|
| Posted: Jun.17.2008 @ 5:47 am |
IRAN and AMERICA - The complex relationship is not always what it seems?
The relationship between America and Iran is very complex and at times you hear alot of over hype on both sides. Yet this over hype applies to decades of so-called tension and mutual loathing. However, do both nations really hate each other or are quotes taken out of context or do they have cultural meanings? Or do both nations use each other in order to salvage domestic support at home? So what is the real relationship?
If we focus on economics then it is abundantly clear that America does enforce a strict economic internal blockade on this nation. Also, America does prop up Saudi Arabia but does this mean that this is directed solely at Iran? After all, Israel is also alarmed by America`s constant supply of high tech military arms to Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this issue is very complex and it might just apply to America`s self interests.
Yet when we look at foreign affairs then we see a different relationship because both nations have often helped each other in recent times. For example during the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo respectively, America gave tacit approval to Iran to break the military arms embargo. Therefore, Christians were massacred in both wars by a joint American-Iranian policy aimed at creating Islamic states in the Balkans.
If we turn the clock even further back, then even under the late Ayatollah Khomeini we see strange dealings. For example Oliver North was involved in the Iran-Contra affair, whereby Iran was involved in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, via American economic support and dealings. Therefore, elements within the American administration were adopting a different policy.
Now if we forward the clock to more recent times then the same situation happens again. For example, when America attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan they allied themselves with the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance in turn was supported by both the Russian Federation and Iran. More astonishing was the fact that Iran gave America secret information about the Taliban, after all, the Taliban hated Shia Muslims. So both nations, just like the Balkans, had a shared and vested interest.
If we also focus on Iraq then a similar linkage emerges once more. Because Iran also gave covert support to America via knowledge they had obtained during the Iran-Iraq war. Also, Iran did little to prevent this conflict because they hated Saddam Hussein and his secular regime. Therefore, was the trade off an Islamic state? Because once the secular government had been defeated, then America installed Sharia Islamic Law which in turn persecuted the Christian community.
Given all this, then what is the truth behind the "veil?" Do both nations share similar aims and objectives? If they don`t, then how do you account for past dealings between both nations? This issue needs to be debated openly because nothing appears to make sense when it comes to the relationship between America and Iran.
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/ |
| Posted: Jun.15.2008 @ 10:30 am |
SOMALIA - UNSC urges Somalian government to hold peace talksThe United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is urging the government of Somalia to hold peace talks with various Islamic factions in order to form either a new coalition government or to prevent further bloodshed. However, is this really possible given the current situation and what does Ethiopia think about this? Therefore, is the UNSC being naive or do they believe that they can broker a peace deal via Djibouti?
Firstly, do rival factions desire peace or power? Also, how can Islamists who desire an Islamic state do a deal with the current government? These, and other questions, are vital and it would appear that the UNSC is being either over optimistic or naive, or they know something that nobody else does?
After all, the current government is threatened via internal Islamic factions and different warlords and these factions have supporters outside of Somalia. Also, what about the Ethiopian and Eritrean factor because these two nations are at loggerheads and an all out war between these two nations could also erupt. So how does the UNSC envisage a genuine peace given the internal and external dimensions of this conflict?
If we view the Ethiopian perspective, then they have to be invited to any lasting peace because it is their military which is supporting the government of Somalia. For Ethiopia, they are very unhappy with the international community because radical Islam not only threatens to engulf Somalia but it threatens eastern Ethiopia in the Ogaden region and of course other regional nations, for example Sudan. Despite this, the international community remains distant from this complex war.
Also, from an Eritrean perspective we see a completely different way of thinking. After all, Eritrea is worried about their border dispute with Ethiopia and they know that if they can tie down Ethiopia in Somalia, then their own national interests are strengthened. Also, Eritrea either directly or indirectly, is spreading radical Islam in the Ogaden region and Kenya and Uganda are both worried about this. Therefore, the regionaldimension is extremely complex.
It would, therefore, appear to be an impossibe situation at the moment given the reality on the ground. So why does the UNSC deem this possible given the current reality? This question is very difficult to answer because the fact that peace talks are taking place in Djibouti sums things up. After all, this merely confirms that both sides do not view each other with respect and neither side trusts the other.
Overall, even if a peace treaty was signed, I would very much doubt that it would last long. This thinking is also backed by recent history in Somalia. Only if the Ethiopians decided to pull out would you get a victory on the battlefield. However, even a victory on the battlefield would be shallow because factions would soon emerge and anarchy would return sooner or later.
Therefore, the international community should do more to support Ethiopia rather than lofty ideals about a possible peace treaty. Given this, I believe that these peace talks are doomed to failure irrespective of the outcome because this nation will remain to be unstable.
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
|
| Posted: Jun.14.2008 @ 10:14 am | Lasted edited: Jun.14.2008 @ 5:16 am |
SAUDI ARABIA - Islamic radicalism and Western cronyism
The nation of Saudi Arabia is by far the most despotic nation in the world today and regulations are implemented with not only passion, but in accordance to Islamic Sharia Law. This means that all Muslim converts to Christianity or any other faith face death, and all non-Muslim places of worship are not allowed. Even openly reading Christian or Buddhist texts can mean prison, therefore, this naiton clamps down heavily on all other religions.
At the same time, individuals or organizations within Saudi Arabia, are spreading radical Sunni Islamic ideas and terrorism is firmly established via this economic funding. After all, nearly all the people who did September 11 were from this nation and the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia.
Therefore, this nation is a hotbed of radicalism and they are funding institutions of hatred all over the world. But how does the world respond? Well, in truth, they do not! Instead they desire to maintain close links because of her huge natural resources and even after September 11, the leader of America, President Bush, turned a blind eye and he instead turned on Iraq which was a secular nation.
However, blowback is a real threat to all nations who ignore the role of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, blowback is a threat to Saudi Arabia itself because these Sunni fanatics are loyal to their version of the Koran and not to the Saudi Arabian nation state. Therefore, Islamists within Saudi Arabia are being allowed to get involved in foreign issues but at home they are being tackled because some elements threaten the monarchy.
More alarming, we have images with President Bush dancing with a sword on his visit or the leader of France praising this nation for being open. However, swords are being used to kill opponents and converts, so why the double standards?
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
http://groups.msn.com/Alternativethinkingaboutglobalissues
|
| Posted: Jun.12.2008 @ 5:26 am |
Nigeria - Can this nation survive in the future? The nation of Nigeria is divided between different ethnic groups and religions and tensions have been ongoing for decades. However, in recent times the introduction of Sharia Islamic Law means that parts of the north are now of limits for Christians and followers of the original faiths. Therefore, can Nigeria survive all the current convulsions and this applies to ethnic tensions, religious tensions, political issues, poor versus rich, and so forth? Nigeria nearly collapsed during the Biafran War between 1967-1970 when one major ethnic group desired an independent state, however, nations like the United Kingdom supported centralization. Yet these tensions still remain and since then many more convulsions have happened. The most notable being the introduction of Sharia Islamic Law because this meant that you now had two different legal systems within the same nation. To make matters worse, the Christian population had grown enormously in parts of the north and they of course were against these changes. Over the last few years you have had many attacks in the north of Nigeria against the Christian community and unity is clearly not a reality. Also, in many other areas, for example in the Ogani areas, they demand to control their own resources. Therefore, the Niger Delta is very dangerous and local ethnic groups demand to control their own resources. Given this, many foreign mulit-nationals are worried about the current climate in the Niger Delta. To make matters worse the political system and business community is often tainted by enormous corruption and the huge natural resources of this nation have been exploited decade after decade by a corrupt elite. Therefore, it is not only ethnic tensions or religious tensions which threaten Nigeria but also major social tensions. Therefore, can Nigeria survive all these convulsions? To many people Nigeria can survive because they have gone from one chaotic situation to another. However, times have changed since the past because now the Christian population is nearly equal with regards to the Muslim population. Also, more alarmingly, the introduction of Sharia Islamic Law meant that some Nigerians were now unequal within the legal system. If we add all these changes to the growing population and mass inequality, then it is clear that Nigeria does face many serious challenges. Therefore, the future of Nigeria is now "rocky" and mass tensions will further increase in the future. Only a more transparent system can solve the current crisis but can the political elite be forced to change before it is too late? Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/ |
| Posted: Jun.11.2008 @ 9:50 am |
SCOTLAND - Is it time for this nation to break free from the United Kingdom?
The United Kingdom is faced with many internal problems because Scotland and Wales desire independence and of course Northern Ireland is divided between pro-loyalists and republicans who want a united Ireland. However, Scotland is the most viable of all the smaller nations within the United Kingdom. Therefore, is it time for Scotland to split from the United Kingdom and develop a viable independent nation state?
From a pro-British point of view or Protestant Loyalist viewpoint then clearly it is vital that Scotland remains within the United Kingdom. After all, the United Kingdom is a viable state and the economy remains very dynamic, therefore, why destroy something which benefits the people of this unified nation? Pro-Unionists also fear that disintegration will have a negative effect upon Northern Ireland and it could lead to tensions within this nation. After all, republicans could easily point to Scotland and apply this to their own demands and aspirations.
However, from a Scottish nationalist viewpoint it could be argued that the role of London is not warranted because resources are unevenly spent and this only leads to greater inequality within the United Kingdom. More important, and based on the current political climate, it is clear that socialism is very strong within the body politics of Scotland. Also, Scottish nationalists will argue that it is their resources which are being abused in order to prop up London. This inequality gap is clear for all to see but despite this politicians remain to be wayward.
Of course Scotland also benefits from the United Kingdom and she could easily become isolated if she remained too inward looking. Also, more taxation per-head is spent on Scottish nationals in order to kick-start their economy. Yet Scotland can easily rebuke back and point out that it is her energy resources which are enabling London and the United Kingdom to benefit, however, many workers now feel like strangers in their own land. So can Scotland survive this current crisis or will it get out of hand?
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA |
| Posted: Jun.10.2008 @ 12:30 pm |
SPAIN - Can central forces defeat uncentral forces?
Spain remains to be divided because of major ethnic lines but often outsiders remain either unconcerned about this, or they are oblivious to the current political situation in Spain. However, many people in the Basque and Catalan areas of Spain desire independence. However, will central forces allow this or will they contain these forces via centralization?
Before we focus on Spain it is clear that this is a very important topic for Spain because this is one of the main reasons why Spain remains reluctant to acknowledge Kosovo. Because the government of Spain is worried that Kosovo will be used by both Basque and Catalan nationalists. Therefore, Spain remain very cautious about supporting new nation states. In truth, you could argue that this policy is consistent with the self interests of Spain.
Another outside factor is the role of the European Union (EU) because it is ironic that the new superstate is absorbing mega-states but for smaller nationalities they see the EU in a different light. Because for smaller ethnic groups they believe that the EU will support their cause more and because the EU weakens the central state via legal institutions and shared interests; then smaller ethnic groups hope to benefit from this. They also hope to gain more funding in order to educate their own people and to further develop their nationalistic vision.
However, for Spain they are adamant that a unified Spain is essential and they will not tolerate the break up of their nation state. Given this, the government uses every terrorist attack in order to boost their more draconian policies, which are aimed at destroying nationalism. Also, in all fairness to Spain, they do not see their state to be biased and all citizens have natural rights via the constitution and the democratic rights of this nation.
Yet for Basque and Catalan nationalists this is not the point, for they desire liberty and the right to create their own respective nation states in order to boost their culture and way of life. Of course Spain retorts back that central government is open and free. However, the other two communities believe it is their natural right and they are against central control. Also, Catalans could point out that they would be more wealthy without Spain because Barcelona and other areas within the Catalan heartlands are more than viable, indeed, they are the vibrant areas of Spain.
Given this, can Spain defeat uncentralized forces in the future and forge a nation state which merges the two other ethnic groups? For in todays Spain many Basques and Catalans believe that the current nation state is flawed and undemocratic because it does not abide by the wishes of others. So it is apparent that this issue is far from resolved and future tensions will remain.
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/ |
| Posted: Jun.09.2008 @ 2:55 pm |
MYANMAR - Reasons behind the reluctance of this regime to allow Western aidMyanmar is being demonized in the press for not allowing Western aid agencies to help the people of Myanmar. However, Myanmar is not unique because Thailand after the devastating tsunami also said no because they believed that they could deal with the situation themselves. Therefore, maybe it is cultural because both nations belong to the Mekong region or maybe it is because of lessons learnt with regards to past deeds by the international community in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia?
If we firstly focus on international aid then it is clear that it sometimes works but it sometimes does not. Therefore, why are international aid agencies being so adamant about this situation? After all, look at the crisis in Haiti and how billions of dollars have been wasted. Can the international community claim to have helped the people of Haiti or did they really help themselves? I tend to think that they helped themselves more because it is rare for these agencies to become bankrupt.
Also, aid is not always directed nor is it spent with regards to long term goals or ambitions. After all, just look at modern day Somalia and ask your self a simple question, did the enormous amount of economic assistance help or did it change nothing? Again I believe that it is achieving nothing and instead people in this nation rely on foreign aid to survive and rival factions fight over the spoils. But Somalia is not developing but it is now a fully dependent state, therefore, it is not growing or developing.
Another more sinister issue is the role of international agencies because in both the former Yugoslavia and Iraq it is clear that American armed forces knew where to bomb and just where did they get all this information from? For sure they obtained a lot of information via modern technology but some of this information came from international aid agencies, either covertly or by government agencies infiltrating these agencies. Whichever, is debatable or based on case by case, however, it is a serious worry for Myanmar and other governments who can not trust the international community.
If we move away from the aid agencies and focus on politics then it is clear that Myanmar is relatively isolated in the global community. However, many regional nations have good relations with Myanmar and these apply to China, India, and Thailand, respectively. Also, the Russian Federation and other nations also have cordial relations with Myanmar. Given this, why should Myanmar turn to nation states that want to put sanctions on this nation? Surely it makes some sense for Myanmar to focus on nations who either have cordial relations with Myanmar or who are neutral?
Also, Myanmar is very worried about the pro-democratic movement within Myanmar and other major internal issues which blight this nation. Notably the ethnic wars which are raging with the Karen and other ethnic groups. So Myanmar is worried about countless issues related to both the international community and internal concerns which threaten the current regime. If this is weighed up, then surely the response of the leaders of this nation is natural given their mindset?
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
Tags: myanmar and her rejection of international
|
| Posted: Jun.07.2008 @ 9:18 pm |
MEXICO - President Calderon is in a flux because of the growing drug insurgencyThe United States went to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, however, some would argue that the real war should be in Mexico. This does not mean a war with Mexico, but it does mean the need to contain both drug cartels and illegal immigration. Therefore, can President Calderon contain these drug cartels or will democracy be further eroded in Mexico?
In 2008 more than one thousand people have been killed in Mexico because of drug cartels and growing crime. Therefore, what happened to democracy, the North Atlantic Free Trade Association, and America`s war on drugs and terror? After all, Mexico along the border with America is a no go zone for the majority of people.
The flow of immigrants into America from Mexico also undermines the national security of America because how can you have genuine terrorist prevention policies when you can not even control your own border? This fact alone should wake up a complacent America because sooner or later this information will be manipulated by would be terrorists. Also, American people are crying out for genuine support and they fear that they are being driven out of their own homes because of the huge numbers of migrants.
Turning back to Mexico, it is clear that President Calderon can not contain forces within Mexico. After all, the military now have 30,000 troops on the frontline but these forces still can not contain the countless number of drug cartels in Mexico. At the same time, international business leaders are increasingly worried about this crisis because it does not look good for the image of Mexico and you will have capital flight if this conflict is not contained or repulsed.
Mexico, therefore, is at a crossroads and this nation can not turn back because criminal organizations and drug cartels will merely go on the offensive. So America must also give a guiding arm in order to crush these cartels and criminal organizations on both sides of the border. If President Calderon fails to do this, then surely he must step down and allow someone else to take power but will he?
Once the world focused on Colombia with regards to narcotics and this nation suffered because of this with regards to international finance. Therefore, Mexico must wake up and control these negative forces which are destroying the fabric of society. After all, who really rules Mexico, is it the national government and the military or drug cartels and major crime syndicates?
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://leejaywalker.myeweb.net
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
|
| Posted: Jun.06.2008 @ 9:58 pm |
State intervention versus globalization?The demise of the Soviet Union and communism was meant to usher in a new period of globalization and modernity. However, from the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-1998 to the current crisis within the banking sector of America, we see only one victory. Yes, the victory of state intervention and the good old methodology of state socialism whereby open manipulation and planning becomes the norm. Therefore, is capitalism and globalization an empty fraud or like Mao Zedong like to say, is capitalism a mere "paper tiger?"
Well if we turn the clocks back to the end of 1991 we can remember the dying embers of the Soviet Union. This event was meant to usher in a "new dawn" based on capitalism, the free market, globalization, and other over mentioned "buzz words." The new world was meant to be transparent, open, and a destroyer of over regulation.
Yet open borders, new ways of manipulating the money markets, easy access to international stocks or currencies, modern technology, and a host of other new ways appear to be leading the system in the other way. Because dynamism did not emerge but greater risks did and bad lending ways became apparent within major financial companies, be they banks, investment houses, insurance companies, or other institutions.
Also, new ways like "creative accountancy" became a norm and companies could manipulate their balance sheets. At the same time the much vaunted elite universities ushered in a new generation but just like the older generation, it appeared not to help but hinder a system which had become one big hedge fund. Banks now became "a dice away" from bad credit and financial meltdown.
Of course not all banks, and it is apparent that in America it is the mega-banks which are facing meltdown or huge write-offs. Because smaller banks have remained loyal to the tried and trusted old ways of greater transparency and less risk taking. Another negative shot in the arm aimed at elite universities because the so-called best talent which is nurtured made enormous mistakes.
Therefore, what is the solution to this new financial meltdown? Yes, it is state socialism and the planned economy. Yes, it is the manipulation of markets and tax payer bail outs by the less wealthy to support the mega-rich. Yes, it means tighter regulation in order to control the financial system and stem the globalized tide of anything goes.
In truth, it is a victory for the planned economy, for centralized governments, for state socialism, and for greater constraints to be forced on a moribund banking sector whereby "moribund" only applies to their thinking. The new world order from the start was based on the manipulation of language. However, now it is the manipulation of tax payers money and government bail outs. Therefore, it is clear that state intervention won and let us hope they continue to win; otherwise, we will soon see another financial meltdown.
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
|
| Posted: Jun.05.2008 @ 10:54 pm |
RUSSIAN FEDERATION - Legacy of ex-President Vladimir Putin
President Vladimir Putin stood down on May, 8, 2008, and handed over the reigns of power to a new leader of the Russian Federation. However, unlike Boris Yeltsin who handed down a nation in chaos and economic decline, the opposite applies to President Vladimir Putin, for he is leaving a vibrant nation and relative stability given the vastness of this nation. Therefore, what is the real legacy of President Putin before he hands over power?
The Russian Federation was blighted by corruption, economic meltdown, a terrible civil war in Chechnya, and other major problems, prior to Putin taking power. It appeared that the Russian Federation was not only in meltdown but that her nation may crumble at the edges, notably in the southern parts of this nation.
However, Putin developed many dynamic policies in order to revitalize the moribund economy and he also tackled the serious problem of corruption and cronyism. Therefore, he focused on the energy sector, centralization, power concentration, and a strong inner circle to tackle these many problems. The outcome being that the centre gained in power and state influence once more dominated many major sectors, notably the energy sector. He also made sure that taxes were collected in order to strengthen the nation.
In time the currency also responded and gained against the dollar and from being a nation in decline and in crisis, he had rejuvenated the "soul" of the Russian Federation and brought back pride and confidence. Therefore, he managed to transform a chaotic and weak nation state and turn it into a "powerhouse" once more. Yet despite this, the Western press was not happy and political statements via Washington and London were often negative.
For Putin, and others in the inner circle, this was evidence that some nations desired a weak and compliant Russian Federation. However, far from being compliant, Putin went on the offensive and he began to further develop relations within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Shanghai 6, and other important structures within the international community. He was also outspoken about Kosovo and Western double standards, and he rightly talked about the negatives of NATO expansion and America`s missile defense system which appears to be aimed at the Russian Federation?
Therefore, better relations were developed with China, India, Iran, Central Asian nations, and many others. At the same time her energy politics began to grow in power and now major areas of the EU were being brought into the Russian "energy grid" and this in turn gave the Russian Federation more leverages within Europe.
Overall, the legacy of President Vladimir Putin before he steps down are very positive and of course he may return in the future to the central power base of this nation. However, if he does return or not, it is more than apparent that his achievements are very high and now this nation is taken seriously once more. More important, this nation is no longer in meltdown and her economy is now the 10th biggest and in the near future it will once more be in the top 5 or 6 nations. Therefore, Putin gave the Russian Federation much needed "breathing space" and it is up to this nation to follow the same path and focus on economic development.
Lee Jay Walker Dip BA MA
http://journals.aol.com/leejaywalker/uk/
|
|
|