22 november 2019

In this small book (only 91 pages) , KM confronts the West with some harsh realities. He starts from two key propositions : (1) In the past 30 years, i.e. since 1989, the world made an enormous progress. During that process the relative weight of the West versus the Rest (KM’s word), expressed in terms of GDP, has strongly diminished. The West has to adapt to that new reality; (2) The progress of the Rest is the result of a successful emulation by the Rest of Western best practices. “The biggest gift the West gave the Rest was the power of reaoning” (p. 11).

In this booklet KM raises a lot of interesting points for further critical thought. However what I will focus on hereafter is the contradiction I see between his second proposition and his more in depth analysis in the last part of his book. At this place I will not discuss whether KM is right or wrong with his analysis.

From page 75 on it becomes clear that the Western model is certainly not fully copied by the Rest and should, according to KM, not be fully copied :

• “The West is wrong in believing that democracy is a necessary condition for economic success. If it were, China could not and should not have succeeded. But it has. This… undermines many key pillars of Western ideology.” (80) With this statement KM contradicts to a certain extent what he wrote in the beginning. There he still stated that the spread of Western reasoning led to three silent revolutions. The first revolution he saw was political and ended ‘Oriental despotism’. However he acknowledges that huge imperfections remain but “most Asian leaders now recognize that they are accountable to their people, and as long as they have to demonstrate daily that they are improving their people’s lives Asian societies will continue to improve.” (15)
• “Democracies are not designed to take on long-term challenges.” This weakness hinders the West in taking the right strategic decisions.
• KM gives some examples of wrong strategic decisions from the past. He mentions the decision to keep Turkey out of the European Union and allowing Turks in. “It would have been wiser to keep Turks out and admit Turkey into the EU (with restrictions on free movement of labour)”. Of course with such a statement KM rejects an essential pillar of the European Union, the free movement of people.
• Another strategic mistake mentioned by KM is the European “Common Agricultural Policy” (CAP) which was launched in 1962. “It enriched a few European farmers. It impoverished millions of African farmers, especially in North Africa.”
• “There is no doubt that the Western elites failed to prepare their populations for the inevitable ‘creative destruction’ that flowed from China’s admission into the WTO in 2001.” In the same context KM makes the known statement that the elites in the West, but especially in the USA, enjoyed the advantages of globalisation while the masses did not. “200 million Americans live on the edge”.

KM states that the West made also other important mistakes. For completeness sake I mention ;

• Wars against Muslim countries, but especially the second war against Iraq
• The humiliation of Russia after 1989
• Europeans should understand that their strategic interest is different than the trategic interest of the USA. “The Americans have destabilized Europe’s Europe’s geographical neighbourhood.” (68)

29 oktober 2019

On 15 October 2019 the French President Macron blocked the start of negotiations with the candidates North-macedonia and Albania that should lead to their admission to the European Union. He was criticized by many, included by the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, who called it a historic mistake. Overall Macron believes that the Union should first strenghten its institutions before it can expand further. His opponents state that his refusal will drive the Balkan-states into the hands of Russia, Turkey, China and other.

Since 2014 the European Union is negotiating with Serbia its admission to the Union. On 15 February 2016 Bosnia- Herzegovina formally asked to become member of the Union. Beginning 2018 the European Commission stated that Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, North-Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo had a “perspective” on membership around 2025. It was clarified that “perspective” did not include a “deadline” and that every country would be assessed on its own merits.

We believe Macron has a point (or many points) :

First, the whole Balkan was a powder keg in the far away past, the recent past and still is a powder keg today. It’s inclusion in the Union will not automatically remove the risks from the region. On the contrary, it would introduce the Balkan instability into the Union. Enemies of the Union must love especially this scenario.

Currently, and based on on going discussions with states like Hungary and Poland, we see that the European Union has difficulties in imposing sanctions on some countries if needed. This kind of governance has to be brought to a higher level. The Union must be able to punish if needed.

Referring to Hungary and Poland we might question if the Union has already sufficiently absorbed the previous flow of entrants into the European union (the generation of 2004 and 2007). It is probably not wise to already add a new load of newcomers to the Union, which would also further shift the overall balance further to the East.

Yes, Russia, Turkey, China, the Saudi and the Qatari will try to strenghten their influence in the Balkan. They are doing that already today and they do not need a Union to proceed. If the Balkan states were members of the Union, there is no reason why external powers would be less energetic in striving for influence in these states. On the contrary, it would be an evident way of obtaining leverage in the Union. The Union should have instruments to deal with unwanted influence in its member states.

16 oktober 2019

Last week Turkey invaded Syria to elimate the threat posed by an autonomous Syrian-Kurdish region and to resettle a certain part of its 3,5 million Syrian (?) refugees. Hereby some key points for consideration and central questions.

1°) Turkey says it looks for a solution for its 3,5 million refugees and wants to create a buffer of 30 km in the North of Syria to resettle a part of these refugees. Europe is in a difficult position to condemn Turkey for trying to find such a buffer-zone; in practice Turkey is for the European Union a gigantic buffer zone to settle (=keep) refugees.

2°) One might of course object that the idea to artificially create a border zone of 30 km and to settle people in that area who did not live there before, is a very bad idea. BUT : ARE THERE BETTER IDEAS ? When will the Syrian refugees who are in Turkey OR Europe go back ? Can they actually go back to the Assad-controlled area without the risk of being persecuted ? Does Assad want his Syrians to return ? Here we arrive at the fundamental point that refugees in need should according to many international treaties obtain protection in receiving countries. But there seems no clear agreement on obligations to enable the return of refugees. Already for generations, Palestinians are not allowed to return to Israel. Will we now see a new gulf of permant refugees ; Syrians who will never go back to Syria ?

3°) Trump mentioned that the Kurds did not fight in Normandy (and by exception this time he was correct). But also the Turks did not fight in Normandy and what is more, they did not fight IS in Syria. There were always suspicions that they sympathized more with IS than with the Kurds in Syria. And now suddenly when the war against IS is finished (again, according to Trump – and now he is probably wrong) the Turks invade Syria (what they did not do when the Yezidi’s were slaughtered). And they bring with them what is called “jihadist” groups and we can only wonder who these jihadist groups might be. Is that the remnant of Al-Nusra, a grouping linked to Al Qaida ?

4°) The international press has insufficiently devoted attention to the situation of the Kurds in Turkey. In that respect we can refer already just to the fate of the Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtas, head of the HDP party and imprisoned for already more than two years in Turkey.