There is a German friend based in Nigeria who seems unhappy that I point out that 77 years after they arrived in Germany, as conquerors or liberators, foreign troops remain in this country. He asked me, “You understand the difference between occupation and international agreements, don’t you?” If it is a simple case of international agreements, then the fundamental concept of reciprocity in international relations should apply.

I have been engaged in countless conversations with my European friends across continents, groups and social media about current world events and whether their leaders are right to seek a solitary military solution.

Were they right in the 1990s to only be interested in winning the ideological battle by encouraging the atomization of Europe? Could the wars that devastated this continent, especially from the 1990s, have been avoided?

With the Cold War seemingly over, was it in humanity’s interest that European powers were primarily interested in expanding their military wings, rather than investing in a more inclusive world? When European countries met last week in Brussels with their North American allies, all talk was about increasing defense spending, bringing more troops to their continent, increasing arms supplies to Ukraine and more sanctions against Russia.

There was little or no plan for how to reduce tension, fight for a ceasefire or seek a negotiated settlement in the war in Ukraine. Yet both armies involved in the war, lives taken or destroyed, are European; so are the damaged towns and cities.

The 10 million displaced are Europeans, the 4 million who have become refugees too. Almost all of the countries bearing the brunt of these refugees are European. So why are there no concerted efforts by European leaders to broker peace? Do they hope that Ukraine will defeat Russia militarily and thus solve what they see as their headache? Are they expecting to see the two European countries exhaust themselves militarily?

Is Ukraine, for these European leaders, an expendable shell? In response to my writings, a European friend asked me: “Do you consider that the right of the Baltic countries and Poland to security vis-à-vis Russia is irrelevant? Is the right to exist of these small countries irrelevant? My simple answer is that all countries have a right to security, including the Baltics and Russia.

As such, we need an understanding of the world where one’s security does not constitute another’s insecurity. When the Soviet Union fell, I argued that it might not have been in Europe’s long-term interest to encourage or allow it to split into 15 countries. different.

All countries are artificial. In perhaps all cases, they are created by individual countries and nationalities, each with its own language, culture and history. This cannot be the basis of separatism. For example, the United Kingdom (UK) has at least four countries – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – under a single state structure. Their cultural, linguistic and historical differences should not be enough to split it into separate entities.

For example, would it have been possible for the three Baltic Sea nations – Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania – to merge into a united state, rather than existing as atomized entities?

Yugoslavia, so large and so promising, was under Marshal Broz Tito a respected country that led what was called the Non-Aligned Movement; countries that sought a balance between the two superpowers.

Was its rather bloody division into seven separate countries, with its horrific loss of life and the massive destruction of part of Europe, inevitable, or was most of Europe simply delighted that the bloc of the East is collapsing? What was the advantage of using foreign military muscle to produce fry like Kosovo? Could negotiated diplomacy have helped? Was the post-communist “velvet divorce” in Czechoslovakia which, on January 1, 1993, divided this wonderful country into the Czech Republic and Slovakia? To these kinds of thoughts, a close friend with whom I am an administrator of a respected international platform replied: “Many were separate countries until Stalin took charge of them during the Second World War, Ukraine included. Stalin signed a bilateral treaty with each. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary have seen widespread dissent in different years. Yugoslavia with Tito remained quite independent.

Chechnya became Islamic and fought with the Soviets until 1958 when they were taken over. Kazakhstan and a few others were part of the Soviet Union before the war. After World War II, they declared themselves independent. They are very special countries with their own language, culture and history. I thought about his answer, but I could not agree with his conclusion which seems to give the impression that these countries have the basis for establishing separate states because: “They are very particular countries with their own language, culture and history”.

All countries are artificial. In perhaps all cases, they are created by individual countries and nationalities, each with its own language, culture and history. This cannot be the basis of separatism. For example, the United Kingdom (UK) has at least four countries – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – under a single state structure. Their cultural, linguistic and historical differences should not be enough to split it into separate entities.

The same with Spain, which has different nationalities with distinct histories and cultures like Castilians, Galicians, Valencians, Basques and Catalans. Even Belgium, seat of the European Union, has various nationalities such as Flemings, Walloons, Italians and Moroccans who, at each election, are content to form a government.

A very unique country that should be a model for all of us is Switzerland, which is made up of Swiss, German, Italian, Portuguese, French, Kosovar, Turkish and smaller nationalities.

With the United Nations (UN) immobilized by the veto, it is necessary to relaunch the Non-Aligned Movement, which at its peak had 120 member countries, notably from Europe, Asia, Africa, America Latin, Gulf and Crossing Faith. , racial, cultural and ideological. This is my case for a universal renaissance and a new world order.

To give people a sense of belonging, the country has four official languages: German, French, Italian and Romanesque, with the exception of English, which is widely spoken in a place like Geneva. . Thus, having national, linguistic, cultural, geographical and historical differences should not be a main reason for dividing countries.

There is a German friend based in Nigeria who seems unhappy that I point out that 77 years after they arrived in Germany, as conquerors or liberators, foreign troops remain in this country. He asked me, “You understand the difference between occupation and international agreements, don’t you?” If it is a simple case of international agreements, then the fundamental concept of reciprocity in international relations should apply.

So why doesn’t Germany have similar military bases in these countries? Personally, I love and respect Germany in part because this country has provided four of my main mentors in life who I continue to study and draw inspiration from. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels opened my eyes and mind to dialectics, political economy, materialistic thought and social relations.

Roxa Luxemburg’s writings helped me to distinguish between feminism and women’s liberation. My most beloved writer, whose style I wish I could soak up, is Bertolt Brecht. On my first visit to Berlin, I went to look for his grave and found it!

In the past, the world functioned on a tripod: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Warsaw and the Non-Aligned Movement.

The last two died as NATO expanded into a superpower. I don’t think it’s safe for the world to walk and run on a leg called NATO. With the United Nations (UN) immobilized by the veto, it is necessary to relaunch the Non-Aligned Movement, which at its peak had 120 member countries, notably from Europe, Asia, Africa, America Latin, Gulf and Crossing Faith. , racial, cultural and ideological. This is my case for a universal renaissance and a new world order.

Owei Lakemfa, former General Secretary of African Workers, is a human rights activist, journalist and author.