Shock, horror, apparently, as we have just learnt from recent revelations by whistle blower Snowden that the US ' intel services' actually spy on people, moreover, they spy on their allies and friends - UK, France, Germany and now Spain. Chancellor Merkel is not happy, President Hollande is unamused, while Premier Cameron is just plain bemused. Surely, did the international community really believe that the US spend billions every year on cutting edge computerised listening systems that then closes its ears to conversations had by close political relations? After all every nation-state is potentially a rival if not a threat to American hegemony. However, what this recent exposure has reopened is the debate about the notions of personal freedom; the opportunity to contact people and converse in private without that communication being intercepted, identified and interfered with. Moreover, that the substance of this conversation remains secure - freedom from oppression, freedom to express oneself. What the NSA has developed thanks to huge technological leaps is just a more sophisticated, super sensitive, mega quick version of listening systems that have been with us ever since the Second World War. Consequently, this present level of intrusion has been around for at least a decade, all that has changed is that we have just woken up to the fact. In justification, 'Everybody spies on everybody' has become the current cliché, but is that true? Is it legal? Is it ethical? Is it essential?

Firstly, some context, if you compare the NSA's reach, in other words, their facility and ability to collect meta-data and to tap into more detailed and more focused surveillance with other nations intel systems then it is like placing bows and arrows next to ICBM's - the NSA out guns all other similar facilities many, many times over. Since, providing protection for American interests not only includes the obvious economic, commercial and financial assets it also covers scientific, military research and development.  Moreover, the UK's equivalent to the NSA - GCHQ - offers a helping hand by being connected to the NSA; providing an essential link for European intel into Washington, Why? Because in return the US passes on certain elements of intel to London plus it assists with the ongoing development of GCHQ via the latest software and computer upgrades. This is indeed where the 'special relationship' is truly special. This is all operated under that all incorporating banner of nation-state security.                
Hence, ethics and the essential nature of this behaviour is not really considered since justification is always driven by that overriding sense of the need to 'be safe'. But from what? Maybe it is from the very same 'intel agencies' that have developed their own sense of rationality and reasoning that often equates, paradoxically, to a process of constantly being listened to, whilst, ultimately, no one taking account of what we say or mean. This indeed is an extension of post modernity - nothing really matters but the 'hear' and now. 

KK 

One of many issues that have puzzled me over the years when studying the US is its claim to be one of 'the most developed democracies in the World'. Strange, since in effect with the odd exception, throughout its history the US has been a two party state. Now, being a Brit I'm used to at least three political parties if not four whereas elsewhere in Europe there are nation-states that have numerous representatives wearing different colours and emblems in an attempt to cover the diverse nature of their society as well as offering some balance of power. Moreover, democracy is a combination of many things, but it is not just about voting as we continue to see in many 'developed dictatorships'. What it is really about is a political body that is organised in such a way that it truly represents the 'will of the people'. Even taking into account that the two main parties in the US - the Republicans and the Democrats - are very broad churches, just having the 'elephants' and the 'donkeys' surely does not offer representation to the whole of today's United States political animal kingdom. Well, help may have finally arrived at the Washington circus. After the recent political nonsense over the budget and the debt ceiling it seems the American general public took a rather dim view of Republican tactics, so much so that many within the GOP are openly talking about splitting from the Tea Party. With mid term elections due next year there is growing concern as to the radical nature of the Tea Party members and their destructive intent. So, we could have a split between conservatives; offering an alternative right wing party, bearing mind that there no real left wing representation and when they call politicians centrists they mean in European terms, right of centre because there is no real political spectrum. But, the development of a new party could be a step forward.  What animal title would we nominate for this new independent tea party? How about Dinosaurs!  

As the nation-state came close to defaulting on its debts last week Detroit, Michigan - once with a population of 2 million people, famously known as 'Motown' is now down to just 700,000 and with debts of anything between $18 and $20 bn - had not only filed for bankruptcy but has also asked for protection from its creditors. The court case starts today. Now why does this matter? Well, if protection is given Detroit would not have to honour its pension payments to huge numbers of retired policemen and women, firemen and other public employees of the city. The repercussions are significant since Detroit is not the only US city without money as places such as Providence, Rhode Island and San Diego are watching on with nervous interest. At present counties and cities across the United States have $574bn unfunded pension obligations, in other words, no money to cover this long term financial commitment. Now you might ask how can cities within this most 'democratically developed nation' get to this position? Could we imagine London or Brussels going or being allowed to go bust ?  I have a suggestion let us ask the donkeys, the elephants and the newly appointed dinosaurs to meet up, once again, on 'the Hill' and agree another increase in the debt ceiling so they can help cities like Detroit from defaulting. Seriously, this most recent development is not really about the demise of these once proud cities, but the effects this could have on hundreds of thousands of retired American citizens. Moreover, it offers more evidence that the US political circus, whatever its make up, is no longer representing a nation-state that continues to be under real economic stress.                      

Is it just my imagination or did I recently witness US politicians and other interested observers 'celebrating' the fact that Congress  had finally agreed to increase its debt ceiling to a projected $ 17.5tn - this should allow the federal government to function until the middle of January 2014 ?  Their political spatial awareness as they pass through the 'Washington looking glass' in search of reality is truly impressive ! But I guess from a practical perspective the need to keep the show on the road regardless of the fact that the long term viability of this system is looking increasingly precarious is still an essential part of the US political system.

Neo liberal or free market capitalism if you wish -a US invention - is distorting and disintegrating society, not in a monumental explosive fashion but in a way that can still be disguised by moving backwards and forwards in between the space that is real for the majority of us and the space that only exists in the minds of people that make money from money. In other words, the value of a commodity or a material is determined not by its real demand, but by market traders who artificially create profit by buying and selling without seeing the goods or services, understanding the product, or ever realising the significance of their actions as they effectively place millions of people's livelihoods in jeopardy because the market rules and they rule the market - ethics is after all just for 'whimps...'   

This latest deregulated version of capitalism is based on two main considerations; debt and dependency. This is a high stakes game that only allows the high rollers to participate.  The US government needs to keep spending since their economy equates to a quarter of the World's GDP. If they stop everything slows down or stops.  Unfortunately, the revenue obtained by the US government through taxation and other earnings is not sufficient to match the spending required to support an economy that supports an international system that demands we keep consuming even when we cannot afford too - where is the Mad Hatter when you need him ! But do not worry as long as the US can continue to borrow money that they have little chance of repaying, then 'everything will be ok'  Well, no actually.

The principal by product of this continuation of a system that demands unsustainable consumption fuelled by money that keeps being printed by the Fed - quantitative easing  - for you students of economics is that the richer continue to benefit since they can afford to play in this story of fantasy whilst the less fortunate find that in their reality they have not even been invited to the 'tea party' since they are now earning less, are paid a pittance for their toil or are employed then unemployed during large tracts of insecurity. The evidence; Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy etc and of course, the US where this growing economic inequality continues to drive social unrest especially amongst the young. Washington does not tax the very people who can afford to pay enough. This effectively means that the US is too big to fail and too blind to see that their continuing financial policies are leading to another disaster, even more potent than 2008. But who will be ultimately effected by this myopia ? Certainly not the 'Masters of the Universe' better known  in Washington as Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

KK     

                        

As we stand amazed, bemused and befuddled at the latest Washington soft shoe shuffle that is being danced to the tune of the debt ceiling what becomes increasingly apparent is the inability of the federal government to run a washing machine let alone the most 'powerful' nation-state in the World.  Who or what is to blame if anyone, if any one thing for this latest farrago ? What does it tell us about the contemporary condition of this pre-eminent nation-state ?  What does it tell us about the power of the presidency?

Primarily, this political impasse has little to do with money but everything to do with power, recognition and identity. The Republicans are, seemingly, holding the nation to ransom over the implementation of Obamacare by stopping the government from borrowing more money - they have already managed to halt further government spending. However, these radical conservatives(the Tea Party) who are at the heart of this latest dispute are playing for high stakes, they are in essence fighting for the survival of their understanding of what the US stands for and what to be an American actual means. Paradoxically, they trying to keep hold of a vision of the US that has already passed by if it ever existed in the first place; a United States that practised as well as preached a sense of freedom and justice that promoted and protected the assumed benefits and 'natural rights' of Anglo Saxon superiority. This sense of racist elitism that continues to be smuggled via a narrative of traditional values, histories and declared destinies is a ideological distortion of a contemporary society that continues to draw its imagination, innovation and reinvigoration from immigration.

The gradual growth of Hispanic and Asian influences in American society is undoubtedly altering, adjusting and reconfiguring the United States as this ability for the nation to reinvent itself has always been one of their real sources of power. So, if these so called traditionalists really want 'their nation-state' to remain pre-eminent -a community that continues to offer fresh and just ideals - they should embrace this latest series of societal developments and stop trying to relive a history of their na that only survives in the minds of insulationists and bigots.                      

KK

As the two covert military interventions this weekend in Somalia and Libya demonstrated the US remains committed to harassing, capturing or terminating the promoters and providers of  terrorism. Abu Anas al Liby an alleged Al Qaeda member, who also allegedly masterminded the 1998 US Embassy attacks in Africa was seized in Tripoli by members of the US forces. The Libyan government were not asked for permission or informed before this action was taken. Also on Saturday another US commando team attempted to capture Ikrima - a member of Al Sabab in Southern Somalia - seen as responsible for the recent attack on the shopping mall in Kenya. The Somalian government was also not informed or permission sought before this action was taken.

The US Secretary of State John Kerry, talking today observed that the Libyan action was 'legal and appropriate'. Yet this begs the question as to whether 'undeclared' US overseas intervention into the affairs and the citizens of other nation-states is lawful and warranted? The State department would argue that they did not seek permission or inform the respective governments since they did not trust that this information would remain confidential, moreover, in capturing individuals such as Anas al Liby that they were acting in 'self defence' - a legal action recognised by UN charter - and/or capturing a 'wanted man' that had already committed crimes against the US. Therefore, do these actions translate into 'because the US has the ability and facility to trap and trace these individuals that they have the right as well as the might to act in this manner'? Will this man be accorded the rights of an arrested civilian individual? Does the US in effect possess an uncontested international warrant to arrest who they wish, when they wish?  Will Al Liby be tried in a US civilian court? Or should he be brought before a court in his own country? Does all this matter since if the US has identified these individuals then surely they are responsible for the terrorists acts outlined and confirmed by the Justice Department ? Hence, the process becomes somewhat irrelevant, the ability to stop these individuals becomes the only real principle !

However....
If we continue to argue that the 'Western World' led by the US offers a 'exceptional' sense of freedom that is linked to the legal rights and responsibilities of the individual and this is why we fight against the destructive forces of terrorism then is it not also true that our behaviour overseas should be measured in a manner that supports this claim? After all is it not also worth observing that the continued sustainability of our 'social model' is ultimately decided by its sustained legal and moral legitimacy?

KK