Some international acknowledgement is always appreciated

Some international acknowledgement is always appreciated:

https://blickovernejden.wordpress.com/2018/05/28/when-the-result-of-a-democratic-election-does-not-fit-the-narrative/

Advertisements
Posted in EU, International politics, Italy | Leave a comment

Parlamentarismens svarta dag

Denna molnbrutna och tämligen ordinära fredag kommer att åtminstone i undertecknads minne komma till hågkomst som den svenska parlamentarismens svarta dag. Varför detta? Jo, idag voterades det i Riksdagen om att ge 9000 afghanska män, som redan fått sina ärenden prövade i enlighet med svensk lag och regelverk och inte funnits ha asylskäl, amnesti. Dessa män skall på svenska skattebetalares bekostnad beredas möjligheter till gymnasieutbildning, något som beräknas kosta över 3 miljarder kronor. Resurser som därmed måste allokeras från andra delar av statskassan genom att antingen minska andra verksamhetsområdens budgetar, öka skatteuppbörden eller upplåningen. Men att ifrågasätta detta agerande från Regeringens sida torde bemötas med mantrat: “-Man får inte ställa grupp mot grupp!” Kruxet är att det är exakt vad Regeringen med Centerns aktiva stöd nu gör. Till syvende och sist är all offentligt finansierad verksamhet att ställa ett områdes behov mot ett annat enär statsbudgeten inte är oändlig. 3 miljarder kronor är en ansenlig summa men i statsbudgetsammanhang dock en “spottstyver” men har trots detta likväl ett stort symbolvärde, detta i ett läge då alltfler än bara Svenskt Näringslivs dåvarande ordförande Leif Östling yttrar: “-..vad fan får jag?” Skatteviljan är avhängig att väljarna upplever att det finns legitimitet i systemet. Vad vi idag sett prov på är således ett sällan skådat gynnande av ett ifrågasättande narrativ av det politiska etablissemanget.

Varför gör man då detta? I korthet handlar det om att Miljöpartiet ledsnade på att ständigt låta sig bli överkört av sin socialdemokratiska koalitionspartner och satte sig på tvären likt ett truligt elevråd i årskurs 8 och hotade att lämna Regeringen. Socialdemokraterna valde i detta läge att vika ned sig enligt devisen: “Makten framförallt”, trots utfästelser från statsminister Stefan Löfvén om ordning och reda och att svensk lag skulle upprätthållas. Makten framförallt som förklaringsgrund haltar emellertid då regeringen de facto är en minoritetsregering. Varför Centern i sammanhanget valde att över blockgränsen stödja Regeringen handlar dock precis som i fallet med Miljöpartiet om att odla sin självbild, eller snarare sitt självbedrägeri, om en bild av dessa partier som förkämpar för godheten, även om detta i sammanhanget innebär att de facto bryta mot svensk lagstiftning. Man skall i sammanhanget ha i åtanke att såväl Centern som Miljöpartiet hemfaller åt den utopiska villfarelsen om fri migration, något svensk socialdemokrati inte gör. Oavsett hur man än önskar motsatsen så är fri migration oförenligt med en bibehållen offentligt finansierad välfärdsstat. Likväl går Socialdemokraterna sin koalitionspartner Miljöpartiet tillmötes, dessutom i strid mot svensk förvaltningslag.

http://helenaedlund.se/godhetsposorerna/

Att Sverigedemokraterna för stunden i gallupundersökningarna verkar gå som tåget är i sammanhanget således inte särskilt förvånande. De främsta valarbetarna utgörs av Regeringen och Centern och dessas vanrespekt för svensk lagstiftning tillsammans med det faktum att Alliansen i mångt och mycket checkade ut som opposition under den gångna mandatperioden. Svensk politik har under många år kännetecknats av en närmast total frånvaro av konservatism, något som lämnat fältet öppet för Sverigedemokraternas tillväxt, även om partiet i mina ögon ur ekonomiskt hänseende är nyliberalt. Miljöpartiet å sin sida har genom sin politiska ofäighet och emotionellt drivna agenda fungerat som ett sänke för svensk socialdemokrati samtidigt som Miljöpartiet sålt sin själ de gånger man vikit ned sig. Inget av partierna har således gagnats av samarbetet. För egen del skulle jag vilja påstå att att problemet dock inte bara handlar om en dysfunktionell ministär, naiva partistyrelser och synnerligen dåliga beslut utan att detta beror också på mer grundläggande brister inom svensk parlamentarism.

https://www.expressen.se/debatt/mp-maste-genast-lamna-regeringen/

Vi har sett hur Regeringen fattat beslut som strider mot svensk lag, inte bara vad det gäller dessa 9000 afghanska män som saknar asylskäl, utan också vad gäller äganderätten, något som ingår i de mänskliga rättigheterna. Regeringen har kort sagt berövat enskilda skogsägare deras ekonomiska möjligheter utan någon som helst ekonomisk kompensation.

https://www.di.se/nyheter/drabbad-skogsagare-stammer-staten/

Vanrespekten inför svensk lag i det politiska värvet visar att Sverige som nation är i akut behov av att vidta parlamentariska reformer av hur detta land styrs. I nuläget tillämpas s.k. negativ parlamentarism, något som är tämligen ovanligt i en internationell jämförelse. Detta innebär att en minoritetsministär kan tillträda så länge den inte har har den aktiva majoriteten av parlamentetet emot sig. Detta är i mina ögon ur demokratiskt hänseende synnerligen tveksamt eftersom en minoritet därmed kan styra över en majoritet. Onekligen kontradiktoriskt i en stat som säger sig vara en demokratins bålverk. Sverige behöver således införa positiv parlamentarism, d.v.s. att en regering inte kan tillträda innan denna säkrat aktivt stöd från riksdagsmajoriteten. Detta skulle praktiskt innebära att ett litet parti likt Miljöpartiet troligtvis skulle få mindre manöverutrymme under sittande mandatperiod, även om ett sådant parlamentariskt system skulle innebära påtaglig kohandel inför en regeringsbildning. Någon garanti för att en koalitionsregering inte skulle spricka är det dock inte men en regering inom ramen för en positiv majoritetsparlamentarism skulle ha en stark position och skulle exempelvis inte likt den nuvarande Regeringen under dess första regeringsår tvingas regera med oppositionens budget som underlag.

Vidare måste Sverige i skenet av oförblommerad tjänstemannaaktivism vid flera av våra myndigheter, exempelvis på Polismyndigheten och Naturvårdsverket, samt visad vanrespekt för svensk lag på Transportstyrelsen och t.o.m. inom vår Regering och Riksdag, införa en Konstitutionsdomstol med tvingande mandat. Funktionen av en sådan skulle vara att värna medborgarnas konstitutionella rättigheter och tillse att svensk lag upprätthålls, oavsett vilken regeringskonstellation som sitter vid makten. Om ett politiskt parti inte gillar hur lagtexten är utformad så måste detta parti verka för att på parlamentarisk väg förändra innehållet i lagtexten, inte bortse ifrån den efter gottfinnande.

http://www.landlantbruk.se/debatt/robust-skydd-kravs-for-vara-fri-och-rattigheter/

Dagens riksdagsbeslut visade med emfas på hur dysfunktionell svensk parlamentarism av idag är och hur akut behovet är av konstitutionella förändringar. Detta var en dag där Centerns och Miljöpartiets självbild tilläts gå före lag och ordning och där svensk socialdemokrati med största sannolikhet tillsåg att slå i sista spiken i kistan vad gäller några som helst förutsättningar att vinna höstens val. Kortsiktig husfrid tilläts gå före långsiktigt tänkande och helgande av svensk lag och principer. Denna fredag var verkligen en Parlamentarismens svarta dag.

Posted in Domestic Swedish politics | Leave a comment

South Africa is back under Apartheid

Such a claim will probably make for instance the ANC froth at the mouth out of anger but it needs to be said due to the new law regarding property ownership recently passed, directed only towards the white population in the country, stripping them of the right to ownership due to their ethnicity. The right of ownership is part the human rights, something that the ANC apparently has no regards for.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/south-africa-white-farms-land-seizure-anc-race-relations-a8234461.html

We saw what happened in neighboring Zimbabwe as Robert Mugabe in complete defiance with the The Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 – that brought an end to the Bush War, created Zimbabwe and gave equal rights to the populace regardless of ethnicity, as he and ZANU-PF deprived the white population of their land and redistributed it to proclaimed war veterans, many which were not even born when the peace agreement was signed. Zimbabwe rapidly sank into depression as 300 000 black farm workers lost their jobs, many white Zimbabweans leaving the country after a string of murders and threats and the country going from an export nation to having to rely on importation of food since the new self subsistence agriculture was woefully insufficient in even meeting domestic demand.

Hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans fled Mugabe’s oppression to South Africa and given the poverty brought about by his racist political agenda one would have expected South Africa not being willing to trod down the same path, but evidently not. The ANC is now choosing a short sighted easy way of blaming it’s own corruption and political shortcomings on the white South African population. It is often said, with some relevance, that the black population of South Africa won their political freedom, but not their economic one. However, if you wan’t to build a functioning democratic society based upon equal rights regardless of ethnicity, you can not have different laws based upon racial grounds. If the ANC would like to redistribute land and property owned by the white minority that would be fine as long as the latter are compensated along market prices. Instead the ANC will now simply steal a white South African’s property and hand it over to a black South African, according to the post colonial narrative of giving it back to the proper owner. However, the boers have been in South Africa since 17th century and South Africa has seen considerable migration patterns after that, also by various African people. Hence it is a valid question whom the “proper owner” really is? If one would use the same logic applied in an American context, this would mean that any American citizen that isn’t of native decent would loose the right of ownership. It just isn’t plausible in a modern democratic society, especially a society predominantly based upon immigrant background.

The left wing extremism found in Zimbabwe led to the nation almost imploding on itself and if South Africa would like to avoid meeting the same fate it would be wise not fall into the same racist polarizing agenda. Unfortunately cooler heads don’t seem to have prevailed since the law actually passed in Parliament. Hence the international community must act accordingly, with same principals as during the Apartheid era, putting South Africa under sanctions until the ANC fully acknowledges that human rights of South Africa are to be upheld, regardless of the color of the skin of it’s citizens.

 

Posted in South Africa | Leave a comment

Signs of US military hardware loosing it’s appeal?

Ever since Turkey and Russia signed a contract for delivery of the advanced Russian S-400 SAM-system to Ankara the United States have become increasingly worried about it’s dominant position as the main provider of military technology in the world.

Turkey choosing to buy Russian technology was especially worrisome for the United States since Ankara is a member of NATO. The United States has officially been most concerned about the level of interoperability with NATO-systems but that has probably less significance with regards to the American sour faces. From a technological perspective the S-400 is a more modern system than the now seasoned albeit upgraded American Patriot, however as with all advanced military weapons system politics have an ever bigger role than just technological aspects. To purchase technology, which depends on importation of spare parts, upgrades e.t.c., is to put yourself in political dependency. There are several states that over the years have become non grata due political reasons. Venezuela’s left wing government found it impossible to purchase spare parts from the United States for it’s ageing fleet of F-16’s and instead opted for buying Russian Su-30’s as a replacement. Argentina is another South American nation that has found itself in a position of not being able to purchase Western aircraft due to the unresolved issue of the Falklands/Malvinas islands since Britain vetoes all such potential deals with Buenos Aires. Instead Argentina has started to look for a Chinese option, both due political but also financial reasons.

Iran is an exception when it comes to being able to continue operating it’s Western aircrafts from the days of the Shah, like their F-5’s and F-14’s, in spite of being under sanctions. This is because Iran has been very successful at reverse engineering and thus have been able to produce it’s own spare parts and upgrades domestically. However old air frames can only be kept operational for so long. There have been circulating rumors for many years of a Russian-Iranian deal of Moscow selling SU-30’s to Tehran. Any official statement is yet to be made which would confirm or deny these rumors though. Given the Western sanctions against Russia over the alleged Russian meddling in the US Presidential Elections and Russia’s involvement in the Donbass conflict and with the US backing out of the JPCOA with Iran I personally would not find it surprising if such a Russian-Iranian deal will take place, especially since Moscow and Tehran have had a close cooperation in Syria in reversing the course of the war there.

Another country with a long standing tradition of good relations with Moscow is India that always have been a non aligned nation and thus have purchased both Eastern and Western block equipment for it’s armed forces. India has hence produced for instance the Soviet era MiG-21 under license. Russia and India have also cooperated in producing one of the world’s most advanced anti-shipping missiles to date, the supersonic ramjet BrahMos. The latest deal between the two nations, announced just this week, is a contract for delivery of the S-400 SAM-system. And just as with Turkey the US has begun to pressure India, saying that the deal will cause Washington to limit it’s willingness to transfer advanced technology to India in other fields.

Sweden opted however earlier this year to sign a contract with the US for the delivery of the Patriot system rather than the French ASTER although the latter was preferred by the Swedish Armed Forces since ASTER is both less expensive and more modern. As with the S-400 the ASTER is a vertically launched system which gives an instant 360 degree coverage within the system’s range and shorter response time while the Patriot must be trained towards the target. While perhaps the Patriot might be cheaper to upgrade under it’s course of service life due the system being in service with more nations this deal probably had more to do with politics more than anything else as Sweden and Finland both recently signed a deal with Washington regarding security cooperation. With Washington’s unilateral attitude in it’s current foreign policy, for instance regarding sanctions against Russia which are infinitely more damaging the the EU’s economy than America’s, and the backing out of JPCOA which was meet with substantial European criticism towards the United States, it is fair to question if not ASTER had been a more strategical choice from a political perspective? However, Sweden has a long tradition of making the wrong decisions when it comes strategical analysis.

Sweden might be of regional importance in the Baltics and Scandinavia, however of less importance on the global arena though. With the United States starting to threaten states like the NATO-member Turkey and non-aligned India with political consequences due to their choosing of other than American technology this have greater implications on the world scene. Law makers in the US have for instance started a process of getting Turkey of the list of future F-35 operators, something that has made Turkey officially interested in the Russian SU-57, if such action takes place. This would only serve to strengthen the appeal for other nations to look for other options, like for instance Russian and Chinese equipment, for their forces in the future. There are certainly signs of US military hardware starting to loose it’s appeal.

 

 

Posted in China, Domestic Swedish politics, EU, Geopolitical topics, India, International politics, Iran, Russia, Turkey, USA | Leave a comment

When the result of a democratic election does not fit the narrative

This sentence captures the Italian election quite well. The Euro skeptic economist Professor Paolo Savona did not fit well with the Italian President Sergio Mattarella nor with Brussels one can surmise. Hence Mattarella stated that the position as Minister of Finance should not go to an individual that would risk the Italian membership in the Euro zone.

https://www.politico.eu/article/italian-president-asks-mr-scissors-technocrat-to-form-government/

Instead Mattarella pushed for his own interim cabinet member by appointing former IMF Director Carlo Cottarelli. Italy has had a tradition during it’s entire post war history of a long string of weak governments which has resulted in increasing popular distrust in the political system and the victory of the populist M5S – the Five Star Movement, and the response from President Mattarella, clearly shows that Italy continues it’s rather dubious political tradition. Mattarella’s response will undoubtedly further increase popular distrust in the political system. Many Italians perceive the Euro and Brussels’ dominance as holding Italy in servitude. Internal dissatisfaction between the rich North and the poor South will probably intensify as well. Prosperous regions like Veneto and Lombardy have a long historical tradition of independence since Italy as a unified state only goes back to 1861. With the poor and corrupt South acting as a sinker in the eyes of many Northerners, coupled with a political system that does not wish to take into account popular dissatisfaction, this will without doubt lead to additional strengthening of populism and separatism in Italy.

What Brussels seemingly can’t grasp is that the idea of a federative Europe with a common currency based on the idea of a common European identity is just a figment of imagination harbored mostly by high ranking idealists rather than ordinary citizens. Hence one one can argue that is the most staunch federalists that are the biggest threat towards European cooperation since it is their agenda that fuels a counter effect in the form of populism. Thus a collision appears when the results of democratic elections does not fit the narrative. This has happened many times over, in Ireland, in Denmark and now Italy. However, the project can not be interrupted by popular discontent. Hence we have a substantial problem. What is democracy? If an election brings forth a result that wasn’t to one’s liking then tough luck. If a democratic election is funneled within the confines of a predetermined path then it is fair to question if such an election can be described as truly democratic? Many communist states described themselves a democracies, albeit not according to the definition of capitalist liberal parliamentary states. If we look at how the European project was conceived one of the “founding fathers” was Altiero Spinelli, a convinced life long communist. His idea was that the nation state was dead and that a federative Europe, implemented with or without popular support, was the way of the future. Something that can be understood from a Marxist perspective as nation states are considered as a bourgeois hindrance, both politically, culturally and economically, in bringing about an egalitarian socialistic society. With the history of Europe in mind, with two devastating World Wars fought among other things due to chauvinistic nationalism, it is easy to understand why such an idea had appeal to some people. But the thing is that a federative Europe is far from a Marxist idea of an egalitarian society, on the contrary, it is a capitalistic project that nowadays is far from a peace project. Europe has begun to become a geopolitical player in it’s own right. There is some validity to this since the current administration in Washington behaves in a unilateral way that is damaging to the interests of Europe. But at the same time, what difference is there from a philosophical perspective between a increasingly federative Europe and a nation state looking after it’s own interests?

I have often compared the European Union of today with the Habsburg Empire. It was a state consisting of many ethnicities with vastly different political influence in state affairs and with substantial internal economic differences within the Empire. Hence Emperor Karl in the last fledgling days of the Empire’s existence had significant problems in securing the various ethnic groups support while at the same time trying to maintain good relations with Imperial Germany who’s interests wasn’t necessarily the same as Vienna’s. There are hence some political similarities between Brussels, Rome and Washington of today with the current situation in Europe, albeit not under a situation of war. Many Marxists in 1918 believed that the days of the nation state had come to an end, a hundred years later we can clearly see that the nation is still alive and kicking, trying to get rid of a supranational yoke. The yoke of today is not a monarchy empire though, but rather a a different type of empire, an empire portrayed as a guarantor of democracy. So if the European Union wishes to stay relevant it must reform and deal with it’s democratic deficit.

Brexit was the rather shocking epitome of a popular protest against the European Project, a protest that did not sit well with Brussels. Many tried to argue for a new referendum that would hopefully result in the “correct” result i.e. to stay within the EU. This shows the discrepancy in the view of what constitutes a democracy and what democracy is about. The latter involves actually dealing with a result that is not to your liking, otherwise you really can’t describe yourself as a true democrat. Thus a logical response to Brexit on behalf of Brussels would have been less “Europe”, not more. Instead Brussels has shown once again that the project can not be stopped by popular discontent.

What we just have witnessed in Italy is another example of what happens when the result of a democratic election does not fit the narrative. This will only in the long run strengthen populism and popular dissatisfaction in a downward spiral somewhat reminiscent of Dante’s journey trough Inferno and Purgatory. However the situation is everything but a divine comedy.

 

Posted in EU, International politics, Italy | 1 Comment

PompeoUS diplomacy

With the appointment of certified hawks within the Trump administration such as John Bolton and Mike Pompeo it has become clear that the fine tuned art of diplomacy coming from the White House is becoming evidently more dissonanced.

With the strike upon Syria, due to an alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Arab Army, without awaiting a proper investigation about the actual circumstances, the backing out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the description of Israeli disproportionate use of lethal violence against Palestinian protesters as “restrained” it is fair to come to the conclusion that the pro-Israeli lobby has the United States firmly wrapped around it’s finger.

However the Middle East is by far not the only geopolitical headache that the Trump Administration has to tackle. Just a couple of months ago the Korean Peninsula was the epicenter of the World’s attention after North Korea had launched a missile with the alleged reach to carry a nuclear warhead to the Continental USA. If Pyongyang has been able to miniaturize it’s nuclear devices sufficiently enough in order to allow them to be launched by ICBM is still not clear however. There is a long way to go between detonating a thermonuclear device at a test site to actually have a functional reliable nuclear deterrent. However, most analysts did not anticipate that North Korea would have the advanced level of missile systems within such a short time span either.

Then Kim Jong-Un, after a war of words with President Donald Trump, a war of words hardly befitting two leaders of states in possession of nuclear capability, made a diplomatic move that left the World with it’s mouth open in surprise. Kim Jong-Un expressed the wish for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula! Whether this was due to American saber rattling or an example of an honest attempt to actually make peace with the South, which would allow the North to hopefully embark on a path similar to that of China, is debated. Personally I think that Kim Jong-Un would like to make peace with the South in order to be able to implement economic reforms of Chinese pattern rather than anything else. The only way of initiating such a process would first of all be to reach a formal peace agreement with the South. That would be impossible without starting to talk about North Korea’s nuclear capability as that program brought looming clouds of war. The Trump Administration would of course like to believe that their hard line approach was the key factor. However a preemptive strike on North Korea would be nothing like launching cruise missiles against Syria, a preemptive strike will mean all out war.

It’s true that North Korea’s military assets in case of open war will be worn down by the superior technological advantage of the US and South Korea. But a total victory will not be likely, just as in 1950-1953. The Korean Peninsula doesn’t lend itself to a large scale war of maneuver with large armored formations like for instance in Iraq in 1991 or 2003. Just like in the 50’s it would be a predominantly infantry war supported by artillery and air power. And if there is something that North Korea has plenty of it’s infantry and artillery, albeit technologically inferior but still a force to be reckoned with. Seoul is also well within reach of thousands of North Korean artillery systems and although the latter would eventually succumb to counter battery fire Seoul would suffer badly. Another great danger would be a Chinese involvement on behalf of North Korea. The Chinese are for obvious reasons not interested in having American troops at their border and would neither like to deal with the economic and social consequences of a North Korean collapse. For a totalitarian regime as the North Korean one there is no such thing as loosing face, even with what would initially been designed as a limited preemptive strike from US side, it would still be a matter of survival for the regime in Pyongyang.

Regardless what one might think of Kim Jong-Un and the ideology of North Korea, yours truly most certainly isn’t a fan, that does not make that regime irrational. “Little Rocket Man” as Donald Trump called Kim Jong-Un on Twitter still isn’t a dimwit. What we are seeing now is North Korea reaching out to the South in order to defuse a tense and potentially dangerous situation. This would be the first objective. Secondly would be to reconnoiter the diplomatic terrain and see if there can be possibilities for further discussions that in the end might lead to an actual peace process.

Initially the response from the White House was positive. With things heating up in the Middle East at the same time the American saber rattling also shifted focus. Then came something that can only be described as a diplomatic swaggering, with Mike Pompeo at the helm the fine tuned art of diplomacy to actually get some constructive discussions underway quickly turned in to what I would describe as a one way alley. Just the other day Mike Pompeo made a diplomatic offer to Pyongyang that if the North’s missiles and warheads were shipped abroad within six months the US MIGHT take the DPRK off the list of states that is considered as rouge states sponsoring terrorism.

As I previously said Kim Jong-Un is not a dimwit. He has studied what has happen to states that has relinquished their nuclear capability. What happen with Qaddafi and Libya? How did things end up with the JPCOA Agreement with Iran? With such rather preposterous suggestions as with the one Mike Pompeo offered, North Korea certainly won’t take the bait. The nuclear deterrent is the out most guarantor against regime change operations or preemptive strikes. And hollow guarantees like the JPOCA has clearly shown to be worthless.

Evidently Mike Pompeo hasn’t been a keen student when it comes to American history. Theodore Roosevelt is said to have coined the phrase: “-Speak softly and carry a big stick.” This attitude clearly shows that Roosevelt understood how diplomacy actually works, especially the diplomacy of a great power that not only wishes to project it’s interests but in the same time maintain it’s diplomatic credibility, even in the eyes of a foe. What we are seeing now coming from the White House is instead an example of a rather futile PompeoUS diplomacy.

Posted in China, Geopolitical topics, Iran, North Korea, USA | Leave a comment

The last nail in the coffin for US diplomatic credibility

Today is the commemoration of Nakba Day, in remembrance of the exodus of many Palestinians as the state of Israel was proclaimed 70 years ago. Several generations have now grown up in refugee camps and in the case of the Gaza Strip under blockade during the latest decade given the fact that Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel and the latter try to make everyday life as difficult as possible for the Palestinians in order to sow popular discontent with the radical rule of Hamas. However there seems to be an opposite effect, causing even more hatred and resentment. The violence along the Gaza Strip border fence continues with the number of killed Palestinians at the hands of the IDF reaching almost 60 people in a single day and with far more than 2000 injured since the start of the Great March of Return.

The US decision to recognize the Holy City of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has caused considerable resentment, not only among Palestinians for obvious reasons but also among many Muslim nations around the world. Turkey is no exception and the ruling Islamist AKP Party under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has slammed both Israel and the United States hard, calling Israel an apartheid state and labeling the Israeli disproportionate use of deadly force as nothing short of state terrorism. Ankara has even taken home it’s ambassadors from Washington and Tel Aviv.

While Erdoğan certainly isn’t Mustafa Kemal, quite the contrary, he will undoubtedly come out of this very much politically strengthened, both among his countrymen and in the eyes of many Muslims around the world. The diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv and Washington were poor even before this weeks escalations. The diplomatic “all in” approach towards Israel by the Trump Administration will with out a doubt cause Turkey to orient itself closer politically and strategically towards Russia, something that is already under way with for instance Ankara’s purchase of Russian S-400 SAM systems, the latter causing considerable disgruntlement in the US. This will further cause the United States to become even more dependent on Israel for it’s geopolitical position in the Middle East, especially since it seems that the coalition between the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the Communist Party of Iraq has secured the victory in the Iraqi elections. Thus the United States seems to be loosing even more political ground in Iraq. Iranian influence was considerably strengthen due to the Shia majority becoming the dominant group in Iraq due to the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein who’s support rested on the Sunni minority. The victory of al-Sadr can be seen as Iraq embarking on a revival of Iraqi nationalism, which actually can counter some of Iran’s influence, however this still means that the US at the same time looses influence as well, making the Middle East even more multi polar.

Further it is quite safe to say that Hamas will come out of the violence strengthened as well as the more Palestinian blood that flows with the United States blatantly turning a blind eye the more hatred is fueled towards Israel and by extension the United States. On the contrary, the United States induces even more resentment by calling the actions of the IDF as “restrained”. Hatred is one of the cornerstones in causing radicalization in a never ending spiral.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nikki-haley-denies-gaza-violence-related-us-embassy/story?id=55178732

In a long row of distasteful and undiplomatic statements during the latest weeks from the Cabinet of Benjamin Netanyahu can now be added a statement in Israel Times by Avi Dichter, former director of Shin Bet internal security service and Minister of Internal Security:

“-I think that ultimately, the means that the IDF prepared, whether non-lethal, or if needed, lethal, in cases where it’s justified by the open-fire regulations — there’s enough ammunition for everyone.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-has-enough-bullets-for-everyone-senior-mk-says-of-deadly-gaza-clashes/

With such attitude that has been shown by Cabinet members like Lieberman , Steinitz and now Dichter, it’s not without that here seems to be somewhat of legitimacy behind Erdoğan’s raged allegations. Especially so with incriminating footage surfacing of IDF snipers shooting Palestinian protesters that by all accounts are not involved in hurling stones at the IDF.

 

The Trump Administrations has without a doubt totally surrendered to the Pro-Israeli lobby in the United States. Hardly surprising as for instance influential Pro-Israeli lobbyists like Sheldon Adelson and Miriam Ochsorn, harboring good relations with Netanyahu’s Likud, supported Donald Trump’s election campaign with considerable donations. They certainly got value for the money with Trump backing out of JCPOA, the nuclear deal with Iran and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, while at the same time antagonizing pretty much everyone else. Hence the alleged “Russiagate”, if there really was such a thing, any tangible evidence hasn’t been put forth in proof of it’s actual existence beyond accusations, seems more like a mild breeze in comparison to the political influence that Israel exercises over the United States. Proof of the the latter is evident for anyone to see.

Unfortunately this isn’t just a Republican problem, it is also a Democratic problem. Something that was evident with Hillary Clinton being firmly on the regime change band wagon in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/24/one-of-congresss-most-pro-israel-lawmakers-isnt-pro-israel-enough-for-aipac/

The Pro-Israeli lobby in the United States is as such a bipartisan operation, albeit with the most success within the Republican Party so far. This bipartisan nature of the game will cause significant problems for the United States if a new Administration sets out to mend the American diplomatic credibility. With putting more or less all eggs in one basket the Trump Administration has now lost every chance to be seen as a viable diplomatic mediator in foreseeable future certainly when it comes to the Palestinian Question but also in regard to the already strained relations with Turkey. This also stands true regarding US relations with it’s allies in Europe as there has been growing concerns about the effects on European economies due to the sanctions against Russia, sanctions that also have been counterproductive. Now as Trump has also pulled out of the nuclear deal with Tehran, this will have economic consequences for European companies as sanctions will be reimposed. Hence the EU is increasingly coming to the conclusion that there is a contradiction in the interests of Europe and those of the United States and that the latter has no intention to listen to it’s allies. Diplomacy is usually in it’s nature a matter of finding common ground in order solve a common problem, or at least to try to maintain some form of stability. However US diplomacy of today in the Middle East and Europe seems more than anything else like a unilateral posture to impose Washington’s will, or rather Israel’s, upon others. At all costs. Thus this looks like the last nail in the coffin for US diplomatic credibility.

 

Posted in Geopolitical topics, Israel, Syria, USA | Leave a comment