The blog:
May 17th, 2012 by Katharina Obermeier
© EnvironmentBlog
Obviously nobody knows exactly how that sentence should end, but the media is rife with speculation on it. Analysts, journalists and commenters are developing more or less elaborate scenarios to predict what would happen if Greece were to abandon the euro. Several prominent European leaders – from German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble to European Commission President José Manuel Barroso – have mentioned the possibility of a so-called “Grexit”, which in itself is a dramatic development, given the blanket silence that the EU has maintained on this subject in the past.
And who could blame them, given the worrying and often confusing news coming from Greece over the past week? After elections in which traditionally pro-EU parties lost a significant portion of their seats to both far left and right parties and multiple failed attempts to form a government, the country is now facing another round of elections in June – although it’s not clear whether they will bring a clear resolution. In this tense succession of stalemates, the chances that Greece will be able to produce a stable government which will honour the country’s international financial obligations are looking increasingly slim. There doesn’t seem to be many options left besides either continuing with the country’s pre-election course, or reneging on the conditions of its bail-out and leaving the eurozone.
So what would happen in that case?
First of all, giving up the euro would mean Greece would have to adopt its own currency. This new currency would most likely come under heavy speculation by investors, as markets are aware of the Greek government’s inability to pay its debts without outside help. The result of this pressure would be high levels of inflation – a typical scenario in financial crises. High levels of inflation mean that the value of people’s savings is eroded and would add a considerable degree of uncertainty to business transactions of any kind. Some commenters have argued that Greece could let the value of the new currency stabilise and then peg it to the euro, thus being able to enjoy the benefits of a devalued currency. This would automatically make Greek exports more competitive compared to others, while also preventing inflation from continuing. However, in this scenario, the new currency would be left extremely vulnerable to speculation. Any sign of instability could make markets believe that the value at which the currency was set did not accurately reflect the economic situation and trigger massive speculation against it. With its enormous debt and limited resources, Greece would be unable to defend this value and be forced to give up the peg, inviting further inflation. Either case presents extremely difficult circumstances under which to begin the economic rebuilding of a country, and would impose further hardships on the Greek population.
The eurozone as a whole would also be affected. Spain, Portugal and Ireland would all face renewed pressure from international financial markets and would find it even more difficult to raise money as demand for their government bonds would wane. Even countries whose finances are considered stable could be put at risk, as financial markets tend not to act rationally in these situations and will likely consider the “disease” of the weaker eurozone countries to be contagious for the rest. A Greek exit would be a dangerous, irreversible sign to markets that the guarantees the EU has been making for eurozone countries are worthless.
What commenters tend to forget is that, at the end of the day, Greece would still require outside assistance or go bankrupt – or both. If the country sought loans from an institution like the IMF, it would have to implement the same austerity measures that the EU bail-out conditions require. If it went bankrupt, the slow painful road to recovery would be that much slower and more painful. Plagued with inflation and instability, Greece would find it extremely difficult to obtain credit or investment from anyone.
Hopefully, the Greek electorate and the government they elect in June will remember this …
May 17th, 2012 by Benchohra Sayah
© Sam Fam
“Keep your head up” seemed to be an apt message for the former editor of the ‘News of the World’ Rebecca Brooks as she met the Leveson Enquiry on Friday. Throughout the examination Brooks remained measured and calm; at times even generating some of the loudest rings of laughter ever recorded in the Strands ‘Royal Court of Justice’. Nevertheless, all LOLgating aside, over the course of six hours Brooks presented the inquiry with some of the most remarkable examples of evidence in examining the power journalists held over the public and those within No.10.
When pressured on her relationship with those in No. 10, Brooks revealed a myriad of social delights including personal dinners, weddings, horse riding sessions, Boxing Day mince pie festivities, a private birthday party and certain back office conversations attended by different PM’s of the occasion. She even took it further and explained how “Tony Blair his senior cabinet, advisors and press secretaries were a constant presence in my life for many years”. The enquiry was brimming with controversy from its start, as Brooks confirmed receiving a number of secret “indirect messages” of support from both No.10 and No.11 during last summer’s phone hacking scandal. It was a revelation which confirmed a much frowned upon closeness between her and top government officials, but she did however move to deny the rather meaningless point of texting PM David Cameron twelve times a day.
However none of this truly mattered as what seemed most controversial of all was that whilst informing the enquiry to her snugness with certain top MP’s, Brooks also agreed with Leveson, that her relationship with parliamentarians was infact an issue of public concern. Contradiction maybe?
Although it is no real secret that various cross party PM’s fought their way to meet and speak with News International giants, what appears to be the greatest and most dangerous revelation is the amount of power Brooks and others top News International leaders ‘unknowingly’ wielded against parliament officials. Although initially sure that her papers were wholly unable threaten, top MP’s, yet Brooks later recognised that herself and a few key officials were obligated to ‘persuade’ MPs through the power of the media for their papers key policy campaigns. Contradiction possibly?
If we take Rebecca Brooks’ belief on ignorant power seriously and connect this to the amount of time Brooks spent with politicians at the top, it interestingly draws a new angle on both the imposition of “subtle pressures” by individuals at News International and larger problems within UK press ethics. Certain political campaigns, policy issues, petitions and referenda advocated by ‘News International’ papers have until now been largely allowed to flourish and coerce politicians into support through submission. Whilst Brooks tried to push political intimidation as a matter of public interest, what she later failed to ultimately explain was whether the public formed this interest themselves, or rather replicated what was formed by her papers proprietors in order to bring their personal political beliefs to light. Shortly before the end of the morning session, Lord Leveson Proposed to Rebecca Brooks “Do you think that at least in part what you were in-fact doing was bringing issues to your readers? Rather than just responding to you readers beliefs?” Brooks agreed that this was certainly the case. Is this the power of the public or the power of the media?
If we ultimately analyse Brook’s account, including the close relationship she had with current and past PM’s, the persuasion herself and others later began to influence over Whitehall, alongside the fact that her paper would actively initiate government policy, what we begin to see is an accumulating barrage of bad press ethics. Ultimately the UK Press has continually been allowed to amass a power against those who we elect. What began as an independent board of educated people writing about topics of the day has disfigured into a potentially quasi-political check and balance institution of media papers that regulate the power of those we democratically elect. Although I am by no means suggesting that Politicians should not be left transparent, I am instead suggesting that public should not need a multinational corporation to decide what we need parliament and politicians to accomplish. Throughout Rebecca Brooks seemed so concerned to suggest that all she did, she did for her readers and us the public, if you wish to hear what we want Whitehall why not talk to us not to the papers?
May 16th, 2012 by Taylor Heyman
© joegaza
Yesterday a deal was reached between 2000 Palestinian prisoners and the Israeli government after a two-month long hunger strike. The Israeli government made the concession not to renew detention without trial for the aforementioned prisoners, to end the solitary confinement of 19 prisoners and to finally allow family visits from Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Hunger striking is regarded as an effective non-violent form of protest and is seen as action one can take whilst incarcerated to bring attention either to their conditions within prison, or their cause outside of it. Is this the future for those struggling to get their voices heard? Or will the increasing ‘normality’ of hunger striking damage the effect it can have? The questions are particularly relevant as those in the Arab world and China fight for democracy and rights.However, this is not 21st century method, it was used by the suffragettes from 1913 to draw attention to their cause, as well as by Irish republicans before and after the civil war in the 1920′s. Then, as now, hunger strikes gain the attention of the general public, and demand for governments to act. The suffragettes were force-fed to public outcry, and when in 1981 Thatcher’s government let ten Irish republicans die on hunger strike
The last year has seen some successful strikes, and some in which government claimed to be making changes but did not. Anna Hazare went on hunger strike in August 2011 in protest against corruption in India. After 12 days the Indian government agreed ‘in principle’ to three of his demands – however, when the draft bill was proposed it hardly confronted any of the issues surrounding corruption in India. In response to this, Hazare again chose to hunger strike, but this time received little public support and some criticism for undermining the democratic process by creating a ‘personality cult’ around himself instead of his cause. This can be a danger in using hunger striking as a technique to draw attention to one’s cause - especially when Hazare gave up his December 3 day strike due to ill health. It sounds callous but if one is not willing to suffer the ill effects of hunger striking, is there a point to it? Public sympathy is roused when we see someone put their health and wellbeing on the line for their cause, albeit morbid.
On the other hand, hunger strikes can bring good results. Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, the Bahraini human rights activist and protestor was on a managed hunger strike (where the striker is brought out of danger when his levels are seriously low) against his conviction and sentencing of life imprisonment. The Bahraini authorities eventually agreed to a civil retrial of the 21 activists, and the significant pressure brought to bear on the Bahraini Regime from his strike certify it’s success. However, there is no guarantee of him receiving a fair trial. The real success of his strike was to bring international attention to the plight of his fellow prisoners as well as the opposition to the regime.
We can use the above examples to find what makes a hunger striker achieve their objective. Firstly it is essential to gain the attention of national, if not international media in order to evoke public awareness and attachment to your cause. Even as far back as the suffragettes, the nation was aware of the strike, and Emmeline Pankhurst’s campaign made sure to focus on how barbaric the force feeding of the women was to gain public support. Also, the strike should be combined if possible with an outside presence to articulate your grievances. In the case of Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, his wife and daughter were instrumental in talking to international media about his plight, which was also highlighted by the F1 race protests. Lastly, as in the case of the Palestinians, hunger strike works best in a state where pressure can be put on the government by outside forces. The Israeli government couldn’t risk the international outcry if they let 2000 Palestinians starve themselves without a genuine attempt at resolution, and so representatives from Egypt and Jordan stepped in to broker a deal . Yesterday was a good day for Palestinians and Israeli’s alike – the Palestinians gained renewed rights and Israel, international kudos for resolving the situation.
Hunger strikes continue to be as effective as in the 1900′s but then, as now, the government can find ways around it. In Emmeline Pankhurst’s time, it was the ‘Cat and Mouse Act’ (releasing prisoners when they were at their weakest point and rearresting them at a later date) and now governments may pledge to commit to changes, but quietly ignore their own promises. Nevertheless, the method works at attracting attention to one’s cause and that can be instrumental in bringing change- even if it isn’t immediate.
May 11th, 2012 by Daniel Crump
A Pakistani soldier on the Pakistan/India border © Nokes
Fukuyama’s ‘The End of History’ essay may not have correctly predicted everything it was supposed to, but one realisation certainly holds true to this day: Realist manoeuvrings and proxy inter-state wars have always been an inevitable feature of a Bi-Polar world. With the fall of the USSR, and the US’s securing of uncontested, top dog status, inter-state warfare has fallen to its lowest level since World War II, making this the most peaceful period of modern history. The explanation being that in a world with two competing super powers, fragile alliances are held together by mutual enemies.
Although not yet a Bi-Polar world by most people’s evaluations, the rising influence of China will undoubtedly lead to nations asking serious questions of themselves and who they choose to associate with. This week, while the US ambassador to Pakistan,Cameron Munter stepped down for what Washington insisted was for personal reasons alone, The Chinese ambassador to Pakistan met with President Zardari to discuss matters of mutual cooperation and bilateral trade.
In recent years, Ambassador Munter may well have held the least coveted role in international relations. Following the arrest of a CIA contractor in Lahore and the US led mission to capture and kill Osama Bin Laden, Munter has had to deal with the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in November 2011 when the US strayed across the border from Afghanistan. His resignation may appear, after all this, to be the icing on a rather stale and crumbling diplomatic cake.
A Difficult Friendship
The most worrying aspect of these recent events is the fact that they do not come as much of a surprise to anyone. The US and Pakistan have quite a history of sharing mutual enemies and their relationship has, therefore, always been one of convenience and insincerity. Whether it was Nixon and Kissinger using Pakistan’s friendship with China to make Sino-US inroads, or Pakistani support of anti Soviet groups in Afghanistan, the US has always been able to find some beneficial reason to keep Pakistan within arm’s length.
The most recent chapter of this tale has certainly been the trickiest yet. Shortly after 9/11, President Musharraf ended his alliance with the Afghan Taliban while officially entering the Bush Administration’s War on Terror. Since 2001, Pakistan has handed over 5000 members of Al Qaeda to American authorities and received nearly $10 Billion in aid for its troubles. Despite this closeness, Pakistan has constantly been accused of ‘looking both ways’ when it comes to terrorism. Pakistan’s Inter-Services-Intelligence Agency (ISI) has been accused of training and sponsoring groups that the Americans claim to be fighting across the border in Afghanistan. Indeed, it was Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency that was instrumental in bringing the Taliban to power in Afghanistan in the mid 90’s with a view to setting up a favourable regime in a neighbouring country. With the US planning to withdraw a substantial number of troops from Afghanistan in 2014, all bets are off as to what condition Pakistani – US relations will be in if the Taliban were ever to re emerge in Afghan political life.
China may be far from another USSR in terms of economic ambition and political philosophy, but one very unfortunate consequence of their rise to power may be a return to the days of short lived alliances based on mutual enemies. Courting Pakistan may prove to be a way for China to counter US influence in the sub continent, particularly given the improving relationship between the US and Pakistan’s long term rival India.
The New Mr. Popular
On April 19th, India launched its new Agni 5 Missile in the Bay of Bengal. Possessing missiles with the ability to reach key Chinese cities, and a new missile defence shield installed this week, President Singh has praised the ‘credibility of his country’s security and preparedness’. In contrast to the standard reaction of the Western powers to missile testing, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed almost no concern, instead citing India’s ‘Solid non-proliferation record’. Similarly, the Chinese have not openly condemned India’s actions and insists that the two nations remain ‘partners’. The most binding of India’s bargaining tools currently is the state of its economy. India and China have increasingly managed to let economic integration and trade overcome border disputes in the South China Sea, starting a process that must be continued if the sub continent has any chance of seeing long lasting peace.
This ought to come as a warning to Pakistan. Trade will continue to be more effective at maintaining relationships than simply possessing the same enemies. Economic growth and an expanding middle class are Pakistan’s best chance of securing credible status. A lack of commitment from its democratically elected politicians to end the influence of the army and the ISI will only seek to damage its chances of gaining its fair share of economic prosperity in the sub continent.
As for the US and China, learning the lessons from the days of the Cold War should hopefully remind them that the likelihood of a rise in inter-state warfare in the Sub Continent, or indeed anywhere, is only likely to increase if tensions between themselves become too strained. As we drift ever closer to a Bi-Polar world order, why not let economic stagnation become the mutual enemy that all nations share?
May 11th, 2012 by Jordan Gray
© Coventry City Council
Having surpassed the 700 positions they were expected to gain at last week’s local elections, the 823 seats Labour claimed across the UK not only spelt catastrophe for the coalition, but with less than a third of eligible voters even turning up on election day, it illustrated the intense apathy which has stagnated the nation’s political interest in recent years.
The numbers certainly seem to demonstrate how Labour has taken full advantage of the backlash against the Con-Dem coalition; with the Tories losing more than a third of their regional power and the Cleggites losing more than 50% of nationwide seats, it is clear that voters turned out in their thousands simply to vote against the failing coalition.
The Tories lost many vital seats in the south including Southampton, Birmingham, Great Yarmouth, and even in Cameron’s Witney constituency and with vast numbers of Liberal MP’s turning against leader Clegg, including a call for resignation from former Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Lembit Opik, it is time the government realised just how extensive the electorate’s disillusionment actually is.
So, what exactly do the results mean for Britain? With an influx of centre-left politics sweeping so drastically across the country, what can we expect to change, and remain, in Britain’s 128 councils?
For the Tories, the looming issue regarding membership of the European Union has suddenly swelled and may need swifter action that anticipated. The disenchantment felt by Tory backbenchers, demanding harder right-wing policies, has echoed at the ballot boxes, with the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) enjoyed a record night averaging 13% of the vote share. This subsequently puts huge pressure on Cameron to act; meaning a referendum regarding our ties to Europe may be called sooner than predicted.
In London, Boris claimed victory over Ken with a winning margin of 51.5% to 48.5%, promising his team will “work our socks off” to cut tax and increase police numbers over the next four years. However, the subsequent pressure on Cameron to please traditional Tories means he will have to introduce policies which may further alienate and distance Britain’s youth, who aren’t typically considered the most vital demographic amongst the ‘traditional’ Tory electorate.
But step back a moment. London: a Labour city, in a double-dip recession, with fare prices constantly increasing at 2% above inflation, at a time when the Tories are more unpopular than any other time since Labour’s landslide victory of 1997; has the “Boris Show” in fact maintained enough distance from the national party to successfully market itself as the right choice, when all over the country everyone else has realised their devastating shortcomings aren’t acceptable anymore?
Simply put: In a generation where politicians are gauged by their unpopularity, the bumbling, unabashed Britishness of Boris allowed that awful blonde mop to rise ever so slightly above Ken’s thinning hairline. It is precisely for this reason that political commentators and observers everywhere have deemed this a loss for Ken, not for Labour.
Deputy leader of the Labour party, Harriet Harman, claimed the results reflected more than anything that her party was “back in business” and, as opposed to the coalition, they were the only party who were “back in touch” with voters. Cameron’s wish to see a “Boris in every city” was also seriously damaged when major cities including Manchester, Birmingham, Nottingham and Coventry all voted against having a mayor to run their city and Liverpool voted Labour’s Joe Anderson to be their first directly elected mayor.
With such an enormous and unanticipated windfall for the Labour party, we can expect to see an increasingly confident Ed Miliband take to the mast of the red ship, with promises to those who didn’t vote Labour that he will “work every day until the next election to gain your trust.”
However, with Tories calling for Cameron to re-connect with more traditional right-wing values, any recognition of contradictory policies is most likely to overlook the interests of the youth. Perhaps Cameron has realised he is fighting against a “difficult national backdrop” and maybe he will see the advantages of not having a Boris in every UK city, but last week’s elections have not changed the ideology of the ruling coalition. Their austerity measures will certainly continue to affect those who aren’t considered amongst the traditional Tory base.
Fare prices will continue to rise in London, millionaires will continue to benefit from the 50p tax cut, and state intervention will become increasingly smaller – making it harder for those coming out of education to seek help and benefit. University application levels are to plummet further after entry requirements become more elitist with unnecessarily rigorous criteria to follow the tripling of tuition fees.
Before any left-wing voters can be won over, Cameron will need to adopt stronger right-wing policies to win back those who, in such large numbers, voted UKIP last week. Nevertheless, by the time he has safely clawed back these votes, the situation for youngsters growing up in cities across the UK will be so dire it won’t be worth adopting policies for such a vastly disillusioned demographic.
If Cameron does intend on adopting policies to satisfy the troglodyte backbenchers who no longer think the Tories are right-wing enough, then the only hope for the future generation is in another landslide victory for Labour at the 2015 general election. Until then, do what you’ve got to do: fasten your caps, tighten your wallets, but don’t lose faith in the power your vote has to demand change.
May 10th, 2012 by Usman Butt
© European Parliament
“The Arab spring has failed women in their struggle for equality” claimed Amal Al-Malki a Qatari author in an interview with Al Jazeera. Amal went on to claim that the continuing Arab spring only further exposed women’s second class citizenship within society. Amal is not the only one to have judged the Arab spring, a quick search on Amazon reveals a plethora of books on the subject. These include Toby Manhire :‘The Arab spring: rebellion, revolution, and a new world order’, John R. Bradley: ‘After the Arab spring: how Islamists hijacked the Middle East revolts’ and Hamid Dabashi: ‘The Arab spring: The end of post colonialism’. What is intriguing about the above quote and the list of book titles named is that they are all doing the same thing, they are judging an ongoing process.
The Arab spring is over a year old and counting; we still don’t know what will happen in Tunisia and Egypt, both countries which have ousted their dictators. The Syrian crisis seems to be getting worse as the threat of sectarian war hangs in the air. The demands of the various protesters differ but the overall trend seems to be towards more representative and accountable governments. What shapes these new governments take is far from certain and even the exact demands of the protestors are also not entirely clear. In places like Egypt and Tunisia there seems to be a form of social, cultural and political dialogue going on. In Syria and Bahrain the regimes remain. Demonstrators in these two countries are still trying to find a way to oust the regimes. In other words, the broad movement called the Arab spring is at various stages and takes on different forms in each country.
Despite this some experts, political commentators and pundits have decided on what the Arab spring is and whether or not it has succeeded. The question is why? It seems we live in a world where we can no longer wait for an event to finish before we decide on the meaning and results of the event. It is important to note that as little as two years ago, anyone sitting in a politics of the Middle East class at university or reading a book about Arab politics would come across theories by so-called experts on the Middle East which would talk about ‘Arab exceptionalism’. This is a theory that stated that ‘Arab culture’ and democracy were incompatible and that the ‘Arab people’ simply did not understand democratic secular ideas.
This idea of Arab exceptionalism was wide spread amongst political scientists, Middle East experts and pundits. This idea of ‘Arab culture and society’ did not emerge out of neutral observations by these experts of Arab countries. But was the product of earlier western depictions and misrepresentations of Arab societies. In other words, they did not form these ideas about the politics of the Arab world by traveling to the Arab world and observing. What many Middle East experts did was to take already existing ideas and preconceptions about the Arab world, from earlier western scholars and thinkers and re-apply them to the modern setting almost unquestionably. The problem with relying on these early western scholars is that they ‘produced knowledge’ on the Arabs on the back of western colonialism and intervention into the region. Many of these scholars were heavily involved in the colonial project, which means their work is far from neutral and in many cases deliberately misrepresented the nature of the Arab world.
Because most political commentators and Middle East experts did this, they failed completely to predict the Arab Spring. It is true that the Arab spring took us all by surprise but it was an even greater shock to those whose job it is to understand and predict the Arab world. Because of this Arab spring theories such has ‘Arab exceptionalism’ have been dismissed by many in the field. However the dismissal of this theory does not mean that the method that led us to this theory has been dismissed. In other words, although one theory has come under scrutiny the source where it came from (The early Western scholars) are still being used only this time to try and predict the outcome of the Arab spring.
In a sense this is understandable as the Arab spring is new, dangerous and ventures into the unknown. That is bad news for regional specialists as unpredictable situations mean that they cannot predict what is going to happen, which could put them out of a job. In order to protect their reputations and intellectual integrity they now try to make bold predictions on the outcome of the Arab spring. This is however in vain because as already stated the Arab spring is on-going and is unpredictable. “The East is a Career” as British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once proclaimed but for some I fear this may no longer be the case.
May 10th, 2012 by Robert Bickers
Falklands map © CIA World Factbook
The recent escalation of tensions between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland’s issue highlights how people within both countries still feel passionately about the remote islands in South Atlantic with barely over 3000 inhabitants. Both countries have strategic and political motivations for holding the islands but it is up to the inhabitants alone to determine their own future. Recent Argentine actions and rhetoric go completely against this principle and completely ignore the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. Chapter one of the United Nations (UN) charter states how ‘self-determination of peoples’ is essential for a just and fair world and that all decolonisation should be based on this principle. The Argentine claim on the Falkland Isles is not based on this principle, instead the claim rests on their proximity to Argentina and the fact that just under 200 years ago they were part of Argentina.
President Cristina Fernández has tapped into Argentine popular discontent about the Falklands and has turned the issue of the island’s sovereignty into the dominant feature of international relations between Argentina and the UK. Argentina has used its diplomatic influence in the United Nations and the region to isolate Britain and the Falkland isles. Argentina recently persuaded other South American countries to prevent ships with Falkland Islands flags from docking in their ports and is actively pursuing other options for a wider trade embargo.
On top of this economic pressure, Argentina has commenced a propaganda war to try and win over world opinion that the Falkland isles should be part of Argentina. Last week Argentine television aired an advert showing the Argentine hockey captain training on the Falkland isles for the London Olympics with the slogan ‘To compete on English soil, we train on Argentine soil’. As well as being grossly offensive to Falkland islanders and an inappropriate politicisation of the Olympics, it sums up the opinion of the Argentine government perfectly; i.e. the Falklands are ours despite what the inhabitants want. A recent survey showed that 59% of the population of Argentina believe that their country should have sovereignty over the Falklands with a similar percentage believing that the Falkland Islanders should be excluded from negotiations. Far from being excluded from the negotiations, the people of the Falklands should be at the centre of all considerations about sovereignty.
Both of the key arguments that the Argentines make about why they should be transferred are absurd. Firstly the fact that they were controlled by Argentina prior to 1833 is not relevant as it is so long ago. Under the same logic Mexico should have sovereignty over Texas, as prior to 1836 it was part it was part of Mexico, before it was absorbed into the United States. Both Texas and the Falkland isles should remain under their current systems because what the inhabitants want now is always more important than correcting alleged historical wrongs. Secondly the fact it is nearer Argentina than Britain is also irrelevant as geography is less important than what the people want in deciding who should have sovereignty over a territory. Throughout the world there are numerous geographical anomalies of a territory being part of one country whilst it is much nearer another. For example the Russian region of Kaliningrad which is not connected to the Russian mainland should remain part of Russia because that is what the people want despite it being nearer to Poland and Lithuania.
The position that Britain should take is to insist that the Falkland Islanders should have a binding say on their own future. Britain and Argentina should agree the terms of a United Nations administered referendum for the Falkland Islanders to express their opinion on which country should have sovereignty over the islands. Both countries would then be expected to respect the wishes of the Islanders. Before such a referendum can happen Argentina needs to stop acting like a bully on the international stage and drop their nationalistic commitment to gaining sovereignty over the Falklands without the consent of the residents. Argentina must accept that is up to the Falkland Islanders alone to decide their own future.
May 9th, 2012 by Katharina Obermeier
© European Parliament
“For much of its life, the European Parliament could have been justly labelled a ‘multi-lingual talking shop’. But this is no longer the case: the EP is now one of the most powerful legislatures in the world both in terms of its legislative and executive oversight powers.”
The above quote by Professor Farrell from the University of Manchester elegantly illustrates the extraordinary evolution and inherent contradictions of the supranational body known as the European Parliament. It creates a direct link at European level between the citizens and policy-making, frequently acts as the European Commission’s toughest critic. It is home to a startling range of political ideologies, from deeply eurosceptic nationalists to communists from across Europe. Above all, it provides democratic legitimacy to the EU as a whole, and is supposed to represent and safeguard the interests of the European citizenry vis-à-vis the Commission and Council.
So why, in discussions about the management of the eurozone crisis, is the EU so widely perceived as an undemocratic bureaucracy imposing the will of the Commission and a select few European leaders on citizens? In matters related to the soverign debt crisis, is the European Parliament doing its job? Or is it even allowed to do its job?
Of course, the European Parliament has approved a number of important pieces of legislation over the last year that have formed the framework for the EU’s response to the crisis. After all, in most areas of EU policy-making, the so-called “co-decision procedure” applies, making the adoption of legislation dependent on approval by both the Parliament and the Council. In March 2011, members of the European Parliament approved a treaty change to allow for the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism, which represents one of the principal guarantees by the EU for national government debts. In September of the same year, they came to an agreement with the Council on the so-called “Six Pack” of economic governance legislation, which includes provisions for stricter enforcement of budget rules viewed as crucial for the prevention of future crises.
On the other hand, the Parliament had no input whatsoever on the fiscal compact signed by 25 EU member states (and already ratified by Greece, Portugal and Slovenia), simply because it constitutes an intergovernmental agreement rather than a normal EU law. Similarly, it is excluded from the Commission business of the Task Force for Greece and the setting of the conditions of the EU/IMF bail-out. While there are frequent exchanges of information between the Commission and Parliament and debates within various EP committees on the subject of the eurozone crisis, the predominance of the Commission and member state governments in the most vital decision-making so far raises the question of whether the Parliament has indeed managed to move beyond its “multi-lingual talking shop” role.
A key element of this limited influence is the fact that the European Parliament does not have the right of legislative initiative, which is the exclusive domain of the Commission. This means that while the Parliament frequently develops, votes on and adopts resolutions on a variety of topics, they are not legally binding and none of the other EU institutions are required to consider them. Given these circumstances, it is easier for the Commission to develop the “big-picture” policies and submit them for Parliament approval, or for national governments of EU member states to bypass the normal EU decision-making procedure and come to an agreement among themselves. Neither of these options allows the Parliament to ensure the interests of the European citizenry are taken into consideration, and they are left instead to criticise the approaches developed by these other institutions rather than formulate constructive policies themselves. As far as the eurozone crisis is concerned, the Parliament is fulfilling some of the tasks of a “powerful legislature”, but it is too often relegated to the status of talking shop in relation to the Commission and national governments.
May 9th, 2012 by Alex Clackson
© Al Jazeera English
While the United States and the West have been highly critical of the support Russia gives to the Syrian regime, the United States have been highly hypocritical as they seem to be on the side of the Bahraini regime despite the recent bloody protests. Two days after a U.S. coalition of national groups asked the Obama administration to publicly call for Bahrain to release a human rights defender on hunger strike, the White House issued a press statement expressing “concern for the well-being of jailed activist Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja.” Yet a simple “concern” is not enough to deal with what is becoming the largest protest in the Arab world after Syria. Nevertheless it is still a step forward in the right direction and towards an international campaign to save the life of one of Bahrain’s political prisoners. While many are focusing on the F1 Grand Prix in Bahrain, it is vital not to forget the struggle for democracy which is taking place right now in the small nation.
The White House called on the government of Bahrain to “consider urgently all available options to resolve Al-Khawaja’s case.” The fact that the United States did not give the government of Bahrain the only option that they should consider- to release the prisoner who is already near his death is rather disappointing. Worse, the United States continues to be one of Bahrain’s chief weapons suppliers, furnishing $53 million in weapons and other equipment even as the regime tortures and murders pro-democracy activists. The two countries have united, among other issues, over their aggressive postures toward Iran, and according to an April 2008 U.S. diplomatic cable revealed by Wikileaks, Bahrain and the United States have “about as good a bilateral relationship as anywhere.” Al-Khawaja’s daughter Maryam, a renowned human rights defender, may have best summed up the egregious U.S. policy toward Bahrain: “The United States is to Bahrain what Russia is to Syria.” The death toll in Bahrain is significantly higher than that of the post-election crackdown in Iran in June 2009–to draw yet another grim comparison–yet it has received a fraction of U.S. media attention. Bahrain’s protests in February 2012 were the largest of the Arab Spring relative to the country’s population, yet, as Al Jazeera put it, the Bahraini revolution was abandoned by the Arabs, forsaken by the West and forgotten by the world.
This is not the first time the world has witnessed an inconsistency from the United States. Despite being a nation which prides itself in spreading democracy and liberalism around the world (usually with terrible consequences, i.e. Iraq), the USA seems to be silent when it comes to the continuation of human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, especially for women. Once again it seems the friendship the two nations have, come before a genuine fight for people’s freedom.
If the United States wants to be taken seriously by the public and other states as a hegemonic nation whose duty is to stop dictators and spread liberal ideas, it must be consistent with choosing the countries which need to be “Americanised”. If the White House continues to pick and choose, especially the countries which have a lot of numerous resources, the majority of the public might get rather suspicious, if it hasn’t already.
May 8th, 2012 by Adam Hall
© artemuestra
Anyone who wasn’t familiar with names of Moody’s and Fitch, Standard and Poor’s and their ilk before 2008 is almost certainly familiar with them now. The ratings agencies as they are so informally known have become as much a part of our political discourse as the standard discussions about the role of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
Like all political sceptics I have always been incensed by the way that a single sentence from any of these agencies seems to send Government ministers into hysterical fits and plunges national markets into bouts of paralysis. How can it be that when a private firm (i.e. a business like any other) warns us that Britain is on a ‘negative outlook’ that the FTSE drops, our Chancellor gets all hot and sweaty and the Opposition rub their hands with glee? Surely they are no better placed to judge our economic plight than the Office of National Statistics, the Office for Budget Responsibility or the IMF (all of whom I hold in much greater esteem then those careerist economics graduates at the agencies)?
Well apparently they are, and not only that but now they are of such prestige and might that they are on the cusp of influencing election results. You know the ones where members of the public of sovereign nations vote on which party they want to hold an elected office at either national or local level? It seems that the agencies are afraid of a ‘perfect political storm’ in which voters in Britain, Greece, France, Italy and Germany will in the next few years have the potential to undermine the cosy (i.e. slow) economic malaise which has griped Europe. Apparently we voters are so dangerous in our anger at the political establishment that we may stupidly vote for extremist parties, some of which (horror upon horror) do not recognise the authority of the agencies and will pursue their own costly and damaging economic policies.
I’m not here to argue about whether the agencies are right, or even whether the electorate can be trusted (these issues I think will keep for another day). What I going to argue with is the seemingly unquestioned assertion that they have the moral superiority to warn us sneeringly about our electoral prospects. It has never and shall never be the prerogative of agencies to dictate our election results to us. I refuse as member of the sovereign nation of Great Britain to be told that my actions will fundamentally harm the globalised economic model. This is an affront to my democratic right and a hideous blackmail attempt to preserve the current economic order.
I have no desire to bring about a second catastrophic global economic meltdown, I do not feel it was my fault in the first place (I suspect though that the agencies would disagree with that) and I resent the implication that they should even consider their comments to be either appropriate or in any way relevant. What these unelected and unaccountable business men and women will learn is that democracy like all great beliefs must not be tampered with but by those who universally invest in it. As a voter I am sovereign in my choice, it will not ever be dictated by an unelected official who works out of an office block and spends their lunch breaks deciding which countries economic track record they should trash next.
Whilst I think the work of such firms (who run at substantial profits from interested parties who themselves are not free from political or economic bias) are inherently unethical, this is not my primary concern. My greatest wish now is that they withdraw from the electoral debates, withdraw into insignificance and respect what little elements of democracy remain in Europe. The alternative is a grave prospect that we as voters must not allow ourselves to consider. A world in which unelected firms decide the outcomes of elections. In which politicians owe their victories not just to their backers and voters, but to an agency which rates their allegiance to neo-liberal economics with letters of the alphabet. To sum up I urge us to downgrade their relevance in our democratic choices to JUNK. A measure I’m sure will not be lost on Moody’s in its blissful irony.
Older posts
Facebook
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Delicious
Subscribe & follow: