Dear readers

In the next few weeks I’ll be closing down this website as I’ve replaced it with another which if you wish you can visit at:  http://kotzabasis3.wordpress.com

Thanks for your visits,

Con George-Kotzabasis

Fallibility of Technocrats No Reason to Debunk them

By Con George-Kotzabasis

“We work in the dark—we do what we can—we give what we have.” Henry James

Science has been built on a “mountain” of errors. No correct policy has arisen—like Athena out of Zeus’s head—from an immaculate conception but from a compilation of corrected mistakes. The task of a wise, imaginative, and intrepid technocrat is not to despair before mistakes, like Professor Yanis Varoufakis, and be pessimistic about the future, but to overcome them. This is the task and challenge of both Mario Monti and Lucas Papademos, whom both professor Varoufakis disparages, as well as, in the case of Greece, of the statesman, Antonis Samaras. But obviously, it is not the task that can be consummated by Professor Varoufakis. Although one must admit that in his Modest Proposal, (MP) with Jonathan Swift’s title, co-authored with Stuart Holland, surprisingly, he takes a positive and optimistic view how to resolve the European crisis. Regrettably, however, economically and politically the MP was found to be flawed and it was demolished by Andreas Koutras’s sharp and acute critique.

 

The Diplomatic Peregrinations in the Holy Land of a Lacklustre Strategist

By Con George-Kotzabasis October 7, 2011

The “lion” appointed by President Obama to the office of Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta, who purportedly is defending America and the West from deadly foes, in his latest visit to the Middle East is advising Israel, from his Olympian heights, ‘to take risks for peace.’ This advice, however, is redundant, superfluous, and otiose and Prime Minister Netanyahu has every reason to reject and oppugn such crass “displaced” advice. Israel had already taken risks in the past with no benefit accruing to it, least of all peace. It had withdrawn from Gaza and re-settled its citizens within the borders of Israel with the result that Gaza was taken over by the terrorist organization Hamas and Israel had to defend itself from a rain of rockets fired by the militants of Hamas; and it had likewise withdrawn from South Lebanon only for the latter to be taken over by the other blade of the terrorist scissors Hesbollah, that also started firing rockets against Israel forcing the latter to invade South Lebanon to protect its citizens from being killed. Israel had taken all these risks for peace. But what did it get in return, a deluge of rockets. What other risks Secretary Panetta has in mind for Israel that would bring the up till now eluding peace to the Middle East? For the Israelis to wait until Hamas and Hesbollah load the tips of their rockets with nuclear devices supplied in the near future by Iran? And what precautions and preventive measures the U.S. is taking to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

The answer to these questions lies in the further advice that the Secretary of Defence is giving to Israel. He tells it not to take “lone” action against Iran in its threat to develop nuclear weapons. Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal, he says, is the responsibility of major nations taking concerted diplomatic action. But this is a “Looney” policy that the Secretary is recommending to the Israelis. It has been tried so many times in the past and it has failed resoundingly. The Islamist regime is not going to change course in its determination to possess nuclear weapons by a truckload of diplomatic carrots but only by an “armada” of bristling porcupines that will pierce its thick skin. Diplomacy can succeed with the Iranian regime only if it is accompanied by the explicit threat of arms.

Leon Panetta has the sinews of a lamb disguised under the skin of a lion. His peregrinating debut in the Holy Land and his attempt to bring, as the “envoy” of the also weak President Obama, Palestinians and Israelis to the negotiating table will prove to be an abject failure, like all the previous efforts of his predecessor Senator Mitchell, also appointed by Obama. As we have predicted, the Obama presidency is a circus of underperforming political tyros, both in the international and domestic arena and more and more Americans are realizing this and are becoming disenchanted with Obama’s performance. The “sprightly colt”, who won the race to the White House with overwhelming support only two and a half years ago, is presently underwhelmed and is conceding to be the underdog in the 2012 elections. (See Obama’s interview with George Stefanopoulos on the ABC.)

 

Egypt: Which Side Will the Dominoes Fall?

In view of the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, I’m republishing the following essay that was written in February 2011, that foreshadowed and tried to prevent by a proposal of mine the fall of the country to radical Islam , for the readers of this blog.

By Con George-Kotzabasis February 08, 2011

Swallowing victory in one gulp may choke one.

Egypt, not unexpectedly for those who have read history and can to a certain extent adumbrate its future course, as one of the offsprings (Tunisia was the first one) of the rudimentary Democratic paradigm that was established in Iraq by the U.S. ‘invasion’, has a great potential of strengthening this paradigm and spreading it to the whole Arab region. The dominoes that started falling in Iraq under a democratic banner backed by the military power of the Coalition forces are now falling all over the Arab territories dominated by authoritarian and autocratic governments. The arc that expands from Tunisia to Iran and contains all other Arab countries has the prospect and promise of becoming the arc of Democracy. But Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty in physics also and equally applies to politics. For one cannot predict, especially in a revolutionary situation, and more so, when it is combined with fledgling and immature political parties that is the present political configuration in Egypt as well as of the rest of the Arab world due to the suppression of political parties by their authoritarian regimes, whether the dominoes will fall on the side of Democracy or on the side of Sharia radical Islam. This is why the outcome of the current turmoil in Egypt is of so paramount geopolitical importance. And that is why the absolute necessity of having a strong arm at the helm that will navigate the presently battered State of Egypt toward the safe port of Democracy is of the utmost importance. Contrariwise, to leave the course of these momentous events in the hands of the spontaneous and totally inexperienced leaders of the uprising against Mubarak is a recipe of irretrievable disaster. For that can bring the great possibility, if not ensure, that the dominoes in the whole Arab region will be loaded to fall on the side of the extremists of Islam. And this is why in turn for the U.S. and its allies in the war against global terror, it is of the uttermost strategic importance to use all their influence and prowess to veer Egypt toward a Democratic outcome.

One is constrained to build with the materials at hand. If the only available materials one has to build a structure in an emergency situation are bricks and mortar he will not seek and search for materials of a stronger fibre, such as steel, by which he could build a more solid structure. Presently in Egypt, the army is the material substance of ‘bricks and mortar’ by which one could build a future Democratic state. It would be extremely foolish therefore to search for a stronger substance that might just be found in civil society or among the protesters of Tahrir Square. That would be politically a wild goose chase at a time when the tectonic plates of the country are moving rapidly toward a structural change in the body politic. The army therefore is the only qualified, disciplined organization that can bring an orderly transitional change on the political landscape of the country. Moreover, the fact that it has the respect of the majority of the Egyptian people and that it has been bred and nourished on secular and nationalist principles, ensures by its politically ‘synthetic nature’ that it will not go against the wishes of the people for freedom and democracy, that it will be a bulwark against the extremists of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that it will be prepared to back the change from autocracy to democracy, if need be, with military force and thus steer the country away from entering the waters of anarchy and ‘permanent’ political instability that could push Egypt to fall into the lap of the supporters of Allahu Akbar.

The task of the army or rather its political representatives will be to find the right people endowed with political adeptness, experience, imagination, and foresight from a wide pool of political representation that would also include members of the old regime who will serve not only for their knowledge in the affairs of state but also as the strong link to the chain of the anchor that will prevent any possibility that the new political navigation of the country will go adrift. The former head of Egyptian Intelligence Omar Suleiman will play a pivotal role in this assembly of political representation which will not exclude members of the Muslim Brotherhood. What is of vital importance however is that this new political process will not be violently discontinued from the old regime. While room will be made to ensconce the new representatives of the people to government positions, this will not happen at the expense of crowding out old government hands. The only person that will definitely be left out will be Hosni Mubarak and some of his conspicuous cronies. And Mubarak himself has already announced that neither he nor his son will be candidates in the presidential elections in September. The call of the Tahrir Square protesters to resign now has by now become an oxymoron by Mubarak’s announcement not to stand as president in the next election. Further it is fraught with danger as according to the Constitution if he resigns now elections for the presidency must be held after sixty days. That means a pot- pourri of candidates for president will come forward without the people having enough time either to evaluate their competence nor their political bona fide and might elect precipitatingly without critical experience and guidance a ‘dunce’ for president, an Alexander Kerensky in the form of Mohamed Al Baradei, that will open the passage to the Islamic Bolsheviks. To avoid this likely danger I’m proposing the following solution that in my opinion would be acceptable to all parties in this political melee.

The Vice President Omar Suleiman as representative of the armed forces, to immediately set up a committee under his chairmanship that will comprise members of the variable new and old political organizations of the country, whose task will be to appoint the members of a ‘shadow government’ whose function in turn will be to put an end to the protests that could instigate a military coup d’état , to make the relevant amendments to the constitution that will guide the country toward democracy, and to prepare it for the presidential elections in September. The members of this shadow government will be a medley of current holders of government that would include the most competent of all, Ahmed Nazif, the former prime minister, who was sacked by Mubarak as a scapegoat, and of the old and new political parties that emerged since the bouleversement against Mubarak. The executive officer of this ‘government in the wings’ will be Vice President Suleiman, who, with the delegated powers given to him by the present no more functional president Mubarak will be the real president during this interim period. Finally, the members of this shadow government will have a tacit agreement that their political parties will support candidates for president in the September elections who were selected by consensus among its members.

The ‘establishment’ of such a shadow government might be the political Archimedean point that would move Egypt out of the crisis and push it toward democracy.

Hic Rhodus hic salta

Professor Proposes a silent Axis between France and Greece Contra Germany

By Con George-Kotzabasis May 10, 2012

It’s interesting that you don’t mention one word about your one night stand with your inamorata Tsipras, the Radical Left leader of Syriza. But it’s obvious that Hollande replaced the latter in your gyrating amours, after the politically and economically inane and embarrassing post-election statements of Tsipras. And it won’t be long before you will be disappointed with President Hollande too with his dealings with Germany and you will be looking for a still more exotic paramour.

You are mired in the past when you still consider that the European leaders continue to push the austerity programme for the southern European countries as the sole measure of getting them out of the economic crisis. In the new economic orchestration of Europe the ‘soloist’ austerity no longer jingles. All the major European leaders, Jose Barroso, Olli Rehn, Chancellor Merkel, Wolfgang Schauble, the top technocrats, Christine Lagarde, Mario Draghi, and Mario Monti, are talking now about economic recovery and growth without which austerity cannot succeed. Thus they have all taken their cue from Antonis Samaras who was the only statesman that sounded this syndrome of austerity and growth two years ago and had quarrelled with Merkel and Sarkozi, for which he had been severely criticised and disparaged by politicians and the media, such as The Economist. All of them however admitted subsequently that Samaras was right. Hence there is already a sounding axis between Greece and the whole of Europe due to the intercession of Antonis Samaras. Moreover, Samaras warned the European leaders that the policies of the first Memorandum would change the political configuration of the country, as they would both give rise to the forces of the extreme left as well as lead to the break-up of social cohesion which in turn would make the country un-governable. These warnings were tragically verified in the elections of May 6. And I pose the question, why Professor Varoufakis you lack the nobility and courage to give credit where credit is due, to Samaras?

You seem to be obsessed with your toy The Modest Proposal that would drag Europe out of its crisis, and not finding any other children to play with it, you have turned into a surly and cantankerous little boy. Since, as its sire along with Stuart Holland, you flagged it more than a year ago you have made so many ‘bastard’ revisions to it, that it has become difficult to identify the ‘true father’. But one thing is for sure, that in your vainglorious pursuit to persuade governments and bankers to adopt it, you will miserably fail. Your Modest Proposal was always a flying kite that would inevitably take its nosedive.

Greece: Democratic Left Lost its Courage before Great Danger

By Con George-Kotzabasis May 12, 2012

At this critical juncture for Greece whose fate is at stake and the formation of a unity government is imperative, the resolution of the latter’s impasse is in the hands of Fotis Kouvelis, the Leader of the Democratic Left, since the foolish, historically ignorant, hubristic, and unimaginative stand both of Syriza and the Communist Party (CP) to neither participate nor support a coalition government that will be condemned and discredited for many years to come for their politically barren obduracy, only Kouvelis who holds the key to the problem of forming a coalition government can prevent the country’s exit from Europe and at the same time as the embodiment of the ANANEOTIKI Aristera (Renewed Left), can salvage the political ideological credibility of the Left in Greece that is threatened to be obliterated by the doltish position of Syriza and CP.

The constant designated desire of a majority of the Greek people before and after the election was for the parties to form a coalition government and to remain in the Eurozone; also an overwhelming majority of people do not want another election. In the face of this bulky 70% wish of the people to have a coalition government and to stay in Europe, Syriza’s hope that by contravening the wish of the electorate it will increase its electoral percentage and be the first party in a second election is unwarranted and is a chimera. On the contrary a party with foresight, imagination, and daring can see that by fulfilling these strong wishes of the majority the chances are greater for such party to increase its votes than to be condemned for its participation in a coalition government with New Democracy and Pasok as Tsipras, the leader of Syriza, attempts to frighten Kouvelis. Especially when the setting up of such government is based on two conditions, (a) remaining in Europe and (b) to the extent possible radically modifies the Memorandum.

When your house is on fire you don’t ask who was responsible for it. The first thing you must do is to put the fire out before it burns your house with all those who are ready to help you. The historical and wise responsibility of Mr. Kouvelis is to cooperate with those parties which strongly want to save Greece from leaving Europe and prevent the absolute poverty that such departure would afflict the country.

The stupid and historical irresponsibility of Syriza must be countervailed by the wise, and historically daring, decision of Fotis Kouvelis to form government with New Democracy and Pasok despite their past misdeeds. It ‘s up to Kouvelis to cut this Gordian knot of Tsipras obstruction to the formation of a unity government and whether in the historical annals of Greece his name will be written in gold letters or in black charcoal.

Regrettably Kouvelis failed to cut the Gordian knot of Tsipras that obstructed a unity government and form a coalition government with New Democracy and Pasok without the participation of Syriza. He proved to be too weak to cross the intransigent and verboten line of Tsipras non-participation and boldly form government with New Democracy and Pasok at this critical time for the country. Intelligence without moral strength is useless in politics. Kouvelis’ repeated ‘rehearsal’ of an Ecumenical government, in which Syriza constantly and invariably refused to be part of it, by obdurately and stupidly sticking to it to the end became a farce. History will not be kind to him for this remarkable dereliction of duty and lack of courage before this great danger of the country when the question for it is to be or not to be, and he will be justifiably and appropriately be condemned for his obdurate refusal and failure of character to play a major part in salvaging Greece from its deadly woes that put at risk not only the economic but also the democratic existence of the country.

Critics of Leader of New Democracy Call for his Ousting

Life favours the brave. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

By Con George-Kotzabasis May 7, 2012

The deplorable low votes the major party in the electoral contest of Greece, on May 6, New Democracy obtained, has rallied some of the critics of its leader Antonis Samaras to ask for his ousting. One of them is Andreas Koutras, a very bright trained physicist who has changed his profession and presently is a top savvy financial consultant in the UK.

Surprisingly, you are profoundly pessimistic, not to say nihilistic, about Samaras, who is the greatest politician appearing on the political firmament of Greece since the great ethnarch Eleftherios Venizelos. Samaras is “framed in the prodigality of nature,” to quote Shakespeare, endowed with that rare combination of high intellect, imagination, stupendous moral strength, and political insight, which he proved by his prediction of the disastrous policy of austerity without economic resurgence, which the first Memorandum of the European Commission had directed Greece to implement as a remedy for its economic woes.

Statesmen are not responsible for the ignorance and political immaturity of their people. They try to lead daringly even in a vacuum of understanding among their people about the real dangers their country is facing. The tragedy of Samaras was that his clear, sagacious, and bold policies were not able to overcome and trump the ignorance of a large part of the electorate about the real dangers that were threatening Greece, especially in a state of akyvernisia (un-governability), which he also foresaw and tried with Herculean efforts to prevent, that presently its dark shadow hovers over Greece as a result of the inability of the political parties who won the election to come to an understanding and form government.

As a physicist you must know the fate of Galileo and how difficult it is to nullify ignorance. And your quote of Hitchens in your blog gives me the sense that you are aware of this difficulty. To wish therefore for Samaras removal, seems to me not only unjust but also politically immoral. And to hope that the leader of the radical left party Syriza that came second in the election,, a staunch votary of Hugo Chavez, that he will change his inveterate leftist populist position of anti-Europe led by Germany, is to indulge in wishful thinking.

Sometime ago you proposed a financial plan of how Greece could get out of its debt. Do you consider that it was your personal failure because people were too stupid to adopt it? Samaras, likewise, called for elections at a critical time for Greece and dared to lead a highly dejected and crestfallen people in these exceedingly difficult circumstances for the purpose of saving Greece. Do you blame him for doing this?

Presidential Jesters Give Standing Ovation to Obama before he Starts his Presidency

I’m republishing the following piece for the readers of this new blog.

By Con George-Kotzabasis A response to: President Obama’s First Foreign Policy Success –and it’s Only Day One

By Amjad Attalah

Washington Note January 20, 2009

Amjad Attalah must be in a cavorting jocular mood. He ludicrously, for him maybe seriously, claims that the “cease-fire” in Gaza is Obama’s “first foreign policy success.” And the latter was achieved, according to Attalah, not by any specific written communication or request by Obama to the Israelis but merely by the fact that Obama was the president-elect and not anybody else.

For the religious votaries of Obama, like Attalah, this will not be an ordinary presidency but an extraordinarily miraculous one. Just the healing presence of Obama, “He didn’t need to” do anything, the long irreconcilable and implacable conflicts of the world will be resolved beyond “bombing or rocketing.”  

It is apparent the TWN is becoming a stage for vaudevillian plays. With captions such as: “A demoralized and frantic Israeli state”, “a historic shift in our Middle East posture”, “to seek an opening and grand bargain with Iran,” written by that master virtuoso in vaudevillian politics Dan Kervick himself, all of them a box office success since they will attract as audience hoi polloi who have an inveterate craving to laugh at serious things. 

Paul Norheim says

“It is apparent the TWN is becoming a stage for vaudevillian
plays.” (kotzabasis)

Amusing, coming from someone who once praised Dick Cheney
as the Captain Ahab of the global war on terror, and who
certainly was not joking when he, some months ago, had this to
say about Sarah Palin:

“Palin’s selection is a political master stroke on the part of
McCain. Moreover this astute move is not merely a brilliant
manoeuvre on the field of American electoral politics, but also
adumbrates what a great president McCain will make.”

HAHAHA, as varanasi would have said if he wasn`t using his
passport right now.

 To his credit, kotzabasis`opinions, in contrast to TahoeEditor`s,
are based on his own bad instincts, and not merely copied from
the PR office of the GOP. Errare humanum est. But how can you
expect sound political judgement from someone who doesn`t
believe in political means, but only in their continuation, i.e.
bombs and rockets against evil?

 Kotzabasis says

Paul Norheim, what a week reed intellectually you must be in the torrential currents of the river of politics when intentionally and malevolently distort and take out of context the statements of your opponent to make your non-case.

Whatever you might think about Cheney, the gross errors, and indeed, criminal ones, according to you, he was a strong vice-president fully conscious of his responsibilities in the affairs of statecraft in the aftermath of 9/11. I contrasted him with Captain Ahab, as you well know, precisely because of the latter’s strength of character, which you lack, who would “strike the sun if it insulted him”, to quote a great literary critic.

As for Sarah, isn’t it a fact that she rejuvenated the base of the Republican Party and impacted initially a large part of the American electorate and it was only after the dirty campaign of calumny against her and her family by the liberal media that she was besmirched in the eyes of many Americans? McCain lost as a result of the hate many Americans had for Bush-Cheney and by association for the Republican Party which by trumping even the strong emotion of racism brought Obama to the White House. And as we know from Shakespeare, and indeed, Ibsen, your great compatriot, hate is the ultimate wicked human emotion that trumps all others.

And on the contrary, I do believe in the use of “political means” and in diplomacy and cease only to believe in these when they are proven to be completely ineffective, as they have been with the fanatic holy warriors of Islam.

Your errors of judgment have nothing to do with “Errare humanum est”, they rise from your weak character and shallow political nous.

 

 

 

Leaders Span by the Roll of the Dice

 By Con George Kotzabasis

The folowing is an extract from my book Unveiling The War Against Terror. The article was written on September 24, 2003 
                                                   

There was always a lurking suspicion that Gareth Evans’ projection on the firmament of Australian politics as Foreign Minister was not propelled by the force of egregious merit but by the force of the “roll of the dice”, as played in the numbers game of the “witless men” of the Labor Party. This suspicion was confirmed by the former Minister himself, by his intellectually tasteless and insipid, not to say brutal and banal, Hawke Lecture, mocking and deriding American Foreign Policy in the bombastiloquent, colorful, and jesting terms of a court jester. Obviously, your Chairman was more concerned with entertaining and beguiling his audience than enlightening it, although one must admit, that enlightenment cannot burst forth from an ‘eclipsed star’.

His “hors d’ oeuvres”,  to quote him, was the most eclectically bitter anti-Americanism one could taste. It was either the reaction of a prima donna who had been shunned, or of a political guru whose advice and pearls of wisdom were not allowed to trespass the corridors of power. After a litany of syndromes of medical and clinical psychology, which are so alluring and beloved by the progressive intelligentsia, after an array of run-of-the-mill accusations against the Bush Administration, such as “current enemies used to be friends” etc., which seem to reveal more the caliber of his diplomatic and political acumen, than the fault lines of the Administration’s foreign policy, and after his crude and brutish metaphors, such as “the top dog on the global block” (one can only ask about such a literary creation, was it an outcome of a syndrome of deprived imagination?), oblivious of the fact or shuffling it away, that it was this “dog” who saved the world from the twin miasma of Nazism and Communism, and that it will be the same dog who has the means and will to defeat global terrorism. At the end of this drivel, although he concedes that all these accusations might be “unfair”, he nonetheless does not abstain from the ignominious temptation to make a ‘big fair’ out of them.

The English essayist Chesterton observed, “where is the best place to hide a leaf? In a tree.” Mr. Evans, apparently observes, where is the best place to hide a truth? Paint it in the colors of failure. The truth about global terrorism is that you cannot defeat it without also fighting the rogue states that directly and indirectly support it. It is therefore preeminently a two front war. And Iraq was a quintessential part of this strategy. Furthermore, only one nation in the world has the technological and military power, and will, to defeat global terrorism. The free nations of the world depend on America’s triumph in this deadly contest with the terrorists. And as in all critical contests, there have to be tradeoffs between independence and dependence. Your Chairman would have known this, since he reads Isaiah Berlin.

This is the truth that the liberal intelligentsia is so abhorrent of and runs away from. All the accusations against the Howard Government’s erosion of Australia’s independence are, therefore, grossly erroneous and lack historical insight. As for his criticism of pre-emption, your Chairman completely disregards the fine distinction between pre-emption as an option,  which is applicable to a world that is under discontinuous threats, and pre-emption as a doctrine, which is applicable to a world that is under continuous threats, as presently posed by the terrorists. And as for his hypocritical statement of standing with America, “but when we were needed on the big issues, we were always there”, one is tempted to ask, is global terrorism not a big issue?

Lastly, all his expatiations about international rules and laws that bring order in an anarchic world are totally inutile. Only when peoples and nations abide by these rules and laws, can the latter be effective. The trouble is that neither the terrorists nor the rogue states are prepared to submit to such a legalistic regime. Recent examples of this are Rwanda, Serbia, Kosovo, and Iraq.

All the colorful bubbles that your Chairman presented in the guise of serious arguments in his lecture, will not survive the Aeolian winds that erupted on September 11.Your Chairman, for his own reasons, is a fugitive from reality. History has shown, that in hard times only the “hard men” can prevail. The wets and the wimps are cast aside. Alas, one can only summon the squatter diplomat, Gareth Evans, to “remove his belongings” from the domain of Talleyrand.

I rest on my oars: Your turn now

Iron Ladies Never Die they Just Continue to Show the Way

By Con George-Kotzabasis—January 9, 2012

In a hostile world only the strong have the right to indulge in hope. Thucydides

Ah, that memorable, fascinating, admirable, and politically insightful and intrepid subject, Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, that challenges almost all of contemporaneous political leadership that is scrambling on all its fours–with some notable exceptions such as Lee Kuan Yew, of Singapore and Antonis Samaras, of Greece–from Obama to Zapatero to Merkel and Sarkozy, who  instead of standing on the shoulders of political giants, like Thatcher, to command events, they have been overwhelmed and overcome by them.

The characteristic spending profligacy of Labour socialist governments over a number of years, and the excessive borrowing and inflation that resulted by the latter’s policies that brought the UK into economic stagnation gave Margaret Thatcher the opportunity to win the election in 1979 with a sizable majority. Her victory would bring not only the transformation of British politics but would also spawn, with a small astute coterie of others, the seeds of a profound change on the political landscape of the world. Further, by re-introducing forcefully the idea of privatization as a dynamic concept among the economic detritus left by Labour’s deficit-laden nationalization of industries, she would place the country on the trajectory of economic efficiency and generation of wealth for the benefit of all Britons.  To open markets to the world she abolished all exchange controls on foreign currency five months after coming to power. The UK from being the poorest of the four major European economies in 1979 became by the end of ten years under Thatcher’s stewardship the richest among them. In a series of economic policies packaged by Milton Friedman’s and Frederick Hayek’s monetarist theories, Britain’s GDP grew by 23.3% during this period outpacing that of Germany, France, and Italy.

However, to accomplish the latter goal, she would have to confront the power of unions decisively, which, in a ceaseless campaign of strikes and imprudent and irrational demands were ruining the British economy. In 1979, at the apex of union power, Britain had lost 29.5 million working days to strikes, whereas at its nadir, under the robust stand of Thatcher and her strong blows against it that led to the defeat of unions, in 1986, the figure of lost working days was 1.9 million. The Moscow trained communist Arthur Scargill, secretary of the Mining Unions, had unleashed in 1984-85 a myriad of strikes with the aim to obstruct the Thatcherite pro-market reforms that would put Britain on the roller skates of economic prosperity. By the end of that year that shook the foundations of British industry and broke the morale of some of her Cabinet members–that prompted Thatcher in a memorable quip to say to them, “You turn if you want to. The lady is not for turning.”—the red flag became a trophy alongside the Argentinian flag in her collection of victories, as Arthur Scargill conceded his defeat.

In international affairs she questioned Kissinger’s policy of détente toward the Soviet Union as she believed strongly that Communism should not be accommodated but overcome. For this implacable stand the Soviet Army’s newspaper Red Star christened her the “Iron Lady.” Together with President Reagan, she planted the diplomatic dynamite under the foundations of the Soviet empire that would eventually bring the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Lenin’s benign Marxist dream that had turned back to its true nature as a nightmare of Gulags and Killing Fields.

Thatcher in the 1980’s fiercely opposed the European economic and monetary integration. To her the European construction was “infused with the spirit of yesterday’s future.” In the kernel of this construction laid the central “intellectual mistake” of assuming that “the model for future government was that of a centralized bureaucracy.” And she was prophetic to the current events and crisis of Europe when she argued that German taxpayers would provide “ever greater subsidies for failed regions of foreign countries,” while condemning south European countries to debilitating dependency on handouts from German taxpayers.” She concluded, “The day of the artificially constructed mega-state is gone.”

However, no statesmanship is without its warts. In 1986 prohibition of proprietary trading went out; the separation between commercial and investment banks was abrogated; and ‘casino banking’ took off, which without these changes would not have happened. Her critics accused her of promoting greed which she personally abhorred. Also, the introduction of the poll tax on adult residents was most unpopular among Britons and sparked the Poll Tax Riots on March 31, 1990, that instigated an internal coup against her that ousted her from her premiership.

Margaret Thatcher entered number 10 Downing Street with her strong character and astute political perceptiveness with panache that destined her, like all great statesmen, to “walk beneath heaven as if she was placed above it,” to quote the seventeenth-century French political philosopher, Gabriel Naude. She will enter the ‘gate of heaven’ not as the frail distracted old woman, as she was depicted in the film made by Phillida Lloyd, but as the iron lady who will never die and continue to show the way.

I rest on my oars: your turn now…