With the fall of Prime Minister Conte of Italy, Italians appear to be inching closer towards the ultimate goal of Italian nationalists: the Italian withdrawal from the European Union (EU).  Across the pond, Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom has aggressively steered the nation towards a similar path’s end. Eschewing the cooperativism of former Prime Minister Theresa May, Johnson now has set a hard deadline of October 31st to end the Brexit impasse and conclusively “crash out” of the EU through hell or high water (or Halloween).

For both Italy and the UK, nativism embodied in the fear of “hordes” of immigrants arriving has haunted the national zeitgeist. As the number of migrants from North Africa has increased, resulting gestures of welcome from figures such as Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany have exacerbated existing tensions between the Mediterranean states, such as Italy, that have to deal with the first migrant arrivals, and the northern European states that were not the first points of entry. As the northern states dragged their feet on accepting more migrants, resentment built, ultimately leading to rising xenophobia and greater scepticism concerning the European project as a whole.

The recent public displays of racism and Euro-scepticism has led to soul searching not only for the UK and Italy, but for the EU too; to weather this current anti-immigration storm, the EU itself may need to compromise and allow member states to have greater autonomy when it comes to their immigration policy if it wants to survive this period of European history intact. Brexit could be labeled a fluke; if Italy leaves too, other wavering member states may be less inclined to fear the economic consequences of exiting the European Union.

The fundamental question is this: has anti-immigation and Europeanism crested, or will more EU member states take a serious look at secession from the Union in exchange for greater immigration and economic-policy autonomy? Brussels, London, and Rome have, up to this point, made radically different assumptions about which way Europe is headed. If Britain leaves the EU and its economy does not “tank”, might other countries such as Italy conclude that the temporary economic pain caused by leaving the European Union is worth the ultimate restoration of sovereign power?

There is a third end to this story: the truncification of the Union, whereby outlying states such as Great Britain and Italy leave the Union, while the European core (France, Germany, the Low Countries, etc.) choose to remain. As the debate between pro-and anti-Eurocentrism rages, this “middle path” may become the de facto reality of Europe in the early 21st century. One of the wildcard variables remains the volume of North African immigrants who continue to attempt the Mediterranean crossing. If volume keeps up, it’s expected that more European states will move towards secession from the European Union; if the volume abates, wavering states could decide to remain.

Ultimately, this debate hinges on whether white Europeans continue to perceive themselves as “under seige” from non-white, majority-Muslim immigrants. If the majority of white Europeans feel like their way of life is under threat from immigration, expect more political room for devolution across Europe. If the fear of migrants abates, so too will the call for a restoration of national sovereignty. The economic question, e.g. the German bailout of Greece, matters to the European brain, but it is immigration that matters to the European heart.

L'articolo Brexit and Italexit? The Fate of the European Union proviene da InsideOver.

Hong Kong’s current resistance to an increasingly authoritarian China is indicative of the Western World’s folly that began with President Nixon’s 1972 visit to China. The United States’ then-assumption that a diplomatic opening to China, and consequently the opening of American markets to Chinese goods, would result in the liberalization of China’s political life turned out to be a monumentally false assumption. Over the past four decades, as China’s economic power has grown, so too has its capacity to project military power farther afield, resulting in saber rattling at Pacific neighbors including Vietnam and Japan. Ironically, in an effort to contain the then-Soviet Union, the United States fed its true great power rival of the 21st century, China, with the economic growth it needed to consolidate its hold on the Asia Pacific. Consequently, the United States handed China four decades of peace during which it could grow its economy and military power.

The Nixon Administration suffered a fundamental failure of strategic imagination: with its booming population, China long term would turn out to be the far more dangerous great power opponent in comparison to Russia. The consequences of this strategic blunder are today obvious: the presumed Chinese social and political liberalization never materialized; instead, today we ironically have a China that seizes American artificial intelligence (AI) and facial recognition technology to develop ever more oppressive monitoring tools to use against its citizens. This high-tech Big Brother apparatus is improving with each passing day, snuffing out any true hope of Chinese dissidents ever effectively organizing a democratic resistance.

This phenomenon is well-demonstrated in Hong Kong’s current resistance to the growing Chinafication of their political and judicial systems. Today, the Chinese mainland is seeking to suffocate Hong Konger democratic sentiment. Though China has suffered a setback via the travails of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, as she suffers resistance from Hong Kongers concerning possible extradition to mainland China for crimes, this is but a temporary victory for Hong Konger democracy. The overriding trend is already in place: increasing government surveillance of the Hong Kong populace, an increasing culture of cracking down on peaceful protest, and an increased willingness to overtly challenge Western support for pro-democracy sympathizers. And with the rising military and economic might of China, formerly passionate foreign supporters of democracy are increasingly cowed into silence for fear of Chinese reprisals.

Now is the time for the United States to reverse decades of flawed policy based on the fundamentally false assumption that building up China’s economy within the Western world order would lead to a more democratic China, and begin to fully support both Hong Kong and Taiwan in the face of heightening Chinese intimidation tactics against their democratic institutions and pro-democracy populace. The Trump Administration’s continued trade tariffs and other countermeasures are wisely restricting Chinese access to American intellectual property. The United States would be wise to work more closely with its major domestic AI developers such as Google to constructively navigate how American private enterprise may inadvertently transfer critical AI technology know-how to China. Without a focused public/private partnership within the United States, China will continue to grocery shop for the technology that will assist it best in bolstering its authoritarian control over its citizens.

L'articolo American Folly: China, Hong Kong, Democracy proviene da InsideOver.

When the Scots originally voted to remain in the United Kingdom (UK) in September 2014, they did so with the implicit understanding that they would also be remaining in the European Union (EU) as part of the UK.  One of the major counterarguments to Scotland’s leaving the UK was that it was not guaranteed that the EU would admit a separatist Scotland (due to EU member Spain’s ongoing conflict with separatist Catalonia). Now that England has effectively decided for the whole UK to leave the EU over overwhelming Scottish support for remaining in the EU, Scotland’s rationale for remaining in the UK to maintain EU membership no longer holds.

In the June 2016 Brexit referendum, 62% of Scottish voters wanted to “Remain” in the EU. In spite of this sentiment, Scotland’s decision to remain in the UK in September 2014 may have positively influenced the UK’s decision to exit from the EU in June 2016.  Had the Scots decided in the fall of 2014 to forge their own path, the remaining English, Welsh, and Northern Irish may have felt less sure of their united ability to stand as an independent nation divorced from European support. In other words, by voting to remain in the EU, the Scots may have inadvertently propelled the UK towards leaving the EU itself.

Philosophically, the Scots now have a major question to ask themselves: do they feel more secure tethered to a go-it alone United Kingdom; or would they rather strike out with the European Union?  Time may be rapidly running out for the Scots to make their decision; this past week, newly installed British Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited a skittish Scotland. In reaction to his visit, First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon stated, “…whatever Boris Johnson might be saying publicly about his preference being to strike a deal, in reality he is really pursuing a no-deal Brexit…I think that is extremely dangerous for Scotland…”  The First Minister also suggested that how Brexit played out would influence the timing of the proposed second Scottish independence referendum.

In other words, Brexit has shaken Scotland’s certainty in even the meaning of its national decision to remain in the UK.  Had the UK voted to remain in the EU, the existential question on Scotland’s place within the UK could have been put to rest. Now, England’s opposing desire to leave the EU has highlighted an inescapable fact: England can always out-vote Scotland on all important matters relating to Scotland’s relationship to the EU.

An ideal tonic for Scotland’s uncertain future relationship with the UK and the EU is clear: the holding of a second Scottish independence referendum currently championed by the First Minister.  In fact, the formal request for one has already been submitted to the British Parliament, which has promptly tabled the question while it does battle upon itself over the implementation of Brexit.  The Scots surely thought, as then-Prime Minister David Cameron did when he originally called for the Brexit referendum, that the UK as a whole would side with remaining within the EU. That this conventional wisdom was proved wrong is all the more reason to give the Scots another chance to weigh their nation’s future in light of recent developments.

In conclusion, ‘facts on the ground’ have evolved to a point where a second Scottish independence referendum is not only politically possible, but necessary to gauge whether Scots wish to remain within the new United Kingdom they find themselves in post-Brexit referendum.  For the British Parliament to refuse them a second referendum in light of the massive impact the impending Brexit event will have on the culture, identity, and economy of Scotland would be a disservice to the Scottish people. The Scots clearly wish to remain members of the European Union; what is unclear is whether they still wish to remain subjects of the British Crown.

L'articolo Scotland and Brexit: A Play with Three Acts? proviene da InsideOver.

At this point in US-Chinese relations, the United States military can no longer expect to maintain long-term military hegemony in the Asia-Pacific. China’s military strength in the Asia-Pacific will match the Unites States’ by the 2020s. The United States will also maintain taxing military commitments across the globe that far dwarf China’s global commitments. The US cannot realistically expect to maintain these global commitments and concurrently confine the world’s next rising superpower to its own backyard. 

As the United States maintains its military commitment to NATO and thus remains the primary guaranteer of European security vis à vis Russia (not to mention its endless Middle Eastern security commitments), it cannot realistically expect to simultaneously prevent Chinese domination of the Pacific Ocean. The American withdrawal from its own Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) coupled with its simultaneous failure to properly buttress NATO may have been key factors in Italy’s recent signing onto China’s Silk Belt trade initiative. If the Americans cannot keep the Chinese out of Europe, how on Earth can they reasonably expect to stymie the Chinese in the Pacific? 

If the United States today cannot realistically guarantee Taiwanese sovereignty in perpetuity, then it can at least broker talks on the peaceful reunification of Taiwan and China, while its negotiating hand is still formidable. In exchange, the United States could secure Japanese and South Korean Independence, while removing itself from the intractable North Korean issue – if the Chinese wish to be a great power, let them demonstrate it by negotiating peace on the Korean peninsula. 

Some will call this appeasement; however, unlike the Germans of the 1930s, the Chinese do not seek conquest of all the globe, but to dominate their maritime backyard (much as the Americans sought to rule the Caribbean through the Monroe Doctrine). In regions such as Europe where the Chinese projection of power is less direct, the United States may realistically still directly challenge Chinese encroachment; however, to deny them the natural expression of their military power in the Asia-Pacific is to set the stage for heightening tensions. 

American pride will make such an explicit acknowledgement of its waning relative power a bitter pill to swallow; however, the removal of the threat of major military conflict with a rising superpower is likely worth the hit to national pride. However, some elements within the Trump Administration are not looking to tactically retreat; the New York Times’ Ana Swanson in her article “A New Red Scare is Reshaping Washington” reports, “China is … projecting its power abroad, funding global infrastructure and constructing an archipelago of artificial islands with giant air bases reaching almost to the shores of Malaysia and Indonesia.” 

In response, the reconstructed Committee on the Present Danger, comprised of many Trump Administration officials, now earnestly calls on Americans to become more aware of the growing geopolitical threat to the United States that is a rising China. The Committee’s confrontational approach to China’s rise reveals that many in the Trump administration believe that the United States could still succeed in containing China through a combination of military and economic (e.g. the Administration’s trade war with China) actions. The great question is whether China’s geopolitical strength has advanced to the point where even a concerted American counter-campaign would be enough to truly contain it while successfully avoiding the pitfalls to war. 

Instead of setting up a titanic clash with the world’s rising superpower, why not take the initiative now and strike a long term peace deal with the Chinese while American leverage remains formidable? The longer the United States puts off this reckoning with China, the weaker its relative hand will be, the more paranoid American leaders may become of China’s relative strength, and the lesser the chance the United States will emerge from a military conflict the victor. 

L'articolo Now is the Time for the United States to Cede the Asia-Pacific to China proviene da InsideOver.

For the United States, establishing a lasting peace with Iran is both the beginning and end of several other festering Middle Eastern conflicts, including: the Syrian Civil War; the Kurds’ quest for independence; and the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict. Ironically, the United States’ past efforts to tackle each issue separately failed to recognize and attack the true, linked nature of each issue. Only by taking a leaf out of President Nixon’s linkage style of diplomacy can the United States realistically analyze and vanquish these multi pronged regional issues.

The United States has three major parties to ‘keep happy’ in the region: allies Saudi Arabia and Israel; and enemy Iran. Peace with Iran would stabilize world oil prices, something that would be to the benefit of the US and Saudi Arabia (America’s strongest Arab ally in the region). While Saudi Arabia dreams of the United States performing regime change on Iran (taking out its geopolitical competitor without having to do the ‘dirty work’), the Saudis would likely settle for a ratcheting down of tensions, as long as the resulting peace protected Saudi Arabia’s oil market from extreme price fluctuation/ decrease in volume.

Israel would benefit from the establishment of a relationship with Iran like the ones it has with Egypt and Jordan. Israel’s primary objective is to prevent another Muslim power (beyond Pakistan) from acquiring nuclear weaponry, which the Israelis consider an existential threat to their existence. If a US-led peace with Iran included ironclad assurances that Iran could never ‘break out’ from the deal and develop nuclear weapons, the Israelis would eventually comearound to acceptance. The arrangement would be even more attractive to the Israelis if it included the end of the Syrian Civil War and the termination of Iran’s backing of mischievous Hezbollah in Syria and neighboring Lebanon.

In exchange for the permanent dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, the Israelis, Saudis, and Americans would lift all sanctions and offer Iran increased trade profits from the Strait of Hormuz. With the threat of war with the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia eradicated, and the potential for an economic boom within reach, the Iranians would likely be willing to end their support of Hezbollah. This would pave the way for the stabilization of Syria, further pacifying the region.

Linking Iran to the question of Kurdish independence, the United States could remove all barriers to full acceptance of the inevitable Iraqi/ Iranian alliance (both nations being majority Shia Muslim). In exchange, the Iranians, Iraqis, and Syrians (with their large Kurdish population) would give their blessing to the establishment of an independent Kurdistan, resolving another historically ‘intractable’ Middle Eastern issue. Iraq itself might accept this in exchange for an end to American efforts to prevent the natural Shia Iraq/ Iran alliance from taking flight, along with equitable guarantees to access to disputed Kirkuk’s oil revenue. Further, a free Kurdistan could serve as a further Iranian counterweight to Saudi Arabian dominion of the Arab world.

Finally, with Syria, Iran, Iraq, and the Kurds stabilized, another great Middle Eastern riddle becomes potentially solvable: the resolution of the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict. As Israel and Iran establish a new working relationship, Iranian support for peace could become a new, decisive variable in nudging the two parties towards a new peace deal. All these strategic goals become potential realities when the United States views Iran not only as a highly vexing problem but as a fulcrum to Middle East geopolitical stability.

L'articolo Iran is the True Key to Unlocking Middle East Peace proviene da InsideOver.

With the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq by the United States and Coalition Forces in 2003, the prospect for Kurdish independence never appeared more ripe. The Kurds had had reason to hope before: in the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm (1990-91), their optimism had been repaid with harsh reprisals from the Saddam regime, in the form of chemical gas attacks. Even after this disappointment, The Kurds have been loyal to the US up to and through the US invasion of Iraq of 2003. In return, some could say that the Kurds are due American support in their bid for statehood.

Historically, pundits have framed an independent Kurdistan based in Erbil as a potentially destabilizing force in the Middle East. However, how might an independent Kurdistan, bordered by Turkey to the North, Syria to the West, Iraq to the South, and Iran to the East, benefit the United States’ geopolitical interests in the Middle East? The US’ support of Kurdistan could create a loyal state in the Middle East, where there is a current lack of dependable American allies (Israel and Saudi Arabia notwithstanding).

Concerning Turkey, a likely counter argument might be: but Turkey would be enraged by such a move! This is true. However, Turkey may have already left the American orbit. Recently Turkey has openly turned towards Russia and authoritarianism, and away from its former bid to join the European Union. Why not support a loyal people (the Kurds) while simultaneously counterbalancing the Turks (now friends to the Russians) on their eastern frontier?

With the instability present in Syria due to its ongoing civil war, Syria’s ethnic Kurds would likely wish to join a sovereign Kurdistan. What better time to accomplish Eastern Syria’s annexation by Kurdistan but when Syria itself is in a state of civil war?

The Iraqis would resist a Kurdish secession plan, crying for stability publicly, while privately fearing the loss of significant oil revenue generated from the oil fields around contested Kirkuk.

An equitable oil-sharing arrangement concerning the Kirkuk oil fields can be found, placating both sides. A heavy hand from the United States acting as a sponsor for Kurdish independence would go a long way here as well, acting as the ‘stick’ (continued American security assistance to Iraq) to Kirkuk’s oil as the ‘carrot’.

Finally, concerning Iran itself, having an American client state on its western border may be one more inducement for Iran to not want to risk direct US military engagement, and possibly even change its calculus re-developing a nuclear weapons program. Looking at the long game, the American removal of Saddam created a Shia-dominated Iraq, which will naturally turn to Iran anyway. The United States might as well counterbalance and weaken this inevitable alliance with a northern independent state of Kurdistan.

In summation, facilitating the establishment of Kurdistan could be a strategic move on behalf of the US, as well as a potential repayment of the loyalty the Kurds have shown America. Whether the Trump administration has the audacity to actually implement a plan in its best interests, however, remains to be seen.

L'articolo How Kurdish Independence Could Benefit The US proviene da InsideOver.