Tag: european union

Categories
International News

Migrant Crisis at Greece Border

Last Sunday, the Greco-Macedonian border blew up in chaos as Macedonian police stormed a congregate of refugees who were trying to break into a refugee camp in northern Greece.

Chemical weapons such as tear gas were used in fending off the migrants at the border.

International health organization, Medecines Sans Frontieres (MSF), or “Doctors Without Borders,” reported over 300 injured by the Macedonian police.

Spokesman for the Greek government, George Kyritsis, spoke out against this by stating in an interview, “The indiscriminate use of chemicals, rubber bullets and stun grenades against vulnerable populations… is a dangerous and deplorable act.”

Reuters, an American news agency, quoted a policeman from Macedonian who claimed that migrants had thrown stones at the Macedonian police first, and the gas was an act of defense. “The migrants were pushing against the fence, but standing on the Greek side of the border. The fence is still there, they have not broken through,” stated Macedonian police official.

A report from a local journalist, Katica Djurovic, also commented on the event, “I was teargassed at least twice. Not just me, another cameraman, other press people were also teargassed as well as refugees. Some of the tear gas [was] thrown at least 200 meters into the camp, into the tents where most of women and children were sitting.”

This is not the first time tensions have risen at the migrant camps in Greece. Two months ago, more than 52,000 migrants were trapped after being closed off by the Balkan states.

The migrant issue has also turned political in Greece. Golden Dawn, a far-right Greek party, has marched in several areas around migrant camps and gather points. The leader, however, was previously arrested for criminal organization after recent release announced that the party was planning a number of protests around the country to warn people of the “Islamizaiton of Greece by Music asylum seekers.”

Ilias Kasidiaris, the spokesman for the party, stated in an interview that they [the people of Greece] “…cannot accept that we will become a minority in our homeland… Whether you call them refugees or illegals, there’s no difference — we want them out.” The party also spoke openly about their alignment to statements made by U.S. presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump, and think it would be a “very positive development if he were to be elected president.”

On March 20, a European Union deal regarding the migrant crisis in Turkey went into effect. The deal requires mass deportations back to Turkey for any migrant attempting to leave after the signed date. Due to proximity, a large influx of these escaped migrants have fled to Greece. In response, Greek authorities have attempted to persuade migrants to move to reception camps, however, the refugee population has so far refused to move.

Since January 2016, over 150,000 migrants have arrived to Greece, with almost 40% of the population consisting of children.

Overall, more than one million refugees and other migrants have attempted to enter Europe by boat since last year, but with tensions rising, and borders closing, the number is likely to fall in the coming year.

Categories
News

Ceasefire in Ukraine

A ceasefire was called in Ukraine last Friday, when the Ukrainian government and separatist leaders agreed to stop conflict that has left 2,200 people dead since April. While this is not the first attempt at a ceasefire agreement between the two groups, it is the first time that Russian president Vladimir Putin actively endorsed this action. His endorsement revolved around a 7-part peace plan that he had laid out two days earlier.

Jared CramIn spite of this, Putin has still been under heavy scrutiny by Western leaders for what they believe to be suspicious political motives in Russian involvement with Ukraine. In spite of this skepticism, Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko expressed cautious optimism about the cease-fire. In a White House press conference following the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Wales, President Obama spoke to the Associated Press saying he remained “hopeful but, based on past experience, also skeptical” about the strength of this ceasefire.

For now, the focus of the U.S., and other members of NATO have been to support Ukraine in its endeavors, without directly supplying weaponry or allowing the Ukraine to join the treaty organization. In an interview with Time magazine, president of the Atlantic Council of Ukraine, Vadim Grechaninov, stated that he is disappointed, but not surprised. If Ukraine were to be accepted into NATO every member of the organization would be bound to protect Ukraine in this conflict. Many of the allies are hesitant to involve themselves in that type of confrontation with Russia, who is armed with nuclear weapons.

However, NATO has attempted to provide some support for Ukrainian people in a few ways. During the NATO summit in Wales, the five most powerful nations in the organization met with Poroshenko to discuss the conflict with Russia, and collectively pledged $16 million dollars in trust funds to help modernize the Ukrainian military. The most influential tactic used by NATO members, however, are the sanctions against trade with Russia. A CNN article wrote that the European Union, in addition to their current sanctions against any arms or dual-purpose items, is looking to restrict capital investments with Russia within their union, as well as sensitive technologies and certain energy-related equipment.

In his interview, Grechaninov recognizes the actions taken by members of NATO to help restore peace to the region, but doesn’t believe they are sufficient. “Putin can only be stopped by a force greater than his,” he said. “We waited for this force from NATO, and they have it. They can stop Putin. But right now they don’t consider it. “President Obama has a different opinion on the impact that NATO has had in the Ukrainian conflict. During his White House press conference, he stated that the only reason that Russia was agreeing to a ceasefire is because of the impact that current sanctions, as well as threat of future sanctions will have on the Russian economy.

The future remains unclear in Ukraine as current world leaders are still cautious about the stability and strength of the current ceasefire between the two groups. A diplomatic solution cannot currently be reached, as many separatists are divided on their goals for the conflict. In response to the future, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk told the New York Times that lasting peace would only come about in response to three things: a long term cease fire, a withdrawal of the Russian army, and a wall along the border. According to CNN, the last unilateral ceasefire declared by the Ukrainian government in June broke down after ten days.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Would Widespread Economic and Political Freedom Create Global Peace?

Among a certain subset of people in the world, there is a strong belief that the primary requirement for “world peace”—that nebulous phrase used by politicians, college freshmen, and contestants on the Miss America pageant alike—is freedom. Primarily what they are talking about in these instances is political and economic freedom guaranteed by individual countries. I am not one of those people, and this is why.

2view-sarahsIt is important to note that a given group of people with political freedom depends largely on the values that they hold. For example, in 2005 Hezbollah was elected to power in southern Lebanon. Considered a terrorist organization by the United States government, this is hardly the type of political party to promote peace in the Middle East. The political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the so-called “Freedom and Justice Party”, was also elected by a large majority to power in 2012. (Subsequently, President Morsi was, along with other members of the Muslim Brotherhood, removed from power and charged with murder). While both of these parties were elected through fair elections within the last ten years, neither of them hold values which would increase global peace.

The other freedom suggested as a requirement for world peace is economic freedom. This is more promising. Probably the best example of an international free trade arrangement is the EU (European Union). No country in the EU has gone to war with another EU member country—this is quite impressive, especially considering the previous history of the continent. This phenomenon extends beyond the European Union to democratic countries in general. Researchers theorize that the reason for this is that in a country with an open economic market, it becomes unnecessary and unprofitable for countries to go to war as resources are easily distributed between countries. War is no longer a necessity to re-distribute scarce resources but a distraction from more profitable methods of production.

On the other hand, it is possible that the more or less widespread global peace we in the democratic nations of the world have been experiencing is a fluke in the annals of history. (More or less, because a majority of countries in the world are currently or have recently been involved in some type of armed conflict). The reasons that global peace might not be sustainable even with widespread global economic and political freedom come down to the age-old reasons for conflict which currently democratic and economically free governments have at the moment been able to avoid—land and the resources associated with land.

Although the world as a whole is potentially able to support a significantly larger population than it currently is doing, the essential problem is that the largest percentage of increase in population will occur in regions that are less able to support a large population, while a decline is projected to occur in regions more able to support a larger population. For example, the latest UN projections predict the population of Africa will double, while that of Europe will decline by 14%.

Historically, a frequent source of conflict is a large population of young people with less access to resources. The inequality of consumption globally is well established—statistics such as, the 12% of the world’s population which lives in the United States and Europe accounts for 60% of global private consumption, while the third of global population which lives in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 3.2%.

Not only is inequality widespread and the global population rapidly increasing, there is evidence that water will in the quite near future become a resource lacking in many areas of world. Less than one percent of the water on the planet is usable for humans and animals. According to the UN, by 2030 nearly half of the world will be living under areas of high water stress.

My purpose in stating all these statistics is not to scare anyone or to present an overly pessimistic view of the world. And I do believe that economic and political freedoms are beneficial and even necessary for a country to live happily and well. But they are not enough. Freedom is what you make of it, and conflict is not something that can always be prevented.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Would Widespread Economic and Political Freedom Create Global Peace?

Though I would agree with Sarah Slater’s point that global peace could never be entirely accomplished due to the presence of scarce resources and competing cultural values, it is hard to negate the evidence that democracies – systems in which political freedom is the foundation – rarely go to war against each other. It is also hard to ignore that economies that practice economic freedom and are increasingly dependent on each other also find it difficult to go to war. For these reasons, it seems fair to conclude that the expansion of political and economic freedoms contributes to domestic and global peace, even if they may not resolve the entire issue.

2view-sarahhThese arguments ultimately rest on cost-benefit analysis. As Immanuel Kant, one of the early writers on global peace, wrote in 1795, wars do not frequently benefit the ordinary people in a country. Often, citizens have to bear the load of war, “having to fight, having to pay the costs of war from their own resources, having painfully to repair the devastation war leaves behind, and, to fill up the measure of evils, load themselves with a heavy national debt that would embitter peace itself and that can never be liquidated on account of constant wars in the future.” In a republic or a democracy where citizens are free to exercise political control, it would make sense that they try to refrain from going to war as much as possible. Political freedoms, then, become safety valves that citizens may exercise against their politicians when conflicts begin to get overheated.

Theoretically, Kant’s proposition makes sense, but how does it play out in recent history?

Political freedom – by which we mean the ability of the public to engage in a political process without being coerced or compelled in any way – is a relatively recent phenomenon in history and the phenomenon only took hold in the past 50 or 60 years. According to scholar Michael Mandelbaum, “In the second half of the twentieth century … democracies consistently preferred butter to guns” due to their political choices which reflected their preferences for social welfare programs than to foreign activity and wars. Even the United States, which has acquired the reputation of bellicosity “was subject to the same popular reservations about and objections to war” in the twentieth century that was present in other countries, albeit at a smaller scale.

Increased globalization and the dependency between economies that practice economic freedom also create situations in which the desire for peace outweighs the desire for conflict. Conflict can interrupt trade between nations, the production of goods, and the transactions between consumers and producers which encourages these economies to refrain from war. Again, this argument rests on a cost-benefit analysis between the costs of war and the benefits of peace. As Sarah Slater noted in the previous article, no European state in the European Union has attacked another – a miracle if we examine Europe’s recent history.

We should look at expanding political and economic freedom as a positive force in expanding the capacity of people to behave nonviolently, but we shouldn’t assume that it is a guarantee that people will take the opportunity of these freedoms. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen wrote concerning democracy in Development as Freedom, “Democracy does not serve as an automatic remedy of ailments as quinine works to remedy malaria. The opportunity it opens has to be positively grabbed in order to achieve the desired effect. This is … a basic feature of freedoms in general – much depends on how freedoms are actually exercised.” While political and economic freedom may indeed contribute to global peace, it still depends on what people make of it.

In conclusion, I do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to the issue of global peace and that if only we could snap our fingers and declare that all countries were politically and economically free, then the world would be immediately at one. This approach ignores cultural and historical conditions and, as we have seen in the Balkans, the transition from an authoritarian government to a system that promotes political and economic freedom can be a violent one. (The current state of affairs in many Middle Eastern countries today would be other examples.) By the same token, however, the evidence exists that, in the long run, these expansions may indeed increase global peace and contribute to the capacity of people to behave nonviolently.

Categories
News

Bangladesh Faces Uncertain Future

Courtesy of thediplomat.com
Courtesy of thediplomat.com

As it stands, Bangladesh faces a future of political and economic uncertainty. The escalation of hostilities could not have worse timing as the country confronts extreme poverty and a rapidly depreciating manufacturing sector. Within the last month, the country has seen a rapid increase of violence and political unrest as opposition parties increase their capacity in the upcoming election. Additionally, such anti-government protests have forced thousands off the streets of the capital Dhaka as police and paramilitary guards attempt to confine and subdue the opposition. As the January 2014 general election approaches, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) continues to put pressure on Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, to install a neutral, non-partisan administration to oversee the voting process. However, despite the protests and fighting, Hasina and opposition leader Begum Khaleda Zia have failed to come to an agreement despite the desperate state of affairs. In response to the stalemate, the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations have advocated for both parties to come to an expedient consensus in the upcoming months.

Historically, Bangladesh has experienced significant pre-election violence. Dating back to 1996, polls have been interrupted and aborted as a result of intense violence. In 2007, voting was halted due to party opposition that led to military intervention to install a ‘caretaker’ or temporary government. A precedent and mutual distrust among the two leading parties has made elections virtually impossible and less effective.

Furthermore, violent clashes with police and protesters since October 26 have left at least fifteen dead and many more injured. Bangladesh reporters have posted photos of burn victims from recent strikes involving the use of arson. The intensified violence, particularly this year, can be attributed to the war crime tribunal set up in 2010 to try those involved in the human rights violations during the 1971 war in which Bangladesh sought independence from Pakistan. In the wake of verdicts, 150 people have been killed and more than 2,000 people injured by police officials, according to a recent Human Rights Watch report. In relation to the hostilities, the political crisis has also forced store owners and their employees to close their business, pushing an already weak and fragile economy further into a bleak trap. Waiting has burdened their capacity to work, earn money, and provide an income for their starving families as they wait for the violence to subside. “We need to go to the office, we need to work,” exclaimed Abdus Salam, who is one of many local business owners desperately waiting for a political agreement between the conflicting parties.

Moreover, only to add to the tension, poor safety standards and recent incidents have put a halt to the country’s main export. Bangladesh is the second leading exporter of readymade garments, accounting for almost 80% of the country’s exports. Appealing to the government, workers have demanded higher wages and better working conditions. The death of more than a thousand workers within the last year has prompted the global community to scrutinize and condemn the working conditions within the factories. However, Bangladesh’s wage board had proposed an increase of less than what the union demanded, claiming to represent the needs of both the factory owners and the workers. In addition, despite the increase, Bangladesh’s minimum wage will remain one of the lowest in the world.

Decades of rivalry and political division have severely undermined the legitimacy of an effective government in Bangladesh. The country’s future is becoming increasingly uncertain as it remains trapped in a persistent cycle of poverty and turmoil. Can the international community intervene? What will it take to break the cycle of hopelessness, poverty, and repression? As global spectators, we note these questions are all too often repetitive, especially as we consider other countries across the globe who have faced various situations of economic and political instability.