European politics news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in World Politics

      Belarus: Is There a Way Out of the Crisis?

      by

      Belarus is politically deadlocked. The peaceful movement protesting against veteran ruler Alexander Lukashenko and the manipulation of the presidential election on August 9 is too strong for the state to simply suppress it by force. As long as the political leadership continues to respond with repression, the protest movement will persist and diversify. However, it lacks the institutional leverage to realize its demands.

      President Lukashenko can rely on the state apparatus and the security forces, whose loyalty stems in part from fear of prosecution under a new leader. Lukashenko himself is determined to avoid the fate of leaders like Kurmanbek Bakiyev of Kyrgyzstan and Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine, who were driven into exile following “color revolutions.”

      Belarus Is Not a Unique Case

      READ MORE

      This stalemate is replicated at the international level. While the European Union refuses to recognize the result of the presidential election, the Kremlin regards Lukashenko as the legitimately elected leader. Moscow refuses to talk with the Coordination Council founded by the opposition presidential candidate, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. The EU, for its part, interacts mainly with representatives of the protest movement because Minsk flatly rejects mediation initiatives from the West.

      Currently, only Russia regards Lukashenko’s announcement of constitutional reform and early elections as a path out of the political crisis. All other actors dismiss his constitutional initiative as merely an attempt to gain time.

      Constitutional Reform as a Starting Point

      In fact, a constitutional reform could offer a solution. But it would have to be flanked by confidence-building measures and guarantees. The following aspects should be considered:

      An end to all forms of violence and repression against peaceful demonstrators; no prosecutions for protest-related offensesRelease of all political prisoners, give an option of return for all exiles and deportees; reinstatement of persons dismissed from state employmentConvocation of a constitutional assembly integrating all relevant political and social groupsConstitutional reform to be completed within a maximum of 12 monthsParallel reform of the electoral code to ensure a transparent election process and appointment of a new Central Election CommissionFree and fair presidential and parliamentary elections in accordance with criteria set by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)The specific details of such a roadmap would have to be clarified in dialogue between the current state leadership and the Coordination Council, with the possibility of both sides agreeing to involve additional societal actors. Mechanisms would be needed to ensure observance.

      In this regard, granting all state actors an amnesty would be key. At the same time, acts of violence and repression occurring in the past weeks would need to be documented by an independent body. On the model of the truth and reconciliation commissions employed elsewhere, a reappraisal of recent history could lay the groundwork for a moderated process — also involving the churches — to overcome the divisions in society. It would also preserve the possibility of later prosecution if the roadmap was not followed.

      What the EU Could Do

      The European Union could support such a process by suspending the implementation of sanctions as long as the implementation of the roadmap is proceeding. It should also prepare a phased plan to support reforms, the economy and civil society; certain aspects would be implemented immediately, with full implementation following the conclusion of the constitutional reform and new elections.

      Embed from Getty Images

      But the Belarusian actors must be fully in charge of preparing and realizing such a roadmap. International institutions should restrict themselves to advising, upon request, on procedural matters. Such a function could for example be assumed by members of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.

      Russia might potentially see benefits in such a scenario. The Kremlin’s backing for Lukashenko risks fostering anti-Russian sentiment in Belarus’ traditionally pro-Russian society. In the current situation, an extensive integration agreement would be a risky venture for Moscow. Massive Russian subsidies would be needed to cushion the deep economic crisis emerging in Belarus.

      Moreover, parts of Russian society could respond negatively if Moscow were to intervene politically, economically and possibly even militarily in Belarus. Conversely, an orderly transformation would allow Moscow to minimize such costs. But that would presuppose the Kremlin factoring societies into its calculations.

      This approach would demand substantial concessions from all sides. But the alternative — in the absence of dialogue and compromise — is long-term political instability with a growing risk of violent escalation.

      The European Union should therefore use all available channels of communication to encourage a negotiated solution. It should refrain from supporting Baltic and Polish initiatives to treat Tsikhanouskaya as the legitimately elected president of Belarus. That would contradict its approach of not recognizing the election result. It would also exacerbate the risk of transforming a genuinely domestic crisis into a geopolitical conflict.

      *[This article was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions relating to foreign and security policy.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      As Europe Weakens, Turkey Is on the Rise

      by

      The horrific experience of World War II compelled European leaders to establish a supranational organization that is now the European Union, which, if successful, would create among its members, especially between Germany and France, an unbreakable bond, preventing the otherwise “savage continent” from destroying itself once again as it did many times before 1945. While the adoption of the common currency, the euro, after 1999 is cited as the epitome of European financial unity, when it comes to foreign policy, the EU itself is far from united.

      Discovery of Natural Gas Exposes Turkey’s Political Rifts

      READ MORE

      The spat between EU candidate Turkey and EU member Greece over the boundaries of their exclusive economic zones (EEZ) in the eastern Mediterranean has exposed this intra-EU discord. Greece’s repeated calls to Brussels for solidarity have mostly been ignored, and France’s relentless efforts to create a solid anti-Turkish bloc have yielded nothing but some rhetorical support for Greece. France sees the growing Turkish influence in Libya as a grave threat to its economic interests in West Africa and the Sahel. Due to this perceived Turkish threat, Paris has been doing everything in its power to sabotage it, including throwing unconditional support behind Greece.

      Europe’s Locomotive

      The Greek frustration with the EU peaked at an all-time high at the Foreign Affairs Council on August 14, when member states Germany, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Bulgaria and Malta vetoed the request by Athens to sanction Ankara. In retaliation, the Greek Cypriots blocked an EU joint statement on sanctions against Belarus following the violent suppression of anti-government protests by the regime of Alexander Lukashenko. On September 10, French President Emmanuel Macron hosted the MED7 countries — Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain — on the island of Corsica, the birthplace of Napoleon, hoping to mount pressure on Turkey, only to be disappointed that the leaders of Spain, Italy, Malta and Portugal avoided inflammatory remarks and emphasized the importance of a dialogue with Ankara.

      In fact, the day after the summit, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez called Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to express Spain’s willingness to enhance bilateral relations. On the same day, Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs Luigi Di Maio and Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlut Cavusoglu discussed on the phone “the matters related to Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean.” Two days after the Corsica summit, the Maltese Minister of EU Foreign Affairs Evarist Bartolo met with Cavusoglu in Turkey’s Mediterranean resort town of Antalya.

      Macron’s European partners have disappointed him before. France claimed that on June 10, Turkish warships locked their weapons systems on to a French frigate, the Courbet, which was part of NATO’s Sea Guardian monitoring mission. As a knee-jerk reaction to this incident, France suspended its naval operations in the Mediterranean. France took the issue to NATO, which Macron has inconveniently called “braindead” in the past, and whose majority of members are also part of the EU. To Macron’s dismay, only eight of the 30 NATO members backed France’s claims against Turkey, which French Defense Minister Florence Parly described as “serious and unacceptable.” Later, NATO announced that the probe into the incident was “inconclusive.”  

      So why is Europe so divided when it comes to Turkey? Why have France and Greece failed to create European unanimity against Turkey? The answer lies in the fact that the changing regional political and economic realities are forcing the European states to pursue their own individual agendas just like they did in the early 20th century, heralding the demise of the ideal to create the United States of Europe. Simply put, because of their vested interest in Ankara’s handling of the refugee crisis as well as their uneasiness about an ascendant France in the Mediterranean, some EU member states choose to align with Turkey rather than defend Greece’s maritime claims, severely undermining Paris’ effort to curb Ankara’s ambitions.  

      Germany, the locomotive of the European Union, is very concerned about the continuous influx of refugees into Europe, which has already begun to disrupt the financial, social and political make-up of the continent. For Berlin, Turkey’s ability to accommodate more than 4 million refugees it currently shelters is paramount to saving the contracting EU economies further stricken by COVID-19. Also, not angering Erdogan in this gloomy atmosphere is much more important for German Chancellor Angela Merkel than to mount a battle for Greece’s declared maritime borders in the far eastern stretches of the Mediterranean.

      Merkel’s motivation to get along with Erdogan upsets Macron, who feels the need to contain Turkey in Libya, West Africa and the eastern Mediterranean. Macron sees Brexit and the receding US influence as a historical opportunity to assert France’s role as the leader on the European continent, which in turn may herald Franco-German frictions. He repeatedly degraded the importance of NATO as a common defense mechanism at a time when Merkel is alarmed by US President Donald Trump’s decision to considerably cut the number of American troops in Germany. Macron has frequently criticized Merkel for allowing Germany’s much-needed Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline into Europe as he believes it will increase the European reliance on Russia.

      This Gaullist approach has not only irked Germany, but also raised concern with France’s Mediterranean neighbors, Italy, and Spain, who have historically viewed an ascendant France with suspicion. Hence their tacit support for Turkey, France’s current geopolitical perceived arch-rival. 

      Italy vs. France

      The Italian resentment toward France goes back to the 2011 French and NATO-led military intervention in Libya, which toppled Muammar Gaddafi. Italy sees the subsequent growing instability in Libya as a threat to national security as migrants, not only from Libya but also from sub-Saharan Africa, began to pour onto Italian shores. The Italians believed that Gaddafi’s iron-fist rule over Libya acted as a barrier between Italy and the more unstable and deprived parts of Africa.  

      The current migrant issue has severely hurt the Franco-Italian relations. Both sides have repeatedly summoned each other’s ambassadors, a serious sign of friction, criticizing the measures each refused to take. In June 2018, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned France’s ambassador to Rome after Macron harshly criticized Italy’s refusal to accept the migrant ship Aquarius carrying more than 600 people.

      In June 2019, the current Italian foreign minister and then-deputy prime minister, Luigi Di Maio, lambasted the French immigration policy by saying that “If today people are leaving, it’s because certain European countries, chief among them France, never stopped colonizing dozens of African countries. France prints the currency, the colonial franc, in dozens of African countries, and with this currency, they finance the French debt . . . If France did not have the African colonies, she would be the world’s 15th economic power, but she’s among the first because of what she’s doing in Africa.” Di Maio even called for EU sanctions against France. The row escalated to a point where France recalled its ambassador to Italy in February 2019, a move unprecedented since the Second World War. The acrimony with France has prompted Rome to side with Ankara in this latest diplomatic spat.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Italy’s support for Turkey in Libya seems to have paid off. After Turkey’s successful military campaign against the French-backed General Khalifa Haftar earlier this year, a senior European diplomat told the Financial Times: “Let’s be honest, Turkey stopped the fall of Tripoli. Without their intervention, it would have been a humanitarian disaster.” The influx of those running fleeing Haftar’s retribution would have severely crippled Italy.  

      An ascendant France in the Mediterranean basin also threatens Italy’s economic interests. Italy had considerable business stakes in Libya under Gaddafi, whose removal from power severely jeopardized them. The Italian energy giant ENI first entered the oil-rich country in 1959 and had a continuous presence throughout the 1980s, even when the West snubbed the Gaddafi regime for its links to terrorism. Before the French-led military intervention, Operation Harmattan, in 2011, Libya accounted for 15% of ENI’s total global hydrocarbons output, with oil production at 108,000 barrels per day and natural gas production at 9.4 billion cubic meters.

      Today, a number of lucrative oil projects are at stake for ENI, including the Bouri oil field, the largest offshore field in the Mediterranean Sea, located immediately off the coast of Libya. This area is controlled by the Turkish-backed Government of National Accord. Considering that ENI’s biggest challenger for the Libyan oil and gas is the French oil giant Total, Rome has naturally supported Fayez al-Sarraj’s Turkey-led coalition against Khalifa Haftar’s French-backed Libyan National Army. This too explains why Rome is reluctant to join France and Greece in imposing sanctions on Turkey.  

      British Considerations

      Historically speaking, France’s growing ambitions in the Mediterranean have triggered British suspicion. For instance, it was British support for the Ottoman Empire in the late 18th century that facilitated the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte by the Turks in Egypt and Syria, which also safeguarded British regional interests. Just as it was then, today Turkey has become an important part of the UK’s geopolitical considerations, particularly in the post-Brexit era. London has manifested its support for Ankara on various occasions. For example, the UK, which has strategic Akrotiri and Dhekelia military bases on the island of Cyprus, openly rejected the Greek Cypriots’ request for cooperation against Turkey. Angered by this refusal, the Greek Cypriots turned to France.

      With regard to the Turkey-France naval incident, UK Prime minister Boris Johnson clearly sided with Turkey by publicly stating, “I do not give much credence to France’s view.” As a display of solidarity, the British frigate HMS Argyll and Turkish TCG Giresun held an exclusive naval training exercise in the disputed waters of the eastern Mediterranean the day after the French-led MED7 summit in Corsica. 

      The UK’s desire to cooperate with Turkey in the Mediterranean is also reflected on the smallest EU member, Malta, which shares a maritime border with Libya. Although it declared its independence from the UK in 1964, Malta’s foreign policy still is heavily influenced by London. In Libya, the Maltese government has openly declared its support for the Turkey-backed al-Sarraj administration. Moreover, as a blow to France’s efforts to prevent Turkey from sending weapons to Libya, Malta vetoed EU funding for Operation Irini meant to enforce an arms embargo.

      Malta’s support for Turkey in the Mediterranean partially stems from the anti-French sentiment that prevails in society. Prominent Maltese broadcaster Charles Xuereb, the author of “France in the Maltese Collective Memory: Perceptions, Perspectives, Identities After Bonaparte in British Malta,” states that “Napoleon’s slaughter of thousands of Maltese and the heavy pillaging of the island created a Maltese collective memory which blocks anything French but sees the British as their saviors.” It is only natural for Malta to throw its support behind Turkey, which has confronted France throughout the region. 

      Romantic Ideas

      Where do we go from here? The romantic idea of a united Europe where prosperity, democracy and solidarity reign supreme is becoming increasingly obsolete. The aging population, the influx of refugees and the rising populist far right, the COVID-19 pandemic and the abysmal state of eurozone economies, which is increasing the north-south divide, have all but weakened the idea of a shared future for the Europeans.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The weakening of Europe is happening at a time when Turkey seems to be on the rise. EU Foreign Minister Josep Borrell stated earlier this month: “Europe is facing a situation in which we can say that the old Empires are coming back, at least three of them: Russia, China, and Turkey; big empires of the past who are coming back with an approach on their immediate neighborhood, globally, which represent for us a new environment. And Turkey is one of these elements that change our environment.” 

      What is happening in the Mediterranean is not only a conflict between Greece and Turkey — it is also a European problem. Turkey’s ascendancy in the region should be expected to accelerate the fracturing of Europe, where each state is increasingly preoccupied with its own problems, forming competing alliances against one another.

      The latest addition to this chessboard is the renewed fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Each side is accusing the other of causing the flare-up, but according to UN Security Council resolutions, Armenia is illegally occupying 20% of Azeri territory. In this conflict too, as in Libya, Syria and Iraq, Turkey holds the key. Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan has already led to heavy Armenian casualties. The Azeri-Armenian conflict will only strengthen Turkey’s position vis-à-vis Europe even more, disincentivizing Brussels to take measures against Ankara.  

      The dream of a united Europe is becoming more of an unattainable each day. The question now arises whether President Erdogan will be the one to deal the final blow to that idea.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      QAnon: A Conspiracy for Our Time

      by

      Those of us who, in the late 1980s and 1990s, frequently traveled in the United States might recall being approached by young men, dressed for business in suits and ties, at major airports. They distributed tracts and asked for contributions. No, they were not Mormons but followers of Lyndon LaRouche, one of the most eccentric figures on the American radical right. A perennial candidate for the American presidency, LaRouche was the head of a political cult that subscribed to the notion that current events were orchestrated and manipulated by dark forces, most notably by the queen of England (charged with presiding over the international drug trade) and the “Zionist British aristocratic oligarchy.” Among other things, he was a great proponent of fusion power, a legacy that continues to inspire his admirers.

      Lyndon LaRouche might be dismissed as a nutjob. He was, and at the same time he was far from it. LaRouche was not only the only presidential candidate to campaign for the presidency “with a platform that included his own version of quantum theory.” He was also the only candidate to evoke Plato. In the words of a leading expert on conspiracy theories, LaRouche was convinced that “history is a war between the Platonists (the good guys) and the evil Aristotelians. Anyone who has taken Philosophy 101 can follow the drift: Platonists believe in standards, an absolute truth that can be divined by philosopher kings like Mr. LaRouche. To the Aristotelians everything is relative.”  

      The Colorful World of Coronavirus Conspiracies

      READ MORE

      While Platonists seek to use technology and classical music to the benefit of humanity, Aristotelians are out to thwart them. “With their bag of brainwashing techniques” — such as sex, rock music and environmentalism — “they hope to trick civilization into destroying itself, bringing on a ‘’new dark ages’’ in which the world’s riches will be firmly in the hands of the oligarchy.”

      Brilliant or Unhinged?

      A few years ago, such ruminations might have been dismissed as the delusional musings of a brilliant yet unhinged mind, gone off the deep end. Today, it appears that LaRouche was way ahead of his time. LaRouche, who passed away in 2019 at the ripe age of 96, presumably would have a field day were he still alive today, delighting in the fact that in the first years of the Trump presidency, the “Platonists” have finally come into their own, having made significant gains in the struggle for gaining the upper hand in the quest for cultural hegemony.

      The terms originated with the Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci as a heuristic construct to explain why Italian workers acted against their objective interests. For Gramsci, cultural hegemony is strongest when subordinate classes “come to believe that the economic and social conditions of their society are natural and inevitable, rather than created by people with a vested interest in particular social, economic, and political orders.”  

      The struggle over cultural hegemony is a war of position, a slow process of creating and diffusing alternative narratives capable of subverting the hegemonic ones. Success in the struggle over cultural memory means being able to define concepts and fill them with meaning, seductive enough to appeal to a significant portion of the population. This is what has happened in the United States over the past several decades, reflected in what has come to be known as the culture war. In 2016, Donald Trump promoted himself as an “aggressive culture warrior” ready to take on the establishment.

      Central to this strategy was coming to the defense of the white Christian (both Protestant and Catholic) communities, who increasingly saw themselves as strangers in their own land, their values and beliefs ridiculed and disparaged, their voice marginalized and ignored, more often than not drowned out by minorities, such as gays, lesbians and transgender people, whom they consider immoral.

      Central to any religion is the notion that there is an absolute truth, which can only be grasped by faith. You either believe that human beings were created some 10,000 years ago — as a third of the American population seem to believe — or you don’t. You either believe that today’s natural catastrophes are part of a grand divine scheme, heralding the beginning of “the end times” ushering in the return of Christ, or you don’t. You either believe that you are among the few lucky ones who will be spared, via rapture, from having to live through the times of great tribulations, or you don’t. Surveys suggest that a growing number of Americans don’t. As a result, true believers feel even more beleaguered, victimized by a society increasingly not only slowly but inexorably “de-Christianizing” but more and more hostile to their beliefs and way of life.

      In 2016, Barna, a leading Christian pollster, revealed that a large majority of Americans viewed Christianity as “extremist.” For instance, more than 80% of respondents considered it extreme if a service provider refused to serve a customer (as has happened to gay customers ordering a wedding cake for their wedding) because “the customer’s lifestyle conflicts with their beliefs.”

      These results are only one indication that America’s Platonists, to stay with the LaRouchian frame, are on the verge of losing some of the major gains they made in the initial phase of the Trump presidency. In fact, in recent months, a number of Trump’s “culture war allies” have defected; his advisers have warned that with COVID-19 and the uproar over police brutality, the world is fundamentally different from 2016. This does not mean, however, that the conflict identified by LaRouche has abated. It has only moved to a different plane — the realm of conspiracy theory, the most famous one these days being QAnon.

      Just Ask Q

      A recent poll revealed that around 55% of Republicans believe that QAnon is mostly or partly true. Against that, more than 70% of Democrats agreed with the statement that QAnon is not true at all. For those not familiar with QAnon, it is a conspiracy theory that holds that Donald Trump is fighting a globally operating secret cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles, consisting of liberal politicians, “deep-state” government officials and their fellow travelers in finance, the media, higher education and the entertainment industry — i.e., the liberal elite. QAnon might sound absurd and abstruse, yet it has, over the past several months, found a rapidly growing number of adherents and supporters, not only in the United States, but also on the other side of the Atlantic, from Italy to Switzerland, from France to the far corners of central Europe.

      In recent demonstrations against the measures put forward by Angela Merkel’s government in Germany designed to slow down the spread of COVID-19, most notably the obligation to wear a mask, a number of demonstrators identified themselves as QAnon adherents, wearing T-shirts displaying the slogan “Save the Children.”

      Save the children is the relatively more benign side of QAnon — as far as conspiracy theories go. It explains, for instance, why in the United States women have been particularly attracted to it. As Annie Kelly recently wrote in The New York Times, it is motherly love that draws women to the “theory,” with “concerned mothers taking a stand for child sex abuse victims.” Saving children, however, only one facet of Q, and arguably of lesser importance. The reality is that QAnon serves to a large extent as an empty signifier, a term devoid of meaning in and of itself, and as such in a position to accommodate each and every conspiracy theory, folding them “into its own master narrative.”  

      Evangelical Blues, or How Supporting Trump Discredits Christianity

      READ MORE

      A prominent example are anti-vaccination activists, the anti-vaxxers, one of the groups participating in the anti-mask demonstrations that have been held in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Their argument is not only that vaccinations pose dangers, but that vaccinations are part of an insidious, evil plot hatched at the headquarters of the global satanic elite. Its supreme villain is Bill Gates, the Ernst Stavro Blofeld of Q’s imagination.

      A German video posted on YouTube and produced by a relatively unknown former radio show host quickly went viral. The author’s claim: COVID-19 is part of a conspiracy conceived by Bill and Melinda Gates, aimed at drastically reducing humanity via mass vaccinations laced with sterilization molecules. So far, the video has been seen by more than 3 million viewers, and its author has been the subject of discussion in Germany’s leading media.

      In Italy, a former deputy of the Five Star Movement managed to expound the “theory” in parliament. In justification of her opposition to proposed anti-COVID-19 emergency measures, she charged Bill Gates with having, for ages, devised plans to reduce the world population and establish a “dictatorial hold on global politics” designed to gain “control over agriculture, technology and energy.” For years now, the deputy charged, Bill Gates had argued that vaccinations and reproductive health would reduce the world population by 10% to 15% and, more importantly, “only genocide could save the world.”

      Particular Resonance

      QAnon started out as an obscure internet-based conspiracy theory. In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, it has morphed into a cult, an ersatz religion, a great narrative that gives sense and meaning to an increasingly disconcerting, if not frightening reality. In LaRouchian terms, it is the ultimate Platonists’ dream. QAnon is true because common sense says it is true. It is true because a substantial number of ordinary people believe it is true. It is true because some celebrities of newly acquired internet fame, who got their degree from the “University of Google,” say so. It is true because it can be found on social media.

      In a world where truth claims are subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny, QAnon would easily be debunked as utter nonsense. In today’s chaotic world, however, any attempt to unmask Q not only appears to strengthen the resolve of the theory’s adherents but also attracts new converts. In the process, it has turned into a movement “united in mass rejection of reason, objectivity, and other Enlightenment values,” as Adrienne LaFrance has put it in The Atlantic.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The example of the Moldovan Orthodox Church provides an illustration of the far reach of the movement. In May, the church released a statement charging that the “global anti-Christian system wants to introduce microchips into people’s bodies with whose help they can control them, through 5G technology.” Vaccination, developed and promoted by Bill Gates the church stated, “introduces nanoparticles into the body that react to the waves transmitted by 5G technology and allow the system to control humans remotely.”

      Given widespread public skepticism toward scientific knowledge, if not outright rejection of it, it seems QAnon is the perfect narrative for all those who live in an alternative reality where Donald Trump is the white knight In shining armor indefatigably laboring to thwart the diabolical plots of satanic avatars and their deep-state allies — Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Tom Hanks and Jane Fonda. The list is long, and anybody can add to it.

      Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that QAnon has had a particular resonance among white evangelicals, who generally “exhibit the strongest correlation, among any faith group, between religiosity and either climate science denial or a general anti-science bias.” At the same time, white evangelicals are the voting bloc most committed to Donald Trump, a constituency he cannot afford to lose. This might explain why Trump has refused to reject QAnon out of hand, instead expressing his appreciation of the fact that its adherents “like me very much” and “love our country.”

      Evangelicals are LaRouche’s ideal Platonists. When belief clashes with scientific knowledge — as it does on evolution — they invariably side with faith as the ultimate source of truth. Unfortunately, these days, in the face of a devastating pandemic, a seemingly never-ending series of environmental catastrophes and mounting global tensions, evangelicals are hardly alone in seeking refuge in an all-encompassing “theory” that provides answers, comfort in the knowledge not to be alone and, most frighteningly, a rationale for violent action. These are chilling prospects, given the upcoming US presidential election. Whatever happens, tensions are bound to rise, with potentially devastating consequences.

      *[Fair Observer is a media partner of the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in World Politics

      Is Switzerland’s Air2030 Program the Right Choice for the Country?

      by

      Various international media have reported on Switzerland’s current defense procurement, the largest in its history. Switzerland’s goal is to redefine the defense of its national airspace in a program called Air2030. They will determine what aircraft the Swiss air force will fly for the foreseeable future (the next 40 years) and what ground-based air defense system will protect the country. Although international reports have discussed aspects of the Swiss procurement process, particularly about the fighter aircraft being considered, the political debate has been overlooked. A closer look will clearly show the importance of security and defense issues for an international audience.

      Switzerland is a unique country in a unique geostrategic and political situation. It is famous for its strict adherence to neutrality and its citizens-in-arms as part of an army that would make it difficult for any invader to conquer. This concept of armed neutrality has been a considerable factor in establishing Switzerland’s notable wealth and political stability. According to its constitution, it is not allowed to be involved in armed or political conflict between other states. Switzerland has the world’s oldest policy of military neutrality and has never participated in a foreign war since its neutrality was officially established in 1815.

      It is worth noting that there are ongoing debates as to whether this neutrality is real or an oft-stated but realistically inaccurate description. This will not be discussed in this article. The focus is on the political and operational discussion surrounding the procurement process of Air2030.

      Switzerland Confronts Its Role in the Slave Trade

      READ MORE

      Geographically, Switzerland is situated in one of the world’s most stable regions, between France, Italy, Germany and Austria. All of its neighbors are EU members and, with the exception of neutral Austria, also NATO members. Anyone contemplating a military incursion by land or air into this land-locked nation would have to pass through NATO territory or NATO airspace. Politically, Switzerland developed a democratic system in which its citizens have the right to participate directly in government decisions and sometimes even in defense-related decisions.

      Many in the world envy and admire the Swiss for such direct democracy, and while the success of Switzerland’s political framework is clear, its effectiveness is based upon access to accurate information. In the current national debate about Air2030 however, this access is highly questionable.

      Procedural Adjustments

      Switzerland’s Federal Department of Defense, Civil Protection and Sports (DDPS) oversees the country’s defense issues. Its previous plan for the procurement of fighter aircraft was rejected by a majority of the Swiss people. In 2014, the Gripen fighter jet, manufactured by Saab in Sweden, was turned down by 53% of the Swiss. The Gripen rejection was a major blow for the DDPS and has certainly influenced their current procurement effort. During the previous procurement attempt, the Gripen did not pass all internal Swiss evaluation tests and compared less favorably against the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale.

      Still, the Swiss government decided to promote the purchasing process in 2011 for a little more than $3 billion. Saab’s competitors, of course, disagreed vehemently with this decision and protested. Coincidently, internal Swiss test results of the aircraft evaluation were anonymously leaked and the Swiss media started to call the Gripen a “paper plane.” Petitions against the Gripen began. In 2014, an unlikely coalition of military critics, pacifists, political skeptics and those who preferred a more capable aircraft stopped the Swiss procurement plans through a referendum.

      In 2020, the DDPS is again trying to convince the Swiss electorate of the need for a new aircraft. This time, it’s the Air2030 defense plan, which entails the acquisition of new fighter jets at a price tag of around $6 billion and ground-based air defense systems at a further $2 billion. Learning from the Gripen rejection, direct involvement of the Swiss voters has been adjusted accordingly: The people will not have the chance to vote for or against ground-based air defense or what system will be purchased. However, they will still have the opportunity to influence the procurement of fighter jets, but not around a particular aircraft type.

      The DDPS will evaluate and choose among four aircraft: the European (Germany, UK, Italy, Spain) coproduction Eurofighter Typhoon; the French Dassault Rafale; or the American Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet or Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II. On September 27, the Swiss referendum will determine whether the DDPS has the mandate to choose one of these aircraft or not. The referendum cannot influence which aircraft Switzerland will ultimately purchase. Many Swiss citizens are frustrated at their inability to influence this procurement decision.

      The aircraft type is of operational and military importance, but also of political relevance. The purchasing decision will wed the Swiss military to the country producing the aircraft they select for many years to come. In a country dominated by a mindset of neutrality, this is not a decision to be made lightly.

      So far, the Air2030 discussion in Switzerland has been emotional and politically motivated, with many facts frequently discarded from the conversation. The DDPS has framed the upcoming referendum as an essential question about Switzerland’s defense capability. According to the DDPS, a no to Air2030 would be a vote against the Swiss military and would leave Switzerland defenseless after 2030, due to its supposed eight-to-10-year procurement process. DDPS argues that if this opportunity is missed now, Switzerland will not be able to field new fighter jets by 2030. Without fighter jets, it claims the Swiss military cannot fulfill its basic defense functions.

      The commander of the Swiss air force further warned that there was no “plan B” and that Switzerland without Air2030 will not have a functioning air force after 2030. Needless to say, not having a plan B does not speak well for Swiss military planning functions. It is also important to note that the Swiss air force commander implied that Switzerland would start fielding the first new fighter aircraft as early as 2025 if Air2030 was approved by the Swiss people. Contrary to the DDPS statements, it should be absolutely possible to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new viable defense plan if the people vote against Air2030 and still have a solution fielded by 2030.

      The Hornet

      The DDPS justifies the need for new fighter jets by 2030 due to the aging fleet of the current F/A-18 Hornets. According to the DDPS, the F/A-18 Hornet is outdated and obsolete. In the Swiss press, the aircraft has been called an “old-timer plane.” Swiss defense minister, Viola Amherd, stated in parliament and in numerous interviews that Switzerland would be the world’s last country to fly the F/A-18 Hornet by 2030. Put simply, this is not true. Canada will operate its F/A-18 Hornets, which are much older than the Swiss ones, until 2032. The Canadian Air Force was one of the first to acquire the Hornet in 1982, while Switzerland was one of the last countries to do so between 1997 and 1999.

      The Canadian F/A-18 Hornets were used during Operation Desert Storm over Kuwait and Iraq, during NATO operations over Yugoslavia and Libya, and during the military air campaign against the Islamic State in Syria. They are currently actively engaged with the US Air Force under the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in protecting the North American continental airspace and are part of NATO’s air policing missions in the Baltic states, Romania and Iceland.

      These real-world missions will continue to be carried out by Canadian F/A-18 Hornets into the 2030s. Canada, together with the US Marine Corps, is currently upgrading its Hornets. Just like Canada, the Marine Corps will continue to operate the F/A-18 Hornet in the future. It is therefore difficult to believe the Swiss argument that its Hornets are no longer adequate for the mission of the Swiss air force. In 2016 already, the Canadian Air Force declared that some of its Hornets had up to 8,000 flight hours, many of them under combat conditions. Switzerland is currently modifying its Hornet fleet from 5,000 to 6,000 flight hours and is claiming that the planes have reached their ultimate limit.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Malaysia is also prolonging the life of its Hornets. In this process, Malaysia is acquiring used F/A-18 Hornets from Kuwait that will be delivered by 2021 and then be operated by Malaysia for an additional 10 to 15 years. Especially interesting is the fact that the Swiss DDPS is aware of this. The maintenance of the Malaysian F/A-18 Hornets is done by RUAG, a Swiss company specializing in defense and aerospace engineering. RUAG emerged in 2003 from the Swiss Federal Office of Topography of the Armament Group, which was divided into the commercial RUAG and the federal agency Armasuisse (Federal Office for Defense Procurement), which falls under the DDPS. The Swiss voters, however, will likely not be aware of any of this when they vote on the replacement of the F/A-18 Hornet. Mainstream Swiss media has almost unanimously repeated the notion that the F/A-18 Hornet is obsolete, outdated and inadequate for continuous service. No one in the media questioned the defense minister’s false statements about Switzerland being the last country to continue to operate the F/A-18 Hornet.

      Air Policing

      The main task of the new Swiss fighter jets will be so-called air policing in order to maintain air sovereignty and security. As part of air policing activities, the air force checks with its live missions that the flight routes of aircraft correspond with the clearance they have been given. Air policing missions carried out to assist civilian aircraft or in response to serious violations of air sovereignty or air traffic rules are called hot missions. The Swiss government declared that the Swiss air force conducted an average of 270 live and 20 hot missions per year over the last decade. The Air2030 critics argue that, in the rare cases of a more robust scenario, Switzerland could still use the F/A-18 Hornet.

      According to the critics, all 270 live missions, and even the majority of hot missions, could be carried out by less sophisticated and less expensive military aircraft than those the DDPS is proposing. Such alternatives are light fighters and combat variants of training aircraft. The DDPS and the defense minister responded that training planes do not have the technical ability nor are they equipped to carry out air policing missions. This is repeated in almost every discussion and open hearing in Switzerland. The defense minister even stated that such training aircraft couldn’t be armed at all and that they are a “total waste.”

      Further, according to the DDPS, no air force in the world is using training aircraft for such missions. The mainstream Swiss media was quick to again parrot these comments and helped shape the opinion that the critics were providing unrealistic, ill-informed and absurd ideas. Again, this is not true. Contrary to the statements by Viola Amherd, it must be understood that the alternative aircraft options are not exclusive training jets. They are light fighters based on airframes that are also used for aircraft dedicated to training.

      Uniquely, Switzerland should not be unfamiliar with this concept. The F-5 Tiger, operated by the Swiss air force for decades in air policing missions is this type of plane. The F-5 Tiger is the fighter version of the T-38, which has been a training aircraft for many air forces, including the US Air Force. Interestingly enough, seasoned and combat-proven US Air Force fighter pilots have openly advocated for new and more economic light fighters derived from training platforms to fill a role to maintain air sovereignty alert in the United States. In their eyes, these aircraft could be used to respond to airspace incursions, external threats, wayward aircraft and terrorist operations. Such planes could execute this essential mission at a much lower cost, avoiding the need to allocate expensive F-35s for a task they are less than optimal for.

      In 2019, US Congress mandated the Air Force to explore its future inventory. As a result, the renowned MITRE Corporation and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments recommended that the US Air Force arm its new trainer jets to fly homeland defense missions. Further, those fighter versions of training aircraft could be exported overseas to countries for whom complex fifth-generation fighter jets would make little sense. Despite overwhelming examples supporting the critics’ viewpoint, the Swiss public has not been informed. Not one mainstream Swiss media outlet has reported on such plans for training platforms in the US Air Force.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The new US jet trainer, the T-7 Red Hawk, a co-production between Boeing and Saab, will be marketed in a light fighter version as an alternative for air forces (such as Switzerland’s) operating the F-5 Tiger. A combat variant of its T-7 jet trainer is viewed as a replacement of the world’s aging fleets of F-5 Tigers. Serbia has recently voiced interest in buying the T-7 Red Hawk to complement and support its current MIG-29 Fulcrum fleet to counter and intercept airspace incursions. When taking a look at examples from around the world, it is clear that not every air force is using only strictly dedicated multirole fighters to defend airspace. Armed trainers have been successfully employed by many air forces, including many top tier ones. Nevertheless, the Swiss are kept in the dark about this. Repeatedly, it has been stated by official Swiss channels and the media that such a thing cannot and does not exist.

      There is reason to believe that this misinformation is deliberate. How is it that the DPPS is not aware of armed training aircraft serving to control airspace? Especially, since the Swiss RUAG is actively engaged with air forces that use said aircraft types in such a function. Armed trainers like the BAE Hawk are in service with the royal Malaysian air force to supplement its fighter fleet and directly contribute to the country’s air defense.

      Problematic Threat Analysis

      A question that has been asked in Switzerland is about the plans of how to protect the expensive and complex aircraft on the ground as well as their facilities. If airbases and runways are not adequately protected, the most sophisticated combat aircraft could become useless. In this respect, the RAND Corporation recently published an extensive study on airbase defense in Europe for the US Air Force and concluded that cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones pose major threats. Enemy aircraft, on the other hand, are only considered a moderate risk, given NATO capabilities to counter combat aircraft and the low probability that any single threat aircraft (let alone a large force) could reach an airbase in the rear.

      This should be important for Switzerland and its defense planning. Surrounded by NATO countries, this means that it would be highly unlikely that the Swiss air force will encounter enemy aircraft in an open conflict, but instead it needs to consider missiles and drones. However, Air2030 identifies combat aircraft as its main threat and does not believe that ballistic missiles pose any threat at all. According to the Air2030 planners, ballistic missiles aren’t accurate and, therefore, are not used as effective military means.

      Justifiably, international military experts vehemently disagree. Ever since the precise Iranian ballistic missile attacks on US airbases in Iraq, it is clear that the Swiss defense planners were absolutely wrong in their assessment. In this context it is critical to know that only certain ground-based air defenses could combat ballistic missiles; fighter jets do not have that capability. When the DPPS was confronted with criticism about its unrealistic position on ballistic missiles and its neglect of defense considerations, its initial reaction was to personally attack the critics. The DPPS continually maintained that its new ground-based air defense only needs to be capable of intercepting aircraft and that ballistic missiles are not a threat.

      Then, suddenly, in January this year, this position changed. Now, the DPPS claims that defense options against ballistic missiles must be discussed within the evaluation of new ground-based air defense systems for Switzerland. This change of opinion was not well communicated to the media or the Swiss people but arose in a seemingly minor alteration of the text to the requirements for the procurement of ground-based air defenses. The significance of this was lost on the Swiss press. This abrupt change is essentially an admission by the DPPS that its threat assessment was wrong.

      Threat analysis is the most foundational aspect of any defense plan. If the threat assessment was flawed, it means the entire defense plan must be critically reevaluated. As the defense plan’s main operational asset and financial focus is a new Swiss fighter jet that cannot protect against ballistic missiles, this reevaluation is imperative.

      Interconnectedness

      From the beginning of the debate around Air2030, critics have tried to point out the dependence that Switzerland would be under with the purchase of new aircraft. The F-35 especially was criticized as a means for the United States to have access to sensitive Swiss data and have the ability to control the performance of the Swiss air force. These claims are not unjustified. The F-35 is the world’s most sophisticated and highly capable aircraft. However, international avionics experts have questioned if this fifth-generation multirole fighter is not “overkill” for a country like Switzerland.

      Very early into the program, the foreign partners of the F-35 were already worried about the data the aircraft is collecting, storing and sending back to the United States. Further concerns entailed links to the aircraft collection system that could get cut, especially in the middle of a crisis. The F-35’s interconnectedness gives the US government or its manufacturer Lockheed Martin unprecedented access and level of export control of software updates to foreign operators. The only foreign operator that is not dependent on the US upgrades is Israel, which was able to negotiate for itself the right to install a different software system.

      Embed from Getty Images

      It is interesting that just at the same time as the debate in the United States and Israel about the features and dependencies of the F-35 in regard of a possible sale to UAE is ongoing, the head of security policy in the DPPS and the defense minister assured the Swiss that no foreign power could have any influence on the performance of any of the potential Swiss aircraft and could neither ground them. According to the head of security policy for the DPPS, there are absolutely no grounds for such rumors. Externally influencing aircraft, according to her, is impossible, and any such notions are “complete nonsense.” The Swiss mainstream media accepted these assurances and let them stand without questioning them.

      One has to wonder how this is possible when at the same time international experts are contemplating in public that the US could very well go ahead and sell the F-35 to the UAE without endangering Israel’s qualitative military edge since the United States could interfere with its performance at any time. It is internationally widely reported that the US government has enhanced safeguards to curtail F-35s in the hands of potential Arab buyers should the geopolitical situation change. The US would have little trouble grounding the Emirati fleet should Abu Dhabi ever “go rogue.” Without US support, the F-35 fleet would be effectively useless.

      The Swiss people now have to decide if Air2030 will be the right concept for the defense of Switzerland or not. In order to do so, they need to have access to a broad spectrum of information and different perspectives. Given an honest and factual approach, they may very well vote for Air2030 in support of the DPPS. But, undeniably, the question of new fighter jets for the Swiss air force appears to be preordained for certain outcomes based on previous negative procurement experience. To this date, the Air2030 program has been characterized by disingenuous political maneuvering, an inaccurate capability discussion and a flawed defense design. With the exception of a few journalists, the Swiss mainstream media has hardly produced factual content or critical analysis of the biggest defense procurement in the nation’s history.

      For September 27, the Swiss media has predicted an overwhelming victory for Air2030 and the first female Swiss defense minister, who appears to have political ambition for more than just her current position. A win in the referendum will catapult her popularity, increase her weight in Swiss politics and may facilitate her rise to even more prestigious positions. However, if Air2030 will be approved, it certainly will become clear relatively soon that this project was a bad investment with dubious defense value under a false pretense.

      *[The expressed opinions are the author’s own and do not represent those of the US Air Force or any other military branch, the US Department of Defense or the US government.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      Spain’s Monarchy Is at a Crossroads Amid Corruption Scandal

      by

      The former king of Spain, Juan Carlos de Bourbon, is facing growing allegations of corruption from Spanish public prosecutors. The current scandal will have an unprecedented impact on the future of the Spanish monarchy, an opaque institution that has been for many years shielded from public scrutiny. The personal finances and business activities of Juan Carlos I and his associates have been a source of controversy for many years, but now Spanish prosecutors, in coordination with British and Swiss colleagues, seem to have been able to trace approximately $100 million of the former king’s shady transactions.

      The 82-year-old, who reigned as the head of the Spanish state for 39 years until his abdication in favor of his son, King Felipe VI, in 2014, will likely face charges for money laundering and tax evasion and has left Spain, announcing that he is now permanently residing in the United Arab Emirates. This move, which was backed by the royal household and the current Spanish government, raises concerns about whether Juan Carlos is attempting to avoid justice in case charges are formally pressed against him in Spain.

      Corruption Allegations

      The scandal is putting the Spanish royal family in the spotlight while the country is trying to recover from the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and a deep economic crisis. King Felipe has been trying to contain the damage of the scandal by striping the former monarch of his royal title and by renouncing his father’s inheritance. Yet these actions seem to be innocuous in reducing the pressures on the monarchy. The loss of public faith in the Spanish monarchy, a key institution for the consolidation of democracy in Spain, could potentially trigger a systemic institutional crisis given that over the past decade there has been a succession of scandals involving the political elites and critical public institutions.

      Currently, the Spanish supreme court is focusing its probe against the former king on a generous “donation” of approximately $100 million from the former Saudi king to Juan Carlos. This donation appears to be remuneration for the alleged intermediation by Juan Carlos in a $71-billion deal for the Spanish consortium to build a high-speed rail link connecting Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. Swiss prosecutors tracked the Saudi money and suggest that Juan Carlos sent part of the “donation” to an offshore account and the other part was given as a gift to his former lover, Corinna Larsen, a German businesswoman.

      There are suspicions that this newest scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. Yet bringing members of the monarchy to justice is not easy in Spain provided they enjoy legal immunity from prosecution in the lower courts. Another difficulty of holding Spanish royals accountable is that they benefit from a network of allegiances in business and political circles.

      For example, in response to the recent wave of criticism in the media against the alleged role of the former Spanish monarch in the corruption scandal, approximately 70 high-profile politicians, professionals and businesspeople signed a letter in defense of Juan Carlos. In essence, the letter suggests that the disapproval Juan Carlos is currently facing in light of the most recent corruption scandal is unjust given his contributions to the Spanish democracy, stating that “the work of King Juan Carlos for the benefit of democracy and the Nation can never be erased, on pain of a social ingratitude that would not bode well for Spanish society as a whole.”

      The political and economic elites in Spain abhor any revisionism of the monarchy because they equate any criticism of its institution with endangering democracy. However, openly debating the role of a country’s institutions is healthy for any democratic regime.

      The Monarchy and Democratization

      Spain formally became a constitutional monarchy in 1978 when the country transitioned to democracy, becoming the only European democracy in the Mediterranean to have a monarch as its head of state. This exceptionalism allowed the Spanish monarchy to exercise an important symbolic power in the maintenance of the constitutional order and political stability in democratic Spain.

      Juan Carlos I acceded to the throne in 1975 at the hands of dictator Francisco Franco, who ruled Spain through fierce repression for almost four decades, between 1939 and 1975. In the 1970s, with the growing sociopolitical pressures for democratization, Franco envisioned the newly-enthroned royal overseeing the country’s transition to democracy. In effect, Juan Carlos would exercise a tutelage role over political and institutional dynamics in the newly democratic Spain.

      In a rare historical moment, King Juan Carlos, although politically neutral as a head of state, exercised his symbolic role as a guarantor of democracy when he took to the airwaves to publicly condemn an attempted military coup in February 1981. His televised address won him wide prestige among the Spanish public, and to this today, the former king is considered one of the key actors in the transition and consolidation of Spanish democracy.

      Despite the widely recognized role of the Spanish monarchy in building a democratic Spain, the country has changed in recent decades, as has public support for the monarchy. Based on the Ipsos Global Advisor’s 2018 survey, the Spanish royals have one of the lowest levels of public support of all the world’s monarchies. Fully 37% of the Spanish public believes the country would be better off abolishing the monarchy, compared with just 15% in Britain or merely 4% in Japan.

      Time for Reform

      The 2010-14 economic crisis and the deepening of secessionist tensions in Catalonia detracted from the symbolic power of the Spanish monarchy. The public image of Juan Carlos has also suffered from scandals, such as his 2012 elephant-hunting trip to Botswana while he was presiding over the Spanish branch of the World Wildlife Fund. At the height of the 2008 economic crisis, members of the royal family were found entangled in a web of corruption involving the misuse of public funds amounting to approximately $7 million, which eventually led to the conviction of the king’s son-in-law for embezzlement.

      Embed from Getty Images

      When King Felipe VI replaced his father on the Spanish throne in 2014, the separatist tensions in Catalonia were only beginning to escalate. Just three years later, however, the Spanish crown would have to act to ease the growing territorial crisis. In October 2017, when a group of Catalan politicians was in the process of declaring the independence for Catalonia through an illegal referendum, King Felipe addressed the nation on television to condemn these regional politicians for placing themselves “outside the law and outside democracy.”

      In the eyes of many Catalans, this address proved the king was siding against Catalonia. Spain’s territorial secessionist crisis has profound implications for the Spanish monarchy because it challenges its unity and democratic institutions. October 2019 saw a resurgence of violent protests in Catalonia against the lengthy prison sentences imposed against nine separatist political leaders who declared, unconstitutionally, Catalonia’s independence in October 2017. During the clashes between pro-independence protesters and the police, King Felipe visited Catalonia and was received in Barcelona with great hostility.

      If the stability of the Spanish monarchy were merely a function of King Felipe VI’s efforts and intentions to reign more in tune with the real concerns of the Spanish people and with a less lavish lifestyle than his father, then the current scandal involving Juan Carlos I would likely leave the monarchy unharmed. However, the future stability of the monarchy lies in the evolution of the corruption probe into the former king’s assets set against a sociopolitical environment that is becoming more complex by the day. In this context, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is time for reform of the Spanish monarchy.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      COVID-19 Drives Conspiracy Theories and Islamophobia

      by

      For the past decade, I have been researching the impact of Islamophobia on social media. After the outbreak of COVID-19, I was commissioned, alongside my colleague Roxana Khan Williams, by the chair and independent members of the Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group to produce an evidenced-based research report that looks at the impacts of conspiracy theories perpetuated by the radical right and how these norms have impacted Muslims.

      For me, it was very clear that COVID-19 could be acting as a trigger event that would galvanize hatred against Muslims, but I needed to find out whether this has already started amid the pandemic. After examining a range of social media posts, we found that Islamophobic tropes pushed the narrative that Muslims were solely responsible for spreading COVID-19. This narrative was perpetuated by, firstly, dehumanizing Muslims; secondly, through creating a “them and us” narrative; and, finally, by driving forward the message that Muslims are not to be trusted.

      London’s “Mega Mosque:” Islamophobia in the COVID-19 “New Normal”

      READ MORE

      It was clear that some of these narratives being pushed by the radical right had created Islamophobic online cyber hubs that had linked Muslims to the spread of COVID-19. This was being shown through the visual anti-Muslim memes and fake news stories shared across social media.

      We also found a shift in online trends that started by arguing that Muslims were superspreaders of the virus and then quickly moving on to the notion that they were also to blame for the virus in the first place. For example, according to digital human rights group Equality Labs, the hashtag #CoronaJihad had appeared nearly 300,000 times in global conversations on mainstream social media sites (excluding Facebook) in just one week between March 31 and April 6.

      In Britain, one video, shared on the Tommy Robinson News channel on the messaging app Telegram, alleges to show a group of Muslim men leaving a secret mosque in Birmingham to pray. Despite the fact the video is fake and West Midlands Police have confirmed the mosque is closed, it has been watched over 14,000 times.

      These issues led to offline incidents because people have used fake narratives on social media to portray all Muslims as being part of the problem. For example, in another viral tweet posted on March 26, a user claimed to have spoken to his local mosque in Shrewsbury, UK, and was “horrified” to find that this Mosque was still open. He added that the people inside could be “super spreaders” of the virus and urged the police to act.

      After a fact-finding exercise, it was quickly revealed by the police that there was no mosque in Shrewsbury. This example, along with numerous others, reveals how individuals can create fake news stories which, if left unchecked, can spread quickly on social media. We also found that online narratives were rooted in anti-Muslim bigotry through the dehumanization of Muslims. These themes of dehumanization also link back to how Muslims are being described as “vermin” and “disease.”

      We also found the depiction of British Muslims on social media becoming synonymous with them being a “risky and problem-group.” A number of fake news stories featured claims that Muslims are flouting social distancing measures to attend mosque. One picture, for example, taken outside a Leeds mosque, appears to show Muslims breaking the rules of lockdown despite this having been taken two weeks before the official lockdown began.

      Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has created unity among groups and communities that have come together at this unprecedented moment. However, at the same time, it has caused wider divisions among smaller communities and groups, and has been used as a weapon by the radical right in promoting conspiracy theories, raising questions about how our society can come together to tackle the ills of social media.

      As lockdown measures ease, the worry is that we will start to see a rise in offline incidents. Unless we can get to grips with people’s attitudes online, we risk seeing more problems emerge. Social media companies can do much better and start the process of identifying perpetrators and working with the police and other agencies to combat the rise of Islamophobia online.

      *[Fair Observer is a media partner of the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      Boris Johnson Pushes Unreason to an Extreme

      by

      The Guardian offered its readers what is certainly the most comic and hyperreal sentence of the week when it reported that “Boris Johnson accused the EU of preparing to go to ‘extreme and unreasonable lengths’ in Brexit talks as he defended breaching international law amid a mounting rebellion from Tory backbenchers.”

      Here is today’s 3D definition:

      Go to extreme and unreasonable lengths:

      An expression that those who habitually go to extreme and unreasonable lengths in everything they do like to apply to those who oppose any of their extremely unreasonable acts

      Contextual Note

      We live in an era in which extreme and unreasonable discourse and action have become the most reliable tool for those seeking political, economic or social success. It explains how purveyors of extreme and unreasonable discourse have won recent elections in nations as diverse as the US, the UK, India, the Philippines and Brazil, to mention only those countries. 

      The Tug of War in Washington Around the War in Afghanistan

      READ MORE

      Whether their names are Johnson, Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Silvio Berlusconi, Rodrigo Duterte, Elon Musk or Kanye West, each in his own patented way has perfected the art of outrageous hyperreality that thrives on projecting a personality that is extreme and unreasonable. The phenomenon goes beyond politics. In fact, it originates in the world of entertainment. West, an American rapper, did as much to inspire President Trump’s approach to politics as Trump did to convince West he could have a future in politics.

      The Guardian’s readers may be left wondering what kind of exceptionally outrageous behavior could merit Johnson, the British prime minister, calling European negotiators’ behavior “extreme and unreasonable.” Even during his career as a journalist before moving into politics, Johnson specialized in extreme and unreasonable exaggeration in his reporting of the news.

      In 2016, Johnson also went from the extreme of preparing an article for publication in The Telegraph in which he argued in favor of Britain remaining in Europe and warned that leaving the EU would provoke an “economic shock,” to leading the wing of the Conservative Party in the “leave” campaign for Brexit. That permitted him to identify himself with the cause of Brexit and assume the leadership of that faction of a party officially committed to remaining as a member of the European Union. He sensed that it would be the shortest route to Downing Street as he witnessed the wavering fortunes of David Cameron, the prime minister at the time.

      Embed from Getty Images

      So, what terribly extreme and unreasonable actions are the Europeans guilty of in Johnson’s eyes? Very simply, they disapprove of his proposed “internal market bill,” which calls for unilaterally overturning the withdrawal agreement Johnson signed last year to presumably settle the initial political conditions of the UK leaving the European Union. On Johnson’s own initiative, that agreement drew a border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, which together make up the United Kingdom. 

      The law he is now proposing would permit him to effectively erase that border, leading to the necessity of creating a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Keeping that border open as provided by the 1998 Good Friday Agreement — a deal that ended the violence between Catholics and Protestants — was the required condition for reaching any kind of permanent solution to the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union.

      Now, key members of Johnson’s cabinet have begun to revolt, as this is a clear violation of the terms of the withdrawal agreement that took so long to hammer out. Britain’s former ambassador to the US, Kim Darroch, now points out that the bill will be “hugely damaging to our international reputation.” He warned that “it could deter other countries from entering into agreements with the UK in the future.” He wasn’t alone. Five former British prime ministers have also expressed concern over the move. Darroch speculated on what might happen “if people think the Brits are just going to say: we didn’t like this on reflection, and we would like to rewrite this part unilaterally.”

      Historical Note

      During the centuries when the British dominated the world and owned an empire on which the sun never set, as a people they acquired the reputation of being committed to “fair play.” The French, who never had an entente with the British that was deeper than merely cordial, to this day identify the British as a people who want to be respected for maintaining the cultural value of fair play, at least as it applies to sports.

      The French have never been naive. They have always recognized that their British neighbors were perfectly capable of perfidy. To this day, the French will ironically trot out the expression “perfide Albion” to explain Britain’s positions concerning other nations. But Albion’s traditional perfidy was always subtle, carrying an air of reasonableness and delivered with what appeared to be a complicit smile. Boris Johnson’s is both extreme and unreasonable.

      Empires will always be suspected of perfidy, if only because everyone understands that they can, on a whim, betray treaties and agreements — and even their own stated principles and values — as they rely on their military prowess and financial clout to carry them through. To some extent, this becomes the law of empires, their way of indicating that the countries they deal with have a greater interest in being nice to them than they do in being nice to the others. 

      The irony this time — and some see it as a tragedy — lies in the fact that Britain hasn’t been an empire for at least 70 years. Johnson has become little more than Shakespeare’s “poor player who struts and frets his hour upon a stage” and someday soon will be heard no more. The burning question, when it comes to Johnson, Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump — whose exit may be announced in November — is this: What will the damaged landscape look like when those leaders specialized in upending their own cultures are gone?

      As the world breathlessly awaits the major events that affect every nation in the world — starting with the US presidential election in November and including the unabating drama of the waxing and waning of hopes to see the end of the COVID-19 pandemic — the British have the added angst of speculating about just how irreparably damaging what appears to be an inevitable “hard Brexit” on January 1, 2021, is likely to be. One thing seems to be sure: it will be both extreme and unreasonable. 

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Nord Stream 2: Leverage Against Russia?

      by

      Following the poisoning of the Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny with a nerve agent from the Novichok group, the possibility of using Nord Stream 2 to put pressure on Russia has been widely discussed. Specifically, there are calls to abandon the project, to impose a moratorium or to block gas deliveries through the pipelines if the Kremlin refuses to assist investigations.

      The Nord Stream 2 Baltic gas pipeline is highly symbolic, embodying the willingness of Germany and other European partners to cooperate with Russia. Five European energy companies hold stakes in the project, which is led by Gazprom. It began in 2015 — one year after Moscow’s annexation of Crimea — and has been the target of unrelenting criticism ever since, initially concentrating on Moscow’s declared goal of bypassing Ukraine.

      How Alexei Navalny Created Russia’s Main Opposition Platform

      READ MORE

      The German government recognizes the project’s economic benefits for consumers and the gas market and has backed it within the existing legal framework under the paradigm of keeping politics out of business. In order to cushion Ukraine’s losses, Berlin also backed a Russian-Ukrainian agreement guaranteeing Kyiv gas transit revenues for another five years. To keep its options for completing the pipeline open, Berlin blocked attempts by Brussels to assert control. That is now both a burden and an opportunity.

      Pressure From Washington

      Recent developments have been largely driven by the US, which has successively stepped up pressure to abandon the project. The American Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act has succeeded in stopping pipelaying since the end of 2019, and Congress has taken steps to make it impossible to resume the work. The US administration has also altered the guidance of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, threatening to penalize any entity or individual involved in construction since July 15, 2020.

      If construction is to resume, Berlin will have to act more proactively to counter the impact of Washington’s sanctions. On the one hand, it will be difficult to politically justify actively supporting the construction of Nord Stream 2, while on the other hand, Berlin must continue to reject and criticize such secondary sanctions as a matter of principle.

      Stopping Nord Stream 2 would be seismic. But what happens when the dust has settled? The government will have to make difficult choices. The following four aspects need to be considered.

      First, the immediate effect on the energy supply would be marginal. The project is neither — as so often asserted — a danger to European energy security, nor is it essential. Existing pipelines through Ukraine retain an annual capacity estimated at 100 to 120 billion cubic meters, with the Yamal-Europe pipeline through Poland and Belarus adding 33 billion cubic meters and Nord Stream 1 another 55 billion. There are also pipelines to Turkey and Finland. Together, these would easily cope with the peak volume of more than 190 billion cubic meters, which Gazprom supplied to Europe in 2017-18.

      Embed from Getty Images

      That means, conversely, that stopping Nord Stream 2 would not in the slightest reduce the volume of gas purchased from Gazprom. But this direct, efficient modern pipeline would reduce the risks of transit disruption and technical failure. Without it, Nord Stream 1 and its connecting pipelines become crucial.

      Second, indirect effects on the economy and energy supply are hard to estimate. Sunk costs in the Baltic would hurt Gazprom but would also be costly for European companies. Aside from the commercial repercussions, it should be remembered that Nord Stream 2 would improve the resilience of the European gas supply and that an expanded gas supply would benefit industry and consumers.

      The gas reserves on the Siberian Yamal Peninsula have already been developed, while the global LNG market can quickly tighten again. The “Energiewende” (green energy transition) will naturally reduce demand for natural gas, but the speed with which that occurs will also depend on an expansion of the power grid and a rapid, consistent transformation in heating and industry. Here, there is still much work to be done.

      Third, abandoning an economic infrastructure project for political reasons would represent a paradigm shift for Berlin. Major infrastructure projects undeniably have (geo)political implications, and other states do link business and politics in pursuit of national interests, too. That new geo-economic reality represents a challenge for Germany’s strategic sovereignty, also in the energy sphere.

      But that is precisely the point: Other states act in pursuit of their interests. For all the political fireworks, the project is a strategic asset for German commerce and industry. Germany and its EU partners would only be harming themselves if they stopped construction just to send a normative message to the Kremlin. Putin would probably interpret this as Germany simply caving to US pressure, further weakening the political signal

      Fourth, the normative justification raises questions: Is the situation really qualitatively new? Would earlier events not actually have offered more solid grounds? Here, we are confronted with an almost insoluble dilemma of the fossil-based energy system: We purchase oil and gas from authoritarian regimes every day. In that regard, the Energiewende has a geopolitical dividend.

      But make no mistake: Even a successful energy transition will rely on energy imports from these countries, and on the ability to reliably realize major infrastructure projects. The days of the special strategic energy partnership with Russia are over, but a functioning modus vivendi for trade and exchange with this big and resource-abundant neighbor remains essential. From that perspective, a moratorium would gain time for all involved. But the conditions for resumption would have to be clearly communicated, agreed with EU partners and implementable for Russia.

      *[This article was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions relating to foreign and security policy.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More