Connect with us

Europe

Denmark Vs Sweden: Herd Immunity’ Is a Failed Response to Coronavirus

Published

on

Denmark and Sweden are often compared regarding their handling of coronavirus-19 because the two Scandinavian countries are similar to one-another in many ways but took very different approaches to dealing with the coronavirus challenge. Whereas Sweden took a libertarian approach (meaning minimal regulations) and aimed to develop a ‘herd immunity’ to the disease, Denmark took the opposite path and imposed social-distancing measures, mask-wearing, and more. 

As I reported regarding these two countries, in my April 22nd “Why Post-Coronavirus America Will Have Massive Poverty”

Here, therefore, is the actual performance, thus far, of both of those two countries:

DENMARK = 1,329 [cases per million residents] peaked April 7th

SWEDEN = 1,517 peaked April 8th

Both of them are reasonably comparable to Germany, UK, Turkey, and Iran, but not as good as S. Korea, and not nearly as good as the two best, China and Japan.

On May 11th, I headlined “America’s Percentage of World’s Coronavirus Cases Is Now Declining”, and reported regarding Denmark and Sweden, that, 

As of the start of the day on May 10th, those numbers are:

DENMARK = 1,782 (up 34%)

SWEDEN = 2,567 (up 69%)

Consequently, as more time passes, Denmark’s policy is considerably more effective at keeping down the number of cases than is Sweden’s.

Furthermore: whereas Sweden had tested only 14,704 persons per million (which is a very low percentage), Denmark had tested 53,345 per million (which is an extremely high percentage), and this fact likewise indicates that whereas Sweden, which has been reducing its socialism and increasing its libertarianism, is pursuing a remarkably libertarian approach to Covid-19, Denmark, which remains socialistic, is pursuing a remarkably socialist approach. And Denmark’s approach is increasingly better than Sweden’s in terms of keeping down the percentage of Covid-19 cases.

As regards the economies of those two countries: The unemployment rate in Denmark at the end of March 2020 was 4.1% and that was 170,000 unemployed; and as of May 5th there are 180,000 unemployed Danes; so, Denmark’s productivity hasn’t been much affected yet by Covid 19.

By contrast: Reuters headlined on April 14th, “Swedish unemployment rate could reach 10% by summer – Labour Board”, and reported that “Unemployment in Sweden could reach 10% in the coming months if the current wave of lay-offs due to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus continues, the Labour Board said. … Unemployment was 7.4% in February, but many companies have since shut down and sent workers home due to supply chain problems and measures to prevent the spread of the virus.” On May 7th, the Wall Street Journal bannered “Sweden Has Avoided a Coronavirus Lockdown. Its Economy Is Hurting Anyway.”

Here was the story regarding the number of cases per million, as of June 17th:

DENMARK = 2,123 (up another 19%)

SWEDEN = 5,404 ( up another 111%)

And here it is as of June 28th:

DENMARK = 2,188 (up another 3%)

SWEDEN = 5,450 (up another 1%)

During that 11-day interim, Sweden was imposing basically the same measures that Denmark was. It worked.

Furthermore: whereas on April 22nd Denmark had a coronavirus death-rate of 64 per million residents, Sweden had a coronavirus death-rate of 175 per million residents; and those numbers on june 17th were: 103 in Denmark, and 499 in Sweden. Denmark’s rose 61% while Sweden’s rose 185%. So, also on death-rates, the two countries were increasingly far apart.

Whereas Denmark’s death-rate on June 28th is 104, Sweden’s is 523. Denmark’s rose from 103 to 104, and Sweden’s rose from 499 to 523.

Sweden’s unemployment rate rose from 6% in December 2019 to 9% in May 2020. Denmark’s was 3.7% till February 2020 and shot up to 5.4% by April 2020.

Sweden’s experiment with ‘herd immunity’ is over. That approach failed. It didn’t even produce better economic results. (Actually, the biggest economic impacts from Covid-19 will be the enormous per-patient healthcare costs, which are yet to be tabulated, but what they will mean is already clear: keeping the numbers of cases down will keep future healthcare costs down. The ‘herd immunity’ countries will suffer enormously higher healthcare costs.) 

On June 15th, the German international polling firm Dalia Research reported its survey results from polling 124,000 respondents in 53 countries throughout the world, under the heading “People around the world judge their government’s COVID-19 response”, and they showed that Danes’ rating of their Government’s response was the 8th from the top, whereas Swedes’ ratings of theirs was 29th from the top. (China was rated the best at #1, and Brazil the worst at #53. America ranked #48. Most of the countries near the top took a socialistic approach to dealing with the coronavirus, and most of the countries near the bottom took a libertarian approach. However, the correlation between that ranking and ideology wasn’t nearly as strong as was ideology’s correlation with the internationally reported performance-data. For example, libertarian-run Peru was #40 but its numbers were actually far worse than that, because the libertarian population population distrusted the Government so much as to ignore the Government’s recommendations. So, Peru wasn’t just libertarian, it was chaotic, and its infection-numbers were terrible. Japan took a basically socialistic approach and its ratios on coronavirus are among the world’s best, but because the Japanese people had expected an even more socialistic approach, they thought their Government’s performance was lax and rated it at #49, which is one notch below that of the obviously failed, and quite libertarian, U.S.A. Similarly, Hong Kong, on June 17th, had had a total of only 1,121 coronavirus-19 cases and 4 deaths, compared to NYC’s 215,686 cases and 21,645 deaths, while Hong Kong’s population is 89% as large as is NYC’s; and, yet, because of Hong Kong’s anti-Government demonstrations and such, Hong Kongers rated their Government’s coronavirus-performance at #44 out of the 53. Probably NYC residents wouldn’t believe that their government is 192 times worse than Hong Kong’s on cases, and 5,411 times worse on deaths, and probably Hong Kong residents wouldn’t believe it either, but it’s true.)

Given the world’s coronavirus-19 experience, anyone who still remains a libertarian is simply beyond the reach of evidence, because the evidence against it is now overwhelming. The corpses are clear, about the matter

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

Blank Spot in EU

Published

on

The historic exit of the Great Britain from the European Union sparked both opportunities and chaos alike. Whether it comes to sectors within and beyond the orders of Britain, the trade policy with Northern Ireland or the isolated position of the bloc as the pandemic continues to perforate the continent with each passing day. It took a span of 4 years and a combination of referendums, disagreements in the House of Commons, displacement of public office and relentless efforts of the diplomats to bargain and negotiate an exit deal. Despite of the celebrated trade deal in action, much of the uncertainty still looms across Europe. The economic bloc now faces an empty spot of a 28th member post UK-exit and with rilling economic desperation and the Coronavirus spiralling alike, EU seeks a promising role to displace some of the pressure buildup.

The United Kingdom, mainly London, serves as the only unarguable financial rival to the metropolis of New York. Although the financial epicentre casted no qualms over trade post Brexit and even the EU financial markets reported no apparent glitches in trade across borders now subject to custom rules and regulations, the sheer volume of the trade denominated in LIBOR projects a sinister possibility of financial turmoil in the near future. Moreover, the trade deal negotiated, hailed by either parties as a victorious bargain, does little to placate uncertainty in the financial markets which further encourages the need of a solid alliance or partnership to fill the gap and subsequent irregularities faced by the European Union.

Turkey stands as one of the aspirants seeking EU membership. Every European state enjoys the privilege to seek EU membership which is subject to yearly review. Turkey has been a lurking party to seek EU approval since 1987. The opportunities opened up in 2016 after decades of tensions over Turkey’s shady democracy and violent role in dealing with their Kurdish minority, residing on the south-eastern borders of Turkey shared with a war-torn Syria. A refugee deal was signed in 2016 between Turkey and EU to facilitate Syrian refugees amidst the greatest refugee crisis since World War II. The deal served as a defining chapter in improving bilateral relations. Despite of Turkey’s conditions in the refugee deal: demanding a $60 billion grant from EU to pivot the refugee crisis, EU subliminally promised an expedited track for Turkey’s ascension to EU membership. 

However, Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, and arguably the most powerful political figure in the circles of Europe, always stood against and awry to Turkey’s membership in EU. The talks of Turkish membership were even stalled back in 2019 in the EU parliament and the prospects looked murky. However, as Merkel inches closer to departure from Germany’s political benches after decades of systematic control, Turkey cites the opportunity as a blessing in disguise. Coupled with Germany being at the verge of a severe recession synonymous in scale to the financial crisis of 2009, Germany’s position could actually shift in favour of Turkey ever since UK-exit baffled even the most sage minds of the continent.

The opportunities, however, are not the only blocks paving way for Turkey towards EU. Turkey shares a brutal conflict with Greece, another EU member state that has muddled the chances of Turkey in the EU for decades. Turkey has the longest continental coastline in the East Mediterranean which has been long contested with Greece over the gas reserves found profoundly in the waters of the East Mediterranean. Both countries have overlapping areas and have time and time again rejected each others claims over respective maritime borders and continental shelves. The icy relations between the duo have been hazy due to multitude of other reasons as well. Ranging from disputes over Turkish migrants crossing Greek borders to ships anchoring in the disputed regions without prior alert. The recent turmoil incited when Turkey officially declared Hagia Sophia, a museum in Istanbul and a historic remnant of Greek Orthodox Christian Cathedral, as a mosque which infuriated the Greek patriots.

Turkey’s ascension to membership might be a solution to economic disparity in the region; Turkey serving as a corridor between Europe and Asia and opening channels of economic flourish to EU like Silk Road initiative with China. The ascension could even solve the border disputes with Greece and project a solution to the energy reserves in Mediterranean, solving the divide once and for all. Even with Recab Tayyab Erdogan’s boasting position over improving relations with EU, the extent of ease in bilateral relations is still unclear. As top Turkish Diplomat’s schedule visit to Brussels in a week, and Turkey and Greece are to resume exploratory talks over territorial claims in the Mediterranean on January 25th, glimmers of astounding results are on cards in the arching diplomacy of Europe.

Continue Reading

Europe

The new Silk Road: The agreement between the EU and China opens up new geopolitics scenarios

Published

on

The year that has just started does not seem destined to be more peaceful than the one that has just ended.

While the world continues to be afflicted by the Covid-19 pandemic, the United States, which can boast to be “the oldest democracy” of the modern era, is not only helplessly suffering from the virus attack but is going through an unprecedented internal crisis that seriously calls into question its coveted role as world superpower.

On January 6 last, the Capitol Hill in Washington was assaulted by a crowd of “Trump supporters” who, inflamed by the subversive words of a President who does not seem to resign himself to electoral defeat, violently stormed the House in a bid to stop Congress from counting electoral votes to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in last November election. The attack brought America back to the dark times of Abraham Lincoln’s first election when, in 1860, eleven Southern States refused to recognize the electoral result and started an attempt to disrupt the Republic that resulted in a bloody civil war.

Donald Trump’s reckless adventurism which, in the coming days, could lead to his ousting, is not only causing a deep crisis in the internal set-up of the American society and its institutions, but also risks seriously undermining America’s credibility globally and leading to a major downsizing of its geopolitical ambitions.

Throughout his four years in office, Donald Trump has attempted to “contain” China economically and politically, by imposing tariffs and duties on Chinese goods imported into the United States and supporting the “democracy movement” in Hong Kong that has been causing unrest in the former British colony for almost two years. By inciting his supporters to challenge and oppose the Presidential handover, he has handed a propaganda weapon on a silver platter to a country like China that, after being the first to be hit by the pandemic, was also the first to emerge successfully from it.

While recalling that when protesters stormed and ravaged Hong Kong’s Capitol Hill in 2019, both Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, applauded the protesters’ violent behaviour, it was easy for the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, to accuse the Americans of “double standards” in the moral and political assessment of their own and others’ behaviours.

In a press conference convened to comment on the Washington attack on Capitol Hill, Hua Chunyingsaid: “I believe that this assault is a déjà vu … I see that in the United States there are different reactions to what happens at home compared to what happened in Hong Kong in 2019 …”.

Over and above propaganda skirmishes, in the year in which the centenary of the CPC’s is celebrated, China keeps on scoring points in its favour in the geopolitical and economic competition with the United States.

On December 30, 2020, the news of the historic investment agreement between China and the European Union was reported.

After seven years of negotiations, during a conference call between Chinese President Xi Jinping and the President of the European Commission, Ursula Von Der Leyen, with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, the “Comprehensive Agreement on Investments” (CAI) was adopted.

It is a historic agreement that opens a new “Silk Road” between Europe and the huge Chinese market.

The CAI’s basic principles aim at a substantial rebalancing of trade between Europe and China, as the latter has so far shown little openness towards the former.

With this agreement, China is opening up to Europe in many significant sectors, with particular regard to manufacturing and services.

In these sectors China commits itself to removing rules that have so far strongly discriminated against European companies, by ensuring legal certainty for those who intend to produce in China, as well as aligning European and Chinese companies at regulatory level, and encouraging the establishment of joint ventures and the signing of trade and production agreements.

In the manufacturing field, the “automotive” sector will be boosted, with specific reference to the production of electric cars, but also to the production of chemical products, materials for telecommunications and new generation health devices.

As far as the servicesector is concerned, China will foster European investment in cloud services, financial services, private healthcare and the services related to air and maritime transport.

In all the sectors covered by CAI, European investors and producers will no longer suffer any discrimination with respect to Chinese competitors, including state-owned companies, nor will they be denied access to productive sectors so far forbidden to foreigners.

The agreement also provides for guarantees that will make easier for European companies to deal with the paperwork needed to fulfil all administrative procedures and obtain legal authorizations, thus removing the bureaucratic obstacles that have traditionally made the operation of European companies in China difficult.

It is the first time in its history that China opens up in this way to foreign companies and investment.

In view of attracting them, China is committed to lining up in terms of labour costs and environmental protection, thus progressively aligning its standards with European ones, in terms of fight against pollution and trade union rights.

With a view to making this commitment concrete and visible, China adheres to both the Paris Climate Agreements and the European Convention on Labour Organization.

While commenting on the signing of the agreement, President Von Der Leyen stressed that “this is a fundamental step in our relations with China. The agreement will provide European investors with unprecedented access to the Chinese market, thus enabling our business to grow and create jobs. It also commits China to adhering to the principles of transparency and non-discrimination and fundamentally rebalances our economic relations with China.

The China-Europe agreement is another piece in the mosaic of commercial and political relations on which China wants to build the geopolitical role of a nation which, according to growth estimates, is destined to reach the first place in the world ranking in terms of GDP by the end of the decade.

In fact, CAI follows by just a month the signing of the “Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership” (RCEP), an agreement of strategic importance signed by China with the ten ASEAN countries and with Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

The RCEP has been described as “the world’s largest trade and investment bloc” and essentially creates an area of economic cooperation and free trade involving 2.2 billion people producing 28%of world trade and over 30% of global GDP.

The RCEP countries account for 50% of the world’s manufacturing output, 50% of automobile production and 70% of electronics. The RCEP eliminates 90% of tariffs on trade in the signatories’ region, thus creating a huge Asian free trade area that sees, on the one hand, India’s marginalization and, on the other, the growth of China’s role throughout East Asia.

The CAI agreements with Europe and the RCEP agreements with Asian partners undoubtedly mark a historic turning point in relations between China and the rest of the world. The United States remains excluded from these relations, as it is currently blocked in a process of transition that limits not only its democratic activity, but also its operativity and international credibility.

After the hallmark of U.S. foreign policy in Trump’s era was reduced to imposing tariffs on trade with China, the gradual loss of credibility of the U.S. administration has stultified Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s attempts to gather a broad international anti-Chinese coalition led by the United States.

The RCEP is there to demonstrate how fragile the U.S. attempts to counter China economically and politically have been, as two once strategic partners of the United States like South Korea and Australia have literally turned a deaf ear to American appeals and have struck a historic and strategic deal with China.

The CAI puts Europe in communication and in ever closer connection with what for centuries was “The Middle Kingdom”, i.e. a China that has chosen to lower its ideological barriers in order to open up new pathways of economic progress and hopefully democratic development.

French and German representatives were present at the CAI signing.

While Europe was opening the “new Silk Road”, the country that gave birth to De Gasperi, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, and to Marco Polo, protagonist of the opening of the first “Silk Road”, was conspicuously absent from the negotiation table.

Continue Reading

Europe

Has Germany Lost its NATO Compass?

Published

on

Authors: Dr. Zlatko Hadžidedić, Adnan Idrizbegović

By the end of 2020, a strange information appeared in Bosnian and German media: having made unilateral concessions to the long campaign of Russia to put an end to the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Germany now wants to overthrow the current High Representative, Valentin Inzko, and bring the OHR under control of its own man, Christian Schmidt. Does this bilateral initiative have any legal basis? And, is this petty manoeuvre in the Balkans going to open Pandora’s box on the global level, again?

The Office of the High Representative was established in 1995 by the Dayton Peace Accords, to exercise the remaining10% of the Bosnian state sovereignty, which has in 90% been ceded to the two ethnically defined sub-state units, the so-called entities. As such, High Representative has the authority to overpower blockades and vetoes introduced by the entities. High Representative is an inseparable part of Bosnia’s Dayton Constitution, no less than the entities and their veto power. In that sense, the Russian campaign to eliminate the Office of the High Representative while preserving the entities and their veto power is legally absurd: one cannot take one part of a contract out, while insisting on implementation of the rest; for, taking one part out nullifies a contract altogether. However, implementation of the Russian requests under the given conditions of the Dayton Constitution would destroy the last remnants of the Bosnian sovereignty and integrity, granting full sovereignty to the entities and resulting in Bosnia’s dissolution. Russia, acting for years as a self-proclaimed supporter of Serbia and its interests to dissolve Bosnia, does not introduce any novelty in its foreign policy in the Balkans. Yet, what is going on with Germany, a NATO member, an EU leader, and a self-promoted supporter of Bosnia’s sovereignty and integrity?

It should be noted that a High Representative can be replaced only by decision of the UN Security Council, under recommendation of the Peace Implementation Council, a body for implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords consisting of diplomatic representatives of the US, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Canada, Japan, and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference represented by Turkey. The UN Security Council decisions can be reached only by consensus of the permanent members with veto power. Decisions of the Peace Implementation Council can also be reached only by consensus of its original members (US, UK, France, Russia, Germany, Italy). It is, therefore, legally absurd, again, to replace a High Representative by a bilateral agreement between Russia and Germany, without any such consensus. It would mean a violation, if not elimination, of all legal procedures, not only those referring to the institution of High Representative, but also those related to the Security Council and the UN as a whole. Indeed, what happened to the German foreign policy, hitherto absolutely devoted to international legal procedures and international law?

An explanation for the German change of course, presented in both Bosnian and German media, was German increasing dependence on Russian gas supply, bearing in mind that Germany has given up all alternatives to the Nord Stream pipeline, which delivers Russian gas to Germany. Once upon a time, the former German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, strongly advocated an alternative pipeline, called Nabucco, which would bring Iranian gas to Germany and the rest of Europe. On the other side, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who eventually became Chairman of the Board of both Nord Stream AG and Rosneft, a Russian oil corporation, advocated the Nord Stream pipeline as the preferential one. Eventually, Schroeder had enough luck to have a comprehensive anti-Iranian coalition (ranging from Russia to the US) on his side, so that the Nabucco project was eventually abandoned and the Nord Stream remained the only option. At the time, Schroeder was criticised by German media for linking his private interests with strategic interests of Russia: for, the company Nord Stream AG, of which he was the Chairman, was in 51% owned by the Russian corporation Gazprom. In this way, Schroeder made Germany dependent not only on Russian gas supply, but also on Russian geostrategic interests, articulated by the Kremlin and Gazprom. Schroeder’s personal friendship with Russian President, Vladimir Putin, did not pass unnoticed, either. In this way, Germany not only gave up its own energetic sovereignty, but also abandoned the official EU energetic security strategy, which stipulates diversification of energy supply sources. Schroeder thus intentionally buried the traditional German Ostpolitik; but what was the reason for the next German government, led by Angela Merkel and controlled by the CDU/CSU coalition, to adopt the same course? What has happened to the German geostrategic orientation? Has Germany lost its NATO compass?  

After the disastrous consequences of the 1973 oil crisis, German government invested heavily in construction of gigantic oil and gas storages, with a strategic goal to control negative effects of permanent oil price fluctuations on the German economy and population. Yet, these storages have eventually ended up in ownership of the Russian oil and gas giant, Gazprom. Such a development has given Gazprom effective control of the German energy market. Consequently, it has given Gazprom and Russia strategic influence on the entire economy of the European Union. One can only wonder, why has Germany decided to deliver not only its own destiny, but also that of Europe, to Russia? And then, no wonder that Great Britain has opted for Brexit to simply run away – this time, not from the Brussels bureaucracy, but from the Kremlin’s oilgarchy and Russian energocracy.

This U-turn in geopolitical orientation, unilaterally performed by Germany but tacitly agreed upon by the rest of the EU countries, certainly generates shockwaves throughout the Euro-Atlantic structures, inevitably separating Europe from the Atlanticist part of its identity. In this context, the most loyal American allies among the NATO members, Turkey and Germany, have turned their backs on the US and started looking at Russia as a new strategic partner. Both of them utilised the crisis of leadership in the US, caused by President Trump, to reclaim their sovereignty and decide which side to turn to. Since Trump has managed to disable the entire global security architecture as constructed after the World War II, attacking all multilateral organisations and treaties and thus opening the gates of the West for the Russians and Chinese to enter, German and Turkish re-orientation can be justified as rational. Yet, a bitter taste of betrayal – by Germany, by Turkey, but no less by Trump – lingers on. Does it mean that America, under Donald Trump, has eventually lost the Cold War, as Russia had once lost it under Boris Yeltsin? Will American influence be reduced to the English-speaking world? Is Germany, together with Russia, establishing a new, Eurasian Union? Is China going to be a part of it, given its hasty trade deal with the EU? Has the worst Anglo-American nightmare, that of a united Eurasian “World Island”, finally come true? Or the current German-Russian pact is going to end up like the previous one, smashed under the weight of the Anglo-American axis?

Global Pandora’s box has obviously been opened and the world geopolitical order, as we knew it, has fallen apart. A new order, or perhaps a disorder, is approaching. Such a development can be detected at all levels, looking at the top or at the bottom, and is signalled even by the clumsy German attempt to court the Russians by abandoning fundamental legal principles and its own foreign policy postulates in a seemingly insignificant place like Bosnia. Strangely, both Germany and Russia have accepted to play the roles assigned to them in the 1990s by the then British propaganda, which labelled them as patrons of Croatia and Serbia in their efforts to carve up Bosnia along the lines of its multiple religious identities. Whereas Russia openly adopted its role as the protector of the Orthodox Serbs many years ago, Germany’s adoption of the parallel role, that of the protector of the Catholic Croats, is a relative novelty. While in the 1990s both Germany and Russia were reluctant to play the roles casted by others, now they have become eager to demonstrate their rising power through such a game. The attempted appointment of Christian Schmidt leaves no place for doubt that Germany has fallen into this trap with a surplus of enthusiasm. For, the former German Minister of Agriculture, and a member of the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU),was publicly decorated by Croatia with a medal of “Order of Ante Starčević” for his promotion of Croatian national interests. He proudly shares this medal with prominent Croatian ultra-nationalists and war criminals, such as Gojko Šušak, Mate Boban, Dario Kordić, Jadranko Prlić, and many others, who were inspired by the Croatian Ustash a regime from the World War II, as much as the Ustashas themselves had been inspired by the then German Nazi regime. In this context, it should be noted that Schmidt’s inclinations are not derived from some religious, pan-Catholic sentiments, but rather from his ideological, ultra-nationalist affinities, for which he was rewarded by his ideological brethren. If appointed a High Representative, Schmidt will probably follow the same path, so he will promote interests of Croatian ultra-nationalists, whose goal is to cede a part of the Bosnian territory and make it a part of Croatia, rather than interests of Catholics in Bosnia. Does it imply that he is going to work together with ultra-nationalists of all sorts – and there are enough of them in Bosnia – on the country’s final dissolution? Is that outcome in Germany’s best interest, and what kind of image does Germany project if it sends Schmidts as its representatives? Finally, what message does Germany leave to the world, if it takes the advantage of the uncertain power transition in America to prepare dissolution of a US-sponsored international treaty, the Dayton Peace Accords, thereby introducing, with a help of Russia, a new era of lawlessness?

There are so many questions to which German authorities should offer valid answers, before they pull the trigger to assassinate both Dayton and Bosnia, and destroy some of the last remnants of the international order. Do they think that they owe these answers to the rest of us?

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending