JAPAN needs to create an independent foreign policy

Japan needs to create an independent foreign policy

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?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
lee_jay_teach@hotmail.co.uk

MONGOLIA and the importance of this nation to America, China, and Russia

MONGOLIA and the importance of this nation to America, China, and Russia

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.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

lee_jay_teach@hotmail.co.uk

TURKEY and the secular card. Myth or reality?

Turkey and the secular card. Myth or reality?

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.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://www.blogtext.org/leejaywalker/

Ethiopian Ambassador to Japan and Third Secretary in Tokyo speak openly about Somalia

Ethiopian Ambassador to Japan and Third Secretary in Tokyo speak openly about Somalia

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 of the 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.

Lee Jay Walker

http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

EGYPT - Coptic Christians are still marginalized

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.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
http://leejaywalker.myeweb.net

Ethiopia needs international support to contain dangerous forces in Somalia

Ethiopia needs international support to contain dangerous forces in Somalia

The Ethiopian government was faced with a stark choice, either enter Somalia and try to stabilize this nation or do nothing and allow radical Islam to destabilize the region. Obviously, the government of Ethiopia is a very responsible government, therefore, the armed forces of Ethiopia entered Somalia in December 2006. This much needed intervention dislodged the Islamists from power but it was clear that Ethiopia had hoped for greater international support. After all, Al Qaeda had entered this nation in the past and the war against terror was not meant to be limited to only a few nations. However, to the dismay of Ethiopia, the majority of world powers have mainly turned a blind eye and left Ethiopia to solve this major problem by themselves. Yet why was Ethiopia abandoned by the major powers?

One major factor could be the memory of America`s failure in Somalia and the lingering memories of American bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. After all, the American led invasion in the 1990s failed to stabilize Somalia and after encountering fierce fighting they soon pulled their armed forces out of this nation. Yet the images of a lawless Somalia in this period remains and America`s failure in Somalia was costly because it boosted both the warlords and Islamists.

Therefore, when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) unleashed a bid for power in 2006 the Ethiopian government was faced with a serious dilemma. After all, the options they faced were daunting by any standards. Either the government of Ethiopia had to shore up their borders andinternal security because of the genuine threat of contamination; or they could just allow a failed state to be taken over by radical Islamists and face future dire consequences; or Ethiopia could try and stem the tide of this chaos and be a true neighbour. Ethiopia believed that the latter was in the interest of both the Somalian people and the international community at large.

The global threat was genuine because leading international Islamists could sense a new battleground, whereby they could spread their radical version of Islam within Somalia and then use this nation to launch attacks against the international community. Also, with Yemen facing serious internal problems, then funding, manpower, and other negative factors, could easily link the Middle East with this part of Africa. Therefore, Ethiopia believed rightly that they were trying to stem the tide of an ideology which was dangerous to the people of Somalia, could threaten Ethiopia internally, and could spread terrorism and a dangerous ideology to other parts of the world.

Eliza Griswold, New America Foundation, who writes for this important think-tank, clearly links global terrorism with Somalia. After all, Eliza Griswold, in her article which was written in The New Republic (August 6, 2007), states that "The head of the UIC's shura council, Sheik Hassan Aweys, was the military leader of Al Ittihad Al Islami, which launched several attacks against Ethiopia in the 1990s and had links to Al Qaeda. Also, in the second half of 2006, hundreds of foreign fighters reportedly arrived in Somalia to fight alongside the shebab. The UIC harboured several members of Al Qaeda, including Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, the elusive mastermind reportedly behind the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in neighbouring Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 225 people."

So if Fazul Abdullah Mohammed was involved in the conflict in Somalia, then it is clear that a failed nation state would have been used in order to create further mayhem. Also, other members of Al Qaeda were implicated with the chaos that engulfed Somalia in 2006 and clearly the UIC was obtaining financial and military support via international Islamic jihadist organizations. It must be remembered that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is wanted in connection with U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania respectively.

Therefore, the threat of international terrorism was too much for Ethiopia and the same applied to a failed state because the UIC was going to impose a harsh version of Sharia Islamic law on the people of Somalia. This applies to killing all converts from Islam to Christianity, stoning women to death for adultery, and other draconian measures. More important, when looking at the bigger picture, a Somalia under the UIC could have been used to launch attacks against Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, Tanzania, and then further afield. This policy may not have been a direct UIC policy, but just like Afghanistan under the Taliban, the UIC would not be able to contain the international jihadist movement and Ethiopia fully understood this.

Given this, Ethiopia bravely entered Somalia in order to prevent a radical Islamic state from causing mayhem within Africa and the international community at large. Also, you have major ethnic and religious faultlines within East Africa and this applies to all regional nations. But clearly Ethiopia faced serious threats from the UIC and Kenya would have been the next target for these Islamists. So the regional diverse mixture of Animism, Christianity, Islam, and Traditional Beliefs, alongside ethnicity, means that East Africa could easily become even more destabilized by radical Sunni Islam.

Yet it is clear that Ethiopia feels abandoned by the international community because economic support and a major multi-national peacekeeping force is still not in place. Also, the perception that Ethiopia is fighting a proxy war for America is not valid. Instead, Ethiopia is trying to stabilize the Horn of Africa and this nation is showing important international qualities.

The leader of Ethiopia, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, stated that "Ethiopian forces did not enter Somalia to control the country, but to make sure that extremist forces will not be in power in that country," he said. "The Islamic Courts Union in Somalia declared jihad against Ethiopia twice, along with all sorts of anti-peace forces ... It was our responsibility to resolve the huge wave of jihadists." This comment was reported in The Guardian (UK) newspaper on May 22, 2008 and this statement is valid because it is clear that Ethiopia merely wants to stabilize Somalia and then for the international community to take charge.

However, it appears that the international community is not playing their part and only Uganda and some other nations are willing to consider sending troops. At the moment you have 1,800 Ugandan troops in Somalia and they represent the bulk of the African Union forces in Somalia. Therefore, the leader of Ethiopia is clearly dismayed by this and he 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."

So what does the international community want? Does the international community want an unstable Somalia where radical Islam takes power and global jihadists cause mayhem to other parts of the world? Or does the international community want a nation which is free from radical jihadists and a nation which becomes a nation state, instead of being a failed nation state? If the international community supports progress and a solution to a very complex issue, then they must support Ethiopia. Once this happens, then Ethiopia will glady leave Somalia and hand over the reigns of power to the Somali people and the international community which can help to stabilize this nation.


Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

Armenia and Azerbaijan are still in dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh

Armenia and Azerbaijan are still in dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh?

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?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
http://www.blogtext.org/leejaywalker

KOSOVO and the crisis of ignoring international law and global opinions

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?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

The UN is undemocratic and manipulated, so what is the point?

The UN is undemocratic and manipulated, so what is the point?

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. Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

www.leejaywalker.myeweb.net

Iran is a stabilizing power in Afghanistan and Iraq

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?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

VENEZUELA - Chavez the enigma, a great or flawed leader?

VENEZUELA - Chavez the enigma, a great or flawed leader?

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.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

Lebanon needs to dismantle the armed forces of Hezbollah via compromises

Lebanon needs to dismantle the armed forces of Hezbollah via compromises

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.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

Iraq and the destruction of Christianity since the American invasion

Iraq and the destruction of Christianity since the invasion by America

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.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

Bolivia is facing meltdown so can a solution be found?

Bolivia is facing meltdown so can a solution be found?

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?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

Macedonia could become the next Balkan flashpoint?

Macedonia could become the next Balkan flashpoint?

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.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

The Russian Federation faces many security concerns

The Russian Federation faces many security concerns


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.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

State intervention versus globalization and the free market?

State intervention versus globalization and the free market?

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.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/