The West must shoulder blame for Ukraine

IF the current crisis in Ukraine demonstrates anything it is that the Cold War far from thawing has entered a new phase.

Rather like some prehistoric monster from a bad B movie it appears that the Cold War has been in a state of deep freeze just waiting for the right climate to appear for it to make its grand resurgence.

Ukraine has provided just such a catalyst. The old rivalries between two dominant forces are reawakened. There is a misconception however that the growls from the aged Soviet bear are the cause of all today's ills. In international politics it still takes two to tango and the West must foot its fair share of the blame.

As the doyen of international relations John Mearsheimer stated: "The   United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West." (Mearsheimer, 2014)

The United States logically wants to maintain its position as the only hegemon in the global debate, China may be approaching this state but has not yet achieved the same level of cultural or political dominance. 

For Vladimir Putin this poses a direct threat to the sovereign interests of Russia. A Ukraine without Russian ties would pose a problem for him, by, as Mearsheimer points out, giving the West a strong staging point right on his border. 

Imagine for a second that Scotland had voted for independence and England refused to allow it. Would the West defend China if they interceded on Scotland's behalf? It may sound particularly far fetched yet in rational terms the situation is not that much different than the one currently facing Ukraine and its surrounding areas.

Of course with Ukraine however there are far deeper veins to plum for information on the cause and effect of the situation. In historical terms it would be more akin to France throwing its support behind an independent Scotland against the English.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Russia is arming rebels, a useful but not entirely fair term. So long as it doesn't become explicit however it must be seen as part of the great game. Suggestions that the West could overtly arm Ukrainian forces is a dangerous idea. While support is restrained to words and sanctions, with armed support kept to the shadows, there is a possibility for both sides to walk this back. 

If either side admits openly to supplying military assistance though it will force the situation into a whole new phase. The crisis in Ukraine may be devastating but an escalation would be catastrophic and the West would well and truly have the blood on its hands.

Has democracy had its day?

DEMOCRACY is in crisis. We must save democracy. 

It is a familiar chant of Western politicians. The reality is that while it may make a good soundbite to motivate a flagging electorate shouting about how much trouble democracy is in serves no purpose.

Part of the problem is that no-one actually seems to know what democracy is any more. I am not talking about a historical definition here but a subjective philosophical one.

Is democracy that which Western states decree? An excuse for war? A path to extremism and xenophobia? Is it even the removal of freedoms from some in the name of the "greater good".

Democracy has become a hot topic once more this week as Britain marks 750 years since its first parliament was elected.

This year also marks another key anniversary in the history of democracy, 800 years since the signing of the Magna Carta. Even this most notable document in the evolution of Western democracy does not reflect the governance we currently have today.

Democracy is at its ideological core about allowing all people to have a voice, however, as declining voter turnout has demonstrated, less and less people are actually taking the opportunity to have their voices heard.

Ostensibly interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were, at least tentatively on paper, part carried out to bring democracy. What democracy though? 

Western imposed democracy forcing different cultural and sociological ideals on countries provided that they elect governments who will be more malleable to American and British interests in the region.

The elections may have had the look of being free and fair but how much does this really matter if everyone knows that the winner must support the West or face removal and the whole process being repeated. It is a global power politics version of a teacher keeping the class behind until everyone gets it right.

In the West several commentators have warned that the latest crisis to face democracy is the rise of the populist movement. I have no love for Britain's United Kingdom Independence Party, America's Tea Party movement et al. They play on fear and disillusionment. They use blame games and the politics of hate to entice the dispossessed. 

In a democracy though we must face that parties such as this may gain power. It is not that democracy is in crisis, this is democracy in action.

If more mainstream parties want to put the threat to democracy to rest then they must debate effectively and challenge the principles of hate which are fuelling these parties.

There is a wider question though. Has democracy had its day? Is it time for a new political system. Eight hundred years since the Magna Carta. It is nothing more than a flash in the pan of political institutions. While it's very principle may have started with the Greeks its implementation has proven a long and arduous journey.

Not everything lasts. Religion, politics and art fade away over time. As we increase surveillance on our citizens, denigrate our opponents, dismiss ideas and hide from principles of unity. As we sacrifice morals and ethics on the great altar of Western democracy and bury culture and systems which have survived for millennia because they don't fit anymore, is it not time to consider that the future of freedom may be what is truly in crisis. A crisis caused in no small measure by our blind approach to democracy.

EU drives towards "flatter" world

The European Union has always proved to be a contentious subject in recent months, however, it has progressed to being an explosive topic.

For countries such as Turkey membership of the bloc has been something viewed with awe. Concessions have been made and flaming hoops jumped through as it continues down a long road to potential acceptance.

Meanwhile there is Britain which is fighting to rework the European Union into something more amenable to its electorate. For both sides of the debate the challenges can be daunting. For both the road they are walking is likely to be filled with opponents trying to stop their progress. The road has always had people waiting in the verges though to provide a helping hand. These good Samaritans seem to be becoming scarcer on both sides as states look to maintaining their own interests.

Most recently German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned British Prime Minister David Cameron that she was losing patience with him over Europe. In a widely quoted article in the German newspaper Der Spiegel she reportedly said that she would not allow Mr Cameron to introduce limits on the number of immigrants moving between countries within the bloc.

For potential members like Turkey such a move would be catastrophic. The freedom of workers to move around the European Union to follow the jobs has become a crucial part of its ability to maintain as standing as an industrialised trading bloc. This arguing in favour of such movement highlight the ways in which it helps European countries combat the hegemony of America and balance trade. 

Those who support Mr Cameron, many of whom have preferred to stay in the verges rather than risk crossing the powerful Merkel, would argue that this movement tends to be from low skilled workers who take jobs available to the indigenous population. 

Even the most ardent Eurosceptic must see that this argument is flawed. Possibly this is why Mr Cameron's usual supporters remain hidden in the shadows. The free movement of workers would allow countries, such as Turkey, to receive foreign capital as at least a portion of wages cross borders back home. Perhaps this is why right wing groups fear workers from outside their own country. It would make a better argument than unsubstantiated xenophobia or bigotry after all. 

The outflow of capital, however, is more than compensated for by lower wage costs leading to higher profits and therefore companies paying increased taxes. 

It is the reduction of jobs for locals which remains the main concern though. It is one which the honest solution of working harder and doing a good job is treated with genuine anathema amongst antagonists. The failure to realise that it allows for domestic workers to follow the jobs seems to have escaped their attention.

The European Union has moved on from is founding principles. It's growth and subsequent subsumption of countries has overridden the sovereignty of the Peace of Westphalia. It's evolution, however, distasteful to some, is inevitable though as the world becomes flatter. 

Those countries looking to join can saw hope from the fact that no matter what the countries seeking to change the EU may think the world is moving and it is moving towards a closer union.