BOLIVIA - President Morales faces a major internal crisis because

BOLIVIA - President Morales faces a major internal crisis in Santa Cruz

President Morales of Bolivia faces a major internal crisis because his left-wing leanings isn`t going down well amongst the elites of this nation. Therefore, the most wealthy part of this nation desires to obtain autonomy and this is clearly a threat to the Bolivian nation state. Therefore, can President Morales contain these forces? Or will the internal political dynamics of Bolivia unravel and create mayhem?

If President Morales does not either seek a compromise or clampdown on the pro-autonomy region of 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.

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 of this region. Or the armed forces were nothing more than a military unit which looked after the extreme rich and strong families who dominated society. At the same time the judiciary may also cause political mayhem because they may challenge his power base?

If we think about the past in South America, Central America, and Latin America, then the omens do not look good, do they? Because right-wing militias protected the Somoza family in Nicaragua and similar events took place in countless different nations throughout the region. So it is clear that divide and rule was often the way in this part of the world. Therefore, alarm bells must be ringing in the hears of the leader of Bolivia!

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?

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 weakness, then he may lose power? This situation needs to be solved quickly and autonomy must not be allowed within Bolivia because current demands are based on selfish motives. Bolivia needs a strong unitary state and to focus on developing the whole of society and of course "a new Bolivia" needs to be open to all the people of this nation and not just a rich elite like in the past.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
http://groups.msn.com/Alternativethinkingaboutglobalissues

NAFTA - Can NAFTA develop a different way or will it be doomed to exploit cheap labour?

NAFTA - Can NAFTA develop a different way or will it be doomed to exploit cheap labour?
June 27, 2008

The North Atlantic Free Trade Association (NAFTA) was founded by three nations but these nations differed greatly and inequality was a stark reality from the start. However, unlike the European Union (EU) which is based on equality and human rights, NAFTA was always focused on economics and it was outside the political and social scope. Therefore, is NAFTA based on exploiting cheap labour from Mexico or can it evolve in the near future in line with the EU?

For many Americans NAFTA is a nightmare because it means cheap labour and lost jobs. At the same time mass Hispanic immigration to America is also taking jobs and it appears that Americans are losing out both ways. Of course many American companies are also abusing both American labour and Mexican labour, and this is the problem, it does not feel like a bloc based on equality or an organization which desires to upgrade the region.

Obviously for Canada the situation is more different because America is a buffer zone and this prevents massive Hispanic immigration. Therefore, Canadian companies gain from both high tech investments via America or from American investments in Canada, and from cheaper markets in Mexico which enables Canada to maintain her high level economy.

While for Mexico this trading bloc did enable major investments to move more freely within her economic system. Also, NAFTA was needed in order to transform many moribund sectors and to provide much needed employment. Investments also increased and many companies from America and Canada gained from her abundant cheap labour and lower rental rates. These lower costs were attractive and it is clear that if it was not for NAFTA, then these investments may have gone to another nation. Therefore, the benefits of NAFTA is clear for Mexico and despite some negatives, it is positive overall.

Yet what about workers in America? Well for them it is double-edged because many Americans have lost their jobs or wages remain static or employment rights have been cut. However, for some American companies NAFTA meant they could expand in both America and Mexico respectively because cheaper labour costs and no-pension provisions, meant that profits could be re-invested within America. Given this, you did have some positives but for many Americans it meant losing your job or having your rights taken from you or having to work for lower wages
because of competition in Mexico and massive immigration which reduced costs within America.

Given all the current factors then it is clear that NAFTA does not desire to be based on social equality. Instead NAFTA will over rely on cheap labour and immigrants in order to reduce costs. At the same time tensions will deepen because of lack of trust and a growing number of Americans will become alienated by the reality of NAFTA. It would appear that this bloc will just chug along and it will stay in the shadows of the EU.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

ARMENIA - Political tensions at home could endanger Nagorno Karabakh?

ARMENIA - Political tensions at home could endanger Nagorno Karabakh?

The nation of Armenia is very rich in culture and history, however, her recent history is blighted by the Armenian genocide of 1915. This event led to the massacre of more than 1 million Armenian Christians and other Christian ethnic groups also were slaughtered, for example the Assyrians and Syrian Orthodox believers. Therefore, her independence after the demise of the Soviet Union offered a fresh start, however, convulsions would soon erupt in Nagorno Karabakh, therefore, are recent events threatening this nation state?

Currently you have a very dangerous situation within the political structures of this nation and the recent election is dividing the people of Armenia. For supporters of Levon Ter-Petrosian do not believe the declared outcome and they demand to be heard. However, he, and the President, Serge Sarkisian, are calling on all sides to decrease tensions after many were killed.
Both the President,Serge Sarkisian, and Levon Ter-Petrosian understand that Armenia can not afford to turn against themselves. Because their co-religionists and co-Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh face danger. Therefore, both sides need to solve the current political crisis in order to maintain the status quo with Azerbaijan.

However, Azerbaijan and her key supporter, Turkey, sense a possible opportunity to re-take Nagorno Karabakh which lies within the nation of Azerbaijan. Also, times have changed because recent economic growth in Azerbaijan means that her armed forces have more state of the art equipment and her military build up continues. So the status quo may change in the near future if Armenia is faced by internal convulsions?

Once more the role of America is very murky because on the one hand, the pro-Armenian lobby is strong within America, however, on the other hand America is supporting Azerbaijan in the military field and energy sector. This policy is indeed murky because how can they protect Armenia when they are undermining this nation via Turkey and Azerbaijan? Also, given the sizeable ethnic Azeri community in northern Iran and her energy resources, then Armenia faces a serious threat via her American policy.

Despite the economic blockade by Tureky which is causing economic pain, the nation of Armenia continues to maintain very good relations with both the Russian Federation and Iran. Therefore, she is not isolated within the region but her economic future and political future remains threatened by hostile regional nations. So it is vital for the political leadership in Armenia to forge a national salvation government or to work together in order to reduce tensions within Armenia.

Recent events prove this because several people died in clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the disputed Nagorno Karabakh region. It could just be that Azerbaijan and Turkey are probing to see the capability of Armenia? Or it could just be another flare up which happens from time to time? But one thing is certain, if Armenia turns on herself then another war will break out in Nagorno Karabakh and maybe this time the result will be different because of internal divisions?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

EGYPT - The marginalization and persecution of Coptic Christians

EGYPT - The marginalization and persecution of Coptic Christians

Egypt is the most populous Arab nation in the world, however, not all the people of Egypt are Arab? Because the indigenous people, the Coptics, are an entirely different ethnic group and how many Arabs will have Coptic blood in them given forced conversions to Islam, gradual conversion because of dhimmitude, and of course enormous social pressures, is purely guesswork? So why are the Coptic Christians ignored and marginalized?

Sadly, it would appear that the entire Christian community in the Middle East is marginalized and even worse, major democratic nations do not seem to care or they are half-hearted when rebuking anti-Christian attacks. However, the Coptic Christians are special for several reasons. Firstly, Coptic Christians spread the Christian faith via great monastic preachers and they have a direct link with early Christianity. Secondly, their numbers make them special because you have at least 8 million Coptic Christians in Egypt and this figure may be even highter?

Given this, if they can not survive or if they are treated unequal, then what hope for the other Christian communities in the Middle East? So because of this fact alone the Coptic Christian community is essential for Middle Eastern Christianity. But will Christians and other nations champion their cause and work collectively with this community or will Coptics become more marginalized?

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 these 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.

The other non-Muslim stronghold in the Middle East were the Maronite Christians of Lebanon alongside the other Christian communities of this nation. However, during the First Gulf War the USA once more gave the green light for Syria to crush Christian forces under General Michel Aoun. So the same case always appears to be happening and this applies to the Christians being expendable.

Therefore, the situation now looks bleak for the Christians of the Middle East because they face dhimmitude, terrorism, persecution, inequality via the legal system, a demographic timebomb, marginalization, and so much more. Also, history tells us that they do not count 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 somewhere in order to stop this onslaught.
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

MONGOLIA - A small nation but in a prime geopolitical area

MONGOLIA - A small nation but in a prime geopolitical area

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 geopolitical location. However, the three major military powers are all interested in this strategic nation. Therefore, can Mongolia play a good hand of poker and make the most of her geopolitical reality?

For the Russian Federation this nation is a "buffer" between herself and China, and her geopolitical significance is obvious to the leaders of this nation. Given this, they desire to help this nation and of course to at least keep Mongolia neutral. Therefore, energy routes, transport networks, economic zones, for example the Tumen River Delta Economic Zone, are all helping the Russian Federation to keep a firm eye on Mongolia and any possible future changes.

China have a different perspective because of course they understand the buffer reality of this nation, however, China and the Russian Federation now have cordial relations. So China is more concerned about keeping America out or at least reducing her power and influence. China and the Russian Federation both fear America having military bases in Mongolia and because of the Taiwan issue, China can see a weakness within her geopolitical zone of influence.

America, on the other hand, desire to keep both nations in check and of course they hope to increase their influence in Mongolia for geopolitical and military reasons. America also knows 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 understands that Mongolia could be threatened, after all inner Mongolia lies within the nation of China. Therefore, it is a good way to keep an eye on her main rivals in all but name.

Therefore, the naiton of Mongolia can increase her economic help and support via her geopolitical reality. If they can play of all nations, then they can benefit for some time to come. Of course it is not going to be easy to please all sides and this policy could backfire because in the future they may support one nation overtly morethan the other two.

However, for now Mongolia is playing a game of poker well and increasing international investment continues despite the remoteness of this nation. 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?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

JAPAN - Reforms are needed to re-energize her economy and well being

JAPAN - Reforms are needed to re-energize her economy and well being

Japan is going through a very "rocky" period and this applies to monetary issues, demographics, politics, and her role in the world. Therefore, major reforms are needed and systems and thinking needs to be transformed. However, are the politicians prepared to change the current system and are the Japanese people prepared to be challenged?

Since World War Two many changes have taken place within Japanese society when related to modernization, major changes within the culture, and enormous development in the field of high technology. However, if you scratch under the surface and ignore the Westernization looks of most people, then you witness another Japan. Sadly, it is this Japan which appears to have a "stranglehold" over society.

If we look how America responds to major economic downturns then it is apparent that they make radical changes and this nation can rebound. Yet the same does not apply to Japan because since 1990 the economy remains sluggish and the Nikkei is well below what it was in the early 1990s. The entire economy appears to be stuck in one collective "zaibatsu" or under the spell of the "old daimyo system." Because change isn`t happening and cross sharing remains strong in this uncompetitive nation.

Yet if we look at history then we see a different picture because Japan could respond to changes during times of crisis or modernization periods. From Oda Nobunaga to the Meiji Restoration in 1868 we see dynamism in patches, but this is always swallowed up by conservatism or traditionalism. Not that all forms of conservatism and traditionalism are wrong but it is when it infringes on the free market and innovation.

Therefore, Japan needs to return to her past positives and these past positives are not always so long ago in history. After all, Yoshida Shigeru and the period 1960-1972 under Ikeda and Sato, respectively, were periods of high growh or innovation in order to restructure the economy. So can Japan re-energize herself in a time of great change and need?

I remain slightly optimistic that "a third way" can be found from the current impasse and a new vigorous Japan can re-awaken. However, this can only happen once Japan stops looking up to other nations and focuses on her own strengths. If this happens, then the enormous reserves of Japan can be utilized to galvanize the economy.

At the same time the government must focus on genuine cost effective measures and focus on the needs of the people. For example greater tax perks for families with children, freeing women from the home, and increasing a genuine support network whereby people are encouraged to increase their family size. These measures can be supported by reducing government wastage and allocating resources where they are needed.

De-centralization measures must also become a priority and central government funding must reward innovative prefectures and penalties must be implemented on prefectures who abuse their resources. Remember, from Oda Nobunaga to the Meiji Restoration in 1868 to Yoshida Shigeru; you had people who could go against the grain and transform society. All these leaders understood the need for critical thinking so now it is up to Japanese people and the government to face up to the 21st century with confidence and not defeatism!

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

USA - President Bush is trying to undermine the Russian Federation via Georgia and the Ukraine joining NATO.

USA - President Bush is trying to undermine the Russian Federation via Georgia and the Ukraine!

President George Bush will leave office in the near future, however, before this he appears to desire a more robust foreign policy aimed at alienating the Russian Federation. More alarming, the majority of people in the Czech Republic and the Ukraine are against his policies. Yet despite this both NATO expansion and the American missile defense system are being pushed and who is this aimed at? For most people the answer is obvious, it is aimed at the Russian Federation. So why does he desire to create another negative front?

This question rankles many people in the Russian Federation because instead of a collective organization or understanding based on geopolitics, we are merely seeing NATO expansion eastwards. It is clear that America believes that Russia`s only collective space should apply to the Russian Federation. Outside this, then all former Soviet states apart from the Russian Federation are deemed to be possible future members of NATO.

Behind all the smiles and rhetoric of President Bush it is clear that he, and policy advisers, are intent on encircling the Russian Federation and this lattest idea is really mocking this nation. After all, look at both Georgia and Ukraine, they are neither stable or bastions of democracy. Also, the vast majority of people in the Ukraine do not want to join NATO but this does not matter. Instead we get the American mantra that expansion and her missile defence system is aimed at Iran. Only someone very naive would belive that!

So let us look at Georgia and why allowing this nation would be dangerous. Firstly, Georgia is deemed important to America because of geopolitics and the West desires to use both Azerbaijan and Georgia in order to bypass the Russian Federation via energy links. By doing this, then both the Russian Federation and Iran will lose out. Secondly, Georgia is probably the most anti-Russian state in the region because of past history so America can garner support more easily in this nation.

However, and this is the crux, Georgia is far from being a stable democracy because of both internal politics and because of her internal ethnic divisions. If Georgia joins NATO then does this mean that NATO forces will crush Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Because both Abkhazia and South Ossetia desire independence from Georgia. So if Georgia is not even a unitary state now, then how can this nation join NATO? If I was either an Abkhazian or South Ossetian I would be worried.

Then if we turn to the Ukraine then it is abundantly clear that this nation is always on the brink of political meltdown because tensions arise frequently. Also, in the east of this nation you have many ethnic Russians and they certainly do not desire NATO membership. More alarmingly, this nation could certainly be used to launch an offensive against the Russian Federation and this will of course lead to fresh tensions.

Therefore, NATO membership must be stopped and it is up to nations like Germany to stop this American "madness." You don`t have any justification for encircling the Russian Federation like this. America appears to be bent on causing divisions in the Balkans, the Middle East, Northeast Asia, and in Eurasia.

So nations must stand up to this policy of divide and rule. Because this policy is clearly aimed at containing the Russian Federation and you have no justification for doing this. Does America want to contain the entire world, from China to the Russian Federation and then Venezuela. Surely geopolitics is about understanding self-interests of regional powers. However, America is now bent on global containment and this policy is not valid in the 21st century.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

KOSOVO - Serbia and her natural rights need to be considered

KOSOVO - Serbia and her natural rights need to be considered

Recent international events in the Balkans may cause major rifts within the international community because of the way the USA and many members of the EU violated both international law and the United Nations. It is clear that consensus was neither sought or desired when the outcome wasn`t deemed suitable to either the USA or major powers within the EU. Nations like the Russian Federation and China, but many others, for example India, are worried about this current international crisis. Because all these nations, and many more, face internal problems themselves and if Kosovo, then why not Abkhazia, Biafra, Catalonia, and countless other places throughout the world?

The reasons given are much to simplistic because some people argue that past events justify the need for an independent Kosovo ruled by the Albanian majority. But how valid is this? After all, you have had countless numbers of wars since World War Two and surely this reasoning must apply to other parts of the world? However, it clearly doesn`t apply to other parts of the world and this is the problem!

More worrying, it is clear that major nations are not concerned about other nations throughout the world and they believe that they have the moral right to do what they desire. However, this smacks of past colonial attitudes and nations like the Russian Federation, China, and India, are not happy with this abrupt way of thinking.

Also, in recent times it is the Christian Serbs, Gypsies, and other minorities, who are suffering in Kosovo, and you not only have ethnic and religious killings, but you also have cultural destruction. This is happening under the so-called protection of NATO and the United Nations. Therefore, if minorities can not be protected by these institutions, then what hope for these people under the yoke of Albanian nationalism?

Serbia had already given in to many demands, however, what demands did the Albanians give in to? After all, Serbia stressed autonomy but within the orbit of Serbia. At the very least, then some sort of partition could have taken place via a mutual agreement but even this wasn`t on the table. Therefore, the USA and major naitons within the EU just pulled the rug away and gave everything to the mainly Muslim Albanians in Kosovo.

Is this the new democratic world order? Might rules over international law and nations can be divided on the whim of a major power? Surely this thinking must be repulsed and responsible nations must stand up and be counted.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://groups.msn.com/Alternativethinkingaboutglobalissues
http://groups.msn.com/JapanFoundation

UNITED NATIONS: Undemocratic foundation and major power manipulation, so what is the point?

UNITED NATIONS: Undemocratic foundation and major power manipulation, so what is the point?

The United Nations often likes to see itself in noble terms and it espouses high and lofty ideals. However, is the United Nations a mere talking shop and an organization which is open to big power manipulation? Also, what is the role of democracy in this undemocratic institution?
Firstly, it is clear that democracy was never a goal of the United Nations despite all the hype because look at its past history. For example both the Soviet Union and China under despotic leaders had veto rights, and clearly during the Cold War all major powers abused their power. So how could leaders like Mao Zedong have veto power even during events like the Cultural Revolution?

On the other side, how many times did America violate the United Nations? Obviously they violated the charter many times and many American invasions of other nations were never backed by the United Nations. Despite this, the USA could easily bypass this organization and do what they desired and this of course undermined the United Nations. Given this, all superpowers abused this organization and often it was just a talking shop and even this was tainted by political motives.

Even since the demise of the Cold War its weakness remains. 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. While on the other extreme, Israel ignores many resolutions which have been held against this nation and clearly it doesn`t matter either way.

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 remain to be tainted by power politics and self interest? Therefore, why not either make complete reforms based on real power or just eradicate this moribund organization?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

MACEDONIA - The future remains uncertain for this nation state

MACEDONIA - The future remains uncertain for this nation state

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 timebomb, the growth of Islam, and hostile overtones from Greece because of the name of this nation. So can stability take place in Macedonia 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, the demographic timebomb is a reality. Therefore, the future promises much for the ethnic Albanians because one day in the future they will become the majority.

This demographic timebomb alone is causing deep anxiety within Macedonia and greater ethnic unity appears to be a pipe dream because both sides do not trust each other. In many parts of Macedonia today the Macedonians are a minority already and the Albanian political party clearly favours her own community over the indigenous population.

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.

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 European Union dream (EU) and hopes of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have been put on ice. Both the EU and NATO hope to fully integrate Macedonia within their respective institutions, thereby preserving the independence of this nation.

However, Greece refuses to listen andbecause of this Macedonia is kept on the fringes.
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.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

Zimbabwe - Mugabe continues to destroy this nation but African nations remain mute!

ZIMBABWE - Mugabe continues to destroy this nation but African nations remain mute!

The long lasting leader of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, continues to manipulate power and to slowly destroy this nation. All opposition outside the ruling party is crushed and inflation is beyond reason or understanding. However, regional nations, and notably South Africa, have been quiet about this despot so why are African leaders ignoring this brutal regime?

For South Africa this question is even stronger because Zimbabwe shares the same geographic space and millions of people from Zimbabwe have fled to South Africa in the hope of a better life. Yet what did they get, yes, they got mass exploitation, alienation, negative treatment, and they are treated with scorn. Even worse, the government of South Africa even sent the police into a church to arrest nationals from Zimbabwe, therefore, the government of South Africa have failed their lofty "halo image."

When South Africa was despotic and you had white minority rule, then a host of nations and individuals did their utmost to help the marginalized in the old South Africa. Mandela was "a rare light" and the ANC appeared to have noble values. However, what have the ANC done for the people of Zimbabwe? To be honest, not a lot, and of course they continue to talk and support Robert Mugabe.

Other nations in Africa also have not done enough and how can they talk about African unity when they allow a despot to destroy a nation like this? The economy is in crisis and inflation is even higher than a five day cricket score. But still little is done to challenge this brutal despot. Therefore, the people of Zimbabwe feel betrayed and neglected within the institutions of Africa.

Given this, only an internal challenge within the ruling elite power structure can change anything. Or of course the death of Robert Mugabe or ill health would certainly alter things. But the question remains, why have other African nations ignored this brutal dictator? Their silence not only destroys all hope within Zimbabwe but it also destroys all hope in Africa. Either you support democracy and the victims or you turn the other way and do nothing?

In the case of Zimbabwe then they decided to do nothing. Therefore, the institutions of Africa have betrayed the people of Zimbabwe and of course the image of Africa is tarnished by this issue. Will respective democratic leaders in the future emerge and challenge the status quo or will it be a slow death like usual via ignorance?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

IRAN and AMERICA - The complex relationship is not always what it seems?

IRAN and AMERICA, the complex relationship is not always what it seems?


The relationship between America and Iran is very complex and at times you hear alot of over hype on both sides. Yet this over hype applies to decades of so-called tension and mutual loathing. However, do both nations really hate each other or are quotes taken out of context or do they have cultural meanings? Or do both nations use each other in order to salvage domestic support at home? So what is the real relationship?

If we focus on economics then it is abundantly clear that America does enforce a strict economic internal blockade on this nation. Also, America does prop up Saudi Arabia but does this mean that this is directed solely at Iran? After all, Israel is also alarmed by America`s constant supply of high tech military arms to Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this issue is very complex and it might just apply to America`s self interests.

Yet when we look at foreign affairs then we see a different relationship because both nations have often helped each other in recent times. For example during the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo respectively, America gave tacit approval to Iran to break the military arms embargo. Therefore, Christians were massacred in both wars by a joint American-Iranian policy aimed at creating Islamic states in the Balkans.

If we turn the clock even further back, then even under the late Ayatollah Khomeini we see strange dealings. For example Oliver North was involved in the Iran-Contra affair, whereby Iran was involved in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, via American economic support and dealings. Therefore, elements within the American administration were adopting a different policy.

Now if we forward the clock to more recent times then the same situation happens again. For example, when America attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan they allied themselves with the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance in turn was supported by both the Russian Federation and Iran. More astonishing was the fact that Iran gave America secret information about the Taliban, after all, the Taliban hated Shia Muslims. So both nations, just like the Balkans, had a shared and vested interest.

If we also focus on Iraq then a similar linkage emerges once more. Because Iran also gave covert support to America via knowledge they had obtained during the Iran-Iraq war. Also, Iran did little to prevent this conflict because they hated Saddam Hussein and his secular regime. Therefore, was the trade off an Islamic state? Because once the secular government had been defeated, then America installed Sharia Islamic Law which in turn persecuted the Christian community.

Given all this, then what is the truth behind the "veil?" Do both nations share similar aims and objectives? If they don`t, then how do you account for past dealings between both nations? This issue needs to be debated openly because nothing appears to make sense when it comes to the relationship between America and Iran.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

SWEDEN - Worried about her immigration policy?

SWEDEN - Worried about her immigration policy?SWEDEN

The nation of Sweden opened her doors to tens of thousands of immigrants from Iraq and Somalia respectively, however, today many people are questioning this policy. At first, Sweden welcomed many Iraqi nationals, many who were Christians fleeing Islamic violence, but after taking in more than 40,000 from the former Iraq alone, and from other nations, then now tensions are emerging. So will Sweden tighten up her laws in order to maintain greater social unity or will a multi ethnic state develop?

To be fair to Sweden it is clear that her population is only small and her economic power is based on being unifed and focusing on high quality education. Therefore, her society developed amongst the secular traditions of this nation and culture united the people, and of course high technology abounded in this high tech nation. However, her resources are limited and her welfare state was designed to be a safety net and not based on maintaining a huge immigrant population, many who are fleeing terrible persecution.

Now strains can be seen within the capital of Sweden and other major cities, therefore, questions are now being raised about immigration, culture, religion, and the negative sides of immigration. To make matters worse, some immigrant groups are less likely to fit in within the cultural traditions of Sweden and this is also leading to tensions. Also, domestic welfare spending is increasing and this is creating socail pressures and the government is now re-thinking their many policies on this subject.

Of course, other Swedish people believe that the government is being too hasty. While others fear that the government is pandering to nationalists, therefore, the nation is divided on this issue. Yet some negative sides of immigration are emerging, irrespective if this is financial, or higher crime rates, or a loss of identity. Given this, the leaders of Sweden are now soul searching and trying to find an answer to this complex issue.

However, can they find a simple answer to this complex issue? Will tightening immigration laws work and does it fit in with the secular traditions of Sweden. Also, you have the positive side of immigration, so will Sweden miss out? These questions, and many others, are now being debated seriously and of couse the government must listen to the Swedish people.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

SAUDI ARABIA - Islamic radicalism and Western cronyism

SAUDI ARABIA - Islamic radicalism and Western cronyism

The nation of Saudi Arabia is by far the most despotic nation in the world today and regulations are implemented with not only passion, but in accordance to Islamic Sharia Law. This means that all Muslim converts to Christianity or any other faith face death, and all non-Muslim places of worship are not allowed. Even openly reading Christian or Buddhist texts can mean prison, therefore, this naiton clamps down heavily on all other religions.

At the same time, individuals or organizations within Saudi Arabia, are spreading radical Sunni Islamic ideas and terrorism is firmly established via this economic funding. After all, nearly all the people who did September 11 were from this nation and the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia.

Therefore, this nation is a hotbed of radicalism and they are funding institutions of hatred all over the world. But how does the world respond? Well, in truth, they do not! Instead they desire to maintain close links because of her huge natural resources and even after September 11, the leader of America, President Bush, turned a blind eye and he instead turned on Iraq which was a secular nation.

However, blowback is a real threat to all nations who ignore the role of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, blowback is a threat to Saudi Arabia itself because these Sunni fanatics are loyal to their version of the Koran and not to the Saudi Arabian nation state. Therefore, Islamists within Saudi Arabia are being allowed to get involved in foreign issues but at home they are being tackled because some elements threaten the monarchy.

More alarming, we have images with President Bush dancing with a sword on his visit or the leader of France praising this nation for being open. However, swords are being used to kill opponents and converts, so why the double standards?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://groups.msn.com/Alternativethinkingaboutglobalissues

AFGHANISTAN - Why preserve the nation of Afghanistan?

AFGHANISTAN - why preserve the nation of Afghanistan?

The war on terrorism took the United States to Afghanistan and both the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalists were soon beaten. Yet this success was built on regional cooperation, for the Northern Alliance was supported by both the Russian Federation and Iran; while Russia gave her approval for the nations of Central Asia to help the United States and American bases were allowed.

Yet what now? Does the international community really believe that different ethnic and religious groups want to live together? Or maybe the international community will be brave enough to de-Islamize this land via education, health care facilities, law, and other important institutions and services?

Alternatively, does the international community really believe that Afghanistan can be preserved under conservative Islam, albeit under Western "eyes?" If so, why do they think this? For all indicators appear that either ethnic or religious conflicts will continue, and that conservative Islam will hold-back modernity and fail to set women free from their bondage.

Or is the international community merely spending vast resources on preserving elites deemed to be partners and on schemes which sound nice in theory, but in reality do not belong to Afghanistan? For in the past many failures have been made by organizations who had good intentions, yet few results were made, notably Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, and many others.
So should Afghanistan either be allowed to be carved-up or de-Islamized?

The first option appears possible and territorial boundaries could be changed to allow Tajiks to join with Tajikistan; and for Uzbeks to be linked with Uzbekistan. While Shia Muslims would be allowed to unite with Iran and Pathans merge with Pakistan. Of course many communities will reside in other regions, yet all Afghan citizens should be given a choice and minorities will after decide their preserved options.

With regards to Kabul, this city could be either an independent miniature entity or an economic and political free zone. Remember, Singapore was small in size, however, her economic development must be admired and by having a free and open Kabul the international community can maintain a small United Nations military force to police this area.

This may sound strange, yet look at the benefits, for you would be giving economic aid to nation states who could absorb their own ethnic groups much easier. And major international aid could be directed to regional governments and all major international bodies like NAFTA, EU, ASEAN, World Bank, UN, and so on must be involved; alongside regional structures in order to break the endless problems of Afghanistan which spill over to neighboring nations.

The other alternative would be to de-Islamize conservative Islam in Afghanistan, and this applies to education, womens welfare, law being based on secularism, and other important issues. This may be deemed imperialist, however, for the future generations of Afghanistan this is their only hope. Otherwise women will continue to be abused and children will be brainwashed by conservative Islamic clerics and another generation will be lost to poverty and hatred.

Of course I can hear liberals and Muslims alike denouncing this "imperialist idea," yet look at the alternative. You will have continuing conflict between different ethnic groups based on ethnicity, religion or based on clan loyalty; while women will be mere objects and they will remain in the " shadows." While criminality will destabilize regional nations and heroin production will continue to grow.

Added to this will be a continuing economic burden on many nations without any results and possible future open hostility aimed at the international community. While conservative Islam will continue to "strangle" society and Islamic radicals could once more destabilize Central Asia and Western China.

If American policy was to solely eradicate Islamic radicalism, then this will ultimately fail, for Afghanistan, like Somalia, will continue to be a failed nation and hotbeds of terrorism will remain. Also, regional nations in Central Asia, China, Iran, the Russian Federation, Pakistan, and other nations, deserve better, for they all helped America in her quest to destroy Islamic fundamentalism.

One thing is for sure, and that is Afghanistan is no Cyprus, and taking the easy way and preserving the status quo will ultimately fail. So will brave policy makers come forward and challenge current modes of thinking based on status quo? This applies to either de-Islamization or allowing Afghanistan to disintegrate.

The children of Afghanistan and women deserve a chance? And current policy concepts are not allowing this to happen. Instead the old Afghanistan of ethnic and religious hatred is growing and women are secondary subjects. So for the children of Afghanistan and women, lets give them hope and the chance to "breathe" from the endless cycle of hopelessness.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
http://groups.msn.com/Alternativethinkingaboutglobalissues
http://groups.msn.com/JapanFoundation

NIGERIA - Can this nation survive in the future?

Nigeria - Can this nation survive in the future?

The nation of Nigeria is divided between different ethnic groups and religions and tensions have been ongoing for decades. However, in recent times the introduction of Sharia Islamic Law means that parts of the north are now of limits for Christians and followers of the original faiths. Therefore, can Nigeria survive all the current convulsions and this applies to ethnic tensions, religious tensions, political issues, poor versus rich, and so forth?

Nigeria nearly collapsed during the Biafran War between 1967-1970 when one major ethnic group desired an independent state, however, nations like the United Kingdom supported centralization. Yet these tensions still remain and since then many more convulsions have happened. The most notable being the introduction of Sharia Islamic Law because this meant that you now had two different legal systems within the same nation. To make matters worse, the Christian population had grown enormously in parts of the north and they of course were against these changes.

Over the last few years you have had many attacks in the north of Nigeria against the Christian community and unity is clearly not a reality. Also, in many other areas, for example in the Ogani areas, they demand to control their own resources. Therefore, the Niger Delta is very dangerous and local ethnic groups demand to control their own resources. Given this, many foreign mulit-nationals are worried about the current climate in the Niger Delta.

To make matters worse the political system and business community is often tainted by enormous corruption and the huge natural resources of this nation have been exploited decade after decade by a corrupt elite. Therefore, it is not only ethnic tensions or religious tensions which threaten Nigeria but also major social tensions.

Therefore, can Nigeria survive all these convulsions? To many people Nigeria can survive because they have gone from one chaotic situation to another. However, times have changed since the past because now the Christian population is nearly equal with regards to the Muslim population. Also, more alarmingly, the introduction of Sharia Islamic Law meant that some Nigerians were now unequal within the legal system. If we add all these changes to the growing population and mass inequality, then it is clear that Nigeria does face many serious challenges. Therefore, the future of Nigeria is now "rocky" and mass tensions will further increase in the future. Only a more transparent system can solve the current crisis but can the political elite be forced to change before it is too late?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

SCOTLAND - Is it time for this nation to break free from the United Kingdom?

SCOTLAND - Is it time for this nation to break free from the United Kingdom?

The United Kingdom is faced with many internal problems because Scotland and Wales desire independence and of course Northern Ireland is divided between pro-loyalists and republicans who want a united Ireland. However, Scotland is the most viable of all the smaller nations within the United Kingdom. Therefore, is it time for Scotland to split from the United Kingdom and develop a viable independent nation state?

From a pro-British point of view or Protestant Loyalist viewpoint then clearly it is vital that Scotland remains within the United Kingdom. After all, the United Kingdom is a viable state and the economy remains very dynamic, therefore, why destroy something which benefits the people of this unified nation? Pro-Unionists also fear that disintegration will have a negative effect upon Northern Ireland and it could lead to tensions within this nation. After all, republicans could easily point to Scotland and apply this to their own demands and aspirations.

However, from a Scottish nationalist viewpoint it could be argued that the role of London is not warranted because resources are unevenly spent and this only leads to greater inequality within the United Kingdom. More important, and based on the current political climate, it is clear that socialism is very strong within the body politics of Scotland. Also, Scottish nationalists will argue that it is their resources which are being abused in order to prop up London. This inequality gap is clear for all to see but despite this politicians remain to be wayward.

Of course Scotland also benefits from the United Kingdom and she could easily become isolated if she remained too inward looking. Also, more taxation per-head is spent on Scottish nationals in order to kick-start their economy. Yet Scotland can easily rebuke back and point out that it is her energy resources which are enabling London and the United Kingdom to benefit, however, many workers now feel like strangers in their own land. So can Scotland survive this current crisis or will it get out of hand?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

SPAIN - Can central forces defeat uncentral forces?

SPAIN - Can central forces defeat uncentral forces?

Spain remains to be divided because of major ethnic lines but often outsiders remain either unconcerned about this, or they are oblivious to the current political situation in Spain. However, many people in the Basque and Catalan areas of Spain desire independence. However, will central forces allow this or will they contain these forces via centralization?

Before we focus on Spain it is clear that this is a very important topic for Spain because this is one of the main reasons why Spain remains reluctant to acknowledge Kosovo. Because the government of Spain is worried that Kosovo will be used by both Basque and Catalan nationalists. Therefore, Spain remain very cautious about supporting new nation states. In truth, you could argue that this policy is consistent with the self interests of Spain.

Another outside factor is the role of the European Union (EU) because it is ironic that the new superstate is absorbing mega-states but for smaller nationalities they see the EU in a different light. Because for smaller ethnic groups they believe that the EU will support their cause more and because the EU weakens the central state via legal institutions and shared interests; then smaller ethnic groups hope to benefit from this. They also hope to gain more funding in order to educate their own people and to further develop their nationalistic vision.

However, for Spain they are adamant that a unified Spain is essential and they will not tolerate the break up of their nation state. Given this, the government uses every terrorist attack in order to boost their more draconian policies, which are aimed at destroying nationalism. Also, in all fairness to Spain, they do not see their state to be biased and all citizens have natural rights via the constitution and the democratic rights of this nation.

Yet for Basque and Catalan nationalists this is not the point, for they desire liberty and the right to create their own respective nation states in order to boost their culture and way of life. Of course Spain retorts back that central government is open and free. However, the other two communities believe it is their natural right and they are against central control. Also, Catalans could point out that they would be more wealthy without Spain because Barcelona and other areas within the Catalan heartlands are more than viable, indeed, they are the vibrant areas of Spain.

Given this, can Spain defeat uncentralized forces in the future and forge a nation state which merges the two other ethnic groups? For in todays Spain many Basques and Catalans believe that the current nation state is flawed and undemocratic because it does not abide by the wishes of others. So it is apparent that this issue is far from resolved and future tensions will remain.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

MYANMAR - Reasons behind the reluctance of this regime to allow Western aid

MYANMAR - Reasons behind the reluctance of this regime to allow Western aid


Myanmar is being demonized in the press for not allowing Western aid agencies to help the people of Myanmar. However, Myanmar is not unique because Thailand after the devastating tsunami also said no because they believed that they could deal with the situation themselves. Therefore, maybe it is cultural because both nations belong to the Mekong region or maybe it is because of lessons learnt with regards to past deeds by the international community in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia?

If we firstly focus on international aid then it is clear that it sometimes works but it sometimes does not. Therefore, why are international aid agencies being so adamant about this situation? After all, look at the crisis in Haiti and how billions of dollars have been wasted. Can the international community claim to have helped the people of Haiti or did they really help themselves? I tend to think that they helped themselves more because it is rare for these agencies to become bankrupt.

Also, aid is not always directed nor is it spent with regards to long term goals or ambitions. After all, just look at modern day Somalia and ask your self a simple question, did the enormous amount of economic assistance help or did it change nothing? Again I believe that it is achieving nothing and instead people in this nation rely on foreign aid to survive and rival factions fight over the spoils. But Somalia is not developing but it is now a fully dependent state, therefore, it is not growing or developing.

Another more sinister issue is the role of international agencies because in both the former Yugoslavia and Iraq it is clear that American armed forces knew where to bomb and just where did they get all this information from? For sure they obtained a lot of information via modern technology but some of this information came from international aid agencies, either covertly or by government agencies infiltrating these agencies. Whichever, is debatable or based on case by case, however, it is a serious worry for Myanmar and other governments who can not trust the international community.

If we move away from the aid agencies and focus on politics then it is clear that Myanmar is relatively isolated in the global community. However, many regional nations have good relations with Myanmar and these apply to China, India, and Thailand, respectively. Also, the Russian Federation and other nations also have cordial relations with Myanmar. Given this, why should Myanmar turn to nation states that want to put sanctions on this nation? Surely it makes some sense for Myanmar to focus on nations who either have cordial relations with Myanmar or who are neutral?

Also, Myanmar is very worried about the pro-democratic movement within Myanmar and other major internal issues which blight this nation. Notably the ethnic wars which are raging with the Karen and other ethnic groups. So Myanmar is worried about countless issues related to both the international community and internal concerns which threaten the current regime. If this is weighed up, then surely the response of the leaders of this nation is natural given their mindset?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

MEXICO - President Calderon is in a flux because of the growing drug insurgency

MEXICO - President Calderon is in a flux because of the growing drug insurgency

The United States went to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, however, some would argue that the real war should be in Mexico. This does not mean a war with Mexico, but it does mean the need to contain both drug cartels and illegal immigration. Therefore, can President Calderon contain these drug cartels or will democracy be further eroded in Mexico?

In 2008 more than one thousand people have been killed in Mexico because of drug cartels and growing crime. Therefore, what happened to democracy, the North Atlantic Free Trade Association, and America`s war on drugs and terror? After all, Mexico along the border with America is a no go zone for the majority of people.

The flow of immigrants into America from Mexico also undermines the national security of America because how can you have genuine terrorist prevention policies when you can not even control your own border? This fact alone should wake up a complacent America because sooner or later this information will be manipulated by would be terrorists. Also, American people are crying out for genuine support and they fear that they are being driven out of their own homes because of the huge numbers of migrants.

Turning back to Mexico, it is clear that President Calderon can not contain forces within Mexico. After all, the military now have 30,000 troops on the frontline but these forces still can not contain the countless number of drug cartels in Mexico. At the same time, international business leaders are increasingly worried about this crisis because it does not look good for the image of Mexico and you will have capital flight if this conflict is not contained or repulsed.

Mexico, therefore, is at a crossroads and this nation can not turn back because criminal organizations and drug cartels will merely go on the offensive. So America must also give a guiding arm in order to crush these cartels and criminal organizations on both sides of the border. If President Calderon fails to do this, then surely he must step down and allow someone else to take power but will he?

Once the world focused on Colombia with regards to narcotics and this nation suffered because of this with regards to international finance. Therefore, Mexico must wake up and control these negative forces which are destroying the fabric of society. After all, who really rules Mexico, is it the national government and the military or drug cartels and major crime syndicates?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://leejaywalker.myeweb.net

State intervention versus globalization?

State intervention versus globalization?

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 victory. Yes, the victory of state intervention and the good old methodology of state socialism whereby open manipulation and planning becomes the norm. Therefore, is capitalism and globalization an empty fraud or like Mao Zedong like to say, is capitalism a mere "paper tiger?"

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 way. Because dynamism did not emerge but greater risks did and bad lending ways became apparent within major financial companies, be they banks, investment houses, insurance companies, or other institutions.

Also, new ways like "creative accountancy" became a norm and companies could manipulate their balance sheets. At the same time the much vaunted elite universities ushered in a new generation but just like the older generation, it appeared not to help but hinder a system which had become one big hedge fund. Banks now became "a dice away" from bad credit and financial meltdown.

Of course not all banks, and it is apparent that in America it is the mega-banks which are facing meltdown or huge write-offs. Because smaller banks have remained loyal to the tried and trusted old ways of greater transparency and less risk taking. Another negative shot in the arm aimed at elite universities because the so-called best talent which is nurtured made enormous mistakes.

Therefore, what is the solution to this new financial meltdown? Yes, it is state socialism and the planned economy. Yes, it is the manipulation of markets and tax payer bail outs by the less wealthy to support the mega-rich. Yes, it means tighter regulation in order to control the financial system and stem the globalized tide of anything goes.

In truth, it is a victory for the planned economy, for centralized governments, for state socialism, and for greater constraints to be forced on a moribund banking sector whereby "moribund" only applies to their thinking. 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 won and let us hope they continue to win; otherwise, we will soon see another financial meltdown.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

RUSSIAN FEDERATION, the legacy of ex-President Vladimir Putin

RUSSIAN FEDERATION - Legacy of ex-President Vladimir Putin

President Vladimir Putin stood down on May, 8, 2008, and handed over the reigns of power to a new leader of the Russian Federation. However, unlike Boris Yeltsin who handed down a nation in chaos and economic decline, the opposite applies to President Vladimir Putin, for he is leaving a vibrant nation and relative stability given the vastness of this nation. Therefore, what is the real legacy of President Putin before he hands over power?

The Russian Federation was blighted by corruption, economic meltdown, a terrible civil war in Chechnya, and other major problems, prior to Putin taking power. It appeared that the Russian Federation was not only in meltdown but that her nation may crumble at the edges, notably in the southern parts of this nation.

However, Putin developed many dynamic policies in order to revitalize the moribund economy and he also tackled the serious problem of corruption and cronyism. Therefore, he focused on the energy sector, centralization, power concentration, and a strong inner circle to tackle these many problems. The outcome being that the centre gained in power and state influence once more dominated many major sectors, notably the energy sector. He also made sure that taxes were collected in order to strengthen the nation.

In time the currency also responded and gained against the dollar and from being a nation in decline and in crisis, he had rejuvenated the "soul" of the Russian Federation and brought back pride and confidence. Therefore, he managed to transform a chaotic and weak nation state and turn it into a "powerhouse" once more. Yet despite this, the Western press was not happy and political statements via Washington and London were often negative.

For Putin, and others in the inner circle, this was evidence that some nations desired a weak and compliant Russian Federation. However, far from being compliant, Putin went on the offensive and he began to further develop relations within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Shanghai 6, and other important structures within the international community. He was also outspoken about Kosovo and Western double standards, and he rightly talked about the negatives of NATO expansion and America`s missile defense system which appears to be aimed at the Russian Federation?

Therefore, better relations were developed with China, India, Iran, Central Asian nations, and many others. At the same time her energy politics began to grow in power and now major areas of the EU were being brought into the Russian "energy grid" and this in turn gave the Russian Federation more leverages within Europe.

Overall, the legacy of President Vladimir Putin before he steps down are very positive and of course he may return in the future to the central power base of this nation. However, if he does return or not, it is more than apparent that his achievements are very high and now this nation is taken seriously once more. More important, this nation is no longer in meltdown and her economy is now the 10th biggest and in the near future it will once more be in the top 5 or 6 nations. Therefore, Putin gave the Russian Federation much needed "breathing space" and it is up to this nation to follow the same path and focus on economic development.
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

SOUTH KOREA and NORTH KOREA: The new South Korean leader, Lee Myung Bak, is creating major tensions

SOUTH KOREA and NORTH KOREA: The new South Korean leader, Lee Myung Bak, is creating major tensions

The Korean Peninsula remains divided but in recent times it looked like a fresh start was on the horizon because of the "sunshine policy" adopted by more pragmatic leaders within the last government. North Korea, in return, responded favourably and you could see that a genuine thaw was happening. However, the new leader of South Korea, Lee Myung Bak, is turning the clock back and quickly. Now we are seeing the demise of the "sunshine policy" and the real threat of a maveric causing mayhem. Therefore, will Lee Myung Bak wise up or will he upset the balance too much?

Before returning to the current leader of South Korea it is worth mentioning a little bit about the past. After all, most people and societies have been manipulated to solely focus on the negatives of North Korea, however, what about the negatives of South Korea?

Therefore, which nation is more independent than the other? The answer is obviously North Korea because it is South Korea which allows foreign armies to protect her. Also, until the 1990s nearly every leader of South Korea could trace their family links to Japan and the imperial system. So unlike the leaders of North Korea, who fought against Japanese imperialism, it is clear that South Korean leaders had supported Japanese imperialism against their own people.
Given this, the North Korean leaders do have a point about being "the heirs" of an independent nation.

However, if we focus on economics, then it is clear that since the 1980s the government of North Korea have been found wanting. Because while South Korea began to develop rapidly the opposite happened in North Korea, and in this field much work needs to be done to kick start the North Korean economy. So you clearly have positives and negatives within both nations. However, from a North Korean point of view, they could have focused on their economy much more if South Korea had not been so hostile.

For much of the past decade relations have begun to develop between South Korea andNorth Korea, and the "sunshine policy" did help to pave the way for better ties. Some South Koreans complained that they "bent over backwards" in order to get only basic results, however, in truth the results were not so basic. After all, you had a new regional economic zone, a new train service begun, South Korean tourists were welcomed in special areas, and trade began to increase.

More important, the nuclear issue began to unravel in a positive nature and this was mainly due to both nations working together in order to foster mutual respect. Yet this thaw and hope appears to be under threat because of the new leader. Therefore, the new leader, Lee Myung Bak, went for the jugular from day one and he came out with anti-North Korean comments. Even more alarming were comments made by a senior general who warned about a possible attack against North Korea.

Therefore, the changed government in South Korea is clearly anti-North Korea and pro-America and pro-Japan. So Kim Jong-il responded in kind and he also began to become more assertative. Given this, tensions are once more causing concern and the "old ways" are returning. This recent situation is clearly not in the interest of any nation in the region because Northeast Asia needs stability, and not mayhem or racked up tensions.

Overall, the future of the Korean Peninsula now looks bleak again and you clearly have one person to blame for this, and this applies to the South Korean leader, Lee Myung Bak. So can more moderate voices in South Korea rise up and prevent further tensions? Or will he keep on blundering on? For now, we still don`t really know because it is still early days for the new leader of South Korea, however, the omens do not look good, do they?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

CHINA and the need to modernize her military

The nation of China continues to increase her military build up and sometimes you get negative press about this reality. However, from a neutral perspective or Chinese perspective, then this military build up is merely natural and no different from other major powers. Therefore, should major powers worry about China or is it merely mind games or scare mongering by certain nations?

If we look at the region of Northeast Asia then it is more than apparent that this region is very diverse and varied. This applies to geography, economics, politics, religion, ethnicity, and many other factors. Added to this diverse reality is the nuclear dimension and the fact that many major global military powers are based in this region. From this point of view it is abundantly clear that tensions will exist within the body politic of Northeast Asia.

The nuclear dimension alone is more than fascinating because America, China, the Russian Federation, and North Korea, are all nuclear powers and of course Japan is a nuclear power de facto because of her protection by the USA and because of past policies, whereby they allowed America to use nuclear submarines in the Sea of Japan. Also, on the horizon and within the geopolitics of China, you have India and Pakistan. Given this, the nuclear dimension is extremely complex and this factor increases the importance of Northeast Asia.

If we look at the geopolitics of China then it is clear that they overlap in many parts of Asia. For example Central Asia, Northeast Asia, South Asia, Eurasia, the Mekong region and South China Sea region. This vast area is very diverse and China faces multiple challenges with regards to expanding her influence and defending any weak areas within her geopolitical reality. Her main challenge may appear to be Taiwan but this issue is contained within a small geographic region; therefore, her relationship with America is of major concern.

If we look at trade investments between America and China, then just like China and Taiwan, we see enormous economic linkages and mutual ties and respect. However, in the field of hegemony then China worries about certain aspects of America`s foreign policy. After all, the USA have her military based in Japan and South Korea respectively and they are developing Guam in order to increase their leverages. Also, the USA have bases in other parts of Asia and her relationship with Australia is another added dimension.

Therefore, China is concerned about this American reality and they also fear a possible nationalist Japan in the future and India, because Chinese-Indian relations are still fragile despite all the smiles. So China is right to worry about vast areas of her geopolitical space and this nation also fears radical Islam entering China via Western China. This reality is pushing China to move closer to the Russian Federation and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In recent times this can be seen via the growing importance of the Shanghai-6 political bloc and recent military excersises with the Russian Federation, and anti-terrorist excersises with nations from the CIS.

Also, if we focus on military spending then it is clear that America spends around 90% more than China and other nations, for example India, also spend more than China. This merely proves the point within the inner circle in China because it is clear that China is merely protecting her national interests and they are no different from other regional powers. Given this, her political and military leaders desire to modernize her military forces in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Therefore, surely China is right to increase her military budget?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://groups.msn.com/Alternativethinkingaboutglobalissues
http://groups.msn.com/JapanFoundation
http://groups.msn.com/ChristianHumanRights
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/

SOUTH AFRICA - Race attacks leave many dead and shatter the myth of the "rainbow nation"

SOUTH AFRICA - Race attacks leave many dead and shatter the myth of the "rainbow nation"


The old South Africa was blighted by racial politics and the African National Congress was meant to usher in a new dawn. However, current events clearly show that instead of a new dawn you have mass hatred of different foreign nationals. Of course if these deaths had been done by the Boers, then the world would have said that it was predictable. However, this is black South African nationalism, therefore, the world appears to be in shock. So what went wrong in the new South Africa?

Firstly, these inter ethnic disputes are not unique to South Africa because we have seen similar events throughout Africa. For example you have major ethnic tensions in Algeria, Burundi, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan, and other nations in Africa. Therefore, the current death total is small when we compare this with recent events in Kenya, or if we look further back to Rwanda.

However, the new South Africa was meant to be colour blind but clearly it isn`t, is it? Therefore, mass immigration from nations like Zimbabwe have upset the applecart too much and ethnic disputes are clearly potent. So why did the South African government get it wrong? Or were they too naive to notice the changing face of society?

Maybe the current leaders of South Africa are more focused on power politics rather than bread and butter issues? But these killings are based on bread and butter issues and many South Africans are fed up with the current economic situation. Therefore, grinding poverty, inequality, a breakdown in certain sectors, alongside mass immigration, is a very potent mix and sadly it proved to be too potent.

Given this, the rainbow country, like it was dubbed, is not so much a rainbow but more like a patchwork of different ethnic groups and these ethnic groups do not pander to easy sayings based on so-called unity. Instead, the majority of South Africans want to share the apple pie, however, the apple pie is being cut open by a small ruling elite. Therefore, social tensions are based on isolation, poverty, and growing discontent.

President Thabo Mbeki called recent attacks "a disgrace" but the real disgrace is the failure of his own political party. He, and other members of the ruling party, allowed mass immigration while doing little about crime, povery, inequality, and offering hope. So while these attacks may be "a disgrace" this should not cloudy the real reasons behind these massacres.
Therefore, recent events are a clear reminder that ethnic politics must not be ignored and "the rainbow nation" is nothing more than "a society based on inequality."

Until the leaders of South Africa admit this, then little will change. Also, once ethnic hatred turns into major bloodshed then it is hard to contain forces which have been unleashed. Yes, these troubles may lie dormant for a while, however, you can never turn the clock back and this is the problem. So how will the leaders respond to their own failure and to these massacres?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

SOMALIA - UNSC urges Somalian government to hold peace talks

SOMALIA - UNSC urges Somalian government to hold peace talks

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is urging the government of Somalia to hold peace talks with various Islamic factions in order to form either a new coalition government or to prevent further bloodshed. However, is this really possible given the current situation and what does Ethiopia think about this? Therefore, is the UNSC being naive or do they believe that they can broker a peace deal via Djibouti?

Firstly, do rival factions desire peace or power? Also, how can Islamists who desire an Islamic state do a deal with the current government? These, and other questions, are vital and it would appear that the UNSC is being either over optimistic or naive, or they know something that nobody else does?

After all, the current government is threatened via internal Islamic factions and different warlords and these factions have supporters outside of Somalia. Also, what about the Ethiopian and Eritrean factor because these two nations are at loggerheads and an all out war between these two nations could also erupt. So how does the UNSC envisage a genuine peace given the internal and external dimensions of this conflict?

If we view the Ethiopian perspective, then they have to be invited to any lasting peace because it is their military which is supporting the government of Somalia. For Ethiopia, they are very unhappy with the international community because radical Islam not only threatens to engulf Somalia but it threatens eastern Ethiopia in the Ogaden region and of course other regional nations, for example Sudan. Despite this, the international community remains distant from this complex war.

Also, from an Eritrean perspective we see a completely different way of thinking. After all, Eritrea is worried about their border dispute with Ethiopia and they know that if they can tie down Ethiopia in Somalia, then their own national interests are strengthened. Also, Eritrea either directly or indirectly, is spreading radical Islam in the Ogaden region and Kenya and Uganda are both worried about this. Therefore, the regional dimension is extremely complex.

It would, therefore, appear to be an impossibe situation at the moment given the reality on the ground. So why does the UNSC deem this possible given the current reality? This question is very difficult to answer because the fact that peace talks are taking place in Djibouti sums things up. After all, this merely confirms that both sides do not view each other with respect and neither side trusts the other.

Overall, even if a peace treaty was signed, I would very much doubt that it would last long. This thinking is also backed by recent history in Somalia. Only if the Ethiopians decided to pull out would you get a victory on the battlefield. However, even a victory on the battlefield would be shallow because factions would soon emerge and anarchy would return sooner or later.

Therefore, the international community should do more to support Ethiopia rather than lofty ideals about a possible peace treaty. Given this, I believe that these peace talks are doomed to failure irrespective of the outcome because this nation will remain to be unstable.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

Russian Federation supports autonomy for Abkhazia in Georgia

Russian Federation supports autonomy for Abkhazia in Georgia

The Russian Federation supports autonomy for Abkhazia in Georgia and PM Putin is adamant that this is the best solution. After all, the US educated leader of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, stated that autonomy was the best solution. However, after the Russian Federation sent unarmed military troops to Abkhazia, leaders in Georgia have been quick to rebuke the Russian Federation. Therefore, will a clash develop between both nations or will this crisis be contained?

For the Russian Federation, and Abkhazian leaders, this is a case of American and European double standards, because what is the difference between Abkhazia and Kosovo? Therefore, why does America and Europe believe that one nation should obtain independence while the other should remain under the central state? Given this, then surely Western leaders must view their stance in light of their recent action over Kosovo.

Also, NATO expansion is making the situation worse and both Georgia and the Ukraine have talked about joining NATO. However, from Russia`s perspective, then surely Georgia is trying to upset the applecart and it is this action which is leading to even more tensions. So why is Georgia bent on joining NATO?

The main reasons for Georgia wanting to join NATO are geographical insecurity, anti-Russian motives, pro-Western factors, and the need to build bridges with all the leading institutions within Europe. Also, Georgia is playing the "great game" with regards to energy politics. So this is also important and Georgia is clearly supporting the USA and Turkey with regards to energy politics. However, this, like NATO, is seen to be over the top and aimed at the Russian Federation.

Also, we can not forget about the genuine problems from the outset which have blighted Georgia and this notably applies to nationalism. Therefore, the more Georgia looks to the West, the more Abkhazia looks to the Russian Federation and of course sooner or later a major clash may erupt? Given this, Georgia should become more pragmatic towards the Russian Federation.

However, at the moment the leaders of Georgia appear to be more focused about internal issues and supporting America and the European Union. So, from a Russian Federation perspective, it is clear that some Western nations are interested in causing turmoil in Russia`s backyard via Georgia. Therfore, the leaders of Georgia must find a fresh way in order to move closer to the Russian Federation.

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

JAPAN - Can this nation develop an independent foreign policy

JAPAN - Can this nation develop an independent foreign policy?

The ending of World War Two was a very long time ago, however, in Japan it appears that time is standing still because this nation is over compliant towards the USA. Surely this nation must stand on her own two feet? So can Japan revolutionize her thinking and establish an independent foreign policy?

Firstly, this article is not aimed at anti-American thinking, 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 "lacky" 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.

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 her 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 the one weakness was that Japan would still remain to be "toothless" when it came to America.

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 and regional nations, for example China and the Russian Federation, will merely ignore Japan`s thinking and they will not trust her motives. Therefore, the time is right to transform her military doctrine and her foreign policy because the current "lackey" status is hindering Japan. Surely Japan wants to be known for being independent and playing a leading role within the United Nations and other major institutions.

This also applies to her monetary policies because even in this field it is clear that Japan is not doing what she really desires. For example around 90% of all her reserves are held in either American bonds or in the dollar. Yet with the current demise of the dollar, then is this policy justified? Also, what about supporting the Japanese yen? 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 this answer may still be no. The growing power of the opposition, however, may lead to change because they claim to be more independent minded. Yet the "cracks within her compliant policies" still appear to be thin on the ground. Therefore, for the time being it will be the same over compliant Japan but maybe on the horizon is a new way via the rise of China and via the rise of the political opposition?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
http://groups.msn.com/Alternativethinkingaboutglobalissues

IRAQ - The failed American policy!

IRAQ - The failed American policy!

The invasion of Iraq at first appeared to be a great success because the Iraqi armed forces were defeated relatively easily and Saddam Hussein was overthrown. However, since the initial period which promised much the opposite happened. Therefore, various different Iraqi insurgents have helped to keep America and her allies at bay. The consequences of this failed policy is clear for all to see because religious minorities, females, and other minorities reside in fear. Also, terrorism is a terrible consequence of the invasion of Iraq and now this nation does not exist with regards to centralization. So why and how did America get it so badly wrong?

The first main factor is the lies behind the reasons for war because no weapons of mass destruction have ever been found and of course you had no links with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. On the contrary, Saddam Hussein was anti radical Islam because he feared this movement would overthrow his secular regime. Therefore, when you start a war from "a lie" it is clear that you will have long term problems.

More important, the same United States of America (USA) supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war and during this war the USA stated that Iraq was fighting to stem the tide of radical Islam. However, this factor was ignored by President Bush and so was how Saddam Hussein managed to maintain power. After all, if you do not judge the power plays of a nation then how can you take over the mechanism of government?

In all truth Saddam Hussein was a despot and this can not be doubted, however, given the reality of Iraq, then maybe this was the only way to modernize this nation? Because prior to the First Gulf War the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein supported religious freedom, the rights of women, and implemented secular law. For Christians, it was a time of relative peace when compared with other nations in the Middle East. Also, a clear infrastructure had been built and Baghdad was a thriving capital where commerce ruled the day.

Yet all this seems like a long time ago because the current Baghdad is a killing zone and a place where time is going backward. Therefore, whole areas are being divided between Sunni and Shia zones and the sizeable Christian population in the capital is either on the retreat or on the margins of society. Another negative is the rise of honour killings in Iraq and the numbers of new born babies dying because of lack of medication.

Another area of disaster is the rise of radical Islam and terrorism because prior to the war terrorism was alien to Iraq and radical Islam had been crushed. But in the new Iraq you have people being blown to bits at weddings, funerals, going shopping, visiting the hospital, and so forth. Therefore, most ordinary Iraqi nationals are bewildered by the complete destruction of society under the rule of America and her allies. Given this, modern day Iraq is a major centre of radical Islam and terrorism, and the USA even sanctioned the implementation of Islamic Law to replace secular law to the disgust of Christians and secularists.

Overall, it is clear that America lied from start to finish, because even today they are claiming that it was a great success. However, only America believes this, and this applies to diehards and not rank and file Americans who clearly know the truth. So many years after the invasion you have chaos, hatred, terrorism, the destruction of the Christian community and other minorities, honour killings, instability, radical Islam, and the complete collapse of the centralized state. Why, put simply, America never had a plan to implement after the war and they never studied the rule of Saddam Hussein and how he maintained order via despotism.

Therefore, not only is the war in Iraq a complete failure, it would also appear that Iran gained by this naive and destructive policy because the Shia are now the new power brokers. Given this, why no war crime tribunals for the leaders of America and the United Kingdom. After all they have destroyed modern day Iraq and turned it into a killing field and a failed state. Even if Iraq changes in the long term, it can never brink back the hundreds of thousands of innocents who have been killed. So America failed from start to finish and they destroyed a nation state on grounds of misinformation.

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