Several countries in the Americas are celebrating in 2021 their two-hundredth anniversary of a break with Spain that did not always mean a final independence.ca celebrate in 2021 their two centuries of a break with Spain that did not always mean a final independence.

Several American nations are commemorating this year the two centuries of their separation from Spain, recalling a process that took place in all the Spanish possessions in continental America within a few years of each other. In some cases, it was a process of successive independences, as happened with Guatemala, which later belonged to the Mexican Empire and then to a Central American republic, and Panama, which was part of Colombia until the 20th century. But even later, both countries experienced direct interference by the United States, in episodes that were very decisive for the entire region.

Panama Canal submission ceremony to the Panamanian authorities on December 31, 1999.

article / Angie Grijalva

During 2021, several American countries celebrate their independence from Spain; the largest and most festive of these is Mexico. In other nations, the date of 1821 is colored by later historical developments: Panama also commemorates every year the day in 1903 when it broke with Bogota, while in the case of Guatemala that independence did not immediately imply a republic of its own, since together with its neighboring nations in 1822 it was nominally dependent on Mexico and between 1823 and 1839 it was part of the United Provinces of Central America and the Federal Republic of Central America. Moreover, the regional hegemony of the United States called into question in later decades the full sovereignty of these countries: Guatemala suffered in 1954 the first coup d'état openly promoted by Washington in the Western Hemisphere, and Panama did not have absolute control over its entire territory until the United States handed over the canal in 1999.

Panama and its canal

The Panama Canal project was important for the United States because it would make it possible to easily connect its two coasts by sea and consolidate the global rise sought by Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, guided by the maxim that only the nation that controlled both oceans would be a truly international power. Given the refusal of Colombia, to which the province of Panama then belonged, to accept the conditions set by the United States to build the canal, resuming the work on the paralyzed French project , Washington was faced with two options: invade the isthmus or promote Panama's independence from Colombia[1]. The Republic of Panama declared its independence on November 3, 1903 and with it Roosevelt negotiated a very favorable agreement for the United States that gave it perpetual sovereignty over the canal and over a wide strip of land on either side of it. Washington thus gained control of Panama and extended its regional dominance.

After a decade of difficult work and a high issue of deaths among the labor force, which came from all over the Caribbean and Asia, due to dengue fever, malaria and yellow fever, in 1913 the Atlantic and Pacific oceans were finally connected and the canal was opened to the transit of ships.

Over time, U.S. sovereignty over a portion of the country and the military instructions installed there fueled a rejection movement in Panama that became especially virulent in the 1960's. The Carter Administration admitted to negotiating the cession of the canal in a 1977 agreement that incorporated the Panamanians in the management of inter-oceanic traffic and set the submission of all installations in 1999. The Carter Administration agreed to negotiate the cession of the canal in a 1977 agreement that incorporated the Panamanians in the management of inter-oceanic traffic and set the submission of all facilities in 1999. When this finally took place, the country experienced the occasion as a new independence celebration, saying goodbye to U.S. troops that only ten years earlier had been very active, invading Panama City and other areas to arrest President Manuel Noriega for drug trafficking.

Critical moment in Guatemala

The Panama Canal gave the United States an undoubted projection of power over its hemisphere. However, during the Cold War, Washington also found it necessary to resort to operations, in some cases direct, to overthrow governments it considered close to communism. This occurred with the overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala in 1954.

The arrival of Árbenz to the presidency in 1951 constituted a threat to the United Fruit Company (UFCO) because of the agrarian reform he was promoting[2]. Although the advance of communist parties in Latin America was beginning to grow, the real threat in certain countries was the expropriation of land by US monopolies. It is estimated that by 1950, the UFCO owned at least 225,000 hectares of land in Guatemala, of which the agrarian reform was to expropriate 162,000 hectares in 1952. With political support from Washington, UFCO claimed that the compensation offered did not correspond to the true value of the land and branded the Árbenz government as communist even though this was not true.

In 1953, the newly inaugurated Eisenhower Administration established a plan to destabilize the government and stage a coup d'état against Árbenz. On the one hand, Secretary of State John F. Dulles sought the support of the Organization of American States, encouraging the condemnation of Guatemala for receiving a shipment of arms from the Soviet Union, which had been acquired due to the refusal of the United States to sell arms to the Central American country. On the other hand, the CIA launched the mission statement PBSUCCESS to guarantee the quartermaster of a faction of the Guatemalan Army ready to rebel against Árbenz. The movement was headed by Colonel Castillo Armas, who was in exile in Honduras and from there opened the invasion on June 18, 1954. When the capital was bombed, the bulk of the Army refused to respond, leaving Árbenz alone, who resigned in a few days.

Once in power, Castillo Armas returned the land expropriated from UFCO and brought new U.S. investors into the country. Dulles called this victory "the greatest triumph against communism in the last five years". The overthrow of Árbenz was seen by the United States as a model for further operations in Latin America. The Nobel award for Literature Mario Vargas Llosa has pointed out that this action against Árbenz could be seen as "the moment when Latin America was screwed", since for many it was the evidence that the normal development of democracy was not possible, and that pushed certain sectors to defend revolution as the only way to make their societies prosper.

[1] McCullough, D. (2001). The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914. Simon & Schuster.

[2] G. Rabe, S. (2017). Intervention in Guatemala, 1953-1954. In S. G. Rabe, Eisenhower and Latin America: The Foreign Policy of Anticommunism. The University of North Carolina Press.

A minimum agreement at the last moment avoids the chaos of a agreement Brexit, but further negotiations will have to be held over the next few years.

Fragment of Brexit mural [Pixabay].

ANALYSIS / Pablo Gurbindo

After the United Kingdom officially left the European Union on January 31, 2020 at midnight, with the entrance into force of the Withdrawalagreement , it seemed that the issue that has practically monopolized the discussion in Brussels in recent years had been settled. But nothing could be further from the truth. The "political Brexit" had been resolved, but the "economic Brexit" still remained to be resolved.

In order to avoid chaos, this agreement provided for a transition period of 11 months, until December 31, 2020. During this period the United Kingdom, despite being already outside the EU, had to continue to be subject to European legislation and the Court of Justice of the EU as before, but without having a voice and a vote in the EU. The goal of this transition was to give both parties time to reach an agreement to define the future relationship. All parties knew that 11 months would not be enough time. Only a new trade agreement takes years to negotiate, the agreement with Canada took 7 years, for example. For this, the transition period included a possible extension before June 30, but Johnson did not want to ask for it, and promised his citizens to have a trade agreement by January 1, 2021.

With the fear of a possible Brexit without agreement, and the serious consequences it would have for the economies and citizens of both parties, an agreement was finally reached on December 24, just one week before the end of the transition period.

This agreement entered into force on January 1, 2021 on a provisional basis, since there was not enough time for it to become C in one week. The question now is: what does this agreement consist of, what have been the sticking points, and what have been the first tangible consequences during these first months?

The agreement on Trade and Cooperation (ACC)

What needs to be made clear from the outset is that this is a minimum agreement . It is a hard Brexit. A agreement Brexit has been avoided which would have been catastrophic, but it is still a hard Brexit.

The PCA between the United Kingdom and the European Union comprises a free trade agreement , a close association on subject of public security and a general governance framework .

The most important points of the agreement are the following:

Trade in goods

The PCA is very ambitious in this sense, as it establishes free trade between the two parties without any tariff or quota subject any product. If there had been no agreement in this sense, their trade relationship would have been governed by the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO), with its corresponding quotas and tariffs. However, this free trade has a catch. This absence of any tariff or quota subject is only for "British originating" products, and this is where the complexity lies.

The rules of origin are detailed in the PCA, and although as a general rule the agreement is generous in qualifying a product as "British", there are certain sectors where this certification will be more demanding. For example, for an electric vehicle produced in the UK and exported to the EU to avoid tariffs, at least 45% of its added value must be British or European and its battery must be entirely British or European. From now on, proving the origin of each shipment in certain sectors is going to become a bureaucratic hell that did not exist before December 31. And the re-export of unprocessed foreign products from British soil to Europe will now be subject to a double tariff: one on entrance to the United Kingdom and another on entrance to the Union.

However, even if there are no tariff or quota subject on products, the usual trade flow will not be maintained. For example, in the area of trade in agri-food products, the absence of an agreement in the United Kingdom's sanitary and phytosanitary regime means that from now on, trade in these products will require sanitary certificates that were not previously required. This increase in "red tape" may have important consequences for products that are more easily substitutable, as importers of these products will prefer to avoid this extra bureaucracy by switching from British suppliers to other European ones.

Financial Services

In the subject services, the agreement is rather poor, but the lack of agreement on financial services, a very important sector for the United Kingdom, which alone generates 21% of British services exports, stands out.

While the United Kingdom was part of the Union, its financial institutions could operate freely throughout the EU thanks to the "financial passport", since all Member States have agreed on similar regulatory and supervisory rules for the markets. But this no longer applies to the UK.

The British government unilaterally decided to maintain easy access to its markets for EU entities, but the EU has not reciprocated.

In the absence of agreements on financial subject , European rules and regulations concerning third country entities, as a general rule, simply facilitate the establishment of these entities in the Union in order to operate in its markets.

One of the EU's objectives with this lack of reciprocity may have been the desire to wrest part of its capital from the City of London, Europe's leading financial place .

Citizens

Most of this section was resolved with the Withdrawal agreement , which guaranteed for life the maintenance of acquired rightsresidency program, work...) for European citizens already on British soil, or British citizens on European soil.

The ACC has agreed to abolish the need to apply for visas bilaterally for tourist stays not exceeding 3 months. For these cases it will now be necessary to carry a passport, not just a national identity card. But for longer stays, residency program or work visas will be required.

As for the recognition of professional and university degrees and qualifications, despite the UK's interest in maintaining them automatically as they are now, the EU has not allowed it. This could mean, for example, that qualified professionals such as lawyers or nurses will find it more difficult to have their degree scroll recognized and be able to work.

data protection and security cooperation

The agreement will allow police and legal cooperation to continue, but not with the same intensity as before. The United Kingdom will no longer be part of the EU data instructions on these matters. Exchanges of information will only be made at the written request of a party, either by requesting information or by sending information on its own initiative.

British relations with Europol (European Police Office) or Eurojust (European Agency for Judicial Cooperation) will be maintained, but as an external partnership .

Participation in Union programs

The United Kingdom will continue to be part of some Community programs such as: Horizon, the main European scientific cooperation program; Euratom, through a cooperationagreement external to the ACC; ITER, an international program for the study of fusion energy; Copernicus, a program led by the European Space Agency for the development of autonomous and continuous Earth observation capacity; and SST (Space Surveillance and Tracking), a European program for tracking space objects to avoid their collision.

But on the other hand, the UK will not continue in other programs, most notably the important Erasmus student exchange program. Johnson has already announced the creation of a national student exchange program named after the British mathematician Alan Turing, who cracked the Enigma code during World War II.

Friction points in the negotiation

There have been certain points which, due to their complexity or symbolism, have been the main points of friction between the Union and the United Kingdom. They have even jeopardized the success of the negotiations. The three main sticking points for the negotiations have been: fisheries, the level-playing field and governance.

Fishing

The disproportionate importance that fishing has had on the negotiation is surprising, considering that it only represents 0.1% of the British GDP, and is not an essential sector for the EU either. Its importance lies in its symbolic value, and the importance given to it by Brexit supporters as an example of recovering lost sovereignty. It should also be borne in mind that it is one of the points on which the UK had the upper hand in the negotiations. British waters are home to some of Europe's main fishing grounds, which have been accounting for 15% of total European fisheries. Of these fishing grounds, 57% were taken by the EU-27 and the remaining 43% by British fishermen. This percentage greatly infuriated the British fishing sector, which has been one of the main sectors supporting Brexit.

The British intention was to negotiate annual access quotas to its waters, following Norway's example with the EU. But finally a 25% cut in catches has been agreed upon in a progressive manner, but maintaining access to British waters. This agreement will be in force for the next five and a half years, after which new negotiations will be necessary, which will then be on an annual basis. In exchange, the EU has kept the possibility of commercial retaliation in the event that European fishermen are denied access to British waters.

"Level-playing field"

The topic of unfair skill was one of the most worrying issues in Brussels. Given that from now on the British do not have to follow European legislation, there was concern that, just a few kilometers from the Union, a country of the size and weight of the United Kingdom would considerably reduce its labor, environmental, tax or public aid standards. This could result in many European companies deciding to relocate to the UK because of this reduction in standards.

The agreement establishes a monitoring and retaliation mechanism in cases of discrepancies if one of the parties feels aggrieved. If there is a dispute, depending on the case, it will be submitted to a panel of experts, or it will be submitted to arbitration. For the EU a system where tariff offsets would have been automatic and if not interpreted by the CJEU would have been preferable. But for the UK one of its main objectives in the negotiation was not to be under the jurisdiction of the CJEU in any form.

Governance

The governance design of the agreement is complex. It is chaired by the Joint association committee , which will ensure that the PCA is correctly applied and interpreted, and in which all issues that may arise will be discussed. This committee will be assisted by more than thirty specialized committees and technical groups.

If a dispute arises, it shall be submitted to this joint association committee . If a solution is not reached by mutual agreement , then an external arbitration will be held, the decision of which is binding. In case of non-compliance, the aggrieved party is authorized to retaliate.

This instrument allows the EU to cover its back against the risk of the UK breaching part of the agreement. This risk gained a lot of strength during the negotiations, when Johnson presented to the British Parliament the Internal Market Act, which aimed to avoid any internal customs subject in the UK. This bill would go against the "Irish safeguard" agreed by Johnson himself and the EU in the Withdrawalagreement , and would go against international law as a clear contravention of the principle of "pacta sunt servanda". In the end this law was not passed, but it created great tension between the EU and the UK, in the British civil service examination of Johnson and even among its own ranks by calling into question the international credibility of the country.

Consequences

During the first months of the ACC's entrance into force, several important consequences have already been observed.

The controversial withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Erasmus program has already been felt. According to British universities, applications for programs of study from European citizens have fallen by 40%. The pandemic has played a role in this significant reduction, but it should also be noted that university fees in the UK after the program's exit have increased fourfold.

In terms of financial services, the City of London has already lost its degree scroll as Europe's leading financial center to Amsterdam in the first few months of the year. Daily equity trading in Amsterdam in January totaled 9.2 billion euros, higher than the 8.6 billion euros managed by the City. The London average last year was EUR 17.5 billion, far higher than the second-ranked European place , Frankfurt, with an average of EUR 5.9 billion. Last year, Amsterdam's average trade figure was 2.6 billion euros, making it the sixth largest financial place in Europe. The EU's lack of reciprocity in financial services has been able to achieve its goal for the time being.

One of the most curious anecdotes demonstrating the changes brought about by Brexit during these first months was the viral video of the Dutch customs authorities confiscating ham sandwiches from transporters arriving by ferry from the United Kingdom to the Netherlands. With the entrance into force of the PCA, animal products are not allowed to be exported without the corresponding health certificates.

Despite the absence of tariffs and quotas, the increased bureaucracy was expected to affect exchange and it has. According to data from the UK Road Transport association , UK exports to the EU via the ports fell by 68% in January compared to the same month last year.

It seemed that the British fishing sectors could be among the main beneficiaries of the agreement, but after these first months British fishermen are not satisfied. New bureaucratic requirements are slowing down deliveries and some fishermen are complaining that their catches are going to waste because they cannot be delivered on time to certain European markets. According to Scottish fishing representatives, delays due to bureaucracy are causing a loss of one million pounds a day to the sector. It should be borne in mind that UK fish exports to the EU accounted for 67% of the total in 2019. Faced with complaints from the sector, the British government has already announced a financial aid of 23 million pounds.

Conclusion

The agreement reached is undoubtedly a better result than the no agreement, but it is an incomplete agreement , and further negotiations will be necessary. The future of the PCA will depend on the change of position of the United Kingdom, which during the negotiation has prioritized having regulatory autonomy and recovering its "lost sovereignty". The agreement is also fragile as it allows either party to terminate the negotiated relationship if 12 months' notice is given.

The European Union and the United Kingdom are doomed to understand each other. The Union will have to learn to live with a neighbor with a lot of power and influence, and the United Kingdom will have to learn to live in the sphere of influence of the 27.

But, when the time comes, the United Kingdom will always have the option of article 49 of the EU Treaty, which regulates the accession of new countries to the Union.

The nascent English kingdom was consolidated in civil service examination to power on the other side of the English Channel, giving rise to a particularism that is particularly alive today.

With no turning back now, once Brexit has been consummated, England is seeking to establish a new relationship with its European neighbors. Its departure has not been seconded by any other country, which means that London has to come to terms with a European Union that remains a bloc. Despite the drama with which many Europeans have welcomed Britain's farewell, this is yet another chapter in the complex relationship that a large island has with the continent to which it is close. Island and continent continue where geography has placed them -at a distance of particular value- and will possibly reproduce vicissitudes already seen throughout their mutual history.

Fragment of the Bayeux tapestry, illustrating the battle of Hastings in 1066.

article / María José Beltramo

The result of the 2016 referendum on Brexit may have come as a surprise, as the abrupt manner in which the United Kingdom finally and effectively left the European Union on December 31, 2020, has undoubtedly come as a surprise. However, what we have seen is not so alien to the history of the British relationship with the rest of Europe. If we go back centuries, we can see a geopolitical patron saint that has been repeated on other occasions, and also today, without having to speak of determinism.

Although it is worth mentioning some previous moments in the relationship of the insular Britannia with the continent next to which it is located, such as the period of Romanization, the gestation of the patron saint that at the same time combines linkage and distancing, or even rejection, we can perhaps place it at the beginning of the second millennium, when from Norman invasions that cross the English Channel the nascent kingdom of England is consolidated precisely against the power of the other shore.

England in Norman times

Normandy became a political entity in northern France when in 911, after Viking invasions, the Norman chief Rolon reached an agreement with the Frankish king that guaranteed him the territory in exchange for its defense[1]. Normandy became a duchy and gradually adopted the Frankish feudal system, facilitating the gradual integration of both peoples. This intense relationship would eventually lead to the full incorporation of Normandy into the kingdom of France in 1204.

Before the progressive Norman dissolution, however, the Scandinavian people settled in that part of northern France carried their particular character and organizational capacity, which ensured their independence for several centuries, across the English Channel.

The Norman-English relationship began in 1066 with the Battle of Hastings, in an invasion that led to the Duke of Normandy, William the Conqueror, being crowned king of England in London. The arrival of the Normans had several consequences. From the political point of view, they introduced the islands into the European relations of the time and adapted English feudalism to Norman feudalism, a mixture that would lay the instructions for the future English parliamentarism. In terms of Economics, the Normans demonstrated their Scandinavian organizational capacity in the reorganization of productive activities. In their different conquests, the Normans knew how to take advantage of the best of each system and adapt it to their culture and needs, and so it happened in England, where they developed a particular idiosyncrasy.

From this contact with the continent, England began to consolidate as a monarchy without leaving its link with the Duchy of Normandy. However, with its strengthening after the fall of the Plantagenets in France, England gained the momentum it lacked to finally become an independent kingdom, completely separated from the continent, detached from a Normandy with a weak and critical lineage. In fact, the absorption of the Norman duchy by the kingdom of France facilitated the development and consolidation of the English monarchy as an independent and strong entity[2].

The separation with respect to the European continent refers us to Ortega y Gasset's analysis of European decadence and the moral crisis it is going through[3]. The continental powers, being in a status of geographical continuity, and therefore in greater contact, are more likely to spread their status among themselves and to be dominated by another major power. England, having broken the bridge of feudal ties that connected it with the rest of Europe, finds no difficulty in distancing itself when it sees fit, always in its own interests, something we see repeated several times throughout its history. This is especially evident in the vicissitudes that punctuate the United Kingdom's relationship with the continent throughout the final decades of the second millennium.

English status since 1945

The Second World War greatly weakened the United Kingdom, not only economically, but also as an empire. In the subsequent process of decolonization, London lost possessions in Asia and Africa; moreover, the Suez Canal conflict confirmed its decline as a key player, precisely at the hands of the United States, which had replaced it as the world's leading power. The post-war confrontation with the Soviet Union and the American presence in Europe meant that the transatlantic relationship was no longer based on the preferential link that Washington had with England, so the role of the British also diminished[4].

In 1957, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg created the European Economic Community (EEC). Conservative Harold MacMillan, British Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963, refused to include the United Kingdom in the initiative, but aware of the need to revitalize British Economics and "the difficulty of maintaining a policy that was alien to European interests", he promoted the creation in 1959 of the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) together with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Portugal.

The Common Market proved to be a success and in 1963 the United Kingdom considered joining it, but was blocked by de Gaulle's France. In 1966, the British again submitted their application, but it was again rejected by De Gaulle. The French general's conception of Europe did not include the Atlantic bloc, he still thought of building Europe on a Franco-German axis.

In the 1970s there was a directional shift in European politics. The British Conservatives won the 1970 elections and in 1973 their country joined the EEC. The international economic crisis, which was particularly difficult in the United Kingdom, prompted the Labour Party, back in power, to propose a review of the conditions of membership and Premier Harold Wilson called a referendum in 1975: 17 million Britons wanted to remain (67% of voters) compared with only 8 million who called for a first Brexit.

However, when the European Monetary System (EMS) was launched in 1979 to equalize currencies and achieve "economic convergence," the United Kingdom decided not to join this voluntary agreement . Europe was experiencing a gradual economic boom, but British Economics was not keeping pace, which partly led to the early elections of 1979. These were won by the Conservatives with Margaret Thatcher, who remained in Downing Street until 1990. The Thatcher revolution "marked the way out of the crisis of the 1970s". In 1984, London reduced its contribution to EU funds and Thatcher, who was very reluctant to accept EU budgets and other procedures that reduced national sovereignty, again asked for a review of the agreements.

In 1985 the Schengen Agreements were signed (the opening of borders between certain countries generating a kind of much wider second border), which came into force ten years later. Again, the UK stayed out of it. As was also the case in relation to the euro, when the single currency came into effect in 2002, maintaining the pound sterling to this day.

Immigration from Central and Eastern European countries, following the 2004 EU enlargement, admitted by the Labour Party's Tony Blair, and the acceleration of financial harmonization mechanisms following the 2008-2011 crisis, faced with displeasure by the Conservative David Cameron, provided arguments for the anti-EU speech in the United Kingdom. This led to the rise of the anti-European UKIP and the assumption of its postulates by broad Tory sectors, finally amalgamated by the controversial personality of Boris Johnson.

In an interview with the BBC Johnson referred in 2016 to many of the arguments used in favor of Brexit, such as the dialectical vision that the United Kingdom has of its relationship with the continent or the fear of losing sovereignty and the dissolution of its own profile in the European magma. The premier returned to these ideas in his message to the British people as the country was about to begin its last year in the EU. His words were in some ways an echo of a centuries-old tug-of-war.

Repeating patterns

As we have seen, England has always maintained its own rhythm. Its geographical separation from the continent - far enough away to be able to preserve a particular dynamic, but also close enough to fear a threat, which sometimes proved to be effective - determined the distinctly insular identity of the British and their attitude towards the rest of Europe.

We are dealing with a power that throughout history has always sought to maintain its national sovereignty at all costs and whose geopolitical imperative has been to prevent the continent from being dominated by a rival great power (the perception, during the management the 2008 crisis, that Germany was once again exercising a certain hegemony in Europe may have fueled the Brexit).

Perhaps in the medieval period we cannot link this to a meditated political strategy, but we do see how, involuntarily and circumstantially, we can see how, from the very beginning, there are certain conditions that favor the distancing of the island from the continent, although without losing contact in a radical way. In more recent history we observe this same distant attitude, this time premeditated, with the pursuit of interests focused on the search for economic prosperity and the maintenance of both its global influence and its national sovereignty.

[1] Charles Haskins, The Normans in European History (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1915).

[2] Yves Lacoste, Géopolitique : La longue histoire d'aujourd'hui (Paris: Larousse, 2006).

[3] José Ortega y Gasset, La rebelión de las masas (Madrid: Alianza publishing house, 1983). 

[4] José Ramón Díez Espinosa et al., Historia del mundo actual (desde 1945 hasta nuestros días), (Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, 1996).

Attempt by both to reposition France at the geostrategic center of Europe, with civil service examination of Germany.

The nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte and the current president of the French Republic are not completely parallel lives, but there are some really suggestive similarities between the two. It is often said that French presidents revive some of the longed-for packaging of the decapitated monarchy; in Macron's case there is probably a lot of that, but also the assumption of geopolitical imperatives already evident in the Second Empire.

Napoleon III in uniform in an 1850 portrait, and Macron in his 2019 New Year's Eve televised message.

article / José Manuel Fábregas

Emmanuel Macron's decision to hold the G7 summit in the French Basque town of Biarritz in August 2019 brought about a symbolic rapprochement with the figure of Napoleon III. The emperor, and nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, transformed the former fishing village into a cosmopolitan holiday hub where European aristocrats and members of the highest political echelons met on an international scale. Macron, for his part, returned Biarritz to the stage of the world's major political discussions.

Thus, two personalities come together who, with the attraction of having been the youngest heads of state in the country, share two fundamental aspects in their understanding of French politics. First, the influence that their childhood has had on both of them in developing a personalist way of understanding the head of state. And, secondly, how both have tried to reposition France at the geostrategic center of Europe and have been hindered by Germany. 

What is the role of the head of state?

Born fifth in the order of succession to Napoleon I, the young Louis Napoleon Bonaparte never foresaw that he would become heir to the imperial house in 1832. According to his biographer Paul Guériot, his mother, Hortense de Beauharnais, instilled in him from an early age the idea that he was destined to rebuild the now-defunct Napoleonic Empire. His mother's insistence that he had perfect intellectual and military training transformed Louis Napoleon - who received Education from the Jacobin, and follower of Robespierre's figure, Philippe Le Bas - into a solitary, shy and megalomaniacal person obsessed with restoring Napoleonic France[1].

The revolution of February 1848, according to Jacob Talmon, was inevitable "although it was, however, an accident"[2]. The Israeli historian explains that the uprisings in various parts of Europe were a direct reaction to the territorial reordering of the congress of Vienna (1815). In this context of discontent or disillusionment with the Restoration system, the figure of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte may have benefited from the image of a romantic revolutionary assigned to him by the newspapers and opinion writings of the time. After failed coup attempts in Strasbourg (1836) and Bologna (1840), the future emperor spent a short period of time in prison. This was a decisive aspect in the construction of the romantic hero character that aroused so much admiration in a society that loved the novels of Alexandre Dumas[3]. The exploitation of this personality by means of a great propaganda apparatus allowed him to comfortably win the elections of December 1848. Thus, it could also be said that the establishment of the Second Empire - ratified by a popular plebiscite in November 1852 - was the next step in his main political project : the revival of Napoleonic France.

For his part, the current president of the French Republic also experienced an overprotective childhood that forged, like the last emperor of France, a solitary personality and an individualistic way of understanding politics. Anne Fulda underlines in her biography of Emmanuel Macron that, being born a year after the death of his older sister and after a complicated delivery, his birth was considered a miracle. This may have fostered, along with a competitive Education in which he excelled as a "child prodigy", his self-conviction that he was destined to rule the country[4]. However, his election as head of state was not the fruit of a long-term strategy, but rather, like that of Louis Napoleon, of a tactical move. The renovating image that Macron offered was cleverly exploited in an election in which he faced rivals who presented certain communicative weaknesses, such as those with a low profile like François Fillon (Republican) and Benoît Hamon (Socialist), or others with more extremist tones like Marine Le Pen (National Front) and Jean-Luc Mélenchon (Unsubmissive France).

In 2015, while still Minister of Economics, Emmanuel Macron made an interesting reflection for the weekly Le 1 on what was the role of the president in France. He understood that French citizens felt a lack after the fall of the monarchy that they had tried to fill by strengthening the figure of the president. This excessive weight of personalism in Macron's understanding of politics has also been demonstrated recently in the replacement of Édouard Philippe as prime minister. Because his popularity had grown in the last year as he had shown himself to be more charismatic and calm in counterpoint with the overacting and abusive protagonism of the president, Macron chose as his replacement Jean Castex, with a more technocratic profile that does not overshadow the president in the face of his reelection.

What role France should play in Europe

This firm commitment of both leaders to give greater importance and visibility to the position of head of state transcends the borders of the Gallic country. Napoleon III and Emmanuel Macron also share the desire to place France at the center of the European balance.

Having won the elections with a speech against the order inherited from the congress of Vienna, Napoleon III had his own European project based on the free integration or separation of the different national identities of the old continent. A clear example of this was the Crimean War (1854-1856). Fearing that the decadent Ottoman Empire would end up as a vassal of Russia, the emperor defended, together with the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Sardinia, its independence from the Ottomans in a conflict that would separate Russia from the other Western powers temporarily[5]. The Treaty of Paris (1856) would not only end the war, but also motivate Napoleon III to initiate an interventionist policy in Europe.

Napoleon III's imperial dream forced him to develop an active foreign policy focused on the expansion of French borders and the reordering of the continent taking into account two main values: nationalism and liberalism. However, Henry Kissinger rightly comments that his diplomatic work was so confused that "France got nothing"[6]. By supporting the unification of Italy at the cost of the loss of territory of the Austrian Empire, Napoleon unintentionally favored the creation of Germany. These facts strongly weakened the geostrategic influence of France in the face of the new European order to which he aspired. On the other hand, it was Bismarck's clever diplomatic tactics that would really put an end to the Vienna system, hastening the fall of the Second French Empire at the Battle of Sedan (1870).

In addition, Emmanuel Macron is presenting himself as the savior of the European Union in a context marked by the rise of populist and Eurosceptic movements. However, his ambitious reform projects have met with Angela Merkel's reluctance.

In a recent interview for The Economist, Emmanuel Macron pointed out that NATO was "brain dead" and that Europe was "on the edge of the precipice" by depending on the United States and lacking independence in terms of defense. Macron opts for greater integration of the European Union at the strategic level, going so far as to propose a single pan-European army. In response, German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to him that Europe does not currently have the capacity to defend itself on its own and is consequently dependent on the Atlantic Alliance. In addition, Macron has also challenged the apparent agreement among the countries of the Union regarding the incorporation of new members and the relationship with Russia. The French president's veto of a possible incorporation of Albania and North Macedonia, claiming that they did not comply with EU clauses on corruption, has come to be described as a "historic mistake" by leaving the future of the Balkan countries at the mercy of Russia and China. He does not share this position with regard to Russia, with which he is willing to relax diplomatic relations and even suggests a greater integration of the country into Europe.

In final, Emmanuel Macron and Napoleon III share an excessively egocentric vision. The overexposure of certain personal characteristics in matters of State and the inordinate pretension to leadership in Europe are two aspects common to these two young leaders. Despite the fact that historiography has already judged the mistakes that precipitated Louis Napoleon into exile, it remains to be seen whether or not Macron is doomed to repeat the history of his predecessor.

[1] Guériot, P. (1944). Napoleon III. Madrid: Ediciones Técnicas.

[2] Talmón, J.L. (1960). Political messianism. La etapa romántica. Mexico City: Ed. Aguilar.

[3] Guériot, P. (1944). Napoleon III. Madrid: Ediciones Técnicas.

[4] Fulda, A. (2017). Emmanuel Macron, the president who has surprised Europe. Madrid: Ediciones Península.

[5] Milza, P. (2004). Napoleon III. Paris: Éditions Perrin.

[6] Kissinger, Henry (1994). Diplomacy (First Edition). Barcelona: Ediciones B.

Cartoon depicting Belgian King Leopold II (in the middle) at the Berlin Conference of 1884, by engraver F. Maréchal

COMMENTARY / Cameron Buckingham

The highwaters of the controversy about Belgium's colonial past in Africa, that dominated news at some point in 2020, have receded without Belgian grand institutions taking significant steps to redress the bad reputation. Belgian King Leopold II ordered horrible atrocities throughout the African continent but with the heaviest effect on the Democratic Republic of Congo. The genocide of over six million and slave labour of the Congolese people led by the late Belgian king resulted in immense wealth and can be directly linked to the success of Belgium in the modern-day. In the same way, it can be directly linked to the underdevelopment and continued struggle of the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

Currently, there has been an international movement to address the racial problems that plague the modern world. Regardless of the organization or political ideology, it is imperative to acknowledge these problems which stem directly from the unjust colonization, occupation, abuse, and slave trade throughout history. By actively not making any acknowledgment towards this issue, Belgium takes an ignorant stance which not only greatly affects its relations with central African countries, but an international stage speaks to its passive stance on Racism.

In 2019, a working group of experts from the United Nations issued a statement, composed of 74 key points of improvement the country should undertake, to the average with their conclusions of the effects of the colonial past within the country. The Working Group specifically condemned the Belgian government for their lack of engagement with the African minority in their population, as well as their lack of representation in federal institutions and average The Working Group called on Belgian to improve their education resources so that they accurately portray what truly happened in Africa during colonial and Imperial times. Most importantly they urged Belgium to work on the recognition and social invisibility of people of African Descent, to make a clear and public apology to the African States and adopt a plan of action to confront racism within their country.

Domestic decolonization

Within the country, the biggest reforms and measures to confront racism are taking place in the capital city of Brussels. One of the biggest changes is the Royal Museum for Central Africa: the museum has taken strides to remove elements of colonialism on display. However, the overall paternalistic attitude of the museum strains the relationship between Belgium and central African countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi. In light of recent events, A statue of Leopold II has been removed by the Antwerp museum after it was set on fire by protestors. There have been many statues defaced by protestors all over Belgium, all calling for his image to be removed from public space as seen in this article Statue of Leopold II, Belgian King Who Brutalized Congo, Is Removed in Antwerp. Simultaneously the government of Brussels has also made attempts to change the names of public spaces or infrastructure that have ties to colonization Most notably seen in a road tunnel, Belgium seeks new name for road tunnel as it takes on colonial past. Brussels has also launched a project to decolonize public space within the city, this was in direct reaction to the BLM movement. This is the most significant action the Belgian state has taken in an attempt to reshape its public history. From road tunnels to parks, the city is making an effort to change. All of these are very pertinent changes as Brussels is the capital city and hopefully, the rest of the nation follows suit. It is equally important to note the work being carried out by the government institution, Inter-Federal Centre of Equal Opportunities (UNIA), which is a public institution that fights discrimination and works to promote equal opportunities for African descendants in Belgium, has acted tremendously to improve the life of African descendants in Belgium.

Despite these advancements, many flaws must be addressed. The Royal Museum of Central Africa chooses certain displays to take down but maintains that history must be preserved. The problem with this is not the artifacts themselves, rather the information and context that turns their public history into a glorification of colonialism. The same can be said for the textbooks and educational resources propagated by the state. The history told in these state resources surrounding the Congolese genocide and the colonisation of Africa do not accurately portray the events and continues a passive ignorant mindset towards this part of their history. It furthers a paternalistic take on history that paints the Belgian leaders as people who were benevolent and brought civilization; when in reality they were brutal oppressors to native populations who exploited and abused central Africa in the name of wealth. While progress is being made, it is not nearly enough considering the global progress and the scale of impact Belgium's colonisation continues to have domestically and internationally.

African reparations

Countries such as Congo and Burundi still have effects today of the violence and loss from the Congolese genocide over a century ago. Their overall underdevelopment and indicators such as HDI, CPI, and GDP can be directly linked to the causes of Belgian colonization. Burundi has asked for $43 billion in reparations, while the Belgian government has yet to offer anything. Other African countries have sought reparations but Belgium has yet to pay any. This is significant because the lack of response and acknowledgment shown by the Belgian government especially during this racially charged period in time points to a blind spot of ignorance of the state. The farthest they have gone to show any sort of repatriation is by returning the tooth of an important political figure in Congo, this information can be accessed here: Belgium to return tooth of assassinated Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba to family | DW | 10.09.2020. This is dismal because it fails to acknowledge the ongoing effects of their colonists' period which paints horribly for their public history in the diplomatic sphere. The Belgian government has an opportunity to better utilize public history for the good of their image, as well as their growth as a country and relations with others however by not taking actions they are hurting themselves. Not only have the economies of these post-colony countries not been able to fully develop, the success of the Belgium economy that is rooted in colonisation creates a twisted paradox for these countries; Their resources and suffering were exploited by an Imperial power who continues to reap the benefits while they are left impoverished and impacted. In this sense, the exploitation of central Africa by Belgium continues today.

Conclusions and recommendations.

Belgium is missing the opportunity to take advantage of such a racially charged time to condemn their past behaviour, acknowledge their impact on Africa, and offer their support to countries they devastated. Belgium should uplift itself by creating a new public history, one that condemns their past. After 11 weeks of social average observation, the Belgium Ministry of Foreign affairs has not posted any content related to racial awareness or their former African colonies. One of the greatest tools today is social average, instead of only posting the glories of their country they should bring awareness to their past, on the biggest platform possible. However, it is not enough to bring light to this issue on social average. It is important to work with other governments, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, to amend and take necessary actions. Belgium needs to consider economic treaties with central Africa that would not only benefit both countries but make reparations for the African states. The goal of Belgian actions should be not only to acknowledge their colonial past but to actively make reparations and accurately acknowledge their atrocities and the impact they have had on central Africa, as well as the impact it's had on Belgian success as a country.

While Belgium ignores their colonial past, surrounding countries such as the Netherlands condemn and continue to actively work against racial cleavages in society. France, in a similar manner, continues to denounce the actions taken by Napoleon Bonaparte and even uses their history to emphasize their strengths not only in times of racial equality but also during coronavirus. With this in mind, it is time for Belgium to step up and meet or exceed the awareness of their neighbors and take actions to address their history and use it as a tool to improve.

The low voter turnout did not lead to questioning the reelection of Rebelo de Sousa, but it helped the far-right candidate to get a distant third place

President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa during a statement to the nation, in January 2021 [Portuguese Presidency].

ANALYSIS / Elena López-Dóriga

Last Sunday 24th of January of 2021 Portugal held presidential elections despite of the country being in lockdown due to the advance of the Covid-19 pandemic. The President of the Republic Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa was re-elected, winning another five-year term after a campaign fought amid one of the world's worst outbreaks of coronavirus. The re-elected president won with a majority of 60.7% of the votes, therefore, with no need to go for a second round. It was already certain that he was going to win this election as he was already known as the favorite candidate in the polls. Nevertheless, the triggering questions for this election relied in how much the turnout could be affected due to the critical situation of coronavirus that Portugal was facing in the middle of a lockdown, and how much relevance was the new far-right wing party Chega was going to achieve, as it had been attaining a lot of popularity since its creation in the last April 2019. The elections were marked indeed by the historic absence of almost 61% (the electoral turnout was 39.24% of the registered voters), and the third position in the ranking of André Ventura, the leader of Chega.

Historical background of the political system

Portugal had the longest lasting authoritarian regime in Western Europe in the 20th century, between 1926 until 1974; it was led by Antonio de Oliveira Salazar in a historical period known as "Estado Novo". Autarchy and tradition had limits, as Portugal managed to join the NATO in 1949 and the EFTA in 1960, allowing economic growth for the country and the development of social policies that benefited the citizens. However, after the nearly fifty years of authoritarian rule and compared to other European countries, Portugal was still much more rural and its population much more likely to be illiterate or to have only a few years of schooling. After the Revolution of April 25th also known as the "Carnation Revolution", which overthrew the regime led by Salazar's successor Marcelo Caetano, there was a transition towards a parliamentary democracy based on a new constitution.

The political and economic instability in the first years following the revolution was high since the democratic transition was done through a revolutionary rupture made led by the Movement of the Armed Forces (MFA). However, the MFA kept the promise to leave the government after one year, and the first Constituent Assembly elections were held on the 25th of April of 1975, exactly one year after the Revolution. The Portuguese semi-presidential regime was defined as a system of government in which the president of the Republic, appointed by means of direct popular vote in a competitive election. The impacted choice of electoral system was the proportional representation system, which aimed to reflect the full distribution of voter's preferences as closely as possible. Voters were grouped in "districts" and the number of votes is fairly proportional to the population in each district. The National Assembly was composed by 250 members initially, but it was reduced to 230 seats in 1989.

An economic background

In 1960 Portugal joined the EFTA as a liberal state with a social model, and finally entered the European Union in the year 1986 as well as Spain. It thought that the Economic and Monetary Union would ensure peace among the Europeans, acceleration of the economic development and improve the levels of social justice. Portugal's policy makers eagerly endorsed the European integration process, and it became an economic policy priority to be in the group of early euro adopters.

While Portugal experienced rapid economic growth in the years that preceded the launch of the euro (between 1995 and 2000), the country's macroeconomic performance since the introduction of the euro was not as high as expected. Nonetheless, the country registered strong progress in a number of social-economic indicators. Between 2009 and 2016 Portugal experienced a severe economic crisis characterized by falling GDP, high unemployment, rising government debt and high bond yields. This was caused by a combination of the global recession, lack of competitiveness and limitations of being in the Euro. In May 2011, due to increasingly untenable interest rates on its bonds, Portugal necessitated a bailout, and accepted a package of 78 billion euros from the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, known colloquially as the Troika, in return of addressing its financial unsustainability. Between 2010 and 2020 Portugal experienced a boom in tourism that made the industry one of the biggest contributors to the national economy and the largest employer, with almost 1 million direct and indirect jobs according to the World Travel & Tourism Council.

The result of the elections

In order to understand the Portuguese political scene, we need to make a distinction between the right-wing parties and the left-wing parties. On the one hand, there are the right-wing parties Chega and CDS-PP (People's Party), in the center-right there is the Social Democratic Party (PPD/PSD), in the center-left the Socialist Party (PS), and the Left Bloc (BE) and the PCP (Portuguese Communist Party) on the left.

The 2021 presidential elections were won by Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, former leader of the Social Democratic Party (PPD/PSD), with a majority of 60.7% of the votes. The PSD was founded on the year 1974 and has remained one of the main political parties of the country, either staying in government or in the opposition. Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa joined the party the same year of its creation and became a member of the National Assembly. In 2016 he won the presidential elections in the first round with 52% of the votes, succeeding Anival Cavaco Silva, member of the Social Democratic Party as well. This time, in his victory speech, the president renewed his commitment to the Portuguese, saying he was going to be a president that "respects pluralism and difference, a President who never gives up on social justice". Nevertheless, the question for these elections was not who was going to be in first place, as the polls were already announcing that Marcelo would be reelected by majority according to CESOP (Centro de Estudos e Sondagens da Universidade Católica Portuguesa), the question was actually who was going to win the second and the third position, the Socialist Party or the new far right-wing party of Chega.

The second position was finally won by Ana Gomes from the Socialist Party (PS), with 12,97% of the votes. The main difference between PSD and PS lies in the fact that PSD seeks to preserve costumes and liberalize the economy, whereas the PS would like to liberalize the costumes and be more conservative with the economy. The PS was created in 1973 and managed to take two of its leaders to the country's presidency, between 1986 until 2006. The Socialist Party started to make a difference when they chose to act on topics classified as "fracturing" such as de facto unions, abortion, same-sex marriage (which was approved in the year 2009), gender quota systems and euthanasia.

When it comes to how the healthcare system should be managed, the PSD explains in its program that it defends a health sector with more private initiative, referring to this model as a "freedom of choice" one. The PS, instead, defends that it is essential to focus on the centrality of the National Healthcare Services to "look at the careers of health professionals, so they don't continue to be pushed to the private sector or to emigration".

The pandemic of the coronavirus has been an important issue discussed during the campaign. Even though in the United States postal voting gained a relevant dimension this year because of the pandemic, in Portugal none of this was possible, because according to paragraph 3, article 121 of the Constitution of the Republic, in the election for the president of the Republic the right to vote must be exercised in person in the national territory. Ana Gomes criticized the impossibility of postal voting for many Portuguese emigrants: "It is unworthy that our emigrants, most of them, could not vote because postal voting or electronic voting had not been regulated. This is an indignity, and the responsibility rests with President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa", she said. She also claimed that it was a mistake for the elections to be scheduled so late taking into account the advance of the pandemic and not allowing all the measures to be ensured in order to guarantee an opportunity for all people to vote and avoid a high abstention: in fact, these elections were the ones with the highest abstention in Portugal's history, with almost 61%.

The rise of the far right-wing party Chega 

Many European countries have witnessed the rise of extreme right-wing parties over the last few years, which have gained significant votes and sometimes threatened the position of traditional parties. In Portugal, however, far right-wing parties had failed to gain electoral support until recently, when the political party of Chega was created in 2009. Chega literally means in Portuguese "Enough!" and the leader running the party is André Ventura, an ex-TV commentator on football and true crime legal shows. Polls were certain about the fact that he was going to be in close competition for second place in the election, and indeed he was very close as he attained 11.9% of the votes.

Ventura took advantage of the intense torrent of average attention surrounding him and his party which helped the party grow exponentially in popularity. Ventura's tactics and topics of interest were prototypical right-wing; they have even been considered populist by many because of the charismatic leader giving empowered speeches about the Portuguese identity referring to his party as "the voice of the people" and confronting this group against "the system". Among his most controversial claims during the campaign was his repeated quote "I will not be the president of all Portuguese", but only of the good or decent Portuguese ("Portugueseses de bem"). Among those he excludes from that definition are, most preeminently, criminals and people who live on state subsidies. He claimed that there are two groups of people in Portugal, the ones that work and the ones that barely work but live at the expense of those that do work and pay taxes. That is why he referred to himself as "a president without fear of the system" that aims to change radically. His diary was heavily focused on criminality (and support to the police) and the alleged misuse of public money and corruption.

Like Donald Trump in the US or the political party Vox in Spain, the Chega leader has used the social network of Twitter to explain or reinforce some of his most controversial political positions. As a characteristic of many extreme right-wing parties, Chega is anti-immigration and often explicitly targets the 'gypsies', known in Portugal as 'ciganos', as an ethnic minority that lives at the expense of the state subsidies. In the speech André Ventura gave just when the results of the elections were known, he admitted that the objective of reaching the second position was not achieved but he said that it was a historic night in which a party declared anti-system broke with the spectrum of the traditional right with around half a million votes; he warned the winner party of PSD that Chega was going to be a "fundamental part" of the Portuguese politics.

Elections in the worst moment of the pandemic

In the week before the election, Portugal reported the highest daily averages in the world for new coronavirus cases and deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, according to data collected by the John Hopkins University. Despite of the country being in lockdown due to the high incidence of Covid-19 and the critical situation of the hospitals, in the last week, the country registered more than 80,000 new cases of coronavirus, which turned Portugal into the country with more cases at an international level (10.3 million people). This numbers were very striking for Portugal, as this third wave of coronavirus was hitting harder than the first one in March 2020, where the country managed to control the pandemic and never witnessed the collapse of hospitals that happened in Spain or Italy. In his victory speech, the re-elected president vowed to make the fight against Covid-19 his top priority. The situation got so critical to the point that Germany's military agreed to send medical staff and equipment to Portugal, where space in hospital intensive care units was running out after the surge in coronavirus infections.

Coronavirus marked this 2021 presidential elections and the pandemic was probably the reason why Portugal had the lowest level of electoral turnout ever, as people from risk groups did not want to risk leaving home and others were required to stay at home in quarantine. Other reasons for the 60.76% abstention was a possible lack of interest in politics and a lower voting by the Portuguese living abroad.

The presidency of Portugal in the Council of the EU

The Council of the European Union is the institution that represents the governments of the EU; its presidency rotates among the EU member states every six months. This year, from January to June, it is Portugal's national government's turn to preside the Council, succeeding Germany and preceding Slovenia. Therefore, Portugal's current prime minister and head of government Antonio Costa took over the baton, the symbol of the EU Council Presidency. He belongs to the Socialist Party, but the recent re-election of the Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa as a head of state will not affect the main priorities for the Portuguese presidency: the economic and social recovery based on the engines of the climate and digital transitions, drivers for growth and more and better jobs, the development of the European Union Social Pillar and the reinforcement of the strategic autonomy. Besides, Antonio Costa was elected in the year 2015 and has already been working with Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa as a president since its first election in 2016. Costa congratulated him on the victory "with the best wishes for the continuity of the presidential term... in fruitful institutional cooperation".

In the previous six months of German Presidency, the Covid-19 pandemic was the central challenge, and Angela Merkel concluded in her final speech that Europe was committed to the fight against the virus by promoting, procuring and distributing vaccines. She gave the word to Antonio Costa, who remarked what will be the motto of the Portuguese presidency: "Time to deliver: a fair, green and digital recovery".

[Michael J. Seth, A Concise History of Modern Korea. From the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present (Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2019), Volume 2, 356 pages]

REVIEW / Jimena Villacorta

Normally, when thinking about the Korean Peninsula, we emphasize on the divided region it is now, and how the Korean War (1950-1053) had a great impact on the two independent territories we have today, North and South Korea. We forget that it once was a culturally and ethnically homogenous nation, that because of its law, couldn't even trade with outsiders until the Treaty of Kanghwa in 1876 which marked a turning point in Korean history as it ended isolation and allowed the Japanese insertion in the territory which had great effects on its economic and political order.

Michael J. Seth narrates the fascinating history of Korea from the end of the 19th century to the present. In this edition he updates his previous work, originally published ten years before, and he presents it as a "volume 2", because his latest years of research have produced a "volume 1", entitled A Concise History of Premodern Korea, which follows Korea's history from Antiquity through the nineteenth century.

From falling under Japanese imperialism and expansionism to its division after the Second World War, this book explores the economic, political and social issues that modern Korea has faced in the last decades. The author provides its readers a great resource for those seeking a general, yet detailed, history of this currently divided nation in eight chapters. The first two chapters focus on what happened before the Korean War and on how neighbors and other actors. Russia had great influence in the region until its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). Consequently, Korea became a colony of Japan until the Allied Forces victory during the Second World War. Japanese rule is described as harsh and detrimental for Koreans as they intended to force their own culture and system in the territory. Although, in spite of its aggressiveness, the Japanese contributed to Korea's industrialization. Countries like China and the United States were also major players. From 1885 to 1894, China had a strong presence in the peninsula as the Chinese didn't want other powers to take over the territory.

The rest of the book emphasizes on the war and the consequences it had, tracing the different course both countries took becoming contrasting societies with different political and economic systems. The reason for the great differences between the two Koreas is the difference in governments and influences they had after the war, a war that stopped because of a ceasefire, as to date they haven't signed a peace treaty. Even if South Korea was under Syngman Rhee's authoritarian and corrupt regime tight after the Korean War, it soon became democratized and the country began to quickly advance in matter of technology and human development leaving North Korea out in the open under a totalitarian dictatorship lead by Kim Jong-un. However, after the separation of the two zones, Kim II-sung was the founder of the North in 1948 and his family dynasty has ruled the country since then. During this period, South Korea has had six republics, one revolution, two coups d'état, the transition to democratic elections and nineteen presidencies. In terms of economics, they went from having a very similar GDP at the beginning of the 1970s to very different outcomes. While South Korea has progressed rapidly, becoming one of the world's leading industrial producers, North Korea became stagnant due to its rigid state system. South Korea also has a high level of technological infrastructure. Moreover, North Korea became a nuclear power, which has been in its diary since the division. But as he explores the technical differences of both states, the author fails to elaborate in historical debates and controversies regarding both regions, but he emphasizes on the fact that after sixty years of division, there are still no signs or reunification. 

Without a doubt, it is interesting to learn about Korea's past colonial occupation and its division, but what I believe is the most captivating is to understand how North Korea and South Korea have evolved as two independent very different states because of the uniqueness and complexity of its history, while still sharing a strong sense of nationalism. As the author says, "No modern nation ever developed a more isolated and totalitarian society than North Korea, nor such an all-embracing family cult. No society moved more swiftly from extreme poverty to prosperity and from authoritarianism to democracy than South Korea."

Narratives from the Kremlin, the Duma and nationalist average embellish Russia's history in an open culture warfare against the West

Russian average and politicians, influenced by a nationalist ideology, often use Russian history, particularly from the Soviet time, to create a national consciousness and praise themselves for their contributions to world affairs. This often results in manipulation and in a rising hostility between Russia and other countries, especially in Eastern Europe.

A colored version of the picture taken in Berlin by the network Army photographer Yevgueni Khaldei days before the Nazi's capitulation.

ARTICLE / José Javier Ramírez

average bias. Russia is in theory a democracy, with the current president Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin having been elected through several general elections. His government, nonetheless, has been accused of restricting freedom of opinion. Russia is ranked 149 out of 179 countriesin the Press Freedom Index, so it is no surprise that main Russian average (Pravda, RT, Sputnik News, ITAR-TASS, ...) are strong supporters of the government's version of history. They have been emphasizing on Russia's glorious military history, notoriously since 2015 when they tried to counter international rejection of the Russian invasion of Crimea appealing to the spirit of the 70th World War II anniversary. On the other side, social networks are not often used: Putin lacks a Twitter account, and the Kremlin accounts' posts are not especially significant nor controversial.

Putin's ideology, often called Putinism, involves a domination of the public sphere by former security and military staff, which has led to almost all average pursuing to justify all Russian external aggressions, and presenting Western countries, traditionally opposed to these policies, as hypocritical and Russophobic. Out of the remarkable exceptions to these pro-government public sphere, we might mention Moscow Today newspaper (whose ideology is rather independent, in no way an actual opposition), and the leader of the Communist faction, Gennady Andreyevich Zyuganov, who was labelled Putin several times as a dictator, without too much success among the electorate.

Early period. Russian average take pride in having an enormously long history, to the extent of having claimed that one of its cities, Derbent, played a key role in several civilizations for two thousand years. However, the first millennium of such a long history often goes unmentioned, due to the lack of sources, and even when the role of the Mongolian Golden Horde is often called into question, perhaps in order to avoid recognizing that there was a time where Russians were subjected to foreign domination. In fact, Yuri Petrov, director of RAS Russian History Institute, has refused to accept that the Mongolian conquest was a colonization, arguing that it was a process of mixing with the Slavic and Mongolian elites.

Such arguments do not prevent TASS, Russian state's official average, from having recognized the battle of Kulikovo (1380) as the beginning of Russian state history, since this was the time where all Russian states came together to gain independence. Similarly, Communist leader Zyuganov stated that Russia is to be thanked for having protected Europe from the Golden Horde's invasion. In other words, Russian average have a contradictory position about the nation's beginning: on one hand, they deny having been conquered by the Mongolian, or prefer not to mention such a topic; on the other, they widely celebrate the defeat of the Golden Horde as a symbol of their freedom and power. Similar contradictions are quite common in such an official history, dominated by nationalist bias.

Czarism. Unlike what might be thought, Russian Czars are held in relative high esteem. Orthodox Church has canonized Nicolas II as a martyr for the "patience and resignation" with which he accepted his execution, while public polls carried by TASS argued that most Russians perceive his execution as barbaric and unnecessary. Pravda has even argued that there has been a manipulation of the last Czar's story both by Communists and the West (mutual accusations of manipulation between Russian and Western average are quite common): according to Pyotr Multatuli, a historian interviewed by Pravda, the last Czar was someone with fatherly love towards its citizens, and he just happened to be betrayed by conspirators, who killed him to justify their legitimacy.

But this nostalgic remembrance is not exclusive solely to the last Czar, there are actually multiple complimentary references to several monarchs: Peter the Great was credited by Putin for introducing honesty and justice as the state agencies principles; Catherine the Great for being a pioneer in experimentation with vaccines, and she was even the first monarch to have been vaccinated; Alexander III created a peaceful and strong Russia... Pravda, one of the most pro-monarchy newspapers, has even argued that Czars were actually more responsible and answerable to society than the USA politicians, or that Napoleon's invasion was not actually defeated by General Winter, but by Alexander I's strategy. The appreciation for the former monarchy might be due to the disappointment with the Soviet era, or in some way promoted by Putin, who since the Crimean crisis inaugurated several statues to honor Princes and Czars, without recognizing their tyranny. This can be understood as a way of presenting himself as a national hero, whose decisions must be obeyed even if they are undemocratic.

USSR. The Soviet Union is the most quoted period in the Russian average, both due to their proximity, and because it is often compared to today's government. Perceptions about this period are quite different and to some extent contradictory. Zyuganov, the Communist leader, praises the Soviet government, considering it even more democratic that Putin's government, and has advocated for a re-Stalinisation of Russia. Nonetheless, that is not the vision shared neither by Putin nor by most average.

Generally speaking, Russian average do not support Communist national policy (President Putin himself once took it as "inappropriate" being called neo-Stalinist). There is a recognition of Soviet crimes while, at the same time, they are accepted as something that simply happened, and to what not too much attention should be drawn. Stalin particularly is the most controversial character and a case of "doublethink": President Putin has attended some events to honor Stalin's victims, while at the same time sponsored textbooks that label him as an effective leader. The result, shown in several polls, is that there is a growing indifference towards Stalin's legacy.

However, the approach is quite different when we talk about the USSR foreign policy, which is considered completely positive. The average praise the Russian bravery in defeating Nazi Germany, and doing it almost alone, and for liberating Eastern Europe. This praise has even been shown in the present: Russian anti-Covid vaccine has been given the name of "Sputnik V", subtly linking Soviet former military technology and advancement to the saving of today's world (the name of the first artificial satellite was already used for the news website and broadcaster Sputnik News). Moreover, Putin himself wrote an essay on the World War II where he argued that all European countries had their piece of fault (even Poland, whose occupation he justifies as politically compulsory) and that criticism of Russia's attitude is just a strategy of Western propaganda to avoid accepting its own responsibilities for the war.

This last point is particularly important in Russian average, who constantly criticize Western for portraying Russia and the Soviet Union as villains. According to RT, for instance, Norway should be much more thankful to Russia for its help, or Germany for Russia's promotion of its unification. The reason for this ingratitude is often pointed to the United States and its imperialism, because it has always feared Russia's strength and independence, according to Sputnik, and has tried to destroy it by all means. The accusations to the US vary among the Russian average, from Pravda's accusation of the 1917 Revolution having been sponsored by Wall Street to destabilize Russia, to RT's complaint that the US took advantage of Boris Yeltsin's pro-Western policies to impose severe economic measures that ruined Russian economy and the citizens' well-being (Pravda is particularly virulent towards the West).

What the European neighbors think. As in most countries, politicians in Russia use their national history mostly to magnify the reputation of the nation among the domestic public opinion and among international audiences, frequently emphasizing more the positive aspects than the negative ones. What distinguishes Russian average is the influence the Government has on them, which results in a remarkable history manipulation. Such manipulation has arrived to create some sort of doublethink: some events that glorify Russia (Czars' achievements, Communist military success, etc.) are frequently quoted and mentioned while, at the same time, the dark side of these same events (Czars' tyranny, Stalin's repression, etc.) is ignored or rejected.

Manipulated Russian history is often incompatible with (manipulated or not) Western history, which has led to mutual accusations of hypocrisy and fake news that have severely undermined the relations between Russia and its Western neighbours (particularly Poland, whom Russia insists to blame to some extent for the World War II and to demand gratitude for the liberation provided by Russia). If Russia wants to strengthen its relationships, it must stop idealizing its national history and try to compare it with the Western version, particularly in topics referring to Communism and the 20th century. Only this way might tensions be eased, and there will be a possibility of fostering cooperation.

A separate chapter on this historical reconciliation should be worked with Russia's neighbours in Eastern Europe. Most of them shifted from Nazi occupation to Communist states, and now they are still consolidating its democracies. Eastern Europe societies have mixed feelings of love and rejection towards Russia, what they don't buy any more is the story of the network Army as a force of liberation.

Ships of the US, India and Japan in the Bay of Bengal during exercise Malabar 2017 [US Navy].

JOURNAL / Shahana Thankachan

[Document of 6 pages. Download PDF] [Document of 6 pages. Download PDF]

INTRODUCTION

There can be no objective and singular definition of the Indo-Pacific, one can only provide an Indian definition, a Japanese definition, a US definition, an ASEAN definition, etc. This is not to say that there are no common grounds in these definitions, there are as many commonalities as there are differences, and this is what makes this topic so hot and dynamic. The geopolitical reality of the Indo-Pacific perfectly represents a great power rivalry at the systemic level and also a perfect regional security complex. In this complex matrix, this paper will seek to focus on the Indo-Pacific from the perspective of India. While the term "Indo" in the Indo-Pacific does not mean India, it does refer to the Indian Ocean and India is the most important power in the Indian Ocean. Therefore, it is very important to fully understand the Indian perspective. The paper will begin by outlining the origin of the concept and thereafter the challenges in the Indian approach to the Indo-Pacific and the future prospects.

Chinese fortification on small disputed islands [CSIS satellite images].

JOURNAL / Fernando Delage

[8-page document. PDF download ].

INTRODUCTION

The idea of the "Indo-Pacific" has burst into the discussion on international relations in Asia. For a little over a decade now, various governments have been using the term as a framework of reference letter in which to formulate their foreign policy toward the region. If the then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe began to popularize the expression in 2007, Australia formally took it up in its 2013 Defense White Paper; a year in which the Indian government also resorted to the concept to define the regional environment. As US administrative assistant of State, Hillary Clinton similarly used the term in 2010, although it was as of late 2017, under the Trump administration, that it became the official designation of the region employed by Washington.

Although related, "Indo-Pacific" has two different connotations. It represents, on the one hand, a geographical reconceptualization of Asia; a readjustment of the map of the continent as a consequence of the growing interaction between the two oceans and the simultaneous rise of China and India. The idea is linked, on the other hand, to a strategy designed as a response to China's rise, whose most visible instrument is the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), an informal group made up of the United States, Japan, India and Australia. This is why Beijing is wary of the term and prefers to continue to use "Asia-Pacific" to describe its neighborhood, even if its actions also respond to this new perspective: as the Australian analyst Rory Medcalf has pointed out, the Maritime Silk Road is nothing more than "the Indo-Pacific with Chinese characteristics".

The prominence of the major powers in the origin and use of the expression seems to have relegated the role of ASEAN and its member states. Despite their lesser economic and military weight, they are nevertheless not without relevance. In addition to being located at the intersection of the two oceans - Southeast Asia is, in fact, the center of the Indo-Pacific - disputes over the South China Sea place the subregion in the midst of the rivalry between China and the United States. While the former extends its influence through its economic diplomacy while unsettling neighboring states over their maritime claims, the Trump administration chose to directly oppose this increased Chinese economic and military power. ASEAN does not want to be caught up in the confrontation between Washington and Beijing, nor does it want to be marginalized in the ongoing reconfiguration of the regional structure. Its member states want to benefit from the opportunities for development provided by China, but they also want external support to act as a strategic counterweight to the People's Republic. Although these circumstances explain its reservations about a concept that puts its cohesion and identity as an organization at risk, ASEAN ended up adopting its own "Indo-Pacific Perspective" in 2019, an official document that reveals its efforts to maintain its independence.