Getting back to democracy and related issues. In this blog, I will opine on a rather local issue. Voting for the President of the US in Massachusetts.
The US is a federal system with distributed power shared among the states. For the most part states can set their own laws so long as they don't contradict the Constitution. Inter-state commerce and related activity is governed by the federal government and so on. States have their priorities that may differ from other states. States come in various sizes, small and large. It may be obvious that larger states in the absence of any laws can influence smaller states, inequalities may prevail. Thus the framers of the US constitution made provisions to provide some "fairness" in the governance of the nation. For example, a bicarmel legislature with the Senate providing equality for the states no matter what size and the House of Representatives having representation bases on population.
And so it is with the election of the President. In the US, technically, the states elect the president not the people. Which in my opinion works just fine. The Electoral College is a set of representatives from each state that casts ballots for the President. How the representatives vote is totally dependent on state laws. In some cases, in most, all the electoral votes go to the winner in that state. In other states, the electoral votes are divided based on the vote of the population, so if 60% of the people vote for Candidate A, the Candidate A gets 60% of the electoral votes for that state. And obviously there may be other ways of selecting the votes of the electoral college for a state.
Why is this fair, at least in my opinion? It allows power sharing among the diversity of the nation. Consider the example of a state the has the majority of the population of the nation, say for example California, then during a presidential election all activity would be focused on one state, they rest of the country would become irrelevant. While the dominance of one state may not be realistic, the dominance of several states is realistic. Consider, California, Texas and New York, these states can dominate a presidential elections. Thus people living in much smaller states essentially have very little impact on the election.
This is where the electoral college comes in. Each state has votes proportional to the population of that state. More populous states have more votes, less populous states have less votes. But, and this is important, no state or a few states have enough votes to dominate an election. The election of the President of the United States is a country-wide event. All regions have input into the selection of the President.
So we come to Massachusetts. A couple of years ago a law was passed whereby all the electoral college votes from Massachusetts will go to the candidate who has the most votes in the country. To me this means that Massachusetts is making itself irrelevant in a Presidential election. From a personnel perspective, mine, why bother voting if you live in Massachusetts. The electoral college votes from Massachusetts are determined by the rest of the country not by the good citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Is this democracy at work? I certainly don't think so. At best it is a good example of rational thinking gone awry. Let's hope that the good people of the Massachusetts legislature come to their senses and change the law so that we, citizens of Massachusetts, again have impact on Presidential elections.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Democracy
One notion that has always fascinated me is the nature of democracy. Like many abstract philosophical items, everyone has an opinion but no one has a clear definition. Clearly, one of the main aspects of democracy is voting. So be it. But is voting the main prerequisite for democracy? Voting for what? Was the US a democratic country when slavery was allowed? When women could not vote? Is a nation democratic when only a percentage of the population can vote?
I won't have clear cut answers, just a list of observations and I welcome feedback.
While not a definitive source, wikipedia does have interesting text. Accordingly,
"While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution."
Let us recall that Plato, going back to the birth of democracy in Greece, was not very fond of democracy. He called it the rule of the mob, meaning that democracy very much controlled not by rational thinking but immediate emotional responses. In other words you elect people who look nice and tell you what you want to hear.
Clearly democracy seems to entail people electing a set of representatives to govern them, along with a chief administrator be it a president or a prime minister. Leaders are not institutionalized, meaning they are not like kings where the leader is a heriditary positions. Leaders are not bound by family name to be next in line.
So why is this interesting?
Currently there are some interesting elections that will occur in the near future. The most publicized are the US and Russia. Of course there are many other elections occurring due to the Arab Spring manifestations. Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, all electing leaders through a mostly untampered process. Furthermore, the financial crisis in Europe has developed into a philosophical debate about democracy and capitalism.
In a recent article in the Atlantic, the notion of democracy in the EU is questioned
With the financial crisis, the debt crisis, and the worldwide coverage of Occupy Wall Street, capitalism has been under fire publicly for quite some time in Europe. Since the debt crisis started to show real potential for damaging the euro zone, both the euro and the European Union have had their futures dissected as well. The question has been this: can the European federal project survive the debt crisis? But now, that question is being repeated with a more melodramatic substitution: can democracy survive the debt crisis?
One of my objections is the notion that capitalism and democracy are somehow joined at the hip. I believe you cam have a market-driven economy without democracy and similarly you can have democracy without capitalism. And in any case desperate times require desperate measures. Thus in times of crisis why not appoint leaders that are best suited for the job. And when a sense of normality returns have elections and restore democratic process with the hopeful understanding that people learn through adversity and would elect smarter leaders.
So we will see how all this plays out in the next few months. I'm certainly curious how the Russian elections play out, how much support Putin will actually get. Especially interested in the US elections, who the Republicans select. And Egypt, what kind of democracy can exists in a country dominated by religion. Not too long ago, nationalism and socialism was dominating the so-called third world, now it's religion.
Anyway, enough for now more to come. This is a very broad and interesting topic, and certainly of very immediate concern.
I won't have clear cut answers, just a list of observations and I welcome feedback.
While not a definitive source, wikipedia does have interesting text. Accordingly,
"While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution."
Let us recall that Plato, going back to the birth of democracy in Greece, was not very fond of democracy. He called it the rule of the mob, meaning that democracy very much controlled not by rational thinking but immediate emotional responses. In other words you elect people who look nice and tell you what you want to hear.
Clearly democracy seems to entail people electing a set of representatives to govern them, along with a chief administrator be it a president or a prime minister. Leaders are not institutionalized, meaning they are not like kings where the leader is a heriditary positions. Leaders are not bound by family name to be next in line.
So why is this interesting?
Currently there are some interesting elections that will occur in the near future. The most publicized are the US and Russia. Of course there are many other elections occurring due to the Arab Spring manifestations. Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, all electing leaders through a mostly untampered process. Furthermore, the financial crisis in Europe has developed into a philosophical debate about democracy and capitalism.
In a recent article in the Atlantic, the notion of democracy in the EU is questioned
With the financial crisis, the debt crisis, and the worldwide coverage of Occupy Wall Street, capitalism has been under fire publicly for quite some time in Europe. Since the debt crisis started to show real potential for damaging the euro zone, both the euro and the European Union have had their futures dissected as well. The question has been this: can the European federal project survive the debt crisis? But now, that question is being repeated with a more melodramatic substitution: can democracy survive the debt crisis?
One of my objections is the notion that capitalism and democracy are somehow joined at the hip. I believe you cam have a market-driven economy without democracy and similarly you can have democracy without capitalism. And in any case desperate times require desperate measures. Thus in times of crisis why not appoint leaders that are best suited for the job. And when a sense of normality returns have elections and restore democratic process with the hopeful understanding that people learn through adversity and would elect smarter leaders.
So we will see how all this plays out in the next few months. I'm certainly curious how the Russian elections play out, how much support Putin will actually get. Especially interested in the US elections, who the Republicans select. And Egypt, what kind of democracy can exists in a country dominated by religion. Not too long ago, nationalism and socialism was dominating the so-called third world, now it's religion.
Anyway, enough for now more to come. This is a very broad and interesting topic, and certainly of very immediate concern.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Another version of MAD?
During the Cold War, yes remember the Cold War, a time of peace and stability in comparison to today's "age of crises", a philosophy emerged regarding superpower politics. Known as MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), this policy prevented all out nuclear war by acknowledging the fact any attack by one country no matter how destructive would be matched in kind by the other country. Thus since there could never be a clear winner in a conflict, peace was achieved.
And now to the present.
Israel is acquiring 3 more submarines from Germany, for a total of 5 of these type of vessels. These Dolphin-class submarines are supposedly capable of firing missiles with nuclear capability. No doubt that this provides Israel with more insurance regarding any existential threat.
There is presumably one major threat to Israel currently, that being Iran. With Iran threating Israel, the concept of a more localized MAD starts making sense. Presumably, Iran is not irrational when dealing with its own survival, so with a multi-submarine threat Iran would not be so bold as to launch any missiles. On the other hand, diatribes by either side should not confuse the issue of actually taking any irreversible courses of action by either side. Talk as much as you want, but don't push any buttons.
Of course this brings us to a more fundamental question, given the proliferation of very sophisticated weapons systems, will the concept of a localized MAD philosophy proliferate to other regions. Rather then fighting a conventional war, nations will refrain from fighting simply because of mutual self-destruction? Can MAD work between nations of varying size? Can a much smaller nation prevent a larger nation from actions beneficial to the larger nation? In a world of cheap and available WMDs that may be the case.
And now to the present.
Israel is acquiring 3 more submarines from Germany, for a total of 5 of these type of vessels. These Dolphin-class submarines are supposedly capable of firing missiles with nuclear capability. No doubt that this provides Israel with more insurance regarding any existential threat.
There is presumably one major threat to Israel currently, that being Iran. With Iran threating Israel, the concept of a more localized MAD starts making sense. Presumably, Iran is not irrational when dealing with its own survival, so with a multi-submarine threat Iran would not be so bold as to launch any missiles. On the other hand, diatribes by either side should not confuse the issue of actually taking any irreversible courses of action by either side. Talk as much as you want, but don't push any buttons.
Of course this brings us to a more fundamental question, given the proliferation of very sophisticated weapons systems, will the concept of a localized MAD philosophy proliferate to other regions. Rather then fighting a conventional war, nations will refrain from fighting simply because of mutual self-destruction? Can MAD work between nations of varying size? Can a much smaller nation prevent a larger nation from actions beneficial to the larger nation? In a world of cheap and available WMDs that may be the case.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Brazil and the other BRICS
Stating the obvious, the world is changing, both in terms of politics and economics. The crises we face today impact how the world will look in the future. There is a movement away from the modern concepts of countries to post-modern views where power is relegated to non-governmental organizations. The centers of power are also very fluid, while the US is the dominant military power and probably will remain so for so time, simply because of its current stockpile of weapons and technology; it's military is dependent on the well-being of the countries economy. Economics dictates policy or at least it should. So how is economics changing the global perspective? This brings us to the BRICS.
BRICS is defined as a set of countries that, through their growing economies, are changing the centers of economic dominance. These are Brazil, Russia, India, China and added sometime later South Africa, B-R-I-C-S. I find that although grouping these countries together is an interesting concept, they are certainly in different leagues and probably make no sense being grouped together. India and China are in a league of their own. Each with over 1 billion people and large land mass, they in no way resemble the other countries. Russia is problematic. Extremely large land mass, a declining population and an economy highly dependent on commodities such as oil and gas, Russia has a multitude of social and economic infrastructure problems it needs to deal with. And South Africa is still evolving, more on that in a later blog. That brings us to Brazil.
I, for whatever reason, am highly optimistic about the rise of Brazil as an economic power. Clearly Brazil is blessed with natural resources. A large land mass and a large diverse population make Brazil a potential for sustained economic growth. But there is another factor that I think adds to Brazil's potential. Economics drives politics and politics drives economics. Both are linked and both play a role in defining success. Along with that is the nature of relationships a country can develop out sided it's own boundaries. For Brazil it is a common language that it shares with several other counties, specifically Portugal, Angola and Mozambique.
Angola and Mozambique are also blessed with natural resources and while Portugal does not have the scale of the other countries, it does provide a gateway into the EU. Just think of a greeter common bond then language, add to that religion. In the English-speaking world, the links between the UK, US, Canada and Australia are very strong. These links invite a strong sense of cooperation. There are other examples of language commonality that I will not dwell on but are obvious.
Brazil being the largest of these economies can become a major power by cultivating relationships with these countries. Not only a common economic zone, but maybe something akin to OPEC where power is shared among them. Plus from an interesting geopolitical perspective, a grouping such as this would be the first in the southern hemisphere.
We are moving quickly into a post-modern world where notions of country and nation and state are changing drastically. Countries rich with potential such as Brazil can take advantage of this changing world and become major players in the world arena.
BRICS is defined as a set of countries that, through their growing economies, are changing the centers of economic dominance. These are Brazil, Russia, India, China and added sometime later South Africa, B-R-I-C-S. I find that although grouping these countries together is an interesting concept, they are certainly in different leagues and probably make no sense being grouped together. India and China are in a league of their own. Each with over 1 billion people and large land mass, they in no way resemble the other countries. Russia is problematic. Extremely large land mass, a declining population and an economy highly dependent on commodities such as oil and gas, Russia has a multitude of social and economic infrastructure problems it needs to deal with. And South Africa is still evolving, more on that in a later blog. That brings us to Brazil.
I, for whatever reason, am highly optimistic about the rise of Brazil as an economic power. Clearly Brazil is blessed with natural resources. A large land mass and a large diverse population make Brazil a potential for sustained economic growth. But there is another factor that I think adds to Brazil's potential. Economics drives politics and politics drives economics. Both are linked and both play a role in defining success. Along with that is the nature of relationships a country can develop out sided it's own boundaries. For Brazil it is a common language that it shares with several other counties, specifically Portugal, Angola and Mozambique.
Angola and Mozambique are also blessed with natural resources and while Portugal does not have the scale of the other countries, it does provide a gateway into the EU. Just think of a greeter common bond then language, add to that religion. In the English-speaking world, the links between the UK, US, Canada and Australia are very strong. These links invite a strong sense of cooperation. There are other examples of language commonality that I will not dwell on but are obvious.
Brazil being the largest of these economies can become a major power by cultivating relationships with these countries. Not only a common economic zone, but maybe something akin to OPEC where power is shared among them. Plus from an interesting geopolitical perspective, a grouping such as this would be the first in the southern hemisphere.
We are moving quickly into a post-modern world where notions of country and nation and state are changing drastically. Countries rich with potential such as Brazil can take advantage of this changing world and become major players in the world arena.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Some thoughts on the Electrical Grid
The Electrical Grid, simply referred to as the “grid”, is technology developed over the last 100 years, and has been described by the National Academy of Engineering as the greatest engineering achievement of the 20th century, eclipsing even the Internet.
A comparison with the “other” grid (the Internet) is worth considering. It seems that the current popular focus on a national and perhaps even global level is the Internet. There is tremendous hype about new companies (and applications) such as Facebook, LinkedIn and others. And who is not glued to their email on a daily basis? In fact, daily commerce has become highly dependent on the use of the Internet. But on a personal level, if Facebook is inaccessible or we can’t read our email for a day or several days, it may be an annoyance, perhaps even a major annoyance, but it is nothing compared to loss of electrical power.
The failure of proper operation of the electrical grid can impact millions of people. One of the best illustrations, but certainly not the only one, is the infamous August 2003 Northeast blackout that impacted eight US states and two Canadian provinces. The number of people who lost power was upwards of 50 million. And the economic cost of this outage numbered in the billions of dollars.
Therefore, correct operation of the grid is important not only on a personal level but also for modern society to function properly. The grid is indispensible for how we work as a society. But currently the grid is facing severe challenges:
• There is continuing need for more electrical power, yet construction of generation resources and transmission lines is constrained by financial limitations and siting concerns.
• Federal and State regulations require utilities to accommodate higher levels of renewable resources. These levels (up to 40%) are higher than today’s grid can manage.
• The US Department of Energy has mandated that utilities improve their equipment and procedures to prevent occurrence of cascading blackouts like the Northeast Blackouts of 1965 and 2003.
• Utilities must conform to urgent requirements to ensure cyber-security under the Federal “Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)” program.
On top of these severe challenges; the utilities are burdened with an aging infrastructure (both human and mechanical) as well as by needing to conform to increasingly environmental regulations. For example, North American electric systems in some cases are based on 40-year-old technology that is reaching obsolescence and needs to be replaced.
In order to meet the challenges noted above, utilities, must modernize their transmission and distribution systems. It seems that utilities across the globe are implementing initiatives to increase the efficiency, safety, and reliability of the electricity transmission and distribution systems. Of course they are hampered by nature and economic policies. Earthquakes can impact the type of energy source, e.g. nuclear vs solar. Increased supply of carbon-based resources can decrease the amount of renewable resources.
But, hopefully, by transforming the current electric grid into an interactive service network based on advanced communication and control systems, the “Smart Grid", we all can benefit by lower energy prices and more efficient supplies.
A comparison with the “other” grid (the Internet) is worth considering. It seems that the current popular focus on a national and perhaps even global level is the Internet. There is tremendous hype about new companies (and applications) such as Facebook, LinkedIn and others. And who is not glued to their email on a daily basis? In fact, daily commerce has become highly dependent on the use of the Internet. But on a personal level, if Facebook is inaccessible or we can’t read our email for a day or several days, it may be an annoyance, perhaps even a major annoyance, but it is nothing compared to loss of electrical power.
The failure of proper operation of the electrical grid can impact millions of people. One of the best illustrations, but certainly not the only one, is the infamous August 2003 Northeast blackout that impacted eight US states and two Canadian provinces. The number of people who lost power was upwards of 50 million. And the economic cost of this outage numbered in the billions of dollars.
Therefore, correct operation of the grid is important not only on a personal level but also for modern society to function properly. The grid is indispensible for how we work as a society. But currently the grid is facing severe challenges:
• There is continuing need for more electrical power, yet construction of generation resources and transmission lines is constrained by financial limitations and siting concerns.
• Federal and State regulations require utilities to accommodate higher levels of renewable resources. These levels (up to 40%) are higher than today’s grid can manage.
• The US Department of Energy has mandated that utilities improve their equipment and procedures to prevent occurrence of cascading blackouts like the Northeast Blackouts of 1965 and 2003.
• Utilities must conform to urgent requirements to ensure cyber-security under the Federal “Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)” program.
On top of these severe challenges; the utilities are burdened with an aging infrastructure (both human and mechanical) as well as by needing to conform to increasingly environmental regulations. For example, North American electric systems in some cases are based on 40-year-old technology that is reaching obsolescence and needs to be replaced.
In order to meet the challenges noted above, utilities, must modernize their transmission and distribution systems. It seems that utilities across the globe are implementing initiatives to increase the efficiency, safety, and reliability of the electricity transmission and distribution systems. Of course they are hampered by nature and economic policies. Earthquakes can impact the type of energy source, e.g. nuclear vs solar. Increased supply of carbon-based resources can decrease the amount of renewable resources.
But, hopefully, by transforming the current electric grid into an interactive service network based on advanced communication and control systems, the “Smart Grid", we all can benefit by lower energy prices and more efficient supplies.
Economics of being Productive
One thing that has always puzzled me is the economics of efficiency and productivity. We all learn that increased productivity is good. Keeping things simple, this means that if in a month two persons can produce a car and a month later one person can produce a car then we have increased productivity and our economic well-being has increased. No matter that our unemployment has increased. The assumption perhaps is that the unemployed person can find a new job in a different industry. Good luck.
I would argue that increased productivity can in fact be bad. Maybe at a micro level, meaning from a corporate perspective it can be good, meaning lower labor costs produce more profits. Assuming that we measure goodness as maximizing profits. But on a macro level, meaning the society at large, increased productivity if measured in labor costs can increase unemployment and thus be bad for society. Of course, I am assuming that the large the amount of idle people is not a good thing.
I am not advocating that people be employed doing useless work (although the thought had crossed my mind). Rather, I would change the concept of productivity to include minimizing unemployment. Simply put, this may and probably does conflict with efficiency in production. But it many not conflict with social well-being. Where social well-being is partly defined as minimizing unemployment.
Again, consider a rather simple example. If there are two people working on building a car, then both of them have disposable income to purchase goods and services. If only one person is employed then of course then number of people that contributes to economic activity has gone done. So disposable income has gone down and thus other consumer industries have been impacted.
So why is this important and does it really matter?
In an isolated environment, meaning in a country with limited external trade, then I suppose we could maximize economic activity by limiting efficiency and unemployment. But with globalization and companies with a high degree of trans-national activity, maximizing the economic well-being of any specific country is not a high priority. Maximizing profits is, and that could be at the cost of higher unemployment in one country while employing more people in another country.
So this is a prelude to discussing large trans-national corporations such as GE who have no or very limited sovereign loyalty. In other words they don't care if they create unemployment by moving their labor force around to different countries as long as they maximize their profits. For example, GE moving jobs from the US to other countries certainly contributes to unemployment in the US. But what does it care? As long as it can maintain or increase sales world-wide then increasing unemployment (in the US for example) but increasing profit is a good thing.
OK, so I dealt with productivity and globalization and efficieny. Maybe it was a little disconnected. What I want to do is create/examine policies whereby a country can use a measure of productivity that includes unemployment as a mechanism to limit the impact of globalization on it's economic well-being. In other words, keep the jobs at home.
I would argue that increased productivity can in fact be bad. Maybe at a micro level, meaning from a corporate perspective it can be good, meaning lower labor costs produce more profits. Assuming that we measure goodness as maximizing profits. But on a macro level, meaning the society at large, increased productivity if measured in labor costs can increase unemployment and thus be bad for society. Of course, I am assuming that the large the amount of idle people is not a good thing.
I am not advocating that people be employed doing useless work (although the thought had crossed my mind). Rather, I would change the concept of productivity to include minimizing unemployment. Simply put, this may and probably does conflict with efficiency in production. But it many not conflict with social well-being. Where social well-being is partly defined as minimizing unemployment.
Again, consider a rather simple example. If there are two people working on building a car, then both of them have disposable income to purchase goods and services. If only one person is employed then of course then number of people that contributes to economic activity has gone done. So disposable income has gone down and thus other consumer industries have been impacted.
So why is this important and does it really matter?
In an isolated environment, meaning in a country with limited external trade, then I suppose we could maximize economic activity by limiting efficiency and unemployment. But with globalization and companies with a high degree of trans-national activity, maximizing the economic well-being of any specific country is not a high priority. Maximizing profits is, and that could be at the cost of higher unemployment in one country while employing more people in another country.
So this is a prelude to discussing large trans-national corporations such as GE who have no or very limited sovereign loyalty. In other words they don't care if they create unemployment by moving their labor force around to different countries as long as they maximize their profits. For example, GE moving jobs from the US to other countries certainly contributes to unemployment in the US. But what does it care? As long as it can maintain or increase sales world-wide then increasing unemployment (in the US for example) but increasing profit is a good thing.
OK, so I dealt with productivity and globalization and efficieny. Maybe it was a little disconnected. What I want to do is create/examine policies whereby a country can use a measure of productivity that includes unemployment as a mechanism to limit the impact of globalization on it's economic well-being. In other words, keep the jobs at home.
Friday, November 25, 2011
World War 1, Imperialism, and Current Nation-States
Having just celebrated a holiday rooted in World War 1, it might be interesting to understand the consequences of that conflict. WWI ended on the eleventh month, eleventh day, eleventh hour, thus November 11th.
Given that WW2 is usually more explored and WWI is relegated as some ancient conflict, it is interesting to note how much of today's trouble spots are based on decisions made by Imperial powers post WWI. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan, all created by the winning side, the then European Imperial powers. In this case mostly Britain and France, but others were involved as well.
So why do the Western powers persistent in maintaining the nation-state charade?
Certainly it was not the case in the former Yugoslavia. There the country was split mostly along ethanic lines. So why not Iraq? Why not Afganistan? Especially in the case of Afganistan, it is a hodgepodge of ethnic groups. In the case of Libya, it was created by Italy from three former Ottoman provinces.
Let the people decide, not unlike the case of the newly formed state of South Sudan.
Given that WW2 is usually more explored and WWI is relegated as some ancient conflict, it is interesting to note how much of today's trouble spots are based on decisions made by Imperial powers post WWI. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan, all created by the winning side, the then European Imperial powers. In this case mostly Britain and France, but others were involved as well.
So why do the Western powers persistent in maintaining the nation-state charade?
Certainly it was not the case in the former Yugoslavia. There the country was split mostly along ethanic lines. So why not Iraq? Why not Afganistan? Especially in the case of Afganistan, it is a hodgepodge of ethnic groups. In the case of Libya, it was created by Italy from three former Ottoman provinces.
Let the people decide, not unlike the case of the newly formed state of South Sudan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)