Xi Jinping’s historic visit to Italy on March 21–23, 2019 was marked by the signing of a memorandum on Italy’s joining the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. Despite the fact that 13 other EU countries have signed similar memorandums with China, the significance of Italy’s decision cannot be overstated, as it is the first G7 country and the first founding member of the European Union to officially confirm its readiness to participate in Silk Road projects.
Ever since Undersecretary of State at the Italian Ministry of Economic Development Michele Geraci announced the imminent signing of the document on March 5, 2019, warnings have flooded in from Brussels and Washington about the possible consequences of such a rash step. On March 6, U.S. National Security Council Spokesman Garrett Marquis said that the actions of the Italian government would end up harming Italy’s global reputation in the long term. Similar statements could be heard coming out of Brussels. On the eve of Xi Jinping’s visit, President of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani said that Italy was committing a grave mistake and that “selling ‘Made in Italy’ does not have to mean giving up your sovereignty to the Chinese.” As European leaders try desperately to form a common line of defence against China’s penetration into strategic sectors of the European economy in the run-up to the EU–China Summit on April 9, Italy is again showing no signs of European solidarity.
“I am convinced that Italy must respect its Atlantic allies and always fulfil its obligations. However, it may also choose how and where to go. We need to make a choice consciously and responsibly,” Deputy Prime Minister of Italy Luigi Di Maio said in the Five Star Movement blog in response to the alarmist signals coming from the United States. “I hope that the League adheres to the same principles, because I have seen various positions over the past few days, some of them shaped by what other countries want and not for the benefit of Italy.” “Today,” the Deputy Prime Minister continues, “the idea of ‘Made in Italy’ wins. With the Belt and Road Initiative, Italy has made the decision to be more sovereign… It is not a political union with China, but rather a business opportunity. The United States remains our main ally, and NATO continues to be our home. But the Belt and Road Initiative is a step forward for Italy.”
According to Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, Italy’s participation in the Silk Road project is completely in line with the country’s membership in NATO and the European Union, since it is not a political union, but simply the possibility of trade and economic cooperation. What is more, by interacting with Beijing, Rome is determined to get its new partner to adopt European standards and norms in the bilateral relationship.
“The main task is to help Italian companies develop and expand exports to China comparable to that of France and Germany… Clearly, Italian security is of paramount importance to us, which is why we will analyse and assess extremely carefully what is going on in sectors that are of strategic importance for Italy and its allies – telecommunications, energy, ports and infrastructure. The security of the Italians comes first, followed by economic interests,” claims the League, so as not to scare its alarmist-minded electorate.
“I want to control the strategic sectors, to ensure national security. Because the keys to the house should belong to the Italian people,” Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini stresses. Minister of Foreign Affairs Enzo Moavero Milanesi has traditionally tempered the discourse, assuring Italy’s European partners that it will act in line with EU documents and decisions, with the understanding that issues of security are a priority for all EU member countries. But the leader of Forza Italia, Silvio Berlusconi, does not share the enthusiasm of the current government, calling China a “communist and totalitarian” country “that seeks both economic superiority and political hegemony.” A fierce discussion is raging in the Italian media about the benefits and risks of the new partnership with China.
The idea of building up cooperation with China is not new. Paolo Gentiloni’s cabinet worked actively on developing ties with the country. Italy’s new “government of change” contains at least two people who actively support deepening cooperation with China, namely Minister of Economy and Finances Giovanni Tria and Undersecretary of State at the Italian Ministry of Economic Development Michele Geraci.
When he was still a student at the University of Rome, Giovanni Tria studied the success of the Chinese economy, and in the late 1970s he had the opportunity to observe the initial results of the economic transformation in Beijing first hand. His first official visit as Minister of Economy and Finances was to China. Michele Geraci is very familiar with China, having lived there for over ten years. According to Giovanni Tria, the new stage of relations between Italy and China will not only provide them with new opportunities to expand cooperation in sectors of mutual interest, but will also allow Italy to become a champion of developing cooperation between the European Union and China in addressing the key issues of globalization and international cooperation. In other words, Italy wants to significantly increase its role in the dialogue between the European and China, taking the initiative and positioning itself as a driving engine in the process. Despite the fact that 13 EU countries have already signed similar memorandums with China (Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia), they are, as far as Italy is concerned, peripheral countries that carry little weight in the EU economy and are incapable of becoming drivers of EU–China cooperation. Unlike Italy, which after Brexit will be the third largest economy in the European Union and which, moreover, is one of its founding members.
Geraci also acknowledges the desire to take the initiative in the dialogue, emphasizing that it is a matter of tactics: “Italy should feel more free than the other 27 EU member countries. China prefers bilateral cooperation and does not like to wait for the approval of the EU, which often takes a long time. That’s why we need to take the initiative… The does not mean circumventing Europe, but rather leading it and showing it the way forward.” According to Geraci, Italy has much to learn from China: how to achieve GDP growth of 9.5 per cent; how to save 900,000 people from poverty; how to increase the income of the rural population from $130 per capita to $13,000 per capita; how to effectively control internal migration, which makes up 15–20 million people per year in China, etc. Italy, for its part, should become the main European terminal of the Maritime Silk Route. However, in order to avoid becoming a “terminal to nowhere,” Italy must help China build the land section of the Silk Road, including in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
According to Geraci, the Italian government faces two main tasks in terms of ensuring the country’s economic interests: attracting investments (and if willing investors can be found, the relevant agreements need to be put in place as soon as possible) and increasing exports (where small and medium-sized enterprises need help to start exporting their goods to China). To be sure, China has invested heavily in Italy, although mostly in the form of mergers and acquisitions and the purchase of shares, rather than setting up new projects and enterprises. Accordingly, the government’s task is to reorient the flow of investments in such a way that they help create jobs and increase productivity and, consequently, GDP. Geraci complains that Italian investments have created 50,000–60,000 jobs, while just 2000–2500 have been created in Italy. According to him, China should have a vested interest in this because, in addition to its favourable geographic location, Italy has another important asset, namely, “know-how.”
The Realities of Economic Cooperation: The Balance is not in Italy’s Favour
China is one of Italy’s key foreign trade partners. In 2018, China accounted for 3 per cent of Italy’s total exports, which amounted to approximately 13.7 billion euros. China ranks fourth in terms of Italy’s exports, behind the European Union (55.5 per cent), the United States (9.1 per cent) and Switzerland (4.6 per cent). In terms of Italy’s imports, China is second only to the European Union (7.1 per cent of the country’s total imports). China is the first destination market for Italian exports in the Asia Pacific, and eighth overall. However, the trade balance began to tip in China’s favour in 2001. Despite the fact that the trade balance increased by 7 per cent in 2007, and by a further 9.2 per cent in 2016–2017, it was still not in favour of Italy. As of year-end 2018, Italian exports to China totalled 13.2 billion euros, while imports from China amounted to 30.8 billion euros. Italy is the third-largest importer of Chinese goods in the European Union, behind Germany and the United Kingdom, and the fourth-largest exporter Behind Germany, the United Kingdom and France. Italy’s share in the Chinese market stands at 1.1 per cent, compared to 1.4 per cent for France and 5.4 per cent for Germany.
Italy wants to significantly increase its role in the dialogue between the European and China, taking the initiative and positioning itself as a driving engine in the process.
In 2000–2018, Italy was among the main targets of China’s purchases” alongside the United Kingdom and Germany, with Italy attracting 15.3 billion euros, compared to the United Kingdom’s 22.2 billion and Germany’s 46.9 billion. China is the United Kingdom’s second-largest importer and exporter and the largest importer and exporter for Germany. According to analysts at the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI), Brexit could have a positive effect on these dynamics for the European Union, given the fact that the United Kingdom can no longer act as an entry point for investments into the EU markets.
Chinese capital is already penetrating into Italian infrastructure facilities. For example, China’s COSCO Shipping has owned 40 per cent of the shares in the Vado Ligure terminal on Italian Riviera since 2016, with another 9.9 per cent of shares in this terminal belonging to the Port of Qingdao in China. Chinese investors are also interested in the ports of Genoa and Savona, where an agreement is expected to be signed with Chinese Communications Construction Company (CCCC). There is talk about the implementation of the “Trihub” project in Trieste on the Adriatic coast. China Merchants Group is expected to invest in the project. The giant CCCC intends to make a huge financial outlay (approximately 1.3 billion euros) on the construction of the Port of Venice. Remaining in the Adriatic, China Merchant Group invested 10 million euros in the Port of Ravenna in 2018. Chinese have become shareholders in recent years in a number of companies that are key for the Italian economy, including FCA Italy S.p.A., Telecom Italia, Enel, Generali, Ansaldo Energia, Cdp Reti, among others. In 2015, China National Chemical purchased Pirelli, one of the world’s largest tyre manufacturers. More recently, the famous Italian brand Candy was purchased by the Chinese giant Haier. However, the number of Chinese “purchases” in the European Union has started to drop over the past two years, which may be due to the latter’s suspicious attitude towards Chinese capital in the context of the trade wars between Washington and Beijing.
It is not so easy for Italian products to break into the Chinese market, however. For example, recent studies carried out by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) show that in 2018, imports of agricultural products from China exceeded exports to China by 35 per cent. One reason for this is that Italian apples, pears and grapes cannot make it onto the Chinese market because of the ongoing trade barriers that are designed to protect national production.
On the whole, however, the history of economic cooperation between Italy and China in recent years has clearly not favoured Italy. Despite the fact that the actual volumes have increased, Italian exports to China went down in 2018, and Rome is clearly not in the economic position to dictate terms to Beijing. According to the European Commission’s most recent forecasts of GDP growth in the EU countries for 2019, Italy is expected to have the worst growth rate of all 28 member states, at just 0.2 per cent, while incoming investments will not increase until 2021.
Connectivity Italian Style: Naivety or Sober Calculation?
On the one hand, Italy’s approach to the Belt and Road Imitative and the prospects for cooperation with China may seem somewhat naïve and even rather bold. According to some experts, the difficult economic situation in the country may make it dependent on Chinese investments, while the experience of Greece and Sri Lanka is confirmation of the fear that the facilities constructed may eventually fall into the hands of the primary investor. The economic situation in Pakistan clearly demonstrates the risk of becoming dependent on China economically. In summer 2018, the new government of Malaysia expressed its dissatisfaction with the terms of its deal on the Silk Road Economic Belt. The experience of Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) countries that signed memorandums on the Silk Road Economic Belt over five years ago shows that exports to China have not increased several times over. What is more, the transport routes did not connect the EAEU as countries of the Union had hoped. And the thousands of new jobs that had been promised to the citizens of Central Asian states never materialized.
The lack of transparent rules of the game. Dumping. The use of “grey” practices by Chinese companies. The absence of guaranteed reciprocity in commerce and investment. The use of business standards that are alien to those in the west. The prevalence of discriminatory practices against foreign companies entering the Chinese market. This is just a small list of the risks that come hand in hand with Chinese investments. And it would seem that the Italians are all too aware of this. So, what exactly is Rome hoping for?
In the run-up to the President of the People’s Republic of China visit, a number of Italian media outlets speculated that the purpose of the trip may be to take on a part Italy’s national debt. However, Minister of Economy and Finances Giovanni Tria stated that this was not the case, and that the Chinese investors were there to assess the prospects of purchasing Italian government bonds on the same terms as other foreign investors. In addition, according to Tria, the financial situation in the country had stabilized since the budget had been approved by the European Commission.
Judging by the words of Tria and Geraci, it can be assumed that Italy hopes to reclaim its position as a “protagonist” in determining the European Union’s foreign economic and political priorities. However, the take-it-or-leave-it approach taken by the Italian leadership in its decision to sign a memorandum with Beijing is unlikely to elicit enthusiasm in Brussels about the Italian initiative. What is more, given the desire of Paris and Berlin to form a single EU position on the global stage, the Italian government’s attempt to “run ahead of the train” will hardly be seen as a blessing for the European Union as a whole. And the fact that the Italian government recently backtracked on its decision regarding new rules of the game for foreign investors by not supporting the European Union’s consolidated position on Chinese investments and Huawei effectively reduces the country’s chances of becoming a driver of cooperation with China to zero.
It would seem, however, that Italy was left with no choice, and Brussels certainly shares a portion of the blame for this. The economic situation in the country really is difficult. Meanwhile, the Italian government is openly described as a “leprosy” in Paris and Berlin, and not as a third party in the “tandem” that is constructing a new Europe. Brussels predicts a deepening of the recession, offering no way out of the economic deadlock. Economic cooperation with Russia cannot be intensified because of the sanctions and the risk of an open confrontation with Brussels and Washington if they are ignored. This is why the new partnership with China is the only opportunity available to Italy on which Brussels has not yet defined a categorical position, be it positive or negative. So, Italy has to seize the opportunity while there is still a chance and hope that Washington will put forward a better option at the last minute…
First published in our partner RIAC
Germany and its Neo-imperial quest
In January 2021, eight months ago, when rumours about the possibility of appointment of Christian Schmidt as the High Representative in Bosnia occurred for the first time, I published the text under the title ‘Has Germany Lost Its NATO Compass?’. In this text I announced that Schmidt was appointed to help Dragan Čović, the leader of the Croatian HDZ party, to disrupt the constitutional structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina and create precoditions for secession of the Serb- and Croatian-held territories in Bosnia and the country’s final dissolution. I can hardly add anything new to it, except for the fact that Schmidt’s recent statements at the conference of Deutsche Atlantische Gesellschaft have fully confirmed my claims that his role in Bosnia is to act as Čović’s ally in the latter’s attempts to carve up the Bosnian Constitution.
Schmidt is a person with a heavy burden, the burden of a man who has continuously been promoting Croatian interests, for which the Croatian state decorated him with the medal of “Ante Starčević”, which, in his own words, he “proudly wears” and shares with several Croatian convicted war criminals who participated in the 1992-1995 aggression on Bosnia, whom Schmidt obviously perceives as his ideological brethren. The question is, then, why Germany appointed him as the High Representative in Bosnia?
Germany’s policy towards Bosnia, exercised mostly through the institutions of the European Union, has continuously been based on the concept of Bosnia’s ethnic partition. The phrases that we can occassionaly hear from the EU, on inviolability of state boundaries in the Balkans, is just a rhetoric adapted to the demands by the United States to keep these boundaries intact. So far, these boundaries have remained intact mainly due to the US efforts to preserve them. However, from the notorious Lisbon Conference in February 1992 to the present day, the European Union has always officially stood behind the idea that Bosnia-Herzegovina should be partitioned along ethnic lines. At the Lisbon Conference, Lord Carrington and Jose Cutileiro, the official representatives of the then European Community, which has in the meantime been rebranded as the European Union, drew the maps with lines of ethnic partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, along which the ethnic cleansing was committed, with 100.000 killed and 1,000.000 expelled, so as to make its territory compatible with their maps. Neither Germany nor the European Union have ever distanced themselves from the idea they promoted and imposed at the Lisbon Conference as ‘the only possible solution’ for Bosnia, despite the grave consequences that followed. Nor has this idea ever stopped being a must within their foreign policy circles, as it has recently been demonstrated by the so-called Janša Non-Paper, launched a couple of months ago, which also advocates the final partition and dissolution of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such a plan is probably a product of the powerful right-wing circles in the European institutions, such as Schmidt’s CSU, rather than a homework of Janez Janša, the current Prime Minister of Slovenia, whose party is a part of these circles, albeit a minor one. To be sure, Germany is not the original author of the idea of Bosnia’s partition, this author is Great Britain, which launched it directly through Lord Carrington at the Lisbon Conference. Yet, Germany has never shown a will to distance itself from this idea, nor has it done the European Union. Moreover, the appointment of Schmidt, as a member of those political circles which promote ethnic partition as the only solution for multiethnic countries, testifies to the fact that Germany has decided to fully apply this idea and act as its chief promoter.
In this process, the neighbouring countries, Serbia and Croatia, with their extreme nationalist policies, can only act as the EU’s proxies, in charge for the physical implemenation of Bosnia’s pre-meditated disappearance. All the crimes that Serbia and Croatia committed on the Bosnian soil – from the military aggression, over war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide, up to the 30 year-long efforts to undermine Bosnia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – have always had a direct approval and absolute support of the leading EU countries. During the war and in its aftermath, Great Britain and France were the leaders of the initiatives to impose ethnic partition on the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and now Germany has taken up their role. In such a context, the increasing aggressiveness of Serbia and Croatia can only be interpreted as a consequence of the EU’s intention to finish with Bosnia for good, and Schmidt has arrived to Bosnia to facilitate that process. Therefore, it is high time for the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina to abandon any ilussions about the true intentions of the European Union and reject its Trojan Horse in the form of the current High Representative.
Should there be an age limit to be President?
The presidential elections in Bulgaria are nearing in November 2021 and I would like to run for President of Bulgaria, but the issue is the age limit.
To run for President in Bulgaria a candidate needs to be at least 40 years old and I am 37. I am not the first to raise the question: should there be an age limit to run for President, and generally for office, and isn’t an age limit actually age discrimination?
Under the international human rights law standard, putting an age limit is allowed in the context of political participation under the right to vote and the right to run to be elected. Human Rights Committee General Comment No.25 interpreting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that an age limit has to be based on objective and reasonable criteria, adding that it is reasonable to have a higher age requirement for certain offices. As it stands, the law says that having an age limit for president is not age discrimination, but is 40 actually a reasonable cut-off? National legislations can change. We need to lower the age limit and rethink what’s a reasonable age for President, and not do away with all age limits.
We have seen strong leaders emerge as heads of state and government who are below 40 years of age. Sanna Marin, Prime Minister of Finland, became Prime Minister at 34. Sebastrian Kurz, the Prime Minister of Austria, was elected at 31. Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand, assumed her position at 37. So perhaps it is time to rethink age limits for the highest offices.
The US has plenty of examples where elected Senators and Congressmen actually beat the age limit and made it despite the convention. The age limit for Senator in the US is 30 years old. Rush Holt was elected to the US Senate at 29. In South Carolina, two State Senators were elected at 24 years old and they were seated anyways. The age limit for US president is 35 years old.
In Argentina, the age cut-off is 30. In India, it is 35. In Pakistan, it is 45 years old. In Turkey, it is 40 years old. Iceland says 35 years old. In France, it is 18.
Generally, democracies set lower age limits. More conservative countries set the age limit higher in line with stereotypes rather than any real world evidence that a 45 year-old or 55 year-old person would be more effective and better suited to the job. Liberal countries tend to set lower age limits.
40 years old to be a President of Bulgaria seems to be an arbitrary line drawn. And while it is legal to have some age limits, 40 years old seems to be last century. Changing the age limit for president of Bulgaria could be a task for the next Bulgarian Parliament for which Bulgarians will also vote on the same date as they vote for President.
Without roots, no future. Germans and Russians – Decoupling ideologies
Krieg ist das Ergebnis einer falschen Politik und sein Erbe Not und Elend.1 (From Gestrüpp meines Lebens, a diary kept by my grandfather, Helmuth Banik)
…next – Prussia, family roots and identity of heart
Cultural diversity or universal uniformity? Peaceful co-existence of nation-states or institutional global governance with international organizations and their sphere of influence gaining more and more ground, even in everyone’s private life? Which future will be ours?
Roots, earth and homeland—while unearthing the deepest parts of my family history and, at the same time, German history, my uninhibited view of my Prussian roots continues to pave my way towards a new future. Our world today is on the verge of a new beginning. It is up to us to decide which way humanity will go in the future. An individual’s identity is complex and has many layers that need to be uncovered. So, too, is our world: complexly composed of many layers that need to be uncovered for its roots to be revealed—as there is no future without roots.
Thus, it is necessary to decouple from all ideas and ideologies that have long determined political activity around the world. Let us start with Russia and Germany, since their destinies are forever linked; historically, culturally and geopolitically.
“I have sympathy toward the German people; my ancestors came to Russia from Westphalia under Peter the Great. Great nations can stay dormant for some time, but they always wake up!” Quote from a Russian friend
Sapere aude! In the spirit of Immanuel Kant, the great philosopher of Königsberg, let us reinvent and imagine the world in which we want to live!
Without Russia, not a better world in sight
The world, but especially the European Union (EU), is at a crossroads. The old structures and beliefs of the current governance seem to be collapsing before our very eyes. How simple was yesterday’s world. The enemy, namely Russia, was in the East. A bipolar world vision, divided between “the good” and “the bad.”
In the West, the EU with its main ally, the United States, represents the good world, an ideal world—in short, the world of the G7. Countries with a democratic system under the rule of law in which freedom is one of the fundamental values: All other countries in the world are measured and judged according to this ideal, especially if they want to enter this “club of the free world.”
And now? What has become of this G7 world? The measures taken to fight the pandemic were lockdown and other more or less draconian actions that deprived a large part of the world’s population of their fundamental rights, whatever the political regime or national culture. This is the cruel reality of a uniform crisis management policy that is visibly shared by democracies and authoritarian regimes. The main characteristics of this policy are the intransigence of clinging to the rule of the political-economic elites and, with that, the absolute will to remain in power and control communications and, as such, the population. The boundaries separating democracies and authoritarian regimes are disappearing, and a uniform technocratic world without identity is emerging. Propaganda—in this case, the massive communication of fear and hatred—is getting a second wind, this time not on a national level but on a global institutional scale. Moreover, it seems to be accompanied by a new Cold War strategy: According to an EU strategy paper, China is classified as a “systemic rival” (ecfr.eu 2020) and, together with Russia, is considered a new challenge to NATO by the Biden administration (Le Figaro 2021).
And the Russian president? Vladimir Putin always keeps the door for cooperation wide open, as he makes clear in “Offen sein, trotz Vergangenheit,”2 the recent article published in Die Zeit in which he states: “Ich möchte noch einmal betonen: Russland plädiert für die Wiederherstellung einer umfassenden Partnerschaft zu Europa.”3
Moreover, the opportunities offered by the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) do not seem to be taken into consideration. On the contrary, the G7 initiative to “Build Back a Better World” (B3W) is an alternative to the BRI. Conflict instead of cooperation. Yet, we should keep in mind: It is not possible to have a better world without integrating Russia.
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski in Between Two Ages: America’s role in the technotronic era)
Humanity’s ultimate battle
There is an urgent need to continue questioning the sustainability of a power, political system and governance that are global—values and mercantilism, democracy and dictatorship, free market economy and planned market economy, diverse identities and universal uniformity, nation states and institutional global governance.
What future awaits us?
a political system of “universal digital governance,” of total and totalitarian surveillance with a capitalist state economy, that is, a system in which humanity serves the system by constantly adapting to its different benchmarks, a technocratic world order according to Brzezinski,
new political structures that are very much at the service of humankind and that ensure a free and autonomous life for everyone in the spirit of Immanuel Kant’s sapere aude, that is, global governance that ensures a peaceful return to the primacy of humanity, relations and nations, deeply rooted in its own history, a return to cultural diversities and identities, to creation and, thus, a return to the roots.
The geographer and geopolitician Jacques Ancel set the vision of French geopolitics. According to Ancel, man is the creator of global governance, of identities and, subsequently, also the borders of civilizations, where “human groups … reach a harmonious balance and … end up recognizing borders deriving from a common memory, history, culture and language.” It is “a nation of the heart in itself, not rational” (Ancel 1938, Banik 2021).
Neither Germany, nor China, nor the U.S., nor Russia is an isolated paradise. No country can claim to know the absolute truth. Violence, increased global competition (for natural resources, food, water, etc.) and international terrorism are forcing us to face up to the current realities, to abandon any ideology driving ideas such as the European project, socialism with Chinese or even Russian characteristics, or the ideology prevalent in the United States, which styles itself leader of the free world (Banik, 2016, 2019).
Ultimately, it is up to us to decide which path humanity will take.
“Kultur hat nie Grenzen gekannt. Kultur war immer unser gemeinsames Gut und hat die Völker verbunden.”4 Vladimir Putin, 25.9.2001
The big European house
According to Jacques Ancel, “human groups … reach a harmonious balance and … end up recognizing borders deriving from a common memory, history, culture and language.” It is thus important to encourage community spirit and to create human bonds—instead of strategic alliances—of geographical proximity and to overcome ideologies. The only way is to integrate Russia by creating a great pan-European house and, at the same time, taking advantage of the BRI as a link that encompasses the Eurasian region.
Russia and Germany have a common memory and their destiny is forever linked. It is up to Germany to finally assume its responsibility and play the key role in creating this space of peace and security. Integrating Russia is crucial if we are to create new political visions which serve humankind and which ensure a free and autonomous life for everyone.
Geographically, Russia is the largest country in Europe. Geographically, Europe is much larger than the territory of the EU. The EU, and subsequently Germany, must at all costs avoid being caught up in the tension that seems to be developing between China, Russia and the U.S. In case of a military conflict, the major nations will win while the EU will be the main loser. The current danger is the image of the resurgent enemy resulting from the aggressive policy of the Biden administration and the EU towards China and towards Russia. Two almost “military” fronts have thus been created. In fact, the Cold War has never ended but merely changed its guise.
Rise in military spending
According to the Sipri press release of April 26, 2021: “The five biggest spenders in 2020, which together accounted for 62 per cent of global military expenditure, were the United States, China, India, Russia and the United Kingdom. Military spending by China grew for the 26th consecutive year.” China has focused on its navy. It is the second largest military spender after the United States. In 2020, “China’s military expenditure is estimated at $252 billion in 2020, representing an increase of 1.9 per cent since 2019 and 76 per cent since 2011.” (Sipri 2021). “Russia’s military expenditure increased by 2.5 per cent in 2020 to reach $61.7 billion. This was the second consecutive year of growth. Nevertheless, Russia’s actual military spending in 2020 was 6.6 per cent lower than its initial military budget, a larger shortfall than in previous years” (Sipri press release, 26.4. 2021).
From the perspective of the two fronts—“The Chinese Enemy” and “The Russian Enemy”—one must also consider U.S. military spending in 2020, “[which] reached an estimated $778 billion, representing an increase of 4.4 per cent over 2019. As the world’s largest military spender, the USA accounted for 39 per cent of total military expenditure in 2020” (Sipri press release, 26.4. 2021).
In view of the world’s ever-increasing military outlays, it is urgent that we revitalize and reform the instruments already in place, such as the NATO-Russia Council, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the EU-Russia dialogue and the various regional formats such as the Arctic Council. It is worth noting the bilateral agreements of strategic importance between China and Russia in the field of nuclear energy and within the framework of the Polar Silk Road, as well as the importance of the Eurasian Economic Union, in which Serbia, for one, has a free trade agreement.
Towards a uniform, faceless, controlled world?
China’s withdrawal or Chinese deglobalization
China’s 14th Five-Year Plan is the continuation of the country’s efforts to reform and modernize, but the “dual circulation” model also marks an important step towards China’s deglobalization. This “dual circulation” strategy welcomes foreign investment, but only in those products and services that are not (yet) available in China. Therefore, China aims to reduce its economic dependence on foreign countries and focus on building its own capacity. Nevertheless, it also wants to boost bilateral agreements, and is pursuing the BRI. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) follows the same logic, pursuing reinforcement on the geographical and geopolitical level in Eurasia. With the implementation of the RCEP, the largest free trade area in the world is being established. On the other hand,
“China’s FDI in Europe continued to fall, to a 10-year low: Shrinking M&A activity meant the EU-27 and the United Kingdom saw a 45 percent decline in completed Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) last year,…” (Merics 2021).
“Keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”
The United States is pursuing a strategy, particularly in the area of foreign policy, that was initiated by Donald Trump, meaning “America first” when it comes to economic, military and geopolitical issues. American foreign policy is, above all, marked by the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. Note that, contrary to what Trump decided in 2020, Biden has reversed the partial withdrawal of U.S. troops from Germany (Politico 2021). Lord Ismay’s narrative seeking to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down” is still relevant today.
The EU: a theater of conflict between China and the United States
Europeans have an increasingly critical view of China. China is seen as a systemic rival for the EU. The pandemic has exposed problems, including strategic dependence on imports from China. Therefore, the EU wants to remain credible at the international level and is seeking closer cooperation with the West, especially the United States, rather than an adjustment of its economic relations with China independent of the Americans.
Germany uprooted and war trauma
Germany seems to be stuck in a kind of “time loop.” Even though the Berlin Wall has long disappeared, there is still no uninhibited view of an open perspective towards the East, towards Germany’s historical East, especially towards Russia and the chances for cooperation that the country offers. German public opinion is still manipulated. As a result, it remains frozen in distrust of Russia. Further, the experienced war trauma—destruction, displacement and loss of homeland—has disconnected a whole generation from its own history, leading to a partial loss of its own identity. This disconnection has been unconscious, inherited by the descendants.
Towards total surveillance?
Basically, the conflict between the different ideologies and the omnipresence of the “pandemic” in the mainstream media strongly distract our attention from the real battle that has been going on in the background for a very long time.
The battle for world domination is not the conflict between different nation-states, e.g. the U.S., China or Russia, or between different political systems, democracy or dictatorship, but it is the struggle for supremacy by the lobbyists and by international institutions and organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), the EU institutions, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and by the various interest groups and industrial associations that seem to be striving for a uniform, controlled world made of public-private partnerships, without nation-states, without cultural diversity, without a past, without a history, without roots and without identity.
“Smart government” and total surveillance
The advance of artificial intelligence and the 4th Industrial Revolution are visibly shifting geopolitics to geoeconomics. The need for control of international markets prevails over military conflicts. Large technological communication companies, such as social media giants (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), search engines like Google and Baidu, platforms like Amazon and Alibaba, cooperate more and more closely with their respective governments, thus creating public-private partnerships (PPPs). Back when geopolitics prevailed, the state’s sovereignty was ensured by the military control of the country and its borders. Now we see an increasing interdependence and cooperation between different governments, technology companies and large enterprises—“global players,” such as Big Data and Big Pharma. We are clearly heading towards a political system based on the “state economy,” as is already the case in China. In China, the state-owned enterprises, the “national champions,” are playing a predominant role not only in China but also on the international markets. In order to better face the Chinese competition, the EU has also launched a new industrial strategy to support and finance the creation of industrial alliances, a kind of “European industrial champions” (touteleurope.eu 2021)—even if the approach is not uniformly supported within the EU.
With an increasing number of PPPs, the establishment of state capitalism blurs the boundaries between business and government. In China, Russia and the United States, this issue is played out at the national level, while on the European continent it is advanced by the EU institutions. What is insidious is that, thanks to the cooperation between politics and technology companies, the media propaganda effectively supports and feeds this structural change. Thus, fundamental rights and identities are slowly being extinguished in favor of the uniformity of the corporate market.
Roots, identities, nations
Russians, Poles and Germans not only have a common history but shared cultural footprints. This history is a strength and not a weakness. According to Ancel’s vision, these three countries are at the crossroads of arbitrary borders and of borders of civilization. There are, on the one hand, the so-called arbitrary borders, which are more fraught, more strategic borders that have resulted from military pretensions. The borders of civilization, on the other hand, are more permanent as these are based on a common memory, common history and common language arising from a group of humans in equilibrium. The borders of civilization are “nevertheless more complicated because they are the object of numerous political and commercial interpretations”—even if the commercial justifications aim at “clearing a path” and not “enclosing” as the military justifications do (Ancel 1938, Banik 2021). For Russia, Poland and Germany, reconciling the past means “making a path in harmony,” our path back to our shared roots.
According to Ancel, the frontier is “a political isobar that fixes, for a certain time, the equilibrium between two pressures: the equilibrium of mass and the equilibrium of forces” (Ancel 1938). The real problem is not the question of borders. Borders will always exist, even in a globalized world. “There are no problems of borders. There are only problems of Nation” (Ancel 1938). Jacques Ancel argues for mankind as creator. “One does not revise borders, except by force; one modifies minds” (Ancel 1938; Lomnica 1938 foreword).
Quoting Vladimir Putin:
“Und wir können es uns einfach nicht leisten, die Last früherer Missverständnisse, Kränkungen, Konflikte und Fehler mit uns herumzuschleppen. Eine Last, die uns an der Lösung aktueller Probleme hindert.”5 Die Zeit, 2021
Regaining a sense of self
We, the Germans, unfortunately refused to take the hand that Putin extended to us in his speech to the Bundestag on September 25, 2001. The window of opportunity is wide open again. The German people need to reconnect to their entire cultural past. It is up to every German to discover his or her own roots, reconnect to his or her family past, healing the wounds and thus helping Germany to integrate its entire history and become whole again.
Similar to my path back to my Prussian roots, let us take an uninhibited view of our roots and seize this chance in order to create new prospects for German-Russian cooperation.
As Putin said in 2001:
“Ich bin überzeugt: Wir schlagen heute eine neue Seite in der Geschichte unserer bilateralen Beziehungen auf und wir leisten damit unseren gemeinsamen Beitrag zum Aufbau des europäischen Hauses.”6
There will be no better world, especially for Europe, without Russia’s integration into the pan-European house – and no better world if Germany is still cut off from its roots.
…Back to the roots
Specialist in geopolitical issues, doctorate from Sorbonne Nouvelle University;
speaker and guest lecturer on geopolitical, economic and political issues, focusing on Jacques Ancel’s geopolitical vision of “the identity of the heart.”
Author of articles published on moderndiplomacy.eu, russiancouncil.ru (RIAC) and worldscientific.com, and author of the book Les relations Chine-Europe à croisées des chemins, published by L’Harmattan, Paris. Katja is the descendant of ancestors who lived in East and West Prussia. Her family on her mother’s side had to flee from Königsberg in East Prussia in January 1945 and, on her father’s side, from Schneidemühl in West Prussia. She increasingly connects the topics of identities, roots and borders in her geopolitical views.
Visible roots: Kurort Oybin, Germany 2021 and 1955:
Great-granddaughter and great-grandfather Friedrich Herbst
 “War is the result of the wrong policy and its legacy is distress and misery.”
 “Being open, despite the past.”
 “I would like to emphasize once again: Russia advocates for the restoration of a comprehensive partnership with Europe.”
 “Culture has never known borders. Culture has always been our common good and has united peoples.”
 “And we simply cannot afford to carry around the burden of past misunderstandings, offenses, conflicts and mistakes. A burden that prevents us from solving current problems.”
 “I am convinced that today we are turning a new page in the history of our bilateral relations and that we are making our joint contribution to the construction of the European house.”
Author’s Note: The paper was previously published by the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC)
Better Targeting of Social Protection Programs can Significantly Reduce Poverty in Bangladesh
Social Protection Programs remain central to Bangladesh’s sustainable development policy and are progressively benefitting the poorer households. By improving targeting...
Was Trump better for the world than Biden, after all?
Joe Biden and the State Department just approved a major deal with the Saudis for 500mln in choppers maintanance. Effectively,...
Eritrea: Release journalists and politicians arrested 20 years ago
The Eritrean authorities must immediately and unconditionally release 21 journalists and politicians who were arrested in a sweeping crackdown on...
Torture, killings, lawlessness, still blight Burundi’s rights record
The people of Burundi continue to endure serious human rights violations including possible crimes against humanity, the majority committed by...
Appliance standards and labelling is highly effective at reducing energy use
Policies that introduce minimum efficiency performance standards and energy-consumption labelling on appliances and equipment have led to reduced power consumption,...
Women in Albania to Gain Greater Access to Global Digital Jobs Market
“Digital Jobs Albania” is a new World Bank initiative that will help women in Albania gain better access to online...
How China Exacerbates Global Fragility and What Can be Done to Bolster Democratic Resilience to Confront It
Authors: Caitlin Dearing Scott and Isabella Mekker From its declared policy of noninterference and personnel contributions to United Nations (UN)...
South Asia4 days ago
Afghanistan: Hazaras in danger of extinction
Economy3 days ago
The Economic Conundrum of Pakistan
Finance3 days ago
2021 China-ASEAN Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum
Americas3 days ago
China And U.S. Are On the Brink of War
South Asia4 days ago
Why the Taliban Had to Change
Africa4 days ago
African Union’s Inaction on Ethiopia Deplorable – Open Letter
Middle East4 days ago
IAEA Director General reaches agreement in Tehran, as Biden’s clock is ticking
Americas3 days ago
20 years after 9/11: American decline in the Islamic world and China- Russian emergence