China needs to stop its Provocative Campaign in the East and South China Sea

Over the last couple of months there has been increasing tensions in the East China Sea between China, Japan, South Korea and the United States, along with  other countries in the region. The main issues are the growing rise of China as the new top dog in the region and a long standing dispute over a group of islands called Senkaku/Diaoyu which belong to Japan, but are claimed by a handful of other countries including China. Although the current crisis is over a tiny group of uninhabited islands that lay on top of gas and oil deposits, the main issue of concern not just to the region but also the international community is the rising power of China, who are on a campaign to flex its military and economic muscle.

The most recent example of China’s military and diplomatic flexing has been in the last few months, when they installed a Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the disputed islands, and which overlaps Japan’s own ADIZ. This action by China requires all commercial and military aircraft to identify themselves with Chinese authorities when passing through this zone, but the US, Japan and other countries have rejected these requests and have conducted military flights in the area. Not much has been mentioned in recent weeks concerning the ADZ, and no reports of incidents over the matter.

Apart from the ADZ issue, the US and China navy ships have come close to colliding with each other in the South China Sea, near another group of disputed islands. Both countries have released statements blaming the other for the near miss, with the US saying that the Chinese ship was being aggressive towards their vessel which was in international water and the Chinese stating that the US ship was harassing the new Chinese aircraft carrier, as it was carrying out exercises. 

 On the matter of the dispute in the East China Sea, my understanding is that the Senkaku islands are a sovereign territory of Japan, as they were owned by a Japanese family for many centuries, and have recently been transferred to the Japanese state. I am not a lawyer, but one would think that international law would under this argument grant full sovereignty to Japan. Except no international organisation or country wants to deliberate on sovereignty rights, so this issue will drag on into the future.

The US has been dragged into the crisis, though quite willingly on the side of Japan, as they are allies, and also they want to keep a check on China’s new aggressive stance in the region. The US since the end of the second world war have been the main military force protecting its own national interests and its allies in the region, but since the rising economic and military power of China over the last couple of decades, the US has seen its status as the regions and even the worlds only superpower decline. China at the present acknowledge this change in the status que and have been taking advantage of a weaker US role in Asia and the rest of the world, but continuing in a campaign  of  provocative action against its neighbors will not advance stability in the region or win international support.

The Republic of Congo is slowly gaining Peace and Stability

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, a landlocked country in central Africa is slowly gaining peace, after various civil conflicts over the last few decades. In the last couple of days the government of Congo signed a peace agreement with the M23 rebel group, after their defeat by government and United Nations forces in November. This agreement has formally disbanded the M23 as an armed force.

The M23 is just one of 30 or more different armed groups in Congo, but have been the most active in recent years. The M23 are mostly ethnic Tutsis, the same as the government in Rwanda, who have been accused of funding and supporting the group.

The issue in Congo is its large deposits of natural resources and over 200 different ethnic groups competing for power and claim to the countries riches. What has materialized since the countries independence from Belgium in the 1960’s has been numerous corrupt governments, warlords and outside interference that has led to armed conflict. Although most of the fighting ceased in the early 2000’s, there are still large numbers of groups fighting against the government and each other. Also fleeing Hutus from the 1994 Rwandan genocide have added to the problems in the Congo.  

The UN has deployed around 20,000peacekeepers since the late 1990’s in an effort to bring peace to the war torn country, but with so many different groups and interferences from outside, the task has been difficult, although there has been some successful achievements,and the latest peace agreement been one of them.

Although there are still many problems for the Congolese to deal with, including trying to bring long term peace, fighting corruption and bring about equality and development, the country has the potential to gain future peace and stability. The first elected government for over four decades in 2008 and the continuing presence of  a large UN deployment, which have been given a new mandate to use force to protect civilians, the long term goals could be achieved if the status que remains the same and further peace agreements can be signed between the government and other armed groups.

Breaking news: Nelson Mandela Dead

After years of illness, Nelson Mandela has passed away in his family home surrounded by family.

President Jacob Zuma has said in a press conference:"Our nation has lost its great son"

The world has lost a great man.

Read further on BBC: South Africa's Nelson Mandela Dies | BBC News

Mandela was a great leader of not just the black population in South Africa, but also other oppressed peoples around the world. His ability to keep faith and dignity in the face of extreme torment and repression was the strength that he upheld for many decades and will be honoured for centuries to come. The ability to look beyond hatred and revenge for decades of suffering of his fellow people under Apartheid, showed what a inspirational leader and person that Mandela was. Hopefully his legacy will keep inspiring people to stand up for their own freedoms and justice, through peace and love, rather then war and violence. Good bye and Rest in Peace Nelson Mandela.

The Agreement over Iran’s Nuclear Program is a Good Place to Start

Last week Iran signed a deal with the international community, which will see them halt some of their nuclear program for six months, in return for over $7 billion of sanction relief. The plan is that this short term agreement will lead to a more permanent deal over Iran’s nuclear program. For more then three years, western powers have placed sanction on Iran, as they suspected that the program was for building nuclear grade weapons and not for peaceful means, as been stated by Iran’s officials. 

This deal, although not perfect has allowed for a more open dialogue in a long standing stalemate between Iran and the international community. The agreement also will allow more inspections on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) during this six month period. Hopefully if Iran does keep its word, which I think they will, the country and its people will benefit greatly from increased investment and status in the world.

Since the signing of the agreement last week, many politicians in both Israel and the United States have been skeptical of such a deal, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said, “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.” And US Republicans and some Democrats are concerned that the deal has not remove Iran’s nuclear capacity.

I understand the concerns of what has been labeled a soft agreement by many, but in reality, the deal is better then further stalemate. In the end, nothing would be able to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability, other then military force, which in light of the current situation in Syria and other parts of the region, a military option would be unwise. Even President Obama seemed reluctant to go down that path. So a deal although soft in content, will hopefully lead to more future transparency by Iran on the issue of their nuclear program, and with such a big step for the conservative Clerics to agree to this deal in the first place, the signs seem good for a more permanent deal that will satisfy both Iran’s ambitions and the international communities concerns. And you never know this may bring better relations between the US and Iran.  

Aung San Suu Kyi's address at the Sydney Opera House

On Wednesday this week, Sydney was previledged to have Daw Aung San Suu Kyi address an enthusiastic crowd at the Opera House.

View a replay of this great event here:

How and Why the United Nations needs to be Reformed

Over the last month or so, I have been writing a number of blog posts on the United Nations (UN), focusing on the structure of the system and why I think it does not work. I have outlined some reasons for such, including too much power and influence in the hands of just 5 permanent member states (P-5). With the differing national interests and political ideologies, the UN, especially the UNSC is in need of reform.

For many decades there have been many discussions and debates on the issue of a requirement for reform of the UN system, but nothing as progressed beyond mere talking. There has only been one major change to the structure of the UN, and that was back in the 1960’s, when the UNSC increased from 11 members to 15, as to accommodate the increase in new member states during the era of decolonization. Apart from this increase nothing has changed.

Perhaps one area that could be reformed is broadening the participation in the UNSC. The international system has changed since the founding of the UN in 1945, and many more new nations have gained independence, with some increasing  their power and influence over the last 60 years or so. The current UN system has not allowed for this transgression of these major changes, and this can be argued as leading to the ineffectiveness of the UN. So perhaps what could be discussed and implemented would be to increase the number of permanent seats in the UNSC. It would be unlikely that any of the current P-5 members would give up their prominent place in world affairs, so they would still need to keep their positions. But giving for instance, Germany, Japan, Brazil and even India a permanent seat would acknowledge these changes in the international system and the rise in power and influence that these states now occupy on the global stage. Although, increasing the number of permanent seats in the UNSC may not solve the ineffectiveness of the organisation, and could further complicate its ability to maintain international peace and security, but it would make it more representative of the current state of world affairs.

Furthermore, to prevent national interests of the P-5 from been major considerations in the decision making process, and causes for stalemate in the UNSC, the power of veto could be removed from the hands of permanent members. Such a reform could be difficult to gain agreement from the P-5, as they would likely be reluctant to give up such power and influence that the veto brings them. But I think if the global community and more specifically the P-5 want to have an organisation that can effectively maintain international peace and security, there should be more equality for all member states, not just the privileged few.

Why the United Nations System does not work?

Earlier this week I wrote a blog on the workings of the United Nations (UN) system, explaining the role and structure of the three main organs of the organisation. I am going to carry on with this theme of the UN, and explain why I think the system does not work.  

Over the last week leaders from member states have convened at the UN headquarters in New York, for the annual meeting of the General Assembly. One of the issues that would likely be discussed will be reform of the system, although I think and suspect others will likewise  that the UN system will be the same next year. Also, the situation in Syria will be centre stage, especially since a new resolution needs to be agreed upon by the UN Security Council (UNSC), concerning Syria’s agreed disarmament of its chemical weapons.

Most of the power within the UN system lies in the UNSC, where key issues dealing with maintaining international peace and security are discussed and decisions are made. Although each member on the UNSC has a vote and some influence in any decisions, the real power belongs to the five permanent states (US, UK, French, Russia and China), who all have vetoes over the decisions of the council. 

The problem with giving just five members state so much power in world affairs has led to the abuse of this system. Any issues discussed or draft resolution presented at the UNSC can be vetoed by any of the P-5, meaning that if this occurs, the thus resolution is not adopted. The conflict in Syria and the UNSC gridlock is a recent example, though there has been many more in the past, where P-5 members have vetoed draft resolutions even if majority of the global community are in agreeance. In the case of Syria, Russia and China has vetoed three draft resolutions presented to the council so far. Much of the reasons for a veto from a P-5 member are because of national interests influencing their decisions. Russia’s support for the Assad’s regime is evidence for my case, as they are steadfastly protecting the Syrian government at the UN, because national interest are trumping over any international criticisms. Russia has its only naval facility in the Mediterranean in the port city of Tartus, Syria, and also has many economic interests in the country, which they are unlikely to give up.

Another reason for vetoes is also due to the UN Charta, which advocates that all states have the rights to non-intervention and sovereignty over their territory. Russia and China for example have rejected any international intervention in Syria and in other cases, arguing that member states should not intervene in other member’s internal affairs.

Although I am using Russia as an example, the other P-5 states make decision on national interests as well. The US for example, in 1994 was reluctant to intervene in preventing genocide in Rwanda, because of the death of 18 American soldiers in Somalia a couple of years before, and public opinion and other concerns did not warrant the risk of intervening to prevent the killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Rwanda.      

With the power of the UN system in the hands of just five member states, who all have at times different interests, this has lead to indecision and gridlock on many occasions.

How the system is structured has effectively prevented appropriate responses and actions by the global community in avoiding or ending many conflicts.

As a former UK diplomat Carne Ross,  once said, "One of the very odd things that I experienced when I was on the Council, was that the one group of people you could guarantee would not be consulted on what was being discussed in the Security Council were the people most affected  So whether it's Iraqis, Kosovars, Sudanese, or Syrians their legitimate representatives would never get a chance to have a say on what they thought the Council - what the world should do,"

To conclude I would like to say that the UN does have its merits in promoting development and providing humanitarian aid, along with health and education to millions across the world, sometimes on a limited budget.  

The Workings of the United Nations System

The United Nations System (UN) was founded in 1945 in the aftermath of two world wars, and was the brainchild of the three victories nations of WW2,  the US, UK and Soviet Union (Russia), aimed at saving future generations from the scourges of war. The objectives of the newly formed organisation of states are to protect international peace and security by preventing the need for war, through a notion of cooperation and collective security. To achieve these objectives, the UN has two main organs (institutions), the United Nations Security council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (GA), along with a number of departments and agencies that deal with a range of issues from human rights to providing aid and development across the globe. The GA is in a way a world parliament, with almost all nations represented. Each member state has one vote, with a two-thirds majority required for any decisions on key issues such as admission of new members and UN budgets. Also decisions are non-binding.

The UNSC on the other hand does bind all member states to any decisions made by the council, and is the main organ given the powers to achieve the objectives of international peace and security. The UNSC is made up of 15 member states of which 5 are permanent, known as the P-5 (US, UK, French, Russia and China) and 10 non-permanent members who serve for two year terms. The UNSC is the main decision making body in the UN and has the role of deciding if the international community will intervene in certain conflicts by either adopting sanctions or deploying peacekeepers. For any resolution to be adopted requires 9 council members agreeing, although the P-5 can veto any decisions made in the council.

Finally there is the Secretary-General (SG) who is elected by the General Assembly on the advice from the Security Council. Their main role is mostly as the chief administrator of the organisation, although the charter does give the power of the SG  to bring to the attention of the UNSC of any issue that he or she thinks is of concern relating to international peace and security. The SG and his office also play the role of chief diplomat promoting international peace and security.        

Mugabe’s planned "indigenization" will not help Zimbabwe

It has been a few weeks since the disputed elections in Zimbabwe, where the long standing President Robert Mugabe won a landslide victory over his main rival Morgan Tsvangirai in the nation's presidential election. On top of retaining power, Mugabe’s party Zanu-PF won two thirds of the seats in the parliament, giving him and his party majority rule and the legal right to change the constitution. Although, Mr Tsvangirai’s opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have taken the election  result to the constitutional court, as they argue of widespread election fraud.

As the decision to make the election result legitimate or demand are re-election still in the hands of the court, President Magabe has come out earlier this and stated that he will carry on with the plan to make all companies in the country be under the control of the black Zimbabweans. As with the taking over of white farms and given to the black population, the economic control over many foreign or local companies was a major campaign issue supported by many rural Zimbabweans, where much of Magabe’s support comes from.

This policy of "indigenization" I think will have major effects of the stability in Zimbabwe, both economically and socially. Forced eviction of white farmers and companies owned by the white population will further cripple the economy. Also as many companies, especially in the mining industry are owned by foreign firms, this policy of making them be under the control of black Zimbabweans could drive existing and future investment away from the country, as investors may be frightened because of an ant-white agenda impacting their business interests, which would not help improve the poor economy or the standard of living of the people in the long run. In stead of committing the same offences as the former British rulers, and then the white rule under Cecil Rhodes, where land was taken from the black indigenous population and given to the colonizers, the government should work with the white owned companies and farms to improve economic stability and assist in empowering the black population through education, rather then racial alienation. 

Will peace finally come through Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

Finally, after almost three years of stalemate over resuming talks over the peace process in the Middle East,both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have decided that over the next nine months both sides will aim for a “final status” agreement (a final plan to bring peace).

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, who has been mediating with both sides over the last few months, said "the two sides have agreed that all the final status issues, core issues, are all on the table for negotiation.” The thorniest of these are overcoming the status of Jerusalem, where the Palestinians want the Eastern part of the city to become their new Capital under a two state solution, but Israel have long argued that they are unwilling to divide the city. Also, the problem of drawing up a border to accommodate a Palestinian state, and the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are major concerns for the negotiations. .As there are many core issues that will make the next nine months difficult for both sides to agree to a negotiated peace, but after decades of violence and mistrust, a final solution needs to be found.

I am no expert on the issue, but from what I have read and understood, there needs to be an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and if both Hamas and Fatah can agree to unite, the Gaza strip as well. Only two separate states will bring peace to the region, as history has shown there is too much animosity between both sides for them to co-exist in the same country.

As for the issue of Jerusalem, Israel will need to agree to a divided city, where by any new Palestinian state would have East Jerusalem as its capital and the rest staying a part of Israel. The Palestinians would probably not agree to any peace plan that does not involve their new capital been East Jerusalem, as two holy Islamic buildings, the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque are located there.  

Another major problem will be the drawing up of a border of a new Palestinian state, and incorporated in this is the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I think to overcome this issue, two situation will need to happen, firstly, Israel will have to halt all new construction of settlements, and secondly, for both sides to agree to land swaps. This could be difficult for Israel, as many right-wing coalition members in the government and settlers are unwilling to budge from their stance on not leaving the settlements, but for any peace deal to aspire this will have to happen.

I hope for future peace and stability in the region that these negotiations will not end like the Oslo Accords, where instead of agreement, there was mistrust on both sides, leading to a failed deal and more violence. This time the issues need to be resolved, because if not, the problems faced by both Israeli’s and Palestinians will become even deeper.

For short summary of some of the core issues of the conflict mentioned in this post visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11138790  

The international community need to intervene in Syria

When will the international community finally step in and actively halt the civil war in Syria? It has been over two years, since opposition forces began their campaign against the Bashar al-Assad regime with no end in sight. The United Nations estimate that almost 100,000 people have been killed and many more been injured.

In the last few days the UN refugee chief, Antonio Guterres, has reported that the conflict in Syria has become the worst refugee crises facing the world since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Guterres estimates that over 6000 Syrians are fleeing the conflict every day, with Turkey, Jordan and Iraq being the main destinations. On top of this figure, the UN further estimates that over 6 million people are in need of aid supplies.

This report from the UN is quite disturbing, seeing that I would have thought, and I assume others would as well, that the international community would have learnt its lesson after the Rwandan genocide, but this does not seem the case.

I think that with all the recent reports over the last few months, of chemical weapons been deployed by both sides, that’s if the information is correct, and now with the ever increasing death toll and refugee crises, outside intervention may need to be examined even further.  The small amount of light military and other supplies to the opposition forces by the United States and European nations does not seem to be giving an advantage to the rebels, especially since government troops are being supplied with heavier weaponry from Russia.

The best option to end this conflict is through peace talks, but this has failed in the past and is unlikely to happen in the near future. Both sides seem content on fighting to the death and innocent civilians are becoming by-standers suffering the most. The only option that I can see to bringing peace is for more concerted effort by the outside world to actively intervene. To achieve this option would be for a meeting to take place between the all five permanent UN Security Council members and other nations from the region to discuss and hopefully come to a better solution to ending the conflict, then what has been proposed in the past.

The report by the UN on the scale of the violence and instability caused to millions of Syrians will I hope motivate more concerted action by the international community, before more innocent lives are lost. 

Why is China afraid of the Dalai Lama?

On the 6th July, Chinese police shot at and injured a dozen or so Tibetan Monks, as they were trying to celebrate the birthday of the Dalai Lama in Sichuan province, China. News reports indicated that two monks were shot in the head and many more were injured by scuffles with the police and army.

This incident is just one of the many that have taken place over the past decades since China's invasion of Tibet in the 1950’s, and forced the Dalai Lama into exile in India. The last major crackdown on Tibetan monks protesting against Chinese rule was in 2008, when many were killed in clashes with Chinese security forces.

The Chinese have brutally ruled over the Tibetan people ever since the invasion in 1950, banning them from openly worshipping the Dalai Lama, and repressing their religious and political freedoms.

China has claimed that they have helped develop and modernise Tibet, even gave them an autonomous region status, but most of the development has been in favour of the Han Chinese immigrants, not the native Tibetans.

The Dalai Lama has in recent years acknowledged that China will probably never grant independence to Tibet, but he has called for more autonomy to the Tibetan people; however this seems to have fallen on deaf ears back in Beijing. The Tibetans are still treated like second class citizens with no rights for choices over their lives. Only a couple of weeks ago there were reports that the Chinese authorities in Tibet have forced hundreds of thousands of Tibetans from their nomadic lives, and moved them into newly built housing complexes, where they had to pay for half the construction costs. Majority of Tibetans are poor farmers, and by this action alone they have become indebted to the Chinese state.

I think that although the Dalai Lama as the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people has a point that China is unlikely to grant independence to Tibet, especially since millions of Han Chinese have migrated to the region and billions of dollars have been spent on infrastructure projects, the Chinese authorities should relax their repressive policies, and allow more autonomy for the Tibetan people.

I have been to Tibet, although many years ago, and I noticed that at every monastery and on the streets of the capital, Lhasa, the Chinese have uniformed and undercover security personnel everywhere, spying on the activities of the Tibetans.

From my personal experience, the Tibetan, like all those who are spiritually connected to their religions (and their connection to their religion not associated with political and economic powers) are peaceful and accommodating of others. Hence I do not understand why the Chinese are so threatened by the Dalai Lama, a man who promotes peace among his supporters rather then violence. 

I also can not understand why the Chinese do not allow the Tibetans to practice their Buddhist faith openly, without repression from the authorities.

I think that the Tibetans, whose faith teaches peace and harmony, are unlikely to take up arms and begin a violent revolution any time soon. Like all others who feel desperate for freedom, it is their last resort. All they would probably wish for is just some basic human rights and freedom to practice their faith.       

Australia’s Political Situation is Calm Compared to Egypt

How exciting. With in less than a week, one country has replaced its leader and another looks on the verge of changing its leader. 

I am writing about the political situations in Australia and Egypt. 

In Australia, the governing party internally ousted the Prime Minister and re-installed a man that once experienced the fate of the unfavoured PM. All was done in a matter of hours, some cared, some didn't, and the public continue to live their lives without much interruption. 

In the case of Egypt, if the large amount of the population and the military, get their way, are intent of removing their President from office, even if the outcome is for more violence.

The political situation in Australia is calm compared to the situation in Egypt, and last week's leadership change was conducted without violent protest or threats from the military. But if you have been watching or reading the news, you would know that Egypt is once again on the verge of further political and social unrest, with violent protests and the military announcing that if President Morsi and opposition parties do not resolve the crises by this Wednesday, they may step in again, meaning more violent conflict between the different political and social groups.

In case of Australia, nothing much has changed in the daily lives of most Australian’s after Kevin Rudd ousted Julia Gillard from power, and the leadership change has not  greatly impacted on the lives of most. But in Egypt, a leadership crisis or change seems to have major implication for majority of the people. They have and still do suffer from economic and social issues that in Australia, where I am from, do not suffer on the scale as Egyptians do. Australia has a stable political and social system, with a constitution, which has protected the rights of its citizens for over 100 years, but in Egypt, this does not seem the case.

In Australia there is a peaceful manner in which most leaders are removed, and is reasonably orderly, with some short of rules governing a political coup, either through a general election, or a party ballot. But it seems in many countries around the world, political crises turns into almost a civil war, has been experienced in Egypt of the last few days, and even decades. 

The last few days has shown me that I am lucky that a political leadership change did not affect me personally and most of my fellow citizens. Of course, we will always suffer from quite mundane issues, like small rises in petrol or milk prices, or even a slight hike in our electricity bills, but compared to the situation in Egypt and other countries, facing political and social unrest, I feel quite lucky to be an Australian.

For me, I cannot imagine any short of mass violent protests on the streets of the Australian capital, Canberra, or even the military calling for the government and opposition parties to resolve any crises or they will step in and take charge of the country. For this I hope that in the future, Egypt and the many other courtiers around the world, suffering the extent of political and social unrest, that they can peacefully resolve their issues, and perhaps even one day be able to change leaders without so much violence and unrest.    

Can Kevin Rudd Save the Australian Labor Party?

Last Friday I wrote a blog post on the speculation of a leadership change in the Australian Labor party and government, arguing that I think would be unwise for both the Labor party and the nation. I still stand to this argument, even as of last night Kevin Rudd returned to the leadership of the party and will become Prime Minister again.

At 7pm last night, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard seemed to have had enough on the months, if not years of speculation and criticism of her performance as the nations leader, and chose to call caucus vote to decide her future. To me, and I suspect many others that such a call would be risky, as Kevin Rudd seemed to have the numbers to regain power, and this was the case. Rudd won last nights ballet 57 votes to Gillard’s 45, ending a three year term as Prime Minister for Gillard, and her political career, which as promised she will retire after the next election.

I think that the events of last night were a shame for the labor party and the nation, as I think that Gillard as Prime Minister was doing an ok job. She might have introduced policies that many Australians were told (by Tony Abbott) not to like, for example the Carbon tax, but at least she was trying to improve education for future generations and help the disabled. Although she did lie on a few issues, every leader in politics has done and will do the same in the future, even john Howard would have lied, as to gain votes.

The reinstatement of Kevin Rudd as Labor leader and Prime Minister will not necessarily return the party to government. Even if some of the media speculation is true, that Rudd will reform some of the Gillard policies on the carbon tax, education reform and on boarder protection, the voters are now sick of the infighting taking place in the Labor party and may change their support. Rudd also has a hard task of rebuilding the party, as many senior Cabinet members have resigned as the result of last night's caucus, further destabilizing the party. This I think in the long term will affect the preferences for voters at the next election.

The next few weeks and months will be interesting, to see how Rudd’s return can turn around a 29 percent primary support, and lead a party to at least not a total wipe out as predicted. Hopefully Rudd can prevent a Liberal majority, but at this stage, this looks unlikely.   

Is Berlusconi's Political Career Over

It looks like the political career of former Italian Prime Minister and media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi might be at an end, after he was found guilty, and sentenced to a seven year jail term for having sex with an under age prostitute, and abusing his power when as Prime Minister. On top of this verdict, Berlusconi is also contesting two other cases of tax evasion and corruption charges.

The case has been a long drawn out affair, with Berlusconi and the girl denying that they had sex, even though she did attend many of Berlusconi’s so called ‘banga banga' parties at one of the tycoon’s villas. The verdict has been condemned by Berlusconi’s lawyer, who said after the trial, “"This is beyond reality," and "the judges even went beyond the prosecutors' request."  Although it seems if the reports are correct that with a long appeal process which is expected, he will probably never see the inside of a prison cell.

What gets me is how can a man like Berlusconi ever be elected as a nation's leader in the first place. He has been in and out of office for over 20 years, with many millions of Italians seeming to agree or just put up with the playboy antics of the billionaire media mogul. If any other Prime Minister or President in any other democratic nation behaved the way Berlusconi has, with all the extravagant parties and strippers, they would be condemned as immoral and unfit for office. But for some reason Berlusconi has got away with it for years, until now of course.

Although I do think that even with such a damaging verdict against the former Prime Minister, this may not be the last time we see him influencing Italian politics. This is not the first time that he has been found guilty of various crimes, and he seems to find his way past judicial rulings, through either appealing or using his status to escape prison time, and then reappear on the political stage.    

I do believe his return would be unwise.

Should there be a leadership change in the Australian Labor Government?

As the federal election in Australia gets closer, so does the speculation of a leadership change in the Labor government. Ever since the 2010 election, the media and the Liberal party has been on a long campaign of speculating that any moment now, Prime Minister Julia Gillard will be removed as leader of the Labor party and government to be replaced by previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. On a couple of occasions the reports have been true with Rudd challenging Gillard in  caucus meetings, but in both cases failed to regain the leadership, most recently been in March this year.

“There are no circumstances under which I will return to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in the future.” - Kevin Rudd on Sunrise

As the federal parliament sits for the last few weeks before the September election, the media and other sources are jumping over hoops to declare that Gillard will be ousted as Prime Minister, although supporters of both Gillard and Rudd have been frantic at playing down any leadership challenge. On a morning show this morning  Kevin Rudd said “there are no circumstances under which I will return to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in the future.” Hopefully this is an indication that there will be no challenge next week, as been predicted by the media.

I agree with Labor backbencher Gary Gray’s assessment of the situation, that Rudd and his supporters should contest the leadership or “shut up.” This whole talk and rumors are getting a little tiresome to me and I suspect to the rest of Australia. All that I want is a party to govern without waking up one morning with the news of a new Prime Minister, or constant reports that there might be a leadership challenge.

The last think that the embattled Labor government needs is a disruptive leadership change, just a few months before an election. I think that Gillard is performing as good of a job as Kevin Rudd could do if he was able to take over as leader, which is a little late now.

If the polls are correct, opposition leader Tony Abbott and his Liberal party are predicted to win the September election and any leadership change this close to the ballet would likely not affect the outcome. So perhaps, before Rudd and his supporters try going for the top job they should sit back and consider that any action will probably not reinstate the Labor as the governing party. The only way of a victory for the government is for all party members to concentrate on supporting Gillard as Prime Minister and coming up with sound policy, demonstrating that they can still offer a better future for Australia, rather then a government led by Tony Abbott. 

Iran Turning To A More Transparent Nuclear Plan

If the words of Hassan Rouhani, the newly elected Iranian President are true, the nuclear standoff between Iran and the international community looks to be turning a corner. Over the weekend, Rouhani announced at a post election press conference, that Iran needs to be more transparent with its nuclear program.  

Rouhani is seen as a moderate leader than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who became a thorn to the international community’s actions to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While Rouhani stated that Iran will come to the negotiation table with the international community to solve the nuclear issue, he also said that Iran will not stop uranium enrichment, as the program is within the rules of the international framework.    

This re-engagement by President Rouhani is welcoming, that’s if the words will translate into actions. Although the international community cannot relax sanction or pressure on Iran just yet, until there are concrete efforts by the new government to convince that their nuclear program is for peaceful means only. I think to progress the stated willingness by President Rouhani, is for the 5+1 group (UNSC permanent five and Germany), to openly welcome a turning point in the relationship between Iran and the international community. 

The only resolution I can see of this issue, is not through military action (which has been the argument of Israel) but for peaceful negotiations, which will have to include the reality that Iran is entitled to a peaceful nuclear program. On Iran’s part, the stated transparency will hopefully consist of allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to monitor the program. I do think this crisis can be resolved with more open dialogue from both Iran and the international community. And let’s hope for the people of Iran and the rest of the world, that this stand-off can be resolved soon, as we do not want another unnecessary conflict in an already volatile region.   

North Korea open for talks

Early last month I wrote a post on the escalating crisis on the Korean Peninsula,where North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un was destabilizing regional peace and security with rhetorical threats of invasion of the South and destruction of the United States presence in Asia. For more than a month, he was carrying out these threats by isolating the Communist regime further from the international community, by cutting communication links with the South and just being all out antagonistic towards the US and the rest of the world.

As I argued in my last post concerning the most recent crisis, these actions by the North Koreans is just another one in the line of many that have happened over the last few decades. Every time the Communist regime feels under pressure or scrutiny from the outside world, the leaders looked to release their own personal tension by defying calls for nuclear disarmament with testing of its nuclear capabilities. I cannot even count with all my fingers, how many times North Korea has gone down this path, with the status quo still intact.

So it seems my predictions were correct in the past few months. North Korea seems to be crumbling on the inside, as by one minute they are antagonizing the US and threatening the South, and the next minute, wanting to make peace. Small dog syndrome for attracting attention perhaps?  

Last week, the North Koreans, indicated that they are willing to reopen the Kaesong industrial park and reconnect communication lines with the South. To me, this indicates that the Communist regime and its leaders are in a desperate situation. On the one hand they feel threatened by the outside world and its capitalist ideology, but on the other their continuing self isolation is going to bring further hardship to its people, who surely are not going to sit back now and let the regime destroy their future. 

The crisis in Syria is slowly becoming a regional conflict

A couple of months ago I wrote a post on the deteriorating civil war that has been taking place in Syria for almost two years. I discussed the lack of action by the international community in bringing in a resolution to the conflict and since then, the situation in  Syria and the region in general have not been getting any better, and the issue of the many differences between all sides in the conflict have not being resolved.
Unfortunately in the last few months since my last post on this issue, there has been more civilian deaths (over 80, 000) and President Assad tightening his grip on power.

In the last few weeks the conflict has further escalated internally with suspicion that the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons against his own people, although this has not been confirmed. The US and the UK intelligence agencies have stated that there is unconfirmed evidence that civilians have been attacked using nerve gas, but this has not led to further action by either country to remove Assad. Externally, the surrounding regions are slowly being sucked into the conflict, either on purpose or because they share a common border with Syria. On 11th of May for example, Turkey suffered a spate of bomb attacks in a town close to the border with Syria, for which the Turkish authorities blamed on the Assad regime. Also, only in the last days, Israeli defence forces have retaliated to gunfire from Syrian Army units in the Golan Heights. This incident comes in conjunction with Israeli air strikes on a  convoy, suspected of sending weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

From these events over the last few months, as the conflict in Syria gets worse, peace does not seem a likely outcome any moment soon. The international community keeps arguing that their hands are tied due to differences in how to solve the problems, and most nations are unwilling to risk a military intervention at this point.

The world needs to realise that the conflict is not just an internal affair any more, as the last few weeks have shown, Turkey, Israel and other countries in the region have been caught up in the politics of the civil war, and have at this stage refrained from escalating the situation, although, this could change if they are further provoked by the Assad regime and could turn into a regional war, if not resolved soon.