Separatism in Europe: is it time?
Recently in the American edition "The National Interest" an article by Gordon Bardo devoted to the “ghost of separatism” in Europe was published. Comrade Bardo is a security expert from New York. He notes that the “ghost of separatism” hovers over Europe, citing examples from Belgium, Great Britain, the Balkans, Spain and the Caucasus. Regional movements for independence or autonomy are gaining momentum throughout the world. Moreover, the more the European Union is struggling with the current crisis, not only economic, but also “existential”, the stronger and more successful these movements can become, changing the political map of Europe behind us - exactly as we have become accustomed to over the past twenty years.
The success of the independence movement and the strength of the separatist movements in general are accompanied by serious upheavals in the European geopolitical order. Such an upheaval, and after them the reshaping of borders over the past hundred and fifty years, the analyst notes, took place every two to three generations. He highlights the changes in the European balance of forces caused by the unification of Germany by Bismarck and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which set in motion the processes that in 1878 allowed small countries, such as Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro, to gain international recognition at the Berlin Congress. In 1918, at the end of the First World War, the collapse of empires (Hapsburg, Ottoman and Romanov autocracy) led to another redrawing of lines on the map. Albania, the Baltic republics, Czechoslovakia and Poland have become full members of the international community, the author recalls.
After 1945, thanks to the end of World War II and the process of decolonization, the third wave of state-building passed around the world, touching most of the globe. European colonies in Africa and Asia gained independence.
The 1989-1992 years are the time of the fourth and last wave of European state-building. This wave was caused by the collapse of communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the geographical space that in 1989 a year consisted of only three states (Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia), today one can count not only twenty-three, not twenty-four countries (depending on who keeps the score, the journalist ironically).
World story It is very well described in the corresponding numbers: in the 1914 year, on the eve of the First World War, there were 59 independent countries in the world, by the 1950 year they became 89, and by the 1995 year - 192.
And this process, according to the author, has not yet ended. Processes in the Balkans and the Caucasus are “nightmare material” for cartographers and diplomats who are trying to reconcile competing ethnic groups with territorial claims. See: Eastern Anatolia, Abkhazia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, the Kurds in eastern Turkey and northern Iraq, the Turks in North Cyprus — there are various forms of independence or autonomy everywhere.
Southeastern Europe is a parent of the term "balkanization". Kosovo, Sandzak, claims of Albanians from Macedonia ... The claims of the Hungarians in Transylvania are a constant problem for Romania, and Transnistria continues to be a problem for Moldova.
The growth of separatism in Western Europe over the past decade reflects similar problems, at the same time refuting the generally accepted view that, they say, democracy and economic prosperity mitigate tensions and nationalist aspirations. Separatism in Western Europe, the author writes, took two forms: a waiver of existing agreements (as is the case in Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom) or a refusal to participate in the European Union.
In Scotland, separatism has more power today than at any time before. In Belgium, Flemish nationalism has steadily grown stronger over the past ten years. In Spain, the separatist parties won nearly two-thirds of the seats in the regional elections in Catalonia in November.
And what about the United States? And they are not immune to separatism: more than 113.000 people signed a petition in support of Texas independence.
The growth of public discontent markedly contributed to the exacerbation of separatist sentiments and the pressure on the existing geopolitical order in Europe. In the UK in November 2012, an opinion poll showed that 56% of Britons would prefer the country's withdrawal from the EU. In Germany, in the summer of 2012, a survey was conducted, which showed that 49% of Germans surveyed believe that they would be better off without the EU.
All of the above, the expert says, reflects a delicate balance in Europe. What is at stake today is the future of the EU, and (to a large extent) the future of NATO.
By the way, in the event of the collapse of the EU under the weight of its internal problems, then a change in the geopolitical order in the European space will follow: the collapse of the Union will provide an opportunity and political space for various nationalisms in Europe.
Unfortunately, the author writes, history shows that the creation of a new state, as a rule, is extremely bloody. The “velvet divorce” of Czechoslovakia is an exception. The bloody death of Yugoslavia - the situation is much more typical.
Considering that the last changes on the map of Europe took place in 1989-1991, and that such serious changes occur every two or three generations, and at the same time bearing in mind the current difficulties of Europe, it should be noted: the question of the future reshaping of borders, which is "near at the door," is perfectly justified. Politicians and experts like to talk about the durability and stability of the world order, but all this is ephemeral. Fortunately, Hitler’s “millennial Reich” was very far from the above mentioned term, and the Soviet communists, who believed that their system “represented the final stage of social and economic development in human history,” did not survive Hitler much.
The UK stands apart in the history of modern separatism. The fact is that a referendum on the independence of Scotland (2014) will be held here not only next year, but also there is a plan for leaving and leaving the country from the EU (2017). The event was called “Brexit” or “Brixit”, abbreviated as “Britain, exit”).
Prime Minister D. Cameron said this referendum in a keynote speech on relations between Britain and the EU in front of businessmen at the London headquarters of the American business agency. News Bloomberg Of course, he specified that the referendum would take place if the party of conservatives led by him won the election in 2015.
Here you can see the connection between attracting the relevant electorate to your side: if before Cameron and his party had certain supporters (fewer and smaller), now those who wish freedom for the homeland from the EU gates are likely to join them.
Cameron is an experienced geopolitical player. He is trying to win over even those who are not against the membership of Britain in the EU. He stated that he himself was not a supporter of “Brixit”: yes, it’s from him that the proposal to hold a referendum in the 2017 year comes, but in the event of a referendum, he will to campaign for the preservation of the United Kingdom as part of the renewed European Union.
Here it is: in one fell swoop of three birds with one stone. It turns out that British “separatism” is just a game on a political golf course. Moreover, it looks like a game that the Confederation of British Industry is already warned government that in the event of a country leaving the EU, export industries may face defensive duties. Under the reduction may fall to 40% automotive power. A significant part of European banks will leave the City in Frankfurt am Main. All this will lead to a reduction in the income of the British budget.
British eurofiles indicate that millions of jobs in the country will be lost - due to the fact that international companies from the United States, Japan, India, China will transfer their enterprises to other European countries.
As for public opinion polls, there are many of them in Britain and in the EU in general. Gordon Bardo cited data from one survey, and we give data from another (more recent, January).
Poll in London "Times" showedthat if the referendum were held today, 40% would vote for leaving the EU, and 37% would express a desire to remain in the Union. Another 23% found it difficult to answer.
Another thing is that the British can bargain for themselves some additional preferences in the European Union. In this case, Cameron will be, as they say, on horseback. And preferences are his merit, and the electorate is his, and there is no need to spend money on a referendum. Ah yes well done.
In any case, the tendency towards separatism in Europe, which appears, as we can see, not only at the level of national groups or parties, but also at the level of governments, cannot but be alarming. And if you take into account how the same nationalist interests, for example, in the Balkans or in the Caucasus, are fueled by overseas guardians of democracy, for whom the re-alignment of borders is not something that is a nightmare for cartographers, then you inevitably think: the separatist movements are very beneficial for someone.
There are four versions of the sources of the new geopolitical order in Europe - one is less convincing.
According to version one, the browser explains. "But" Mikhail Tyurkin, the Anglo-Saxons are to blame. The “genie of separatism” in the Old World released two “bony hands” from the bottle: London and Washington. What for? They want to put a pig on the Europeans and weaken a competitor.
But why would Cameron fight for power like that? It is clear that in times of crisis, Britain will not so frankly oppose itself to the EU. Only a part of the establishment stands there "on guard of the American superpower." The current realists, however, that in London, in Washington, just understand that the separatist policy will turn against those who start it.
Another version is the notorious construction by Germany of the next Reich. The scattering of Europe is beneficial to Berlin. Breaking the bank at the expense of the "separatist card" Germany can only if the EU imposes its anti-crisis strategy. But while the Germans serve the European Union rather as a “cash cow”, rather than as a “rising star.”
According to version number XXUMX, the bureaucracy is torn to power in the EU. Proponents of the theory believe that the "separatist sheep" feeds the "Brussels shepherd." Rather, shepherd and podpasok graze - Barroso and Rompuy. It is likely that they, as well as the European Parliament, condone the "Left Republicans of Catalonia", the Scottish National Party, Corsican autonomists and other "fighters for independence." European Commission President Jose Barroso has already promised to turn the European Union into a "federation of nation states", marking the date - 3 year.
The very same Mr. Barroso said that in the event of changes on the political map of Europe, new states will have to go through all bureaucratic procedures from the very beginning in order to gain membership in the desired EU. But this is at least several years of painful negotiations and the observance of all sorts of rules and preliminary procedures. The big question is, will the people wish, say, Scotland (as part of Britain participating in the EU), to go through it all over again? With this approach, Barroso will not only not achieve the desired effect, but will get the opposite effect. Besides, do we really need hardened separatists to the government of the future federation? So this hypothesis is falling apart like a house of cards.
According to the latest version, Mother Europe is about to fall under the cap of “supranational elites”. According to this theory, Tyurkin writes, the most influential part of the Western establishment has long been heading for the dismantling of existing states and the introduction of global governance - according to the network principle. And the Brussels bureaucracy is only a temporary tool. When she performs her task, she will be replaced by advanced management mechanisms.
In order to remove national obstacles from the path to the “brave new world”, the “elites” are pushing countries to the “right” solution with the help of man-made economic and political crises, including separatist promises.
This version needs no refutation: it is so dark. Much more into the "chaos of the dark ages" Europe will be plunged by Arabs and Africans, than some hidden "elites" will begin to reap the fruits of their efforts.
The success of the independence movement and the strength of the separatist movements in general are accompanied by serious upheavals in the European geopolitical order. Such an upheaval, and after them the reshaping of borders over the past hundred and fifty years, the analyst notes, took place every two to three generations. He highlights the changes in the European balance of forces caused by the unification of Germany by Bismarck and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which set in motion the processes that in 1878 allowed small countries, such as Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro, to gain international recognition at the Berlin Congress. In 1918, at the end of the First World War, the collapse of empires (Hapsburg, Ottoman and Romanov autocracy) led to another redrawing of lines on the map. Albania, the Baltic republics, Czechoslovakia and Poland have become full members of the international community, the author recalls.
After 1945, thanks to the end of World War II and the process of decolonization, the third wave of state-building passed around the world, touching most of the globe. European colonies in Africa and Asia gained independence.
The 1989-1992 years are the time of the fourth and last wave of European state-building. This wave was caused by the collapse of communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the geographical space that in 1989 a year consisted of only three states (Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia), today one can count not only twenty-three, not twenty-four countries (depending on who keeps the score, the journalist ironically).
World story It is very well described in the corresponding numbers: in the 1914 year, on the eve of the First World War, there were 59 independent countries in the world, by the 1950 year they became 89, and by the 1995 year - 192.
And this process, according to the author, has not yet ended. Processes in the Balkans and the Caucasus are “nightmare material” for cartographers and diplomats who are trying to reconcile competing ethnic groups with territorial claims. See: Eastern Anatolia, Abkhazia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, the Kurds in eastern Turkey and northern Iraq, the Turks in North Cyprus — there are various forms of independence or autonomy everywhere.
Southeastern Europe is a parent of the term "balkanization". Kosovo, Sandzak, claims of Albanians from Macedonia ... The claims of the Hungarians in Transylvania are a constant problem for Romania, and Transnistria continues to be a problem for Moldova.
The growth of separatism in Western Europe over the past decade reflects similar problems, at the same time refuting the generally accepted view that, they say, democracy and economic prosperity mitigate tensions and nationalist aspirations. Separatism in Western Europe, the author writes, took two forms: a waiver of existing agreements (as is the case in Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom) or a refusal to participate in the European Union.
In Scotland, separatism has more power today than at any time before. In Belgium, Flemish nationalism has steadily grown stronger over the past ten years. In Spain, the separatist parties won nearly two-thirds of the seats in the regional elections in Catalonia in November.
And what about the United States? And they are not immune to separatism: more than 113.000 people signed a petition in support of Texas independence.
The growth of public discontent markedly contributed to the exacerbation of separatist sentiments and the pressure on the existing geopolitical order in Europe. In the UK in November 2012, an opinion poll showed that 56% of Britons would prefer the country's withdrawal from the EU. In Germany, in the summer of 2012, a survey was conducted, which showed that 49% of Germans surveyed believe that they would be better off without the EU.
All of the above, the expert says, reflects a delicate balance in Europe. What is at stake today is the future of the EU, and (to a large extent) the future of NATO.
By the way, in the event of the collapse of the EU under the weight of its internal problems, then a change in the geopolitical order in the European space will follow: the collapse of the Union will provide an opportunity and political space for various nationalisms in Europe.
Unfortunately, the author writes, history shows that the creation of a new state, as a rule, is extremely bloody. The “velvet divorce” of Czechoslovakia is an exception. The bloody death of Yugoslavia - the situation is much more typical.
Considering that the last changes on the map of Europe took place in 1989-1991, and that such serious changes occur every two or three generations, and at the same time bearing in mind the current difficulties of Europe, it should be noted: the question of the future reshaping of borders, which is "near at the door," is perfectly justified. Politicians and experts like to talk about the durability and stability of the world order, but all this is ephemeral. Fortunately, Hitler’s “millennial Reich” was very far from the above mentioned term, and the Soviet communists, who believed that their system “represented the final stage of social and economic development in human history,” did not survive Hitler much.
The UK stands apart in the history of modern separatism. The fact is that a referendum on the independence of Scotland (2014) will be held here not only next year, but also there is a plan for leaving and leaving the country from the EU (2017). The event was called “Brexit” or “Brixit”, abbreviated as “Britain, exit”).
Prime Minister D. Cameron said this referendum in a keynote speech on relations between Britain and the EU in front of businessmen at the London headquarters of the American business agency. News Bloomberg Of course, he specified that the referendum would take place if the party of conservatives led by him won the election in 2015.
Here you can see the connection between attracting the relevant electorate to your side: if before Cameron and his party had certain supporters (fewer and smaller), now those who wish freedom for the homeland from the EU gates are likely to join them.
Cameron is an experienced geopolitical player. He is trying to win over even those who are not against the membership of Britain in the EU. He stated that he himself was not a supporter of “Brixit”: yes, it’s from him that the proposal to hold a referendum in the 2017 year comes, but in the event of a referendum, he will to campaign for the preservation of the United Kingdom as part of the renewed European Union.
Here it is: in one fell swoop of three birds with one stone. It turns out that British “separatism” is just a game on a political golf course. Moreover, it looks like a game that the Confederation of British Industry is already warned government that in the event of a country leaving the EU, export industries may face defensive duties. Under the reduction may fall to 40% automotive power. A significant part of European banks will leave the City in Frankfurt am Main. All this will lead to a reduction in the income of the British budget.
British eurofiles indicate that millions of jobs in the country will be lost - due to the fact that international companies from the United States, Japan, India, China will transfer their enterprises to other European countries.
As for public opinion polls, there are many of them in Britain and in the EU in general. Gordon Bardo cited data from one survey, and we give data from another (more recent, January).
Poll in London "Times" showedthat if the referendum were held today, 40% would vote for leaving the EU, and 37% would express a desire to remain in the Union. Another 23% found it difficult to answer.
Another thing is that the British can bargain for themselves some additional preferences in the European Union. In this case, Cameron will be, as they say, on horseback. And preferences are his merit, and the electorate is his, and there is no need to spend money on a referendum. Ah yes well done.
In any case, the tendency towards separatism in Europe, which appears, as we can see, not only at the level of national groups or parties, but also at the level of governments, cannot but be alarming. And if you take into account how the same nationalist interests, for example, in the Balkans or in the Caucasus, are fueled by overseas guardians of democracy, for whom the re-alignment of borders is not something that is a nightmare for cartographers, then you inevitably think: the separatist movements are very beneficial for someone.
There are four versions of the sources of the new geopolitical order in Europe - one is less convincing.
According to version one, the browser explains. "But" Mikhail Tyurkin, the Anglo-Saxons are to blame. The “genie of separatism” in the Old World released two “bony hands” from the bottle: London and Washington. What for? They want to put a pig on the Europeans and weaken a competitor.
But why would Cameron fight for power like that? It is clear that in times of crisis, Britain will not so frankly oppose itself to the EU. Only a part of the establishment stands there "on guard of the American superpower." The current realists, however, that in London, in Washington, just understand that the separatist policy will turn against those who start it.
Another version is the notorious construction by Germany of the next Reich. The scattering of Europe is beneficial to Berlin. Breaking the bank at the expense of the "separatist card" Germany can only if the EU imposes its anti-crisis strategy. But while the Germans serve the European Union rather as a “cash cow”, rather than as a “rising star.”
According to version number XXUMX, the bureaucracy is torn to power in the EU. Proponents of the theory believe that the "separatist sheep" feeds the "Brussels shepherd." Rather, shepherd and podpasok graze - Barroso and Rompuy. It is likely that they, as well as the European Parliament, condone the "Left Republicans of Catalonia", the Scottish National Party, Corsican autonomists and other "fighters for independence." European Commission President Jose Barroso has already promised to turn the European Union into a "federation of nation states", marking the date - 3 year.
The very same Mr. Barroso said that in the event of changes on the political map of Europe, new states will have to go through all bureaucratic procedures from the very beginning in order to gain membership in the desired EU. But this is at least several years of painful negotiations and the observance of all sorts of rules and preliminary procedures. The big question is, will the people wish, say, Scotland (as part of Britain participating in the EU), to go through it all over again? With this approach, Barroso will not only not achieve the desired effect, but will get the opposite effect. Besides, do we really need hardened separatists to the government of the future federation? So this hypothesis is falling apart like a house of cards.
According to the latest version, Mother Europe is about to fall under the cap of “supranational elites”. According to this theory, Tyurkin writes, the most influential part of the Western establishment has long been heading for the dismantling of existing states and the introduction of global governance - according to the network principle. And the Brussels bureaucracy is only a temporary tool. When she performs her task, she will be replaced by advanced management mechanisms.
In order to remove national obstacles from the path to the “brave new world”, the “elites” are pushing countries to the “right” solution with the help of man-made economic and political crises, including separatist promises.
This version needs no refutation: it is so dark. Much more into the "chaos of the dark ages" Europe will be plunged by Arabs and Africans, than some hidden "elites" will begin to reap the fruits of their efforts.
Observed and translated by Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information