The EU in the Age of Geoolitics

 January 4, 2016

At the beginning of the year, it has become customary for ‘pundits’ to make predictions about forthcoming developments which might affect the global economy, elections in leading countries or international relations. From my part, I would like to take my readers back in time, in an attempt to make today’s armed conflicts around the world easier to understand.

This approach is all the more necessary as virtually all of today’s armed conflicts – in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iraq or Yemen – have geopolitics as a common denominator. Even ISIS has a clearcut geopolitical agenda of sorts, namely that of establishing an “Islamic caliphate” in territories snatched from war-torn Syria and Iraq. Taken together, these tensions and conflicts among ethnic, religious or military blocs have brought to an untimely end the era of globalization and ushered in the Age of Geopolitics. But where did it all start ?

Over the past sixty years, specialists and the European general public were led to believe that geopolitics died together with Nazi Germany and was replaced with the ideological confrontation between the capitalist and communist worlds commonly referred to as the Cold War. Yet by the 1970s, as the confrontation apparently led to a stalemate, geopolitical-type conflicts again started to prove their usefulness for policymakers intent on destabilizing their opponents’ camp.

In Europe, conflicts of a geopolitical nature were rekindled by stealth courtesy of the United States. Thus, during the seventies the Ceausescu regime, fearful of being axed by the Soviets following the Prague Spring, was encouraged to denounce the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and pushed some of the country’s historians into demanding the return of Bessarabia within Romanian borders. That geopolitical conflict is still very much alive today, with Romania, the EU and the Russian Federation involved in a tug-of-war confrontation over the future of the Republic of Moldova.

As it turned out, in the end the Soviets lost their post-WW II domination of Central and Eastern Europe following a decade of cooperation between the CIA and the Vatican – which led to the formation of the Solidarnosc trade union movement and the organization of free elections in Poland – and not as a result of the geopolitical, USA-backed proxy confrontation between the Ceausescu regime and Moscow.

Following the fall of the Berlin wall and the implosion of the Soviet Union, geopolitical conflicts have made a spectacular return to Europe, in Yugoslavia. The separation of Slovenia and Croatia, the two Catholic regions of the Yugoslav federation, is likely to have been requested to the Western alliance by the Vatican as a reward for its successful assistance in undermining the Soviet Union during the eighties. It is also very likely that US strategists did not in fact plan for the total destruction of the Yugoslav federation, but for a diminished one, after which Serbia could be allowed to control the remainder of the territory. As events unfolded, however, the Macedonians and Albanians also decided to secede, spelling the end of the Yugoslav state.

Since 2001, the US has openly embarked on a drive to stoke geopolitical conflicts in places around the world where it wanted to expand or consolidate its hegemony. In Europe this drive led to the 2004 colour revolutions in Ukraine, Moldova or Georgia, as well as the 2008 Georgian war, and culminated in 2014 with the toppling of the elected government of Ukraine by the CIA-backed Maidan movement.

In the Arab world, the US and some of its European allies like France and the UK gave full backing to armed groups involved in the fall of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, or in the civil war in Syria, sometimes in alliance with Saudi Arabia and/or Turkey. The Russians and the Chinese have either been largely neutral in these conflicts or have sided with the embattled Syrian regime, which for more than four years is fighting some of the most dangerous terrorist groups on the planet.

For the EU, the price to pay for the US’ post-cold war geopolitical forays in Eastern Europe and the Arab world is staggering.

Already affected by years of stagnation after the 2008 financial crisis, EU countries have lost tens of billions of euros in trade with Russia, following the Washington-dictated sanctions against this country which prompted the Russians to reply in kind. At least ten billion euros more is the likely cost for resettling the 1 million Syrian refugees within the EU, an amount that does not include the 3 billion euros promised by the European Commission to Turkey so far, in a futile effort to convince this country to stem the flow of Europe-bound refugees.

Geopolitics as a field of study can not only provide us with a better understanding of what is at stake in today’s conflicts, but also with some insights into what the future could bring.

In the Middle East, the Sunni-Shia confrontation between the region’s main powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran, is likely to continue for years to come. We are in all likelihood entitled to expect that the Alawite minority in Syria will establish its own separate state, as are the Kurds from northern Iraq and parts of today’s Syria, much to the chagrin of Turkey. The rest of the Syrian territory and possibly parts of Iraq will probably emerge as a new Sunni state entity, as sectarian conflicts will prevent the continued existence of Syria and Iraq in their current form.

For the European Union, Ukraine is poised to play the same role as Afghanistan in the demise of the Soviet Union. The unwise decision to back American neocon planners will thus backfire and hasten the EU’s own demise in the process. The main catalyst for its undoing are the nationalistic movements gaining in strength, from the UK and France in the West, to Hungary and Poland in Central and Eastern Europe. The continent is already back to barbed-wire fences not only in Ukraine, but also in Hungary, Austria and Germany – a trend that will mean the final collapse of the Schengen area in the following years, if not as early as 2016.

All these developments combined suggest one thing. Namely that, when compared to Russia, China or the United States, the European Union is the worst-equipped entity to survive in the age of geopolitics and deal with its consequences.

How NATO is Failing the EU

 December 3, 2015

The untrained observer could be forgiven for believing that NATO is still acting as a military and political organization dedicated to protecting the security of its members. Enlarging the organization with a less-than-significant member (militarily speaking) like Montenegro cannot, however, obscure NATO’s huge failure to adapt to today’s radically changed geopolitical and strategic landscape.
Headed in the past few years by Russia-obsessed officials hailing from European northern kingdoms (Rasmussen from Denmark or Stoltenberg from Norway), the alliance has failed to recognize that these days the biggest threat to the security of all NATO countries is represented by existing or emerging Islamic countries from the Middle East instead.
Nor did NATO reckon with the fact that, since 2002, the secular regime in Turkey was replaced by an Islamic one. This mega transformation of Turkish society – which is still ongoing – has ended up creating a serious security threat for the European Union as a whole, as illustrated by this year’s refugee crisis. Indeed, not only has Turkey failed to live up to its obligations as a NATO member, such as sealing its border with Syria, but over the past four years it has allowed tens of thousands of jihadi fighters from all over the world to cross the country and join ISIS. This year it has decided to allow hundreds of thousands of refugees on its territory to practically invade EU countries unhindered. One of Erdogan’s advisers, Burhan Kuzu, has even hailed Turkey’s latest exercise in extortion as a success for the AKP regime:

“The EU finally got Turkey’s message and opened its purse strings. What did we say? ‘We’ll open our borders and unleash all the Syrian refugees on you.”

For a number of years after 2002, I too believed that a moderate Islamic government in power in Turkey could make the country more politically stable and economically prosperous. Not anymore. The assistance – overt or covert – extended by the AKP regime to Islamists in Syria and elsewhere, the scandal of appointing Erdogan’s son-in-law as energy minister and his son as the head of another energy company ( as if Turkey was an oil-producing powerhouse), the savage repression of journalists, of the free press and of Turkish officials who are trying to uphold the rule of law within the country, have all finally contributed to convincing me that the AKP regime has outlived its usefulness for Turkey and for the NATO alliance, as well.
Undaunted, the current NATO leadership, with some behind the scenes assistance from American neo-cons, is trying to recycle expired Cold War policies and continue to depict Russia as the main enemy of the West. In so doing, the organization conclusively proves that it has become obsolete and useless when it comes to addressing major security threats affecting its members.
It is my belief that Turkey wouldn’t have dared shoot down a Russian aircraft – a jamais vu event in the Alliance’s history – if the country’s leaders had not been certain that anti-Russian bias at the top levels of NATO would prevail.

Still, instead of discussing Russia, NATO ministers would be well-advised to hold a special session dedicated to assessing Turkey’s continuing usefulness for the Alliance in the current strategic circumstances. In the light of this year’s developments, Turkey – NATO’s only Muslim member – has emerged as a dangerous ally and a questionable friend. In other words, instead of trying to evict Greece – Turkey’s main victim in the refugee crisis – from the Schengen area, it would definitely prove more useful to consider the suspension of Turkey from NATO command structures until such time as the AKP leadership could come clean on the issues of unchecked refugee migration to Europe, jihadi movements to and from Syria, shady oil dealings and the supply of weaponry to Islamic insurgents.

Turkey's Confused Geopolitics

 November 27, 2015

The downing of a Russian jet over Syria by the Turkish military brings to a sad conclusion a hitherto promising international relations agenda, whose author was none other than Ahmet Davutoglu, the current Turkish prime minister.

Only a few years ago, Davutoglu as Turkey’s foreign minister advanced a “zero problems with the neighbours” diplomatic agenda. Turkey’s economic and diplomatic relations with Moscow, meanwhile, had evolved from fair to excellent, as one would expect from two major Eurasian powers with similar development objectives and interests in the region spanning from Central Asia to the Middle East.

The two countries – Russia and Turkey – are neither European nor entirely Asian. They are neither rich nor poor and both have experienced problems with Islamic radicalism or outright terrorism. For a while, even in military terms, Turkey has tried a few years back to leave the Cold War-era NATO structures and seek admission within the SCO, the new up-and-coming security organization designed specifically for dealing with the challenges of the Eurasian region.

Not anymore. Since the war in Syria, the Turkish leadership’s geopolitical agenda got confused. Ankara’s ambition of exporting its Islamic brand of democracy to the Arab world, from Tunisia to Egypt or Syria, is now in shambles.

Internally, Turkey is nowadays a divided country as a result of the November 1st parliamentary elections that gave, nevertheless, the AK Party another mandate to stay in power a few years longer.

The 2002 victory of political Islam was a direct consequence of the failure of the Turkish brand of secularism to build a truly democratic and inclusive society. Subsequent efforts by the AKP to give Kurds more autonomy and recognize the rights of the Alevi religious minority have similarly failed, transforming Turkey into a reluctant and erratic NATO ally, a menacing neighbour for Greece and the European Union as a whole and, as of a few days ago, an enemy of Russia.

Undaunted, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has failed to see the error of his ways and is blindly pushing for a re-write of the Turkish constitution that would change the country from a parliamentary to a presidential republic which nobody seems to want, not even some leading figures within the AKP.

Since the war in Kosovo and the invasion of Iraq, the world has slowly abandoned globalization as a universal objective of economic and political development. What we are currently witnessing is the onset of the age of geopolitics, characterized by a plethora of civil wars, like in Syria, Iraq or Libya, and of proxy wars between military blocs, such as the one in Georgia (in 2008) or the present-day war in Ukraine, not to mention the conflict in Yemen and beyond in the Middle East.

In such troubled times, it is imperative for large countries like Turkey to articulate a revamped geopolitical agenda for its leadership. The further Islamization of Turkish society is definitely not the answer to its current predicament, while economic and military conflict with its much larger and much more powerful Eurasian neighbour Russia should have been avoided at all costs.

Moreover, being soft on ISIS, selling weapons and buying oil from them – a fact uncovered by both the American and the Russian intelligence establishments – will not bring about a quick demise of the Assad regime, as Ankara expected. As Vladimir Putin correctly observed, the military situation in Syria cannot change by bombing campaigns alone. Since all interested countries in the Syrian developments are reluctant to provide boots on the ground, Assad’s army, with its Hezbollah associates, is the only force involved in large-scale ground operations against ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Last but not least, Turkey would be well-advised to reverse its current practice of allowing waves of Syrian migrants to cross to Europe in their hundreds of thousands. The recent approach adopted by the AKP in their negotiations with the EU has an important blackmail component and could turn decisively the entire European Union, Germans included, against Turkey. Already it stands to lose tens of billions of dollars in lost tourism revenue from Russia, as well as from exports and projects in that country. If German tourists were likewise of a mind to punish Ankara for allowing the migrant exodus towards Europe, then the entire Turkish economy would nosedive and growth would evaporate altogether.

One can only hope that sanity will prevail in the end, that Turkey will apologize to Russia and start to live up to its responsibilities when it comes to stopping the current wave of Syrians en route for Europe. After all, Turkey – and not the EU – was the most enthusiastic and vocal supporter of the anti-Assad rebellion in Syria…

The EU and China: Geo-economic Agendas Compared

 November 22, 2015

The wave of blowback terrorism currently sweeping Western European capitals is likely to obscure a major event due to take place on November 24th and 25th in China: I am referring to the annual meeting of the leaders of 16 Central and Eastern European countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia) with the Chinese leadership in Suzhou. Following immediately after this weekend’s ASEAN summit in Malaysia, the meeting provides an extremely useful glimpse of China’s geo-economic agenda from the Balkans to Poland and Hungary.

An even more useful exercise, however, would be to compare the EU’s geo-economic agenda, with that of China and Russia in our parts of Europe.

The leading exponent of the West’s geo-economic agenda has to be considered Pascal Lorot, the founder of geo-economics. In the 1990s he published a booklet, suggestively titled “La conquête de l’Est”. The book contains the main tenets of the West’s economic expansion in the ex-Soviet bloc states from Central and Eastern Europe. Although NATO expansion has preceded that of the European Union, the main actors of the West’s geo-economic agenda in the region are the global corporations headquartered in France, the US or other participating Western countries.

While financial transfers from the EU to new member states from Central and Eastern Europe have diminished significantly over the years, having contributed only marginally to upgrading their infrastructure to EU standards, Western global corporations have taken over even the water supply or gas distribution in countries like Romania.

The results of the economic penetration in the area are, in some cases, nothing short of disastrous. Thus, companies like Vivendi or Gaz de France have succeeded in imposing to consumers at least ten tariff increases for water and gas in the last four years alone, contributing heavily to further impoverishing Romania’s population whose income levels, however, were already well below the EU average. To top it all off, Brussels is about to stunt Romania’s economic growth by imposing an EC-backed premier, unelected and undesired by the locals.

Moreover, throughout the region, Western global corporations have systematically deprived all the governments of much needed taxation income via transfer pricing and other accounting gimmicks.

Sure enough, there are a few success stories of Western economic expansion in the region, like that of German, American and French auto-makers in countries like Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Romania, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

At the time of their EU accession in 2007, citizens of predominantly Orthodox countries like Romania and Bulgaria were hoping that this would put an end to their countries’ economic plight. The ensuing cultural shock suffered during the latest drive of Western expansionism has instead reopened old wounds. The 1204 ransacking of Constantinople by the crusaders is still alive in the collective memory of the Balkans. On that occasion, Western military “assistance” morphed into full-blown pillage and plunder, followed by the occupation of the Byzantine capital.

By contrast, since 2012 when the first China-CEE meeting took place in Warsaw, China has proven more willing than the EU to invest heavily in these countries’ infrastructure and manufacturing sector. In 2013, the first direct rail link between southwest China and the Polish city of Lodz was inaugurated, greatly facilitating two-way trade between the two countries. Nowadays, it takes only 15 days by rail for Chinese goods to reach Poland, or for Polish agricultural products to reach China. The upgrade of Baltic countries’ ports with Chinese investment is also underway, not to mention the upgrade of the port facilities in Piraeus, Greece by Cosco.

To date, the most ambitious Chinese infrastructure project in the region is the building of a very fast rail link between Piraeus and Hungary, connecting Athens and Skopje with Budapest via Belgrade. Not very far behind are the Russians, who are planning to build a gas pipeline from the Balkans to Central Europe along the same route. The Russians have also agreed to finance, to the tune of a few billion euros, the upgrade and construction of nuclear reactors in Hungary in spite of vehement EU protests.

The leaders of Central and Eastern European countries are now in a position to choose from the two geo-economic agendas the one that best suits the needs of their economies. As matters now stand, it seems that the West has largely exhausted its economic growth potential and is instead trying to exploit – colonial-style – the resources or populations of the new member states accepted after 2004. With its large cash reserves and “win-win” economic philosophy, China looks set to capitalize on local disenchantment with the EU by expanding steadily into this region.

The "New Europe" NATO Summit in Bucharest

November 6, 2015

The fact that the EU is undergoing its most profound existential crisis ever is by now an open secret. The Greek debt crisis had produced a North-South divide in Europe, whereas the migrant crisis has prompted a rebellion against the EU leadership from Eastern bloc members. Nowadays, NATO itself is contributing to the existing divisions by bringing back to life the “Old Europe – New Europe” division of the Bush Jr. era.

Thus, on the 3rd and 4th of November, NATO has organized a “ Presidents’ Summit “ which took place behind closed doors in Bucharest. The meeting was attended by nine presidents of EU member countries from Central and Eastern Europe, and resulted in a declaration which could rightly be called an anti-Juncker document. The final document stressed the need to strengthen ties with the United States and stand united against “Russian aggressiveness”.

It is an undisputed fact that the EU’s eastern and southern borders are far from secure as a result of the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. Both conflicts were ignited by American covert operations or outright military intervention in those regions, which have very little to do – if at all – with EU foreign or neighbourhood policies’ objectives.

Still, the EU is paying the price for American foreign policy amateurism, which is what has prompted Juncker and Merkel’s recent overtures towards Russia and Turkey. To be sure, Juncker’s declaration concerning Russia and Merkel’s visit to Turkey are by and large part of a PR exercise meant to soothe the leadership in Moscow and Ankara and maybe pave the way for a reset of the EU’s relations with the two countries.

The summit in Bucharest went largely ignored in the international media because of the current street protests in the Romanian capital. By reviving Rumsfeld’s “New Europe” concept, however, and by trying to pitch the leaders of Central and Eastern European countries against the president of the European Commission, the Americans are contributing plenty towards aggravating the rifts that threaten the very existence of the EU. Whilst this might not be their ultimate intention, the outcome of the latest NATO strategy in Europe is going to hurt transatlantic ties more than it would stunt Juncker and Merkel’s efforts to patch up relations with Russia or Turkey.

EU: No Silver Bullet Solution for the Migrant Crisis

 

EU: no silver-bullet solution for the migrant crisis

October 25, 2015

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity by EU leaders who are trying to slow down the migrant influx has not as yet yielded any tangible results. In truth, the situation has become so complicated that there are no good moves left in order to stabilize it.

 

To illustrate this, one should consider the results of German chancellor Angela Merkel’s October 18 visit to Istanbul, during which she offered Turkish authorities a 3 billion-euro contribution and the promise to speed up the country’s accession talks with the EU. (A deal so far refused by Turkey.) If anything, the visit has frightened the Syrian migrants into crossing to Greece in even bigger numbers. From around 5,000 people a day making the perilous trip before the visit, the IOM authorities have announced that the number of migrants increased to around 9,500 a day for the whole week following Merkel’s visit.

 

The Commission also tries to convince transit countries like Macedonia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria to help stem the flow of migrants to Germany. So far, the efforts have generated the fear that these countries might be obliged to keep a huge number of refugees on their territory for longer than a few days. Accordingly, the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian premiers have announced on Saturday October 24th, in a joint press conference, that if Austria and Germany will close their borders to migrants, they would have no choice but to follow suit. After the mini-summit held in Brussels on Sunday 25th of October, the Bulgarian prime minister Boyko Borissov has complained to the press that the European Commission suggested to governments such as his to take out loans from the EBRD or BEI in order to pay for the upkeep of refugees.

 

Finally, there is a lot of bickering going on between the Commission and a number of Central and Eastern European members which flatly refuse the imposition of migrant quotas. In fact, the leaders of these countries are resisting the very idea of quotas, as they feel that their populations are totally unprepared to accept Arab migrants in their midst and that their economies might be adversely affected by the expenditure necessary for the migrants’ upkeep.

 

The only glimmer of hope to date might come from the ongoing negotiations to reach a political solution in Syria which involves the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The quartet might be joined next week by Iran and is expected to ultimately reach a deal in order to bring about an end to the bloody civil war that is the root cause of the current refugee crisis.

Turkey Still a Model for Arab Youth

October 12, 2015

Saturday’s horrific terrorist attack in Ankara where more than 100 people lost their lives brings to mind similar gruesome deeds, from New York in 2001 or London in 2007. The similarities between these events, unfortunately, end with the casualties. In Turkey, the opposition -in a rather desperate bid to thwart Erdogan’s party’s re-election chances- took to the streets rallying against the government. This is unfortunate because normally, in times like these, political parties and the population rally behind the government of the day in a show of solidarity.

For democracy to flourish, it is not enough to have free and fair elections and respect for the rule of law. A necessary ingredient of any functional democracy is a measure of respect between the party (or parties) in power and the opposition. Sadly, this basic respect among political leaders and parties competing for power seems to be lacking in Turkey. In the past three years this appears to be the main reason why elections have taken place in a very tense atmosphere, made worse by vicious attacks, slander and unethical political bickering.

There is one essential aspect, however, that has escaped the attention of the Turkish opposition, blinded by hate as it is against Erdogan’s AK Party. Arab youth, who are yet to see positive changes in their societies following the Arab revolutions, still regard the Turkish brand of Islamic democracy as a model to be emulated. In a recent book about their aspirations, Ms. Bessma Momani -a renowned Arab-Canadian scholar and political scientist- wrote that

“Some Turks don’t want to hear this but there is a Turkish model in the Arab world. Some countries may find that Turkey’s involvement in the Syrian war has given the model a negative perspective but overall throughout the Arab Spring and even before there was a very positive view. What is the Turkish model? It’s to create a society that is economically growing with lots of opportunities. It’s a place that allows for Islam in daily life. As much as secularists might have a hard time seeing this, they do appreciate the idea that a Muslim party has an opportunity to compete. They view the Turkish model as positive and I think sometimes they are critical of Turkish actions with respect to Syria but I think if you take out the geopolitics, overall, Turkey as an economic model is very high. People still look up to it as an example.” (Source: Hurriyet)

Since 1998, I am one of the few European historians to have supported the idea of an Islamic party in power in Turkey. In doing so, I fully realize that my professional views are at odds with the beliefs of most EU political leaders and mainstream intellectuals, many of whom are blinded by secularism and could not foresee the rise of political Islam. It is not entirely by accident, therefore, that four years after graduating in geopolitics and international relations with excellent results from Sciences po Toulouse, I am still without a suitable job. The truth remains, however, that AKP’s many achievements, especially in the economic sphere, are substantial and its leaders’ performance in office should also be recognized as such by EU leaders and Turkish opposition alike.