Trump must own the Gulf crisis

As tensions in the Persian Gulf continue to simmer and the international community awaits the next move by either Iran or the United States with mounting trepidation, it should never be forgotten that this is a totally manufactured crisis.

It is a confrontation that has resulted from the vanity of a United States President who has a total disregard for the norms of international diplomacy or indeed for the safety and wellbeing of any region or nation outside the boundaries of his country.

Even those who have sought to stand with the US during President Donald Trump’s, Administration, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, will be the first to bear the brunt should his mistaken and destructive foreign designs plunge the Middle East into conflict.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, was working well in the view of all its other partners — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the European Union and of course Iran itself .

Yet in May 2018 Trump condemned the agreement as the “worst the US had ever entered into”, a “disaster”, and “terrible”. How is it that there could be such a disconnect between his view and that of all the other partners?

Sadly, the answer has nothing to do with the deal itself, but with Trump’s hatred of his predecessor, Barack Obama.

Trump came into office with the intention of erasing Obama’s legacy. He began with the Affordable Healthcare Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, only for him to be thwarted by members of his own party, who declined to participate in its dismembering.

With good reason: History has many examples of advances in healthcare quickly becoming so popular with the public that elected members dare not tamper with it for fear of retribution at the polls.

Like it or not Obamacare is here to stay — the only possible changes would involve its extension.

Trump then moved on to Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement, the Iran Nuclear Deal. This was an easier path as there would be no significant opposition among his supporter base.

In fact, withdrawing from the deal and reimposing sanctions worked well with older Trump voters who remembered the 1979 hostage crisis and the chants of “bomb, bomb Iran” and “turn it into a parking lot”.

Those who are younger will have heard that Iranians call the US “the Great Satan” and want to “drive Israel into the sea”.

The era of that explosive language out of Teheran was beginning to fade and Iranians were hoping for better things in the wake of the nuclear deal — until Trump virtually shut it down with his renewed sanctions.

The US’s economic might, which Trump has threatened to use ruthlessly against any organisation, wherever it is based, that tries to break his sanctions, has meant Iran is effectively cut off from the other deal partners, even as they continue to try and keep the agreement alive.

As a result Tehran says there is little point in keeping its end of the bargain, and will start to enrich uranium over the limits imposed and agreed by all parties four years ago.

Warnings out of Europe against doing this ring hollow when little is being done to defy Washington’s unilateral embargos and bring some relief to the suffering and isolated country.

The 2015 deal was far from perfect — diplomatic initiatives like these seldom are — but it was working within its framework, always with the possibility that further progress could be made at a later date.

Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop approach, urged on by key figures in the Administration who seem to believe the answer to any problem is a military one, is bringing the Middle East to the point of all-out war.  

A situation created not from any international imperative, but from a relentless determination to tear down another’s achievements.

The US people deserve better; the world deserves better.

EU survives rise of the right

Much has been made of the outcome of the recent elections for the European Union Parliament, with many commentators proclaiming ‘the rise of the Far Right’.

This has been the popular narrative for a while now, and many journalists have become addicted to it – even when the facts do not quite fit the narrative.

Yes, the Far Right did make gains throughout a good part of the EU (the Netherlands was a glaring exception) but not nearly to the extent that was predicted, or its leaders expected.

The Far Right (or Populism if you like the sanitised version) finished with something like a third of the vote, insufficient to take power from Centre Right and Left parties that have dominated the EU since its formation.

In addition, this may well be the high water mark of its influence. Many of its supporters are moderating their views, talking of change within the EU rather than scrapping the whole institution.

Its weakness comes in defining what it really wants to achieve.

We all know what the Far Right is against — globalisation, elites, the EU itself; and who it claims to represent — the ‘voiceless’, the ‘left behind’, the ‘downtrodden’ and the ‘forgotten’, an amorphous group that somehow never coalesces into something that can be easily identified.

Yet probe further and ask what it wants to replace the institutions it seeks to tear down; or help those it claims to represent, and the rhetoric quickly runs dry.

At risk of simplification I would say the supporters of the Far Right are largely drawn from young people experiencing politics for the first time; anarchists who latch onto any movement when there is chance of riots where they can smash shop windows and overturn cars, and older people with a nostalgic belief they can actually return to the ‘simpler times’ of their youth.

Like any movement, the Far Right will have a smattering of thinkers who actually seek to define a philosophy, but their voice is drowned out by the chanting and the slogans.

Besides the Netherlands, in many other places in Europe the Far Right’s rise has been over-rated. In Germany it was the Greens that made the most spectacular progress, taking second place behind Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats.

In France it was said that the right-wing National Rally (NR) had inflicted a ‘humiliating’ defeat on French President Emmanuel Macron. In fact NR polled just ahead of Macron’s Republique En Marche and got fewer votes than in 2014.

Republique En Marche, a new party that was standing at the election for the first time, took a good number of seats to give Macron a greater say in European affairs.  

In the United Kingdom Nigel Farage will persist in claiming a great victory for the his Brexit Party despite it being comprehensively outpolled by the combined vote of pro-European parties, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Scottish Nationalists.

In addition, many Labour supporters remained loyal in the desperate hope their party will eventually back a second referendum on EU membership.

All this meant, as writer, broadcaster and geopolitical commentator Colin Chapman summed up in his analysis of the election, that the Far Right ‘earthquake’ was little more than a tremor.

The EU emerged from it still intact and probably stronger from the experience, its officials energised and looking to the future.

Changes will undoubtedly come — they have to — but they will happen within the European Union’s existing structures – not on its ruins.

Peace talks an exercise in futility

A new report from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) detailing a rise in school attacks in Afghanistan comes as violence surges across the troubled nation.

More than 40 people were killed in one day, making a mockery of so-called peace talks between the Afghan Government representatives and Taliban insurgents taking place in Moscow.

The attacks follow a wearying pattern — the Taliban seize control of an area, launching reprisals against anyone in the civilian population suspected of collaborating with the Government.

Government troops launch a counter-attack and after often days of bitter fighting with heavy casualties on both sides, reclaim the lost ground, but they don’t have the ability to hold it; the soldiers are needed elsewhere and the civilians know the Taliban will be back.  

In the UNICEF report, Executive Director Henrietta Fore said “education is under fire”.

“The senseless attacks on schools; the killing, injury and abduction of teachers and the threats against education are destroying the hopes and dreams of an entire generation of children,” Fore said.

“Nearly half of all school-age children in the country are not getting an education.”  

From the viewpoint of the Taliban there is very good sense in attacking schools. The radical Islamic group seeks education to be restricted to the teachings of the Quran, or rather its perverted interpretation of the Holy Book.

For girls there should be no education at all beyond their duties as baby machines and domestic slaves.

In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for a “total pull-out” of foreign forces from Afghanistan, meaning the United States and other NATO countries that have troops there.

Such a move would be tantamount to handing the country over to the Taliban, which probably suits Moscow’s aims, at least in the short term.

Perhaps the most laughable statement came from Taliban Deputy Leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar who said his group was “committed for peace”.

The United States invaded Afghanistan amid a wave of anger and revulsion over the 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. It had no real plan other than to ‘get’ the author of the attacks, al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

The country was occupied, but never pacified, and became a sideshow to the invasion of Iraq. In later years, US attention switched again to North Korea and now, with dizzying speed, to Iran.

Washington is leaving behind a trail of unfinished business, a legacy of successive Administrations which relied on the military to do their business and ignored the anguished advice of their diplomats.

Nothing is likely to change while warmongers like National Security Adviser John Bolton have the ear of President Donald Trump. Meanwhile collateral damage from the militaristic US foreign policy continues to mount.

The case for compulsory voting

Last weekend I exercised my vote in the Australian Federal Election. I did it willingly because I wanted to participate in the choice of a new Government.

I also did it in the knowledge that if I didn’t, I would be breaking the law.

Voting is compulsory in Australian elections and has been for almost 100 years. This attracts little comment or criticism within the country, in fact many citizens here are surprised to learn the practice is not enforced more widely in other jurisdictions (Belgium is one).

Having previously lived in the United Kingdom and New Zealand where, like the vast majority of the democratic world, voting is voluntary, I was surprised and at first a little hostile to this system, but I have grown to understand and appreciate it.

In Australia, the ability to exercise the franchise is not seen just as a right, but a responsibility — a responsibility to help shape the community in which the elector lives, and to participate in democratic freedoms which can never be taken for granted.

Because it’s compulsory, everything is done to ease the task of voting. Those who want to cast their vote early can do so in the weeks before polling day at various pre-poll stations.

There are special arrangements and services for the disabled and the elderly. Australians abroad can vote at their embassies and consulates. 

As a result voting turnout is usually well over 90 per cent, with absentees being those who might have died in the weeks before polling day; overseas travellers who could not get to a polling station (voting is not compulsory for citizens based overseas for long periods).

Or those who did not vote without a valid excuse, for which there will be a small fine of $20 (more for persistent offenders).

Excuses such as ‘I forgot” or ‘I was too busy’ are not accepted. 

I now agree with the argument put by my Australian friends that not to vote is to spit in the face of those who toiled long and hard for the ability to participate in the government of their communities and their country.

For those who might argue they are so disengaged and disgusted with politics of all persuasions they feel that no one deserves their vote, I say fine. Turn up at the polling station and write ‘none of these’ or ‘Micky Mouse’ or simply just shove the unmarked paper into the ballot box.

Your vote will then be counted as ‘informal’, and you will have avoided any penalty.

The point is you have to turn up, and in doing so you are forced to consider, if only for a few minutes, the duties of being a citizen of a democracy. Not really much to ask.

Compulsory voting in the United Kingdom may well have stopped Brexit, as it could be argued that those who did not vote against European Union membership were happy with the status quo.

It would certainly make a difference in the United States where in some parts it seems there is more effort put into stopping people from voting than assisting them to exercise their franchise.

Above all, it would remove the tag of illegitimacy attached to any Government, or referendum result where there is a substantial proportion of absent voters.

Universal suffrage should mean just that.

EU supporters in danger of a split vote

A few days after results were known in the English local government elections, Prime Minister Theresa May told a conference of Welsh Conservatives: “I think there was a simple message to both us and the Labour Party to just get on and deliver Brexit.”

Really?

At the elections, for local councils of various sizes throughout England, her largely pro-Brexit Conservative Party took a bath, losing 1334 councillors, its worst showing in almost a quarter of a century.

The Opposition Labour Party, which under its leader Jeremy Corbyn has been sitting on the Brexit fence for so long it is in danger of developing haemorrhoids, did not benefit from the Tory disaster, recording a net loss of 82.

The hard-line pro-Brexit UK Independence Party virtually disappeared while the big winners were the staunchly pro-European Liberal Democrats up 703; the Greens, also on a pro-European platform, up 194 and independents who gained 662.

While there are different interpretations that can be put on this result, it would be hard for anyone other than the blinkered Prime Minister to call it a vote for leaving the European Union.

Of course, Brexit apologists have rushed to say that local elections are about local issues such as rubbish bin collections and dogs fouling footpaths, not major national issues — but that would be to deny history.

For generations, voters have used the annual local polls to voice their opinion of the ruling national Government of the day. This is not a good thing, as often well-performing councils are swept away because their membership happens to correspond with that of an unpopular ruling party at Westminster — but it is fact.

Voters took a look at the Conservatives’ inflexible stance on Brexit, and Labour’s prevarication and rejected them both, largely in favour of a party that has been pro-Europe throughout its history.  

On this basis there is a substantial case for a re-think of the entire concept of the UK leaving the European Union.

The 2016 referendum that produced a narrow majority in favour of leaving was held almost three years ago in a different world — before the election of Trump in the United States, before escalating trade wars between the US and China; before Putin in Russia and Xi in China cemented their positions as virtual dictators in their respective countries.

Before anyone considered what to do about the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic; at that time there was little or no debate on the consequences for industry and the effect on the nation’s social fabric.

Back then there was no ‘orderly Brexit’ or ‘no-deal Brexit’, just a gloriously amorphous gilded Brexit that was supposed to lead the UK into a new golden age.

In a recent interview, the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, gave the most clear headed analysis of the 2016 result when he said the decision by then Prime Minister David Cameron to call the vote was a political miscalculation.

“I would expect a different result in a vote today given what we have learned about the consequences of the UK leaving,” Tusk said.

“A real debate about the consequences of Brexit wasn’t had during the referendum campaign, but only after the vote. Paradoxically, Brexit awoke in Great Britain a pro-European movement.”

There is absolutely no doubt that Remainers were asleep at the wheel during the 2016 campaign, and even today the movement is fragmented, with no clear leader such as Brexit champion Nigel Farage.

The next big test comes in elections for the European Parliament later this month in which the UK must participate as it is still formally an EU member.

Brexiteers will fall into line behind Farage, and opinion polls show this is happening with his Brexit Party on 34 per cent of the vote.  A win for his group would be a crippling blow to the hopes of those who want to remain part of Europe and to a second referendum.

In this vote, the two major parties are an irrelevance. May and Corbyn have put ideology and ambition above the national good and refuse to see the tide is turning against them.

However, many Remainers will continue to vote Labour (on 21 per cent) because of Corbyn’s hints at support for a second referendum. Change UK (3 per cent) is also dragging off Remain votes. The Greens (8 per cent) also have mostly Remain support as has the Scottish National Party (4 per cent)

Finally there is there is the party that consistently throughout its history has supported Europe — the Liberal Democrats at 15 per cent.

It would be an absolute tragedy for Remain if their combined vote outpolled Leave, but was split among a plethora of groups that support, or might support, staying in Europe.

A vote to stay part of the European Union must go to the Liberal Democrats.  

Magic pudding production in full swing

Depressing as it seems, ‘fake news’ has become a feature of our lives and will play an increasingly spoiler role in the democratic process — the current Australian election being no exception.

Already one newspaper has been caught, headlining the results of a poll favouring an independent candidate that turned out to be false.

What can’t be faked are the official pronouncements of the major parties. Here it’s not what is said, but rather what isn’t.

The incumbent Liberal-National Coalition is running a campaign based on “sound economic development” with the delivery of tax cuts and the promise of more to come.

Opposition Labor advocates spending increases in a range of areas including, health, childcare and older Australians.

For both parties it’s all about the upsides, and not a mention of the downsides.

Economics 101: If you reduce the tax take you have to reduce spending; if you increase spending you need higher taxes.

You won’t hear Prime Minister Scott Morrison laying out the details of where he wants to cut spending at this election other than some airy-fairy comments about “greater productivity” or “reducing waste”.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has been slightly more honest by flagging tax increases in certain areas, but nothing like the amounts needed to finance his ambitious spending plans.

Both leaders are guilty of producing magic puddings which always seems to have something left, no matter how many slices are taken.

Neither have the qualities of leadership to say: “I can give you lower taxes, but some services we provide are going to be abolished or reduced.”

Or: “You will have the better services you crave, but you will have to pay more for them.”

As a result there is never a proper debate over what kind of economy Australians really want.

Should it be high tax, with increased services like many of the Scandinavian countries?

Or low tax with individuals looking after themselves as best they can such as exists in the United States?

Both major parties try to suggest we can have the best of both worlds. Australia has often been described as the Lucky Country, but it isn’t that lucky.

In the end whichever party is in power is forced to make compromises on its promises, leading to disgust and disillusionment among those who voted to put it there.

That has led to the rise of the far right, the ultimate magic pudding manufacturer, harvesting the naivety vote with their simple answers to all the complexity of the nation’s and the world’s problems.

And heaven help us all if any of that crowd ever got a taste of power.   

Amritsar: The cost of no apology

Earlier this month India paused from its election campaign to mark the centenary of one of the darkest deeds in the history of the British Empire — the massacre at Amritsar.

On April 13, 1919 British-led troops fired on hundreds of unarmed people in a walled garden in the Punjab city of Amritsar. They were ordered to fire until their ammunition ran out.

No attempt was made to allow the crowd to disperse. The troops were firing from the only exit. There was no means of escape.

Officially the death toll was 379; Indians put it at closer to 1000. 

Historians believe that incident and the fact the perpetrators were never properly punished, provided the impetus that eventually forced the British from India 28 years later.

Before the massacre Indian independence had largely been the subject of debate among a small group of intellectuals.

Even activist Mahatma Gandhi, who later led the campaign for independence, had believed the British could still be absorbed into a free India in much the same way as past conquerors, such as the Mughals, had been.

All that changed after 1919.

Fast forward 100 years and the United Kingdom, long stripped of its overseas possessions and preparing to leave the European Union, is desperately casting about for partners to fulfil its hopes of becoming a ‘global’ trading nation.

One would assume that India, now a rising superpower with a population of more than 1.3 billion, would figure large in this new global strategy. Time to mend fences, with the Amritsar anniversary providing the ideal opportunity.

A heartfelt and sincere apology for the atrocity, delivered on site by a royal personage was in order. Instead the UK was left asleep at the wheel.

It was represented at the anniversary ceremony by its High Commissioner, Dominic Asquith who laid a wreath and mouthed a few words about being unable to rewrite history, but the need to learn its lessons.

What the UK has not learnt is the depth of feeling and resentment that continues in India about the massacre. It has not been forgotten and for many Indians, Britain can never be a true friend.   

In London, Prime Minister Theresa May did pause from the Brexit crisis to tell Parliament that the massacre was “a shameful scar on British Indian history.”

“We deeply regret what happened and the suffering caused,” she said.

However, in diplomatic speak “regret” falls short of an apology, as was noted by the Chief Minister of Punjab State, Amarinder Singh.

“An unequivocal official apology is needed for this monumental barbarity,” Singh said.  

  

Sadly May is not the first UK leader in modern times to stumble over this highly sensitive and emotional issue.

When David Cameron became the first serving British Prime Minister to visit the site in 2013 he defended his decision not to say sorry.

“It happened 40 years before I was born…I don’t think the right thing is to reach back into history and to seek out things you can apologise for,” Cameron said.

History may well come back to bite the UK as it seeks to replace the trading relationships it has lost with Europe.