NATO - In depth Look At Nato Shows It Has No Role To Play In Politics

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on 1949 in Washington DC, and ratified by its twelve member states. The treaty was clearly a response to the growing military threat that appeared by the communist ideology and military power of the Soviet Union, at the same time, the treaty was also viewed by some members as an insurance policy, provided mainly by the United States against the resurgent Germany.

This essay discusses the role of NATO; further it will examine why NATO should not be dissolved, and will discuss Libya as case study. This essay also discusses why NATO should be dissolved, and will draw upon the war on terror in Afghanistan. This essay will conclude that NATO does not have much relevance in 21th century nor it had following the Cold and the Collapsed of the Soviet Union, therefore, it's not imperative for NATO to maintain alliance.

NATO was founded on the grounds that the organisation will protect its members, but mainly from the military threat of Soviet Unions, Lord Hastings Ismay, the first Secretary General clearly defined NATO; "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down (William: 2008, 348)." Ismay argument demonstrates that the international institution was founded mainly because of the of military threat of Soviet Union during the Cold War. NATO's former Secretary General Willy Clases stated that:

"it could build on its past, moving to establish closer ties with Central and East European states; deepen its political , economic and social ties with the United states; build a better relationship with Russia and certain Mediterranean and North African states; and work with regional and international organisation to ensure the stability of Europe its neighbours ( MaCalla:199,445)

Clases statement shows very strong aims of NATO to survive and will expand as global cop; continue its task to safeguard its member states; nevertheless, scepticism remains about its future. NATO's former Secretary General, Manfred Worner stated that "The treaty of Washington of 1949, nowhere mentions the Soviet Union" (MaCalla: 1996, 446). Worner argument reveals that military Threat of Soviet Union was not the main reason; however, NATO has wider international prospects.

At the end of the Cold War, it was perceived that the absence of a compelling external threat, NATO members would no longer see any compelling reason to maintain the alliance, and it would soon appear to be ineffective and incompetent security organisation. Waltz (William: 2008, 349) argued that the:

"alliances will tend to be less robust in a multipolar world because major powers will possess more options as their numbers increase... prudence suggests that existing alliance commitments can no longer be taken for granted ( William:2008,350)".

However, Walt argument proved to have minimal effect on the organisation. NATO flourished at least in some ways since following Cold War, and was broadly engaged in extensive combat operations, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and recently in Libya.

Adler and Barnett (William et al: 2000) argued that persistence of NATO clearly demonstrates that the international community posses great challenges of security relations than neo realism has traditionally allowed. Their statement shows that NATO has survived many security challenges over time and continued to prosper as a security management institution in 21th century, on the other hand, the emergence of non-state actors brought massive challenges for the states security, states are now fighting non- state actors, such as Al-Qaida and Taliban, NATO responded efficiently by engaging on the War on Terror in Afghanistan, training and developing Afghan National Security Forces, and ensuring partnership agreement to continue military support to the country beyond 2014, after the withdrawal of NATO soldiers from the country. Thus, NATO's interest in promoting peace and stability has not only benefited its members but also wider international community.

NATO should be dissolved clearly it achieved its purpose and outlived its usefulness. Wallander and Keohane ( William et al:2000) argued that NATO is no longer an alliance, its purpose and operations has changed over time and it has transformed in to a regional collective security arrangement or security management institution. Their argument demonstrates that NATO still have great importance in the region, nonetheless, its aims have changed and there is still security threats for its members, but there is still many global security challenges facing NATO member states, this could be the fight on terror, environmental security challenges or the remnants of the Soviet Union, Russia, thus, these challenges keep NATO active and should therefore not be dissolved. NATO as security management institution take human rights and humanitarian intervention into account, NATO efficiently responded to crisis in Libya. The NATO humanitarian intervention in Libya was legitimate, because it was authorised by UN Security Council, the main purpose of this operation was to save human lives and it was successful.

The consequences of a dissolved NATO will not help the wider international order, this is because NATO is also an enforcement arm of the UN Security Council, helped to combat Terrorism, WMD and Cyber Warfare, on the other hand, NATO members states shares democratic values, William et al (2000:358) argued that NATO persists because it's member states shared democratic norms and identities. This shows that democracy is the common language in these countries, and therefore, they can communicate very well and identify their common enemies and share military burden in order to make each ally stronger than individual part. The North Atlantic treaty organisation was set up to defend against the threat of Soviet aggression, however, today it's viewed as increasingly dysfunctional, and still searching for a new role two decades after the collapsed of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War ( Kashmeri:2010).

William (2008) argued that NATO has had little effect on counter-terrorism efforts. Williams statement points to the inability of NATO on combating terrorism. It could be argued that NATO was failed to stop Terrorists attacks on their members states, NATO was incapable to stop major terrorist attacks of 911, 7/7 London bombing or Madrid attacks, on the other hand, NATO did not achieved much of its goals on combating terrorism in Afghanistan, NATO failed to eliminate Top Taliban leader, Mullah Omer and could not stop much of the insurgency in the South of the country, as a result, NATO's member states had to pay huge cost of a lengthy War in Afghanistan, NATO lost their real aims in Afghanistan, its initial purpose of War in Afghanistan was to battle Terrorism, however, the aim spread to many other challenges, and it is now fighting for human rights, war on drug, reconstruction and building a democratic society for Afghans, NATO clearly lost its mandate in Afghanistan and its members had to pay massive amount of finance to support the war at the time where their own national economies were struggling with huge debts and deficits.

NATO believed that the organisation will transform into a World cop, by adopting a strategy of 'Out of Area' (Kashmeri: 1996), this dream is diminishing at slow pace in the mountainous Afghanistan, where many of its European members are avoiding main battle, France and Netherland has already withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, while leaving other members in uncertainty and disarray, on the other hand, US close ally Canada has also withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, making it more difficult for other NATO members to achieve significant goals, the remaining members are struggling to find resources to send a few hundred trainers to Afghanistan.

NATO does not have much relevance in 21th century nor it had following the Cold War and the collapsed of the Soviet Union, it was not imperative for NATO to maintain alliance. Mearsheimer ( 1994) stated that international institutions maintain only 'false promise' as a foundation for security. Mearsheimer's statement demonstrates that NATO is ineffective and therefore should be disbanded, security issues are best achieved through states, thus, security institutions have no place in international system. If the international community is posed with global threats, NATO would be unsuccessful, it would be more advantageous for each region including Europe to build their own security force rather than creating a global NATO force. It could also be argued that security institutions are manipulated by powers for their own national interest; hence, NATO is a great tool for US to advance its agenda. The extension of NATO force has also threatened development of democracy in Russia, most democratic activists in Russia have oppose NATO enlargement, precisely, on the grounds that it hinders the progress of democracy in Russia.

NATO is a tool of US and the majority of Americans have different social moral values compare to their European counterparts. Steele (2004) argued that Americans do not share values, but institutions with Europe. This illustrates that Europe and the US have similar institutions, like Europe they have a separation of powers between executive and legislature and an independent judiciary, but both Europe and the US have different values and this distinction is crucial. It clearly shows that they do not have common values or perceptions, and these perceptions may include security issues, and what constitutes a threat for the US may not constitutes a threat for the Europe. Steele (2004) clearly distinguish these differences, in the US more people have guns than have passports, and there is not one European nation of which is the same as US on this. However, millions of US nationals do share European values, but this only amounts to 48% and that the US is deeply polarised is incorrect.

European states are officially embedded as America's allies, and it's clear that the allies should support America and respect their leadership, thus, this makes it hard for European states to not follow American perceptions about security, if they don't they will fear of being attacked as disloyal. It's very obvious that Europeans like Americans have their own interest, sometimes they will coincides, and these interest will also differ, but it's normal (Steele:2004), it's clear that the US has some bilateral security treaties with other countries. And that could be a good deal for European states. If Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden could take considerable risk of staying neutral during the Cold War, thus, no need to join NATO in 21th century, in which the world is much safe than it was in bipolar order. It's clearly true that NATO will not function with the unanimity it demonstrated during the Cold War, however, the lesson has been learned from Iraq War and that the organisation has become no more than a " coalition of the reluctant"( Steele:2004), because it's strong member such as France and Germany did not joined the Iraq War.

The US as a leader and most powerful member of NATO, has always pushed the European allies to spend much on their defence infrastructure, blaming them for spending too little or spending on the wrong policies. This has been a regular feature of NATO meetings for years. Valasek argued that

"Virtually every piece of legislation in the U.S Congress involving NATO, such as bills on enlargement or missile defence, pass with at least an attempt by lawmakers to attach amendments mandating greater European contributions (Velasak:2001,20"

Velasak statement reveals that the Europeans are being pushed for something which they are not interested and it's also not in their national interests to spend much more on their defence infrastructure and pay heavily for the costs of wars, thus, NATO has become a threat to Europe. NATO's existence undermines Europe's own efforts to build their own regional security institutions which will more efficiently respond to external security threats. Some member states, particularly, the UK often looks over their shoulders for not upsetting big brother, the US. If the UK is so much cautious of not upsetting the US, thus, Central and East European States are more cautious not to upset the US, because they need the US more for their external security. On the other hand, the Common Security and Defence policy of Europe ( CSDP) does not have much power, assets or organisation, their first Task of deployment took place in 2003 in the Republic of Macedonia "EUFOR Concordia"(Chivvis:2008). The organisation seemed to be so weak that they used NATO assets, however, it was considered to be success, but their missions are considered to be very low profiled and small, hence, it makes it so ambiguous that they can respond efficiently to a real global threat.

To sum up, this essay demonstrated that NATO was founded for common defence against the hostile Soviet Union during the Cold War. NATO flourished in some ways and its humanitarian interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya provided NATO further legitimacy. Therefore, NATO's achievements as a legitimate international security institution cannot be underestimated; however, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed to confront Soviet Union military power, and achieved its purpose and outlived its usefulness, and it's time for the organisation to die a peaceful death, it's elimination will lead the path for regional security structure, which would efficiently deal with external security threats, on the other hand, NATO is a tool being used by the US, as the US is the most powerful member and assumed leader of the organisation, therefore, this advance US agenda and sometimes the US interest coincide with European interests, this is because most of Americans and Europeans do not share similar values. Iraq War was a clear example of this interest, which led NATO's main members to opt out of the War; however, US had great interest in the War and continued without their support.

This report was written by an anonymous writer at the UK Academic Writing Services

EU-Diges

Terrorism: Terrorist groups need to be infiltrated and destroyed - cheaper than bombing and more effective

It is time to infiltrate terrorist organizations and destroy them

After the most recent terrorist attack in France, it seems their might also be an urgent need for a far more effective strategy than just the involvement of costly military operations.

First of all we should not label terrorists as good and bad ones - Daesh - Boko Haram, -PKK - Haqqani Network - Kataib Hezbolla - AL-Qaeda. They are all terrorist groups and should be labelled and treated as such.

Also for starters. Since just about every government in  the world is facing similar terrorist problems, cooperation and exchange of information between governments, in this respect, is not only important, but essential.

A "hot-line" for local citizens to call in every country, where they can confidentially report suspicious activities in their neighborhood certainly could be another effective tool to get a grip on these terrorist cells

In this context there should also be a financial reward system for people who can provide valuable information to the local authorities which leads to the arrest or elimination of terrorists.

Local government and the military should also develop training programs for individuals who can be used to infiltrate terrorist organizations via their recruitment programs and other means, to create internal chaos within terrorist organizations or destroy their chains of command.

Stopping terrorism can only happen when we are able to outsmart them.

© EU-Digest Editorial 

Belgium - The Battle of Waterloo June 18 - 1815 - Defeat or Victory?

Battle of Waterloo - June 18 1815  Wellington

Each year on June 18 the great Battle of Waterloo is recalled in what is now Belgium. On that day in 1815, Napoleon’s French army was defeated by a multinational force commanded by the Duke of Wellington. Since then, the phrase “to meet your Waterloo” has come to mean “to be defeated by someone who is too strong for you or by a problem that is too difficult for you.”

When it comes to our spiritual lives, some people feel that ultimate failure is inevitable and it’s only a matter of time until each of us will “meet our Waterloo.” But John refuted that pessimistic view when he wrote to followers of Jesus: “Everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith” (1 John 5:4).

John weaves this theme of spiritual victory throughout his first letter as he urges us not to love the things this world offers, which will soon fade away (2:15–17). Instead, we are to love and please God, “And this is what he promised us—eternal life”

While we may have ups and downs in life, and even some battles that feel like defeats, the ultimate victory is ours in Christ as we trust in His power..

Read more: Defeat or Victory? | Our Daily Bread

France - strikes hit fuel supplies: Here is where France is hit hardest by fuel shortages

With 2,400 petrol stations across France either empty or running out of fuel, here's a look at which parts of the country are the most affected.

Key points 

- 2,400 petrol stations empty or running low

- PM warns the French not to panic

- Total says 509 of its 2,200 stations empty or running low

- Read also: What can the French do if there's no fuel?

Authorities have tried to quell all talk of any fuel shortages, but 2,400 petrol stations out of 12,000 petrol stations around the country - that's one fifth - had either run out of fuel or were running very low.

And as the map below shows, it's looking extremely grim.

French oil giant Total said 54 percent of its stations in Brittany, 46 percent in Normandy, and 43 percent in the Pays-de-la-Loire region are totally or partially out of fuel.

In Nantes it’s proving almost impossible to find fuel. Posters announcing that pumps are empty greet motorists at almost every station. It’s a similar case in Vannes, where almost all stations are out of fuel.  

Read more: Here is where France is hit hardest by fuel shortages - The Local

EU-US TTIP trade deal under threat over the Feta factor (and much more)

TTIP: Putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank

A food fight between Europe and the US could block a massive free trade deal.

Products like Feta cheese, Gorgonzola, Champagne and Parma ham currently enjoy protection under which only they can be sold by that original name in the EU.

But with the controversial and much protested against Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) those products would not enjoy that protection in the United States.

In addition US companies would be able to sell their products in Europe under TTIP, even if they did not meet the same standards as local foodstuffs – for example Feta cheese from Greece can only be made with goat and sheeps milk.

The Americans say it is unacceptable protectionism and producers can use trademarks, though the US considers names like Feta to be generic and so not protectable by trademarks.

The Europeans say no protection means no trade deal.

With over 1,200 food products and close to 2,000 wine names having “so-called ‘geographical indicator’ status“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indication negotiations could be bruising.

Already Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan and French President François Hollande are threatening vetos if the issue is not resolved.

The matter is being discussed this week by the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council.

Note EU-Digest: in reality this massive trade proposal called TTIP is a threat to our climate, health and democracy. NAFTA proved to be a failure, and now the US is trying to shove TTIP, which has been negotiated with very little transparency, down the throat of the EU.  Come on EU,  show some "cojones", and tell the US where they can shove their TTIP proposal. 

Read more: TTIP trade deal under threat over the Feta factor | euronews, economy

Terrorism: Study shows one-third of EU volunteer terrorists in Syria have returned home

Terrorism: report all suspicious activity to police

Almost 30 percent of EU citizens who joined the fight in Syria have returned home, according to a new study.

The study, prepared by the Hague-based International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, said that more than 4,000 Europeans had gone to fight in Syria, of whom 14 percent were confirmed dead.

French, Germans and Britons make up the highest number of foreign fighters from European countries in the ranks of armed groups in Syria, the study reported, but Belgium is the largest contributor in proportion to its population.

Europeans fighting alongside groups in Syria and Iraq have been high on the agenda of European security concerns for several years.

Returned volunteers have been involved in attacks in Paris and Brussels over the past 18 months, including last month's bomb blasts in the Belgian capital.

The study, however, maintained that "not all FF (foreign fighters) are terrorists, and not all terrorists are FF.
"Thus, not all returnees systematically present a danger to the societies to which they return," it added.

The researchers said that it was hard to understand the motivations of the returnees, but a previous study published by Dutch Security and Intelligence Service in 2014 offered various reasons for returning.

These included: "being disillusioned, being traumatised, (feelings of) betrayal, realisation of the atrocities, and regret, as well as having plans to recruit others or commit attacks in their countries of departure".

About 17 percent of them were female and 23 percent were converts to Islam, according to the latest study, published on Friday
.
Most came from urban areas or peripheral suburbs of the continent's cities.

Belgium - home to the attackers linked to last year's Paris shootings as well as last month's Brussels bombings - sent 41 fighters per million population.

Not only did Belgium contribute the most fighters compared to its population, but only 18 percent of them had returned, compared with 50 percent of those who had left from Denmark, the researchers said. Austria and Sweden followed in per capita terms.

In absolute terms, France was the largest source country for fighters who had left to fight alongside the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The study counted more than 900 of them.

Germany and Britain also contributed large numbers.

Note EU-Digest: the unanswered question which remains  is "how have the Governments of EU member states dealt with identifying these returning terrorists?"  It is imperative that at passport and immigration control sites immigration officers become far more serious, when screening single incoming young males and females from Middle Eastern decent, than they have been so far.  

In the meantime report all suspicious activities in your neighborhood or apartment building immediately to the police, The life you save could be your own.

Read more: One-third of EU fighters in Syria returned home: Study - AJE News

Can NATO finally be made obsolete in Europe? : European Defense Cooperation needs to be expanded and reinforced

It is high time for a strong EU Defense Force

It has become quite obvious that European governments need to cooperate more seriously on defense matters .

European nations face an unprecedented confluence of security crises, ranging from unpredictable US and to a lesser extend also Russian military involvements across the Middle East and Eastern Europe, which are generating internal security dangers, including terrorist attacks and a large influx of refugees .

Since it is obvious that no EU country can cope in putting this together it has to be a defense force which includes all the military forces of the EU nations, with a central command.

One new but key dimension of the security challenges facing the EU is that the EU now has to simultaneously defend not only the territories of the EU, but also manage external crises. Another important aspect in this picture  is that the lines between internal and external security have become  increasingly blurred.

Against this backdrop, at a summit in June 2016 the EU is expected to adopt a new global strategy, which will set out priorities and guidelines for EU foreign, security, and defense policies.

This summit and other institutional processes are important, even though right now European defense cooperation is being pushed more by the amalgamation of national priorities than just by the efforts of the EU.

European defense cooperation will continue, but it is mainly bottom up—driven by national governments—not top down, meaning directed and organized by the institutions in Brussels.

For example, although the previous decline in European defense spending has stopped, national budgets have fallen by around 15 percent since 2008. Institutional orthodoxy holds that reduced national budgets, especially for military equipment, should spur more cross-border collaboration. In fact, the opposite has been true.

Between 2006 and 2011, EU governments spent around 20 percent of their equipment budgets on pan-European collaboration each year. By 2013, this figure had fallen below 16 percent, according to the European Defense Agency.

Similarly, European governments have become less willing to send soldiers abroad for peacekeeping operations and more selective about which missions they participate in. All the European members of NATO contributed to the alliance’s operations in Afghanistan during the 2000s, but less than half took part in NATO’s 2011 military intervention in Libya. The EU has deployed over 30 peace operations since 2003, but 24 of these were initiated before 2009, and the pace and size of new missions has dropped considerably since then.

European funding of NATO’s central role in European territorial defense has been reinvigorated since 2014, mainly as result of the Ukraine tribulations between the US and Russia. Conventional deterrence is back in Europe as a core task for European governments. But so far, even these efforts have remained relatively modest.

With a strength of only 5,000, the multinational Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, under the flag of NATO prompts questions about the unit’s usefulness in an event of a military confrontation  with Russian forces.ccording to one recent war-gaming study, the longest it would take Russian military forces to reach the Estonian and Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga is sixty hours.

However, even if the EU is struggling to encourage much deeper collaboration among their members, it would be wrong to think that there is no progress on European defense cooperation. There are now nearly 400 ongoing military cooperation projects in Europe. These include initiatives such the European Air Transport Command in the Netherlands, which manages the missions of almost 200 tanker and transport aircraft from seven countries, and the Heavy Airlift Wing based in Hungary, which has helped eleven European countries procure and operate a fleet of C-17 transport planes.

Some countries are also working more closely in regional formats, such as Baltic, Nordic, and Visegrád (Central European) cooperation. And a number of European governments are pursuing deeper bilateral cooperation, including the integration of parts of their armed forces in some cases. Examples include Franco-British, German-Dutch, and Finnish-Swedish initiatives.

European governments are increasingly picking and choosing which forms of military cooperation they wish to pursue, depending on the capability project or military operation at hand. Sometimes they act through NATO or the EU, but almost all European governments are using other formats as well, whether regional, bilateral, or ad hoc coalitions. The combination of more complex security crises and reduced resources has meant that European governments are more focused on their core national interests than before, and both more targeted and flexible about how they wish to cooperate with the US or even among themselves.

The success of European defense cooperation will depend on the convergence or divergence of national policies, in particular the abilities of France, Germany, and the UK ( who collectively account for almost two-thirds of EU defense spendin)  to not only agree among themselves but to also convince other European governments to support a common approach.

It is high time for the EU to get their act together in the area of military cooperation, so it won't continue to be at the mercy of NATO and dragged into military adventures based on US foreign policy objectives. 

The expansion and improvement of an independent EU Defense force must also become an integral part of well defined Global EU foreign policy objectives, in order to become truly effective.

EU-Digest

EU: Will Populist Parties Run (Ruin) Europe? - by Judy Dempsey

Populism and Nationalism, two destructive political forces

Populism is on the rise in Europe but is unlikely to win enough votes to run Europe. Yet the risk that populism will run Europe by proxy is real if mainstream governments do not address the phenomenon’s underlying causes.

Leaders of the center-right and center-left are racing to embrace right-wing populist demagoguery in the hope of catching a few votes. This tactic does not pay off, as Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico discovered in Slovakia’s parliamentary election on March 5. His embrace of the right-wing anti-immigration card boosted far-right parties more than his own. If voters want xenophobia, they will choose the real thing.

But Fico’s experience does not seem to be persuading mainstream politicians to stop chasing right-wing populism. Governments’ responses to the refugee influx are paralyzed by a fear of populism’s rise in upcoming elections.

Worse still, populists are framing the way in which the refugee challenge is debated. These fears are blocking the emergence of alternative solutions, in turn giving populists even more ammunition. If mainstream politics does not recapture the debate with alternative proposals and a vocabulary that reflects its principles (those that have held Europe together), it will put itself at the mercy of a populist minority.

Contrary to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s boldest dreams, illiberal national populists will not run Europe anytime soon. In many countries, the shrinking center still just about holds. But this should provide little comfort. Populists don’t need to run Europe to ruin it. Of course, the poison works best in countries where authoritarian populists control the government. The proudly illiberal regimes of Orbán and Jarosław Kaczyński, leader of Poland’s right-wing Law and Justice Party, would fail to meet the Copenhagen criteria for acceding EU states.

But populists do not need to control the government to feed on and fuel a new age of fear in Europe: fear of the Other (especially Muslims) and fear of global competition. Populists’ seemingly easy answers—pull up the national drawbridge to keep Muslims and competition out—put pressure on terrified establishment elites and drag political culture to previously unseen lows, depriving policymaking of the oxygen of reason.

This trend is now also threatening to engulf Germany, so far one of the last islands of liberal democratic normalcy. If you want to know what a neurotic Germany feels like, take Bavarian Minister President Horst Seehofer as a harbinger of things to come. Not a pretty prospect for the dream of a self-confident liberal Europe in the twenty-first century.

Populist parties already run many European countries. Look at Central and Eastern Europe, where populists formally make up the government, or at France and the UK, where they set the tone of the political debate to a greater or lesser degree. There are reasons to believe that populist and other fringe political forces will increasingly shape Europe’s political landscape and polarize it along liberal versus illiberal or globalist versus territorialist dividing lines.

But the real question is not whether populists are likely to grab power in one or two more EU member states—although a French presidency led by the far-right National Front’s Marine Le Pen would be the end of Europe as we know it. The real (and currently materializing) threat is that so-called mainstream parties will gradually give up their fundamental principles of human rights, civil liberties, equality, and openness out of panic fear of a populist surge.

The rise of populism is sometimes a high but inevitable price to pay for a firm policy of not bowing to external pressures. The right-wing Alternative for Germany versus Chancellor Angela Merkel is a case in point. Perhaps Europe needs to accept this price. And instead of seeking to accommodate populists, Europe should try to mobilize those large parts of society that have lost not only confidence in the elites but also the belief that the stakes in today’s politics are high. If liberal democracy and open societies fall in Europe, it will happen by default, not because of an outright rejection by the people.

Read more: Judy Asks: Will Populist Parties Run Europe? - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

US Presidential Elections: More countries are destroyed by their own politicians than by foreign armies - editorial

Montesquieu,

“The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded.”, said  Montesquieu, (Charles Louis de Secondat)  (1689-1755), a  famous French political philosopher who lived during the European "Age of Enlightenment".

In fact, putting this in the context of the US Constitution and the intended way America is supposed to function, it follows,“Congress makes the laws, the president carries them out, judges decide controversies, and the citizens may be penalized only by a jury of their peers”,

Unfortunately, in reality, this is not how the US functions as a political entity anymore.

America is now ruled by a uniformly educated class of persons controlling the commanding heights of bureaucracy, of the judiciary, education, the media, large corporations, and that force wields political power through the political establishment.

Its control of access to prestige, power, privilege, and wealth exerts a gravitational pull that has made the political elites its major accomplices.

As to the economy : “Think of the American economy as a large apartment block. A century ago—even 30 years ago—it was the object of envy. But in the last generation its character has changed."

"The penthouses at the top keep getting larger and larger. The apartments in the middle are feeling more and more squeezed and the basement has flooded. To round it off, the elevator is no longer working. That broken elevator is what gets people down the most.” said Lawrence Katz, Harvard University economist, already back in 2010.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) once noted that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”  Indeed, democracy is a very fragile political system that can sometimes fail the very people it is designed to serve.

American president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined it as “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” He would turnover in his grave if he saw how his Republican party defines the functions of Government today.

But democracy is at its worst when an oligarchy takes control of a country’s institutions and imposes its own agenda. Such is the case, unfortunately, in today’s United States. Money interests, not the sovereign people, control the political system; they control the corporate media system, they control the U.S. Supreme Court and much of the judicial system and, one can even argue that they control a large chunk of the academic system.

The U. S. economy, like most industrial economies, is an open economy. This means that goods and services can be exported and imported while facing a minimum of border taxes and other barriers to international trade. For a quarter of a century now, it has also meant that the U. S. economy is part of the economic globalization model.

The later goes much further than free trade: it means that corporations and banks can move their capital, technology and production plants around the world in search of the greatest profit and the best investment environment. Many economists believe that this globalization model has been pushed too far and has become a major cause of economic stagnation in the industrial economies.

In an open economy, keynesian-type stimulus policies of deficit government spending or of tax reduction do not work properly, essentially because stimulus policies of this type are the equivalent of heating a house in winter with the windows and doors wide open. The new deficit spending may help the world economy, since much of the new spending ends up abroad, but the domestic multiplier effect of such spending can be very low. This means that such an economic stimulus in an open economy may not be as effective in stimulating economic activity as hoped and, in some circumstances, it can do more harm than good.

Nevertheless, many politicians (and some economists cling to the old idea that lowering taxes for the rich when the government is in deficit or new non-infrastructure government deficit spending can stimulate the economy.

 This obviously does not work, at least not if the new deficit spending is not focused domestically. Spending deficit money in Afghanistan or in Iraq doesn’t much stimulate the U.S. economy!

What works in an open economy are policies geared toward changing relative prices in order to encourage domestic production and employment. First of all, a lowering of the real exchange rate can encourage net exports and stimulate domestic production and employment, provided the government does not sustain excessive domestic absorption through unproductive large deficits.

Another approach to move relative prices in favor of domestic production and employment is to use the tax system accordingly. Presently, many American corporations are hardly taxed at all on their profits when they operate abroad. Some appropriate taxation of these profits can encourage repatriation of capital and support additional domestic investments. It may be argued that the American political system is not flexible enough to allow for the use of tax policies to encourage domestic production and employment. If so, this would be another indication that the current state of the political system in the U. S. is inimical to economic progress.

The results of the present day US economic policies are everywhere to be seen. The United States has reached levels of inequality in wealth and income that used to be seen only in some backyard third-world countries.

Specifically, therefore, when it comes to politics, it is also in the best interest of any country to avoid giving power to idiots, ignoramuses, incompetents, devious and delusional characters or to demagogues. If not, watch out.

The records show — More countries are destroyed by their own politicians rather than by foreign armies.

Donald Trump’s claim to be an enemy of 'rule-by-inside-deal' is counter intuitive. His career and fortune have been as participant and beneficiary in the process by which government grants privileges to some and inflicts burdens on others. Crony capitalism is the air he breathes, the only sea in which he swims, his second nature. His recipe for “fixing” America, he tells us, is to appoint “the best people”—he names some of his fellow crony capitalists—to exercise even more unaccountable power and to do so with “unbelievable speed.” He assures the voter that, this time, it will be to “make America great again.” Sure, tell us another one Mr.Trump.

Hillary Clinton's approach is to "improve on the system" as she says. She's also embracing the label of "insider," declaring that she knows "what it takes to get things done". With Hillary it is probably the word "insider" which worries most Americans,specially those who believe that the US political system is rotten to the core.

Bernie Sanders's call for a political revolution is at the center of his political appeal. Progressives don't just love him because his policy proposals are more left wing than Hillary's. They love the fact that he calls America's political and economic system by what it is: corrupt.

America's choice for President in November 2016 will either be as significant as the declaration of independence on July 4, 1776, or the final chapter in the systematic destruction of the American Democracy..
.

EU-Digest

US Press constantly negative towards Europe - Why doesn't Europe pay them back in kind?

Most of the time when you pick up an American newspaper or hear a review about the EU on US TV and Radio networks, it usually is a negative, derogatory or slanted story. 

Case in point: The American conservative thinker recently wrote:" Europe is on fire, in a social and financial crisis of its leaders’ own making. Its public places are now spectacles of the obscene, and its women are sexual objects for a predatory race of invaders. Its social systems are stretched to the breaking point by belligerent "refugees" who are devouring their host countries at will, while Europe’s leaders defend the invaders and blame their own citizens."

"Islam is now controlling most of Europe, either actively, or passively, due to the absence of any response from local governing authorities -- a curious void of law and order.  “Peace in our time” has now given way to the “Religion of Peace.” 

What utter nonsense.

It is amazing Europe is not reacting to all this undermining and mostly unfounded nonsense more aggressively? 

After all, if Europe has a refugee and an ISIS problem today, it has had a lot, if not everything to do with the war the conservative "father and son" Bush US presidency teams started in the Middle East against Iraq. Worst of all - these wars were based on totally fictitious reasons.When will the US press start talking about that?

It is high time the EU takes a very close look at its foreign policy objectives and adapts it to fit the real needs of Europe, not only those of the US, especially when it concerns the Middle East, or the EU's relationship with Russia.

Almere-Digest

Netherlands to join US-led air strikes in Syria - "not a very clever move of the Mark Rutte Government", say some

The Netherlands has agreed to join US-led air strikes in Syria extending its current mission over Iraq, Dutch officials announced today, bowing to a request from the United States.

"In order to make the fight against ISIS in Iraq more efficient, it has been decided to carry out air strikes against ISIS in eastern Syria," the foreign and defence ministries said in a statement.

Late last year in the wake of the November Paris attacks, the Dutch government received a request from allies the US and France to broaden its campaign of air support against the Islamic State (IS) jihadist group -- also known by the acronym ISIS.

The Netherlands is already participating in the coalition by carrying out air strikes in Iraq with four F-16 aircraft specialising in close air support of ground operations by Iraqi forces.

But it had insisted in the past that it would not extend the air strikes over Syria without a UN mandate.

"We are going to deploy the F-16s above Syria, in particular to stop the pipeline leading from Syria into Iraq," Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told reporters

Note EU-Digest: Not a very clever move by the Dutch  Mark Rutte Government,  just when the peace talks are beginning and ISIS is looking around for another "soft target" in Europe. As one politician noted :"With just 4 F-16 jet fighters at our disposal, it is basically not a question of being tough or accommodating, but rather of being stupid". 

Read more: Netherlands to join US-led air strikes in Syria: official | Business Standard News

Political Revolution?: The People Have Woken Up - Political Establishment in Europe And US Is In Trouble - by RM

French revolution 1789 until 1799

When you look at it closely there really is not much difference today between the EU and US when measuring the  public opinion in both areas as to how their ruling political establishment is perceived.

Polls show they both consider them unreliable and "in the pocket" of  private interest groups and lobbyists.

In a way this reaction is also a refreshing development. Slowly but surely in both America and in many countries around Europe people are waking up to the fact that many politicians within their political establishment, on both the left and the right, are not really representing the people who elected them anymore, but rather their own interests.

In fact, most of the polls taken on this issue seem to indicate that many voters now feel that they have been completely sold out by their political elite.

They are also angry about the steady takeover of their liberties by unregulated global corporate forces, and the fact that their elected Governments are doing very little to stop it.

Hence we see the rise of  a new breed of somewhat unorthodox people successfully entering the political arena in the US - like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Same is happening in Europe, with the likes of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Marie Le Pen in France, Nigel Farage in Britain, Victor Orban in Hungary, Alexis Tsipras in Greece, and .Pablo Iglesias in Spain, to mention just a few.

Could this be the beginning of a total shake-up and possibly even a peoples revolution changing the existing "fault-lines" of today's political and economic structures in both the USA and the EU ?

It looks like the party has only just begun.

EU-Digest

Privacy and Freedom in danger: A Cashless society will destroy freedom and privacy

Big btother is watching

Unfortunately, the time is fast approaching where our current technological snooping capabilities and the ease of  major data manipulation by the Government and the financial Industry will accelerate the arrival of a completely cashless society..  

This will happen in such a way as to permit governments to exercise incredibly powerful controls over all human behavior and activities.

While this may sound like a paranoid doomsday scenario to some, this theory is not only eminently possible, but most of the technology is already available to frighteningly make it a reality.

Technological advances have led to the creation of algorithms that can instantaneously review financial transactions, determining the nature, location and even the appropriateness of a purchase decision. These are already freely used by governments, banks, credit- and debit-card companies amd other financial institutions.

If these current trends continue, a cashless economy could thus very well lead to a complete evaporation of what we consider today as our basic Democracy and Human Rights. 

Imagine a future in which a government employee, who suspect an individual of some misconduct, or perhaps even that person's politics or speech unacceptable, could, with a few keystrokes on the computer, order all financial institutions to decline any withdrawal or payment from that individual, and freeze all other access to funds. 

Perhaps, in order to show a veneer of due process, this would need to be reviewed by a secret Kangaroo court that would approve 99.7 percent of all requests.

The final result is that the  targeted individuals and anyone supporting them could in fact be made to starve to death. 

When it comes to creeping state control in creating a cashless society, it is therefore no surprise to find France out in front. In the wake of last year’s terrorists attacks, the government has clamped down on the use of cash.

In the Netherlands depositing cash more than six times a year, even into your own personal account is penalized with a fee. All this without the Government lifting an eyebrow. 

In reality, cash is far too valuable to be given up lightly. In truth, the benefits of the abolition of cash is largely oversold and certainly not in the Public's favor.

EU-Digest 

France: COP21 climate change summit reaches deal in Paris

A deal to attempt to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2C has been agreed at the climate change summit in Paris after two weeks of negotiations.

The pact is the first to commit all countries to cut carbon emissions.

The agreement is partly legally binding and partly voluntary.

Earlier, key blocs, including the G77 group of developing countries, and nations such as China and India said they supported the proposals.

President of the UN climate conference of parties (COP) and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: "I now invite the COP to adopt the decision entitled Paris Agreement outlined in the document.

"Looking out to the room I see that the reaction is positive, I see no objections. The Paris agreement is adopted."

Read More: COP21 climate change summit reaches deal in Paris - BBC News

Pollution: Dirty deeds: The world's biggest polluters by country - by Sarah Wolfe

After years of decline, US carbon dioxide emissions increased slightly last year, according to a new report by the US Energy Information Administration.

That said, America is still a little better than the world's worst polluter: China.

The 2 percent jump in CO2 emissions in the United States was largely the result of higher natural gas prices last year, which prompted some utilities to switch back to a dirtier energy source — coal, according to The Washington Post.

Read more: Dirty deeds: The world's biggest polluters by country | GlobalPost

Climate Conference Paris: COP21: Hopes rise as EU forms alliance to push for deal - by Matt McGrath

The European Union has formed an alliance with 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in a final push for agreement at the climate summit COP21.

The new alliance has agreed a common position on some of the most divisive aspects of the proposed deal.

They say the Paris agreement must be legally binding, inclusive and fair - and be reviewed every 5 years.

The EU will pay 475 million euros to support climate action in the partner countries up to 2020.

Read more: COP21: Hopes rise as EU forms alliance to push for deal - BBC News

UN Human Rights Council: Giving Saudi Arabia a vital position on the UN Human Rights Council is like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank - by Noman Ansari

During my 15 years growing up in Saudi Arabia, there was one tenet I, like most expatriates, strictly abided by. This simple unwritten rule was; minimise your interaction with locals.

This is because many, though certainly not all Saudis we encountered, looked upon foreigners as if they were insolent slaves. From interactions in the neighbourhood, workplace, shops, and more, the Saudi disdain for foreigners is pretty clear.

With Saudi media towing the Kingdom line, it was only through word of mouth that we learnt of expatriate girls, women, boys, and boyish looking men escaping capture from Saudi groups. These gangs often travelled in hulking SUVs that sported tinted black windows, and would usually take their victims out into the middle of the desert to assault them sexually.

I myself evaded a child molester, when my childhood friend and I were followed by a big bellied man with a large beard who tried to bribe us with money and candy. This monster regularly prowled the neighbourhood for a few weeks.

Read more: Giving Saudi Arabia a vital position on the UN Human Rights Council is like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank – The Express Tribune Blog

ISIS: Hacker Group Anonymous Announces 'Biggest Operation' Against ISIS After Paris Attacks

The Hacker group Anonymous declared "total war" on the Islamic State (ISIS) extremist group on Sunday following the wave of attacks in Paris that killed at least 129 people and left dozens more in a critical condition.

A masked, French-speaking figure with a distorted voice is shown reading a statement from the group in the two-minute-long YouTube video. Clips from the attacks in Paris are shown in the video.

"War is declared. Get prepared," the masked figure says in the video in reference to ISIS. "The French people are stronger than you and will come out of this atrocity even stronger. Anonymous from all over the world will hunt you down. You should know that we will find you and we will not let you go. We will launch the biggest operation ever against you."

The escalation in Anonymous's operation against ISIS comes after at least seven suspected attackers carried out gun and bomb attacks against a number of civilian targets across the French capital, leaving 352 wounded and at least 99 in a critical condition. French police are continuing a manhunt for a man they believe took part in the attacks, identified as 26-year-old Salah Abdeslam.

Anonymous has targeted ISIS for a number of months, revealing the Twitter accounts of ISIS members and hacking a number of the group's sites. U.S. magazine Foreign Policy estimates that the group has dismantled at least 149 of the extremist group's affiliated websites, flagged approximately 101,000 Twitter accounts and nearly 6,000 propaganda videos.

Note EU-Digest: Excellent initiative. The more the better . Unity is the best defense against terrorism and fear.

Read more: Hacker Group Anonymous Announces 'Biggest Operation' Against ISIS After Paris Attacks

Paris Massacre: It's not only a "war on terrorism" but also a war on "political hypocrisy" - by RM

The tragic events in Paris are deplorable, but when you listen to the comments of the politicians, or most of the corporate controlled press, very few are focusing on the real reasons behind this ongoing  tragedy..Is it maybe that the root of the problem lies in the failure of the political establishment to accept failure and change course.?

In a way, it is quite simple. Anyone who has a bit of a brain and has been watching the developments in the Middle East over the past  20 years will be able to recognize that the result of this disaster really is the totally failed Western foreign policy in that region. .

Unfortunately even though the real culprits of this failed policy - based on lies and greed - are known - for some reason the facts are usually covered up.  Why are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Tony Blair., still enjoying a comfortable life, instead of being locked up for war crimes and misleading the public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and for leading the so called "coalition of the willing" -  which really should have been called "a coalition of the dimwits", - into a war, which basically destroyed the social and cultural structure of Iraq. A war, which also probably lies at the origin of the creation of ISIS. 

The political hypocrisy, however, continues unabated. 

Just look at the reasons politicians give us today when it comes to our ongoing friendship with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel. United Arab Emirates, and Egypt.. Terrorism, in this case, is the keyword  used for their smoke screen, and the cover-up of  the real problems. Right wing politicians even go one step further and blame it all on either the influx of refugees or the Islamization of Europe.

Don't get misled by your politicians or Government. Keep asking  the critical questions and vote them out of office when they avoid telling the truth.

Therefore as is stated in 1 Thessalonians 5. - "Test everything - hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil".

EU-Digest

Football: Netherlands to play England, France in friendlies

England will warm up for the European Championship in a friendly against the Netherlands, which failed to qualify for the tournament in France.

The Dutch football association announced Friday that Danny Blind’s team will take on England at Wembley on March 29. Four days earlier, the Dutch have a home friendly against France - a team they have been drawn with in a tough World Cup qualification group.

On Thursday, the Dutch announced friendlies next month against world champion Germany and Wales, both teams that are heading to Euro 2016.

The strong lineup of friendly opponents gives Blind an opportunity to start rebuilding and giving experience to his team that mixes many young players with veterans like Arjen Robben and Wesley Sneijder.

Read more: Netherlands to play England, France in friendlies - Washington Times