The Ethics of Resistance

The Ethics of resistance

Since Operation Protective Edge erupted onto the world stage on July 8th and officially ended in late August there has been a deafening chorus of voices on both sides denouncing their opponents. Clearly this has been a war not just of military maneuvers but one of hearts and minds also. Each side claiming moral supremacy over the other. Wherever you stand in the Israel-Gaza conflict one issue that is of the utmost importance is the character of Hamas. The military affairs of Hamas are the cause celebre of the Israeli government, a call to arms that cannot be ignored. Hamas and its military wing the Al-Qassam brigades stand accused of using civilians to shield military equipment and enforcing a violent Jihadist regime that demands the self-sacrifice and martyrdom.  Indeed on the surface there is much to condemn. On the August 22nd Hamas executed 21 Gazan citizens accused of collaborating with Israel.  The ethics of any armed conflict are difficult to discern. Hamas is certainly no exception. 

'[Hamas are] Digging terror tunnels to send death squads to attack Israeli children'-Benjamin Netanyahu, Hannity

Evidently the decisions that the people of Gaza have to make are not easy ones. The motif of 'victory or martyrdom' certainly has been  prevalent amongst the Al-Qassam. In addition to this worrying culture, Hamas' rhetoric stresses playing the long game, that in time they will inevitably win... Whatever the cost.  However despite calls for Hamas to  tone down its fiery oratory the failure of any diplomatic solution has exacerbated this conflict. The PLO has been sat at the negotiating table since the Oslo Peace agreement in 1993, the West Bank has seen near Half a million Israeli settlers set up homes on Palestinian land. In addition Israel outright refuses to have any official dialogue with Hamas. In contrast the militant Shiite organisation Hezbollah in Lebanon have successfully repelled Israel in 2006 by aggressive military means and received international support from major world powers. Evidently, in this most difficult situation what is ethical and what is successful are separate issues.   
Is any armed activity ethical? If the answer is yes, then are Hamas an 'ethical resistance'? Does the conflict in Gaza even qualify as a war? Or is it an occupation? Whatever our own individual answers to these questions are. These issue of ethics is worth exploring. 

Human Shields

An IDF Picture depicting Hamas rocket launch sites 

Firstly I will asses the most common charge that has been brought against Hamas. 
It is axiomatic that we asses the charge that Hamas uses 'human shields'. 

Since the conflict began in July, the Gaza City neighborhood of Shejaiya has been completely
destroyed. Allegedly this is because of the presence of 'terror tunnels' under it's streets. 
Ultimately the Palestinian tunnel offensives have represented little strategic threat to Israel, and have not targeted civilians. I believe that given the nature of the conflict and the Al-Qassam brigades the ethnics of Hamas are difficult to analyse. Among the people in Gaza there seems to be a definite commitment to the Hamas cause. 

'What kind of government would ask people to leave their homes?'- Khaled Meshaal, BBC HARDtalk

'This man is not related to anything against Israel. He is a member of Hamas, okay but that does not mean that the three families that live in this home should have their home demolished completely'., Abu Middan (Gaza resident) after his house was attacked, Vice: Rockets and Revenge- Dispatch 8

'There wasn't a single resistance fighter here or any military action taking place. We don't like battles, destruction or escalation, but the Israeli occupation is the one hitting civilians in safe areas. Our children don't feel safe now. The resistance is a reaction to the Israeli attacks on our residential areas. The killing of children, women and the elderly. [The resistance] is all a reaction. '  Unnamed Gaza resident, Vice: Rockets and Revenge- Dispatch 12 

Despite a widespread Al-Qasssam operation in Gaza City. The morality of Israels rocket strikes remains dubious at best.

In the face of the widespread devastation of Operation Protective Edge, the will of the Gazan people is unshaken. This isn't unique to Gaza, there was a similar situation in Vietnam with regard to peasants supporting the Viet Cong. Perhaps contrary to what observers might expect, Hamas enjoys wide (and growing) popular support in Gaza and the wider Arab world.  The narrative that the cause of their plight is an external occupier, is widely accepted. Many civilians in Gaza have had to face the dreaded 'knock on the roof' ( a low power rocket fired on a building, signifying that a barrage is about to commence). But are Hamas' tactics ethical?

'Despite all drawbacks we had about Hamas when they took over the Gaza strip and despite criticism, they did well in this battle. And if god wills it, they will get us our rights. I think that the Hamas movement gained popularity during this battle.....we are all with the Hamas resistance movement if they get us the rights we lost.', Unnamed Gaza resident, Vice: Rockets and Revenge- Dispatch 12

IDF 'Buffer Zone'  covers most or Gaza's rural boarder

Therefore the claim Hamas has used 'human Shields' is extremely problematic. Despite evidence that  the IDF uses 'human shields' in the Goldstone report (paragraph 1925) .  The IDF reports that most Al-Qassam activities take place near in densely populated civilian areas. Hamas operatives certainly have their base in Gaza City. Yet despite reports otherwise, from the images that have come out of the conflict, it would appear that most Hamas rocket attacks have taken place near Gaza's rural boarder. It is  necessary to point out here that most of Gaza's rural land has been under a long IDF 'buffer zone' that the Israeli government advises is a no-go area. Any attempts to enter this area are near suicidal. Forcing civilians and resistance fighters into Gaza's already crowded cities.   

In Gaza there has been seemingly wide ranging support for the fight against Israel where morality is not a peripheral concern, it is everything. Are civilians involved in this conflict? Unfortunately yes. However the assumption that they are 'Human Shields' I believe is debatable.

Violent Jihadists or Freedom Fighters? 

Secondly it is important we analyse the character of Hamas. Is Hamas' long game strategy working? Significantly Al-Qassam is highly decentralized in contrast with other resistance movements. Many are claiming that the Israeli shelling of the Gaza strip has been out of frustration. Because the Al-Qassam leaders are often elusive. I believe this is in part, a result of Israels refusal to have diplomatic relations with Hamas. For example the Hannibal Directive issued over the alleged kidnapping of IDF solder Hadar Goldin that turned out to be false. Saw the total obliteration of Khusa'a in Southern Gaza. Arguably this desperate indiscriminate shelling that has become symbolic of the whole conflict is a result of the IDF's inability to target Al-Qassam and Hamas leaders. Despite Israel claiming to  conduct 'precision strikes' against Hamas leaders. Israeli rocket attacks overwhelmingly occur at night and early in the morning when more civilians are likely to be have more difficulty fleeing from an attack. The humanitarian logic of this has always confused me. 

The claim from many in Israel where 96% of people supported the campaign in Gaza is that without their modern 'Iron Dome' defense system Hamas would pulverize Israeli cities into the ground. Despite widespread claims that 'Iron Dome' has (at most) only intercepted 20% of rockets coming from Gaza. The claim that Hamas targets Israeli civilians brings its moral legitimacy into question. 

Hamas has been guilty of providing some extremely vicious rhetoric during this conflict. And as we saw with the execution of 21 Gazan citizens, is capable of some appalling acts of barbarism. Yet I would (cautiously) suggest that there is little to suggest Hamas and the people of Gaza have the desire to do anything more than defend themselves. Ultimately, although the language Hamas uses is often incendiary. The whole idea of Hamas is build around defense. Furthermore, rather than take Hamas' rhetoric literally. It has been suggested that the language of martyrdom in Gaza fulfills a much different role than in other areas. Rather than being a call to arms, many suggest it is a psychological coping mechanism to deal with the widespread destruction. UNICEF has already announced that it is deeply concerned about the psychological effects the conflict is having on Gaza's children.

 Unlike Islamist movements from around the Muslim world. Hamas rallies in Gaza are a sea of Green and Red. A Recent speech by Hamas spokesperson Mushir Al Masri was full of references to a strong Palestinian nation as opposed to a wider Islamic Jihad. Ultimately the imagery depicted in most Hamas occasions bears little resemblance to the black clad Jihadists associated with the various Islamist movements in Iraq, Syria and North Africa. Although there is an Islamic Jihad in Palestine movement ( AL-Quds Brigades)  in Gaza it acts independently of Hamas and the Al-Qassam Brigades.

 'Hamas can arguably be considered the most nationalistic Islamist movement, openly embracing in deed and rhetoric both Islam and the Palestinian people as political objects. The Iranian Khomeinist regime, on the other hand, is skeptical of the nation in theory, but is now enjoying its fourth decade of temporal rule over the Iranian people. This gap between rhetoric and deed in attitudes toward the nation-state runs throughout the Islamist phenomenon, representing an ongoing struggle for legitimacy between different conceptions of what the nation is and what it should be. This in large part stems from the fact that although Islam is a powerful ideology, it presents no clear answers on the question of political agency in the modern era.' Hamas and Iran: Nationalism and Islam, David Donaldson, E-International Relations Students

It is hard to justify violence at any time. Hamas' violent rhetoric against Israel is to be condemned. Yet as a resistance movement, that has its origins in a widespread popular protest. The ethics of Hamas are not easy to discern.  

Ultimately it comes down to our own perception of one of the worlds most controversial issues that will decide whether or not Hamas is ethical. Since the conflict began in July both sides have been brought to a negotiating table in Cairo. Hamas publicly backed the Palestinian delegation led by Azzam al-Ahmad, between them both thay have agreed on a three point plan to create a Palestinian state. With both Hamas and Israel claiming victory it's difficult to see how history will judge Hamas.  But for now the morality of the Islamist organisation matters, because a solution to the long term crisis looks like a distant dream.

Zionism: The Revolution Continues

On 8th July Israel began the bombing of the Gaza strip. Not for the first time, and almost certainly not the last. The Israeli- Palestinian conflict is one of the most controversial and openly debated issues in modern political history. Both sides being well rehearsed in their opponents arguments. However which ever side you choose, underneath the shrill voices clamoring to be heard in the media. I believe it is beyond doubt that the current Israeli bombardment of Gaza amounts to nothing less than a prolonged ethnic cleansing campaign by the Zionist revolutionary elite. Yet the ideology involved in this conflict is rarely talked about. For the Israeli political elite, there is clearly a sense that the Jewish people have a right to dominance in the Levant. Although those in Israel and many of it's apologists around the world pay lip service to the creation of a Palestinian state. The Zionist ideology ensures that the best land, available drinking water and all economically productive areas in historic Palestine are in the clutches of the Israeli state. I would argue that the deep rooted commitment to Jewish economic and ethnic supremacy in the Levant is very much the driving force behind the current assault on Gaza. The rhetoric emanating from the Knesset  indicates that the Zionist ideal still lives on.

It would seem that public opinion is slowly turning against Israel here in the UK. Criticism of the destructive Zionist  agenda has even reached the house of commons. Whether these voices in support of Gaza are genuine or a cynical gesture to garner support coming up to the 2015 general election remain to be seen. Unfortunately for the people of Gaza even if Operation Protective Edge relents in the coming weeks, the damage will be done. The prospect of a viable Arab state in the Levant will have taken another deep laceration. An open wound that the Zionists will not allow to heal, and  the Gazan people will be powerless to stem the bleeding.

The Revolution Continues

So just what is the Zionist ideal? First of all let it be known that I am not someone who uses the term “ethnic cleansing” lightly. But I believe in this case it is justified. Over the course of the past decade, there have been deep fissures opening in Israel over the Palestinian issue. Yet at the behest of those at the top of Israeli society, the IDF massacres Arabs in Gaza with impunity. Despite the miserable conditions imposed on Gaza by Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has been under increasing pressure from his partners in the Knesset to be tougher on Fatah and Hamas. A member of Netanyahu's coalition  Naftali Bennett ( leader of the Jewish Home party who once proclaimed “Palestinians kill Jews!” and has called John Kerry an anti-Semite) claiming Netanyahu has gone soft on the Palestinian issue. Ze'ev Elkin, the Israeli deputy foreign minister and a member of Netanyahu's Likud party has flatly rejected the idea of the “two-state solution”:

“Mr Elkin is not an oddity in flatly opposing his prime minister from within his ruling Likud party, on what is still the most contentious issue in Israeli politics. A sizeable majority of Likud’s central committee and most of its 20 members in the 120-seat Knesset, Israel’s parliament, also oppose the idea of two states, though Mr Netanyahu formally endorsed it, albeit tepidly, five years ago”- The Economist, APR 2014

On the other side of the debate, many Israelis grow tired of the siege mentality and the constant worry of attacks into Israel. Surely this should show that the public mood is war weary and slowly moving away from an assertive Zionism and towards a two-state equilibrium?

Offshore Gas Reserves Near the Coast of the Gaza Strip

Sadly this is not the case. Even if Palestine were to be granted statehood it is looking increasingly likely that it would not survive for very long. The most arable land and available water resources are already part of the Israeli state. Furthermore, whilst Palestine has been sat at the negotiating table  since the camp David talks of 2000. The number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank has swelled to beyond 350,000.  Not only has the Knesset tolerated this, it has actively promoted it. As hope dwindles for a viable Palestine, Any notion of a stable Gaza look even more remote. Therefore, I argue that the current Israeli action in Gaza represent not any form of self-defense, but a continued and ideologically committed act of ethnic cleansing. Not only focused on winning support at home but “salting the earth” for future generations of Arabs as part
of a vicious ideological 60 year land grab.

Hamas: The Fabricated Monster

Most of the mainstream media in the UK reinforce the idea that Israel is somehow under attack by Hamas. In Israel, the voices decrying Hamas are shrill and many in number. Their is little talk in the media of the 3 teenage boys allegedly killed by Hamas a couple of weeks ago. And how the Zionist elite capitalized on the public outrage clearing the way for Operation Protective Edge. Despite Khaled Meshal the leader of Hamas publicly claiming his support for coexistence with Israel and expressing that Hamas is opposed to Israeli occupation and not the presence of the Jewish people in the Levant. A central element of the Zionist ideology is the narrative of victim hood. Here I feel obliged to address some of the claims made by Israel:

“The final moral argument portrays Israel as a country that has sought peace at every turn and showed great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. This narrative — which is endlessly repeated by Israeli leaders and American apologists such as Alan Dershowitz — is yet another myth”- The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John J. Miersheimer

The most widely reported defense of Zionist aggression is that “Israel is using rockets to defend its citizens, whilst Hamas is using citizens to defend its rockets”. As far as I am concerned, this claim does not stand up to the light of reality. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the Middle East. Just under two million people live in a tiny 360 KM2 box. Although Israel technically withdrew from Gaza in 2005. It's people have been subject to a dizzying array of blockades and diplomatic assaults. Amounting to a pernicious siege on Gaza by the Zionist ideologues. Logic dictates that wherever Hamas decide to place rockets, it will be near civilians. It is also worth pointing out that many of the rockets fired into Israel are low tech, nothing compared to the 400 tonnes of bombs that have targeted targets in Gaza killing a least over one thousand people ( as of the writing of this article). Most of which  are non-combatants. The most advanced military equipment Hamas possess is a couple of M-302 missiles from Syria, nothing compared with Israels “Iron Dome” defense system. There are those that claim Israel is merely defending it's citizens better than Hamas and the Palestinian families trapped in Gaza deserve no sympathy because they elected the regime that now condemns then to areal bombardment. To this I can only reply, look again at how over the course of the past decade, the Zionist regime ( who receive $3bn worth of U.S. Aid each year) has attempted to starve Gaza into submission, and how the western backed imperial land grab continues.
Moreover assessing the narratives surrounding the Gaza conflict through the lens of ideology allows us to discern the true nature of Operation Protective Edge. The first explanation for aggression is the most fallacious; that Hamas poses a real military threat to the people of Israel and it must respond with military action. Even if there were a concentrated effort by Hamas to conquer Israel it would make little difference to Israel's current position. Diplomatically and geographically isolated, economically poor and technologically at a massive disadvantage. Gaza poses at best a minor threat to Israel. It would take Hamas years if not decades with massive amounts of international backing to take and hold territory in Israel. In which time it would be easy enough for the wider international community to put a stop to it. Hamas poses no real threat to Israel's territorial integrity or it's people. The second explanation, more cynical and much more believable is that Israel is attempting to strengthen itself politically under the context of war. In recent years there have been widening divisions in Israeli society at large. Netanyahu's coalition in the Knesset is looking increasingly unlikely to win again in an election and large swathes of Israeli society are growing war weary. Also, there is the USA's supposed foreign policy pivot towards East Asia and away from the Middle East. Again this explanation isn't adequate to explain the fervor with which Israel has invaded Gaza. Although divided, there is little evidence that Israeli public opinion is prepared to radically reverse their country's position as supreme in the Levant. Especially as 90% of Israelis are supposed to support the war on a Gaza. Moreover current events in Syria, Iraq and North Africa make the Middle East look more unstable than at any point In the past decade. Surely Benjamin Netanyahu needs no more reasons to request continued support from Western powers and to consolidate Israel's position as a military superpower. Evidently the current invasion if Gaza must be for ideological reasons. Nothing else but a motivated group of Zionists justify and explain the recent atrocities committed against the people of Gaza. That is to make an Arab state nonviable and further the Zionist cause towards fully occupying the promised land.

Where to Turn?

Finally we should also consider the ideological decisions faced by the people of Gaza. Of course Hamas is not completely innocent in this atrocious conflict. Hamas certainly does fire dangerous weapons into Israeli territory and that is to be condemned. We leave out here the fate of the many Arabs who live within the state of Israel, that usually live completely outside of the remit of Israeli society and face persecution and ghettoisation. However a brief look as the Arab world, and one has to conclude that there is no clear path to victory. Since 2006 when Hamas was voted into power, Israel has tried to strangle it in its cradle:

“To suffocate Hamas and punish the people who voted it into power, Israel began a tight siege over the entire strip, stopping the movement of people, goods and supplies in and out of the region. The siege resulted in an acute humanitarian crisis”, Tarek Osman, Egypt: On the Brink

Despite receiving widespread support from Arab people around the Middle East. Hamas has been treated with contempt by big players like Egypt and ( Sunni) Iraq. At the beginning of the 21st century. The Palestinian cause remained popular with Arabs in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries. However since the second Intifada, that support has waned significantly. Although Hamas has its roots in Islamism ( the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt facilitating its rise) the call of secularism is a strong one.
It is important to note that Hamas has no official support from the Takfiri warriors that are running amok in North Africa and Northern Mesopotamia. For Hamas the decision of what it  should do to oppose Zionist invasion must be a difficult one. Moreover this sense of frustration is reinforced when we look at the recent history of the Levant. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation led by Yasser Arafat, the main proponent of a peaceful solution has become an object of ridicule and frustration among the wider Palestinian people. Whilst the PLO has been in open dialogue with Israel. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank has escalated exponentially.  It is difficult to see Arab efforts to bring Israel to the diplomatic table as anything more than a failure. Yet crucially to the north of Israel Hezbollah, a militant Shia group from southern Lebanon has been widely successful in repelling Israeli incursions into their lands. As well as gaining huge amounts of diplomatic and financial backing from Iran. Something Hamas is keen to do.
To conclude, given the widespread media bias against Hamas, it is easy to believe that Israel is threatened as the voices on both sides grow louder still. Yet ultimately I believe that this episode in Gaza, and others like it are symptomatic of a wider ethnic cleansing campaign by a committed Zionist elite.

(Opening Pictures: 1. Palestinian Refugees, Nakba Day 1948 2. Israeli commanders enter Jerusalem's old city, 6 days war 1968 3. Israeli Tank during the Yom Kippur war, 1973 4.  Israeli settler village in the West bank 2005 5. Current devastation in Gaza, Operation Protective Edge, 2014).

Leviathan and the poor

For many, the ultimate goal for society should be to reduce inequality and in the long run, eradicate poverty. Throughout the 20th & 21st centuries the goal of combating the great evil of poverty has been the task of the ever expanding state. Particularly in the 1960s and 1970s the so-called 'revolutionary' years the state in Britain grew dramatically, not just in terms of building Clement Atlee's 'new Jerusalem' but also, despite going through a period of dismantling an empire a significant set of new military commitments as a result of the Cold War. To support the burgeoning state the course of the 20th century saw the abandonment of gold based currency; however it was the Breton Woods conference in 1944 that finally saw the rise of the dollar empire and the Keynesian economic maelstrom that provided the final nail in the coffin for sound economics. Large periods of time are difficult to generalise about but during the course of the 1980s, 90s and 2000s the neo-liberal debtocracy economic paradigm has been a polarising force. Whatever the result of this process, the reaction of British society has been complex. Despite an emphasis on liberal values both social & economic, government spending has risen dramatically. However, still there are those who demand the state does more to eradicate poverty. In The Precariat the New Dangerous Class (2011) the author Guy Standing laments the rise of a new fragmented at socially detached lower class. Earlier this year Thomas Piketty published a damning account of the state of contemporary capitalism. Ultimately the millions of people in Britain who have not benefited from the Corporatist nature of modern Britain are being held down by the government, not supported by it. Despite a century of failure and financial trickery, there are those that call upon the government to free society from the shackles of penury. As a result of this fact it is necessary to take a brief look at how contemporary Britain makes life hard for its most disadvantaged citizens.

Only Two Things are certain in Life...

This article will first outline these hidden taxes that represent a large cost for those on low wages. For obvious reasons pushing up taxes in unpopular and it has supposedly been an achievement of the current coalition government to have taken many low paid workers out of tax. However the use of stealth taxes through inflation and a whole plethora of fees and costs that are mandatory for most British citizens are a huge blow to those on low wages. In her seminal book Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand outlined how without being able to help ourselves, contributing to society is a great moral evil.

“You will see the rise of the men of the double standard- the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money- the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them” Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.



Mandatory taxation, the blood that courses through the veins of the modern state, is a terrifying obstacle to young people, the long term unemployed, single mothers ( childcare in the UK can cost up to 40% of household income) and any group hoping to enter the arena of the workplace. Supposedly, for those on low wages £10,000-£20,000 per annum are lucky that the government only demands 10% of their earnings. This is not a tiresome tirade against inequality in our society, but a mere observation that any contribution that we are forced to make towards the state is not only immoral but fiducially crippling. That is not to say that it is morally acceptable that government coercion demands taxes from anyone. Yet for those who earn little, it takes a more sinister dimension. It is as if the great leviathan is literally scraping the bottom of the societal trough for any scraps to fill its already bloated and rotten stomach. Although leviathan's quest to nourish itself does not stop at taxation. It continues in the form of mandatory payments. Council Tax, Road Tax, National Insurance Contributions, Television Licences, artificial price controls on alcohol and cigarettes etc. This list could go on and on, but the illusion that the British State helps those who earn little is one that surely must be eviscerated. Chris Snowden of the Institute of Economic Affairs states that the poorest 20% of households in the UK spend 22% of their disposable income on 'Sin Taxes' (added taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling outlets).
There will be many that claim that the public services the government provides more than justifies the forced contribution of millions of British workers hard earned wages. It seems that many perceive giving a proportion of our labour over to the state as a vital prerequisite to existing in our society. It is impossible to say whether a state run institution is 'good value for money'. The simple fact that the fortunes of that particular enterprise are back up by the government, an entity that feeds of the sweat of its subjects ensures there can be no objective costs or profits. Essentially, once the leviathan commits itself to provide a service then assessment in any usual way is mere speculation

“The question is: market economy, or socialism? There is no third solution. The notion of a market economy with nonmarket prices is absurd. The very idea of cost prices is unrealizable. Even if the cost price formula is applied only to entrepreneurial profits, it paralyzes the market. If commodities and services are to be sold below the price the market would have determined for them, supply always lags behind demand. Then the market can neither determine what should or should not be produced, nor to whom the commodities and services should go. Chaos results.”-Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action

It is therefore an intellectual exercise to satisfy government bureaucrats and statisticians. To suggest people have a compulsion to uphold the British state is at best a fallacy and at worst an act of repugnant extortion. Particularly for those who struggle to support themselves and their families.

Stealth Taxes

It is the provision of services where we turn to next. Even foods and services provided outside the remit of government feel the tight grip of leviathan. Britain's poor and disadvantaged are financially assaulted even in the private sphere. Food, fuel, travel and housing are all affected by government intervention. Over the course of the past 4 years wages have increased only 6% compared with CPI inflation rising 13%. In a free market society when a commodity is in demand, it is supplied. When a commodity is demanded at a lesser cost manufacturers comply. However in our modern state the power of markets to push down prices has been ruthlessly distorted. It is the iron hand of Central banking and government planning that deals a heavy blow to those on low wages. It is not possible to detail the Byzantine machinations of the modern financial system here. Although let us be clear about the consequences of a century of state capitalism. Low interest rates pushing up prices and making borrowing impossible for those outside the financial elite. Centralised money policies tailored to suit a globalised maquiladora economy refusing to let leviathans favourite companies go out of business and state of almost permanent inflation. All of these processes have made it a particularly inhospitable climate for Britain's low wage economy. In reality it is not glutinous capitalists that spit in the face of the poor but government bureaucrats. Carmen Reinhart and Keneth Rogoff point out that it is the fault of central monetary authorities that to ruin entire economies, the subsequent recession often hurting the poorest in society first.

In the run-up to the recent crisis, in the case of rich countries one of the main this-time-is-different syndromes had to do with a belief in the invincibility of modern monetary institutions. Central banks became enamoured with their own versions of “inflation targeting,” believing that they had found a way to both keep inflation low and to optimally stabilize output”..... “Policies that appeared to work perfectly well during an all-encompassing boom suddenly did not seem robust in the event of a huge recession”-Carmen M. Reinhart & Keneth S. Rogoff, This time is different.

What the final results of the distorted economy will be is the subject of debate, yet surely we can agree that for millions of people in the UK living with Leviathan can be a nightmarish ordeal. As well as collectivist economics providing a challenge for British citizens. State planning refuses to allow the supply of adequate housing to flow to those that demand it. In conclusion these 'stealth taxes' produce noxious and infuriating smog of high prices and political rhetoric.

Are the Kochs evil?...No! But they say a lot about the Libertarian Movement.

Just over a month ago Charles Koch wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Here one of the worlds most recognised businessmen outlined his vision for a better society (Link to editorial:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286). The Koch brothers (David & Charles) and their involvement in politics makes them some of the most controversial figures in contemporary America. For many, the Kochs are the very face of Libertarianism. They are present in scores of Libertarian think-tanks and foundations, spend vast amounts of money backing Libertarian policies and champion the debate against man made climate change. However the truth about the Koch's relation to the Libertarian movement is more complex than this. There are those on the left who decry the Kochs and their views. Pam Martens, writing in Counterpunch magazine explains how, 'A review of documents and tax records for the dizzying, interconnected web of corporate front groups, frequently created, supported and influenced by Charles or David Koch, shows just how dangerous these groups espousing free markets and liberty have become to a free society. 'The game plan is to devalue the rights of actual citizens by seeking human voices dangling from a corporate marionette string, that might be willing for the right amount of cash incentive to broadcast the Orwellian reverse-speak: liberty means more liberty for corporations'- Pam Martens. Yet for many within the Libertarian movement the issue of the Kochtopus is benign, Tibor Machan wrote of the Koch brothers. 'Now it is true that even some libertarian economists are reductionists and hold that everything someone does comes from the belief that it will promote one’s economic advantages. On this score Marxists and some free market theorists see eye to eye. But whatever the source of the idea, it is bunk. Most of us haven’t much of a clue about whether holding certain beliefs will advance our prosperity.'- Tibor Machan. Here Machan highlights an important point, unlike the left, it is unfair to dismiss the Kochs as inherently 'evil'. Truth cannot be reduced to a technical morass of neatly fitting coincidences and connections. This purpose of this article is not to establish any objective 'truth' about the Koch brothers, but to make sense of the interpretations and assess the effects these have on the Libertarian movement as a whole.
The presence of the Koch brothers in politics is clearly a divisive issue. However in reality the role of the Kochs involvement in American politics transcends the traditional left- right paradigm. A thorough assessment of the story of the Koch brothers forces us to confront important aspects of our movement. Our relation to the current political system, internecine divisions and ultimately how history will judge us. In the past few decades the libertarian movement has grown exponentially. Essentially any attempt by me (or anyone) to 'define' Libertarian ideology is bound to be controversial.  Yet it is amazing to see an expansive and varied coalition of freedom loving individuals coming together under the same banner.

'Now, accepting that you want more people to be freedom-lovers, the questions become: Which do you care more about? How people arrive? Or that they arrive at all? If you care only about the former, you might be a one-trick pony. That is, your only approach to persuasion might be to tell people to read Human Action. And there is nothing wrong with that approach, per se. I’ve suggested Mises to many. But I also realize that a lot of people might not be willing to take such a long detour through Vienna to get to our picnic—and that’s assuming they’re curious about our ideas at all. That means it may be time to expand outward from single starting points. Your liberalism or mine works great when we can agree on a starting point. But we must first acknowledge that people don’t always start from the same point- The Freeman

Yet for the movement to last the test of time, it is essential that it is able to self-evaluate and come to terms with itself. It is for this reason why the Koch brothers matter. Ultimately they are a powerful force and need to be understood. Although virtually all of the activities of the Kochs are restricted to the USA; Coming to terms with the Kochtopus will be of great help to the UK movement.
Firstly this article will address a brief history of the Libertarian movement in the USA and outline divisions and debates that the Kochs are central to. Secondly the facts about the Koch's political activities will be outlined and analysed. Lastly, this essay will look at the wide ranging implications of the Koch brothers' relation to the Libertarian movement.

Kochs, Cato and Capitalism: A brief history of the Kochtopus

It is essential that we are aware of the history of the Koch Brothers' involvement in the Libertarian movement to fully understand the controversies it creates today. It might be worth noting here that inevitably many will find this 'history' unsatisfactory. Names unmentioned, events passed by and ideas undiscussed. However in the interest of pertinence, this article will focus only on issues directly relevant to the Koch brothers and their political activities.
It is often understood the Kochs founded the Cato Institute, arguably the most recognised and respected free-market organisation in the world. However this is wrong, the Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Charles Koch, Edward Crane and Murray Rothbard. According to David Gordon, a senior fellow at the Mises Institute Cato was originally a platform to disseminate Rothbard's views to a wider audience. Interestingly it was Rothbard that came up with the term Cato Institute. Yet it wasn't long before the union went sour, David Koch & Ed Crane (Libertarian Party chairman from 1974-1977) clashed with Rothbard over the direction of the Cato Institute. Rothbard said of Crane:

'Consider for a moment: surely you must know in your heart that your Boss [Crane] has contempt for you just as he has for the entire human race…. I don’t care if your Boss is backed by a billion dollars. The Libertarian movement and the Libertarian party are not a corporation or a military machine. They are not for sale…. Crane is not smart enough to even try to mask his contempt for his fellow libertarians and LP members, so people cotton to him very quickly. How can a person like that succeed in politics?'- David Gordon, Mises Institute

Since then the Mises Institute (Founded 1982 between Rothbard and Lew Rockwell) has held the Kochs and the Cato institute as rivals. According to Rockwell, attempts have been made by the Kochs to stamp out Rothbard and the Mises Institute. ‘As he [Rockwell] recalls the conversation, Koch told him: "'Do you realize how much money we have spent purging Mises from Austrian economics? Everyone hates him'-Daily Bell. However the marriage between David Koch and Ed Crane didn't last long either, by the mid- 80s the Koch brothers had virtually nothing to do with the Cato Institute. This point was highlighted in a recent interview with Cato Institute chairman Robert Levy, he highlighted that throughout the 1980s and 1990s the Kochs had virtually nothing to do with Cato. 'Since Cato was formed, the Kochs have donated about $30 million, officials said, but the bulk came in its first decade; by last year [2011], the Kochs gave no money at all'- SLATE. This is revealing considering that the Koch borthers gave the Tea-Party a buget of $40 million for 2010 alone and have since given $400 million to support candidates in the 2012 presidential election.

In the past decade the Kochs have built up a huge web of influence that can justifiably be called the 'Kochtopus'. Numerous foundations and think-tanks have been embellished with Koch money. The Mercatus Centre, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, the Tea-Party and Americans for Prosperity are a handful of the 34 organisations that are affiliated with the Kochs. This lamentable history of division within the Libertarian movement is significant, because it will help us fully appreciate that this is more than just a Left- Right issue, it creates conflict within the movement as well. It will also help us to change the free-society cause from a church of ideas to a truly potent political force.

'Beltway Libertarians?'

For us in the UK, the byzantine workings of Washington D.C may seem a million miles away. Yet these issues matter immensely to us. As the Libertarian movement grows in the UK it will become increasingly important to understand the difficulties involved in turning ideology into genuine political force. The relationship between the Koch brothers-the American Libertarian movement and Washington D.C should be of great interest to us in the UK. Lew Rockwell described the Koch's as 'Beltway Libertarians'. The Beltway being the motor-way that circles Washington D.C., Rockwell suggests that the Kochs are part of the corrupt American political establishment, rather than being genuinely committed to the free-society cause. On the other hand, it is important to note that ideological purity is not the single measure of how successful a political movement will be. Yet the Kochs connection to Capitol Hill matters, not because their presence there is a sin. But as a result of recent efforts to spread their influence (which already made many uncomfortable), the movement could look increasingly fragile and able to be co-opted by existing political powers.
Ultimately, the Kochs exists as a governmental force not a revolutionary one. As a result of the immense influence of the Koch Brothers, their presence in the Libertarian movement is controversial. This point is perfectly displayed when we look at the recent Koch activity within the Cato Institute. As has been mentioned previously despite initial involvement with Cato, since the mid-80s the Kochs had largely left the organisation to its own devices. However that all changed in 2011 when the long-term chairman of the Cato Institute William Niskansen passed away. By this time the Koch's where already a potent force in American politics 'The rift has its roots, Cato officials said, in a long-simmering feud over efforts by Mr. Koch and his brother David Koch to install their own people on the institute’s 16-member board and to establish a more direct pipeline between Cato and the family’s Republican political outlets'-New York Times. Arguably these concerns where justified, as soon after Charles Koch (the most politically involved of the two brothers) pushed for a greater presence in the organisation he soon began trying to install his own candidates including Tony Woodlief a man who had historically been cynical about most Libertarian ideas and John Hinderacker who supported the Iraq war in the early 2000s. 'Cato is the gold standard of libertarian organizations around the world,” wrote [Ed] Crane. “We are respected and admired for our commitment to libertarian principles, integrity, independence and non-partisanship. That respect encompasses traditional liberals and conservatives. That would all end with a Koch takeover, despite Charles Koch's protestations to the contrary.'-SLATE. Robert Levy said in an interview in 2012 that he had concerns over:

'Weather Cato can successfully function if it's being perceived as a partisan or an aligned or an arm of a special interest. Our argument is that Cato must be non-aligned, non-partisan and strictly independent of all special interests and so the stockholder structure in and of itself is a problem for the Cato institute. Because even if it does not compromise our independence. It could be perceived as compromising our independence. We would be perceived as a mouthpiece for special interests. And we cannot function effectively if we are perceived in that manner' – Robert Levy

Since the interview, Ed Crane has stepped down from the Cato Institute. Clearly the presence of the Koch brothers is significant due to their Washington relationships and huge financial power, no matter where you stand in the wider political nexus.
It is important at this stage to examine the broad reach of the Koch brothers into the heart of the American political establishment. Their connection to the Tea-Party is well known, large part of the wider Americans for prosperity programme.  Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $12.3 million in 2009, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. They clearly have huge sway on Capitol Hill, according to a report on the Real News Network republicans that try to raise concern over Koch industries illegal drilling practices were told to back off. This vicious criticism of the Koch Industries as malignant is the most substantial criticism made against the Brothers; Pam Martens describes Koch industries as

'a private, dark curtain corporation. Its own stock has never been subjected to price discovery in a free market; the public can’t get a peek at the financials of this firm; there is no means of determining how much debt is on the corporate balance sheet or if, as with AIG and Citigroup, we, the sheared sheep, might have to bail the corporation out some day to save some too-big-to-fail bank that holds its debt'.- Pam Martens

Despite expressing Libertarian sympathies, a brief look at some of the organisations the Kochs fund illustrates that far from a coherent set of values and beliefs. The kochtopus extends to a plethora of institutions that have competing views. For example ' [David] Koch also said he now considers himself a Republican first and foremost — rather than a Libertarian or a nonpartisan supporter of free enterprise — despite a background in Libertarian politics and some views that are out of step with the GOP orthodoxy. “The Libertarian Party is a great concept. I love the ideals, but it got too far off the deep end, and so I dropped out,” Koch said. “I think the Republican Party has a great chance of being successful and that’s why I support it,”- Charles Koch. Furthermore, despite professing Libertarian values the Kochs spent £8 million on funding the ultra-conservative Scott Walker in Wisconsin, an actively tried to damage the Ron Paul campaign, as a result of his connection to the Mises Institute. Additionally investigative journalist Greg Plast in an interview with Alex Jones highlighted that the Kochs helped found the Democratic Leadership Council and gave support to Bill Clinton.
Ultimately the Koch's and their involvement in politics is a controversial issue that is of the utmost importance for the Libertarian movement. Britain's Adam Smith Institute has so far been scathing of criticism of the Kochs. Indeed for many the presence of a rich donor is something to celebrate rather than decry, the transition from a committed group of idealists to a functioning political organisation is never an easy one. Nevertheless as a movement that should be conscious how it will be seen by history. The question of the Kochtopus will be an important one for us to understand.

Where we stand

Part of the beauty of the Libertarian movement is that it is made up of an eclectic mix of groups and ideas. Although being a varied conglomeration of differing views and intellectual traditions ensures there will be tensions, as we move from the pages of philosophy books and into the political arena. For this reason, understanding and evaluating the Libertarian movement is of the utmost importance. The early Communists of the first and second international where notorious for ideological disputes and political wrangling that ultimately resulted in Stalin's 'great purge'. This is not to suggest the same thing could happen to Libertarianism, but it does demonstrate how an unstable political movement can lead to self-destruction.
It is this reason why the Koch brothers are such a contentious force in the history of Libertarianism. Arguably their relationship with Washington D.C and wide ranging support for extremely varied groups of people highlights a movement that is not yet comfortable with this process.
The goal has always been, Charles says, “true democracy,” where people “can run their own lives and choose what they want to buy, choose how to spend their money.” (“Now in our democracy you elect somebody every two to four years and they tell you how to run your life,” he says.) People running their own lives would be less democracy and more a private property society (i.e., a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist view), without legislators and other government operators attempting to micro-manage populations. Such a private property society would be a good thing, but it is hard to square Charles’ supposed take on this with the brothers behind the scenes role in propping up various politicians who move in a direction quite different from a private property society'-Robert Wenzel, Mises institute.
When we discuss ideas and theories, we often imagine a solitary figure or certain number of books and treatises. Yet the experience of the Kochtopus highlights world in which ideas are no longer the confines of lone philosophers and political groups. Even if this is not the case, a certain cynicism about the realm of political ideas is a defining feature of our age. Despite being nothing new, Money and politics have never gone more hand in hand.  A report in the Daily Bell confirms this reality:
'We believe that it is not so much "rich, well-connected individuals" that steer the country as a handful of top globalists with access to the incredible riches of central banking that they helped create and implement'- Daily Bell

'If competition was acknowledged as the main driver of industry standards and if the centralizing effects of modern monopoly central banking and corporate personhood were removed, oligarchic tendencies would be greatly diminished. This won't easily happen, however, because those in power SEEK an oligarchy and endorse the various socio-political and economic platforms that support it'-Daily Bell

At the heart of this issue is an uncomfortable set of decisions. Ludwig Von Mises highlights at the end of Human Action that: 'The flowering of human society depends on two factors: the intellectual power of outstanding men to conceive sound social and economic theories, and the ability of these or other men to make these ideologies palatable to the majority.'- Mises, Human Action

Therefore the issue of Koch funding requires analysis. 'Money for thought-analysis has to come from somewhere. The Cato Institute has solved the money problem by intensive fund-raising but in the process has become far less "edgy" than Mises under Rockwell'-Daily Bell. Admittedly for many the Koch brothers are wealthy political bogeymen. The Kochtopus a monster that must be removed from society. Yet this essay does not support that view. One could argue that whether the Kochs are a positive or Negative force depends on the person in question. Here we try to critically assess the relationship between the Kochs and their relationship to the wider Libertarian movement. And fundamentally we have to conclude that the relationship in an uneasy one. Conclusively for those that truly strive to achieve and accept the principles of a free-society, this is a question of our relationship to the existing state structure. Can we work with it? Can we work within it? Or does it need to be destroyed entirely? It is my fundamental belief that although we may have differing answers to these questions. As long as we are thinking about them, we ensure our place in the annals of history.

A city without people-Dubai: Building a Corporatist Paradise

History is littered with imagery and symbolism. To encapsulate the raw power of the Soviet Union in 1930s one needs only to look at the city of Magnitogorsk, with it’s brooding smoke towers, streamlined streets and dark factories. It is the perfect embodiment of industry and state authority. Similarly to appreciate the heights to which the British Empire reached in India, at the beginning of the twentieth century. The enormous palaces of New Dehli represent a decadent monument to imperial power and wealth. However these urban metaphores often defy the reality of their period. It is important to understand that much of the economic achievements of the soviet project were illusionary and built upon a mountain of bodies rather than economic progress. Similarly the imperial strucutures of New Dehli where a far cry from the isolated beachheads and rugged hinterlands that made up most of the British Empire. Nevertheless these examples are significant because of what they represent. This begs the question, is there somewhere today, that fully represents the modern world? Somewhere that truly symbolises the essence of the early Twenty- First century? I argue that there is such a place, and that place is Dubai. Since the 2008 financial crisis it could be suggested (and many have) that Dubai represents to worst excesses of capitalism. The slave labor, the uncontrolled market forces and the thinly veiled social divisions. Yet, this article seeks to explain that rather than describing the modern world explicitly Dubai provides an adequate lens through which to view the early Twenty-First century.

Founding the Corporatist Paradise

Arguably Dubai represents the indulgence, violence and horror of our time. It’s shimmering glass towers and sprawling slave labour camps are the perfect magnum opus of corporatist power. If you want a clear picture of how historians will look at the early Twenty-First century than Dubai is the best place to look. Until the 1990 Dubai was little more than a small fishing town, based on the pearl trade. Yet in the space of 20 years, it has grown into a modern metropolis. The story of Dubai provides a fitting narrative for the modern world. Oil, warfare, state power and exploitation, Dubai has it all. Since 1990 many have seen Dubai as a genuine capitalist success story. Independent and modern. Despite suffering a financial crisis, still growing at around 4% per year. Yet under the surface is a dismal reality of slave labour, US imperial expansion and catastrophic amounts of debt. It is an even more grotesque story for those that live there. No notion of rights and where government actively promotes exploitation and slavery. All disguised under glitzy façade of a modern functioning, capitalist economy.

Firstly we must asses the nature of Dubai’s history and how it cannot be called a free-market, but a crapitalist autocracy. It is a widely accepted myth that the building of Dubai is the fruits of Sheikh Rashid II bin Saeed Al Maktoum and his grand vision. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Dubai tried to market itself as a great place to do business. The Jebel Ali free zone was established in 1979. In attempt to attract western business. Even throughout the 1980s a period often described as a neo-liberal renaissance, Dubai remained little more than a small desert town. It was only till the UAE sent funds to support the USA and its allies in during the 1990 gulf war against Iraq that Dubai really started to boom. Arguably this fact shows that although domestic economic policy is important in the development of a nation. What was really significant for Dubai and many other developing countries, is that being supportive of western imperial policy is a pre-requisite to prosperity. Furthermore, as is the case worldwide, what development really means in the Twenty-First century is not the growing of native industry, but making a state open to economic occupation by western transnational corporations. It was only after Sheikh Maktoum III bin Rashid Al Maktoum cemented himself as a western ally that the city expanded rapidly.

“Dubai is booming. Economic activity is everywhere. The city centre is a construction zone with international hotel chains competing for sites. Hyatt, Hilton, Ramada and Sheraton are already represented; Marriot and Holiday Inn are on the way.”

Ron Gluckman, Hong Kong of the desert?, 1992

Furthermore, when looking at Dubai it becomes immediately obvious that the state is an omnipresent entity that seeps into all aspects of life in the concrete oasis. Johann Hari described Dubai in his 2009 article The dark side of Dubai. “The wide, smiling face of Sheikh Mohammed – the absolute ruler of Dubai – beams down on his creation. His image is displayed on every other building, sandwiched between the more familiar corporate rictuses of Ronald McDonald and Colonel Sanders”. As historians begin to assess the Twenty-First century, the grotesque abuse of state power will be a factor that they cannot ignore in trying to understand the modern era. This is true not just of Dubai but of the entire western world. However the most disturbing aspect of Dubai, is that the ethnic Emiratis are rapidly forming an impenetrable class of self serving public officials. The identity of the Emirati elites that dominate Dubai, is inseparable from the idea of public service and respect for the monarchy. In relation to the Arab Spring “The UAE has seen a trickle of dissent amid a regional torrent. Emiratis are largely well cared for by their oil-rich government and seldom question policy” Financial Times, Arrests in UAE show Sensitivity over reform. “UAE residents pay prices well below the cost of production for electricity, water, food and petrol. Government hand-outs for Emiratis extend this generosity, as do an abundance of well paid government salariat. Per capita gross domestic product (GDP) averages about $40,200” Protests Fail to Garner Support.

This displays how the Sheiks who rule Dubai have little incentive to provide for those at the bottom of society. They are much less the champions of the capitalist society that they are often described as. Arguably they demonstrate how political elites form a close group of powerful allies and pander to their interest. On a superficial level the rapid development of the Dubaian skyline was not build through a process of allowing a free industrial society to flourish. Its rapid construction is the result of debt and political repression. Ahmed Kannah, professor of International Relations at the university of the Pacific describes how in the Emirati community, working for the private sector is stigmatised. Allegiance to the state has become an integral part of their national identity. Even Adulla Abdelkhaleq Professor of political science at Emirates University, an influential supporter of the monarchy states that the middle classes “ are the forces of change, but are also in bed with the regime,” says Abdulla. “They benefit from another and reinforce each other. The middle-class is usualy not revolutionary, they are a moderate kind of people” Protests Fail to Garner Support.

Yet despite the powerful presence of the king. Like the entire Twenty-First century world, his creation is built on top of a colossal mountain of debt. In 2000 two new ‘ free zones’ opened. The Dubai Internet City and Dubai Maritime City. Both allowing for the inflow of more foreign corporations and state run businesses. Countries from around the Middle East have come to describe this method of growth as the ‘Dubai’ model. However it is necessary to stress at this stage that altough every city has a dark past. Most of the urban world today has been build from profit and the success of industry. This is one of the key differences between Dubai and the west. Martin Hvidt of Southern Denmark University shows that in contrast to most western cities Dubai’s authoritarian state is in part, the key to it’s success. “From a statist perspective, democratic or participatory forms of governmental leadership might endanger development in its initial phases because it might divert investment and political focus away from key factors in economic development”. Martin Hvidt, The Dubai Model:An outline of key components of thedevelopmentprocess in Dubai, 2007. To conclude, it is an unfortunate fact, that in the Twenty-First century the state holds the key to success.

Enslaved by the state

It is important to understand that many of the institutions that are fundamental to Dubai’s success are not products of the western world. However to fully understand the conclusion historians should draw about the modern era from assessing Dubai. We must study the role that the state plays in perpetuating the misery of those the work there. Unlike Europe and North America the social institutions of Dubai bolster and support the slave labour system. Yet Dubai demonstrates how when the presence of an authoritarian state exists. There can be no free- market. It is often that case that those who decry the free-market often associate it with the untold sorrow that large portions of the worlds population live in. Yet after careful analysis it becomes immediately apparent that it is in fact the government that allows for the virtual slavery of thousands of migrant workers in Dubai. Dubai is anything but a truly free-market. Dubai is often regarded as the epitome of the diversified economy. However in reality, it is a cluster of state run businesses and foreign firms that make the lions share of economic growth. Respect for contracts, the right to collectively bargain, the rule of law and competition are all fundamental prerequisites for a truly free-society. None of these exist in the Hong-Kong of the desert.

The Emirati elite stress that these migrants, often of South Asian origin came here of their own free will and can leave at any time. However upon arrival in the UAE, migrants have their passports confiscated, making it virtually impossible to leave the country. Furthermore their earnings are often much less that what was promised or in some cases non-existent. Far from being a meritocracy Dubai’s migrants are often paid according to race and nationality. “The merchant state’s knowledge of them- their country of origin, their health, their capacity for work, the extent of their geographical mobility within the boundaries of the state. Is thorough and sufficient to the task of control” Dubai in a jagged world . Essentially any respect for free-market principles is decidedly missing in Dubai. However, in relation to the desert city’s historical significance it is not unique, “None of this is to say that Dubai or the UAE are peculiar in their exploitation of migrant workers or in the use of nationality, ethnicity and even race to categorize and manipulate the workers. One sees exactly the same arbitrary discrimination and selective imposition of “legibility” on various groups in the supposedly advanced countries of Europe and North America” Dubai in a jagged world. Supposedly slavery and human trafficking are illegal under Islamic law, however those that are exploiting these virtual slaves, are almost always the members of the government. Almost all companies that operate in Dubai are government owned or have close links with the king. As well as construction workers that often die on the job or commit suicide in the sprawling slums of Sonapur, domestic slavery and prostitution is rife in Dubai and actively promoted by the state. “Domestic workers are routinely abused by their employers. From beatings to rape” Nicholas Cooper, City of Gold,City of Slaves: Slavery and indentured servitude in Dubai, 2013. However far from being able to flee such a situation, as would be possible in a free-society. “When women act in response to their abuse they are charged by the government with crimes themselves; effectively women in Dubai face an environment in which they are punished for speaking out in abusive situations.” City of Gold,City of Slaves: Slavery and indentured servitude in Dubai.

Far from being a problem of unregulated capitalism. Dubai’s shameful human right record is the responsibility of its ruling class. “Dubai remains a dangerous place to even report rape. After reporting rape, some women have been arrested for “illegal sex acts,” and women who have been sexually assaulted face the possibility of being punished themselves” City of Gold,City of Slaves: Slavery and indentured servitude in Dubai. Ultimately it is apparent that the depravity and exploitation that exists in Dubai lies in that the state is complicit in these crimes. This is the case around the world. Historians would do well to take this into account. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that when the ruling elite of Dubai are challenged. They often say that without their presence, the country would descend into the hands of bloodthirsty Jihadists. The similarities between the rulers of Dubai,and the rulers of the western world is astonishing.

Conclusion

To conclude, it appears that just like Magnitagorsk or the palaces of New Dehli. Dubai is the perfect representation of its time. Built from nothing to a sprawlig metropolis in just over a generation. Dubai truly shows the awesome power of the forces that are shaping our world. The cataclysmic debt, the pervaive fist of government authority, exploitation of the people by a bloted ruling elite, tall glass buldings occupied only by wealthy CEOs and state officials and the threat (however real) of terror from an invisible yet persistent enemy. It does not explicitly demonstrate the rest of western civilisation, yet as a historical reference point Dubai has it’s use. Not free in any sense of the word, as we are led to belive. There will be those that will argue that it is one of many examples of the devestating effects of capitalism. But they will be wrong, the overarching presence of the monarchy will ultimatley prove that Dubai was anything but a unhampered free- market.A similar conclusion should be drawn about the rest of the western world. Yey most of the western world has no slave labur camps and we are mostly free to do as we wish. Be that as it may, Dubai’s historical significance as a lens through wich to view the modern world ensures its place in history. Dubai is truly a corporatist paradise.

Additional Reading

For a similar ‘microcosm’ arrproach to history. Microcosm: Portrait of a central EuropeanCity, by Norman Davies & Roger Moorhouse takes the example of Wroclaw in Poland as a means to asses European history.

If anyone has a more general interest in western civilisation and the role historical forces have play in creating he twenty first century Niall Ferguson’s Civilisation is a great place to start. As is Unfinished Empire by John Darwin. Also The Untold History of the United Staes by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick provides a merciless critique of the conext of U.S imperialism.

Critical views about Dubai can be hard to find. As most commentators are transfixed with the economic transformation of the desert city. However Dubai, The City as Corporation by Ahmed Kannah gives a compelling critical analysis of the nature of Emirati society and culture.

Bibliography

• Tosh, J (2010) The Pursuit of History, 5th edn., London: Picador.

• Cooper, N, City of Gold, City of Slaves: Slavery and Indentured Servitude in Dubai, Journal of Strategic Security, 6.5, (2013), 65-71, [accessed 4 April 2014].

• Hari, J, (April 2009) The Dark Side of Dubai, Available (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• The Third Estate ( Owen) (February 2013) Dubai is an Autocracy Built on Slave Labour. Why Would You Go on Holiday There? (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Kanna, A, (Febuary 2010) Flexible Citizenship in Dubai: Neoliberal Subjectivity in the Emerging ‘City-Corporation’ (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Lacey, R (2009) Inside the Kingdom, 1st edn., London: Hutchinson. (Closest equivalent linked to)

• The Economist (January 2013) Dubai’s Renaissance: Edifice Complex, (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Gluckman, R (April 2013 ( Written 1992)) Hong Kong of the Desert, (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Hvidt, M (2009) ‘The Dubai Model: An Outline of Key Components of the Development Process in Dubai‘, Center for Contemporary Middle East Studies, 41(12), pp. 391-418 [Online]. (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Kerr, S, Peel, M (April 2011) Arrests in UAE Show Sensitivity Over Reform , (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Abdulkhaleq, A (July 2007) The Best and Worst of Times, Financial Times, (Accessed: 4th April 2014 via Kingston University).

• Neuhof, F (May 2011) ‘Protests Fail to Garner Support‘, Middle East Economic Digest,55(21), pp. 32- 33 [Online]. (Accessed on EBSCO 4th April 2014).

• Kanna, A (2007) ‘Dubai in a Jagged World’, Middle East Report, 1(243), pp. 22-29 [Online].

(Accessed via Kingston University 4th April 2014).

Forget the Wars on Drugs an Terror, the War for Health is Coming.

Recently, MPs in the UK voted in favour of banning smoking in cars where a child is present. The shadow health minister Luciana Berger (Lab) addressed the house of commons claiming that 'This is a simple measure that would make a world of difference to hundreds of thousands of children right across our country. Reducing the misery afflicted by passive smoking. Saving millions of pounds for our NHS and protecting children who do not have a voice, and do not have a choice. Who in 20 years time, will wonder how this was ever allowed in the first place'. This amendment passed 376 votes to 107 (please see link at the end of this article). The most fascinating thing about the passing of this new law ( set to be active by 2015) is the lack of attention it received in the media, after a few days of coverage the issue disappeared. This piece of legislation follows in a long line of piecemeal policies that can only be defined as 'moral' or 'safety promoting'. Another recent example of this is David Cameron's 'opt-in' system of viewing pornography. Whereby in order to have access to adult material online, users must actively contact their internet service provider ( again set for implementation in 2015). Far from being an angry tirade against 'Health and safety gone mad', this article will seek to identify a worrying trend in politics, whereby it is increasingly the government defines how best to live. And by doing so, adds to the already byzantine state structue. This, of course has a long history stretching back to the birth of the modern nation, but arguably as a result of two large-scale public wars over the past ten years it has taken a characteristically 21^st century tone. The War for health is the third public war.

21^st Century Tone

'Liberalism has to an increasing extent adopted the

policy of dictating the actions of citizens, and, by consequence,

diminishing the range throughout which their actions remain free' - Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State

Herbert Spencer wrote the following passage in 1885. Lamenting the rapidly expanding state. It is difficult to fathom what Spencer would have made of the modern state, however the meaning of this passage is to demonstrate how over the course of a relatively short space of time historically speaking. The idea of government intervention has changed mostly a foreign concept to an institution that has influence over every aspect of our lives. Since Spencer’s death in 1903 social concepts of liberty and life have changed dramatically. Throughout the postwar period,the public war been a defining feature. Since the late 90s a war for health has been quietly under way. Fundamentally, already at the beginning of the 2000s we were fighting two massive domestic wars. The war on drugs and the war on terror. Both have been disastrous in terms of casualties and in terms of expense The most renowned piece of legislation passed being the US patriot act in 2001. Similar laws have been implemented in Britain such as the prevention of terrorism act (2005). Arguably this sets a precedent of state power that is difficult to counter act. In fact it is obvious that in the media, government and big business. The idea of progress is inseparable from the growth of state power. It is this context that we must assess the gradual encroachment of the state into our lives. Not as opponents to safety and well-being, but as individuals that fully comprehend the very real dangers of unopposed government expansion. Even a cursory look at the exhaustive lists of legislation passed by the UK parliament over the past 15 years reveals that the vast majority are safety related. Often minor amendments to existing laws and regulations. This backdrop of constant high intensity government action, allows measures like banning smoking in cars possible with a minimal altercation.

Ultimately politicians on all sides provide little in the way of opposition to this 'progress'. Although in the news there may appear to be very real differences between the two sides of the debate represented by the established political parties. However in reality on the fundamental 'progressive' issues there is a silent, but concrete consensus. Ultimately it would be political suicide for any politician anywhere in the western world to denounce the war on drugs or the war on terror. Fundamentally the same atmosphere is rapidly developing around the issues of public health. It is often stated that in the UK, as a result of having a public healthcare system justifies an increasingly intrusive set of social policies. Yet in the USA, where healthcare is largely private, identical health policies have been implemented for a plethora of different reasons. Several US states have already banned smoking in cars where a child is present. True healthcare issues are complex and defy simple answers. However, increasing the scope of the state to deal with these issues will only lead to disaster.

Arguably governments are right to be scared about the public's health. In the next 20 years (see Link at the bottom of the page) an increasing majority of the populations of western countries will be of pensionable age. With the bankruptcy of the city of Detroit in July 2013 fresh in our minds. Governments are already struggling to keep the money flowing to their millions of dependants. The case is more acute in the UK where the public healthcare system faces a tsunami of demand in the near future. It is therefore understandable that governments are beginning to panic. Unfortunately many will fail to act before the situation hits crisis point. Consequently the 21st century theme of unopposed government expansion and public conflict will continue. As the state will need to grow, simply to sustain itself.

Wolves in Sheep's clothing

It is clear that the war for safety is rapidly gathering in pace. It is increasingly governments job to ensure that we live safe and healthy lives. Arguably, this is a long way off from William Beverage's idea of what a welfare state should look like. Ultimately government policy is more aggressive in protecting citizens from themselves then at any time previously. Again it is important to note that this is not a tirade against those who choose to live in a safer environment, or those who choose by voluntary means to live a healthy lifestyle. In fact, common sense encourages that we live safely and healthy, to the best of our ability. This article is concerned with the process whereby, under the guise of ensuring a high standard of public health, government is advancing it's reach far beyond what any sane person could permit.

As is the case with the war on drugs and the war on terror. The vast amounts of money spent on these public wars, does not justify the threat. Indeed, the threat is elusive. Intangible to the average citizen. Those outside the elite state sphere simply are not able to identify just how much we are all in danger. Thus, we must settle for the promise of protection. Usually at huge public expense, measured not only in terms of monetary value, but in terms of the liberties we must surrender so that our government can adequately fight this 'threat'. In his 2013 book Rise of the Warrior Cop Radley Blako outline a chilling scenario whereby under the guide of the war on drugs. The police forces in America have been militarized

'Not only does the military continue to provide surplus weapons to domestic police agencies, but thanks to the Department of Homeland Security grants, military contractors are now shifting to market resources toward police agencies. Worse, a new industry appears to be emerging just to convert these grants into battle-grade gear. That means we'll soon have powerful private interests, funded by government grants, who will lobby for more government grants to pay for further militarization- a police industrial complex' Radley Blako, Rise of the Warrior Cop

Furthermore already increasing amounts of government and state affiliated contractor money is used in airports, our streets and online to fight the war on terror. As a result of what has happened with drugs and terror, it could be argued that the same is happening to health.

Huge amounts of mandatory pricing already pushes up the cost of alcohol, cigarettes and foods that are high in sugar or fat. Despite the fact that little evidence shows that this has been effective in preventing people from living an unhealthy lifestyle. It is increasingly difficult to imagine a world in the near future, whereby the state does not use its power, under the guise on the 'war for health' to further advance its power. Admittedly there will be those who believe that the governments new role in promoting health is essentially benign. However this was the case with the war on drugs or the war on terror. Small scale advances that collectively add up, to from a new edifice through which the state extends its power. Ultimately these 'public wars' have little to do with the crusade that is used to identify them. The ultimate goal in an extension of state power. Evidence for this can be seen when we take a cursory look at society around us. Terror is no less of an issue, and illegal drugs no less relevant. The policies have had a negligible effect at best.

The war on drugs and the war on terror burn on. However another war is beginning to take shape, the 'war for health'. Even those who genuinely desire a more healthy society should worry about using the state as a means of achieving their desired aims.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/24/britain-ageing-population-lords-inquiry