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

Immigrants: Love your neighbor as yourself

Immigrants are people just like us

An anthropologist was winding up several months of research in a small village, the story is told.

While waiting for a ride to the airport for his return flight home, he decided to pass the time by making up a game for some children.

His idea was to create a race for a basket of fruit and candy that he placed near a tree. But when he gave the signal to run, no one made a dash for the finish line. Instead the children joined hands and ran together to the tree.

When asked why they chose to run as a group rather than each racing for the prize, a little girl spoke up and said: “How could one of us be happy when all of the others are sad?” Because these children cared about each other, they wanted all to share the basket of fruit and candy.

What happened here among these children. was very biblical and is applicable to all of us, specially now with the large influx of immigrants.

After years of studying the law of Moses, the apostle Paul found that all of God’s laws could be summed up in one: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14; see also Rom. 13:9). In Christ, Paul saw not only the reason to encourage, comfort, and care for one another but also the spiritual enablement to do it.

Because He cares for us, we care for each other.

For additional information click here

NATO Relations With Turkey Following Coup: Will Turkey be expelled from NATO?

Splitting up?

Many analysts believe Turkey and NATO are on a collision course. One end of their argument hinges on the belief — apparently shared to an extent by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Turkish government — that the United States and NATO played a role in the unsuccessful coup attempt July 15.

Minister of Justice Bekir Bozdag, who heads for Washington soon to try to negotiate the extradition of Fethullah Gulen, the Pennsylvania-based Turkish cleric accused of masterminding the coup, has laid Turkey’s position on the line.

“The US knows Fethullah Gulen carried out this coup. Mr. Obama knows this just as he knows his own name. I am convinced that American intelligence knows it, too. I am convinced the State Department knows it. … Other countries know it, too, because every country has an intelligence agency,” Bozdag insisted during a TV interview.

Bozdag’s remarks, which imply that Washington and NATO knew what was coming and did nothing, are being echoed by the pro-Erdogan Islamist media in Turkey, which is essentially anti-Western and sees NATO as the enemy of Islam.

Remarks such as those by Bozdag are eliciting equally harsh responses from the West. Gregory Copley, a strategic analyst, appears to have no doubt that “Turkey has now formally declared the US (and therefore NATO) as its enemy” and is exhorting the alliance to act accordingly.

The other end of the argument regarding a collision in the making between Turkey and NATO hinges on the belief that Erdogan is using the failed coup attempt to initiate a massive purge against his opponents in order to further strengthen his hold on power. It is being suggested that an undemocratic Turkey has no place in an alliance based on democratic principles.

US Secretary of State John Kerry encouraged this view when he appeared to hint that Turkey could not remain in NATO if it strayed from democracy and the rule of law as it seeks those behind the failed coup attempt.

“NATO also has a requirement with respect to democracy,” Kerry told reporters in response to a question on Turkey during a press conference in Brussels with Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief.

He added that “the level of vigilance and scrutiny” with regard to developments in Turkey would be very significant in the days ahead.

If Kerry’s remarks are meant to sound a warning, they are falling on deaf ears in Turkey where a campaign against Turkey’s NATO membership is also gaining steam. Former senior officers from the military, like retired Rear Adm. Cem Gurdeniz, are among those questioning this membership.

In an interview with daily Hurriyet, Gurdeniz said there had always been a struggle between “Atlanticists” and the “Eurasia camp” in the military. He said if the coup was successful, Turkey would have become part of “Atlanticist” plans to its detriment.

“The losses incurred would have included the declaration of an independent Kurdistan, autonomy [for Kurds] in southeastern Anatolia and the loss of Cyprus,” he said. Gurdeniz said Turkey “should play a balancing role between the Atlantic and Eurasia,” arguing that it was patently clear NATO did not serve Turkey’s interests anymore.

He went on to question whether NATO’s advanced radar systems in Kurecik, in eastern Turkey, deployed under its Ballistic Missile Defense program, was in Turkey’s interests. He also asked why NATO was keen to conduct military exercises in the Black Sea and was pressurizing Turkey for a permanent presence there, pointing out that this was something NATO never did during the Cold War.

Gurdeniz’s remarks point to the kind of confusion reigning in Ankara with regard to NATO, because it was Erdogan, during the recent NATO summit in Warsaw, who called on the alliance to bolster its presence in the Black Sea to prevent this sea from becoming “a Russian lake.”

Turkey being a country of bitter ironies, Gurdeniz — a staunch Kemalist secularist — was among those arrested under the so-called Balyoz (Sledgehammer) case, while still serving in the military, and was convicted to 18 years in prison in 2013 for allegedly plotting to overthrow the government led by Erdogan.

He was released after Erdogan and his onetime Islamist ally Gulen became enemies. Gurdeniz accused Gulen supporters in the judiciary, who are now being rounded up as coup plotters, for his own incarceration as a coup plotter.

Whatever is being written or said on either side of the fence today, the truth is that Ankara’s NATO membership was never threatened following successful coups in Turkey in the past, when the Cold War was raging, and NATO could not endanger the strategic advantages Turkey provided against the Soviet Union.

Turkey’s place on the map remains equally important today for NATO, if not more so. Retired Ambassador Unal Unsal, a former Turkish permanent representative to NATO, believes it would be difficult for the alliance to turn its back on Turkey at a time when the Middle East and the Black Sea region is in turmoil, when there is the possibility of a Trump presidency and when the EU is struggling with its Brexit debacle.

“The going in Turkey may not be good, but a Turkey out of NATO would cause more complications, especially if Ankara slides toward Russia,” Unsal told Al Monitor.

Acknowledging that the NATO charter has conditions regarding democracy in member states, Unsal nevertheless pointed out that this had not prevented Portugal from becoming a founding member of the alliance in 1949, even though it was being ruled by authoritarian Antonio de Oliveira Salazar.

Unsal indicated that what is being said today about NATO membership in conjunction with democracy and rule of law in Turkey has to be said for the sake of appearance. He added that expelling a country from the alliance would require consensus in the Atlantic Council, which would be difficult to secure under current circumstances.

Unsal did not discount the possibility, however, that Erdogan, in one of his many huffs, may decide to pull Turkey out of NATO, and suggested that the consequences of this might not be as dire for Turkey as it appears at first glance.

“Maintaining Turkey’s strategic ties with the US is what will ultimately remain crucial for Ankara, rather than its ties with NATO, and everyone knows that the US means NATO,” Unsal said.

Copley, who claims Ankara has declared the United States and NATO its enemy, nevertheless ended his analysis for Oilprice.com by underlining the alliances dilemma regarding Turkey.

“No one in NATO or the senior member states has actually done the calculation as to how to structure global and regional strategies without Turkey, or how to remove Turkish officers from NATO facilities — how to manage the region without Turkey,” he wrote.

The West does not appear to be well-poised currently to do this “calculation,” which makes the suggestions that Turkey be expelled from NATO ring hollow, given what is transpiring in the world.

Read bmore: Will Turkey be expelled from NATO?

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

USA: The Rep0ublican Convention:Geert Wilders at the first day of the Republican Convention in Cleveland, Ohio

Last week Monday, American time, over 50 thousand people gathered in Cleveland, Ohio for the start of the Republican convention. Among them is PVV leader Geert Wilders, who was pleased as punch to see Trump be officially named the Republican candidate for U.S. president, despite opposition in the Republican party trying to stop it.

“In America you see the same happening as in the Netherlands. The hard working people, what they call the blue collar workers here, no longer feel represented by the political elite. That people no longer want the policy of open borders, immigration and Islamization”, Wilders said to Dutch newspaper the Telegraaf.

Wilders was recognized by some, others had to ask who he is. “He’s a bit like that story from the Netherlands with that little boy with his finger in the dike. So he tries to stop the misery in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe”, a woman in her fifties said to the newspaper. But not all were in favor of his visit. “Was that Geert Wilders from Holland?” a passerby with a anti-Trump sign asked. “Another guy just trying to divide the world instead of uniting. Let hims stay in Holland.”

The first day of the Republican convention was relatively chaotic, with the anti-Trump camp demanding the opportunity to support other candidates. They demanded a roll call vote on the plan, so that representatives of all States can have their say, according to NU.nl. The party leaders declared that there was too little support for such a vote, leading to much shouting and the Colorado delegation, among others, walking out.

Trump was officially named the Republican presidential candidate. There’s not much chance of his opponents stopping him, as he got more than enough delegates behind him during the primaries.
RrEAD MOREl Geert Wilders at the first day of the Republican Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, 18 July 2016 (Photo: @geertwilderspvv/Twitter)

Poland: The New European Fascists - by Chris Hedges:

Is Fascism raising its head in Poland and Europe again?

Jaroslaw Kurski and Piotr Stasinski embody the hope that once was Poland. They struggled against the Communist regime for years in the underground press and as Solidarity members. They built Gazeta Wyborcza, now one of the most influential newspapers in the country, after the 1989 fall of communism.

They helped usher in a period of democracy and open debate, one that included cultural space for historians such as Jan Gross, a Polish-born American who courageously confronted the taboo topic of Polish complicity in the Nazi extermination of nearly all of Poland’s 3 million Jews.

And then neoliberalism, imposed by global capitalism and international banks, began to spread its poison. Legions of unemployed or underemployed were cast adrift. Two million Poles, many of them young people desperate for jobs, have left to work abroad. Governmental austerity programs devastated cultural institutions, including public schools, the arts and public broadcasting. And finally,

following a familiar death spiral, the October 2015 elections brought to power the nationalists and demagogues of the right-wing Law and Justice Party (PiS). There is no left-wing party represented in the parliament.

Not much of Poland’s promise remains. PiS is rapidly rolling back constitutional rights. It blocks state media coverage of the fading political opposition, especially the Committee for the Defense of Democracy (KOD), which has held a series of protest demonstrations. PiS shamelessly uses the airwaves and the schools for rabid nationalist propaganda. The public broadcasting system—in which the party purged more than 100 staff members—twisted President Barack Obama’s recent criticism of the Polish government’s assault on the judiciary into praise for Polish democracy. And the ruling party has forced state institutions to cancel subscriptions to Gazeta Wyborcza and pressured distributors throughout the country not to display or sell copies of the newspaper.

“There is no longer genuine parliamentary debate,” Stasinski said when I met with him and Kurski at the Gazeta Wyborcza offices in Warsaw. “There are no longer checks and balances of power. The parliamentary system is dysfunctional. The Constitutional Court and judiciary are paralyzed. New laws passed by the parliament cannot be challenged or changed. The government is supposed to publish sentences of the Constitutional Court in The Journal of Laws [Dziennik Ustaw] for them to become legally effective. This is required by the Constitution. But the government, by not printing them, paralyzes the Constitutional Court, which has been reduced to announcing its sentences on the internet without any legal effect. It is a very dangerous time.”

“We operate under two systems of law,” said Kurski. “One is constitutional and legal. The other is unconstitutional and illegal. The problem is that the illegal and unconstitutional system runs the country.”

Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the founder and head of the ruling party, governs Poland like a private fiefdom. Prime Minister Beata Szydlo and President Andrzej Duda are political puppets. Kaczynski, reclusive and morbid, is referred to with fear or reverence as “the Chairman.” His words, and his obsessions, are law.

And it is not only Poland that is in trouble. Europe, especially EU countries on the fringes of the union, is devolving into proto-fascism. The Hungarian strongman Prime Minister Viktor Orban has destroyed his country’s democracy. Neofascist groups are gaining strength in France, the United Kingdom, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Greece.

These movements are rabidly xenophobic, racist, Islamophobic and homophobic, and they demonize immigrants and brand internal dissent as treason. When they take control they rely on ruthless internal security and surveillance systems—Poland has established 11 intelligence agencies—to crush dissent. They seek their identity in a terrifying new nationalism, often, as in Poland, coupled with a right-wing Catholicism. They preach hatred of the outsider and glorification of obedient and “true” patriots. This lurch to the right will be augmented in Poland later this year with the establishment of an armed militia of more than 30,000 whose loyalty, it seems certain, will be to the ruling party.

“If you are a Pole, you should be Catholic,” said Stasinski. “I’m not. So for some, I’m not a Pole.”

Poland, like Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, has rejected the European Union’s call for its nations to accept refugees fleeing the chaos in the Middle East. The ruling party in Poland employs rhetoric to describe Muslim immigrants that echoes prewar Polish anti-Semitism. Immigrants are condemned as diseased, painted as rapists and excoriated for supposedly having barbaric religious practices. When Gross, who teaches at Princeton University, decried the hate campaign against immigrants and made the links with anti-Semitism, reminding Poles that they killed more Jews than they killed Germans during the war, PiS began legal proceedings to challenge Gross’ assertions and called for his Polish Order of Merit to be revoked.

“It’s the same right-wing populist melody as in the United States,” said Stasinski. “Isolationism becomes appealing. Maybe there is something rotten in human nature. Maybe we are selfish people who don’t care about the other. Maybe this story about how we are Christian and altruistic is rubbish.

“There is a fear that grows from ignorance,” he said. “These parties manufacture and strengthen this resentment against those they allege are privileged and the powerful, as well as the European Union.

They say these forces can’t tell us what to do. They say the nation-state should organize societal living, not global institutions. They say things are out of control. They say there is no real democracy. This leads to the mental and physical militarization of the society. The demagogues promise security. You are safe with us. We care about you.

We care about your family. Chauvinism defines public discourse. We are a proud people. We are a proud nation. We don’t accept that other nations can humiliate us. The government devoted a hundred million zlotys to create a special foundation to defend Poland’s good name.” 

To read the complete report click here: : Chris Hedges: The New European Fascists - Truthdig

Health Care - A Look Into The Crystal Ball - 2017 Edition - by William Pierce

Regardless of the outcome of the November election, and by that I mean both the presidential and congressional elections, health care will once again be on the agenda.

At this point, the most likely scenario is a Clinton victory, a change in the Senate majority from GOP to Dem (though it could be very close) and a diminished, but still majority, GOP in the House. This scenario would set up an opportunity for some real progress on several nagging health care issues. To add to the analysis, there is an outside chance that the GOP could lose majority control of the House, but for this to happen, it would require an electoral landslide by Clinton preceded by a Trump implosion. No one is holding their breath on this but it is notable in that it is being discussed.

A Trump victory would obviously change the dynamic and the results of the Senate and House elections would be critical to what might happen. If Trump wins, it is probable that the GOP’s House majority would hold close to its current level with just a few losses, and the outcome of Senate control would be extraordinarily close. Some have even predicted a Trump win could result in a 50/50 split, resulting in the Vice President acting as the tiebreaker. Under this scenario, continued gridlock would be the result.

But under any scenario, neither party is likely to control all branches and chambers, and importantly, no one party will have the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to move any truly controversial legislation.

However, if an opportunity for progress emerges, it would be based less on the raw numbers and more on the message that voters send. The big unknown is will the newly elected and reelected actually hear the message or will they filter it through their own political lens and go forward with business as usual? Arguably, this is what they have done over the last several elections, going forward with their own personal agenda and ignoring what the voters want, which seems to be governance and compromise.

The most important person in a scenario of progress is Speaker Paul Ryan. While a strong conservative, it seems clear that Ryan wants to govern and legislate. He wants to address some of the big challenges facing the U.S. To do this under any scenario requires compromise. In our current political climate, compromise will require will and courage. So the question is does he have both and will he be willing to exercise them if he does?



Read complte report: Health Care - A Look Into The Crystal Ball - 2017 Edition