BRICS and Mortar: Building a Movement Fit for the Developing World

The primary concern of this article is how Libertarian theory could ever possibly be applied successfully to what is often referred to as the 'Developing World'. But before I begin, I will make a few remarks. Firstly I fully appreciate the scope and diversity of the 'Developing World', therefore accepting the inadequacies of catch-all terms like the 'Global South', 'Third World' and 'Developing World'. A lifetime could be spent addressing such a massive section of the humanity, and still not be adequately detailed. Not to mention that such broad-brush approaches to the social sciences are completely outside of the contemporary academic tradition. Secondly I will mention that I am by no means an established expert on the issues on which this article addresses, merely a passionate and humble observer. Lastly I will say that far from trying to solve the myriad of issues that most of the countries in the Developing World face, by prescribing some sort of uniquely 'Libertarian solution' this article will aim to be a collection of pertinent inferences and observations about Libertarian discourse and ideas, and how they might relate to countries outside of the 'Western World'. By paying more attention to what's happening outside the remits of our own countries, we can only strengthen our movement, enrich our intellectual discourse and build the foundations of a truly global project.

Fundamentally I believe that Libertarian discourse tends to understate the issues that facing the Developing World. Yet there are good reasons for this, even in the Western World, the Libertarian cause is still a minority issue, albeit a growing one. It seems almost inappropriate for a nascent political movement in the Developed Word to devote time and energy to other countries. As well as being a small group, almost none of the main architects of Libertarian ideas have come from the Developing World and thus have tended to deal with issues immediately concerning the First World. However, I am fully aware that many free-market writers and academics have alluded to (sometimes in depth) to Asia, Africa and Latin America. Yet, these casual references do not come close to the massive amount of literature surrounding the Developing World emanating from mainstream academia or even Marxist literature.

‘BIG-STATISM’

The reasons why we should address the issues faced by the Developing World are self-evident and compelling. Ultimately in terms of how the early 21st century will be looked at by historians and analysts, we are losing the debate. In his book 'How Asia Works', Joe Studwell provides a compelling case that the Asian 'Tiger Economies' owe their success not to free-market liberalism, but to centralised; state-led economic projects, whereby strong and determined governments turn their nations into exporting superpowers. Despite Libertarians having a voice on many issues in the Western World, globally speaking we are going through a period of 'Big-Statism'. The so-called BRICS are all large countries that command massive quantities of internal resources: land, population, mineral wealth and energy. Despite the fact that the future of the BRICS is far from certain, it remains true that their pre-eminence among the developing countries is perceived as having little to do with free-market ideas. On the contrary, it would appear that these select nations owe their position to their lack of reliance on 'free-trade' and ability to develop their domestic economies. Furthermore, not only do we see the rise of big nations, but smaller nations are increasingly clumping together: ASEAN, The African Union, Mercosur, ALBA etc. show that any dreams of the world turning into a patchwork quilt of small independent entities is just that...a dream. Hayek would be horrified. Importantly 'Big-Statism' is a trend that extends beyond the territorial definitions of a nation. The role of the state in the BRICS countries is significant. The nature of the government in China needs no elaboration, yet even in Brazil and Russia almost all of the largest companies are at least in part, state-owned. Additionally, even in supposedly Capitalist India, large swathes of the country are governed at a regional level by Marxist local authorities.

Clearly, as well as nations strengthening their internal institutions, tightening their grip on the lives of their economies, we also live in an era of international tension. In his seminal work on geopolitics, Paul Kennedy wrote as early 1989:

‘There are smaller yet still more significant arms races- not to mention wars- in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and across Asia, from Iran to Korea. The consequence has been an explosion in Third World military expenditures, even by the poorest regimes, and large-scale increases in arms sales and transfers in those countries.’ Paul Kennedy, Rise and Fall of The Great Powers

This quote seems as appropriate now (perhaps more so) than it did when it was written. Consequently, geopolitically speaking, the Developing World has never been more militarised. Therefore, the challenge this poses to the Libertarian movement is that such a context of tension isn't conducive to dissolving national boundaries and deregulating economies. This is a massive topic that I can only really allude to here, but I think the stark realities (however unfortunate) of global geopolitics are something that deserve to be considered.

How valid the claim is that the Developing World is growing prosperous thanks to protectionist policies is debatable. The BRICS economies are complex and experts are far from agreement on whether or not they will pass the precipice into the Developed World anytime soon. The same can be said of 'Big-Statism', what specific policies really would ensure the best road to development is beyond the scope of this article (or its author). Yet if history is to be any guide,  It would suggest that strong and centralised governments can be moderately successful, but rarely build the foundations for a truly robust and prosperous society.

LINGUISTIC

The second main difficulty the Libertarian movement faces when concerning the Developing World is linguistic. The world 'Capitalism' is universally controversial, particularly when people begin to attribute characteristics or a certain 'nature' to it. Either rightly or wrongly, for most of the world’s population outside of the West, Capitalism is synonymous with violence and oppression. And perhaps rightly so, a brief look at the history of most of Latin America, Africa or Asia reveals countless atrocities unleashed in the name of 'Capitalism' and 'Westernisation'. Importantly, often the policies that Developing World leaders implement are far removed from the Libertarian conception of Capitalism and truly free markets. Furthermore, as is the case in Pinochet's Chile or Zia Ul Haq's Pakistan, the most supposedly 'Capitalistic ' rulers tend to be awfully bloodthirsty. Therefore, it is evident that the word Capitalism is ambiguous when concerning the Developing World. I would argue that the Libertarian movement has been guilty of throwing its support behind morally bankrupt regimes only because they have labelled themselves as Capitalists. I believe that by taking more notice of the Developing World might help free-market activists avoid errors such as these.

Yet I believe that there is no reason that this should be the case. Essentially the political history of the Developing World is a scrap yard, littered with the rustic relics of failed collectivist experiments. Weather in Nasser's Egypt, Suharto's Indonesia and (on the extreme end of the scale) Mao's China; a significant proportion of the world’s nations have suffered horrendously at the hands of irresponsible and violent strongmen, spurred on by deluded Leninist fantasies. Clearly, Collectivism has left as much a mark on the developing world as what is called 'Capitalism' has ever done. This important ideological quandary brings me on to another, perhaps more salient issue.

This is the popular assertion that somehow so-called 'western' ideas are fundamentally unsuitable for the Developing World. On a certain level, this is true, but it is mostly false. If the ideas of freedom and prosperity continue to be referred to as uniquely 'Western values' then indeed they will probably be seen (quite rightly) as fitting into a long history of European and American imposition on Non-Western societies. However; on another level this binary separation of 'Western' and 'Eastern' ideas about social organisation is inadequate.  For example, I believe that when the claim is made that a more individualistic approach to politics is fundamentally unsuited to Chinese society (for example) it is wrong. Even Joe Studwell, who spends most of his book praising authoritarian regimes, admits;

‘On its present trajectory, China is set to be a middle-income per capita, but profoundly institutionally retarded state. At an economic level, this gives leading nations nothing to fear.' Joe Studwell, How Asia Works

Fundamentally, the idea that Liberal modes of social organisation have no place in the Developing World, is an accident of history- often professed by the apologists for anti-democratic ideologues. People from the Asia, Africa or Latin America are not by nature servile, fanatical or immutable.  The global diversity of religions and histories is important to consider, but it shouldn't stop us from engaging confidently with people from around the world.

It's Going To Be A Dismal Election

As the politicians seem to have recovered from their new years eve hangovers and begun an ideological mud slinging match in front of a feverish and restless media circus. Either a senior minister has done something deeply embarrassing, or there is a general election fast approaching. In this case the latter. 

Importantly a brief overview of 2014 would indicate that this general election is really going to be spectacular! It has been mentioned over and over again how senior pollsters simply don't have a clue as to who will win- with Labour and the Tory's stuck in a seemingly endless conflict over a couple of percentage points. It is likely that no party will win an over all majority, with some sort of coalition being the predicted outcome. Nick Clegg (yes he still exists!) is openly stating that voting for the LibDems ensures another coalition.Yet there have been tight elections before, the ascendance of UKIP this year has been staggering, with a massive boost in popularity to about 15% of the electorate and two high profile defections from the dark environs of the Conservative back benches- with probably more to come. It has been discussed ad infinitum how UKIP will drag the Tories to the right, displacing their hard won middle ground supporters. 

Additionally, on the Left there has been impressive gains from the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) winning 3 local government seats last year and are apparently fielding 1000 candidates in GE2015- a modest number, but impressive considering the party only formed in 2010. As well as a media furore surrounding the exclusion of the Green Party from any of the official TV debates this year. Add into the mix, a barely defeated SNP whose support has reportedly increased since the referendum in November and surely we are in for an interesting election this year!

Well sadly, the answer is no...as far as i'm concerned anyway. Unfortunately what we have witnessed over the past week is a signal that GE2015 is going to be a traditional back to basics election. The battle lines are already drawn, Labour supposedly championing the NHS and 'hard working families' and the Tories pretending to know what they are doing about the economy. 

A recent article in The Guardian by Andrew Rawnsley entitled 'There's a vacuum now in British politics. And it's Blair-shaped' I believe, is rather accurate. Although I generally don't agree with much of what Rawnsley says in his article, I do acknowledge  his assertion that ultimately politicians will be inclined to go for an elusive middle ground in order to get elected with a respectable  result. As opposed to appealing to their party's vocal fringes. Evidently this is going to be a massive anti-climax for many. Listening to Ed Milliband's election speech  was as dull as dishwater; enough to make me forget that he was ever branded as 'Red Ed'- a dangerous revolutionary firebrand. Frankly my kitchen sink has more proletarian zeal than the current Labour leader. Arguably the dreary soundbites and lackluster applause was a cynical appeal to what Ed Milliband calls the 'squeezed middle'. Virtually no policy was mentioned in the speech.

But what about the Conservatives? I assumed that with the threat of Nigel Farage's purple clad acolytes would be enough to put the brakes on 'Compassionate Conservatism'?Yet it would appear that the Tories are going back to basics as well focusing on the economy. Not wholly surprising given that after rounds of police force cuts, they can hardly play the law & order card. Furthermore, media hype aside, there is no certainty around how UKIP will perform in GE2015. David Cameron's delightfully ambiguous 'road to nowhere' is essentially a promise for more of the same from the Conservatives. This wouldn't be such a problem if the Tories weren't so hopelessly divided, don't ask David Cameron where his 'road to nowhere' is going because I'm not sure he knows himself.  

In conclusion; despite Nick Robinson's assertion that new economic data means that GE2015 will actually be very exiting, my prediction is that the journey towards May will be a predictable ideological trudge with both parties abandoning their fringes to win over a divided middle ground. Not that I would ever have considered voting for any of them, but it would be nice to watch an interesting debate. It's going to be a dismal election... 

Life in the Echo Chamber

You folks will have to excuse me if this article sounds like a rant, and I suppose it is. But please bear with me. This is a criticism directed at the online community. Namely the online 'echo-chamber' that many of us live in. This loosely refers to the process by which the sheer mass of material available on the internet allows us to be highly selective in the information we consume.  Therefore forming tacit online comfort zones. It is the nature of the enthusiasts of the 'internet reformation' to stress the use of the web as an open forum for ideas. Evidently this is true, there is more information online at this moment in time than any one person could consume in a life time. However this easy access to information is having a pernicious effect on our political discourse. 

        For example i'm sure that anybody reading this article will not need to be reminded that the comments section on a YouTube video are not likely to be a place of intense philosophical enlightenment. It stands to reason that we shouldn't expect every comment or blog post to be a revelation, nor do I advocate any sort of quality control over the internet. However I can't help be slightly disheartened when I see people who I presume to be adults descend into vicious grandstanding rather than intelligent discussion.

Ultimately the reason I'm writing this article is because certain sections of what are supposed to my own ideological community seem so hopelessly inept at arguing the case for freedom. I believe this is a fact that can be directly attributed to the 'echo-chamber'. Arguably when an someone gets the lions share of their news from the same source, they are inevitably going to have weak arguments for their positions. It can be assumed that when an individual doesn't challenge their own assumptions their arguments are likely to be less than convincing. This trend isn't restricted to the freedom movement but extends around the ideological spectrum and into the political mainstream. Weather it's one newspaper, one news website or a similar group of digital sources being in an environment where everybody agrees with you or reinforces your opinion means those individuals are going to struggle when their positions are brought into dispute.

Though some may suggest that because they know they are right in there opinions, there is no need to call them into question. I can understand this view, why traipse through a deep metaphysical swamp simply to arrive at the same conclusion you reached before you entered? Any cursory assessment of online activism reveals the reason. Unconvincing arguments,exhausted themes and appalling syntax are some symptoms of the echo-chamber.  I often read an article or book and end up slightly disheartened by it's lack of any discernible  insight. It is often striking to me how easy an article or book could be improved if the author had spent more time entertain opinions that run counter to their argument. 

       Yet perhaps this is just me being picky and anyway, why should anyone feel compelled to conduct themselves like an eighteenth century philosopher online? In reality I would argue that simply taking a step out of our comport zone every once in a while would suffice to broaden our perspective. As for established academics of all political stripes, they must surely be aware of the drivel that exists out there in cyberspace and owe it to their profession not to contribute to it. 

'Evo Once Again'!

Bolivia's president Evo Morales won his third term in office, having one of the highest approval ratings of any world leader. Far from being an isolated case, the mass appeal of Mr. Morales is symbolic of a left wing consensus across most of South America. Otherwise known as the 'Pink Tide'. The importance of this continental shift towards the left cannot be denied. Here in 'The West' socialism has ceased to be a feature of our vernacular when discussing everyday politics. A dream of  a bygone age, only to be seen in the crumbling relics of our civil institutions and read about in the pages of left wing academics. It is worth mentioning here that the most striking feature of mass political unrest across Europe since 2008 has been the lack of any discernible Marxist vanguard. Instead most disgruntled Europeans (including us in the UK) are turning towards popular nationalism. Even the way we talk about politics has changed, the traditional left/ right paradigm is
collapsing under the weight of its own inadequacy.

The lands between the Rio Grande and the Tierra Del Fuego have traditionally been the stronghold of Marxist academics. Perhaps unlike any other place on earth, South America's historical narrative has been shaped to emulate an arena for a bitter class war. Latin America's history has been perceived as ripe and ready for the journey towards Utopia. If the Revolution is to have a vanguard, they speaks Spanish. After over half a century of communist rule Cuba remains a defiant bastion of collectivism. Despite mass protests, a skydiving economy and the death of its cherished leader Venezuelans under Nicolas Maduro show no signs of discarding the United Socialist Party  just yet. And in Brazil's recent presidential elections the three main candidates where Social Democrats. Latin America's most famous liberalising programme was initiated under the iron fist of general Pinochet with the help of his hated 'Chicago Boys'. So the election in Bolivia is surely another nail in the coffin for Capitalism in South America. It is this claim that I will be addressing here.

The Election

On Sunday Evo Morales won 60% of his countries vote, a landslide. His nearest opponent Samuel Doria Medina a wealthy entrepreneur received a disappointing 25%. It goes without saying that compared to British standards where leaders struggle to achieve an approval rating higher than 30%, Mr Morales' popularity in his country of 10 millions is astronomic. Ravaged  by decades of neo-liberal authoritarianism Bolivia's first Aymara president has brought about a much appreciated sense of stability to one of Latin Americas poorest countries.

Historically Bolivia has been a divided country with its traditional  economic center being in the western lowlands ( the Medialuna). However Morales' popularity originates from his supporters from Bolivia's indigenous communities in the Andes, poor labourers in Santa Cruz department and La Paz. Clearly Morales' ability to coordinate these often ignored and repressed groups in Bolivian society has been the key to his success. Yet Morales' presidency hasn't been without opposition. In 2007 ex-president Reyes Villa attempted to resist Movement  for Socialism's (MAS) plans to redesign Bolivia's constitution and sparked disgust and rioting from MAS supporters when he and his allies tried to hamper Morales' government. Reyes Villa has since fled the country.

However his 60% landslide wasn't the victory Morales was hoping for. His supporters were eager for the ex coca leaf grower to run for a third term in office at the next election, something that is prohibited under the Bolivian constitution. Unfortunately for the president he failed  to receive the 66% of the vote needed to make an amendment to this existing law. Perhaps slightly disapointing for the hugely popular president. Although the election result and Morales' reaction to it speaks volumes about the reson behind his appeal. Ultimately it is the stability that he has brought to a vehemently divided country that makes him so popular. Morales' fiery anti-western rhetoric has predictably won him the title of 'despot' amongst western leaders. Yet the fact that in a country ( indeed a region) with a long history of dictatorship he simply accepts this election result and prepares to move on speaks volumes about why he is so universally popular in Bolivia. It is this sober, cautious dynamic about Bolivia's revolution that we proceed to assess.

Socialism in the Twenty First Century?

Undoubtedly it is Morales' confidently anti-capitalist oratory that wins him a place at the seething heart of Latin America's Pink Tide. Morales has spoken before about how capitalism has destroyed Pachamama ( the earth). Indeed to many observers Bolivia's newly re-distributive economic system will raise this impoverished nation into the ranks of the 'first world' in a matter of decades. And the statistics seem to bore this out. Since MAS ascended into power in 2006 Bolivia has undergone an economic boom. With 5% GDP growth annually, a 10% decrease in the number of people living in poverty and a domestic consumer boom with supermarket sales increasing 529% and Restaurant sales increasing 686%. This economic boom has led to a massive investment in infrastructure in Bolivia.

Arguably this is evidence that Bolivia's leftist government is finally ridding the country of the poverty that has plagued its history. However the reality of Bolivia's economic miricle is more sobering. Morales' resource nationalisation programme of oil and natural gas is largely responsible for Bolivias recent success. Its no coincidence that MAS' successful wealth distribution programme coincides with a corresponding rise in the price of oil worldwide. Similarly the stubbornly high price of natural gas seems to be helping to fill Bolivias coffers. Furthermore under the stewardship of finance minister Luis Arce natural gas and oil have increased from 10% of Bolivia's economy to over a third, additionaly one of MAS' most notable moves has been to enable Bolivian government bonds to be sold abroad for the first time in just under a century.

Clearly underneath the revolutionary edifice lies a calculated and relatively mundane economic formula. Gonzalo Chavez, a Bolivian economist has criticised Arce's policy, claiming that Bolivia's success relies too heavily on primary resource extraction. He says that the country is at serious risk if there is a shift in global commodity prices. Undoubtedly it is fortunate for Morales that oil and gas prices are high. However according to the World Bank, Bolivia's unusually high growth rate is set to slow down dramatically over the next five years

One of the most striking features of the Sunday election was Morales' triumph over traditional opponents in the rich lowlands of the Medialuna. Including the large agribusiness state of Santa Cruz. Corporate leaders have praised Morales' policies for keeping the economy stable; in stark contrast to other socialist run countries in Latin America. Morales even received a fairly positive write up in the Wall Street Journal. Although Morales' new friends have left some of his traditional supporters with a bitter taste in their mouths. Indigenous environmentalists, a core part of MAS' support network have denounced  plans to construct a highway through unspoiled nature reserves. Furthermore, a big part of MAS' appeal is their implicit promise not to nationalise any more industries. However in the immediate future it looks likely that Morales' supporters will encourage their idol to go beyond oil and gas.

'America No More'!

Ultimately the reality of Morales' Bolivia is a more somber mix of cool headed nationalisation and redistribution policies; a far cry from revolution. Certainly not 'proof that Socialism doesn't damage economies' as was argued by Ellie Mae O'Hagen in The Guardian this week. Yet it would also be wrong to condemn Morales' regime as adamantly as some media outlets have done. The Financial press have been keen to characterise Bolivia as riding a commodities boom that is ultimately unsustainable in the long run. A scathing analysis indeed.

A natural gas operation in Bolivia

However Bolivia's latest election has proven that for many in Latin America 'capitalism' and 'liberalisation' are by-words for dictatorship and oppression. In this respect I would agree with them. What many leaders in the western world call capitalism is a monstrously deformed and destructive entity, wholly unworthy of the name. The lasting legacy of Evo Morales will be his legacy to Bolivian politics, not its economy. It doesn't look like Morales' regime is going to collapse anytime soon, Hugo Chavez's sudden succession by Nicolas Maduro has shown that Pink Tide governments can be extremely resilient to implosion. Evo Morales' successor will inherit a relatively stable country that has made strides towards being a more socially liberal society. Additionally Bolivia's new found confidence has won it friends in Moscow and Beijing. Arguably a significant reason for the emergence of the Pink Tide throughout Latin America is the regions genuine exhaustion with being dominated by the USA, opposing western imperialism is clearly a vote winner in Bolivia. In 2000 a  handful of western backed companies tried to take over Bolivia's water supply causing what many call 'the water war'. It is no coincidence that the mainstay of Morales' programme is his nationalisation policy.

Therefore Bolivia's latest elections prove that sometimes when addressing issues in far away countries we often have the debate we want to have as opposed to the discussion we ought to have. It is wrong to assume that Bolivia is showing the world that 'Socialism works' in much the same way as politicos are ready to condemn Morales as a tyrant in waiting. Until we learn to examine the reality of the developing world the extraneous ideological quarrels will continue. 

A Pessimists Take on the Scottish Referendum

A recent article in The Economist highlighted that two Britains are emerging one cosmopolitan the other communal. The Scottish cry for independence is the loudest communal voice in Britain right now. Politicos are predicting that the SNP are the beginning of a Communal revolution. I take a less optimistic view on the vote.

“As ever, political tectonics are following socioeconomic ones. Just as England is splitting along lines perpendicular to its traditional divisions, so its two main political parties are tearing along their middles. Mr Parris’s column and the reaction to it neatly depict the debate within the Conservative Party. A very similar conflict is playing out in Labour ranks, too. In both, communitarians have come to blows with cosmopolitans.

The communitarian argument, as the responses to Mr Parris indicate, starts with the claim that Britain’s political disillusionment stems from the haughtiness of liberal metropolitan elites. In particular those of this outlook cite immigration and the EU, but other bugbears like MPs’ expenses, big business and purported NHS privatisation also play a role. London-bashing often features, too. Thomas Friedman, a New York Times writer, describes the political expression of such concerns as “the olive tree”—the outlook that most venerates that which is rooted and has existed for generations.

The cosmopolitan argument, by contrast, takes London as its starting point. In this philosophy, the capital’s success lies in its liberal-minded embrace of open markets, immigration and globalisation in general. Though the London-bashing communitarians are reluctant to admit it, successful English towns and cities beyond the M25 exhibit the same characteristics. Milton Keynes and Swindon, for example, are similarly pro-development. Manchester shares the capital’s knack for integrating a single urban economic area. Leeds has a pro-finance creed that has served it well. Coventry has made promising steps towards a post-Fordist manufacturing world. As Mr Friedman would put it, these places are embracing the “Lexus”—that which is disruptive and modern.”-The Economist, Clacton Versus Cambridge

The article goes on to conclude that a political party that fully embodies the 'cosmopolitan' principles will dominate Twenty First century politics. Despite being a thought provoking and original article, I would argue the The Economist is wrong in it's conclusion. I would argue that despite being the dominant ideological vision of our time. The neoliberal cosmopolitan vision is being slowly washed away by a tide of popular nationalism.

           The Scottish vote will soon be upon us, at the time I am writing this article the verdict is far from certain. As is to be expected political commentators are already forecasting the wide ranging implications of this important event. Whatever path the Scots decide, the result will be monumental for the future of British political life. However in my opinion the enormous fun of futurology must make way for the undoubtedly somber reality of British political life.

There has been talk already of a 'secessionist revolution'. A notion that in the wake of an SNP victory aspiring states across Europe and perhaps further afield will clamor for their own independence referendums. Even in the event that Alex Salmond is defeated there will be a significant constitutional shift in the UK towards 'Devo- Max', in such a circumstance it would be difficult to see how even if the no campaign wins it could be considered a complete victory.

       One of the most interesting aspects of the independence campaign Scotland is that it is primarily a 'working class' campaign. Alex Salmond's agenda is decidedly left wing and writers on the left have keen to stress the proletarian credentials of the Scottish cry for independence. Arguably UKIP represents a similar phenomenon albeit the popular appeal of Mr. Farage's throng of supporters lies in much different areas than the SNP.

        So why the pessimism? Surely the success of the Nationalists in Scotland and the disquiet UKIP caused in the local council elections shows that the winds of change are blowing through Britain. Ultimately there is little doubt in my mind that the status quo will remain. It would seem that among pro-independence supporters in Scotland one of their main gripes with the union is that England is dragging the rest of the UK down a neoliberal cosmopolitan path against their will. A point I happen to sympathize with. Yet if Scotland decides to secede from the British Union little will change for both countries.The political energy in Scotland and the rest of Britain is directed into the existing political system representing an internal quarrel rather than a revolution.  Arguably the nationalist convulsion that is pulsating through Britain is unlikely to have a lasting impact.

It is this introversion that will ultimately exasperate the currents of change in Britain. Much of the vitality of these civic visions, nationalist or internationalist is directed towards the political center. History shows that the main political parties in the UK are usually able to absorb discontent with relative ease. By lurching the Tory party to the right, Margret Thatcher killed of the National Front which had around 20,000 members in the mid-Seventies. For the popular Nationalists and the cosmopolitan romanticists, their vision is ultimately the same. State power is the same weather in the guise of glistening public works projects with distant completion dates or in the footsteps of hundreds of blue clad campaigners with 'yes' plastered across their chests.

       The current  mire that the Labor and Tory party find themselves in will be temporary. With the full weight of the mass media and a hopelessly exclusive voting system the dominant party's seat on the Westminster throne will be difficult to unseat. However I would also argue that for all of those invested in mainstream politics the contemporary mistrust of the establishment won't improve much anytime soon. For this reason the effects of the Scottish vote and other communitarian movements will be limited. But it will be a similarly dismal outlook for the cosmopolite vanguard.

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).