NATO: has Jens Stoltenberg gone mad ? : NATO’S strategy 2030 to confront China's security challenges -"instead why not seek peaceful cooperation?"

The United States of America is leading the way in anticipating the NATO countries in Brussels to meet the “security challenges of 2030”, placing the “first priority on China” and then Russia as its ally. Therefore, the White House issued a statement to express the issue, affirming:

“The countries of NATO and the United States of America will jointly launch a set of “ambitious” initiatives to ensure the preservation of the security of the alliance until 2030 and beyond, with full focus on the upcoming threats from Russia and China, as they are the most important challenges facing the countries of the alliance in the coming years” The most prominent is the unanimity of the thirty members of NATO led by the United States of America, during the “Brussels” summit of the NATO leaders’ meeting in mid-June 2021, and their agreement in the statement of the NATO summit in June 2021, on: “The necessity of reviewing “NATO’s strategic concept”, which will “guide its approach in an evolving strategic environment”, to include: the hostile policies and behaviors of both Russia and China and the security challenges that China poses to our security and prosperity” Perhaps what is new in the “NATO” summit meeting in June 2021” is that explicit text issued in a clear public statement by the White House on China, and it is understood from it that “NATO and its members have become a security tool in Washington’s hands in order to move a proactive initiative expected by NATO against China and Russia”, which may represent a major shift in the path of the alliance and its strategic and defense objectives towards China, and we understand this by analyzing the approach of “NATO and its thirty members” in the recent period, as follows:

The declaration of the Secretary-General of NATO, “Jens Stoltenberg”, at the “NATO summit meeting in June 2021”, and his call by the leaders of the alliance countries during their summit in “Brussels”, the need to “establish a stronger common policy to counter the growing dominance of China”.

Secretary-General of NATO, “Stoltenberg” declared publicly and without substantiating his words with evidence, in echoing the same American security agenda towards China, by saying:

Read more at: NATO’S strategy 2030 to confront China's security challenges - Modern Diplomacy

EU Citizens under threat from populist right-wing local and foreign politicians who are endangering the EU's unity and economic stability - by RM

Right-wing populist politicians destabilizing the EU

Democratic and Cultural Fortress Europe is under attack, by devious right-wing populist politicians and their followers

These include, but not limited to, (see picture insert) from top left to right: Donald Trump (USA), Steve Bannon (USA), Marine Le Pen (France), Nigel Farage (Britain), Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel), Geert Wilders (the Netherlands), Dr.Jörg Meuthen (Germany), Jarosław Aleksander Kaczyński (Poland), Viktor Mihály Orbán (Hungary),Thierry Henri Philippe Baudet (the Netherlands) Luigi Di Maio (Italy), and Sebastian Kurz (Austria)

It is not a question anymore of how to come to terms with this threat, but how this threat can be eliminated effectively.  Tthe majority of Europesn citizens certainly do not want Europe to fall apart into a feuding group of nations, and easy prey for China, Russia and the US.

This issue certainly must, if it is not so already, become the number one objective on the agenda of the EU Commission, the EU Parliament and each individual EU Nation state.

Maybe, in this context it might help to refresh our memory as to the importance of the EU among the world of nations, with some historic background on the EU, and the benefits its citizens enjoy.

The European Union was set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours in Europe, which culminated in the past, and more recently in the First and Second World Wars.

Europeans were determined to prevent such killing and destruction from ever happening again.

After the Second world war, Europe was split into East and West,  resulting in a 40-year-long Cold War.

To counter this political problem, West European nations created the Council of Europe in 1949.

It was a first step towards cooperation between them, but six countries even wanted to go further.

As of 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace.

The six founding countries were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

The 1950s were dominated by a cold war between east and west. Protests in Hungary against the Communist regime are put down by Soviet tanks in 1956. ’

On the 8 of May 1950 French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman presents a plan for deeper cooperation. This historic event is celebrated every 9th of May as ' Europe Day'

On 18 April 1951 based on the Schuman plan, six countries signed a treaty to run their heavy industries – coal and steel – under a common management. In this way, none can on its own make the weapons of war to turn against the other, as in the past.

In 1957, the Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community (EEC), or ‘Common Market

One thing led to another, making the EU what it is today, operating as a single market with 28 member countries, one of the major global trading powers.

EU economic policy seeks to sustain growth by investing in transport, energy and research – while minimising the impact of further economic development on the environment.

In terms of the total value of all goods and services produced (GDP), it is bigger than the US economy. EU GDP in 2017 was €15.3 trillion

Over 64 % of EU countries’ total trade is done with other countries in the EU bloc.

On January 1, 2017, the population of the European Union (EU) was estimated at 511.8 million, compared with 510.3 million on 1 January 2016. During the year 2016, as many births as deaths were recorded in the EU (5.1 million), meaning that the natural change of the EU population was neutral.

With just 6.9 % of the world’s total population, EU trade with the rest of the world accounts for some 15.6 % of global imports and exports.

Consequently, together with the United States and China, the EU is one of the 3 largest global players in international trade.

The 28 EU countries had the second largest share of global imports and exports of goods in 2016.

For individual EU citizen some of the benefits include:

    1) Eligibility to live and work everywhere within the EU without further permission.

    2) Eligibility to take part in local elections of the community where you are a resident. So if you       are a Frenchman living in Munich you can vote for in the election of the Munich
city council, which chooses the mayor. You can even run for a seat in that local municipality.
   
   3) Eligibility to vote in the EU parliamentary elections, and you can even run for a seat.
   
    4) Coming from another EU member country one may not be discriminated against, in relation to local citizen in your place of residence. That means: If local residents are allowed to send their children to public school for free, you are also allowed. If they receive social security payments, you may also receive them.
   
    5) Say you want to run a workshop in Germany, you may even have benefits over and above those of local German citizens. If you are a German running a car repair workshop, you either need a master certificate as a trained car mechanic, or you have to employ somebody who has such a certificate. If, however, you are coming in from another EU country, you only have to show proof that you are a car mechanic with a work experience.
   
    6) As an EU citizen you also have diplomatic protection. If you are in a country where your home country does not have its own embassy, every EU embassy of a member state is obliged to help you if you need help.
   
    7) EU citizens also have the right to communicate with every administrative office within the EU in your own language - and you have the right to receive an answer in your own language.

Bottom line - don't let these right-wing Populists mislead you with vague and confusing arguments, Ask for specifics, like how they would set up things differently, and what the benefits would be for you as a citizen.

And if this results in more garbled rhetoric, like we so often hear from those populist politicians,  make sure you tell them they are not convincing you.

There is no way EU citizens would benefit from going back to their own currency, border controls, banking regulations, and nationally protected local trade.

Probably the most remarkable success for the EU has been that, apart from its economic prominence, following the ‘Schuman Declaration’, on 9 May 1950, there have been 68 years of peace across the continent, following this declaration.

The European project, known as the EU is the best thing that ever happened for peace, economic stability and prosperity on  the European continent. Another positive is that since it is still a project under development, it can only get better.

We must therefore use all means at our disposal to protect and safeguard it from the destabilizing forces which are presently attacking its existence.

© This article can be republished only if EU=Digest is mentioned as the source

EU-Digest 

Middle East Christian Communities: Why Did Christian Leaders in the Middle East Shun Vice President Pence's Visit?

The Middle East At Easter: "the US 
want Jesus to be a political Jesus"

According to Israeli news outlet Haaretz, Christian leaders in the Middle East shunned Vice President Mike Pence in his recent trip to their countries.

Christian leaders in Egypt and Jerusalem reportedly decided to boycott his visit, in an attempt to protest President Trump’s December 7th recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Pence was unable to visit Bethlehem, the city where Jesus was born, because it is located in the occupied region of the West Bank controlled by the Palestinian Authority who declared that Pence was ” unwelcome in Palestine.”

Pence declared that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is the “only true foundation for a just and lasting peace.” Arab Christians apparently disagree, wanting East Jerusalem to be the capital of a non-Israeli Arab state. Protestors held signs that read, “Pence you are desecrating our land. Pence go home.”

Pence reportedly completed his visit to the Middle East without meeting with any prominent Christian leaders from Egypt, Jordan and Israel. In his meeting with the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, Pence raised the issue of protecting Egypt’s Christians from persecution.

After meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan, Pence’s remarks made clear their disagreement over a two state solution: “Friends occasionally have disagreements, and we agreed to disagree on recognizing Jerusalem. We agreed all parties need to come to the table. I hope I impressed on him our earnest desire to restart the peace process.”

In his speech to the Knesset today Pence used religious symbolism, quoted from the bible, and explained his support for Israel as a moral and religious obligation, not solely a political one. His speech was interrupted by numerous standing ovations by Israeli  Knesset members.

According to The Associated Press, Palestinian Christians reject Pence’s “brand” of Christianity:

They argue that such streams of evangelical Christianity have used religion to whitewash Israel’s harsh policies during its half-century-old rule over millions of Palestinians.

“For me, it’s a sick ideology,” said Munib Younan, the recently retired bishop of the small Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land and former president of the Lutheran World Federation, an umbrella for churches with millions of believers.

“When I say Jesus is love, they want my Jesus to be a political Jesus,” Younan, 67, a Jerusalem-born Palestinian, said in a recent interview at his West Bank church.

The AP adds that while Christian Arabs are a minority living in the West Bank, they lived peacefully next to their Muslim Arab neighbors, describing their neighborhoods as places “where the pealing of church bells often blends with the Muslim call to prayer.”

Note EU-Digest - Jesus Christ represents love not hatred or violence, and if politics and fanaticism was not injected as a result of  foreign interventions in the Middle East,  historical peaceful coexistence would still prevail there  today.   

Read more: Why Did Christian Leaders in the Middle East Shun Vice President Pence's Visit?

Peace and War: Whatever happened to peace? Arms, oil and war by proxy- by Jonas Ecke

When will the killing stop to finance weapons industry

The end of the Cold War was one of the few historical moments in which people around the world looked forward to a future that promised to be more just and peaceful for everyone. The Berlin Wall was finally torn down, following years of tireless civil society activism in one of the world’s few peaceful revolutions. Liberal democratic systems seemed to be spreading everywhere, compelling Francis Fukuyama to craft the (nowadays often-scorned) argument that “The End of History” – and consequently the cessation of constant conflict – had finally arrived with the falling of the Iron Curtain.

The promising world 'peace dividend', a term initially coined by US president George H.W. Bush and UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, was on everyone’s lips. Hope was in the air. The Soviet Union and United States vowed to work together to further cut down on a nuclear arsenal that could have blown up the world many times over. And they also seemed to be hard at work getting rid of another major – and often underestimated – impediment to peace: proxy wars, the type of war waged in the developing world for most of the Cold War, from Latin America to Central Asia to the Horn of Africa. 

These were wars in which the Soviet Union and US did not directly fight, but paid and favored local fighters, often through highly classified operations and byzantine financial networks that have inspired generations of spy novelists. Before the Cold War, colonial regimes paid local proxies to advance their agendas and “divide and conquer”.

As the Cold War finally came to a close, it was hoped and anticipated that weapon donations would be replaced by UN Peacekeepers and a new generation of NGO activists. Indeed, the new crop of peacemakers seemed to be more liberated. Free from the stifling imperatives of geopolitics, they could implement deals that had previously died prematurely at the conference tables of diplomats, anxious over the advances of an enemy superpower. The tit-for-tat strategies that would reap destruction seemed to be a thing of yesteryear.  

The “War to End all Wars” is a coinage that stems from the First World War. In the global public imagination: the Cold War would be the real “War to End all Wars.” Following its conclusion, an era of enduring peace was within immediate reach. Or so it seemed.

Fast forward 28 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and few such promised realities seem to have materialized. On the contrary, we have entered a new era of proxy wars.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,Yemen, Somalia etc.

To bring these complex wars to a halt, we have to be very precise about what keeps them going. Saudi Arabia and Iran, probably the two main players in proxy wars in a destabilizaion of the Middle Eastern region that is steadily increasing, fund proxy forces to bolster their versions of Islam—Sunni and Shiite Islam, respectively. It is safe to assume that from the perspective of Riyadh and Teheran, furthering sectarian interests, inextricably intertwined with access to resources and geopolitical influence, are of more importance than peace in the region.

But it is not only sectarian strife—often highlighted in the western media—but also global unregulated capitalism that pours kerosene on a Middle East that is already in flames. 

Western weapon companies see the newly emerging proxy wars as momentous opportunities for increased revenues. During a 2015 conference of Lockheed Martin in Palm Beach Florida, its executive vice president Bruce Tanner predicted “indirect benefits” from the war in Syria. Similarly, as the Intercept reports, Raytheon chief executive Tom Kennedy spoke of “a significant uptick” for “defense solutions across the board in multiple countries in the Middle East.” Referring to Saudi Arabia, Kennedy elaborates, “It’s all the turmoil they have going on, whether the turmoil is occurring in Yemen, whether it’s with the Houthis, whether it’s occurring in Syria or Iraq, with ISIS.” And sure enough, stocks for arms have soared in recent years.

But it is not only weapons but also oil which disincentivizes policy makers from de-escalating proxy wars. As Christopher Davidson, who the Economist called “one of the most knowledgeable academics” writing about the Middle East, shows in his 688-page long tome “Shadow Wars: The Secret Struggle for the Middle East,” how many covert operations in the Middle East were historically supported to advance the explicit geopolitical or economic interests of the funders. 

According to Davidson, the emergence of the US as a major oil producer has motivated US policy makers (Trump included) to let Saudi forces engage in exhausting proxy wars throughout the region so that a weakened Saudi Arabia is forced to sell its state assets.

Whatever the precise motivations, aside from the publicly touted humanitarian rationales, oil and weapons play a role in the decisions made by states, even when lives are at stake.

But whatever the argument, the evidence in support of proxy wars as an effective means in the interest of peace is scarce. At least this is the case if one follows the analysis coming from the proverbial mouth of the horse, the CIA. The spy agency has funded proxy fighters for most of its history. 

Reportedly president Obama, at least an initial skeptic in the use of proxies, was interested in finding out if funding insurgents generally accomplish the stated strategic goals and commissioned an internal study.

The report concluded that conflicts were not decided in the interest of the US following the funding of proxy actors, unless, according to the report, US personnel were on the ground along with the proxies. The notable exception—according to the study—was the support for the Mujahidin against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. However, although the Mujahidin did ultimately chase the illegally invading Soviet forces out of the country, Afghanistan did not regain stability. One thing to come out of this instability was the merging of the Mujahidin into Al Qaida: the very same enemy the US fights in the current global 'War on Terror'. 

This is not just one war, but multiple new proxy wars that cause immense suffering and which have, according to the Global Terrorism Index, contributed to an almost nine-fold increase in deaths caused by terrorism between 2000 and 2016. If we consider the entire historical context, the Afghanistan example serves, at best, as a very cautionary tale. 

Tthe Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), demonstrates that 2014 saw an increase in the number of active conflicts and also the casualties from battle. Forty armed conflicts were active in 2014, whereas in 2013 34 conflicts were designated active. The increase in conflicts since 1999 stood at 18 percent. Whatever gains were brought about by the 'peace dividend', they have been reversed, with people all over the world paying the greatest price.

President Donald Trump, by contrast, initially critical of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, has stepped up military activities since he took office. For example, drone strikes, an important component in the theater of war in Yemen, have gone up by 432 percent and his $ 110 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia also won't help in getting hostilities slowed down.

A new type of vigorous and principled peace movement must be formed in this time of crisis. Peace movements in rich countries should join Middle Eastern peace movements that rally for more democratic and less sectarian governance. Social movements can become stronger by integrating divergent points of view, histories and ideologies, which inform interpretations of complex conflicts. It necessarily has to look at the various internal roots of conflict, and also at how foreign governments, from Moscow and Washington to Riyadh and Teheran, fuel conflicts.

Supporting and holding political platforms accountable will be key to demilitarizing political ideologies and stopping the world in its “ruinous race” to global war, to use the words of Gorbachev. More often than not, a call to arm a party to a conflict prolongs said conflict. 

The public’s immediate question with regards to conflicts probably shouldn’t be “Whom should we support militarily?” Instead, we should more seriously consider questions such as “Who keeps a conflict going?” and “How can we de-escalate it?”

Somehow we the people—who, against all odds, want to raise our children in a more peaceful world—have to let our politicians know that arms should be removed from most regions of conflict.

Far from being out of touch with reality, the global peace movement—though worryingly weakened—in fact holds the most realistic solutions to conflict. Given the data, it is clear that negotiation with the actors in a conflict is the best route to peace. De-escalation is the only framework in tune with the realities of the contemporary world as well as the lessons of recent history. 

We the people have to compel and force if necessary regional and global political forces to work towards de-escalating conflicts. Challenging the financial conglomerates that bring weapons into the hand of proxies may be one of the most effective ways to do so.

Please get out of your comfort zone and act- the future of your children and grand-children are at stake. 

EU-Digest

New World Order Equals "Global Disorder": as the frail structures of peace are collapsing around us - by RM

A Nuclear War Is looming

What was sold to the world as "the New World Order" by George Bush, the father of  George W.Bush can only be described today as a total failure and should really be known as the "World Corporate Takeover".

As a result things are escalating in the world today: tensions, wars, guns, refugee crises, poverty, economic crises, immigration, etc.

The world must solve these problems before they explode into  a Third World Nuclear War.

World leaders, politicians, people cannot continue keep silent on atrocities going on around the world, especially the Middle East and Africa, or even in our own Western cities and neighborhoods.

Only when enough voices are raised can something change.

Feel encouraged to use the social media, not only for pleasantries, culinary delights, travel, or navel staring, but also use it as a non-violent, but very effective weapon to criticize your elected leaders, corporations, the press, on issues that are important for your survival.

Those of you using Blogs or other communications tools, as an oversight to expose governments and corporate "hanky-panky" need to be cheered on and complimented.

The younger generation, reading this report, are also encouraged to use their energy and skills, not only to make money, but also to become an activists, by speaking their minds on issues they believe in.

After all as Alexis de Tocqueville once said said: "The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by its private citizens" .

Take the time to look around you and you will soon realize that the so-called "status-quo " enjoyed by only a few, is not sufficient to guarantee a productive living environment for all.

It is no longer acceptable before God, and people with conscience. Nations who have no voice in the world are being purged, gutted out and destroyed.

Today there is conflict all over the world. You name it, the Middle East, Africa, Central America, Ukraine, etc. Thousands have perished in Syria, and millions fled from their homes; thousands are perishing in Yemen, mostly children; thousand in Iraq and the destruction of an ancient city; thousands fled in Libya where another war is raging; 60, 000 just fled their homes a few days ago in South Sudan; Mali, Central African Republic, Somali, Congo all in conflict and millions in refugee camps. Thousands have perished and millions fled to seek refugee status in Europe, Turkey, Lebanon and even the US.

Something must be done soon before the frail structures still holding the world from collapsing into a Third World Nuclear War” also collapse.

Many of the areas where you have conflicts these days are usually the so-called Third World Nations or as somecall them, Developing Nations. They do, however, contain most of the natural resources in the world, but still remain among the poorest nations of the world.

The obvious question is why?

Mainly because the global centers of power in the world, including the US, EU, China, Russia, Britain, either use these developing countries to expand their political sphere of influence, or to control their natural resources, under all kinds of pretenses; including the setting-up of puppet leaders who do their bidding.

Once a grip is established by "an outside power", it will put a "friendly" Puppet Government in place providing it with weapons to control the people they govern.

When those leaders, however,  for one reason or another, are not able to meet the goals set for them by their "foreign benefactor", they are either exciled or assassinated, under whatever pretense.

This is the way leaders in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, etc. were toppled.

Consequently many of the world's Third World leaders are ruthless, wicked, and not able to develop these natural resources for the benefit of their own people, specially in Africa, blessed with just about every natural resource the world needs.

Our own Western leaders are not much better in that respect, specially when it comes to Democracy or governance.

They seldom show any remorse for the atrocities they have created around the world; are godless and immoral; will promise anything to keep control over the people, only to deceive, will not do what they promise and usually create more problems than opportunities for the people they are supposed to serve.

Poverty has spread across the globe, not only in Africa, but now also to the rich and powerful nations of the world, including, the US, India, Russia, China, Britain, Greece, France, Braxil, Venezuela and many more.

When it comes to politics, people these days the world over have a lot in common. From Fukushima to Athens, and from Washington to Shanghai, China, the collective refrain is that government is not to be trusted, or working the way it should, and that corporations are calling the shots today.

People in the so-called "civilized" world now pay dearly for energy, medicine,insurance, healthcare, banking, and telecommunications services.  In the past it was called Voodoo Economics and today it has become Strangle-Hold Economics.

Research reveals that people are paying more -- much more -- in a variety of ways that our business-friendly mainstream media won't talk about.

Just look at America's Middle class. It  is almost wiped out; either you are rich, or poor now; poverty levels stand at 46 percent and is increasing; millions are in shelters, and millions without jobs. 

To add insult to injury - The wide-spread availability of guns in America has killed thousands of Americans, and everyday, many more die from gun violence; yet, Congress doesn't want to pass gun control law. Mainly again because of the powerful NRA lobby, which has its hands on the pocketbook of just about every legislator in both major parties.

In the meantime the corporate power structure has taken over most of the political decision making in Western Countries, and even more so in America. It now influences and controls just about anything  you can imagine. From the healthcare Industry to the food industry, even influencing what kind of hormones and pesticides are allowed in the food you eat, and all else in between. 

The Pharmaceutical industry uses sales agents, not only to peddle their drugs, but also to bribe Drs. with a variety of incentives, including money. 

Drs. are prescribing drugs and performing surgery on patients that don't really need those particular drugs or the surgery, while new effective and cheaper .drugs that can cure patient are delayed in being put on to the marketplace,t so that the Pharmaceutical Industry can continue selling expensive drugs which don't work. .  


A report by Battelle Memorial Institute determined that the $4 billion government-funded Human Genome Project (HGP) will generate economic activity of about $140 for every dollar spent. Although that estimate controversial, drug industry executives say it's just a matter of time before the profits roll in.

Big business has quickly made its move on this. 

One-fifth of the human genome is now privately owned through patents. Strains of influenza and hepatitis have been claimed by corporate and private university labs, preventing researchers from using the patented life forms to perform cancer research. This is not only bad it is plainly criminal.

As if to mock us, while taking over our public research, some of the largest drug companies haven't been paying much in taxes. Pfizer had 40% of its 2011-12 revenues in the U.S., but declared almost $7 billion in U.S. losses to go along with $31 billion in foreign profits. Abbott Labs had 42% of its sales in the U.S., but declared a loss in the U.S. along with $12 billion in foreign profits.

These alliances between the political establishment and the corporate world are now commonplace and even expanding further..

In the area of communications we see similar developments. 

In the US the CIA and NSA have been using public tax money to pay AT&T. Google, and other companies to access its data - basically your private data - for surveillance purposes. 

With almost no transparency or oversight, the CIA has been paying AT&T to monitor US citizens overseas phone calls. Hundreds of dollars per customer per month goes to Verizon for similar snooping. 

The NSA also compensated Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook for penalties accrued in the secretive Prism surveillance program.

Many US  corporations consequently feel very powerful as a result of the inequitable support they receive from their government when operating in other countries, and often act accordingly in an arrogant way, when dealing with foreign governments.

Recently Facebook rejected claims made by Germany's state authorities that it was reluctant to co-operate with them on criminal investigations, saying many of the requests it received for user data were incorrectly formulated.

Several regional interior ministers have complained that the social media group is hesitant to respond to requests for data and have called on the Federal Justice Ministry to introduce new laws.

German Police said the Ansbach bomber had six Facebook accounts including one held under a false identity. Traces of an online messaging conversation found on his phone also suggest he was influenced by an unknown person up until the time of the attack, said Bavaria's interior minister.

Germany's spy chief called on Monday for a more intensive exchange of information between social networks and security agencies in the fight against terrorism.

Bottom-line: The state of the world is not looking good, and maybe in this respect one should quote Scripture which says: “You will reap whatever you sow in life.” 

Mankind certainly can not be proud about what it sowed. 

The time of reckoning is fast approaching -and we must act before it is too late,

EU-Digest                                                                                               

Peace: Pray for Peace - August 15 - Editorial EU-Digest

OWNERSHIP OF PRAYER IS SPIRITUAL

IF YOU WONDER WHY AUGUST 15 WAS CHOSEN AS A DAY OF PRAYER, DON'T WORRY,. IT HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE AT ALL IF YOU RELATE IT TO THE  CONCEPT OF PEACE.

PRAYING FOR PEACE IS NOT ONLY ENCOURAGED, YOU CAN ALSO DO  IT ANYWHERE AND ANYTIME YOU GET M0VED TO DO SO.

THE AUGUST 15 DATE WAS CHOSEN SPIRITUALLY TO HAVE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE FOCUSING ON THE ISSUE OF PEACE, SECURITY AND PROSPERITY,, WHICH IS AFFECTING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD TODAY..

IT IS ALSO GOOD TO KEEP IN MIND THAT PEACE OFTEN MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS TO PEOPLE. IT CAN RELATE TO WAR, ILLNESS, DEATH, GOVERNMENT, SECURITY, CORPORATE GREED, FINANCES, JOB SECURITY, RELATIONSHIPS, MARRIAGE,  POVERTY, ILLNESS, FAMILY, PRIVACY, DISCRIMINATION, POLICE BRUTALITY, OPPRESSION, CHILD ABUSE, YOU NAME IT.

OWNERSHIP ON THE CONCEPT OF PRAYER CAN ALSO NOT BE CLAIMED BY ANY SPECIFIC "EARTH BASED RELIGIOUS GROUPING". THE ONLY REQUISITE FOR PRAYER IS THAT SPIRITUALLY YOU ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT  THERE IS A HIGHER BEING THAN YOURSELF WHO LISTENS TO YOU AND WILL ANSWER YOUR PRAYERS WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS.

SINCERE AND SPIRITUALLY FILLED PRAYERS ARE A MORE POWERFUL FORCE THAN ANY FORCE, TO OVERCOME, WHAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER TO BE A THREAT TO YOUR SECURITY AND PEACE.

SO ON AUGUST 15,  LET US JOIN IN SPIRITUAL UNITY AND PRAYER TO DEFEAT THE THREATS TO OUR SECURITY AND PEACE AND "WATCH HOW OUR WALLS OF JERICHO WILL COME TUMBLING DOWN".

EU-Digest

Opinion: Brexit poses challenge to peace in Europe

The German government - most of its members convinced, experienced Europeans - knows this, but can't say it out loud. A bitter foretaste of what's to come for the Germans and all the other Europeans is that an issue of existential importance for all is being voted on by no one but Britain: everyone else has no say in the matter.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's government is especially aware of the dilemma. It knows that at least in this question, it's backed by the majority of Germans. But no matter what German ministers or the chancellor herself have to say, it's almost certain to be used against them, and against the EU, in Germanophobe Britain.

The German finance minister - who is considered a hardliner, just ask the Greeks - summarized this dilemma in one sad sentence. Asked in London in March what Germany would do if Britain left the EU, Wolfgang Schäuble said: "We would cry."

Angela Merkel has taken a public vow of silence where the Brexit is concerned. Little more is said than the repeated affirmation that of course Berlin believes Britain should be in the EU - always accompanied by the assertion that it's up to the British people to decide. When there are no microphones nearby, the chancellor takes a more concrete stance, stating that a Brexit would be "terrible."

 Tears and terror aside, the economic cost of a Brexit would be high for everyone, from London and Manchester to Paris, Berlin and Warsaw - but highest of all for Britain. Even Brexit supporters seem to suspect that leaving the EU would be economic idiocy.

So their arguments have come to target emotions instead, and the retreat to a nation of one's own - with its suggested greater self-determination and simplicity. And that's where they cross paths with their right-wing populist European brethren. Nationalists of all countries, unite - in order to separate.

But it is the political consequences of a Brexit that could truly be awful.

For all the historically illiterate talk of an EasyJet generation, the Europe that forged monetary union, and that was built upon the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and the European Community always was, and is, a project of peace.

It was never ultimately about coal, but about cannons. This difficult trade-off is only possible if all of Europe's large states are engaged in the major everyday issues and the many small details.

Without London, the EU would find itself imbalanced. Berlin would be pushed into assuming a dominance it doesn't want and can't cope with. The German finance minister knows what that could mean - again, ask the Greeks: People no longer believe Germany is acting in Europe's interests

 In the first half of the last century, European crises resulted in war; the second half - not least thanks to the treaties of Paris, Rome and Maastricht - brought peace to an extent that in this century, it seems a given.

But it isn't. Military solutions seem acceptable once more - just look to Europe's eastern fringes. Hostile warships might one day patrol the English Channel again, not in three or five years, but perhaps 30 years from now - just because back in 2016, quite needlessly, the wrong answers were given to the wrong questions.

Yet right now, no one in the German government can say that out loud.

Opinion: We must value the EU once again - by Christoph Hasselbach

No one can say it was inevitable, but it was expected. The next European Parliament will be even more fragmented than the last. Representatives from both far-left and far-right parties will be moving to Strasbourg in greater numbers than before. As for turnout, the picture is mixed: in some countries more people voted than before, but those votes often went to Euro-skeptic parties.

All in all, the general public's interest in the EU is shockingly low - even though all the parties tried their best to motivate the electorate. For the first time, they chose leading candidates to tour the continent and debate each other. They tried hard to personalize and enliven the election, and make it more relevant. It did little good.

The only reassuring thing is that the parliament will remain functional, despite all the enemies in its own ranks. The representatives from UKIP, the Front National, the Danish People's Party will deliver angry speeches, but they won't really be able to block anything - because they differ from one another too much - they're too focused on their own nationalism.

By the same token, their rhetoric is always directed at their own voters in their respective home countries. They prefer to be the voice of the dissatisfied, rather than develop a major common project. This will cause the centrist, Europe-friendly parties to stick closer together. No, the Euro-skeptic extremists don't present a threat, at least not in the European Parliament.

The debt crisis of a few years ago showed how quickly an old order could be overthrown. The EU itself was peering into the abyss. That crisis has been overcome, more or less, but only thanks to common effort, mutual aid, and discipline. If each country had tried to find its way out of its crisis on its own, they would all have lost - even the stronger among them. Is that too long ago to still be a lesson?

How high the stakes are in Europe can also be seen from the Ukraine crisis: 25 years after the end of the Cold War, we're in danger of entering a new long-term European conflict. Astonishingly, the Ukraine crisis barely played a role in the election campaign, even though the EU is perhaps the best example of what balance and cooperation can achieve.

I met an African election observer at the last European election in 2009. When he saw the turnout figures - of 43 percent, the same as this time around - he shook his head and said, "In a lot of African states we'd be glad to have any free elections at all. And you Europeans throw away your rights!" It was a humbling meeting.
If we in the EU have no bigger problems than a few over-bureaucratic directives, then we really do have it good. Maybe we have it too good to appreciate the miracle of peace and common prosperity that we gained 70 years ago.

Read more: Opinion: We must value the EU once again | Europe | DW.DE | 26.05.2014

European Council - Successful EU-Africa Summit

The 4th EU-Africa Summit, April 2 - 3, 2014 brought together more than 60 EU and African leaders, and a total of 90 delegations, to discuss the future of EU-Africa relations and reinforce links between the two continents. In the summit declaration, leaders highlighted the close nature of EU-Africa relations and the shared values of democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law and good governance as well as the right to development.

Leaders recognised the importance of peace and security as essential prerequisites for development and prosperity. In particular, they confirmed their commitment to enhancing political dialogue on international criminal justice and universal jurisdiction. Leaders also gave their support to the African aspiration and commitment to ensuring peace and stability in Africa and agreed to support African capabilities in this area through any available means, with a particular focus on capacity-building. Both continents agreed to strengthen common effort to fight international terrorism and to combat the spread.

Leaders pledged to pursue policies to create jobs and stimulate long-term growth on both continents. In particular the two continents agreed to cooperate more closely in the field of maritime policy. The EU also underlined its commitment to continuing to support African countries in the preparation of climate-resilient and low-emission development strategies. Leaders on both sides highlighted the importance of ensuring prudent and transparent management of respective natural resources, and responsible mineral sourcing.

The summit declaration also underlines the importance of encouraging greater investment and economic development within and between countries in both continents, alongside developing transport, access to drinking water and to sustainable and affordable energy.  successful

Read more: European Council - EU-Africa summit 2014