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.