Vote for World Peace?

 At present, it feels like there is quite a lot of underlying tension in the world, often resulting from long-running territorial disputes. A few examples of this that spring to mind include recognition of Taiwanese independence, and the status of both Crimea and Kashmir. Apologies if this makes these issues too simplistic, but I feel like, if a referendum that was agreed by all sides to be free and fair was held, could this result then be used to draw a line under these issues and allow the world to move on? An example of this could be the Falkland Islands: ownership of the islands has been disputed for hundreds of years now between Great Britain and Argentina. However, a 2013 referendum on whether the Islands would remain a British Overseas territory (voted on by the people who lived there) resulted in over 99% of people voting to preserve the status quo. Regardless of the past, what should be top priority in territorial disputes is the will of the people who live there, here and now; and, in the Falkland Islands, they overwhelmingly rejected becoming an Argentine territory; a result which can, and should, be respected and accepted by all, as stated by the people living there and most affected by the issue.

Although referenda often don't have as decisive a result as the one in the Falkland Islands, it gives an example nevertheless. I would therefore like to think that similar votes could be held in Taiwan (on unification with the People's Republic of China; or continued independence); Crimea (on whether it forms part of Russia or Ukraine); or Kashmir (on whether it forms part of India of Pakistan) to draw a line under these issues that undermine global instability and international relations. Such votes could be overseen by all sides, including objective external powers, that could be agreed by all concerned parties, and the referendum results would hopefully allow peaceful progress to be made around the globe with issues that have hitherto threatened conflict and complicated global relationships.

Royal Round-up: 2021

 

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France. 

2021

After 73 years of marriage to Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Prince Philip (Duke of Edinburgh, born a prince of Greece) dies aged 99.

George, son and heir to the claim of Grand Duchess Maria of Russia to the former Russian throne, marries Italian Rebecca Bettarini in St Petersburg, Russia.

Princess Marie, consort of Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, dies aged 81.

Parties a high priority?

 For what feels like quite a long time now, the British media seems to have made an apparent Christmas party at No. 10 Downing Street, residence of the British Prime Minister, in 2020 the most important news story. You get this impression from the fact that it is regularly the first news story on TV news shows, and front page story of the newspapers. However, whilst it obviously does reflect badly on the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and any colleagues involved, and, if accurate, shows them to be hypocrites- should this really be the main news item? And this happened a year ago: if it was THAT important and ground-breaking, why wasn't it revealed at the time, rather than a year later? It seems that the timing was deliberately picked to prioritise dramatic affect over getting an important story in the public eye as soon as possible. 

Of course it's an important feature of a free country that the press can scrutinise the government and hold it to account, but surely it's overkill when it's the top news story every day. Rather than point scoring against the government, and focusing on a petty matter and foolish error of judgment, the media can quickly prioritise other matters of more national/international significance.

Is it me, or is Macron's France coming across as petty and petulant lately?

 Although Emmanuel Macron has been President of France for a number of years now, I haven't heard anything about him that has made me feel strongly about him, one way or the other- until autumn 2021. Anglo-French relations have been under the spotlight more recently, and appear to be at their worst for quite a while. Earlier in the autumn, Britain was negatively linked by France with the AUKUS agreement between the UK, Australia and USA over submarine support lent to Australia by the UK and USA, implicitly to boost their collective presence in the Asia-Pacific region to counter Chinese power there. As a consequence of this agreement, ongoing negotiations between Australia and France on submarines were brought to a halt, at France's expense. In retaliation, France criticised AUKUS and recalled its ambassadors to both Australia and the USA for a time (Britain avoided this, getting off lighter). Nevertheless, whilst AUKUS (an acronym reflecting a combination of the initials of the countries involved) worked in some ways to the detriment of France, it was all a consequence of the decisions of Australia as a sovereign state, which it is therefore perfectly entitled to do, on the basis of what is in their best national interest. Moreover, seeing as the three AUKUS countries are allies of France, any cooperation and consolidation among allies should be seen in a larger context as part of a greater good. France's negative response however instead seems to have shown the country in a bad light, and indicates an almost childish bitterness over being left out...

Then, playing out over a longer period have been specifically Anglo-French tensions over migrants crossing the English Channel from France to the UK. This route, involving migrants climbing aboard very small boats in greater numbers than they should, should not be encouraged as a way of settling into the UK: it puts migrants' lives in danger, and strains the resources of the UK and France. It seems that some cooperation was achieved, with French police taking action to prevent some migrants from crossing the English Channel; but the effectiveness of this appears to be very limited, with a majority still making it across, incentivising more people to follow in their footsteps, and implying that paying the equivalent of thousands of pounds is a price worth paying by migrants, as the ends justify the means if they successfully make it across the Channel. This issue affects both countries, and should involve constructive cooperation; however, this weekend, it appears that France has revoked an invitation to Britain's home secretary to visit and discuss this, to retaliate against a letter stating British aims for these talks being made public. Again, as with the AUKUS situation, this seems to portray France as prioritising petty ill-feeling over achieving solutions for the greater good.

There has been speculation that France, under President Macron's leadership, has been particularly prickly of late because Macron is standing for re-election next year, and wants to come across as a strong leader when handling international issues. However, I don't know how the French generally feel about Macron and his handling of the abovementioned issues, but I think I would personally be embarrassed by the petulant image he has presented through his comments and actions. 

The relationship between Britain and France is a long one of mutual importance, with valuable trade and military ties, as well as cultural ones. In spite of Brexit, Britain's relationship with other European countries (particularly those in the European Union) will always be important and, as a leading country of both the EU and NATO, France is particularly important to the UK. For a long time there seem to have been three key sets of international relationships for the UK: with Europe, with the USA, and with former empire/current Commonwealth countries. In Europe, France is bound to be one of the most important relationships the UK will focus on- potentially the most important. I therefore look forward to a time when Anglo-French relations are a lot more positive and constructive, recognising what a positive impact this relationship can have in Europe and beyond; and hopefully petty bickering can become a thing of the past that we look back on and laugh at, rather than endure to everyone's detriment. It is often said that Macron is keen to undermine Britain in response to Brexit; but pettiness is surely never going to encourage the British to regret leaving the EU (in fact, the opposite). Moreover, just as Brexit was divisive in the UK, and "remainers" here have had to accept the result and make the best of it, I would hope that pro-remain politicians around the world would similarly accept that Brexit has happened and look to recreate relationships for the greatest mutual benefit possible. Causing disruption between the UK and EU, seemingly out of spite, surely doesn't send the message that the EU is an organisation to admire, and that countries should aspire to join?

Afghanistan: The West's Departure and Taliban's Return

 A major feature of the news in the UK currently (and I suspect across much of the world) is the departure of troops from the US and other allied countries from Afghanistan, and coincident success of the Taliban retaking control of the country. Most opinions and comments I see expressed on the matter say how this is a defeat for the West, and that the West are deserting the Afghan people. Although I'm no expert on this, this seems very unfair to me. 

The USA and their allies invaded Afghanistan shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and have remained there since. The initial objective, which was achieved, was the removal of the Taliban from power, and since then support has been provided for a democratic government. This has manifested itself in the aid, investment and military support that has poured into the country from the US and allied countries, with the hope that this would enable the democratic Afghan government to stand on its own two feet. To achieve this goal, many lives and large funds have been contributed over the past two decades by the Western powers. This demonstrates a remarkable contribution from the United States and other nations in terms of time, money and sacrifices for the betterment of Afghanistan. 

As these forces now withdraw, the Taliban has made swift progress in undermining the Afghan government and seizing control from them. To me, this says more about the Afghan government than those other countries hitherto providing it with support. Surely the United States and others have contributed more than enough over the years, and enough time has passed to enable a new Afghan regime to gain a sufficient foothold to function independently? Otherwise- how long? Should outside governments remain indefinitely? Two decades seems a long time to prop up a regime before allowing it to function alone...

Unfortunately however, it appears that loyalties amongst Afghan police and government troops are directed more at families and tribes than an Afghan nation, so morale is low and the risk of corruption is high. From what I have read, despite the significant overseas investment in equipment and training for Afghan forces, this seems to explain  why the Taliban has been able to get control of so much of the country so quickly.

To put it very basically, I can't help but think of the saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". Despite how much time, money and effort has been contributed over the past twenty years, if those given the responsibility of the country (the Afghan government and security forces) are unwilling and/or unable to uphold their regime, that is down to them and not the countries that have already contributed so much to enable them to do it for themselves. From what I understand if, as expected, the Taliban take full control of Afghanistan, it will impose a regime considered appalling to most (though, in terms of treatment of women, extremism of attitude to religion, lack of democracy, and harshness of their penal system, there seem to be many areas of common ground with existing (or recent) rule in Iran and Saudi Arabia), and it would be a great shame (it can't really be expressed in words, particularly by an outsider like myself)- but I don't think it is right to put all blame on to Western governments and to regard this as a Western failure.

5 Reasons Why Watching James Bond Is So Rewarding

1. It's simply entertaining

If you're not worried about digging deeper... that's fine! Anyone can get what they need out of watching a James Bond film because it is simply entertaining. For a couple of hours you can enjoy a story that includes some funny one-liners, exotic locations, stunts, fights, chases... and is a spectacle in general.

2. It's not probable...

Starting to dig more deeply now, there are two aspects to the James Bond films that help explain their success and appeal that almost contradict each other. One of them is the escapism you get out of them. You get to see life at its most visually impressive and exciting. You see some of the best looking people in the world, at their best-dressed, saying and doing things that many would love to say and do in real life. You see countries you may never get the chance to visit in real life and larger-than-life sets; see the most lavish cars in action, and the most advanced and creative technology of the era; the action that takes place is some of the most epic you will ever see, in terms of fights, chases, stunts and explosions. Some may deride James Bond as farfetched, but people love escapism to take their mind off of everyday life and issues, and cheer themselves up. Plus, at the end of the day, if you really want realism instead, you can just look out of your window!

3. ... yet it's possible

Here is the potential contradiction: despite the desire for escapism, virtually everything you see in a James Bond film is possible in real life. You may enjoy the escapism of a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings film- but unfortunately you will never be able to make objects levitate with a magic wand. What you see in a James Bond film COULD actually happen in real life (on the whole!). So if you like the look of James Bond's phone, you can probably buy it; if you like the car he drives, you could probably at least drive it around a track for a day; the countries he visits are generally real places that you could save up to visit. A James Bond film gives you a window into the best the real world can offer. 

4. It's a time capsule

As someone into their history, I appreciate each film's quality of being a time capsule of the year in which they are made. They are set in the times they are filmed in. So, when you watch a James Bond film, it will be performed by a cast of the era it is filmed in (and often deliberately hired in response to other popular films they have recently featured in) and usually even includes a song sung by a popular singer or band of the era. James Bond films like to reflect the height of the technology of their day, which can be seen in the cars driven, phones used, gadgets available- and even in the ways the credits are displayed. Moreover, you can see over the films how technology such as mobile phones and computers have evolved over time, to give two examples. The locations filmed in and plotlines tend to reflect global trends: from 007 operating in Jamaica in the twilight years of the British Empire, to being sent to locations across historic locations of modern Europe, from the German capital at the time it was divided by the Berlin Wall during the Cold War, then causing mayhem in the post-Cold War streets of St Petersburg, Russia. Then the Daniel Craig era tackling the post 9/11 War on Terror, while alluding to questions over modern British identity in Skyfall (with James Bond brought up in Scotland, yet describing his country as "England") and global random acts of terror apparently coordinated from a single source by the modern Spectre, seemingly inspired by Islamic State. Anyone wanting an insight into a certain year from 1962 to the present could do worse than watching a James Bond film released at the time. 

5. You can see Ian Fleming's novels brought to life

One of the pleasures of seeing films based on books is observing what is carried across to the big screen, and how descriptions on a page are presented visually by the cast. Whilst the inspiration carried from book to film is most obvious when a film stays close to the source novel, such as On Her Majesty's Secret Service; but then it's also enjoyable to see the smaller aspects of the novels scattered across the films, with the finale of the novel Live and Let Die shifted to the film, For Your Eyes Only, while the idea of James Bond apparently dying and his obituary appearing in the news was taken from the novel You Only Live Twice, yet appears in the recent film, Skyfall.

Defending the British Union: Head and Heart

 Although it doesn't directly affect me, and I can't directly relate, given that I am English rather than Scottish, first and foremost I like to consider myself British (and proudly so), and for this reason I feel strongly about the United Kingdom staying together. It is therefore with sadness that I see debate gaining momentum again regarding whether Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom or not. As the debate gets going again, there are arguments that remain the same, as well as new ones that have emerged since the last vote 7 years ago.

My head tells me that remaining in the union provides the economic security that being part of the broader union, one of the top 10 largest economies in the world, has to offer, as well as the military security of one of the top 10 military spenders in the world. In addition to this broader security is the flexibility devolution offers, with many aspects of policy at a Scottish rather than UK-wide level. Although some would argue the European Union would provide a better alternative, its economic and defensive commitments would be looser, and it's not clear how long it would take for Scotland to join after independence- particularly as some EU member states, notably Spain, are hostile towards the precedent a breakaway country could potentially set for others such as Catalonia, leaving Scotland entirely alone for an undetermined amount of time. Such delays impact the currency debate of whether in the long term an independent Scotland would look to keep the Pound (challenging to keep a currency between completely independent countries, as Scotland and the rest of the UK would be), create a new currency (which could be vulnerable and unpredictable), or adopt the Euro, which is dependent on the consent (however long that would take to achieve) of EU member states. Brexit seems to be the determinant for this reignited debate, and it is Brexit that brings new arguments to the debate. Initial challenges over Northern Ireland as part of the UK that is connected geographically with the EU hint at similar difficulties that could arise if a hard border were established between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Disruption to borders and currencies are bound to cause economic and social issues that have a greater impact on smaller countries.

My heart is in sync with the argument that the status quo allows for the best of both worlds. As well as the practical benefits of being in the UK (and, whilst the future of Brexit Britain is difficult to predict, the unique vaccine programme has been a clear positive as opposed to the slower progress of the EU's collective approach), there are the emotional ties too, as our cultures have been intertwined and influenced each other for centuries. We have fought alongside each other as partners in many conflicts such as the Second World War, built a country together based on great common values such as democracy and fairness, and, whilst in the past the UK enjoyed the prestige of being arguably the most powerful country in the world, today the UK collectively still achieves a significant amount. As mentioned, the UK remains one the world's greatest economic and military powers, which would diminish if we broke up, and we similarly collaborate to accomplish great success in other fields such as sport (Team GB coming within the top few countries in the medals table in the past two Olympic games), while our actors and singers are world renowned for their talent. Meanwhile, in addition to (not instead of) this British identity are the identities of the separate UK nations such as Scotland. Aspects of Scottish identity, such as the Gaelic language and many others, are encouraged and allowed to thrive, while the adoption of distinct policies is often possible thanks to devolution. If we were to look elsewhere in the world, the celebration of multiple identities would not be so easy: in China, it's not a stretch to imagine that the Scottish National Party would be banned for being unpatriotic, politicians like Nicola Sturgeon would be imprisoned for her separatist opinions, and maybe the English would be encouraged to relocate en masse to Scotland to dilute Scottish nationalism. 

I greatly respect democracy and self-determination, hence why, however much it goes against my personal wishes, if Scottish opinion goes strongly in favour of independence, or at least another referendum, I definitely believe that should be respected. But I hope that the heads and hearts of Scotland over the coming years will shift more decisively in favour of embracing not only Scottishness but also Britishness. I believe Scotland could definitely succeed as an independent country, but I hope a majority conclude that remaining in the UK is the preferable option.