Inclusion trumps isolation in the war on terror.

The events in Paris have simultaneously brought out moments of the best and worst of humanity in the news. The demonstrations of solidarity throughout the world are incredible and should be supported. Never before has the overuse of red, white and blue neon lighting been so welcomed across the world.

Meanwhile, however, there is a growing feeling of isolationism and hatred which has started to take grip. It is no longer a surprise that Republican Presidential nominees have to take an anti-immigration stance if they want to appeal to the vocal right, what has been something of a surprise is just how vile some of the recent comments have been. When Donald Trump suggests that Muslims should have to sign a register or Ben Carson likens them to rabid dogs and they can still stand a chance at winning the nomination then there is something very wrong with the system.

As easy as it is to ridicule the Republicans and their increasingly isolationist ideas it isn’t just the American system of government which is taking an anti-refugee, anti-immigration stance. Across the world the fear of refugees has been growing and the attacks in France have just helped elevate the rhetoric of the right wing to new heights.

It is easy to explain that we should be helping people who need it. It is pretty obvious to most people that the majority for those who are fleeing for their lives are not planning terrorist attacks. The amount of news coverage has made it clear to the majority of semi educated individuals with an average GCSE reading age that the potential proportion of refugees who may harbour jihadist sympathies is such as small fraction as to be mathematically insignificant. Of course the risk of one individual with a bomb must be taken seriously and sensible measures taken to prevent them. Denying millions of the chance of a safe life away from the bloodshed is not the way.

New housing policies in the UK for example, ensuring that landlords have to get specific documentation and id from potential tenants, will not prevent people running to Britain. It may delay them from finding shelter, however, after living rough for months and spending all of their money getting there is unlikely to deter them for long. What it will do though is start to create isolated communities, communities which are willing to only accept people of the same religion, ethnicity, culture. Instead of protecting the country it allows for a sense of isolation to spread and from there the increased risk of radicalisation.

There are many other policies being suggested across Europe and the West and almost all of them will lead to an increase in the threat of radicalisation. Terrorism fails to flourish when people are educated about multiculturalism. It relies on a feeling of persecution and hatred, it is almost impossible for it to spread in an atmosphere of inclusion and understanding.

If governments are serious about stopping the spread of terrorism then they need to dramatically alter their current mindsets. Of course threats need to be identified and stopped but creating a persecution complex is not the way to do it. Only be promoting genuine understanding and tolerance can terrorism truly be defeated. Although isolating some of the Republican Presidential candidates may not be an entirely bad idea.

The madness of nuclear non proliferation

ISRAELI Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to US congress this week and American President Barack Obama's announcement of a landmark deal with Iran have reawakened old animosities, and questions.

The issue here isn't whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons, we know they don't and we know that no matter what the rhetoric spouted is they are unlikely to do so in the near future. The issue is the hypocrisy within the international system regarding the acquisition and maintenance of nuclear weapons in general.

The five permanent members of the Security Council America, Russia, France Britain and China are all signatories to the treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as is Iran for that matter. Israel, which has an outstanding if not just a little bit redundant policy of "deliberate ambiguity", is not. Neither are Pakistan and India, two other nuclear states, or North Korea which withdrew from the treaty, essentially showing how pointless the whole thing is.

The five original nuclear powers have long maintained an argument that they should be the only ones entrusted to possessing nuclear weapons as they are the only ones which can be trusted to maintain peace in the international system. The fact that the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in an aggressive act seems lost on the current policy makers.

Iran voluntarily signed up to the NPT without any actual need to do so, and has remained with it despite an inability among other signatories to do so. Meanwhile Iran's greatest opponent, Israel, is known to have nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the NPT, they also refuse to allow independent inspection of non military nuclear facilities however that is an entirely different issue. Unlike the renowned realist academic Kenneth Waltz I do not believe that Iran getting a nuclear weapon would increase the stability of the Middle East, an argument being that it will create an element of mutually assured destruction, MAD, the same principle argued between Russia and the West during the Cold War. The fact is though that if stability is to be maintained within the international system there must be an equality of action and reaction between states, e.g. Israel cannot complain about one party developing nuclear weapons outside of international oversight when they are doing the exact same thing. 

In the cases of Iran et al there is an additional issue of 'dual use' technology, the ability for a crossover of non-military nuclear applications, such as power generation. Germany, Japan and South Korea all have the capability from their nuclear energy industry to start a nuclear weapons program, they are known as 'recessed nuclear weapons states'. If we are to argue that Iran should not be allowed any nuclear capacity then does this mean that we are going to force these countries to dismantle their power stations? 

A nuclear free world is a lovely idea but it won't happen. The genie is well and truly out of that bottle and no amount of good intention will shove it back in. The only alternative is to find a common ground. Global governance of the nuclear sector is a possible course, however, so long as countries such as Israel continue to develop nuclear weapons as refuse to acknowledge it this will not happen. At the end of the day only one thing can be done, treat each state equally, allow for trust within the system and pray that each state understands the consequences of its actions. Mutually assured destruction may be MAD but it is the only way to peace we have.    

The West must shoulder blame for Ukraine

IF the current crisis in Ukraine demonstrates anything it is that the Cold War far from thawing has entered a new phase.

Rather like some prehistoric monster from a bad B movie it appears that the Cold War has been in a state of deep freeze just waiting for the right climate to appear for it to make its grand resurgence.

Ukraine has provided just such a catalyst. The old rivalries between two dominant forces are reawakened. There is a misconception however that the growls from the aged Soviet bear are the cause of all today's ills. In international politics it still takes two to tango and the West must foot its fair share of the blame.

As the doyen of international relations John Mearsheimer stated: "The   United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West." (Mearsheimer, 2014)

The United States logically wants to maintain its position as the only hegemon in the global debate, China may be approaching this state but has not yet achieved the same level of cultural or political dominance. 

For Vladimir Putin this poses a direct threat to the sovereign interests of Russia. A Ukraine without Russian ties would pose a problem for him, by, as Mearsheimer points out, giving the West a strong staging point right on his border. 

Imagine for a second that Scotland had voted for independence and England refused to allow it. Would the West defend China if they interceded on Scotland's behalf? It may sound particularly far fetched yet in rational terms the situation is not that much different than the one currently facing Ukraine and its surrounding areas.

Of course with Ukraine however there are far deeper veins to plum for information on the cause and effect of the situation. In historical terms it would be more akin to France throwing its support behind an independent Scotland against the English.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Russia is arming rebels, a useful but not entirely fair term. So long as it doesn't become explicit however it must be seen as part of the great game. Suggestions that the West could overtly arm Ukrainian forces is a dangerous idea. While support is restrained to words and sanctions, with armed support kept to the shadows, there is a possibility for both sides to walk this back. 

If either side admits openly to supplying military assistance though it will force the situation into a whole new phase. The crisis in Ukraine may be devastating but an escalation would be catastrophic and the West would well and truly have the blood on its hands.

Threat to US and Britain on doorstep following Iraq escalation

WITH America and Britain unwilling to become involved in the escalating conflict in Iraq fears have arisen of home-grown terrorists joining the fighting in the Middle East.

Concerns have started to grow that British and American nationals have been recruited by fundamentalist groups to fight in Iraq and Syria.

The American Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently investigating allegations that approximately 15 men travelled to Syria to join up with groups against the hardline forces of President Bashar A-Assad. On Thursday a spokesman from  the FBI’s Minneapolis office, Kyle Loven, was reported as saying that the bureau had received information indicating that 10 to 15 men from the region's large Somali community had travelled from the Minneapolis-St Paul area to Syria.

While it has been known for some time that both British and American nationals have been joining with terrorist groups in the Middle East fears that some may have linked up with the ultra-radical group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have added a new dimension to the nature of international interference in the region.

According to a statement from the office of British Prime Minister the insurgency in Iraq is part of an “arc of extremism” which is starting to engulf the Middle East. The British Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6, suspects that approximately 500 British citizens have travelled to Syria to take part in the campaign, and may now have joined up with ISIS in Iraq.

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman was reported as saying: “Our Security Services and all the relevant agencies will be monitoring those types of risks very closely. Clearly there is a very porous border between parts of Syria and parts of Iraq.

“As the PM has said, the greatest extremist activity and jihadist threats to the international community are in Syria. We need to keep these things under very close watch.”

While America and Britain have claimed that they have no intention of re-engaging in Iraq to combat the growing insurgent threat both countries may find that the conflict is brought to their doors.

Turkey may force action in Iraq

AS ISLAMIST insurgents gain ground in Iraq America may find its hand forced if Turkey takes action.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has taken control of Iraq's second largest city Mosul and the home city of former dictator Saddam Hussein, Tikrit. The group, led by former Al Qaeda hardliner Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi, has also announced intentions to push on to Baghdad and beyond.

During the taking of Mosul insurgents kidnapped 49 members of the Turkish consulate, including three children. The attack follows the taking of 31 Turkish lorry drivers on Tuesday in the region.

 Turkish officials have threatened severe consequences if any of the hostages are harmed. 

"All those involved should know that if our citizens are harmed in any way, they will be the subject of harsh reprisals," Turkish media quoted Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu as saying at the United Nations in New York.

As a member of the United Nations Security Council Turkey's actions may have wider implications for the growing conflict.

In a statement UN officials said that they "strongly denounced the taking of hostages at the Turkish Consulate and insist on the immediate and safe return of all personnel.  They condemned acts of violence against diplomatic and consular representatives, which endanger or take innocent lives and seriously impede the normal work of such representatives and officials."

Meanwhile United States Ambassador to the UN Samantha Powers said that she "strongly condemned attacks in Mosul by the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant and its efforts to turn back clock on Iraq's progress."

Turkish influence may put pressure on American President Barack Obama to take a firm stance against the terrorist campaign being waged in Iraq. 

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has informally called on the United States to provide air and drone support as ground forces attempt to repel the rebels. Battle weary America has not made any signs it will seek to become engaged in another conflict in the country, from which it withdrew troops in December 2011, preferring to provide aid to Iraqi forces to maintain its own security. 

Some American officials have already expressed concerns about becoming too involved. Instead they blame Prime Minister Maliki failure to include the Sunni population in politics for the current crisis. 

"He's obviously not been a good prime minister," the Associated Press reported Senator Bob Corker, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as saying. "He has not done a good job of reaching out to the Sunni population, which has caused them to be more receptive to al-Qaida efforts."

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been hesitant to become embroiled in the situation, releasing a statement in which FCO Minister Hugh Robertson said: "We fully support the Iraqi government in its fight against terrorism, and call for the safety of all civilians to be ensured. It is vital that all Iraqi authorities co-operate to tackle the challenges Iraq faces, and we call for a new Iraqi government to be formed quickly to allow political leaders to work together to tackle the causes of insecurity in Iraq."

With the situation looking only to escalate and Turkish involvement plausible Britain and America may find that they are forced to do more than condemn and instead take action.

Wikileaks threatens to put information ahead of lives

DESPITE warnings that it may put lives at risk the website Wikileaks has confirmed that it intends to go ahead with the release of further details of American spying.

Following reports that the United States National Security Agency has been recording and archiving the majority of every mobile phone call made in the Bahamas the website has said that it will reveal details of a second country which is facing the same level of surveillance.

News agencies had already said they would not release the name of the second country fearing that to do so would lead to potential increases in violence which could lead to loss of life.   

Wikileaks has never shied from publishing controversial or potentially harmful information, arguing that it is doing so to ensure freedom of information. In the past, releases about military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been held accountable for increases in hostilities, allegedly leading to a rise in the number of deaths.

If Wikileaks follows through on its threat then it could mean that it has access to documents taken by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who led journalists originally to the news that the US was conducting a massive surveillance operation against a number of countries, including allies Britain and Germany.

According to news website ‘The Intercept’, which was set up in February by a group of journalists including Glenn Greenwald, the release of the information had previously been halted due to “credible concerns that doing so could lead to an increase in violence.”

Wikileaks announcement has led to a discussion on social media site Twitter between the group and Greenwald, who was one of the first to break the news of Snowden’s files. Greenwald highlighted that the website has withheld information in the past when it considered that there may be a risk to life: @ggreenwald “@wikileaks also withheld info when they were convinced it could harm innocents - we were very convinced this 1 (one) would"

The story has also highlighted the potential harm which can be caused by some ‘netizens’ who claim that the internet should be completely open with free speech to all. Unlike professional news organisations they can publish stories without thought to the context, or the potential ramifications which the information could lead to.

Several Non-Governmental Organisations, including Reporters Without Borders, have previously raised concerns that information released by Wikileaks could prove dangerous. In response to allegations by the site that it was taking part in censorship Reporters Without Borders published the following comment: Should we be blamed for pointing out that the information provided by Wikileaks could be used by the Taliban and could serve as grounds for reprisals? Is it contrary to a humanitarian organisation’s vocation to draw attention to the possible impact on human lives of high-risk information? Is it wrong to point out that Wikileaks’ recent actions could backfire not only on itself but also on the independent researchers and journalists who cover these subjects online?

This latest release could prove once again that Wikileak’s self defined agenda to provide completely free access to information fails to take into account the human cost which such action can lead to.

The rise of the right

AS EUROPE gears up for the May 22^nd European Elections the rise of right wing politics has become increasingly noticeable. This is not isolated to the European Union though.

In America the Tea Party Movement has made inroads into mainstream politics. The United Australia Party may not be seeing the gains of some right wing parties, however, it is starting to have an impact on the political establishment. Despite, or possibly because of, being led by a comedian Beppo Grillo’s Five Star Movement in Italy has surged forward, challenging the old guard of the Democratic Party and Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia. Nowhere seems immune from the politics of fear these groups play upon.

It was only a few short years ago that groups such as the American Tea Party Movement, a group which United Kingdom Independence Leader, Nigel Farage, has revelled in being compared to, were seen as fringe and dismissible. In the current political environment they are starting to pose a problem for the main political parties.

In America and Britain it seems unlikely that the establishment could be overturned by these groups. In 2015 UKIP may gain a couple of seats, this would be a far cry from the number they would need to put them in a position of serious power though. The threat they pose is by splitting the vote of the more moderate parties and diverting the debate away from areas where it needs to be focused.

For countries such as Italy and Germany, where coalition governments are more frequent than in the US and Britain, these parties can have a genuine influence on the way the country is run. For groups such as Tea Party or UKIP, however, they are fighting against an entrenched establishment where it is a near certainty that one of two parties will be in power.

This has not stopped them from shouting their causes from the rooftops, however. It is perhaps even more of incentive to create ever more outrageous and right wing agendas for these groups than ones which know they may have a chance of power, and therefore would have to meet their manifesto pledges.

UKIP has claimed that they will fight back against unlimited immigration from the European Union, while failing to address how they will do this, or exactly how far reaching the levels of immigration will be. In its EU election manifesto for example UKIP claims that the Office of National Statistics estimates from 2010 that the UK population will rise by 3 million by 2020 through immigration. The ONS actually forecasts a growth of 4.9million, of which 56 per cent would be from ‘natural increase’.

Additional figures provided by UKIP also fail to take into account the rate of emigration from Britain by naturalised citizens. The same story is repeated in America with the Tea Party Movement. Statistics are taken out of context, or fabricated. Both groups use volume and self proclaimed righteous anger ahead of genuine debate and solution.

In part this rise of the right wing has come about from the groups themselves. An increase in communications technology has made it easier for them to reach the electorate, and by repeating the same phrases enough they have instilled them into the minds of people as fact.

An increasing level of fear and disillusionment in the system has given them the crack to force themselves into. Membership of the more mainstream political parties has diminished over the years, with approximately only 1 per cent of the UK belonging to a party,  as people lose faith in the process. Fear of terrorism and crime is also on the increase, which gives certain right wing elements the fuel they need to feed the fire of xenophobic attitudes.

On May 22^nd the British electorate, and others across Europe, will have their say for who represents them in the European Union. For right wing groups the world over it will be seen as a test of whether volume and propaganda has swayed the people over debate and solutions.

The fall of a superpower

Has America’s role as the global moderator of all that is right been compromised beyond repair? That is the question which must surely be asked in the wake of recent events involving the world’s foremost superpower.

Rather than demonstrating its power America’s announcement on Tuesday that it would send a team to help find more than 200 missing Nigerian schoolgirls proved that it no longer has the teeth to act when needed.

The world has known since April 14th that the terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapped the girls from their school. The group, whose name translates loosely as “Western education is a sin”, was known to have been trading the girls into marriage and shipping them across the border. Yet the world, and in particular America, sat back and did nothing.

Nigeria’s own government, ostensibly fearful of reprisal from this increasingly powerful group, did little to take action, preferring to hope that the loss of so many young women would go unnoticed. They are fighting a rear guard action against extremism though. They are under constant fear of what the next atrocity will be. If allowing more than 200 young girls to be taken could be seen as a price to keep things from escalating then apparently it was a price they were willing to pay.

The West, however, is under no such constraints. America has time and again pledged its strength to root out extremism and fight for a moral cause. Why is it therefore that it did nothing until its hand was forced by a statement released by the group?

The same story has been repeated time and again. With Syria President Obama clearly stated that chemical weapons were a red line which could not be crossed. To do so would bring the wrath of the world down upon the Syrian government like so much biblical thunder. Chemical weapons have been used though and America and the West have done nothing. Refugees flood across the borders and many more are trapped inside besieged cities, waiting for the next dose of chemicals to fall upon them, and the West does nothing.

In Ukraine America made it clear that they would support the newly formed government and would take strong action if Russia was seen to be instigating aggression. Pro-separatist groups roam the streets, many equipped with Russian weaponry. Reports come in on a near daily basis of supposed Russian interference in the region. Crimea fell with Russian support and its people left Ukraine. Yet the West does nothing more than threaten sanctions which have already been demonstrated beyond a doubt not to work.

America, Britain, France, Germany et al cannot wage war on every country which they deem to have gone against their moral principles. The West cannot be the world’s police force. Imposing a different culture and identity on a people through force has already been proven to fail in Afghanistan and Iraq. To keep pretending, however, that the world has not changed, that the threat of force without the will to back it up and that the ability to do so even exists undermines any hope that a more rational approach to tackling increasing global unrest can ever be found.

All the same on the Western front

Well that’s it, all that money, all that time, all those speeches, adverts and debates and what has changed? Pretty much nothing actually. President Barack Obama is safely in the White House, Governor Mitt Romney is stumbling over his words and Donald Trump is making a ranting fool of himself on twitter, all in all pretty much business as usual it would seem in American politics, from my cynical Brit viewpoint anyway.

I like to try and stay objective when it comes to commenting on breaking events, particularly elections. Once they have been decided though it is a different story. Whether liked or not it cannot be argued that whoever is sitting in the Oval Office has a massive influence over the rest of the world. It is for this reason that I for one was relieved that President Obama won a second term. The thought of Mitt Romney being President has actually left me with sleepless nights. I’ll be fair though I am sure that Governor Romney honestly had the best interests, as he could see them, of the country at heart. Then again I also have to wonder if his comment to “earnestly pray for him [President Obama] and for this great nation," was meant in good faith or just as a sly dig, back to that cynical British attitude again.

If anything has convinced me, however, that it is a far better thing to have a Democrat in charge of one of the most powerful countries in the world than a Republican it has to be Donald Trump’s spectacular political analysis on Twitter.

Tweeting: “We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!” was perhaps not the most balanced response of the evening, and possibly treasonous, but it was by no means Trump’s only one: “This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!” Demonstrating perhaps a slight misunderstanding of what the purpose of the whole election thing was all about and how democracy works.

What was perhaps most surprising about the election though was how unsurprising it really was. During the run up to voting day we have seen pundits predicting that first one side then the other would win a close race. We heard how Hurricane Sandy would influence the vote and how Governor Romney’s showing in the first presidential debate would change the outcome in his favour. At the end of the day, however, what appeared to be demonstrated by several polls was that a large proportion of people had already made their minds up about who they were going to vote for back in September.

The biggest question now is whether or not having secured a second term in a decisive victory President Obama will now be able to work with the Republicans in government to ensure that he can implement some of his proposals.

While President Obama may have pledged that “the best is yet to come” he will have a tough job on his hands to prove this. Donald Trump may not be entirely representative of the Republican Party but there will be those who follow his call not to give “anything to Obama unless he terminates Obamacare.” Essentially he is calling on people in power to block proposals and plans to help the country and rectify its ongoing economic strife is President Obama does not reverse legislation which ensures that everyone has access to medical treatments and people wonder why I despair with hardline Republicans.

The final word on the subject for now should, justly, come from President Obama himself. Delivering his victory speech he addressed not only those who voted for him but also those who oppose his views. He demonstrated once more why he is a global leader and provided at least some hope that he understands the differences in America and wants to find a means by which to heal the divide which the bitter battle this election has been has caused:

 "Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times or we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy. That won't change after tonight. And it shouldn't.

"Despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America's future. ... We want our children to live in America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet."

"Forward, that's where we need to go. Now, we will disagree, sometimes fiercely about how to get there. As it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts, it's not always a straight line, it's not always a smooth path... That common bond is where we must begin."

A passion for politics?

If ever there was an ideal demonstration of the amount of influence the United States of America has over the rest of the world it is undoubtedly the impact which the run up to its election has. The fact that there are more elections going on than just the Presidential one, more candidates that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, seems to have been missed out of the global enthusiasm.

When America does something it tends to be on a huge scale. Everything is a show, everything is turned into a show. When they are electing their President why would anyone assume that it would be any different?

With the two key candidates racking up something in the region of £2billion dollars, or as Mitt Romney may describe it “pocket money”, it is understandable that they would generate a reasonable amount of interest.

As a Brit the way American elections play out is something which at once amazes me and then amuses me, it is just so different from our own relatively grey and dull affairs. The concept of attack ads for instance is just something which wouldn’t really work in the United Kingdom. It may be that we are just so cynical that we always look at the worst of our politicians but they just wouldn’t have the same impact in this country.

Whereas in America politicians are seen as larger than life symbols of a nation in this country they are seen as somewhat grey and uninspiring for the most part. When American politicians take to the airwaves they are filled with passion. They spout memorable and carefully crafted quotes; they espouse rhetoric worthy of a blockbuster script. When politicians in the UK try something similar it is “I’m a Celebrity...get me out of here” and they get suspended from the party. It just isn’t the same really.

From our perspective across the pond it does seem that Americans vote with a passion which we Brits just cannot seem to muster. If our politicians spent $2 billion on campaigning they would be roundly demonised. Once there may have been a loyalty to the party, a passion for politics, a sense of duty in Britain, once people felt that voting was important. Nowadays, however, it seems at times as though no-one cares anymore, and that includes the politicians we vote for.

In America it can seem to us poor out of touch Brits that any form of election is an opportunity for a pageant. In Britain we are rapidly approaching electing Police and Crime Commissioners and no-one seems to know who the candidates are, let alone what a Police and Crime Commissioner actually does.  There just doesn’t seem to be the passion for politics in Britain that there is in America, perhaps that is why we follow our cousins in America so closely, they get to have the excitement we miss out on and then some.