The cancelled Trump-Kim summit could be good for future negotiations

News just in is the historic summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, set to take place on the 12th June in Singapore has been cancelled. 

President Trump has sent a letter to the North Korean leader, stating that due to recent "tremendous anger and open hostility displayed" towards the United States in the last couple of weeks, he has decided to not meet Kim at The planned summit.

This could be a good thing for Trump and his foreign (or lack of) policy over North Korea. After months of talking up the historic meeting and calling for a Nobel prize, he has finally realised that he has been made a fool by Kim Jong-un. North Korea does not have any intentions of giving up it's nuclear weapons, unless major concessions are granted to them by President Trump, such as troop withdrawals from the region and sanction relive. Much of these concession by either North Korea or the U.S were unlikely going to transpire.

After decades of development, in spite of increasing international sanctions, Kim Jong-un and his father before him have based their family and counties survival on obtaining a  nuclear capability, which they now posses. President Trump by excepting the invitation by Kim in March, was going to give Kim and his regime a propaganda tool and some form of legitimacy, even before the real and expected long negotiations.

By President Trump cancelling the upcoming summit, he has now placed the emphasis on the North Korean leader to back down on recent rhetoric and show real signs that he wants to really negotiate on the nuclear issue, not just play games with the U.S and the rest of the international community, as has happened in the past. 

Lets hope that this setback will not draw the U.S and North Korea towards military conflict, instead allow for the right conditions to be in place for a future summit between the two leaders.         

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.   

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.  

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. 

     

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.  

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.

Obama Wins second term

In the last few hours the United States of America voted Barack Obama for another four year term as President. He has passed the the magic number of 270 electoral college votes, even though the final count has not finished. It looks like Obama will win quite convincingly, which underscores how much the American voters distrust Mitt Romney and his conservative policies.

I am glad that Obama has won a second term. From my understanding of American politics and society, an individual President needs at least two terms to make an impact in terms of change and prosperity.

Although many Americans critisised Obama on the economic situation in the US, I think that he has done as good as a job as anyone else would have, given the mess that was past to him from the Bush administration. The economy seems to be improving with a lowering of the unemployment rate over the last few months.

Obama over the last four years has achieved some good steps for change including withdrawing American troops from Iraq, has put in place a planned timetable for withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan by 2014 and has produced a health care policy that so many past Presidents have failed to achieve.

Lets hope Obama over the next four years can bring America out of its economic down turn and achieve more remarkable change for the US.     

     

The Spectacle of the American presidential election Campaign has Officially Began

Over the last few weeks we have witnessed the official start to the 2012 presidential elections in the United States of America (USA). Both the Republican and Democratic parties have held their National Conventions to officially nominate their candidates for President and vice-President. 

The purpose of these conventions is to allow delegates from each party a chance to nominate their candidate, who will contest in the Presidential election in November, and for the adoption of the party platform, which is the statement of principles and policy proposals for the campaign.

This year, the Democrats have nominated President Barack Obama and the Republican Party has nominated Mitt Romney, after he won the parties State Primary Elections earlier this year. The Conventions are held every four years, a few months before the November General Election. They last for about four days with much of this time taken up by official party business and proceedings as well as key note speakers and other party officials, whom the chance to speak in support of the nominated candidate.

I am not from the USA, and I am amazed by the amount of money spent and the Hollywood style Spectacle that the National Conventions have become. At this year’s Conventions a number of Hollywood stars have came out of the wood work in support of the candidates and their parties. The Republican Party had Hollywood film star and producer Clint Eastwood,  and the Democrats had the services of film star Scarlett Johansson. All of these speeches by the candidates and their supporters were toped off by a concert like atmosphere with in the venues, with some of the the biggest musical bands and singers in America performing at the conventions    

After watching some of the coverage of the Conventions and the election process in general, I feel that American society and politics thrives on an over the top patriotic spectacle.

From my knowledge, no other country spends as much money or time campaigning to elect a leader. This years election is predicted to cost the individual parties and candidates about one billion dollars, with most coming from corporate and public donations.

In Australia, elections are cheap compared to the US. I don’t think Federal elections in Australia cost even any where near one hundred million dollars. Although the long time spent officially campaigning is due to how the US political system works, especially for the party not holding office, but surely over two years is a little excessive. Romney as the contending candidate had to start campaigning over two years ago, if not longer. He had to first contest the Republican Party Primaries, to be elected the parties candidate, and now needs to campaign against Obama to became President.

I personally think that all that money and effort to elect a President could be spent trying to solve the many problems that American society face.

For Information about the US Election system see the link below:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30527.pdf