The Rebalancing of Powers: From ‘Brexit’ to Babel?


13439101_10154199266405610_2017150733253960148_n.jpg

There is a disconnect between national policy and international relations.

The decision to leave the EU by the UK, or “Brexit”, is a symbol of that disconnect.

But in order to understand the origins of this decision, it is important to highlight the UK’s tradition of reluctance and hesitation towards the EU since its inception.

By nature, the UK, like America, prefers to play a conservative role in international affairs, dabbling in just enough to get the benefit, but not enough to bear the burden.

But the armed crises in the Middle East have created a storm in UK & EU politics, with the migration crisis being the crux of the problem.

Evidently, the UK prefers to leave such matters in the hands of its European counterparts, which is ironic because the UK is America’s closest ally in Europe – both countries are directly responsible for destabilizing the Middle East in the first place, under the premise of liberalization. This is where the disconnect begins.

At least half of the UK truly feels undermined by the concentration of power, underrepresented and almost collectivized by being part of the EU.

13533264_10154199266420610_6003690494943506927_n

But is the decision to leave the EU a right-wing populist scheme exploiting frustrations of the ordinary Brit? In South America, both right and left wing populism have failed to their more centered opponents. The US is still determining its fate.

Has this decision created a more or less secure world? Is this decision likely to produce positive or negative results in the UK’s social, economic and political fabric? How will this impact the rest of Europe? What will happen to the migrants?

It is in fact the people who have decided, through referendum, to leave the EU. Despite a targeted and well-developed “leave” campaign, the decision is also inspired by  general discontent towards the EU in Britain. But the facts and rhetoric surrounding the campaign reveals “Brexit” is more about xenophobia & Islamophobia than it is about sovereignty.

The majority of those who voted to leave the EU were above the age of 40. The vast majority of those who voted against were in their 20s ad 30s.

Given that London just elected its first Muslim mayor, there is reason to believe that unfounded, prejudiced paranoias about migrants and Muslims have stoked fears and insecurities in society, just enough to feed into the allure of right-wing populism and fear.

UK MP Nigel Farage proclaimed victory, ushering the 23rd as the UK’s modern independence day. He went on to claim that such a victory was achieved without any blood spilled. But only last week, British MP Jo Cox was violently murdered by a right-wing extremist who shouted “Britain First” as he committed the murder. Has this been understated by the media? Compared to reporting on terrorism linked to one or more Muslims, it is difficult to say that the media is not biased.

Notable international relations theorist John Mearsheimer predicted the disintegration of the EU as a result of the current international political dynamic which has seen America as the world’s sole superpower since the dissolution of the USSR. That dissolution has almost removed the security incentive for unity, or balancing that brought the EU together in the first place. There appears to be a growing rift among NATO members, particularly between European states and the US on how to manage international affairs. The differences stem from foreign policy on the Middle East primarily. Is the UK’s decision to leave the EU an inching towards or away from subservience to US leadership? That depends on the direction US democracy goes. If the American people also give in to fear, Donald Trump might be the next US president. This suggests that the two of the world’s most influential powers, the UK and America, are juggling between the past and the future – traditions of colonialism, racism & global mischief – and the equally traditional struggle against those forces, political enfranchisement, and socio-economic equality.

Europe is drifting towards a center-left progressive “utopia” – something despised by the British traditional-mentality. The same could be said of the US. This is vindicated by the statistics surrounding the ‘Brexit’ vote which saw the majority of the “leave” supporters being over the age of 40.

Without delving deeply into history books, the average person might not know that much of the US’ post-WWI behavior was determined by the British, by prompting fear and insecurity about illusory global threats. In 1952, it was the British who convinced the US that movements for sovereignty in the Middle East were a threat. Initially the US had actually empathized with the struggles for independence in the Middle East. The UK convinced the US to overthrow a democratically elected leader in Iran, and the US agreed because of the paranoias injected by the UK about the so-called “communist menace”.

To some it may be surprising that racism, Islamophobia and fascism are creeping into US and UK politics. To others, perhaps more victimized by these forces, it is more dangerous than surprising. If the US decides to follow suit and elects Donald Trump, there is reason to believe that global tensions might intensify. Remember that European history is bloody. Wars between France, England, Germany were commonplace. The UK’s exit from the EU might disturb this legacy of peace and harmony in Europe which has endured since WWII. Furthermore, it might reintroduce fascism into the West – long thought gone and dead.

It isn’t hard to imagine what would happen if the US did in fact follow suit. Two blocs would eventually form in the global order – a rebalancing of powers if you will. The UK and the US would be together on one side; Russia, China & Iran on the other. India would likely play an indirect role, but ultimately throwing most of its support behind the latter bloc. The contrary would apply to the Gulf states in the Middle East, Israel and Pakistan, who would likely remain under the auspices of the UK & the US. Altogether this can be described as the modern world order. In this scenario, the EU disintegrates completely. The fault line will likely split between France & Germany – to no surprise, with much of eastern Europe balancing against the UK & the US. The war between fascism and collectivism ensues. The ideologies of capitalism and culture are at war – they are mutually exclusive. In reality, capitalism fully realized is fascist, and collectivism fully realized is communist – both authoritarian to some extent. But the latter is conditional and retaliatory. In a perfect world, neither would exist, and universal democracy could flourish without capitalism and communism. Till then, we must pick sides and lesser evils or resort to anarchism.

There is still hope for the world and America. Clinton is not our salvation – but in politics there are no angels; only lesser devils – or so it seems.

The Game: U.S., Russia, Israel, Syria, Iran & Saudi Arabia


Syria writes to the U.N. that it has a right of retaliation against Israel because of a recent attack on Syrian facilities.

Some argue this is a ploy used by the Syrian government to make it seem like they loyal to the Arab cause and struggle against foreign occupation. Others see it is as part of  a long standing Syrian foreign policy — to defend itself against foreigners, and especially against direct attacks, including those perpetrated directly by foreign nations like Israel, the U.S., France, U.K., etc.

In her farewell address as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton reaffirmed her position that Iran and Russia are fueling the conflict in Syria. On the other end of the spectrum, Iran and Russia allege Western forces (Israel, Oil Companies, Military Industrial Complex, Governments) are funding terrorists in an effort to topple Assad and eventually to destabilize Tehran.

Who suffers?

Innocent people.

Moreover, the principles of freedom, the right to pursue happiness, and the possibility of achieving individual autonomy diminish altogether, and what ensues is collective misery.

This is international politics.

Republican — The Guise of Being ‘More’ American


Republicans have lost their battle for social dominance. The American people have become too liberal. Now, the only thing the conservative lobby has left to hold on to is this propagandized idea that the Republican Party is more free-market oriented than the Democrats, and that anything outside the realm of Republicanomics is either socialist, Nazi, or Islamist.

Chill…okay?

First of all, dear conservatives, you can’t try to control people’s social lives and call yourself a free-marketeer. That is just bullshit. We all know what happens in the end. Eventually, social-control leads to the abuse of power, and then to the end of freedom altogether, including free enterprise. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of this — private enterprise mixed with theocracy.

Second of all, you Republicans tote this idea of being more supportive of American enterprise, yet, I hear things like Mitt Romney putting his money in Swiss Bank Accounts. And this was the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee. Not to mention Sarah Palin, whose entire career is financially supported by ignorant conservative soccer moms who have nothing better to do than idolize an imaginary type of existence — conservatism.

What does it mean to be conservative?

Celibate?

Do you not have bad thoughts?

Do you only work 24 hours a day with a 20 second break?

Do you never stop breathing while you are at work busting your ass earning all that money you inherited from mama and papa?

Does it mean you attend church more regularly?

Does it mean you never drink, never smoke, never think of sex?

Does it mean you support extremes that don’t exist just so that you can justify your maliciousness?

I think so.

Republicanism and conservatism is a disease of the mind fueled by millenniums of fear driven politics and traditions. It all has to do with the individual’s fear of what he is or is not allowed to do in the eyes of God as well as the individual’s potential desire to try to defy God so as to appear greater than Nature and ultimately, to avoid social equality.

That’s what I think.

DEAR MEDIA CONGLOMERATES


NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR LIES.

Benghazi


I wish Congress could, instead of sitting down the Obama Administration, sit down the Bush Administration and ask them why they lied to the American people and the whole world for that matter about the existence of WMDs in Iraq? Perhaps Congress could also ask the Bush Administration why Saudi Royalty received such exceptional care and concern during moments surrounding the 9/11 attacks?

These questions are not just for the Bush Administration though. These questions are for all the far right, conservatives, and all these extreme political ideologues who care more for their personal gains and opinions than for human dignity. And they dare to call themselves believers in God. What a shame.

Israel & America: Is The Honeymoon Finally Over?


The honeymoon between Israel and America is being crashed.

Or so it seems.

This past Wednesday, Israeli intelligence services, also known as the Mossad, assassinated an Iranian nuclear scientist, prompting a critical response from U.S. government officials who, according to Foreign Policy Magazine, would rather uphold their current and less stringest strategy of placing sanctions on Iran.

According to an an article from the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. is working towards easing tensions with Iran.

Iran has agreed to host a delegation of United Nations nuclear inspectors this month. The U.S., meanwhile, has twice this month rescued Iranian sailors in the region’s seas.

But on the other end of the Middle East, a shady history is beginning to surface. That history involves Israel.

According to an article in The Washington Post  titled ‘Israel Spies Wooing U.S. Muslims’, by Jeff Stein, Israel has for a while now been carrying out assassinations and financing Islamic extremist groups in the region.

The following statements are from that article:

One of Israel’s major interests, of course, is keeping track of Muslims who might be allied with Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, or Iran-backed Hezbollah, based in Lebanon.

As tensions with Iran escalate, according to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, “Israeli agents have become more aggressive in targeting Muslims living in the United States as well as in operating against critics.”

“There have been a number of cases reported to the FBI about Mossad officers who have approached leaders in Arab-American communities and have falsely represented themselves as ‘U.S. intelligence,’ ” Giraldi wrote recently in American Conservative magazine.

If Israel indeed supports groups like this, what’s to say about other Islamic extremist groups like al Qaeda? Aren’t many of their cells located in Pakistan, where Jundallah operates?

These new developments don’t come as a surprise to the Arab world however. In the Middle East, Israel’s actions have become the norm. But in the U.S., these sort of actions are completely unacceptable and come under tough scrutiny.

What does the future hold for U.S.-Israeli relations? It is well known that Israel has a strong hold on the U.S. government, with powerful lobbyists and corporations swaying politicians to their side. But how long can this last?

If Israel continues down its current track, I don’t think it will last much longer.

If Obama gets reelected in 2012, Netanyahu has all the reason to worry.

Nationalism in the Middle East: Iran, Syria, and the West


In the days of President Harry Truman, relations between the United States and the Middle East weren’t so sour.

In 1952, everything changed.

The United Kingdom was planning to depose the newly democratically elected prime minister of Iran: Prime Minister Mossadegh. He is the man seated in the photograph above.

Mossadegh had quickly become the archenemy of the UK.

Tensions worsened when he began making calls for the nationalization of Iranian oil.  For so long, foreign nations, or colonialists, as they were called, had been exploiting the Iran’s vast oil wealth, leaving the majority of the population extremely impoverished (All the Shah’s Men, Kinzer).

Through the sly tactics of English government officials,  the United Kingdom convinced the Americans to tag along. The key word was communism, which was all the Americans needed to hear.

After the Cold War however, it became increasingly clear that communism was not the threat. It was a much deeper issue.

For centuries, the West exploited countries for their resources. Nations like Iran, Syria, and countries outside the Middle East like Venezuela and Cuba, did not embrace communism simply to spite the West. On the contrary, they were doing the exact opposite. Iranians and Syrians alike began making the same demands that their American counterparts made in their early history – that they be granted the right to collect the fruits of their labor and to profit off the wealth of their natural resources. Both of these demands are fundamental principles of free market economics.

Ironically though, the U.K., with the help of the U.S., did what ever they could to prevent these countries from doing just that. They did this by conducting covert coup d’etats and assassinations. They financed monarchies and even bribed foreigners to stir uprisings in their own countries (All the Shah’s Men, Kinzer).

What is even more ironic is that the countries stirring these uprisings, namely the U.K. and the U.S., tout Western principles of freedom and democracy, while, simultaneously, investing in movements led by Islamic fundamentalists and tyrannical monarchies abroad.

In Iran, for example, one Islamic cleric turned against the popularly elected leader Prime Minister Mossadegh. A day later he received $10,000 from the CIA.

Incidents like these are scattered throughout the twentieth century. They only serve to illuminate the truth behind the politics of the Middle East. Even more so, they force me to question the current chaos gripping the Middle East today.

I ask myself questions like, who is behind these Arab protests? Are they really genuine? And why are countries like Saudi Arabia not being scrutinized for their brutal suppression of pro-democracy protests in Bahrain?

Perhaps it is for the same reason that the U.K. orchestrated the coup d’etat against Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1952 – to preserve their grasp on the oil wealth of the Middle East.