The Syrian crises no closer to a solution

The crisis in Syria has taken another turn, with the United States (US) new Secretary of State John Kerry announcing that America, along with other nations are planning to give further aid to the more moderate faction of the opposition rebels to help them overcome President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Kerry has stated that no weaponry will be given to Syrian rebels, in fear that they may end up in the hands of the extremists, instead armoured vehicles and training could be provided.

As a meeting in Paris is about to take place between Syrian opposition representatives and the international community to discuss giving further aid to the rebels, the fighting does not seem any closer to ending, in a conflict where about 70,000 people have been killed.

Increasing humanitarian aid and providing limited military material to a divided opposition with many different interests is all well for the present situation on the ground in Syria, but long term strategies are needed to prevent further deaths and regional instability. The body armour, vehicles and training been reported to be included in the assistance package could assist in saving the lives of the rebel fighters from attacks on the ground, but would not help them from strikes from the air.

Although I do agree that weapons should not be provided to the rebels, I do however think air cover, in the name of a no-fly zone, similar to the one put in place over Libya by British and French fighter jets, should be provided by the international community. Half the battle would be won, if rebel forces did not have to worry about being attacked from the air, and a no-fly zone could pressure either Assad to back down and negotiating with the opposition coalition or bringing the conflict to a quick military ending.

I acknowledge the fact that Russia as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) supports the Assad regime and have vetoed past efforts to install a no-fly zone and for foreign military intervention in Syria, arguing that outside military interference will not solve the conflict, but instead inflame the already volatile situation. However, I disagree with Russia’s argument, as over the last 18 months or so, rebel groups have not got any closer to ousting Assad and peaceful negotiations have failed after many attempts. Although the reasons for Russia’s support stem from them having a naval base in Syria, more effort by the international community to persuade Russia to support a no-fly zone over Syria and to pressure Assad to negotiate with opposition forces should be a major priority. 

Iran’s Nuclear Standoff

Image source: WikiCommons

Iran’s Nuclear stand off with the rest of the world has become a unending saga, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announcing that Iran have installed advanced centrifuge machines, capable of enriching uranium much faster then in the past. 

Apart from this new report released by the IAEA, talks between Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, French, Russia, China and Germany), has been planned to take place this week in Kazakhstan. Western diplomats have suggested that they will offer Iran reworked terms to settle the Nuclear crises, this will include easing some sanctions, in return for Iran closing some facilities, but still allow enrichment to continue in other facilities. 

This new deal is a step back from past negotiations, which the P5+1 demanded a halt of all enrichments and closing down of the Qom facility. Western powers seem to be viewing the present situation in more realistic terms, as Iran, after years of failed sanctions are not prepared to bow down to pressure by the international community and stop all uranium enrichment , and many states including the US are unwilling to be drawn into another conflict, likely to be a disaster and further destabilise the region.

Image source: WikiCommons

As we all know, Iran and western countries, specifically the United States (US), have been at  loggerheads over Iran’s nuclear ambitions for over ten years. The international community and the IAEA have been alarmed by Iran’s nuclear program, claiming that they are not just enriching uranium for peaceful means, to be used for energy, but are expanding their research and technology to build a nuclear device in the near future. The Iranian leaders have rejected this claim on many occasions, saying that they do not want to build a nuclear weapon, but just want enrich uranium for energy purposes only. Even Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has issued a ‘fatwa’ condemning nuclear weapons in the past.

The issue that the United Nations Security Council and the IAEA has with Iran’s program, is the fact that they will not fully comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), by not cooperating with inspectors and lying about their ambitions to acquire weapons grade uranium.

Under the treaty, signatory nations are allowed to enrich uranium to be used for energy purposes, however the technology required producing fuel for a reactor can also create material for a nuclear weapon. To overcome the use of this technology been used to produce a nuclear device, the IAEA inspects the facilities that are producing nuclear fuel, making sure it is for peaceful purposes. However, Iran has not cooperated fully on allowing inspectors into their facilities to confirm that what Iran labels as peaceful production of nuclear energy.

I think that Iran is playing a risky game of ‘Russian Roulette with the international community by not cooperating with the IAEA and not abiding by the NPT. If they are true to their word, they should allow inspectors to fully monitor their program or withdraw from the treaty; although, if Iran did leave the NPT they would likely be viewed as having ambitions to build a nuclear weapon and be a threat to international security. The current situation is two fold, on the one hand, Iran are threatened by the US and Israel, thus are secretly trying to acquire a nuclear weapons, on the other, the US and Israel are alarmed with the a prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, who’s leaders have called for the destruction of Israel and have supported the activities of a number of organizations. 

To solve these problems, Iran should suspend their ambitions to secretly build a nuclear capability and cooperate with the IAEA, and the US and Israel should stop threatening to attack BlogThis!

How peace can be achieved in Afghanistan?

Image source: WikiCommons, Photo credit: Sergeant Brandon Aird US Army 

As the date for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan gets nearer, peace and stability still seems a long way off. By the end of 2014, less than two years away, most international combat troops are planning to leave, handing over the responsibility of securing the country to the Afghan National Army (ANA).

Although foreign forces hope to have further weakened the Taliban by the time they depart, reality on the ground seems to suggest that the Taliban will still have the capability to wage war against the Afghan government, who they view as puppets to the United States (US) and are corrupting the country.

Over the last few years their has been an international effort to bring both the Taliban and Afghan government to the negotiating table to discuss how to bring peace and stability, but on every occasion, disagreement or outright rejection by both sides has lead to a stalemate.

The most recent attempt to bring stability to the region was in early February this year when the British Prime Minister David Cameron held peace talks between leaders of Britain, Afghanistan and Pakistan, in a bid to bring stability to the region. Although many issues were discussed, but with out representatives of the Taliban not been present, the future peace and security were not solved.

Unfortunately, I don't think the objectives of the US and NATO to bring stability to Afghanistan and its people will be achieved, especially when any signs of peace talks by both sides seem unlikely in the near future. The Taliban are a disbanded force hiding out in Pakistan waiting to attack foreign and Afghan forces, and when international troops leave, they are likely to regroup and return to Afghanistan in a bid to either remove the Karzai government or take control over some areas of the country.

To bring peace and stability in Afghanistan will involve spending more resources to developing the countries non-existent infrastructure and helping the people, who many are drawn to the Taliban due to the corrupt and incompetent government. The international community also needs to end their interference into Afghan politics which feeds the corruption. Finally, all sides of the conflict, including the Taliban need to meet as equals to discuss how Afghanistan and the wider region can achieve long term peace and stability, if not this conflict could spread into regional civil war.

Another unfortunate truth is that all these solutions are unlikely in the current situation.

The Greens and Labor alliance ends in Australia

The Greens Leader Christine Milne announced today that her party will sever the alliance with the Labor party, because they have broken an agreement by supporting the mining industry. Milne said that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her government to blame for the Greens to back away from the alliance.

Since the 2010 election which ended in a hung parliament, the Labor parties have only stayed in government because of the backing of the Greens and a number of Independent members in the House of Representatives (HOR). Prior to today's announcement, Independent MP Andrew Wilkie withdrew his support for the government 13 months ago, but this did not affect the numbers in the HOR.

Along with Independent MPs, and the Greens are losing faith in the government under Julia Gillard’s leadership, and the Labor party have suffered numerous set backs in their campaign for re-election at the end of the year. Polls have shown a lack of support for the government by voters, a number of senior cabinet members have resign in the last month and the most damaging being the Craig Thomson saga which is still ongoing and if Mr. Thomson is charged he will have to resign from parliament, forcing one less vote for the government

Although many senior Labor party members have come out and said that the party does not require the support of the Greens to win the next election, this announcement, along with all the other damaging sagas over the last year or so, are unfortunately damaging the confidence of  the voting public has for the Labor party. 

I think for the best chance for the government to win the next election, they will need to hold onto the allies that they have, seeing that they required their support  last time to form government and may need them at the end of this year. Unless the Labor party change tactics and try every measure to keep the alliance with the Greens and others, the result may mean an end to their ambitions to stay in power. 

We need to talk about North Korea

The signing of the armistice in 1953 was to bring the Korean War to an end. However to this day, North Korea (DPRK) and South Korea (ROK) , with its ally the United States (US) are still technically at war.

For the past 50 years, the DPRK has had a succession of three leaders all from the same Kim family. The newest member, Kim Jong-un succeeded his father Kim Jong-il in 2011 as leader of this reclusive communist state. At 29 years of age, Kim Jong-un has carried on his fathers and grandfathers dogmatic rule over the North Korean people and have alarmed and confronted the international community.

At the death of Kim Jong-il, who was in power for over 20 years, the west thought the situation in North Korea may change, as Kim Jong-il’s sons were seen as more westernised and liberal, but Kim Jong-un seems as unpredictable and authoritative as his father. As Jong-un is inexperienced at ruling, there are suggestions that he is trying to play power games with the military generals to stamp his authority.

The continuing defiance against the west has been one strategy deployed to demonstrate Jong-un’s authority to both the people of North Korea and the international community. On Tuesday, the DPRK’s state news agency reported a planned underground nuclear test had taken place, and many surrounding countries had felt seismic activity indicating that there may have been a nuclear test, although no radiation has been detected so far to verify these reports. The DPRK announced that they had built and tested a more sophisticated nuclear device than the previous  attempts in 2006 and 2009, with more radioactive material been used. If North Korea had successfully tested a more powerful nuclear weapon, along with newly built long range missiles, they might actually become a more long term threat to the rest of the world.

After years of multilateral six-party talks ending in failed negotiations, the international community seems to have found no answer to prevent North Korea from spending resources on obtaining Nuclear capabilities rather then feeding its people, who have suffered decades of famine. Even many sanctions by the west have not stopped North Korea, but instead have made their leaders more determined to go down the nuclear path in fear of US aggression. 

Although at this point, western sanctions seems the most realistic strategy for the international community, but in the long term may worsen the situation for the people of North Korea, especially if China begins losing interest in propping up the communist regime, which I think will happen in the next few decades. One think that the world does not need, is an even more failed state as North Korea to contend with in the future. 

Rise Up Australia Party is just another 'One Nation'

Australia thought they had enough of far-right parties been founded when One Nation crumbled in the early 2000’s, unfortunately this is not the case. A new party, Rise UP Australia (RUA), has been formed by former Family First senate candidate, evangelical Pastor Daniel Nalliah to contest the next federal election later this year.

The RUA parties main platform is based on protecting Christian values, including up holding Australia’s heritage as a Judeo-Christian nation, by calling for the prevention of Muslims entering the country and bring with them Sharia law. Also, the parties are against Homosexuals and are climate change skeptics.

As the situation in federal politics stands, where both major parties are losing support from the voting public, many experts including Associate Professor Haydon Manning are concluding that the RUA could gain more support then they may have had, if they began contesting in an election in the past. Their extremist views would be likened by large sections of Australian society, who hold some of the same views as the RUA ideology, especially preventing Muslims coming to Australia.

I am not a supporter of the RUA’s views, but I do maintain that they have the right to free of speech to a certain point, although I am alarmed that the RUA ideology will be increasingly attractive to many people, especially far-right Christians, who view Islam as a threat to both their religion and society. Contradiction is every where on the party's website. the party states that they will uphold freedom of religion, but they openly wish to cut the intake of Muslims coming to Australia on the grounds of protecting Australian society. In my opinion, this view undermines the meaning of ‘freedom of religion’, as far as the RUA would give other migrants the rights to come to Australia and the freedom to practice their religion, but not Muslims.   

This sort of outspoken attack on Islam will do nothing but turn Australia into an islamophobic nation, unwilling to accept diversity in our society and freedom of religion. Let’s hope for Australia’s future as a multicultural nation (meaning we have many different races, cultures and religion living as one), that the RUA and its ideology will disappear, the same as One Nation did a few years ago.   

European Union Compromise on Budget Cuts

Image source: WikiCommons, photo credit: J.t.h.groothedde

Over the weekend leaders from the European Union (EU) member countries attended a summit in Brussels to try and agree on an EU budget for the next six years.

For the past few months there has been much disagreement between member states on how the budget should look like over next few years. National politics has played a major role in the difference of opinion on the new budget. Even political blocks have formed with many northern members including Sweden, Britain and Netherlands arguing that the current draft of the budget need cutting down and French, Italy and Spain were stating that they support the draft budget as it was. Germany, the largest economy in the EU was torn between France its usual alley in the EU and Britain, the leading nation demanding spending cuts.

After the weekend’s negotiations, compromise by all members was agreed, with a 3% cut in the 2014-2020 budgets. Although British Prime Minister David Cameron wanted more significant cuts, he was pleased with the outcome that ended in some lowering of the budget. Even French President Francois Hollande, who was arguing that budget cuts, would weaken economic growth, was unable to prevent it, but was content  and willing to compromise seeing that he won the argument for farm subsidies not to suffer any major cuts.

In light of the economic down turn and crisis in some member states, along with national governments slashing budgets over the last few years, the EU has once again proven that although there is much difference in opinions between countries, cooperation and compromise on major economic  issues can transpire. The agreement over the weekend shows the rest of the world, that the EU system although still in a process of improving its efficiency can bring economic growth to an entire region or continent. One good aspect of the EU is how such a system can bring regional rivals closer together through integration of their economies, improving the lives of millions of people.      

The Arab Spring still not over

Back in early December 2012, I wrote a blog post on the situation in Egypt, where the ideals of the ‘Arab Spring’were still been fought for.  Over two months later not much has changed in Egypt, and instability has even spread over to Tunisia, although reasons for a re-spark of the revolution are different.

Image source: WikiCommons Image credit: Mona

In Tunisia, where the so called ‘Arab Spring’ began,has descended into further chaos in the last few days. As we can all remember back in 2011, when a revolution succeeded in removing from power, former authoritative President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, stability in that country would be achieved. But on Wednesday, Shokri Belaid a top opposition politician, known for his staunch criticism of the government was assassinated outside his home, sparking violent protest against the government. Also, labor unions across the country have called a general strike, not been seen in Tunisia since 1978, which crippled the countries economy.

Prime Minister Hamdi Jebali, as to calm the situation, asked for the Parliament to be dissolved, and for a forming of a technocratic government to solve the economic situation and bring stability to the country, but his government and other parties have rejected his requests. This has lead to four opposition parties walking out of the National Assembly in support of a new technocratic government.

It looks like the countries gripped by the ‘Arab Spring’ two years ago have not been able to achieve what the millions of protesters who took part were demanding. Although in both Tunisia and Egypt, authoritative leaders were removed from power after decades of brutal control, the power has just shifted to more Islamist oriented parties and the military.

The situation in both Egypt and Tunisia is just a process that both countries will need to go through to achieve stability, if that be full democracy or their own version. In almost every time in history where a nation has removed a long standing authoritative regime, stability has been a long violent process until peace has been achieved. Other nations around the world need to leave both Egypt and Tunisia to go through this process without hindering the situation, instead offer support when requested for future development and stability.            

Politicians Finally Wake Up to Same Sex Marriage

Image source: WikiCommons, photo by: Beatrice Much

In recent days politicians in Britain have voted in support of legislation allowing gay men and women the right to legally marry. Politicians in the Commons voted 400 to 175, giving a large majority for such a controversial Bill. Although almost half of the Conservative party and a number of Labour members voted against or abstained, progress for further equality in Britain has won a landmark result. All that needs to happen now is for a majority agreement in the House of Lords for the Bill to pass into law, but this is predicted as unlikely as most members are against such legislation.

Although the legislation has a tough road ahead to pass through the House of Lords, at least large sections from all major parties agree that same sex couples have the right to marry. This vote in the Commons will also promote further debate in Parliament and in our society on an issue that affects thousands of people.

Such support by British politicians for gay marriage rights and recent meaningful debates in Australia would have not been heard of over 20 years ago. Today, many countries including France and the United States are also talking about it and bringing the same sex marriage issue to society. Let’s hope this effort can stay on course and that countries such as Britain, Australia, French and the US will follow Canada, in legally allowing same sex marriages. 

The Australian Coalitions asylum seeker policy may break international law

The first group of irregular maritime arrivals arrived at the regional processing centre in Manus Island, PNG today. The 19 people, comprising families from Sri Lanka and Iran, departed Christmas Island late yesterday. Transfers to Manus Island and Nauru will continue in coming weeks and months.
(Source: WikiCommons | Photo credit: DIAC Images)

Coinciding with a United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) report, which condemns the conditions that detainees suffer on Manus Island, the Australian Coalition has announced that if they win the next election, they will reintroduce policy of ‘turning back the boats.’ But this policy has been viewed by both the UNHCR and legal experts as breaking international law and obligations as a contracted state to the refugee convention.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison has announced that the Coalition, if elected, they will instruct the Australian Navy to force suspected asylum seeker boats to return to Sri Lankan waters before they can enter Australian territorial waters. He also mentioned that if elected, Australia would help bolster the Sri Lankan Navy, so they can prevent boats leaving in the first place.

On top of this announcement fromthe opposition, the UNHCR has published a report outlining criticism against the poor conditions that asylum seeker detainees suffer on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. UNHCR's regional representative, Richard Towle and Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who visited the island detention centre last week have said that women and Children have to stay in the same facilities as single men in temporary housing, under hot and humid weather.

I think that if asylum seekers are that despite to risk their lives coming by boat, we in Australia, should as a first world country at least offer better conditions and facilities for asylum seekers. I do agree that we need to detain people arriving illegally for processing purposes, but surly we are humane enough to provide more then just tents and a few tarps.

On the policy announcement by the Opposition, I think that this policy is flawed both morally and politically. As Australia has a good record in providing overseas humanitarian assistants and promoting the protection of human rights, we have an obligation to continue this effort in the future, but bring back past failed policies would ruin the image of a good global citizen that thousands of Australian’s have worked hard to achieve.      

Who has Sovereign Rights over the Falkland Islands?

The Falkland Islands, a self-governing British Overseas Territory just off the coast of Argentina does not get a mention much in geopolitics, but this small island with more sheep then people has been a contested piece of land for almost 300 years. 

Ever since Britain colonised the uninhabited islands in the early 19 century, Argentina has claimed sovereign rights over the Falklands and has even gone to war over this fact.

Back in 1982 Argentinean forces invaded the islands and occupied them for 74 days until a British task force reclaimed the Falklands with over 200 British and 700 Argentinean soldiers killed.

For many years after the war, relations between Britain and Argentina were strained with either nation willing to discuss the issue over the islands. But since the early 1990’s relations have improved, although there has been no formal negotiation over the future of the Falklands.

The problem with solving the sovereignty issue of the Falklands, is the reality that most of the 2563 inhabitants have British ancestry and view themselves as firstly Falkland Islanders and secondly British. The Argentineans on the other hand argue that the islands are historically and geographically part of their territory and should be given back. The British government has clearly stated that as the majority of the Falklands population wants to stay as part of Britain, they will not abandon the islands. The issue is further complicated with oil and gas reserves been found around the islands, which the British would be keen to keep hold of.

In the last few days the relationship between the two nations has been further strained, with the Argentinean Foreign minister HectorTimerman rejecting his British counterpart William Hague’s invitation tomeet Falkland Islandgovernment representatives in London next week. This snub, along with renewed calls from Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner for Britain to agree with the 1965 United Nations Resolution, calling for a negotiated solution to the dispute, has increased tensions over the last few years.

I think that the best way to solve the issue of the future of the Falkland Islands is not on bringing up the past, but for all parties involved including the elected Falkland Islands government to begin formal discussions, leading to a long term agreement. From what a know of the situation, majority of the Inhabitants on the Falklands want to remain as part of Britain, and in March this year they will have the chance to vote in a referendum on if they will remain a British Overseas Territory or not. What ever is decided by the people, both Britain and Argentina should respect the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.