Immigration and Islamism Archives - Our Continent

Analysis Video: Europe Divided Against Itself

Tim Staker — Wed, 15 May 2019 15:21:08 +0000

The post Analysis Video: Europe Divided Against Itself appeared first on 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.

Video: The Media Battlefield

Tim Staker — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 23:05:51 +0000

While a media struggle is part of any modern political confrontation, in recent years the battle over the hearts and minds of Western men and women has strongly intensified.

For several decades most of what is often called the mainstream media in the West was dominated by a certain broad ideological current, marked by neo-liberalism, social progressivism, globalism, multiculturalism, anti-nationalism and political correctness. Of course there were also outlets critical of the mainstream, but these had a more marginal role in society and were often frowned upon as xenophobic reactionaries.

The convergence of crises in the 21st century; the assault of radical Islamism, the financial crisis and the migrant crisis, has led to more Westerners challenging mainstream narratives because they no longer felt like their voices were heard. This was also infused by the rise of social media which led to a kind of global media democratization. One of the effects of these developments was populist politics, both in Europe and the US, and the strengthening of the anti-mainstream media and even the appearance of many new populist outlets.

It would have been good at that point, if both sides showed willingness for dialogue and mutual understanding of each other’s viewpoints. And in some cases dialogue did take place. Unfortunately, more often both sides dug deeper trenches and doubled down on their positions. The mainstream responded by putting its emphasis on diversity and open-borders in overdrive. The anti-mainstream doubled down on its complete obsession with Islam and even started to flirt with Putin’s Russia and call for the destruction of the post-1945 European political structures.

Today’s media landscape is the scene of a kind of hybrid multi-party conflict. The chaotic struggle among Western state media, big corporations, independent outlets and individuals is made even more complicated because several dictatorial governments also partake. Countries like Russia and Qatar have a vested interest in exaggerating certain problems to exploit people’s fears and grievances for their own political gain. We see something similar with the tabloid press, only their scope is more financial in nature. Fear sells.

Some Western mainstream media, at the other hand, blindly follow their government’s line. German media overall has uncritically rallied behind chancellor Merkel’s decision to alter the country’s demography for good by inviting in millions of people from outside of Europe. The BBC also appears to have become a sheer instrument of British government power, it simultaneously avoids critical questions about the hugely impactful Brexit, and it drives a zealous campaign of top-down implemented ‘diversity’.

Especially in the US people should try to lower down their warlike rhetoric; otherwise one might be seeing war like effects on American streets at a certain point. And also in Europe, we should seek dialogue with our opponents. What we need, is pan-European media in which Europeans can openly exchange ideas. We do not need the dry, politically correct dullness of outlets like Euronews, we need sharp debate, about subjects that matter, in line with our precious European tradition called the freedom of speech.

One way in which we can take steps towards a true European media landscape, is online. So if you want, please join us and other European accounts in the ongoing conversation about the identity and future of our civilization.

The post Video: The Media Battlefield appeared first on Our Continent.

Analysis video – In Defence of Enlightenment Values

Seward — Sat, 23 Jun 2018 18:35:14 +0000

How we see our place on the political spectrum and what that has to do with the legacy of the Enlightenment. Furthermore, we provide a perspective on our ‘Imperial’ style.

The post Analysis video – In Defence of Enlightenment Values 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.

Right-wing government in Austria: why it may work in Europe’s favor

Seward — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:30:39 +0000

When Europe’s youngest head of government, Sebastian Kurz, was inaugurated as Austrian prime-minister in the Hofburg – the former imperial palace in the heart of Vienna – some Europeans were in shock. Kurz leads a new outspoken right-wing government consisting of his own conservative ÖVP and the right-wing populist FPÖ. One could say this latter party falls in the same category as France’s Front National or the Dutch Freedom Party; movements that aim, above all, to undo the process of European integration, and create a splintered Europe of dozens of disunited states. Similar to these other far-right parties, the FPÖ is also on friendly terms with the Russian regime and shares its plans about our continent’s future. Being a European patriot, you could imagine that I initially found myself among those shocked Europeans.

However, after reflecting a little longer, I decided that we should perhaps not jump to conclusions yet. Considering the fact that the new chancellor has reassured the public and his partners that he would fare a decisively pro-European course, his government could actually become a catalyst for some positive changes. We at OurContinent.EU, part of the Pan-European Movement, have always insisted that we have to take the reasons for the rise of the far-right seriously, while simultaneously rejecting its extreme positions. Seen at face value, the new Austrian coalition can help to do just that; implement strong measures, but without the illiberal tendencies, acknowledge people’s fears and concerns, but not exaggerate them or resort to divisive rhetoric. By stepping into government with this right-wing populist party, Sebastian Kurz might actually be able to temper the damaging influence of the far-right in Europe.

After all, the best way to counter the far-right is not by demonizing it or its voters, but by taking away its electoral ammunition. We should realize that support for right-wing populist parties is often based on legitimate concerns, but that does not mean that people actually agree with the far-right’s most radical views. Citizens do not necessarily want to vote for radical parties, but if they have the feeling that these are the only ones taking their concerns seriously, they will not hesitate to do so. Mainstream parties should realize this and break free from the debilitating political correctness of the status quo when offering solutions. If voters’ basic demands about identity and security are met, they are less likely to engage in further adventurism in the voting booth. In more practical terms: if European governments are visibly dedicated to countering mass immigration and radical Islam, and are truly protecting their country’s culture, few citizens would still be energized by extreme ideas like, say, banning the Koran or the destruction of the EU.

In many cases, we already see this happening, but it is a gradual, sometimes even unconscious process. Even as mainstream parties initially depict the far-right as racists or Nazis, like in the case of the German AfD, they will eventually have to make some comprises for the sake of voter support. Meanwhile, populist parties also have to adapt and often tone down their views in order to remain relevant and be seen as possible political partners. This logic of mutual influence can also be applied to European politics at large. The new Austrian government, for example, could stand with central European countries like Poland and Hungary when it comes to immigration and form a counterweight to the mentality that spawned Merkel’s open-border madness. At the same time, concerning Eastern Europe’s authoritarian tendencies, Austria can function as an example that a conservative-patriotic government is possible, without tearing down the rule of law and or blurring the separation of powers.

We will certainly address any possible transgressions against European ideals or interests by the right-wing Sebastian Kurz’ government, and we will keep our eyes on the FPÖ’s Russian connections. But for now, we are not ringing the alarm bells. Austria will hopefully bring some strong arguments to the table in the ongoing debate about migration and contribute to a creation of a new, more balanced status quo in Europe with less anti-EU hate and less open-border naivety.

The post Right-wing government in Austria: why it may work in Europe’s favor appeared first on Our Continent.

The Swedish Question: immigration and the role of media

Seward — Thu, 23 Nov 2017 16:22:25 +0000

I do not know any country whose public image has deteriorated so dramatically than that of Sweden in recent years. From being seen as the epitome of successful left-wing governance, a social-democratic model state revered by progressive-minded people around the world, Sweden has now become a touchy, almost taboo topic for many. However, for people on the fringes of the right, the Scandinavian country – which has had a per capita immigration rate higher than Germany – is now a favorite target of mockery; an example of how the combination of mass immigration and political correctness can “wreck a society” in one generation.

Before I argue that there is actually something to say for all this fashionable Sweden-bashing, it is important that I insert a nuance here first; there is a lot of exaggeration taking place, especially online, when it comes to immigration related problems in Sweden. Certain groups who have a vested interest in creating further division in Europe, namely populist anti-EU parties and their backers in the Kremlin, will do anything to put Sweden in a bad light. Any incident is inflated or twisted, new incidents are made up, and the entire country is often simply described as ‘lost’. The logic behind exaggerating immigration problems in Sweden (or in any other EU country) is simple: give Europeans the impression that the situation is out of control, and they will vote in even larger numbers for the populists that promise quick solutions – these are the same populists that want to destroy the EU and are supported by the Russian regime, which has the same aim. Immigration fears played a major role in the Brexit and Trump campaigns of 2016; and like we know now, some of these fears were hyped up by Russian online propaganda efforts.

Even when taking the above into consideration, it is hard to escape the conclusion that there is indeed something going on in Sweden. The most infamous fact about the Scandinavian country is that it has the highest reported number of rapes in Europe. Independent research suggests that a large part of those cases involve 1^st and 2^nd generation immigrant perpetrators. The Swedish government and police currently refuse to release information about the nationality or ethnicity of suspects, but in an official study from 2005 (English summary pages 70-77) – which was years before the recent spike in migration – men from immigration backgrounds were strongly overrepresented as perpetrators of sexual violence. Moreover, the police has previously been forced to admit that it tried to cover up mass sexual assaults by migrants at a popular music festival in Stockholm. The festival has even been cancelled since 2017 because of the recurring violence against women. Then there is the growing presence of Radical Islamism, with some Swedish Muslims joining ISIS, and the deadly truck attack in Stockholm as the most terrifying examples. Another issue is the existence of so-called “no-go zones”, crime ridden immigrant neighborhoods in cities like Stockholm and Malmo which even the police are said to avoid. And finally, there has been a spike in reports about increased violent organized crime, including a series of bombings with hand grenades and homemade explosives of a variety of targets, including a night club, private homes and a police station in recent months. The suspected perpetrators belong to criminal gangs consisting mainly of 1^st and 2^nd generation immigrants.

As disturbing as these reports are, the response by international and Swedish media is equally disturbing. Here we have a wealthy, peaceful northern-European country whose government one day decides that borders are passé and that it would be rather selfish not to share the fruits of the labour of previous generations of Swedes with the rest of the world. A decision with unmeasurable consequences for society, which, if the Swedish and international media had fulfilled its “watchdog” role, should have been the subject of intense, critical focus. Instead, most media responded in exactly the same way as they did when Angela Merkel opened the borders of Germany, namely; they uncritically followed the line of the government, turned the influx into a sort of humanitarian extravaganza, hardly reported on the negative side effects of bringing in large groups of mostly young men from the 3^rd world, and even demonized people who did not welcome this massive social experiment as “xenophobes” and “racists”. This counts for many established media, especially those in Sweden itself. The political correct tone of Swedish public discourse reminded me of the Netherlands of the 1990’s, a country in which any hint at criticism of anyone ‘foreign’ would immediately lead to social ostracism.

The stiff, naive media response to the migrant crisis and the related problems in Sweden left open a wide gap in critical journalism, which was eagerly filled by the anti-EU far-right to spew its propaganda and blame Sweden’s troubles on the EU. This is a pattern often repeated across Europe, something we addressed on numerous occasions. If established media companies do not deal with difficult topics – like immigration or Islamic radicalism – out of fear of a possible public backlash, they actually help monopolizing these topics by the far-right tabloids, Russian sponsored fake news and internet trolls. Where alarming reports about the problems in Sweden were laughed off at first – especially after Donald Trump parroted an ominous and probably exaggerated Fox News topic in early 2017 – the Stockholm terror attack that came shortly after wiped the grin off many journalists’ faces. What followed was mostly silence. This has led to the current, absurd situation in which negative news about Sweden is rarely picked up anymore by international media, even if it involves hand grenades going off in the dozens. In today’s heated political climate, the act of reporting on immigration problems in Sweden itself risks being branded with the stigma of the far-right. Most media sadly fail to see that their silence on these issues gives fringe outlets a free hand in twisting reports however they want to, which eventually will only increase the severity of the public backlash. In order to avoid such a backlash, and start working towards solutions, it is essential that we face the situation how it truly is.

The post The Swedish Question: immigration and the role of media appeared first on Our Continent.

Aversion in Europe: bridging the faultlines

Seward — Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:30:29 +0000

Western Europe has developed a serious lack of cohesion, as significant ruptures in the social fabric have come to the fore. Party and ideological rivalries have fractured the political landscape, while ethnc and religious tensions have polluted relations between socio-cultural groups. The relentless clash of opposing, seemingly uncompromisable views has in many areas turned civil debate into a political melee fueled by dirty politics and tribalism. In this minefield of hostility and vilification, it has become almost impossible to say something sensible about the issues we are facing. Accusations from one side of bigotry and malevolence, and from the other of naievity or spinelessness, have put anyone sincerely seeking a solution in a terrible position. In full knowledge of this, and call me a fool for even trying, I will put forward a dead-honest and straightforward argument for cohesion in Europe.

Anyone asking how exactly we arrived at this stage might be dissappointed that that is beyond the scope of this piece. It is also only partly to the point. The simple answer is that it has been the result of a world that has in many ways changed too rapidly. Technological developments have profoundly changed how we live, work and communicate, while globalization and mass immigration from other cultures has transformed neighbourhoods and cities. Responding adequately to these changes has been the challenge of several generations, struggling to keep up with what at first might have felt like the progression towards an almost utopian future. There was the feeling that, eventhough we seemed to have lost control over the processes affecting our societies, these processes atleast were changing our societies for the better.

In part, this dream of utopia explains why, when the first real problems started to present themselves, they were observed in an air of denial and idleness. Messengers that pointed out these problems were either ignored, belittled or condemned, an attitude that persists to this day, although the problems have become all the more severe and the messengers have become louder and ever more numerous. The culmination of these developments was that, as the consensus began to break, a political climate emerged wherein instead of actually addressing the problems, we were stuck discussing what the right attitude was towards our changing world. All the while, citizens were beginning to face the brunt of the changes and were left wondering if they even wanted their world to change so profoundly in the first place. The seeds of contention had been planted.

Could things have been different? Probably. But it has little use brooding over things that have already come to pass. It is far more important to consider, having arrived at this point, how we are going to do something about its fallout. First, we must agree that there are in fact problems that need solving and we must agree as to what they are. At the risk of coming across too high-minded or overly dramatic, this will require us to rediscover the concepts of ‘truth’ and ‘meaning’. Postmodernism, as a philosophical current aimed at critically deconstructing all social foundations, has done a lot to convince us that there is nothing that we can confidently rely on. Objective truth is merely a social construct and moral values are only arbitrarily defined. This kind of relativist absolutism has eroded the trust and confidence needed for a healthy civil society.

The effects are numerous. In many cases, it has led societal groups, in lieu of a universal foundation for truth, to retreat into their own ideological realities. Most conspicously, and so oftenly pointed out, on the left side of the political spectrum, aswell as among some of our political leaders, this attitude is driven by an obsession with diversity and tolerance. Questionable developments like mass immigration are deliberately misrepresented to fit an emotionally-driven humanitarian view of society, while its unsavoury side-effects are obscured, sugar-coated or downright denied. Anyone considered unsympathetic to this worldview is branded as ‘coldhearted’ or ‘hateful’.

Likewise, on the right, to pander to the disillusioned European public, ‘outsider’ political figures and outlets present themselves as the only heralds of truth and answer. Anything relating to what they view as the ‘establishment’ or ‘mainstream’ should be distrusted in full. Outlets that relentlessly attack Western goverments and media are the only ones considered trustworthy, even to the point where obvious Russian propaganda machines like RT and Sputnik are lauded for their truthfulness and integrity. Whatever the specific form, from left to right, passion and loyalty to a specific group or worldview have replaced reason as the basis for political argument.

Moving forward, it is absolutely essential that we break through this rather hopeless entrenchment, face the true realities of the world and come to a common understanding about the state of our societies. The truth is that for better or worse, we now live in a society with people from all over the world. This is the hand we have been dealt. Leaving a discussion of its benefits aside, the situation has brought along the problems you might expect from bringing in large numbers of people from the Third World. Value systems and beliefs that would seem archaic to us, are by now prevalent in our societies. It shouldn’t surprise us then, that we have begun to see behavior and social habits that we would not hope to see on our continent in the twenty-first century. While we would find such actions unacceptable coming from the native European population, coming from migrant populations, we have given far too much leeway and have turned a blind eye, allowing malicious ideas and behavior to take hold and prosper. In turn, this has – quite understandably – turned otherwise manageable cultural tensions into a torrent of outrage.

Now, in order to rise above the ideological fault lines and finally take on our problems head on, we have to agree on some common principles. Unlike what some demagogic prophet might vainly promise, there are no easy solutions. It will be the toil and hardship of generations to get back to where we want to be and it will require us to work together, especially with all good-willing people from migrant communities. First and foremost, given that many problems stem from failed integration and its counter-reactions, as I have uttered so many times before, we should immediately halt mass immigration from the Third World and repatriate the millions of illegal aliens still in Europe. More relevant to the subject at hand, in order to push back on detestable ideas and behavior and mend our socio-cultural divides, we have to establish a model for citizenship and hold anyone, regardless of background or ethnicity, to that non-negotiable standard. Whoever cannot adher to the basic principles of citizenship, has no place among us.

Having lost a solid ground for truth and meaning, you might wonder whatever that model could be. You might even feel a bit uncomfortable by the idea of a model for citizenship itself. But in fact, we already have such a model and until recently we did a pretty good job holding people to it. That model is called European culture. It is the culture of human equality, individual liberty, freedom of thought and expression, of the right for all men and women to live the life that they choose. It is also the culture of the rule of law, solid institutions and independent news media, of open discourse, the free flow of ideas and civil debate. Living up to the model of European culture then, demands us to speak honestly about the evils in our society and to fight for these values wherever we go. But it also demands us to not succumb to the false promise that breaking down and defaming our institutions or discarding our principles will bring us any step forward. Only with a strong, self-concious civil society and a strict adherence to the core essence of European culture, do we stand a chance of tackling our problem in the decades to come. It might not be perfect, but it damn well is the best we have.

The post Aversion in Europe: bridging the faultlines 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.

Battle of Vienna: turning point in European history

Tim Staker — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:54:24 +0000

It is often regarded as one of the most important events in European history. The Battle of Vienna raged on the 12^th of September 1683, as the high point in what can truly be described as a ‘clash of civilizations’. Over the preceding centuries, the Ottomans had conquered vast swathes of territory in Eastern Europe, subduing its population and incorporating them into their colossal caliphate.

Their advance finally brought the Ottomans to the gates of Vienna, their eyes fixed on the West. As they sieged the city for months and desperation among the defenders set in, their only hope would be relief from outside. Finally, a coalition arrived under command of the Polish king John III Sobieski, and on 12^th September 1683, European forces broke the siege of Vienna and defeated the Ottomans decisively.

The Battle of Vienna marked the turning point in the Ottoman wars; it pushed back the Turkish forces and severely weakened their empire, which would never return to its former glory. In subsequent centuries, as their power dwindled further and irreversible decline set in, Eastern Europe would ultimately be completely freed from Ottoman control. Had Vienna fallen in 1683, it would have established Ottoman hegemony over the central heart of European civilization and would have opened the way for the Turkish conquest of the rest of Europe, changing the face of our continent forever.

Like the battle of Tours, the battle of Vienna, repelled a seemingly unstoppable invasion force born of another civilization and went a long way in preserving the foundations of a Europe-wide cultural community. Was it not for Vienna, large parts of Europe might today well be considered part of the cultural Orient.

The post Battle of Vienna: turning point in European history appeared first on Our Continent.