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.             

Russia is taking on the West again and is winning: but for what?

The situation in Ukraine has become a major concern for Europe, if not the rest of the world. Russia, after over 20 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is flexing both its diplomatic and military muscle in a region which they view as their sphere of influence. The last few months has shown the international community and more specifically Europe and to some extent the United States, that Russia has reemerged from its post Cold War slumber and it means business.

President Putin must be under the view that with Russia’s control of oil and gas supplies too many European countries that he has them wrapped around his little finger, and he would be correct. Even with sanctions against members of his regime, Putin has not backed down taking on Europe and the US, and currently seems to be winning. The European Union is divided on taking further, more aggressive action because of oil and gas, and the only thing that is preventing a full invasion by Russian forces is NATO. Although Ukraine is not a member of the organisation, many surrounding states are, and NATO is indicating, even without officially stating, that they are willing to intervene, militarily if necessary. Since March this year NATO aircraft have been patrolling and monitoring close to the Ukraine Border, and member states have been conducting training exercises in the region, including 600 US paratroopers. 

The current state of affairs in Ukraine, are indicating, that Russia acknowledges that although Europe and the US are looking weak over the situation in the region, that openly deploying Russian troops into Ukraine  will only strengthen and encourage stronger action by the EU and NATO. President Putin is playing a smart game of warfare, by supplying and encouraging pro-Russian rebels, even sending troops without insignia on their uniforms to assist, claiming, "It's all nonsense, there are no special units, special forces or instructors there,". The rest of the worlds of course dismiss this claim, as the rebels are well armed and trained.

I do not understand why Russia and more importantly Putin is staying on course with its actions in Ukraine. Putin speaks of protecting Russian speaking Ukrainians, but would he be still staying on course if Europe and the US were taking a more aggressive approach? I would say no. Does Putin want an all out civil war in Ukraine? Because as it stands it looks like becoming one, unless Russia backs away or Europe and the US take more active action against Russia.  

What a Mess in Crimea

The situation between Ukraine and Russia is becoming messier day by day. Both sides seem to not want to back down on their positions on the future of Crimea, but are causes not to inflame into all out conflict, which would not benefit either country. The issues that have deepened the ongoing political divide has turned from Ukraine removing its former pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February, to an almost invasion of Crimea, a sovereign area of Ukraine by Russian forces and more recently a referendum on the future of the Crimean peninsula.

The referendum held on Sunday was a convincing coup for Moscow with almost 98 percent of the 1.8 million eligible voters deciding to break away from Ukraine and rejoin the Russian Federation. The only problem now is that Ukraine and its western supporters have declaired the referendum and outcome as illegal and that the international community will not recognise a independent Crimea or reunification with Russia.

Since Sundays vote, the United States and the European Union have placed economic sanctions on a number of key politicians and other individuals from both the Ukraine and Russia, in a bid to punish and put pressure on Moscow. In a statment from the White House which stated, "Today's actions send a strong message to the Russian government that there are consequences for their actions that violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including their actions supporting the illegal referendum for Crimean separation.'' All is well that sanctions have been placed on some Russian politicians, but there effects on resolving the political and military stalemate I think will not succeed. Although some key members of Russian politics have been targeted, the major decision makers in Moscow including President Putin have not been punished. These sanction, I think are just a token gesture of support for Ukraine and a limited act in a changing global power shift. The US and it European allies have shown how powerless they are in resolving the situation in the Ukraine and Russia know that their actions will probably not face any major consequences.

As to date, the people of Crimea have decided that they want to be part of Russia, and Moscow supports this action. From the view of the international community, I think that they are not in a position to confront Russia or prevent Crimea from gaining its independence. At this stage, to much is at stack for many European states who have economic and political interests in Russia and would likely prevent any further action other then what is in place.

I think that the only way to resolve the current situation is for the international community and Ukraine to allow Crimea to break away from, as been decided by majority of the population. Although western government will need to booster support for Kiev in a bid to strengthen the economic and political relationship between Europe and Ukraine. Where for the best interest of Russia, they should take the vote on Sunday as a victory and remove all its military forces, as well as stop meddling in Ukraine's politics.

What a Shambles the Sochi Games have become

Only a few more days till the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, with thousands of athletes and spectators arriving in mass to compete and watch the games, that have been criticized by many, both in Russia and globally.

These games have been reported to have cost around 30 billion pounds, although the exact amount has not been officially released by the organizers. If it’s true, the games in Sochi would be by far the most costly; even three times the amount London paid to host the 2012 summer games. That is a lot of money for a country that is still trying to develop into an economic powerhouse, where large sections of the population still live in conditions much like in the old Soviet days.

Apart from the huge cost of holding the games, reports of corruption and abuse against the tens of thousands of foreign workers brought into construct the venues for the games has shown the world what a shambles these games have become. Some of the International Olympic Committee and others have concerns that billions have been pocketed by developers close to President Putin and other key officials. On top of the reported corruption, abuse and non payment of foreign workers have highlighted the lack of respect for human rights that Russian officials and game organizers have.

The number one concern just days till the event kicks off is the threat of a terrorist attack, from a number of possible groups or individuals with grievances against the Russian state. At this event Al-Qaeda are not of concern, but more home grown terrorist threats are. Sochi is only a few thousand miles away from the Chechen border, where Russia has been fighting a brutal guerrilla war against separatist rebels for a number of decades. Various groups from Chechnya and others have threatened to target Sochi and the games. Earlier bombings in other cities nearby in December and January have shown what threat these games are under, even with such a large security presence.

President Putin and the organizers can not take all the blame, the IOC has also some criticisms concerning how bidding cities and countries are granted hosting rights. I do wonder at times how certain cities and countries are selected to hold major sporting events. Much like FIFA’s granting of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar (a country with a bad human rights record, especially against foreign workers, and weather conditions not suited to holding a football event during a northern summer), Sochi is also a bad choose for holding a Winter Olympic games. As mentioned earlier, Russia does not have a good human rights record, corruption has been rife through out the seven years since been granted the games, there are major security concerns due to the close proximity to the Chechen border, and on top of this there is not enough snow fall in Sochi, compared to past winter Olympics.

This is not the first Olympics that the IOC has granted to a county been accused of major human rights abuses and perceived inability to stage an international sporting event. In 2001, the IOC granted the 2008 summer games to Beijing, China, for the first time in its history. Although, the games went without any major security or other incidents, except for the pro Tibetan protests during the Olympic flame relay, the games were some what overshadowed by China’s bad human rights record, corruption during the organization of the games, and restrictions placed on  the international press and spectators.

Perhaps the IOC and other international sporting associations should consider more carefully which cities and countries will host major sporting events in the future. I do acknowledge that all courtiers have the rights to hosting these events, not just a select few, but stricter criteria perhaps should be placed on a bidding nation. I think that this would further encourage perspective countries to address issues of security, human rights and corruption concerns, which many of the recent major sporting events have experienced.       

The international community will probably never know the exact  extent of corruption or human rights abuses, but already the Sochi games have shown what a shambles they have become and show signs of continuing on this path, although I do hope for the athletes sack, who have been preparing for four years, and travelling spectators that all goes well.

Ukraine would benefit more if it signed the European Union agreement

Since November 2013, the Ukrainian capital Kiev and other city across the country have become almost war zones with hundreds and thousands of people protesting against President Viktor Yanukovych and his government. In more recent protests, a number of people have been shot by security forces, with many police and other protesters been injured.

The reason for large parts of the Ukrainian population rallying against  Mr Yanukovych and his government, is over his decision last November to join the Russian customs union rather than sign a European Union  partnership agreement been negotiated over the last few years. It seems many people in Ukraine wanted the country and its leaders to become closer to the EU block, rather than with their former Cold War allies Russia.

If Ukraine had signed the EU agreement, it would have, in my opinion, had a much brighter future, and would have opened up more opportunities to integrate with the rest of Europe and the international community. Now the deal with Russia will further isolate the former Soviet state, and weaken its economy even further. Although Russia has offered a range of economic sweeteners, from debt relief and investment, in the long run the deal will probably benefit Russia, rather than help develop Ukraine and its economy.

Putin’s plans for a re-emergent Russia on the international stage became a step closer with this deal with Ukraine, the largest and most populous nation from the former communist block. Keeping Ukraine and other former Soviet countries like Moldova, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia within its sphere of influence has become an important priority for Putin and the Russian state, with counter negotiations for these countries to join its own customs union. Armenia, for example, has rejected the EU deal and has signed on to the Russian customs union, with Moldova and Georgia still negotiating with the EU on a similar partnership agreement rejected by Ukraine.

Let’s hope that other former Soviet states look beyond pressure from Russia, and sign up to the EU agreement, which will benefit their economies and people in the long term, rather then any deal that Russia can offer.                 

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.