Is the European Union doomed to fail? So far it looks like the member states of the European Union (EU) have chosen to widen their borders instead of further deepening their economic and political integration.  Though the Euro, the region’s monetary system, did well for a while, its future has been threatened since the world economic crisis of 2008.  The region’s largest economies, like Germany, have been throwing money at Greece in order to stave off a looming economic crisis, but how long can they be expected to continue with Greek bailouts?  According to the BBC, Britain’s joint committee on the government’s national security strategy (NSS) reported that a full or partial collapse of the Euro was plausible and that political unrest and a rise in economic migration numbers to the UK could result.  The mere fact that the United Kingdom believes the EU may fail speaks volumes for how much it has weakened.

The Euro, which had become such a strong currency it rivaled the American dollar, was created in 1999 and started circulation in 2002.  During the recent global financial crisis first Greece, then Ireland and Portugal suffered from major debt issues and had to be bailed out by the European Central Bank (ECB).  Soon after, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain also suffered debt disaster.  So far, all previously affected States have avoided disaster, but Greece cannot seem to solve their economic problems.  The Greek economy has weakened so much that they were recently forced to ask their bond holders to trade in their current bonds for others worth only half as much.  In reality, Greece’s bondholders had no choice.  If they did not trade their bonds for their weaker alternatives, they may have faced a complete loss of the money they invested.  If these investors did not agree to the trade, Athens would not have received its new bailout.  That nightmare was averted because the investors agreed to the bond swap.  Now Greece stands to receive another bailout from the EU and the international monetary fund (IMF), so it remains afloat and does not default on its current loans.

In order to receive this new bailout they have already implemented austerity measures which have weakened their economy further and slowed their ability to recover even more, so it is very unlikely their economy will pick up in the near future.  The fact that they may be forced to leave the Eurozone has been discussed, but Greece’s economy isn’t the only one susceptible to disaster.  Italy and Spain might be next.  Although Berlin’s economy is strong, it will be unable to bailout every EU country in need.  Graham Summers, on Global Research, reported that the German government has passed legislation that may allow it to leave the Eurozone, but remain in the EU, and protected its banks by creating a €480 billion wall.  If the zone’s weakest economies do not pull out of this slump Germany may be forced to abandon the Euro in order to save its own economy.  The Euro without Germany, its economic workhorse, will surely fail.

The European Union isn’t only having economic difficulties.  According to a report by al-Jazeera, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said France would withdraw from the Schengen zone if no actions are taken to limit illegal immigration.  This comes after the French President’s most recent comment that France has too many foreigners.  The Schengen Agreement voided any internal border controls allowing for easier travel from one country to another inside the zone.  While travel throughout the EU was made easier, the States along the union’s border were supposed to strengthen their border controls with non-members.

There have been several instances where EU States have threatened to close their borders.  Denmark closed theirs in 2011 in order to halt illegal immigration and organized crime but they were reopened later that year after a new government was elected.  After the Tunisian revolution, Italy gave temporary permits to many Tunisian migrants.  These permits allowed them to travel throughout the EU.  However, France and Germany did not want these migrants to enter their countries, so they threatened to reinstate border controls.

Once illegal immigrants enter the European Union, they will more than likely move to the States with the strongest economies so they will have a better chance of obtaining a job.  Currently, the strongest economies in the EU are Germany and France which are already having difficulties integrating their immigrants into the streamlined German or French societies.  If they continue to be bombarded with new arrivals the possibilities of creating a cohesive society will become increasingly difficult.  One of the main issues is that many immigrants into the EU are devout Muslim and most States in the EU are highly secular.  They do not want to accommodate new religious rules or customs into their public life because they want religion hidden away in the private sphere.

Regardless of the difficulties that arise when European States attempt to integrate their newest arrivals, the fact that many immigrants are entering into the EU illegally is of a major concern.  Governments set up proper channels for immigration so they can control which types of people enter their population.  There are specific sectors of the workforce that are in need of new employees and others that have no openings.  Especially in Europe, where there are many government programs to help the poor, unemployed, etc. there must be extreme government control so the government and its taxpayers do not become overwhelmed by a large, poor sector of their population.  If nothing is done to stem illegal immigration into the EU then France and other States may be forced to exit the Schengen agreement.

What is the European Union without free population movement and a shared monetary system?  The EU’s predecessor, the European Coal and Steel Community, was founded on the basis of economic integration.  One currency for all members was merely a natural continuation of their further incorporation.  The idea behind free movement of people in the union was also a continuation of that goal.  If these principles were suddenly abandoned I fail to see how the European Union will survive.

Is the world destined for a war between the West and Iran?  We certainly seem to be heading down that path, but to say war is not in the world’s best interest would be a gross understatement.  America and the European Union (EU) have implemented tough economic sanctions on Iran because of the continued refusal of Tehran to answer questions about their nuclear program.  Many believe Israel or America will use preemptive air strikes to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites if necessary. However, an air strike should only be used as a last resort, and only if the West continues to believe Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

The destruction of nuclear sites may only serve to anger the Iranian people, resulting in policies which conflict with the West’s interests.  A rally around the flag effect, often occurring due to external attacks, may cause Iranians with dissenting opinions, who might otherwise work for reform, to more fully support their government.  An attack may also be used by nuclear weapon supporters within Iran as proof that they must build a nuclear weapon so they can deter further or future Western threats.  At a time when the West and Iran have many of the same wants and concerns for the Middle East, they should come together to create a safer region.

Background Information on Negotiations between the West and Tehran on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons

The United States (US), under then President George W. Bush, accused Iran of building a nuclear weapon as far back as 2002.  France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, or the EU-3, began negotiating with Iran as early as 2003.  However, the world is no more certain of Tehran’s peaceful motives than it was ten years ago.  While the Iranian government did temporarily halt its uranium enrichment program during several negotiations, it has ultimately never agreed to stop production or answer key questions that may alleviate nuclear weapon fears.  Instead, their leaders continuously state that they have the right to enter the nuclear world and are only trying to create a nuclear energy program.

While it is a strange idea for a country in control of the world’s third largest oil reserves to want nuclear energy, the West is not trying to deny Iran that right.  The Western powers are wary that Tehran wants to enrich uranium for the more sinister motive of a nuclear weapon.  This is because of the Iranian government’s unrelenting refusal of allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect their nuclear sites, increasingly aggressive attitude, and continued statements of Israeli hatred.

In February, nuclear inspectors entered Iran in order to inspect the country’s nuclear sites.  Days later, the inspectors were unceremoniously told they were not allowed in specific sites such as the Parchin military site.  The Iranian leaders are smartly using the nuclear inspectors to show their people that they are in control.  By allowing the inspectors admittance into the country, the Iranian people questioned why the West thinks it has the authority to inspect their country.  Then, by not allowing IAEA inspectors at certain sites, President Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei were able to legitimize their international power to their people.  This is very important as Iranians are feeling the wrath of high unemployment and pressure stemming from new international sanctions.

Iranian leadership has done nothing to calm the West’s fears that they are out to build nuclear weapons.  Instead, they have done quite the opposite.  The Supreme Leader and President have expressed their hatred of Israel on separate occasions.  Ahmadinejad stated that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, and the Ayatollah compared Israel to a cancerous tumor that would be removed from the Middle Eastern region.  This hatred does nothing to show Washington that Tehran has peaceful intentions for its nuclear program.

Western Sanctions on Iranian

The United States has not imported Iranian oil for decades, but until recently, the European Union imported twenty percent of Iranian’s oil exports.  This will no longer be the case because a 2011 IAEA report revealed that Iran had been conducting experiments to develop nuclear weapons capability.  The EU has now implemented sanctions and will fully halt Iranian oil imports by July.  Although EU sanctions are a step in the right direction, Tehran will not feel the full force of complete economic isolation because Asia will continue importing its oil.  Iran’s oil is now imported by China (the largest importer), Japan, South Korea, and India.

The United States and Iran have not had good relations since a group of radical students stormed the American embassy in Tehran in 1979.  American sanctions continued to strengthen until they culminated in 1995 when President Clinton halted trade with Iran and Iran’s oil industry.  President Obama has now further strengthened American sanctions on Iran’s central bank and frozen government assets traded in or held within the United States.

The sanctions implemented by America and the European Union are meant to put enough pressure on both the Iranian government and people so that they will be forced back to the negotiation table to discuss their nuclear program.  Sanctions that are strong enough to cripple the Iranian government may force them into negotiations.  This may already be occurring because the Iranian government recently reported that it would sell its oil for gold.  Money made from its oil exports are of vital importance to the strength of the regime because the energy market makes up the majority of Iran’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  Crude oil is primarily traded in American dollars, but since Washington has frozen Iranian assets traded in or held within the US, Iran is being forced to trade in something besides American currency.  If the Iranian people see that it is their leader’s actions that have lead to their suffering they may retaliate or vote out that regime.

After the new sanctions were implemented, Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, where almost half of the world’s tanker-born oil passes.  Washington called Tehran’s bluff by threatening a counter move if the strait is blocked and then sent an American ship through the strait to ensure safe travel was possible.  The reality that Iran would chance to block the strait is questionable because the waterway is one of the most vital energy routes in the world.  Not only do fifty percent of China’s oil imports travel through the Strait of Hormuz, but most of the economies of Middle Eastern States are tied to the ability of their exports to travel safely through the strait.  The likelihood that Iran would want to damage their friendship with China, their largest oil importer, or States in the Middle East is very unlikely.

The truth is Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have no plans on building a nuclear weapon, but because of the simple fact that no one really knows one way or the other makes the West uneasy.  Iran’s nuclear program is a national issue.  The Iranian people view the program with a sense of pride because even to the West’s dismay, they continue to do exactly what they want.  The Iranian government must allow IAEA inspectors into their nuclear sites to show the world they are not building nukes.

Shared Interests in the Middle East and Possible Outcomes to Normalized Relations

The United States and the European Union need to show Iran how many shared interests they hold when it comes to the Middle East.  All parties involved would benefit from a stable Iraq and Afghanistan.  They will also benefit from a defeated Taliban, Iranian oil entering into the world market, and normalized relations between Washington and Tehran.

The United States spent eight years rebuilding Iraq after they invaded and ousted Saddam Hussein.  While NATO is still in Afghanistan, a democracy was created soon after the West defeated the Taliban.  All actors involved in Iraq will benefit from stability.  If Iraq splits into three states, divided into Shiite Muslim, Sunni Muslim, and the Kurdish majority, the region might easily fall victim to secessionist movements.  This outcome would not bode well for the already chaotic region, specifically not for Iran or Turkey.

The complete eradication of the Taliban from the Middle East would also be beneficial for the West and Iran.  The Taliban views Shiite Muslims, the predominant brand of Islam in Iran, as heresy.  Washington wants to eradicate the Taliban because they are the group responsible for the September 11^th attacks on Washington and New York City.  All parties involved in Afghanistan must work together to strengthen the Afghan economy because by creating jobs the population will have alternatives to money and support from the Taliban.

As Iran is located between Iraq and Afghanistan, its own economy will strengthen if both countries developed a strong, stable economy because this will open up a much needed trade relationship between the neighbors.  Tehran will profit from this trade diversity because most of its economy stems from energy exportation.  New outlets for its goods and services will help protect Iran from fluctuations in the oil market.

According to the CIA’s world fact book, Iran holds the fourth largest oil reserves and the second largest natural gas reserves in the world, but the Iranian people suffer from a high unemployment rate and high inflation.  The double-digit unemployment rate has caused many of the country’s educated to move elsewhere in search of jobs.  Most of the world is suffering from a weak economy and rising gas prices.  Some of the difficulties caused by high energy costs can be alleviated if more Iranian oil enters the world market.  The Iranian people will benefit from a better economy, and the world’s population will benefit from cheaper gas prices.

Washington and Tehran have not had formal diplomatic relations since 1980; instead, they rely on Switzerland and Pakistan respectfully.  Normalized relations, which would allow for direct negotiations, will do much to allay misunderstandings and preconceived notions.  Formal discussions about Iran’s nuclear program may allow Tehran to explain that they are truly only building a nuclear energy plant and not a nuclear weapon.  Both governments, through in-person discussions, can better understand each side’s interests and desires.

Relations between the Middle East and the West have always been tumultuous.  With tensions between the West and Iran being wound so tightly, misunderstandings may lead to a very difficult, long war.  At a time when the US, the EU, and Iran share many of the same interests and ambitions in the Middle East, those involved should not rush to war due to Iran’s nuclear issue.  All parties must fully discuss the situation.  Iran must halt its uranium enrichment program, allow IAEA inspectors to fully investigate all nuclear sites, and answer the West’s questions and concerns.  The United States and the European Union should then welcome Iran back into the international community by opening full diplomatic channels and allowing for Iranian trade agreements.  When Iran is fully embraced within the world economy tensions and hatred will be greatly reduced.

Future Negotiations and Demands

As reported on March 8^th by the BBC, the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China have told Iran to fully work with the IAEA and allow their inspectors into the Parchin military site.  This comes after Tehran asked to enter into new talks over its nuclear program.  The West needs to make sure they are not tricked into merely allowing Iran more time to either hide their nuclear weapons testing equipment or create a nuke.  They must push Iran to completely cooperate with the IAEA nuclear inspectors and their negotiation demands.

When the last king of Rome was deposed in 753 BC and the Roman Republic was established such was the fear of a single unitary executive that two consuls were put at the apex of the political system.

However, in times of great crisis the Republic would effectively return to absolute monarchy in the form of the dictator. In 501 BC the first dictator took office. Many men would go on to hold the office during times of great crisis, none more famous than Julius Caesar himself. History has a habit of repeating itself in the current euro crisis.

Indeed the term technocrat is extremely pejorative way to describe the most recent examples, Lucas Papademos and Mario Monti. It hardly seems like a fair choice between, in the Italian case, an incompetent, immoral, corrupt and weak head of government and a highly educated, highly experienced official, with knowledge of management and a full address book to help his country at a time when it is most in need.

With the European economy in turmoil there has been a wave of populist revolts against political incumbents. During the Spanish and Irish general elections both governing parties suffered heavy losses due to an inability or unwillingness to see and halt massive housing booms in both countries. In the Irish case the main government party was obliterated and faces an uncertain future. Current polls indicate that the incumbent French president looks set to lose.

That is however, just the tip of the iceberg. Unelected “technocrats” are now running both Greece and Italy. Yet, amid all the hand wringing few seem willing to address the fundamental question. What is the alternative? The only reason Papademos and Monti had to take over is because the men they replaced were either unable or too stupid to take the measures needed to halt a global recession, or worse.

For decades Greece had been run as if it were a mix between the Middle Ages and at the service of organised crime, with jobs and pensions doled out to those who supported whoever was currently in charge. All of this with no regard to the finances of the state. Similarly, Italy’s market practices are reminiscent of the time of guilds, with the children of professionals gaining preference over others who were as well, if not better, qualified.

A typical example of hand wringing is that of historian Michael Burleigh. His piece in the Daily Telegraph is representative of this school of thought. The article, entitled, Who voted for you, Mario Monti is typically short sighted. Burleigh writes “Monti, the unelected former EU commissioner, has anointed a cabinet of academics, bankers and an admiral, without a single representative of Italy’s political parties”.

Burleigh seems to think that a viable and competent, almost suicidal Italian political party was waiting in the wings, ready to take over and inflict deep cuts and radical reforms on the very people who they would then ask to vote for them again. Such notions are laughable. It is the nature of democracy that there is no incentive for long term thinking and is at the same time almost unable to act against the will of people, despite obvious evidence that it is the only correct course of action.

Italy has now come full circle with the appointment of Monti. He is the modern day dictator in the true Roman sense, a man given temporary power at a time of great crisis. Monti, like Caesar before him will relinquish his office, and happily return to academia after handing over to an elected head of government when the worst of the crisis has passed.

Where does this leave the decision of the Irish Attorney-General that a referendum is needed on the fiscal compact in either May or June? Uncertainty is only increased until the Irish voters have had their say. Now is not the time for democracy to get in the way of averting global recession.

It is of course a counterfactual, but had there been a continent wide referendum by member states as to whether to join the euro, there would be at least a chance that the flaws in the euro would have been exposed. Indeed, in 1995 EU Commission official Bernard Connolly had warned the Commission of the problems with the euro as it was constituted. He was not only ignored but dismissed from his post at the Commission after voicing his concerns.

Even if the hypothetical continent wide euro referendum was passed, politicians would be in a far better position now to undertake the measures needed to avert global economic collapse. They could easily claim the people had voted and the result was accepted and now it was time to fix what had not been properly constructed. There would be a basic sense of legitimacy and thus politicians could act, to fix the euro crisis without having to worry about the ever shrinking lack of legitimacy to act on the Europe wide level.

Instead the worst of both worlds has occurred. A lack of democracy to give legitimacy to actions a decade ago and too much democracy now when speed and efficiency are called for as bond markets clamour to get out of euro debt.

In 2007 Nicolas Sarkozy was elected, relatively comfortably, to be the President of France replacing Jacques Chirac and his tired administration. Part of the reason for Sarkozy’s success was that the population of France were looking for an individual to deal with the country’s problems, and Mr Sarkozy promised reform, dynamism and a new beginning. However, five years later it is pretty obvious that in many respects he has failed in his task. In the current electoral climate President Sarkozy is struggling against a socialist candidate (François Hollande) who it has to be said is not offering a spectacular programme of reform and is not a particularly dynamic candidate, yet is likely to beat the incumbent easily in the Presidential election. In fact, Sarkozy is so unpopular that there is a slight chance that he will not even get into the second stage of the electoral process by being beaten by Marine Le Pen, the candidate of the far-right or even by the centrist François Bayrou.

The question the political situation in France raises is, that should it be of concern that a centre-right, (in French terms), President could be defeated in a large and important European country by a wonkish unreconstructed socialist? Hypothetically I would say yes, but in reality probably not because Monsieur President having been elected as a reforming conservative patriot has turned out to be neither conservative, patriotic nor a reformer.

It has gone so wrong for the current administration because in the most crucial area, the economy, that reforms that were desperately needed Sarkozy has been remarkably unsuccessful. In 2007 he came to power promising to make France a much more business friendly and dynamic economy but five years later the regulations in the workplace which prevent for example the turnover of labour and limit working hours are still with one or two minor adjustments still in place. This has meant that the dynamic, completive entrepreneurial economy that Sarkozy talked about in 2007 has not been created; instead France is still economically stuck in the malaise of the later Chirac years. These economic regulations have also helped to keep youth unemployment at relatively high levels because without the ability to create jobs or remove underperforming workers there has been a signal lack of labour turnover and therefore many young people are not finding work. Although many countries are suffering from youth unemployment at the moment much of that is cyclical and will be reduced when their economies pick up, in France however, more than most it is a long-term generational issue that nobody has been willing to deal with. The President has also been unsuccessful in dealing with one of the main drags on the economy namely the militant trade unions which cause so much damage and disruption to France.  Sarkozy has also failed to deal with the underlying long-term problems of the French economy of low growth and high government spending and this has led to difficulties in dealing effectively with the financial problems caused by the euro crisis. President Sarkozy has therefore failed as both a reformer and as a conservative in the crucial sphere of economic management.

The other big plank of Sarkozy’s appeal in 2007 was that he would lead a more engaged and assertive France in the field of foreign affairs. Certainly on issues such as Libya and rejoining NATO he has changed the dynamics of French policy but all of this is undermined by his craven subservience to the European Union and the euro. Many of France’s current difficulties are to do with Europe but Sarkozy is unwilling to stand-up for France and the French people and has shown himself to be wedded to the discredited idea of a United Europe, and perhaps most damagingly to be a lapdog for Germany. The current President of France is therefore along with not being a conservative or a reformer not actually a patriot and this in part explains why he is at the moment heading for an abject defeat.

Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007 promised so much and has delivered so little and it is now maybe the time for the socialists to triumph in a presidential election for the first time since 1988. They will almost undoubtedly show once again how inappropriate their dogmatic beliefs are and show that without genuine right-wing/conservative reform that the current social and economic model of France is unsustainable and unworkable. However, perhaps the most important impact of a socialist victory is that it will allow the UMP (the party of Sarkozy) to become a conservative, centre-right, reformist party instead of the incoherent mess run by the French political equivalent of Edward Heath that it is now.

Once again in world history the UN, like the League of Nations before it, has been left paralysed and impotent when faced with blatant aggression and brutality. Earlier this weekend China and Russia, the two least democratic permanent members of the UN Security Council, exercised their veto to defeat a resolution calling for the murderous Assad regime to be politically isolated in an effort to bring an end to the horrific violence being carried out by Syrian state security forces against their own people. This is despite a globally reported artillery assault on a rebellious neighbourhood in the city of Homs which is believed to have killed as many as 300 civilians, bringing the total death toll since the trouble began nearly a year ago to around 7,000.

The US and Britain have condemned the use of the veto, calling it a betrayal of the Syrian people. Nonetheless with even a purely political proposal being blocked by the eastern powers it seems unlikely that any solution at all will now be found through the UN. Instead Western powers will have act together in cooperation with the Arab League if they are to take active measures against Damascus. Whilst a military operation is unlikely due to the cost and logistics involved there remain plenty of other economic and political measures that could be used to ramp up the pressure on Assad. It is a shame however that any such efforts will lack the sheen of legitimacy that a UN resolution provides, leaving the West more open to false claims of imperialism by tyrannical governments in Damascus, Tehran and beyond, claims merely designed to try and scare oppressed people everywhere from trying to assert their democratic rights for fear of being labelled a Western agent.

The decisions made in Moscow and Beijing were undoubtedly based on zero-sum realist thinking, with the view that a change of regime in Syria will automatically be bad for Russia and China and beneficial for the West. Vladimir Putin and the CCP are worried that yet more political change in the Middle-East will upset the diplomatic balance of the region and, in the case of Russia, spur on rising demands for change in their own country. This weekend saw more large-scale anti-government protests in Moscow, the largest since Putin first became President back in 1999. Within the next few months he will be running for election in an attempt to become President for a second time, and whilst he still seems likely to be victorious he may find himself facing a rising tide of protest and criticism if he is unable to turn around Russia’s faltering economy. The irony is that at what should be his moment of greatest triumph – a return (whether fairly or unfairly) to the Presidency – he suddenly appears to be at his most vulnerable.

Moscow and Beijing’s decision is also based on a desire to retain the status quo, not just in Syria but in the entire Middle-East. This desire is based upon strategic considerations, including the fear that a suddenly pro-Western Middle-East might undermine Russia’s ability to carry out pipeline warfare or harm Beijing’s plans for economic expansion in the region. Despite this both countries continue to claim that the decision is based upon a desire to uphold International Law, yet even the most stringent versions of anti-interventionist theory allow for potential intervention when the state has violently turned against its own citizens. Moreover since the resolution they vetoed was merely a political motion and actually contained language opposing a military solution it is clear that both Beijing and Moscow are simply protecting their own interests at the expense of the lives and freedom of the Syrian people.

Meanwhile in the background, like a menacing rabid wolf, lies Iran with its nuclear weapons programme. Moscow and Beijing have both overtly and covertly aided the clerics in their surge to gain the bomb. This help was based not on any mutual ideological agreement – indeed both China and Russia continue to suppress Muslims in Chechnya, Dagestan and Xinjiang – but instead upon a joint desire to potentially trap the West in a ruinous war with Tehran (a war that the Iranian government sadly seems prepared to sacrifice their people in). The nuclear issue is now coming to a head with hefty economic sanctions being applied and Western navies passing through the straits of Hormuz unopposed despite Tehran’s threats. If Syria, Iran’s strongest proxy, were suddenly to fall then it would be a major embarrassment not only to Ahmadinejad’s government but to the entire Iranian regime, increasing the chances of a rebellion in Iran as well.

All of these hopes however are based on a false premise: a belief that the revolutionary movement in Syria and elsewhere can actually be stopped. The veto may have brought the Assad regime time, but that is all that it has done. The longer the rebellion goes on the greater its chances of success, as the regime will face increasing external economic pressure that will damage its capability to cling to power. Change is now inevitably coming in Syria, it is simply a question of how long, how many lives will be lost and whether a further civil war based on sectarian lines can be avoided afterwards. The Syrian people will afterwards remember who gave them political and moral support and who attempted to thwart them by propping up a dying yet still vicious regime.

China and Russia would be better off abstaining in the future and allowing the will of the Syrian people to prevail, or else their prophecy of a post-revolutionary Syria favouring Western interests will simply prove self-fulfilling.

Barring the unforecastable, March 4^th 2012 will witness the former President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin regain the Russian Presidency for an extended period of six years. Whilst his influence over incumbent Dmitri Medvedev has never truly abated, the double veto cast by Russia and China at the United Nations Security Council concerning the Syrian uprising, further reinforces a re-Putinization of Russian foreign policy.

The double veto has rightly caused global outrage on a diplomatic and humanistic level. The United Nations conservatively estimates that since the protests began in March of last year, 5400 people have been killed. Activists claim that 120 people have died this Thursday and Friday alone. So what has caused Russia, one of the five permanent members of the Security Council to revert to the principle of great power unanimity, thereby casting a negative vote on this substantive draft resolution?

It is true to suggest that Russia has long held misgivings over taking a tough stance against the Assad regime. The draft resolution placed before the Security Council stated ‘full support’ for the Arab Leagues plan, aimed at ending the eleven months of bloodshed. Yet, the Russian delegation felt the text needed more work. A primary concern of the Kremlin was that they felt the draft resolution ran contrary to Russia’s policy of non-intervention in the affairs of sovereign states. Added assurances were reportedly forthcoming that the resolution could not be used to authorise regime change or a military intervention, it now appears these were not substantial enough. Further, Russia wanted blame to be shared between the opposition and government, a request western diplomats found ‘unacceptable.’

What makes this second double veto even more disappointing than the first, is that compromise appeared probable. In spite of lending tentative support to the now retracted Arab League observer mission, conclusions and recommendations for the promotion of a political process, which would see a long standing ally step aside, were not to Russia’s liking. Either was the probability of the observer mission being ‘hijacked’ by states hostile to the Syrian regime and backed by western powers, namely Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

It must additionally be noted that aside from being allies, Syria is a key weapons export destination. Estimates suggest that 10% of Russia’s global arms sales go to Syria, with contracts estimated to be worth £950m. Hence, the double veto in October of a European-led draft resolution threatening possible sanctions contravened Russian fiscal self-interest. Significantly, the Assad regime provides Russia with a naval base on Syria’s western Mediterranean coast at Tartus. This is the last base beyond the former Soviet Union borders, imposing power projection in a region of dwindling influence.

Deep-rooted suspicion and mistrust stems largely from contemporary Russo-Occidental relations, namely Putin’s objection to a U.S. Missile Defence System based in Poland and the Czech Republic, his distrust over the expansion of NATO, specifically the admittance of states such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who were originally members of the rival Warsaw Pact (1955-1991) as part of the Soviet Union, and the monopolistic hold the U.S. has asserted over global relations.

Given this re-Putinization of Russian conduct, what now for Syria? Ironically, the ball is now in Russia’s court. A delegation is to be sent to Damascus, including the foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and head of foreign intelligence Mikhail Fradkov. The international community awaits clarification over the basis of such talks. Is Lavrov going to continue to back Assad? Proclaim enough is enough and tell him to step aside? Or, is he going to investigate whom the opposition are and formulate channels of communication with a view to succession? What is evident is that without the support of Moscow, the regime will have run out of influential friends. It is plausible that Saudi Arabia and/or the United Arab Emirates may step in to compensate Moscow for any loss of influence or trade. This could sway the outcome of Lavrov’s talks.

Away from the guise of Russian foreign policy, Tunisia has cut diplomatic ties and has called for others to follow suit. Sentiments echoed by Ali al-Salem al-Dekbas, head of the Arab Parliament. In Syria itself, President Assad has been seen praying with Sunni Muslim clerics to mark the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed. Opposition is rooted within the Sunni majority, who resent the wide influence of Assad’s Alawite sect. Meanwhile, President Sarkozy has proposed a ‘Friends of Syria Group’ that would seek a solution to the crisis, away from outdated international organisational mechanisms.

In many ways it is hard for the U.S. and western allies to argue on the side of humanity given recent history, and when one accounts for the resolutions the U.S. has blocked that condemn Israeli violence against civilians. Whilst moralistically a solution is needed to prevent Syria sliding into a bloody civil war, states remain self-interested power maximisers, none more so than Putin’s Russia.

David Cameron’s veto of the EU treaty to fix the Eurozone crisis may only really have stalled, rather than prevented, Europe’s fiscal union, but  it has potentially opened the floodgates for the use of what was once an unmentionable force.

The power of veto, introduced by Charles de Gaulle in the 1950s, was used twice in ’63 and ’67 to prevent Britain’s involvement in the European Community. It wasn’t until de Gaulle’s departure into the wilderness in 1969 that Britain was accepted and after the ’72 Paris Summit the rules where changed to incorporate a ‘qualified majority voting’ system. This meant that the veto, whilst still in existence, became a more of a historical remnant of past generations than a legitimate action. Even Thatcher didn’t use it during the budget rebate fallout in the ’80s.

In reality the veto had caused nothing but problems. For example it allowed the Italians to constantly cancel plans to introduce quality controls on products for EU trading. The decision on the necessary requirements of lawnmowers, for example, took 12 years to become legislation (Italy knew that their own products would not reach the required standards, so sought to prevent the decision and constantly vetoed the plans). If it took 12 years to agree upon the most mundane of issues imagine the problems it caused with deep and controversial politics.

Now that Cameron has brought it out into the open we have already seen another veto at the UN, with Russia and China denying the world’s attempts to deal with Assad in Syria. It surely can’t be right that 2 nations (especially 2 such controversial ones with clear partisan interests) can be allowed to block the decisions of the free world! It would be awful if Cameron’s actions lead to a more consistent culture of blocking anything a nation doesn’t agree with!

As it happens I agreed that the ‘City Tax’ would have been unacceptable for Britain, but the treaty will go ahead anyway without us (although as Dave is constantly reminding is it is ”not an EU treaty”). That’s fine and as it should be. Our one nation should not be allowed to block fiscal policy for a currency we don’t even use. What is more worrying is that Pandora’s Box could have been opened and in future it may become almost impossible to build policy cooperation internationally. The UN example of Russia and China’s ability to prevent Western military action, despite clear human rights abuses, is an unnerving precedent.

One of the curious features of our modern, urban age is that the epicentre of global power lies not in any large city but, perhaps, in an otherwise obscure Swiss town. Davos, with a population around that of Berwick-upon-Tweed, suffers annually from the infestation of politicians, lobbyists and other lice, who meet there to pontificate, gorge themselves and plot.

This year, minds have been focused on the Euro and the economic woes it continues to cause. Various medicines have been prescribed, the vast majority of which involve further government meddling or micromanagement, all of which has been prescribed before and either not worked or made things worse. King amongst the proposed solutions is inflation – just print more money and everything will be better.

Thankfully, there are reports that Davos is now dying as a political force. This may be because it is about to be replaced by some young Turk of a conference – perhaps in some pleasant resort town near Beijing. Whatever the reason, it is high time we stopped taking any notice of it. By all means, let the international establishment have their annual ski-ing holiday with ‘networking’ tacked on. But we should treat their pronouncements the way we treat Jehovah’s Witnesses – with polite disdain.

There is another ‘D’ to which we should pay more attention and take hope from. It is ‘System D’, a reference to the French slang term débrouillard, denoting the possession of adaptability, like a chameleon. In Francophone Africa, the word has come to mean a type of entrepreneur that we might call a ‘wheeler dealer’ or a Del Boy character, what the Americans would call a hustler.

The débrouillard is everywhere. He is the man selling watches from the roadside in Nigeria. He is the milk-seller in Bombay. He is the unlicensed taxi driver in Kenya. She is the tailor operating from a shack in Caracas. Together, these people form the bedrock of so-called System D – the world’s black market economy. It is worth, according to some estimates, ten trillion dollars.

This is not an economy populated by slick offices or tightly-run corporations. It is a chaotic, cash-in-hand economy in which individuals sell their skills, however seemingly trivial, to all comers. It spans manufacturing, logistics, healthcare, education, leisure, energy and more – and it is beyond the reach of the taxman and the politician.

In 2009, the OECD estimated that around 1.8 billion people worldwide worked in System D. If you have ever travelled outside Europe, you have probably seen it for yourself – the masses of people, with no meaningful system of welfare available to them, working hard every day to make money selling things or services, often for a handful of rupees or dollars or baht. Not that it does not exist inside Europe – happily there is a cash economy in Britain too, despite efforts to stamp it out.

Certainly, we should not tolerate a free international trade in say, biological weapons. Shockingly, slavery still exists and should be vigorously stamped out. But System D, by and large, is not about force or harm to other humans. It is about trade and capitalism at its rawest, most energetic level. It is Adam Smith’s invisible hand working at a frenetic pace. It is a huge engine for job creation, wealth creation and social good, sustaining billions of families across the globe.

Globalisation has helped boost it. Increasingly, trade does not come through the West. African entrepreneurs deal directly with Chinese or Indian businesses. Small-scale manufacturers in Guatemala can sell directly to Indonesia. As electronic devices become cheaper, better and more ubiquitous, information will spread more quickly too via the Internet. This is social change on the scale of the Industrial Revolution, and it has generated not a single headline that I am aware of. Probably for the best: if politicians knew enough about it they would probably start to meddle, interfere and steal from it.

System D, not jobs in large corporations, is the real alternative to the welfare state. Ironically, the countries in which it thrives are those with high levels of red tape, corruption and bureaucracy – which are ignored because they are so onerous and ridiculous. But the best thing would be to simply roll back the state and let the small entrepreneurs thrive. It is the future of the global economy.

Finland is voting for its new president on Sunday 5th of February. The first round of elections was two weeks ago, and since none of the candidates gained over 50% of the votes, the two most voted go into second round. We already know that these elections have changed the political status quo in Finland. For the past 30 years, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) has won the elections and held the highest possible office in Finland. Now there are candidates  from National Coalition Party and Green Party at the finishing line, and we know for sure that the SDP-era is going to end.

To analyze the presidential elections (and the behavior of the supporters), we have to look a bit back in history. No further however than last April – the parliamentary elections. The big winner of the elections were True Finns, who managed to gain 19,1% of all votes, which was 15 place improvement to the result they had in previous parliamentary elections in 2007. What was so remarkable in this? True Finns is a party that is populist, against immigration, European Union and pretty much everything that the other “older” parties stand for. They are especially argumentative towards leftish parties and the Greens, which lost a massive amount of their support last spring. After the True Finns victory everyone, especially the leftish intellectuals, were afraid that Finland is going to lose its reputation as a peace-building, neutral and civilized northern state.

Before the campaigns for the presidential elections really started, the biggest question was whether there was going to be a second round or would the candidate of National Coalition Party, Mr. Sauli Niinistö take it all already on the first round. To be honest no one actually believed that Mr. Pekka Haavisto, the candidate of the Green Party, had a chance to go to second round. The Greens have a support of something around 5% in Finland, and Mr. Haavisto was considered to be an outsider in Finnish domestic politics since he has been working for UN missions for the past few years. He is also publicly gay and living in a registered relationship with a man. For some amount of Finns the idea of a gay president representing us around the world is still something not to be even discussed about.

As it turned out, 18% of Finns were ready for Green president and Mr. Haavisto went to second round together with the favorite Mr. Niinistö (37% of the vote). After the first round, the analytics and supporters of Mr. Haavisto were crying out in media and all over the country that this was the anti-True Finns movement, aimed to support the open and pro-European Finland. Which actually is true – I said to my husband after the results of the first round that this was the proof that there are still open, international and caring people living in the north.

After the first round, the supporters prepared themselves for a tough battle. During the campaigns there have been quite big differences in support; 63% for Niinistö, 37% for Haavisto. It is almost obvious that Mr. Niinistö is going to be the next president of Finland. But that is not what is interesting. What is interesting is how the whole Finnish nation have been divided into two camps; those who are intolerant, capitalist and conservative bastards (supporters of Mr. Niinistö) and those who are so-called trendy wannabes, whose understanding of the world is somewhat lacking realism (supporters of Mr. Haavisto).

Both sides have been accusing the other for voting for wrong reasons. Supporters of Niinistö believe that the only reason to vote for Haavisto is that he is gay. Since he is also urban Green party candidate, that (according to Niinistö camp) is also trendy. Supporters of Haavisto accuse that many voters of Niinistö would vote for Haavisto, but they do not do so since he is gay and thus are intolerant, conservative people who do not respect human rights.

I think it is incredible insulting for everyone, and especially to those smart and excellent candidates, to even go on to this kind of discourse. For sure, there are some people who think that president of Finland just cannot be gay. For sure, there are some people who vote for Haavisto so they can vote for gay rights at the same time. But most of Finnish people are smart, educated and decent people. The ones who vote for Niinistö, stand by his values and share the same ideas about the future of the country. Those who vote for Haavisto, share the same things with him.

Whatever the result on Sunday is going to be, one thing is for sure. There is going to be a group of Finns who think that the result was not fair. The Haavisto camp is going to believe that the reason he lost is the gay issue. In the quite unlikely case that Mr. Haavisto wins, National Coalition Party and all supporters of Niinistö are going to think for the rest of their lives that people voted for Haavisto since it was trendy. Whatever the result, it is going to be unfair to some.

Should We Stop Teaching the Holocaust in Schools? According to former Education Secretary, (Lord) Kenneth Baker, the answer is yes. As we approach Holocaust Memorial Day – Friday 27th January – it’s important to ask if Lord Baker has a point.

He argues, according to an interview in the Daily Telegraph last month, that concentrating on the Holocaust causes British children to have an unwarrantedly negative view of Germany and that they should be learning much more about British history.

Ken Baker attempted much that was good in his time at the Education Department although it could be argued that his lasting legacy will turn out to be the fine work he has done since in driving forward the rebirth of high quality technical and vocational education through the University Technical Colleges Trust, which he he played a leading role in founding. Certainly, most of his best endeavours as Thatcher’s Education Secretary, such as the National Curriculum – conceived as an attempt to rescue education from the education system’s nomenklatura – were, in fact, subverted by the establishment that has done so much to ruin children’s chances of being properly educated. The National Curriculum is now irredeemably a vehicle for promoting the dumbing down of the nation and its slavish adherence to every daft nostrum of the leftist intelligentsia.

One of his ambitions was to increase the amount and quality of teaching of British history and he’s right to argue that this should still be the aim of policy. He’s also right that we as a nation  need to acquire a more nuanced and informed view of German history. But he’s wrong about the Holocaust.

Why is it vital that Hitler’s genocide be retained in the school curriculum? In itself, it is an object lesson in the depths of evil to which human beings can sink. It is also an antidote to that unthinking optimism which regards technological and scientific progress as goods in themselves and science and technology as, of themselves, adequate frameworks for the good life. Humility is, or should be, intrinsic to science: the Holocaust should teach us to suspect all those who claim to have divined all-embracing truths and infallible guides to life in each scientific advance; the Nazis’ racial ‘science’ was based in part on interpretations of Darwin not least those underpinning the ‘science’ of eugenics which in turn was fervently embraced by much of the left, especially many Fabians.

The German theologian Paul Tillich, forced to leave Germany for his antiNazi activities, had this warning for those who would sideline religion and philosophy in favour of science and technology rather than trying to achieve a synthesis of their many insights. In reflecting on the dark side of our technocratic society in ‘The Courage to Be’  he comments:

A self which has become a matter of calculation has ceased to be a self. It has become a thing …  people [are] transformed into things, into pieces of reality which pure science can calculate and technical science can control.

Perhaps he had in mind Reinhard Heydrich, Adolf Eichmann and the Webbs, Beatrice and Sydney.

Such deep lessons might well be better learnt from a curriculum which embeds events such as the Holocaust in a rigorous balance of subjects drawn from the arts, the humanities and the sciences – a properly liberal education, in fact. What needs to be stressed is that the work of establishing its monstrous momentousness, its seminal moral significance in understanding our world has been done; of necessity, as time passes, the question will arise of how best to ensure that succeeding generations sense no less powerfully the almost personal demand for response and understanding that it exerts on us.

To remove the Holocaust from the curriculum would be to signal that it holds no significance for anybody outside the countries – principally Germany, obviously – in which it occurred thus, one might have thought, encouraging precisely the caricature of that country as uniquely demonic which Lord Baker is so anxious, rightly, to end.

Lord Baker’s suggestion also raises the related important questions of the cut-off date for the teaching of British history and what is to be taught about our involvement in European history. Bringing schemes of work up to the post-War period would have several advantages in understanding the Holocaust and its significance in British and European history. Pupils would be able to see how it arose from the specific conditions prevailing in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and, if the return to a rigorously narrative history has been completed, link the rise of the Nazis to wider pathologies in European history and culture. Baker’s perfectly reasonable point about more balance in our attitudes to Germany might be met by introducing pupils to the ways in which Germans responded to the Holocaust after 1945. There are many lessons – good and bad – for all of us in that.

In linking British with European history with again, the emphasis on narrative not themes or trendy moralising, some fascinating questions ought to arise for teachers and taught. How was it, for example, that totalitarian movements of left and right that did so well over there, made little headway here? A good grounding in UK history, constitutional, political and social, should help to answer that question.

Finally, the salience for today of the Holocaust and its ideological underpinnings takes concrete form in the genocidal totalitarianism on display in Teheran and in many Muslims’ refusal to face up to their own long-standing history of anti-semitism going all the way back to the so-called ‘Prophet’. The consequences of our failure to understand and face up to the Nazi threat ought to have at least some lessons for us now as the free world, with Israel on the front line as Czechoslovakia was in 1938, grapples with the awful responsibility of confronting a nuclear-armed Iranian Hitler. Unfortunately, our children are going to have to think deeply and seriously about these issues. It is inconceivable that knowing about the Holocaust should not be part of that.

So, let’s move on now to the next stage in the evolution of education about the Holocaust. It should take its place in a rigorously taught narrative history of Britain and Europe which comes up to, say, the 1950s  so that it can be seen and understood in its full context with no part of the evil or the horror played down. It should not be confined to History – and can’t be if the arts and humanities are to be properly taught. Its impact on literature, art and music can hardly be ignored and its lessons for all time will speak through those responses for generations to come.

The Holocaust is distinctive because it was both an eruption of long-standing hatreds rooted in the darkest superstition and a coldly planned, scientifically executed, technically advanced project for the mass production of death. Its pall fell across the whole of Europe and our country nearly broke itself in the struggle to defeat its perpetrators.  As such it has deep truths to disclose. Its wholesale excision from the intellectual and moral formation of future generations is unthinkable.