European-april-14

by subjects – actors of terrorism that are specifically organized, less powerful and smaller socio-political groups of subjects or states, fighting, in a systematic, organized manner, against the existing socio-political international order, by applying illegitimate and illegal measure, cruel and hardly foreseeable criminal violence, using available methods and means which cause massive and individual, severe, unjust and unnecessary targeted and random victims and cause major harm, without, as general rule, reaching the achievement of the ultimate socio-political aim as an effect” (Alispahić 2009, 236).

It is worth mentioning that the definition as part of terrorism recognizes only fight against the existing socio-political international order and omits fight against the existing socio-political internal order. Being meticulous we could find also the examples of the later – Islamic Armed Group fighting against the secular Algerian regime, Communist Party of Philippines – New people’s Army aiming to overthrow the government or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia striving to defend autonomous Communistcontrolled rural areas. However, on the assumption that smaller units, states, and their internal dynamics affect and drive broader international system, we can approve the above given definition. The connection is clearer in cases of Basque

Fatherland and Liberty Organization (ETA) in Spain, Hamas in Palestine/Israel, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka and Irish Republican Army in Ireland. Those groups perform their operations in a territory of one country, trying to achieve succession of a part of its territory as their final aim. Herewith the existing sociopolitical international order would change. Therefore we might consider their internal operations and fight as a fight against wider sociopolitical international order. Moreover, the inclusion of state as one of the subjects-actors of terrorism in Alispahić’s definition is something still disputed and therefore a daring author’s step. Even though we might welcome that completion the author fails to further elaborate this issue and provide us with some examples of state terrorism. Terrorism itself being such a disputed issue let alone state terrorism the omission is not surprising. However, on the other side this contributes to the difference between Alispahić’s serious expertise on terrorism and controversial studies which are taken only half seriously. But in the end we can still ask if states’ monopoly over the use of force assures that it is not applied illegitimately and illegally which are two of terrorism characteristics as defined by Alispahić.

With the year 2014 commemorating the 100th Anniversary of

the beginning of the World War I Brendan Simms’ Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy 1453 to the Present in times of remembrance and re-evaluation offers a ‘stand back and analyse’ approach to the most important occurrences of the last half of the millennium. More than 550 years and almost as many content pages are already a statement of its own. Statistics is a lie; nevertheless, summing up the events of one year’s time on a roughly one A5 page is a task for the gods considering the filter one must adopt to truly grasp the essentials.

Brendan Simms took on a challenge hardly any current historian would dare to, precisely because our today’s knowledge of the past is not only broader but

more profound; what Simms did is prioritizing in the choice of the aspects focused on throughout the last 500 years. Many argued he is dealing too much with the Mitteleuropa, especially with Germany, while thematically considers mainly geopolitical dimensions and fails to discuss other areal and cultural contexts. Nevertheless, due to the fact he opens his preface with some strong realist quotations, one should expect nothing else than realpolitik. Moreover, it is what undoubtedly adds the internal coherence to the obviously solid outer structure in terms of the division of time periods and chapters. The sole idea and intent behind the book resulted in a work that elaborates on a Hitler’s statement (1943) which Simms (2013, 307) quotes at the first page of the chapter Utopias, 1917–44: “Whoever controls Europe will thereby seize the

leadership of the world. It must therefore remain the objective of our struggle to create a unified Europe, but Europe can only be given a coherent structure through Germany.”

The book is more than a plain list of historical facts, it is a story, and the narrative character of it is a loyal companion leading us through the periods of majestic individuals, great empires, unified peoples and diversified ideas. The narration begins with the 1450s when the collapse of the Byzantine Empire pawed the way for the Holy Roman Empire to open the floor for the European territorial prevail since, as Simms (2013, 11) presupposes in the introduction, “at some point or the other interests of all the major protagonists intersected there.” He puts the Germany or its emperor predecessors at the core of the interactions and developments on the European grounds, in some aspects even worldwide. As in Simms’ previous book The Struggle for Mastery in Germany: 1779–1850, the idea of centrally crucial role of Germany embodies the whole spirit of the book: “In short, it has been the unshakeable conviction of European leaders over the past 550 years, even those

who had no imperial aspirations themselves, that the struggle for mastery would be decided by or in the Empire and its German successor states” (Simms, 2013, 5). Whether or not one agrees with the latter notion – that is continuously, although at times subtly, advocated – it is admittedly the major factor contributing to the book’s coherency. And coherency is one of the book’s best features; it is consolidated by the almost obsessive focus on Germany in assessment of the geopolitical situations with supporting quotations of the IR’s finest that are opening every single chapter.

Overall, the book has a good structure, an intriguing introduction and one should be careful in blaming the author for overindulging in the studies of Germany; after all, Germany had and still has an important role locally and globally, moreover, it has a rather decisive role, especially in the region; regardless of how strongly the liberalists would like to believe in the equal membership principle of the European Union (EU), “/s/ome things, however, never change /.../” as Simms points out in the preface (2013, XXVII). European organization has maybe changed

the methodology of direct, cruel and violent conquests for prevails of individual religious, political, economic, and ideological values, and softened its way of taking on and integrating the surrounding areas; nevertheless, “the principal security issues faced by Europeans have remained remarkably constant over the centuries” (ibid.). Regardless of the continuously emphasized inability of collective action of the EU, sophisticated structural power seems to work rather effectively.Profoundrealismonce again; interests stay the same, only means of their acquisition adapt with time. As author indicates in the conclusive stages of the book, finally, Germany’s calmness due to being “the centre of Europe without direct threats to [their] border /.../” has much to do with the further success and development orientation of the EU since “Europe’ had now served its purpose,” and Germany prefers to “/.../ rest secure in their fortress,” (Simms, 2013, 513).

As a theory enthusiast, and also in the line with author’s conclusive (rhetorical) questioning, there is a point I feel it is necessary to raise: while I sincerely believe strong consolidated structure of

the academic text is of essential importance, and it is honest to say the author more than fulfils it, I cannot help but wonder whether it is appropriate, beneficial and relevant to, firstly, establish the model, the structure, the narrative and then fill it with the facts, the data, the events, or should they speak for themselves and we should be merely distance ourselves and seize the pattern? Same model with different titles could be, thereon, used in the context of liberal institutionalism, Marxism or any other IR theory. As always, the unarguable point one can draw from the notion of the ‘big picture’ perspective regardless of one’s theoretical orientation is: history issubjectedtointerpretation.And Simms’ is, at least seemingly, convincing.

The comendable characteristics about the book are author’s courage, prioritization in the areas and topics, and, in the largest portion, external and internal cohesiveness. Needless to say, the work targets its audience already with the title, and if not with it, then definitely with the preface; realist conviction of the reader is almost a precondition, however, you may still enjoy it as a hobby historian or else since it takes the

form of a narration, especially in the beginning setting mood, and the ending’s ‘non’-prophesies. Possibly one could find it a bit stretchy in the middle; however, the historic facts cannot be mould to the preference of the story. Or can they? Whereas the excellence of coherency is pointed out by the reviewer on so many occasions, one cannot overlook the fact, it can be at times perceived as forced.

Half of a millennium is ridiculously hard – and time-consu- ming as the long list of references suggests – to describe in details; therefore, the focus on formation of states, wars, dissolution of states and treaties leaves out other aspects, and results in the continuous emphasize on the primacy of foreign policy, yet is at times ignorant of the life outside the European instant domain such as the Central Asia. One may resent Simms as well the presupposition of autonomous development of European countries, with respect to the above mentioned disregard of the indirectly influencing outer variables, and failure to take into consideration the importance of European success in use of new technological advancements while, ironically, triumphs the

development of progressive political thought in Europe over the less eccentric legacies of the Ottoman and the Chinese Empire.

However, every coin has two sides, one usually shinier than the other. Nevertheless, as Simms’ overview of European history, it is of a substantial matter, and definitely worth picking it up. The rest is up to interpretation.