World Pride is being celebrated on our continent this week, but a surge in intolerance towards LGBTI people in Europe is nothing to be proud about. In more and more European countries, politicians and public officials are shamelessly targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people for political gain, fuelling prejudice and hate. In so doing, public officials – sometimes at the highest level – are failing in their duty to promote equal dignity and human rights for all.
On the one hand, spectacular progress has been made in Europe in just a couple of decades: many Council of Europe member states have passed laws protecting LGBTI people from discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes; 30 member states offer protection for stable same-sex relationships; and the right to legal gender recognition has been strongly asserted. Overall, public attitudes towards LGBTI people have markedly improved in many places. At the same time, homo/transphobia continue to linger and to hinder LGBTI people’s full inclusion in society. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that too many within the LGBTI communities remain vulnerable, exposed to intra-familial violence and without proper access to employment, housing and health care.
The progress of the past years coupled with persisting homo/transphobia in our societies have now provided fertile ground for exploitation by opportunistic and anti-human rights political movements.
Stigmatisation of LGBTI people for political gain
Over the last few years, my predecessor, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, as well as the European region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe) and others have warned about a worrying rise in intolerance of LGBTI people in Europe. My own work provides further illustration of this trend and points to one key cause of the hatred: some politicians are instrumentalising existing societal prejudices and verbally attacking LGBTI people to achieve political objectives for their own benefit.
Scapegoating LGBTI minorities has become a tactic applied by ultra-conservative and nationalist politicians posing as defenders of so-called “traditional values” to strengthen their base and gain or stay in power. I have observed that stigmatisation of LGBTI people is particularly pronounced in the run-up to elections and votes. For example, in my report following a visit to Armenia in 2018, I concluded that various parliamentary bills discriminating against LGBTI people seemed to be deliberately designed to stoke anti-LGBTI sentiment as part of rivalry between opposing political parties. I warned against politicians using hate speech against LGBTI people during election campaigns in Moldova in a 2020 visit report and called on the authorities to take steps to tackle the problem. In Poland, as I described in the Memorandum published in December 2020, high-ranking officials and politicians affiliated with the ruling coalition used the stigmatisation of LGBTI people as a campaign tool during the 2019 parliamentary elections. In the 2020 presidential elections, the serving President of Poland, running for re-election, promised to prohibit the “propagation of LGBT ideology” in public institutions, calling it “worse than Communism”, and tabled a bill proposing to ban “any person in a relationship with another person of the same sex” from adopting children. As the 2022 parliamentary elections approach in Hungary, the ruling party there is evidently taking the same path.
In the Russian Federation, exploiting anti-LGBTI prejudice to attract votes is a long-standing practice, the latest example being the proposal to enshrine a ban on same-sex marriage in the Constitution. At the time when this was proposed, the polls indicated that many voters were undecided as to whether to participate in the constitutional referendum being held in the summer of 2020, which sought to make sweeping changes to the Russian Constitution. In Bulgaria, I documented the use of inflammatory language by politicians, some of whom made banning the Sofia Pride march an election campaign promise. In several countries, politicians expressing anti-LGBTI views have links with far-right and neo-Nazi movements involved in violent attacks on LGBTI events. Most recently, Bulgarian activists alerted me to a spate of incidents at Pride events carried out by one such far-right group in what appeared to be an attempt to drum up votes in the July parliamentary elections.
In addition to mobilising certain categories of voters, the exploitation of societal homo/transphobia has proven a convenient way to divert public attention away from government failure to address pressing social issues and rising inequalities and broader attacks under way on human rights and democracy. In Hungary, for example, legislative rollbacks concerning the human rights of LGBTI people, including the constitutional amendments passed in December 2020 and a law prohibiting, under the pretence of protecting children, the dissemination of LGBTI-related information to minors, were adopted jointly or around the same time as other measures with a severe impact on democracy and human rights, including changes to national human rights structures, transparency on the expenditure of public funds and electoral law. In Turkey, I recently expressed my dismay at the increasing stigmatisation of LGBTI people by politicians and opinion-makers. The Turkish authorities withdrew from the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention), claiming a need to resist “the normalisation of homosexuality which is incompatible with Turkey’s social and family values”. This unfounded allegation paves the way for further stigmatisation of LGBTI people and Turkey’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention will have serious consequences for women’s safety and rights.
I am troubled that transgender people are under attack from politicians from across the political spectrum. For instance, the President of the Czech Republic did not have any qualms about stating that he found transgender people “disgusting”. Transgender people and their rights have become a toxic battle ground. In Hungary, Italy, Spain, Poland and the United Kingdom – to name but a few – politicians incite and perpetuate transphobia, questioning the “normality” or even the very existence of transgender people.
These are unfortunately just a few examples drawn from my own work and monitoring. In its latest annual review of the human rights situation of LGBTI people in Europe, ILGA-Europe documented cases of verbal attacks by politicians (whether they are in power or not) on LGBTI people in 2020 in several other member states, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Slovakia. I am concerned that we are facing a downward spiral with more and more politicians across Europe feeling emboldened to resort to such unacceptable attacks on LGTBI people as they see these tactics work in other countries.
Influence of the so-called “anti-gender movements”
Politicians targeting LGBTI people often propagate narratives promoted by the so-called “anti-gender movements”. For some years now, there have been reports about the expansion – in Europe and the rest of the world – of these increasingly organised, transnational and well-funded movements, made-up of religious extremists and ultra-conservative organisations. The anti-gender movements call into question the concept of gender and whether it is a protected category in the human rights framework, promoting an ultra-conservative view of the family, sexuality and women’s role in society. Anti-gender movement actors seek to blur the lines for their audience by adopting the vocabulary of human rights, but what they are doing in reality is working to deprive other groups – mainly women and LGBTI people – of their rights.
The influence of the anti-gender movements in politics is increasing. Some politicians are not hiding their affiliation and others may seek convenient alliances because the issues raised are known to attract votes and distract attention from real problems. In my work, I have clearly seen some common patterns across several countries in the way political leaders resort to “anti-gender” slogans in national campaigns emerging around issues, such as same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples. By permeating the political scene, the anti-gender movements are increasingly well-placed to erode the protection of human rights in Europe. It is urgent to acknowledge this fact and take steps to counter it.
Harmful impact on LGBTI people
Targeting LGBTI people for political gain is a costly strategy which harms the lives and well-being of those affected and undermines social cohesion in general. When public officials and elected politicians employ intolerant rhetoric, this signals to others that they too can engage in hateful actions with impunity. In the European Union (EU) Fundamental Rights Agency’s 2020 survey of LGBTI people, negative public discourse by politicians was identified as one of the key contributing factors in prejudiced social attitudes towards LGBTI people. Harassment of LGBTI people and activists on social media and everyday acts of violence are on the rise in Europe. Hardly a week passes without reports of serious physical attacks motivated by homophobia or transphobia. Recently, the Tbilisi Pride march in Georgia had to be cancelled after violent attacks on the organisers’ headquarters and journalists covering the events.
Toxic rhetoric targeting LGBTI people also hampers their ability to fully participate in all facets of life, including political and public life, and to have full access to education, health care and employment. In Poland, the proliferation of anti-LGBT declarations and “family charters” adopted by some local governments has led to many LGBTI people being shunned by members of their own communities. Others are seeking to leave the country altogether. In Bulgaria and Ukraine, LGBTI activists informed my office that young people increasingly avoid LGBTI events and community centres over fears of attacks and intimidation by members of extremist groups. This hostile atmosphere is driving LGBTI people back into the closet in many places, in a clear affront to their human dignity and right to live in freedom and safety. A climate of hatred promoted by public officials also has a huge impact on LGBTI people’s mental health.
Stigmatisation and political manipulation of LGBTI issues rarely stops at words; it often goes on to adversely affect how LGTBI rights are protected at policy level and by law. At a very minimum, as highlighted in ILGA-Europe’s 2021 annual review, the current polarisation has brought the adoption of new legislative proposals protecting the rights of LGBTI people to a standstill. Transgender Europe has reported a slowdown in new initiatives increasing the protection of trans people. Bills that should be uncontroversial have spurred heated political debate. For example, in Italy, a bill ensuring that sexual orientation and gender identity are mentioned along with other grounds in a law prohibiting hate speech and hate crimes, has been blocked for months. Opponents have argued that this move threatens freedom of expression and freedom of thought. But, as clearly established by the European Court of Human Rights, hate speech against LGBTI people is not protected by freedom of expression, and neither is it by freedom of belief. In countries where politicians proudly voicing anti-LGBTI positions are in government, we already see a dismantling of existing LGBTI rights or positive policies, for example with regard to legal gender recognition.
Towards political will for inclusion instead of political manipulation of homo/transphobia
This trend for political manipulation of homo/transphobia in Europe must be tackled without further delay. In line with ECRI’s General Policy Recommendation on combating hate speech, I urge member states to take measures to ensure that politicians refrain from making derogatory comments about LGBTI people. Political parties and parliaments should adopt codes of ethics that prohibit and punish homophobic and transphobic hate speech. Public representatives should systematically condemn homophobic and transphobic speech. There must be no impunity for particularly serious cases of incitement to hatred and violence by politicians.
In addition to refraining from spreading hate, political leaders should take positive steps to foster a culture of equal treatment and equality. As highlighted in Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, “public officials and other state representatives should be encouraged to promote tolerance and respect for the human rights of LGBTI people”. Similarly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe also underscored the specific responsibilities of political leaders in combating hate speech and intolerance in its Resolution 2275 (2019). The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities highlighted in a recent report that “whatever their political backgrounds, mayors and local and regional councillors have a responsibility vis-à-vis all their fellow citizens to establish inclusive societies based not on prejudice and the rejection of others, but on dialogue and concertation.”
I realise that it sometimes takes real political courage and wisdom to tackle deep-rooted homophobia and transphobia. Standing up for a minority group’s human rights may not always be popular with one’s political base. But we need politicians who are not afraid to lead by example. I want to salute just a few recent examples of such courage. I commend the President of North Macedonia for joining in this year’s Pride March in Skopje, which was only the second ever to take place in the country. In the United Kingdom, a cross-party group of lesbian, gay and bisexual Members of Parliament also spoke up in support of transgender people in the midst of a contentious public debate. The President of the European Commission, when announcing the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, also sent a powerful message in favour of inclusion and diversity by stating that “being yourself is not your ideology. It’s your identity”.
Overall, member states must work to bring about broader changes in societal attitudes towards LGBTI people. This requires outreach campaigns and education in schools to promote understanding and respect of the human rights of LGBTI people. LGBTI human rights defenders are doing amazing work to counter the spread of hate and should be better supported. Member states should also ensure a strong national human rights infrastructure is in place to protect LGBTI people when political leaders fail in their responsibilities. This includes national legislation prohibiting discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, and effective national human rights structures which can work to denounce abuse. In this regard, I have noted the crucial work undertaken by the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights in recent years in challenging anti-LGBTI declarations and “family charters” before the courts.
Politicians’ scapegoating of LGBTI people for their own gain is only a symptom of their more widespread opposition to and assault on human rights and the rule of law. In some countries, they portray the recognition of the human rights of LGBTI people as an external imposition that goes against national tradition or wield the issue in their confrontation with European and international institutions. In doing so, they clearly challenge the values and the human rights system on which our continent is built. Human rights are universal and indivisible: ensuring that everyone in society can enjoy them is the key to cohesive, peaceful societies where everyone can strive. Pitting groups of people against each other breeds tensions, hate and violence – only serving the narrow interests of some unscrupulous politicians.
Europe is at a crossroads in the protection and inclusion of LGBTI people. By standing up for LGBTI people, we defend the equal human dignity of all, protect our societies’ wellbeing and the strength of our precious human rights system. Targeting, scapegoating or ignoring one group can ultimately negatively affect us all.
“The starry heavens above me…”* A plea for awareness and peace
*Immanuel Kant: “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”
In the neighborhood with Russia
Who is actually aware today where the border of the former German Empire was once located? Or how far to the northeast the village of Nimmersatt and the nearby coaching inn Immersatt actually lay? Nimmersatt was located at the northern tip of East Prussia, surrounded by the Baltic Sea to the west and Russia to the east and north. Russia – then Russian Lithuania – was our direct neighbor until 1918. The Memel territory was traditionally Prussian borderland, 120 km long and 40 km wide, stretching north along the Memel River. In 1422, the Treaty of Melnosee established the frontier, which remained almost unchanged until 1920. After the Pyrenean border, it is the second oldest in Europe.
Located on the imperial border, Nimmersatt was the former German Empire’s most northeastern spot and was last in German hands in 1945. Like Nimmersatt, there are many seemingly vanished places and landscapes in historic eastern Germany. But they have for the most part disappeared. These places bear witness to the fact that many Germans, consciously or unconsciously, are still deeply rooted in these seemingly vanished landscapes.
According to estimates, about 14 million refugees had to leave their homes after the Second World War, losing everything, all their belongings. About 2 million died in transit, and Germany lost a quarter of its territory.
As Simone Weil (1909–1943) once put it: “Rootedness is probably the human soul’s most important and most misunderstood need.”
Crises, conflicts and silver lining
If you look at today’s world, you see crises everywhere, wars and deep divisions in our societies. Fears are being fueled and images of “the enemy” that were actually long forgotten are being revived. The war that has been raging in Ukraine since 2014 has now escalated on the European continent into a proxy war between the United States and Russia. Russia is being declared the enemy. With its arms deliveries and military support, Germany has also officially entered into the war with Russia.
What immeasurable suffering wars visit on mankind – a painful truth also understood by members of Germany’s “war generation” and their descendants, especially those with roots in Germany’s historical East. Germans and Russians look back on a common and consequential past; we share one of history’s darkest and most horrible chapters, beginning with Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 and the subsequent conquest of East Prussia by the Red Army.
Whatever happened, a shared history connects peoples, and Germans and Russians will therefore always be connected
Civilians are and always have been the ones who suffer most in war. During the Second World War, from 1939 to 1945, the Soviet Union had the most casualties: 24 million people, 14.3 million of them civilians. Germany had a total of 7.7 million casualties, of which 2.2 million belonged to the civilian population.
In her old age, Mama, my mother, could still recall the terrifying whistling sound of the rocket launchers known as “Stalin organs.” During thunderstorms and when fireworks were being shot off, she would begin to shiver and sought shelter. Yet despite all the war trauma, the attachment to Germany’s historical East is part of the German soul and an integral part of the German cultural nation. Not for nothing was I christened Katja. Mama and my grandmother often affectionately called me “Katjuscha” in their East Prussian dialect – a reference to the old Russian folk song.
The horrible sound of the Stalin organs was eventually forgotten. Bridges of reconciliation between Russians and Germans were built in large numbers after World War II, something that fortunately continues to happen.
Having left the Cold War behind us, which divided the world into good and evil or West and East, the world is evolving into a more complex, multipolar place – a multipolar world that could again give humanity a chance to create a new global world order of peaceful coexistence.
This might be possible were it not for the US, which seems to be resisting a multipolar world with all its might: The US wants to continue to assert its supremacy and influence worldwide. It has basically never withdrawn from Germany, and does not accept any other powers on the world stage. This US influence is expressed above all in the strategies of NATO and the EU, since they again rely on images of Russia and China as “the enemy” and on exclusion and division.
Shaktarp – when life comes to rest
The “Fifth Season” – Shaktarp in Lithuanian or, in Russian, Rasputitsa – is a special time, between the winter and spring season. It is the time of floods, of inundated meadows. This time was also called the time of “roadlessness” – the Memel territory and neighboring lowlands were neither passable, nor navigable during this period. Life and people came to rest and there was thus time for reflection. Perhaps this is what our world sorely needs now.
It seems to me just the right time to pause, to rediscover and feel the magic of life. A magic that comes from looking at a piece of amber through which the sun is shining. Often found near the Baltic Sea, amber continues to fascinate people to this day. Sometimes known as the tears or gold of the gods, amber was once an important commodity, more valuable than gold, and it made its way across Europe on ancient trade routes from the Baltic Sea to Southern Europe and North Africa – one of the beginnings of globalization, or, rather, of the bonds that bring people together.
In addition to the Silk Road, the Amber Road has connected people, drawing them under the spell of this magical substance, which shines brighter than the sun.
“States don’t have friends, states only have interests”
The observation made in 2013 by Egon Bahr, the German politician known for a commitment to peace and détente, remains true today: “International politics is never about democracy or human rights. It is about the interests of states. Remember that, no matter what they tell you in history class.” Otto von Bismarck and Charles de Gaulle, among others, have also pointed out that feelings and values have no place in politics. Only “interests and reciprocity should be used as a guideline.”
Therefore, it is more important than ever to accept realities and define national interests. Values are volatile and often subject to the current zeitgeist. For example, no one called for a “feminist values-based foreign policy” until a German foreign minister from the Green Party did so. The much “cited community of values is not a form of governance, as it has not been legitimized by any democratic process.” 
We have been living in a multipolar world for a long time, with different forms of governments, democracies, dictators and authoritarian regimes. But our international institutions and organizations, which were created after the Second World War, have not been updated.
According to a study by The Economist in 2021, only 45% of the world’s population lives in countries with democratic structures. The ostensibly promising narrative of “change through trade” has not come to fruition. The expansion of economic relations with China that began in 1978 has been driven solely by economic gain. Even today, China offers a huge market for foreign products. The expansion of economic relations and the opening of the country in turn has helped move a significant part of the Chinese population out of poverty, and China’s technological backwardness has been quickly overcome. Both sides, the West and China, were and still are exclusively concerned with economic interests and geopolitical influence in Eurasia.
What is new, among other factors, is that the military no longer has a monopoly on wars and conflicts. We are increasingly experiencing ideologically fueled media and propaganda wars that deeply divide the population, make factual debates almost impossible, and drive humanity into division and thus into wars.
Ideology prevails over common sense and the heart
Fear and hatred are mighty propaganda tools – e.g., fear of the virus, fear of CO2 and distrust of Russia and China. The laborious and decades-long process of reconciliation between Germans and Russians, among others, has come to a standstill. Not only have economic relations been broken off, but cultural exchange has also come to a halt. Russian artists are being disinvited from performing if they have not publicly taken a clear stand against Putin. Political attitudes have become more important than art, and ideological attitudes are determining economic orientations and political decisions.
China – the surveillance state
The narrative of “change through trade” is now a thing of the past. China continues to pursue its “Grand Strategy.” What were once the dynasties of the Chinese Empire have become – since the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949 – the Communist Party, with current President Xi Jinping as its head, as emperor. In accordance with the “Chinese Dream,” the country is striving to become Number 1 in the world in all areas, including military power.
The drastic end of its zero-Covid policy shows how capable China is. The Chinese government has reacted, in a way that saves face, to the “spontaneous protests” and thus shown strategic flexibility. Thus, Xi Jinping has not only done the Chinese economy a great favor by lifting all Covid measures, he has also cemented his power and the power of the Communist Party. The transformation into a different system, propagated for so long by the West as justification for maintaining economic relations with an authoritarian regime, now seems more unlikely than ever. On the contrary, the Chinese government continues to pursue its strategy and to build a perfectly controlled, highly technological surveillance state.
China thus remains a very flexible economic partner and geopolitical player. This requires an equally flexible China strategy on the part of other countries. Supply chain disruptions must always be taken into consideration, investments in China should be thought about carefully and protected. Potential dependencies in the area of critical infrastructure and products, such as upstream inputs for pharmaceuticals, should always be avoided. Yet this also applies to economic relations with non-authoritarian regimes.
Moreover, dealings with China, economic and political, should be free of emotion, determined only by the relevant economic interests and reciprocity, for the benefit of all concerned parties. The fact is: China continues to go its own way and is a country in which the individual and individual freedoms play a very limited role.
Ideology has great importance in China – an ideology that is not only intended to hold the population together internally, but is the guiding principle externally for every political step on the world geopolitical stage. In dealing with China, one’s own national interests and reciprocity should always be the guiding principle. This applies not only to interactions with China, but especially to those with Russia as well.
We are all connected to each other.
Russia and the German soul
Let’s be realistic: Russia is a nuclear power; economic sanctions will not harm it in the long run as a country that is almost immeasurably rich in raw materials. On the contrary, sanctions allow Russia to diversify its gas market and thus no longer depend on just one customer.
A prime example: the reactivation of the economic corridor running from China to Mongolia to Russia. Further, the Russian gas pipeline to China will replace Nordstream 2. In the course of securing its energy supply, China wants to keep its energy mix balanced and is thus increasing the share of natural gas. India is also a grateful purchaser of Russian gas.
Something that shows a decoupling from Russia is not so simple is the fact that from January to October 2022, Europe’s LNG imports increased by 40% over 2021. Russian LNG accounted for 16% of total European marine imports, with the main customers being France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands. Instead of low-cost and environmentally friendly pipeline gas, the focus is now on LNG.
The resulting damage is now being felt by Germany in particular, as an industry-intensive and, compared to Russia, resource-poor country. The growing home-made energy crisis is driving deindustrialization in Germany; large companies are increasingly thinking of leaving the country; medium-sized enterprises – once the backbone of the German economy – are increasingly being destroyed; the country’s economic performance is declining; unemployment and poverty are the consequences.
And wasn’t the attack on Nordstream 2 the first terrorist attack against Germany since World War II?
The decisions and actions of the current Federal Government, with Olaf Scholz as Chancellor, are not in accordance with the oath taken “to prevent harm to the German people.”
“I swear that I will devote my strength to the welfare of the German people, increase its benefit, avert harm, uphold and defend the Basic Law and the laws of the Federation, fulfill my duties conscientiously, and ensure justice for all. (So help me God.)”
With or without God’s help, arms deliveries and military support to Ukraine, the homemade energy crisis, the intolerable excesses of gender-neutral language, so-called wokeness, cancel culture and uncontrolled immigration are also destroying not only the German soul, language and culture and putting pressure on the national budget, they are also continuing to widen already deep social divisions. None of this works to the benefit of Germany and the German people.
The power of culture, history and geography
“… the continuity of the state without which Germany would be much poorer – Germany did not come out of nowhere. Prussia was one of the most formative great powers in Europe and one of the most modern states in the world, with its effective administration, literacy down to the last street in the last village, and the rule of law at all levels.”
While there were serious political instabilities in the Weimar Republic, as the largest member of the German Empire, Prussia was politically very stable. Otto von Braun, Prussian prime minister from 1920 to 1932 and a diehard Prussian and Social Democrat, reformed the state and school systems. Prussia was thus a “reliable pillar of the Weimar Republic.” But, following the so-called “Prussian blow,” von Braun was removed from office.
“The Reich’s control over Prussia, especially over the Prussian police, made it much easier for Adolf Hitler to establish a dictatorial regime in the course of the National Socialist takeover in 1933.”
The power of culture and shared history together with geography are enduring cornerstones that provide a strong foundation. “Between Russia and America lie oceans. Between Russia and Germany lies a great history,” wrote historian Michael Stürmer. Vladimir Putin also quoted Stürmer in his speech to the German Bundestag on September 25, 2001.
My unshakable optimism tells me that it is not too late to return to our fundamental power, our culture and history, in order to create a new world order based on peaceful coexistence. What’s more, because of its geographic location, Germany should serve as a bridge between East and West.
Authoritarian regimes can only be changed from within, by their own people. Thus, Germany, too, can only free itself from its shackles from within, leaving behind the seemingly endless moralizing blame game and victimization loop and returning to what we Germans actually are: peace-loving, creative, innovative, technically expert and culturally sensitive.
How else should one interpret the famous “golden 20s” of the early 20th century? Here are some examples: Within a short time and despite the immense reparation claims made by the victorious powers based on the Versailles Treaty of June 28, 1919, defeated Germany became the second most powerful industrial nation after the US – thanks to US credits, because banks in the US had faith in Germany’s economic power. Further, as the treaty also prohibited motorized flight, some Germans made a virtue out of necessity, tinkered a bit and invented the glider.
The economic basis for Germany’s return to its fundamental strength, to its roots, is first and foremost the need for a drastic reduction in the state administration and the number of its government employees. The state should return to its original tasks: ensuring there is efficient infrastructure; a high-quality and affordable health-care system; high-quality, affordable and humane care for those in need; an excellent and free system of education; as well as ensuring internal and external security – in keeping with the oath taken to act for the good of the German people.
Changing our view of the world
The press, education and the health-care system, among others, must no longer be subject to competition and profit maximization, and could be transformed instead into foundations, for example.
Only a free press can ensure freedom of opinion and access to the full range of information. The monopoly of state media – such as broadcasters ARD and ZDF – and the ownership of media by billionaires – the Springer, Bertelsmann (Mohn) and Holtzbrinck families, among others – must end to create space for alternative media and sources of information. We need be well informed in order to become critical-thinking people in the sense of Immanuel Kant’s saupe aude.
The education system and especially the health-care system and pharmaceutical companies and their research must not be driven by profit maximization. Hospitals must not be run like businesses – health should be their exclusive concern. Old people’s and nursing facilities should be outfitted with the best possible equipment. The staff should be optimally paid. Profit should not play a role; all efforts should be guided by the desire to help people experience a graceful and respectful end to earthly life.
The divine within us and awareness
In his writings, Jacques Ancel, French geographer and geopolitician, proposed an identity of the heart, and a nation of the heart – the idea that people can connect and create a community based on a common history, language and culture.
This path back to the heart reconnects us as human beings to the divine. We are all “soul people.” We are spiritual beings that come from the same source. This spiritual or divine expresses itself differently in various cultures and traditions, be it religion, Buddhism, shamanism or a closeness to nature.
We should shift back from the cold rational mind to the feelings of the heart. By doing so, we can create a new world view and a new world order. Such a reconnection to the heart and the divine in us would enable us to look at life and nature with reverence and love once again.
May we all become aware once again of our humanity and the many things that connect us.
Identity of the Heart – Back to the Roots – We Are All Love
References and further reading
Ancel, Jacques (1938): Géographie des frontières, Gallimard.
Banik, Katja (2022): Im Rausch des Bernsteins – der historische Osten Deutschlands, www.katjabanik.com
Banik, Katja (2021): A clear view eastwards: Russia and Germany, www.katjabanik.com
Banik, Katja (2021): Without roots, no future. Decoupling ideologies, www.katjabanik.com
Bode, Sabine (2009): Kriegsenkel. Die Erben der vergessenen Generation, Klett-Cotta.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew (1998): The Grand Chess Board, Basic Books.
Die Bundesregierung (2022): Krieg in der Ukraine, www.bundesregierung.de
Deutscher Bundestag: Wortprotokoll der Rede Wladimir Putins im Deutschen Bundestag am 25.9.2001.
Deutsch Historisches Museum (2022): Lebendiges Museum Online, Berlin.
Euractiv (2022): Russia says pipeline to China will replace Nordstream 2.
Dohnanyi, Klaus (2022): Nationale Interessen, Siedler Verlag, München.
Graichen, Hesse (2012): Die Bernsteinstraße. Verborgene Handelswege zwischen Ostsee und Nil, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, Hamburg.
Jähner, Harald (2022): Höhenrausch. Das kurze Leben zwischen den Kriegen. Rowohlt-Berlin.
Kossert, Andreas (2009): Kalte Heimat: Die Geschichte der deutschen Vertriebenen nach 1945, Pantheon Verlag.
Lasch, Otto (1959): So fiel Königsberg, Gräfe und Unzer Verlag.
Namzhilova, Victoria (2022): Economic Corridor China – Mongolia- Russia: Infrastructure in Focus, RIAC.
ostexperte.de, Nachrichten aus Russland und China, Berlin.
Putin, Wladimir (2021): Offen sein, trotz Vergangenheit, Gastbeitrag vom 22.6.2021 in der WochenzeitungDie Zeit.
Pölking, Hermann (2022): Das Memelland. Wo Deutschland einst zu Ende war, bre.bra. verlag, Berlin
RedaktionsNetzwerkDeutschland (2022): www.rnd.de. Hannover.
Statista (2022): https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1055110/umfrage/zahl-der-toten-nach-staaten-im-zweiten-weltkrieg/
Segelflugzeug.org (2022): www.segelflugzeug.org
Teltschik, Horst (2019): Russisches Roulette: Vom kalten Krieg zum kalten Frieden, C. H. Beck.
The Economist (2022): https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/02/09/a-new-low-for-global-democracy?fsrc=core-app-economist?utm_medium=social-
Wagener, Martin (2021): Der Kulturkampf um das deutsche Volk. Der Verfassungsschutz und die nationale Identität der Deutschen, Lau Verlag.
 Pölking (2022): Das Memelland. Wo Deutschland einst zu Ende war.
 Bundesregierung.de (2022) War in Ukraine.
 Statista (2022): https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1055110/umfrage/zahl-der-toten-nach-staaten-im-zweiten-weltkrieg/
 Pölking (2022): Das Memelland. Wo Deutschland einst zu Ende war.
 Graichen, Hesse (2013): Die Bernsteinstraße.
 Bahr (2013) Conversation with students, „Willy Brandt Reading Week,” Friedrich Ebert House Heidelberg.
 Otto von Bismarck.
 Dohnanyi (2021): Nationale Interessen.
 RIAC (2022): https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/analytics/economic-corridor-china-mongolia-russia-infrastructure-in-focus/
 Euractiv (2022): https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/russia-says-pipeline-to-china-will-replace-nord-stream-2-2/
 Rnd (2022): https://www.rnd.de/wirtschaft/fluessiggas-aus-russland-europa-importiert-rekordmenge-Y4DHLEMMPFEB5A5VSWZSLTVCD4.html
 PAZ, No. 47, 25.11.2022.
 German Historical Museum (DHM), https://www.dhm.de/lemo/biografie/otto-braun
 DHM, https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/weimarer-republik/innenpolitik/preussenschlag
 DHM, https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/weimarer-republik/innenpolitik/preussenschlag
 ostexperte.de, https://ostexperte.de/deutschland-und-russland-teil-1/
 DHM, Berlin. https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/weimarer-republik/aussenpolitik/versailler-vertrag.html
 Glider.org, http://www.segelflugzeug.org/segelflug_geschichte.php
The Ukrainian Crisis and its Impact on the European Security Governance and Global Legal Order
Authors: Abhinav Mehrotra and Amit Upadhyay*
As the attack on Ukraine continues by the Russian Military, there is a need to understand the continued impact of such attacks on global governance and legal order. The illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories has been one of the most shocking incidents affecting the world order since World War II ended. It sets a dangerous precedent for all independent nations formerly part of big empires from asserting their own identity as sovereign nations as per international and domestic norms.
Historically, the modern Ukraine crisis began with Nikita Khrushchev’s 1954 transfer of Crimea from the Russian Socialist Federal Republic to the Ukrainian Socialist Federal Republic in order to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Ukraine-Russia unification. The crisis further extenuated during the 1990s after the disintegration of the USSR, when the Western leaders understood that Russia must not be labelled as a defeated state. It was in this background that the West was to assume responsibility to develop post-Cold War structures, processes, perceptions, and activities by balancing the European nation’s interests and promoting democratic and liberal values, alongside keeping Russia within the framework.
Further adding to the complexity was the fact that NATO, under the US leadership, developed a complicated architecture where NATO’s integrated military command structure would be preserved. The aim was to develop close relationships with the European countries that later took the form of the European Union. Surprisingly, during these deliberations, the United States and other NATO nations never took into consideration the fact that it may be Russia’s will to remove the NATO like the Warsaw pact and have an equal role in developing a new institution for ensuring security.
Nonetheless, the act of a nation ie Russia exercising control over the political decision-making of another independent nation ie Ukriane with the objective to retain in its influence using force undermines various key principles of international law. It is argued by Russia that the West including the European Union (“EU”) has failed to understand Russia’s security interests whereas the EU argues that a serious diplomatic effort is necessary to re-establish the core principles of the European political order which Russia so far have failed to do.
What needs to be understood is that for Russia, the defiance in the post-Soviet Union era world order can be traced to the act of taking Pristina airport with paratroopers in 1999 based on a presumed occupation by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which is similar to the ongoing Ukrainian Crisis where NATO’s eastward expansion has been cited as the reason for anticipatory self-defense
Cut to the present, the annexation of Crimea, aggression against Ukraine and the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories by Russia have far-reaching implications for European and global security. It challenges certain basic assumptions underlying the western policy in the post-Cold War era of treating Russia more as a partner than an adversary and considering Europe essentially stable and safe from invasion. The lack of an EU strategic framework to deal with security challenges in relation to Russia. EU needs to have a more robust defence posture requiring it to revisit its defence strategies especially when the possibility of Russian aggression against other European states cannot be excluded. The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) responsible for supporting revised security policies has been insufficient as Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence is seen as essential indicator for future European security governance. The CSDP sought autonomy from North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (“NATO”) to have Europeans provide for their own security as a strategic doctrine, but it has since generated limited autonomous military capacity.
In this context, there is need to analyse to what extent Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is based on the assertive defence of its interests in its neighbourhood inspired by a revisionist challenge to the European rules-based system of security governance and how it impacts global order. The need of the hour is to see how International Community, States and Multilateral Institutions respond to Russia’s actions to provide the balance between the requirements of European security and the resources available to support it as International law is dealing with the unique challenge posed by Russia’s defiant behaviour including the acts of claiming exclusive rights and privileges; the need to claim a higher position in the international social hierarchy due to diminished reputation and importance, relative to other nations; and a belief that all these actions are necessary for national prestige, security and wealth
Going forward, the United Nations Security Council and other multilateral institutions need to be democratized to accommodate the differing views considering contemporary geopolitical realities. The inclusive collective security institutions are the need of the hour, and they should be accountable to the international legal framework for inclusive global governance.
*Amit Upadhyay is an Associate Professor at O.P. Jindal Global University and holds an LL.M. in European and International Law from Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany. His research interests include Constitutional Law, Legal Theory and Human Rights.
European Union: Refugees’ Right to Seek Asylum & The Principle of Non-Refoulement
Since the establishment of the United Nations, the protection of refugees has been a major priority for the global community. Refugees and anyone in need of protection might use the aid that the States were offering them via the asylum route. These national asylum systems, however, sometimes lacked effectiveness and offered uneven access to the asylum processes. The European Union has been working to create a Common European Asylum System to address this issue by harmonizing the asylum policies and practices of its Member States and streamlining the review of asylum applications. It did this by relying on the pre-existing body of international law, which was controlled by the Rules of the Refugee Convention, 1951 and the Non-Refoulement Principle. The resultant European law on asylum was not an autonomous legal system but rather one that was strongly related to international humanitarian law on refugees. The adoption of uniform laws and asylum processes has shown how difficult it has been for the European Union to come up with policies to handle its migrant and refugee populations. The European Union has been attempting to implement a basic border patrols at the same time in order to stop international crime and illegal immigration.
Procedure for granting the Right to Asylum & Conditions for the Principle of Non-Refoulement:
Numerous steps in the realm of diplomatic and defence policy, in addition to border control and security, were designed to stop illegal immigration. The goal behind the European Security and Defence Policy [ESDP] was to prevent as many migrants and asylum seekers from attempting to enter Europe by participating in military and civilian operations in crisis zones throughout the globe. All of these tools have the indirect effect of limiting refugees’ and asylum seekers’ access to the European Union while being designed to manage migration. Even yet, the European Union has created a number of political and legal tools to safeguard these same refugees and asylum seekers, demonstrating its steadfast commitment to upholding human rights and international agreements.
For those who manage to cross the border into Europe, the processes to be given refugee status in one of the EU nations were sometimes difficult and took a considerable amount of time. The wide variety of asylum systems and regulations that prevailed across Member States was to blame for this. However, during the last several years, the European Union has made significant strides toward harmonizing the asylum process and has come to an agreement on a set of rules and principles to reduce the differences between the Member States in the area of asylum. As a result, a European Refugee and Asylum Law was created and the issue of asylum was included into the legal system of the European Union. In addition, implementing the whole acquis on asylum has become a requirement for nations wishing to join the European Union.
The legislation governing refugees and asylum seekers in the European Union has undergone continuous development. The development of a Common European Asylum System, which had to juggle the disparate legal frameworks of the Member States with the international standards of refugee protection established by the 1951 Refugee Convention, posed the biggest challenge to the European Union in the area of asylum. All of the nations that make up the European Union have ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention and adhere to its asylum regulations. The application of Article 63 of the 1951 Refugee Convention establishing the European Community is essential to the right to asylum in the European Union. Non-Refoulement, a fundamental tenet of international refugee law, was first stated in terms of EU legislation in Paragraph 13 of the Presidency Conclusions of the Tampere European Council in October 1999. It would be fascinating to learn the social and cultural factors that influence migrants’ decision to settle in Europe and how that continent handles the resulting cultural blending. Many migrants and asylum seekers look to Europe as a model of economic advancement, democratic government, and observance of human rights. However, immigrants may pose an economic and cultural burden from a European perspective. Refugees and asylum seekers must be given social aid, shelter, and possibly work by the nation offering them sanctuary. Additionally, it must deal with cultural issues like the assimilation or integration of immigrants, who can find it difficult to fit into the new society. The activities of numerous agencies and organizations working in this area, as well as the steps the media has done, to analyse the sociological and cultural perspective must be examined to have a better and wider view point to get the solutions of this issue pertaining to asylum seekers.
Therefore, political and economic approaches must be connected. Given the financial crisis, certain European nations may easily alter their stance on immigration. Due to their inability to support both immigrants and a rise in the number of jobless citizens, Member States may be forced to tighten immigration policy as a result of the financial crisis. On the other side, the financial crisis may make immigration easier by giving States access to inexpensive skilled labour. Disadvantaged people, like refugees and asylum seekers, would no longer be a burden on nations, but rather a valuable economic resource. It is unknown which alternative the nations will choose. These may be found in a number of rulings, including:
- In the case of Elgafaji v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie, application of Article 15(c) 1951 Refugee Convention regarding provision of subsidiary protection to civilians who might face indiscriminate violence upon repatriation.
- In the case of Salahadin Abdulla and Others v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, the issue at hand was the interpretation of Article 11(1) (e) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which dealt with the termination of refugee status when the conditions that had given rise to it ceased to exist.
- In the case of Bolbol v. Bevándorlási és llampolgársági Hivatal, interpretation of Article 12(1) (a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention on the exclusion of people protected by organs or agencies of the United Nations other than UNHCR from the refugee status.
- In the Cardoza-Fonseca case, the American Immigration and Naturalization Service denied a Nicaraguan woman’s request for asylum because she was unable to show a demonstrable risk of persecution if she were sent back to her native country. The respondent attempted to petition for asylum and avoid deportation even though she was living in the country unlawfully because she had a legitimate fear of being persecuted. According to the US Supreme Court, a significant difference should be established between a clearly probable persecution and a well-founded fear of persecution when determining whether to grant refuge. In this instance, the Nicaraguan lady sought both asylum and a stay of removal based on the same ground, a well-founded fear of persecution, oblivious to the fact that the two requests were distinct and required separate justifications.
- The House of Lords established the same in the case of R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department that there had to be demonstrated a reasonable degree of likelihood that he would be so persecuted, and in determining whether the applicant had made out his claim that his fear of persecution was well founded, the Secretary of State could take into account facts and circumstances known to him or established, the court stated. This implied that there had to be a substantial danger of persecution in the applicant’s place of origin in order for them to dread returning there and request refuge.
- In Korablina v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1998, US Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit), which illustrates the circumstances of a Jewish Ukrainian lady who endured persistent acts of religious prejudice in her country of nationality, is an important case law on the acts of persecution. The Court comes to the opinion that persecution may be established by repeated, particular acts of violence and harassment directed against a person and her family members, including acts committed by both the government and a group it has chosen not to exert authority over.
- In A and Another v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Another (1997, Australia High Court) details the case of a Chinese couple with one child who requested asylum in Australia on the grounds that they belonged to a social group and would face persecution and forced sterilization if they were sent back to the People’s Republic of China. This case is another important one on the relationship between discrimination and persecution. A form of persecution must be involved for the prejudice to qualify, and it must be motivated by the victim’s race, religion, nationality, political views, or membership in a specific social group. According to this expansion of the Refugee Convention, persecution and discrimination have a shared basis, such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a specific social group.
- In Attorney General of Canada v. Ward, 1993 case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, the mention of state protection is made. This case demonstrates that if a state fails to provide for the protection of its citizens, those citizens may experience a well-founded fear of persecution and seek refuge in other nations. If the claimant’s fear has been proven, one is entitled to assume that persecution will likely occur and that the fear is well-founded if there is a lack of state protection.
There is no question that these notions are completely interrelated, despite the fact that they may sometimes be deceptive. But creating a set of requirements to limit the number of migrants entering its frontiers through the asylum procedure is the major problem for the State.
The UNHCR and other international and non-governmental organizations’ findings must be taken into consideration before a decision is made to move a person to another country, which is the biggest obstacle for EU Member States in effectively implementing the principle of Non-Refoulement. For the concept of Non-Refoulement to be completely recognized and effectively used, the nation to which a person is exiled must be secure, both in theory and in reality. Asylum seekers are given temporary protection under the subsidiary status as well as under the temporary status. The Member State that provided the asylum seeker with protection may decide that it is safe to send him back to his home country when the conditions that prompted him to leave his country change, without thoroughly examining whether his nation is indeed safe in reality and not only in principle. Thus, the asylum seeker may be sent back to dangerous nations in violation of his right to Non-Refoulement if a circumstance like this emerges.
While the majority of Member States have embraced the European acquis on refugee and asylum issues, some have been less receptive to the harmonising of the European asylum system and have preferred to be guided by their national law when dealing with refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, evacuated populations, or people in need of international protection. Additionally, policies pertaining to asylum and to freedom, security, and justice are recognized as shared capabilities between the Union and the Member States, which means that Member States are allowed to exercise their competence to the degree that the Union has not done so. In other words, the Member States have the authority to take the necessary actions independently even if the Union has enacted a number of measures related to the question of asylum. We can confirm that a European refugee and asylum law is unquestionably being created by including the subject of asylum in the main European Treaties and by taking a number of steps toward the creation of a Common European Asylum System.
 Daniel Warner, “Migration and Refugees: a challenge for the 21st century”, in Jean-Yves Carlier, Dirk Vanheule, Europe and Refugees: a challenge? Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1997, p. 58.
 UNHCR, 2009 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons, Division of Programme Support and Management, 15 June 2010, p.2, available at [accessed on 1st October, 2022].
 Walter W. Skeat, The concise dictionary of English etymology, Wordsworth Editions, Ware, Hertfordshire, 1993, p.164.
 Sadako Ogata, “Refugees in the 1990s: Changing Reality, Changing Response”, lecture at Georgetown University on 25 June 1991, in Eduardo Arboleda, Ian Hoy, “The Convention Refugee Definition in the West: Disharmony of Interpretation and Application”, in Selina Goulbourne, Law and Migration, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 1998, p. 77.
 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Recommendation 773 (1976) on the situation of de facto refugees, 26 January 1976 < http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta76/EREC773.html > [accessed on 1st October 2022].
 Maria-Teresa Gil-Bazo, “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Right to be Granted Asylum in the Union’s Law”, in Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol.27, issue 3, 2008, pp.33-52.
 Eduardo Arboleda, Ian Hoy, “The Convention Refugee Definition in the West: Disharmony of Interpretation and Application”, in Selina Goulbourne, Law and Migration, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 1998, p. 72.
 Liza Schuster, The use and abuse of political asylum in Britain and Germany, Frank Cass Publishers, London, 2003, p.3
Context and Practice of International Politics: Experience in 2022 and Expectations from 2023
The dramatic events of 2022, centred on the military-political conflict between Russia and the West over the Ukrainian issue, are...
Blue Economy Offers Opportunities for Sustainable Growth in Tunisia
With support from the World Bank, in June 2022, Tunisia launched its first report on the status of the blue...
Global growth forecast to slow to 1.9% in 2023
Senior UN economists warned on Wednesday that intersecting crises are likely to add further damage to the global economy, with...
War games will take place off Durban between South Africa, China and Russia
South Africa’s government has finally shown its colours by inviting Russia and China for war games next month, London’s ‘Daily...
The Status of Crimea between Russia and Ukraine: The Reason Why China Stands to Neglect
The status of Crimea is a contentious issue between Russia and Ukraine. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, a...
The Indian Drone Industry is Growing Leaps & Bounds
Iranian drones have wreaked havoc in war-stricken Ukraine. When it comes to drones until a few years back it was...
Countering Terrorism: 2023 and Beyond
Pakistan has carried three significant issues from 2022 into 2023. These include political instability, a dwindling economy and resurging terrorism....
International Law4 days ago
Undemocratic United Nations and Global Peace
East Asia3 days ago
Nepal-China Relations and Belt and Road Initiative
South Asia4 days ago
Food Insecurity: The Current Crisis
Central Asia4 days ago
Putin’s USSR 2.0 project to be undermined by his satellites
Americas4 days ago
The World is Entering A Period of Transformation: Can the West lose?
World News3 days ago
High-level CIA visit to Kyiv comes at critical juncture in war
Eastern Europe3 days ago
Why there is New Escalation in Ukraine War?
Finance3 days ago
Everything you Need to Know about Military Strength and Conditioning Specialist Jobs