BERLIN – This year and next, voters in leading Western democracies will make decisions that could fundamentally change the West – and the world – as we have known it for decades. In fact, some of these decisions have already been made, the main example being the United Kingdom’s vote in June to leave the European Union.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump in the United States and Marine Le Pen in France could very well win their countries’ upcoming presidential elections. A year ago, forecasting a victory by either would have been considered absurd; today, we must admit that such scenarios are all too possible.
Syria’s Shattered Mosaic
John Andrews views the country’s civil war in the context of the Middle East’s strategic disarray, assessing how Shlomo Ben-Ami, Christopher Hill, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and others think the outcome will reshape the region.
The tectonic plates of the Western world have started to slip, and many people have been slow to realize the potential consequences. After the UK’s Brexit referendum, we now know better.
The UK’s decision was a de facto decision against a European order of peace based on integration, cooperation, and a common market and jurisdiction. It came amid growing internal and external pressure on that order. Internally, nationalism has been gaining strength in nearly all EU member states; externally, Russia is playing great-power politics and pushing for a “Eurasian Union” – a euphemism for renewed Russian dominance over Eastern Europe – as an alternative to the EU.
Both of these forces threaten the EU’s structure of peace, and the bloc will be weakened further without the UK, its traditional guarantor of stability. The EU is the linchpin of European-Western integration; so its weakening could cause a European reorientation toward the East.
This outcome would become even more likely if Americans elect Trump, who openly admires Russian President Vladimir Putin and would accommodate Russian great-power politics at the expense of European and transatlantic ties. Such a Yalta 2.0 moment would then fuel anti-Americanism in Europe and compound the geopolitical damage suffered by the West.
Likewise, a victory for the far-right nationalist Le Pen next spring would signal France’s rejection of Europe. Given France’s role as one of the EU’s critical foundation stones (along with Germany), the election of Le Pen would most likely mean the end of the EU itself.
If the UK and the US turn to neo-isolationism, and if France abandons Europe in favor of nationalism, the Western world will become unrecognizable. It will no longer be a bastion of stability, and Europe will descend into chaos indefinitely.
In this scenario, many would look to Germany, Europe’s largest economy. But, though Germany would pay the highest economic and political price if the EU collapsed – its interests are simply too interwoven with the EU’s – no one should hope for German renationalization. We all know what destruction and calamity that can bring to the continent.
Geopolitically, Germany would be consigned to an uncertain man-in-the-middle status. While France is clearly a Western, Atlantic, and Mediterranean country, Germany, historically, has oscillated between East and West. In fact, this dynamic was long a constitutive element of the German Reich. The East-or-West question wasn’t finally decided until after Germany’s total defeat in 1945. Following the establishment of the Federal Republic in 1949, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer chose the West.
Adenauer had witnessed the full scope of the German tragedy – including two world wars and the collapse of the Weimar Republic – and he considered the young Federal Republic’s ties with the West to be more important than German reunification. For him, Germany had to abandon its man-in-the-middle position, and thus its isolation, by irreversibly integrating with Western security and economic institutions.
The post-war Franco-German rapprochement and European integration under the EU have been indispensable elements of Germany’s Western orientation. Without them, Germany could return to a strategic no man’s land, which would endanger Europe, stoke dangerous illusions in Russia, and force Germany itself to deal with unmanageable challenges confronting the continent.
Germany’s geopolitical orientation will be a central underlying issue in next year’s general election. If German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s own Christian Democratic Union ousts her because of her refugee policy, the party will likely tack to the right in an effort to win back voters it has lost to the anti-immigrant, populist Alternative for Germany (AfD).
But any move by the CDU to cooperate with the AfD, or to validate its arguments, would spell trouble. The AfD represents German right-wing nationalists (and worse) who want to return to the old man-in-the-middle position and forge a closer relationship with Russia. Cooperation between the CDU and AfD would betray Adenauer’s legacy and be tantamount to the end of the Bonn Republic.
Meanwhile, there is similar danger from the other side of the aisle, because any prospective CDU-AfD coalition would have to rely on Die Linke (the Left Party), some of whose leading members effectively want the same thing as the AfD: closer relations with Russia and looser or no integration with the West.
One hopes that we will be spared this tragic future, and that Merkel will retain her office beyond 2017. The future of Germany, Europe, and the West may depend on it.
Comments
Hide Comments Read Comments (43)Please log in or register to leave a comment.
Comment Commented Patrick Verhoeven
And who cause all this trouble ? Exactly, ordinary people who have no clue of geo-politics and who only think of their jobs and the power of their ethnic group. The intelligence of a gorilla ! This makes them susceptible to the easy "solutions" of the far right.
Have the people learned after two devastating world wars. No they haven't and they never will. They are simply too unintelligent ! Read more
Comment Commented Andreas Bimba
The centre left has failed the people of the European Union by pursuing the ideology of neoliberalism, monetarism and crony capitalism just as stridently as the right. Fiscal austerity dictated by an undemocratic ECB, IMF and European Commission is locking in intolerable levels of unemployment for decades in Southern, Eastern and Central Europe. Germany so dominates the Eurozone that Germany is the odd one out and should leave. Europe's economically weaker nations have lost the ability to devalue their currencies in the event of excessive imports and weak exports which accelerates their relative decline. The Germans consider themselves superior but they are the biggest fools as they have sown the seeds of their own demise. How well will Germany fare with the Deutschmark? Well you better start thinking about this and making the necessary adjustments to your distorted surplus balance of trade economy.
Learn macroeconomics as Monetarism is a worldwide failure. The Modern Monetary Theory economists have been explaining the fundamental faults with the Eurozone model from even when it was proposed. Read more
Comment Commented Delia Ruhe
Dear Joschka Fischer, who I — until recently — greatly admired. If I were you, I’d look a bit more closely at Russia, which is “playing great-power politics and pushing for a ‘Eurasian union.’” Putin can hardly do otherwise, given that Washington and its European vassals have driven him into the arms of Beijing. You know very well that it was Washington, hiding behind the skirts of NATO, which has been bullying its way toward “containment” of Russia, engineering the coup in Ukraine. In order to retain Russia’s only remaining strategic base located on the Crimean peninsula, Putin retrieved it from Ukraine, where it had been since Khruschev’s decision relocate it (for who knows what reason, except that Khruschev was Ukrainian). For that, Putin became a screen upon which Washington projects its own behaviour as an aggressor with an expansionary program — and then slapped Russia with sanctions, supported (if reluctantly) by the EU.
As it stands, Putin may be an unpleasant sort of leader presiding over an unattractive government, but choosing the possibility of a Eurasian century built on a vast development of infrastructure and economic prosperity over a crumbling neoliberal American empire, complete with timid vassal states driven by an ethic of austerity and lack of political accountability is a no-brainer. If all of Europe had political leaders with visionary potential, those leaders would perhaps be making a similar choice instead of panicking over the loss of Britain, which has finally succumbed to Europhobia built on its sense of vast superiority. Read more
Comment Commented Joseph E Marsh Jr
No mention here, curiously, of another, perhaps profound reason for the general disenchantment with the present order, namely the manner in which the US, no longer restrained by a (collapsed) USSR or other ideologically hostile (super-) power, did whatever it pleased itself to do, wherever it pleased itself to do, often in total contravention of all known international law, not to mention simple decency, morality, and common sense, as with its horrendously catastrophic 2003 invasion of Iraq, meanwhile dragging all of Europe with it , with no more thought to or regard for European popular will than it gave to American popular will. The US's incessant resort to brute military power, with its predictably catastrophic results, together with Washington's only marginally less destructive neoliberal economic agenda, together have made a perfect wreck of whole swaths of the globe, and are directly responsible for the tsunami of refugees pouring into Europe --a mammoth crisis for which the US absolutely refuses to acknowledge even a smidgen of responsibility. Continue with "global leadership" like that, "Western Civilization" itself won't stand a chance --never mind ISIS, Marine Le Pen and Vladimir Putin! (to name but three)! Read more
Comment Commented Andreas Bimba
To be fair to the Americans, the civil wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and a few others are more a reflection of internal instabilities that appeared once authoritarian regimes were toppled. The lesson is keep away if at all possible and regime change in unstable regions is generally not a good idea.
The second invasion of Iraq and even the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan were counter productive, have led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives and were major strategic blunders primarily by the United States but also by other Western leaders such as Tony Blair. Read more
Comment Commented Rolf Wasén
West is on the brink, yes. Unfortunately, however, Joschka Fischer, Germany's Green Party and Germany is rather the problem than its solution. Unlikely, hence, that his "medicin" can turn the West towards a better path. Read more
Comment Commented Luca Passoni
One real problem is that Mrs Merkel drive us here, who else? Read more
Comment Commented Gary Gauthier
Blaming Nationalism for a popular movement ignores the underlying failures of western governments to recognize and deal with multiple, highly impactful grievances. Immigration without integration being the most visible but don't leave out growing inequality and political corruption as meaningful concerns. Brexit, much like the Trump nomination as the Republican candidate signals a growing protest movement that no longer cares for the geopolitical rhetoric as a rationale for maintaining the traditional status quo. I look at Greece and the punishments imposed on Greek citizens, pensioners, civil servants and working class as a measure of the disregard held for common citizens by the EU governments and elites that are more concerned with the welfare of banks and corporate lobbies.
Give your head a shake Mr. Fischer. Perhaps you should consider the geopolitical war on the working class as a factor in your concerns. Read more
Comment Commented Andreas Bimba
Totally agree. Read more
Comment Commented M M
Gary, very well said. Well done. +1 Read more
Comment Commented Christine Constable
Oh dear Mr. Fisher the poor leadership of Germany in Europe is bringing her chickens home to roost. Firstly, can I put one thing right, it was NOT nationalism that caused the UK to vote leave - the primary reason the British voted to leave the EU was that real and justifiable problems with the operation of the EU had put unbearable burdens on the UK the EU were simply unwilling to help us with. Free movement of people with absolutely no restrictions was an untenable policy. With such diverse economies and wealth within Europe only a fool would not recognise that the poor from failing eastern european nations would be on the first bus out. The UK had done a lot of things right economically, and millions of Europeans made a beeline for the UK would. The avalanche in migration caused the UK massive social problems; challenging our culture; language; values and way of life. A huge rise in EU convicts has over loaded our prisons : http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/10/prisons-see-240-rise-in-eu-convicts-paid-for-by-british-taxpayers/
One million Poles up and left Poland, freeing the Polish government from the responsibility to sort out their economy and by failing to make progress simply encouraged the enterprising to move elsewhere but in such vast numbers the UK housing stock; schools; health services; and job availability have all been under pressure. Skill free migrants from Hungary and Romania camp in our woods and beg on our streets in numbers never seen before http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3589474/The-London-car-park-camp-homeless-migrants-live.html and the abuse of our welfare and health systems got to intolerable levels that the British taxpayers said "enough is enough".
Joschka, Germany has badly handled its role in Europe. So manifestly favouring France the EU has become a parody of itself - the Merkel and Hollande Show. Merkel had absolutely no right to open the door to millions of unchecked migrants. The UK have large refugee camps in the middle east that it is paying vast amounts to house and feed people close to their country's so they can return when the situation makes that possible. Germany was naive and foolish to admit so many millions without properly obtaining acceptance from the rest of Europe. In an open border scenario like the EU the British knew very well these people would be coming in their thousands to the UK (ultimately) and it terrified the life out of us. The EU is destroying itself, its not nationalism it is poor governance. It is the inability to recognise that people do not want their homes invaded by hoards of low skilled people competing for the same jobs they too are competing for. Our children have lower life chances, no chance of owning a home and even have to compete for a university course now so many Europeans favour a British education. The EU has never properly analysed the effects of its policies on the ground. Away in the ivory towers in Brussels, the rest of us have to deal with the reality on the ground and frankly it is not looking good.
The time has come for the EU to accept that it has overreached itself and is not fit for purpose. The EU can save itself and the stability of Europe if it would just revert to a two speed Europe. Those that wish to have more integration and those that would prefer to be in the outer ring. Re instating subsidiarity and also stopping the mad "one size fits all". Britain has been a loyal and generous funder of the EU and a valuable ally in Europe. OK we have had our differences as exemplified in two world wars, but the British do not feel that the Germans have learnt any lessons and are doomed to repeat being the author of the break up of Europe, simply because it has allowed itself to be swept along by unachievable ideals like the Euro and a Country called Europe.
Britain wants a quiet life. We are not interested in the big ideas the German's are so wedded to. OK we understand that you want to be less German and more European, but actually we like being British - why should we feel embarrassed by that? It is not because we are nationalistic, rather we have an innate suspicion of grandiose geopolitical chess games, we value our freedom, we value our democracy and rule of law and we value our identity. The EU project was forged in a large degree of secrecy and the referendum vote in June was the first time most of us have been allowed to vote on having our sovereignty handed to the EU.
Had the EU been a wild success I guess, despite everything we would have stayed but for us the price of staying is simply far too high. The cost of it is escalating and the benefits diminishing; majority voting is alienating us; we are not part of the Euro but only a fool can see this does not have a long term future; economic progress is poor and getting worse; and security has been undermined by crazy solo German policies which threaten all of us. What is needed now is solid intellectual leadership. We need to keep Europe on message and alienating/punishing Britain for the temerity of pointing out the EU is failing is not the way to do it. Surely it makes sense to reappraise, review and correct the failing policies. Keep that which works and reform that which doesn't. One size fits all does not work in a club with such economic variances, migration has to be managed, otherwise governments who are poorly managing their economies will never have the incentive to improve, all they will do is export their people to other countries who are doing better which is no way to run a country. The lure of subsidies is making countries lazy and apathetic the EU must turn from a handout giver to a change maker and barriers to trade with and between European states shoots everyone in the foot.
Germany can do much to save the relationship with the UK - a decent deal and a reformed EU might nudge the UK back into the European fold, but what the UK needs to see is that the EU recognises it was wrong to turn Cameron away when he asked for help - it was the EU not the UK that might change the face of Europe. Also anti establishment protest is actually democracy - no establishment has a right to power - it has to be earned at the ballot box, the fact it is losing the elections means it is failing and the people don't want it this may be hard to accept but it is the truth - respect democracy. Read more
Comment Commented Andreas Bimba
Many good points Christine. I would however suggest that in the outer ring of the EU that nations have the right to introduce moderate tariffs on some items that are deemed important by that nation. For example the UK could have a moderate tariff to ensure the competitiveness of its steel mills or car manufacturers against much larger and capital intensive German competitors. Moderate tariffs do not preclude imports in that category but prevent being overwhelmed. I would argue that despite the administrative complexity and the economic cost of the tariff, such moderate trade protection allows all countries to advance rather than primarily the nation with the greatest competitive advantage which is currently Germany within the EU. Read more
Comment Commented Hayda do Baydy
Don’t believe in a handing straw, foremost in politics. Maybe, the article of Joschka Fischer is a good example, that, all what you take up, goes first through your reflection (як чогось сприймаєш), and might rather be a mirror of your inner self.
The Green Party has always demonstrated against the USA, but it is a creation, which could appear, under the protection of the USA.
Without this barrier, it is for the Kremlin very easy to exploit such a behavior, if you don’t realize the new reality of the reunified Germany, and its relevancy in a world after the fall of the Berlin wall.
This lack of realization has in the reunited Germany led to a virtual reality, where the German intelligence has seen the USA as a bloc like Moscow, favoring the Kremlin.
But the USA it’s rather like the EU with many different countries and their differing troubles. So, all German parties lack their commitment in the US society for EU affairs. In the EU, they rather blame Washington, that under Obama it has lost its interest for Europe.
Short, I don’t think, that a victory of Le Pen could be the worst. A victory of Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa, in the Putin-style, so to say, can have a much worse outcome.
Read more
Comment Commented Marendo Müller
Schematically speaking Germany was a minor colonial power, while its western neighbours were major colonial powers and its eastern neighbours were generally speaking not worth mentioning regarding colonialism. Many europeans regard immigration from non-european countries as a typical action-reaction process (colonialism - counter colonialism), if they are right, the western european populations will go through massive changes while the eastern european populations will remain more recognizable. Germany's past will probably, if it's true that history is not above the laws of physics, decide if it tips towards west or east. In north America, especially in the U.S. it is projected that the majority in a few decades will be and vote Latino, in other words transform from a western to more southern type of culture and country. Read more
Comment Commented Henk Crop
This is a wide ranging article. When you only look at the future and consider what the EU could do to continue its existence and grow, are:
- Listen to what the populists have to say.
- the EU should be reduced to mainly a trade organisation
- the unlimited mass immigration has be stopped. The EU cannot absorb the huge population expansion that is taking place in the Middle East and Africa.
- the EU top must be restructured for better decison making. Now the decisions are made by all 27 Leaders together or the combination Germany / France. It is either unpractical or undemocratic.
- the population in the EU is declining, and growing older. This will lead to loss of influence in the expanding world. This should be part of policy planning.
- The population of Russia is declining even more so. Therefore they have is less reason for further expansion to the west.
- Greece and Italy must be supported in outplacing immigrants.
Read more
Comment Commented Curtis Carpenter
A thoughtful view, to which I would add a few items.
1) The West is almost 4 generations removed from WW2, so no surprise that many have forgotten the high price of immoderate nationalism. We have come to place a low value on cooperation and stability, assuming (foolishl) that the later is somehow assured by global corporatism.
2) I'm not at all sure what the EU should become -- if anything at all. But I am sure that it is relatively impotent in the face of our shared 21st century challenges.
3) The West needs a new, deep conversation about what it is relative to the different parts of the East. The answer in a neoliberal world may be that "The West" is an archaic idea, no longer relevant to realpolitik. But we need to decide -- and that requires thought and dialog. The EU has stumbled into the position to lead that conversation if it has the will. Read more
Comment Commented jagjeet sinha
A TITANIC NATO CANNOT SALVAGE
The clarity with which the different agendas is understood, leaves you bewildered.
Germany clearly already mire comforted by the Big Bear.
Britain clearly on a different trajectory after Brexit.
France never wavered from the Napoleonic dreams of The Latin Monetary Union.
Russia never ensconced inside Europe.
Spain perhaps the last one inside - only to rediscover Latin America.
The attempt, given such agendas, to forge a federal state EUSSR is the bewilderment.
Brussels Bureaucracy perhaps the greatest facilitator of the bewilderment.
Wisdom better ensconced inside the European Economic Community.
The EUSSR only a guaranteed road to disaster -that NATO after Trump & Brexit, cannot salvage. Read more
Comment Commented j. von Hettlingen
Joschka Fischer thinks the West - Europe and America - is "on the brink" of a geopolitical catastrophe, something Putin describes about the collapse of the Soviet Union. The author says the UK, following the Brexit vote, and the US under a Trump presidency would "turn to neo-isolationism." Should Marine Le Pen of France's "Front National" be elected next year and abandon "Europe in favor of nationalism, the Western world will become unrecognizable. It will no longer be a bastion of stability, and Europe will descend into chaos indefinitely."
It would make a perfect storm should Donald Trump be elected. Even though he vows to "make America great again," many Americans fret about their place in the world, as a result of decline paranoia. Known for his impetuousness, many say it's a bad idea for Trump to be commander-in-chief, and as a fawning admirer of Putin, he "would accommodate Russian great-power politics at the expense of European and transatlantic ties..../which would/ fuel anti-Americanism in Europe and compound the geopolitical damage suffered by the West."
Without Britain - coveted for its most powerful military within the EU, and France, one of the six founding members of the bloc, the author says all eyes would turn to Germany, putting pressure on Berlin to take the helm of Europe. In this regard, "Germany’s geopolitical orientation will be a central underlying issue in next year’s general election." It is interesting to see whether Angela Merkel can weather the storm within her own party, which will have to figure out how to regain voters' confidence, after massive losses to right-wing populists in recent state elections.
Germany has Europe's largest economy, and it has benefited form its EU membership. It would "pay the highest economic and political price if the EU collapsed." Even though its "interests are simply too interwoven with the EU’s - no no one should hope for German renationalization." Yet the EU has to deal with populist calls for a return to nation states, placing domestic issues ahead of the EU interest. Pandering to these demands national leaders have little appetite for a closer union, which - with concerted efforts - could create a more effective European government.
But then many Europeans ignore the fact that a more integrated EU would provide political stability and lend more strength to its global standing. Much of the debate about a democracy deficit within the bloc makes it easy to forget the beginnings of the EU as an idealist project. The founding fathers were determined to say “never again” in the wake of a catastrophic war, by creating an economic union to promote interdependence and prevent conflict. Their fundamental belief was that the long-term national and collective interests of European states were intertwined and that peace and prosperity depended on national leaders looking beyond the short-term domestic interest. It worked well during the boom years of economic growth across Europe.
Today both the financial and refugee crises have shed light on the structural problems within the EU, posing difficult and critical questions about its membership and future. Given the east/west divide it raises the question how much the new EU member states share the values that underpinned its original foundations? Had this deepening and broadening of the bloc helped strengthen or erode the pan-European solidarity? The recent crises has plunged Europe into darkness, giving rise to tensions between the long-term collective interest and short-term national interests; between liberal values and bigotry - xenophobia and intolerance towards minorities etc.
Given Germany having fought two devastating wars, it feels obliged to play a role, that is "irreversibly integrating with Western security and economic institutions." Some in Europe still have a hard time to digest history - both in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Read more
Comment Commented Zsolt Hermann
With all due respect it is completely irrelevant if Merkel remains Chancellor, and it is also irrelevant if Trump or Le Pan will become leaders or not.
It is not people, political parties, not even ideologies that are the problem.
Our whole human paradigm is in crisis and needs changing.
The time has come when we cannot ignore any more that we have evolved into a globally integrated and fully interdependent world.
And this "globalization" has nothing to do with economic, financial calculations, or extending markets.
This "globalization" is not man-made.
We have become global, integrated and interdependent without choice, out of evolutionary necessity since humanity as a single species cannot survive in its present, fragmented, ruthlessly and exclusively competing form in a vast, cosmic natural system that is itself fully integrated, interdependent.
In nature's vast system each and every comprising element mutually complement one another and make calculations only for the benefit of the whole.
This state is called "mutual guarantee" which is responsible for maintained homeostasis, balance without which life, optimal development is impossible.
Thus we ourselves also have to work out how to build mutual guarantee within global human society but not in order to harmonize markets.
We have to build mutual cooperation, not in a way of dumbing down everybody to the same "brainless" level so the same products, pleasures could be marketed, produced and sold all over the globe.
We have to create such mutually complementing cooperation, keeping but rising above our individual and national differences, respecting the differences, unique talents, abilities but facilitating their mutual, complementing contribution to the whole instead of building competition on them.
Since we are talking about an evolutionary necessity we do not have a choice in the process, but we can choose if we reach our integration smoothly, proactively, or we wait for crisis, wars, global disasters and intolerable suffering to push us towards it.
Read more
Comment Commented Alexandr Rubtsov
Да, вы правы, но на пути создания новой модели глобализации, более честной и справедливой, стоит препятствие - нынешняя модель глобализации является пирамидой, когда высокий уровень жизни на вершине достигается путем вовлечения новых членов. Они платят за вход в глобализацию, рассчитывая что те, кто придет за ними вернут их деньги и принесут прибыль. Проблема в том, что уже все вовлечены в эту аферу и больше некого грабить. Нужен "новый континент" населенный дикими племенами, у которых в обмен на виски можно было бы покупать земли, угодья, ресурсы... но таких больше нет, и нет роста. Read more
Comment Commented Joshua Soffer
Indeed, theories abound about who is to blame for the current global crisis of faith in corporate and political institutions. Unfortunately, much less thought has gone into questioning whether blaming and scapegoating entire institutions effectively gets to the root of problems that likely are less caused by actors at fault than inevitable technologically-driven change.
For instance, perhaps the democratic party elevated Clinton because she happens to be one of the most knowledgeable and respected politicians internationally. Read more
Comment Commented M M
To Petey,now we are talking, Mr O was just a filler, the sooner people realise this, the better. Read more
Comment Commented Petey Bee
Respected internationally for what? She was given a senate seat by the Democratic party in my home state of NY (NY state reliably votes Democratic, so the D party nomination process essentially determines our state's senator). This was done as a courtesy to Bill after he left the presidency. She hadn't even lived in NY state until a few months before becoming senator there.
She got to be Secretary of State because in 2008, the D party wisely realized that if they wanted to defeat the Republicans, after 8 years of Bush, Clinton would not be adequate so they got Obama. With fierce resistance by the politically powerful Clintons, Sec of State was her consolation prize for letting Obama be President. At least she had the grace to step aside that year.
As Secretary of State she wrecked Libya, reducing a country of millions to anarchy etc, and has showed less public remorse/regret than most people display after accidentally hitting a small animal with their car. Who knows what other malfeasance she brought about.
So please spare me. Her main qualification is her ability to manipulate the political process. As far as actually governing... No thanks.
Read more
Comment Commented stephan Edwards
OH god that's funny. Respected by whom? Besides Goldman Sachs I suppose? In any case being president should NOT be a family business ! Do we really need rule by the new american Kleptocracy oops I meant aristocracy? Read more
Comment Commented stephan Edwards
I hate to mention it but the populists are succeeding because a great number perhaps tipping into a majority no longer believe their government gives a solitary damn for interests. Governments have been turned into stooges for the rich and powerful and those are the only interests the count in actual policy. It's hitting the point where the governments don't even pretend to represent the common interests. In the Us election you have HRC AKA Goldman Sachs AKA Wallstreet. Or you have Trump a man whose policies will only benefit Trump and others like him AKA the rich Powerful. Difference none! For all the rhetoric the policies that get carried out no matter who gets elected will benefit the rich powerful. For many of us sentenced to be on the bottom forever with no hope of improvement change any change even if it comes with Jackboots and secret police looks better then the status quo. A status quo where the benefits of globalization go to few and the rest of us well were told so sorry if you willing to work for what we pay in China, Malaysia or Vietnam maybe will find a job for you until then tough luck. It has nothing to do with Russia or Putin it has everything to do with a status quo that grinds a majority in the "Enlightened" west face first in the mud to advantage a very very few!@! Read more
Comment Commented Andreas Bimba
Yes, that's about it. If democracy won't address the legitimate concerns of all citizens then the next waves will be red, black or both - a violent period where many innocents will suffer but nevertheless it must happen. Read more
Comment Commented Val Samonis
Ribbentrop-Molotov 2? Read more
Comment Commented Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes
Ha ha, thank you for that laugh, I needed it! Read more
Comment Commented Demetra P
The problem with the political and economic elites is that their thinking is not very elite. I suspect that entrenched interest -with a status quo- and ideological doctrines do not allow them to learn from their own mistakes and take responsibility for their own ill-advised policies. Seeing as foe and danger the outcomes (symptoms) of their own actions would be laughable if not for the gravity of the situation.
Mr. Fischer. The Brexit event and the Trump, Le Pen and AfD phenomena are the unintended consequences of a contradiction in terms; neoliberal design for European peace, order and unification.
Read more
Comment Commented Andreas Bimba
Well said. Read more
Comment Commented Val Samonis
My foresight is rapidly becoming Grim Reality against my wishes! Deutsche Bank could collapse the economy of Germany and the whole Europe much sooner than you think! Some 60 Trillion very questionable, essentially fraudulent derivatives! Read more
Comment Commented Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes
Joschka Fischer is guilty of believing his own propaganda.
The defining characteristic of ‘The West’ is its combination of democracy and the rule of law. The EU acts against both of these by removing governance further from the people and enabling the ECJ to create law on the fly.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/aug/10/european-court-justice-legal-political
Maybe some research into why Britons voted for exit would be useful prior to his next article.
Read more
Comment Commented Petey Bee
None of the anti-establishment movements, whether anti-corporatist/anti-neoliberal branches, or anti-immigrant ones, or even the right wing ones, are primarily concerned with Russia specifically, or "east vs west" as the big question. It has to do with the populist theme of people's relationship to their government, and in the various cases, various theories about who is to blame abound.
Despite the pretty transparent foolishness of the blame-Russia school of foreign policy, few people think they are actually the cause of any heavy problems in either the EU or the US. The anti-Russia theme is just a cover-up for the real issues.
Far more serious for the EU. from what I can tell, are the middle-east interventionists (refugee crisis), the bank-bailout/austerity apologists (eurozone crises), and for Eastern European populists, the concern that Western Europe isn't really interested in having them as equals (and maybe some other things like maybe they would rather send business to China than to eastern europe)
In the US it's just the straightforward observation that both of our limited choice of two parties are together to blame for inequality -- combined with the fact that our Democratic party, in its wisdom, decided that it is a higher priority to elevate the Clinton family than to actually win an election. Which shows where the priorities of their leadership lie, with the expected result in loss of confidence in them. You could say something similar the of the Republicans of course, though in their case party voters rejected a third round of Bush, whereas the Democrats couldn't quite overcome the marketing machinery to reject a second round of Clinton. Read more
Comment Commented Alexandr Rubtsov
Проблема России гораздо глубже связана с проблемами Запада, чем об этом принято говорить. Рост экономики Запада происходил за счет расширения рынков сбыта, т.е. за счет краха СССР, и теперь Западу чтобы содержать "золотой миллиард" нужен новый источник денег, нужны новые неосвоенные рынки, а их нет. А значит красивого выхода из кризиса нет, и он будет продолжаться. А России в 1991 году обещали, что вхождение в глобализацию позволит русским достичь уровня жизни как в Европе. И теперь, Запад либо должен признать свой обман и извиниться перед Россией, компенсировав всё что украл, и объяснить своим гражданам, что они хорошо жили 20 лет за счет распада СССР, или продолжать врать, говоря что рост был не грабительским, а вызванным свободой и демократией, а на требования России исполнить обещания Западу остается отвечать нарастанием конфронтации. Мир с Россией невозможен, ибо тогда все узнают правду о природе кризиса и поймут, что кризис надолго, и всерьез. Остается нагнетать истерию и врать людям, что кризис преодолен, и всё идет хорошо, хотя на самом деле идет просто массированная фальсификация статистики о мировой экономике. В реальности в США нет экономического роста 50 кварталов. Рост в Китае уже давно около 0%. Глубокая рецессия в Европе. Петля на шее медленно затягивается. Read more
Comment Commented Vicky Lavendel
What the Western mainstream press hardly ever mentions is the ambivalent role which British "balance of powers" paradigma always had for Europe. Usually this paradigma gets celebrated for saving Europe from dictatorships etc. However when you look closer at it, it is nothing else as a "divide and rule" startegy with the ultimate goal of maintaining an own hegemony. And the Brexit referendum has shown that the same thinking is still quite dominant in the UK.
And yes, now you can say without that paradigma Hitler would have conquered whole Europe. However one could answer that without that paradigma there never would have happened WW1 and thus Hitler would never have emerged as a political actor. The American example shows that political integration lead to a more stable and peacefull order on that continent, while in Europe the balance of powers paradigma lead to endless tensions, conflicts and casualties between the competing states. Read more
Comment Commented Andreas Bimba
A United States of Europe means a federal system of government. One currency, a unified taxation system, a strong central government that dominates the individual states. Such a system could work financially but politically this is impossible. Do you realise Germany would so dominate such a Union that unemployment and disadvantage along the periphery would be locked in. No the only realistic answer is a European preferential trade zone of independent nations with regulatory harmonisation that may have an inner ring of free trade puritans and an outer ring of preferential trade realists. Read more
Comment Commented Godfree Roberts
" Russia is playing great-power politics and pushing for a “Eurasian Union” – a euphemism for renewed Russian dominance over Eastern Europe – as an alternative to the EU."
I'm shocked! shocked! to find a great power playing great-power politics! The Russians (who alone saved Europe from the Nazis) are a healthy balance to the predatory EU and US powers and should be praised for their restraint. The EU/NATO axis should be roundly condemned. Read more
Comment Commented Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes
Russian power politics are are extremely ugly when viewed from a Moscow housing estate, a hospital in Syria or a top Swiss holiday resort.
Their kleptocratic and brutal politics are as vapid and bankrupt as your knowledge of history. Read more
Comment Commented Bernhard Kopp
Yes, we stand a lot to loose. The British did not leave a 'European order of peace', which had already been shaky since NATO-bombs fell on Serbia for Kosovo, or all but a few European NATO-members willingly participated in the Iraq war, or participate in the war against 'whom' in Afghanistan other than chasing Osama bin Laden, or bombed Libya. The British seem to be leaving an institutional screw-up called 'Brussels', which Mr. Fischer and many of his friends made a living of creating, particularly since 1998. Read more
Comment Commented Christine Constable
I just feel the EU has to unravel to stabilise. Subsidiarity should become a reality; and the flags and anthems of a country called Europe should give way to a functioning EEA, not an EU based on hand outs but European trade and development based on shared best practice and sound economic policies not letting failing governments off the hook. Less nannying, and more fiscal realism and joint endeavours from a trading perspective linked with complimentary political objectives in a looser structure. Immigration will have to be managed, it is untenable to allow millions of economic migrants to disproportionately colonise other EU countries, without the consent or the ability of those countries to absorb them - such flows will be a cause for social breakdown and civil war to not help countries like the UK to deal with huge structural faults like this is madness and irresponsible , the EU in Brussels has demonstrated to the British it is guilty of both flaws. Read more
Comment Commented Rosemary Glass
Bernhard Kopp, I completely agree with your comment. We are living in precarious times, the end of the neoliberal world order in which the elites could congratulate themselves that all was well because economic data said so - masking the growing imbalance between them and the rest. My hope is that clever people like Mr Fischer and many other contributors to Project Syndicate start to embrace a more inclusive new paradigm (rather than the top-down one from Brussels which the British rejected on June 23rd). Then we can maybe hope for a less bumpy transition to the next platform of stability.
My second hope is that those same elites get the point that in an interconnected world, any conflict which the politicians initiate will come back and bite them. Those caught up in the fighting are too well-informed to put up with it. They will do their best to move out of the way - often to the countries whose elites initiated it and benefited financially by supplying arms. Read more
Comment Commented M M
Joschka, Merkel's re-election, and should she decide to stand for a further term in office (personally I would not do it for all the money of the world), it shall be cooked the same way Rajoy's of Spain appointment is being cooked, as we speak. Brexit is being cooked on very low fire and the ultimate taste shall not be felt for many years to come and then may not differ much from the current state of affairs, at least not in substance. The US is a different issue it shall be a choice between a golfer and a person on prescriptions and the world has had a taste of both during the last 8 years. In brief, one should not hold his breath.... Read more
Comment Commented Alan Kirman
How right Joschka Fischer is. We seem to be suffering from some sort of collective amnesia. How little time has passed since we were at war, since Portugal and Spain had fascist dictators, since the Greek colonels! And yet somehow petty and individualistic considerations have come to undermine the haven of peace and tranquility that Europe has represented for us and the rest of the world.
Although I am in disagreement with many of Angela Merkel's positions on economic policy for the EU I can only admire her stand on refugees and immigration. Given our history how can we, in good conscience, treat people who are fleeing a disastrous war, for which we are at least in part responsible, and which has seen half a million die, as miserable free riders on our social security systems.
A very gppd Israeli friend mocked his compatriots in Tel Aviv, who sitting in cafes watching the occasional stray rocket disappear in a puff of smoke, complained that their children were growing up in a menacing world and that they deserved to grow up in a normal world. As he said there is an illusion here that Europe is normal and that peace, coexistence and freedom of movement are a natural part of that normality. But, in fact, Europe is the exception and that exception is being threatened from within.
Let's hope that we do not descend into the chaos that characterises the Middle East but we are making disturbing moves in that direction Read more
Featured
The Political Logic of Hard Brexit
Jacek Rostowski explains why those who favor a full break with the EU are gaining the upper hand in the UK.
Nobel Economics Versus Social Democracy
Avner Offer argues that the prize's origin and the selection of winners reflect an ongoing political struggle.
Putting the Populist Revolt in Its Place
Joseph S. Nye believes it is premature to conclude, as many observers have, that globalization is in retreat.