Atatürk - General McArthur görüşmesi , Atatürk'ün inanılmaz öngörüleri

 Atatürk – general McArthur görüşmesi 88 yıl önce bugün ( 27 Eylul 1932)

27 Eylul 1932’de Dolmabahçe sarayında gerçekleştirilen ve şimdiye kadar detaylarının tam olarak bilinmediği görüşmede, Atatürk’ün sadece 2. Dünya Savaşı’nı ve galiplerini tahmin etmekle kalmayıp, 11 Eylül Saldırılarına kadar gidecek tarihsel olaylarla ilgili öngörülerde bulunduğu ve ABD Generaline nasihat verdiği ortaya çıktı.

Princeton Üniversitesi’nden araştırmacı Dr. Adam H. Karray’in 2013 yılında yayınladığı akademik makale ile Atatürk – general McArthur görüşmesinin detayları gün yüzüne çıktı. MacArthur’un Güney Doğu Asya ülkelerindeki çalışmalarını araştırmakta olan siyaset bilimci Karray’ın, ABD’nin Virginia eyaletinde Norfolk kentindeki MacArthur Memorial’in (MacArthur Vakfı) yürüttüğü araştırmalar ve arşiv çalışmaları doğrultusunda Filipinler’in başkenti Manila’da MacArthur’un kaybolan günlüklerini bulmasıyla birlikte 1932’de gerçekleştirilen Atatürk ve MacArthur görüşmesinin detayları da ortaya çıkmış oldu.

Karray’in makalesine göre Atatürk, söz konusu görüşmede sadece Avrupa’daki vaziyetlere değil, MacArthur’a Asya ve Amerika’daki vaziyetlere ilişkin öngörülerini de aktarıyordu.

Uluslararası Politika ve terörizm dersi niteliğindeki bu tarihi görüşmede Atatürk, gelişmekte olan Sovyet Rusya’nın ideolojisini yayma politikası gereği ve ilerleyebilmesi için sonraki dönemlerde Afganistan’a saldırısının muhakkak olduğunu, ABD’nin bu gelişmeye kayıtsız kalmamak için her türlü tedbiri alacağını ve birçok bölgede olduğu gibi burada da Afganistan’daki yerel ve dağınık grupların desteklenmesi ve kışkırtılması şeklinde bir politika uygulanması durumunda Afganistan’da küçük oluşumlar halinde bulunan radikal islamcıların güçlenebileceği ve bu durumun sonrasında ABD ve dünya barışı için çok daha sıkıntılı ortam yaratabileceğini ifade ediyor.

MacArthur 2. Dünya Savaşı’ndan sonra 1951’de hayranı olduğu Atatürk’ün öngörülerini yayınlamış ve tüm dünyanın Atatürk’ün ileri görüşlülüğünden haberdar olmasını sağlamıştı. Ancak MacArthur, Atatürk’ün Afganistan’la ilgili nasihatlerini gerçekçi bulmayarak bu bölümleri gün yüzüne çıkarmamıştı. Atatürk’ün söylemeye çalıştıkları ve ileri görüşlülüğü ancak 2000’lerde, 11 Eylül terör eylemlerinden sonra anlaşılacaktı.

Söz konusu görüşme 27 Eylül 1932’de Dolmabahçe Sarayı’nda saat 17.00’de gerçekleşmiştir. Öncelikle MacArthur, Türkiye’de gördüğü iyi kabulden dolayı teşekkür etmiş ve Amerika Başkanının selamlarını kendisine iletmiştir. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk de Amerika Başkanına mukabil selamlarının bildirilmesini söylemiştir. General, Ankara ziyaretinde beğendiği başkent Ankara’yı överek zamanla burasının çok önemli bir şehir haline geleceğini söylemiş, Ankara’da gördüğü çiftlik ve içinde bulunan Marmara Köşkünü çok beğendiğini söylemiştir. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, çiftliğin yedi sene önce çıplak ve batak bir yer olduğunu, işe bir aygır ve iki küçük traktörle başlanılmış olduğunu ve bu işi Ankara’da yerleşmenin mümkün olduğunu ispat maksadı ile yaptığını söylemiştir.

General, dünya ekonomik buhranından dolayı Amerika’da şartların zorluğundan ve çok sayıda işsiz bulunduğundan bahsederek Türkiye’nin ziraat memleketi olmasından dolayı ekonomik buhranın Türkiye’de yok denecek kadar hafif olduğunu vurgulamıştır. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, cevap olarak; dünyanın ekonomik krizden kurtulmasının ilim, fen ve çalışma sayesinde olacağını ve vaziyetin normale doğru gideceğini ümit ettiğini ve Türkiye’nin ekonomik buhrandan daha fazla etkilenme riskine sebep olsa da gelişmiş bir sanayi hedeflediklerini söylemiştir.

“Avrupa’nın vaziyeti hakkında” ne düşündüğünü soran MacArthur’a Atatürk şu karşılığı verir:

“Dün olduğu gibi yarın da Avrupa’nın mukadderatı Almanya’nın alacağı vaziyete bağlı bulunacaktır. Fevkalade bir dinamizme malik olan bu 70 milyonluk çalışkan ve disiplinli millet, üstelik milli ihtiraslarını kamçılayabilecek siyasi bir cereyana kendisini kaptırdı mı, ergeç Versailles Muahedesinin tasfiyesine girişecektir”

Atatürk, Almanya’nın İngiltere ve Rusya hariç olmak üzere bütün Avrupa kıtasını işgal edebilecek bir orduyu kısa zamanda teşkil edebileceğini, harbin 1940-45 seneleri arasında başlayacağını, Fransa’nın kuvvetli bir ordu yaratmak için lazım gelen özellikleri artık kaybettiğini, İngiltere’nin adalarını muhafaza etmek için bundan sonra Fransa’ya güvenemeyeceğini söyler. İtalya’ nın Mussolini yönetiminde kalkındığına ancak İtalyan liderin Sezar rolünü oynamaya kalkışabileceğine dikkat çeken Atatürk sözü Sovyetler’e getirir:

“Avrupa’da vukubulacak bir harbin başlıca galibi ne İngiltere ne Fransa ne de Almanya’dır, sadece Bolşevizmdir. Rusya’nın yakın komşusu ve bu memleketle en çok harp etmiş bir millete olarak, biz Türkler orada cereyan eden hadiseleri yakından takib ediyor ve tehlikeyi bütün çıplaklığıyla görüyoruz. Uyanan şart milletlerinin zihniyetlerini mükemmelen istismar eden, onların milli ihtiraslarını okşayan ve kinleri tahrik etmesini bilen Bolşevikler yalnız Avrupa’yı değil, Asya’yı da tehdit eden başlıca kuvvet halini almışlardır.”

Sözün Asya’ya gelmesi üzerine General MacArthur söz alır[12]:

“Avrupa’da başlayacak bir harp behemahal Asya’ya da sirayet edecektir. Büyük devletlerin Avrupa’daki meşguliyetlerini Japonya, Asya’daki emellerini tahakkuk ettirebilmek için bir fırsat addedecektir. Amerika buna şüphesiz bigane kalamayacaktır….Rusya ile mütefiken yapacağımız bir harp Avrupa meselelerini olduğu gibi Asya meselelerini de halletmekten çok uzak kalacaktır…. Asya Rusya’nın nüfuzu altına girdiği gün, dava Bolşevizm için halledilmiş olacaktır. Ruslar, Asya’da büyük bir faaliyet gösteriyorlar. Bugün Çin’in mühim bir kısmı komünist ajanların kontrolü altında bulunmaktadır.

Daha sonra resmi kaynaklarda görüşme tutanakları ve kayıtları MacArthur’un da anıları doğrultusunda şu şekilde aktarılmaktadır[13]:

Bugün içinde bulunduğumuz barış dönemi sadece “silahları bırakma” olmuştur. Eğer, siz Amerikalılar. Avrupa işleriyle uğraşmaktan caymasaydınız ve Wilson’un programını uygulamakta kararlı olsaydınız, bu “silahları bırakma” dönemi uzar ve bir gün barışa varılabilirdi.

Bence dün olduğu gibi yarın da, Avrupa’nın geleceği, Almanya’nın davranışlarına bağlı görünüyor. Büyük bir dinamizme sahip, 70 milyonluk çalışkan ve disiplinli bir millet, ulusal tutkularını kamçılayacak bir siyasal akıma kendini kaptıracak olursa, Wereailles Sözleşmesi’ni ortadan kaldıracaktır.

Atatürk, Almanya’nın çok kısa sürede, İngiltere ve Rusya dışında bütün Avrupa’yı egemenliği altına alacak güçte ordu kurabileceğini, savaşın en geç 1940-45 yıllarında patlayacağını, Fransa’nın güçlü ordu kurma yeteneğini yitirdiğini ve İngiltere’nin adalarını korumak için Fransa’ya güvenemeyeceğini söylemiştir.

Atatürk’ün İtalya konusundaki görüşü de şöyledir:

“İtalya, Mussolini’nin yönetiminde unutulmayacak aşamalar yapmıştır. Eğer, Mussolini, gelecekteki savaşın dışında kalabilmek başarısını gösterebilirse, barış masasına güçlü bir devlet olarak oturabilir. Ama korkarım ki, İtalya’nın bugünkü lideri Sezar rolünü oynamaktan kendini alamayacaktır. Bu da İtalya’nın askerî bir gücü olmadığını hemen ortaya çıkaracaktır.”

Atatürk, daha sonra, Amerika’nın geçen savaşta olduğu gibi tarafsız kalamayacağını ve savaşa katılmasıyla Almanya’nın yenileceğini belirterek, sözlerini şöyle sürdürdü:

Avrupa da çıkacak savaşı kazanan ne İngiltere, ne Fransa, ne de Almanya olacaktır. Savaşı Bolşevik Rusya kazanacaktır. Rusya’nın yakın komşusu ve onlarla en çok savaşmış bir ulus olarak biz Türkler, oradaki olayları yakından izliyoruz. Tehlikeyi bütün açıklığıyla görüyoruz. Uyanan Doğu halklarının duygularını pek güzel kullanan, onları okşayan ve kinlerini dile getirmesini bilen Bolşevikler, yalnız Avrupa’yı değil, Asya’ya da gözdağı veren bir güç haline gelmektedir.”

Avrupa devlet adamları başlıca anlaşmazlık konularını her türlü bencillikten uzak yalnızca genel çıkarlar yönünden ele almazlarsa, korkarım ki, felâket önlenemeyecektir. Avrupa’nın sorunu artık İngiltere, Fransa ve Almanya arasındaki anlaşmazlık değildir.

Bugün Avrupa’nın doğusunda bütün uygarlığı, üstelik insanlığı tehdit eden yeni bir güç belirmiştir. Bütün maddî ve manevî olanaklarını topluca, bir dünya devrimi için seferber eden bu korkunç güç, üstelik Avrupa ve Amerikalıların bilmedikleri yepyeni politika yöntemleri uygulamakta ve karşıtlarının en küçük hatalarından bile yararlanmaktadır.

Tartışma konusu Asya’ya gelince McArthur da şöyle konuşmuştur:

“- Görüşlerinizi tümüyle destekliyorum. Avrupa ve Amerikalı devlet adamlarının gerçek tehlikeyi görmedikleri konusunda sizinle aynı düşünüyorum. Hepimizi korkutan ve tek bir düşmanın kazanç sağlayacağı bir savaşa kayıyoruz. Avrupa’da patlayacak bir savaşın alevleri kısa zamanda Asya’yı da içine alacaktır. Özellikle Japonya, Asya’daki çıkarları açısından kışkırtılacak ve Amerika doğal olarak buna ilgisiz kalamayacaktır. Rusya, hemen Asya’daki etki alanını genişletmeye çalışacaktır. Eğer bizim diplomatlarımız Sovyet desteğine karşı toprak ödünü vermek gibi ağır bir yük altına girmezlerse, bu çok iyi olacaktır. Aksi halde bir tehlikeyi önlenmeye çalışılırken daha büyük tehlike yaratılmış olacaktır. Sovyetler’le birlikte yapacağımız savaş, Asya ve Avrupa’daki sorunları çözemeyecektir. Büyük doğal kaynaklara sahip olan ve Avrupa - Amerika piyasalarına görev sunan Asya, Rusya’nın etkisine girerse sorun, Bolşeviklerin çıkarlarına göre çözülmüş olur. Rusya, daha şimdiden Asya’da çoğu kez gözümüzden kaçan uğraşılar içindedir.

Bugün Çin’in önemli bir bölümü komünist ajanların denetimi altındadır. Eğer Avrupa ve Amerikalı devlet adamları Çin’e gerekli önemi vermezler, Çin’deki anti-komünistleri desteklemezlerse, Japonya’nın yenilgisi, Çin’de komünizmin zaferine yol açacaktır.

Bu; Mançurya, Kore, Hindistan, Çin Hindi ve Birmanya için de geçerlidir. Sonuç olarak, dünyanın geleceği bence Avrupa’da değil, Asya’daki olaylara bağlıdır.”

MacArthur’u dikkatle dinleyen Atatürk, Asya ile ilgili olarak Sovyet Rusya’nın politikaları doğrultusunda asıl dikkat etmesi gereken ülkenin ABD olacağını gülümseyerek ifade eder. ABD’nin Sovyet Rusya ile mücadelesinde komşu ülkelere yayılma politikasını engellemek için farklı grupları destekleme ve kışkırtma stratejisinin ileride kendisine çok daha büyük zararlar verebileceğini siyasi tarih ve terörizm dersi verirmişcesine anlatır ve sonunda ABD Generaline nasihat vermeyi ihmal etmez.[14]

İki devlet adamı arasındaki söz konusu görüşmede şimdiye kadar Atatürk’ün, Avrupa’nın geleceğinin Almanya’nın tutumuna bağlı olduğunu ifade ettiğini, Almanya’nın çok kısa sürede, İngiltere ve Rusya dışında bütün Avrupa’yı egemenliği altına alacak güçte ordu kurabileceğini ve 2. Dünya Savaşı’nın en geç 1940-45 yılları arasında patlayacağını tahmin ettiğini biliyorduk.

Ancak söz konusu görüşmede General MacArthur’un günlüklerine yazdığı ancak kimseye ifade etmediği metinlerde görüşmenin sadece Avrupa ile ilgili vaziyette kalmadığı, gelişmekte olan Sovyet Rusya’nın sonraki süreçte ABD’ye yol açacağı belalar ve ABD’nin sonraki yüzyılda başetmek durumunda kalacağı öngörüler de yer alıyordu. Karray, söz konusu görüşlerin, ifadeden çok ABD Generaline bir nasihat niteliği taşıdığı için, General MacArthur’un bu ifadeleri açıklamadığını düşünüyor.

Atatürk, meslektaşına savaş sonrasında gelip gelecek Bolşevik Rusya’nın, komünist ideallerini yaymak ve genişlemek için Asya kıtasına ilerleyeceğini, İngiltere’den yeni bağımsızlığını almış ve karışık durumda yer alan Afganistan’ın ise ne zaman olacağı belli olmasa da Sovyet Rusya’nın hedefi olacağını belirtmiş. Ancak asıl ilgi çeken konuşma ise, Sovyetlerin tutumundan çok ABD’nin tutumuna ilişkin olarak belirtiliyor. Atatürk, ABD’nin Sovyet tehlikesine karşı komşu olan ülkelerdeki grupların desteklenmesi ve kışkırtılması politikasının Afganistan’da yeni yeni türemeye başlayan radikal islamcı grupların desteklenmesi şeklinde olması durumunda, bu grupların sonrasında ABD için çok daha tehlikeli sonuçlar yaratabileceğini ve güçlenip palazlanmaları durumunda ABD’yi kalbinden vurabileceğini belirtmiş.[15] Yıllar boyunca ne söylemeye çalıştığı anlaşılmayan ve bu nedenle hemen 9 yıl sonrasında çıkan 2. Dünya Savaşı’na ilişkin görüşleri hep ön planda tutulan bu konuşmada aslında Atatürk, 69 yıl öncesinden ABD’ye 11 Eylül 2011 Terör Eylemleri’nin haberini vermiş. Atatürk’ün o yıllarda söyledikleri ABD Kara Kuvvetleri Komutanı MacArthur tarafından dikkate alınıp ABD Hükümeti’ne iletilmiş olsa, belki de ABD, Sovyet Rusya tehlikesine karşı Afganistan’daki radikal islamcı grupları desteklemeyecek ve El Kaide benzeri örgütlerin oluşmasını engelleyecek, hatta 11 Eylül saldırılaını hiçbir zaman yaşamayacaktı.

Söz konusu tarihi görüşme Atatürk’ün şu sözleriyle sona erer:

“Ümit edelim ki, bizler yanılalım ve dünyanın geleceğini ellerinde tutanlar doğru yolda olsunlar.”

(İnternet'teki kaynaklardan derl

COVİD -19 and a new social Europe

 

Covid-19 and a new social Europe

by Patrick Thill and Vassil Kirov on 23rd September 2020

twitterfacebooklinkedin

With lessons not learnt, yet with the ‘rebuilding’ of Europe very much under construction, it is time for a truly social Europe.

 

The coronavirus crisis exposed not just the lack of a European public-health strategy and of solidarity across national health systems but also the emptiness of the contextualising frame of ‘social Europe’—vital though this is to Europe’s future social cohesion. Although it is still too early to capture the full impact of the crisis, unemployment is rising and youth unemployment dramatically so, while precarity and poverty are hitting the most exposed, exacerbating pre-pandemic vulnerabilities. 

 

The bleak socio-economic environment appears tragically familiar. Yet experts are identifying the Covid-19 shock as even more economically and socially damaging than the 2008 global financial crisis. The GFC not only alerted us to the social consequences of unbridled neo-liberalism but also to how long it takes to restore socially responsible public policies. 

Initially, there was a prudent consent towards stronger government involvement in policy responses to the rapid spread of the virus, albeit with reticence from the social partners, whose participation depends on the different traditions of social dialogue across Europe. But lockdown exit strategies have been marked by the absence of involvement by social partners and the wider civil society. 

Top of Form

 

Bottom of Form

The question of what kind of Europe its citizens want has thus remained unanswered. But it must be addressed during the ‘rebuilding’ process, at both the European Union and national levels.

Common social standards

The European Commission led by Jean-Claude Juncker attempted to rekindle Social Europe with the European Pillar of Social Rights agreed in 2017. These latter included, for example, fair working conditions and prevention of atypical and non-permanent work relationships. 

This appeared a huge step away from the ‘flexibilisation’ agenda promoted by the commission in the past. It was an acknowledgement that common EU social standards should be high on the policy agenda. 

In the current ‘rebuilding’ dash, however, the commission has taken on a role of ‘funding entrepreneur’, implementing instruments such as Next Generation EU rather than acting as the guardian of common social and employment standards. This shift risks relegating the promising pillar of rights to a non-vital, dependent component of a larger economic-recovery project, led by market forces.

Although social dialogue, with a focus on fair standards and consensus, is not a new phenomenon, the ‘varieties of capitalism’ literature identifies a divergence in governance in Europe between liberal-market economies, where decisions are often confined to market forces, and co-ordinated-market economies, where socially-responsible policy-making is pursued, based on a consensus between representative social partners. This variance has re-emerged during the pandemic, as governments have balanced responding rapidly to crisis effects and prioritising national stakeholders’ preferences.

Existing instruments

While countries such as Spain opted unilaterally for state intervention through the implementation of a guaranteed social minimum, other EU member-states have mobilised existing instruments, such as part-time work. In more prosperous economies, such as Luxembourg, generous family leave has been adopted for families and single parents, who were given the right to stay at home.

 

 

A country with a strong tradition of neo-corporatism and state intervention, the Luxembourg case is worth highlighting. Existing socially responsible policies, such as part-time working arrangements, have been perceived as mechanisms to prevent mass unemployment and cushion social hardship. 

Debates among the social partners traditionally involved in governance at multiple levels (national, sector, company) have however shifted. Following initial caution towards government policies that sought to strike a balance between crisis responses and existing legislation, a cleavage, apparent since the GFC, has developed between advocates of market forces and of socially responsible public policies. Opposition from the latter quarter grew stronger when the government introduced a 12-hour working day in specific sectors relevant to the management of the crisis, for the duration of the ‘state of crisis’ (état de crise).

Standstill in dialogue

Reaching consensus on working-time arrangements has also proved difficult. Disagreement on reforms has recently led to a standstill in social dialogue. 

Within the ‘rebuilding’ narrative, teleworking has been praised as a solution to a series of structural problems the country is facing, such as traffic jams. But while there is a European social-partner agreement of 2002, a potential national legal framework should reflect sectoral characteristics and also focus on equity: some sectors, such as cleaning, hardly benefit from telework and its related advantages, and therefore require fair, compensatory time measures. 

The question for stakeholders and governments in the aftermath of the pandemic is to set up a socially responsible and fair system of working-time arrangements that prevents new segmentation of the labour market. One avenue is offered by the request by the three national trade union confederations to resume tripartite negotiations—to get the traditional, national, consensus-seeking social dialogue back on track.

The challenge for Europe is to engender strong social cohesion for all its citizens after Covid-19. This goes beyond the economic task of ‘rebuilding’ Europe—the Europe as was—and entails a consensus-based social Europe, incorporating common social and employment standards. This project needs time and will succeed only if the convenient ‘back to normal’ narrative is replaced by a thorough and reflexive assessment of policy-making.

 

Corona versus culture

 

Corona versus culture

by Jess Smee on 22nd September 2020

twitterfacebooklinkedin

The pandemic closed theatres, concerts and exhibitions, imperilling many freelances. How will the creative industry re-emerge?

 

The creative sector has been hit hard by the social shifts triggered by the coronavirus. Around Europe, longstanding cultural institutions were forced to close their doors for the first time in decades, some even for the first time since the second world war. The economic woes hit at a time when culture—films, books, music—was offering relief, solace and entertainment to entire populations forced into lockdown. 

The numbers reveal the extent of the economic downturn. Early on in the crisis, a survey of galleries worldwide revealed a 70 per cent drop in income, leaving many verging on bankruptcy. Museums saw earnings crash by 80 per cent, according to the Network of European Museum Organisations. 

The sector’s many freelances were suddenly exposed to the perilous downsides of the gig economy. Take the world-famous circus troop Cirque du Soleil, which in March laid off 95 per cent of its workforce, calling off performances in seven countries.

Bottom of Form

Impact ‘devastating’

The European Commission was quick to acknowledge the creative industry’s turmoil, with Mariya Gabriel, commissioner with the cultural brief, describing the impact as ‘devastating’. European politicians from around the bloc spoke of the importance of throwing a lifeline to creatives. 

And the sector is important: in Italy, for example, the state-funded museums arena had, ahead of the outbreak, been valued at €27 billion, or almost 2 per cent of gross domestic product, making it only slightly smaller than agriculture. Preliminary data from Eurostat suggest that the pandemic may affect 7.3 million cultural and creative jobs across the European Union. Of these, around a third are self-employed and lack adequate social protection.

Economic-stimulus policies are largely the handiwork of national governments, which decide how to support an ailing economy and which sectors to prioritise. Most European nations provided extra relief for small businesses, staff and the self-employed—funds which are also accessible for creative firms. Most governments have unveiled special measures for the creative industries too.

Some of these have been small scale and specific. The Bulgarian Ministry of Culture said it would launch a competition to encourage reading and support its library network. And Danish radio stations, in dialogue with the Ministry of Culture, are pushing Danish-produced music to support local artists.

There have also been large cash injections. In May the French president, Emmanuel Macron, called for a 12-month extension to the nation’s special unemployment benefits for actors, performers, musicians and technicians—a scheme designed to protect them during the sudden pauses between jobs. Macron said small companies and independent workers most vulnerable to the crisis would be eligible for a special €7 billion support fund. And the ‘particularly hard-hit’ National Centre for Music would be given an extra €50 million.

Germany, too, has won international praise for its speedy response to help a struggling industry. In June, as part of a large stimulus fund, it unveiled a €50 billion package aimed at freelances and small businesses, including the arts and cultural industries. This was distributed within four days. The Berlin Senate also offered grants to freelance workers and small businesses in the cultural sector.

 

 

On the brink

However, many artists and creatives are still on the brink. In Germany, for example, federal funding can only be used to offset business costs, not personal expenses such as health-insurance contributions or residential rent, leaving many freelances stranded. One petition signed by almost 300,000 artists warned that creatives ‘live on the edge of the subsistence level anyway, but the current mass cancellation of events threatens to push them over this edge’.

It concluded: ‘Society may be able to do without cultural life for some time. But if it does so for too long, we could end up with nobody left to revive it.’

What will a post-corona creative scene look like? So far, there are no firm answers. The industry has come up with new formats which are imaginative but are financially unsustainable. Much creative output has been redirected to online audiences, with films, plays and courses often offered for free or at a low price. Once reopened, theatres and cinemas have seen their ticket sales plummet due to the need for social distancing in auditoria. Large performances and festivals remain off-limits.

Yet, indicative of the adaptability of this vital sector, artistic creation has also shifted overnight, processing and depicting a society in transition. Madrid’s Teatro Real opened its doors again post-lockdown with a modified version of Verdi’s La Traviata, incorporating distanced performers wearing surgical masks—albeit not without problems. 

As long as the show can afford to go on, Europe’s creatives will keep creating.

An earlier version was published as part of the Europa Dossier by the German cultural quarterly KulturAustausch

 

Israel and the Emirates Sign the " Abraham Accords"

 

Israel And The Emirates Sign The “Abraham Accords”

Written by Thierry MEYSSAN on 25/09/2020

 

 

The situation in the Middle East has been blocked since the Oslo Accords signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat in 1993. They were supplemented by the Jericho-Gaza Agreement, which recognizes certain prerogatives of the Palestinian Authority, and the Wadi Araba Agreements, which concluded peace between Israel and Jordan.

At the time, the Israeli government intended to separate definitively from the Palestinians. It was ready to do so by creating a Palestinian pseudo-state, devoid of several attributes of sovereignty, including an independent army and finances. Labour’s Yitzhak Rabin had previously experimented with Bantustans in South Africa, where Israel was advising the apartheid regime. Another experiment took place in Guatemala with a Mayan tribe under General Efraín Ríos Montt.

Yasser Arafat accepted the Oslo Accords to derail the process of the Madrid Conference (1991). Presidents George W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev had tried to impose peace on Israel by removing Arafat from the international scene with the support of Arab leaders.

Despite all this, many commentators believed that the Oslo Accords could bring peace.

In any case, 27 years later, nothing positive has limited the suffering of the Palestinian people, but the state of Israel has been gradually transformed from within. Today this country is divided into two antagonistic camps, as evidenced by its government, the only one in the world to have two Prime Ministers at the same time. On the one hand the partisans of British colonialism behind the first Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanhyahu, on the other hand the partisans of a normalization of the country and its relations with its neighbors, behind the second Prime Minister, Benny Gantz. This two-headed system reflects the incompatibility of these two projects. Each camp paralyzes its rival. Only time will come to end the colonial project of conquering Greater Israel from the banks of the Nile to those of the Euphrates, the comet tail of an outdated era.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has implemented the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy aimed at adapting the US army to the needs of a new form of capitalism based no longer on the production of goods and services, but on financial engineering. To do this, they began an “endless war” of destruction of state structures throughout the “broader Middle East” without taking into account their friends and enemies. In two decades, the region became cursed for its inhabitants. Afghanistan, then Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen are the theater of wars presented as lasting a few weeks, but which last indefinitely, without perspective.

When Donald Trump was elected president, he promised to put an end to the “endless wars” and to bring US soldiers home. In this spirit, he gave carte blanche to his special adviser and nevertheless son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The fact that President Trump is supported in his country by Zionist Christians and that Jared Kushner is an Orthodox Jew has led many commentators to portray them as friends of Israel. If they do indeed have an electoral interest in letting this be believed, it is not at all their approach to the Middle East. They intend to defend the interests of the American people, and not those of the Israelis, by substituting trade relations for war on the model of President Andrew Jackson (1829-37). Jackson managed to prevent the disappearance of the Indians he had fought as a general, although only the Cherokees signed the agreement he proposed. Today they have become the largest Native American tribe, despite the infamous episode of the “Trail of Tears”.

For three years, Jared Kushner travelled through the region. He was able to see for himself how much fear and hatred had developed there. For 75 years, Israel has persisted in violating all UN resolutions that concern it and continues its slow and inexorable nibbling of Arab territory. The negotiator reached only one conclusion: International Law is powerless because almost no one – with the notable exception of Bush Sr. and Gorbachev – has wanted to really apply it since the partition plan for Palestine in 1947. Because of the inaction of the international community, its application if it were to happen today would add injustice to injustice.

Kushner worked on many hypotheses, including the unification of the Palestinian people around Jordan and the linking of Gaza to Egypt. In June 2019, he presented proposals for the economic development of the Palestinian territories at a conference in Bahrain (the “deal of the century”). Rather than negotiating anything, the idea was to quantify what everyone would gain from peace. In the end, he managed, on September 13, 2020, to get a secret agreement signed in Washington between the United Arab Emirates and Israel. The agreement was formalized two days later, on September 15, in a watered-down version.”

The press in the Emirates does not have the same version of the events as that of Israel. None of them has an interest in expressing itself frankly.

As always, the most important thing is the secret part: Israel was forced to renounce in writing its plans for annexation (including the territories allegedly “offered” by Donald Trump in the “deal of the century” project) and to let Dubai Ports World (known as “DP World”) take over the port of Haifa, from which the Chinese have just been ejected.

This agreement is in line with the ideas of the second Israeli Prime Minister Benny Gantz, but represents a disaster for the camp of the first Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Not having read the secret part of the agreements myself, I do not know if it clearly indicates the renunciation of annexing the Syrian Golan Heights, occupied since 1967, and the Lebanese Shebaa Farms, occupied since 1982. Similarly, I do not know whether compensation is provided for the port of Beirut, since it is clear that its eventual reconstruction would be detrimental both to Israel and to the Emirates’ investments in Haifa. However, the Lebanese President, Michel Aoun, has already publicly evoked a real estate construction project instead of the port of Beirut.

In order to make this treaty acceptable to all parties, it has been named “Abraham Accords”, after the common father of Judaism and Islam. The paternity was attributed, to the great joy of Benny Gantz, to the “outstretched hand” (sic) of Benjamin Netanyahu, his toughest opponent. Finally, Bahrain was associated with it.

This last point aims to mount the new regional role that Washington has granted to the Emirates in replacement of Saudi Arabia. As we announced, it is now Abu Dhabi and no longer Riyadh that represents US interests in the Arab world Other Arab states are invited to follow Bahrain’s example.

The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, has not had harsh words against the Emirati “betrayal”. He was taken up both by those who remain hostile to peace (the Iranian ayatollahs) and by those who remain committed to the Oslo Accords and the two-state solution. Indeed, by formalizing diplomatic relations between Israel and the new Arab leader, the Emirates, the Abraham Accords turn the page on the Oslo Accords. The palm of hypocrisy goes to the European Union, which persists in defending international law in theory and violating it in practice.

If President Trump is re-elected and Jared Kushner continues his work, the Israeli-Emirati agreements will be remembered as the moment when Israelis and Arabs regained the right to speak to each other, just as the overthrow of the Berlin Wall marked the moment when East Germans regained the right to speak to their relatives in the West. On the contrary, if Joe Biden is elected, Israel’s nibbling of Arab territories and the “endless war” will resume throughout the region.

Relations between Israel and the Emirates had long since stabilized without a peace treaty since there was never a declared war between them. The Emirates have been secretly buying arms from the Jewish state for the past decade. Over time this trade has increased, especially in terms of telephone interceptions and internet surveillance. In addition, an Israeli embassy was already operating under cover of an intelligence agency.

In addition, an Israeli embassy was already operating under cover of a delegation to an obscure UN body in the Emirates. However, the “Abraham Accords” challenge the dominant Arab-Israeli discourse and shake up internal relations in the entire region.

Source: Voltaire Network

 

 

10 Hard realities About the U.N. on its Troubled 75th Anniversary

 

10 Hard Realities About the U.N. on Its Troubled 75th Anniversary

Stewart M. Patrick Monday, Sept. 21, 2020

The opening of the 75th United Nations General Assembly finds international cooperation in crisis and the U.N. in the crosshairs. Many critiques, especially from the United States, focus on the institution itself, as if it were somehow disembodied from the interests and policies of its major member states. The U.N.’s troubled anniversary is an opportune moment not only to reassess its strengths and weaknesses, but also to temper expectations of what multilateralism can possibly deliver when the U.N.’s leading members turn it into a geopolitical football—or are absent without leave. With these ends in mind, I offer the following 10 propositions.

There are many United Nations. Broad-brush critiques of the U.N. often gloss over the distinct institutional components of the U.N. system, ignoring the relative strengths and weaknesses of each and their utility to the United States. The most important of these are a U.N. Security Council dominated by permanent members, where little gets done without U.S. assent; a General Assembly, with universal membership, that possesses budgetary but little other authority beyond the ability to pass symbolic resolutions; the U.N. Secretariat, which can be a bastion of cronyism but whose performance depends strongly on who is secretary-general; and the multiple specialized and technical agencies, from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the World Food Program, some but not all of which do indispensable work.

The U.N. is no longer the only game in town, but it remains the world’s premier multilateral body. By virtue of its universal membership, binding Charter, multidimensional mandate and primacy in matters of global peace and security, the U.N. remains the foundational bedrock for international cooperation. To be sure, since 1945, nations have created scores of regional and subregional organizations, alliances and informal mini-lateral groupings like the G-7 and G-20 to assist with global governance. Still, nothing else comes close to the U.N. and its many affiliated agencies and bodies—including the Bretton Woods institutions of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund—in terms of their existing technical capabilities and perceived international legitimacy. It is an illusion to imagine that all of these strengths could be recreated on an ad hoc basis.

The U.N. is built for frustration—not least for its most powerful member. Although the U.S. was a lead architect of the U.N. Charter, that blueprint guarantees outcomes that are often subpar from an American perspective. The veto provision, which Washington has always backed, allows other permanent Security Council members, notably China and Russia, to thwart U.S. preferences. Likewise, the one-state-one-vote format in the General Assembly permits ideological coalitions to play to the galleries rather than exercise real responsibility. Finally, the U.N.’s budgetary processes and labyrinthine reporting structure, which empower the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council over major U.N. donors, is a constant aggravation. These are facts of life that American diplomats can hope to ameliorate but never eliminate.

Multilateral bodies do not spring magically to life in crises, nor are they immune from geopolitics. There is a strong temptation to blame U.N. agencies like the World Health Organization for failures in international cooperation, like the haphazard and uncoordinated response to COVID-19. An honest appraisal would concede that multilateral institutions reflect the preferences of their major members. The pandemic failures of the WHO, the Security Council, the G-20 and the G-7 all reflect decisions by China and the U.S. to prioritize strategic rivalry over practical problem-solving. If a fully fledged, new Cold War emerges between the U.S. and China, we should anticipate an enduring collapse of Security Council cooperation, akin to the Soviet period.

The United States does better inside the multilateral tent. International organizations can accomplish little without strong U.S. involvement. When America defects—as it has under President Donald Trump, leaving the Paris Agreement on climate change, the WHO and the U.N.’s Human Rights Council—it undercuts not only international cooperation, but its own long-term interests. The troubled Human Rights Council is a case in point. By abandoning that admittedly flawed body, rather than fight the good fight, the U.S. guaranteed that foxes would run the henhouse. In a similar vein, the White House has warned of rising Chinese influence within U.N. agencies, but the Trump administration created this opening for Beijing, by retreating from multilateral diplomacy in New York and bilateral diplomacy around the world. It’s hard to beat something with nothing.

The empty General Assembly Hall will be a potent symbol of Trump’s “America First” agenda, which has seen the U.S. turn its back on the world, and the world lose faith in the U.S.

The U.N. does not infringe on U.S. sovereignty. Membership in the United Nations poses no threat to U.S. constitutional independence, because it does not involve a hierarchical relationship of political subordination to a supranational entity, but rather a voluntary, intergovernmental arrangement among sovereign governments. What U.N. membership does require is that each nation accepts modest constraints on its notional freedom of action. This is in fact the very purpose of multilateral cooperation: to bind all parties to basic rules and responsibilities, so they can resolve shared challenges and advance common aims.

Holding the U.N. accountable remains a challenge. The U.N. and other multilateral bodies do create accountability challenges, because they require governments to delegate authority to international secretariats that may not be responsive to their desires. As anybody who’s ever hired a contractor knows, agents don’t always follow their principal’s instructions to the letter. Compounding the problem of oversight, member states typically “pool” their authority within the governing boards of international organizations, meaning that each gets only a partial, albeit sometimes weighted, say. Given the dynamics of delegation and pooling, both Congress and the White House must remain vigilant to the possibility that global bodies may go off track.

U.S. funding for the U.N. is generous but still modest. In 2018, the U.S. contributed just over $10 billion to the world body, more than any other nation but less than 1.5 percent of the $700 billion it spent on the American military. About two thirds of this came as voluntary contributions to agencies like the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. The remainder reflected assessed U.S. contributions to the U.N.’s regular and peacekeeping budgets, with America’s share pegged at 28 percent and 22 percent, respectively. Although the U.S. peacekeeping assessment exceeds the U.S. share of the world economy—23.4 percent—this $2 billion annual expenditure is money well spent. For only $6 per American, Washington supports the life-saving work of 95,000 personnel in 13 missions around the world, at a fraction of the cost of sending U.S. soldiers to perform similar tasks.

Security Council reform is imperative—but unlikely. Any discussion of U.N. reform invariably raises the need to adjust the composition of the Security Council to global power shifts, not least India’s emergence as a major strategic player and, soon, the world’s most populous nation. A Security Council whose permanent membership continues to give too much weight to Europe is courting a legitimacy crisis. Absent a global catastrophe, however, diplomacy seems unlikely to break the logjam among the main aspirants to permanent membership and their regional competitors, including the demands of a united African bloc.

The U.N.’s future depends on America. This year’s virtual General Assembly seems a fitting coda to President Donald Trump’s four years in office. The U.S. has always been ambivalent about multilateral cooperation, but Trump’s predecessors expressed their frustration in terms of the U.N.’s failure to live up to its founding ideals—rather than by rejecting the entire internationalist vision that inspired its creators and the purposes to which it is consecrated. Indeed, Trump is the first American president one could imagine actually withdrawing the U.S. from the U.N. entirely. The empty General Assembly Hall this week will be a potent symbol of Trump’s “America First” agenda, which has seen the U.S. turn its back on the world, and the world lose faith in the United States.

Stewart Patrick is the James H. Binger senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of “The Sovereignty Wars: Reconciling America with the World” (Brookings Press: 2018). His weekly WPR column appears every Monday.