Feed aggregator

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/pb-2015-jpo_en_thumb_169_1431081812_1431081811_129_97shar_c1.jpg

To celebrate Europe day, held every year on 9 May, the EU institutions open their doors to the public. Visitors to the Council are be able to take guided tours of the facilities and learn more about the work of the institutions on the available information stands. Events and activities for all ages take place throughout the day.

Download this video here.

Wow isn’t my timing great! Just as I decide to wind down my European blogging, the Conservatives go and get a majority and an In/Out referendum is on the table for 2017. Under those circumstances, I think even the Australians will be a bit more interested in EU issues, so I’ll write a bit more about them than I have been doing!

So what are my thoughts on this the day after? I’m not a big fan of referenda in general – we have a representative democracy and in the absence of clear instructions, as in the Irish constitution, on which issues should go to a referendum, it seems to me to be either a cop out or a buck pass. As in UK politics in general, matters get reduced to a simple black/white, when we know that they are almost always more nuanced than that.

Having said that, if there is one, then bring it on. I’m not worried about having a chance to have the debate, and within a referendum campaign, I am hoping that those who see our membership of the EU as a necessity, or something of importance, but have had no real reason to articulate that publicly, may now be prepared to stand up and be counted. Hopefully there will be more room in public debate for both, or rather all, sides of the argument. Hopefully we will move on from a situation where three-quarters of the stories in the BBC’s UK and the EU section are about Nigel Farage.

Screenshot from BBC iPad app on 9 May 2015

 

The interesting dimension is Scotland, and also Wales and Northern Ireland. If English votes take the UK out of the EU, how will that play in those home nations that have tended to have a more realistic if not necessarily positive relationship with the EU?

These are certainly going to be “interesting times” for a Eurogeek, whichever side of the world I will be on in 2017.

The dust is starting to settle on Britain’s Thursday elections, and a few aspects of this moment in British politics are now coming into clearer view. Heads are rolling and history is being made: Strap in for five key points (and a bit of needlepoint) to consider.

‘I am William Wallace!’ Sorta?

This was the election where the Scottish National Party rewrote the UK’s electoral map. By nearly completing a clean sweep of Scotland’s seats in the House of Commons, the SNP did more than anyone else — besides Ed Miliband himself, but more on that later — to ensure that Labour would go down in flames. Alex Salmond, the former head of the party, said the Scottish lion had roared, and Nicola Sturgeon, the party’s current head (and, no, not all of SNP-ers have fish-related surnames, as delightful as that would be), said the tectonic plates of Scottish politics had shifted.

The situation in play now is effectively that Scotland is a one-party state and that there exists a complete divide in political representation between Scotland and the other three nations in the U.K. — England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Scottish independence referendum may have failed, but the consequences are that the basic rules of U.K. politics have been rewritten. The immediate challenge for Prime Minister David Cameron is how to draft a political pact that addresses the forces that threatens to pull apart the United Kingdom. He has said devolution of political power will continue, but there are many in Britain now calling for a constitutional convention as to how powers are going to be shared between national legislatures and Parliament in London.

In his remarks on Friday, Cameron emphasized that he planned to be a prime minister for all of the United Kingdom. But one glance at the electoral map reveals his predicament. The Conservatives lost in Scotland. They lost in Wales. They lost in Northern Ireland. It was only in England that they won. England just happens to be larger than the rest, and the Conservatives seat-totals there were sufficient to outweigh their losses elsewhere. One might describe Cameron as a colonial leader ruling fractious imperial subjects to the north and west of the capital. Others have called him Benjamin Netanyahu, which just makes one wonder who are the Palestinians in that analogy.

No Moules Frites, Just Kidney Pie, Thanks.

Separately but also relatedly to the previous thought about Scotland, the UK Independence Party put on quite a showing on Thursday — and managed to get nothing for it. The party is the third-largest by vote total — winning 12.6 percent of all ballots cast, a rather incredible figure — even if it managed to win only one seat in Parliament. That speaks to the depth of suspicion that now exists in Britain toward the European Union.

Beset by Euroskeptics in his own party and the rise of UKIP, Cameron has promised a referendum on Britain’s continued membership in the EU, and that may be the next cataclysmic vote we have to look forward to in British politics. Britain has always had a conflicted relationship with the union, but a British exit would be a true catastrophe for the political pact. The EU’s power lies in the collective clout of its membership, and a so-called “Brexit” would call into question the EU’s future and may spur a rush to the exit from other members.

Given Cameron’s ability to pull a rabbit from an electoral hat on Thursday, there’s good reason to believe that he would win such a referendum, but the immediate question is how EU leaders will now approach the question of giving up some powers in Brussels (where, for the uninitiated, the moules frites are excellent) and returning them to London. The union’s heavyweights have so far driven a hard bargain and argued that Britain must act with the interests of the EU in mind, but UKIP’s continued share of the vote is only increasing. Cameron has to figure out a way to blunt UKIP’s argument that British sovereignty is being stripped away by the EU. How he does so is a key question for his premiership moving forward.

Whither the Global Left?

Poor Ed Miliband thought he could win this election by shifting the Labour party back toward its roots and away from the centrist policies that brought Tony Blair to power in the 1990s. Suffice to say, Miliband was wrong, and now he’s out of a job. That opens up some rather interesting questions about the state of the global left.

Just go through the following exercise: Name a successful left-wing leader in power today in the developed world.

…

You’d think that would be an easy question to answer, but it isn’t. Francois Hollande’s administration is up in flames. The left-wing vision of Ed Miliband was just utterly rejected by British voters. In Brazil, the political project of the Workers’ Party is coming under intense pressure because of popular dissatisfaction with corruption and scandals. In Greece, Syriza is rapidly backtracking on its promises to rip up austerity and challenge its creditors. For the American left, the administration of President Barack Obama has been one long exercise in lowering expectations.

(Ok, so there’s the Scandinavian welfare states, but until some country outside of that frigid peninsula figures out how to replicate their experiences, they’re the exception that merely proves the rule.)

The global left might look to popular movements such as Occupy and the Indignados in Spain for inspiration in popular mobilization, but those movements have struggled and mostly failed to translate popular energy into political power.

Which all just goes to show that….

We Live in Maggie Thatcher’s World

The first election after the death of Margaret Thatcher just goes to show her continuing influence on British politics. It’s an incredible feat that the Tories managed to increase their seats and share of the national vote while embarking on a program of cost-cutting. The Tories have continued their patron saint’s policies of strangling the spendthrift British state, depriving many of their government benefits and forcing students to pay higher fees for their university education. Somewhere in her crypt, Thatcher’s corpse is doing calisthenics readying itself for its return as the Tory candidate of 2024.

When Tony Blair’s New Labour was an embrace of market economics, and that was a vision that Miliband and many died-in-the-wool leftists saw as a betrayal of the party’s patrimony. Miliband distanced himself from Blair and his thinking, and Thursday’s results are the price he paid. Blair’s realization, one might argue, was that Labour had to do battle with the Tories on their own turf, one that Thatcher had both defined and occupied.

What the F*&! Is Up With Political Polling?

For weeks, the polls in Britain had indicated that we would wake up Friday to a hung Parliament. That didn’t happen, and the Tories secured an outright majority. This is now the fourth major election in recent memory that pre-election polls have badly botched the final outcome:

1. Underestimating the extent of Lib Dem and Labour losses Thursday.
2. Underestimating Likud’s victory in Israel’s March elections.
3. Underestimating the GOP’s performance in the 2014 midterms.
4. Predicting a close, final outcome to the Scottish independence referendum, when the final result was a resounding victory for the “no” campaign.

There are many structural reasons for why it is harder to carry out accurate political polling today. The decline of landlines and increased use of cellphones has made younger voters harder to reach. Pollsters, more broadly, have had a hard time applying rigorous statistical methods to the digital communications revolution.

But the current state of affairs is unacceptable. Polling inevitably has an effect on the final outcome of an election by encouraging voters to cast their ballots tactically and influencing perceptions as to who is up and who is down. When that polling isn’t grounded in reality, the public opinion industry begins to make a mockery of the democratic process. In retrospect, the entire British election campaign now has a sheen of unreality to it, as we realize that most of our underlying assumptions had been completely wrong.

The British Polling Council says it will investigate what went wrong. We eagerly await their findings.

The Most British Thing Ever

Throughout the election returns on Thursday, Tom Katsumi was heroically needlepointing the results. Take a moment to appreciate what must be the most British thing ever. He apparently was none too pleased with the outcome.

Not my best stitching, but my fastest… Now to take it outside and BURN IT!#UK2015GeneralElectionResultsLiveStitch pic.twitter.com/4kLh7nJEJS

— Tom Katsumi (@tomkatsumi) May 8, 2015

And a more lowbrow take:

#GE2015 = Maggie Simpson pic.twitter.com/jOBg3cPban (^@alexmclaughlan)

— Shreyas Panse (@shreyaspanse) May 8, 2015

JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP/Getty Images

Every weekend, Longform highlights its favorite international articles of the week. For daily picks of new and classic nonfiction, check out Longform or follow @longform on Twitter. Have an iPad? Download Longform’s new app and read all of the latest in-depth stories from dozens of magazines, including Foreign Policy.

“The Desert Blues” by Joshua Hammer, the Atavist Magazine.

In 2001, two unlikely friends created a music festival in Mali that drew the likes of Bono and Robert Plant. Then radical Islam tore them apart.

“When Mohamed Aly Ansar studied international law at the University of Bamako, in the capital of Mali, he spent his days thinking about how to bring development to his impoverished nation. But at night he had a much different dream, one that came to him over and over: He saw himself standing in the middle of the desert near a stage, watching as a helicopter descended. The chopper was carrying the Swedish pop group ABBA, and Ansar was there to receive them.

Thirty years later, on January 12, 2012, a version of that dream came true. Ansar stood on the tarmac at the airport just outside Timbuktu, searching the dark sky for the lights of a private jet. Ansar was the founder of a three-day concert series called the Festival in the Desert, sometimes referred to as the African Woodstock, and on this cool night, he was waiting for Bono to arrive.”

“The Price of Nice Nails” by Sarah Maslin Nir, the New York Times.

Manicurists are routinely underpaid and exploited, and endure ethnic bias and other abuse, the New York Times has found.

“On a morning last May, Jing Ren, a 20-year-old who had recently arrived from China, stood among them for the first time, headed to a job at a salon in a Long Island strip mall. Her hair neat and glasses perpetually askew, she clutched her lunch and a packet of nail tools that manicurists must bring from job to job.

Tucked in her pocket was $100 in carefully folded bills for another expense: the fee the salon owner charges each new employee for her job. The deal was the same as it is for beginning manicurists in almost any salon in the New York area. She would work for no wages, subsisting on meager tips, until her boss decided she was skillful enough to merit a wage. It would take nearly three months before her boss paid her. Thirty dollars a day.”

“Lusitania: The Biggest Battle Over Its Biggest Mystery” by Richard B. Stolley, Fortune.

Retired venture capitalist Gregg Bemis owns the salvage rights to the Lusitania — and he thinks he can solve the 100-year-old mystery of why it sank so quickly. His biggest obstacle: The Irish government, which has fought him for years over his plans to explore the wreck.

“In the battle between preservation and property rights, preservation is currently winning: Bemis has been unable to convince the government to let him explore his ship his way. And the current dispute is just the latest in a series of legal battles that has enmeshed Bemis and the Lusitania for almost 30 years. Bemis has won some fights and lost others; along the way he’s become a minor celebrity in Ireland, thanks to coverage of his lawsuits and his knack for colorful, unsparing criticism of the country’s cultural mandarins. Even one of his own attorneys says that Bemis can come across as “an undiplomatic pain in the ass,” and Bemis is proudly unapologetic about that. To authorities’ insistence that their only priority is to protect the Lusitania, Bemis replies: “Protect it from what? They are not protecting it from the ravages of the ocean, nor the fishermen’s nets, nor the pirates, but only protecting it from the owner and historical truth.”

“Ghosts of Iguala” by Ryan Devereaux, the Intercept.

Investigating what Mexico’s government really knows about disappearance of dozens of students.

“Though there is still little clarity on the questions of why the students were disappeared, or where they were taken, statements in the federal investigation map out a criminal takeover of the region, exposing the corruption that has swallowed many of Guerrero’s governing structures. Coordinates provided by one detained gang member, for example, led authorities to a fetid swamp in an area called La Laguna, where the rotting corpse of a former Iguala police chief was recovered. The suspect also described a ranch known as Los Naranjos — The Oranges — a patch of property where gangsters dumped bodies. Another burial site, described by two suspects, stood out early in the case. There, the men said, they had buried some of the students from Ayotzinapa. When investigators examined the site they indeed found bodies — 28 of them in mass graves — but none were the students.”

“The Short Life and Speedy Death of Russia’s Silicon Valley” by James Appell, Foreign Policy.

In 2009, Moscow unveiled an ambitious plan to build a world-class technology incubator. Then corruption, brain drain, and Putin killed it.

“Of the world’s major economies, Russia’s had fared the worst in the aftermath of the global downturn. GDP shrank by 7.9 percent across 2009, including a record 10.9 percent in the second quarter. Unemployment hit a peak of 9.4 percent in February of that same year. Going into the crisis, oil and natural gas had accounted for some two-thirds of exports. Many had already long recognized that Russia’s dependence on commodities exports was making it vulnerable, but Medvedev was the first Russian president to actively engage with the problem.

His solution was a set of reforms, sketched out in a 4,000-word treatise titled ‘Go Russia!‘ The reforms were designed to harness technology in order to equip Russia for the 21st century, and they covered industries ranging from nuclear power to space technology to pharmaceuticals. Medvedev’s reforms called for, among other things, a 40 percent reduction in Russia’s energy consumption by 2020, and the commercial generation by 2050 of power by thermonuclear fusion.”

VALERY HACHE/AFP/GettyImages;  ERIC FEFERBERG/AFP/Getty Images; Wikimedia Commons; EPA/EKATERINA SHTUKINA/RIA NOVOSTI/KREMLIN POOL

MOSCOW — When prosecutors and police officers from the anti-extremism division showed up at Dmitry Lazarenko’s antique shop in Sochi a few months ago, they took him by surprise. After rummaging through the wares in the small space he keeps with two other collectors, they accused him of spreading Nazi propaganda before seizing a World War II-era German uniform hanging in the corner.

“There was a price tag on the swastika on the cap, but sometimes it falls off,” Lazarenko told me, as if still searching for an explanation for what befell his business. The officers said he violated a law forbidding Nazi propaganda. A local court sentenced him to a 1,000 ruble (about $20) fine. The affair left him shaken and puzzled — and angry about losing an expensive antique. “Some people collect Red Army uniforms and others German uniforms,” he said.

“It’s an historic article, it’s intended for collectors. We don’t go waving it around,” Lazarenko said. “What sort of extremist am I?” Lazarenko told me he’s a patriot who frequently gives Soviet army paraphernalia to local museums; he planned to wear a Soviet uniform for Russia’s celebration of its 1945 victory over Nazi Germany on May 9.

The raid on Lazarenko’s shop was not unique. As Russia gears up to mark 70 years since the end of World War II — and the Great Patriotic War, as the country calls its own four-year struggle against the Axis forces — the Kremlin’s fight against the specter of Nazism, fascism, as well as any perceived insults to the war’s memory has been revived with a fervor unseen even in Soviet times.

The law banning Nazi propaganda, which has existed in some form since the 1990s but was significantly amended last November, now has toy stores, book sellers, and museums trembling with fear. Previously, the law forbade “propaganda and public demonstration” of Nazi insignia. In the new version, lawmakers changed the “and” to an “or” — formally making any depiction of the swastika a punishable offense. Panicking bookstores went through their stocks, removing anything that had a swastika on its cover in a purge that swept from shelves even anti-fascist books, such as Maus, the graphic novel by Art Spiegelman, the son of a Holocaust survivor. The law’s wording was so broad that one over-cautious exhibit of wartime posters in the Russian Far East covered up the Nazi insignia with fluorescent stickers.

The new law was one in a raft of measures phased in not long after the conflict in Ukraine began. Russian lawmakers called for a wider interpretation of Nazi propaganda that would include any extremist groups, including some Ukrainian nationalists who were fighting pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. According to Moscow’s official line, they are fascists because some take inspiration from the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and its leader Stepan Bandera, who fought the Red Army in the 1940s.

“Fascist youth flaunt these symbols daily and call for genocide,” deputy speaker of the State Duma — Russia’s lower house of parliament — Sergey Zheleznyak, who authored the amendments, said last May. “These groups are what led Ukraine to chaos, disintegration and de facto civil war.”

In the same vein, a law against “rehabilitation of Nazism,” passed last spring, calls for up to three years in prison for those who deny Nazi crimes, “disseminate disrespect” about Victory Day, or desecrate monuments of wartime glory. While in Russia almost nobody — with the exception of a tiny faction of fanatics — deny Nazi crimes, the law is being used to launch nominal probes into incidents of vandalism of Soviet war memorials in Ukraine. In Russia, people like Lazarenko are unfortunate casualties of Moscow’s widening definition of support for Nazism and of law enforcement officials who are only too willing to crack down.

In many Russian circles, the narrative surrounding the conflict in eastern Ukraine borrows from the rhetoric of World War II, with talk of “liberating” cities now under Kiev’s control and even retaking Kiev from U.S.-backed “Ukrofascists.” The mythology of the Great Patriotic War is woven tightly into the narrative of the two “people’s republics,” and their fighters frequently adorn their uniforms and Kalashnikovs with the St. George’s ribbon, the orange and black stripes that appear on military medals and which have made a comeback in recent years as a government-backed symbol of Soviet World War II glory.

Speaking to local veterans this week, the separatist leader in Luhansk, Igor Plotnitsky, promised to “defeat Nazism for good and raise the Victory Banner over the new Reichstag of Banderites.”

With the conflict in Ukraine, Victory Day is changing in Russia, said Andrei Kolesnikov, who heads the Russian domestic policy program at Carnegie Moscow Center. “There is additional aggression, hysteria, and one-sidedness of interpretation of historical events, when any sort of critical discussion about what happened before during and after the war is unacceptable,” he said.

World War II has always been a symbol of perseverance and unity for Russia, and looms large in the collective consciousness. Even today, over half of Russians say they lost at least one close family member in the war. That public memory is used as a tool to boost the “personalistic regime” of Vladimir Putin, Kolesnikov said. “It works in favor of Putin’s charisma. In this way, the regime accomplishes the goal of consolidating most of the population around itself, and it is very effective.”

A decade ago, Putin stood over the military parade on Red Square attended by foreign leaders from the United States, Germany, France, and many other countries. Putin, then in his sixth year in power, delivered a message of friendship and peace. “We have never divided Victory into ours and someone else’s and we will always remember the aid of the allies,” he said.

This year, with almost no Western leaders planning to attend Victory Day celebrations, his message is bound to be different. In recent months, Putin has repeatedly accused the West of revanchism: rewriting the history of the war in order to “weaken the power and moral authority of modern Russia, to rid it of the status of victor.”

Victory worship went into overdrive this year as Putin attempted to further legitimize his rule, said historian Pavel Aptekar, a columnist for the daily newspaper Vedomosti. “It’s easy to say: if you are against us, then you are against victory and against our grandfathers who died in the war,” he said. “Our leaders are parasitizing on victory” in a way that is similar to “early Mussolini, who parasitized on the Great Roman empire.”

As the Kremlin uses the memory of World War II for political expediency, the interpretation of the 1945 victory put forward by officials is “less bloody and more presentable than it really was,” Aptekar said. Few people in today’s Russia understand the nature of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, though more people than in the post-Soviet period believe that the secret protocols to that pact, which carved Eastern Europe into two spheres of influence, were fake. And today, more Russians than ever before blame the start of war on France and Britain’s inking of the Munich Agreement, which permitted Germany to annex some provinces of Czechoslovakia.

With fewer and fewer Russians alive who remember World War II, its legacy is shifting. What in Soviet times was unequivocally a “holiday with tears in our eyes,” in the words of one well-known Soviet song, now inspires jingoistic messages of conquest and tone-deaf marketing. The Great Patriotic War has been featured everywhere from body art contests to cake-baking competitions, while ribbons and medals are plastered on store promotions — even in sex shops.

Meanwhile, the “never again” message of the older generation is getting lost, at a time when Russia has positioned itself as the great power challenging American unilateralism in world affairs. Pro-Kremlin youth sport T-shirts boasting nuclear missiles, and Putin has said openly that he was ready for nuclear war over Crimea during last year’s annexation of the Black Sea peninsula.

Bumper stickers reading “To Berlin!” — the Soviet Red Army’s counter-offensive slogan sometimes painted on tanks and missiles — have been popular in Russia for years. But this year, new bumper stickers have appeared, bearing even more provocative slogans. One boasts, “1941-1945. We could repeat it again,” illustrated with a stick figure with a hammer and sickle for a head sodomizing another stick figure representing the Nazis.

To the people who remember the war, in which the Soviet Union lost over 26 million people, such statements are unfathomable. “There is no need to repeat that triumph. War is human blood and loss, and we don’t need it,” said Galina Golovlyova, 95, who spent the war in the Moscow region digging trenches, scouting for enemy warplanes, and surviving on a small daily ration of bread. While she likes seeing the return of Soviet symbols and the red flag at the May 9 celebrations, “much of them are for show,” she said. She would rather see the money go to helping poor veterans with housing, medical care, and pensions.

“I don’t like the attempts to make Victory Day into some cartoonish holiday, with trite posters, ‘patriotic’ products, and tons of St. George ribbons, all while moving to flatten the past. Negating the swastika is precisely in the flow of this aggressive window-dressing,” said Polina Danilevich, a Russian journalist who also fell afoul of the “Nazi propaganda” law this spring.

Danilevich, who hails from Smolensk — a city in Western Russia that was occupied by the Nazis after some of the most devastating combat on Soviet territory early in the war — was browsing through archived images when she came across a photo of her own house. A Nazi flag flapped over a group of soldiers assembled in front of their commanding officers. “Found a picture of my yard,” Danilevich wrote when she posted the black and white photo on her social networking page, VKontakte. She was found guilty of Nazi propaganda and paid a fine.

“It was like finding a picture of a great-grandfather or some lost family relic,” she told me. “But our anti-extremism officials only saw the swastika and in it, Nazi propaganda…. They ignore the full picture, the historic memory, to focus on the particulars.”

Aptekar, the historian, is so fed up with the historiographical mistakes and exaggerations in state media that he has stopped watching state channels at all, only tuning in for sporting matches. “Leave history to the historians so that they look into the difficult and complicated details,” he said. “As long as history is made into ideology by all sides, it will be a constant reason for insults, resentment, and the squaring of accounts.”

Viktor Drachev/AFP/Getty Images

European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker called again for the bloc to build an army, saying a flock of hens posed more of a threat than its current military capabilities. "A bunch of chickens looks like a combat formation compared to the foreign and security policy of the European Union," Juncker told a Brussels forum in typically lively language.
"I always call for a European army as a long-term project. It is not something you can build from scratch tomorrow morning," he said. Juncker has consistently backed the idea that the EU's 28 member nations — all no strangers to a bloody, war-torn past — should accept a military arm, a need highlighted by the Ukraine crisis. "A common army among the Europeans would convey to Russia that we are serious about defending the values of the European Union," he told Germany's Welt am Sonntag in March.

A joint EU force would also rationalize defense spending and drive further EU integration. For many European Union states, however, defense is a no-go area, with Britain especially hostile to sacrificing what it sees as a core sovereign prerogative to Brussels.Britain also insists that NATO, the US-led military alliance set up to hold the Cold War line against the Soviet Union, should remain the focus of European defense efforts. Juncker told the forum that considering the current fragmented state of EU military readiness, it was perfectly "right that central and eastern European countries put their trust primarily in NATO." "The 28 armies are just not up to it," he added.

EU leaders are due to review the bloc's security policy at a June summit to take on board the threat posed by a more assertive Russia and turmoil across North Africa and the Middle East. Analysts say it is unlikely to lead to radical changes in the current very limited joint military operations undertaken by the EU, such as the Atalanta anti-piracy mission off the Horn of Africa.

Source

Tag: JunckerCFSPCSDP

Miközben az európai intézmények és pártok vezetői pénteken sorra gratuláltak a brit konzervatívok biztos választási győzelméhez, egyes szakértők már arról értekeztek, hogy az ismétlő David Cameron számára nem is annyira követeléseinek az EU-val való elfogadtatása, hanem a skót nacionalisták kezelése jelentheti a fő kihívást.

On Saturday in Moscow events marking 70th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany kick off, which are to be the biggest celebrations of the kind that the Russian Federation has ever held.

Most Americans have never heard of Edward Miliband. And given this week’s result in the U.K. elections it is very likely they never will. After a crushing defeat he has already resigned as leader of the Labour Party and is poised to return to the Wallace & Gromit animated films from which he seems to have been discovered. His electoral failure and that of his party once again proves the old electoral adage that unappealing leaders and incompetent campaigns often produce bad results.

That’s not to take anything away from David Cameron, whose Conservative Party won a resounding victory that was so surprising that not only has it left Miliband out of a job, but in all likelihood he has taken scores of U.K. pollsters with him. Cameron stunned the pundits to a degree that echoes the recent electoral victory of Bibi Netanyahu in the elections in Israel, the country that along with the U.K. has historically had the greatest claim on having a special relationship with the United States.

Both elections however, suggest on several levels that those special relationships, neither of which has been what it used to be during the past several years, are in for a period of further decline.

In part, the decline in the relationships has been due to historical reasons that have made both countries less important to the United States. The United Kingdom is a shadow of its former self, the sun long ago having defied the old saying and actually having set on the former empire. British school children no longer study maps that show a quarter of the world in red or pink to depict the lands loyal to their monarch. Even Britain’s last great claim on global domination — in the area of TV car shows — suffered a devastating blow this year when “Top Gear,” broadcast in 214 countries with an audience of hundreds of millions, saw its blowhard, politically troglodyte host Jeremy Clarkson unceremoniously booted off the air for behaving like an ass, thus shutting down production.

Perhaps the fact that puts this decline in clearest focus is the steep decline in the size of the British Army. With cuts slated to take it from 102,000 to 82,000 regulars and a recent report suggesting that further cuts could reduce it in size to 50,000 within a few years, we face the prospect that in the not too distant future the military that once conquered the world will be roughly the same size as the New York Police Department. (A promise of Cameron and the Tories was that they would stop such cuts from taking place, but whether Britain’s financial health — more on that later — will permit them to honor that pledge is another matter.)

Similarly, whereas a generation ago Israel was seen as central to U.S. Mideast policy, today, while it is still America’s most important and best-supported ally in the region, events have undercut its importance in practical terms. Once it was key to the U.S. Cold War strategy in the region, but the Cold War ended. Once the Middle East was more important to the United States as a source of energy, but that is clearly less true today than at any time since the Second World War. Once the Israel-Palestine conflict was seen as central to all the problems and geopolitical issues of the region; now that is far from being the case. Indeed, that issue, once number one among U.S. regional priorities, might have a hard time making the top ten today. (Coming in after: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, containing Iran, the Iranian nuclear deal, the spread of extremism, the current crisis in Yemen, the looming crisis in Libya, Egyptian stability, maintaining eroding support among our traditional Arab allies, and a host of other such issues.)

Further, both special relationships are fading in the minds and hearts of Americans as a new generation starts assuming power, one that has few memories of the historical reasons for the founding of Israel or of Britain’s vital partnership with the United States in two world wars.

Part of the deterioration in these two relationships has to do with policy decisions made by the governments that have just won second terms in power. The U.S.-Israel relationship sure doesn’t feel that special when the prime minister of Israel tries to politically body-slam the U.S. president. It is devalued when the prime minister of Israel appears to choose sides in the U.S. political debate, seeming to be willing to save his specialness for his Republican friends. And it is certainly deeply damaged when Israel wages a brutal and unjustifiable campaign against the people of Gaza that violates international norms and offends the sensibilities of all with a hint of conscience, as the Netanyahu government did last year.

Britain has not so much offended as it has simply slinked away from center stage. Perhaps in the wake of British public revulsion at the degree to which Tony Blair was seen to have become George W. Bush’s “poodle,” perhaps due to the degree to which national attention has been drawn to domestic problems, we have seen a reordering of the power landscape of Europe. Britain, once our closest and most important ally, now falls third on that scale behind Germany (more important) and France (more supportive of the United States in recent years). Add in the belligerent, erratic, dangerous Vladimir Putin and a newly aggressive Russia, and Britain is now only the fourth most important power with which the United States regularly deals in Europe.

The fact that Britain’s role in Europe will now be open to question for months to come, thanks to Cameron’s pledge to hold a referendum regarding whether Britain should remain a part of the EU, only makes further deterioration more likely. That is because the doubt the referendum is likely to raise may have deleterious effects on the British economy. It is also because there is a possibility that Britain could choose to leave the EU. This would be economically foolish and would take the country from being an important player in the world’s largest market to being a more marginal independent actor. Further, should Scotland renew the push to breakaway from the United Kingdom, and the election results showed huge strides made by the Scottish National Party, it would clearly make a Not-So-Great Britain more likely.

Given the likelihood of President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal being successfully concluded and the U.S. administration’s commitment to ensuring that is the case, the prospect for further bad relations between Netanyahu and the White House is great. This alienation will have multiple effects, many of which have already manifested themselves to some degree. The Israelis will seek to diversify their international alliances, reaching out to India, China, Russia, and others. And the United States will seek to emphasize and cultivate other ties in the region (whether that means with Iran or with GCC partners is unclear…. Both seem unlikely, but at the same time both may expect greater efforts at outreach from Washington even as Israel sees a further chill.)

None of this is improved upon by some of the behavior and policies of the Obama administration. It doesn’t help, for example, to call the Israeli prime minister “chickenshit,” or to get drawn into petulant exchanges with the Israelis more suited to the schoolyard than to statecraft. Matters have not been helped by America’s shying away from playing the leadership role that is expected of the United States nor by the inconsistent nature of Obama’s personal diplomacy with our friends abroad. And frankly, the likelihood of the Obama team spending much real time repairing these problems during their waning days in office is pretty slim.

Will the next U.S. president aggressively seek to reverse the course of these once-crucial but now-declining relationships cited here? Undoubtedly candidates for that job will certainly promise to do so in the months ahead. But the historical factors and current geopolitical trends cited above will make it very hard for anyone to restore these relationships to the special place they occupied in the past. For Cameron and Netanyahu and their new governments, this is a reality they may wish to deny but that they will find it very difficult to reverse.

BEN STANSALL/AFP/Getty Images

Patan, Nepal (Photo: cpcmollet via Flickr).

Nepal, Before and After the Earthquake
The New York times Magazine
Text by Jon Mooallem/Photographs by Giles Price

With pictures as beautiful and saddening as the text that describes them, The New York times Magazine depicts the beauty of Nepal and its people, and the destruction of their country after a major earthquake last week.

The Right to Blaspheme
The Atlantic
By David Frum

In response to the attempted terror attack in Garland, T.X., David Frum makes the distinction between hate speech and blasphemy, and what freedom of speech entails.

The Aesthetic Failure of ‘Charlie Hebdo’
The New Republic
By Jeet Heer

In the months following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, a debate has broken out about the satire magazine’s refusal to modernize its message.

What Happens in Atomic City Stays in Atomic City
Medium
By Cassie Benjamin

The Manhattan Project was the secret U.S. initiative to construct an atomic bomb to help end World War II. Keeping it hidden from enemies was obvious, but the extent to which it was hidden from the thousands of employees is surprising.

A League of His Own
Bloomberg Business
By Tariq Panja, Andrew Martin, and Vernon Silver

Bloomberg Business published an in-depth feature on the divisive FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, and the political orchestrating he navigates while controlling the world’s most popular game.

Blogs:
An Israel Itinerary for Scott Walker by Josh Klemons
Defending Europe by Michael Crowley
Why We All Innately Know What Justice Should Be by Richard Basas
Forty Years After the War, Vietnam Welcomes the U.S. by Gary Sands

BELGRADE, 8 May 2015 – OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and Serbia’s Foreign Minister Ivica Dačić today called on all sides in eastern Ukraine to ensure that commemoration events scheduled for this weekend are peaceful.

“Ahead of this important anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, which will be marked across the OSCE area, I would like to call on all sides to commemorate the occasion through peaceful events, which also respect a comprehensive ceasefire and contribute to achieving a sustainable and lasting peace in Ukraine.”

“I urge all sides to support the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements by exercising maximum restraint and refraining from displaying heavy weapons during the commemoration events. The anniversary of Victory Day is the right time to send a message of peace,” he said.

Related Stories

• OSCE CiO Dačić condemns ceasefire violations in eastern Ukraine, appeals for boost to political process
• Chairperson Dačić welcomes inauguration of working groups under Trilateral Contact Group auspices
• Joint press statement of Trilateral Contact Group: Trilateral Contact Group launches activities of working groups advancing implementation of Minsk arrangements

OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Arnaud Danjean

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

In early 2014, Nigerian-Cameroonian pop singer Dencia launched Whitenicious, a line of skin-care products and lightening creams. She called the products dark-spot removers and argued they were intended not to bleach users’ entire skin tone but to address small dark blemishes that left skin looking uneven.

Her controversial product line is now one of many, including Fair & White and Divine Derrière, that will likely be deemed illegal in Ivory Coast, where the government passed legislation to ban most bleaching creams on Thursday. In addition to their social controversy, the creams have a record of severely burning skin, and medical experts widely consider them to be carcinogenic.

Ivory Coast is not the first country to take action against the products. In South Africa, products with more than 2% hydroquinone — a whitening agent — have been illegal since the 1980s.

Polls published by the World Health Organization found that in some African countries, including Nigeria and Togo, the majority of women use some form of skin-whitening product.

But even if they are increasingly popular, the reaction from Dencia’s fans proved there is a growing movement against the popularity of these products. She faced public backlash after she openly stated that she thinks “white means pure” and went back and forth in interviews on whether she herself had used lightening creams to change her look.

Fans argue that photos prove her skin has become significantly lighter since she first rose to stardom, and many saw the launch of Whitenicious as her using her fame to encourage young women to regard her chemically induced whiteness, not her natural blackness, as beauty.

And the explanation behind the name Whitenicious? Dencia offered her take in an interview with Ebony magazine last year: “When you see Whitenicious, you see the container, you see the product, obviously you’re thinking this is gonna work, right? That’s what you’re thinking.”

In that same Ebony interview, she bragged that another passenger on an international flight complimented her skin and asked if she was Puerto Rican. But when asked if she regarded dark skin to be an obstacle, she said she thought dark was “beautiful.” Her products cost upward of $150 for a small container.

The lightening creams, which in all fairness can also effectively reduce the effects of hyperpigmentation, have become so popular that the industry is now estimated to be worth billions of dollars. In January, Oprah Winfrey’s television network released a documentary about the industry, featuring those who were victims of its harmful side effects.

But ask Dencia about her product’s risk, and she’ll tell you it’s worth it.

“Guess what?” she said.  “The air you breathe outside causes you cancer. Everything in the world causes cancer.”

SIA KAMBOU/AFP/Getty Images

The bipartisan push for passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is akin to epic dramas where competing leaders set aside their quarrels to join forces when the fate of the realm is in the balance. President Barack Obama and Republicans have locked arms to break down barriers that threaten our economic vitality and global leadership. Both the president and congressional leaders must skillfully outmaneuver undermining forces on each of their flanks to achieve victory.

For 75 years, America has heeded past lessons that rejecting the benefits of trade prolongs economic misery. The Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in 1930 sparked retaliatory duties that drove a drastic reduction in U.S. exports that deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. We cannot let their protectionist successors similarly prolong the Great Recession.

President Obama joins an unbroken string of Democratic presidents that have successfully championed trade. Both he and Republicans face hurdles in delivering the votes necessary to extend this record.

Republicans must overcome dissenters in their ranks that are loathe to grant this president any more authority or perceive a hidden plot to open up immigration.

The president must surmount determined opposition within his party. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), fabricates more trade monsters than a Halloween costume factory. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is being bipartisan in his own unique way: opposing Obama with the same zeal that he opposed Republican presidents.

While Republicans will have to carry most of the water on this deal, Democratic votes will be pivotal. President Bill Clinton mustered 102 Democrat votes for the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Obama is no Bill Clinton. Sadly, given her absence from this historic trade debate, neither is Hillary Clinton.

With 432 House seats now filled, 217 votes will be needed in the House. Recent estimates suggest that only 180 to 200 of the 244 Republicans can be counted on for support. Fewer than 20 Democrats in the House have backed TPA so far, leaving its fate in question.

With Reid’s challenges in the Senate, 60 votes will be required to overcome procedural hurdles. If all 54 Republicans stick together against Reid’s challenge, they will need at least six Democrat votes. Even though seven Democrats supported TPA in committee, most are not saying if they will reject Reid’s leadership and vote to allow the bill to proceed to the Senate floor.

With all of that math in mind, it’s essential to remember they key components of assembling for battle on any issue: determining they paramount questions of what, where, who, and how in such a way that your answer is the best conclusion for crucial audiences to draw.

What

Those who define the question at hand win political contests. Answering the other side’s question is playing on their turf. You must establish the supremacy of your question.

Opponents of trade liberalization try to make the question some particular detail of the deal. The recent refrain of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is typical, “I tell everybody the same thing: I’m pro-trade, but…” The general rule in politics is to ignore everything before a “but.”

Obama has rightly focused on taking the debate to a higher level, asserting that no matter the imperfections of this deal, the alternative is far worse.

His question from the State of the Union frames the issue well, “as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the playing field.”

The president has also rightly kept the focus on how trade benefits America’s workers and the middle class.

Where

Today’s contentiousness requires a strong outside game, speaking out publically about the merits of a deal, and a dedicated inside game through individual meetings with undecided members. This president prefers the former to the latter, but in this instance both are essential.

Who

United States Trade Representative Michael Froman has assured me that regular cabinet huddles are occurring on TPA and the entire administration’s shoulder is pressed to the wheel. That is excellent, but no substitute for presidential leadership.

Clearly Republican leadership and the coalition of groups that have historically advocated for trade must also be fully engaged if the coalition resisting passage is to be overcome.

How

Obama’s bold public statements rejecting determined opposition from within his own party are an essential element of building public support. His discussions with House and Senate members on the fence at the White House reflect this commitment to aggressively build Congressional approval. It must continue.

America’s embrace of trade following World War II drove its rise to global leadership. Continuing to push for trade liberalization is essential to preserving our ability to continue to be the stabilizing force that averts anarchy.

Completing pending trade agreements in both Asia and Europe would strengthen each region’s commitment to the global order and boost our allies’ economic prospects, while boosting opportunities for American workers, our middle class. Not passing these accords would be seen as America raising a white flag. May this epic saga instead have a happy ending!

 Natalie Behring/Getty Images

Vadim Makhorov and Vitaliy Raskalov are two of my favorite lunatics in the world right now. They travel the world and illicitly scale tall buildings, videotaping and photographing their journeys. I’ve written about their adventures before, and the climbing pair have a new video out documenting their climb of what will be China’s tallest building. It’s harrowing and totally amazing.

When completed, the Ping An Finance Center in Shenzhen will be the world’s second-highest skyscraper, behind only the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Makhorov and Raskalov’s climb took place over Chinese New Year, explaining why the construction site was totally deserted at the time of their summit. Presumably, the building’s owners will be none too pleased when they find out that these Russian daredevils made it not only to the building’s roof and then proceeded to climb to the top of the crane being used to build it.

YouTube/on the roofs

Valami nagyon rossz dolog zajlik most Burundiban, valami olyasmi, ami minden eddiginél jobban riogat az egy évtizeddel ezelőtti szörnyűségek megismétlődésével, hiszen ha csak a tegnapi (05.08.) híradásokat megnézzük, a burundi fővárosban, Bujumburában az erőszak az úr – csak tegnap legalább hárman haltak meg, amikor a hatóságok emberei, ellenzéki tüntetők és a jelenlegi elnök, Pierre Nkurunziza híve csaptak össze több negyedben. Az elmúlt napok eseményei azért váltak igazán erőszakossá, mert a hadsereg a korábban állított semlegességét feladva nekilátott a barikádok felszámolásának, ami miatt a tüntetők egy része úgy értelmezte, hogy átállt Nkurunziza oldalára.

Az egyik városnegyedben ismeretlenek gránátokkal támadtak a tüntetőkre és az akciókban többen meghaltak valamint tucatnyian megsérültek majd ezután a lakosság az Imbonerakurét, Nkurunziza pártjának ifjúsági szárnyát kezdte vádolni a cselekményekkel és elszabadultak az indulatok. A megvadult emberek vad kutatásba kezdtek az Imbonerakure tagok után, majd megostromoltak egy házat, ahol állítólag a csoporthoz tartozó fiatalok rejtőztek, de még a hadsereg közbelépése sem tudta megakadályozni, hogy egyiküket halálra verjék és felgyújtsák (állítólag a házban még katonai egyenruhákat is találtak, ami igazolná azt az ellenzéki vádat, hogy a hadsereg soraiba is beszivárogtak a kormányhű aktivisták).

Szóval ez történik most Burundiban, az országban, amely állítólag sikerrel túllépett az etnikai alapú véres háború sebein és a megbékélés útjára lépett. A nemzetközi közösség képviseletében az Afrikai Unió azonnal felszólított a júniusra tervezett választás elhalasztására és Nkurunziza elnököt pedig mandátumának júniusi végleges befejezésére kérte. Mindezt azért, mert az elnök nemrégiben bejelentette, hogy ha júniusban nyerne még egy mandátumot, akkor negyedikért már nem indulna a jövőben, mindezt úgy, hogy az ország alkotmánya kettőben maximálja a lehetséges elnöki mandátumok számát – Nkurunziza szerint első alkalommal őt nem az emberek, hanem a képviselők választották az arushai békemegállapodásnak megfelelően.

Az ország alkotmánybírósága egy rendkívül furcsa körülmények között született döntéssel engedélyezte Nkurunziza újabb indulását – nem sokkal a döntés bejelentése után a hétből öt bíró elmenekült az országból, hangsúlyozva, hogy a bíróságnak nem volt más lehetősége, csak az új mandátum jóváhagyása, hiszen mindannyiukat életveszélyesen megfenyegették a döntéshozatal előtt. A kérdés igazából most csak az, hogy ténylegesen mi volt az oka ezeknek a tüntetéseknek és milyen jövőkép vár erre az ezer sebből vérző kis közép-afrikai országra? Az biztos, hogy Nkurunziza vágya a harmadik mandátumra egyértelműen kiváltó ok volt, de a politikai feszültség már hosszú hónapok óta érezhető volt az országban, hiszen még az elnök pártjának, a CNDD-FDD-nek a berkein belül is komoly ellenállás ütötte fel fejét Nkurunzizával szemben.

Burundiban ma a többségi vélemény az, hogy a sok ezer halottal járó háborúskodás eredményeként elért demokráciát nem szabadna kockára tenni egy újabb elnöki mandátumért, viszont jelenleg pont az újabb mandátum elleni tiltakozás sodorta a szakadék szélére az országot, főleg azért, mert az elnök hajthatatlannak tűnik. Szóval nehéz jót mondani, az biztos, hogy amennyiben Nkurunziza nem fog önmérsékletet tanúsítani, Burundi a káoszba süllyed, a hadsereg egysége megroppan, elszabadul az Imbonerakure és az egész országra kiterjedő erőszakhullám következik majd. Persze a polgárháború nem elkerülhetetlen, viszont jelenleg minden azon múlik, melyik oldal eltökéltsége lesz az erősebb. Ha nincs erősebb oldal, akkor bekövetkezhet a szörnyűség.

twitter.com/napiafrika

7 ember kedveli ezt a posztot.Tetszett az írás.Tetszett az írás.

Tíz Európába érkező migráns közül durván nyolc potenciális menekültnek számít, és körülbelül csak kettő a gazdasági bevándorló, aki tisztán a jobb élet és a munkavállalás reményében kel útra – véli az uniós külső határőrizeti ügynökség, a Frontex második embere. Gil Arias-Fernández szerint február óta drasztikusan csökkent a magyar határokon illegálisan belépő koszovóiak száma, és nagyjából azonos szinten van az afgánokkal és a szírekkel.