The Coming Digital Revolutions

Beware the promises of the third industrial revolution – the first phase may be a real revolution

It has become exceedingly fashionable in certain circles to wax lyrical about the virtues and endless possibilities of what is being termed “The Third Industrial Revolution” (TIR). While the term itself is still nebulous, it broadly refers to an assumed new paradigm in the global economy, where the rapid spread of knowledge and communications via the internet and electronic devices, is fundamentally transforming the nature of the global economy.

For many this phase is spoken of as a hallmark of human success. Whether it be through promises such as the delivery of free internet access to millions via Facebook drones, taxi-services through driverless vehicles, advanced systems that monitor weather patterns and instruct farming machinery when and where to plant, or health systems which notify their user when they are unwell before symptoms occur, the possibilities are seemingly endless. Leading this recent wave of exuberance has been the rise of AR/VR technology and advanced robotics. Augmented Reality (AR) such as Pokemon Go and Virtual Reality (such as vTime), are the innovations that are bringing digital into the real world. These innovations can revolutionise the education and health sectors, removing the need for people to be physically present and allowing for constant access to these services irrespective of ones location or time-zone.

But while the TIR undoubtedly offers a glimpse of a new reality, its visionaries have been woeful at looking at its darker consequences. In the first industrial revolution, the term “luddite” was coined and today it is commonly understood to represent those who reject technological change. However, the term is too simple. The Luddites were indeed upset with technological innovations, but not because they could not see its potential or the benefits to society, but rather they didn’t see the benefits to them. The First Industrial Revolution transformed society by creating mass unemployment and by forcing entire families and communities to uproot, re-train and re-establish their place in the new economy that was transforming around them. It is perhaps hardly surprising therefore that the first and second industrial revolutions witnessed widespread rioting, periods of extreme localised unemployment and the explosion of new ideas about society, how people should live and how people should be governed.

This re-drawing of national economies had profound implications for national wealth and power, which resulted in a fundamental change in the very structure of society. Consequently, the innovations and their associated changes were fought bitterly and by many. These industrial revolutions re-wrote the concept of “The Sovereign” nation and spawned the birth of new ideas such as Nationalism, Socialism and Communism. These new ideas, driven by the new power elite “The Merchant Class”, destroyed the traditional pillars of the pre-industrial state: The Nobility, the Church and the Sovereign (Whether King, Emperor, Sultan or other), as a vital pre-cursor to make way for the new societal power – the merchants themselves. This process was not entirely unpredicted, with a certain German philosopher adroitly predicting the process of power transformation in society as a result of the new technological changes, and he had already created a term for this new rising class, “The Bourgeoisie”.

Today the Third Industrial Revolution is seen as distinct from the challenges facing society. It is in fact, the source of many of the problems. As yet the new rising power is society are poorly understood and the losers of this new wave of change cannot yet understand or associate the challenges facing their personal circumstances, with the wider melee of changes circling them on the global stage. But while details are limited, we do already know some characteristics of the winners and of the losers, which are worth further study.

The new elite are international in a manner that is unfathomable in any other epoch of human history. The easy transfer of wealth, ideas and the ease of travel globally has created the environment which allows individuals to transcend the constraints which may be imposed on them by their country of origin. Members of this class recognise no barriers as legitimate and many see even the concept of national identity as an outdated relic, to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Leading this charge are the technology gurus, the programmers, the start-up founders, the VC backers, all of whom represent the new and rising elite. These are the “Digerati”.

Standing opposed to the digerati are those who have been left behind in this great wave of human advancement. They are the sullen, disposed, disenfranchised citizens of the 20th and early 21st century, who have been cast aside in the maelstrom of economic change that is occurring. These groups think locally, not internationally and view technological innovation as a source of instability that threatens their livelihoods, their communities, their sources of income and their very identity. These are the “Digitally Dispossessed”.

These two groups hold ideologies that are implacably opposed to the other. The Digerati resent the actions of the state, displaying a profoundly free market ideology that rejects national boundaries, taxation systems, societal attitudes towards social issues and in many cases, even intellectual property rights and democratic processes more generally. Consider the bankruptcy of the gossip site Gawker by Peter Tiel, the actions of PirateBay, Napster & Wikileaks or the aggressive tax evasion methods of Facebook, Google and Uber. The new elite reject the state as the lead actor in international and domestic affairs. By contrast, for the Digitally Disposed it is the state who remain the last line of defence against the free market’s radicalism and it’s focus on individualism, which drives the Digerati. Identity based on location and traditional values holds huge importance for the Digitally Dispossed, in a way which the Digerati cannot fathom. Freedom of expression v.s. safety of individuals in particular, is a vast dividing line in the digital debate.

Fault lines are already being drawn. Whether it is the EU’s actions against US tech giants, Brazilian judges against Whatsapp, the FBI v.s. Apple or the battles raging against China’s “Great Digital wall”, the digital revolutions are coming. In 2011 people saw the power of social media vividly re-write the political landscape of the Middle East, in a region with low mobile and internet penetration. Between 2015 and 2016, Donald Trump secured the Republican party nomination, ISIS recruited 1,000’s of foreign fighters and two photos secured refugee access for circa 1 million people into Germany. This is just the beginning.

Technological innovation is not inherently bad, just as the NRA’s old slogan goes: “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, it is perfectly fair to argue that technology alone is not responsible for societies troubles. But it certainly is a catalyst. In short those who pursue innovation and those who regulate society have reached a fork in the road: Is innovation always good and worth pursuing, with the consequences being addressable later? Or should innovation be closely controlled and channelled, to ensure its affects on society are managed and the vulnerable are protected?

This is the battleground space of the Third Industrial Revolution, and it has only just begun.


A letter to the nation

 Alea Iacta est – The die is cast

(Julius Caesar)

On the 23rd of June our nation took the first step in a long process to separate from political union with Europe. It was neither expected, nor were people prepared for it. Understandably, many people feel devastated. In the time since the results were known the nation has witnessed an outpouring of love for Europe never seen in my lifetime, nor perhaps in the lifetime of any individual still with us today. First came shock, then anger. Anger turned to fear, then fear into numbness. A nation feels subdued and for the first time, in a long time, people are uncertain of their future and perhaps even scared of the country they call home.

But just as every life is has a different story, the history of every nation has many chapters. A chapter in the history of our nation is now closed, but the next chapters are still to be written. In all novels, the day is always darkest before that dawning moment. Right now we are in that darkest moment. A moment filled with fear, with anger, with pain and with sorrow. But this is not how our future must be nor how our destiny can be.  I said once before that I am a romantic. I believe that love, kindness and compassion, when deployed in unison, truly create an unstoppable momentum that can move mountains and carry nations, people and societies towards greater things.

The referendum was never more than the beginning of a process and like all turning points in history, what matters is what comes next. It is for this reason that now more than ever is time for people to come together. So how do we come together, how do we heal and where can our country go from here?

This referendum was, at its core, about identity and about people feeling disconnected from the society the live in. For the first time in many decades, the poor and often disenfranchised in the UK came out to vote because they felt their voice would be heard and the issues raised were the ones that really mattered to them. They felt powerless and downtrodden. Now they feel emboldened. That is not a bad thing for society and in fact if this can be channeled, it could be the very key to making our society better.

Our society used to be governed centrally by a small group of individuals, often chosen behind closed doors, by procedures that few understood. This referendum has shown more than ever that such a model is wrong for a modern society. For people to support ideas and to accept their consequences, they must feel as though they have ownership of them. Devolution of political power within the UK has long been talked about and now is the time to revisit it again. Let’s give our cities and our regions the resources and support to make their own choices and lets end the central dominance of London and Westminster, that has upset so many in this nation.

We must also re-imagine how our nation sits within the global community which we operate in. To do so we must re-assure our friends, rebuild old connections and start new relationships.  We are a part of this continent of Europe in a very physical way. The UK may no longer wish to stay with its neighbors in a political union, but that is not a sign that the UK does not love many of the things that make Europe the envy of the world in the eyes of our global community. Now, more than ever, we need to show Europe that love, as many have already done so over the last few days and we need to go further.

Few people bothered to talk to those Europeans who live in the UK and who call it home during this referendum. That is both a disgrace and a tragedy. These people, many whom I proudly call my friends, have made this nation so much richer for their presence. They need us now more than ever to show that we appreciate all that they give us. The UK must also look more to its fellow commonwealth nations and revisit how it can do more to help them and to work closer with them. From 1999-2003 over a third of all Australian expatriates lived in the UK, while our links with Canada, the USA, New Zealand, South Africa and Hong Kong remain extremely strong. Now is the time to make them stronger and deeper. As to the rest of the world, it is clear that talented and passionate people are everywhere and many still wish to make the UK their home. We need to make sure that a future UK creates a fair and transparent system to help these people come to the UK and make it even better.

Furthermore, we must all recognise that politics is no longer something that we can ignore and  disengage from. From 1997 – 2015, less than 70% of UK registered voters turned out at general elections to choose their leaders. At local elections this was often even lower, in some places below 30%. Our power to decide who governs us is a great privilege and something many take for granted. People often feel as though their vote is irrelevant in a First Past the Post system and as a result they do not vote, nor do they bother engaging with politics in their constituency. I believe that devolution can do much to change that, as it has with the Mayor of London elections and the Scottish Parliament, but it can only do so much. People in the UK also need to be willing to commit some of their time to engaging with politics within their communities. They need to talk to local parties, perhaps attend local events and above all, they need to communicate with those who they elect to govern them.

For those who are afraid and uncertain of the future, this is a rallying cry for those who call Britain their home. We have a chance to make a better Britain, one that is global, modern and uniquely ours. Let us make sure that we take this chance and that the next chapter in our nation’s history is one that we can be proud of.

The World in crisis and the cyclicality of history

Looking at the world there are many reasons to be optimistic. No war between the major powers has occurred for several decades. Global economic growth has raised the quality of living for millions of people, meanwhile major scientific discoveries continue to advance human understanding of our world. Furthermore, modern technology continues to enhance human productivity and with advances in modern telecommunications, global inter-connectivity is at an all time high.

Or so the optimists of the early 1900’s thought.

For individuals like President Truman and Sir Norman Angell, the famous British Labour MP, the world before 1914 had reached a new level of civilisation. The continuing advances of modern technology alongside a seemingly growing global endorsement of liberalism and democracy, would slowly convert the world and its citizens, and in so doing, consign war and global poverty into oblivion.

If all of this sounds oddly familiar, it should. Just as in the early 20th century the men of the hour trumpeted the success of mankind, so too do the modern heroes of the early 21st century. In the same tradition that Norman Angel followed, when he wrote his famous book “The Great Illusion”, arguing that war was rendered essentially impossible because of global integration, the 21st century has its own optimists. Whether it be Lawrence Summers recent piece, “The case for Global Optimism” or Steven Pinker’s work on declining violence, the optimists are out in force. Moreover, so are the idealists.

From Mark Zuckerberg to Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Jack Ma and many more, the future appears bright and full of promise. Except they are wrong, all wrong. And the biggest problem is that no-one seems to have realised it.

Across the OECD, household, private and government debt is high, with weak economic growth across all the major economies. In China, despite unprecedented economic stimulus, the economy is rapidly decelerating. Climate change and high birth rates across the world’s poorest nations continue to drive increasing numbers of people to migrate from their homes, many travelling thousands of miles in search of a new life. Thus as the global economic engine groans and as new migrants seek the opportunity of a better life in the worlds more developed economies, a resurgence of nationalism, often coupled with xenophobia and racism is spreading.

But that is not all. Global fear and insecurity, economic weakness and popular anxiety are a breading ground for nations with a penchant for making their country great again. These leaders believe in cultural exceptionalism, they focus on the global balance of power and they view the world as a zero sum game. Moreover, such leaders are not confined to the developing world, and as time continues, their message is gaining traction globally.

But what is driving all of these issues? What is the problem?

Many would suggest that the world is facing a crisis of global economic demand. A slump in commodity prices, combined with nearly three consecutive years of stagnant or falling prices for manufactured goods, is threatening global growth, so the argument goes. Thus follows the inevitable argument of trade restrictions v.s. trade imbalances. To simplify the points, the debate circulates around whether the only way to improve the demand for a countries domestic goods is to introduce protectionist trade measures, or whether countries with “excess” levels of savings and large trade surpluses should be forced to spend more, thus allowing other nations with large trade and savings deficits to catch up. Such is the debate over China within the USA today. But the debate misses the core issue. While the US and China may fight over the issue of trade imbalances, the problem facing the world economy is much more simple:

The world is facing a crisis of inequality.

The World Bank and Asian Development Bank speak of the worlds’ success in reducing global poverty by 950 million people and thus achieving the Millennium Development Goals. But this figure hides all manner of sins. True, the number of people living on $1.90 a day has fallen by 950 million between 1990 and 2015, but if we move to $3.10 a day benchmark, then the poverty rate still stands at 35% of the world. More simply, the actual number of people in extreme poverty today, Paul Collier’s “Bottom Billion”, has not changed in over 20 years.

P1070774I need not re-hash the work of Thomas Piketty on inequality in the western world, or dwell a huge amount further on the fact that 400 americans are worth more than the remaining 50% of the country put together. Nor do I need to dwell on the estimated $21-32 trillion sitting in offshore tax havens by multinational companies and high net worth individuals. Rather, I want to explain why this inequality, if it isn’t tackled, is going to break the whole global system as we know it. And that is the biggest problem.

It is an old tenant of classical Keynesian economic, that as incomes rise, an individuals desire to save a proportion of their income will increase. While this sounds sensible, the reality has long been considered problematic. If those who are wealthier save an increasingly larger portion of their income than they spend, then global demand for goods will get relatively weaker as this proportion of people get richer. If demand does not grow as fast as income, the economy ends up with a large surplus of funds. But while this was a cause of great concern for classical economists, in the early half of the century this fear was alleviated through the work of Simon Kuznets. Kuznets demonstrated that as technology continued to develop, new demand would be created for new products, meanwhile an expansion government spending would also occur, thus collectively helping to offset a fall in demand. Thus with this discovery, economists relaxed and the fear of a global collapse in aggregate demand was averted.

Only, the essential questions were never truly explored: How would private demand for goods rise without a fall in savings? And how would government demand for goods offset a fall without absorbing the excess savings?

The answer, perhaps predictably, was debt.

The most revolutionary concepts in the global economy since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 have been the creation of new means to raise money. Whether they be in the form of bonds, equity, derivative contracts and so on, finding new ways to help stimulate consumption has been the cornerstone of continuing economic growth. However, when analysing the power dynamics of debt, the one party that will always be better positioned is the party that has the capital. If you want evidence of this, I would advise looking at Greece’s position or that of Argentina.


It is self evident that the use of debt allows people, who need to consume goods, to consume beyond their means whilst also allowing governments to spend beyond their tax base. In both cases, this can be sustainable, as long as the economy grows and the interest on the debt remains affordable. But what happens when people can no longer pay for the debt and perhaps even worse, what happens when there is no-one who wants to take on more debt?

Thus the crisis in the world today is not a crisis of demand, a crisis of leadership or a failure of free trade. The crisis today is that too much capital is held in the hands of too few people and organisations, who do not see sufficient opportunities to earn long term returns on their money through making investments in the real economy. If you want to understand why billions is being spent on über, amazon, facebook, airbnb, twitter, tesla, virgin galactic, whatsapp or any of the other global technology giants, it is because the worlds largest investors don’t see demand growing anywhere else. Moreover, demand growth is so weak in the real economy (i.e. commodities, manufacturing, agriculture, etc), that 100’s of billions is being invested in companies that have never made a profit, and by some forecasts may never make a profit.

Bubbles in technology, bubbles in real estate, stagnant, excess global production capacity and global unemployment (and underemployment), spell one thing: deflation. The sirens call of every major financial crisis is deflation. It is here in Europe and soon to be in the US as well. Speculative bubbles, deflation and currency crises are the hallmarks of the world’s largest recessions, but this time the central banks have no more levers and the governments have no more capacity to borrow.

In short, the world is standing on the edge of what may be the largest precipice in world economic history since the great depression. And on current trajectories, with current policies, there is nothing to stop it.

I need not elaborate on what a global economic crisis, greater than 2007-2010, would mean for the world at large. But a few points are worth mentioning. Firstly expect famines on a scale unheard of in history, as subsidies to the third world for food and agriculture collapse. Secondly expect mass unemployment, as countries fail to agree on how to reform the global economic system and protectionist trade measures return with a vengeance. Thirdly, expect a global uptick in violence. Whether from desperate authoritarian regimes, seeking to desperately shore up their legitimacy or from non-state actors capitalising on new power vacuums, the era of violence is near our doorstep. Above all, expect migration on a scale never seen in human history.

But is there another way? Is there a way to fix this economic system and to escape from this collapse into crisis?

Maybe there is….but will we be brave enough, and are we capable enough to make it happen?

The world’s demands have never been greater. Across developing and developed nations there are sufficient projects and investments that could absorb the worlds available capital many times over. The problem is that the capital needs to be channelled. Wealth that is hidden offshore must be repatriated and taxed. The financial services sector must become transparent so that corruption can be mitigated to the greatest degree imaginable. Leaders in business and politics must realise that facilitating corrupt behaviour is never an acceptable price and that any short term gains that may be won by accommodating “gangster capitalists” are illusory. In this role, the general public must vote for parties who really push these issues and they must exercise their influence over their pension providers who sit at company boards.

In the longer term the world needs to realise that we will not resolve our problems when we assume that one person is different to another. Yes, people may have different values and beliefs. Yes people may wish for a different world to the one that you want and yes, the western world as we know it, human rights and all, may never become truly universal in the way we hoped they would. But inequality is the poison in our global system which breads fear, insecurity, anger and resentment. If we do not deal with it now, we will be fighting the challenge for the remainder of our lifetimes.

This is our future. If we do not act now and put pressure on our leaders across the world to tackle inequality, then our system will fracture and collapse. One only needs to read the horrors of the early world wars or the great depression to realise that there in no price to high to avoid that fate.

This is our world. And we have to be the one’s who change it.

The Case for BREXIT

The starting gun has been fired and now begins the race. By the end of June 2016, the UK will have made the most important decision it has faced in 25 years. Do we stay or do we go?

The BREXIT debate is one of identity, and it is on this issue that the referendum must deliver a clear answer. The question of Britain’s role and place in Europe has always been defined by this question: are we Europeans or are we something different?

Many misunderstand this notion. To say you are different makes people uncomfortable. In this context, it inspires claims either that British people are exhibiting national chauvinism or that they are being willfully ignorant of the realities of today’s world. These claims, however natural they may be given the appalling narrative on immigration in Britain today, are wrong. Britain is different not because we do not share with other Europeans the common bonds of humanity, shared love and respect for liberty and human decency, respect and tolerance of others and a commitment to helping those in need. We are different because we do not believe, nor do we accept, that Europe’s methods of how to build a society are the right ones.

Most would like this vote to be about a simpler issue. The “vote leave” seeks a migration narrative, the “vote stay” wants an economic narrative. But for the future of Britain, they must both fail in their endeavours. Instead, voters should understand the clear meaning of their actions. To “vote stay” means that British people must finally accept that they have a shared responsibility to working with Europeans to help solve their problems as well as our own. To “vote leave” requires British people to acknowledge that if we do not feel a responsibility to help Europeans outside of our national interest, then we must acknowledge simultaneously that Europe has no responsibilities to support our national interest.

In the narrative of history, we must all hope that the story of Europe continues. The European Union has made life better for the continent and its people. It is a symbol of hope and idealism to many across the world, despite all its failings. But it is not our story. I believe in BREXIT because in viewing my home and those from it, I see the world differently from those on the continent. Our nation is not afraid of no longer being a titan on the world stage, nor are we afraid of a world where we do not control the global agenda. Britain has always thrived on its ability to innovate, to be pragmatic and to take risks in order to survive. Such has always been the necessity of island nations.

Europeans see the EU as a mechanism to sit at the world table in the rising new world order. As an equal to China, the US and to India. Today’s modern Britain does not see that necessity. The reality of the modern world is that no nation, or body of nations, can unilaterally determine their economic environment or their security environment. The age of autarky and isolationism is dead. The challenge of our time is not do we choose to work with others, but how we choose to do so. In this context, one must always remember that national interests reflect national character.

The UK does not believe that protectionist trade tariffs, strict labour laws, state controlled economies or heavy state regulation leads to a greater quality of life for our people. The history of our nation shows that our prosperity has been driven by the periods where we innovate, where we seek out new ideas and where we search the world for new markets. The wealth of our nation similarly should never be dependant on one single trading block. It is often forgotten that before the European Union the UK’s biggest trading market was India. Why it is that such a pattern could not re-emerge is one of many unanswered questions that the “Vote stay” movement has yet to address.

The security of our nation has been achieved through the strength of our national endeavours. No foreign-armed force has landed on the British islands in over 300 years and when left alone to defend our citizens rights abroad, we have shown our ability to act unilaterally to protect them. Many mistakenly associate peace in Europe with the European Union. This is wrong. Peace in Europe has been achieved by NATO and de-facto by America. The “Special relationship”, for all its failings, has always been the recognition by Britain that Europe lacks the motivation internally to unite collectively in its own self-defence. If evidence of that were ever needed, the use of NATO in the Balkans and the European reliance on new US armoured brigades in Eastern Europe, provide two immediate examples (there are of course others). The Freedom of our nation therefore will always rely, first and foremost, on our own efforts and our relationship with the US. As to threats of terrorism and transnational crime, it is often forgotten that the UK’s worst period of terrorism came during the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland. If at the height of the cold war our allies were unwilling to help us when it conflicted with their national interest, it seems disingenuous (to say the least) that this will change in the future.

The challenge facing those who campaign to leave has been to explain “what comes next”. Setting aside the unchallenged assumption that staying in Europe will ensure that the UK follows a clear and predictable path for 20 years, it is not unreasonable to say that a vote to leave also requires a plan on how to leave and what should happen after we leave. As with all well laid plans, few survive contact with reality. Assumptions of behaviour and of processes are notoriously challenging even where precedents exist, let alone where they do not. But setting these aspects aside, a strategy for the UK would go as follows.

Following a vote to leave the UK will not immediately leave the EU. This is the reality and yet it appears often ignored. The UK will enter into a period of negotiation on the terms of our exit, while remaining in the Union. The negotiations are likely to require 4-5 years and, in essence, they will require the UK to accept EU governance for its companies who wish to trade in Europe. Conversely, European firms who wish to trade in the UK will have to follow English laws and governance. As most global regulation is increasingly being harmonised, over time there will remain few significant differences in regulation between the two. On immigration, the UK will move to a points based system. In so doing, it will significantly ease work and residency related visa requirements for Australian, New Zealand, US and Canadian nationals. Over time, these restrictions are likely to be expanded to other commonwealth states as their levels of development increasingly reach parity with our own.

From a trade perspective, we will work with the WTO to expand its effort for a new set of global standards and a reduction in global trade restrictions. We will also explore deals with ASEAN and other regional markets across the world. Such action was how we once thrived. We will re-discover this talent, as many of our young entrepreneurs already are doing.

At the International level, the UK will continue to sit and act in partnership with European nations. We will join with Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, New Zealand (and occasional the USA and Japan) as part of the EU+ grouping which exists within the major multilateral banks and other international organisations. On security matters, we will remain committed to the defence of Europe and particularly Eastern Europe, where we have already increased our presence and where we played an instrumental role in bringing these nations into both the EU and NATO. For issues of transnational crime, a bilateral extradition agreement will be made with the EU as part of our terms of exit. On this last matter, there is little disagreement between the EU and the UK and little incentive from either party to prevent such an outcome.

This is the case for BREXIT. A UK that remains a friend and partner of Europe, whilst remaining an independent nation state that pursues the best interests of its people on its own terms. To “Vote leave” is not a rejection of liberal values and a statement of disregard for the well-being of Europeans. Instead, it is a re-assertion of the well known principle that the best form of governance is self-governance. It is time British people remembered this principle.

To my countrymen and women, whatever your opinion, please make sure that you vote on 23rd June. This is our future and I hope you vote to leave with me.

In defence of Airstrikes

Yesterday, Wednesday the 2nd of December, the United Kingdom formally approved plans to strike Daesh/ISIS targets in Syria. The vote in the House of Commons was a resounding majority in favour of action, with over 60 defections from the Labour party, led by Hillary Benn, whose speech is being touted as one of the great speeches of the House of Commons itself.

Yet the vote has re-awakened in the UK the debate about the nation’s role in foreign wars, and specifically whether we should be militarily involved in the Middle East at all.

It is important at times like this to reflect on why the UK public is so strongly resistant to military engagement abroad. The legacy of the 2003 decision to invade Iraq and the memory of significant casualties from the war in Afghanistan, have taught the British general public to be cynical of politicians when they talk of the necessity for action. But while a certain dose of cynicism is necessary to tamper the effects of jingoistic tendencies, there is also the risk that excessive cynicism paralyzes necessary action.

The war against ISIS is a war which, as of today, cannot be won in its present form. To defeat ISIS requires a broad, internationally accepted strategy for how to resolve the conflict in Syria. This is not only lacking, but further; the goodwill to achieve this end is deteriorating. Yet it is also always important to reflect that inaction and inactivity is a policy response to events, and that inaction carries consequences with it as well.

Many in the British public appear to be unaware that the British military have been engaged in attacks against ISIS in Iraq for many months, as a result of a public request by the Iraqi government for military assistance to fight ISIS. Moreover the attacks against ISIS have UN Security Council approval and have involved a large group of major parties, not normally known for mutual cooperation.

When the British public see Daesh, they see Al Qaeda. This is a problem because it is not true. The constituent audiences and values have many similarities, but they are separate political movements with separate desired outcomes. Again I emphasise, these are political movement’s not religious ones. The actions of ISIS are to engage those from the global Muslim population who feel disenfranchised and disposed, and to channel that frustration towards political aims. Those who therefore feel that airstrikes are the key source of recruitment, or perhaps simply a major source of recruitment, miss the point entirely. The campaign to persuade young Muslims from committing acts of violence cannot be won without addressing much more pressing, underlying societal issues. Airstrikes or no, these individuals will use violence against those they perceive to be the source of their frustrations and that will continue to be the US, the western world and their allies.

But while airstrikes may not win wars, they can certainly play significant roles within them. We must not forget that ISIS advances against Baghdad and into Kurdish controlled Iraq were only halted due to western military airstrikes. Had these not occurred, millions more people would be living under the savagery of the ISIS state.

The choice of the word state is intentional. ISIS defines itself and its being through the control of territory and through its ability to perform civic, state-like, functions. If ISIS are not able to control or administer their territory they lose their Raison D’etre and their Modus Vivendi. Here then is where airstrikes are essential. Crippling communications between ISIS administered territories and preventing their mobilisation of military units, which may be necessary to launch large, coordinated offences, are concrete measures which airstrikes can achieve.

While airstrikes are often tarnished by the US legacy in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and the legacy of Libya after the allied airstrikes, we must not forget that each situation is different and that there are times where military force has played decisive roles. If we consider Britain’s involvement in Sierra Leone, which was essential to defeating the RUF, or the French military action in northern Mali which prevented the country being split into two. We could also reflect on whether the war in the Balkans would have ended when it did, without the pressure exerted on Serbian forces due to NATO airstrikes.

So to the last line of defence for those opposing airstrikes, civilian casualties. Yes they will happen and yes we will be blamed for them. This is an unavoidable fact of war and a fact which ISIS no doubt wishes to fully exploit. However it is also an unavoidable reality that the longer ISIS as an entity survives and controls territory, greater numbers of civilians will be tortured, raped and murdered. Our unwillingness to risk civilian casualties does not prevent this fact. Furthermore, the simple matter that emergency food aid and medical supplies cannot reach ISIS controlled territories is already causing civilian casualties and human suffering. Our inaction has therefore already cost others their lives and their dignity.

The UK has made a decision and now we must come to terms with it. Our actions may seem small, but they serve a purpose. The real challenge now is for our society to reflect within itself why joining ISIS and providing support for the entity is so attractive for many of our fellow citizens and others across the world. Our failure to reflect on this discontentment and anger is the great failing of our current political leadership. We must ensure it does not continue.

The West have abandoned the victims of MH17

On the 17th July 2014, a regularly scheduled Malaysia Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed with the loss of all 283 Passengers and 15 crew. The scale of the losses immediately gave way to a vicious war of words and incriminatory statements from the various parties to the Ukraine conflict, each desperate to secure “their narrative” of what happened to MH17, as the officially accepted (i.e. globally recognised) statement.

But as the old saying goes “the truth wins out” and on the 13th of October the long awaited report from the Dutch Safety Board confirmed what had long been suspected, but vehemently contested. The crash was confirmed as being the direct consequence of a Ground-to-air missile strike from a Russian made BUK missile system, launched from an area that was known to be under “Rebel Control” in East Ukraine at the time. In fact the only reason Russia was not explicitly given a greater or more direct share of the blame in the report is because the Russian contributors to the report explicitly vetoed it.

At this point in an ideal world, the matter would have been settled. Russia would be forced to admit that rebel groups had shot down the plane (whether by accident or intent) and to issue an apology to the families of the deceased. Perhaps compensation may have occurred, but more fundamentally both sides would have recognised the event (most likely) as a tragedy incurred during a civil war and world powers would likely have had to make a renewed commitment to exercising significant restraint in the sale and/or transfer of sophisticated military technology to 3rd parties.

It is perhaps a sad indictment of our current world that the actual response has been so different.

Before the report had even been published, the defence company that produces the BUK missiles had been on TV to give a press statement rebutting any suggestions the missile could have been Russian. Moreover, Russian commentators and press outlets eagerly republished any and all commentaries, however fanciful (and often blatantly wrong) they could find to discredit the work of the Dutch Safety board.

But while Russia’s behaviour is perhaps its “new-normal” and its misinformation/disinformation campaign something that is increasingly inevitable, the response from the EU and NATO has been unforgiveable.

When all is said and done, 193 Dutch citizens and multiple other EU and NATO nationals died because of a conflict created and sustained by the Russian Government. If the whole purpose of defence unions and political unions is to protect the rights, life’s and liberties of their citizens, then both institutions have clearly failed.

Instead of crippling EU led business sanctions and a global campaign to ostracise Russia in every global forum until they accept responsibility for the incident, it has been left to the Americans to launch the most aggressive sanctions while Europe dithered. Almost inexcusably, German economic interests in Russia very nearly prevented the sanctions in place to date, while other EU nations like Greece have actively courted Russian politicians for domestic gains.

What seems to have been lost in the political calculations of EU policy makers and commentators, who appear to have swiftly dropped interest in Ukraine in favour of halting the refugees from the Syria crisis, is the dangerous symbolism of tolerating Russia’s disinformation campaign. EU leaders may not be able to find all the evidence they want from the crash site, nor can they use the UN Security Council to launch an official investigations (though Malaysia tried and lost to Russia’s veto), but there are other options.

Firstly it is important to recognise that MH17 is globally considered to be an absolute tragedy, for which Malaysia, The Netherlands and Malaysia Airlines are globally recognised as having no hand in orchestrating. This is important. Global recognition of Russian culpability would be tantamount to global evidence that countries who sign deals with Russia and companies that do business with the Russian government, are tacitly supporting a nation that kills innocent civilians and then lies and attempts to apportion blame to others.

The testimony to how powerful this recognition is, lies in the extensive propaganda efforts Kremlin controlled media outlets have exercised to deny this outcome. Furthermore, recognition that Russia lies about atrocities that it commits would significantly undermine the credibility of Russian media both internationally and domestically, thus further weakening Russian soft power.

At every opportunity, at every forum and in every communiqué the leaders of Europe should take the chance to remind the world that Russia is lying to obscure its role in a massacre of innocent EU citizens. Some may say I’m naive for believing that words alone can make any meaningful impact on either Russia’s media policy or on finding justice for the families of the deceased. To them I say the following:

If we are to fail in our endeavours, we should fail knowing we tried. It is not possible in life to always get the outcome you want, but if Europe’s leaders truly value the life’s of their citizens and believe in Justice, Russian disinformation cannot be allowed to continue without public rebuke at every and all opportunities at every level of Europe’s political structure.

Secondly, they key to winning a war of narratives is consistency and persistency of your message across any and all mediums. The MH17 case is in many sense a unique opportunity to draw back the veil of Russia’s “trolling” campaign against opponents of the Kremlin’s narrative. Not only are the facts clear and available for all to see, but the consequences are also clearly known and internationally accepted as unacceptable and unforgiveable. Consistent repetition of the truth behind MH17 by all NATO members and EU nation states to all governments, firms and individuals, who have an interest and engagement with Russia, is a weapon of unimaginable power in this fight. It just isn’t being used.

It is difficult to write about the political consequences of a tragedy and harder still to argue that the event itself must be used to achieve certain outcomes. A fear of “devaluing the dead” or using a tragedy for “political purposes” often carries toxic connotations and in many cases this is rightly so.

But while I do not see our world as perfect, I do object when we fail to change those things which our within our realm to change. Russia’s involvement in Ukraine directly led to the deaths of all the passengers and crew of MH17 and while the perpetrators may never see trial, the world must never forget or allow the truth to be distorted away from this simple truth. That would be equally tragic.

Who is a Citizen anyway?

And what does it take to become one?

Across the world the topic of citizenship is more alive than at any other time since perhaps the end of the cold war, or even WWII. Watching the ongoing European migration crisis, Donald Trump’s speeches on Mexico, Nicolas Maduro’s condemnation of “Illegal Colombian” refugees, Australia’s policy to “boat people” and Myanmar’s exclusion of the “Rohingya”from its latest census efforts, it is clear that it’s not just Europe that is grappling with the issue of identity.

Since the treaties of Westphalia in post-medieval European history, the role of people and organisations has been defined by a “state-centred” view of the world. “We”, in the sense of the global body politik, became attached to the concept of a “nationality” or more simply an identity based on a combination of geographical proximity and the ethereal notion of “shared values” (whatever that phrase may in fact mean). But in a world where communication is not constrained by geography and where nations are rarely culturally “homogeneous” (if again they ever were), it seems that what makes a “citizen” is no longer clear. At least not to me.

Take for example the position of an EU citizen who chooses to work in the UK. They may study in the UK for many years, speak the language fluently, and eventually take a job there. During this time they have access to medical services from the UK, the security provided by the Police, fire brigade, intelligence services and so forth. They may even decide to marry a non-UK national and buy a home in the UK too. But after all of this, if they do not “apply” for UK citizenship, they cannot vote in the UK General Election. In fact, those who may have followed this pattern for the last 20 years (and paid taxes) are still not entitled to vote in the UK Referendum on the EU either. Even UK nationals living abroad in Europe, paying taxes and with ties to the UK may be “disqualified” from voting if they live for a certain time out of the country. Nor – I hasten to add – is this a UK only phenomenon.

Examining this, the obvious question comes: “what qualifications must one have to be a citizen”?

Is residency sufficient? Certainly many of those who have lived illegally in OECD nations (i.e. without official approval), may well become “citizens” by virtue of residency for a prolonged period. Being born in a nation (if if you do not reside there), is also sufficient grounds for “citizenship” in many countries too.

What about “cultural affinity”? Many Citizenship tests require people to speak the host language, recite parts of the country’s history and demonstrate an awareness of that nation’s “values”, often followed by a form of commitment or pledge, America perhaps being one of the more famous examples.

How about “attachment to the nation”? Those with family, spouses, historical links and even in some cases religious ties (see Israel), can also qualify as “Citizens” without any of the above mentioned criteria.

But, you may be asking, “why does this matter”?

Citizenship matters because, for better or worse, we live and function in a world that is still defined by nations. Our laws are written by nations, our careers and treatment abroad are defined by our “National identity” and our ability to change the way our world functions is still largely constrained to working within the constraints of our governments. In short, regardless of our preferences, our nationality and our “citizenship” is important.

But if citizenship matters, then how do we define it and how do “we” as citizens of our nation states define who else is “eligible” to be a citizen? Perhaps one of the aforementioned criteria, a blend of factors or maybe you, the reader, have your own view. One thing is for certain though, no-single definition is universally recognisable.

So if we must have citizens and citizenship must be given based on criteria which few agree with unanimously, then how do we evolve and adapt to the modern world?

This is no insignificant question and more fundamentally, this is the single major question which helps to explain why the issues of migration (illegal, asylum, refugee, etc) are so divisive within nations. It is one thing to say that those in need should receive help. That is a proposition which few disagree with, including all Europeans (though it may not be so clear to see). The issue however is not “helping those in need” or even deciding “who can work for a period, but rather at what point do those who have come to your nation seeking help, safety, work or a better life, have a “right” to become a “citizen” and what obligations are we, as citizens, under to those who we accept to reside within our borders? This question forms one of the core concerns voiced by those Eastern European nations who opposed quotas as well as those engaged in the Australian government‘s immigration policy.

Many in Syria are in desperate need. That is certainly true. But it is also the case that those refugees who are now residing in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and other neighboring states are in many cases (if not all), safe from the immediate risk of violence which forced them to flee. Given that, is it not reasonable to ask why a Syrian family who suffers should have any greater claim to reside and become an EU citizen than an Internally displaced Kivu family from the Congo or a Rohingya family forced to flee from Rahkinese authorities?

As the Guardian recently opined in respect of Syrian refugees “the US is shielded from the humanitarian dilemma by a stroke of geographic luck”, yet there are many nations which could equally deserve that description (the UK being one). But is “Geographic luck” really the ultimate determinant of who can become a “citizen”?

While I will not profess to have a holistic answer to such an all encompassing question, I will suggest the following. If we are to have “criteria” for citizenship, then let them be applied equally to all, irrespective of origin. I do not see why it is appropriate that a refugee from Syria is any more eligible than one from any other conflict, nor do I see why an EU citizen should have greater access to the “perks of citizenship” across the EU than other citizens of OECD nations (as just one example).

Why is it right that a citizen from Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the US should find it harder to live, work and study in the UK than a citizen from any EU nation? Surely one cannot claim that some supposed sense of “EU citizenship” is of greater cultural significance than shared heritage, shared heads of states (in some cases), shared language and shared social/corporate practises?

Citizenship and its connotations are inevitably ugly because by their nature they are divisive, as they were intended to be. But if we must live with them, then we must at least strive to apply their principles equally and fairly.

Quirks of geography, the whim of the press or prevailing public sentiment, appeals to narrowly held “fundamental beliefs” and politicised appeals to “solidarity”, are poor arguments with which to dispel the principles of fairness and justice.