Connect with us

Europe

A Note on the Overnight Demolition of the Albanian National Theatre

Published

on

In the early morning of the 17th of May the bulldozers of the Tirana city hall started to demolish the building that hosted the Albanian National Theatre. The action came after two years of struggle between the Albanian authorities and a part of the Albanian artistic community and citizens who intended to “save” the building from the government’s plans. Since the beginning, the authorities have been justifying their intents by asserting that the building was decrepit and that the demolition of the theatre originally designed in the late 1930s by Italian architect Giulio Berté was necessary to make space for a new theatre projected by the prestigious BjarkeIngels Group. Despite its structural deterioration, many Albanians are affectively attached to the theatre which represents a symbol of Albanian art and of the capital’s historical heritage that is progressively disappearing with the massive demolition of landmark buildings during the transition period.

The demolition of the theatre constitutes a further phase in the substantial infrastructural planning undertaken by the Socialist Party when it came into power. Part of the efforts were dedicated to the amelioration of the road system of Tirana and have significantly improved mobility in the Albanian capital. However, some interventions on historical buildings and green areas have generated strong criticism because of their cultural and ecological impact. In 2016, the city hall demolished the former stadium “Qemal Stafa” to make space for the new – currently named – “Air Albania Stadium”. Before that, a concrete recreation space was built in the middle of the park surrounding the Tirana artificial lake. Another historical park, which had hosted a Luna Park adjacent to Rruga Elbasanitfor decades, was definitively destroyed to allow the construction of yet another huge concrete building. The destruction of the historical and ecological assets of Albania and Tirana in particular, was not a prerogative of the Socialist Party but started soon after the demise of Communism and has been carried out with alacrity by all governments that have ruled the country since then. Hundreds of buildings of the Ottoman and later (pre-transition) periods have been bulldozed to make space to lucrative tower blocks. The urban planning of the Socialist Party-led administration is a major source of concern for those Albanians who are now more sensitive to the preservation of their shared heritage, and for others who join the protests because of their anti-government feelings.

To many Albanians the theatre represented “the last” edifice of the “old” – and therefore authentic – Tirana which had survived the destructive power of the speculative constructing industry that marked the country’s transition period. When the mayor announced his intention to demolish the theatre in 2018, a group of actors and artists formed the “Alliance for the Defence of the Theatre”. Leading intellectuals and exponents of the opposition have asserted that the government wants to use the reconstruction of the theatre as an excuse to make personal profits. The demolition project also generated an institutional crisis. In 2018 the parliament, dominated by the Socialist Party, passed a law that established the procedure for the planning and the reconstruction of the National Theatre. In July 2019, the Albanian president sent a request to the Albanian Constitutional Court, pressing the Court to declare the unconstitutionality of the law. The commitment of the “Alliance for the Defence of the Theatre” led the international organization for the protection of the continental historical heritage “Europa Nostra” to include the theatre in the list of the “7 Most Engendered Heritage Sites” of 2020.

The demolition of the theatre produced public indignation especially for the surreptitious modality through which it was carried out by the city hall and the government. Many Albanians believe that the authorities exploited the dark and the Covid-19 laws to dismantle the edifice without having to face public protests. After a series of failed attempts to reach a deal with the constructors, on the 8th of May, the Albanian government yielded the property of the building to the Tirana city hall. President Ilir Meta and exponents of the “Alliance for the Defence of the Theatre”, warned that the government’s endeavour was meant to speed up its plans for the demolition. The Albanian president asserted that the decision of the government to transfer the property of the building was illegal because the whole affair was being reviewed by the Constitutional Court. However, the protests did not hinder the government’s plan. In the evening of Saturday 16th of May, cistern trucks filled with water were seen passing in the 21 Dhjetori neighbourhood, moving toward the city centre. According to Albanian media, at around 4 AM, 1000 policemen surrounded the building and forcefully evicted the activists and the exponents of the opposition who were occupying its premises.

The chief of the leading opposition party (the Democratic Party) Lulzim Basha invited citizens not to follow the dispositions of the government for the struggle against Covid-19 and to go out and protest by keeping a safety distance between them. The secretary of the “Movement for Socialist Integration” Monika Kryemadhi appealed to the population not to recognise the “state of Edi Rama”. The president Ilir Meta published on his Twitter account a message in English in which he declared that the theatre was demolished because the government pursued the interests of criminal organizations. The EU mission in Albania declared on Twitter that it was displeased of how events had evolved and invited the parts to calm down. The intervention of the EU appeared hypocritical to many commentators who accused and insulted the EU for having directly or indirectly supported the Albanian government. Lulzim Basha seems to share the resentment against some foreign agencies – although perhaps not specifically the EU – as he declared that “they” (the Albanians/ the opposition) are protesting because a group of “irresponsible persons” had decided to legitimize the government.

It is currently difficult to foresee whether the protests against the demolition of the theatre will settle soon or if the political conflict will escalate into a general grassroots movement against the government. The opposition, part of the media and of the public opinion accuse the Prime Minister Edi Rama of authoritarian tendencies, of favouring criminal activities and hindering the economic development of the country, leading to a significant increment of emigration. To many Albanian citizens, the overnight demolition of the theatre appears as the government’s last insult to democracy and legality. The tensions between the government and the parliament majority on the one hand and the Head of State and the opposition on the other, run the risk of leading to a further idleness of the public administration whose transparency is already hindered by corruption, organized crime and political clientelism. The next elections are scheduled for 2021 and it is quite likely that political leaders will exploit and incite public discontent to raise their consensus. However, it appears that the opposition has not to this date presented a coherent and alternative long-term political strategy for leading the country. Calls such as “rebuilding the theatre as it was” might produce a momentary support but they will most likely not have a major impact in the next votes.

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

Finance22 mins 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 Asia2 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 East4 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...

Reports6 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...

Defense8 hours ago

Eastern seas after Afghanistan: UK and Australia come to the rescue of the U.S. in a clumsy way

In March 2021 the People’s Republic of China emerged as the world’s largest naval fleet, surpassing the US Navy. An...

Southeast Asia10 hours ago

AUKUS: A Sequela of World War II and US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Deemed as a historic security pact, AUKUS was unveiled by the leaders of the US, the UK and Australia –...

Americas14 hours ago

Interpreting the Biden Doctrine: The View From Moscow

It is the success or failure of remaking America, not Afghanistan, that will determine not just the legacy of the...

Trending