aspiringjournalistworld - Tumblr blog

aspiringjournalistworld · 2 years ago

Text

The Turkish Elections May Signal the End of the Erdogan Era

On Sunday, Turkish voters will be confronted with a stark choice between two front-runners with radically divergent visions for the country in an election with grave implications not only for the future of Turkish democracy, but also for some of the most urgent global issues of the day.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, who has clung to power for an unprecedented 21 years, faces the challenge of convincing voters to cast his name at the ballot box yet again despite growing public anger over a cost of living crisis and the devastation of twin earthquakes in February that killed at least 50,000 people and displaced 3 million others.

Kemal Klcdarolu, the prominent opposition candidate, has maintained a narrow lead in the polls and is running on a platform of reversing Turkey's years-long slide into authoritarianism and re-establishing the rule of law.

How close do analysts anticipate the Turkish election to be?

In accordance with Turkey's electoral regulations, the victorious presidential candidate must receive more than fifty percent of the vote in the first round. Political analysts anticipate that no candidate will receive a majority of votes in this election, which would result in a second round of voting on May 28.

Parliamentary elections for the 600-seat legislature are also held concurrently with the presidential election. The most recent survey by pollster Konda indicates that in the upcoming parliamentary election, Erdogan's AKP will maintain 44% of the vote, surpassing the main opposition alliance's 39.9%.

With Klçdarolu holding a narrow lead over Erdoan, many wonder if the incumbent president would accept electoral defeat. In 2019, when an Erdogan-backed candidate narrowly lost to Ekrem Imamolu in Istanbul's mayoral election, the President used the judiciary to order a runoff, which Imamolu won by a landslide.

In the run-up to this year's general election, Klcdarolu and his associates have experienced some violence at the hands of Erdoan's supporters. More than a dozen individuals were arrested over the weekend for throwing stones at an opposition election rally in the eastern Turkish city of Erzurum. In an interview with KRT television last Thursday, Klcdarolu advised his supporters to remain at home on election night after the polls close. "Some individuals may incite unrest, others may be provoked, and armed groups may take to the streets," he said. However, political analysts anticipate that the Turkish democracy will be robust enough to guarantee a free and fair election on Sunday.

There are also concerns regarding the voting behavior of displaced Turkish electors. Officials report that only 133,000 of the three million people who fled their homes due to the disaster have registered to vote in their new communities.

The stakes are high

A victory for the opposition could have repercussions for the country's democracy, economy, and foreign policy. Turkey is currently walking a tightrope between NATO, Russia, and Ukraine by aligning with Russia and providing military support to Ukraine, with Erdogan assuming an intermediary role. The victory of Klcdarolu could bring the NATO member closer to a Western-led consensus on the conflict by mending relations with traditional E.U. allies.

On a global scale, experts assert that Erdogan's victory or defeat could affect the future trajectory of the democratic process. Ishaan Tharoor argued in the Washington Post that the Turkish leader paved the way for an electoral autocracy based on "majoritarian grandstanding, divisive culture wars, anti-Western resentment, and paranoia about domestic and foreign plots, not to mention the capture of key state institutions, the intimidation and arrest of dissenters and civil society members, and the steady erosion of the country's free press."

In recent years, nations from Hungary to India have followed in Erdogan’s footsteps by undermining the democratic institutions. According to the research organization v-Dem, there are now fifty-six countries that qualify as "electoral autocracies," up from forty at the end of the Cold War.

The Economist recently argued that if Erdogan loses, "it will demonstrate that the erosion of democracy can be halted and suggest how"

0 notes

aspiringjournalistworld · 2 years ago

Text

Journalists killed in the line of duty

According to a report published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), nearly 1,700 journalists have been murdered globally over the past two decades, an average of more than 80 per year.

The two decades between 2003 and 2022 were "particularly deadly for those in the service of reporting," according to media rights activists based in Paris.

"Behind the numbers are the faces, personalities, talents, and dedication of those who have sacrificed their lives for their information gathering, their pursuit of the truth, and their passion for journalism," said Christophe Deloire, secretary-general of the RSF.

Source: International Federation of Journalists

Shireen Abu Akleh, a television correspondent for Al Jazeera for 25 years, was killed by Israeli forces while documenting an Israeli military raid on a refugee camp in Jenin, occupied West Bank.

Source: Al Jazeera

Iraq and Syria were the most hazardous countries in which to work as a journalist, accounting for "a combined total of 578 journalists killed in the past 20 years, or more than one-third of the global total," according to RSF.

The "darkest years" were 2012 and 2013, "largely due to the Syrian civil war." According to the report, there were 144 murders in 2012 and 142 the following year.

Source: The Washington Post

With the war in Ukraine, the number of deaths rose again in 2022. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of the country on February 24, fourteen journalists have been murdered in Ukraine, where the 15th journalist (Arman Soldin) was murdered yesterday in a missile attack in Chasiv Yar, near the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut. Ukraine is now considered the most dangerous country in Europe for journalists, second only to Russia, where 25 journalists have been murdered in the past two decades.

Source: Le Figaro and AFP

The rights group stated, "Since Vladimir Putin's ascension to power, Russia has experienced systematic attacks on press freedom, including fatal ones." They include the high-profile assassination of Anna Politkovskaya on 7 October 2006." Politkovskaya was a fierce critic of Putin and exposed malfeasance at the highest levels of government. She was shot four times in her apartment after returning from grocery shopping.

Source: The Nation

Moving to the Americas where it continues to be the most dangerous continent for journalists in regions where armed conflict has occurred

However, RSF emphasized that "countries where there is no official war are not necessarily safe for journalists, and some of them are near the top of the list of countries where killings have occurred." In fact, more journalists have been murdered in 'zones at peace' than in 'zones at war' over the past two decades, in the vast majority of cases while investigating organized crime and corruption. Nearly half of journalist murders occurred in the Americas, with Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Honduras accounting for the majority of fatalities.

Source: Newsweek

According to RSF, America is currently the most hazardous continent for the media.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND Other NEWS AGENCIES

0 notes

aspiringjournalistworld · 2 years ago

Text

A worsened scenario in Sudan

On April 15, violence broke out between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Khartoum, Sudan. The confrontations have resulted in 100 fatalities and nearly 1100 injuries.

In Darfur, four humanitarian workers were murdered and two others were severely injured in an attack that occurred elsewhere in the country.

Kurt Tjossem, vice president of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) in East Africa, stated, "Conflict has disrupted humanitarian action in a region where an estimated 15 million people, including refugees, are facing severe food insecurity." The IRC is urging all parties to resolve outstanding issues and terminate the ongoing fighting.

Extreme weather conditions, social and political unrest, and rising food prices were already causing poverty, hunger, and displacement in Sudan, which was already experiencing a humanitarian crisis. Approximately 2.4 million individuals are displaced across the country due to flooding and conflict.

SOURCE: CSIS CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

What challenges confront the Sudanese people today?

Political unrest and insecurity

Sudan has been governed by a council of generals since the October 2021 military revolution. In July 2022, the de-facto head of state of Sudan announced that he would abstain from political negotiations and support the formation of a technocratic cabinet in response to heightened public mistrust of the military. However, the current violence was sparked by a dispute over the RSF's incorporation into the military as part of the transition to civilian control.

"The killing of humanitarian workers and scores of Sudanese is unacceptable," Tjossem stated. "The IRC urges all parties to work expeditiously to resolve outstanding issues in the interest of achieving a lasting, inclusive political peace".

Ongoing intercommunal violence

In Sudan's border regions, ongoing conflict, often along communal lines, influenced by the agendas of local influential and political figures, has exacerbated displacement and insecurity. In Darfur, Kordofan, and Kassala, limited state authority and unresolved local disputes over land and natural resources fuelled conflict throughout 2022.

Since July 2022, the escalation of violence in the state of Blue Nile has displaced 97,000 people, while a similar situation displaced 21,000 residents in West Kordofan in October.

Climate change and its repercussions

Sudan is experiencing significantly warmer and drier conditions, with shortened rainy periods reducing crop production and erratic precipitation increasing the likelihood of flooding. The majority of Sudanese reside in rural areas and rely on rainfall to raise crops.

At least 111,000 homes were destroyed or severely damaged by floodwaters in the second half of 2020, while the number of individuals severely affected exceeded 770,000. The destruction of nearly 16,000 latrines and the failure of the Bout Dam prevented access to water for more than 100,000 people in the Blue Nile State.

Additionally, the Horn of Africa has experienced its worst desert locust infestation in decades as a consequence of the unusually heavy rainfall. Loss of crops and rising food costs have made it harder for families to place food on the table every day.

Escalating fiscal instability

Sudan faces multiple economic pressures, including a high inflation rate, exceptionally low foreign reserves, and the suspension of foreign debt relief programs by the international community. Despite the fact that the inflation rate is expected to decline to 115.7% in 2023 from 236.4% in 2022, this still reflects extremely rapid price growth.

Sudan imports 80 percent of its wheat from Russia, making it especially susceptible to the repercussions of the conflict in Ukraine. As a result of the military's ascension to power, financial donors halted Sudan's debt cancellation program, meaning an agreement to cancel $14 billion in debt and $9 billion more in the future is no longer in effect.

Moreover, cooperation between the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the current authorities continues to be suspended. Against this backdrop, the economic crisis is likely to worsen throughout 2023: food and transportation costs may increase further, and there will likely be shortages of medicine, energy, and imported products.

Increasing numbers of Ethiopian refugees

As a result of the ongoing conflict in the Tigray region, over 75,000 refugees have escaped from Ethiopia into Eastern Sudan. 31% of refugees are children, including a large number of unaccompanied minors who have frequently encountered trauma and abuse on their journey to Sudan. People require essential assistance, including sustenance, protection, and healthcare.

0 notes

aspiringjournalistworld · 5 years ago

Text

Is nuclear proliferation the road to peace or conflict?

A world without nuclear weapons is what most politicians and policymakers call for, particularly after WWII, when the world witnessed the repercussions of possessing stockpiles and attacking another nation using the nuclear force. With the Cold War era, everyone feared that the same scenario would occur again, but back then it was between two superpowers; the United States and the Soviet Union (Rauchhaus 2009). However, the scenario deferred completely (Newsweek 2009). This fact started the debate on whether non-nuclear proliferation still secures stability and lessens the rate of conflicts or not. Different school of thoughts have discussed this issue, from the realist to the rational choice perspectives. Each of these theories attempted to make an argument that was aligned with the principles of their framework. They came to ask questions related to rationality, security dilemmas, stability, power shifting, hegemony, terrorist groups…. etc. When a clash of interests between the U.S. and Iran or when the American president holds a summit with his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong-un, the debate is reopened and several questions are left unanswered. But what will always remain is the fear of letting non-nuclear states acquire their own missiles, a move that is viewed as a tremendous threat to the global security. When we think of Iran and how it might ponder the idea of producing nuclear weapons, if it wanted to avoid getting invaded, we ask ourselves; is this the right thing to do? what if nuclear proliferation maintains peace? what if the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), that became effective fifty years ago (Newsweek 2020), does not guarantee a world without nuclear warfare?

Photo credit: Foreign Policy

Here is a variety of arguments from the point of view of the nuclear optimists and pessimists:-

The Rationality of State leaders

Tepperman (2009) argued that there are two facets that underpin the different arguments regarding the deployment of nuclear weapons. The first one is based on the fact that such destructive weapons were used only in 1945. The second one is the undeniable truth that no nuclear conflict took place since WWII. This argument is emphasised by what Kenneth Waltz, as quoted by Tepperman in Newsweek (2009), said: "We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states". The author tried to explain why we will not witness any nuclear war of any kind in the upcoming 64 years. He argued that all state leaders are rational, they may sometimes act in irrational ways, however, they are aware of their actions and will never start a war without calculating its’ costs. He continued his argument by mentioning two dictators, Saddam and Hitler who were quite sure of their willingness to win their wars. What went wrong in the past confrontations was that leaders used to miscalculate the consequences. With the possession of nuclear warheads, this past reality has changed. Under this nuclear destruction argument, no state will take the risk of pointing its’ missiles towards another state, even if the man, who pulls the trigger, is evil or mentally unstable, he knows that he cannot afford the price of destruction and neither he nor his opponent will achieve victory. In other words, it will never be a win win situation. As Waltz puts it, "Why fight if you can't win and might lose everything?" (Newsweek, August 28, 2009). Taking all together, state leaders will escape a nuclear conflict because they will find themselves unwilling to pay the price. We cannot deny that another kind of war took place after 1945, for instance the proxy wars and the Cold War, but none of these can be compared to the destruction that the world witness during the Second World War. That is why it is expected that states will not resort to a nuclear warfare, instead “nuclear peace”, as the author suggested, will prevail.

Non-Proliferation Pros and Cons:

One of the arguments, published in The Elders website (2019), that oppose the nuclear proliferation road to peace narrative is made by Mary Robinson, “Former Ireland President and Chair of the Elders; the group of independent global leaders founded by Nelson Mandela”. She stressed the importance of paying more attention to the threat of nuclear weapons because the perils of waging nuclear wars are soaring compared to any other historical period since “the end of the Cold War”. She believed that if the New START ((Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was not carried on in 2021, that would imply that no agreement would be on the table and the chances of the United States and Russia in building warheads is inescapable. Adding to this, Ahmed (2017) asserted that the great powers have the tendency to encourage other states to follow their lead, especially if these powers do not have the intention of respecting the ethics of the international community. Taking this into account, the competition between the U.S. and Russia can have a spill over effect on other states who possess these warheads. There is also a probability that countries who do not have nuclear stockpiles of their own will find themselves forced to follow into their footsteps. That is why NATO members should exercise some influence on the American President, trying to urge him to carry on with the New START, as an attempt to maintain their mutual interests of preserving peace (as noted in The Elders and The Independent websites 2019).

Shellenberger (2019) stated, in his Forbes article, that warmongers and pacifists went against the notion of advancement of a nuclear proliferation in non-nuclear nations since this will lead to disastrous outcomes similar to what happened with that non-proliferation attempt made by the United States in Iraq. In addition, the fear of a nuclear proliferation can even encourage liberal leaders to support the decision of going to war with a nation who possesses weapons of mass destruction in order to put an end to this alerting situation. This was apparent when liberal politicians, including “senator Hillary Clinton, 2000 presidential candidate Al Gore and the British PM Tony Blair”, supported the American invasion of Iraq. Even after the Second World War, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell, as quoted by Shellenberger in Forbes (2019), emphasized the importance of waging a nuclear war against the USSR, adding that “an atomic war would be one of extraordinary horror,” reported The New York Times, “but it would be ‘the war to end wars.” In Russell’s opinion, resorting to nuclear weapons to terrify the opponent did not halt war. Likewise, Hamilton Holt, a peace activist, saw that states, which did not abide by the “United Nations control over atomic energy” should be destroyed with nuclear warheads (Forbes, June 22, 2019).

While the attempts to restraint the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction had shown fatal consequences (ex: Iraq in 2003), John Gaddis, “Yale University historian”, argued that nuclear proliferation has contributed to the “long piece”. And this argument was proven to be true in the case of India-Pakistan nuclear tension in the 1990s. According to Sumit Ganguly, “India-Pakistan nuclear expert”, the two sides of the conflict could not afford the severe outcome of using these warheads, resulting in the annihilation of the whole “subcontinent” (as noted in Forbes website 2019). Also, this was evident, according to Tepperman’s article in Newsweek (2009), in the case of the “Cuban missile crisis” back in October 1962. The U.S. and the USSR kept intimidating each other with the employment of the nukes. And that made everyone, based on Rauchhaus’s argument (2009, 1), presume that another nuclear attack was on the horizon. But when the moment of truth came, they did not do it because both sides realized that if they had fired the warheads, they would have been digging their own graves.

However, the “nuclear pessimists”, according to Tepperman’s article in Newsweek (2009), believe that if a nuclear conflict had not occurred in the past, that does not mean it would not happen in the future. They gave examples of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asserting that these state leaders were not to be trusted and that no one should depend on what they said. According to them (nuclear pessimists), these regimes are the utmost “rogue”, from whom we should expect the nuclear strike. However, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be compared with Stalin and Mao, the craziest leaders that the world has ever known. The author continued by saying that as long as these dictators (Stalin and Mao), who were responsible for the murder of nearly 20 million of their citizens, had not started any nuclear warfare, there was little doubt that anyone else would. In fact, North Korea and Iran are two nations with state actors who looked irrational, but implicitly they were no more than normal leaders, seeking to preserve their peace and security. Consequently, a nuclear warfare is not on their agendas. “These countries may be brutally oppressive, but nothing in their behaviour suggests they have a death wish” (Newsweek, August 28, 2009). The problem, for the nuclear pessimists, lies in the prospect of giving the nukes to terrorist groups. But for the optimists, “it does not make sense”, why would these states give their nuclear weapons, the only thing considered their key to survival, to other groups like Hizbullah, over which they had limited power or even to al Qaeda, with whom they did not have common interests. Furthermore, they risk being punished by the United States who will seek to retaliate, if any attack takes place from these groups (Newsweek 2009).

Proliferation, Polarity and the Balance of power:

Intriligator and Brito (1981) argued that the debate of whether nuclear proliferation can lead to conflict or not depends on the characteristics of the non-nuclear nation, who under the proliferation concept, will become new nuclear state. For instance, its competence, the kind of alliances it has, its stability in the region…. etc, all these factors will determine its probability of engaging in a nuclear attack. Another point to be added here is the nature of the international system and how it is divided. Living in a bipolar system will differ from a multipolar one. Waltz argued that a multipolar system is a dangerous one because there is “unpredictability” among the various political actors (Intriligator and Brito 1981). Therefore, giving more states the access to nuclear weapons would have devastating effects. Whereas, Deutsch and Singer believed that adding new states will have a positive outcome on the stability of the global system and its maintenance. The authors suggested “a more formal model” of the consequences of nuclear proliferation on the likelihood of waging a nuclear conflict. There is a probability that a newly nuclear state might use its’ nuclear warheads, if it decided to attack another nation, without the fear of being punished. This was true in the case of the only nuclear strike that took place in 1945 between the United States and Japan. Another scenario is when we have two rivalries; one who is an existing nuclear nation and the other is a newly nuclear state. In this situation, there is a probability that the existing nuclear power will use its nuclear force against the other one to wipe it out, without the fear of punishment. This suggestion was made in the post war period (1945-1949), when the United States (the predominant nuclear state at that time) had the power to use its’ nuclear weapons against the USSR, its main opponent striving for power in the international system (Intriligator and Brito 1981). Geller supported this argument (Rauchhaus 2009), emphasizing that the stability of the global system would be threatened, when one or both nations had weapons of mass destruction. However, according to Intriligator and Brito (1981), the high probability of waging nuclear wars in the previous two situations is lessened, when the new nuclear state becomes stronger, with the acquisition of “sufficient” nuclear warheads that makes it capable of challenging any other nuclear nation. Based on their arguments, when the two rivalries have equal amount of nuclear powers, the bipolar system reduces the chances of any nuclear attack, making the situation more stable since each of these nations become more reluctant to engage in a nuclear combat against the other because of the fear of retaliation. In a multipolar system, there is even more uncertainty among different nuclear powers. Each one of them will be reluctant to use their nuclear force against the other as they are unwilling to predict the reaction of each other. Besides, the increasing possession of nuclear warheads will lessen the prospects of engaging in a nuclear war. Thus, we cannot expect any“deliberate initiation” of war among the various powers. This is also reinforced by the argument that, in a multipolar system, there is a tendency of forming alliances and coalitions. The fact that reduces the potentiality of one nation attacking another, since in this case the nation which initiated the war will have to collide with the other ones who have already formed alliances with the attacked nation. By and large, according to the authors’ statistical approach, the prospects of a nuclear attack surge in the case of an additional nuclear nation joining fewer members of nuclear states,“by providing both an additional nation to initiate such a war and an additional target”. Whereas, the opposite takes place in the case of having more nuclear states, where the additional nuclear state lessens the possibility of a nuclear destruction,“by providing an additional restraining force for all the existing nuclear nations”(Intriligator and Brito 1981).

Recap:

Broadly speaking, there is no consensus on whether nuclear proliferation leads to peace or conflict. As presented in the article, policymakers and experts often have conflicting views regarding this critical debate. On the one hand, there are the nuclear pessimists who refuse the spreading of weapons of mass destruction among non-nuclear states since this endangers the security and the stability of the international system. In their view, statesmen cannot be trusted since there are many parts of the world that are ruled by irrational leaders who can take the risk and bombard their enemies. Even if rational leaders exist, we cannot guarantee that terrorist groups will not lay their hands on such weapons. In addition, what happened during WWII proves the deadly outcomes of possessing and using nuclear arms in targeting another country. On the other hand, we have the nuclear optimists who believe that world leaders are rational and intelligent, they will not point their missiles against each other. In addition, they realize that they would put themselves in a critical position, if they opted for such action. In this scenario, they will have to confront the costs of destruction and the fear of retaliation. Moreover, with the multipolar system we are living in, there is little doubt that states would use their nuclear arms against each other because there is uncertainty among the different powers, they are unwilling to predict each other’s actions. Therefore, the probability of one of these nuclear powers to start a war is reduced. The optimists emphasize that history will not repeat itself and that the chances of having another nuclear attack seem to be unrealistic. This assumption is supported by Gaddis’s argument of the “long piece”. Taking all together, the acquisition of nuclear warheads does not look that terrifying. However, politicians in the United States have not realised this fact yet. According to Desch, “most of us suffer from what he calls a nuclear phobia, an irrational fear that's grounded in good evidence—nuclear weapons are terrifying—but that keeps us from making clear, coldblooded calculations about just how dangerous possessing them actually is” (Newsweek, August 28, 2009). What is important in this debate is that state leaders need to work out multilateral agreements on how best to preserve stability and world order. They need to advance peace talks and eliminate the probability of future conflicts. Statesmen should realize that if the US-Iraq invasion scenario was approached again, particularly with what is being witnessed with the Trump administration and Iran, the consequences would be more devastating for both sides than those witnessed back in 2003. (as stressed in Shellenberger’s article published in Forbes Website 2019).

0 notes

aspiringjournalistworld · 5 years ago

Text

Macron's visit to Lebanon: Why Lebanon matters to the French Presidency?

In the wake of his visit to the shattered nation, the French president promised to support the country. Moreover, he called for a new political order in Lebanon.

Photo credit: Euronews

It is true that the French leader was the first statesman to take the initiative to visit and support Lebanon directly after its explosion. Some argued that this move could be interpreted from a historical point of view, where both shared strong ties since the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWII, when France was assigned to administer Lebanon by the League of Nations. The French influence can still be witnessed on many levels of the country, especially the national and the social ones, where the French language remains till now the countries widely spoken language, in addition, different groups in Lebanon still perceive France as having some kind of protecting power.

But does this mean that France is trying to interfere once again in Lebanon’s politics? This question has been raised when the French president Emmanuel Macron not only pledged aid, but also when he called for a new political order. According to Maximilian Felsch, a professor at Beirut's Haigazian University, the only aim for France is to reaffirm its strong relations with the francophone countries in Africa and the Mideast region. He added that the French help is met with approval, where there is no sign of opposition or a reference to a “post-colonial interference”.

0 notes

aspiringjournalistworld · 5 years ago

Text

Did Europe show a slow and late response to the Pandemic?

On the 12th of March, the World Health Organization declared that the Coronavirus (Covid-19) reached the Pandemic stage (www.euro.who.int, 2020). In spite of the fact that WHO had been raising concerns about this health crisis since January 30, urging countries to take their precautionary measures towards the emergence of the virus, EU countries were sceptical, believing that the situation will not invoke severe measures such as systematic confinement. They assumed that the rate of their infected cases or deaths toll would not reach a critical situation. In fact, what happened was the opposite, where a dramatic upward shift in the number of cases and fatalities took place. It was at this time when Europe became the epicentre of the pandemic (Europe plans full border closure in virus battle, 2020).

On the supranational level, the European Union declared, on March 17, that it was going to close all its’ internal and external borders (Europe plans full border closure in virus battle, 2020). However, four days before this announcement, Slovakia, Malta and the Czech Republic had unilaterally shut their borders (Schengen Visa Info, 2020). All member states, represented by the EU, should have coordinated their national policies and announced a nationwide lockdown at the same time to be on the same page. According to Dr. François Dabis, “director of the Agency for Research on Aids and Hepatitis in Bordeaux, France”, the European Union with its’ institutions proved to be “working unilaterally” since member states were acting as nation states, taking and imposing their own agenda. It was the time when EU citizens expected a collective and harmonized scheme to face this pandemic that was crippling their zone and its’ populations (Penney, 2020).

In addition, some EU experts argued that closing borders would jeopardise the commercial activities and the EU economy in total (EUobserver, n.d.). Another point related to this argument is that the EU health ministers did not hold meetings on regular basis since the outbreak to discuss how they were going to confront the disease, it took them time to meet and coordinate their policies, ignoring the fast spreading of the virus (Wheaton, 2020). Even though the EU council narrowed the number of its personnel, they continued working and conducting sessions as if there was no health crisis taking place (POLITICO, 2020). By and large, this political inconsistency questioned the EU crisis management and how it failed to stop the influx of the pandemic.

On the national level, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel was reluctant to propose measures to curb the spread of the virus, instead she said that “about 60 to 70% of the population” were going to contract the virus. In France, Agnès Buzyn, France’s health minister, expressed her hesitation on whether to run for the municipal elections or not as an attempt to pay more attention to the fight against the spread of the virus. But later, when she realised that she had more chances to be elected since her opponent was caught up in “a sex scandal”, she reconsidered becoming a candidate and totally marginalised this public health emergency. According to Giovanni Rezza, “director of infectious diseases at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy’s national health institute”, people in France and Germany were acting as if there were not a pandemic to be fought against, they were gathering in many parts of the cities, only few regions considered listening to the health experts and decided to call off events and gatherings “with more than 1000 people” (Wheaton, 2020).

Even the Spanish government did not pay attention to the first death case on its territory, a patient who died on the 13th of February and was identified as the first fatality of the virus three weeks later (Wheaton, 2020). In one of the nations worst hit by the pandemic, Italy had shutdown only “one terminal of Milan main airport”, on March 16, at the time when “Lombardi had already 3,760 cases”. The situation was completely opposite in China who had halted all flights of “Hubei Provence on January 23, where it reported only 500 cases” (Penney, 2020). Moreover, the Italian government applied the “partial solutions” approach, which means that the government would opt for, more or less, effective measures, including locking down some regions, while others were left out of the imposed strategy. Consequently, this contributed to the widespread of the virus in other areas, where there was no sign of infected cases (Pisano, Sadun and Zanini, 2020).

To conclude, neither the European Union nor the member states adopted robust measures to curtail the virus from spreading. When the disease emerged in China, the neighbouring countries, including Japan and Taiwan, took a swift response in their decision of closing the borders. On the other hand, Europe did not apply the same strategy, instead its’ borders remained open, where they continued running their aerial services in airports like “Heathrew and Charles De Gaulle”, even after the virus was considered as pandemic, the fact that worsened the scenario for Europe and elsewhere. In many of these countries, no testing or “contact tracing” mechanisms were put forward in order to cut down the growing flow of the infected cases or the surge in fatalities. Dr. Claire Standley, “researcher at Georgetown University’s Department of International Health”, argued that amid the outbreak and the failure of these nations to act rapidly before Europe became the epicentre of the pandemic, these governments should be hold accountable of their mismanagement of the situation (Penney, 2020). By their late response, Europe proved that the economic aspect is prior to saving human lives; how to preserve the economy versus how to save lives (Wheaton, 2020).

0 notes

aspiringjournalistworld · 5 years ago

Text

How far the U.K. is leaving the European Union? How much divergence or alignment?

On the 31st of January, the U.K. finally left the European union after a period of political upheaval, a period that was not witnessed since the Second World War. Despite a rising concern about the rights of the British citizens living in the EU and similarly the European citizens living in the U.K., a deal was reached with a majority approval from both the European and British Parliaments (Sandford, 2020). This divorce does not mean cutting all ties with the European Union overnight since Britain will have to go through an eleven- month transition period (ends on December 31, 2020), which was negotiated earlier by the former prime minister Theresa May (BI, 2020).This means that the U.K. will abide by the existing arrangements of the “free single market – free movement of goods, services, capital and labour – as well as rulings from the European Court of Justice” (Reader, 2020). A lot of decisions must be taken during this transition period in order to know how close the alignment will look like between the two actors. Taken all together, this departure does not mean that there will not be relations with the EU; the question is how far the U.K. is going to divert from the European Union; whether it will leave totally or will leave the door open for close alignment. It might seem too early to answer this question, especially that Britain is still at the beginning of the transition period. However, different arguments and analysis can be put forward in order to have a clear picture of what will happen next?

Photo credit: Ethical Journalism Network

Here is a variety of arguments, related to the future trade negotiations between the two parties, and the different scenarios proposed:-

Post-Brexit Trade Talks

Is the proposed transition period enough for serious negotiations?

The British Prime Minister is confident that he can reach a trade deal in the next 11 months, but the EU experts argue that it cannot be done that easy (Npr.org, 2020). In other words, reaching a deal to leave the EU took a long time to be finalised, the same complexity would encounter the trade negotiations, that's why the European Union officials proposed to prolong the transition period until the end of 2022 (Amaro, 2020). However, The British Prime Minister was sceptical about an extension period as he does not want to “face opposition within his conservative party” (Npr.org, 2020). In addition, the EU experts believe it is hard to finalise these agreements within this short time frame as both sides do not seem to have a common ground on what they want their new commercial ties to look like (Amaro, 2020). Inevitably, if the British government and the European Union failed to reach a deal, then their trade would be subject to the World Trade Organization regulations, meaning that tariffs would be imposed on some goods causing higher costs for both the British and the EU economies.

Divergence or Alignment?

According to NPR. Org, the U.K. treasury chief Sajid Javid has stated that there will be no alignment with EU regulations when building the new commercial ties. As a result, economists argue that this “would create trade barriers and increase the costs, hurting the U.K.'s agriculture and automobile sectors, among others. Consider this: Many foreign manufacturers built plants in the U.K. to take advantage of its free trade with the EU. If the country's exports to the EU face tariffs in the future, that might reduce the incentive for foreign companies to invest in the United Kingdom” (Npr.org, 2020). In the revised text of the political declaration sitting out the standards for the future relationship between the EU and the British government, both actors should recognise the salience of global cooperation to address issues including state aid, competition social and workers’ rights the environment and climate change. Under this declaration, the U.K. can choose a free trade agreement (FTA). But in return for zero tariffs and quotas, the U.K. makes "robust commitments" to ensure "open and fair competition" (European Commission, 2019). “However, this declaration is not legally binding as opposed to the withdrawal agreement which has the force of an international treaty”. That's why there is an ambivalence in these commitments given the fact that Boris Johnson has the intention to deviate from EU rules and set an independent trading path, as opposed to Theresa May’s government who foreseen a closer cooperation and ties with the European Union (Sandford, 2020).

What about U.S./ U.K. trade talks?

Another point related to this discussion is the U.K.’s growing relationship with the United States. The British government is looking forward to building a future deal with the U.S. and according to trade experts that puts the U.K. in a wavering position; whether to remain aligned to the EU laws to access the European market or to go along with the American procedures (Sandford, 2020). Amanda argues that although Boris Johnson would like to keep his ties with his American counterpart, he must keep his alignment with the EU “on issues such as; Iran, climate change and digital tax” (Sloat, 2020).

What are the proposed scenarios for the Trade deal?

The European Commission has proposed two scenarios that the U.K. could follow; the first one would be the same model of the Norway, where the U.K. could enjoy a full market access. The second one would be to have a standard free trade agreement like Canada. But the British government refused this proposal, indicating that “it is a binary choice between the two existing models”, requesting a “bespoke” free trade agreement. In fact, the Prime Minister opposed “the Norway model on the grounds that becoming a rule taker with no formal vote would be politically unsaleable”. Similarly, the Canadian model, “which does not cover much of the service sector (around 80% of the UK economy)”, would result in bitter havoc for the British Economy (Owen, Stojanovic and Rutter, 2017).

What about adjusting the existing models for future trade negotiations with the EU?

If the existing models were to be modified, three options could come into the picture:

An EU–U.K. Economic Area (‘Bespoke Norway’)

The U.K. broadly accepts Single Market rules and parallel institutions, but negotiates a new arrangement on freedom of movement and greater input on devising regulation (though it would not have a final say).

An EU–U.K. Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (Reverse Ukraine)

This would allow participation in the Single Market in sectors which remain aligned and subject to oversight. Non-harmonised sectors would face barriers.

An EU–U.K. Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (Canada plus)

This would be modelled on the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), but with the aim of agreeing better access for services and provisions for enhanced regulatory co-operation, to try to minimise trade barriers where possible (Owen, Stojanovic and Rutter, 2017).

New Opportunities not formally on the table:

Some Brexit supporters believe that there could be an opportunity for seeking new ties with the former British colonies that might substitute trade with the European Union. They argue that allying with them, especially India and with Australia, Canada and New Zealand (known as the Anglosphere) could be considered an economic advantage for the U.K. However, these countries do not share the same enthusiasm as the U.K. for the following reasons: - 1) Canada has already a flourishing and rich market with the United States. 2) When the British government proposed free movement of people between Australia and the U.K., the Australian government was sceptical about it since this would lead the U.K. to attract skilled workers specially in the medical field “who could staff the perpetually understaffed National Health Service”. 3) As for India, it argued that if a trade deal is to be reached, restricted immigration should be applied. This can be seen as a result of the past imperialism and its atrocities. Luke Reader continues his argument by confirming that “Nor are these markets particularly lucrative. The combined size of the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand economies is about $3.3 trillion. This is only $500 billion more than annual British GDP. The Indian economy is of a similar size to that of the U.K. By contrast, the EU generates $18.7 trillion of economic activity a year”. In brief, the British government would be better-off, if it allied with these three economies and not with the EU who makes $18.7 trillion compared to the other three large economies (Reader, 2020).

To sum up, it is quite early to predict how much divergence the U.K. would be from the EU as there are contradictory signals of whether Britain will remain close or completely deviate from the EU. The only available narrative comes from the early trade talks that are still on the table. Broadly speaking, the British government is clear on what it does not want, however, it fails to express what it does and how it wants to achieve it. The U.K. officials showed their inclination for a middle ground trade policy between Norway and Canada, that means it might aspire for trade negotiations equivalent to that of Ukraine and Switzerland, but this would have a price since their access to the single market comes with commitments (Owen, Stojanovic and Rutter, 2017). On the other side, most political and economic analysists believe that reaching new trade negotiations, that will satisfy both sides, will be much harder than leaving the EU. By and large, this is not to say that Brexit cannot be a success, yet the U.K. finds itself in a difficult position since it is trying to re-establish itself as a nation state at the same time when other countries are forming trade blocs and engaging in multilateral agreements (Reader, 2020). Now, it is the time for the British government to decide on its preferred commercial relationship with the EU quickly as possible and this can be achieved, as Michel Barnier indicated “if there is mutual respect and no reneging on previous commitments” (Amaro, 2020)

0 notes

aspiringjournalistworld · 6 years ago

Text

The Fall of Democracy:Are Western Democracies becoming autocracies? ‘Focusing on The United States’

“History used to be told as the story of great men. Julius Caesar, George Washington, Napoléon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler-individual leaders, both famous and infamous, were thought to drive events. But then it became fashionable to tell the same stories in terms of broader structural forces, raw calculations of national power, economic interdependence, or ideological waves. Leaders came to be seen as just vehicles for other more important factors, their personalities and predilections essentially irrelevant. What mattered were not great men or women but great forces.”

The World is becoming less democratic

In its 2018 annual report, Freedom House noted that since 2006, 113 countries saw a net decline in freedom, and for 12 consecutive years, global freedom declined.

Source: Freedom House

Western governments across Europe and North America are experiencing a recession in their democratic liberalism norms. On the one hand, Political extremes could be regarded as the cause of this trend. Both the far left and the far right are, according to this view, willing to ride over democratic institutions to achieve radical change. Moderates, by contrast, are assumed to defend liberal democracy, its principles and institutions. On the other hand, ineffective governance, economic inequality, socio-cultural upheaval, and identity-based struggles that have resulted in the rise of populist movements both on the left and right of the ideological spectrum, (some of which have authoritarian tendencies), could be another cause of this backsliding.

According to the previous notion, we find out that all Centrists seem to prefer strong and efficient government over messy democratic politics. This important finding stresses the fact that authoritarianism can have a strong and inevitable effect on all parties in guiding their ideology.

Source: World Values Survey/ European Values Survey/ The New York Times

The rising danger to democracy as a global phenomenon takes center stage in Larry Diamond’s book. “In every region of the world,” he writes, “autocrats are seizing the initiative, democrats are on the defensive, and the space for competitive politics and free expression is shrinking.” It is now obvious that mature democracies are becoming increasingly polarized, intolerant, and dysfunctional. Emerging democratic states are sliding into corruption, struggling for legitimacy, and fighting against growing external threats. Authoritarian leaders are simultaneously becoming more repressive at home, more aggressive abroad, and more convinced that they are sailing with the wind at their back.

The United States

While the U.S. had the fifth-highest democracy score in 2012, its score had fallen to 31st place five years later. Indexes from both V-Dem and Freedom House have downgraded U.S. democracy scores sharply since 2016, due to the possible foreign election interference, a reduction of government transparency, weakening legislative constraints on the executive, a decline in the range of media perspectives and other decreases in election fairness.

Source: Freedom House

For the United States, it’s hard to know what kind of foreign policy Americans want today. What we are witnessing today from Donald Trump is a kind of a vacant diplomacy. In addition, the United States is going to do whatever it takes to enforce the notion of “America First”. Even if that means backing authoritarian allies, no matter how repressive and corrupt they are. In fact, the U.S. President has celebrated his “great relationship” with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who designed a deadly anti-crime campaign that has attracted criticism at home and abroad. For Trump, it is important to be an ally with him as The Philippines host U.S. military bases that help combat terrorism and contain China. The same happens with Egypt, who is a key player in maintaining peace in the region and helps the U.S. in countering terrorism. And obviously with Saudi Arabia, who provides the U.S. with millions of dollars in exchange with arms used against the Iranian threat. As a liberal democratic country, its duty is to promote and raise human rights concerns, support advocates for freedom and accountability, and encourage gradual political reform. It is important to point out to the fact that when Washington blindly backs these kinds of regimes, it often ends badly both for their people and for the Americans, like what happened with Anastasio Somoza and Shah of Iran.

The United States and Saudi Arabia

America has a history of allying with bad actors to effect change in other countries, for instance, the historical relationships with authoritarian regimes in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Iran and Pakistan. It is claimed that such cooperation is to serve the national interest. And now with the Trump administration, we are witnessing how the US President embraces the MBS as a close ally. Early, the Trump administration made Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman the centerpiece of their anti-Iran campaign. His decision was not affected by the MBS’s repressive actions; whether when he ordered the killing of the Saudi Journalist Jamal Khashoggi, or the fact that he is behind the humanitarian crisis of the Saudi-led coalition and blockades in Yemen. Instead, he is frank about what he sees in him. He said that the Saudis have been a great ally, they spent $400 billion in his country over the last number of years. When talking about the American arms sales to the Saudis, Trump told reporters, "It's America First for me. It's all about America First. We're not going to give up hundreds of billions of dollars in orders, and let Russia, China, and everybody else have them ... military equipment and other things from Russia and China. ... I'm not going to destroy the economy for our country by being foolish with Saudi Arabia."

To sum up, Democracy is under threat, it is slipping away in the countries that are supposed to promote and protect its values from the autocratic nations, who are imposing their ill-fitted norms on the international system. Candidates from Europe and North America are becoming more authoritarian, party systems are more volatile, and citizens are more hostile to the norms and institutions of liberal democracy.The struggle today is not the same as it was during the Cold War, but it is clear that ideology is playing a major role between democratic and authoritarian systems now compared to to the past three decades.The United States, which is known as the leader of the free world, is questioned nowadays in its polices and ideological directions. It is irrational to have an American President, who is expected to protect the democratic values, to be himself praising dictators from all over the world. Consequently, that raises the following questions “To what extent an executive leader can go in order to achieve the national interest?” Is it more important for a politician to hold onto diplomatic ties that goes against the values of his/her country or to get rid of them for the sake of such values?

References

Byman, Daniel and Pollack, Kenneth. “Beyond Great Forces: How Individuals Still Shape History”. Foreign Affairs, November/December, 2019. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-10-15/beyond-great-forces?fbclid=IwAR1QVI78_yb23LMVE7xxlEZApFoOPL8IMPBaYvhazgKllvg6x7DG0Mfv1Ms.

Edel, Charles. “Democracy Is Fighting For Its Life”. Foreign Policy, September 10, 2019. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/10/democracy-is-fighting-for-its-life/?fbclid=IwAR1_-H4yrkg8N3Sbfs6raL-ZdH_GFx1JTfC7te6gnKWNS162jgRgOa8IUZk. ➢ Adler, David. “ Centrists Are the Most Hostile to Democracy, Not Extremists". The New York Times, May 23, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html

Leatherby, Lauren and Rojanasakul, Mira. ‘’Elected Leaders Are Making The World Less Democratic’’. Bloomberg, July 23, 2018. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-democracy-decline/?fbclid=IwAR1QPrqt-tCENtZEr-4O7Y4Q0R4WcBxlmvxGUBd0FDip-c8H9hZq9SOp8mg.

Marshall, Will. ‘‘How Democrats Can Replace Trump’s Failing Foreign Policy’’. The Daily Beast, February 11, 2019. https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-democrats-can-replace-trumps-failing-foreign-policy?ref=scroll.

Diamond, Larry. “America’s Silence Helps Autocrats”. Foreign Policy, September 6, 2019. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/06/americas-silence-helps-autocrats-triumph-democratic-rollback-recession-larry-diamond-ill-winds/

Lavine, Howard and Ron, James. “To Protect Human Rights Abroad, Preach to Trump Voters”. Foreign Policy, August 21, 2019. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/21/to-protect-human-rights-abroad-preach-to-trump-voters-dictators-authoritarianism-ethnocentrism

Free Thoughts Podcast, ‘‘America’s Authoritarian Alliances,’’ Oct 23, 2015, https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/americas-authoritarian-alliances.

Collinson, Stephen. ‘‘The World Is Learning The Price Of Friendship With Donald Trump’’. CNN, October 2, 2019. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/02/world/meanwhile-oct-2-intl/index.html.

Bergen, Peter. ‘‘A year later, what Khashoggi's murder says about Trump's close ally’’. CNN, September 30, 2019.https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/opinions/khashoggi-murder-a-year-later-mbs-bergen/index.html.

1 note · View note