Troubles in a number of countries


I recently saw a reportage about Syria and the fighting that is going on there. How is happening that one day there will be a ruler in that country who is no longer accepted by many of his people and thus people will fight against him because he refuses to leave. In the end, he will only be remembered as the person who tried to remain in power for as long as possible and as a result the city Damascus (and cities across the country), thousands of years old and one of the oldest, if not the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the world, may be completely destroyed, similarly to what happened before during the war in Lebanon. Indeed, already historical parts of cities are gone during attacks from the army while rebels are blowing up parts of the city to undermine the army. If only Assad would accept to leave the country, the destruction of the country could stop and some of his and his family's achievements may remain. Idle hope as he was again elected as president. One day he will be gone but at what a price for future generations. And what I find difficult to understand is that his wife, born in the UK, remains his loyal wife. Although, maybe she is forced to stay with him? And concerning the Western fighters: although some go for the wrong reasons, many others go because they are upset that a president kills so many of his own people. While today we condemn those fighting Assad, in future men may be sent against their wishes to fight him. Still, ones revolutions have started, they hardly ever stop after the Head left. Indeed, years after Colonel Gaddafi was shot, people start fighting each other again.


They also showed videos of demonstrations in Turkey where police were hitting people who apparently didn't even seem to be protesting. In this country, I guess people want peace and the return of law and order and thus hope for a strong leader whereby the older generation may support Erdogan as he is religious and made Turkey appear to be strong again in the world while many of the younger generation wants change and thus many oppose him. As a result, parents may vote for an authoritarian leader who may fight their children as this person too clinches onto power (after being PM, he now wants to become president). Even during a mining disaster he warned the people not to demonstrate while he and trustees were seen hitting people; one would have expected him to say the mining disaster will be investigated so lessons can be learned to prevent something similar happens in future while any neglect will be punished. Now he seemed to regard the victims as his enemies while business can continue as before. Thus, one day the older generation may mourn their children because they voted for a power-hungry person who didn't mind using force against their children as already happened during protests to keep a small park (the worrying thing is how he always describes opponents and considers them as enemies). Parents should accept choices and changes demanded by their adult children as they are the future while not enforcing the past on their children. Parents who try to stop the future will always mourn their children although, of course, not everything of the past should be neglected as everyone acknowledges. Therefore children should be properly educated so they are able to make the correct decisions as adults. But of course, his actions may proof me wrong.


In Iraq, the military organisation Isis is conquering the country and many fear what may happen to the people they meet as it seems they are fanatics, having killed already many people (e.g. Christians are having to leave some conquered cities). One of the reasons Isis can advance so quickly is because the leaders in Iraq are divided over many groups of people. Also President Obama acknowledged this and thus he called upon them to unite before the US may help the Iraqi government because otherwise any help will be meaningless. However, it is a country that already ceased to exist years ago but the international community doesn't realise it yet and continues to try to keep the country together. Ones the country will be split, Iraqi leaders no longer need to fight each other internally but can again concentrate on serving their people while working together with neighbouring states if they are attacked (or they may attack each other but then it will be clearer who is the victim and needs help). Of course, things become more complicated as one Iraqi group (Kurds) wants to unite with their people in Turkey and thus countries try to prevent this. But, as history shows, the natural way forward is that empires fall apart in smaller units as was in a time long ago, before mass murderers started to unite and forced people to live together.


Equally, in ex-Yugoslavia, a war was needed to proof the country could no longer stay together. But against all logic, the country was not split according to ethnic lines but according to the lines of the inner states so that even today tensions remain high. Indeed, when a country falls apart it should be organised according to logic, not according to old lines because conflicts arise because old lines are wrong and cause division.


A little further, in Ukraine is now something similar starting to happen whereby already people started killing people from the same country until hate may become big enough so the international society will accept the country can no longer exist as one country. On the other hand, if (inter)national communities decide that countries should stay together, then of course this can mean sacrificing their own people. For me, the troubles in Ukraine are already a civil war with people killing people from their own country but it also already resulted in the death of many foreigners as a civilian airplane was shot down above Ukraine; it seems the rebels first celebrated that (they) shot down a plane as they thought it were other Ukrainians until they noticed the wrong plane was hit upon which they removed the text. Still, many rebels seem to have become immune of the misery they caused to innocent people as otherwise they would have allowed much quicker that experts could visit the remains of the plane. Maybe they thought the international community will give in and accept the split of the country, certainly now the rebels showed their goodwill by returning the bodies and black boxes. But then they may be mistaken because shooting down a plane with innocent people will not likely be forgiven and thus this accident complicated the whole situation while already two more planes, this time from Ukraine, are shot down and this will continue until the Western part will no longer forgive the East and thus wants revenge and afterwards a split. But also, unless proven and then evidence should be shown, I can't believe what some claim, that Russia is directly involved as the Russian President wants to be recognised as an important world figure and thus is unlikely to order that innocent people are shot out the sky as that will cause anger. And indeed, there seems to be evidence the shooting was an accident. Russia may have trained the rebels and sold the weapons, that doesn't mean they are directly responsible for the actions of others (also the West supported countries (e.g. Iraq) and organisations that later turned against them or others). On the other hand, Russian politicians show their real character as they don't seem to understand that the West and other countries are very upset and thus expect that Russia works together with the West to bring justice or becomes even more isolated. I hope President Obama (and Europe) will use as much as possible diplomatic skills to convince the Russian President Putin to work together with the West to find answers to what happened. Because when innocent people die, and certainly when children are victims, one can't accept that criminals are not punished; Russia would also demand actions from the West if a Russian plane was shot down. Therefore, Russia should help to find answers about what happened because, if Russia refuses to help to find answers, then the West should take sanctions. And thus diplomacy is important. Still, I think we should also accept the referendum held in Eastern Ukraine although that doesn't mean being weak (indeed, only the part that wants to go can do so while the other parts will be defended if necessary) because a real war is much more difficult to control. Split Ukraine and Russia will gain a little influence while the West will gain most. And when the eastern region is independent, then of course we can still demand that those responsible for the downing of the plane are punished or the region will face the consequences, i.e. no trade and thus poverty until the people surrender those responsible. Then, if Russia continues opposing capturing those responsible for the shooting of the plane, it will become isolated while if it helps us than of course we should involve Russia more so it doesn't have to feel isolated. That doesn't mean agreeing with everything because indeed, human rights are not very respected in that country. But it is not very wise to challenge Russia for everything because 100 years after we said "never again" we don't want to say "again?" (although some wouldn't mind) because we never know how it will end. And has the Russian President shown so little respect for President Obama that the latter is so angry? If it is racism, then President Obama should be used to this by now as many of his own people oppose him for that reason although claim for other reasons. A final thought: the more isolated Russia becomes, the more it may feel forced to join and lead the wrong side because Russia is a superpower, not a small country that depends upon others. And one should hope President Putin doesn't start enjoying these 'games'. And sanctions against the oil industry will damage a little as Russia will not beg us to buy its oil but sell it to others such as China (at reduced prices) while some Western oil companies involved in Russia will be damaged. And Russia may also react.


Another example is Sudan where people were no longer able to live together. As a result, a civil war erupted between the north and south to keep the country together and the result was the death of hundreds of thousands of people after which the country broke into two. But the division of the country was not a success as one part (the south) got most natural resources so the northern part lost (although they now have some peace). In addition, ethnic groups are now fighting each other in South-Sudan, partly because the oil-rich part of the country and the capital develop much faster than the rest. The troubles now result in a major food crisis as crops can't be harvested (article also contains explanatory maps of country). The main groups involved seem to live in different regions as the Dinka People mainly seem to live in the north-west (with, it seems, much of the oil) while the Nuer People in the north-east region, and thus a division of the country may be helpful so each area can develop according to its own needs while a mixed society may be more difficult unless the profits of the natural resources benefit all regions equally and not as today they mainly seem to benefit one region (the capital Juba) over the others. Indeed, when the capital (far away from the oil producing regions) benefits more than the oil-producing region itself (that also suffers pollution) or the other regions, then the other regions will become angry. Thus, this is a test for the South-Sudanese politicians: will they accept to slow the development of the capital in favour of helping more the other regions as a capital has the responsibility to look after the rest of the country so others accept the capital develops too? (Still, it will be a pity if also those people will start to live in cities, away from nature.) If they are unwilling, then probably anger in the rest of the country will continue to grow. And as already many people lost there lives while now people start dying due to food shortages, we probably can be sure more killings will happen. As a result, the country may fall apart and then the capital Juba will impoverish again as it doesn't have oil resources. Therefore, the politicians in the capital probably will defend the unity of the country at all costs. Thus, redistribution of the resources may help the country forward. But even a split should be considered as the country is cursed for having oil in one particular region that caused war in the past in one large Sudan and now causes problems in the new country. Indeed, as the profits of the oil industry are not evenly distributed, it will continue causing tensions. Therefore, independence of the regions may be a solution so each region can develop according to their own needs and each region can demand money for transporting the oil over their own region while this is less likely in a united country as companies will say it reduces their profits. (The curse of Africa: everywhere (such as in the region of East-Congo) there are minerals in the earth causing death and destruction, both in human lives and destruction of nature so the wealthy northern countries can benefit). Then, each small nation may decide its own development doesn't depend on oil but on maintaining nature and thus receiving money from eco tourism. But in one country where one region benefits more than other regions from the natural resources, the other regions have no means of exploiting the resources or developing nature, resulting in troubles. Indeed, as long as lifeless things are worshipped, wars will continue.

Israel and Gaza

And now, also in Israel and Gaza there are major troubles whereby in short period many people were killed (more than 1000 and counting), mainly on Palestinian side. Israel is very harsh in its response of the killing of three Israeli teenagers, probably by Palestinians, versus the revenge killing of one Palestinian teenager by Israeli youth (who were later arrested by Israel) but also for the discovery of tunnels from Gaza into Israel. It was expected that these troubles would erupt one day as you can't take away people's land and close borders around an area to starve people and demand they have no tunnels because that will radicalise people; also the Jews rebelled in the ghetto of Warsaw when no food could get in (but this can't be mentioned although Jews didn't throw bombs on the Germans in peace time). Indeed, many Israeli Jews (but probably also Israeli Arabs should) fear that certain individuals try to enter Israel to kill and thus it is normal people try to destroy the tunnels (can't that be done on Israel's side?). And as hardline politicians (such as PM Netanyahu but also foreign minister Lieberman) were elected to rule Israel (even annoying President Obama), we can expect that one day someone in Israel will choose "the final solution" to stop future attacks. In democracies, the outcome of elections are accepted and thus the victory of Hamas in Gaza years ago should have been accepted instead of being dismissed as anti-democratic while in the West-Bank Mr Abbas of Fatah became President. If the results were accepted, all parties involved could have proven their goodwill and whether they were trustworthy and if not, people would have accepted Israel defends itself. All these years, there should have been peacetalks between the different parties to find solutions as also others such as the Israeli David Grossman claims, but they were only fake, even with President Abbas, as some don't want to share. But these heavy attacks are not likely to bring peace (although at this moment they unite the Israelis), on the contrary as they will more then likely radicalise more Palestinians and unite them; they may even one day unite the whole Arabic world with anti-Semites against the Jews as is prophetised by the gods (during a time when the water levels of the Lake of Galilee are falling as is happening (because humans remove too much water so that those who conquer Israel have little water and thus will become weak) (as the religious people know this, they want it to happen because each think they will be the winners). The UN is demanding a ceasefire, and although Israel did agree to some, it was only for short times while it angers the politicians.
But also outside the UN, protests are growing everywhere. Some people are angry that the international community doesn't respond much stronger for the aggression done to their own people. But also anger by ordinary people grow against the actions of Israel (although in Germany people don't like these demonstration as the fourth Reich will be different, although that should not make blind) and while many claim anti-Semitism is growing, and indeed anti-Semites (the same who are anti-Muslim or anti-Christian and anti-atheist and anti-gay and want women to obey men, in summary: who are anti-human) may use this anger one day against the Jews while they now celebrate the war against the Palestinians, most people are not anti-Semitic although the continued attacks may change this. Indeed, many people see how innocent children (and people) are killed and become angry (even when Jews try to explain Hamas is the problem because its fighters hide amongst its own people). And although I understand Israel wants to defend itself against future attacks via these tunnels, how can they defend and even watch in joy the killing of innocent people (Sderot cinema) and not understand the anger people feel about this? How would Jews feel if people wouldn't become angry when their children would be killed? Because many of the people who demand that the killing of Palestinians stop would also become angry and defend Jewish children if they were killed (unless too many innocent children in Gaza are killed because then, if Israel may be attacked one day, people may say they deserve it for they killed the children of others until too many Jewish children are killed). Still, already Jews are starting to feel threatened in the world and are thinking of moving to the war zone Israel. But those who defend the actions of Israel and say that people are anti-Semitic when they ask Israel to stop the attacks on a civilian population may one day themselves become very angry that, although they defended Israel's actions, Israel hardly ever obeys international laws.
And thus Jews celebrating the attacks on Gaza may one day result in their punishment as their actions anger many people, certainly in the Muslin world and thus may result one day in the unification behind a certain (Muslim) leader who will attack and punish Israel. Then these people may celebrate the death of Jewish children and thus get their punishment from an even larger community of whom many already hate Muslims as some attacked the West and thus they may celebrate the death of Muslim children, a circle that may keep rolling until it can be broken by destroying those who benefit from these wars. One day even Jews may turn against each other while some may commit suicide when they start to hate killing more children (and other innocent people). Indeed, one should always try to punish the guilty although even then innocent people can die, but one should equally always try not to celebrate the death of innocent people, certainly when the victims are children because there is a difference between self-defence and murder (although I understand that sometimes genocides erupt such as in the Central African Republic where enough people from one religion were killed by those of another that now people want revenge, still we condemn the people for the revenge killing because it doesn't focus on the guilty but on the group as a whole). And the Palestinians, maybe they too should try to find and punish those who killed these three Israeli teenagers while a two-state solution is probably the only solution so the descendants of the two half-brothers (Jews and Muslims both claim to be descendants from Abraham but with different mothers) will each have their part of the heritage of their ancestor and thus can stop fighting. Better still, Jews and Muslims make peace and become one family as some still try to do.
But, as long as certain people want that certain things happen (e.g. to unite Israel and rebuild the Temple while others try to prevent that), the fighting will continue. People can believe in gods but as long as people identify themselves with a specific religion whereby they think they are better than other people, religious wars will continue to erupt and people will not unite until they acknowledge people are more important than religions.


But also closer to home troubles are brewing. Indeed, in Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands, respectively two Kings and one Queen abdicated in favour of their sons. Only in the Netherlands, a country with a tradition of monarchs who abdicate in favour of their child, the Queen became again a Princess (just as a President is no longer President after this years in office) while the two other countries now have two Kings (Belgium even three Queens), although the youngest are regarded as the Head of State (while in those families it is tradition to respect the older generation, a contradiction that may cause conflicts). In Spain the coronation split the country: some people celebrated the new King while others called for a Republic. In Belgium the previous King lost privileges while in Spain the previous King remains largely above the law (or immune). That this may cause problems has already been experienced in Belgium as it seems the old King (and Queen) finds it difficult to bow for the new King, their son:
First, there was the accident with a press release about Prince Laurent, brother of the current King and third child of the previous King. As the press release seems to have been against the wishes of the current Head of State, he removed the adviser of the previous Head who is believed to have advised the previous King to release the text.
Then there was a second accident when the previous King and Queen agreed to have an interview with the press without first informing the current King. They knew this was wrong because in Belgium it is tradition that no interviews by Royals are given without agreement of the King. Indeed, the Belgian monarchs rarely give interviews so not to further destabilise an unstable country. Again, this interview was considered by many as an insult to their own child and current King because they don't seem to accept his wishes. Even if the interview was given as a kind of support for their son (I haven't seen it), people may still interpret it as if the parents need to convince the public that their son is ready while as they did it secretly they suggest they don't believe it themselves. By disobeying him, they suggest they don't believe he is able while parents should be the first to defend their child and thus accept his wishes and decisions, even when they think they are wrong.
Recently, the new adviser of the previous King, replacing the previous adviser who was sacked by the current King, already resigned his position with the previous King to become adviser of the current King while there are rumours the previous adviser still works for the previous King. If the latter is true, it is another embarrassment for the current King, their son. This also shows why in the past a monarch never abdicated because they knew it would be almost impossible to not co-rule and obey they child unless they retreated to an abbey. And thus often monarchs died peacefully or not but rarely abdicated (the infighting in royal families is well shown in the series "The White Queen"). Thus, my advise to the previous King is to trust his son who is able to rule, maybe even move to Italy, land of his wife.
Otherwise, we may soon have following situation that may lead to the destruction of the country because of royal infighting (most people agree that the main thing that keeps Belgians united is the King (and sometimes football)): weeks ago there were Belgian elections and the formation of a new government may be almost as challenging as after the previous elections (under the previous King) when it took more than 500 days to form a government. The winner of the elections in Flanders was Bart De Wever of the Flemish party NVA, and therefore he was appointed by the current King to negotiate with the other parties to determine how a Belgian government can be formed. The new King seemed to accept that the NVA should be given a chance while now other people try to form a government. However, the previous King never liked the NVA as the party may destroy his country and thus he may find it a bad idea that the NVA was given time and certainly will not like it if the NVA may be part of the Belgian government. In addition, many politicians still don't seem to accept that the problems in Belgium are not only related to different languages but also political and economical: the north votes mainly right and believes people should be able to start their own business while the south votes mainly left, although the latter is changing as people there regain confidence. Thus, parties in the north often clash with their "brothers" of the same political family in the south. And thus, certainly when the negotiations take a while as seems to be the case, the previous King may favour taking side (as he is no longer the King, he may feel freer to speak although people will interpret it as speaking as a King) and he may suggest that it is unacceptable negotiations take so long and the NVA is involved and thus may give some suggestions (e.g. keep the current PM). Doing so, he may undermine (again) the position of his son and current King, even when his intention may be to help him. Many in Walloon indeed would not like to accept a PM from the NVA and thus may agree with the previous King. However, many Flemish may find the current King is the one who appoints the negotiator(s) and thus the previous King should not interfere; thereby in effect dividing the country. However, also many in Flanders, especially the older generation politicians, don't like the NVA as the party undermines their position although they claim it is to fight fascism, and thus they may choose the side of the previous king, ignoring the result of democratic elections. Therefore, Flanders may have two side (summarised as parents (older generation) against children and grandchildren (new generation) as the latter are much more internationally orientated and thus prefer English) while the south may stay more united although also there some will say the current King is the one to follow. And ones the King is no longer accepted in the whole of Belgium, the country ceases to exist although the army may refuse to accept this. But, if history decided a country will one day stop to exist, one can only accept it while going against the order of things will bring it down even quicker and violently. Democracy needs to be defended, even when democracy splits a country. King Philippe now has the job of leading his country for the good or bad but should be trusted. Because ignoring him may result in an angry King who makes mistakes. Of course, there may be no problem at all and the above may only be a story of how it may be in some families and has been in the past. Another possibility is that the previous King and Queen are still angry they were refused the money they thought they needed for their retirement; this may explain why they continue using their previous advisor as he defended their demand while they may blame the current King for not defending enough their claims. If indeed anger still rules their minds, then we can forget Belgium as then they will only listen to the adviser who supported them. Then every politician who voted against their demands may one day feel their anger. But maybe I am too negative.

Also the UK may fall apart if the Scottish vote for independence (quite likely), that is of course, when this will be accepted because already many powers are warning Scotland it should not behave stupid. Also in Spain there are regions that want to become independent but are warn by European leaders it shall not be. Europe, always a difficult continent with all its different views whereby the leaders (from the Roman Empire till today) always tried to rule an area as large as possible and preferably the whole world (colonisation), often against the wishes of many of the local people. And thus people over the whole world had to fight for their independence while also in Europe every century has a couple of wars (some lasting more than 100 years) to keep countries together or defend them against aggressors who tried to increase their influence by extending their country into another while internally often people punished others for refusing to integrate. And thus again, people may fight again to be able to determine their own future, either in their own countries or what many start to view as the evil Europe that wants to enforce one rule in all countries and agrees with multinationals against local business. And indeed, the EU is the motor of independence in many regions as there is one level too many and people want to simplify the rules while they see Europe as one continent of regions. But the EU may also be the force that will refuse to accept these struggles and defend the existing countries.

But not only monarchies have dual Heads nowadays (as people live longer), even the Roman Catholics are having two popes; lets hope the previous pope will not interfere one day when he may find the current pope goes too far in condemning priests who abused children but certainly when he may humiliate another priest or bishop for living in too much luxury, or maybe because the current pope may one day apologise for all the suffering caused by the Church to gay and other people over the past centuries.

But it can be different: the USSR felt apart almost without us noticing it except for a few victims because President Gorbatsjev didn't use the army to stop it happening; he accepted the inevitable. Also Czechoslovakia accepted the outcome of their referendum and the country ceased to exist without one person dying while now the people even seem to wonder why they separated and now work together in the areas they choose (because within the EU the country was one level too much to unite the differences). Concerning the referendum about Scottish independence, I do wonder whether it will be accepted because many politicians are threatening the country may not be viable and may not belong to the EU and/or Nato. And because many in power warn in such an aggressive way that it should not split, the numbers of people in favour of independence is growing as people in general don't like it to be told how they should vote, certainly not from foreigners such as an American President or the EU while Scotland is the main pro-EU region in the UK. Europe can only unite when it accepts diversity or it causes troubles.

But sometimes war to keep a country together is acceptable. Indeed, the reason for the civil war in the US was because one part of the country wanted to continue slavery and thus take away people's freedom while the other part tried to end slavery. Therefore, the war that followed is defensible even when many people died because it was about human rights and the freedom of people who were born later. Also South-Africa liberated the black from white racists because there was a liberation movement and now they can co-rule while everywhere in the world people had to free themselves from their conquerors.


Popular posts from this blog

Brexit, refugee crisis and the EU

(7i) Return to (travel) business in times of a virus

(20b) Coronavirus statistics: how to present data about cases and mortality