Ryszard Kapuściński: A Life

Ryszard Kapuściński was born on March 4, 1932, in Pinsk, which at the time was part of Poland. After the Soviet occupation of the city in 1939, his family, fearing deportation for being Polish, moved to Otwock, near Warsaw.

His family was not rich, nor did he have any notable relatives. His life wasn’t much different from that of other young Poles under the communist regime of the Polish People’s Republic. That is, until he started working as a journalist in 1950. When he began working as a reporter for the Sztandar Mlodych, a youth-targeted pro-Soviet newspaper, and later for the Polish Press Agency, little did he know that it would be the start of nearly thirty years of adventures around the world.

It was during these travels that Kapuściński witnessed the transformation of the world during the Cold War: the African decolonization and its coups and civil wars, the Iranian Revolution, and the political crisis in South American countries. Once he came back to Poland, he lived long enough to see his country struggling to overthrow the communist regime. He then also witnessed the transition to democracy and the accession to the European Union. He died on January 23, 2007.

Another Day of Life

In Another Day of Life, Kapuściński recounts his life during the autumn of 1975 in Angola. That was the year when, after a long and bloody war, the African state gained independence. With its newfound independence,  Angola nevertheless struggled with its identity. Another war was raging, soured by the departure of Portuguese troops and people: that between Angolan communists and anti-communists.

On one side, there was the left-leaning MPLA (People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola). The MPLA was in charge of negotiating the independence of the country and wanted to assure it a socialist-leaning structure. On the other, the UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) and FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola) were against the creation of a People’s Republic. The struggle was clearly one of the proxy wars between the global Western and Eastern blocks at the time. It is no surprise, then, that direct support was given to the two factions by Cuba and South Africa.

After describing the miserable state of Luanda, the capital of Angola, as Portuguese settlers left the city and hostile forces started to siege the suburbs, Kapuściński travelled to the front line. There he witnessed the apparently unstoppable advance of anti-communist forces and armoured South-African formations, all while escaping death on several occasion. The end of the conflict came when Cuban soldiers and supplies arrived from across the Atlantic, bringing balance to the conflict. This allowed the first president of Angola, MPLA’s Agostinho Neto, to officially declare independence on November 11, 1975.

In 2018, an animated movie of the same name – quite faithfully based on this book – was made.

Why should you read it?

Why should Europeans care about a book which talks about Angola, an African country? Well, because it’s not just a report about Angola, and the struggle for Angolan independence is not just about Africa.

Kapuściński offers a window into what 1975 meant to the Portuguese people of Angola in all strata of society. Not only rich retailers and shop owners, but also middle-class workers and farmers. They were all forced to abandon their homes, fearing persecution. Almost 300,000 civilians left the former colony, with most of them going to the Portuguese mainland. Along with other expatriates, mainly from Mozambique, their sudden arrival created a huge problem in accommodating and employing them. They were known as the retornados. But a few remained, fighting alongside the MPLA. That’s the case of commander Farrusco, who the author met on the frontline in the south of the country.

So, Another Day in Life is also about the relations between Africa and Europe. It’s part of both African and European identities, regardless of what certain nationalist theories would like to propose.

And it’s not even just that. The book’s structure is divided between the author narrating his experience and his dispatches to the Polish Press Agency. This gives us an idea of what it meant to be the only Polish reporter in Africa at the time: being white, European, and from the socialist sphere. Risking his life at checkpoints, struggling with poor financial resources, but nonetheless carrying on with his work.

Thanks to its autobiographic nature, it is possible to read this book through the lens of multiple approaches, all precious. As a basis to learn about a historical period and its society. Being the subject of a case study on journalistic reports. As an adventurous tale. Or maybe, through an interdisciplinary approach blending all these together.

The post A Polish Must-Read: Another Day of Life, by Ryszard Kapuściński appeared first on My Country? Europe..

Orban and The Bill

The bill contains a number of deeply worrying provisions. The first is that only official sources will now be allowed to report about the pandemic. This gives the government in Budapest an even tighter control on the media, as well as on the narrative of the coronavirus outbreak. What makes the bill even uglier is that those accused of spreading “false information” about the crisis could be punished with jail. Considering previous attacks on civil society carried out by Fidesz government, the opposition fears that these measures will allow the executive to silence legitimate critics to its management of the pandemic, and jail political opponents.

Another element of the bill that is even more horrifying is the government’s new ability to suspend parliamentary works and rule by decree without any timeframe. The opposition said they would have supported the bill if a timeframe was set. Orban decided to go alone, being able to count on a large majority in the parliament. If this measure is not overturned, it’s likely that for Hungary there will be no going back.

Once again, Orban showed that his vision of Hungary as an “illiberal democracy” (or, more accurately and honestly, a Russian-modeled dictatorship) is strong, ready to profit from any crisis to get even stronger. It’s unacceptable that such extraordinary measures, which are in and of themselves a dangerous tool in the hands of a wannabe dictator, have no time constraint. The generic reassurance that these will be abolished after the pandemic is over finds very little trust among those worried about Orban’s handling of the country. After all, if that was the intention, why not set a timeframe and then use extensions, like other countries in Europe are doing? Why not agree to a compromise with the opposition, to show national cohesion during a global crisis?

The answer is painfully obvious – this is a show of force against Orban’s Hungarian and European opponents. But it could be even worse: a testing of the Hungarian society, to evaluate its reaction to the establishment of a de facto dictatorship and a defanged parliament. Hungarians should be very worried about this and remember that, although history doesn’t necessarily repeat itself, giving a blank check to governments and eliminating forms of political dialogue such as parliamentarian debates and votes is a well-trodden path towards horrifying events.

Another Sickness In The EU

The lines of ideological battle are drawn, and they extend far beyond Hungary, and into the rest of Europe. Even with coronavirus absorbing so much of our attention, a cry for Orban to respect of democratic values has been met with the unwavering endorsement of other authoritarian and fifth columnist parties in Europe. The European Commission is keeping an eye on all new emergency laws introduced by Member States to fight against the COVID-19 outbreak, monitoring that they do not violate citizens’ fundamental rights, but it’s paying extra attention to Hungary’s case. Swift action will be required.

No dictatorship should be allowed to rise in the heart of the EU. No dictatorship should benefit from European funds while trampling on the EU’s founding principles. No dictatorship should enjoy membership of the EU’s ruling party, the EPP, even if it’s a suspended one. Every legitimate and appropriate resource must be used to prevent such an eventuality. The EPP should take a clear stance on Fidesz and its suspended membership. Civil society in Hungary must be supported and freedom of the media must be upheld. Finally, Article 7 – the so-called “nuclear option” – which has already been triggered against Hungary and stalled, should be pushed through to its natural conclusion. This can lead to the suspension of the voting right of a member country on EU decisions.

Unfortunately, the European Commission is not in a position to do much. The intergovernmental nature of the Union, alongside with unanimity requirements in certain votes, means that Hungary can rely on other Member States for support, while the EPP seems pathologically incapable of reaching a final decision regarding Fidesz. However, while Orban’s Hungary gets its fair share of concern for its legally sanctioned slides towards authoritarianism, it’s not the only country facing this danger. Poland stands close, and other authoritarian, fifth columnist parties in Europe are growing stronger or are already strong enough to claim large victories during elections. These menaces to the European project know no border, which is quite ironic itself. It follows, then, that the fight for democracy can’t be but a shared responsibility across the Continent.

The post Orban’s Dictatorship Is Another Virus That Hungary Doesn’t Need appeared first on My Country? Europe..

To condemn violence in the name of Communism

First of all: it’s false that the resolution explicitly condemns the Communist ideology in toto comparing it to Nazism and Fascism. What it condemns is the totalitarian or authoritarian expression of it, specifically referring in several occasions to Stalinism. The resolution uses the word “totalitarian” rather out of context, for it seems to be interchangeable with “authoritarian”, although this has different connotations.

Nonetheless, it’s clear that the focus is on the dictatorial experience of the USSR and its satellite countries and not on Communism in general. No pacific form of this ideology is condemned. What is condemned is political violence, with particular reference to the rising popularity of revisionist tendencies of Nazism and Stalinism.

The alliance of Communism and Nazism

That being said, it is not wrong to say, as the resolution does, that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact has been one of the direct causes of WWII’s outbreak. Some may be tempted to accuse Western Democracies for putting Stalin in Hitler’s arms, and not collaborating with Russia against Nazi Germany. Actually, Stalin’s interest in that phase, as well as Hitler’s, was to change the status quo. The Allies would have never agreed to let the USSR expand to former Tsarists’ borders. Those negotiations occurring between Moscow and London, or Paris, were a mere instrument for Stalin to name a higher price with Germany.

Hitler didn’t care about the fate of the Baltics or Bessarabia, and desperately needed an agreement mostly for two reasons. First, he needed natural resources for the war industry. Second, he needed to be sure that, after the invasion of Poland, its Eastern flank would not have been menaced by the USSR. Without these conditions, it would not have been possible for the German war machine to work the way it did. The industry delivered what was needed, while the army left the border with the Soviets almost un-garrisoned to concentrate against France and the Benelux.

Communism and the aftermath of WWII: Western and Eastern perspectives

In Western Europe, historiography is still struggling with changing the perception of the Red Army and the USSR as a liberating force. The political craftiness of the left wing in distorting this perception is beyond doubt, but that’s not only the result of a malicious intention. Communists participated in the liberation of Western Europe alongside Liberal forces and the majority later accepted democratic rule.

That certainly has been a direct cause of the partition of Europe between the Western and the Eastern bloc, with Stalin prohibiting Communist uprisings against Democratic forces in those countries occupied by the Allies. Still, not to recognize the progressive rupture between certain European communist parties or ideologists and the USSR would be quite unfair.

Because of this differentiation between Communist ideological streams, its perception can’t be but different according to each country. The relative acceptance of communism in former “Western” Europe would be unimaginable in those countries more or less directly occupied from the USSR after the 1940s. The memory of the oppression of civil liberties under Communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe is still strong in millions of people. So this time it would be unfair to force them to accept a Western perspective of a term, “Communism”, they rightly associate to brutality, misery, poverty.

Putin’s Russia meddling attempts

Apart from condemning past regimes, the resolution clearly speaks against  Russia’s historical revisionism. In particular, it refers to its exaltation of Stalinism, the USSR, and its attempts to shelve the crimes committed. The European Parliament clearly speaks out about the way these revisionist tendencies are part of the information war against European Democracy. It also remembers that the first victims of Soviet and Putin’s regimes are Russian people themselves.

Does this mean the resolution is a simple tool against Russia, as can be read elsewhere? Obviously not, but even if the focus was to emphasize the role of the Kremlin in altering the historical discourse, it wouldn’t be wrong. That problem is real, and it must be countered.

All of that being considered, what the resolution does is to condemn extremist political forces and historical revisionism, especially Russia’s. There’s also something else that should not go unnoticed. Point 20 explicitly reads: “to effectively ban neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups and any other foundation or association that exalts and glorifies Nazism and fascism or any other form of totalitarianism”. Many countries already ban some ideologies: is it the right thing to do, though?

The post Did the EU Really Compare Communism to Nazism? appeared first on My Country? Europe..

The Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), the prime initiator behind the Kurdish insurrection against Istanbul of 1984, is listed as a terrorist organisation by numerous Western countries, some of which nevertheless supported Iraqi and Syrian Kurds. Erdogan’s party originally came to power also thanks to promises of reconciliation with the Kurds, and won American and British support exactly in this light. The promises however have consistently failed to materialise. Erdogan’s turn to authoritarianism further hampered peace talks, both with the Kurds and in Syria.

Turkey has already conducted vicious air raids in Northern Syria in the past, and new air strikes have been launched today, as much as fifty kilometres deep into Syrian territory. It is widely expected that this will only serve as the preliminary stage to a large-scale invasion by Turkey and the Syrian rebels it backs, an operation which Ankara has codenamed “Spring of Peace”. The likely objective of this invasion is the creation of a  “buffer zone”, which would prove immensely harmful to an already unstable geopolitical and social order in the region.

A single nation, different factions

It’s well known that the Kurds, a large national community split between Southeastern Turkey, Northeatestern Syria, Northern Iraq and Northwestern Iran, decisively endorse the call for independence or at least autonomy within the countries they are actually living in. The fame they gained with their fierce fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq has also resulted in greater international support for the Kurds’ plight. Western public opinion is considerably more informed today regarding the different factions and parties that make up the Kurdish political landscape. The Turkish PKK was already widely known, and didn’t enjoy a good reputation with moderate circles, to the benefit of the law-abiding Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP). Iraqi and Syrian organisations, however, rarely gained the spotlight.

In Iraq, the Kurds enjoy a greater autonomy due to the federal structure of the country, and have enjoyed American support since the war against Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for a brutal oppression against that minority. The political landscape there is dominated by the Democratic Party of Kurdistan (DPK) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (UPK), whose militias, the Peshmergas, constituted an independent armed force to help local government in the fight against ISIS. This was no easy feat: collaboration was hampered by past and present disputed that even resulted in internecine fights between the ruling DPK and the UPK, or the PKK. 

In Syria, Kurdish political parties such as the Democratic Union Party (PYD)  have been eclipsed by the People’s Protection Units, the YPG. Born as a military branch of the Democratic Union Party, the YPG grew in numbers and became the main component of the Syrian Democratic Forces, fighting mainly against the Islamic State. Famous mostly due to the siege of Kobane, and the all-female military units fighting alongside it (the YPJ), the People’s Protection Units loom large over Rojavan politics because of the local instability in the chaotic frame of the Syrian civil war. Ankara accuses the YPG and Syrian Kurds of supporting the PKK’s terrorist activities in Turkey.

The main rift: Iraqi Kurds and the PKK

The parties and organisations cited so far are ramifications of what is, fundamentally, a two-way split. The ruling Iraqi Democratic Party of Kurdistan seems to be adverse to other Kurdish independentist movements, and is reluctant in giving support to the Syrian and Turkish Kurds in particular.

Due to the oil endowements of Iraqi Kurdistan, as well as its relative autonomy, DPK’s politicians seem more interested in strenghtening their regional power, rather than becoming the champions of Kurdish Independence. It’s significant that Iraqi Kurdistan voted in a referendum on its independence from Iraq in 2017, and the independence proposal was limited to Iraqi Kurdistan alone. While this does not entirely rule out support for the formation of a pan-Kurd nation state in general, which is likely widespread, it does emphasise that there is little political will to take the lead.

Northern Iraq is also home to PKK bases, acting as a safe haven from Turkish retaillations until August 2011, when the Turkish air force violated Iraqi airspace and bombed PKK positions. The PKK itself is struggling to maintain a relevant role in the region: the never-ending succession of ceasefires and attacks, as well as mutual accusations between the insurgents and Turkish authorities, has not been beneficial to the PKK. Its “mythical” image as the vanguard of an oppressed people has been irremediably damaged, although Turkey’s authoritarian turn under Erdogan’s rule may have regained it some sympathies. 

Syria and the YPG: a chance for democracy

The PKK’s niche in Syria is the domain of the YPG, and Turkey certainly shares this belief, but any comparison between the two organisations should be made with caution. Although the reputation of the People’s Protection Units in European and Western public discourse has garnered a lot of support, we should refrain from being overly enthusiastic about them. At the same time, they are clearly very different from the PKK. Unlike the latter, the YPG is more than just an insurgent group: it’s the backbone of the resistance conducted by democratic forces in Syria against both Islamic extremists and Assad’s regime, fighting alongside Arabs and Assyrians alike.

Turkey is not the only entity critical of the YPG: Amnesty International accused them of both ethnic cleansing and forceful displacement. For what it counts in such a messy situation as the Syrian civil conflict, a U.N. Independent Commission refuted the first claim, and the second one can too be countered arguing the military necessities of displacing people in conflict areas regardless of their ethnicity. 

The point is that, considering the chaos of civil war, the experience of Rojava seems to be not just the most democratic one, but also a political laboratory due to the attempt at translating the ideas of “democratic confederalism” into a viable polity. This ideology has been elaborated by Abdullah Öcalan, PKK founder and leader, who moved from former Marxist postions to those of the libertarian Murray Boockchin. Öcalan’s interpretation of Boockchin’s theories embraces numerous libertarian principles as well as feminism and ecologist values, insisting on the people’s right of self determination and on the importance of direct democracy and municipal autonomy. Rojava’s Charter of the Social Contract, adopted as a provisional constitution in Northeastern Syria in 2014, affirms the principles of Democratic Confederalism and grants protections to minorities. This provisional constitution comes short of declaring independence from Syria, but speculates its future evolution as a federal State.

Why Europe should care about Northern Syria

At a time when Turkey looks firmly grasped in Erdogan’s hands and Assad is winning the civil war, Rojava is besieged on all sides. Cruelly abandoned, it will not stand a chance against the invasion currently under way. Instead of bystanding, the EU should step into the breach left by the United States and take on a leading role in assuring that the area experiences true democratisation. 

It’s not just a matter of promotion of democratic values, something the EU should be committed to, especially regarding countries that are part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, such as Syria, or the EU enlargement Agenda, such as Turkey. This is also a matter of both European security and image. As we have emphasised, Syrian Kurds have been the main force on the field in the fight against ISIS, and the defeat of the latter is cited as the reason for US withdrawal from the area.

Not only this is a questionable choice from a military perspective, for the end of ISIS as a territorial entity doesn’t mean its disappearance as a terrorist menace that must be eradicated, but it’s also a clear refusal to engage in the protection of peace and human rights in the area. The early argument that Erdogan and Assad had peaceful intentions regarding Rojava was already shaky, given Erdogan’s track record of launching military operations in the Middle East, and Assad’s stated intent of drowning opposition to his rule in a sea of blood.

Now that Turkey has indeed undertaken its invasion, that weak argument has fully collapsed. Why should the EU follow Trump in abandoning its former allies, acting itself as yet another opportunistic bystander? Why should it risk for numerous European foreign fighters to escape Kurdish prisons and potentially conduct attacks on European soil?

What should the EU do?

The EU has already demonstrated its ability to punish foreign adventurism. Its biggest problem with any strategy curtailing Turkish actions, however, is that of the migration-bomb Ankara holds in its hands: hundreds of thousands of potential immigrants are now forcefully prevented from crossing Turkey into the EU. Should Turkey allow its border controls to lapse, this would create a scenario similar, when not more tragic, to what happened on the so called “Balkan Route” in 2015. In a European political environment where the wells of the immigration debate are well and truly poisoned, such a new wave could be fatal in the struggle against right wing euroscepticism. How could the EU face such a challenge? Only through an EU based policy on migration.

Another matter is that of divergent economic and geopolitical interests of the Member States, limiting the successful implementation of the EU’s common foreign and security policy. Nonetheless, having the Kurds as allies in the Middle East would benefit everybody. Inaction would mean that Russia, Turkey and Iran would gain a greater control, excluding any European player. Acting together would counter this scenario and strenghten the image of a “more united Union”. Another obvious step to ensure that the European Union can assert his role as a global stakeholder would be that of a greater military cooperation. Things are already getting serious on defence integration, but the best would be for the EU to increase its role as an unitary peacekeeping force in the UN.

All of this, as of today, seems nearly impossible to achieve. The truth is that the European Union can’t do much to effectively oppose Erdogan’s undertaking. Ultimately, the Middle East is a hard power arena where armies, aircraft and navies count far more than anything else. The EU is uniquely unsuited to intervene because it lacks critical assets. Maybe Rojava is doomed. If that is so, then this loss, this further failure of European foreign policy, this additional humiliation suffered at the hands of the Turkish “Sultan”, must be a definite wake-up call.

The European Union must have its own defence capabilities and the mandate to use it. This will not be a quick process, but that only means we have no more time to lose, and Europeans need to wake up to the realities of the dangerous international community we now live in. Enough with being taught lessons from dictators and authoritarian governments. Enough with inaction. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, already denounced Turkish aggression as deleterious to the peace process in Syria: will action follow, or will myopic inaction continue to dominate European political culture?

The post Why We Shouldn’t Let Turkey Get Away with Invading Northern Syria appeared first on My Country? Europe..

During the 90’s, the newborn Ukrainian state was somewhat affected by an Habsburg nostalgia, mostly in its westernmost part that largely coincided with former eastern Galicia. Exactly one hundred years before, in 1895, one of the last Austrian Archdukes was born in present-day Croatia: Wilhelm Franz of Habsburg-Lorraine. His father, Charles-Stephen, was committed to reform the House’s view of the very concept of “nation”.

At the turn of the century

A multiethnic empire, Austria-Hungary was struggling to maintain its control over Slavic populations. On the southern border, Serbian designs on unifying  Jugoslavia led to mounting tensions between the Empire and Belgrade. The contention became potentially explosive after 1908, when Bosnia was annexed to the Habsburg domains and the house of Karadjordevic, adverse to Austria, usurped the Serbian throne. It was in fact the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, by the hand of a Serbian-Bosnian terrorist that brought these two countries, and the World, at war.

North of the Balkans, on the other side of the Hungarian plains and the Carpathian mountains, the border with Russia was certainly problematic as well. Poland and Ukraine were divided, some people living under the rule of Wien, some others under the Tsar. The Polish nation was a largely recognized and ancient entity, once a leader of East Europe alongside Lithuania in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, one of the biggest countries in late medieval and modern era. However, the Commonwealth was partitioned three times during the XVIII century and ceased to exist in 1795, ending in the Polish lands being divided between these empires and Prussia.

Ukraine was, instead, not yet recognized as a nation: Russia called its Ukrainian speaking population “Malorussians”, literally little Russians, and conducted russification policies to eradicate their language. Moreover, Austria named those Ukrainians living in eastern Galicia “Ruthenians”, from the Latin term for Russians.

Although the Tsars and the Habsburgs feared Polish and Ukrainian desires for union, both knew that, if war came, these national aspirations could be turned against each other. That’s why Charles-Stephen decided to act in a revolutionary way for an Austrian Archduke. He became the first Habsburg not only to recognize the concept of nation as essential to the stability of a country, but to embrace a well-defined nationality himself. He dedicated his life to the creation of a Polish branch of the Habsburg dynasty, with his final goal being the creation of a new Kingdom of Poland. The territories of this new country should have been carved from the Russian Empire and unified with Galicia, under the rule of an Habsburg ruler.

Revolutionary Archdukes

Charles-Stephen knew that to succeed a lot would have to be sacrificed. First of all he moved from Pola, on the Adriatic coast, to the Polish city of Żywiec. Located in the Duchy of Teschen, part of Austrian Silesia, Żywiec was not that far from the Galician border and Krakow itself. Its population was largely Polish, but the Habsburgs ruled that land since 1653, making it the oldest possession in which the two coexisted. When his children grew up to marriage age, Archduke Charles-Stephen managed to connect his House with high Polish nobles. Two of his daughters and one of his sons, Charles-Albert, paved the way to an Habsburg-Polish lineage, but in doing so they had to renounce to their imperial and royal status, making it impossible for them and their heirs to claim Wien and Budapest crowns. Both Charles and his family became fluent in Polish language, studied Polish literature and decided to define themselves as Polish.

It was an absolute novelty for an Habsburg archduke to embrace a defined nationality. During the XIX century the Empire tried to crush any nationalistic aspiration but visibly failed in doing so. To Charles-Stephen, the conviction that nation states were stronger than non-national ones came from the incredible rise of the German Empire. The only way for the Austro-Hungarian Empire to survive and expand was to recognize its constituent nations, giving them some autonomy, but still under an Habsburg rule.

While Charles-Stephen was busy building the foundation of a new Polish Kingdom, his son Wilhelm travelled to Galicia and got acquainted with another nation: Ukraine. Day after day, the young prince made his father plan his own, and started dreaming of an Ukrainian Kingdom with him as its monarch. The creation of both Poland and Ukraine would have certainly created problems in defining their borders in Eastern Galicia, where the majority of the population was Ukrainian, but the aristocracy was Polish. Nevertheless, when Austro-Hungarian and German troops advanced in the western territories of the Russian Empire during World War One, Charles-Stephen and Wilhelm golas of redrawing the map of Europe came close to reality.

The fight for independence in the interwar period

The reason why no Habsburg Poland or Habsburg Ukraine were created was the rivalry between Berlin and Wien over the newly acquired territories – and the Central Powers losing of the war didn’t help. Germany was the strongman of the alliance and tried to gain control of both Polish and Ukrainian territories: Poles should have served as cannon fodder on the western front while Ukraine was meant to provide wheat for the army. Although Wilhelm reached popularity in Habsburg-occupied Ukraine and Charles-Stephen came close to a Polish throne, the Germans got the upper hand.

When the war came to an end, Eastern Europe was a total mess: Poland and Ukraine were struggling to define their borders, fighting each other in Galicia. At the same time they feared a Soviet aggression (that actually happened). While the Poles succeeded in preserving their independence and established a quite vast country, most Ukrainians ended up living as part of the USSR, suffering under communist rule. The Treaty of Riga in March 1921 defined the soviet-polish border until World War 2, and caused the first relocation of Ukrainians and Poles among the Galician frontier.

Despite this lackluster result, the very fact that a semi-independent Ukraine existed between 1918 and 1921 meant much to nationalists in the homeland and abroad. While the latter resorted to guerrilla until the defeat by soviet forces, those who expatriated found support under German and Austrian protection. Instead, the Allies didn’t consider the Ukrainian nationality to be fit for self-determination and didn’t support its cause for independence, Ukrainian nationalists cooperated mostly with right-wing revanchist groups of the former German Empire and the Habsburgs. Archduke Wilhelm, or Vasyl Vyshyvani as he began to name himself during his stay in Ukraine in 1918, was one of those committed conspirers for independence, and identified himself as Ukrainian. In the meantime, Charles-Stepehen and his son Charles-Albert pledged allegiance to the Polish Republic, recognized themselves as Poles, and kept on living in Żywiec.

All the attempts to overthrow Soviet rule over Ukraine in the interwar period failed. Nonetheless, the dream of a free country never faded, and seemed to gain new strength with the rise of national-socialism. Wilhelm was formlery known ad a constitutional-monarchist, a democrat and socialist – to the point of being nicknamed “The Red Prince” when he protected Ukrainian partisans who acted against his own Empire during WWI occupation. Surprisingly, he partially embraced Hitler’s ideology, while probably not understanding it to the full, especially considering the contradiction of him identifying himself as Ukrainian but being racially German. On the other hand, he appreciated the nationalistic and anti-soviet principles of national-socialism. Anyway, after realizing that the Third Reich had no intention to free Ukraine as an independent and friendly country, numerous nationalists tuned to arms against both German occupation forces and the Red Army, fighting at the same time against Ukrainian communists and nazi collaborationists.

World War II, Soviet oppression and finally freedom

After the war began, Wilhelm became even more critic of national-socialist Germany. The Polish branch of his family suffered terribly from the occupation, for Charles-Albert refused to identify himself as racially German during the census in Silesia. His insistence in calling himself Polish, alongside with the fact that he actually fought in the ranks of the Polish army during the 1939 invasion, provoked the Gestapo’s reaction, resulting in imprisonment and torture. Its family estates in Żywiec were seized and his wife, a Swedish aristocrat, didn’t follow his consort fate only because of the Gestapo’s unwillingness to prosecute her, even though she was herself staunchly Polish.

In Wien, while receiving news both from his sister-in-law and Ukraine, Wilhelm started cooperating with the French intelligence in signaling potential objectives for Allied airstrikes. He also worked with Ukrainian expats and western secret services to reach his long-standing goal of Ukrainian independence. Unfortunately, the fate of Easter Europe was to be decided somewhere else, among high profile politicians and military officials. In 1947, Wilhelm was arrested by the Russian counter-intelligence in the Soviet-occupied area of Wien he was living in, and died in prison the next year. Charles-Albert and his family fled the communist regime in Poland and expatriated to Sweden.

After the collapse of Soviet Union, new nations gained independence and old ones regained their lost freedom. The Baltic countries came back onthe maps, while Ukraine and Belorussia found their own new place. Poland went back to democratic life. Wilhelm and Charles-Stephen dreams partially became true: no monarchies were founded and the Habsburgs never regained a central role in European geopolitics, but both Poland and Ukraine are now officially recognized, although Russia is trying to destabilize the region once again.

Nonetheless, the concept of identifying both as a nation and as something greater still lives to this day through a revolutionary institution: the European Union. To be clear, such a concept was not an Habsburg exclusive, but the life of those late Archdukes can be an example of the commitment some people have been willing to carry out for a better Continent – a general idea far more similar to the one of the European founding fathers than some of us may be ready to accept when talking about monarchies and the Habsburg Empire.

As of today, Poland is one of the most staunch supporters of Ukrainian EU membership bid, and their historical Habsburg ties are not unrelevant: some time after the aforementioned protest in Cracow where demonstrators recreated a symbolical Galicia, a group of Ukrainians in Kiev celebrated the 170th birthday of Franz-Joseph. This partial wiennese legacy contributes to an ideal separation from the East, from Russia, and to strenghten the European feeling. The EU motto is “United in diversity”: to reject existing differences is crazy, but not to recognize a shared past and to embrace a common future is foolish.

If you liked this article you may also like The Great Union: How Romania Achieved National Unification or The Bulldozer Revolution: When the Serbians ousted Milošević.

The post Redrawing Eastern Europe: the Habsburg’s Bid for Slavic Independence appeared first on My Country? Europe..

Another by-product of the cultural and linguistic ties between the home countries and the former colonies is the creation of new international organisations. These tipically favour international cooperation and friendship between countries that share a common language.

Alongside the Portuguese CPLP, one of the largest among such interngovernmental organisations is the International Organisation of the Francophonie. It accounts over 54 full members, 7 associate members and 27 observers. It was founded in 1970, mainly by the will of African leaders, with the name Agency for Cultural and Technical Cooperation. Since then, the Organisation of the Francophonie has evolved in an articulated organisation comprising different political instances, relying on five operating agencies.

The French language and the world: colonial past, culture and business

France created a huge colonial empire during the 19^th century, after losing its American and Indian territories following the Seven Years War of 1756-1763 against England. That new empire occupied a large portion of Africa, especially Western and Northern Africa, Madagascar, the so-called French Indochina, and other small possessions, mainly archipelagos in the Pacific and the Caribbean (some of which still are part of France), alongside with the only South American territory, Cayenne.

Being France one of the most powerful countries in the world and controlling such an amount of territories throughout three continents and Europe, it was inevitable that its language would have become one of the most important and wide-spoken.

Still, the influence of French literature and arts clearly set a more peaceful way for French to spread. It was widely spoken as a second language and even though the role of France became somewhat less relevant than it were before after World War I and II, French maintained its status as an international language. We can still see some of that influence today, for example in the fact that it’s the only official language of the United Nations Secretariat alongside English.

After the decolonization process ended, French became an official language in most of the newborn countries or kept an unofficial role as a second or business language. Also the former Belgian possessions of nowadays D.R. of Congo, Rwanda and Burundi recognize French as an official language, being Belgium a largely French speaking country.

As of today, French is an official language in 29 countries, nearly 300 million people are capable of expressing themselves in French, and 90 million of these are native speakers. In Europe, over 24 million people are able to speak French in Italy, Germany and the UK alone. One sure thing is that most of those 300 million people live in Africa and the demographic growth of sub-Saharan countries, which means that these numbers will grow fast. In entertaining economic, cultural and political relations with those countries, non-French speaking people could find it useful to learn it.

The International Organisation of the Francophonie

The two main missions of the Organisation of the Francophonie are to promote French as an international language in a time when English seems more dominant and to protect linguistic and cultural diversity. To a lesser extent, it also supports scholarships and higher education, cooperation for sustainable development, and the promotion of peace, democracy and human rights.

The decision-making body of the Francophonie is the Summit – a meeting of heads of French-speaking states and governments, which is convened every two years. This is the core instrument for the implementation of the Organisation’s goals and to discuss topical issues relevant to the French language. There are other four important bodies in the Organisation: an Executive Secretariat, a Ministerial Conference, a Permanent Council, and a Parliamentary Assembly.

There are also five agencies which exist to carry on the Organisation’s missions: the University Agency of the Francophonie (AUF), the Senghor University of Alexandria, the TV5Monde television network, the International Association of French-speaking Mayors (AIMF), and an Assembly gathering the French-speaking civil servants of International Organisations (AFFOI).

Defending French and promoting linguistic diversity: a difficult balance

The general secretary of the Organisation of the Francophonie, Louise Mushiwikabo, said on the 20^th of March that she won’t wage “war against other languages”. Such a statement, although quite magniloquent in words, is really important in its meaning. When it comes to linguistic conservation, the risk of taking a dive in the deep dark waters of nationalism is quite high. It’s quite meaningful that the extreme exaltation of national features is named after a French word: chauvinisme.

France has long suffered rivalry with England, and consequently with the English language but the talk about French grandeur is sometimes too influenced by prejudices. After all, the same problems that France has to deal with its own past and the fall of its colonial empire are the same of the UK. Both France and the UK justified colonization as an higher mission to civilize barbarous people, although their respective ideologies differed a lot as well as their outcomes.

It’s still debated to what extent a supposed post-empire syndrome could affect a country, but as of today it seems that globalization is the driving force of reflection on culture, as well as on the meaning of culture as well. The fear for the loss of “culture” is widely spread and we are now witnessing the rise of new and potentially dangerous nationalist parties and politicians across Europe and the so-called Western countries. This new wave of nationalism is trying to embroil language as a mean of exclusion.

In promoting linguistic diversity, the Organisation of the Francophonie seems to be dedicated not to exclusion, but inclusion. However, being it an intergovernmental organisation the risk for nationalistic politicians to interfere with its functioning is high. Also, the perception of organisations such as the OIF as a simple economic tool brings discredit upon them.

Still, to know more than a language is the best way we have to know other people and their culture. Although good feelings alone can nothing, they certainly help, so maybe it’s best to wish luck to organisations promoting ways of reciprocal understanding.

The post Beyond Europe: the International Organisation of the Francophonie appeared first on My Country? Europe..

“Ukraine’s Donald Trump” and “Ukraine’s Beppe Grillo” are just some of the epithets the press uses to describe comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, the frontrunner in this Sunday’s presidential elections in Ukraine. After winning the first round on March 31^st, with nearly 30% of the votes, the so-portrayed anti-establishment candidate is likely headed to become the next president of the former Soviet country. But exactly what do we know about him, and is he really as anti-establishment as his campaign makes him out to be?

Despite his constant attacks against the élite, he appears to be backed one of Ukraine’s most influential oligarchs: Ihor Kolomoyski, owner of the 1+1 TV Channel. 1+1 is responsible for airing “The Servant of the People”, the comedy series where Zelensky himself plays the role of a former history teacher who became the President of Ukraine.

As reported by The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal, Kolomoyski was involved in financing Ukrainian ultra-nationalist armed groups. Other oligarchs have also accused Kolomoyski of corruption and defrauding, filing several lawsuits. Although no court had ever condemned him, Ukraine’s well known problems with the judiciary’s corruption have led public opinion to reserve judgment on his behaviour.

The picture this paints is that of an ordinary Ukrainian oligarch whose activity is covered in dark spots cover-ups –  not that different from those who Zelensky’s attacks are directed towards.

An Unusual Result

The relation between Zelensky and Kolomoyski leads to the consideration that the establishment might still be in charge of Ukrainian politics, regardless of the winner. Nonetheless. it is interesting to note the way the first round of votes went, because is has been an absolute novelty in Ukrainian history.

Normally, voting results split the country in two regions, resembling the current linguistic divide between the Russian-speaking east-south and the Ukrainian-speaking west-north. Ukrainian parties, especially the pro-Russian Party of Regions, consistently play the card of linguistic differences, leading to a marked difference in voting patterns.

In this case, though, voters uniformly favoured Zelensky, with the exception of a few oblasts in the west, where former president Petro Poroshenko won, and in the east. Bringing together the country under a single political flag is something which has been almost unheard of in Ukraine, suggesting that Ukrainians have developed some overarching concerns and have become disillusioned with the traditional political narrative.

Oligarchs and Politics: Democracy and Misgovernmence

The biggest problem of modern-day Ukraine is that a small number of people controls large parts of the economy, which is a direct consequence of the badly conducted policies of the first post-Soviet period. When the country gained independence, privatisations of large national businesses inherited from the former centralized economy were carried out, despite the fact that few would have been financially able to buy them. Those who succeeded in doing so then were mostly former party strongmen, who kept on with their political activities.

No government since then succeeded in reforming this corrupt system, where bureaucracy and scarce efficiency in governing national enterprises weigh heavily on the state’s finances. The result of this misgovernance both in politics and economics is the inability to fully exploit the incredible resources this country could rely on, especially when it comes to agriculture. The 2008 global financial crisis hit Ukraine hard, but the war struck the final blow to a veritable house of cards, both for direct military costs and for the losses of resources in occupied areas.

A Hot Winter Electoral Campaign

The war obviously remains one of the biggest issues in this year’s election, and Poroshenko and Zelensky have addressed the problem differently. Poroshenko was elected in 2014 in a war-torn country, as a war-president, to put an end to the conflict – and he failed to do so. Clearly it would be wrong to put the whole fault of this failure on him. The game is far too complex for a single man to handle, especially considering the high number of national and international players involved. Still, Ukrainians have lost their fate in him, probably also because after 2016, his focus appeared to shift towards toward strengthening its own power rather than solving the problems of the country. He also campaigned intensely against Zelensky to the point of comparing him to Putin, stating the fact that the comedian is a Russian-speaker.

His opponent, on the other side, can boast an absolutely inexistent political background, boosting his position as an impartial newcomer in the political arena of the country. He can claim a lack of involvement in the corrupted relation between the economic and political stages.This gives him the chance to promise anything. He pledged to conclude peace with Russia by offering a compromise, but not to the price of territorial cessions. Such an outcome is highly improbable, but still it’s probably the only thing a deprived nation dreams of. His campaign focuses on the future, on positivity. To promise something and to achieve it are two very different things, but so far Ukrainians seem to badly need new perspectives.

New International Prospects

The likely victory of Zelensky, when considering his stance on Ukrainian unity and the fact that he speaks Russian, tells us something really important and potentially consequential in the international arena: it seems that Ukrainians are tired of the contraposition between pro-European and pro-Russian politics and are instead exhibiting their dissent against the whole system.

If Ukrainians succeed in overcoming linguistic differences by recognizing themselves as citizens living in a democratic country which ensures its people rights regardless their cultural identity, Ukraine could become a state where the Russian culture and heritage cohabitate with democracy. A still improvable kind of democracy, considering the cumbersome role of oligarchs like Kolomoyski, but far from being as flawed as that of Russia.

What is happening in this election may result in a disturbing turn of the tide for Putin’s interests as the rescuer of Russians in neighboring countries. Ukraine is the only former Soviet country, with the exception of the Baltics, which is undergoing a real and systematic political alteration. Whether Putin would accept such a scenario is anyone’s guess.

The post President Zelensky: A New Way for Ukraine or More of the Same? appeared first on My Country? Europe..

Another by-product of the cultural and linguistic ties between the home countries and the former colonies is the creation of new international organisations. These tipically favour international cooperation and friendship between countries that share a common language. One such example is the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, an IGO founded in 1996 which includes Portugal and several of its former colonies. This IGO currently ranks nine full Member States, as well as nineteen observers, and has contributed to a revival of the international status of Portuguese.

The Portuguese Language Revival

Portugal created one of the biggest transcontinental empires ever, rivaling the Spanish and British overseas conquests until the 19th century, when Brazilian independence definitely set it on the way of decline. It would take over a century for other colonies, like Angola and Mozambique, to gain independence. This was achieved after a bloody guerrilla war, fought during the Sixties and the early Seventies, and after the Carnation Revolution of April 25th 1974, which ended the Estado Novo dictatorship in Portugal. Since then, relations between the former coloniser and the new independent States have slowly improved.

Today, the Portuguese language is once again growing in influence. Brazil, the largest Portuguese-speaking country, is the eighth largest economy in the world. In spite of its painful recession, the many corruption scandals, and widespread poverty, Brazil is the most powerful among South American countries, raising the international profile of Portuguese.

Portugal itself, while hard-hit by the Great Recession and only recently back at pre-crisis economic levels, is also a country of good international standing, and an interesting economic partner for many third-party countries and businesses looking to enter the EU market.

Migration is another vehicle for the rise of Portuguese: workers from Portugal’s former colonies, whose typical destination of choice is South Africa, are spreading the language to the region. Even in Europe, the combination of Portuguese emigration and the language’s popularity as a learning choice result in dramatic growth.
According to a 2007 study from UNESCO, Portuguese was the second fastest growing European language around the world, after English and alongside Spanish.

This boost in popularity has also benefited variety. Mainland Portuguese is different from that spoken across the former colonies: Brazil has its own variant, and in African countries the situation is complicated by the intermingling of Portuguese, creole languages, and local languages.

The picture thus presented is one of a potential global community of more than 260 million speakers. The Comunidade dos Paìses de Lìngua Portuguesa, literally the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP) reflects the bonds between the components of this linguistic community, and has further contributed to the strengthening of Portuguese as an international language.

The Community of Portuguese Language Countries

The objectives of this intergovernmental organisation are numerous, ranging from education and culture to political and diplomatic cooperation. The Community of Portuguese Language Countries does not interfere with the internal affairs of its Member States, but it still promotes political goals, like democracy and respect for human rights.

An example of the CPLP’s political involvement is in its efforts to assist its more troubled members. Guinea Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Equatorial Guinea are politically unstable countries, all suffering from coups in recent years. The CPLP has taken an active role in easing political transitions in these countries, as well as tackling poverty and famine.

The Community of Portuguese Language Countries’ best track record, however, is in fostering academic and educational collaboration: under its auspices, the Member States have signed multilateral agreements to establish language schools and boost literacy, especially in those countries and regions where schooling is problematic.

This has a material impact on the quality of life in the poorer Member States. To know the language used by the administration is fundamental to a well functioning relation between the State and its citizens. This also gives young people the opportunity to travel and find employment abroad, and it offers new opportunities for local businesses. In this light, free movement between member countries is another of the objectives pursued by the Community of Portuguese Language Countries.

Aside from its full members, the CPLP also counts numerous observer countries and prospective new partners. Interest for the organisation is driven by a plethora of reasons, ranging from historical ties to economic considerations. Immigration to or from Portuguese speaking countries is also a factor. Of all these, however, economic potential is undoubtedly the most alluring motivation. Even China (which at time of writing is neither an observer nor a prospective candidate) is favouring an upsurge of Portuguese speaking in Macau, once an overseas territory of the Portuguese colonial empire. The language had almost disappeared from the city in recent years, but the economic potential of ties with the CPLP has seen it surge back in popularity.

Uncertainty remains over the future of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries: much of it will depend on Portugal’s continued economic recovery and the role that Brazil could play on the world stage under Bolsonaro’s leadership. Another challenge is that posed byrelations between its members, who are starkly unequal in territorial extension, political stability, and economic might. Possible new accessions, and relations with the outside world, are also going to determine the future of this IGO. However, in light of its recent successes, the CPLP can be optimistic about its fortunes – as well as those of the language it represents.

The post How the Community of Portuguese Language Countries Saved Portuguese from Decline appeared first on My Country? Europe..

Millions of birds migrate across Europe every year, from North to South and East to West, crossing borders and countries. Their migration comes to the delight of birdwatchers all over the European continent and beyond. In this third article dedicated migrant birds of Europe, you won’t read about transcontinental flights such as those of storks or honey buzzards across the Mediterranean and Sahara towards Africa. Instead, we will focus on some of the shorter-distance migrants which don’t necessarily leave our continent: gulls.

Do gulls really migrate? 

We are used to seeing these seabirds wherever there is enough water for them to feed and rest. By the sea, on lakes, and along the rivers of Europe live around a dozen of species of gulls. It is not uncommon to see them even some tens of kilometers inland. Nearly all of these species are at the same time migratory and non-migratory, depending on single populations.

Black-headed Gull populations of the British Islands, Northern Germany and along the Danube river, for example, breeds and live all year long in the same area. On the other hand, Scandinavian and north-eastern European groups of this same species retreat to south-east during winter.

A particular migratory bird is the Lesser Black-backed Gull. Some groups living in the British Isles, Belgian and Dutch coasts and the French and Spanish Atlantic coast doesn’t migrate, while those breeding in the Baltic migrate across central and eastern Europe to the Mediterranean and the Black Sea or even to Africa.

Some others are never sedentary. An indigenous European gull of this type is the Little Gull, also the smallest gull species native to Europe. A quite long distance migrator, this bird travel across the whole of Europe every year from Finland and Northern Russia through three directions, a northern one to the British Isles and the North Sea, a central one to Western Mediterranean, the Spanish Atlantic and the north African coast, a southern one to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Pontus.

Gulls in the urbanised world

In recent years, gulls have become more and more confident within the European urbanized environment. This has started causing problems, from simple disturbances caused by noise and mess from droppings, all the way up to attacks on humans and pets. Large gulls such as the Herring, the Yellow Legged and the Lesser Black-backed are usually the most aggressive species.

However, even other species are not to be underestimated. After all, these birds are predators and not otiose, cooing pigeons. Controlling gulls is not as easy as it may seem. In most of Europe, gulls are protected under local and national legislation together with other wild birds. Unless there are concerns on grounds of public health or public safety, city councils will rarely take action.

This means that it is often up to single citizens to face the nuisance these animals cause. The best method of controlling them is to deny them nesting places on buildings. Unfortunately, local authorities have no legal powers to force owners or occupiers of buildings to carry out works to their buildings to prevent birds from nesting. Nor do they have power to make them take action against birds that have nested, even if they are causing problems.

The post Birds Without Borders: The European Gulls appeared first on My Country? Europe..

Millions of birds migrate across Europe every year, from North to South and East to West, crossing borders and countries. Their migration comes to the delight of birdwatchers all over the European continent and beyond. When summer ends, it’s not just the storks who leave, but other species too. The honey buzzard is one of the birds of prey that packs up and flies southwards to sub-Saharan Africa.

The honey buzzard derives its name from the binomen Pernis Apivorus, literally meaning “bee-eating bird of prey”.  They are also generally known as perns, or common perns. Apivorus derives from the Latin apis, “bee” and –vorus, “eating”. Pernis, on the other hand, is supposed to be a corrupted form of pernes, a term used by Aristotle in his History of animals to identify birds of prey. And in fact, its diet is based on insects such as bees or wasps and their nests and larvaes, although it sometimes eats other insects, small mammals and birds or reptiles.

With the exception of the British isles, tundras and steppes, these birds breed in most of Europe. You can see them in amazingly large numbers over sea straits such as those of Gibraltar or Messina before their long flights over western Sahara. Numerous flocks alternatively pass through the Bosporus, before taking the eastern route towards Africa.

Migration

Sadly, migratory birds are a privileged target for poachers, and honey buzzards make no exception. Hundreds of those raptors get shoot-down every year, according to Italy’s LIPU (Italian League for Bird Protection). Most of these killings take place in the Italian regions of Calabria and Sicily, as well as in Malta. Luckily, though, such illegal practices are declining in Italy, thanks to tighter norms on hunting and increased wildlife guards patrols.

While concerning, these hunting practices haven’t considerably affected the western migration route taken by this species – which goes from Scandinavia to southern Spain. The honey buzzard remains classified as a species of “least concern” in terms of its conservation status. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, in fact, the honey buzzard does not qualify as threatened, near threatened, or conservation dependent.

The post Birds Without Borders: The Great Avian Migration From Europe to Africa pt. 2 appeared first on My Country? Europe..