Brexit – Pakistanization finally comes home, who Needs Greater State Projects in the Balkans? Ever since the end of the WWI, and especially since the end of the WWII, the UK official foreign policy line was nearly always the same, imperial – partition and division. Divide/atomise and rule (divide at impere) ! Was it Asia, Latin America, Africa, Ukraine, Balkans or the Middle East – Pakistanization was the UK classical (colonial) concept, action and answer ! With the Brexit at sight, seems that the Pakistanization (finally) came home. However, certain destructive UK quasi-intellectual circles are trying to postpone inevitable. Following lines are about that ill-fated attempt.   ********** By Dr. Zlatko Hadžidedić. Foreign Affairs, a renowned American foreign policy journal, recently published an article under the title Dysfunction in the Balkans, written by Timothy Less. In this article the author offers his advice to the new American Administration, suggesting it to abandon the policy of support to the territorial integrity of the states created in the process of dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. Timothy Less advocates a total redesign of the existing state boundaries in the Balkans, on the basis of a rather problematic claim that the multiethnic states in the Balkans (such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia) proved to be dysfunctional, whereas the ethnically homogenous states (such as Croatia, Albania and Croatia) proved to be prosperous. Also, the author claims that the peoples in the Balkans, having lost any enthusiasm for the multiethnic status quo, predominantly strive to finally accomplish the imagined monoethnic greater state projects – so-called Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia and Greater Albania. According to Less’ design, the imagined Greater Serbia should embrace the existing Serb entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina (that is, 49% of the Bosnian territory), but also the entire internationally recognized Republic of Montenegro; the Greater Croatia should embrace a future Croatian entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina; the Greater Albania should embrace both Kosovo and the western part of Macedonia. All these territorial redesigns, claims Less, would eventually bring about a lasting peace and stability in the region. The question is, to what extent these proposals can be seen as founded in the geopolitical reality of the Balkans, or the author only acts as a spokesperson for particular interest groups whose aim is to accomplish their geopolitical projects, regardless of the price paid by the peoples of the Balkans? First, let us take a look at the author’s professional background. According to his official biographies, Timothy Less was the head of the British diplomatic office in Banja Luka, the capital of the Serb entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was also the political secretary of the British Embassy in Skopje, Macedonia. Now he runs a consulting agency called Nova Europa, so he has officially left the British diplomatic service. Thus he served as a diplomat exactly in those two states which are, according to his analysis, the most desirable candidates for dissolution. If one remembers that the British foreign policy, since the 1990s, has occasionally but unambiguously advocated the creation of the imagined monoethnic greater states – Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia and Greater Albania – as an alleged path towards lasting stability in the Balkans, it is difficult to escape the impression that this diplomat, having served in Banja Luka and Skopje, probably acted as an informal adviser to those very political forces, such as the Serbian and Albanian separatists, who should be the most active participants in the realization of those greater state projects. And ever since he left the diplomatic service, Timothy Less has regularly published articles in which he ‘foresees’, that is, invites new ethnic conflicts and ethnic divisions in the Balkans. In the Foreign Affairs article now he attempts to persuade the new American Administration that it should also adopt the policy of completion of the greater state projects in the region. Ironically, Less now makes that in order to prevent all those ethnic wars that he himself has been announcing, that is, inviting and advocating. Obviously, the long-term strategy of inviting ethnic conflicts in order to implement the greater state projects in the Balkans, together with the current strategy of advocating their completion in order to allegedly bring the stability back to the region, must be perceived as a serious geopolitical projection designed by one relatively influential part of the British foreign policy establishment. In that context, so-called ‘independent experts’, such as Timothy Less, have a task to persuade the world that such projections can be ‘the only reasonable solution’. Still, it is clear that he is as independent as his solutions are reasonable. For example, Less claims that multiethnic states, in which the aforementioned national projects have remained unaccomplished, are the main impediments to stability in the Balkans. However, the historical reality has demonstrated that this claim is a simple red herring fallacy. For, the very concept of completed ethnonational states is a concept that has only led towards perpetual instability wherever applied, because such ethnonational territories cannot be created without violence, that is, without ethnic cleansing and wars. The strategy of ‘solving national issues’ has always led, both in the Balkans and elsewhere, only towards permanent instability, never towards final stability. What is particularly interesting, in accordance with the principle of national self-determination promoted at the Peace Conference in Versailles the winners in the World War I advocated the creation of the common national state of the Southern Slavs. Some seventy years later, the same great powers accepted, and sometimes advocated, the dissolution of that very state in the name of self-determination of some other national states, since all the former Yugoslav republics, with the exception of Bosnia-Herzegovina, had been constituted as national states. And now, their spokespersons, like Less, advocate a dissolution of most of these states in order to complete some greater state projects – of course, again in the name of national self-determination. Looking from that perspective, one can only conclude that national self-determination, as much as the nation itself, is a totally arbitrary category, changeable in accordance with current geopolitical interests – of course, the interests of the big ones, not of those small ones whose ‘problem of national self-determination’ is allegedly being solved. Since we cannot reject Less’ proposal as a mere list of the author’s wishes and desires, let us ask ourselves what is the true relevance of Foreign Affairs in international political circles and how much this article can really influence future actions of the new American Administration. Foreign Affairs is a publication sponsored by the body called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), whose membership from the very beginning consisted of senior politicians, secretaries of state, directors of CIA, bankers, academics, lawyers and senior media figures. This body was founded in 1921 as a common Anglo-American project, conceived as the embodiment of the so-called special relationship between the United States and Great Britain, which had been created during the World War I and has remained present to the present day. In this sense, there can hardly be a journal in the entire world with greater political influence, comparable only with the influence of the CFR itself. Therefore, the geopolitical manifesto written by Timothy Less must be taken with ultimate seriousness, because it certainly reflects the interests of some influential circles within the Anglo-American foreign policy establishment. Bearing in mind all the public support that Hillary Clinton enjoyed during her presidential campaign from the people gathered around Foreign Affairs, it is reasonable to assume that she would probably adopt Less’ suggestions. However, it is less likely that the newly-elected President of the United States, Donald Trump, who did not enjoy a slightest support from these circles, will not be so naive as to adopt the strategy of completion of greater state projects presented in Foreign Affairs as his own strategy and a vision that can contribute to peace and stability in any part of the world. However, if that happens, we shall face not only new ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, but also a lasting instability in the rest of the world. —————- About the author: Graduate of the London School of Economics, Prof. Zlatko Hadžidedić is a prominent thinker, prolific author of numerous books, and indispensable political figure of the former Yugoslav socio-political space in 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.  

By Corneliu Pivariu, CEO INGEPO Consulting, MG (two stars general – ret.) The civil war in Syria has been closely followed by Israel. Of course this is not only a contemplative attention, Israel is acting especially by political and diplomatic means so to that end of this conflict does not represent a new threat to its existence. In this regard the Israeli leadership develops close ties with Russia especially to prevent as much as possible a dangerous increase of the support that Moscow gives to the Lebanese Hezbollah The Hezbollah has a great influence in the political and social life of Lebanon, it has an important presence in the Lebanese parliament deputies and the election of general Michel Aoun, which is a political all as president mars a further strengthening of its position in Lebanon. The Hezbollah is present not only in southern Lebanon but also in the south of Beirut, Bekaa Valley and the mountainous region of Hermel, featuring an impressive infrastructure socio-economic activities (schools, hospitals and other social services, companies, stores) media (radio, TV, newspapers) telephone networks (including a land network of its own and intelligence and military components of. The Hezbollah as a whole is classified as a terrorist organization in the US, Israel, Canada, France, the Netherlands, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Arab League. Its military component is considered terrorist by Britain and the European Union. Hezbollah’s main foreign ally is Iran, which has offered since its creation financial, military and logistical support and expertise. Syria had a great contribution in this respect; the beginning of the military cooperation between Iran-Hezbollah-Syria can be set in with the establishment of the paramilitary camp in the immediate vicinity of the springs of the Barada river northwest of Damascus near the border with Lebanon. At the beginning of the wrongly named “Arab Spring” the Hezbollah has followed the developments with some distance, but the beginning of the civil war in Syria and the relationships it has with the Assad clan and of course those with Iran, led Hezbollah to engage directly militarily on the side of a Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The official recognition of this involvement happened in with the battle of Qusair (a Syrian locality near the border with Lebanon) where it had a key role in the annihilation of the Syrian opposition in this area. From that time until now, the Hezbollah has lost at least 1,000 fighters and a number of commanders in the battles fought on the Syrian territory including in the area of Aleppo. The military component of Hezbollah acquired a great military experience. According to the latest public data, in 2016 the Hezbollah had 45,000 fighters of which 21,000 were in active duty. About 8,000 of them are deployed in Syria (the figure is apparently the double of the combatants of the organization involved in the conflict with Israel in 2006). The level of weapons and military equipment has been improved in terms of quality and quantity after the 2016 conflict with Israel. Hezbollah’s military budget in 2016 was almost one billion dollars. It is generally considered that the Hezbollah has about 100,000 unguided reactive rockets and missiles able to hit Israel up to 150 km (Iranian Zelzate-1 missiles) thousands of antitank missiles of various types (from the Russian AT-3 Sagger to its Iranian version Raad and MILAN) a strong component of air defense (SA-7, SA-14, SA-18, SA-22- from Russia, Stinger from Afghanistan via Iran, Vanguard from China via Syria); nearly 100 T-55 and T-72 tanks offered by Syria; C-802 anti-ship missiles (of Chinese origin via Iran) and P-800 Oniks from Russia. Iran has provided the Hezbollah at least four Mohajer-4 UAVs. Under these circumstances Israel believes that the Hezbollah represents one of the biggest military threats. If at the end of the civil war in Syria the Hezbollah manages to maintain its combat capability, even if Israel will preserve its superiority in many aspects, a new conflict in southern Lebanon will produce a lot more losses and will be more expensive than the one in 2006, one of the reasons for that being the fact that the Hezbollah will act in a territory where the population supports it. We consider that at least on the medium term, a new conflict between the Hezbollah and Israel in southern Lebanon is very unlikely. A possible trigger may occur after a new rearrangement of the balance of forces in the Middle East . —————- About the author: Corneliu Pivariu, former first deputy for military intelligence (two stars general) in the Romanian MoD, retired 2003. Member of IISS – London, alumni of Harvard – Kennedy School Executive Education and others international organizations. Founder of INGEPO Consulting, and bimonthly Bulletin, Geostrategic Pulse”. Main areas of expertise – geopolitics, intelligence and security. Photography by INGEPO Consulting. Photographer: Ionus Paraschiv. This article has been published in www.ingepo.roGeostrategic Pulse, No 226, Monday 5 December 2016

By Michael Akerib.   “The treaty does not say that France must undertake to have children, but it is the first thing which ought to have been put in it. For if France turns her back on large families, one can put all the clauses one wants in a treaty, one can take all the guns of Germany, one can do whatever one likes, France will be lost because there will be no more Frenchmen.”  George Clemenceau A bit of history France went through the second demographic transition in the middle of the eighteenth century and its population lagged behind those of Germany and Great Britain. While citizens of these last two countries immigrated, France imported migrants from other Catholic countries such as Belgium, Italy, Poland and Spain. The French government also took pro-natality measures such as such as family allowances. While originally Europe’s most populated country, France’s slide into lower birth rates preceded the other countries of the continent by approximately 100 years. At the end of the 1930s, the country had the world’s oldest population. The French population, which has doubled over a period of two hundred years, has alternated periods of strong growth (in the first half of the 19th century, early 1920s and from the end of the Second World War to the 1960s) and of decline. One of the reasons for France being a demography laggard was most certainly the fact that French women had easier access to contraception than other European women, and in particular than German women. Further, the First World War killed or made prisoner 1.3 million men. One in eight Frenchmen aged between fifteen and forty-nine died. Petain’s government during the German occupation attempted to increase birth rates through the distribution of medals, but registered a total failure. Natality today Today France is only one of two countries in Europe with a growing population and has the continent’s highest birth rate at 2.0 children per woman, representing three quarters of Europe’s positive demography, but it remains below the replacement rate of 2.07. No doubt this very honourable result is due to the fact that the country offers a large number of day care centers, generous parental leave, allowances and tax breaks. France spends annually nearly 70 billion Euros, or nearly 4% of GDP, in various payments to encourage birth and the upkeep of children. One percent of GDP, or nearly 12 billion Euros, is spent just on the upkeep of children younger than three years old. Immigrant fertility is another important contributor. In Paris, for instance, one third of the mothers is foreign-born. These results have been achieved in spite of a number of drawbacks. Women have, in France like in other countries, entered massively in higher education, and therefore couple formation takes place increasingly later. Therefore highly educated women are time-restrained to have more than one or two children. While marriages have reached a low point, civil unions (PACS or Pacte Civil de Solidarité) are catching up with marriages – half the cohabiting population is not married. Women in France have their first child at 28 years old, ten years after their first sexual relations, while it was 24 years old thirty years ago. The number of childless women has remained stable at a low level and one woman in five has only one child and this has been a stable figure. 11% of women remain childless while the norm is of a two-child family. Women who are practising Catholics have a higher birth rate than non-practising women. The decline in fertility parallels religious decline. Men are increasingly childless. One of the reasons is that an increasing number of men live alone. However, this increased incidence of childlessness also affects men who have been married or lived with a heterosexual partner – 12% have remained childless. Aging It is forecast that France’s population will be of 73.6 million on January 1, 2060, thus representing an increase of 11.8 million compared to 2007. The number of people aged 60 or over will have increased, during the same time period, by 10.4 million and will represent one third of the population or 23.6 million. The number of people aged 75 to 84 will be of 11.9 million and those over 85 would be 5.4 million. Only 22% of the population will be younger than 20. These figures are based on a scenario in which the average number of children per woman is of 1.95, there is a positive migratory flux of 100 000 per year and life expectancy continues to progress at the same rhythm as in the past. While French women have a long life expectancy, among the longest in Europe, this is not the case for French men. For a male born in 2006, life expectancy was of 77.4 years, while it was 84.4 years for a male. By 2050, these figures are expected to be, respectively, of 82.7 and 89.1 and by 2100 to be, respectively, of 91 and 95. By 2060 the country should have 200 000 persons over 100 year old. In fact, their number doubles every 10 years with the vast majority (6 out of 7) being women. If France’s long term demographic growth is confirmed, with a population reaching 75 million by 2050, the equilibrium between European nations would be altered – Germany would have slightly under 71 million inhabitants, Great Britain just under 59 million and Italy 43 million, equal to the present Spanish population. The percentage of the population over 65 compared to the rest of the population – is expected to increase from 28% in 2013 to 46% in 2050 at which time the average life expectancy will have grown from 81 to 86 years. Health issues Compounding the extension of life and the continued higher than European-average birth rates, there will be a lack of personnel to take care of both these extremes of the population curve. This phenomenon has been called the ‘care deficit’. Economic impact The economic dependency ratio – in other words the percentage of the population over 65 compared to the rest of the population – is expected to increase from 28% in 2013 to 46% in 2050 at which time the average life expectancy will have grown from 81 to 86 years. This is expected to increase savings rates as pensions may be unable to offer generous payments to retirees. France is, in fact, France is the country in the EU where people spend the longest time in retirement: 24.5 years against an average of 19.8. A French specificity is the very small rate of employment of the population over 55 years old, particularly in comparison to other European countries. Thus, only 18% of the 60 – 64 years old are employed while the corresponding figure in Sweden is of 64%. Even worse, only 4% of the 65 – 69 age bracket are employed in France against 18% in Sweden. The situation in France is due not only to the fact that it is felt that younger persons are more productive, but also to the large salary differentials between employees due to their age and number of years in employment in the same company. Another effect of ageing is the later transmission of the inheritance. This means that the inheritors will be older than previously and will therefore be less tempted to make riskier investments, such as in shares. Corporations may face difficulties in raising finance. By 2060, the cost of aging will represent 3.7% of GDP. The majority of these costs will be represented by health costs as although the population is aging, the number of years during which the population is in good health is not changing. Conclusion Will France end up as a poor country of older people with those in the most advanced age groups left to care for themselves as the number of care givers shrinks? Unless a reversal of the population decline takes place, this is what is most likely to occur. ———————— About the author: Michael Akerib, professor of business and entrepreneurship, former University Vice-Rector. Owner, Rusconsult.

By Daniele Scalea. The “Trump Train” (once a Twitter hashtag and then a successful metaphor of the assertive, and to date unstoppable, reform wind blown by Donald Trump) is finally arrived at the White House. But this is very likely not the final destination of its journey. The Trump Train could soon arrive in Europe. And it would be a return trip. As Donald Trump frequently referred to, his campaign owes a lot of inspiration from the Brexit movement. Surely Trump got in politics well before, but after June he’s started referring to his rise as a “Brexit plus plus plus”. And it wasn’t just a motivational motto. The Trumpist and Brexiteer final arguments strictly resemble one another: a proudly nationalistic rebuttal of adverse fallouts of globalization, from industrial outsourcing to the (West)self-hating ideology of extreme multiculturalism. The Trump Train and the Brexit share also a common grass-roots social base of support, which are the White working and middle classes of small cities and rural areas especially. Even if US society is still very different from the European one, the rampant globalization of last decades has made them quite close compared to half a century ago. Both US and Europe has experienced massive deindustrialization with a geographical concentration of the remaining high-tech industries in a few islands of happiness – few compared to the many rust belts of the Western world. Both US and Europe has seen a deep financialization of their economies. Both US and Europe has been overwhelmed by the new ideology of the so-called politically correct, a post-modern, constructivist, relativist and anti-Western set of theories and practices. It’s true: in the US you can find also the Bible Belt, but if we consider the European Union as a whole, we could see a Catholic Belt in its Eastern countries, opposed to Sweden (a European California) or London and Paris (European New Yorks) or in general the more liberal Western countries. Exactly as in the US, also in Europe the post-modernism is currently hegemonic in colleges and mainstream media, which are trying to inculcate it also in the common man, and the common woman – and the common *… Finally, the massive immigration flows of last decades in Europe are making her society more and more resembles the composite ethnic mix of North American society. In so similar environments, it is predictable to find similar political trends and demands. Brexit- and Trump-alike movements are in high gear throughout Europe, with very few notable exceptions (as Spain, but maybe only because the Partido Popular is quite more right-wing than its conservative counterparts in other countries). The working class vote has yet largely migrated from the Left to the Right, whereas the upper class is now proudly leftist in majority. Larger cities are the liberal strongholds while the suburbs are swarmed by Brexiteer-style so-called “populists”. You have read in every possible way how Trump prevail among White electorate by 60%-40%, losing among Blacks (10%-90%) and Hispanics (35%-65%). Surely we cannot trust too much pollsters’s statistics, but they are perfectly in line with surveys in previous elections. Now, take the Brexit vote: white voters chose Leave by a notable (and indeed determining the final result) margin of 53%-47%, which would be ever wider if it was not for the Scotland and Northern Ireland’s white voters, who had very particular and local-specific reason for prefering Remain. Anyway, they were not Scots or Irish the ethnic groups that by a larger majority voted for remain in the European Union. They were Asians (65%-35%), Muslims (70%-30%) and Blacks (75%-25%) instead. No wonder if, looking into the foreign-born voters in Europe, or also second- and third-generation immigrants, we will find a clear support for the Left. And since those groups are now numerically very considerable in many countries, they can actually determine the outcome of an European election. Precisely as Blacks and Hispanics in the US have been decisive in the elections of Presidents Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Obama, all with minor approval among Whites. Prompting White voters to move rightwards With all these similarities in place, it becomes very likely for Europe to follow on the path already taken by US politics. Bets are open on which major European country will be the first stop of the Trump Train. About the author: Daniele Scalea, geopolitical analyst, is Director-general of IsAG (Rome Institute of Geopolitics) and Ph.D. Candidate in Political studies at the Sapienza University, Rome. Author of three books, is frequent contributor and columnist to various Tv-channels and newspapers. E-mail: daniele.scalea[at]gmail.com

By Corneliu Pivariu, CEO INGEPO Consulting, MG (two stars general – ret.) As a result of the referendum held on December 4th, 2016 on the constitutional reform, the then prime minister – Matteo Renzi – announced his resignation next day and as of December 7th that has become effective. The referendum showed quite a heavy defeat as almost 60% of the participants voted against the reforms while for the reforms voted a little more than 40%. The rate of participation was one of the highest in Italy’s history, 65,5% of the population. Matteo Renzi announcet that in case the reforms proposed by his government will not be backed by the population he shall resign, although the opinion polls published before the referendum stressed he would fail. Political instability is nothing new for Italy as since the end of WWII 73 governments with 42 Prime Ministers have been replaced (some of them have been holding the portfolios 2-3 times) and 10 of them are still alive. Following Renzi’s resignation the President of Italy, Sergio Mattarella, nominated Paolo Gentiloni – Foreign Minister in the outgoing government, a member of the Democratic Party lead by Renzi, to form a new cabinet. He was invested following two parliamentarian session on December 13th and 14th by 169 yes votes and 99 votes against while the difference to 315 parliamentarians abstained from vote. Altough Gentiloni was hoping to have a more substantial backing, the support he enjoyed was limited to the number the Democratic Party had previously. The opposition parties represented mainly by the Northern League (anti-EU) and Five Stars Movement want early elections in 2017 hopefully their position would be strengthened and would win. Renzi is still the president of the Democratic Party and if he keeps his position after the party’s congress which date is to be announced soon, he will try to trigger early elections in June, 2017 (otherwise normally to be held in the summer of 2018).

The political instabillity in Italy is a proof of the worries the society of the peninsula are witnessing as it is confronted with four major problems: young generation’s serious disappointment; the economic problems; the situation of sovereign debt; immigration.   The young Italians have many reasons to be disappointed: altough generally better trained than the previous generations, many of them have inferior jobs compared to their training or are unemployed, and live in the homes where they’ve been born. These disillusions had as a result leaving the country for many of them and the rejection of participating to the political life within the main parties. If the current Italian political leadership does not secure more material and social opportunities for the young generation, enticing thus a greater and a real political committment for them, then the consequences will be visible soon. It seems that part of the young generation is already moving towards the populist movement of the former comedian Beppe Grillo – Five Stars or other extremists movements. Migration is another phenomenon Italy is especially confronted with as more than 173 ooo people crossed the Mediterranean for entering Italy in 2016, 20 000 more than in 2015. Although so far Italy was more of an entry point to Europe for the migrants, lately they are staying longer periods of time on the Italian territory and overpopulate the reception centers. Altough Renzi government apportioned the migrants all over the country in towns and communes, the communities began protesting against new arrivals and it is quite clear they cannot absorb new immigrants indefinitely. According to certain recent sociological researches 50% of the Italians believe that the European Union is obstructing Italy in what concerns the migration management and 79% considers that EU’s migration policy is bad for Italy. However, Italy’s biggest problem is its sovereign debt. The Italian government has to reimburse more than 211 billion euro due in 2017. Italy’s public debt reached already more than 135% of GDP. Two tof the country’s biggest banks, Monte dei Paschi di Siena (the third) and UniCredit, should draw billions of Euro for covering their unperforming loans given that the European Central Bank rejected the extension of the deadline for recapitalization. Italy fully contributes to the EU’s condition of uncertainty and instability: it is high time that the problems be professionally approached and solved decisively and seriously. ——- About the author: Corneliu Pivariu, former first deputy for military intelligence (two stars general) in the Romanian MoD, retired 2003. Member of IISS – London, alumni of Harvard – Kennedy School Executive Education and others international organizations. Founder of INGEPO Consulting, and bimonthly Bulletin, Geostrategic Pulse”. Main areas of expertise – geopolitics, intelligence and security.

By Sunday Oyinloye, West Africa Editor. Is Africa doomed? This was the question asked by Kola Ijawoye, a Nigerian based political analyst when President Yahya Jammeh of Gambia rejected the result of the recently concluded election in the small West African country. The dictator masquerading as a democrat, must have been shocked to initially accept the result of the election before making a u-turn that it was not a fair contest. Jammeh who has held his people in bondage for about 22 years suddenly woke up to the reality of life that power was slipping out of his hand, hence he vowed to hang on even when it was clear that the tide is against him. Like most Presidents of his kind, he prefers to be chased out of the seat of government than leave honourably. The witch doctor as some Africans call him (because of his claim to have the magical power to cure AIDS) has every reason to be afraid of his shadow. His human rights record is very low though he pretends to be championing the course of Africa. Some Africans even see him as an actor who likes attracting undue attention to himself. This perhaps explains the reason why he remains one of the presidents with the highest number of titles in the world. As at the time of writing this report, African leaders were still appealing to him to avert a pending bloodbath in Gambia, but the maximum ruler prefers to throw his country into needless war. He appears to have closed his eyes to the self-inflicted calamities that befell some West African countries like Liberia, Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast which they are yet to fully recover from. Now Jammeh has every opportunity to leave honourably but he must have chosen the path of self destruction and perhaps ready to be taken to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the catalogue of atrocities he committed in Gambia for more than two decades. The witch doctor might want to surpass the number of years spent in government by some of his seat-tight colleagues in Africa. He has a number of them to copy. 92 year old Robert Mugabe has been the leader of Zimbabwe since its independence in 1980 and well prepared to be life President as he is not ready to quit the stage any time soon. Jammeh also has a friend or call it a mentor in Denis Sassou Nguesso of Congo-Brazzaville who has been in power for 31 years. The list of his friends is long, Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad al- Bashir, Joseph Kabila of Democratic Republic of Congo, all power drunk and ready to do anything to cling to power. The fear of most West Africans is the effects of another war in the sub-region. West Africa has barely recovered from the devastating effects of Ebola, and Lassa fever, therefore another crisis in any form may be too much to handle. It was the fear of unknown that made some leaders in West Africa led by President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria to visit Gambia and to appeal to President Yahya Jammeh to leave peacefully. But so far, the Gambia president has blocked his ears against wise counsel. Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) African Union (AU) and the United Nations have called on Jammeh to respect the wish of the Gambia people who elected Adama Barrow . Jammeh once boasted that he would never rule without the mandate of his people or cheat in elections. The question West Africans are asking Jammeh who recently declared Gambia an Islamic state is what power is he banking on to take the rest of the world? Can his claim of ‘uncommon spiritual powers” prevent him from being taken to ICC if he plunges his country into war? The world is indeed waiting for the magical wand of the ‘witch doctor”. But one thing appears clear, the Gambian dictator is unlikely to win this “war”.

By Tomislav Jakić. After Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential elections (which was, by the way, a surprise only to those indoctrinated, seduced or simply bought), Europe, or to be more precise: the European Union is behaving like an orphan, abandoned by its strong father, whose hand it held and whom he(she) followed wherever he went. Europe does not know. Europe is asking. Europe has to know. Europe is warning. All this is addressed to the new leader who will take over the White House in mid-January next year. When we say “Europe” we think, it should be repeated, on the European Union, although the countries, just a few of them remaining, who are not already members of the EU are equally puzzled, they don’t know what to do and who will give them instructions for their behavior in the future. This total disorientation and – let us put it frankly – the fear from a situation in which they will have to think for themselves and to take over the responsibility for what they are doing, this is the main characteristic of European countries after Trump’s victory. If we believe him “nothing will be as it was”, but let us be aware of the fact that Europe got accustomed to the role of a US “lackey” from the first days after victory in WW 2 and especially in the days of the cold war and extremely tense relations between East and West. The only exemption was France in the years of President Charles de Gaulle. The general even took his country out of the military structure of NATO, because –as he saw it – the US dominance in the Atlantic Pact did not correspond with the role he wanted his country to play on the international scene. But the rest followed, although the public opinion in these countries would from time to time openly rebel against the American policy (just two examples: demonstrations against the war in Vietnam and against deploying the Pershing missiles in Germany). What is however important, is the fact that, despite these vigorous protests, the ruling elites in Europe accepted the role of followers of the US, without asking any unpleasant questions. Even in recent years, when it became known that the US National Security Agency is spying world-wide whomever it wants, including leading politicians of the allied countries, not a single one of these allies dared to do, what any country with a sound self-respect would have done: send a protest note, sharply demand the spying to be stopped and recall its ambassador from Washington for consultations for an undefined period. No, the Old continent whose history gives him in many senses the right to think of itself as superior to the US (not economically and militarily, of course) choose to continue playing in the front row in a game it did not either plan or execute. Such a position could have to a certain point been understood in the times when Europe was divided between the West (democratic) and the East (authoritarian, socialist). At that time “big brother” from the other side of the Atlantic was seen as a necessity in the West – as counterweight to the hegemony that threatened from the East. Although even then it was quite clear to anybody who was willing to see things as they were, that in Europe it is possible to wage a policy aimed in the first place on the benefit of Europe. The most evident proof of this is the period of the West German chancellor Willy Brand. To accept the German (East) – Polish border and to find a common language with the “other” Germany (although Bonn never officially recognized Berlin-Pankow), these were things unthinkable of in the – until then – practiced scenario of cold war. But, they were doable, because at that time Nixon and Kissinger forged in Washington the détente strategy, trying (and they will succeed!) in calming down US – Soviet relations and putting them on the normal track. “In Europe, the continent of the sharpest ideological divide, with practically two halves militarily confronting each other all over the core sectors of the continent (where Atlantic Europe was behind some of the gravest atrocities of the 20th century, from French Indochina, Falklands/Malvinas, Indonesia, Congo, Rhodesia to Algeria and Egypt), and with its southern flank of Portugal, Spain and Greece (and Turkey sporadically) run by the US-backed murderous military Juntas, Yugoslavia was remarkably mild island of stability, moderation and wisdom.” – accurately notes on irresponsibility of superpowers and its satellites prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic. Indeed, another example of an independent policy in Europe was without any doubt Yugoslavia. And even the movement called “Euro-communism” based on the experience of the Yugoslav independent policy (in regard to Moscow) proved that in Europe there were ideas, there was knowledge and there was courage to emerge on a path that will be nobody’s, but European. And – that there were politicians who were ready to enter this path. While all this was happening the European project was taking shape. It started as the Coal and Steel community (the first obstacle to possible new wars erected by those who experienced WW2) to become in our days the European union. But, although the Union (at that time still: Community) experienced its first big wave of enlargement after the collapse of socialism and disintegration of the Soviet Union, thus growing into a truly all-European project, it made at the same time a giant step backwards. For the sake of never totally subdued nationalism in the West and a fast emerging new nationalism in the East it abandoned for good, even as a distant goal, the idea of the United States of Europe. Washington did verbally always support the EU, but objectively speaking, for the strategists there a strong European Union was never seen as their interest. What they wanted was a strong NATO, which they transformed from an exclusively European defense alliance into a mighty tool of its own policy on the global scene. This was, among other things, demonstrated by the unwritten rule that every country aspiring to become EU member had to join NATO first. The membership in NATO was thus treated as some sort of preliminary examination (and qualification at the same time) for the membership in the European Union. After the attacks of 9.11. (2001.) American policy inaugurated the division of the Old continent to the “old” and “new” Europe. From Washington’s point of view countries of “new” Europe were those ready to obey and do what they were told to do from the other side of the Atlantic. This “new Europe” free finally from the Soviet supremacy and so eager to accept a new one from another part of the world, applauded without hesitating for even a moment the so called Arab spring and supported the confrontation policy towards Russia (a renewed form of the “containment” from the cold war days). Nobody even mentioned that what happened in Ukraine would have most probably taken another course without the active involvement of the West, including the US. Today both the old and new Europe have lost the “father” who guided them by the hand and told them what to do, when and how, regardless of what was in question. And there are no new instructions! One might judge Donald Trump this or that way – as the devil himself, or as a man with some new ideas, some of them encouraging (rejection of the policy of imposing regimes), some – worrying (non-acceptance of the fact of global warming). But, we are not discussing Trump, we are speaking about Europe. And neither this continent, nor the European Union showed that they deserve to be treated as being mature. The Union, not only yesterday, didn’t use the unique chance to become an equal partner to the US, Russia or China, by being unable to formulate its own, common foreign or security policy, yesterday – a tragic lack of orientation in confronting the refugee wave (that would not be as it is now without the US policy, as it was) and it is demonstrating – today – a total lack of orientation in a situation when it is clear that a candidate (now President-elect) who is not the favorite of mighty either financial, or political circles is preparing to enter the White House. And this is why Europe is standing lost on the global scene – as an orphan. ——————- About the author: Tomislav Jakić (born 1943.) is a Croatian journalist (TV and press), specialized in covering the international scene. He served for the most part of his 10 year in office, as foreign policy advisor to the second President of the Republic of Croatia, Stjepan Mesić).

By Bilal Hussain. The newsflash of Sultanate of Oman joining the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT) — forty county military alliance led by Saudi Arabia to fight terrorism— have taken many by surprise. A geopolitical shift that would get Oman closer to many countries especially to the Saudi kingdom, however, it might take the Sultanate away from Iran. Confirming that Oman will join a coalition of Islamic states to combat terrorism, Oman’s Foreign Ministry has issued a statement. The statement is said to have emphasised that the Sultanate’s accession to the alliance of Islamic States to combat terrorism comes in the context of a common understanding of Islamic countries. The change in the foreign policy by the Sultanate of Oman is expected to build new cooperation with Saudis while many apprehend the shift might annoy Iran. Oman is strategically located on the canal of Hormuz—the fine waterway between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, 40 percent of the world’s seaborne crude oil passes through the passage—has a history of productive dealings with Iran. According to the some reports the Sultanate has always maintained relations with Iran and played a role to mediate a ceasefire that ended the fighting. And on many occasions in past Oman has taken positions that were contrary to other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member of which Oman is a member concerning the region. The present move is seen as the return of Oman to the GCC accord against Iran. Notably, after an attack on Saudi embassy in Tehran over the execution of a prominent Shi’ite cleric, the Saudi kingdom suspended ties with Iran last year. This further aggravated the fragile relationship and widened the gulf between the Saudi Aribia and Iran. The IMAFT is formed a year ago, a move welcomed by US in wake of the global fight against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. The cooperation excludes both Iran and Iraq, though it is not openly intended to oppose Iran. According to a report by the RAND Corporation— a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges— “The alliance reflects a new Saudi determination to act on behalf of its own security interests. Riyadh no longer sees the United States as the reliable ally it once was.” Also, the report mentions that Oman, has opposed Saudi efforts to move the GCC toward a closer alliance and was notably absent from the list of nations in the Riyadh announcement. With this development in the backdrop, will trade between Oman-Iran survive which has surged since international sanctions were lifted against Iran earlier this year? According to the data released by the National Centre for Statistics and Information of Oman, imports from Iran went up by 396.2 percent to OMR183.1 million, from OMR36.9 million in the same period last year. According to experts, bilateral trade between Oman and Iran was likely to touch US$5 billion within five years, from the current $1 billion. While, bilateral trade between Oman and Saudi Arabia has seen a sharp rise since 2011, increasing by an overall 73%, while the Sultanate’s non-oil exports to Saudi surged by 90% in 2013. Now, the trade is expected to surge through new business opportunities and areas of collaboration that will be mutually beneficial to both countries. Prince Mohammed is also expected to travel to Muscat in coming weeks to prepare for a visit by King Salman. And given the historical position of the Sultanate, it would be of great interest to see how long Oman will remain associated with the alliance. In past, Oman has never followed the policy of Riyadh or Abu Dhabi with respect to Iran, except briefly after the fall of the shah. Iran is believed to have militarily supported Sultan Qaboos, after he gained power in 1970, to end a rebellion backed by South Yemen. There is a ray of hope and some optimism as covered by the RAND Corporation in a report mentioning, “It consistently evident in Qaboos’s foreign policy is pragmatism. Qaboos overestimates neither Oman’s capabilities nor other nations’ intentions toward the Sultanate. Nor does he rule out former enemies as potential partners, or the use of bold initiatives that, though unpopular with his fellow Arab rulers, serve the long-term goals of securing Oman’s political, economic, and military needs.” It would be really a challenging task for the diplomats of Oman to see to it that the how Oman can maintain good relations with Iran and at the same time improve relations with Saudi Arabia. Or does the hostility of Saudi Arabia and Iran toward one another mean that the Oman must choose between them—in either case, to the detriment of Oman’s interests? ———- About the author: Bilal Hussain is a freelancer and writer based in Middle East. He was previously the sub-editor of the business section for Greater Kashmir and Kashmir Times. His principal interests are conflict economy, capital markets, the developmental sector, and ecological economics.