How Barbados Became a Caribbean Power

Sun soaked; rum soaked; fringed by palms and golden beaches. Barbados is a Caribbean island that stirs up all the stereotypes one associates with this region. You picture pirates, rum runners and European explorers travelling around the coast and as you walk through Bridgetown you can almost hear calypso music in the streets. This is a romanticised image of the Caribbean, but one that I myself had as I moved through the island. But this image is critical to Barbados because it forms the foundation of the island’s soft power; the concept of global influence that has made it a modern Caribbean power.

The Caribbean is not a region short of cultural icons. Cuba is imbued with nostalgia and travelers flock to the island to indulge in one of the world’s last communist states. Castro’s image looms large over the nation and images of Cuba become more photogenic at every corner. Alternatively there is Jamaica, an island whose global image will forever be entwined with reggae, Bob Marley and Rastafarian culture. Jamaica, because of Cuba’s political isolation, had fallen into the role of a regional leader. It was a nation whose culture and soft power were unrivaled in the world, but within the last few years Barbados has risen high in the global conscience and arguably has replaced Jamaica as a modern soft power.

Soft power has allowed Barbados to achieve a dominance that neither military might or political influence could ever achieve. But identifying what is the root of the island’s soft power is complex.

(Above: The harbour at Bridgetown, the economic and political heart of Barbados)

One of the biggest contributing factors is music. For many music may be considered a trivial thing, but in the modern world it is one of the few cultural traditions that can reach all parts of the world and it can symbolise a nation’s global influence. Music has played a core part of Britain’s rise to become the world’s leading soft power nation; Adele, One Direction, Mumford & Sons and numerous others have helped to define the modern British state and within the Caribbean Jamaica’s dominance was largely down to the global influence of reggae music.

As Bob Marley came to define Jamaica in the 20th century, so Bajan musical figures have helped define Barbados in the 21st century. Cover Drive, Shontelle and most famously Rihanna have been catalysts for Barbados’s new-found cultural dominance. These artists have put Barbados on the map, acting as cultural ambassadors for the island. With Rihanna as its poster girl, Barbados has taken on the cultural prominence that Jamaica has developed with Bob Marley and reggae music. Her international success cemented Bajan culture in the minds of the global population and subsequent success by her contemporaries has confirmed the island’s cultural strength and pushed Barbados further in the soft power rankings. This has also helped it to success against its regional rivals; whereas Jamaica has relied on a cultural image iconic to generations past, Barbados is represented by figures enjoying success today.

(Above: Throughout Barbados there are constant reminders of the island’s link to Britain. Towns are often named after places in the UK, such as Worthing, which is on the British south coast.)

This cultural soft power, however, has also been backed up by the economic development and safety and security that the island enjoys. Unlike Jamaica, Barbados does not have connotations of violence and crime, and this has brought the tourists back to Barbados again and again. Tourists come to the island not simply seeking the Bajan culture that has been portrayed so widely across the globe, but also the security that this island can offer over many other nations within the Caribbean. Most importantly, however, is the way Barbados has generated an image of being a slice of the Caribbean to suit everybody. Its colonial links to the UK make it feel like familiar to the British and Europeans alike, whilst its modern culture has adopted much from the United States. This has resulted in a Barbados that is accessible and one in which any visitor, from any nation, can indulge in a form of Caribbean cosmopolitanism.

(Above: Barbados not only offers culture, but also a slice of the Caribbean ideal that all tourists here seek)

Whereas Jamaica and Cuba have such unique identities Barbados has attempted to push a new concept of the Caribbean; one of the cosmopolitan Caribbean and yet it has sought to retain Bajan traditions at the heart of life. With this concept making waves across the world, all of Barbados is aware that eyes are focusing on this island. With Rihanna and her contemporaries continuing to push on strength by strength it looks like Barbados will continue to grow economically, politically and as a soft power state. With music, history and the Bajan lifestyle at its core Barbados has risen and will continue to rise to become a true Caribbean power.

By Peter Banham

Do the Asian Tigers Still Drive Asia’s Growth?

For a long time economists, politicians and the world’s media have argued that Asia’s growth since the 1960’s has been driven to a large extent by the Four Asian Tiger Economies; South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong & Singapore. Although China and Japan are easily the largest regional economies, it was the ‘miracle’ of these four economies that interested observers. All of these states had export oriented economic policies and strong development policies. As a result they achieved sustained and rapid growth and high levels of equal income distribution, but in 2013 do the Asia Tigers still drive Asia’s growth and do they still have a role to play in making this century the so-called, ‘Asian Century’?

The simple answer is yes. These are still rapidly growing nations that are key cornerstones to regional development but to argue that Asia’s rise is down solely to these four nations is an over-simplicity.

(Above: The Merlion, Singapore’s symbolic representation of the ‘big cat’ ethos within global politics)

China is by far and away the economic and political powerhouse of Asia but close on its heals is India, another of the world’s largest economies, and Japan, who historically had been seen as the leading economy in Asia and, despite recent economic stagnation, is still a powerful global economy. These are the nations that have made Asia an economic and political success. They have ensured Asian representation in leading global organisations, such as the G8 (of which Japan is a member) and BRICS (of which China and Indian are both members) and with China poised to become the world’s largest economy at some point in the near future these will continue to be the nations leading the Asia charge. Some reports have argued that China could overtake the USA in 2016, whereas others argue it will be 2019 and the impact of this change will cement China’s role at the very heart of global politics and economics.

But these nations have always eclipsed the Asian Tigers and so economists have never really considered them when developing the concepts of ‘Tiger States’. The Tiger States have always been seen as the nations coming up behind these huge economies and have been more closely focused on building a society alongside their economy. Although China and Japan may be put to one side there are other nations who are developing on the heels of the Tiger States and who warrant the attention of any interested parties. These nations, known as the Tiger Cub Economies, are seen as the new political powers in Asia and the  new markets for investors.

The Tiger Cub’s are Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines and collectively have shown the shift, within recent times, from the Far East economies to those in South East Asia. All of these nations have followed the successful development of Singapore, just as Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan followed the successful development of Japan to become the original Tiger States.

Malaysia, one of the ‘Tiger Cubs’, represents the new wave of economic power in Asia. Its capital, Kuala Lumpur, stands as the glittering centre of economic development, with the Petronas Towers acting as the showpiece for the progress Malaysia has made in recent years. But the towers do not solely represent Malaysia as a new Asian power; they also represent the industries that have driven Malaysian growth. Petronas is the state-owned oil and gas company that has risen to become one of Asia’s most profitable companies and it is this company that has become ubiquitous in Malaysian culture (most recently because of its involvement in Formula 1, sponsoring both the Mercedes GP team and the Malaysia Grand Prix). This company, its towers and the nation who controls it, are all representations of Malaysia’s challenge for pre-dominance in Asia’s economy and like Malaysia the other Tiger Cubs are growing rapidly.

(Above: The Petronas Tower; A Malaysian landmark that symbolises its continued economic rise)

But looking back at the Tiger States themselves we see that although they still sit behind the Asian powerhouses, such as China (they were never going to be rivals to China or Japan’s dominance) they critically stay in front of the Tiger Cub economies. Malaysia may have come a long way but economic power in South East Asia remains firmly in Singapore.

What interests us as academics and as theorists is how these nations cemented their position at the front.

We can split the Tiger States in half to understand their success. Singapore and Hong Kong, being city states, focused on service industries and big business. They became centres of international finance, with stock markets that easily rival the FTSE 100 in London or the Dow Jones in New York. They became the site for business’s Asian and even global headquarters and their understanding of the importance of making international hubs of their respective cities have been critical to their success (there’s a reason that people consistently vote Singapore’s Changi Airport and Hong Kong International as the world’s best airports).

By contrast the larger nations of Taiwan and South Korea have become manufacturing giants. South Korea has easily become the new focus of Asia’s technology boom. Whereas Japanese brands, such as Panasonic, Toyota and Sony, dominated trade in the 1980’s and 90’s they have been surpassed by Korean brands, such as Samsung, HTC, LG and Hyundai which now represents Asian technology globally. Manufacturing has made Seoul, South Korea and Taipei, Taiwan global cities of neon skylines and skyscrapers and their countries destinations for businesses and politicians the world over.

But more than the economics they have used their wealth to bring about real terms social development. They have developed strong education and healthcare systems, have established policies to counteract poverty and they have put many back into the system to improve the quality of life for all their citizens. It is this development of progressive and affluent societies that have marked them out from China’s great economic boom and have ensured that they stay ahead of the competition from the Philippines and Indonesia, who still have a long way to go in the fight against poverty.

These are nations that rose rapidly on the back of the first waves of Asian development and have maintained their position on top of the economic pile, despite competition from new rising powers. They are centres for global trade, symbols of the spread of global capitalism and manufacturing giants that have ensured a global saturation of their brands.

Like the animals they embody they have risen to the top of the economic food chain and although there always might a bigger predator in the region, in the form of China or Japan, Beijing and Tokyo would do well to look behind at the nations stalking their every move.

By Peter Banham

Scandinavia’s Cool Rise to the Top: How the Region Became Successful

It is well know within International Relations that Scandinavia has excelled both politically and socially as a region; providing some of the best services and quality of life within the world. The region, encompassing at its greatest extent; Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, frequently tops tables for its quality of life, GDP (Gross Domestic Product), healthcare, education and political freedom. But what is behind this rise to the top and does it go further than statistics? Can Scandinavia be seen as a great 21st century cultural power alongside its economic and political achievements?

Firstly however, to build a picture of the region, we need to use statistics and determine each nation’s world rankings:

	Denmark	Norway	Sweden	Finland	Iceland
HDI (Human Development Index)*	15	1	8	21	14
GDP per Capita (World Bank)*	14	4	13	19	20
Index of Economic Freedom*	9	31	18	16	23
Quality of Life Index (Economist Intelligence Unit)*	9	3	5	12	7
Globalisation Index*	6	20	5	9	40
Gender Inequality Index***	3	6	1	5	9
Literacy Rate**	99%	100%	99%	99%	99%
Infant Mortality Rate***	17	6	4	5	2
Environmental Performance Index*	21	3	10	19	13
Global Peace Index*	2	18	14	9	1
Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders)*	6	3	10	1	9
Corruption Perceptions Index*	=1	7	4	=1	11

*Where the nation ranks amongst the world’s nations (e.g. Norway tops the HDI index and has the 4th highest GDP per capita)
**The percentage of the adult population who are literate
***Ranking indicates nations with the lowest levels of these problems (e.g. Sweden has the lowest level of Gender Inequality in the world)

The statistics show the success achieved in Scandinavia in all areas of society. Most notable are the achievements the region has made politically. The leading ‘peaceful’ nations of the world are Iceland and Denmark. Finland tops the index for press freedom, whilst Denmark and Finland tie for first place in an index of national corruption. The reason for this success is the emphasis, within the region, on democratic principles. Politicians have fought hard against political corruption; seeking to establish a very open political environment in which peace and political co-operation were core elements of the state.

This political environment has often resulted in the establishment of coalition governments throughout the region and the current governments of Norway and Denmark are both coalitions. The arguments against coalitions are well documented, particularly in Britain where many have accused the coalition of being a barrier to economic progress. However, both Norway and Denmark have a long history of coalitions and they believe that this has fostered a political environment in which multi-party cooperation is commonplace and issues often get widespread government support.

However, there is no magic political formula to Scandinavia’s success. Neither Norway or Iceland are part of the EU, only Finland has joined the Eurozone and neither Finland or Sweden are part of NATO. But maybe that is the common thread. No single Scandinavian country has thrown themselves fully into any political organisation; all seeking to create their own political environment, although they are rooted in the Scandinavian ethos of democracy and openness.

This ethos has pervaded all aspects of Scandinavian society and the emphasis on social/political cooperation and openness have pushed these nations further to the top. The press enjoy great freedoms, particularly in Finland which ranks number 1 in the world for press freedom. It is also a region that can boast the lowest levels of gender inequality and in Denmark both the Head of State, Queen Margarethe II, and the Prime Minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, are women. The liberal attitude of the Scandinavian people towards what is acceptable in society has removed the barriers that women and other groups have faced in the past. This liberalism has encouraged the press to be more expressive and also created a popular desire for peace.

The epitome of the desire for peace is the Nobel Peace Prize, a Norwegian contest, founded by a Swedish industrialist. This prize has risen to a legendary status and the winners are seen as some of the best humanitarians and supporters of peace in contemporary society. The prize has come to represent the best of the Scandinavian political culture and has made other nations look to the region for some form of political guidance.

(Above: Nyhavn, one of the central tourist attractions of Copenhagen, Denmark)

However this rise to top is quantifiable and behind the statistics is a more subtle way Scandinavia has come to global prominence.  Both Sweden and Denmark have been considered leading soft power nations. Soft Power implies the ability to influence others and use national culture to achieve global attention and although big national cultures, including Britain, America and France top the list Scandinavian culture has slowly crept into the global conscience.

Ikea, H&M, Nokia, Bang & Olufsen, Carlsberg and Lego are all companies from Scandinavia that have become important features of the global retail environment. In addition to these retail giants, Scandinavian culture and personalities have all pushed this region to greater global recognition. Musicians and bands, such as Abba, Robyn, Bjork, Basshunter, Sigur Ros and Of Monsters and Men have all dominated music charts in recent years whilst sports stars, such as Bjorn Borg and Caroline Wozniaki have brought international attention to the region.

It is this cultural power that truly explains Scandinavia’s ‘cool’ rise to the top. Anyone who has watched The Killing, Bergen or The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo or immersed themselves in Danish fashion or design understands that this region is undeniably ‘cool’ and whilst this culture remains the culture the world craves, then Scandinavia will remain on top.

By Peter Banham

See Also:

Copenhagen: Scandinavia Centre of Culture

Where the Media has Little Say: Eritrea’s Censorship Issue

Every year lists are compiled by the organisation Reporters Without Borders, that assesses both the freedom of the press and the levels of internet censorship present in countries around the world. Looking through the list there are obvious nations that fall to the bottom, including North Korea, Somalia amd Iran but one nation stands out. Eritrea in East Africa is at the bottom of the list, ranking as the country with the least press freedom in the world and in addition is currently on a list of nations under surveillance by Reporters Without Borders regarding their controls over the internet (neighbouring nation Ethiopia has already been criticised for its internet controls). 

But what are the factors that have made Eritrea so hostile to the press and is it surprising that it is at the bottom of the list?

A map produced by Reporters Without Borders showing levels of press freedom)

There are several reasons behind Eritrea falling so low in the list:

• Eritrea is a country ripped apart by international and internal conflict. A thirty year war with Ethiopia only ended in the 1990’s and since then incidents of conflict have occurred repeatedly across the border between the two nations, with Eritrea often on the losing side. This environment has made reporting and the development of a free media very difficult. 
• Eritrea is a single party state under the leadership of Isaias Afewerki who has ruled since the nation’s independence in 1991. Traditionally one-party systems have never allowed the fostering of a free media and as an independent nation Eritrea has never experienced any other form of government and therefore there is not a culture of press freedom.
• Reporters Without Borders has classed Eritrea as an “open prison for its people [that] lets journalists die in detention” (World Press Freedom Index, 2013). They argue that although no journalists were killed in the last year many were left to die in prison neglected by the state. Eritrea is one of the most dangerous locations for journalists with the organisation calling it “Africa’s biggest prison for journalists” (World Press Freedom Index, 2013).
• Eritrea is the only African nation to have no independent news agencies, with every form of media being run by the state. With these circumstances existing it is impossible to develop a free, unbiased media as every outlet is producing some form of nationalist propaganda for the state.

With these conditions present it is understandable how Eritrea comes so low on the list. But when we look at other nations at the bottom it is difficult to understand how Eritrea exists there without the global community hearing about the media repression. In contrast we hear much about nations like North Korea or China, who get widespread coverage regarding media repression in their respective states.

Much of the reason why so little is known about Eritrea’s media repression is because “not a single [foreign correspondent] now lives in Asmara [the capital]” (Eritrea World Report, Reporters Without Borders). With a total lack of foreign media coverage in the country and the internal media being so heavily censored there is little chance of much Eritrean national news becoming international news.

In addition with many nations like Eritrea there simply isn’t the global desire to understand these states. Nations like China, North Korea and Iran, who all feature at the bottom of the list, pose a bigger political threat, economic concern and global interest. Therefore people have both a greater knowledge of the problems,  surrounding the national media and freedom of the press, and a greater desire to discuss these issues.

The future for the media in Eritrea does not seem to be positive. The regime of President Afewerki does not seem to be getting any weaker with the strong nationalist agenda remaining a driving force in national politics. If the strict one-party state remains in Eritrea it is unlikely that any form of free press will develop as a free press could only damage the integrity of an authoritarian regime.

By Peter Banham

See Also:

Ethiopia’s Internet Censorship

A Country You Know Little About…But Should (Part 2) – El Salvador

El Salvador is often the forgotten nation of Central America. Mexico is the guiding political power, Costa Rica and Belize are famed for their natural beauty, Panama for its canal and Nicaragua (unfortunately) for its troubled past and history. Yet El Salvador has all the above; beautiful landscapes defined by volcanoes, beaches and tropical rainforests; a complex and varied history and an economy that is growing rapidly.

What has made El Salvador stand out is that it is the only nation in Central America not to have a Caribbean coastline. It is a country solely focused on the Pacific Ocean and within a region where so much attention is focused on the development of the Caribbean this has distinguished the nation.

So why has it been ignored in the discourse and media attention of Latin America. For the most part this is because they are fighting for attention in the region. Costa Rica is arguably the most well know country, outside of Mexico, within the region and other have used their similar history and geography to attract tourists, business and the world’s media. El Salvador has often been outside of this focus in Central America and this has meant that few people have great knowledge of the nation. These are four reasons why El Salvador should be better known:

• Excluding Mexico, it is the 3rd largest economy in the region and the economy continues to grow. 
• It is, ecologically, one of the most bio-diverse nations in the world.
• It saw one of the bloodiest civil wars in Central American history from 1979-1992.
• Ethnically it is the only Central American country that has no visible African population today, which has distinguished it from other nations in the region.

El Salvador: Pacific Power

As previously stated El Salvador is a Pacific nation with an economy that has tended to focus on the Americas as a whole, rather than simply on the Caribbean. It is an economy that traditional was rooted in industrial output, often being referred to as the most industrialised nation in Central America. However following the Civil War much of this industry was damaged and the country has fought hard to climb back up to a position of economic prominence. Arguably it has achieved this, only sitting behind tourist hotspot, Costa Rica and business orientated Panama in regional rankings.

With both those nations there are big, world known factors that have resulted in their economic rise; for Costa Rica it was the promotion of tourism and for Panama it was the trade of the Panama Canal that bought them riches. However El Salvador has progressed with very little understanding of what it produces. The key to El Salvador’s economic successes may be in the diversity of its export economy. Manufacturing in textiles, electrical product and agricultural products all participate in building a El Salvadorian economy and the government has been constantly exploring new ways to achieve economic growth.

(Above: A representation of the exports of El Salvador)

A Scar on its History: Civil War and Martyrs

El Salvador has been at the centre of the world media but that was often for the negative impact of a Civil War that tore the country apart, resulted in the deaths of thousands of people and made martyrs of many leading opposition figures, who have become symbols of the new El Salvador.

In 1979 conflict erupted between the US-backed military government and the left-wing coalition of guerrilla groups known as the FMLN. It was a conflict that involved a coup d’etat, the repression of Native ethnic minorities, death squads and widespread repression that resulted in the disappearance of thousands of El Salvadorians.

It was one of the worst internal conflicts in the history of Central America and resulted in the death of over 75,000 people. Lasting for over twelves years there were widespread human rights violations by the Salvadoran military and security forces that continued at high levels during the 1980’s. Thousands of individuals were kidnapped by both sides, becoming part of a legacy of the ‘disappeared’ of Latin America and leaving lingering memories for the people of El Salvador.

But the conflict was more than violence, it created a global figurehead for El Salvador, someone who represented the path towards building a peaceful future. In 1980 Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated, it is believed on the orders of a death squad led by Major Roberto D’Aubuisson. He had been an advocate for the poor and repressed in El Salvador, calling on the US to end their support of the regime that had begun widespread persecution of the state, including the Church.

His assassination created a martyr out of Archbishop Romero, a figure who has now come to represent support for the oppressed and poor of South America. He is undergoing the beatification and cannonisation process and has been accepted as the unofficial patron saint of El Salvador and the Americas. Worldwide he is referred to alongside other religious figures and martyrs, including Martin Luther King, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, adding further validity to his position as an El Salvadorian icon.

The El Salvador of the Future

El Salvador has great potential for the future; for economic development and political progress. The nation has been looking to boost their economic growth further by increasing diversification and tourism has been touted as a possible industry to expand into. It has the volcanoes, ecological diversity and beaches that have attracted tourists to the other nations of Central America. Now it has entered a period of stability it has been offered as an alternative to the criminality and conflict that has been characteristic of other nations in the region, such as Nicaragua, Honduras and even Mexico.

The people have sought to establish a future that moves beyond the civil war and uses the legacy to build a new society in El Salvador. This new El Salvador is proud of the progress it has made since 1992, when the civil war finally ended, and has used the figure and legacy of Oscar Romero as a basis to build on.

Like the Spanish explorers who discovered El Salvador and the Pacific coast in the 16th century, the leaders of the nation are looking out across the Pacific Ocean looking towards the future and endless possibilities for the nation, looking to explore uncharted opportunities and make a name for themselves.

If you want to explore this further this is a good video from the Martyrs Project looking at the life of Oscar Romero: The Project: “Romero”

By Peter Banham

What is the Middle East?

I have spent much of time recently on researching the Middle East, the people within it and the political structures that separate this as a region from all others. But I have realised that the central concept of the limits of this region, i.e. what geographical areas do we include in the Middle East, if we can define it by geography at all, has shaped the region and how we understand it.

Traditionally we see the Middle East as representing the countries of Western Asia; Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq etc. It is often viewed as a separate continent to Asia, although in reality its is only a sub-region of this vast continent. It is assumed that the Middle East has a homogeneous culture; one that is both Arab and Islamic. Their economy is viewed as one reliant entirely on oil and their political affairs are seen as often undemocratic, corrupt and focused on conflict (another characteristic of the Middle East’s history)

I am going to explore some of the geographic understandings of the Middle Eat and question our assumptions of what is included under the definition of the ‘Middle East’.

The first thing to consider is that the term ‘Middle East’ is a western term, one that the people of the region never designated themselves. The term defines the region in relation to the West; the Far East was China, Japan and Korea  and therefore the nations from Turkey through to Yemen and Egypt through to Iran were all included in this ambiguous understanding of the ‘Middle’.

However no other term has satisfied the world media or analysts and therefore the Middle East is still the term we use to understand the region by and it is the term I will use to help further understand and define this region.

Understanding the Middle East Through Geography

(Above: Map of the Greater Middle East)

The easiest way to understand the Middle East is to establish geographic boundaries for the region. Traditionally this has meant that the Middle East has incorporated the entire Arabian peninsula and the historic ‘Levant’ or Near East region including Syria, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan. In addition Egypt, Iran and Turkey have been seen as Middle Eastern states. However this traditional view of the Middle East has often been criticised. People have argued that Egypt should be seen as a North African state, whose shared history and modern politics  have created a common identity with the Middle East, but not necessarily made it part of it. Likewise for both Iran and Turkey these are seen as nations that have developed in a unique way to the rest of the Middle East, largely because of their position on the margins and thus cannot be part of the shared history that defines this region.

But the limitations of the Middle East often go further than this core. As part of the ‘Greater Middle East’ analysts, politicians and social scientists have argued that the similarities in culture, religion and society mean that nations stretching across the Sahara to Morocco and down into East Africa, to include Sudan and Somalia, should all be considered part of the ‘Middle East’. Some extensions even include nations of Central Asia, although these are not widely accepted definitions.

If geography does not give a clear understanding of the region that it makes sense to look for greater clarity in the characteristics of Middle Eastern society.

Understanding the Middle East Through Religion

(Above: Majority Muslim nations in the world)

Understanding why the geographical boundaries of the Middle East vary so much can only be achieved by understanding the cultural characteristics that link this multitude of nations. One of the common characteristics is religion. The Middle East is traditionally seen as an Islamic region, with this religion acting as a monolith of regional culture. The Middle East is almost completely defined by this common characteristic and has coloured the view people round the world have of the region.

However defining the Middle East by religion has two great problems. Firstly when we look at the map of majority Islamic nations it is immediately obvious that being a Muslim nation does not equate to being a Middle Eastern state. It is clear that the Islamic culture, that is a common link between the North African, Central Asian and core ‘Middle Eastern’ nations, is at the root of why these nations are all included in the concept of the ‘Greater Middle East’. However countries, such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Albania are all defined, on the map, as Islamic nations but they are clearly separate and distant from the core of the Middle East, ultimately undermining the stereotype of the Middle East being defined by the Islamic religion.

The second problem is that by defining it by religion we assume that is truly a monolithic society. In reality the Middle East is a religiously diverse region. As it’s the cradle of the the major monotheistic religions there have always communities of Jews and Christians. In today’s Middle East Israel is the obvious exception to the dominance of Islam. As a Jewish state it fundamentally undermines the blanket notion of Islam as the religion of the Middle East. In addition there are Christian communities all across the region, with notable communities of Christian Copts and Maronites making up significant parts of the populations of Egypt and Lebanon respectively. With this religious diversity it’s clear that religion cannot be a way to define the Middle East, but rather a way to simply understand it better.

Understanding the Middle East through Ethnicity and Culture

(Above: The Members of the Arab League which, in the modern day, constitute the Arab World)

Ethnicity, culture and language have all been factors used to help understand the concept of the ‘Middle East’. Traditionally the Middle East has been equated to another concept; one of the ‘Arab World’, because of the belief that ethnically the Middle East is Arabic. This has in turn created the belief that the Middle East is an Arabic speaking region and that the shared history of the region is the history of the Arab people against the rest of Western and Asian society.

In some ways this has given us the best understanding of the term ‘Middle East’ and is definitely the way most people begin to understand this global region. However like all other understandings of the term it has its setbacks. It includes many countries in North, East and even West Africa which geographically have not been viewed as Middle Eastern. It also excludes both Turkey and Iran as these are ethnically Turkish and Persian respectively, but traditionally these have been seen as major figures in Middle Eastern affairs, actively promoting a cultural balance to the homogeneity of Arab culture. To exclude these two nations from an understanding of the Middle East appears to ignore the major historical and cultural influence these nations have had on the region.

There are also, like with religion, problems from within the core of the Middle East. In reality the Middle East has a great cultural mix. Kurds make up one of the most important ethnic minorities within the region and in addition there are also ethnic minorities of Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Assyrians and many more. This ethnic mix has understandably resulted in a mixed linguistic tradition. Language cannot be seen as the great uniting factor. Alongside Arabic there are four other major languages spoken in the region including Berber, Persian, Turkish and Kurdish.

Ultimately culture provides to many variables in the understanding of the limitations of the Middle East to be used to establish one clear definition of this region.

The Middle East as a Concept

I hope that I have began to break down some of the stereotypes of the Middle East and the way people interpret this region. It is not a simple region to understand and there is no definitive way to establish the boundaries of the territory. Whatever set of conditions is used, be they ethnicity, language or religion, to understand the region we cannot achieve a consistent result.

All we can say is that there is a definitive core to the Middle East, understood by world politics and the world media that includes the nations of the ‘Near East’ and Arabian peninsula. Developing a wider concept of the Middle East will simply be down to a combination of personal interpretation and general consensus. The characteristics we apply to the region (Arabic, Islamic etc) should not be taken as the given in all circumstances, but rather representative of the dominant and prevalent nature of Middle Eastern society.

The Middle East is far more diverse and evolving that we often give it credit for and in the future we must see this region, not as a fixed location, but rather as a fluid concept; ever changing and multifaceted.

Britain Overseas (Part 4): Pitcairn Islands at the Edge of the World

Part 4 of my Britain Overseas series looks at a British territory at the very edge of the world; the Pitcairn Islands. One of the most isolated island groups in the world, the Pitcairn Islands are the ultimate symbol of the reach of the British Empire at its height. In an area of the world that couldn’t be further from London, the Pitcairn’s relationship with the British government demonstrates the extend of Britain’s world reach and the continued relationship they maintain with their overseas territories.

Population:

• 54 (The Pitcairn Islands are the smallest country/territory in the world in terms of population)

(Above: Map of the Pitcairn Islands)

Only 18.1 square miles of land, split over four islands the Pitcairn Islands are not only small in area but also have the world’s smallest population of any country or territory. The size and location, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, of the islands has meant that the history and culture of the territory has been artificially created by its colonial inhabitants.

Although there was evidence of Polynesian habitation, when Europeans discovered the islands in the 17th century they were uninhabited and the British who arrived in the 18th century were the first human inhabitants. However the origins of habitation in the Pitcairn Islands suggest that settling these islands was never a priority of the British government and understanding how people came to live on the islands helps to explain how this territory functions in the wider world.

In 1789 the crew of the HMS Bounty mutinied against their commanding officer, Lieutenant William Bligh, citing harsh treatment from the commanders and the idyllic life in the Pacific as the main motivation for their actions. Some of the mutineers traveled to the island of Tahiti, whilst others, alongside many Tahitian natives, traveled on to find a safe haven to avoid the Royal Navy. They came across the Pitcairn Islands, which had been misplaced on Royal Navy charts. Here they believed they were safe from the Royal Navy and so therefore sunk the Bounty to avoid detection, began to collect provisions and built the first permanent settlement in the Pitcairn Islands. This early community was completely isolated from the rest of the world and their was a great power struggle between the mutineers in the early stages of the settlement’s development.

By the time contact was made with the settlement in 1808, most of the mutineers were dead and those who remained were granted amnesty. By 1838 the islands were incorporated as a British colony and the population grew rapidly.

The population of the islands has always been one of the main features of life in the territory. It peaked in 1937 with a population of 233 but the population has also seen dramatic drops. In 1856 the entire population set sail for Norfolk Island to escape the pressures in the Pitcairn Islands of the growing population (although most later returned to the Pitcairn Islands) and likewise in recent years the population has dropped again as people have migrated to New Zealand and Australia, in search of greater economic opportunities.

The economy of the islands has always been largely subsistence; relying on what they can produce locally, but the community has continually sort to expand their economy and have used British support and aid to help develop the economy in recent years. Although agriculture has always been an important part of the Pitcairn economy the isolation and island geography have meant that trade between the Pitcairn Islands and its regional neighbours has never developed to any great extent. Instead, like other isolated islands, such as St Helena (another British territory) the territory relies heavily on tourism, an industry they hope to develop with British financial aid. The tourists who come to the Pitcairn Islands seek both adventure at the edge of the world and seek to trace the story of the HMS Bounty.

Like the tourist economy, the culture of the islands is bound up in the story of the HMS Bounty. The majority of the population are descendants of the mutineers and the local language, Pitkern, is a derivative of 18th century English. With the population never numbering more than 250 people, ethnic and culture diversity has never truly been a feature of social life. Many within the community are Seven Day Adventists, following a successful mission to the islands, and other historic quirks of British life are present in the island chain. The society of this far flung community cannot be interpreted in the same way as the society of other nations, instead it must be understood like a small town or village community; as a microcosm of British life.

However the culture is British purely because of the origins of the original mutineers. The British government, due to the islands small size and distance, has never placed the Pitcairn Islands high within its foreign policies and today much of the island’s political connections are with New Zealand and other Pacific islands, including neighbouring Tahiti and French Polynesia.

(Above: The Church in Adamstown, capital of the Pitcairn Islands)

Yet despite this lack of a close day-to-day political connections with Britain, the Pitcairn Islands remain not only under the control of Britain but operates as a reminder of a key story in Britain’s history. The story and legacy of the HMS Bounty and the mutineers went down in history and demonstrated the true extent of Britain’s imperial power and dominance as a society and culture all the way from London to the centre of the Pacific.

By Peter Banham

Britain Overseas (Part 3): Imperial Legacy in the Caribbean

The Caribbean is where Britain’s imperial legacy is arguably at its greatest. Although it is an area where Britain’s influence has decreased greatly since the heyday of the British Empire, as colonies declared their independence, the UK still retains control over numerous territories. Alongside other nations, such as the USA, France and the Netherlands the UK still retains a colonial presence in the region and these colonial legacies have created distinct identities in the contemporary society of these territories. These Caribbean territories are the largest British Overseas Territories in terms of population and, due to their geographic position, are amongst the most productive and prosperous of all Britain’s remaining territories.

Britain’s oversea’s territories in the Caribbean include:

• Anguilla
• Bermuda
• British Virgin Islands
• Cayman Islands
• Montserrat
• Turks and Caicos Islands

Bermuda

Populations:

• 64,268 (Roughly half way between the populations of Durham and Bath, both England)

(Above: Map of Bermuda)

Although not technically in the Caribbean Bermuda has always been considered an extension of British lands in the Caribbean and North America. Once America became independent politically Bermuda was always associated with the Caribbean.

Bermuda is not only the largest British territory in terms of population, but it is also the oldest, having been under British rule since 1609. The Virginia Company, who colonised the east coast of America, were the first to establish a settlement on the island. Ever since then Bermuda has grown in population and been seen, due to its location in the North Atlantic, as a strategic gateway to both North America and the Caribbean.

Soon after the establishment of settlements in the island the economy shifted towards a focus on maritime businesses, including whaling, merchant trade and privateering. However even with its strategic position Bermuda was largely left to govern itself. It built up great political influence in the Atlantic salt industry, the lumber trade, cod fishing and merchant trading in the ports of the American Atlantic Seaboard and the West Indies. This influence and autonomy meant that Bermudian culture on the 18th century was far more in line with America, and when the War of Independence started, Bermuda was initially supportive of the Americans. This forced Britain and the Royal Navy to increase their presence in the island, changing to focus of life and the economy again, this time focusing on defence.

Today Bermuda enjoys some of the highest standards of living of any territory in the world and its economy has boomed, following its new position as an offshore financial centre. Although this had caused much controversy in international politics the strong economy of Bermuda has prompted its inclusion into the Caribbean political/economic organisation, CARICOM and encouraged close relations with the USA, both politically and economically.

Bermuda is undeniably a jewel in Britain’s Overseas Territories; a territory that is economically strong and politically important. Its unique global position has given it unparalleled power in the North Atlantic and its intricate history has meant that far from being an isolated and forgotten territory, Bermuda has remained a regional player and the gateway to the Caribbean.

(Above: Hamilton, capital of Bermuda)

Cayman Islands

Population:

• 54,878 (Nearly equal to the population of Hereford, England)

(Above: Map of the Cayman Islands)

The Cayman Islands do not hold the same historic or symbolic importance of the other British territories. Instead they are renowned for their role in the global economy as centres for international finance. Having been incorporated into the British Empire, following the Treaty of Madrid in 1670 the territory grew slowly, but historically has always retained its status of tax-exemption and has never levied income tax, capital gains tax or any other wealth tax.

When the contemporary territory of the Cayman Islands is examined its is clear that its dominated by finance. There are more registered businesses in the islands than there are people and out of the people who live on the islands, many are ex-pats who seek to benefit from the preferential tax system.

However despite the dominance of the financial services that characterise the international view of the Cayman Islands, there is far more to Cayman culture. Located just south of Jamaica it lies in the heart of the Caribbean and therefore shares much of the tropical landscapes and vibrant culture that characterises its regional neighbours. Its sandy beaches, shipwrecks, snorkelling and trails through the landscape of Grand Cayman all provide great draws for tourists all over the world.

The business environment has made the Caymans famous, creating a truly cosmopolitan and varied territory where, with a growing population, more and more people are seeing and experiencing the sport, music and lifestyle that is an inherent part of the modern territory. Although much of the Britishness of Cayman culture has been replaced by a more generic western perspective on society, looking deeper into life in the islands shows observers that there is more to the Cayman islands than their tax free status.

(Above: Seven Mile Beach, a major tourist attraction in the Caymans)

Montserrat

Population:

• 5,164 (Roughly one hundredth of the population of Manchester, England)

(Above: Map of Montserrat)

Montserrat is by far the smallest of all Britain’s colonies in the Caribbean but is definitely one of the more fascinating. Despite becoming an English colony in 1632 it was the influence of the Irish that most heavily influenced early society in the territory, and even today St Patrick’s day is celebrated as a public holiday, the only place outside of Ireland to do so. Irish people, alongside many Africans, were taken as slaves to work on the island in sugar plantations and it was not until the Sturge family bought land in the island and established the Montserrat Company Ltd, that English culture came to dominate.

Often administered from other islands in the Caribbean Montserrat became known as a retreat and because of music studios established there, musicians from round the world came to visit the island. However the peace of the island was shattered by two natural disasters that have devastated the island, which has never fully recovered.

Firstly on September 17, 1989 Hurricane Hugo, a Category 4 storm, struck Montserrat and damaged over 90 percent of the structures on the island. The tourist industry along with much of the merchant trade collapsed and the economy of the island was severely crippled. Within a few years, the island had recovered considerably, but the hurricane had left a legacy in the island.

Next to come was a natural disaster that fundamentally changed life in Montserrat. In July 1995 the  Soufrière Hills volcano began to erupt, having been considered dormant. The eruption that occurred buried most of the island, including the capital Plymouth, which was under 12m (39ft) of mud. The airport and docks were destroyed and the lower half of the island was separated as an exclusion zone. To this day the area is still an exclusion zone with Montserrat forced to build a new airport, construct a new capital and try and rebuild the society and economy of the territory in the Northern half of the island.

The eruption caused many people to leave Montserrat as the economic conditions were so difficult and with the volcano continuing to erupt resuming life in the Southern part of the island looks increasingly unlikely. As a result Montserrat is reliant largely on aid from the British government to keep the economy going, but this has signified the relationship Britain has with even its smallest territories and the shared cultural, political and social traditions that territories like Montserrat have with the home nation of Great Britain.

(Above: The former capital, Plymouth, after the volcanic eruption)

The British territories of the Caribbean, unlike any other world region, have seen more dramatic shifts in ownership, politics and economics. Despite being small they are often economic powerhouses driving their own development forward. However the Caribbean is a region of contrasts. The British territories here include some of the richest regions of the world, whilst also included those devastated by natural disasters and economic troubles. It is the region with the greatest history and the most vibrant culture and one, at the moment, content in its relationship with Britain.

By Peter Banham

Britain Overseas (Part 1): Britain in the South Atlantic

As part of a four part series I wanted to explore the remnants of Britain’s once mighty empire and look at the relationship, both the people and states in our Overseas Territories, have with Britain. The first part of this series will look at Britain’s territories in the South Atlantic stretching from Ascension (situated just South of the Equator) to British Antarctica. These territories whilst being amongst the most remote in the world, through the inclusion of the the Falkland Islands, have become the most debated and talked about throughout the world.

Saint Helena, Ascension & Tristan da Cuhna, Africa

Population:

• ≈4500 – 5530 Total (Roughly a hundredth of the population of the city of Sheffield, England)

(Above: Location of the three islands of the Mid-Atlantic)

Amongst some of the most isolated locations in the world, Britain still maintains control over several islands in the mid-Atlantic. Forming one territory, the islands of Ascension, St Helena and Tristan da Cuhna are little pockets of British culture and politics in one of the world’s largest oceans.

St Helena can claim to be the second oldest remaining British colony, having been settled by the East India Company in 1657. They became important stopover points for ships, both mercantile and military, as they traveled through the Atlantic, although their importance has risen and fallen repeatedly due to their isolation. Arguably the most famous moment for the territory was when St Helena was chosen as the location of exile for Napoleon Bonaparte, who was one amongst several prisoners kept on the island throughout its history. This further highlighted the territories remoteness but have provided the modern day island with a tourist attraction that continues to draw people to the island.

The islands do not suffer from the same conflicts, regarding ownership, that the Falklands or South Georgia Islands do and therefore development is being pushed through far more rapidly. The territory is largely reliant on British aid, but investment to develop an airport on St Helena, increasing tourism and trade of raw material, is going ahead and this could potentially open up St Helena to both British and foreign investors, transforming the territory.

(Above: Jamestown, the Capital of St Helena)

Falkland, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, South America

Population:

• 2,841 (Falklands) [Roughly one hundredth of the population of Sunderland, England]
• ≈99 (South Georgia & South Shetland Islands)

(Above: The Falkland, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands in the South Atlantic)

Further south still, Britain’s two territories in the South Atlantic are the most controversial legacies of British colonial rule. It is here that Britain is most acutely threatened by military conflict and it was here in the 1980’s that British territory was last invaded.

The Falkland Islands have been a flash-point in British-Argentinian relations for many years and even after the war in the 1980’s, over the ownership of these islands, there have been numerous occasions, as recently as this week, in which Argentina have demanded Britain hand over control of the Falklands.

The Falklands have had a long and complex history which involves many rival claims to territory and the establishment of numerous settlements. However since 1833 the islands have been British owned and the British government has frequently demonstrated its determination to retain the islands as British territory as long as the Falklanders continue to consider themselves British. Even at the other end of the world the islands retain a strong sense of British identity, with the population strongly rejecting the idea of Argentinian sovereignty.

In 2012 tensions have escalated over these island yet again with the Argentinian politicians reiterating their view that British rule is illegal and that Falklanders have no right to self-determination. In 2013 the territory will vote in a referendum to determine whether they want to remain part of Britain or not, however with Argentina seeking only one outcome in the dispute little may be achieved in the long run, following this referendum.

Because of the war of the 1980’s and the continued presence of the Falklands in the news, it has become the figurehead for what remains of the British Empire. It represents an age when Britain occupied territory in all four corners of the world and demonstrates how even after decolonialisation of most of Britain’s former colonies, British culture and identity can continue to be found across the globe.

(Above: Stanley, the Capital of the Falklands)

British Antarctic Territory, Antarctica

Population:

• 50+ in Winter; 400+ in Summer

(Above: Britain’s claim in Antarctica)

Although uninhabited except for a select group of scientists, this slice of the Antarctic continent is easily the largest Overseas Territory belonging to Britain. Although not officially recognised by the majority of the world’s nations, the other territorial claimants in Antarctica; France, Norway, New Zealand and Australia all mutually recognise each other’s claim. However the British claim has been disputed by the Argentinian and Chilean governments, whose claims both overlap that of Britain.

Britain’s claim of Antarctica includes the Antarctic Peninsula, one of the most varied regions in the continent, and the newly named Queen Elizabeth Land that follows the British claim all the way down to the South Pole.

Although only occupied by research stations at present the future of Antarctica is often debated and Britain is likely to be at the forefront of any alterations to Antarctica’s status.

(Above: The Antarctic Peninsula)

The British Overseas territories in the South Atlantic and Antarctica remain the least fragmented of any region of the former British Empire. Despite the small population (which combined do not come close to the population of even medium sized cities in England) they have often been the centre of political controversy which has remained a constant reminder of a widespread anti-colonial rhetoric amongst world nations. However these territories have remained supported by and loyal to the British government and have stayed as bastions as British culture even in the most remote locations on the planet.

By Peter Banham

Bhutan: In the Shadow of the Tiger and Dragon

As a writer I love to focus on countries and areas where there is little real knowledge beyond preconceptions, tied up in the name of these destinations. People often have an interpretation of the these places, maybe based on the media or travel brochures, but much of the politics of these countries is unknown and I like to open up these unknown and relatively hidden nations.

Within the world there is none more secretive than the Himalayan mountain state of Bhutan. This ancient Kingdom, one of the few remaining monarchy’s in the world, is a landlocked country both in terms of geography and foreign policy. It is caught between two of the world’s biggest powers; India and China, who not only define the borders of the states but the foreign policy of the Bhutanese government.

India has been a permanent presence in the government of Bhutan and from 1949 onward was in control of the foreign relations of this small state. They dictated how Bhutan would operate in the international arena and ensured that they would follow a pro-Indian line of foreign affairs. However in 2007 the two sides renegotiated this agreement, establishing the Indian-Bhutanese Friendship Pact which recognised that Bhutan would finally no longer be the subordinate  partner in the politics of the region, but rather an equal partner. Bhutan and India agreed to recognise the sovereignty of each nation and ensured that neither would infringe the interests of the other. Although this appeared to have created equality between the regional powers in reality it changed very little.

The relationship between Bhutan and India is one between one of the world’s greatest economic powers, a potential future superpower, and one of the world’s smallest economies. It is a relationship between a leading member of the international political environment and one that has not established formal diplomatic relations with some of the important leading powers. Its clear that, although Bhutan has regained control over its foreign policy, it remains firmly under the thumb of its much larger neighbour. India controls the direction Bhutan will take as it develops further, both economically, through the sponsoring of development projects, and politically by being a big voice for Bhutan in international forums.

Much of the reliance on India is necessary not simply because of Bhutan’s relative small size or limited economy and political clout, but because across the border a bigger threat to Bhutan’s sovereignty exists, China. China and Bhutan have historically had bad relations, despite the fact that both countries share a border in the Himalayas. Much of the hostility lies in the Chinese takeover of Tibet in 1950 that sparked off a series of disputes between the two nations.

Bhutan had  traditionally maintained close cultural links to Tibet, largely due to the shared religious connections between the two states. However following the Chinese invasion, the sovereignty of  Bhutan, like that of Tibet, came under threat from officials in Beijing, some of which believed that Bhutan was part of ancient Chinese territory. Maps were drawn up showing Bhutan as an integral part of China and Chinese soldiers have several incursions in Bhutanese territory. However Bhutan, unlike Tibet, was never historically under Chinese control and therefore there is little legitimacy to the claims of Chinese officials. These disputes over territory and Bhutanese sovereignty has led a build up of military personnel on both sides of the border, which themselves have become fragmented and disputed.

The border disputes have created a political stalemate between the two nations. For much of the 20th century the Bhutanese government have taken one a neutral stance towards Chinese ambitions in the Himalayas. It realised soon after the Sino-Indian War of 1962, which India lost, that it may have to do more to defend its own borders and therefore has advocated a policy of minimizing the political disagreements between Bhutan and China. To this end it recognised the People’s Republic of China as the official representative of the Chinese people, rather than Taiwan and it started preliminary negotiations with Beijing, in order to resolve the border disputes as part of China’s wider ‘good neighbour’ policy.

However this neutrality had meant that no real progress, towards creating a lasting relationship with China, has been achieved. The two nations remain diametrically opposed to each with Bhutan still vesting political faith in India, rather than China. It is economically tied to India and whilst development sponsored by India may be viewed as progress, Chinese sponsored development is seen as interference. This largely mirrors the relationship between China and India themselves, that despite both being major economic and political powers, is a relationship weighted in favour of China.

Both are wary of the geopolitical aspirations of the other. China fears India’s increasing role in the Himalayan region, Indian Ocean and South China Sea as threats to China’s regional supremacy, whilst India fears China’s increasing relation with long term rivals, such as Pakistan and Burma. Bhutan, naturally, is caught in the middle of the two powers and although its has allied itself with India, many would argue that Bhutan is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Allying with either power would alienate the other, but going it alone would force the country to cut itself off further from the world.

Bhutan is a country that is coming to grips with a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, where the economic situation of one nation can inspire great development or cripple another. Where society and cultures are becoming increasingly intermingled, forcing nations and groups to push for clearer definitions of where they end and the ‘other’ begin. Bhutan is a nation that allows few visitors in and even fewer developers, instead basing their progress on Gross National Happiness. It is hard to reconcile the small, quiet nation that focuses on happiness as a prosperity indicator, with the large economic powerhouses of India and China.

It is difficult to see how Bhutan fits in within their foreign policy agendas and indeed whether affiliation with either nation is neccessarily a positive thing. However Bhutan, which seems poised for change, believes that India is the route to emerging out of the shadow of these two economic giants and standing independently within the international arena.

By Peter Banham