampf um das deutsche Volk. Der Verfassungsschutz und die nationale Identität der Deutschen, Lau Verlag.


[1] Pölking (2022): Das Memelland. Wo Deutschland einst zu Ende war.

[2] Bundesregierung.de (2022) War in Ukraine.

[3] Statista (2022): https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1055110/umfrage/zahl-der-toten-nach-staaten-im-zweiten-weltkrieg/

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VduZuCsqL00

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acPvvv1gqGg

[6] Pölking (2022): Das Memelland. Wo Deutschland einst zu Ende war.

[7] Graichen, Hesse (2013): Die Bernsteinstraße.

[8] Bahr (2013) Conversation with students, „Willy Brandt Reading Week,” Friedrich Ebert House Heidelberg.

[9] Otto von Bismarck.

[10] Dohnanyi (2021): Nationale Interessen.

[11] The Economist (2022): https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/02/09/a-new-low-for-global-democracy?fsrc=core-app-economist?utm_medium=social-

[12] RIAC (2022): https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/analytics/economic-corridor-china-mongolia-russia-infrastructure-in-focus/

[13] Euractiv (2022): https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/russia-says-pipeline-to-china-will-replace-nord-stream-2-2/

[14] Rnd (2022): https://www.rnd.de/wirtschaft/fluessiggas-aus-russland-europa-importiert-rekordmenge-Y4DHLEMMPFEB5A5VSWZSLTVCD4.html

[15] PAZ, No. 47, 25.11.2022.

[16] German Historical Museum (DHM), https://www.dhm.de/lemo/biografie/otto-braun

[17] DHM, https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/weimarer-republik/innenpolitik/preussenschlag

[18] DHM, https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/weimarer-republik/innenpolitik/preussenschlag

[19] ostexperte.de, https://ostexperte.de/deutschland-und-russland-teil-1/

[20] DHM, Berlin. https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/weimarer-republik/aussenpolitik/versailler-vertrag.html

[21] Glider.org, http://www.segelflugzeug.org/segelflug_geschichte.php

Continue Reading

Europe

The Ukrainian Crisis and its Impact on the European Security Governance and Global Legal Order

Avatar photo

Published

on

Emergency services are working around the clock to deal with the consequences of Russia`s strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure. (file photo). Photo from the State Emergency Service of Ukraine

Authors: Abhinav Mehrotra and Amit Upadhyay*

As the attack on Ukraine continues by the Russian Military, there is a need to understand the continued impact of such attacks on global governance and legal order. The illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories has been one of the most shocking incidents affecting the world order since World War II ended. It sets a dangerous precedent for all independent nations formerly part of big empires from asserting their own identity as sovereign nations as per international and domestic norms.

Historically, the modern Ukraine crisis began with Nikita Khrushchev’s 1954 transfer of Crimea from the Russian Socialist Federal Republic to the Ukrainian Socialist Federal Republic in order to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Ukraine-Russia unification. The crisis further extenuated during the 1990s after the disintegration of the USSR, when the Western leaders understood that Russia must not be labelled as a defeated state. It was in this background that the West was to assume responsibility to develop post-Cold War structures, processes, perceptions, and activities by balancing the European nation’s interests and promoting democratic and liberal values, alongside keeping Russia within the framework.

Further adding to the complexity was the fact that NATO, under the US leadership, developed a complicated architecture where NATO’s integrated military command structure would be preserved. The aim was to develop close relationships with the European countries that later took the form of the European Union. Surprisingly, during these deliberations, the United States and other NATO nations never took into consideration the fact that it may be Russia’s will to remove the NATO like the Warsaw pact and have an equal role in developing a new institution for ensuring security.

Nonetheless, the act of a nation ie Russia exercising control over the political decision-making of another independent nation ie Ukriane  with the objective to retain in its influence using force undermines various key principles of international law. It is argued by Russia that the West including the European Union (“EU”) has failed to understand Russia’s security interests whereas the EU argues that a serious diplomatic effort is necessary to re-establish the core principles of the European political order which Russia so far have failed to do.

What needs to be understood  is that for Russia, the defiance in the post-Soviet Union era world order can be traced to the act of taking Pristina airport with paratroopers in 1999 based on a presumed occupation by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which is similar to the ongoing Ukrainian Crisis where NATO’s eastward expansion has been cited as the reason for anticipatory self-defense

Cut to the present, the annexation of Crimea, aggression against Ukraine and the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories by Russia have far-reaching implications for European and global security. It challenges certain basic assumptions underlying the western policy in the post-Cold War era of treating Russia more as a partner than an adversary and considering Europe essentially stable and safe from invasion. The lack of an EU strategic framework to deal with security challenges in relation to Russia. EU needs to have a more robust defence posture requiring it to revisit its defence strategies especially when the possibility of Russian aggression against other European states cannot be excluded. The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) responsible for supporting revised security policies has been insufficient as Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence is seen as essential indicator for future European security governance. The CSDP sought autonomy from North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (“NATO”) to have Europeans provide for their own security as a strategic doctrine, but it has since generated limited autonomous military capacity.

In this context, there is need to analyse to what extent Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is based on the assertive defence of its interests in its neighbourhood inspired by a revisionist challenge to the European rules-based system of security governance and how it impacts global order. The need of the hour is to see how International Community, States and Multilateral Institutions respond to Russia’s actions to provide the balance between the requirements of European security and the resources available to support it as International law is dealing with the unique challenge posed by Russia’s defiant behaviour including the acts of claiming exclusive rights and privileges; the need to claim a higher position in the international social hierarchy due to diminished reputation and importance, relative to other nations; and a belief that all these actions are necessary for national prestige, security and wealth

Going forward, the United Nations Security Council and other multilateral institutions need to be democratized to accommodate the differing views considering contemporary geopolitical realities. The inclusive collective security institutions are the need of the hour, and they should be accountable to the international legal framework for inclusive global governance.

*Amit Upadhyay is an  Associate Professor at O.P. Jindal Global University and holds an LL.M.  in European and International Law from Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany. His research interests include Constitutional Law, Legal Theory and Human Rights.

Continue Reading

Europe

European Union: Refugees’ Right to Seek Asylum & The Principle of Non-Refoulement

Avatar photo

Published

on

migrants refugees
file photo: IOM/Amanda Nero

Since the establishment of the United Nations, the protection of refugees has been a major priority for the global community. Refugees and anyone in need of protection might use the aid that the States were offering them via the asylum route. These national asylum systems, however, sometimes lacked effectiveness and offered uneven access to the asylum processes. The European Union has been working to create a Common European Asylum System to address this issue by harmonizing the asylum policies and practices of its Member States and streamlining the review of asylum applications. It did this by relying on the pre-existing body of international law, which was controlled by the Rules of the Refugee Convention, 1951 and the Non-Refoulement Principle. The resultant European law on asylum was not an autonomous legal system but rather one that was strongly related to international humanitarian law on refugees. The adoption of uniform laws and asylum processes has shown how difficult it has been for the European Union to come up with policies to handle its migrant and refugee populations. The European Union has been attempting to implement a basic border patrols at the same time in order to stop international crime and illegal immigration.

Procedure for granting the Right to Asylum & Conditions for the Principle of Non-Refoulement:

Numerous steps in the realm of diplomatic and defence policy, in addition to border control and security, were designed to stop illegal immigration[1]. The goal behind the European Security and Defence Policy [ESDP][2] was to prevent as many migrants and asylum seekers from attempting to enter Europe by participating in military and civilian operations in crisis zones throughout the globe. All of these tools have the indirect effect of limiting refugees’ and asylum seekers’ access to the European Union while being designed to manage migration. Even yet, the European Union has created a number of political and legal tools to safeguard these same refugees and asylum seekers, demonstrating its steadfast commitment to upholding human rights and international agreements[3].

For those who manage to cross the border into Europe, the processes to be given refugee status in one of the EU nations were sometimes difficult and took a considerable amount of time. The wide variety of asylum systems and regulations that prevailed across Member States was to blame for this. However, during the last several years, the European Union has made significant strides toward harmonizing the asylum process and has come to an agreement on a set of rules and principles to reduce the differences between the Member States in the area of asylum[4]. As a result, a European Refugee and Asylum Law was created and the issue of asylum was included into the legal system of the European Union. In addition, implementing the whole acquis[5] on asylum has become a requirement for nations wishing to join the European Union.

The legislation governing refugees and asylum seekers in the European Union has undergone continuous development. The development of a Common European Asylum System, which had to juggle the disparate legal frameworks of the Member States with the international standards of refugee protection established by the 1951 Refugee Convention, posed the biggest challenge to the European Union in the area of asylum. All of the nations that make up the European Union have ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention and adhere to its asylum regulations[6]. The application of Article 63 of the 1951 Refugee Convention establishing the European Community is essential to the right to asylum in the European Union. Non-Refoulement, a fundamental tenet of international refugee law, was first stated in terms of EU legislation in Paragraph 13 of the Presidency Conclusions of the Tampere European Council in October 1999. It would be fascinating to learn the social and cultural factors that influence migrants’ decision to settle in Europe and how that continent handles the resulting cultural blending. Many migrants and asylum seekers look to Europe as a model of economic advancement, democratic government, and observance of human rights. However, immigrants may pose an economic and cultural burden from a European perspective. Refugees and asylum seekers must be given social aid, shelter, and possibly work by the nation offering them sanctuary[7]. Additionally, it must deal with cultural issues like the assimilation or integration of immigrants, who can find it difficult to fit into the new society. The activities of numerous agencies and organizations working in this area, as well as the steps the media has done, to analyse the sociological and cultural perspective must be examined to have a better and wider view point to get the solutions of this issue pertaining to asylum seekers[8].

Therefore, political and economic approaches must be connected. Given the financial crisis, certain European nations may easily alter their stance on immigration. Due to their inability to support both immigrants and a rise in the number of jobless citizens, Member States may be forced to tighten immigration policy as a result of the financial crisis. On the other side, the financial crisis may make immigration easier by giving States access to inexpensive skilled labour. Disadvantaged people, like refugees and asylum seekers, would no longer be a burden on nations, but rather a valuable economic resource[9]. It is unknown which alternative the nations will choose. These may be found in a number of rulings, including:

  1. In the case of Elgafaji v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie, application of Article 15(c) 1951 Refugee Convention regarding provision of subsidiary protection to civilians who might face indiscriminate violence upon repatriation.
  2. In the case of Salahadin Abdulla and Others v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, the issue at hand was the interpretation of Article 11(1) (e) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which dealt with the termination of refugee status when the conditions that had given rise to it ceased to exist.
  3. In the case of Bolbol v. Bevándorlási és llampolgársági Hivatal, interpretation of Article 12(1) (a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention on the exclusion of people protected by organs or agencies of the United Nations other than UNHCR from the refugee status.
  4. In the Cardoza-Fonseca case, the American Immigration and Naturalization Service denied a Nicaraguan woman’s request for asylum because she was unable to show a demonstrable risk of persecution if she were sent back to her native country. The respondent attempted to petition for asylum and avoid deportation even though she was living in the country unlawfully because she had a legitimate fear of being persecuted. According to the US Supreme Court, a significant difference should be established between a clearly probable persecution and a well-founded fear of persecution when determining whether to grant refuge. In this instance, the Nicaraguan lady sought both asylum and a stay of removal based on the same ground, a well-founded fear of persecution, oblivious to the fact that the two requests were distinct and required separate justifications.
  5. The House of Lords established the same in the case of R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department that there had to be demonstrated a reasonable degree of likelihood that he would be so persecuted, and in determining whether the applicant had made out his claim that his fear of persecution was well founded, the Secretary of State could take into account facts and circumstances known to him or established, the court stated. This implied that there had to be a substantial danger of persecution in the applicant’s place of origin in order for them to dread returning there and request refuge.
  6. In Korablina v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1998, US Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit), which illustrates the circumstances of a Jewish Ukrainian lady who endured persistent acts of religious prejudice in her country of nationality, is an important case law on the acts of persecution. The Court comes to the opinion that persecution may be established by repeated, particular acts of violence and harassment directed against a person and her family members, including acts committed by both the government and a group it has chosen not to exert authority over.
  7. In A and Another v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Another (1997, Australia High Court) details the case of a Chinese couple with one child who requested asylum in Australia on the grounds that they belonged to a social group and would face persecution and forced sterilization if they were sent back to the People’s Republic of China. This case is another important one on the relationship between discrimination and persecution. A form of persecution must be involved for the prejudice to qualify, and it must be motivated by the victim’s race, religion, nationality, political views, or membership in a specific social group. According to this expansion of the Refugee Convention, persecution and discrimination have a shared basis, such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a specific social group.
  8. In Attorney General of Canada v. Ward, 1993 case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, the mention of state protection is made. This case demonstrates that if a state fails to provide for the protection of its citizens, those citizens may experience a well-founded fear of persecution and seek refuge in other nations. If the claimant’s fear has been proven, one is entitled to assume that persecution will likely occur and that the fear is well-founded if there is a lack of state protection.

There is no question that these notions are completely interrelated, despite the fact that they may sometimes be deceptive. But creating a set of requirements to limit the number of migrants entering its frontiers through the asylum procedure is the major problem for the State.

Conclusion:

The UNHCR and other international and non-governmental organizations’ findings must be taken into consideration before a decision is made to move a person to another country, which is the biggest obstacle for EU Member States in effectively implementing the principle of Non-Refoulement. For the concept of Non-Refoulement to be completely recognized and effectively used, the nation to which a person is exiled must be secure, both in theory and in reality. Asylum seekers are given temporary protection under the subsidiary status as well as under the temporary status. The Member State that provided the asylum seeker with protection may decide that it is safe to send him back to his home country when the conditions that prompted him to leave his country change, without thoroughly examining whether his nation is indeed safe in reality and not only in principle. Thus, the asylum seeker may be sent back to dangerous nations in violation of his right to Non-Refoulement if a circumstance like this emerges.

While the majority of Member States have embraced the European acquis on refugee and asylum issues, some have been less receptive to the harmonising of the European asylum system and have preferred to be guided by their national law when dealing with refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, evacuated populations, or people in need of international protection. Additionally, policies pertaining to asylum and to freedom, security, and justice are recognized as shared capabilities between the Union and the Member States, which means that Member States are allowed to exercise their competence to the degree that the Union has not done so. In other words, the Member States have the authority to take the necessary actions independently even if the Union has enacted a number of measures related to the question of asylum. We can confirm that a European refugee and asylum law is unquestionably being created by including the subject of asylum in the main European Treaties and by taking a number of steps toward the creation of a Common European Asylum System.


[1] Chapter 1, par.1 of the Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, available at < http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c39e1.html > [accessed on 1st October, 2022].

[2] Daniel Warner, “Migration and Refugees: a challenge for the 21st century”, in Jean-Yves Carlier, Dirk Vanheule, Europe and Refugees: a challenge? Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1997, p. 58.

[3] UNHCR, 2009 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons, Division of Programme Support and Management, 15 June 2010, p.2, available at [accessed on 1st October, 2022].

[4] Walter W. Skeat, The concise dictionary of English etymology, Wordsworth Editions, Ware, Hertfordshire, 1993, p.164.

[5] Sadako Ogata, “Refugees in the 1990s: Changing Reality, Changing Response”, lecture at Georgetown University on 25 June 1991, in Eduardo Arboleda, Ian Hoy, “The Convention Refugee Definition in the West: Disharmony of Interpretation and Application”, in Selina Goulbourne, Law and Migration, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 1998, p. 77.

[6] Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Recommendation 773 (1976) on the situation of de facto refugees, 26 January 1976 < http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta76/EREC773.html > [accessed on 1st October 2022].

[7] Maria-Teresa Gil-Bazo, “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Right to be Granted Asylum in the Union’s Law”, in Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol.27, issue 3, 2008, pp.33-52.

[8] Eduardo Arboleda, Ian Hoy, “The Convention Refugee Definition in the West: Disharmony of Interpretation and Application”, in Selina Goulbourne, Law and Migration, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 1998, p. 72.

[9] Liza Schuster, The use and abuse of political asylum in Britain and Germany, Frank Cass Publishers, London, 2003, p.3

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Eastern Europe27 mins ago

A turning moment in Ukraine Crisis

Germany’s decision to send tanks to Ukraine is a major moment in the Ukraine Crisis. It will have a far-reaching...

st st
Economy2 hours ago

Free-Market Capitalism and Climate Crisis

Free market capitalism is an economic system that has brought about tremendous economic growth and prosperity in many countries around...

Diplomacy6 hours ago

The Dilemma of Science Diplomacy: Between Advancement of Humanity and The Source of Rivalry

In the past decades, science and technology have gained more ground in foreign affairs decision making processes. The emergence of...

people art people art
Russia9 hours ago

Context and Practice of International Politics: Experience in 2022 and Expectations from 2023

The dramatic events of 2022, centred on the military-political conflict between Russia and the West over the Ukrainian issue, are...

Finance11 hours ago

Blue Economy Offers Opportunities for Sustainable Growth in Tunisia

With support from the World Bank, in June 2022, Tunisia launched its first report on the status of the blue...

Reports13 hours ago

Global growth forecast to slow to 1.9% in 2023

Senior UN economists warned on Wednesday that intersecting crises are likely to add further damage to the global economy, with...

World News15 hours ago

War games will take place off Durban between South Africa, China and Russia

South Africa’s government has finally shown its colours by inviting Russia and China for war games next month, London’s ‘Daily...

Trending