Baram

On eve of new years eve I travelled with a group from One voice to a little well know village called Baram. Most people know of the kibbutz Baram but there is also a much older village that for the most part has been left perfectly preserved since 1948.

The story of Baram after 1948 is both tragic and folly. During the Israeli war of Independence the members of the village were warned by neighboring Arab villages to join them and flee Palestine, for Lebanon or Syria. They were warned that the encroaching Israeli army would kill any arabs they found. Yet the villagers refused to leave and stayed. When the Israeli's came the villagers were not harmed. But told to move to a neighboring village until the war was over for their safety.

After the war the Arabs of Baram become Israeli citziens. They were eager to return to their village and sought means to do this. Thier efforts appeared to pay off when they received a letter from the Prime Ministers office (dated 1949) that the state of Israel recognises their rights and owenership of the village of Baram. Unfortuntaly they were prevented from returning by the area commander of the newly formed IDF.



Thus its been over 60 years and the arabs of Baram have not been able to return, the specific area become a security zone after 48, making it illegal for anyone to live or reside there. in the early 50s the village was bombarded to ensure it could not be used. To this day it is a ruined village locked in time from 1948. Not just the Baram arabs but many Isralies have petitioned and campagained for the Baram families to be able to return to thier village. Time and again the courts appear to approve thier wishes, yet the IDF continually deny the arabs to return on security grounds.

It difficult to accept the "security issue" as the reason why they cant return, especially since thwir are other towns and villages so close by which have not faced this problem. You can see Kibbutz Baram from the ruins of the village and yet the Kibbutz has been able to thrive whilst the village has been left desolate.



The law is on the side of these villagers yet they have been unfortunate and unlucky in the pursuit returning to their village. We were given a tour of the ruined village by one of the former residents. He is a very loyal citizen of Israel and has been fighting for what he feels is right and what in the law is right. He cannot do anything more (him and many of the former residents and their families now use the church in the village at the risk of breaking military law)

The hope is that one day the law is used the correct way and held up above all other institutions. Only then will the village be guaranteed to be returned to its former inhabitants.

Watching the Aral slip away

One of the greatest environmental catastrophes has been observed over the last 40 years, if any one needed proof of the degradation and destruction caused by the progress of modern civilisation then the decimation and permanent decline of the Aral Sea is testament of our negligence and pride in "modernity" and "progress".

The Aral sea was once the 4th largest lake in the world, rivalling the great lakes of north America. Yet in just 40 years only 10% of the lake remains. This is a direct result of human intervention, through massive Soviet era irrigation projects in one of the driest places on earth the central Asian states.

Whilst their is ongoing salvation efforts for the northern part of the Aral sea of which substantial progress has been made, the greater bulk of the seas southern part is predicted to completely disappear by 2020. This tragedy could be a prophesy of things to come in a world of rapid climate change.

This is more tragic duento the fact that for years countries such as Kazakhstan who should have been the custodians of one of their greatest assets (especially in one of the driest areas in the world) let this happen. It is also more the tragedy that the international community failed to intervene until it was too late.The international community is now intervening through the UN and World bank to preserve the northern part of sea.

The irony now is that that Uzbekistan who largely controls the southern part of the sea has given up preserving what's left and is eagerly awaiting the prospect of the the oil and gas deposits that lay beneath one of the worlds newest desert. clearly the lesson has not been learnt of what happens when resources are over-exploited, man forever seems to feel it can master nature when in fact he/she should only fashion and be stewards of the environment around it.

The Aral sea is one of many warning signs that shows our inaction and apathy for environmental conservation and preservation can be catastrophic.

Can an industrial and market driven world react in a rational way to such issues? More often than not markets see the natural environment as a free resource ready to exploit, the Aral sea is a classic example of the "tragedy of the commons", the Aral like the air and oceans being a common resource owned by no one inevitably lead to its destruction.

The degradation of the environment and the over exploitation of its resources is an issue that all states should be vigilant of, this century could be the century of a depleted natural world being fought over by more populous and industrial civilisations.

where now for the U.S

As a European observer, the U.S has seems ever more dangourously polarised, there appears to be a new epoch, of state minimalism vs state interventionism. This is not an ideological struggle as some observers would like to portray, but more what relationship should the people have with a state (social fabric itself remains the same) neither side is revolutionary, and yet there is a certain danger if the U.S chooses badly on how to progress in the 21st century.

Some how a social and political narrative is being shaped that the economic ruptures of the last 3 years were a result of state not market failure, the flagship of this narrative is the tea-party movement and a resurgent Republican party. Thier answer to the current economic ruptures is not to restrain market forces but to set them free, and constrain state behaviour to a bear minimum.

This could be a catastrophic mistake, history over the last century has demonstrated that whilst markets have never been free per se, the freer they are the more volatile they become and the greater risk they have of destabilising economies.It seems shocking that this narrative has taken a hold.

The last 3 years should have been a galvanising moment for the left and those groups and indivudlas who which to constrain capitalism to push for and change the direction of the political economy of their societies.

Yet many indicators such as the mid term elections demonstrate an utter failure in this regards and now it seems any state initiative has been paralysed at least until the next presidential election.

The U.s still believes that its greatness, wealth and prosperity was created by the entrepreneurial spirit and capitalism, yet this is a myth, when the U.S was set on the past of becoming a true superpower both economic and political it was in both case because of and not in spite of state guidance and activism.

The U.s more than at any time needs a strengthened state apparatus to fix the damage down by the dark side of capitalism ,the panics, manias and crashes of the financial markets, speculation and bubbles. If they neglect and ignore the state to regulate , constrain and promote a more equitable society they do this at their peril.

Le Whore Lebnan

Walking the streets of Beirut in 2010, one would see a city full of glitz wealth and conspicuous consumption, apart from the odd shelled out derelict building ,who would suspect that 20 years prior Beirut and Lebanon was just coming out of a bloody and devastating civil war. The Philangist militants that once controlled the streets of Gemezeaya in East Beirut have been replaced by bright young things more focused on frittering away their wealth on the many pubs and clubs. Yet this picture of a new young,wealthy and confident Beirut and hence Lebanon is a misleading and conflicting one. Whilst the war ended 20 years ago, the wounds have not healed at all. the Lebanon of 2010, has much of the same foundational issues as that which created and sustained the bloody civil war. These foundational issues are based on the sectarianism that has been enshrined and sustained by a complicity of the the leaders of the 18 various sects supporting a system of power being divided amongst them, which in practise has paralysed the traditional modes of politics and governance, in the past this lead power and government to be dictated by the militias.

In 2010 The rules of the game remain the same but the appetite for war has diminished, much of the power politics in Lebanon is dictated by foreign powers such as Iran and Syriac through hezbollah, the U.S, Israel and Saudi Arabia(Saudi Arabia was the country who orchestrated the Doha agreement which brought Lebanon back from the brink of another potentially crippling war in 2008), when I was in Lebanon in the summer of 2009, a french traveller I met noted the analogy of Lebanon being like a cheap prostitute with its legs open to anyone, if anyone goes to Lebanon they will see the facade of wealth paid for by the vested interests of national backers like the U.S and Saudi Arabia, yet underneath this facade is all the disease that afflicts such as vice, like corruption and the continual state paralysis that threatens to plunge Lebanon into yet another needless war.

Until a new system of rules is proposed and adopted then Lebanon will continually be held hostage to its own weakness and the international community. Yet there is a glimmer of hope, ever since the withdrawal of Syrian troops in 2005, thier has been a new resurgence in civil society, it is these groups such as the Lebanese Transparency association, which will be the bastion of a new Lebanon, there very nature transcends the conflicting sectarian divisions by focusing on issues that unite all Lebanese citizens. In April this resurgent civil society has very openly started to flex its muscles by demonstrating in the heart of Beirut for an end to sectarianism. These civil society groups if they can unite and work together can truly put an end to the old ways and empower Lebanese society to promote the interests of all communities in Lebanon and create a great Democracy in the Middle East.

The slow death of European Liberalism?

An old spectre is resurfacing and haunting Europe, the battle between Nationalism and Liberalism these two foundations of modern society, ravaged the fledgling European nation States in the 19th and 20th Century. Yet at the end of the Second World War, it was assumed Liberal Europe with it Democracy and Welfare state had won the battle. The European Union is testimony to that victory. Despite this victory, the issue of nationalism has not faded, and in fact in 2010 the dark side of nationalism, such as xenophobia, protectionism, and racial politics, has resurfaced in many corners of Europe, from the continual popularity of Le Front National in France to the Jobbik party in Hungary which is expect to be the third largest party in Hungary by April 26th. The factors for this resurgence is all too typical such as economic instability in the last 3 years, has pushed the marginalised sectors of society especially the working class into the fringes of the political spectrum. Yet whilst many factors of the rise of far right nationalist parties are unsurprising, what is surprising is the seeming inability and inaction of the mainstream political class to devise a coherent and effective front against this dangerous wave. This is most surprising considering the fact that the culmination of nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th century ultimately lead to the two most destructive wars in human history, the centre-right liberals who occupy most European governments now, appear to have one simple tactic in dealing with the rise of the far right, this is to invite them to form collations with them ,and thus assume that the far-right will be pacified by the electoral compromises they must make in order to accommodate the mainstream electorate, and thus their policies become less toxic, thereby transforming them into mainstream respectable parties. Yet this assumption has not worked in reality, as Italy demonstrates the far-right nationalist party known as the Northern-League has been in Berlusconi's coalition for some time now, yet they have made no effort at changing their ideology or policies, what they have been able to exert is pressure with Berlusconi’s party to promote their own policies especially of race issues like immigration. They have also gained greater respectability as member of the coalition government; this has been reflected by local election in Italy in March where the Northern League gained greater support than ever before.
It seems that once again Europe feels like it is slumbering towards a less liberal and opens continent. There appears a failure by the liberal elites both from the left and right, to protect all they there forefathers fought for. It seems improbable that Europe will ever fall back into the nightmare of the 20th century. But vigilance is needed. Citizens of the wealthiest and most democratic continent on earth must protect the glories they have struggled for. It is the responsibility of all pillars of society, from politicians, academics, journalists, to remind their fellow citizens of the good society they live in, and that strengthening our society is an imperative for us all to live the good virtuous. The policies of the far right always exploit the fears and vulnerabilities people. We must find the vulnerabilities in the far –right, this is their ideas and use the supremacy of logic and reason to deafeat this dark side of Europe today.

Development Deadwood

For the last 50 years, development, especially in poverty stricken countries has gained greater prominence on the international field, yet the rise of the importance and significance of development, has been met with a paradox. The focus of poverty alleviation, by institutions like the U.N and governments such as the UK.'s DIFD, has not necessarily lead to poverty alleviation. In fact in many areas of the world especially Latin America and Africa, poverty has actually increased despite the interventions of a variety of actors. Much of this paradox can perhaps be explained by the fact that whilst there has been a pursuit by institutions and rich nations in attempting develop countries,in the past there was no real understanding if what development is and the instruments that guarantee development. In fact the conventional wisdom from the late 1970s onwards by many experts and academics was that promoting economic growth was the panacea of developing a nation, yet even this proved in itself a paradox, as there was no real understanding of what ingredients and conditions allow for sustained economic growth in a country, this is still the case today, no serious academic has been able to propose the ingredients that cause economic growth. This is especially the case in the fact that all nations are different and therefore variety of policy prescriptions are needed to help promote a vrituas economic growth cycle.

The two international bastion s of development at least since 1974, have been the World Bank and the IMF, both these institutions have attempted to impose their understanding of promoting economic growth and development. Many of there interventions have been heavily criticised, especially when when Russia was transitioning to a market economy after the end of the cold war, many such as William Eastery argue that their actions created a lost decade of economic growth and prosperity for Russia due to the "shock therapy" tactics that both these institutions used.

In the 21st century there there is still no conclusive and full proof theory or conditions that academics have produce which can be used by developing countries. This is despite the fact that countries such as China, India and East Asia, have had spectacular growth and development stories. Much of there success can perhaps be explained by there rejection of conventional development prescription, many of the countries that are constotuantly developing have done so as a result fo the paternalist nature of the state in engendering growth and development, such as the historic Chaobels in South Korea which are nurtured by state intervention. The Chaobels are unique to South Korea and they have played an integral role alongside various other factors in positioning South Korea form one of the worlds least developed countries in the 1960s (comparable to Ghana) to one of the most wealthiest in the 21st century.

More and more academics such as Amartya Sen and William Easterly are arguing that development is not just related to economic growth, as was once assumed but by the types of values a society adopts, they and I agree argue that values such as democracy, Liberalism and freedom, are not the be all and end all but they are values that must be adopted in order to the well being of a countries citizens, which is surely the propose of promoting economic growth and development in the first place.

The Rwandan president was recently interviewed in the Guardian regarding the direction he has taken his country since he was elected and since the genocide in 1994. Kagame has stated that "whilst he agrees with rights, food on the table must come first", he justifies this with the impressive growth and development that has made Rwanda the "darling of the aid community" this is the case that many developmentalists argue when they excuse what they deem as benevolent dictators who
occupy states that have seemingly good economic and development policies. many East Asian countries have been analysed in this way when were experiencing economic growth in the 2nd half of the 20th century whilst under authoritarian rule.

yet there is no evidence that "benevolent dictators" contribute directly to development and growth and in fact it is easily argued that many fall under the teleological fallacy of placing emphasis on an individual rather than a combination of factors.

Institutions like the world Bank seem to create new development paradigms every decade, from the "Washington Consensus" in the 80s to "fixing fragile states" in this decade. The truth is that these institutions don't know how to develop nations, and in some case have helped engender poverty and fragility such as in Russia in the 90s. The best ingredients for a nation to develop, is to provide the right incentives for a country to follow the best policies and practices. Real democracy not just election but when individuals have a stake in the decision making process and government are truly held to account, provides an intencive for a nation to develop, because citizens will have a more intimate relationship with the state and rights and obligations can be achieved that guarantee the well-being for all citizens.

Incentives must also be used for communities and grass-roots to provide economic growth, the state can do this through the paternalism which in reality is protectionism of its infant indigenous industries, all successful nations especially the the wealthiest such as Europe and the U.S adopted this approach, despite the fact that they vehemently discourage when "aiding2 the development of poor nations now.

Finally it is important to stress that the maturation of the wealthy states to strong liberal wealthy democracy took a long time more than 200 years, and whilst in theory by learning from their mistakes impoverished nations should be able to develop swiftly, the sad fact is best practices comes from learning ones mistakes and following independent polices that are decided through local issues not from foreign actors which have been historically ideologically driven.

development will come and has come for millions of infant nations states of the post second world war, yet the development community must take a more sensitive approach and rather than follow ideology, seeks to find incentives for democratic ,fair and sustainable development that provided not just greater wealth but greater well-being and empowerment of all citizens.

The case for Sovereignty in the 21st Century

In the mid summer of 2008, Russia invaded a neighbouring sovereign country, in order in its view to protect a separatist region of Georgia that is sympathetic and loyal to Russia. Whilst the premise for the invasion of Georgian territory by Russian troops was based on defensive retaliation and a perceived collective security obligation by Russia for the people of south Ossetia the separatist region in Georgia with a Russian majority population, the real dilemma that the conflict presents to the international community, is the issue regarding territorial sovereignty and integrity, the importance of sovereignty by the international community is demonstrated by the founding principle of the U.N charter under article 2.8 and 2.4. Which stresses the important of territorial integrity for any member of the U.N . Yet since the end of the cold war questions and problems have surrounded the principle of sovereignty. There are numerous cases where the inviolability of sovereignty in international relations, with states has been totally disregarded, not only with Russia but with many of the great power, the U.S invasion of Iraq also raises questions over the importance of sovereignty. the actions of nations in the 21st century appear to necessitate a revision on the concept of sovereignty and more importantly its inviolability in the 21st century. Many examples within international relations appear to diminish the importance of sovereignty, such as the evolution of the E.U, which places greater emphasis on mutual inter-dependence amongst its members rather than clearly defined territorial boundaries that has been a feature of Europe since the treaty of Westphalia.
The U.N appears to be a inadequate mechanism and framework for its members in enforcing and respecting sovereignty. Especially since the end of the cold war and the idea of humanitarian intervention becoming an increasingly important paradigm for international affairs, with cases such as Sierra Leone and Kossovo, demonstrating the need for intervention in the domestic affairs of other nations, a seemingly direct contravention of the Sovereignty centric UN charter.

There has been many calls recently to conduct major reform of the UN structure and its principles no less from the former UN secretary general Kofi Anan in 2005, the main arguments if for altering the security council in order to better serve the new international order and to better represent the shifting power of certain states in the world, if this were to happen then the issue of sovereignty should be placed on the reform agenda of the UN, the dilemma the reformists face is whether there Should be a more muscular UN that could inhibit the actions of the great powers such as Russia and the U.S who at times disregard the principle of sovereignty according to their whim. Or should the U.N no longer focus on the centrality of sovereignty in international relations thus reflecting the nature of an anarchical international system?

Its difficult to predict and determine how the shifting hegemony's in the world will affect the international community whats clear is whilst the U.S retains the title of a hyper-power, which as yet is not rivalled, there are challengers, most notably China, but also the other BRICs, (Brazil Russia and India , and perhaps also South Africa. Yet whilst world power is shifting it is important to stress that China, Russia and U.S were the three great powers who emerged after the Second World War being gifted along with Britain and France with permanents seats at the UN Security Council, it seems most probable that they will be great powers in 100 years times, albeit with a few extra companions. this is crucial as it is these nations that have built the U.N on the basis of sovereignty as the central ideal of the international community, even if at times they ignore and abuse that principle. Thus this would suggest that sovereignty still has a place in the 21st centrality. yet this story is incomplete, if sovereignty is to remain as a pillar of international relations then many issues will remain unresolved, much of this related to the processes of globalisation that in many quarters such as global communication and the spread of the inter-net has transcended the conventional barriers that guarantee sovereignty for a nation , a case in point is the row between Google and China that has erupted in 2010, Google has been desperate to dictate it own ideological belief based on freedom and access to information when operating in China, against the will of the sovereign PRC government. It is non-state entities such as google that have the capacity and audacity to challenge conventional attitudes and view of sovereignty in the world.

One compelling argument put forward by Robert Kagen is the idea of complementing the U.N with a new organisation that places not the nation state and its sovereignty at the heart of the international community, but the principles of freedom, liberty and democracy where nations can unite with the same principles and beliefs for furthering the well-being of humanity this would set a new paradigm, he calls this the League of Democracies. This League would perhaps support Google's actions against the sovereign will of China for the furtherance of the ideals it supports.

Yet as yet the issue of sovereignty and its place in the 21st is still unresolved the current global financial crisis, has demonstrated that states are primarily realist and will behaves not in a collective manner but individually albeit co-dependently. If the majority of states still follow the principles of Realism, then they will protect the principle of sovereignty as a mean to guarantee their self interest. In 2010 this appears more the case than ever, yet the wind of change is in the air and as the Russian Novelist Yamyatin once said "there are no final revolutions, revolutions are infinite.