Cyprus After 40 Years of Division

CENGİZ AKTAR

Turkey would benefit from a positive resolution of the situation in Cyprus.

I remember that day well. It was the summer of 1974 and I was working in Alanya, right across the island on Turkey's Mediterranean shore. I recall how the fighter jets flew over the beaches, frightening the middle-aged European tourists and delighting the youngsters. In the absence of social media, we learned about the military operation only later in the afternoon. The de-facto division of the island of Cyprus, created by this operation and consolidated immediately with a second offensive in August of that year, still holds today.

The fate of the third largest  Mediterranean island - which lies closer to the shores of Syria and Turkey than to those of Greece, and has always been considered a strategic terra firma - has never been steady. From a crusader kingdom of the French house of Lusignan to an outpost of the Maltese Knights, from an Ottoman possession in 1571 to a British semi-colony in 1878, the island was finally divided by a Turkish military intervention. Turkey stepped in on the pretext of protecting the constitutional status quo created by the 1959-1960 Agreements in Zurich which guaranteed minority rights for the Turkish-Cypriots and which was threatened by the July 1974 coup d'etat led by Greek-Cypriot Nikos Sampson.

Sampson had the intention of eventually uniting the island with Greece, in line with the historical ideology - the Megali Idea of 19th century Hellenic nationalism. While the end of the coup d'etat restored the legitimate government in Nicosia, the presence of Turkish troops in the north effectively became an invasion and the north seceded in 1983. Today, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is recognised only by Turkey.

Some assume that the Cyprus issue was resolved in 1974, when the north of the island effectively came under Turkey's control, while the south secured its future with the legitimacy it enjoyed internationally and thanks to a future EU membership. Nevertheless, the parties have never ceased to hold talks for reunification, and no party, including the mainland ones, has had the upper hand for long.

Over the years, the matter has become something of a legendary international dispute. After the Republic of Cyprus gained EU membership in May 2004, Greece steadily disengaged from its mentorship role. However, it continues to be influenced by the outcome of tensions, so much so that this encompasses its relations with Turkey.

Turkey, although proud for having resolved the stalemate, never managed to reach a sustainable outcome. None of the Turkish plans have worked. Turning the TRNC into a Turkish province by annexation failed, as did the the dream of getting international recognition for the statelet. Supporting the TRNC has become a headache in international platforms, especially in the EU. Efforts towards religious assimilation in a largely secular Turco-Cypriot society have also failed. The Cyprus stalemate continues to be the gateway to endless problems between Greeks and Turks, be it on the island, the mainlands, or the international arena.

Today there is no serious economic activity other than gambling and construction in the Turkish-held parts of the island. In the construction sector, incentives are provided mostly to entrepreneurs from the mainland, the land is provided free of charge, loans are secured from Turkish banks, the workers are imported from Turkey, and the building materials are not subject to customs regulations - a "colonial" economy. There is an adviser from Turkey in every ministry supervising decisions.

The Republic of Cyprus, however, obviously benefited from being an off-shore destination for capital movement, and from EU membership, for a while. It placed its bet on an EU membership to gain perpetual prosperity and inclusion in the eurozone, but things didn't work out as expected and the economy is now under international and European scrutiny through a financial rescue package. Existing political assets have not led anywhere either. Greco-Cypriot politicians thought that by leaning on the EU membership they could reject the 2004 Annan Plan for reunification and bring Turkey to its knees by blocking its membership negotiations with the EU. None of this worked.

What now?

At the end, every party lost out while looking for solutions somewhere else. But the stalemate has evolved towards a new era where every party could win. Here is what the island looks like today.

The election of pro-solution candidate, liberal Nikos Anastasiades, as president of the Republic of Cyprus in February 2013, along with the victory of the pro-solution Republican Turkish Party (CTP) in the north, has created a momentum on its own. Crowned by the signing of a joint declaration of intent for the talks on February 2014, a new process is now under way, despite all odds. Even the powerful Orthodox Church of Cyprus, which was always against any settlement, has extended support to the process.

The economy appears to benefit from a new asset, a water pipeline that will begin operating in the fall that will run from mainland Turkey to the northern shores of the island, with ample capacity for the entire island. Furthermore, a US company has found natural gas in the territorial waters off the southern parts of the island; and Noble Energy has found gas in the neighbouring Israeli territorial waters.

The international community seems to be looking for an end to the stalemate on the diplomatic front. When the two community leaders announced the joint declaration of intent, the EU, Germany, Russia, the UN, the UK and the US were all swift to vocalise their strong support for the process. The role of the US should be particularly highlighted here.

All these factors point to the necessity of having a package approach that would go beyond the simple reunification talks by taking into account all potential outcomes of a settlement.

Potential positive outcomes are plentiful indeed. Shared water as well as natural gas and an enlivened economic situation that springs from reunification would bring immediate strength to the island's ailing economy. Cypriot, as well as neighbouring Israeli natural gas sold to Turkey and the West via Turkey, would become a factor in the Israeli-Turkish feud.

For Turkey, ending the financial support of the north would be an economic gain. The return of 40,000 soldiers would be significant in terms of military tutelage and authority. The peace dividends to be gained for all parties are quite clear as well. Normalisation of relations between Greece and Turkey would also become feasible.

Present obstacles to Turkey's EU membership negotiations (eight chapters blocked by the EU Council and another six by the Republic of Cyprus in connection with the stalemate) would be gradually or entirely removed.

For this fiery Eastern Mediterranean region, a stable island would be momentous.

Cengiz Aktar is a Senior Scholar at Istanbul Policy Center. As a former director at the United Nations where he spent 22 years of his professional life, Aktar is one of the leading advocates of Turkey’s integration into the EU. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/cyprus-after-40-years-division-20147964442930587.html

What is Creative Writing?

Creative writing is anything where the purpose is to express thoughts, feelings and emotions rather than to simply convey information.

I’ll be focusing on creative fiction in this post (mainly short stories and novels), but poetry, (auto)biography and creative non-fiction are all other forms of creative writing. Here’s a couple of definitions:

Creative writing is writing that expresses the writer’s thoughts and feelings in an imaginative, often unique, and poetic way.
(Sil.org – What is Creative Writing?)

Writing is a form of personal freedom. It frees us from the mass identity we see all around us. In the end, writers will write not to be outlaw heroes of some underculture but mainly to save themselves, to survive as individuals.
(Don DeLillo)

Writing of any sort is hard, but rewarding work – you’ll gain a huge amount of satisfaction from a finished piece. Being creative can also be difficult and challenging at times, but immensely fun.

How to get started

Many people think that just because they’ve read a lot of stories (or even if they haven’t!) they should be able to write one. But as Nigel Watts writes:

There is a common belief that because most of us are literate and fluent, there is no need to serve an apprenticeship if we want to become a successful wordsmith. … That’s what I thought until I tried to write my first novel. I soon learnt that a novel, like a piece of furniture, has its own set of requirements, laws of construction that have to be learnt. Just because I had read plenty of novels didn’t mean I could write one, any more than I could make a chair because I had sat on enough of them.
(Nigel Watts, Teach Yourself Writing a Novel)

By all means, if you’re keen, jump straight in and have a go: but don’t be too disappointed if your first efforts aren’t as good as you’d hoped. To extend Watts’ metaphor, you may find that these early attempts have wonky legs and an unsteady seat. There are lots of great books aimed at new fiction writers, and I’d strongly recommend buying or borrowing one of these:

• Wannabe a Writer? (Jane Wenham-Jones)
• Teach Yourself … Writing a Novel (Nigel Watts)
• How to Write Fiction (and Think About It) (Robert Graham)
• On Writing (Stephen King)

I’d also recommend starting small. Rather than beginning with an epic fantasy trilogy, a family saga spanning five generations, or an entire adventure series … have a go at a short story or a poem.

And if you end up chewing your pen and staring at a sheet of paper, or gazing at a blank screen for hours, try kickstarting your writing with a short exercise. Don’t stop to think too much about it … just get going, without worrying about the quality of the work you produce.

Tips and tricks for beginners

• Do some short exercises to stretch your writing muscles – if you’re short of ideas, read the Daily Writing Tips article on “Writing Bursts”. Many new creative writers find that doing the washing up or weeding the garden suddenly looks appealing, compared to the effort of sitting down and putting words onto the page. Force yourself to get through these early doubts, and it really will get easier. Try to get into the habit of writing every day, even if it’s just for ten minutes.
• If you’re stuck for ideas, carry a notebook everywhere and write down your observations. You’ll get some great lines of dialogue by keeping your ears open on the bus or in cafes, and an unusual phrase may be prompted by something you see or smell.
• Work out the time of day when you’re at your most creative. For many writers, this is first thing in the morning – before all the demands of the day jostle for attention. Others write well late at night, after the rest of the family have gone to bed. Don’t be afraid to experiment!
• Don’t agonize over getting it right. All writers have to revise and edit their work – it’s rare that a story, scene or even a sentence comes out perfectly the first time. Once you’ve completed the initial draft, leave the piece for a few days – then come back to it fresh, with a red pen in hand. If you know there are problems with your story but can’t pinpoint them, ask a fellow writer to read through it and give feedback.
• HAVE FUN! Sometimes, we writers can end up feeling that our writing is a chore, something that “must” be done, or something to procrastinate over for as long as possible. If your plot seems wildly far-fetched, your characters bore you to tears and you’re convinced that a five-year old with a crayon could write better prose … take a break. Start a completely new project, something which is purely for fun. Write a poem or a 60-word “mini saga”. Just completing a small finished piece can help if you’re bogged down in a longer story.

Online resources

NaNoWriMo
Every November, hundreds of thousands of people just like you do something extraordinary: they write a novel in just thirty days. Want to be part of the coffee-fueled, manic-typing, adrenaline-rush that is National Novel Writing Month? (NaNoWriMo for short). Make sure you sign up by October 31st. The “rules” state that you can’t start writing Chapter 1 until 00.01am on November 1st but you can spend as long as you like before that planning…

Authors’ websites and blogs
I read lots of websites and blogs written by authors and these give real (sometimes harsh) insights into what it’s like to write professionally. One which has been a strong favourite of mine for many years is Holly Lisle’s. Check out her
advice for writers and her weblog. She also has an excellent newsletter which I subscribe to, and some very thorough and helpful e-books on various aspects of writing available for purchase.

Competitions listings
Having a theme and a deadline can make a startling difference to a writer’s motivation! If you’re in the UK, Sally Quilford’s competition listings are a comprehensive and regularly-updated list.

I Should Be Writing podcast
This is a practical and inspiring podcast: I Should Be Writing by Mur Lafferty. She describes the podcast as “For wanna-be fiction writers, by a wanna-be fiction writer” (though since starting it several years ago, she’s had considerable success selling her short stories) and focuses on science fiction and fantasy.

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/creative-writing-101/

World's Funniest Joke

The "world's funniest joke" is a term used by Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire in 2002 to summarize one of the results of his research. For his experiment, named LaughLab, he created a website where people could rate and submit jokes. Purposes of the research included discovering the joke that had the widest appeal and understanding among different cultures, demographics and countries.The History Channel eventually hosted a special on the subject.

The winning joke, which was later found to be based on a 1951 Goon Show sketch by Spike Milligan, was submitted by Gurpal Gosal of Manchester:

Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says "Calm down. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gun shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says "OK, now what?"

Early Bird Archaeopteryx 'Wore Feather Trousers' For Display

An ancient creature halfway between a dinosaur and a bird had feathered "trousers" on its hindlimbs.

Archaeopteryx had pennaceous (quill-like) feathers all over its body, not only its wings, a new fossil - only the 11th of the creature found - reveals.

These "trousers" were probably used for display, say scientists from Germany, writing in Nature journal.

Their discovery adds weight to the theory that feathers originally evolved for purposes other than flight.

Flight mystery

Archaeopteryx caused a major stir when the first fossil was unearthed in Germany in 1861 - just two years after Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species.

With the claws and teeth of a dinosaur, but the feathers of a bird, it was clearly a transitional form - apparent proof of Darwin's theory.

Its German name "Urvogel" means "first bird".

And though earlier bird-like dinosaurs have been unearthed since, many scientists still believe Archaeopteryx was the first capable of "flight" as we know it today.

The 11th fossil specimen was announced in 2011 and is remarkably well preserved, with detailed impressions of feathers all over its skeleton. The feathers are long and symmetrical on its upper leg and shorter lower down.

The skeleton is remarkably well preserved, showing detailed impressions of feathers

Previous specimens had shown some evidence of feathered hind legs but this "completes the picture", according to Dr Oliver Rauhut and colleagues at the Bavarian State Collection for Palaeontology and Geology.

These "trousers", as he describes them, may have been used for display, camouflage, insulation, brooding and manoeuvring while on the ground.

They were not primarily designed for flight but might have helped steady the bird during landing, similar to the hindlimb feathers of hawks, eagles and other modern raptors.

The wing feathers of the new specimen show robust shafts - further evidence that the "first bird" really could fly.

Recent studies assuming limited flight ability inArchaeopteryx "might be in error owing to the poorer preservation quality of the feathers," said Dr Rauhut.

"I'm pretty sure it could fly. Though of course there is still a debate about how well it could fly," he told BBC News.

The trousers are also a new clue to the mystery of how flight evolved in modern birds.

Traditionally it was thought that feathers and flight evolved hand in hand.

But the wide variation of plumages in early birds and feathered dinosaurs suggests that feathers first arose for a different purpose, said Dr Rauhut.

"Given the great diversity of pennaceous feathers found within different body regions and across the phylogeny, it seems plausible that the evolution of this feather type (especially in the wing, hindlimbs and tail) was primarily driven by display functions," he wrote in Nature.

Only later were these feathers recruited for flight - which may have arisen many times in parallel in different feathered species, he said.

The feathered "trousers" on the hind legs are clearly visible

By James MorganScience reporter, BBC Newshttp://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28129078

Sunday Before The War

On Sunday, in a remote valley in the West of England, where the people are few and scattered and placid, there was no more sign among them than among the quiet hills of the anxiety that holds the world. They had no news and seemed to want none. The postmaster had been ordered to stay all day in his little post-office, and that was something unusual that interested them, but only because it affected the postmaster.

It rained in the morning, but the afternoon was clear and glorious and shining, with all the distances revealed far into the heart of Wales and to the high ridges of the Welsh mountains. The cottages of that valley are not gathered into villages, but two or three together or lonely among their fruit-trees on the hillside; and the cottagers who are always courteous and friendly, said a word or two as one went by, but just what they would have said on any other day and without any question about the war. Indeed, they seemed to know, or to wish to know, as little about that as the earth itself, which, beautiful there at any time, seemed that afternoon to wear an extreme and pathetic beauty. The country, more than any other in England, has the secret of peace. It is not wild, though it looks into the wildness of Wales; but all its cultivation, its orchards and hopyards and fields of golden wheat, seem to have the beauty of time upon them, as if men there had long lived happily upon the earth with no desire for change nor fear of decay. It is not the sad beauty of a past cut off from the present, but a mellowness that the present inherits from the past; and in the mellowness all the hillside seems a garden to the spacious farmhouses and little cottages; each led up to by its own narrow, flowery lane. There the meadows are all lawns with the lustrous green of spring even in August, and often over-shadowed by old, fruit-trees - cherry, or apple, or pear; and on Sunday after the rain there was an April glory and freshness added to the quiet of the later summer.

Nowhere and never in the world can there have been a deeper peace; and the bells from the little red church down by the river seemed to be the music of it, as the song of birds is the music of spring. There one saw how beautiful the life of man can be, and how men by the innocent labours of many generations can give to the earth a beauty it has never known in its wildness. And all this peace, one knew, was threatened; and the threat came into one's mind as if it were a soundless message from over the great eastward plain; and with it the beauty seemed unsubstantial and strange, as if it were sinking away into the past, as if it were only a memory of childhood.

So it is always when the mind is troubled among happy things, and then one almost wishes they could share one's troubles and become more real with it. It seemed on that Sunday that a golden age had lasted till yesterday, and that the earth had still to learn the news of its ending. And this change had come, not by the will of God, not even by the will of man, but because some few men far away were afraid to be open and generous with each other. There was a power in their hands so great that it frightened them. There was a spring that they knew they must not touch, and, like mischievous and nervous children, they had touched it at last, and now all the world was to suffer for their mischief.

So the next morning one saw a reservist in his uniform saying goodbye to his wife and children at his cottage-gate and then walking up the hill that leads out of the valley with a cheerful smile still on his face. There was the first open sign of trouble, a very little one, and he made the least of it; and, after all, this valley is very far from any possible war, and its harvest and its vintage of perry and cider will surely be gathered in peace.

But what happiness can there be in that peace, or what security in the mind of man, when the madness of war is let loose in so many other valleys? Here there is a beauty inherited from the past, and added to the earth by man's will; but the men here are of the same nature and subject to the same madness as those who are gathering to fight on the frontiers. We are all men with the same power of making and destroying, with the same divine foresight mocked by the same animal blindness. We ourselves may not be in fault to-day, but it is human beings in no way different from us who are doing what we abhor and they abhor even while they do it. There is a fate, coming from the beast in our own past, that the present man in us has not yet mastered, and for the moment that fate seems a malignity in the nature of the universe that mocks us even in the beauty of these lonely hills. But it is not so, for we are not separate and indifferent like the beasts; and if one nation for the moment forgets our common humanity and its future, then another must take over that sacred charge and guard it without hatred or fear until the madness is passed. May that be our task now, so that we may wage war only for the future peace of the world and with the lasting courage that needs no stimulant of hate.

By A. Clutton-Brock (1868-1924)

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/CluttonSunday.htm

Genius Da Vinci's Cv to Duke of Milan

Letter from Leonardo Da Vinci 
to the Duke of Milan Applying for a Position

 

 

 

Having, most illustrious lord, seen and considered the experiments of all those who pose as masters in the art of inventing instruments of war, and finding that their inventions differ in no way from those in common use, I am emboldened, without prejudice to anyone, to solicit an appointment of acquainting your Excellency with certain of my secrets.

1. I can construct bridges which are very light and strong and very portable, with which to pursue and defeat the enemy; and others more solid, which resist fire or assault, yet are easily removed and placed in position; and I can also burn and destroy those of the enemy.
2. In case of a siege I can cut off water from the trenches and make pontoons and scaling ladders and other similar contrivances.
3. If by reason of the elevation or the strength of its position a place cannot be bombarded, I can demolish every fortress if its foundations have not been set on stone.
4. I can also make a kind of cannon which is light and easy of transport, with which to hurl small stones like hail, and of which the smoke causes great terror to the enemy, so that they suffer heavy loss and confusion.
5. I can noiselessly construct to any prescribed point subterranean passages either straight or winding, passing if necessary underneath trenches or a river.
6. I can make armoured wagons carrying artillery, which shall break through the most serried ranks of the enemy, and so open a safe passage for his infantry.
7. If occasion should arise, I can construct cannon and mortars and light ordnance in shape both ornamental and useful and different from those in common use.
8. When it is impossible to use cannon I can supply in their stead catapults, mangonels, trabocchi, and other instruments of admirable efficiency not in general use—I short, as the occasion requires I can supply infinite means of attack and defense.
9. And if the fight should take place upon the sea I can construct many engines most suitable either for attack or defense and ships which can resist the fire of the heaviest cannon, and powders or weapons.
10. In time of peace, I believe that I can give you as complete satisfaction as anyone else in the construction of buildings both public and private, and in conducting water from one place to another.

 

I can further execute sculpture in marble, bronze or clay, also in painting I can do as much as anyone else, whoever he may be.

Moreover, I would undertake the commission of the bronze horse, which shall endue with immortal glory and eternal honour the auspicious memory of your father and of the illustrious house of Sforza.—

And if any of the aforesaid things should seem to anyone impossible or impracticable, I offer myself as ready to make trial of them in your park or in whatever place shall please your Excellency, to whom I commend myself with all possible humility.


Leonardo Da Vinci

 

Britain’s Strange Identity Crisis

LONDON — THE United Kingdom is lying on the psychiatrist’s couch. Suddenly the country seems uncertain of its identity, its place in the world, its relationships with its closest family members and its neighbors.



It is a bizarre moment in the history of an ancient realm, insufficiently grasped by its allies, especially across the ocean. Britain is having a kind of nervous breakdown, and its friends aren’t sure whether to say something or just look away.

Many Britons ask: Does Scotland still love us? Will it stay or vote for divorce? Even if we don’t love the European Union, do we really want to leave? And if we leave, will America still think we have a “special relationship,” or is it more committed to others, like Beijing and Berlin?

Britons wonder if they can still afford to sit at the high table of international powers. Even if they keep their expensive nuclear deterrent, do they really want an army smaller than it has been since Waterloo? Military intervention alongside the Americans after Tony Blair, Iraq and Afghanistan, is well, all a bit difficult now, so much so that the Conservative prime minister, David Cameron, can lose a parliamentary vote on a key issue — bombing Syria — and not feel he has to resign.

Queen Elizabeth II is a wonderful old trouper, in her fuchsia suits and matching hats, tromping along her dutiful path in sensible court shoes. But King Charles III? Divorced, impatient, meddling — some suggest skipping a generation and going right to that nice young William, with his pretty wife and perfect baby.

Then there’s the odd coalition government, the first in decades, and party leaders who all lack a certain gravitas. Plus all the heated agonizing about those Eastern European immigrants, let alone Muslims — Mr. Cameron was criticized for insisting that Britain remains a Christian country. The BBC is marred by scandal, and even the famous British tabloids, the “red tops,” have to be careful these days, after the phone hacking trials. And let’s not get started on England’s humiliation in the World Cup.

Along with institutions like the Church of England, the sense of nationhood is being diluted, many Britons say. Time, Mr. Cameron has said, for a restoration of “British values,” even if no one can quite define what they are.

Just the other day, Mr. Cameron went on about Magna Carta, which turns 800 next year, and how he wanted to ensure that all students were taught its lessons of citizenship and parliamentary power. Two years ago, Mr. Cameron couldn’t translate Magna Carta into English for David Letterman. (Great Charter, by the way.) But now he admonished that “we should not be squeamish about our achievements, or bashful about our Britishness”; he called “belief in freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, respecting and upholding the rule of law,” as “British as the Union Flag, football and fish and chips.”

Of course, those are essentially French and German values too, minus the flag and the fish and chips. The lukewarm attitudes of a growing immigrant population to national symbols and ideals, from the monarchy to the military and the troubled BBC, are also echoed on the left, as they have traditionally been.

A recent survey of social attitudes was particularly revealing about what it means to be British these days. In 2003, 86 percent of respondents thought it was important to speak English to be considered “truly British”; now, 95 percent do. And while 69 percent in 2003 thought it vital to have lived in Britain “most of your life,” now 77 percent do.

“I don’t think we’ve had such a rocky ride in a very, very long time, since your lot parted company with us,” said Martin Woollacott, an editorial writer for The Guardian, referring to the United States. The Scottish referendum in September, the general election next May and Mr. Cameron’s promise of a referendum on British membership in the European Union “will greatly affect our future,” he said. “They could break up the state or take the state out of the E.U.”

No matter what happens in Scotland, Mr. Woollacott said, “there will have to be a new start for British politics.”

If Scotland leaves, it will be a radical new start for all four countries of the kingdom; if Scotland stays, there will be further federalization.

 

It’s all quite a departure from the poorer, far less cosmopolitan Britain I encountered more than 30 years ago, when I first lived here as a journalist. Then, Margaret Thatcher was fresh off her military victory in the Falklands; she was sometimes referred to as Boadicea, after the Celtic queen who fought the Romans, and sometimes as “the Leaderene,” and sometimes as Tina — as in, there is no alternative. A verb was created for her management style — she attacked, or “handbagged,” institutions and even the members of her cabinet, nearly all men, one of whom, John Nott, expressed his love for her.

 

MORE important, she had a plan. She changed Britain from the inside, and not always to everyone’s liking, humbling militant unions and forcing the Labour Party into a necessary confrontation with modernity. Internationally, too, she was admired, from the Reagan White House to the Kremlin. It was Mrs. Thatcher who identified Mikhail S. Gorbachev as a comer and invited him to London in December 1984, four months before he became Soviet general secretary.

 

Britain then “punched above its weight,” its counsel sought eagerly, if not always happily, by Reagan and his successor, George Bush, whom she admonished after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that “this is no time to go wobbly.”

 

Britain today is far richer and more sophisticated, with London’s having become an almost impossibly expensive global capital, a hot spot and sanctuary for money and power, culture and art. Yet London can seem a country of its own, an empire sucking in workers and money not just from the rest of the world, but from the rest of Britain, too, where life goes on in a more traditional, modest fashion, but where people are less happy with the sense of flux.

 

Simon Jenkins, a British political columnist and historian, thinks that even though the country is going through a puzzled period, it has become a more self-assured place than it was in the 1970s. “Then Britain was seriously in a mess,” he said, before Mrs. Thatcher began to alter political life. Then the clichés were about “the British disease” and “the sick man of Europe,” and that’s gone, he said.

 

Still, he added, Britain has made serious errors — “allying itself too closely to the United States in its neo-imperialist burst” under President George W. Bush, for one thing. Then “we became drunk on money and ignored inequality and the provinces and the downside of borrow and spend, and we never made our peace with Europe.”

 

When I raised the diagnosis of national neurosis recently to a group of establishment Britons, there was something of a collective sigh. David Howell, now Baron Howell of Guildford, a former Conservative cabinet minister, was prompted to respond in “The World Today,” a magazine of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

 

“A London-based American correspondent,” he wrote, referring to me, said that Britain these days appeared to be having an identity crisis. “Unfair?” he wrote. “Definitely. Irritating? Very. Yet with a maddening tinge of truth. Somehow, on a fast-shifting world stage, the British story does seem to have become more confused.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/sunday-review/britains-strange-identity-crisis.html?ref=opinion&_r=1