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/
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
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/
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/
Thursday, September 18, 2008
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/
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/
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/
Sunday, September 14, 2008
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/
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/
Saturday, September 13, 2008
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 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/
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
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/
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/
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
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/
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/
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Ethiopia and its war against radical Islam and chaos in Somalia
Ethiopia and its war against radical Islam and chaos in Somalia
In December 2006 the Ethiopian government dislodged the Islamists from power in order to bring some fresh hope to the people of Somalia and also to prevent the spread of radical Islam. Shortly after Ethiopia crushed the Islamists in Mogadishu they appealed for global help and support. After all, the United States of America stressed the importance to fight back against international terrorism. However, the international community appeared to turn a blind eye, with the notable acception being Uganda and some other nations who gave basic support. Therefore, why did major powers ignore Ethiopia and will this nation pull out of Somalia in order to fight a rear guard action via Ethiopia?
Before focusing on current events it is important to briefly mention the past between both nations. If we go back to the 1977-1978 Ogaden War, then it is clear that both nations do not trust each other and power politics is a major issue, and this is based on ethnic and religious lines. During the Ogaden War the Soviet Union (once an ally of Somalia) and Cuba helped Ethiopia to defeat Somalia because at one point Ethiopia could only control 10% of Eastern Ethiopia in the Ogaden region. For Somalia the Ogaden should belong to them because of ethnic and religious factors, however, to Ethiopia this region is vital because after the loss of Eritrea, in recent times, this nation can not afford to lose even more territory.
Therefore, in history the rulers of both modern nations have not trusted each other and this goes back centuries and under various different names, for example ancient Abyssinia (Ethiopia) was often at loggerheads with the Somali people and other ethnic groups. Also, the role of Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity was central to the rulers of Abyssinia and to them they feared losing power to Islam and other ethnic groups in the Horn of Africa. Therefore, Eastern Ethiopia was a weak spot because the majority of people were Muslim and the traditional rulers of Ethiopia, the Amhara and the Tigrean, feared losing power. So in history and modern times the history of Ethiopia and Somalia is often inter-linked and sadly this linkage is usually negative.
If we move closer to modern times, then it is clear that both nations have been ravaged by the Cold War, civil wars, starvation, ethnic or clan based politics, outside manipulation, and other major factors. Given this, the mechanics of democracy and mutual understanding appears to be lost and the past vicious circle remains today. Also, the role of the United Nations and the United States in Somalia was also an abject failure in the 1990s. Added to this is the growth of radical Islam in Somalia, international terrorists using this nation for their own political gains, just like in Afghanistan, and continuing outside meddling, means that instability is flourishing throughout the region.
Therefore, from an Ethiopian perspective the nation of Somalia is vital with regards to the war on international terrorism and preserving the unity of Ethiopia. Yet, to the leaders of modern day Ethiopia they see little international support and they are not sure why? However, the answer is not that simple because major problems already exist throughout the world and of course the mass media focuses on Iraq, the Israel-Palestinian issue, and Afghanistan, the most. However, if radical Islamists managed to rule in Somalia then this nation could destabilise the entire region. Also, Islamic terrorists could use this nation in order to cause mayhem in other nations. This reality is obvious in Ethiopia, however, the government of this nation feels betrayed because of being let down by the international community.
Since dislodging the Islamists from power in late 2006 the Ethiopian government suffered the usual war syndrome, just like America in Iraq, because the insurgents have hit back via breathing space. Given this reality, the Ethiopian government is alarmed by her neighbour Eritrea because Ethiopia claims that this nation is causing chaos in the Islamic heartlands of eastern Ethiopia. Also, the rulers of Ethiopia claim that Eritrea is also helping the Islamists in Somalia via economic support and they also accuse wealthy outside organizations of being involved in this crisis. Of course, Eritrea denies this and instead blames Ethiopia for causing the mayhem. Whatever the "real truth" is, it is clear that regional disunity is not helping and instead it is merely adding "fuel to the fire."
Therefore, the policy enacted by Ethiopia is now in danger because of the growing insurgency and lack of outside support. If Ethiopia fails, then more chaos may spread to Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, and other nations. Also, Ethiopia will face enormous internal problems and this situation is extremely grave now. Given this, the leader of Ethiopia, PM Meles Zenawi, stated "We didn't anticipate that the international community would be happy riding the Ethiopian horse and flogging it at the same time for so long." PM Meles Zenawi also rebuked the international community for not funding the African Union and its peacekeeping force. Therefore, Ethiopia may decide to pull out of Somalia if a solution can not be found in the near future?
So why did the international community fail Ethiopia and Somalia? Maybe for politicians and military leaders in America, it is the terrible memories of their failed policy in Somalia and the lasting images of American troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Meanwhile, for the leaders of the European Union (EU) they may deem this war to be too distant and some nations may also be divided within Europe. After all, not all nations support the Ethiopian theory and some nations have sympathy with the opposition or they are neutral. In Africa it is more complex because many nations fear the chaos of Somalia, however, regional nations like Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda, have many internal problems to deal with and their resources are limited.
However, if Ethiopia does pull out or the civil war increases, which in turn could lead to growing malnutrition and starvation, or a base for international terrorism; then the international community will rue this missed opportunity. Therefore, the international community should either be supporting the Somali interim government via economics, peacekeepers, and other viable methods to enhance stability. Or the international community should be working with Ethiopia in order to crush the forces of disorder. Sadly, the Ethiopian leader, PM Meles Zenawi, may be correct because it does appear that the international community is not interested and like he states, they are ".....happy riding the Ethiopian horse and flogging it at the same time for so long." Therefore, Ethiopia may decide to pull out and strengthen their border with Somalia and fight via a proxy force, if so, then a missed opportunity will have gone begging and the people of Somalia will continue to suffer.
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
In December 2006 the Ethiopian government dislodged the Islamists from power in order to bring some fresh hope to the people of Somalia and also to prevent the spread of radical Islam. Shortly after Ethiopia crushed the Islamists in Mogadishu they appealed for global help and support. After all, the United States of America stressed the importance to fight back against international terrorism. However, the international community appeared to turn a blind eye, with the notable acception being Uganda and some other nations who gave basic support. Therefore, why did major powers ignore Ethiopia and will this nation pull out of Somalia in order to fight a rear guard action via Ethiopia?
Before focusing on current events it is important to briefly mention the past between both nations. If we go back to the 1977-1978 Ogaden War, then it is clear that both nations do not trust each other and power politics is a major issue, and this is based on ethnic and religious lines. During the Ogaden War the Soviet Union (once an ally of Somalia) and Cuba helped Ethiopia to defeat Somalia because at one point Ethiopia could only control 10% of Eastern Ethiopia in the Ogaden region. For Somalia the Ogaden should belong to them because of ethnic and religious factors, however, to Ethiopia this region is vital because after the loss of Eritrea, in recent times, this nation can not afford to lose even more territory.
Therefore, in history the rulers of both modern nations have not trusted each other and this goes back centuries and under various different names, for example ancient Abyssinia (Ethiopia) was often at loggerheads with the Somali people and other ethnic groups. Also, the role of Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity was central to the rulers of Abyssinia and to them they feared losing power to Islam and other ethnic groups in the Horn of Africa. Therefore, Eastern Ethiopia was a weak spot because the majority of people were Muslim and the traditional rulers of Ethiopia, the Amhara and the Tigrean, feared losing power. So in history and modern times the history of Ethiopia and Somalia is often inter-linked and sadly this linkage is usually negative.
If we move closer to modern times, then it is clear that both nations have been ravaged by the Cold War, civil wars, starvation, ethnic or clan based politics, outside manipulation, and other major factors. Given this, the mechanics of democracy and mutual understanding appears to be lost and the past vicious circle remains today. Also, the role of the United Nations and the United States in Somalia was also an abject failure in the 1990s. Added to this is the growth of radical Islam in Somalia, international terrorists using this nation for their own political gains, just like in Afghanistan, and continuing outside meddling, means that instability is flourishing throughout the region.
Therefore, from an Ethiopian perspective the nation of Somalia is vital with regards to the war on international terrorism and preserving the unity of Ethiopia. Yet, to the leaders of modern day Ethiopia they see little international support and they are not sure why? However, the answer is not that simple because major problems already exist throughout the world and of course the mass media focuses on Iraq, the Israel-Palestinian issue, and Afghanistan, the most. However, if radical Islamists managed to rule in Somalia then this nation could destabilise the entire region. Also, Islamic terrorists could use this nation in order to cause mayhem in other nations. This reality is obvious in Ethiopia, however, the government of this nation feels betrayed because of being let down by the international community.
Since dislodging the Islamists from power in late 2006 the Ethiopian government suffered the usual war syndrome, just like America in Iraq, because the insurgents have hit back via breathing space. Given this reality, the Ethiopian government is alarmed by her neighbour Eritrea because Ethiopia claims that this nation is causing chaos in the Islamic heartlands of eastern Ethiopia. Also, the rulers of Ethiopia claim that Eritrea is also helping the Islamists in Somalia via economic support and they also accuse wealthy outside organizations of being involved in this crisis. Of course, Eritrea denies this and instead blames Ethiopia for causing the mayhem. Whatever the "real truth" is, it is clear that regional disunity is not helping and instead it is merely adding "fuel to the fire."
Therefore, the policy enacted by Ethiopia is now in danger because of the growing insurgency and lack of outside support. If Ethiopia fails, then more chaos may spread to Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, and other nations. Also, Ethiopia will face enormous internal problems and this situation is extremely grave now. Given this, the leader of Ethiopia, PM Meles Zenawi, stated "We didn't anticipate that the international community would be happy riding the Ethiopian horse and flogging it at the same time for so long." PM Meles Zenawi also rebuked the international community for not funding the African Union and its peacekeeping force. Therefore, Ethiopia may decide to pull out of Somalia if a solution can not be found in the near future?
So why did the international community fail Ethiopia and Somalia? Maybe for politicians and military leaders in America, it is the terrible memories of their failed policy in Somalia and the lasting images of American troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Meanwhile, for the leaders of the European Union (EU) they may deem this war to be too distant and some nations may also be divided within Europe. After all, not all nations support the Ethiopian theory and some nations have sympathy with the opposition or they are neutral. In Africa it is more complex because many nations fear the chaos of Somalia, however, regional nations like Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda, have many internal problems to deal with and their resources are limited.
However, if Ethiopia does pull out or the civil war increases, which in turn could lead to growing malnutrition and starvation, or a base for international terrorism; then the international community will rue this missed opportunity. Therefore, the international community should either be supporting the Somali interim government via economics, peacekeepers, and other viable methods to enhance stability. Or the international community should be working with Ethiopia in order to crush the forces of disorder. Sadly, the Ethiopian leader, PM Meles Zenawi, may be correct because it does appear that the international community is not interested and like he states, they are ".....happy riding the Ethiopian horse and flogging it at the same time for so long." Therefore, Ethiopia may decide to pull out and strengthen their border with Somalia and fight via a proxy force, if so, then a missed opportunity will have gone begging and the people of Somalia will continue to suffer.
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
Monday, September 1, 2008
PM Fukuda of Japan resigns and this nation is in confusion once more
PM Fukuda of Japan resigns and this nation is in confusion once more
The nation of Japan continues to defeat itself and the vibrant years of high economic growth and having a purpose have all but vanished. Therefore, two leaders have resigned in the space of less than one year and neither leader left any impact on society which was positive. So why does the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) continue to behave in such an outlandish and callow way? Also, why did Fukuda resign without very little prior notice?
Sadly, democracy in Japan is not so important because the same party continues to govern and rule Japan. This fiasco applies to more than 50 years, apart from a very brief spell when they lost power in 1993. To make matters worse, the main opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), is also a bit of a fraud because the current leader was once a bigwig within the LDP. Therefore, the leader of the DPJ, Ichiro Ozawa, and others like him, are transforming the DPJ into a similar proto-type party and it is often difficult to know what divides both political parties because both parties are blighted by factionalism.
Given the role of factionalism within Japanese politics it becomes apparent that both main political parties are divided and this is the problem, for neither party appears to have a unified goal. Within the DPJ you have the isshin-kai, Hatoyama group, Kan group, and others; while in the LDP you also have many factions and clearly these factions are often above the party itself. Therefore, for Fukuda, he was not only blighted by being challenged by the opposition party but he also had to maintain order within the LDP. Yet Fukuda could not cope with being challenged so much because he supported the theory of consensus and it is hard to see how a leader like this could have taken power in a more robust and democratic nation.
Therefore, if we look at the last three leaders of the LDP it is hard to believe that Koizumi, Abe, and Fukuda, belonged to the same political party. After all, you had the staunch nationalist in Koizumi and of course this leader "talked a good talk" but did little, apart from isolating Japan within Northeast Asia because of his visits to Yasukuni Shrine, where he prayed for war criminals and ordinary soldiers alike. He was followed by Abe who also liked to visit Yasukuni prior to taking power but who refused to go during his brief leadership. However, Abe was blighted by scandal after scandal within the ruling LDP. More worrying, Abe also wanted to re-write history via the tragic events in Okinawa and he rejected the fact that Japanese soldiers forced Korean women, Chinese women, and others, into sexual slavery. Then these two leaders were followed by a more gentler and caring Fukuda and this is the problem, just what does politics mean within the political system in Japan?
Yet since 1990 you have had a major downturn in Japan because the stock market, the Nikkei, was once valued at over 39,000 but 18 years later and it is approximately 66% below this figure. Also, Japan`s ranking with regards to GDP continues to plummet because Japan was once ranked number two in the world. However, by 2007 the IMF ranked Japan to be 22nd and clearly something is going wrong within this nation. Despite this political leaders are often focused on maintaining strong ties with America and other issues which are not so important to the majority of Japanese people.
Therefore, the tax system is in crisis and the pension fiasco continues to rumble on. At the same time you have a demographic time-bomb which keeps on ticking and many neglected areas are getting poorer. The health care system is also under tremendous strain because you do not have enough doctors and nurses. This especially applies to the countryside, however, many Japanese people have died because they have been refused medical treatment until it is too late. Also, social inequality is growing and you have mental strains within society which is related to major health issues. Yet real "bread and butter" causes have largely been neglected in recent times and even Fukuda introduced a controversial health care scheme which made the poor even poorer.
So the current resignation by the leader of Japan is part and parcel of the continuing stagnation of this nation. After all, Fukuda stated "Today, I have decided to resign. We need a new line-up to cope with a new session of parliament. My decision is based on what I thought the future political situation ought to be. The Democratic Party has tried to stall every bill so it has taken a long time to implement any policies. For the sake of the Japanese people, this should not be repeated. If we are to prioritize the people's livelihoods, there cannot be a political vacuum from political bargaining, or a lapse in policies. We need a new team to carry out policies." Therefore, this implies that he was not the right person in the first place because surely the opposition is bound to question the ruling party. Or did Fukuda want "a rubber stamp?"
Overall, you could argue that the Japanese political system is neither fully democratic or based solely on party politics. This applies to the virtual monopoly of power by the ruling LDP and even when the LDP is challenged, it is being challenged by a former bigwig who once belonged to the same party but who now happens to lead the DPJ. Also, factionalism within both parties means that little can be done and Japan just goes from one crisis to another without anything really being done, apart from abusing tax-payers money. However, one can not have sympathy for the voters of Japan because the majority either do not care or they have given up the ghost because of the past . Therefore, will the next leader of Japan be any different or will the same pattern emerge again because of the weakness of the Japanese political system?
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
The nation of Japan continues to defeat itself and the vibrant years of high economic growth and having a purpose have all but vanished. Therefore, two leaders have resigned in the space of less than one year and neither leader left any impact on society which was positive. So why does the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) continue to behave in such an outlandish and callow way? Also, why did Fukuda resign without very little prior notice?
Sadly, democracy in Japan is not so important because the same party continues to govern and rule Japan. This fiasco applies to more than 50 years, apart from a very brief spell when they lost power in 1993. To make matters worse, the main opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), is also a bit of a fraud because the current leader was once a bigwig within the LDP. Therefore, the leader of the DPJ, Ichiro Ozawa, and others like him, are transforming the DPJ into a similar proto-type party and it is often difficult to know what divides both political parties because both parties are blighted by factionalism.
Given the role of factionalism within Japanese politics it becomes apparent that both main political parties are divided and this is the problem, for neither party appears to have a unified goal. Within the DPJ you have the isshin-kai, Hatoyama group, Kan group, and others; while in the LDP you also have many factions and clearly these factions are often above the party itself. Therefore, for Fukuda, he was not only blighted by being challenged by the opposition party but he also had to maintain order within the LDP. Yet Fukuda could not cope with being challenged so much because he supported the theory of consensus and it is hard to see how a leader like this could have taken power in a more robust and democratic nation.
Therefore, if we look at the last three leaders of the LDP it is hard to believe that Koizumi, Abe, and Fukuda, belonged to the same political party. After all, you had the staunch nationalist in Koizumi and of course this leader "talked a good talk" but did little, apart from isolating Japan within Northeast Asia because of his visits to Yasukuni Shrine, where he prayed for war criminals and ordinary soldiers alike. He was followed by Abe who also liked to visit Yasukuni prior to taking power but who refused to go during his brief leadership. However, Abe was blighted by scandal after scandal within the ruling LDP. More worrying, Abe also wanted to re-write history via the tragic events in Okinawa and he rejected the fact that Japanese soldiers forced Korean women, Chinese women, and others, into sexual slavery. Then these two leaders were followed by a more gentler and caring Fukuda and this is the problem, just what does politics mean within the political system in Japan?
Yet since 1990 you have had a major downturn in Japan because the stock market, the Nikkei, was once valued at over 39,000 but 18 years later and it is approximately 66% below this figure. Also, Japan`s ranking with regards to GDP continues to plummet because Japan was once ranked number two in the world. However, by 2007 the IMF ranked Japan to be 22nd and clearly something is going wrong within this nation. Despite this political leaders are often focused on maintaining strong ties with America and other issues which are not so important to the majority of Japanese people.
Therefore, the tax system is in crisis and the pension fiasco continues to rumble on. At the same time you have a demographic time-bomb which keeps on ticking and many neglected areas are getting poorer. The health care system is also under tremendous strain because you do not have enough doctors and nurses. This especially applies to the countryside, however, many Japanese people have died because they have been refused medical treatment until it is too late. Also, social inequality is growing and you have mental strains within society which is related to major health issues. Yet real "bread and butter" causes have largely been neglected in recent times and even Fukuda introduced a controversial health care scheme which made the poor even poorer.
So the current resignation by the leader of Japan is part and parcel of the continuing stagnation of this nation. After all, Fukuda stated "Today, I have decided to resign. We need a new line-up to cope with a new session of parliament. My decision is based on what I thought the future political situation ought to be. The Democratic Party has tried to stall every bill so it has taken a long time to implement any policies. For the sake of the Japanese people, this should not be repeated. If we are to prioritize the people's livelihoods, there cannot be a political vacuum from political bargaining, or a lapse in policies. We need a new team to carry out policies." Therefore, this implies that he was not the right person in the first place because surely the opposition is bound to question the ruling party. Or did Fukuda want "a rubber stamp?"
Overall, you could argue that the Japanese political system is neither fully democratic or based solely on party politics. This applies to the virtual monopoly of power by the ruling LDP and even when the LDP is challenged, it is being challenged by a former bigwig who once belonged to the same party but who now happens to lead the DPJ. Also, factionalism within both parties means that little can be done and Japan just goes from one crisis to another without anything really being done, apart from abusing tax-payers money. However, one can not have sympathy for the voters of Japan because the majority either do not care or they have given up the ghost because of the past . Therefore, will the next leader of Japan be any different or will the same pattern emerge again because of the weakness of the Japanese political system?
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
