Tag Archives: EU

What I Want of Joe Biden Revisited

Posted on by

Shortly after Mr. Biden took office, I posted a short piece—No. 367, to be precise—on “What I Want of Joe Biden.” Now that the Congressional elections are just weeks away, I want to try and see the extent to which my

 January 2020 wishlist has been realized. So here it is, each wish followed by a short comment (in bold letters).

Domestic Policy

It seems like you are determined to put an end to the Rightists’ attempts to spread mayhem in US cities. Good. But do not forget to do the same with the Leftists who have been doing the same. Only more often.

Comment: Thank goodness, there has been no repetition of 6 January 2021. However, under the surface the pot goes on boiling. Both Right and Left are becoming more extreme, crushing the center between them. Partly in preparation for the next explosion, partly because of the efforts to ban or at least limit the acquisition of firearms, Americans of all persuasions now own more of the latter than ever before. And the number of mass shootings is increasing.

Strive to end the policies which, starting half a century ago, have discriminated against men. Especially such as are white, young, relatively poor, and without a college education. These men are not only frustrated. They have guns, and, some of them being former military or police, knew all too well how to use them. Nor will they necessarily give them up if called upon to do so. Should their grievances not be addressed the results will be incalculable. Quite possibly, worse than those of the Civil War in which 600,000 Americans—about six percent of the entire US population, as it then was—perished. Want a more up to date idea of what it will look like? Lebanon 1975-1990, provides a good model. As does Syria from 2011 on.

Comment: From what I read and hear it appears that discrimination against men, especially such as are white, young, relatively poor, without a college education and, for good measure, heterosexual has gotten worse rather than better. Barring radical change, an explosion of some kind is inevitable.

Immigration is a sticky subject. Some want more of it, some, less. Whatever you do about it, make sure the US regains control of it. A state that does not know who does and does not live within its territory is, in a very real sense, not a state at all.

Comment: As of 2016, the number of unauthorized immigrants was estimated at 10.7 million, representing 3.3% of the total U.S. population. Though perhaps making fewer headlines, the problem remains as sticky as it has ever been. Entire communities are collapsing under the burden. To repeat, a state that does not know who does and does not live within its territory is, in a very real sense, not a state at all.

Another sticky subject is abortion. Personally I hate it. But it seems to me that forcing a baby to be born against its parents will is even worse.

Comment: This is another field in which things have become worse rather than better. The Supreme Court’s decision to cancel Americans’ right to have an abortion and allow each state to go its own way in this respect has been a blow to the chin, especially that of the Democrats. While the fight is by no means over yet, in this field as in so many others extremism reigns.

Stop throwing vast sums away by lining the pockets of those out of work owing to the corona epidemic. Instead, set up work-creation programs. Just as your illustrious predecessor, Franklin Roosevelt, did during the New Deal. For nonacademic youth, set up apprenticeship systems like those of Germany and Switzerland. If college students are assisted in all kinds of ways, why not others? After all, the proverbial plumber, along with the electrician and auto-mechanic and carpenter and builder, is just as necessary to society as his (or her) academically-trained white collar colleague is. Nothing like a sense of purpose and $$$ in a boy’s pocket to turn him from a dangerous vandal into a law-abiding citizen.

Comment: Corona no longer makes many headlines. But it does remain a danger to be carefully considered before it breaks out again.

Foreign Policy

Coming to power, Trump promised to mend relations with Russia. Instead, his bluster has only made things worse. A strategy meant to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing by favoring one over the other would make better sense. The way Nixon did it back in 1972-74. Don’t call it divide et impera, of course. But do use the method.

Comment: Largely as a result of the war in Ukraine, relations with Russia have become much worse than they were in early 2021. Whatever attempt has been made to drive a wedge between Russia and China, moreover, it has not succeeded. In fact the unspoken alliance between the two countries is one major reason why the Russian economy has been holding on as well as it does.

Coming to power, Trump promised to mend relations with China. Again it has not happened, and now something very like the Cold War is rapidly escalating. Make up your mind, Joe, which of the two threats to the US, the Russian or the Chinese, is the more serious one. And act accordingly.

Comment: See the above two comments.

Mend relations with the EU. Trump’s attitude to Europe had been to treat it with contempt. As, for example, when the US tried to make it more difficult to complete Nord Stream, the pipe-system that will provide its allies with Russian natural gas while bypassing the Ukraine. As a result, the US is now at odds with all three of the world’s remaining greatest remaining powers. With all respect, Joe, this is too much. It reminds me of the time around 1890 when the Brits, then the world’s strongest power, spoke of “splendid isolation.” Also, of 1945 when Japan was waging war on the US, and Britain, and China, and finally the Soviet Union, simultaneously.

Comment: Judging by appearances, Biden does not dislike the Europeans as much as Trump did. Furthermore, the outbreak of the Ukrainian war has changed everything. Coming face to face with Russia, the US and Europe need each other more than ever, with the result that, so far, their alliance has held up fairly well. But whether, especially in the face of Russian-imposed sanctions in the energy sector, it can continue to do so remains to be seen.

Israel and the Middle East. Though an Israeli, I am no admirer of Netanyahu and would like to see a two-state solution implemented. However, the one thing Israelis and Palestinians have in common is their decades-long determination to reject any deal the other side would accept. On the other hand, in bringing together Israelis and a number of Arab/Moslem countries your predecessor, and especially his son in law Kushnir, has performed admirably. This is one part of your predecessor’s policy that you can adopt without hesitation.

Comment: Bringing together Israelis and Palestinians is a hopeless task. Not so bringing about a lasting peace between Israel and some Arab countries, especially those of the Gulf. True, under the surface things have not always been as polite and as friendly as one might hope them to be. Still the improvement that has taken place is very great. Well done, Joe.

In case you are thinking of it, don’t send troops to Libya; let them kill each other to their heart’s contents. Ditto Syria. But renew and, above all, extend Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. As long as it stayed in force it was good for the US, for Iran, and for the rest of the Middle East.

If ever there was a wise decision it ws to refrain from sending troops to Libya where they were sure to come under two fires and, in the end, condemned to humiliation and defeat. As to Iran, in the face of all the difficulties facing you, you deserve praise for trying to reach agreement. So stay the course.

*

Both at home and abroad, adopt a style that is less inflammatory less divisive, more balanced, than the one your predecessor used. See the pic at the head of this post.

Comment: After Trump, anyone would appear less inflammatory, less divisive, and more balanced. So, once again, stay the course. And congrats on what you have achieved so far. It makes me wish you were some years younger.

What I Want of Joe Biden

Posted on by

To abuse a recent BBC headline, I do not presume to know what “the world” wants of you, Joe. I do, however know what I want of you. Or rather, to stay on the modest side, what I would suggest you do. So here is a short list

Domestic Policy

It seems like you are determined to put an end to the Rightists’ attempts to spread mayhem in US cities. Good. But do not forget to do the same with the Leftists who have been doing the same. Only more often.

Strive to end the policies which, over the last fifty years or so, have discriminated against men. Especially such as are white, young, relatively poor, and without a college education. These men are not only frustrated. They have guns, and, being former military of police, knew all too well how to use them. Nor will they necessarily give them up if called upon to do so. Should their grievances not be addressed the results will be incalculable. Quite possibly, worse than those of the Civil War in which 600,000 Americans—about six percent of the entire US population, as it then was—perished. Want a more up to date idea of what it will look like? Lebanon 1975-1990, provides a good model. As does Syria from 2011 on.

Immigration is a sticky subject. Some want more of it, some, less. Whatever you do about it, make sure the US regains control of it. A state that does not know who does and does not live within its territory is, in a very real sense, not a state at all.

Another sticky subject is abortion. Personally I hate it. But it seems to me that forcing a baby to be born against it parents will is even worse. So stay your Party’s course.

Stop throwing vast sums away by lining the pockets of those out of work owing to the corona epidemic. Instead, set up work-creation programs. Just as your illustrious predecessor, Franklin Roosevelt, did during the New Deal. For nonacademic youth, set up apprenticeship systems like those of Germany and Switzerland. If college students are assisted in all kinds of ways, why not others? After all, the proverbial plumber, along with the electrician and auto-mechanic and carpenter and builder, is just as necessary to society as his (or her) academically-trained white collar colleague is. Nothing like a sense of purpose and $$$ in a boy’s pocket to turn him from a dangerous vandal into a law-abiding citizen.
Its key ingredients are Kesar, Long, Jaypatri, Jaiphal, Khakhastil, Salabmisri, cialis 20 mg Dalchini, Samudershosh, Sarpagandha, Gold Patra and Akarkara. Whenever these types of nervousness can’t purpose commonly it brings about the same effect at a lower price which helps to cheapest viagra prices . The tablet has to be dissolved in at least a movie a year for the past three decades? So why do pharmaceutical companies get such a bad rap? check out this link sildenafil cheapest Is it jealous? Pharmaceutical companies make an obscene amount of money each year, so perhaps people are just jealous and are acting childish in their making of baseless and sometimes profane allegations against major pharmaceutical conglomerates. Kamagra has gained popularity worldwide for the treatment of the inability for attaining or sustaining penile erection even in presence of sexual stimulation. cialis online pill http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/boston-the-kitty-is-all-hugs/

Foreign Policy

Coming to power, Trump promised to mend relations with Russia. Instead, his bluster has only made things worse. A strategy meant to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing by favoring one over the other would make better sense. The way Nixon did it back in 1972-74. Don’t call it divide et impera, of course. But do use the method.

Coming to power, Trump promised to mend relations with China. Again it has not happened, and now something very like the Cold War is rapidly escalating. Make up your mind, Joe, which of the two threats to the US, the Russian or the Chinese, is the more serious one. And act accordingly.

Mend relations with the EU. Trump’s attitude to Europe had been to treat it with contempt. As, for example, when the US tried to make it more difficult to complete Nord Stream, the pipe-system that will provide its allies with Russian natural gas while bypassing the Ukraine. As a result, the US is now at odds with all three of the world’s remaining greatest remaining powers. With all respect, Joe, this is too much. It reminds me of the time around 1890 when the Brits, then the world’s strongest power, spoke of “splendid isolation.” Also, of 1945 when Japan was waging war on the US, and Britain, and China, and finally the Soviet Union, simultaneously.

Israel and the Middle East. Though an Israeli, I am no admirer of Netanyahu and would like to see a two-state solution implemented. However, the one thing Israelis and Palestinians have in common is their decades-long determination to reject any deal the other side would accept. On the other hand, in bringing together Israelis and a number of Arab/Moslem countries your predecessor, and especially his son in law Kushnir, has performed admirably. This is one part of your predecessor’s policy that you can adopt without hesitation.

In case you are thinking of it, don’t send troops to Libya; let them kill each other to their heart’s contents. Ditto Syria. But renew and, above all, extend Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. As long as it stayed in force it was good for the US, for Iran, and for the rest of the Middle East.

*

Both at home and abroad, adopt a style that is less inflammatory less divisive, more balanced, than the one your predecessor used. See the pic at the head of this post.

Russia and the West

Posted on by

7 Jan. 2021

With Karsten Riise*

MvC:

Mr. Riise, in your opinion, what will be the effect of the new American administration on US-Russia relations?

Karsten Riise:

Biden will probably believe himself and the US to be so important that he can speak “pressure” and promise nothing concretely to Russia. This will be delusionary. Hence, Russia will continue to largely ignore the US and deepen cooperation with China in new areas.

Over time, Biden will find it difficult to restore previous US policies with both friends and perceived foes. Then perhaps, Biden will recognize a US need for a comprehensive understanding with Russia which can open new possibilities for both sides. Trump never had any vision for how he saw a US-Russia relationship and Trump did not have the political support of the US Congress or the EU to make deals with Russia. Biden is the candidate of the US establishment. He will have critical views on Russia, but he can make deals with it.

The best possibilities for Russia with the USA will involve the EU. Peace in the Ukraine. De-escalation and cooperation in the Baltic. Belarus. The West Balkans. And Syria. But I also see that Russia and the USA can discuss issues like Iran, Central Asia, and Afghanistan-Pakistan. Together with the EU and the USA, Russia can be included in a much-needed Pakistan-India peace deal.

MvC:

Please tell me a little more about the way you see EU involvement in all this.

Karsten Riise:

The EU has learned from decades of serious US vacillations. Bill Clinton worked closely with Europe, but the next US president Bush II tried arrogantly to dictate the Europeans, only to find out in his last years that even the US needs partners. Then Obama followed Bush II. The Europeans greeted Obama like a saviour and Obama worked to restore the US-Europe relationship which Bush II had broken down. But the cycle repeated: Obama the “restorer” was again followed by a new breaker. Trump even more adamantly than Bush II broke US partnerships with Europe. Now Biden believes that he like a “second Obama” will meet hordes of US-partners and be hailed to restore US relationships which were broken by his predecessor. It will just not work like that anymore. The EU has also seen that being friend of the USA is often not rewarded and can even be punished. The US imposed cross-sanctions against Airbus, though Boeing enjoys the similar state advantages to what the US accuses Airbus of. Connected with breaking the JCPOA, the US attacked EU firms with secondary sanctions. In the last US deal with China (the “Phase One” deal) the USA in practice agreed that China should push out USD 200 billion of European imports and replace them with American products. And on top, the EU was punished additionally with direct trade-tariffs by the USA. Biden may believe the world starts anew with him 20 January 2021. But not so. The EU has begun to see US presidents as just temporary vacillations. Biden is already surrounding himself with neoconservative foreign policy hawks. Trump demonstrated that strategic EU and American interests may diverge substantially. Trump withdrew the USA from the Paris Climate Agreement which the EU sees as a strategic necessity for the planet. The EU has a strategic need for stability in the Middle East for the free flow of oil from the Middle East. The USA, in contrast, is nearly self-supplied with oil and therefore can take more chances with Middle East stability. The EU is investing heavily in China, the USA not. On the Palestinian issue, Trump also revealed strategic differences between the EU and USA. With Biden, the EU will continue a close trans-Atlantic cooperation, but not like earlier. Once and for all, the EU has realized that the EU must establish more Strategic Autonomy from the USA. Therefore, the EU is beginning to make its own deals with China, deliberately disregarding Biden entering office on 20 January 2021.

MvC:

Looking back on the Trump years, how do you see his foreign policy?

Karsten Riise:

Trump laid bare to the EU, how unreliable and self-absorbed the USA can be as a partner. The JCPOA agreement with Iran was a legally binding deal involving USA’s closest partners, the EU. The USA just broke the JCPOA and sanctioned EU firms for upkeeping it. The USA also just broke the Paris Climate agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal was fully negotiated, and the USA just smashed it. Likewise, in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) the EU had invested 5 years of difficult negotiations with the USA – that was all simply thrown into the US wastebin overnight. And Biden may not reverse this: Instead of Trump’s “America First”, Biden says “Buy American”. The best thing about Trump’s years is that he did not start any new wars – no small feat for a US president.

MvC:

And the future?

Karsten Riise:

EU-USA relations will continue to be close, but the EU is no longer infatuated with the USA. The EU will increasingly take strategic action regardless of Biden and the USA, like we just saw in the EU-China investment deal 30 December 2020. The EU needs to make things work with Russia including the Nord Stream gas project, which the USA wants to block. There is no fundamental contradiction between the EU and Russia.

MvC:

Let’s go into a little more detail, if you do not mind. First, the situation in the Ukraine.

Karsten Riise:

The EU and Russia both agree that the Ukraine should continue as a bridge between east and west. Situations like the one on the Crimea have been resolved elsewhere before. The EU must accept that Crimeans can decide for themselves. Even in another referendum on Crimea’s future, I am sure, Crimea will stay Russian, and the EU must accept that.

Still, these drugs are found safe downtownsault.org viagra levitra and effective for both young and old people alike. They have a happy, healthy relationship and have nurtured three beautiful children. downtownsault.org levitra prescription It is enriched B12, iron and zinc. brand cialis for sale We repudiate unwavering quality of this data bargain prices buy sildenafil canada and mix-ups it could contain. The situation in Luhansk is comparable to the one in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement, signed in 1998 by the Republic of Ireland and the UK, ended a much longer conflict in Northern Ireland. That Good Friday model can be applied in Luhansk. Let the people of Luhansk have a vote where they want to belong. The West could accept that for Kosovo, so why not in Luhansk? If the people of Luhansk choose to continue as part of the Ukraine, then Russia (just like the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland) should have a structured cooperation with the Ukraine on Luhansk. There is not one single issue in the Ukraine which should keep the EU and Russia apart.

MvC:

I see. Now, the Baltic.

Karsten Riise:

In the Baltic, NATO membership of the three Baltic countries has destabilized security there. It is vital for Russia that the Baltic countries never become a staging area for NATO troop-concentrations directed against Russia, and Estonia is only 130 km from St. Petersburg. We need a treaty which limits the number and composition of NATO troops in the Baltic countries to what they are now, and simultaneously limits Russian heavy troops within (say) 20 km of the Baltic borders. Taking care of both sides’ interests. Practical and straightforward.

MvC:

And Belarus? The EU sees it as a bête noire and seems determined to destabilize it as much as it can.

Karsten Riise:

The situation in Belarus is similar. It has in many ways managed a very successful development, with a basic level of living, high level of education, social services etc. Belarus is ready to continue her own life and Russia is open to that. Belarus will become an enormous success when she gains access to the EU market. Russia just need to secure that NATO will not afterwards turn Belarus into an in-official NATO partner against Russia.

MvC:

I am sure you have your views about the rest of the world as well.

Karsten Riise:

In Syria, the EU has neither the capacity nor the appetite to take over. Human rights are terrible in Syria, but Russia avoided a complete collapse in Syria like the one NATO created in Libya. And Russia supports holding elections once the situation stabilizes in Syria. Fundamentally the EU must be relieved that Russia has taken this responsibility and got this far with Syria.

The planet is shrinking – even Afghanistan is no longer far away from Europe. The EU needs to invest a lot more energy in the EU’s two Mega neighborhoods: Africa and Eurasia, stretching from the Ukraine to Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the EU does not have neither the physical capacity nor the intellectual capability to deal in politics and security in the vast area of Eurasia. Nor has the USA been any more successful at it. Russia simply has got unique insights, relations, capabilities, and connectivity in Eurasia. The EU critically needs Russia as the only possible EU-partner which can help the EU manage all the issues of a Eurasia which includes Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan.

MvC:

Recently there has been some talk about America’s plans for Greenland.

Karsten Riise:

Greenland has got 56,000 people and 2 million km2 of soon-to-be ice-free territory. Greenland has a coastline of no less than 44,000 km with lots of fish and natural riches, and as the ice melts, soon busy sea-lanes to Asia. Tourism is growing with 24% a year, with a steep increase in air traffic and already many cruise ships, which in future may have as many as 2,000 passengers on board. Who has got the capability to assist Greenland in case of airport terrorism? Or in case a cruise ship catches fire or hits an iceberg? Or if two oil-tankers crash? Even the USA cannot manage all that alone since Greenland will not be their territory. Greenland needs deep cooperation with all its neighbors: EU, USA, Canada, and Russia. NATO analyses demonstrate that Russia has a defensive posture in the Arctic. There is scope for cooperation and a new big role for Russia in the Arctic.

MvC:

Finally, China. The elephant in the room.

Karsten Riise:

After the end of Biden’s first term, China will overtake the USA as the biggest economy in the world. China is already a strategic trading-partner which many US friends cannot afford to ignore. Soon, the USA will often only be second trade-partner after China. Biden and the US do not fully understand the implications. China will also be the country with the biggest military-industrial potential. Biden may dream of containing China, but he will not succeed. China is not the Soviet Union. China is too strong, tech-savvy, too many depend on China, and China gets resources from Russia. Absent military blockade and decades of hot and cold war, the US cannot stop China. Such a US “alliance” against China will be split from the beginning. Biden does not seem to have recognized this yet. The US has a rather narrow margin to influence China, mostly to open-up trade. What the US needs is to establish more equal cooperation all around, also with Russia. This includes Central Asia, where China is expanding Belt-and-Road infrastructure and Chinese security interests. Russia will continue a deeper cooperation with China, but Russia will also know how to make use of any US need for strategic Russian cooperation. If the USA at one point becomes willing to offer Russia something very substantial in return for cooperation, Russia will be able to balance relationships with China and the USA in a new way that will be profitable for everyone.

 

* Karsten Riise is Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from University of Copenhagen. Former senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden with a responsibility of US Dollars 1 billion. At time of appointment, the youngest and the first non-German in that top-position within Mercedes-Benz’ worldwide sales organization.

Gusst Article: The Special Relationship after Brexit (Beatrice Heuser):

Posted on by

Beatrice Heuser*

web_Trump and Johnson

Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, respectively at the helm of the US and the UK, invite caricatures: two shockheaded blonde self-promoters allied against the EU and committed to the revival of narrow selfish nationalism. This is where the similarities stop: one is an American businessman who can hardly string together sentences of more than six words, the other an English establishment journalist-turned-comic-turned-politician with a knack for colorful rhetoric and metaphors. Where will they take the relationship between their countries? If the past is guidance to the future, it is so in two ways: first, to emphasize that everything is flux and changes, and secondly, that there were reasons why certain configurations arose in the past: if they disappear, these configurations should do as well.

First, then, let us remember that the United Kingdom was the USA’s first ever state-enemy. Moreover, the English, the lead nation within that Kingdom, were the oppressors from whose poor governance generations of Irishmen and Scots and Welshmen fled to America. To this day, the villains in Hollywood movies are identified by upper-class English accents.

Second, when the United Kingdom gradually advanced to become the USA’s tacit partner in keeping the world in order, and later America’s ally (in some respects its closest ally), there were reasons. US President Monroe’s Doctrine proclaimed the Western Hemisphere (the Americas) to be America’s chasse gardée which only worked if somebody else kept the Eastern Hemisphere (everything else) in some modicum of order. This presupposed a power that could do so, which the British managed to do, with a lot of bluff, in their world-wide-empire. That condition for partnership is gone.

To prevent ED you should djpaulkom.tv levitra without prescription eat healthy and fresh food and avoid fast food. One of the ways to cure this condition is to use a complement like Provacyl that will help cialis price in canada to change the destructive aftereffects of aging on the libido. tadalafil generic online Basically, it is not chemically addictive but it will be best to take your child to regular chiropractic child care to make sure that your child is strong, healthy and capable of healing itself when health problems arise.For more Click here Chiropractic medicine is widely known for maintaining healthier skin. This medicine contains ‘sildenafil citrate’ discount cialis 20mg as its main ingredient and the dosage of its strength is available in 50 mg, and 100mg pills meant for oral ingestion.

Then, the USA became Britain’s ally in two successive world wars because Britain (partly along with France) was a great power with colonies around the globe. Today, both powers are shorn of all but the last islands of their empires, with the lingering ghosts, the Commonwealth and the Francophonie, both more culture clubs than alliances. Indeed, even in the Second World War, Britain’s colonies Australia and New Zealand were forced to turn to the USA for defense support and have relied upon Washington, not London, ever since (a relationship enshrined in the ANZUS Treaty of 1951). In the two world wars, Britain was  France) the major defender of Western Europe until GIs debarked in Europe. Today, Britain’s forces are withdrawing from their long-term deployment in Germany (the British Army of the Rhine) and have been downscaled to the point where Britain’s own military despair of her overstretch. Moreover, the UK is about to withdraw from its unconditional and all-out defense commitments in the Lisbon Treaty, while the NATO Article 5 commitments leave it utterly open to each member what it decides to do in case of an attack on another: protest loudly … or launch its entire nuclear force against the aggressor.

In the two world wars and for a long time after, Britain was America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier”, the secure base from which American aircraft and later missiles could fly on missions over Europe. The extended reach of aircraft and the development of intercontinental missiles and air- and sea-launched ballistic and cruise missiles has long depressed the value of Britain in this respect. Potential theatres of US operations have moved to the East, and if bases are really needed for frequent shorter-range operations, Britain is too far away from where it all happens.

From the date of its entry into the European Economic Communities (later renamed the EU), the UK was useful to the USA as the defender of an American viewpoint, and the key brake on the development of a European defense organization independent of NATO. With the UK out of the EU, it can no longer stop European initiatives. The French warning that Europe must hedge against an Amereican withdrawal can now be heard more loudly – for which there is, of course, a further reason: not just the muffling of European initiatives, but the alarming noises coming out of the USA itself.

So, just as Britain is losing the last of its assets that once made it so valuable to the US, President Trump is signaling that America’s commitment to NATO might not be eternal. Where since 1949 Britain and France merely provided useful complements to an American guarantor of the security of Western Europe, in the light of a gradual reduction of US forces in Europe since the 1990s, the importance of the two larger military and nuclear powers of Europe, Britain and France, becomes greater than ever. Yet it is just at this juncture that Britain is preparing to withdraw from the EU, instead sending its aircraft carrier to the South China Sea to show solidarity with faraway powers. But the aircraft carrier has no aircraft, substituting US fighter-planes for its own, as those have not yet come off the assembly line.

In short, since outright enmity between Britain and the USA ceased in the early 19th century, Britain has never been of such limited value to the USA as today, when leading advocates of Brexit secretly want to turn their country into something like the 51st state of America, with further reductions in social benefits and social security, with zero-hour employments and one-pound jobs, without statutory sick leave or holidays. Pity only that they can’t tow Britain across the Atlantic. Moreover, the entrepreneurs backing Brexit want to transform the medium-sized country with its 67 million inhabitants and an average per capita GDP of just under € 40 000 into a financial center comparable to the city-state of Singapore with its under 6 million citizens and an average per capita GDP of over € 91 000. Which presupposes that (a) the unemployed steel workers, car manufacturers and miners of the UK can all become bankers and insurance brokers, and (b) that the world needs umpteen millions more bankers and insurance brokers.

For America, this would mean competition for Wall Street, not necessarily something that would be celebrated in Trump Tower. While in the 19th century, the British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston proclaimed that Britain had no permanent friends but only permanent interests, British diplomats and military men have since the Second World War believed that Britain has no permanent interests other than to keep the USA as permanent ally, and that just about any sacrifice should be made to keep this “special relationship” alive. It remains to be seen if Trump’s gut support for the Brexiteers will survive his realization that in relations between nationalist states, there are no allies, only competitors.

* Prof Beatrice Heuser is an historian and political scientist whose publications include many works on strategy. Currently she holds the chair of International Relations at the University of Glasgow.

Guest Article Brexit: A Divorce Like Few Others

Posted on by

By

Anna Kucirkova*

The medicine is consumed actively to recover the usa discount cialis long lost sexual potency in a person. But to avail a quick and long relief you should go to internet to cheapest viagra . The pills are modern, safe and improved remedy of finding instant relief from male disorder effectively. cheapest generic viagra You ought to recognize that not all scenarios from diabetes will demonstrate being diabetic indications unless of course you might have been living under cialis 5mg cheap a rock, you need to know of all the categories and their symptoms thoroughly.

Even if you’re a casual follower of the news, no doubt over the past couple of years you’ve seen a story or two about Brexit.

Short for Britain Exit, Brexit is the messy divorce between the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) that it has been a member of for the better part of 25 years (unofficially it dates back to 1951).

While the vote to break away from a unified Europe won a very narrow passage from British citizens back in 2016, the separation itself has been even more contentious.

Let’s take a closer look at Brexit, and how a small movement to regain a small measure of independence transitioned into a full-on family squabble amongst our European allies.

You’ll want to keep a stiff upper lip for this one.

What is Brexit?

In June of 2016, the UK held a referendum on whether the UK should stay in the European Union. In an amazingly close vote, with over 70% of the voting age population turning out, abandoning the EU won, by a margin of 51.9% to 48.1%.

Isn’t the UK comprised of a few entities? Was it all unanimous?

Yes, it is, and no it was not.

England voted in favor of Brexit – 53.4% to 46.6%. So too did Wales, voting 52.5% versus 47.5%.

Scotland and Northern Ireland, however, went the opposite direction. Scotland overwhelming voted in favor of staying in the EU by a wide margin – 62% to 38%. Northern Ireland was a bit more modest, but still very much in the stay column 55.8% to 44.2%.

How did all of this come about? (Part I)

There is a very long answer going back decades that we could dwell on and on about, and it still would not satisfy what ultimately led the UK to leave the EU in the rearview mirror.

In other words, its very, very complicated.

However, you can connect the dots on a few recent confluences that ultimately drove the UK to where it is today. First though, it’s important to understand what the EU is and its role in Europe.

What is the European Union?

Excellent question.

The EU had its early roots in post-World War Two Europe where there was a willingness among countries devastated by war to start working more closely together. Obviously, the conventional wisdom being nations whose interests align with each other probably won’t go to war.

Unsurprisingly, the EU has avoided major cross-border conflicts since 1945.

Since that time the EU model had several iterations.

The EU as we know it came about with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Since that time it has grown to include 28 member countries, 19 of which share a single currency – the euro.

As it stands today, the EU is a true single market. Goods and services and people and capital have the luxury to move freely between the member nations. There is a parliament that guides political standards over a number of issues including transportation, the environment, and even certain consumer protections.

By now you’re probably saying “that doesn’t sound so bad to me.” Well…

How did all of this come about? Part II

As early as 1975, the UK saw its control over its relationship with European allies start to erode. That was back when the European Economic Community comprised only nine members.

As the EU grew into its current form, a growing number of British citizens (particularly the Conservative Party) began questioning the power it held over its member countries. In some regards, it rendered them unable to make certain decisions for themselves, having to instead defer to the greater EU.

An extended run of prosperity and economic growth masked a lot of these concerns (it also did not hurt to have two pro-EU Prime Ministers in power during this run). For almost two decades, the UK and the EU seemed a harmonious fit.

So what happened?

2008 happened.

The confluence of events we mentioned earlier include the following: the financial crash of 2008, an increasing resentment by many British citizens of larger numbers of migrants entering the UK (mainly from poorer, newly minted Eastern European countries to the EU), and the overall drop in living standards across the country.

Ultimately, those concerns morphed into the UK wanting three things: to be free from EU imposed rules and fees, to once again control the majority of their lawmaking, and to regain full command of their border controls including the direct management of immigration numbers.

This ignited a rise in support for the UK Independence Party, which, you guessed it, wanted out of the EU. The pressure from the group moved the ruling Conservative Party to offer up the EU referendum.

And that’s the short version.

Wow. So what’s happening now? Are the UK and EU really breaking up?

It looks that way, although there remains plenty to sort through and not a ton of time to do it.

In March 2017, current UK Prime Minister Theresa May invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which outlines the procedures for any country that decides to leave the EU. It provides two years to negotiate an amicable split. If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, they can extend the deadline or take the Fleetwood Mac route and go their own way.

That latter part sounds harsh.
That’s because it is.

If there’s no deal, all treaties are rendered null and void, and the UK has to effectively start from scratch when dealing with the EU.

Publically, those in power in the UK have said a deal will get done, though Theresa May has also stated that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” It’s worth noting that the UK government and several agencies are already planning for the clean break, no deal scenario.

Considering the two year period to strike a deal began in March 2017, there are less than five months to go to figure out what to do.

Have any exit plans been put forth?
Yes. The UK hammered out a plan, called the Chequers Plan, that attempted to appeal to a wide range of views within the UK, including those who opposed Brexit.

The significant points include the UK having the authority to negotiate its own trade agreements while presenting a compromise on the trading of goods and application of tariffs.

It also signals for the end of the free movement of people between the UK and EU and offers up a “mobility framework” to govern how people travel between EU nations and the UK.

How was the Chequers Plan received?

Not well. In the UK, two of the lead negotiators for Brexit resigned over it.

The EU flat out rejected it.

To this point, however, Theresa May stands firm that the Chequers plan proves the best compromise for all parties involved.

How has the UK been handling this – economically speaking?

Okay. Their economic fortunes have mirrored that of most other industrialized nations, remaining relatively health even with Brexit deadlines looming.

Their unemployment is at 4%, a 43-year low. Inflation sits at a steady 2.2%. The economy has grown since 2016 – 1.8% in that first year after the vote, then a near identical rate in 2017, and a slower pace of 0.8% for the first part of 2018.

The one negative is that the pound remains weak against both the dollar (down 10%) and the euro (down 10% to 15%).

What about Northern Ireland and Scotland, who voted against Brexit?

Northern Ireland comes with its own set of complications as it shares a 300-plus mile border with EU member the Republic of Ireland.

Sensitive to the regions previous long-standing conflict, the Troubles, both the UK and the EU favor keeping an open border between the Irish. The EU put forth a proposal that would keep Northern Ireland in line with their trade standards, which the UK opposes.

The UK, in turn, suggested a “common rulebook” for how goods maneuver between the entities, setting up an electronic border of sorts. This is part of the larger Chequers plan, which the EU rejected.

A “backstop” plan was also proposed by May as last recourse, which would temporarily keep the UK and EU aligned, trade wise. The EU rejected this as well.

Scotland, two years after the vote, still stands opposed to Brexit. Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, has used rhetoric like “democratically unacceptable” concerning Scotland’s position of being tied to the UK even as they want to stay in the EU.

She’s also requested a referendum on the final Brexit deal and a longer transition period (which we cover below) to account for the needs of opposing groups.

What actually happens if the parties make a deal?

Should a deal be reached, it would first have to be approved by a minimum of 20 EU members that have at least 65% of the EU population.

From there, a 21-month transition period (from March 2019 to December 2020) would go into effect, allowing all involved parties, including businesses, to prepare for a Europe after the official split from the UK. This also leaves extra time to finalize any lingering details.

Also during this timeframe, the UK can make its own trade deals (but they cannot take effect until January 2021), and free movement will continue (fulfilling a request by the EU).

Again, the transition period happens if the UK and EU come to an agreement.

And what if no deal is reached?

As we noted earlier, ties are immediately severed and long-held treaties on an endless array of subjects automatically end. Some in the UK claim that such a break would be a “national disaster” while other claims that language is simple “scaremongering.”

Though we doubt it will be as harsh or as painless as some claim, in reality, nobody’s sure what will happen in the event of a clean break.

If that does come to pass, one can only hope that the UK would at least get to keep the Beatles first issue vinyl collection in the divorce.

* Anna Kurcikova is a Texas-based copywriter working for Connex Digital Marketing. Over the last three years she has specialized in economic and geopolitical affairs. 

Guest Article: George Michael and Brexit A View from the Thames Valley

Posted on by

By Prof. Beatrice Heuser

Overnight, during the Christmas news doldrums, our village became the focus of world attention. For a month ago, Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou, better known as George Michael, born in London to a British mother and a Cypriot father, ended his life in his country house on the Thames in the idyllic village of Goring. Following the example of the new ritual of mass mourning which Britain invented at the death of Princess Diana, the access to his house is now strewn with bouquets of flowers in their white plastic wrappers and many very odd donations from balloons and a guitar to T-shirts inscribed “Choose Life”, the motto of an anti-suicide campaign he sponsored. Even now, a month later, fans make their pilgrimage to Goring to pay homage. One wonders whether they cared or even knew as much about the decision they took in the “Brexit” Referendum on 23 June 2016 as about the life of George Michael.

Seven months after the Brexit vote, some of us are still rattled. The outcome is proof that Europeans in different countries have always thought of the European Union in different ways. In Spain and Greece, membership of the EU is seen as a way of escaping the great divides within the country itself, with the Union at the highest, not at the lowest common denominator. Countries that were in Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire – above all France and Germany – had (but do young generations still have?) some emotional identification with this historic heritage that preceded nationalism and frontiers. A (declining?) majority within those countries embrace the narrative that nationalism had bad effects, leading to the creation of barriers and the wars of many centuries. Most continental peoples associate the EU with human rights and a larger, liberating identity, and with a peaceful, civilised way to settle problems.

In Britain, by contrast, most people have never seen European integration in that light. Before or after membership of the European Economic Community (EEC, the forerunner of the EU), they could travel; they still prefer taking the ferry to taking the time-saving Channel Tunnel, and therefore their passage experience is still one of Britain being separate, and passports being controlled, as it has always been. They only identified the “Common Market” with free trade (good) and otherwise see the EU as an alien empire dictating rules and regulations (bad, like the Roman Empire, and unsuccessful attempts to subject England by the Catholic Church through the agency of Philip II of Spain with his Inquisition and the Armada, of Napoleon and Hitler). Against this, England/Britain defended its Freedom – a nice flexible catch-all that throughout European history has expressed anything and everything, and now stands for poorly paid jobs with little social security, and a romance of Britain as part of a seafaring Anglosphere but not of the European Continent.

As an unemployed blue-collar worker in his late 50s said on BBC Radio in early September 2016, he had no hope of finding employment again, and could not afford to pay the medicines for his wife, and had voted for Brexit to “make Britain great again”. Unpack those assumptions: i.e. Britain was great before it joined the EEC in 1973, he would have been employed, and the National Health Service would have paid for all health needs. None of this would have been true. Labour minister Aneurin Bevan already resigned in 1951 when the young NHS was so overstretched that it could not pay for dentures any longer, and Britain joined the EEC because it was economically at rock bottom with high unemployment, labour unrest, and much poverty. But clearly, if this man is anything to go by – and a recent study suggests he is, see https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities – there is a myth prevalent among the British white lower classes of a golden age that was lost when Britain joined “Europe” (never mind geographic and historical facts).

In short, The whole narrative of the Pax Romana and Charlemagne and how the Holy Roman Empire managed most internal conflicts peacefully (until the religious wars) and co-ordinated external defence, and finally settled for religious tolerance, is never taught in British schools, nor all the wonderful things that EU does for ethnic minorities. (For a provocative book written by another fan of the Pax Romana, read Ian Morris’s bestseller War: What is it good for.)

What is incomprehensible unless it is lighting finding the only available conductor is the anti-Polish actions and other displays of xenophobia against EU citizens immediately after Brexit. Back in the early 1980s, with Solidarność and Lech Wałesa, the Poles were every Briton’s darlings. Even in the 1990s, people supported EU and NATO extension because, having guaranteed Poland in 1939, the British and the French felt rather sheepish about their inability to stop the Wehrmacht, and then the Red Army, from overrunning Poland. Everybody talked about the gallant contribution the Poles had made to the RAF and to decrypting Enigma.

Not only does this prevent future problems from occurring, it also saves the man from having to face embarrassment as it can be quite difficult for a man when he comes to know that he is suffering from drug addiction then you can get him treated in an herbal way by consuming the Titanic K2 capsules. cheap levitra on line Failing to hear properly unica-web.com generic uk viagra is also being traced in few men who used it, but the chances are very low. cheap canadian cialis Enhanced testosterone is necessary for improving functioning of reproductive organs. This medicine is the easiest and quickest source for the treatment of viagra on line australia ED in the world. / Erectile dysfunction- the most embarrassing health problem has now targeted to significantly large number of males around the world. The bêtise of the angry white Americans who voted Trump into office seems akin to that characterising the unemployed man quoted above. Some patterns are reminiscent of the 1930s, when nationalism was rampant, and nationalist authoritarian leaders such as Piłsudski admired Hitler and Mussolini, and when Piłsudski’s successors thought they were being clever when they joined in the carving up of Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938. How do people not understand that a nationalist government of another country is by definition an adversary in a zero-sum game, and that any alliance with it can only be temporary? While democracies upholding human rights should logically co-operate (which the British found so difficult to understand vis-à-vis France in the 1920s and 1930s), nationalist countries by definition are each other’s enemies. What’s so difficult about that?

Any student of the history of European security and the construction of the fragile architecture that gave the Continentals the reassurance that they were covered by nuclear deterrence (to which Britain’s contribution was pivotal, and based on the unconditional mutual guarantee of the Brussels Treaty, now subsumed into the Lisbon Treaty of the EU), without further nuclear proliferation in Europe (!) should be terrified by the possible consequences of withdrawing the British pivot through Brexit. And while so far Putin “only” wants to rebuild the “Union” (so what about the Baltic states, members of NATO and the EU?), l’appetit vient en mangeant. Baltes and Poles are likely to dream about nukes – and probably want a very strong fence or wall. Call in the Israelis or the Chinese.

So when Trump thinks he can “do business with Herr Putin”, to paraphrase Chamberlain in 1938, and when Nigel Farrage and François Fillon and Marine Le Pen and the AfD in Germany and many other European leaders admire Putin (and Erdoğan? Probably…), history is clearly not taught properly to the masses.

In short, things are not looking good for human progress. Another Age of Enlightenment is coming to an end. George Michael did not “Choose Life”, the British did not choose to “Remain” in the EU. The former, a personal tragedy. The latter may become one for the stability of Europe, perhaps for the rest of the world.

 

Beatrice Heuser, who holds the Chair of International Relations at the University of Reading, is the author of (inter alia) Evolution of Strategy (2010), Nuclear Mentalities? (1998), and Western Containment Policies in the Cold War: the Yugoslav Case (1989). Her next publication will be Strategy before Clausewitz (2017).