16 years on… A reflection.

Today marks 16 years since one of the most tragic days in recent history. On the morning of Tuesday 11th September 2001, the world woke up to the tragic news of one of the most horrendous terrorist attacks on western soil in years. We pause to remember those 2,977 innocent victims who lost their lives, to send our prayers to their families & to pay tribute to the heroism of the first responders and volunteers who responded to New York’s time of need with courage and dedication.

Countless lives lost in an instant. Hijacked planes flying into the World Trade Centre – it was something no one had imagined in their wildest dreams. 2,977 lives were lost and a further 6000 others were injured. Families shattered, loved ones lost. It still sends shivers down the spine. The images of the collapsing towers engulfed in flames, the smoke and debris still feels fresh to this day. President Bush declaring in response

Terrorist attacks can shake the foundation of our biggest building, but they cannot touch the foundations of America.

He wasn’t the most loved President at the time and still continues to divide opinion; but at the time, his words provided assurance to people all over the world and helped show defiance to terrorists who tried to break the spirit of our freedom and tolerance.

I still recall – being a 9 year old child at the time. Hearing about the incident, going into school the next day – still deeply disturbed by the events of the day before. Only to see a devastated teacher at school who’s son had gone to New York on holiday. The look of desperation on his face was something I had never seen before. Glued to his phone – he was anxiously trying to get hold of his son but was having no luck. We learned from him a few days later that his son had been admitted to a New York hospital suffering from smoke related injuries but was safe.

This single fateful day reshaped the world we live in drastically. The idea of terrorist attacks on such a large scale in the West were unthinkable – especially at the turn of the new millennium, when significant world events had occurred to aid our quest for world peace. Peace in Northern Ireland had just become a reality – with the Good Friday agreement just a few years prior. A jubilant Tony Blair as British PM in Paris in 1997 had declared proudly:

Mine is the first generation able to contemplate the possibility that we may live our entire lives without going to war or sending our children to war.

Little did anyone know, that just a few years later – the attacks on September 11th would reshape global geopolitics in such a way that the western world would once again be plunged into a endless conflict with the Gulf states. One who’s effects still seems to continue to this very day.

Not only did the attacks on September 11th redefine America, but also the whole of the western world. The resulting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq paved ways for radical preachers to capitalise on the casualties of these wars and use the deaths of civilians as a fuel to ignite their fires of hatred in the hearts of many young people throughout the west. We continue to see the effects of this even today. After September 11th, terror attacks became more common throughout the west. From the 7/7 bombings in London the following year, to the recent attacks in Paris, Brussels, Manchester and London once again. Terror attacks on western soil orchestrated by home grown terrorists have become a sad but regular occurrence in our lives. While the root cause behind these can be attributed to many factors – ranging from hate preachers brainwashing innocent youth to lack of integration and hatred for western values. One thing remains true – the attacks of 9/11 have deeply scarred the world and its dark legacy continues to haunt us to this day.

On my visit to New York in 2012 for a conference, I decided to take some time out and visit the 9/11 memorial on ground zero that had just been newly opened at the time. Despite being 11 years on since the attacks, the area still has a deeply unsettling feel to it. As soon as you step into the vicinity of the grounds where the tall and grand towers once stood – every other thought escapes your mind. You can’t help but feel overcome with emotion. The scenes of suffering and terror that you once saw on the TV start to flash through your mind. The monument houses two fountains honouring those innocent lives that were lost, with plaques hearing the names of all those 2,977 kind souls who lost their lives in 2001 and the 6 who lost their lives in a bomb attack on the World Trade Centre previously in 1993.

Despite all these years, countless military operations and arrests; justice still remains elusive for the families of the victims of this tragic atrocity. The five men accused of masterminding these attacks remain in US custody – awaiting trial. Despite hoards of evidence stacked up against them including tapes of their ring leader boasting of orchestrating the attacks to press media in 2002, a date for the trial remains provisionally set to start in 2019. Despite there being enough evidence to convict, the trials have been repeatedly put off potentially due to some of the methods used to obtain information – with one of the convict alleged to have been given the controversial “Waterboarding” treatment 183 times in a single month alongside rectal rehydration. Thus potentially jeopardising the Prosecution’s claims.

The biggest disservice in all of this is to the families of the victims – seeking closure. From what it seems – Justice is a long way away for these families.

The 2,977 individuals who lost their lives on that tragic day act as a reminder to us all of our duties to fight any form of extremism – especially in these times where we are seeing a rise in extremist ideologies across our nations.

On behalf of everyone at Graduates of Democracy, I, as President of the board would like to pay my respects to all those who lost their lives, their families and loved ones. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the first responders and volunteers who responded in the toughest hour in New York’s history. Their heroism and selfless acts are a testament to the unwavering spirit of New York.

By Mu-Hamid Pathan

 

– President – Graduates of Democracy

– Former Member of UK Youth Parliament for Leicester South & Media representative for UKYP East Mids

– Mentor to Leicester Children’s Council

– Freelance Politics, policy and participation advisor

– Young Advisor to O2 mobile on youth strategy and Think Big CSR

– Steering group member for Young Researchers network

 

Twitter- @Muhamid_Pathan

Advertisements

The curious case of North Korea

  1. Overview

North Korea, considered to be one of the last communist regimes on earth and one of the most secretive; was seen with a certain curiosity and fun how such a ‘self isolated’ country survives in a globalized world like the one we have today. North korea was originally united with her “sister” South Korea being a single Korea, however as a result of the cold war in 1948 they were split in two, with two separate governments.

However that division was never really accepted by both Koreas, each one of them believed they had the legitimacy to govern all Korea. This friction escalated, and on 25 June 1950 North korea, supported by the communist regimes of China and Soviet Union, moved south and started what would be called as the Korean war. On 27 June, 21 countries from UN constituted an UN force, with the vast majority being american troops, to help the south korea against what was considered to be the communist faction (north korea, soviet union and china). The war would last 3 years with more than 2 million fatalities, the most being South and Northern Korean soldiers.

After that the North and South became more distant than ever. The North allied with China and Soviet Union – the communist faction, while South Korea became an ally of US, Japan and other UN member states. This alliance with the communist factions was really important, not only in terms of geopolitics and defense against the south korean allies, but also as a source of financing since the Soviet Union was a major source of money for the North Korean communist regime. This alliance however would get weaker, as Deng Xiaoping became the 1st chinese leader to visit the US in an attempt to open it’s country to the outside and foreign investment what would be called China’s capitalist revolution. In 1991 came the collapse of the soviet union, which was a major source of financing to North Korean regime. The combination of these events led to the isolation of the North Korean regime and its continuing closure.

As many people state this country is not simply a communist state as it represents the mixture of communist ideology, nationalism, Juche and Songun philosophy. This combination was set up by what are considered to be “eternal leaders of north korea” Kim Il-Sung and his son Kim Jong-Il. The country fell in a repressive and authoritarian regime that used, and still continues to use nowadays with Kim Jong-Un, the cult of personality where everything that has been made or planned was an act of “divine intervention” by the supreme leaders.

It’s 25 millions inhabitants are believed to live under extreme poverty, that many human rights are violated – something it’s defectors tell to the outside world, and the fact that human rights organizations like International Amnesty do not get a permit to visit the country shows that these aren’t just rumors and western propaganda. Under the many accusations, it’s the fact that this is one of the few countries in the world who still conduct public executions, just for “committing the crime” of not agreeing with the regime and supreme leader.

 

  1. A rising threat

At first sight we are to believe we are in the presence of some crazy dictatorship that lives under the cult of personality, is a closed country that violates human rights but poses no threat to the world. However in 2006 that started to change as North Korea managed to carry out its first successful nuclear explosion, in 2009 it carried out its second and more powerful nuclear test. Subsequently, they continued with their research and tests but no one seemed to believe they were really making progress in terms of Nuclear power. Many said some of the nuclear warheads we see in North Korea military parades are made of paper, or that they had soviet technology that was completely outdated.

But since Kim Jong Un got in charge in 2011, their nuclear research and activity seemed to boost. Despite having a hard time in terms of economics, specially with the tougher economic sanctions, 16% of GDP is dedicated solely to military activity – having one of the largest paramilitary organizations (roughly 25% of the north korean population are military). By mid 2016 they started to show major developments which culminated with the launch of ICBM missiles this year during summer and the creation of what is supposed to be thermonuclear weapons, way more powerful than the nuclear bombs US launched on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945.

NorthKorea_Missile_testing_update_08.17-01

(source: Center for Strategic International Studies )

This obsession with military and nuclear power is above all the result of the Songun philosophy North korea has, which is basically “Military first policy”, in other words the state priority should be to achieve a powerful and mighty military force so no nation even thinks of challenging its regime. Something that Kim Jong Il saw happening in Iraq with US intervention in 2003, and regime change that led to the execution of Saddam Hussein and the execution of Gaddafi after he was overthrown in 2011. This was probably one of the reasons north koreans reconducted their nuclear research in 2003 after a 5 year break and in 2006 had their first nuclear weapon test with success.

Geographically speaking, we can see it as a “child trying to show he is a grown up as well”, its neighbours are all world leading economies China is the 2nd largest economy in the world, Japan the 3rd largest and South Korea, the eternal rival, is the 11th largest economy in the world according to the IMF and Work Bank data from 2016.

Unsurprisingly, the nuclear pursuit is used by the North Koreans as a show of force to their neighbours – in order to display that despite their languishing fiscal condition, the North remains a strong nuclear force to be beckoned with.

The reason behind North Korea’s constant show of force is simple. It’s used as a deterrent to their neighbours and helps consolidate their position in the area as a force to be beckoned with – despite their fiscal degradation.

Due to their isolationist attitude towards globalisation over the years, the North has constantly been at risk of falling into obscurity and nothingness. However, their strategy over the years has been simple – to remain in the news through whatever outlandish story they can pump out to the world. Thus they have constantly made outlandish claims of having found miraculous drugs to cure terminal illness amongst other things.

What initially remained a harmless yet comic display of faux aggression from the reclusive nation over the years, has slowly developed into something more sinister. The North’s experimentation with high grade Nuclear weaponry has alerted the international community.

The North’s lack of regard for the international community makes it a dangerous wildcard in a strategic location for the West. Whilst the North has nothing to lose from any of this, their maverick attitude towards conflict can have devastating effects on the world both in regards to trade and environmental reasons.

Recently, Japan endured incredibly large unnatural tremors due to what can only be guessed as military experimentation from their North Korean neighbours. This has further ramped up the need for the international community to band together in dealing with the North Korean threat.

The danger remains simple – North Korean recklessness with Nuclear and thermonuclear weaponry that is potentially beyond their capacity to control, put the whole region at the risk of an apocalyptic scenario where a fall-out causes millions of lives to be lost within minutes and global levels of catastrophes ensuing from the conflict. The lives would not only be lost by the military weapons used – but also from the environmental disasters that would follow. In recent years – we have come very close to seeing a nuclear melt down at the Fukushima Power Plant. This would undoubtedly trigger that and a whole load of similar scenarios.

But North Korea has now boldly made claims they have missile capabilities of reaching the US – which can be loaded with their new thermonuclear Hydrogen Bomb stronger than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s a scenario of the worst kind. Something that you only get to see glimpses of in apocalyptic action movies from Hollywood – but it’s now become a real possibility.

 

  1. Trump foreign policy

This brings into question what role America plays in dealing with this dangerous scenario. The North has remained a bone stuck in the throats of many previous Presidents – from the Bush father and son to Bill Clinton, Obama and now Trump.

Previously, despite the North being very vocal in their desires for Nuclear supremacy, there hasn’t been much of a display of aggression physically. Just a mere war of words – which previous Presidents have responded to with ridicule, humour, sanctions and other not too complicated means such as mediation through China and other regional partners.

However, with the election of Trump – a firebrand in the Oval Office. It seems Kim Jong Un has found his match. Both share similar characteristics of being outspoken, often outlandish and having little regard for diplomatic dialogue.

Despite Trump’s campaign focussing on establishing China as his enemy No. 1 for their trade malpractices and its impact on US economy. Ever since his election, Trump has had to change his direction. Softening his stance on China and trying to forge a friendly relation with President Xi Jinping. It is evident to the Trump administration that their best hopes of dealing with North Korean problem is by optimising China as a mediator – even if that means giving up some ground on the on-going fiscal war between China and the US to become the next fiscal Hegemony for the new age.

But the problem doesn’t end here for the Trump administration. The real issue here is that they lack a clear and coherent strategy or direction in regards to how they hope to deal with this crisis.

Despite Trump trying his best to cosy up to the Chinese – including his infamous anecdote about eating ‘Chocolate cake’ with President Xi while America launched missile strikes. Former Trump Election Chief Steve Bannon proudly went on record to ‘The Prospect’ stating that:

We’re at economic war with China,” he added. “It’s in all their literature. They’re not shy about saying what they’re doing. One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it’s gonna be them if we go down this path. On Korea, they’re just tapping us along. It’s just a sideshow.

Furthermore, Trump pledged to respond to North Korea with “Fire and Fury”. only to once again be contradicted by Bannon – who in the same interview, went on to say:

There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.

Many would have argued that these views are Bannon’s own and thus he has subsequently been removed from office and relieved from his White House duties by President Trump.

However, it doesn’t end there. Trump’s Defence Tsar Nikki Haley at a UN Emergency Meeting regarding North Korea made the bold statement that; North Korea’s “Abusive use of missiles” displayed that Kim Jong II was “Begging for war”. Only to be followed by Trump’s Defence Secretary; General ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis briefing the Press at the White House through a self contradictory statement saying “We are not looking to the total annihilation of a country, namely North Korea, But as I have said, we have many options to do so.”

If this wasn’t enough, the President decided to take it one step further himself. In a display of having absolutely no clue at all in regards to dealing with international military conflict or the North Korean issue that is escalating, Trump decided to answer a reporter who shouted out a question to him as he was walking to his ride “Mr. President, will you attack North Korea”. Rather than remaining diplomatically coy about it like other statesmen and women would, Mr. Trump decided to break his stride, turn to the reporter and reply “We’ll see”. before smiling, waving and walking off again in true Trump fashion.

 

  1. Bottom Line

What remains certain is that whatever the real capability of Nuclear warfare that North Korea may possess, the threat is now more realistic than ever.

Despite the well known fact that North Korea has a habit of making exaggerated and outlandish claims, their recent test results display not only a real desire for the reclusive nation to develop, improve and create Nuclear warheads, but also display the fact they have finally refined their research and become capable of achieving their nuclear dreams.

This makes the scenario a very dangerous one for the international community as North Korea can no longer be dismissed as a Political Parody of a state with an eccentric but foolish leader, it is now a unhinged state with Nuclear capabilities – catapulting the world into a dangerous scenario.

Alongside this, what isn’t helping is President Trump’s approach of lacking a clear strategy and his constant displays of amateurish antics which can only be compared to Kim Jong Un.

The stark reality is that we live in a world where two egomaniacs are displaying their masculinity to each other through a war of crass rhetoric and insults. On one hand we have a cartoonish Dictator who revels in killing or jailing political opponents and anyone he sees as a threat to him – including students visiting his nation, and on the other hand we have a US President who takes to twitter 3am in the morning to insult those who oppose him with childish slurs. Yet these two men hold the codes to some of the most powerful Nuclear artillery in the world.

 

Luís Carvalho, Graduates of Democracy Editor in Chief

Mu-hamid Pathan, Graduates of Democracy President

 

Disclaimer: This article reflects the author’s opinion it might not reflect the whole group’s opinion

Seven Nation Army

“In peace, there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon…”

 

It has become some kind of European routine: confronted with an increasing number of citizens displeased by the Union’s policies, lack – or excess – of shared programs, European leaders revive the idea of a European army from time to time. There’s nothing new about using the military to reassure people, for it’s both a useful tool and a symbolic object of the utmost importance: in France, politicians are after all still debating about re-establishing a military service and arguing about its ability to mix social groups ([1]) within a single, united corp. But as Russia seems to be revaluating its strategic orientations to promote a more active approach to security issues while revitalising its military industrial complex, Europe, now forced to act by The Donald’s erratic way of handling foreign affairs, might have no other choice but to go “once more into the breach.”

Still, obstacles are various: even though interoperability have been promoted for quite a long time, European armed forces still use different material, especially in strategic realms such as the air force – the French Armée de l’Air uses Rafale and Mirage, while the German Luftwaffe uses Eurofighters, for instance. Moreover, shared industrial program such as the A400M one ([2]) – which aimed at providing various European armies with a common transport aircraft – met surprising difficulties, costs skyrocketing without any apparent progress being made. In addition to those technical, industrial issues, the sole idea of a common European armed force raises many more issues, from political ones to military ones: what would the missions be of such a force? By whom would it be commanded? What about language and structure? Where would its bases be located? In order to rationalise all of these rightful inquiries, one has to draw the line somewhere: it is almost impossible, if not simply bizarre to imagine that 28 countries will ever come together to form an armed force capable of designating its capacities, foes, theatres of operations and missions in a clear way.

The French Armed Forces, created in 1792, are currently divided into five branches: the Armée de Terre, the Marine Nationale, the Armée de l’Air, the Gendarmerie and the National Guard. Recently deployed in Sub-Saharan Africa (3,000 troops) in Iraq (3,200 troops) the French Armed Forces are also taking part in various peacekeeping missions by mobilising nearly 1,000 blue helmets. Besides enjoying the world’s only nuclear-powered carrier completed outside of the United States Navy, the French Armed Forces can rely on highly functional tools as various as fifth-generation aircraft (Rafale) and ultramodern frigates (FREMM) Yet, the French Armed Forces are suffering from the same drawbacks as most of their European partners: a chronic lack of funding which currently sever its ability to carry out  missions on its own and this has resulted in a lack of strategic airlift and unmanned aerial vehicles. However, recent reforms have been announced: they include investing in the modernisation of the Rafale, investing in the French special forces and speeding up the modernisation of France’s armoured vehicles

While discussing military integration, less is more. It is always easier to merge a small number of forces into one than to try and design a European military based on twenty-eight countries’ will to create something shared and common. ([3]) In fact, common characteristics exist between some militaries in the Union: German and French forces, for instance, are reaching an almost similar level of operational capacity, France’s main asset being that they have  acquired important experiences on theatres as diverse as South America, Sub-Saharan and Central Africa, Levant and Middle-East and own combat-proven aircrafts (Rafale) self-propelled howitzers (Caesar Canon) infantry fighting vehicles (VBCI) tactical transport helicopters (Caracal) and attack helicopters (Tigre) the latter being the result of a European military program and therefore used not only by France but also Germany and Spain.

 The Spanish Armed Forces aren’t as important as the French or Italian ones, but they still represent forces to be acknowledged, members of both NATO and the Eurocorps and representing around 130,000 men and women divided between the Ejército de Tierra, the Armada Española, the Ejército del Aire and the Guardia Civil. Though only carrying modest missions and relying on small battlegroups, the Spanish Armed Forces enjoy modern and various equipment including German MBT (Leopard II) European and American helicopters (Tigre, Chinook) and Austrian-Spanish IFV (ASCOD Pizarro) asserting its capacity to act in coordination with other western forces. Yet, and as many European forces, the Spanish ones suffer from a lack of investment resulting in poor operational abilities based on aging tools and gears, which was made even worse by the political turmoil faced by the nation a year ago

 This, for instance, came from a simple thought: “We all need a similar tool to carry out similar missions on similar theatres of operation. Why not share the costs of production as well as future, prospective benefits?” such a model of military cooperation being encouraged by the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation ([4]), which currently supervises no more than twelve military programs, from armoured fighting vehicles (Cobra) to multi-mission frigates (FREMM). Its most active members include France – with nine shared military programs – Italy – seven – Germany – three – and Benelux – three. Seven military’s therefore sharing highly efficient tools and reaching an almost unmatched interoperability capacity; seven countries active on shared battlegrounds such as Mali or Iraq and who could, at one point, start to exist as a Seven Nation Army.

As far as organisation is concerned, the Forze Armate Italiane can be compared to the French one. It is divided into four corps: the Esercito Italiano, the Marina Militare, the Aeronautica Militare and the Arma dei Carabinieri and represent nearly 300,000 men and women. Recent reforms in the Italian military included a decrease in the number of the army personnel meant to reallocate military funds to instruction, training and armaments. Its main assets include: owning two STOVL aircraft carriers – short takeoff and vertical landing – meant to carry short-range missions in the Mediterranean Sea, having at its disposal a vast number of military aircrafts – the most recent being Eurofighter and F 35 – and an even more impressive number of soldiers. This military strength furthermore relies on two things: an efficient arms-industry – Leonardo, Beretta – and a satisfactory operative level based on experiences acquired in Afghanistan

But as important as industrial cooperation might be, their sine-qua-non conditions remain to share strategic orientations and goals, and that’s where the rub is. Italian and French objectives include controlling the Mediterranean Sea or having the means to carry out short-range missions, but France has interests in North and Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It therefore needs slightly different tools, including the ability to carry out long-range missions, such missions relying, for instance, on tanker aircrafts and light warships. But why would Germany need those? Its most recent military doctrine has been designed after the Ukrainian Crisis and mostly revolves around countering any Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. ([5]) Such a threat isn’t to be deterred by tools designed for long-range projections, but rather by mechanised and armoured vehicles, anti-aircraft weapons, intelligence and counterintelligence assets or artillery systems. But what would France make of those in Mali’s desert, or in Bangui’s unstable streets? That’s when the dream of a European army meets a dead end.

With military budgets barely superior to 1% of their GDP, the Belgian and Dutch Armed Forces aren’t as impressive as the French or German ones. Though mostly equipped with modern equipment, they are both in need of more recent planes, the Royal Netherlands Air Force having already settled for American Lockheed Martin F-35. This of course came as a surprise, since such an investment would have been a perfect occasion to support Europe’s military-industrial complex. Moreover, the Composante Terre/Land Component suffers from the same flaws as the French Armée de Terre as it is currently used to patrol the streets which weaken the soldiers’ morale while damaging its military budget. Though modest in strength, the Belgian and Dutch Armed Forces are still members of the European military cooperation programs, with one each: the A400M Atlas and the Boxer

Finally, the idea of a European military poses another issue: the one of nuclear defence. In its recent article The Case for a European Nuke, Foreign Affairs’ Doug Bandow ([6]) perfectly explained how the perspective of a shared nuclear programme could benefit both the European and the American military interests by reducing Washington’s expenditures on our soil while increasing our influence in the West’s military decisions. As noted by Ulrich Kühn of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “it would be far too expensive for Europe to match Russia’s store of 2,000 to 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons” but Europe could, by using France’s nuclear doctrine settle for a deterrent force. “Europe,” notes Doug Bandow, “is also the most obvious place for Washington to close at least one of its nuclear umbrellas. None of the United States’ Asian allies possesses nuclear weapons, and their development would have unpredictable regional effects and be more likely to trigger proliferation” making this issue of a European Nuke a priority of the utmost importance.

Such a European military revolution would nevertheless have to be handled with care. Creating a European Nuke and therefore increasing the number of nuclear weapons possessed by European nations could arguably have an important impact on non-proliferation. It would also pose a very concrete question: to whom should fall the ultimate decision to fire those weapons? This has been established by many specialists: the first and main strength of a nuclear deterrent is its credibility. Not only do you have to let your prospective enemies know about your weapon, you also must absolutely erase any possibility to let them think you might not be prepared or ready to resort to those weapons of mass destruction. In the French case, the president has the possibility to order the use of nuclear bombs without referring to any counter-powers. This of course goes with him constitutionally being the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and raises some political issues, but it is also ultimately there to assert France’s ability to punish any important attack on its most vital interests. In the event of a European Nuke, who shall we entrust with the possibility to unleash weapons so powerful one might think of them as blasphemous ([7])? Here, the military idea of a shared weapon meets the political necessity of a common executive power.

The almost romantic idea of a European Army, let alone of a Seven Nation Army, is no dream nor illusion, but a strategic necessity. Yet, the obstacles to be overcome in the process of creating such a tool are both various and imposing: beyond the inherent need to build it around shared military objectives, orientations and tools, it would furthermore require a common sense of politics, a remarkable – almost unreachable in those modern times – pedagogy and the insurance that this device, while being controlled by civil authorities, would not be neutralised by them. In the meantime, humble industrial cooperation appears to be the main way forward in designing the collective tools upon which unity shall, one day, be accomplished.

 

Hugo Decis is currently studying International Relations i Paris and is the current Communication Officer. This article was previously posted on Mercoeur, a french blog specialised on International Relations, at this address:  https://mercoeur.wordpress.com/2017/04/30/seven-nation-army/ 

 

[1] Le Creuset de l’Armée : Un Mythe de l’IntégrationJean-Dominique Merchet, Libération

[2] Airbus : Le Programme A400M est-il en danger ?Michel Cabirol, La Tribune

[3] Samuel Beckett’s European ArmyDaniel Keohane, Carnegie Europe

[4] Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, official website – available at: http://www.occar.int/programmes

[5] In a Reversal, Germany’s Military Growth Is Met with Western ReliefAlison Smale, The New-York Times

[6] The Case for a European NukeDoug Bandow, Foreign Affairs

[7] Towards the Nuclear Sublime: Representations of Technological Vastness in Postmodern American PoetryRob Wilson, Cambridge University

The Budget of Fear and Individualism

An overview

Trump’s first budget proposal is out, one of the most expected budgets ever in american history that symbolizes Trump’s campaign motto: “Make America Great Again”. In case people doubt about it he made sure people would really see that on this budget by labeling it as “America First: A budget blueprint to make America great again”. As promised during his whole campaign he will do everything in his capabilities to shift priorities in Washington to make the American society safer, stronger and prosper while making other nations fear his administration. Does this budget represents this?

Yes, the most absorbing fact of this budget proposal is the fact that there will be a $54Bn. increase in the defense department with the goal to buy more jets, warships, and boost the military activity against ISIS. That will also be of the like of the Defense Industry that has ties to the Republican party. To balance the budget this massive increase in defense and military will be offset by a huge decrease across all others departments

Captura de ecrã 2017-03-18, às 15.20.22

(US Gov Departments expenditure, source: Washington post)

As we can clearly, Trump’s administration represents an inversion in what has been American policies in the last 8 years during Obama presidency. Cuts for almost every department except the Defense, the Homeland Security and Veteran Affairs departments. This ultra conservative and anti government intervention is clearly emphasized in this budget, specially when looking at the EPA department that will be the most affected one (in %) according to this administration hardline stance on global warming. Another way to look at this is seeing the decrease of nearly $10.1 Billion at the State Department which goes along the isolationist mindset that is reshaping american politics.

Proposals and a new paradigm in American policy

As we can see in the table above, Trump administration will do several large cuts in some key departments like the State, Labour and Education departments.

Among the major program cuts implemented by Donald Trump we have:

-The elimination of the USDA Water and Wastewater loan and grant program, a reduction of $498 million.

-The reduction or elimination of 20 programs within the Department of Education including Striving Readers, Teacher Quality Partnership and Impact Aid support payment for federal property and international education programs.

-Cuts FEMA state and local grant funding by $667 million, including the Pre-disaster Mitigation Grant Program and Homeland Security Grant Program.

-Eliminates funds for Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing.

-Ceases payments to the United Nations’ climate change programs for the Green Climate Fund and other funds.

-Scales back funding for the World Bank and other international development banks by $650 million over three years.

-Shrinks the Treasury Workforce by an unspecified amount

-Stops funding for the Clean Power Plan.

These measures like the elimination of funds for affordable houses and education show that Trump will do major cuts in several traditional welfare sectors contradicting his electoral promises of giving better living conditions to the American people being not so different of many traditional Republican proposals that refuse the government intervention in these key sectors. Another sector in which this can be seen is in health with the removal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, which will mean that many Americans will become unable to pay health insurance meaning they cannot be assisted if they have an emergency health problem and will also become unable to pay treatment for oncological and chronic illnesses. Despite Trump’s promises that Obamacare will be replaced by something better until now, no concrete proposal was made.

Less surprising is the decrease in funds for Climate, Development and Migration issues. On these subjects Trump presents a populist evolution of the Republican stances by ignoring or in some cases, even denying the existence of some of World’s major problems, in a contrast with a more internationalist and interventionist position taken by the Obama administration.

As it is typical in a nationalist budget proposal this also marks a shift is the balance of the United States policy that will give now less importance to Global Affairs and more importance to Internal Affairs following the concern of many Americans that worry about their living conditions and jobs but not about a war in some Middle East country or a big natural disaster in Asia.

In the limit this could mark the return of an isolationist America. This can appear surprising if we consider the United States policy after the Second World War but in fact if the US was quite isolationist and protectionist during the XIX century and most of the first half of the XX century. However unlike in the XIX century this position is now much more irresponsible because some problems like the Climate Change, Islamic terrorism and the Migration crisis are global and require agreements between the World’s most powerful nations, among which is included the United States, in order to overcome them. There is also a moral imperative because the United States has responsibilities in some of this problems specially in Climate Change and in the instability in the Middle East.

Economic prospect

Above we’ve seen how the budget might be for the next year, but numbers alone don’t mean anything, however if we take into consideration its implications for the american economy now that’s something even more interesting to think and look at.

One of the most famous economists ever, that is still a reference in our days, John Maynard Keynes said that Aggregate demand, in other words, a country GDP is represented by the below equation:

Y= C+G+I+Nx, where Y is the country output (we refer it as GDP most of the times), C is private consumption, G government spending, I is Investment and Nx is Net Exports ( Exports – Imports).

Taking into consideration the proposed budget G will decrease in 2018 due to government slashing some expenditure on social programs, as a consequence many poor families will lose their subsidies which will make them poorer, and since Investment is divided between private and public, we see that it might have a negative variation (seeing for example the Transport Department projected expenditure variation). With this in mind we could already see that, all things remaining constant, American 2018 GDP might degrow a bit, however there is still one thing to take into consideration, which is Net Exports, for that we need to take into consideration the effect of the Interest Rate and Exchange Rate.

Last week, we saw an announcement by FED’s president Janet Yellen stating that FED interest rate will rise from 0,75% to 1%, which has its economic consequences.

fig32

(Exchange Rate, Rate of Return, source:University of Colorado Boulder)

Represented in the image above, we have the vertical line which is the domestic interest rate, the horizontal line the foreign interest rate, the vertical Axis the Exchange Rate level and the horizontal Axis the expected rate of return. We see that an increase in the american interest rate (From left to right) will mean an higher expected rate of return of american investments. This means that the dollar will be more desirable and demanded which will trigger it’s value, that is to say, it’s exchange rate goes up, a dollar now is worth more Euros, Kwanzas, etc.

This interest rate hike and consequently Dollar appreciation might deteriorate American Net Exports, since the dollar is now more expensive and so are the american products.

This combination of raising interest rate while cutting government expenditure can lead to a deceleration of the american economy in 2018.

In the end, we should bear in mind that this is just a budget proposal and needs congress approval to become a reality. Even though it is creating some divisions among republicans this proposal seems a plausible budget and it seems likely to be approved by a congress in which Republicans have the majority of the seats. This is a budget proposal that represents fear, individualism and isolationism focusing on military activity, instead of supporting social, education and healthcare programs that can be a social uplift for many poor families and improve the living conditions of many americans. Sectors like the environment are also ignored by this budget proposal. These measures will not only be negative for the economy because it lacks enough of a stimulus, but will have the likely result of dividing and polarising even more the American society which can create more social unrest special among the poor and minorities.

 

Luís Carvalho, economics student and proud 2015 graduate of democracy

Pedro Diogo, economics graduate

Disclaimer: This Post reflects solely the author’s opinion it does not represent the whole platform

She Waited Long Enough and Now is Her Time to Walk

Yesterday, January 21st, 2017, I joined the thousands and thousands of women, men and children across the world who walked in the almost 700 Women’s Marches around the globe. From Washington DC, where the March began, to The Hague, where I walked, and across all seven continents (That’s right! Two Sister Marches were registered in Antarctica as well) people came together and stood against misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism and primarily hate. Continue reading “She Waited Long Enough and Now is Her Time to Walk”

She Waited Long Enough : Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

We should all be feminists” the Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie claims. This catch phrase is the title of the TED talk she delivered in Euston in 2012 [1]. Born in 1977 in the State of Enugu in Nigeria, this woman is a novelist, a nonfiction writer and a short story writer. Her speech has been published in 2014 and is now available under the form of an essay, due to the strength of her discourse and its logical following success. What is interesting about her is the manner in which her work, fictional or not, is deeply infused Continue reading “She Waited Long Enough : Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie”

She Waited Long Enough – Olympe de Gouges

As one of France’s first feminist, Olympe de Gouges remains surprisingly unknown by European progressives. Sure, we all know the basic: her name, and how she met her fate when the Revolutionary Tribunal of Paris [1] found her guilty of having “question[ed] the republican principles” and therefore, sentenced her to death alongside 2742 individuals deemed as enemies of the State. Besides her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of Continue reading “She Waited Long Enough – Olympe de Gouges”

She Waited Long Enough – Clara Campoamor

«(…)Resolved lo que queráis, pero afrontando la responsabilidad de dar entrada a esa mitad de género humano en política, para que la política sea cosa de dos, porque solo hay una cosa que hace un sexo solo: alumbrar; las demás las hacemos todos en común, y no podéis venir aquí vosotros a legislar , a votar impuestos, a dictar deberes, a legislar sobre la raza humana, sobre la mujer y sobre el hijo, aislados, fuera de nosotras. (El voto femenino y yo. Editorial Horas. Madrid, 2006)»

All women are in debt with Clara Campoamor. On the 1rst October 1931 this deputy of the Spanish Radical Socialist Party gave a brilliant speech before the Congress of Deputies, Continue reading “She Waited Long Enough – Clara Campoamor”

She Waited Long Enough – Manuela Sáenz

The majority of South Americans could certainly understand whom you are talking about if you mention the nicknames ‘Manuelita’ o ‘Libertadora’. Unfortunately, while European and American political ‘heroes’ of the past are worldwide known, few of those who made important contributions to the history of the southern hemisphere are likewise famous in northern countries. Manuela Saénz is considered one of the main heroes of the Latin American independence. Her figure has been ignored and denigrated for almost a century, and only in recent years she was given the attention that such a complex and multifaceted character deserves. Continue reading “She Waited Long Enough – Manuela Sáenz”

She Waited Long Enough – Opening Piece : Interview with Karolina Leakovic, PES Women Vice-President and former candidate for SDP Croatia Leader

As many as seven candidates participated in recent SDP Croatia leadership elections – three women included. One of them, PES Women Vice-President Karolina Leakovic, was perceived as one of the most progressive candidates, and the only that openly labeled herself as feminist. However, her candidacy was not successful – she got merely 1,2% of members’ votes. Nevertheless, within current Croatian mainstream political landscape, SDP Leadership elections were the example of an open and much needed debate on social democratic values and challenges for the movement ahead.  Continue reading “She Waited Long Enough – Opening Piece : Interview with Karolina Leakovic, PES Women Vice-President and former candidate for SDP Croatia Leader”