Why the EU’s policy towards the Syrian conflict is a disaster? Because it’s unrealistic…

The European Union has to understand finally that idealism is simply magnifying human suffering and endangering the security of all parties. There is the realist alternative, which focuses on one’s own interest instead of morality. However, such foreign policy has a highly ethical purpose, i.e. peace and stability. The EU member states have made many mistakes during Syria’s civil war, which decreased their prestige, influence and security. Through the realist lens it’s important to make a serious assessment, which side in the conflict should be supported, and to remember that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

The realists don’t refrain from bold proposals and suggestions when it comes to foreign policy. In 2012 Kenneth Waltz argued that Iran should have access to nuclear weapons.Three years later Stephen Walt pointed that in case of ISIS’s victory in Syria, the international community should learn how to live with it’s potential new member.Right now there are voices among realists, according to which the attempts to overthrow the al-Assad government were a mistake.Those examples result from a distinctive view of morality’s place in international relations. Continue reading

UK Snap Elections: May’s Pyrrhic victory

David Cameron had called the UK referendum on the EU membership, hoping to get rid of the most Eurosceptic wing of his party and never expecting to lose, he ended up losing referendum and his job. Theresa May, comfortable in a 20+ percentage points lead in polls, called a snap election to have a stronger parliamentary support for her Brexit deal, she ended up without sufficient numbers at all.

If someone needed evidence that mainstream parties are detached from reality, it’s just there, one spectacular debacle after the other. After repeated terrorist attacks by Muslims in the United Kingdom, the best she could come up with was “internet censorship’’;everyone should have their freedoms restricted because the UK government is unable to fix a problem resulting from decades of open borders policies, unwilling to break ties with countries like Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that secret services know it sponsors terrorism,and negligence considering that attackers are often known to authorities for their views and previous crimes.

Unsurprisingly, the 20+ points lead evaporated within less than 2 months; the only reason Conservatives still come out as the biggest party is the disappearance of UKIP, former Conservative breakouts themselves in 1993, which having achieved their main goal, make the UK leave the European Union, have lost much of their purpose, their charismatic leader Nigel Farage and the funding; with former UKIP voters (12% of the total in 2015) switching to Conservatives, Theresa May managed to obtain more votes than her opponents, but not enough to secure the 326 seats majority needed in the lower chamber of the British Parliament.

What’s next? The last experience of the “hung government’’ saw a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, but Liberal Democrats are against Brexit and won’t likely work with Conservatives needing a majority specifically about that issue. The “Tories’’ might have to call for another election and in that case victory is everything but assured. May seems to have secured the support of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland (10 seats, added to her 318) which has a more left leaning economic platform. Continue reading

Is President Donald Trump all that backward?

The western world, its intellectual circles and academia, have barely a good word for President Donald Trump. To them he is almost a misogynist (look how very few women there are in his administration!), white supremacist (he wants to build the wall, stop the influx of immigration and deport illegal aliens!) and a proponent of autarchy (for him it is preferable to have the businesses inside the country rather than having them outsourced abroad). All the progressive ideas of the western left, like the gender parity in offices, a welcoming (guilt-ridden) culture and a free flow of people seem to have received a hit once Donald Trump has been voted into the highest office.

Since it is the American and European left i.e. epigones of the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, that keeps complaining about the current United States administration, it would not be amiss to have a closer look at their leftist Asian counterparts or comrades in arms, and where should one search for them if not in the People’s Republic of China?

A cursory look at the highest echelons of the Chinese communist party reveals that there are very few women, none at the top positions. There don’t seem to be any gender quotas in the People’s Republic though the country officially pledges allegiance to the egalitarian philosophy which posits that there are no essential differences between the biological sexes and so they can be and are replaceable. Continue reading

Portugal ditches austerity and returns to growth. Can it last?

At the end of 2015 the Portuguese Socialist Party managed to form a minority coalition with the far left to oust center-right, pro austerity Social Democrats; this was a rather unique case in Europe where troubled countries like Greece (before the Syriza experience), Italy and Spain had instead opted for centrist (center-left and center-right) coalitions to solve the debt crisis, failing however to obtain any significant positive result.

The new left-wing coalition soon ditched the dogmatic austerity imposed by the European Commission and the IMF, going instead for an old-fashioned Keynesian fiscal stimulus, raising pensions and wages;after a year and a half, maybe surprisingly, Portugal is doing well. Continue reading

Effective treatment is contingent on accurate diagnosis

Western Europe due to an enormous influx of the Third-World people that has continued for decades is now a multicultural society. The Old Continent’s establishment wants to change the ethnic composition even more and makes no bones about it.

If we are told diversity is great, we may accept this proposition or dismiss it, but then we need to make an informed choice. Unfortunately, this question is highly emotionally laden and rather than look for facts, face them and then act on them, people generally shut their reasoning off and rely on wishful thinking from a never-never land. Problems can only be solved when accurately diagnosed or else we are doomed to grope in the dark and waste time and resources in an attempt to cure the social ills with an inadequate medicament; for inadequate it must be if it does not correspond to the disease at hand.

If we, Europeans, fall for the idea of being enriched by diversity, we must know what diversity really stands for. In order to learn what it stands for, we do not need to do social experiments: they have already been done in a variety of places in the world and throughout history. The United States is one good example as it is a multinational, multiracial country with a long history of integration, assimilation, and immigration. All we need to do is to learn from the experience of others. Only then can we make a decision whether or not we wish to follow in their footsteps.

Crime rates are one of the litmus tests whether or not a nation is healthy. The fact is that cohesive and prosperous societies have a low crime rate. Still, in the Western world nowadays it is generally not allowed to deal with the relation between ethnicity and crime. In 1987 a civil servant of the Amsterdam municipality mentioned that Moroccan youth delinquency was quite out of proportion to the percentage of that ethnicity in society. Many demanded his resignation, claiming his observations were racist. Still, the statistical evidence is too compelling to be ignored. Continue reading

An answer to Constanza Hermanin of Huffington Post and formerly of Open Society

Huffington Post recently posted in its blogging section an article,by Constanza Hermanin, professor at Science Po and the College of Europe and former Open Society’s senior officer, one of George Soros’s NGOs.

The Gefira Foundation was accused in the article of being “Eurosceptic, pro-Russian” and that the activities of NGOs in the Mediterranean as reported by Gefira was ‘’fake news’’.
We are taking the time to address the accusations:

    1. Euroscepticism: If Constanza Hermanin, whose curriculum boasts researching skills refined at Columbia University, UC Berkeley, Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, the European Commission among the others, had actually bothered making a quality research, she would have found out that the Gefira Foundation was set up by Franck Biancheri to promote European integration.Franck Biancheri himself, now deceased, was a champion of European integration and collaborator in the creation of the Erasmus Project.Promoting European integration however does not mean supporting the authoritarian and anti-democratic elements of the current European Union, in the form of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the weakness of the European Parliament, nor supporting policies and approaches that we believe, in a basic exercise of democracy, go against the interests and the will of European peoples, like austerity or the TTIP.

      In conclusion, the accusation of ‘’Euroscepticism’’ is unfounded, fruit of poor research and fake news.

    2. Pro-Russian: Gefira is pro-Europe, period. We analyze the policies of the European leadership and the choices in foreign policy and whether those bring positive or negative effects for Europe. The support of liberal interventionists, also known as neoconservative “regime changes” by the EU leadership has been disastrous and resulted in a trade war and refugee crisis, none of which benefits Europe in any way. If European integration is to succeed, it cannot be subordinate to the interests of the United States of America. The EU should be friends with the US, not vassals. That also does not make us “pro-Russian”.This accusation is therefore also unsubstantiated.
    3.  

      Much of our work is re-blogged without our consent. The opinions and views of the sites that quote us do not necessarily overlap with ours, so making accusations by referring to such sites is a typical example of creating guilt by association. We believe in their right to freely discuss our ideas.

    4. The conclusions of the Defence Commission on the NGO activities at Point 5 says: “The creation of humanitarian corridors by private subjects is not allowed in any way by the internal law or the international one, nor welcome, as it is exclusive competence of states, international or supranational organizations’’.The author obviously did not bother to address such conclusions.

      We nonetheless agree with the quoted position and would like to underline that immigration policies of a country should be decided democratically by the citizens of said country, not by foreign oligarchs and their NGOs like Open Society and its affiliates. It is certainly ironic and hypocritical that the author of the accusations against us is actually a former employee of the said NGOs.

    5.  

      It is also equally ironic that the article where the author is calling for an enquiry into fake news allegedly spread by Gefira is fraught with misinformation. Regardless, we believe in the very basic European principles of free press and free speech and we prefer confronting lies, like the ones Constanza Hermanin wrote, with facts, without requesting the Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” for permission.

    6. despite being asked twice by Senator Lucio Malan to refer to the Italian parliament about the content of the talks with Soros, Prime Minister Gentiloni has so far ignored the requests. It is certainly striking that the values of transparency of Soros’ open socities do not count when he is involved.

And when Turkey falls apart…

The West and especially the United States are bent on lending support to minorities, cost it what it may, even when in the future it turns out that such a policy causes more damage than profit.

Since the time when in November 2016 the Kurds launched an offensive against IS, Washington has been supporting the Syrian YPG (Yekîneyên Parastina Gel or People’s Protection Units). As President Obama has provided them with weapons, President Trump went a step further and has had a 5000-strong military base built in that region of Syria which is controlled by the Kurds.For President Erdoğan it is like a pain in the neck because the YPG can forward the munitions of war to the PKK.Paying a state visit to Washington Erdoğan is trying to dissuade Trump from the whole idea.The American generals have adopted a practical attitude to all this, though: who is there left that they might use as an ally in the war against IS and President Assad, when they have to intervene in Syria? The Turkish troops would have to cross the Kurdish-controlled regions. If the Americans decided to attack from the south, then they would expose themselves to Russian and pro-Assad (i.e. Iranian) forces. It is a fight over access to the Euphrates, Syria’s most important river, on whose banks the IS-occupied city of Rakka is located. This place could soon become the battleground where Syria’s fate might be decided, for once you have conquered Rakka, all of Syria is under your control. Continue reading