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.

What a Mess in Crimea

The situation between Ukraine and Russia is becoming messier day by day. Both sides seem to not want to back down on their positions on the future of Crimea, but are causes not to inflame into all out conflict, which would not benefit either country. The issues that have deepened the ongoing political divide has turned from Ukraine removing its former pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February, to an almost invasion of Crimea, a sovereign area of Ukraine by Russian forces and more recently a referendum on the future of the Crimean peninsula.

The referendum held on Sunday was a convincing coup for Moscow with almost 98 percent of the 1.8 million eligible voters deciding to break away from Ukraine and rejoin the Russian Federation. The only problem now is that Ukraine and its western supporters have declaired the referendum and outcome as illegal and that the international community will not recognise a independent Crimea or reunification with Russia.

Since Sundays vote, the United States and the European Union have placed economic sanctions on a number of key politicians and other individuals from both the Ukraine and Russia, in a bid to punish and put pressure on Moscow. In a statment from the White House which stated, "Today's actions send a strong message to the Russian government that there are consequences for their actions that violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including their actions supporting the illegal referendum for Crimean separation.'' All is well that sanctions have been placed on some Russian politicians, but there effects on resolving the political and military stalemate I think will not succeed. Although some key members of Russian politics have been targeted, the major decision makers in Moscow including President Putin have not been punished. These sanction, I think are just a token gesture of support for Ukraine and a limited act in a changing global power shift. The US and it European allies have shown how powerless they are in resolving the situation in the Ukraine and Russia know that their actions will probably not face any major consequences.

As to date, the people of Crimea have decided that they want to be part of Russia, and Moscow supports this action. From the view of the international community, I think that they are not in a position to confront Russia or prevent Crimea from gaining its independence. At this stage, to much is at stack for many European states who have economic and political interests in Russia and would likely prevent any further action other then what is in place.

I think that the only way to resolve the current situation is for the international community and Ukraine to allow Crimea to break away from, as been decided by majority of the population. Although western government will need to booster support for Kiev in a bid to strengthen the economic and political relationship between Europe and Ukraine. Where for the best interest of Russia, they should take the vote on Sunday as a victory and remove all its military forces, as well as stop meddling in Ukraine's politics.

Ukraine would benefit more if it signed the European Union agreement

Since November 2013, the Ukrainian capital Kiev and other city across the country have become almost war zones with hundreds and thousands of people protesting against President Viktor Yanukovych and his government. In more recent protests, a number of people have been shot by security forces, with many police and other protesters been injured.

The reason for large parts of the Ukrainian population rallying against  Mr Yanukovych and his government, is over his decision last November to join the Russian customs union rather than sign a European Union  partnership agreement been negotiated over the last few years. It seems many people in Ukraine wanted the country and its leaders to become closer to the EU block, rather than with their former Cold War allies Russia.

If Ukraine had signed the EU agreement, it would have, in my opinion, had a much brighter future, and would have opened up more opportunities to integrate with the rest of Europe and the international community. Now the deal with Russia will further isolate the former Soviet state, and weaken its economy even further. Although Russia has offered a range of economic sweeteners, from debt relief and investment, in the long run the deal will probably benefit Russia, rather than help develop Ukraine and its economy.

Putin’s plans for a re-emergent Russia on the international stage became a step closer with this deal with Ukraine, the largest and most populous nation from the former communist block. Keeping Ukraine and other former Soviet countries like Moldova, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia within its sphere of influence has become an important priority for Putin and the Russian state, with counter negotiations for these countries to join its own customs union. Armenia, for example, has rejected the EU deal and has signed on to the Russian customs union, with Moldova and Georgia still negotiating with the EU on a similar partnership agreement rejected by Ukraine.

Let’s hope that other former Soviet states look beyond pressure from Russia, and sign up to the EU agreement, which will benefit their economies and people in the long term, rather then any deal that Russia can offer.                 

Aung San Suu Kyi's address at the Sydney Opera House

On Wednesday this week, Sydney was previledged to have Daw Aung San Suu Kyi address an enthusiastic crowd at the Opera House.

View a replay of this great event here:

Australia’s Political Situation is Calm Compared to Egypt

How exciting. With in less than a week, one country has replaced its leader and another looks on the verge of changing its leader. 

I am writing about the political situations in Australia and Egypt. 

In Australia, the governing party internally ousted the Prime Minister and re-installed a man that once experienced the fate of the unfavoured PM. All was done in a matter of hours, some cared, some didn't, and the public continue to live their lives without much interruption. 

In the case of Egypt, if the large amount of the population and the military, get their way, are intent of removing their President from office, even if the outcome is for more violence.

The political situation in Australia is calm compared to the situation in Egypt, and last week's leadership change was conducted without violent protest or threats from the military. But if you have been watching or reading the news, you would know that Egypt is once again on the verge of further political and social unrest, with violent protests and the military announcing that if President Morsi and opposition parties do not resolve the crises by this Wednesday, they may step in again, meaning more violent conflict between the different political and social groups.

In case of Australia, nothing much has changed in the daily lives of most Australian’s after Kevin Rudd ousted Julia Gillard from power, and the leadership change has not  greatly impacted on the lives of most. But in Egypt, a leadership crisis or change seems to have major implication for majority of the people. They have and still do suffer from economic and social issues that in Australia, where I am from, do not suffer on the scale as Egyptians do. Australia has a stable political and social system, with a constitution, which has protected the rights of its citizens for over 100 years, but in Egypt, this does not seem the case.

In Australia there is a peaceful manner in which most leaders are removed, and is reasonably orderly, with some short of rules governing a political coup, either through a general election, or a party ballot. But it seems in many countries around the world, political crises turns into almost a civil war, has been experienced in Egypt of the last few days, and even decades. 

The last few days has shown me that I am lucky that a political leadership change did not affect me personally and most of my fellow citizens. Of course, we will always suffer from quite mundane issues, like small rises in petrol or milk prices, or even a slight hike in our electricity bills, but compared to the situation in Egypt and other countries, facing political and social unrest, I feel quite lucky to be an Australian.

For me, I cannot imagine any short of mass violent protests on the streets of the Australian capital, Canberra, or even the military calling for the government and opposition parties to resolve any crises or they will step in and take charge of the country. For this I hope that in the future, Egypt and the many other courtiers around the world, suffering the extent of political and social unrest, that they can peacefully resolve their issues, and perhaps even one day be able to change leaders without so much violence and unrest.    

Should there be a leadership change in the Australian Labor Government?

As the federal election in Australia gets closer, so does the speculation of a leadership change in the Labor government. Ever since the 2010 election, the media and the Liberal party has been on a long campaign of speculating that any moment now, Prime Minister Julia Gillard will be removed as leader of the Labor party and government to be replaced by previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. On a couple of occasions the reports have been true with Rudd challenging Gillard in  caucus meetings, but in both cases failed to regain the leadership, most recently been in March this year.

“There are no circumstances under which I will return to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in the future.” - Kevin Rudd on Sunrise

As the federal parliament sits for the last few weeks before the September election, the media and other sources are jumping over hoops to declare that Gillard will be ousted as Prime Minister, although supporters of both Gillard and Rudd have been frantic at playing down any leadership challenge. On a morning show this morning  Kevin Rudd said “there are no circumstances under which I will return to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in the future.” Hopefully this is an indication that there will be no challenge next week, as been predicted by the media.

I agree with Labor backbencher Gary Gray’s assessment of the situation, that Rudd and his supporters should contest the leadership or “shut up.” This whole talk and rumors are getting a little tiresome to me and I suspect to the rest of Australia. All that I want is a party to govern without waking up one morning with the news of a new Prime Minister, or constant reports that there might be a leadership challenge.

The last think that the embattled Labor government needs is a disruptive leadership change, just a few months before an election. I think that Gillard is performing as good of a job as Kevin Rudd could do if he was able to take over as leader, which is a little late now.

If the polls are correct, opposition leader Tony Abbott and his Liberal party are predicted to win the September election and any leadership change this close to the ballet would likely not affect the outcome. So perhaps, before Rudd and his supporters try going for the top job they should sit back and consider that any action will probably not reinstate the Labor as the governing party. The only way of a victory for the government is for all party members to concentrate on supporting Gillard as Prime Minister and coming up with sound policy, demonstrating that they can still offer a better future for Australia, rather then a government led by Tony Abbott. 

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.

The Syrian crises no closer to a solution

The crisis in Syria has taken another turn, with the United States (US) new Secretary of State John Kerry announcing that America, along with other nations are planning to give further aid to the more moderate faction of the opposition rebels to help them overcome President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Kerry has stated that no weaponry will be given to Syrian rebels, in fear that they may end up in the hands of the extremists, instead armoured vehicles and training could be provided.

As a meeting in Paris is about to take place between Syrian opposition representatives and the international community to discuss giving further aid to the rebels, the fighting does not seem any closer to ending, in a conflict where about 70,000 people have been killed.

Increasing humanitarian aid and providing limited military material to a divided opposition with many different interests is all well for the present situation on the ground in Syria, but long term strategies are needed to prevent further deaths and regional instability. The body armour, vehicles and training been reported to be included in the assistance package could assist in saving the lives of the rebel fighters from attacks on the ground, but would not help them from strikes from the air.

Although I do agree that weapons should not be provided to the rebels, I do however think air cover, in the name of a no-fly zone, similar to the one put in place over Libya by British and French fighter jets, should be provided by the international community. Half the battle would be won, if rebel forces did not have to worry about being attacked from the air, and a no-fly zone could pressure either Assad to back down and negotiating with the opposition coalition or bringing the conflict to a quick military ending.

I acknowledge the fact that Russia as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) supports the Assad regime and have vetoed past efforts to install a no-fly zone and for foreign military intervention in Syria, arguing that outside military interference will not solve the conflict, but instead inflame the already volatile situation. However, I disagree with Russia’s argument, as over the last 18 months or so, rebel groups have not got any closer to ousting Assad and peaceful negotiations have failed after many attempts. Although the reasons for Russia’s support stem from them having a naval base in Syria, more effort by the international community to persuade Russia to support a no-fly zone over Syria and to pressure Assad to negotiate with opposition forces should be a major priority. 

The Greens and Labor alliance ends in Australia

The Greens Leader Christine Milne announced today that her party will sever the alliance with the Labor party, because they have broken an agreement by supporting the mining industry. Milne said that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her government to blame for the Greens to back away from the alliance.

Since the 2010 election which ended in a hung parliament, the Labor parties have only stayed in government because of the backing of the Greens and a number of Independent members in the House of Representatives (HOR). Prior to today's announcement, Independent MP Andrew Wilkie withdrew his support for the government 13 months ago, but this did not affect the numbers in the HOR.

Along with Independent MPs, and the Greens are losing faith in the government under Julia Gillard’s leadership, and the Labor party have suffered numerous set backs in their campaign for re-election at the end of the year. Polls have shown a lack of support for the government by voters, a number of senior cabinet members have resign in the last month and the most damaging being the Craig Thomson saga which is still ongoing and if Mr. Thomson is charged he will have to resign from parliament, forcing one less vote for the government

Although many senior Labor party members have come out and said that the party does not require the support of the Greens to win the next election, this announcement, along with all the other damaging sagas over the last year or so, are unfortunately damaging the confidence of  the voting public has for the Labor party. 

I think for the best chance for the government to win the next election, they will need to hold onto the allies that they have, seeing that they required their support  last time to form government and may need them at the end of this year. Unless the Labor party change tactics and try every measure to keep the alliance with the Greens and others, the result may mean an end to their ambitions to stay in power. 

Rise Up Australia Party is just another 'One Nation'

Australia thought they had enough of far-right parties been founded when One Nation crumbled in the early 2000’s, unfortunately this is not the case. A new party, Rise UP Australia (RUA), has been formed by former Family First senate candidate, evangelical Pastor Daniel Nalliah to contest the next federal election later this year.

The RUA parties main platform is based on protecting Christian values, including up holding Australia’s heritage as a Judeo-Christian nation, by calling for the prevention of Muslims entering the country and bring with them Sharia law. Also, the parties are against Homosexuals and are climate change skeptics.

As the situation in federal politics stands, where both major parties are losing support from the voting public, many experts including Associate Professor Haydon Manning are concluding that the RUA could gain more support then they may have had, if they began contesting in an election in the past. Their extremist views would be likened by large sections of Australian society, who hold some of the same views as the RUA ideology, especially preventing Muslims coming to Australia.

I am not a supporter of the RUA’s views, but I do maintain that they have the right to free of speech to a certain point, although I am alarmed that the RUA ideology will be increasingly attractive to many people, especially far-right Christians, who view Islam as a threat to both their religion and society. Contradiction is every where on the party's website. the party states that they will uphold freedom of religion, but they openly wish to cut the intake of Muslims coming to Australia on the grounds of protecting Australian society. In my opinion, this view undermines the meaning of ‘freedom of religion’, as far as the RUA would give other migrants the rights to come to Australia and the freedom to practice their religion, but not Muslims.   

This sort of outspoken attack on Islam will do nothing but turn Australia into an islamophobic nation, unwilling to accept diversity in our society and freedom of religion. Let’s hope for Australia’s future as a multicultural nation (meaning we have many different races, cultures and religion living as one), that the RUA and its ideology will disappear, the same as One Nation did a few years ago.   

The Arab Spring still not over

Back in early December 2012, I wrote a blog post on the situation in Egypt, where the ideals of the ‘Arab Spring’were still been fought for.  Over two months later not much has changed in Egypt, and instability has even spread over to Tunisia, although reasons for a re-spark of the revolution are different.

Image source: WikiCommons Image credit: Mona

In Tunisia, where the so called ‘Arab Spring’ began,has descended into further chaos in the last few days. As we can all remember back in 2011, when a revolution succeeded in removing from power, former authoritative President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, stability in that country would be achieved. But on Wednesday, Shokri Belaid a top opposition politician, known for his staunch criticism of the government was assassinated outside his home, sparking violent protest against the government. Also, labor unions across the country have called a general strike, not been seen in Tunisia since 1978, which crippled the countries economy.

Prime Minister Hamdi Jebali, as to calm the situation, asked for the Parliament to be dissolved, and for a forming of a technocratic government to solve the economic situation and bring stability to the country, but his government and other parties have rejected his requests. This has lead to four opposition parties walking out of the National Assembly in support of a new technocratic government.

It looks like the countries gripped by the ‘Arab Spring’ two years ago have not been able to achieve what the millions of protesters who took part were demanding. Although in both Tunisia and Egypt, authoritative leaders were removed from power after decades of brutal control, the power has just shifted to more Islamist oriented parties and the military.

The situation in both Egypt and Tunisia is just a process that both countries will need to go through to achieve stability, if that be full democracy or their own version. In almost every time in history where a nation has removed a long standing authoritative regime, stability has been a long violent process until peace has been achieved. Other nations around the world need to leave both Egypt and Tunisia to go through this process without hindering the situation, instead offer support when requested for future development and stability.            

Politicians Finally Wake Up to Same Sex Marriage

Image source: WikiCommons, photo by: Beatrice Much

In recent days politicians in Britain have voted in support of legislation allowing gay men and women the right to legally marry. Politicians in the Commons voted 400 to 175, giving a large majority for such a controversial Bill. Although almost half of the Conservative party and a number of Labour members voted against or abstained, progress for further equality in Britain has won a landmark result. All that needs to happen now is for a majority agreement in the House of Lords for the Bill to pass into law, but this is predicted as unlikely as most members are against such legislation.

Although the legislation has a tough road ahead to pass through the House of Lords, at least large sections from all major parties agree that same sex couples have the right to marry. This vote in the Commons will also promote further debate in Parliament and in our society on an issue that affects thousands of people.

Such support by British politicians for gay marriage rights and recent meaningful debates in Australia would have not been heard of over 20 years ago. Today, many countries including France and the United States are also talking about it and bringing the same sex marriage issue to society. Let’s hope this effort can stay on course and that countries such as Britain, Australia, French and the US will follow Canada, in legally allowing same sex marriages. 

The Australian Coalitions asylum seeker policy may break international law

The first group of irregular maritime arrivals arrived at the regional processing centre in Manus Island, PNG today. The 19 people, comprising families from Sri Lanka and Iran, departed Christmas Island late yesterday. Transfers to Manus Island and Nauru will continue in coming weeks and months.
(Source: WikiCommons | Photo credit: DIAC Images)

Coinciding with a United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) report, which condemns the conditions that detainees suffer on Manus Island, the Australian Coalition has announced that if they win the next election, they will reintroduce policy of ‘turning back the boats.’ But this policy has been viewed by both the UNHCR and legal experts as breaking international law and obligations as a contracted state to the refugee convention.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison has announced that the Coalition, if elected, they will instruct the Australian Navy to force suspected asylum seeker boats to return to Sri Lankan waters before they can enter Australian territorial waters. He also mentioned that if elected, Australia would help bolster the Sri Lankan Navy, so they can prevent boats leaving in the first place.

On top of this announcement fromthe opposition, the UNHCR has published a report outlining criticism against the poor conditions that asylum seeker detainees suffer on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. UNHCR's regional representative, Richard Towle and Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who visited the island detention centre last week have said that women and Children have to stay in the same facilities as single men in temporary housing, under hot and humid weather.

I think that if asylum seekers are that despite to risk their lives coming by boat, we in Australia, should as a first world country at least offer better conditions and facilities for asylum seekers. I do agree that we need to detain people arriving illegally for processing purposes, but surly we are humane enough to provide more then just tents and a few tarps.

On the policy announcement by the Opposition, I think that this policy is flawed both morally and politically. As Australia has a good record in providing overseas humanitarian assistants and promoting the protection of human rights, we have an obligation to continue this effort in the future, but bring back past failed policies would ruin the image of a good global citizen that thousands of Australian’s have worked hard to achieve.      

Who has Sovereign Rights over the Falkland Islands?

The Falkland Islands, a self-governing British Overseas Territory just off the coast of Argentina does not get a mention much in geopolitics, but this small island with more sheep then people has been a contested piece of land for almost 300 years. 

Ever since Britain colonised the uninhabited islands in the early 19 century, Argentina has claimed sovereign rights over the Falklands and has even gone to war over this fact.

Back in 1982 Argentinean forces invaded the islands and occupied them for 74 days until a British task force reclaimed the Falklands with over 200 British and 700 Argentinean soldiers killed.

For many years after the war, relations between Britain and Argentina were strained with either nation willing to discuss the issue over the islands. But since the early 1990’s relations have improved, although there has been no formal negotiation over the future of the Falklands.

The problem with solving the sovereignty issue of the Falklands, is the reality that most of the 2563 inhabitants have British ancestry and view themselves as firstly Falkland Islanders and secondly British. The Argentineans on the other hand argue that the islands are historically and geographically part of their territory and should be given back. The British government has clearly stated that as the majority of the Falklands population wants to stay as part of Britain, they will not abandon the islands. The issue is further complicated with oil and gas reserves been found around the islands, which the British would be keen to keep hold of.

In the last few days the relationship between the two nations has been further strained, with the Argentinean Foreign minister HectorTimerman rejecting his British counterpart William Hague’s invitation tomeet Falkland Islandgovernment representatives in London next week. This snub, along with renewed calls from Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner for Britain to agree with the 1965 United Nations Resolution, calling for a negotiated solution to the dispute, has increased tensions over the last few years.

I think that the best way to solve the issue of the future of the Falkland Islands is not on bringing up the past, but for all parties involved including the elected Falkland Islands government to begin formal discussions, leading to a long term agreement. From what a know of the situation, majority of the Inhabitants on the Falklands want to remain as part of Britain, and in March this year they will have the chance to vote in a referendum on if they will remain a British Overseas Territory or not. What ever is decided by the people, both Britain and Argentina should respect the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. 

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.             

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals on Education have been unrealistic

The other day, I read an interesting news article by the BBC discussing the issue of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) on education and if these goals will be achieved by 2015.

Back in 2000, international leaders pledged that all children in the world would receive a primary education by 2015, but a recent report published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) state that the goal will not be achievable by 2015.

Although the report argues that the amount of children receiving a basic primary education has increased since 2000, this has only happened in some parts of the world and not all. There are large parts of Africa that have seen no major increase in children receiving primary education.

Like all ideas, enthusiasm was there at the beginning, but as time passes, the will of the people achieving a conclusion fades over time (these people been the world leaders, and even us as global citizens). 

Perhaps, the goal of achieving universal primary education in 15 years was a little ambitious, and as history has shown, grand expectations take more then 15 years to achieve. Just look at the development of most industrial nations, it took more then a couple of decades to go from poverty to industrial powerhouses.

Funding and good governance seems to be the main problem in reaching the MDG on education. As the BBC article mentions, world leaders have been preoccupied with recent economic down turn and fighting terrorism, rather then increasing funding for global education. Also, a lack of good governance in many parts of the world has undermined much of the achievements so far. The persistence of war and corruption in especially Africa has prevented further efforts to achieve the goals setout by world leaders in 2000.

I think that we can provide universal primary education in the near future, but we need to be realistic on the time frame and the challengers ahead. There is no use for governments promising large amounts of money, without securing a framework to deal with issues such as good governance, peace and security, and global cooperation. 

What is going on with our politicians in Canberra?

Every week it seems that the Parliament house has become a school ground for bullying and personal attacks. Over the last few months, if not since Julia Gillard and Tony Abbot became the leaders of their parties, personal attacks have taken over debate, instead of issues that matter to most Australians.

Parliamentary sittings are becoming the soap opera that is Home and Away and Neighbours.

Last week, in light of the resignation of the House of Representatives Speaker Peter Slipper, who has been accused of sexual assault, by one of his male staff, the Parliament became a place where both Gillard and Abbot once again contrived to personal attacks. This time in a speech to Parliament, Gillard accused Abbot of sexism and of been a misogynist.

Although, I do agree with Gillard that Abbot does have a history of sexist comments and actions that where mentioned in her speech, I do think that all of these personal attacks by both parties need to come to an end. All sides of politics should be debating real issues facing the nation, rather then petty political point scoring that we have witnessed over the last few months.

Australian forces need to stay in Afghanistan

Five Australian soldiers died last week; three were killed this week in a patrol base in the Oruzgan province in Afghanistan by a rogue Afghan soldier, and two were killed in a separate unrelated helicopter crash in Southern Afghanistan. The incident at the patrol base, known as a ‘green on blue’ attack by international forces, reopened the debate around the continuing mission of Australian forces in Afghanistan. 

Every time an Australian soldier is killed, especially by a Afghan soldier, debates and opinions are all over the media on the question whether Australian forces should leave early or stay until 2014 as planned, with some arguing that Australia should have not got involved in this mission in the first place, and that we should pull out all of our troops as soon as possible. 

On the other side of the debate, many defence experts, including former soldiers, as well asthe members of both the Liberal and Labour parties, argue that Australia needs to stay. Australia joined the NATO led mission back in 2001 for the purpose of removing terrorist groups and the Taliban from Afghanistan. Australia’s main mission has been to train the Afghan National Army (ANA), so that they can take over security in Oruzgan province, when Australian forces leave at the end of 2014.

In my opinion, while  the threat of terrorism around the world has not disappeared because of the continuing mission in Afghanistan, there was justification for Australia in committing troops to the international mission in the first place. 

Afghanistan had been the safe haven for terrorist groups like al-Quada, who are not native to Afghanistan, and who were perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks in New York. Their radical methods have caused both local Afghanis and the international communities pain and suffering with their fundamental ideas. Thus as a committed member of the international community, we are obliged to participate in the mission to remove terrorist groups who attacked our international partners.

If Australia cut and run and leave our Afghan Army partners half trained, likely chance the Taliban would return to power. Instead, we should maintain our current troop numbers and finish the mission that we started, not just for a better future for the Afghan people, but also in respect for the diggers who have already lost their lives, showing that their deaths were not in vein.