Huffington Post headlined on December 21st “I Left Increasingly Right-Wing Britain And Now I Don’t Know If I Will Ever Return Home”, but the young woman who wrote it seems to have had no idea of the deep international forces that — as she sadly noted — are driving ever-larger numbers of young Brits, like herself, to relocate to continental Europe. This is part of a long war against Russia that started in her own UK, then took over in the United States on 26 July 1945, and seems likely to intensify greatly in the future, and to propel UK itself even further into America’s anti-Russian orbit, while Europe will ultimately unify increasingly with the rest of the EurAsian continent — including with both Russia and China.
The U.S. Government has actually been behind all of this reorganization of the international political map (as will be documented here in the links to the present article).
The U.S. Government, by means of its coups, overthrew democratically elected progressive governments and replaced them with brutal fascist dictatorships in Thailand 1948, Iran 1953, Chile 1973, Honduras 2009, and Ukraine 2014, just to mention a few U.S.-hired coups; and, now — with the December 12th Tory landslide and resultant inevitability of Brexit — the UK (America’s former colonizer) will itself become just another American colony. Here is how all of this is happening:
On December 14th, CNBC headlined “US isn’t weaponizing the dollar; sanctions are the alternative to war, Mnuchin says” and reported enormously important news, regarding the strategy that the U.S. Government has increasingly been using ever since, in 2012, it imposed (on fraudulent grounds) the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, and subsequently imposed the many other sanctions regimens used against nations that are either allied with or merely friendly toward Russia. That article also discussed the international alliances which will be involved in a military World War III if this preliminary stage of global warfare (the sanctions-phase) won’t produce the capitulation of Russia and of China, but instead an outright military war becomes resorted-to.
That CNBC article mentioned the U.S. Government is even fighting against some of America’s own allies in order to maintain the dollar as the global reserve currency: “Earlier this year, France, Germany and the U.K. set up the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), which uses euros to bypass U.S. sanctions on Iran. While it’s not shown itself to be economically effective, it’s a sign that even allies are seeking dollar alternatives to rebel against U.S. policies they oppose.” Thus, even U.S.-friendly governments are now straining against the U.S. leash, to become free, no longer mere vassals. However, the Tory electoral victory in UK on December 12th assured that Britain will become more, not less, dependent upon the U.S. during coming years. So, Britain is being propelled away from the EU, and toward America, but Europe could actually end up on the anti-U.S. side.
That article interviewed the U.S. Trump Administration, through U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who said that the U.S. is employing sanctions — and especially is employing secondary sanctions (sanctions penalizing any country that does trade with a country the U.S. sanctions) — as a less costly way than military invasions (of the targeted country), in order to conquer the entire world, including especially Russia and China. Mnuchin’s CNBC interviewer there volunteered to say (at 2:00 in the video-interview there) “Just over the last few days, we didn’t just get a U.S.-China Phase One, we also got a resounding victory for the Tories in the United Kingdom”, and both parts of that cryptic statement will be explained here, because both parts are geostrategically crucial.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is, of course, aware of the U.S. regime’s successes in their long-term plans to win control over the country he leads, and he has been struggling to block these plans. On December 20th, Russia’s RT bannered “Russia & Ukraine sign ‘protocol of agreement’ for gas transit to Europe – Gazprom”, and reported that “After months of tense negotiations and years of legal battles, Moscow and Kiev have made an agreement on extension to the current gas transit agreement, which expires on December 31.” Those “years of legal battles” go all the way back to America’s successful coup in February 2014 that ousted an internationally neutralist and democratically elected Ukrainian Government and installed a rabidly anti-Russian racist-fascist regime in Ukraine, which refused to pay its bills (then around $3 billion) for gas from Russia. Ukraine also was the main route of pipelines supplying Russia’s gas into the European Union. U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2014 capture for the U.S., of Ukraine — the nation having the longest European border with Russia, 1,625 miles — constituted a major coup for U.S. foreign policy, a coup which is equivalent to if Russia were to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Mexico or Canada and take control over that border as a potential location to place its missiles. Obama’s successor Trump is following through on Obama’s successful anti-Russian policy regarding Ukraine, and Trump is even bolder than Obama in telling Europeans to buy costly trans-Atlantic-shipped U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) in preference to the far cheaper pipelined gas from Russia. Of course, if European nations were to do that, their increased energy-costs would weaken their economies so much that the U.S. would be unquestionably the king of the world.
On December 21st, RT headlined “Big bully at work: Firm laying Nord Stream 2 pipeline halts all ‘activities’ faced with ‘crushing sanctions’ by US” and reported that the U.S. Congress and the Trump Administration are forcing EU-based corporations to abandon their participations in the completion of the Russia-EU Nordstream II gas pipeline or else lose all their business with the U.S., by their facing what are called “secondary sanctions” against them, the sanctions that are in addition to the direct sanctions the U.S. already has in place against Russia. Secondary sanctions are punishments against any country which violates the trading-bans that are in the primary sanctions, which are against the targeted country (in this case, Russia). Trump and the U.S. Congress (with the support of overwhelming majorities in both houses) have made clear to the EU either to choose the U.S. and UK, or else to choose Russia and China, as being their main trading-partners. The U.S. already has the pro-jihadist governments in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Israel, etc. (all of them against Iran) — and is now especially trying to cement the loyalty of EU nations. Under Trump, America is willing even to employ the first stage of war, the sanctions stage, against the EU, in order to compel this loyalty to the owners of U.S.-based international corporations.
Thus, two global trading-blocs are in the process of being formed by Trump (with the near-100-% backing of both Parties — Democrats and Republicans — in Congress), one centered around the U.S., and the other centered around Russia and the countries that have friendly relations with Russia, including China, Iran, and Venezuela. Three of America’s core allies are UK, Israel, and the royal Saud family who own Saudi Arabia.
The landslide victory, on 12 December 2019, of UK’s libertarian/neoliberal Conservative Party, defeating the post-Tony-Blair, progressive (or democratic socialist), Labour Party, means not only that UK’s exit from the European Union is now inevitable, but that there will soon be massive privatization of public services — such as health, education, and welfare — in UK (thus making it more American); and that therefore U.S. international corporations will increasingly dominate UK, which will become, in effect, America’s 51st state (like Israel already is) and a growing market for U.S. brands. Per-capita healthcare costs will thus likely soar in UK to around the U.S. level (where healthcare already is a vastly overpriced bloated libertarian mess and the worst among industrialized countries), which is, in fact, over twice as costly as in today’s socialized-healthcare UK. Healthcare is a necessity, not a luxury, and so anyone in UK who can afford healthcare will increasingly need to pay the resulting sharply increasing costs, but everyone else will simply get sicker and die younger; life-expectancy there will thus decline, in the new, U.S.-dominated, UK (as is already starting to happen in the U.S. itself). The idea that not socializing a necessity is good instead of bad is stupid; there is already ample historical evidence that that idea is false and creates massive unnecessary suffering, but that’s what UK’s voters opted for.
The Jeremy-Corbyn Labour Party was committed to protecting and improving social services and to allowing another vote on Brexit, but UK’s voters rejected that platform in a landslide on December 12th. The UK’s only future now is with U.S.-based international corporations.
Here is what UK’s elections were actually all about — not only Brexit, but also radical libertarianism/neoliberalism and an exclusive alliance with a similarly ideological (libertarian-neoliberal-fascist-neoconservative-imperialist) U.S.:
“Jeremy Corbyn reveals dossier ‘proving NHS up for sale’”
Jeremy Corbyn reveals 451-page unredacted document ‘proving NHS up for sale’ – video
27 November 2019, Frances Perraudin
Labour has obtained official documents showing that the US is demanding that the NHS will be “on the table” in talks on a post-Brexit trade deal, Jeremy Corbyn has said.
The Labour leader said the uncensored papers gave the lie to Boris Johnson’s claims that the NHS would not be part of any trade talks, and revealed that the US wanted “total market access” after the UK leaves the EU.
“The uncensored documents leave Boris Johnson’s denials in absolute tatters,” he said at a news conference in London. “We have now got evidence that under Boris Johnson the NHS is on the table and will be up for sale. He tried to cover it up in a secret agenda and today it has been exposed.”
Corbyn said the 451 pages of documents covered six rounds of talks from July 2017 to “just a few months ago”. He said the meetings took place in Washington and London. “We are talking here about secret talks for a deal with Donald Trump after Brexit,” he said.
Responding to the Labour claims, the Conservatives said the documents had already been online for two months and were simply readouts from meetings of the UK-US trade and investment working group. The Tories accused Labour of using the documents to try to divert attention from the issue of antisemitism in its ranks.
On medicine pricing, Corbyn said discussions had already been concluded between the two sides on lengthening patents. “Longer patents can only mean one thing: more expensive drugs. Lives will be put at risk as a result of this,” he said.
He used the example of Humira, used to treat Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis. “It costs our NHS £1,409 a packet. In the US, the same packet costs £8,115. Get the difference: £1,409 in our NHS, £8,115 in the USA,” Corbyn said. “One of the reasons for US drug prices being on average 250% of those here is a patent regime rigged for the big pharmaceutical companies.”
He added: “Let’s be frank, the US is not going to negotiate to sell its own medicines for less.”
Labour is battling to bring the focus back on to safer ground after Corbyn’s handling of antisemitism came under renewed criticism on Tuesday. [He was called an “anti-Semite” for criticizing apartheid Israel; and U.S. and UK ‘news’-media equate that with anti-Semitism.]
Corbyn avoided apologising to Jewish communities in a TV interview after the chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, alleged he had let the poison of antisemitism take root in the party.
Corbyn had previously highlighted heavily redacted documents obtained by Labour campaigners relating to private meetings between UK and US officials discussing health being included in a trade deal. It is understood the party obtained unredacted versions in the last couple of days.
Corbyn said the documents revealed that the UK and US were closer to a deal than hoped. “[Officials] are ready to ‘exchange text’, which is trade-negotiator-speak for it being at a very advanced stage,” he said. “And they say they are ready to, I quote, ‘really take significant further steps’.”
Corbyn said the report from the third meeting said “everything is included [in trade talks] unless something is specifically excluded” and that the US wanted “total market access” as the “baseline assumption of the trade negotiations”.
He said officials had discussed a system to give corporations the power to sue the UK. “This is not only a plot against our NHS,” said Corbyn. “It is a plot against the whole country.”
He pointed to a passage in the documents that suggested the US would prefer a no-deal Brexit. “There would be all to play for in a no-deal situation but UK commitment to the customs union and single market would make a US-UK [free trade agreement] a non-starter,” it reads.
The Conservatives said it was simply fact that it would not be possible to strike a free-trade deal with the US if the UK remained in the single market and customs union.
The international trade secretary, Liz Truss, said: “Jeremy Corbyn is getting desperate and is out-and-out lying to the public about what these documents contain.”
She said it was Corbyn’s belief in “conspiracy theories” that had led him to fail to crack down on antisemitism in his party, pointing to reports that he had called on “western governments” to confront “the Zionist lobby” in a piece written for the Morning Star in 2011.
“People should not believe a word that he says, this stunt is simply a smokescreen for the fact that he has no plan for Brexit and that he has been forced to admit that he wants to increase taxes for millions of families,” she said.
“As we have consistently made clear, the NHS will not be on the table in any future trade deal and the price that the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. This sort of conspiracy theory fuelled nonsense is not befitting of the leader of a major political party.”
Labour’s manifesto includes a pledge to increase NHS funding by an average of 4.3% every year of the next parliament, which is more generous than Conservative and Liberal Democrat proposals.
The party has also promised to “end and reverse privatisation in the NHS in the next parliament”, as well as offering free annual NHS dental checkups and a new national care service to tackle the social care crisis.
Here is the main prior history behind that Tory victory:
Back in 1902, the aristocrat Cecil Rhodes, an enormously successful protégé of the European Rothschild family, established The Rhodes Trust, which was based entirely upon Rhodes’s viewpoint, not on that of his Rothschild business-sponsors and investors. Rhodes’s chief agent was W.T. Stead, and page 209 of Sir Frederick Whyte, Life of W.T. Stead, v. II, Ch. 25, stated that “Rothschild would not like that, Stead objected laughingly. ‘When he reads the will and finds that I am in it also, there will be ructions!’ ‘Well,’ said Rhodes, ‘I don’t mind. I shall be gone!” (Unfortunately, only v. I can be directly downloaded online, and it is here. However, v. II can sometimes be found available second-hand online.)
Although his will, which established the Trust, said (p. 39 here) that “No student shall be qualified or disqualified for election to a Scholarship on account of his race or religious opinions,” Rhodes was widely considered to be racist; and, for example, he wrote in 1877, “I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. I contend that every acre added to our territory means the birth of more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this, the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars.” That statement is stunning to any person who is sensitive to a person’s logically contradicting him-or-her self; it is shocking logical stupidity. Rhodes simply refused to recognize that imperialism means taking over other countries and therefore means creating wars — the exact opposite of “the end of all wars.” Though Rhodes was a brilliant strategist in business, he was a fool regarding his philosophy, because his moralisms always gave way to his sheer psychopathic greed in actual practise. He continued there by saying that his main goals were “The furtherance of the British Empire, for the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.” And, from the very start of the Rhodes scholarship program, after its first selectees in 1903, the program became, from 1907 onward, almost entirely selectees from the U.S. This reflected not only Rhodes’s determination to bring the U.S. back into the British Empire, but also the very realistic recognition that, going forward into the 20th Century and beyond, the U.S. was going to dominate the world. Therefore, the Rhodes program was designed for UK’s Government and aristocracy to control U.S.’s Government and press. This has been an effort by Britain to reverse the U.S. Revolution, which had been waged against not only Britain but its entire aristocracy, and even against any aristocracy from ever forming in the U.S. (Of course, today’s America is the opposite of their intentions.)
The 12 December 2019 UK elections mean that UK has instead become a vassal of America’s aristocracy. This evil outcome is a humiliation of Cecil Rhodes’s evil dream — it’s a reversal of the master-slave relationship that was championed by Rhodes. He had wanted America to again be ruled by Britain; but, now, instead, Britain will be ruled by America (i.e., by the U.S. aristocracy).
Anyone who doubts the authenticity of the history behind the present article should consult the brilliantly written and superbly documented blog-post titled “The Round Table”, which is undated and comes from a “Mike McClaughry” and which was actually first posted on “January 23, 2015”. (That author might be this Scientologist; but, regardless, the sources to which his blog-post there about Cecil Rhodes links are high quality.) It lists a few of its sources but fails to link to the main one, which was the 370-page masterpiece by Professor Carroll Quigley, which work had been completed in 1949 but remained unpublished until 1981 (after the author’s 1977 death, because he wanted to be safe against their destroying him). That masterpiece from Quigley is titled The Anglo-American Establishment. On page 326 of the photographed book shown in McClaughry’s article, 311 of the searchable text of the book, appears the list of the 31 original members of the innermost group that controlled the British Empire’s as-of-12-December-2019 doomed expansion-operation, which they had been intending should ultimately take over the entire world:
A. The Society of the Elect
Cecil John Rhodes
Nathan Rothschild, Baron Rothschild
Sir Harry Johnston
William T. Stead
Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher
Alfred Milner, Viscount Milner
B. F. Hawksley
Thomas Brassey, Lord Brassey
Sir Abe Bailey
Albert Grey, Earl Grey
Archibald Primrose, Earl of Rosebery
Arthur James Balfour
Sir George R. Parkin
Philip Lyttelton Gell
Sir Henry Birchenough
Sir Reginald Sothern Holland
Arthur Lionel Smith
Herbert A. L. Fisher
William Waldegrave Palmer, Earl of Selborne
Sir Patrick Duncan
Robert Henry Brand, Baron Brand
Philip Kerr, Marquess of Lothian
Edward Grigg, Baron Altrincham
Jan C. Smuts
Waldorf Astor, Viscount Astor
Nancy Astor, Lady Astor
John Marshall Harlan
Robert J. Van de Graaff
Robert Penn Warren
Daniel J. Boorstin
John B. Oakes
Howard K. Smith
A. Michael Spence
David E. Kendall
Dennis C. Blair
Richard N. Haass
Tony Abbott, PM Australia
The Rhodes Trust organization is extremely secretive and provides no list of its total winners (identifying each winner in each year), which list would reveal the extent to which they had picked from among the tens or hundreds of thousands of applicants the individuals whom the Rhodes Trust had actually helped to become shapers and leaders of their respective professions in the U.S., UK, and their vassal nations. However, the Trust’s known picks seem to be oriented toward leading and shaping the U.S. empire (not actually the British Empire). The selectees carry on the work of Cecil Rhodes; and, now, the U.S. aristocracy (after the 12 December 2019 UK elections) clearly controls the UK aristocracy, which had created the Rhodes Trust (and which currently controls UK’s ‘news’-media through the participating billionaires). This organization’s selectees are not only trained to take over the empire for America’s billionaires but are indoctrinated to respect not only the empire but imperialism itself, and the subordinacy of the empire’s vassal nations, to the imperial center, and the absolute inferiority of other (as Rhodes preached it) “races.”
Consequently: history, going forward, will now be a contest between, on one side, the U.S. and UK aristocracies, versus, on the opposed side, the aristocracies of the EurAsian Continent. Because of the results of UK’s December 12th elections, the ties that bind European nations to the U.S. regime are even likelier to unravel than was the case prior to December 12th. This will be good news for Iran, Russia, China, and Turkey, but bad news for NATO, EU, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and U.S. ‘allies’ (vassal-operations or dependencies) in general. In other words: the dream of the U.S. imperialists, which Barack Obama stated often by his bold assertion that “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation” — meaning that every other nation is “dispensable” — is even more shattered now than it was when he was in office. By winning UK so overwhelmingly on December 12th, America’s aristocracy becomes considerably likelier to lose the vastly larger prize of EurAsia.
The Western Hemisphere, except for U.S. itself, will be weak vassal nations, and Africa will be even more extremely so. Those weaker nations will now need to ally themselves with either U.S.-UK, or else Eurasia. That’s their choice, going forward.
Here are excerpts from Cecil Rhodes’s 1877 “Confession of Faith”:
I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars. …
Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. …
Even from an American’s point of view just picture what they have lost, look at their government, are not the frauds that yearly come before the public view a disgrace to any country and especially their’s which is the finest in the world. …
Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it. … More territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses.
To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object. …
In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire. The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. …
For fear that death might cut me off before the time for attempting its development I leave all my worldly goods in trust to S. G. Shippard and the Secretary for the Colonies at the time of my death to try to form such a Society with such an object.
In that same year, 1877, when he was not yet a wealthy man, he first drafted his will. He revised it up until his death in 1902.
Here is the opening of Quigley’s 1981 masterpiece, The Anglo-American Establishment:
One wintry afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance to the British Empire and to the world as a whole. For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than fifty years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation and execution of British imperial and foreign policy.
The three men who were thus engaged were already well known in England. The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealthy empire-builder and the most important person in South Africa. The second was William T. Stead, the most famous, and probably also the most sensational, journalist of the day. The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential adviser of King Edward VII and King George V.
The details of this important conversation will be examined later. At present we need only point out that the three drew up a plan of organization for their secret society and a list of original members. The plan of organization provided for an inner circle, to be known as “The Society of the Elect,” and an outer circle, to be known as “The Association of Helpers.” Within The Society of the Elect, the real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a “Junta of Three.” The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Milner. In accordance with this decision, Milner was added to the society by Stead shortly after that meeting we have described..
The creation of this secret society was not a matter of a moment. As we shall see, Rhodes had been planning for this event for more than seventeen years. Stead had been introduced to the plan on 4 April 1899, and Brett had been told of it on 3 February 1890. Nor was the society thus founded an ephemeral thing, for, in modified form, it exists to this day.
So, what had begun as a plan to globalize the UK empire by means of attaching the U.S. to it, has by now become a vassalage of UK to U.S., which vassalization will produce an asset-stripping of the UK state, and a resultant soaring impoverishment of the UK public, which population the U.S. and UK international corporations will then drain, thus creating a greatly increased emigration from the UK.
The UK empire has thus come crashing down.
Rhodes, the first of the “neoconservatives” (or promoters of an all-encompassing U.S.-UK Empire) had made his fortune on the giant Kimberly Mine in South Africa, the world’s biggest diamond mine. And South Africa during its racist apartheid era happens also to point the way toward what the future UK might become.
The great 1989 movie A Dry White Season is a meticulously accurate reconstruction of South Africa during the apartheid period, and of the way that Blacks were treated there (not only in that movie but in the reality). The way that Blacks were treated there, by South Africa’s U.S-backed apartheid Government, could turn out to be the way that all but the few wealthiest UK ‘citizens’ (actually royal subjects) will be treated by the U.S.-backed UK’s Government, in UK’s future. But, unlike in South Africa, revenge by the public would then produce in UK a very bloody revolution, which would be destructive, not the “Truth and Reconciliation” result that occurred in South Africa. This is only the beginning (and though that news-report on December 13th which is linked-to by that “This,” has an anti-leftist, pro-conservative slant, its videos display the start of what is likely to grow into a full-fledged revolution in UK). Fascism isn’t pretty, and it doesn’t always end in the peaceful way that it did in Franco’s Spain, or in apartheid South Africa. Sometimes, it ends more like France’s monarchy did during the 1789-99 French Revolution — with one imperialistic dictatorship giving rise to yet another. This revolution will probably happen to UK before it happens to U.S. If it does, then U.S. will probably bloodily put down the revolution in UK, but if that happens, then only a control over the ‘news’-media that’s even more total than what currently exists in U.S. would be able to prevent a revolution from resulting in U.S. — and such extremely total control over the media is unlikely anywhere.
To this reporter’s knowledge (which, however, might be incomplete), the first-ever public report that the U.S. regime is using sanctions as the preliminary and cheaper stage toward a possible military invasion was here (from me on 27 May 2019). What Mnuchin on December 14th said, to CNBC, provides the first official confirmation that this reporter has yet seen of this now not-only-established but even officially acknowledged fact. It is now, officially, the U.S. regime versus, actually, the entire rest of the world, and sanctions are the first line of attack. This is an even more-aggressive official assertion of that “Amerika über alles” than was Barack Obama’s repeatedly asserted “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.” There it is, in black and white: to the U.S. regime, every other nation is “dispensable.” Cecil Rhodes, and the prominent followers in his tradition, such as George Soros, couldn’t have said it better. Trump likewise is in that tradition, though his rhetoric is quite different.
Right now, EU media appear to be reluctant to report that the U.S. regime is exceeding the bounds of the post-WW-II alliance — reluctant to report that America is going overtly hostile. For example, whereas, on December 22nd, the very top of the home-page of Russia’s RT headlined “Oh, really? US envoy to Germany says Nord Stream 2 sanctions ‘EXTREMELY PRO-EUROPEAN’ despite Berlin & EU criticism”, Germany’s Deutsche Welle was still ignoring the problem (underplaying, when not simply ignoring altogether, that “Berlin & EU criticism”), and, on its home page, didn’t show even a single headline which related to this momentous matter concerning the future for all Germans. Perhaps they’re hoping there’s hope, and think that reporting the current reality would be ‘premature’ at the present time. But isn’t the current reality what the “news” is supposed to be reporting? Why aren’t they?
P.S.: The posting of this article at The Saker produced from readers there some objections that, as one put it, “The EU and US are not antipodes they are twin. The EU is controlled through NATO and the ongoing occupation of Europe.” But nothing in this article contradicts that. Another said, “I know from reading (also for work) that NATO membership = Phase 1; EU membership = phase 2, of ‘integration’ into Europe. And, yes, the weapons and command systems are all integrated.” To that, I responded: “My article here is predicting the breakup of NATO.” So, I state this here, just in case anyone here doesn’t recognize that it does predict NATO’s breakup. The U.S. is mainly going to get to keep EU/NATO nations bordering Russia, because America’s aristocracy plans to launch from there its invasion of Russia. As far as their other objective of boosting foreign sales of U.S. weaponry is concerned, those foreign sales are already going mainly to the Arab royals and Israel, so NATO’s original main function, of selling U.S. weapons to Europe, is already now secondary. And it’s also important to recognize that all of this started on 26 July 1945 when Truman decided to start what became subsequently known as “the Cold War”, and that this war has secretly continued till now after G.H.W. Bush on 24 February 1990 secretly ordered his European vassals to do so.
From “Selective Engagement” to “Enlightened Realism”?
Four years ago, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini announced that Brussels was looking at new approaches to building relations with Moscow. These approaches would later become known as the “five Mogherini principles.” These principles represented the culmination of a long and emotionally taxing discussion within the European Union that represented the varied positions of the 28 states that made up the EU back then. A difficult compromise was made between those who favoured a hard-line approach towards Russia and those who preferred a softer approach.
“Selective Engagement” as the Foundation of the “New Normal”
It was, of course, through compromise that the European External Action Service was able to prevent a split from forming within the European Union on a crucial issue, which turned out to be a historic moment for the organization. We should note in passing that Brussels has thus far been unable to reach a similar consensus on other issues that are of fundamental importance to the European Union, such as the issue of Kosovo, the Israeli–Palestinian settlement, the civil conflict in Venezuela and the expansion of the European Union itself.
In terms of a specific policy, the most significant strategy of the European Union is the fourth of its five guiding principles – “Selective Engagement with Russia.” On the whole, “selective engagement” appeared to be a reasonably logical approach given the “post-Ukrainian reality.” Europe could not conceivably go back to cooperating with Russia the way it had done in the past, turning a blind eye to the dramatic events in Crimea and Donbass, as this would mean it was somehow condoning the “aggressive behaviour of the Kremlin.” Nor was it inclined shut itself off from Moscow completely with another cordon sanitaire, as the latter was key to solving numerous issues of European politics.
The judicious decision was thus made to work with Russia only when and where it would serve the specific interests of the European Union. Mogherini’s statement touched upon potential points of contact with the Russian side, including Iran, Syria, the Middle East as a whole, migration, the fight against terrorism and climate change. “Selective engagement” can be compared to a “buffet” in a restaurant, where patrons serve themselves from a wide selection of dishes instead of being offered a set meal from the menu.
As far as we can tell, the principle of “selective engagement” was mostly supported in Moscow, albeit with little enthusiasm. Generally speaking, cooperation between Russia and the European Union was primarily selective before 2014 anyway, and the prospect of creating a unified “Greater Europe” had more or less fizzled out by the end of the 2000s. This is why, three months after the “five guiding principles” had been announced, the Russian side presented President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker with a list of proposals regarding possible areas of “selective engagement” during his visit to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
Of course, the proposals that had been prepared for Juncker primarily reflected the interests and priorities of the Russian side. Thus, there was already friction about who would put on the spread for the “buffet” and who would fill their plates. Nevertheless, cautious hopes were expressed in 2016 that the new approach could indeed work, at least for a transitional period.
Four years down the line and we have no option but to conclude that the principle of “selective engagement” has enjoyed limited success in relations between Europe and Russia, if any at all. Not a single “road map” or holistic strategy has emerged from it over these past four years, nor has it served as the basis for marking out “red lines” in bilateral relations. In fact, “selective engagement” has remained nothing but a general political declaration on the part of the European Union. Relations between the eastern and western parts of Europe continue to be built by fumbling around in the dark, through trial and error. And since no one wants to risk making a political faux pas, there is no great desire to try something new. Any step forward is taken with enormous difficulty, political inertia extinguishes new ideas, and discussions of Europe–Russia relations increasingly come down to rehashing old, worn out and decrepit initiatives that were bandied around two, three and even four years ago.
It would hardly be fair to blame certain politicians or public officials or even single out individual EU members for the apparent shortcomings, if not the complete failure, of “selective engagement.” These shortcomings are, in our estimation, associated with quite objective circumstances.
Why Mogherini’s Fourth Principle Failed
First of all, there is nothing close to a consensus on either side as to what degree of “selectivity” would be optimal for engagement. There are two distinct camps in the European Union. The first is made up of those who advocate the “historical reconciliation” of Russia and Europe, while the second consists of those who want to stand up to the “Putin regime.” This division remains. Little has happened in the past six years to convince either camp to change its tune or alter the balance of powers between Europe’s “hawks” and “pigeons.” Neither Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, nor the results of the 2019 European Parliament elections, nor the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union in 2020 managed to shift the equilibrium in Brussels.
This is why the European Union merely continues to renew the 2014 sanctions, each time announcing a victory for “European unity.” Agreeing on such an important and very specific issue as the feasibility of building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has proved impossible. Perhaps this is why the substantive content of the “selective engagement” with Moscow has never been brought up as a topic for serious political discussion in Brussels. After all, any discussion in this vein would inevitably jeopardize the much-vaunted “European unity,” laying bare the fundamental incompatibility of opinions within the European Union regarding the state of and prospects for relations with Moscow.
While a fierce behind-the-scenes struggle has raged among individual EU member states for the last four years in Brussels regarding the limits and possibilities of “selective engagement” with Russia, in Moscow, the concept of “selective engagement” continues to be a field of an equally fierce confrontation of influential institutional and group interests. Europe does not have a consistent long-term strategy with regard to Moscow, but Russia does have such a strategy with regard to Brussels.
In some cases, the confrontation between Moscow’s “Europhobes” and its “Europhiles” even spills over into the public space. For example, existing official and semi-official assessments of the impact of the EU sanctions and Moscow’s countersanctions on the Russian economy, as well as estimates regarding the success of the import substitution strategy vary greatly, from the clearly alarmist to the unabashedly triumphant. If the parties cannot work out their own positions on the matter, then how can we expect them to find common ground in negotiations with one another?
What is more, Russia and the European Union are very different players on the international stage, with different comparative advantages and different sets of instruments of power and influence. Significant asymmetries of both interests and opportunities between the “Russian elephant” and the “European whale” are inevitable. And this makes it extremely difficult to find a “fair” balance of interests in each specific case. For example, Mogherini talked about the desirability of working with Moscow on the issue of North Korea, but what exactly can Brussels offer Moscow in this area? Moscow, for its part, is trying to get the European Union to recognize the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as an equal partner; however, the economic potential of the EAEU is minuscule compared to that of the EU.
Moreover, while Moscow takes pride in its sovereignty and the fact that it can make independent decisions, the sovereignty of the European Union is limited one way or another by the one-sided nature of its relations with the United States. And this means that attempts to create a balance between the European Union and Russia will ultimately turn into a far more complicated game involving the decidedly scalene Brussels–Moscow–Washington triangle. Even if there is still some hope for the “Russian elephant” and “European whale” to come to an agreement, the “American tyrannosaurus” will do its best to make sure that does not happen.
Finally, we should not lose sight of the fact that “selective engagement,” as well as the balanced exchange of mutual concessions and the tactical coordination of the positions of the parties, are mainly applicable as mechanisms for resolving specific issues in the here and now. For example, offering mutual concessions on the post-conflict reconstruction of Syria, salvaging the Iranian nuclear deal or resolving issues related to the de-escalation of the Libyan Civil War are acceptable solutions. These areas can, to a certain degree, be isolated from the general background of relations, while at the same time preserving individual islands of cooperation in the vast ocean of confrontation.
But the fact of the matter is that the most fundamental challenges facing Russia and Europe are not tactical, but rather strategic in nature. These include the reduced clout of the two sides in the world economy and population, the technological inferiority of Europe and Russia compared to North America and East Asia, the rise of political populism and radicalism, the long-term decline in stability in neighbouring regions, etc. In confronting these challenges, trading specific concessions and negotiating tactical compromises do little. Such agreements are not a substitute for a common vision of the long-term future of Russia–Europe relations and, more broadly, a shared view of the direction in which the world is headed. Agreements on specific issues should, in one way or another, be embedded in this common vision.
Nikolay Chernyshevsky vs Immanuel Kant
Anyone in Russia who has at least the vaguest memories of reading Nikolay Chernyshevsky’s didactic novel What Is to Be Done? at school ought to remember the theory of “rational egoism” that he loved so much. Nothing can be done about a person’s inherent egoism, and there is no point hoping for them to change their nature and suddenly become selflessly altruistic. Chernyshevsky was a militant atheist and categorically rejected the existence of Kant’s “moral law” in such people.
However, according to Chernyshevsky, people do not come into conflict with one another because of egoism as such, but rather because of how they perceive their own interests. Most people are so focused on achieving their near-term goals, serving their basic instincts and acting in a reactionary manner that they not only ignore the interests of those around them, but also effectively neglect their own longer-term ambitions. This inevitably impacts both the egoist’s environment and the egoist himself.
“Rational egoism” proposes articulating these interests in a “rational” manner, that is, by taking the interests and wishes of others into account and building a rational hierarchy of diverse desires, propensities and personal tasks – all without denying a person the opportunity to pursue their own interests. Reason softens the most dangerous and destructive manifestations of egoism without encroaching on the fundamental features of human nature.
As applied to international relations, the theory of “rational egoism” could be interpreted as “enlightened realism.” An analogue of Kant’s “moral law” in this case would be the unity of fundamental values between Russia and the European Union. However, since the European and Russian elites are never going to agree on values, relations should be built on interests instead. That is, not on non-dogmatic religious views of Immanuel Kant, but instead on the atheist rationalism of Nikolay Chernyshevsky.
It would seem that the theory of “enlightened realism” could complement “selective engagement” as a platform for the development of EU–Russia relations moving forward.
Why We Need “Enlightened Realism”
The noun realism in this formulation implies a sober assessment of the specific moment we are experiencing, as well as the constraints associated with it. We cannot go back 20 years to the “honeymoon” period of Moscow–Brussels relations. And even if we could, it would only mean a return to a situation of “bad infinity” and the very same problems that continued to pile up and eventually led to the 2014 crisis. “Realism” forces us to acknowledge that, in all likelihood, we will not be able to find a solid institutional basis for developing relations that is acceptable for both sides in the foreseeable future.
Relations between Europe and Russia are going to be shaky for a long time to come, regardless of the paths of political transit that have already been embarked upon in the East and the West. Irrespective of who will be in power in Moscow and Brussels five or ten years down the line and regardless of whether or not we can reach a fair and satisfactory solution to the “Ukrainian issue” during this time. The difficulties are caused by differences in geographical location, historical experience, existing traditions and the psychologies of the respective peoples. We cannot merely draw up some kind of framework agreement or charter to get past the crisis; this did not work in the past, and it will not work now.
The noun enlightened places the concept of “realism” into a certain framework. To be sure, the politics of Donald Trump can be characterized as “realistic” (and also pragmatic, transactional, self-centred or cynical – underline as necessary). However, Trump’s “realism” is in no way “enlightened.” “Enlightened realism” means that the sides should take both their tactical and immediate interests, as well as their strategic and long-term needs, into account.
Foreign policy decisions should be made not only with a view to the next presidential campaign or how the general public might react, but also with an understanding of the strategic challenges, opportunities and priorities facing the sides. The further into the future we are prepared to look, the greater the number of areas of common interest between Russia and the European Union we will find.
What is more, “enlightenment” implies that the parties have to be mindful not only of their own interests, but also of the interests of the system of international relations as a whole, since the destruction of this system does not bode well for Russia or Europe. No tactical victory can outweigh the strategic costs associated with the destabilization of the global system, the breakdown of international organizations, the degradation of international law, and the transition to a “game without rules” where “every man” is “for himself” in world politics.
This understanding is especially relevant today, when other leading centres of power in world politics (the United States, China and India) are, for various reasons, not ready to bear the responsibility for preserving regional and global stability. It is in these conditions that Europe and Russia are inevitably assuming greater responsibility for maintaining peace and resolving conflicts in such regions as the Middle East and North Africa.
Let us stress once again that we are not talking here about abandoning “selective engagement” once and for all. Engagement will continue to be selective for the foreseeable future, as the only alternative would be no interaction whatsoever. The task right now is to give this engagement a new depth, greater clarity and a fresh perspective. Figuratively speaking, we are talking about moving from two-dimensional interaction to three-dimensional interaction, or, in other words, leaving the rowdy market square where narrow-fisted buyers haggle prices with dodgy traders for the tranquillity of university laboratories where we can start designing the future European and world order.
This will require a qualitatively different level of interaction between the two sides both at the level of political leadership and at the level of diplomatic missions, ministries of economy, independent experts and non-governmental organizations. Not a return to the rather meaningless biannual EU–Russia summits, but the beginning of practical work on the implementation of large, forward-looking joint projects.
The only way that the principle of “enlightened realism” can work in the engagement between Europe and Russia is if the sides endeavour to apply it to themselves first and foremost, and then to the other party. After all, “enlightened realism” is not about making concessions to the other side or surrendering one’s position. Rather, it is merely a more extensive and less opportunistic understanding of one’s own interests. Right now, both Brussels and Moscow are following in the spirit of Oscar Wilde’s famous words: “[T]he nuisance of the intellectual sphere is the man who is so occupied in trying to educate others, that he has never had any time to educate himself.”
From our partner RIAC
Shaping Europe’s digital future
I am a tech optimist. My belief in technology as a force for good comes from my experience as a medical student. I learnt and saw first-hand its ability to change fates, save lives and make mundane what once would have been a miracle.
We now take for granted that we can take an antibiotic when we have an infection or go for an x-ray or MRI scan when we get injured or sick. These are all miracles that have changed the course of humanity for the better.
Thanks to technology, these miracles are becoming more breathtaking and more regular by the day. They are helping to better detect cancer, support high-precision surgery or tailor treatment for the needs of each patient.
This is all happening right now, right here in Europe. But I want this to be only the start. And I want it to become the norm right across our society: from farming to finance, from culture to construction, from fighting climate change to combatting terrorism.
This is the vision behind the new digital strategy that the European Commission will present this week.
We believe that the digital transformation can power our economies and help us find European solutions to global challenges. We believe citizens should be empowered to make better decisions based on insights gleaned from non-personal data. And we want that data to be available to all – whether public or private, big or small, start-up or giant. This will help society as a whole to get the most out of innovation and competition and ensure that we all benefit from a digital dividend. This digital Europe should reflect the best of Europe – open, fair, diverse, democratic, and confident.
The breadth of our strategy reflects the scale and nature of the transition ahead of us. It covers everything from cybersecurity to critical infrastructures, digital education to skills, democracy to media. And it lives up to the ambition of the European Green Deal, for instance by promoting the climate neutrality of data centres by 2030.
But, as we will set out this week, the digital transformation cannot be left to chance. We must ensure that our rights, privacy and protections are the same online as they are off it. That we can each have control over our own lives and over what happens to our personal information. That we can trust technology with what we say and do. That new tech does not come with new values.
I fully understand that, for many, technology – and especially those who own it – have not yet earned that trust. I see how that can break down when big online platforms use their own customers’ data in ways they shouldn’t. Or when disinformation drives out responsible journalism and clickbait matters more than the truth.
So I get and respect why some people are tech sceptics, doubters or even pessimists. And this is why I believe we need a digital transition which is European by design and nature. One that rebuilds trust where it is eroded and strengthens it where it exists. As part of this, big commercial digital players must accept their responsibility, including by letting Europeans access the data they collect. Europe’s digital transition is not about the profits of the few but the insights and opportunities of the many. This may also require legislation where appropriate.
The point is that Europe’s digital transition must protect and empower citizens, businesses and society as a whole. It has to deliver for people so that they feel the benefits of technology in their lives. To make this happen, Europe needs to have its own digital capacities – be it quantum computing, 5G, cybersecurity or artificial intelligence (AI). These are some of the technologies we have identified as areas for strategic investment, for which EU funding can draw in national and private sector funds.
Making the most of digital and data is as important for big industries as it is for SMEs. Although the biggest ideas often come from the tiniest start-ups, scaling-up can be an uphill task for smaller European firms in the digital world. We want European start-uppers to enjoy the same opportunities as their counterparts in Silicon Valley to expand, grow and attract investment.
For this, we will need to overcome fragmentation in our single market that is often greater online than elsewhere. We need to join forces – now. Not by making us all the same, but by leveraging our scale as well as our diversity – both key factors of success for innovation.
And we will also need the resources to match ambition. This is why at this week’s European Council I will push for a modern and flexible EU budget that invests in our future – and in the research, innovation deployment and skills to bring it to life.
This will be needed if we want Europe to lead the way in the areas with the most potential, such as data and AI. This week, we will put forward our plans for both alongside our wider digital strategy.
The starting point on data will always be personal protection. Europe already has the strongest rules in the world and we will now give Europeans the tools they need to make sure they are even more in control.
But there is also another kind of data that is the uncovered, unused goldmine of the data-agile economy of the future. I am thinking of anonymised mobility data or meteorological data gathered by airliners, satellite images, but also industrial and commercial data on anything from engine performance to energy consumption.
These types of non-personal data can underpin the design and development of new, more efficient and more sustainable products and services. And they can be reproduced at virtually no cost. Yet today, 85% of the information we produce is left unused. This needs to change.
We will develop a legislative framework and operating standards for European data spaces. These will allow businesses, governments and researchers to store their data and access trusted data shared by others. This will all be done under secure conditions that create greater value for all and ensure a fair return for all.
These pools of data will in turn drive our work to promote excellence and trust in artificial intelligence in Europe. AI is already helping small companies reduce their energy bill, enabling greener, automated transport, and leading to more accurate medical diagnoses.
To help businesses big and small to harness the full potential of AI, we will invest in a network of local digital innovation hubs and in centres of excellence for advanced research and education.
At the same time, we will act to ensure that AI is fair and compliant with the high standards Europe has developed in all fields. Our commitment to safety, privacy, equal treatment in the workplace must be fully upheld in a world where algorithms influence decisions. We will focus our action on high-risk applications that can affect our physical or mental health, or that influence important decisions on employment or law enforcement.
The aim is not more regulation, but practical safeguards, accountability and the possibility of human intervention in case of danger or disputes. We successfully shaped other industries – from cars to food – and we will now apply the same logic and standards in the new data-agile economy.
I sum up all of what I have set out with the term ‘tech sovereignty’. This describes the capability that Europe must have to make its own choices, based on its own values, respecting its own rules. This is what will help make tech optimists of us all.
This article by the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen was published on the occasion of presentation of Commission’s strategies for data and Artificial Intelligence.
The ending of Operation Sophia: The EU sway from its Human Security approach
The EU decision to terminate the Operation Sophia represents its will to choose European Security approach while having agenda of Human Security approach in its European Neighborhood Policy.
On 17th February 2020, European Union (EU) foreign ministers decided to end Operation Sophia, formally known as European Union Naval Force Mediterranean (EU NAVFOR Med), and launch a new maritime mission in the region which will enforce the United Nations (UN) arms embargo in and around Libya. The decision came just before the end of the mandate of the Operation Sophia on 31st March 2020. However, the decision to end Operation Sophia and replace it with arms embargo mission is influenced by the internal and external politics of Europe.
What is Operation Sophia
The EU NAVFOR MED (“Sophia”) mission was launched in 2015 as an EU’s response to curtail illicit human and arms trafficking in the Mediterranean Sea. Along with this, one of the tasks of the mission was to save the lives of vulnerable migrants in the Mediterranean Sea. In the last five years, the mission helped trained the Libyan coastguard and navy and helped implement a UN arms embargo off the coast.
The Unexpected Consequences of the Mission
Requested and endorsed by the Italian government and supported by the EU,Operation Sophia was supposed to be the military mission focusing on restraining human and arms smuggling from Northern Africa into Europe via the Mediterranean. However, mission transformed into a humanitarian mission saving the lives of the migrants at sea and transporting them safely in Europe. Consequently, the EU witnessed the undocumented inundation of migrants coming from Syria via Turkey, and many Africans taking the Libyan route in the hope to reach a safer place and attain a better life. The mission has rescued over 44,000 people at sea and made them reach safely in Southern Europe particularly in Italy.
The Rise of Discussions among the EU Member States
This was followed by the new discussion among EU Member States particularly among Italy, Austria and Hungary to tackle the rising number of migrants’ inflow. In April 2019, the then-Italian coalition government threatened the EU to veto the entire mission. The then-interior minister Matteo Salvini contended that the search and rescue ships employed in the mission are instigating the local migrants to use sea route and reach Italy. Austria also opposed the reviving of Operation Sophia in the past because of similar claims. As Austria has long been having tensions with Italy over the influx of migrants and refugees in Austria from Italy. Therefore, Austria also was in favor of the termination of the mission as it will indirectly help curtail the migration flow in Austria as well. Hence, in October 2019, the EU decided not to extend the mission after March 2020, and replace it with the mission solely focused on the arms embargo.
What is New About the New Operation
The idea is to shift the new operation further east, away from the usual water route used by migrants leaving Libya in search of better lives in Europe. EU believed that to better curtail arms movement, the mission has to focus more on the eastern side which is the epitome of the arms transfer. The eastern part of the country is the base of the self-styled Libyan National Army forces loyal to General Khalifa Haftar. Khalifa Haftar, a former general in Gaddafi’s regime had fled to the US later becoming a CIA asset, returned to Libya in 2011 to lead the revolution. In recent years he has styled himself the leader of the Libyan National Army with the backing of the UAE, Egypt, France and Russia amongst others. On the other side of the checkerboard is the UN-recognized Tripoli-based Government of National Accord which is backed byQatar, Italy and the local militias. The Haftar forces are attacking the UN-recognized Tripoli-based Government of National Accord, which in turn is the major reason for the current ongoing conflict in Libya. Libya has been in turmoil since 2011, when a civil war toppled long-time dictator Moammar Gadhafi, who was later killed. Fighting between the country’s factions has intensified over the past year.
With certain Member States backing Haftar and others backing GNA, the EU is in an imbroglio. As a result, the Union lacks a clear policy and will to deal with the crisis. While the EU contends that the new mission proceeding Operation Sophia will confine the flow of arms from Libya and its neighborhood, it has also been argued that the EU’s monitoring only by air will weaken the position of the mission and will favor the Haftar’s coup attempt. This will result in an increase in civilian casualties, destruction and more civilian displacement.
Human Security approach vs European Security approach
Argyro Kartsonaki and Stefan Wolff in their article named “The EU’s Responses to Conﬂicts in its Wider Neighborhood: Human or European Security?” have defined two types of the EU Security Strategy in European Neighborhood Policy (ENP): the Human Security approach and European Security approach. The Human Security approach embarks upon the increasingly humanitarian interventionist foreign policies, a focus on development, stable government, restructuring judiciary, combat terrorism and organized crime as part of security policy. The aim is to make the country under discussion stable in the long-term. The policy has been defined as the core of the European Security Strategy of the Council of the European Union in its all upcoming civilian and military missions under CSDP. Whereas, the European Security approach is about maximizing security for the EU and its citizens and member states. In terms of the EU’s foreign and security policy, this can be understood as the pursuit of EU internal security objectives with foreign policy tools employed on the conflict in ENP. The most frequent security threats identiﬁed covered under the European Security are international terrorism, transnational organized crime and illegal migration. The authors of the article did the empirical study of the EU civilian and military missions in the ENP and reach to the conclusion that the Union’s response to most of the conflicts is in line with a human security approach thus focusing on the long-term goals of ensuring stability, peace and prosperity in the ENP.
While this is true in most of the CSDP missions launched by the EU, however, it has been observed that EU has always been keen on taking the European Security approach especially in the conflicts where its own interests are at stake. Beset by the migration crisis, and upsurge of the right-wing politics, the EU seems to have the urge to choose the European Security approach to deal with the crisis while having the policy of employing the human security approach. The decision to replace Operation Sophia with the new mission represents the quintessential short-term policy focusing more on resolving the EU’s internal political impasse as compared to dealing with the external crises. The decision suits the Italian government as it will take away the coalition-government of Italy to criticize the mission and call it as a “pull factor”. It has given Italy the chance to be seen to play a leading part in expanding Sophia’s capabilities, by deploying Italian satellites and aircraft to support the mission. On the other side of the Mediterranean, this can risk the increase in the arms trafficking at the Mediterranean and strengthen Haftar’s status in Libya. The current decision represents the EU’s short-sightedness as its security policy in Libya seems driven by interests, not by norms and values.
Afghanistan: Civilian casualties exceed 10,000 for sixth straight year
More than 10,000 civilians in Afghanistan were killed and injured last year, according to a new United Nations report that...
The Foreign Policy of Pakistan under Imran Khan
This essay aims to analytically explain the foreign policy of Pakistan (PFOP) under Imran Khan Government. Here the question is...
Situation in central Mali ‘deteriorating’ as violence, impunity rise
The growing violence has contributed to a deteriorating security situation in central Mali, with impunity being one of the aggravating...
UNIDO and Switzerland expand cooperation to support cocoa value chain in Nicaragua’s mining triangle
LI Yong, Director General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), and Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis, Foreign Minister of...
Guterres lauds Pakistan’s commitment to climate change
The residents and expats rejoiced as news channels bombarded with joy. Happy days in Pakistan. The four-day jaunt was a...
The Reckoning: Debt, Democracy and the Future of American Power- Book Review
Authors: Junaid R.Soomro and Nadia Shaheen The chapter is written by Michael Moran in which he discussed about the relations...
La Paz and Santa Cruz de la Sierra Develop Urban Resilience with World Bank Support
The World Bank Board of Directors approved two loans totaling US$70 million today to support the cities of La Paz...
South Asia3 days ago
Islamic Extremists and Christians in Pakistan
South Asia2 days ago
Kartarpur Corridor: Sikh Soft Power
Science & Technology3 days ago
How as strategist we can compete with the sentient Artificial intelligence?
Newsdesk3 days ago
Large Protest Erupt In the Capital of Haiti After Kidnappers Murdered Victims
Green Planet3 days ago
EU fertilizer regulations: What are the consequences for the European food chain?
Southeast Asia2 days ago
Vietnam as ASEAN Chair and UNSC non-Permanent Member
Reports3 days ago
Germany’s ambitious efforts to advance its clean energy transition
Middle East3 days ago
Iran regime’s Parliamentary elections and challenges facing it