Sunday, March 27, 2016

From Brussels to Washington. Understanding The Grave Events Of Belgium and Worldwide Ramifications. A Stark Warning To The European Union and World In Times Of Rampant Globalized Geopolitics And A Constant Concern To The Western Hemisphere's Top Incumbent. By Andres Agostini

This attack takes place four months after the events in Paris. Paris is the capital city of the second largest economy in Europe after that of Germany. News media strongly suggests that both events are fluidly linked. But this is not the main problem, though.

In the U.S. media, experts and the intelligence community are extremely concerned about the happening, not only because Washington and New York might be at stake, but also because they sense that there is something failing and dysfunctional in Belgium and E.U. and, by extension, by NATO as well.

The victims of Brussels are both Belgium nationals and also foreigners from different countries. Brussels is the capital city to the European Union. Hence, Mr. Holland is correct to call this tragedy “ attack to [the heart of] Europe...,” suggesting, as well, that ISIS has declared war to the European Union nations.

Furthermore, and possibly as grave as the latter paragraph, Brussels is the capital city, also, to The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), device of the West conceived to protect the entire Europe from Eurasian threats.

Accordingly, in the northern quadrant of the Western Hemisphere (U.S.), there is universal concern about this latest event.

Many argue that political, intelligence (intelligentsia), law enforcement and defense in general, across the totality of Europe, must cooperate infinitely more in order to fundamentally cope with this daring issue, while better aligning the cooperation among European nations and from there with stake holders and (strategic) partners abroad.

Now, more than ever and for a long time ignored, there seems to be an unimpeachable validity of the loose (long ignored) words by and of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, “... Europe [chiefly the European Union] must be constituted into the United States of Europe [into an integrated and monolithic unison large nation]...”

By way of example, former Spain Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez has voiced to foremost E.U. institution, for years, his own concern in as so far that Europe is failing the suggestion posited by Mr. Churchill.

Even if this is not fulfilled by the people and especially by the incumbent politicians, there will be extreme social, political and economic turbulence and the considerations of Europe as a superpower will not be realized to the fullest potential ever.

Under the current rogue paradigm pursued in the Earth today, power and superpowers are not formed by smaller countries but by incredibly large ones as the United States, Canada, Russia, China, India and Brazil.

For instance, a study from a prominent Harvard University economics professor (Prof. Ricardo Housemann) indicated that India, with a 21% of the population of the world at this moment (similar to that of China), will become an economic and technological superpower in this forthcoming power.

Yes, in ten years India can represent what China is today. Both China and India account for about 43% of the total population of the planet (approximately 2,600 people), that is to say about 2,100 inhabitants more than the total population of the European Union. And like it or not, the epicenter of all forms of power is increasingly shifting to Asia.

Question, Perhaps (, and without a fail, ) the century twenty-one there is the Triumph of the East? The Triumph of the West is now obsolete even if the U.S. is, for now, the most powerful nation in the face of the world. This is the new name of the game.

In addition, there shouldn't be forgotten realities presented in geopolitics by the huge association of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations to cite one example.

How is the E.U. determined to play with such immeasurable global players around the planet, without ignoring, say, the common market of South America, named MERCOSUR (in Spanish and Portuguese, 'Market of the South'), and chiefly and concomitantly led by Brazil and Argentina.

Perhaps, there will be a path for a MERCOSUR trade union to a more integrated political and economic union in South America with access to the free trade of the Pacific Ocean and Asia. How, then, does the E.U. want to prevail in this daring world?

In the United States, there are voices strongly indicating that the U.S. contributions (U.S. 'National Security' budget allocated to) to N.A.T.O. (OTAN) are too large and that incumbents of the E.U. need to do more in this direction, that is to say financially and economically, picking up a much larger share of the tab of NATO by European incumbents.

If Europe wants to be a superpower in every order, many intellectuals argue, the European Union, including, say, Switzerland and Scandinavia must reach the political and geopolitical objective suggested above by Mr. Churchill.

European geopolitics is at stake not only by the part of the world challenged by the Middle East and Africa, but also by many players along the lines of Asia, some sources argue.

If it does not become a superpower in all truth, the E.U., as per some pundits, cannot be a superpower, win the global war of terror and have a true feasibility in the twentieth-one century, as many U.S. intellects reassure.

Consequently, there is a question, How to sustain the public social services (health-care and retirement plan services) and vindications of society if the sovereign E.U. decides not to be a first-world ranking nation (despite its over 450 million people and the apparent but yet not sufficient geopolitical critical mass of and by such population)?

Ergo, only concentrating in the huge inflow of migrants from Syria and Iraq is only the scraping the surface of the challenges to be dealt with, in a world fluidly and incessantly revolting by ubiquitous complexity and complications.

In geopolitics matters are infinitely more complex and complicated than a massive migrant and humanitarian crisis (even if Germany alone has taken in over one million people), I am not sorry to posit as I abide by the facts only.

If the United Kingdom exits the European Union, another huge blow to European unity, there will be a major setback to alignment and integration in the European continent, not to mention the grave present state of Spanish politics.

Political party pro-Chavez and pro-Iran 'Podemos' political party ('We Can,' in Spanish) in Spain, today in the parliament with a notable participation and already into partial congressional control over Mr. Mariano Rajoy's (present Spain's prime minister) transitory government, wants Spain out of the Euro Zone and the E.U. into an emphatic turn to the left.

In the meantime, German politicians and intellectuals fear a dramatic change to the right, especially with the inflow of migrants, and hoping there is not an attack by the extremists in German and even in French soil. Europe (except for Portugal and Spain) and even the Donald Trump's U.S. seem to be ripe for a shift to the right, according to some sources.

In the United States, there are unofficial voices strongly indicating that the U.S. contributions (U.S. 'National Security' budget allocated to) to N.A.T.O. are too burdensome and that incumbents of the E.U. need to do more in this direction, that is picking up a much larger share of the tab of NATO.

In concluding, the question then is, “…What is the successful and sensible side of history and pragmatism that the European continent wishes to occupy and play with the utter purpose to really thrive in a global world?...”

Researched by Andres Agostini