Britain Won't Intervene

Syria has dominated the headlines over the past few days and for good reason. It was announced that the UN inspectors would be finished and out of Syria by Saturday, the BBC revealed a new regime-committed atrocity, and France and America will likely intervene in Syria. But the biggest news came out of the UK.

Last night the House of Commons rejected David Cameron's proposal that we should have some form of limited intervention in Syria. This was despite Cameron conceding that intervention would have to follow the UN inspectors' report, that there would be a second vote in the House of Commons and we should at least try to go through the UN. The pro-intervention side said that we must show Assad that we are serious and that intervention would be perfectly legal from a humanitarian standpoint. Unfortunately Labour won the vote, 285 against intervention, 272 in favour. This means that Britain will not be able to intervene in Syria and it sends the message to Assad that Britain will not act against him if he uses chemical weapons again.

As this vote was taking place last night, the BBC was releasing evidence of a new atrocity in Syria. A Syrian air-force jet dropped, what is believed to be, some form of incendiary bomb on a school playground. The BBC reported that the injuries from nearby victims was consistent with that of napalm. So far, ten have died.

Meanwhile the US has revealed that it is certain that Assad used chemical weapons earlier this month. The report claimed that the US knows exactly when the attack took place and where the chemicals were launched from. The report claims that 1,429 people were killed and 426 were children. So the US and France are intervening, whilst Britain sits on the sidelines and Russia raises tensions by sending a warship to the eastern Mediterranean.

Watch this space folks.

New Mexico's Complex Gay Marriage Laws

New Mexico is the only US state with no laws regarding same-sex marriage, it does not ban them, nor does it make them legal. The lack of clarity surrounding same-sex marriage means that it's up to individual county clerks to decide whether to grant marriage licences to same-sex couples. Although some country courts have demanded that their clerks issue the licenses. At the time of writing six counties in New Mexico issue same-sex marriage licenses, representing just over half of New Mexico's population. So far Bernalillo, Santa Fe and Taos issue them under court order whilst Doña Ana, San Miguel and Valencia are issuing them at the discretion of their county clerks. 

Naturally everyone in New Mexico wants some clarity on the law, and soon. This is unlikely to come from the legislative branch as although Democrats control both houses of the state legislature, the governor, Susana Martinez is a Republican and opposed to same-sex marriage. This means that all eyes are on the state Supreme Court to decide this issue. Yesterday New Mexico's 33 county clerks voted unanimously to seek the guidance of the state Supreme Court. A ruling could be several weeks away. The decision whether to make New Mexico the 14th state to legalise same-sex marriage now rests with the five justices on New Mexico's Supreme Court. 

Intervention is Coming

It looks like the world may finally take action in Syria, despite the conflict starting almost 900 days ago. The rhetoric has began to get really angry across the West as the evidence for a chemical attack became more and more concrete. On the 25th Medecins San Frontieres announced that they had treated around 3,600 people that showed signs of 'neurotoxic symptoms', later 355 died.

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said in a press conference that the attack was "a moral obscenity that should shock the world." He also added; "make no mistake, President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people." According to current reports, the US military reaction will occur in the next few days, before Congress returns from holiday.

In Britain the reaction has been even stronger with David Cameron returning early from his holiday and recalling Parliament on Thursday. Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said in an interview that Britain would be prepared to intervene in Syria without UN authorisation - by far the strongest language so far.

In Russia and Syria, the opinion is very different. The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, called an unauthorised intervention "a very grave violation of international law." The Russians have also claimed that there never even was a chemical attack - a ridiculous claim considering the overwhelming evidence.

So we have finally arrived at the point where Western military action is not only a possibility, but likely. France and Britain seem very willing to intervene in some form without a UN resolution. The USA is certainly a lot more timid about intervening but the chemical attacks appear to have persuaded America to act. We don't know quite how the West will react, it will almost certainly be a coordinated response, most likely through NATO. Stay tuned folks, the next few days will be very important. 

Proof that Birtherism = Racism

When Obama became President, a "scandal" started brewing, people started to believe that Obama was not eligible to be President. The idea was that Obama was born in Kenya, rather than Hawaii and therefore, according to the constitution, could not be President. These people, known as 'birthers', were labelled as racist by much of the left as many felt it wasn't a coincidence that the first black president was the first to have his eligibility questioned. Eventually Obama relented and released his birth certificate, this didn't stop the birthers who claimed it was fake.

Recent murmurs that freshman Senator Ted Cruz might run for President in 2016 has re-ignited the birthers in a different way. The Tea Party had always been associated with the birther movement, due to the overt racism of much of the Tea Party. Now the Tea Party is getting excited that Cruz might run for President as he is radically conservative and would push their agenda. But wait! Cruz was not born in America. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada and he admits it. So the same people who insisted that Obama was ineligible for President for being born in Kenya (or so they say) insist that Cruz is eligible despite being born in Canada. How do they justify this double standard? Well Cruz's mother was American, so that makes him eligible. This argument falls through when you realise that Obama's mother was also American, she was born in Kansas and raised all over the US.

So let me get this straight, Cruz was born to an American mother and a foreign father (he was Cuban) and is eligible for President. Yet Obama, who was born to an American mother and a foreign father is ineligible. To many this proves that the birthers are racist and they only opposed Obama because he was black.

Chemical Weapons Must Force West to Act

The crisis in Syria has (somehow) gotten even worse with more reports that the Assad regime has allegedly used chemical weapons. The accusations come as UN inspectors arrive in Syria to inspect its chemical weapons stockpile. The chemical weapon in question? Sarin gas, the same chemical that Saddam Hussein used against the Kurds in 1988. At the moment the reports are not verified, but there has been footage showing piles of dead bodies with no wounds, indicating some form of chemical weapons being deployed. The problem for the West is that verifying the use of sarin gas is extremely difficult, in 1988 it took four years to confirm its use and the compounds break-up rapidly.

I have been writing about the Syrian crisis for over a year and a half now and I feel that most posts boil down to the same storyline: Assad does something terrible, the West condemns it, Russia ignores it, Assad denies it and nothing changes. This post largely seems similar but there is a difference; the West (and Obama in particular) could have made the entire situation worse.

Earlier this year Western intelligence agencies confirmed that they had a "high degree of confidence" that Assad had used chemical weapons. This was met by the usual condemnation by the West and denial by Syria and Russia. The big question at the time was; what would the West do? Obama had called the use of chemical weapons a red line. So when Assad, according to the intelligence community, crossed the line, what did Obama do? Well he gave us a few good speeches and possibly did some minor things behind the scenes, but nothing overt. Obama's inaction turned out to be very important as then Assad knew that he could do anything he wanted, with little fear of Western retaliation. It emboldened him to use chemical weapons, which it looks like he just has.

By now we must realise that going through the UN is useless. Russia has a veto on the United Nations Security Council and US-Russia relations are at a low point over Snowden and Syria. The chances of a deal are low. The Western powers, in particular Britain, France and the US, must act without the UN. We must create a no-fly-zone to start with. We can use Turkey and Israel as our allies to help enforce it. Britain already has a large presence in the area due to massive bases at Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus and America has massive bases in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. This could be started very quickly, and every day we wait, more people die.

Journalism ≠ Terrorism

When Edward Snowden revealed the spying the US government had been conducting, it send shock-waves through the entire world. It was revealed that the US government had handed over data to some of its allies, including the UK. As in the US the revelations have upset the government greatly as now it has been forced to defend this horrifying and unnecessary invasion of privacy. Recent revelations show that the UK government has been cracking down on journalism to show its anger at Snowden, Glen Greenwald (the reporter who revealed the story) and the Guardian in which Greenwald published.

The UK government has attempted to scare journalists out of doing real reporting. The story starts in Berlin, where American journalist Laura Poitras is currently living. Poitras, like Greenwald, has revealed many cases of government misconduct when it comes to spying on its own citizens. This has forced Poitras to move to Germany to avoid the US government stealing her data that she is using in her new documentaries. Recently she has been working in conjunction with Glen Greenwald on government spying. So last week Greenwald's Brazilian partner, David Miranda, was visiting her and on his way home to Brazil, he passed through Heathrow Airport. This is where the story gets interesting; Miranda was held for nine hours by British police and had all his electronics seized. The legal justification for the nine hour detention? Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act. Seriously, the Terrorism Act. What Miranda, Greenwald, Poitras and Snowden have been doing is not terrorism, it is journalism.

You may not like what they leak, you may not value their contribution, but you cannot possibly believe that what they are doing is terrorism. That is insane.

The Home Office and Number 10 have claimed that neither of them authorised the detention, but had prior warning that it was going to happen. The White House has also claimed that although the British informed them of their intention to detain Miranda, that they did not pressure the British in any way to do so.

I seriously dislike the current UK government, and the attitudes to privacy of previous UK governments, but I never thought that they would try and intimidate the press like they did here. I always prided myself in the fact that we had Jeremy Paxman and not Wolf Blitzer, that we had the Guardian and the BBC. Now I realise that government pressure on journalism is just as real as it is in the US, and I fear what it may do to our democracy.

Remember Cameron, journalism does NOT equal terrorism.

David Miranda (left) arriving in Brazil after his nine hour detention
meeting his partner Glen Greenwald (right)
source: www.mirror.co.uk

2014 Senate Elections Update

I posted about the 2014 Senate elections back in February, since plenty has changed since then I decided to make another post, updating you on how things are going down.

Kentucky - A lot has changed in Kentucky since February. Ashley Judd decided not to enter the race, but all is not lost for the Democrats! The current Secretary of State of Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes, has decided to run for Senate on the Democratic side. Current polling shows her and Senator McConnell with roughly equal amounts of support. To make matters worse for McConnell, he also has to worry about being primaried from the Tea Party. This means he will have to spend time, effort and, crucially, money trying to fend off this attack, when he really needs to concentrate on the attack from Grimes.

Maine - Much to the disappointment of Democrats, incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins has decided to run for re-election. This means that Democrats will probably be unable to flip the seat unless Collins gets successfully primaried by the Tea Party.

Massachusetts - As expected, Jeff Markey won the special election in June to replace John Kerry, beating the Republican candidate 55 - 45. This puts him in a strong position for 2014.

Michigan - Carl Levin's retirement made Republicans excited about the potential pick-up in the blue state. That excitement has since dissipated as they have been unable to recruit a strong candidate, whilst the Democrats have found a good candidate in Congressman Gary Peters. 

Montana - When I posted in February, Senator Max Baucus was going to run for re-election and so I was confident in predicting that Montana would stay blue. The problem is, Baucus has decided to retire. this would not have been a problem if former governor Brian Schweitzer had decided to run, but he has declined. (this indicates to me that he will run in the 2016 Presidential election). Regardless, this opens Montana to the Republicans.

New Jersey - Senator Frank Lautenberg was planning to retire in 2014, but unfortunately he died in June. Although you might not think this affects the race much, it could have serious implications for what happens in 2014. There will be a special election held in October of this year to replace Lautenberg. This means that in 2014 it will not be an open race, as there will be an incumbent Senator. Current polling puts Cory Booker (the Democratic nominee) well out in front of Steve Lonegan (the Republican nominee). A recent Quinnipiac poll puts Booker on 54% and Lonegan on 29%.

South Carolina - I did not write about South Carolina back in February as the races were largely uninteresting. Tim Scott was expected to easily win his special election and Lindsey Graham was expected to win his normal election. Unfortunately for Graham he is being primaried by the Tea Party as apparently he is "too moderate".

South Dakota - Incumbent Democratic Senator Tim Johnson has decided to retire, which creates a real pick-up opportunity in the red state. Currently the Democrats have been unable to recruit a strong candidate, making the state more likely to flip to the Republicans. Currently four Republicans are in the primary, if Democrats can identify the weakest candidate and help him win the primary (such as what they did with Todd Akin in Missouri), then it might give them a fighting chance.

This is the map going into the 2014 Senate elections.

This would be the best *possible* scenario for the Democrats, here they retain all the seats they are defending
and also manage to pick up Georgia, Kentucky and Maine.
This would make the Senate 58 Democrats - 42 Republicans.

This would be the best *possible* scenario for the Republicans. Here they would retain al the seats they are defending as well as picking up Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia!
This would mean the Senate would be 55 Republicans - 45 Democrats

Legality of Homosexual Acts Worldwide

In li­­ght of Russia moving backwards on gay rights, I have decided to look into how the world treats gays. In 123 countries homosexuality is legal, this accounts for 5,470,620,000 of the roughly 7.1 billion humans. In 74 countries, accounting for 1,261,145,000 people, homosexuality is illegal. The reason the numbers don’t add up is that whilst homosexual acts are still technically legal, Putin’s anti-gay law makes it effectively illegal. Here is a breakdown of the countries you really should not visit if you are gay:

Homosexuality punishable by death (Eight countries, 371 million people)

Afghanistan	Mauritania*1	Sudan
Iran	Nigeria*2	Yemen
Maldives*2	Saudi Arabia

Homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment (Six countries, 140 million people)

Barbados*4	Guyana*3	Tanzania
Burma/Myanmar	Sierra Leone*3	Uganda*2

Homosexuality punishable with a lesser punishment (60 countries, 890 million people)

Algeria	Kenya	Samoa
Angola	Kiribati*3	Senegal
Antigua and Barbuda	Kuwait*3	Seychelles*3
Bangladesh	Lesotho*3	Singapore*3*4
Belize*3	Liberia	Solomon Islands
Bhutan*4	Libya	Somalia
Botswana*4	Malawi	South Sudan
Brunei	Malaysia	Sri Lanka
Burundi	Mauritius*3	Swaziland*3
Cameroon	Morocco	Syria
Comoros	Namibia*4	Togo
Dominica	Nauru*3	Tonga*3
Eritrea	Oman*4	Trinidad and Tobago*4
Ethiopia	Pakistan	Tunisia
Gambia	Palau*3	Turkmenistan*3
Gaza*3	Papua New Guinea	Tuvalu*3
Ghana	Qatar	UAE
Grenada*3	Saint Kitts and Nevis*3	Uzbekistan*3
Guinea	Saint Lucia	Zambia
Jamaica*3	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Zimbabwe*3

*1 no executions since 1987

*2 Varies

*3 Female legal

*4 Unenforced

In these countries homosexuality is legal, but there may be other reasons why you don’t want to visit if you are gay:

Albania	Estonia	Mozambique
Andorra	Fiji	Nepal
Argentina	Finland	Netherlands
Armenia	France	New Zealand
Australia	Gabon	Nicaragua
Austria	Georgia	Niger
Azerbaijan	Germany	Norway
Bahamas	Greece	Palestine
Bahrain	Guatemala	Panama
Belarus	Guinea-Bissau	Paraguay
Belgium	Haiti	Peru
Benin	Honduras	Philippines
Bolivia	Hungary	Poland
Bosnia Herzegovina	India	Portugal
Brazil	Indonesia	Romania
Bulgaria	Iraq	Rwanda
Burkina Faso	Ireland	San Marino
Cambodia	Israel	São Tomé and Príncipe
Canada	Italy	Serbia
Cape Verde Islands	Japan	Slovakia
Central African Republic	Kazakhstan	Slovenia
Chad	Kosovo	South Africa
Chile	Kyrgyzstan	South Korea
China	Laos	Spain
Colombia	Latvia	Suriname
Congo (Democratic Republic of)	Lebanon	Sweden
Congo (Republic of)	Liechtenstein	Switzerland
Costa Rica	Lithuania	Taiwan
Côte d’Ivoire	Luxembourg	Tajikistan
Croatia	Macedonia	Thailand
Cuba	Madagascar	Timor-Leste
Cyprus	Mali	Turkey
Czech Republic	Malta	UK
Denmark	Marshall Islands	Ukraine
Djibouti	Mexico	Uruguay
Dominican Republic	Micronesia	USA
Ecuador	Moldova	Vanuatu
Egypt	Monaco	Vatican
El Salvador	Mongolia	Venezuela
Equatorial Guinea	Montenegro	Vietnam

As you can clearly see, the world has a long way to go on the issue of gay rights. Yet the world 50 years ago looked very different, with only a handful of countries allowing homosexuality. At the start of the last decade homosexuality was illegal in the US state of Minnesota, today there is legal same-sex marriage. This issue is rapidly advancing, and although there are a few Russias, most countries are moving in the right direction.

Green - countries where homosexual acts legal
Red - countries where homosexual acts are illegal (and Russia)
Grey - North Korea, where the law is unclear
Source: Me

Spain Raises Tension over Gibraltar

In 1704 the rocky outcrop of Gibraltar was seized by British and Dutch forces during the Spanish Wars of Succession. It was later formally ceded to Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Since then the Spanish have longed for the return of Gibraltar going as far as to besiege Gibraltar in 1727 and also between 1779-1783.

The current inhabitants of Gibraltar are most certainly not Spanish and consider themselves as British as you can be. In 1967 and 2002 referendums were held regarding Gibraltan sovereignty, the Gibraltans voted 99.64% and 98.48% to remain British respectively.

The actions of successive Spanish governments has been to reject Gibraltan democracy and demand the British open talks over Gibraltan sovereignty. In response to the 1967 Gibraltan referendum, Spain, under dictator Francisco Franco, closed the border between Spain and Gibraltar until Spain's accession to the EU in 1985.

In recent days the dispute has flared up again. The Spanish have tightened security along the Gibraltar-Spain border, causing queues that last over seven hours. Unbearable in the south Mediterranean heat. To make matters worse border controls have started to charge people crossing over €50! This is in reaction to Gibraltar creating an artificial reef, which Spanish fisherman claim damages their livelihoods. Tensions were heightened as British war ships will be stopping off in Gibraltar on their way to military exercises in the Mediterranean.

It is not just the Spanish governments that believe that Gibraltar should be Spanish, it is the Spanish people. Yet the Spanish fail to understand their extreme hypocrisy, Spain has two cities on the Moroccan coast, Ceuta and Melilla, very similar to Gibraltar. A 2007 poll showed 88% of Spaniards considered the cities Spanish and 50% said that they did not understand the Moroccan claim! Now I fully support the ability of the citizens of Ceuta and Melilla to decide their own fate - but for Spaniards to claim Gibraltans have no right to decide their own fate, is pure hypocrisy.

The Rock of Gibraltar, as seen from Spain
source: www.euroreporter.co

Russia Cannot Host Olympics

Recently I have been writing about how gay rights has been taking great leaps forward in recent months. Unfortunately one country has been leaping in the opposite direction: Russia. Although homosexual acts are technically still legal, Putin and the Russian government have made any sort of expression of it illegal. The new law bans "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations". Waving a gay pride. Illegal! Saying that homosexuality is normal. Illegal! Being openly homosexual. Illegal! The law applies to tourists as well, if you are caught performing any of the outlawed activities, you will be held for 14 days and then deported. This would mean that former Icelandic PM, Jóhanna Sigurðadóttir, could no longer visit Russia if she became PM again.

It is clear that this law is barbaric and it is symbolic of how the hope for Russia, following the collapse of Communism, has faded away. The law has faced, deservedly, harsh criticism from around the world and much of the world wants to act. The target the world found: the 2014 Winter Olympic Games. The games were awarded to the Russian city of Sochi in 2007 and since then the games have been marred in corruption scandals. In recent days there has been an increasingly vocal call for the Olympics to be moved from Sochi to somewhere else, anywhere else.

I fully support these efforts to move the 2014 Winter Olympics to somewhere else. The IOC recognises the rights of LGBT people and so cannot stand idly by whilst this barbarism continues in Russia. Stephen Fry has compared the Sochi Olympics to the 1936 Berlin Olympics when the IOC ignored Hitler's rampant anti-Semitism and allowed the games to go ahead. Putin's homophobic laws don't just criminalise and marginalise gays, they empower thugs and militias to beat up and kill gays. I urge Prime Minister David Cameron, the British Olympic Committee and the IOC to try and move the games to another venue. There are plenty of suitable locations worldwide, the Alps, Japan, Korea, Scandinavia, the US & Canada could all host the games easily, so they would not struggle to find a replacement city.

The barbarism must stop. Sign a change.org petition here to move the games. Also sign here to ask the sponsors of the Olympic games to act.http://www.change.org/petitions/stand-against-russia-s-brutal-crackdown-on-gay-rights-urge-winter-olympics-2014-sponsors-to-condemn-anti-gay-laws

The Old World Order - Europe

Population: 738 million
Area: 10 million km2
GDP: $18.7 trillion
GDP (per capita): $25,000

Europe is difficult to review as it is a continent rather than a country. Last year when I reviewed Africa I hadn't reviewed any countries within Africa. This time I have already reviewed four European nations. Undoubtedly Europe has been at the centre of international relations for the last several centuries having owned (at different times) all of the Americas, Africa and Australasia as well as most of Asia. The future looks problematic for Europe, its facing population decline and much of its resources have already been exhausted. By 2050 Europe's population will have declined to 677 million people. Much of Mediterranean Europe is in financial chaos, pulling the rest of Europe in. But all is not lost. The EU has the world's largest economy of $17 trillion, four countries of the 10 in terms of military expenditure are in it and two have veto power in the UN. Parts of Eastern Europe are also still quite poor, which sounds bad but means there is plenty of room for European GDP to grow.

Europe can also be a model for peace and democracy. I believe that the last wars in Europe took place in the former Yugoslavia. We may finally have gotten rid of war in Europe. Freedom House 2013 reports of 46 European nations, 37 were designated free, seven were partly free and only two were not free. With several of these less free countries moving forward, Europe could be the first continent to only have democracies that are truly free.

The Old World Order - Canada

Population: 35 million
Area: 9.9 million km2
GDP: $1.7 trillion
GDP (per capita): $42,000

Of the seven countries that I am reviewing, Canada is the one with the most hope in its future. Canada is massive, it is the second largest country y area and has a wealth of resources. Canada has the third largest proven oil reserves (175 billion barrels) and the third largest uranium reserves (485,000 tonnes) as well as the 13th largest coal reserves (6.5 billion tonnes) and the 20th largest natural gas reserves (1.75 trillion m3). So it is easy to say that Canada is resource wealthy and considering that much of Canada is under permafrost and unexplored, it will only get wealthier.

When you combine the extreme resource wealth with a (relatively) low population of only 35 million, screwing up the Canadian economy would be an achievement. The population is expected to be 41 million in 2050. Largely I have included Canada on the list for two reasons; first is that I wrote about all the other G7 nations so I may as well do Canada. Secondly, Canada faces a very serious threat; not existing. Or at least not existing in its current form. As in the cases of Britain and Italy, Canada has a strong secessionist movement. Quebec. The Québécois have always been different to the rest of Canada, their heritage is predominantly French rather than British or Irish and most of them speak French rather than English. Two referendums have been held over the question of Quebec independence, in 1980 independence was voted down by 20%, in 1995 the referendum was much closer with 49.42% of the electorate voting for independence and 50.58% voting against.

Quebec breaking away would create problems for Canada. Quebec is 15.4% of the area, 23% of the population and produces 20% of Canadian GDP. It also contains significant proportions of Canada's natural resources. It would also have the added problem of effectively splitting Canada in two, with the four smallest provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, effectively isolated from the rest of Canada.

So Canada's future as a powerful nation is largely secure, as long as it can hold itself together.

Old World Order - Italy

Population: 61 million
Area: 301,000km2
GDP: $2.2 trillion
GDP (per capita): $33,000
United Nations Security Council Veto: No

In the late 1800s the Italian mini-states and city states were unified by the Kingdom of Piedmont into one country. The newly unified Italy was immediately powerful and over the next 100 years expanded its influence and power. Italy ended up on the right side of WWI, but thanks to the leadership of fascist Mussolini, was on the wrong side of WWII. In the years immediately following WWII the Italian economy grew very well, and although it had lost influence, still did rather well as a country.

The Italy of today is still relatively powerful, although not a great power. It has the 10th largest military expenditure in the world and the 8th largest economy. As in the case of Germany, Japan and France, a problem for Italy in its future is population decline. Currently Italy is the 23rd largest country in the world with 61 million pepole, by 2050 that is expected to have shrunk to 60 million people making it the 29th largest. This decline puts huge pressure on Italy, as time goes by its working population will decrease whilst the retired population will increase. This will mean more people will be collecting pensions and put more pressure on healthcare whilst tax receipts will decline as there are fewer people working.

Politics in Italy is also problematic as it is by far the most corrupt of the nations I am reviewing. Italian politicians of all sorts get generous pay cheques, the mayor of Bolzano (a city of roughly 100,000)gets paid more than Barack Obama. Not helping the cause is Silvio Berlusconi who kept up a political career despite having sex with numerous prostitutes, some of whom were minors.

Italy also has to deal with secessionist movements in the north (sometimes referred to as Padania), Sardinia and Sicily. In Sardinia polls show up to 40% of Sardinians supporting independence. Whilst Lega Nord (a pro-Padania party in the north) is the largest party in the Veneto and enjoys strong support in other regions such as Lombardy and Piedmont. Dealing with secessionist movements is always difficult, improving the economy tends to help, as does increasing the autonomy regions have. The north of Italy is much wealthier than the south and many northerners feel that they are subsidising the poorer south. A lot of grievances could be eased if the south was economically vitalised. There are major problems with this, the south has been poorer than the south for centuries, so the inequality is structural and would require a lot of capital. Capital that Italy simply does not have.

Italian finances are in a horrific state, its debt to GDP ratio is 126%, the 2nd highest in the Western world and the 8th overall. To make matters worse Italy is one of the European PIIGS countries that needs help from its northern neighbours. Italy needs serious financial reform (a good start would be slashing politicians' pay) and money to stimulate its economy.

So Italy faces three key problems; an ageing and declining population, strong secessionist movements and a crumbling economy.

Starting to notice a pattern of problems with Western nations?

Old World Order - Japan

Population: 127 million
Area: 378,000km2
GDP: $5.9 trillion
GDP (per capita): $35,000

Japan is unique in the countries that I am reviewing; it is the only Asian country and the only one never to have beenm controlled by Europeans. Japan has a very large economy, behind only the USA and China. This, seemingly successful, economy is in part thanks to US investment following WWII out of fears that Japan might fall to the Communists. The truth is that although the Japenese economy is large, it is also stagnant and has been since the early 1990s. Japan is also facing problems in the future; the rise of China, fear of North Korea, and an ageing and shrinking population.

The rise of China is a serious threat to Japan, it already has a larger economy and higher military expenditure. China also has the world's largest standing army. China and Japan are currently arguing over the rights to fish in the waters between the two nations. A stronger China would find it easier to bully Japan. Thankfully the Japanese have the Americans backing them.

Another issue I mentioned was fear of North Korea. This may never amount to anything, but could prove disastrous for Japan if things do fo wrong. Nobody id quite sure what nuclear capability North Korea has, but we can be pretty certain that within the next decade (if not already) that it will have nuclear weapons that can reach anywhere in Japan. This is really worrying as tensions between the two Koreas is at a high and rising. If the regime in Pyongyang were to send nuclear missiles to Japan, the result would be devastating.

The North Korean problem may never come to fruition, but one problem Japan is already facing is an aging and declining population. The fertility rate in Japan is very low, which means the working population is shrinking whilst the dependent population is increasing. Fewer people working means lower government revenue, whilst more retired people means higher government expenditire through pensions and healthcare. This is a recipe for disaster as Japan's debt to GDP ratio, at 214% of GDP, is the highest in the world, even higher than Greece and Zimbabwe! Japan's stagnant economy is not helped by its declining population, currently Japan is the 10th largest country in the world with 127 million people. By 2050 this is expected to decline to 107 million people, making it the 17th largest.

Low growth has been the standard for the Japanese economy over the past two decades. Japan has never really recovered from a crash in the early 1990s. If a government were to actually pull Japan out of the doldrums then it would be a miracle.

So Japan faces three main problems; challenges from Asian neighbours, poor economic performance and a declining population.

Old World Order - Germany

Population: 80 million
Area: 357,000km2
GDP: $3.6 trillion
GDP (per capita): $42,000
United Nations Security Council Veto: No

The numerous German states were unified in the late 1800s under the brilliant leadership of Otto Von Bismarck. The first century of its existence was tumultuous, its expansionist politics helped cause WWI and were the primary cause of WWII. Both wars ended with defeat and humiliation for Germany. Thankfully the Allies learnt how to deal with a defeated Germany and the Germans seemed happier to assume a smaller role in the world than they had previously desired. 

At the moment Germany is doing rather well, its lack of housing boom and export led economy meant it has been able to weather the recent economic crisis. It is the largest country entirely in Europe with over 80 million people (15th largest in the world). Its economy is the fourth largest, behind only America, China and Japan. Germany's economy is also growing, considering the circumstances this is quite a feat. Yet there are dark skies approaching Germany's future. 

For the first decade of the Euro's existence, Germany benefitted greatly as it made exporting to the European periphery easier. Unfortunately crisis in the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) could spread to Germany.  The northern Euro nations, especially Germany, have demanded that, in exchange for bailouts, the countries must impose harsh austerity. This had proved disastrous for the economies of the countries who are in a worse financial state, despite the bailouts Greece still risks default. If Greece goes then a domino effect could occur on the other PIIGS countries which would devastate the world economy, particularly the Eurozone. German banks that lent a lot to the PIIGS would default if the Germans did not bail them out.

Another risk to German power (and GDP) is its shrinking population. By 2050 Germany is expected to drop to 21st in the world rankings, with 71 million people, just marginally more than Britain. That would mean Britain would have the largest population in Europe by 2060. This is beneficial to Britain, not so much to Germany.

Germany's most serious threat originates outside of its borders, in the Eurozone periphery. I've already discussed what the problem is, so here I will concentrate on the solution. To solve the crisis will require the agreement of the Eurozone countries (there's 17 of them) and possibly the whole of the EU (28 nations) and help will probably have to come from the IMF and/or World Bank (the whole planet). Oh dear. Even just getting the agreement of the 17 Eurozone nations is difficult enough. What Germany needs to push for is more fiscal integration, which it has been doing, and economic stimulus in the problematic regions, which it has done the exact opposite. The Germans seem unwilling (like much of the rest of the world) to learn from the lessons of history that stimulus works and austerity fails.

To sum up; Germany faces two major challenges, a declining population and trouble in the Eurozone. The Eurozone challenge can be fixed - If German leaders recognise their mistakes and rectify them.

Old World Order - France

Population: 66 million
Area: 641,000 km2
GDP: $2.7 trillion
GDP (per capita): $36,000
United Nations Security Council Veto: Yes

France has been at the centre of European history for over 1100 years. In Europe, the only country that's been in more wars is Austria (although largely powerless now, before the 20th century Austria dominate Central European affairs). France had a huge empire and once nearly conquered all of continental Europe bar a disastrous attempt to invade Russia in the winter. These days France is still pretty powerful, having the 6th largest military expenditure in the world and veto power on the United Nations Security Council. It also has close ties to its European neighbours. France's future, however, is not all that rosy. 

One problem France is going to experience is population growth, or lack thereof. Currently France is the 21st largest country in the world with 65 million people, but by 2050 it is expected to drop to the 25th largest. Although its population will have risen to 69 million, it will have been shrinking since 2040. One way to reverse this would be to increase the amount of immigrants to France, but the French populace doesn't like that idea much. 

Although France's finances are not in the dire state that some of its European neighbours are in, economic prospects are gloomy. Since Hollande took power last year France's economy has barely improved. France is also vulnerable because it is in the Eurozone, which means the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) countries' troubles are France's troubles. Its banking sector is particularly at risk from a Greek default due to the amount of money French banks have lent in Greece. Another Great Recession could hold France back for too long. 

One option France has is to move to closer ties within Europe. More fiscal policy and banking integration with Euro currency countries. This obviously has massive problems and rather glaring obstacles. To pull closer to political integration requires the other countries to do the same. There is increasing euro-scepticism in many Euro countries, particularly in the Netherlands and Finland. The problem is that fiscal integration can only happen it all countries currently using the euro agree to do this. Hollande must convince the Northern Europeans to stimulate the PIIGS economies, rather than demand austerity which simple makes the situation worse. 

Another issue facing France is the rise of the extreme right epitomised by Marine Le Pen and her party, the National Front. If we ignore the obvious historical similarities between this and the rise of Hitler following the Great Depression in 1929, this is still an issue for France. Le Pen is an isolationist, similar to Nigel Farage in the UK except more extreme, she wants out of the Eurozone, the EU and Schengen Area as well as reducing immigration by over 95%!

So France faxes three main issues; isolationism, population decline and economic turmoil in Europe. Solving the economic trouble will be difficult, but would go a long way to reducing isolationism. The population decline problem can be fixed by immigration policies that the French won't like.