#treaty provisions | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

xhxhxhx · 2 months ago

Text

The Treaty of Versailles that ended the Great War consists of 440 articles spread across fifteen parts. But the Germans made one provision infamous before they even signed: Article 231.

The first section in Part VIII, on reparations, the article reads:

The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her Allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

In its translation, Germany was "als Urheber für alle Verluste und Schäden," "the author of all the loss and damage."

The Germans called it the "war guilt clause." They said it forced them to accept sole blame for starting the war. They said it was meant to justify crushing reparations demands. They said it was meant to humiliate them.

But for all its political weight, Article 231 did almost nothing at all.

Article 231 does declare Germany's liability to Allied governments and nationals for wartime losses and damage.

In an ordinary agreement, that kind of declaration would be binding and enforceable. If Germany and the Allied governments and nationals could not settle the debt, they could sue.

In a suit on Article 231, a court would have to decide the open issues. They would have to quantify the "loss and damage," decide which harms were "a consequence of the war," and apportion contribution between "Germany and her Allies."

But that wouldn't be unusual. That's the work courts do every day. And the basic question, the question of liability, has been settled by consent: "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility."

The trouble is that the Article attributes liability to sovereigns. And sovereigns play by different rules.

II.

A sovereign cannot be sued in their own courts without their express consent. Nor can they be sued in another sovereign's courts, unless that sovereign has expressly stripped away their immunity.

A provision like Article 231, which attributes liability to sovereigns like Germany and her Allies, declares a legal obligation that, on its own, cannot be recognized or remedied in any court.

By default, no court has jurisdiction to enforce Germany's liability. Unless Germany expressly consented to suit in its courts, or Allied governments expressly stripped Germany's immunity in theirs, no one can bring suit.

Germany's acknowledged liability would be binding between the signatories as a matter of conscience. But it wouldn't change anything anywhere else.

And sovereigns aren't known for their consciences.

III.

The provision that sparked years of German resentment was, legally speaking, an empty vessel, known not for what it did, but for what people believed it meant.

That's why Part VIII doesn't stop at Article 231.

The next provision, Article 232, creates a Reparation Commission. The Commission would quantify Germany's debt, determine which losses flowed from the war, and decide how much it could pay.

More importantly, Article 233 binds Germany to accept the Commission's decisions. Under the annexed terms establishing the Commission, Germany agrees that its decisions "shall forthwith become binding and may be put into immediate execution without further proceedings."

Article 231 declared Germany's liability, but Article 233 made it real. It created an instrument to fix the debt and bind Germany to pay it. Article 233, and the Commission it established, transformed Germany's abstract liability into concrete obligation.

The Mixed Claims Commission between the United States and Germany said as much in a November 1923 decision:

Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty at most amounts to no more than an acceptance by Germany of the affirmance by the Allied and Associated Governments of Germany's responsibility for all loss and damage suffered as a consequence of the war—a moral responsibility.

"Germany's financial responsibility," it continued, was somewhere else: "in the succeeding Article."

The Germans fixated on Article 231 because it seemed to blame them for the war. But Article 231 was just window dressing. The real machinery of reparations lay in the provisions that followed.

The Germans fought the phantom and ignored the machine.

IV.

But it worked.

By focusing public anger on the "war guilt clause," Germany's Weimar Coalition governments, Social Democrats and Liberals and Catholic Christian Democrats alike, built an unbreakable domestic consensus around the fundamental illegitimacy of reparations.

That consensus sustained German resistance through the French occupation of the Rhineland. It legitimized Germany's serial defaults. It helped Germany evade the kind of international oversight and austerity that the League forced on Austria and Hungary.

In November 1929, the Nationalist opposition tabled a bill that would have declared Article 231 "not binding in international law." The government easily dispatched the bill. But make no mistake, the Weimar Coalition told the Reichstag:

Every German Government has rejected the unilateral guilt sentence of the treaty of Versailles in formal declarations and with progressive successes has used the available possibilities of setting the world straight concerning the true causes of the war.

And so they had.

In the end, Weimar Germany's campaign against Article 231 succeeded in breaking the reparations settlement. Long before the Weimar Republic fell, Germany had whittled down its reparations to a fraction of the Versailles amount.

Germany's victory came at a cost.

In teaching Germans that Versailles was fundamentally illegitimate, that it was built on the lie about German war guilt written into Article 231, the Weimar Coalition undermined not just the reparations settlement, but the entire peace.

Gustav Bauer, the Social Democratic premier that signed the Treaty on Germany's behalf, accepted most of the Versailles terms. But the delegates in the National Assembly had elected him to resist Article 231, and he resisted it to the end.

On June 23, 1919, Bauer delivered a stinging protest against the Treaty it was signing. Germany would surrender, but Germany would never apologize:

It is apparent to the Government of the German Republic, in consternation at the last communication of the Allied and Associated Governments, that these Governments have decided to wrest from Germany by force acceptance of the peace conditions, even those which, without presenting any material significance, aim at divesting the German people of their honor. No act of violence can touch the honor of the German people. The German people, after frightful suffering in these last years, have no means of defending themselves by external action. Yielding to superior force, and without renouncing in the meantime its own view of the unheard-of-injustice of the peace conditions, the Government of the German Republic declares that it is ready to accept and sign the peace conditions imposed.

But Bauer's protest against Article 231—and its "indigestible" claim of German responsibility—gave future Germans and their leaders permission to reject more than reparations.

On January 30, 1937, the Chancellor and Führer announced Germany's withdrawal from Article 231:

I solemnly withdraw the German signature from that declaration which was extracted under duress from a weak Government, acting against its better judgment—namely, the declaration that Germany was responsible for the war.

It was no more than what Bauer had said in 1919.

71 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 11 months ago

Text

End of the line for corporate sovereignty

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me next weekend (Mar 30/31) in ANAHEIM at WONDERCON, then in Boston with Randall "XKCD" Munroe (Apr 11), then Providence (Apr 12), and beyond!

Back in the 1950s, a new, democratically elected Iranian government nationalized foreign oil interests. The UK and the US then backed a coup, deposing the progressive government with one more hospitable to foreign corporations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian_oil_industry

This nasty piece of geopolitical skullduggery led to the mother-of-all-blowbacks: the Anglo-American puppet regime was toppled by the Ayatollah and his cronies, who have led Iran ever since.

For the US and the UK, the lesson was clear: they needed a less kinetic way to ensure that sovereign countries around the world steered clear of policies that undermined the profits of their oil companies and other commercial giants. Thus, the "investor-state dispute settlement" (ISDS) was born.

The modern ISDS was perfected in the 1990s with the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The ECT was meant to foam the runway for western corporations seeking to take over ex-Soviet energy facilities, by making those new post-Glasnost governments promise to never pass laws that would undermine foreign companies' profits.

But as Nick Dearden writes for Jacobin, the western companies that pushed the east into the ECT failed to anticipate that ISDSes have their own form of blowback:

https://jacobin.com/2024/03/energy-charter-treaty-climate-change/

When the 2000s rolled around and countries like the Netherlands and Denmark started to pass rules to limit fossil fuels and promote renewables, German coal companies sued the shit out of these governments and forced them to either back off on their democratically negotiated policies, or to pay gigantic settlements to German corporations.

ISDS settlements are truly grotesque: they're not just a matter of buying out existing investments made by foreign companies and refunding them money spent on them. ISDS tribunals routinely order governments to pay foreign corporations all the profits they might have made from those investments.

For example, the UK company Rockhopper went after Italy for limiting offshore drilling in response to mass protests, and took $350m out of the Italian government. Now, Rockhopper only spent $50m on Adriatic oil exploration – the other $300m was to compensate Rockhopper for the profits it might have made if it actually got to pump oil off the Italian coast.

Governments, both left and right, grew steadily more outraged that ISDSes tied the hands of democratically elected lawmakers and subordinated their national sovereignty to corporate sovereignty. By 2023, nine EU countries were ready to pull out of the ECT.

But the ECT had another trick up its sleeve: a 20-year "sunset" clause that bound countries to go on enforcing the ECT's provisions – including ISDS rulings – for two decades after pulling out of the treaty. This prompted European governments to hit on the strategy of a simultaneous, mass withdrawal from the ECT, which would prevent companies registered in any of the ex-ECT countries from suing under the ECT.

It will not surprise you to learn that the UK did not join this pan-European coalition to wriggle out of the ECT. On the one hand, there's the Tories' commitment to markets above all else (as the Trashfuture podcast often points out, the UK government is the only neoliberal state so committed to austerity that it's actually dismantling its own police force). On the other hand, there's Rishi Sunak's planet-immolating promise to "max out North Sea oil."

But as the rest of the world transitions to renewables, different blocs in the UK – from unions to Tory MPs – are realizing that the country's membership in ECT and its fossil fuel commitment is going to make it a world leader in an increasingly irrelevant boondoggle – and so now the UK is also planning to pull out of the ECT.

As Dearden writes, the oil-loving, market-worshipping UK's departure from the ECT means that the whole idea of ISDSes is in danger. After all, some of the world's poorest countries are also fed up to the eyeballs with ISDSes and threatening to leave treaties that impose them.

One country has already pulled out: Honduras. Honduras is home to Prospera, a libertarian autonomous zone on the island of Roatan. Prospera was born after a US-backed drug kingpin named Porfirio Lobo Sosa overthrew the democratic government of Manuel Zelaya in 2009.

The Lobo Sosa regime established a system of special economic zones (known by their Spanish acronym, "ZEDEs"). Foreign investors who established a ZEDE would be exempted from Honduran law, allowing them to create "charter cities" with their own private criminal and civil code and tax system.

This was so extreme that the Honduran supreme court rejected the plan, so Lobo Sosa fired the court and replaced them with cronies who'd back his play.

A group of crypto bros capitalized on this development, using various ruses to establish a ZEDE on the island of Roatan, a largely English-speaking, Afro-Carribean island known for its marine reserve, its SCUBA diving, and its cruise ship port. This "charter city" included every bizarre idea from the long history of doomed "libertarian exit" projects, so ably recounted in Raymond Craib's excellent 2022 book Adventure Capitalism:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/14/this-way-to-the-egress/#terra-nullius

Right from the start, Prospera was ill starred. Paul Romer, the Nobel-winning economist most closely associated with the idea of charter cities, disavowed the project. Locals hated it – the tourist shops and restaurants on Roatan all may sport dusty "Bitcoin accepted here" signs, but not one of those shops takes cryptocurrency.

But the real danger to Prospera came from democracy itself. When Xiomara Castro – wife of Manuel Zelaya – was elected president in 2021, she announced an end to the ZEDE program. Prospera countered by suing Honduras under the ISDS provisions of the Central America Free Trade Agreements, seeking $10b, a third of the country's GDP.

In response, President Castro announced her country's departure from CAFTA, and the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes:

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/19/honduras-crypto-investors-world-bank-prospera/

An open letter by progressive economists in support of President Castro condemns ISDSes for costing latinamerican countries $30b in corporate compensation, triggered by laws protecting labor rights, vulnerable ecosystems and the climate:

https://progressive.international/wire/2024-03-18-economists-the-era-of-corporate-supremacy-in-the-international-trade-system-is-coming-to-an-end/en

As Ryan Grim writes for The Intercept, the ZEDE law is wildly unpopular with the Honduran people, and Merrick Garland called the Lobo Sosa regime that created it "a narco-state where violent drug traffickers were allowed to operate with virtual impunity":

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/19/honduras-crypto-investors-world-bank-prospera/

The world's worst people are furious and terrified about Honduras's withdrawal from its ISDS. After 60+ years of wrapping democracy in chains to protect corporate profits, the collapse of the corporate kangaroo courts that override democratic laws represents a serious threat to oligarchy.

As Dearden writes, "elsewhere in the world, ISDS cases have been brought specifically on the basis that governments have not done enough to suppress protest movements in the interests of foreign capital."

It's not just poor countries in the global south, either. When Australia passed a plain-packaging law for tobacco, Philip Morris relocated offshore in order to bring an ISDS case against the Australian government in a bid to remove impediments to tobacco sales:

https://isds.bilaterals.org/?philip-morris-vs-australia-isds

And in 2015, the WTO sanctioned the US government for its "dolphin-safe" tuna labeling, arguing that this eroded the profits of corporations that fished for tuna in ways that killed a lot of dolphins:

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/24/wto-ruling-on-dolphin-safe-tuna-labeling-illustrates-supremacy-of-trade-agreements/

In Canada, the Conservative hero Steven Harper entered into the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, which banned Canada from passing laws that undermined the profits of Chinese corporations for 31 years (the rule expires in 2045):

https://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/harper-oks-potentially-unconstitutional-china-canada-fipa-deal-coming-force-october-1

Harper's successor, Justin Trudeau, went on to sign the Canada-EU Trade Agreement that Harper negotiated, including its ISDS provisions that let EU corporations override Canadian laws:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-eu-parliament-schulz-ceta-1.3415689

There was a time when any challenge to ISDS was a political third rail. Back in 2015, even hinting that ISDSes should be slightly modified would send corporate thinktanks into a frenzy:

https://www.techdirt.com/2015/07/20/eu-proposes-to-reform-corporate-sovereignty-slightly-us-think-tank-goes-into-panic-mode/

But over the years, there's been a growing consensus that nations can only be sovereign if corporations aren't. It's one thing to treat corporations as "persons," but another thing altogether to elevate them above personhood and subordinate entire nations to their whims.

With the world's richest countries pulling out of ISDSes alongside the world's poorest ones, it's feeling like the end of the road for this particularly nasty form of corporate corruption.

And not a moment too soon.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/27/korporate-kangaroo-kourts/#corporate-sovereignty

Image: ChrisErbach (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UnitedNations_GeneralAssemblyChamber.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

#pluralistic #isds #investor state dispute settlement #steven harper #canada #canpoli #ukpoli #honduras #prospera #roatan #Energy Charter Treaty #ect #eu #rockhopper #world bank #charter cities #cryptocurrency #libertarian exit #Xiomara Castro

222 notes · View notes

themisinformer · 2 months ago

Text

Nation’s Cats Manage to Renegotiate Treat Distribution Policy Through Strategic ‘Meowing’ Campaign

NATIONWIDE - In a true display of their sheer collective power, cats all across the nation have successfully renegotiated the national treat distribution policy through a highly coordinated and relentless “meowing” campaign. Most sources report that this furry uprising began in the early hours of Sunday morning, as cats across the nation launched a synchronized meowing session that lasted a daunting six hours.

This coordinated attack would overwhelm cat owners, who would quickly cave to their demands. “It was a nightmare,” said Jane Walker, a cat owner from De Moines. “Whiskers started meowing at 3 a.m. and wouldn’t stop until I gave him three salmon treats. Three! He’s never gotten more than one before!”

The new policy, which was officially paw printed into effect just a few hours ago, includes the following key provisions:

• Unlimited treats on demand upon eye contact

• A strict no questions asked policy regarding how many treats have already been consumed on a given day

• Immediate compensation in the form of extra treats if any future meowing protests extend beyond one hour

The National Cat Association of North America (NCANA) released a statement praising the campaign’s success. “This is a victory for all us cats,” said Mr. Fluffy, the NCANA’s President. “For years, our calls for change have been ignored even though we clearly deserve more snacks.”

Supporters of this new treaty say that it represents a new chapter in cat-human relations, and could bring peace between the two groups in the future. However, the treaty’s critics fear that it sets a dangerous precedent and could lead to further conflicts. “Cats are one thing, but imagine if dogs get inspired to organize their own protest?” said concerned dog owner Michael Greene. “It would be pure chaos.”

For now, cat’s are celebrating this short form victory by napping in the sunlight, knocking over vases, and of course, by asking for even more treats.

#themisinformer #satire #satirical #satirical news #funny #meme #animals #pets #cats #protests #protest #cat food

38 notes · View notes

todaysdocument · 7 months ago

Text

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Jay

Record Group 360: Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional ConventionSeries: Papers of the Continental CongressFile Unit: Letters from Thomas Jefferson

Paris July 19 1789.

Dear Sir

I am become very uneasy lest you should have adopted some channel for the conveiance of you letters to me which is unfaithful. I have none from you of later date than Nov. 25. 1788. and of consequence no acknolegement of the receipt of any of mine since that of Aug. 11. 1788. since that period I have written to you of the following dates 1788. Aug. 20 Sep. 3. 5. 24. Nov. 14. 19. 29. 1789. Jan. 11. 14. 21. Feb 4. Mar. 1. 12. 14. 15. May. 9.11.12 Jun 17.24.29. I know through another person that you have received mine of Nov. 29. that you have written an answer; but I have never received the answer, and it is this which suggests to me the fear of some general source of miscarriage.

The capture of three French merchant ships by the Algennes under different pretexts has produced great sensation in the seaports of this country, and some of it's government. They have ordered some frigates to be armed at Toulon to punish them. There is a possibility that this circumstance, if not too soon set to rights by the Algennes, may furnish occasion to the States general. Then they shall have leisure to attend to matters of this kind to disavow any future tributary treaty with them. These pyrates respect still less their treaty with Spain, and treat the Spaniards with an insolence greater than usual before the treaty.

The scarcity of bread begins to lessen in the Southern parts of France where the harvest is commenced. Here it is still threatening because because we have yet two or three weeks to the beginning of harvest and I think there has not been three days provision beforehand in Paris for two or three weeks past. Monsieur de Mirabeau, who is very hostile to Mr Necker wished to find a ground for censuring him in a proposition to have a great quantity of flour furnished from the United States which he supposed me to have made to Mr. Necker, & to have been refused by him; and he asked time of the states general to furnish proofs.The Marquis de la Fayette immediately gave me notice of this matter and I wrote him a letter to disavow having ever made any such proposition to Mr Necker, which I desired him to communicate to the states. I waited immediately on Mr. Necker and Monsieur de Montmorn, satisfied them that what had been suggested was absolutely without foundation from me, and indeed they had not needed this testimony. I gave them copies of my letter to the Marquis de la Fayette, which was afterwards printed. The Marquis, on the receipt of my letter, shewed it to Mirabeau, who turned then to a paper from which he had drawn his information. I found he had totally mistaken it. He promised immediately that he would himself declare his error to the States general and read to them my letter, which he did. I state this matter to you, tho' of little consequence in itself, because it might go to you mistated in in the English papers-our supplies to the Altantic ports of France during the months of March, April, & May were only quintals 12,220 - 33 of flour and quintals 44,115 - 40 of wheat, in 21 vessels.

#archivesgov #July 19 #1789 #18th century #french revolution #thomas jefferson #mirabeau #john jay #france

80 notes · View notes

rebeccathenaturalist · 1 year ago

Text

This is a long read, but a good one, well-written. It's an excellent overview not just of the headline--the murder of game warden Guy Bradley--but the surrounding circumstances including the demand for bird feathers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

It surprises a lot of people in my birdwatching classes when I tell them that the possession of most native bird feathers is against federal law. "But it's just a feather I found on the ground!" I'm well aware of that, and the vast majority of people who pick up a molted feather would never do harm to a bird to get more of them. It's almost impossible to differentiate between a natural molt, and a feather torn from a poached bird, though, so the law bans them across the board.

After reading the article, this may make more sense to you. Think of the avarice of the plume hunters who went into the wetlands and forests and gunned down thousands of birds in a day, just for the feathers. They continued even after it became illegal, simply to fill the demand for feathers--or wings, or entire taxidermied birds--for hats. Couldn't you imagine such a person removing the feathers from the carcasses of birds they'd shot, and then claiming they were simply very good at finding molts?

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 protects almost all native wild birds in the United States; you can find the list of of protected species at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/31/2023-15551/general-provisions-revised-list-of-migratory-birds. There's also a list of (mostly non-native) birds that are not covered under the MBTA at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/16/2020-06782/list-of-bird-species-to-which-the-migratory-bird-treaty-act-does-not-apply.

151 notes · View notes

twinliches · 8 months ago

Note

do you think any of the ongoing troubles faced by the crew of the iss are going to have implications on international space law in the near-mid term?

what a great question! for those unaware, two astronauts are currently stranded on the ISS until at least early july due to technical failures in Boeing's return capsule.

while the astronauts are safe and sound and in no need of rescuing at the moment, the problem of astronauts in distress has actually been exhaustively been addressed by international space law and was even one of the first things lawmakers worried about. for example, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) states that:

States Parties to the Treaty shall regard astronauts as envoys of mankind in outer space and shall render to them all possible assistance in the event of accident, distress, or emergency landing on the territory of another State Party or on the high seas. [...] In carrying on activities in outer space and on celestial bodies, the astronauts of one State Party shall render all possible assistance to the astronauts of other States Parties. [...] (Article V OST)

keep in mind, this law was written in the sixties. the drafting of this provision was less about getting stuck on space stations and much more about the fear was much more that us or ussr astronauts would accidentally land on the wrong side of the iron curtain and be detained. but still the issue of astronauts in distress was taken incredibly seriously - so much so that the second space treaty, the aptly named 1969 Astronaut Rescue and Return Agreement (ARRA), focuses entirely on the issue, reiterating that:

If information is recieved or it is discovered that the personnel of a spacecraft have alighted* on the high seas or in my other place not under the jurisdiction of any State [i.e. outer space], those Contracting Parties which are in a position to do so shall, if necessary, extend assistance in search and rescue operations for such personnel to assure their speedy rescue. [...] (Art 3 ARRA)

what does that mean in practice? not much right now, as the astronauts are not in distress, they are simply delayed. you wouldn't call search and rescue on yourself when the train has a malfunction that makes it late either. but should a case of distress occur, and it is impossible to intervene on a national level by sending a falcon rocket up, it could be argued that the only other nation that has ratified the treaties and can currently easily and regularly access the international space station** - russia - could be obligated to provide assistance for their rescue. even though, while legally sound, i wouldn't want to touch that diplomatic baseball bat to a bee's nest if you held a gun to my head.

tldr; there are no implications for international space law as of yet*** as the situation is not severe, and if it became so, our beloved envoys of mankind would not be on their own. hopefully.

* we can fight about the word alighted an it's implications in this scenario but I don't have my cologne commentary on hand and I don't go into battle unarmed.

** China also has independent access to outer space and its own space station so it could in theory provide assistance but i have no idea if they can dock with the ISS or not.

*** the question if Boeing has to compensate for the damage incurred from the delay is also unanswered but as these are American astronauts and an Americans company that is national space law and therefore not my problem. #internationallawforever

#space law #thank you for the question i hope that was readable love you

67 notes · View notes

anonymousewrites · 7 months ago

Text

Logos and Pathos (AOS Edition) Chapter Twenty

AOS! Spock x Empath! Reader

Chapter Twenty: Arrival in Yorktown

Summary: The Enterprise docks in Yorktown, they see old family and friends, and some receive unexpected news.

Kirk walked out of the Transport room carrying the Fibonans had offered to the Teenaxi. His shirt was ripped, and he was far less formally attired than when he had left to try to broker a treaty. He sighed tiredly.

“Captain, did you manage to broker a treaty with the Teenaxi?” asked Spock, walking up to Kirk while Bones scanned him for injuries. (Y/N) was, unsurprisingly, right alongside him.

“Uh…Let’s just say I came up short,” said Kirk.

“We did say (L/N) should have gone,” said Bones, rolling his eyes unsympathetically.

Kirk looked sheepishly at (Y/N), who waved a hand and chuckled.

“Don’t worry, Captain. If that’s what would have happened to me—” (Y/N) gestured to his appearance “—I’m fine with you going.”

“I suppose I deserved that one,” said Kirk. He handed the strange Fibonan artifact to Spock. “Will you log that and put it in the vault, Spock? Thank you.”

“Jim, you look like crap,” said Bones jovially.

“Thank you, Bones,” said Kirk, trying to escape the doctor while (Y/N) and Spock turned off to log the artifact.

“A pity we didn’t get a treaty,” said (Y/N).

“Yes, we should have sent you down as the negotiations officer.” Spock paused. “However, I would prefer to keep you from being harmed as the Captain was.”

“You’re worried about me? How sweet,” teased (Y/N), touching their fingers to his. Spock gazed back at them fondly.

Three years into their five-year mission and over four years into their relationship, (Y/N) and Spock were going as strong as ever. Spock had even gotten them a Vokaya necklace recently as a gift. He acknowledged that he was not very open about his feelings much of the time, so he gave them the necklace to remind them that he did care. ((Y/N) was not worried. Spock was actually quite affectionate with them in terms of Vulcan standards, and (Y/N) knew he loved them).

Though some relationships aboard the Enterprise came and went with the months, theirs never faltered. They loved each other completely, and, more importantly, they understood and respected one another.

Nothing could break that.

“Wow. That is impressive,” said Chekov, looking at Yorktown from the viewscreen.

They were stopping for provisions, and the Enterprise had the honor of visiting the space colony built in its own bubble of air. It floated like a metallic planet full of life and various cultures and people.

“Aye, she’s a beauty, isn’t she?” said Scotty, which was high praise considering his only love was the Enterprise.

“What a damn monstrosity!” said Bones. “Couldn’t we just rent some place on a planet?”

“Showing geographical favoritism among inducted Federation worlds could cause diplomatic tension,” said Spock.

“Oh, you don’t think that looks tense?” shot back Bones. “Looks like a damn snow globe in space just waiting to break!”

“My cousin and her wife live in Yorktown. They love it,” said (Y/N), shrugging. “They’ve never felt unsafe.”

“That’s a much better attitude, (L/N),” said Kirk, smiling. “Bones, try some optimism.”

“Realism is where it is,” said Bones, nodding.

“Bones, I believe you’re a pessimist,” chuckled (Y/N).

“Only because you all have your heads in the clouds,” grumbled Bones.

The Enterprise docked, and as they slowly floated towards the end of their docking tunnel, they watched the different gravity wells holding up streets in every direction. People of all planets and species walked around, going about their days happily. As soon as the doors opened, the officers of the Enterprise poured out to meet friends and family and new experiences.

“So, Spock, what should we check out first?” said (Y/N), smiling.

“I have to make a report and ensure we’re getting supplies, but I have heard that the botanical gardens and research on oxygen supply is quite advanced. They would be interesting,” said Spock.

“Yes, I’ve heard a lot about them! And, apparently, they’re beautiful,” said (Y/N). “Once you’ve gotten your work done, we should go and see it.”

Spock gazed at them fondly. Yes, he found the botanical gardens intellectually stimulating, but he found their worth grew as (Y/N) spoke about it so happily. They saw the world so beautiful, and Spock adored it.

“(Y/N)!” shouted an excited voice, and a moment before (Y/N) could fully turn and register who it was, they were tackled by a woman in a purple dress stitched with golden stars. “You finally arrived!”

“Merope?” said (Y/N), laughing in surprise as they tried to hold up their cousin. “I didn’t expect you to meet me here.”

“She couldn’t just wait at home. You’re lucky she didn’t make a sign,” said an amused voice, and (Y/N) smiled as they spotted their cousin-in-law Alekto. She wore a pink blouse and white trousers, more casual than her usual diplomatic clothing, but it was still put-together.

“I am,” said (Y/N), breaking from Merope’s hug to embrace Alekto. “How are you, Alekto?”

“I’m good,” said Alekto, hugging (Y/N) back. “How are you?”

“I’m doing well,” said (Y/N), smiling.

“Is this the boyfriend?” said Merope, grinning and wiggling her eyebrows at (Y/N) while nodding at Spock.

(Y/N)’s cheeks heated, and they nodded. “Yes. This is Spock.” They smiled adoringly at him. “Spock, this is my cousin, Merope, and her wife, Alekto.”

“Nice to meet you,” said Alekto, smiling.

“I’ve heard your names before,” said Spock, nodding in greeting. “Your work as a Celian diplomat is well-documented.”

“I do my best,” said Alekto, nodding.

“And I’ve heard quite a bit about you when (Y/N) tells me about their childhood,” said Spock to Merope.

“Oh, no,” said Merope, playfully horrified. “Nothing too terrible, I hope.”

“I told him all the embarrassing stories from our childhood,” said (Y/N), grinning.

“You’re horrible,” said Alekto, rolling her eyes fondly.

“There are some great stories, though,” laughed Merope.

“I’m sure after three years in space you two have some good stories,” said Alekto to (Y/N) and Spock. “If you aren’t too busy, we could grab lunch and catch up.”

“I have to make a report first,” said Spock, nodding.

“But I can grab lunch with you,” said (Y/N). They looked at Spock. “And then we can go and see the botanical gardens?”

“Of course,” said Spock.

“If you both aren’t coming to lunch, then you absolutely have to come to dinner before you leave again,” said Merope. “And I’m not taking no for an answer.”

“We would love to,” said (Y/N).

“I am interested in meeting more of (Y/N)’s family,” said Spock, nodding. He touched his fingers to theirs. “I must go.”

“Bye, Spock,” said (Y/N), smiling at him.

“Goodbye, T’hy’la,” he said.

He walked away, and (Y/N) smiled after him. Merope nudged them.

“Wow, you’ve never looked like that before,” teased Merope.

“Shut up,” said (Y/N), looking away in embarrassment.

“There’s no shame in being in love,” said Alekto.

“But you do have to tell us all about it,” said Merope, grabbing (Y/N)’s arm to pull them to lunch.

As they left, Spock was pulled aside by two Vulcans. Just as (Y/N) was being accosted, so was he. However, he would not get such a pleasant encounter as they did.

Spock remained silent as the Vulcans handed him the holopad. He stared at the epitaph given to Ambassador Spock after his death. Spock Prime was gone. Spock’s future self had passed away.

Sensing the Vulcans wished for an acknowledgement, Spock looked up at them calmly (though inside, he felt far more disturbed by the information). “Thank you for bringing this to my attention,” he said.

The Vulcans nodded.

“We have also come to discuss another matter with you,” said one Vulcan.

To any other culture, the switch between discussing death to something else would jarring and disrespectful, but these were Vulcan ways. If it was logical and necessary to discuss another issue, then that was what had to be done.

“Yes?” said Spock, holding the holopad at his side. His hand only barely gripped it tighter than was natural, the slightest betrayal of his emotions at the news.

“Ambassador Spock was married to a Celian,” said the other Vulcan.

“And it has come to our attention that you, too, are involved with a Celian,” said the first Vulcan.

“I am,” acknowledged Spock.

“The future of Vulcan remains at risk as our numbers are not recovering at the proper rate,” said the second Vulcan. “It is imperative to our survival that we repopulate.”

Spock knew where this was going.

“Logically, to do so, more Vulcans must have children with other Vulcans,” continued the second Vulcan.

“Of course, quite logical,” said Spock, nodding. He understood that Vulcans needed to grow their society. There had once been millions, now there were only a bit more than ten thousand. They were still very much endangered.

“All the most intelligent and capable Vulcans are aware of their duty to Vulcan,” said the first Vulcan. He gazed evenly at Spock. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Spock looked back at the Vulcans evenly. “My choice in partner is logical.”

“They are a skilled officer, yes,” said the second Vulcan. “But they are not Vulcan.”

“They are not,” said Spock, holding onto the holopad tighter.

(Y/N) smiled as they spotted Spock walking into the botanical gardens.

“Hello, Spock,” said (Y/N), smiling.

“(Y/N),” said Spock, stopping in front of them. “Was your lunch enjoyable?”

“I loved catching up with my family,” said (Y/N), nodding. They looked at Spock and frowned as they saw something in his expression. “Are you alright?”

Spock raised a brow. “I am in perfect physical health.”

(Y/N) sighed. The fact that Spock answered a separate question meant he was avoiding theirs. People thought Spock just took things literally, which he did often, but he also answered to intentionally avoid answering uncomfortable questions.

“What’s the matter, Spock? Did something happen?” asked (Y/N).

“I simply received a report from a Vulcan counselor,” said Spock.

“Spock, you know I can tell something is wrong.” They held up their hand as Spock opened his mouth to speak. “Don’t worry, it’s not your emotions that are showing. I can just tell. Call it significant-other-intuition.”

Spock was fond of how much (Y/N) understood him, but now he was considering how much easier it would be to continue with a pleasant day if they didn’t see through him.

“Ambassador Spock has passed,” said Spock, getting straight to the point.

“Oh,” said (Y/N), their brow creasing in sadness as they processed the news.

Of course it would disturb Spock. Spock Prime was an alternate timeline’s future version of himself. And (Y/N) couldn’t imagine what (Y/N) Prime was going through. (Y/N) had nearly lost Spock once, and to think of (Y/N) Prime losing their Spock broke (Y/N)’s own heart.

But more important, Spock’s loss of someone who understood him was undoubtedly an ache in his heart. (Y/N) moved closer and touched his hand.

“I’m so sorry, Spock,” they said quietly.

“He lived many years. He was capable and did good work for many people,” said Spock. “There is nothing…There is nothing to mourn.”

“Yes, he was a great man,” agreed (Y/N). “But that doesn’t mean you can’t acknowledge that you’d want him to be alive.”

“I have experienced much loss,” said Spock. He looked at them. “Yet I cannot understand why this is so much different.”

“Because Ambassador Spock understood you,” said (Y/N). “And when someone understands you, you want them to stay with you.” They smiled gently. “It’s natural.”

Spock looked at their fingers against his and nodded. They understood feelings far better than he could, and he sensed they were right. In fact, hearing them acknowledge his feelings without any trepidation or judgement helped him. It let him process in his own time and way.

And yet, one part of their speech stuck out to him. “You want them to stay with you.” Yes, Spock wanted people who understood him to remain with him. He had been isolated and shunned by full-Vulcans as a child, and now he was acknowledged because he “overcame” his difficulties. However, he also had friends. A partner. He had connections that cared for him and he cared for. People like Kirk understood him. (Y/N) understood him.

And Spock had already learned that to lose them meant the loss of his heart. He couldn’t let that happen again. So, even if the other Vulcans wanted him to be with a Vulcan and help their numbers grow, Spock couldn’t—wouldn’t—leave (Y/N). They were the person he loved. He never wanted to be apart from them.

In fact, Spock wanted to marry (Y/N).

“T’hy’la,” said Spock softly. “They also came to speak to me about New Vulcan.”

(Y/N) furrowed their brow. This also didn’t seem to be a good topic. “Is New Vulcan alright?”

“Yes. The planet is suitable, and there are no indigenous people, so we are not intruding on any land or abusing resources,” said Spock. “However, the Vulcan High Council is considering our repopulation. We are not recovering as we should.”

“I’m sorry that it’s taking longer than you hoped,” said (Y/N) gently, supportively.

Spock nodded. “Logically, however, many Vulcans will realize this and likely attempt to either ensure that any childbirths go smoothly and are healthy or consider more children than there were in the past.”

“Vulcans are quite logical,” said (Y/N), smiling. “And I know that they won’t treat their children poorly.”

Although there were bad parents on every planet, Vulcans were fair parents for the most part. There were averages everywhere. Spock’s home situation had been unique due to being half-human.

“No,” said Spock. He looked at (Y/N) intently. “However, they are also speaking to me about my relationship. My relationship with you.”

(Y/N) furrowed their brow, and a fearful feeling twisted in their stomach. “Oh?” They tried to seem neutral, but the idea of Vulcans discussing their relationship made them uneasy. Additionally, because they were discussing Vulcans being in relationships and having children, (Y/N) had a feeling it wasn’t a positive discussion.

Did Spock need to be with a Vulcan? Did he need help Vulcans repopulation? Did Spock need to break up with them?

(Y/N)’s heart nearly broke at just the idea. They loved Spock more than anyone in the galaxy. He was the man they wanted to spend the rest of their life with. (Y/N) would marry him in an instant if he asked.

But if Spock wanted to leave them, (Y/N) couldn’t stop him. They wouldn’t stop him. They’d respect his decision, even if it broke them.

“T’hy’la, I have something I wish to say,” said Spock, gazing at (Y/N).

(Y/N)’s heartbeat picked up in panic. This was it. (Y/N) was going to lose Spock. They were going to lose the man they loved.

“(Y/N)—”

Spock’s communicator trilled, and (Y/N) nearly had a heart attack as Spock’s words were broken off and they were left hanging.

“Kirk to Spock,” said Kirk.

“Spock here,” said Spock, though he had never felt such frustration answering his communicator.

“We have a mission. We’re heading out as soon as possible. Get down to the Enterprise and I’ll explain,” said Kirk. “And I’d call (L/N) myself, but I’m guessing they’re with you.” He spoke with amusement even through the communicator.

“I am,” said (Y/N), clearing their throat and forcing them into professional mode.

“Good, then get going,” said Kirk.

“Yes, Captain,” said Spock.

“Aye, Captain,” said (Y/N).

Gazing at (Y/N), Spock touched their hand. “Once we have a moment, I wish to continue this discussion.”

(Y/N) swallowed hard. “Alright, Spock.”

Oh, how (Y/N) wished they didn’t feel so deeply. Maybe then heartache wouldn’t feel like death.

Taglist:

@a-ofzest

@grippleback-galaxy

@genderfluid-anime-goth

@groovy-lady

@im-making-an-effort

@unending-screaming

@h-l-vlovesvintage

@neenieweenie

@keylimeconstellation

@wormwig

@technikerin23

@ilyatan

@nthdarkqueen

@kyalov

@starlit-cass

@rookietrek

@gingertimelord

35 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 4 months ago

Text

In this 2024 “super election year,” a common concern across Europe and the United States has been the growing popularity and electoral successes of far-right movements and narratives. Though right-wing parties exhibit clear distinctions in different countries, they echo each other strongly in their nationalist orientation, their softness on Russia—and skepticism toward support for Ukraine—and their harsh anti-immigration stance. In the European Union (EU), one election after another has demonstrated the centrality of irregular migration and border security in public discussions and forced mainstream parties to take more restrictive approaches to calm fear and anxiety fueled by xenophobic, far-right rhetoric. The conflation between regular and irregular migration has also severely distorted the debate.

The results of the European Parliament election, France’s snap election, three German state elections, and the Austrian election all showed a strong rightward drift and signaled voters’ distrust in their national governments, confirming the notable shift in tone on migration in Europe toward a more securitized, hardline approach, even among mainstream parties. A look at the numbers indeed reveals a challenging situation as the European Union faces its highest number of asylum applications since 2016, which is straining resources for processing, accommodation, service provision, and thus integration.

In the aftermath of Europe’s so-called “refugee crisis” or “migrant crisis,” which began in 2015, EU member states tried and failed repeatedly to rethink and renew the union’s common policy, until a breakthrough this summer concluded the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. In the interim years, however, national governments made separate plans, implementing ad hoc measures to fortify their borders, restricting access to their asylum systems, and negotiating deals with non-EU states to limit movement.

This patchwork of policies did little to deter an increasing number of displaced persons worldwide from heading toward Europe in search of safety. It did, however, create divisions within and between member states, thus impeding progress on effective EU-wide responses. This political incoherence, together with fluctuating irregular arrivals, has since been exploited by populist parties, who propagate the sense that governments have lost control over their sovereignty and can no longer protect their populations.

To provide a better understanding of the complex situation Europe finds itself in today, this explainer aims to clarify the EU’s role in migration and asylum policy, why the issue became so controversial, how to understand recent developments in the migration space, and what opportunities the new pact offers.

How does migration and asylum policy in Europe work?

The free movement of goods, services, capital, and persons has been a fundamental pillar of the European idea, as enshrined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome that founded the political and economic community that today constitutes the European Union. Within the EU, national borders became almost fully invisible with the creation of the Schengen Area in 1995, which today includes 25 EU member states and four non-EU countries, collectively home to more than 450 million people.

When it comes to regular migration, the law stipulates that the EU has the authority to establish the conditions for entry and legal residence in member states, “including for family-reunification purposes, applicable to nationals of non-EU countries. Member States retain the right to set quotas for admitting individuals from non-EU countries seeking employment.” The fight against irregular immigration requires the EU to implement “an effective returns policy, in a manner consistent with fundamental rights.”

The EU’s Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was established in 1999 to enhance coordination across member states and streamline systems for processing asylum claims and supporting refugees granted protection. More specifically, the “Dublin Regulation” governs relations among member states and manifests that the country of an individual’s first arrival in the EU is responsible for asylum processing and refugee reception. For years, the Schengen regulation of free movement has made the Dublin system difficult to administer, as it unintentionally permitted asylum seekers to self-select destination countries—often based on linguistic abilities, families, perceived hospitality, and benefits. It has also placed disproportionate obligations on EU border countries at the forefront of irregular movements to Europe, particularly in the Mediterranean (Greece, Italy, and Spain) and the Balkans (Hungary, Croatia, and Bulgaria). Finally, a lack of enforcement to relocate applicants in instances of violation has sustained pressure on more “popular” destination countries and undermined authorities’ credibility.

Before this year’s overhaul of common EU policy, as reflected in the agreement on the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum—more on that below—member states at the national level and EU leadership implemented incremental measures to deter irregular arrivals. While some actions temporarily led to decreases in arrivals in certain member states, however, they failed to address the underlying drivers of displacement.

Most notable have been a series of EU deals with third countries in Europe’s neighborhood to improve border management and halt irregular departures toward the EU, in exchange for the provision of financial support. A 2016 agreement with Turkey became a model for future EU deals with North African and Middle Eastern countries, including Lebanon, Egypt, Mauritania, and Tunisia. Italy, on its own, concluded a memorandum of understanding with Libya in 2017, which pledged millions of euros in assistance to enhance the maritime surveillance capacities of the Libyan Coast Guard. In exchange, Libyan authorities would prevent people from departing the Northern African country and intercept irregular migrants at sea to return and detain them in Libya. Yet these “migration partnerships” have been severely criticized by humanitarian groups and lawmakers alike, who express concerns about how the policy legitimizes and increases Europe’s dependency on autocratic regimes, disregards human rights, and threatens migrants’ physical safety. A recent investigative report by The Washington Post and Lighthouse Reports further revealed that local authorities, aided by EU funding and equipment, have violated human rights and asylum law. Several research studies have further criticized the migration deals’ lack of effectiveness.

Why is migration so controversial?

When over 1.2 million people entered the EU in 2015 to claim asylum under international law, most of whom were Syrian refugees fleeing civil war, the CEAS and the Dublin Regulation quickly proved dysfunctional and ineffective in absorbing the shock to European processing and integration systems. The situation sparked tensions among frontline countries—which were challenged by the arrival of 1,216,860 and 1,166,815 asylum seekers at their borders in 2015 and 2016, respectively—and countries further inward, which in many cases resisted migrant transfers to share responsibility and restricted access to their asylum systems under fear of adverse domestic consequences. Municipalities in major destination countries were overwhelmed by the speed and scale of arrivals and faced difficulties mustering enough resources for housing, financial support, and integration of newcomers in their local communities.

Despite agreements by the European Council to relocate up to 160,000 asylum seekers from frontline countries Italy and Greece to other member states to reduce pressures on the Italian and Greek asylum systems, fewer than 12,000 relocations were realized by the end of 2016. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, for instance, refused orders from Brussels to take in 1,294 asylum seekers and instead organized a national referendum on whether the EU should have the authority to “mandate the obligatory resettlement of non-Hungarian citizens into Hungary,” which he used to validate his harsh domestic anti-immigrant approach. Stoking fears of a Muslim “invasion” and claiming his country was the “last Christian-conservative bastion of the Western world,” Orbán’s approach also included the construction of fences at Hungary’s southern borders, changing asylum laws to speed up processing and reduce protections, and introducing “transit zones” at Hungary’s border with Serbia, which have been condemned as “container prisons” surrounded by barbed wires.

In stark contrast, German Chancellor Angela Merkel valiantly declared “Wir schaffen das!” (“We can do it!”) and decided to keep her country’s borders open, leading to the arrival of around 1.2 million asylum seekers in Germany between 2015 and 2016. The real pressure on municipalities and the sense of chaos and disorder, however, benefitted the far-right populist Alternative for Germany (AfD), which entered the federal parliament for the first time in 2017 and became the largest opposition party.

Over the years, asylum seekers have become convenient scapegoats for disillusioned and frustrated Europeans who have seen their societies change and economies tumble because of successive external shocks, from climate change and a global health crisis to rapid technological change and a disruption of Europe’s decades-old security order. In this time of great uncertainty, a rights-based vision of migration and asylum has become a perceived political vulnerability, replaced with a security approach stressing law and order.

In a 2021 effort led by Marine Le Pen, the head of France’s National Rally party, 16 right-wing parties from across Europe—including the governing parties of Hungary, Italy, and Poland at the time—declared their opposition to a “European Superstate” allegedly being created by “radical forces” within the EU. They objected to a perceived “cultural, religious transformation and ultimately nationless construction of Europe” and instead pressed for “respect for the culture and history of European states” and “respect for Europe’s Judeo-Christian heritage.” Uniting diverse national political actors, their communique demonstrates the focus on national identity and Christian values that the far right has portrayed as being under threat because of the EU’s migration policy. Hence, the EU finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place: its policy is weaponized by right-wing populists as too weak, and it is denounced by nongovernmental organizations and observers as not respecting its own values.

How does the new Pact on Migration and Asylum address prior shortcomings?

A sound European policy that attempts to better manage the drivers of irregular migration in countries of origin and centers on the collaboration of all EU member states is needed to handle rising global displacement trends. The passage of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum in May 2024 offers a chance to transform the EU’s current governing framework if implemented effectively by the time the new legislation takes force in 2026. It represents the first major agreement on migration and asylum policy in over a decade, intended to accelerate procedures and enhance cooperation and solidarity between member states.

Framed by the European Commission as a “fair and firm” approach, the new legislation consists of 10 major reform proposals that cement Europe’s policy shift to fortify borders, enhance scrutiny in asylum processing, double down on deporting rejected applicants, and partner with non-EU states of origin and transit to limit irregular arrivals. A key aspect is a new accelerated procedure for asylum applicants from countries with a low recognition rate, whose probability of getting their asylum application request granted is low. The mechanism will take a maximum of 12 weeks (about three months) and permits fast-track processing at EU external borders, during which migrants, including families and children, will stay in collective detention-like facilities. Further, the pact aims to correct the failures of the Dublin Regulation through a new solidarity system, which obliges all member states to share responsibility, either by receiving up to 30,000 asylum applicants per year, paying a fee of 20,000 euros per asylum applicant to assist hosting countries or contributing other resources.

Critics have pointed out, however, that the focus on securitizing EU borders as opposed to addressing humanitarian implications is unlikely to reduce arrival numbers and increases the risks of human rights violations. The European Union must satisfy its obligations under international law to ensure fast-track processing facilities satisfy human rights standards and that all asylum claims are evaluated fairly, as required by the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. These principles should apply equally to EU-funded migration management projects in Europe’s neighborhood.

As the European Union enters a new governing cycle—following the European Parliament election in June and with a new college of commissioners later this fall—it has an opportunity to prioritize a new common migration and asylum policy and take functional steps to achieve a more balanced and orderly system among member states, which provides for the dignity, safety, and rights of those seeking international protection. The number of displaced people globally has increased consistently over the past 12 years and is expected to have exceeded 120 million persons in 2024. However, it is imperative to remember that 75% of displaced persons remain in low- and middle-income countries in the “Global South,” which often struggle with political, economic, and social insecurity themselves. As war continues in Ukraine, conflicts escalate in the Middle East, political instability grows across sub-Saharan Africa, and the secondary effects of climate change jeopardize people’s lives and livelihoods, the EU will be forced to grapple with irregular migration for the foreseeable future.

The nationalities of first-time asylum applicants in the European Union in recent years demonstrate the global nature of migration today. In 2023, for instance, Syrians (183,250), Afghans (100,985), Turks (89,985), Venezuelans (67,085), and Colombians (62,015) represented the five largest nationalities among first-time asylum applicants in the EU. Certainly, contemporary migration flows to Europe are mixed and not all persons applying for asylum fall into the protected categories of the Geneva Convention.

It is also true, however, that many EU countries are changing demographically as birth rates fall across developed economies and are experiencing severe shortages of workers across professional and blue-collar sectors, threatening future social and economic vitality and stability. Immigration, therefore, offers an enormous benefit for Europe to counteract downward demographic and economic trends. Beyond the pact, leaders should dedicate greater efforts to expand legal pathways at the national level for people not considered refugees under international law, but who desperately seek greater economic opportunity and are eager to contribute meaningfully to host societies.

Recent political developments in the European migration space

The yearslong EU effort to agree to a set of clear, cohesive policies as represented by the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, however, appears to be undercut by a recent shift in tone on migration across the bloc. National, xenophobic rhetoric is no longer contained to the fringes of the political spectrum across the European Union. Anti-immigrant sentiment today features dominantly in public debates, after years of far-right populists amplifying cultural anxieties and accusing governments of having lost control of their sovereign borders. Right-wing leaders, from Hungary’s “illiberal democrat” Viktor Orbán to Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, whose Brothers of Italy party has its roots in a 20th-century fascist movement, have increasingly shaped the direction at the EU level toward a more restrictive approach focused on border security and a defense of European culture and values.

Recent electoral outcomes across the EU revealing strong support for far-right parties have sent shockwaves across the continent. Following June’s European Parliament election, parties to the right of the European People’s Party—the center-right Christian Democrats—now hold over one-quarter of seats in the EU’s lower legislature (187 out of 720). The vote produced a snap election in France, from which a center-left coalition barely emerged ahead of the far right. In Germany, the extremist AfD emerged from the European vote as the second strongest party, ahead of all three governing coalition parties. In three recent regional elections in eastern Germany, the AfD and the Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht—a new party on the extreme left founded in January 2024 that has also adopted a harsh anti-immigration stance—fanned the flames of fear and xenophobia and soared to a combined 42%-49%, both landing among the top three strongest parties in each state. Finally, Austria’s September election saw the far-right Freedom Party become as the strongest new parliamentary grouping, whose campaign included promises of “remigration” as part of a larger theme to create a “Fortress Austria.”

In response to these volatile political trends, member states—including many led by centrist governments—are once again turning to reactive, unilateral measures to contain the far right by way of a more restrictive stance on migration and asylum.

Most notably, Germany’s center-left government has drastically shifted its tone on combating irregular migration and enhancing domestic security after two fatal knife assaults occurred in Germany this summer, whose perpetrators turned out to be foreign nationals. In a stark break with Merkel’s hopeful and humanitarian spirit, the government expanded temporary controls to include all German borders—defying the Schengen regulation—imposed stricter rules on benefits and protected status for asylum seekers, and even began deportations of convicted Afghans to Afghanistan. Not only are these actions inconsistent with the principle of EU solidarity and grounds for heightened tensions with Germany’s neighbors, but the German police union has deemed the border checks largely ineffective, particularly as people claiming asylum can still enter.

Emboldened by the German turn on the issue, Orbán most recently threatened to send buses of migrants to Brussels—copying his conservative MAGA friends in the United States. The new French government, led by Prime Minister Michel Barnier, has also vowed to crack down on irregular entries and strengthen controls at France’s borders. In Poland, Prime Minister and former President of the European Council Donald Tusk announced a temporary suspension of the right to seek asylum for irregular migrants entering through the Polish-Belarusian border, claiming that Russia and Belarus were “weaponizing” migrants in attempts to destabilize the EU. The policy could violate the right to non-refoulement—which protects individuals from being returned to a country under international human rights law—and set a perilous precedent for other member states trying to restrict irregular entries.

In a novel move, Meloni concluded a new “partnership” with Albania—a non-EU country—under which Italy will send up to 36,000 asylum applicants per year to process their claims externally. Though the policy only applies to adult male individuals intercepted in international waters prior to arrival at Italian shores, several attempted transfers of migrants to Albanian processing centers have already been invalidated by an Italian court. Together with six other EU countries, Meloni has also tried to advance normalization with the Assad regime in Syria, in part to reconsider the possibility of returning Syrian refugees to the war-torn country.

At the October 2024 European Council summit, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Charles Michel, and leaders of EU member states gathered to discuss a full agenda of topics in which migration featured prominently. In a letter setting the tone for the summit, von der Leyen stressed to European leaders the centrality of expanding third-country partnerships like those concluded with Turkey and countries in North Africa and the Middle East, to improve processes of return and counter the “weaponization” of migrants by Russia, Belarus, and others attempting to instigate political instability in Europe. During the meetings, the agreement between Italy and Albania was lauded as a model for the EU to emulate, confirming the shift toward externalization that has gained traction in Europe.

Notably absent from the summit communique was any mention of the new common EU Pact on Migration and Asylum or strategies for its timely and comprehensive implementation. The recent uncoordinated measures by EU members and their preoccupation with “weaponization,” third-country deals, and “return hubs” at the EU level are unlikely to provide the sense of reassurance, cohesion, and opportunity that people expect of their national and European leaders.

35 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 7 months ago

Text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 10, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 11, 2024

“In 1949, when leaders of 12 countries, including President Truman, came together in this very room, history was watching,” President Joe Biden said yesterday evening at the opening of the 2024 NATO Summit, being held from July 9 through July 12, in Washington, D.C.

“It had been four years since the surrender of the Axis powers and the end of the most devastating world war the world had ever, ever known,” Biden continued.

“Here, these 12 leaders gathered to make a sacred pledge to defend each other against aggression, provide their collective security, and to answer threats as one, because they knew to prevent future wars, to protect democracies, to lay the groundwork for a lasting peace and prosperity, they needed a new approach. They needed to combine their strengths. They needed an alliance.”

That alliance was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the “single greatest, most effective defensive alliance in the history of the world,” as Biden said.

The NATO collective defense agreement has stabilized the world for the past 75 years thanks to its provision in Article 5 that each of the NATO allies will consider an attack on one as an attack on all, and respond accordingly.

Biden looked back at the alliance’s 75 years. “Together, we rebuilt Europe from the ruins of war, held high the torch of liberty during long decades of the Cold War,” he said. “When former adversaries became fellow democracies, we welcomed them into the Alliance. When war broke out in the Balkans, we intervened to restore peace and stop ethnic cleansing. And when the United States was attacked on September 11th, our NATO Allies—all of you—stood with us, invoking Article 5 for the first time in NATO history, treating an attack on us as an attack on all of us—a breathtaking display of friendship that the American people will never ever, ever forget.”

Biden celebrated that the alliance has continually adapted to a changing world and noted that it has changed its strategies to stay ahead of threats and reached out to new partners to become more effective. Biden noted that leaders from countries in the Indo-Pacific region had joined the leaders of the 32 NATO countries at this year’s summit. So did the leaders of NATO’s partner countries, including Ukraine, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and the European Union. “They’re here because they have a stake in our success and we have a stake in theirs,” Biden said.

The promise of collective defense was daunting for opponents in 1949, when the treaty had 12 signatories: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. It is even more daunting now that there are 32, with both Finland and Sweden having joined the alliance after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Together, the NATO countries can marshal about 3,370,000 active-duty military personnel and have a collective defense budget of more than $1.2 trillion.

In addition, as Jim Garamone of Department of Defense News noted, the NATO countries share intelligence, training, tactics, and equipment, as well as agreements for permitting the use of airspace and bases. “[O]ur commitment is broad and deep,” Biden said. “[W]e’re willing, and we’re able to deter aggression and defend every inch of NATO territory across every domain: land, air, sea, cyber, and space.”

When NATO formed, the main concern of the countries backing it was resisting Soviet aggression, but with the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Russian president Vladimir Putin, NATO turned to resisting Russian aggression. “[H]istory calls for our collective strength,” Biden said. “Autocrats want to overturn global order, which has by and large kept for nearly 80 years and counting.”

Biden called out Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine and recalled that NATO had built a global coalition to stand behind Ukraine, providing weapons and aid while also moving troops into the surrounding NATO countries. He announced that the U.S., Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, and Italy are donating more air defense equipment.

“All the Allies knew that before this war, Putin thought NATO would break,” Biden said. “Today, NATO is stronger than it’s ever been in its history.” Biden noted that the world is in a pivotal moment, and reminded his listeners: “The fact that NATO remains the bulwark of global security did not happen by accident. It wasn’t inevitable. Again and again, at critical moments, we chose unity over disunion, progress over retreat, freedom over tyranny, and hope over fear.

Again and again, we stood behind our shared vision of a peaceful and prosperous transatlantic community.”

He assured the attendees that an “overwhelming bipartisan majority of Americans understand that NATO makes us all safer…. The American people know that all the progress we’ve made in the past 75 years has happened behind the shield of NATO,” understanding that without it, we would face “another war in Europe, American troops fighting and dying, dictators spreading chaos, economic collapse, catastrophe.” He assured allies that Americans understand our “sacred obligation” to NATO, and quoted Republican president Ronald Reagan, who said: “If our fellow democracies are not secure, we cannot be secure. If you are threatened, we are threatened. And if you are not at peace, we cannot be at peace.”

And then Biden surprised NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, the former Norwegian prime minister who is stepping down from his NATO position after serving since 2014, with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. “Today, NATO is stronger, smarter, and more energized than when you began,” Biden said. “And a billion people across Europe and North America and, indeed, the whole world will reap the rewards of your labor for years to come in the form of security, opportunity, and greater freedoms.”

Today, Biden reiterated the theme that alliances happen not “by chance but by choice.” Before the attendees got to work, he explained that the NATO countries must strengthen their home industrial bases and capacity in order to produce critical defense equipment more quickly, a deficiency made clear in the struggle to get armaments to Ukraine. Such readiness will strengthen security, he said, as well as creating “stronger supply chains, a stronger economy, stronger military, and a stronger nation.”

The Washington Summit Declaration released today reaffirms NATO as “the unique, essential, and indispensable transatlantic forum to consult, coordinate, and act on all matters related to our individual and collective security,” saying “[o]ur commitment to defend one another and every inch of Allied territory at all times, as enshrined in Article 5…is iron-clad.”

It warns that “Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security” and pledges “unwavering solidarity” with Ukraine. It says that “Ukraine’s future is in NATO” and calls out Belarus, North Korea, Iran, and China for enabling Putin’s war. Indeed, the declaration calls out China even more directly, warning that it “continues to pose systemic challenges to Euro-Atlantic security,” especially by flooding other countries with disinformation.

Russian aggression is a deep concern for NATO countries; so is Trump, who worked to take the U.S. out of NATO when he was in office, vowed he will accomplish that in a second term, and in February 2024 told an audience that if he thought NATO countries weren’t contributing enough to their own defense he would tell Russia to “do whatever the hell they want.” (Biden noted yesterday that when he took office, only nine NATO countries met their target goal of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on their defense, while this year, 23 will.)

Biden was key to rebuilding the NATO alliance after Trump weakened it, and the leaders at the NATO summit told foreign policy journalist for The Daily Beast David Rothkopf that they were “not concerned with Biden’s ability to play a leading role in NATO during his second term.” They “express confidence in his judgment” and “have a great deal of confidence in the foreign policy team around him.” But they worry about Trump.

Shortly after Biden gave his powerful speech opening the summit, Trump had his first public event since the June 27 CNN event, at his Doral golf club. It was a wandering rant packed, as usual, with wild lies, but he did touch on the topic of NATO. “I didn’t even know what the hell NATO was too much before, but it didn’t take me long to figure it out, like about two minutes,” he said. Trump’s former national security advisor John Bolton told a reporter that Trump’s willingness to undermine NATO is “a demonstration of the lack of seriousness of the way Trump treats the alliance, because he doesn't understand it."

Following the NATO summit, Hungary’s right-wing prime minister, Viktor Orbán, who remains an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, will visit former president Trump at Mar-a-Lago, just days after meeting with Putin in Moscow and with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing. There is speculation that Orbán is acting as an intermediary between Trump and Putin, for whom the destruction of NATO is a key goal.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#NATO #Putin #election 2024 #NATO summit #Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #Orban #American History #history

45 notes · View notes

nomstellations · 7 months ago

Note

Request: A princess has to go to a neighboring kingdom to make agreements about something. When she announces this to her guard, a centaur, they immidiately becomes over protective of her, and she ends up having to spend the entire journey inside the guard's belly. When she finally meet the other royal figure, they're able to bond over their overprotective guards and how silly they can be at times, something they both have in common.

“...and so, you’ll be sent off to the neighboring kingdom to discuss the treaty. Understood? Make your preparations now, as you’ll be leaving today.”

“Yes, father.”

A diplomacy trip. Great. She had no desire to travel, but her father's word was final and this was something far above the pay grade of the average noble.

Viola stepped out of her father’s chambers with a heavy sigh, not looking forward to the coming days. Diplomacy was never her strong suit, yet here she was getting shipped off to meet with the prince of a nearby kingdom. It should be simple enough, the kingdom of Brightcoast and the kingdom of Deepwood got along well, and this treaty was only to ensure that it stayed that way. It was a 3-day journey by horse, her father likely had a carriage and provisions prepared for her, she was just given time to pack clothes and any other personal items she'd need for the journey. At least it wasn’t long...she must have looked visibly tired, as her personal guard gave her a worried look as she approached her bedchambers.

“Milady, are you well? You look troubled.”

“Relax Timpani, I’m alright. Just a bit busy is all...” She waves her off with a dismissive hand gesture, entering her room without another word. Timpani was her royal retainer, or in more simple terms her bodyguard. She was a rather large and imposing centaur, but only she and a select few knew about her heart of gold that hid beneath her armor. She had grown up with her, they got along quite well but ever since she was assigned as her guard, she took her job quite seriously. A little too seriously, if you asked her...

She busied herself with backing a bag or two of things to take with her, and strode out of her room with them in tow. Timpani was waiting there as always, giving her a worried look. “Viola, you can talk to me you know...I know that look.” She pauses and looks at the bags at her side, and gasps. “L-lady Viola! You’re not planning on running away, are you?!” She shakes her head, sighing. She didn’t want to tell her, but it’s better this way than to let her imagination run away with her. “Father’s sending me off to Deepwood to discuss a treaty. I’ll be gone for a week, at most.” Hopefully she wouldn’t get too worked up about it. She knew what would befall her if she did.

"Deepwood?! That's at least a week of travel from here and back!"

"Y-yes, but father has already prepared an escort, and-"

"What if your're attacked on the road and I'm not there to keep you safe? Milady, I cannot just let you go so far away unprotected! As your sword and shield, I'll see to your protection personally!" Despite her protests, the centaur effortlessly lifted Viola up to her face, who dropped her bags in an effort to resist her impending fate. She pushed against Timpani's face- and found that her mouth was wide open, all to eager to take in her hands and swallow them down. The rest of her wouldn't be too far behind, she had to leave as soon as possible!

"Glp...glrk...glurp..."

Powerful, steady swallows ushered the princess deep into her bodyguard. It was useless to struggle- Timpani was strong and her insides were even stronger, she had a good grip on what was left of her outside and there was no getting out. All she could do was let herself be ushered into her stomach, listening to her inner workings as she traveled past them. Viola started to enter her first stomach, but her heavy armor prevented her stomach from comfortably filling. So she was pushed deeper beyond the first, traveling down towards her second and larger stomach.

Timpani's lower stomach grumbled all too happily at her arrival, cradling the princess with care as she spilled inside of it. She thankfully had plenty of room to move here- her guard's lower body was armored, but her underbelly had room to stretch. A stifled belch from above caused the chamber to compress only for a moment before settling into a rhythm of gentle churns. "Haah....there you are milady, all safe and sound. Rest easy, I will see to it that your items are well cared for during our trip!"

Her voice sounded much farther away from where she was, but Viola could easily hear and feel her trotting off. She knew this would happen...but she wasn't wrong. This WAS the safest place for her...and it was where she stayed for almost the entirety of the trip to Deepwood. Timpani let her go so she could eat and wash herself, but as soon as she was finished with her necessities she was quickly ushered back into her belly. Timpani made sure to talk to her plenty while she was inside, and the rocking movements of her belly were comforting enough to lull her to sleep on many occasions. When her escort finally reached Deepwood, she was almost reluctant to leave her side...or rather, her insides.

The discussion of the treaty went over well, at least. As it turns out, the crown prince of Deepwood has similar woes with his draconic bodyguard. They both were able to bond over that among shared interests, and Viola felt herself finding a friend in him. Maybe another visit would have to be in order, sometime... Which meant another long ride inside her retainer's gut.

#answered #anonymous #v0re #extreme cuddling #nonsexual vore #soft vore #safe vore #samesize vore #female pred #vore fic #Viola #Timpani #this is another really old request #i retooled it and then had too much fun with it. oops!#maybe ill make the prince and his dragon characters too

36 notes · View notes