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.   

The United Kingdom Should Not Cut and Run from the European Project

With only one month to go, the remain or leave debate has really heated up, with politicians from all parties picking their sides to support, and hitting the campaign trail. (see an earlier post, ‘Decision Time for the United Kingdom: In or Out of Europe’). Many issue have been stated by politicians, campaigners and the general public on both sides of the divide and I will discuss some of these, and argue why the UK should remain in the EU.

Unknown Economic Risks and Instability

In economic terms, figures and statistics have been flying left, right and centre by both sides, with talk of millions of jobs threatened if we left, or money wasted if we stay in. As I am not an economic expert or would be able to access real economic data to support an opinion, I will discuss what I understand of the economic arguments. I feel that most people would be the same as me. So then, I rely on my own research and information provided by the many experts in the field, but I feel that many have their own interests and will only provide some of the detail. Although what I do know is that for me personally and my family, we are not disadvantaged by living and working in a member state of the European Union. I am a recent international relations graduate, so I am looking at gaining employment in international or European organisations in either the UK or Europe, so I see the benefits of remaining part of a reformed EU. In my daily life, I am not disadvantaged, but see the advantages of living in a EU member state, especially when doing my weekly food shopping. Compared to food prices in Australia, where I grew up in, its much cheaper in the UK and Europe. For example, you can buy exotic fruits like bananas from South America or for under 70 pence. This is just one example, but food and prices of other goods are low because of the EU and its ability as the world’s largest trading block to negotiate beneficial free trade agreements with many countries around the world.  

On the issue of the reform package agreed in February, it might not be perfect, but does seem it will protect UK economic interests, and is a good starting point for further reforms. If we left, I think that the UK economy would not necessarily benefit outside of the Union. Talk of if we left would allow the UK to negotiate its own free trade agreements (FTA’s) with other countries may not benefit more than the status quo. I would think that the UK would have to start from scratch and enter long negotiation rounds with countries such as China, India, Russia, United States, Japan, etc. At present the UK as part of the EU have joint FTA’s with many countries and are in the middle of negotiating with others. I wouldn't think that the UK would necessarily get a better deal if we negotiated FTA’s independently with China, India, Russia etc. And talk of looking at the Commonwealth nations as a new source of economic relationships seems a little unlikely, as most of them are small states in economic terms, except for India, and medium size Australia. But these two countries are turning their economic interests towards emerging Asian and African markets, not looking back to the old imperial motherland.

Although the UK are currently the fifth largest economy in the world, how long could this really last. India with the second largest population and aims of copying China’s economic rise, may likely over take the UK , and don’t forget Indonesia’s own ambitions, as well as others. So, if we left the EU we would have to sell our self’s even more to China, India and others. We will most likely not be able to compete with these rising economic giants in the future. Many will disagree with my comments, but the facts are that the UK is better of being part of a reformed trade block that can compete with these rising economic powers, keeping the UK influential and economically powerful, rather than falling behind.

In a World of Globalisation, Sovereignty Has Lost Its Appeal

There has been talk that the UK has lost its sovereignty and its democratic process to Brussels, and that the EU is unaccountable to the UK public. This is untrue, as the EU system is just an extension of the national decision making institutions in the UK. In retrospect, we as voters have as much say or input in decision making over UK laws and policy as we do in the EU, which in reality is not very much. In the case of the EU, we elect a national government to represent our interests in the Council of the European Union and the European Council , same as we elect a Member of Parliament to represent us in the House of  Commons. In the Council of the European Union, each member state governments sends ministers on a regular basis to discuss and agree EU laws and policy, and as a major power in Europe, the UK has a greater say within this institution.  If this is not enough, we are also represented in the Parliament of the European Union, which we can elect for UK Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Both these EU institutions have equal share and sole powers to legislate on EU laws.

From this perspective the UK have chosen to allow some erosion of sovereignty to elected representatives in Brussels and our own national government, all in the name of closer economic and political cooperation and benefits with our European neighbours. Almost every major EU law must have the agreement of the UK government of the day and our elected MEP’s in the EU Parliament, so we have not fully lost our sovereignty or democratic system.          

Just Scaremongering over Immigration

Migration is one of  the biggest issue in the debate, and is wrapped up in economic terms. Public opinion is steeped in this issue with many wanting the UK to leave the EU, so we can control our borders. Some people think that Eastern Europeans are coming over to the UK and are taking jobs from UK workers, but evidence suggests otherwise . One issue I have with this, is why would British companies want to give jobs to foreign workers if there were enough or willing workers in the UK? The scaremongering tactics of some Eurosceptic campaigners are suggesting that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Eastern Europeans are coming over to claim benefits, but evidence suggests otherwise. Due to the EU out of work rules, you cannot just arrive in another EU country and claim benefits straight away, but have to prove after 3 months of residency that you have a “genuine chance of getting work”. Although, these rule are not perfect, and can be abused by a minority of people, but majority of Eastern Europeans or other EU nationals are wanting and willing to find good jobs as to provide for their families, like everyone else. Though the UK does attract large amounts of EU migrants, but Germany also deals with this issue and I do not see them protesting in mass or wanting to leave the EU.

Although EU migration, and the ’freedom of movement,’ is an issue not just for the UK, but also Germany and other member states, I do think that the EU should look into how to better manage the migration flows. I think that the UK should remain in the Union and work with its European partners to find a working solution. I agree that the migration of mainly Eastern Europeans to other EU member states looking for work can affect the receiving countries in terms of pressure on social and health services, and on the home countries in terms of ‘brain drain.’ But I do think that leaving the EU and closing our borders to this inflow of EU migrants is not the answer. Instead the UK should work with the EU to find a solution to persuading more Eastern Europeans to remain in their home countries to work. The problem is that although many nationals from Eastern Europe are well educated, but are unable to find jobs due to their countries weaker economy compared to the UK and Germany. The EU, with the UK still a member, should find ways to persuade nationals from states with higher emigration to remain in their home countries, by investing more in helping with job growth.   

      

Why Leave, When It’s not that Bad

We know what the scenario would be if we remained in the EU and can predict a future path if we stay in, but know one from the leave campaign has really said what the UK would be like if we left. Would we sign up to unifiable deals with the EU in a rush to limit the damage done by exiting, or even worse quickly try to push through FTA’s with China or even Russia, that would disadvantage us. What about the security arrangements we have with our European partners? Could leaving bring friction with EU members within NATO, especially at a time of joint threats from Russia and international terrorism. Also what about working with our European partners in tackling issues if immigration, the problems are not just UK ones, every country in the EU share the same burden of trying to resolve the issue. At this moment, the French, Belgium and Dutch authorities stop the tens of thousands of migrants waiting in their sea ports, and in Calais, French from trying to make the journey across to the UK. Do you think that these EU members will even bother to continue with this policy, if the UK leave the EU? From what I understand, these countries are not legally bound to prevent these refugees from coming across to the UK, and undertake this policy because of bilateral agreements. They are also burdened by resolving the situation.           

In the end, I think it would not be progressive to turn our backs to the European Project, especially when the UK and the rest of the world are facing new and renewed challengers of climate change and threats of terrorism. If the UK leaves the EU we will likely be this small isolated island nation on the edge of Europe, at a time of a globalised, interdependent and interconnected world. Personally, I think that the UK should not cut and run, instead remain as a vital member of the EU, and work with the rest of the Europeans to reform and rebuild the Union.

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.  

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.