A Trump Win Shocks the World

It’s a shock to the world that Donald Trump has just won the Presidential election. The polls had predicted that Hillary Clinton would be on the winning podium outlining her Presidency and thanking her supporters, but Trump has managed to use his divisive policies and political campaigning to effect.

By Ali Shaker/VOA 

What this result has shown, and is some what similar to the Brexit vote in the UK, and the rise of support for far right parties in Europe, is that large sections of the population in these countries feel  they have been failed by the established political and social institutions, even neoliberalism itself. The old political and social base has been argued as not brought prosperity to all people, especially those living in areas with high unemployment due to the closure of factories over the last few decades. So on this note, past policies by former administrations, not just President Obama have reorientated from manufacturing to a services based economy, without offering more higher education training towards this new economic structure. Although past policies can not fully take the blame, people in these areas also need to take responsibility in gaining a higher education.  

In the U.S, many of the states where majority voted for Trump, the economic issues seemed to have influenced their decisions on who to vote for. With this, during economic downturn, although the worst of the global economic crisis is past us, immigration becomes a leading contentious issue, which have galvanised anti-immigration rhetoric by Trump and others in both the U.S and around the globe. The easiest way to blame an economic downturn is on claiming that immigrants have taken away jobs, but in reality ineffective  policies and old societal thinking have made the present.

Furthermore, on the issue of immigration, fear has creeped into the rhetoric in both the U.S and around the world. By taking a tougher anti-immigration line, especially against Muslims, Trump has been able to influence voters fears of Islamic terrorism invading the streets of America, galvanising the minds of voters. All this fear and division, even racism was just a campaign ploy to gain voters trust. I am not saying that racism played no part in the results, as clearly a anti-foreigner stance was impliced in some voters decision making and views, although I think that most people voted on economic and anti-establishment issues, which have been more decisive in the results in both the U.S and in the rising support for far right parties around the globe.   

As Trump campaigned on fear, division, racism, sexism and exclusion, he has a tough job to unite all Americans, although influenced by his rhetoric, a large minority still do not support his views or policies. I think that much of his stated policy announcements over the last couple of years will not transpire, as he will need the support of the establishment of both the Democrats and Republicans, which in reality still hold the real power and, pulls the economic strings on Capital Hill.   

What A Week For Brexit Reality

What a week for the United Kingdom since last week's referendum, yes that's right, the nation has decided, but now reality has kicked in. Apart from only 52 percent of the UK voting last Thursday to leave, we are now in a middle of contest for a new Prime Minister and perhaps likely a new opposition leader as well. On top of all that, the UK is divided, with almost half the voting population supported remaining in the EU, including me, and now all we can do is try making sense of it all. The Union as well is in turmoil, with Scotland, which a large majority voted to remain are considering another independence referendum, and  Northern Ireland a considering its own course of action.

It's a shame that this was the decision of a slight majority, but that was the outcome, and us remainders have to live with it and support a future outside the EU. Some, if not most leave supporters seemed to believe what  Boris Johnson and his Leave campaign colleagues indicated about immigration, extra spending for the NHS  and that the economy will be stable, but in reality they were just lies. From what has been said by leading Brexit campaigners, government ministers, and EU leaders in the last week, immigration will not decrease that greatly, the NHS will not get £350 million extra a week, any deal for access to the single market will involve allowing freedom of movement, none of us will have any more democratic decision making or gain more sovereignty, than we did last week, there will likely be job losses, not more jobs for British people and in the near future our economy in general will suffer.

As I have said, the people have decided, and now a new Prime Minister, who will not be in place until early September, has the challenge of trying to firstly unite a divided government and country, and secondly, invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which will allow a two year process of formally breaking away from the EU and negotiate a future path for the UK. As many in the Leave campaign have either realised all along and  or have just thought of it, the UK economy needs to have access to the single market, though having the understanding that this can still happen  without freedom of movement of labour or paying into the EU. From what EU leaders are saying, this may not be the case. seriously, why would Germany, France, etc allow the UK to have full access to the single market, but without allowing EU citizens to freely live and work in the UK?

I think the best deal that the UK will receive will be either similar to Norway, who are part of the European Economic Area (EEA), along with Iceland and Liechtenstein, which in reality is similar to  been a full member, except you have less say in decision making; or like Switzerland, which has over 100 different free trade agreements with the EU and has to abide by freedom of movement rules. Some may say that the Switzerland model, on UK terms would be great, we could have access to the single markets through free trade deals, but could go one better than the Swiss, and dictate to the EU, who and how many EU citizens can live and work in the UK, but in reality that is very unlikely, especially when the Swiss have tried that, and it seems to have failed.  If the UK realistically wants full access to the single market, as Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and other Leave campaigners want, the Norway model will likely be the path to follow.But  hang on a minute, that will mean that the UK will have to abide by freedom of movement rules, allowing  EU citizens to live and work in the UK and pay into the EU, although not as much. Isn’t that almost the same as been a full member without having less say on decision making, and wouldn’t that mean the UK will lose more sovereignty and democracy? If we follow a similar path as the Norway model, what was the point of holding the referendum or listening to Boris in the first place?

The United Kingdom Should Not Cut and Run from the European Project

With only one month to go, the remain or leave debate has really heated up, with politicians from all parties picking their sides to support, and hitting the campaign trail. (see an earlier post, ‘Decision Time for the United Kingdom: In or Out of Europe’). Many issue have been stated by politicians, campaigners and the general public on both sides of the divide and I will discuss some of these, and argue why the UK should remain in the EU.

Unknown Economic Risks and Instability

In economic terms, figures and statistics have been flying left, right and centre by both sides, with talk of millions of jobs threatened if we left, or money wasted if we stay in. As I am not an economic expert or would be able to access real economic data to support an opinion, I will discuss what I understand of the economic arguments. I feel that most people would be the same as me. So then, I rely on my own research and information provided by the many experts in the field, but I feel that many have their own interests and will only provide some of the detail. Although what I do know is that for me personally and my family, we are not disadvantaged by living and working in a member state of the European Union. I am a recent international relations graduate, so I am looking at gaining employment in international or European organisations in either the UK or Europe, so I see the benefits of remaining part of a reformed EU. In my daily life, I am not disadvantaged, but see the advantages of living in a EU member state, especially when doing my weekly food shopping. Compared to food prices in Australia, where I grew up in, its much cheaper in the UK and Europe. For example, you can buy exotic fruits like bananas from South America or for under 70 pence. This is just one example, but food and prices of other goods are low because of the EU and its ability as the world’s largest trading block to negotiate beneficial free trade agreements with many countries around the world.  

On the issue of the reform package agreed in February, it might not be perfect, but does seem it will protect UK economic interests, and is a good starting point for further reforms. If we left, I think that the UK economy would not necessarily benefit outside of the Union. Talk of if we left would allow the UK to negotiate its own free trade agreements (FTA’s) with other countries may not benefit more than the status quo. I would think that the UK would have to start from scratch and enter long negotiation rounds with countries such as China, India, Russia, United States, Japan, etc. At present the UK as part of the EU have joint FTA’s with many countries and are in the middle of negotiating with others. I wouldn't think that the UK would necessarily get a better deal if we negotiated FTA’s independently with China, India, Russia etc. And talk of looking at the Commonwealth nations as a new source of economic relationships seems a little unlikely, as most of them are small states in economic terms, except for India, and medium size Australia. But these two countries are turning their economic interests towards emerging Asian and African markets, not looking back to the old imperial motherland.

Although the UK are currently the fifth largest economy in the world, how long could this really last. India with the second largest population and aims of copying China’s economic rise, may likely over take the UK , and don’t forget Indonesia’s own ambitions, as well as others. So, if we left the EU we would have to sell our self’s even more to China, India and others. We will most likely not be able to compete with these rising economic giants in the future. Many will disagree with my comments, but the facts are that the UK is better of being part of a reformed trade block that can compete with these rising economic powers, keeping the UK influential and economically powerful, rather than falling behind.

In a World of Globalisation, Sovereignty Has Lost Its Appeal

There has been talk that the UK has lost its sovereignty and its democratic process to Brussels, and that the EU is unaccountable to the UK public. This is untrue, as the EU system is just an extension of the national decision making institutions in the UK. In retrospect, we as voters have as much say or input in decision making over UK laws and policy as we do in the EU, which in reality is not very much. In the case of the EU, we elect a national government to represent our interests in the Council of the European Union and the European Council , same as we elect a Member of Parliament to represent us in the House of  Commons. In the Council of the European Union, each member state governments sends ministers on a regular basis to discuss and agree EU laws and policy, and as a major power in Europe, the UK has a greater say within this institution.  If this is not enough, we are also represented in the Parliament of the European Union, which we can elect for UK Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Both these EU institutions have equal share and sole powers to legislate on EU laws.

From this perspective the UK have chosen to allow some erosion of sovereignty to elected representatives in Brussels and our own national government, all in the name of closer economic and political cooperation and benefits with our European neighbours. Almost every major EU law must have the agreement of the UK government of the day and our elected MEP’s in the EU Parliament, so we have not fully lost our sovereignty or democratic system.          

Just Scaremongering over Immigration

Migration is one of  the biggest issue in the debate, and is wrapped up in economic terms. Public opinion is steeped in this issue with many wanting the UK to leave the EU, so we can control our borders. Some people think that Eastern Europeans are coming over to the UK and are taking jobs from UK workers, but evidence suggests otherwise . One issue I have with this, is why would British companies want to give jobs to foreign workers if there were enough or willing workers in the UK? The scaremongering tactics of some Eurosceptic campaigners are suggesting that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Eastern Europeans are coming over to claim benefits, but evidence suggests otherwise. Due to the EU out of work rules, you cannot just arrive in another EU country and claim benefits straight away, but have to prove after 3 months of residency that you have a “genuine chance of getting work”. Although, these rule are not perfect, and can be abused by a minority of people, but majority of Eastern Europeans or other EU nationals are wanting and willing to find good jobs as to provide for their families, like everyone else. Though the UK does attract large amounts of EU migrants, but Germany also deals with this issue and I do not see them protesting in mass or wanting to leave the EU.

Although EU migration, and the ’freedom of movement,’ is an issue not just for the UK, but also Germany and other member states, I do think that the EU should look into how to better manage the migration flows. I think that the UK should remain in the Union and work with its European partners to find a working solution. I agree that the migration of mainly Eastern Europeans to other EU member states looking for work can affect the receiving countries in terms of pressure on social and health services, and on the home countries in terms of ‘brain drain.’ But I do think that leaving the EU and closing our borders to this inflow of EU migrants is not the answer. Instead the UK should work with the EU to find a solution to persuading more Eastern Europeans to remain in their home countries to work. The problem is that although many nationals from Eastern Europe are well educated, but are unable to find jobs due to their countries weaker economy compared to the UK and Germany. The EU, with the UK still a member, should find ways to persuade nationals from states with higher emigration to remain in their home countries, by investing more in helping with job growth.   

      

Why Leave, When It’s not that Bad

We know what the scenario would be if we remained in the EU and can predict a future path if we stay in, but know one from the leave campaign has really said what the UK would be like if we left. Would we sign up to unifiable deals with the EU in a rush to limit the damage done by exiting, or even worse quickly try to push through FTA’s with China or even Russia, that would disadvantage us. What about the security arrangements we have with our European partners? Could leaving bring friction with EU members within NATO, especially at a time of joint threats from Russia and international terrorism. Also what about working with our European partners in tackling issues if immigration, the problems are not just UK ones, every country in the EU share the same burden of trying to resolve the issue. At this moment, the French, Belgium and Dutch authorities stop the tens of thousands of migrants waiting in their sea ports, and in Calais, French from trying to make the journey across to the UK. Do you think that these EU members will even bother to continue with this policy, if the UK leave the EU? From what I understand, these countries are not legally bound to prevent these refugees from coming across to the UK, and undertake this policy because of bilateral agreements. They are also burdened by resolving the situation.           

In the end, I think it would not be progressive to turn our backs to the European Project, especially when the UK and the rest of the world are facing new and renewed challengers of climate change and threats of terrorism. If the UK leaves the EU we will likely be this small isolated island nation on the edge of Europe, at a time of a globalised, interdependent and interconnected world. Personally, I think that the UK should not cut and run, instead remain as a vital member of the EU, and work with the rest of the Europeans to reform and rebuild the Union.

Decision Time for the United Kingdom: In or Out of Europe

Decision time for the UK public is only four months away, with the announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron, that the referendum will take place on the 23^rd June, giving the UK public the decision to either stay in the European Union or leave. So the next few months will be spent campaigning from both sites to gather support from the public. As it’s not a general election, politicians to not have to be united under party lines, instead they can choose either the in or out groups to support. The campaigns have already begun months, if not years ago, and now that the referendum date has been announced, both groups will be hitting the streets. 

Not A Bad UK-EU Reform Deal

Over last few months David Cameron has been jetting around European capitals, especially in Eastern Europe, trying to gain support for his planned reforms of the EU and the UK relationship with the Union. All that effort was to get leaders from member states to agree to a package of reforms from the EU, to take back to the UK public, before a planned in or out referendum. Last year the PM wanted a better deal for the UK, and outlined a number of measures that he thought may persuade the UK people to vote to stay in the EU. Some of these included, restricting access to in-work-benefits for nationals from other EU countries until after 4 years’ residency; safeguarding rights of non-Euro members from closer financial integration and material disadvantage from Euro zone members; reduce excessive regulations; Allow the UK to opt out of an “ever closer union,” and give more powers back to the national parliaments.

Cameron took these measures to the European Council leaders’ summit last Thursday, and after two long days, got an agreement with the EU, although not exactly what he wanted, instead one that seems to be agreeable between all of the leaders. From the start of the negotiations, the package presented by Cameron was never going to be fully agreed by all member states, especially the ‘benefit measures,’ with Poland and other Eastern European states disagreeing on this issue. Instead Cameron left Brussels on Friday night with an agreed package including, allowing the UK to put a “ emergency break” on other EU nationals from claiming in-work-benefits for a maximum of 7 years (Cameron wanted 13 years), only in extreme circumstances of high immigration; blocking child benefits claimed by EU working migrants from been sent to children overseas; economic protection for non-Euro members from Euro zone states, and reimbursing bailout funds given by the UK; protection for the City of London’s service industry  from Eurozone regulations; A treaty change to allow for the UK to opt out of a closer union with other member states; a mechanism to allow national Parliaments the power to block EU legislation; make the EU more competitive, by creating better regulations and cutting red tape, and strengthen the internal market; and limits to ‘freedom of movement’ rights for EU national marrying non-EU spouses, and excluding other EU national who are seen as a security risk from entering the UK.

Now with a negotiated agreement in place, two official campaigns can begin debating the issues of why the UK should either leave or stay in the EU. For months, even years, Eurosceptics have argued that the UK would be better off leaving, conjuring up statements of unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, take back control of our borders, get sovereignty back, the UK share of the EU budget would be better spent on services here, leaving the EU will allow the UK to take back control over our own trade policy, and so on. Some of these statements or issue do have some merit, and there is a need for reform for a better EU, but perhaps abandoning the project could be an ill-advised path. With so many different opinions and information presented by both sides of the argument, much of it misleading, one feels that much of the public are been misguided and may make an informed chose, with the loudest campaign gaining the most support.

For me anyway, I have taken the time to do some research into the arguments and information presented by both groups, trying to find fact rather than fiction. As I have said above, the EU structure and processes are not perfect and many areas need to be reformed, and as the past few decades have shown, the EU and its member states have and still want to make the Union better, with major changers have taken place, some more welcome then others.  

More Global Cooperation Required to Fight ISIS and Bring Peace to Syria

On  24th November, a Russian Su-24 jet fighter was shot down by the Turkish military on the border between Turkey and Syria. This is the first time a Russian military aircraft has been in an incident over the skies of Syria, since began its operations in support of Syrian government forces, against Islamic State and other rebel groups in September.

This shooting down of a Russian fighter jet by a NATO member has shown the risks that a lack of cooperation between all actors, either state or non-state has in the theatre of war. It was inevitable that this sort of incident would occur, when you have so many parties involved in the fight in Syria. Apart from the United States led coalition and Russia deploying military resources in Syria, there are also the Syrian government, ISIS and many other rebel groups fighting for their own interests. It seems that all these different actors have their own agenda for fighting and in some cases targeting groups with similar interests.

The civil war in Syria is in its fourth year and many other actors have been drawn into to conflict since it began in 2011. The most divisive has been the so called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), who have occupied large territory in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS seems to be fighting on a number of fronts and against a number of actors or states. They have declared war against anyone who does not support their extremists’ views and have committed many atrocities in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Paris and many more places.

The dimensions of the Syrian civil war have changed over the past few years, with an increased focus in defeating ISIS, and even more so since the latest attacks in Paris, Beirut and the Sinai Peninsula. Since these recent terrorist attacks, member states of the United Nations Security Council have voted to call for the international community to use "all necessary measures" to fight ISIS. Russia has also since September this year in support of the Syrian government started targeting ISIS and on many other occasions attacked other rebel positions. Also, since the 13^th November terrorist attacks in Paris, French has sent an aircraft carrier to the region, doubling their efforts against ISIS. In the United Kingdom, there is a debate on if RAF jets should begin participating in targeting ISIS in not just Iraq, but also Syria. Speculation is that the UK will have to get involved, although some politicians and commentators are still sceptical of this action. 

With so many different groups and countries involved in the Syrian civil war, the issue of how to end the conflict and defeat ISIS and other extremists is becoming more urgent, but also difficult, as the years and months go by. There have been opportunities for the international community to step in and halt the conflict, but concrete action has failed every time. The United States and its western allies, who support the moderate Syrian rebels, want Bashar al-Assad to step down, and for a transitional government to take over, but Russia disagrees with this plan, as they view Assad’s government as the only group to keep stability and order in Syria. Also, Russia has other more economic and strategic interests in maintaining support for Assad.

The options that I think will need to happen to bring peace and stability to Syria, is, first a global effort that includes Russia and Iran to work as a coalition of nations to combat the threat of ISIS around the world. Second, for renewed efforts from all actors involved in the Syrian conflict to find a peaceful resolution. All that ISIS are doing is using the political vacuum left because of the Syrian civil war to create a so called caliphate in the middle East and attack its enemies.

To prevent further incidents like the one on Tuesday there needs to be a better understanding and cooperation between NATO members and Russia. Having two separate operations to combat ISIS will not be effective and may lead to further cases of shooting down of each other’s aircraft. The issue is that the western coalition does not agree with Russia’s support of Assad, which is undermining efforts to bring peace to Syria. So until there is more cooperation between all sides, defeating ISIS and bringing peace to Syria may be a lot harder to achieve.       

Changing Dimensions of the Syrian Conflict

The conflict in Syria is over four years old, with no signs of an end in the increasing violence and death toll.

The continuing conflict has forced millions of people to seek protection in other countries. As Europe has witnessed large amounts refugees from Syria, bringing to the realisation that it is not just a regional concern but also an international one. As I have written about in earlier posts, the international community has not effectively found a solution to ending the conflict. The United Nations Security Council has been divided, with Russia and China vetoing four key resolutions aimed at putting pressure on the Syrian government to put an end to the violence and negotiate peace.

Now we have a situation where the Assad regime has managed with the support of Russia to keep control of much of the strategic areas of Syria, including the major coastal towns and cities. Reports over the last few weeks have speculated increasing assistance to the Assad regime by Russia, as a number of jets, hundreds of personnel and other military equipment have been sent to an airbase in Latakia. The Russian's have claimed that these forces are not intended to support Assad's forces, and even the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry stated that this increase  is just for protection of Russian forces already in Syria, although Kerry was concern of future intentions of an increasing Russian military presence in Syria. This concern by America seems more of a risk that the U.S led coalition and Russian forces could accidentally come into conflict, rather than issue of Russian troops and equipment present in Syria. This renewed military buildup by Russia comes at a time when the U.S and its allies step up their own campaign not against the Assad regime, but Isis, who have been gaining a foothold in the continuing violence and instability.

The conflict in Syria has changed the dimensions of the international community’s response, with focus turning to combating extremist forces within Syria, rather than trying to remove Assad or finding a solution to ending the conflict. This war against Isis has become the key strategy of the international community with increasing emphasis by the U.S and other countries including Australia and the UK. In respect to Australia, in the last few weeks Royal Australian Air force jets have begun bombing Isis forces in not just Iraq, but also Syria. The UK on the other hand limited its role to just fighting Isis in Iraq, but there is speculation that in the next couple of months Parliament could decide to authorise airstrikes within Syria. It’s all well and good that the international community is fighting against extremists groups like Isis, but this is only one actor in the conflict, there needs to be a refocus towards  either renewing pressure on Assad to step down or working with the Assad regime to finding a solution to bring peace to the people of Syria.    

The case of Syria is now proving that if conflicts of such a nature are not solved early, even though from the beginning this war had many dimensions from multiple actors internally and externally, there should have been a larger emphasis for the root causes of the spread from protest to all out civil war. These causes in my mind was Assad and his regime. The sad thing with Syria, was that Russia has been a longtime supporter of Assad and his regime, meaning that the UNSC were unable to influence the Russians to support the stance of majority of the international community towards placing pressure on Assad. Even China's long term policy of non-intervention played a key role in its decision not to agree with the resolutions tabled by the west.

So the outcome at present is that we have an outside extremist group in ISIS which stems from the occupation of U.S led forces and conflict Iraq, increasing its hold on large parts of both Syria and Iraq. The extreme  views and violent tactics of ISIS have become more of a concern to the international community, leading many countries to be dragged into a U.S led coalition to fight extremism from the air. This conflict in Syria and the instability in Iraq has spread from a mostly regional issue to an international concern. Europe at present is witnessing the fallout of such a spread of violent conflicts, with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria fleeing to the continent.

In the last week or so, many world leaders or senior foreign advisers have come out and stated that for any future peace in Syria, will require the international community to negotiate with Assad. The possibility of a transitional government with Assad as part of it has been considered for any future peace in Syria. I think in the reality of the present situation in Syria, dropping the opposition to Assad by much of the international community would be wise for future peace and stability. Assad seems to be in a strong position, especially with Russian forces inside Syria, and he has shown that although the west are against him, he still has enough allies in Russia and Iran to hold on to power. It’s hard to predict in what capacity Assad would contain in any future transitional government. Course you would think that Russia and Iran would want Assad and this regime to contain much of the control and decision making positions. On the other hand, the true Syrian opposition forces and the west would want Assad and his government to maintain a limited position. Thus, any future negotiations would require a delicate balance, which would legitamise the concerns of the majority Sunni population, as well protect the many minority groups, including the Alawite’s. The next few months will be decisive on how the Syrian’s achieve with assistance from the international community a path of long term peace and stability.  

Europe's Refugee Crisis Needs More Cooperation

Over the last couple of month hundreds of thousands of refugees have been travelling to Europe seeking somewhere safe to escape war revenged countries or persecution. Most of the recent arrivals are from Syria, but also from Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa.       

Europe at the present and will do for the foreseeable future be dealing with a tragic refugee issue, with predictions that hundreds of thousands more will travel seeking refuge. Europe is facing a humanitarian crisis which seems to have brought division within the European Union (EU), on a how to cooperate on finding a solution. Germany and Sweden were the first member states to open their doors, allowing in tens of thousands, and in Germany’s case hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. Many other countries including French, Austria and now the United Kingdom have offered to take in a limited amount of refugees over the next few years.

   

In the case of the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron announced that 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years can come to the UK. The catch is that they will only come from the refugee camps in the countries neighbouring Syria, not the ones already in Europe. I agree with this policy of only taking in Syrians that have not made the dangerous journey and in some cases paid people smugglers to come across to Europe. Though the amount of Syrians allowed in is pitiful seeing that there are millions in need of help. The reason why I agree is because we need to put a halt to the smugglers trade, who are just praying on vulnerable people and are just interested in the quick cash rather than helping refugees. It seems the best way of doing this is to stop the need for people to pay to travel to Europe or other regions. As such, there needs to be a global effort from all countries to assist and cooperate to take in as many legitimate refugees as possible, so to prevent refugees from making the perilous journeys in hope of seek protection.  

  

    

Although, I agree with the UK government stance, the issue of what to do with the hundreds of thousands of refugee’s already in Europe requires cooperation from all EU member states, not just the few. Although there is a Common European Asylum System placing some rules on member states, each country has its own national policies which determines if or how many refugees/asylum seekers they will take in. Because of the debating and shrugging off responsibility, the crisis has got out of hand and we have witnessed a scramble by many European governments to relive the pressure on Hungry, Italy and Greece. The German policy of allowing large amounts of refugees to enter via the Balkan states and Hungry, although a moral cause, is not the answer to resolving the long term situation and sends the wrong message to other refugees. What will happen now is tens, if not hundreds of thousands more refugees will risk the dangers and come to Europe under the understanding that they can seek protection. But how many are the people of Germany and the government willing to help?

   

Although I am critical of Germany’s policy, I do find the desperate situation of many men, women and children distressing, but I do disagree with how the issue has been dealt with by many governments and the general public. It’s sad that governments and society in general let the situation get to this stage, where thousands already this year have died trying to come to Europe in desperation, leaving their homes to escape violence and persecution. When the first load of refugees arrived by boats on the shores of Italy and Greece earlier this year and when large numbers began crossing through the Balkans, the EU member states should have debated less and taken more urgent action. The conflict in Syria for example has been going on for over four years, with millions of people living in underfunded United Nations refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. I think that all the EU member states should have taken responsibility and offered to take in a share of the refugees living in camps around Syria, so that this dangerous mass migration that both the refugees and Europe are facing would not be at such a desperate stage. But as there are still hundreds of thousands of refugees in Hungry or still travelling via Italy, Greece and the Balkans, all EU member states now need to cooperate at a EU level to share the burden and taking in extra refugees. But also member states need to form a workable consensus to persuade refugees in camps along the Syrian borders to prevent them from making the perilous journey.    

What a shock General Election in the UK

What a little shock to the political landscape of the UK that this election has turned out to be.  Almost all the experts (including the press) had predicted over the last few weeks and months that we were in for another coalition, or at least not a majority for either parties (Hung Parliament). But after months of speculation and a sleepless night for some, the final results declare that the Conservative party has won 331 seats to form a majority government and the return of Prime Minister David Cameron to Downing street.

The main shock was the Labour Party (Lab) and the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) dismal showing with 232 and 8 respectively. One of the reasons for Labour losing or not gaining seats was due to the dissatisfaction of Scottish voters in constituencies that have usually been a strong hold for the party, and another, been the leadership not succeeding in persuading the public that Labour can balance the books, whilst solving social issues faced by this country. Although, I thought I would give them a go. As for the Lib Dems, they had a hard task of keeping loyal voters and trying to gain new ones, especially after been in a coalition with the Conservatives for the last five years, which has been a mixed experience for both the party and the UK in general.  

The least surprising outcome was in Scotland, as on the back of increasing nationalism north of the border, the Scottish National Party (SNP), managed to gain 58 seats. With that result, I predict that we will see another independence referendum by our Scottish sisters and brother in the near future, which I sadly say, and hope does not happen is a breakup of the Union. In other results, the Green party have managed to retain 1 seat, although I thought they might have got more, but environmental and it seems hard to solve social issues are not on peoples priorities at the moment.

The good news in this election, has been that the  United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have only got 1 seat. All this country and the world needs right now is a party that are pregitest, and who have no policies or ideas that solve economic or social issues, except blame immigrants and non-white people for the problems facing this country. At least one UKIP politician can’t do much damage in the Commons. On a related issue concerning UKIP, has been the party’s insistence on the UK leaving the European Union (EU). With such a bad showing at the election, hopefully the Conservatives are less scared of UKIP now, and will reassess the promise made that the UK will have a yes/no referendum on the EU (yes, all parties and Prime Ministers break some promises, that’s an aspect of governing), and instead work with the EU and the other member states to negotiate reforms, that will be in the best interest of all.

As we come to the end of another election campaign, we have to feel for Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, who took the their ideas (with some good and bad policies) to the voters and put up a good fight, but on the day the majority of the electorate cast their ballots for the Conservative party, that hopefully will balance the books and bring further prosperity to the people of the United Kingdom.             

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.        

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.