Day: June 22, 2024
There has been much talk of a “far-right surge” in the European Parliament. For example,;BBC;ran a headline, “Far right eyes Europe vote surge…,” shortly before the elections. On June 5th,;Politico;reported, “As the far right surges, this week’s European Parliament election will reorder the Continent’s political landscape.” One of CNN’s;post-election headlines;ran, “Far right surges in European Parliament elections but center still holds.” These sorts of headlines may make for exciting reading, but they reveal a profound lack of understanding of what is really going on politically in Europe.
First, while you will always find pockets of far-right thinking in Europe’s political system, the notion that new and emerging political parties on the right are generally “far-right” is simply false. For example, if you go to the webpage of one of the major emerging political groups that is;supposed;to be part of the “far-right surge,” the;European Conservatives and Reformists, you are greeted not by neo-Nazi slogans, but by commitments to “safeguarding citizens and borders,” “respecting the rights and sovereignty of member States,” “protecting the global environment at a cost we can afford,” “improving the union’s efficiency and effectiveness,” and “cooperating with global partners.”;
If you peruse the website of the Brothers of Italy (Fratelli d’Italia), the political party associated with the supposedly “far-right” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, in search of reactionary and extremist ideas, you will be deeply disappointed. The website displays a fairly humdrum list of policies to promote economic growth, a safer Europe, a better health system, policies to support families and boost the birth rate, opposition to bio-surveillance (“green pass”), and the need to combat illegal immigration.;
Here, for example, is a translation of one paragraph from the Brothers of Italy’s European;electoral platform, concerning immigration:
It must be Europe that decides who enters its territory and not criminal organizations or external actors interested in using migratory flows as a weapon to destabilize governments. Immigration must be framed within a context of legality and addressed in a structural manner. Saving lives is a duty, as is protecting those entitled to asylum, but the model favored by the left—characterized by indiscriminate acceptance and never-implemented redistributions (of migrants)—has proven to be a failure.
Anyone who describes these sorts of policies as “far-right” is either deeply deluded or simply determined to discredit their political adversaries by any means available. Yet this sort of lazy, dishonest, and demonising treatment of the new right in Europe, which mostly ignores the;actual;electoral platforms of new-right parties, is now standard fare in mainstream Western media.;
The term “far-right” should be reserved for political groups that oppose constitutionalism, are rabidly racist, or want to institute an authoritarian State akin to fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. But instead, the term has degenerated into a cheap label used to discredit political conservatives.;
This label is being attached willy-nilly to people who take political positions that are not in vogue among those who self-identify as “Woke” and/or “progressive,” even if these same positions were considered fairly conventional a couple of decades ago: People are labelled “far-right” if they defend the idea of a national identity, want an orderly immigration process, advocate for laws that are tough on crime, believe in traditional marriage and biological markers for gender; or believe that civil rights like informed consent are still relevant during a pandemic.
If you really want to understand why new parties are emerging on the right, throwing around the “far-right” label will not get you very far. What is really happening is that the traditional right-wing parties, many of which are represented by Europe’s largest political group, the;European People’s Party, have jumped ship on a lot of traditional right-wing commitments, creating a vacuum to be filled by the “new right.”
For example, rule of law and limited government have been replaced, under the watch of mainstream “right-wing” parties, with vaccine passports, lockdowns, intrusive hate speech laws, crippling “green” taxes and regulations, and the Orwellian idea that we should clamp down on “disinformation,” lest citizens be exposed to “dangerous” ideas.
The old right has overseen a Europe of uncontrolled and disorderly immigration, with no proper vetting of migrants and little consideration for the impact of large-scale migration on local communities. And the old commitment to the right to law and order has given way to a palpable complacency and inaction in the face of a growing crime problem in Europe’s cities.
This has created a pent-up political demand for parties prepared to avow traditional right-wing commitments, such as law and order, orderly immigration, freedom of speech, pro-family taxation and welfare policies, and limited government.;
In some cases, this political vacuum has been filled with egregiously xenophobic, racist, and authoritarian rhetoric. But in many other cases, parties dismissed as “far-right” are simply questioning the wisdom of open border policies, exposing abuses of the refugee system, defending free speech, and trying to moderate the green agenda so that it is not so oppressive for farmers and ordinary citizens.
If having serious concerns about immigration and being opposed to far-reaching environmental regulations is considered “extreme,” then it appears that being “extreme” is now pretty normal in Europe: one;recent opinion;poll shows that immigration is one of the leading concerns for European voters, after the economy and war. In addition, the abysmal performance of the Greens in these EU elections—dropping from 71 to 53 seats—suggests that the Greens’ enthusiasm for ambitious climate regulations is not shared by many voters.
In short, two of the central concerns of the new right—uncontrolled immigration and excessively burdensome environmental regulations—are actually shared by a sizeable number of European voters.
Finally, there was no “surge” to speak of among the new and emerging parties on the right: more like a moderate consolidation.;
The new right in Europe is still significantly outnumbered in the EU Parliament by centrists and leftists. For example, the;European Conservatives and Reformist;and;Identity and Democracy;groups, which are the most organized sections of the new right, grew from 118 to 131 seats in a 720-member parliament. The;European People’s Party, with 189 MEPs, has enough allies on the left to continue to maintain a commanding presence in the parliament.
The rise of alternative-right parties in these EU elections is thus vastly overstated. Nonetheless, the steady consolidation of the new right, combined with the decisive triumph of Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National over Macron’s Renaissance party in these elections, shows that there is a growing appetite among European voters for candidates and parties that make stricter border controls and scaling back environmental regulations a major part of their electoral platforms.
This does not fundamentally upend the balance of power in the European Parliament. However, it does suggest a rightward shift in public sentiment in Europe, and this will inevitably have an impact on the policymaking process. Most notably, we are likely to see “centre-right” parties like the European People’s Party adopting a softer line on the environment, and a harder line on immigration, going forward. Anything else would put their own political future in jeopardy.
- This article appeared at Brownstone Institute and is republished from the author’s Substack
By David Camroux and Earl Wang
If the purpose of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s European tour in May 2024 was to rewarm increasingly frosty relations with the European Union and weaken transatlantic ties, it was a failure. The European Union’s announcement of duties on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) and the anti-Chinese tone of the G7 Leaders’ Communique less than a month later made this clear.
Three countries were carefully chosen by China for Xi’s European tour. In France, Xi celebrated;60 years of diplomatic relations. The two sides leveraged the occasion to sign;cooperation agreements and letters of intent;across the environment, aviation, agriculture, cultural exchange and more. As a;committed supporter;of the European Commission’s;anti-subsidy investigation into Chinese EVs, France was seen by China as a key interlocutor to lobby against potential import duties.
Serbia has been an EU candidate since 2012. Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic’s;EU-sceptic and Russia-friendly stances;have complicated EU–Serbian relations, and cosying up to China is rather counter-productive for Belgrade. But for Xi the visit was, above all, an occasion for;China to denounce the United States;in foreign affairs by commemorating the 25th anniversary of NATO’s bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
Hungary is an outlier in EU foreign policy. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is;friendly with both Russia;and;China, and;Hungary was the first European country;to sign an agreement on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with China. China is now the largest foreign investor in Hungary — accounting for;75 per cent;of Budapest’s total foreign investment — especially in sectors such as lithium-ion batteries and EVs.
In Paris, Xi had a bilateral meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, followed by a trilateral meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Two contentious subjects were on the table for both meetings — the;Russian invasion of Ukraine;and;EU–China economic and trade relations. Macron and von der Leyen called on China to exert its influence on Russia to help end the war in Ukraine and stated that they count on China’s commitment not to supply military or dual-use assets to Russia. But Xi remained inflexible in;refusing to address the requests, maintaining that China had and would continue to act as a peacemaker. Instead, Russia and China;reinforced their strategic partnership;in mid-May 2024.
China looks favourably on the more strategically autonomous Europe;advocated by Macron. But Beijing has deluded itself in thinking that Macron’s autonomy is an echo of former French president Charles de Gaulle’s strategy 60 years ago, when France established diplomatic relations with Beijing and withdrew from the NATO command structure. In reality, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has given NATO — and France — a renewed sense of purpose. A more autonomous and capable Europe is now seen;to strengthen the transatlantic alliance.
Economic and trade relations were also discussed, spanning fairness and reciprocity, state subsidies, over-capacity and;de-risking;as well as;economic security.;Xi responded;that China is against ‘de-coupling’ and pushed back on the idea of a ‘Chinese over-capacity problem’. ;
Xi’s approach in Serbia and Hungary was drastically different from in Paris. In Belgrade, Xi stressed China’s ‘ironclad friendship’ with Serbia. The two sides;upgraded their bilateral relations;from a ‘comprehensive strategic partnership’ to ‘building a China–Serbia community with a shared future in the new era’.
Xi insisted on the need for continuous cooperation on the BRI and the 14+1 cooperation mechanism in response to the European Union’s attempts to confront China’s ‘divide and rule’ tactics through its;Global Gateway strategy. Xi also ‘[rejected] hegemonism and power politics’ as a foreign policy signal to both the United States and the European Union.
In Budapest, China and Hungary upgraded their bilateral relations to an ‘all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership for the new era’. Besides touching on cooperation on the BRI and the 14+1 mechanism, the;Xi–Orban meeting statement;included two important aspects.
The first concerned Xi’s appreciation of Hungary’s support of Chinese policies on Hong Kong, human rights and Taiwan. Hungary had;blocked the European Union’s unanimous statementcriticising China’s implementation of the National Security Law in Hong Kong and inked a highly controversial;agreement with China on joint police patrols.
The second aspect was that Orban concurred with Xi on the over-capacity concerns raised by Macron and von der Leyen and;the need for ‘de-risking’. As an EU national capital, Budapest has been an obstacle for unity in the European Union’s foreign policy towards China.
After Xi’s European tour, the;European Union announced;provisional duties of between 17.4 per cent and 38.1 per cent on Chinese EVs, on top of the;standard 10 per cent duty;on imported EVs. Three days later at the;G7 Summit in Italy, Canada, Japan and the United States joined European participants in condemning Chinese subsidies and over-production, and also warned of potential sanctions on Chinese entities ‘enabling’ Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The Europeans also highlighted serious concerns regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea.
Beijing’s tit-for-tat approach — anti-dumping investigations against;EU pork;after;cognac;— will hardly contribute to warmer EU-China relations. More importantly, China has failed to understand that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a;watershed moment for Europe. It marks the end of a purely ‘normative power Europe’ and signals the arrival of a Europe;incorporating;realpolitik;thinking;— shifting towards a more pragmatic and realist approach. Xi’s selective tour of European capitals did not change that fundamental adjustment.
About the authors:
- David Camroux is honorary senior research fellow and adjunct professor at the Centre for International Studies (CERI) Sciences Po. He is also the Co-coordinator of the Franco-German Observatory of the Indo-Pacific.
- Earl Wang is doctoral researcher and adjunct lecturer at CERI Sciences Po. He is also a researcher in the Franco-German Observatory of the Indo-Pacific and is associated with the Institute for Strategic Research (IRSEM).
Source: This article was published by East Asia Forum
By Soham Patil
In our modern world, most states are;democracies;or at least call themselves;“democratic.”;The adoption of democracy is hailed as one of;humanity’s;greatest achievements. Once upon a time, humanity broke out of the shackles of monarchies and has never looked back since. Nowadays, all citizens in democratic countries are free and safe from despots. Except, that is far from the truth.
Democratic systems have been around for a long time.;Ancient Greece;comes to mind as the most prominent example of democracy in antiquity. While modern democracies are wildly different from the ones in ancient Athens, they are still susceptible to the pitfalls applicable to all democracies.
Democracies violate freedom of association. Proponents of democracies often argue that everyone is given a vote and that this equates to fair and just representation. However, this binds the citizenry into the;social contract;since they are forced to abide by the results of the democracy even if they did not consent to a government. Simply giving everyone a vote is not valid restitution for forcing them to abide by the rules of the state. This hasn’t stopped democracies from attempting to manufacture consent to their social contract by claiming that a right to vote is sufficient as consent. If four thieves sneak into a house and then outvote the homeowner to transfer possession of the home to them, the result could hardly be termed just. Democracies aren’t infallible and do not justify decisions as moral based solely on the will of the majority.
Further, democracies tend toward the redistribution of property when it becomes politically popular. This can happen in many forms. Often, democracy is used to justify the expropriation of property from the well-off and economically competent to members or citizens who are more amenable to the cause of a political party. Every citizen is liable to become a victim if they fall on the wrong side of democracy. This explains the extreme politicization of our lives. Being a peaceful, agreeable person is no longer enough.
It is also often argued that democratic systems are a representation of freedom since there aren’t rigid ruler/subject hierarchies as in a monarchy. Previously, under a monarchy, the ruling class was well-known, and all other citizens were subjects. Thus, a clear distinction between those who rule and those who do not rule was made. Supporters of democracy frequently contend that all citizens are rulers in some way because of their ability to vote. By this logic, no rights violations occur in democracies because all citizens are a part of the state. Any property stolen from a citizen was consented to because they are a part of the democratic system. This is fallacious because citizens have rights that exist independent of the state. These rights are known as;natural rights;and cannot be granted by the state. They can only be violated. Democracies do not escape moral culpability through elections.
It is clear that democracy is prone to tyranny. Such is the case not only when democracy is;“done wrong”;but almost always as democracies will inevitably break down into a competition of self-interested groups. Despite these failings, democracy is still presented as the political system that ought to be followed by;“free” countries. The reason for democracy’s;good public perception is that it blends in nicely with the progressive dogma of equality and inclusiveness. Since all votes are equal, an all-inclusive harmonious society should form akin to that of a;rainbow nation.
Unfortunately, liberty is incompatible with equality in most cases. It should be no surprise that democracies routinely violate natural rights in the quest for the establishment of a more equal society. By thriving upon envy and greed, democracies erode the moral foundation of a society. While the intentions of democracies are noble, their results are not. A free order will be one based upon the freedom of association and property rights rather than democracy.
- About the author: Soham Patil is a high school senior at Symbiosis International School. He is passionate about Austrian Economics and Philosophy.
- Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute
By Ghadi Joudah
In regions with limited rainfall, desalination is a practical means of sourcing plentiful water for farming and human consumption. However, the process of turning seawater into freshwater is notoriously energy intensive.
Indeed, desalination is a significant contributor to carbon emissions in the water-scarce Arabian Peninsula. That is why Saudi Arabia has been investing in green energy sources to power its desalination plants.
“Using renewable energies for desalination is crucial as it contributes to reducing the operation’s carbon footprint and water production costs,” Sultan Al-Rajhi, spokesperson for the Saudi Water Authority, told Arab News.
Due to the scarcity of freshwater resources in a region with a rapidly growing population, seawater desalination is essential to keep pace with demand, he added.
“Saudi Arabia depends on desalination of seawater due to the nature of the desert climate, in which the presence of surface water and natural rivers is rare,” Al-Rajhi said.
In fact, desalination accounts for about 75 percent of the Kingdom’s water supply.
“Therefore, investment is being made in desalination of seawater to meet the demand for population and economic growth witnessed in the Gulf region as a whole.”
Each year, the Kingdom requires an average of 5.5 billion cubic meters of freshwater. The need for water is especially high during the Hajj and Umrah seasons, when well over a million pilgrims arrive from around the world.
Home to more than 37 million people, the Kingdom is the world’s third-largest consumer of water per head of population. Agriculture alone accounts for around 84 percent of total water consumption.
Desalination is a complex process that involves removing salt and other impurities from seawater. Since the process requires a significant amount of energy, adopting renewables such as solar to power these facilities has become a top priority.
“To develop climate-resilient infrastructure for sustainable desalination, Saudi Arabia should prioritize innovative and renewable technologies,” Abdulaziz Daghestani, area sales director of water utilities and country director at Grundfos, told Arab News.
Grundfos is a Danish company that is working with regional states to provide innovative pumping solutions for water supply, wastewater management, heating and cooling, and industrial processes.;
According to Daghestani, integrating advanced monitoring systems can help optimize desalination operations and enhance efficiency.
“Using real-time data and analytics, we can improve water management practices and make timely adjustments to meet the varying increasing demand for human consumption and agriculture,” he said.
The Qatrah program, which means “droplet” in Arabic, was launched by the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Agriculture in 2020, and aims to reduce excess water usage by eliminating waste, and encouraging the conservation and reuse of existing freshwater.
Its objective is to lower daily per-capita water consumption from 263 liters to 150 liters by 2030. To do this, the ministry has created a unified framework, known as the National Water Strategy, for the country.
However, despite these efforts to improve the sustainability of water systems, desalination remains a crucial means of meeting water demand, making the adoption of clean energy sources and efficient production techniques a critical priority.
Al-Khafji Desalination Plant, located in the Kingdom’s Eastern Province, is the world’s largest solar-powered water desalination project, providing the region’s water requirements through an innovative and environmentally friendly approach.
The plant can generate up to 90,000 cubic meters of freshwater per day using innovative technology created by the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology.;
Its new Solar Saline Water Reverse Osmosis method uses a process known as ultra-filtration during the pre-treatment phase.
The method involves forcing seawater through a semipermeable membrane that only allows water molecules to pass, while blocking the salt and other contaminants. The resulting purified water is then collected for distribution.
Since its launch in 2018, more than 7 million cubic meters of freshwater produced by the plant have already been utilized.
“Using reverse osmosis technology is considered to have the lowest rates of carbon emissions as a result of the increase in energy efficiency through the development of this field in recent years,” said Al-Rajhi.
“The rate of carbon emissions per cubic meter in some desalination systems has been reduced to 91 percent compared with thermal desalination systems.”
Solar is not the only source of renewable energy that can be adopted to power the desalination process.
“This is in addition to the prospective use of hydraulic turbines to convert the kinetic energy resulting from the flow of water into electricity to generate clean energy,” said Al-Rajhi.
This shift toward renewables not only addresses the high energy costs associated with desalination but also supports Saudi Arabia’s commitment to sustainable development.;
Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, has praised the Kingdom’s water conservation agenda, which is part and parcel with its environmental mission, the Saudi Green Initiative.
Saudi Arabia is correct to prioritize “not over-extracting and being very wise around environmental management.”
“That is why we are quite impressed by the Saudi Green Initiative,” she told Arab News.
This transition to cleaner energy sources reflects a strategic decision to enhance the Kingdom’s energy efficiency and reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, while simultaneously addressing the challenges posed by climate change.
Integrating renewable energy into desalination processes marks a significant step toward achieving a more sustainable and environmentally-conscious approach to water production.
Categories