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.   

High Court Ruling Requires Parliamentary Approval To Trigger Article 50

Some breaking news: The triggering of Article 50 by the UK government could be delayed or halted by . The High Court has put down a verdict stating that Parliament has to agree to beginning the process of leaving the European Union, not the government of the day.

The Conservative government under the leadership of Prime Minister Theresa May have argued since the June referendum that the government will not seek Parliamentary  approval for when the UK will trigger Article 50. Though a campaign lead by Investment manager Gina Miller had taken the case to the High Court, arguing that Parliament only has the power to invoke Article 50, not the government. The government has announced  that they will appeal the verdict in the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to see what happens next over Brexit, as this verdict could leave problems in the PM’s plans to invoke the leaving process by the end of March next year. If the appeal fails, Parliament will decide when or if to trigger Article 50, and even perhaps how the process will proceed. The government thought that they could decide the moment when to begin the two year process of leaving the EU and future negotiations with the other 27 member states, on their terms, but this seems unlikely now.  

So what now? Either the government is able to just get a yes or no vote in Parliament, meaning MPs decide within a single sitting of the House of Commons (substantive motion), or legislation will have to be passed by Parliament, meaning that it will likely take months and months before the government gains approval to trigger Article 50. If there is requirement for legislation, then MPs could place conditions on the process, leading to further delays. Also, if legislation in required, both houses will vote, and as it currently stands the government does not have majority of seats in the House of Lords. And as we know most Lords are against leaving the EU. So if the House of Lords votes against the wishes of the people this could make the process even more problematic.

As majority of the people voted to leave the EU, most MPs will likely vote in favour of invoking Article 50, as not to go against their electorate's wishes. Although after the decrease in the pound over the last few months and the slight shock to the economy, some voters might decide to call for their MP to vote against invoking Article 50. We will just have to see what transpires after the Supreme Court appeal and the judgement of Parliament of when and how the UK leaves the EU.

I thing this judgement by the High Court was a great win for parliamentary democracy, as it gives the power back to the legislative and thus the people. I was not in favour of the government having sole authority to decide when to trigger Article 50, and how the process of negotiations with the EU will proceed. I voted to remain in the EU, but I support the democratic decision of the majority of the people. Though, I do not support any hard Brexit that will effect the economy and the future of the UK. As I have stated in earlier posts on this issue, the UK will still need access to the single market, even if that requires signing up to the 'freedom of movement.' So I hope that this ruling by the High Court will allow for a more substantive debate and a more democratic outcome in future negotiations between the UK and the other 27 EU member states, rather then one decided by the Conservative government.

Another Failed Ceasefire in Syria

It seems that another ceasefire in Syria is crumbling even before it could get off the ground.

At the start of the cessation of hostilities on the 12th August, hopes that this attempt at peace, even just for a short period could at least last for the seven days, as was its intention, but this has not been the case. In the last few days, tragic incidents of violations by all parties to the conflict has meant that the ceasefire has failed in its stated goals. The most recent violation – been the targeting of aid convoys on their way to delivering urgent supplies to civilians in Aleppo – has all but destroyed any chance of a ceasefire renewal.  

The aim of months of negotiations between the United States and Russia, was for a cessation of hostilities between Syrian armed forces and opposition groups – excluding so called Islamic-State and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham – for seven days. As part of the agreement, humanitarian aid was to  be allowed to be sent to ease the suffering of civilians in the besieged city of Aleppo, and other areas of Syria. If the violence ceased for seven days, and there was access for humanitarian aid, both the U.S and Russia agreed to coordinate joint strikes against ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.

When the agreement was announced, I was a little sceptical on the purpose of such a narrow and limited negotiated terms. Firstly, there seemed to be no plan for what would happen after the seven days, even if they were successful in their stated goals. I would assume that the U.S and Russia may both honour their agreed joint cooperation in targeting ISIS and other extremist groups – but what about Assad's siege of Aleppo – and his forces deliberately targeting civilians? Secondly, let's say humanitarian aid was sent to Aleppo, and other parts of Syria – but how long would lets say 20-30 trucks of food, water and medical supplies last – especially as Assad’s forces begin bombing again?  

As safe passage of humanitarian aid has not occurred and there has been violations of the ceasefire, the conflict looks likely to intensify over the next few days. I don’t think that the ceasefire will be renewed by either Assad or any of the opposition groups, especially as all sides have put blame on each other for its failure.

 

All that has seemed to occurred, is that mistrust between the U.S and Russia has deepened, especially since U.S-led forces accidentally bombed and killed 62 Syrian soldiers on Friday. This agreement was the first time in this conflict that both countries were planning to cooperate in joint action against jihadist groups in Syria. Although it would not resolve the main issue of ending the fighting between Assad and opposition parties, but at least it was a first step, that could lead to negotiations on the future governance of Syria.

Also, what the last week has signalled, is that  both these countries may not have as much influence over their respective groups they support, as we once thought. Russia has been unable to persuade Assad to allow access for humanitarian aid, a major point in the agreement. And as for the U.S, trying to make the more moderate opposition groups distance themselves from jihadist, seems difficult.

The question now is how can a new path towards peace be found in a conflict with so many complexities? The recent failed attempt towards peace, has only antagonised more mistrust between the U.S and Russia, and this will affect any future negotiations. What is required now is for both countries to renegotiate a new plan towards cooperation to jointly fight ISIS and other Jihadist groups, without unrealistic conditions. If U.S and Russian forces can fight together against ISIS – at least one element of the conflict could be resolved – perhaps leading towards a political solution in Syria. The main problem or sticking point in the conflict has been the jihadist fighters amongst more moderate groups, which has become a major concern for a lack of peace. Perhaps if extremist forces could be defeated or weakened, Assad might be willing, with persuasion from Russia, to reconsider his role in the future governance of Syria.   

The Race to the United Nations Hotseat

As we are gripped by the Presidential election campaign between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, another less newsworthy contest is taking place in another part of the United States, that been in the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

In the past 5 months, the International organisation has been in the process of deciding who will take over from  Ban-Ki Moon, as the next Secretary-General of the UN. All up 11 candidates have put their names in the hat to become the next chief diplomat and administrator of the UN. Six men and five women are contesting for the role–coming from different regions and backgrounds–some have formerly held elected office in their perspective countries or head of UN departments or other international organisations.

The process of choosing the next SG has changed slightly, with each candidate having the opportunity to be interviewed by members of the General Assembly (GA), and hold a live debate. This is the first time that such events have happened within the process of choosing a SG. Some might think that a candidate is elected by all UN members, but that is far from the truth, only the 15 members of the Security Council (UNSC), in behind closed door meetings decide in a number of rounds of what's called  ‘straw polling,’ on who they would present to the GA as their preferred candidate, who then technically rubber stamp the least objectionable person of the Permanent five UNSC members (P5: U.S, UK, France, Russia and China). So in reality the P5, especially the U.S and Russia come to some agreement on which candidate will best suit their own interests, rather than someone who can best manage the UN and deal with current and future crisis or events crippling the world.

Many UN analysts, commentators and the media predicted at the beginning of the process, that Irina Bokova of Bulgaria, the current head of UNESCO would likely become the next UNSG-but the former Portuguese Prime Minister and UN high commissioner for refugees António Guterre is leading the contest, with the most support among the UNSC members, after the first few straw poll meetings. Ms Bokova was seen as favourite, as there seems to be an unwritten rule that regions take turns to have a UNSG, and as a Eastern European has not held this position in the past, that it was time for a candidate from this region, for which Russia has supported this notion. Furthermore, there has also been support for a women Secretary-General.

Although Ms Bokova is well qualified and experienced, along with all the other candidates, but it seems the U.S and other member states are more inclined towards Mr Guterre, as the new UNSG. We must assume that the U.S own national interests lay with Mr Guterre, as a safe bet, rather than obliging to the calls for choosing  a women, and from a Eastern European state, by not considering Ms Bokova. Unless Russia begins to voice an outright rejection of Mr Guterre, and fully commit to having a Eastern European take the position, we will likely Mr Guterre or another male candidate as the next Secretary-General. If Russia does outright reject Mr Guterre, another candidate, Miroslav Lajcak, the Slovak foreign minister, has raced up to second position, and could become the preferred choice, if both the U.S and Russia are still at loggerheads.  

It is a shame that a women candidate could not be in serious consideration for the position, as it is about time that gender not be an issue when choosing the next head of the UN. Ms Bokova is as qualified and experienced as Mr Guterre, but due to past cold war animosities and the current international system, the U.S was always inclined not to proffer a candidate from an Eastern European state, especially Ms Bokova who has irritated the U.S in the past.  

So as it currently stands, a women candidate may have to wait till next time, as either the front runner Mr Guterre, or second placed Mr Lajcak are likely to become the next UNSG, unless no agreement is found over these two candidates, meaning we might get a surprise chose. The announcement of who takes over from Ban Ki-Moon should be made in November, and until then it will be interesting to see how far the U.S and Russia will go to block each others preferred  candidates. But at some stage over the next two-three months a compromise  will have to be made. Watch this space.  

The Forgotten Conflict in Eastern Ukraine

The forgotten crisis in Ukraine has not been fully resolved, even recent events have not been covered or mention in the main stream media.Though the Syrian conflict still makes the headlines, especially when major events occur, but for Ukraine, the two year conflict does not seem to appeal to our western concerns.

Yes, the fighting and death toll has decreased dramatically since the middle of last year, especially since the German/French brokered Minsk Protocol was agreed to by Ukraine, Russia and the separatist in February 2015. The Minsk agreement has set out a path to peace and stability in the eastern part of Ukraine in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (collectively known as the Donbass). It called for a full ceasefire, local elections,withdrawal of heavy weapons and release of prisoners, etc. As stated earlier, reports suggest that until June this year, the fighting had subsided with just a few daily skirmishes between Ukraine and separatist forces. Though in the last two months, the fighting has become more tense and reports of casualties has increased, leading to the UN Human Rights chief condemning both sides, for 69  civilian casualties in June and 73 in July.

The situation on the ground seems volatile and could spark renewed heavy fighting by both sides, especially since further steps have not been put in place to meet the requirements of the Minsk Protocol. What should have happened already was for a plan to hold local elections, but the Ukrainian government have not been able to past legislation in Parliament, and the ceasing of fighting, including the withdrawal of heavy weapons and for foreign soldiers or mercenaries to leave Ukrainian territory, though there has not been enough progress on any of these issues.

On the issue of foreign soldiers and mercenaries fighting mainly on behalf of the  separatist forces, but also Ukraine, is a contentious point in the conflict, with Moscow denying that any Russian soldiers were officially fighting alongside separatist forces, until end last year, when President Putin announced that some specialist military intelligence personnel have been present in Eastern Ukraine. Although Putin has stated limited military support for rebel forces, evidence suggest that regular Russian military personnel have been fighting along with Pro-Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine.

The presents of Russian armed forces or other military support will not allow for a situation of stability, it will rather add more fuel to the fire. This also goes for NATO’s military support for Ukraine. The best thing that Russia and NATO members could undertake is to assist in bringing peace and stability in Ukraine, by agree to a reduction or even a full withdrawal of support to either side of the conflict. Though in reality, such actions will unlikely transpire, as the conflict in Ukraine goes beyond the situation on the ground. The battle is more like Russian sign of  dominance in the region, and western counter action, rather than events in the Donbass and the Crimean Peninsula.     

As the representative of the separatist, Denis Pushilin, has announced in recent days, that unless Ukrainian forces withdraw from the ‘contact line,’ there could be a resumption of the fighting. The Ukrainian government have also claimed various violations by Russian backed rebels. So as it currently stands, progress towards future stability and long term peace in Eastern Ukraine seems to be in jeopardy, unless all the measures of the Minsk Protocol are met. What needs to happen now is for both sides to withdraw their forces, especially heavy weapons from the ‘contact line,’ and cease the targeting of civilians.

As for the Ukrainian government, constitutional reforms and planned local elections in the Donbass needs to be put in place, giving some autonomy to the region. Though, as the current situation stands, many politicians in Kiev are unwilling to agree to these constitutional reforms, which is just fuelling renewed fighting in the region. Without an agreement in the Ukrainian Parliament, the long term future stability of Eastern Ukraine will just spark continued civil conflict between pro-Russian and Ukrainian sections of the population.

To end the two year crisis, firstly, full implementation of the Minsk agreement must occur and be respected by both sides, and secondly,  outside influence must change tact from power rivalry to assisting towards a solution of stability and peace in Ukraine.

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?

Yet Another Turning Point For The Conflict In Syria

Last week a leaked memo by 51 officials at the State Department in the United States, concerning current policies of the U.S government, has spurred increasing debate over the conflict in Syria. Some U.S based newspapers claim to have viewed this leaked document and have released snippets of what was outlined by the mainly mid-level staff in the Department.

Much of what was outlined stated a critical view of President Obama’s reluctance to step up intervention into ending the conflict. The memo which was lodged through a system called the ‘Dissent Channel,’ which allows State Department staff to offer their views to senior government officials including the President and Secretary of State. They have called for the President to consider using the threat of military force to persuade Bashar al-Assad to adhere to his government's responsibilities under the  Cessation of Hostilities (CoH) agreement, signed by Assad,opposition groups, U.S, Russia and others in February, all agreeing to holt the violence and negotiate a ‘road map’ to peace, as decided in the United Nations last December.

With the conflict in Syria raging for over 6 years, with over 400,000 killed and producing millions of external and internal refugees, the memo comes at a critical juncture for the international community and the Assad regime. In the first couple of months since the CoH, the violence decreased, but over the last few months Assad’s backed forces have continued indiscriminate bombings of cities and towns, killing large numbers of civilians.

As part of the CoH, the delivery of humanitarian supplies to places like Aleppo and others have become a necessity for the tens of thousands trapped by the fighting. On numerous occasions, the UN has persuaded the Syrian Regime to allow humanitarian relief to be sent to affected areas, only for Syrian and Russian forces to bomb those locations soon after the trucks had left.

As this conflict has become very complicated with so many different groups involved, full scale military  intervention by the U.S and its allies in forcing the removal of Assad and his regime would likely further destabilise Syria and the region, but as the situation stands, a more forceful stance against Assad is required. I agree with the authors of the memo, that a threat of military intervention should be an option for the U.S President, as clearly Assad and his regime are unwilling to stop the indiscriminate bombings of civilian areas or seriously willing to negotiate with opposition groups. Assad with military and diplomatic support from Russia is in a situation that without the threat of punishment, he calculates that his forces can commit these acts of violence without repercussion, but this must end now.  

The U.S and its western allies have been seen as weak when it comes to the conflict in Syria, and have been reluctant to stand up to Russia, who have been pulling the strings over the last few years. Although there might not be much material interest for a more assertive U.S policy in Syria, but a continued destabilising conflict in the Middle East is increasing the threat of international terrorism and effecting allied countries in the region, and also don’t forget the affects on the Syrian people. The soft power and diplomatic policy of the Obama administration has done well to bring Assad and the opposition to start negotiations over the future of Syria, but these have since stalled, as the violence continues in opposition held areas. The diplomatic road is on the verge of collapse, especially when Assad vows that his forces will reclaim every inch of Syria. This does not spell out any desire for a peaceful settlement by Assad, so perhaps a threat of military force by the U.S and its western allies may be required, even if this affects relations with Russia.