2013: The Year That Was

Image credits: Gene Hunt

Another year is nearly over, and whether it’s been a good one for you or not such a good one, it has been undeniably eventful. To say our final goodbyes to 2013, Online Features Editor Imogen Watson refresh your memory of some of the year’s biggest and most interesting events, month by month.

January

The New Year never sees an end to the previous year’s events, and 2013 was no different, with ongoing conflicts in Syria, and the Central African Republic continuing to rage on.

Back here in the United Kingdom, the joint report between the Metropolitan Police and the NSPCC into the Jimmy Savile affair was released, announcing the recording of some 214 criminal offences of sexual abuse on Savile’s part over 54 years and across 28 different police regions in the country. Jim Davidson, another television presenter, was also arrested under Operation Yewtree – the investigation into the scandals – although no further action has been taken against him.

Internationally, Google Maps was able to expand its map coverage of North Korea, detailing labour camps and landmarks.

February

Pope Benedict XVI.
Image credits: zoutedrop

 

Despite its reputation as being just a little bit dull, February was quite the interesting month. A meteor struck over Russia at nearly 60 times the speed of sound, exploding over Chelyabinsk nearly 14.5 miles above the ground, releasing between 20 and 30 times more kinetic energy than Hiroshima and injuring nearly 1500 people.

Four days previously, although it’s likely unconnected, Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation from his position at the head of the Roman Catholic Church – the first to do so since 1415 – citing his strengths as “no longer suited to… the Petrine ministry”. Others have suspected intra-Vatican power struggles as more likely for the shock abdication.

And how could we leave February behind without mentioning the horsemeat scandal? Maybe you have got over it now we’ve made it into December or perhaps you’re still a tad cautious, but back in February 2013 there was outrage when it turned out everyone’s beef lasagnes were actually horse…

March

Demilitarised zone between North and South Korea.
Image credits: kalleboo

 

March saw North Korea in the news again for making nuclear threats against the United States, having claimed to have tested nuclear weapons in mid-February. They withdrew from all non-aggression pacts with South Korea, stated they were closing their borders and cutting off its hotline to the Southern part of the peninsula – the last method of communication between the two countries. Later in the month, it launched a cyber-attack and then declared a state of war against South Korea, promising “stern physical actions” in response to “any provocative act”. The North Korean crisis, as termed by the media, continues…

April

It’s possible that April could not have been a busier month had it tried.

Here in Britain on 8 April it was announced that the only female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, had died at the age of 87 after a stroke. A controversial figure, Baroness Thatcher caused plenty of debates in death as in life, including the cost of her funeral (held on 17 April) and who should fund it (the coverage of which you can read here).

Baroness Thatcher’s coffin being put into the hearse.
Image credits: Joshua Irwandi

On the 15 April 2013, two bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon in Massachusetts, USA, killing three and injuring approximately 264 others. Later, a police officer was killed by gunshot wounds. A terrorist attack, the FBI began their hunt for the suspects, who were quickly identified after the release of photo and surveillance footage. In a very American style, a manhunt began for the two suspects Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, brothers of Russian nationality, who were later arrested and await trial.

In late April, an eight-storey building in Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh collapsed killing over 1100 people and injuring 2515. One woman was pulled out alive after seventeen days within the wreckage. Although cracks had been noticed the previous day, workers had been ordered to return to work despite warnings against doing so. The commercial building contained factories for clothes shops such as Primark, Walmart and JC Penney; in subsequent meetings of the twenty-nine implicated companies, less than nine have been involved.

May

On 1 October 2012, five-year-old April Jones went missing from her home in Wales, having been seen getting into a car nearby. In May 2013, Mark Bridger was convicted of both her abduction and her murder as well as perverting the course of justice – he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommendation from the judge that he never be released. Her body has never been found, although Bridger claims to have disposed of it in a nearby river; the police suspect he in fact scattered her remains across local countryside.

June

The end of June saw the Russian government adopting laws to ban any positive discussion of gay relationships, imposing 5000 ruble (£90) fines on its own citizens (and 50,000 – £900 – for any public official) and the potential arrest and deportation of foreigners caught in any way making a non-heterosexual relationship seem like normality. With the 2014 Winter Olympics to be held in Sochi, Russia, these laws prompted strong reactions from around the world with many, including Stephen Fry, calling for a boycott.

July

Kate and William.
image credits: UK_repsome

 

Whilst the UK finally experienced some sunshine after an extremely cold spring, Royal Baby fever finally descended. Bets were placed on the gender and name of the most highly anticipated baby of recent years before Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge was born to William and Kate on the 22 July 2013. The world’s media went crazy, and so did many members of the general public, snapping up Royal paraphernalia and camping outside the hospital waiting for that all-important first glimpse of the future King.

Meanwhile, July was also a big month for LGBT rights, with the British government passing a law legalising gay marriage from March 2014 and marking a significant step forward in equality laws.

August

Although the enduring conflict in Syria continued throughout the year, it was on the 21 August when the world stopped as the Syrian government was accused of using chemical weapons on its own people. Thus began an international dance around Bashar al-Assad and his denial of using them, and whether the global community ought to act in response; it has since been confirmed that traces of sarin gas have been found at the alleged attack site. United Nations inspectors were sent into the country and eventually Syria agreed to have its weapons stocks destroyed.

September

Syrian flags painted on government walls.
Image credits: Freedom House

 

After the uproar and outrage of December 2012 when a woman was brutally gang-raped and murdered on a bus in Delhi, India, the four men – Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur and Pawan Guptathe – who attacked her were sentenced to death by hanging in September of this year. India retains the death penalty for certain crimes, including a new amendment in 2013 for death or permanent vegetative state caused by rape, likely brought about by the violent protests in India after the incident occurred.

A little more than a week later, on

21 September and the International Day of Peace, masked gunmen began an attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, a raid that lasted for three days and killed a minimum of 72 people from across thirteen different countries (although a majority were Kenyan) in total, including six soldiers; the New York Police Department investigation concluded that it was likely the gunmen themselves escaped. The Islamist group al-Shabaab initially claimed responsibility as retribution for Kenyan involvement in military operations in Somalia.

October

This month we all witnessed the US political system turn into a crazy mess as the government shut down. The US Congress, responsible for raising the debt ceiling and controlled by the Republican Party, locked horns with the Democratic President Obama in the White House over the level of US debt and balancing the federal (central government’s) budget. Before the Democrats would be allowed their budget to govern for the next year, the Republicans were determined to attach amendments which would, in some way, remove funding for or dismantle entirely Obama’s healthcare reforms passed, subject to lots of debate and scrutiny, in 2012.

Capitol Hill, the home of the US Congress
Image credits: Ron Cogswell

As a result, the deadline for sorting out the argument passed and the government had no choice but to shut down certain federal services, sending home around 800,000 workers indefinitely without pay and asking a further million to work without knowing when they would be paid. The world’s biggest economy unable to pay its debts would have meant another economic disaster, but thankfully a deal was finally passed on 16 October and signed into law just after midnight the next day.

November

November brought poor luck, to put it very lightly, for the Philippines. Typhoon Haiyan struck parts of Asia but significantly the Philippines, killing over 6000 people there alone and destroying large parts of the infrastructure. Several regions were placed under a state of national calamity, the devastation was so vast. As with so many natural disasters, the initial medical requirements of broken bones soon became more chronic conditions, and international appeals were launched to help the masses of the population displaced from their homes. Approximately $374.5 million was donated in money by governments across the world, and supplies were also sent by other nations. The situation, naturally, is still ongoing and dire for many people.

The aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in Taclobane.
Image credits: UK Department for International Development

December

And now that December has come around, what can we reflect upon? As another towering political figure of the 20^th century, clearly the death of Nelson Mandela reverberated around the world; despite his old age and long-running illness, no one can quite prepare for the death of such an icon. Any long-term impacts on South Africa and the rest of the world are waiting to be seen, but it cannot be denied his lifetime has seriously changed South Africa for the better.

To finish the year off, what else is happening? Well, the UK’s storm is currently disrupting the travel as people try to get home, Russia is releasing some political prisoners and a few more governments are being accused of spying on each other. As always, it’s fun and games in our globalised world, with not a little bit of argument and tragedy.

What will 2014 be like? Time will soon tell and in the meantime, all that’s left to do is to wish you all a Happy New Year.

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor

Have we missed something? Which do you think is the biggest event of 2013? Let us know in the comments!

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

Fraying Friendships in the Middle East

Image credits: farrokhi

Following her previous article on relations with Iran, Features Columnist Thea Osborne assesses what the latest developments really mean for the Middle East region.

The recent agreement reached in Geneva between Iran and the United States is truly monumental and it is difficult to really understand the scale of the potential shift in power balance and international relations that it might cause within the Middle East region.

Obama has made a major breakthrough during his troubled second term and finally displayed a real change and awareness within the American attitude towards the region. It has been perfectly timed to fit the new opportunities available to them due to the election of the new, more moderate, Iranian president, Hasan Rouhani. The temporary agreement was reached after the second round of talks between Iran and six world powers. The key terms of the deal include Iran’s halting of enrichment above five per cent and dismantling the connections required to do so, along with daily access for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect the Iranian nuclear sites. In return world powers have promised not to impose new nuclear-related sanctions for the next six months and to suspend certain sanctions already in place on gold, precious metals, cars and petrochemical exports. The potential repercussions of the agreement are not just important for the US and Iran but for the entire region as it could cause seismic shifts in power relations.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has clearly had his feathers seriously ruffled by his long-term friend and sponsor, the USA, showing such friendship towards his sworn enemy. On Sunday Netanyahu declared, “today the world has become a more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world took a significant step towards obtaining the world’s most dangerous weapon.” Obviously aware of the potential isolation of Israel if it loses support from the US, Netanyahu tried desperately to present a strong independent state of Israel: “Israel has many friends and allies, but when they’re mistaken, it is my duty to speak out… the regime in Iran is committed to destroying Israel. And Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself by itself from any threat.”

Israel is understandably worried that Iran will only become stronger with the lifting of sanctions and become an even more powerful player within the region particularly with its strong links to the Assad regime in Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Israel is also convinced that Iran’s sole purpose in terms of nuclear power is to make a bomb with which to destroy Israel. A potential realignment of the US towards Iran is going to going to force Netanyahu to seriously reconsider his lifelong policy of scaremongering about the imminent dangers emanating from Iran.

The Iranian foreign minister who had negotiated on Iran’s behalf, Mohammah Javad Zarif, was greeted by cheering crowds on his return to Tehran. He quickly warned people, though, that this temporary deal could still be reversed in the future and assured that Iran had by no means agreed to completely stop their nuclear program. It is obvious, however, that he was extremely pleased and has become one of the most prominent and popular Iranian diplomats, both internationally and domestically, in the last thirty years. It is the largest step forward in Western-Iranian relations since the Iranian revolution of 1979 overthrew the incredibly pro-Western Shah. Moreover, arguably, more than any of the huge changes that have occurred in the region in the last few years it could indicate a massive move in the power balance of the entire region away from the monopoly of power held by Israel and the Gulf states over the West.

This will not happen without at least a brutal war of words, as Benjamin Netanyahu has already started to display.

Thea Osborne, Features Online Columnist

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

Middle East: Iranian Discussions

Image credits: yeowatzup

 

In her newest piece, Features Online Columnist Thea Osborne talks about the Iranians’ talks…

The recent Iran talks in Geneva, despite ending inconclusively, are being generally hailed as a step in the right direction. The talks, between the US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and Iran, lasted three days and were focused around reaching a deal in which Iran would promise to curtail their nuclear programme in return for a reduction in international, particularly US, sanctions against the country.

Iran’s nuclear policy and capabilities are immensely unclear and therefore perceived as a potentially lethal threat to the region and particularly to the States’ allies Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is known that Iran has a nuclear programme and it considers it as a matter of national pride and technical achievement that it should be allowed to continue to do so as is permitted through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The treaty allows nuclear power for domestic civil power but Iran’s programme is on a far larger scale than that and is thought to be close to levels needed to make a bomb. There is, therefore, a need for transparency about Iran’s ambitions for the programme, which it insists is not for a bomb, and outside investigations and regulations in their enrichment programmes. Naturally Iran will not agree to this without clear incentives, not necessarily simply concerning sanctions, but also its wider position in the region and its relationship with the US.

The talks concluded with a statement from the exhausted-looking Iranian foreign secretary, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton. In their statement both suggested progress had been made and refused to clearly comment on the apparent “scuppering” of the talks by France: the surprise spanner in the works in the form of French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius’ refusal to accept a stopgap deal which aimed at defusing tensions and creating more time for discussion and negotiation. The hiccup appears to have caused much fury amongst diplomats and speculations as to French motives.

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu
Image credits: IsraelinUSA

Unsurprisingly due to their long-term hatred and rivalry, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken out clearly about his disapproval of Iran’s ‘deal of the century’. Having spent much to the last twenty years propagating the unfathomable dangers that emanate from Iran it understandably seems to come as quite a shock and upset to Netanyahu that his best friend and supporter, the US, is willing to discuss the lifting of some of its thirty year old sanctions on Iran.

Another key ally of the US, Saudi Arabia, is also concerned about the new Iranian-US diplomacy. As the dominant Sunni nation within the region Saudi Arabia has had a long-term rivalry with Shia-dominated Iran; it recently played out, with horrific results, that the two nations backed, funded and armed opposite sides within the Syrian civil war. Saudi Arabia, however, has been less vocal than Israel about its view, partly due to the way that the Saudi monarchy does things and partly to ensure not to be seen as siding with Israel in a public debate.

It has been suggested therefore, that France’s lack of cooperation at the Iran talks was a measure to try and gain favour with Israel and Saudi Arabia, particularly when they might be disappointed with their previously unwavering American ally.

It is undeniable that both the US and Iran seem willing to make more effort than either have been before. The US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif took part in at least eight hours of bilateral talks; by far the most contact between the two nations since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. More progress, even if inconclusive, has been made in the last week than in the last ten years, and with further talks arranged to begin on the 20 November there seems hope for a deal to be reached.

However, Iran and the US, are perhaps two of the most secretive, proud and self-motivated countries in the world, and there is little doubt that they will both be holding back certain bits of information along with strict agendas as to what they are willing to agree on. That alone is an incredibly daunting and insecure start to negotiations. Moreover, when it is combined with the complications of the complex power relations surrounding any international deal involving a Middle Eastern state it seems, as illustrated by the unlikely example of France in the latest talks, that there is immeasurable potential for upset and derailing.

Thea Osborne, Features Online Columnist

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

What is… The European Union?

Better off in, better off out… the debate is endless, but public knowledge about this international organisation is not. Just what is the European Union?

the European Union Flag
Image credits: R/DV/RS

What we call today the European Union has existed in various forms since its creation. Currently, this political and economic partnership exists between twenty-eight countries which are, unsurprisingly, situated in Europe.

History

It all began after the Second World War, the idea being that countries which trade would be less likely to go to war with each other. By 1958, the European Economic Community (EEC) was established out of the 1951 European Coal and Steel Community between six initial countries – Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, France, Italy and the Netherlands –freeing up the borders between them to allow better trade links.

We, the United Kingdom (in case you were not so sure), have always been a bunch of sceptics, refusing to make the “Inner Six” a “Seven” in the beginning, and then later joining in 1973 (with a bit of persuasion from the USA and the Suez Crisis). Shockingly, or perhaps not at all, our [poor] relationship with the French meant it would take three attempts at membership and Charles de Gaulle’s departure from the French presidency for them, fearing too much US involvement, to finally stop saying non and ruining our chances.

Now

The EEC became the European Union (EU) in November 1993 under the Maastricht Treaty, establishing what are known as its “Three Pillars”: the European Community – removing the word “Economic” to show the wider policy range it now covers; Common Foreign and Security Policy; and Police and Judicial Co-Operation in Criminal Matters.  Although the latter two Pillars are largely based on international co-operation between member states with representatives working together on relevant issues, the first Pillar contains the supra-national institutions – those who have authority over individual national governments – and all of their work.

To begin, the European Commission is responsible for proposing legislation, upholding the Treaties they establish and running the EU from day to day. Each member state sends a single representative, making a total of twenty-eight members. The President of the European Commission is elected from these twenty-eight by the European Parliament. Don’t confuse this with the President of the European Union (who is actually the head of the European Council), currently President van Rompuy of Belgium!

The European Council has no strict power to make laws, but it is a body of the heads of government of each member state and is responsible for “the general political directions and priorities” of the EU according to the Lisbon Treaty. It acts as a body to be the presidency of the Union, and the head of the Council is its representative.

European Parliament, Strasbourg
Image credits: Salim Shadid

The next institution is the European Parliament. If you have ever voted for a Member of the European Parliament as we are charged to do every five years (the next time being in 2014), this is where the 766 of them elected across the Union work. Depending on their political opinions, they join forces with politicians of similar views to create larger voting blocs such as the Greens or the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. Its job is to debate and vote on legislation, although it can’t actually use its initiative to create it itself. It does, however, have the second largest electorate (or voting population) in the world after India, and the largest trans-national democratic electorate, with 376 million eligible voters at the last elections.

Despite its lack of initiative, it does share power over the budget with the Council, and has to hold the European Commission shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council and, just to confuse you, has its own President – currently Martin Schulz.

Finally, there is the European High Court of Justice which is the highest court of the EU and based in Luxembourg. It is mainly responsible for making sure all EU law is applied fairly across the Union. Again, each member state sends one judge and so there are twenty-eight of them, although it’s uncommon for all of them to hear every single case.

The Euro

Coming fully into force in 2002, the euro is the currency of seventeen of the twenty-eight member states, also known as the eurozone. A better currency for trading purposes, as well as a sense of unity, the eurozone is estimated by the International Monetary Fund as the second largest economy in the world, and the euro is the most-traded currency after, of course, the US dollar. If you’re as strange as I am (and commiserations if you are), you may have noticed from your travels to the eurozone – perhaps Spain, France, Finland or Ireland – that each country has a different design on the back of coins initially introduced into that country. “RF” for “République Francaise” or the French Republic is stamped across the French euro coins, for example.

The euro has been the cause of much debate and controversy in the UK. You won’t need me to point out to you that we are still in possession of the Great British Pound Sterling for currency, but there has been past discussion amongst British politicians about abandoning it for the euro. Whilst the Maastricht Treaty establishing the EU compelled most member states to swap their pesetas, francs and deutschmarks (among many others) for the euro, Denmark and Britain both notably negotiated exceptions.

New Labour, elected to power in 1997, was cautiously optimistic about joining, dependent upon our passing five particular economic tests first although it was a relatively minor issue in the end, despite William Hague’s decision to run his 2001 election campaign based, bizarrely, almost entirely on keeping the pound. Of course, since the economic crisis and the euro descending into madness, any British subscription to the euro now seems unlikely.

So where should you stand on the EU?

Paying any significant attention to the news and current affairs will make you very much aware of strongly-held and strongly-fought opinions about the Union. Indeed, we have a whole political party dedicated to the cause: the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP.

If you have made it this far through the article, you will perhaps have noted one of the major, particularly British, complaints about the European Union: the bureaucracy is an apparent nightmare. The idea of creating institutions each with their own responsibilities might have seemed wondrous, but instead there are a thousand and one different jobs to do by different people and a fair few “Presidents” and “High Commissioners” to go with it.

Many of said leaders are unelected which is cause for concern for those who are worried that the EU is too close turning into a supra-nation, and generally speaking, election turnout is close to pathetic – so those who debate our laws are not really accountable at all; in the last election, 43 per cent of all European voters cast their ballot.

The one nation problem is another worry in itself. People are not keen to lose their national identities which have been so well forged across the centuries, and many have nothing like a “European” identity. Particularly in Britain, our island mentality restricts us from being too keen to get too involved, and makes us angry when statistics are thrown around about how many of our laws are passed down from the European Parliament.

Eurosceptic politicians shout very loudly however, and those who are pro-EU keep their mouths closed far too much in comparison.

In an increasingly globalised world, it is silly to isolate ourselves from co-operation and partnership. Granted, prosecuting shopkeepers who price goods in pounds and ounces and not grams and kilograms is rather a ridiculous preoccupation for the European Union and anger over it is understandable, as is trying to tell us that Cadbury’s is not real chocolate (come on!!). But without the EU, travelling between mainland European countries would not be as easy as it is – the Schengen Agreement stops you from having to pull out your passport and go through customs and immigration checks every time you cross a border; trade would be restricted; police investigations would be more difficult across borders.

Image credits: Francisco Antunes

Nor could you just go and get a job in an EU country like you can now (provided there are any). Having spent a year living and working in France, without the EU I would have had a much more difficult time trying to set up my residency status and getting healthcare coverage than I did, and would have wasted my time on that rather than learning a new culture and language (and eating cheese – to perpetuate a stereotype).

All in all, the European Union is not about infringing national sovereignty and imposing petty laws on people. Or it ought not to be. It ought to be about co-operation and achieving bigger goals. Politicians argue that we have too many immigrants now – conveniently forgetting or simply not mentioning our chances to go and experience these other countries – and that the EU it costs too much and we aren’t getting the benefit from it back in the UK and if that is true then it is because we are not making the most of our involvement and reaping the benefit we could have whilst we dither on the edge.

Closing borders simply turns us into bigger xenophobes than we already are.

And if none of this convinces you, well then I suppose it has allowed us to hear a fair few stupid quotes…

Top Eight Quotes from European Politicians

1. “Sod off, you prick.” – Nicolas Sarkozy to journalist
2. “[Mr Obama is] young, handsome and suntanned.” – Silvio Berlusconi
3.  Bonus: “Ah, Barack Obama. You won’t believe it, but the two of them sunbathe together, because the wife is also tanned.”) – Silvio Berlusconi
4. “You have all the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk and the question that I want to ask, that we all want to ask, is ‘Who are you?’” – UKIP’s Nigel Farage to the President of the European Council
5.  “You have lost a good opportunity to shut up.” – Nicolas Sarkozy to David Cameron
6.  “She says she’s on a diet and then helps herself to a second helping of cheese.” – Nicolas Sarkozy about Angela Merkel
7. “China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.” – Charles de Gaulle
8. “In Italy, I am almost seen as German for my workaholism. Also I am from Milan, the city where people work the hardest. Work, work, work – I am almost German.” – Silvio Berlusconi (perhaps I ought not have spoken about stereotypes)

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor

US Government Whatdown?

Democrats and Republicans are fighting each other here on Capitol Hill…
Image credits: whisky21178

Confused about the Americans? Wondering what their government is playing at? Don’t fear, Online Features Editor Imogen Watson is here!

If you have ever watched The West Wing, you might remember the don’t-mess-with-me way in which President Bartlet stares down the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives and denies his last-minute blindsiding demand for a budget decrease of three per cent, instead of the previously agreed one per cent. Without agreeing to it, he will be responsible, he is warned, for shutting down the federal government. “Then shut it down,” responds President Bartlet, and the lights shut off, one by one, to black. If you never have, just imagine it. Trust me, it’s cool.

Jump forward to 2013, and I like to imagine that in the current situation such a cutting response occurred in Washington, D.C as Republican and Democratic congressmen locked horns over the government budget and the federal government closed its doors, furloughing thousands of employees in the process, unpaid. But although it may be a fascinating story for politics students and interested members of the wider public as another one of those quirks in the American system of government, the reality is that it is the catalyst for a great number of problems and represents  a fundamental rupture between two sets of elected politicians.

As all governments do, the central government of the United States has to pass a budget to be able to run the country and pay its bills, including the debt and interest that it owes. This Act of Congress is the responsibility of the House of Representatives, and allows for the raising of the government debt ceiling. The Senate is supposed to debate it, but as a key part of the running of government, ultimately agree to it so the President can sign it into law.  This is where the current problem lies; between a Republican House of Representatives, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic White House, this essential bill has not yet been agreed.

For further explanation on the often-bizarre way in which the Americans do politics, allow me to return to another of Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing explanations. Imagine that the government has “maxed out the national credit card,” and to rectify it they have “a quick vote to raise the limit on the credit card”. Such a vote is usually held close to the deadline so that no member of Congress will attempt to attach a controversial amendment, which would cause other congressmen to vote against it and sink the budget, therefore causing something akin to “the immediate collapse of the US economy, followed by Japan sinking into the sea, followed by a worldwide depression the likes of which no mortal can imagine, followed by week two,” as Sorkin so reassuringly puts it.

Over one of these controversial amendments is exactly how the fallout has occurred, as congressional Republicans – who are not generally fans of President Obama’s healthcare reforms – have refused and continue to refuse to pass a bill without some form of defunding or dismantling of what they believe to be overly-socialist healthcare legislation and impingements on the freedoms of American citizens. Because Democrats and Republicans could not agree, as the 30September budget deadline passed, the government closed its doors.

It is not a great spectator sport either for the millions of government employees sent home without wages. Most of 400,000 Pentagon employees – mainly workers for the National Security Agency and the Department of Defense – have now been brought back to work and promised back-pay for their unforeseen time off, but they are presently the minority.

National parks, monuments and Smithsonian museums are closed, tours of the United States Capitol building cancelled, and the Lincoln Memorial cordoned off. National food programs aiding malnourished and poor pregnant women and new mothers are closed and state-run supplies are estimated to last a week; public health services, including the national influenza vaccination program, are shut; international travellers have been warned to expect severe delays through immigration – as if the wait were not already long enough.

And the Democrats here in the White House.
Image credits: Tom Lohdan

Week one of shutdown has not yet seen quite the aforementioned dramatic tales that Sorkin foretold, but the situation is not even gradually improving. Republicans and Democrats in Congress persist in arguing between themselves and with the Democrats in the White House; it is quite something when the leaders of the free world are reduced to that which resembles a playground scrap. Whilst the “he said, she said”  continues, the deadline of the 17 October to resolve the crisis looms, leering at lawmakers, at which point the United States of America defaults on its loans.

Everything would be funny if it were not so serious. Whilst the current shutdown of services is not ideal, a US default on its debt would be worse. As the world’s biggest economy and as the beginnings of global economic upturn are starting to appear, the last thing we need is for the USA to not be able to pay its interest and debt and see us all tumble back into financial despair. The Treasury echoes such comments, and in the meantime the Labor Department will not be releasing its September report on jobs, leaving businesses guesstimating what it might have said, and how best to react.

If the inconveniences were not sufficient, every additional day that it takes the legislature to reach a fair deal is a strain on international affairs: Obama has already cancelled a trip to Asia, including an economic summit, with the White House citing it a “consequence of the House Republicans forcing a shutdown of the government”, and referring to the “difficulty in moving forward with foreign travel in the face of a shutdown”. Japan and China have both spoken up urging the US to make a speedy agreement, with China’s vice-Finance Minister saying they were “naturally concerned about developments in the US fiscal cliff”.

It is a mark of how much the American right-wing despises Obamacare that they would risk a shutdown, the likes of which have not been seen for seventeen years, over it. Clinging gladly to the NHS (despite its problems), British perspective is difficult to reconcile with American concerns; it is irresponsible for a group of elected representatives – supposedly experts in the political field – to fight over a healthcare act widening access to health insurance, which was thoroughly debated and passed in 2010 and subsequently ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2012, resulting in a hijack of the ability of a government to actually govern. Whilst many congressional Republicans scream, Obamacare currently appears somewhat vindicated. Despite some start-up glitches, more than seven million people attempted to log into the new healthcare system online during its first three days of service.

For now, the end does not appear in sight and it is doing no one any favours, not least the politicians involved in the mess. Whilst the people they serve suffer the consequences of shutdown, they suffer the consequences of causing it as blame is apportioned to everyone to a greater or lesser extent. With the only solution being through Congress and President Obama able to use only his influence among the power games (Treasury Secretary Jack Lews has explained that, “There is no option that prevents us from being in default if we don’t have enough cash to pay our bills,”), with the tennis ball being thrown from one party’s court to the other’s and half-hearted attempts at stopgap measures to reach a deal, it looks like we are all going to have to hang on just a bit longer.

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor

Fifty Years On, Are We Living Martin Luther King's Dream?

Fifty years after the March on Washington, Online Features Editor Meg Lawrence discusses its impact, and where the civil rights movement stands in America today.

Image Credits: Michael Ochs Archives/ Alex Wong/ Getty Images

When I was 11 years old, I was asked by my English teacher to write a speech about my hero. Martin Luther King’s was a name that stood apart; he was fundamental to the American civil rights movement, and was a key catalyst for equality. It is arguable that Martin Luther King was one of the most important social leaders of his time, and his legacy is awe-inspiring.

Perhaps one of the most memorable and metamorphic moments for the civil rights movement was King’s March on Washington, and the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, both of which occurred fifty years ago this week, on August 28, 1963. So significant was this event, it is credited for helping pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and later the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Speaking at the fiftieth anniversary event, former US President Bill Clinton said: ‘This march, and that speech, changed America.’

Martin Luther King grew up in the midst of the injustice caused by the Jim Crow Laws, lighting a spark in him that would burn all the way to Washington. King’s first true experience of social inequality was when he was forced to attend a different school to the white friends he had grown up with, and was forbidden from going to their houses. One boy’s childhood experience was enough to incur the momentous March on Washington 30 years later.

The Words ‘I Have a Dream’ have entered history as one of the most important phrases of all time. Martin Luther King had a dream of racial equality throughout America and the world, and today, fifty years after he voiced his dream, racial equality has largely improved.

It is undeniable that the appointment of America’s first black President, Barack Obama, was a key moment in the history of racial equality, and marked a key turning point in the civil rights movement. Speaking in Washington on the anniversary of King’s march, Obama said: ‘America changed for you and me.’

He added: ‘Because they marched, the civil rights law was passed. Because they marched, the voting rights law was signed. Because they marched, doors of opportunity and education swung open so their daughters and sons could finally imagine a life for themselves beyond washing somebody else’s laundry or shining somebody else’s shoes. Because they marched, city councils changed and state legislatures changed and Congress changed and, yes, eventually the White House changed.’

Whilst change has certainly been praised throughout coverage of the fiftieth anniversary celebration of the March on Washington, the anniversary itself highlights the fact that there are still many areas of society where complete racial equality is yet to be achieved. President Obama, whilst heading the White House, has been unable to implement the policy he promised due to a lack of support and confidence in his benefactors in government.

On 6th August of this year, upon making a speech on housing and education in Arizona, President Obama faced racist chants. Among the protesters, some sang ‘Bye Bye Black Sheep’, whilst protesters such as Deanne Bartram raised a sign saying, ‘Impeach the Half-White Muslim!’

A report featured on USA Today’s website this week highlights further examples of racism that reflect the same treatment of black Americans fifty years ago. This summer, 25 black customers were refused service in a Wild Wing Café, after a white customer said they made them feel uncomfortable. Whilst this is a rare occurrence, it is evidence of the fact that racism hasn’t been abolished in the US.

Fifty years ago, the hunger for racial equality filled the air surrounding Washington, and dispersed throughout America. Whilst we have used the anniversary to celebrate Martin Luther King, and the progression of the civil rights movement, it is also important to use it to remind ourselves that we need to push for more; the fight has not yet been won, and the dream is not complete. We still need to look to the day when all people can say, “Free at last, Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last.”

Ten years ago, I named Martin Luther King as my hero. If asked again today, I would give the same reply.

Meg Lawrence, Online Features Editor

 

Syria: Police? Superpower? Bulldog? The UK must redefine its international role

Image credits: FreedomHouse

Despite the atrocities witnessed in Syria, Sophie Trotman debates the UK’s role on the international stage and its involvement in Syria.

The newsreader warns you that ‘you may find the following images disturbing’ but you look anyway. Rows of bodies, splattered with blood, grieving mothers clutching at the air and a final shot of a dead child, cradled like a broken puppet in the arms of an inconsolable parent. You’ve seen it before, on the news, in the paper, but each time the same potent cocktail of outrage, disgust and hideous pity is overwhelming.

This is the Syrian Crisis. A bloody civil war located in the heart of the Levant, between President Bashar al-Assad’s Ba’Ath government and several other forces (including the Free Syrian Army) seeking to oust the regime.

It’s important to stress that this conflict is not new; the Syrian Uprising has its roots in the wider Arab Spring and has been ongoing for over two and a half years. And like most other of the Arab Spring uprisings, media coverage began to wane as the public lost interest.

Yet this week, Syria has been at the forefront of the news once again, with two of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the UK and US issuing increasingly bellicose rhetoric regarding the issue.

So what has changed to precipitate this international response?

On August 21, at least 355 people were reported to have died in a suspected chemical attack in the Ghouta area, close to the Syrian capital, Damascus. This alleged use of chemical weapons, purportedly by the Assad government, appears to have weighted national stances regarding the crisis and provoked threatening rhetoric from key statesmen such as Foreign Secretary William Hague who on Wednesday said, “…we can’t allow the idea… that chemical weapons can be used with impunity”.

Whilst many are in no doubt as to the perpetrators of this blow against human rights (with US Vice-President Joe Biden describing al-Assad’s usage of chemical weapons as “undeniable”) the lack of definitive proof has been pointed out by the Russians. Yet despite this lack of absolute certainty, the incontrovertible evidence that thousands of Syrians continue to suffer agonizing deaths remains sufficient impetus for talks of military action.

So it may come as a surprise that I am arguing against intervention.

The crux of the argument for no intervention is built around the three issues; the misplaced paternalism of the West and our own democratic considerations and most importantly, the hypocrisy and weakness of the most likely form of attack, a missile strike.

According to Hague, diplomatic pressure on Syria has failed. The UN death toll estimate of 100,000 dead condones his words. Diplomacy has indeed failed in solving the conflict of the civil war. Yet it seems naive to expect UN mediated peace talks to have any effect; against the bloody realities of civil unrest and repression, the words of the international community must serve as little more than superfluous soundbites.

Furthermore how is a civil war ‘solved’? Our hopeful cultural relativism suggests democracy – the pinnacle of liberal achievement born from the Western Enlightenment. But the US’s and the UK’s blithe paternalism has already misfired; the portentous example of Iraq demonstrates how cack-handedly our ‘gift’ of democracy has been fostered upon a Middle Eastern nation, precariously cemented by millions of pounds and the blood of thousands. So what then? The stabilizing of the oppressive Assad regime? Or the supporting of a divided and dangerous secular rebel army? Both solutions are unpalatable and neither would not ease the suffering of the Syrian people.

The nature of a civil war is that it is internal. We must not foist our Western values upon a divided nation that is at war with itself. Post Cold War the US’s

role as ‘policemen of the world’ is inappropriate and outdated – proved by the mistakes of Iraq and (to a lesser extent) Afghanistan.

This paternalism and expectation for the US and UK to take action (especially following their threatening rhetoric) has been manifested in the most likely form of intervention; a missile strike, a comparatively low cost, low risk form of action.  Done remotely, a missile strike would essentially let the US and UK off the hook; they would have ‘done something’, limiting the damage to their reputation on the world stage following the excessive bellicose rhetoric issued by both nations.

Essentially the US and the UK have verbally committed themselves to some kind of action, and despite Cameron’s humiliating defeat in Parliament, President Obama and France’s Hollande still appear to be willing to use a strike.

It is imperative that this form of action is avoided. Firstly, if chemical weapons storage were targeted, it may not be that they are wholly eliminated or even made safe, and instead could release some chemicals; an ironically macabre gesture. According to Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, “If you drop a conventional munition on a storage facility containing unknown chemical agents… some [of those agents] will be spread… a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease”. Nor would the strike be Obama’s intended “shot across the bows”. The consequences of the strike would be very limited and a feeble demonstration of tepid Western intervention, if you like ‘US JUSTICE LITE’. It’s already apparent that the deaths of the Syrian people do not perturb Assad, and it would be the ‘liberators’ of the West who are instead adding more Syrians to the 100,000+ death toll.

And to the civil war? It will not make any difference to the outcome.

This results in a more worrying conclusion.  Despite the US’s position as policeman of the world waning, it remains influential and is still turned to in a crisis. To send a missile strike thinly preserves this illusion of US-meted justice. Therefore a missile strike would be the height of immorality, an ineffectual move done not simply for the sake of ‘doing something’ but more worryingly, to save face on the international stage.

The legality of action is another factor against intervention. The UN’s own divisions would weaken any possible action, and have wider negative repercussions for international relations. Russia and China, also permanent members of the UN Security Council, have stressed the importance of UN procedure and remain opposed to intervention, with Russia stating that any military action without a mandate from the Security Council as a “grave violation of international law”. To intervene in Syria would further inflame our antagonistic relationship, a secondary concern, yet senseless in an air strike primarily engineered to maintain the US and UK’s political standing in the world.

Furthermore the UN inspectors, present in the country until Saturday morning, are not there to allocate blame. The results of their report must be heeded; the Ba’Ath government has not yet been found unequivocally guilty of using chemical weapons.

Image credits: FreedomHouse

At home, the lingering spectre of Iraq has left the British people wary of armed intervention, especially in the political and religious hotbed that is the Middle East. Reports in the media reflect this; according to a survey by YouGov for the Sun, the public was against air missile strikes by a ratio of 2:1. This has been compounded by the recent vote in Parliament, if anything a success for UK democracy, as conceded by the PM, “It’s clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action… I will act accordingly.”

The images, reports and video footage of the many many victims of the Syrian Crisis have provoked an intense moral outrage. It is understandable, even commendable for key figures in US, UK and French politics to attempt to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. To do something. To help. But this is an emotional response, and the outrages committed cannot and do not legitimize a military response, no matter how well intentioned. Our ‘good intentions’ in Iraq, in Afghanistan, have continued to haunt Britain, as demonstrated by the defeated Commons Bill on Thursday. The US and to a lesser extent the UK’s role as policeman of the world is paternalistic, outdated and [at the time of writing – without the approval of the UN] illegal. To preserve a facade of US judicial dominance via a punitive missile strike is a shockingly weak move that serves only to maintain the crumbling reputation of the US as a liberating power, Bush’s “beacon of democracy”. The Syrian people cannot be used as a human collateral, a human capital with which the West uses to bargain with the al-Assad regime.

In the face of this complicated and morally repulsive civil war, the US, UK and France must accept that intervention is, at best a quack’s panacea to a problem we cannot solve, and at worst, a display of Western ‘justice’ which will only compound the critical humanitarian crisis taking place in Syria.

Sophie Trotman

Syria: doing nothing is a mistake

Crowds in Syria
Image credits: FreedomHouse

From on the ground in Amman, Jordan, Gareth Browne explains why he is pro-intervention in Syria.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

With a track record in the Middle East such as that of the United States, the United Kingdom and the West in general, it is not beyond the realm of comprehension that governments have to give serious thought to intervening in Syria. Not least of the considerations are public opinion and concerns about the possibility of provoking a return attack.

However Syria is not Iraq. Nor is it Afghanistan and I wish that our governments will not allow the risk of bad public relations to stop them from intervening and doing as our morality compels us. To act so late is regrettable, but to not act at all is indefensible.

For the past few years, a massacre has been allowed to take place. The Syrian regime has murdered and displaced hundreds of thousands of innocent people and my nation has shamefully stood back and watched. We are so paralyzed by the fear of failure and the hard lessons learnt in Iraq and Afghanistan that we believe if we do nothing then we can do no wrong. This is a fallacy; a sickening policy of isolationism which allows innocent Syrians, many of whom share our values, to be slaughtered like animals. How can we justify our position on the UN Security Council or indeed being a free and progressive nation if we do not defend the innocent against such malice?

There are those who will make the excuse that we will be supporting terrorists and Al-Qaeda, which is a lazy and ill-conceived assumption. No one denies that there are distasteful elements involved in fighting the regime but to suggest that the opposition in its entirety is made up of these zealots is wrong. There are many groups fighting for a democratic and secular Syria and we have no reason to believe that they are cooperating with Islamist militants; in fact, several top commanders of the Free Syria Army have publicly come out against groups like Jabhat Al-Nusra.

These groups exist both alone and as part of the Syrian National Council but they do not get the attention or publicity they deserve. The  tragic irony of the situation, for those that subscribe to this idea, is that the longer the international community does nothing and allows the situation to deteriorate the only groups gaining strength are the Assad regime and those groups who are backed by Al-Qaeda. In some parts of the country, for example Idlib and Aleppo, an absence of governmental control has allowed very organised and opportunistic Al-Qaeda groups to step in. They provide medicine, food and weapons, all of which are required whilst the assistance of the West remains non-existent. The longer the status quo continues, the more opportunities like this spring up for Al-Qaeda, and the more the UK and other Western nations should be concerned.

This oft-discussed “red line” regarding the use of chemical weapons was never necessary for action in Syria. Indeed, what sort of message does it send out if we only feel compelled to act after chemical weapons are used – that regimes are free to massacre their own citizens provided that they only use conventional weapons? Britain must lead the international community decisively, not to spread democracy or police the world, not to combat Iran and curb their potential usage of these weapons but to stop a massacre, and to prevent the implosion of a beautiful nation by bringing to a halt the ethnic cleansing taking place against the Kurds. We must fight the evil wherever it may be, whether within the regime or the opposition groups.

Gareth Browne

North Korea: Where do we currently stand?

Image credits to giladr

As events in the Korean Peninsula continue, Features Editor Imogen Watson takes account of the stability of the region’s future.

To many of us born in a certain generation, in a certain part of the world, the events leading us to the situation of today on the Korean Peninsula are lessons learnt in history books, and often only partially remembered. Isolated, inverted North Korea has always to us been a quirky country in Asia with a funny regime, bizarre fascination with its leaders, and an immense talent in putting on a well-choreographed mass display. Also in indoctrination. Good luck to you if you were interested enough to want to visit, as you will just as likely get in as North Koreans will get out.

Apart from a few citizens, what has got out of North Korea? Well, as is quite evident in recent weeks, international threats. Thus far we have avoided serious, large-scale conflict. But North Korea has been speaking out again lately, and just how worried ought the rest of the world to be?

Of course, the US is acting. As the world’s only remaining superpower, with big allies in South Korea and Japan, and relations to maintain with China, as well as being the main fear and supposed target of North Korea, it is not half surprising. Seoul has moved two warships to its coasts as a reaction to Pyongyang’s moving missiles around.

The whole situation sounds precarious, and it is. Wrongly-chosen words or the seemingly smallest of slip-ups could legitimately tip a balance that rests on that knife-edge which so often comes into play with the Korean Peninsula. But in that is a point worth making: threats, words and videos have often been broadcast in the past by the North Korean state. Residents of Seoul going about their daily business are yet to be particularly concerned, with one telling the BBC, “This tension has existed for more than fifty years, so I don’t see the difference this time.” Is there in fact something which makes this a bigger worry than normal?

A section of the De-Militarised Zone between North and South Korea.
Image credits to Justin Ornellas

The US has been flying planes over the peninsula, panicking Pyongyang. Pyongyang is moving weaponry, and Seoul is reacting. North Korea, despite never having ended the previous one from the 1950s, has openly declared an official state of war with South Korea. Whilst this all may yet come to nothing, and could well be action to give the new leader of North Korea Kim Jong-Un some standing both abroad and at home, the escalation is enough to set teeth on edge. With such a volatile state, proceedings must be cautious and thought-through. Having previously attacked the South, there is nothing to necessarily stop the North from doing so again.

How far is this all likely to go? Clearly the argument has been presented that there is sufficient to be concerned about, but there is faith also that this will be resolved. Whilst it is always possible, I have an inability to see a world where North Korea succeeds in its plans to reunite with the South under its mindset, and where the USA has been beaten into its submission. When another short-term solution to the current struggle will happen is clearly unknown, but once found we must work towards another solution, a long-term one, if only for the safety of its people; the reoccurring famines of a nation desiring to be self-sufficient are insupportable, and the indoctrination needs to end.

That is where more problems are to be found, of course, for North Korea is, if nothing else, stubborn.

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor

 

Losing sight of the real victim: the Amanda Knox re-trial

Image credit: TIZIANA FABI/AFP/Getty Images

As the Meredith Kercher case rears its head again, Conor Byrne asks why the media appears to have forgotten the victim.

It is ironic that Amanda Knox’s autobiography, entitled Waiting to be Heard, is set to be published at just the same time that Italy’s highest appeal court has sensationally announced that Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito will face a re-trial for the tragic and highly controversial murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007.

Knox’s story has been one, unsurprisingly, of controversy, drama and fierce emotions. Viewed as an innocent victim by most American citizens, who whole-heartedly supported her when she returned to the USA in 2011 following her incredible acquittal, Knox has divided opinion around the world. I read an interesting article in The Daily Mail, which suggested that, unlike the USA, most countries continue to view her with ambivalence, if not open hostility, and thus question how correct it is that her memoirs are being published at this controversial time. It emerges that the re-trial has been ordered, not because of new evidence on Knox and Sollecito’s guilt or innocence, but because it’s been felt that the appellate trial may not have been properly conducted.

Certainly the trials have been tainted in controversy; Knox herself claimed that the use of evidence was questionable, and many have agreed with her. Insufficient forensic evidence tests were particularly condemned, and prosecutors alleged that the court which acquitted Knox and Sollecito had ‘lost its bearings’ in the case. Knox issued a statement shortly after this announcement that it is ‘unfounded and unfair’. She maintains that ‘our hearts go out to them [Meredith’s family]. No matter what happens, my family and I will face this continuing legal battle as we always have, confident in the truth and with our heads held high in the face of wrongful accusations and unreasonable adversity’.

But is this process ‘unreasonable’, as Knox claims? Look at the incredible drama surrounding the case – as I write this, there are no fewer than 1096 comments on the Guardian’s article covering this development. Knox arouses strong opinions and feelings: whether love and respect from American citizens, or hatred and hostility from those who believe she had a crucial hand in Meredith’s murder.

The real victim, Meredith Kercher, is being ignored and neglected in all of this. If Knox is truly innocent, then it is understandable why she, famously, made numerous cartwheels and reacted with wild celebration on discovery of her acquittal, and celebrated even further by reportedly signing a multi-million book deal to reveal, in her eyes, the ‘truth’. But her reaction, to many, seems callous and insensitive. Yes, she has been acquitted, but what about the girl with whom she spent time living, socialising, befriending, eating, sharing confidences and so on? Does that friendship mean nothing? In my reading of this case (albeit only from newspapers), Knox appears to have made very few utterances regarding Meredith herself.

Meredith’s death was brutal and appalling. It shows the depth of sadism which sexual antics can degrade to and the murky nature of that night in 2007 will never be fully known. She was dead by the unbelievably young age of 21, when her whole life should have been ahead of her. Many comments on the Guardian seem to agree with my stance – ‘AhBrightWings’ opines: ‘To make money off another young woman’s death is grossly insensitive. She should hand over the proceeds to charity. That would go a long way to clearing her name’.

I am not suggesting Knox is guilty, far from it, but she does not seem a likeable woman. She has been portrayed by the media as calculating, manipulative, insensitive and fully aware of the sexual power she holds over men. Whether or not this is true, and one must remember the media’s ability to exaggerate and distort, there is something very distasteful about a young woman who, rather than mourning her housemate’s tragic and brutal death, is currently celebrating the millions she will make from a book supposedly revealing the ‘truth’ of her case. Let us remember who the real victim is here, who is forever silenced, and who may never receive justice.

Conor Byrne