Mali: EU-ECOWAS democratic dogmatism

Brussels, 20.09.2020 Anna van Densky, OPINION: An extraordinary pressure on Mali officers to transfer power to civilians without delay paves the way to one more failed state on the map of the world. During the anti-government protests, which led to the coup d’état, ousting of President Keita, there has been no single political force able to offer a comprehensive programme to reform the Sahel country and direct it firmly to the democratic future. Moreover, there is not such a clear path to democracy for Malians, plagued by extremism, sectarian conflict, ethnic divisions, and endemic corruption.

The European Union (EU)- the avid supporter of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) efforts in Mali- actively promotes a model of the democratic institutions, run by the civilians, without any consideration of the context, and previous failures of the similar kind – the state-building in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in Libya. Nowadays the ECOWAS, flanked by the European diplomacy, is pushing Malians towards pro-forma return to the “Constitutional” order, denouncing the idea of the country run by the military for the next 18 months. However the energetic push is performed in absence of a coherent strategy in dealing with corrupt and ineffective state structures, and detached local communities doomed to isolation in absence of adequate infrastructures. Last, but not least is the factor of the general instability in the region, aggravated by rise of Islamists in Sahel, affiliated with Al-Qaeda and Islamic State aiming to restore the legendary Caliphate of Sokoto.

Sadly the list of problems does not end here, the Tuareg dream of creation of an independent state in the north of Mali – Azawad – has never faded, but retreated for time being under pressure of the overwhelming French army, while the experts unanimously admitted that there is no military solution to the ethnic conflict, and invited the belligerent parties to resolve the conflict at the negotiation table defining the region future status within Malian state. So far in vain.
Back in 2012, while declaring the independence, Azawad leaders claimed that Mali was an “anarchic state”, and Tuareg liberation movement has opted for a military transition period, to ensure the protection of their land and conducting the transition to the democratic institutions. The massacre (2014) of the Tuareg civilians by Fulani-Islamists has been too recent to be forgotten. Not least are the tensions between Tuareg and Chadians, caused by massacres of the civilians by Chadian army in the North of Mali in the region of Kidal.
In short, not only a clear path to democracy is absent, but also there is no path in view for national unity, allowing to construct a functional political system producing a corruption-free credible government, leading way to economic recovery, and well-being of regular Malians.
Struck by multiple systemic conflicts, causing a permanent state of crises, Malians are not able to rise out of poverty, in spite of the remarkable natural wealth.
The profound misunderstanding of capacities of a new born protest movement of 5 June (M5) to become a constructive political force over night will result in further turmoil in political life, and cause even more resent of the citizens, searching for responses to their justified claims. Being the prime victims of the ECOWAS blockade, the regular Malians will turn to an available alternative, finding warm welcome by the anti-Occident militant groups, and the extremists will rise again, feasting on poverty, and frustrations of communities.
The five thousand strong French military corps, fulfilling the counter-terrorist operation Barkhane in Sahel region has limited capacity to deal with the consequences of the ongoing failed state drama in Mali, and it would be too naive to expect them to defeat jihad, in absence of the state-building process.
The EU is a major donor of assistance in Mali, providing more than €350 million in humanitarian aid in the country since the beginning of the crisis in 2012, adding to €23 million in 2020. However the Europeans contribute without any pragmatic plans for the future of the country, preferring in the current crisis to support the ECOWAS blindly, joining the pro forma claims of civilian government, without any consideration of its notoriously poor quality, leading to the current state of affairs, while under President Keita 40% of state purse vanished in pockets of corrupt civil servants.
The ECOWAS-EU strategy of pressure on the Malian army by imposing border and financial transactions blockade, will destroy the relations with Malian patriotic officers, and cause further impoverishment of Malians, pushing them into the arms of extremists of various calibre.
Mali is far too significant to the West Africa to allow the Europeans to leave it alone, watching it’s descending to chaos, but it is far too big as a challenge to resolve the complex of state-building and security problems, through simplified linear punitive measures.
Recent Ursula von der Leyen sanctions policy concept will create nothing but remorse and discontent among Malians, who today still regard Europe as a friend. The enduring threat of Islamic extremism requires elaborate and flexible European diplomacy, navigating the country to effective forms of governance. Further escalation of tensions in name of democracy and “Constitutional order” will produce exactly the opposite effect – an explosion. An explosion, throwing Malians into hands of kleptocratic clans of war-lords, descending into chaos.
Instead of fearing of a hypothetical dictatorship led by Colonel Hassimi Goita as deviation from the imaginary path to democracy, the EU should embrace the co-operation with the patriotic and secular Malian army as the constructive force in disposal of capabilities to introduce reform, and allowing the political process to thrive towards the meaningful free and fair elections concluding the suggested transition period.
Let us not forget that Kemal Ataturk, and General de Gaulle were military man, however their remarkable contribution to democracy is ways more significant, than of many other statesmen in civilian suits. Rejection of enthusiasm of young generation of Mali officers, aiming at reforming their country and nation-building will end in one more fiasco, making Mali to follow the path of the other failed states. It is clear there are not simple answers to Malian crisis, and the obsession with the civilian rule, achieved by imposing de facto sanctions, will result in a huge bill for the European tax-payer for the humanitarian aid, and ever-growing burden for the French army, combating extremism in Sahel, transforming into another Afghanistan.
The EU diplomacy, led by Josep Borrell needs to regard the context, abandoning dogmatism in promoting of democracy and rule of law in Mali, and become flexible and adaptive, formulating short, medium and long-term goals, working on achievement of them in stages, with a focus on long-term stability of both Mali and Sahel.
Moreover, the EU needs to built genuine partnership with the Malian armed forces, investing in development of their capabilities to defend Malian state, and combat extremism. The essential element of the EU success in promotion of the democracy, is the demonstration of a genuine interest in problems of Malians, and readiness to compromise in search for attaining long-lasting common goals, as stability, prosperity and lasting peace.

However, today, when the Malian state is in a profound crisis, and its future is in peril, nothing is so detrimental to promotion of the European values in Sahel, as dogmatism and forceful imposition of European concepts within fragile Sahel context. Mali is on the crossroads, it is up to the EU to decide if it wishes to contribute to the push of the Malians down the slope, following Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, direction of the failed state, fanatically exporting European concepts to vast spaces of African Savannah.
Will the EU diplomacy in Mali adapt or become obsolete? The ability of the bloc to change, adapt and experiment will become far more significant in Sahel, than the capacity to punish and sanction. Above all, it makes little sense from the EU behalf to appeal to legality and return to the constitutional order – “Necessitas non habet legem” – Necessity has no law.

#SOTEU: Leyen formal debut

The traditions September State of the Union Speech (#SOTEU) of the European Commission president has been the first one for Ursula von der Leyen. The address before the European Parliament took place in Brussels, instead of Strasbourg, because of the coronavirus restrictions.
On 16 September in her first #SOTEU speech, she shared her vision for a stronger Europe and a better world after the coronavirus pandemic, radiating obligatory for her status enthusiasm over the EU radiant future.
However if in tone the speech did not deviate from the EU classical tradition of depicting the project as the ever-growing and successful endeavour in essence it broke with the tradition,because COVID-19 pandemic, vaccination of humanity, and related issued became the major focus, causing compression, and sidelining of many other policies – international relations became one of these areas of shrinking attention.

The overview of the EU external relations started with China, and ended with Africa with Enlargement and Neighbourhood policies squeeze in between, and complimented with haphazard mentioning of human rights. The compression of the foreign affairs chapter was striking,leading to frantic dashes from Uyghurs to Magnitsky Act, from Salisbury poisoning of former Russian secret service agent to migrant camps in Turkey.

President von der Leyen has been mixing the issues and problems with vague promises, and warnings of international politics as a disc jokey (DJs) mixes melodies, weather forecasts and advertising. The speech has been delivered on time, and almost entirely in English language in spite of the fact it is used only in two of the bloc members – Malta and Ireland – which constitute one per cent of the EU population. This Anglophilia was largely misplaces, taking into consideration the recent British Prime Minister consideration to opt for no-deal exit.

According to British press Boris Johnson will present an ultimatum to negotiators in coming days, demanding the UK and Europe to agree a post-Brexit trade deal by 15 October or Britain will step out without any agreement at all. Under the circumstances von der Leyen choice of English language looked rather submissive, and even masochistic, dissonating with major tones of the oratory, mixing cheerful slogans and staccato warnings.
“And the band played on…”

Belarus future and EU aid

Anna Van Densky OPINION #Belarus #Minsk #Lukashenko #BelarusProtests #Tikhanovskaya

The proposal to facilitate the engagement into “political dialogue” between the discredited Lukashenko regime and people of Belarus the EU has announced, looks like a stillbirth already, because the entire crisis is created by the blunt refusal of compromise between the authoritarian model, and democratic pluralism. Moreover it is impossible for Lukashenko to accept any compromise, because it will mean the definitive dismantling of his rusty “last dictatorship of Europe”.

Reacting upon the political crisis the president of the EU Council Charles Michel delcrared the start of the work on creating of the sanctions lists of the leading figures from the government responsible for repressions of the protestors, however they will remain a higly symbolical gesture in absence of the real political process of democratic transformaiton of Belarus.

The stubborn refusal of Lukahsnko to leave, his clinch with power, creates new, but predictable trubles, and a substantial challenge to the EU diplomacy, claiming ambition of being a global player.

However there are effective ways for the EU to promote democracy and political pluralism in Belarus instead of focusing on the punitive symbolism of sanctions. While the opposition leader, and the major challenger of the incumbent President Lukashenko, Svetalana Tikhanovskaya expressed her readiness to become a national leader in the transition period in order to organize new free and fair elections, the EU could give an unequivocal political support to her plan.

The proposal of leading the country towards new elections means that Svetlana Tikhanovaksya submits her personal victory in order to create opportunities for Belarus political Renaissance, opening the way of participation to all political prisoners and other candidates who were barred from the elections process at the intent of Lukashenko, who was announced an absolute victor of the elections, with the 80% of vote. The result has been widely considered considered as falsified not only by Belarus people, but also by the EU foreign ministers.

The question is if the European Union will support Svetlana Tikhanovakaya the same way as they supported Roza Otunbayeva, the President of the transition period in former Soviet Republic of Kyrgyzstan 10 years ago, after they overthrew of their dictaror. Then the top EU diplomat Baroness Ashton proposed to support Kyrgyzstan “politically, financially, technically” in order to ensure fundamental rights and freedoms to Kyrgyz people.

The role of the EU insitutions will be crucial in overcoming the political crisis and conducting democratic reforms in Belarus, establishing genuine pluralist political system, representing broad spectrum of interest and arbitation. The void, the absence of meaningful offer for practical aid from the behalf of the international community, reducing the EU role to the punitive measures as sanctions, will certainly allow the crisis to become protracted, and costly in all the senses to Belarussian people.
Moreover it might deteriorate further, creating conditions for chronic confrontation between people and Lukahsnko apparatchiks, and part of the police and military, still defending the discredited regime. This will lead to general fatigue, and loss of opportunities for promotion of genuine democracy. (Formally Belarus Republic is a democratic state).

In this context plagued by refusal of the authoritarian Lukahshenko regime to accept the justified demands of the people of Belarus, the EU aid to opposition, led by Tikhanovskaya and supported by the majority of citizens, is becoming pivotal in introduction of the democratic change to ensure definitive collapse of the last dictatorship of Europe. However the time is crucial to avoid new victims in the ongoing struggle between antipodes without any perspective of compromise. Instead of attempting to reconcile irreconcilable in the best interest of Europe is to invest in Belarus progress without delay.

German leadership in EU mulitcrisis era

Anna van Densky OPINION The German presidency of the Council of the European Union takes lead on 1 July 2020 in the context of the global COVID-19 crisis, and the EU ante-pandemic challanges, which have been already serious enough to be assessed as the “existential” threats to the organisation.

The first half of the year the global COVID-19 context has been negatively impacting long existing EU challenges, namely the well-known process of post-Brexit talks with the United Kingdom, aiming to produce an agreement to diminish damages to the European economies of “hard” Brexit; and not less significant EU agreement on the future seven year budget (multiannual financial framework) for the 27 members strong bloc without the UK – the second net contributor.

None of the ante-COVID19 challenges seem to be diminishing, on contrary, the Brexit talks are in libmo, so is the future budget, dividing the EU in groups of wealthy countries of the North, and indebted Mediterranean – pre-existing North-South divide is becoming even more dramatic after pandemic. The so-called “Frugal Four” – Austria, Denmark, Finland and The Netherlands – will hardly change their minds in favour of the South, reflecting the will of their citizens. Finanical Ice Age approaching, will the EU, especially the Visegrad East European countries, withstand it? They have been used to recipient role within the organisation, and they might object to any other.

However outside the EU the challenges are not less impressive: it is on the November 3 Americans will go to ballot boxes to elect their new President, producing a long-lasting effect on the entire set of international relations, and global development.

The EU dialogue with Russia, a former “strategic partner” and well-establish American foe is also on the brink, plagued in different dimensions internationally both by the conflict in Donbass, and U.S. sanctions blocking the construction of final 160 km of Nord Stream 2 pipeline, delivering gas via the sea from Russia to Germany.

The energy issues, and conflict are not limited to the EU Eastern borders, because the situation in the Mediterranean became even more alarming with the new Turkish assertiveness, pursuing gaz drilling in Cyprus waters, and casually threatening with massive release of migrants to Greece.

Migrants! And here we come to a sensitive issue, because still there is public opinion, blaming the German Chancellor her generous invitation to “all refugees”, which created the notorious migrant crisis in 2015 – swinging in a few months from Willkommenskultur to Flushtilingskrise. Since then there have been no acute migrant crisis of the similar scale, but an ongoing political systemic crisis over the issue, without unanimously agreed strategy towards exterior migration flows into EU, splitting the Union into antagonising communities. So far the Visegrad 4 group of East European countries firmly rejects the reception of migrants, occasionally ready to allocate funds.

In January this year, addressing Davos, Angela Merkel said, that it was a mistake to miss out of view the refugees as a direct consequence of conflict, and not to create an environment, where people can stay, without need to flee. Concluding German migrant experience, Angela Merkel, warned about possible next wave of refugees caused by military actions in Libya. But reflecting upon Chancellors’s words, there is no secret that solidarity does not really work in the realm of migration issues, and in post-pandemic period the migrant/refugee unsolved problem will re-emerge again. The only element about migration is consensual among member-states: Dublin system is obsolete. Will German presidency produce a new migration package in co-operation with the European Commission? The escalating conflict in Libya, and growing terrorist threat in Sahel, might create in the nearest future a significant pressure of migrant flows via Mediterranean route, resulting in raise of the eurosceptic moods in the Member-States.

The German presidency of EU will also ‘crown’ personally Angela Merkel’s fourth and final term of leadership after 15 years in the Federal Chancellery. Well-known for her capacity of reaching compromises, erecting solid political consturctions through multilateral agreements, she is expected to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis of the EU politics. Will Macron-Merkel initiative put forward on May 2020 – the stimulus fund – become a further step for European integration, solidifying the seamless transnational market enshrined by Kohl-Mitterand in Maastricht Treaty? Or the Eurosceptic forces will start pulling it apart, fragmenting and polarising communities, and the European nations, attempting to find the solutions to systemic crisises in individual ways?..

Whatever the outcome of German presidency will be, the decisions taken within next six months will shape the live of the next generation of Europeans and model the face of Europe up to the mid of the 21 century in a unique irreversible way.

Image: Angela Merkel, EU Council, archive

#BLM war on idols

Anna van Densky OPINION Ancient Greek philospher said – Patna Rhei – everything flows. Stepping out of the confinement the Europeans found themselves in a different world, violently torn apart by phanthomes of the сolonial past.

Black Life Matters #BLM movement touched Brussels, de facto the European Union (EU) capital, by pogroms of the luxury stores, but not only. The degradation of public life into a bitter argument over the colonial past has occurred suddenly as a skeleton fallen out from the closet.

People use politics not just to advance their interests but also to define their identity. We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against” Samuel Hantington wrote in his famous “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order”. Apparently a new episode of the clash is gaining momentum.

Unfortunately during this clash in Brussels the rule of law was completely buried in avalanche of emotions, detached from realities, and pursuing the fantômes of the past. The wave of the monuments vandalisation ended in a proposal for creation of the Belgium parliament commission for Truth & Reconciliation aiming at the appology for the colonial atrocities in Congo Free State in times of king Leopold II. “We, the Socialist party, believe that there should be an apology,” said group leader Meryame Kitir. However is the apology enough to build bridges between communities?

The statues of the public figures, causing the whirlwind of emotions, like the one of the Belgium king Leopold II in the first ranks, the one who owned Congo as his personal property, are perceived differently by Europeans and Africans within their retrospective cultures. If Belgiums mostly see in them the relics of the past, the Africans have much more lively and mysterious ways of relating to the sculptures as idols, materialising the idea, insuring its longevity.

For African ethnic religions, the idols are sacred tools to influence life through mysterious rituals, and even more, they are integral part of life, participating in their own invisible manner through emanation of energies. Originally they were named fétiche by Portuguese colonizers who introduced the word to set a clear difference between African idols and Christian saints, however this verbal distinction did not prevent Africans to look at the European sculptures though the prism of the own perceptions.

Another emblematic figure – Julius Ceasar was vandalised in Zottegem, Belgium, most probably in analogy with Christopher Columbus attacked in the U.S., because Caesar conquered the territory of present-day Belgium, and integrated it as a province into Roman Empire. Furthermore, it was Julius Caesar who gave the name of “Gallia Belgica“, leaving the description of the local tribes. However he also had diffiuclies there, facing a revolt just four years after the conquest.

Two thousand years later Belgica experiences the other type of migration, than Romans led by Ceasar – a total of 31,600 people have crossed into Europe illegally in 2020 so far, a drop of only 6% from the same period in 2019. Over 5,500 have reached Europe via the so-called ‘Central Mediterranean route‘, from North Africa to Europe, including 1,000 migrants in May.

Yet Libya continues to act as a magnet for migrants who come there in hope to make cross the sea and reach the European coasts, settling in one of the rich countries of the continent.

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) estimates that in February 2020 there were at least 654,000 migrants gathered in Libya in view to cross the sea.

The top five nationalities were Nigerien 21%, Chadian 16%, Egyptian 15%, Sudanese 12%, and Nigerian 8%. Men constituted 89% of migrants, women 11%, and 7% were minors of which 24% were unaccompanied. On average the fee to reach Libya mounts up to $1,000.

Various projections indicate that mid-century African population will double reaching 2,5 billion threshold, while the Europeans will decline to 450 million. However if current trend of migration flows from Maghreb coast continue with the same frequency and intercity, from 150 to 200 million of Europe inhabitants will be from African descent.

In spite this impressive perspective of the “Africanisation of Europe” the politicians have no strategy of adaptation of European cultural environment to upcoming “African Age“. With the fast-growing African population in Europe, the request to abandon the Eurocentric concept of history was not totally unpredictable, on contrary, it was quite a logical outcome of the demographic trends. In these cirucumstances the vandalisation of the sculputres of the historic figures are emblematic, but not essential in adaptation demands of the newscomers.

The profound meaning of the transition from quantity to quality, which Hegel was highly likely the first to articulate, was one of several ways of explaining change and the mechanisms of social transformation. Unfortunatly so far both the European Union and national politics in the member-states have been ignoring the ongoing tectonic demographic transformation of the continent.

Hakuna-matata modus is over. Time to say patikana, and face and advantages and challenges of the imminent change.

EU migrant “children” syndrome

Anna van Densky OPINON German government appeals for compassion of Europeans, calling for creation of coalition of willing to shelter “children” from Greek migrant camps. However similar to the situation of the previous wave on migrants in 2015 there is no criteria of determining age of an individual, claiming to be a child.

The overwhelming majority of migrants and their children have no birth certificate not because they have lost it, or, as some sceptics presume, they have thrown documents away, but because there is no established practice of population registry in their countries of origin. Subsequently their birth certificates or passports have been never issued in first place, and while arriving to Europe they are not passing any procedures to determine their physical age.

For obvious reasons the parents are interested to present information, helping their children and themselves to leave the camps as soon as possible for more comfortable locations. Nowadays in total absence of medical checks, any narrative can pass as Europeans have discovered, when the Swedish social worker Alexandra Mezher, 22, was stabbed to death in ‘child‘ refugee centre, by a Somalianminor“, who in the cause of prosecution has been identified as an adult.

The victim complained to her family that being a professional in child care she is confronted with the situation of being a guardian of “big powerful guys aged up to 24“.

However they are not only security reasons which are completely neglected by the EU-member states Interior ministries, but the whole set of socially meaningful consequences, deriving from a natural migrant impulse to diminish the age of a child: it will not only allow to benefit longer from allocation of children alimony, but also impact the future of the family, allowing them to reunite on European soil.

The plan set by Angela Merkel to help a group of 1,000 – 1,500 children identified as being “particularly in need“, transferring them from Greek camps to the EU will also open gates for their parents and other underaged siblings to come to Europe.

The decision of sheltering unaccompanied children under the age of 14 or
children in need of urgent medical assistance in accordance with Merkel plan will provoke further abuse of children as “keys” to enter the EU.

Meanwhile the Dutch government made public its position indicating to absence of any plans to host migrant children from Greek camps to the Netherlands. However the goverment is prepared to contribute to initiatives to improve the situation in the camps, Prime minister Mark Rutte said on March 6.

The decision is based in lack of enthusiasm the proposal met in the parliament last week when the four coalition partners plus far right and Christian parties voted against a motion which would have committed the Netherlands to accepting migrant children.

Dutch refugee NGOs have called on local authorities to ‘show leadership and generosity’ by bringing 500 “refugee children” from Greece to the Netherlands because they are currently living in appalling conditions.

However there was some response on the municipality level: the city of Leiden was first to express readiness to accept some of the children – around 25 according to Dutch broadcaster NOS.

We are talking about children whose parents have died or are missing and who are living on Lesbos in terrible conditions,’ mayor Henri Lenferink said on the same day of March 6. ‘Leiden has always been a city of refugees and I am fully confident we will be able to look after these children properly.’ Greece asked EU countries to take in 2,500 children last October.

Turkey currently hosts over four million migrants, many of whom are claiming refugee status, and the EU is committed to assist Ankara in dealing with this challenge. The EU
Facility for Refugees in Turkey is committed to assist Turkey in dealing with this challenge. The EU Facility for Refugees Turkey, managing a total of two tranches provides for a joint coordination mechanism, designed to ensure that the needs of refugees and host communities. Apparently the President Erdogan finds the pledged funds of
EUR6 billion insufficient.

Putin myth in Western politics

Anna van Densky OPINION It is a seductive idea to explain personal failures with exterior factors, declining any responsibility, pointing to the extraordinary powers of deities. This impulse is as old as the world. They heroes of Iliad, waging Troy war were also explaining the misfortunes of military operations by interferences of gods and goddesses. Greeks even promoted a chance to divinity, depicting her as as a running woman with short hair, reducing an opportunity to stop her, when she passed by. (Image below: social media, happy tourists next Elgin marbles, British Museum).

However the influences of the incumbent Russian President are depicted as far more grande, than just momentum services of the goddess of Chance, passing by. In modern Western discours Vladimir Putin has received the central place on the Olympus, representing powers of Zeus (Jupiter) himself, overthrowing and making kings.

The so called Russianmeddling in elections“, appeared after the failure of the American Democrats to win the third presidential mandate in a raw, and was presented to broader public as an explanation of this political loss, in a desperate attempt to “save face“. In the beginning the concept was received with a lot of scepticism and even irony, but after a huge investment into promotion, it was firmly integrated into political environment. Subsequently Trump era in politics is characterised not only by return of nation state as a major entity in political process, and its antagonism with globalists, but also by an unprecedented magnitude of invasion of mythology into politics.

As a result of adventurism and opportunism, modern political process is plagued by mythology, flooding public information space with legends and images deriving from archaic concepts. Explaining every political failure with supranatural powers of Putin-Jupiter is intoxicating, and discrediting the democratic political culture by imposing the idea of divinity, demoralising electorate and impacting negatively people’s creativity. It is also catastrophic for future of democracies, preventing entire societies from analysing and correcting human errors.

The continuation of attributing Brexit to influence of PutinDeity” will cause further decline of the EU27, derailing rational and imposing mythological into politics, averting scientific process of examination of phenomena of Euro scepticism, while imposing fatalism and paralysis in face of supranatural powers, leading to immobility and total collapse of the bloc.

EU budget: Sassoli’s Passions

Anna Van Densky OPINION The vivid emotions of the European Parliament president David Sassoli over EU budget came as a surprise – previously he has never gone ‘crescendo‘ about such paramount issues as European values and fundamental rights. For example, he has never raised his voice over Catalan political prisoners in Spain, on contrary in cold blood he signed off Oriol Junqueras from Members list at first opportunity without further consideration about his fate. Zero emotion, zero humanism.

However it was a desire to receive more money to the EU purse and more independence in spending it, that caused a great deal of passion. Unlike a regular enterprise the EU apparatchiks do not consider necessary to deliver, they would like to receive “more and more” regardless their poor prestations. Apparently nobody assumed the responsibility for Brexit, which is a giant failure of the bloc – the perspective to remain in the EU was not sufficiently convincing, but in spite of this breakdown MEPs without any hesitation claim more.

Since Brexit campaign some questions have remained unanswered: the glimpse of murky waters of Brussels has not inspired citizen’s enthusiasm – 10 000 Eurocrats who receive salaries exceeding the one of the British Prime Minister left quite an impression on Europeans in dire straights.

Not less “inspiring” are the Members of the European Parliament, who have successfully forgotten about the concept of rotation, and enjoy life-long career of “eternal” Membership with all included privileges, shiny limousines with chauffeurs at service of “servants of people”, adding some polish to discrete charms of European political bourgeoisie. A diabolo, qui est simia dei!

(Where god has a church the devil will have his chapel).

EU Enlargement or “perpetuum mobile” curse

The sound of the UK clacking the door has been still in the ears, when the EU re-launched the process of accession for Albania and Northern Macedonia, bending the rules under label of “new methodology“, creating a fast track for Western Balkan countries, making the membership possible just in six years.

With this new approach the EU firmly abandoned Copenhagen criteria (1993), as q compass, replacing it by fast-track “simplified” enlargement rules – absolute triumph of political volunatirsm & geopolitics. Inclusion of Western Balkans into block is the ultimate goal, to be achieved by bending rules accordingly.

The EU new “methodology” for #Enlargement will open fast track for accession of Western Balkans. In practical terms “cluster system” means whole process can take as little as six years, the Members of the European Parliament concluded, while discussing the issue with Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi (pictured).

The new EU Enlargement policy proposes two tracks: fast-track for desirable candidates as Albania & Northern Macedonia, and continuation of old-style rules for those for those who are already in process, like Turkey. However it is not a bitter irony of double standards, but geopolitical thinking in action!

Just in five days after Brexit, the EU felt sufficient absorption capacity” to accelerate the accession process of the Western Balkan countries, namely Albania and Northern Macedonia in first ranks. In the enlargement enthusiasm the EU has already allocated €28M and €50M to the counties, ignoring the systemic economic and social problems, caused by endemic corruption and criminality.

The fast-track accession procedure to Albania dabbed as “Colombia of Europe“, the pariah, notorious for organised crime, considered world top heroin “narco-state”, successfully operating also in cocaine and cannabis traffic, represents a serious existential threat to the EU in different areas. The experts say that yearly the Albanian and Italian costal guard intercept from 5% to 10% of the huge drugs flows, allowing to receive sufficient profit to mafia to maintain their European networks. But not only, because the wealth translates into party financing and accessing political power, and not least the erosion of the judiciary, nourishing corruption at the highest levels.

Praising Northern Macedonia for changing the name after decades of pressure from Athens, the perspective of six years EU accession talks looks like an indulgence for all mortal sins in one.

Transparency International warns about degrading situation in Northern Macedonia with overall corruption, including political “manifested through instances of abuse of power, conflict of interest and dubious practices of financing political parties and election campaigns is widespread, while political interference in all spheres of governance seriously hampers the implementation of anti-corruption reforms”.

Poor score indicating to the general toxic climate of deviation from democratic norms and standards by no means explains the bubbly enthusiasm of Commissioner
Oliver Varhelyi towards both countries accession to the familiy of the European democracies.

The are two major reasons for this phenomena, difficult for understanding from the common sense point of view.

First of all it is an emotional reaction to the UK departure, causing the EU apparatchiks energetic attempts to create an illusion of attractiveness of the bloc, and subsequently falling into trap of undiscriminating. An obsession with dynamics, a trompe d’œil of perpetum mobile of the European project, the idea of movement as proof of live and even vivacity.

The other aspect of this move is the genuine belief of the EU mandarines in their healing powers, bestowing progress and civility upon humanity. This particular belief, as any other is unjustified irrational sentiment, has been transferring the idea of European project into a modern cult. As any cult it requires ardeur of conviction, often denying the realities of physical world around: Greece has not completed land register since joining the EU in 1981 (!), and continues to avoid it in spite of Troika ultimatums during debt crisis in 2015. A little illustration of the huge discrepancy between EU imaginary powers of transformation, and valid capacities. However Greek experience did not discourage EU bureaucracy to roll red carpet for Albania, the second and the only country outside the EU in Europe without the land register.

The other level for Albania & Northern Macedonia accession is explained by geopolitics: and here the EU has to bow to the United States, as the major provider for defence of European continent under NATO umbrella. The clear trend of imposing maximum Alliance members onto the European bloc perfectly serves the American long term interest to prevent development of Common European defence, (once upon a time derailed by French National Assembly, but experiencing resurrection under President Macron). Flooding the EU with NATO allies will prevent Europe from growing muscle, constructing its own independent from the USA defence system. From that point of view inclusion of ensemble of Balkan allies, will secure NATO’s monopoly for the future in a completely democratic way – by voting in the European Council – the “legalised abortion” of European defence. Trojan Horses of the European project.

Sultan Erdogan’s Libya conquest

Anna van Densky OPINION The considerable efforts of the European diplomacy to resolve the ongoing conflict in Libya ended up in an unpleasant revelation of the successful colonisation of the oil-rich country by Sultan Erdogan, who has found in Fayez Al-Sarraj (pictured) – the head of the Tripoli administration, – utmost loyal vassal, who effectively misuses his international mandate to empower Ankara.

The Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between Tripoli administration and Turkish government appeared as a fuit of devotion of Al-Sarraj to “his people”, re-constructing the Ottoman Empire and enriching them with Libyan natural wealth.

Although being from Tripoli, Sarraj was born to a prosperous Turkish family of merchants, and landowners. His father Mostafa Al-Sarraj served as a minister to Libyan Monarchy. Certified architect, Al-Fayez continued family tradition, leading Housing Ministry under Gaddafi régime. However his appearance at international area is associated with the Skhirat Agreement, upgrading his status to the chairmanship of the reconciliation government. Apparently the position he used extensively to promote dear to him Turkish interest in Libya and the Mediterranean.

The EU blind trust in Government of National Accord (GNA) as the only recognised executive power in Libya, opened unlimited number of possibilities to Al-Sarraj to serve his remote patrons in Ankara, including Muslim Brotherhood, which is often falsely accused of keeping him hostage. No they are not – Al Sarraj is not their hostage but adept!

The MoU is not just a document, but a strategic choice, and political declaration of loyalty, replacing Gaddfi dictatorship era with perspective for Libyans to become a colony of Ottoman Empire, and all that in the context of full passiveness of the EU, which is surrendering to Erdogan, at all fronts, pretending Turkey is still the EU candidate country, willing to pursue the way of reform towards European integration.

The MoU is also a crossed red line, the abuse of office by Al-Sarraj, who has been given international support and mandate to gain confidence of Libyan people to establish lasting peace, but not to seal shady deals with foreign powers,

Considering the abuse, it is time for the EU to assess the status of Tripoli administration objectively – it is unconstitutional, because its mandate has been issued by Skhirat agreement (17 December 2015) for one year, with a possibility for renewal for one year only, on condition of the Parliament approval, which has expired a long time ago. And now the EU has to deal with the illegal administration promoting Turkish colonisation of Libya. How moreabsurd European diplomacy can go?

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Interim Government of Libya AbdulHadi Lahweej statement as read by the Chaiman of the European Parliament delegation to the Meditarranean MEP Costas MAVRIDES on 18 December 2019 in Strasbourg:

First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me to attend this important i meeting in beautiful city of Strasbourg, I would like to inform you that I was unable to come due to cancelation of flights and the pressure on Benina Benghazi Airport, because of attacks on our airport by Al-Sarrajs Militia who they destroyed the planes and now we only have one plane which was hijacked by Misurat city

“The Turkish incursion into the countries of the region in general and in the Mediterranean basin specially basin has now become clear to the general public after signing with the unconstitutional of Al-Wefaq government two memoranda of understanding:

the first one on demarcation of maritime borders،
and the second memo on security and military cooperation

These two agreements are rejected by the Libyan parliament and the interim government in addition to National Libyan Army , we reject these memoranda of understanding،: for several reasons، the most important are legal reasons:

“Al-Wefaq government is unconstitutional،, which did not gain confidence from the Libyan parliament،, and rulings were issued against it by the Libyan courts that invalidated all decisions issued by them.
According to the Skhirat Agreement, which did not guarantee who else is also for the constitutional declaration, the first article / fourth paragraph states that the mandate of the reconciliation government is for one year only since it was given confidence by the Libyan parliament and renewed automatically for one year only, therefore the mandate of the reconciliation government has expired For a long time ago, this government can no longer conclude any treaties and agreements that bear any international obligations on Libya
The Memorandum of Understanding violates the Law of the Sea signed in Jamaica in 1982 between two countries that do not have common borders and, more seriously, threatens our friendly relations between neighboring countries of Libya (Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt)
Accordingly, the two memoranda of understanding are canceled and have not entered Into effect. In view of one of its parties, Libya has not completed its required legal
procedures.”