#Euro-Bloc

[communist-ojou-sama]

I know I'm always grumbling about tumblr people being incapable and unwilling of even for a lark trying to understand the worldview of people outside the imperial core, but I really want you to try to imagine that some of us out there really and genuinely don't recognize the US and Europe as "civilization".

I know that for many of you the development of Euro-USian societies up to the point of the Westphalian nation-state and eventually the postwar liberal democracy is definitionally and tautologically-civilization, but what if I told you that a large and growing contingent of people in the global south, especially since the beginning of al-Aqsa Flood, have began to view this bloc of nations as civilization's opposite?

What if I told you that to a great many people, the US and Europe are nothing more than brutal, bloodthirsty bandits and looters, who have not developed civilization but instead have used their mass stores of stolen wealth to avoid doing so? That they've used their masses of wealth gained through mass murder, banditry, and establishment of puppet leaders to flood the world with literally Orwellian propaganda, which defines civilization as its opposite, and merely hides the blood-stained, heartless cruelty of the white-lead "international community" under a petty façade of civility?

How might that fundamentally change the way you read global events?

[wordsandrobots]

IBO reference notes on . . . the economic blocs

In episode 4, we are shown this map, depicting the current national organisation of the Earth in Iron-Blooded Orphans' setting.

This raises a number of questions, primarily 'what were they smoking when they decided to combine Canada and Russia'?, secondarily 'what does Gundam have against Australia?', and further, 'what's the deal here?' In the spirit of obsessive nerdery -- and inspired by @qqchurch posting about a particular map prop -- I thought I'd have a crack at pulling together some answers.

Some spoilers and a rhetorical swerve ahead.

The bigger picture

Geographically -- astrographically? -- the solar system of Iron-Blooded Orphans is split into different 'spheres', principally the Earth Sphere and the Outer Sphere. This is a holdover from the original 1979 Gundam series, which used 'Earth Sphere' to refer to the region of space containing Earth, the Moon, and the various orbital colonies located within this gravitational system.

I should note, mostly for myself, that while writing fan-fic for IBO I fell into the habit of writing Outer Spheres, pluralising a term I believe is only ever singular within the canon. This stems from the grouping of both Mars and Jupiter (and presumably the Asteroid Belt) into the Outer Sphere. I would argue that post-canon, the pluralisation makes sense since we then have the Mars Sphere as a discrete political entity, but even without this, grouping two distinct planet/moon groups into one sphere seems to cut against the Universal Century definition given above.

Nevertheless, as a in-universe division it makes sense. Earth is the centre of power in this setting, the other planets existing as its colonial holdings. An 'Inner Sphere' or 'Venus Sphere' (depending on which logic we follow to style it) is also visited in spin-off game Urdr Hunt, having been left to decay now its utility in terraforming Mars is over.

In terms of political organisation beyond the Earth Sphere, we spend most of our time with Mars, which is sub-divided into colonies following present-day naming conventions for Martian topography. The principle action takes place on the Chryse Planitia, with the city of Chryse being this region's capital. The city of Noachis, presumably capital of the neighbouring Noachis Terra, is also mentioned.

In practice, Mars is administered as a whole by Gjallarhorn, on behalf of the Earth political blocs that own the various individual colonies, with the officer in charge of the occupation ruling from the Ares space station. The Venus colonies, including the tethered Radonitisa Colony, are likewise overseen from an Aphrodite station, and we might therefore infer a Zeus station exists too. This is in fact one of the few guesses we can reasonably make about Jupiter, since we never actually visit it during the course of the series. Jupiter's moons are likely inhabited, since four subsidiaries of the Teiwaz conglomerate are named after them (IOS, Ganymede Farm, Euro Electronics, Callisto), and it is also probable there are a number of O'Neil cylinder space colonies in the vicinity (flashbacks with Naze and Amida show them sharing a hotel room aboard such a structure). But we never get any hint of how Jupiter is governed, except that the most powerful organisation there seems to be the aforementioned Teiwaz, a corporate mafia/yakuza (they are at once both Italian and Japanese; it's glorious). No other official body ever comes up.

The division of Mars dates to a few years after the Calamity War, when Gjallarhorn was directed to recreate the Martian government from scratch, following on from overseeing the reorganisation of the Earth into four 'economic blocs', abolishing old national borders. And it is here I shall be focusing this post, to take a look at what we are told about each bloc. For the sake of a structure, I am going to take them in reverse order to how much we know, which means we start with the Oceanian Federation.

The Oceanian Federation

Well, first off, their flag goes the hardest of the four. Just look at this.

That aside, of all the blocs, it is a little peculiar that we know the least about the Federation given theirs is the only non-Arbrau, non-Gjallarhorn territory we spend any time in while on Earth. It is they who offer refuge to Arbrau's ousted Prime Minister Makanai after all, setting him up on a tropical island retreat while he awaits the chance to regain power.

This is an impressively sprawling place, befitting a man of Makanai's station. It displays distinctly Japanese style architecture and decoration, which makes sense given this is the bloc in which Japan is situated (it combines Asia with Oceania). Given Makanai's name and preferred form of dress, it is plausible he is himself from the Federation originally, although there is sufficient cultural overlap on display elsewhere that this is far from a necessary conclusion. Regardless, for their own reasons, they give him sanctuary, up to the point Carta Issue pressures them into rescinding their protection and allowing her to pursue Tekkadan.

In a similar vein, the Federation offers Tekkadan's space-based forces safe harbour at their colonies, as quid pro quo for interfering with the African Union's operations. A different set of (specifically industrial) colonies is later shown in Season 2, undergoing an attempted workers' uprising. Having watched the African Union suffer from the Dort uprising in Season 1, the Federation's leaders are not prepared to risk the same happening to them and they give Gjallarhorn a free hand to violently suppress those involved.

Beyond this, we learn nothing whatsoever of the Federation's people or government. The world map aboard the Montag Company ship that carries Tekkadan from Makanai's island to Arbrau centres Japan, an indication that while Gjallarhorn uses Euro-centric maps, this doesn't represent cultural (or navigational) homogeneity. But this is I think more interesting on a meta level, in regards the positioning of the two maps within friendly and antagonistic factions, respectively. As a world-building detail, it's merely logical for a Pacific-based freighter to carry such a chart.

Going beyond the text and doing a quick spreadsheet calculation based on Wikipedia's summary of 2023 data, the Oceanian Federation would account for a full 50% of the Earth's population, with the African Union encompassing approximately 35%, the SAU 13% and Arbrau a paltry 2%. That, however, does not account for the Calamity War and the consequent extermination of a quarter of the human race. In light of this, we might spin the division as a subtly horrific bit of environmental storytelling. We know mobile armours will prioritise targetting the largest concentration of human beings they can detect. What would this have meant for places like India or China when things ran out of control?

Obviously we don't know the state of population distributions pre-War and the quarter figure is given for the solar system as a whole. Still, if we are to assume the four-way sub-division made some sort of sense in the immediate aftermath of the Calamity War, a proportionally heavy casualty rate for the most populous nations on the planet could provide a possible justification for such an uneven-looking arrangement.

(In case you're wondering, subtracting the entire quarter from the Oceanian Federation shifts the percentages as follows: OF: 34%, AU: 47%, SAU: 17%, A: 2%. I present this as an illustration of alternative distributions rather than a feasible scenario; I don't actually believe there's a way to make the division follow purely from current world population.)

Oh, yes, and per tradition, Australia has a big honking hole in it, a call-back to the original Gundam anime's opening colony-drop, that presumably marks an event from the Calamity War. Like the damage done to the Moon, this is never expanded upon, but it does lend some credence to assuming Oceania bore the brunt of the conflict.

The Strategic Alliance Union (SAU)

Hello, yes, this is American one.

The SAU's principle role in the plot is to be incited into war against Arbrau as part of Galan Mossa's plan to embarrass McGillis. This scheme takes advantage of a pre-existing border dispute, the exact details of which are not provided: they're far over the heads of our point of view characters. The conflict occurs on 'Balfour Plain', which I take to mean in the vicinity of Balfour, British Columbia. Beyond that, things are left vague.

It does highlight that friction between the blocs is present along lines going beyond mere economic competition. Indeed, it underlines the blocs as competing entities. They operate as nation-states, advancing their own agendas. This extends, following the events of Season 1, to amassing overt military strength.

We can't attribute the mobile suit storehouse show in the opening montage for Season 2 to any particular bloc. But it does house several Hexa frames in addition to Rodis, which ties in with the later appearance of Gildas at the head of the SAU's army. These are Calamity War-vintage 'suits brought out of mothballs after Tekkadan shook things up by deploying at Edmonton, and they make for a notable contrast with Arbrau's own mecha contingent, which consists of brand new Hloekk Grazes bought from Gjallarhorn.

Gjallarhorn also deploys to provide battlefield support to the SAU, indicating the extent to which this peace-keeping force can intervene in inter-bloc conflicts. Perhaps McGillis' forces act on behalf of the putative defender, given the war was instigated when an SAU jet crashes following exposure to an Arbrau Hloekk Graze's unshielded Ahab reactor. Having not considered the situation critical enough to require mobile suits, the SAU views this as unprovoked escalation and appeals for support.

Which brings us to the rest of the SAU's military forces, consisting of planes use for reconnaissance and mobile workers. This tells us jet fights still have a place Post-Disaster, and that the mobile worker industry is eccentrically prolific.

Like Arbrau, the SAU's military is described as inexperienced. I am not sure where to fit an evident air force into that picture: it could be the lack of experience does not denote newness, as it does for Arbrau's defence force, but simply the absence of any active role prior to the declaration of war. Although the bloc's name -- Strategic Alliance Union -- sounds atypically militaristic compared to the others (rather like naming a country after NATO), it is not ascribed greater martial prowess. The conflict boils down to two rag-tag armies chipping ineffectually away at another, falling for Mossa's attempt to bog the region down in a petty, protracted war and thus ruin McGillis' reputation as a peacekeeper.

That about covers the extent of the information we learn about the SAU in the main series. For more, we must turn to Urdr Hunt and...

Well. OK. I am obliging myself to include this, aren't I? The Zahn Clan are introduced in the game as a crime family from the SAU. The two sons of the Clan's founder, Rubian, are dispatched to take part in the titular hunt to test whether they have the chops to succeed him as head of the organisation. I won't go into the plot here; you can look up my summaries or simply go watch it for yourselves. (Note: official translations of the names have since been provided on the website for the upcoming animated adaptation, but some of these seem of slightly dubious quality compared to earlier fan-sourced versions [I don't think 'Lubian' can be right].)

The thing is, the Zahn family -- Rubian, Rome and Aiko -- are African American gangsters. Stereotypically so. Their mobile suits are styled after cars, they're decked out in rings and gold chains, Aiko has a baseball cap, Rome, extravagant piercings, etc. They're a caricature of United States criminality and the problem is, IBO's art-style tends grotesque when it comes to the underworld, meaning the result is, in motion, when the detail level drops, extremely uncomfortable. It certainly doesn't help that the brothers are depicted as buffoons, playing straight the 'comedy relief idiot' trope Iok subverts in the anime proper (that is, Iok is an idiot and it is not remotely funny).

Their dad is *not* a fool, nor is fellow gangster Jabiro, but I really, really wish this didn't hit quite so many racism buttons at once. Nonetheless, they are a depiction of an aspect of the SAU and must be included in a post covering what we know about the blocs.

Rubian has been wildly successful at running his underworld empire. Though old and infirm, he remains extremely sharp, ruling the Zahn Clan from an honest-to-goodness castle in his home territory. I have no idea which way this cuts with regard to racist caricatures. It seems to be suggesting a level of in-universe tastelessness but quite frankly, I don't think I can fault a mobster who gets wealthy enough to go, 'I'll live like a literal king'.

In terms of the Zahns' relationship to their home bloc, I noted in another post that they are remarkably well-equipped, fielding top-of-the line 'suits alongside more venerable models (including a lot of Gildas) and surplus Gjallarhorn spacecraft. While we know 'top-down' corruption is rife in the Earth Sphere in the sense of Gjallarhorn members empowering themselves by overstepping the bounds of neutrality, the Zahns demonstrate that 'bottom-up' corruption is alive and well too. Indeed, they are described as being explicitly 'backed' by the SAU , with a presence in all of the SAU's territory on Earth and having both Gjallarhorn and government officials in their pocket.

As is to be expected, the blocs are as sordid as contemporary nations, with the criminal classes very much in on the act.

The African Union

That's the Republic of Gambia's flag rearranged into something less cool.

I hesitate to classify the African Union conspiring with Gjallarhorn against the workers unions as an act of corruption, on the principle that 'corruption' implies the system is not functioning as intended. Far from being broken by moving to curtail the activism of people who are (theoretically) its citizens, the Union works to perpetuate its interests, something judged to have been harmed when it eventually concedes to some of the workers' demands. These are economic blocs, after all. Extracting profit and generating wealth is the tacit reason for their existence.

Let's back up. I've re-litigated Season 1's Dort Colony arc in multiple essays at this point, largely because it is a capsule of the series' themes. The struggles of the people who operate industrial facilities for the benefit of "rich factory owners from Earth" -- who live in splendour compared to the slums where the masses are relegated -- culminates with a bloody massacre, Gjallarhorn having manufactured an excuse for violence by allowing tensions to escalate to the point of armed insurrection. These events provide a snapshot of how the writers conceive of colonial and anti-labour oppression, a demonstration of the injustices that permeate every level of the society they have imagined, and an ambiguous moment of success for the protagonists. Kudelia Aina Bernstein gets to be the brave, fearless 'maiden of revolution', photogenically turning the media apparatus against government overreach. But it is underpinned by dubious backroom deals and a sense of how easily things could have gone the other way. This won't be the last time Tekkadan faces the Arianrhod Fleet and their visible insignificance before hundreds of ships and mobile suits is sinisterly prefigurative in retrospect.

For my purposes today, there are two important components to this arc. Well, three really, but we can take Gjallarhorn's utility as the blocs' enforcer as read. So -- the first is how the African Union relates to those living aboard the space colonies, and the second is the way in which those colonies are run for its benefit.

The Dort Company is described as running the colonies as a 'public enterprise' for the Union. As I mentioned in an aside while writing about how IBO engages with capitalism, this creates a surface-level contradiction where we have factories privately owned, presumably for profit, but the colonies themselves framed as a public service. Yet I don't think anybody familiar with how privatisation consumes such services will have a hard time reconciling this. The degree to which the Union is or is not doing state capitalism is ultimately irrelevant: the conflict is between the workers and the company that employs them, as a proxy for the bloc that consigned them to a miserable existence as expendable labour.

The Dort Company is an extremely prominent presence, their branding displayed at scale and their workers all sporting green jackets. 'Dort', by the way, is the historical English name for Dordrecht, the oldest city in Holland and a shipbuilding centre for the Netherlands Trading Society, which maintained shipping lines to the 'Dutch East Indies' (Indonesia). Dordrecht also gave its name to a town in South Africa, in a further link to European imperialism. I can't be sure to what extent IBO's writers were deliberately evoking that history, but it seems unlikely to be an idle connection. The Dort Company is a tool of an Earth-centric empire, maintaining the industrial mechanisms that sustain the African Union, space colonies having taken the place of 'third-world' manufacturing centres. This is where consumer goods are produced, for those who live well, by those who scrape by in poverty.

The visuals sell this with straightforward bluntness. We are shown the slums that house the workers and we are shown the shopping centres frequented by the factory-owning class. Yamagi comments, on seeing the home of labour union leader Navona Mingo on Dort 2, that he expected the colonies to be a lot nicer. He was perhaps picturing the kind of environment Mikazuki, Biscuit, Kudelia, Atra and Fumintan explore aboard Dort 3, a 'first-world' cityscape. The point being made is that these contrasts go together, often in the very cities that look so good on the surface. There is always a disposable underclass, always exploitation required to fuel superficial prosperity.

What I find interesting is that in none of this do we ever see the 'true' African Union, the society the Dort Colonies exist to serve. We never meet any representatives of the Union itself: Gjallarhorn deals with Dort Company executives and faceless communiques. Even in spin-off manga Moon Steel, where the bribery of Gjallarhorn officers by African Union officials is a key plot point, the action remains focused on the space colonies, on the people living in what is essentially captive territory.

This is likewise true for the previous two blocs I've covered and it's a canny choice, centring the struggles of the colonial subjects. The African Union has a 'ruling council'. But our sole insight into them is that they decide to reverse course and put a stop to Gjallarhorn's anti-labour operation at the last minute, afraid of the media exposure Nobliss Gordon arranged for Kudelia. The Dort Company then comes to the table with the (remaining) workers, granting labour rights equal to those existing on Earth.

Obviously this tells us such rights are not the general rule in the colonies, that employees on Earth enjoy privileges denied to those in space, and that the Union leadership is sufficiently sensitive to bad press, they don't want to be seen to sanction the killing of hundreds of colonists. At the same time, what is not said is also significant. We don't know, precisely, what 'rights equal to workers on Earth' materially entails. McGillis' backstory establishes the existence of a terrestrial underclass. There is every reason to believe Yamagi's misapprehensions hold true for the planet as they do for the space colonies: there is no land of wholesale luxury, just the same hierarchical, exploitative structures repeated in different locations.

I admit to finding the idea of Europe being subsumed into an African Union a deliciously ironic one. As a background detail, it's shallowly pleasing. Implied turnabout. But that doesn't matter, does it? Any redress of historical crimes is overshadowed by the fact nothing has been fixed. The same old imperial structures are reiterated, the same old injustices perpetuated. Who is being exploited is of lesser concern than that exploitation is occurring. That's why the details of the blocs' governmental structure and home conditions are largely irrelevant. They are powerful national entities engaged in the operation of capitalism at the expense of their subjects. Whether those operations occur in Indonesia, high orbit or on Mars, the flaw lies in the basic structure of the relationship.

Someone is being worked to death so that someone else, distant or otherwise isolated from this material reality, can profit.

Arbrau

OK, now you're just throwing shapes at a background.

It is inevitable that the bloc we are told the most about should be the one that owns the territory in which the story begins. Chryse is an Arbrau colony; ergo, it is with the Arbrau government that Kudelia must negotiate in order to improve the lot of her fellow Martians. Season 1 is about reaching the heart of this bloc's power, the parliament in Edmonton, Alberta, an aim that morphs into restoring Togonosuke Makanai to the office of prime minister and stymieing the machinations of his Gjallarhorn-backed rival, Henri Fleurs. At last, we can take a look at how Iron-Blooded Orphans conceptualises the political functions of its quartered Earth.

Gundam Wiki states that Arbrau "appears to be a parliamentary democracy" and, while I occasionally have cause to take issue with the editors at that site, this is entirely correct. There is a parliament, as mentioned, a prime minister, a debating chamber, and elections. It is an overtly civilian institution, in contrast to Gjallarhorn's militaristic aristocracy. It is overtly civilised, in the sense of being a bunch of people in business suits ruling a nation.

I should clarify immediately, not least because this threw me on first viewing, that it is not the form of parliamentary democracy found in modern-day Canada. The way the election of the prime minister works is modelling (unsurprisingly) on the Japanese system, where the legislative body holds responsibility for nominating someone to that position (rather than it being de-facto filled by the leader of the dominant party). Hence Makanai and Fleurs courting the support of various ministers and the election being entirely contained within the bounds of the sitting government.

In the epilogue to the series, Lasker Alessi talks about having a constituency, hoping Takaki will take over from him there in the future. We can take from this that Arbrau is a representative parliamentary democracy (not a given; parliaments can operate without representing the citizenry), and therefore that it is more or less the assumed default in the context where the show was written. This is what politics is 'supposed' to look like.

These markers of familiarity are worth bearing in mind when considering the ways Arbrau is depicted as being overtly sympathetic. Makanai has long championed greater economic freedom for the Chryse region; indeed, Arbrau was the first of the blocs to grant limited autonomy to its Martian colonies, some hundred odd years prior to the present. The parliament members respond favourably to Kudelia's landmark speech before them. Later, Alessi takes Takaki on as his protegee, and Edmonton is where the Human Debris Abolishment Treaty is signed.

Furthermore, Chyrse is the only colonial holding Arbrau is shown to possess. While Governor Norman Bernstein is a craven, cowardly man who sells out his own daughter, he is also depicted as being in Gjallarhorn's pocket, part of the (textual, actual) corruption miring the governance of Mars. It is Gjallarhorn who work to uphold the present colonial arrangements, opposing those more open to change. They are behind Fleurs and her temporary ousting of Makanai. Lord Iznario Fareed might be acting for his own personal gain, but he also represents the factions who wish for things to continue as they are, in opposition to McGillis's revolutionary movement and Rustal Elion's (eventual) reforms.

If Arbrau has its own equivalent of the Dort Company, this is kept off-screen. Is it reasonable to assume it does? We know from Urdr Hunt that Dort is one colony management company among many -- the Omden Colony Company is arguably even worse -- so it's far from implausible that Arbrau would have a similar arrangement with its own set of industrial colonies. There is also mention of an 'Outer Sphere Development Corporation' on Mars, which sounds very much like what you would name something that went around exploiting poorer nations for the betterment of shareholders in richer ones. And besides, Chryse has definitely not done well out of Arbrau's nominal stewardship. Abandoning the colony to Gjallarhorn's rule speaks to how little regard has been shown to the people living there, not to mention that while Makanai says his belief in advancing their cause is long-held, it has amounted to very little concrete difference over the course of his presumably lengthy career. Kudelia's trip to Earth is a clearly necessary spur to action.

Action results, though. The restrictions on Chryse are eased, a step toward Mars becoming an independent state. Arbrau is the vanguard of a change in attitude towards the red planet. Perhaps then we should ask why this bloc among the four would be the one to begin this process (beyond the mere narrative convenience of 'that's where the majority of the cast come from').

As I alluded to at the top of this post, I struggle to see the sense in joining Canada, Alaska, Russia and Svalbard together when you're also combining India and China, the entirety of Europe with the entirety of Africa, and the majority of the Americas into one. It really doesn't follow from modern population distributions, nor can I imagine it being an easy stretch of geography to manage. That it should be ruled from Edmonton is additionally baffling; it's not like Russia doesn't have existing civic infrastructure, placed at an awkward distance from this capital.

We can of course attempt to fill in the blanks. We might say a large number of refugees were displaced north during the Calamity War, fleeing densely populated areas for the relative safety of Russian and Canadian wildernesses. There is something compelling about this idea, that Gjallarhorn had to redraw the map simply based on where people ended up once the dust settled.

But let's take Arbrau as given: an expanse of tundra, connected by trains the prime minister doesn't seem to have known were there. Even admitting there are a great many large cities continued within its borders and assuming an increased population, it looks paltry in comparison to the other blocs, seeming to lack large amounts of colonial territory and needing to create a defence force from the ground up when tensions escalate. Where the SAU and the African Union display pre-existing mobile suit stockpiles (placed in the hands of the SAU military and the Dort Company, respectively), Arbrau must buy new 'suits from Gjallarhorn and rely on mercenary groups like Tekkadan to train its recruits.

Overall, everything we learn of Arbrau makes it appear weaker than its counterparts and maybe that in itself is why it should be at the forefront of letting go of Mars. Empires are only worthwhile so long as the costs are outweighed by the gains. A weaker bloc is less likely to make that equation work. Ergo, once Chryse is more trouble than it's worth -- say, because the governor's daughter just parked a paramilitary group run by teenagers on the front lawn -- letting it go becomes an inevitability.

As much as Makanai is broadly on the side of our protagonists, he remains an ambiguous character. He is openly self-serving, threatening Tekkadan into assisting him and frequently espousing a hard-hearted, cynical world-view. If he wasn't just flattering Kudelia, then he genuinely gave little thought to the infrastructure that operated at the ground-level of his nation. He later goes on to treat a greater sense of the moral weight of his actions (following a brush with death) as a personal failing. Given all this, it is unfeasible he would act without considering the economic realities of possessing colonies, good and bad. Thus, his decision to support Kudelia must also benefit Arbrau, freeing them of an economic burden and -- perhaps -- sowing discord among Arbrau's rivals.

This is, once again, speculation, filling space in the narrative where details are not required. To return to my earlier point, the nature of the blocs is far less important than their presence as oppressive forces. They and their representatives signify wealth and power imposing itself upon a wider world. Indeed, signifiers of wealth take the place of any technicalities of the colonial system. The Governor's residence in Chryse is of a piece with Dort 3 and even with Rubian Zahn's castle. This is what the ruling class looks like, in Iron-Blooded Orphans, and the visual obviates the need for explanation.

The Arbrau parliament is the same kind of shorthand. The image of a reasonable political system that, though it may suffer from bad actors, can still be gamed to create good results. It's only natural for it to resemble the form of government socially agreed upon to be correct, by dint of it being the one outside.

Yet, as with everything else IBO does, there is a pleasing degree of problematisation on display. Makanai is the only significant human face provided for the blocs and he is, beneath his oft-times jovial affect, a cold, aloof pragmatist who acts to secure his own position first and foremost, personal beliefs subject to the flow of power around him. His status as a helpful, progressive figure is tinged by his being at home within the broader context. Reasonable and proper though parliamentary democracy is in principle, the reality is still assumed to be unpleasant.

Indeed, can a 'democracy' that owns/owned colonies be anything else?

Cartographical gestures

Let's get this out of the way: the economic blocs as depicted are exactly as fleshed-out as the block-colour map shown in episode 4. That is to say, they are shorthand for global superpowers engaged in a vast, sprawling competition. There is little culture, political nuance, or comprehensible structure instilled into them. These are simply not things Iron-Blooded Orphans cares about exploring and there's no connective tissue to be 'decoded' from what we're shown.

As ever, we can speculate wildly (and have a lot of fun doing so), and unpick what the sketched background tell us about the creators' assumptions and approach. We can question how they envision government bodies, military build-up, American criminality, even what 'rich' looks like. But it is important to be able to step back and really grasp what we are looking at.

The episode 4 map is there to inform the audience that the world is divided between massive superpowers, that the division was enacted by Gjallarhorn, and that the results define where and why our heroes are going on their journey. The actual details of the division are irrelevant. Further, the differences between the blocs are far less significant than their similarities. At the start of the show, they all possess colonies, they can all be assumed to be party to oppressive acts, we have no reason to think their systems of government differ much (they were all set up by the same group of people, at the same time), and their reactions to developments in the setting are of a piece. They even release their hold on Mars in unison! Arbrau gets cast in a more positive light than the others, but that has more to do with Makanai's role as a (relatively) reasonable authority figure. It's not hard to imagine the introduction of equally reasonable characters representing the other blocs, with no change to the underlying message that the blocs at large are callous, indifferent, and imperialistic.

Suffice to say, I think this is the right decision for the story Iron-Blooded Orphans is telling. It is also an entirely unremarkable move, hand-waving a larger world as justification for a particular plot. But I find myself considering the a conceptual floor represented by that map. A geopolitical why underlying Makanai's behaviour is not extant because the story is about the difficulty of reaching those in power with pleas for improvement. Within this framework, he just is a supporter of Martian autonomy and that's that. Digging beneath this is writing fan-fic, not extracting 'lore' or canonical detail.

Ultimately, I take from that a lesson in a piece of fiction's priorities. We have here a marker of a certain geopolitical relationship, within a tale about oppression primarily told from the perspective of the oppressed, that is not strictly concerned with the mechanics of said relationship but rather what it entails.

The map is wallpaper.

Interesting, simplistic, potentially insensitive wallpaper that can be used as the basis for some good stories.

Yet wallpaper all the same.

[Index of other writing]

[ptseti]

FVCKING FACTS

DOLLAR IS JUST PAPER

At the 16th annual BRICS summit (22-24 October), member states adopted the ‘Kazan Declaration’, with provisions to strengthen multilateralism, enhance cooperation for global and regional stability and security, foster economic and financial cooperation, and strengthen people-to-people exchanges for social and economic development. They also approved a BRICS ‘grain exchange’ to ensure food stability.

Some, like Zimbabwe-born motivational speaker Joshua Maponga in this clip, argue that fiat currencies, like the US dollar, Euro, British pound and Japanese yen, should be abandoned in favour of a gold-backed system.

At the summit, the bloc of five original members (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) plus four new members (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates) welcomed using local currencies for transactions between BRICS countries and their trading partners.

Many African presidents have called for de-dollarisation, but the biggest win may be when Saudi Arabia pulls away from a decades-old petrodollar deal with the US.

The US dollar was pegged to gold’s value until US President Richard Nixon (1913-94) removed the gold standard in 1971. Since then, the US has printed the world’s reserve currency at will, sealing its status as a global hegemon.

So, how can countries break free of the US dollar's grip? Maponga argues gold is the answer.

[ayeforscotland]

Is it weird to say I think your grievances are correct but your solutions aren't?

Like agreed the UK is a shithole and getting shitholier by the day in a menagerie of ways but I don't think independence would fix any of that? For Scotland anyway.

Like Scotland is probably one of the best places to be in the UK rn but once it's out of the UK it won't be able to keep doing the things that achieve that (currency trade fiscal deficit etc). Plus you have the Maastricht issue.

Its a weird place to be. Objectively better than the UK at large but only so far as it's a part of it.

Idk why I'm sending this to a Scottish independence blog like this is going to radically shift your perception of the world but eh.

I hope you know how weird you sound claiming that Scotland is uniquely incapable of being an independent country when there are successfully countries out there with less population and less resources.

You can’t just rhyme off ‘Currency, trade, fiscal deficit’ as if those problems aren’t what every other country faces.

Will we have a currency? Yes. We’ll need an independent currency. Whether or not we join the Euro will be dictated by whether or not we choose to meet the requirements of ERM II. If we want to delay joining the Euro we can simply fail to meet the requirements.

Will we trade? Yes. Rejoining the EU will give us access to the largest trading bloc on the planet. Our ability to trade is currently hampered in the UK.

Will we have a huge fiscal deficit? The UK government would certainly like to think that, but this really all comes down to negotiation. Currently, Scotland is *assigned* a proportion of debt the UK Government borrows. It’s not an indication of the economic decisions of an independent Scottish government.

If the UK does want to Scotland to take on its share of UK national debt, then Scotland will be entitled to its share of UK national assets.

I’ve been doing this a long time. Your points aren’t new, it’s what unionists were saying back in 2014 and since then the UK government has committed economic and social vandalism on communities with Scotland spending hundreds of millions to mitigate bad UK government policy like the Bedroom Tax.

Yes, there’s a lot of facets to independence but the most important thing for me is having the responsibility to make decisions for ourselves.

[mariacallous]

As 400 million Europeans get set to elect 720 EU parliamentarians in June, polls are predicting big gains for right-wing populists. As a result, for the first time since the European Parliament was directly elected in 1979, it is expected to have a solid majority on the right. This will mark a “sharp right turn” for Europe, the European Council of Foreign Affairs (ECFR) recently noted. The consequences for European politics and policy are already coming into view.

The center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the left-leaning Socialists and Democrats party (S&D) are again expected to finish in first and second place, although both may lose a handful of seats. The EU’s far-right groups, Identity and Democracy (ID) and the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), will improve their tally mainly at the expense of liberals and Greens. According to ECFR, populists are likely to be the top vote-getter in nine countries, including Austria, the Netherlands, France, Hungary, Poland, and Italy. In nine others, including Spain and Germany, they could emerge as strong second or third-place contenders.

ID—which includes the main anti-immigrant and Eurosceptic parties in Germany (Alternative for Deutschland or AfD), France (National Rally), and Italy (the League or Lega)—is likely to become the EU parliament’s third-largest group after elections are held between June 6 and 9. The ECR is led by Georgia Meloni, Italy’s prime minister and leader of the post-fascist Brothers of Italy party, and is home to Sweden’s Sweden Democrats and Poland’s Law and Justice party (PiS). If authoritarian Hungarian leader Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party, a member of the EPP until a few years ago, joins the ECR as expected, the far-right could claim a quarter of the total seats.

Political machinations already seem to be underway among some establishment parties to create cooperation with this newly powerful bloc. Experts say if the EPP, the strongest conservative party in the EU, welcomes far-right politicians in its fold or co-opts their policies, as it has lately been accused of, the balance of power in Europe will decisively shift to the right and have major implications for not just the EU’s common agenda but may also influence how member states decide critical policies.

“I think in our campaign we will ask the EPP to be pragmatic, to pick the alternative to a center-left majority,” Marco Campomenosi, a Lega politician and the head of the Italian delegation in ID, told Foreign Policy.

Experts say any such shift will have major implications for the EU as a whole, tainting its recent promises to pursue a humane migration policy and to establish rule of law at home that encourages democratic checks and balances. An empowered far-right may also keep coordination on a common defense policy to the bare minimum in the face of a looming threat from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The EU’s flagship Green Deal climate framework, which has set a goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, is also at stake, as the populists try to push the EU to erode its commitment to renewable energy development and other climate policies.

Charlie Weimers, a member of the far-right Sweden Democrats that supports Sweden’s minority center-right government, said, his party’s priority is to push for a “Migration Pact 2.0,” with more stringent measures to stop the influx of immigrants than already listed in the new migration pact. “We need to stop asylum,” he told FP over the phone. “We need breathing space to deal with the immigrants already here otherwise we can never catch up.”

Lega’s Campomenosi said, “it’s not about the money” but about the “trouble” immigrants make. (Under the new migration pact an EU member state which refuses to accept an asylum seeker should pay a sum of 20,000 euros to an EU fund.) “If there are too many immigrants they can’t be integrated,” he added.

Three far-right parliamentarians told FP that with bigger numbers in Parliament they will be able to apply more pressure on the EU commissioner to throw out or dilute the green deal.

It “needs to go away,” Joachim Kuhs, the acting head of the AfD delegation in EU which is polling as the second strongest party in Germany, told FP in his office in the parliament. “It should be repealed and replaced,” Weimers added.

The liberal groups say the center-right has strengthened the far-right by co-opting its policies and forming alliances in individual member states.

Pedro Marques, a vice president of the S&D group, said the EPP parties have been “eroding the Cordon Sanitaire,” erected to keep the far-right out of governments and important positions. “The EPP is dancing with the far right,” he added, with grave consequences for the future of the union.

The cordon sanitaire is crumbling in many European nations. In Italy, the far-right is in power, in Sweden the center-right government is backed by the far-right. In Austria, center-right and far-right have been in a coalition, and the latter is polling ahead of all others in the run up to national elections. In France, Marine Le Pen is leading the polls, and in Germany, the conservatives have hinted at future cooperation at a regional level with the far-right AfD.

The legitimization of the far-right isn’t limited to member states. Ursula Von Der Leyen, a member of the EPP and EU commissioner, has alluded to Meloni’s inclusion in her grouping. She said it wasn’t clear which parties will remain in the ECR after the elections and which will leave, and “join EPP.”

Hans Kundnani, writer of a book called Eurowhiteness, said the boundaries between the ID, ECR and the EPP have always been “very fluid.”

“As soon as Meloni indicated she won’t be disruptive in the Eurozone, that she won’t be pro-Russian, centrist pro-European EPP said that’s great, we don’t mind,” Kundnani said. “The center right has no problem with far-right at all, they just have a problem with those who are Eurosceptic.”

Experts say Von Der Leyen has often backed off on key policies to appease the far-right. Just over the last few months as the farmers protested against the provisions of the green deal, the far-right found another issue to mobilize against mainstream parties. During election season, Von Der Leyen quickly conceded and granted several concessions to the agriculture sector that will affect the 2050 net zero target.

The best example of how the EU commissioner validated the far-right’s worldview, Kundnani argued, was when she created a post for an EU commissioner to promote a European way of life.

“The big theme of the European far-right is that the immigrants threaten European civilization,” he said. When Von Der Leyen created the position, she framed “immigration as a threat to the European way of life,” and in doing so legitimized the far-right.

It is unclear if co-opting the far-right’s talking points benefits the center right in keeping their traditional voters from moving towards populists, but there is an emerging consensus that it strengthens the radical right in the longer run. For its part, the far-right has moderated its own positions on many issues to appeal to the voters more to the center. The far-right parties say they are no longer calling for an exit from the EU, but merely to reform it from within. They say they back Ukraine and not Putin.

Many parties on the far-right advocate return of border controls in violation of the EU’s founding principle of free movement of people and goods. Last year, the AfD described the EU as a “failed project,’’ while Sweden Democrats said they had “good reasons to seriously reevaluate our membership in the union.” There is still a lingering suspicion that the rank-and-file members of the far-right parties harbor sympathy for Putin. Last month, Lega’s leader Matteo Salvini deflected when asked if he blamed Putin for Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s sudden death.

The parliamentarians of the ID and ECR with whom FP spoke expressly rejected Von Der Leyen’s proposal to appoint a dedicated defense commissioner to improve coordination among member states on matters of defense.

“We say that we want to manage immigration in a humane way, we can do better to manage the borders,” added Marques of the S&D. In response to the far-right’s demand to externalize the screening of asylum seekers, he said it was difficult to find credible partners. “We did this agreement with the Tunisian authorities, but when we tried to go there to check the conditions, to see how European money will be spent, they said we don’t want your agreement anymore. These have to be credible partnerships.”

The center-left S&D party simply dismisses the moderated stances of far-right parties as a charade. They believe the far-right simply wants the benefits of being in the union, not the costs that sometimes come with upholding its values. “They want an EU without the rule of law, without humanity,” Marques said. “That’s not what we built after the Second World War. They want to change the EU into something that it isn’t. Their values are not European.”

[mist-the-wannabe-linguist]

I see the Qun being compared to communism by many DA fans as criticism but honestly yes, gimme. hire people who studied the history of the Eastern Bloc or people who grew up and lived under communism, show both the good and the bad and turn it up to 11. make my east euro heart happy

and they better have paneláky on Par Vollen

[follow-up-news]

Google lost its last bid to overturn a European Union antitrust penalty, after the bloc’s top court ruled against it Tuesday in a case that came with a whopping fine and helped jumpstart an era of intensifying scrutiny for Big Tech companies. The European Union’s top court rejected Google’s appeal against the 2.4 billion euro ($2.7 billion) penalty from the European Commission, the 27-nation bloc’s top antitrust enforcer, for violating antitrust rules with its comparison shopping service. Also Tuesday, Apple lost its challenge against an order to repay 13 billion euros ($14.34 billion) in back taxes to Ireland, after the European Court of Justice issued a separate decision siding with the commission in a case targeting unlawful state aid for global corporations. Both companies have now exhausted their appeals in the cases that date to the previous decade.

[capybaracorn]

Why has Belgium vowed to back the ICJ’s verdict on Gaza ‘genocide’?

Unlike other European nations, Belgium has said it would support the international court’s decisions on South Africa’s case against Israel.

As the world anticipates a preliminary verdict from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, leaders in the European Union remain divided on how to interpret the decision.

Shortly after the two-day hearing at the world’s top court in the Hague earlier this month, where South Africa told the ICJ that Israel’s actions in the Gaza strip violated the UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention, Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic – staunch allies of Israel – rejected these claims. Hungary condemned the case, while Berlin declared that it would intervene on Israel’s behalf at the ICJ.

Last week, France, which is home to Europe’s largest Muslim and Jewish minorities and has been in the headlines for banning pro-Palestine protests since October 7, chimed in, saying Paris also does not support the ICJ case against Israel.

“To accuse the Jewish state of genocide is to cross a moral threshold,” said French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne.

Other EU nations have remained silent on the court case.

Slovenia is an exception, having announced its support for another ICJ case against Israel regarding Palestinian rights.

And, among the bloc’s more outspoken critics of Israel’s military conduct in Palestine, Ireland has adopted a cautious stance. In Spain, the minority left-wing Sumar party in the coalition government backed South Africa’s case.

Last week, in Belgium, socialist politician Caroline Gennez, minister of development cooperation and urban policy, said the country would support to the ICJ’s decision.

“If the International Court of Justice calls on Israel to cease its military campaign in Gaza, our country will fully support it,” she said in a social media post.

At a news conference in Brussels on Friday, Ludivine Dedonder, defence minister, reiterated: “Today, the Belgian government is speaking out in favour of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid, and support for the ICJ.”

What’s behind Belgium’s position?

The prevailing European view since October 7 has been that Israel has a right to self-defence against the Palestinian group Hamas, as long as it stays within the boundaries of international law.

But as the latest escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict rages on, some Belgian leaders have been more openly critical of Israel’s actions as the Palestinian death toll mounts.

After Hamas attacked southern Israel in early October, killing 1,139 people, Israeli forces have bombarded Gaza, the densely populated Strip Hamas governs with a pre-war population of 2.2 million people. During air attacks and as part of its ground invasion, the Israeli army has killed more than 25,000 people, among them many women and children, and stands accused of widespread atrocities.

In November, the Belgian government, a coalition of seven political parties, said 5 million euros ($5.4m) from the federal government will be used to support the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to investigate possible war crimes in Israel and Gaza.

Brigitte Herremans, a postdoctoral researcher at the Human Rights Centre at the University of Gent in Belgium, told Al Jazeera the tiny European country traditionally adopts strong positions on international law with regard to the Middle East conflict.

“Observers would say that it also has to do with Belgium’s own history of being occupied historically by foreign powers,” she added.

During both world wars, Belgium was under German occupation.

Herremans said that Belgium’s stance today is similar to its previous positions on other foreign policy issues, such as the Iraq war.

“In general, we always saw Belgium somehow stick to a position that the acquisition of territory by force wasn’t accepted,” she said.

But Marc Botenga, of Belgium’s leftist Workers’ Party and an EU lawmaker, said the government’s support to the ICJ is still limited.

“If you look closely at their statement there is no active attitude to actually support the South African case against Israel. The government just says they will support whatever decision the ICJ takes, which is logical since all member states of the United Nations are supposed to support the institution’s court,” Bottenga told Al Jazeera. “However we have to commend the Belgian public for this stance which other EU nations have not really taken.”

Large protests in different Belgian cities have played a role in pressuring the government to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, he said.

Meanwhile, Belgium has declared its participation in the EU Red Sea Mission against Yemen’s Houthis, the Iran-linked group which says its recent attacks on ships linked to Israel or its allies are aimed at pressuring officials to stop the onslaught of Gaza.

“That’s not the kind of stance we want,” Bottega said of Belgium’s participation.

Herremans said that since Belgium currently holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union – a decision-making body in which ministers coordinate policies and adopt laws – his country is responsible for developing consensus.

“Belgium has to take into account the position of staunch pro-Israeli countries, so [it] might have to be more cautious and less vocal on international law. But it will not take a fundamentally different position from what it always has,” she said.

Belgium’s position on Israel-Palestine

Historically, Belgium has shown solidarity towards Palestine while also supporting Israel.

At the UN in 2012, it voted in favour of giving Palestine “non-member” observer status. Last year, it supported a UN resolution ordering the ICJ to investigate the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

But discussing the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the Parliament can be difficult, because of diverse views between political parties in the Flanders in the north, Wallonia in the south, and the Brussels region.

Some Belgian sources told Al Jazeera that of the seven coalition partners, the progressives – Greens and Social Democrats – believe concrete measures have to be taken to ensure international law is applied in the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank with regard to the ICJ case.

In recent months, the Flemish Liberal Party of Prime Minister De Croo and Flemish Christian-Democrats have also toughened their stance on the situation in Palestine.

In November, the premier described Israel’s campaign in Gaza as “disproportionate” as he condemned the army’s bombing of Gaza refugee camps.

But the French-speaking Liberal Party, to which the foreign affairs minister belongs, has traditionally been pro-Israel.

Elections

Looking ahead, Belgium heads to the polls in June, which could end up shifting the country’s stance if a new government comes into power.

Fourat Ben Chikha, vice president of the senate, the federal parliament’s upper house, told Al Jazeera that even if the current coalition changes, as an international community, de-escalation and respect for human rights and international law should be every Belgian government’s priority.

Willem Staes, senior Middle East adviser at 11.11.11, a Belgian international solidarity organisation which lobbies Belgian and European governments to uphold human rights, said that regardless of the Belgian government’s composition, foreign policy has traditionally focused on fighting against impunity and promoting accountability.

“The current government is consequently applying this logic and leading the way at EU level. So providing support to the ICJ and the ICC, or calling for a permanent ceasefire, is not about being ‘pro-Palestinian’ or ‘anti-Israel’,” Staes told Al Jazeera.

“It’s about common sense and choosing the only logical side, which is the side of international law. The fact that this is considered ‘radical’ by some tells you everything you need to know about the state of European politics.”

[aristotels]

re EE being in the periphery. i’m pretty sure there were articles about how germany uses EE countries in EU for cheap labor. like sure, they’re privileged compared to most say african states, but it’s not like WE countries give that privilege for free or out of good heart, when in reality it’s geographic control + cheap labor + brain drain. combined with the fact that EU doesn’t allow for state control of markets, it means that those EE countries that had state enterprises are now in disadvantage. like i think EE countries have more in common with latin american countries than western europe , idk.

yeah, and not only articles you can find in english, but there are actual studies and articles; they are however in croatian so i dont know how much help would that be (the emmigration issue here is huge, its mainly to germany/ireland) (we have so many SONGS about moving to germany and ireland too). heres wikipedia on it, i guess you can use google translate and it also lists something quite shocking: many cities and villages in croatia and bosnia have more people living in germany than in their respective native towns.

as for lived experience, when i visited germany, you could literally walk around the city and find our people there, mostly in low-skill jobs. i once said "u pičku materinu" and a totally random guy in the street was like "ooooo pa evo i naših". "arbajt" and "bauštela" are such common phrases here that they have become memes, and dalmatians from zagora literally wear mercedes signs around their necks. recently there was an article saying how, despite euro, people from imotski STILL mourn over the deutsch marke, because they used to go work there, and then would come home and just live for an entire month off one bill. they STILL convert euros to marke.

EE is a neo-colony to the WE. whenever i talk about this, while i do use EE as a term because its more understood than SEE (southern-eastern europe), my experiences are yugoslavian, and there are big differences between eastern bloc and exyu countries. it isnt the same, economically nor politically, since yugoslavia was a part of the third world movement, thus primarily working with african and latam countries in its past (also reason why we have the lowest skin-based-racism in europe)(different than nationality racism, thats what we excel at).

a lot of croats (esp dalmatians) mainly moved to latam countries during ww2 as opposed to the usa (the current chilean and argentinian presidents are croatian dalmatians)(sorry guys we are kinda ruining yalls countries)

it was very surprising to me when i started following global-south-commies on here, they always have very positive opinions of yugoslav countries. i find it very endearing how all my political yugoslav posts end up being hits among them.

politics unrelated, croats tend to love latam countries because of football, messi was literally the coolest person in the entire world while i was a kid. there are lots of similarities in mentality.

[max1461]

I've said this many times before, but the terms "West" and "East" are massively overloaded, geographically inaccurate, excessively value laden, and a bunch of other bothersome stuff. Here are some alternatives.

For referring to sets of countries with specific attributes that already have commonly known names, just use those names; e.g. "rich countries", "poor countries", "primarily agrarian countries", "industrialized countries", whatever.

For referring to European settler colonies, there is an adjective "Eurocolonial".

For referring to the set of countries including those in Europe and their present and former settler colonies (one common meaning of "the West", and IMO the one most difficult to find an alternate term for) I am tempted to suggest the cumbersome "Euro-Eurocolonial", as in "the Euro-Eurocolonial world". This is unambiguous but ugly. You might also try "Eurocolonial sensu lato", and oppose to the above "Eurocolonial sensu stricto". When it's clear from context, both can be shortened simply to "Eurocolonial".

For referring to the geopolitical alignment emergent from the former Western bloc, I think "the West" is technically appropriate but is confusing. The phrase "Western Bloc" itself is unambiguous but anachronistic; I am tempted to say something like "the ascended Western bloc", accurate but goofy. Hmm. Any ideas? Might just drop the pretense and call it "America's bloc" ("American bloc" is somewhat ambiguous as well). Any other ideas?

[stackslip]

The European Union is set to generate millions of euros more from the high rejection rates of visa applications by African visitors with a new increase in non-refundable fees.

Citizens of the 26 member states within Europe’s Schengen area have unhindered borderless access within the area, while most travelers from elsewhere require visas. A 12.5% price hike that takes effect on June 11 increases the cost of a short-term (90 days) visa application to €90.

But while the price hike applies equally to all non-EU residents who require a Schengen visa, it raises the prospect of the bloc making disproportionately more money from its rejection rates for applicants from Africa, analysts say.

Of the €130 million the EU earned in 2023 from rejected visa applications, about 42% of that was from applicants living in Africa, even though the continent accounts for 24% of Schengen visa applications, according to London-based research firm LAGO Collective. Prospective visitors who apply from Ghana, Senegal and Nigeria receive rejection rates of between 40% and 50%, LAGO estimated, based on data from the European Commission’s migration and home affairs office.

“We found a relationship between the GDP of countries and rejection rates for short-term visas,” Marta Foresti, LAGO’s founder, told Semafor Africa. A similar rejection trend in 2024 with the new price would deepen long-standing inequality of outcomes between consumers paying for the same service from high and low-income countries, Foresti said.

While these encourage dangerous attempts to reach Europe across seas and deserts, most African migration is via “regular channels,” the Africa Center for Strategic Studies in Washington DC notes.

Yet Africans applying to visit Europe for short-term stays, such as business engagements or conferences, continue to face a stumbling block.

Average rejection rates for African applicants are generally 10 percentage points higher than the global average, Mehari Taddele Maru, a researcher at the EU-owned European University Institute in Italy, found. Seven of the top ten countries with the highest rejection rates for Schengen visa applications in 2022 were in Africa.

The EU’s more expensive visa and its potentially disproportionate impact on Africans comes as the bloc takes a tougher stance on migration.

New rules approved by the EU Commission in April impose a higher standard for screening non-EU nationals at borders, including the collection of biometric data, and health and security checks. Border fences set up by member states within the Schengen area have become longer in the last decade, stretching from 315 km to 2,048 km as of 2022.

Higher visa prices could be another type of fence, which when combined with high rejection rates, will continue to enrich European consulates at the expense of residents of low income countries who nevertheless have legitimate reasons to be in Europe.

Africa’s high rejection rate is sometimes explained as a consequence of visitors overstaying their visas. But “there is no evidence to suggest that a higher rejection rate leads to a decrease in irregular migration or visa overstays,” Maru argues. In essence, an unexplained bias against Africans is at play.

The costs of rejection to African entrepreneurs, career professionals, artists and other seekers of the EU’s short-term visa calls for a reform of the approval process, Foresti told me. Consulates with high unequal outcomes should review their decision-making to ensure “systematic discrimination” against some countries isn’t an underlying cause.

And should some EU members enforce high rejection for short-term visas to dissuade overstays by residents of particular African countries, more paths to legal migration should be considered, she argued.

[beardedmrbean]

European Union members discussed on Wednesday ways to increase the voluntary return of Syrian refugees to the war-torn country, an idea that has gained traction in recent months but that remains controversial.

The talks among ambassadors were promoted by Hungary, the country currently chairing the EU Council's presidency, and were based on a document presented by the European Commission, several diplomats said.

The document stressed the role played by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in supporting the return of Syrian refugees, which the EU is looking to strengthen.

These returns would take place on a strictly voluntary basis. The bloc cannot forcibly deport Syrians because they are almost always granted asylum. Additionally, the principle of non-refoulement forbids authorities from deporting migrants to nations where they could face persecution, torture or any other form of ill-treatment.

Ambassadors also touched on the lack of diplomatic relations with the autocratic regime of Bashar al-Assad, who has publicly called on his citizens to return, and the fraught situation in the Middle East, where hostilities between Israel and Lebanon have triggered the movement of tens of thousands into Syria.

The start of the Syrian Civil War in 2011 prompted millions to flee their homes and seek international protection in nearby countries, with many crossing into Europe.

The UNCHR estimates that European countries host over one million Syrian asylum seekers and refugees, with 59% of them based in Germany alone. Sweden, Austria, Greece, the Netherlands and France also host significant populations.

Last year, about 38,300 Syrian refugees chose to go back, the agency said in an annual overview, noting the conditions inside the country "were not yet conducive for the facilitation of large-scale voluntary returns in safety and dignity."

Concerns over security, livelihoods, basic services and housing were cited as reasons for the low rate of repatriations. About 90% of people in Syria live in poverty.

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch has warned that "Syrians fleeing violence in Lebanon face risks of repression and persecution by the Syrian government upon return, including enforced disappearance, torture and death in detention."

A similar assessment is shared by the Commission, which has repeatedly said current circumstances in Syria cannot ensure safe and dignified repatriations.

Talks are expected to continue among member states in the coming months, with no immediate breakthrough in sight. However, the fact the discussion is happening at all signals a growing political willingness to address the controversial matter.

Earlier this month, EU leaders endorsed a hardened approach to migration management and tasked the Commission with exploring outsourcing projects and reviewing the concept of "safe third countries" to speed up deportations.

The summit in Brussels featured Syria as one of the items on the agenda. "The European Council reaffirms the need to achieve conditions for safe, voluntary and dignified returns of Syrian refugees, as defined by UNHCR," leaders said in their conclusions.

In July, Italy and Austria led a joint letter of eight member states asking for a new EU strategy on Syria that should be "more active, results-oriented, and operational."

The European External Action Service (EEAS), the bloc's diplomatic arm, has confirmed it is considering appointing a special envoy for Syria, one of Italy's key demands.

Since 2011, the EU and member states have allocated more than €30 billion in humanitarian and development aid to support Syrians in the country and the region.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

Nonetheless, Palestinians have illegally built on more than 2,000 acres of Area C, spread across 250 different locations. This does not include 600 km of illegally-built roadways and more than 112,000 meters of retaining walls and terracing.

Investigative author Edwin Black, in a report entitled “EU Funding of Illegal Palestinian Settlement in Area C,” noted that Palestinian settlements “are often strategically scattered to effectively carve up Area C, sometimes surround Jewish villages, and sometimes push onto Israeli nature or military reserves.”

Black also described some of the various structures in these new, illegal settlements: Makeshift structures adorned with the EU logo on them, multi-floor office centers and palatial homes. “A broad gamut of construction styles can be seen,” he wrote.

All of this is being done in accordance with a joint Palestinian-EU plan to take control of land—without negotiations—for the creation of a de-facto Palestinian state based on the 1948 armistice lines that resulted from Israel’s war of independence.

An article in the Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture described the implementation of this plan: “Since August 2009, [Palestinian Prime Minister Salam] Fayyad, with the help of the Barack Obama administration and the European Union, has been quietly building national institutions and physical infrastructure . . . in the West Bank.”

Last year, it was revealed that the EU, too, has a secret plan to fund illegal Palestinian construction, known as the “European Joint Development Programme for Area C.” It has an annual budget of 300 million Euros.

One illegal Palestinian structure financed by the EU was a school located inside an Israeli nature reserve. Last May, Israel demolished it. In a statement, the IDF said the school was built illegally and “was found to be dangerous to the safety of anyone studying or otherwise visiting there,” therefore an Israeli court, “ordered it demolished.”

Instead of praising Israel for ensuring the safety of Palestinian children, the EU condemned the Jewish state. A spokesperson for the bloc said, “(Such) demolitions are illegal under international law and children’s rights to education must be respected.” Apparently, Palestinian children have the right to education, but not to safety.

As Edwin Black wrote in his report, “The European governments and the PA have thus joined forces to complete the final shredding of the already weakened Oslo agreements.”

[head-post]

EU to invest €1.8 bn in Moldova’s economy ahead of membership referendum

The European Union will allocate a record 1.8 billion euros ($2 billion) to Moldova to support the country’s plan to join the bloc, EU NeighboursEast reports.

The plan, which is the largest EU financial support package since Moldova’s independence, will boost Moldova’s economy, bring the country closer to EU membership by accelerating reforms and provide significant financial assistance.

Moldova’s growth plan is based on three pillars aimed at increasing financial assistance over the next three years through a special Reform and Growth Fund for Moldova, enhancing access to the European Union’s single market and supporting socio-economic and fundamental reforms in Moldova.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who arrived in Moldova to announce the package, said on Thursday that the EU could start bringing the Moldovan economy closer to the EU now. She also added:

Today I’m in Chișinău to present a support package with the potential of doubling the size of the country’s economy in a decade. To do so we invest in jobs, growth, services and infrastructure – from new hospitals in Balti and Cahul to the road from the capital to Odesa. We open the doors to our Single Market to Moldovan companies. And we support Moldova’s reform efforts.

Now, the European Parliament and the Council will have to consider the European Commission’s proposal to set up a Growth Fund for Moldova. Once it is adopted, Moldova will be invited to present its Reform Programme outlining the key socio-economic and fundamental reforms it intends to undertake to accelerate growth and convergence with the EU.

Read more HERE

[thoughtlessarse]

A group of 112 cities aiming to eliminate their net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 will need a combined 650 billion euros in investments to deliver the pledge, a European Union initiative said on Wednesday (26 June). Part of the EU’s “100 Climate Neutral and Smart Cities’ Mission“, the cities’ net-zero emissions goal is more ambitious than that of most governments, with the 27-country EU and Britain both setting a 2050 deadline. After 377 cities applied to join the programme, 100 from the bloc and 12 from associated countries were chosen and are developing a climate plan with support from the EU and non-profit advisory firm Bankers without Boundaries (BwB). That plan is then turned into an investment blueprint assessed by the European Commission and independent experts before the city is given a label to affirm the fact. To date, 33 cities have had their plans signed off, including Lyon, Seville, Malmo, Lisbon and Florence, with more expected to be approved in October. Projects could include retrofitting buildings to be more energy-efficient and adapting infrastructure to withstand more extreme weather events. “Historically, cities have not been significant partners for the private sector, but progress can be much faster if private capital is more involved,” said Allison Lobb, executive director of Bankers without Boundaries.

continue reading

[mariacallous]

While the failure to break through Russia’s fortified defensive lines on the southern axis this summer has been disappointing for Kyiv, the news on the diplomatic and political front is far more alarming.

Speaking about the progress of Ukraine’s counteroffensive in early December, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told The Associated Press: “We wanted faster results. From that perspective, unfortunately, we did not achieve the desired results. And this is a fact.”

While Ukraine has achieved some limited successes this year, with results in the Black Sea in the summer and a Kherson-region bridgehead firmly established east of the Dnipro River in the fall, the lack of significant territorial gains is a bitter pill to swallow for Kyiv.

But despite these setbacks, with the final taboos overcome regarding providing the heavy weaponry and long-range missile capabilities needed to win this war, the trajectory of the conflict was still arguably trending in Ukraine’s favor, according to many Western military experts, just as long as the coalition of democratic nation states maintaining Ukraine’s wartime economy held strong and the arms transfers kept arriving.

Winter’s developments, however, paint a far worse picture. Given the immense risks ahead, it is imperative that Kyiv starts preparing now for a future in which that coalition has fragmented.

In Europe, election victories for allies of Russian President Vladimir Putin in Slovakia’s Robert Fico and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders have potentially added further blocks on European Union financial and military aid packages. Hungary’s Viktor Orban now has more leverage in his attempts to disrupt the bloc’s Ukraine policy, including holding up a new round of sanctions on Russia and a proposed 50 billion euro ($54.9 billion) aid package, even if his opposition to the EU opening accession talks for Ukraine has been successfully navigated by the bloc.

Orban was previously isolated inside the EU, which overtook the United States as the largest overall donor of aid to Ukraine over the summer. If Wilders manages to form a governing coalition and become prime minister, it could not only imperil the planned transfer of Dutch F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, but also become a major threat to future EU aid packages going forward.

Winter has also seen a truck driver protest in Poland and Slovakia, which have been blocking Ukrainian border crossings in a dispute over EU permits for Ukrainian shipping companies, which has in turn impacted the flow of volunteer military aid coming into Ukraine.

While Kyiv will be disappointed by these events, they are not insurmountable. Support for Ukraine remains high in Brussels, and Orban has proved himself capable of relenting on similar packages in the past, leveraging Hungary’s veto in exchange for EU concessions toward Budapest. Individually, member states such as Germany and the Baltic nations also continue to send substantial military aid to Kyiv outside of the structures of the European Union.

The news from the United States, however, is far more bleak. Speaking to reporters on Dec. 4, White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan laid out in stark terms that the funds allocated by the government for Ukraine were spent, warning that if Congress did not pass further funding bills, it would impact Ukraine’s ability to defend itself.

“Each week that passes, our ability to fully fund what we feel is necessary to give Ukraine the tools and capacities it needs to both defend its territory and continue to make advances, that gets harder and harder,” Sullivan said.

The White House has been trying to pass a $61.4 billion aid package for Ukraine (part of which would go to replenishing U.S. Defense Department stocks), tied together with a package of aid to Israel and Taiwan, which is being blocked by congressional Republicans in a dispute over the Biden administration’s border policies.

Despite a majority of Republicans supporting increased military aid to Ukraine, bills trying to secure further funding have stalled in both the Senate and the House of Representatives since the caucus of far-right, pro-Trump House Republicans ousted Kevin McCarthy as the speaker of the House of Representatives, replacing him with Ukraine military aid opponent Mike Johnson.

After Johnson was elected speaker, he appeared to walk back his opposition to Ukraine funding, in an apparent bid to win over some of his Reaganite skeptics in the Republican Party. However, he has chosen to try to leverage the urgency of the Biden administration’s Ukraine package to advance the Republicans’ anti-immigration platform.

This is no longer isolated to the House, as even pro-Ukraine senators, such as Lindsey Graham, joined Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in blocking the White House’s security package amid chaotic scenes in the Senate. With Senate Republicans falling in line with the legislative agenda of the House’s hard-right “Freedom Caucus” Republican wing, Ukraine will enter the Christmas period under sustained Russian aerial bombardment with depleted air defense ammunition stocks.

The United States is incapable of replenishing those stocks due to the domestic political wrangling of a small band of hard-line, anti-immigration Republican lawmakers, and Ukrainian civilians will likely die as a result of this amoral legislative obstinance. In Kyiv, where I live, the sense that these conservative lawmakers are willing to recklessly endanger Ukrainian lives for selfish political ends is palpable.

The Biden administration has expressed a willingness to compromise in order to try to break the impasse, but there is no certainty in where these negotiations could go. The size of this aid bill is itself a strategic move. The $61.4 billion package dwarfs any of the previous U.S. aid packages to Ukraine (which as of August 2023 totaled more than $77 billion), representing a more “one and done” approach to meeting Ukraine’s military aid needs for the entirety of 2024 and the remainder of President Joe Biden’s term.

If it passes, there will be no further opportunities in the short term for the Make America Great Again caucus to hold Ukrainian aid to ransom.

But the problems don’t stop there. The United States and Europe have both failed to produce enough artillery ammunition to meet Ukraine’s needs, and this shortfall led to South Korea becoming a larger supplier of artillery ammunition in 2023 than all European nations combined. But Korea’s supplies are not limitless, and U.S. and European production is still not at the levels needed to sustain Ukraine going forward. If this shortfall is not addressed, the consequences could be disastrous.

There are more hopeful signs that these problems are well understood, and that the coalition of nations supporting Ukraine remains committed to the cause in the long term. “Wars develop in phases,” said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in a recent interview with the German public broadcaster ARD in early December. “We have to support Ukraine in both good and bad times,” he said.

Everything now points to a long war in Ukraine, although none of this should have been unforeseeable for Western policymakers and defense chiefs. Ukraine’s top military c, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, gave a much-publicized interview with the Economist in November, in which he said “just like in the first world war, we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate.”

These comments, however, despite appearing to create the impression of a public rift between Zaluzhny and Zelensky, are not a concession of defeat from the four-star general. Zaluzhny made clear that he is trying to avoid the kind of grinding attritional warfare that favors Russia’s long-term strategy for wearing Ukraine down.

But a long war also heightens one of the biggest threats. Even if the Biden administration manages to get the new aid package over the line, effectively securing Ukraine’s military funding for 2024, the specter of another presidency for Donald Trump still looms large on the horizon. The polling for Biden less than one year away from an election is deeply concerning, and Trump’s prospects for victory need to be taken seriously, even in the face of his growing legal jeopardy.

A second Trump presidency would imperil not just U.S. democracy, but also the entire global world order, and the consequences for Ukraine could be potentially devastating. Trump’s refusal to commit to continuing to support Ukraine should be setting off alarm bells—not just in Kyiv, but across Europe too, where the greatest impacts from this change of policy would be felt.

Trump’s first impeachment was over his attempt to extort Ukraine to search for compromising material that he could use against Biden in the 2020 election, and there is no reason to believe that Trump has moved on from this. Many in Washington expect that a second Trump presidency will be marked by his desire for revenge against anyone that stood in his way. As the U.S. analyst and author Michael Weiss told me, “Trump’s first impeachment was over Ukraine, and he sees it as an abscess to be lanced. … A Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for Ukraine.”

There are also signs that the Russians are acutely aware of this, and that their strategy in the short-to-medium term is simply to hold out in Ukraine long enough for a Trump presidency to pull the plug on the vital military aid keeping the Ukrainians in the fight. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu recently remarked that the Russians expect the war to last beyond 2025, and in an address to his own propaganda think tank, Putin said that Ukraine would have a “week to live” if Western arms supplies were halted.

Ukraine cannot plan for a war that may extend beyond 2025 without preparing for a potential Trump presidency and all that would entail. The Ukrainian government must prepare for every eventuality, including a White House that is actively hostile toward Kyiv. To his credit, Zelensky appears to have acknowledged this possibility, going as far as inviting Trump to visit Kyiv.

Putin has made it perfectly clear that he sees his war in Ukraine as being part of a wider war that he is waging against the entire West. Western policymakers to take him at his word on this. Putin and his regime have been waging a hybrid war against the West for many years, and he considers his support for European extremists such as Fico, Wilders and France’s Marine Le Pen to be part of that war and part of undermining the Western liberal democratic institutions, such as the EU and NATO, that stand in opposition to Putin’s tyranny.

But there is no single individual on the planet more important to Putin’s global war agenda than his pet authoritarian in Mar-a-Lago.

Moscow’s goals in Ukraine remain unchanged; the Putin regime still maintains maximalist aims in Ukraine and is in this war for the long haul, with the total subjugation of Kyiv as its goal. Putin made his position very clear during his annual news conference. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also been explicit about this, and Europe should take the ongoing threat that a Trump administration poses to Ukraine seriously. There may well be a potential future in which Europe is forced to carry the burden of Ukraine’s war without its North American ally at the helm of the coalition, or even at the head of the collective defense strategy at the heart of European foreign policy.

Looking forward to 2024, there remains no path to peace in Ukraine without a Russian defeat. Looking beyond 2025, the future of Ukraine as a free and democratic nation-state, and potentially the entire security of Europe, hang in the balance.

This is why Europe, in particular, cannot afford to be complacent in the face of the rising threat of a Trump presidency. Opening EU accession talks for Ukraine is a good start, but until the bloc can match or outperform Russia’s current levels of ammunition production, the tide will start to turn against Ukraine if U.S. leadership on this war continues to falter. The truth is that U.S. leadership on this and on any other pressing international issue cannot be guaranteed.

For Ukraine to stand a chance of victory, its allies must begin preparing for catastrophe now.