USA - a thoroughly corrupt political process: Billionaires got $565 billion richer during the coronavirus pandemic

American billionaires are now nearly 20% richer — by $565 billion,to be exact — than they were at the start of the coronavirus pandemic,according to a new report by the Institute for Policy Studies

Six billionaires, including Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Tesla's Elon Musk, and Zoom's Eric Yuan, have seen their net worths grow by more than $2billion each since March, according to the think tank's analysis of Forbes' Billionaires List.

The coronavirus crisis has been an economic disaster for the rest of America, as an end unprecedented 42.6 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits in the past 11 weeks.

Note EU-Digest: This is another major problem facing America, and has resulted in the overwhelming influence Corporate America has on the political environment of the US and beyound. What's been happening with White House and Congressional politics could only be described as a thoroughly corrupt process, with the blessings of a Supreme Court dominated by justices hand-picked to protect the same process.

Read more at:
Billionaires got $565 billion richer during the coronavirus pandemic - Business Insider

EU-Migration Policies: Tragedy is inevitable if we fear migration rather than celebrate its benefits : by Jonathan Portes

Migrants don’t steal jobs or bring down wages. Rather, they’re more likely to bring dynamism and prosperity

our years ago, Europeans were shocked by the photograph of the drowned three-year old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi. Now, Americans are similarly horrified by pictures of El Salvadorans Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter, Angie Valeria, dead on the banks of the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, in the UK we are struggling with what our immigration policy should look like after Brexit, with Boris Johnson trying to have his cake and eat it with the promise of an “Australian-style points system”.
 
Few subjects are more politically charged than immigration. However, like free trade, it unites most economists, regardless of their politics. Immigrants don’t take our jobs, nor do they have much impact on wages. Just look at the UK, where sustained high levels of immigration have coincided with unemployment falling to its lowest level in 40 years.

More importantly, immigration makes economies more dynamic and is generally positive for productivity and prosperity. Even legitimate concerns about “brain drain” from developing countries turn out to be exaggerated, with such countries often gaining from remittances and new economic connections.

The economic and political forces driving immigration are only likely to intensify, in both Europe and the rest of the developed world. They will be powered by “demand” – demographic pressures, with every single country in Europe having a fertility rate below replacement level – and “supply” – population growth in developing countries, especially in Africa, and perhaps climate change. So the number of people seeking to move countries, whether through economic migration, refugee flows or a mix, will continue to grow. At the same time, we will need migration; even Japan, long resistant, has recently begun to liberalise policy.

If the economic benefits are clear, what explains the recent political backlash? What is the connection between the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the rise of far-right populists in continental Europe? A decade on from the financial crisis, the political foundations of the postwar (and post-cold-war) liberal order appear to be crumbling.

But while anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiment are common themes, the circumstances of individual countries are very different. In the US, Trump’s focus is on irregular migration from Mexico and Central America and its supposed impact on crime and security, although there is little or no evidence, in the US or elsewhere, to substantiate his claims. In the UK, the ostensible focus of the Brexit campaign was on EU free movement, predominantly by white eastern Europeans, although future migration from Turkey and points farther east was also a strong theme. In western European countries such as Sweden, Germany, France and Italy, rightwing populists were boosted by public reaction to refugee and migrant flows from Syria and Africa. And in Poland and Hungary, while immigrant flows are extremely small, parties in power have successfully appealed to nationalist sentiments by focusing on the threat of Muslim immigration overrunning “Christian” Europe.

Twitter is full of lunatics who talk about “race replacement” or “white genocide”. But more respectable versions of much the same argument can be found in the mainstream press. London’s population is no longer majority “white British”, but most of us were born in the UK and even more identify as British (white, black, Asian or mixed) and have British citizenship. Nevertheless, the eminent economist Paul Collier claims that the “indigenous British [have] become a minority in their own capital”. Spectator writer Douglas Murray, who argues for reducing or eliminating Muslim immigration, says London has become a “foreign country”. Eric Kaufmann, a political scientist and author of Whiteshift, suggests that we should favour immigrants from ethnic or cultural backgrounds who are easier to “assimilate” into the white majority. The favourite philosopher of some Conservatives, Roger Scruton, thinks it’s impossible for the (British-born) children of Muslim immigrants to be loyal British citizens. So the view that only white people can be “really” British, and that black or Asian Britons are still somehow alien and threatening, remains prevalent in some elite circles.

Some argue that if progressive politicians fail to accommodate these views, they will drive their traditional voters to the populist right. But there’s little evidence that this will help those most vulnerable to the lure of rightwing populism or improve public perceptions of immigration. Instead, countries such as Ireland, Canada, and Spain have combined relatively open policies with public consent by building a pro-migration coalition across much of the political spectrum.

Germany offers a particularly striking example. Amid the panic about the refugee influx in 2015, I wrote that it was an opportunity more than a threat. But many argued that it would be impossible, economically, socially or politically, to absorb so many people from supposedly “alien” cultures. But three years on, while far from perfect, the balance sheet appears mostly positive. Refugees are learning German and getting jobs. Although the far right continues to try to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria, crime is at its lowest level in almost 30 years.

Brexit, paradoxically, offers a window of opportunity. The most illiberal and restrictionist prime minister in living memory is about to depart. Public concern about immigration has fallen sharply and attitudes towards its effects are more positive than for many years. Both Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, as well as the home secretary, Sajid Javid, have signalled that they want an immigration policy better attuned to the needs of the UK economy.

Politicians could make the case for liberal policy not just on economic grounds but much more broadly, defending the rights of immigrants, eg EU citizens resident in the UK, UK-born children of immigrants who are denied British citizenship, UK citizens who marry people from abroad, and so on. This would also include a more positive approach to the impacts of immigration on communities and services at a local level – by promoting integration and channelling funding to areas where there are pressures resulting from population growth. There is a chance for a “reset moment” not just in policy but in our wider public and political attitudes to immigration and immigrants: we should not let it slip away.  

Read more: Tragedy is inevitable if we fear migration rather than celebrate its benefits | Jonathan Port

The Digest Group
Almere-Digest
EU-Digest
Insure-Digest 
Turkish-Digest 

For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail:Freeplanet@protonmail.com

Global Politics: Europe must break the shackles and show off its power - by Professor Zaki Laidi

EU: Only in unity can progress be achieved

Zaki Laidi professor of international relations at L’Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris (Sciences Po), who also was an adviser to former French prime minister Manuel Valls. recently wrote in an opinion piece, which is not only worth reading, but also implementing as part of the EU's  Parliament and Commissions long range strategy.

 "US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker may have averted a trade war last month, but the challenges confronting the EU are far from resolved. In today’s increasingly Hobbesian global environment, the EU can survive only by increasing its capacity to project power — no easy feat for an entity that was formed precisely as a repudiation of power politics.

With the 1957 Treaty of Rome, Europe shed what remained of its militaristic impulses and focused on building a sprawling and peaceful single market. From then on, Europe’s only means of projecting power would be its trade policy. Yet that policy has never been guided by strategic thinking, leaving the EU with only limited global influence, despite its tremendous success in world markets. The time has come for Europe to reestablish itself as a true global player, not by attempting to emulate a classic superpower, but rather by consolidating and deploying different types of power.

Europe already has considerable normative power — that is, the capacity to create global standards through the so-called Brussels effect, which can be seen in its efforts to rein in technology companies.

The recently enacted General Data Protection Regulation, for example, set guidelines for the collection and processing of personal information of individuals within the EU. Now, digital platforms, including powerful American companies, are scrambling to adjust. The “big four” US tech firms — Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Apple, Facebook, and Amazon — are also facing pressure from the EU stemming from their dominant market position.

Yet the EU has often failed to recognize its normative power, let alone take full advantage of it. This both reflects and reinforces weakness in three areas: Self-esteem, risk awareness, and the capacity for action.

Self-esteem includes the belief that the EU is a worthy undertaking, the confidence to express that publicly, and recognition of the EU’s true potential for power projection. Such a dispensation is severely lacking in many parts of the EU, beginning with Germany, which, despite having regained confidence in its own future, jealously guards its resources.

As Trump berates Germany for accumulating surpluses without contributing sufficiently to transatlantic defense, the country should be all the more motivated to use its capabilities to strengthen Europe. But, while the discourse in Germany on resource-sharing has begun to shift, concrete changes will take time.

Europe’s unwillingness to nurture and deploy its clout contrasts sharply with America’s assertive use of its market power to advance its interests and preferences. For example, since Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — better known as the Iran nuclear deal — and reinstate sanctions on Iran, many European companies, fearing loss of access to the US market, have decided to withdraw from the country.

To convince European companies to remain in Iran, the European Commission updated the 1996 Blocking Statute, which forbids actors under EU jurisdiction from complying with extraterritorial sanctions, allows companies to recover damages from such sanctions, and nullifies the effect in the EU of any foreign court’s judgment based on them. But the update has proved ineffective, as exemplified by the situation faced by SWIFT, the secure messaging system used for global cross-border financial transactions.

As Iran learned in 2012, losing access to the SWIFT network essentially means losing access to the international financial system. Yet that is exactly what the US is pushing for: If SWIFT fails to cut off Iran by early November, it will face countermeasures. SWIFT’s compliance with that demand, however, would all but destroy any remaining incentive for Iran to remain in the JCPOA. This would amount to a major political failure for Europe, because SWIFT is under EU jurisdiction.

Europe has also shown a self-defeating lack of confidence in the euro. Although the euro is the world’s second most important currency, it lags behind the dollar on almost all metrics, increasing the EU’s vulnerability to US trade sanctions.

The second weakness the EU needs to address is risk awareness. For example, China needs access to Europe’s industrial technology to realize its economic ambitions, and it needs access to European ports to complete its Belt and Road Initiative. Yet Europe is allowing itself to be effectively plundered, not least by China’s takeover of ports and airport facilities. The EU-China relationship must be made more reciprocal, with the EU — and, in particular, the Southern and Eastern European countries that have welcomed Chinese investment with open arms — recognizing the security risks posed by Beijing’s activities.

For that to happen, however, Europe will need a more united approach to Russia, which, despite posing less of a threat to the EU than China does, is keen to highlight — and exacerbate — internal division. How can one blame Greece for selling ports to the Chinese while Germany pursues the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, which will increase Europe’s energy dependency on Russia?

All of this is complicated by escalating tensions between Europe and the US, which, among other things, is spoiling cooperation to contain China. This is where the capacity for action comes in. Rather than waiting for someone else to push back against the Trump administration’s demolition of multilateral structures, Europe must take the initiative, imagining a system without the US.

This means not only ensuring that the international trade regime can survive without the US, but also developing a military capability that can increase the EU’s geopolitical credibility and shift the global balance of power. Here, French President Emmanuel Macron’s initiative to create a European military force beyond NATO is essential. Its success will hinge on a united, cooperative approach that potentially even includes the UK. The challenge is obvious. But the payoff — for the EU and the world — would be well worth the effort ". 

Note EU-Digest: Hopefully European political leaders at all levels of the European political spectrum will take note of this report by Professor Zaki Laidi. Europe must show far more courage to quickly undo itself from the US directed policy shackles and choose it's own independent course. If not, it will be devoured country by country in today’s increasingly Hobbesian global environment.

EU-Digest

Germany: Trump's anti-German stance is stupid and dangerous-by Fred Kaplan

The fallout from President Trump’s disastrous trip to Europe continues to poison the trans-Atlantic climate. His comments about Germany have been particularly toxic—and, beyond that, stupid, reflecting no understanding of the country’s strategic importance or its dreadful history.

Chancellor Angela Merkel stated the matter plainly in a speech on Sunday in Bavaria. Europeans “must take our fate into our own hands,” she said, because the “times in which we could rely fully on others … are somewhat over.” This, she added, “is what I experienced in the last few days”—a reference to Trump’s behavior in Brussels and Rome, where, among other bits of rudeness, he declined to pay even lip service to the pledge, enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, that the United States would defend any member of NATO that comes under attack.

As if in piqued response, Trump tweeted on Tuesday, “We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO and military. Very bad for U.S. This will change.” While overseas, Trump had reportedly told Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Union, “The Germans are bad, very bad. Look at the millions of cars that they’re selling in the USA. Horrible. We’re gonna stop that.” Press Secretary Sean Spicer denied the report, which appeared in Der Spiegel, but Trump’s Tuesday tweet undercut the denial and underscored his complaint. It wasn’t some loose remark, he seemed to be saying; he meant it.

But Trump’s ire is misplaced or unwise on several levels. First, yes, Americans buy a lot of German cars, but this isn’t because Germany is dumping BMWs and Volkswagens on the U.S. market; it’s because a lot of Americans like those cars. Second, as my colleague Daniel Gross has pointed out, lots of those German cars are made in the United States; a BMW plant in South Carolina—the company’s biggest plant in the world—churns out 400,000 cars a year.

The thing is, Trump knows this. When Merkel visited Washington in March, she brought along the CEOs of BMW, Siemens, and Schaeffler, an industrial-parts manufacturer, who met with Trump for an hour, briefing him on their $300 billion investment in the American economy and the 750,000 American jobs that their plants had created. By all accounts, Trump was impressed.

Perhaps the most wondrous thing about the world that took form after World War II has been the absence of war between the longstanding rivals in Europe—not just the absence of wars but the disappearance of the notion that European wars were inevitable. This feat didn’t come about by some miracle or accident. It was the result of painstaking effort to build an alliance based on shared values and common interests, requiring trillions of dollars in aid and investment, the maintenance of massive military bases, and—in particularly trying times—a crisis or two that risked another, far more cataclysmic war. It is this alliance—and the international order on which it stands—that Trump’s tantrums and indifference are endangering.

European leaders realized last week (you could see it on their faces as they watched Trump speak)—that the alliance will be in some degree of abeyance as long as this guy is president.

It may be no coincidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s chief foreign-policy goal is to restore the old Soviet Union. He can do that only if the European Union is weakened and the ties between the United States and Europe are severed. He may have reason to believe that his dream might come true. Whatever the probes reveal about Trump’s ties or obligations (or lack of any connections whatever) to Russia, his signs of indifference to the fate of Europe are no doubt causing Putin to salivate more than he thought he ever would.
 

Read more: Trump's anti-German stance is stupid and dang

US - EU relations: Europe forced off the US lap and Alone in Trump’s World

Will Trump signal the end of the Trans=Atlantic Alliance

Alone again. Since World War II’s end, Europe has looked at the world through a transatlantic lens.

There have been ups and downs in the alliance with the United States, but it was a family relationship built on a sense that we would be there for each other in a crisis and that we are fundamentally like-minded.

Donald Trump’s election as US president threatens to bring this to an end – at least for now. He believes more in walls and oceans than solidarity with allies, and has made it clear that he will put America not just first, but second and third as well. “We will no longer surrender this country, or its people,” he declared in his one major foreign-policy speech, “to the false song of globalism.”

Europeans will not only have to get used to Trump; they will have to look at the world through different eyes. There are four reasons to expect that Trump’s America will be the single biggest source of global disorder.

First, American guarantees are no longer reliable. Trump has questioned whether he would defend Eastern European NATO members if they do not do more to defend themselves. He has said that Saudi Arabia should pay for American security. He has encouraged Japan and South Korea to obtain nuclear weapons. In Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, Trump has made it clear that America will no longer play the role of policeman; instead, it will be a private security company open for hire.

Second, global institutions will come under attack. Trump fundamentally rejects the view that the liberal world order that the US built after WWII (and expanded after the Cold War) is the cheapest way of defending American values and interests. Like George W. Bush after September 11, 2001, he views global institutions as placing intolerable constraints on US freedom of action. He has a revisionist agenda for almost all of these bodies, from the World Trade Organization to NATO and the United Nations.

The fact that he wants to put the “Art of the Deal” into practice in all international relationships – renegotiating the terms of every agreement – is likely to provoke a similar backlash among America’s partners.

Third, Trump will turn all US relationships on their head. The crude fear is that he will be kinder to America’s foes than to its allies. Most challenging for Europeans is his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Should Trump, cozying up to Putin in search of a grand bargain, recognize Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, the EU would be placed in a near-impossible role.

Fourth, there is Trump’s unpredictability. Even during the 18 months of the presidential campaign, Trump has been on both sides of almost every issue. The fact that he will say the opposite today of what he said yesterday, without admitting that he has changed his mind, shows the extent to which capriciousness is his method.

One of the benefits the US political system is that it provides a two-month grace period to prepare for Trump’s world. So what should Europeans do about it?

First, we need to try to increase leverage over the US. We know from Trump’s writings and behavior that he is likely to resemble other strongmen presidents and treat weakness as an invitation to aggression. We saw from the Iraq experience that a divided Europe has little ability to influence the US. But where Europe has worked together – on privacy, competition policy, and taxation – it has dealt with the US from a position of strength.

The same was true with the so-called E3+3 policy on Iran – when the big EU member states shifted the US stance by standing together. To get on the front foot, the EU now needs to launch a process to agree on common policies on security, foreign policy, migration, and the economy. This will be difficult, as Europe is deeply divided, with France fearing terrorism, Poland dreading Russia, Germany inflamed by the refugee issue, and the United Kingdom determined to go it alone.

Second, Europeans should show that they are able to hedge their bets and build alliances with others. The EU must reach out to other powers to help shore up global institutions against Trumpian revisionism. And it also needs to diversify its foreign-policy relationships. Rather than waiting for Trump to marginalize the EU over Russia and China, Europeans should fly some kites of their own. Should they, for example, begin consulting with the Chinese on the EU arms embargo to remind the US of the value of the transatlantic alliance? Could the EU develop a different relationship with Japan? And if Trump wants to cozy up to Russia, maybe he should take over the Normandy process on Ukraine?

Third, Europeans need to start to invest in their own security. From Ukraine to Syria, from cyber attacks to terror attacks, Europe’s security is being probed in different ways. Despite an intellectual understanding that 500 million Europeans can no longer contract out their security to 300 million Americans, the EU has done little to close the gap between its security needs and its capabilities. It is time to put meat on the bones of the Franco-German plan for European defense. And it will be important to find institutionalized ways of binding the UK into Europe’s new security architecture.

In all of these areas, Europeans must keep the door to transatlantic cooperation open. This alliance – which has so often saved Europe from itself – is bigger than any individual. And, in any case, Trump will not last forever. But the transatlantic relationship will be more likely to survive if it is built on two pillars that understand and defend their own interests.

This will be a tough agenda to adopt – not least because Europe is facing its own brand of populist nationalism. France’s far-right National Front leader, Marine Le Pen, was among the first to congratulate Trump on his victory, and Trump has said that he would put the UK at the front of the queue after Brexit. But even Europe’s most Trump-like leaders will find it harder to defend their national interest if they try to go it alone. To survive in Trump’s world, they should try to make Europe great again.

Read more: Europe, Alone in Trump’s World | European Council on Foreign Relations

Turkey coup attempt: World leaders warn President Erdogan not to use uprising as excuse for crackdown as more than 6,000 arrested

urkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan was warned by world leaders on Sunday not to use the attempted coup as “carte blanche to do whatever he wants," amid concerns the putsch has become a pretext for him to consolidate power.

Mr Erdogan moved rapidly over the weekend to round up his adversaries, arresting more than 6,000 soldiers, including senior military leaders, and judges, suspected of involvement.
So many soldiers have been detained that the lower ranked conscripts have been locked in schools and gymnasiums in the capital, Ankara.
 
Read more: Turkey coup attempt: World leaders warn President Erdogan not to use uprising as excuse for crackdown as more than 6,000 arrested

Turkey’s Erdogan Clears Path to Dictatorship – by Dr. Alon Ben-Meir

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies filed the following report on Turkey:

"The forced resignation of Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggests only one thing — President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is totally absorbed by his lust for power, will tolerate no one in his government to deviate from any of his political positions. Prime Minister Davutoglu was no exception.

Although the Turkish constitution grants the Prime Minister executive powers while leaving the role of the president largely ceremonial, this is not what Erdogan had in mind when he asked then-Foreign Minister Davutoglu to form a new government following the last election.

Erdogan’s ambition and aggressive drive to spread his Islamic agenda are what has determined every political move he made. Seeking to constitutionally transfer the executive authority of the country to the Presidency is the final step to legally consolidate his power, albeit he was already exercising such power throughout his tenure as Prime Minister for 11 years.

For more than 15 years, Davutoglu served Erdogan with the utmost loyalty — first as his top foreign policy adviser, then his Foreign Minister, and for the past two years as his hand-picked Prime Minister. Erdogan chose Davutoglu for this post precisely because he expected him to continue to be his “Yes man.”

Being that as Prime Minister, Davutoglu would assume leadership of the AK Party, Erdogan expected him to push for the transformation of the largely ceremonial Presidency into the most powerful executive position in Turkey, which Davutoglu pursued in a lukewarm manner as this would constitutionally diminish his own powers considerably.

Not surprisingly, once Erdogan assumed the Presidency, he continued to chair cabinet meetings and even established a shadow cabinet with a handful of trusted advisers. He pointedly sidelined Davutoglu, who quietly resented Erdogan’s usurpation of the role and responsibility of the prime minister as if nothing had changed.

The premiership became a ceremonial post and the ceremonial presidency became the all-powerful office without a formal constitutional amendment to legally grant him the absolute authority he is now exercising.

I have known Davutoglu from the time he was the chief adviser to Erdogan and I found him to be a man of integrity and vision, always a moderating force, and committed to making Turkey a stabilizing regional power and a significant player on the international scene.

I had many opportunities to talk to Davutoglu face-to-face about Israeli-Turkish relations, as I was actively involved behind the scenes to mitigate their conflict in the wake of the Mavi Marmara incident.

On another occasion, I arranged for Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations to take place with Turkish mediation, not only because of its proximity and (at that time) good relations with both Syria and Israel, but also because I felt that Davutoglu would be the ideal interlocutor.

Moreover, by playing such a role, Davutoglu was also very consistent with his commitment to realize his political philosophy of having “zero problems with neighbors,” which initially led to Turkey’s friendly and cooperative relations with most of its neighbors.

Erdogan’s ambition to become the kingpin of the region through his brazen political approach, however, did nothing but create problems with every neighboring country. A former top Turkish official told me that had

]Davutoglu been given the flexibility to carry out his foreign policy vision, Turkey’s regional standing would be completely different today.

During the past two years, however, several conflicts between the two began to surface. Whereas Davutoglu sought to renew the peace negotiations with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in the search for a solution, Erdogan not only refused but vowed to wage war until the last PKK rebel is killed. In addition, although Davutoglu said nothing publicly about Erdogan’s systematic attack on the free press, the jailing of journalists, and human rights violations, he disagreed with these unlawful measures and failed in his efforts to quietly persuade his boss to ease the pressure on the press.

Erdogan’s insistence on silencing any criticism and the constant chipping away of what is left of Turkey’s democracy has basically sealed off (contrary to what is being said publicly) any prospect for Turkey to become an European Union member, which Davutoglu sought to realize with zeal.

On top of all that, Erdogan is now seeking to strip Kurdish lawmakers of their political immunity to make it possible to charge them with being aligned with the PKK who are fighting for semi-autonomous rule, to which Davutoglu surreptitiously objected. It is now being left to the next prime minister to engineer this unlawful scheme to meet Erdogan’s draconian will.

Finally, while Davutoglu was busy in his effort to achieve an agreement with the E.U. to take back illegal migrants in exchange for visa-free entry for Turkish nationals to the Schengen region, Erdogan publicly belittled Davutoglu’s efforts to deprive him of any political gains that he could derive from his success.

The leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, condemned the way Davutoglu was forced out, stating that “Davutoglu’s resignation should not be perceived as an integral party issue. All democracy supporters must resist this palace coup.”

Interestingly enough, in what was seen as a farewell speech to the parliament, Davutoglu stated that “No one has ever heard a word against our president from my mouth, my tongue, my mind — and no one will.”

To me and many other observers, Davutoglu’s words expressed the precise opposite of what he appeared to be saying: that Erdogan is beyond criticism. There was no better diplomatic way of putting it lest he be accused by Erdogan of treason, as customarily befalls anyone who opposes his political positions on any issue.

Due to the turmoil throughout the Middle East, the influx of millions of Syrian refugees and the battle against ISIS, Turkey’s role has become increasingly important. Although the United States and the E.U. have grown weary of Erdogan’s absurd conduct, they feel compelled to deal with him, however distasteful that might be.

Leave it, of course, to Erdogan to drain every ounce of blood from Western powers to serve his personal agenda.

When the constitution is used as a tool for power grabbing, when conspiracy theories justify a cruel witch-hunt, when people are terrified to speak publicly about politics, when journalists are detained without trial, when the academic community is regularly attacked, when human rights are grossly violated, and when democratic principles are trampled upon, this is not a mere travesty for Turkey, it is a tragedy.

With the departure of Davuto?lu, and a rubber-stamp AK Party, Turkey has become a de facto dictatorship, and there is now no one to stand in Erdogan’s way. It is a sad day for the Turkish people, as the country is now governed by a ruthless dictator with no checks and balances, no accountability, and with no prospect of any change for the better as long as Erdogan remains in power.

The Turkish people should once again take to the streets but this time they should remain persistent until Erdogan relents or resigns. Otherwise, Turkey will continue to rapidly race toward an ever bleaker future where freedom will be a thing of the past and an authoritarian regime led by a ruthless leader sets in."

EU-Digest

EU: Why the World Needs Europe - byTony Fernandes

Unity not Eurosceptism

For some time already, wherever you are in the world, one cannot escape the question asked by many political, media and financial observers: "What is going to happen to Europe?" Source of sarcasm for some, of anxiety for many others, the continent's economic and political situation appears critical.

On the one hand, observers lament an economy which is deeply handicapped by a public debt which exceeds the continent's GDP and by unemployment rates which have become untenably high. On the other, the concern felt by observers is also triggered by a political analysis of the European situation. Frequent differences of opinion and hesitation on the part of European leaders in past years have damaged the image of the continent as much as economic problems have.

Yet, when you manage a foreign company, the image that Europe portrays is different in many respects. The continent is the most important foreign investor in many regions of the world, including South-East Asia. Of course, the European market is no longer considered dynamic but it still remains huge; the first common market in the world with 600 million people. Its citizens have considerable purchasing power, especially compared to other regions or countries which have higher growth rates.

When GDP in France and Germany averaged respectively 0% and 0.7% in 2012 compared to 6.2% and 5.6% in Indonesia and Malaysia, purchasing power per capita in these countries was respectively US$35,000 and US$40,000, compared to US$4,000 and US$15,000.

Europe remains synonymous with high-level research and strong value-added goods. A reputation based upon the transfer of skills and technologies by European industrial groups to their client countries. Of course, this can be a source of frustration for the country where such technologies are developed but the day this transfer of skills and technologies no longer occurs, or worse, occurs in the opposite direction, Europeans will have really lost the game!

When one has such comparative advantages, one shouldn't complain let alone be afraid of the future! The real problem in Europe is that its Member States seem to have lost any all ambition to act on the international stage, either individually and as a whole. You only have to observe the proliferation of negative and resigned speeches and the rise of xenophobic parties with protectionist economic programs to be convinced. Leaders and voters must be persuaded of the strength of their political project.

 By deciding to unite towards a common future when an entire part of the world was only starting to awaken, they have been a role model for the world for the past sixty years. In 1957, when Europeans created the first common market, the European Economic Community, they became a source of inspiration for the Asian world. Ten years later, the ASEAN was created, which has since succeeded in both promoting economic prosperity and strengthening political stability within the region.

When Europeans rose above their differences and succeeded in setting up the unprecedented industrial project which today produces Airbus aircraft, their partners were both envious and admiring. But this is not enough. Defense and aeronautics cannot be the sole sectors to carry the integration process forward when so much progress remains to be made in the fields of new communications technologies, renewable energy, health, and many others. We need to increase the number of pan-European industrial partnerships, invest more in research, and streamline administrative and fiscal systems. European leaders are aware of the challenges that Europe faces, they need to start tackling them.

Europe holds its destiny in its own hands. No one will come to its rescue and no one would understand if the continent did not fight for its model, liberal, democratic and based on a common vision. The crisis it is experiencing must form the starting point for a new strategy to push this model forward because, beyond its own project, Europe represents the success of a model for all countries in transition.

But by displaying weakness when faced by the main economic, diplomatic and environmental challenges of this century, Europe is likely to slowly marginalize itself, slipping from the center of the global economy toward its periphery. At a time when the crisis is now hitting the world economy as a whole, there is an urgent need for stability and leadership. Europe must contribute to this, for its own sake and the world's.

EU-Digest