Behind Europe’s Protest Rallies

At the start of the second quarter of the new century, the world witnessees a different global order unfolding in multiple manifestations. The writing on the wall is crystal clear. Denial of its arrival is delusional to the few who are yet to comprehend the portents of the shift in the balance of power, globally and regionally, even as multilateralism emerges as the new reality. 

Austrians, Britons, French, Germans and Italians, among other Europeans, have since autumn marched at street rallies to protest against prolonging the war in Ukraine. A major show of protest movement in Berlin in October warned the German government against what was seen as government preparation for an “insane” war with Russia, which meant Moscow "will have to shoot back." 

The rallyists were against Germany being involved in direct war with Russia. The media were blamed for going with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s narrative. Thousands of rallyists castigated the government for “provoking” Russia, which, they said, was bound to retaliate. They pressed for diplomacy and disarmament, fearing militarisation that could endanger the whole of Europe. Reports indicate support for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has increased. 

Under intense pressure from the United States’ President Donald Trump, NATO passed a resolution last year asking individual members to increase their annual defence budgets to five per cent of their GDP over the next three years. A few of the military alliances declared that they would not be able to comply with the decision. But all will jack up the defence spending.

Equations change 

It’s a make-or-break challenge for India, the most populous multiparty democracy. All three powers—the US, China, and Russia—are keen to strengthen their power and influence. Even if nowhere close to achieving a superpower status in the foreseeable future, India’s stakes are too high for it to stay passive on major developments. When it comes to choosing a single partner among them, Moscow and Beijing would break ranks for each other’s support. India would be confined to the background. New Delhi realises that Washington and other major European capitals would side with their Caucasian cousins and not India, if a choice had to be made.

Russia and China read the American quest for alliances with strategically significant Asian capitals as an attempt at building a bulwark against communist China’s growing economic clout and military prowess. Africa could hurt those aligning against the deepening Sino-Russian bonding in a world that witnesses not two but three great powers. For the first time, a non-Caucasian country is in the exclusive club of superpowers, and that happens to be a state with a communist system for more than 75 years.  

Mainstream NATO’s containment of China thrust has met with a disturbing thud. As propaganda peels off, global populations get an idea about the new context. By now, the world is well aware of the economic and technological leap that communist China has achieved, much to the chagrin of the ideological elite of the capitalist landscape’s business tycoons and political leadership. Since the outbreak of the Ukraine war in February 2022, the West at the popular level has begun to reassess China’s expanding international presence and the resultant swing in global power balance. 

Inequality is the basic problem with all governments across the world. Overwhelming concentration of wealth means an extremely few holding much of the wealth, while the majority of the population barely ekes out a living. The daily grind of hand-to-mouth living for the millions and the obscene scene of a few hundred possessing more profits than the bottom half of the entire population mark a vulgar gap between the rich and the downtrodden.

There is also growing anger over the concentration of wealth by a few. A minuscule section of society owns more wealth than the rest of society. News media do not question such glaring wealth disparity but glorify the top-notch’s success story and riches flashed all around. Criticisms of the cross-section of the Western world against the news media for either not telling their stories in full or overlooking issues not convenient to their governments abound.  

Few fingers are in too many pies to the extent of fostering duopolies and monopolies, while potential competitors are left with a steeply uphill task to find their way to sound business. Conglomerates and fraternity tie-ups are protective of peers. They dole out advertising in large volumes that could hook media struggling to engage in fair journalism.

From push to shove

At bilateral and multilateral levels, too, changes in equations are clearly distinguishable. This is just the beginning. Things will be irreversibly more distinct by the next three years, whether legacy powers and their cohorts admit it or not. When push comes to shove, the consequent outcome would arouse defiance, compelling the target to probe for alternatives. The US accounts for 80 per cent of Canada’s trade, and Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney concludes that options would have to be sought and built. After being publicly scolded more than once by Trump, Carney has turned to China and the rest of Asia for trade. Even as the Trump administration imposes high tariffs on Canada’s export items, Carney tries to project Canada as a credible alternative to America’s next-door neighbour.

Shortly after his inauguration last year, Trump had on several occasions made disparaging comments on Canada, including the one that declared the northern neighbour as a likely 51st state of the US. “Canada is not for sale,” fumed Carney. His tough stance soared popular support for him and enabled his Liberal Party to offset earlier public opinion surveys, eventually obtaining a parliamentary majority in the general election not long after. The latest from Ottawa is that “Canadianos” has replaced Americanos in restaurant menus. What it all boils down to is recalling that timeless advice: you can’t expect to eat the cake and have it too. When the crunch comes, there is no ambiguity as to who is with whom. Hegemony cuts both ways sooner or later—deep and wide. Time can prove to be a healer or a retaliator.

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)