Connect with us
uk london uk london

Europe

Brexit and Far Right Nationalism in Europe: Risking European Landscape of Peace and Democracy

Published

on

Authors: Dr. Manasi Sinha and Pratyush Bibhakar*

With the recent far right nationalistic wave sweeping over Europe along with an increased fear psychosis in cultural assimilation, tolerance and acceptance for people from diverse culture, Brexit seems precarious for holding the European project of an ‘open society’ based on shared values, diversity, and social cohesion. Britain’s apparent and imminent need for ‘getting back’ its long lost autonomy to decide its fate, is rather driven by an inherent Euro-skeptic discourse that is constantly fed with a populist sentiments involving English nationalism and social conservatism. This together with a growing nationalistic fervour  across Europe will stoke up societal tensions and loosen up European landscape of peace and democracy that glued the continent for decades.

Brexit as it called

As the United Kingdom finally made its way out from the European union (EU) on 31st January 2020, after years of political wrangling and dilemmas, it reflects not only an euphoria of victory for many Britons, it also arrests pressing concerns for most of Europeans too. Although for some Britons, this euphoric moment symbolises freedom for the UK— a ‘getting back’ to its long desired autonomy and self control over its land, economy and people, for many others it is a ‘paradise lost’ from the heaven of the EU. When the Nobel Committee awarded its annual Peace Prize in 2012, Europeans could not anticipate how this prize would be given to a fusty institution that claimed its value as a peace paradise on earth for transforming a continent of war to one of peace—the European Union. The Brexit echoes distraction to this decade long efforts. 

Putting European Project at Risk

While the UK ceases to be a member of the European Union, it now poses real threats to the overall European project of an integrated and unified Europe—an ‘open society’ rooted in diversity,social cohesion, shared values of rule of law, peace, development and democracy. The EU may be facing more of instability than before in keeping the continent peaceful because of an upsurge of nationalistic fervour mushrooming across European countries and UK’s departure reflect upon the similar trends. If that is the anticipated outcome of Brexit, then Europeans must desire it to fail in that regard.

There has been a growing mainstream opposition to projects of European unification in the early 1990s, especially in the UK. This opposition to any form of Europe integration is rooted in a British Euro-scepticism having its legacy back to before World War II(Crespy and Verschueren 2009) and can further be traced back to the period of the formation of the Church of England and separation from Rome in the sixteenth century (Smith 2006). Over the centuries although economic benefits of European integration soothed the interests of Britons, the growing need for political integration that demanded for supranational set up strain the the populist sentiments of English nationalism. This could be seen when Margaret Thatcher although raised her support for economic integration, also argued consistently about her fear for a “superstate” that threatened to restrict national sovereignty. In a 1988 speech at the College of Europe in Bruges, she rejected “collectivism and corporatism at the European level.” As such Brexit, 2020 reiterates this long running campaign by right wing Euro-skeptic groups that is threatening the overall stability of Europe more than before—and the huge public mandate confirms that right wing Euroskeptic discourse germinating in British society.

Rise of New Nationalism and Far Right Regimes in Europe

As the world community witnessed ravages of two world wars, they sought for peace over war and violence, democracy and political freedom over fascism, and cultural togetherness  over hegemonic imperialism. The European community similarly aspired for a land of diversity, social cohesion and shared values for human rights, rule of law, and tolerance for divergent cultures. However, all these seem to be waning down in the wake of a political racism and  new sense of nationalistic trends that is germinating in European society. The earlier form of narrow nationalism projected through Jewish conspiracy and Holocaust is slowly changing its nature with a new form of  nationalism that firms on the ground of ‘clash of civilisations’ and Islamic fundamentalism. The new form of nationalism spreading its venom not around eugenics, extermination and fatherland but on the lines of traditions, sovereignty and community —leading to a creation of ‘We’ Vs ‘Others’.

A reflection of current trends of far right politics in Europe is visible from the fact that most of current 785 MEPs in the European Parliament expressed their hatred and racist attitude towards all the members of the EU that represent 15 million ethnic minorities and third-country nationals living in European Union (EU). The new Italian government’s anti-immigration drive resulted into gross violence against immigrants, including shootings and attacks on minors and women. While Germany strongly pushed for a strict anti-immigration policy, embraced antagonistic attitude towards Islam and done away with anti-Nazi taboos to prepare the ground for Xenophobia, far right Vox party in Spain intends to deport illegal immigrants, repeal laws against gender violence and curtailing rights of autonomy demanded by north-eastern Catalonia region in Oct 2017. More so, even the Sweden Democrats (SD)  got its victory in the 2018 general election by 18% of the vote, discourages multiculturalism and promotes strict immigration controls in Sweden. Similarly, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban continues to foster ethnic and racial hatred against minorities including Roma and Muslims communities. Further, far right leader Marine Le Pen in France also expressed her discontent over mass immigration in Europe and held EU responsible for the same. Echoing this pan European nationalistic fervour, UK had initiated its Brexit saga in 2016 and finally closing its tie with an institution it never really cared for. As it parts its way from the EU, its  immigration policy may be twisted for ‘others’. These events reflect upon a wider political ambition of most of European countries to establish a far-right regime in Europe. And the overt targeting of immigrants, legitimising hatred, racism, violence and simultaneous weakening of human rights, and democratic structures in Europe are manifestation of this intention. The much hyped discourse of a rational sovereign polity represented by these countries, deliberately disguises their racist and nationalist connotations which keep taking place in the heart of Europe at a regular interval.

Structural violence in Europe

Contemporary Europe is facing an unprecedented challenge of keeping alive its harmonious coexistence among its citizens, and people/refugees coming from beyond European periphery.  There are series of hate crimes, violence, religious abuse, physical and verbal attacks, humiliation, trafficking—all continue to haunt immigrants and refugees across Europe. In the UK too, the Brexit referendum saw an enormous impact on hate crime, violence, and xenophobic attacks in the country. In Plymouth, a Polish family turn victims of what police hold a racially-motivated arson attack. The Black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals/groups who live and work in the UK continue to face discrimination and demonization in their everyday lives.

As such, although UK’s departure from the EU for now present a more bleak future for the continent, nonetheless the European project of a ‘cultural globalisation’ and democratic landscape needs to be reinforced in the EU policy making discourse and its implementation. EU needs to create political impetus to reach out more to the world through its normative values to prevail.

*Pratyush Bibhakar, Assistant Professor, Sociology, Galgotias University.

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

Europe tells Biden “no way” to Cold War with China

Published

on

Amidst the first big transatlantic tensions for the Biden Administration, a new poll shows that the majority of Europeans see a new Cold War happening between the United States and China, but they don’t see themselves as a part of it.

Overwhelmingly, 62% of Europeans believe that the US is engaged in a new Cold War against China, a new poll just released by the European Council on Foreign Relations found. Just yesterday US President Joe Biden claimed before the UN General Assembly that there is no such thing and the US is not engaging in a new Cold War. So, Europeans see Biden’s bluff and call him on it.

The study was released on Wednesday by Mark Leonard and Ivan Krastev at the European Council on Foreign Relations and found that Europeans don’t see themselves as direct participants in the US-China Cold War. This viewpoint is most pronounced in Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, Portugal and Italy, according to the study. The prevailing view, in each of the 12 surveyed EU member states, is one of irrelevance – with respondents in Hungary (91%), Bulgaria (80%), Portugal (79%), and Austria (78%) saying that their country is not in a conflict with Beijing.

Only 15% of Europeans believe that the EU is engaged in a Cold War against China. The percentage is so low that one wonders if there should even be such a question. It is not only not a priority, it is not even a question on the agenda for Europeans. Even at the highest point of EU “hawkishness”, only 33% of Swedes hold the view that their country is currently in a Cold War with China.  Leonard and Krastev warn that if Washington and Brussels are preparing for an all-in generational struggle against China, this runs against the grain of opinion in Europe, and leaders in Washington and Brussels will quickly discover that they “do not have a societal consensus behind them”.

“The European public thinks there is a new cold war – but they don’t want to have anything to do with it. Our polling reveals that a “cold war” framing risks alienating European voters”, Mark Leonard said.

The EU doesn’t have the backing of its citizens to follow the US in its new Cold War pursuit. But unlike the views of the authors of the study, my view is that this is not a transatlantic rift that we actually have to be trying to fix. Biden’s China policy won’t be Europe’s China policy, and that’s that, despite US efforts to persuade Europe to follow, as I’ve argued months ago for the Brussels Report and in Modern Diplomacy.

In March this year, Gallup released a poll that showed that 45% of Americans see China as the greatest US enemy. The poll did not frame the question as Cold War but it can be argued that Joe Biden has some mandate derived from the opinion of American people. That is not the case for Europe at all, to the extent that most of us don’t see “China as an enemy” even as a relevant question.

The US’s China pursuit is already giving horrible for the US results in Europe, as French President Macron withdrew the French Ambassador to the US. The US made a deal already in June, as a part of the trilateral partnership with the UK and Australia, and stabbed France in the back months ago to Macron’s last-minute surprise last week. Max Boot at the Council on Foreign Relations argues that it is Macron that is actually arrogant to expect that commitments and deals should mean something: “Back in February, Macron rejected the idea of a U.S.-E.U. common front against China. Now he complains when America pursues its own strategy against China. What’s French for chutzpah?” What Boot does get right is that indeed, there won’t be a joint US-EU front on China, and European citizens also don’t want this, as the recent poll has made clear.

The US saying Europe should follow the US into a Cold War with China over human rights is the same thing as China saying that Europe should start a Cold War with the US over the bad US human rights record. It’s not going to happen. You have to understand that this is how ridiculous the proposition sounds to us, Europeans. Leonard and Krastev urge the EU leadership to “make the case for more assertive policies” towards China around European and national interests rather than a Cold War logic, so that they can sell a strong, united, and compelling case for the future of the Atlantic alliance to European citizens.

I am not sure that I agree, as “more assertive policies” and “cold war” is probably the same thing in the mind of most Europeans and I don’t think that the nuance helps here or matters at all. Leaders like Biden argue anyway that the US is not really pursuing a Cold War. The authors caution EU leaders against adopting a “cold war” framing. You say “framing”, I say “spin”. Should we be in engaging in spins at all to sell unnecessary conflict to EU citizens only to please the US?

Unlike during the first cold war, [Europeans] do not see an immediate, existential threat”, Leonard clarified. European politicians can no longer rely on tensions with China to convince the electorate of the value of transatlantic relations. “Instead, they need to make the case from European interests, showing how a rebalanced alliance can empower and restore sovereignty to European citizens in a dangerous world”, Mark Leonard added. The study shows that there is a growing “disconnect” between the policy ambitions of those in Brussels and how Europeans think. EU citizens should stick to their sentiments and not be convinced to look for conflict where it doesn’t exist, or change what they see and hear with their own eyes and ears in favor of elusive things like the transatlantic partnership, which the US itself doesn’t believe in anyways. And the last thing that should be done is to scare Europeans by convincing them they live in a “dangerous world” and China is the biggest threat or concern.

What the study makes clear is that a Cold War framing against China is likely to repel more EU voters than it attracts, and if there is one thing that politicians know it is that you have to listen to the polls in what your people are telling you instead of engaging in spins. Those that don’t listen in advance get the signs eventually. At the end of the day it’s not important what Biden wants.

Continue Reading

Europe

Germany and its Neo-imperial quest

Published

on

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.  

Continue Reading

Europe

Should there be an age limit to be President?

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Finance3 hours ago

More efforts needed to boost trust in AI in the financial sector

Governments, financial regulators and firms should step up their efforts to work together to address the challenges of developing and...

Finance5 hours ago

50 Firms Collaborate to Champion Next Gen Careers in Industry

The World Economic Forum today launches the New Generation Industry Leaders (NGIL) programme, a global community of fast-rising young industrialists...

Middle East7 hours ago

Turkish Geopolitics and the Kabul Airport Saga

The Taliban’s ultimate agreement to a prominent Turkish security presence at Afghanistan’s only airport completes an important power-play for the...

Finance9 hours ago

Clean Skies for Tomorrow Leaders: 10% Sustainable Aviation Fuel by 2030

Today, 60 companies in the World Economic Forum’s Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition – whose mission is to accelerate the...

Southeast Asia11 hours ago

The Indo-Pacific Conundrum: Why U.S. Plans Are Destined to Fail

That U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris paid an official visit to Singapore and Vietnam in late August 2021 signifies clear...

Middle East13 hours ago

The Battle for the Soul of Islam: Will the real reformer of the faith stand up?

Saudi and Emirati efforts to define ‘moderate’ Islam as socially more liberal while being subservient to an autocratic ruler is...

Reports15 hours ago

Financing Options Key to Africa’s Transition to Sustainable Energy

A new whitepaper outlining the key considerations in setting the course for Africa’s energy future was released today at the...

Trending