North Korea kicks off 2016 with another provocative test of it’s nation’s nuclear abilities after supposedly testing a hydrogen bomb. A hydrogen bomb is bigger than an atomic bomb (which the world knew North Korea had already developed) and is achieved by nuclear fusion rather than fission and has a much more devastating effect.
Really, North Korea’s supposed test of a hydrogen bomb is the latest in a series of provocations that stretch back decades that the North attributes to self-defence against South Korea and the West (in particular the U.S.) but this may be one of the most serious and dangerous provocations yet. A hydrogen bomb is one of the most devastating nuclear weapons possible and it carries with it a dangerous prospect of a nuclear armed North Korea.
The North has never been known for being particualrly co-operative with the international community which resulted in the U.S. imposing sanctions against the dictatorship state in December 1950, when the United States initiated economic sanctions against the DPRK under the Trading with the Enemy Act
However, as the risk of a fully nuclear armed North Korea comes on the verge of reality the international community must decide how to deal with the increasingly provocative DPRK. China, Russia and the United States, together condemned the test as a “clear violation of (past) resolutions … and of the nonproliferation regime.”
The anger and danger were felt most in South Korea, which was split from the North seven decades ago.
“This is clearly a provocation and threatening the lives of people and safety,” South Korean President Park said. “We have been continuously warning that (North Korea) will pay a price for conducting a nuclear test.”
However, economic sanctions aside (which seem to harm the people of North Korea even further) and public condemnation, there is very little the UN can do to despose the North Korean dictatorship without the use of force which it’s clear North Korea wouldn’t take lying down and would escalate into full out war. Dealing with North Korea is a convoluted problem for the international community and up to now it seems they’re methods have done little to deter the dictatorship state, rather it has become increasingly provocative.
China’s 2016 new year hasn’t got off to the best start as China’s stock market suffered from a 7% fell in the country’s main index. This news comes after a lot of speculation in the latter end of 2015 that the Chinese economy was facing a slowdown after its unprecedented near 40 years of huge growth
However, China’s growth has been slowing down in recent quarters and this has resulted in a loss of confidence in the Chinese economy which in turn resulted in turmoil on the Chinese stock market because, after all, confidence is the key to stock market trading.
The Chinese government responded by suspending trading and devaluing the Yuen in the hopes of making Chinese exports more attractive. This is because a devaluation of a country’s currency makes its exports more internationally competitive as their exports can be imported more cheaply from other nations which should result in an increase in aggregate demand in China’s economy which should help boost growth.
What does this mean for other countries? Well Asian and European stock markets fell and even Americas Dow Jones index suffered a 2.3% fall. This happens because of how interconnected the world economy has become in our modern age as a result of globalisation which results from increased trade and co-operation between nations.
Therefore, a slump in one country’s economy will cause effects on another country’s economy. This effect is further heightened when it’s a major economy like China’s (currently the world’s 2nd biggest economy after the U.S.) will have negative effects on other economies across the world. With the way things have been looking for China recently, it’s likely that growth will continue to slow as China attempts to switch to a more balanced economy via encouraging more domestic consumption to reduce reliance on manufacturing. However, as things look China’s slowdown is just getting started and this could have fairly disastrous effects on other countries across the world, increasing the UK’s.
Britain has finally voted in favour of joining her fellow allies such as the U.S. and France in taking part in air strikes against ISIS in Syria.
This comes after a vote to undertake air strikes against ISIS in Syria was earlier rejected but after the recent terror attack in France by ISIS in which over 100 people were left dead, many within Britain and her allies abroad felt it was time the British government took action against ISIS
However, the debate remains whether or not air strikes are actually effective or not. The Government tells us how they’ve already hit an ISIS-held oil field but can we draw this up to government propaganda? There are many, including Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who believe that the air strikes are ineffective and will merely cause civilian casualties.
Before 1973 when Britain officially joined the ECC, she was a country that was independent of the common market of Europe. However, Britain is one of the few countries in the Euro Zone that retained her own currency, the Pound sterling as Britain did not adopt the Euro currency as a part of Britain’s negotiation into Europe.
Fast forward to 2016 and Britain is on the brink of voting whether she will stay in the EU or if she’ll revert to her old ways. This vote has come around as a result of increasing Euro scepticism in the UK due to calamitous issues that have plagued the Euro zone of late.
Most recently there is the terrible economic turmoil that has befallen Greece that has seen over 50% of young people unemployed and national debt ratio to GDP increase to levels over 200% which has resulted in a weaker Euro that currently isn’t showing many signs of strengthening.
One of the main arguments that comes from the Pro-Europe campaigners is that without access to the free trade agreement that Britain’s membership in the EU guarantees which gives Britain access to a market of 500 million plus people to sell products to and Britain’s exports to the EU accounts for roughly 46% of British exports.
However, EU sceptics often argue that even were Britain to vote for a brexit, Britain would be able to negotiate a free trade agreement with the rest of the EU anyway in a deal similar to what countries like Switzerland and Norway enjoy which would also have the added benefit of allowing Britain to negotiate better trade deals with overseas partners like China, India and the USA which could be even more beneficial to the UK’s economy.
In conclusion, I think that the public have a plethora of information to consider before the referendum is held as the answer to this question is such a convoluted one that it’s near impossible to definitvely say which is the better option: in or out. Overall, I hope that the government do more in the short time leading up to the referendum so that the public have access to unbiased information to properly allow them to make an educated vote.
A judge has thrown out the case after just two months, allowing Dewani (suspected of plotting his wife’s murder) to walk free. The family have said that they’ve been failed by the justice system, but have they?
Shrien Dewani and his wife during their wedding
It took the South African authorities four years to put the British busniess man, Shrien Dewani on trial on accusations that he paid ‘hitmen’ to kill his wife while the couple were on honeymoon in South Africa. Once the trial had finally came to fruition, the prosecutors (the State) argued that Dewani had paid 15,000 Rand (£830) in a plot with taxi driver Zola Tongo and others to kidnap and murder his wife while they were visiting Cape Town in November 2010. The state argued that Dewani was secretly gay and therefore had a motive of freeing himself of the marriage, however Judge Jeanette Traverso said today that the evidence presented by the prosecution fell “far below the threshold” of what a reasonable court could convict on.
Prosecutors said bisexual Mr Dewani, from Westbury-on-Trym near Bristol, had long planned to get out of the relationship to Swedish-raised Anni, and arranged the attack in which he would escape unharmed and Anni would be killed.
But Dewani’s defence team criticised prosecution witnesses and said the case against him was weak.
Giving her ruling in Cape Town on an application by Dewani’s defence lawyer Francois van Zyl to dismiss the prosecution, Judge Traverso said chief prosecution witness cab driver Zola Tongo’s claims about the murder of Dewani were “riddled with contradictions” and “highly debatable”.
She said the evidence of Tongo, who testified against Mr Dewani after entering a plea bargain, was “riddled with contradictions”, while others had lied on oath.
Dewani has always denied plotting with others to murder his bride, whose lifeless body was found in the back of a taxi in a rough township, on November 14, 2010.
Three men – Tongo, Mziwamadoda Qwabe and gunman Xolile Mngeni – have already been convicted for their part in Anni’s murder, when the Dewanis’ chauffeur-driven late-night tour of a township was hijacked.
Judge Traverso said it was crucial for the state’s case to prove that Dewani entered into an agreement with others to have Anni killed.
She said a defendant was entitled to be discharged if there was no possibility of conviction unless he entered the witness box and incriminated himself.
Tongo was the only accomplice witness, she said, adding that such evidence should be treated with “caution”.
Tongo’s version needed to be corroborated specifically where it implicated the accused.
Details such as where he picked up and dropped off Dewani and his wife did not provide corroboration, the judge said.
“It is what was said during these events which is at issue and for that there is only the version of Tongo,” she added.
She said the same applied to phone calls between Tongo and Dewani.
“This telephone communication does not in itself corroborate what was said during those calls, it merely confirms that communication took place.”
Dewani met Tongo in a hotel after the killing. Giving evidence earlier the cab driver said it was “nonsense” that Dewani bought him a thank you card and gave him cash out of pity for what the driver had endured.
But the judge said Tongo and his accomplices Qwabe and Mngeni were “intelligent men” and dismissed the prosecution claim that they would have carried out a contract killing for Dewani for “a few thousand rand”.
The prosecution alleged that the men carried out the killing for 15,000 rand (£830).
Qwabe is part-way through a 25-year jail sentence. Mngeni was serving life for firing the shot that killed Mrs Dewani, but died in prison from a brain tumour.
So, can we agree with the claim of the victims family that the justice system has failed here? It’s worth noting that the trial did not prove Dewani’s innocence but that the court couldn’t rely on evidencee given by three witnesses who themselves had been convicted of the crime. As it stands, the justice system has not failed here, according to South Africa’s Criminal Procedure Act, an accused can be declared not guilty at the close of the prosecution’s case if the court feels there is insufficient evidence to show he or she committed the crime. Thus, in accordance with this act, the judge has deemed the evidence provided by the state to be insufficient and unreliable due to the disparities and lies of the three witnesses who, themselves were convicted of the crime. However, can we argue that the prosecution and police failed Anni Dewani and her family? After all, the state’s evidence was ‘insufficient’ and yet they had four years to collaborate with the police on forming a case against Mr Dewani. However, the case relied very little on police evidence but was rather focused, almost entirely, on the testimonies of the three witnesses. However, due to their own involvement in the murder and the countless inconsistencies, the Judge, within her right, has declared Mr Dewani to be not guilty and in my opinion, this doesn’t represent a failure of the justice system, the three men who carried out the hit on Anni Dewani have all been prosecuted and although Mr Dewani has walked free, there simply was not sufficient evidence (imperative in any trial, especially in one this big) to convince the judge of Mr Dewani’s involvement in the murder of his wife.
Amid warnings that air strikes will not be enough to stop the advance of ISIL, is it time that the UK and US consider the deployment of ground troops in Iraq and Syria?
Both Obama and David Cameron have earlier ruled out boots on the ground but will they be forced to re-consider?
Multiple sources including; The Pentagon press secretary, Syrian Kurds, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, France’s foreign minister, Alan Henning’s brother and many more have publicly stated that air strikes are not enough to stop Islamic State. First, both leaders have made public comments condemning boots on the ground due to the unpopular Afghan War and how it’s a popular opinion that boots on the ground costed the economy too much money and didn’t produce any valuable results. A recent poll carried out found that just over 70% of US troops (of 2,200 polled) were against boots on the ground in Iraq to fight IS. However, a recent poll carried out by CNN News found that people would support boots on the ground if military commanders determined it was the best course of action with 45% of people asked would support ground troops in the region to fight IS as opposed to 37% who would oppose them. A recent yougov poll has found that 29% of the UK public would support ground troops in the region (up 5%), 46% would disapprove (down 9%) with only 18% completely ruling out boots on the ground. So, what is the right answer? Should there be boots on the ground?
Yes. We have seen proof that air strikes are not doing enough to stop the progression of IS as they are, at the time I’m writing this, potentially hours away from taking full control of Kobani, held by Kurdish fighters. A senior Kurdish official, Ismet Sheikh Hasan, said the latest fighting was focused in the southern and eastern parts of the town. “We are defending but … we have only simple weapons and they have heavy weapons,” he told AP in a telephone call. “They are not besieged and can move easily.” Mr Hasan appealed for international help but added that the US airstrikes that have taken place over the last two weeks have ben largely ineffectual. Furthermore, on Friday Syrian fighters said that they’re outnumbered as they battle IS near the Turkish border – and warned air strikes are missing the target. Therefore, we see that air strikes are relatively ineffective in fighting IS (naturally they can’t be expected to work miracles over night) but it has already become clear that ground troops might have to be considered by the UK and US if air strikes continue to be as ineffective as they currently appear.
How would ground troops be more effective in the fight against IS? This conflict is not one that will end in a couple of months. IS are boasting tens of thousands of troops fighting, lucrative funding and they’re receiving more than $1.5 million a day from oil reserves captured in Iraq and Syria. This is a war that will go on for years, and as such, the governments of the coalition, chiefly the US, might be forced to deploy ground troops if they wish to achieve their aim of destroying IS. From Vietnam onwards, it has been clear to the US that air strikes are not enough to achieve military and political objectives. Without control of the ground, such objectives will not be achieved in Iraq and Syria because if troops are ruled out, and without adequate Arab forces available, failure will be inevitable in this war. Moreover, air strikes have one significant limitation which is they run the risk of significantly increasing civilian casualties. While IS has some known strongholds (in Raqqa and Syria, for example) which could be neutralized by air strikes, most of their hideouts will not be so easily neutralized. Just last week, the CIA estimated that IS could have 31,150 fighters sprinkled across Iraq and Syria and it’s imperative we recognize that they operate in clandestine cells in many parts of Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere… The more the US and coalition bombs them from they sky, the further they go underground which would make the air strikes less effective while at the same time endangering more civilians and as the US and coalition have gone into this war on a ‘humanitarian’ cause, it would be counter-productive to endanger even more civilians.
“If the U.S. only uses air power, ISIS will eventually hide in the cities and the U.S. will be faced with causing a lot of civilian casualties to get the group out or kill its fighters,” said Dr. Ivan Eland, author of the “The Failure of Counterinsurgency: Why Hearts and Minds Are Seldom Won.”
On the other hand, it is also imperative that we realize the negative side of boots on the ground, prominently, the certain loss of life that would occur with troops being sent to fight in Iraq and Syria but also the expensive cost of funding ground troops. As of April 2014, more than 6800 American men and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the US led a ground invasion in 2003. Likewise, the number of UK military deaths stands at 453. A Harvard study also found that the Iraq war of 2003 will ultimately cost taxpayers between $4 trillion to $6 trillion. Similarly, The cost of Britain’s interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan has reached almost £30bn – or £1,000 for every taxpayer in the country, a respected defence think-tank claims.£30bn would pay for… 1,464,000 more NHS nurses, 408,000 NHS consultants, 75% of the HS2 budget. Without saying, the deaths of military personnel represents the biggest downside of sending ground troops in to fight IS but the economic negatives are hard to ignore and the public certainly isn’t ignoring these negatives, hence why polls show more support for the against ground troops argument. However, recent beheading videos of hostages such as Alan Henning has sparked outrage amongst the public in both of these countries and has actually increased the support of ground troops being deployed as shown by the 5% increase in a recent UK poll.
In conclusion, although both Obama and Cameron are ruling out boots on the ground at this time, it’s certainly foreseeable that ground troops could be deployed. The US has already sent 1200 troops to the region to help train local rebels and forces fighting against IS but these forces are not fully prepared to successfully fight against IS and as a result, ground troops might be the only way of ensuring victory in this war against IS.
As the former colonial power, does Britain have an obligation to ensure universal suffrage for the Hong Kong people?
The pro-democracy protests, now being coined as the ‘Umbrella Revolution’, that has gripped Hong Kong since late September has yet to produce any credible results since talks between protest leaders and the government reached an impasse after the territory’s deputy leader called off talks with student leaders scheduled for Friday. The phrase ‘Umbrella Revolution’ was first employed after protesters were forced to use umbrellas to defend themselves from tear gas used by the Hong Kong police.
The world has been watching events unfold in Hong Kong and international governments have been unsure of how to comment as China issued a stark warning demanding that no countries should interfere in their internal affairs. For the UK, as the former colonial power until it handed control to China in 1997, these recent protests have presented a more troublesome problem. Naturally, as a celebrator of pro-democracy, the UK must stand behind the protesters pro-democracy stance but historically, and legally, to what extent should the UK get involved?
First of all, it is imperative we look at the historical side of the agreement that handed control of Hong Kong over from the UK to China. The UK acquired Hong Kong’s territory from three separate treaties:
Treaty of Nanking in 1842
Treaty of Beijing in 1860
Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory in 1898
These treaties gave the UK the control of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon (area south of Boundary Street), and the New Territories (area north of Boundary Street and south of the Shenzhen River, and outlying islands), respectively. However, these treaties merely served as a 99-year lease of the Hong Kong territory to the UK, not a permanent acquisition of what is now Hong Kong.
The first major step to the handover of Hong Kong from the UK back to China was the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed by the Prime Ministers of the People’s Republic of China and the United Kingdom governments on 19 December 1984 in Beijing. In the declaration, China agreed to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. And the UK government declared it would complete the handover on the 1st July 1997 (a promise which it kept) The vital part of the declaration was the “One country, two systems” principle which stated that Hong Kong would continue exercising a capitalist, sovereign, diplomatic system instead of the socialist system of China.
This is where it gets particularly complicated for the UK. The Chinese government promised both in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the mini constitution of Hong Kong (the Basic Law) that a democratic system would eventually be implemented in Hong Kong. After decades of delay and making excuses, in August of this year, the National People’s Congress of the PRC declared that the democratic, albeit not truly democratic, that Hong Kong would have is a system where Beijing would basically vet two to three candidates for voters to choose from. Also, the candidates would have to gain at more than 50 percent of nominations from a tiny electoral committee of 1200 people, most of whom are representatives of business interests in Hong Kong. The reason this breaks the promise China made was that this does not honour their agreement to resume the exercise of universal suffrage in Hong Kong because the criteria these candidates would be vetted on was their patriotism to China which is effectively the Chinese government screening candidates and therefore not providing a truly democratic election for the people of Hong Kong.
Therefore, the problem presented is that Britain does have a moral and legal obligation to Hong Kong because it did sign a treaty in 1984 (the Sino-British Joint Declaration) that guaranteed Hong Kong’s core values and way of life, including freedom of speech and assembly for 50 years (until 2047). However, Britain has been almost completely silent on the issue and any little comments that have been offered have been so weak that frankly they have been worse than silence. So why hasn’t Britain condemned China for not fulfilling their promise?
Firstly, talk to British business people and their resolve is to keep their heads down and hope the protests blow over so things can go back to how they were before thus maintaining good relations with China. It’s no secret that the British business elites have a strong influence on the government so it’s not surprising that the British government is not much different. China knows that they possess overwhelming military, economic and strategic superiority and essentially hold all the cards here. As such, when the Chinese government released a statement essentially threatening foreign countries to not intervene in their internal affairs, the British government adhered to that warning like bees to honey. It’s worth mentioning thatJohn Major made a pledge before the handover that Britain would do everything possible to ensure that the terms of the joint declaration were adhered to. At the time of the handover, the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook, reiterated that Britain would use its clout to defend Hong Kong and its freedoms. Yet, there is no public condemnation of China’s blatant breaking of the promises set out in 1984 and I’d be willing to bet there hasn’t been any private one’s either. The protests in Hong Kong aren’t just about democracy, they’re about honouring a promise, something which the British government is unfortunately failing to do as we speak.
The even more worrying side to this topic is whether or not things will escalate in Hong Kong and if it’s possible that we could see a contingency of something resembling that of the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 where China sent military troops in to crush protests taking place in Beijing at the time. We can notice China is very worried of the chance of the ideas of the Hong Kong protests spreading to mainland China as they have already banned popular social media services such as Instagram in an attempt to try and prevent this and it has to be noticed that there is a possibility things could take a more threatening turn in these protests.
So, in answer to the question posed in the title, Yes. Britain does, in my belief, have a moral and legal duty to Hong Kong to preserve universal suffrage for the Hong Kong people as promised under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.
topicaloutlook 