Iran’s Nuclear Standoff

Image source: WikiCommons

Iran’s Nuclear stand off with the rest of the world has become a unending saga, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announcing that Iran have installed advanced centrifuge machines, capable of enriching uranium much faster then in the past. 

Apart from this new report released by the IAEA, talks between Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, French, Russia, China and Germany), has been planned to take place this week in Kazakhstan. Western diplomats have suggested that they will offer Iran reworked terms to settle the Nuclear crises, this will include easing some sanctions, in return for Iran closing some facilities, but still allow enrichment to continue in other facilities. 

This new deal is a step back from past negotiations, which the P5+1 demanded a halt of all enrichments and closing down of the Qom facility. Western powers seem to be viewing the present situation in more realistic terms, as Iran, after years of failed sanctions are not prepared to bow down to pressure by the international community and stop all uranium enrichment , and many states including the US are unwilling to be drawn into another conflict, likely to be a disaster and further destabilise the region.

Image source: WikiCommons

As we all know, Iran and western countries, specifically the United States (US), have been at  loggerheads over Iran’s nuclear ambitions for over ten years. The international community and the IAEA have been alarmed by Iran’s nuclear program, claiming that they are not just enriching uranium for peaceful means, to be used for energy, but are expanding their research and technology to build a nuclear device in the near future. The Iranian leaders have rejected this claim on many occasions, saying that they do not want to build a nuclear weapon, but just want enrich uranium for energy purposes only. Even Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has issued a ‘fatwa’ condemning nuclear weapons in the past.

The issue that the United Nations Security Council and the IAEA has with Iran’s program, is the fact that they will not fully comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), by not cooperating with inspectors and lying about their ambitions to acquire weapons grade uranium.

Under the treaty, signatory nations are allowed to enrich uranium to be used for energy purposes, however the technology required producing fuel for a reactor can also create material for a nuclear weapon. To overcome the use of this technology been used to produce a nuclear device, the IAEA inspects the facilities that are producing nuclear fuel, making sure it is for peaceful purposes. However, Iran has not cooperated fully on allowing inspectors into their facilities to confirm that what Iran labels as peaceful production of nuclear energy.

I think that Iran is playing a risky game of ‘Russian Roulette with the international community by not cooperating with the IAEA and not abiding by the NPT. If they are true to their word, they should allow inspectors to fully monitor their program or withdraw from the treaty; although, if Iran did leave the NPT they would likely be viewed as having ambitions to build a nuclear weapon and be a threat to international security. The current situation is two fold, on the one hand, Iran are threatened by the US and Israel, thus are secretly trying to acquire a nuclear weapons, on the other, the US and Israel are alarmed with the a prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, who’s leaders have called for the destruction of Israel and have supported the activities of a number of organizations. 

To solve these problems, Iran should suspend their ambitions to secretly build a nuclear capability and cooperate with the IAEA, and the US and Israel should stop threatening to attack BlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

How peace can be achieved in Afghanistan?

Image source: WikiCommons, Photo credit: Sergeant Brandon Aird US Army 

As the date for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan gets nearer, peace and stability still seems a long way off. By the end of 2014, less than two years away, most international combat troops are planning to leave, handing over the responsibility of securing the country to the Afghan National Army (ANA).

Although foreign forces hope to have further weakened the Taliban by the time they depart, reality on the ground seems to suggest that the Taliban will still have the capability to wage war against the Afghan government, who they view as puppets to the United States (US) and are corrupting the country.

Over the last few years their has been an international effort to bring both the Taliban and Afghan government to the negotiating table to discuss how to bring peace and stability, but on every occasion, disagreement or outright rejection by both sides has lead to a stalemate.

The most recent attempt to bring stability to the region was in early February this year when the British Prime Minister David Cameron held peace talks between leaders of Britain, Afghanistan and Pakistan, in a bid to bring stability to the region. Although many issues were discussed, but with out representatives of the Taliban not been present, the future peace and security were not solved.

Unfortunately, I don't think the objectives of the US and NATO to bring stability to Afghanistan and its people will be achieved, especially when any signs of peace talks by both sides seem unlikely in the near future. The Taliban are a disbanded force hiding out in Pakistan waiting to attack foreign and Afghan forces, and when international troops leave, they are likely to regroup and return to Afghanistan in a bid to either remove the Karzai government or take control over some areas of the country.

To bring peace and stability in Afghanistan will involve spending more resources to developing the countries non-existent infrastructure and helping the people, who many are drawn to the Taliban due to the corrupt and incompetent government. The international community also needs to end their interference into Afghan politics which feeds the corruption. Finally, all sides of the conflict, including the Taliban need to meet as equals to discuss how Afghanistan and the wider region can achieve long term peace and stability, if not this conflict could spread into regional civil war.

Another unfortunate truth is that all these solutions are unlikely in the current situation.

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. 

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.