Political Change in Europe

Today I'll be looking at the current wave of electoral results sweeping Europe.

So, in a quick summary,  the Greek public chose to vote for anti-bailout parties, expressing their disapproval at austerity measures they see as mainly-German interference.

In Italy, the flamboyant playboy and multi-billionaire, Silvio Berlusconi, resigned and technocrat Mario Monti (full points for having a name that drives the Nintendo world insane) was appointed in his place. Mr. Berlusconi is quite detested by the majority of the Italian public, though whether it is because of his alleged sexual romps with underage women, or his lack of qualms in displaying his wealth, it is hard to tell.

In France, Socialist Francois Hollande won the French Presidency, a role normally considered as one of the most powerful political positions in Europe. And in Spain, Conservatives defeated the ruling Socialists to take charge of a stagnated economy.

Let's talk about the current state of the European Union, before we look at what the changes mean.

In two words, Europe is angry, and its economy? Woeful. In the last quarter of 2011, the Eurozone shrank by 0.3%, and recorded zero growth for the first three months of the year. In this quarter, only the Germans managed to record growth, with all other European economies shrinking, the Greeks by almost 7%! Economists blame this on low consumption and low investment, a result of the deficit reduction policies favoured by the partnership of Chancellor Merkel and former French President Sarkozy (affectionately dubbed 'Merkozy' by Time Magazine).With the election of Mr. Hollande, growth measures look to be the new mode of combating the crisis.

Can Mr. Hollande reverse the slump that France, and Europe, finds itself in? His policies may not prove to be enough, particularly with his proposed 75% tax on millionaire earners; what incentive is there to earn? He has vowed to create jobs, but at what cost? Chancellor Merkel's Germany is fairing far better than the rest of the Eurozone, on the backs of a industrial revival, but can she help the rest of Europe do the same?


In another interesting development, Mr. Hollande arrived in Germany today, and whilst the liberal German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung acknowledged Mr. Hollande’s promise to challenge Ms. Merkel’s austerity course, to renegotiate the fiscal pact and his plan to show Europe a new way  as a “disguised declaration of war” to the German Chancellor — but predicted that Paris will eventually give in to reality. On the other hand, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, warned that Germany and France will have to find a compromise  “because they know a tug of war between Berlin and Paris would bring the euro zone to the brink.”


In Greece, there's talk of splitting from the European Union, and the euro itself. Now, when the EU was formed, this was mooted (by critics) as the way in which the EU would crumble; an international financial crisis would have different effects on different countries, and so the less-effected countries would bail out the more-affected countries, creating anger on both sides, leading to a collapse, a scenario that is eerily similar to the one the EU faces today. The Greek public have voted to reject austerity measures that would come with any EU bailout, and indeed, particularly the British and German public have expressed discontent at having to clean up a mess that they see as somebody else's.


The European Union is at heart, very different from other groups of states. Take the United States, for example. They have a (relatively more) common history, and a degree of unity forged against the British. The EU, on the other hand, has a history of erupting into war, and mutual antipathy.


Does this herald the beginning of the end for the EU? Let's wait and watch.

In my next post, I'll be looking at Al-Qaeda's involvement in the current Syrian crisis.

"France will soon realize that the European fiscal pact isn’t a demonic instrument of torture but a affirmation of the original stability pact."

-Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper

Rising from the ashes

Sorry everyone, I've been really busy lately with exams, so it's a bit of a relief to sit here and do what I enjoy doing most; figure out what the world's up to.

In the post, I'm going to be looking at the recent killing of a senior Afghan peace negotiator in Kabul, and in the next couple of posts, I'll see what the recent elections in Europe signal for the European Union, and what this means for the rest of the world.

Today in Kabul, Arsala Rahmani, a former Taliban minister, was shot dead. The killing appeared to be a professional matter, with the killer using a silenced gun to deliver a single bullet to Mr. Rahmani's heart. His nephew, who was driving his car, did not realise that he was dead for sometime, apparently.

Now this is rather shocking news, particularly since Mr. Rahmani was a key member of Afghanistan's High Peace Council, which leads Afghan efforts to negotiate a peace deal with the Taliban. The Council's late Chief was killed in a suicide bombing last September. This is a worrying development, as Afghan officials say that not very many other Taliban commanders have expressed interest in joining, and after the latest attack, officials say numbers will reduce even further. If the capital is not safe, then what is?

"Arsala Rahmani was a unique figure because of his background as a Taliban official who joined peace efforts. He was respected by the Afghan administration as well as by many militant figures", says Bilal Sarwary, BBC News.

The Afghan President, Mr. Hamid Karzai, is reported to have regularly consulted Mr. Rahmani on matters pertaining to the Taliban command structure and peace negotiations.

In the light of this killing, however, one begins to look critically at the Peace Council itself. It must be noted that while it has 'converted' a number of low-level, field commanders, it has not been able to make inroads into the higher echelons of the Taliban command structure.

Regardless, Mr. Rahmani's death is a further blow to the peace negotiations, which were suspended in March by the militants. The Taliban has denied responsibility for the killing, which introduces the possibility of another group interested in further violence, being responsible.

"Observers say he will be extremely difficult to replace as there is nobody of his calibre and experience willing or able to get involved."

-BBC Kabul on the death of Mr. Rahmani

Putin; President again?

After keeping Vladimir Putin’s presidential seat warm for the last four years, current Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is set to give it up after a resounding (-ly fraudulent) victory in Russian exit polls held recently. Russian law prevents a President from serving more than two consecutive terms in office, which explains the need for the game of political musical chairs.

Mr. Putin claims that he has won an “open and honest battle”. His campaign chief, Stanislav Govorukhin, described the poll as "the cleanest in Russian history".

Since Russian presidents are elected for six-year terms, theoretically, Mr. Putin could maintain his grip on power till 2018! Since Russian law only has a limit on consecutive terms, Mr. Putin could run again then and should he win, keep the presidency till 2024, after which he will have to (nominally) step down as President, though no one doubts that he will continue to play puppet-master, much as he has done for the last four years.

Now, what does this mean for Russian politics? Clearly it indicates that Mr. Putin will maintain his stranglehold on power for quite some time. Whilst the election results bought out the usual (but indeed disturbing) corruption allegations by opposition parties and anti-government blogger Alexey Navalny, an certain source of complaint highlighted an interesting segment of the population that has grown disenchanted with Mr. Putin; the Communist Party.  Mr. Zyuganov - the leader of the Communist Party who has previously been relatively loyal to Mr. Putin - described the elections as "unfair and unworthy". He went further to say that Mr. Putin "would not be able to rule like he used to".

This sea change in Communist Party policy indicates a troubling lack of support for Putin amongst not only the embittered middle class and intellectuals, but also the proletariat of the Communist Party. The Party has been very content to play the benign opposition, always toeing Mr. Putin’s line, but clearly these biased elections have struck a nerve in Mr. Zyuganov and his ilk.

Opposition parties have planned mass protests in the weeks ahead, and a few candidates have plans to complain to the Electoral Commission, but let’s see how this turns out. If Mr. Putin is able to ensure a smooth transition of power, it’s far more likely that he will be able to serve the rest of his term easily.

In my next couple of posts, I’ll be looking at how foreign policy issues will affect the U.S. Presidential Election, what China’s new growth target means for the world and most importantly, keeping you updated on what’s happening in this world- and why.

Syrian Update; is intervention around the corner?

A brief update on the Syrian situation; the embattled district of Baba Amr in the city of Homs has been recaptured by Syrian government forces, who have been “entering homes and setting them on fire”, according to activist Bassel Fouad. Trucks of dead bodies have been seen leaving the city, with Sunday Times photographer Paul Conroy saying that this “was systematic slaughter”. A Red Cross convoy was also denied access.

Males over 11 have been rounded up in waves of mass arrest and many analysts have begun drawing comparisons to Rwanda and Srebrenica. The UN also came down heavily on the Syrian government. This blogger is certainly hoping for a swift resolution to this crisis, whether in the form of free and fair elections (when pigs fly) or UN/AU intervention (increasingly likely).

The common refrain heard around the globe these days; why isn’t anyone doing anything? Arguably, the situation in Syria is far worse than it was in Libya, and thus arguably, it should be easier to drum up support for an international intervention. Unfortunately, the Syrian freedom movement is fragmented and weak, a clear difference from the Libyan National Transitional Council. The harsh reality of things is that if the outside world wants to intervene, they will need to assist with formation of a provisional government and transition of power; and for that, coalition forces will be needed, creating a situation potentially magnitudes worse than the one faced in resolving Iraq. An air and sea campaign without ‘boots on the ground’ does not appear to be a tenable strategy as of yet; and that remains the threshold of involvement that most countries are willing to stomach.

Another interesting factor that may play a role is China’s changing political climate (and leadership). China’s continued policy has been to block assertive resolutions in the Security Council; a change of which may allow UN Security Council action. It remains to be seen how much China’s policies will change with the ushering of the new guard of the Communist Party in an almost instantaneous 60% change of the 350-member Central Committee of the Party. More on that in my next post, but for now, back to Syria.

What’s being heard increasingly in Syria is that “people don't care about pro-Assad, anti-Assad; they just want to eat.” An incredible 60% of Syrians are under 25 years old. As the BBC puts it; “they want a better life, of the kind that they see on Facebook and on cable TV.”

Syria’s porous borders with Iraq certainly are worrying, with many believing that militants from Iraq might make home in the embattled Syrian state, though both the government and the rebels have proved to be disapproving of terrorists, though some would argue that the government itself has qualified as a terrorist organization.

    “Continued division emboldens the Syrian authorities in their violent path. The disproportionate use of force by Syrian authorities has driven what had been largely peaceful opposition forces to resort to take up arms in some cases.”

-Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in an address to the UN General Assembly

President al-Assad a comedian? Who knew?

Let’s talk Syria. It’s been in the news regularly, but what has summoned it to the forefront of the international consciousness once again?

Amidst almost unprecedented violence, Syria went into ‘voting’ on a referendum on a new constitution. This is a potentially very nasty piece of legislature that could ensure President Bashir al-Assad clinging onto power till at least 2028- a very long time indeed.

    “From Monday no one will be tortured in Syria. The state will guarantee personal freedom for its citizens and preserve their dignity and security. People's homes will be inviolable. Everyone will have the right to express opinions freely and openly, and the state will guarantee the freedom and independence of the press.”

-President al-Assad on reforms

This blogger is currently debating whether the Syrian President should try for a career in stand-up comedy; his statement certainly proving amusing, particularly as his tanks and soldiers continuing to wage war with “explosions and shooting reported from the east, west, north and south”. #TNREgirl seems to think that it sounds like far too many places; I’m actually tempted to agree.

The Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu brought up a very interesting point when he expressed doubt about the timing of the vote; “On one hand you say you are holding a referendum and on the other you are attacking with tank fire on civilian areas. You still think the people will go to a referendum the next day in the same city?”

Washington has gone on record to slam it as “laughable”, but the news of continued shelling in Homs is anything but. Conservative international estimates put the number of deaths at around 31, whilst Syrian activists say the toll is as high as 89. Regardless of the number, every life lost in Syria’s inexorable march to democracy is one too many.

The American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has said that concerted efforts are being made to “peel away support from President al-Assad”, and maintained that this was an illegitimate regime that is “going to fall”.

Many analysts, yours truly included, see the inability of the international community (read NATO et al.) to intervene in Syria (like Libya) as a reflection of the lack of a concerted ‘rebel alliance’ (Star Wars pun intended), or alternative government that could step into the certain power vacuum that would result from the removal of President al-Assad and his regime.

As Clinton put it, the current Syrian National Council simply is not the “united opposition” that could be found in Libya.

Rebels from the ‘Free Syrian Army’ are holding out in Baba Amr, yet another group that seeks to oust the embattled President.

The pressing question nobody seems to be able to answer remains; will these groups push their egos aside long enough to oust the President?

    “There's every possibility Syria could descend into civil war.”

- United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

Somalia- hindered by it's own government? Part 2

Back to Somalia. In this post, I’ll be looking at an EU initiative to train the Somali army, along with political factions inside Somalia.

Towards the end of 2010, the EU announced a new training program for Somali troops. It was well-documented in the international media, and was touted as one of the rays of hope for a peaceful Somalia. The recruits were portrayed as determined and motivated, and the whole thing positively reeked of a propaganda exercise. 

The best part about the training? It’s taking place in neighboring Uganda. What does that mean? In Iraq and Afghanistan, the coalition forces trained local government forces in the country, with exercises all over the two countries. The current Transitional Federal Government doesn’t control much, if any, of the country, and it certainly doesn’t have the space or the security to allow the new recruits or their EU instructors to work in relative peace. 

That brings us to the next topic for this post; how effective is the current government? The BBC recently estimated that there were about twenty governments in Somalia that could be considered semi-legitimate. What?! That sounds about nineteen too many! #TNREgirl is (perhaps naturally) quite confused. How can one country have that many governments? Well the answer to that is rather a complex one, but the gist of it is that a large number of states in the breakaway north have declared themselves independent.  (This is largely a result of the division of Somalia into a Northern protectorate and a Southern trusteeship under the Italians) Add to that the largely militant south, and the pirate belt, and there you have it. In fact, the names of some of the pirate organisations reflect how they consider themselves; one of the largest groups is called the National Volunteer Coast Guard. Bear in mind that the primary motive remains monetary, but it's not common to hear of intense nationalism within these pirate groups. 

The current Transitional Federal Government is of course the only one of these governments recognized internationally, but one only has to look at its current make up to discern exactly what the problem is. I turn to this rather convoluted explanation of the parliament.

“Each of the four major clans holds 61 seats, while an alliance of minority clans holds 31 seats. After an alliance with the Islamic Courts Union and other Islamist groups was formed, the Islamists were awarded 200 seats. Representatives of citizens' groups and representatives of the Somali diaspora hold 75 seats. By law, at least 12% of all representatives must be women. Members of parliament are selected through traditional clan leaders or shura councils.”

This is an unwieldy, archaic system that has hindered Somalia’s transition to democracy after the fall of Barre’s dictatorship in 1991. Intra- and inter-party friction is a well-known feature of Somali politics. Parliamentary reform to an equitably representative system is of the utmost importance. Analysts doubt the efficacy of Somalia’s government to do anything of value until this reform takes place.

"If you have a political class that is consumed by its own power games, where the politicians are at each other’s throats and day by day the situation looks hopeless politically, it is dangerous"

-Rashid Abdi, International Crisis Group

Somalia- failed state, terrorist haven or beacon of hope? Part 1

Let’s talk Somalia. It’s been in the news recently, of course, with the stunning U.S. raid in which a Navy Seals team parachuted into Somalia to rescue to hostages; an American woman and a Danish man, drawing parallels to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. More on that later.

In Part 1 of my series on Somalia, we’ll be looking at general conceptions, along with the militant group, al-Shabab.

When we think Somalia today, we’re thinking refugees, war and pirates that terrorize the Gulf of Aden. Is that an entirely correct representative view? One certainly might be fooled into thinking so with the current media coverage. 

That being said, Somalia’s northern coastline is essentially entirely controlled by the pirates. The Islamist militant group, al-Shabab (a former radical youth resistance wing of the now-defunct Union of Islamic Courts), controls much of the centre and the south, along with Somalia’s second-largest city, Kismayo. It has pledged support for al-Qaeda and shelters its operatives.

However, this doesn’t reflect the wave of optimism that has recently flooded the capital, Mogadishu. Following a concerted effort by 9000 African Union troops, al-Shabab announced a ‘tactical withdrawal’ from the capital, and for the first time in months, the local beach is packed, and the basketball stadium is filled to the rafters. Aid workers estimate that over 300,000 people have returned to their lives there. A pincer movement employed by Ethiopian and Kenyan troops has also played a large part in damaging al-Shabab’s effectiveness, though bombings still continue. A UN official estimates that about nine bombings occur daily.

Observers have predicted that al-Shabab will increasingly switch to guerrilla warfare and suicide bombings over the coming months to counter the superior firepower of the AU forces. 

With the U.S. raid, we see an indication of several things. Firstly, (though yours truly did not need to be persuaded) it highlights the utter lack of proficiency of the government armed forces. Notice that whenever I or anybody else refers to victories in Somali, it’s always AU or foreign forces; never Somali. Secondly, and this is far more interesting, we see a United States under Obama, that is not afraid to use the dangerous end of an MP5 instead of the diplomatic corps. 

In the next post, we’ll look at a new EU initiative to train the Somali Army; albeit outside Somalia, and the political factions that wreak havoc on the country; and that’s just the current government.

“This is a moment of fresh opportunities”

-UN Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon in Mogadishu, somewhere in between his plane landing and the couple of hours till he left.