Wars of choice and wars of necessity - our unstable world

Our world is becoming more and more unstable. We are now bearing witness to 3 major conflicts on 2 continents; the war in Ukraine, the war between Israel and the Hamas terrorist organisation and the war on international trade (despite the declared aiming of supporting Hamas) being waged by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. 

I believe the spread of conflict is in part due to a weak US Presidency. In recent times, many of the wars involving the United States, Iraq and - to a lesser extent Afghanistan - have been wars of choice - a US foreign policy decision without which a state of war wouldn't exist. The current conflicts aren't such wars. Russia and Iran respectively have decided to undertake the current hostilities - the US and the wider west have to respond forcefully, there is no choice.

I posit that the world becomes a more violent place when the relative economic strengths of the world's powers is in a state of flux. World War I was a challenge to the UK-based world order, World War II marked the assendency of the bi-polar world order, with the United States and Soviet Union becoming the two undisputed superpowers. We are currently seeing the relative economic strengths of the Peoples' Republic of China and the United States narrow and thus a more unstable world awaits. 

The botched US withdrawal from Afghanistan, culminating on 30 August 2021, was the trigger for the current round of instability. After nearly 20 years and over US$2 trillion spent, the Taliban were back in power as they were in 2001. Although President Biden did not reverse the US decision to leave Afghanistan, he nevertheless overturned his predecessor's 24 executive orders in his first 100 days in office. 

The effect on global opinion of seeing an insurgency taking on and defeating the world's most powerful superpower cannot be understated and has had global consequences. Undoubtably leaders like Presidents Putin and Khamenei were emboldened by the scenes at Kabul airport leading to Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

It is clear President Biden wants to avoid US entanglement in Europe and the Middle East. The fact that this is so obvious makes the world a more dangerous place. For all President Trump's bombastic comments, they made autocrats more uncertain about his true foreign policy intentions and - ironically - made the world a safer place. The world is now on the brink of wide spread wars. These are wars of necessity and not of choice for the US. Choosing not to confront the world's current conflicts will only lead to greater insecurity.

The case for a more federal UK Conservative Party

The Conservative Party leadership election exposed an important issue with the current party’s structure. Both Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak were candidates representing English constituencies. Regrettably there were no candidates from either the Welsh or Scottish Conservatives who put their name in the ring for the election and only three of the twelve hustings events were held outside of England; in Cardiff on 3 August, in Perth on 16 August 2022 and Belfast on 17 August respectively.  

For a party that has unionist in its name, the two final candidates in the contest didn't seem to be particularly enthusiastic about the whole unionism thing. To me, it seems the campaigns of both Sunak and Truss spent a disproportionate amount of time trying to portray themselves as the more Thatcherite candidate. I don’t suggest for a minute that the cost of living crisis is unimportant; with inflation at a 40 year high, the two candidates needed to set out their stalls as to how they will combat it. We are also living in turbulent times with the war in Ukraine continuing. That being said, with Nicola Sturgeon announcing on 28 June 2022 the SNP’s intention to plow ahead with their plan to hold a referendum on Scotland’s place in the UK on 19 October 2023, with the decision on the constitutionality of a poll currently being adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the Conservatives need to discover how to put the United Kingdom on a steady keel. 

I doubt that the general public will look highly on a Prime Minister and political party that presides over the break up of a hugely successful 300 year old political union. It is worrying how so many have seemingly concluded that the break up of the UK is inevitable, a law of nature. It isn’t but, that being said, the union and its institutions are going to need reimagining to survive. A new truly federalist system is required, completing the half-baked concept of devolution.The reform required needs to start with the Conservative Party itself.   

For me, one of the elements I found most interesting during this campaign was from a candidate who has now been eliminated from the race. Penny Mordaunt’s campaign video recognised that the United Kingdom is constituted of four nations. We forget this at our electoral peril. The way that the current leadership process for the Conservative Party works there is no incentive for any of the candidates to consider the perspectives from the other constituent nations. I think this has been made clear in the absence of meaningful discussion so far by Sunak or Truss on the subject.  

In this sense the shortcomings of devolution provide an answer as to how the Conservative Party can become more relevant to all the constituent nations, and in the process help save the UK. Devolution was half-baked and clearly designed by the Labour Party in a self-interested attempt to, as it viewed it after its victory in 1997, retain power in Scotland and Cymru/Wales even if it lost support in England. 

It was a three- quarters finished attempt at UK style federalism which I would argue has actually fuelled nationalism in Scotland. Whoever takes over as the next Conservative leader and ultimately Prime Minister on 5 September 2022, needs to address the growing divide within the UK and seek to change how future Conservative leadership contests are run.

One of the arguments often made by the SNP in favour of independence is that Scotland doesn’t vote Conservative: 692,939 would beg to differ, but this an inconvenient truth they omit to mention. The SNP is implying the Conservative Party has no interest in considering Scotland’s opinion. The overly-centralised nature of the Conservative Party adds validity to this assertion but there is a solution: a completely federalised Conservative Party. 

A federal unionist Conservative Party would exist in much the same way as the relationship between the CDU and CSU in Germany. Four distinct parties would exist, including in England. In essence the four parties would govern in a form of permanent coalition, a confidence and supply arrangement. 

The overall leader of this structure could be elected by qualified majority voting (QMV). QMV is the system used by the Council of Europe when adopting decisions. A QMV system of voting could require any leader to gain 50% of constituencies and 50% of the vote in each of the respective nations. 

This voting structure would require any future leader to appeal to party members across the UK. I like to think that in any Conservative leadership election, as Lord Mountbatton said on arrival in India in 1947 as the last Viceroy, a prospective leader should have to appeal to the “greatest goodwill from the greatest possible number”. QMV would give party members across the UK, from Glasgow to Grimsby, Aberystwyth to Ashford, an equal input into the leader of our great party. It would make it much harder for the party to be tarnished with the accusation it doesn't represent the whole of the UK. Not only would it help to grow and develop the Conservative Party membership and electoral appeal throughout the United Kingdom but it would hopefully also strengthen the links between all parts of the UK 

We are in a time of great change faced with a multitude of challenges, whether that is the cost of living crisis or the war in Ukraine. The existence of the UK itself is being increasingly challenged as well. To survive, it is going to need to adapt. The Conservative Party becoming a truly federal unionist party, including in the way it elects its leader, could help deal constructively with this challenge. Like it has on countless occasions before, the Conservative Party needs to evolve to put the UK back on a stable trajectory.  

A game of who blinks first, peace for Israel and Palestine

In the wake of the military intervention of Israel in the Gaza strip in mid 2014, the momentum in the region has been on the side of the Palestinian authorities. It is in the process of joining the ICC and wants to pursue Israel for war crimes for its military actions against Hamas in Gaza. Hamas and Fatah are holding reconciliation talks whilst states in Europe, with Sweden as an example, are holding votes to recognise Palestine, with the view that this may somehow help to secure peace in the region. Meanwhile,  Palestinian authorities look likely to launch another bid to join the United Nations as a full member.

All of this in an attempt to force Israel to negotiate a final settlement to the Israel-Palestinian crisis, leading to a Palestinian state. But the International community does not appear to reflect the Israeli perspective. The stated aims of both Hamas and Hezbollah is to eradicate Israel. The merger between Fatah and Hamas will only make the geo-political situation in the region worse. In order to get a solution to the crisis, the extremes, both Jews believing in Eretz Yisrael, Greater Israel, including Judah, Samaria and the Gaza province and radical Islamic movements and their supporters, including Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran, need to be 'leaver-arched' closer. At the moment, even if Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to achieve the two state solution, he would be trying to negotiate with an organisation, Hamas, which refuses to even recognise the State of Israel.

For an outside observer, the solution is simple. Israel within its current boundaries, including the Gaza strip and West Bank, will not be able to maintain its Jewish identity and maintain its democratic values into the future. Therefore it is in its' interest to allow a Palestinian State to exist alongside it with the diplomatic recognition which surrounding states have indicated they would extend in this situation. Moderates in the region, the Yitzhak Rabins of both sides, are not the ones that need convincing and a peace settlement will be about getting the radicals on both sides to moderate their ambitions enough to find common ground and a structure within which meaningful talks can take place. Only then will the current game of who blinks first between Israel and extremist groups seeking its destruction end.    

The nation-state and Afghanistan.

The countries of southern central Asia do not correspond neatly to the western, Treaty of Westphalia conception of the nation-state. Southern central Asia is a region of tribal loyalties  Afghanistan is a prime example of where a state has been created that does not correlate to any sense of nationhood. Afghanistan is, moreover, the result of competition between the British and Russian empires in the 19th century. The idea of an Afghan nation is artificial: Afghanistan is only ever an entity when confronted with an outside enemy, be it Russian or American. The religious contentions in the region make it almost impossible for the creation of a stable central government in Kabul.

Afghanistan comprises three main factions: in the North, there is a significant Tajik population, 'about one-fifth of the population' (Encyclopaedia Britannica) , to the West you have a large population of Persian speakers, who hold an affinity towards Iran, and in the East a Pashtun population. The Pashtun community sprawls the international frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan. For the Pashtun community of Afghanistan the border does not exist. This evidently causes problems for regional security and the nation-building currently being undertaken by ISAF forces.

So...creating a 'Pashtunistan' might be a reasonable solution to current instability in the region. Effectively, you would be realigning the borders to match the ethnic devision of the region, thus creating a sense of social cohesion which is a better foundation for building a state, whatever the regime type. This proposition would, evidently, face strong opposition by Pakistan's authorities. The experience of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in the 1980s shows that even with a very centralist approach, the various ethnicities of Afghanistan cannot be welded together as they stand to form a durable Afghan State.

In the post-colonial era, the world has to realign the geopolitics of South-central Asia to represent governable regions. The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is 'a 2450km demarcation line drawn by the British through Pashtun tribal lands to suit the defensive needs of British Colonial India' (Synowitz, 2006) in 1893. It was designed to express the limit to which Britain was willing to allow the Russian empire to expand. In 1893, the geopolitical effects of this border were not considered in the context of independent nation states.  If you were to redefine the frontiers in this region, you would move the Iranian border east, the Tajikistan border south into Afghanistan. The remainder, consisting of the Pashtun community, would create a new state which would include a considerable part of Pakistan's tribal border regions that have been costing the government in Islamabad dearly in terms of resource diversion.





  

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.