The Australian federal election has been called

Image source: Morgue File, photo by jppi

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has publicly announced that the Australian Federal election will take place on the 14th September 2013. This gives the Australian voters over seven months to decide which way they will vote and allow other political parties time to work on policies to persuade the public.

Gillard and her Labor government are well behind opposition leader Tony Abbot and his Liberal party in the polls; Gillard’s first priority would be to try to gain increased voters approval.

We may think that announcing a date for an federal election over seven months before, to be unusual in Australian politics, but Gillard’s tactics are well advised, and as the federal treasurer Wayne Swan has stated, that now we have a date set, speculation taking over debate can not be an excuse for Tony Abbot or any others not to have policies or costing in place by the election.

I think that Gillard and the Labor party will be challenged to win the next election and retain government. Over the last few years, issues of trust in Gillard’s government have made her a target for oppositions attacks that have allowed the Liberal Party to gain popularity by most of the voters.

Although the Liberal parties have performed better in the polls in the last few years, Tony Abbot is not a popular chose for Prime Minister, with most of the public liking Julia Gillard. From this analysis, the Liberal parties are likely to win the popular vote to be the next government, but Abbot would be seen as the man to win the election, because many voters seem to agree with his principles on asylum seekers and climate change, but he may not last a full term.

I think that Abbot needs more than just outdated policies and bring up the ‘trust issue’ every time he attacks Gillard and the government, instead draw up sound policy that will drive Australia and its people into the future.

John Kerry: The next U.S Secretary of State

Kerry campaigning in St. Louis, MO for President 2004 (Image source: WikiCommons, photo by Thomas True)

Senator John F. Kerry has been approved by theUnited States (US) senate as the next Secretary of State, with 94 voting yes and 3 Republicans rejecting Kerry’s new position.

John Kerry was the 2004 Democrat candidate for the Presidential election, which George Bush won a second term. Kerry has many years of experience in foreign relations and has become known as an expert in the field. He was an envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan in President Obama’s first term. On his many trips to the region he gave many blunt messagers to leaders in Afghanistan that the political situation needs to improve. Also for the past four years he has been the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Kerry takes over from Hilary Clinton who has been in this role since yearly 2009. Clinton had, over the last few years improved the international reputation and image of the U.S., working closely with Obama on renewing some broken relationships with many nations and leaders around the world.

Although some of the major tasks assigned to Clinton and the State Department, such as bring peace to the Middle East have not been fully achieved, Clinton and her staff have given renewed emphasis that peace in the Middle East can be accomplished if the leaders involved in the conflict and the international community cooperate together.

John Kerry has indicated that he will carry on Clinton’s good work in the Middle East and improve relations with other nations.

I anticipate that John Kerry will carry out his role in helping bringing peace to the Middle East including Syria and emphasize a need to develop better cooperation between nations for a brighter future for the next generation.

Will Britain be Part of the European Union in 2017?

British Prime Minister David Cameron in a speech last week disused his conservative party plans for the future of Britain’s membership in the European Union (EU).

He has told the British voters, and put other European countries on notice that if his government is elected for a second term, he will ask the British people to decide in a referendum by 2017 if Britain should stay in the EU or leave.

This decision by Cameron comes after disagreement on reforms being discussed by member states on how to solve the Euro crises and improve the workings of the EU system.

After much criticism from both the Labor party and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who opposes any such referendum on the issue, Cameron argued that the British people should be given the change to decided once and for all, if they the people should agree to the European settlement, which they had not much say on, or should Britain abandon the relationship with Europe.

I have to agree with Nick Clegg who said that putting a referendum to the people would cause "years of uncertainty" and would not be in the national interest. Britain would be better off sticking with the EU during these tough times and show the rest of Europe that they will not abandon them. In the long run, Europe will probably come out stronger after the Euro crises as they have done in the past.

Also, staying a member of the EU will benefit Britain in the future because in economic or political crises, Britain may need the help of other European countries, who would turn their backs if snubbed by Britain at a time of renewed cooperation.

I hope that for Britain’s sake that either Cameron comes to his sensors or the people vote to stay in the EU.             

How can the International Community Support Mali?

On the 11thJanuary this year French troops where sent to intervene in Mali, where the ragtag Malian forces have been fighting Islamist rebels who have taken control of much of the north of the country.

The Mali government under the interim President Dioncounda Traore, who came to power after a military coup in early 2012 to replace former President Amadou Toumani Toure, have been in a losing battle with a well equipped Islamist rebel groups. The Islamists have links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Over the last few months the Malian army have prevented the Islamists from gaining further ground in the south of the country, but with division in both the army and government, rebel forces have moved within a couple of hundred kilometers from the capital Bamako.

This sudden advance by Islamist forces alarmed the international community, especially ex-colonial power French who are worried that Mali would become a terrorist safe haven in the middle of North Africa, if the Islamist takes control of the capital.

French sent an initial force of about 800 troops, with afurther 2000 to be sent over the next few weeks. Also some African nations have forwarded the plans to send a contingent of about 3000-4000 troops to Mali as part of a United Nations approved mission. On top of French forces, the US and other European nations have offered logistical support.

Over the last week since French and the rest of the international community has actively intervened in Mali on the request of the Mali governemt, there has been much discussion on how to deal with the problems in Mali and more respectively North Africa where there is a growing spread of Islamist groups linked to terrorist activities.

The western nations in Europe and the US do not have the stomach, even man power due to conflict in Afghanistan to commit large amount of resources to combat Islamist forces in Mali and North Africa.

The plan by the international community is indicating that they will help train the Malian army and the other African forces due to arrive as part of a UN mission, and offer logistical support. Although this strategy applies to the understanding that African nations have to rely on themselves to combat issues of weak government and Islamist activities in the region, but history tells us that relying on African nations to deal  with the many issues in Africa with only limited support from the international community will not solve the long term problems.

On the other hand European powers have in the past made Africa as it is today, but I think that if Africa, especially North African nations are to develop free from weak governments and civil war, western countries may need to take a larger role in actively supporting a better future for the people of Africa, including sending more then just a hand full of advisers and military trainers.