What should replace the EU is a result from the reasons why it needs to be replaced. It results from the EU’s history, and this will be explained here:
As will be documented below, the EU was created by the U.S. and UK Governments after World War II in order to carry out the plan that Cecil Rhodes had conceived of in 1877 for the UK, first, to retake (by means of U.S.-based agents) the U.S., and, then, for the joint UK-U.S. empire to take over the entire world, starting with Europe. Ultimately, Russia, which was and is, by far, the world’s largest country, was the largest and main target. After WW II, the Rhodesists’ plan to take over the world was to produce both the NATO military alliance and the EU diplomatic alliance, in order to cement Rhodesist control over Europe, so that then the Soviet Union (originally Russia) could ultimately become conquered. But it needed to start with that UK/U.S., Rhodesist, “Special Relationship” bonding between UK and U.S. (which was never publicly even so much as just mentioned until Churchill finally announced the “Special Relationship” in a speech in the approving presence of U.S. President Truman on 5 March 1946) aimed at conquering the Soviet Union. (All of this will be documented by means of the links that are provided here.)
However, the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 and ended its Warsaw Pact military alliance, and also ended its communism, at that time; and, so, the anti-Soviet ‘justifications’ for continuing both NATO and the EU were now gone. Despite that, both NATO and the EU continued, since then, but instead as anti-Russian, no longer as anti-communist, and the publics in the Rhodesist-controlled countries didn’t even blink an eye about this nor even notice it, but just went on spending, via their taxes, trillions of dollars for weaponry (etc.) that now had no non-imperialistic purpose remaining. The actual goal of the Rhodesists is — and has been — global conquest, and anti-communism had actually been only the excuse for the Cold War. So, new excuses now had to be invented, for the still-ongoing U.S.-and-allied invasions and military occupations. On 24 February 1990, U.S. President G.H.W. Bush secretly started informing America’s foreign allies about this fact — that, though the Soviet Union would soon end, and its communism would soon end, and its Warsaw Pact military alliance that had been organized by the U.S.S.R. in response to America’s NATO military alliance, would all end very soon, the Cold War itself would secretly continue on the side of the U.S. and its allies, until the entire world will be controlled by the U.S. Government. It was now clear, that the actual goal had been global conquest, all along. The cat was out of the bag on this fact (because the Soviet Union and its communism were now gone), but the ‘news’-media didn’t notice that America now had a runaway military, and the public also didn’t notice it — perhaps largely because the ‘news’-media (which, for an example, reported during 2002 and 2003 ceaselessly about such fictions as “Saddam’s WMD”) ignored the crucial realities (such as their never reporting that G.H.W. Bush had given this instruction to Helmut Kohl on 24 February 1990), and acting as if they were owned by the very same people who own firms such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, which need to grow arms-production in order to be able to grow, at all. Everything fit together, into this systemic reality of a runaway, cancerous, U.S. military that’s controlled by its weapons-makers, which control the Government, though the public don’t even know about what actually controls ‘their’ Government. (And this is supposed to be a ‘democracy’? Is that a democracy?)
All of the U.S.-allied leaders accepted this, because they all had already been conquered and occupied by the U.S. (working in conjunction with UK). But this was the time — starting on 24 February 1990 — when the ‘allied’ (actually vassal) leaders began to learn the fact, of their being (and having been) stooges, in the U.S. empire (actually the UK-U.S. empire). This was the time when any remaining ones who still believed that they were free countries inside an actual alliance, became disillusioned, and they had to recognize that they were actually regimes within the U.S. (but actually UK-U.S.) empire.
Then, finally, when Barack Obama was the U.S. President, he was able to announce, publicly, on 28 May 2014, in front of graduating cadets at America’s West Point military academy (no less), “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation,” meaning that all other nations are “dispensable” (and could therefore become targets invaded by them, as military officers in the world’s only indispensable nation). That’s the core belief of any imperial country, in relation to its colonies, to keep those vassal-regimes under control. For example, Hitler was an imperialist, and he treated his colonies this way, just as England did and does. Perhaps France’s Emmanuel Macron had not actually faced the fact of what that statement (often repeated) by Obama had meant, until seven years later, on 15 September 2021, the UK-U.S. regime stabbed France in the back by grabbing and trashing France’s signed $60 billion contract to build, for Australia, 12 submarines, and replacing that signed contract with the September 15th AUKUS submarine-construction deal.
Certainly, Australia’s Prime Minister didn’t want to be ousted by a Rhodesist coup like the only prior Australian PM had been who had tried to break Australia’s particpation in the Rhodesist ‘alliance’ was tossed aside, and this current Australian PM, Scott Morrison, announced on September 15th that, instead of that contract going with France, Australia was now reaffirming (as he had to do) its alliances with U.S. and UK by agreeing with UK/U.S. to build 12 nuclear-powered submarines for $90 billion, which would be made in Adelaide, but really in either America or Britain. (An excellent analysis of “The Fallout From The AUKUS Deal” also appeared on September 20th, at the anonymously written “MoA” blog.)
And, as for France, Mr. Macron does, after all, accept being merely a stooge within a foreign-controlled empire, instead of the leader of an independent, free (meaning not foreign-controlled), country. Biden privately promised Macron, on September 22nd, that America will protect France — maybe like America ‘protected’ its stooges in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan — but who knows whether some sort of private bribe was also offered, which type of offer the U.S. regime does fulfill on. However, Macron had actually been hoping that the EU would back France against the UK/U.S. on AUKUS, and the EU turned him down, which probably clinched, for Macron, his decision on the 22nd, for France to cave on AUKUS — not to try to overturn it. (Macron did obtain from Biden an acceptance of a “European Army” that will be “complementary to NATO” — a proposal which had been introduced in 1996 by then-French President Alain Juppé, because it would be a boon to France’s billionaires, since France has the EU’s main weapons-manufacturerers. However, that would not eliminate America’s control over Europe. It would be a hollow change. It would not free Europeans from UK/U.S. control. Only ending NATO would do that.)
The EU, like NATO, is a crucial tool of (UK/)U.S. power. The Rhodesists had, ever since the end of World War II in 1945, aimed to control Europe not only militarily (through their creation of NATO) but also diplomatically, through, ultimately, a European Union, which became created by the CIA. The details are supplied in an exhaustive 1,000-page biography of Jean Monnet by Éric Roussel, which was published only in France in 1996, and which seems to have been successfully suppressed. It has never been translated, and has no reviews even at America’s Amazon, and only 4 reviews at Amazon in France. However, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of UK’s Telegraph newspaper has provided some of the core information from it. Furthermore, Richard J. Aldrich’s 2003 The Hidden Hand also provides key details, such as by Aldrich’s saying, on page 366, about the American Committee for a United Europe:
ACUE, more than any other American front organization of the Cold War, was a direct creature of the leading lights of the CIA. Indeed, it was so replete with famous CIA figures that its ‘front’ was very thin. Its early years seemed to have formed something of a laboratory for figures such as [Bill] Donovan, [Allen] Dulles, [Walter] Bedell Smith and [Tom] Braden, before they moved on to other projects in the mid-1950s. Over its first three years of operations, 1949-51, ACUE received $384,650, the majority being dispersed to Europe. This was a large sum, but from 1952 ACUE began to spend such sums annually. The total budget for the period 1949-60 amounted to approximately $4 million. As the quantity of money flowing across the Atlantic began to increase, ACUE opened a local Paris office to monitor more closely groups that had received grants. By 1956, the flood of increased funding was prompting fears among the Directors of ACUE that its work would be publicly exposed. …
The emerging European Economic Community (EEC) and the growing Western intelligence community overlapped to a considerable degree. This is underlined by the creation of the Bilderberg Group, an informal and secretive transatlantic council of key decision-makers [representatives of the billionaires who controlled U.S. and U.S.-allied international corporations]. Bilderberg was founded by Joseph Retinger and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands in 1952 in response to the rise of anti-Americanism in Europe. … Retinger secured support from Averell Harriman, David Rockefeller and Walter Bedell Smith. The formation of the American wing of Bilderberg was entrusted to Eisenhower’s psychological warfare chief, C.D. Jackson, and the funding for the first meeting, held at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Holland in 1954, was provided by the CIA.
Funds for these CIA operations came not only from the U.S. Treasury but from private sources, America’s super-rich (who control their corporations such as General Dynamics and ExxonMobil); and, also from organized gangsters, as was revealed in the 1998 classic by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press. This off-the-books private CIA funding comes from narcotics kingpins throughout the world, as protection-money, which is essential to keep them in business. Both the official billionaires and the gangsters get their money’s-worth from it, but America’s public, the taxpayers, lose enormously, because it increases the corruptness of our Government (and not only increases the problems from people who need to steal in order to buy the drugs to which those addicts are addicted). The CIA was created soon after WW II, while U.S. President Truman unknowingly was installing Rhodesists in key national security positions and reorganizing the U.S. Government so that the Soviet Union could be conquered — which he decided, on 25 July 1945, had to be done.
So, the EU was financially fueled from all of these sources, and, basically, was a bribing-operation (to end up getting the ‘right’ people into the EU’s Parliament, etc.), in addition to be receiving funds from what might be considered idealistic philanthropic donors (because the dream of a united Europe had long preceded the grubby version of it that the CIA created for Europeans).
The EU was a Cold War operation, from its very start. It remains that to the present day.
Pritchard issued two important articles about this, the first being his 19 September 2000 “Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs”:
DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement. … One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.
The documents were found by Joshua Paul, a researcher at Georgetown University in Washington. They include files released by the US National Archives. Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then.
The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds.
The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington. The Belgian director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. When the head of the European Movement, Polish-born Joseph Retinger, bridled at this degree of American control and tried to raise money in Europe, he was quickly reprimanded.
The leaders of the European Movement — Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak — were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE’s funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.
Then, on 27 April 2016, he bannered “The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover” and reported:
It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations. … The US has relied on the EU ever since as the anchor to American regional interests alongside NATO. … It is odd that this magisterial 1000-page study found only a French-language publisher. [Roussel’sJean Monnet. The French Wikipedia’s article on Roussel says “En 1995, il écrit une biographie consacrée à Jean Monnet2 qui reçoit le prix de l’Essai de l’Académie française, le prix Guizot, et le prix européen de l’histoire.” Despite all of those awards, the work is little-known, even in France.] Nor are many aware of declassified documents from the State Department archives showing that US intelligence funded the European movement secretly for decades, and worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into the project. …
[The CIA] treated some of the EU’s ‘founding fathers’ as hired hands, and actively prevented them finding alternative funding that would have broken reliance on Washington. … The American ‘deep state’ was in up to its neck. …
Since that newspaper (like all major news-media in the U.S. and in its vassal-nations are) is both neoliberal and neoconservative (meaning U.S.-imperialistic), Pritchard approved of all this. He did it by saying: “There is nothing particularly wicked about this. The US acted astutely in the context of the Cold War. The political reconstruction of Europe was a roaring success.”
However, obviously, no authentic democracy can exist in a nation that’s governed by means of deceiving its public; nor can any democracy be an empire, neither the imperialistic nation itself, nor one of its vassal-nations, because that is merely a “Deep State” rule, behind the scenes, by its billionaires — it’s an aristocracy, and not a democracy, which reigns there. Though all of the country’s major news-media will support the aristocracy — since they’ll all be owned by the aristocracy — anyone who calls it a ‘democracy’ is transparently either a fool or a liar, because such a nation is the exact opposite of a democracy: it is instead an aristocracy, which rules there.
Crucial WW-2 history is necessary in order to understand relations between the UK-U.S. bloc and Europe during the post-WW-2 years:
Germany’s “Operation Barbarossa”, to capture the Soviet Union, started on 22 June 1941, which was even before the U.S. entered WW II; and from that time till War’s-end on 8 May 1945, more than 58% of German divisions (peaking at 86% in late 1942) were engaged in that effort — against that one nation. By War’s-end, around 90% of the remaining German divisions were in the Soviet Union. It would be reasonable to say that the Soviet Union won the Allies’ war against Hitler. (Certainly the U.S.S.R. received the brunt of the Nazis’ damages, though Truman excluded it from the Marshall Plan — because that Plan was intended as a powerful weapon against the U.S.S.R.) The Marshall Plan wasn’t only aimed at rebuilding America’s European allies, but it was — and this was even more important in the eyes of America’s aristocracy — aimed against Russia by excluding all assistance to any of the nations that had suffered the worst losses from Hitler’s onslaughts: Russia and its allies. The aim was to make Russia’s allies envy and want to become part of the ‘capitalist’ nations to their west — the allies of America. It was to help build the American empire, which Rhodes had planned back in 1877 and would be largely (and entirely secretly) run from the City of London.
In fact, there is even some reliable information regarding how consciously Britain’s Deep State were manipulating the Truman Administration. It’s in this passage from the Rhodesist CIA’s own retired Miles Copeland’s 1969 book, The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics, opening Chapter 2:
On a cold and rainy February afternoon in 1947 [21 February 1947], one year before the Games Center was established, First Secretary H. M. Sichel of the British Embassy in Washington telephoned Loy Henderson, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and African Affairs. He had two messages from the Foreign Office which were “rather important.” They were of a sort that normally should be delivered by the British Ambassador direct to the Secretary of State, George Marshall, but since General Marshall had already left the office for the weekend perhaps, Sichel suggested he could drop off the notes, have a “brief” chat about them, and allow Mr. Henderson a weekend of reflection on them before briefing the Secretary prior to meeting the British Ambassador on Monday morning.
Sichel arrived as State Department employees, after a comparatively dull week, were donning their raincoats and galoshes to take off for an indoor weekend. Loy Henderson, who habitually worked until eight or nine o’clock even on Fridays, had sent off all his secretaries and was alone in the office. The scene was the one of utter calm that skillful dramatists often establish to provide the psychological setting for a shattering announcement.
The announcement, which Mr. Sichel delivered in the course of his “brief chat,” was certainly shattering. The two messages were official notification that the Pax Britannica, which had kept order in much of the world for over a century, was at an end. Specifically, His Majesty’s Government could no longer afford the $50,000,000 or so that was required to support the resistance of the Greek and Turkish Governments to Communist aggression either, as in the first case, by guerrilla warfare or, in the second, by direct military action of the Soviet Union. Either the United States Government would fill the gap, or it would go unfilled — or it would be left to the Russians. Mr. Henderson, whose considerable diplomatic experience included assignments in Moscow and other capitals in the Soviet orbit, didn’t need a weekend of reflection to realize that more than Greece and Turkey was at stake. The vacuum of which these two countries were a part extended throughout all of southern Europe that was not already behind the Iron Curtain, and through North Africa and the Middle East. With the British announcement, delivered so calmly by Mr. Sichel, the United States was given the choice of becoming an active world power — an “on-the-ground” world power, as a lecturer at the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute was later to put it — or seeing the Soviets become a more menacing feature of world politics than Nazi Germany could ever have been.
Truman himself was an extremely receptive sucker for the idea that the Rhodesist Churchill and others were pumping to him that if the U.S. wouldn’t conquer the Soviet Union, then the Soviet Union would conquer the United States. This is how the Cold War was started, by agents for the owners of corporations such as Lockheed and BAE — the Deep State — the Rhodesists.
When FDR was America’s President, Churchill and the other Rhodesists couldn’t get to first base in their efforts to fool FDR that the Soviet Union (at that time, Stalin) had designs on conquering America, but Truman immediately believed their pitches about the necessity to conquer the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, the Soviet Union was actually the main country that had defeated Hitler. Instead of being Europe’s enemy, Stalin had actually been Europe’s main liberator. Fascism is not communism, despite the billionaires’ lies to the exact contrary. As Strategic Culture pointed out on 6 June 2020 (entirely accurately), “The Battle of Moscow [2 October 1941 to 7 January 1942] was the first strategic defeat of the German army on the ground during World War II. Moscow became the first capital city in continental Europe not to be captured as a result of German offensive. … The main reason for the Soviet victory [the first decisive victory in WW II, the second one being the 5 July 1943 to 23 August 1943 Battle of Kursk, which actually doomed Hitler] was the valiance and sacrifice of the Red Army, which lost 937,000 [soldiers] defending Moscow.”
Near the beginning of FDR’s lengthy fireside chat to the nation on 28 April 1942, he said: “On the European front the most important development of the past year has been without question the crushing counteroffensive on the part of the great armies of Russia against the powerful German Army. These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies — troops, planes, tanks, and guns — than all the other United Nations put together.” (NOTE: He was already using the phrase “United Nations” with the objective in mind for all of the world’s nations to view themselves as having been saved by the U.N. that FDR was intending ultimately to replace all empires and to be the sole source of international laws.) Near the War’s end, on 19 September 1944 (while FDR was still alive and so Churchill was preparing for a post-War that wouldn’t be controlled by the Rhodesists), Churchill telegrammed to Stalin “that it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine and is at the present moment holding by far the larger portion of the enemy on its front.”
As the History Channel’s article “Operation Barbarossa” summed-up: “On 22 June 1941, German forces began their invasion of the Soviet Union, … the most powerful invasion force in history, … 80% of the German army … [plus] 30 divisions of Finnish and Romanian troops. … By the time Germany officially surrendered to the Allies on 8 May 1945, 80% of its casualties during WW2 had come on the Eastern Front [the Soviet Union].” Wikipedia’s “Operation Barbarossa” said “The failure of Operation Barbarossa reversed the fortunes of the Third Reich.” However, on 8 May 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted “On May 8, 1945, America and Great Britain had victory over the Nazis! America’s spirit will always win. In the end, that’s what happens.” So goes the myth, but certainly not the history.
Here is how the Rhodesist-controlled EU thanks Russia for that: by blaming Russia, right along with Nazi Germany, as having been their enemy during WW II. The U.S.-regime-created EU’s European Parliament voted 19 September 2019, by 535 to 66, for a resolution condemning both Hitler and Stalin as having started World War II, which is a lie — and an especially outrageous one, considering that the Soviet Union did more than any other country to defeat Hitler and to enable all of those countries to not now be controlled by a Nazi regime. (Shortly after that article, another article, by Max Parry, independently came to the same conclusion: the EU is fascist.) This Big-Lie Resolution said that
whereas it has become commonplace for Russia to deny responsibility and blame hostilities on the West in its official rhetoric, creating a reliable propaganda base upon which it can rely to justify its disregard of international law and continue its aggression against Eastern Partnership countries; [the EU]
1. Stresses that the Second World War, the most devastating war in Europe’s history, was caused by the notorious Nazi-Soviet Treaty of Non-Aggression of 23 August 1939, also called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, which allowed two totalitarian regimes that shared the goal of world conquest to divide Europe into two zones of influence.
The actual history is: Stalin had been begging the UK to ally with the Soviet Union to defeat Hitler; and, after being snubbed each time, joined with Hitler in order to prevent an expected invasion by Hitler against the Soviet Union. It was an act of desperation by Stalin, which was forced upon him by the UK. And, now, the U.S. and its allies rewrite ‘history’ to make the Soviet Union their enemy during WW II, instead of their savior — as they actually were.
On 25 June 2021, Politico headlined “Summit exposes stark clash of EU views on Russia” and described the central fissure as being between a Russia-hating bloc comprised of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and supported by the United States, versus a neutralist bloc that consisted of France and Germany. (To the latter group — though not mentioned in that article — might also be added Italy and Austria, plus Switzerland if it were to be included as being a part of Europe, which it is.)
The neutralist bloc in Europe do not want to be targets of Russian missiles if the U.S. decides to launch, or to support, a blitz invasion against Russia, as a means to achieve the victory that Hitler had attempted but failed to achieve in 1941. The likeliest way that Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, could actually become invaded by Russia would be only if those countries are part of the U.S. alliance, as they presently are. But that is their business, and their choice, to be allied with the Russia-hating United States and having U.S. missiles on the very borders of Russia and serving as the launch-grounds for America’s (fronting UK’s) intended blitz-invasion first-strike. But, as member-nations of the EU, this endangers all Europeans — not only their own nation.
Consequently, what should replace the EU is its splitting up into a pro-WW-III bloc headed by the U.S. (actually the UK) and with its European vassal-nations being Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia; and, opposite that, on the neutralist side, an anti-WW-III bloc, which would consist of France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, and, perhaps, also of a few other current EU-member nations such as Spain, Portugal, and Denmark.
Continuation of the U.S.-dominated EU is leading to Europe’s becoming the main battleground for WW III, just as it had been for WW I, and for WW II. Only, instead of it being against Germany, it would be against Russia (and perhaps also against China).
A neutralist EU, which would probably need to expel its current committedly U.S.-vassal nations, would be able to thrive and have peaceful relationships with Russia, China, and almost all the rest of EurAsia, excepting perhaps only Japan. By contrast, continuation of the existing EU (being actually run from London and Washington, as it is) will be toxic to all Europeans. This is especially true because, one way or another, the (UK-)U.S. empire is ending. Either the nations that are in the EU will be a part of the growing EurAsian future, or else, they will be the main battleground for WW III. It’s their choice, which to be.
The elections this year in the possibly neutralist EU nations such as Germany and France will be crucially important in determining whether Europe will again be the battleground for a world war. If they break away from their current vassalage to the (Rhodesist) Deep State of UK and U.S., the chances of avoiding a WW 3 will become greatly increased.
Europe’s enemies aren’t Russia and China, but UK and U.S. However, polls show that only very few Europeans recognize this fact — the vast majority of Europeans have been fooled by the U.S.-and-allied (Rhodesist) Deep State and its ‘news’-media. So, the prospects for Europe currently look bad. Decades of (Rhodesist) indoctrination (including lots of misleading ‘news’-reports) have established, in Europe, deep-seated prejudices against both Russia and China, and the idea that an alliance with America protects them against Russia (instead of making them actually prime targets of Russian missiles). The belief that today’s America protects Europe, instead of being Europe’s top (if not only) enemy, is stupid, but propaganda (lying) succeeds, and few people in the public ask the basic questions that expose the frauds of the Rhodesists. Propaganda requires its victims to not examine on their own, and that’s unfortunately the way most people are. However, any reader who clicks onto a link in the present article if a given allegation appears to be questionable, will see the evidence, and can judge it oneself. Then, a reader can make an informed judgment, not merely a judgment that’s on the basis of the overwhelming propaganda (which is Rhodesist).
PS: On September 23rd, Alexander Mercouris, whom I consider to be the most trustworthy of all journalists at analyzing international diplomacy, headlined “AUKUS Debacle: US Apologies to France in Biden-Macron Call, Greenlights EU Army, Johnson Frozen Out”, and presented a powerful case that the AUKUS deal had been conceived by Boris Johnson, was then stupidly accepted by Joe Biden, and then became obligatorily accepted by Scott Morrison. If that analysis is true, then the initiative here wasn’t American but instead British, which would fit perfectly with Rhodes’s plan, that whereas America would be supplying the muscle in this global-imperial scheme, the brains (such as they are) behind it would be in Britain. U.S. fronts for UK. It’s still the British Empire. Rhodes’s scheme has been stunningly successful.
Author’s note: first posted at Strategic Culture
Iceland’s Historic(al) Elections
The morning of September, 26 was a good one for Lenya Run Karim of the Pirate Party. Once the preliminary results were announced, things were clear: the 21-year-old law student of the University of Iceland, originating from a Kurdish immigrant family, had become the youngest MP in the country’s history.
In historical significance, however, this event was second to another. Iceland, the world champion in terms of gender equality, became the first country in Europe to have more women MPs than men, 33 versus 30. The news immediately made world headlines: only five countries in the world have achieved such impressive results. Remarkably, all are non-European: Rwanda, Nicaragua and Cuba have a majority of women in parliament, while Mexico and the UAE have an equal number of male and female MPs.
Nine hours later, news agencies around the world had to edit their headlines. The recount in the Northwest constituency affected the outcome across the country to delay the ‘triumph for women’ for another four years.
Small numbers, big changes
The Icelandic electoral system is designed so that 54 out of the 63 seats in the Althingi, the national parliament, are primary or constituency seats, while another nine are equalization seats. Only parties passing the 5 per cent threshold are allowed to distribute equalisation seats that go to the candidates who failed to win constituency mandates and received the most votes in their constituency. However, the number of equalisation mandates in each of the 6 constituencies is legislated. In theory, this could lead to a situation in which the leading party candidate in one constituency may simply lack an equalisation mandate, so the leading candidate of the same party—but in another constituency—receives it.
This is what happened this year. Because of a difference of only ten votes between the Reform Party and the Pirate Party, both vying for the only equalisation mandate in the Northwest, the constituency’s electoral commission announced a recount on its own initiative. There were also questions concerning the counting procedure as such: the ballots were not sealed but simply locked in a Borgarnes hotel room. The updated results hardly affected the distribution of seats between the parties, bringing in five new MPs, none of whom were women, with the 21-year-old Lenya Run Karim replaced by her 52-year-old party colleague.
In the afternoon of September, 27, at the request of the Left-Green Movement, supported by the Independence Party, the Pirates and the Reform Party, the commission in the South announced a recount of their own—the difference between the Left-Greens and the Centrists was only seven votes. There was no ‘domino effect’, as in the case of the Northwest, as the five-hour recount showed the same result. Recounts in other districts are unlikely, nor is it likely that Althingi—vested with the power to declare the elections valid—would invalidate the results in the Northwest. Nevertheless, the ‘replaced’ candidates have already announced their intention to appeal against the results, citing violations of ballot storage procedures. Under the Icelandic law, this is quite enough to invalidate the results and call a re-election in the Northwest, as the Supreme Court of Iceland invalidated the Constitutional Council elections due to a breach of procedure 10 years ago. Be that as it may, the current score remains 33:30, in favor of men.
Progressives’ progress and threshold for socialists
On the whole, there were no surprises: the provisional allocation of mandates resembles, if with minor changes, the opinion polls on the eve of the election.
The ruling three-party coalition has rejuvenated its position, winning 37 out of the 63 Althingi seats. The centrist Progressive Party saw a real electoral triumph, improving its 2017 result by five seats. Prime-minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir’s Left-Green Movement, albeit with a slight loss, won eight seats, surpassing all pre-election expectations. Although the centre-right Independence Party outperformed everyone again to win almost a quarter of all votes, 16 seats are one of the worst results of the Icelandic ‘Grand Old Party’ ever.
The results of the Social-Democrats, almost 10% versus 12.1% in 2017, and of the Pirates, 8.6% versus 9.2%, have deteriorated. Support for the Centre Party of Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, former prime-minister and victim of the Panama Papers, has halved from 10.9% to 5.4%. The centrists have seen a steady decline in recent years, largely due to a sexist scandal involving party MPs. The populist People’s Party and the pro-European Reform Party have seen gains of 8.8% and 8.3%, as compared to 6.9% and 6.7% in the previous elections.
Of the leading Icelandic parties, only the Socialist Party failed to pass the 5 per cent threshold: despite a rating above 7% in August, the Socialists received only 4.1% of the vote.
Coronavirus, climate & economy
Healthcare and the fight against COVID-19 was, expectedly, on top of the agenda of the elections: 72% of voters ranked it as the defining issue, according to a Fréttablaðið poll. Thanks to swift and stringent measures, the Icelandic government brought the coronavirus under control from day one, and the country has enjoyed one of the lowest infection rates in the world for most of the time. At the same time, the pandemic exposed a number of problems in the national healthcare system: staff shortages, low salaries and long waiting lists for emergency surgery.
Climate change, which Icelanders are already experiencing, was an equally important topic. This summer, the temperature has not dropped below 20°C for 59 days, an anomaly for a North-Atlantic island. However, Icelanders’ concerns never converted into increased support for the four left-leaning parties advocating greater reductions in CO2 emission than the country has committed to under the Paris Agreement: their combined result fell by 0.5%.
The economy and employment were also among the main issues in this election. The pandemic has severely damaged the island nation’s economy, which is heavily tourism-reliant—perhaps, unsurprisingly, many Icelanders are in favor of reviving the tourism sector as well as diversifying the economy further.
The EU membership, by far a ‘traditional’ issue in Icelandic politics, is unlikely to be featured on the agenda of the newly-elected parliament as the combined result of the Eurosceptics, despite a loss of 4%, still exceeds half of the overall votes. The new Althingi will probably face the issue of constitutional reform once again, which is only becoming more topical in the light of the pandemic and the equalization mandates story.
New (old) government?
The parties are to negotiate coalition formation. The most likely scenario now is that the ruling coalition of the Independence Party, the Left-Greens and the Progressives continues. It has been the most ideologically diverse and the first three-party coalition in Iceland’s history to last a full term. A successful fight against the pandemic has only strengthened its positions and helped it secure additional votes. Independence Party leader and finance minister Bjarni Benediktsson has earlier said he would be prepared to keep the ruling coalition if it holds the majority. President Guðni Jóhannesson announced immediately after the elections that he would confirm the mandate of the ruling coalition to form a new government if the three parties could strike a deal.
Other developments are possible but unlikely. Should the Left-Greens decide to leave the coalition, they could be replaced by the Reform Party or the People’s Party, while any coalition without the Independence Party can only be a four-party or larger coalition.
Who will become the new prime-minister still remains to be seen—but if the ruling coalition remains in place, the current prime-minister and leader of the Left-Greens, Katrín Jakobsdóttir, stands a good chance of keeping her post: she is still the most popular politician in Iceland with a 40 per cent approval rate.
The 2021 Althingi election, with one of the lowest turnouts in history at 80.1%, has not produced a clear winner. The election results reflect a Europe-wide trend in which traditional “major” parties are losing support. The electorate is fragmenting and their votes are pulled by smaller new parties. The coronavirus pandemic has only reinforced this trend.
The 2021 campaign did not foreshadow a sensation. Although Iceland has not become the first European country with a women’s majority in parliament, these elections will certainly go down in history as a test of Icelanders’ trust to their own democracy.
From our partner RIAC
EU-Balkan Summit: No Set Timeframe for Western Balkans Accession
On October 6, Slovenia hosted a summit between the EU and the Western Balkans states. The EU-27 met with their counterparts (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Kosovo) in the sumptuous Renaissance setting of Brdo Castle, 30 kilometers north of the capital, Ljubljana. Despite calls from a minority of heads of state and government, there were no sign of a breakthrough on the sensitive issue of enlargement. The accession of these countries to the European Union is still not unanimous among the 27 EU member states.
During her final tour of the Balkans three weeks ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that the peninsula’s integration was of “geostrategic” importance. On the eve of the summit, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz backed Slovenia’s goal of integrating this zone’s countries into the EU by 2030.
However, the unanimity required to begin the hard negotiations is still a long way off, even for the most advanced countries in the accession process, Albania and North Macedonia. Bulgaria, which is already a member of the EU, is opposing North Macedonia’s admission due to linguistic and cultural differences. Since Yugoslavia’s demise, Sofia has rejected the concept of Macedonian language, insisting that it is a Bulgarian dialect, and has condemned the artificial construction of a distinct national identity.
Other countries’ reluctance to join quickly is of a different nature. France and the Netherlands believe that previous enlargements (Bulgaria and Romania in 2007) have resulted in changes that must first be digested before the next round of enlargement. The EU-27 also demand that all necessary prior guarantees be provided regarding the independence of the judiciary and the fight against corruption in these countries. Despite the fact that press freedom is a requirement for membership, the NGO Reporters Without Borders (RSF) urged the EU to make “support for investigative and professional journalism” a key issue at the summit.”
While the EU-27 have not met since June, the topic of Western Balkans integration is competing with other top priorities in the run-up to France’s presidency of the EU in the first half of 2022. On the eve of the summit, a working dinner will be held, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, called for “a strategic discussion on the role of the Union on the international scene” in his letter of invitation to the EU-Balkans Summit, citing “recent developments in Afghanistan,” the announcement of the AUKUS pact between the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, which has enraged Paris.
The Western Balkans remain the focal point of an international game of influence in which the Europeans seek to maintain their dominance. As a result, the importance of reaffirming a “European perspective” at the summit was not an overstatement. Faced with the more frequent incursion of China, Russia, and Turkey in that European region, the EU has pledged a 30 billion euro Economic and Investment Plan for 2021-2027, as well as increased cooperation, particularly to deal with the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Opening the borders, however, is out of the question. In the absence of progress on this issue, Albania, North Macedonia, and Serbia have decided to establish their own zone of free movement (The Balkans are Open”) beginning January 1, 2023. “We are starting today to do in the region what we will do tomorrow in the EU,” said Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama when the agreement was signed last July.
This initiative, launched in 2019 under the name “Mini-Schengen” and based on a 1990s idea, does not have the support of the entire peninsular region, which remains deeply divided over this project. While Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro are not refusing to be a part of it and are open to discussions, the Prime Minister of Kosovo, Albin Kurti, who took office in 2020, for his part accuses Serbia of relying on this project to recreate “a fourth Yugoslavia”
Tensions between Balkan countries continue to be an impediment to European integration. The issue of movement between Kosovo and Serbia has been a source of concern since the end of September. Two weeks of escalation followed Kosovo’s decision to prohibit cars with Serbian license plates from entering its territory, in response to Serbia’s long-standing prohibition on allowing vehicles to pass in the opposite direction.
In response to the mobilization of Kosovar police to block the road, Serbs in Kosovo blocked roads to their towns and villages, and Serbia deployed tanks and the air force near the border. On Sunday, October 3, the conflict seemed to be over, and the roads were reopened. However, the tone had been set three days before the EU-Balkans summit.
German Election: Ramifications for the US Foreign Policy
In the recent German election, foreign policy was scarcely an issue. But Germany is an important element in the US foreign policy. There is a number of cases where Germany and the US can cooperate, but all of these dynamics are going to change very soon.
The Germans’ strategic culture makes it hard to be aligned perfectly with the US and disagreements can easily damage the relations. After the tension between the two countries over the Iraq war, in 2003, Henry Kissinger said that he could not imagine the relations between Germany and the US could be aggravated so quickly, so easily, which might end up being the “permanent temptation of German politics”. For a long time, the US used to provide security for Germany during the Cold War and beyond, so, several generations are used to take peace for granted. But recently, there is a growing demand on them to carry more burden, not just for their own security, but for international peace and stability. This demand was not well-received in Berlin.
Then, the environment around Germany changed and new threats loomed up in front of them. The great powers’ competition became the main theme in international relations. Still, Germany was not and is not ready for shouldering more responsibility. Politicians know this very well. Ursula von der Leyen, who was German defense minister, asked terms like “nuclear weapons” and “deterrence” be removed from her speeches.
Although on paper, all major parties appreciate the importance of Germany’s relations with the US, the Greens and SPD ask for a reset in the relations. The Greens insist on the European way in transatlantic relations and SPD seeks more multilateralism. Therefore, alignment may be harder to maintain in the future. However, If the tensions between the US and China heat up to melting degrees, then external pressure can overrule the internal pressure and Germany may accede to its transatlantic partners, just like when Helmut Schmid let NATO install medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe after the Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan and the Cold War heated up.
According to the election results, now three coalitions are possible: grand coalition with CDU/CSU and SPD, traffic lights coalition with SPD, FDP, and Greens, Jamaica coalition with CDU/CSU, FDP, and Greens. Jamaica coalition will more likely form the most favorable government for the US because it has both CDU and FDP, and traffic lights will be the least favorite as it has SPD. The grand coalition can maintain the status quo at best, because contrary to the current government, SPD will dominate CDU.
To understand nuances, we need to go over security issues to see how these coalitions will react to them. As far as Russia is concerned, none of them will recognize the annexation of Crimea and they all support related sanctions. However, if tensions heat up, any coalition government with SPD will be less likely assertive. On the other hand, as the Greens stress the importance of European values like democracy and human rights, they tend to be more assertive if the US formulates its foreign policy by these common values and describe US-China rivalry as a clash between democracy and authoritarianism. Moreover, the Greens disapprove of the Nordstream project, of course not for its geopolitics. FDP has also sided against it for a different reason. So, the US must follow closely the negotiations which have already started between anti-Russian smaller parties versus major parties.
For relations with China, pro-business FDP is less assertive. They are seeking for developing EU-China relations and deepening economic ties and civil society relations. While CDU/CSU and Greens see China as a competitor, partner, and systemic rival, SPD and FDP have still hopes that they can bring change through the exchange. Thus, the US might have bigger problems with the traffic lights coalition than the Jamaica coalition in this regard.
As for NATO and its 2 percent of GDP, the division is wider. CDU/CSU and FDP are the only parties who support it. So, in the next government, it might be harder to persuade them to pay more. Finally, for nuclear participation, the situation is the same. CDU/CSU is the only party that argues for it. This makes it an alarming situation because the next government has to decide on replacing Germany’s tornados until 2024, otherwise Germany will drop out of the NATO nuclear participation.
The below table gives a brief review of these three coalitions. 1 indicates the lowest level of favoritism and 3 indicates the highest level of favoritism. As it shows, the most anti-Russia coalition is Jamaica, while the most anti-China coalition is Trafic light. Meanwhile, Grand Coalition is the most pro-NATO coalition. If the US adopts a more normative foreign policy against China and Russia, then the Greens and FDP will be more assertive in their anti-Russian and anti-Chinese policies and Germany will align more firmly with the US if traffic light or Jamaica coalition rise to power.
|Issues Coalitions||Trafic Light||Grand Coalition||Jamaica|
1 indicates the lowest level of favoritism. 3 indicates the highest level of favoritism.
In conclusion, this election should not make Americans any happier. The US has already been frustrated with the current government led by Angela Merkel who gave Germany’s trade with China the first priority, and now that the left-wing will have more say in any imaginable coalition in the future, the Americans should become less pleased. But, still, there are hopes that Germany can be a partner for the US in great power competition if the US could articulate its foreign policy with common values, like democracy and human rights. More normative foreign policy can make a reliable partner out of Germany. Foreign policy rarely became a topic in this election, but observers should expect many ramifications for it.
Formation of the Political West -from the 18th century till today
The 18th – a century of change In 1776 the American colonists threw off the British yoke and many people...
Reducing industrial pollution in the Niger River Basin
The Niger River is the third-longest river in Africa, running for 4,180 km (2,600 miles) from its source in south-eastern...
Standards & Digital Transformation – Good Governance in a Digital Age
In celebration of World Standards Day 2021, celebrated on 14 October every year, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)...
Accelerating COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake to Boost Malawi’s Economic Recovery
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries including Malawi have struggled to mitigate its impact amid limited fiscal...
UN: Paraguay violated indigenous rights
Paraguay’s failure to prevent the toxic contamination of indigenous people’s traditional lands by commercial farming violates their rights and their sense of “home”, the UN Human Rights...
An Airplane Dilemma: Convenience Versus Environment
Mr. President: There are many consequences of COVID-19 that have changed the existing landscape due to the cumulative effects of...
Vaccination, Jobs, and Social Assistance are All Key to Reducing Poverty in Central Asia
As the pace of economic recovery picks up, countries in Central Asia have an opportunity to return to pre-pandemic levels...
Defense3 days ago
The U.S. may not involve military confrontation in the South China Sea
Europe4 days ago
Is Kosovo Threatened by the European Far-Right? A Commentary on Forza Nuova and its Balkan Connections
Arts & Culture2 days ago
Squid Game, Style influence and Sustainable consumption
Europe4 days ago
Revisiting the Birthplace of Non-Aligned Movement
Green Planet4 days ago
It’s not fair to single out the five countries in the Greta Thunberg UN children-climate case
Terrorism4 days ago
Trends of Online Radicalization in Bangladesh: Security Implications
Americas3 days ago
The international disorder after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the causes of the Taliban victory
Europe3 days ago
German Election: Ramifications for the US Foreign Policy