Connect with us

Europe

Otto von Bismarck: How did he maintain peace in Europe

Published

on

The war of 1870 between France and Prussia had two major consequences. First and foremost, the defeat of France and the subsequent Treaty of Frankfurt marked the end of the French dominance in continental Europe. Secondly, the German annexation of Alsace and Lorraine completed the establishment of German Empire which propelled them among the ranks of major European powers. The reunification of Germany caused a fundamental shift in the distribution of power in 19th century Europe. Bismarck had understood that among others his objective was to gain trust and make Germany look peaceful and friendly to other countries. Bismarck was able to convince other European powers that unified German empire was a status quo power and posed no security threats to them. Consequently, through his diplomatic tact and proactiveness Bismarck maintained peace in Europe for nearly two decades.[1] The main theme of this article is to elucidate how the foreign policy undertaking by Bismarck and his system of alliance with Austria and Russia was able to prevent Germany from war against other European powers and thus preserved peace in Europe.

Bismarck and His System of Alliances

Aftermath the Franco Prussian War, France was in agony over the lost territories. The French despised the Germans, the hatred and the animosity against Germany was at all time high and the French would pounce upon any opportunity to get revenge on Germany. Bismarck, cautious of the French revanchism, directed his foreign policy and diplomatic engagement towards keeping France at bay and isolated, for he knew any hostile alliance by France with other European powers posed the danger of a potential two-front war that threatened the survival of the German Empire.So, he sought maintaining amiable relations with other countries and core part of his focus was on building a peaceful and friendly alliance with Austria and Russia. [2]

Initially, Bismarck found himself in a crossroad when Russia and Austria were contending over the issue of the Balkans. The relative decline of the Turkish power had opened up opportunities for Russia and Austria to fill the power vacuum in the region. The Balkans were of a strategic importance to both the Russians and the Austrians. With neither willing to let the other have influence in the region, Bismarck sensed Germany could become reluctantly involved in any future Austro-Russian conflict over the area.[3] So, he proposed the formation of the League of the Three Emperors (Dreikaiserbund) which officially took shape in 1873. The objectives of the Dreikaiserbund were twofold: first and foremost, to ease off tensions between Austria and Russia over territorial claims in the Balkans and secondly, to prevent intervention in any potential strife between Germany and France. Although, the alliance did not have military component to it, for the time being, it fulfilled Bismarck’s aim to isolate France. In addition, the three parties also vowed to preserve the status quo in Europe.

Likewise, the German Empire had just come into being, although unified Germany was powerful, they weren’t indispensable and Bismarck knew this to the core. Back then, Britain controlled most of the world’s colonies as well as the oceans. In order to perpetuate Germany’s security and survival, the last thing Bismarck wanted was to antagonize Britain by getting himself into colonial competition. In addition, he viewed colonies as counterproductive that could easily create entanglements that result in diplomatic rift and disputes with powerful forces. Moreover, he sensed inherent danger of colonial commitments leading to shift German focus from Europe. Furthermore, Bismarck saw German future in Europe; his reference to “My Map of Africa lies in Europe” being a testament to it. This explains why, initially, in spite of domestic pressure, Bismarck was reluctant to get into colonial adventures for fears of confrontation with Britain and ­­­­instead focused on trade and industrialization to bolster German economy.

The events in the Balkan Crisis (1875-1878) exacerbated Austria-Russia rivalry. Yet again, Bismarck feared Austro-Russian war could engulf the whole region. In order to prevent this from happening, Bismarck hosted the Congress of Berlin as an “honest-broker”. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the Congress and at Bismarck’s role, Russia ended the Dreikaiserbund. However, Bismarck was able to uphold and maintain the peace but at Russian antagonism. Fearing Russian military preparedness, Bismarck sensed Germany could be subject of a two-front war; realizing the need for ally, he got into military alliance with the Austrian empire and formed the Dual Alliance. The terms of the treaty stated both Austria and Germany would aid one another in the event of an attack from Russia. Later, Italy joined the alliance to make it the Triple Alliance. All these efforts from Bismarck made sure France formed no alliance with major powers.

With German alliance getting stronger, and feeling increasingly isolated, Russia came to an understanding with Germany and Austria which resulted in the Renewal of the Dreikaiserbund. This alliance effectively made sure France remained isolated and any French-Russian coalition wouldn’t materialize throughout his tenure. Once, on the verge of getting in a potential Austro-Russian conflict, Bismarck made sure, all contending parties were pacified and the status quo was preserved. However, the Bulgarian Crisis (1885) escalated the situation when Russia sought war with Austria and Britain would support Austria to stop Russian takeover of Bulgaria;the tension all but ended the Dreikaiserbund once again. The onus was on Bismarck to reconcile Russia and Austria and with his diplomatic adeptness Bismarck negotiated a defensive alliance – Reinsurance Treaty with Russia. The terms of the treaty secured neutrality in the event either party was attacked. It achieved one of Bismarck’s primary foreign policy goals –isolation of France.

However, all wasn’t gold for Bismarck in his foreign policy. The War in Sight Crisis of 1875 was one of such. France had recovered earlier from the defeats of the Franco-Prussian war than Germany anticipated them to and kicked off their rearmament program. By virtue of Security-Dilemma, Germany felt threatened. This unwanted crisis unfolded when an article “Krieg-in-Sicht” was published in Germany that mentioned several high-profile German officials contemplating preventive war against France. It created fear among the Europe’s elite; the Brits and the Russians made their position clear to Germany that no preventive war would be entertained. This unwanted incident resulted in Bismarck’s diplomatic failure and taught him a lesson that unallied France can still pose a threat. However, this incident can be considered a wakeup call for him who later initiated policies that sought peace in Europe and quite remarkably achieved it.

David Copeland’s Dynamic Differential Theory 

Going by the realist assumption in a world characterized by anarchy and self-help where states are rational unitary actors, David Copeland in the Origins of Major war has posited that a dominant but a declining state perceives a rising power as a serious security threat and in order to perpetuate its survival, the declining major power is more than likely to resort to war. Thereby increasing chances of great power wars. By virtue of Dynamic Differentials theory, Copeland has maintained that polarity constraints the likelihood of war. In a multipolar world, a declining major power is only likely to pursue war as long as its relative military power is considerably higher than other major powers in the multipolar system. However, in a bipolar world, there is a clear delineation of friend and foes. There is also no third power that could take opportunity of the spoils between two major powers. Therefore, in this system, a declining power is likely to pursue war even if it just matches relative military capabilities of the rising power. [4]

It can be argued that during the time Bismarck was in power there were no major wars. However, it wasn’t because of his “love for peace” – as was demonstrated by Bismarck’s appetite for wars between 1864 and 1870 (with Austria, Denmark and France). Rather it had got to do with systemic conditions – polarity – constraining the prospects of war. Back then, Europe was multipolar. Germany was going through extensive industrialization and nowhere near did they possess a considerable military prowess. Bismarck knew any expansionist adventure would be met by force from Russia, France and Britain. Similarly, upon unification, Germany although became a powerful force, it was still only a rising power and the hegemon – Britain- was not in decline. Thus, war wasn’t initiated due to power differentials in economic and military aspects between the Hegemon and the rising power. Furthermore, talks of preventive wars were discussed in 1875, 1877 and 1887, however weren’t pursued for the very reasons. [5] Bismarck wanted peace and economic stability for the unified Germany until it became preponderant to challenge the system.

Conclusion

To sum up, Bismarck’s success in maintaining peace in Europe for nearly two decades can be attributed to his understanding of the constraints posed by the European multipolar order. Most importantly, his diplomatic engagements to pacify Austria and Russia as well as his ability to bring these two powers into defensive alliance with Germany made sure France remained isolated. It prevented Germany from facing two-front war which in turn prevented the breakout of a major war in Europe.

Works Cited:

[1] Watson, Adam. The Evolution of International Society. (London: Routledge, 1993), 242-249

[2] Miller, Stuart T. “Bismarck and International Relations 1871–90.” Mastering Modern European History, 1988, 242–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19580-0_16.

[3] Williamson, D. G. War and Peace: International Relations, 1890-1941. (London: Hodder Education, 2015)

[4] Copeland, Dale C. The Origins of Major War. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000), 15

[5] Ibid, 61

The author is currently pursuing his Master's degree in International Relations from SIPA, Jilin University

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

NATO’s Cypriot Trick

Published

on

UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact died, there was much speculation that NATO would consider itself redundant and either disappear or at least transmogrify into a less aggressive body.

Failing that, Moscow at least felt assured that NATO would not include Germany, let alone expand eastwards. Even the NATO Review, NATO’s PR organ, wrote self-apologetically twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin wall: “Thus, the debate about the enlargement of NATO evolved solely in the context of German reunification. In these negotiations Bonn and Washington managed to allay Soviet reservations about a reunited Germany remaining in NATO. This was achieved by generous financial aid, and by the ‘2+4 Treaty’ ruling out the stationing of foreign NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany. However, it was also achieved through countless personal conversations in which Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders were assured that the West would not take advantage of the Soviet Union’s weakness and willingness to withdraw militarily from Central and Eastern Europe.”

Whatever the polemics about Russia’s claim that NATO broke its promises, the facts of what happened following the fall of the Berlin wall and the negotiations about German re-unification strongly demonstrate that Moscow felt cheated and that the NATO business and military machine, driven by a jingoistic Cold War Britain, a selfish U.S. military-industrial-congressional complex and an atavistic Russia-hating Poland, saw an opportunity to become a world policeman.

This helps to explain why, in contrast to Berlin, NATO decided to keep Nicosia as the world’s last divided city. For Cyprus is in fact NATO’s southernmost point, de facto. And to have resolved Cyprus’ problem by heeding UN resolutions and getting rid of all foreign forces and re-unifying the country would have meant that NATO would have ‘lost’ Cyprus: hardly helpful to the idea of making NATO the world policeman. Let us look a little more closely at the history behind this.

Following the Suez debacle in 1956, Britain had already moved its Middle East Headquarters from Aden to Cyprus, while the U.S. was taking over from the UK and France in the Middle East. Although, to some extent under U.S. pressure, Britain was forced to bring Makarios out of exile and begin negotiating with Greece and Turkey to give up its colony, the U.S. opted for a NATO solution. It would not do to have a truly sovereign Cyprus, but only one which accepted the existence of the Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) as part and parcel of any settlement; and so it has remained, whatever the sophistic semantics about a bizonal settlement and a double-headed government. The set of twisted and oft-contradictory treaties that have bedevilled the island since 1960 are still afflicting the part-occupied island which has been a de facto NATO base since 1949. Let us look at some more history.

When Cyprus obtained its qualified independence in 1960, Greece and Turkey had already signed, on 11 February 1959, a so called ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, agreeing that they would support Cyprus’ entry into NATO.1 This was, however, mere posture diplomacy, since Britain—and the U.S. for that matter—did not trust Cyprus, given the strength of the Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL) and the latter’s links to Moscow. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) wrote: ‘Membership of NATO might make it easier for the Republic of Cyprus and possibly for the Greeks and Turks to cause political embarrassment should the United Kingdom wish to use the bases […] for national ends outside Cyprus […] The access of the Cypriot Government to NATO plans and documents would present a serious security risk, particularly in view of the strength of the Cypriot Communist Party. […] The Chiefs of Staff, therefore, feel most strongly that, from the military point of view, it would be a grave disadvantage to admit Cyprus to NATO.’2 In short, Cyprus was considered unreliable.

As is well known, the unworkable constitution (described as such by the Foreign Office and even by David Hannay, the Annan reunification plan’s PR man), resulted in chaos and civil strife: in January 1964, during the chaos caused by the Foreign Office’s help and encouragement to President Makarios to introduce a ‘thirteen point plan’ to solve Cyprus’ problems, British Prime Minister Douglas-Home told the Cabinet: ‘If the Turks invade or if we are seriously prevented from fulfilling our political role, we have made it quite clear that we will retire into base.’3 Put more simply, Britain had never had any intention of upholding the Treaty of Guarantee.

In July of the same year, the Foreign Office wrote: ‘The Americans have made it quite clear that there would be no question of using the 6th Fleet to prevent any possible Turkish invasion […] We have all along made it clear to the United Nations that we could not agree to UNFICYP’s being used for the purpose of repelling external intervention, and the standing orders to our troops outside UNFYCYP are to withdraw to the sovereign base areas immediately any such intervention takes place.’4

It was mainly thanks to Moscow and President Makarios that in 1964 a Turkish invasion and/or the island being divided between Greece and Turkey was prevented. Such a solution would have strengthened NATO, since Cyprus would no longer exist other than as a part of NATO members Greece and Turkey. Moscow had issued the following statement: ‘The Soviet Government hereby states that if there is an armed foreign invasion of Cypriot territory, the Soviet Union will help the Republic of Cyprus to defend its freedom and independence against foreign intervention.’5

Privately, Britain, realising the unworkability of the 1960 treaties, was embarrassed, and wished to relieve itself of the whole problem. The following gives us the backstage truth: ‘The bases and retained sites, and their usefulness to us, depend in large measure on Greek Cypriot co-operation and at least acquiescence. A ‘Guantanamo’6 position is out of the question. Their future therefore must depend on the extent to which we can retain Greek and/or Cypriot goodwill and counter USSR and UAR pressures. There seems little doubt, however, that in the long term, our sovereign rights in the SBA’s will be considered increasingly irksome by the Greek Cypriots and will be regarded as increasingly anachronistic by world public opinion.7

Following the Turkish invasion ten years later, Britain tried to give up its bases: ‘British strategic interests in Cyprus are now minimal. Cyprus has never figured in NATO strategy and our bases there have no direct NATO role. The strategic value of Cyprus to us has declined sharply since our virtual withdrawal from east of Suez. This will remain the case when the Suez Canal has reopened.8

A Cabinet paper concluded: ‘Our policy should continue to be one of complete withdrawal of our military presence on Cyprus as soon as feasible. […] In the circumstances I think that we should make the Americans aware of our growing difficulty in continuing to provide a military presence in Cyprus while sustaining our main contribution to NATO. […]9

Britain kept trying to give up the bases, but the enabler of the Turkish invasion, Henry Kissinger, did not allow Britain to give up its bases and listening posts, since that would have weakened NATO, and since Kissinger needed the bases because of the Arab-Israel dispute.10

Thus, by the end of 1980, in a private about-turn, Britain had completely succumbed to American pressure: ‘The benefits which we derive from the SBAs are of major significance and virtually irreplaceable. They are an essential contribution to the Anglo-American relationship. The Department have regularly considered with those concerned which circumstances in Cyprus are most conducive to our retaining unfettered use of our SBA facilities. On balance, the conclusion is that an early ‘solution’ might not help (since pressures against the SBAs might then build up), just as breakdown and return to strife would not, and that our interests are best served by continuing movement towards a solution – without the early prospect of arrival [author’s italics]11.

And so it is today: Cyprus is a de facto NATO territory. A truly independent, sovereign and united Cyprus is an anathema to the U.S. and Britain, since such a scenario would afford Russia the hypothetical opportunity to increase its influence in the Eastern Mediterranean.

From our partner RIAC

[1] Ministry of Defence paper JP (59) 163, I January 1960, BNA DEFE 13/99/MO/5/1/5, in Mallinson, William, Cyprus, a Modern History, I.B. Tauris (now Bloomsbury), London and New York, 2005, 2009, 2012, p.49.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Memorandum by Prime Minister, 2 January 1964, BNA CAB/129/116, in ibid, Mallinson, William, p.37.

[4] British Embassy, Washington, to Foreign Office, 7 July 1964, telegram 8541, BNA FO 371/174766, file C1205/2/G, in ibid.’, Mallinson, William, p. 37.

[5] Joseph, Joseph S., Cyprus, Ethnic Conflict and International Politics, St Martin’s Press, London and New York, 1997, p. 66.

[6] In 1964, Cuba cut off supplies to the American base at Guantanamo Bay, since the US refused to return it to Cuba, as a result of which the US took measures to make it self-sufficient.

[7] Briefing paper, 18 June 1964, BNA-DO/220/170, file MED 193/105/2, part A. Mallinson,William, Kissinger and the Invasion of Cyprus, p. 127.

[8] ‘British Interests in the Eastern Mediterranean’, draft paper, 11 April 1975, BNA-FCO 46/1248, file DPI/515/1.

[9] Cabinet paper, 29 September 1976, in op. cit. Mallinson, William, Kissinger and the Invasion of Cyprus, p.134.

[10] Mallinson, William, Britain and Cyprus: Key Themes and Documents, I.B. Tauris, London and New York, 2011, and Bloomsbury, London and New York, 2020, pp. 87-121.

[11] Fergusson to Foreign Minister’s Private Secretary, minute, 8 December 1980, BNA-FCO 9/2949, file WSC/023/1, part C.

Continue Reading

Europe

Belarus divorces from the Eastern Partnership: A new challenge for the EU Neighborhood Policy

Published

on

The Eastern Partnership (EaP) is the Eastern dimension of the EU Neighborhood Policy adopted back in 2009 aimed at deepening relations between Brussels and six Eastern European partners – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The EaP has been regarded as a strategic initiative based on mutual interests and common values with a goal of strengthening political and economic relations with those countries, helping them enhance their institutional capacity through sustainable reforms. While increasing stability and paving the way for the sustainable development of those societies, the EU’s overall goal has been to secure its Eastern borders.

Since the very beginning the EaP has been suspiciously viewed by Russia as an attempt of expansion of the sphere of influence and as a first step of EU membership of these countries. Russians point to the EU and NATO ambitious expansion eastward as the main reason for complicated relations and in this context the EaP has been regarded with traditional fears and paranoic perceptions. The Russian hard power approach causes serious problems for the EaP which fails to mitigate security concerns of partner countries and to come up with serious initiatives for conflict settlement. Being a laggard in terms of soft power, the Russian ruling elite has continuously used all hard power foreign policy instruments at its disposal trying to undermine the coherence of the initiative. And the very recent démarche of Belarus to withdraw from the EaP should be seen in this context of confrontation.

On 28th of June, the ministry of foreign affairs of Belarus announced a decision to halt its membership in the EaP as a response to the EU sanctions imposed on Minsk accompanied by the recalling ambassadors from both sides. Actually, this isn’t the first case of the EaP walkout blackmailed by Lukashenko. The first escape was attempted in September-October 2011, but the difficulties were soon resolved and Lukashenko revised his decision. This time situation seems very complicated and these far-reaching tensions may have tough consequences for Lukashenko’s regime. This new group of sectoral sanctions which target banking, oil, telecommunication spheres and also ban the export of potash, is a harsh response from the EU against Lukashneko’s scandalous hijacking activity in May to detain a Belarusian opposition journalist and blogger Roman Protasevich.

Lukashenko’s administration not only challenges the EU Neighborhood Policy and shows no retreat, but also goes forward escalating the situation. Minsk takes high risks freezing the Readmission Agreement signed by the EU. This document is a legal basis for bilateral cooperation aimed at struggling against irregular migration flows. It’s not a secret that the territory of Belarus has been used for illegal migration for the groups from the Middle East to penetrate into neighboring EU member states such as Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. Moreover, Belarus territory has served as a transit route for smuggling circles going from East to West and vice versa.  And now closing eyes on all these channels, Minsk hopes to increase the bargaining power vis-à-vis Brussels. However, given the Western reactions, it seems that this time the EU is resolute.

Despite the fact that Charles Michel, the President of the EU Council, described this withdrawal as “another step backwards” and even threatened that “this will escalate tensions having clear negative impacts”, the EU wants to continue working with the Belarusian society  as Josep Borrel stated. The EU’s determination to keep the bridges alive with the Belarusian people, in spite of Lukashneko’s radical stance, is aimed at preventing further isolationism of Minsk which would benefit only Russia.

In contrast to the increasing level of tensions with the EU, the Russian authorities continue to support Lukasheno’s administration, thus trying to deepen the gap and to bring Belarus under their total influence. Russia uses Belarus in its chessboard with the EU and the USA in Eastern Europe. Last year’s fraud elections and brutal crackdown by Lukashenko left him alone with the only source of power stemming from the Kremlin. Thus the withdrawal from the EaP should be understood not only as a convulsion of the Belarusian authorities in response to the sanctions, but also Russia’s employment of the Belarus card to respond to the recent joint statement of the EU-US summit in Brussels, when both parties declared their intention to stand with the people of Belarus, supporting their demands for human rights and democracy simultaneously criticising Lukashenko’s regime and his reckless political behavior and also criticising Russian’s unacceptable behavior.

So, Lukashenko’s step to quit the EaP can be seen as a well-calculated adulatory sign towards Moscow sacrificing the last remnants of sovereignty in order to receive financial and political lifebuoy amid the increasing crisis in the result of sanctions.  And the recent visit of N. Patrushev, the Secretary of the Security Council of Russia, to Minsk right after the withdrawal decision shows Russian inclination to strike while the iron is hot and to abuse the vulnerable situation of Belarus. Patrushev stated that the ultimate goal of foreign powers is to change the power in Belarus and he suggested instead of focusing on internal issues, to bring their forces together against external threats as their influence affects internal developments. For this reason, deeper integration of security and military services of both countries are on the table.

The reaction of opposition leader S. Tikhanovskaya was very rough, stating that this suspension will cut the opportunities of ordinary citizens who benefit from the political and economic outcomes of the EaP. Moreover, she claims that Lukashenko doesn’t have a right to represent Belarus since August 2020 and his decisions don’t have legal consequences for Belarus. This kind of approach is shared by the leadership of Lithuania too, whose president and minister of foreign affairs not only refuse to recognize Lukashenko as a legitimate president, but also highlight the role of the Kremlin in supporting the dictatorial power of Lukashenko in exchange for decreasing sovereignty.

The blackmail of Lukashenko to challenge the EU Eastern Neighborhood Policy  in order to have the sanctions lifted may bring about such kind of precedents with other partnering countries as well. First of all, this concerns Azerbaijan which continues to face serious problems related with human rights, freedom of expression, the problem of Prisoners of War and other traits of authoritarian power. It’s well-known that  human rights issues have been the underwater stones in the EU and Azerbaijan relations and they continue to pose new challenges for Aliyev’s non-democratice regime. Another weak ring of the EaP chain is Armenia. Even though reelected N. Pashinyan is eager to pursue a balanced foreign policy, post-war Armenia still faces serious limitations given its vulnerable dependence on Russia. Besides, Pashinyan’s main rival and the former President R. Kocharyan, whose alliance will be the second largest faction in the newly elected Parliament has recently stated that this new parliament can last up to one and half years and nobody can exclude the possibility of new snap elections. His pro-Russian attitude and anti-Western stance are well-known and in case he becomes a prime-minister, there is no guarantee that he will follow the path of Lukashenko. 

Therefore  the statement of the Austrian MFA, that ”we cannot leave South Caucasus to others” during the  recent official visit of the Austrian, Romanian and Latvian MFA under the mandate of the EU High Representative to the South Caucasus, reminds  about the EU presence in the region and also the fact that the ‘normative power’ can be a source of balance and a status quo changer.

Continue Reading

Europe

Anti-Macron protests underline classism, as corona protesters and gilets jaune join forces

Published

on

photo: Alaattin Doğru - Anadolu Agency

I get it. People in France are fed up with the Covid lockdowns and that’s why they are protesting against the new tightening of the Covid rules. But there is much more to the story.

The new anti-Covid rules by French President Macron came in the middle of the Cannes Film Festival where the rich and famous come out to play for 10 days at the French Reviera. I was there, too, in fact when the new set of rules angered so many ordinary French people. But guess what — the rules didn’t apply to us, those gathered for the Cannes red carpets and parties. Celebrities did not have to wear masks on the red carpet. I did not have to put on a mask at the red carpets. I was not checked even once on the mandatory Covid tests which we took every 2 days anyways. No one at the Cannes red carpets, parties or fashion shows was looking at Covid tests at the entrance, and I attended not one or two things. That’s at the time when the rest of France was boiling. Yes, we were treated differently as the Cannes crowd. That was obvious.

Don’t get me wrong — spending tens of thousands of euros to drink champaigne, walk red carpets and hang out with actors, models, designers and influencers is great. But I couldn’t help but notice that the Cannes elite was being held to a very different standard in comparisson to the ordinary French public. Macron exempted the Cannes crowd from the new rules and that smells of classism and elitism. I can see why the gillets gaune, which I wrote about in my book Trump, European security and Turkey (2020), are angry and want to resume their protests which were put an end to with the Covid lockdowns.

In fact, as soon as you move one or two streets away from the craze and snobbery of the Cannes Festival, you see a very different French picture. Actually, the most pleasant conversations I had in Cannes were with the guy that made my pizza at 2am, a couple of gillets jaune on the street, and the taxi driver who lives in Cannes. These were the pleasant, hard-working French people that represent France so much better than the snotty Cannes Film Festival organizers, the French police or the so-overrated snobbery at the Chopard events. 

From the pizza guy in Mozarella Street I learned that he works two jobs and sleeps 3 hours per night. That’s the reality for many normal French people. Yet, he was the nicest and coolest person I met in Cannes. Somehow I wished that he could trade places with some of the rest I met in Cannes who probably don’t deserve to have an easy life and should be taught a lesson. So I get it. I get the struggle of the gillets gaune and all those that are opposed to Macron’s policies. He is increasingly playing with the far right and that might as well mean that he is looking at his sunset. 

I also get the classism that persists in French society — it’s important to be aware of it even if you’re on the receiving end of a lot of glamor, bemefits and good things. All I can tell you is that next time I am in France, I am joining the gillet jaune protests. Now I really get it. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Intelligence49 mins ago

The New World Order: The conspiracy theory and the power of the Internet

“The Illuminati, a mysterious international organisation made up of the world’s top political and social elites, controls the workings of...

Environment3 hours ago

Western Indian Ocean region has declared 550,000 square kilometers as protected

The Western Indian Ocean region has declared 143* marine and coastal areas as protected – an area covering 553,163 square...

Green Planet7 hours ago

Six things you can do to bring back mangroves

Don’t be fooled by their modest appearance: mangroves are important players in some of the greatest challenges facing the world...

Development9 hours ago

ADB Calls for Just, Equitable Transition Toward Net Zero in Asia and Pacific

Asian Development Bank (ADB) President Masatsugu Asakawa today called for countries in Asia and the Pacific to take bold action...

Green Planet11 hours ago

Oil, acid, plastic: Inside the shipping disaster gripping Sri Lanka

It’s visible in satellite images from just off Sri Lanka’s coast: a thin grey film that snakes three kilometres out...

Terrorism13 hours ago

A question mark on FATF’s credibility

While addressing a political gathering, India’s external affairs minister  S. Jaishanker made a startling lapsus de langue “We have been...

Human Rights15 hours ago

UNSC calls for ‘immediate reversal’ of Turkish and Turkish Cypriot decision on Varosha

The Security Council said in a statement released on Friday that settling any part of the abandoned Cypriot suburb of Varosha, “by people other than...

Trending