MAY 2017
Zbigniew Brzezinski & the Battle on Post Communism Fascism
By, Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey
Photo Credit: Twitter
After the fall of the Soviet Union what was left is a naked fascism for
which communism was more pretext than guiding ideology. Post Soviet Russia
may have had a flirting affair with democracy. However, soon the apparatus
of the old Soviet state was regenerated in the service of Putin’s Russia. In
the early 1990’s Putin was still in the shadows, but the model was already
being forged by Slobodan Milosevic. He and allies sought to mobilize the
military, political, cultural and economic resources of the “soft communism”
of a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia into a mono-nationalist force to maintain
absolute power in the service of a presumed “Greater Serbia.” It did not
really matter that Milosevic may not have been even a true-believer in Serb
nationalism. He was perhaps the first to employ populism in post WWII or
certainly post-Communist Europe. Since, the same alchemy of false promises
has been adopted by politicians that are loosely defined as populist to
far-right, Donald Trump to Marine LePen to Vladimir Putin.
Communism as Pretext for Fascism:
“Zbig” Brzezinski invited me to lunch as the wars of former Yugoslavia were
directed toward their most vulnerable victim, Bosnia & Herzegovina. As a
trusted adviser to several Presidents and holding the most important
diplomatic/security posts in the Carter Administration, Zbig had developed a
media reputation as tough on Communism. He was a trusted Democrat who spoke
as a Republican when it came to the “Evil Empire.” In 1992, one might have
expected Zbig to take a “victory lap” with the fall of the Berlin Wall along
with the Soviet Union but he already sensed the new challenge. The Soviet
Union was not so much about communism; that was the veneer. It was the
pretext for expansion, domination and autocracy. Liberal democracy was the
enemy and true target. Milosevic was the test case for how communist
apparatchiks would be reborn as fascist leaders seeking to reassert
autocracy in the cause of nationalism. No doubt Zbig foresaw Putin, even if
the specific name and face were still unrecognized. The more opportunistic
already were scavenging within and beyond Soviet borders. Chaos provided
cover for a new class of looters transitioning to oligarchs while the real
power grab was underway at the Kremlin. A new generation of diplomats who
might have been the voice for a progressive Russia instead became apologists
for Milosevic’s expansionism. This is how I got to know then Russia UN
Ambassador Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, then Special Envoy
to the Negotiations on Bosnia & Herzegovina. They were capable diplomats but
also were grasping onto nationalism as means of advancement in post Soviet
Russia.
Zbig was born into a Poland that was being drawn and quartered by wicked
deal between the Nazis and Soviets. There was little distinction between the
two fascisms although the Soviet Empire survived several decades beyond the
end of WW II, and thus able to better conceal its crimes. The first great
human rights crime, preceding the death camps of the Holocaust in Poland,
was the mass execution of thousands of captured Polish soldiers. The Soviets
sought to blame this crime on the Nazis, until the dam of fabrications could
no longer hold back the evidence. ( Read:
“Is MH17 Putin’s Katyn Wood Massacre?”)
Sochi 2014 & Berlin 1936:
For most of us who had the opportunity to find our new home in the United
States, we cherished the freedom and diversity of our adopted home. Whether
Zbig or Jewish refugees before us, we were not escaping socialism but the
despotic, fascist character of communism. Now the fascade of communism is
gone but the manifestations of fascism remain, no where more on display than
the Sochi Olympics. Constructed on brazen corruption and nationalism as
athletics on steroids, it was to herald the return of the old Soviet in the
body of a new Russian Empire. The Opening Ceremony did not honor athletes or
sports as global force for peace but rather elevated a vision of a
mono-ethnic country, heritage and identity that set aside the others in what
is historically a Russia of diverse cultures and religions. It was an
exhibition of homogeneity reminiscent of the 1936 Berlin Olympics. The
invasion of Ukraine would follow within days.
Communism is not Socialism as Fascism Betrays Patriotism:
Zbig and I continued to interact for the years that the war in BiH continued.
We both had an international perspective, but it was American exceptionalism
that defined our belief in our adopted country. While some still see the US
in terms of the free market, I see opportunity impossible without the
freedoms of person and thought. Communism is not socialism just like fascism
betrays patriotism.
The enlargement of the Euro-Atlantic family was a source of strength for
Europe but also the US. Some may rationalize Putin’s expansion abroad and
autocracy at home as consequence of NATO expansion; however, today’s Kremlin
fears the institutions of a free Europe even more. While I have not been in
contact with Zbig in the last few years, a Trump White House faltering in
its commitment to the shared values of the Euro-Atlantic family must have
been a sad reminder. That Putin would be seen as ally or model by Donald
Trump feels like a regression beyond imagination for those of us who have
seen America as the beacon. Zbig passes at a time when the eclipse threatens
darkness at home, but his contributions to freedom are both remembered and
rejuvenate in Washington and Europe. His daughter Mika, a co-host on CNBC
will be a fond reminder of the legacy.
In one of his last Tweets, @Zbig returned to a consistent reminder: “The
President (Trump) should outline why America is important to the world but
also why the world needs America.” In 1992 it was evident that the US was
the indispensable factor to address the chaos that was being brutally
exploited in the wake of the fall of communism. Unfortunately under
“President Trump” the US is at the core of confusion about our direction as
global power but also as a nation of diversity, shaping history in a
progressive direction. In a subsequent Tweet (February 9, 2017) @Zbig asked:
“Does America have a Foreign Policy Now?” In addressing one of America’s
greatest challenges currently, @Zbig noted (March 17, 2017): “Faced with an
increasingly belligerent North Korea, coordination with China should be our
first choice, but it is not our only choice!” In @Zbig’s last Tweet:
“Sophisticated US leadership is the sine qua non of a stable world order.
However, we lack the former while the latter is getting worse.”
About the Author
Muhamed Sacirbey
Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey currently lectures on Digital-Diplomacy. "Mo"
has benefited from a diverse career in investment banking & diplomacy, but
his passion has been the new avenues of communication. He was Bosnia &
Herzegovina's first Ambassador to the United Nations, Agent to the
International Court of Justice, Foreign Minister & Signatory of the Rome
Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. He also played
American football opting for a scholarship to Tulane University in New
Orleans after being admitted to Harvard, oh well!!
May 30, 2017
Post-secular Europe and
post-Soviet Russia
Anis H. Bajrektarevic
What is Europe/EU today: the post-ideological or
post-secular/re-feudalised world? Is the post-Soviet Russia, an
after-ideology world? A parallel world or underworld? If history in
Europe was ever on holiday, or seemed retired, it looks as
re-employed now:
The lonely superpower (US) vs. the bear of
the permafrost (Russia), with the world’s last cosmopolite
(EU) in between. Is the ongoing calamity at the eastern flank of
the EU a conflict, recalibration, imperialism in hurry,
exaggerated anti-Russian xenophobia or last gasp of
confrontational nostalgia?
Just 20 years ago, the distance between Moscow and
NATO troops stationed in Central Europe (e.g., Berlin) was more than
1.600 km. Today, it is only 120 km from St. Petersburg. Is this a
time to sleep or to worry? ‘Russia no longer represents anything
that appeals to anyone other than ethnic Russians, and as a result,
the geopolitical troubles it can cause will remain on Europe’s
periphery, without touching the continent’s core’ – was the line of
argumentation recently used by Richard N. Haass, President of the US
Council of Foreign Relations. Is it really so?
Do we have any intellectually appealing call
originating from Russia, nowadays? Russia is a legal, not an
ideological, successor of the late Soviet Union. Seems many in
Greece, Latin America and elsewhere in the world mingled the two.
Does it still today represent a lonely champion of antifascism and
(pan-)Slavism?
Is the Slavism, identity, secularism and antifascism,
while abandoned in Eastern Europe, confused perhaps by the mixed
signals from the austerity-tired Atlantic Europe and über-performing
Central Europe?
For the EU, Ukraine is – though important – yet only
an (administrative) item of the Neighborhood Policy, while for the
US it represents a geopolitical pivot. However, for Russia, it is
all this plus emotional attachment. Without Ukraine, to what extent
is Russia then Christian and European?
Is the EU a subject or a hostage (like Ukraine) of
the mega-geopolitical drama whose main and final stage is in the
Asia-Pacific theater? What is the objective here – the ultimate
score – a territorial gain; or an altered style of the game – e.g. a
new emotional charge of confrontation added to the international
relations?
What is a road map, an exit, a
future perspective – relaxation or escalation?
Hegemony, hegemoney,
or a global (post-dollar) honeymoon?
New religionism:
Powerful self-imposed deterrent
Without a socio-political
cohesion via integralism, it is rather impossible to reverse the
socio-economic decomposition of Russophone and Eastern Europe. Unity
for social cohesion does not necessarily mean a (rigid communist)
unanimity. But, Europe’s East is still mixing the two.
Consequently, all three
cohesive forces of Eastern Europe have disappeared: (i) atheistic
elites (built up over decades irrespectively from their ethnic,
religious, social and linguistic background); (ii) antifascism; and
(iii) Slavism. How to reinvigorate overall societal passions and
drives for the enhancement of nation without unifying ideological
narrative? (Although of a power cohesion potential, the external
sanctions are not sufficient surrogate-replacement for domestically
introduced ideology.)
While the secularism of
Atlantists increases the intellectual appeal of their indigenous
ideology – that of neoliberalism, transcontinentally; the newly
discovered neo-clericalism of Eastern and Russophone Europe plays,
not an emancipating, but a powerful self-restraining role. At home,
it only polarizes, fragments and undermines vital social consensus,
and for abroad it serves as a powerful self-deterrent.
Simply, beyond its narrow
ethno-religious frames or national borders such neo-religionism
motivates none to nothing. In the 21st
century, dominated by the socially mobilized, secularized and
knowledge-based nations across the world, religionism of East
(static and rigid like its retrograde MENA sibling) only further
alienates, isolates and marginalizes that region. It easily ends up
in ethno-chauvinistic overtones that are not only isolating its
proprietor, but also antagonizing and provoking or even radically
mobilizing its neighbors.
Globally, it means that
while East remains entrenched in its ‘newly discovered’
religionism, only one ideology remains unchallenged and
uncontested – that of Atlantist neoliberalism.
Logically, East neither
controls its own narrative nor (interpretation of) history: Due to a
massive penetration of Central Europe, East grossly relativized,
trivialized and silenced its own past and present anti-fascism.
Additionally, this region
does not effectively control its media space. Media there (of
too-often dubious orientation and unspecified ownership) is
distracting vital public debates: discouraging, disorienting and
silencing any sense of national pride, influence over destiny
direction and to it related calls for self-(re) assessment.
Today, Eastern Europe is
not even sure, if its anti-fascism should be a question of choice or
a matter of pure survival. Its mental de-territorialisation is
corrosive and deep.
Pauperised masses –
empowered lumpen proletariat
In a combination with
above, the speed and dimensions of criminal redistribution of
national wealth and cruel pauperisation of masses (euphemistically
called ‘western style privatization’ of 1990s) deeply transformed
the East, turning many into a re-feudalized society. By the end of
Yeltsin dizzy rule, even the biggest critics of the Soviet era were
horrified by the post-Soviet destruction of Eastern Europe.
In 2000, much quoted
Alexander Solzhenitsyn screamed out loudly: "Will we
continue looting and destroying Russia until nothing is left? … God
forbid these ‘reforms’ should continue.” For that, he was of course,
silenced and marginalized, and never quoted.
Indeed, as elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the severity,
frequency and tempo of that social re-engineering via criminal
redistribution of national wealth had no parallel historic example.
Seems as if the region was left to choose between genocide (ex-YU)
and its evil twin – social apartheid (elsewhere in the East)? Where
were the famous dissidents from East? Why didn’t the academia of
Eastern Europe debate about it?
And, while famous East
intelligentsia remains mute, answers are streaming from the dominant
narrative, that of West. Moreover, describing who these new elites
of the East are, western authors are breaking another Eastern taboo
– quoting Karl Marx.
Number of quotation of Karl
Marx in e.g. the New York Times, FAM, Economist, Wall Street Journal
or other western neoliberal opinion-makers per annum is higher than
all cumulative quotations of Karl Marx in Eastern Europe for the
past two decades.
Thinkers of the East expulsed
Marx and Engels to (intellectual) Gulag indefinitely.
Hence, discussing the new
emerging class on both sides of Atlantic, Daniel Henninger does not
hesitate to consider them a retrograde force of ‘lumpen
proletariat’, outcasts turned professional dissidents, a fake class
of ‘social scam’.
Writing in the WSJ (Trumpen
Proletariat, July 06 2016), to support his argument, he states:
“Karl Marx, in a particularly dyspeptic moment, offered this
description of what he dismissed as the lumpen proletariat:
‘Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of
dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the
bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged
jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni,
pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, pimps, brothel keepers, porters,
literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers,
beggars—in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown
hither and thither, which the French call la bohčme.’”
New elites of
neo-feudalism?! European dream refeudalised …
About the author:
Anis H. Bajrektarevic
anis@corpsdiplomatique.cd
Author is chairperson and professor in international law and
global political studies, Vienna, Austria. He authored three books:
FB – Geopolitics of Technology (published by the New York’s
Addleton Academic Publishers); Geopolitics – Europe 100
years later (DB, Europe), and the just released Geopolitics –
Energy – Technology by the German publisher LAP. No Asian
century is his forthcoming book, scheduled for later this year.
May 30, 2017
The story of a Bosnian woman who
lost her entire family to the terror of the 1990s:
“I feel like a
cut tree. I am neither alive nor dead … There is no justice and
there will never be,”
Robert Leonard Rope
It
is almost too sad to recount - the story of a Bosnian woman who lost
her entire family to the terror of the 1990s: “I feel like a cut
tree. I am neither alive nor dead … There is no justice and there
will never be,” she said. cc Mar Montes Haris Subašić, Edin Kadic,
Eldin Trebincevic, Ivo Skoric, Stanka Kristic...
'Alispahic says her grief for her son was even worse because she was
unable to say a final farewell to him. Because the town of
Srebrenica was surrounded and besieged by the Bosnian Serbs, she was
unable to attend his funeral in Tuzla.
“It was only after the fall of Srebrenica in July [1995] that I
reached Tuzla. Those who had relatives were met by them. I had no
family members to meet me,” she says. “A friend of Admir’s was
waiting for me. He and a few of Admir’s former comrades from the
police drove me to Slana Banja. That was the first time I had seen
my son’s grave. No words can describe the feeling,” she recalls.
A few months after Admir’s murder Alispahic lost her younger son,
Azmir, to members of the “Scorpios” on July 17, 1995.
A recording of his murder broadcast was seen all over
the world. His mother watched it on TV as well. Azmir had gone to
the woods together with some soldiers just before the fall of
Srebrenica, Alispahic said .She was by then in Tuzla. “I watched the
news every day, hoping to hear something about my second son. One
evening they broadcast a recording, depicting members of the
‘Scorpios’ taking a few young men with them. I recognised my Azmir
among them. I began crying when they beat them, but when they began
shooting at those young men and my son, I fainted,” she said through
tears.
Alispahic lost her daughter after the war, She believes her daughter
died of sorrow for her lost loved ones. Alispahic does not believe
in justice. As she says, she returned to Srebrenica only to die
there. “I feel like a cut tree. I am neither alive nor dead … There
is no justice and there will never be,” she said.
Novak Djukic is the only person who has been sentenced for the
murder of her son, Admir, and 70 other victims, and for injuring
more than 150 persons at Kapija in Tuzla. The Court of Bosnia and
Herzegovina sentenced Djukic to 20 years in prison but he is now at
liberty, having fled to Serbia in 2014.
It is almost too sad to recount - the story of a
Bosnian woman who lost her entire family to the terror of the 1990s:
“I feel like a cut tree. I am neither alive nor dead … There is no
justice and there will never be,” she said. cc Mar Montes Haris
Subašić Edin Kadic Eldin Trebincevic Ivo Skoric Stanka Kristic
'Alispahic says her grief for her son was even worse because she was
unable to say a final farewell to him. Because the town of
Srebrenica was surrounded and besieged by the Bosnian Serbs, she was
unable to attend his funeral in Tuzla.
“It was only after the fall of Srebrenica in July [1995] that I
reached Tuzla. Those who had relatives were met by them. I had no
family members to meet me,” she says. “A friend of Admir’s was
waiting for me. He and a few of Admir’s former comrades from the
police drove me to Slana Banja. That was the first time I had seen
my son’s grave. No words can describe the feeling,” she recalls.
A few months after Admir’s murder Alispahic lost her younger son,
Azmir, to members of the “Scorpios” on July 17, 1995.
A recording of his murder broadcast was seen all over the world. His
mother watched it on TV as well. Azmir had gone to the woods
together with some soldiers just before the fall of Srebrenica,
Alispahic said .She was by then in Tuzla. “I watched the news every
day, hoping to hear something about my second son. One evening they
broadcast a recording, depicting members of the ‘Scorpios’ taking a
few young men with them. I recognised my Azmir among them. I began
crying when they beat them, but when they began shooting at those
young men and my son, I fainted,” she said through tears.
Alispahic lost her daughter after the war, She believes her daughter
died of sorrow for her lost loved ones. Alispahic does not believe
in justice. As she says, she returned to Srebrenica only to die
there. “I feel like a cut tree. I am neither alive nor dead … There
is no justice and there will never be,” she said.
Novak Djukic is the only person who has been sentenced for the
murder of her son, Admir, and 70 other victims, and for injuring
more than 150 persons at Kapija in Tuzla. The Court of Bosnia and
Herzegovina sentenced Djukic to 20 years in prison but he is now at
liberty, having fled to Serbia in 2014.
About the author:
Robert Leonard Rope,
He studied at the
University of Michigan,
He lives in: San Francisco, California: San Francisco, California,
USA
May 25, 2017
'Schindler List' for
Southeast Europe
Pakistanisation
as the Final Solution for the Balkans?
Prof. Zlatko Hadžidedić
A
few days ago Observer published a column under the title
Putin-Proofing the Balkans: A How-To Guide, written by John
Schindler. In this article the author advocates some new
geopolitical redesigns of the Balkans which are actually far from
being a novelty. As a matter of fact, these ideas represent a pale
copy of the ideas recently published by Foreign Affairs in
the article under the title Dysfunction in the Balkans,
written by Timothy Less, a former British diplomat who served
as the head of the British diplomatic office in Banja Luka, the
capital of the Serb entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as the
political secretary of the British Embassy in Macedonia. Less
advocates a total redesign of the existing state boundaries in the
Balkans: the imagined Greater Serbia should embrace the existing
Serb entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but also the entire
internationally recognized Republic of Montenegro; the Greater
Croatia should embrace a future Croatian entity in
Bosnia-Herzegovina; the Greater Albania should embrace both Kosovo
and the western part of Macedonia. All these territorial redesigns,
says Less and Schindler agrees, would eventually bring about a
lasting peace and stability in the region.
Of course, it is easy to claim that both Schindler and Less are now
only freelancers whose articles have nothing to do with their former
employers' policies. However, the problem is that certain circles
within the foreign policy establishment in both Great Britain and
the United States, in their numerous initiatives from 1990s onwards,
have repeatedly advocated the very same ideas that can be found in
these two articles, such as the creation of the imagined monoethnic
greater states – Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia and Greater Albania
– as an alleged path towards lasting stability in the Balkans, with
Bosnia's and Macedonia's disappearance as a collateral damage. Of
course, these ideas have always been spread below the surface of
official policy, but they have never been abandoned, as the
'coincidence' of almost simultaneous appearance of Schindler's and
Less's articles in the renowned mainstream magazines demonstrates.
Ostenstibly, the ideas advocated by Schindler and Less are rooted in
the plausible presupposition that, as long as the existing
nationalist greater-state projects remain unaccomplished, the
nationalist resentment will always generate ever-increasing
instability. However, the history has clearly demonstrated, both in
the Balkans and other parts of the world, that such a presupposition
is nothing but a simple fallacy. For, the very concept of completed
ethnonational states is a concept that has always led towards
perpetual instability wherever applied, because such ethnonational
territories cannot be created without projection of extreme coercion
and violence over particular 'inappropriate' populations, including
the techniques which have become known as ethnic cleansing and
genocide. The logic of 'solving national issues' through creation of
ethnically cleansed greater states has always led towards permanent
instability, never towards long-term stability. Let us only remember
the consequences of the German ruling oligarchy's attempt to create
such a state in the World War II. And let us only try to imagine
what the world would be like if their geopolitical project was
recognized and accepted in the name of 'stability', as now Schindler
and Less propose in the case of some other geopolitical projects
based on ethnic cleansing and genocide.
What is particularly interesting when it comes to 'solving national
issues' in the Balkans is the flexibility (i.e. arbitrariness) of
the proposed and realized 'solutions'. First, the winners in the
World War I, among whom the British and American officials occupied
the most prominent positions, advocated the creation of the common
national state of the Southern Slavs at the Peace Conference in
Versailles. Then, more than seventy years later, Lord Carrington,
the longest serving member of the British foreign policy
establishment, chaired another international conference in The Hague
where he oversaw the partition of that very state in the name of
'solving national issues' between ethnonational states which
constituted it. Together with the Portugese diplomat, Jose Cutileiro,
Lord Carrington then also introduced the first, pre-war plan for
ethnic partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina (the Carrington-Cutileiro
Plan), again in the name of 'solving national issues' between the
ethnic groups living in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was eventually
sealed, with some minor changes, at the international conference in
Dayton. And now, here is yet another plan for fragmentation of the
Balkan states, again in order to 'solve national issues'. What is
needed in addition is yet another international conference to
implement and verify such a plan, and thus turn the Balkans
upside-down one more time. Therefore it comes as no surprise that
such a conference on the Western Balkans has already been scheduled
for 2018 in London.
Yet, how the proposed dismemberment of Bosnia-Herzegovina and
Macedonia, as well as the absorbtion of Montenegro into Greater
Serbia, can be made politically acceptable to the population of the
Balkans and the entire international community?
What is required to accomplish such a task is a scenario that would
make an alternative to dismemberment and absorbtion of sovereign
states even less acceptable. It is not difficult to imagine that
only a war, or a threat of war, would be such an alternative.
However, its feasibility is limited by the fact that no state in the
Balkans has the capacities and resources – military, financial, or
demographic – to wage a full-scale war, and their leaders are too
aware of this to even try to actually launch it. In such a context,
the available option is to create an atmosphere that would simulate
an immediate threat of war, by constantly raising nationalist
tensions between, and within, the states in the region. Of course,
such tensions do exist since 1990, but it would be necessary to
accumulate them in a long-term campaign so as to create an illusion
of imminence of regional war.
Significantly, following the appearance of Less's article, and
simultanously with Schindler's one, the tensions within
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia have begun to rise. This growth of
tensions can hardly be disregarded as accidental, given the fact
that the Balkan leaders can easily be played one against another
whenever they receive signals, no matter whether fake or true, that
a new geopolitical reshuffle of the region is being reconsidered by
major global players. Since they are already well-accustomed to
raising inter-state and intra-state tensions as a means of their own
political survival, it is very likely that they will be able to
accumulate such tensions to such a level as to gradually generate a
mirage of imminent regional war. Also, a part of the same campaign
is the systematic spread of rumours, already performed all over
Europe, that a war in the Balkans is inevitable and will certainly
take place during 2017.
In the simulated atmosphere of inevitable war, a radical
geopolitical reconfiguration of the entire Balkans, including
dismemberment of the existing states proclaimed as dysfunctional and
their eventual absorbtion into the imagined greater states, may well
become politically acceptable. All that is needed is to juxtapose
this 'peaceful' option and the fabricated projection of imminent war
as the only available alternatives, and offer to implement the
former at a particular international conference, such as the one
scheduled for 2018 in London. What is required for implementation of
the proposed geopolitical rearrangement of the Balkans is to spread
the perception that the permanent rise of political conflicts in the
region inevitably leads to a renewed armed conflict. In that
context, all the proposed fallacies about usefulness of geopolitical
redesigns in the Balkans may easily acquire a degree of legitimacy,
so as to be finally implemented and verified at the 2018 London
conference on the Western Balkans.
Of course, if that happens, it can only lead to further resentment
and lasting instability in the region and Eastern Europe, and that
can only lead to growing instability in the entire Europe. One can
only wonder, is that a desired ultimate outcome for those who
promote greater state projects in the Balkans as an alleged path
towards its stability?
About the author:
Zlatko Hadžidedić is Assistant Professor at the Sarajevo
School of Science and Technology, Bosnia-Herzegovina. He received
his PhD from the University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Political
Science, his MPhil from the London School of Economics and Political
Science and MA from the Central European University, Budapest. He
served as political adviser to several Bosnian ministers and
political leaders. His book Forced to be Free. The Paradoxes of
Liberalism and Nationalism was published in 2012 by Deutscher
Wissenschafts-Verlag (DWV).
May 08, 2017
Brazil in the short Strikes – the
ultimate price of welfare
By Luísa Monteiro
April 28th will be a date to remember. Even though some
of the great media claim that there were only demonstrations around
the country, it is to assume that, by a consensus or not, what
happened here was a strike. A general strike, the first in 20 years,
one of the biggest in the History of the country, highly cited in
the social media (figuring the trending topics in the whole world
for hours), spread over the 26 states and the Federal District.
Barely any buses or trains in the city of Săo Paulo. Diverse unions
like the teachers’ and the bankers’ and the two main popular fronts
were not only present, but also organised the event.
The reason for that? Not Mr. Temer’s government, specifically; not
this time. But the new measures and reforms he has emphatically
worked on since the end of last year, that happen to surprise and
worry – to say the least – the average Brazilian worker.
The outraged atmosphere, however, comes way before today and takes a
brief economic explanation to understand.
Old, but not gold
The last general strike happened in 1996, during Mr. Fernando
Henrique Cardoso’s government, another neoliberalist. One of the
points in common is the fight against turning the workers’ rights
more flexible. At the time, Mr. Cardoso even claimed that ‘strikes
don’t create jobs’, as the protesters also manifested against the
high unemployment rates.
It is natural that a moment of economic instability creates some
sort of friction amongst the workers and the government. The late
conjunction of that with a huge political crisis under the stigma of
corruption is perfectly combined with strict measures from Mr. Temer
and creates a dangerous mixture.
One of the most controversial acts proposed by the new president
concerns the pension reforms. The original project aimed to stablish
a common age for retirement, being that valid for men, women, being
them urban or rural workers – 65 years old, against the current 55
for women and 60 for men. Also, the minimum working time for
retirements with a full pension (starting with 70% of its value and
progressively evolving to 100%, according to the years of extra
contribution) would be of 49 years, against the current 25 years for
urban workers and 15 for the rural ones. Since it was not accepted
nor tolerated, some changes were made to be voted again in the
Parliament – yet, the amount of people impacted by the reform
will be enormous, and the time they need to work until they retire
will increase. The country, Mr. Temer says, cannot afford for the
current system and some austerity must be shown, even in such a
delicate matter.
It is clear as Malthus could foresee that times of prosperity and
abundance do not last forever, but one must make no mistake and
believe that any reform should be accepted. Indeed, the Brazilian
pension system works as a pyramid – the ones who start working pay
for those who have already stopped. This pyramid, following the
global tendency, is becoming inverted and finding solutions for that
is more than an obligation. Mr. Cardoso, and also Mrs. Rousseff
created some formulas for calculating the ideal age for retiring
and, until now, workers were to choose which one would fit them
best. The clash came with a proposition of a questionable
redistribution – which might have come as a demand from the
president’s supporters – that would ultimately harm the Brazilian
workers’ rights.
Work, work, work
Those, however, were not the only plans of the PMDB, Mr. Temer’s
party, government. On Wednesday (27), a late voting session at the
Lower House showed an articulation of a worried president for the
approval of a reform of working laws before the pickets that would
happen the next day. This reform would change some important aspects
for workers, like the possibility to work as third parts, maybe
causing more instability; the prevalence of employer-employee
agreements over the law, which may bring poorer working conditions,
and the end of the obligation of yearly paying the union, being the
latter clearly one of the reasons why the unionists were so heated.
The other side
The day after the general strike, Mr. Temer went to the television.
He had already discreetly positioned himself by saying that the
workers were in their right to protest, but that he would keep the
discussion where it was due: the Congress.
But what he and most of the citizens could take from the acts on
Friday was that 1) protesters and non-protesters, especially he
low-income ones, were terrified with the idea of reforms that 2)
they could not fully understand.
Therefore, on April 29th, the president appeared on a
popular TV show, in which he was interviewed by a charismatic TV
host, and had about half an hour to assure the mentioned workers
that ‘the reforms would be totally positive, no one would lose their
rights’. He also took time, through simple metaphors, to explain the
contention measures and how some economic measures – like the now
allowed withdrawals from inactive accounts from the Guarantee Fund
for Length of Service and a R$5000.00 budget for
renovating the houses of low-income families – would inject money in
the country again and create jobs.
Mr. Temer, this time, tried a clever movement in hopes of becoming
more popular and clearly rejected the populism present in the ‘late
governments’. He even reaffirmed his position in a brief 2-minute
video shared on the government’s official social media about the
Workers Day, but the consequences of this effort will only be felt
as time passes and his propositions are negotiated in the
Legislative sphere.
On May 1st, many spots of entertainment, militancy and
discussion were organised by the unions, where many celebrated and
protested during the holiday. What was clear to see were the
significant fewer voices from politicians and an official letter
from those institutions, in which they claimed to be still fighting
for the workers’ right and considering, if necessary, a new date for
strikes.
“If history … was ever on holiday, or seemed retired, it looks as
re-employed now.” - professor Anis Bajrektarevic – discussing state,
rights and ideology - recently wrote in his luminary essay on
Europe.
The next days will be decisive. The country lives a moment of
increasing turmoil and, in times of Car Wash operation and
increasing legit criticism against the people’s representatives, no
change will be easy. Mr. Temer appears to be determined, but his
government shows a history of rethinking policies and measures.
Until now, one can only try to interpret the facts - so far,
unemployment rates rose to 13,7% and, even though inflation fell
from 10,71% to 4,5%, so did his approval rating, which was 4% in
April – and hope for, if not innovative, feasible solutions for the
puzzle Brazil has become.
About the Author
Luísa Monteiro is a bachelor in Social Communication and is a senior
editor at Modern Diplomacy. She is also taking a Master's degree in
Communication and Politics at PUC Săo Paulo.
Her researches are closely linked to the studies of internet as a
democratic agora and her latest academic production correlates the
(offline) social movements and their exposure on the net.
May 2, 2017
APRIL 2017
Pimp my s/ride
Ms. Elodie Pichon
Primary
commodity exporter trying to escape the “Banana republic” position
in the world economy
The rent-based economy in Saudi Arabia has shown its
limits since the drop of oil prices in 2014. Indeed, the country is
potentially explosive: the current fiscal model is not sustainable,
the geopolitical environment is increasingly hostile and the country
has a rapidly growing population, of which 30% of 16-24 year olds
find themselves unemployed. The economic choices in the years to
come, and the success of the reforms announced by the government
will be decisive for the survival of the regime.
For too long, Saudi Arabia’s economy has
relied solely on oil for its revenues. Until 2014, oil exploitation
was responsible for 90% of Saudi Arabia’s public revenues, 80% of
its exports revenues and 40% of its GDP. But from 2014 to 2015, oil
revenues dropped by 50%, and represented only 73% of the total
revenues compared to 87% the year before. In the meantime, the
government didn’t reduce its expenses, because of its military
interventions in Yemen and Syria, but also because of the
outstanding individual premiums given by the government. Following
the Arab Spring, the government has increased its social expenses in
order to buy social peace.
To tackle the economic difficulties,
Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has announced, on the 26th of April 2016,
an ambitious set of reforms, titled «Vision 2030» which aimed at
weaning the kingdom off oil by curbing public spending, diversifying
the economy and attracting foreign investment. The government is
conscious of the necessity to reform the economic system, but will
it be able to do it without causing social turmoil? With a decline
in social spending and a reduction in subsidies comes the risk of
rising domestic turmoil, as highlighted by the Arab Spring in 2011.
The risk is increased by the fact that half of the population is
under 25, and 30% of young people are unemployed. This inactive
youth is also among the most active in the world on the social media
and might show their frustration through media outlets. Will the
government be able to take the gamble of social change?
Saudi Arabia has shown pragmatism when it
promised a 4,6% cut in production on November 30th,
2016. This measure was necessary since its plan to modernise the
economy and privatise Saudi Aramco, the state oil company, depends
on oil prices. Paradoxically, Saudi Arabia needs higher oil prices
to become less dependent on oil on the long term. Other measures
taken by the government include slashing salaries, and cutting
benefits for public sectors employees. It has also cut huge
subsidies for fuel, water and electricity that encourage
overconsumption. However, the sudden jump of water bills spurred
national dissatisfaction and an outcry on social media. Indeed, the
minister of water and electricity was fired after telling customers
to dig their own wells if they were unhappy with prices. The
government also abruptly cut construction projects forcing
contractors to fire workers who didn’t hesitate to set fire on buses
in protests demanding months of back pay. Despite these incidents,
most austerity measures have been taken according to Capital
Economics, a consultancy.
However, investors are waiting for more
meaningful changes, which imply conjectural reforms and a
transformation of the social structures. In order to increase the
presence of Saudi nationals in the labour market, the government
implements a politics of Saudisation particularly in the private
sector. For now, only 45% of jobs in Saudi Arabia are occupied by
Saudis, and only 22% in the private sectors versus 67% in the public
sector. Including them in the private sector is necessary to reduce
unemployment but also to cut public spending, since salaries in the
public sector constitute the most expensive expenses of the State. A
“Saudisation” of the labour market is necessary, but needs a
complete transformation of student’s trainings. For now, most of
them study humanities and social sciences and focus primarily on the
study of the Koran. But it doesn’t bring them the necessary skills
to work in a commercial environment. The politics of Saudisation has
vexed businesses who are forced to employ Saudi nationals, who often
lack the skills that employers want. Consequently, to meet the
government quotas, some companies simply pay locals to stay at home.
Moreover, the increase of the population
presents new challenges. Six million people are going to join the
labour market from now until 2040. Thus, job creation in the private
sector is necessary, to prevent a rise of unemployment and the
subsequent risk of social tensions. For now, the private sector does
not offer enough good opportunities for the estimated 300,000 young
people entering the work force each year, especially women. If
nothing is done, the situation will become even more critical
because of the important rise of the population.
“Vision 2030” shows that Saudi Arabia is
conscious about the necessity to reform the country’s economy. Its
cut in social spending, the plan to introduce a tax on expenses by
2018, and –more importantly- its plan to privatise the state oil
company Saudi Aramco are very positive. However, too many measures,
such as the plan to attract foreign investments, are still under
study and lack details. The success of Saudi Arabia’s economic
reforms is crucial to the West, who needs a stable Saudi Arabia in
an already chaotic Middle East.
About the author :
Ms. Elodie Pichon, Research Fellow of the
IFIMES Institute, DeSSA Department. This native Parisian is a Master
in Geopolitics, Territory and Security from the King’s College,
London, UK.
April 28, 2017
Chapter
SPIRITUALITY AND THE ECONOMY OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Anis H. Bajrektarevic
ABSTRACT
We falsely believed, throughout the 20th century,
that the nuclear holocaust will put an end to the entire human race.
No! It will be a slow, nearly-unnoticed, gradual but steady
construction of the global gas chamber.
Has the human race already passed the point of no
return of its survival?
Frankly, we do not know. Very sincerely, we do not
care!
The way we extract, produce, transport, distribute
and consume, the way we keep all this running on a blind obedience
to hydrocarbons, and finally the way how we do reflect, contemplate
and study on all that, inevitably takes us right into the
environmental holocaust.
Speaking in Paris on December 7, 2015 – only a
morning after the landslide victory of the far right French
political party, the UN Secretary General again reminded the world
leaders that: “More than 1 billion people worldwide live without
electricity. Nearly 3 billion people depend on smoky, dangerous
traditional fuels for cooking and heating. Access to modern,
reliable, affordable clean energy is equally important for ending
extreme poverty and reducing inequality…The clock is ticking toward
climate catastrophe.” Politely ignoring the domestic French
politics, as much as the climate change hard-evidence, all
international nihilists, professional optimists and other status quo
conservators would call it ‘environmental alarmism’…or
political alarmism – the same… What is really the state of our
planet?
* * *
Galileo famously said:
“The universe is a grand book written in the language of
mathe-matics“. However, what we now know is that revealing the
cosmic Esperanto is not the most fascinating part. This grand book
of universe, we are reading and writing at the same time...
Back in 1990s, there was a legendary debate between
two eminent scientists; Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and Ernst Mayr,
evolutionary biologist. The issue was the question of all questions
– is there any intelligent life out there? Sagan – closer to
mathematics, and the counting of starts and worlds attached to it –
argued that out of all the innumerable planets like ours, life must
flourish at many of them. Quite a few of them, he claimed, must have
developed advanced forms of living beings. Mayr – on the other hand
– argued the opposite. His pessimism was coming from his profession,
not from his character that was as vivid and optimistic as Sagan’s:
What biology is for the natural sciences, that is what a history is
for human sciences – a spacetime-lined story of the past with a
predicament, or sometimes an inevitable consequences, for our
future. As prof. Naom Chomski beautifully reminds us of this great
episode, Ernst Mayr took our mother planet as an example to
illustrate his claim.
All organisms share the same evolutionary mandate: to
promulgate their own life. No wonder, as similar codes reside within
all species – the intricate self-actualizing chemo-electrical
tapestry, known as genes.1 However, the
so-called ultimate biological success of species could be measure by
their number, configuration and durability. Hence, by all three
parameters, prof. Mayr stressed, the most adaptive systems are those
conducting fast (non-cognitive) mutations caused/triggered by any
environmental stress (e.g., varieties of bacteria, creatures stuck
in a fixed ecological niches, like beetles or some sea biotas), and
surviving even larger crisis including the cataclysmic events. But,
as we go up the scale of what we assume as intelligence, the systems
become less adaptive and scarcer by number, configuration and
durability. Arriving to the top (as we classified a tip of the
intelligence pyramid), from low mammals to higher primates, apes and
Homo sapiens, the species tend to image a rarifying picture –
by all three biological success parameters. By Mayr’s account, the
average lifespan of upper-intelligence echelons is only around
100,000 years. Out of billions of spices that have inhabited (and
quite some still inhabiting) our planet, we – along with other
higher primates – are late arrival and temporal ‘accidents’. He
attributes this to our intelligence, labeling it as a ‘lethal
mutation’ – not a blessing but a curse. Mayr’s finding is
intriguing: The higher the intelligence, the more likely to end up
in self-destruction, past the transitioning on a curve of initial
development. If so, that would mean that humans are unable to deploy
their vast neuroplasticity, and that the mechanical solidarity of
non-cognitive creatures gives far better results in preservation
(even enhancement) of the environmental equilibrium.
Indeed, our environmental, financial and
politico-economic policies and practices are creating the global
stress for us and all other species. Deep and structural, this must
be a crisis of our cognitivity. Do we want to prove Mayr right with
our global Jihad against a cognitive mind?
COGNITIVE DEFICIT CRISIS
From Copenhagen, Durban, Rio+20 to the Paris COP 21
and beyond, our conclusion remains the same: We need principles and
accorded actions, as this is the only way to tackle the grave
problems of this planet. We are lacking the elementary consensus
in/on the Bretton Woods institutions, on the Tobin tax initiative,
in the WTO Doha Development round, on nuclear non-proliferation (and
NPT), on migrations, on the Middle East and ‘regime change mantra’,
in the IPCC, on the post-Kyoto negotiations, and finally on the
alarming state of environment. Ergo, on a global scale we
fundamentally disagree on the realities of this planet and the ways
we can address them.2
I am neither moralizing, idealizing nor agonizing.
The world based on agreed principles and commonly willing actions is
not a better place. It is the only way for the human race to
survive.
Clearly, our crisis is real, but neither sudden nor
recent. Simply, our much-celebrated globali-sation deprived from
environmental concerns can only cage us into the ecological
globalistan.
CLIMATE CHANGE – A BRUTAL TERROR
AGAINST NATURE
We place ourselves in a centre of materialistic world
– this, of what we perceive as a universe of dead (and linear)
matter. Therefore, what we euphemistically call (anthropogenic)
Climate Change is actually a brutal war against (living) nature.
It is a covert armed conflict, since we are predominantly using the
so-called monetizing-potent ‘technologies’, instead of firearms in
our hands. (For this purpose hereby, the army units are replaced by
the demolition-man of other name; ‘transnational
corporations’.) This armed regime-change insurgency is waged
against most of what is beautiful and unique on Earth – on the
planet that gave us time and space enough to survive as species and
to evolve as cognitive life. Thus, the known sustainability matrix
of 3 maximums (of good, of species, and of time) becomes the
minimum species, minimum time with a maximum
harm.
Intentionally or not, it is a synchronized attack: We
are steadily and passionately polluting our public sphere with the
diverting banalities manufactured by the so-call social networks,
reality shows, ‘celebrities’ and the like – trivializing the
contents of our lives. At the same time, we are massively
contaminating our biosphere (waters, lands, air and near outer
space) with non-degradable and/or toxic, solid or aerosol, particles
radiation and noise – irreversibly harming our habitat. We pollute
the time as well, turning it into cross-generation warfare’s
battlefield: Our dangerous patterns might seal off the fate for
untold number of generations and sorts of species to come.3
No wonder, our corrosive assertiveness has (time-space) parallels:
acidifying of oceans and brutalization of our human interactions, as
well as over-noising both of them, are just two sides of a same
coin. What is the social sphere for society that is the biosphere
for the very life on earth: the (space/time – content/form) frame we
all live in.
Seems we pay our space (linear possessions) by our
time (future). Therefore, our crisis cannot be environmental, as it
was never a financial or security (war on terror) – our
crisis must be a moral one. This is a cognitive deficit crisis,
which we eagerly tend to spend in a limbo of denial!
ΠΆΝΤΑ ΡΕΙ (PANTA RHEI)
Nature does not change. Change (as a cosmic constant)
is a nature itself. Still, even Heraclitus understood, this force is
never eruptive or destructive (explosive, combusting and polarising),
but eternally gradual and constructive (holistic, inclusive and
implosive). Look up the skies that will be the exact way how entire
universe works.4
We are drifting, dissolving and retreating on all
levels and within each and every organic (marine and continental
biota) or inorganic (soil, glaciers, water, polar caps, etc.)
system. For the grave, burning (hydrocarbon) planetary problems, our
human race needs an urgent and lasting consensus which presupposes
bravery, virtue, vision and creativity. All this will not result
from fear of coercion (social haircut, austerity, financial
straitjacket), from a further militarization of our societies
caused by the accelerated confrontations called ‘war on terror’, but
from the universally shared willingness to accord our common
planetary cause. Cognitive mind can do it all.
Let’s start our global war on terror – but this time
– on the terror of a global environmental holocaust caused by our
cognitive deficit crisis.
REFERENCES
• Ki-moon, B. (2015), Remarks to the opening of the
High-Level session of the COP21, December 7, 2015, UNIS (Office of
the Spokesperson of the UN SG).
• Chomsky, N. (2010), Human Intelligence and the
Environment, University of North Caroline, Chapel Hill (Paper).
• Sagan, C. (1980), Cosmos Random House, NY /Carl
Sagan Productions Inc. (page: 109).
• Dresner, S. (2002), The Principle of
Sustainability, EarthScan London.
• Smith, L.C. (2010), The World in 2050 – Four Forces
Shaping Civilization’s Northern Future, Dutton (by Penguin group).
1. Still, this recipe book
for life – genes, are not performing in a strict chemical
determinism. Self-actualization is a core of process. Even if
applying a strict Darwinian stance, the evolution of species was not
(solely) a selection through competition, but rather a
well-calibrated interplay of both – cooperation and competition.
Much like universe itself: (re-)creation and its maintenance.
2. Additionally, we
fundamentally disagree on a role to be played by technology, even on
a very definition of what should be considered as technology.
Technology is not a state-of-art of science; technology is a state
of mind! It is not a linear progression in mastering the natural
science disciplines, but a cognitive, emphatic cluster–mastering of
the critical insight.
3. In his highly intriguing
but illuminating findings, Stephen Jay Gould reveals than in other
mammalian species, the ‘murder’ rate is considerably higher than in
human communities. If evidences of this historian of science and
evolutionary biologist are accurate, that would mean that humans are
genetically better off, but that are civilizationally wrong. No
other but human species has ever represented a global threat on
entire planetary life!!
4.
(Anthropo-) biology is only the outer layer in our comprehensive
scientific grasp. In its core, resides physics. And the backbone of
physics is mathematics – this universal language of cosmos.
Anis H. Bajrektarevic
Vienna, 25 APR 2017
anis@corpsdiplomatique.cd
About the author:
Anis H. Bajrektarevic
Author is chairperson and professor
in international law and global political studies, Vienna, Austria.
He authored three books:
FB – Geopolitics of Technology
(published by the New York’s Addleton Academic Publishers);
Geopolitics –
Europe 100 years
later (DB, Europe),
and the just released
Geopolitics – Energy – Technology
by the German publisher LAP.
No Asian century
is his forthcoming book, scheduled for later this year.
April 26, 2017
Who Needs Dysfunction
in the Balkans?
Zlatko Hadžidedić
Foreign
Affairs, a respected American foreign policy magazine, published
in December 2016 an article under the title Dysfunction in the
Balkans, written by Timothy Less. In this article the
author offers his advice to the new American Administration,
suggesting it to abandon the policy of support to the territorial
integrity of the states created in the process of dissolution of the
former Yugoslavia. Timothy Less advocates a total redesign of the
existing state boundaries in the Balkans, on the basis of a dubious
assumption that the multiethnic states in the Balkans (such as
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia) are to be regarded as inherently
dysfunctional, whereas the ethnically homogenous states (such as
Serbia, Albania and Croatia) are to be regarded as far more
successful. Also, the author advances the claim that the peoples in
the Balkans, having lost any enthusiasm for the multiethnic
status quo, predominantly strive to finally accomplish the
imagined monoethnic greater state projects – so-called Greater
Serbia, Greater Croatia and Greater Albania. According to Less's
design, the imagined Greater Serbia should embrace the existing Serb
entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina (that is, 49% of the Bosnian
territory), but also the entire internationally recognized Republic
of Montenegro; the Greater Croatia should embrace a future Croatian
entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina; the Greater Albania should embrace
both Kosovo and the western part of Macedonia. All these territorial
redesigns, claims Less, would eventually bring about a lasting peace
and stability in the region.
Although Less pretends to act as a neutral observer who only
promotes a rational, common-sense approach to the area portrayed as
a source of irrationality, common sense first leads us to pose the
question of his personal links to the Balkans whose geopolitical
rearrangement he so zealously advocates. According to his official
biographies, Timothy Less was the head of the British diplomatic
office in Banja Luka, the capital of the Serb entity in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was also the political secretary of the
British Embassy in Skopje, Macedonia. Thus he served as a diplomat
precisely in those two states which are, according to his proposal,
the most likely candidates for dismemberment. So the first question
to ask is whether this diplomat, having served exactly in Banja Luka
and Skopje, was directly involved in providing support to those very
political forces, such as the Serbian and Albanian separatists, who
are the most active participants in the projected dismemberment of
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia and the realization of such greater
state projects. Mr. Less now runs a consulting agency called Nova
Europa, which claims on its
home page
that it is „helping investors and international organizations to
understand the impact of politics on their interests in Central
Europe, the Balkans and the Former Soviet Union“. So, let us take a
look at what this agency offers as advice to potential clients
interested in investing in Eastern Europe. Under the title
„Political Risks in Eastern Europe“,Nova Europa
provides the following list of risks:
1. The Collapse of the European Union: There is a growing risk that
the process of European integration will unravel, with far-reaching
implications for economic and political stability in Eastern Europe;
2. The New Cold War: Russia and the West are engaged in a
multi-dimensional conflict over the boundary between them which is
destabilising regional politics and causing significant economic
damage; 3. The Migrant Crisis: A wave of immigration from Africa and
Asia into Eastern Europe poses a significant risk to civil order,
governmental stability and the integrity of supply lines; 4.
Economic Patriotism: There is a growing trend for governments to
reassert national control over strategic sectors to enforce
conformity with their political objectives; 5. State Capture and
Corruption: Eastern Europe has a serious problem with corruption and
the capture of the state by oligarchical elites, posing risks to the
viability of investments and to political stability; 6. Civil
Unrest: There is an elevated risk of strikes and demonstrations
leading to institutional paralysis, a slowdown in economic activity,
and breaches in supply lines; 7. Terrorism: There is an increased
danger of terrorist attack, especially in the Balkans, linked to the
rise and fall of Islamic State; 8. State Disintegration: There is a
growing risk that multi-ethnic states in the Western Balkans will
disintegrate, reigniting conflict in the region; 9. State Failure in
Ukraine: Eastern Europe's largest country is under severe political
and economic stress, with negative consequences for much of the
region; 10. The Arrival of China: China is becoming a major direct
investor in Eastern Europe, diluting the political influence of the
EU and US in the region, and exposing the region (to) a variety of
long-term economic risks.
Such an exhaustive list of potential catastrophies was obviously
written by a typical doomsday prophet intent not on encouraging but
dissuading any possible investing, building up an atmosphere of
overall paranoia around the region and within it. An artificially
created shortage of investments may well result in destabilization.
In this respect, Less's post-diplomatic efforts clearly serve the
purpose of orchestrated angst induction, targeting specifically the
area of Eastern Europe and multi-ethnic and multi-religious
societies within it, just as his diplomatic activity is likely to
have served a similar purpose in the multi-ethnic societies of
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia.
Of course, it is easy to claim that Timothy Less is now only a
freelancer whose activity has nothing to do with his former
employers' policies. However, the problem is that certain radical
circles within the British foreign policy establishment, in their
numerous initiatives from 1990s onwards, have repeatedly advocated
the very same ideas that can be found in his article, such as the
creation of the imagined monoethnic greater states – Greater Serbia,
Greater Croatia and Greater Albania – as an alleged path towards
lasting stability in the Balkans, with Bosnia's and Macedonia's
disappearance as a collateral damage. Also, history books are full
of references that these circles, ever since the appearance of their
fundamental geopolitical doctrine, The Geographical Pivot of
History by Halford Mackinder, perceive
destabilization of the territorial belt between Germany and Russia
as one of their primary geopolitical goals, which is exactly the
territory (including the Balkans) whose destabilization Nova
Europa seeks to induce. Therefore, it
seems that Mr. Less has never interrupted his diplomatic career,
having permanently served the very same radical diplomatic circles,
either as an operative or as a spokesperson.
Just as the previous greater-state initiatives, his initiative
relies on the assumption that the multiethnic states are the main
impediments to stability in the Balkans. Such a claim is rooted in
the presupposition that, as long as the existing nationalist
greater-state projects remain unaccomplished, the nationalist
resentment will always generate ever-increasing instability.
However, the history has clearly demonstrated, both in the Balkans
and other parts of the world, that such a presupposition is nothing
but a simple fallacy. For, the very concept of completed
ethnonational states is a concept that has always led towards
perpetual instability wherever applied, because such ethnonational
territories cannot be created without projection of extreme coercion
and violence over particular 'inappropriate' populations, including
the activities which have become known as ethnic cleansing. The
logic of 'solving national issues' through creation of ethnically
cleansed greater states has always led towards permanent
instability, never towards long-term stability.
What is particularly interesting when it comes to 'solving national
issues' in the Balkans is the flexibility (i.e. arbitrariness) of
the proposed and realized 'solutions'. The winners in the World War
I, among whom the aforementioned radical circles within the British
foreign policy establishment played a major role, first advocated
the creation of the common national state of the Southern Slavs
(subsequently named Yugoslavia) at the Peace Conference in
Versailles. Then, more than seventy years later, a prominent member
of these circles, Lord Carrington, chaired another international
conference in The Hague where he oversaw the partition of that very
state in the name of 'solving national issues' between ethnonational
states which constituted it (since all of them, with the exception
of Bosnia-Herzegovina, had already been defined as ethnonational
states within the multinational federation). Together with the
Portuguese diplomat, Jose Cutileiro, Lord Carrington then also
introduced the first, pre-war plan for ethnic partition of
Bosnia-Herzegovina (the Carrington-Cutileiro Plan), again in the
name of 'solving national issues' between the ethnic groups living
in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was eventually sealed, with some minor
changes, at the international conference in Dayton. And now, here is
yet another plan to make the Balkan states even more fragmented and
powerless, again in order to 'solve national issues'. What is needed
in addition is yet another international conference to implement and
verify such a plan, and thus turn the Balkans upside-down one more
time.
Therefore it comes as no surprise that such a conference on the
Western Balkans, according to diplomatic sources in the region, has
already been scheduled for 2018 in London. Given its timing and
content, the geopolitical manifesto published in Foreign Affairs
looks like an announcement of the conference's
agenda. Yet, how the proposed dismemberment of Bosnia-Herzegovina
and Macedonia, as well as the absorption of Montenegro into Greater
Serbia, can be made politically acceptable to the population of the
Balkans and the entire international community?
What is required to accomplish such a task is a scenario that would
make an alternative to dismemberment and absorbtion of sovereign
states even less acceptable. It is not difficult to imagine that
only a war, or a threat of war, would be such an alternative.
However, its feasibility is limited by the fact that no state in the
Balkans has the capacities and resources – military, financial, or
demographic – to wage a full-scale war, and their leaders are too
aware of this to even try to actually launch it. The alternative is
to create an atmosphere that would simulate an immediate threat of
war, by constantly raising nationalist tensions between, and within,
the states in the region. Of course, such tensions do exist since
1990, but it would be necessary to accumulate them in a long-term
campaign so as to create an illusion of imminence of regional war.
Significantly, simultaneously with the appearance of Less's article,
the tensions – first between Serbia and Kosovo, then between Serbia
and Croatia, then within Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia – have
begun to rise. This growth of tensions can hardly be disregarded as
accidental, given the fact that the Balkan leaders can easily be
played one against another whenever they receive signals, no matter
whether fake or true, that a new geopolitical reshuffle of the
region is being reconsidered by major global players. Since they are
already well-accustomed to raising inter-state and intra-state
tensions as a means of their own political survival, it is very
likely that they will be able to accumulate such tensions to such a
level as to gradually generate a mirage of imminent regional war. A
part of that campaign is also the systematic spread of rumours, all
over Europe, that a war in the Balkans is inevitable and will
certainly take place during 2017.
Under such circumstances, a radical geopolitical reconfiguration of
the entire Balkans, including dismemberment of the existing states
proclaimed as dysfunctional and their eventual absorbtion into the
imagined greater states, may well become politically acceptable in
all corners of the world. All that is needed is to juxtapose this
'peaceful' option and the fabricated projection of imminent war as
the only available alternatives, and offer to implement the former
at a particular conference, such as the one scheduled for 2018 in
London. It does not matter that the option of real full-scale war is
not available at all, due to the Balkan states' incapacity to
actually wage it; what is required for implementation of the
proposed geopolitical rearrangement of the Balkans is to spread the
perception that the permanent rise of political conflicts in the
region inevitably leads to a renewed armed conflict. In that
context, all the fallacies proposed in the article Dysfunction in
the Balkans may easily acquire a degree of
legitimacy, so as to be finally implemented and verified at the 2018
London conference on the Western Balkans. Of course, if that
happens, it can only lead to further resentment and lasting
instability in the region and Eastern Europe, and that can only lead
to growing instability in the entire Europe. One can only wonder, is
that a desired ultimate outcome for those who promote greater state
projects in the Balkans as an alleged path towards its stability?
About the author:
Zlatko Hadžidedić
is Assistant Professor at the Sarajevo School of
Science and Technology, Bosnia-Herzegovina. He received his PhD from
the University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Political Science, his MPhil
from the London School of Economics and Political Science and MA
from the Central European University, Budapest. He served as
political adviser to several Bosnian ministers and political
leaders. His book Forced to be Free. The Paradoxes of Liberalism and
Nationalism was published in
2012 by Deutscher Wissenschafts-Verlag (DWV).
April 26, 2017
FATAL SPIRALE OF SENSLESNESS
By: Tomislav Jakic
After
a whole day of long awaited negotiations in Moscow, one thing is
absolutely clear. Result is: zero. Surprise? Not at all, despite the
fact that Donald Trump successfully cheated the whole world with
his, for more than half a year repeated, mantra of the “new American
foreign policy”, of abandoning imposing regimes and the American way
of life. So, whoever expected any positive results from the meetings
between ministers Lavrov and Tillerson and between President Putin
and the guest form the US, proved to me, to say the least, naive.
Because, acting – only days before this meeting - in the manner of
the “Lone Ranger”, characteristic to those who preceded him, the new
American President made a personal U-turn and provoked another.
Launching 59 cruise missiles Tomahawk to bombard a Syrian air force
base, Trump – first of all – did what he for months was promising
not to do. Not only once in the election campaign and especially in
his inaugural address Donald Trump solemnly promised that the United
States will no more impose regimes, that they will not take part in
senseless wars (like the one in Syria), that they will stop acting
as the world policeman. Moreover he “forgot” his messages to Barack
Obama, years ago, that he cannot act militarily against Syria
without Congressional consent and that such an action would be a
“grave mistake”.
Let us go a step further. Trump even did not bother to “produce” an
excuse for the attack. And let us be crystal clear. Nobody with a
clear mind would “buy” the story that Assad’s forces launched a
chemical attack against rebels, especially if one has in mind two
key elements. First, Assad’s forces are gaining ground (so why would
he risk such an attack, provoking a possible American reaction) and,
second, the Syrian chemical weaponry, handed over some years ago at
the Russian initiative, was destroyed by – the Americans. It is
worth mentioning that staging false pretexts for military
interventions abroad is a long-term tradition of the American
foreign policy. We do not need to go back to Teddy Roosevelt and
Panama. Let us just remember the fake accident in the Gulf of
Tonkin, which marked the beginning of the Vietnam war and let us not
forget the – equally fake – story about Sadam Hussein’s weapons of
mass destruction, which marked the start for the invasion of Iraq.
At that time the American policy at least tried to stage a more or
less plausible story (a full month of political-propagandistic
preparations before Iraq was attacked). Nothing of that sort was
needed by Trump. Without any solid evidence, without findings of any
investigators on the spot, he “knew” (and the leaders of many
European counties repeated after him, like reciting a poem) that the
only person responsible for the use of chemical weapons can and is
– Assad (after that there where attempts to construct, indirectly
though, a Russian responsibility too). And Donald Trump attacked.
By doing so, he demonstrated two things. First, that he knows
nothing about politics, because he completely forgot the Russian
component of which he will be remembered one day after the attack on
Syria by the Russian prime minister Medvedev who quite clearly
stated that “the US are on the verge of war with Russia”. Alas, that
he is a political amateur was a very well known fact, even to those
who voted for him. But, he demonstrated something that the majority
of his supporters did not expect – because all of them did not vote
for Trump just to express their support for building the wall along
the border with Mexico. He demonstrated that he is ready, without
hesitating, to abandon the concept of the new American foreign
policy, most probably the product of some of his staff members,
maybe General Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign. So, this is
Trump’s U-turn. The other U-turn he provoked was in the attitude of
almost all who until yesterday could not stop attacking him. And
they, so called liberals, political analysts, columnists, mainstream
media, neo-cons like Senator John McCain and all like him, they are
now more than happy with Trump. Not only that they accept him, they
even glorify him, which is – for example – reflected in the
statement that “on the day he bombarded Syria, Trump became
President”. In Europe old-style politicians and their media
followers are delighted that the American foreign policy is finally
returning where it should be, that nothing is going to change and
that the US will not allow anybody else to become Number 1 in the
world.
Both U-turns show that the world is again entering the fatale spiral
of senselessness, that was guaranteed by Hillary Clinton and that
could have been interrupted, as many hoped, thanks to Trump and his
collaborators. And there is another indication that supports this
way of thinking, an indication for the continued policy of
“inventing” enemies, so desperately needed both by the military –
industrial complex and the deep state. A member of the US Congress,
a Democrat (and they are traditionally more open if not closer to
the left side of the political spectrum, than the Republicans)
proposed the reactivation of the law against Nazi-propaganda from
the Roosevelt days before WW2. If she had in mind the necessity to
prevent the more and more present anti-Semitism, intolerance and
racism – which is a characteristic not only of the US, but of the US
too, it would be OK. But no, she proposed the reactivation of the
law that should have prevented Nazi-propaganda in order to “defend”
the US from Russian propaganda which is “undermining the very basis
of democracy”. Only yesterday, did you forget, this propaganda was
accused of making Trump the President of the US and Trump was called
“Putin’s usefull idiot”. But who is interested in such details any
more? Now, after the bombardment of Syria, after America emerged
again as it always was? Nobody! The very fact that there is an
initiative to apply to today’s Russia (formally democratic, although
with clear authoritarian tendencies) an old law intended to prevent
Nazi-propaganda, and Nazism is in its essence, in theory and
practice, the very negation of democracy, proves that he West really
desperately needs an enemy. If there is not a real one, than a fake
enemy.
And for what purpose is such an enemy needed? With an enemy on the
horizon it is much easier to unite the voting machine in one’s own
country, as well as those in the allied countries, not to say: in
the satellite countries. On the other hand, and this is even more
important, with an enemy “in sight” one can create conditions if not
for waging war, than for sure for preparing for war. And it is no
secret that in such conditions good money can be made. The whole
policy of “containing Russia”, waged for years by encircling Russia
with NATO members, the whole propaganda campaign aimed at projecting
Russia as tomorrow’s aggressor – according to prominent and in the
past reliable media in the West – all of this is aimed at one goal:
to make the public opinion prepared and ready to accept growing
expenses for defense (or even substituting the professional armed
forced with the mandatory serving in the army for every citizen).
All of this is aimed at convincing citizens/voters that “our” media
(and “our” politicians too) are telling the truth, while the
Russians, both media and policy makers, are lying. And finally, all
of this is aimed at making the public opinion understand why
whistleblowers from the intelligence structures, people who at one
point listen to their own conscience and tell openly what they are
doing, should be treated – and punished accordingly – as “inner
danger” for the national security.
Initiatives such as the one for applying the law meant to prevent
Nazi-propaganda to what is described as Russian propaganda (although
it is not seldom more accurate and objective than what is being
served by the mainstream media in the West), as well as further
escalation of the war in Syria lead only to one conclusion:
seemingly senseless, but at the same time quite logical. In order to
survive the liberal capitalism which is ruling the greatest part of
the world, needs a new, great war. The fatale spiral of
senselessness which we have entered is, without any doubt, leading
us in that direction.
Tomislav Jakić
The author is a Croatian journalist (TV and
press), who served for almost a decade as foreign policy advisor to
the second President of the Republic of Croatia, Mr. Stjepan Mesic.
April 16, 2017
Neo-religionism of the post
ideological Russia
(Refeudalisation of Europe – I Part)
The
lonely superpower
(US) vs. the bear of the
permafrost (Russia), with
the world’s last
cosmopolite (EU) in
between. Is the ongoing calamity at the eastern flank of the EU a
conflict, recalibration,
imperialism in hurry,
exaggerated anti-Russian xenophobia or last gasp of
confrontational nostalgia?
Just 20 years
ago, the distance between Moscow and NATO troops stationed in
Central Europe (e.g., Berlin) was more than 1.600 km. Today, it is
only 120 km from St. Petersburg. Is this a time to sleep or to
worry? ‘Russia no longer represents anything that appeals to anyone
other than ethnic Russians, and as a result, the geopolitical
troubles it can cause will remain on Europe’s periphery, without
touching the continent’s core’ – was the line of argumentation
recently used by Richard N. Haass, President of the US Council of
Foreign Relations. Is it really so?
Is there any
intellectually appealing call originating from Russia?
Russia is a legal, not an
ideological, successor of the late Soviet Union. Many in Greece,
Latin America and elsewhere in the world mingled the two.
Does it still
today represent a lonely champion of antifascism and (pan-)Slavism?
Is the Slavism,
identity, secularism and antifascism, while abandoned in Eastern
Europe, confused perhaps by the mixed signals from the
austerity-tired Atlantic Europe and
über-performing
Central Europe?
For the EU,
Ukraine is (though important) an item of the Neighborhood Policy and
for the US it is a geopolitical pivot. However, for Russia, it is
all this plus emotional attachment. Without Ukraine, to what extent
is Russia Christian and European?
Is the EU a
subject or a hostage (like Ukraine) of the mega-geopolitical drama
whose main and final stage is in the Asia-Pacific theater? What is
the objective here – the ultimate score (territorial gain) or an
altered style of the game (new emotional charge of confrontation
added to the international relations)? What is a road map, an exit,
a future perspective – relaxation or escalation?
Hegemony, hegemoney,
or a global (post-dollar) honeymoon?
New religionism: Powerful
self-imposed deterrent
Without a socio-political cohesion via integralism, it is rather
impossible to reverse the socio-economic decomposition of Russophone
and Eastern Europe. Unity for cohesion does not mean a (rigid
communist) unanimity. But, Europe’s East is still mixing the two.
Consequently, all three cohesive forces of Eastern Europe have
disappeared: (i) atheistic elites (irrespectively from their ethnic,
religious, social and linguistic background); (ii) antifascism; and
(iii) Slavism. How to reinvigorate overall societal passions and
drives for the enhancement of nation without unifying ideological
narrative?
While
the secularism of Atlantists increases the intellectual appeal of
their indigenous ideology – that of neoliberalism,
transcontinentally; the newly discovered neo-clericalism of Eastern
and Russophone Europe plays, not an emancipating, but a powerful
self-restraining role. At home, it only polarizes, fragments and
undermines vital social consensus, and for abroad it serves as a
powerful self-deterrent.
Simply, beyond its narrow ethnic frames or national borders such
neo-religionism
motivates none to nothing. In the 21st
century, dominated by the socially mobilized, secularized and
knowledge-based nations across the world,
religionism
of East (static and rigid like its retrograde MENA sibling) only
further alienates, isolates and marginalizes that region. It easily
ends up in ethno-chauvinistic overtones that are not only isolating
its proprietor, but also antagonizing or radically mobilizing its
neighbors.
Globally, it means that while East remains entrenched in its ‘newly
discovered’
religionism,
only one ideology remains unchallenged and uncontested – that of
Atlantist neoliberalism.
Logically, East neither controls its own narrative nor
(interpretation of) history: Due to a massive penetration of Central
Europe, East grossly relativized, trivialized and silenced its own
past and present anti-fascism. Additionally, this region does not
effectively control its media space. Media there (of too-often
dubious orientation and unspecified ownership) is distracting vital
public debates: discouraging, disorienting and silencing any sense
of national pride, influence over destiny direction and to it
related calls for self-(re) assessment.
Today, Eastern Europe is not even sure, if its anti-fascism should
be a question of choice or a matter of pure survival. Its mental de-territorialisation
is corrosive and deep.
Pauperised masses – empowered lumpen
proletariat
In a
combination with above, the speed and dimensions of criminal
redistribution of national wealth and cruel pauperisation of masses
(euphemistically called ‘western style privatisation’ of 1990s)
deeply transformed the East, turning many into a re-feudalized
society. By the end of Yeltsin dizzy rule, even the biggest critics
of the Soviet era were horrified by the post-Soviet destruction of
Eastern Europe.
In
2000, much quoted Alexander Solzhenitsyn screamed out loudly: "Will
we continue looting and destroying Russia until nothing is left? …
God forbid these ‘reforms’ should continue.” For that, he was of
course, silenced and marginalized, and never quoted.
Indeed, as elsewhere in
Eastern Europe, the severity, frequency and tempo of that social
re-engineering via criminal redistribution of national wealth had no
parallel historic example. Seems as if the region was left to choose
between genocide (ex-YU) and its evil twin – social apartheid
(elsewhere in the East)? Where were the famous dissidents from East?
Why didn’t the academia of Eastern Europe debate about it?
And,
while famous East intelligentsia remains mute, answers are streaming
from the dominant narrative, that of West. Moreover, describing who
these new elites of the East are, western authors are breaking
another Eastern taboo – quoting Karl Marx.
Number of quotation of Karl Marx in e.g. the New York Times, FAM,
Economist, Wall Street Journal or other western neoliberal
opinion-makers per annum is higher than all cumulative quotations of
Karl Marx in Eastern Europe for the past two decades.
Thinkers of the East expulsed Marx and Engels to (intellectual)
Gulag indefinitely.
Hence, discussing the new emerging class on both sides of Atlantic
(also
Useful Idiots of Euro-Med
theatre – a power-base of the so-called
Arab Spring),
Daniel Henninger does not hesitate to consider them a retrograde
force of ‘lumpen proletariat’, outcasts turned professional
dissidents, a fake class of ‘social scam’.
Writing in the WSJ (Trumpen
Proletariat, July 06
2016), to support his argument, he states: “Karl Marx, in a
particularly dyspeptic moment, offered this description of what he
dismissed as the lumpen proletariat: ‘Alongside decayed roués with
dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined
and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds,
discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves,
swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters,
gamblers, pimps, brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders,
ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars—in short, the whole
indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the
French call la bohčme.’”
New
elites of neo-feudalism?! European dream refeudalised …
Anis H. Bajrektarevic
Vienna, 31 MAR 2017
anis@corpsdiplomatique.cd
Author:
Anis H.
Bajrektarevic
Author is chairperson and professor
in international law and global political studies, Vienna, Austria.
He authored three books:
FB – Geopolitics of Technology
(published by the New York’s Addleton Academic Publishers);
Geopolitics –
Europe 100 years
later (DB, Europe),
and the just released
Geopolitics – Energy – Technology
by the German publisher LAP.
No Asian century
is his forthcoming book, scheduled for later this year.
April 14, 2017
MARCH 2017
Saudi king’s “Clash of Civilizations,
convergence with Indonesia's hypocrisy and opportunism
by
Julia Suryakusuma
When
my older sister who lives in Germany came to Indonesia recently, we
gave her the royal treatment. Well, she’s family after all, and had
not visited in 12 years.
So if a family member hadn’t visited in 47 years, the
royal treatment would be quadrupled, right? Well, that’s how long it
had been since a Saudi monarch had come to Indonesia. The last time
was the visit of King Faisal in 1970, so when King Salman of Saudia
Arabia came in February the reception was pretty over the top.
Family member? Yes, being Muslims, we are all members
of the ummah (community of Muslims), which for some is even
more meaningful than being connected by blood. Our qibla
(direction Muslims face when praying) is toward Mecca, but more than
that, lately Saudia Arabia is our qibla for many things we
consider to be part of our Muslim identity. Arabic-style attire is
one example, but more importantly is the adoption of a more rigid
and literal interpretation of the Quran than the moderate Islam
Nusantara (Islam of the archipelago) that Indonesia is famous
for.
King Salman is one of the richest world leaders and,
boy, did he ever show it! An entourage of 1,500 in eight wide-bodied
jets, a few limousines and two gold-plated escalators — because of
course, one isn’t enough, right? We lapped it all up and various
Indonesian dignitaries and political leaders were falling over
themselves to pay obeisance to the custodian of the holy cities of
Mecca and Medina that Muslims make pilgrimages to. Well, at least we
got the extra haj quota we were hoping for.
So why did he come after all this time, and at the
age of 80, when most octogenarians would be ensconced in rocking
chairs, especially after a stroke he had recently? Is it simply “the
ties of Islam?” In economic terms, the visit to Indonesia did not do
much to boost the relationship, which has never been fast and
furious in any case (see “Saudi King Salman’s visit to Indonesia:
Bound by ties of Islam,” The Jakarta Post, March 18 2017).
For almost 40 years, Saudi Arabia has imposed a kind
of cultural imperialism in Indonesia by pouring in money which
essentially has been exporting their brand of Salafism, a strict and
dogmatic version of Islam. Millions of dollars produced hundreds of
mosques, schools, a free university, provided teachers, scholarships
and much, much more. Will this now change? Whatever the case, the
investments have already made an impact.
Despite the ostentatious display of wealth because of
falling oil prices, Saudi Arabia is going through a recession. Hence
the ambitious one-month tour, not just to Indonesia, but also to
Malaysia, Brunei, Japan, China, the Maldives and Jordan. Obviously,
the trips to China and Japan have nothing to do with Islam, but are
an attempt to look for partners and investors in the Asia-Pacific
region to lessen Saudi Arabia’s dependence on oil revenues.
Besides China overtaking the United States as a big
net importer of crude oil in 2016, there are also geopolitical
considerations. With the uncertainty that comes with the Donald
Trump presidency, China can certainly be seen as a counterweight to
the US for Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy.
What about terrorism? That was mentioned too in King
Salman’s underwhelming two-minute speech at the House of
Representatives — which sounded more like the speech of a Miss World
contestant — to stand united against global challenges, in
particular against the “clash of civilizations”, terrorism and to
work together to achieve world peace.
Funny that. Is decimating Yemen a way to achieve
world peace? Saudi Arabia committed crimes in Yemen as evidenced by
the destruction of infrastructure and the killing of thousands of
innocent civilians, including children.
Addressing visiting members of the Supreme
Revolutionary Council of Yemen, Ali Larijani, the Iranian
parliamentary speaker, said, “The scope of destruction is
unprecedented in history and this clearly shows that Saudi Arabia is
a rogue state in the region.”
As for the clash of civilizations, it’s more like a
clash of ignorance, which is the title of the essay that Edward Said
wrote to debunk Samuel P. Huntington’s 1993 Foreign Affairs article
entitled “The Clash of Civilizations.” The hypothesis is that
people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary
source of conflict in the post-Cold War world.
Oh really? Is that why the US and the United Kingdom
provide the arms used by Saudi Arabia to crush Yemen? Because, of
course, Saudi Arabia is the US’ ally in the Middle East, maybe a bit
less so after the US betrayed them by making deals with Iran, Saudi
Arabia’s main rival.
But even if King Salman repeatedly listened to Paul
Simon’s “Fifty ways to leave your lover,” Saudi Arabia could not
break up with the US because it still provides them with the best
weaponry and spare parts too.
But, Saudi Arabia is not all it appears to be. It’s
not by any means revolutionizing, but it is evolutionizing, as
Ameera al Taweel said.
The 33-year-old drop-dead gorgeous US-educated
princess, businesswoman, high-profile women’s advocate and
humanitarian philanthropist is the ex-wife of Prince Al-Waleed bin
Talal, 60. He’s one of the more progressive of the thousands of
princes of the Saud family and one of richest men in the world, who
is planning to give away his US$33 billion to charity when he dies.
And would you believe that there’s a vegan Saudi
prince who wants to veganize the Middle East? Meet Khaled bin
Alwaleed (son of Al-Waleed bin Talal), 38, handsome and a fervent
environmentalist who believes that “Climate change and the
unjustified consumption of energy are two of the most serious issues
we face today at the macro-level.”
Hope he’s saying this to his gas-guzzling compatriots
as Saudia Arabia is the world’s largest oil producer, but also the
world’s sixth-largest consumer.
Then there’s Ahmed Qassim al-Ghamdi, formerly an
employee of the Saudia Arabia’s religious police who had a
life-altering experience when he turned to the Quran to study the
stories of the prophet Muhammad and came up with the conclusion that
being Islamic is about being more liberal. No need to close shops
for prayers, to cover women up, or to ban women from driving.
Unsurprisingly, death-threats dogged him after he made these
statements.
Like Indonesia, Saudi Arabia has a demographic bonus:
Sixty percent of the population is under 30. Like Ameera and Khaled,
they are connected to a globalized world and they will rebel against
the strictures of the Islam espoused by their forbearers.
Change in Saudi Arabia seems inevitable, as it is
becoming more progressive, climate-conscious and is espousing
“Western” notions of rights (which the US under Trump seems to be
abandoning), while Islam in Indonesia is becoming more Arabized and
conservative.
Ironic or what?
Julia Suryakusuma
(First published by the JP)
*The writer is a public-intellectual, social-critic,
columnist, researcher, author of “Julia’s Jihad” (2013) and several
other books. She is based in Jakarta.
March 29, 2017
2017
PUBLICATIONS
MAY, 2017:
Zbigniew Brzezinski & the Battle on Post Communism Fascism - By,
Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey
Post-secular Europe and post-Soviet Russia - Anis H.
Bajrektarevic
The story of a Bosnian woman who lost her entire family to the
terror of the 1990s:“I feel like a cut tree. I am neither alive nor
dead … There is no justice and there will never be,” - Robert
Leonard Rope
'Schindler List' for Southeast Europe - Pakistanisation as the Final Solution for the Balkans? - Prof.
Zlatko Hadžidedić
Brazil in the short Strikes – the ultimate price
of welfare - By Luísa Monteiro
PUBLICATIONS
APRIL, 2017:
Pimp my s/ride - Ms. Elodie
Pichon
SPIRITUALITY AND THE ECONOMY OF CLIMATE CHANGE - Anis H.
Bajrektarevic
Who Needs
Dysfunction in the Balkans? - Zlatko Hadžidedić
FATAL
SPIRALE OF SENSLESNESS - By: Tomislav Jakic
Neo-religionism
of the post ideological Russia (Refeudalisation of Europe – I Part)
- Anis Bajrektarevic
PUBLICATIONS
MARCH, 2017:
Saudi
king’s “Clash of Civilizations, convergence with Indonesia's
hypocrisy and opportunism - by Julia Suryakusuma
![Dr. Nguyen Anh Tuan, Assos. Prof.[1] Nguyen Linh[2]](images/Prof_Dr._Nguyen_Anh_Tuan_140.jpg)
december-2017
