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.  

The Spectacle of the U.S Party Nominations Has Truly Begun

The gloves are truly off, as both the Democratic and Republican parties have begun their primary elections to choose their candidates, to contest the Presidential elections in November. The caucus held on the 1^st February in the state of Iowa will be the first of many over the next 5/6 months, with the Hollywood style rallies and big spending candidates, debating and trying to persuade voters and delegates.      

The first blow in this long contest has been made in Iowa, with a somewhat surprise outcome for the Republican candidacy, with Senator Ted Cruz taking 27.7% popular vote, with Donald Trump 24.3% and Marco Rubio 23.1%. On the Democrat side, there was no surprising outcome, with Hilary Clinton with 49.9% of the popular vote, just snatching victory over fellow Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders 49.6%, and in third place Martin O'Malley taking only 0.06% of the vote, who has since ended his campaign, with only Clinton and Sanders left. So after the first caucus by both parties, the results show a tie within the Democrats and a narrow lead by Ted Cruz

 The polls and media got the Republican Caucus wrong with most polling agencies tipping a victory for Trump, but with an evangelical and more liberal state like Iowa, it seems Trump’s conservative anti-immigration focused campaign did not persuade voters in this small rural state in middle America. As for the Democrats, the campaign could become more contested than first thought.  With Iowa been a small state with a population of around three million, the numerical outcome for both parties is minor compared to the bigger states, but with it been the first time the public has had the chance to vote in this campaign, the outcome could be a sign of how the rest of the nation may vote and could sway the delegates at the party Conventions in June. We will have to wait and see. The real signs of who could become their party’s nominee will be when we find out the results of the so called ‘super Tuesday,’ when both parties hold the most primary/caucuses on the same day, to take place on 1^st March. This day is very important and could make or break a candidate’s campaign with almost half the total delegates on offer. With such a large amount of delegates to be gained by either candidates, the outcome could become crucial come convention time.

With such divides in policy and even ideology between and within the Democratic and Republican parties, and with an unconventional candidate in Donald Trump, this election campaign could become one of the most interesting ever. with so many diverse candidates, we cannot really predict who will win the party nominations or even become President, as the polls are failing to show a true outcome of results. Perhaps after ‘Super Tuesday,’ we might have a clearer picture, especially when some candidates end their campaigns.  

 As an Australian currently living in the UK, my opinion on the election outcome will not count for much, but the party nominees and the final candidate elected to become the next U.S President impacts indirectly the economics, politics and societies in Australia, UK and elsewhere.  For this I think that electing a candidate who will be in divisive and multilateral will be important for both the U.S and the rest of the world, especially at a time of global change. 

With my understanding of American politics leant from taking this subject during my undergraduate studies, reading about the current elections, and listening to expert analysis, it’s a safe bet that the spectacle of the Donald Trump show will fizzle out come convention time, and voters and delegates will choose a different Republican candidate. Which one I am not sure, but surly America and the rest of the world do not want another Bush to be Commander-in-Chief. So that realistically leaves Cruz and Rubio, and for me, Rubio seems the least divisive and the safest bet for the Republican nominee. 

As for the Democrats, with O’Malley gone, the chose has got easier. Clinton seems the most likely chance to win the nomination, although becoming the first women President, I am not sure. Her association with the establishment and resent scandals over private emails, along with it seems conservative public, it will be interesting if she can make it to the White House. As for Sanders, his socialist liberal ideology and policy pledges will not stand for much in a country with many who dislike socialism or socialist ideas. At 74, his age would surely be a factor in voters and delegates minds, even though so far he has gained much support from younger voters, with his free education pledges. But I think he will not be able to carry on this support or gain others as the campaign carries on. In the end, If I was legible to cast my vote I would elect Hillary Clinton regardless of the minor scandal, the name and the links with the establishment as the next and first women President of the United States of America, because she has experience on the international stage (former Secretary of State) and holding elected office (Senator for New York), and she will be the least divisive and have a multilateral approach on the national and international stage. 

     

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.       

What a Victory for Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar.

History has been made in Myanmar (Burma), with the first democratically free general election for  over 25 years, been held on the 8^th November. The election commission has just announced that Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party have won a landslide victory.

The final results have not been fully declared, as a small number of seats still to be confirmed, but the NLD have so far gained  two-thirds or over 80% of the elected seats in both the low and upper houses. The rest of the seats have been divided between the current military backed Union Solidarity Development Party (USDP), the automatic 25% seats held by the military and other minor parties.

  With such a landslide victory, one would think that Ms Suu Kyi, as leader of the NLD would become President or at least Prime Minister. But the political arrangement in Myanmar is no ordinary democratic system that many other states enjoy, instead much of the power still lies with the military. Although the NLD will have the majority of seats in both houses in the Hluttaw (Parliament) and have the right to participate in the selection of a new President, many of the key positions of power will still belong to the military generals. The defence, home affairs minister and other security related positions are selected by the military.

Furthermore, with the election results clearly demonstrating that Ms Suu Kyi commands the support of majority of the Myanmar people, one would also think that she would become President, but this is not the case. Unless the constitution is changed (this requires the support of the military), Ms Suu Kyi cannot become President, because she was married to a foreigner and have two boys who are both British citizens.

This election result is a first step victory for democracy in Myanmar and for Ms Suu Kyi, but unless we see a constitutional change and major reforms, the unelected military will still have majority of control over the country and its future. Although this election compared to 1991 and more recent ones have shown that Myanmar is heading in the right direction, but as Ms Suu Kyi has stated in the past that there is a long road ahead. For real democracy and freedom for the Myanmar people to be realised, the military needs to step away from its past and grant much needed constitutional reforms, allowing for Ms Suu Kyi to stand as President. 

The weeks and months ahead will be crucial for a country not experienced in democratic change. Let’s hope that both the current President Thein Sein and the military stick to their words and respect the election results, perhaps even work with a Ms Suu Kyi led government to bring long awaited democratic change to the people of Myanmar.  

U.S Naval Presence Increasing Tensions in the South China Sea

Over the last few weeks’ tensions between the People Republic of China and the United States has hit a new level in relations between the two superpowers. In the last week or so, the U.S has sent a naval destroyer USS Lassen within the Chinese claimed 12-mile exclusion zone of the Subi reef. 

The issue of contention with this act by the U.S and protest from the Chinese government is linked to the ongoing dispute over a number of small islands and reefs in the South China sea. China along with the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Taiwan have been at loggerheads for many years and even decades over sovereignty of these islands and reefs. In recent years China have built man made islands and placed runways and other structures on them, claiming their right to do so, even though under international law these specks of land or reefs are in international waters.

A US State Department spokesmen John Kirby, has since the incident stated that the U.S navy was just exercising its rights of freedom of navigation in international water, as allowed under international law. The Chinese on the other hand viewed this as provocative and was not needed at such a time. I think that the action taken by the U.S maybe provocative and was seeking a reaction from the Chinese authorities, but was not in violation of international law or encroached the sovereignty of China. One U.S naval vessel passing by a group of man-made islands does not declare war or instigate increased tensions between the two superpowers, all that it seems to have done is show that the action of building artificial islands on undeclared reefs as provocative for a long term solution to the dispute.

With at times high tensions between a number of countries in the region all claiming territorial rights over many of the islands and reefs, with China having the largest claim, the ongoing dispute needs a solution found for the good of international peace and security. The waters in the South China sea are major trading routes with large amounts of ships passing these islands and reefs every day. So what needs to happen to prevent a major incident involving casualties is first, for China to halt the reclaiming and building of artificial islands and structures in the disputed area, and second, for all the countries involved to organise an international conference to find a compromise in regards to claims over the area. With the U.S stating that they will not back down, and will carry out further ‘rights to freedom of navigation’ in the South China sea, this could lead to military to military confrontation, if agreement over the islands and reefs are not found.                      

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.