EU Back on Track: 5 reasons for the EU to be hopeful in 2022 – by Paul Taylor

The dark cloud of the Omicron coronavirus variant may be plunging your plans for the New Year into uncertainty, but there are still reasons to hope that Europe can make significant progress on a range of thorny issues in 2022.

While it is clear we will have to live with COVID-19 for another while, new political constellations have been emerging since Germany’s change of government in December. These will offer the prospect of innovative solutions for long-standing problems in the European Union.

To be sure, there are several things that could go wrong: an uncontrollable surge of more deadly coronavirus variants that set back the economic recovery; a Russian military offensive against Ukraine; a Polish blockade of EU institutions in the battle over the rule of law and EU funds.

However, none of those worst-case scenarios is certain — or even likely. And there are undeniable grounds to be more optimistic about the coming year. After years of sterile battles over the EU’s much abused fiscal rules — which were suspended at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic — a consensus is emerging that in order to avoid strangling the recovery, budget discipline regulations must be changed before they return to force in 2023.

From the frugal north to the more spendthrift south, there is widespread recognition that public investment will be key to the success of the green and digital transformations of the European economy, and that outdated debt and deficit limits must not prevent this. Along this line, French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi have jointly called for reform to perpetuate collective EU borrowing beyond the temporary recovery fund created in 2020.

Read more at: 5 reasons for the EU to be hopeful in 2022 – POLITICO

NATO: Afghanistan: two decades of Nato help leaves a failed and fractured state on the brink of civil war

Afghanistan is falling apart. With US and Nato troops leaving the country earlier than planned, experts are warning that the Taliban could take control of the country within six months. Currently the insurgents control the strategically important province of Helmand, and control or contest territory nearly every province in the war-torn country.

As many as 188 of Afghanistan’s 407 districts are directly under Taliban rule. With up to 85,000 full-time fighters), the insurgents have already forced thousands of troops belonging to the US-trained Afghan army to surrender or flee.

In response to the Taliban’s onslaught, local militias are fighting back. Most notable among them is a coalition of militias in northern Afghanistan called the Second Resistance, led by Ahmad Massoud (the son of Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was assassinated in September 2001).

The Second Resistance has several thousand fighters and militia commanders who have fought against the Taliban, mostly of Tajik origin. Massoud insists that the Taliban will not have the same success in fighting his coalition due to far greater resolve of his soldiers compared to the Afghan military. But henceforth he will have to operate without the help of Nato troops.

Read More at: Afghanistan: two decades of Nato help leaves a failed and fractured state on the brink of civil war

Russia-EU relations: Countering Putin's strategy of disorder - by Isabelle Mandraud and Julien Théron

Many European officials advocate for "dialogue" with Putin's Russia. But what sort of dialogue? To achieve which objectives? And at what price?

The recent trip in Moscow of Josep Borell, high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy, turned to an affront for the Europeans.

As he was talking with Sergei Lavrov, Russian foreign minister, Moscow announced the expulsion of three European diplomats, for the sole reason that they had observed pro-Navalny demonstrations.

This additional move is actually typical from Putinism, and should not surprise anybody.

Read more at: Countering Putin's strategy of disorder

USA - Trump administration's confusion and lack of a unified coronavirus strategy will cost lives, say a dozen experts

Donald Trump Press Briefings: gibberish and gobbledygook

Each day that passes without such a national strategy, the experts say, will raise the ultimate U.S. death toll from COVID-19, the disease associated with the virus. Right now, there aren't enough tests and gear as states compete with one another to buy them on the open market. And there is very little ability to trace who has the virus and where it is spreading.

The only way to win what President Donald Trump has called a war against an "invisible enemy" is to establish a unified federal command, the experts insist — something Trump has yet to do. So far, the federal government hasn't leveraged all its authority and influence to dramatically expand testing and tracing measures, ensure a sufficient supply of crucial medical equipment or require residents of all 50 states to stay at home.

At his daily Press Propaganda meeting Trump recently announced proudly the US was the best in the world,when it comes to testing for the coronavirus ,because the US had already done 6 million tests. "Hello", mr Trump, that is just 2% of the total US population of 327 million people.

 In relation to these daily Trump Propaganda meetings  Vox news  recently wrote:  "For the sake of public health, journalistic integrity, and the public’s basic mental health, it’s time to stop broadcasting President Donald Trump’s daily “coronavirus task force” briefings live. 

Every president has had occasion to call upon broadcasters to air his words to the public when he has newsworthy or urgent announcements to make. When Trump said he wanted to address the nation from the Oval Office about coronavirus, it was right to extend him the opportunity to address the crisis. It was even right to offer some forbearance to his history of incessant lying once he started making himself the star of daily coronavirus briefings". 

But no president in American history has ever had the privilege of having his every word simulcast across news networks. And we’ve now seen enough of Trump’s daily events to know that these are not briefings in any conventional sense. As James Fallows puts it, they are “Trump campaign rallies with scientists rather than local-government officials as the supporting cast.” 

On top of that, Trump at these briefings insults journalists who ask him questions  he does not like. 

It is high time to put an end to this charade and have Press briefings on the corona virus done only by qualified medical experts and professional  US government officials.

EU-Digest

Turkey: Erdogan′s AKP basks in glow of think tank financed by influential family

A Turkish think tank financed by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's inner circle is a megaphone supporting government policies, DW has found. One of its controversial studies spends 30 pages denouncing DW journalists.

Read more at:
https://www.dw.com/en/erdogans-akp-basks-in-glow-of-think-tank-financed-by-influential-family-dw-finds/a-51258757

Geo Politics: Why The Rest of the World Should Tell the U.S. to F*cK Off - by Colby Hess

Colby Hess who wrote this report is a freelance writer and photographer living near Seattle, WA.  He is currently writing a book about science, philosophy, and freethought.  Follow him on Twitter @ColbyTHess. 

Following below  are some uncomfortable historical facts that Colby Hess wrote about in this report. As he says these are currently largely ignored, glossed over, or blatantly suppressed in most American school curricula:

1) The United States government (largely through the CIA and its predecessors) is directly responsible for the overthrow of at least half a dozen democratically elected governments around the world over the past hundred plus years. Among these are many of our neighbors in Latin America such as Guatemala in 1954, Brazil in 1964, and Chile in 1973. Further afield we have Iran in 1953, which is particularly ironic considering the dire straits of our present day relationship. This list doesn’t include the toppling of non-elected governments (almost all of them replaced by brutal dictators) such as Syria in 1949 and Ghana in 1966. It also doesn’t include direct invasion by U.S. troops such as the Philippines in 1898, Panama (first in 1895 and again at least eight more times since), Grenada in 1983, and most recently, Iraq in 2003. Although many Americans cannot even point these countries out on a world map and remain blissfully ignorant of American interference with their internal affairs, the residents of these countries have certainly not forgotten and in many cases haven’t completely forgiven us either. Can anyone blame them?


This long history of meddling with sovereign nations severely complicates geopolitical affairs in the present day in both practical terms as well in relation to our stated values and governing principles. For instance, in 2006, just months after George W. Bush gave a major speech on the imperative of spreading democracy throughout the world, democratic elections in Palestine resulted in a designated terrorist group, Hamas, coming to power – a result which led to an almost total boycott of the Gaza strip by most Western nations. The Arab Spring has further complicated matters as many dictators who had long been propped up by the U.S. have now been overthrown by populaces largely hostile to U.S. interests. Many of these countries seem likely to elect Islamist governments in coming elections, potentially creating a bunch of theocratic mini-Irans throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Such is democracy in action (but we can rest easy knowing any lingering resentment is due solely to them “hating our freedom.”)

2) The U.S. military is currently deployed in over 150 countries around the world. That’s over three quarters of all the supposedly independent countries on the planet. Of those, at least two of them are active war zones (Iraq and Afghanistan), one of them (Iran, see above) soon will be if the Neocons have their way, and another is seldom considered one simply because most of us happen to live there. Thanks to passage of the NDAA, the U.S. military can now arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens within our own borders – a disturbing development vehemently opposed by the ACLU and one of the central grievances the American colonists had against the British king before declaring independence.

The purpose of stationing all these troops everywhere is presumably to act as a sort of unrequested and often unwelcome global police force, paid for by the generosity of the U.S. taxpayers. After all, the U.S. – accounting for just five percent of the world’s population – is responsible for over forty percent of global military expenditures. Curiously, despite the smug moral high ground we like to believe we inhabit (preferring the term “liberator” to “invader/occupier”), these Team America superheroes generally seem to step in only when there are high-dollar corporate interests at stake such as in Iraq or Libya, preferring to sit idly by as slaughter proceeds unchecked in economic backwaters such as Rwanda or Darfur. And if anyone dares to oppose U.S. global hegemony by so much as speaking out, even if it’s a close and historical ally like France, we respond with measures such as import tariffs and trade embargos, or when that’s not politically feasible then there’s always the trump card of renaming foods in the Capitol cafeteria. Anyone care for some “victory cabbage” to go with their “freedom fries”?

3) The U.S. is single-handedly responsible for the total global prohibition of recreational drugs and the police state that goes hand in hand with efforts to curtail their production, distribution, and use. More specifically, blame for the “War on Drugs” and its many excesses can be squarely assigned to one unhappy individual with a messianic complex and a deep hatred for all things pleasurable – America’s first “drug czar,” Harry J. Anslinger. If you’ve ever stopped to wonder why, say, the leader of Nepal would care in the slightest if some hippy wants to smoke a chillum with a sadhu on the steps of a temple in Kathmandu, Anslinger’s the answer, for it was he that pushed his agenda to be adopted by the newly formed United Nations.

There is so much money involved in this failed enterprise – on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in direct foreign aid for crop eradication and drugs interdiction, domestic policing, building and operating of prisons, propaganda efforts, plus the loss of taxes on some of the biggest cash crops across the globe – it continues to exist largely out of mindless inertia and economic habit. Despite the fact that recent polls show a majority of Americans now support outright legalization of marijuana, and despite pleas from the leaders of several of the Latin American nations most negatively affected by America’s insatiable appetite for mind-altering substances, not even the current administration feels compelled to continue to oppose any change to the status quo. This stance was clearly on display at the recent Summit of the Americas meeting in Cartagena (for all those who read beyond the distraction of the auspiciously timed Secret Service prostitution scandal.)

4) While no longer the largest contributor of greenhouse gases thanks to China’s rapid industrialization in recent years, the U.S. continues to be the greatest impediment to concerted global action on addressing anthropogenic climate change. Back in 1997, following a meeting in Kyoto of delegates from nearly every country on Earth, a deal was reached agreeing upon a framework for reigning in worldwide CO2 emissions. Of the 192 countries who signed the protocol, only one has subsequently failed to ratify it. That’s right, one – the good old U.S. of A. Although the American delegation of scientists was fully in agreement with the overwhelming consensus on display there, and they dutifully brought the treaty home for approval, it was summarily dismissed by George W. Bush who claimed it would be too expensive to implement.

This line of unreasoning is beyond absurd. If facing a sentence of life in prison but offered the chance of near-certain acquittal simply by hiring the right high-profile attorney, most people wouldn’t hesitate to pay whatever it might cost to avoid incarceration. Likewise with disease. If faced with a life-threatening illness, having a world-class surgeon available to perform life-saving surgery would be priceless, and most people would willingly give away everything they have if it meant they could go on living. We as a nation obviously don’t seem to care much about the plight of the polar bears or the fate of places like the Maldives, who, through no fault of their own, are on track to sink beneath the waves within the next century, but just looking at the freakish weather and severe storms of the past few years, it’s clearer than ever that global warming has arrived on our doorstep. To paraphrase the founder of the modern sustainability movement, “The real question we should be asking when discussing the economic impact of environmental measures is, ‘Can we afford to exist?’” Are we really prepared to answer that question, “no”?

Pundits and hyper-patriots love to talk about “American exceptionalism.” In plain terms this translates as, “Don’t mind us. We’re just better than you.” How incredibly arrogant and off-putting to everyone else. It seems to go hand in hand with another favored myth, “Manifest Destiny,” which supposedly justified our genocidal land grab against the native inhabitants of North America. It also ties into “God Bless America,” which implores the all-powerful creator of the entire universe to play favoritism with one particular segment of upright primates, who happen to live within an arbitrarily delineated geographic region of one small planet, circling an ordinary yellow star, in the outer reaches of one of at least a hundred billion galaxies. Wow. Furthermore, if we’re going to talk the talk, we sure as hell better walk the walk to back it up. As related above, our actions continually fall far short of the lofty rhetoric we proclaim to the world (and to ourselves). No wonder there’s so much rampant anti-Americanism on display among the other ninety-five percent of humanity.

The great irony of it all is that I guarantee many people will read this article and consequently brand me a traitor, a naysayer – any number of derogatory, reactionary terms to draw attention away from things they would prefer not to think about and certainly don’t want advertised. While not surprising, it’s profoundly discouraging (not to mention childish, unfair, and counterproductive.) It’s like a monkey throwing poo at his handler for bringing him medicine.

Despite all the travesties I’ve just listed, I love my country and I care deeply about what happens to it. If I didn’t why would I bother to write about it? My family has been here for eleven generations and it’s the place I call home. Having traveled extensively on five continents, I can honestly say the U.S. is still one of my favorite places when it comes to natural beauty, civil liberties, and the kindness and generosity of the people. I’m proud of the many amazing things we as a nation have achieved: the first functional democracy since ancient Greece, the first national park anywhere, invention of the airplane and the Internet, landing a man on the moon… even our “Colgate smiles.” Yet loving one’s country does not preclude it being a tough love nor does it require monogamy, for I also love my planet and the fact that we exist as conscious beings to enjoy it.

Right now we’re heading down a dark path. We’re destroying our environment and we’re pissing away our hard-fought freedoms faster than we can fix things. We cannot simply carry on with business as usual, plundering the world’s resources and bullying anyone who opposes us. America has long fancied itself “a shining city upon a hill.” Just as a city choked with smog and traffic jams and plagued by rampant crime and high unemployment doesn’t make for a very desirable place to live, we had better work on cleaning up our act if we expect anyone to respect us or take us seriously. If average citizens don’t begin standing up and loudly demanding change, then we’re on a one-way road to ruin. We’re heading the way of every empire in all of history – the Romans, the Mongols, the Ottomans, the British. It’s far better to scale back on our own terms than to have those terms thrust upon us by the inevitable confluence of events. The best way to accomplish this is to change course now, and any meaningful change must start with the facts; otherwise we’re not just misguided but downright delusional.

I’ll wind this down with two pieces of advice, and these apply to anyone willing and able to make the required effort. First, unless you’re desperately poor and struggling just to put food on the table, then if you don’t have one already, obtain a passport and go visit other parts of the world, even if just Canada or Mexico (only 35% of Americans have passports – double the number from a decade ago but still far less than in many other developed countries.) There is no single greater way to literally expand your horizons; to dispel xenophobia and see life from a totally different perspective. You’re way less likely to want to bomb people whom you’ve spoken with, laughed with, spent time and shared meals with. It doesn’t have to break the bank either, for living as a backpacker often costs far less than working a dead-end job to pay for a crappy apartment. Even if you hate everything about traveling abroad, you’ll at least know what else is out there and perhaps learn to appreciate what you already have (and are rapidly losing) that much more.

Secondly, gather as much information as possible about history, about current events, and about science, and try to then integrate these ideas into your worldview. We’re living in the Information Age. We are surrounded by information, deluged by it. Although in many ways it’s harder than ever to sort through it all to separate fact from fiction, give it an honest and concerted effort. Read things that make you uncomfortable. Follow people on Twitter whom you disagree with. Click the hyperlinks in interesting articles and follow up with your own research. Question your most basic assumptions. If they’re sound, you have nothing to fear. If they’re not, you have everything to gain and you’ll emerge a wiser, better person for your efforts.

It seems that we are currently experiencing a fairly rough patch of what has been an incredible experiment in people power, but we as a nation still have enormous potential to do good. Despite all the mistakes we’ve made and the trust we’ve betrayed, we’re still the world’s only remaining superpower and we still wield enormous influence. Let’s use that influence to tackle humanity’s most pressing problems and to steer us all toward a brighter, happier, more just and peaceful future, for the alternative is too depressing to even consider.

Read more: Why The Rest of the World Should Tell the U.S. to F*cK Off

Eastern Europe: The EU’s Benign Neglect of Eastern Europe - by Judy Dempsey

The authors from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine were asked to give a critical assessment of the EU’s policies toward their country, ranked on a scale from “miserable” to “excellent.”

The EU’s record in Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Ukraine was deemed “inadequate” (the second-lowest ranking). In Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova, it was described as “satisfactory” (the third-lowest score). Nothing stellar to boast about.

Re-reading the series—independently of the refugee crisis, which is likely to make Europe turn even more inward—one finds little scope for optimism for the lands between the EU and Russia.
This is because the EU has been consistently very weak in dealing with post-Soviet countries (except the Baltic states) compared with the former Communist countries of Central Europe and Southeastern Europe. The latter knew exactly where they wanted to be after 1989: part of the Euro-Atlantic constellation. Joining the EU and NATO was their goal. It was about coming home to a reunited Europe.

When it comes to Eastern Europe, the EU is making fatal mistakes that leave the region without a perspective and render it even more unstable than it already was. Yet these shortcomings could be easily remedied with political will.

The biggest shortcoming is the lack of a long-term strategy toward any of these countries. Even in Ukraine, the EU has no idea what perspective to offer this big country whose political and economic stability has enormous consequences for Europe.

Even more worrying, the EU is not applying sufficient pressure on Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to implement reforms. Nor is it doing what it has persistently failed to do in both old and new members as well as candidate countries: reach out, as Mikhail Minakov from Kiev wrote, “to local governments and pro-reform NGO networks.”

If the EU wants to have an impact, it is not going to achieve this by talking to the governing elites while failing to engage genuinely independent civil society movements.

Didn’t it learn anything from its misguided policies in the Middle East prior to the Arab Spring? Seemingly not.

Read more: The EU’s Benign Neglect of Eastern Europe - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

EU-We Should Not Be Afraid Of Refugees - it will pay off in the long-run by doing it right - by Angel Gurria

Europe is facing an historic moment. By the end of this year, the number of people applying for asylum in the European Union will exceed one million. The human cost of this refugee crisis is appalling. Yet, in all but a handful of cases, the response of Europe’s governments has been tentative, at best: acknowledging the need to do more, while fearing the implications.

Some politicians fear the burden that migrants will impose on local communities and taxpayers. Others fear extremists masquerading as genuine refugees. Above all, many are scared of public opinion, which – for all the heart-warming scenes of welcome and support for asylum-seekers – remains hesitant and even hostile to the prospect of still more migrants from war-torn, troubled countries, especially if they practice a different religion.

European leaders cannot afford to be afraid. The refugee crisis is not one from which they can opt out. No magic wand will empower leaders to transport more than a million people back across the Aegean and the Bosphorus to Mosul and Aleppo, or across the Mediterranean to Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan.

The reintroduction of border controls and the construction of fences may buy time for over-stretched countries, but no one can seriously expect to keep out people who are so desperate to move. Given the dire conditions in the countries from which they are fleeing, perhaps half of the asylum-seekers will qualify for

residency under even the strictest rules. So, whatever the sensitivity or ambivalence of public opinion, European leaders will have to find a bold, coordinated, and unified response.

There are three challenges. The first is to agree on a fair allocation of refugees within Europe; despite their vast numbers, these desperate people must be provided with shelter, food, and support. This will be difficult enough.

The second challenge is to start the process of integrating refugees into Europe’s societies and economies. Some refugees will find it relatively easy to find jobs. A university-educated Syrian civil engineer arriving in Munich will need to learn some German; but, once this is done, he or she is unlikely to have to wait too long before employers come knocking. Other asylum-seekers have lower levels of education, and many may well be traumatized by their experience of war and exodus. It will take time and effort to integrate them

and many voters will be skeptical of the process, especially given that successful integration or assimilation will not come cheap.

However, paying the price to accept and integrate today’s asylum-seekers could reap significant benefits for the Europe of tomorrow. Our work at the OECD shows that migration, if well managed, can spur growth and innovation. Unfortunately, in the past, migration has not always been well managed: migrants have been concentrated in ghetto-like conditions, with few public services or employment prospects.

Note EU-Digest: this is a renewed opportunity for Europe to do migration right - we should not blow it this time. 

Read more: We Should Not Be Afraid Of Refugees » Social Europe