Defence and Foreign Policy Archives - Our Continent

Analysis video – Colliding Worlds: Islam and the West

Tim Staker — Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:49:14 +0000

The post Analysis video – Colliding Worlds: Islam and the West appeared first on Our Continent.

Analysis video – Is Russia European?

Tim Staker — Fri, 04 May 2018 14:05:12 +0000

In this video we deal with the question:Is Russia European? And we analyze the place Russia takes in the Europe of today.

The post Analysis video – Is Russia European? appeared first on Our Continent.

Analysis video – Who needs the EU?

Tim Staker — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:26:19 +0000

In recent years, the European Union has come under heavy and increasing criticism. Begs the question, does Europe even actually need the European Union?

The post Analysis video – Who needs the EU? appeared first on Our Continent.

Analysis video: the current state of Europe

Seward — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 18:46:16 +0000

Stanley Zoeteveld introduces the Pan-European Movement with an assessment of the state of our continent, the trouble we face and the challenges we must overcome in uniting European civilization. He talks about the main developments our continent saw in 2017, the different threats to European security and the emergence of a European identity,

The post Analysis video: the current state of Europe appeared first on Our Continent.

Independent Kurdistan: a tragic fate

Stanley — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:52:41 +0000

The struggle for an independent Kurdistan reminds me a bit of the situation in Catalonia. People around the world are sympathetic to their cause, but all surrounding governments oppose any step towards independence. For a moment, both nations had hoped for outside support, but as the only thing they found was deafening silence, the Catalans, like the Kurds, grew bitter and disillusioned. The similarities stop when we compare the political contexts of the Kurdish and Catalan cases. Where Catalonia has been the economic ‘power house’ of Spain – a peaceful, wealthy and democratic country – Kurdistan’s men and woman have known nothing but war for many generations; against Saddam, against ISIS and now against the Shiite-Arab-run government in Baghdad.

Like in the case of Catalonia, I am not unsympathetic towards an independent Kurdistan, but I have some serious concerns about the possible consequences of independence. The Kurds deserve a homeland of their own, especially after the courage Kurdish men and women showed in the face of ISIS’ onslaught. However, decades of conflict have raised tensions between ethnic groups in the region, and the creation of an independent state could move some Kurds to try to avenge past grievances on non-Kurdish minorities. Already there have been reports of Kurds expelling Arabs in the regions which are under their control, and independence might increase even more the wish for ethnic homogeneity. In that way, it is not unimaginable, not even very unlikely, that we will see large-scale ethnic cleansing taking place as soon as Kurdish independence is achieved.

If we think then of the fact that there is also an Iranian, a Syrian and a Turkish Kurdistan, brutal conflicts raging between Shiites and Sunnis, and many political tensions between those and other groups across the region, we can start to imagine why any type of independence is such a delicate issue. The re-drawing of Middle Eastern borders along ethno-linguistic or ethno-religious lines could set in motion massive forced population transfers, similar to what happened in Eastern Europe after 1918. In addition, given the myriad of ethnic and religious fault lines, any newly-declared state is at risk of immediately being invaded by a hostile country. Because of these possible consequences, we must be careful when lending our support to any such movements in the Middle East. We must observe the situation attentively, and, at the same time, realize that we in Europe have come a long way. Perhaps we can rejoice, for a short while, about the fact that we Europeans, today, solve our differences in a more peaceful manner.

The post Independent Kurdistan: a tragic fate appeared first on Our Continent.

EU Superstate: a foreshadowing of things to come?

Seward — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:30:24 +0000

It was often repeated during the Brexit campaign, and is still often heard as a sneering remark or a foreshadowing of doom, the supposed emergence of an EU Superstate that would engulf all nation-states in its wake. Mostly employed as a scare-tactic or knee-jerk reaction to even the slightest hint of further European integration, the derogatory nature of the word EU Superstate can in my view only be understood as a lack of foresight. Almost two whole decades, and a lot of turmoil, into the twenty-first century, there comes a time when we must be honest to ourselves about what challenges the future may hold. Because we believe deeply that the future of Europe can only be together, let me frame this as provocatively as I can. Contrary to the ramblings of those that wish to divide our European nations, a political entity that could, indeed, be called an EU Superstate would actually be essential to the continued peace, prosperity, freedom, and indeed very survival of our great continent.

A firm mandate

Frequent readers will know that the EU Superstate we envision would be a vastly different entity than the European Union we live in today. We boast that the European project, from its inception after World War II, through to the present day, has produced a miracle of unprecedented European peace and cooperation, bringing our continent great amounts of wealth and prosperity. But we also recognize that the current form it has taken is unsustainable. The European Union is haunted by dubiously handled crises, and surrounded by an air of decadence, political correctness and bureaucracy. For many people today, the feeling has crept up that the European Union is not for them, and that its leaders care more for themselves or for the rest of the world than for its own citizens. To restore trust and convince citizens of the potential and the necessity of uniting Europe, the European Union and our continent as a whole need a major rejuvenation. If an EU Superstate will ever be realized, it must be worthy of our continent’s name and of its people.

Firstly, if anything resembling an EU Superstate should be legitimate, it should be of the highest democratic order. The democratic input of the European Union is currently based on a complex system of interlocking powers with different areas of influence. Initially implemented to curb fears of power imbalance, this system actually makes the whole process incoherent, confusing and obscure. People have the feeling that they have no real influence on European Union policy. To combat this, most importantly, our EU Superstate needs actual supranational political parties that all European citizens can vote on. Based in a reformed parliament, like in most national parliaments, these parties will have the ability to propose new laws, in addition to their monitoring role. Leading parties will be able to put forward the members of a reformed European Commission. This new Commission will be more potent in enacting policy, but it will only focus on the big issues, those that concern the whole of Europe. National governments will be in control of all national issues and will have an advisory role to the Commission based on mandatory opinion. This will ensure that individual member-states will remain an important factor in the supranational decision-making process, while giving the European institutions the capacity and mandate for effective action.

Europe first

Furthermore, the Europe of the future, as any political entity, should first and foremost serve and protect the interests of its own population. Therefore, our united continent needs strong outer borders, supported by an effective marine and territorial border guard and a strict migration policy. As the situation currently is, there is little obstruction for the daily arrival of hundreds of unvetted, unskilled migrants, even as Europe clearly struggles with issues resulting from mass immigration, failed integration and youth unemployment. This leaves us fighting a running battle. Our EU Superstate should have a migration policy akin to the Australian model, so that any person trying to illegaly enter Europe immediately gets sent away by a combined European coastguard, back home or to a third location. Only outside of Europe, in specialized camps, will it be possible to request asylum for those in actual life-threatening need, who will be able to apply for temporary refuge. Also, to repatriate the millions of illegal migrants already in Europe, acting as a united Europe will enable us to put heavy economic sanctions on those countries that refuse to take their people back.

Does that mean our future EU Superstate will completely bar any form of immigration? Of course not, there is everything to be said for a controlled and vetted migration of skilled assets from around the world. Europe of the future must remain a powerhouse of intellectual and technological endeavor, it is therefore essential that our EU Superstate takes in the best the world has to offer. As the United States returns to protectionism and China looks across its borders, the 21^st century will see an ever-intensifying arms-race on the field of cyber, energy and military technology. We must adopt a new entrepeneurial mindset, competing with the rest of the world for the best educated experts and professionals, the most advanced technologies and the strongest economies. This must be done within a framework of ever tighter European cooperation. We cannot compete with the world, if we are competing amongst ourselves. Only together, if we combine the resources and knowledge we acquire, will we triumph in this imminent struggle for power.

Action and deterrence

If we want to hold our own in the turbulent world of the twenty-first century, apart from being an economic heavyweight, we need to be able to defend ourselves against aggression from foreign powers. Too long have we leaned lazily on our American allies. If we want to survive on our own, we need the capacity to act independently and regardless of the will of the United States, should we ever have to face our adversaries in military conflict. Each of our countries individually stands no chance against the military-industrial complex of a superpower like Russia or China, but together we may form the greatest military in the world. Creating a comprehensive and integrated military force has to be a top priority for the years to come. With dangers looming far and wide and the future of the world uncertain, we cannot be complacent. How the century develops, we can never know, but its first decades have shown us that we must be prepared for any scenario. And so, our EU Superstate must become a force to be truly reckoned with.

A potent military force will act as a strong deterrent against foreign threats and will be key in securing our interests on the global stage. Though, threats do not always come from outside. Europe has recently suffered a wave of Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks, which shows no sign of losing momentum. If we want to effectively counter such savagery, we need a closely knit-together network of intelligence to effectively track down Islamists and other subversive elements within our society. More controversially, known radical mosques must be closed, their visitors screened, funding to mosques and Islamic organizations from Saudi-Arabia and the Gulf States should be halted and known Islamist networks rounded up, its members where possible deported. Taking action will primarily be a task for national governments working in unison on an international level, assisted by national and newly formed supranational intelligence agencies. Strong, coordinated operations against radical Islamism will not only prevent suffering and the loss of life, it will be pivotal in restoring public trust in Europe.

Hope on the horizon

All this may seem like a far-fetched dream, a lone cry in the wilderness – and perhaps it is – but I would not be writing this if I hadn’t a bit of hope that such a future for Europe is possible. While the continent has recently endured some very dire times, and for some the situation seems hopeless, there are actually promising signs for those who are willing to look. For each of the issues I have discussed there are indications that we might be heading in the right direction.

On the most pressing issues of mass immigration and Islamism, we have recently seen a change in attitude across the continent. Last month, European leaders agreed on a comprehensive plan based on holding centers in Africa to curb illegal migration, while at the same time Italy has cracked down heavily on NGO’s facilitating the smuggling of migrants across the Mediterrenean and the European Commission has proposed sanctioning leaders and officials of North-African countries that refuse to take back illegal immigrants. Following several piece-meal efforts, the month of August already saw an 87% drop in migrants, as compared to the same period last year. Plans for a true supranational coastguard that were put forward by French president Macron have been met by welcoming ears in Berlin and elsewhere. Furthermore, in recent months, one could witness a remarkable shift in attitude towards the violent strands of Islam. Several European countries, including politically correct bulwark Germany, have denaturalized jihadists, European leaders like Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron are pointing out the ideology of Islamism as a clear threat to Europe and even Germany’s vice-chancellor is calling for the closing of Salafist mosques. Also worth mentioning in this context, is the extremely tough stance of particularly Germany and The Netherlands against Erdogan’s “Islamofascist” dictatorship in several heated confrontations. I can not help but view these developments as signs that we are finally beginning to stand up for our values and our civilization.

It has also dawned on many European leaders that, institutionally, the time for reform has decidedly come. In terms of democratization, several initiatives have been put forward by members of the European Parliament and Commission. Most intriguing has been the idea to use the British seats in the European parliament opening after Brexit to create supranational electoral lists. Among other high-ranking officials, this idea has importantly been embraced by French president Emmanuel Macron. Being a great supporter of the European project and further European integration, this is seen by him and his administration as an obvious step towards a future democratic Europe. Meanwhile, effective decision making initiatives are in the works. There is widespread support for the installment of a European Minister of Finance to manage the EU budget, instead of the at least five different officials responsible for it now. To increase transparency and efficiency, it has also been proposed to merge several of the head offices of the European Union. Small as these reforms might seem, the optimist in me sees in them the seeds of an institutional framework similar to what I have described above.

Getting ready for the future

Contentious as it may be, we will always wholeheartedly argue for integration of European military forces. The need for this cannot be overstated. Far from advocating for a swift relinquishing of military sovereignty to Brussels’ bureaucrats, even the staunchest opponent to an EU Superstate, cannot disagree with the wide-spread call for narrower military cooperation in Europe. Tens of billions of Euro’s can be saved by synchronizing weapon-systems, better allocating ammunition supplies and organizing more shared training operations. Furthermore, a more thorough alignment of the command structure will enable us to respond to imminent threats in a much more efficient way. Last May, EU leaders announced a comprehensive defense cooperation plan that will work in collaboration with NATO. Many EU leaders have also pledged that they will spend considerably more on defense in an effort to meet NATO military budget demands. More ambitiously, and so also more controversially, several initiatives are now in place for a truly supranational military force. Before the summer, the European Defense Fund was opened and more recently Emmanual Macron has stepped up efforts in forming a European intervention force. Definitely most controversial has been the quiet assembling of an integrated military force of several smaller European countries into the German Bundeswehr. Developments like these are sure to get the defense debate rolling once again, and it seems only wise for member-states to hop on a train that clearly has almost left the station.

Starting out, the tone of this article has been particularly cautionary, emphasizing the things that aren’t going well and calling for immediate and thorough action. I have also outlined what I have seen as the beginning of solutions for the challenges Europe faces. However, for all our problems, we must never forget that we also have a lot to be celebrated. On many levels, the working together of our nation-states has already proven an achievement in itself. The peace and prosperity we live in today is testament to that success. By building the largest free-trade zone in history, and thoroughly integrating our economies, we have laid the groundwork for a highly competitive power bloc. The economy of the European Union is the second largest in the world and our currency ranks among the strongest. To stay competitive in the 21^st century we must continue to build on this framework and always be willing to adapt to the circumstances. In response to the isolationist rhetoric coming from the White House, Macron has called for a sort of Europrotectionism, in which preference is given to European-borne goods, jobs and services. Subsequently, he has engaged in a sort of neo-mercantilism, offering American energy-tech scientists subsidized jobs in France. In reaction to Trump’s accession, the European Union has at the same time signed several new high-profile trade deals, notably one with Japan to rival the defunct NAFTA-deal. The newly competitive attitude and the healthy mix of protectionism and economic liberalism that it foreshadows, is likely to give us an edge against the rest of the world.

As China rises up like a dark cloud on the horizon, and the United States retreats from the world stage, the time has come for Europe, after almost eight decades of lulling comfort, to finally face up to the realities of the world. The lines of competition for the 21^st century have been drawn, and the window of opportunity is quickly drawing to a close. If we do not own up to the challenge now, and begin the transition into a true superpower, our societies might, at the turn of the century be reduced to nothing more than a hull of their former selves and we might end up just another lost civilization. The road will be tough, but with hard work and confidence, Europe may rise to its full potential. If the will is there and the pieces are put in place, the mere fact that our nations stand together as one, will be the most powerful asset of all.

The post EU Superstate: a foreshadowing of things to come? appeared first on Our Continent.

The Putin Apologist Agenda

Stanley — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 18:51:01 +0000

OurContinent presents: the Putin Apologist Agenda. Find out what are the most common agenda points, arguments and ways of arguing used by apologists of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Very handy, if you need to debate them!

The Putin Apologist agenda:

1- There is no such thing as truth – Accepting certain things as facts is a question of loyalty, not of truth seeking. If the facts speak against Putin’s Russia, create confusion. It’s not about proving Putin right, but about convincing people that there is no right. “What can one really know? Nothing is certain. No one will ever find out what is true anyway.”

2- “The West is just as bad” – Portraying Putin’s Russia like a free and peace-loving country would be an almost impossible task. It is much easier to deflect the attention by stating that ‘the West is just as bad”. For every injustice committed by the Russian regime, you come up with an injustice by any Western country, real or perceived, now or in the past.

3- Selective suspicion of the media – Because most Western media report on Putin’s crimes, label them ‘mainstream’ and ‘fake news’, and only trust media that claim to be ‘against the mainstream’, like unofficial online outlets, social media accounts and media owned by the Russian state, like RT and Sputnik. The only criteria is that they have to be pro-Putin.

4- Complain about “Russophobia” – Despite their country’s size and nuclear arsenal, Russians are actually an oppressed minority in the world, misunderstood and stigmatized by everyone. Russia is the eternal victim of the West, of the media, and of history. All of Putin’s transgressions are justified because of this victimhood. To make this clear, constantly complain about bigotry and prejudice against Russians, so-called “Russophobia”.

5- Forget Putin’s friends – Whether you are politically left or right, there is always a way to align Putin’s position with your own, just forget about all those friends of his that you don’t like. If you are right-wing, you see Putin as an enemy of Islamism and the left, conveniently forgetting his alliance with Iran, Hezbollah and Venezuela. If you are a leftist Putin apologist, you depict the Russian president as heading a struggle against Western “fascism” and “imperialism”, but ignore his far-right friends in Europe and the US.

6- “Not pro-Russia, just anti-war” – Instead of admitting that you are an apologist for a dictatorship that invades its neighbours, you claim that your defence of Putin’s Russia has, in fact, very noble intentions. Your goal is simply to prevent further escalation between Russia and the West. You are nothing less than a hero who jumps in to protect the scared Russians who feel threatened by Western imperialism. You are “not pro-Russia per se, but just anti-war”.

If you think it is unfair to single out Putin fans, we promise to upload soon a similar agenda about jihad-apologists.

(The idea to create this “agenda” of our political opponents was inspired by the “Regressive Agenda”, which critically outlines the points of the regressive left and was created by video artist Devon Tracy)

The post The Putin Apologist Agenda appeared first on Our Continent.

MH17 crash made me realize: we need a strong Europe

Stanley — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 22:54:53 +0000

The summer of 2014 – a passenger plane carrying almost 300 people crashed in Eastern Ukraine, a region that was the scene of a bloody insurgency launched by Russian-backed separatists. Now, it was immediately clear that these separatists were responsible for the MH17 crash; they not only shot down several Ukrainian army planes in the days before, but even claimed responsibility for the attack – that is, before finding out they had downed the wrong plane and quickly removed their claim from social media.

While the US and Australia rightly pointed at Putin and the filthy war the Russian dictator had started in Ukraine, European leaders treated the event like it was a regular murder case. ‘Anybody could be behind this, we must not jump to conclusions’, seemed to be their message. Efforts were made not to further anger the belligerent Russians. Even if sanctions were eventually put into place, these were officially only a reaction to the annexation of Crimea, not for the violence in Donbass. Mentioning Russia in the same sentence as the MH17 crash was carefully avoided by top European politicians for months after the crash. The response appeared driven by the same scared reflexes that often kick in after Islamist terror attacks.Our article on Jihadism in Europe

How can it be that a continental power-block of half a billion people with massive economic and political influence does not even utter an angry word when hundreds of its citizens are shot out of the sky? That is what I wondered back then. Are we really so weak as to silently watch how the perpetrators pump out propaganda and actually blame us for their crime? This! Exactly this is why we need a strong and self-conscious Europe, I realized; a Europe that stands firmly for its citizens and, when harm is done to them, has the dignity to at least name the culprits. Because European countries individually do not impress dictatorships like Russia, Turkey or China, Europe must speak with one voice on international affairs. Europeans must know that they are not alone, that their country is not alone, but that they are part of a family of nations that looks after them and speaks out in their interest.

Stanley Zoeteveld
Political Analist

The post MH17 crash made me realize: we need a strong Europe appeared first on Our Continent.

Why Turkey should never join the European Union

Stanley — Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:03:22 +0000

Turkish membership of the EU, a final judgement

While we write this, we are confident in assuming that the majority of European citizens are against the possibility of Turkey ever joining the European Union. Nevertheless, against all odds, the Turkish Republic remains an official EU-candidate member. Therefore, for those of you who still believe that we should give our southeastern neighbour a chance, we undertook the task of outlining the specific reasons why a Turkish membership was, is, and always will be, a bad idea.

The Erdogan Regime – Turkey is ruled by an increasingly authoritarian regime that oppresses civil liberties and propagates a fusion of Islamism and ultra-nationalism. The Turkish government has jailed journalists, intellectuals and members of the opposition, it has funded and armed radical Islamist groups in Syria, Libya and elsewhere, and it actively seeks to counter the integration of Turkish migrants and their descendants into European societies.

Some might argue that Turkey is not (yet) a full blown dictatorship because it’s government does enjoy a large degree of democratic legitimacy. Although we do acknowledge that Erdogan appears to be democratically elected, we do not see this as working in Turkey’s favour in our evaluation.

The Occupation of European Territory – A significant part of the territory of EU-member Cyprus has been occupied by the Turkish military since a 1974 invasion. Until today, the northern half of Cyprus is controlled by the so-called ‘Republic of Northern Cyprus’, a Turkish puppet state resembling the Russian-occupied Lugansk and Donetsk ‘people’s republics’ in Eastern Ukraine. The continuous Turkish military presence in Cyprus means that Turkey officially occupies a part of the European Union. In our view, this fact by itself should disqualify Turkish membership of the EU.

The Kurdish Question – Around one in five inhabitants of Turkey are ethnic Kurds, who have their own culture and language. The Kurdish population has been oppressed, to varying degrees, by successive Turkish governments in their social, cultural and political freedoms. As a result, armed struggle between Kurdish militants and the Turkish state has flared up every decade. Because the Kurdish people also inhabit parts of neighbouring Syria and Iraq, this struggle has often grown to regional dimensions. Turkish membership of the EU would therefore not only mean the import of an internal ethnic conflict, it would also entangle Europe with the bloody Kurdish independence struggle in other states in the Middle East.

Denial of the Armenian Genocide – During WWI, Turkey’s predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, deliberately murdered up to 1,5 million Christian Armenians in an event known as the Armenian Genocide. Until today, the Turkish government does not only deny that the Armenian Genocide ever took place, but it actively tries to silence those who speak about it. Even mentioning the Genocide is punishable under Turkish law and the Erdogan government has diplomatically sanctioned European governments that sought to remember the mass murder of the Armenians.

Recognizing one’s role in the Holocaust, has been one of the prerequisites for Eastern European countries to join the European Project, and after decades of silence, all of them did. However, it seems extremely unlikely that Turkey will ever be persuaded to do the same when it comes to the Armenian Genocide. Too many generations of Turks have been indoctrinated with the paranoid idea that the Genocide is a lie invented by foreign powers to smear Turkey’s ‘good name’.

Population – Turkey has a population of almost 80 million people. If it would join the EU, it would be the second largest member state, after Germany. Turkey would also automatically be allocated the second largest number of seats in the European parliament. EU-founders like France and Italy, with much larger economies than Turkey, would be pushed to the side-lines of an imbalanced Turco-German Europe. Moreover, Turkey’s population is projected to surpass Germany’s in size in the coming decades. This would make a country, which many Europeans do not consider European to begin with, the most influential force in Brussels.

Culture – This brings us to the final and most controversial reason for not supporting Turkish membership of the EU; namely culture. It is questionable, to say the least, to state that Turkey is a European country. Looking at its history, religion, language, customs and values, Turkey is more aligned with the Islamic World than with Europe. Archaic, premodern elements remain widespread, despite attempts at forced modernization and secularism. Even geographically, only a small part of Turkey lies on the European continent, and this part was mainly inhabited by Greeks until they were expelled in the 20th century.

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, Turkey is not part of Europe, and is not perceived as such by most Europeans. On the contrary, Turkey has always been seen as the ‘other’, the ‘outsider’, the Islamic country to the East. For the sake of support for the European project, it would therefore be disastrous to allow a Turkish membership of the EU.

Conclusion – To recap: Turkey is controlled by an authoritarian, Islamist government, occupies part of EU territory, is involved in a decades-long, bloody, ethnic struggle with the Kurds, and denies and intentionally obscures its historical responsibility for the Armenian Genocide. But even if democratic forces would come to power in Ankara, if the Cyprus and Kurdish issues would be miraculously solved and if Turkey would finally admit its guilt in the Armenian Question, we would still be left with a massively large country that few consider European, where unenlightened ideas about family, society and politics remain prevalent, and whuch is for all intents and purposes culturally distinct from Europe.

If it is our aim to unite Europe, we must define where Europe begins and where it ends. Therefore, it is our task to identify which countries are part of our shared civilization and which are not. Which societies have so much in common that they can reasonably be assumed to coexist in a political community called Europe? In other words, which societies pass the threshold of ‘Europeanness’? It is our sincere conviction that Turkey does not and never will pass this threshold.

Originally posted on our Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/EuropeanPan/posts/1665907143712077

OurContinent.eu

The post Why Turkey should never join the European Union appeared first on Our Continent.