Catastrophes of Great Britain or how to circumvent adversity

                                                               All the past is prologue.

                                                               W. Shakespeare

Rarely in the history of international relations a country takes an unexpected decision by collective mandate and with unknown consequences, and that decision -in the short term- tends to subvert its power level and its level of participation in world politics. A variation of such  "level of participation" usually arises as a result of confrontation between States or as a result of  internal strife. This structural redefinition of its level in the international "system" can come, for example, by a treaty, by war,  by revolution, or actions of a similar nature, leading to a new status quo. But it is not frequent that -without a force majeure  precipitating it-  an ill-conceived popular voting could lead a country  towards a new uncertain future path .

In the case of Great Britain -with an ancient history and an important role in international relations particularly prominent since the 17th century until the middle of the 20th century- few times  has faced situations of catastrophic turbulence like this. Most of those moments in their past arose from internal transformation processes, in the pursuit of their particular democratic identity but always without affecting severely its standing in the world.

Largely, the enormous internal and external challenges of Britain were the product of immense political and economic power accumulated by planned, bold policies, and even deliberately adventurous. La perfide Albion of  Bishop Bossuet . But most of these major shocks were caused by others.

An example occurred with the unexpected independence or separation from the United States. It generated a political and social morass, inside and outside the country. Four Prime Ministers in succession after the cessation of hostilities, the King in question, the army blasted its prestige, the economy  in ruins plus tax and poverty, trade routes were truncated, real estate prices collapsed. Public debt increased disproportionately. Inflation rose from 2.1% in 1782 to 12% the following year. The imminent possibility of a social outbreak or civil war, shook the foundations of the imperial capital.

But Britain has always had a surplus of talent and in the crucial moments in its history the right decisions of their statesmen have helped to give a twist to the impending adversity. Not all nations are so fortunate.

The brilliant William Pitt  convinced Parliament to agree in 1783 to a peace treaty with Gral.Washington. He started inmediatelly a trade alliance with the enemy of the previous day. Great turnaround. The disaster of the decision of the war of separation  was  conjured with smart policies. Trade routes to the Americas were restored to the fullest. Pitt ordered multiplied the trade currents to India. Lost some territories in Canada but gained in commercial activity with North America. Textile companies which had been in bankruptcy, were reshuffled. England returned as world leader of industrial production and the trade with its former American colonies doubled in ten years. Economic prosperity was restored.

The French Revolution and the war against Napoleón Bonaparte also impacted in their results to GB. It became an existential menace to the kingdom of the first order. The war against the threatening French Revolution and Emperor emanating from it, was unavoidable. At the end of the process victory militaraly  confirmed GB as a great world power but turned to trigger an internal political, economic and social crisis of large proportions: unbearable taxes, shortage of food, prices of goods. Almost ending in a civil war. The European conflict had cost the impoverished country, 850 million-pound (30 billion pounds today). But the Kingdom, as result of the famous 1815 negotiations in Vienna, was reaffirmed as a power, in the delicate balance of world power, gaining control of the sea routes in the Indian, Atlantic and Mediterranean.

The Second World War led the United Kingdom to its limits again in another great historical challenge. The country concentrated the largest effort of resistance to national-socialism and fascism under the eminent leadership of W. Churchill. London came out victorious again  and, though their finances were depleted, it overcame the difficulties relatively soon thanks to the power of recovery seamlessly generated by the United States.

But  in this case, unlike previous major crises, Great Britain ceased to be the military and industrial superpower it had been for more than two hundred years. The Empire as such came to an end. Instead, it got permanent seat in the Security Council of the United Nations, (a power of  limited range of action) while the  scaffold of dominance in its territories was slowly being dismantled in the following years,  giving way to dozens of new free States, nowdays gathered in a  maternal fashion, in the so-called Commonwealth.

That way it secure its participation in world affairs . But, apparently it was not enough for GB  and they gradually  promoted the establishment the center of the financial world in London, (the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF and World Bank) settled in the victorious superpower and it was natural to establish that center on its territory: in NYC for example). Therefore, London in the new 1945´s balance of power cemented further its economic independence from Europe and the USA.

Since then, Britain has been a relative power that has rested in his past in the "exceptionalism" of the British people, in an economic link with continental Europe and, above all, a political-military alliance with United States (the special relationship). .

Few days ago, the United Kingdom seems to have surprisingly entered into another  major crises of historic magnitude. (This time -at least for the time being- there isn't a Pitt or a Churchill in sight to lead that kind of traditional reversal of impending adversity). Leaving the European Union is a fact that can be classified in the same dimension of those above-mentioned events, whose consequences are unpredictable and spectacular. The news around the world at this hour indicates a global perplexity and provoque all kinds of opinions. On the other side of the Atlantic, away from the mess, we sense the transcendental nature of the decision taken.

There may be two sheds in a brief primary analysis. The most obvious is that of economic nature, given that the intra-European relationship is of financial and commercial kind. The other one is about the political alliances of GB and in its rearrangement  as a middle-ranking power in world affairs.

About half of British exports  are intended for the European Union. Continental Europe exports less than 10% towards Great Britain. That is a primary problem for the British. It will lose the tariff preferences in the European market. They  will need to negotiate bilateral agreements which will obviously be less gratious than those they enjoyed ex ante. In any case,in the future there will be a long and painful process to redistribute such exports everywhere. European investments, not having  the community treatment in the UK will head to the continent in search of better conditions, and, even if GB remain attractive to investors by its great legal system it will be less attractive to foreign direct investment than those integrated countries in the Continent.

The other problem with the naked eye is the great impact on the condition of London as the financial center of the globe. Even New York, has not been able to compete with "the City" in terms of a powerful and attractive financial center with the greatest comparative advantages.

The conditions that  London has, in order to be intermediary for financial transactions between North and South America, Asian, African and European,  are obvious. The City  headquarters  251 foreign banks and financial and trade services  currently exceeds the astronomical sum of 100 billion euros.

Paradoxically, this may be one cause of the british exit or Brexit. London is the main source of economic wealth into the Kingdom. It is the location of  most centers of study, whithin  close perimeter and therein lies most of the cultural activity. This has provided an enormous wealth for London and sorroundings. But not so, for the rest of the country, where regions with structural poverty have not benefited from that fabulous prosperity generated by the European interaction. A joke circulating in financial circles is, that because of that monopolistic concentration of the ultra-wellbeing, London "should declare their independence" from the United Kingdom. Scotland, who voted to remain as part of the kingdom recently - and a reason was to remain part of the European Union - can reconsider his position and seek its independence. There are hints in this regard. This would create one even greater for the great cataclysm. That would create an disproportionate disaster for Britain.

The other dimension of unpredictable consequences is that at the political level. The United Kingdom has benefited since the Second War with a special status in its relationship with the United States. In seventy years they have worked together during the "Cold War", in the Security Council and in multiple conflicts. (in the Falklands war, the USA had to take the decision to breach the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance to protect its special alliance with GB).

Since the end of the East-West confrontation, GB has been a sort of pivotal axis for the United States in its geopolitical relationship with the Europeans. Currently, it  is even more necessary in order to coordinate, from the inside, the European stance and actions, in the framework of NATO, vis à vis the threats that increasingly perceives Europe. GB will leave in two years, leaving the United States, without that essential intermediary.

In our opinion, Germany appears at first sight as the country that would benefit from this setback and seems  to be prepared, seconded by its economic power its other strengths and by its recent global political status thanks to the brisk activism of his Government.

Frankfurt could happen to be the financial center of Europe, as well as its  economic engine. Germany has taken steps towards a growing willingness to participate in military operations and Berlin could be a more perceptive interlocutor towards the interests of USA than the secularly contentious  France.

The consequences are of all order and at all levels . From that English worker who retired in Palma de Mallorca to the transnational German transnational that established its production line in Leeds, all will face multiple consequences. It will take years to know the implications, but something that seems inexorable is that the gradual and smooth dismantling of its  great power status from another era, will give way to a new role in the 21st century, that of an intermediate player, no doubt modern and creative, although nostalgic of those days when their fleet was sailing the Seven Seas protecting the empire on which "the sun never sets" .

© Vicente E. Vallenilla 2016

http://runrun.es/opinion/268651/las-catastrofes-de-la-gran-bretana-o-como-salir-airosa-de-la-adversidad-por-vicente-e-vallenilla.html

THE SANDERS ERA

In the middle of forced national self-absorption, little space is left nowdays  to follow other events of considerable global importance, or particular impact to Latin America. Nevertheless, we have been carefully observing the process leading to the presidential election of the United States.

The significance of this election - apart from the obvious - is that it has a twist not seen before.

One, it has developed a new way of "doing politics" in that country. Two, the emergence of unusual personalities in the race to the White House -outsiders-. Three, this election proccess does not resemble any other in history, as political analysts have concluded. Those "changes" in the primary electoral process, could indicate that a leap forward ( backward, would be the term preferred by those in the Tea Party) is in the proccess of being forged. In both cases, it's a new territory for classical politicians.

The political system of that country is divided into two distinct visions that make up the so-called Establishment. On one side the Republican party which embodies, inter alia, the virtues of the market without operational restrictions, elitist monetary circles, low taxes for the wealthy, and limited social policies. On the other, the Democratic Party, -the Jeffersonian wing, originally formed as a division of the GOP, the Grand Old Republican Party- full of liberal ideas, of intervention in the economy, racial equality and the promotion of social movements, internationalism and multilateralism as platforms in foreign policy.

But, it was in the last century, when Presidents "with progressive ideas" such as Hoover (Republican), and both Roosevelts, in particular Franklin D. Roosevelt, FDR (Democrat) accentuated the differences with the Conservatives within both  parties. Hoover rejected from the outset, the capitalist mandate of the Minister of Finance of Luis XIV, Colbert: "allow the market forces to find their balance by themselves". Hooverian thinking was, on the contrary, that the State must intervene, but as a benefactor, creating permanent partnerships between public, private and trade unions. The second Roosevelt, FDR, borrowed the progressive thinking for his immortal action plan: the New Deal. Keynes recognized that he was inspired by these formulas in his plans for the welfare of humanity, even thought, ironically  people thought that Hoover had "Keynesian theories".

That political platform of Republican liberalism was predominant until the day Ronald Reagan took power in 1981. Thus, a new era began in the United States. The Reagan era. The Hoover humanism was abandoned and "Reaganism" was implemented in the system and in the application of American capitalism in the world: the theory of the "supply side", monetary control, economic deregulation, reduction in spending public, low taxes for the rich. Thus, the era of the so-called "American left", that of the Hoovers and Roosevelts, full of abundant social initiatives simply went into obscurity. President Obama has tried to retake it, with little luck.

Bernie Sanders, a relatively unknown Senator, explosively, has appeared on the political scene with a Socialist potpourri of European flavour, at a time when forces within the Republican party are striving to amalgamate  the legacy of the "Great Communicator"  Ronald Reagan; (we do not have clear if, Mr. Trump thinks that way in regards to Reagan's legacy or, rather, he will defends its own future legacy : America, will be great again! ).

The "Bernie revolution" includes,  among other:

-Policies to eliminate the enormous social inequality by imposing high taxes private and companies of higher income.

-Increasing wages.

-Create massive jobs to repair the decaying infrastructure.

-Stop trade agreements with China, and others such as NAFTA.

-Create jobs for young people with dissabilities

-equal wages for women.

-Create free universities throughout the country.

-Expand the Social Security exempted taxes on retirees.

-Create a free layout and universal health in the style of Denmark or Norway, Sweden (Medicare for all).

-Increase at least in three months periods of rest for  pre and post-natal

-Create free child care programs across the country.

-Ensure the easy affiliation to trade unions.

-Divide the large financial groups. Avoid the impunity of Wall Street's "too big to fail", and comprehensive reform of the financial system.

-Urgent action against climate change.

-A new migration policy from humanitarian opportunities.

-Greater racial justice and care to veterans.

-Rural reform.

This is a program that for many may sound "very Socialist". We think it is basically a typical political project of the left  parties from Northern Europe, mix of programs of both, the Social-Democracy and Socialist parties. Sanders have mentioned his admiration for the Danish system.

More important is, that regardless of the fact that Bernie Sanders may not win the Democratic nomination, one can consider that it has promoted, (as Trump), a schism within the establishment, with significant implications.

For the surprise of the political class, the older and unknown candidate has been able to drag huge crowds of  young people accross the US demanding  opportunities for their future while not being indebted for a good part of their life. Another surprise is that he has raised funds with historical records thanks to  individual contributions in very small amounts, as opposed to the usual sources from the very wealthy individuals or the large corporations and Wall Street.

Possibly, the emergence of Sanders and Trump's anti-establishment politics, has already introduced unexpected transformations, affecting in the future the previsible political manners and procedures of the ruling class.

If a new "start" takes place and we aren't wrong, in a new scenario in the washingtonian environment the invisible mantle of Reagan philosophy that has survived up to Obama, could finally begin to disappear.

The spirit of global welfare prevailing in those US humanist presidents could reform again the present political tactics -today facing mutual destruction- in the parties on Capitol Hill. Sanders and Trump are contributing to that shake up, unintentionally. If Hillary wins the Presidency, some of the truths that the unexpected Sanders put on the agenda could be adopted by any of the future presidents, (even Trump has already given somo timid indications in that sense) recognizing -before it is too late- that message given in this campaing by the disaffected throngs on the current political, economic and social results.

Ironically, then, we would be on the doorstep of what we might call, The Sanders Era.

©Vicente E Vallenilla. All rights reserved.

La Era Sanders

  

     En medio del obligado ensimismamiento nacional, poco espacio queda  para seguir   otros acontecimientos de notable importancia mundial, siempre de impacto para Latinoamérica y, por ende, para este país. Pero apartándome del seguimiento - minuto a minuto - de la incalificable  gallera en que se ha convertido este país, hemos estado observando el proceso que conduce a la elección presidencial de los Estados Unidos. (La escogencia del nuevo Imperator, dirían  gallos criollos del partido colorado... )

La trascendencia de esta elección -más allá de la obvia- consiste en un giro no antes visto de la forma de hacer política en ese país y la aparición de  inusuales personajes en la carrera hacia la Casa Blanca. Esta elección no se asemeja a ninguna otra en la historia, como señalan los analistas políticos de ese país.  Este proceso, por sus características, indica  que podría estarse forjando un  salto adelante ( o, hacia atrás, dirán los del Tea Party) en la política norteamericana. 

El sistema político de ese país esta dividido en dos grandes visiones que conforman el llamado Establishment. Una, la del Partido Republicano, que enarbola las virtudes del sistema de mercado, sin restricciones operativas, círculos monetarios elitescos, bajos impuestos para los ricos y de políticas sociales limitadas, inter alia.

La otra, el partido Demócrata, el ala jeffersoniano en que se dividió del GOP, Viejo Gran Partido Republicano, de ideas liberales, de intervención en la economía, de la igualdad racial y del favorecimiento de los movimientos sociales,  del internacionalismo y el  multilateralismo en la política exterior.

Pero fue en el siglo pasado que, presidentes "con ideas progresistas" como Hoover (republicano), y los Roosevelt, en particular FD Roosevelt  (demócrata) acentuaron las diferencias con los conservadores, dentro de sus propios partidos.  Hoover rechazó desde el principio la máxima que impuso en el mundo el ministro de Luis XIV, Colbert: "permitir que las fuerzas del mercado encuentren su equilibrio por sí mismas". El pensamiento hooveriano era, por el contrario, que el Estado debe intervenir, pero de manera benefactora, creando alianzas permanentes entre el sector público, el privado y los sindicatos.  El segundo Roosevelt, FDR, tomó prestado ese pensamiento progresista para su inmortal plan de acción: el New Deal.  Keynes reconoció que se inspiró en esas fórmulas para sus planes por el bienestar de la humanidad, aunque después se pensara, al revés, que Hoover  tenía "teorías keynesianas".

Esa plataforma política del liberalismo republicano duró desde entonces hasta el día que Ronald Reagan tomó el poder en 1981. Se inició así una nueva era en los Estados Unidos. La era Reagan. Se abandonó el humanismo de Hoover y se implantó el "reaganismo" en el sistema y el capitalismo americano: la teoría del "supply side", control monetario, desregulación económica, reducción del gasto publico, bajos impuestos para los ricos. Con ello desapareció la era de la llamada "izquierda americana”  de los Hoover y Roosevelts,   de abundantes iniciativas sociales. El presidente Obama ha intentado retomarlo, con poca suerte.

Bernie Sanders,  un relativamente desconocido senador, de manera explosiva,  ha aparecido en la escena política con ese potpourri socialista de tipo europeo, en momentos en que fuerzas dentro del partido republicano se esfuerzan en volver al legado del Gran Comunicador Reagan ( no tenemos claro si D. Trump piensa así de Reagan o mas bien defiende su particular y nuevo futuro legado: America, will be great again ! ) .

La "revolución de Bernie" incluye de forma relevante:

- Políticas destinadas a eliminar la enorme desigualdad social imponiendo altos impuestos a los privados y empresas de superiores ingresos.

- Incrementar los salarios.

- Crear empleo masivo para reparar la decadente infraestructura.

- Detener acuerdos comerciales con China, y otros como el NAFTA.

- Crear de puestos para jóvenes con desventajas.

- sueldos y salarios iguales para la mujeres.

- Crear universidades gratuitas en todo el país.

- Expandir la Seguridad Social eximiendo de impuestos a los retirados.

- Crear un esquema gratuito y universal de salud al estilo de Dinamarca o Noruega, Suecia (medicare for all).

- Aumentar por lo menos en tres meses los periodos de reposo pre y post natal

- Crear programas gratuitos de cuidado infantil en todo el país.

- Garantizar la fácil afiliación a sindicatos.

- Dividir los grandes grupos financieros.  Evitar la impunidad de Wall Street de " too  big to fail"  (demasiado grande para quebrar), y reforma integral del sistema financiero.

- Medidas urgentes contra el cambio climático.

- Una nueva política migratoria de oportunidades humanitarias.

- Mayor justicia racial y atención a los veteranos.

- Reforma rural.

Este es un programa que para muchos puede sonar  "muy socialista" . Es básicamente un típico proyecto de la izquierda del norte de Europa, mezcla de programas de la social- democracia y de partidos  socialistas. Sanders ha manifestado su admiración por el sistema danés.

Lo que nos parece importante es que independientemente de que Bernie Sanders no gane la nominación demócrata,  puede uno considerar que ha abierto, como Trump, una escisión en el establishment con importantes repercusiones. Entre otras, sorprendió a la clase política  que, el candidato de mayor edad, sea capaz de arrastrar enormes multitudes de jóvenes que desean universidades gratuitas, oportunidades en su futuro y no quedar endeudados una buena parte de su vida. Asimismo, que pudiera recabar fondos con records históricos por medio de contribuciones individuales en muy pequeñas cantidades, al contrario de lo usual, donde los que realmente aportan a las campañas  son  las grandes corporaciones o individuos muy pudientes.

Es posible que la aparición anti-sistema de Sanders y de Trump en la política, introduzca transformaciones inesperadas para la clase dirigente.

 Si comenzara -y no estemos equivocados- un nuevo escenario  en el entorno washingtoniano, el invisible manto  de Reagan que ha sobrevivido hasta Obama, pudiera empezar a desaparecer. El espíritu humanista  de aquellos presidentes americanos, como FDR,  podría reformar los valores políticos -hoy enfrentados hacia la mutua destrucción- en Capitol Hill. Hacia ello parecen que contribuyen, sin confabularse, Sanders y Trump.  Si gana Hillary la presidencia, algunas de las verdades que el fugaz Sanders puso  en la agenda, podrían ser adoptadas por  futuros presidentes, ( incluso Trump ya ha dado indicaciones en ese sentido)  reconociendo -antes de que sea tarde- el mensaje de multitudes desafectas de la política actual y de sus resultados sociales .  Irónicamente, estaríamos a las puertas de lo que podríamos llamar, la era Sanders.

© Vicente E Vallenilla. 2016.