JAPAN needs stability in a time of urgency

JAPAN needs stability in a time of urgency

The 1990`s were not kind to Japan and the early part of the 21st century also appears to be relatively negative. However, unlike the past, Japan is now blighted by political instability and both the ruling party and opposition appear to be short of ideas. Given this, Japan needs to find a new way in order to become more robust, however, at the moment this nation is divided by petty political point scoring. So can Japan find stability and vibrancy or will the next 10 years see more confusion and more inaction?

Currently, Japan must solve many problems and this applies to Japan`s strange economic system which allows virtual zero interest rates, the demographic issue, the pension crisis, the limited or stagnant wage structure, allow greater decentralization, rescue the collapsing health service, and a host of other issues. Also, social issues can not be ignored and this notably applies to hikikomori, suicide, and mental illness. Therefore, many problems are restricting Japan and this nation appears to be stuck in a negative time warp, whereby inaction or failed short-term policies rule the day.

Another major concern is political internal infighting within the two major political parties and major confrontation between both main parties. After all, it appears that disputes erupt even when no real dispute exists and the opposition leader of the Democratic Party of Japan, Ozawa, is a maverick within the body politic of this nation. Therefore, just when Japan needs a stable ship, the opposite is happening and this is not helping Japan at the moment. So can Japan find her own way?

At the moment you would have to say no because this nation appears to be a "mere shadow of America " and this is not helping matters. Also, within Northeast Asia it is clear that China is on the horizon and many Japanese people appear to have given up the ghost because they believethat China is the future power in Northeast Asia. Given this, it is hard to be overtly optimistic at the moment because a new way is not being found. This, therefore, does not bode well for Japan in the future.

Also, Tokyo dominates too much in Japan and you have a very unbalanced nation. This applies to the vitality of Tokyo and the recent strong showing of Nagoya. Yet at the opposite end you have dying places like Yubari in northern Japan and the economy of Okinawa is not so positive. Therefore, you already have a divided Japan and many parts of this nation are being neglected in order to boost the centre and this policy needs to be reversed. However, can Japan decentralize properly or will the centre still pull the strings from afar?

Overall, the future looks uncertain in Japan and new ideas are few on the ground and this is worrying. However, not all is lost because you still have a lot of vitality within the major companies of this nation. Yet demographics does loom large and the same applies to the moribund welfare system and the increasing elderly population will further burden Japan. So just when Japan needs new ideas, the opposite is happening and this is really negative because "the soul" of Japan appears to be tormented by the past. Given everything, it would appear that Japan will go from one crisis to another, therefore, stability will continue to be an issue and the future looks rather bleak for Japan at the moment.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

The Russian Federation responds to America`s intimidation

The Russian Federation responds to America`s intimidation

The Russian Federation have been forced to respond to America`s intimidation and despite many fingers being pointed at Moscow, it may be wise to look at the bigger picture in order to understand the current situation. After all, it is abundantly clear that America does not mind breaking international law and forcing many issues throughout the world. Therefore, it is surely reasonable to expect President Medvedev to respond to the current crisis in Georgia but will his gamble pay-off?

If we turn the clock back quickly and go back to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, then we see a different scenario. Because the Russian Federation responded with not only kindness but more important, they opened up many bases in Central Asia in order to help America. Also, prior to this date the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan had been supported by both the Russian Federation and Iran respectively. Therefore, Moscow gave America the green light to use Central Asia in order to attack Afghanistan and relations were smoothed with the Northern Alliance because of Russia`s influence.

However, did America respond positively to this gesture in the long-term? Obviously, the answer is no because NATO expansion continued and you also had the Kosovo issue which needed to be resolved. Added to this is negative energy policies whereby America desires to reduce Russia`s influence and of course you have the so-called missile shield which is meant to be aimed at containing Iran`s military. Therefore, when the Czech Republic and Poland agreed to America`s missile shield, this meant further containment of Russia according to both PM Putin and President Medvedev because according to them the "Iran threat" is not real.

More alarmingly, the United States also began to support tensions within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union. This notably applies to the Ukraine and Georgia, however, it is the Georgian leader, Saakashvili, who went a step further because he ignited tensions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This major provocation was too much and the Russian Federation believed that it had no option but to protect both the Abkhazians and Ossetians.

Therefore, America was not content with expanding NATO and co-opting the Baltic states because America also wanted to expand within the restive Caucasus region. This stance highlighted America`s "blind intransigence" and it also indicated to the Russian Federation that her own national interests meant nothing to people in Washington. Given this, the Georgian leader believed that he could belittle Moscow but this time both President Medvedev and PM Putin felt obliged to say "enough is enough."

So from the point of view of both PM Putin and President Medvedev, it is clear that America have tried to force Russia "out of the game" via NATO enlargement, energy issues, political meddling, the missile shield debate, and other areas. Therefore, the current Russian backlash was mainly made in Washington and while both sides must pull back from the brink, it is clear that much depends on America. Given this, can both sides reach a solution before something major happens?

For the sake of international relations it is hoped that this current crisis will abate. If not, you will have an erosion of hope and issues like Iran, the war on terrorism, Israel, and other major issues, could collapse. Also, President Medvedev must be a little worried because America may increase their support to pro-democratic movements within the Russian Federation or cause mayhem via Chechnya or Central Asia? At the same time it is clear that Medvedev may isolate his nation within the European Union and much further afield.

Therefore, the stakes are very high and it is hard to say what the outcome will be because both nations have major leverages and this especially applies to America. Yet if America does not respond over Georgia then other nations will no longer trust this nation throughout the region. Given this, America may just find that they have put themselves into a corner and this is troublesome because nobody knows what the response will be at the moment. However, the Russian Federation is also anxious because they do not want to become isolated and international capital flight could weaken the internal economy.

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

RUSSIAN FEDERATION - The next stage of developing a dynamic nation under Putin and Medvedev

RUSSIAN FEDERATION - The next stage of developing a dynamic nation under Putin and Medvedev


The Russian Federation was very weak under Boris Yeltsin, however, this nation became transformed under ex-President Putin. This transformation, however, is not finished and now PM Putin and President Medvedev must take this "revolution" a step further in order to really galvanize the Russian Federation. Therefore, can both leaders meet the heavy demands and problems that they face ? Under the leadership of President Putin the Russian Federation developed her energy sector and this sector was also used in order to influence vast parts of Europe and Asia . At the same time, the tax system was changed in order to strengthen the central government and this new money would help to finance many projects.

Therefore, instead of a moribund tax system and having limited control over resources, Putin did a full u-turn because government control increased. In the field of international relations and power politics, Putin also salvaged pride because now Russia`s influence is growing in many parts of the world. This notably applies to central Asia, northeast Asia, and because of energy, in parts of Europe. Also, the Russian Federation often clashed with America when a middle way could not be found and this highlighted the independence of the Russian Federation.

So from possible disintegration to global influence within the geopolitical region of the Russian Federation was enacted by Putin when he was in charge of this diverse nation. In the field of military influence then it is abundantly clear that both China and India, respectively, rely on Russia`s technology. Also, the Russian Federation is trying to build a strong relationship with China via the Shanghai 6 organization and they want to strengthen Chinese-Indian relations. The reason for the latter is multiple.

Firstly, to prevent American hegemony and secondly, to form a strong bedrock of stability because of the genuine fear of radical Islam. Also, these powers could be divided by other nations via petty disputes over land or resources, therefore, unity or a shared vision was needed. These objectives on the whole have been met or are in the pipeline, therefore, now it is time for the next part of the "revolution" and this applies to internal issues. Therefore, the new PM, Putin, must work alongside President Medvedev in order to develop the infrastructure and help the people of this nation.

Of course this is not going to be easy, however, the price of oil and other commodities is helping the economy. So now PM Putin must focus on more mundane issues but they are still vital. Given this, wages need to develop inline with economic growth, pensioners must have a higher standard of living, money must be spent on the health care system, public works, and education; and, the demographic time-bomb must also be solved via financial inducements and local government support via networks.

Therefore, these complex issues need both leaders to work together and dynamism is essential. Also, Putin and Medvedev must diversify the economy and this applies to focusing on many other vital sectors. At the moment too much emphasis is put on military sales and energy supplies. Therefore, other sectors like banking, manufacturing, hi-tech companies, I.T. sector, and other areas, must be developed. If this happens, then you will have had a "revolution" within the Russian Federation.

Overall, if we look at the positives and negatives of Putin, then clearly the positives outshine any negatives and now he must work closely with Medvedev. Providing both leaders can work together and internal investment keeps on flowing, then Russia`s future looks bright. Therefore, it is hoped that the internal market will remain stable and that both leaders will continue to modernize this developing nation and transform the Russian Federation into a genuine power.

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

Global economy remains mixed

Since the subprime crisis and then Alt-A ripple it is clear that global confidence is relatively negative. However, specialists remain extremely mixed about the possible long-term outcome in America and the same applies to the global impact of negative economic growth in America. So does anyone really know the outlook for late 2008 and 2009?

First of all, it is abundantly clear that it is the mainly mega financial institutions in America which have problems and not regional banks, however, the knock on effect could still cause mayhem. Yet the main weakness within the American financial sector appears to be mega-companies, notably Citibank, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia, Fannie Mae, the collapsed Bear Sterns, and several others. Therefore, why did these financial institutions get it wrong?

One symptom of the Alan Greenspan era at the Fed was de-regulation and it is clear that he did not run a tight ship when it applies to regulation. Therefore, hedge funds became even more elusive, and other sectors grew outside of the role of traditional banking and investments. At first it appeared to be a gravy train, however, suddenly the train jolted and then it came to a stop. So what happened to risk management and other safety mechanisms? Did they all fail or was limited regulation too risky?

Irrespective of your opinion, it would appear that de-regulation got out of hand and borrowing requirements, loans, risky investments, and so forth, took a new turn because the rules were changed and sadly it would appear that this even applies to basic rules. So more money was flowing into negative investments and ultimately you had a bad loan crisis and liquidity crisis. The snowball effect, therefore, spread far and wide because many international institutions also invested heavily and banks like Northern Rock, in the United Kingdom, needed to be bailed out.

Yet just like the crisis began the demise also appears to be rapid with regards to the subprime scandal because many financial institutions are optimistic that the worse is over. However, other issues, like Alt-A, remain to be problematic and it is too early to know which way it will go. Despite this, it is clear that Fannie Mae, and other financial institutions, are really worried about the deterioration of the Alt-A market. Despite this, we still have both sides playing up the crisis or playing it down.

Therefore, just what does the rest of 2008 have in store and will 2009 be negative?Frankly, most people believe that the continuimg slowdown will hinder America, Japan, and many European nations; however, it is more complex because nations like China and the Russian Federation should see strong growth. Therefore, the global economy is now much more divided and geographical regions or other economic systems may escape the fall out? However, both China and the Russian Federation face inflationary problems and this could still unravel and cause a major downturn for both nations.

Therefore, I believe that America, Japan, and many European nations, will continue to suffer, however, I believe that it may not be so dramatic because all nations still have dynamic sectors within the wider domestic economy. However, if inflation gets out of control, then my forecast would change and the same applies to increasing prices of raw materials, energy, and foodstuffs. So I am going to sit on the fence and study the next few months because now, frankly speaking, it could go either way, and does anyone really know which direction the wind will change in late 2008 and 2009?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

Why China needs to modernize her armed forces

The nation of China continues to increase her military build up and sometimes you get negative press about this reality. However, from a neutral perspective or Chinese perspective, then this military build up is merely natural and no different from other major powers. After all, China shares a shared space with many nations and her geopolitical reality means that several strategic measures must be taken. Therefore, should major powers worry about China or is it merely mind games or scare mongering by certain nations?

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

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

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

If we look at trade investments between America and China, then just like China and Taiwan, we see enormous economic linkages and mutual ties and respect. However, in the field of hegemony then China worries about certain aspects of America`s foreign policy. After all, the USA have her military based in Japan and South Korea respectively, and they are developing Guam in order to increase their leverages. Also, the USA have bases in other parts of Asia and her relationship with Australia is another added dimension which helps America.Therefore, China is concerned about this American reality and they also fear a possible nationalist Japan in the future and tensions with India also remain, because Chinese-Indian relations are still fragile despite all the smiles.

So China is right to worry about vast areas of her geopolitical space and this nation also fears radical Islam in West China and Tibetan nationalism is also problematic. This reality is pushing China to move closer to the Russian Federation and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In recent times this can be seen via the growing importance of the Shanghai-6 political bloc and China`s recent military modernization was enhanced by military purchases bought from the Russian Federation.

Also, if we focus on military spending then it is clear that America spends around 90% more than China. This merely proves the point within the inner circle in China because it is clear that China is merely protecting her national interests and they are no different from any other regional power. Given this, China`s political and military leaders need to modernize her armed forces in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Therefore, surely China is right to increase her military budget given her geopolitical reality?

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

MEXICO - President Calderon needs to clampdown against drug cartels and America must play their part

MEXICO - President Calderon needs to clampdown against drug cartels and America must play their part


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

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

Added to this is the internal crisis within American society because President Calderon made it clear that the USA must be held accountable. This applies to America having the largest number of drug consumers in the entire world. The flow of immigrants into America from Mexico also undermines the national security of America because how can you have genuine drug and terrorist prevention policies, when you can not even control your own border?

This fact alone should wake up a complacent America because sooner or later this information will be manipulated by would be terrorists. However, getting back to the narcotic issue, then once more America can not solely point the finger at Mexico because these drug cartels are mingling within the immigrant population. Also, drug cartels can find new gang members easily because of social inequality in both nations.

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

Mexico, therefore, is at a crossroads and this nation can not turn back because criminal organizations and drug cartels will merely go on the offensive. So America must also give a guiding hand in order to crush these cartels and criminal organizations on both sides of the border. Given this, it is clear that the current problem applies to both Mexico and America, however, it is Mexico which is suffering the most because these drug cartels are creating many no-go areas.

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

Also, America can not be complacent because it is the drug market in America which is creating this crisis and this can not be ignored. So will both nations stand up and forge a common policy or will the current crisis lead to mutual antagonism? The time for action is needed badly because this crisis will continue to grow.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

Iran and America, friend or foe?

Iran and America, friends or foe?

America and Iran are meant to be natural enemies, however, their relationship is very complex and sometimes both nations share a common vision in the realm of geopolitics. Yet to the outside world both nations do not trust each other and this is based on so-called tension and mutual loathing. However, do both nations really hate each other or are quotes taken out of context or do they have cultural meanings? Or do both nations use each other in order to salvage domestic support at home? So what is the real relationship?

If we focus on economics and the nuclear issue, then it is abundantly clear that America does enforce a strict economic blockade on Iran. At the same time the nuclear issue could be the one area which causes a possible limited conflict or where America gives Israel the green light. So it is clear that you do have major tensions within the relationship and maybe it is Iran which is forcing this breakdown? After all, if it wasn`t for the nuclear issue then tensions or conflicts could be contained, just like in the past. Given this, Iran should remember that America once had dealings with Saddam Hussein but he also over-stepped the mark.

Yet when we concentrate on the field of foreign affairs and geopolitics then we see a very different relationship because in recent times both nations have worked together. Sometimes this may have applied to mere tacit support and not directly working together, yet this tacit support did sometimes involve a shared common ground. Therefore, it is important to focus on this unspoken side in order to highlight the complex nature of their recent relationship.

If we turn the clock back to Bosnia and Kosovo respectively, then America and Iran had a shared interest in supporting the Muslims of theBalkans. During the Bosnian conflict the United Nations enforced a military embargo on all sides. However, America clearly gave Iran the green light to send military arms to the Bosnian Muslims and this is how the Bosnian Muslims, and Croatians, could turn the table against Serbia within both Bosnia and Croatia.

Because the military arms embargo was clearly broken and Iran often sent in military arms in order to prop-up the Bosnian armed forces. Also, this American-Iranian policy in the Balkans shatters the myth that America is anti-Islamic. After all, during Bosnia, Kosovo, and Cyprus respectively, the armed forces of America and senior politicians sided with Islam every time.

If we even dig further and turn the clock back even more, then we even see covert dealings under the late Ayatollah Khomeini. This applies to the murky Oliver North scandal with regards to the Iran-Contra affair, whereby Iran was involved in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, via American economic support. Therefore, elements within the American administration were adopting a different policy and sometimes elements within different departments were ignoring senior political leaders.

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

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

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


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

Georgia took a huge gamble in South Ossetia but Russia will not be intimidated

Georgia took a huge gamble in South Ossetia but Russia will not be intimidated


The government of Georgia entered South Ossetia in the hope of unifying this region within Georgia properly, rather in name only. However, while Georgia may have hoped that her closeness with America and NATO members may of helped, this may turn out to be a complete disaster? After all, the Russian Federation "is not a paper tiger" and instead this nation is gaining in economic, political, and geopolitical influence. So will Georgia regret their recent policy towards South Ossetia and will Abkhazia make the most of Georgia`s weakness?

It would appear that the President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, decided to ignite this war because of several factors. This notably applies to Georgia`s close relationship with America and the perception that this would insulate Georgia from a Russian backlash. Also, Georgia is pro-NATO and her armed forces are helping in Iraq. Therefore, this may have given the leader some confidence and this also ties in with increased military spending in Georgia.

After tensions led to clashes between the Georgian army and various South Ossetian militias it was hoped that a binding ceasefire would be implemented. However, instead of this, both sides were involved in fighting and the situation became more tense. Then on 7 August the situation took a huge nosedive because the leader of Georgia ordered a major military operation whereby the Georgian army would take back South Ossetia by force. However, the Russian Federation responded quickly and the following day her armed forces entered South Ossetia in order to protect the Ossetians from Georgian nationalism.

Therefore, Georgia`s gamble backfired from the onset because both leaders of Russia, President Medvedev and PM Putin, stated that the armed forces of Russia had an obligation to preserve the status quo and to protect the Ossetians because the majority had Russian passports. Also, for the Russian Federation this was all about America and her meddling in this region. After all, the USA is supporting major energy routes which bypass the Russian Federation and Iran. This applies to supporting oil and gas pipelines which exploit the natural resources of Central Asia and Azerbaijan respectively and then this energy is linked to Europe via pipelines which go through Georgia and Turkey.

Given this, the stakes were very high and when America told Russia to respect the unity of Georgia, it became apparent that America and Georgia had hoped that this pressure would have silenced Russia. However, this was badly judged because Russia "is not a paper tiger" and her armed forces swiftly entered Tskhinvali, the regional capital of South Ossetia, and re-took the region after bombing Georgian forces within South Ossetia and inside Georgia itself. So Russia`s response was extremely swift and instead of a Georgian victory the opposite is happening and now the restive region of Abkhazia threatens to create a war on two fronts for Georgia.

America is now "sabre-rattling" by stating that relations may suffer long-term between America and Russia. However, for Russia it is clear that NATO expansion and America`s missile shield in both the Czech Republic and Poland (still not fully agreed) is all about containing Russia. Therefore, when President Saakashvili of Georgia ordered the attack on South Ossetia it left Russia with no option but to defend her sphere of influence.

Now the situation on the ground looks firmly within the control of Russia but this conflict is still in its infancy and wars are never easy to predict. Therefore, much depends on the leaders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia because they may sense that this is a great opportunity to seek independence or complete autonomy from Georgia. So now it is vital that Russia contains independent movements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia which are technically within Georgia, but in reality both regions desire to join the Russian Federation.

Whatever, Russia is clearly telling America, NATO, and the EU, that mutual respect is needed and while Russia respects the sphere of influences of America, NATO, and the EU, it is now vital that other nations respond like Germany towards Russia. Therefore, Russia desires to be taken seriously and the leader of Georgia enabled Russia to show the world that they mean business. So will America understand this geopolitical reality or will they ferment another crisis in the "backyard of Russia?"

Overall, it would appear that Georgia is the big loser because now both Abkhazia and South Ossetia understand that Georgia desires to take both regions back by military force. Yet now it is clear that Russia will not stand back and refrain from protecting the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia respectively. If Georgia had waited for a political solution then maybe her claims would have been supported internationally. However, by attacking South Ossetia first, the high moral ground was lost.

Now it is hoped that nationalist forces can be contained within the region and it is in the interest of Russia to contain both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. At the same time, it is vital that America and the EU do the same with regards to Georgia. If bloodshed erupts in Chechnya or in Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan, then we know that outside meddling is causing mayhem. However, it is not in the interest of outside powers to upset the applecart, therefore, much now rests on the status quo being maintained.

Therefore, Georgia must learn from their mistake and President Saakashvili should seek a compromise with Russia. If President Saakashvili does not learn quickly then he will threaten the unity of Georgia. Now it is hoped that all sides will sit down and talk about the seriousness of this situation. However, it is clear that Russia "holds all the aces" at the moment but they must not play poker. Instead Russia must be a responsible power and they have to contain both Abkhazia and South Ossetia by protecting the citizens of both regions.

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

Can the United Kingdom survive?

Can the United Kingdom survive?

The United Kingdom was created in order to form the basis of a strong nation state and to prevent other nations from causing mayhem with regards to England. This nation, for good or worse, was a major power in the 18th and 19th centuries and it remained to play a very important role in the 20th century. However, can it survive in the 21st century?

The key nation now in many ways is Scotland because this nation is very rich in natural resources and her political leaders have a more independent spirit. Many now in Scotland desire to cut their ties and to move even closer to the European Union. The Scottish government is also more socialist based and her polices provide better care within the United Kingdom. Therefore, this nation would be a viable independent state because of both her political astuteness and her natural resources.

For Northern Ireland it is more complex because the Protestant community is pro-United Kingdom, however, many Catholics desire either a united Ireland or an independent state. Also, the political situation could easily explode if the United Kingdom was threatened and a return to past violent ways is more than possible. More important, the economy of Northern Ireland is a lot weaker because of past troubles and limited natural resources. Therefore, this part of the United Kingdom is a lot more weaker and divided and any convulsions within the United Kingdom could cause problems for the people of Northern Ireland.

With regards to Wales, then her rich past and culture is once more developing and her different language is growing in many parts of Wales, notably in north Wales. Therefore, you do often feel different in parts of north Wales and Welsh nationalists rightly point to nations like Ireland who have gained massively from the European Union via economic benefits. Also many people in Wales often feel neglected and many believe than an independent Wales would create vitality and creativity.

The final puzzle in the jigsaw is England and often it appears to be unfair to the English people because they are losing power at the expense of other parts of the United Kingdom and it is mainly English taxes which is being spent on other parts of this combined nation state. At the same time Scottish politicians can vote within the British parliament, however, English MPs have no power to infringe on Scotland. This is causing resentment in parts of England and of course the last two leaders of the United Kingdom were both Scottish.

Therefore, with the rise of the European Union and nationalism within the body politics of the United Kingdom, it would appear that this state is threatened. For many people they welcome this, however, you have so many inter-connections that it would appear to be either pointless or not needed because this combined nation state does work. Yet despite this it would appear that nationalism will challenge the United Kingdom and it is more than doubtful that this combined nation state will survive in the later part of the 21st century?
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

BRAZIL - Poverty, gangs, child workers; is this a failed democratic nation?

BRAZIL - Poverty, social inequality, and criminality; is Brazil a failed democratic state?

Brazil is a so-called democratic nation whereby choice, freedom, liberty, and empowerment is meant to be enshrined. However, the other Brazil is a land of absolute poverty, enormous social inequality, and where young children often have to work in order to support their family. Given this, is Brazil a failed democratic nation or is Brazil caught up in a poverty trap?

Brazil and the Philippines are in theory democratic but surely their democratic ways are tainted because of their massive social inequality? Often we equate democracy with freedom, modernity, hope, social justice, more options, and other positive things like quality education and a strong welfare system. Yet this is simply not the case when it comes to Brazil or the Philippines, and other nations, therefore, democracy is often flawed in many parts of the world.

More alarming for people in Brazil is the lack of central authority because crime is rampant and child workers are a fact of life. Added to these woes is the endless number of no-go-areas in major cities like Rio. Therefore, special protection gangs have grown in numbers because these appear to be the only functioning factors in the slums of Brazil. However, this protection must be paid for and you have to wonder if organized crime could be manipulated by these functions within Brazil?

For child workers the current inequality gap is real and their situation is pained by the wealth they see day in and day out. These child workers are already on the margins of society and their respective futures are very bleak. So democracy to these children is very hollow. The only democracy they want is economic democracy and not political democracy.

Therefore, it would appear that Brazil does have a functioning democratic state but its democratic principles are tainted by corruption and enormous inequality. I fear that this nation is going to continue in the same way and for millions of people in Brazil they do not believe that they reside in a democratic nation. Overall, Brazil is a failed democratic nation because so many of her citizens have little hope or rights and for many poverty awaits them like a curse.

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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

THAILAND may allow a special zone for Muslims in the south

Thailand is a mainly Buddhist society, however, in parts of the south the main faith is Islam. In recent times Islamic radicals in the south have fought the central government and they have killed many innocent Buddhists and Muslims alike. Their dream is an independent Islamic state based on Sharia Islamic law and now the Interior Minister, Chalerm, claims that a special administrative zone is needed for Muslms. However, what about the Buddhist minority and the concept of equality within Thailand?

If we firstly focus on rights within Thailand then the constitution guarantees the rights of all citizens, irrespective of sexuality, religion, or ethnicity. Also, the government of Thailand did not instigate the current crisis and will pandering like this work? I fear it will not, but this proposal may put even more pressure on Buddhists to leave Narathiwat, Pattani, Songkhla, and Yala?

So what about the Buddhists of this region who represent around 15% to 20% of the population? Or moderate Muslims or secular people who do not desire to reside under a law which may limit their freedom? Will they be left to suffer under laws which discriminate against them or take away their liberties which are enshrined in the constitution of Thailand?

It would appear that Chalerm did not think about this serious issue and instead he merely stated something which may endanger parts of Thailand. Because it is abundantly clear that Sharia Islamic law contradicts Thai law and this means that many nationals in the south will feel abandoned. Even worse, many will feel that they don`t count and that violence is effective in forcing dhimmitude on the Buddhist minority.

The current status quo isn`t the answer also but it is much better than abandoning the Buddhists of the south. Also, the government would be opening up a can of worms and they may not be able to contain the situation because Islamists will merely exploit the situation.

Today the Buddhists of the south and moderate Muslims face an uncertain future, and the same applies to the nation state of Thailand. Therefore, this policy will not placate the Islamists and it will only lead to further tensions within other parts of Thailand because Buddhists may respond to this crisis by forming militias or they may turn against minority Muslims in others parts of Thailand?

Given this, Chalerm should rethink his policies and he and the government must somehow stabilize the south within the constitution of Thailand. If they fail to do this, then I fear the worse and I am sure that many Buddhists will leave. Either Thailand will remain strong within the current legal framework or they will create areas of inequality and how can this help Thailand?

Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA

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