Great insights, Branko. I was especially struck by your analysis of the post-Cold War era. It is indeed alarming that once respectable states have turned into vassal states and that neo-colonialism is quite present in the international system. What is also disturbing is that few people realize this and even fewer seem to care!!
I don't think that anything has changed since the glory days of the non-naligned. As you say yourself: "When the ... non-aligned countries were strong ..."
They were strong (or strong enough) and that was acknowledged by others with symbolic gestures. When not strong enough there are no symbolic gestures of that kind. Now, you're interpreting the situation as a symbolic gesture of humiliation, but you're the one who put that idea into your head. The prime ministers most certainly didn't.
I sincerely doubt that their conduct was intended as the "kiss the ring" symbol.
But let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that it was.
So what? You can't control what other people do or don't do, but you can control your reaction.
If you're small you can unionize with other small entities and become stronger for the purposes of balance of power geopolitical game. Which is what the non-aligned did, once upon a time. And it wasn't easy and it's not that there was no competition in that space. It took almost 10 years to organize the movement and the first conference in Belgrade.
I'm not following closely, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the countries of the ASEAN are doing exactly that, rather better than the non-aligned did.
So what's stopping Serbia or Croatia or any other little country from joining (or forming) a union? The great powers or their own politicians?
I also don't think that power is the only thing that matters, neither now nor during the non-aligned heyday. Principles matter very much, but you can't do anything with 100% principles and 0% power.
I agree w/ you. For a small country to garner more respect, it needs t develop economically, to be politically smart & to unite or coordinate its policies with others. The non-aligned movement tried to do that. It succeeded imperfectly, but there is no doubt that it had significant influence for a while and helped avoid direct conflict between the West and USSR in several cases. I think we need a new version of it; as in the past, neither US, nor Russia nor China should be part of it.
This is certainly true, but perhaps also Europe specific?
Because what I've been seeing in the last year or so, esp. since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, is an increasing independence shown by many 'third world' powers outside of Europe- Brazil, India, South Africa, Mexico etc.
Perhaps the effect is more that countries in Europe are being drawn more into the US + EU alliance camp and countries outside it (depending on your interpretation) more into the Russa+China/ non-aligned camp?*
*To be clear, I lean more towards the interpretation that states like Mexico and India are leaning more towards non-alignment, but I felt I should give the more conventional Euro-American interpretation as well just for the sake of fairness
Good point. But I think it is broader than Europe, and is not only present in the past 1.5 years during the Russia-Ukraine war. But perhaps it is more noticeable now.
Isn’t this Yugoslavia-specific? When the Soviets “visited” Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they met the opposition... with tanks. (And similar things hold of the US in Latin America.) Yugoslavia kept more independent because of Tito’s balancing act.
The US used to train the gov or the opposition in their School of the Americas (for all your torture).
Now they've expanded the curriculum and train allies in culture wars:
'In 2010, the U.S. State Department invited French politicians and activists to a leadership program to help them strengthen the voice and representation of ethnic groups that have been excluded from government...
...former U.S. Ambassador Charles H. Rivkin laid out the pragmatic, self-interested rationale for the program, part of what was called a “Minority Engagement Strategy”:
'French institutions have not proven themselves flexible enough to adjust to an increasingly heterodox demography. We believe that if France, over the long run, does not successfully increase opportunity and provide genuine political representation for its minority populations, France could become a weaker, more divided country, perhaps more crisis-prone and inward-looking, and consequently a less capable ally.'
Wiki: 'Rokhaya Diallo defines herself as "an intersectional and decolonial feminist"'.
And this is France. The UK, the US' closest ally, is light-years ahead when it comes to identifying who has the right opinions and who is the enemy.
It doesn't alway work out as planned (like so often with US foreign policy):
FBI and CIA activities vs the Lula gov in Brazil finally paid off in april 2018 when Lula was arrested. One of the prosecutors in a leaked Telegram conversation:
'Prosecutor Laura Tessler announces: “I’m going to celebrate today”.
“A gift from the CIA” mocks Dallagnol.'
Sergio Moro, probably the most visible judge in the Lava Jato case and who built a political career on it, and Deltan Dallagnol, ex-Harvard & former lead prosecutor who also built a political career on it (Podemos) and who was removed from office one month ago on fraud charges - he immediately moved to Chicago while supporters take care of his fines) now stand accused of treason for collusion with a foreign power.
During last year's Bolsonaro vs Lula election the US now supported Lula (...) and had a.o. CIA director Burns deliver the message to Bolsonaro to not mess with the BR electoral system (given the US reputation in Latin America this message had to be brought convincingly i guess).
Lula won and, with the US led by Obama's no 2, Lula, who always claimed the Obama administration tried to derail him, doesn't miss an opportunity to divert from US positions, do business with US rivals and strengthen BRICS:
Brazil's Lula criticises US dollar and IMF during China visit
Meetings with opposition politicians and civil society are routine in democratic countries, and many less than democratic ones. Certainly the Serbian President has met both Democrats and Republicans on visits to the U.S., as he should.
Generally foreign delegations do meet with the opposition. Even nowadays; the delegations from less prominent countries would not be prevented from meeting with the opposition or “shadow governments”, especially if those had a chance to be back in power. I agree with the direction of your point but, with due respect, not completely with your analysis.
Agree; they cannot be prevented. But they would be laughed out of the court if they asked to do so, and probably their stay in the country and the success of their visit would be severely curtailed. On top of that, they would be ridiculed by the mainstream Western media. So no one dares to do that.
Of course, for this to happen there needs to be an interest, or common grounds. So currently Orban would not be interested in meeting the Labour Party Chief but he’s likely to be more interested in meeting the Conservative Party Chief, should they be the opposition. My point is that they are allowed to meet. Why some of the smaller states leaders choose not to is another issue.
Wouldn't inequality of power be much lower now than it was in the past since inequality between nations since the age of hyperglobalisation has fallen significantly. You seem have a very nostalgic view of state to state relations of the later half of the 20th century.
I suppose unrelenting pessimism is what counts as intellectualism in the modern day.
On the other hand, a lot of previously poor states have got a lot of new self-respect, for example the Asian ones, see for example Kishore Mahbubani: Has the west lost it? from 2018. The whole swathe from India over Indonesia to China won't bow down to any European son-of-a-bitch.
Bosnia has been an outright colonial vassal for the past thirty years. Right now, Christian Schmidt, an unelected German official, regularly tries to implement new laws Bosnia without any debate in the country's parliament. He literally announces a new law and expects everyone to follow it. Since these laws are always to the detriment of the Bosnian Serbs, who govern half of Bosnia's territory, Schmidt has caused an enormous crisis in the country that is not going away. Why has a civilized and democratic Europe encouraged Schmidt to do this? He has not been elected and has an agenda that reflect longstanding German machinations in this part of the Balkans.
"Unlike in the period 1960-1990 when the Third World and non-aligned countries were strong and there was at least formally a recognition of equality of states"
- I can't believe Mr Milanovic said this. Surely he's been hacked by someone out to destroy his credibility? The 1960-1990 period began with US/Belgian murder of Patrice Lumumba and installation of the hideous Mobutu dictatorship; 1963 saw the US/UK-orchestrated overthrow of Abdul Karim Qasim in Iraq (in which Saddam Hussein was employed to 'eliminate' thousands of Iraqi nationalists); two years later the US/UK/Australia-organised 1965 military coup against Sukharno in Indonesia, in which one million +/- a few hundred thousand Indonesia workers and farmers were massacred; the CIA coup against Allende in Chile in 1972... these are just a few highlights from a very, very long litany of heinous crimes which are yet to be acknowledged, let alone atoned for, and which make nonsense of the quoted passage from his otherwise-wise blogpost.
John, this is a fair point. What I wanted to say that in inter-state or inter-governmental official relations there was, at least on surface, more mutual respect. Each state would formally pretend to respect another. The US representatives, however, much they disagreed with (say) Ghana under Nkhrumah, Egypt under Nasser. India or Zambia would not openly, in meetings give lectures on the rights way to do things. Nowadays, they do daily, and people have become used to it. Same for the EU.
Hi Branko, OK; fair enough... but there's such a lot riding on "at least on surface" (or "at least formally" in your original post).
So you're saying that leaders of the imperialist democracies are today not quite so hypocritical and insincere as they were 1960-90? That they should more carefully dissimulate?
Anyway, whether or not western leaders show respect or condescension towards leaders of sovereign states is surely of secondary importance compared to whether or not, through their foul deeds, they have inflicted suffering and death on a colossal scale that continues down through the generations. Has DRC recovered from the crimes the west committed against it in 1960?
Well written analysis for especially the final sentence: they have lost the self respect
Great insights, Branko. I was especially struck by your analysis of the post-Cold War era. It is indeed alarming that once respectable states have turned into vassal states and that neo-colonialism is quite present in the international system. What is also disturbing is that few people realize this and even fewer seem to care!!
I don't think that anything has changed since the glory days of the non-naligned. As you say yourself: "When the ... non-aligned countries were strong ..."
They were strong (or strong enough) and that was acknowledged by others with symbolic gestures. When not strong enough there are no symbolic gestures of that kind. Now, you're interpreting the situation as a symbolic gesture of humiliation, but you're the one who put that idea into your head. The prime ministers most certainly didn't.
I sincerely doubt that their conduct was intended as the "kiss the ring" symbol.
But let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that it was.
So what? You can't control what other people do or don't do, but you can control your reaction.
If you're small you can unionize with other small entities and become stronger for the purposes of balance of power geopolitical game. Which is what the non-aligned did, once upon a time. And it wasn't easy and it's not that there was no competition in that space. It took almost 10 years to organize the movement and the first conference in Belgrade.
I'm not following closely, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the countries of the ASEAN are doing exactly that, rather better than the non-aligned did.
So what's stopping Serbia or Croatia or any other little country from joining (or forming) a union? The great powers or their own politicians?
I also don't think that power is the only thing that matters, neither now nor during the non-aligned heyday. Principles matter very much, but you can't do anything with 100% principles and 0% power.
I agree w/ you. For a small country to garner more respect, it needs t develop economically, to be politically smart & to unite or coordinate its policies with others. The non-aligned movement tried to do that. It succeeded imperfectly, but there is no doubt that it had significant influence for a while and helped avoid direct conflict between the West and USSR in several cases. I think we need a new version of it; as in the past, neither US, nor Russia nor China should be part of it.
Totally agreed. Has been happening in the global South for far too long. Congressmen meet Pakistani opposition leaders so frequently.
This is certainly true, but perhaps also Europe specific?
Because what I've been seeing in the last year or so, esp. since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, is an increasing independence shown by many 'third world' powers outside of Europe- Brazil, India, South Africa, Mexico etc.
Perhaps the effect is more that countries in Europe are being drawn more into the US + EU alliance camp and countries outside it (depending on your interpretation) more into the Russa+China/ non-aligned camp?*
*To be clear, I lean more towards the interpretation that states like Mexico and India are leaning more towards non-alignment, but I felt I should give the more conventional Euro-American interpretation as well just for the sake of fairness
Good point. But I think it is broader than Europe, and is not only present in the past 1.5 years during the Russia-Ukraine war. But perhaps it is more noticeable now.
Isn’t this Yugoslavia-specific? When the Soviets “visited” Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they met the opposition... with tanks. (And similar things hold of the US in Latin America.) Yugoslavia kept more independent because of Tito’s balancing act.
Excellent analysis. Reminds me of the support the USA and the EU provided to the opposition. In Ukraine. Great powers get to decide....
The US used to train the gov or the opposition in their School of the Americas (for all your torture).
Now they've expanded the curriculum and train allies in culture wars:
'In 2010, the U.S. State Department invited French politicians and activists to a leadership program to help them strengthen the voice and representation of ethnic groups that have been excluded from government...
...former U.S. Ambassador Charles H. Rivkin laid out the pragmatic, self-interested rationale for the program, part of what was called a “Minority Engagement Strategy”:
'French institutions have not proven themselves flexible enough to adjust to an increasingly heterodox demography. We believe that if France, over the long run, does not successfully increase opportunity and provide genuine political representation for its minority populations, France could become a weaker, more divided country, perhaps more crisis-prone and inward-looking, and consequently a less capable ally.'
https://bit.ly/3NZK7Ji
Wiki: 'Rokhaya Diallo defines herself as "an intersectional and decolonial feminist"'.
And this is France. The UK, the US' closest ally, is light-years ahead when it comes to identifying who has the right opinions and who is the enemy.
It doesn't alway work out as planned (like so often with US foreign policy):
FBI and CIA activities vs the Lula gov in Brazil finally paid off in april 2018 when Lula was arrested. One of the prosecutors in a leaked Telegram conversation:
'Prosecutor Laura Tessler announces: “I’m going to celebrate today”.
“A gift from the CIA” mocks Dallagnol.'
Sergio Moro, probably the most visible judge in the Lava Jato case and who built a political career on it, and Deltan Dallagnol, ex-Harvard & former lead prosecutor who also built a political career on it (Podemos) and who was removed from office one month ago on fraud charges - he immediately moved to Chicago while supporters take care of his fines) now stand accused of treason for collusion with a foreign power.
During last year's Bolsonaro vs Lula election the US now supported Lula (...) and had a.o. CIA director Burns deliver the message to Bolsonaro to not mess with the BR electoral system (given the US reputation in Latin America this message had to be brought convincingly i guess).
Lula won and, with the US led by Obama's no 2, Lula, who always claimed the Obama administration tried to derail him, doesn't miss an opportunity to divert from US positions, do business with US rivals and strengthen BRICS:
Brazil's Lula criticises US dollar and IMF during China visit
https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20230414-brazil-s-lula-criticises-us-dollar-and-imf-during-china-visit
Meanwhile the Guardian, in love with both Biden and Lula, tries to make the best of it...
'Lula and the US haven’t always gotten along. It’s time for Biden to change that'
English understatement...
Actually when president Lula came recently to France, he first went to meet Mélenchon, the head of the leftist opposition in France :)
https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/avant-de-dejeuner-avec-macron-le-president-bresilien-lula-rencontre-jean-luc-melenchon-20230623
Good point. I did not know it.
Meetings with opposition politicians and civil society are routine in democratic countries, and many less than democratic ones. Certainly the Serbian President has met both Democrats and Republicans on visits to the U.S., as he should.
Generally foreign delegations do meet with the opposition. Even nowadays; the delegations from less prominent countries would not be prevented from meeting with the opposition or “shadow governments”, especially if those had a chance to be back in power. I agree with the direction of your point but, with due respect, not completely with your analysis.
Agree; they cannot be prevented. But they would be laughed out of the court if they asked to do so, and probably their stay in the country and the success of their visit would be severely curtailed. On top of that, they would be ridiculed by the mainstream Western media. So no one dares to do that.
For example, Hungarian Dobrev meets Labour Party Chief in London https://www.budapesttimes.hu/hungary/dobrev-meets-labour-party-chief-in-london/
Of course, for this to happen there needs to be an interest, or common grounds. So currently Orban would not be interested in meeting the Labour Party Chief but he’s likely to be more interested in meeting the Conservative Party Chief, should they be the opposition. My point is that they are allowed to meet. Why some of the smaller states leaders choose not to is another issue.
Wouldn't inequality of power be much lower now than it was in the past since inequality between nations since the age of hyperglobalisation has fallen significantly. You seem have a very nostalgic view of state to state relations of the later half of the 20th century.
I suppose unrelenting pessimism is what counts as intellectualism in the modern day.
On the other hand, a lot of previously poor states have got a lot of new self-respect, for example the Asian ones, see for example Kishore Mahbubani: Has the west lost it? from 2018. The whole swathe from India over Indonesia to China won't bow down to any European son-of-a-bitch.
Bosnia has been an outright colonial vassal for the past thirty years. Right now, Christian Schmidt, an unelected German official, regularly tries to implement new laws Bosnia without any debate in the country's parliament. He literally announces a new law and expects everyone to follow it. Since these laws are always to the detriment of the Bosnian Serbs, who govern half of Bosnia's territory, Schmidt has caused an enormous crisis in the country that is not going away. Why has a civilized and democratic Europe encouraged Schmidt to do this? He has not been elected and has an agenda that reflect longstanding German machinations in this part of the Balkans.
"and many people, having become used to it during the past thirty years,"
30 years?
"Unlike in the period 1960-1990 when the Third World and non-aligned countries were strong and there was at least formally a recognition of equality of states"
- I can't believe Mr Milanovic said this. Surely he's been hacked by someone out to destroy his credibility? The 1960-1990 period began with US/Belgian murder of Patrice Lumumba and installation of the hideous Mobutu dictatorship; 1963 saw the US/UK-orchestrated overthrow of Abdul Karim Qasim in Iraq (in which Saddam Hussein was employed to 'eliminate' thousands of Iraqi nationalists); two years later the US/UK/Australia-organised 1965 military coup against Sukharno in Indonesia, in which one million +/- a few hundred thousand Indonesia workers and farmers were massacred; the CIA coup against Allende in Chile in 1972... these are just a few highlights from a very, very long litany of heinous crimes which are yet to be acknowledged, let alone atoned for, and which make nonsense of the quoted passage from his otherwise-wise blogpost.
John, this is a fair point. What I wanted to say that in inter-state or inter-governmental official relations there was, at least on surface, more mutual respect. Each state would formally pretend to respect another. The US representatives, however, much they disagreed with (say) Ghana under Nkhrumah, Egypt under Nasser. India or Zambia would not openly, in meetings give lectures on the rights way to do things. Nowadays, they do daily, and people have become used to it. Same for the EU.
Hi Branko, OK; fair enough... but there's such a lot riding on "at least on surface" (or "at least formally" in your original post).
So you're saying that leaders of the imperialist democracies are today not quite so hypocritical and insincere as they were 1960-90? That they should more carefully dissimulate?
Anyway, whether or not western leaders show respect or condescension towards leaders of sovereign states is surely of secondary importance compared to whether or not, through their foul deeds, they have inflicted suffering and death on a colossal scale that continues down through the generations. Has DRC recovered from the crimes the west committed against it in 1960?
Lest we forget what they want us to forget!
Agree that actions speak louder than words; but my texts dealt only with the latter.
Luxembourg=power?