So much for predictions

POLITICS is always likely to throw up some surprises, however, the twists and turns of the General Election would have confused the writers of Broadchurch.

For months the polls showed the same picture, well the ones which were published that is. The election was supposed to be too close to call. The Conservatives and Labour were running neck and neck, the Liberal Democrats would take a mauling, but only just enough to teach them a lesson, the United Kingdom Independence Party would become a key player and the Scottish National Party would rise from the ashes of the referendum to be a greater threat to the union than ever. Something was meant to happen with the Green Party but to be honest no-one was really paying that much attention.

The plan was set. The Tories would be forced to enter a second coalition with the Lib Dems, who having suffered at the hands of the electorate and able to manipulate the threat of an SNP/Labour opposition would be firmer and stand by their principles. It was meant to be a coalition which would see the growing far right of the Conservative party mitigated by the left of the Libs. Nick Clegg would step down and Vince Cable or Danny Alexander would step to the fore.

Of course there was a risk of a Labour/SNP coalition but it was unlikely, particularly after the categorical statements of Ed Milliband. Clearly the main threat was just fear mongering on the part of the Conservatives in what turned out to be an incredibly divisive move who has put the Union at greater risk than the SNP ever could have.

Of course Labour and Conservatives both claimed that they would win a majority but no-one really took them seriously, queue much eye rolling from Dimbleby, Robinson, Marr et al whenever they said it. 

Well that was the plan. There was however one slight flaw, no-one followed it. From the minute Big Ben struck 10 it was obvious something had gone drastically wrong, possibly not entirely obvious to former Lib Dem Leaders Paddy Ashdown comment that he would eat his hat if his party lost 47 seats, as it was they lost 49. Political commentators who had been gearing themselves up for days, possibly weeks, of coalition negotiations now faced the prospect that the Conservatives may do far better than expected, and that the Lib Dems and Labour would do far far worse. As the night wore on and it became clear that there would be a Tory majority government without the restraint of the Liberals people started to realise what a hideous mistake they had made. 

By the morning people woke up to a new, far righter wing, Britain. Big names had fallen, Cable, Balls and many more had been thrown unceremoniously out on their ears. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Labour chief Ed Milliband both stood down in the wake of the results, as did technically UKIP leader Nigel Farage only to spring back a few days later into the role. The Scottish National Party had swept Labour from Scotland to become the official third party. 

Simply put the political map of Britain changed and not necessarily for the better. It wasn't all bad though. The turn out was far higher than expected which just goes to show that the one safe bet I made on the election was just as wrong as every other prediction.    

Money talks, politicians lie

AS THE General Election campaigns continue to roll on in Britain it is become clear that politicians are willing to forgo economic sense in favour of votes.

Even the simplest concept, don't spend money you don't have, seems to have been forgotten as the number of unfunded manifesto pledges increases.

It is common knowledge that manifestos are wish lists which should be viewed with a sceptical lense. This doesn't mean however that parties can put anything in them in the hope that no-one notices that it is fiscally irresponsible.

Governments do have the option to borrow if necessary to fund policies if they feel it is worth increasing the national debt to push them through, so perhaps it is unfair to write off policies which appear unsustainable at this point.

What is most worrying is the way in which policies appear so focused on grabbing votes that they have ignored the potential long term harm that they will cause. Possibly the most noticeable of these is the minimum wage. For many people seeing that a party is prepared to offer a £10 minimum wage sounds like a winning idea, after all who doesn't like the idea of more money in their pocket. The problem is that it won't actually mean more money for individuals. 

Firstly many small businesses already struggle with minimum wages as it is. An increase, particularly such a dramatic one, does not mean the companies sales will increase so income is unlikely to change immediately. This means that to pay the new wage the business needs to increase prices, or lay off staff. 

Where prices stay static, lack of willingness by customers to pay increased prices for example, then unemployment will rise. As unemployment rises there are less people willing to pay increased prices, and so the cycle goes on. The argument that minimum wages should meet cost of living is likewise limiting the scope. If minimum wages are increased then people earning above the minimum wage, quite logically, will want an increase in pay, after all why work in one job if you can earn the same money doing something which requires less skill or stress. As these wages increase the cycle begins again driving up prices as larger and larger firms raise prices to meet the new wage costs and maintain profit margins.

Then there is the toxic issue of the foreign age budget. One party in particular seems to determined to develop the argument of "why are we giving money to foreigners?"  The simple answer is that you spend money to make money.

No matter how it is wrapped up and packaged foreign aid is aimed at stabilising the international system, allowing for development, and gradually through many steps leading to a flowing import export market. It is not a purely philanthropic matter no matter what some people may think. Quite simply the foreign aid budget brings more money into the country than goes out, it just does it in a roundabout and not always clear manner.

When parties try and explain how they are going to fund a policy they think only of the short five year effects on the treasury. The danger is that they forget that in a market economy the knock on effect for inflows and outflows will linger for many more years than this.

A developing issue of aid

The critical condition in Vanuatu once again has brought the issue of aid to the forefront of the global consciousness and with it the same old problems.

While the devastation reeked upon the country by Cyclone Pam has destroyed what little infrastructure the country, considered as one of the poorest in the world, it seems unlikely that the international community will do much more than symbolic handwringing.

Based on the economics principle of game theory to maximise stability in the international system it is better if all countries invest. If only one country invests then stability does increase slightly, although not as much as the accumulated investment of all. For an individual state therefore it makes sense not to invest as stability will still be increased. The issue arises however that if all states decide to not invest, thinking that the others will, then the level of instability will remain in the international system, and potentially in the face of such an emergency as in Vanuatu increase.

The barrier to effective aid therefore is that states will act in their own interests if they believe that another state will shoulder the burden, essentially free riding.

Over repeated games however if all states invest then it may occur to each state to decide that as stability will be increased whether or not they invest it makes sense for them to stop donating development aid and invest that money elsewhere. As each state only has the same information though this would logically lead to all  states stopping investment.

For a positive distribution of development aid to be determined using game theory players must be playing a coordination game, whereby they cooperate with each other while still potentially receiving different payoffs. When players in a coordination game have reached a mutually agreeable decision they will gain nothing by defecting from it. For the purposes of development and aid programmes this could mean that despite disagreement in putting together a proposal once it has been agreed upon all players will either remain with it or leave it all together. This has been seen in the way states have continue working towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals despite initial differences of opinion when they were being created.

An alternative form of game however can see individual states defecting from an agreement if they feel that they can increase their gains. Such a game may reduce the trust among other actors however and therefore make future long term cooperation harder. If all players in a game know that any of them may leave an agreement at any point if it benefits them then it can reduce the legitimacy of the agreement as a whole. This distrust amongst actors will prove a lasting barrier to global governance.

Vanuatu's problem, aside from the near whole scale destruction of its economy, is that it does not pose enough of a risk through instability to be of concern to much of the international community. It is unlikely therefore that there will be a coordinated effort among donor countries to provide a concerted and long term approach to development aid. The issue is instability is not strong enough to create an atmosphere of global governance, as few countries will feel their own interests are threatened by an destabilised Vanuatu. It would seem likely that it's richer neighbour Australia, fearing perhaps an influx of refugees among others, will be the only country to see the need to help, and even then it will only be through preservation of its own self interest.  

Language of terrorism is Schrödinger's Cat of security

THE announcement by the Nigerian terror group Boko Haram that is has aligned itself with the self proclaimed Islamic State has led to dire warnings by experts but how seriously should we take it?

The announcement, as with most issues surrounding terrorism, is a speech act with little impact other than that which we bestow upon it. Until Boko Haram made the announcement it may or may not have been allied to IS, it took a public statement for it to happen. A speech act is the Schrödinger's cat of securitisation, it may be both or neither until it is spoken at which point it becomes a reality.

This works both ways. For Boko Haram they can now claim allegiance to a vast terror network. The reality of the situation is that it will make very little difference though. In the 70's and 80's groups such as the Irish Republican Army were suspected of training in Libya and allegedly supplied weapons by the then Soviet Union. The IRA didn't need to pledge allegiance to Gaddafi to gain support they just had to have mutually beneficial aims. The same is true for Boko Haram and IS. Neither side needed to pledge allegiance to the other. They both are drawn from the same pool and are already likely to have been providing support where applicable.

The news has however given those on the right of the political spectrum a field day in spreading their own element of fear for their own ends.

 “By Boko Haram pledging to the Islamic State, Shekau has secured a safe haven for Boko Haram's leadership. Even if the current Nigerian offensives are to succeed, a temporary escape could be made to another IS stronghold from where Boko Haram's life cycle can be maintained irrespective of distance,” claimed Veryan Khan, editorial director of Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC), speaking to the American right wing Fox network.

Here lies an example of how a speech act can be used to promote what is known as securitisation, the concept that something is a security issue. The pledge doesn't in itself give IS or Boko Haram a foothold in the other's territory. By changing the perspective of the situation however this is what Khan has managed to allow without IS even having to accept it. Terrorism is about ideology, twisted as it may be, ideology is spread by words, the violence is just there to back them up. These words have very little power in and of themselves until they are given credence. 

By using particular language those who claim to be fighting the idea of terrorism are able to achieve their own ends and launch further military actions, as was seen by the disastrous intervention in Iraq, which rather than stabilising the Middle East directly led to a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. 

Likewise Boko Haram is no more likely today then it was last month to work with IS. Now they have said that they will, rather than doing so anyway, they have created a security issue which was already alive it was just still in its box.

The madness of nuclear non proliferation

ISRAELI Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to US congress this week and American President Barack Obama's announcement of a landmark deal with Iran have reawakened old animosities, and questions.

The issue here isn't whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons, we know they don't and we know that no matter what the rhetoric spouted is they are unlikely to do so in the near future. The issue is the hypocrisy within the international system regarding the acquisition and maintenance of nuclear weapons in general.

The five permanent members of the Security Council America, Russia, France Britain and China are all signatories to the treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as is Iran for that matter. Israel, which has an outstanding if not just a little bit redundant policy of "deliberate ambiguity", is not. Neither are Pakistan and India, two other nuclear states, or North Korea which withdrew from the treaty, essentially showing how pointless the whole thing is.

The five original nuclear powers have long maintained an argument that they should be the only ones entrusted to possessing nuclear weapons as they are the only ones which can be trusted to maintain peace in the international system. The fact that the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in an aggressive act seems lost on the current policy makers.

Iran voluntarily signed up to the NPT without any actual need to do so, and has remained with it despite an inability among other signatories to do so. Meanwhile Iran's greatest opponent, Israel, is known to have nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the NPT, they also refuse to allow independent inspection of non military nuclear facilities however that is an entirely different issue. Unlike the renowned realist academic Kenneth Waltz I do not believe that Iran getting a nuclear weapon would increase the stability of the Middle East, an argument being that it will create an element of mutually assured destruction, MAD, the same principle argued between Russia and the West during the Cold War. The fact is though that if stability is to be maintained within the international system there must be an equality of action and reaction between states, e.g. Israel cannot complain about one party developing nuclear weapons outside of international oversight when they are doing the exact same thing. 

In the cases of Iran et al there is an additional issue of 'dual use' technology, the ability for a crossover of non-military nuclear applications, such as power generation. Germany, Japan and South Korea all have the capability from their nuclear energy industry to start a nuclear weapons program, they are known as 'recessed nuclear weapons states'. If we are to argue that Iran should not be allowed any nuclear capacity then does this mean that we are going to force these countries to dismantle their power stations? 

A nuclear free world is a lovely idea but it won't happen. The genie is well and truly out of that bottle and no amount of good intention will shove it back in. The only alternative is to find a common ground. Global governance of the nuclear sector is a possible course, however, so long as countries such as Israel continue to develop nuclear weapons as refuse to acknowledge it this will not happen. At the end of the day only one thing can be done, treat each state equally, allow for trust within the system and pray that each state understands the consequences of its actions. Mutually assured destruction may be MAD but it is the only way to peace we have.    

The role of "cyber" in the international system

IN AN ever increasingly connected world the role of "cyber" has taken on a new level of importance. Its place, and by extension its function in society has, however, become something of a debate in its own right.

For the purposes here we can distinguish between online and cyber. We are not talking about buying things or streaming movies. We are instead looking at the connectivity which "cyber" has provided in the arena of global governance and whether this has removed or created boundaries.

While it may have an effect on the debate it is also unnecessary here to discuss the concerns raised by some experts in the field, including "father of the Internet" Vint Cerf, that changing technologies may lead to the loss of vast stores of data and information, other than to say that if this were to happen its impact on global information distribution, and particularly its importance in the promotion of emerging economies, may have long term unforeseen implications. Such a loss, and with it the associated loss of production possibility and sustainability for developing countries, would likely cause severe between country instability and destabilise portions of the international system. 

Before this becomes a global doomsday prophecy it is worth clarifying that such an impact would likely be mitigated by the gradual nature of the information loss and the ability of states and large multinationals to update their technologies gradually thereby mitigating such loss.

We are brought back therefore to "cyber" as an increased form of connectivity and what impact this can have on the international system.

There are those who view the increased communications abilities provided as a risk to global security and the international system as a whole. For some states the risks have been judged as too high and as such they have attempted to impose stringent controls on their populaces ability to access such resources. A similar debate occurred however when the printing press was first used and when Gutenburg's bible was produced. The debate now will end in the same outcome, as has already been demonstrated by the means by which some activists have circumvented government controls to spread information via social networking sites and the "dark web".

For network theorists the enhanced role of "cyber" has provided a way for "bottom up" change to take place as transnational advocacy networks can communicate more effectively and thereby put increased pressure on states to take action on a range of topics.

This same mechanism however has also given criminal entities and terror networks the same advantage leading to a spread of ideologies and increased ability for global recruitment. No longer is Walter Lacquer's view of terror groups as small, contained entities, viable in the new "cyber" world.

The impact of TANs is, by their very nature, limited by the will of the states they are attempting to change. For those using "cyber" to destabilise civil society they are equally limited by the ways in which states will respond, as seen by removal of internet capabilities.

"Cyber" therefore means as much now as the printing press did then. It is a tool which has not yet seen its potential. That potential however is limited by the will of the international system, which despite the best wishes of the network theorists is still ruled by the sovereignty of states and a realist perspective. 

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.