Should International Sanctions on Burma be lifted?

Image source: WikiCommons Credit to: Htoo Tay Zar

On Monday the European Union (EU) lifted its economic sanctions on Burma (Myanmar), although an arms embargo is still in place. This act comes inline with other international institutions and states that have over the last year or so lifted their own sanctions on Burma. For instance, last year the United States, suspended some sanctions and relaxed trade restrictions between both countries. Much of these sanctions have been in place for a number of decades, ever since Burma has been under military rule. During this time, the Burmese people suffered under the sanctions, which prevented any direct foreign investment and trade with the international community, and slowed economic development.

Since 2011, the military junta has been on a campaign of economic, political and social reforms, culminating in the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who had been under house arrest for almost 19 years. On top of Suu Kyi’s release, the military generals progressed with a new constitution, allowing for the first time, opposition groups to hold seats in parliament. Even though, the military still hold over half the seats and govern over state affairs, Aung San Suu  Kyi  has become a member of parliament and has a voice in national decision making.

I agree with the lifting of some of the economic sanctions by the international community, but I am a little sceptical of the future intentions of the military junta in Burma. Foreign placed sanctions on countries over a long period, such as the one in Burma, has some short term effects to pressuring regimes to reform and tackle issues of human rights, but in the long term, the sanctions can bring further misery on the people, not the authorities which the sanctions target. On my second point, the Burmese government have began showing signs that they will begin a process of reform, but I do think that the international community needs to be vigilant in how much leeway to give to  the Burmese government in regards to carrying out the planned reforms. Before more international institutions or countries start lifting sanctions on Burma, further reforms, especially in regards to human rights abuses needs to be actively addressed.

Will gun control ever be achieved in the U.S?

U.S. President Barak Obama gets emotion as he address the nation on the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting
(Image source: Wiki Commons, credit to: Lawrence Jackson) 

Since last December's mass shooting of 20 children and 6 adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut, President Obama has been on a campaign to bring tougher laws into universal gun controls. 

The main obstacles to his plans have been a number of Republican Congressmen and women, and members of the National Rifle Association (NRA), who argue, that they will not support any legislation which contravenes their constitutional right to bear arms.

Obama’s plans are for universal background checks, a ban on automatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition cartridges. The problem that the President has is although 90 percent of the population support the need for tougher laws on gun controls, many Republicans in Congress, will only support universal background checks, as to prevent criminals and the mentally ill accessing a weapon. Republican Senators have come out this week and stated that they will try every political trick available, including filibusting the legislation, meaning it will need 60 percent approval rather then a simple majority vote.

I think, if 90 percent of Americans who have cherished the right to bear arms for over 300 years, but are now willing to compromise for the shake of preventing any more mass killings because of ideas of liberty, the U.S should not call itself a democracy. I do not understand the argument of the few who fear losing the right to bear arms, it is not like they will not be able to own a gun, all that Obama is proposing is for eliminating weapons that can kill many innocent men, women and children in one short moment.  

In Australia and other parts of the world, governments have legislated into law tough gun controls similar to the proposed ones in the US, which of course have not fully eliminated the use of guns in crimes, but have prevented mass killings on almost monthly bases as seen in the US. I hope in the end Obamas campaign, with the support of majority of the nation will be able to persuade the reluctant few to say yay on the floor of Congress.

North Korea is playing dangerous games

Over the last few weeks North Korea has been playing dangerous power politics with the international community, especially with South Korea (ROK) and the United States (US). Pyongyang has been releasing statements declaring renewed hostilities against the South. North Korea has back up their verbal rhetoric with a buildup of military forces along the border with South Korea and threats to strike at US military bases in the region.

In the past few days, North Korean authorities have further increased tensions with the South by closing the border to South Koreans who are working at the joint Kaesong industrial facilities just inside North Korean territory. About 50,000 North Korean workers and a few hundred South Koreans managers work at this facility, that was set up to foster better relations between the two nations, and to allow the manufacture of cheaper South Korean goods.

These incidents show the same old rhetorics and threats that seem to occur every time there are joint ROK-US military exercises and/or new sanctions placed on the regime, although on this occasion North Korea has stepped up its rhetoric by actively threatening to attack both the US and cross the border into the South. 

Pyongyang have declared a ‘state of war,’ by actively cutting of communications with the officials in the South and amassing troops on the border  the North would be unwise to further the tensions with South Korea and the US, an active conflict would not benefit both the regime and the people of North Korea. 

It seems to me that Kim Jong-un, who has only been in power for less than 15 months, is trying to show the rest of the world and his fellow countrymen  that North Korea are not threatened by the US and its allies and have the will and capability to defend its territory. 

I think that the actions of Kim Jong-un is just verbal rhetoric, even a protest against new sanctions placed on the regime after last year's Nuclear tests and the annual joint military exercise just taken place on their doorstep. It's another case of North Korea barking louder, but a bite is unlikely.

Will the new Chinese leaders carry on much the same as their predecessors?

Li Keqiang, the new Chinese Premier

Over the last few days, Beijing has held the annual National Peoples Congress, where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) outlined the agenda for the coming year. This years meeting was more unique than previous meetings, as both a new President and Premier, along with other top political posts were officially appointed. Xi Jinping now President and Li Keqiang the new Premier.  

At the end of the week long sitting of the National Congress, the new leaders, both Xi and Li spook on their policies and future direction of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). As expected, economic growth was a top issue emphasized by both leaders’ in their speeches to party members as well as the need to tackle internal corruption, where President Xi urged delegates to reject extravagance and fight corruption.

Apart from domestic issues, foreign policy was also mentioned by both leaders, especially the need to improve relations with the United States (US), with Premier Li, saying that "common interests far outweigh our differences." Although, Li talked about better relations with the US, he did reject the allocations that the Chinese government is behind the cyber attacks against US government agencies and companies. Furthermore, President Xi told the party faithful that the military needs to be in a better position to protect the national sovereignty and security of China.

A new era in leadership for China will unfortunately be much the same as the past; it is the same message over and over again with both President Xi and Premier Li have stated that continued economic growth will be the number one priority for the Communist party, which carries on from former President Hu Jintao’s polices aimed at economic development. So far from what both leaders have mentioned in their first speeches, tackling corruption will also be on the agenda, much like the rhetoric of their predecessors. Only time will tell if there will be much improvement in cracking down on corruption that is wide spread in China.

On the issue of foreign policy, both leaders are indicating that China will carry on an assertive approach to its security and national interest in line with its predecessors. I think China no longer want to be viewed as the dominant force bullying other regional nations, and renewed calling by the new leadership for better relations with the US. 

In my interpretation of what Premier Li said in his speech, that the US and China have more in common than they do have in differences, leads to an intention that China wants to cooperate with the US on regional security and stability, rather then be in conflict with them. 

Once again, only time will tell if this is just rhetoric or whether China really does want to be an active partner within the international community.  

The Catholic Church needs a modernising Pope

The position for a Pope is  now open due to the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI (Image source: WikiCommons, credit to: Marek.69)

In the next few days the Catholic Church will choose a new Pope to lead the 1.2 billion people of the Catholic faith, just a few weeks after the shock resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, the first Pontiff to resign in over 700 years.

The Conclave began on Tuesday, and is a momentous occasion at a time of strife for the Vatican and the Catholic Church, as a new Pope will have the task of dealing with many disruptive issues plaguing the Church in recent years. The most disturbing matter is the Churches handling of abuse cases by Catholic priests in many countries around the world.

The Church and specifically the Vatican have been criticised of trying to cover up and protect priests who have been accused of these abuses. In Australia for instance, the Federal government have had to step in after allegations were brought to the surface and are about to convene a Royal Commission into the cases of abuse by the Catholic Church. Although the Church has agreed to cooperate with the Royal Commission, they still protect and support priests that have been accused of abuse against children.    

As the Catholic Church has a membership of over 1.2 billion followers, the Vatican plays a large role in the lives of many of these peoples, who dictate their existence in accordance to the teachings of the Catholic Church, especially guidance from the Pope. For this purpose, I think the conclave should elect a modernising Pope who will break the silence on the abuse of children by Catholic priests and will right the wrongs of the past. Perhaps, in a era where many political and social institutions are breaking with tradition concerning who can become the  leader, the Vatican should decide to elect a non European to become Pope, this will be seen as a break from old traditions and a way forward for a religious institution which has in my opinion lost its ways.  

The Iraq War was a waste of money and lives

This week a final report was released by the United States (US) inspector general for Iraq reconstruction concluding that the billions spent on trying to reconstruct Iraq after the 2003 invasion by the US and its allies was a waste of money and did not achieve much.

The eight years of occupation cost the US over $800 billion dollars in stationing hundreds of thousands of troops and reconstructing Iraq. On top of the economic expenditure, around 5000 American troops died, along with thousands more of Iraqis casualties.

The study was carried out as an audit on the overall expenditure by the US in this conflict over the eight years. The finding of the audit concluded that billions of dollars were wasted to corruption in both Iraq and the US and insufficient security, the money provided to rebuild Iraq was misused and did not accomplish the aim of improving the situation in Iraq.

The Iraq war had been a failure from the beginning for both American foreign policy and the future stability of Iraq and the entire region. Up until the invasion in early 2003, Saddam managed to stabilize Iraq and kept control of any ethnic or religious tensions, even if he had committed crimes against human rights. I agree that Saddam needed to be ousted from power, but I think it was an incorrect policy decision and strategy to firstly invade Iraq at a time were resources were required in Afghanistan and to remove all authority from power, including the dismissal of the police and military. 

The argument set by Bush and his administration, that Saddam and Iraq were linked to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks was a misjudgement  The chemical and biological weapons that the US and other nations argued that Iraq possessed and were going to use to  attack its neighbours further were lies. All that seems to have been achieved by the war and the occupation was to fuel religious and ethnic tensions and further destabilize Iraq and the whole region.

Let’s hope this report on the cost of the war and reconstruction, along with the other inquiries conducted by the US and its allies will offer lesions for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and any other future decisions will assist governments to make better decisions in the future.                  

Tony Abbot's climate change policy inconsistent

Opposition leader Tony Abbot has announced recently that if the Liberal party is elected at the end of this year, the party plan to keep some of the tax cuts and pensions in compensation for the carbon tax,introduced last July by the Labor government, despite having previously stated his party would scrap the tax.

This new carbon tax was introduced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Labor government on the 1^st July 2012. The initiative was to tax high polluting companies, with the aim of introducing behavioural change towards cleaner energy. Every tonne of CO2 emissions requires companies to buy permits. The money raised by the tax would be invested in clean energy projects and compensation for the public, who would be feeling the cost of increased energy and other living costs associated with the carbon tax.      

When the Labor government first introduced the carbon tax, Tony Abbot went on the attack accusing the government of not caring for hard working Australian’s who would suffer because of the new tax. He further argued that business large and small would experience economic hardship that would trickle down to ordinary citizens.

While Abbot is correct that living costs would increase because of the carbon tax, the impact on the public has not been as dire as predicted by the Liberal party. Last July when the tax was implemented, many declared that the scheme would not reduce pollution, however studies revealed that after only six months of the tax, emissions have dropped by 8.6 percent. If we can already see this amount of improvement in a short time, years to come, the slight impact on families and the economy would be outweighed by cleaner air in the future.

If Abbot is true to his word, that his party would keep some of the tax cuts and pension increases in compensation for the carbon tax, why not just keep the carbon tax in place? The money spent on the  compensation is funded by the money from the permits purchased by the high polluting companies; if  Abbot removes the tax, yet continue to keep some of the tax breaks and pension increases, how is he going to pay for all these incentives for the public vote? Likely chance if Abbot wins the next election, even in a landslide victory, he would not be able to scrap the tax as the Greens would still hold the balance power in the Senate. If I was Abbot, I would just leave the tax in place and make the future for our children a brighter one.