Decision Time for the United Kingdom: In or Out of Europe

Decision time for the UK public is only four months away, with the announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron, that the referendum will take place on the 23^rd June, giving the UK public the decision to either stay in the European Union or leave. So the next few months will be spent campaigning from both sites to gather support from the public. As it’s not a general election, politicians to not have to be united under party lines, instead they can choose either the in or out groups to support. The campaigns have already begun months, if not years ago, and now that the referendum date has been announced, both groups will be hitting the streets. 

Not A Bad UK-EU Reform Deal

Over last few months David Cameron has been jetting around European capitals, especially in Eastern Europe, trying to gain support for his planned reforms of the EU and the UK relationship with the Union. All that effort was to get leaders from member states to agree to a package of reforms from the EU, to take back to the UK public, before a planned in or out referendum. Last year the PM wanted a better deal for the UK, and outlined a number of measures that he thought may persuade the UK people to vote to stay in the EU. Some of these included, restricting access to in-work-benefits for nationals from other EU countries until after 4 years’ residency; safeguarding rights of non-Euro members from closer financial integration and material disadvantage from Euro zone members; reduce excessive regulations; Allow the UK to opt out of an “ever closer union,” and give more powers back to the national parliaments.

Cameron took these measures to the European Council leaders’ summit last Thursday, and after two long days, got an agreement with the EU, although not exactly what he wanted, instead one that seems to be agreeable between all of the leaders. From the start of the negotiations, the package presented by Cameron was never going to be fully agreed by all member states, especially the ‘benefit measures,’ with Poland and other Eastern European states disagreeing on this issue. Instead Cameron left Brussels on Friday night with an agreed package including, allowing the UK to put a “ emergency break” on other EU nationals from claiming in-work-benefits for a maximum of 7 years (Cameron wanted 13 years), only in extreme circumstances of high immigration; blocking child benefits claimed by EU working migrants from been sent to children overseas; economic protection for non-Euro members from Euro zone states, and reimbursing bailout funds given by the UK; protection for the City of London’s service industry  from Eurozone regulations; A treaty change to allow for the UK to opt out of a closer union with other member states; a mechanism to allow national Parliaments the power to block EU legislation; make the EU more competitive, by creating better regulations and cutting red tape, and strengthen the internal market; and limits to ‘freedom of movement’ rights for EU national marrying non-EU spouses, and excluding other EU national who are seen as a security risk from entering the UK.

Now with a negotiated agreement in place, two official campaigns can begin debating the issues of why the UK should either leave or stay in the EU. For months, even years, Eurosceptics have argued that the UK would be better off leaving, conjuring up statements of unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, take back control of our borders, get sovereignty back, the UK share of the EU budget would be better spent on services here, leaving the EU will allow the UK to take back control over our own trade policy, and so on. Some of these statements or issue do have some merit, and there is a need for reform for a better EU, but perhaps abandoning the project could be an ill-advised path. With so many different opinions and information presented by both sides of the argument, much of it misleading, one feels that much of the public are been misguided and may make an informed chose, with the loudest campaign gaining the most support.

For me anyway, I have taken the time to do some research into the arguments and information presented by both groups, trying to find fact rather than fiction. As I have said above, the EU structure and processes are not perfect and many areas need to be reformed, and as the past few decades have shown, the EU and its member states have and still want to make the Union better, with major changers have taken place, some more welcome then others.  

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.  

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.                 

China needs to stop its Provocative Campaign in the East and South China Sea

Over the last couple of months there has been increasing tensions in the East China Sea between China, Japan, South Korea and the United States, along with  other countries in the region. The main issues are the growing rise of China as the new top dog in the region and a long standing dispute over a group of islands called Senkaku/Diaoyu which belong to Japan, but are claimed by a handful of other countries including China. Although the current crisis is over a tiny group of uninhabited islands that lay on top of gas and oil deposits, the main issue of concern not just to the region but also the international community is the rising power of China, who are on a campaign to flex its military and economic muscle.

The most recent example of China’s military and diplomatic flexing has been in the last few months, when they installed a Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the disputed islands, and which overlaps Japan’s own ADIZ. This action by China requires all commercial and military aircraft to identify themselves with Chinese authorities when passing through this zone, but the US, Japan and other countries have rejected these requests and have conducted military flights in the area. Not much has been mentioned in recent weeks concerning the ADZ, and no reports of incidents over the matter.

Apart from the ADZ issue, the US and China navy ships have come close to colliding with each other in the South China Sea, near another group of disputed islands. Both countries have released statements blaming the other for the near miss, with the US saying that the Chinese ship was being aggressive towards their vessel which was in international water and the Chinese stating that the US ship was harassing the new Chinese aircraft carrier, as it was carrying out exercises. 

 On the matter of the dispute in the East China Sea, my understanding is that the Senkaku islands are a sovereign territory of Japan, as they were owned by a Japanese family for many centuries, and have recently been transferred to the Japanese state. I am not a lawyer, but one would think that international law would under this argument grant full sovereignty to Japan. Except no international organisation or country wants to deliberate on sovereignty rights, so this issue will drag on into the future.

The US has been dragged into the crisis, though quite willingly on the side of Japan, as they are allies, and also they want to keep a check on China’s new aggressive stance in the region. The US since the end of the second world war have been the main military force protecting its own national interests and its allies in the region, but since the rising economic and military power of China over the last couple of decades, the US has seen its status as the regions and even the worlds only superpower decline. China at the present acknowledge this change in the status que and have been taking advantage of a weaker US role in Asia and the rest of the world, but continuing in a campaign  of  provocative action against its neighbors will not advance stability in the region or win international support.

Mugabe’s planned "indigenization" will not help Zimbabwe

It has been a few weeks since the disputed elections in Zimbabwe, where the long standing President Robert Mugabe won a landslide victory over his main rival Morgan Tsvangirai in the nation's presidential election. On top of retaining power, Mugabe’s party Zanu-PF won two thirds of the seats in the parliament, giving him and his party majority rule and the legal right to change the constitution. Although, Mr Tsvangirai’s opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have taken the election  result to the constitutional court, as they argue of widespread election fraud.

As the decision to make the election result legitimate or demand are re-election still in the hands of the court, President Magabe has come out earlier this and stated that he will carry on with the plan to make all companies in the country be under the control of the black Zimbabweans. As with the taking over of white farms and given to the black population, the economic control over many foreign or local companies was a major campaign issue supported by many rural Zimbabweans, where much of Magabe’s support comes from.

This policy of "indigenization" I think will have major effects of the stability in Zimbabwe, both economically and socially. Forced eviction of white farmers and companies owned by the white population will further cripple the economy. Also as many companies, especially in the mining industry are owned by foreign firms, this policy of making them be under the control of black Zimbabweans could drive existing and future investment away from the country, as investors may be frightened because of an ant-white agenda impacting their business interests, which would not help improve the poor economy or the standard of living of the people in the long run. In stead of committing the same offences as the former British rulers, and then the white rule under Cecil Rhodes, where land was taken from the black indigenous population and given to the colonizers, the government should work with the white owned companies and farms to improve economic stability and assist in empowering the black population through education, rather then racial alienation. 

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.

North Korea is playing dangerous games

Over the last few weeks North Korea has been playing dangerous power politics with the international community, especially with South Korea (ROK) and the United States (US). Pyongyang has been releasing statements declaring renewed hostilities against the South. North Korea has back up their verbal rhetoric with a buildup of military forces along the border with South Korea and threats to strike at US military bases in the region.

In the past few days, North Korean authorities have further increased tensions with the South by closing the border to South Koreans who are working at the joint Kaesong industrial facilities just inside North Korean territory. About 50,000 North Korean workers and a few hundred South Koreans managers work at this facility, that was set up to foster better relations between the two nations, and to allow the manufacture of cheaper South Korean goods.

These incidents show the same old rhetorics and threats that seem to occur every time there are joint ROK-US military exercises and/or new sanctions placed on the regime, although on this occasion North Korea has stepped up its rhetoric by actively threatening to attack both the US and cross the border into the South. 

Pyongyang have declared a ‘state of war,’ by actively cutting of communications with the officials in the South and amassing troops on the border  the North would be unwise to further the tensions with South Korea and the US, an active conflict would not benefit both the regime and the people of North Korea. 

It seems to me that Kim Jong-un, who has only been in power for less than 15 months, is trying to show the rest of the world and his fellow countrymen  that North Korea are not threatened by the US and its allies and have the will and capability to defend its territory. 

I think that the actions of Kim Jong-un is just verbal rhetoric, even a protest against new sanctions placed on the regime after last year's Nuclear tests and the annual joint military exercise just taken place on their doorstep. It's another case of North Korea barking louder, but a bite is unlikely.

The Iraq War was a waste of money and lives

This week a final report was released by the United States (US) inspector general for Iraq reconstruction concluding that the billions spent on trying to reconstruct Iraq after the 2003 invasion by the US and its allies was a waste of money and did not achieve much.

The eight years of occupation cost the US over $800 billion dollars in stationing hundreds of thousands of troops and reconstructing Iraq. On top of the economic expenditure, around 5000 American troops died, along with thousands more of Iraqis casualties.

The study was carried out as an audit on the overall expenditure by the US in this conflict over the eight years. The finding of the audit concluded that billions of dollars were wasted to corruption in both Iraq and the US and insufficient security, the money provided to rebuild Iraq was misused and did not accomplish the aim of improving the situation in Iraq.

The Iraq war had been a failure from the beginning for both American foreign policy and the future stability of Iraq and the entire region. Up until the invasion in early 2003, Saddam managed to stabilize Iraq and kept control of any ethnic or religious tensions, even if he had committed crimes against human rights. I agree that Saddam needed to be ousted from power, but I think it was an incorrect policy decision and strategy to firstly invade Iraq at a time were resources were required in Afghanistan and to remove all authority from power, including the dismissal of the police and military. 

The argument set by Bush and his administration, that Saddam and Iraq were linked to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks was a misjudgement  The chemical and biological weapons that the US and other nations argued that Iraq possessed and were going to use to  attack its neighbours further were lies. All that seems to have been achieved by the war and the occupation was to fuel religious and ethnic tensions and further destabilize Iraq and the whole region.

Let’s hope this report on the cost of the war and reconstruction, along with the other inquiries conducted by the US and its allies will offer lesions for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and any other future decisions will assist governments to make better decisions in the future.                  

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. 

We need to talk about North Korea

The signing of the armistice in 1953 was to bring the Korean War to an end. However to this day, North Korea (DPRK) and South Korea (ROK) , with its ally the United States (US) are still technically at war.

For the past 50 years, the DPRK has had a succession of three leaders all from the same Kim family. The newest member, Kim Jong-un succeeded his father Kim Jong-il in 2011 as leader of this reclusive communist state. At 29 years of age, Kim Jong-un has carried on his fathers and grandfathers dogmatic rule over the North Korean people and have alarmed and confronted the international community.

At the death of Kim Jong-il, who was in power for over 20 years, the west thought the situation in North Korea may change, as Kim Jong-il’s sons were seen as more westernised and liberal, but Kim Jong-un seems as unpredictable and authoritative as his father. As Jong-un is inexperienced at ruling, there are suggestions that he is trying to play power games with the military generals to stamp his authority.

The continuing defiance against the west has been one strategy deployed to demonstrate Jong-un’s authority to both the people of North Korea and the international community. On Tuesday, the DPRK’s state news agency reported a planned underground nuclear test had taken place, and many surrounding countries had felt seismic activity indicating that there may have been a nuclear test, although no radiation has been detected so far to verify these reports. The DPRK announced that they had built and tested a more sophisticated nuclear device than the previous  attempts in 2006 and 2009, with more radioactive material been used. If North Korea had successfully tested a more powerful nuclear weapon, along with newly built long range missiles, they might actually become a more long term threat to the rest of the world.

After years of multilateral six-party talks ending in failed negotiations, the international community seems to have found no answer to prevent North Korea from spending resources on obtaining Nuclear capabilities rather then feeding its people, who have suffered decades of famine. Even many sanctions by the west have not stopped North Korea, but instead have made their leaders more determined to go down the nuclear path in fear of US aggression. 

Although at this point, western sanctions seems the most realistic strategy for the international community, but in the long term may worsen the situation for the people of North Korea, especially if China begins losing interest in propping up the communist regime, which I think will happen in the next few decades. One think that the world does not need, is an even more failed state as North Korea to contend with in the future. 

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.   

European Union Compromise on Budget Cuts

Image source: WikiCommons, photo credit: J.t.h.groothedde

Over the weekend leaders from the European Union (EU) member countries attended a summit in Brussels to try and agree on an EU budget for the next six years.

For the past few months there has been much disagreement between member states on how the budget should look like over next few years. National politics has played a major role in the difference of opinion on the new budget. Even political blocks have formed with many northern members including Sweden, Britain and Netherlands arguing that the current draft of the budget need cutting down and French, Italy and Spain were stating that they support the draft budget as it was. Germany, the largest economy in the EU was torn between France its usual alley in the EU and Britain, the leading nation demanding spending cuts.

After the weekend’s negotiations, compromise by all members was agreed, with a 3% cut in the 2014-2020 budgets. Although British Prime Minister David Cameron wanted more significant cuts, he was pleased with the outcome that ended in some lowering of the budget. Even French President Francois Hollande, who was arguing that budget cuts, would weaken economic growth, was unable to prevent it, but was content  and willing to compromise seeing that he won the argument for farm subsidies not to suffer any major cuts.

In light of the economic down turn and crisis in some member states, along with national governments slashing budgets over the last few years, the EU has once again proven that although there is much difference in opinions between countries, cooperation and compromise on major economic  issues can transpire. The agreement over the weekend shows the rest of the world, that the EU system although still in a process of improving its efficiency can bring economic growth to an entire region or continent. One good aspect of the EU is how such a system can bring regional rivals closer together through integration of their economies, improving the lives of millions of people.      

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 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.