Majorityrights Central > Category: World Affairs

Welf Herfurth’s New Right Australia New Zealand blog is hosting it’s first offering from Troy Southgate.  His subject is the meaning of Putin’s Russia, and its function in the emergence of a new geopolitical dispensation.  Obviously, this is a weighty subject, and Troy has only danced lightly across the surface of it.  He offers no closing prediction, except to note that in the modern context expediency will restrain geopolitical ambition.  That’s true, but one might equally assert that stability is not independent of the second law of thermodoynamics, and things change all the time.

GW

RUSSIA IN 2008: THOUGHTS ON HEGELIAN GEOPOLITICS

by Troy Southgate

Despite the negative image of Russia that is currently being portrayed in the media, it seems pretty feasible that Putin - possibly since his last meeting with Bush in 2007 - was eventually persuaded, albeit covertly, to capitulate to Western demands.

That he’s a loyal friend of Russia’s capitalist ruling class is not even up for debate, even if some people in Right-wing circles do seem to respect him for ousting the Jewish oligarchs several years ago. In reality, however, Russian capitalism is no better than its Jewish-dominated counterpart and Putin’s so-called ‘successor’, Dmitry Medvedev, is little more than a puppet of the same socio-economic regime.

But when you stop to think about the vilification of Russia over the last few months, especially with the well-publicised Litvinenko affair, the systematic construction of what many people are interpreting as a ‘new Cold War’ is, in a sense, rather Hegelian. The reason being, that contradiction, of course, eventually leads to reconciliation and some commentators believe that the thesis-antithesis-synthesis formula is better expressed in the dictum: ‘problem-alternative-solution’.

Perhaps this potential return to a bi-polar world is a shift beyond Samuel Huntingdon’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’ strategy in which there is merely one superpower (United States) fighting against an imagined or manufactured opponent (Islam)? Let’s think seriously for a moment about the relationship between the West and Russia in both a Hegelian (after Fichte) and a geopolitical context:

* thesis or intellectual proposition (Western capitalism)
* antithesis or negation of the proposition (Soviet communism)
* synthesis or reconciliation (a gradual alliance, through perestroika, between the two)
* presentation of a new antithesis (Cold War 2, Russia as the ‘new’ bogeyman)

... and so it goes on ...

Russia has not exactly presented a new antithesis in an ideological sense as Soviet Communism claimed to do, of course, and it was Hegel’s view that no new antithesis can ever arise due to the eventual disappearance of extreme ideological and philosophical positions, but this rather idealistic perspective does not seem to take into consideration the fact that convenience will often outweigh genuine revolutionary fervour. It remains to be seen where Islam will fit into all this.

Food for thought.

Two nights of riots  and counting:-

Thirty police officers have been injured in a second night of violence between youths and officers in the flashpoint suburb of Villiers-le-Bel in Paris.

About 160 riot police came under attack in the notoriously crime-ridden district, 20 miles north of the centre of the French capital.

The violence was sparked on Sunday by the deaths of two young boys, who were killed when their moped collided with a police car.

The boys who died were said by locals to be “aged between 12 and 13”.

Police insisted that their car had not been chasing the boys when the crash occurred soon after dusk.

Two years ago just such an event triggered 20 nights of rioting, and accounted for almost 9,000 torched vehicles and 2,888 arrests.  A state of emergency was declared.  The French media stopped reporting the incidence of burned cars for fear of giving succour to Le Front National.  And in April of this year Nicolas Sarkozy got himself elected, in part by stealing the FN’s clothes.

Now there’s no incentive for Sarko the American to play to white France.  He’ll look to avoid inflaming the situation, and distance himself from it if the unrest continues.

My thanks to Desmond Jones for this link (pdf) which details a draft resolution before the UN General Assembly on the rights of indigenous peoples.  Since it is inconceivable that the peoples of Europe can be winnowed out of this resolution, even on the grounds of past colonialism, it is a significant codification of our status as peoples even potentially under threat.

There are several formulations in this document that struck me as interesting.  But the plainest and most applicable to our uses is Article 8:-

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to
forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress
for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their
integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their
lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of
violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic
discrimination directed against them

You don’t need me to draw the picture for you.  Our efforts against the replacers and their useful idiots will only be strengthened by this.

From BBC News:-

The people of Turkey are voting in a general election which is seen as a crucial test of its secular tradition.

The early election was called to resolve a political crisis after parliament repeatedly failed to agree on a candidate for president.

Secular parties and the powerful military blocked the nomination of a candidate for the post backed by the Islamic-rooted ruling AK Party.

They said Turkey’s secularism was in danger - a claim the AKP dismissed.

... Voters have been heading home from the beaches by the coach load, interrupting their holidays to take part in the polls, the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford in the capital Ankara says.

Some of them say they have made a special effort to come back this time because they believe that the secular system needs to be protected, our correspondent says.

The role of religion here will be a key issue at the ballot box, and so will Turkey’s relations with the outside world, our correspondent adds.

Nationalist sentiment is running high, fed by bitter disappointment with the EU. Renewed fighting with separatist Kurds and talk of an incursion into northern Iraq will also influence the result, she says.

It is in our interests for the revolt against the Turkish political Establishment, which saw the Islam-rooted Adalet ve Kalk?nma Partisi become the largest party in the Grand National Assembly in the November 2002 election, to continue today.  And it will.  Last time AK attracted close to 11 million votes, or 34%.  Polls suggest that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will be returned with around 40% this time.

More surprising, perhaps, is that the long-moribund Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi, the traditional vehicle for nationalist sentiment, could leapfrog the two steeply-declining Establishment parties, and come in second.  An Assembly dominated by religious conservatism and Turkish nationalism is tantamount to a civilian coup!

From a majoritarian European perspective this is most welcome.  Indeed, any reflection anywhere of national character and the popular will in government is welcome to us.  These things portend distinctiveness, and distinctiveness yearns for distance.  Any consequent retreat from the homogenising cast of “modern” politics that we see throughout the West, and which finds its ultimate expression in the international institutions, is a good.  In Turkey’s case the revolt against the modern world was initiated by the failure of a political status quo under the pressure of unsympathetic external forces, namely the dealings of the EU in frustrating Turkey’s ascession, the encouragement given by America to the Kurds, and the growing influence of Putin’s Russia in the region.

One wonders whether there is a major historical dynamic appearing here, very fragile though it might yet be.  One wonders what that might mean for Western power and Western-led internationalism in a post-Iraq era.  One wonders what opportunities at the level of national politics might then arise.

Martin Hutchinson’s latest offering at Prudent Bear revisits the geopolitics of Ukraine.  It is a subject we have covered only once, quite early on in the Orange Revolution.

GW

The apparent revival of the Cold War by Vladimir Putin causes those of us nostalgic for the unpleasant certainties of a bipolar world to ponder whether the Domino Theory should also be revived. Indeed it should, and the domino currently wobbling most vigorously, magnificent in its precariousness, is Ukraine. Ukraine gets limited press in the West, but its fate over this long summer may well determine the geo-strategic and economic outlook for the next generation.

Contrary to most Western reporting on Ukraine, the struggle there is not bipolar but tripolar. Favoring an economy dominated by publicly owned behemoths of heavy industry is the current prime minister Viktor Yanukovych, strong in the ethnically Russian eastern areas of the country and proponent of closer ties with Moscow.

Vladimir Putin regarded Yanukovych as the natural successor to Ukraine’s previous corrupt and economically stagnant president Leonid Kuchma, so when in 2004 his election was opposed by the “Orange Revolution” of pro-Western forces he was furious, believing that the West had no business interfering in an election so close to the Russian heartland.

He need not have worried. The Orange Revolution candidate for President Viktor Yushchenko, in spite of having married an American wife and during the campaign suffering a mysterious poisoning that would foreshadow the unexpected demise of so many of Russia’s opponents in years to come, was a weak social democrat, also favoring a group of big corporate oligarchs, those of ethnically Ukrainian nationality from western Ukraine. 

Essentially, like so many East European leaders from Mikhail Gorbachev through the socialists currently running Hungary, Yushchenko believed in an a non-existent “Third Way” under which a nominally capitalist economy would avoid the disruption of rapid change and preserve existing business structures. He was thus favored by the EU, the Financial Times and the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, all of whom tend to like social democrat compromisers who won’t rock the boat. Nevertheless, when the Orange Revolution won the election re-run in December 2004, the world outside the Kremlin rejoiced.

It quickly became obvious that the Orange Revolution forces were far from united. Yushchenko appointed as prime minister his main ally, Julia Tymoshenko, but within a year had fallen out with her, to the extent that he dismissed her and called new elections in early 2006. These resulted in the revival of Yanukovych as leader of the largest party in parliament, with Tymoshenko second and Yushchenko’s forces reduced to third. Even though Yushchenko and Tymoshenko still had a parliamentary majority if their forces combined, Yushchenko chose to throw in his lot with Yanukovych.

READ MORE...

From the The Independent:-

President Nicolas Sarkozy looks certain to win a crushing parliamentary majority after utterly dominating the first round of the French legislative elections.

The new President’s centre-right party and its allies are forecast to win well over 400 of the 577 seats in the National Assembly in the second round of voting next Sunday.

Despite a poor turnout of just over 60 per cent - reflecting the fatigue of the electorate after the April-May presidential election - M. Sarkozy will claim a mandate to pursue his fiscal, economic and social reforms. Computer projection suggested that his centre-right party and its allies could take between 405 and 445 seats.

M. Sarkozy’s aim had been not just to defeat the left and centre, but to “crush all hope” that they could put together a coherent opposition. In the event, the main opposition party, the Socialists, looks capable of achieving a respectable result next week with around 120 seats, compared to 149 at present. The new centrist party of Francois Bayrou, the Mouvement Démocrate, looks likely to take fewer than four seats.

... The decline of the French Communist Party, still a significant force two decades ago, will finally be reflected in parliament. Its seats are likely to fall from 21 to between 6 and 12. The far-right National Front will once again have no seats but its share of the vote collapsed yesterday from 11 per cent to only 4.6 per cent. This could mark the end of the Jean-Marie Le Pen era. The NF leader, 79 this month, is now likely to face internal moves to persuade him to stand aside.

... Openness and pragmatism are one side of M. Sarkozy’s character. The other is an obsessive need to control all that surrounds him. This extends to the media and the opposition.

One of the new President’s first acts was to appoint the former head of his private office to run France’s most-influential television channel, TF1.

He has already created a “new centre” party of ex-Bayrou followers, who will follow the Sarkozy line in the National Assembly. According to Le Monde, he plans to try to create a breakaway, parliamentary group of “Leftists for Sarkozy”.

So now we will see what France, which has tested the integration model to destruction for British post-Multiculturalists, will get from the economic liberalism that is testing English and European-American society to destruction today.  The answer, once the Sarko shine wears off, will surely be the promised but heavily-protested and politically bloody end of the French socialist model.  That will produce sufficient economic growth to keep the middle classes happy.  It will also will lead to the sort of “controlled immigration” that manages to lower labour cost and further cosmopolitanise France.  The pendulum will swing politically, and the left will produce a neoliberal of its own.

And the NF?  It must build a national organisation from the bottom up.  Councillors and mayors must come before a charismatic leader.  Not that they have one to turn to anyway.

From the Jerusalem Post:-

In the face of Iran’s race to obtain nuclear weapons, the Israel Air Force has expressed newfound interest in receiving the F-22 - a US-developed fifth generation stealth fighter jet - and has requested that the Defense Ministry present the request on its behalf to the Pentagon, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

While the sale or transfer of F-22s to Israel did not come up in talks Wednesday between Defense Minister Amir Peretz and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, defense officials told the Post that Israel would ask to receive the aircraft in order to retain its “military edge” in the Middle East.

... The F-22 formally entered operational service in the US Air Force in December 2005 but has not yet been sold outside the US due to a federal law which barred export sale of the aircraft.

Last March, however, Congress lifted the nine-year ban on its sale, potentially clearing the path for an Israeli purchase of what is considered the most advanced fighter jet in the world today.

The single-seater, double-engine aircraft can achieve stealth though a combination of its shape, composite materials, color and other integrated systems.

A positive US decision on the issue in the coming months could see the F-22 in Israel by the end of decade, years before the IAF is expected to begin receiving the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) - another stealth fighter under development - also known as the F-35, expected in 2014.

On Thursday, Gates tried to ease Israeli concerns about the planned American weapons sale to Saudi Arabia as well as other US Gulf allies, saying that Washington remained committed to preserving Israel’s military edge over its neighbors.

Gates also said his 24-hour trip to Israel did not include any discussions on taking military action against Iran. He reiterated his belief that diplomacy was the best course of action for halting Iran’s nuclear program.

In her talks with Gates, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni warned that the countries under threat from Iran were testing the Free World and vacillation was perceived as weakness. This might create a desire to appease Iran, she said. Livni cautioned that only the determination of the international community would keep the “moderate camp” on the same side.

“We live in a neighborhood in which a projected image is very meaningful,” she said. “If the impression is that the world is losing to the ‘neighborhood bully,’ they will want to join him.” Before leaving Israel, Gates visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, accompanied by Peretz.

If Israel acquires the F22 by the end of the decade that will intersect nicely with Iran’s anticipated roll-out of nuclear weapons.  The F22 was originally conceived as an air superiority fighter for use against the soviet airforce.  But it is equipped now for ground attack.  It certainly isn’t a very pretty airplane.  But strangely, prettyness never bothered the “neighbourhood bullies” of, for example, Lebanon.  2009 looks to be the earliest date when the bullies of Iran will also receive their due.

The largest turnout for over fifty years has produced a conventional Socialist v Conservative pairing for the 2nd round of the French presidential election, which will take place on 6th May.

It will be interesting to see if/how Sarkozy’s “right-wing action man” image is reworked from here.  Its success in bleeding away the support for Le Pen is now apparent.  It should have been so beforehand really, since its corollary - the rank hatred from the “anyone but Sarko” camp - certainly was.

For French nationalists the Le Pen vote of 11.5% holds little promise for the future.  His high-water mark of 22% in 2002 will haunt his successor.  The French liberal Establishment can draw three conclusions:

1) Their greatest electoral enemy is low turnout.  Providing the bulk of the electorate carry on believing that conventional politics will solve their problems, a high turnout - this one was 84% - will always work for them.

2) If after the eighteen days of the Paris riots and the vote against the EU Constitution the French people still support the political centre, there is virtually nothing that can threaten them.

3) Incorporating FN ideas into public discourse works against political nationalism.  It now remains to be seen how much of Sarkozy’s “I won’t betray you” promises to FN supporters and Royal’s wrapping herself in le tricolor will feed through to the victor’s presidential policy.  For the reason of No.2 above, very little, I would say.

The FN itself has an impossible task before it.  The softening of Jean-Marie’s language under the guidance of his youngest daughter, Marine, has benefitted it nothing.  I doubt now that Marine can succeed him to the party leadership.  In reality no one can.  He was a giant of nationalist politics, and without him the Party surely risks further electoral marginalisation from here.  As a producer of ideas for popular consumption perhaps it will continue to have some success.

But only nationalists execute nationalist policy.  And that’s what would save France.