La politique socialiste...la politique de la haine et le bouc émissaire

Depuis la naissance de l'idée, le socialisme a toujours promit la paradise sur terre, les hobbits de la comté avec les champs verts partout. Une égalité entre tout les  êtres-humains du monde, l'anéantissement de la bourgeosie et le système capitaliste qui les protege.      

Bien sur, vous disez, quelle idée noble: un monde sans la souffrance, sans l'injustice.  Dans l'épochè de Karl Marx, l'ere de la paradise fut le moyen age. Le socialisme, c'est une politique simple et attirante parmi certains. Les gens riches, soit les banquiers, selon Ed Milliband, soit les juifs, selon Adolf Hitler, doit être les boucs émissaires de toutes les problèmes du classe populaire.

Tandis que les moyens, les impots énormes pour les dirigeants des partis travaillistes britannique et français, ou les massacres par les nationales socialistes du troisème Reich en Allemagne, ne sont pas comparable, leurs buts sont les mêmes. C'est l'idée qu'un cadre des gens sont la base des problèmes sociales. En eliminant l'ennemi, on peut créer un pays avec les citoyens égals - un population des "ayrans" égals au troisème Reich, une population des obéissants dans l'ancien union soviétique ou l'égalité dans le Royaume Uni.

D'ailleurs, la réalité est differente. Le socialisme ne peut pas, n'ai pas et n'existera pas. L'egotisme de l'homme ne peut pas permettre cette égalite à laquelle les socialistes souhaitent. En effet, la faiblesse, c'est les êtres-humains. Nous voulons échapper l'état de nature à la Hobbes. En faisant çela, nous entrons dans un contrat social sous le controle des gouvernements qui peuvent créer les régles de notre société. Dès lors, le contrat social soi-même est une soumission au fait que nous demandons un pouvour en haut pour nous controlons. Si il y a un pouvour en haut, l'état et son gouvernement, qui enforce l'ordre sociale, il n'y a pas l'égalité: il y avait certains qui ont plus du pouvoir que les autres.

En fait, l'anarchie et l'état de nature serait la situation la plus proche et au même temps la plus loin du socialisme? Aucun pouvoir pour controler la volonté propre de quelqu'un, mais aussi une inégalité parfaite fonde sur la force. D'ailleurs, les civilisations du monde ont decidé d'avoir la certitude. Les gouvernements peuvent enforcer la certitude mais il n'y aura pas une égalité entre les citoyens et le gouvernement.





 



  

Une majorité conservatrice au Parlement britannique en 2015 et la fin du Royaume-Uni

Avec le référendum en Écosse qui vient, dans toute vraisemblance, en 2014 la question de la construction du Royaume Uni est, tout d'un coup, un enjeux qui doit être consideré sérieusement. Le parti principal du gouvernement, le parti conservateur, n'atteignit qu'un siège en Écosse en 2010 tandis que le parti travailliste maintenait sa position dominante.

Mais, le système britannique désignait en manière qu'un gouvernement doive inspirer un pourcentage respectable dans chaque état du Royaume Uni. Le niveau necessaire pour une majorité dans le Parlement est suffisamment haut que le droit democratique de touts les citoyens soient respecté. C'est pourquoi nous avons un gouvernement coalition. Le parti conservateur, à juste titre, ne peux pas diriger le Royaume Uni tout seul grâce à sa popularité dans un ou deux états.

Dés lors, le prochain scrutin va être difficile pour le parti conservateur, en supposant que le Royaume Uni existe. Sauf qu'une augmentation vive dans la popularité du parti conservateur écossais dans les années qui viennent, le parti devra casser le systéme democratique avec les majorités enormees dans les autres états membres du Royaume Uni qui mettrait l'avenir du pays et l'unité en doute. La réalité actuelle, il n'y a pas aucun parti britannique qui peux unir le pays. La politique de la régionalisation commença par le dernier gouvernement- designe pour l'avantage politique du parti travailliste - tandis que c'était necessaire, a devisé irrémédiablement le pays.

Le résultats en 2010 nous montre la force du Parlement britannique et son système du scutin, la majorité simple des suffrages. Avec ce système, les grandes majorités dans une région ne correspond pas à une majorité globale: pour gagner une majorité avec ce système du scutin, un parti doit avoir un soutien vaste. Par contre, actuellement le systéme ne marche pas parce que le Royaume Uni n'a plus une tendance identique dans un sens politique. Jusqu'à ce que un parti puisse tenir un soutien vaste,  ce serait difficile d'avoir un gouvernement majoritaire à Londres.

Le parti conservateur écossais doit  améliorer sa performances. Si il ne fait pas, un gouvernement conservateur dans l'avenir pourrait menacer le Royaume Uni soi-même. Alors que c'est à peu près réalisable que le parti conservateur pourrait gagner une majorité sans les sièges en Ecosse, le système designait à manière que ce soit difficile: le mechanisme est une forcé mais aussi une fragilité pour le Royaume Uni de nos jours. L'avenir du Royaume Uni est en balance.  
              

La politique de V.Poutine: la politique de la Russie de la chute de l'URSS jusqu'au aujourd'hui

La politique de la Russie, c'est vraiment intéressante. C'est un pays qui n'a pas adopté les valeurs européennes dans toute leur intérgralité, en tant que avec les anciens états satellités. Une superpuissance tombée qui n'a pas trouvé un autre rôle. C'est un pays nostalique, un pays en mutation qui veut resister le changement.

La société civile n'a pas vraiment eu de la chance de dévélopper en Russie. Elle est un pays en plein déclin, qui ne veut pas admettre la vérité. Sa position au Conseil de sécurité a été décrit en tant que " analogue à celle des autres puissances de second rang, France et Royaume-Uni". Sa position militaire a aussi dimunué considérablement. En 2007, la Russie avait "seuls quatre satellites d'alerte sur neuf fonctionnaient: un géostationnaire et trois en orbite elliptique".  Par les traités, la Russie a maintenu certains bases militaires en asie centrale et l'europe de l'est, cependant  les états de l'asie centrale sont "loin d'apporter une réponse unique aux tenatives russes" de préserver sa sphère d'influence.  Celles bases ont souvent été allouées pour une période de 20 ans. La Russie a signé une traité avec l'Ukraine en 1997 qui  signifie qu'elle va tenir une base marine jusqu'à 2017 sur la mer noire. La Russie a aussi signé le bail d'utiliser le cosmodrome de baïkonour, au Kazakstan pour une période de 20 années dés 1994, qui est centrale au programme spatial russe. Cependant la chose qui unite touts ces projets, c'est l'image des reliques des temps passés.

Les peuples optent pour un homme fort comme Poutine avec l'espoir de cacher le declin, un symbol duquel est l'émpliètement de l'OTAN autour de la territoire russe. Le traité de Tachkent, qui a précipté la création de la CEI en 1992,  fut une tentative d'arrêter l'avance de l'OTAN. Cependant, depuis sa création, trois pays qui l'ont signé en ont condamné. Les anciens états satellités ont fui la Russe vers l'Union Européenne pour l'éssentiel.

L'autocratié, c'est le chemin de la Russie, symbolisé par Vladmir Poutine.  La Russie dés le tsar n'a que su l'autocratié, soit avec l'URSS ou la Russie de nos jours.

L'idée des libéraux de l'europe que la valeur la plus haut que les peuples peuvent tenir, c'est la democratié n'est pas vrai, surtout en Russie. La politique de la Russie vers la Syrie et la Chine, dès lors, ne doit pas être suprenant. La politique de V. Poutine est pragmatique. Elle n'est pas fonder sur les droits de l'homme ou les politiques libéraux. Du coup, la politique vers la Syrie et la Chine represente la tentative Russie de protéger ses intérêts, un esprit de la guerre froide qui n'a pas changé. L'avenir pour la Russie, c'est une continuation de la passé: dès lors, un dirigeant comme Poutine est naturel.
       

A Federal Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (FUGB&NI)?

The United Kingdom has never looked so frail.

For the first time, there is the very real possibility that it may even come to an end in the foreseeable future. The Scottish National Party (SNP) is in power with an overall majority at Hollyrood, and a referendum is planned for either 2013 or 2014 on whether the Kingdom of Scotland wishes to remain united with the Kingdom of England, a union that has lasted for over 300 years. The largest party in the Coalition government in London, the Conservative and Unionist Party, is actively despised in Scotland and the Liberal Democrats, their coalition partners, have seen a sharp fall in their vote from being the second most popular Scottish party at the 2010 general election.   

However, the United Kingdom has never been stagnant, far from it: it is a country that has evolved in its composition throughout its existence, And now, more than ever, it needs to change once again to move with the political reality. It was in 1536 that the foundations of the current State were created with the bringing together of England and Cymru (Wales) during the Tudor era of Henry VIII. This was then followed by the the Union of the Crowns and then the Act of Union in 1707 between England, Cymru and Scotland when James VI, King of the Scots became King of England, and subsequently the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain. 

Less than 100 years later, in 1801, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Ireland merged to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And then we only really finally arrived with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we know it in 1922.                                                                 

This very brief overview of the history of our current state is evidence that the union of constituent nations of the British Isles has been very fluid during its existence and open to change. It is facing another hurdle now, faced with the SNP, and is going to need courage to take the next step on its journey.  

So, what needs to be done? 

Well, it seems that a Federal Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (FUGB&NI) is the natural solution. This new structure would resolve many of the current strains being put on the union by the re-emergence of strong regional identities in the face of globalisation, and a trend towards nations wanting to distinguish themselves from each other. It would be following the direction of many other European states that had to reconstitute themselves after the Second World War - including the Federal Republic of Germany. 

The new FUGB&NI would be an almost complete break from the current composition and running of the United Kingdom. It would include highly devolved regional parliaments, with the creation of a new English parliament, and the contuation of those in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. These regional parliaments would deal with all issues apart from foreign, federal-level taxation,defence and immigration policies. These policies would be reserved for the revamped House of Parliament, which would go from a bicameral to a unicameral system. The retained chamber would be dramatically reduced - to represent its changed status as an overview - upper house - chamber. The chamber would operate along almost the same principle as the Bundesrat in Germany, with a quota of seats for each constituent nation relative to its population. The seats would be decided through the results of the elections in each of the 4 constituent nations.  The top 4 parties by percentage of the vote from each nation would be allocated their preset quota of seats: each of these parties from the respective nations would receive a quarter of the seats for that nation .The role of the chamber would be to debate, make sure regional laws do not confict,  and in most instances to rubber stamp policies of the regional governments and to debate policy originating from the Federal executive regarding retained powers.   

A federal executive would run in much the same way as the Swiss Confederacy, with an equal balance of members from each of the 5 main parties by share of the vote for the entire United Kingdom. Each of the five main parties would be allocated 4 members creating an executive of 20 members. The presidency of the executive would rotate every 6 months ensuring that every party had the opportunity to express their policies within a 5 year period. The executive would be designed in order to foster positive cooperation as opposed to division between the major parties. The intension would be make sure that parties work in the national interest not party interest. The voting system for the federal executive would use the idea of a fixed quota system for each party. Voting in the federal executive would be through unanimity and in the upper chamber through qualified majority voting. A written constitution would be adopted expressing the basic guiding principles of the state and there would be an increased use of direct democracy through referendums. 

The United Kingdom needs to take the next step in its evolutionary process. The current system has created too many antagonisms, creating a feeling of 'special treatment', and fails badly to represent each nation equally. A more equal system of governance could be used to help foster a stronger sense of unity following the principle of from many come one. Britain can continue with its successful principle of unity but only if it is willing to adapt: the United Kingdom needs to become a Federal Union!       

      

Eurasian Treaty on economic and civil-military cooperation

Recently Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia, has proposed  that a Eurasian Union, a collection of former Soviet satellite states and Russia, should be formed. This Eurasian Union would be modeled on the European Union with a Eurasian Commission aiming towards the creation of a zone of free trade in Northern Asia and the Eastern flanks of the European continent. A number of states that border the Russian Federation have already expressed an interest in joining the proposed organisation which Russia's Foreign Minister hopes could be set up by 2015.

With a resurgent Russia showing the potential of becoming a global economic and military powerhouse, this concept makes sense. The project is in line with Russian attempts to expand its influence to its near-abroad and regain some pride after the humiliation of the collapse of the Soviet Union. But perhaps a new type of integration would be more useful, and better armed to taper the power, militarily and economically, of Russia at the same time: a collective security organisation.                                                                   

With America receding from the military scene after just over a decade of self-defeating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the other developed nations of the world need to make sure America does not make the same mistake in the future. Any country with the sort of military primacy the United States has had post-Cold War will almost inevitably be attracted to grand theories like selective engagement - which works well with primacy-acting as a  sort of global police officer and moraliser. A Eurasian Treaty on economic and civil-military cooperation could potentially bring a sense of calm during the transition period between periods of hegemony, those of the United States and China. It would also make the NATO more cautious and, perhaps, less likely to trot off on a misadventure: the number of small conflicts seems to have increased in the post-Soviet due to the collapse of the relatively stable two superpower model.   

A Eurasian Treaty on economic and civil-military cooperation would be able to use a neo-functionalist model to integrate military and economic means amongst the growing powers in Asia, and established powers in Europe into a strictly intergovernmental organisation. As the BRIC economies start to catch up with America economically, the hegemonic stability theory (HTC) will be strained even further. By integrating militarily and economically, Asia and Europe can ensure that there is a peaceful transition to a more multi-polar economic and military world. A civil-military alliance between Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belerus, Finland, Bulgaria, Mongolia, Azerbaijan and Turkey would lay firm foundations for the creation of a zone of  peace. If successful, the project of coordination could eventually expand and try to build diplomatic bridges between avowed enemies such as those that exist between India and Pakistan and North and South Korea: by creating a stable civil-military treaty pooling resources in a collective security regime. It would allow these enemies to work together within a wider framework that could inforce agreements and reduce insecurity. The structure of any cooperation could be akin to ESFP, including battlegroups and peacekeeping forces enforcing collective security and assistance to troubled countries in the Asian and European spheres.   

A key aim of economic and civil-military cooperation could be a real attempt at collective disarmament.making the region more stable. By bringing avowed enemies into a treaty, it would be easier to negociate bilateral military reductions- especially at flashpoints along the Pakistan-India border, Kashmir and along the 38 parrallel between North and South Korea. In the same way that the ECSC made war in Europe impossible by merging resources under a common command, perhaps a pooling military resources and increasing awareness of other countries might permit a structured demilitarization of the borders between North and South Korea and Pakistan and India - to the benefit of the entire world.      

In conclusion, it may be premature to completely discredit Putin's idea of greater regional cooperation. In many respects, as has been witnessed in Europe, cooperation could be a source of peace and stability and help resolve conflicts of interest in Asia and Europe. Whilst civil-military cooperation has not been discussed as part of Eurasian Union tallks by Russia, it perhaps should be considered. The potential benefits of doing so could be considerable.

Sources
 BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15172519   
 Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Union

The not quite so United Kingdom

And so the inevitable is happening-
Over three hundred years after the Act of Union in 1707, Southern Britain and Northern Ireland and Scotland look likely to go their own separate ways again. It is rather ironic that it should happen in an epoch where governance is becoming broader, and political units are getting bigger - as with the ever expanding European Union,with its increasing influence over the lives of Europeans.

However, with devolution the break-up of the United Kingdom was always going to happen sooner or later. Devolution is a one way street: it is rare that - in the neo-functionalist sense - you get 'spill-back'. So it looks likely that Scotland will be having a referendum in 2014 - if Alex Salmond gets his way, and I see no reason why he should not -  to decide whether it wishes to remain a constituent and equal nation of the United Kingdom.        

The United Kingdom that Salmond wants Scotland to leave is one that led a global wave of industrialisation, held sway over a quarter of the world's population, the largest empire the world has ever known, fought two world wars, English, Welsh/Cymraeg, Irish/ Northern Irish and Scottish service men and women fighting and working alongside each other in the two biggest conventional interstate wars the world has ever borne witness, and continues to have a large influence over the world. On a daily basis, British service personnel are giving their lives in Afghanistan to keep these islands, perched on the European continent's north west flank, safe - regardless of nation of origin.

And even if Scotland was to vote to become an independant nation, lots of problems and hurdles would still remain.

-What currency would an independant Scotland use? 
The two options that have been put forward by Alex Salmond in the last few weeks both look rather dubious. The idea of Scotland keeping the Pound Sterling as an independent country - whilst theoretically not impossible - would leave the Scottish economy's fiscal and monetary policy split. This eventuality is akin to Zimbabwe adopting the US dollar a few years ago because its own currency became worthless as pointed out by Alistair Darling last week.  Scotland would be in the bizarre position of having an independent fiscal policy whilst being in monetary union with what would remain of Great Britain. The difficulties in the Eurozone can be explained in the same way: the countries that have the Euro can indeed share the same currency, the difficulty is that each state runs a separate fiscal policy. This leads to stronger Eurozone countries metaphorically 'dragging weaker, less financially stable, countries through a bush backwards'- enforcing their economic model on other states.

The other option would be for Scotland to join the Euro. Although for the arguments stated above, this seems a self-defeating and stupid policy. In all likelyhood, Scotland - when its portion of the UK's debt is repatriated to Edinburgh, despite receiving income for North Sea oil- will not reach the entry requirements of a 3% or less budget deficit and 60% debt to GDP ratio required to join the single currency. This then seems another pie in the sky option given current economic circumstances. Not to mention that not so long ago Salmond's economic policy for an independent Scotland included creating an 'arch of prosperity' including the Republic of Ireland and Iceland - two countries that no longer appear to be examples of fine economic governance. On the back of shouldering more debt, Scotland would have to get a credit rating in order to borrow money. It would appear unlikely that an independent Scotland would be awarded a prestigious triple A rating.

-The nuclear detterent based at HMNB Clyde and Scottish industry
Another issue that would of course have to be resolved if Scotland was to become an independent nation is the UK nuclear detterent which is currently based at HMNB Clyde, near Glasgow. Who would take command of the detterent? It has been payed for out of taxpayer's money from across the UK and with Salmond's SNP determined not to enter NATO and to oversee a pullout from Afghanistan what would happen to it is in doubt. Post independence, if Scotland were to maintain the nuclear detterent for a brief period of time, and was viewed as signature of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT), given its previous link to the United Kingdom which ratified the treaty in 1968, than it would be in breach of Article 2 of the treaty. The portion of Great Britain that remained united - viewed as the primary successor state - could also conceivably be in breach of Article 1, even if Scotland did not maintain nuclear weapons. States now party to the treaty but that were still part of the British Empire when the treaty came into force have since had to ratify as non-nuclear weapon states in accordance with the treaty .

So with these two difficulties that would have to be overcome and the common sense of unity that has existed for over three hundred years between Scotland and England, it would appear that independence is not going to quite as simple as Alex Salmond wants it to be. Nevertheless, with an overall majority in Edinburgh and the Unionist parties in complete disarray, it looks as if the we may well see the breakup of the United Kingdom into its contituent ethnic groupings. The largest party in the current government, the Conservative Party, is almost an irrelevance in Scottish politics holding only one out of a possible fifty nine seats and winning less than 20% of the votes in the 2010 General Election in Scotland, and with Labour's current general confusion - the Unionists are not in a very strong position.

The next two years will decide the fate of the United Kingdom. Once one country goes, I think the entire union will likely disintegrate into its constituent chunks. Devolution was always going to lead to a looser union between the four countries that comprise it. We have now arrived at the inevitable: the time when the United Kingdom has to choose its future. Does it want to continue united - as it has successfully done for the past three hundred years - or break up. It will be sad if it chooses the later, considering what the United Kingdom has achieved in the last three centuries and can continue to achieve in the future. Devolution means that from many come one. It should represent that fact that the United Kingdom is a patchwork quilt of various cultures and languages. It does not - as Alex Salmond wants - mean that we should all go our separate ways.  Together the United Kingdom is stronger than divided for all its citizens lest Alex Salmond forget.  

   


  

An appraisal of Vladimir Putin

When the Chinese offered Vladimir Putin their equivalent of a Nobel peace prize at the end of last year, many commentators seemed confused. How could a leader who is increasingly seen as dictatorial receive such an accolade. Many assumed it was just another attempt by China to snub the Western Human Rights agenda and culture. However, have China got it right on this one. Peace prizes are presumably meant to be awarded to those who try and avoid war or military confrontation, and condemn them when they occur.

Russia under Putin has taken a very pragmatic approach to foreign affairs: getting involved in countries that border it but rarely venturing much further. It has learnt, in large part, the lessons of the Soviet misadventures, like in Afghanistan.

Russia has never functioned as a liberal democracy: it experienced the autocratic Tsars monarchy followed almost immediately by a Communist revolution that installed a dictatorial regime in Moscow. Russia is a country that is used to having a strong leader - whether that is a Tsar, Lenin, Stalin or Putin. Autocratic powerful leaders are all many russians have known. And the two times that Russia has had a system almost equating to democracy, just before the 1917 revolution and in the years after the Soviet collapse, it has failed them in a big way. The first because it was ineffective, and then with the return to democracy after the Soviet collapse- during Boris Yeltsin's leadership - Russia was ridiculed on the World stage.      

No wonder then that Putin's more autocratic style is popular amongst Russian: as far as many are concerned it is the only system that has worked for them. Putin has succeeded because he has put some pride back into Russian society. After the collapse of communism, many Russians felt humiliated. Under the Soviet system, Russia had a sense of pride in competing against America: after its collapse they had nothing, they were a defeated nation entering a period of military hegemony by a state they had once competed against for global influence. 

Putin is seen as a leader that is willing to defend Russia's national interest once again. A bulwark against attempts by the west to spread normative values. He has succeeded on the economic front as well. Russia has experienced 9 years of continous economic growth: GDP has risen by 63%, poverty has halved and average monthly incomes have increased from $80 to $640 under Putin's stewardship of the economy. 

Like him or hate him, Putin has been a successful leader of the Russian Federation. And as he mentioned in an interview, and I paraphrase, "of course Russia has freedom of speech, otherwise there would not  have been any protests in the first place".