Some Reflections on the State of World Affairs

As the US President, Barack Obama undertakes diplomatic visits to Ireland, Britain, France and Poland, the nagging question that demands an answer is whether European states are losing their sovereignty?

One of the cardinal attributes of a sovereign, independent state is its ability to sustain an economic system that would enable the state to meet its domestic and international economic obligations.

When it becomes very obvious that a state can no longer sustain its citizen’s welfare and becomes dependent on external bail-outs to maintain state obligations, such a heavily indebted state loses its most important attribute of economic sovereign.

Under international law, the rights and duties of states as well as their responsibilities are well- defined. Every state must adhere to the terms of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights as contained in UN Declaration on human rights of 1948.
Everyone must enjoy economic, social and cultural as well as political and civil rights. These rights must be respected, otherwise the citizens have a right to have recourse to rebellion against tyranny and oppression. as we have recently witnessed in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Greece, Portugal Libya, Spain, France, Lesotho, South Africa etc

Periodic elections are necessary but they do not create the assurance that democratic economic, social, cultural, political and civil rights become automatically assured. Well-ordered elections do not mean that the government so elected, will perform. It is mere compliance with the requirements of democratic practice, which has been accepted universally.

European nations like Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, Greece, Britain and France are precariously perching on economic upheavals as a result of their inability to compete in the new world economic system in which China, Russia, India and the Asean nations now rule the economic waves.
Relying on the World Bank, the IMF and the European Central Bank by some European satate is sending frightening signals that the economic position of Europe is unstable.

Colonial exploitation has ended, imperialism is dead and buried with little hope of resurrection. Their currencies, which they have foisted on the international system are now been resisted by China and other states. The roles of the IMF and the World Bank are being subjected to criticisms and rejection.

While the Europeans eloquently talk to themselves , they ignore opinion from other states in Asia, Africa and Latin America, they create a concentric filibustering that solves no economic problems.

In Europe, the EURO is partially accepted by Britain, while some members of the EU are not quite sure how stable it will be. There appears to be a disconnect being governmental policies and the strongly held views of the various Governors of European Central Banks.
The United States prefers remissions to be made to Nigeria in dollars and not in Euros, which has led to protestations by some European Central Banks.

As the US President Barrack Obama visits Ireland, Britain and some European states, he will be faced with economic, diplomatic and political problems, which concern Europeans and the thorny Middle East relations between the Palestinians and Israel.

Riding high on his recent political achievements at home, Obama is in a strong position to impress his world-views on international affairs before the evaporation of his the incandescent outpourings from the zodiac. After a heart-beat visit to his ancestral home in Ireland, Queen Elizabeth received him cordially. His speech to the joint Houses of parliament marked a significant milestone in Anglo/American relations.

He obtained the support of the British Government on his conviction as to what the two states of Palestine and Israel will look like. Before he visited Europe, he addressed the AIPAC, which seemed to accept his proposals for a settlement of the Palestinian/Israeli crisis.
There is agreement that Israel cannot be expected to deal with any party that does not recognise its existence as a sovereign independent state. The legitimacy of Israel is not a subject for debate. Self defense is an attribute of sovereignty.

To ask Israel to respect the 1967 borders as a result of changed circumstances must be hinged upon ‘ironclad security assurances.
I would urge the US President to rethink the problem involved in encouraging rebels to overthrow their governments by force of arms. A dangerous precedent could be created that could weaken world peace.

As Obama arrived Europe, Spanish protesters have been staging violent protests over unemployment and lack of economic opportunities that could escalate if Bask separatists join the struggle.

Also, in Georgia, violent demonstrations, Libyan style, are calling on their President to resign. Would it be proper for the Russian Republic to come to the aid of the rebels and begin to bomb Georgian cities?
After all, as Euclid posited, “Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to one another” As the West dislkes Ghaddafi, so the Russians hate the Georgian President.

If the Russians were to invade Georgia in order to aid the rebels, European and American governments may not find the moral high grounds to comment on the situation?

The world did not end on May 21, 2011. The hang-over from the expectation led me to look steadily on the white ash that was spewing from the Icelandic region.

Written by
Emmanuel Omoh Esiemokhai
Join the discussion

1 comment
  • Professor Esiemokhai, I disagree with the analogy you draw between Libya and Georgia. In Libya, Gadhaffi overthrows a monarch and then proceeds to rule as a monarch for 42 years, with plans to install his son as his successor regardless of the feelings of the Libyan people, as if he and only he constitutes the will and people of Libya. The Libyan people tell him in unmistaken terms that they are tired of him and that he should go. He could either go, as the Yoruba obas used to do in the old days when their people tell them that they are tired of them, or he could for the first time in his 42-year rule test his popularity at the polls. He does neither; instead like a blood-thirsty tyrant he not only threatens them with death and destruction, he actually proceeds to carry out his threat by sending his soldiers to kill defenseless protesters. At this point, he was rightly told that he could not continue to kill defenseless protestors. The plea fell on deaf ears, hence the need for intervention. In contrast to Libya, in Georgia, an elected government is in office. Those who are protesting against the government have the right to do so, but they cannot violently remove it from office. While they can protest all they want, they must wait for the next election to remove the government from office. In the one, you have a self-installed tyrant ready to kill fellow citizens to continue family rule; in the other you have a democratically elected government.