International Relations

In spite of the fact that the American Government Led NATO against Serbia and that the American military is here, and their largest military base outside the United States is in Kosova, Kosovars are still asking: “Where Are The Americans? ” Of course, a more complete elaboration on the basic question is: “Where Are The Americans? Why aren’t Americans supporting our full Independence? Why hasn’t their government recognized the full Independence of Kosova? Why aren’t the big American corporations coming to Kosova? Why do they let the EU run everything in Kosova?

Why isn’t an American the Special Representative to the Secretary-General of the UN in Kosova? They went against European opposition and convinced NATO to go to war against Serbia and liberate us from oppression, but where are the Americans now? ” Certainly the Americans are here, but the answer to many of the questions rests with the Kosova people, and the politics of Europe. Kosova is in Europe, and it is only natural that the European Community has the central concern and input regarding the status of Kosova.

Under the current circumstances, any proclamations by the United States would be viewed as interfering with the European Union, and this would be diplomatically improper. Currently, the official communications regarding the situation in Kosova, and the issue of “final status” is limited to UNMIK and the European Union, as these are the entities that have UN delegated responsibilities regarding Kosova. The Americans are stronger in their influence within KFOR, which is separate from UNMIK Administration.

However, when Kosovars clearly declare their Independence from Serbia, and demand that the UN fulfill its obligations in accordance with 1244(1999) for Kosova to have: “.. provisional democratic self-governing institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo. ” Then, and only then, can the United States and other nations respond to a direct request by Kosovars for support in the establishment of an independent democratic process within Kosova!

The Americans and others would then be able to question the EU more directly, as to why the European Union is against the full Independence of Kosova, when the history of the Serbians has been one of repeated aggressions, and an absence of any remorse. It is a logical question to ask, why after so many conflicts and so many losses by the Serbs, does the European Union continue to appease Serbia, rather than imposing harsh consequences? We must learn the process of politics and diplomacy.

We have been great leaders and warriors, but we must not forget that we have never had a leader in peace. We are physically and morally strong, we are intelligent but we are not experienced in politics and diplomacy. However, we cannot let this situation continue, and we must now use any and all means to become as effective in Politics and Diplomacy as we have been in war. Kosova’s political leaders have been active, but we must accept the reality of Kosovar limitations and ensure that all leaders quickly become truly adept in politics and diplomacy.

Another response to “Where Are The Americans” is that the American people are at home in the United States, working, playing, studying, watching Television, listening to the radio, reading newspapers; and all of these things are being done in English. It is true that there are a few thousand Americans who speak Albanian, but how many are in positions of authority and how many are actually doing anything effective to bring the “message” the “truth” about Kosova to the American people? How can the average American care about Kosova, if they know nothing about Kosova?

Americans are paying close attention to world events, such as the terror threats and the issue with Iraq, and they are paying attention because they are being communicated to in English. Why should American journalists pay attention to Kosova when anything of importance has to be translated from Albanian to English by them? We speak out, and demonstrate, but nothing is said or written in English. If we want to get Americans interested in Kosova, we must speak and publish in the English language in addition to Albanian.

Every key speech given; every key event; every meeting attended must be also presented in English. Our daily newspapers should have at least one page in English presenting all the headlines and a brief about the story, and our television news and key presentations must also be done in English. If we want people to listen to us, then we better speak their language! Our periodicals should contain English features, and every major press release by any organization of influence should be prepared in good English.

This last statement is important, for if we present English copy that is poorly done, we will look uneducated in the eyes of those reading the material. In the few instances when our business and/or government organizations have provided English versions, they appear to the reader as having been done by a child just learning to speak and write in English. We must utilize the skills of professional translators in any and all areas that affect our future, especially if we wish to reach and involve the American people.

We certainly do not provide a good image if we cannot express crucial issues in good English to the world. In business and politics, it is the English language that predominates, and we better catch up fast! Just about every adult Kosovar knows that the European Union is “concerned” about the unification of ethnic Albanians; the development of a Kosovar military; and the potential for a significant American business, monetary and political influence in the Balkans. But as long as We Kosovars remain silent in English, and the citizens of America remain ignorant of the truth, the EU has nothing to worry about.

In the eyes and minds of Americans, it appears that “everything is OK” in Kosova, and they believe that if everything is going well, why should Americans continue to support the American Military being in Kosova? Americans believe: If “everything is OK,” let Europe bear the costs of taking care of Kosova and we can move our troops to where they are needed! American politicians respond to the will of the American people, and Kosova politicians and the Kosovar people need to recognize this fact and reach out to the Heart of the United States, the American people!

We must have the courage to make strong and timely Diplomatic moves, such as the publicly restating our Independence, and request direct assistance from particular nations in order to counter the current negative intent and actions of the European Union and Serbia to keep us within and under Serbian Dominance. We Kosovars need to “wake up, and stand up” and speak out, in a loud, firm, clear and unified English Speaking voice, against the effective Serbian Propaganda, The Manipulation of The Hague, and the Appeasement efforts of the European Union. They are making their propaganda in English, and it must be countered in English!

Globalization is a relatively new term used to describe a very old process. Since the first appearance of the term in 1962 ‘globalization’ has gone from jargon to cliche. The Economist has called it “the most abused word of the 21st century. ” It is much exploited in the modern century and is seen as both a curse and a blessing. Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology.

This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world. For thousands of years, people have been buying from and selling to each other in lands at great distances, such as through the Silk Road across Central Asia that connected China and Europe. Likewise, for centuries, people and corporations have invested in enterprises in other countries.

But policy and technological developments of the past few decades have spurred increases in cross-border trade, investment, and migration so large that many observers believe the world has entered a qualitatively new phase in its economic development. It involves a stretching of social, political and economic activities across political frontiers, regions and continents. It suggests the growing magnitude, of interconnectedness and flows of trade, investment, finance, migration, culture, etc.

The growing extensity, intensity and velocity of global interactions can be associated with their deepening impact such that the effects of distant events can be highly significant elsewhere and even the most local developments may come to have enormous global consequences. In this sense, the boundaries between domestic matters and global affairs can become increasingly blurred. Introduction to International Relations The study of IR involves looking at the nature and principal forces of international organization as well as the political, social, economic organization of political life.

IR is also concerned with an examination of elements of national power, including the limitation of national power and examining how it can be controlled. IR also focuses on the instruments available for promotion of national interest, with foreign policies of major powers and of smaller (strategic) powers and considers other historical ingredients as a background for events affecting the current sphere of International Relations. International Relations is wider in scope than international politics.

International Relations embraces the totality of relations among people and groups of people in global society, which go beyond looking at political forces to an examination of socio-cultural and economic processes as well. The international relations are series of global issues and relations which are among the nations, states and organizations with the framework of international system. With regard to this definition, international relation has been explained in the framework of international system.

As a process of interaction and integration among people, companies and governments of different nations Globalization is a process driven by the International Trade and Investment and aided by Information technology. This process on the environment on culture, on political system, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world The effect of globalization upon economy

Economic globalization refers to the increasing interdependence of world economies as a result of the growing scale of cross-border trade of commodities and services, flow of international capital and wide and rapid spread of technologies. It reflects the continuing expansion and mutual integration of market frontiers, and is an irreversible trend for the economic development in the whole world at the turn of the millennium. Economic globalization is generally associated with neo-liberal policies.

Such policies include reductions in tariffs, the reduction or elimination of restrictions on foreign investment, and the inclusion of services such as banking and insurance in trade regimes. By late 1990s the GDP of the richest 20% of the population was 86% where as the poorest 20% of the population possessed only 1% of the GDP thus affirming, the gap between the rich and the poor, which is being more and more defined day by day and is being blamed upon globalization. The increases in economic cross-border flows that have resulted in more “open” economies are a result, in part, of World Trade

Organization, International Monetary Fund and World Bank policies. All this change is supported by a new international architecture – from the United Nations and international organizations, such as WHO, to economic blocs such as the European Union, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the North American Free Trade Agreement. The rise of globalization has created interdependent markets that highlight the pros and cons of leveraging foreign exchange. Many proponents of global business argue that mutual benefits derive from the global specialization of products and services.

The general stance is that the benefits of globalization outweigh the economic and social costs by achieving higher efficiency and by providing GDP growth in underdeveloped regions Supporters of globalization argue that the benefits of a more interdependent global economy outweigh the drawbacks. However one cannot be completely blind to the disadvantages posed by this. •Foreign exchange allows more products and services to be available, while also lowering costs, because of specialization. •Free trade is a way for countries to exchange goods and resources.

This means countries can specialize in producing goods where they have a comparative advantage. However Developing countries often struggle to compete with developed countries, therefore it is argued free trade benefits developed countries more. There is an infant industry argument which says industries in developing countries need protection from free trade to be able to develop. •In terms of free movement of labour, increased labour migration gives advantages to both workers and recipient countries.

If a country experiences high unemployment, there are increased opportunities to look for work elsewhere. This process of labour migration also helps reduce geographical inequality. However, certain countries have a tendency of being pressurized on housing and social services. It can be seen that developed countries such as USA, Canada, and Australia are now restricting the labour intake. Furthermore, some countries find it difficult to hold onto their best skilled workers, who are attracted by higher wages elsewhere. Globalization has also enabled increased levels of investment.

It has made it easier for countries to attract short term and long term investment. Investment by multinational companies can play a big role in improving the economies of developing countries. •Domestic monopolies used to be protected by lack of competition. However, globalization means that firms face greater competition from foreign firms. This puts pressure on firms to be increasingly efficient and offer better products for consumers. Multinational Companies may be able to force out local retailers, leading to less choice for consumers and less cultural diversity. It is evident that globalization has played a massive role in the economy. It has undergone rapid changes within a short period of time exposing the society to both risks as well as benefits. It is up to the rationality of man to choose between and come to the most beneficial conclusion while keeping in mind that a sustainable economy has to be built for the future generations. Globalization and Politics

Globalization affects politics in many profound ways. As the borders between countries get blurred, politics get more complicated. When politicians once had to consider only their own constituency things were simpler, but now we are dealing with things on a more global scale at which point everyone is more involve further complicating the governance. All of the economies are interconnected and what happens in one country can have negative consequences for another. Traditionally politics has been undertaken within national political systems.

National governments have been ultimately responsible for maintaining the security and economic welfare of their citizens, as well as the protection of human rights and the environment within their borders. With global ecological changes, an ever more integrated global economy, and other global trends, political activity increasingly takes place at the global level. Under globalization, politics can take place above the state through political integration schemes such as the European Union and through intergovernmental organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.

Political activity can also transcend national borders through global movements and NGOs. Civil society organizations act globally by forming alliances with organizations in other countries, using global communications systems, and lobbying international organizations and other actors directly, instead of working through their national governments. An obvious characteristic of globalization is that money, goods and manufacturing have become far more mobile than they once were, with the result that corporations are freer than ever to move, and finance to invest, wherever they choose.

Therefore, national governments are less able to control the activities of mobile businesses than in the past, while corporations and finance are in a better position to dictate to national governments. The national state is not so much being subordinated or sidelined as acting on its own, in response to complex stimuli, to reduce the scope of its control over society through privatization, contracting out of government work, creation of semi-independent government agencies, and delegation to other levels of government.

The benefits and disadvantages under this topic are also controversial. •International organizations and other nations play a role in the politics of every nation. The political system exists as a composite system. Owing to this the countries are wary of their national interest and their interference could have both positive and negative impacts. For example the war in Sri Lanka with the LTTE was under constant scrutiny by the rest of the world. The interference possibly caused the war to extend for a longer period of time, hence making the stabilizing peace in the country a slow process.

Sri Lanka also was supported by certain countries and certain others were critical. •The politicians are less likely to dominate the society as a whole and reap the benefits for themselves as the political system is under scrutiny and their defects in the world limelight could create chaos in the society and lead to further intervention. •Intervention can also lead to unhealthy relations. For example with USA inventing and aiding South Korea, the world immediately split into those favourable with South Korea and North Korea creating further disputes among nations. Even though globalization is in place, every nation does not have equal power. United States is still considered to be the super power and their decisions will play a huge role upon the political system hence creating an illusion of globalization. It is no hidden agenda that many organizations are in fact heavily influenced by the authority of such super powers Globalization and International Law Globalization challenges many of the traditional assumptions about International law, its relationship to domestic law, the ways in which it is created and the methods of its enforcement.

Law has traditionally been the province of the nation state, whose courts and police enforce legal rules. By contrast, international law has been comparatively weak, with little effective enforcement powers. But globalization is changing the contours of law and creating new global legal institutions and norms. Diplomats and jurists are creating international rules for bankruptcy, intellectual property, banking procedures and many other areas of corporate law. In response to this internationalization, and in order to serve giant, transnational companies, law firms are globalizing their practice.

The biggest firms are merging across borders, creating mega practices with several thousand professionals in dozens of countries. In recent years and currently human rights law involves areas such as cultural rights, environmental rights, indigenous and minority rights, privacy and data protection, human rights while countering terrorism, access to justice, international mechanisms for the protection of human rights, and the interface between human rights law and international humanitarian law, particularly in the context of the changing nature of armed conflicts.

Increasingly, issues of international criminal law are integrated into the research conducted. The impact of new technologies upon the enjoyment of human rights receives careful attention, including biotechnologies and detection and surveillance technologies. Globalization has led to more legal topics than existed before which inevitably leads to a widening in international scope. Globalization has unified the world at which point law cannot be concentrated to one nation and its regulations only. A common ground is sought after to equalize and stabilize the platform of law as well.

To be effective, regulatory decisions must increasingly involve the international level. International law today already recognizes a core commitment to deliver basic rights, subsistence food and shelter, and some minimum level of security, as a function of our basic humanity. The task of international legal theory, or global legal theory as it should be, is to draw upon both traditional domestic political theory, and innovative studies of our new global social reality, to design the next generation of global institutions and doctrines capable of delivering global justice for a global community.

Globalization and International Relations International Relations (IR) is the study of relationships among countries, the roles of sovereign states, inter-governmental organizations (IGO), international non-governmental organizations (INGO), non-governmental organizations (NGO), and multinational corporations (MNC). International relations is an academic and a public policy field, and so can be positive and normative, because it analyzes and formulates the foreign policy of a given State.

Earlier the impact of globalization upon international law, economy and politics was discussed upon, creating the back drop for the discussion of International relations with regard to globalization. It is evident that many changes have taken place and that states are involved in a co-existence where it can be seen that national matters play a massive role in the international scope. The changes that have been made in the above fields create the core of the effect of globalization upon the study of International Relations.

Globalization is a complex interconnection between capitalism and democracy, which involves positive and negative features that both empowers and disempowers individuals and groups. Diplomats and representatives aim to preserve national communities and heritage in various ways, from issuing passports to drafting peace talks. Globalization has demonstrated the importance of interdependent governments and economies.

Alliances such as the European Union, NAFTA, WTO, etc have made international relations stronger and powerful. Even though globalization has benefited strong countries and cultures, it can make it difficult for other nations and countries to compete globally. Foreign policy is becoming more aware of how globalization affects its government and people. Diplomats still compromise and support their home countries views and actions, and globalization, in terms of communication and accessibility. Conclusion I relation to the advantages and adverse effects, it should firstly mentioned that Globalization is inevitable and it has played a massive role in the society. Blurring of the lines between State and civil society, increasing political relations between people of different countries, raising the standard of living for the majority of the world’s people, increased impact of global forces of all kinds on local life, expansion of the range of financial, commercial, cultural and social interactions among foreign ountries and nationals, systems of interaction between the global and the local, progressive strengthening of democratic values and institutions, development of new information technologies and unprecedented trade liberalization can be cited as a few effects of globalization. However as with every matter, negative impacts can be seen a plenty. The biggest challenge and disaster that has been brought upon is the effect upon the environment which is not seen as beneficial.

Uneven Distribution of Wealth, Income Gap Between Developed and Developing Countries, where the wealth of developed countries continues to grow twice as much as the developing is another issue at hand. It is evident that the super powers still hold the upper hand in international affairs despite the effect of globalization. In fact more countries are beholden to the corporate giants and they have in turn amassed power establishing more security at their positions. Cultural expression is also at risk with the growing concept of globalization.

With social media playing a giant role in daily lives in bringing people together it can be seen that western culture is being more propagated, especially in suburbs and that the indigenous cultural heritage of different nations is being slowly washed away. However despite the outcry, it is an accepted fact that globalization is here to stay, whether one likes it or not. It is a process which is almost cliche that has been taking place since the ancient ages and has boomed with the industrial revolutions and technological advances. It is the responsibility of the society as a whole to make wise decisions and adapt to the social changes.

However it the super powers appear to be making most use of this concept and it does not seem as if any change will take place soon, even though it is quite necessary especially for developing and third world countries to rise. International Organizations and other necessary associations should play a main role in this situation as they play a rather vital role in the scope of international relations and the betterment of the world as a whole. “Today, the rich are the haves and the poor are the have-nots. Tomorrow, the rich will be the have-food and the poor will be the have-not food. ” ? Bill Gaede

“In 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, a waterway marking the boundary between Egyptian territory in Africa and the Sinai Peninsula. Thereafter, Israeli ships were prohibited from using the Canal, owing to the state of war between the two states. Egypt also prohibited ships from using Egyptian territorial waters on the eastern side of the peninsula to travel to and from Israel, effectively imposing a blockade on the Israeli port of Eilat. Subsequently, in what is known in Egypt as the Tripartite Aggression, Israeli forces, aided by Britain, and France, invaded Sinai and occupied much of the peninsula within a few days.

Several months later Israel withdrew its forces from Sinai, following strong pressure from the United States and the Soviet Union. Thereafter, the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was stationed in Sinai to prevent any military occupation of the Sinai. In 1967, Egypt reinforced its military presence in Sinai, changed the prohibition of Israeli shipping using Egyptian territorial waters and on May 16, ordered the UNEF out of Sinai with immediate effect. Secretary-General U Thant eventually complied and ordered the withdrawal without Security Council authorization.

Subsequent to Egyptian actions, Israel attacked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, starting the Six-Day War. Israel captured the entire Sinai Peninsula, and Palestine’s Strip from Egypt, the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan (which it had ruled since 1949), and the Golan Heights from Syria. The Suez Canal, the east bank of which was now occupied by Israel, was closed. Israel expelled thousands of Egyptians from Sinai, and commenced efforts at large scale Israeli settlement in the peninsula, concurrently with similar settlement in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights.

Following the Israeli conquest of Sinai, Egypt launched the War of Attrition aimed at forcing Israel to withdraw from Egyptian territory. The war saw protracted conflict in the Suez Canal Zone, ranging from limited to large scale combat. Israeli shelling of civilian areas in the cities of Port Said, Ismailia, and Suez on the west bank of the canal, led to high civilian casualties (including the virtual destruction of Suez), and contributed to the flight of some one million Egyptian internal refugees. Ultimately, the war concluded in 1970 with no change in the front line.

Upon becoming President of Egypt following the death in office of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Al-Sadat sought a diplomatic solution to the conflict, offering peace and recognition to Israel in exchange for the Israeli withdrawal from all the Egyptian, Palestinian, and Syrian territory occupied in 1967, and a resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem. Israel rejected all of Egypt’s proposals, with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir insisting that Sinai was now part of Israel, and that it would be settled by Israelis.

Consequently, Egypt and Syria began planning jointly for a military offensive to re-take their respective territories under Israeli occupation. On 6 October 1973, Egypt commenced Operation Badr to liberate Sinai, whilst Syria launched a simultaneous operation to liberate the Golan Heights, thereby beginning the Yom Kippur War (known in Egypt as the October War). Egyptian engineering forces built pontoon bridges to cross the Suez Canal, and stormed the supposedly impregnable Bar-Lev Line, Israel’s defensive line along the canal.

Though the Egyptians maintained control of most of the east bank of the Canal, in the later stages of the war, the Israeli military crossed the southern section of Canal, cutting off the Egyptian 3rd Army, and occupied a section of the west bank. The war ended following a mutually agreed-upon ceasefire. After the war, as part of the subsequent Sinai Disengagement Agreements, Israel withdrew from the Canal, with Egypt agreeing to permit passage of Israeli ships.

The canal was reopened in 1975, with President Sadat leading the first convoy through the canal aboard an Egyptian destroyer. In 1979, Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty in which Israel agreed to withdraw from the entirety of Sinai. Israel subsequently withdrew in several stages, ending in 1982. The Israeli pull-out involved dismantling almost all Israeli settlements, including the settlement of Yamit in north-eastern Sinai. The exception was the coastal city of Sharm el-Sheikh, which the Israelis had renamed as Ofira during the period of their occupation.

The Treaty allows monitoring of Sinai by the Multinational Force and Observers, and limits the number of Egyptian military forces in the peninsula. ” (Wikipedia, 2013) Problem Since Egypt and Israel were always fighting for the right to be at the Sinai Peninsula, they damaged it. Everyone is trying to have Sinai peninsula because of its important role when it came to power for trade in the sea. After a lot of years, Egypt finally came to make a peace treaty that said that Israel would have to withdraw from the entirety of Sinai.

Israel did it, with the exception of the city of Sharm el-Sheikh. Causes Egypt and Israel wanted Sinai because of the trade they could gain if they had it for their country. Each wanted Sinai for the territory. Now days, there has been a lot of terrorist attacks because of the resentment of the poverty faced by many Bedouin in the area. Attacking the tourist industry was viewed as a method of damaging the industry so that the government would pay more attention to their situation.

Since the 2011 Egyptian Revolution unrest has become more prevalent in the area including the 2012 Egyptian-Israeli border attack in which 16 Egyptian soldiers were killed by militants 3. Responsible People “The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights has denounced what it calls terrorist acts in Sinai in the early hours of Monday morning, blaming the Muslim Brotherhood for the violence in which civilians, including children, were killed and wounded.

The organization blamed the Muslim Brotherhood for attacs which saw civilians, including children, killed Monday. The EOHR claimed Ikhwan leaders had aggravated the situation, by stating that “the situation in Sinai will calm down only if President [Mohamed] Morsy is reinstated. “” (Egypt Independent, 2013) Tripartite aggression: Because they invaded Sinai Peninsula Egypt government of that time: Because they nationalized the Suez Canal and began the war.

Queen Elizabeth of England was known as one of the most successful rulers of her time for a number of different reasons. She did many things right, but the most prevailing aspect of her reign was her foreign policy. She was something of a revolutionary leader during that time in a number of different ways. While other leaders were busy fighting big wars to protect themselves from danger, Queen Elizabeth found a way to keep her enemies at bay by pacifying them.

She used power and influence to balance between the countries and the powers that would have otherwise been a problem during that time. Though the premise of her policy was to help England, it actually helped much of Europe as a result. For example, European powers like France and Germany were able to build their military power and their financial backing while not having to defend against a large armed force in England.

Without having to look too far, one can find some of Elizabeth’s policies being utilized in the world today. In some ways, they are being used in many of the same ways that Elizabeth used her policies back in England. There are some very good examples, including the situation that is currently happening in Ukraine. Ukraine is a country that was involved with the Soviet Union for a long time, so they have struggled in the period shortly following that. The adjustment has been difficult, because the country still holds onto its Russian roots, but it is being pulled towards the Western world. Being in such proximity to both Russia and Europe, Ukraine has to fact tough questions about the direction of their country.

China is a country that is always in balance between various powers, as well. On one side of them, there is Japan, who holds much of the world’s power in the financial district. One the other hand, they have to balance between the socialist nations that surround them in the South Pacific. In order to make sure that they keep a good reputation around the world, China has had to keep pacify the Western world.

They are a large producer of goods, so in order to stay viable, they have to keep the important trade relationships that have been developed up to this point. On the other hand, the socialist nature of their government makes it difficult for them to relate with countries like the United States and many of the nations in Europe.

In the sixteenth century, England found itself in an interesting position. In many ways, the world was changing during that time. Today, it is still a changing world, so countries still have to account for these changes. Instead of having to simply care for today, countries like China and Ukraine have to take into account what might happen tomorrow.

This is why it is difficult for these countries to have an economic and military strategy that pleases everyone. Queen Elizabeth was able to balance the interests of her country and many different countries, so that they could become a power in the changing world. If England did not have such a balanced policy, then there is no way they could have charged into the new age in such that they would maintain their power into this current time.