Time to go, meine Frau
12/5/16 13:51![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luvdovz.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsObama's visit in Germany last month caused a lot of comments, including questions why it was happening just before the Super-Tuesday in the US primaries. During the meeting, Merkel and Obama vowed to speed up the TTIP negotiations. "We must hurry", Merkel said, arguing that TTIP would be very useful as it would grant higher growth for the German economy, and by extension, to the European economy. People are not convinced, obviously (and that's quite an understatement).
In turn, Obama said he was hoping the agreement would enter parliaments for discussion before the end of his term. Then the two went on to discuss Syria, Ukraine and Libya. Obama again expressed his support for Merkel's immigration policy, saying she was "at the right side of history". All the while, 35+ thousand people protested in Hannover against both the TTIP, Merkel's immigration policies, and Frau Kanzler herself. 'Protesting' being another understatement, by the way.
Doubtless, there's a deeper reason for this Obama visit to Germany. Evidently, he's been trying to use the last year of his last term to push new principles of world trade and international relations forward. Sure, the already signed (but still unratified) TTIP agreement is one of those key points of his tenure. TPP is another one - that one is expected to be ready very soon. Thus, the post-war NATO format that was inherited from the late 90s will be transformed from a mere military alliance into a form of Western technological challenge against all the rest of the world. In other words, a new division of the world into two is being proposed, much along the well-known The West Against the Rest formula.
The most successful Asian-Pacific economies have already been entangled in this new form of international relations. Now the US strategists are focusing their efforts on the "integration" of the EU into another economic super-bloc - dominated by the US of course. Outside these two blocs, the "expendable" and "unfriendly" countries would remain. The former include raw material donors and banana republics like most of Africa and Latin America; the latter include China with its inherent economic woes, and Russia, which is no longer considered a key EU partner (and neither is it a land-bridge between Europe and China any more). Now that the anti-missile shield is being inaugurated (starting from Romania), the drive to marginalize Russia from this Grand Chessgame is becoming ever more evident. In the best case, Russia is being offered a meager role of being China's junior partner, if at all.
In this Grand Game, Frau Merkel has a key role. Because right now she's America's most devout lobbyist in Europe. There's a reason that she keeps enjoying Obama's unconditional support, despite her huge domestic problems related to the migrant wave that she single-handedly caused, and the deteriorating economy, and the obvious erosion of Germany's political dominance in Europe. Right now the lady who until recently used to be called "the Chancellor of all Europe" is shaping up to become the big loser in the upcoming 2017 election. She already did lose the regional elections that were so hugely important for both her and her party. Still, the US keeps supporting her no matter what. The reason is simple. She's America's only truly influential vessel of influence who's capable of making the EU sign the extremely controversial TTIP. Whether her waning popularity would suffice for that, is nother question.
There's also a reason that Obama made a visit to Cameron as well during that European trip of his. He wanted to convince him that the UK should stay in the EU at any cost, in order to keep working on America's behalf from within the EU - that'd indeed be a strong card in the Grand Game.
It appears it's very important to Obama that his second term should end with the TTIP under his belt, combined with an enhanced NATO presence in East Europe. Since the post-WW2 world order has placed US squarely in the driving seat with the help of such institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, helping them to impose their standards and fundamental political norm upon the rest of the world, now they're trying to move this to a new level. And though many believe this American project is mostly directed against Russia, in truth, its main target is actually China. In fact we're talking of a Western global project that's aimed at the BRICS group as a whole, i.e. against all countries from the so called "semi-periphery" who've been trying (and might be able) to compensate for their lagging behind the West through either military or other (economic?) means. If the TTIP and TPP become fact, these countries are likely to be pushed into the corner and in the sidelines where they'd have no other choice but to submit to the two Western-dominated super-blocs (in turn dominated by their respective international corporations). In other words, the game is indeed a Grand one, and the stakes have never been higher. The world, as a whole, is at a turning point. From this standpoint, Merkel's fate (as well as Germany's) is under question.
It's a fact that the German media themselves have been labeling their own Chancellor as an outright US lobbyist for some time now. It's worth reminding how neatly she started her career, all sorts of invisible and visible mentors and protectors clearing her way to the top in all possible ways, including by removing all potential rivals of hers. Still, it's quite possible that once she has served her purpose and brought Germany and the EU into the TTIP, that career could be abruptly snapped. Btw, the TTIP draft agreement itself keeps being kept in the dark, in almost complete secrecy from the public, and there are hardly more than 200 people in the entire Europe who really know what it looks like in its entirety. The recent leaks show, though, that it's far from the idea of protecting the interests of the countries from Central and East Europe, including such stark American allies like Poland for example (Poland claiming to be EU's second most dynamic economy after Germany). It's normal that some of those might be feeling betrayed now.
That said, there are suspicions that there's a direct link between the ignoring of East Europe's interests in the TTIP project, and the simultaneous fortification of NATO's presence in that part of the world.
By the way, many East European politicians have taken upon themselves the role of outright pro-US lobbyists, actively working for a NATO expansion to the east - and for a simple reason. That would allow them to get the funds for building new roads from west to east (ones they couldn't possibly build with budget money, or even EU money). The pretext would be the more efficient transportation of military equipment from the European heartland towards the Russian border in case of a "Russian aggression". Now the same idea is being pushed through for the north-south direction, again for the sake of defending themselves against Russian aggression. The main lobbyist in that respect is of course Poland. A number of experts argue, though, that the cost of those infrastructure projects could be the turning of those countries into Russia's primary target in case Putin goes crazy and decides on a preemptive strike in case of a hypothetical clash with the West. So these countries are volluntarily turning themselves into targets. A self-fulfilling prophecy of some sorts, of which the West (and I do mean the US) is the one to benefit the most. Divide and rule, you know?
The US itself has solved the problem with minimizing the expenses for granting their own security a long time ago. They no longer need to take the economic burden of being a global cop. For instance, they've limited their military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, focusing on controlling the most strategic points (mostly the sea straits of Hormuz, Malacca, etc), as well as containing China. As for Europe, it'll have to manage on its own now. At first, the US offered the expensive Echelon program to the EU, which would allow them to monitor and control the information highway through several computer hubs on the Balkans. Then the pressure on Europe to start modernizing their conventional armies with funds of their own started to build up. Of course, the relevant infrastructure started being developed as well. For countries like Poland and the Czechs for instance, that was an opportunity to re-develop their heavy industry through military means. For others though (mostly Germany), that would be an additional and unnecessary burden. In any case, the US is evidently reluctant to invest big money into Europe's security, and this is valid for both the most pro-American (respectively, anti-Russian) countries like Poland and the Baltics, and anyone else.
But back to the TTIP. The US pressure in that direction is now having the reversed effect, giving ammo to the more Euroskeptic circles, and stimulating the formation of alternative movements across Europe that are opposed to the current pro-American political elite of the continent. In a way, paradoxically, the notion that the US would prefer a fragmented Europe in order to more easily dominate this part of the world, has turned out incorrect: in fact, what the US wants is a united EU, but submitted to the TTIP, which in essence is an institutionalized, legitimized form of corporate takeover. After all, at least in theory, it'd be much easier to swallow the whole continent in one piece, rather than trying to take over many separate democracies one at a time. Especially if you first manage to get the leading countries on board - which is exactly where Merkel comes in.
Of course, it's not just the controversial trade agreement that's provoking the emergence of a powerful "left-right" anti-establishment and anti-Merkel movement in the EU. It's also the migration policies. It may be a weird left-right mongrel, but mostly we're seeing a conservative mobilization across Europe. The EU is becoming less tolerant and less politically correct, and increasingly revisionist. The conservative Polish government for example has announced that it's prepared to accept only a thousand Middle East refugees, and this, after thorough selection. In the meantime, they're prepared to accept up to a million Ukrainians (closely related to them both socially and ethnically). And the resistance to the refugees is not only coming from above, but also from the grassroots.
And here's the place to remind that the ordinary Europeans practically have zero idea about the true contents of the TTIP. They're unaware that instead of the million new jobs that Obama had so eloquently and generously promised, and the billions of dollars of investments, the EU economy would actually experience a serious erosion - especially at its core, in its driving engine that is Germany. The German big business itself is very well aware of that prospect, though. Which is why the anti-TTIP resistance in Europe is now being led not so much at a mass, public level, as much as at the elites level. And the idea that it's time to change the guard in German politics (especially Merkel) is starting to gain traction. Because people are starting to realize that the longer she stays, the more threatened with erosion and collapse Germany would become, and the entire European project along with it.
In turn, Obama said he was hoping the agreement would enter parliaments for discussion before the end of his term. Then the two went on to discuss Syria, Ukraine and Libya. Obama again expressed his support for Merkel's immigration policy, saying she was "at the right side of history". All the while, 35+ thousand people protested in Hannover against both the TTIP, Merkel's immigration policies, and Frau Kanzler herself. 'Protesting' being another understatement, by the way.
Doubtless, there's a deeper reason for this Obama visit to Germany. Evidently, he's been trying to use the last year of his last term to push new principles of world trade and international relations forward. Sure, the already signed (but still unratified) TTIP agreement is one of those key points of his tenure. TPP is another one - that one is expected to be ready very soon. Thus, the post-war NATO format that was inherited from the late 90s will be transformed from a mere military alliance into a form of Western technological challenge against all the rest of the world. In other words, a new division of the world into two is being proposed, much along the well-known The West Against the Rest formula.
The most successful Asian-Pacific economies have already been entangled in this new form of international relations. Now the US strategists are focusing their efforts on the "integration" of the EU into another economic super-bloc - dominated by the US of course. Outside these two blocs, the "expendable" and "unfriendly" countries would remain. The former include raw material donors and banana republics like most of Africa and Latin America; the latter include China with its inherent economic woes, and Russia, which is no longer considered a key EU partner (and neither is it a land-bridge between Europe and China any more). Now that the anti-missile shield is being inaugurated (starting from Romania), the drive to marginalize Russia from this Grand Chessgame is becoming ever more evident. In the best case, Russia is being offered a meager role of being China's junior partner, if at all.
In this Grand Game, Frau Merkel has a key role. Because right now she's America's most devout lobbyist in Europe. There's a reason that she keeps enjoying Obama's unconditional support, despite her huge domestic problems related to the migrant wave that she single-handedly caused, and the deteriorating economy, and the obvious erosion of Germany's political dominance in Europe. Right now the lady who until recently used to be called "the Chancellor of all Europe" is shaping up to become the big loser in the upcoming 2017 election. She already did lose the regional elections that were so hugely important for both her and her party. Still, the US keeps supporting her no matter what. The reason is simple. She's America's only truly influential vessel of influence who's capable of making the EU sign the extremely controversial TTIP. Whether her waning popularity would suffice for that, is nother question.
There's also a reason that Obama made a visit to Cameron as well during that European trip of his. He wanted to convince him that the UK should stay in the EU at any cost, in order to keep working on America's behalf from within the EU - that'd indeed be a strong card in the Grand Game.
It appears it's very important to Obama that his second term should end with the TTIP under his belt, combined with an enhanced NATO presence in East Europe. Since the post-WW2 world order has placed US squarely in the driving seat with the help of such institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, helping them to impose their standards and fundamental political norm upon the rest of the world, now they're trying to move this to a new level. And though many believe this American project is mostly directed against Russia, in truth, its main target is actually China. In fact we're talking of a Western global project that's aimed at the BRICS group as a whole, i.e. against all countries from the so called "semi-periphery" who've been trying (and might be able) to compensate for their lagging behind the West through either military or other (economic?) means. If the TTIP and TPP become fact, these countries are likely to be pushed into the corner and in the sidelines where they'd have no other choice but to submit to the two Western-dominated super-blocs (in turn dominated by their respective international corporations). In other words, the game is indeed a Grand one, and the stakes have never been higher. The world, as a whole, is at a turning point. From this standpoint, Merkel's fate (as well as Germany's) is under question.
It's a fact that the German media themselves have been labeling their own Chancellor as an outright US lobbyist for some time now. It's worth reminding how neatly she started her career, all sorts of invisible and visible mentors and protectors clearing her way to the top in all possible ways, including by removing all potential rivals of hers. Still, it's quite possible that once she has served her purpose and brought Germany and the EU into the TTIP, that career could be abruptly snapped. Btw, the TTIP draft agreement itself keeps being kept in the dark, in almost complete secrecy from the public, and there are hardly more than 200 people in the entire Europe who really know what it looks like in its entirety. The recent leaks show, though, that it's far from the idea of protecting the interests of the countries from Central and East Europe, including such stark American allies like Poland for example (Poland claiming to be EU's second most dynamic economy after Germany). It's normal that some of those might be feeling betrayed now.
That said, there are suspicions that there's a direct link between the ignoring of East Europe's interests in the TTIP project, and the simultaneous fortification of NATO's presence in that part of the world.
By the way, many East European politicians have taken upon themselves the role of outright pro-US lobbyists, actively working for a NATO expansion to the east - and for a simple reason. That would allow them to get the funds for building new roads from west to east (ones they couldn't possibly build with budget money, or even EU money). The pretext would be the more efficient transportation of military equipment from the European heartland towards the Russian border in case of a "Russian aggression". Now the same idea is being pushed through for the north-south direction, again for the sake of defending themselves against Russian aggression. The main lobbyist in that respect is of course Poland. A number of experts argue, though, that the cost of those infrastructure projects could be the turning of those countries into Russia's primary target in case Putin goes crazy and decides on a preemptive strike in case of a hypothetical clash with the West. So these countries are volluntarily turning themselves into targets. A self-fulfilling prophecy of some sorts, of which the West (and I do mean the US) is the one to benefit the most. Divide and rule, you know?
The US itself has solved the problem with minimizing the expenses for granting their own security a long time ago. They no longer need to take the economic burden of being a global cop. For instance, they've limited their military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, focusing on controlling the most strategic points (mostly the sea straits of Hormuz, Malacca, etc), as well as containing China. As for Europe, it'll have to manage on its own now. At first, the US offered the expensive Echelon program to the EU, which would allow them to monitor and control the information highway through several computer hubs on the Balkans. Then the pressure on Europe to start modernizing their conventional armies with funds of their own started to build up. Of course, the relevant infrastructure started being developed as well. For countries like Poland and the Czechs for instance, that was an opportunity to re-develop their heavy industry through military means. For others though (mostly Germany), that would be an additional and unnecessary burden. In any case, the US is evidently reluctant to invest big money into Europe's security, and this is valid for both the most pro-American (respectively, anti-Russian) countries like Poland and the Baltics, and anyone else.
But back to the TTIP. The US pressure in that direction is now having the reversed effect, giving ammo to the more Euroskeptic circles, and stimulating the formation of alternative movements across Europe that are opposed to the current pro-American political elite of the continent. In a way, paradoxically, the notion that the US would prefer a fragmented Europe in order to more easily dominate this part of the world, has turned out incorrect: in fact, what the US wants is a united EU, but submitted to the TTIP, which in essence is an institutionalized, legitimized form of corporate takeover. After all, at least in theory, it'd be much easier to swallow the whole continent in one piece, rather than trying to take over many separate democracies one at a time. Especially if you first manage to get the leading countries on board - which is exactly where Merkel comes in.
Of course, it's not just the controversial trade agreement that's provoking the emergence of a powerful "left-right" anti-establishment and anti-Merkel movement in the EU. It's also the migration policies. It may be a weird left-right mongrel, but mostly we're seeing a conservative mobilization across Europe. The EU is becoming less tolerant and less politically correct, and increasingly revisionist. The conservative Polish government for example has announced that it's prepared to accept only a thousand Middle East refugees, and this, after thorough selection. In the meantime, they're prepared to accept up to a million Ukrainians (closely related to them both socially and ethnically). And the resistance to the refugees is not only coming from above, but also from the grassroots.
And here's the place to remind that the ordinary Europeans practically have zero idea about the true contents of the TTIP. They're unaware that instead of the million new jobs that Obama had so eloquently and generously promised, and the billions of dollars of investments, the EU economy would actually experience a serious erosion - especially at its core, in its driving engine that is Germany. The German big business itself is very well aware of that prospect, though. Which is why the anti-TTIP resistance in Europe is now being led not so much at a mass, public level, as much as at the elites level. And the idea that it's time to change the guard in German politics (especially Merkel) is starting to gain traction. Because people are starting to realize that the longer she stays, the more threatened with erosion and collapse Germany would become, and the entire European project along with it.
(no subject)
Date: 12/5/16 10:57 (UTC)Sounds like them.
(no subject)
Date: 12/5/16 10:59 (UTC)But we've got to ask ourselves, is this new Pax Americana sustainable in the long run?
(no subject)
Date: 12/5/16 19:13 (UTC)