|
Post by kaima on Apr 6, 2018 7:47:48 GMT -7
Will We Stop Trump Before It’s Too Late?
Fascism poses a more serious threat now than at any time since the end of World War II.
By MADELEINE ALBRIGHT APRIL 6, 2018
On April 28, 1945 — 73 years ago — Italians hung the corpse of their former dictator Benito Mussolini upside down next to a gas station in Milan. Two days later, Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his bunker beneath the streets of war-ravaged Berlin. Fascism, it appeared, was dead.
To guard against a recurrence, the survivors of war and the Holocaust joined forces to create the United Nations, forge global financial institutions and — through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — strengthen the rule of law. In 1989, the Berlin Wall came down and the honor roll of elected governments swelled not only in Central Europe, but also Latin America, Africa and Asia. Almost everywhere, it seemed, dictators were out and democrats were in. Freedom was ascendant. Today, we are in a new era, testing whether the democratic banner can remain aloft amid terrorism, sectarian conflicts, vulnerable borders, rogue social media and the cynical schemes of ambitious men. The answer is not self-evident. We may be encouraged that most people in most countries still want to live freely and in peace, but there is no ignoring the storm clouds that have gathered. In fact, fascism — and the tendencies that lead toward fascism — pose a more serious threat now than at any time since the end of World War II.
Warning signs include the relentless grab for more authority by governing parties in Hungary, the Philippines, Poland and Turkey — all United States allies. The raw anger that feeds fascism is evident across the Atlantic in the growth of nativist movements opposed to the idea of a united Europe, including in Germany, where the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland has emerged as the principal opposition party. The danger of despotism is on display in the Russia of Vladimir Putin — invader of Ukraine, meddler in foreign democracies, accused political assassin, brazen liar and proud son of the K.G.B. Putin has just been re-elected to a new six-year term, while in Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, a ruthless ideologue, is poised to triumph in sham balloting next month. In China, Xi Jinping has persuaded a docile National People’s Congress to lift the constitutional limit on his tenure in power.
Around the Mediterranean, the once bright promise of the Arab Spring has been betrayed by autocratic leaders, such as Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt (also just re- elected), who use security to justify the jailing of reporters and political opponents. Thanks to allies in Moscow and Tehran, the tyrant Bashar al-Assad retains his stranglehold over much of Syria. In Africa, the presidents who serve longest are often the most corrupt, multiplying the harm they inflict with each passing year. Meanwhile, the possibility that fascism will be accorded a fresh chance to strut around the world stage is enhanced by the volatile presidency of Donald Trump. If freedom is to prevail over the many challenges to it, American leadership is urgently required. This was among the indelible lessons of the 20th century. But by what he has said, done and failed to do, Mr. Trump has steadily diminished America’s positive clout in global councils.
Instead of mobilizing international coalitions to take on world problems, he touts the doctrine of “every nation for itself” and has led America into isolated positions on trade, climate change and Middle East peace. Instead of engaging in creative diplomacy, he has insulted United States neighbors and allies, walked away from key international agreements, mocked multilateral organizations and stripped the State Department of its resources and role. Instead of standing up for the values of a free society, his oft-vented scorn for democracy’s building blocks has strengthened the hands of dictators. No longer need they fear United States criticism regarding human rights or civil liberties. On the contrary, they can and do point to Trump’s own words to justify their repressive actions.
At one time or another, Trump has attacked the judiciary, ridiculed the media, defended torture, condoned police brutality, urged supporters to rough up hecklers and — jokingly or not — equated mere policy disagreements with treason. He tried to undermine faith in America’s electoral process through a bogus advisory commission on voter integrity. He routinely vilifies federal law enforcement institutions. He libels immigrants and the countries from which they come. His words are so often at odds with the truth that they can appear ignorant, yet are in fact calculated to exacerbate religious, social and racial divisions. Overseas, rather than stand up to bullies, Mr. Trump appears to like bullies, and they are delighted to have him represent the American brand. If one were to draft a script chronicling fascism’s resurrection, the abdication of America’s moral leadership would make a credible first scene.
Equally alarming is the chance that Mr. Trump will set in motion events that neither he nor anyone else can control. His policy toward North Korea changes by the day and might quickly return to saber-rattling should Pyongyang prove stubborn before or during talks. His threat to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement could unravel a pact that has made the world safer and could undermine America’s reputation for trustworthiness at a critical moment. His support of protectionist tariffs invites retaliation from major trading partners — creating unnecessary conflicts and putting at risk millions of export-dependent jobs. The recent purge of his national security team raises new questions about the quality of advice he will receive. John Bolton starts work in the White House on Monday. What is to be done? First, defend the truth. A free press, for example, is not the enemy of the American people; it is the protector of the American people. Second, we must reinforce the principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law. Third, we should each do our part to energize the democratic process by registering new voters, listening respectfully to those with whom we disagree, knocking on doors for favored candidates, and ignoring the cynical counsel: “There’s nothing to be done.”
I’m 80 years old, but I can still be inspired when I see young people coming together to demand the right to study without having to wear a flak jacket. We should also reflect on the definition of greatness. Can a nation merit that label by aligning itself with dictators and autocrats, ignoring human rights, declaring open season on the environment, and disdaining the use of diplomacy at a time when virtually every serious problem requires international cooperation? To me, greatness goes a little deeper than how much marble we put in our hotel lobbies and whether we have a Soviet-style military parade. America at its best is a place where people from a multitude of backgrounds work together to safeguard the rights and enrich the lives of all. That’s the example we have always aspired to set and the model people around the world hunger to see. And no politician, not even one in the Oval Office, should be allowed to tarnish that dream.
Madeleine Albright, the author of “Fascism: A Warning,” served as United States secretary of state from 1997 to 2001.
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Apr 6, 2018 8:01:51 GMT -7
Europe In Eastern Europe, the E.U. faces a rebellion more threatening than Brexit
By Griff Witte and Michael Birnbaum April 5 at 5:00 AM Email the author BUDAPEST — It was a continent-wide party to mark the end of history.
On a spring night in 2004, a chorus sang in a Warsaw square. Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” — the anthem of the European Union — echoed across once-bloody frontiers. Midnight fireworks sparkled along the Mediterranean. The next morning, organizers set a white-tablecloth breakfast on Budapest’s Chain Bridge for revelers still celebrating the dawn of a new era for Europe.
“The divisions of the Cold War are gone — once and for all,” declared then-European Commission President Romano Prodi as he welcomed 10 new members to the E.U., eight from the former communist East.
And yet, 14 years later, new divisions are emerging — many of them following old lines. The triumph of liberal democracy is being attacked from within by E.U. members that openly deride the club’s values, principles and rules. The bloc, meanwhile, has been incapable of fighting back, its weakness a side effect of the optimism with which it grew.
Ground zero for the rebellion is here in Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orban is running for reelection Sunday with boasts of his illiberalism, swipes at the hostile E.U. “empire” and promises to further tighten his grip on a country dancing ever closer to the edge of autocracy.
Orban’s defiance presents the E.U. with a far different threat than the one it faced in 2016, when Britain voted to exit and speculation swirled over who might go next. It may be more serious than that — a challenge that endangers the character of the union.
“Orban doesn’t want to leave the E.U.,” a senior German official said. “He really wants to change the E.U.”
By some measures, he’s succeeding. Far from being a pariah, Orban has found imitators in Poland and admirers in the Czech Republic, Austria and even at top political levels in Germany.
Orban’s European opponents, meanwhile, have proved unable to curb his behavior. Rather than punish Hungary for its intransigence, Brussels continues to supply the government with billions of euros in E.U. subsidies — money that Orban’s domestic critics say is vital to his survival because it boosts the economy and puts cash in the pockets of favored cronies.
“Orban is waging his freedom fight against the E.U. with huge amounts of E.U. money,” said Peter Kreko, executive director of the Budapest-based policy research firm Political Capital. “Lenin said, ‘Capitalists will sell the rope to us with which we’ll hang them.’ Well, the E.U. is not selling. It’s giving it to Orban for free.”
The E.U. never gave itself adequate tools for dealing with a wayward leader such as Orban because it never imagined needing them, even as the alliance spread far beyond its original Western European core to countries with scant experience of democratic governance.
At the start of the millennium, the bloc had just 15 members — none of them east of the old Iron Curtain. But after the fall of communism, East European countries that had been in the orbit of the Soviet Union looked to the E.U. and NATO as institutions that could bind them to the West and keep them out of Moscow’s grasp. Prosperous Western neighbors spotted an opportunity to spread their influence across the continent.
Everyone assumed that, with time, differences would recede as the new members grew to adopt the values, rules and institutions of the old ones.
“We wanted to believe it. History would go on and we would be on the right side of it,” said the German official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the record. “We never imagined that history could go the other way.”
For Hungarians, too, there were expectations that, in retrospect, look naively optimistic.
“It was a fantastic constellation. We wanted it. The West wanted it. It was back wind in every respect,” said Peter Balazs, a former Hungarian diplomat who was deeply engaged in the E.U. accession process. “And the follow-up was in the fairy tales: They live happily ever after.”
Balazs, who would go on to become the country’s foreign minister, said Hungary spent a decade proving to the E.U. that it was worthy of membership, working assiduously to meet the club’s strict rules for entry.
But once Hungary had joined, the union’s best leverage to keep the country on a free and democratic path evaporated. Meanwhile, no one had seriously planned for what would happen after Hungary and others joined the bloc — a failure that Balazs attributed to parallel illusions.
“A Hungarian illusion that the E.U. would do it, that somebody else would solve our problems,” he said. “And for Europe, the illusion that they would be like us.”
The result was fertile ground for Orban. Since coming to power in 2010, he has simultaneously used the bloc as a rhetorical foil and cash spigot — all without fear of meaningful consequences.
“I have, in fact, more respect for the decency of Euroskeptics who at least say, ‘Well, I don’t like the European Union, and I don’t like the values, and I’ll go out,’ ” Guy Verhofstadt, who was prime minister of Belgium when Hungary joined the E.U., told Orban last year when the Hungarian leader came to speak at the European Parliament. “You want to continue the money of European funds, the money of the European Union, but not the European values.”
Verhofstadt, who is now the leader of a centrist bloc of the European Parliament, has condemned fellow E.U. leaders for refusing to hit Hungary with sanctions.
Orban openly brags of his aim to build “an illiberal state based on national foundations” and cites Russia and China as exemplary models.
He has consolidated his party’s influence over formerly independent arms of the Hungarian state and society, including prosecutors’ offices, government auditors and the media. If he wins reelection, as is widely expected, the 54-year-old Orban has promised to press ahead with legislation that would allow the banning of aid groups that work on behalf of refugees or other immigrants.
On the campaign trail, he delights crowds by lashing out at Brussels, part of a trinity of enemies that also includes Muslim refugees and the Hungarian American investor George Soros.
As recently as 2011, Hungary scored the highest rating possible from Freedom House, an international nongovernmental organization, but it is now the least free of all E.U. members. The corruption monitor Transparency International ranks it the second most corrupt country in the bloc, just behind Bulgaria.
Yet Hungary is also among the greatest net beneficiaries of E.U. funds, receiving 4.5 billion euros (or $5.5 billion) in 2016 — equivalent to 4 percent of the country’s economic output — while contributing less than 1 billion euros, or $1.23 billion.
The money has helped to buoy the Hungarian economy, which has been growing at a healthy clip. It also has found its way into the pockets of friends, allies and family members of the prime minister.
“It’s E.U. taxpayers that feed the system and allow Orban to grow strong,” said Sandor Lederer, chief executive of the Budapest-based anti-corruption watchdog K-Monitor. “He’s decided it’s not enough for you to be the political leader. You also have to be the leader of the thieves, and this is the only way you can really exercise power.”
The mayor of Orban’s home village, a gas-fitter by trade, has become one of Hungary’s richest men during his schoolmate’s run leading the nation. Much of his wealth has been fueled by government contracts.
Companies owned or operated by Orban’s son-in-law have also fared well in the competition for government work, winning lucrative E.U.-funded contracts to upgrade street lighting in towns and cities across the nation. In January, the E.U.’s anti-fraud monitor found “serious irregularities” and “conflicts of interest” in the awarding of those contracts, which totaled more than 40 million euros, or nearly $50 million.
But Brussels-based investigators are virtually powerless to do anything about it. Authority to pursue the matter resides in Hungary, with prosecutors who are widely perceived to do the bidding of the ruling party.
That is typical of the E.U.’s dilemma in how to address Hungary’s piece-by-piece moves against the rule of law and democratic norms.
Until recently, the bloc did not even have measures to address rule-of-law violations that fell short of triggering the bloc’s nuclear option — E.U. sanctions that would suspend a country’s voting rights.
In 2013, as a direct reaction to Orban’s moves, the E.U. enacted new rules that gave policymakers in Brussels the power to flag developments in member countries that set off rule-of-law concerns and force a dialogue with national leaders. But the new powers were not retroactive, and Hungary had already enshrined many of its legal changes. The rules also lacked teeth. Although E.U. officials searched for ways to open investigations, they found Orban was an excellent tactician, walking right up to their lines without crossing them.
“We can’t just go in there flippantly,” said a senior E.U. official who is involved in monitoring violations of European treaties and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe backroom discussions.
Meanwhile, the nuclear option — known as Article 7 — has effectively been neutralized. The problem was underlined after the European Commission triggered the article for the first time in December against Poland. But the like-minded governments in Poland and Hungary have vowed to protect one another should either be targeted.
Other countries, too, may have Hungary’s back. Away from the campaign trail, Orban can often be seen joking around with fellow leaders at E.U. summits in Brussels. If they were to move against Orban, it would cost them comity and allies at an already fractious time.
It could also cost them politically at home. Orban’s relentless attacks on refugees and immigrants have been a winning message in Hungary. Others, including Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, have taken notice and adopted similarly hard-line messages, while publicly welcoming the Hungarian prime minister as an honored guest.
Far from fearing the E.U.’s wrath, Orban’s allies see the historical pendulum swinging their way.
“More and more, political leaders in Europe are coming to the same conclusion,” ruling party spokesman Balazs Hidveghi said. “Viktor Orban is right.”
Birnbaum reported from Brussels. Gergo Saling in Budapest contributed to this report.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Apr 6, 2018 8:08:36 GMT -7
Warning signs include the relentless grab for more authority by governing parties in Hungary, Austria, the Philippines, Poland and Turkey — all United States allies.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Apr 6, 2018 8:11:46 GMT -7
Thanks to allies in Moscow, Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Tehran, the tyrant Bashar al-Assad retains his stranglehold over much of Syria.
P.S.- Hezbollah was erected with the active support of Iran in Lebanon, but it is an autonomous Lebanese Shiite, Arab organisation.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 6, 2018 9:19:17 GMT -7
Kai
Interesting presentations for both have hit the meat on the bone. Although my self do hold a great respect for Madeleine Albright and her warning of Fascism. I must with hold further comments at this time.
With the situations and present issues dealing with the Eastern State members of the EU. This is an expected, or at least should have been an expected situation forthcoming after the dust had settled with some aging in time since the signing of the Schengen Treaty some years past as the EU was formed. If the treaty membership has kept to the body of intent of free trade across boarders, then fine, but in this stead, Brussels changed their tune to suit their music as a central power and now we have the political faction{s} that appear to be the cultural difference between us in the West to those of the East. Time changes, and so do people, not always in mutual agreement.
What these people we are speaking of Being Mr. Orban, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and The Pis Polish party forget, the better part of funding of the EU, is from German sources, and this means, it was earnt off the brow sweat of German workers and not meant for the entertainment of the above. If those leaders fore mentioned are unhappy, then the door out is always to walk through by simply turning the knob.
If the time for testing the viability of the EU,then it should be now. The Brits begin their long process and will be the test of time how well exiting the EU is conducted.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Apr 6, 2018 23:07:46 GMT -7
Kai, Karl, Pieter and all,
I am glad that we are discussing this disturbing trend among countries to look at their national interest. I think that this is the opposition against to liberal changes The liberal came probably too fast and some of these nations were not prepare even technically to deal with it. There is still lots of corruption in XIX which was not changed by liberats.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Apr 7, 2018 15:44:26 GMT -7
Dear friends, As a historian like person, a North-West-European who has been interested in history, politics, various peoples, cultures, religions and geopolitical developments for decades now, and someone who knows a little bit about Europe's history of the last 2,000 years, I am hesitant to call the developments in Europe to be fascist, in the context of the Italian fascism of (1922-1943), Spanish Fascism (1939–1975) or even Nazi Germany (1933-1945) and Nazi Austria (1938-1945). I see a combination of ultra-conservative, reactionairy Roman-Catholic, Islamist, Nationalistic and Populistic forces in Poland, Hungary, Austria, Russia and Turkey, but they aren't rooted in the fascist, National democratic or Nazi movements of the pre-war Central- and South-Eastern Europe, but surprisingly more in the rightwing conservative wing of the former dissident movements ( Solidarność/ Charta 77) in Central- and Eastern-Europe and in traditional conservative and rightwing liberal forces in Austria who moved towards rightwing Populism in the last decade. Ofcourse maybe there are traces in the support base of these parties and governments which may be linked to pre war Sanacja and Endecja supporters, to the Hungarian Arrow Cross Party or the authoritarian Hungarian leader Miklós Horthy who ruled Hungary from 1 March 1920 until 15 October 1944. Maybe there are in Slovakia some Jozef Tiso and Hlinka's Slovak People's Party (Slovak: Hlinkova slovenská ľudová strana, HSĽS) supporters, fans of the Romanian Iron Guard (Romanian: Garda de fier), followers or admirers the Austrian Austrofascists ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrofascism ) and the Austrian branch of the Nazi movement (The Austrian DNSAP, the Deutschsozialen Verein (German-Social Association) led by Dr. Walter Riehl, and the Schulz-Gruppe). From within Europe a Populist righgtwing movement grew from a dissatisfaction with the European Social-Democratic party elites who started to follow a Neo-Liberal, Laissez Faire, market oriented direction, and who had liberal migration and refugee policies. The European working classes and middle class who are National and regional oriented didn't liked and like the Neo-Liberal (in American context you could call it Neo-conservative, New Democrats or Third Way politics) course of the European Social-Democracy, which drove away from it's Democratic socialist, working class roots. The same was the case with the European Christian-Democrats and the European center right classical liberals (or in American context I should call them rightwing liberals, conservative liberals, moderate wing of the Republican party like political parties). All these parties had became career machines, political companies and brands, with professional career politicians, technocrats, people who were educated by the parties and who lived and worked their entire careers in these political parties, who became like political corporations. The distance between the citizens, the voters, party members and the politicians, party managers, political marketing, communication, Public relations organisations of the political parties, became huge. In Europe we speak about a gap between politics and civilians. Civilians see politicians as a different breed, a class of professional policy makers, a class of a political elite. That political elite balances between the Secretary-Generals, the highest civil servants of the ministries of the government and CEO's, financial advisors, Bankers, accountants, lawjers, judges, autorney's, state secretaries and ministers. The people see a national political elite of the various political parties and they see an Euroepan political class and elite which is far away from them. They are very distrustful, suspiciously, irritated, hostile and judgemental about that political elite of the center left and center right old Democratic leaders. The new leftwing and rightwing populists leaders and politicians manage to communicate with this disenfranchised, alienated, disinterested, apathetic, disappointed populations. They go into Neighbourhoods, they go from door to door, use agitprop, clear simple statements, and use anti-European (Anti-EU), anti-elitist, anti-migration, anti-refugees, Populistic and nationalistic messages to attract forner Labour (Social democratic), former Christian democratic and former classical liberal voters from the working classes and the middle classes and they manage to do so in the Netherlands (Geert Wilders PVV and Thiery Baudets Forum for Democracy), in Belgium (with the Nationalistic NVA and VLaams Belang -Flemish interest-), in France (Front National of Marine le Pen), in Germany (Alternative für Deutschland), Denmark (Danish People's Party (DPP) [Danish: Dansk Folkeparti, DF] and the reformed Populistic Danish Social Democratic party which follows a nationalistic course today, the Socialdemokraterne), the Pis government in Poland, the Fidesz government in Hungary and the FPÖ-ÖVP rightwing populists coalition government in Austria. And nex to that rightwing populist, xenophobic, nationalistic voices in the Czech republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Russia and the Baltic states. Karl can you translate this new Danish Social democratic tone for us? Cheers, Pieter
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 7, 2018 16:20:11 GMT -7
Pieter
Actually this is not new, but some what a rebuttal to some nasty accusations from the Swedish side against Dansk Federal rules on such large numbers of Immigrants wishing to enter Danmark but in that stead, must pass through in to Sweden.
What this speaker is saying is:
In Social Democracy, we do not think that we Danes are so disagreeable when it comes to the game. We would like to help people who are on the run. It is a compassionate duty. At the same time, we also agree that there is a limit to how many refugees and foreigners can be intergrated in to our society. And it is crucial that intergration will work better.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Apr 7, 2018 16:20:28 GMT -7
Dutch National Public TV went to Denmark and interviewed Danish Social Democrats
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Apr 7, 2018 16:21:44 GMT -7
Thank you dear Karl for translating this video and putting things into perspective!
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Apr 7, 2018 16:26:48 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Apr 7, 2018 16:39:48 GMT -7
Denmark looks scaringly like the Netherlands if I listen to this lady. The only difference is that we do have a word for please, alsjeblieft! The Danes and Dutch have the same blunt directness. In the Netherlands you also get door slammed in your face because people in this densly populated country are only selfishly being busy to survive. If you drop your shopping, you are picking it up on your own too in the Netherlands. I felt at home in Copenhagen. It was like a merger of Rotterdam, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Liège (Luik) and a tiny little bit of Paris, Luxemburg city and Gdańsk. Most Danes are proud to be Danish and fly their flag all the time! The Duch don't do that!
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 7, 2018 18:28:32 GMT -7
This lady interviewer is very brash and ignorant with in the stead of an honest interview, she in this stead is pushing her own ideas by interupting MP Kenneth Kristensen Berth whilst trying to answer such questions as poised to him. Karl
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 11, 2018 12:53:24 GMT -7
Denmark looks scaringly like the Netherlands if I listen to this lady. The only difference is that we do have a word for please, alsjeblieft! The Danes and Dutch have the same blunt directness. In the Netherlands you also get door slammed in your face because people in this densly populated country are only selfishly being busy to survive. If you drop your shopping, you are picking it up on your own too in the Netherlands. I felt at home in Copenhagen. It was like a merger of Rotterdam, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Liège (Luik) and a tiny little bit of Paris, Luxemburg city and Gdańsk. Most Danes are proud to be Danish and fly their flag all the time! The Duch don't do that! Pieter Yes, some how I was not surprised you would enjoy your self in Copenhagen. It is a large city with traffic to match, I am not sure if you hand mentioned so, but were you the time to visit the Vesterbro? It is a place of artist and art galleries, there are some of different taste, prices and renditions. Plus, an excellent area for art supplies. And of course the little Mermaid statue, my memory at this time is dimme, but I think that is on the water close to The Nyhavn neighbourhood and water way. Remember in past, I had mentioned of filing a missing person report on my cousin as I feared she had been murdered in the area of Vesterbro. The Police did try to locate her, but I do not think she wanted to be found. I do believe you would be comfortable living in Denmark. It is some what expensive in the way of taxes, but this pays for the state benefits that are the safety net for bad times and, for maintaining the standards that are Danish. Karl
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Apr 11, 2018 20:47:45 GMT -7
Pieter,
I am not surprised that you felt at home in Kopenhagen.
+++Most Danes are proud to be Danish and fly their flag all the time! The Duch don't do that!+++
I think all Scandinavians are proud of their flags, just like Americans. Maybe this is a part of the culture. I did not see it in Poland or other countries that much.
|
|