Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, various politicians in the West have blamed China for the virus, criticizing the Southeast Asian country for not taking necessary precautions. The same judgements were also made against one of the key subjects of this pandemic era, the World Health Organization.

Criticism of the WHO

The agency is accused of being under the strong influence of Beijing’s Communist Government, a criticism mainly supported by Western countries such as the United States under Donald Trump and France under Emmanuel Macron. Despite these views one of the main political rivals of China, Shinzo Abe’s Japan, contrasted the US President and many others and showed his support for the WHO by saying: “There’s only the WHO that can serve as an international institution” against the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition to these words, Abe refrained from blaming Beijing for the pandemic, showing that his country seeks a balance within the regional political rivalry.

Abe’s Decision Not to Blame China

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s prudent politics on China was clear during the Covid-19 era. In contrast with one of his main allies, President of the United States, Donald Trump; Abe never called the Covid-19 as the “Wuhan virus” or “Chinese virus.” The same stance by the Abe government towards the World Health Organization shows that Japan seeks to improve its relations with its one of main regional rivals, China.

It is not clear if Abe wants a long term normalization between Tokyo and Beijing or it is just a temporary approach, however the sign of this rapprochement is clear in many areas. Despite its cancellation due to the Covid-19 pandemic, Chinese President Xi Jinping was due to visit Japan to meet Abe and Emperor Naruhito. Xi’s state visit had paramount importance as it was about to become the first visit in more than 10 years. Japanese sources claimed that the visit has not been cancelled but only postponed, pointing out that global anti-China campaigns are not shifting Tokyo’s path.

Abe also showed his neutrality on China and the World Health Organization during a virtual meeting with his counterparts from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on 14th of March. During the meeting Japanese Prime Minister stressed: “Cooperation between ASEAN and countries in East Asia is key as we work to contain and bring an end to the spread of infection.”

Tokyo and Beijing’s COVID-19 Rapprochement

The improving ties between Tokyo and Beijing were shown not only by the actions of the political leaders but it is also evident in other areas. Some of the members of Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party donated their salaries to China, aimed at supporting the country’s policies against the Covid-19 outbreak. On many occasions, both Southeast Asian nations helped each other by sending various medical supplies such as gloves, masks and sanitizers.

Even the usually aggressive tone between Japanese and Chinese internet users seems to be normalizing these days, leaving messages of support and conciliation on social media platforms. The deepening friendship between locals of both countries was also praised by Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in a phone conversation with his Japanese counterpart Toshimitsu Motegi:

“Though miles apart, we are under the same sky,” Yi said, also not hesitating to praise Japan’s achievements during the pandemic and thanking Tokyo for the assistance.

Challenges to Resetting Sino-Japanese Ties

The examples that we mentioned above show us that there is a great chance for both Japan and China to find a common ground in many fields, which may contribute in forming a real alliance during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite the positive developments, it is also fair to say that there are also some challenges to overcome for both countries, if what they’re seeking is a long-term cooperation. During the pandemic period, Abe has been criticized for having a soft-stance against the outbreak and accused of not taking the matter seriously. Criticism against Abe caused his support to fall in opinion polls, speculating that he may face serious threats from influential political figures such as Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike.

Despite Abe’s conciliatory tone, within the LDP there are still some voices that don’t share the Japanese Prima Minister’s vision, criticizing China and the WHO. We can remember the moment when Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso slammed the Head of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, showing a clear contrast with Abe. The latest criticism against the Japanese government came from both of its neighboring countries, China and South Korea, when Abe made a ritual offering to Yasukuni Shrine, which is seen as a symbol of Japan’s past militarist policies which caused enormous bloodshed in China.

Seeking Consensus

The relationship between Japan and China is influenced by ‘ghosts from the past,’ which obstruct the complete normalization of ties. Despite the difficulties, both Abe and Chinese President Xi have an opportunity that most of their predecessors didn’t have.

Considering the uncertain future post-COVID-19 pandemic, both countries are aware that having more support may facilitate their political, economic and social recovery once the global crisis will come to an end. So why would this rapprochement not work if it’s profitable for both states? The answer is perhaps hidden in the length of China’s global isolation from one side and how much Abe’s status quo will last on the other, especially during the post-COVID-19 era.

L'articolo Shinzo Abe’s Support For the WHO proviene da InsideOver.

Since it first started spreading at the end of 2019, Covid-19 has become a global pandemic in only the past several months. In the past weeks the United States has become the world’s coronavirus worst coronavirus hotspot. The pandemic has started to penetrate American life day by day with a worsening death toll that now stands at more than 5,100.

Soon, the crisis started to become the most important political topic in the United States as the death toll and number of cases continued to rise without any signs of stopping. The pandemic spawned on the eve of a critical political juncture in the United States as the country is set to elect a president in November. But how is the Covid-19 pandemic expected to influence the U.S. presidential election?

Covid-19 tests Trump’s Leadership Skills

In the beginning of the Republican primary vote, the re-election of President Donald Trump as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate was almost certain and he was banking on a strong economy to put him back in office. The real struggle during this process for Trump became the Covid-19 pandemic. The slow spread in the beginning was a relief for the United States and even Trump downplayed it. As the spread started to pick up at a faster pace, Trump’s handling of the issue became a key question for many Americans. His controversial comments over the pandemic, combined with the deteriorating U.S. economy, were criticized by many voters and analysts.

However, Trump’s acts radically changed once the pandemic started to become a really big problem for the United States. It is questionable whether Trump’s plans were too little or too late, but he called himself a “wartime President,” as the pandemic was becoming more deadly day by day to indicate that he was taking it seriously. Trump’s tone changed drastically in mid-March and since then he started to activate all the necessary tools to tackle it. The Trump administration quickly issued new guidelines to tackle the virus and restricted large gatherings.

The Trump administration also signed an unprecedented economic stimulus package to tackle the disease called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The $2 trillion stimulus plan shows both the dangers and the need for such a huge measure to tackle the issue. As we can see from his moves, President Trump is aware that this may cost him his presidency and now he is changing his strategy to secure his re-election in November 2020.

Democrats Hope for Breakthrough

Former Vice President Joe Biden was the clear favorite to face Donald Trump in November and had been winning most of the states during the primaries. With increasing support from the moderate wing of the Democrats, Biden started to emerge as the favorite candidate to win the Democratic primaries ahead of competitor Bernie Sanders.

Biden started to focus on Covid-19 early on and he stressed during his debate against Sanders on March 16 that this was “a war to face.” Since then, Biden has criticized the Trump administration, saying that it lacks the necessary measures to slow the number of cases in the US. Despite Biden’s early and decisive stance on the pandemic, the former Vice President has faced criticism for remaining out of sight during the outbreak apart from several underwhelming and somewhat bizarre television appearances. His absence is even being mocked on social media with a new hashtag #WhereIsJoe. In the coming days, Biden needs to show his determination and leadership abilities if he wants to prove that he is the right man to guide the country at this difficult time.

Sanders was experiencing a troublesome primary period when the Covid-19 outbreak became a real problem for the United States. He was losing almost all the primary votes despite his strong fundraising numbers. Most of the commentators were considering this to be the end of Sanders’ campaign. His last debate against Biden in Washington wasn’t enough to change voters’ minds amid the coronavirus crisis. Sanders repeatedly pushed for his Medicare for All plan during the debate, stressing that the American healthcare system needs a radical change. Biden slammed Sanders’ plans by saying “people are looking for results, not a revolution.”

However, Sanders has remained relatively more active than Biden during the outbreak. Of course, after accumulating so many losses, it would be difficult for Sanders to obtain a comeback, but his ideas and vision may be an important tool in making a breakthrough during this moment of crisis.

Running for the White House During Covid-19

It is still difficult to say whether the ongoing pandemic may be more favorable for Republicans or Democrats. Many uncertainties remain ahead of November’s presidential election. It may be appropriate to say that Trump’s continuous appearances in front of the public provides him the opportunity to prove his leadership skills. Trump’s fight against Covid-19 may have started in a way that attracted a lot of criticism, but it is clear that his way of handling the issue completely changed over time and polls show him performing very strongly against the Democrats in the upcoming election.

It is important to remember that Trump’s surging popularity is also closely linked to the absence of both Biden and Sanders as both of them fail to remain front-and-center during this crisis. In Biden’s case, his failure to find a way to effectively communicate with voters may even cause him to struggle in his party’s primary despite his advantage over Sanders. The Democrats need to regain their visibility — and fast — or this will be Trump’s year.

L'articolo How Will the Covid-19 Pandemic Influence the US Presidential Election? proviene da InsideOver.

With the caucuses in Iowa and the primaries in New Hampshire for the Democratic Party now having been held, voters have started to show who they support in the 2020 presidential race. The first results were actually important to understand the tendency of primary state voters as the candidates were mainly split into two camps: progressives and moderates.

Following Iowa and New Hampshire, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for progressives and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg for moderates emerged as the top names for both wings of the Democrats.

Bernie Sanders: Progressive Savior of the Democratic Party?

The progressive savior of the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders has always been a controversial figure over the past years. His leftist policies and physical challenges due to his age have been brought under the spotlight by his adversaries both inside and outside of the Democratic Party. However, this time the criticism against him has focused on a different element: that of “electability.”

Current candidate and former Vice President of the United States Joe Biden has primarily gone after Sanders by raising the electability issue over and over again. Since the beginning of his campaign, Biden has termed himself as “the only candidate who is able to beat Donald Trump”, stressing his electability. Since the former Vice President faced a huge loss after the first primary votes, he started to use his electability weapon against Sanders and others. Biden mainly questions whether Sanders could win against Trump, asking if the Vermont Senator was the right one to unify the Democratic Party.

In terms of media analysis, in some opinion pieces, Sanders has even been compared to Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party, describing both of them as politicians who spent decades on the political margins. As Bernie Sanders is in a much stronger position than in 2016, he will eventually face harder attacks and it’s only up to him to convince voters to elect him and that he can actually beat Donald Trump. Despite the criticism, Sanders is gaining support from various influential individuals and has already been endorsed by strong names such as U.S. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio.

‘Frankly I’d Rather Run Against Bloomberg Than Bernie Sanders’

The President of the United States, Donald Trump has also joined these debates amid the ups and downs that Sanders is currently facing. He attacked another democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg but defended Sanders by saying, “Frankly, I’d rather run against Bloomberg than Bernie Sanders, because Sanders has followers. Bloomberg’s just buying his way in.” Only days after his comments, Trump once again tweeted in support of his political rival by saying: “They are taking the Democrat nomination away from him, and there’s very little he can do. A Rigged System!” These were two obvious cases where Trump made statements in favor of Sanders, attacking the moderates of the Democratic Party. It is possible to read Trump’s tweets in two ways, as a political mind-game or genuine political empathy.

According to the first theory, Trump knows the danger emerging from moderate candidates and their capability of obtaining bipartisan support. In addition, he focuses on Michael Bloomberg because Trump thinks Bloomberg is a wealthier and more democratic version of himself, thus he is a greater risk against his presidency. On the other hand, Sanders will never get more support than Trump as he is already facing strong doubts within the Democratic Party and he won’t be able to steal votes from Trump’s pool. Trump’s main plan is to split more votes between Democratic candidates, causing more uncertainty and targeting moderate candidates as much as possible. This division would give Trump an advantage and give Democrats less solid ground and unity during the primaries. If we look at Trump’s past strategies against his opposition, his plan to split his adversaries is more than understandable and it may work due to unpredictability within the Democrats who will face him on November 3.

Another explanation of Trump’s actions – perhaps a more naiver explanation – can be related to both the outsider positions of Trump and Sanders during their political campaigns. Trump was involved with politics but he was never a full-time politician before his run in 2016. During his run within the Republican Party and against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, he was never considered seriously and was heavily criticized, due to many controversiesd surrounding him prior to and during his presidential run. Sanders is facing some of the same anti-populist critiques that Trump faced in 2016, and these are coming from the elites of the party as they struggle to see their parties represented by names who are not completely fitting to the ideal candidate profile that they have in their minds. Thus, again, it may be naive to say in this way but perhaps deep down Donald Trump has sympathy for a name which is facing against the established political system, which Trump himself has criticized on numerous occasions.

Feeling the Bern

Despite many attacks coming at his campaign, Sanders’ journey continues with strong momentum as he continues to have a strong position according to majority of the polls. As Donald Trump also witnessed, ‘electability’ was and is a political dilemma that parties question only during the election process. Not only in modern-day politics but also in the past, many leaders of the United States won the presidential race, despite the electability trap. For example, John F. Kennedy became President despite his Irish roots and Catholicism, Ronald Reagan despite his Hollywood background and divorce, Barack Obama despite being African-American. The electability concerns are just not enough to take down Bernie Sanders, particularly since if he wins he will already face a name that wasn’t more electable than him when he was running for the presidency in 2016: Donald J. Trump!

L'articolo Is Bernie Sanders Really Unelectable? And What Does Trump Think? proviene da InsideOver.

Following a disastrous caucus in Iowa, the Democrats are now on the next phase of their journey to face off against Donald Trump, who’s hoping for re-election in 2020. Dozens of names have been pushed forward for the party’s presidential nominee, but with the first hurdle now over, only a few names have remained solid.

The Democratic Frontrunnners

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar are the top tier candidates. None has any significant majority. Perhaps another name, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, may join them due to fact that he intentionally skipped Iowa but continues to have significant support.

Buttigieg: Growing Support But Still Lacking Enthusiasm Among African-Americans

Buttigieg was eventually declared the winner in Iowa, surprising many pollsters. So-called Mayor Pete was a lesser known candidate when he put himself forward for the presidential race. He was mainly overlooked due to his lack of experience and questionable support among African-Americans and minority voters. It is also important to remember that Buttigieg is the first openly gay politician to seek the Democratic nomination, and in the beginning, it was rather unknown how this factor might play a role in his run. Despite these factors, Buttigieg’s young age and energy, notable foreign policy knowledge, solid performances in debates and moderate approach to various policies has had a positive impact and increased his support. His real power will be tested in areas such as South Carolina and Nevada. Buttigieg’s lack of experience may be quoted more frequently during the remainder of the presidential race and more contenders, including President Donald Trump, will focus their attacks on him.

Sanders: Questions Over Health And Far-Left Positions

Obtaining second place during the Iowa caucuses, experienced policymaker and Senator Bernie Sanders will try again—like he did in the 2016 election—to become his party’s presidential nominee. Sanders hopes to rise from the ashes after his close combat with Hillary Clinton in 2016. A self-described democratic socialist, Sanders’ age and his slide to leftist policies are the main obstacles facing him. If elected, the 78-year-old lawmaker will be the oldest president in the history of the United States. However, the heart attack that he suffered in 2019 raises questions about his health. Sanders’ leftist political ideas are also questionable in terms of the appeal they might have on more moderate voters. His positions on war, healthcare and the economy will be constantly questioned by his adversaries the further he gets in the race.

Warren: Losing Momentum But Still A Strong Candidate

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren was another dominant name during the second part of the Democratic presidential race. Her ambitious approach on Medicare, the economy and taxation faced both criticism and praise from electors. Warren’s anti-establishment approach—like Sanders’—faced criticism and was accused of being unrealistic. For instance, her “Medicare for all” plan helped her gain significant momentum in the beginning, but then the same plan was accused of being unrealistic due to how it would be paid for. Warren never backed down in strong confrontations with other candidates—especially Buttigieg and Sanders—but it is also difficult to say that she won either of her main duels. Despite these doubts, Warren remains the most powerful female candidate for 2020, especially after being endorsed by the New York Times. If Warren can overcome doubts about her “electability,” she can remain a top candidate.

Biden: Iowa Loss A ‘Gut Punch,’ But VP Is Still A Formidable Contender

Biden called himself the only candidate who can beat Donald Trump during his campaign. Biden dominated the polls soon after announcing his run for the presidency, but for the same reason he became an obvious target. His fourth place in the Iowa caucuses was a surprise for many and Biden himself called it a “gut punch.” With age being a potential concern for Sanders and Warren, it is also an important factor for some in considering whether to vote for Biden, who is 77. Biden’s involvement in Trump’s impeachment case through work activities that he and his son Hunter had in Ukraine became both positive and negative at the same time. Biden’s cold-blooded coolness during the impeachment case was praised by his supporters, but his opponents saw that as a way to emphasize all the unanswered questions around his Ukraine activity. Nonetheless, Biden is one of the best choices for Republican voters due to his moderate political views. He is still seen as the candidate that may “steal” the most votes from the Republican vote pool and among right-leaning independents in the Rust Belt and other areas. Biden’s foreign policy knowledge and experience will also continue to play an important part. Like his supporters claim, Biden may witness a significant boost once he participates in voting in states with major racial diversity where he enjoys strong support among African-American voters and minority voters, unlike Iowa, which is a state with mostly white voters.

Klobuchar: Struggling To Stand Out, But Lots Of Potential

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar took the fifth spot at the Iowa caucuses, but she continues her attempt to become the leading candidate of the Democratic Party. So far, she has failed to dominate any polls. Klobuchar is struggling to solidify her position as a strong moderate candidate and has had challenges in trying to distinguish her policies. Despite remaining in the grey-zone for a lot of the race thus far, Klobuchar has started to reinforce her position after being co-endorsed by the New York Times along with Warren. Nevertheless, as one of two strong female candidates remaining, Klobuchar has a lot of potential and her strong performance during the recent New Hampshire Democratic debate points to future success.

Bloomberg: Long-shot Candidate With A Bigger Chance Than You Might Think

Despite deciding not to participate in early caucuses and primaries, America’s eighth richest man, Michael Bloomberg, continues to have a solid footing in various polls. His policy to focus on primary races further down the line is seen as strategic for his supporters and some critics say that the Iowa disaster actually helped him boost his position. On the other hand, avoiding direct confrontation with other candidates by skipping both primaries and debates is perceived by some as dodging real debate. In the same way, Bloomberg’s ambitious campaign spending for his cause has been characterized by some as his attempt to buy the presidency. Bloomberg’s moderate policies coupled with his economic and international experience may put him ahead of other candidates to eventually face Trump.

It is important to remember that the schism between moderates and liberals within the Democratic Party is stronger than ever. Democrats need to heal their party divisions if they want to win the election, perhaps by bringing moderates and leftists together in a presidency and vice presidency ticket so that they can rally more Trump supporters, independents and undecideds to come to their side.

L'articolo After Iowa Which Democrat Looks Most Likely To Face Trump? proviene da InsideOver.

A recent report by the American newspaper New York Times has claimed that a new finding suggests that American and Dutch authorities hid the real reason behind the 2009 crash of a Turkish Airlines plane in the Netherlands. The allegation comes at a point when the American manufacturer is suffering heavy economic losses and the loss of trust due to two deadly incidents in 2018 and 2019. This news may come as the ultimate blow for the company and it may also raise questions on how investigations are carried out.

On 25 February 2009, a Turkish Airlines aircraft crashed at the Netherlands’ Schipol Airport, killing nine people and injuring 117 others. The report by authorities claimed that the main cause of the incident was the pilots’ fault. The report mentioned that during the moment of the plane’s landing, the two altimeters of the plane were showing different values which caused a malfunction in the aircraft’s autopilot system. The main responsibility, in this case, was related to the pilots as they did not intervene to fix the issue but no other problem was pointed out in the findings. However, the New York Times article stressed that some aviation safety experts, such as Dr Sidney Dekker, accused Boeing of concealing their risky design choices and faulty safety assessments as the company didn’t inform pilots before the malfunction occurred. Furthermore, the necessary information for pilots to prevent this malfunction wasn’t included in pilot guidebooks according to the latest findings. The New York Times said that American authorities changed the details on the report to prevent any accusations against Boeing. A professor from Ohio State University and advisor to Federal Aviation Administration David Woods mentioned that “the Turkish Airlines accident should have awakened everyone.”

Nine years after the Turkish Airlines crash at Schipol airport, another incident shocked the world when a Lion Air Flight 610 crashed into the Java sea soon after taking off from Jakarta. All 189 people on board were killed. This was the first crash that involved the 737 Max 8 aircrafts introduced in 2017. Initial reports after the crash suggested that the aircraft’s airspeed indicators malfunctioned, similar to the 2009 crash. The system failure was again related to design flaw, where the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System of the 737 Max series caused an automatic nose-down trim. Following the reports, both the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing warned all operators on how to avoid such events to prevent another crash such as the Lion Air Flight 610. However, like some global task forces claimed, Boeing failed to sufficiently explain the malfunctions related to the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System, and after only five months, another fatal crash took place, which again involved a Boeing aircraft.

The Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 from Addis Ababa to Nairobi on 10 March 2019 crashed only six minutes after taking off. All 157 people on board the flight lost their lives. The Boeing 737 Max 8 was again at the centre of controversy. Following both incidents related to the same aircraft, a majority of airline companies started grounding Boeing 737 Max 8 aircrafts and cancelled their orders from the American manufacturer. Initial studies on the black box of the plane showed clear similarities with the Lion Air Flight 610 crash and again the system forced the aircraft to perform an automatic nose-down trim. Pilots failed to respond to the event. Despite the lack of action by the pilots, acclaimed pilot Chesley Sullenberger defended them, sayıng: “Even knowing what was going to happen, I could see how crews would have run out of time and altitude before they could have solved the problems.”

A total of 355 people were killed in three crashes related to Boeing and all of the cases were caused by similar malfunctions according to the findings. The New York Times article claimed the similarities between these three events (sensor failure) and said that if the reason behind the 2009 crash was aired transparently, the following two deadly incidents could have been prevented. The New York Times article will again draw attention to Boeing’s design choices and faulty safety assessments, initiating a new test of trust for the American giant. However, the credibility of investigators will also be questioned by the public and the power of aircraft companies and their influence will also become a serious matter of investigation. The theory of parallelism between the crashes emerging from these claims and the real link between the incidents will emerge after a series of investigations is conducted appropriately on the matter. Despite these needs, the news is perhaps filling the gaps on some unanswered questions from 2009. The former CEO of Turkish Airlines, Temel Kotil at that time claimed that Dutch authorities prevented Turkish Airlines officials to reach the crash site by handcuffing them. The event caused many conspiracy theories at the time, with some media outlets claiming the involvement of the FBI in the event.

Many years have passed since the Turkish Airlines crash but the New York Times article may reopen some closed cases to find new details about the three deadly crashes. Of course, it is difficult to forecast what action authorities might take next and whether new investigations will be carried out. However, what people are now asking is what measures authorities might take and whether new investigations will be carried out? What remains certain though is people asking themselves, “would it have been possible to prevent the deaths of over 300 people if they had taken the case of Turkish Airlines seriously?”

L'articolo Boeing’s Role in the 2009 Turkish Airlines Crash proviene da InsideOver.

On December 1st 2019 Malta’s Prime Minister announced his resignation for the following month, ending his seven-year rule in the European Union’s smallest country. The decision came after two years of investigations into the killing of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia and the subsequent political crisis that hit the island’s political elite.

The car bomb attack killed Daphne Caruana Galizia in October 2017, shocking not only Malta but the entire European Union. The murder of Galizia was questioned right away due to the brutal nature of her assassination and intimidation she faced during her career as a journalist. Caruana Galizia was an important journalist for the country due to her popular blog Running Commentary where she was publishing her findings about the country’s public figures and exposing their involvement in corruption. The blog was widely popular in Malta and beyond since its establishment in 2008, despite facing criticism by Malta’s top leaders and their supporters. During the period before her death, Galizia was working on several articles where she was exposed links between the country’s well-known figures and Panama papers such as Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s former Chief of Staff Keith Schembri, former Minister of Tourism Konrad Mizzi and first lady, Michelle Muscat. In Caruana Galizia’s writings, she claimed that these officials had offshore companies in both Panama and New Zealand. Due to Caruana Galizia’s courageous investigative journalism and “one-woman Wikileaks” approach, names close to the Maltese government immediately became the main suspects in the case.

Following the murder of Caruana Galizia, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat promised to leave no stones unturned, and started investigations and arrests, even with the participation of security and forensic experts from other countries. In December 2017, the government announced the arrest of 10 people in connection with the inquiry. Among the suspects, George Degiorgio, Alfred Degiorgio, and Vince Muscat were charged with the car bomb attack in July 2019, but none of them were brought to the trials and no details were revealed about the mastermind of the case. Months after the first charges, prominent Maltese businessman Yorgen Fenech was arrested by the authorities, accused to be the mastermind in the Caruana Galizia murder. The arrest came days after a taxi-driver, Melvin Theuma, was arrested for his role as a middleman in the killing. Theuma was later granted a presidential pardon by President George Vella, with the request of Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, when he exposed the involvement of Fenech in ordering the assassination. Theuma accused Fenech of paying €150,000 for killing Caruana Galizia. During his arrest Fenech gave further names involved in the event, saying that Joseph Muscat’s Chief of Staff Keith Schembri was directly involved. After the accusations of Fenech, Schembri resigned from his role, and he was then followed by other names such as Minister of Tourism Konrad Mizzi and Minister of Economy Chris Cardona. After a series of resignations of those close to Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, the once top-tier candidate for the President of the European Council, saw his image destroyed and later had to announce his resignation on December 1st.

All of the names involved in the brutal murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, were frequent subjects of her investigations and they were already facing various accusations. Daphne’s blog continued even after her death by a research group called The Daphne Project, where the group was continuing to expose hidden connections, also trying to find links to Caruana Galizia’s murder. Thanks to the findings of The Daphne Project, it was revealed in 2018 that Yorgen Fenech was the owner of the Dubai-registered company 17 Black, which was already mentioned in Caruana Galizia’s investigations, prior to her death. The Daphne Group also found out that 17 Black had links with two companies in Panama which were said to have belonged to Konrad Mizzi and/or Keith Schembri. Fenech was ousted as the head of Black 17 after the series of findings, making it the reason why he decided to turn his back on his long-time ally Keith Schembri and turning him to the security forces. Despite all these reports before and after the death of Caruana Galizia, Muscat didn’t do anything in calling for the resignation of his allies such as Schembri, Mizzi. This was the main issue where he lost his credibility in front of his citizens and institutions, causing his house of cards to collapse.

Joseph Muscat will resign from his duty as the Prime Minister on 12 January 2020, ending his chapter in the long-running story that started with the murder of a courageous journalist on her way back home. Despite a series of resignations there are still hundreds of unanswered questions about the murder and the findings of Caruana Galizia. Galizia and The Daphne Project’s ambitious works showed the power of investigative journalism to the world, exposing documents which weren’t only showing the ugly face of hidden political games in Malta but also beyond. Killings of other names like Caruana Galizia, Jan Kuciak in Slovakia and Viktoria Marinova in Bulgaria, show that investigative journalism is still facing serious burdens and threats, even within the European Union. On the other hand, the episode of Caruana Galizia shows that the courage of a person may have serious impacts, wherever it may be, and even after their death.

L'articolo Killing of Daphne Caruana Galizia: The event that shook Malta’s political elite proviene da InsideOver.

Starting mid-August 2019, a whistleblower complaint about a phone call between the President of the United States and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky became a trending topic for media outlets. According to the report of the whistleblower, the US President tried to persuade his Ukrainian counterpart in starting investigations against one of his competitors in the upcoming Presidential election in 2020, Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. The news triggered an impeachment inquiry against President Trump and from the other side, the newly elected Ukrainian President suffered a major blow and raised doubts whether he would be able to live up to the expectations he created initially.

Volodymyr Zelensky, a former comedian with no political experience, became Ukraine’s new President on 22 April 2019. His election victory was seen as a symbol of distrust against the already established political system in the country. During his election campaign, Zelensky repeated his intentions to challenge the country’s traditional problems such as corruption and oligarchy. Some of his opponents have questioned his ties with Ukrainian oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky, as his TV programs aired on Kolomoisky’s channel. Like the character he was playing before his election, he was depicting an idealist, and sometimes, a populist man who challenged the system. However, this ambitious inception by Zelensky was soon interrupted by the above-mentioned notorious whistleblower complaint and people started to question his capability in ruling a country and maintaining balance among experienced world leaders.

The reports about the 25th July phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky showed the US President’s call to his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate former US Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. According to the reports, during the call, Trump urged Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, who are alleged to have a role in the removal of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin who had investigated a company related to Hunter Biden. The talk about the Bidens’ corruption allegations took a new twist after another report suggested that Donald Trump’s Ukraine military aid suspension timeline may be related to the Trump-Zelensky phone call.

Another shock for Zelensky occurred when the White House released the transcript of the call without informing Ukraine and without concealing Zelensky’s parts of the talk. After the publishing of the transcript, Zelensky expressed his disappointment through these words: “Prior to the Presidency I was never a diplomat, but I think I have had many such conversations in my life and will have many more… There are certain nuances and things which I think it would be incorrect, even, to publish.”

Another hearing in October alleged that a series of Whatsapp messages by some key US diplomats such as the US Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland and former US Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, were suggesting that a possible White House invitation for Zelensky may be realized only if he formally started the public inquiry against Bidens. Despite the reports, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky strongly denied being forced by Donald Trump and said “I think it was a good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things, and I – so I think and you read it that nobody pushed me.”

President Zelesnky is not only facing allegations over meddling in the US election but his other foreign relations are also at stake after the release of the reports. Zelensky’s words about his European partners was another key issue for the newly elected President. Despite pushing for a pro-European vision, according to the transcripts, Zelensky agreed with Trump’s criticism on Europe’s lack of aid to Ukraine, he even added that Washington is a bigger partner of Kiev than Brussels. If Ukraine loses both of its key partners, the United States and the European Union, this may leave Zelensky’s country alone to deal with their arch-nemesis, Russia. Moreover, Kiev may remain alone in its efforts to have a dialogue with Moscow.

It is fair to say that President Zelensky’s populist approach and innovative persona has witnessed the cold face of the international arena. The Ukrainian President is perhaps risking his political career more than his US counterpart due to his lack of experience. Speaking about the publication of transcripts, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he is always paying attention to his phone calls as they may be published in the future; sending a clear message to his Ukrainian counterpart. Zelensky may not be the most controversial figure in this scandal which is making global headlines, but he is slowly becoming a scapegoat in the exploitation of Ukraine’s corruption and he may already be losing his Don Quixot-esque war due to unexpected external manipulations.

L'articolo Volodymyr Zelensky’s Undesired Role in the Diplomatic Car Crash with the US proviene da InsideOver.

After months of negotiations with all political parties, Spain’s acting Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez announced that his country is going to the polls on 10th November, for the fourth time in the last four years. Despite quickly gaining popularity for his pro-European and pro-migration leftist policies, Sanchez didn’t manage to end the deadlock in the parliament. His remarkable political moves such as taking in migrants from the Aquarius ship and exhuming the remains of former dictator Francisco Franco, didn’t let him enjoy the support that he mostly had from foreign media. Ambitious politics put forward by Sanchez’s Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) failed to attract other political parties, left the party alone in talks, and faced accusations by others of not being interested in finding a solution for the country.

The emergence of two new political parties, Unidos Podemos, Ciudadanos and Vox, had a clear impact on Spain’s traditional two-party system. The 2008 economic crisis and several other political crises sharply erased the credibility towards classic political parties which are the above-mentioned PSOE and Partido Popular (PP), representing the centre-left and centre-right of the country. The centre-right Ciudadanos Party of Albert Rivera gained 13%, while leftist Unidos Podemos of Pablo Iglesias obtained 14.3% of the votes in the April 2019 national election. These two parties were the main coalition objectives of Pedro Sanchez, however things didn’t end well. Sanchez failed in coalition talks with both Ciudadanos and Unidos Podemos. The PSOE leader blamed both political parties for showing less interest in finding a solution for the country, while other political parties accused Sanchez of “not wanting to form a coalition” or “not under the nature of multi-party politics.” Such an impasse may even become an opportunity for a breakthrough for political parties like the far-right Vox Party, which is continuing to increase votes according to pollsters. Others such as the left-wing Mas Pais of Inigo Errejon and Catalan and Basque separatist parties, for now, look to play a minor role in November’s election.

Amid ongoing political tensions, the problem of Catalonian separatists didn’t help Pedro Sanchez enough during his efforts to form the new government. Some of the political parties accused Sanchez of not showing a clear stance in the Catalonia independence debate, a topic which pushes Spanish voters towards nationalist parties. The acting Prime Minister was strongly criticized for a long time by right wing parties; Partido Popular and Ciudadanos, for appeasing Catalans, hoping to have them as an alternative for a coalition government. However, this approach invited a twist when Madrid started crackdowns on accused Catalan separatists around the country. In one of the most important examples, at the end of September, several people connected with the Catalan independence movement were arrested on terror-linked charges and possession of explosives. This change of mind may become another important argument when it comes to forming alliances between political parties. PSOE’s way of thinking the Catalonia issue in a ‘right’ way may become a positive mark for right-wing parties, especially Ciudadanos, which frequently slammed PSOE’s conciliatory tone. It shows that Sanchez may have a greater chance to impress right- wing electors and parties, paving the way for a more centrist coalition government in Spain.

Polls ahead of the elections show that, again, none of the parties will have full majority. Despite Pedro Sanchez’s self-confidence, he may even fall shorter than before. However, PSOE doesn’t seem to be the only leftist political party to lose ground as Unidos Podemos may also suffer another blow after losing a key opportunity to form one of the few leftist coalition governments within the European Union. Meanwhile, numbers show that right wing political parties may gather more voters in the upcoming ballot. Surveys show that Partido Popular, Ciudadanos and even the Vox and Mas Pais parties are expected to raise their numbers. Although pollsters expect some moves from the left towards the right bloc, it seems difficult to see a right-wing government in Spain, at least after November’s polls.

Looking at the indications, it is fair to expect another election stalemate in Spain. In November, the negotiation skills of politicians will be tested once again. Pedro Sanchez will find himself in a position where he needs to build a dialogue between different political parties with different expectations. During the last coalition talks, Sanchez was accused of having less willingness towards conceding to other political parties when it came to forming
the government. After the last election, Sanchez asked electors to “speak more clearly,” adding that his party is the only viable alternative. It is fair to say that the PSOE will possibly become the political party with the most votes in the upcoming election. However, the most decisive part of the vote will be the coalition talks as this may be the last opportunity for Pedro Sanchez to secure a deal to put his country and political career back on track despite numerous political, economic and social uncertainties.

L'articolo Spanish Political Deadlock Remains Amid Sanchez’s Political Gamble proviene da InsideOver.

Since formally establishing a diplomatic and economic relationship in the 1960s, Japan and South Korea, respectively the third and eleventh biggest economies of the world, have always had a tumultuous love-hate relationship. Both enjoyed cooperation in many areas such as politics, economy and even sports (2002 Japan-South Korea World Cup).

Despite these positive developments, both countries are continuing to witness the horrors of the past. These historic political disagreements have always blocked these two “Bigs” of Eastern Asia to have a zero-problem relationship. Among ongoing disputes, those coming from the era of Japanese rule on the Korean Peninsula between 1910 and 1945 emerged as a burden in liaison of the two countries.

The same topics appeared once again, after South Korea’s Supreme Court ordered some Japanese companies to pay compensation for using Koreans as forced labourers during the Second World War. This decision quickly awoke dormant problems and started an escalating economic and political tension between Tokyo and Seoul. Tokyo denied the court ruling, claiming that the dispute was settled with the normalisation treaty in 1965 and asked Seoul to intervene in the matter.

However, South Korean officials ruled out such an interference with the judiciary. After accusing the South Korean government of not stopping the rekindling of such an issue, Japanese officials quickly countered the decision by imposing export restrictions in July 2019. The restrictions were on chemicals which were essential for the production of memory chips, putting South Korea’s key industry into crisis.

Nevertheless, Japanese officials constantly denied that economic measures had anything to do with the court ruling, and reiterated that the decision was motivated by national security concerns. Representatives of both countries later took the issue to WTO and bilateral diplomatic meetings were held but failed to obtain a possible outcome. The issue complicated further after Japan decided to remove South Korea from its “White List,” causing Seoul to lose its status as Japan’s most favoured trade partner. This decision was strongly criticised by South Korean authorities. President Moon Jae-in said that his country won’t be defeated again by Japan, just days before removing Tokyo from its “White List”. The tension was also felt by citizens as nationals from both countries continued to protest one another, boycotting products and reducing travels between the two countries.

The economic sector wasn’t the only area under stress. Repercussions could also be seen in other areas. For example, another key moment of the ongoing dispute emerged when South Korea decided not to renew the General Security of Military Information Agreement, which was seen as a key tool to monitor threats from Kim Jong-Un’s North Korea. The unexpected decision had a snowball effect with the attachment of other remaining non-economic disputes. Among these, the visit of South Korean lawmakers to disputed islets, known as Takeshima in Japan and Dokdo in Korean, was denounced as a provocation by Japan. The move increased fears that even other territorial disputes may re-emerge such as Tsushima/Daemado Island controversy or East Sea dispute (Sea of Japan by Tokyo, Korean Eastern Sea by Seoul).

Another disputed action came from Tokyo, when a group of Japanese officials, excluding Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and members of his cabinet, paid a visit to Yasukuni Shrine. The visits to the shrine were termed controversial by South Korean authorities as the structure houses some Japanese war criminals. The move was seen as a provocation not only by Seoul but also by Beijing as the move is considered an apology for wartime period. The “Comfort Women Dispute” was also another historic dispute that resurfaced among all the other topics. The debate closed in 2015, with the signing of a compensation agreement by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-Hye. Four years later, President Moon Jae-In has reopened the issue as a dispute, seriously damaging previous accords.

As we can see, the ongoing trade wars are just a small part of the much bigger iceberg. We can assume that wartime controversies will most probably be ignited every time another dispute arises between the two countries. Most of the analysts see the current situation as one of the worst points in their history after the 1965 treaty. A situation like this may require an international mediator to intervene to bring back normalization in the region. The most suitable candidate seems to be the United States, due to its historically good diplomatic ties with both nations. However, Washington’s baby steps in resolving the crisis may cause others to be involved in the case; either China or Russia.

There may be several ways to end this crisis but resolving contemporary disagreements, such as trade frictions and the end of the General Security of Military Information Agreement will only serve as temporary fillers due to historical backgrounds. The real path to resolve all conflicts lie in terminating once and for all the disputes before 1965. Recent examples clearly show that whenever a dispute occurs, it will be supported by long-time problems. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-In, need to renew their normalization accord, leaving aside all previous enmities. Such a move will help both countries to expand their foreign policies and will also help the region conclude longstanding problems.

L'articolo Tokyo Vs. Seoul: More Than A Trade War proviene da InsideOver.

In August, a Wall Street Journal news article sparked mixed reactions. According to the piece, US President Donald Trump was seriously considering buying Greenland from Denmark. The news initially caused some laughter among actual and former Danish politicians – perhaps because most of them didn’t pay attention to the seriousness of the matter for the Trump Administration.

The topic became a serious one when both White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow and President Donald Trump confirmed the idea of purchasing the world’s second largest island, after Australia. This unseen idea of Trump is largely criticized by Danish lawmakers and the debate between Washington and Copenhagen even led the US President to cancel his visit to Denmark. But what is really behind this peculiar action?

It is important to recall that this is not the first attempt to buy Greenland. In 1946, Democratic US President Harry Truman wanted to buy Greenland for $100m, but Danish authorities rejected his offer. Besides, American history is no stranger to these types of deals. In the past, there were historic territory acquisitions, such as the Louisiana purchase from France in 1803 for $15m, the Alaska Purchase from Russia in 1867 for $7.2m and the Danish West Indies purchase, renamed as the Virgin Islands, in 1917 for $25m.

Despite these examples, a possible Greenland purchase would lead to the largest expansion in US history, with 2,166,000 km² of area, exceeding the total acquired area in the Louisiana Purchase (2,100,000 km²). Of course, a large acquisition such as this one would dramatically change the size of the country, guaranteeing the US to become the world’s second largest country behind Russia. Undisputedly, such a deal would give a different type of status to Donald Trump as the President of the United States.

Another important characteristic of Greenland is its geographical position between Eurasia and North America. Such an area may be utile for the United States in many means, such as the military one, despite already having some important military bases, thanks to a previous deal with Denmark. Thule Air Base, which has been running since early 1950s, is perhaps the most important example. The route over the pole is also the shortest flight path for Russian and Chinese missiles and bombers, which adds another strategic aspect to the island. It is also important to underline that Greenland has a unique role in space control. With its Space Warning Squadron and with future development of that field, the Arctic’s role may increase for developing further projects.

Despite the political and legal disputes over the issue, Washington is now moving forward to open a US consulate in Greenland. Of course, the re-establishment of an American consulate, previously operational between 1940-1953, may help United States to boost its influence in the zone. But how should this rapprochement be considered? As initial steps for a diplomatic annexation or a sincere change of mind and a way for the improvement of relations? Such a move, combined with a possible establishment of a commerce office in the island, may guide United States to have a greater economic control in the area. As Donald Trump openly spoke about the existence of mineral resources in Greenland, a possible cooperation in trade may help U.S. to take advantage of Greenland’s commodities such as copper, iron ore, uranium and zinc.

Despite these positive aspects of the Trump Administration’s intentions, the Greenland dream contains too many question marks, because the remarks of Washington seems like they are considering the issue as something bilateral between Washington and Copenhagen, without considering the autonomy of Greenland. Since 2008, Greenland has a greater autonomy compared to the other territories previously acquired by the United States.

Despite strong ties with Denmark, Greenland has its own prime minister and parliament which has power on numerous issues, despite some delicate subjects such as the foreign policy. All these aspects show that a possible US offer also needed to be discussed by lawmakers and locals of Greenland, and maybe it should even need a referendum process. This background makes us understand the words of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen; “Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland.” As we can see, Greenland is much more than a piece of territory for its legal and political status.

As Trump’s idea of purchasing Greenland didn’t have a positive echo among Danish authorities, such a historic move seems to be impossible at this stage. Despite the idea raising some imperialist sentiments around the United States, the international community wasn’t impressed by such a topic, and the case seems to be closed as a simple “war of words”. After a tumultuous period with Denmark, the US President saw that a diplomatic approach, such as opening a consulate and Greenlandic affairs officer, looks more feasible than purchasing the whole island.

On the other hand, maybe these remarks of Trump was just a way of arousing interest from the media and other experts of the Arctic issue. These latest developments showed that the United States is considering getting involved in that area. However, the words of the Trump administration on purchasing Greenland had negative impacts in the island and its NATO Alliance, Denmark. Is it possible for the United States to have an influence in the area, after these skirmishes? It is now up to Trump to save the United States’ credibility within the Arctic and stop the influence of other countries in this region, such as Russia and China, and to try not to harm its ties with other parts of this cooperation, starting with Denmark.

L'articolo Making Greenland Great Again proviene da InsideOver.