Europe News
EU Founded for Peace, Now Engaged in War
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Ursula von der Leyen recently announced, following the London summit, that the European Union would unveil a “comprehensive rearmament plan for Europe on March 6.” She emphasized the urgency of increasing military investments in order to “prepare for the worst.” However, this announcement has sparked significant skepticism and criticism. Many Europeans question the source of the funding for such a militarization effort, wondering if their remaining resources will be stripped away.
For years, the European Union has been portrayed as a beacon of prosperity and peace. Yet, critics argue that fear has consistently been used as a tool to push citizens into supporting harmful policies. Increasingly, Europeans perceive that the real threat does not come from Moscow, Ukraine, the USA, or China, but as the vice president of the United States, J.D. Vance, recently echoed the true threat comes from within Western institutions, not from external adversaries, specifically from Brussels, where leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, and Olaf Scholz are accused of manipulating narratives to sustain the war in Ukraine.
European project, originally built on the promise of peace, now seems to be leading the continent toward war. The European Union, rather than securing the future, seems to be digging the grave of Europe itself. Klaus Schwab’s infamous quote, “You will own nothing and be happy,” is now being interpreted as a grim prophecy rather than a utopian vision.
The skepticism extends to concerns about political rhetoric. Many see the discourse surrounding figures like Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as exaggerated, questioning the credibility of those who label him a “hero.” Detractors argue that European leaders could have just as easily fabricated a threat from extraterrestrials, highlighting what they see as the absurdity of the current narrative. The focus, they claim, should not be on an external aggressor but rather on the internal decisions that have led to economic hardship and political instability across the continent.
A significant segment of European public opinion believes that Russia has not provoked the EU, NATO, or France, but rather that European leaders are pushing for a prolonged confrontation with a nuclear power that possesses 5,000 warheads. Critics warn that such reckless policies could lead Europe into another catastrophic conflict—just as the continent was at the center of two world wars in the past century. Calls for rearmament are met with sarcasm, as some Europeans express mock enthusiasm about facing Russia alongside Sweden, questioning the feasibility and necessity of such a move.
Public concern is growing over Ursula von der Leyen’s authority and the legitimacy of the decisions she is making on behalf of European nations. Detractors argue that these actions undermine national sovereignty and democracy, concentrating power in Brussels while stripping individual nations of their ability to determine their own paths. The criticism does not stop at von der Leyen; Macron, Scholz, and other European leaders are also being accused of leading the continent down a destructive path.
The argument is that the push for increased military spending diverts crucial funds away from essential public services, environmental sustainability, and social welfare programs. Instead, these resources are being funneled into a “cannon fodder project” that benefits the wealthy elite at the expense of the general population. The war means according to them, raising taxes, which could lead to public outrage, cutting social benefits, further impoverishing struggling families and printing more money, causing hyperinflation and economic collapse.
Analysts who have studied European opinion trends note a significant shift in public sentiment. Many now believe that the war is unwinnable and that Russia holds the key to both prolonging and ending the conflict at its discretion. There is a growing recognition that continuing down the current path will only lead to further instability, economic hardship, and a potential escalation that could have devastating consequences for Europe.
With Europe already facing challenges from extremist threats and economic struggles, adding a military confrontation with Russia and increasing dependence on U.S. foreign policy could spell disaster for the continent. Critics argue that unless European citizens wake up and demand accountability from their leaders, they will be dragged into a war with catastrophic consequences.
Ultimately, the core of the argument is that European leaders are not safeguarding the interests of their people. Instead, they are prioritizing a militaristic agenda that serves political and financial elites. As tensions continue to rise, the question remains: Will European citizens take control of their future, or will they allow themselves to be led into another devastating conflict?
There is growing resentment toward European leadership, with some comparing the current EU to a “Fourth Reich” that seeks to impose its will on member nations. Rather than serving the interests of its people, the EU’s current trajectory appears to be one of decay, defeat, and disintegration. Instead of focusing on the prosperity and well-being of its citizens, the Union is investing in military escalation. But this time, the people will not be deceived. The resistance against this war is growing.
After nine years, European public, analysts and thinkers seem to have reached the same conclusion that former U.S. President Donald Trump did regarding military preparedness. However, financing a military expansion while already supporting a costly war is problematic. Money does not fall from the sky, and diverting funds means making painful cuts elsewhere. The challenge now is whether European leaders will dare to increase taxes without triggering a backlash from an already frustrated population.
This growing frustration among European citizens mirrors sentiments expressed by former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly criticized NATO and questioned its role in global conflicts. Many Europeans now share Trump’s perspective that NATO initiated the war under false pretenses, framing it as an act of aggression. As public discourse shifts, more people in Europe are aligning with the idea that the conflict is not in their best interests but rather serves as a means to further impoverish ordinary citizens while enriching the powerful.
Paris ( Imran Y. CHOUDHRY):- The 221st session of the Executive Board of UNESCO started in UNESCO Headquarter in Paris. Composed of 58 Member States, the Executive Board meets twice a year and is the main policy-making body of the Organization.
Permanent Delegate of Pakistan to UNESCO, Ambassador Mumtaz Zahra Baloch addressed the plenary session of the 221st session of the Executive Board of UNESCO.
In the Executive Board meeting, Ambassador Madam Mumtaz Zahra Baloch speak some important points:
- Reaffirmed Pakistan’s commitment to a stronger and more effective UNESCO to meet today’s challenges.
- Emphasized the need for a realistic and sustainable budget to deliver on its strategic priorities in education, science, culture, and communication.
- Urged strategic rationalization in the structure and work of the organization; enhancing synergies, and reducing duplication and overlapping.
• Called on UNESCO to foster scientific collaboration to address common challenges; promote democratization of scientific progress and innovation; and insulate scientific advancement from artificial barriers and strategic competition.
- Appreciated the dedication and commitment of the UNESCO staff and underlined the need for transparency and accountability.
Office lights in some corners of Westminster were on much later than usual last night.
Why? Because ministers and officials, just like so many others, were watching the telly to see what President Trump would have to say, the Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds among them.
The president, brandishing a giant rectangular piece of card packed with the new tariff increases, unleashing waves of anxiety across factory floors, boardrooms and government ministries the world over.
Folk in government in the UK had picked up a sense of the mood music – a sense that the UK was “in the good camp rather than the bad camp” as one figure put it to me – but they had no idea in advance precisely what that would mean.
We now do know what it means.
I detect a sense of relief among ministers, but make no mistake they are not delighted – the tariffs imposed on the UK will have significant effects, and the tariffs on the UK’s trading partners will have a profound impact on jobs, industries and global trading flows in the weeks, months and years to come.
It will be “hugely disruptive,” as one government source put it.
There is an acute awareness in particular about the impact on the car industry.
- Live updates: Reaction to Trump’s tariffs announcements
- At a glance: What president’s new taxes mean for EU, China and others
- Global reaction: World leaders criticise Trump tariffs as ‘major blow’
- Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
Negotiations with America over a trade deal continue.
I am told a team of four UK negotiators are in “pretty intensive” conversation with their American counterparts – talking remotely, but willing to head to Washington if signing a deal appears imminent.
Let’s see.
Those on the UK side characterise the discussions as “more like a corporate conversation than a trade negotiation”, putting that down to the personnel, outlook and biographies of plenty in the Trump administration.
The other point being seized upon at Westminster, in particular by the Conservatives, is the difference between how the UK is being treated compared to the European Union – with plenty pointing to it as a dividend of Brexit.
The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, think the UK should work with Commonwealth and European allies to stand up to President Trump and impose retaliatory tariffs “if necessary”.
The Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is meeting affected businesses on Thursday and the business secretary will address the Commons.
The next chapter of this economic revolution begins now, with how the world reacts, in rhetoric and retaliation.
This in itself will have a huge impact.
Whether, how and when some choose to respond will have economic and political consequences at home and abroad.
The global story of Donald Trump’s tariffs is only just beginning.
Taken From BBC News
The government will keep pushing for a deal to avoid a “trade war” after US President Donald Trump imposed new tariffs globally, the Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said.
Trump announced fresh levies on goods coming into his country including 10% on all UK imports and 20% on those from the European Union.
The UK has spent weeks working on a trade deal with the US to avoid the full impact of the level of tariffs introduced on countries such as Canada and China.
A Downing Street source said the UK’s lower tariff “vindicates” the government’s plans, because “the difference between 10% and 20% is thousands of jobs”.
Responding to the new tariffs, Reynolds said the government remained “fully focused” on negotiating a deal with the US that would strengthen their “balanced trading relationship”.
“We have a range of tools at our disposal and we will not hesitate to act,” he said.
The US plan sets a baseline tariff on all imports of at least 10%, with items from countries that the White House described as the “worst offenders” facing far higher rates for what Trump said was payback for unfair trade policies.
His move breaks with decades of US policy embracing free trade. Analysts said it was likely to lead to higher prices in the US and slower growth around the world.
The government’s official forecaster estimates a worst-case scenario trade war could reduce UK economic growth by 1% and wipe out the £9.9bn of economic headroom Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave herself at last week’s Spring Statement.
A Downing Street source told the BBC: “We don’t want any tariffs at all, but a lower levy than others vindicates our approach. It matters because the difference between 10% and 20% is thousands of jobs.
“We will keep negotiating, keep cool and keep calm,” the source said, adding: “Tomorrow we will continue with that work.”
The government will hold a series of talks with affected businesses on Thursday to provide support and discuss a response.
Sebastian Gorka, an adviser to Trump, suggested the UK’s approach had seen it receive a “special rate” on tariffs.
“After Brexit, you have reaffirmed your independence and I think that is been proven today by the special rate that has been afforded to the UK,” he told the BBC’s Newsnight, adding that the “exempted rate” could be “improved” in the future.
Diplomatic efforts are still ongoing. As part of the efforts to get a deal, Lord Mandelson, the UK ambassador, has had meetings in the White House with Vice-President JD Vance and Susie Wiles, the president’s chief of staff.
For the moment, the UK will not be “jumping into a trade war” with retaliatory tariffs, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said – a repeat of the response to Trump’s earlier tariffs on steel and aluminium.
Sir Keir told his cabinet this week he was “keeping all options on the table” to respond to the tariffs, which economists have warned could damage the UK economy and increase the cost of living.
Inside government officials hope that Wednesday’s announcement sets a “ceiling” on negotiations, not the final price, and can be talked down.
The government’s approach has been backed in some of the early responses from the UK business sector.
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said the government “has rightfully tried to negotiate a carve-out” and that businesses need a “measured and proportionate approach”.
But Conservative shadow trade secretary Andrew Griffith accused Labour of “failing to negotiate with President Trump’s team” in time.
“Sadly, it is British businesses and workers who will pay the price for Labour’s failure,” he said.
“The silver lining is that Brexit – which Labour ministers voted against no less than 48 times – means that we face far lower tariffs than the EU: a Brexit dividend that will have protected thousands of British jobs and businesses.”
In contrast, the Lib Dems urged the government to consider using “retaliatory tariffs where necessary” and form a “coalition of the willing against Trump’s tariffs” with other countries.
Government sources believe talks between the US and the UK have made good progress, but have been derailed by Trump’s public comments.
At different times, statements by Trump about his tariffs are said to have differed from what his negotiating team had previously understood his position to be.
The deal would be broader than just reducing tariffs, focusing on technology, but also covering elements of trade in goods and services as well as agriculture – a controversial area in previous unsuccessful US-UK trade talks.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has suggested the UK could change its taxes on big tech firms as part of a deal to overturn US tariffs.
The digital services tax, introduced in 2020, imposes a 2% levy on tech firms, including big US firms such as Amazon, bringing in about £800m in tax per year.
The UK motoring industry, also hit with an additional 25% tax on all car imports to the US announced this week, called the tariffs “deeply disappointing”.
Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said the US announcement was “yet another challenge to a sector already facing multiple headwinds”.
Taken From BBC News
THE battle is over. Now brace for the fallout. This changes everything-The Fall Out
Why India could not stop IMF bailout to Pakistan
Israeli air strikes kill 40 in Gaza, say hospitals, while aid blockade continues
-
Europe News3 months agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News2 months agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
American News2 months agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Politics3 months agoUS cuts send South Africa’s HIV treatment ‘off a cliff’
-
Pakistan News2 months agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?
-
American News2 months agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
Art & Culture2 months agoInternational Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
American News2 months agoU.S. Tariff Policies: A Historical Perspective