JAPAN needs to create an independent foreign policy
November 21, 2008
World War Two (WW2) finished a very long time ago, however, in Japan it appears that time is standing still because this nation is over compliant towards America. Also, Japan is still alienated in Northeast Asia because of her past history. For unlike Germany, which became sincere after WW2, too many nationalists remain within the ruling inner-circle in Japan and symbolic nationalist issues like Yasukuni Shrine continues to add "fuel to the fire." Therefore, Japan needs a sincere approach and to move closer to her natural environment, rather than "hanging on to the coat" of America. So can Japan revolutionize her thinking and establish an independent foreign policy?
Firstly, this article is not aimed at being anti-American, it merely applies to the need for Japan to develop an independent foreign and monetary policy. Of course relations should remain strong with the USA and shared interests will be natural. However, at the moment it appears that Japan is a mere "lackey" of America and this simply isn’t good enough. So of course both nations must continue to foster close relations but not at the expense of Japan’s independence. Given this, Japan must move closer to other regional nations and firmly set her sights on being independent.
Ex-PM Abe hinted at a shared alliance based on "democratic principles" and this applies to America, Australia, India, and New Zealand, respectively. Also, ex-PM Abe focused on NATO and how Japan can play a role within this institution. Much of his domestic thinking was a little strange and out of step with public opinion, however, his foreign policy objectives did make sense. Yet he suffered from two major weaknesses. Firstly, ex-PM Abe was "toothless" when it came to America, just like other past leaders. Secondly, and sadly, he embroiled himself in nationalistic scandals, for example speaking negatively about the "comfort women" issue and then endorsing "revisionism" with regards to historical events which took place in Okinawa.
So can a future political leader stand up and be counted? I certainly hope so because how can Japan be trusted within the international community if nations don’t take her independence seriously? This is a serious issue because Japan desires to become a permanent member of the United Nations but under the current circumstances, then many nations have reservations about this. Given this reality, it is vital for Japan to change direction and embrace not only Asia but the international community.
If Japan does not change her thinking then her reputation within the international community will be further weakened. Also, regional nations, for example China, the Russian Federation, North Korea, and South Korea, will merely ignore Japan’s thinking and they will not trust the motives of Tokyo. Therefore, the time is right to transform the foreign policy of Japan. After all, the current American "lackey" status is hindering Japan. So surely Japan needs to become independent and play a leading role within the United Nations and other major institutions.
This also applies to Japan's monetary policies because even in this field it is clear that Japan is offering the hand of friendship towards America. For example, around 90% of all Japanese reserves are held in either American bonds or in the dollar. Yet with the current weakness of the dollar and the American economy, then is this policy justified? Also, what about supporting the Japanese yen with regards to major foreign transactions? To me this policy is either naive at best or at worse it is further evidence about her limited independence. Once more, Japan must diversify her monetary policies and look to the Euro, gold, and other currencies or international bonds, while of course still holding dollars and American bonds, but not at the current level.
So can Japan develop a new way? Sadly, under the current leaders of Japan, then the answer may still be no. However, to be fair to the current leader of Japan, PM Aso, then we can not judge him because he only took office recently. Yet, despite this, it would appear that PM Aso will maintain the current status quo and he will follow a pro-American foreign policy.
However, PM Aso should refrain from this and instead he should focus on regional powers and important international blocs, while preserving close ties with America. For if Japan wants to become accepted internationally, an independent policy is essential. Also, Japan must "build sincere bridges" with China, North Korea, and South Korea; and leaders in Tokyo must "break the chain" with regards to the Russian Federation. Yet can the current ruling party do this given past history?
MONGOLIA and the importance of this nation to America, China, and Russia
November 13, 2008
The nation of Mongolia is very large in landmass, however, her population is very small and it would appear that this nation is not blessed by her geography. However, if we focus on this nation being democratic, independent, and neutral; then clearly Mongolia can help to soothe relations between China and the Russian Federation during times of difficulty. Therefore, can Mongolia play a good "hand of poker" and make the most of her geopolitical reality?
For leaders in Moscow, it is clear that Mongolia is important because this nation is surrounded by both China and the Russian Federation. Therefore, the geopolitical significance of Mongolia is obvious to both China and the Russian Federation. Given this reality, political leaders in Moscow desire to help this nation because it is vital that Mongolia at least remains neutral.
Also, America could encroach by offering vast economic and political support. Therefore, important policies are being implemented by the Russian Federation with regards to energy routes, transport networks, economic zones, for example the Tumen River Delta Economic Zone, and other dynamic policies. So the strategic importance of Mongolia to the Russian Federation is abundantly clear and Moscow desires to maintain a neutral Mongolia.
China shares similar views towards Mongolia because if tensions did develop with the Russian Federation, then Mongolia would be an important nation because of the geopolitical reality of this country. So Mongolia is deemed to be a vital "buffer" between both China and the Russian Federation. However, at the moment both Beijing and Moscow have cordial relations between each other and towards Ulan Bator. Therefore, Mongolia should upgrade her economy while both nations are working together on so many issues. China is also worried about the "American card." So it is in the interest of both China and the Russian Federation to shore up their relationship. After all, American meddling could upset the applecart. However, China does have one major "ace" and this applies to the economic angle. Therefore, China does have a lot of economic influence in Mongolia because China is Mongolia's major trading partner.
China and the Russian Federation also fear America having major military bases in Mongolia in the future. This applies to America having independent bases in Mongolia or via the framework of NATO troops. China is also worried about the Taiwan issue, therefore, China can not afford a weakness within her geopolitical zone of influence and Mongolian neutrality is a must for the leaders of Beijing.
America, on the other hand, desires to keep both nations in check and of course they hope to increase their influence in Mongolia for geopolitical and military reasons. America also understands that Mongolia is in a very strategic region and they desire to increase their influence within the "backyard" of both China and the Russian Federation. America also knows that Mongolia could be threatened, after all inner Mongolia lies within the nation of China. Therefore, it is a good way for America to keep an eye on her main rivals, while justifying this on past history.
Given this, the nation of Mongolia must utilize her geographic reality in order to boost the economy of Mongolia. Therefore, astute leaders are needed in order to play "a wise game." If this happens, then Mongolia can gain from economic and political support from all the major powers. Of course this is not going to be easy, therefore, diplomacy and statecraft is badly needed in order to maintain the current status quo.
However, for now Mongolia is utilizing her geography well because international investment continues, despite the remoteness of this nation. Yet dangers remain within the political system of Mongolia because earlier this year you had mass demonstrations in this nation. Therefore, Mongolia needs to focus on democracy and transparency because internal political tensions will lead to international capital flight and it will reduce direct foreign investments.
Also, it is hoped that regional or global institutions will help this nation. This applies to the Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, NATO's Partnership for Peace, the Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue, and other major institutions. The European Union should also develop a robust policy and democratic nations throughout the region should implement favorable policies towards this nation, for example South Korea and Japan. Therefore, it is vital for Mongolia and positive outside forces to help this nation to develop and to utilize the natural resources of this country.
If Mongolia can maintain her neutrality in the future, then her economy will continue to benefit and her global influence within Northeast Asia will also blossom. In this sense Mongolia is already winning and maybe this weak nation can help to reduce respective tensions in this part of world via her diplomatic policy? Therefore, all major political parties in this nation must refrain from using violence and intimidation. Instead, they must focus on preserving the independence of this nation and creating a stable economic and political system. So it is vital for Mongolia to utilize the international political system because it is clear that this nation is of strategic importance.
Turkey is often praised for being secular and a future role model for other mainly Islamic societies because of its rich history of secularism. America and the United Kingdom, and other nations, often claim that Turkey is a beacon of hope and that it is evidence that democracy and secularism can exist within a mainly Muslim nation state. However, during this so-called "golden age" of secularism it is clear that religious and ethnic minorities have suffered greatly in modern day Turkey. So how true is it that Turkey is secular?
If we look at the founding father of modern day Turkey, Ataturk, then it is clear that he himself supported the destruction of Christianity via the Armenian and Assyrian Christian genocide of 1915. Therefore, it is clear that Turkish nationalism and secularism is tainted by its anti-Christian nature and also its anti-Kurdish nature. After all, the nation state of Turkey was about Turkish nationalism and secularism did not protect the religious or ethnic minorities of this diverse nation.
In spite of this, the myth of modernity and secularism based on the founding father prevails and Western nations are very optimistic about Turkey. Yes, Ataturk faced many difficulties and from a Turkish point of view he was very astute because he preserved a Turkish state when it was threatened by others. Yet in order to do this he crushed others and therefore the "bedrock" from the start was frail because it was based on Turkish nationalism.
Ataturk did implement many reforms in order to modernize Turkey and he did lay the foundation stone for a secular based state. In this sense he crushed Islamist hopes of a Sharia Islamic state and he gave more rights to females which did not exist in the old Ottoman Empire. But his legacy of modernity and secularism is tainted by the overt nationalism of old Turkey and this nationalism is still strong in modern day Turkey.
So if secularism means having the right to crush Christian minorities, moderate Muslim minorities like the Alevi, and ethnic minorities like the Assyrians, Syriacs, Armenians, and, most notably, the Kurds in modern day Turkey; then it is not the secularism which I support. So surely modernization and secularism is tainted by this overtly nationalist state and of course the Sunni orthodox mindset means that religious inequality is the norm?
In the 1990s the Alevi Muslims witnessed an upsurge in attacks against them. For example, David Zieden, who wrote an article called The Alevi of Anatolia, states that "Renewed inter-communal violence is sadly on the rise. In July 1993, at an Alevi cultural festival in Sivas, a Sunni fundamentalist mob set fire to a hotel where many Alevi participants had taken refuge, killing 35 of them. State security services did not interfere and prosecution against leaders of the riot was not energetically pursued. (41) In 1994, Istanbul municipal leaders from the Refah Islamic political party tried to raze an Alevi tekke (monastery) and close the Ezgi cafe where young Alevis frequently gathered." Meanwhile, if we focus on recent times then it is clear that persecution is still continuing. After all, in 2007 three Christians had their throats slit. Two of the victims had converted from Islam to Christianity, therefore, Necati Aydia, 36, and Ugur Yuksel, 32, were killed by Islamic fanatics on the grounds of merely leaving Islam. While the other murdered Christian, Tilmann Geske, 46, was a German citizen. One of the killers stated in the Hurriyet newspaper, that "We didn't do this for ourselves. We did it for our religion. May this be a lesson to the enemies of religion."
Before concluding it is important to state that you have many positive elements within Turkish society who desire change and who support a genuine democratic Turkey, which is inclusive. Also, if we view this nation from its past history and from a Turkish point of view, then clearly this nation faced many obstacles. For Ataturk, the infancy of Turkey was about survival and many Turks also suffered greatly. Given this, it is apparent that you have many positive elements within modern day Turkey and this nation does desire to join the European Union. Also, for America, Turkey is a vital strategic ally and a valued member of NATO.
Despite this, if we look at the rights of Alevi Muslims and Christians in modern day Turkey, and the persecution of Kurds; it is clear that orthodox Sunni Islam and nationalism is still being used by conservative elites. These elites still desire to crush both religious minorities and ethnic minorities. So are minorities equal in modern day Turkey? I think their treatment is the answer to this question and in recent times we have heard about several Christian murders. Also, for the more numerous Alevi Muslims and Kurds, then it is also clear that they face huge discrimination. Therefore, I believe that secular Turkey is a myth because in reality this nation state is focused on nationalism and clamping down on all minority faiths.
Ethiopian Ambassador to Japan and Third Secretary in Tokyo speak openly about Somalia
October 29, 2008
I was kindly invited by the Ethiopian Ambassador to Japan, Abdirashid Dulane, in Tokyo, and the Third Secretary, Dawit Yirga, on October 14th. At all times, both Ambassador Abdirashid Dulane and Dawit Yirga, spoke openly about many diverse issues. Therefore, I will touch on these issues, while protecting their privacy with regards to topics not related to Ethiopia.
Before I start, these two fine representatives of Ethiopia offered the best of this ancient nation. For both representatives came from different ethnic groups and different faiths. Yet this did not matter, for both were proud to be Ethiopian and race and religion did not enter the equation. Therefore, all the positives of Ethiopia was mirrored in this one room and this is what Ethiopia is famous for.
Therefore, the land of Orthodox Christianity and Islam, and other minor faiths within Ethiopia, including Judaism and Traditional Beliefs, could be seen in the rich mosaic of this nation by their genuine care for both Ethiopia and the international community. It should be remembered that Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity is one of the oldest branches of Christianity. Also, Ethiopia is famous in Islam because Muslims were given protection when they were being persecuted in the 7th century. Therefore, the Prophet Mohammed said that Ethiopia was "a land of righteousness where no one was wronged."
Moving back to my meeting with both Ambassador Abdirashid Dulane and Dawit Yirga, our conversation, in the late evening, was soon to focus on Somalia, the international community, and many other issues. At once, I could tell that both representatives felt a tinge of sadness and bewilderment, about the one-sided nature of a lot of media coverage surrounding Ethiopia and the Somalian issue. This bewilderment, from my perspective, is fully justified because many journalists are not looking at the bigger picture, or easy statements are being made without any real substance.
Therefore, both Ambassador Abdirashid Dulane and Dawit Yirga, spoke passionately about Somalia and the surrounding region. They also made it clear that Ethiopia was acting in good faith and that dangerous forces, for example terrorists, criminals via piracy, and Islamic radicals, had threatened to attack Ethiopia and other nations via radicalism and criminality. It must also be stressed, that recent events clearly vindicate Ethiopia because radical Islamists last week threatened to attack Kenya and of course piracy is a growing problem.
Also, international terrorism and criminality is working together via the financial mechanism of piracy and the international war against terrorism must include Somalia. After all, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations, desire to use Somalia for their own negative means. If radical Islamists took power then we would have another Taliban and Al-Qaeda conundrum, where women would be killed for adultery and radical Islamists could plot more international terrorist attacks.
If we concentrate on piracy first, then it is clear that a stable Somalia is in the interest of all nations. The German Defense Minister, Franz Josef Jung, stated that "We have to first push back the pirates, restore security on the high seas and make free maritime trade possible again." Currently eight European nations who are members of the European Union (EU) will deploy additional warships and other members may also get involved. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, also called for a major concerted effort to tackle this growing menace.
Therefore, Ethiopia is only interested in stabilizing Somalia and defeating forces which seek to cause deadly mayhem. Given this, it in the interest of all nations that a stable and viable Somalia can emerge. Yet this can only happen if proper funding and support is given to Ethiopia, Somalia, the African Union via their peacekeeping mission, and other major institutions, who desire to bring peace to this part of Africa.
Peter Bergen, who is a member of the important think-tank, New America Foundation, is a specialist on al-Qaeda and its network, counter insurgency methods and counter-terrorist policies, and he frequently writes about Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. On April 9, 2008, Peter Bergen commented that "..... al-Qaeda and its affiliates have targeted the ungovernable regions within Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia to establish safe havens, and they may be achieving success in certain areas. Areas such as these should be regularly monitored, al-Qaeda and affiliate activities should be disrupted and al-Qaeda should not be permitted to establish safe havens within these territories. As many African nations face the greatest threats from ungovernable regions, the U.S. should increase its annual funding for the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership."
Therefore, clearly Peter Bergen clarifies the danger of Somalia and other failed regions where terrorism can grow. Added to this, Somali Islamic fighters stated that they would take their war to Kenya via terrorist attacks and other measures. This threat is real because Sheikh Muktar Robow, on October 17, 2008, stated that "We will order all our holy warriors to start the jihadi war inside Kenya."
Also, in the past radical Islamists like Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, who is wanted in connection with U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania respectively; used Somalia, alongside other Al-Qaeda operatives, in order to spread international terrorism and radical Islam. Therefore, the linkage between failed states, Islamic terrorism, harsh and draconian implementations of Sharia Islamic law, piracy, and other forms of major criminality, including the drug trade, is clearly linked. So because of this, and other factors, Ethiopia felt obliged to support the international community and the people of Somalia.
Also, I will mention again that Ethiopia is not the richest nation in the world, however, despite this, Ethiopian soldiers and the government of Ethiopia is trying to help the nation of Somalia. Yet Ethiopia needs the international community to help both financially and via a major peacekeeping force. If the international community becomes fully involved then everybody will gain because forces of chaos will be defeated and the world will be a much safer place.
Yet, in general, most nations are not pulling their weight and the burden on Ethiopia is severe but this neighbouring state is doing its best to help Somalia. Also, it is clear that Ethiopia desires to leave Somalia but only when the people of Somalia have hope. So if the international community becomes more robust on this issue, then Ethiopia can hand over the full reigns of power to both the Somalian people and the international community.
To conclude, this article was written after listening to the wise words ofthe Ethiopian Ambassador to Japan, Abdirashid Dulane, in Tokyo, and the Third Secretary, Dawit Yirga, on October 14th. However, I must state that this article, and my ideas, belong to myself and Ambassador Abdirashid Dulane and the Third Secretary, Dawit Yirga, may disagree with parts of my article? Yet, I would like to thank both Ambassador Abdirashid Dulane and Dawit Yirga for being great hosts, talking openly, and giving me the chance to discuss a major international topic.
Egypt is viewed to be a moderate nation, however, if you scratch under the surface and study the laws of this land, and how Coptic Christians are treated, then your opinion may change? So when will the Christians of Egypt be given genuine equality? Also, are Coptic Christians best served by the estranged democracy of President Hosni Mubarak or open democracy which may unleash Islamic forces? This issue is very complex because if we look at the crisis in Iraq, then change can sometimes usher in an even more dangerous period. So what are the best options available to the minority Christian community?
Before focusing on this it must be stated that the Coptic Christians of Egypt resided in this land a long time before the Arabs invaded their nation and colonized Egypt in the distant past. Also, despite massive past historical persecution, colonialization, jizya tax, massive inequality, pogroms, massacres, and dhimmitude; many still remained loyal to their Christian faith because of the strength of the Coptic Christian church which was extremely tenacious. Of course many Muslim leaders were very moderate and many Christians were protected providing they paid jizya tax. Therefore, the plight of Christianity often relied on the respective Muslim leader and the moderation of leading Islamic clerics.
However, it only took one major spark or crisis of confidence within the Muslim community to cause havoc. Therefore, Coptics understood that being passive was their only option when we focus on past history and the same applied to accepting dhimmitude for many centuries. More recently, Coptic Christians have been divided because many in the diaspora are outspoken but many Christians in Egypt feel that "a quiet approach" is best.
Again if we look at past history it doesn`t look good. After all, when Camp David was signed between America, Israel, and Egypt, all three nations were happy; however, the same Anwar Sadat persecuted the Christian community via anti-Christian laws. Therefore, just like the Christian community in Iraq which doesn`t count and which isn`t protected, it is clear that Western nations have different interests. This fact alone should worry the Coptic Christian community because America supported the introduction of Sharia Islamic Law in Sudan in 1983, and they of course did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, in more recent times many parts of Africa are in transition because in the early 19th century Islam dominated over Christianity in this part of Africa, apart from Ethiopia and Eritrea (new nation state) where the Christian and Muslin population was well established. However, by the middle of the twentieth century times had changed because Christianity grew rapidly in parts of Chad, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Therefore, the religious map of this part of Africa and the surrounding region was radically altered. Also, by the end of the twentieth century Christianity was around 13% to 17% in Sudan and the mainly Christian elite of the south fought back against radical Islam.
Therefore, the embattled Coptic Christians of Egypt are no longer isolated within the dynamics of the surrounding geography of Africa and churches are now being planted in parts of northern Sudan. Given this, it is hoped that greater Christian unity will lead to more pressure on Islamic states which discriminate against Christians in this part of Africa. So now it may be time for the Coptics to reach out and strengthen their cause in Egypt and Eastern Africa? Unlike Africa, the future of the Christian community in the Middle East looks rather bleak because they face dhimmitude, terrorism, persecution, inequality via the legal system, a demographic time bomb, marginalization, and so much more. Also, history tells us that they do not count in the eyes of major Western powers and of course most Western governments are pro-Saudi Arabia, despite this nation not allowing one single Christian church. Given this, the Christians of the Middle East must unite and they must gain strength from their longevity in order to stop this onslaught.
Turning back to Egypt, then it is clear that organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood desire to create an Islamic state and the central government often panders to the Muslim majority. Therefore, Coptic Christians suffer dhimmitude via radical Islam and suffer discrimination at the hands of the Egyptian government. Given this, Christians are in a no-win situation and while many want "true democracy" others do not because they fear that radical Islam may come to power in the long run. Given this, the Christians of Egypt are in a major dilemma. Do they fight back against the central government which discriminates against them? Or do they remain quiet because of the fear of radical Islam? In truth, whatever they do could backfire and this is the problem.
Before concluding, it is important to state that many Christians and Muslims have great relations in Egypt. Also, in the past some local Muslims have also tried to protect Christians from radical Islamists. So persecution in Egypt is much more moderate rather than the direct persecution which happens in nations like Saudi Arabia. Also, some Muslim writers have been outspoken and they have supported the Christian community during times of persecution. Yet despite this, negative aspects of Egypt must not be ignored and many Christians have suffered within Egypt because of discrimination via the state system or they have suffered at the hands of radical Islamists.
Therefore, recent flashpoints will continue and Coptics will suffer more religious persecution, educational inequality, inequality in law, discrimination in the workplace, discrimination in national government, and they will be limited by land laws which will hinder them from building new churches or monasteries. So, overall, their situation looks negative but the changing religious map could be a future lifeline? For now, however, the Christian community must remain firm and strong, and to unite against their enemies within Egyptian society. Yet if any community can survive against all the odds, then this certainly applies to the Coptic Christians of Egypt who have remained strong in faith despite many negatives being stacked against them.
Ethiopia needs international support to contain dangerous forces in Somalia
October 15, 2008
EGYPT - Coptic Christians are still marginalized
Egypt is viewed to be a moderate nation, however, if you scratch under the surface and study the laws of this land, and how Coptic Christians are treated, then your opinion may change? So when will the Christians of Egypt be given genuine equality? Also, are Coptic Christians best served by the estranged democracy of President Hosni Mubarak or open democracy which may unleash Islamic forces? This issue is very complex because if we look at the crisis in Iraq, then change can sometimes usher in an even more dangerous period. So what are the best options available to the minority Christian community?
Before focusing on this it must be stated that the Coptic Christians of Egypt resided in this land a long time before the Arabs invaded their nation and colonized Egypt in the distant past. Also, despite massive past historical persecution, colonialization, jizya tax, massive inequality, pogroms, massacres, and dhimmitude; many still remained loyal to their Christian faith because of the strength of the Coptic Christian church which was extremely tenacious. Of course many Muslim leaders were very moderate and many Christians were protected providing they paid jizya tax. Therefore, the plight of Christianity often relied on the respective Muslim leader and the moderation of leading Islamic clerics.
However, it only took one major spark or crisis of confidence within the Muslim community to cause havoc. Therefore, Coptics understood that being passive was their only option when we focus on past history and the same applied to accepting dhimmitude for many centuries. More recently, Coptic Christians have been divided because many in the diaspora are outspoken but many Christians in Egypt feel that "a quiet approach" is best.
Again if we look at past history it doesn`t look good. After all, when Camp David was signed between America, Israel, and Egypt, all three nations were happy; however, the same Anwar Sadat persecuted the Christian community via anti-Christian laws. Therefore, just like the Christian community in Iraq which doesn`t count and which isn`t protected, it is clear that Western nations have different interests. This fact alone should worry the Coptic Christian community because America supported the introduction of Sharia Islamic Law in Sudan in 1983, and they of course did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, in more recent times many parts of Africa are in transition because in the early 19th century Islam dominated over Christianity in this part of Africa, apart from Ethiopia and Eritrea (new nation state) where the Christian and Muslin population was well established. However, by the middle of the twentieth century times had changed because Christianity grew rapidly in parts of Chad, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Therefore, the religious map of this part of Africa and the surrounding region was radically altered. Also, by the end of the twentieth century Christianity was around 13% to 17% in Sudan and the mainly Christian elite of the south fought back against radical Islam.
Therefore, the embattled Coptic Christians of Egypt are no longer isolated within the dynamics of the surrounding geography of Africa and churches are now being planted in parts of northern Sudan. Given this, it is hoped that greater Christian unity will lead to more pressure on Islamic states which discriminate against Christians in this part of Africa. So now it may be time for the Coptics to reach out and strengthen their cause in Egypt and Eastern Africa? Unlike Africa, the future of the Christian community in the Middle East looks rather bleak because they face dhimmitude, terrorism, persecution, inequality via the legal system, a demographic time bomb, marginalization, and so much more. Also, history tells us that they do not count in the eyes of major Western powers and of course most Western governments are pro-Saudi Arabia, despite this nation not allowing one single Christian church. Given this, the Christians of the Middle East must unite and they must gain strength from their longevity in order to stop this onslaught.
Turning back to Egypt, then it is clear that organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood desire to create an Islamic state and the central government often panders to the Muslim majority. Therefore, Coptic Christians suffer dhimmitude via radical Islam and suffer discrimination at the hands of the Egyptian government. Given this, Christians are in a no-win situation and while many want "true democracy" others do not because they fear that radical Islam may come to power in the long run. Given this, the Christians of Egypt are in a major dilemma. Do they fight back against the central government which discriminates against them? Or do they remain quiet because of the fear of radical Islam? In truth, whatever they do could backfire and this is the problem.
Before concluding, it is important to state that many Christians and Muslims have great relations in Egypt. Also, in the past some local Muslims have also tried to protect Christians from radical Islamists. So persecution in Egypt is much more moderate rather than the direct persecution which happens in nations like Saudi Arabia. Also, some Muslim writers have been outspoken and they have supported the Christian community during times of persecution. Yet despite this, negative aspects of Egypt must not be ignored and many Christians have suffered within Egypt because of discrimination via the state system or they have suffered at the hands of radical Islamists.
Therefore, recent flashpoints will continue and Coptics will suffer more religious persecution, educational inequality, inequality in law, discrimination in the workplace, discrimination in national government, and they will be limited by land laws which will hinder them from building new churches or monasteries. So, overall, their situation looks negative but the changing religious map could be a future lifeline? For now, however, the Christian community must remain firm and strong, and to unite against their enemies within Egyptian society. Yet if any community can survive against all the odds, then this certainly applies to the Coptic Christians of Egypt who have remained strong in faith despite many negatives being stacked against them.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are still in dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh
October 9, 2008
The collapse of the Soviet Union led to many tensions within the former Soviet Union and since then you have had many frozen conflicts. This certainly applies to the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan. The outcome of this brutal civil war meant many deaths on both sides, however, Christian Armenians overcame their numerical weakness and managed to control this region. However, today, with increasing energy wealth, the nation of Azerbaijan may be thinking about starting a fresh war with Armenia in order to re-take Nagorno-Karabakh?
Before concentrating on this, it is important to look at the regional balance and possible dangers for Azerbaijan. Therefore, if we look at the region we see many frozen conflicts or current tensions in Abkhazia (Georgia), South Ossetia (Georgia), Chechnya (Russian Federation), Daghestan (Russian Federation), Ingushetia (Russian Federation), and the Kurdish issue in eastern Turkey. Some of these fault-lines are based on religion or ethnicity, or over the control of resources. However, with a heavy mix of ethnicity and two major faiths, Orthodox Christianity and Islam, then this region is a real melting pot.
Another dimension is the Russian Federation supporting Armenia while Turkey, a member of NATO, is pro-Azerbaijan. Also, the American angle is complex and sadly based on energy issues and self interests. After all, the Armenian lobby is very strong and potent within parts of America and the government is sympathetic. But geopolitics and realism still controls, therefore, the USA is using Azerbaijan in order to counter the influence of both the Russian Federation and Iran. This applies to energy routes which bypass both the Russian Federation and Iran.
Also, if we look back into history, then we must remember the 1915 Armenian Christian genocide (other minority Christian groups were killed, including the Assyrians) by Turkish nationalists. So past history haunts this region and this certainly applies to Nagorno-Karabakh. However, I must point out that Turkey refutes this genocide because this nation claims that most Christians died because of the war, famine, and other consequences of World War One.
If we now focus on modern times, then clearly it would appear that the economic gap between potential military spending is vastly different and this certainly favours Azerbaijan. The one main comfort at the moment for Armenia is the support they get from the Russian Federation and Iran. For Iran the situation is complex because most Azeri people are Shia Muslim, like Iran, however, Iran fears a greater Azerbaijan because of the sizeable Azeri community in northern Iran. So outwardly, Iran talks about Islamic unity, but covertly, they do not want to see Armenia weakened.
Before concluding, it is important to mention that in recent times the government of Turkey is now reaching out to Armenia. Also, Iran promised to mediate between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Therefore, rays of hope do remain and both sides need to talk openly and frankly because both communities suffered during the war. Also, the EU and Commonwealth of Independent States could also help with regards to this delicate issue.
However, increasing Azeri purchases of military equipment is alarming many Armenians. Also, you have many divisions within Armenia with regards to politics. Therefore, the current leaders of Azerbaijan may try to re-start this frozen conflict which erupts from time to time? If so, we could see a real clash of titans because the Russian Federation and Turkey have major self interests and NATO would be in a flux. So will the leaders of Azerbaijan or Armenia re-start a fresh war over Nagorno-Karabakh? Or can a deal be made over Nagorno-Karabakh based on genuine autonomy?
KOSOVO and the crisis of ignoring international law and global opinions
October 4, 2008
KOSOVO and the crisis of ignoring international law and global opinions
Kosovo obtained part independence when America and many European nations gave the go ahead for the creation of this new nation. However, it is clear that things are not plain sailing because many other nations did not support this elitist adventure, therefore, the wider international community was ignored. So today we have a situation where some nations support this new state (47 nations currently support this nation), however, the majority of nations in Africa, Asia, and South America, have not given their consent. Also, the Russian Federation, Spain, and some other European nations, refuse to accept this American led adventure. So what does the future hold for Kosovo and international law?
Firstly, the current status of limbo is a shock to America and many European nations because they believed that the majority of other nations would follow suit, however, at the moment this isn`t happening. Therefore, the influence of the Russian Federation, China, India, and other nations who are against the independence of Kosovo, is much deeper than America imagined. Also, many nations are aghast by the elitism of this new venture and of course many nations worry that the same may happen to them.
Another negative side effect is the fact that Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia have clear justifications to claim the same rights, with regards to the American model of bypassing international law and the United Nations. So if America can violate international law so easily, then America should expect other nations to follow suit. Therefore, many other would be nations in other parts of the world also claim to have the same natural rights. Of course the United States, the United Kingdom, and others, are claiming that Kosovo is unique, but this is not based on reality because you have too many conflicts all over the world. So a "can of worms" is the real cause and effect of this naive policy.
Nations which are against this American led venture have stated clearly that they are very unhappy with the blatant attitude of elitist Western nations. The Foreign Minister of Argentina, Jorge Taiana, stated "if we were to recognise Kosovo, which has declared its independence unilaterally, without an agreement with Serbia, we would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously threaten our chances of a political settlement in the case of the Falkland Islands".
The newly elected President of Cyprus, Dimitris Christofias, was even more outspoken because he stated "The one thing that Kosovo and Cyprus have in common, as far as the situation in these regions is concerned, is that in both cases, the basic principles of international law and legality, as well as UN decisions, are constantly being violated". A similar comment was made by Miguel Angel Moratinos, the Spanish Foreign Minister, because he made it clear that "the Government of Spain will not recognise the unilateral act proclaimed by the assembly of Kosovo [...] We will not recognise because we consider [...] this does not respect international law".
Therefore, this issue is very important and complex and it is not about denying either the majority Kosovo Albanians independence or supporting minorities like the Serbians, Roma, and other minorities in Kosovo. It is about a deeper issue and this applies to international law. So if America and her supporters can justify Kosovo then what about creating new independent nations for the Abkhazians and South Ossetians in Georgia, Palestinians, Karen in Myanmar, Tamils in Sri Lanka, West Papuans in Indonesia, Basques in Spain, Balochis in Pakistan, and the list can go on and on; so do these ethnic groups deserve independence?
This is the problem because you can not seriously claim that Kosovo is special or unique. After all, you have countless conflicts in the world and many ethnic groups face terrible persecution. Therefore, many other ethnic groups are aghast by events and Yasser Abed Rabbo, a Palestinian politician, stated "Kosovo is not better than us. We deserve independence even before Kosovo, and we ask for the backing of the United States and the European Union for our independence. If things are not going in the direction of continuous and serious negotiations, then we should take the step and announce our independence unilaterally".
Also, the international community, on a whole, is saying that this colonial attitude is really not warrented and of course major institutions, like the United Nations, have been violated and the same applies to international law. So we have a genuine dilemma over this issue and again if the United Nations and international law can be violated, then why have either? Sadly, nations like the United States believe that they are above the international community because they also bypassed international law when they attacked Iraq and bombed the former Yugoslavia.
You also have problems within Kosovo itself and major divisions still exist. This especially applies to northern Kosovo because the Serbian community is relatively sizeable throughout this region. Therefore, you still have major flashpoints and Serbians, the Roma, and other minorities, feel isolated or abandoned. Also, the international community must still guard and protect Serbians, the Roma, and other minorities, throughout the whole of Kosovo. This in itself is evidence that the institutions of Kosovo are weak.
Therefore, the longer this situation remains in limbo the worse it will get because we have already seen convulsions in Georgia based on the Kosovo model. Whereby nations can now clearly state that America, the United Kingdom, France, and others, violated international law, therefore, other nations can follow suit and support their own self interests. So what does the future hold for Kosovo, countless other conflicts throughout the world, the United Nations, and international law?
The UN is undemocratic and manipulated, so what is the point?
October 2, 2008
The United Nations (UN) often likes to see itself in noble terms and it espouses high and lofty ideals. Therefore, the image of the UN is very positive because this organization talks about equality, human rights, collective respect, and other admirable things. However, how true is this and can the UN claim to be democratic? Also, is the United Nations a mere talking shop and an organization which is open to big power manipulation?
Firstly, it is clear that democracy was never a goal of the United Nations despite all the hype because past history and current history tells us that many despotic nations have both power within the UN or they have rights within the UN. For example during the Cold War both the Soviet Union and China were undemocratic, and China is still a one party state, however, both nations had special veto rights. Therefore, all major powers during the Cold War abused their power. So clearly the role of democracy, rule of law, social justice, and other ideals, were not met from the outset and this continues today.
Nations which are democratic also violate the United Nations because self interest is deemed to be more important? For example, the USA often violates the UN charter because you have had countless wars involving America, and in all these conflicts it did not matter either way if the UN supported America or was against this nation. Given this stark reality, the USA, and other nations, could easily bypass this organization and do what they desired and this reality clearly undermines the United Nations.
For some people who support the UN deeply the demise of the Cold War was "a window of opportunity." However, this opportunity did not materialize. After all, America ignored the United Nations when they bombed both Yugoslavia and Iraq. More alarming, democracy still does not matter and nations like China still have veto powers. Also, other nations like Saudi Arabia, for example, clearly violate the rights of many citizens and all non-Muslim communities suffer from religious discrimination in this nation. While on the other extreme, Israel, a democratic nation, ignores many resolutions which have been held against this country and clearly Israel is not too concerned about violating the UN.
It also must be stated that UN forces have also been involved in many scandals. These scandals apply to raping women, abusing children, selling military equipment for diamonds, and other terrible acts of depravity. From Bosnia to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo), and in other nations, these same scandals keep on emerging. Nile Gardiner during his lecture at The Heritage Foundation, an American think-tank organization, stated "In the Congo acts of great evil and barbarism have been perpetrated by United Nations peacekeepers and civilian personnel....." Similar statements have been made about other conflicts where UN workers and peacekeepers have been abusing people who needed support and guidance.
So why continue with this flawed organization in the 21st century? Well for some people it is the only hope despite its many flaws and it is better than nothing. Also, for optimists they believe that it can be reformed via gradual powers which enshrine democracy and religious freedom. However, surely this idealistic organization will always be tainted by power politics and self interest? Therefore, why not either make complete and transparent reforms based on real power or just eradicate this moribund organization? Either way, the current status quo is not good enough because this organization is still being held to ransom by major powers and of course this organization is blighted by its own behaviour.
IRAN is a stabilizing power in Afghanistan and Iraq
September 27, 2008
The government of Iran is a regional power which must be respected and greater transparency is needed when writing about this nation. After all, the government of Iran is often a scapegoat for failed American policies but in reality the leaders of Tehran have been very compliant when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq respectively. This is also clearly visible because it is radical Sunni Islam or Sunni nationalism, which is challenging America and other nations who have sent their armed forces to the region. Therefore, why is Iran being rebuked all the time and sidelined?
Before focusing on Iran and the positive policies which have been implemented by Tehran, I will just mention other factors which do do not apply to this article. Firstly, this article is firmly based on the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, therefore, other issues like Lebanon, the nuclear issue, and the internal political situation in Iran, is of secondary importance because America and allied nations are bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively. Therefore, the geopolitical reality of the "real world" needs to be told and if you fully concentrate on current events in these nations then you get a different picture.
However, the stabilizing factor of Iran is either rebuked by America or just ignored when major statements are being made by senior people in the American administration. For example Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, stated "Iran constitutes the single most important single-country strategic challenge to the United States and to the kind of Middle East we want to see." However, this is the same America which props up Saudi Arabia and if we are to talk about democracy, then even democracy Iranian style is a million miles more democratic than Saudi Arabia. In fact, Iran is one of the most diverse nations in the region and women also have much more greater freedom in Iran than Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it is hard to understand what America means, unless it means they don't like independent nations who happen to desire to follow their own model?
Also, when it comes to international terrorism then the finger must firmly be pointed at radical Sunni Islam. After all, Islamic terrorist attacks in America, Bali in Indonesia, Kenya, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and other nations, were carried out by radical Sunni Islamists. More important to the American people, not the government, is that the vast majority of people who were involved in September 11 came from Saudi Arabia. However, the main negatives that come from Saudi Arabia are always glossed over and of course another $20 billion dollar military contract was signed between both nations in order to boost the armed forces of Saudi Arabia.
Yet from an American military perspective, then surely the government of America must be confused or in denial or the Bush administration simply does not care? After all, the American military body count in Afghanistan and Iraq is collectively very high and the main culprits again are the so-called friends of America. This applies to the biggest source of foreign fighters in Iraq being Saudi nationals. While in Afghanistan many specialists state that rogue elements within the security services of Pakistan are supporting the Taliban. For example Steve Coll, president of the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, stated “some current and former Pakistani military and intelligence officers sympathize with the Islamist insurgents with whom they are notionally at war.”
Many American officials outside of the inner-circle of the Bush administration have made similar allegations. The leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, also claims that Pakistan is not doing enough to stem the tide of the Afghan insurgency which uses the land of Pakistan to grow and develop. However, Pakistan refutes this and it must be remembered that around 1,000 soldiers from the army of Pakistan have been killed fighting the Islamists or Pathan Islamic nationalists who dream of a united nation. Also, the mixture of tribalism, radical Sunni Islam, and Pathan nationalism, fused with grinding poverty and a feeling of betrayal, is not easy to contain and given this reality it is not easy for Pakistan.
However, reasons given by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not good enough for many political leaders in America and the same applies to the armed forces of America. Because whatever reasons are being given the answer remains the same. This applies to the huge American body count and the fact that funding, breathing space, manpower, and ideology, is being driven via Saudi Arabia and Pakistan respectively. Again this does not mean that both governments are sponsoring the chaos directly, but whatever the real facts are, you can state that both nations are not abiding by their responsibilities.
Yet the nation of Iran is still deemed the great threat but the facts do not meet the assumptions of President Bush and Rice. After all, the shia minority in Afghanistan is not at war against America or NATO forces. Also, in Iraq it is the Shia dominated government which is working together with America and the main problem in Iraq stems from Sunni nationalism or Sunni radical Islam. Of course some Shia factions in Iraq are against American forces but this problem is secondary because the vast majority of American deaths in both nations is because of fighting Sunni Muslims.
Therefore, the government of Iran desires to see stability in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Because of this fact, the security forces of Iran have not got involved to any major degree in either nation despite having the power to do so if they desired. It must also be remembered that when America was covertly supporting the Taliban prior to September 11, 2001, the government of Iran was supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. So when America invaded Afghanistan the government of Iran helped America via the Northern Alliance. Therefore, why is America focused on Iran when the real problems are to be found in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
VENEZUELA - Chavez the enigma, a great or flawed leader?
September 25, 2008
Venezuela was well known for her oil industry but her political leaders were not very famous and Venezuela was certainly in the shadow and pocket of America. Of course her economy will remain in the shadow of America, however, the current leader is putting Venezuela on the map because he desires to see genuine social reforms. Yet is President Chavez a new dynamic leader who is going to usher in a new era in Venezuela or is he nothing more than a paper tiger?
Before focusing on President Chavez it is important to mention that wealth generated by the oil industry and other natural resources, had not trickled down to the people of Venezuela. On the contrary, poverty and alienation was a daily reality for the overwhelming majority of people. After all, the ruling elite preserved their power base via corruption because they controlled the resources of this nation. Also, past leaders of Venezuela were often too compliant towards America and this policy was not welcomed by many ordinary people. Therefore, many people of this nation were "crying out" for a fresh start and for a leader who would listen to them and who would usher in a new period.
So President Chavez, before he was elected, espoused greater equality and a more just society based on exploiting the natural resources of Venezuela in order to help the masses. Therefore, he reached out to the silent majority who had been crushed time after time. So clearly he was astute from the start because he could feel a change within the political arena of South America. This was based on the re-awakening of socialism and the need to create a just society.
Once President Chavez was elected he faced many challenges to his power base and the United States was also against him. Given this, he set out to implement many radical policies in order to strengthen himself and to lay the foundation for a fairer society. These radical policies, for example greater land distribution and health care facilities, put him at odds with the ruling elite and they tried to fight back. Yet President Chavez was "no mouse" and he hit back at this crony elite.
His policies of greater equality and to create an independent Venezuela are welcomed by many, and people on the margins have a lot of faith in him because in the past they were often neglected. Yet often it appears that a lot of his policies are also based on "hot air" and the inequality gap in Venezuela remains very high despite his lofty ideals. But obviously no political leader could transform a nation quickly and especially when the ruling elite is baying for your blood. So Chavez still needs more time in order to implement many more radical policies before you can fully judge him. Yet overall he does appear to be trying to alter Venezuela for the best and this in itself is positive when you consider past leaders.
However, the one major downside of President Chavez applies to his anti-American statements because often they are not needed and sometimes he goes well over the top. This weakness means that Venezuela and America have negative images of each other. Also, Chavez is always strengthening ties with nations like Belarus or Iran, therefore, he is reaching out to non-democratic and anti-American nation states. So while Chavez is free to reach out to non-democratic nations, after all, America does the same, he should only implement this policy if it is in the interest of Venezuela. Yet it appears that often it is also aimed at America, and he must not get involved in a tit-for-tat dispute with America. Instead he must use his energy to help the people of Venezuela and to boost South America on the whole via dynamic policies.
Not all of his ideas are negative in the field of global affairs because he certainly desires to create a prosperous South America. Chavez also believes in standing up to the ruling elites and major powers who just desire to exploit other nations. Therefore, he supports important structures to challenge poverty and to help the commercial side of this continent. This can clearly be seen by his support of a South American bank. Also, he strives to unify other nations in the region with regards to a shared and common interest and many people do support him.
Therefore, is President Chavez a great leader who is building up a nation based on sound economic principles and where greater equality develops? Or does his policies add up to little apart from empty words because this is what senior Republicans claim in America?
In truth it is not easy to answer because he is an enigma and sometimes you can understand him but other times he appears to just like the limelight. Therefore, to answer the question fairly is difficult and much depends on your political motives. However, it is clear that he does desire to create a more just society and he does seem to care about the alienated masses. Also, genuine reforms have been implemented but he must continue to implement more reforms in order to fully transform society in Venezuela. Given this, more time is needed before you can really judge how effective Chavez really is. Yet on the brightside, it is clear that Venezuela is now on the world map and many people are now engaged in politics because of him.
Lebanon needs to dismantle the armed forces of Hezbollah via compromises
September 19, 2008
Lebanon is often one step away from confrontation at the best of times but the current political impasse is causing political and economic mayhem. At the same time, regional nations are once more getting involved in Lebanon's internal situation and this also must be stopped. Surely now is the time for all Lebanese people to support the notion of " a unified Lebanon" and to stand up to the armed-wing of Hezbollah (Party of God) but not via confrontation but by political diologue. So can a coalition of Christians, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, and others, notably the Druze, join forces and preserve this nation?
Recent events have clearly shown both the Lebanese and the international community that Hezbollah, the government within a government, is strong politically and militarily. Therefore, Hezbollah, which is a political and religious based organization must be taken seriously within the political framework of Lebanon, however, the military side must come to an end. If this issue is not resolved, then Lebanon will continue to teeter on the brink of destruction and a new civil war is clearly possible. Given this, major nations like France must shore up the Maronites like they have done in the past and the Arab League must unite Sunni factions and the Druze but via a pragmatic policy. At the same time Hezbollah, and the more moderate movement of AMAL, which is also Shia, must be fully accepted within the Lebanese political system on the basis of being treated equally and by the international community, providing Hezbollah renounces violence and disbands their military power base.
After all, calls by America and Israel to disband Hezbollah is unrealistic because this movement is popular in many parts of Shia dominated areas in Lebanon. If we ignore the usual images of Hezbollah then we see a different story because this organization provides an extensive network of support. This applies to providing social services, running hospitals, providing educational services, helping people who work in the agricultural sector, and other areas, and Hezbollah also controls many media facilities. These provisions are also available to other non-Shia Muslims, Christians, and other minorities. This factor must be considered by outside nations because Hezbollah is a lot more moderate today than when compared with the past.
Of course it is dangerous to look at another nation which had a similar problem but then was resolved because culture, religion, thinking, geography, causes, and other issues are different. However, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) once believed firmly in a united Ireland and they responded via a military campaign against the British. This organization used violence in order to garner greater support and they fought back against the United Kingdom, and thousands of innocent people were killed on both sides. However, the IRA have renounced the gun and instead they have turned to the ballot box and today this political party is seeking to obtain their demands via democracy. Therefore, Hezbollah could also renounce violence and accept their political power via the democratic system. Yes, Northern Ireland is a long way from Lebanon, but Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, and Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, are both strong political leaders, irrespective if you like them or not.
More important, Hezbollah have renounced the theory of creating an Islamic state in Lebanon on the grounds of pragmatism despite the occasional rhetoric from time to time. For example, Hassan Nasrallah stated "We believe the requirement for an Islamic state is to have an overwhelming popular desire, and we`re not talking about fifty percent plus one, but a large majority. And this is not available in Lebanon and probably never will be." So it would appear that this religious revolutionary movement is now a socio-political organization and they understand the need to focus on genuine concerns within their own community. This notably applies to challenging the Ta'if Accord and the quota system which does not take into account their proportion of the population.
However, one major problem for Lebanon is the external factor because many nations have become embroiled for selfish reasons, rather than seeking genuine peace. In the past many nations intervened in Lebanon and this applies to France, Israel, Iran, Syria, and other nations. Also, the creation of Israel meant that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians migrated to Lebanon and this overwhelmed the Lebanese people and this altered the fragile balance. Given this, Lebanon is often awash with outside nations pulling the strings or supporting their own respective self interests. So Lebanon is often a hostage to power politics within the region and further afield.
However, unlike the past, you are now seeing a more broad spectrum of religious groups joining forces or which have similar ambitions based on a unified Lebanon. So this time Christians, the Druze under Walid Jumblatt, Sunni factions, Shia factions, and others, desire to see a new Lebanon based on democracy. Therefore, it is vital that the Arab League, France, and others, use their influence but from a positive position and not based on self interests. If they work together in order to challenge the military wing of Hezbollah via genuine compromises and to stem the influence of other nations, which have negative self interests, then "a ray of sunshine may appear?". Yet they must take into account the genuine fears of Hezbollah and nations like Israel must also meet conditions whereby Hezbollah is free from being attacked or undermined via American financial interference.
Therefore, a major threat to creating a Lebanon for all the Lebanese people is negative outside international meddling and divisions within respective communities does not help. After all, the Christian community and Muslim community is deeply divided and some are pro-Syria and others anti-Syria. So within the Christian community you have major divisions and Michel Aoun, a major Christian leader, is also now more pragmatic and his thinking appears to have gone full circle. For example he signed a Memorandum Of Understanding with Hezbollah in 2006, whereby the de-militarization of Hezbollah would happen via a national defence strategy.
This linked major conditions, for example the threat to Lebanon by outside forces, and to Hezbollah this applied to Israel and possible meddling by America. So under these conditions Hezbollah would maintain their weapons until the international situation changed. The Christian and secular dominated Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and Hezbollah made it clear that the de-militarization of Hezbollah would happen providing certain conditions were met. This applies to the Shebaa Farms being returned to Lebanon by Israel, a Lebanese military strategy aimed at protecting Lebanon from Israel, release of Lebanese prisoners being held in Israel, and having favourable relations with Syria. This agreement, irrespective of your opinions about the practicality of these demands, does indicate that Hezbollah is willing to renounce the right to have their own military force and this is at least positive.
Hezbollah and the FPM, and others, were clearly opposed to the government of Lebanon between 2006 and July 2008, and this led to the Doha Agreement which was aimed at resolving the political crisis. However, major tensions remain and clearly the fragile nature of this nation still exists. Therefore, past tensions still remain within the political system and Hezbollah's state within a state is currently a reality. However, the religious fault-lines are now much more complex and now it is clearly a political dispute.
The next few years may be the last chance for Lebanon and they must grasp the situation now and make sure that a united front emerges which can be united behind the Lebanese army and institutions. If this happens, then real issues ranging from Hezbollah to Syria can be tackled with confidence. However, in order to solve this very complex issue then major compromises must be made by all sides, and Hezbollah's thinking must be taken on board and debated openly. The gulf is still big between both sides, however, both sides have genuine points and maybe the international community needs to be more diplomatic in order to reassure both sides. Yet a unified Lebanon can not happen while Hezbollah maintains its military power. Therefore, now is the right time to solve the many complex issues which blight Lebanon but if nothing changes, then the gradual destruction of Lebanon will continue until one day a new and bloody civil war erupts.
Iraq and the destruction of Christianity since the American invasion
September 18, 2008
The American invasion was meant to install democracy and fresh hope. However, democracy is a long way away and secular law, which protected the rights of Christians, women, minorities, and others, during the reign of Saddam Hussein, was replaced by Islamic Sharia law. Therefore, the Christians of Iraq have not only been betrayed by the American led coalition but they have also seen their legal status diminish. So why did America pave the way for the destruction of Christianity in Iraq?
Before we focus on this neglected issue it is important to look back at Iraq prior to the invasion. Therefore, when we look back we notice that terrorism was not a problem in Iraq and Islamic radicalism was put down by the central government. More important, from a Christian perspective, it was clear that Christians had options within the old Iraq under Saddam Hussein because Christmas and Easter was openly celebrated and they mixed freely with their Muslim neighbours. Given this, the Christians of Iraq had a future and they felt that they belonged to the nation state.
Of course major problems existed for people who challenged the government of Saddam Hussein, however, for the majority of Christians they merely got on with their lives and inter-mixed freely with the majority Muslim population. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, was Christian and his co-religionists had a vital role to play in society. Given this, Christian women could dress how they liked and Christians never feared radical Islam, terrorism, or being murdered by Muslim radicals. Of course political persecution applied to the whole of society if they challenged the regime, but this applied to people of all faiths and the Kurds and Shia who opposed the regime were dealt with brutally. Yet for the Christian community it was the American led invasion which would turn their world upside down.
Because shortly after the invasion radical Sunni Islam began to spread via wealthy Muslim nationals who opposed the American led invasion, organizations, and via international terrorist networks. These militants began to turn on both the Shia Muslim majority and the Christian minority. Within months many churches had been destroyed and Christians were killed alongside the more numerous attacks against the Shia community. Therefore, new Iraq, from its birth, was a nightmare and this nation would witness a huge exodus of Christians and Mandaeans from their homeland.
But why is it that the majority of Christians and Mandaeans fled Iraq under America and not Saddam Hussein? The answer put simply appears to be obvious. Because unlike the regime of Saddam Hussein which did not support the destruction of the Christian community, the Americans, and their allies, simply do not care enough about this issue. Therefore, Christians and minorities have been abandoned and now it is open season against them and other minorities.
Of course many American soldiers have tried to protect churches and minority communities, however, the leaders of the USA and United Kingdom are indifferent at best, or at worse, they simply do not care about their plight. Instead both nations focused on introducing Islamic Sharia law and no special zones were created to protect the Christian community and other neglected minorities, like the Mandaeans, Shabaks, Turkmens (who are Muslim), and Yazidis, . This policy led to alienation and Christians and other minorities became easy targets because they had no military forces to protect them.
Before my conclusion it is important to mention the other point of view. After all, it is vital to mention that many Sunni Muslim fighters believe that they are fighting to protect their rights and they feared losing power to the Shia majority. Also, many Sunni Muslims were caught up in a war they did not start and with each new death the spiral of violence increased. Therefore, the Shia, Kurds, and the Christian community, were deemed to be traitors in the mindset of many Sunni fighters.
Also, vast numbers of Sunni Muslims have been killed by coalition forces and by Shia Muslim militia groups. Shia Muslims have also persecuted minorities in places like Basra, however, these attacks are on a lesser scale when compared with Sunni attacks. Yet the Christians, Mandaeans, Shabaks, and Turkmens, are innocent at all levels because they don`t have any major militias to protect them and they have no power within the government of Iraq.
Therefore, the destruction of Christianity in Iraq is taking place because of misguided American policies and because the Christian community is not deemed to be important. So did more Christians leave Iraq under Saddam Hussein or under the American led coalition? And did Saddam Hussein introduce Islamic Sharia law or was it introduced under the American led coalition? Both times the negative answer belongs to the American led invasion because Christians and other minorities have fled their homeland because they feel abandoned and completely marginalized.
Bolivia is facing meltdown so can a solution be found?
September 15, 2008
President Evo Morales of Bolivia faces a major internal crisis because his left-wing ideology is not going down well amongst the elites of this nation. Therefore, the most wealthy parts of this nation desire to obtain autonomy and this is clearly a threat to the Bolivian nation state. Because five out of nine states which make up Bolivia desire to obtain greater autonomy in order to control their own respective internal fiscal policies? However, can Bolivia afford such a patchwork system and will both sides abide by such major differences? Or will the internal political dynamics of Bolivia unravel and create mayhem?
If President Morales does not either seek a "genuine" compromise or clampdown on the pro-autonomy regions of Pando, Beni, Tarija, Chuquisaca and Santa Cruz, then surely events will only get worse? You can not have two governments within a nation and obviously for tax reasons, Santa Cruz is vital because of rampant poverty within Bolivia. Given this, President Morales must respond in either a positive and compromising way or if they decline this offer, then he must clampdown on this serious threat to Bolivia. His options, therefore, could be forced if the opposition is unwilling to seek a solution because both sides need to take a step back in order to solve this tense crisis.
However, does President Morales have the power to do this? After all, it is clear that in the past the extreme rich often paid for private militias in many nations throughout South America. Also, the armed forces were nothing more than a military unit which looked after the extreme rich and strong families who dominated society. This applied to the Somoza family in Nicaragua before the Sandinista Revolution and this same scenario was played out in other nations during the Cold War period. At the same time the judiciary may also cause political mayhem alongside the military and the police because these institutions may challenge the power base of Morales? So it is clear that divide and rule based on massive economic disparity was often the way in this part of the world and Morales must be getting worried.
Also, the issue of racial politics is very serious because the indigenous people have been marginalized since the Spanish conquest. Martin Arostegui wrote in the Washington Times (June 24, 2005) that "A growing indigenous movement has helped topple successive governments in Bolivia and Ecuador and, angered by the destruction of Andean coca crops, now threatens the stability of other countries where Indians are in the majority. Drawing support from European leftists and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the long-marginalized Indians are tasting political influence for the first time since the Spanish conquest and beginning to wrest power from South America's white elites........" This statement highlights the natural divisions within Bolivia, Ecuador, and other nations throughout the region. So it is clear that you have ethnic factors, economic reasons, and others, which have been fused together with the theory of socialism but the real underline cause of this is both economic and social alienation.
The only major difference between now and the past, is that in most nations it is left-wing forces which are in power, therefore, regional nations may assist President Morales? Also, he does have a strong power base amongst the poor and marginalized, and he will surely take some comfort in this reality. However, wealthy leaders who are against him could easily cause havoc but some may fear retribution if they fail. Therefore, divisions may emerge within the five regions which desire greater autonomy or self-rule?
For now the situation is very delicate and President Morales must act in a brave way but he must not be naive because if he shows any weaknesses, then he may lose power? This situation needs to be solved quickly because the death total keeps on rising. Therefore, Bolivia needs a strong unitary state which can function but which allows some concessions in order to placate the leaders of Pando, Beni, Tarija, Chuquisaca and Santa Cruz. Yet "a new Bolivia" needs to be open to all the people of this nation and not just the rich elite like in the past.
Also, America must not meddle in this crisis because this will make the situation even worse. Therefore, regional leaders have rebuked past negative forces and the leaders of Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela, have also pointed the finger at America and this feeling is shared in other nations. For example Brazil is also very unhappy about the current crisis and the presidential aide, Marco Aurelio Garcia, stated Brazil "....will not tolerate a rupture in Bolivia's democratic order."
But the struggle within Bolivia goes on between the western Andean half of this nation, which is mainly populated by the marginalized indigenous population, and the more prosperous and conservative eastern lowlands which is dominated by the ruling European and mixed descent population. Also, economics and the desire to control the lucrative gas fields is also at play and of course Morales needs to exploit this wealth in order to develop a more equal and just society. However, the traditional ruling elites do not want to relinquish their economic and political power base, therefore, the current crisis is very complex and Bolivia is on the brink of meltdown. So can a compromise be found in the near future given the huge gaps in thinking?
Macedonia could become the next Balkan flashpoint?
September 13, 2008
The disintegration of Yugoslavia and recent events in Kosovo are reminders that parts of Europe remain unstable. This certainly applies to the nation of Macedonia because this state is faced with many serious problems. Notably the ticking ethnic Albanian time-bomb, the growth of Islam, hostile overtones from Greece because of the name of this nation, Macedonian nationalism, and anti-Albanian policies within the ruling political party. So can stability take place in such a diverse nation or will the gates of disintegration cause mayhem in the future?
The sizeable ethnic Albanian population does worry many Macedonians who are mainly Orthodox Christian in faith. They look at Kosovo with aghast because they know that this game could also be played out in their nation. Also, just like the mainly Christian Orthodox Serbs in Kosovo, the demographic time-bomb is a reality. Therefore, the Albanian population will continue to grow within Macedonia and at the same time Macedonian nationalism will isolate Albanians.
However, it must be stressed that the Albanian population is also divided and during the election in 2008, the major threat was internal Albanian rivalry. Therefore, the two major Albanian parties, the ethnic-Albanian Democratic Union for Integration (BDI) which obtained 11% of the vote, and the Democratic Party of Albanians (PDSH) which obtained 10% of the vote; are more concerned about ruling the Albanian dominated parts of Macedonia. This in itself gives Macedonia breathing space, however, the Macedonian Prime Minister, Nikola Gruevski, must not isolate Albanians who support the nation state nor must he intimidate the Albanian community. After all, you do have a lot of discrimination aimed at the Albanian population within Macedonia via the allocation of resources and internal development projects.
This demographic time-bomb alone is causing deep anxiety within Macedonia and greater ethnic unity appears to be a pipe dream because both sides do not fully trust each other. In many parts of Macedonia today the Macedonians are a minority, and the Albanian dominated areas and Macedonian dominated areas, are miles apart in terms of thinking, religion, culture, and social mobility. Therefore, negatives can be found in both communities with regards to nationalism and limited social interaction because of ethnic based thinking. Of course you have moderates within both camps and positives can be seen, however, overall it appears like two nations within one nation state and sooner or later this may erupt in full-scale violence?
Then we have the religious equation because most Albanians in Macedonia are Muslim. However, most Macedonians are Orthodox Christian and religious tensions could increase in the near future. Given this, nations like Saudi Arabia must be kept out in order to preserve a more moderate branch of Islam. Also, you have rivalries within the Orthodox Christian faith within the Balkans.
Adding to the woes of Macedonia is Greece because in Greece you have a place already called Macedonia within this nation state and Greece believes that Macedonia must change her name. Because of this the Macedonian dream of joining both the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) did not happen because of objections from Greece. Both the EU and NATO had hoped to fully integrate Macedonia within their respective institutions, thereby preserving the independence of this nation. However, Greece refuses to listen and because of this Macedonia is kept on the fringes.
The PM of Macedonia, Gruevski, is also lobbying the international community about the "Macedonian issue" in Greece. This applies to discrimination in Greece towards the ethnic Macedonian community. Therefore, the Foreign Minister of Macedonia, Antonio Milososki, stated that "Greece does not respect the linguistic diversity of the Macedonian minority. This problem has been elaborated in the EC reports for racism and intolerance, as well as in the Greek Helsinki Committee Monitor and in other NGO reports," Milososki commented. Given this, you clearly have major tensions between Greece and Macedonia and the name issue and treatment of ethnic Macedonians will continue to cause problems in the near future. Of course, Greece refutes these allegations, however, you clearly do have tensions between both nations.
Overall, it would appear that one major spark could destabilize this fragile nation and this is the problem, because this is indeed possible. Therefore, a lot of pressure must be put on Greece and Macedonia to solve the "name issue." If this can be resolved, then Macedonia can be strengthened via NATO and the EU. However, the ethnic Albanian population is a genuine problem and if assimilation does not take place then one day you could have major convulsions in this fragile nation. Therefore, this nation will continue to be hindered by many negative factors and it is important that the international community is wide awake at all times and that it acts before it is too late.
The Russian Federation faces many security concerns
September 11, 2008
The vastness of the Russian Federation is enormous and this nation is clearly Eurasian with regards to landmass and ethnicity. Therefore, the security concerns of this diverse country is also vast and complex. During recent times the leaders of this nation have been worried about both NATO expansion and the rise of radical Islam in southern Russia and the Caucasus region. However, other major concerns also exist, therefore, what are the main security concerns for the Russian Federation?
One major internal concern applies to the rise of radical Islam within parts of southern Russia, the Caucasus region, and throughout the nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) which are located in Central Asia. Therefore, a lot of special attention was focused on Chechnya and the surrounding region. This applies to the bloody civil war which erupted in Chechnya because the green flag of Islam was raised. This rebellion led to many deaths and the military armed forces of the Russian Federation were clearly tested. To make matters worse, Chechen Islamists also used terrorism in order to threaten the Russian Federation and they spread their radical version of Sunni Islam to other parts of southern Russia and the Caucasus region.
Also, the nation of Tajikistan had been blighted by a bloody civil war in the past. Once more the green flag of Islam challenged the central government and this nation only survived because of the role of the Russian Federation and combined forces of the CIS. While other nations, notably Uzbekistan, have had serious internal problems with radical Islam, therefore, the leaders of the Russian Federation clearly understand the importance of unity within the CIS. Given this, the armed forces of the Russian Federation have to be prepared at all times.
However, on a brighter note the tide began to turn several years ago in Chechnya and the current leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, is clearly pro-Moscow. After all, Ramzan Kadyrov stated ".....I want to achieve a peaceful Chechnya within the Russian Federation." Also, more Chechen Muslims are joining the armed forces of the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, other mainly Muslim ethnic groups like the Tatars are very loyal to the Russian Federation. Therefore, mainstream Islam serves the nation just like their Orthodox Christian counterparts within the armed forces.
A completely different threat comes from NATO and this organization desires to expand throughout the geographic security space and influence of the Russian Federation. Therefore, ex President, Vladimir Putin, was often at loggerheads with NATO and he demanded a halt to NATO expansion. Vladimir Putin, in April 2008 at the NATO summit in Romania, stated that the "....appearance of a powerful military bloc on Russia's border would be taken as a direct threat."
Therefore, both President Medvedev and PM Putin, are trying to keep both the Ukraine and Georgia out of NATO. Also, the Russian Federation is worried about nations within Central Asia and theyare seriously worried about the intentions of America in this strategic region. For this reason both leaders desire a genuine dialogue with America and NATO, however, both leaders believe that they are being ignored and that America is forcing the issue via their allies, Georgia and the Ukraine. Given this reality, the leaders of the Russian Federation had to be strong when Georgia launched an attack against South Ossetia.
One major area of success, however, is the advancement of the Russian Federation in Asia and this applies to very strong ties with China, India, and Iran, respectively; and of course the same applies to strong relations with all the Asian nations which belong to the CIS. In the past relations were extremely cordial with India during the Soviet period and today the same applies since the demise of the Soviet Union. However, relations with China have reached new heights and President Medvedev also made a point of visiting China on his first trip abroad. Also, the Russian Federation, unlike America and Japan, can play "the honest broker" with regards to the Korean Peninsula and the nuclear issue.
Therefore, the Asian borderlands which includes many diverse nations is relatively stable because of cordial relations and this means that the Russian Federation can focus on other strategic regions. Also, the role of Russia`s military equipment and technology is vital to both the armed forces of China and India. Of course this will be reduced in the future, however, ties and military sales will still remain potent. Another "binding card" is the need to stop or prevent American hegemony, therefore, China, India, and the Russian Federation, have a lot to gain from strong military and political ties.
Another recent major factor applies to energy politics because the Russian Federation is increasing her regional power via energy. Also, the European Union, and nations like Germany within the EU, understand the importance of Russia`s influence. Given this, the Russian Federation have enticed Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia, to agree to an alternative energy pipeline and this in turn will strengthen the power of the Russian Federation.
The European Union (EU) also understands the importance of energy politics and this issue is certain to be raised many times in the future. Therefore, tensions may be increasing over Georgia and the EU is making many negative noises. Yet if this issue can be resolved or contained, then cracks will soon appear within the EU. So instead of the EU focusing on Norway and other nations with regards to reducing dependence on Moscow, you will have a natural move back towards the Russian Federation.
Energy politics is also important in Asia and within the next 20 years Northeast Asia will get at least 30% of all energy supplies from the Russian Federation. So it is clear that the influence of this nation is increasing and it will continue to do so in the near future. Other nations, notably America and Japan, must understand that times are changing and it is better to work alongside the Russian Federation rather than always being hostile or passive, at best.
Overall, the Russian Federation is now going to focus on modernizing her armed forces because of the oil and gas boom. At the same time, the Russian Federation is using energy in order to boost Moscow`s international influence. Another major area of growth applies to relations with India and China, and the Shanghai 6 and CIS organizations also help Russia to influence Central Asia. Of course negative areas remain, notably radical Islam in southern Russia and the Caucasus region, relations with America, demographic factors, NATO, the current crisis in Georgia, and other factors. Yet despite this, the future looks bright for the Russian Federation providing economic growth can be maintained.
State intervention versus globalization and the free market?
September 9, 2008
The demise of the Soviet Union and communism was meant to usher in a new period of globalization and modernity. However, from the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-1998 to the current crisis within the banking sector of America, we see only one victor in the financial sector. Yes, the victory of state intervention and the good old methodology of tighter regulation and pumping money into the economy, in order to limit the free market system. So the open manipulation of the market becomes the norm during harsh times. Therefore, it would appear that capitalism, the free market, and globalization, are mere bystanders when the going gets tough. So should the state maintain its manipulation after the crisis is averted by maintaining proper safety checks?
Well if we turn the clocks back to the end of 1991 we can remember the dying embers of the Soviet Union. This event was meant to usher in a "new dawn" based on capitalism, the free market, globalization, and other over mentioned "buzz words." The new world was meant to be transparent, open, and a destroyer of over regulation.
Yet open borders, new ways of manipulating the money markets, easy access to international stocks or currencies, modern technology, and a host of other new ways appear to be leading the system in the other direction. Because dynamism did not emerge across the board but greater risks did. This applies to bad lending, hedge funds, short-term gains, over supply of money into developing nations during good times but a major pull out of capital when profits were over-played, and other negative measures. Therefore, many major financial companies, be they banks, investment houses, insurance companies, or other institutions, often diluted their respective safety mechanisms in order to keep up with their rivals.
Also, major economists, like the former Federal Reserve Chairman of the United States, Alan Greenspan, deregulated the market too much because his policies gave the green light for more risky investments. Given this, new ways of "creative accountancy" became the norm and companies could manipulate their balance sheets within the deregulated sector and via manipulating accountancy laws. At the same time the much vaunted elite universities ushered in a new generation but it appeared not to help and parts of the financial system became one "big gamble." Therefore, many major banks and financial institutions now became "a dice away" from bad credit and for some companies like Northern Rock in the United Kingdom and American companies like Bear Sterns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, it became bail out time. While other financial institutions like Citibank, Merrill Lynch, UBS from Switzerland, and a host of others, lost out big time on the credit markets.
Of course not all financial institutions are facing a major crisis and it is apparent that in America it is the mega-banks which are facing major problems or huge write-offs. Because smaller banks have remained loyal to their tried and trusted ways of greater transparency and less risk taking. However, the financial sector in America, just like in Japan in the early 1990s, have created this self-induced mess and once more government intervention via economic measures is needed to stem the tide of the current crisis.
Therefore, what is the solution to the new financial meltdown? It would appear that tighter regulation is needed and laws aimed at transparency should also be enacted. If changes are not announced on a major scale then tax payer bail outs by the less wealthy to support the mega-rich will keep on happening. Also, nations like America can only play around with their interest rates up to an extent because they can not go much lower, if so, then America will be caught up in a spiral of near zero interest rates like Japan. So much tighter regulations are needed in order to control the financial system and stem the globalized tide of anything goes and financial institutions must also be made accountable.
In truth, the financial sector is constantly making major mistakes and centralized governments have to keep on coming to the rescue. Therefore, the myth of globalization and the free market is clear to see because greater constraints will be enforced in the near future. Overall, the financial sector is not moribund, however, the thinking of many specialists is "moribund" because many began to player "poker" rather then focusing on genuine economic decisions. The new world order from the start was based on the manipulation of language. However, now it is the manipulation of tax payers money and government bail outs. Therefore, it is clear that state intervention is needed, otherwise, we will soon see another financial meltdown.
Ethiopia and its war against radical Islam and chaos in Somalia
September 4, 2008
Ethiopia and its war against radical Islam and chaos in Somalia
In December 2006 the Ethiopian government dislodged the Islamists from power in order to bring some fresh hope to the people of Somalia and also to prevent the spread of radical Islam. Shortly after Ethiopia crushed the Islamists in Mogadishu they appealed for global help and support. After all, the United States of America stressed the importance to fight back against international terrorism. However, the international community appeared to turn a blind eye, with the notable acception being Uganda and some other nations who gave basic support. Therefore, why did major powers ignore Ethiopia and will this nation pull out of Somalia in order to fight a rear guard action via Ethiopia?
Before focusing on current events it is important to briefly mention the past between both nations. If we go back to the 1977-1978 Ogaden War, then it is clear that both nations do not trust each other and power politics is a major issue, and this is based on ethnic and religious lines. During the Ogaden War the Soviet Union (once an ally of Somalia) and Cuba helped Ethiopia to defeat Somalia because at one point Ethiopia could only control 10% of Eastern Ethiopia in the Ogaden region. For Somalia the Ogaden should belong to them because of ethnic and religious factors, however, to Ethiopia this region is vital because after the loss of Eritrea, in recent times, this nation can not afford to lose even more territory.
Therefore, in history the rulers of both modern nations have not trusted each other and this goes back centuries and under various different names, for example ancient Abyssinia (Ethiopia) was often at loggerheads with the Somali people and other ethnic groups. Also, the role of Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity was central to the rulers of Abyssinia and to them they feared losing power to Islam and other ethnic groups in the Horn of Africa. Therefore, Eastern Ethiopia was a weak spot because the majority of people were Muslim and the traditional rulers of Ethiopia, the Amhara and the Tigrean, feared losing power. So in history and modern times the history of Ethiopia and Somalia is often inter-linked and sadly this linkage is usually negative.
If we move closer to modern times, then it is clear that both nations have been ravaged by the Cold War, civil wars, starvation, ethnic or clan based politics, outside manipulation, and other major factors. Given this, the mechanics of democracy and mutual understanding appears to be lost and the past vicious circle remains today. Also, the role of the United Nations and the United States in Somalia was also an abject failure in the 1990s. Added to this is the growth of radical Islam in Somalia, international terrorists using this nation for their own political gains, just like in Afghanistan, and continuing outside meddling, means that instability is flourishing throughout the region.
Therefore, from an Ethiopian perspective the nation of Somalia is vital with regards to the war on international terrorism and preserving the unity of Ethiopia. Yet, to the leaders of modern day Ethiopia they see little international support and they are not sure why? However, the answer is not that simple because major problems already exist throughout the world and of course the mass media focuses on Iraq, the Israel-Palestinian issue, and Afghanistan, the most. However, if radical Islamists managed to rule in Somalia then this nation could destabilise the entire region. Also, Islamic terrorists could use this nation in order to cause mayhem in other nations. This reality is obvious in Ethiopia, however, the government of this nation feels betrayed because of being let down by the international community.
Since dislodging the Islamists from power in late 2006 the Ethiopian government suffered the usual war syndrome, just like America in Iraq, because the insurgents have hit back via breathing space. Given this reality, the Ethiopian government is alarmed by her neighbour Eritrea because Ethiopia claims that this nation is causing chaos in the Islamic heartlands of eastern Ethiopia. Also, the rulers of Ethiopia claim that Eritrea is also helping the Islamists in Somalia via economic support and they also accuse wealthy outside organizations of being involved in this crisis. Of course, Eritrea denies this and instead blames Ethiopia for causing the mayhem. Whatever the "real truth" is, it is clear that regional disunity is not helping and instead it is merely adding "fuel to the fire."
Therefore, the policy enacted by Ethiopia is now in danger because of the growing insurgency and lack of outside support. If Ethiopia fails, then more chaos may spread to Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, and other nations. Also, Ethiopia will face enormous internal problems and this situation is extremely grave now. Given this, the leader of Ethiopia, PM Meles Zenawi, stated "We didn't anticipate that the international community would be happy riding the Ethiopian horse and flogging it at the same time for so long."PM Meles Zenawi also rebuked the international community for not funding the African Union and its peacekeeping force. Therefore, Ethiopia may decide to pull out of Somalia if a solution can not be found in the near future?
So why did the international community fail Ethiopia and Somalia? Maybe for politicians and military leaders in America, it is the terrible memories of their failed policy in Somalia and the lasting images of American troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Meanwhile, for the leaders of the European Union (EU) they may deem this war to be too distant and some nations may also be divided within Europe. After all, not all nations support the Ethiopian theory and some nations have sympathy with the opposition or they are neutral. In Africa it is more complex because many nations fear the chaos of Somalia, however, regional nations like Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda, have many internal problems to deal with and their resources are limited.
However, if Ethiopia does pull out or the civil war increases, which in turn could lead to growing malnutrition and starvation, or a base for international terrorism; then the international community will rue this missed opportunity. Therefore, the international community should either be supporting the Somali interim government via economics, peacekeepers, and other viable methods to enhance stability. Or the international community should be working with Ethiopia in order to crush the forces of disorder. Sadly, the Ethiopian leader, PM Meles Zenawi, may be correct because it does appear that the international community is not interested and like he states, they are ".....happy riding the Ethiopian horse and flogging it at the same time for so long."Therefore, Ethiopia may decide to pull out and strengthen their border with Somalia and fight via a proxy force, if so, then a missed opportunity will have gone begging and the people of Somalia will continue to suffer.
PM Fukuda of Japan resigns and this nation is in confusion once more
September 2, 2008
PM Fukuda of Japan resigns and this nation is in confusion once more
The nation of Japan continues to defeat itself and the vibrant years of high economic growth and having a purpose have all but vanished. Therefore, two leaders have resigned in the space of less than one year and neither leader left any impact on society which was positive. So why does the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) continue to behave in such an outlandish and callow way? Also, why did Fukuda resign without very little prior notice?
Sadly, democracy in Japan is not so important because the same party continues to govern and rule Japan. This fiasco applies to more than 50 years, apart from a very brief spell when they lost power in 1993. To make matters worse, the main opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), is also a bit of a fraud because the current leader was once a bigwig within the LDP. Therefore, the leader of the DPJ, Ichiro Ozawa, and others like him, are transforming the DPJ into a similar proto-type party and it is often difficult to know what divides both political parties because both parties are blighted by factionalism.
Given the role of factionalism within Japanese politics it becomes apparent that both main political parties are divided and this is the problem, for neither party appears to have a unified goal. Within the DPJ you have the isshin-kai, Hatoyama group, Kan group, and others; while in the LDP you also have many factions and clearly these factions are often above the party itself. Therefore, for Fukuda, he was not only blighted by being challenged by the opposition party but he also had to maintain order within the LDP. Yet Fukuda could not cope with being challenged so much because he supported the theory of consensus and it is hard to see how a leader like this could have taken power in a more robust and democratic nation.
Therefore, if we look at the last three leaders of the LDP it is hard to believe that Koizumi, Abe, and Fukuda, belonged to the same political party. After all, you had the staunch nationalist in Koizumi and of course this leader "talked a good talk" but did little, apart from isolating Japan within Northeast Asia because of his visits to Yasukuni Shrine, where he prayed for war criminals and ordinary soldiers alike. He was followed by Abe who also liked to visit Yasukuni prior to taking power but who refused to go during his brief leadership. However, Abe was blighted by scandal after scandal within the ruling LDP. More worrying, Abe also wanted to re-write history via the tragic events in Okinawa and he rejected the fact that Japanese soldiers forced Korean women, Chinese women, and others, into sexual slavery. Then these two leaders were followed by a more gentler and caring Fukuda and this is the problem, just what does politics mean within the political system in Japan?
Yet since 1990 you have had a major downturn in Japan because the stock market, the Nikkei, was once valued at over 39,000 but 18 years later and it is approximately 66% below this figure. Also, Japan`s ranking with regards to GDP continues to plummet because Japan was once ranked number two in the world. However, by 2007 the IMF ranked Japan to be 22nd and clearly something is going wrong within this nation. Despite this political leaders are often focused on maintaining strong ties with America and other issues which are not so important to the majority of Japanese people.
Therefore, the tax system is in crisis and the pension fiasco continues to rumble on. At the same time you have a demographic time-bomb which keeps on ticking and many neglected areas are getting poorer. The health care system is also under tremendous strain because you do not have enough doctors and nurses. This especially applies to the countryside, however, many Japanese people have died because they have been refused medical treatment until it is too late. Also, social inequality is growing and you have mental strains within society which is related to major health issues. Yet real "bread and butter" causes have largely been neglected in recent times and even Fukuda introduced a controversial health care scheme which made the poor even poorer.
So the current resignation by the leader of Japan is part and parcel of the continuing stagnation of this nation. After all, Fukuda stated "Today, I have decided to resign. We need a new line-up to cope with a new session of parliament. My decision is based on what I thought the future political situation ought to be. The Democratic Party has tried to stall every bill so it has taken a long time to implement any policies. For the sake of the Japanese people, this should not be repeated. If we are to prioritize the people's livelihoods, there cannot be a political vacuum from political bargaining, or a lapse in policies. We need a new team to carry out policies." Therefore, this implies that he was not the right person in the first place because surely the opposition is bound to question the ruling party. Or did Fukuda want "a rubber stamp?"
Overall, you could argue that the Japanese political system is neither fully democratic or based solely on party politics. This applies to the virtual monopoly of power by the ruling LDP and even when the LDP is challenged, it is being challenged by a former bigwig who once belonged to the same party but who now happens to lead the DPJ. Also, factionalism within both parties means that little can be done and Japan just goes from one crisis to another without anything really being done, apart from abusing tax-payers money. However, one can not have sympathy for the voters of Japan because the majority either do not care or they have given up the ghost because of the past . Therefore, will the next leader of Japan be any different or will the same pattern emerge again because of the weakness of the Japanese political system?
The 1990`s were not kind to Japan and the early part of the 21st century also appears to be relatively negative. However, unlike the past, Japan is now blighted by political instability and both the ruling party and opposition appear to be short of ideas. Given this, Japan needs to find a new way in order to become more robust, however, at the moment this nation is divided by petty political point scoring. So can Japan find stability and vibrancy or will the next 10 years see more confusion and more inaction?
Currently, Japan must solve many problems and this applies to Japan`s strange economic system which allows virtual zero interest rates, the demographic issue, the pension crisis, the limited or stagnant wage structure, allow greater decentralization, rescue the collapsing health service, and a host of other issues. Also, social issues can not be ignored and this notably applies to hikikomori, suicide, and mental illness. Therefore, many problems are restricting Japan and this nation appears to be stuck in a negative time warp, whereby inaction or failed short-term policies rule the day.
Another major concern is political internal infighting within the two major political parties and major confrontation between both main parties. After all, it appears that disputes erupt even when no real dispute exists and the opposition leader of the Democratic Party of Japan, Ozawa, is a maverick within the body politic of this nation. Therefore, just when Japan needs a stable ship, the opposite is happening and this is not helping Japan at the moment.
So can Japan find her own way? At the moment you would have to say no because this nation appears to be a "mere shadow of America " and this is not helping matters. Also, within Northeast Asia it is clear that China is on the horizon and many Japanese people appear to have given up the ghost because they believethat China is the future power in Northeast Asia. Given this, it is hard to be overtly optimistic at the moment because a new way is not being found. This, therefore, does not bode well for Japan in the future.
Also, Tokyo dominates too much in Japan and you have a very unbalanced nation. This applies to the vitality of Tokyo and the recent strong showing of Nagoya. Yet at the opposite end you have dying places like Yubari in northern Japan and the economy of Okinawa is not so positive. Therefore, you already have a divided Japan and many parts of this nation are being neglected in order to boost the centre and this policy needs to be reversed. However, can Japan decentralize properly or will the centre still pull the strings from afar?
Overall, the future looks uncertain in Japan and new ideas are few on the ground and this is worrying. However, not all is lost because you still have a lot of vitality within the major companies of this nation. Yet demographics does loom large and the same applies to the moribund welfare system and the increasing elderly population will further burden Japan. So just when Japan needs new ideas, the opposite is happening and this is really negative because "the soul" of Japan appears to be tormented by the past. Given everything, it would appear that Japan will go from one crisis to another, therefore, stability will continue to be an issue and the future looks rather bleak for Japan at the moment.
The Russian Federation responds to America`s intimidation
August 27, 2008
The Russian Federation responds to America`s intimidation
The Russian Federation have been forced to respond to America`s intimidation and despite many fingers being pointed at Moscow, it may be wise to look at the bigger picture in order to understand the current situation. After all, it is abundantly clear that America does not mind breaking international law and forcing many issues throughout the world. Therefore, it is surely reasonable to expect President Medvedev to respond to the current crisis in Georgia but will his gamble pay-off?
If we turn the clock back quickly and go back to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, then we see a different scenario. Because the Russian Federation responded with not only kindness but more important, they opened up many bases in Central Asia in order to help America. Also, prior to this date the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan had been supported by both the Russian Federation and Iran respectively. Therefore, Moscow gave America the green light to use Central Asia in order to attack Afghanistan and relations were smoothed with the Northern Alliance because of Russia`s influence.
However, did America respond positively to this gesture in the long-term? Obviously, the answer is no because NATO expansion continued and you also had the Kosovo issue which needed to be resolved. Added to this is negative energy policies whereby America desires to reduce Russia`s influence and of course you have the so-called missile shield which is meant to be aimed at containing Iran`s military. Therefore, when the Czech Republic and Poland agreed to America`s missile shield, this meant further containment of Russia according to both PM Putin and President Medvedev because according to them the "Iran threat" is not real.
More alarmingly, the United States also began to support tensions within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union. This notably applies to the Ukraine and Georgia, however, it is the Georgian leader, Saakashvili, who went a step further because he ignited tensions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This major provocation was too much and the Russian Federation believed that it had no option but to protect both the Abkhazians and Ossetians.
Therefore, America was not content with expanding NATO and co-opting the Baltic states because America also wanted to expand within the restive Caucasus region. This stance highlighted America`s "blind intransigence" and it also indicated to the Russian Federation that her own national interests meant nothing to people in Washington. Given this, the Georgian leader believed that he could belittle Moscow but this time both President Medvedev and PM Putin felt obliged to say "enough is enough."
So from the point of view of both PM Putin and President Medvedev, it is clear that America have tried to force Russia "out of the game" via NATO enlargement, energy issues, political meddling, the missile shield debate, and other areas. Therefore, the current Russian backlash was mainly made in Washington and while both sides must pull back from the brink, it is clear that much depends on America. Given this, can both sides reach a solution before something major happens?
For the sake of international relations it is hoped that this current crisis will abate. If not, you will have an erosion of hope and issues like Iran, the war on terrorism, Israel, and other major issues, could collapse. Also, President Medvedev must be a little worried because America may increase their support to pro-democratic movements within the Russian Federation or cause mayhem via Chechnya or Central Asia? At the same time it is clear that Medvedev may isolate his nation within the European Union and much further afield.
Therefore, the stakes are very high and it is hard to say what the outcome will be because both nations have major leverages and this especially applies to America. Yet if America does not respond over Georgia then other nations will no longer trust this nation throughout the region. Given this, America may just find that they have put themselves into a corner and this is troublesome because nobody knows what the response will be at the moment. However, the Russian Federation is also anxious because they do not want to become isolated and international capital flight could weaken the internal economy.
RUSSIAN FEDERATION - The next stage of developing a dynamic nation under Putin and Medvedev
August 25, 2008
The Russian Federation was very weak under Boris Yeltsin, however, this nation became transformed under ex-President Putin. This transformation, however, is not finished and now PM Putin and President Medvedev must take this "revolution" a step further in order to really galvanize the Russian Federation. Therefore, can both leaders meet the heavy demands and problems that they face ?
Under the leadership of President Putin the Russian Federation developed her energy sector and this sector was also used in order to influence vast parts of Europe and Asia . At the same time, the tax system was changed in order to strengthen the central government and this new money would help to finance many projects. Therefore, instead of a moribund tax system and having limited control over resources, Putin did a full u-turn because government control increased.
In the field of international relations and power politics, Putin also salvaged pride because now Russia`s influence is growing in many parts of the world. This notably applies to central Asia, northeast Asia, and because of energy, in parts of Europe. Also, the Russian Federation often clashed with America when a middle way could not be found and this highlighted the independence of the Russian Federation. So from possible disintegration to global influence within the geopolitical region of the Russian Federation was enacted by Putin when he was in charge of this diverse nation.
In the field of military influence then it is abundantly clear that both China and India, respectively, rely on Russia`s technology. Also, the Russian Federation is trying to build a strong relationship with China via the Shanghai 6 organization and they want to strengthen Chinese-Indian relations. The reason for the latter is multiple. Firstly, to prevent American hegemony and secondly, to form a strong bedrock of stability because of the genuine fear of radical Islam. Also, these powers could be divided by other nations via petty disputes over land or resources, therefore, unity or a shared vision was needed.
These objectives on the whole have been met or are in the pipeline, therefore, now it is time for the next part of the "revolution" and this applies to internal issues. Therefore, the new PM, Putin, must work alongside President Medvedev in order to develop the infrastructure and help the people of this nation. Of course this is not going to be easy, however, the price of oil and other commodities is helping the economy.
So now PM Putin must focus on more mundane issues but they are still vital. Given this, wages need to develop inline with economic growth, pensioners must have a higher standard of living, money must be spent on the health care system, public works, and education; and, the demographic time-bomb must also be solved via financial inducements and local government support via networks. Therefore, these complex issues need both leaders to work together and dynamism is essential.
Also, Putin and Medvedev must diversify the economy and this applies to focusing on many other vital sectors. At the moment too much emphasis is put on military sales and energy supplies. Therefore, other sectors like banking, manufacturing, hi-tech companies, I.T. sector, and other areas, must be developed. If this happens, then you will have had a "revolution" within the Russian Federation.
Overall, if we look at the positives and negatives of Putin, then clearly the positives outshine any negatives and now he must work closely with Medvedev. Providing both leaders can work together and internal investment keeps on flowing, then Russia`s future looks bright. Therefore, it is hoped that the internal market will remain stable and that both leaders will continue to modernize this developing nation and transform the Russian Federation into a genuine power.
Since the subprime crisis and then Alt-A ripple it is clear that global confidence is relatively negative. However, specialists remain extremely mixed about the possible long-term outcome in America and the same applies to the global impact of negative economic growth in America. So does anyone really know the outlook for late 2008 and 2009?
First of all, it is abundantly clear that it is the mainly mega financial institutions in America which have problems and not regional banks, however, the knock on effect could still cause mayhem. Yet the main weakness within the American financial sector appears to be mega-companies, notably Citibank, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia, Fannie Mae, the collapsed Bear Sterns, and several others. Therefore, why did these financial institutions get it wrong?
One symptom of the Alan Greenspan era at the Fed was de-regulation and it is clear that he did not run a tight ship when it applies to regulation. Therefore, hedge funds became even more elusive, and other sectors grew outside of the role of traditional banking and investments. At first it appeared to be a gravy train, however, suddenly the train jolted and then it came to a stop. So what happened to risk management and other safety mechanisms? Did they all fail or was limited regulation too risky?
Irrespective of your opinion, it would appear that de-regulation got out of hand and borrowing requirements, loans, risky investments, and so forth, took a new turn because the rules were changed and sadly it would appear that this even applies to basic rules. So more money was flowing into negative investments and ultimately you had a bad loan crisis and liquidity crisis. The snowball effect, therefore, spread far and wide because many international institutions also invested heavily and banks like Northern Rock, in the United Kingdom, needed to be bailed out.
Yet just like the crisis began the demise also appears to be rapid with regards to the subprime scandal because many financial institutions are optimistic that the worse is over. However, other issues, like Alt-A, remain to be problematic and it is too early to know which way it will go. Despite this, it is clear that Fannie Mae, and other financial institutions, are really worried about the deterioration of the Alt-A market. Despite this, we still have both sides playing up the crisis or playing it down. Therefore, just what does the rest of 2008 have in store and will 2009 be negative?
Frankly, most people believe that the continuimg slowdown will hinder America, Japan, and many European nations; however, it is more complex because nations like China and the Russian Federation should see strong growth. Therefore, the global economy is now much more divided and geographical regions or other economic systems may escape the fall out? However, both China and the Russian Federation face inflationary problems and this could still unravel and cause a major downturn for both nations.
Therefore, I believe that America, Japan, and many European nations, will continue to suffer, however, I believe that it may not be so dramatic because all nations still have dynamic sectors within the wider domestic economy. However, if inflation gets out of control, then my forecast would change and the same applies to increasing prices of raw materials, energy, and foodstuffs. So I am going to sit on the fence and study the next few months because now, frankly speaking, it could go either way, and does anyone really know which direction the wind will change in late 2008 and 2009?
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
The nation of China continues to increase her military build up and sometimes you get negative press about this reality. However, from a neutral perspective or Chinese perspective, then this military build up is merely natural and no different from other major powers. After all, China shares a shared space with many nations and her geopolitical reality means that several strategic measures must be taken. Therefore, should major powers worry about China or is it merely mind games or scare mongering by certain nations? If we look at the region of Northeast Asia then it is more than apparent that this region is very diverse and varied. This applies to geography, economics, politics, religion, ethnicity, and many other factors. Added to this diverse reality is the nuclear dimension and the fact that many major global military powers are based in this region. From this point of view it is abundantly clear that tensions will exist within the complex region of Northeast Asia.
The nuclear dimension alone is more than problematic because America, China, the Russian Federation, and North Korea, are all nuclear powers and of course Japan is a nuclear power de facto because of her protection by the USA and because of past policies, whereby they allowed America to use nuclear submarines within the waters of Japan. Also, on the horizon and within the geopolitics of China, you have India and Pakistan. Given this, the nuclear dimension is extremely complex and this factor increases the importance of Northeast Asia.
If we look at the geopolitics of China, then it is clear that they overlap in many parts of Asia. For example Central Asia, Northeast Asia, South Asia, Eurasia, the Mekong delta, and South China Sea region. This vast area is very diverse and China faces multiple challenges with regards to expanding her influence and defending any weak area within her geopolitical space. Her main challenge may appear to be Taiwan but this issue is contained within a small geographic region; therefore, her relationship with America is of major concern.
If we look at trade investments between America and China, then just like China and Taiwan, we see enormous economic linkages and mutual ties and respect. However, in the field of hegemony then China worries about certain aspects of America`s foreign policy. After all, the USA have her military based in Japan and South Korea respectively, and they are developing Guam in order to increase their leverages. Also, the USA have bases in other parts of Asia and her relationship with Australia is another added dimension which helps America.
Therefore, China is concerned about this American reality and they also fear a possible nationalist Japan in the future and tensions with India also remain, because Chinese-Indian relations are still fragile despite all the smiles. So China is right to worry about vast areas of her geopolitical space and this nation also fears radical Islam in West China and Tibetan nationalism is also problematic. This reality is pushing China to move closer to the Russian Federation and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In recent times this can be seen via the growing importance of the Shanghai-6 political bloc and China`s recent military modernization was enhanced by military purchases bought from the Russian Federation.
Also, if we focus on military spending then it is clear that America spends around 90% more than China. This merely proves the point within the inner circle in China because it is clear that China is merely protecting her national interests and they are no different from any other regional power. Given this, China`s political and military leaders need to modernize her armed forces in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Therefore, surely China is right to increase her military budget given her geopolitical reality?
MEXICO - President Calderon needs to clampdown against drug cartels and America must play their part
August 17, 2008
The United States went to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, however, some would argue that the real war should be in Mexico and America itself. This does not mean a war with Mexico or the people of America, but it does mean the need to contain both drug cartels and illegal immigration. Once containment is reached, then it is vital to eradicate major drug cartels. Therefore, can President Calderon contain these drug cartels or will democracy be further eroded in Mexico?
In 2008 more than one thousand people have been killed in Mexico because of drug cartels and growing crime. Therefore, what happened to democracy, the North Atlantic Free Trade Association, and America`s war on drugs and terror? After all, Mexico along the border with America is a no-go zone for the majority of people. Added to this is the internal crisis within American society because President Calderon made it clear that the USA must be held accountable. This applies to America having the largest number of drug consumers in the entire world.
The flow of immigrants into America from Mexico also undermines the national security of America because how can you have genuine drug and terrorist prevention policies, when you can not even control your own border? This fact alone should wake up a complacent America because sooner or later this information will be manipulated by would be terrorists. However, getting back to the narcotic issue, then once more America can not solely point the finger at Mexico because these drug cartels are mingling within the immigrant population. Also, drug cartels can find new gang members easily because of social inequality in both nations.
Turning back to Mexico, it is clear that President Calderon can not contain forces within Mexico. After all, the military now have 30,000 troops on the frontline but these forces still can not contain the countless number of drug cartels in Mexico. At the same time, international business leaders are increasingly worried about this crisis because it does not look good for the image of Mexico and you will have capital flight if this conflict is not contained or repulsed.
Mexico, therefore, is at a crossroads and this nation can not turn back because criminal organizations and drug cartels will merely go on the offensive. So America must also give a guiding hand in order to crush these cartels and criminal organizations on both sides of the border. Given this, it is clear that the current problem applies to both Mexico and America, however, it is Mexico which is suffering the most because these drug cartels are creating many no-go areas.
Once the world focused on Colombia with regards to narcotics and this nation suffered because of this with regards to international finance. Therefore, Mexico must wake up and control these negative forces which are destroying the fabric of society. After all, who really rules Mexico, is it the national government backed by the military or are drug cartels and major crime syndicates in control?
Also, America can not be complacent because it is the drug market in America which is creating this crisis and this can not be ignored. So will both nations stand up and forge a common policy or will the current crisis lead to mutual antagonism? The time for action is needed badly because this crisis will continue to grow.
America and Iran are meant to be natural enemies, however, their relationship is very complex and sometimes both nations share a common vision in the realm of geopolitics. Yet to the outside world both nations do not trust each other and this is based on so-called tension and mutual loathing. However, do both nations really hate each other or are quotes taken out of context or do they have cultural meanings? Or do both nations use each other in order to salvage domestic support at home? So what is the real relationship?
If we focus on economics and the nuclear issue, then it is abundantly clear that America does enforce a strict economic blockade on Iran. At the same time the nuclear issue could be the one area which causes a possible limited conflict or where America gives Israel the green light. So it is clear that you do have major tensions within the relationship and maybe it is Iran which is forcing this breakdown? After all, if it wasn`t for the nuclear issue then tensions or conflicts could be contained, just like in the past. Given this, Iran should remember that America once had dealings with Saddam Hussein but he also over-stepped the mark.
Yet when we concentrate on the field of foreign affairs and geopolitics then we see a very different relationship because in recent times both nations have worked together. Sometimes this may have applied to mere tacit support and not directly working together, yet this tacit support did sometimes involve a shared common ground. Therefore, it is important to focus on this unspoken side in order to highlight the complex nature of their recent relationship.
If we turn the clock back to Bosnia and Kosovo respectively, then America and Iran had a shared interest in supporting the Muslims of theBalkans. During the Bosnian conflict the United Nations enforced a military embargo on all sides. However, America clearly gave Iran the green light to send military arms to the Bosnian Muslims and this is how the Bosnian Muslims, and Croatians, could turn the table against Serbia within both Bosnia and Croatia.
Because the military arms embargo was clearly broken and Iran often sent in military arms in order to prop-up the Bosnian armed forces. Also, this American-Iranian policy in the Balkans shatters the myth that America is anti-Islamic. After all, during Bosnia, Kosovo, and Cyprus respectively, the armed forces of America and senior politicians sided with Islam every time.
If we even dig further and turn the clock back even more, then we even see covert dealings under the late Ayatollah Khomeini. This applies to the murky Oliver North scandal with regards to the Iran-Contra affair, whereby Iran was involved in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, via American economic support. Therefore, elements within the American administration were adopting a different policy and sometimes elements within different departments were ignoring senior political leaders.
Now if we forward the clock to more recent times then the same situation happens again. For example, when America attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan they allied themselves with the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance in turn was supported by both the Russian Federation and Iran. More astonishing was the fact that Iran gave America secret information about the Taliban, after all, the Taliban hated Shia Muslims. So both nations, just like the Balkans, had a shared and vested interest. If we also focus on Iraq then a similar linkage emerges oncemore.
Because Iran also gave covert support to America via knowledge they had obtained during the Iran-Iraq war. Also, Iran did little to prevent this conflict because they hated Saddam Hussein and his secular regime. Therefore, was the trade off an Islamic state? Because once the secular government had been defeated, then America installed Sharia Islamic Law which in turn persecuted the Christian community.
Given all this, then what is the truth behind the "veil?" Do both nations share similar aims and objectives within a limited geopolitical space? If they don`t, then how do you account for past dealings between both nations? This issue needs to be debated openly because nothing appears to make sense when it comes to the relationship between America and Iran.
Georgia took a huge gamble in South Ossetia but Russia will not be intimidated
August 10, 2008
Georgia took a huge gamble in South Ossetia but Russia will not be intimidated
August 10, 2008
The government of Georgia entered South Ossetia in the hope of unifying this region within Georgia properly, rather in name only. However, while Georgia may have hoped that her closeness with America and NATO members may of helped, this may turn out to be a complete disaster? After all, the Russian Federation "is not a paper tiger" and instead this nation is gaining in economic, political, and geopolitical influence. So will Georgia regret their recent policy towards South Ossetia and will Abkhazia make the most of Georgia`s weakness?
It would appear that the President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, decided to ignite this war because of several factors. This notably applies to Georgia`s close relationship with America and the perception that this would insulate Georgia from a Russian backlash. Also, Georgia is pro-NATO and her armed forces are helping in Iraq. Therefore, this may have given the leader some confidence and this also ties in with increased military spending in Georgia.
After tensions led to clashes between the Georgian army and various South Ossetian militias it was hoped that a binding ceasefire would be implemented. However, instead of this, both sides were involved in fighting and the situation became more tense. Then on 7 August the situation took a huge nosedive because the leader of Georgia ordered a major military operation whereby the Georgian army would take back South Ossetia by force. However, the Russian Federation responded quickly and the following day her armed forces entered South Ossetia in order to protect the Ossetians from Georgian nationalism.
Therefore, Georgia`s gamble backfired from the onset because both leaders of Russia, President Medvedev and PM Putin, stated that the armed forces of Russia had an obligation to preserve the status quo and to protect the Ossetians because the majority had Russian passports. Also, for the Russian Federation this was all about America and her meddling in this region. After all, the USA is supporting major energy routes which bypass the Russian Federation and Iran. This applies to supporting oil and gas pipelines which exploit the natural resources of Central Asia and Azerbaijan respectively and then this energy is linked to Europe via pipelines which go through Georgia and Turkey.
Given this, the stakes were very high and when America told Russia to respect the unity of Georgia, it became apparent that America and Georgia had hoped that this pressure would have silenced Russia. However, this was badly judged because Russia "is not a paper tiger" and her armed forces swiftly entered Tskhinvali, the regional capital of South Ossetia, and re-took the region after bombing Georgian forces within South Ossetia and inside Georgia itself. So Russia`s response was extremely swift and instead of a Georgian victory the opposite is happening and now the restive region of Abkhazia threatens to create a war on two fronts for Georgia.
America is now "sabre-rattling" by stating that relations may suffer long-term between America and Russia. However, for Russia it is clear that NATO expansion and America`s missile shield in both the Czech Republic and Poland (still not fully agreed) is all about containing Russia. Therefore, when President Saakashvili of Georgia ordered the attack on South Ossetia it left Russia with no option but to defend her sphere of influence.
Now the situation on the ground looks firmly within the control of Russia but this conflict is still in its infancy and wars are never easy to predict. Therefore, much depends on the leaders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia because they may sense that this is a great opportunity to seek independence or complete autonomy from Georgia. So now it is vital that Russia contains independent movements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia which are technically within Georgia, but in reality both regions desire to join the Russian Federation.
Whatever, Russia is clearly telling America, NATO, and the EU, that mutual respect is needed and while Russia respects the sphere of influences of America, NATO, and the EU, it is now vital that other nations respond like Germany towards Russia. Therefore, Russia desires to be taken seriously and the leader of Georgia enabled Russia to show the world that they mean business. So will America understand this geopolitical reality or will they ferment another crisis in the "backyard of Russia?"
Overall, it would appear that Georgia is the big loser because now both Abkhazia and South Ossetia understand that Georgia desires to take both regions back by military force. Yet now it is clear that Russia will not stand back and refrain from protecting the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia respectively. If Georgia had waited for a political solution then maybe her claims would have been supported internationally. However, by attacking South Ossetia first, the high moral ground was lost.
Now it is hoped that nationalist forces can be contained within the region and it is in the interest of Russia to contain both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. At the same time, it is vital that America and the EU do the same with regards to Georgia. If bloodshed erupts in Chechnya or in Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan, then we know that outside meddling is causing mayhem. However, it is not in the interest of outside powers to upset the applecart, therefore, much now rests on the status quo being maintained.
Therefore, Georgia must learn from their mistake and President Saakashvili should seek a compromise with Russia. If President Saakashvili does not learn quickly then he will threaten the unity of Georgia. Now it is hoped that all sides will sit down and talk about the seriousness of this situation. However, it is clear that Russia "holds all the aces" at the moment but they must not play poker. Instead Russia must be a responsible power and they have to contain both Abkhazia and South Ossetia by protecting the citizens of both regions.
BRAZIL - Poverty, gangs, child workers; is this a failed democratic nation?
August 5, 2008
Brazil is a so-called democratic nation whereby choice, freedom, liberty, and empowerment is meant to be enshrined. However, the other Brazil is a land of absolute poverty, enormous social inequality, and where young children often have to work in order to support their family. Given this, is Brazil a failed democratic nation or is Brazil caught up in a poverty trap?
Brazil and the Philippines are in theory democratic but surely their democratic ways are tainted because of their massive social inequality? Often we equate democracy with freedom, modernity, hope, social justice, more options, and other positive things like quality education and a strong welfare system. Yet this is simply not the case when it comes to Brazil or the Philippines, and other nations, therefore, democracy is often flawed in many parts of the world.
More alarming for people in Brazil is the lack of central authority because crime is rampant and child workers are a fact of life. Added to these woes is the endless number of no-go-areas in major cities like Rio. Therefore, special protection gangs have grown in numbers because these appear to be the only functioning factors in the slums of Brazil. However, this protection must be paid for and you have to wonder if organized crime could be manipulated by these functions within Brazil?
For child workers the current inequality gap is real and their situation is pained by the wealth they see day in and day out. These child workers are already on the margins of society and their respective futures are very bleak. So democracy to these children is very hollow. The only democracy they want is economic democracy and not political democracy.
Therefore, it would appear that Brazil does have a functioning democratic state but its democratic principles are tainted by corruption and enormous inequality. I fear that this nation is going to continue in the same way and for millions of people in Brazil they do not believe that they reside in a democratic nation. Overall, Brazil is a failed democratic nation because so many of her citizens have little hope or rights and for many poverty awaits them like a curse.
The Russian Federation fears the encroachment of NATO and the possible rise of radical Islam in their own backyard. Therefore, this nation must focus on many areas in order to protect her national boundaries. Other issues also concern the Russian Federation, therefore, is this nation prepared to meet all her major concerns?
Before we focus on the needs of the Russian Federation today, it is important to focus on past events during the demise of the Soviet Union and the period of the 1990s.
THAILAND - Interior Minister, Chalerm, says a special Muslim zone should be granted in the south
August 1, 2008
Thailand is a mainly Buddhist society, however, in parts of the south the main faith is Islam. In recent times Islamic radicals in the south have fought the central government and they have killed many innocent Buddhists and Muslims alike. Their dream is an independent Islamic state based on Sharia Islamic law and now the Interior Minister, Chalerm, claims that a special administrative zone is needed for Muslms. However, what about the Buddhist minority and the concept of equality within Thailand?
If we firstly focus on rights within Thailand then the constitution guarantees the rights of all citizens, irrespective of sexuality, religion, or ethnicity. Also, the government of Thailand did not instigate the current crisis and will pandering like this work? I fear it will not, but this proposal may put even more pressure on Buddhists to leave Narathiwat, Pattani, Songkhla, and Yala?
So what about the Buddhists of this region who represent around 15% to 20% of the population? Or moderate Muslims or secular people who do not desire to reside under a law which may limit their freedom? Will they be left to suffer under laws which discriminate against them or take away their liberties which are enshrined in the constitution of Thailand?
It would appear that Chalerm did not think about this serious issue and instead he merely stated something which may endanger parts of Thailand. Because it is abundantly clear that Sharia Islamic law contradicts Thai law and this means that many nationals in the south will feel abandoned. Even worse, many will feel that they don`t count and that violence is effective in forcing dhimmitude on the Buddhist minority.
The current status quo isn`t the answer also but it is much better than abandoning the Buddhists of the south. Also, the government would be opening up a can of worms and they may not be able to contain the situation because Islamists will merely exploit the situation.
Today the Buddhists of the south and moderate Muslims face an uncertain future, and the same applies to the nation state of Thailand. Therefore, this policy will not placate the Islamists and it will only lead to further tensions within other parts of Thailand because Buddhists may respond to this crisis by forming militias or they may turn against minority Muslims in others parts of Thailand?
Given this, Chalerm should rethink his policies and he and the government must somehow stabilize the south within the constitution of Thailand. If they fail to do this, then I fear the worse and I am sure that many Buddhists will leave. Either Thailand will remain strong within the current legal framework or they will create areas of inequality and how can this help Thailand?
